DANGER: do you really know what is placed in infant formula?

Why Is Pesticide Used As An Ingredient In Infant Formula?

GreenMedInfo: Why is cupric sulfate -- a known herbicide, fungicide and pesticide -- being used in infant formula? And why is it displayed proudly on product labels as a presumably nutritious ingredient?

Used to kill fungus, aquatic plants and roots of plants, parasitic infections in aquarium fish and snails, as well as algae and bacteria such as Escherichia coli, cupric sulfate hardly sounds fit for human consumption, much less for infants.

Indeed, infants are all too often looked at as "miniature adults" from the perspective of toxicological risk assessments, rather than what they are: disproportionately (if not exponentially) more susceptible to the adverse effects of environmental exposures. Instead of reducing or altogether eliminating avoidable infant chemical exposures (the precautionary principle), the chemical industry-friendly focus is always on determining "an acceptable level of harm" – as if there were such at thing!

It boggles the imagination how cupric sulfate ended up in infant formula, as well as scores of other consumer health products, such as Centrum and One-A-Day vitamins?

After all, it is classified, according to the Dangerous Substance Directive (one of the main European Union laws concerning chemical safety), as "Harmful (Xn), Irritant (Xi) and Dangerous for the environment (N)."

Moreover, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires that the warning signal "DANGER" appear on the labels of all copper sulfate end-products containing 99% active ingredient in crystalline form.

The Material Safety Data Sheet for Cupric Sulfate clearly states, in 'Section 3: Hazards Identification," that it has the following adverse health effects:

"Potential Acute Health Effects: Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation.
Potential Chronic Health Effects: CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Mutagenic for mammalian somatic cells. TERATROGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. DEVELOPMENT TOXICITY: Not available. The substance may be toxic to kidneys, liver. Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage."

In 'Section 7: Handling and Storage" the following precautions must be taken:

"Do not ingest. Do not breathe dust. Wear suitable protective clothing. In case of insufficient ventilation, wear suitable respiratory equipment. If ingested, seek medical advice immediately and show t he container or the label. Avoid contact with skin and eyes. Keep away from incompatibles such as metals, alkalis."

Cleary we have a problem here.  Cupric sulfate is used in most mass market infant formulas. Even Similac's "sensitive" formula contains the ingredient:

Could this be one reason why infant formula has been linked to over 50 adverse health effects, both short and long term, in infants given it in place of breast milk? The common explanation/claim is that infant formula isn't intrinsically harmful, rather, breast milk and breastfeeding is just healthier.  I believe this perspective in untenable, given the problems with cupric sulfate, and dozens of other questionable ingredients being used in these products, such as petroleum-derived and chirally inverted dl-alpha tocopherol (synthetic vitamin E), zinc sulfate, sodium selenate, manganese sulfate, etc.

For additional research on the inherent problems associated with the use of chemicals in infant formula, take a look at our evaluation of another Similac product.

Or, take a look at the "Organic" infant formula by Earth's Best:, which is surprisingly not that much better.

---

Related Article

Chemicals Used As "Nutrients" In "USDA Organic" Infant Formula

Additional Research

· Cupric Sulfate – Pesticide Information Profile

· Cupric Sulfate – Toxicology Research on GreenMedInfo.com

· Blog: Infant Formula For Disaster

· Blog: Is Your Multivitamin Toxic?

Sayer Ji is the founder and chair of GreenMedInfo.com. His writings have been published in the Wellbeing Journal, the Journal of Gluten Sensitivity, and have been featured on numerous websites, including Mercola.com,NaturalNews.com, Infowars.com, Care2.com. His critically acclaimed essay series The Dark Side of Wheat opens up a new perspective on the universal, human-species specific toxicity of wheat, and is now available for PDF download.

Related:

Some Baby Foods are Worse Than Junk Food

The Evidence Against Soy

Traditional parenting 'leads to well-adjusted children'

Empowerment: Women Now Choose Objectification Over ‘Creepy’ Breastfeeding

Myth Busted: Vaccinations Are Not Immunizations

Technorati Tags: infant formula,soy,pesticides,babies,breastfeeding,healthy choices,baby food,Similac,parenting,cupric sulfate

Pregnancy Denial

Why Are French Women Killing Their Babies?

The question is as horrifying as it is important to ask: Why are a rising number of French women killing their newborn babies? Finding the answer has become a matter of urgency following the discovery Wednesday of eight infants allegedly smothered to death and buried by their mother in northern France. And with that case marking at least the fifth instance of multiple infanticide reported in France since 2003, it's now become vital for the nation to seriously confront the phenomenon that appears to be behind it all: a mental condition known as pregnancy denial.

This latest case of newborn murder in France was uncovered in the northern town of Villiers-au-Tertre, after eight tiny bodies were found buried in the gardens of two separate homes. Six of the cadavers were unearthed on July 29 by police at the house of Dominique Cottrez, 45, and her husband Pierre-Marie, 47.

Investigators searched their home after the current resident of a house previously owned by Dominique's parents turned up two tiny bodies on July 24 while digging a pool in the backyard. According to the French prosecutor leading the inquiry in the town a short distance south of Lille, Dominique has admitted to hiding her pregnancies - and the killings of her babies - from her husband, who police describe as being "dumb-struck" by the revelations. Dominique was charged for the murders; Pierre-Marie has been cleared of wrongdoing and released, but could yet become the subject of investigation. (See the top 10 crime stories of 2009.)

The case in Villiers-au-Tertre is only the most recent example of a father of slain babies being apparently unaware of his wife's pregnancies. Four other such cases since 2003 include that of VÉronique Courjault, 42, who was convicted in June 2009 of killing three of her newborns - two of whom she hid in a freezer, and which were later discovered by her husband. Just last March, CÉline Lesage, 38, was found guilty of murdering six of her babies after she hid her pregnancies from the men who had fathered them. Both were sentenced to prison terms; Courjault for eight years and Lesage for 15.

Experts explained each of those cases as resulting from pregnancy denial, an often misunderstood and minimized condition. According to Michel Delcroix, a former gynecologist who served as a court expert in the Courjault trial and others involving pregnancy issues, pregnancy denial is a quasi-schizophrenic condition in which women either don't realize or cannot accept that they are with child - not even enough to have their unwanted babies aborted. Whether these women are afflicted by the condition before they deliver or as they're suddenly giving birth, Delcroix explains, the psychological denial of their pregnancy is so strong that they refuse to believe it even when it confronts them as reality.

"These women are so convinced pregnancy is impossible that once the child they never wanted arrives, they don't accept it as real and get rid of it to restore order to what they believe is non-pregnant reality," Delcroix says. "However terrible its consequences, pregnancy denial acts in infanticide cases much as a psychotic state that drives someone to kill another person does. Yet we still try women for what they do during pregnancy denial when we don't try psychotic killers deemed not responsible for their actions." Delcroix and others who are fighting for pregnancy denial to be medically and legally recognized as an illness argue that improving ways to identify and treat women with the ailment makes more sense than simply punishing the crimes they commit as a result of it.

What causes the condition? Several things, Delcroix says, including previous trauma such as beatings and rape. But other non-physical factors can also be involved, and denial can kick in even if a woman has had and raised children without problem previously - Lesage has a 14-year-old son; Dominique Cottrez has two grown daughters. And while pregnancy denial has been around for decades or longer, Delcroix says it's now rising in frequency. The probable reason, he says, is changes in wider social factors that have downgraded the value of childhood, parenting and family.

But in some cases, it can also be a matter of women simply failing to see themselves as mothers. "Some women never manage to update their self-identity during pregnancy, [while others] want to become pregnant without wanting to procreate," psychiatrist Pierre Lamothe told Le Parisien on Thursday. "When the child arrives, it doesn't really exist for them. They don't give it life, in psychological terms. If they saw it as a [real] baby, they wouldn't kill it." (See the 25 crimes of the past century.)

Others just never realize - or acknowledge - that they're with child. Experts on pregnancy denial say most sufferers are either sufficiently overweight or experience such little body change that they simply assume they've gained some weight. In France, 230 women a year discover their pregnancy only while giving birth. Though only a fraction resort to infanticide, Delcroix fears that there are more of those cases that remain undiscovered than there are ones that come to light, as in Villiers-au-Tertre. And he poses a chilling question: does anyone really believe that the spreading phenomenon of pregnancy denial - and the infanticide it can lead to - is purely a French problem?

