Cadmium contamination in cacao products

[Sibiriak]

Thanks kpfleger.   Can you tell us  which cacao powders had the highest flavanol content and which had  the the best flavanol/cadmium ratios?

[kpfleger]

On 9/28/2018 at 10:42 PM, Sibiriak said:

Thanks kpfleger.   Can you tell us  which cacao powders had the highest flavanol content and which had  the the best flavanol/cadmium ratios?

There are no cocoa powders that have a better flavanol to bad metals ratio than the Navitas Naturals nibs. In particular note that the Navitas Naturals powder has much more cadmium than the nibs. So you'd be much better off crushing the nibs yourself. (Of course, if you really like crushing, you could maybe crush a 100% bar that has even less cadmium.)

There was one powder that had low cadmium, but it had high lead, so that's no help.

 

Even without paying or having a login, you can read the teaser page about the report here:

https://www.consumerlab.com/reviews/Cocoa_Powders_and_Chocolates_Sources_of_Flavanols/cocoa-flavanols/

There is some info in the teaser page, and there is an 11min video that explains some of the basic topics like what levels of flavanols are therapeutic and what levels of cadmium are bad. The video does also talk a bit about dutching chocolate and how that can allow for darker % but lowers flavanols. The video mostly doesn't talk specific brands but does mention Aduna Super-Cacao, which had the highest flavanol and flavanol/cadmium ratio in their chart, but the ratio is still worse than the Navitas Naturals nibs, and the video discusses how there is a reformulation of that product that decreases the flavanols so they don't recommend it.

 

[tea]

On 10/3/2018 at 12:42 PM, kpfleger said:

There are no cocoa powders that have a better flavanol to bad metals ratio than the Navitas Naturals nibs. In particular note that the Navitas Naturals powder has much more cadmium than the nibs

I think flavanol content (and to a lesser extent cadmium content) are highly variable between batches. There is no reason to assume that one batch of one brand will have the same levels the following harvest. Someone on the forum contacted Trader Joe's and they guaranteed their cacao powder to be:

"Alkali used in processing - no

Cadmium <0.6 ppm or it doesn't ship to their stores (so it could be less, but this is the max allowable)

Lead <0.0001 ppm or it doesn't ship to their stores (so it could be less, but this is the max allowable)

Polyphenols - 4 grams per 100 grams of product (I actually asked about flavanols, but since it isn't a nutritional supplement they don't measure/track it and she provided polyphenol levels instead)"

[kpfleger]

9 hours ago, tea said:

I think flavanol content (and to a lesser extent cadmium content) are highly variable between batches. There is no reason to assume that one batch of one brand will have the same levels the following harvest. Someone on the forum contacted Trader Joe's and they guaranteed their cacao powder to be:

"Alkali used in processing - no

Cadmium <0.6 ppm or it doesn't ship to their stores (so it could be less, but this is the max allowable)

Lead <0.0001 ppm or it doesn't ship to their stores (so it could be less, but this is the max allowable)

Polyphenols - 4 grams per 100 grams of product (I actually asked about flavanols, but since it isn't a nutritional supplement they don't measure/track it and she provided polyphenol levels instead)"

It's true that I expect both the bad heavy metals and the good flavanols to vary and CL doesn't explicit address this variability that I noticed. I'm sure it's expensive to run the lab test and thus to test everything multiple times to get a range would be harder. It'd be nice if they tested some example products multiple times (eg buying national brands in different geos and over different seasons and showing a distribution to get a sense of the kind of variability) but I haven't seen it if they have done this.

Still, they do often test the same products in different years and I trust them a lot more than I trust some customer service representative from Trader Joe's. In fact, they tested Trader Joe's unsweetened powder and found it exceeded acceptable thresholds in both 2014 and 2017 (1.2+ mcg cadmium / g of powder both years). I don't know what their quoted "ppm" means in this context but either it's a misleading metric or their quality control isn't as good as the rep claims. Navitas Naturals nibs only had 0.32mcg/g of cadmium.

Since Trader Joe's 85% bar had 0.73mcg/g (vs Endangered Species 88% with 0.06mcg/g and several other bars with low levels), this doesn't seem to be an issue isolated to their powder. I personally will stay away from Trader Joe's branded chocolate, at least until they improve on future updates of these reports.

 

[tea]

That's interesting. Did they test the raw cacao powder (Peru) or their unsweetened dutched Cocoa powder?

Ppm should be the same as mcg/gram, so if the results of the CL tests are accurate than Trader Joe's QC is definitely in need of some improvement.

