from learning the truths you’ll read here.
To stay up to date on the latest findings in this realm, visit the website of which I am the editor, www.naturalnews.com.
Laboratory methodologies and accuracy
Can you trust the data presented in this book? My laboratory is accredited by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) under its global analytical accuracy standards program known as ISO 17025. This is the gold standard for internationally recognized analytical laboratory accuracy, and it means we operate under a strict set of rules, guidelines, and procedures that are enforced by a third-party audit.
The scientific methodologies we use for testing food and water are universally recognized by the scientific community and are sourced from organizations such as the Association of Analytical Communities (AOAC), the EPA, and the FDA. For example, we use a minor variation of AOAC 2013.06 for testing heavy metals in foods.7
For testing water samples, we use methodology EPA 200.8.
My lab was accredited in 2016 after two years of preparation involving analytical repeatability determinations, validation of analytical methods, and exhaustive documentation of our laboratory quality control procedures and error-correction processes. Because of this extensive experience in ICP-MS analysis and laboratory protocols, I even plan to announce my availability as a science consultant to food manufacturers or retailers who wish to set up similar testing for their own operations.
But what is ICP-MS? How are heavy metals really tested in foods and beverages?
To help understand analytical accuracy a bit further, it’s important to understand the nature of ICP-MS testing.
ICP-MS results across competent laboratories can and do vary by as much as 20 percent due to differences in methodologies and instrument sensitivities. Within the same lab, variation in results from different samples of the same product may vary as much as 10 percent due to several reasons, but competent laboratories demonstrate strong repeatability within a range of plus or minus 10 percent.
From lab to lab, analytical results of the same substance may vary slightly. So if two different labs test the exact same protein powder, for example, it is perfectly reasonable that one lab might report lead at 450 ppb while a second lab reports lead at 500 ppb.
However, you won’t find orders of magnitude differences. No competent lab would report lead at just 45 ppb or at 4500 ppb for the same sample, in other words.
In summary, it’s important to understand that ICP-MS laboratory results do have some natural variability within a reasonable range. Metals composition will also vary from gram to gram and lot to lot. Every production lot of a commercial product has a different metals composition from previous lots. Because of these simple truths, all the numbers in this book should only be used as a general guide to help you decide what to eat and what to avoid. They do not describe absolute concentrations that are consistent across all products of the same name.
It’s also true that because of the efforts already made by myself and the launch of the Natural News Forensic Food Lab, some companies are making tremendous efforts to clean up their raw materials and produce cleaner products. That’s why products sold on the market at the time you read this may be substantially cleaner than the products tested in this book. A book takes at least a year to go from manuscript to store shelves, so what you are seeing in this book is actually a snapshot of products that were available in the three years prior to publication. If you’d like to see more up-to-date results, you’ll find them at labs.naturalnews.com.
Many commercial labs deliberately produce artificially low results
Another important thing to keep in mind here is that many commercial labs that cater to food companies are in the business of producing artificially low metals test results because that’s precisely what their customers want to see. Producing artificially low results is very easy to accomplish by various means that are readily accessible to anyone who wants to commit such violations of ethics.
At the Natural News Forensic Food Lab, we use a slow digestion method that prevents the nitric acid from boiling. This retains nearly all heavy metals found in the original food sample. As a result, our metals tests are typically slightly higher than what most commercial labs produce, but they are also more accurate. Our open-block digestion cycle typically takes two hours, not the forty-five minutes often used by other labs. We also use closed cell (microwave) digestion for difficult samples to ensure complete digestion.
Any competent university lab can easily reproduce our results within plus or minus 10 percent by using appropriate digestion equipment and procedures.
How we assure scientific accuracy at our lab
In the interests of full disclosure, here are some of the methods and safeguards we’ve used in the Natural News Forensic Food Lab to ensure the best possible accuracy:
• As noted above, our lab is ISO 17025 accredited, having achieved the global standard for trusted analytical accuracy in laboratories.
• All instrumentation is calibrated and certified accurate by its original manufacturer.
• All analytical methodologies we use are derived from globally accepted methodologies published by the AOAC International or other similar scientific organizations.
• All external standard solutions are traceable to National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) or other standards bodies. Custom standards are formulated and validated by highly competent, experienced custom formulations companies.
• We do not re-use sample digestion vessels or autosampler vessels. Our laboratory process relies on disposable vessels that eliminate vessel contamination concerns.
• After every tenth sample is run via ICP-MS, a blank vial and a calibration vial are run to ensure the ICP-MS instrumentation remains well calibrated. If significant analytical drift is detected (i.e., results of the midrange calibration checks begin shifting), the run is halted, the instrument is cleaned (or consumable parts are changed out), and the run is repeated from the start. Analytical drift during our ICP-MS testing has been nearly eliminated through the use of the Niagara Plus sample injection system manufactured by Glass Expansion.
• ICP-MS instrumentation is routinely maintained in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. For example, sample cones and skimmer cones are routinely cleaned. Sample uptake tubing in the peri-pump is routinely changed. Argon air is in-line filtered, as is our helium source.
• For each food sample tested, three separate samples from the same product lot are run. Results are then averaged across the three to help eliminate variability and improve reliability.
• All sample test vials are archived for a period of one year so that any challenged result can be re-validated if needed.
• The validity of digestion methods and ICP-MS analysis methods are further validated through the frequent use of Certified Reference Materials (CRMs) with known concentrations of elements verified by more than a dozen other laboratories.
• Outside labs are used to further validate and spot-check in-house laboratory results. We have at times used a third party commercial laboratory as well as a university laboratory, both of which have confirmed our findings on multiple occasions.
• The dilution water used in sample
