Global Lessons from China’s Tainted Milk

Marcy Bloom

Tragic news of children sickened by poisoned milk in China raises questions not only about its product safety system but about why infants in China are fed formula at all.

The headlines just kept getting

The Associated
Press reported on September 20 that China’s leaders were scrambling to
contain public fury over widespread contamination of milk supplies, castigating
local officials for negligence and cover-ups, while also moving to minimize
criticism of the government’s slow response. Officials promised to keep stores
supplied with clean milk and set up medical hotlines and a multi-level
treatment system for affected babies to help the traumatized Chinese public
cope with one of the worst product safety scandals in years.

Originally focused on contaminated
milk powder, the poisoned milk crisis
worsened when liquid milk was also found
to contain melamine, the industrial chemical that has killed four infants so
far and initially caused serious illnesses in 6,200 others. By September 22,
the number of sick children reported by the government jumped to an astonishing

More than 80% of the 12,892 children hospitalized were two years old or
younger, and 104 were in serious condition. Another 39,965 children received
outpatient treatment and were considered recovered by the end of September,
according to the Chinese Health Ministry.  

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:


The company at the heart of the
scandal, Sanlu Group Company, apologized for the poisoned products and stated
that suppliers who sold the raw milk apparently added the chemical melamine – normally
used in plastics, fertilizers, and flame retardants – to make the milk seem
higher in protein due to melamine’s high nitrogen content. The milk suppliers,
in hopes of increasing their profits, watered down their milk to increase
volume and then added melamine to fraudulently boost the protein content and
bypass safety testing. When ingested, melamine causes kidney stones, which are
especially deadly to infants and small children and rapidly induces renal
failure. That
is what happened to thousands of Chinese infants and toddlers.

This deadly series of
is an embarrassing failure for China’s product safety system,
which purports to have attempted to institute tighter controls to restore
consumer confidence after a series of product safety scares in recent years
that involved poisoned medicines, seafood, toothpaste, toys, and pet food

These latest incidents represent the second major case in recent
years involving shoddy baby formula. In 2004, more than 200 Chinese infants
suffered malnutrition and at least 13 died after being fed phony formula that
contained no nutrients.

It appears that a well-organized cover-up had been brewing for months before the Sanlu
scandal was exposed. Indeed, the problem appears to have gone undetected for
months, as the first baby died in May and the second in July. Apparently,
Sanlu knew of its product contamination as early as July, and likely even as
early as December, but did not go public with the information until September.

far, eighteen suppliers of melamine and tainted milk have been arrested, with
more than 100 others being detained or questioned.

government cover-ups, lax regulations, Sanlu’s criminal silence, and the failure
of the Communist government to guarantee food safety
forced the resignation
of Li Changjang, the head of the Chinese agency that monitors food and product
safety. As head of the General Administration of Quality Supervision,
Inspection, and Quarantine, he had promised years ago to overhaul the food and
product safety system. However, this is not the failure of one man or one
department to transform a deeply corrupt system. The heart-breaking systemic
inability to accomplish basic and modern safety reforms indicates that China cannot keep
its population safe. Despite its masterful display at a highly complex Olympic
Games, China
has yet to put transparent and enforceable product safety policies in place.
After all, the boss of Sanlu, now in police custody, was a senior party
official, as are the leaders of most of the large corporations in China.

Why Not Breast Milk?

Spencer, writing from the UK in September 24’s Telegraph, blasts the Chinese
: "Tens of thousands of infants are sick after drinking tainted
baby milk. But this isn’t an ordinary health disaster – the authorities colluded
with the companies who deliberately contaminated their products and failed to
warn the public." He asks an even more critical question that is fundamental
to the health of women and babies:

Some ask why babies in China drink milk at
all: cow’s milk is not something the Chinese have traditionally liked, so there
was no particular reason for them to follow the worldwide trend towards
abandoning the breast. But the question answers itself: China is modernizing, and, to many
people, that means doing what the rest of the world does. In present-day
industrial China,
it also means building your own companies to provide what [the public] and
foreigners consume–but cheaper.

