Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Testing for heavy metals in things like the McDonalds glasses is done with a handheld analyzer..

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-05-10 09:41 AM
Original message
Testing for heavy metals in things like the McDonalds glasses is done with a handheld analyzer..
It takes only a few moments and the device is about the size of a video game controller.

Why does a company as large as McDonald's not have someone charged with testing their products marketed to children for hazardous substances? It's not like it's all that difficult to do?

http://www.thesmartmama.com/toxic-cadmium-prompts-cpsc-recall-of-mcdonalds-shrek-forever-after-promotional-glasses/

I was one of the people to submit the information to the CPSC. I used my Thermo Fisher Scientific Niton XRF analyzer to test all of the current promotional Shrek Forever After glasses – Donkey, Shrek, Fiona and Puss in Boots. And I found cadmium. The cadmium levels varied with the paint color, which made sense. Historically, cadmium has been used in paint to get yellow to deep red hues.

In the Fiona glass, I detected 1,049 ppm cadmium in the baby’s face. I detected no cadmium in Fiona’s dress (at the sleeve) but did find 10,900 ppm chromium.

In Puss in Boots, I detected cadmium at 1,378 ppm in the red pillow on which Puss rests, 1,048 ppm cadmium in the orange part of Puss, and 1,575 ppm cadmium in the yellow lion on which the Gingerbread Man sits. The Puss figure on the back (in the orange) was 1,707 ppm cadmium and 3,721 ppm chromium.

I detected 1,020 ppm in the green used on the Shrek glass. The yellow on that glass (at the Fiona Wanted sign) was 1,946 ppm cadmium.


More at the link..


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-05-10 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
1. Toxins all around us
It's probably safe to drink the liquid that's inside the glass; if you keep gnawing on the painted figures on the outside, you might accumulate some pretty bad stuff. It's certainly safer than the Fiestaware (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiesta_%28dinnerware%29) that had uranium in the glaze!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heywood J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-05-10 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Yeah, but I'll give Fiesta credit that it was back when
we didn't know our ass from a hole in the ground about radiation or consumer safety. McDonalds made this mistake in 2010 - we've known that cadmium is highly toxic for quite some time and we have laws governing exposure standards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-05-10 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
2. A group of people sat around a table and decided this was a good idea
Edited on Sat Jun-05-10 10:20 AM by MindPilot
It just amazes me that no-one thought to say, "ya know there is a lot of news lately about contaminated products; Bob take a case of this stuff down to the lab and make sure it's not got anything bad in it."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scuba Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-05-10 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Are you kidding? ...
....that could cost tens of dollars !!! We have to maximize profits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johonny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-05-10 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
4. sure McDonalds was the end user
but don't you think the quality control on raw ingredients to a final product comes much further down the line. Some one either bought a paint without looking at the specs, or more likely sold a paint of known dangerous quality. The break in the fault chain and quality control probably wasn't at the top at McDonalds but likely very close to the beginning. I know at BASF we tested every dye that went out of our factory. I can't imagine someone didn't lie somewhere about what was in their product.

McDonalds probably does have someone that tests the glasses but the only way to know shipment after shipment is of the same quality is to know you manufactures are making things to the same specs. Clearly someone in the process didn't. I doubt it was a top down failure here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-05-10 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
5. a manufacturer of paint can save a lot of money using cadmium as filler
now ronnie has to figure out what to do with millions of contaminated glasses.

having the chinese make their glasses because our labor is to "expensive" and our environmental laws are to strict bit ronnie in the ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-05-10 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. The glasses were made in New Jersey...
Edited on Sat Jun-05-10 10:10 PM by SidDithers
http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Shopping/Alerts/mcdonald_s_recalls_toxic_drinking_glasses_0506100358.html

The selling of the tainted glasses, made by ARC International of Millville, New Jersey, started on May 21, according to media reports. In Canada, the glasses were sold between May 10th and June 4th, 2010, Health Canada says on its website.



Who knows where they got the paint?

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heywood J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-05-10 10:16 PM
Response to Original message
8. I'm curious as to how much one of these is worth.
Never mind, I just found out. To buy, it costs twice what my car did when new and leases for the price of an apartment...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-06-10 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. I'm sure that would impact McDonald's bottom line horrendously..
Probably hundreds of times what a recall of millions of glasses is going to cost them in money and bad PR..








Yes, it's :sarcasm:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinniped Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-06-10 02:37 AM
Response to Original message
10. I've seen XRF demos before, pretty cool.
McD's can't afford these devices. They'll be out tens of thousands!

Think of the stockholders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC