PEDIATRICS Vol. 53 No. 2 February 1974, pp. 143-144
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sarett, H. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sarett, H. P.

Comments

Herbert P. Sarett Ph.D.1

1 Committee on Nutritional Sciences, Infant Formula Council, 64 Perimeter Center East, Atlanta, Georgia 30346

Lamm and Rosen's paper in this issue compares levels of lead they reported for processed infant formulas in 1971 with those they found in 1972-1973.

Their comparison is not valid, since an entirely different method of analysis was used in the present report and the levels cannot be compared. The first levels of lead reported in formulas by Lamm et al. were erroneously high; much lower levels were found at that time by the FDA, by the New York City Department of Health, and by manufacturers of infant formulas. Differences in methods of analysis can give wide discrepancies between findings in various laboratories, especially when only "traces" of a substance are measured.