Except that grains are supposed to be the largest part of your diet?

Why? what do we know about the source of this brown rice syrup? Grains are the most basic nutritional material.

If anything, this article tells us to stay away from "organic" food. Not only are you paying more for a lable that says "Organic" but you are getting more arsenic. Sounds like a horrible deal to me.

Also, I wouldn't stay away from grains. Like many other animals in the world, grass in one form or another is the biggest portion of our diet. Anybody who thinks grains aren't grass needs to also look up the history of grains. Like corn? You are eating grass seeds.

Grains? This just goes to show that "organic" and "all-natural" are nothing but happy, warm fuzzy feeling buzzwords that are used by marketing companies to sell products at a higher price to people.

Think about it, just because it is natural, it doesn't mean that it is good for you. Arsenic is natural, strychnine is natural, aflotoxin is natural, pretty much all of the neurotoxins you can think of or name are natural, and yes even deadly radioactive substances like uranium are natural. Scientists didn't magically create chemicals and toxic compounds out of nothing in their laboratories. They were found in nature first.

Remember this: A chemical is a chemical whether it is found in nature or distilled in a laboratory.

The fact that they found a poisonous substance in something that's "organic" really doesn't surprise me, and it only confirms my suspicions as to how much of an advertising ploy "organic" really is. Honestly, I've been waiting for boll weevil eegs, or some insect like that, to hatch like crazy in all of the "organic" products across the nation like the Horseman of Pestilince just rode into town.

People who buy into the "natural" food claims, believing that natural foods are better for you than mainstream products, sometimes forget that even arsenic is NATURAL... but that doesn't make it good for you - especially inorganic arsenic.

"In the United States, neither the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) nor the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has rules for what constitutes “natural." The FDA explicitly discourages the food industry from using the term." In other words, slapping the term "natural" on a food or drink product means NOTHING.

Americans need to get more scientifically educated about food label claims and nutrition. Too many make claims about certain foods that are not supported in the scientific peer-reviewed literature.

More recently, I have been seeing overweight people claiming that preservatives, additives, "toxins," and food processing methods is what's causing Americans increasingly fat society or causing ADHD/autism. There is absolutely no truth supporting those beliefs; in the great majority of cases, these fatties are simply ingesting way too many calories and engage in too little exercise.

Do the best you can for yourself and your family by buying a variety of fresh fruit & vegetables, washing them thoroughly, and preparing them minimally. As for grains, choose those packaged by major American companies, store them properly, and keep them in their whole grain state.

Beware that even products labeled "organic" can contain levels of "natural" toxins that can be harmful when ingested in large amounts or when eaten by infants, the elderly, or those with immune system problems.

Actually ttmadison, that's not correct. While they do not define "natural," they do define "organic."

. Personally, I couldn't care less either way. I buy what I buy, when I want to buy, not because of what it says in it, but because I like it, and/or want it.

I agree with your statement about obesity. The problem is no personal responsibility, and the far less common cases of medical conditions. I also wholly agree with your "do the best you can" statement. In the end, we are responsible for ourselves, and getting in a mind set that someone will do it for us, is completely ridiculous. The entire world has become too interdependant on "regulate this, don't allow that." I think it's a bunch of BS. A large portion of the worlds population wants to blame someone, or something else for their shortcomings. If everyone wants to know who/what the problem is, then we all need to go find a tall mirror, and stare at it for an extended period of time. Then, and only then, will we all know the root cause of the major problems in the world...

hmmmm, the link isn't showing. Anyhow, there was a link to the FDA-USDA page that showed that there isn't a definition of natural, but there is one of organic.

Rice plants simply concentrate arsenic within its seeds. Arsenic is found naturally in the environment. Foods labelled "organic" have stopped using corn syrup for the healthier sounding brown rice syrup. However, there is very little data comparing the health benefits/detriments of these two sugars. I would suspect that either corn or rice syrup are both pretty similar, just that organic minded consumers have been swayed by negative publicity of corn syrup.

This doesn't mean that organic foods are less healthy or a bad idea, it just means that rice has naturally high arsenic levels and maybe that's not the best cornerstone of a baby's diet.

If you grow rice in soil which has a high content of natural arsenic it will also have a high arsenic content: http://www.eco-usa.net/toxics/chemicals/arsenic.shtml

Considering all the crap that gets into "regular" food (melamine, anyone?), I'll still take organic wherever I can. I'll just avoid products with rice syrup.

For anyone who believes that grains, including whole grains, are healthy for humans. I suggest you do web search for "are grains really healthy?" and start reading. Grains are not healthy and are in fact a part of many of the health issues facing adults in the US.

