11–20 of 67 posts
Disappointing that the NYT didn't actually buy some bars and have them tested, and report real numbers from the wild. The quality of reporting on non-headline stuff in the NYT seems to be falling as of late. This article doesn't really tell me anything.
Here are the tests consumer reports did a while back: https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/lead-and-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another manifestation of Betteridge's law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
No, this is not an article. This is from the “ask column” and is a genuine question from someone eating dark chocolate every day including when she was pregnant and then breastfeeding. The answer given is actually yes, probably, you should if you are pregnant or breastfeeding and limiting consumption the rest of the time would be wise.
It’s interesting how these things can be “healthy” and “unsafe” at the same time. Or maybe it’s because some of these health effects are often quite far-fetched (“may improve X”, “contains compounds which has, in other contexts, been known to be important for Y” whereas e.g. lead is very strongly correlated with negative effects. Makes me wonder on an “absolute scale” what we’re really talking about here: “-100 for h…
Stop buying new electronic stuff / computer / gadgets / appliances every other years guys. This whole scheme of growth and making and buying new things while we still have no decent way to recycle or stop contaminating is out of hands.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230319090005/https://www.nytim...
The main issue here is how we pretend to recycle batteries and electronic components while what we really do is dumping them to African countries such as Ivory Coast, Ghana which are the very same countries that produce the highest amount of Cacao. Stop buying new electronic stuff / computer / gadgets / appliances every other years guys. This whole scheme of growth and making and buying new things while we still have…
And when you do, buy it second hand. backmarket.com is really good for this.
Idea: The FDA equips a few inspectors with good XRF (XRay Fluorescence) testers, and plays a "let's drive the most-contaminated ~3% of the products out of the U.S. market" game.
It’s interesting how these things can be “healthy” and “unsafe” at the same time. Or maybe it’s because some of these health effects are often quite far-fetched (“may improve X”, “contains compounds which has, in other contexts, been known to be important for Y” whereas e.g. lead is very strongly correlated with negative effects. Makes me wonder on an “absolute scale” what we’re really talking about here: “-100 for h…
Disappointing that the NYT didn't actually buy some bars and have them tested, and report real numbers from the wild. The quality of reporting on non-headline stuff in the NYT seems to be falling as of late. This article doesn't really tell me anything.
Here are the tests consumer reports did a while back: https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/lead-and-...
tl;dr: concentrations of cadmium and lead in dark chocolate, so no you don't need to avoid dark chocolate. Eat it in moderation.
> A general rule of thumb is to consume no more than an ounce per day, Dr. Melough said. Eating more than that raises concerns not only about heavy metals, but also about high levels of saturated fat, she added.
Regardless of the (too high amount of cadmium and lead), one shall not eat more than 1 ounce (30 grams) a day.