Infant Formula, Heavy Metals, & Operation Stork Speed

Cutting through the fear-based narratives to focus on facts, science, and real solutions

---

Hi - this newsletter is free to read, but a paid subscription helps to support my work. If you find it helpful, please consider upgrading to become a paid subscriber. Thanks for being here.

---

On Tuesday, two major announcements dropped:

1. Consumer Reports released an investigation finding concerning levels of contaminants in some infant formulas.

2. HHS and the FDA announced "Operation Stork Speed," a new initiative to strengthen oversight of the formula industry, increase testing for contaminants, and update infant formula regulations for the first time since 1998.

Since then, my inbox has been flooded with messages from anxious new parents, worried about what this means for their babies. And unfortunately, the Make America Healthy Again crowd and online wellness influencers are, unsurprisingly, exploiting this moment to push misleading, fear-driven narratives about formula ingredients and safety.

Nuance seems to be hard for them. But new parents deserve accurate information. Not fear-based, sensationalized content designed to perform well on social media while leaving parents, already in a vulnerable life stage, terrified.

So, here’s what’s actually happening: what the Consumer Reports findings mean, why the HHS initiative could be a step in the right direction, and how misinformation is making parents more scared than they need to be.

Let’s put it all into context.

What Did Consumer Reports Find?

Consumer Reports tested 41 types of powdered formula from major brands like Similac, Enfamil, Bobbie, Kirkland, and others, checking for heavy metals (arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury), BPA, acrylamide, and PFAS.

Here’s what they found:

✅ Good News

Many of the most widely used formulas tested in the Top Choices category, meaning they had low or no detectable levels of all contaminants. This includes Enfamil NeuroPro, Enfamil Gentlease, Similac Advance, Kirkland ProCare, Bobbie Organic, and 15 other options.

An additional 10 infant formulas, including ByHeart Whole Nutrition, Kendamil Organic, Similac 360 Total Care, and Neocate Hypoallergenic, tested at low or no detectable levels for all contaminants except lead. Importantly, the lead levels found in all formulas tested ranged from 1.2 ppb to 4.2 ppb.

The FDA, under the Biden administration, launched the Closer to Zero initiative to reduce exposure to toxic elements like lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury in foods consumed by infants and young children. While infant formula is not explicitly included in those categories, the action levels for lead in baby food are set at 10 ppb or 20 ppb, depending on the type of food.

Additionally, the EU sets an actionable limit of 20 ppb of lead in infant formula.

All of the lead levels detected in these formulas were significantly lower than both the Closer to Zero action levels and the EU standard, despite Consumer Reports flagging them as “levels nearing daily limits.”

It’s also important to understand why the initiative is called Closer to Zero, and not Zero. Lead is a naturally occurring element that is pervasive in the environment, making it difficult, if not impossible, to completely eliminate from food and water. Studies have consistently found lead in breast milk, with a global review of 75 studies showing that lead was present in nearly all samples tested, reaching as high as 1,515 ppb in some regions.

If we acknowledge that the lead levels found in these formula samples were well below the Closer to Zero action levels, then 31 out of the 41 formulas tested contained no concerning levels of any of the contaminants examined.

⚠️ Formulas in the “worse choices” category.

Ten infant formulas were placed in the 'Worse Choices' category, with nine out of ten flagged specifically for their levels of inorganic arsenic. However, for all other contaminants, including lead, levels were either undetectable or well below the Closer to Zero and EU standards for infant formula.

Arsenic is a naturally occurring element in the earth’s crust that leaches into groundwater, soil, and crops. It is also introduced into the environment through industrial pollution, fracking, and pesticide manufacturing. Inorganic arsenic, specifically, is classified as a known human carcinogen, linked to cancers of the lung, skin, bladder, kidney, and liver.

Because arsenic is so widespread in the environment, it is found in drinking water, rice, seafood, and even breast milk. For example, a recent study in Spain found 97.1% of breast milk samples contained arsenic, with a median level of 1.49 ppb.

While there are no established federal limits for arsenic in infant formula, the EPA sets a maximum contaminant level of 10 ppb for municipal drinking water, and the FDA applies the same standard to bottled water, often used as a safety benchmark in food.

For a direct benchmark, the EU allows up to 20 ppb of inorganic arsenic in powdered infant formula. And none of the U.S. formulas tested exceeded that limit.

The two formulas with the highest arsenic levels were:

• Abbott’s EleCare Hypoallergenic – 19.7 ppb of inorganic arsenic

• Similac Alimentum – 15.1 ppb of inorganic arsenic

All others detected were below 10 ppb.

Experts consulted in the Consumer Reports investigation agreed that these levels should ideally be lower, but it’s important to emphasize that they all tested below the EU standard for infant formula, and they do not mean formula is unsafe or toxic.

