Have you ever chuckled at the sight of a parent buying organic formula for her infant? Does it seem a bit like putting a bouquet of fake flowers into a crystal vase full of water?
Okay, maybe you’re thinking something a little different than that, but you have to admit that the idea is worth a laugh. It may seem that the parent is in denial, assuming that organic formula is somehow a better match for human milk than standard formula. Or maybe it seems that the organic label has prettied up the repulsive formula, so that the parent doesn’t have to feel guilty about not breastfeeding.
You and I probably agree that nothing is equivalent to breastfeeding. But if you’re laughing about the parent’s selection of organic formula, I encourage you to read Dr. Michelle Perro’s guest post on GMOInside. Dr. Perro, a pediatrician, gives a strong recommendation for breastfeeding, but notes that she “insists upon” organic formula for babies who are not being breastfed. Why?
As Dr. Perro explains, non-organic formula contains herbicides, products that are toxic to plants. One frequently-used herbicide, glyphosate (GLI-fo-sate), has toxic effects and is detrimental to infant development in two ways:
- Exposure to glyphosate impairs the baby’s immature liver function, changing important enzymes and immune function. Hence the amount of “friendly” bacteria in the baby’s gut decreases, which leaves the baby’s gut to be occupied with “enemy” bacteria.
- The baby’s liver does not mature until about 2 years old. Although she does not for a moment imply cause and effect, she does note that the pesticides in formula may be in some way related to an alarming increase in childhood disorders, including allergies, autoimmunity, and neurological disorders, including autism and ADHD.
Should we wait for logic and studies to “prove” such a relationship, or should we just look right now at the labels of our formula bottles and, feeling disgusted at the known contaminants, choose the best we can?
The first two ingredients you’ll probably see in this staple of “baby nutrition” are corn syrup and sugar. Are you horrified? Did you think that in today’s world we would have moved beyond corn syrup and sugar as a source of “nutrition” for our babies? Are you outraged? Do you feel like the baby is being fed pecan pie filling without the pecans? But that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Corn syrup and sugar are worse than you think. These have a high degree of genetic modification. Allow me to explain what that means. The NonGMO Project defines genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) as “plants or animals that have been genetically engineered with DNA from bacteria, viruses or other plants and animals.” Eewwwww! Are you as repulsed as I am by the idea of genetically-engineered DNA from bacteria, viruses, or other plants and animals going into a newborn’s body? Of course you are. Anyone would be—anyone, apparently, except the majority of Americans.
As the NonGMO Project explains, “[m]ost developed nations do not consider GMOs to be safe. In more than 60 countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Union, there are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production and sale of GMOs.”
Let’s think about this. We are allowing the youngest members of our society to be exposed to this wretched stuff from the day they are born. At the same time, we worry that we should not make mothers “feel guilty” for feeding their babies with formula.
Maybe we should feel guilty for ever letting this pesticide-laden stuff go into what is, for all too many babies, their sole source of nutrition. And I, for one, should stop laughing at the idea of organic formula.