That's an interesting document. Thanks for posting.
In that document, every example of apple juice specifying “country of origin” as solely the USA was well below maximum allowable levels for inorganic arsenic.
As far as the issue of the safety of *cider* as you suggested ... I don’t think that is the case at all.
Being from a country which prohibits the use of arsenic containing pesticides (the US) ... and that the vast majority of cider is (relatively) locally produced ... and the fact that cider is in contact with its container for a relatively short period of time, which means less time to leach anything from a container (like antimony ... something related to arsenic) ... and that the presence of arsenic in “apple juice” HAS been traced to the practice in foreign countries (notably china) of using arsenic based pesticides; I would think that we have nothing to be concerned about from locally/US produced cider.
What is strange are the high levels of inorganic arsenic in grape juice according to that data.
The highest levels are shown as those having been stored in plastic bottles. Cause and effect or coincidence? There is no way to know from that data.
Regarding the apple juice, I looked carefully at that table for a few minutes. The data is all over the map ...
-- various samples of an “identical” product - same product and same company - with wildly different test results
-- juice from many different countries being all mixed together
-- the “plastic bottle” issue - and they don’t specify PETE 1 or whatever - it’s just all called “plastic”
-- and this is not to mention issues of inaccuracies due to manufacturers playing it “fast and loose” with procurement, growing, manufacturing, bottling (read: “sleaze factor”
as well as simple unintentional human error.
There is such a mish-mash of factors and data ... the only thing I can reliably take from that chart is just one thing ... That it is a good practice to buy locally grown product from growers/producers small enough and local enough that their practices and quality are a known thing.
I’m really disappointed with the lack of specificity in the data ... particularly for Consumer Reports. I know, I know - they are just posting the data. I guess that’s why they include the disclaimer
“Our tests don’t offer conclusions about overall levels in any juice type or brand.”
