3 ms·
Of course it's considered acceptable, lead doesn't just dissolve when you touch it and it's not like the paint is 100% lead. Our bodies are pretty resilient and
by alar44 5y ago
Of course it's considered acceptable, lead doesn't just dissolve when you touch it and it's not like the paint is 100% lead. Our bodies are pretty resilient and you shouldn't be scared of super tiny trace things in the environment. Your baby probably receives much more lead exposure by breathing.
- whatshisface 5y agoYour body doesn't heal from lead exposure, it gets stuck in there until you die.
- nicolas_t 5y agoAfter 3 months of using that baby bottle before I stopped some of the paint flaked off. I'm guessing due to the fact that this bottle is regularly heated up which means it is an issue. If some paint flaked off that means potentially my baby ingested it. Lead bioaccumulates, it stays in your body until you die, there's no mechanism to remove lead. The scientific consensus is that there is no safe level of lead exposure. See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27837574/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27837574/ or even the CDC: "No safe blood lead level in children has been identified. Even low levels of lead in blood have been shown to affect learning, ability to pay attention, and academic achievement. " https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/prevention/default.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/prevention/default.htm So, yes, there are a lot of toxic things in the environment and I'm not concerned about most of them but lead is dangerous and has been proven to be. There is also no reason whatsoever for a company to use lead paint (which has been banned for constructions in the 70s) on a product meant to be used for children (a baby bottle).
- autoexec 5y ago> Of course it's considered acceptable, lead doesn't just dissolve when you touch it and it's not like the paint is 100% lead. The FDA didn't care about lead when it was being spooned directly to infant's mouths in the form of their baby food. The standards aren't what they are because of the amount of risk to people's health, or they would never have allowed it. I wouldn't assume something was safe just because it met FDA standards/recommendations.
- alar44 5y agoWe didn't have the data yet, then we learned more over time. The standards are what they are because of what we learned. You don't trust the FDA to think that everything is safe unless they say so or they're wrong, you trust them to tell you they know that something is definitely bad. There's a huge difference there.
- autoexec 5y agoAccording to the congressional report that came out last year the FDA knew about the dangers of lead. One baby food company, Hain (HappyBABY), even sent the FDA a presentation telling them that the commercial process of preparing finished baby foods increases their levels of toxic heavy metals, and the FDA still did nothing to limit how much. The report found that the FDA's inaction and approach "appears designed to be protective of baby food manufacturers." if that's true, then you couldn't really trust them to tell you they know that something is definitely bad Link: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2021-02-04%20ECP%20Baby%20Food%20Staff%20Report.pdf https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house....