Skip to content

Prose-style & consumer-language sweep — 2026-06-03 (batch 3, ingredients)

Counts: P1 0 · P2 24 · P3 4. Report-only; no pages were edited.

Pages scanned (24): butternut-squash.md, cabbage.md, camellia-sinensis.md, canned-corn.md, canned-fruit-cocktail.md, canned-green-beans.md, canned-mushrooms.md, canned-spaghetti.md, canned-tomatoes.md, canned-tuna.md, cantaloupe.md, cashews.md, cauliflower.md, celery.md, cereals.md, chapattis.md, cheddar-cheese.md, chicken-noodle-soup.md, chicken-potpie.md, chicken.md, chili-con-carne-with-beans.md, chocolate-cake.md, chocolate-chip-cookies.md, chocolate-reduced-fat-milk.md

Stubs skipped (5): casein.md (provisional_scaffold + literature_scope: thin), cereal-bars.md (provisional_scaffold + literature_scope: thin), cereal-based-infant-formula.md (provisional_scaffold + literature_scope: thin), chitosan.md (provisional_scaffold + literature_scope: thin), cereal.md (autonomy-created stub, body is stub notice + all-dash contamination table).

Next run resumes at wiki/ingredients/cinnamon.md (skipping chocolate.md and cocoa.md — already covered in batch 1).


P1 — consumer safe/dangerous without anchor

PageLineOffending textWhySuggested fixClaim-adjacent?
(none found)

P2 — bullets-in-prose & other qualifiers

The dominant pattern this batch: ingredients with genuinely low metal burdens (dairy, white-muscle chicken, most fruits, canned goods with clean intrinsic fractions) are described with unanchored magnitude qualifiers — “low”, “modest”, “trace”, “negligible”, “minimal” — in introductory and derivative-risk paragraphs that precede or are separate from the data tables that would anchor them. Editors applying fixes should verify the claim is supported before choosing an anchor number.

