PEDIATRICS Vol. 53 No. 2 February 1974, pp. 146
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 Holliday, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Winick, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Holliday, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Winick, M.

Review by the Committee on Nutrition

Malcom A. Holliday M.D., Arnold S. Anderson M.D., Lewis A. Barness M.D., Gilbert B. Forbes M.D., Richard B. Goldbloom M.D., James C. Haworth M.D., Alvin M. Mauer M.D., Charles R. Scriver M.D., William B. Weil Jr. M.D., and Myron Winick M.D.

The article by Lamm and Rosen raises problems which are discussed by Mitchell and Sarett and which, in the opinion of the Committee on Nutrition, deserve careful attention. Lamm and Rosen imply in subtle fashion that lead in milk has been reduced as the consequence of action resulting from attention given to the problem. This response may indeed have followed action taken by milk companies to protect milk products from lead contamination, but we believe the data of Lamm and Rosen do not prove this point. Unfortunately, two different methods of lead analysis in milk were used in the 1971 (preaction) and 1972-1973 (postaction) studies.