Shelle-Ann M Burrell and Christopher Exley*
Corresponding author: Christopher Exley firstname.lastname@example.org
BMC Pediatrics 2010, 10:63 doi:10.1186/1471-2431-10-63
(2010-09-23 15:21) Neural Dynamics Research Group, University of British Columbia
The regulatory authorities have been successful in their strategy of ignoring independent
research, ever since 1911. “These studies have convinced me that the use in food of aluminium or any other
aluminium compound is a dangerous practice. That the aluminium ion is very toxic is
well known. That aluminized food yields soluble aluminium compounds to gastric juice
(and stomach contents) has been demonstrated. That such soluble aluminium is in part
absorbed and carried to all parts of the body by the blood can no longer be doubted.
That the organism can "tolerate" such treatment without suffering harmful consequences
has not been shown. It is believed that the facts in this paper will give emphasis
to my conviction that aluminium should be excluded from food” WJ Gies JAMA 1911;LVII(10):816-821.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/summary/LVII/10/816 It appears that there is no end in cherry picking data either, to support “convenient”
viewpoints on controversial issues. “Most researchers no longer regard aluminum as a risk factor for Alzheimer's
disease... At this point, there is no convincing evidence that aluminum increases
a person's risk of developing Alzheimer's disease” Alzheimer’s Society
http://www.alzheimer.ca/english/disease/causes-alumi.htm …whilst the Alzhemier’s Associations regards aluminium’s role in
AD as “a myth” http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_myths_about_alzheimers.asp I am assuming that the following literature must have somehow escaped their attention:
1.Banks WA, Kastin AJ (1989) Aluminum-induced neurotoxicity: alterations in membrane
function at the blood-brain barrier. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 13, 47-53. 2.Bishop NJ, Morley R, Day JP, Lucas A (1997) Aluminum neurotoxicity in preterm infants
receiving intravenous-feeding solutions. N Engl J Med 336, 1557-1561. 3.Exley C (2001) Aluminium and Alzheimer's Disease: The science that describes the
link, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 452. 4.Exley C (1999) A molecular mechanism of aluminium-induced Alzheimer's disease? J
Inorg Biochem 76, 133-140. 5.Jope RS, Johnson GV (1992) Neurotoxic effects of dietary aluminium. Ciba Found Symp
169, 254-262; discussion 262-257. 6.Joshi JG (1991) Neurochemical hypothesis: participation by aluminum in producing
critical mass of colocalized errors in brain leads to neurological disease. Comp Biochem
Physiol C 100, 103-105. 7.Lukiw WJ, Kruck TP, McLachlan DR (1987) Alterations in human linker histone-DNA
binding in the presence of aluminum salts in vitro and in Alzheimer's disease. Neurotoxicology
8, 291-301. 8.McLachlan DRC, Bergeron C, Smith JE, Boomer D, Rifat SL (1996) Risk for neuropathologically
confirmed Alzheimer's disease and residual aluminum in municipal drinking water employing
weighted residential histories. Neurology 46, 401-405. 9.Walton JR (2006) Aluminum in hippocampal neurons from humans with Alzheimer's disease.
Neurotoxicology 27, 385-394. 10.Walton JR (2009) Functional impairment in aged rats chronically exposed to human
range dietary aluminum equivalents. Neurotoxicology 30, 182-193 11.Yokel RA, Allen DD, Meyer JJ (1994) Studies of aluminum neurobehavioral toxicity
in the intact mammal. Cell Mol Neurobiol 14, 791-808. If the public opinion is swayed towards the idea that aluminium in general is non-toxic,
then it is gives a false justification to those (referred to as the alleged “majority
of researchers”) who have a vested interest in keeping relevant information
away from the eyes of the public.
None other than my interest in aluminium....regardless the outcome
(2010-09-16 15:15) Shanxi Medical University
I think the concern of Chris and his collegues is reasonable, the problem raised by
them is common over the world. I hope it can be taken into consideration, emphosized
and resolved by authorities and producers.
No any competing interest
(2010-09-15 17:14) Keele University
In spite of the clear results and recommendations of our study the Food Standards
Agency (FSA) in the UK has not made any official comment regarding our findings. The
Food Safety Act of 2007 (updated in 2008) specifically states under article 5 that
infant formulas should not contain anything which might 'endanger the health of infants
and young children'. The Chief Scientist at the FSA, Andrew Wadge, responding to my
enquiry on his blog has said that the aluminium content of most infant formulas are
within the tolerable weekly limit (TWI) of 1 mg/kg body weight, set by the Joint FAO/WHO
Expert Committee on Food Additives,20-29 June 2006, Rome. He concedes that there are
no regulatory requirements for aluminium in food. He does not mention that the TWI
set by the aforementioned committee is for adults and that this committee concede
that the value they have given is simply a best guess. It is not based upon any human
studies,adults or children, only laboratory studies on rats and mice. The committee
admits that even these sources of information are incomplete. We carried out and published our investigation of the aluminium content of infant
formulas because of our concern for the welfare of infants. We did our best to produce
a balanced and non-sensationalised account of the problem and we made some suggestions
as to what might happen next. It is clear from the defensive nature of the very few
responses from the industry that they do not accept that there is a problem and it
would seem that they have the support of the regulatory authority in the UK (FSA)
and Europe (EFSA). We are a world-leading authority on human exposure to aluminium and the consequences
for human health and we believe that something has to be done about the aluminium
content of infant formulas and, indeed, the aluminium content of food in general.
Why is the aluminium content of food not regulated? Why are regulatory authorities
such as the FSA using TWIs for aluminium which have little scientific value and absolutely
no value with respect to human consumption? It is clear to us that both the manufacturers of infant formulas and the regulatory
authorities are hoping that by remaining silent on this issue that it will very quickly
become a non-issue. Are we content to continue to feed our preterm and term infants
with high levels of aluminium? Will we have to wait another 20 years for another study
to show that the aluminium content of infant formulas are still too high?
None but my curiosity for aluminium and its role in biological systems.
BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. Part of Springer Science+Business Media.