very high level of aluminum discovered in baby formulas !!!

asorin

Hi All,

I would like to bring into you attention a recent scientific study published in BMC Pediatrics 2010 by researchers at Keele University in UK (http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2431-10-63.pdf). They discovered very high level of aluminum in all popular brands of infant formula used in UK (Aptamil, Cow&Gate, SMA, Hipp).

The aluminum content in these formulas is up to 40 times more than in breast milk and several times more than allowed in drinking water. Aluminum is non-essential and is linked to human disease with negative neurodevelopmental effects and impact on bone, kidney and gastrointestinal health.

As most of these baby formulas are also used in Ireland, and given Ireland's low breastfeeding rates, I would consider this a serious health issue that deserves public attention and debate.

Interestingly after some internet research I found that this study was very poorly presented in media from both UK and Ireland, with no presentation at all in major news agencies.

As a new father of a bottle fed baby (breastfeeding didn't work unfortunately) I am seriously concerned about this issue and I have already sent a complaint to FSAI, but I think it will definitely help if all of you will send a similar complaint and will try to make this study as popular as possible.

Covers of the story in media:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100901111444.htm
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/09/researchers-find-excess-of-aluminum-in-infant-formula/
http://www.sciencemagnews.com/too-much-aluminum-in-infant-formulas-uk-researchers-find.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1308517/Health-fear-Up-40-times-aluminium-formula-milk-breast-milk.html

asorin

Here is a good article about effects of high aluminum exposure on human health:
http://www.trufax.org/general/aluminum.html

DubDani

I left a comment on this yesterday, but it seems to have disappeared.

I would be interested to know why the tests were done on follow on milk and not on the proper (Stage 1&2) formula. I don't know anyone who uses follow on milk. Most keep with Stage 1&2 Formula until they switch to proper cows milk.

According to a lot of experts Follow on milk is just a marketing con, and has no real merit.

asorin

From what I can see they have done the tests on First Infant Milk (stage 1) for SMA, Cow&Gate and Hipp, but not for Aptamil.

lynski

Asorin, how old is your baby? if you baby is a only a few weeks old, with some practice and a lot of patience your partner could re-lactate and breastfeed if you are now unhappy with bottlefeeding.
http://www.kellymom.com/bf/supply/relactation.html here is some info, but a good book should also help. or LLL

asorin

thanks lynski. unfortunately i don't think is going to work due to our current situation, but anyway, what I wanted was to bring this issue into attention of parents in Ireland who are using formula to feed their babies.

limelemon

I think this is a fairly inflammatory thread to post and I really hope you have checked your facts beforehand. Breastfeeding is not an option for everyone (various reasons) so please be careful you are not scaremongering before you post :mad:

lonestargirl

limelemon wrote: »

I think this is a fairly inflammatory thread to post and I really hope you have checked your facts beforehand. Breastfeeding is not an option for everyone (various reasons) so please be careful you are not scaremongering before you post :mad:

The OP provided a link to the full text of the peer-reviewed scientific article on which the news stories he reported are based for us all to read if we wanted more information.

lynski

limelemon did you even read the article? this is not scaremongering, it is a published study.
It is not scaremongering to say that formula has been recalled in the states because it was contaminated with beetles or that parents here have found insects in formula cartons.
There is plenty of evidence out there that formulas can and do get contaminated and even if there wasn't that doe snot mean that 'stopping people feeling guilty' is not a good reason to highlight the inadequacy of artificial formula feeding - i partially ff both my children, and will try not to with the next.
here is a long article on why we need to change the language about this.
http://bfmed.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/why-we-still-need-to-watch-our-language/

metrovelvet

Im glad this was posted. However it does not feel good to know I was feeding my infant this crap.

asorin

limelemon, unfortunately this is not an alarmistic inflammatory "conspiracy theory" post, but information about a scientific study publish by researchers of a british university. And also unfortunately I am in the same situation as other people where breastfeeding didn't work and I have no choice but to give my baby "this crap".
Anyway, the main reason I wanted to share this information with others, was not to scaremonger the parents who have no choice but to bottle fed and make them feel guilty (they did their best, so there is no point to feel guilty), but to ask those parents to raise this issue with FSAI (www.fsai.ie) and other authorities (like I did, many the better). And also to motivate mothers to exclusively breastfed if possible, because mothers milk is the best food a baby can get (and the only one he should get if possible).

