Quote:
Originally Posted by doucanoe
Those are pretty low levels (.1 to .3 ppm) but it appears that .1 is the max FDA allowable for consumables.
I used to be in the Construction/Lead Abatement biz and we were always dealing with levels much greater than that. Lead based paints were only part of the deal as most other finishes, construction materials and even carpet and floor coverings could contain crazy lead levels. Soil, particularly in urban areas could read hot also from vehicle emissions.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the lion share of the lead detected in analysis came from the packaging and not the "candy" itself. In any event, lead had a cumlative effect and even in very small quantities is particularly tough on growing kids and pregnant women.
Even with that being the case, I would have to believe that your diet would have to include a bowl of this candy daily to create health issues.
|
Of course consuming a bowl of any candy on a daily basis turns even potentially nutritional contents into toxic ones.
Not to get too far off of the subject here (as if one could thread crap on a thread about a candy called toxic waste), but, do any of those out there who call for less government have any particular objections to the requirement for providing nutritional information on the label of consumables? IMHO it is a useful regulation because it empowers the individual by providing him or her with a tool to make personal decisions.
Regards,
D-Ray