aluminium in formula milk / Keele Uni

[fl0wer]

Scientists from a world class centre of research into aluminium, issue statement at odds with FSA and govt advice.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/oct/10/formula-milk-babies-aluminium-health

[KalamityKel]

Is this not just another case of formula V breast is best?

Next week there will probably be another "report" contrary to this one...

[Beagle]

I found no suggestion this was a breast v formula discussion, rather a study of aluminium levels in different brands of formula.

[LondonMix]

The regulators are aware of the aluminium content of formula. As the article says, they disagree with the scientists who wrote this specific report that the levels of aluminium are dangerous. The authors acknowledge there is no specific evidence suggesting that these levels are dangerous for healthy babies but they warn that given the potential dangers of aluminium in general, the regulators and manufacturers should take a more prudent approach to limiting its content within formula.

See extract from their 2010 study (which the current one expands upon) and the link if you are interested.

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. Previous research has highlighted the potential toxicity of aluminium in infants with confounding disorders (including, prematurity, poor renal function and gastrointestinal disease) and fed infant formulas [10-13] and these studies when viewed alongside aluminium's known connections with medicine and human disease [22] should at least deter complacency concerning this issue. It is widely accepted that the not fully developed physiologies of infant's gastrointestinal tract, kidneys and blood-brain barrier may predispose them to aluminium toxicity [10,11,16,23,24] and while there are no definitive links between aluminium exposure through infant formulas and immediate or delayed toxicity in healthy infants this neither should not nor does not preclude such as a possibility.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/10/63#B22

[gwod]

Its hard to ascertain useful information from this sort of report. There's no actual quantities mentioned, only that it is "too high" It would be really interesting to hear exactly what the aluminium content is, and how it compares to aluminium content in other foods, (and water)

[Saffron]

Gwod, I think the suggestion is that there shouldn't be ANY aluminium in formulated infant milk. Aluminium is not found in cow's milk in the levels observed herein, and it isn't knowingly added by formula companies, although higher levels seen in soya-based formulas may result from relatively high Al content of the plants .

Therefore aluminium is considered a contaminant in formula in this context. The dispute is that the scientists who published this recent work are saying that we've long know that there is aluminium contamination in formula, so companies should be doing more to avoid contamination or to actively remove it. Whereas, regulators are saying that these levels are 'acceptable'.

If we look at it from the point of view of being a contaminant, then I have to say that I wholeheartedly agree that it remains 'too high', particularly in light of the fact that aluminium is not found in breastmilk in concentrations anywhere near this (eg, 30 ug/L breastmilk, vs. ~400 ug/L formula milk).

. . . . .

Burrell and Exley (2010). BMC Pediatrics.

Abstract

Background

Infant formulas are sophisticated milk-based feeds for infants which are used as a substitute for breast milk. Historically they are known to be contaminated by aluminium and in the past this has raised health concerns for exposed infants. We have measured the aluminium content of a number of widely used infant formulas to determine if their contamination by aluminium and consequent issues of child health persists.

Methods

Samples of ready-made milks and powders used to make milks were prepared by microwave digestion of acid/peroxide mixtures and their aluminium content determined by THGA.

Results

The concentration of aluminium in ready-made milks varied from ca 176 to 700 ug/L. The latter concentration was for a milk for preterm infants. The aluminium content of powders used to make milks varied from ca 2.4 to 4.3 ug/g. The latter content was for a soya-based formula and equated to a ready-to-drink milk concentration of 629 ug/L. Using the manufacturer's own guidelines of formula consumption the average daily ingestion of aluminium from infant formulas for a child of 6 months varied from ca 200 to 600 ug of aluminium. Generally ingestion was higher from powdered as compared to ready-made formulas.

There has been a long and significant history documenting the contamination of infant formulas by aluminium [3-9] and consequent health effects in children [10-13]. Through these and other publications manufacturers of infant formulas have been made fully aware of the potentially compounded issue of both the contamination by aluminium and the heightened vulnerability, from the point of view of a newborn's developing physiology, of infants fed such formulas. There have been similar warnings over several decades in relation to aluminium toxicity and parenteral nutrition of preterm and term infants [14-17]. To these ends the expectation would be that the aluminium content of current infant formulas would at the very least be historically low and at best would be as low as might be achieved for a processed product. We have tested this premise and we have found that the aluminium content of a range of branded infant formulas remains too high.

Commercially available branded infant formulas used by literally millions of parents to feed children of up to 12 months plus of age are still significantly contaminated with aluminium. The concentrations of aluminium in the milk formulas varied from ca 200 - 700 ug/L and would result in the ingestion of up to 600 ug of aluminium per day. The suggestion is that these products are 'contaminated' with aluminium as each of the manufacturers insist that aluminium is not knowingly added to their products. Milk formulas prepared from powders contained significantly more aluminium than their equivalent ready-made product. Aluminium products are used extensively in food processing [18], for example, as anti-caking agents, though there is no indication that they are being used in this way in powdered milk formulas. The likelihood is that many of the individual constituents of the formulas are contaminated with aluminium [19,20]. The sources of such contamination are myriad though would probably include equipment used in both processing and storing of bulk products. In addition many of the formulas were packaged for sale using aluminium-based materials. The high content of aluminium in the soya-based formula probably reflects its prior accumulation in the soybean plant and the known aluminium tolerance of some soybean cultivars that are grown on acid soils [21]. Previous research has also highlighted higher contents of aluminium in soya-based infant formulas [9].

The aluminium content of infant formulas measured herein are not significantly different to historical values and this lack of improvement in lowering their content suggests either that the manufacturers are not monitoring the aluminium content of their products or that the manufacturers are not concerned at these levels of contamination. 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. Previous research has highlighted the potential toxicity of aluminium in infants with confounding disorders (including, prematurity, poor renal function and gastrointestinal disease) and fed infant formulas [10-13] and these studies when viewed alongside aluminium's known connections with medicine and human disease [22] should at least deter complacency concerning this issue. It is widely accepted that the not fully developed physiologies of infant's gastrointestinal tract, kidneys and blood-brain barrier may predispose them to aluminium toxicity [10,11,16,23,24] and while there are no definitive links between aluminium exposure through infant formulas and immediate or delayed toxicity in healthy infants this neither should not nor does not preclude such as a possibility. The widespread use of infant formulas would necessitate that any attempt at an epidemiological study would require a Herculean effort even with well-defined levels of exposure and quantifiable end-points. However, there are clear links between toxicity in infants and parenteral exposure to aluminium. For example, parenteral exposure of preterm infants to ca 55 ug 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]. The authors concluded, with good reason, that the potential long-term consequences of early aluminium exposure deserve renewed attention [17]. The aluminium content of infant formulas is between 10 and 40 times higher than the aluminium content of breast milk, (usually ca 15 - 30 ug/L [7]), and will contribute significantly towards the body burden of aluminium in infants. It is clear that aluminium in infant formulas is a significant component of early life exposure to this ubiquitous contaminant and as such every effort should be made by manufacturers to reduce the aluminium content of these products to an achievable practical minimum while at the same time manufacturers should be compelled to indicate the level of contamination by aluminium on the packaged product.

[gwod]

Saffron,

Thank you for supplying quantity-based information...

[motorbird83]

Am I missing something? The information Saffron posted looks to be from the link London Mix posted.

[Saffron]

Yes, motorbird83, it's the same article as the link LondonMix posted, which is referencing some of the background data discussed in the Guardian piece. I've just extracted and high-lighted some of the relevant quantity-based data, in case anyone is have trouble following the link / doesn't have time to read the whole article. xx

[Saffron]

And here is a link to Prof Exley's 2013 article, also as referenced for background data from the Guardian piece:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/13/162

Abtract

Background

Recent research published in this journal highlighted the issue of the high content of aluminium in infant formulas. The expectation was that the findings would serve as a catalyst for manufacturers to address a significant problem of these, often necessary, components of infant nutrition. It is critically important that parents and other users have confidence in the safety of infant formulas and that they have reliable information to use in choosing a product with a lower content of aluminium. Herein, we have significantly extended the scope of the previous research and the aluminium content of 30 of the most widely available and often used infant formulas has been measured.

Methods

Both ready-to-drink milks and milk powders were subjected to microwave digestion in the presence of 15.8 M HNO3 and 30% w/v H2O2 and the aluminium content of the digests was measured by TH GFAAS.

Results

Both ready-to-drink milks and milk powders were contaminated with aluminium. The concentration of aluminium across all milk products ranged from ca 100 to 430 ug/L. The concentration of aluminium in two soya-based milk products was 656 and 756 ug/L. The intake of aluminium from non-soya-based infant formulas varied from ca 100 to 300 ug per day. For soya-based milks it could be as high as 700 ug per day.

Conclusions

All 30 infant formulas were contaminated with aluminium. There was no clear evidence that subsequent to the problem of aluminium being highlighted in a previous publication in this journal that contamination had been addressed and reduced. It is the opinion of the authors that regulatory and other non-voluntary methods are now required to reduce the aluminium content of infant formulas and thereby protect infants from chronic exposure to dietary aluminium.

From the discussion section...

The concentration of aluminium in each of the 30 infant formulas is at least twice that which is recommended in the European Union for drinking water (50 ug/L) and in 14 of the milks it exceeds the maximum admissible level for drinking water of 200 ug/L [10]. While these recommended values for aluminium in drinking water were, historically at least, not set with human health as a criterion, they are used today in general practice to ascertain whether or not potable waters are fit for human consumption [10]. We consider that the aluminium content of all infant formulas investigated herein is too high and especially so considering that these products constitute either all or a substantial proportion of an infant?s diet in the first months of their lives. Based upon the criteria for drinking water they are not fit for human consumption and they contravene article 5 of the Food Safety Act which states that ?infant formulas should not contain anything which might endanger the health of infants and young children? [11]. Organisations such as the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in the UK and the EFSA in Europe have argued that the daily intake of aluminium from infant formulas is unlikely to exceed the tolerable weekly intake (TWI) of 1 mg/kg body weight set by the joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives [12]. However, these organisations, charged with the responsibility of protecting the public from additives in their food, need to recognise and emphasise that this value was determined for adults and, critically, it was not based upon any studies on humans, whether infants, adolescents or adults.

[Yuuna]

It is funny that someone wrote about soy as I was thinking that aluminium isn't the only worrying ingredient in many formulas. Whilst I think it still to some extent remains to be seen exactly what the long term effects are, it still isn't a chance I'd take. At the end of the day these companies are here to make money - never underestimate the lengths they will go to keep doing so. That doesn't automatically make them 'bad' however that doesn't make them 'good' either.

[motorbird83]

Thanks Saffron!

Saffron Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes, motorbird83, it's the same article as the

> link LondonMix posted, which is referencing some

> of the background data discussed in the Guardian

> piece. I've just extracted and high-lighted some

> of the relevant quantity-based data, in case

> anyone is have trouble following the link /

> doesn't have time to read the whole article. xx