4 ms·

"Some" lead? It was 12-25 times over the limit. Test results commissioned by As You Sow, conducted by an independent laboratory, show that one serving of Soyle

"Some" lead? It was 12-25 times over the limit. Test results commissioned by As You Sow, conducted by an independent laboratory, show that one serving of Soylent 1.5 can expose a consumer to a concentration of lead that is 12 to 25 times above California's Safe Harbor level for reproductive health, and a concentration of cadmium that is at least 4 times greater than the Safe Harbor level for cadmium. Two separate samples of Soylent 1.5 were tested.

DanBC 11y ago
But those California Safe Harbor limits are not normal safety limits. Those safe harbour limits are when you need to put a sticker saying "contains chemicals known by the state of california to cause cancer" (or birth defects). This law suit is not about supplying a product with dangerous levels of lead, (because if it had dangerous levels of lead the regulators would have intervened and recalled all stocks and yu wouldn't still be able to buy it) but of supplying a product that contains some lead and not putting a warning sticker on the product.
- anonbanker 11y ago
  The fact that "25 times the legal limit of lead allowed to prevent reproductive damage" is being downplayed in any way is slightly disturbing. If this notice is not addressed, you will see regulators intervening.
  - ams6110 11y ago
    Pretty much everything is known to the state of california to cause cancer. The furnace in my basement has this label (and I don't live in california).
  - DanBC 11y ago
    But the only difference after regulation is the inclusion of a sticker! You seem to think the safe harbor limits are realistic safety limits, but the safe harbor limits for lead are 5ug per day. That's much lower than any other regulation. WHO have here http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v44jec12.htm http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v44jec12.htm > (Annex 1, reference 30), when a provisional tolerable weekly intake (PTWI) of 3 mg of lead per person, equivalent to 50 µg/kg bw, was established. This PTWI was reconfirmed by the Committee at its twenty-second meeting (Annex 1, reference 47). At its thirtieth meeting (Annex 1, reference 73), the Committee assessed the risk posed by lead to the health of infants and children and established a PTWI of 25 µg/kg bw for this population group. The Committee again evaluated lead at its forty-first meeting (Annex 1, reference 107), (PDF so not able to copy and paste) but current PTWI is 25ug per kg for all people. The prop65 level of 5ug is much lower than that.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  >because if it had dangerous levels of lead the regulators would have intervened and recalled all stocks and yu wouldn't still be able to buy it What is this extreme reliance on 'the regulators' (who?)? Less than one-hundred years ago, radiation exposure used to be highly commercialized and casual. >This law suit is not about supplying a product with dangerous levels of lead What is the meaning of the sticker, "contains chemicals that cause cancer", if not, "this product is dangerous"?
  - DanBC 11y ago
    In America the regulator would be the FDA or EPA for most items in the Safe Harbor list. If you have evidence that Soylent contains dangerous levels of lead or cadmium you can present it to the FDA who will then intervene on your behalf - they have the power to remove Soylent from the market, to force Soylent to recall product, impose fines etc. The sticker tells you that the product contains some amount of something. It doesn't tell you what it contains, nor how much it contains. All you know is that at least one of a list of several hundred chemicals is present in more than (for some examples) trace amounts. For example, the California safe harbor level of lead is 15ug per day. The WHO has a provisional tolerable weekly intake of 25ug per kg of bodyweight, or about 1.5 mg per week. The California safe harbor levels work out to be 15 ug * 7 which is 105 ug, or 0.105 mg per week. That 0.105 mg per week is very much lower than WHO's 1.5 mg per week. Note that there are penalties for not including the note if you need it, but not for including the note if you don't need it. Your product could be totally free of anything and still carry the warning because you want to avoid the risk of sticker non-compliance.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      Prop 65 warnings must include the specific harmful chemicals the product is exposing you to as well as the manner in which it is exposing you.
      - DanBC 11y ago
        Do you have a cite for that? This page lists the requirements for the contents of the warning label, and the specifics of the chemical type and qty are not mentioned in the consumer products exposure warning section. http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/law/pdf_zip/RegsArt6.pdf http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/law/pdf_zip/RegsArt6.pdf Do you have any example prop 65 warning labels for food items that list the specific chemical and qty? Are you talking about occupational exposure warnings? Is that relevant to this court case?