lynski

is it worth mentioning at this point that Hipp organic do formula(available in superquinn asaik, so do babynat, available from ecobaby? they are not much more expensive then the others, i used them on my first hipp is 11.95 in the organic supermarket and babynat is 13.99 in ecobaby. might help put your mind to rest a little.

asorin

Actually Hipp Organic was found to have one of the biggest amount of aluminum in baby formula, acording to this research study

lynski

that will teach me to read the whole report before commenting!! mea culpa.
At least I could link you to one formula not mentioned in the report, babynat

limelemon

lynski wrote: »

limelemon did you even read the article? this is not scaremongering, it is a published study.
It is not scaremongering to say that formula has been recalled in the states because it was contaminated with beetles or that parents here have found insects in formula cartons.
There is plenty of evidence out there that formulas can and do get contaminated and even if there wasn't that doe snot mean that 'stopping people feeling guilty' is not a good reason to highlight the inadequacy of artificial formula feeding - i partially ff both my children, and will try not to with the next.
here is a long article on why we need to change the language about this.
http://bfmed.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/why-we-still-need-to-watch-our-language/

Was the OP saying that formula had been 'contaminated' with aluminium? That wasn't my understanding - I took it that the report related to the levels of aluminium contained within formula. Contamination is a completely different issue. I'm open to correction, but I still think that the opening post is inflammatory.

limelemon

asorin wrote: »

Hi All,

I would like to bring into you attention a recent scientific study published in BMC Pediatrics 2010 by researchers at Keele University in UK (http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2431-10-63.pdf). They discovered very high level of aluminum in all popular brands of infant formula used in UK (Aptamil, Cow&Gate, SMA, Hipp).

The aluminum content in these formulas is up to 40 times more than in breast milk and several times more than allowed in drinking water. Aluminum is non-essential and is linked to human disease with negative neurodevelopmental effects and impact on bone, kidney and gastrointestinal health.

As most of these baby formulas are also used in Ireland, and given Ireland's low breastfeeding rates, I would consider this a serious health issue that deserves public attention and debate.

Interestingly after some internet research I found that this study was very poorly presented in media from both UK and Ireland, with no presentation at all in major news agencies.

As a new father of a bottle fed baby (breastfeeding didn't work unfortunately) I am seriously concerned about this issue and I have already sent a complaint to FSAI, but I think it will definitely help if all of you will send a similar complaint and will try to make this study as popular as possible.

Covers of the story in media:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100901111444.htm
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/09/researchers-find-excess-of-aluminum-in-infant-formula/
http://www.sciencemagnews.com/too-much-aluminum-in-infant-formulas-uk-researchers-find.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1308517/Health-fear-Up-40-times-aluminium-formula-milk-breast-milk.html

One of the articles linked states the following:

"While it is the case that the present levels of aluminium in infant formulas have not been shown to cause adverse effects in healthy infants, it is also the case that there have not been any clinical studies which refute such as a possibility."

I think in the interest of not causing undue worry to parents who read the title of this thread, comments such as this should have been highlighted by the OP.

I'm not suggesting we put our heads in the sand if there's a genuine reason to worry, but I would be interested to discover why this wasn't more widely covered in mainstream media, and would suggest perhaps it's because it's irresponsible, and premature, to scare parents about the use of formula based on the findings of only one study.

asorin

limelemon, in the opening post I said researchers "discovered very high level of aluminum in all popular brands of infant formula", not that formula was contaminated. Anyway, I think that's the definition for contamination though, it doesn't necessarily have to be willful contamination. If you read the article (and I don't think you did), that's what they say, the formula is contaminated with aluminum.

And what's so "inflammatory"? Shouldn't we be concerned that level of aluminum in food our baby is getting is up to 40 times more than in breast milk and several times higher than are allowed in drinking water, knowing the vulnerability of infants to early exposure to aluminium?

asorin

limelemon wrote: »

would suggest perhaps it's because it's irresponsible, and premature, to scare parents about the use of formula based on the findings of only one study.

sorry limelemon, I still think you haven't read the article yet (including references to previous studies on this subject)

lynski

limelemon wrote: »

One of the articles linked states the following:

"While it is the case that the present levels of aluminium in infant formulas have not been shown to cause adverse effects in healthy infants, it is also the case that there have not been any clinical studies which refute such as a possibility."

I think in the interest of not causing undue worry to parents who read the title of this thread, comments such as this should have been highlighted by the OP.

I'm not suggesting we put our heads in the sand if there's a genuine reason to worry, but I would be interested to discover why this wasn't more widely covered in mainstream media, and would suggest perhaps it's because it's irresponsible, and premature, to scare parents about the use of formula based on the findings of only one study.

I highlighted the second part of your highlight there, you choose to ignore that part of the sentence.

Just because it was not covered here does not mean it is no true or a valid concern. btw i found it in The Scotsman, The Daily Mail, The Examiner as well as covered on websites all over the world.
and to quote all the various coverage

Previous research has linked the metal to neurological diseases, bone defects and dementia in later life.

Do you actually want to read some of the report, not the whole thing, it is a little long, but give it a go if you want to continue commenting on it.
The OP posted this in order to allow parents to have more information on their choices, if doctors and midwives and PHNs were properly informed and brave enough to give mothers all the information on artificial feeding the breastfeeding rates would skyrocket. The reality is people who would never feed their babies junk food will give them formula made of things they have no idea about and with the potential to cause problems in later life. There is multiple evidence out there that breastfeeding lessens all sorts of problems. Should we stop saying that smoking around babies is bad so that smokers dont feel guilty?
To quote

The risks of second-hand smoke are already known. Babies and children exposed to a smoky atmosphere are twice as likely to have asthma attacks and chest infections, and more likely to need hospital care in their first year of life. They are also at higher risk of cot death.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-399589/Even-smoking-outside-harm-baby.html#ixzz10uPwOv59

breast feeding and asthma:

considerable evidence that children who were not exclusively breastfed have 1.4-2.4 times the odds of having asthma.34-37 The prevalence of asthma is 10-30% among children and adolescents.39-43 Further, many children with asthma go on to have adult asthma as well.

http://www.massbfc.org/pubhealth/

So formula fed babies are as likely as babies exposed to secondhand smoke to suffer from asthma. Is that scaremongering? or making someone feel guilty? or is that putting a bald fact in front of parents to help them in making their childrearing choices? The gloves have got to come off in this for the sake of parents, of children and of the public health system.
The Op is the be congratulated for putting information in an accessible place to be discussed the by parents.
Drop the guilt argument and look for a more valid argument against people discussing the negative aspects of formula feeding.

asorin

You're right lynski, this research (among many others) should motivate new mothers to exclusively breastfed for as long as possible and hospital staff to encourage this.

On the other hand, as parents of formula fed babies, the only think we can do now is to make this study as public as possible and each one of us to raise an issue with food safety authority (there is an online form for this on http://www.fsai.ie/make_a_complaint/online_complaint.html), so that formula providers to be forced to reduce the level of this metal in baby milk (I'm sure it's possible). As mentioned in the study, this level is too high for too long, and they don't seem to do anything about it. The many of us, the higher pressure on them to do something.

This is actually the main reason I posted this information here, not for "scaremongering" and "inflamating".

limelemon

asorin wrote: »

You're right lynski, this research (among many others) should motivate new mothers to exclusively breastfed for as long as possible and hospital staff to encourage this.

On the other hand, as parents of formula fed babies, the only think we can do now is to make this study as public as possible and each one of us to raise an issue with food safety authority (there is an online form for this on http://www.fsai.ie/make_a_complaint/online_complaint.html), so that formula providers to be forced to reduce the level of this metal in baby milk (I'm sure it's possible). As mentioned in the study, this level is too high for too long, and they don't seem to do anything about it. The many of us, the higher pressure on them to do something.

This is actually the main reason I posted this information here, not for "scaremongering" and "inflamating".

Thank you for raising the issue; I still think the thread title was inflammatory.

I don't think this resolves the breastfeeding vs. bottle feeding debate - I think more evidence is required. I'm not qualified to assess the study findings - I doubt any of you are, so thanks for the link to the report but I'm really not in a position to analyse it. I can however discuss the OP's post and the media articles.

Ultimately until the health authorities (who are qualified to assess the findings of the report) tell us we cannot feed our babies forumla I am going to continue feeding my baby formula. I'm not anti-breastfeeding, far from it. We all know breastfeeding is best, and done for as long as possible. But I think there are a lot of people who would be only too glad to seize on any evidence which remotely suggests that formula feeding is wrong.

As I said, this was one study. Lots of studies are done all the time, producing conflicting results. You shouldn't necessarily take them as gospel without further corroboratory findings.

lynski

limelemon wrote: »

Thank you for raising the issue; I still think the thread title was inflammatory.

I don't think this resolves the breastfeeding vs. bottle feeding debate - I think more evidence is required. I'm not qualified to assess the study findings - I doubt any of you are, so thanks for the link to the report but I'm really not in a position to analyse it. I can however discuss the OP's post and the media articles.

Ultimately until the health authorities (who are qualified to assess the findings of the report) tell us we cannot feed our babies forumla I am going to continue feeding my baby formula. I'm not anti-breastfeeding, far from it. We all know breastfeeding is best, and done for as long as possible. But I think there are a lot of people who would be only too glad to seize on any evidence which remotely suggests that formula feeding is wrong.

As I said, this was one study. Lots of studies are done all the time, producing conflicting results. You shouldn't necessarily take them as gospel without further corroboratory findings.

I was going to leave this alone, but you know what I just cant. Why are you so determined to rubbish a report you have not read and claim you could not understand?

1. The thread title is not '

inflammatory

. ' It is accurate, in fact it is reserved. The title of the report is '

There is (still) too much aluminium in infant formulas'

. This is very concerning for one main reason - 'still'. Despite reports from 1986 to 2009 detailing the alarming rates of aluminium contamination in formula milk the rates have GONE UP. *
2. The op posted this, as was pointed out a number of times, not to '

resolve the breastfeeding vs. bottle feeding debate

' but to raise awareness and to encourage people to contact the FSAI.
3. I think I am bright enough to read a very clear scientific report and understand its conclusions, but thanks for the vote of confidence there.
4. The health authorities will not do anything until someone dies - even then a lot will have to die. There is no incentive for any health authority to do anything to combat artificial infant feeding. Artificial Infant Formula is made by the biggest companies in the world - cow and gate is are owned by Danone, which also owns Milupa who make Aptimel, and SMA is owned by pfizer. They provide millions and millions of euros worth of 'health' documentation, support and information to the HSE here - never mind elsewhere and they are amongst the biggest advertisers, donors, sponsors etc there is. So dont sit around waiting for them to tell you anything.
5. there may be lots of studies with conflicting reports - but the 6 listed below agree with the study linked and the fact that the EU has set a maximum level for aluminium in drinking water and this is exceeded by most of the formulas tested is of concern. There is a reason why the EU set a max level, 'For example, parenteral exposure of preterm infants to ca 55 μg Al/kg body weight/day, which is a level of systemic exposure to aluminium which is possible from regular feeding of infant formulas over periods of weeks, resulted, at 18 months of age, in neurodevelopmental effects [15] and, in the same cohort of children 15 years later, in significant affects upon bone health [17].'
6. Lastly, your guilt about bottlefeeding is your business, as my guilt about bottlefeeding is, but it is not a good enough reason to stop the spread of information on the hazards of artificial infant feeding. The food multinationals around the world (most of whom make infant formulas) are only now dealing transfats in their products and it took years and we are still some way from that mess being cleared. The problems with artificial infant formulas will never be solved as long as a gently gently dont upset the mammy approach is taken. Multinationals only care about money, they do not care if your child is getting too much of any toxin.
It is in the interest of all of us that the food our children consume is the best it can be, because we all pay in the long-run for the problems caused.





references.
15. Bishop NJ, Morley R, Chir B, Day JP, Lucas A: Aluminium neurotoxicity in preterm infants receiving intravenous-feeding solutions. NEJM 1997,
336:1557-1561.
17. Fewtrell MS, Bishop NJ, Edmonds CJ, Isaacs EB, Lucas A: Aluminium
exposure from parenteral nutrition in preterm infants:Bone health at 15-
year follow-up. Pediatrics 2009, 124:1372-1379.

*3. Weintraub R, Hams G, Meerkin M, Rosenberg AR: High aluminium content of infant milk formulas. Arch Dis Childhood 1986, 61:914-916.
4. Fisher CE, Knowles ME, Massey RC, McWeeny DJ: Levels of aluminium in
infant formulas. Lancet 1989, 1(8645):1024.
5. Baxter MJ, Burrell JA, Crews H, Massey RC: Aluminium levels in milk and infant formulas. Food Addit Contam 1991, 8:653-660.
6. Coni E, Bellomonte G, Caroli S: Aluminium content of infant formulas. J
Trace Elem Electrolytes Health Dis 1993, 7:83-86.
7. Fernandez-Lorenzo JR, Cocho JA, Rey-Goldar ML, Couce M, Fraga JM:
Aluminium contents of human milk, cow’s milk and infant formulas. J
Ped Gastroenterol Nutr 1999, 28:270-275.
8. Navarro-Blasco I, Alvarez-Galindo JI: Aluminium content of Spanish infant formula. Food Addit Contam 2003, 20:470-481.
9. Kazi TG, Jalbani N, Baig JA, Afridi HI, Kandhro GA, Arain MB, Jamali MK,
Shah AQ: Determination of toxic elements in infant formulae by using
electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometer. Food Chem Toxicol 2009,
47:1425-1429.

Cat Melodeon

limelemon wrote: »

Was the OP saying that formula had been 'contaminated' with aluminium? That wasn't my understanding - I took it that the report related to the levels of aluminium contained within formula. Contamination is a completely different issue. I'm open to correction, but I still think that the opening post is inflammatory.

No, the issue is not one of contamination but one of generally poor formulation. Drawing attention to new research showing dangerous levels of aluminium in a widely used food stuff is hardly inflammatory. The OP even mentions that his own kid has been exposed to it.

Thanks due to the OP. I breastfed my boy til he was a year and have been topping him up with the odd carton of Aptimil since then (2 months) as using the premade cartons is sometimes handier when out and about than cows milk.
Will be buying a flask tomorrow and dumping the rest of the formula.

I'm not anti-formula, just anti-unsafe-formula. This isn't about whether you breast or formula feed, it's about substandard formula causing a health hazard to babies. Read the research, find a safe formula, switch. Or don't. Your child, your choice.

LegacyUser

so what formulas would be considered safe ?

Cat Melodeon

my men were in that chopped wrote: »

so what formulas would be considered safe ?

Not all formula brands were tested so it would be hard to say which is the best seeing as many weren't included in the study.

In general, ready-made cartons have significantly lower levels than powdered formula.

Cow and Gate were the worst in terms of aluminium content (2 of it's products were tested), although the Hipp Organic Follow on formula and the soya-based SMA one performed the worst in terms of the amount of aluminium babies were actually exposed to (presumably in the 'digestibility' of the aluminium involved) .

Hipp Organic Growing-up milk (12 months+) had the lowest levels.

Of the infant 'first' formulas, SMA seems to be the 'best', but it still had levels way beyond what is acceptable.

All formulas demonstrated a variation in their levels of aluminium. Eg, Cow & Gate Nutriprem 1 had one of the lowest levels in some tests, but higher ones in others.

No formula tested showed acceptable levels of aluminium. Whether it would be safer to use a formula not on the list is unclear - just because they weren't tested for aluminium doesn't mean they don't have aluminium. Ready-made formula is of course more expensive but does have lower levels. Best bet might be to read the article and make your own mind up.

Here's another link to the article - the original link doesn't seem to be working at the moment:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2939626/pdf/1471-2431-10-63.pdf

It's only a few pages long, worth a read.

Das Kitty

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

In general, ready-made cartons have significantly lower levels than powdered formula.

I thought it was the other way around from this in the Daily Mail:

Dr. Exley wrote:

'Millions of parents have no choice but to feed their children this milk. I would advise if they are using ready-made milk to switch to powder as it contains lower levels.'

but the study says the opposite when you read it.

lynski

daily mail got it wrong

asorin

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

I breastfed my boy til he was a year and have been topping him up with the odd carton of Aptimil since then (2 months) as using the premade cartons is sometimes handier when out and about than cows milk.

when he'll be one year old we'll definitely use cow milk, till then we have no choice. By the way, how much formula milk baby (should) usually drink once weaning is established (from 6 months old)?

Das Kitty

asorin wrote: »

when he'll be one year old we'll definitely use cow milk, till then we have no choice. By the way, how much formula milk baby (should) usually drink once weaning is established (from 6 months old)?

17-21oz

Jumbo156

To be honest I am sick to the teeth of all the scare mongering going around about what is good for our babies and what isn't.
If we wanted to, we could google every single thing we give our children and we would find some study somewhere telling us it's bad for our children.

Sure werent we told for years that the 5 in 1 was wrong. There was hysteria because people believed the "doctor". Why did they believe him? because he said so and it was on the internet. Where is he now, disbarred ( or whatever happens to inept doctors).

If all baby formula is dangerous, what are we to do. Not everyone is able to breastfeed, FACT.

What's the bets that some company comes up with a new aluminium free formula for about twice the price and they will be heroes, only to be found out after a few years that, em, it's not actually aluminium free and by the way, the old ones didn't do any harm anyway....

Anyways, I have 2 perfectly healthy lads, both formula fed and I won't be losing any sleep over another "Scare" from another study.

lynski

Jumbo156 wrote: »

To be honest I am sick to the teeth of all the scare mongering going around about what is good for our babies and what isn't.
If we wanted to, we could google every single thing we give our children and we would find some study somewhere telling us it's bad for our children.

Sure werent we told for years that the 5 in 1 was wrong. There was hysteria because people believed the "doctor". Why did they believe him? because he said so and it was on the internet. Where is he now, disbarred ( or whatever happens to inept doctors).

If all baby formula is dangerous, what are we to do. Not everyone is able to breastfeed, FACT.
What's the bets that some company comes up with a new aluminium free formula for about twice the price and they will be heroes, only to be found out after a few years that, em, it's not actually aluminium free and by the way, the old ones didn't do any harm anyway....

Anyways, I have 2 perfectly healthy lads, both formula fed and I won't be losing any sleep over another "Scare" from another study.

Wrong, again, this is not about scaremongering it is about a call to action and provision of information.
If there is a report to show all things fed to children can be bad, find me the breast feeding one please?
We were never told that the 5in1 was bad by anyone but 1 doc - all the other medical professionals were in agreement that there was no risk. It was also before the internet was widespread and that added to the panic rather then allowing people to have access to all there information.
In this case there are multiple reports saying there is too much aluminium in food for infants and there are multiple reports saying why this is bad. There are recommended limits that are being breached, repeatedly.
The point of the report is that there are acceptable levels of aluminium in infant formula, but the contamination happens in the packaging and this could be avoided.
As i said before the very same companies why have marketed trans-fats as healthy for years and who are still fighting tooth and nail for them while sensible governments around the world are banning their use, are the ones that make infant formula. They should not be trusted wholly, we need to question and question again.
To say that

Not everyone is able to breastfeed, FACT.

in technically correct, but the tiny minority of women and babies unable to breastfeed is like 2/3%, the reality is that most wont, not cant. and those that failed are those that were not supported properly.
Just because the information is not what we want to hear it is still better to have it then not.

Cat Melodeon

Jumbo156 wrote: »

To be honest I am sick to the teeth of all the scare mongering going around about what is good for our babies and what isn't.
If we wanted to, we could google every single thing we give our children and we would find some study somewhere telling us it's bad for our children.

