Clinical Pharmacist and Master’s student in Clinical Pharmacy with research interests in pharmacovigilance, behavioral interventions in mental health, and AI applications in clinical decision support. Experience includes digital health research with Bloomsbury Health (London) and pharmacovigilance practice in patient support programs. Published work covers drug awareness among healthcare providers, postpartum depression management, and patient safety reporting. 
Clinical Pharmacist and Master’s student in Clinical Pharmacy with research interests in pharmacovigilance, behavioral interventions in mental health, and AI applications in clinical decision support. Experience includes digital health research with Bloomsbury Health (London) and pharmacovigilance practice in patient support programs. Published work covers drug awareness among healthcare providers, postpartum depression management, and patient safety reporting. What was reviewed?
This review synthesizes evidence on infant food heavy metal certification relevance by comparing contaminant burdens across commercial baby foods, homemade baby foods, and common adult foods offered to children 6–36 months. Drawing on 46 publications screened from 2007–2024, it collates original measurements for pesticides and fertilizer residues, heavy metals and environmental contaminants, natural toxins, process contaminants, and packaging migrants. The paper quantifies regulatory asymmetries, particularly the European Union’s stricter limits for foods intended for <3-year-olds, and evaluates whether perceived safety advantages of homemade foods hold under empirical scrutiny. The framing aligns with infant food heavy metal certification needs because it distinguishes contaminant classes, detection frequencies, and exceedance rates critical for standard setting and industry audits.
Who was reviewed?
The evidence base spans 30,512 commercial baby food samples, 422 homemade samples, and 1,250,738 common food samples from 40 countries, with most data coming from EFSA and FDA monitoring plus peer-reviewed studies. Coverage is strongest for pesticides and fertilizer residues, moderate for heavy metals and environmental contaminants, and thinner for process contaminants and packaging migrants. The PRISMA flow (p.4) documents the selection funnel from 880 initial records to 46 included studies; figures on pp.5–7 visualize detection and exceedance trends. This scope directly informs infant food heavy metal certification because it benchmarks variability across food sources likely to enter infants’ diets.
Most important findings
| Critical point | Details |
|---|---|
| EU limits for infants are markedly stricter than for general foods | Shows glyphosate in lentils is 1,000× stricter for infant foods; lead in cereals 10×; aflatoxin B1 in cereals 200×; acrylamide in cookies 9×. This underscores why certification standards should reference infant-specific MLs/MRLs where available. |
| Pesticide detection and exceedance rates favor commercial baby foods | EFSA trend data (2007–2021) indicate mean detection in baby foods 7.2% vs 40.5% in common foods; MRL exceedances 1.2% vs 3.1% respectively, with year-specific caveats (p.5). FDA datasets similarly show higher maxima in common foods for residues such as chlorpropham and boscalid |
| Heavy metals: mixed but often comparable across food types | Across studies summarized on pp.5–6, arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury were frequently similar between commercial baby foods and comparison foods, though some contexts reported higher metals in rice-based common products; isolated findings noted higher nickel/cobalt in a baby rice product, but higher Mn, Zn, Cd, Pb in rice-based common foods. Certification should therefore apply uniform metal limits across all sources feeding into infant diets. |
| Environmental contaminants generally lower in commercial baby foods | European data show lower PCDD/Fs, PCBs, DL-PCBs, and PBDEs in commercial baby foods vs common foods, with some mixed PFAS/BFR patterns in a French study (pp.5–6). This favors infant-targeted sourcing and controls. |
| Natural toxins are often higher in homemade or common foods | In Brazil and Nigeria, homemade recipes more often exceeded limits or contained detectable mycotoxins than commercial baby foods; several studies report commercial products under LOQs for many mycotoxins, with common cereals and grains showing higher burdens |
| Process contaminants and packaging migrants are higher in common foods | European studies report higher acrylamide and furan in common foods (e.g., biscuits, potato products, coffee) than in commercial baby foods; Turkish monitoring found photoinitiators in snacks and juices but not in baby foods (pp.6–7). These pathways matter for certification audits beyond metals. |
| Data gaps constrain homemade baby food risk estimation | Only eight studies directly compared commercial vs homemade and just one covered all three categories; packaging migrants and microplastics remain under-studied in solid complementary foods, highlighting priority research for certification baselines |
| Policy relevance for HTMC | The Discussion and Conclusion (pp.7–8) argue for unified standards across all infant food sources since infants eat a mix of commercial, homemade, and common foods; reliance on stricter baby-food rules alone leaves gaps when homemade meals use common ingredients regulated less stringently. |
Key implications
For infant food heavy metal certification, primary regulatory impacts include adopting infant-specific maximum levels universally across foods served to infants. Certification requirements should mandate metal testing on both inputs and finished products, plus pesticides, mycotoxins, and process contaminants. Industry applications include risk-based sourcing, rice and cereal controls, and packaging migration checks. Research gaps persist for homemade foods and packaging migrants. Practical recommendations emphasize harmonized limits, matrix-specific arsenic and lead tiers, and transparent parent guidance.
Citation
Román S, Sánchez-Siles LM. A closer look at infant food safety: A comprehensive review comparing contaminants across different food sources. Food Control. 2025;169:111018. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2024.111018
