Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Experts and state officials debate whether infant formula should be included in Vermont baby-food heavy-metals bill
Loading...
Summary
At a Senate Health & Welfare hearing, industry witnesses urged excluding infant formula from H536 pending FDA guidance, while the attorney general and public-health experts urged inclusion or careful triggers and clearer authority; committee will seek drafting changes and return to the bill.
The Senate Health & Welfare committee heard competing testimony on H536, a bill that would require testing and transparency for heavy metals in baby food and (potentially) infant formula. Committee members did not vote; they asked staff and witnesses for drafting suggestions and said they will revisit the measure after receiving written language and further data.
Why it matters: Proponents say transparency and testing can reduce children's exposure to arsenic, lead, mercury and cadmium and can create market incentives for companies to lower contaminants. Opponents or cautious witnesses warned that infant formula is a distinct, tightly regulated product and that including it now could confuse consumers or reduce access for families if the law's triggers are set poorly.
The attorney general’s office told the committee it supports the bill’s consumer-protection goals and "strongly advocates for the inclusion of infant formula," but proposed tightening statutory cross-references and suggested practical methods for verifying in-state market involvement before enforcement. Todd Bailey, Assistant Attorney General, told the committee his office could supply draft language to narrow references and flagged a need for an operational way to determine when the statute's market-trigger provision should apply.
An industry witness asked the committee to exclude infant formula from the current version of the bill, saying formula is "regulated much more much differently than baby food" and arguing that the product universe for formula is much smaller; the witness recommended waiting for federal guidance and watching other states’ approaches before binding Vermont to a requirement that could have unintended market effects.
Tom Neller, national director of Unleaded Kids, urged retaining infant-formula language with refinements and greater transparency, saying public availability of testing results has previously widened the market for lower-contaminant baby foods and can "give companies an incentive to do better." Neller told the committee that Vermont action can influence policymaking in larger states such as California.
State health department witnesses described known harms from the heavy metals at issue and why children are especially vulnerable. Andrea Kirk, the state toxicologist, said arsenic and lead disproportionately affect neurodevelopment, warning that "arsenic exposure impacts multiple organ systems" and that lead produces "persistent cognitive deficits into adulthood." Department presenters emphasized that cumulative exposures from water and diet matter, and they urged careful drafting of any inclusion of infant formula.
What happens next: Committee members asked attorneys and staff to produce suggested language, and members said they want to review FDA recommendations and any California action before deciding whether to lock in triggers or to require a report-and-recommendation process. No formal vote was taken.