PageLineOffending textWhySuggested fixClaim-adjacent?
cabbage.md123carry the parent cabbage's metal load with negligible processing-driven change”negligible” characterizes magnitude of fermentation’s effect on metals without a quantitative anchor; mechanism is given (“fermentation does not concentrate or dilute metals”) but no ppb comparisonRephrase to state the mechanism only: “carry the parent cabbage’s metal load unchanged; fermentation does not concentrate or dilute metals on a per-mass basis”no — mechanical statement, not a risk claim
canned-corn.md99maize is classified as a low Cd accumulator at typical agricultural soil concentrations”low Cd accumulator” is a magnitude claim without a ppb anchor in this sentence; TDS data (Cd median 1.1 ppb) appears later in the pageAnchor to TDS range in same sentence, or add parenthetical: “a low Cd accumulator (TDS: Cd median 1.1 ppb, range 0–2.2 ppb)”⚠ yes — “low” implies a contamination level the editor should verify against the corpus data
canned-corn.md151lacquered cans maintain much lower levels”much lower” characterizes Sn in lacquered cans relative to unlacquered (50–200 mg/kg given), but no number is given for the lacquered-can Sn levelAdd a typical lacquered-can Sn figure, e.g., “lacquered cans typically maintain Sn below 10 mg/kg in the same storage scenarios” — or cite a source for the specific reduction⚠ yes — “much lower” implies a specific reduction magnitude
canned-fruit-cocktail.md99Lead, cadmium, and arsenic in the fruit fractions themselves contribute modestly”modestly” characterizes Pb/Cd/As magnitude from fruit fractions; TDS values (Pb median 5 ppb, Cd ≤ LOD) appear later in the pageRephrase to reference TDS values directly: “Pb in the fruit fractions sits at ~5 ppb (TDS median) and Cd below detection, with tAs also at or below detection”⚠ yes — “modestly” implies a low contribution that should be anchored to the corpus data
canned-green-beans.md99a modest intrinsic pathway from the bean pod and seed tissue”modest” characterizes intrinsic Cd/Pb contamination level for canned green beans without a ppb anchor in this sentence; the sentence after gives “single-digit to low tens of ppb” for CdMerge the anchor forward: “a modest intrinsic Cd and Pb pathway from the bean tissue (typically single-digit to low tens of ppb for Cd in non-contaminated soils)”⚠ yes — “modest” implies a specific magnitude range
canned-mushrooms.md99cultivated mushrooms...typically show lower but still detectable heavy metal levels”lower but still detectable” is a relative magnitude comparison to wild mushrooms without a quantitative anchor for cultivated Cd/Hg in this sentence; literature ranges (50–500 ppb Cd for Agaricus bisporus) appear later in the pageAdd the literature range: “cultivated Agaricus bisporus typically shows Cd of 50–500 ppb fresh weight in European surveys, substantially lower than wild species but well above most vegetable baselines”⚠ yes — the “lower” claim needs anchoring; the TDS single composite (1.8 ppb) conflicts with literature values, which is acknowledged later
canned-spaghetti.md95Tomato is a relatively low metal accumulator as a fruit-vegetable”relatively low metal accumulator” characterizes tomato’s contamination magnitude for the reader without a ppb anchor; the mechanism is explained but no number is given in this sentenceAdd typical Pb/Cd range for fresh tomato, e.g., “Tomato, carrying Pb typically below 10 ppb and Cd below 20 ppb fresh weight, is a relatively low metal accumulator among vegetables” — see also canned-tomatoes.md⚠ yes — the “low” claim should match what corpus sources support for tomato fruit
canned-tomatoes.md95Fresh tomatoes are among the lower-accumulating common vegetables for Pb and Cd / Cd accumulation in tomato fruit is detectable but generally low relative to leafy vegetables or root cropsTwo unanchored relative magnitude claims in the same paragraph; the numbers (Pb < 10 ppb, Cd < 20 ppb) appear in line 124Move the numeric anchor to line 95 or cross-reference: “Pb typically below 10 ppb and Cd typically below 20 ppb fresh weight (per general literature), placing fresh tomatoes among the lower-accumulating common vegetables”⚠ yes — “lower-accumulating” and “generally low” are the claim; editor should confirm the corpus supports these specific thresholds
canned-tomatoes.md124iAs, tHg, and Al also at low levels / Lacquered cans reduce Sn to trace levelsTwo qualifiers in the same sentence: “low levels” for iAs/tHg/Al lacks ppb anchors (only Pb and Cd are anchored in this sentence); “trace levels” for lacquered-can Sn is similarly unanchored — unlacquered Sn is given as tens to hundreds of mg/kg, but the lacquered-can number is notFor iAs/tHg/Al: cite TDS values or note “at or below reporting limits in survey data.” For Sn: give a typical lacquered-can Sn figure or rephrase to “substantially reduced, typically below the EU 200 mg/kg limit even at extended storage”⚠ yes — “trace” for lacquered Sn implies a specific level the editor should verify
canned-tuna.md94mostly as low-toxicity organoarsenic forms”low-toxicity” characterizes the risk to the reader from this arsenic species form without a dose or population anchor; while technically accurate for organoarsenic vs iAs, it implies a safety conclusion without quantitative groundingReplace with the mechanism: “mostly as organoarsenic forms (arsenobetaine, arsenocholine) that are substantially less bioavailable than inorganic arsenic” — and note the iAs fraction separately per CLAUDE.md Part 14⚠ yes — “low-toxicity” makes a risk claim that depends on species fractionation; the iAs fraction should be quantified rather than minimized by this qualifier
canned-tuna.md127carry the same fish-meat mercury load with negligible packaging-source metal contribution”negligible” characterizes Pb/Sn/Al from tuna pouches without a number; modern fully-welded steel cans are the reference point, but pouch-specific metal migration data are not citedReplace with “with lower packaging-source metal contribution than tinplate cans, given the absence of a tin interior” or cite a pouch-specific migration figure if available in the corpusno — the mechanical claim (“pouches have no tin interior”) is defensible; “negligible” is a conclusion not a claim about food safety per se
cantaloupe.md99Nickel and total arsenic are detectable but at modest concentrations”modest” characterizes Ni and tAs magnitude without a ppb anchor in this sentence; TDS data (Ni up to 270 ppb, tAs up to 26 ppb) are in the table section belowMove the numbers forward: “Nickel (TDS median 75 ppb, max 270 ppb) and total arsenic (TDS median 7 ppb) are detectable” — removing “modest” since 270 ppb Ni is not obviously modest⚠ yes — the TDS Ni data (up to 270 ppb) arguably contradicts “modest”; editor should reconcile
