Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Lead containing Vinegar

Lead containing Vinegar

smuv - 11-9-2011 at 19:43

At the grocery store today...

The sad thing was my first thought was not "OMG There's lead in my vinegar" it was "I wonder if this has caused weird results for any amateur experimenters".

A cursory internet search revealed that the lead supposedly comes from the soil? which makes little sense for a distilled white vinegar. Anyone know more about this?

simba - 11-9-2011 at 20:00

And how are they even allowed to sell that?

crazyboy - 11-9-2011 at 21:35

It's bullshit. Prop 65 makes business warn consumers about everything that could cause cancer. Starbucks has disclaimers that coffee and toast contain acrylamide a deadly carcinogen. Ooooo scary.

smuv - 11-9-2011 at 22:15

Oh I know it's bullshit. I just would like to know the origin of the lead, especially in a distilled vinegar. Edit oops: re-read sign it says nothing about distilled vinegar.

[Edited on 9-12-2011 by smuv]

bdbstone - 12-9-2011 at 04:31

Probably through earth.

Lead(II) acetate was used to sweet wine, during the Roman times: http://corrosion-doctors.org/Elements-Toxic/Lead-history.htm

[Edited on 12-9-2011 by bdbstone]

[Edited on 12-9-2011 by bdbstone]

Megamarko94 - 12-9-2011 at 04:35

Quote: Originally posted by bdbstone

Probably through earth.

Lead(II) acetate(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%28II%29_acetate) was used to sweet wine, during the Roman times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning#History

[Edited on 12-9-2011 by bdbstone]

that's why their "death rate" was high....

bbartlog - 12-9-2011 at 05:26

If they're legal to sell per the US Fed Gov, then the lead levels are presumably acceptable to the FDA/EPA/other federal agency, but still high enough that the state of California feels compelled to mention them. I would guess the levels are really, really low.

simba - 12-9-2011 at 06:28

Quote: Originally posted by bbartlog

If they're legal to sell per the US Fed Gov, then the lead levels are presumably acceptable to the FDA/EPA/other federal agency, but still high enough that the state of California feels compelled to mention them. I would guess the levels are really, really low.

I have already heard many times that there are no acceptable levels for lead ingestion, and I don't think california state would allow lead containing products to be around.

blogfast25 - 12-9-2011 at 06:51

Could be an interesting 'rainy Sunday project' to see if lead levels are detectable by trad. wet methods... If so, that product shouldn't be on American shelves, as far as I'm concerned. But it's unlikely, IMHO.

It's also a crazy way of marketing a product, if you ask me...

not_important - 12-9-2011 at 06:55

Quote: Originally posted by shivas

...
I have already heard many times that there are no acceptable levels for lead ingestion, and I don't think california state would allow lead containing products to be around.

I assume that the population of California wishes to continue to eat, drink, and breath; most soil nowadays contains tens of micrograms of Pb per gram of soil, and that is picked up by plants, ingested by animals, and appears in the blown dust.

Note that there is some metric tonnes of uranium and thorium in the top meter of every square km of soil.

blogfast25 - 12-9-2011 at 07:11

Quote: Originally posted by not_important

It must have gotten better since the abolition of Pb(Et)4 though, no? I read somewhere [Bill Bryson - A Short History of Nearly Everything] that at the height of the 'Ethyl craze' the uranium dating people where finding anomalous levels of lead in just about any sample...

Re. U and Th, isn't it so that these elements are present in highly insoluble forms, through eons of geological 'fixing'? Not true of lead-based pollutants...

[Edited on 12-9-2011 by blogfast25]

ScienceSquirrel - 12-9-2011 at 07:18

If the lead is at a very low concentration and all you do is sprinkle a bit on your salad I think it can be considered harmless for practical purposes.

pip - 12-9-2011 at 10:37

Sounds like california is pulling a "crying wolf". If everything is labled as dangerous poeple will be desencitized to warning lables.

The WiZard is In - 12-9-2011 at 11:16

Quote: Originally posted by pip

Sounds like california is pulling a "crying wolf". If everything is labled as dangerous poeple will be desencitized to warning lables.

The land of the Fruits and Nuts is one giant MSDS.
They should post the ultimate warning sign —

WARNING — Life causes death

Mentioned in passing (again).

Richard P Weeden
Poison in the Pot : The Legacy of Lead
Southern Illinois University Press
1984

This reminds me of idiot US news organizations some moons
ago.

New Study Reveals Twice as Many Children Have High Lead
Blood Levels.

The truth - Twice as many children were tested, the number of
children with high blood levels remained unchanged.

The problem is that chemical analysis long ago left wet
analysis with modern instruments levels to PPB and lower
are achieved. Politics are still in the wet analysis stage.

Any one else remember - "Legionnaires Disease"? Its cause in
the beginning was a mystery most total. One day pop's up -
Scientist has found the LD was caused by nickel poisoning!
Just how a bunch of people in a hotel were exposed to water
soluble/gaseous nickel compound(s) was an larger mystery.

The claim was based upon the detection of nickel in tissues from
autopsy. The method of analysis used soooooo sensitive that it
detected nickel from the stainless steel instruments used during
the autopsy.

djh
------
I would quote my good friend
Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus
Bombastus von Hohenheim -

Alle Ding' sind Gift, und nichts ohn' Gift;
allein die Dosis macht, daß ein Ding kein Gift ist.

All things are poison, and nothing is without poison;
only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.

[Edited on 12-9-2011 by The WiZard is In]

[Edited on 12-9-2011 by The WiZard is In]

bbartlog - 12-9-2011 at 11:31

Quote:

I have already heard many times that there are no acceptable levels for lead ingestion

But since there are limits to our ability to detect it, the FDA might well assert that there is no lead in some sample, while the state of CA finds differently (using more advanced technology). More generally it is absurd to set the acceptable level of any contaminant at absolutely zero, when we know there are extremely small amounts of just about every element in the soil and water.

smuv - 12-9-2011 at 12:33

If it is indigenous to the soil, why does red wine vinegar have the warning, but not red wine?

unionised - 12-9-2011 at 12:34

Quote: Originally posted by shivas

I have already heard many times that there are no acceptable levels for lead ingestion, and I don't think california state would allow lead containing products to be around.

From whom have you heard that and how would you expect them to do something about it?

simba - 12-9-2011 at 13:03

Quote: Originally posted by unionised

Quote: Originally posted by shivas

I have already heard many times that there are no acceptable levels for lead ingestion, and I don't think california state would allow lead containing products to be around.

From whom have you heard that and how would you expect them to do something about it?

Television. I don't know how accurate their lead detection is, also didn't seem right to me, but after hearing a bunch of times you pretty much get convinced there must be some truth on it.

But anyway, in the case of this thread, if a product is labeled with 'contains lead', I don't think many people will want to buy it.

fledarmus - 12-9-2011 at 13:33

There was a time when every bottle of chemicals we got into the lab had a little round sticker on it saying "For the purposes of complying with New Jersey law, contents are partially unknown." Even on our guaranteed analysis 99.99% chemicals.

One of the scariest warning labels I have seen was the one on bottles of washed sea sand. We should have posted that on all the beach access roads.

kryss - 12-9-2011 at 13:58

The EU limit in drinking water is 50 ppb, so I cant see the limit in food being any higher. I would think all the foodstuffs (if its classed as food) gets tested for compliance as I know (in the EU) they do this for pesticides - and I cant see them not doing this for metals also.
There is a bit of a loophole where soft drinks don't get tested the way drinking water does, including bottled water, I'm sure people have heard of benzene being found in a French brand years ago.

99.99 % pure means you can have up-to 100 ppm impurities. Raw sewage is better than 99.9% pure water!

And I do believe "unleaded" petrol still has some lead in, just a lower level. I know parts of Scotland and Belfast in particular still have lead water pipes.

hinz - 13-9-2011 at 01:19

Maybe someone messed with the recycling of CRT monitors and the leaded screen glass was mixed with recycled bottle glass. Now, the acetic acid slowly dissolves the lead oxide in the glass, but the same glass is more or less harmless with non acidic foodstuff.

IMHO more plausible then the soil theory, since it's distilled, maybe even concentrated vinegar. Recycling leaded glass costs money, since it has to be deposited out of reach of ground water etc., so depositing it by mixing it with bottle glass is a cheap way of getting rid of it.

blogfast25 - 13-9-2011 at 03:45

Quote: Originally posted by kryss

99.99 % pure means you can have up-to 100 ppm impurities. Raw sewage is better than 99.9% pure water!

And I do believe "unleaded" petrol still has some lead in, just a lower level. I know parts of Scotland and Belfast in particular still have lead water pipes.

On that first point, come again???

On the second: no, it's been completely phased out, for years and years now. Turned out it wasn't even that difficult to replace: ethyl lead was a bit of a 'lazy solution' to the knocking problem. And it's a nasty chemical in more than one respect...

ScienceSquirrel - 13-9-2011 at 04:44

Tetraethyl lead is still available and used in petrol for some classic cars and also in some less developed countries, it is also a component of avgas for airplanes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyl_lead

kryss - 18-9-2011 at 09:02

@blogfast Must have got confused with them reducing it level of lead while it was being phased in, replaced by a Manganese compound:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylcyclopentadienyl_manganes...

Also 99.99 % pure = 0.01 % impure = 0.01 parts per 100 impurity = 0.01 x 10000 part per million impurity ie 100 ppm.

blogfast25 - 18-9-2011 at 13:32

Quote: Originally posted by kryss

@blogfast Must have got confused with them reducing it level of lead while it was being phased in, replaced by a Manganese compound:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylcyclopentadienyl_manganes...

Come again???