Buzz
Recent research suggests that children are ingesting lead and other harmful substances through baby food and formula. However, the study raises suspicions. Notably, it originates from an organization advocating for labeling transparency, yet they withhold their own data.
The headline: Arsenic, Lead, and BPA Detected in Baby Foods and Formulas in New Study (USA Today)
The story: Lead and other toxic elements would pose a significant threat if prevalent in baby food. This isn’t an implausible scenario—California has discovered lead in candy sold in grocery stores. Thus, this study could be crucial and alarming. Conducted by the Clean Label Project, a nonprofit claiming to use data and science to uncover the true contents of popular consumer products.
The issue is, the specifics of their study and methodology remain undisclosed to both you and me.
I eagerly visited their “methodology” page, only to find no methodology outlined. I anticipated something similar to the EWG’s approach with their Dirty Dozen list, where they analyze actual data. While I question the significance of EWG’s findings and their potential biases, they at least provide a clear methodology. The Clean Label Project, however, offers no such transparency. They claim to test products in labs, but which labs? What standards or thresholds do they use? How do they decide what to test? These details remain unknown. Their results are presented as five-star ratings without any explanation of the actual findings—like Yelp reviews without the commentary.
When summarizing risks for news outlets, the organization provided numbers: “[R]esearchers found 65% of products tested positive for arsenic, 36% for lead, 58% for cadmium, and 10% for acrylamide,” USA Today reported. However, there was no mention of whether these levels were dangerous. While lead has no safe threshold, the same isn’t true for the other chemicals. A key tip for the Clean Label Project: reporting on toxins without discussing dosage shows a lack of understanding.
So, what’s the purpose of the Clean Label Project? It appears they’re mimicking the Environmental Working Group’s tactic of highlighting potential concerns and exaggerating them for attention. (Recall the EWG’s dubious reports on sunscreen, vegetables, and tap water.) Like the EWG, the Clean Label Project has a glaring conflict of interest: they include a “buy now” button for every product in their database, even the one ranked worst in their “top 5” list.
Additionally, it seems they intend to issue—and likely sell—a seal of approval to companies that perform well in their ratings.
The take-away: If there are genuine dangers in baby food, the Clean Label Project is not a reliable source to uncover them.
