Currently browsing posts about: Kids’ diets

An investigative report from Public Eye and the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN): “How Nestlé gets children hooked on sugar in lower-income countries.”

Nestlé’s leading baby-food brands, promoted in low- and middle-income countries as healthy and key to supporting young children’s development, contain high levels of added sugar. In Switzerland, where Nestlé is headquartered, such products are sold with no added sugar. These are the main findings of a new investigation by Public Eye and the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), which shed light on Nestlé’s hypocrisy and the deceptive marketing strategies deployed by the Swiss food giant.

The report points out that Nestlé (no relation) “currently controls 20 percent of the baby-food market, valued at nearly $70 billion.”

Nestlé promotes Cerelac and Nido as brands whose aim is to help children “live healthier lives”. Fortified with vitamins, minerals and other micronutrients, these products are, according to the multinational, tailored to the needs of babies and young children and help to strengthen their growth, immune system and cognitive development….

Spoiler alert: Our investigation shows that, for Nestlé, not all babies are equal when it comes to added sugar. While in Switzerland, where the company is headquartered, the main infant cereals and formula brands sold by the multinational come without added sugar, most Cerelac and Nido products marketed in lower-income countries do contain added sugar, often at high levels.

For example, in Switzerland, Nestlé promotes its biscuit-flavoured cereals for babies aged from six months with the claim “no added sugar”, while in Senegal and South Africa, Cerelac cereals with the same flavour contain 6 grams of added sugar per serving….

Similarly, in Germany, France and the UK – Nestlé’s main European markets – all formulas for young children aged 12-36 months sold by the company contain no added sugar. And while some infant cereals for young children over one year old contain added sugar, cereals for babies aged six months do not.

Do small amounts of sugar like these make any difference to babies’ health?  After all, 6 gram is just a bit more than a teaspoon.

They might make a big difference:

• They get kids hooked on sugars.
• The sugars can add up quickly.

For sure, this report shows is that sugar is not really necessary.  It is there to encourage sales, not health.

The report is getting international publicity:

• The Guardian: Nestlé adds sugar to infant milk sold in poorer countries, report finds
• DE: https://stories.publiceye.ch/nestle-babyfood
• FR: https://stories.publiceye.ch/nestle-bebes
• SP: https://stories.publiceye.ch/nestle-ninos
• PO: https://stories.publiceye.ch/nestle-criancas

UNICEF does not want its statements to be compromised by conflicted interests with food and beverage companies that make formula or foods for children.

Here’s how UNICEF will be dealing with the food and beverage interests.

This publication explains just how UNICEF intends to avoid conflicts of interest with companies making products that do not promote childrens’ health.

The practices and products of a subset of the F&B industry whose primary business is the production, distribution, marketing and retailing of ultra-processed foods and beverages (UPF) pose particular concern. The companies producing these unhealthy, nutrient-poor UPF – rich in sugar, salt, trans-fats and food additives and preservatives – are major drivers of today’s broken food system and the global epidemic of childhood overweight and obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases…It is now widely accepted that the practices and products of the UPF industry harm children’s and adolescents’ lives and have become the main commercial determinant of childhood malnutrition and disease.

Evidence shows that direct partnering with the UPF industry (i.e., working with) and voluntary UPF industry initiatives do not translate into large-scale sustainable results in transforming food systems for children. Further, direct funding engagements with UPF industry stakeholders pose a significant reputational risk to the credibility of UNICEF programming and independence as governments’ trusted advisor for policy formulation, normative guidance and programme scale-up for children and adolescents.

UNICEF says it will, among other measures (my emphasis):

• Continue to advocate for the F&B industry not to be included in public policy making.
• Continue avoiding all partnerships with F&B industries that violate the Code.
• Avoid all partnerships with ultra-processed food and beverage (UPF) industries.
• Exclude Code violators and UPF industries in UNICEF-led business platforms.
• Engage responsibly with the F&B industry in humanitarian response.

These commitments are a major public health advance.  Let’s hope UNICEF sticks with them.

You might think of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans as federal nutrition advice about how to eat healthfully but to some food companies it’s a marketing opportunity.

FoodNavigator-USA.com writes that the new guidelines for children under age 2 are a “treasure map” for Gerber, a leading baby food manufacturer.

the guidelines underscore the need for products that help babies consume sufficient iron, vitamin D and other nutrients of concern, safely introduce potential allergens, cut back on added-sugar, and cultivate diverse palate preferences to ensure healthy dietary preferences and reduce the risk of picky eaters later.\nInnovative, iron-enriched products need to boost consumption.

