I have never been much on conspiracy theories because frankly, I don’t think there is anyone in our government smart enough to pull off any of the real big ones floating around out there. Well, maybe with the exception that The Warren Commission was full of shit, but I don’t buy the whole “JFK”, Oliver Stone/Jim Garrison version of what they “think” happened either.
My biggest problem with them is that they are what they say they are…THEORIES. I can’t remember what it was said about or where I got it, but the phrase the absence of a negative does not mean a positive. What I am trying to say is if you can’t provide me with verifiable proof of something, I am not going to buy into it just because someone says it is true.
If nothing else, you now understand why I have such a huge problem with religion.
So, with all that being said, I want to address a comment to my story “China Sticks It To Us Again”.
In his comment, Reader CJ stated “It is not just the Chinese” and provided a link to a story on TheGoodHuman.Com that proclaims in large, bold type “90% of US Infant Formula May Be Contaminated With Melamine.”
Now, this intrigued me enough to read on.
The gist of the story is that after the Chinese baby formula scare, in which China admitted to the world that dairy farmers had added large amounts of the chemical to raw milk to up the protein counts on their product , the FDA stated that no amount of Melamine was acceptable in formula products.
The article quotes the FDA as saying that
“FDA is currently unable to establish any level of melamine and melamine-related compounds in infant formula that does not raise public health concerns.”
Now the article goes on to say that The Associated Press, through the Freedom of Information Act, obtained test results that proved that most US produced infant formula contains traces of melamine and that the FDA had reversed it’s initial finding of zero tolerance for the chemical to an acceptable level of 1 PPM ( part per million, just under what it was reported to be found in US made products.
The article goes on to state that
Rather than this decision being based on science, the FDA is once again resorting to politically-motivated decisions that seek to protect the profits of Big Business rather than the safety of infants and children.
The article theorizes that the FDA claim that the contamination was a result of packaging material and cleaning products can not be true because
“…the FDA’s own tests on Mead Johnson infant formula reveal it to contain 245 ppb, (Parts per Billion) or 1600% more than what would be expected to exists due to melamine contamination from manufacturing equipment.”
The writer then puts forth two theories for the source of the contamination. First, that infant formula is being deliberately being adulterated with the substance or that US Dairy operations are feeding their animals feed tainted with melamine in an effort to save money.
OK, I was intrigued.
The article mentioned no other sources for it’s information and in fact, their was no byline for the author, with the exception of his name, David, in the websites “about” section.
Now, before you read any further, I encourage you to read Davids article in full at the link provided. It will make what follows a little bit easier to understand.
I first went to the AP website and tried to obtain a copy of the original article, but the bastards wanted a buck fifty for it, so a little bit of digging later, I was able to find the original posted on Huffington Post.
Now the AP article tracked initially with what David had written.
According to The AP, yes, trace amounts were found in US produced formula.
Yes, there appeared to be no new science involved in the FDA’s decision to call the trace amounts detected safe.
Yes, the three major manufacturers of US formula had been tested and there production accounts for 90% of all infant formula made here.
The article then goes on to point out the difference between the Chinese and US contamination.
In China, melamine was intentionally dumped into watered-down milk to trick food quality tests into showing higher protein levels than actually existed. Byproducts of the milk ended up in infant formula, coffee creamers, even biscuits.
The concentrations of melamine there were extraordinarily high, as much as 2,500 parts per million. The concentrations detected in the FDA samples were 10,000 times smaller _ the equivalent of a drop in a 64-gallon trash bin.
There would be no economic advantage to spiking U.S.-made formula at the extremely low levels found in the FDA testing. It neither raises the protein count nor saves valuable protein, said University of California, Davis chemist Michael Filigenzi, a melamine detection expert.
So much for the intentional spiking theory put forth by David.
The article also addressed the specific contamination of the Mead Johnson formula.
According to FDA data for tests of 77 infant formula samples, a trace concentration of melamine was detected in one product _ Mead Johnson’s Infant Formula Powder, Enfamil LIPIL with Iron. An FDA spreadsheet shows two tests were conducted on the Enfamil, with readings of 0.137 and 0.14 parts per million.
Wait a minute, David said it was 245 parts per billion. Billion.
He repeats his claim in his article where he states
If manufacturing and packaging machinery should only result in melamine contamination levels of 15 ppb, and yet 245 ppb were found in the infant formula, then where did all the extra melamine come from? The FDA has no explanation for this and seems to hope people will forget to ask.
OK, if my math is right, 245 parts per Billion is one hell of a lot less then the 1 Part per Million that the FDA says is safe, and that 0.137 and 0.14 is even less then that.
Even if I work under the assumption that the parts per billion was in fact a typo on Davids part, I could not find ANYTHING in the original AP article with a 245 parts per million value, so where did Davids number come from?
Again, I would ask you to take the time to read the entire article for yourself and see whether or not I am correct.
So, are the amounts of Melamine in formula safe, or are they not?
A quick check Medicinenet.com gave me the answers I was looking for.
According to well annotated article citing a full dozen sources, the answer is, PROBABLY.
Here’s the opinion of Marcel Casavant, MD, chief of clinical pharmacology/toxicology at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, medical director of The Central Ohio Poison Center, and director of the Central Ohio Lead Clinic.
“We don’t really know for sure how much melamine is safe,” Casavant tells WebMD. “We do know how much is bad. It’s really the dose that makes something a poison or not. Concentrations of more than 250 parts per million cause big troubles for some babies. How low does the concentration have to be to cause no problems for any babies? That’s what we don’t know for certain.”
Another opinion
Gary Wasserman, DO, chief of medical toxicology at Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics in Kansas City, Mo., says trace levels of melamine and other chemicals have probably been present in infant formula for decades. We find it now because we’ve just started to test for it.
The article goes on to say,
Scientists never say never. None of the experts who spoke with WebMD would guarantee that all U.S. infant formulas are safe for all babies. But every one of the experts says the evidence so far strongly indicates that U.S. infant formula is safe.
So, here we are. From what I have been able to find, I would have to put forth the opinion that David is pretty much full of crap and using scare tactics, unsupported by verifiable facts, to sway his readership to his way of thinking.
I can’t fault David for having an opinion, but having an opinion does not make it fact.
And so now you see why I don’t find much use for conspiracy theories. I have found that if you dig deep enough, the facts they present tend to start to unravel. It took me all of 15 minutes to find and digest the information for this article and about ten times that to write it.
I followed this same process with any article I write when it comes to presenting facts. Any errors are my own and if anyone finds FACTS contrary to the ones I present, I will be happy to publish them.
I only ask that you take the time to look into them.
As Ronald Regan once said “Trust…but verify.”