DanBC 11y ago

But those California Safe Harbor limits are not normal safety limits. Those safe harbour limits are when you need to put a sticker saying "contains chemicals known by the state of california to cause cancer" (or birth defects). This law suit is not about supplying a product with dangerous levels of lead, (because if it had dangerous levels of lead the regulators would have intervened and recalled all stocks and yu wouldn't still be able to buy it) but of supplying a product that contains some lead and not putting a warning sticker on the product.

anonbanker 11y ago
The fact that "25 times the legal limit of lead allowed to prevent reproductive damage" is being downplayed in any way is slightly disturbing. If this notice is not addressed, you will see regulators intervening.
- ams6110 11y ago
  Pretty much everything is known to the state of california to cause cancer. The furnace in my basement has this label (and I don't live in california).
- DanBC 11y ago
  But the only difference after regulation is the inclusion of a sticker! You seem to think the safe harbor limits are realistic safety limits, but the safe harbor limits for lead are 5ug per day. That's much lower than any other regulation. WHO have here http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v44jec12.htm http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v44jec12.htm > (Annex 1, reference 30), when a provisional tolerable weekly intake (PTWI) of 3 mg of lead per person, equivalent to 50 µg/kg bw, was established. This PTWI was reconfirmed by the Committee at its twenty-second meeting (Annex 1, reference 47). At its thirtieth meeting (Annex 1, reference 73), the Committee assessed the risk posed by lead to the health of infants and children and established a PTWI of 25 µg/kg bw for this population group. The Committee again evaluated lead at its forty-first meeting (Annex 1, reference 107), (PDF so not able to copy and paste) but current PTWI is 25ug per kg for all people. The prop65 level of 5ug is much lower than that.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
jsprogrammer 11y ago
>because if it had dangerous levels of lead the regulators would have intervened and recalled all stocks and yu wouldn't still be able to buy it What is this extreme reliance on 'the regulators' (who?)? Less than one-hundred years ago, radiation exposure used to be highly commercialized and casual. >This law suit is not about supplying a product with dangerous levels of lead What is the meaning of the sticker, "contains chemicals that cause cancer", if not, "this product is dangerous"?
- DanBC 11y ago
  In America the regulator would be the FDA or EPA for most items in the Safe Harbor list. If you have evidence that Soylent contains dangerous levels of lead or cadmium you can present it to the FDA who will then intervene on your behalf - they have the power to remove Soylent from the market, to force Soylent to recall product, impose fines etc. The sticker tells you that the product contains some amount of something. It doesn't tell you what it contains, nor how much it contains. All you know is that at least one of a list of several hundred chemicals is present in more than (for some examples) trace amounts. For example, the California safe harbor level of lead is 15ug per day. The WHO has a provisional tolerable weekly intake of 25ug per kg of bodyweight, or about 1.5 mg per week. The California safe harbor levels work out to be 15 ug * 7 which is 105 ug, or 0.105 mg per week. That 0.105 mg per week is very much lower than WHO's 1.5 mg per week. Note that there are penalties for not including the note if you need it, but not for including the note if you don't need it. Your product could be totally free of anything and still carry the warning because you want to avoid the risk of sticker non-compliance.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    Prop 65 warnings must include the specific harmful chemicals the product is exposing you to as well as the manner in which it is exposing you.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      Do you have a cite for that? This page lists the requirements for the contents of the warning label, and the specifics of the chemical type and qty are not mentioned in the consumer products exposure warning section. http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/law/pdf_zip/RegsArt6.pdf http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/law/pdf_zip/RegsArt6.pdf Do you have any example prop 65 warning labels for food items that list the specific chemical and qty? Are you talking about occupational exposure warnings? Is that relevant to this court case?