How does this work?

One of the main messages in the Dietary Guidelines is to provide infants and young children with sufficient iron.

Gerber to the rescue!

All you have to do is “feed children two servings of infant cereal a day.”

I still vote for feeding kids real food….

The House Oversight Subcommittee has just issued another report on neurotoxic heavy metals—arsenic, lead, cadmium—in baby foods: New Disclosures Show Dangerous Levels of Toxic Heavy Metals in Even More Baby Foods.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-funded testing conducted by the State of Alaska found that multiple samples of Beech-Nut’s and Gerber’s infant rice cereals contained more inorganic arsenic than FDA’s 100 parts per billion (ppb) limit (an  already dangerously-high standard that FDA is now lowering). Beech-Nut issued a recall but limited it to product codes associated with only two of the six samples that Alaska’s testing found contained over 100 ppb. Its recall was therefore too narrow. Gerber failed
to recall product associated with either of its two infant rice cereal samples that tested over 100 ppb.

The FDA, it says is not doing enough—it is absent without leave-–on this issue.

This subcommittee issued its first report on this issue in February this year.  Then, the press release included a statement from Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi:

Baby food manufacturers hold a special position of public trust.  But consumers mistakenly believe that these companies would not sell unsafe products.  The Subcommittee’s staff report found that these manufacturers knowingly sell baby food containing high levels of toxic heavy metals.  I hope companies will commit to making safer baby foods.  Regardless, it’s time that we develop much better standards for the sake of future generations.

This new report says baby food manufacturers aren’t doing enough, and neither is the FDA.  The subcommittee recommends:

To the FDA:

• Issue Maximum Toxic Heavy Metal Levels Sooner
• Mandate Finished-Product Testing

To Industry:

• Adopt Finished-Product Testing
• Voluntarily Phase Out Toxic Ingredients

Really?  That’s the best they can do?

This is either a serious problem or it is not.

If they think it’s serious (it sure sounds serious to me), more immediate and tougher actions are needed.  Now!

This has gone on long enough.

I’ve been posting about this issue since 2018.  This year, it looked like the FDA was going to take firm action, but no such luck.  Maybe this congressional subcommittee will get some action at long last.

• October 3, 2018  Rice cereals for infants: the arsenic problem
• February 9, 2021  Uh oh. Baby foods contain toxic metals—arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury
• March 9, 2021  More on toxic metals in baby foods: FDA on the job!
• May 4, 2021 What is the FDA doing about heavy metals in baby food?

Bettina Siegel’s Lunch Tray blog had an item recently about a new report on the effects of food dyes on children’s behavior (her blog is behind a Substack paywall, but well worth the subscription).

This report makes it time to talk about food dyes again.  For starters, they have only one purpose: to sell ultra-processed (junk) foods.  Research shows that brightly colored candy, snacks, and sodas are perceived as tasting better than the grey alternatives.  The food industry needs cosmetic food dyes.  We don’t, especially if they are harmful.

The 311-page peer-reviewed report, from the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA), is a meta-analysis of animal studies and 27 human clinical trials dealing with the neurobehavioral effects of seven synthetic food dyes on children.

Its conclusion:

The scientific literature indicates that synthetic food dyes can impact neurobehavior in some children… current ADIs [FDA’s Acceptable Daily Intakes] may not provide adequate protection from neurobehavioral impacts in children. For some of the dyes… updated safe levels of exposure would be much lower.

The idea that synthetic food dyes are associated with adverse neurobehavioral outcomes in children, but that children vary in their sensitivity to these dyes, is hardly new information.

In the mid-1970s, the physician Ben Feingold associated food dyes with hyperactivity in children and developed the Feingold Diet to improve kids’ behavior.

Much of the evidence for the “Feingold hypothesis” rested on anecdotal reports by parents,

Scientists’ attempts to study the effects of food dyes gave mixed results.  For example, as I wrote in a blog post on March 31, 2011, consider two studies published by Science magazine in 1980:

• Researchers gave pills containing a mix of food additives to 40 children, 20 diagnosed as hyperactive and 20 not.  The children diagnosed with hyperactivity reacted to the food additive challenge but the other children did not (Science 1980;207:1485-87).  But this study used pills rather than foods, mixed additives, and used questionable methods for evaluating hyperactive behavior.
• Researchers attempted to correct for such problems by using two drinks that looked and tasted the same—one contained seven food colors while the other did not.   The study was designed carefully such that neither the kids, parents, or observers knew what the kids were drinking.  The result:  Twenty of the 22 kids showed no reaction to the dyes.  One child reacted to the dyes every time (Science 1980;207:1487-89).

The interpretation?  Some kids may react to food dyes.

This gave the FDA an excuse to do nothing.  But then,

• In 2007, a study in England associating food dyes with hyperactivity revived the issue.
• In 2008, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) petitioned the FDA to bad food dyes associated with behavioral problems in children.
• In 2009, CSPI updated its Diet, ADHD & Behavior: A Quarter-Century Review
• In 2010, CSPI published Food Dyes: A Rainbow of Risks.
• In 2016, CSPI published Seeing Red: Time for Action on Food Dyes.

Today, the FDA says this about color additives in food:

FDA on color additives in food (2007):

So how safe are they? “Color additives are very safe when used properly…There is no such thing as absolute safety of any substance. In the case of a new color additive, FDA determines if there is ‘a reasonable certainty of no harm’ under the color additive’s proposed conditions of use.”

FDA on whether color additives are safe to eat (2018):

Yes, color additives are safe when they are used in accordance with with FDA regulations…our regulations specify:

• the types of foods in which it can be used,
• any maximum amounts allowed to be used, and
• how the color additive should be identified on the food label.

FDA on whether color additives affect the behavior of children (2018)

The FDA has reviewed and will continue to examine the effects of color additives on children’s behavior. The totality of scientific evidence indicates that most children have no adverse effects when consuming foods containing color additives, but some evidence suggests that certain children may be sensitive to them…Parents who wish to limit the amount of color additives in their children’s diet may check the food ingredient list on labels. Parents should also discuss any concerns with their family physician.

Well good luck with that.  The FDA can and should do better.

The bottom line: Food dyes have no health benefits.  Kids don’t need to be eating ultra-processed foods anyway.  They will not be harmed by avoiding food dyes.

CSPI has produced a lengthy and comprehensive comment on the new report. 

Given all of this, it’s surely time for the FDA to take some action.

I’ve written previously about the alarming findings of toxic heavy metals in baby foods.  These toxins are in all foods, but are particularly harmful to infants and young children, a situation that calls for immediate FDA action to set limits on the amounts these foods contain.

The FDA has a Q and A on this issue.  It has also issued previous guidance.

• Metals and Your Food
• What FDA is Doing to Protect Consumers from Toxic Metals in Foods
• What You Can Do to Limit Exposure to Arsenic
• Arsenic in Food and Dietary Supplements
• FDA Makes Available Results from Testing of Infant Rice Cereal for Inorganic Arsenic

In response to many complaints, the FDA has now issued a plan for action:  “Closer to Zero.”

Translation: the agency will propose action levels (limits on allowable amounts), consult with stakeholders, finalize the limits, and then evaluate how the whole thing works to reduce intake levels.

Timeline: It plans to do this starting now, with the aim of finishing the process by 2025.

The FDA must not consider limiting toxic metals in baby food to be urgent.

No wonder some members of Congress have introduced la bill to force the FDA to set limits for the most common toxic metals within a year.  It suggests what those limits should be: 10 parts per billion for inorganic arsenic in baby food (15 ppb for cereal); 5 ppb for both cadmium and lead (10 ppb for cereal); and 2 ppb for mercury.

While all this is going on, what are parents to do?

Suggestions from Harvard Health

The FDA is working on doing better monitoring and regulation of heavy metals in commercial baby foods. In the meantime, it’s nearly impossible to know which are completely safe and which aren’t. Babies don’t need solid foods until 6 months of age. At that time it’s perfectly fine to give them soft table foods instead of baby foods. You can also make your own baby food, using steamed or naturally soft foods and a blender. (Storage tip: you can pour a homemade puree into an ice cube tray and freeze it, and then just grab the cubes you need each time.)

