A scientific critique would have been addressing the specific flaws of the study or the conclusion, which I don’t think they really did.
For example, your article notes that the levels they’re basing their analysis on are conservative on the side of safety, that there is no technically safe amount of lead, and that these exposure levels are cumulative for the rest of your diet.
So in total the criticism is that chocolate is indeed high in lead and cadmium contamination but your kids will probably be fine.
Really, you should have pointed out that CR refused to share the hard data, which is what is known as “sus.”
totally normal way to respond to a scientific critique of misinformation
A scientific critique would have been addressing the specific flaws of the study or the conclusion, which I don’t think they really did.
For example, your article notes that the levels they’re basing their analysis on are conservative on the side of safety, that there is no technically safe amount of lead, and that these exposure levels are cumulative for the rest of your diet.
So in total the criticism is that chocolate is indeed high in lead and cadmium contamination but your kids will probably be fine.
Really, you should have pointed out that CR refused to share the hard data, which is what is known as “sus.”