7 ms·

The article quoted a controversy between the testers saying there is no safe level and the manufacturers saying trace levels are impossible to avoid. But the ar

The article quoted a controversy between the testers saying there is no safe level and the manufacturers saying trace levels are impossible to avoid. But the article never mentioned a ppb or anything that would resolve the matter.

michaelmcdonald 1y ago
This was in the article (linked to from the blog); is it not what you are looking for? "The federal Baby Food Safety Act of 2024, which is stalled in Congress, called for lead limits in kids’ food or personal care products like toothpaste of five parts per billion (ppb). California’s limit on lead in baby food is two ppb, but it does not include toothpaste." "Most toothpastes exceeded those thresholds." "The FDA’s current lead limit for children is 10,000 ppb, and 20,000 ppb for adults. None exceeded the FDA limits." "The state of Washington recently enacted a law with 1,000 ppb limits – several exceeded that and have been reported, Rubin said, but companies have time to get in compliance with the new rules."
pogue 1y ago
Here are the full test results from the person/group who tested the toothpastes: https://tamararubin.com/2025/01/toothpaste-chart/ https://tamararubin.com/2025/01/toothpaste-chart/ I think there will probably be a great deal of controversy about this until some scientists/food scientists take a look at the results and give us their view. Heavy metals are unfortunately found in soil and can result in contaminated food & other products. The issue is the amount in the product & the amount you're consuming. You're most likely not going to get lead poisoning from using a pea sized amount of toothpaste twice a day through brushing & spitting it out. If you swallowed the entire tube of toothpaste that might be a different story. This could be a situation where the pros outweigh the cons and it's just one of those inevitabilities we deal with in life. But, it's entirely possible some brands are using very poor quality control and it's highly contaminated. If you're concerned, you can always get a blood test for heavy metals from your doctor.
- coldpie 1y ago
  Well put. The argument the testers want to make is that the allowable levels set by the FDA are too high, but they don't seem to be providing evidence (in this particular study) to back that up. Per the article, they've only shown that the levels in toothpaste are indeed below the allowable threshold.
  - pogue 1y ago
    The group, Lead Safe Mamas, seems to be advocating for products to be lead free & I think that's a perfectly reasonable position to take. But, it's not possible for some food and other products to be free of lead and other heavy metals. AFAIK, there's no way to filter heavy metals out products, unfortunately. The only other issue is that the Lead Free Mamas is providing affiliate links to sell some of the products they test and could definitely be seen as a conflict of interest.
    - Blackthorn 1y ago
      I don't think it's reasonable to ding them for the second part. She has to actually fund herself somehow, and doing it by promoting products that actually meet the standard is by far the least offensive way of doing it. Watching this comment tick down with more and more downvotes from people who get paid cushy software engineer salaries is absolutely comical.
      - im3w1l 1y ago
        It's not that it's wrong, but when someone stands to make money the assumptions we make about their motives change. If their whole business relies on advocating a fringe position I will not start with an assumption of good faith, or that they are just misinformed.
        Blackthorn 1y ago
        Given that money is required to both live and do this research, I'm curious to hear what the alternative is.
Blackthorn 1y ago
The ppb numbers found are on the original website, linked in the article.
no_wizard 1y ago
The testers aren’t wrong. There is no safe level of artificial lead exposure, scientifically speaking. Even small amounts over time (re: decades) will have adverse effects. Science is pretty clear on this The whole idea we allow “safe levels” of anything toxic is a concession to industry at the expense of the environment and consumers
- ch4s3 1y ago
  > The whole idea we allow “safe levels” of anything toxic is a concession to industry at the expense of the environment and consumers No, it would be totally unworkable to do anything else. Plenty of normal from the ground food stuffs have low but safe levels of toxic substances in them. You wouldn't be able to preserve meat or smoke cheese. The list would go on forever.
  - no_wizard 1y ago
    You're quoting half of my statement and taking it out of context. I specified artificial for a reason. I'm talking about unnaturally altered environments and manufacturing (and for the most part, its the latter but some activities, e.g. mining or poor agriculture practices, have knock off effects that poison environments). I'm not talking about naturally occurring lead. I realize trace amounts can be found in things like vegetables and meats even when care is taken to use clean soil (e.g. the soil doesn't have any lead contamination, which unfortunately this is not regulated very well in the US) and clean processing methods. However, these 'safe amounts' are void of any real effort to understand them in combination. For example, lets say product A is deemed to allow a 'safe amount' of 10000 ppb, product B 8000 ppb, product C 12500 ppb and so on. These ppb amounts are determined without thought to other forms of lead exposure from other products. If you look at how much lead and other toxins you're exposed to through a variety of sources it will add up over time. Simply because it doesn't add up to the thresholds for lead poisoning doesn't mean it lacks any negative consequences
    - ch4s3 1y ago
      No I got the context. As you said, there are trace amounts of lead and even arsenic in agricultural products for all kinds of reasons, some plants LOVE to fix heavy metals. > If you look at how much lead and other toxins you're exposed to through a variety of sources it will add up over time There's simply no evidence to support the broad claim that different toxic substances below their safe thresholds cumulatively are unsafe. > Simply because it doesn't add up to the thresholds for lead poisoning doesn't mean it lacks any negative consequences Sure, but you can't in practice prevent ever conceivable negative outcome. You have to think about tradeoffs.
more_corn 1y ago
“The FDA’s current lead limit for children is 10,000 ppb, and 20,000 ppb for adults. None exceeded the FDA limits. The state of Washington recently enacted a law with 1,000 ppb limits – several exceeded that” So none exceeded 10,000 ppb several exceeded 1,000 ppb
hedora 1y ago
The first link in the article contains PPM, and if you click through it lists % actionable levels for the individual brands / contaminants: https://tamararubin.com/2025/01/toothpaste-chart/ https://tamararubin.com/2025/01/toothpaste-chart/ Maybe HN should just link to this? Incidentally, apparently, they test based on donations from their reader base. Most of their readers are interested in weird fluoride-free stuff. If you want them to test more mainstream brands, you can send them money: https://tamararubin.com/2025/02/lead-safe-mama-llc-fundraisers-for-toothpaste-testing/ https://tamararubin.com/2025/02/lead-safe-mama-llc-fundraise... I'm not endorsing them, and have no idea how well they conduct their tests, etc. There might be a better way to fund independent testing of consumer products.

michaelmcdonald 1y ago

This was in the article (linked to from the blog); is it not what you are looking for? "The federal Baby Food Safety Act of 2024, which is stalled in Congress, called for lead limits in kids’ food or personal care products like toothpaste of five parts per billion (ppb). California’s limit on lead in baby food is two ppb, but it does not include toothpaste." "Most toothpastes exceeded those thresholds." "The FDA’s current lead limit for children is 10,000 ppb, and 20,000 ppb for adults. None exceeded the FDA limits." "The state of Washington recently enacted a law with 1,000 ppb limits – several exceeded that and have been reported, Rubin said, but companies have time to get in compliance with the new rules."

pogue 1y ago

Here are the full test results from the person/group who tested the toothpastes: https://tamararubin.com/2025/01/toothpaste-chart/ https://tamararubin.com/2025/01/toothpaste-chart/ I think there will probably be a great deal of controversy about this until some scientists/food scientists take a look at the results and give us their view. Heavy metals are unfortunately found in soil and can result in contaminated food & other products. The issue is the amount in the product & the amount you're consuming. You're most likely not going to get lead poisoning from using a pea sized amount of toothpaste twice a day through brushing & spitting it out. If you swallowed the entire tube of toothpaste that might be a different story. This could be a situation where the pros outweigh the cons and it's just one of those inevitabilities we deal with in life. But, it's entirely possible some brands are using very poor quality control and it's highly contaminated. If you're concerned, you can always get a blood test for heavy metals from your doctor.

