Funny Political Memes

She is right and wrong and they are right and wrong. She is correct that they used the Ca prop 65 levels of exposure instead of the less stringent FDA levels of exposure. But, the issue is that this isn't like sodium where there is guidance to tell you the recommended levels because you need to have some but too much is harmful. There is no reason to ingest lead at all. So there isn't a true "daily guidance" based on safety. These are numbers made up by organizations. Think of lead more like a cigarette than a nutrient. What is the best safe cigarette level? Zero. If someone were to smoke one per day only, would there be health consequences? Probably minimal to none.

My overall issue is we have an ever expanding population (haha) who live in very unhealthy ways. Yet, there seems to be this constant attack on the things people are doing to get healthy with a huge dose of fearmongering. For every person now scared of protein powder so they turn their daily protein shake into a daily smoothie, this article causes harm, not reduces it. If you are worried about lead intake, get a blood lead level. If zero, quit worrying, if elevated, get rid of sources. That simple.


This is from the CR article an I have issue with it. Yes, they are "the most protective" of the two guidances. But, they could have made it 0.0001 and that would be even more protective theoretically. But, I don't know of any data giving a reason for the CA level, they just chose it:

We used the California Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Maximum Allowable Dose
Levels (MADL) as our benchmarks for CR’s levels of concern
for cadmium and lead. MADLs are levels established through
California’s Proposition 65 law. CR uses these values because

the standards are the most protective of health. A measured
level greater than 100% of CR level of concern indicates that
consumption of that serving amount per day would pose a
comparatively higher health risk.
However, while we use the MADLs involved in Prop 65, we
approach our exposure assessment differently from what’s
outlined in Prop 65. Prop 65 takes into consideration
consumers’ average exposure over time and dietary frequency
to calculate whether a product exceeds the MADL and requires
a warning label. By contrast, Consumer Reports assumes the
label recommended daily serving of the product in its risk
assessment calculations. This difference in methodology
means no Prop 65 judgments can be made from CR’s findings.
Our results are meant to provide guidance on which products
have comparatively higher levels of lead, not to identify the
point at which lead exposure will have measurable harmful
health effects, or to assess compliance with California law.
sorry not funny or meme-y.
1760619751192.png
 
Back
Top