Suggestions from Healthy Children

• Give your child a wide variety of different foods (the more natural colors, the better).
• Vary the grains. As mentioned above, it’s best to limit rice and rice products (check labels — rice is in a lot of foods marketed for babies, like “puffs”). Try barley, oats, and other grains. When cooking rice, it’s best to cook it in extra water and drain that water off, and to use white basmati and sushi rice, which have less arsenic.
• Check your water. Old pipes can contain lead, which can leach into drinking water.
• Avoid fruit juices. Not only can they increase the risk of cavities and obesity, but many commercial juices also contain heavy metals.
• Make healthy fish choices. Fish contains nutrients that are very healthy for the developing brain, but some fish can contain unhealthy amounts of mercury. Stay clear of big, predatory, long-living fish like swordfish, shark, or albacore tuna; it’s better to choose fish like cod, light tuna, salmon, or pollock.

In the meantime…

• The lawsuits!  At least 69 had been filed as of April 29.
• The New York Attorney General is also looking into this.

Early in February I wrote about heavy metal toxins in baby foods.  A report, Baby Foods Are Tainted with Dangerous Levels of Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium, and Mercury, revealed:

• Arsenic, led, cadmium, and mercury are present in commercial baby foods at levels much higher than considered safe.
• Their sources: foods raised on contaminated soil and water, and vitamin/mineral pre-mixes.
• Baby food companies set their own safety standards for toxic metals.
• The FDA knows baby foods have high levels of toxic metals but isn’t doing anything about it.
• Some baby food companies refused to share data on this topic.

Politico has been following this story.  It reports:

• The FDA launched a working group on toxic food contaminants in 2017,  partly in reaction to an earlier EPA study that found food to be a source of about half the lead that kids get (see supplementary material in this paper).
• Preventing lead exposure would be good for society as well as for children.

In response to the “Tainted” report, the FDA now says it will set standards.

The FDA wrote baby food manufacturers to shape up.  The FDA, it says,

 is taking this opportunity to remind all baby and toddler food manufacturers and processors covered by the preventive control provisions of the rule Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food…of your responsibility under the rulemaking to consider chemical hazards that may be present in foods when conducting your hazard analysis….FDA takes exposure to toxic elements in the food supply extremely seriously, especially when it comes to protecting the health and safety of the youngest and most vulnerable in the population.

And the FDA issued a statement to the food industry. 

Toxic elements are in the environment, and therefore in the food supply. The levels of arsenic, lead, mercury, and cadmium in certain foods depends on many factors, including: growing conditions; manufacturing and agricultural processes; past or current environmental contamination; and the genetic capacity of food crops to take up elements. We share the public’s concerns for the health of America’s children, and want to reassure parents and caregivers that at the levels we have found through our testing, children are not at an immediate health risk from exposure to toxic elements in foods. The FDA routinely monitors levels of toxic elements in food, and if we find that they pose a health risk, the FDA takes steps to remove those foods from the market.

Research has shown that reducing exposure to toxic elements is important to minimizing any potential long-term effects on the developing brains of infants and children. As such, this issue is among FDA’s highest priorities and we are actively working to make progress on identifying and implementing impactful solutions to make foods commonly consumed by infants and young children safer.

In the meantime, here’s what Beech Nut says on its website.

Toxic heavy metals are not good for babies’ health.  Baby food companies need to do much better in getting rid of these things if they want anyone to keep buying their products.

What to do in the meantime?  Feed kids small amounts of as wide a variety of foods as possible.  That’s good advice anyway.

Chop Chop Family’s website teaches kids to cook.  It publishes Chop Chop magazine.  And it has just produced the Eatable Alphabet.

This is a box of stiff cards from A to Z, aimed at teaching kids ages 2-6 to cook up a storm.

For fun, I picked the letter M: Mushroom, or seta in Spanish.

Flip the card over, and you get a cooking lesson:

1. Count out 4 mushrooms.  Slice teh mushrooms and put them in a bowl.
2. Add 1/2 teaspoon vinegar, 1 teaspoon oil, and pinch of salt.
3. Mix well and enjoy!

The cards also suggest activities.  E for Egg (huevo), for example, suggests:

Move.

Sit on the floor and hug your knees to your chest.  Roll around on teh ground like an egg rolls around on a table.

Have a kid of age 2-6 in your family or pod?  These will keep them busy for hours.

I can’t think of a better holiday gift.  And for older kids, check out the magazine.  It’s good too.

ADDITION:  If you are looking for items for kids, Food Tank lists 26 books about food to Nourish Kids’ Minds.