Discussion in 'Parents of Children with Type 1' started by caspi, Nov 30, 2011.
You sound like House .... "Everyone lies." I'm not sure what they lied about.
What is about these 2 paragraphs that you don't understand?
"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), based upon thorough scientific evaluation and risk assessment, has established specific levels of concern for inorganic arsenic in apple and pear juice at 23 parts per billion (PPB).. Juice products sold in the U.S. are within these Federal guidelines and we understand that the results of the Consumer Reports testing reinforce the findings that juice sold in America is safe and well below the levels of concern for arsenic and lead content.
Consumer Reports and other media outlets erroneously compare juice to the standards for drinking water. Juice is not water. To compare the trace levels of arsenic or lead in juice to the regulatory guidelines for drinking water is not appropriate because regulatory agencies have set lower thresholds for drinking water than for food and other beverages because people consume larger amounts of water. When FDA experts in food safety and toxicology developed the level of concern for juice, it took into account juice consumption among people of various ages, including children."
Comparing concentrations of various parameters in juice to drinking water standards is poor practice. As the paragraph above indicates - juice is not water. It is not used like water and not consumed like water. Drinking water standards which are set for water are not applicable to juice.
Actually, they didn't lie.
I am not in disagreement as I, too, think comparing juice to water is inappropriate however unintuitive. However, I am still confused as to whether "level of concern" means "regulatory limit". In other words, is it legal to sell juice above that limit? I was under the impression that it was not an enforceable limit.
The other part of this story is the irresponsible reporting, in my opinion, of not clarifying the real risks although, if you watched the Today Show episode, the Consumer Reports scientist did raise some concerns. It was not clear, however, if the scientist had ANY experience in toxicology. She was the one that stated, as well, that comparing apple juice to water wasn't an appropriate comparison but her reasoning was that the water limits were "developed for a 70kg person" and not children or infants. Did the reporters, at any time, go "WHAAAAAA?????? Do you mean to say that our drinking water limits are too high for our children or infants?" No, they did not. I wonder why?
I do think that the FDA may have been taken a bit by surprise with the CR report though and at least they might be looking closer at the situation. They recall products all the time and I don't think, for an instant, that their decision(s) on this issue was motivated by protectionism of the apple juice industry. In fact, I would wager a bet that they would, instead, make foolish decisions based on ill-informed public outcry.
For those who are interested, you can check out your favourite juice's test results here:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cont...Reports Arsenic Test Results January 2012.pdf
I see a bunch of novices who have not done their homework.. Drinking water standards are established to be protective of all ages.
For example, the drinking water standard for nitrate is set at 10 mg/L. Adults (eg. the 70 kg person) can tolerate many times that level, but it can be dangerous to infants who can develop methemoglobinemia (blue baby syndrome) - so the standard is set to be protective of infants..
You are taking the wording "level of concern" from one article. Other articles have used the words "guidelines" and still another used the wording "standards". My point is different articles use different wording and the only real terms will come from the FDA, not a particular media outlets interpretation.
My take on this (half watched the Today Show segment yesterday) is that Dr. Oz is saying, "If water can have only 10 ppb, why can juice be allowed 23 ppb; shouldn't the level in juice be reduced to 10 ppb, like water?" I think that the lower level would be found more acceptable. That said, I know nothing about how to reduce the arsenic level nor do I know how to measure it. Marissa sometimes drinks Juicy Juice apple juice for lows and I will use it to make applesauce about ten times a year. Just bought some sparkling apple cider--does this also have arsenic in it? One of the bottles is labeled Organic so I'm assuming it has fewer carcinogens, but you never know.
Ok, so I totally cut out pieces of your post... and didn't do it the right way... I know that. Sorry in advance.
Having said that. I totally agree. It is very difficult these days to trust these organizations / companies doing the so called "research" or speaking about the topic (and/or research). It's unfortunate, but everyone needs to do their own homework and figure out what they are comfortable with.
