,
 | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
General discussion
Speaking of minority health disparities...
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Discussion is locked
31 - 60 of 38 Posts
- Collapse
- Collapse -
Sorry, James.
Since I'd been away from the forum for four days and the item just showed up in this morning's paper, I assumed it was new.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
- Collapse -
As reported, it certainly sounds bad.
And in any circumstances, there certainly should have been more information released and publicity generated.
Would the local or state government have had the authority to ban the brands from the stores of the community or state? or since it's a foreign source would they have to get the feds on board to do anything? Wouldn't this require federal import restrictions to do anything about it? other than attempt to publicize and educate locally that is.
I wonder where the 85% of California children that had lead poisoning that weren't found to eat the candy were exposed to so much lead.
RogerNC
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
- Collapse -
The culprit may be chili. Here's a link to an ABC story about it that goes into it: http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/health/040904_APhealth_candy.html
- Collapse -
Ok, so as far as the candy, the lead introduced was in the chili added? I think that's the concludsion.
While there certainly should have been more publicity if nothing else, it is a (maybe minor but) point that nothing tested exceeded federal limits of 0.5 parts per million . There should have been an advisory to the public still warning of unusual amounts.
And as I read it, these are standards that have been around a while, not some recent "relaxing of standards". There seems to be plans to lower the standard soon. I don't know how they decide how much and when to lower standards if they've already set a danger level. It seems that lead is a less is better item all the way down to zero, at least so far as current knowledge.
I still wonder where the other 85% California children who suffer lead poisoning -- about 3,000 over the past three years got the lead into their systems. It may be a hundred different minute sources, but without being identified here, there could be another single source as bad or worse than the candy under discussion. Hopefully it's very diverse unusual sources. While zero incidence is a worthy goal, approaching it will probably be all that can be done.
RogerNC
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
- Collapse -
I decided one thing, Roger. When I buy a bottle of chili powder for cooking, if the label says product of Mexico I'll chose another brand.
CNET Forums
Operating Systems
Software
Electronics & Gadgets
Hardware
Tablets & Mobile Devices
General Help
Roadshow Autos
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic