Rainey writes: "Another round of bad news for chocoholics: Not only can molten aluminum not melt your favorite candy, but the odds are also pretty high it contains toxic levels of lead, cadmium, or even both, according to a new study."
Candy bars. (photo: Dan Goodman/AP)
Study Finds a Majority of Chocolates Contain Toxic Metals
25 March 16
nother round of bad news for chocoholics: Not only can molten aluminum not melt your favorite candy, but the odds are also pretty high it contains toxic levels of lead, cadmium, or even both, according to a new study by consumer group As You Sow. The advocacy group tested 50 different popular chocolates for the two heavy metals, and results showed the amount was "above the safe harbor threshold," as defined by California, in 35 of them. They're pretty much all dark chocolates � the long list includes a variety of high-percent-cacao products by Hershey's, Mars, Godiva, Lindt, Ghirardelli, Trader Joe's, and Whole Foods, as well as Cadbury's dark-chocolate eggs and specialty bars by Vosges and Taza.
Altogether, it's 18 manufacturers, and As You Sow says it's petitioning them to add warnings to their labels (futilely, no doubt). It's worth noting the metals aren't being added by the companies; cocoa plants absorb them directly from the soil, though it's typically understood to be in trace amounts and varies depending on where the plant grew. (Milk chocolate gets more of a pass because it straight-up has less cocoa.) Advocacy groups have noted these high levels before, but experts don't exactly agree on what dangers they present. Consumer Labs advises people to limit their intake of chocolate to one serving per day, while As You Sow leaves the amount up to consumers but notes that lead is linked to "a variety of neurological impairments, including learning disabilities, seizures, and a lower IQ," while cadmium can cause "damage to the kidney, liver, and bones, while also impairing neurobehavioral development."
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
His response to using radio waves to search for intelligent life (SETI) in the Universe.
I'd value this promise as equal to the value of past promises: zero. Nuclear energy "too cheap to meter" wasn't, and isn't. Ditto nuclear energy that was supposed to be "clean", energy that was supposed to be "safe" and immune to the threat of nuclear proliferation. And, over 60 years after the first nuke started up (Shippingport, PA, 1957), we still can't agree on how to deal with the long-lived radioactive waste.
We need an industrial/clim ate policy, not only nationwide but worldwide, that will 1) rapidly increase our renewable (wind, solar, and to a lesser extent hydro) energy production, 2) develop much better battery storage to deal with the intermittent nature of these sources, and 3) to rebuild our transmission grids to ship electricity from where it is generated to where it is needed.
That's the "generate from renewables" piece of the pie. The other two parts are to recycle more and to use less in the first place. Both require more elaboration than I can provide here.
This is a very big deal, will require difficult individual and collective choices, and we don't have much time, but we can do it. This policy is like democracy; all the alternatives are worse.
Nuclear power needs regulation and should be phased out, but believing we can transition to purely renewable in a decade without a societal meltdown is a pipe dream.
Nuclear is far from perfect but a good 20 years more of it is necessary to allow quick phase out of the energy tech that does kill us and the climate: #1 coal, #2 coal, # coal, #4 petroleum, #5 gas, in that order.
If we can get away from these three (I noticed too) then the major crisis could be contained and then we can think of phasing out nuclear.
And yes nuclear frightens us all, me included, but look at the stats of people killed by nuclear vs. by breathing in smokestacks or in congested urban centers, not to mention by climate change to which nuclear almost does not participate.
Where is the thyroid cancer epidemic after Fukushima? How many people did the nuclear accident actually kill? (The only answer I found so far is about 100 during the rushed evacuation).
Nuclear is the reason why the French have less than half per capita CO2 footprint than the US citizens: 60% of electrical power there is nuclear - ever heard of an accident there?
If you want to set your sights on something that IS killing the climate, check out the energetic cost of the digital economy, which grows 30% a year and already corresponds to 50% of the CO2 emissions by the world cars, which only(!) grows 4% a year.