4 ms·
From my reading the disagreement is about how often or much chocolate people consume. The thresholds (MADL, EU) are in µg/day and the Consumer Reports numbers a
by SethTro 3y ago
From my reading the disagreement is about how often or much chocolate people consume. The thresholds (MADL, EU) are in µg/day and the Consumer Reports numbers are in µg/serving.
Arstechnica somewhat bridges this gap at the end with quotes including "at these intake levels", "A single serving", "from time to time", "indulging during holidays".
- henearkr 3y agoExactly, so as an abnormally avid chocolate consumer, I'm still scared (and even more than before reading Arstechnica's take).
- nomel 3y agoI used to eat a large bar of very dark, high quality, chocolate per day (having to constantly explain to onlookers that the whole bar had the sam sugar as a half cup of milk). I’m sure I was in the 99th percentile for cocoa. I stopped when I saw this coming a few years ago.
- pugio 3y agoThat's me exactly. I used to eat half a bar of 85% - 100% dark daily. The (relatively) recent info on heavy metals has me really bummed. Why is everything always so toxic these days??? My new goal is to figure out how to get all this heavy metal accumulation out of me (I've been eating heavy dark chocolate regularly for years), and find ways I can keep eating chocolate without absorbing more. Some studies I've read mention that tomatoes might help prevent heavy metal absorption when consumed with the source.
- ip26 3y agoIt isn’t always a modern affliction. Some food plants just do this, pulling heavy metals from the soil. You’ve heard of arsenic in brown rice.
- ars 3y agoSo about that... a portion of the arsenic in the Southern US is from old pesticides used on cotton! The only good news about that is levels are constantly dropped as it gets "used up". However this is only a portion, in many places arsenic is just there in the ground.
- Retric 3y agoThe issue with lead is you can have a sub clinical amount from a dozen or even a hundred sources and end up with significant issues. Thus the threshold needs to be set extremely low for any individual source. Arstechnica is really understating the risks here. While global chocolate consumption is 7.2 million metric tons that isn’t split evenly among 8 billion people resulting in 1.8kg/person per year instead the majority of the global population is 0-0.5kg/person and the rest is increasingly concentrated. It’s not that uncommon to find someone eating a 1.6oz Hershey chocolate bar per day or the equivalent amount in whatever brand they prefer. If they happen to like an unusually high concentration brand the amount on its own might not seem concerning but it combines with every other source in their life and their lifetime accumulation from other sources.
- sparker72678 3y agoFor someone in the upper 1% of chocolate consumption, lead intake via chocolate is unlikely to be anywhere near the top of their list of health risk factors.
- henearkr 3y agoWhy? Eating very dark chocolate does not increase other morbidity factors. I'm one of these ones. Sometimes eating two bars of 98% chocolate per day. Sometimes more. The fats in it are not unhealthy, and the sugar amount is also very low.
- thorum 3y agoWhat are you basing that on?
- Retric 3y agoIt could easily be the largest risk factor from chocolate. In Switzerland the average person is consuming 8.8kg/year (22lb), and the country is quite healthy by international standards. They have the lowest obesity rate in Europe and and half that of America which averages significantly lower levels of chocolate consumption.
- kyriakos 3y ago