A variety of baby food products at City Market in Burlington. Photo by Kate Kampner
A new bill aims to protect children from overexposure to heavy metals in foods, but debate over the inclusion of infant formula has taken the reins.
by Kate Kampner, Community News Service
Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone, D/P-Chittenden-14, was pregnant when she started developing H.536, a bill that would prohibit selling and distributing baby food products that contain certain levels of heavy metals.
Stone, now a mother, learned through her research that heavy metal exposure is not limited to baby food. Similar contamination can occur in certain brands of infant formula — including in the brand she received from the hospital after giving birth.
H.536 would ban the sale of baby food products that contain levels of heavy metals that exceed limits established by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of Vermont shelves. Additionally, it would require manufacturers to regularly test their products for these metals and make the results public.
The bill passed in the House on March 19, but before lawmakers gave it the stamp of approval, an amendment that would also ban formula containing heavy metals sparked debate.
H.536 is now in the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare, with a provision that would ban the sale of contaminated formula — and include labeling requirements — once California, or two other states, pass similar legislation.
Heavy metals — like lead, mercury, cadmium and arsenic — are present in many foods, such as root vegetables, rice and rice-based products. Some traces are naturally occurring, but some are caused by industrial equipment and pollution, according to the FDA.
Recently, the FDA announced a Closer to Zero initiative, a national effort to reduce contaminants in children’s food as much as possible.
Children are more vulnerable to the adverse effects of heavy metals because of their smaller size, higher relative consumption of food and rapid neurological development.
On Feb. 20, the Vermont Department of Health explained these potentially permanent effects to the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry.
High exposure to heavy metals can cause health problems, like brain and kidney damage, slow growth and development, behavioral problems, heart function issues and even death.
Rep. Stone said some manufacturers test their products, but states like Illinois, Virginia, California and Maryland are developing new laws that hold manufacturers accountable and make the information accessible to the public.
“What are (the guidelines) there for if there’s no mechanism to make sure they’re being adhered to?” she said.
The Vermont bill would require manufacturers to make the test results accessible by adding a QR or other “machine-readable” code to the product labels.
If passed, the bill would take effect on Jan. 1, 2027, giving manufacturers time to add Vermont to their list of states requiring the public posting.
But lawmakers still need to wade through a thorny debate over the formula provision before the bill could be sent to Gov. Phil Scott’s desk.
In an interview with Community News Service, David Durfee, D-Bennington and Chair of the Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry, said the formula amendment was intended to prevent manufacturers from taking their products off of Vermont shelves entirely if it’s the only state with the ban. Data from Consumer Reports show that infant formula is the only source of nutrition for one in five babies born in the U.S.
The bill states that if the amendment is enacted, and it causes a formula shortage in Vermont, the Vermont Attorney General could revoke it.
Rep. Richard Nelson, R-Orleans-1, shared Durfee’s sentiment.
“If we enacted something and industry said, ‘We’re not going to make exceptions for a fraction of a percent of what we sell,’ we could create a formula desert here in the state of Vermont,” he said.
While some legislators, like Rep. Stone, support including baby formula in the bill, others are hesitant.
That includes Rep. Carolyn Branagan, R-Franklin-1, whose Georgia district is home to Perrigo, an infant formula manufacturer that is set to close next year. The company sent a letter to Branagan on March 19, asking legislators to hold off on passing the amendment.
The letter noted that the FDA is nearly finished with a formula-testing initiative known as Operation Stork Speed and will publish its results later this month.
“(It is) premature to include infant formula into the program,” the letter reads.
Rep. Edye Graning, D-Chittenden-3, however, said the trigger clause already provides the time needed to study the issue further.
“We need larger states than ours to take on the role first,” she said on the House floor.
In testimony, Brian Ronholm, director of food policy from Consumer Reports, advised the committee not to wait on FDA action, saying that it will take significant time for the agency to come up with any meaningful regulations as a result of its tests.
“FDA is not going to rescue consumers any time soon,” he said, later adding, “Consumers can’t afford to wait; states can’t afford to wait.”
The trigger clause remained in the bill on passage, but may see edits as it moves onto the Senate.
Rep. Stone said she remains hopeful that the formula ban will survive the final version.
“We should be protecting our most vulnerable, our youngest Vermonters,” she said. “It’s not political. It’s a public health concern.”
Via Community News Service, a University of Vermont journalism internship
To support vital journalism, access our archives and get unique features like our award-winning profiles, Book of Lists & Business-to-Business Directory, subscribe HERE!
Vermont Business Magazine