1 in 5 Baby Food Samples Have Lead. Here’s What You Need to Know.

That’s a lot more than in regular food, a new study found.

Angry baby eating

PicturePartners/iStock/Getty Images

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

You may have caught wind of last week’s news that 20 percent of baby food—and 14 percent of  other food—contains lead. The finding came from a report by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), a nonprofit advocacy group. Here’s what you should know.

How do the researchers know that baby food contains lead? Four times a year, as part of the Food and Drug Administration’s Total Diet Study, agency workers go into grocery stores across the country and buy about 280 types of foods and beverages—from chicken pot pies to low-fat yogurt to whiskey. They test the samples for 800 different contaminants and nutrients and publish the results online. The EDF analyzed the FDA data from 2003 to 2013 and found that 20 percent of 2,164 baby food samples and 14 percent of the other 10,064 food samples contained lead. The baby foods that were most likely to contain lead were fruit juices, root vegetables, and cookies.

Which brands have the most lead? Nobody knows, because the FDA’s data doesn’t include brand names. We also don’t know why lead is more common in baby food than in other kinds of food. Tom Neltner, the chemicals policy director at the EDF and one of the authors of its study, told Mother Jones, “We’ve talked to manufacturers to try to find out and none of them have had an answer.”

How much lead is dangerous? Experts agree there’s no safe level of lead in food, especially for children. The heavy metal’s presence in blood has been linked to lower IQ, behavioral problems, and learning disabilities. The federal government banned the use of lead-based paint in toys, furniture, and residential properties back in 1978, but lead exposure has come under increased scrutiny since last year’s water crisis in Flint, Michigan. In June 2016, in the wake of that crisis, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released a report advising that all sources of lead exposure be eliminated—including lead-containing food and water.

So how is it legal for baby foods to contain lead? The FDA sets lead levels for candy likely to be consumed by small children, fruit juices, certain imported dried fruits, and bottled water—and that’s it. All other foods may get tested for lead as part of the agency’s Total Diet Study, and the FDA may issue a recall if routine testing finds a particular product to be consistently contaminated, but the agency doesn’t hold the food industry to any set standard for most products.

 Even the existing limits are not consistent: For bottled water it’s 5 parts per billion, for juice it’s 50 parts per billion, and for imported dried fruits and certain candies it’s 100 parts per billion. What are these limits based on? “What is achievable…under good manufacturing practices,” according to the agency’s website. That’s not necessarily the same as what is healthy, Neltner points out. 

How does lead get into food? A lot of ways. Lead in gasoline for cars was phased out by 1996, and lead arsenate remained a popular pesticide in apple orchards until it was banned in 1988, but a lot of that residue remains in our soils. Leaded paint, while banned for residential use, is still allowed for industrial purposes and is still common in countries that trade with the United States. Until January 2014, pipes labeled “lead-free” were allowed to contain up to 8 percent lead. Most private planes still run on leaded gas. All of these sources can find their way into soil, where they can be absorbed by crops.

Is the government going to do anything to get lead out of food? “I think the onus is really on FDA and industry to change their standards to reflect what we know, that there is no safe lead level,” said Jennifer Lowry, chair of the the AAP Council on Environmental Health Executive Committee, in a statement. “These are old standards they currently have and they haven’t been updated in decades.” The FDA says it’s reevaluating those standards, but President Donald Trump’s proposed budget doesn’t bode well for the agency.

How can I protect my kids? To reduce lead absorption from any single source, the AAP recommends a varied and well-balanced diet high in iron and calcium. It also recently released new guidelines for fruit juice consumption—notably, children under a year old shouldn’t drink juice at all.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate