3 ms·

This is misleading. They didn't pluck the numbers from thin air. They provide links to evidence from third parties. Also they show that the levels in some to

by hedora 2y ago

This is misleading. They didn't pluck the numbers from thin air. They provide links to evidence from third parties. Also they show that the levels in some toothpaste exceed FDA standards: "The numbers are juxtaposed (in blue) to the “Action Level” proposed by the medical and scientific community in 2021 as part of the Baby Food Safety Act. ... The legitimacy of these levels as “Action Levels”/ “Levels of Concern” (even though they were not adopted as law) is mirrored by the legitimacy of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ level of concern for Lead in water, which is 1 ppb despite the FDA’s official “level of concern” for Lead in water being 15 ppb (you can read more about that here)." From here: https://tamararubin.com/2025/02/crest-regular-toothpaste/ https://tamararubin.com/2025/02/crest-regular-toothpaste/ I only checked crest because I like fluoride. Crest is at 7980% of the action level for lead, 300% for mercury, and 60% for arsenic. For lead, later they say they detected 0.399mg/kg, which is 399 ppb by mass. The molecular weight of lead is 207.2. The molecular weight of water is 18.015. I'm not sure how the regulators calculate PPB, but dividing that out, I get 35.5 lead atoms per billion water molecules, which is above 15.

coldpie 2y ago
Thanks, the two sentences you quoted are way more relevant to the problem than the entire Guardian article. I'd be interested to see the peer reviewed studies backing up the numbers proposed in the linked Act. I didn't see a study like that on the page you linked, but it's pretty long, so maybe I missed it.
ajross 2y ago
Your quote for that FDA standard is for water, which is consumed by typical people at a level around 1000mL/day (varies widely). The testing is done on toothpaste, which is not consumed at all when used correctly, and even if directly swallowed would be something around a 100mL tube every few months, so 2-3 orders of magnitude less exposure at worst. Which would put even the most contaminated products in their chart at the "safer than water" level. I think it's fair to say we're looking at junk science here.
instagib 2y ago
One notable aspect of lead content is that the dosage of products can make them of interest to the FDA if they exceed interim reference levels (IRLs). For instance, a supplement I examined contained a nominal amount of lead, yet individuals began consuming double or triple the recommended dosage. This resulted in exceeding daily limits. This is a specific example of a single supplement. What consequences arise if the lead content of all supplements, toothpaste, food, water, and other substances is comprehensively calculated? https://www.fda.gov/food/environmental-contaminants-food/lead-food-and-foodwares https://www.fda.gov/food/environmental-contaminants-food/lea... The action levels for processed foods intended for babies and young children are as follows: * 10 parts per billion (ppb) for fruits, vegetables (excluding single-ingredient root vegetables), mixtures (including grain- and meat-based mixtures), yogurts, custards/puddings, and single-ingredient meats; * 20 ppb for single-ingredient root vegetables; and * 20 ppb for dry infant cereals. The FDA has not established a specific, legally binding limit for lead content in dietary supplements, but it has developed interim reference levels (IRLs) for daily lead intake. These IRLs are 2.2 mcg per day for children and 8.8 mcg per day for females of childbearing age.

by hedora 2y ago

coldpie 2y ago

Thanks, the two sentences you quoted are way more relevant to the problem than the entire Guardian article. I'd be interested to see the peer reviewed studies backing up the numbers proposed in the linked Act. I didn't see a study like that on the page you linked, but it's pretty long, so maybe I missed it.

ajross 2y ago

Your quote for that FDA standard is for water, which is consumed by typical people at a level around 1000mL/day (varies widely). The testing is done on toothpaste, which is not consumed at all when used correctly, and even if directly swallowed would be something around a 100mL tube every few months, so 2-3 orders of magnitude less exposure at worst. Which would put even the most contaminated products in their chart at the "safer than water" level. I think it's fair to say we're looking at junk science here.

instagib 2y ago

One notable aspect of lead content is that the dosage of products can make them of interest to the FDA if they exceed interim reference levels (IRLs). For instance, a supplement I examined contained a nominal amount of lead, yet individuals began consuming double or triple the recommended dosage. This resulted in exceeding daily limits. This is a specific example of a single supplement. What consequences arise if the lead content of all supplements, toothpaste, food, water, and other substances is comprehensively calculated? https://www.fda.gov/food/environmental-contaminants-food/lead-food-and-foodwares https://www.fda.gov/food/environmental-contaminants-food/lea... The action levels for processed foods intended for babies and young children are as follows: * 10 parts per billion (ppb) for fruits, vegetables (excluding single-ingredient root vegetables), mixtures (including grain- and meat-based mixtures), yogurts, custards/puddings, and single-ingredient meats; * 20 ppb for single-ingredient root vegetables; and * 20 ppb for dry infant cereals. The FDA has not established a specific, legally binding limit for lead content in dietary supplements, but it has developed interim reference levels (IRLs) for daily lead intake. These IRLs are 2.2 mcg per day for children and 8.8 mcg per day for females of childbearing age.