Simple fact - too much of anything is bad for you.

Another fact - all good things also come with downsides.

We can argue about which sugar provides a healthier dose of energy, better mix of carbs, etc., But too much of any sugar in the diet is bad for you. Here is a case where the slightly more complex rice sugar comes with increased arsenic intake. Also the rice sugar is probably less sweet, given its composition, than corn syrup and likely is used at higher doses in foods leading to more sugar overall in the diet.

Eat what you want. Eat with variety. Don't eat more than you need. Exercise. Simple.

The issue is not grains. Quite recently, there was a big buzz over fruit juice that contained unusually high levels of arsenic. The debate was whether organic arsenic is safer than inorganic, the industry taking the position that only one type of arsenic does any harm, and Dr. Oz taking the position that there's no appreciable difference between the two. I think if the FDA would set a safety limit, we would soon find that there are other foods out there that store arsenic. Perhaps it's best to minimize PROCESSED foods in general, since the processing tends to concentrate ingredients. The term "organic" in this context has little meaning, as we're not being told what the arsenic level of not-organic brown rice syrup might be. The same?

The only organic food really out there is the food you grow yourself... all the rest is a market scam.

Avoid grains? Why you myopic little....

Hey, here's an idea...how about have those people that you elected to office do their job and find out why we caught this after the fact and it wasn't monitored better?

You did vote, right? No...sadly...you probably did not.

Your myopic world view is what guides you. Short-sided, knee-jerk reactions. Being responsible is just too much work. Better to let "everyone else" worry about it.

Only problem is...everyone else is relying on everyone else.

@flbikerchick, "Organic" is just a marketing ploy. You should look at the requirements for "organic." You might be surprised.

The whole organic/natural food industry is largely a marketing campaign with little to no differences in the foods over regular products what-so-ever. People would be shocked to learn what is used as fertilizer for their organic produce. Many use composted material for fertilizer that they do not properly compost or raw manure, leading to a greater risk of the produce being contaminated with harmful bacteria.

As for the whole issue about high fructose corn syrup, it is a disinformation campaign. The body does not recognize any difference between high fructose corn syrup, brown rice syrup, beet sugar, or cane sugar. All are sugars that the body recognizes as such and processes the same way. The only difference is in raw sugar versus refined sugar. Raw sugar, although still processed to some degree, retains more of the other minerals found in the source plant that are good for the body than the heavily processed refined table sugar we are all used to. Also, the heavily refined sugar will contain some of the chemicals used to process it that may be harmful to the body. Aside from this, there is really no difference to the body whether you use high fructose corn syrup, brown rice syrup, beet sugar, or cane sugar. The only thing to try and avoid is the heavily processed white table sugar and use a raw sugar instead. Beware, do not confuse brown sugar with raw sugar. While raw sugar is brown in color, not all brown sugar is raw, some is refined sugar with molasses added.

I buy organic food from a local farmer I know very well. He is absolutely religious when it comes to growing things in an organic way and the food is awesome in taste and quality, well worth paying a little more for it. Lots of great food can be bought at a local farmer's market. Check it out people. Support your local farmers, organic or not.

Speaking of natural: I am diabetic. I use Splenda to sweeten my coffee. Some years ago, while I was at a social function, I fixed myself a cup of coffee and used an artificial sweetener. A woman observed me and suggested that I use honey instead in my coffee, as it was "natural." She already knew that I was diabetic. My comment was that honey was still a sugar, and that I was still diabetic. Natural or not, it was still bad for me. She couldn't, or wouldn't, understand. The point is that "natural" only means that it occurs in nature; it can still be bad for you - as in poison.

I'll take something natural that occurs in nature over something created in a lab anyday.

this is good news...eating granola bars for lunch gave me suicidal thoughts

I'm going back to eating twinkies

why not? you're gonna die anyway - might as well enjoy yourself while you're here

The only ORGANIC baby food comes from your titties.

Why does infant formula need to contain a substitute for high fructose corn syrup? Why does infant formula need to be sweetened at all with anything???

Erica: Please reread my post. I am diabetic. Honey, sugar, et al. are natural. But to me, they are poison. They can kill me. And no, I didn't get diabetes from over indulging. No. I got it from Agent Orange. So, let's not have any nasty posts about my eating hbits. I do, however, expect nasty posts for having the temerity to be a Viet Nam combat vereran.

One word: breastfeed.

After reading the article, I have to admit that there is nothing in there which would compel one to reach any conclusion other than it's one more thing that they know nothing about. We've been through this a thousand times. Something's bad for you. Something's good for you. No wait, something is bad for you. Well, we don't really know whether it is bad or not, but we had to scare the bejesus out of you so we could get our 15 minutes of fame.