Enfamil Nutramigen

Out of the 41 formulas tested, only one, Enfamil Nutramigen, tested positive for BPA and acrylamide.

Nutramigen is a hypoallergenic formula designed for babies with cow’s milk protein allergy (CMPA). Unlike standard formulas, it contains extensively hydrolyzed proteins, meaning the proteins are broken down into smaller pieces that are less likely to trigger an allergic reaction.

This could be improved, particularly because 40/41 infant formulas tested, were found to not contain BPA or acrylamide, demonstrating that it’s very possible to remove them, which should be a priority in infant formula.

For comparison, the EU bans BPA in food contact materials and sets a safety benchmark of 40 µg/kg for acrylamide in infant foods. The amount found in Nutramigen was 19 µg/kg, meaning less than half of the EU benchmark for infant food.

Also important to mention, Mead Johnson, the manufacturer of Nutramigen, disputed Consumer Reports' findings, stating:

[The report] “contradicts hundreds of results from several years of testing done on both raw materials and finished products by Mead Johnson’s food safety experts under a food safety program specifically tailored to infant formula.”

❌ Influencer’s False Claims

Some influencers and media outlets are misrepresenting these findings, using the report to claim that "U.S. formula is poisoned" or "toxic." That is not what the data actually shows.

None of the formulas tested exceeded EU limits for any contaminant, except for the detection of BPA in one product.

More than half of the formulas tested contained low or no detectable levels of contaminants.

And even the formulas that did contain lead or inorganic arsenic tested below the action levels set by the FDA’s Closer to Zero initiative for lead and below the EU’s actionable level for inorganic arsenic.

Given how often the EU is cited as the “gold standard” for food safety, it’s actually surprising and encouraging that every U.S. formula tested met or exceeded those standards.

Ultimately, heavy metals are an unfortunate reality across the entire food supply and are found everywhere, including breast milk. But let’s ask an important question: Why are these contaminants so pervasive in the first place? And more importantly, what actually needs to be done to reduce them? Because when you look at the root causes, the hypocrisy is wild.

Where Are These Contaminants Coming From?

Heavy metals, like lead and arsenic, enter the food supply from both natural sources, like soil and groundwater, and human activities, including industrial pollution, fracking, mining, and water contamination.

For example, arsenic is a naturally occurring element found in rocks and soil, which means it naturally leaches into groundwater. This is why rice, which is grown in flooded fields, tends to absorb more arsenic than other crops. However, human activities have significantly increased arsenic contamination. Industrial processes such as mining, pesticide use, and fracking release arsenic into the environment, where it then contaminates water, soil, and food crops.

Similarly, lead exists in the Earth’s crust, but its primary threat comes from human activity. Lead-based gasoline, leaded paint, coal-burning power plants, industrial waste, and contaminated water pipes have all contributed to widespread environmental lead pollution.

So, the best way to target the root cause of heavy metal contamination and reduce exposure in our food and water is through strong environmental regulations.

And yet, the Trump administration is actively working to dismantle the very safeguards that protect our air, water, and food from dangerous pollutants.

Just last week, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced what he called “the greatest day of deregulation in U.S. history”, rolling back critical environmental protections under the banner of reducing costs for American businesses and energy independence. Among the 31 actions announced, the administration is:

• Rolling back regulations on power plants, oil and gas production, and coal-fired power plants, which are all major sources of heavy metal pollution, including lead, arsenic, and mercury.

• Reconsidering the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which were specifically designed to reduce mercury and other toxic emissions from coal plants, one of the largest industrial sources of arsenic and lead contamination in the environment.

• Weakening national air quality standards for particulate matter (PM 2.5), a move that will increase industrial pollution that contributes to soil and water contamination.

• Cutting regulations on wastewater disposal from oil and gas operations, despite the fact that fracking has been shown to release arsenic and other toxic heavy metals into groundwater supplies.

At the same time, the administration is proposing to eliminate the EPA’s entire scientific research division, which provides the critical data that supports public health regulations. And President Trump has doubled down on his promise to “drill, baby, drill,” a policy that will increase pollution, weaken environmental protections, and expose more Americans to harmful contaminants.

And this is where the hypocrisy becomes impossible to ignore. I fully support reviewing and updating nutrient requirements in infant formula and setting regulations on heavy metals and contaminants. But if we genuinely care about protecting children from toxic exposure, we cannot ignore the bigger issue: environmental pollution and deregulation, which the current administration is loudly and proudly making worse.

Misinformation About Formula Ingredients

Let’s briefly go over a few of the other claims I am seeing from some of these posts on social media.

“Seed Oils”

Many wellness accounts claim U.S. formulas are bad because they contain "inflammatory seed oils" like sunflower, safflower, or soybean oil.