By BRUCE CRUMLEY / PARIS Bruce Crumley / Paris

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100729/wl_time/08599200735900

Related:

Empowerment: Women Now Choose Objectification Over ‘Creepy’ Breastfeeding

Reposted: True Health Is True Wealth

Traditional parenting 'leads to well-adjusted children'

Traditional parenting methods that focus on breastfeeding, discipline and high expectations are most likely to produce well-adjusted, able and healthier children, a study has shown. 

And the more 'nuclear centered' families are for the children's values and main input, the better adjusted and functioning the children are.

Breastfeeding, discipline, high expectation and nuclear family centering are best for children, researchers have found Photo: GETTY

The research found that a culture of "good enough" parenting - under which children are not stretched or closely supervised - led to a greater risk of behavioral and emotional problems among young people.

The greatest gift a parent can give a child is their involvement, interest in their activities, supervision & guidance, discipline when needed, and their presence.

It was also found that children who received continual contrary input, to their parents', from outsiders or non-nucleus family members suffer high levels of emotional stress, are less likely to make sound decisions and are likely to suffer from a large variety of both emotional and health disorders throughout their lives.

Also, the more outside interference during the formative years, the more turmoil there is between parents and children, leading to permanent damage to the family unit and the Mother-Child and Father-Child relationships; which are the most basic and important unit and relationships in anyone's life. (Note: The family unit can be birth parents, step-parents, adoptive parents or foster parents and the children they are raising. Anyone else is a remote relative who needs to respect that unit and the parents who are at the head of it.) 

The strength or dysfunction of someone's Mother-Child and Father-Child relationships (again with those individuals who actually fill those rolls) affect all other relationships people have throughout their lives, their decision process, their perspective and the relationship they go on to build with their own children.

The study found that the extended family and outside input are only valuable if they support and enhance the parent's vision, their general teachings and their wishes for their children.

Breastfeeding for at least six months also improves the relationship mothers have with their babies as well as boosting their health and educational development, according to the Institute of Education in London.

Its study of 1,136 mothers found that breastfeeding is associated with more positive parenting practices that can continue beyond infancy.

When researchers studied mothers reading a storybook to their one-year-old children, they found those who breastfed made more effort to engage their infants in the book than mothers who bottle-fed and they appeared to have a warmer relationship with their babies.

Low income mothers who bottle-fed their babies tended to communicate with them much less.

The UK has some of the lowest rates of breastfeeding in Europe and many mothers give up because they do not feel supported enough or they return to work.

Fewer than eight in ten mothers breastfeed their babies from birth and only one fifth are still feeding naturally six months later.

Researchers said women should be offered targeted support and if necessary financial help so they can delay their return to work.

It is already known that breastfed babies are healthier, tend to be less prone to obesity, have fewer allergies and respiratory illnesses, have fewer emotional problems throughout life and have higher IQ’s.

The study found single mothers and those from low income families could help overcome the disadvantages their child was born into through breastfeeding.

Dr Leslie Gutman, who led the research, said: "Breastfeeding is a time-consuming activity and mothers can be tempted to put their babies on the bottle earlier if they feel they have to return to work for financial reasons.

"Mothers are given information leaflets in hospitals about breastfeeding but we may need more than this. Another option is workplace nurseries where mothers could go and feed their babies during the day."

A repeat experiment four years later found that mothers who had been on a low income when their child was one, but had breastfed for more than six months, had a higher quality of interaction with their five-year-old than other mothers.

They also made more effort to engage their child in the book-reading exercise than mothers who had not breastfed. By contrast, breastfeeding appeared to have no lasting effect on the parenting behaviors of married and higher-income mothers.

Marital status had no effect on the quality of a mother's interaction with her child, provided she had breastfed for six to 12 months. In fact, single mothers who had breastfed for this period made slightly more effort than other mothers to explain the storybook to their child.

Experts recommend women breastfeed exclusively for at least six months if they can. They also recommended a return to the focus on the nuclear family structure, strong discipline and the setting of high standards.

It appears that a ‘back to basics’ approach to parenting is definitely worth another look.

Source:  Rebecca Smith/Time Medical
Last Updated: 7:20AM GMT 27 Mar

Posted:  True Health Is True Wealth - 11:27 PST 30 Mar

Related Articles:  

• Adoption and Social Styles
  
• Mother's Day
  
• Mother's Day Part Two