PSA from FDA

[Charles]

If it saves but one life.

http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm241359.htm

Chas

[finnbow]

I guess if one markets their candy as "Toxic Waste," they can't get too pissed about such a recall.

[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.

[Charles]

You couldn't have picked a better business to get out of.

Chas

[d-ray657]

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

[doucanoe]

Originally Posted by Charles

You couldn't have picked a better business to get out of.

Chas

Ah... you have had some first hand experience I take it. It was much better when it was regulated smartly but now, it's just become so burdensome and costly to manage it's hard to turn a profit. The majority of the properties I managed activities on were old residential. If it were not for the federal and state funding most of those folks could never afford to address the problem.

Sad really because the majority of the problem areas can be controlled by containment/ encapsulation with abatement reserved as a last resort. More and more, complete abatement procedures were specified and the cost to all skyrocketed.

I was told by a MN department head (who really knows his shit) that the rules regarding Lead and removal were based on the Asbestos rules because they had nothing to go from originally. Both are toxic but they have nothing to do with one another. Asbestos being an airborn issue which is not the case with Lead. Until of course you start tearing into shit and making it airborn for a period of time Like a lot of things govnment, the over regulation of program is killing it along with the entire home remodel industry.

I feel sorry for folks that just want to have a new door installed in their home only to find out they opened a stinky can of worms and that $600 door just turned into a $20,000 lead issue.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

Ah... you have had some first hand experience I take it. It was much better when it was regulated smartly but now, it's just become so burdensome and costly to manage it's hard to turn a profit. The majority of the properties I managed activities on were old residential. If it were not for the federal and state funding most of those folks could never afford to address the problem.

Sad really because the majority of the problem areas can be controlled by containment/ encapsulation with abatement reserved as a last resort. More and more, complete abatement procedures were specified and the cost to all skyrocketed.

I was told by a MN department head (who really knows his shit) that the rules regarding Lead and removal were based on the Asbestos rules because they had nothing to go from originally. Both are toxic but they have nothing to do with one another. Asbestos being an airborn issue which is not the case with Lead. Until of course you start tearing into shit and making it airborn for a period of time Like a lot of things govnment, the over regulation of program is killing it along with the entire home remodel industry.

I feel sorry for folks that just want to have a new door installed in their home only to find out they opened a stinky can of worms and that $600 door just turned into a $20,000 lead issue.

It's totally out of control now, and compliance borders on the impossible, if not outright impossible.

Case in point, if someone wants to power wash an old house with lead paint, they are required to build a plastic dam around the perimeter of the building, erect crime scene tape with Hazmat signs, wear a plastic suit which would give you a heat stroke in about 30 minutes, collect all of the waste water and then pour it down the toilet, and then test to see that all of the lead contamination has been removed before you leave.

I do renovations, which is just as bad. In effect, what they have done is to take every old but serviceable house and turn it into a liability which you can't afford to fix, you can't sell because the banks won't loan money on it, and you can't even legally tear down.

Right now all they have done is to create a vast army of Sgt. Schultz's walking around saying "I know nottings" and hoping like hell they don't wind up standing in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You get that scarlet "L" on your jacket, and buddy, you're in a heap of trouble.

Chas

[doucanoe]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

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

It is already there for the most part is it not?

If you are throwing prepared restaurant food into the mix then the answer is no. That is unless they choose to do so.

If someone is on the fence as to if the triple beef cheese burger with fried onions and mayo is the healthy choice or not... Well, all the labeling and nutritional info. in the world isn't going to fix that.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

It is already there for the most part is it not?

If you are throwing prepared restaurant food into the mix then the answer is no. That is unless they choose to do so.

If someone is on the fence as to if the triple beef cheese burger with fried onions and mayo is the healthy choice or not... Well, all the labeling and nutritional info. in the world isn't going to fix that.

My red state has instituted a pretty damn steep "prepared meal fee" to address this issue. Fees, (Read; "taxes".), are their answer to every problem, God-Fearing Honest Republicans that they are. Maybe your state can do the same?

Dave

[doucanoe]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

My red state has instituted a pretty damn steep "prepared meal fee" to address this issue. Fees, (Read; "taxes".), are their answer to every problem, God-Fearing Honest Republicans that they are. Maybe your state can do the same?

Dave

Oh sure, we have moved away from using the term, taxes, and now like to refer to everything as "additional fees" also.

We were very blue with a Rep. Governor and now are "Red" with a Dem Governor. I don't think it makes much difference for these folks anymore. If they have something they can regulate or tax they will find a way to do it no matter how lame the reasoning.

It's all for your benefit of course.