> Note however that US academic institutions basically cut all research into these subjects due to political and industrial pressure. It started with Republican attacks on USGS funding for environmental pollution research in the early 1990s, and continued with NIH cutting funding for environmental carcinogen research in favor of inheritied genetic explanations for cancer. Hence, 'little firm evidence'.
A few years ago, 2013, there was a study in Germany where a lab had tested various espresso machines and found lead.
My memories are fuzzy and incomplete, but I remember that nothing ever happened because there was a big uproar from manufacturers. They demanded "proof" and threatened litigation. The problem with tests is that you can create a lot of questions about procedures, for example, did you test just after descaling? First shot in the morning after letting water rest in the pipes overnight? Then there's discussion about "this is so little water, just a tiny espresso, so the amounts are smaller than in drinking water which you drink by the liter so the thresholds don't really apply". Basically, the lab would have to fight the manufacturers in court, so the whole thing was dropped silently.
I still have a 2012 Rancilio Sylvia entrance-level portafilter machine, almost unused, that I had tested by my Bavarian city's own water lab, with a sample taking procedure agreed upon with the leader of that lab (they did not have any procedures for a citizen who wanted something tested but did not want to turn me away, so the head of the lab himself took time to deal with my request). The lead values greatly exceeded the allowed limits. I don't think it would be any different with a current model. I ended up with a copper-based Vibiemme, and now I have a stainless steel based Ascaso Steel PID Uno that was designed with being environmentally flawless in mind.
Most, or just many?, people don't care, however. I found plenty of people who wanted to take my Rancilio Silvia, but I refused because I don't want this lead-laden piece of junk in use by anyone, even if they take it willingly despite knowing of the problem.
That is interesting. We have the same machine, which now concerns me. However due to recently removing on some old paint which we later suspected might have been lead based I Thad some blood tests for lead levels and everything was fine.
Blood only shows current exposure though. It's like trying to gauge what stuff a country has by looking at highway traffic. The levels will only be very small at any point anyway, the problem is long-term accumulation. Couple that with the problem in medicine that exactly that, long-term exposure to tiny amounts, is barely understood, and knowledge of toxins is mostly about large amounts at a time. The long-term-low-levels are also extremely hard to disentangle from everything else, it's background noise, and anything that happens slowly in a body needs to be separated from natural deterioration because of aging, a very tough nut to crack for research.
Just get an Ascaso Steel, it's a far better machine anyway :) It was a significant upgrade from my Vibiemme Domobar, which already was a significant upgrade from the Silvia. Not just espresso quality, there the upgrade (from the Domobar) is mostly greater consistency and the ease of getting the best outcome with less experimenting, it also uses significantly less resources - much less energy and also much less water. The only small complaint I had was that I had to keep my finger on the activation switch because I find the automatic flow-control useless (too inaccurate), until somebody pointed out I could program it to measure a huge amount of water that I would never reach in practice and then I could use it as on/off switch for drawing the espresso.
My understanding is that most European regulators err on the side of caution with respect to banning chemicals. It's more of a "you have to prove this is safe" mentality, rather than "you have to prove this is dangerous" in terms of the scientific uncertainty. They're all looking at the same global set of available research data it seems:
> "This principle, in the words of the European Commission, “aims at ensuring a higher level of environmental protection through preventative” decision-making. In other words, it says that when there is substantial, credible evidence of danger to human or environmental health, protective action should be taken despite continuing scientific uncertainty. In contrast, the U.S. federal government’s approach to chemicals management sets a very high bar for the proof of harm that must be demonstrated before regulatory action is taken."
US vs Europe approach difference was nicely visible right after brexit. US lobbyists for agro sector were trying to persuade UK government to ease EU-based laws on quality of food, farming etc.
Food safety regulations are more strict in the US than in europe. I'm not american, but the US FDA is very powerful and does not really mess around, the point where it's actually a bad thing. The horse meat scandal probably couldn't have happened in the US, at least not at the same scale
Well you can argue both sides than. I think the FDA is going overboard with their requirement to wash the poultry in chlorine.
As an add-on there's this oddity that the EU eggs cannot be sold in the US, due to the ban on washing them, and vice versa.
> Food safety regulations are more strict in the US than in europe
Novel food additives are always approved in the US first and there are more types of additives allowed in the US to begin with. This is an extraordinary claim that requires evidence.
Other nations aren't researching this?