Which peer-reviewed studies address arsenic levels in confectionery and how do they compare to Florida’s screening benchmarks?
Executive summary
The available reporting does not identify any peer‑reviewed scientific studies that specifically quantify arsenic levels in confectionery products; coverage centers on the Florida Department of Health’s own testing and industry rebuttals rather than academic literature [1] [2] [3]. Florida’s results—which reported detectable arsenic in 28 of 46 candy products and compared those measurements to state “health‑based screening benchmarks”—have been challenged by the National Confectioners Association and others for relying on screening thresholds and hypothetical consumption models rather than published, peer‑reviewed action levels [4] [5] [3].
1. What the Florida testing actually did and reported
Florida’s Healthy Florida First initiative purchased 46 candy products from stores and online and had samples analyzed using EPA Method 6010D, a laboratory method that measures total arsenic but does not distinguish organic from inorganic forms [2]; the state reported arsenic was detected in 28 products and framed exposure in terms of how many pieces would reach state screening thresholds over a year [4] [6]. The Department of Health described its findings as “elevated levels of certain heavy metals compared to health‑based screening benchmarks,” listing arsenic alongside mercury, cadmium and lead [1] [7].
2. Industry and trade groups: the peer‑review gap claim
The National Confectioners Association (NCA) responded by challenging Florida’s methodology, saying the state “relies on ‘screening benchmarks’ that do not align with current federal regulatory standards or recognized peer‑reviewed science for confectionery products,” and warned that Florida’s use of “hypothetical annual consumption levels” risks confusing consumers [5] [8] [3]. The NCA pointed reporters toward the FDA’s Closer to Zero initiative and the agency’s Total Diet Study data as the more appropriate, science‑based comparators, arguing those FDA data show much lower arsenic levels in confectionery than Florida reported [8] [3] [9].
3. What the reporting shows — and what it doesn’t
News coverage uniformly documents Florida’s testing method, the number of products with detectable arsenic, and the public dispute with the confectionery trade group, but none of the provided stories cite or summarize peer‑reviewed journal articles that directly measured arsenic in candies or that validated the particular screening benchmarks Florida used [2] [4] [5]. Multiple outlets quote Florida officials’ alarming comparisons to other foods and industry pushback that Florida chose “sound bites over science,” but the citations in the reporting are to state releases and industry statements rather than to external, peer‑reviewed literature [6] [10] [11].
4. How Florida’s screening benchmarks compare to federal tools and science, per the reporting
According to the NCA and trade press, Florida’s benchmarks differ from FDA approaches and have not gone through the intensive federal rulemaking, public comment and scientific debate that accompanied FDA’s Closer to Zero work on baby food and juices; the FDA’s Total Diet Study Interface is cited by the industry as showing lower arsenic levels in confectionery than Florida reported [8] [3] [9]. Florida officials say their models were “highly conservative” and used strict inputs, but the publicly reported summaries in these stories do not reproduce the numerical screening benchmark values or the scientific derivations behind them, making direct numeric comparison in the reporting impossible [8] [2].
5. Limitations, open questions and why peer‑review matters here
Because the sourced reporting does not point to peer‑reviewed studies measuring arsenic in confectionery, there is no independent, published academic dataset in these articles to corroborate or refute Florida’s findings; that absence is central to the debate and how each side frames credibility—Florida leaning on state testing and screening thresholds, industry invoking FDA programs and peer‑reviewed science as the gold standard [1] [3] [8]. Without peer‑reviewed publications cited by the reporters, it is not possible from these sources to determine whether Florida’s measured levels are consistent with academic studies elsewhere, or whether Florida’s benchmarks are more or less protective than peer‑reviewed risk assessments; the reporting simply does not supply those studies or detailed benchmark math [5] [2].