Thread

Hmmm, accident it looks like they're over the maximum allowable dose level (MADL) for Cadmium in California. Using the more favorable number from their two published lab reports... 0.246 ppm = 0.0246 mg = 24.6 mcg / 100g The CA limit is 4.1mcg / ounce (28.34952g) 24.6 / 100 * 28.34952 = 6.97mcg / ounce Why did I choose the CA limit instead of using the USDA numbers? Because, unless it has changed in the last 2 years, the USDA doesn't set any such limits. I'm not sure why Bitcoin Beans claim to be "well below" USDA limits. According to Consumer Reports: "there are no federal limits for the amount of lead and cadmium most foods can contain" Source: https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/lead-and-cadmium-in-dark-chocolate-a8480295550/ Maybe my conversions are wrong, but it looks like they'd rank 26th out of 29 bars tested for cadmium at 170% of the aloowable levels. The lead is harder to quantify because the report says <0.1 ppm. That could mean as much as 2.8mcg/oz, which would be above the 0.5mcg/oz limit. But it could also just as well be well below the limit. If anyone can show me where I made an error in my analysis, or run the numbers yourself and let me know if you came up with the same results, I'd appreciate a sanity check on this one. ⚡ I want to be wrong on this one. 🫤

If measuring by calories instead of by weight, they're only about 300% the price of the cheapest cacao, and about 135% the prove of the most expensive cacao in my grocery store. But with the calorie counts being so different for the same weight (mainly due to saturated and unsaturated fats), I think most people would agree that these are substancially different products. We might not agree on whether 52.7% fat is desirable or not, but it's a far cry from the 8% that is typical in the cocoa found in the US. nostr:nevent1qqsrmjzn7x297drhgaqn5zxdnecyf7q0ued8dt9vs0uxqu65pmj3kxcppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgsdxr4f36n9a9fljx4e8a4np6j3aveu2phc04ylvq9p8xh0qz4f2ygrqsqqqqqpjavxx5