USDA Organic Infant Formula Contains Pesticide Labeled As A “Nutrient”
June 24th, 2013
The USDA organic label is supposed to protect the consumer against GMOs and avoidable chemical exposures, but the sobering fact is that USDA-certified infant formula manufacturers are not only being allowed to use a pesticide in their formulas, but are advertising it as a ‘healthy’ mineral to unsuspecting consumers.
Unbeknownst to the vast majority of U.S. consumers, the nutritional adequacy of infant formula it not determined by its ability to support and produce health in those who receive it, as would be expected. Instead, it is deemed nutritionally adequate solely by virtue of it containing minimum quantities of¬†a list of 29 nutrients, without specifying or even acknowledging the significant qualitative differences that exist between minerals in the form of nutrients and those in the form of industrial chemicals, e.g. amino acid-chelated forms of iron (iron glycinate) are much safer than relatively inorganic forms (ferrous oxide). Surprisingly, all that regulators do is ensure that those ingredients are there in the amounts deemed necessary, and that some basic quality control measures are followed during the manufacturing process.
A¬†recent review¬†summarized the U.S. rules as follows:
Infant formula, like no other food, is regulated by its own law, the Infant Formula Act of 1980 as amended in 1986. The act sets lower limits on 29 nutrients (so-called “table nutrients” because they appear in table form. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations 21 CFR 107.100). . . . Manufacturers are required to follow “good manufacturing practice,” but no requirement for sterility is specified. . .¬†. Powdered formula is not guaranteed ¬†nor required to be free of pathogenic organisms¬†¬†(Baker, 2002).
Another researcher opined on the topic: “If we assess formula by its results, rather than by whether its ingredients matched a specific list, we would have to conclude that¬†there has never been an infant formula that would “satisfy,” by itself, the nutritional requirements of infants during the first months of life.”¬†
Essentially, the only thing infant formula does is keep children alive, and hopefully growing at a pace deemed acceptable by pediatric clinical growth standards.
But even infant formula’s ability to ‘keep children alive’ is increasingly coming into question. A recent review published in¬†Archives of Diseases in Childhood¬†revealed a disturbing statistic:
Currently,¬†suboptimal breastfeeding¬†is associated with over a million deaths each year and 10% of the global disease burden in children.
Considering this estimate, a fair question to ask is how much of this mortality burden is caused solely by a lack of breastfeeding/breast milk, and how much of this is being¬†caused by the formula¬†itself?
There is no denying that a sizable body of clinical and epidemiological research now exists proving that breastfeeding prevents at least¬†70 health conditions¬†in breastfed infants, and that infant formula contributes to or¬†causes 57 adverse health conditions, making the widespread promotion of infant formula in the US all the more troubling.
But, what may be most disturbing of all, is what ingredients are actually being put into these so-called breast milk alternatives, and under the ostensibly ‘pure’ and ‘healthy’ banner of the USDA organic label.
Enter the strange story of Copper Sulfate….
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
Contributed by Sayer Ji of GreenMedInfo.
Please share: Spread the word to sheeple far and wide
Leave A Comment...
The Daily Sheeple Home Page