cantaloupe.md159Given its very low intrinsic metal load for most analytes, it contributes minimally / from a very low baseline this remains well within regulatory limits for most analytes / low-risk profileThree unanchored magnitude qualifiers in the Ingredient-derivative risk section; TDS data (Pb=0, tHg=0, Cd median 7.1 ppb, but Ni up to 270 ppb) are in an earlier sectionAnchor each claim to the TDS distribution. Note the Ni exception explicitly in the first sentence rather than at the end: “For all analytes except Ni, the TDS data (Pb=0, Cd median 7.1 ppb) support a low derivative contribution at typical inclusion rates; Ni (up to 270 ppb) is the exception and drives the product-level estimate”⚠ yes — “low-risk profile” and “very low baseline” are claim-adjacent; Ni data at up to 270 ppb weakens both characterizations
cashews.md69trace Pb from production and post-harvest handling”trace Pb” is an unanchored magnitude qualifier for this contamination pathway; no ppb figure is given for production/post-harvest Pb in cashewsAdd typical Pb range for cashews or replace with “low but variable Pb depending on growing-region soil and handling practices” — omitting “trace” until corpus data supports it⚠ yes — “trace” implies a specific low magnitude; if post-harvest Pb is not negligible in some origins, this characterization misleads
cheddar-cheese.md95accumulates heavy metals at very low concentrations relative to plant foods / a small fraction partitions into milk / the overall metal burden in aged cheddar remains extremely low relative to plant-derived ingredientsThree unanchored magnitude qualifiers in the opening paragraph; the TDS data (all metals at or below reporting limits except U at max 1.3 ppb) appears later and would anchor these claimsAnchor “very low” and “extremely low” to TDS data inline: “accumulates heavy metals at concentrations at or below detection limits in FDA TDS surveys (27 composites; Cd, Pb, tAs, tHg, Ni, Cr all ≤ LOD).” For “small fraction,” cite a dairy-partition factor or remove⚠ yes — though TDS data supports “very low” for cheddar, citing the specific data is more defensible
chicken.md95generally a low accumulator of heavy metals / retaining only a small fraction / Cadmium and lead in commercial poultry muscle are consistently low in global surveillance data / residual total arsenic and inorganic arsenic remain detectable at low levelsFour unanchored qualifiers in the opening “Why” paragraph; the contamination profile table (Pb typical 0 ppb, Cd typical 0–3 ppb) follows immediately afterFor Pb and Cd, anchor to the contamination profile values. For “at low levels” for post-withdrawal arsenic, add a note: “residual tAs and iAs remain detectable at concentrations up to ~20 ppb tAs in post-2015 surveys (lasky2013-arsenic-chicken-correspondence)” — or replace “low levels” with “at concentrations above pre-withdrawal baselines but below FDA action levels”⚠ yes — all four qualifiers are claim-adjacent; the arsenic “low levels” characterization is particularly sensitive given the US broiler withdrawal history
chicken.md132this pathway is expected to be low but is not quantified”expected to be low” for chicken-fat metal pathway is an unanchored prediction; the page itself acknowledges it is unquantifiedRephrase to remove the magnitude prediction: “this pathway has not been quantified in the current corpus; it is left as a data gap” — reserving magnitude characterization until corpus data supports itno — the “not quantified” hedge is explicit; this is more of a literature gap than a consumer risk claim
chicken-noodle-soup.md99may contribute trace lead through leaching from the skeletal calcium matrix”trace lead” from bone broth leaching is unanchored; no ppb range given for this pathwayAdd a parenthetical if corpus data supports it, or rephrase to “may contribute lead through leaching from bone surfaces (the lead bone-mobilization pathway is documented in the literature; concentrations in broth are not quantified in the current corpus)”⚠ yes — the magnitude of bone-lead leaching into broth is a meaningful claim for products marketed to children
chicken-potpie.md99The chicken muscle fraction contributes very little to any of the ten profiled metals / neither of which is a documented source of significant metal migrationTwo unanchored qualifiers: “very little” for chicken’s metal contribution; “significant metal migration” for packaging (metal pie tin, cardboard sleeve). TDS data (Cd median 6.3 ppb, Ni median ~47 ppb) is given in the same paragraph for the whole productAnchor “very little” to the per-ingredient estimates if available, or soften: “The chicken muscle fraction, with typical Pb 0 ppb and Cd 0–3 ppb (per chicken), contributes less than the vegetable and pastry fractions.” For packaging, replace “significant” with “documented”no — the packaging claim (“neither is a documented source”) is a literature absence claim; the chicken claim is relative to the vegetable fraction
chili-con-carne-with-beans.md155tomato is generally a low-metal ingredient and this effect is small”low-metal ingredient” and “small effect” characterize tomato’s metal contribution and the concentration effect of tomato processing without quantitative anchorsAnchor to tomato Pb/Cd data (Pb typically below 10 ppb, Cd typically below 20 ppb fresh weight per canned-tomatoes page) or remove the characterization⚠ yes — “low-metal” for tomato as an ingredient in chili is claim-adjacent with respect to the product-level risk
chili-con-carne-with-beans.md159leaving a product with a much lower metal burden per serving”much lower metal burden per serving” for bean-free chili is an unanchored comparative claim; the bean-driven Ni (median 330 ppb) for chili-with-beans is given, but no estimate is given for the hypothetical bean-free variantAnchor: “eliminating the bean fraction would reduce Ni by approximately the bean-fraction proportion (roughly 60–70% of the product by inclusion), based on the TDS Ni median of 330 ppb” — or remove the comparative claim⚠ yes — “much lower” is a magnitude claim that should reflect the actual ingredient ratios
chocolate-cake.md99Eggs, butter, sugar, and milk contribute negligible metals”negligible” is an unanchored magnitude qualifier for these ingredient streams; no ppb values are given for their contributions in this contextRephrase: “Eggs, butter, sugar, and milk contribute metal loads well below detection in TDS surveys (see eggs, butter)” — or remove the comparative claim and simply note the cocoa fraction is dominantno — the relative claim (other ingredients contribute less than cocoa) is defensible; “negligible” is the only trigger word
chocolate-chip-cookies.md99Butter, sugar, eggs, and leavening agents contribute negligible metalsSame pattern as chocolate-cake.md:99: “negligible” unanchored for the non-cocoa, non-wheat ingredient streamsRephrase: “Butter, sugar, eggs, and leavening agents contribute metal loads below detection in TDS surveys”no
chocolate-reduced-fat-milk.md155the practical effect on metal concentrations of using reduced-fat versus whole milk is minimal”minimal” characterizes the fat-reduction effect on metal concentrations without a quantitative comparison; no ppb difference between whole-milk and reduced-fat versions is citedRephrase: “the fat-fraction metal contribution is small relative to the cocoa-solids fraction; no quantitative comparison between whole-milk and reduced-fat versions is available in the current corpus”no

