Condescending or not, and speaking from whatever dogma you adhere to, you are entitled to speak and I would always honor this my friend
I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. Public forums such as this exist for just that purpose.
My intention was not to sensor opinion, but rather to highlight the fact that to draw conclusions on a matter of this nature through a perfunctory analysis is premature and frankly, misguided. Food safety is a multifarious topic, and the ascription of human ADI’s (acceptable daily intake) for a particular compound or family of compounds (from all dietary sources) is, in short, a bugger of a problem. To then parlay that ADI into an allowable concentration limit in a point source such as Cantillon Kriek is all the more a conundrum. Again, in the case of potassium ferrocyanide, the internationally recognized JECFA (Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives, comprised of members from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization) human ADI has been established for quite some time as 0-0.025 mg/kg bw.
I’m quite confident that the LCBO took the arguably conservative approach of NOAEL/100 in setting their concentration limit for potassium ferrocyanide. The clinically determined NOAEL (no observable adverse effect level) is 50 µg/mL, and the ‘100’ represents a standard risk factor that is generally reliable for taking into consideration extrapolation from animal studies, as well as myriad biochemical, toxicological and demographic factors. So they landed at 500 µg/L. Certainly a case could be made that this limit is excessively conservative for the product in question, however the important point that I’ve been trying to make is that it is not without precedent, it is based on scientifically obtained data, and it employs techniques that are universally applied in setting food standards. So there is no reason to believe that there is any wrong-doing on the part of the LCBO in this particular case. Of course everyone is free to draw their own conclusions, I am simply analyzing based on my considerable expertise and long experience in the disciplines requisite for a thorough-going assessment of the matter.
Far too often in these forums there is a tendency to jump the gun and vilify the LCBO at every opportunity. I don’t think that I am alone in this sentiment. There are certainly questionable practices that should be challenged as due, as well as the ethical issue of the insincerity in the stated motivations for their quality assurance program in the first place. But I think it is fair to say that it is in everyone’s best interest that a certain degree of prudence should, in general, be employed prior to jumping to conclusions.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