Thankfully, people aren't forced / coerced into drinking apple juice.
For those who can't get enough info on this issue, here's what the FDA itself is saying:
Perhaps, but do we know for sure that the bazillion safety limit studies on both water and food were done with infants in mind? Granted it's been some time but I used to manage an environmental organic lab department that tested for the bazillion compounds and I don't recall the limits changing very often although they occasionally did which led me to believe they were under constant review. I'm pretty sure, since looking at the PDF I linked below, that they reduced the MCL for arsenic from when I used to review the reports. I can't say that for the FDA though.
Granted but that doesn't answer the question if the "standard" is an enforceable regulatory limit.
I honestly don't see how you and others with the same feelings feel that way. The limits for drinking water and food are readily available. I don't have time to google the food limits but a 15 second search let me to the Drinking Water Contaminants with Maximum Contaminant Level and the Public Health Goal.
Does this look like an agency who is hiding information? It looks like the agency is looking very hard at these contaminants and their potential risks and, to be honest, looks like they do indeed have our backs. There's a lot of information out there if one would just go look for it.
Agreed. My guess is that we will see, in the near future, the FDA coming out and saying they will be taking a closer look at this issue and will probably be issuing more formal guidelines, standards, limits, whatever.
Oooh ... Top Secret memos!
Thank you. Now I know, with relatively certainty, that the term "level of concern" is directly from the FDA and that it is, most likely, not an enforceable regulatory limit and they explained why it is (they are) not. I can't say I love the "it's hard" explanation because the EPA does this all the time. It's also possible that the FDA does not have to rely on regulatory limits to enforce contaminant levels. They may have the authority to tell a manafacturer "We're concerned - pull the product."
I just had hair analysis done at the request of a naturopath and found I have elevated levels of arsenic. I had been juicing fruits and vegetables so it may have been from carrots, etc. I don't drink apple juice ever. Naturopath says to only eat organic. Some organic products are not expensive like carrots and apples so I am buying those. Crazy thing is, I have a mouthful of regular fillings and my mercury levels were not too high. No wonder we do not know who or what to believe!!
^^^ It' up there in that memo.
Mostly because the current professional and medical stance is that amalgam fillings are of little or no concern. In fact, it is my understanding that, at least in some states if not federal, it is illegal for a dentist to bring up the "mercury scare" to replace the fillings. I might be wrong about the legal issue but I do know that respected organizations tell you to "run like the wind" when a dentist brings up the topic. Are you saying you had detectable amounts of mercury though? Do you eat tuna or other fish?
Yes, I had detectable amounts of mercury. I rarely eat tuna, but do eat salmon fillets.
I am certain that you can understand how it can look to those with those of us who have felt duped before on similar topics. You can't look to these federal organizations and/or companies to give you all the information OR the best information. I can look for all the information available on the FDA / EPA sites... that doesn't mean that it is the end all, be all. There are other points of view in regards to safe limits of toxins, etc.... That's all.
I wasn't suggesting that it's the "end all, be all" only addressing what I thought was one specific concern - hiding information.
I guess some people see the glass as half-full, and some half-empty, and a few see the glass half-hidden by a morally corrupt, corporate shill of a federal agency with a secret agenda. Personally, I see the glass and say "Are you gonna drink that?"
I realize I am not a scientist, and perhaps lie is too strong of a statement, but when the FDA withholds information, it makes me uncomfortable. The following excerpt was from ABC news....
Dr. Besser spoke on the subject on "Good Morning America" on Wednesday, explaining the faultiness of the information provided by the FDA and stating that he feels the agency should hold the juice industry accountable.
"Back in September the FDA made a number of statements that reassured me. I'm much less reassured now. They published the test online, but withheld eight results that were very high," Besser said. The entire article is here: http://abcnews.go.com/US/arsenic-juice-consumers-union-study-prompts-fda-action/story?id=15053583
Separate names with a comma.