You're viewing a single thread.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony's_Chocolonely
Dutch chocolate which is very good, and uses a slavery-free supply chain.
But not a lead free chain
https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/lead-and-cadmium-in-dark-chocolate-a8480295550/
Welp. That's depressing
Damn. Pick your battles I guess, I'll die of lead poisoning to keep people free
I think it's more like "The chocolate supply chain is poisoning you in general" tbh, so go with Tony's because it's the ethical choice of delicious lead.
CR uses shit science, doesn't open source their papers, isn't peer-reviewed and goes against WHO and FOA recommendations. source
CR's latest article on heavy metals in chocolates advised readers that "kids and pregnant people should consume dark chocolate sparingly, if at all, because heavy metals pose the highest risk to young children and developing babies."
But medical toxicologists who spoke with Ars disagreed with the "sparingly, if at all" suggestion.
"I don't see evidence that pregnant people or children will be harmed from eating food from time to time with concentrations at the levels described in the article," Stolbach told Ars.
Feed your babies all the chocolate you want then.
As far as I'm concerned it's a self solving problem.
totally normal way to respond to a scientific critique of misinformation
A scientific critique would have been addressing the specific flaws of the study or the conclusion, which I don't think they really did.
For example, your article notes that the levels they're basing their analysis on are conservative on the side of safety, that there is no technically safe amount of lead, and that these exposure levels are cumulative for the rest of your diet.
So in total the criticism is that chocolate is indeed high in lead and cadmium contamination but your kids will probably be fine.
Really, you should have pointed out that CR refused to share the hard data, which is what is known as "sus."