Even, apparently, if the price of higher
profits is the loss of human life.

As this tainted milk scandal grows
and affects other countries, it has forced Chinese
women to reconsider breast milk
. Breast-feeding in China has declined in
recent years, even after the 2004 scandal. The United Nations Development
Program says exclusive breastfeeding rates in China at four months of age
declined to 48% in urban areas, and 60% in rural areas in 2004, the most recent
year for which national statistics are available.

In its September 25 press release, the World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action (WABA)
responded to this shocking and growing tragedy, stating that China is not the
only country to experience serious problems with ensuring the safety of
artificial milk: "There have been 71 occasions in recent years when companies
have been forced to recall batches of formula because of dangerous

Furthermore, WABA declares:

While the most stringent of
measures should be taken against unscrupulous and unethical milk companies,
WABA calls urgently for renewed support for early, exclusive, and continued
breastfeeding, and for additional resources to make this possible…. The
widespread use of commercial formula, with all of its risks and side-effects, even when not contaminated [emphasis mine], is a real danger for infants and
young children all over the word, even in wealthy countries.

Powerfully true. This is a fundamental lesson from
China’s tragedy, which has also
likely affected
milk products
in New Zealand, Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Myanmar, the
Philippines, Indonesia, and throughout Asia, as well as in other parts of the

Optimal Young Child Feeding

infant and young child feeding
is defined globally as early and exclusive
breastfeeding for the first six months of a child’s life, and continued breastfeeding
for up to two years or longer, followed by the gradual introduction of
age-appropriate, nutrient-rich complementary foods from six months. Yet recently,
national and international funding for public education and the training of
health workers to support breastfeeding has seriously decreased. There has been
a decline in the number of hospitals implementing the WHO/UNICEF Baby-Friendly
Hospital Initiative, which incorporates the critical Ten Steps for Successful
Breastfeeding, and disallows the unethical promotion of breastfeeding
substitutes in health facilities.

In China, for example, at one time,
maternity hospitals fully supported breastfeeding and this significant
initiative. However, by the high level of formula use reflected in the
pandemic, this practice may no longer be in place.

Susan Siew, Co-Director of WABA,
states: "A tragedy such as this should not
again. The majority of mothers, given appropriate support, timely
and accurate information, and protection from aggressive marketing of infant
formulas, are able to breastfeed. For working mothers, both in the formal and
informal sectors, we need to provide an enabling environment with adequate
maternity entitlements including maternity leave, flexible work arrangements,
and mother-baby-friendly facilities at the workplace."

Even as WABA and numerous other
organizations urge all members of the international community concerned with
global health to renew and increase their funding and dedication to breastfeeding,
it is clear that this demand is the tip of the iceberg for women and children,
as it essentially requires a transformation of virtually all societies. Women’s
and children’s needs must truly be respected, honored, and prioritized. Part of
this requires a societal milieu where breastfeeding is supported, encouraged, convenient,
dignified, safe, and viable for women everywhere.

Regretfully, this is not simple to
achieve because this complex dilemma pits the value and welfare of women and
children against the might of state-sanctioned corporate greed and endemic governmental
corruption. While we should not turn our attention away from solving China’s
contaminated milk pandemic at this time, it’s evident that the struggle for
women’s and children’s rights and health is global.

All of us must stay focused on
correcting the institutional milieu that precipitated this tragedy in China. In the
process — as we expose the regulatory shortcomings and recognize the corruption
of many governments — we must urge that each society learns to prevent this
pattern from repeating elsewhere.

It is lesson for all of us.

For now, I dread tomorrow’s
headlines. Where and when will more babies and children die from poisoned milk?

Commentary Politics

A Telling Response: Trump’s Mistreatment of Women Evokes Yawn from GOP Leadership

Jodi Jacobson

Republican leaders have been largely dismissive of Donald Trump's misogynistic track record—which speaks volumes about the party's own treatment of women.

This weekend, the New York Times published the results of interviews with more than 50 people, many of whom attested to the fact that in both private and public life, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump made “unwelcome romantic advances” toward women and exhibited “unsettling workplace conduct over decades.” Translation: He objectified, sexually harassed, and made unwelcome comments and advances toward women with whom he worked, whom he met in social settings, or who participated in his reality show empire. He even, according to one person quoted in the Times, sought assurance that his own daughter was “hot.” Yet GOP leadership has been largely dismissive of Trump’s track record—which speaks volumes about the party’s own feelings on women.

While important in its detail, the Times story is anything but surprising. Trump is a historical treasure trove of misogynistic behavior and has talked about it openly. In an interview with Esquire, for example, Trump stated: “You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.” He has frequently made derogatory comments about the looks of female politicians, journalists, actresses, and executives: He’s claimed that “flat-chested” women can’t be beautiful and mused about the potential breast size of his infant daughter. He’s suggested that sexual assault in the military is “expected” because men and women are working together and that the thought of someone pumping breast milk is “disgusting.”

Forgive me if I am not shocked that reports indicate he’s no feminist. Female voters know this: Even conservative news outlet National Review fretted about the fact that both Trump and former presidential aspirant Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) are both highly unpopular among female voters, noting that “seven out of ten women (67 percent) have an unfavorable view of Trump, and only 26 percent view him favorably… and [some] polls have his unfavorability ratings among women even higher, at 74 percent.”

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:


In interviews this weekend, the Times‘ report elicited what was effectively a yawn from Reince Priebus, chair of the Republican National Committee, the guy charged with leading the GOP both in terms of the party’s platform and in helping its candidates across the country get elected. On Sunday, Fox News‘s Chris Wallace asked Priebus whether the reports of Trump’s mistreatment of women bothered him. Priebus responded by asserting that “people just don’t care” about all these stories, although when pressed, he suggested that Trump would have to answer to his own statements.

But that dodges the question. Priebus is the head of the party and also needs to take responsibility for his nominee’s behavior, as does the party itself. He did not say, “I deplore the remarks Trump has made during the campaign,” or, “as a party, we need to reflect deeply on why our candidates and policies are so deeply unpopular among a group that makes up more than half the U.S. population.”

Priebus said none of that. He just shooed the issues away. The fact he did not even attempt to address the substance of the Times article is the most telling news of all.

The real problem is that it’s the GOP leadership that just doesn’t care. This morning, the Guardian reported that “After a week of make-up meetings with Donald Trump, Republican party leaders have arrived at a new strategy to accommodate their presumptive presidential nominee: ignore his problematic attitude to women, his tax issues and his fluctuating positions on trade, immigration, foreign relations and a host of other topics, and instead embrace the will of Republican voters.”

The reality is that Trump’s “problematic attitude toward women” is not an isolated problem. For the GOP leadership, it is not a problem at all, but the product of their fundamental policies and positions. The GOP has been waging war on women’s fundamental rights for nearly two decades; it’s just gotten more brash and unapologetic about the attitudes underlying the party’s policies. The GOP is full of candidates who think pregnancy resulting from rape is a blessing; who minimize and stigmatize the role of access to contraception and abortion in public health and personal medical outcomes; who demonize and marginalize single mothers; and who won’t pay for basic services to help the poor. The GOP platform is built on policies that seek to deny women access to reproductive and sexual health care, including but not limited to abortion, thereby also denying them the right to self-determination and bodily autonomy. So the fact that both the party leaders and the media spun themselves into a tizzy when Trump suggested he would imprison women who had abortions was all theater. That is GOP policy.