Grains have nearly no nutritional value, I've omitted them from my diet entirely. Farmers feed farm animals grains to fatten them up, that's the last thing most Americans need. Furthermore people, if grains are so nutritious why oh why are most grain products fortified with minerals & vitamins? Yes they provide fiber but it is undigestible & most grains we eat are so processed they are actually toxic for us. We can get all the fiber we need from veggies & think about it, green beans don't need to be fortified do they?

I'd like to actually hear one good reason why grains are good for us other than "But grains are good for us!" That isn't a reason. Seriously, if the government knew what they were talking about, we wouldn't all be fat and sick.

They have fiber and minerals. Is that it? What's to stop me from simply eating vegetables instead? They too contain fiber and are far more dense in minerals and contain far less sugar. Not to mention all the extra stuff added through processing grains. Quite frankly, vegetables taste better and don't contain lectins, gluten, and phytates. Look 'em up, they aren't pretty. Grains mess up my digestive system and make me bloat. No thanks.

Not exactly related to the article however. What gets me is why they'd bother replacing HFCS with this rice stuff. Sugar is sugar is sugar. Why are you feeding it to your baby and yourself?

Fred - I dont debate your diabetic reality.

But I do debate the notion that using splenda is "healthier" for you simply because it doesnt affect your diabetes.

it attacks your neurology instead.

and I cant imagine agent orange was too kind to your neurosystem either...

*edited to add, perhaps cutting the coffee out all together is the best option for your health, if your health is what you're most concerned about.

just a thought

not a word on the source of brown rice syrup/. Not a word on if the gubmint is going to track it down and report!

My first Dr. (who lived to the ripe old age of 96) said you could feed people horse manure if you told them it was healthier for them, or help them lose weight. The problem here, is an old one. Health foods and supplements aren't well regulated, so producers get away with a lot of unethical practices.
I don't those health or energy bars because I'm Diabetic and they contain a truckload of sugar. The peddlers of that stuff will say, "Oh, the sugar comes from honey of rare, asian bees and won't spike your blood sugar!" Diabetics and Endocrinologists all know, glucose is glucose, regardless of the source.
There are lots of better ways to get grains than eating syrupy, high sugar bars and feeding your infant organic formula and food, potentially laced with Arsenic. Buy your own grain and prepare it. If you don't want your baby eating commercially made foods, make your own from safe, reliable sources.
The suspect items mentioned here, are over-priced anyway.
Bye for now. I'm going to go cook up some Quinoa!

JD in SD

You don't know what you are talking about when it come to organic food and not much about how the body processes sugars. The body processes long chain sugars differently than short chain sugars.

I would much rather eat brown rice syrup with a little arsenic in it than high fructose corn syrup. If you want to avoid arsenic then you need to quit drinking apple juice and some other juices. which have much more arsenic. There are traces of arsenic in many of the foods we eat. It occurs naturally and is a component of most soils in the US.

Wolf - grains have always been part of human diet, starting with wild grains over a million years ago. To say that grains have 'almost' no nutritional value is laughable, as they contain starches, protein, fat, as well as minerals and micro nutrients. You can live on grains alone for a long time - millions of people in the world do exactly that. Many Native American tribes subsisted mostly on corn.

Granted, there is a huge difference in nutritional value between white flour and home grown heirloom corn meal - but that is no reason to give up on grains.

It is hilarious to hear the "experts" on newsvine claiming how grains are so healthy and a requirement for the human body. I also wonder why it is necessary to have any sweetener in baby foods. I personally eat very limited amounts of brown rice, no corn, and absolutely keep sugars to bare minimum, the only source coming from a very limited amount of fruit and from some vegetables. I love life and am physically fit way beyond most my age and or younger. If you can afford to buy organic grass fed meat, eggs, & vegetables from a reputable farmer in your area it would be well worth the health benefits. You can co-op with friends, neighbors, or others in your area to help keep costs down. Get involved in a sporting ativity, swimming,running, cross-fit, lift weights, hike, or bike, etc. and start living a happier, healthier life..Guaranteed!

"Organic" is just a marketing ploy. You should look at the requirements for "organic." You might be surprised.

Nope. I do my research before I buy. Also buy local produce/meats/dairy whenever possible at the farmers' markets from people whose products can be verified as truly organic.

