Good that I am not a fan of dark chocolate! The bitter taste doesn’t fit right with my taste buds! Also if someone is planning to say that milk chocolates are even more harmful then please don’t Because nothing can stop me from having a piece of chocolate once a week ! Like how can anyone say no to this is beyond me…
That's not even chocolate. https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/f...chocolate?,little vanilla added for flavoring.
Yeah, but white "chocolate" is so sickly sweet and otherwise bland. Maybe it's the lead and cadmium content that gives real chocolate its flavor.
This just in. I contacted a local scientist, Dr. Joe Schwarcz of McGill University, who keeps up on these matters, and he advised that he just wrote a piece on the subject: Panic over chocolate “To eat or not to eat?” That is the question being raised about dark chocolate. Isn’t that the variety we have been told is loaded with flavonoids that have anti-inflammatory, anti-tumour and antioxidant effects that supposedly protect us against heart disease and cancer? The key word here is “supposedly” because there is no evidence that chocoholics are less prone to disease. But now we are being told, “whoa, watch that dark chocolate,” because Consumers Union, the organization that publishes “Consumer Reports” has found that some dark chocolates contain amounts of lead that exceed California’s “Maximum Allowable Dose Level (MADL).” As I so often say, science is based on numbers. So let’s start looking at some numbers. California’s MADL is 0.5 micrograms/day, which is less than that of any other regulatory agency. The U.S. FDA has set an Interim Reference Level of 2.2. micrograms a day for children, 8.5 micrograms for pregnant women, and 12.5 micrograms for everyone else. Why interim? Because levels of lead that cause developmental or cognitive problems are very difficult to pin down, and as more and more research has come to light, allowable levels have been reduced, so it is conceivable that there will be further reductions. In general, when it comes to toxicity, whatever allowable levels are proposed have a safety factor of at least ten built in, meaning that the dose at which there is some observable negative effect is at least ten times greater than the allowable level. California arrives at the 0.5 micrograms/day limit based on the amount that could cause an increase in blood lead level of 1 microgram/deciliter, which in turn is associated with a change of one IQ point. Since one IQ point is not very significant, and given that the 0.5 micrograms per day has at least a ten-fold safety factor built in, it is evident that California’s MADL is designed to err on the side of extreme caution. However, when it comes to lead, one can argue for extreme caution. So, let’s crunch some numbers and see where the Consumer’s Union findings leave us. The most lead found in a dark chocolate was 0.028 micrograms/gram, meaning that one could eat 18 grams a day before reaching the 0.5 micrograms of lead limit. How many children eat 18 grams of dark chocolate a day? I would suggest practically none! And that is borne out by the National Health and Nutrition Examination survey carried out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the U.S. The survey found that the amount of lead consumed from sweets by children is about 0.04 micrograms per day! Way below 0.5 micrograms. They get more lead from grains at 0.32 micrograms, from fruits at 0.29, and from dairy at 0.19 micrograms. While chocolates make a minor contribution, the total amount of ingested lead per day can exceed California’s stringent limit but is well short of that proposed by the FDA. What then do we make of the chocolate issue? Both the benefits and risks of dark chocolate are overblown. To really err on the side of safety, children should not consume more than a few grams of dark chocolate every day, but that is hardly a concern because surveys show that they don’t. Pregnancy also warrants great care, so limiting dark chocolate to about 15 grams a day is sound. As for everyone else, sugar and calorie content of chocolate is a bigger issue than lead content. ____________________________ Well, that's a relief!
IIRC there were 5 chocolates out of the 26 without lead. They should have an advertising slogen: "Unleaded!!!"
This guy did, and he thought he was overcharged for the lead and cadmium! https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hershey-sued-over-chocolate-containing-195719536.html