Got melamine?

Formula-fed infants are at risk both at home and abroad

As of this writing, approximately 53,000 Chinese babies have been treated for drinking toxic baby formula. The milk was tainted with melamine – the same chemical that killed over 300 American cats and dogs in the recent Chinese pet food scandal. This time, greedy corporations are killing children. So far, four child deaths have been attributed the formula, while tens of thousands of children are still suffering from painful kidney stones or partial renal failure.

A similar atrocity occurred in Japan in 1955, when arsenic-tainted milk powder poisoned over 12,000 newborns. Not until 1981 did the nation admit the extent of their baby milk atrocity: At least 600 deaths, over 6,000 people still suffering 26 years later, and 624 people afflicted by severe mental retardation, developmental difficulties, and paralysis caused by brain damage.

This is not the first baby milk massacre in China, either. In 2004, thirteen infants died from drinking counterfeit baby formula made from flour and water, and 170 others suffered serious malnutrition.

As in 2004, the current tragedy is no accident. Melamine (a substance used in plastic and fertilizer) was actually added to the baby formula as a way to increase corporate profits. Melamine mimics protein in some tests, so when the dairy farmers watered down the milk to cut costs, they added melamine to cover their tracks.

The investigation continues to unfold. So far Chinese authorities have detected melamine in 20% of the nation’s dairy milk. Twenty-two brands are affected. China initially claimed that the tainted milk was never exported beyond its borders. However, Chinese milk products have now been recalled from Bangladesh, Yemen, Gabon, Burundi and Myanmar.

Hong Kong regulators pulled Chinese milk, yogurt and ice cream off the market after finding that eight of thirty samples tested contained the poison. Hong Kong authorities found traces of melamine in two Nestle products – a follow-on formula for babies over a year old, and a type of milk used for catering. Nestle denies that their products are tainted, pointing out that Hong Kong recently made their melamine standards more stringent than U.S. and European standards.

The Chinese government is talking tough and taking action now, but the evidence indicates China knew about the poisoned milk weeks ago and chose not act until the end of the Olympics and Paralympics.

Chinese authorities will have no mercy on their designated scapegoat. After all, their government responded to the pet food scandal by executing the head of China’s food and drug safety agency. Perhaps in this case a fitting punishment would be a steady diet of Sanlu baby formula.

As China faces another hit to its national image, parents around the world wonder, “Could this happen here?”

The answer is a resounding yes. Here in the U.S., the FDA has issued a warning against all Chinese-produced baby formula. Although it is illegal to import baby formula from China, officials cite examples of Chinese brands being sold in ethnic stores.

All formula-fed infants are at risk for various types of contamination, both intentional and accidental. Formula-feeding is not like breastfeeding, in which the milk passes directly from source to destination without risk of contamination, and the breast milk itself even contains substances that kill off foreign organisms like Salmonella.

Instead, formula-fed babies are exposed to contamination risks throughout production, canning, distribution, and even at home as the artificial milk is poured into a plastic bottle containing BPA, a substance known to be hazardous to humans since the 1930’s. The bottle itself may also contain microorganisms, unless it has just been sterilized. Unfortunately, heat increases the release of BPA. Bottle-fed babies just cannot win.

The American formula industry issues product recalls every year. In May of this year, Abbott issued a recall because of product oxidation, which can cause nausea, vomiting and other gastrointestinal problems in infants. Past recalls have been issued by various U.S. formula manufacturers because of glass particles, unsanitary production conditions, Salmonella, incorrect mixing instructions, and other serious safety problems.

Intentional tampering has also occurred here in the United States. In 1995, the FDA seized 45,000 pounds of counterfeit infant formula. The milk trail led to ten factories in eight states that were making bogus formula with counterfeit labels. The fake formula was being sold in supermarkets under brand names.

More often, formula fraud occurs after manufacturing. Fraudulent wholesalers offer retail stores stolen, damaged or re-labeled formula. In one instance, a man and wife simply bought cases of cheap formula off the shelf, relabeled it as an expensive dairy-free formula, and then returned it to the store. The couple netted thousands of dollars before being caught. Several allergic babies were harmed by drinking substances they could not tolerate.

The FDA offers parents suggestions for avoiding counterfeit formula: Know how your baby’s formula looks, smells and tastes. It is interesting that they fail to recognize the simplest safeguard of all: Avoid baby formula.

In all but the rarest cases, babies are much better off drinking mother’s milk. Breast milk is full of nutrients that provide lifelong benefits to the child. Just as important are the substances you won’t find in breast milk -- melamine, arsenic, and Salmonella, to name a few.

Palin Pros and Cons

Several readers have asked me to weigh in on the selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as Senator John McCain’s vice presidential running mate. The way I see it, there are pros and cons to the Palin pick.

PRO – She’s a woman. Over 50% of voters are women, and we are seriously underrepresented in American government.

CON – She’s against women. Palin is part of the most extremist anti-woman platform the Republicans have put forth in years. These Republicans are on the warpath, trying to limit access to ordinary contraceptive methods like the birth control pill, which the majority of American women depend on at some point in their lives. Palin is right in with this crowd, going on record to state that she is against abortion even in the case of rape or incest.

PRO – The restoration of a female to this election could appeal to some voters who are disillusioned over Hillary’s primary loss.

CON – Palin is no Hillary Clinton. Palin’s resume is so thin, it actually includes her high school basketball “career.” She is a one-term governor of the 4th smallest state by population, and before that she was the mayor of a town smaller than Fort Oglethorpe. Most Americans only heard of her last week. She is best known as the bee-hived governor who was almost Miss Alaska. She has no experience outside the state, much less with foreign affairs. According to the New York Times, Palin only got her passport in July, 2007. Even then, she did not visit Iraq as she has claimed.

By contrast, Hillary Clinton is a serious, seasoned political leader known all around the world. It’s not just the age difference. Since her twenties, Clinton has been featured in publications like Life Magazine. She attracted attention not for beauty pageants but for historic accomplishments, like being the first Wellesley student to deliver the commencement address and using that opportunity to criticize the senator who spoke just before she did.

While Republicans hail Palin as a reformer, it is Clinton who is a true crusader. Hillary was a force to be reckoned with even before she teamed up with Bill. In the late sixties, she fought for civil rights, and in the seventies she helped impeach Richard Nixon. In the eighties, while Palin was strutting down the runway in a bikini, Clinton was fighting for education reform in Arkansas and being named Mother of the Year for the second time.

As First Lady for two terms in the nineties, Clinton was so active in domestic and foreign affairs that critics printed bumper stickers reading “Impeach the President and her husband, too.”

Clinton’s greatest obstacle is being ahead of her time. Consider her bid to reform healthcare. As First Lady she was unable to make it happen, but that plan is now integral to the Democratic platform. That’s what reformers do; they change the way we think about the world. Simply challenging an incumbent in your own party doesn’t make you a reformer.

The differences go beyond education and experience; Palin opposes everything Hillary Clinton stands for – health care, education, individual freedoms, and economic security for the middle class.

McCain must think women are stupid. He hopes to win Clinton supporters simply by adding a woman to his ticket. Some men may believe that all females are interchangeable; women know better.

PRO – Palin is a Washington outsider. After 8 years of Republican corruption, lies, and unjust war, many Americans are looking outside the Capitol for a fresh leader without ties, allegiances and debts.

CON – She is not just an outsider; she has absolutely no national experience. Republicans try to brush this away by pointing out that Obama has never been a governor and therefore has no “executive” experience – but the same can be said for McCain. If Palin is more qualified than Obama, then she is also more qualified than McCain. The Republicans need to reverse their ticket! The truth is, Sarah Palin is the least experienced candidate put forth in recent history. The presidency is far too important to risk on a loose cannon like McCain and a complete unknown like Palin.

PRO – A short resume means less baggage . . . right?

CON – For a politician with such a short history, Palin has been remarkably quick to immerse herself in scandalous abuses of power. Currently she is under investigation for trying to force the firing of her ex-brother-in-law as a favor to her sister.

As governor of Alaska (population comparable to Atlanta or Memphis), she has held her hand out for plenty of pork. Palin claims she opposed the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere.” Not true. Support for the bridge was part of her campaign platform. She only gave up on it after Washington turned against the project. Then she canceled the bridge, but kept most of the money for other projects. Although she claims she opposes earmarks, she has requested more per capita than any other governor.

While requesting federal dollars to study the mating habits of crabs, Palin used her line-item veto power to slash important funding for education and teen pregnancy prevention. She opposes teaching teens about condoms in spite of statistical and now personal evidence that “abstinence only” education has poor results.

Palin has an interesting strategy on changing Alaska’s status as the rape capital of America: Discourage victims from reporting. Under Mayor Palin, Wasilla women who reported rape had to pay for the cost of the forensic exam, reportedly a charge of $300-1,200. Charging women who report sex crimes is a sure way to reduce rape – well, rape reports, anyway.

PRO – Palin is an avid outdoorswoman, giving her a tough, not-afraid-to-get-her-hands-dirty image.

CON – Sarah Palin’s hands are a little too dirty. Palin wants to turn the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge into a private oil field for her corporate buddies.

Hunting does not always translate into caring about the environment or its inhabitants. Palin scoffs at global warming even as scientists document the shrinking of the ice caps and drowning of polar bears. Not that Palin cares about polar bears; she actually sued the Bush administration to have them taken off the endangered species list.

Wolves have fared no better under her watch. Until the program was stopped by a state judge, Palin was offering wolf hunters $150 for every hacked-off front foreleg they brought in.

PRO – The selection of a female vice presidential candidate is a historical first for the Republican Party. Finally, the Republicans have entered the 20th century. That’s not a typo. The press seems to have forgotten that Democrats met that milestone last century when Walter Mondale selected Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate in 1984. The Republicans are, finally, playing catch-up.

CON – In choosing Palin, John McCain passed over a long line of more qualified Republican leaders. If he wanted a female running mate, why not Kay Bailey Hutchison? Hutchison served as state treasurer of Texas before starting her fifteen years in the Senate. She is the most senior female Republican Senator, with a great deal of experience and responsibility.

Or how about Olympia Snowe? Snowe is the first woman who ever served in both houses, both in the state and nationally, and one of the first to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She was named one of America’s top senators by Time Magazine, and holds a 79% approval rating in her home state of Maine. Snowe is as powerful as she is popular. She chairs the subcommittee that oversees the Navy and Marine Corps and also serves on the Finance Committee. In 35 years, Olympia Snowe has never lost an election.

With choices like Hutchison and Snowe (and Condoleeza Rice, and the list goes on), why did McCain choose a political newbie from the sticks? The answer is clear to hard-working women in all sorts of careers who have watched a younger, less qualified woman soar past them to assume positions at the top. It’s an old gimmick, really: Put a token female near the top to placate the other women in the organization. Just make sure it’s a woman who will fully support the good ol’ boys, without caring what happens to us other women, or our children, or our world.