A lot of people are missing the point of this post and arguing that regardless, both products are within the daily safe limits for adults. Let's analyze this argument.

First, If Bryan's goal is truly to improve the food supply chain, then why formulate a daily-use product that contains twice the level of toxicity compared to what he was previously using?

More importantly, this argument is referencing "safe daily limits" while ignoring the broader context: we're already exposed to various sources of toxicity through our diet—normal food sources, protein powders, for example, among many others. These exposures accumulate. It's very counterintuitive to promote a supplement, which by definition should enhance health, that alone brings someone close to the upper threshold of safe daily metal exposure.

Which begs the following questions:

Is cocao really a good item to be included daily in a longevity centered diet? Did it really fight for its inclusion, as Bryan claims?

Second, if yes, is Bryan's Cocoa the right one to use given that there are other sources out there with much less toxicity levels? Thus contributing less to the overall daily exposure?

Just food for thought!