The GOP majority in Congress and in state legislatures continues to deny low-wage workers—the majority of whom are women—living wages, labor protections, and paid family leave. At the state level, Republican governors and legislators have obliterated funding for education, child care, aid to single-parent families, aid to children with disabilities, and basic health-care services. And Trump is far from unique in this election cycle among GOP presidential candidates: Republicans in the running from Ted Cruz on down have used women as objects when it is convenient, with Cruz going so far as to parade his two young daughters on the campaign trail in bright pink dresses, seemingly to underscore their “innocence” and to stoke fear of transgender persons seeking access to the most basic facilities, though many of those are young girls themselves.

It’s not only Donald Trump’s mistreatment of women. It’s that the GOP’s platform is based on sheer misogyny, and the leadership has to ignore it or they’d have to rethink their entire platform and start from scratch.

News Family

Buying Breast Milk Online Remains a Risky Proposition

Martha Kempner

Efforts to promote breastfeeding as the best option for infants may have led some parents to believe formula is not a good option and to turn to the Internet to find someone else’s milk, a practice the FDA says is unsafe.

Some women who are unable to breastfeed have turned to the Internet to buy breast milk, trusting that this is a better alternative to infant formula.

Some of the breast milk available online, however, is contaminated with bacteria, such as strep or staph. The latest study, published this month in Pediatrics Online, also found that one in ten samples bought online contained cow’s milk, which is not safe for infants.

Women who couldn’t breastfeed used to rely on wet nurses, but formula has meant that parents have another safe option. Efforts to promote breastfeeding as the best option for infants may have led some parents to believe that formula is not a good option and to turn to the Internet to find someone else’s milk, according to women’s health specialists.

Sites like Only the Breast allow people to buy, sell, or donate breast milk over the web. suggests lactating women use their milk as a money-making project. Other sites, such as Eats on Feets and Human Milk 4 Babies, frown on making money off of breast milk; instead, they consider themselves breast-milk sharing communities and encourage free exchange after careful screening of donors.

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:


However it is done, the FDA warns against feeding your baby another person’s breast milk.

“FDA recommends against feeding your baby breast milk acquired directly from individuals or through the Internet,” the agency said in a 2010 statement. “When human milk is obtained directly from individuals or through the Internet, the donor is unlikely to have been adequately screened for infectious disease or contamination risk. In addition, it is not likely that the human milk has been collected, processed, tested or stored in a way that reduces possible safety risks to the baby.”

Research confirms that the FDA’s warnings are sound. A 2009 study of more than 1,000 women who wanted to donate to breast-milk banks found that 36 tested positive for syphilis, hepatitis B and C, and/or HIV.

A 2013 study found that 72 percent of 100 breast milk samples bought off on the Internet contained gram-negative bacteria (which are associated with bloodstream infections, wound infections, meningitis, and fecal contamination), 63 percent tested positive for staph infections, 36 percent tested positive for strep infections, and 3 percent were contaminated with salmonella, as Rewire reported.

Though HIV can be transmitted through breast milk, that virus was not found in any of the samples.

The new study provides follow-up analysis on the same samples and found that many of them included either cow’s milk or infant formula.

Sarah Keim, the lead author on both of these studies, told CNN that the amount of these other ingredients found in the samples shows that sellers deliberately “topped off” their breast milk presumably to sell more.

“If a baby with cow’s milk allergy were to drink this milk it could be very harmful,” Keim said.

Milk banks are a safer alternative because they screen the blood of the donors and the milk itself. These banks then pasteurize the milk, which kills off contaminates. But the milk is expensive and the supply is small. Most of it goes to premature infants in neonatal intensive care units across the country.

For those who can’t produce breast milk or get it from a milk bank, formula is the best choice.

“There is a lot of unwarranted guilt surrounding not breast-feeding babies,” pediatrician Jennifer Shu told CNN. “Even though breast milk is best, in some situations, formula is the better and safer choice.”


Vote for Rewire and Help Us Earn Money

Rewire is in the running for a CREDO Mobile grant. More votes for Rewire means more CREDO grant money to support our work. Please take a few seconds to help us out!


Thank you for supporting our work!