Prop-65 Compliant Foods

mistamista
edited August 2015 in The Bulletproof Diet

Is there a list somewhere of foods that have been tested for prop-65 compliance with a PASS/FAIL score?  (something like consumerlab.com for food.)


 


It's strange that you can buy food that warns of cancer / reproductive harm / heavy metal content in one state, while in other states that same product might carry an "Organic" label and be found in the health-food section without disclosing this information.  For some foods, switching brands might offer a healthier / lower-risk profile (like with cacao / dark chocolate), while other foods might fail across the board.


 


I would be curious to see which foods I'm frequently buying carry this warning and see if there are better options for those that do.


Comments



  • Is there a list somewhere of foods that have been tested for prop-65 compliance with a PASS/FAIL score?  (something like consumerlab.com for food.)


     


    It's strange that you can buy food that warns of cancer / reproductive harm / heavy metal content in one state, while in other states that same product might carry an "Organic" label and be found in the health-food section without disclosing this information.  For some foods, switching brands might offer a healthier / lower-risk profile (like with cacao / dark chocolate), while other foods might fail across the board.


     


    I would be curious to see which foods I'm frequently buying carry this warning and see if there are better options for those that do.




     


    I don't know if there's a list, there probably is. 


     


    Like a lot of health stuff, I think the implications of Prop 65 are more complex than they might seem, and just getting a list isn't enough. For some products, Prop 65 is quite heavy-handed. I recommend reading Earthpaste's explanation for their prop 65 status, essentially they're getting dinged for lead, when the lead is naturally occurring in clay, and chemically bound such that it is inert in the human body. Dave's Upgraded Coffee has a prop 65 warning, either from naturally occurring chemicals in coffee or the roasting process, I forget which.


     


    For chemical products (cleaning products, solvents, etc.,) I think prop 65 makes a lot of sense. But for naturally-occurring organic compounds, I think it's heavy-handed. Basically it seems they're only looking at the presence of a material, not it's chemical form or it's reactivity in the body. 


     


    California doesn't have the best track record when it comes to legislating on reason over emotion. I'm glad they're leading the charge, but I wouldn't blindly follow their lead. 

  • mistamista
    edited August 2015

    While some amount of dietary heavy metal might be inert, I do believe eating less of it is a healthier choice than unknowingly eating more of it.  It would be nice to know if product A, for example, tested at something like >0.5ppm of a given contaminant and failed while product B (grown in a different location and processed differently) tested at something like <0.1ppm and passed.


     


    It seems like a lot of products are being tested (and failing).  It would be nice to have a run through all of that data and see which brands / products are superior to their competitors.  Perhaps something like brown rice syrup (a recommended sweetener in the Perfect Health Diet) would fail across the board, where you could make an educated switch to USP dextrose if you were looking for a cleaner glucose-heavy sweetener.


     


    Just looking at rice on the FDA site, I'm seeing some brands at > 11mcg of inorganic arsenic per serving, while other brands might sit closer to ~1 -- an informed shopper could potentially decrease their exposure to a class I carcinogen there by a considerable amount if they had access to this testing data.


     


    Or, looking at seaweed for example -- do I get a cleaner product getting the Organic Seaweed farmed in the potentially polluted waters of China at whole foods that carries no warning label, or do I get a cleaner product getting the Organic Seaweed at my local market from CA that carries a carcinogenic warning label?  Does seaweed fail across the board?  (It's hard to know without access to the data.)


     


    I see Dave's 100% raw cacao is listed as "the highest quality chocolate in existence" which is "ground to maximize prized fat."  When I look at the nutrition label, it has 2.5g of fat and 18g of carbohydrates in a 1oz serving.  Comparing it with Sunfood's single-ingredient 100% raw cacao which is listed as being "made from only the finest variety of certified organic heirloom cacao beans" using a cold-pressing process, I'm seeing 9g of fat and 11g of carbohydrates in a 1oz serving.  These are both 100% raw cacao -- looking for a lower-carb / higher-fat cacao, which one is more ideal for consuming daily?  (it's hard to know without access to the data -- it looks like Sunfood's received a prop-65 violation notice.)


Sign In or Register to comment.