Contaminated Baby Formula Fears Hit U.S.

(CBS)  After three babies were killed and thousands became ill from infant formula in China, mothers in the United States started asking "How safe is the formula here?" Though the answer is unclear, reports CBS News correspondent Michelle Miller, the government responded by instituting new safety standards.

Three-year-old Michael Feliciano was raised on baby formula.

"Throughout the first year he had Infamil LIPILwith Iron," says Jasmine Feliciano, Michael's mom. "I never breast-fed or anything."

Michael's formula is one of two best-selling brands that the Food and Drug Administration said tested positive for trace amounts of either the industrial chemical, melamine or a similar one called cyanuric acid.

They are Mead Johnson's Enfamil LIPIL with Iron and Nestle's Good Start Supreme Infant Formula with Iron. Abbott Laboratories, whose brands include Similac, independently reported that it had detected trace levels of melamine in its formula.

"Those three are like the number one formulas that they tell you to give to your kids if you are not going to breast feed," says mom Barbara Newsome.

The FDA came under fire recently for failing to set safety standards after large doses of melamine, as much as 10,000 parts per million, caused the deaths of three infants in China and made 50-thousand others sick. But late last week, administration set a safe threshold for either of the chemicals alone at 1 part per million - higher than the amounts they found in U.S. brands. The FDA insists the formulas are safe.

"That's a grain of sand in the beach," says Dr. Daniel Rauch, a pediatrician at New York University's Langone Medical Center. "That's a very, very small amount."

But is that very small amount safe?

"We think it's safe," Dr. Rauch says. "But the bottom line is that we don't really know, and zero would be best."

The FDA said it believes the contamination may occur because melamine is contained in a cleaning solution used on some food processing equipment.

Parents looking for an alternative might consider this: about 90 percent of all infant formulas produced in the U.S. are made by the three companies whose products tested positive for contaminants.

"For my next baby, I will breastfeed," says Jasmine Feliciano

The non-profit consumer advocacy group Consumers Union told CBS News it is not satisfied with the FDA tests and is calling for a recall of formula containing any melamine or cyanuric acid.

[stevenpang]

1ppm Standard Is Irresponsible
Such standard is just based on an animal short term exposure study. Even though 1 ppm has some scientific base, it has extreme high uncertainty. Long-term exposure study on baby is a better approach to establish such standard. All scientists only agree that we are not sure which level is safe for the baby. Experience in China, honkong, and taiwan as well FDA data clearly indicate that it is not difficult to control the Melamine level lower than 0.05 ppm. So, 1 ppm standard is irresponsible. It is a " Profit first, Baby safety last" approach. All parents should call your congress members to force FDA change their altitudes.

FDA should publish these data immediately
I am very disappointed that FDA only disclosed such data because of the request of The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act. Since FDA can not determine the safety level of melamine in infant formula, they should publish current available information to let parents to decide what actions they should take .

FDA actions are irresponsible
Melamine can be controlled no matter that it comes from intentional addition and formula produce processes. China, Taiwan, and Hongkong all demonstrate that. Most of current china, Taiwan and Hongkong infant formula are much lower than 0.1 ppm now. Because FDA did not take any action, all American baby might still eat such formula with higher melamine concentration, which is possible to be removed.

[stevenpang]

Trace level is misleading
In some scientific areas, ppm (parts per million) is not a trace level at all. ppb (parts per billion) is more generally referred to a trace level. For example, air pollution, most federal air quality standards are ppb level. So, these current melamine concentrations may be harmful if just based on concentration levels. Current china and Hongkong infant formula standards are 1 ppm and Taiwan''s is 0. However, those standards all are developed based on FDA 2.5 ppm melamine adult standard. It is questionable to say that current melamine concentrations in infant formula (0.2 ppm) are low as FDA implied.

[spredbury]

Thank goodness I don''t have any young children that might be on formula but I know for certain that I WOULD NOT repeat WOULD NOT trust anything this disfunctional Government says especially when it comes to the health of my children. The FDA has proven time and time again that it has lost control or lost sight of their responsibility to keep foods safe in this country. Just another example of the state of this country after 8 years of Bush''s chaos. January 20th can''t come too soon for me. I just hope our new President is up to the job and can turn this country around as quickly as possible.

[harbinger09]

Call it a media scare if you will, but we don''''t consume any food products from China.
The same with candy from Mexico. They still use lead in their products but for some reason the Media won''''t report on that.

Posted by axomomma at 01:07 PM : Dec 01, 2008


Over 85% of all agricultural products (not including alfalfa, corn or soybeans) are imported by the US now. Over 75% of all seafood is imported now. We mostly import from South America, Central America and China. If you eat shellfish or a lot of seafood--a lot of it is now imported from China.

[harbinger09]

The trace quantities detected would come from CONTACT with a plastic item that contained melamine, or from contact with a surface that had been cleaned with a cleanser that contained melamine.


