Thank you for the great detail - as always you add insight few could!
That said, this is in no way clickbait. And since the FDA doesn't have levels for lead and cadmium 1) how the hell can we trust the FDA and 2) using CA numbers is a legitimate item to test against.
In the end, as you point out, heavy metals are likley to be high in cocoa(cacao) and even CA limit assume normal consumption which is low for most people. So using it as a supplement as we want to is dangerous give we will take in a week amounts most people take in many months.
Hence why you need heavy metal testing in cocoa(cacao).
We'll just have to agree to disagree then - because to me, I consider anything clickbait that uses a title to sensationalize something in order to get clicks to it, and especially ones that only tell part of the story.
Here is a great example - the article said, and you said (likely because you believe what the article said) that the FDA does not have allowable levels for lead and cadmium in foods - but that is simply not true.
If they wanted to paint an accurate picture and give appropriate context, they would have explained that the FDA has been heavily focused on reducing heavy metals in both foods and dietary supplements for several years now; but in certain types of foods, it is a very complex subject because some of the levels in foods can vary from geographical region - so they are hesitant to enact specific laws that for example would be easily adhered to by a farmer in South Dakota but may put one in Georgia out of business, because of varying concentrations in the soil.
I could post you a dozen different things from the FDA website about allowable levels, but here is one for example:
Lead may be present in food from the environment where foods are grown, raised, or processed.
www.fda.gov
Also, FDA CFR 21 mentions allowable levels of lead in foods.
Also, I can very much assure you that as someone who spends tens of thousands of dollars a year on quality testing, including heavy metals and microbial testing - that there very much are numbers in place that are deemed acceptable and unacceptable in the eyes of the FDA in terms of heavy metals in both foods and supplements.
As for going by CA numbers related to Prop 65, I'm sorry, but if you haven't looked into how ridiculous Prop 65 is, just look it up and do some research on it. They didn't base a lot of that law on sound science - they based in on extremes and use that law to try to extort businesses to meet those guidelines or be fined. For example, they could threaten to fine a lumberyard in Maryland if a reseller sold wood in California that didn't have a Prop 65 disclaimer on it.
My final point in relation to why I feel the article doesn't paint a fair picture of things is that it implies that these brands don't do heavy metals testing on their products - which would be false in most cases. Most of those brands are decent size to big brands, and they are required by law to do heavy metals and microbial testing.
They have guidelines that they have to meet, but those guidelines may not be as low as the California guidelines - and its unfair to act like they're doing something wrong if they are testing and meeting legally required guidelines.
That's my point about the 'law of unintended consequences' - the more natural and less refined it is, the higher the concentrations may be in some cases.
These companies are in a no win situation in a way - because yes, there is the side of things where they should do everything they can to bring levels down, but then there's also the customer base that wants everything as natural and unprocessed and unrefined as possible. I mean let's be honest, the more processed and refined versions which would lead to lower levels would be cheaper on the companies, so its not like they're being negligent - they're simply trying to please a customer base.
I can relate to their to having to choose which customer base to please because a big part of my life is - customer group A complaining about product xyz being in a colored capsule, and then when we change it, customer group B complains that everything is in white capsules and it all looks alike.
I talk about the risks of heavy metals more than any other poster here.
Sure, I think that companies should do everything in their power to get the amount of heavy metals down in every food that they possibly can - but I think that a much bigger issue than the amount of it in an organic chocolate bar is the amounts of it in supplements from companies that don't even bother to do any heavy metals or microbial testing to begin with.
That's all I have to say on this. I'm not going to debate the subject - if people want to bash the chocolate companies, have at it. I was just trying to help.
www.hersheyland.com