When in reality, every infant formula around the world, including European formulas, contains “seed oils.” Literally all of them. Because their fatty acid composition helps mimic the natural fat profile of breast milk, which is significantly higher in polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) than cow’s milk.

Fatty acids are essential in infant nutrition. Breast milk naturally contains high levels of palmitic acid, oleic acid, linoleic acid, and alpha-linolenic acid, all of which play a crucial role in brain development, growth, and overall health. And cow’s milk, which is often the base for infant formula, has a very different fatty acid profile than breast milk.

This is where vegetable oils, along with coconut oil and other fat sources, come in. They help balance the fat composition of formula to be as close as possible to breast milk. This isn’t some U.S.-specific decision. It’s a science-based approach used in formulas globally.

The idea that seed oils should be removed from formula has no scientific basis. It’s just another wellness industry talking point designed to create fear and distrust, with zero regard for actual infant health.

Corn Syrup

This might be the most misunderstood aspect of infant formula.

I need to make something very clear. Every major formula manufacturer in the U.S. offers a standard infant formula that is milk-based and uses lactose as the primary carbohydrate, with no other forms of sugar.

Some of the more popular ones include Enfamil NeuroPro, Enfamil Enspire, Enfamil Infant, Similac Advance, Similac 360 Total Care, Similac Pro-Advance, Similac Pure Bliss, Bobbie Organic, Bobbie Gentle Organic, Kirkland Signature ProCare, Happy Baby Organic, Earth’s Best Organic, ByHeart, and Aptamil.

Corn syrup is only used in formulas where lactose needs to be reduced or eliminated. For example, in formulas designed for babies with cow’s milk protein allergy, galactosemia, or other medical needs.

Let’s break this down.

Breast milk naturally contains lactose, which is made up of two sugars: glucose and galactose. In a standard formula, lactose is used as the carbohydrate source to mimic breast milk. But if a baby cannot tolerate lactose or needs a formula free of cow’s milk, lactose has to be replaced with another carbohydrate.

So what are the options? Fructose isn’t well tolerated in infants, and galactose comes from milk (which these babies can’t have), leaving just one alternative: glucose.

Corn syrup is simply a source of glucose. Unlike high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which contains fructose, corn syrup used in infant formula is 100% glucose, a sugar that is already naturally present in breast milk.

So, should parents start with a lactose-based formula when possible? Yes! But corn syrup is just a glucose source, and for some babies, it’s the best or only option.

That said, the way "gentle" and reduced-lactose formulas are marketed is a real issue, in my opinion. Many parents automatically choose them without realizing that a standard lactose-based formula is likely the better starting point unless their baby has a true medical need. A better approach would be clearer education for parents about when these specialty formulas are actually necessary, rather than encouraging them as the default.

Operation Stork Speed

In response to the Consumer Reports investigation, the FDA and HHS announced Operation Stork Speed, an initiative to enhance infant formula safety, increase testing for contaminants, and update outdated regulations.

The FDA’s plan includes:

✅ Conducting the first comprehensive review of infant formula nutrients since 1998
✅ Increasing testing for heavy metals in infant formula and other baby foods
✅ Encouraging innovation to bring better formulas to market
✅ Improving transparency around formula ingredients and labeling

If I just focus on what the FDA wrote here and not on the social media interpretation, these are all positive steps, and I fully support this review. Infant formula is one of the most tightly regulated foods in the U.S., but it’s been over 25 years since the last comprehensive nutrient review. It’s time.

That said, this conversation should be driven by scientific research, and not influencer hysteria.

I’ve seen many posts using this announcement as an opportunity to push misleading narratives about infant formula being "toxic" and full of harmful ingredients. The most common claims are that “inflammatory seed oils” and “added sugar” should be eliminated. These claims are not based on science, but instead, on wellness industry pseudoscience.

This review presents an opportunity for real, evidence-based updates to improve formula. Like potentially adjusting iron levels, setting requirements for DHA and ARA fatty acids, and establishing enforceable regulations for heavy metals.

These are the kinds of science-backed updates that could actually improve infant nutrition. What we don’t need is another round of fear-driven misinformation making parents more anxious than they need to be.

My hope is that the FDA consults with pediatric nutrition experts and formulates these updates based on real data, not social media trends.

Final Thoughts

Here’s what parents should take away:

✔ The majority of U.S. formulas, including some of the most popular ones, tested at the lowest levels of contaminants.
✔ Heavy metals are an environmental issue, not just a formula issue.
✔ Misinformation about "seed oils" and "corn syrup" is distracting from real formula safety improvements.
✔ The real way to protect infant health is through strong environmental regulations, not deregulation that increases contamination.

If you see scary posts about formula, ask for sources, demand context, and don’t let influencer fear-mongering shake your confidence in feeding your baby.

Formula is safe. Regulation is improving. And if we truly care about infant health, we need to focus on reducing environmental contaminants at their source.