The arsenic found in these foods is inorganic arsenic, which is a persistent element. The fact that organic farming methods are used means that the farmers aren't spraying their crops with persistent pesticides (which include arsenic, pyrethrins, and numerous other cancerous agents made from petroleum), hebicides (like atrazine, round-up, etc.), fertilizers (ammonium hydride, made from petroleum), or using genetically modified plants which can accept large doses of particularly dangerous herbicides and pesticides made by the companies (DOW, Monstanto, etc.) which modify the organisms. So, arsenic is found, but most likely is due to arsenic atmospheric deposition from coal plants, fossil fuel refineries, other non-organic farms nearby...or transport through the groundwater used to irrigate these plants.

The problem is that even if you buy organic, there is so much crap from non-organic practices in this country that some carcinogens are going to appear in the food.

Does this mean that buying organic is a waste of time? Hell No!. You may find residuals of pesticides and herbicides from the aforementioned sources in organic food, but either way, there will be far less dangerous chemicals in these crops than in the same non-organically grown products, in almost all cases.

As said in the article, the reason why the brown rice syrup and soy based formulas contained so much arsenic is because of the plants' natural tendency to soak up this element. Regardless, organic in general is still more safe to consume than inorganic products...and at the very least, at least these products/animals aren't given genetically modified, given hormones, antibiotics, corn feed, and aren't doused with preservatives (known carcinogens).

Buy organic now and save on your medical bills in the future...also, save the earth from man-made chemicals while you are at it.

Think about it this way...before the early 20th century...everything eaten was organic and people didn't get diabetes, heart disease, neurological disorders, or cancer at the age of 7.

Alex: Yup. Good points.

"But I do debate the notion that using splenda is "healthier" for you simply because it doesnt affect your diabetes.

it attacks your neurology instead."

This post right here is what's wrong with America. "It attacks your neurology"

1) That statement is meaningless. You can't attack a medical specialty. Red flag right there... if even the terminology isn't understood, I doubt there's much science behind the rest of the claim.

2) There's ZERO actual (peer-reviewed clinical) evidence to back up any claim that sucralose is neurotoxic at the levels we ingest it at.

Aspartame artificial sweetener is proven to cause neurological symptoms in those who consume it and are unable to process phenylalanine, in addition to other symptoms. I think that's what they were referring to in part, Ncanon.

Read the ingrediants. If it has brown rice syrup, maybe you shouldn't buy it.

They need to STOP the use of "organic brown rice syrup" all together. Asian country's use of rice, and natural good health, proves that rice is not the problem. The making of organic brown rice syrup, apparently concentrates the natural arsenic from in the rice.

This article is very generic, it does not distinguish or indicate where this rice is coming from and because the US imports it from everywhere the FDA should be narrowing it down. It may well be that rice paddies only in certain areas are the problem and should be dealt with accordingly rather than raising a general alarm, scarring everyone unnessesarily. It shouldn't take genius to ask the companies that make brown rice syrup who their suppliers are and track down the sources.

They are trying to shut off organic farmers and make people believe the healthiest food is from genetically,over processed, pesticide laden food! But then about 2 weeks ago, there was an article here that stated eating organic was best for you! So what do we do? Not eat anything??

No Carrie, they are simply presenting the reality that organic label claims are unverified and small scale producers rarely have the budget to impurity test their organic-labeled products. The pro-organic + anti-GMO marketing has been so effective that misconceptions abound, such as the idea that "organic is always better for you." This article simply demonstrates that is not the case. The average American does not have a strong enough foundation in life science to even understand both sides of the coin.

Food is food. A GM ear of corn is substantially equivalent to a wildtype ear of corn. In fact, it takes less pesticide to grow many GM crops as compared to growing wildtype. This is because certain genes are expressed in the roots, sometime the stalks of plants, prior to the end food product developing. Those genes are simply not expressed in the final foodstuff, so there is no way you can become allergic or catch ADHD or get fatter (or whatever people claim) from metabolites that aren't even there.

Any food item (GM or wild) can be processed, so I'm not sure why you bring that up. Eat all foods in moderation, exercise regularly, and you'll be ok.

Carrie, no sense in being reactionary. Just make a decision and go with it, the rest of the world can do waht it wants.

I choose not to go organic or all natural because it is largely a marketing ploy to sell foods that are no more or less nutritious than the ones you buy in the regular supermarket at increased price. A vitamin is a vitamin whether the potato you're eating is "organic" or genetically modified. Besides, with over 7 billion people in the world, "organic" crops are unsustainable in the long run. GM crops are the only thing that can keep up with our ever growing population.

But, hey, if you want to go organic and can afford it on your budget, then forget my take on the subject and just do it. I doubt that it will really hurt anything. You eat "organic", I'll eat GM, we both respect each other's decision to do so, and we'll all be happy.

