• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    281 year ago

    There’s more lead allowed in a liter of drinking water in the US than a serving of any of the chocolates being reported, as far as I can find. (15 micrograms per liter.) Provided nobody’s eating a few dozen bars of chocolate in a single sitting I can’t imagine accumulating enough to cause acute harm from the chocolate alone. Chasing down Hershey, Nestle et al to hold them accountable is great, but in terms of toxic metals we’d have more success and greater impact lighting up the news about water supplies.

    Just mildly frustrated that I continue to see talk about chocolate while drinking water is a necessity and consumed in greater amounts daily but rarely gets reported outside of extreme cases like Flint.

    • Cethin
      link
      fedilink
      English
      91 year ago

      Sure, but getting that same amount of lead from water as well as each type of food you eat is going to add together.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Sure, but you can just not eat Hershey bars. It’s really such a trivial concern when compared to the drinking water for entire populations.

        • @Flambo
          link
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          For one, it’s not an either-or thing. Reporting on lead in chocolate isn’t detracting from awareness of lead in water.

          Sure, but you can just not eat Hershey bars.

          And second: that. There’s lead in this chocolate? Okay I won’t eat this chocolate. Lead intake reduced.

      • @Aleric
        link
        151 year ago

        Keep in mind that granular activated carbon doesn’t do a great job removing heavy metals. Block activated carbon is where it’s at or, better yet, reverse osmosis.