Posted by txgrouch2007 at 12:20 PM : Dec 01, 2008

WRONG. The trace amounts come from a reaction within the mfg process and the type of tubing used for filling. It leaches out of the platic. Companies without this problem are not using this type of manufactured plastic in their process. Those who do have a problem, have tubing, stoppers, gaskets, etc which react and leach the melamine as certain chemicals come into contact. To eliminate this, a company would have to retool their plant and check every single gasket, piece of plastic, etc--it would bankrupt them--so to protect the industry, the FDA has arbitrarily raised the acceptable levels without doing the requisite testing for YEARS that is usually required. Should this backfire and melamine is found to not cause death but does affect the CNS and may contribute to autism or something else in children--the "oops" factor will be very quiet and the FDA will just change its findings--too bad for the kids who are affected in the interim.

[harbinger09]

Food chemistry is not an exact science as some may believe. Generally speaaking, for everything that is toxic in sufficient concentrations, there is anti-toxin present which helps the host. Scientists discovered this when synthetic food became entertained as a possibility. When known toxins were kept dilluted to safe levels, and antitoxins were completely absent, the host became sickened. Pharmaceuticals also learned this very same thing when creating their patented "Inert" ingredients for medicine, which are not really inert at all, but help the patient''''s liver and extent the shelf life of the medication.

The stomach flora in different populations around the world is also different and contributes to the various thresholds of what is considered toxic and what is safe.

The FDA already acknowledges that one toxicity standard does not fit all populations.

A recent endicronologist report published that hormones from different animals taken together with meat (protiens) of those same animals offer effective treatment at lower concentrations and enhance liver health.

Posted by Pensacola98 at 09:12 AM : Dec 01, 2008


The Food and Vitamin industry as well as OTC drugs are VERY poorly regulated by the FDA. It is sort of a "look the other way" until empirical data (ie deaths or illness) dictate otherwise.

[harbinger09]

Pharmaceuticals also learned this very same thing when creating their patented "Inert" ingredients for medicine, which are not really inert at all, but help the patient''''s liver and extent the shelf life of the medication. Posted by Pensacola98 at 09:12 AM : Dec 01, 2008


Are you on drugs? Inert ingredients means that a compound or product does not chemically react to the rest of the product. These products do NOT help or enhance liver function. If they did, they would not be inert. INert means non reactive, when added to drugsm they are used to stabilize a product, help it to stay soluable, used as a preservative or in some way, help the chemical conveyance. It usually passes from the body at some point. Inert ingredients are NOT the same necessarily as excipients--which are any other chemicals added that are not the active ingredient, CAN react in the body but are deemed to be safe. Conversely, excipients and inert ingredients are deliberately added to drugs and foods--trace elements or chemicals are chemicals or by products of a process NOT deliberately addd but which normally occur due to a chemical reaction or are a natural component of a product. But this "help the liver" bs is just BS.

[harbinger09]

They never report who is doing what or what companies are responsible for any violations, have you noticed? Posted by fila32 at 10:10 PM : Nov 30, 2008


Actually they DO report who is doing what and what violations they have. Each violation in an inspection is called a 483 and is available upon request for any company. You can receive a point by point but you would probably NOT be able to understand the document. Another publication called "The Pink Sheets" lists the more serious violations of companies. The final documentation is a "Regulatory letter" this means the info is very serious and could result in a legal case if not addressed/corrected. The amount of jargon and the regulations used to cite problems means that even if you read the info and had a degree in Chem, pharmacology or the health care field--if you were not familiar with the CFR and pharm mfg, you would have NO clue why something was cited or what it ultimately meant.

Incidentally, if a company does something exemplary, there is a pub called the "Gold Sheets" which praises their innovation. There is nothing written just for the general public--because there would be unnecessary confusion and pandemonium--just like there is no documentation of the deaths or abuses caused by hospitals on a case by case basis--unless there is a lawsuit.

[harbinger09]

BAN ALL FOOD PRODUCTS FROM CHINA.

Posted by MatrixRX2003 at 02:45 PM : Dec 01, 2008

It isn''''t just food that is the problem. Everything needs to be banned from China.



Posted by erasmus606 at 03:25 PM : Dec 01, 2008


You guys might want to try reading AND comprehending the article. This time, the melamine in the baby formula is coming from American companies--which means what we accuse China of--we may be doing and covering up (with lighter standards) ourselves.

[harbinger09]

How fake and corrupt is the American watchdog system? After the Chinese melamine deaths the US finds the same chemical in American formulas and without standards already set, takes just a FEW WEEKS to invent a limit and raise it high enough to protect the companies where the chem was found. The corruption? The FDA demands YEARS of studies and safety tests to determine product safety for most chemicals--but to protect a company in trouble, they made sure they set NEW standards for the melamine limit AND produced a baseline in weeks. All to protect business with little regard for human life.

Smart parents should try breast feeding and forgo the chemically tainted--virtually non tested baby formulas. The government for this and toy testing is in the pocket of business--there is NO watchdog for the public anymore. PROTECT YOURSELF.