[mccoy]

yesm ppm means parts per million, so in units of mass  1 ppm= I millionth of a gram = 1 microgram 

[tea]

On 10/18/2018 at 11:05 AM, kpfleger said:

 

Can you share how Ghirardelli's 100% Unsweetened Cocoa did?

[Rufus Chaney]

Regarding Zn and Cd in chocolate products and risk to humans from lifetime excess Cd absorption. Research with food levels of Cd and Zn has shown that Zn can strongly inhibit Cd absorption. Zn is usually at least 100-fold Cd in foods, except rice. Rice is the food that has caused essentially all food-caused Cd disease. Farmers in Japan, China and Thailand who grew their crop on paddy soils contaminated by upstream mining, and consumed the home-grown rice for decades, are the only population other than Cd-industry workers who suffered Cd disease. Rice is deficient in Zn, Fe and Ca for human nutrition, and each of these elements interacts with and reduces risk of dietary Cd.

Regarding Cd in chocolate products, the JECFA (which is part of WHO, and establishes allowable daily intake of Cd, etc.) in their latest statement about Cd in chocolate noted that although Cd in chocolate can be higher than desired, because of the low consumption of chocolate and levels of other nutrients in chocolate, that they did not recommend setting limits on Cd in chocolate products. I'll attach a review paper on nutritional interactions which influence Cd absorption and hence risk.

Tobacco naturally accumulates Cd from soils. The nutritional interactions which reduce Cd absorption in the intestine are not applicable in the lung. Contaminated tobacco products represent a significant risk. Counterfeit cigarettes have been found to contain higher Cd than name brands, up to more than 5 fold normal levels. This is important because even using major brands and smoking one pack per day for 30 years doubles Cd in kidney cortex at age 50. So if you care about Cd, avoid smoking and especially smoking counterfeit cigarettes.

Rufus Chaney

Chaney 2015-How does contamination of rice soils with Cd and Zn-human Cd disease-Curr Pollut Repts.pdf

[mccoy]

Thanks Rufus, 

as described in other threads, I've recently had my urinary cadmium checked, and it was very low. My consumption of cacao powder approaches that of the Kuna Indians in Central America, 30 grams per day average, plus dark chocolate. Another member, strong consumer of cacao, reported low values.

This suggests that, as you wrote, chronic Cd intoxication most probably derives from excessive industrial pollution or tobacco consumption. 

Edited November 24, 2020 by mccoy

[Todd Allen]

4 hours ago, mccoy said:

I've recently had my urinary cadmium checked, and it was very low.

Mine was low but when I started taking DMSA for lead poisoning my urinary levels for cadmium and a couple other metals jumped to somewhat alarming levels.  Fortunately they have each dropped at roughly 10% per month of treatment and approaching a year of treatment only lead is still at a somewhat concerning level 

[Saul]

Since I eat fish, I have my serum and urine checked every few years, for heavy metals (to check for mercury).  They all (including Hg, Pb, Cd, As, many more) come out vanishingly low -- with the exception of As (arsenic), which is high.  More detailed testing showed that inorganic arsenic was low -- organic arsenic was high.  Supposedly organic arsenic is supposed to be OK.

  ??

  --  Saul

Quote

 

 

[Ron Put]

On 11/22/2020 at 7:13 AM, Rufus Chaney said:

Research with food levels of Cd and Zn has shown that Zn can strongly inhibit Cd absorption

Thank you, this is very useful to know.  Like mccoy, I have been eating cacao nibs for many years and have tested my cadmium levels and they are below what the lab's minimum levels are.

Methinks ConsumerLab used cadmium levels as a scare tactic to enhance their market presence -- it's what really put them on the map and got them a ton of media exposure, as popular media picked up the story. It worked, as I checked my Ca levels after the story broke out and have checked it again since 🙂

Saul, you might find this to be of interest:

Human exposure to organic arsenic species from seafood

[InquilineKea]

https://www.rapamycin.news/t/cosmos-study-shows-cocoa-flavanols-reduce-risk-of-cardiovascular-death-by-27/3620/46

[Dean Pomerleau]

Consumer Reports just did an update on their testing of chocolates for heavy metals including lead and cadmium. I get CR for free with my Kindle Unlimited subscription.

It looks like the cadmium issue has been addressed by virtually all brands of cocoa powder and other chocolate products. Lead was still found in some of them. I was happy to see the cocoa powder I've been buying for years (Navitas Organics) is one they recommend. Stay away from Hersheys.

Here is one page of their review (other chocolate products are on subsequent pages):

 

There are more chocolate products on subsequent pages, but I figure cake mixes, hot chocolate and chocolate chips aren't very relevant for folks here. 

[drewab]

20 hours ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

Consumer Reports just did an update on their testing of chocolates for heavy metals including lead and cadmium. I get CR for free with my Kindle Unlimited subscription.

It looks like the cadmium issue has been addressed by virtually all brands of cocoa powder and other chocolate products. Lead was still found in some of them. I was happy to see the cocoa powder I've been buying for years (Navitas Organics) is one they recommend. Stay away from Hersheys.

Here is one page of their review (other chocolate products are on subsequent pages):

 

There are more chocolate products on subsequent pages, but I figure cake mixes, hot chocolate and chocolate chips aren't very relevant for folks here. 

Thanks for sharing this Dean. That's great news that the cadmiun issue has been resolved. I wonder exactly how it was resolved. Does Consumer Reports have any data on Rodelle Organics? The primary reason I chose it is simply that it's extremely well-priced at Costco. 

 

[Sibiriak]

21 hours ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

It looks like the cadmium issue has been addressed

Surprising good news!  Thanks Dean!

[Ron Put]

Thanks for posting the list, Dean!

Cadmium in cacao first made the news in a big way when ConsumerLab tested and publicized it. It helped ConsumerLab get tons of publicity and boosted their subscriptions and revenue by a lot.

But after testing myself and researching the topic, I came to the conclusion that it was much ado about nothing, or almost nothing. ConsumerLab piggybacked on EU regulations that tightened the cadmium guidelines significantly, allowing it to present some of its results as unsafe.

But cadmium occurs naturally in volcanic soils, and it's relatively greater in South America, where virtually all of the cacao sold in the US is sourced. In Europe, a larger portion of the market is made up of African or SE Asian sources. I personally like the taste of Balinese cacao better, and tests show it to be much lower in cadmium, but nowadays it's virtually impossible to find in the US.

Back then I was consuming cacao to the tune of about 40g per day, mostly nibs, from a variety of brands. After years of such consumption, my blood tests were repeatedly below LabCorp's sensitivity.

Has anyone who consumes cacao also tested for cadmium and what were the results?

[Dean Pomerleau]

I don't see any data on Rodelle Organics cacoa powder @drewab. 

[kpfleger]

I stopped eating chocolate in all forms sometime in the past year in order to reduce overall fat (& sat fat) intake to improve LDL & apoB, & peripherally to reduce overall calories. Chocolate is calorie dense, almost all from fat, and quite a high portion of the fat being saturated: ~60% of the fat is sat, which is 3-6x higher than most other plant foods (other than coconut, which I also avoid).

I know chocolate has some beneficial chemicals, and I fully believe that relative to the background of a standard-american-diet, replacing 50-100 calories of SAD with high quality 100% cacao/chocolate could well be net health beneficial. But I think the case that replacing 20-50 or 100 calories of WFPB or CRON diet w/ nibs/powder is less clear. It clearly has less micronutrients or fiber per calorie vs veggies or most other whole plant foods. So what's the best evidence that adding it for its unique chemicals provides meaningful health benefits relative to the baseline of a CRON or low-cal WFPB diet?

[kpfleger]

(I.e., what's the best evidence to weigh against the evidence for low-fat WFPB eating, eg Ornish's many papers.)

[Dean Pomerleau]

I seriously doubt there is a study comparing a WFPB diet against a WFPB diet with some veggies replaced by the same calories of cacao nibs or fat-free cocoa powder @kpfleger.

My perspective is that dietary diversity (within the plant kingdom) is generally beneficial and a few tens of calories of organic cocoa powder isn't going to hurt one's health, especially now that we know at least some brands aren't high in the metals this thread warned about.

 

[TomBAvoider]

49 minutes ago, kpfleger said:

I stopped eating chocolate in all forms sometime in the past year in order to reduce overall fat (& sat fat) intake to improve LDL & apoB, & peripherally to reduce overall calories. Chocolate is calorie dense, almost all from fat, and quite a high portion of the fat being saturated: ~60% of the fat is sat, which is 3-6x higher than most other plant foods (other than coconut, which I also avoid).

