Dummy question: Is this lion's mane product safe to consume? (heavy metal ppm)

[Nightmara]

I've been eating a bit less than half teaspoon per day of this product. Then I found out there are heavy metals in chinese (and other)  products so I asked lab tests. Here are the results

Can you please tell me if it's safe to consume this product in regards of heavy metals? I ordered bacopa and ginkgo too but don't have their test results yet. Will post question about them too when I get them.

 

PS. Sorry if this isn't the right place to ask about this, just can't understand this myself

[DrP]

I am not a medical doctor - so please don't take any advice from my speculation.... but I don't see how they would sell it for eating if it was dangerous.   That said  -  I don't like the look of the 'Cadmium, lead, Mercury and Arsenic' in there listed as contaminants.    Maybe they are bound up in complexes or something other wise I wouldn't touch it...  although - after looking up there is less mercury in that in ppm than you would get in any fish taken out of the sea.

Not my field though - but if sold to eat, then it would probably be ok otherwise the seller would be in trouble.

 

[Nightmara]

I heard it's very common in these supplements to have heavy metals in them. Even the ones manufactured in EU/USA have some. 

 If anyone could confirm if it's wise to eat this daily? 

[StringJunky]

7 minutes ago, Nightmara said:

I heard it's very common in these supplements to have heavy metals in them. Even the ones manufactured in EU/USA have some. 

 If anyone could confirm if it's wise to eat this daily? 

That analysis says it conforms, so I would have thought  it's ok. You have to look at these results in the context that modern analytical methods are very sensitive and most products are contaminated with just about everything if you look hard enough and with the right techniques. I bet they could find PCB's, dimethyl mercury, uranium, plutonium etc... will that stop you just because they are present, but actually in effectual amounts?

Edited August 28, 2018 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

On 8/23/2018 at 9:19 AM, DrP said:

I am not a medical doctor - so please don't take any advice from my speculation.... but I don't see how they would sell it for eating if it was dangerous.   That said  -  I don't like the look of the 'Cadmium, lead, Mercury and Arsenic' in there listed as contaminants.    Maybe they are bound up in complexes or something other wise I wouldn't touch it...  although - after looking up there is less mercury in that in ppm than you would get in any fish taken out of the sea.

Not my field though - but if sold to eat, then it would probably be ok otherwise the seller would be in trouble.

 

The regulation of food supplements are relatively loose, and I believe the manufacturer's are responsible to ensure accuracy of their labels. I may be wrong by I believe they only take action if someone reports a mismatch. That being said, those listed values are not detected contaminants; they just test for it and indicate thresholds. I am not sure where they got the thresholds for the heavy metals, though. Overall they do seem low, but the actual important bit is how much you ingest on a daily basis (i.e. how many ug per heavy metal it would amount to). E.g. 1 PPM is the equivalent to 0.001 ug/mg. Assuming  your daily intake if the supplement is 500 mg, then your daily intake of, say, arsenic is lower than 0.5 ug, which is typically considered safe. If you take 5 g everyday, you would get to 50ug arsenic intake, which is higher than the average normal (non-occupational) exposure of adults in the US (which is around 40 ug/day, if memory serves). That does not mean that it is hazardous, but it would effectively more than double your routine exposure.

[DrP]

16 hours ago, CharonY said:

 Overall they do seem low, but the actual important bit is how much you ingest on a daily basis (i.e. how many ug per heavy metal it would amount to). E.g. 1 PPM is the equivalent to 0.001 ug/mg.

Are any of them cumulative poisons do you know?  Might be safe for a while but better to avoid long term build up?

[Sensei]

@Nightmara

Tiny amount of Lead is everywhere, in the air that you're breathing, because it is/was used by oil industry to produce certain types of fossil-oil-based fuels like gasoline/petrol (Lead compounds as addition to fuel)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline#Leaded_gasoline_controversy,_1924–1925

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead

Some countries banned fuels with Lead addition not so long ago.

ps. If you bother about yours and family health, you should buy solar panels, install them on the roof, and buy electric car. If everybody would give up fossil-based fuels, many problems with people health would be gone..

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Sensei

[CharonY]

9 hours ago, DrP said:

Are any of them cumulative poisons do you know?  Might be safe for a while but better to avoid long term build up?

Most accumulate to some degree. Lead has a half life in blood of ca. a month, for example. Effectively we all accumulate a net amount of heavy metals over our lifetime. Depending on the concentration they can be problematic, of course. Some safety limits are based on average unavoidable exposure levels. As a side note, this makes health effects due to exposure very complicated as the damage is usually cumulative and it is bloody hard to pinpoint a specific source unless we get to acute exposure levels. 

8 minutes ago, Sensei said:

@Nightmara

Tiny amount of Lead is everywhere, in the air that you're breathing, because it is/was used by oil industry to produce certain types of fossil-oil-based fuels like gasoline/petrol (Lead compounds as addition to fuel)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline#Leaded_gasoline_controversy,_1924–1925

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead

Some countries banned fuels with Lead addition not so long ago.

ps. If you bother about yours and family health, you should buy solar panels, install them on the roof, and buy electric car. If everybody would give up fossil-based fuels, many problems with people health would be gone..

 

I am not sure about the detailed balance, but it may not be that straightforward. It is possible that solar production has a net lower contamination, but one should keep in mind that production and eventual disposal of solar panels as well as electronic devices is not clean, either. I am not sure whether someone had done a net estimate (I would be surprised if there wasn't), but it would be interesting to see where the final balance lies. Obviously, solar energy did not have the same amount of time to get optimized as fossil fuels have, so even if comparing unfavorably there is likely more room for improvement. Or at least I guess there is.