The big thing with GMO's is labeling so people can choose for themselves. also it is invasive crops destroying crops of those who don't choose to. I hear you on the Organics as marketing ploy as many of the "organic" companies are just subsidiaries of big food companies. Local and regional farms is the best way to go. The transportation cost are down and you have better ways to research and confirm what those farmers do to the land, if they hire illegals, how do they use water. Organic form a reputable source is still more expensive but that gaps is shrinking. they also usually tend to be small operations and not getting farm subsidies ( which we also pay for through taxes). Best bet read the labels see what in the food you buy and where it is shipped from. Organic farms that are established grow better then conventional farms because they establish healthy soils that is not chemically laden. but it does take time to make the soil improvements it doesn't happen over night.

Why does infant formula need to contain a substitute for high fructose corn syrup? Why does infant formula need to be sweetened at all with anything???

Um, because they need to sub something for the sugars naturally found in human milk. Despite all the anti-sugar hoopla, we do need carbohydrates to survive no matter our age. That doesn't mean you need refined sugar though!

That doesn't mean the ingredients you used were any safer.

look up the word "Profit" in the dictionary, that may help you understand

For the same reason that you don't "hire individuals who specialize in finding "poisons" in our foods".

It cost money

They do test for these things, and I've personally done some of that testing. The bigger companies test more than the smaller companies since they have more money and have more to lose if they are sued. They also start industry sponsored scientific groups that develop methods to test for contaminates. One problem is that a segment of Organic producers are small companies that don't have the money for the extensive contaminates testing.

I worry about arsenic because that element is prone to many false positives, like in the apple juice studies. The problem also becomes that people get a "no safe amount" mindset, while our modern testing instruments can determine levels of arsenic that are far below anything that could hurt you. Just because something is detectable by the most advanced instrument in the world doesn't mean it is at a level that is harmful. Articles like this are written to cause alarm and get people to read them. Try going to Pakistan where the arsenic levels in their well water can be 500x higher than the levels here.

LOL! Yes, because the free market works so well in economics, we should let the free market decide how much arsenic we should be able to consume!

I do find it humorous that there's probably a person who argued for allowing more arsenic in our foods. Like come on..."one more part per million won't kill anyone and it'll improve our profit margin!"

Peanut butter has bug parts in it. The FDA allows so many parts per oz. Everything has its healthy and it's nasty and it's unhealthy.

Arghh!!!! Damn you profits! rabble rabble

They do test, and compare to risk based standards. This article is a bit sad in that it compares baby food levels, to drinking water. The drinking water standard is developed assuming 2-3 liters per day of uptake, for 65 years of life. Anybody here think a baby is going to eat two to three liters per day, for 65 years.

And yes...naturally occuring minerals end up in food grow from dirt..shocking as it is. Anyone that thinks zero (metal content) exists in produce is simply fooling themselves. In fact (google it, I think you will find ), one of hte down sides to organic food is it can tend to bioaccumulate metals.

Just saying, zero risk doesn't exist, that doesn't mean it is a significant risk...and the media plays us like a drum on such issues.

Actually, you are confusing "they CAN test" with "they do test." I also worked for a CRO that performed impurity testing, and I currently work at a veterinary lab where one of our services tests beef for hormone and antibiotics. Believe me, it is a tough market segment because many small scale producers choose not impurity test. Farming already brings slim profit margins and the producer is not held to any compliance system. There is no requirement for a certified organic producer to test impurities in their product or verify a label claim, other than signing an affidavit that they followed a USDA approved protocol. Really and truly, as most people point out above me, "organic" label claims are nothing more than marketing tactics to fetch premiums.

It sounds to me like the problem is rice containing arsenic, not that the food item is certified organic.

How about non-organic certified foods that contain brown rice syrup? Do they have arsenic too? If not, why would only foods certified organic have arsenic and not the same food item made with non-certified organic ingredients?

The headline of this article makes it sound like being certified organic is the problem. Certified organic tobacco still contains nicotine and will cause cancer. You just might not get as many chemicals along with the nicotine.

with all due respect its not the nicotine that causes cancer, its the other things in tobacco. Nicotine itself is a potent neurotoxin, but there are also some benefits concerning nicotine, im not saying nicotine is safe. nicotine has been demonized. they are studying nicotine as a possible cure for cancer. heres a link to a site to show some of what is in tobacco. However looking over your post again it doesnt look like your blaming the nicotine, sorry for the misunderstanding.

Don't worry, you are a mammal. There is a 97% chance you will never have to worry about HAVING to feed your baby anything like that. Even if you are one of the 3% of women who can't produce enough milk for their child, the good news is that the cheap formula doesn't have the arsenic. How ironic is it that the organic is not the safer choice?