I know chocolate has some beneficial chemicals, and I fully believe that relative to the background of a standard-american-diet, replacing 50-100 calories of SAD with high quality 100% cacao/chocolate could well be net health beneficial. But I think the case that replacing 20-50 or 100 calories of WFPB or CRON diet w/ nibs/powder is less clear. It clearly has less micronutrients or fiber per calorie vs veggies or most other whole plant foods. So what's the best evidence that adding it for its unique chemicals provides meaningful health benefits relative to the baseline of a CRON or low-cal WFPB diet?

I rather tend to look at these questions with the black box approach. I think we often can't tell why exactly some food/nutrient is good/bad, i.e. we can't tell what's going on inside the black box. What matters is what goes in and comes out from the black box - i.e. food item goes in, and what emerges at the other end is an outcome good/bad, what goes on inside the box, who knows (or more exactly we create hypothesis as to what the mechanisms are, with varying degrees of certitude). 

I (we) observe that consuming F&V (what goes into the black box) has a good outcome for health (what comes out of the box). Scientists speculate that the reason is this or that nutrient (speculating about what goes on inside the box), and then they create a supplement like f.ex. lycopene, which may or may not have an equivalent outcome in health (usually not!). So why worry about what goes on inside the box (other than intellectual curiosity, which I too have), just look at outcomes and then decide if you want to consume X (say, chocolate) or not.

Tentatively, it seems that the outcome (what comes out of the box) of consuming chocolate is health positive. If nonetheless someone is uneasy about some aspects of the food, you are welcome to modify it. 

For example, the speculation (what goes on inside the box) is that it's the chocolate polyphenols that are responsible. And that cadmium, excess calories, saturated fat etc. are all negatives. You could just look at outcomes and not worry about what's inside the box - cadmium, lead, calories, sugar, SFA - perhaps those work hormetically to your health advantage. Or you could speculate - I too love speculating and modifying.

If it's polyphenols, then what I do is put some Navitas Organics powder on the bottom of my coffee filter, then coffee grounds on top, let hot water go through (in a coffemaker) and drink the liquid. I believe that it's been shown that the polyphenols go through the coffee filter and end up in the coffee, so that covers that. However, it also strains out some heavy metals at least to some degree (such as cadmium and lead), it does largely strain out any fats including saturated fats as well as substances that raise LDL, and finally have essentially zero calories. I believe that addresses all of your objections (heavy metal contamination, excess calories and saturated fat, sugar).

That is if you believe that this will result in all the health benefits of chocolate and very few of the negatives. That's my contribution to the specuation about what goes on inside the black box.

[Ron Put]

6 hours ago, kpfleger said:

stopped eating chocolate in all forms sometime in the past year in order to reduce overall fat (& sat fat) intake to improve LDL & apoB, & peripherally to reduce overall calories. Chocolate is calorie dense, almost all from fat, and quite a high portion of the fat being saturated: ~60% of the fat is sat, which is 3-6x higher than most other plant foods (other than coconut, which I also avoid)

I was thinking the same a while back, so I switched from cacao nibs to cacao powder, since powder is much lower in fat.

Moreover, much of the saturated fat in cacao is stearic acid, which does not appear to raise LCD-c. The palmitic acid content of cacao powder is about 4% or less of the weight, so the 10-15g I drink nowadays is not likely to have a great effect.

But to place all this into perspective, even back when I was consuming about 40g of nibs a day, my LDL-cholesterol did not seem to be affected nearly as much as when I was taking 900mg of Omega-3 supplements per day. See this for my Omega-3 n-1 experiment.

EVOO seems to affect my cholesterol similarly to Omega-3 supplementation, so now I consume EVOO rarely.

[InquilineKea]

Lustgarten reports chocolate bad for telomere length

[kpfleger]

On 2/13/2024 at 3:01 PM, Dean Pomerleau said:

a few tens of calories of organic cocoa powder isn't going to hurt one's health

Cronometer tells me that 30 calories of Navitas, Organic Cacao Powder would be 7.5g. Are you consuming that little? Is the amount of chocolate-specific polyphenols in that little really likely to move the needle on health by a lot? I'm skeptical that the effect size is such that the dose response gives that much benefit from such a small amount.

Cronometer also tells me the 30 calories would come with 0.5g of saturated fat. If I added that to a 2250 calories day of high-nutrient WFPB food with 3.8g of total sat fat, those 30 extra calories would be equivalent to about 1% of the rest of the calories but would have more sat fat than 1/8th of the other calories.

Maybe something about the kind of saturated fat makes that kind less bad as was also just suggested, but the data suggesting this kind of fat is less bad seems somewhat thin/preliminary, not like a firm fact that can be trusted completely.

Edited February 21 by kpfleger