All Babies Deserve GMO-Free Food: ACT NOW!
Wednesday, May 22, 2013 People who read this blog regularly will know that I am an advocate of breastfeeding. To me, that means that every mom who wants to breastfeed should have the full support of health professionals, family, community, and government to do so. I also believe that donor breast milk should be available to moms who want to breastfeed, but are unable to produce enough milk for their babies. People who read this blog regularly will also know that I'm an advocate of choice and that I support mothers whether they breastfeed or formula feed.
In addition to supporting mothers, I want to protect babies and children. I believe that governments and companies should step up to protect us from harmful ingredients contaminating our food sources and compromising our health.
Today I want to talk about genetically-modified organisms (GMO) in infant formula.
On the Truth in Labeling Coalition website, Marsha Walker, RN, IBCLC wrote about the risks of GMO ingredients in baby foods, such as infant formula (emphasis mine).
- The process of genetic engineering alters the genetic structure of the food which could increase food sensitivity and food allergies later in life. Unlike breastmilk which varies with the diet of the mother and stage of infancy, the composition of formula is always the same. Food sensitivities can increase with exposure, with repeated feedings of the same formula further increasing the risk of allergies.
- Genetic engineering also has the potential to transfer allergies from one food source to another. Years ago, a nut gene was inserted into soybeans which produced soy that caused allergic reactions in people who were allergic to nuts. Modifying the genetic structure of a food could also introduce new, unpredictable allergens from non-food genes inserted through the process of genetic engineering.
- Genetic engineering has the potential to increase and/or introduce new food toxins.
- Genetic engineering could alter or decrease a food's nutritional value or substantially increase certain components that could be detrimental to health.
- Genetic engineering could contribute to the growing problem of antibiotic resistance. Current transgenic plants may contain antibiotic resistant marker genes (a technique used during the genetic engineering process to show whether gene transfers have been successfully completed).
This is scary. Some babies are formula fed because they had allergic reactions to something in their mother's breastmilk that she was either unable to identify or eliminate and then those babies are being put at higher risk of developing further allergies by being exposed to GMO ingredients. Also formula fed babies are more likely to suffer from ear infections and then may be dealing with greater antibiotic resistance as those ear infections get treated. This is not fair.
Most of us are exposed to GMOs as part of our food source (unless we go to great care to avoid it), but babies that are being exclusively fed GMO formula have much higher exposure at such a vulnerable age.
One mom who is leading the charge to get GMOs out of infant formula is Leah Segedie from Mamavation. Listen to her story and watch this gut wrenching video to understand why she wants Similac and other infant formula manufacturers to start using GMO-free ingredients.
What does Similac say to this?
At the Abbott Laboratories shareholder meeting in April 2013, non-profit organization As You Sow, filed a resolution asking the company to stop using genetically-engineered ingredients. According to Daily Reporter, "Abbott urged its shareholders to vote against the proposal" and they did -- only 3% of the votes cast at the shareholder's meeting were in support of As You Sow's proposal.
Not only did Similac refuse to eliminate GMO ingredients, but it also doesn't indicate on the label that its products contain GMOs (and unlike more than 60 countries around the world, the United States and Canada do not require any such labeling). So consumers are left in the dark, thinking that they are buying a perfectly safe, government-regulated product for their babies, despite the fact that GMO ingredients have never been proven to be safe.
What about other infant formula manufacturers?
Well, they're no better really. Nestle (Gerber) donated more than a million dollars to the "NO" campaign to oppose GMO labelling regulations in California. As well, both Nestle and Mead Johnson (Enfamil) dismissed calls to remove GMOs from their infant formula products.
With the proposal at the shareholder's meeting, Similac had the opportunity to be a leader on this issue and to commit to removing GMO ingredients from infant formula. The resolution has come and gone, but the opportunity has not passed. Click on the image below or on this link to SIGN THE PETITION ASKING SIMILAC TO STOP FEEDING BABIES GMOs.
Want to Avoid GMOs in Infant Formula Now?
Unfortunately, if you need or want to use infant formula, there aren't a lot of options for GMO-free formula. Since GMO labelling is not required in the United States and Canada, the only way to be sure that you are not buying GMO formula is to buy organic formula (Note: Organic formula must be at least 95% organic ingredients, so there is the possibility of a small amount of GMO still). There are several organic brands and some offer both organic cow milk formula and organic soy formula, but they generally cost quite a bit more than non-organic brands. Another option for some families may be to look for donor milk through organizations such as Human Milk for Human Babies.
Regardless of what your preference or your choice is as a parent, I think that all babies deserve a GMO-free food source. That is why I am supporting the campaign to ask infant formula companies such as Similac to get rid of the GMOs.