It's not scare-mongering. Scaremongering is making a big deal out of nothing. This isn't nothing, it is an ongoing breach of standards by big business. Some parents want to be up to date on research and don't trust big business to keep what is best for babies as a priority ahead of what is best for shareholders. Other parents trust big business to do what is right without feeling the need to question. Your call as to which you want to be, but no need to diss the research just because you fall into the latter category.

Jumbo156 wrote: »

Sure werent we told for years that the 5 in 1 was wrong. There was hysteria because people believed the "doctor". Why did they believe him? because he said so and it was on the internet. Where is he now, disbarred ( or whatever happens to inept doctors).

Yes and foolish parents trusted the internet rather than reading the research for themselves, in which case they would have seen that every doctor and researcher apart from Dr MMR was saying that the vaccine was safe. I is possible for the lay person to distinguish between good and bad research, you don't need a university education, just to be able to read and a certain level of analytical ability.

Jumbo156 wrote: »

If all baby formula is dangerous, what are we to do. Not everyone is able to breastfeed, FACT.

Write to the FSAI. Ask them to clarify. If they say it's safe, then you have no worries, and they will be liable for any health problems that do arise. If they are not willing to accept that liability, then something is clearly wrong and the FSAI can be pressed to put pressure on the formula manufacturers to make a safer product.

For those who do have a choice (like myself, using the odd bit of formula when it's handier than cows milk), this research highlights the benefits of giving up formula altogether. That's good to know.

Jumbo156 wrote: »

What's the bets that some company comes up with a new aluminium free formula for about twice the price and they will be heroes, only to be found out after a few years that, em, it's not actually aluminium free and by the way, the old ones didn't do any harm anyway....

Aluminium in the food chain can cause neurological damage. People can read the research and decide for themselves if it is an acceptable level of risk. That is not scaremongering, it is providing information that formula companies would prefer remained obscure and unknown.

Jumbo156 wrote: »

Anyways, I have 2 perfectly healthy lads, both formula fed and I won't be losing any sleep over another "Scare" from another study.

Good for you.

lynski wrote: »

If there is a report to show all things fed to children can be bad, find me the breast feeding one please?

I really don't like this becoming a formula v breastfeeding thread. This is about unsafe standards in baby food and the way forward is to encourage people to contact the FSAI demanding public clarification on whether it is safe or not and and to demand better standards and more transparency from formula companies. I think it is unhelpful to get caught up in the boob v bottle thing - most babies in Ireland are formula fed, so this affects their health and should be brought to wider public attention.

[wrings hands] will no one think of the children...[/swoon]

Ayla

Jumbo156 wrote: »

If all baby formula is dangerous, what are we to do. Not everyone is able to breastfeed, FACT.

I agree with Cat that this shouldn't erode into a bottle vs breast debate, but the FACT remains that if formula is "dangerous", and the mom can't (or won't) breastfeed, there is option #3...express and/or import breastmilk from the national milk drive.

That said, I thank the OP for bringing this topic to light (in a non-scaremongering way). It is up to concerned parents to push companies into making healthy products.

Cat Melodeon

Ayla wrote: »

I agree with Cat that this shouldn't erode into a bottle vs breast debate, but the FACT remains that if formula is "dangerous", and the mom can't (or won't) breastfeed, there is option #3...express and/or import breastmilk from the national milk drive.

That's grand for new mothers who have the opportunity or for recent mums who can relactate, but it doesn't help those who have children aged, say, 4 weeks plus who have been formula fed from the outset or who switched over after the first few weeks. Of 75,000 babies born a year in Ireland, 72% are being fed formula at or from 4 weeks (according to the Irish Medical Times). By 6 months, 90.4% are on formula. There is not enough breastmilk banked in the country (and possibly all of Europe) to supply all of the babies who would need it to bring them to the 12 month mark.

Yes, I agree breastfeeding should be the norm, no question of that, but it's not yet and that makes it even more important that this issue receive more public attention than it is currently receiving.