In my country at least, there’s a conspiracy theory, that claims citric acid is a toxic acid invented by the nazis then given the name to link it to a healthy and alkalizing (!!!) fruit.

You’re one of my favourite terpenes

Get back in the toothpaste!

deleted by creator

The problem is a lot of nasty things come from less scary sounding things. For example:

Ingredient: Ricin, Where it comes from: Castor beans, What it’s used for: Poison.

I wish. That would be rad.

ingredient lables can be pretty long. I think we need a QR code with this and much more information. it should be able to back track where you product came from and such.

Peanut butter:

• ingredient: Peanut
• Where it comes from: Peanut
• What it does: Peanut?

I would like to see this but for laws as well. Just cut down all that self-important job security and say what it is in plain english

“Spices, natural and artificial flavors”

Mmm tastes like freedom and definitely not a corporate hellscape.

In Europe it is necessary that all food products contain such a list of all ingredients.

Example: Coke ZERO. Ingredients: Water, carbonic acid, colorant E150d, souring agent phosphate acid, sweetening agent (sodium cyclamate, acesulfam K, aspartam), natural flavor, flavor coffeine, acid regulator sodium citrate.

I translated that by hand so it probably contains mistakes.

Found this on Wikipedia:

Deionized water is very often used as an ingredient in many cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. “Aqua” is the standard name for water in the International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients standard, which is mandatory on product labels in some countries.

It’s a rock

If you bring calcium within sniffing distance of fluorine, you get calcium fluoride… just make sure you don’t have anything else close to the fluorine, including you.

Also, it’s basically just mined and purified as-is, it’s pretty common.

The Big Bang

More like “the chalk the calcium carbonate comes from is contaminated with lead,” interpreting your claim as charitably as possible. Calcium carbonate is the specific chemical compound CaCO₃; if Pb is present it’s a different compound entirely.

Moreover, I highly doubt that every possible commercial source of chalk is contaminated with lead, so unless you can tell which specific product this is just from the picture and know that it’s been tested by that site, you can’t make that claim in the absolute language you used.

And even then, that’s assuming the site itself is credible.

Tums and similar antacids are almost entirely calcium carbonate. According to their website:

The active ingredient in TUMS is calcium carbonate from a mined calcium source. It may be an appropriate option for people who cannot consume calcium sourced from shellfish. Each tablet contains 1000 mg of calcium carbonate, 410 mg of elemental calcium, 5 mg of magnesium and 2 mg of sodium.

Mined and from shellfish sounds like chalk to me.

Sure enough, in their FAQ:

The calcium carbonate in TUMS antacid is processed from pure limestone, resulting in a high degree of purity.

Let’s compare toothpaste, which one uses a small amount of twice a day and consumes (if old enough) almost nothing to an antacid made for occasional use but consumed in hundreds to thousands of milligrams at a time. Seems like there should be far more consumer concern about lead in antacids.

I found a paper about determining limits of lead detection in CaCO3, but they spiked lead into antacid tablets. There doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of concern out there about all this lead in chalk.

this is a joke, right?

how would anybody take that website seriously? it screams “hit back, never return, and forget I exist”

LEAD SAFE MAMMA LLC AMAZON AFFILIATE LINK………nah I’m good. You’re being scammed.

I question their methods if they’re also afraid of fluoride

This is such a pointless thing to take umbrage with. Looking at the table showing the levels and picking one of the highest ones from a brand I’ve heard of: Colgate Total Whitening comes in at 539 ppb of lead. We’ll call that 0.539 ppm to make the maths slightly easier, because that’s equivalent to μg/g.

Let’s say you really load up your toothbrush and use 2ml instead of a pea-sized blob, and assuming a specific gravity of 1.30, that’s 2.6g of toothpaste, of which 0.539 μg/g is lead. So you would ingest 2.6g × 0.539μg/g = 1.3936μg of lead if you swallowed all of that toothpaste every time you brushed your teeth.

Apparently young children swallow 0.053-0.3g of toothpaste, so let’s go roughly in the middle and say you swallow 0.18g, so 0.18 × 0.539 = 0.097μg of lead. Call that 0.1μg and you brush twice a day, so 0.2μg of lead per day from brushing your teeth. If you use a pea-sized amount, then halve that to 0.1μg.

The EPA’s maximum allowable limit of lead in drinking water is 15ppb, but is lowering to 10ppb (ppb = μg/litre) in 2027. So let’s say you live somewhere well below that limit and it’s 5ppb in your area. You’re supposed to drink 1.5 to 2 litres of water a day, so at 5μg/litre that’s 7.5 to 10μg of lead per day from drinking water, or 75 to 100 times more than the amount from brushing your teeth.

What, you don’t feel more informed to know that your glycerin comes from a miscellaneous vegetable?

Natural ore made me laugh. I mean, asbestos and beryllium are naturally occurring ores too…

I think you’re reading it too pessimistically. There are so many people out there saying, “If you can’t pronounce it or know where it’s from, then it’s straight POISON!”

There are artificial ores. There are people who will want to know the water they used was clean (the purified water). This looks like a great way to educate people on what they’re using and to learn not to be afraid of big, complicated words.

You can find those things out. Natural ore means it comes from natural deposits (its not a lab-formulated compound).

Some people prefer natural ingredients. Thats it.

Otherwise its very common with synthetic or refined chemical ingredients in toothpaste, like:

• Sodium fluoride / stannous fluoride (lab-produced, though based on natural elements)

• Artificial abrasives (engineered silica)

• Detergents like sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS)

• Synthetic preservatives, flavors, or colorants

Same reason people want to grow their own food. They know whats in it and what they put in their body.

Sure, this is still a marketing strategy that could be exploited by bad corps, but it is a step in the right direction. This is where rules to define those terms accurately would be a good use of regulations.

It’s homeopathic nonsense. None of those are accepted names for the substances they are talking about, and they don’t specify a quantity so it could be essentially zero for some of them.

It kinda looks nice unless you actually read it, or know what words mean.

Teaching children is pointless because it might look nice, but if you already know the stuff then you would recognize that it’s all fairly trivial, well-known stuff. No reason to point it out.

It looks like kingfisher tube. They are well known for their toothpaste without flouride but also has with flouride.

Ingredients are probably listed like that because the target group cares about what they use.