Want to learn more about GMOs in infant formula or share the information with others? Join the #SimilacNoGMO Petition Twitter Party on Wednesday, May 22nd from 8:00pm to 9:30pm EST.
Environment, Kids' Health, Nutrition and tagged with GMO, GMOs, formula, genetically-modified, infant formula 
Reader Comments (11)
I haven't done much research on this, so take this as a comment from someone ignorant, but the quote from Marsha Walker sounds like that a scaremonger (again, I'm just going by the quote -- she could be great). It is full of words like "could" and "potentially" be bad. Shouldn't she know if it was bad before she opposed? I don't know anything about GMO in formula, but GM crops have increased yield and nutritional value. That's mainly the reason that GM is done. Why does Marsha Walker think that GM is being done? It costs money, so it doesn't quite make sense that companies would do this research in order to make something worse.
Looking for information!
Alex:
I quoted the piece from Marsha Walker because it was specific to infant feeding and because she is an expert on infant feeding. However, it certainly isn't the only article or the most referenced article out there on GMOs. If you want something more in-depth with full references, there are plenty of articles out there from the scientific community and from organizations concerned about GMOs. Here is one example:
http://www.nongmoproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.31.pdf
There is a LOT of "could" and "potentially" in this article and in her statement. GMO's have been rigorously tested for over 16 years. I won't get into it, but I encourage you to talk to the farmers of this country, the people who study and grow GMO crops. My husband has a degree in crop sciences and we grow GMO canola. I don't have an opinion on the use of formula, as I don't use formula.
Here's a really great summary of the anti-GMO conspiracy theory http://www.marklynas.org/2013/04/time-to-call-out-the-anti-gmo-conspiracy-theory/
Sarah:
That is an interesting and well-written article. However, it doesn't really address the science specifically and instead makes some comparisons that I'm not sure hold up. We have many more years of data on climate change, for example, than we do on GMO crops.
I also take issue with the assertions about how much food we need. He writes: "We need to sustainably increase food production by at least 100% by 2050 to feed a larger and increasingly affluent global population." Sure, we do if we keep wasting food the way that we do now. But perhaps if we find a way to be more responsible consumers and global citizens, we'll find a way to cut back on our waste. In the United States, 40% of the food that is produced is thrown away. Globally, it is around 1/3.
http://www.care2.com/causes/does-your-annual-food-waste-exceed-your-body-weight.html
Tackling that issue, as well as perhaps reducing the excess that some portions of the population consume, would go a long way toward addressing any additional food needs. Addressing water issues in some countries, rather than introducing GMOs, would also go a long way.
I'm not suggesting an outright GMO ban, but I am suggesting giving consumers choice and protecting those most vulnerable, e.g. babies who currently are forced to get 100% of their nourishment from products heavily based on GMO ingredients.
If GM ingredients are concerning to enough people then there is certainly an opportunity to market a GM-free version of formula. I don't know what the advantage of GM ingredients in formula is, but presumably cost is part of it. The article you quoted listed most advantages as illusory, and producers don't explicitly market the extra GM traits then there must be a cost advantage.
Likely the best way to achieve GM-free formula to prove that sufficient population want a GM-free product and are willing to pay a premium for it until the incentive is right. Either that or have government legislate that producers of GM formula also have to produce a GM-free formula. It's similar to the organic food movement. People who want to pay more for food produced in a way that increases cost but aligns with their values better can get it. Sounds like this method is currently THE only method, but it is the only method I would expect to be available.
I would like GMO foods to be labeled as such, so each consumer can make their own decision on whether to eat it or not. If the GMO farmers are so sure their food is safe why are they so against providing that information on the label?
This article means more than you will ever know. I did and could not produce breastmilk as much as my baby needed..right from the start. It is very difficult to be in that situation as a new mother. So the nurses, lactation nurses all suggested i feed my baby similac formula the baby need nutrition. That was a no brainer for me. But they never mentioned about organic similac. It was not until my baby was a 4 or 5 months old until I gained knowledge about GMO and that it could very possibly be in the formula. I just thought no.! No! They would never put GMO is babys milk!! But they do!! it is so awful!!! There needs to be more options and knowledge for new mothers! This is about their baby's health!!! A very important subject to be talked about!
We are only eating 100% organic in our family, I think it is a googd idea. Here in Sweden if its organic then it can not be any GMO in the food. Thanks for great article.
I was unable to breastfeed my son born in 1984. We gave him Enfamil. I have searched for information as to WHEN baby formula began using GMOs. Does anyone know when this started?
Giving nutrient foods and medicine without any disease takes place in case of a baby as the growth of body and brain takes place at that time. Through proper care babies should be healthy and a balance growth takes place. Not only on baby foods, parents gives priority on all baby products as these are directly related to baby's health.