There is a lot of testing available, that would be very good to have the results for, especially in our food. Heavy metals are easy. A little more expensive are the organic compounds: think herbicides, fungicides, insecticides. There is no agency that monitors those ingredients in food, not even in baby food. Fresh strawberries in January in central Canada are awesome, but at what cost, to long term health? No one knows. There is sadly, no agency that over sees that for consumers.

Would like to point out the non-profit organization mentioned in the article that bought this to light: As You Sow

I had never heard of them before until reading this article, they seem like a good organization to donate to.

The consumer report review actually is a bit reassuring in that most brands _don't_ really have high lead levels, it's the cadmium you have to be concerned with. This matches what ConsumerLabs similarly found.

However both reviews indeed show a lot of brands have high cadmium, with the worst offenders about 2x the california 4mcg limit. But this is the limit present in food, it doesn't tell you how much is absorbed. I assume the california limit might already try to account for this, but in the large scale 2x over the limit doesn't seem that bad, it's basically within order of magnitude.

Cadbury is listed here by the organization that discovered the issue:

https://www.asyousow.org/environmental-health/toxic-enforcem...

And here is the Hacker News post:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34033799

Cadbury aren’t really known for their dark chocolate.

The overwhelming majority of their product line is focused on milk chocolate.

Because the name sounds somewhat like cadmium? Or why do you bring it up?