I went to a Grocery Outlet here in town, and found some organic canned veggies, FROM CHINA! YIKES!! So buyer beware! I DO like organic meats,cheeses and fruits/veggies, I think they taste better and I DON'T like eating herbicides and pesticides. Just stay away from this brown rice syrup, read the label. But I do wonder if the majority of the syrup comes from rice in China or Thailand, where there is alot of arsenic and chemicals in the ground over there?

I would NEVER trust anything labeled "Organic" coming from another country. Asian countries are notorious for using truly toxic ingredients in food production. I don't even buy spices from these countries!

But we need to be aware if arsenic is the organic or inorganic type. Organic arsenic is a naturally occurring element that is safe for us. Inorganic is man-made, and very bad for us. A lot of juices, such as Apple Juice, has organic arsenic, and it is safe for human consumption. Dr. OZ didn't do all of his research when he assumed arsenic is always bad.

Inorganic arsenic is not man made, it's also nautrally occuring.

MC,

According to Consumer Reports:

Roughly 10 percent of our juice samples, from five brands, had total arseni levels that exceeded federal drinking-water standards. Most of that arsenic was inorganic arsenic, a known carcinogen.

From the FDA website on apple juice and arsenic:

Some scientific studies have shown that two forms of organic arsenic found in apple juice, dimethylarsinic acid (DMA) and monomethylarsinic acid (MMA), may also be a health concern, and because of this, the FDA is considering how any possible health risk from these two forms of organic arsenic should be evaluated.

Look at it this way...

With Organic food, there is a mandatory third party certification process that is quite involved and follows stringent federal laws. Violators will be fined and loose their organic certification, which takes years to acquire and a lot of money.

With conventional food, there is NO certification, NO third party anything, NO enforcement or repercussions. Basically nobody is looking out for you. In fact practically all conventional food whether processed or not is completed engulfed with chemicals that have been proven to be deadly and linked to practically every illness known to man kind.

So on one hand you have some level of protection and although it may not be perfect, you have something. On the other hand you have absolutely no protection of any kind, NADA. In fact the way things are run, its an open invite to put whatever you like in your product. The problem with conventional foods is that they don't kill you overnight, they manifest themselves in a slow horrible death over time.

Just because hair sprays and baby powders are bad doesn't mean that this is not a problem. Here's what Consumer Reports found in a juice report (Jan. 2012):

-Roughly 10 percent of our juice samples, from five brands, had total arsenic levels that exceeded federal drinking-water standards. Most of that arsenic was inorganic arsenic, a known carcinogen.

-One in four samples had lead levels higher than the FDA's bottled-water limit of 5 ppb. As with arsenic, no federal limit exists for lead in juice.

-Apple and grape juice constitute a significant source of dietary exposure to arsenic, according to our analysis of federal health data from 2003 through 2008.

-Children drink a lot of juice. Thirty-five percent of children 5 and younger drink juice in quantities exceeding pediatricians' recommendations, our poll of parents shows.

-Mounting scientific evidence suggests that chronic exposure to arsenic and lead even at levels below water standards can result in serious health problems.

-Inorganic arsenic has been detected at disturbing levels in other foods, too, which suggests that more must be done to reduce overall dietary exposure.

Is there any way to get rid or inorganic arsenic completly???

Do you know what is in the soil where those veggies grew? The soil could have a high arsenic content which gets absorbed into the food. You have no idea what you are blending.

Wry: That's why it's best to just feed babies hydroponically grown peanuts.

I make my own baby food, but I agree with Wryview--nothing is 100% and I'm not going to smug it up in holier than thou glory and act like I'm doing this huge service to my children's arsenic intake.

All these comments about homemade baby food seem a little irrelevant. The article is about baby formula, not baby food which usually isn't rice based anyway. Formula is often fed to infants from birth on, long before they can even eat food. I'm not condemning the making of your own baby food, it's just not really pertinent.

Cooked, pureed meat and veggies are not a substitute for infant formula. Totally different phase of development. And do you know what is in your meat and veggies?

The whole article is the worst kind of fluff - long on scare tactics and short on information. One study does not establish a trend or even suggest a course of action. Much more work is required. Until there are at least 5 replications of the original study, ignore this article.

I didn't flunk chemistry, so I presmue they meant crystalline oxides formed with Arsenic, or sulfuric arsenic, or really any arsenic metal combination, like in rocks.

I would expect a fellow Boilermaker to know that "organic" refers to carbon compounds.

I, too, was wondering which "industry" is trying to profit from a smear campaign against another specific food industry. Happens all the time when researchers are bought, print "findings" and get it to the main stream media. Common sense is not all so common anymore and unfortunately, our food supply is tampered with by so many people/corporations looking to turn a profit.

I stopped drinking cow milk back in the 1980s. It's one of the worst things you can ingest that isn't outright toxic - and that's even if it comes straight from the most "organic" cow ever raised on the nicest free-range pasture.

Watch the rice milk though, it has a lot of calories and if you aren't careful it can pack on the pounds too!

My 2 cents...

Humans have been consuming cow's milk (or sheep, goat, yak, etc) for thousands of years. Even today, many cultures around the world live primarily on milk and milk-based derivatives, as well as the meat from the same animals. Real, fresh, raw milk is full of nutrition and calories. Period.

But here's where it gets tricky. First of all, from a strict biological perspective, we are not supposed to be drinking the milk from another animal, as mother nature has created that particular milk to provide for the nutritional needs of the animals it comes from. Same as with human breastmilk, it is the ONLY thing that is perfect food for your newborn; it would be pointless to try to raise another animal on human milk (not that we would, anyways, really). Cow's milk is designed for the needs of calves, not humans. For example, an average human baby grows roughly 15-20 lbs in the first year of life. A calf grows upwards of 1000 lbs in the first year. So the caloric content difference alone is significant.

Second, human adults are not supposed to be drinking milk at all. Why? Well, after the first few years of life, we lose the ability to create the enzymes needed to properly break down the milk sugars (eg- lactose). Some people do not have a big problem with this, mainly caucasians and hispanics in general. Others, like africans and asians, have more problems due to the greater lack of producing these particular enzymes. If you cannot create the enzymes needed to break down the milk sugars, then your intestinal flora (the bacteria) have to do it for you, which results in the bloating, gas, diarrhea, etc that people experience from being "lactose intolerant. This is why babies in general are rarely lactose intolerant, though it does happen, but adults have a much harder time consuming these products. Lactose-intolerant individuals tend to fare better with milk derivatives, like yoghurt, kefir, and cheese because most of the sugars in these foods are already broken down by the very bacteria and yeasts that are used in the fermentation process. Some people will still have problems, of course, but we are discussing generalities here.

And then we get into the discussion of raw milk versus pasteurized and homogenized milk. Personally, I believe raw is better for you, since it contains all the good bacteria and enzymes we need to help in the digestive process. Sure, it can have some bad bacteria, but I find that has more to do with the hygenic practices used in collecting and transporting the milk than the milk itself. All milk is a live substance when it comes out of the animal. Pasteurization "kills" the milk and can actually create a problem where some people are prone to allergic reactions and such after consuming it because the milk does not contain the live enzymes needed to break down the long-chain sugars and proteins, which are inflammatory to our sensitive mucosal membranes.

So what is the answer, then? Is milk good or bad???

Well, THAT is THE question du jour. I tell my patients that if they cannot digest milk easily (and you know who you are!), then they ought to refrain from drinking milk and just sticking to the derivative products instead, or avoid it altogether. A diet void of any dairy won't harm anything, just make sure your diet in general is sound. If my patients do not have problems with digesting milk, the I advise they consume it in moderation, as well as to consume fermented products (the healthiest way to consume dairy foods that are difficult to digest!!)

As for the whole organic issue that MSNBC has, once again, managed to demonize, my answer is simple. Yes, organic is the SAFER way to go since the entire premise behind organic food is to grow or raise the food in a manner that works in tandem with mother nature's biological processes. Most conventional food is grown in a way that is the opposite: it requires inputs and practices that are not natural, and includes many unnecessary chemicals. Of course, NO FOOD IS 100% SAFE OR PURE!!!! I tell my patients that you can buy an organic cheeseburger, but that does not mean it is necessarily healthy for you! Also, even organic foods can be grown in environments where naturally-based metals and toxins are apparent. This simply requires common sense on the part of the farmer and consumer, and should not be used as a blanket statement against everything organic.

Remember, once upon a time, "organic" food was simply called: FOOD. Our ancestors, up until the 20th century, lived entirely on "organic" food. It was the only option. Now, we have the choice between growing things in a more natural manner, or growing them in chemically-laden, petroleum-based massive monocultures........

Good thing about being American, is you get to choose. Or at least for the time being.

Sorry about the long post, I hope this helps.

Bananas are not grown in the US so who knows what pesticides and insectides are in the bananas...you could be doing worse than the brown rice syrup crap.

Did you know Banana's contain a naturally occurring radioactive isotope? Humm....radiation or rat poison for my baby.

And therein lies the awesomeness of the peel.

And radiation? Really? That would be radioactive K-40 which actually is an isotope of an essential nutrient to your diet and therefore exists within Humans, naturally.