P3 — em dashes & inline bold

PageLineOffending textWhySuggested fixClaim-adjacent?
cabbage.md157and Cd 0.050 mg/kg for the same category — substantially tighter than CodexEm dash connecting the EU limit statement to its interpretive gloss in running proseReplace with a comma or semicolon: “and Cd 0.050 mg/kg for the same category, substantially tighter than Codex”no
cashews.md73(Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria — the largest production region globally)Em dash inside a parenthetical geographic list; used to attach a relative-clause gloss to one list itemReplace with a nested parenthesis or comma: “(Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria (the largest production region globally))” or drop the glossno
canned-tuna.md94The defining heavy-metals concern is mercury — specifically methylmercury (MeHg)Em dash introducing a parenthetical elaboration in the opening paragraph of running proseReplace with a comma or colon: “The defining heavy-metals concern is mercury, specifically methylmercury (MeHg)“no
camellia-sinensis.md160, 162, 164, 166**Brew temperature and time** determine Al..., **Water source** matters..., **Tea bag vs loose leaf** is..., **Lemon juice or other acid** added...Bold used at the start of four consecutive paragraphs to highlight the brewing-factor subject; the paragraphs are not in a bullet list. Per check #2, definition labels opening a glossary entry are not violations; these are closer to bold topic-sentence labels. Borderline: they name discrete entities but the bold serves as a structural cue, not a definition label.If the section is meant as a catalog, convert to a bullet list with explicit bold definition labels (as in the Mitigation section). If it is prose, remove the bold and let the sentence structure carry the topic.no