coldpie 1y ago
Well put. The argument the testers want to make is that the allowable levels set by the FDA are too high, but they don't seem to be providing evidence (in this particular study) to back that up. Per the article, they've only shown that the levels in toothpaste are indeed below the allowable threshold.
- pogue 1y ago
  The group, Lead Safe Mamas, seems to be advocating for products to be lead free & I think that's a perfectly reasonable position to take. But, it's not possible for some food and other products to be free of lead and other heavy metals. AFAIK, there's no way to filter heavy metals out products, unfortunately. The only other issue is that the Lead Free Mamas is providing affiliate links to sell some of the products they test and could definitely be seen as a conflict of interest.
  - Blackthorn 1y ago
    I don't think it's reasonable to ding them for the second part. She has to actually fund herself somehow, and doing it by promoting products that actually meet the standard is by far the least offensive way of doing it. Watching this comment tick down with more and more downvotes from people who get paid cushy software engineer salaries is absolutely comical.
    - im3w1l 1y ago
      It's not that it's wrong, but when someone stands to make money the assumptions we make about their motives change. If their whole business relies on advocating a fringe position I will not start with an assumption of good faith, or that they are just misinformed.
      - Blackthorn 1y ago
        Given that money is required to both live and do this research, I'm curious to hear what the alternative is.

Blackthorn 1y ago

The ppb numbers found are on the original website, linked in the article.

no_wizard 1y ago

The testers aren’t wrong. There is no safe level of artificial lead exposure, scientifically speaking. Even small amounts over time (re: decades) will have adverse effects. Science is pretty clear on this The whole idea we allow “safe levels” of anything toxic is a concession to industry at the expense of the environment and consumers

ch4s3 1y ago
> The whole idea we allow “safe levels” of anything toxic is a concession to industry at the expense of the environment and consumers No, it would be totally unworkable to do anything else. Plenty of normal from the ground food stuffs have low but safe levels of toxic substances in them. You wouldn't be able to preserve meat or smoke cheese. The list would go on forever.
- no_wizard 1y ago
  You're quoting half of my statement and taking it out of context. I specified artificial for a reason. I'm talking about unnaturally altered environments and manufacturing (and for the most part, its the latter but some activities, e.g. mining or poor agriculture practices, have knock off effects that poison environments). I'm not talking about naturally occurring lead. I realize trace amounts can be found in things like vegetables and meats even when care is taken to use clean soil (e.g. the soil doesn't have any lead contamination, which unfortunately this is not regulated very well in the US) and clean processing methods. However, these 'safe amounts' are void of any real effort to understand them in combination. For example, lets say product A is deemed to allow a 'safe amount' of 10000 ppb, product B 8000 ppb, product C 12500 ppb and so on. These ppb amounts are determined without thought to other forms of lead exposure from other products. If you look at how much lead and other toxins you're exposed to through a variety of sources it will add up over time. Simply because it doesn't add up to the thresholds for lead poisoning doesn't mean it lacks any negative consequences
  - ch4s3 1y ago
    No I got the context. As you said, there are trace amounts of lead and even arsenic in agricultural products for all kinds of reasons, some plants LOVE to fix heavy metals. > If you look at how much lead and other toxins you're exposed to through a variety of sources it will add up over time There's simply no evidence to support the broad claim that different toxic substances below their safe thresholds cumulatively are unsafe. > Simply because it doesn't add up to the thresholds for lead poisoning doesn't mean it lacks any negative consequences Sure, but you can't in practice prevent ever conceivable negative outcome. You have to think about tradeoffs.

more_corn 1y ago

“The FDA’s current lead limit for children is 10,000 ppb, and 20,000 ppb for adults. None exceeded the FDA limits. The state of Washington recently enacted a law with 1,000 ppb limits – several exceeded that” So none exceeded 10,000 ppb several exceeded 1,000 ppb

hedora 1y ago

The first link in the article contains PPM, and if you click through it lists % actionable levels for the individual brands / contaminants: https://tamararubin.com/2025/01/toothpaste-chart/ https://tamararubin.com/2025/01/toothpaste-chart/ Maybe HN should just link to this? Incidentally, apparently, they test based on donations from their reader base. Most of their readers are interested in weird fluoride-free stuff. If you want them to test more mainstream brands, you can send them money: https://tamararubin.com/2025/02/lead-safe-mama-llc-fundraisers-for-toothpaste-testing/ https://tamararubin.com/2025/02/lead-safe-mama-llc-fundraise... I'm not endorsing them, and have no idea how well they conduct their tests, etc. There might be a better way to fund independent testing of consumer products.