Yeah, the point. Take it all with a grain of salt. And for all you on a low sodium diet, ignore that last remark!

You failed to mention that driving is one of the most harmful things you can do...breathe in all those hydrocarbons, if you have a new car, the new car smell is nothing but chemicals , and your chances of dying in a car accident are much higher than eating a substance in our food supply.

Dont know about you but i cant stop driving....also dont you wonder why our life expectancy keeps going up even though we all this stuff that is supposed to kill us?

Hello? Dude there's 7 billion people. The average age has done nothing but increase. Do the math.

Doug is right, lifespans have remained relatively stable for hundreds of years when you exclude increased survival rates mainly due to advances in medical care and food technology. It's altogether interesting to mention that modern farming techniques are probably the very reason the population has been able to rise so rapidly.

The maximum lifespan seems to be limited by natural factors rather than damage from avoidable environmental pollutants.

See, I told you that no one would care.

If you were unaware, the dangers of using bad farming techniques such as losing diversity in crops do include things like losing the nutrition in our food, but also have other scarier risks.

The danger comes when we least expect it. The Dust Bowl was caused by bad farming techniques. With better techniques most of the really bad stuff could have been avoided. Here are some short things you can expect from not improving how we farm:

1. A lack of genetic diversity means our crops are MUCH more susceptible to disease and infestation, should something come up that the crop cannot easily defend against. This is something that does not happen often, but when it does, watch out.

2. Too much water use turns arable farmland into unusable desert. Each year thousands of acres worldwide of arable farmland turn into desert. The aquifers we get our water from (like the Ogalala aquifer) are like big underground tanks of water. They are and have been great. Just pull out water whenever you need it. The problem comes when you eventually run out. You do not see the effects now, because we have not yet depleted the large Ogalala aquifer yet. If we draw out more water than rainfall restores, as has been the case, then it is only a matter of time before it runs out. When it does, then you will likely care about the effects even though you still might or might not know exactly why.

3. There are 7 billion people and counting. There comes a point where enough desertification happens where we cannot feed everyone. I hate Monsanto, but if scientists like the ones that work there had not increased crop yield four fold over anything we had in the past, there would have already been mass starvation like you have never seen. All this cannot just continue forever.

In short, you should do the math. It is quality of life we seek, not just quantity. Eating poison and not getting enough nutrients still is okay for life, but we should try for better.

Also do the math. We have so many billions of people worldwide, first you see things like arsenic in our baby food, then you eventually will see the point were one year, there is a good mix between loss of land to desertification or lack or water to support farming and loss of crops due to extreme weather that will cause a situation where large numbers of people worldwide will slowly start to starve. As the years go on, this will only get worse.

Do you know what happens when large amounts of poor people with nothing to lose go hungry for extended periods of time? Genocide or other types of war. And still we won't care because it is not us.

Do the math. Using unsustainable farming techniques not only leads to things such as arsenic in food, but also eventually to very bad things. If you do not care about quality of life issues, then you will have more things to care about, if you wait.

We are not sustainable yet. Neither our food supply or our fuel supply is. First comes quality of life, then comes other stuff. If you do not care about the one, then you might be forced by the consequences of our actions to care about the other.

ummm...exactly how do farming techniques effect a naturally occuring contaminant in ground water? I'm all for sustainable society, but your arguement has nothing to do with this issue.

funny that you would cite the ADA as being opposed Amalgam to support your point, yet ignore the same associations support of another (Flouride) when it refutes your opinion. you seem like a have your cake and eat it too type...and your long winded...

hmmm, maybe its the preservatives in foods that preserve the lives of humans so the body lasts longer. just a mildly sarcastic though maybe possible theory.

Guest11, the arsenic in ground water issue would take a much longer discussion than I will get into now, but it is clearly related. Finding solutions to this and other problems is nothing new, and a part of finding good farming techniques. Where you get the water from , how excess rainwater is stored, and a whole load of water usage issues are part of the things that need looked at. There are a number of solutions that would reduce the amount of arsenic in food. A scholarly paper would be more of a place for that discussion though. Irregardless of that, it is unwise to dismiss knows serious issues with how we get our food. It is all related, and all largely ignored.

Also Guest11, The ADA SUPPORTS both mercury usage in amalgam fillings and fluoride usage. I disagree with both, but even if you take the ADA at their word, then the marketing of toothpaste is still way out of line in what they suggest. The pictures on the labels vs the size of the dollop of toothpaste they suggest are not nearly the same.

You do not solve problems by ignoring facts and following the status quo like a lemming. If you think I am long winded, you should see what would happen if I outlined all the problems and all the facts in a scholarly way, as if should be to more accurately show that I am accurate and not biased.