Submitted by GhostlyRuse t3_11zk1fe in nottheonion
Amazingawesomator t1_jdcut8j wrote
Reply to comment by michal_hanu_la in Hershey ‘evaluating’ if it can eliminate lead, cadmium in its chocolate: CFO by GhostlyRuse
The threshold that is safe for human consumption when it comes to lead is zero. Yes, there is a threshold - it is 0.
No amount of lead is safe for human consumption. The amount of lead the FDA allows in food is to allow companies to sell you lead and make money, not because it is healthy.
SomebodyInNevada t1_jdenbjw wrote
If they actually mandated zero then there would be no food for sale. Zero is unattainable.
The basic problem is that it's in the environment, the plants pick it up as they grow. Depending on the product it might be possible to remove some of it, it will never be possible to remove all of it.
gerkletoss t1_jdeuo9m wrote
>The threshold that is safe for human consumption when it comes to lead is zero.
Source? And definition of safe?
I'm not saying that the level of Hershey's chocolate is unacceptable, because I don't know, but clearly absolute zero is not possible.
Amazingawesomator t1_jdeymvc wrote
WHO... I linked it in a different subthread here
gerkletoss t1_jdez8dz wrote
>There is no level of exposure to lead that is known to be without harmful effects.
Do you see how that's a difference sentence from what you said?
Do you see how how every country on earth allows a small but non-zero amount of lead in good because zero is impossible?
Grostleton t1_jdiwyqr wrote
it's a different sentence with identical meaning, reading comprehension much?
supersecretaqua t1_jdof2a7 wrote
Unless you're making the very silly statement that because no one can do it, that it somehow changes the line of what is actually safe.. Then the same thing has been said and you're not actually arguing like you think you are.
Now, if you are saying that... Then you're having a different conversation and are either intellectually dishonest and trolling or just lacking in reading comprehension
Either way, the only actually objective safe value for consumption with lead is 0. Anything above that has risks involved period. We can't achieve 0 though, so there is nothing to do but determine a threshold that will be the most acceptable and that is determined by regulations. Since it's established we CAN'T, there is no other option. But there is still risks and is harmful regardless of regulation. Tangible evidence that any amount is still harmful and every decimal point above 0 that it is, the higher violence is in a community over decades. So...
If you're still struggling don't bother responding, I can't help you if that was too far above your head lol
gerkletoss t1_jdofmds wrote
Safety is relative. There is no line. There's also no lead-free. That's why "no safe amount" is a useless statement.
That's why limits get established. They're actually useful.
>If you're still struggling don't bother responding, I can't help you if that was too far above your head lol
Irony thick enough to swim in
supersecretaqua t1_jdohonr wrote
Lmao I love when idiots try and say you have to stop talking about something if they don't like it
Like an actual toddler screeching about vegetables
Good luck little dented skull
nool_ t1_jdfix84 wrote
You might not want to breath then
michal_hanu_la t1_jdcwi73 wrote
> The threshold that is safe for human consumption when it comes to lead is zero. Yes, there is a threshold - it is 0.
That sound wrong, please do elaborate. What is your definition of safe? Do you have any source for the safe level, matching your definition?
Notice I am not saying lead is healthy, I am saying there is some level below which it is not unhealthy enough to warrant regulation.
And if you consider chocolate, what is the difference it makes to your total amount of lead?
Amazingawesomator t1_jdcylfv wrote
WHO
> There is no level of exposure to lead that is known to be without harmful effects.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/lead-poisoning-and-health
jmlinden7 t1_jddsdx5 wrote
They can't prove that a low dose is safe. That's not the same as saying that a low dose is proven to be dangerous.
michal_hanu_la t1_jdd354r wrote
And has anyone tested exposure at the levels of what's in the chocolate?
How does it compare to the impact from non-chocolate?
Edit: TODO(me): Get some numbers
BirdsbirdsBURDS t1_jdd95nt wrote
Heavy metal poisoning is a thing, FYI. It’s why mercury concentrations in fish are a problem in the east. Lead is no exception. It builds up in your system because your body can’t eliminate it. “Some lead exposure” is fine, kind of like getting stabbed once or twice is ok, except the cumulation limit is lifetime, rather than over a few minutes.
Bedbouncer t1_jdevjzt wrote
>It builds up in your system because your body can’t eliminate it.
This is simply not true. A quick Google search shows that.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments