Came across this today on the celiac website and I'm curious what your thoughts are...it basically states that rice grown in the SE United States has a high level of arsenic in it. I'm not trying to start anything here, and I don't know the validity of the source, just reporting what I saw today and thought it was worth mentioning.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 092336.htm
Wendy
New Study on Rice and Arsenic Poisoning
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
-
kate_ce1995
- Rockhopper Penguin
- Posts: 1321
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 5:53 pm
- Location: Vermont
Hi Wendy,
Thanks for that link, since we need to stay informed about things such as that.
After checking it out, the article that you provided a link to, appears to be a heavily-edited version of the original article that came from The American Chemical Society. If you go to the American Chemical Society site, and locate the original article, it presents a much more balanced picture. You can find it here:
http://www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/s/1 ... 245d830100
You might also be interested in this article, which offers evidence that contradicts the "alarmist" interpretations that some people have chosen to apply to this line of research:
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i32/8332notw9.html
Katy is correct, of course, about the existence of "natural" sources of arsenic. In fact, it's present in quite a few countries besides the U. S. In the last article that I cited, note in particular, the observations about the relative percentages of organic arsenic, and inorganic arsenic, which are found in these respective locations. Organic arsenic is not known as a carcinogen, whereas inorganic arsenic most definitely is. The arsenic found In U. S. rice is primarily organic, whereas the arsenic found in rice from most other countries, is inorganic.
Note also that
http://www.lenntech.com/Periodic-chart- ... /As-en.htm
where you can find some in-depth information about arsenic.
Most often, it seems that whenever an article is "edited", it is "edited by someone with an agenda, which leads to a very "unbalanced" version of the original article, and this is a good example of that.
Also, the edited article really twists the primary point of the original article, which was that rice grown in the Southern States, contains approximately 4o% more arsenic than rice grown in California. The "editor" construed this to mean that this "elevated" level of the arsenic found in rice grown in the Southern States was somehow dangerous, when actually the whole point of the article was simply that this level was merely "elevated" over the level found in California grown rice. California is notorious for placing arbitrary limits on virtually everything, so you can't really make a practical risk assessment based on California's regulations.
Frankly, I would be surprised if the risk were any different for any other grain crop grown on that same soil, for that matter - no one has bothered to assess the arsenic risk for those grains, yet. And what about the other natural toxins that might be present in some foods. If we look hard enough, we can probably find a reason not to eat virtually everything. LOL. I think I'll play the odds though, and keep on eating, since starvation can be 100% fatal, whereas things like contaminants, normally only convey a relatively small risk. As Katy mentioned, there's a much higher arsenic risk involved with water in certain localities, and with fish. Fish absorb arsenic readily.
The celiac group is correct, though, in their claim that people who eat larger amounts of rice, are at a higher risk than the general population. Until the people of Bangladesh and India, start showing signs of arsenic poisoning, (the arsenic in their rice is 80% and 81% inorganic, respectively), I don't believe that it's anything to worry about. The percentage of rice in most celiac diets, is only a relatively small fraction of the total food intake, per capita. In some countries, it's what? Virtually 100% of their diet?
Tex
Thanks for that link, since we need to stay informed about things such as that.
After checking it out, the article that you provided a link to, appears to be a heavily-edited version of the original article that came from The American Chemical Society. If you go to the American Chemical Society site, and locate the original article, it presents a much more balanced picture. You can find it here:
http://www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/s/1 ... 245d830100
You might also be interested in this article, which offers evidence that contradicts the "alarmist" interpretations that some people have chosen to apply to this line of research:
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i32/8332notw9.html
Katy is correct, of course, about the existence of "natural" sources of arsenic. In fact, it's present in quite a few countries besides the U. S. In the last article that I cited, note in particular, the observations about the relative percentages of organic arsenic, and inorganic arsenic, which are found in these respective locations. Organic arsenic is not known as a carcinogen, whereas inorganic arsenic most definitely is. The arsenic found In U. S. rice is primarily organic, whereas the arsenic found in rice from most other countries, is inorganic.
Note also that
This is from:Despite its notoriety as a deadly poison, arsenic is an essential trace element for some animals, and maybe even for humans, although the necessary intake may be as low as 0.01 mg/day.
http://www.lenntech.com/Periodic-chart- ... /As-en.htm
where you can find some in-depth information about arsenic.
Most often, it seems that whenever an article is "edited", it is "edited by someone with an agenda, which leads to a very "unbalanced" version of the original article, and this is a good example of that.
Also, the edited article really twists the primary point of the original article, which was that rice grown in the Southern States, contains approximately 4o% more arsenic than rice grown in California. The "editor" construed this to mean that this "elevated" level of the arsenic found in rice grown in the Southern States was somehow dangerous, when actually the whole point of the article was simply that this level was merely "elevated" over the level found in California grown rice. California is notorious for placing arbitrary limits on virtually everything, so you can't really make a practical risk assessment based on California's regulations.
Frankly, I would be surprised if the risk were any different for any other grain crop grown on that same soil, for that matter - no one has bothered to assess the arsenic risk for those grains, yet. And what about the other natural toxins that might be present in some foods. If we look hard enough, we can probably find a reason not to eat virtually everything. LOL. I think I'll play the odds though, and keep on eating, since starvation can be 100% fatal, whereas things like contaminants, normally only convey a relatively small risk. As Katy mentioned, there's a much higher arsenic risk involved with water in certain localities, and with fish. Fish absorb arsenic readily.
The celiac group is correct, though, in their claim that people who eat larger amounts of rice, are at a higher risk than the general population. Until the people of Bangladesh and India, start showing signs of arsenic poisoning, (the arsenic in their rice is 80% and 81% inorganic, respectively), I don't believe that it's anything to worry about. The percentage of rice in most celiac diets, is only a relatively small fraction of the total food intake, per capita. In some countries, it's what? Virtually 100% of their diet?
Tex
Hi Wendy,
Sure, I don't mind. Someone will probably notice that the date on the second article that I cited, is roughly two years earlier than the article under consideration here. That's why I said it, "offers evidence that contradicts the "alarmist" interpretations that some people have chosen to apply to this line of research", rather than to say that it refuted the article. It refers to the same line of research, but it actually predates the article in question.
IOW, this series of articles is a continuing sequence of investigations into the presence of arsenic in the soil, water, and air, in various parts of the world. There's no question that the arsenic is there, the question is how large a threat does it pose, and is it practical/possible/necessary to try to do anything to improve the situation.
Arsenic has been used for various purposes, for many hundreds of years. Small amount of arsenic compounds are still sometimes used as drugs in some countries. Hypocrites recommended the use of an arsenic compound for the treatment of abscess, five hundred years BC. Over the centuries, arsenic has been used for the treatment of various diseases, such as tuberculosis, leukemia, asthma, leprosy, syphilis, skin problems, diarrhea, etc.
Some arsenic compounds are currently being used as feed additives for poultry, (and in some parts of the world, for swine). Of course, it's mainly used in industry, in the manufacture of semiconductors, textiles, paper, dyes, etc., and in the tanning industry. A couple of hundred years ago, it was the primary preservative used for taxidermy work, until someone started noticing that all the taxidermists seemed to die at a rather young age.
Tex
Sure, I don't mind. Someone will probably notice that the date on the second article that I cited, is roughly two years earlier than the article under consideration here. That's why I said it, "offers evidence that contradicts the "alarmist" interpretations that some people have chosen to apply to this line of research", rather than to say that it refuted the article. It refers to the same line of research, but it actually predates the article in question.
IOW, this series of articles is a continuing sequence of investigations into the presence of arsenic in the soil, water, and air, in various parts of the world. There's no question that the arsenic is there, the question is how large a threat does it pose, and is it practical/possible/necessary to try to do anything to improve the situation.
Arsenic has been used for various purposes, for many hundreds of years. Small amount of arsenic compounds are still sometimes used as drugs in some countries. Hypocrites recommended the use of an arsenic compound for the treatment of abscess, five hundred years BC. Over the centuries, arsenic has been used for the treatment of various diseases, such as tuberculosis, leukemia, asthma, leprosy, syphilis, skin problems, diarrhea, etc.
Some arsenic compounds are currently being used as feed additives for poultry, (and in some parts of the world, for swine). Of course, it's mainly used in industry, in the manufacture of semiconductors, textiles, paper, dyes, etc., and in the tanning industry. A couple of hundred years ago, it was the primary preservative used for taxidermy work, until someone started noticing that all the taxidermists seemed to die at a rather young age.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
I think everything has it's good and bad qualities, depending on what it's used for, how much, etc., etc., etc. Again, thanks for setting me straight here, Tex. That'll teach me to just jump on the first thing that I read!
I just have to laugh--I still can't think of arsenic without thinking of the play "Arsenic and Old Lace", a hilarious
Wendy
I just have to laugh--I still can't think of arsenic without thinking of the play "Arsenic and Old Lace", a hilarious
Wendy
My recent extensive blood tests came back showing a small amount of arsenic so I'm really interested in this. My doctor recommended eating organic chicken. She thinks conventional chicken is a source for many people, but I don't know what she based that on.
My wife later pointed out that I grew up 2 miles from a lead smelter.
My wife later pointed out that I grew up 2 miles from a lead smelter.
No Gluten,casein,soy,eggs,yeast
Hi Reggie,
Your wife may be right, since ground water pollution can certainly occur on the downslope side of mines, and arsenic is a common ingredient in the effluent that comes from many mines, especially lead and copper mines.
Here's the problem with poultry: Something like 70% of the broilers produced in this country are fed an antibiotic product called roxarsone, (to keep them healthy, and promote growth), which contains an organic arsenic ingredient. This has been used for 40 to 50 years, not only in poultry feed, but also in swine feed, and possibly feed for other animals. Roughly 95% of the arsenic ingredient just passes harmlessly through the birds, and it was previously thought that it was converted very slowly into inorganic arsenic, over the years, by soil chemistry. Recent research, though, indicates that it can change form much faster than previously thought.
On the surface, that would suggest that organically produced poultry would be more likely to provide a safe harbor from an arsenic risk. In my opinion, if the organically produced chickens are produced on a free-range basis, and no manure from outside sources is hauled in to fertilize the grass, or anything else that the chickens are allowed to "graze" upon, (IOW, a closed-shop operation), then the meat should be more likely to not contain elevated amounts of arsenic.
If, however, an organically oriented poultry farm, should buy fertilizer from a conventional poultry farm, then all bets are off, because most of the arsenic will be available in the manure, and it may be rapidly converted to the inorganic form, (the hazardous form), soon after it becomes incorporated into the soil, resulting in a much more dangerous situation than the normal non-organic production arrangement, (because the arsenic in the chickens fed roxarsone is organic, while the arsenic in the soil, (and subsequently, certain plants that grow on that soil, to be consumed by the chickens), may be the inorganic form.
This also raises a red flag about organic vegetables, (at least it raises a flag as far as I am concerned). Chicken manure is rich in plant nutrients, and it is a popular form of fertilizer for many organic vegetable production operations. Free range chickens do not provide any source of salable manure, (since it is spread over many acres by the chickens themselves), so by default, virtually all poultry manure would have to come from conventional, non-organic poultry production facilities.
I'm just thinking out loud here, but it appears to me that if vegetables that have the potential to uptake available arsenic in the soil, are grown on soil treated with poultry manure, then they would have an elevated risk of containing inorganic arsenic. Again, I'm just thinking out loud here, because I haven't seen any test data from vegetables grown on soil containing poultry manure. If this turns out to be true, though, it would be a classic example of trying to do the healthy thing, and ending up getting bit in the butt, instead. I hope this isn't what's happening.
Tex
P S I almost forgot - here is a source of more information on this line of reasoning:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07067/767756-34.stm
Your wife may be right, since ground water pollution can certainly occur on the downslope side of mines, and arsenic is a common ingredient in the effluent that comes from many mines, especially lead and copper mines.
Here's the problem with poultry: Something like 70% of the broilers produced in this country are fed an antibiotic product called roxarsone, (to keep them healthy, and promote growth), which contains an organic arsenic ingredient. This has been used for 40 to 50 years, not only in poultry feed, but also in swine feed, and possibly feed for other animals. Roughly 95% of the arsenic ingredient just passes harmlessly through the birds, and it was previously thought that it was converted very slowly into inorganic arsenic, over the years, by soil chemistry. Recent research, though, indicates that it can change form much faster than previously thought.
On the surface, that would suggest that organically produced poultry would be more likely to provide a safe harbor from an arsenic risk. In my opinion, if the organically produced chickens are produced on a free-range basis, and no manure from outside sources is hauled in to fertilize the grass, or anything else that the chickens are allowed to "graze" upon, (IOW, a closed-shop operation), then the meat should be more likely to not contain elevated amounts of arsenic.
If, however, an organically oriented poultry farm, should buy fertilizer from a conventional poultry farm, then all bets are off, because most of the arsenic will be available in the manure, and it may be rapidly converted to the inorganic form, (the hazardous form), soon after it becomes incorporated into the soil, resulting in a much more dangerous situation than the normal non-organic production arrangement, (because the arsenic in the chickens fed roxarsone is organic, while the arsenic in the soil, (and subsequently, certain plants that grow on that soil, to be consumed by the chickens), may be the inorganic form.
This also raises a red flag about organic vegetables, (at least it raises a flag as far as I am concerned). Chicken manure is rich in plant nutrients, and it is a popular form of fertilizer for many organic vegetable production operations. Free range chickens do not provide any source of salable manure, (since it is spread over many acres by the chickens themselves), so by default, virtually all poultry manure would have to come from conventional, non-organic poultry production facilities.
I'm just thinking out loud here, but it appears to me that if vegetables that have the potential to uptake available arsenic in the soil, are grown on soil treated with poultry manure, then they would have an elevated risk of containing inorganic arsenic. Again, I'm just thinking out loud here, because I haven't seen any test data from vegetables grown on soil containing poultry manure. If this turns out to be true, though, it would be a classic example of trying to do the healthy thing, and ending up getting bit in the butt, instead. I hope this isn't what's happening.
Tex
P S I almost forgot - here is a source of more information on this line of reasoning:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07067/767756-34.stm
Dee sent me this link to an article about this topic by Dr. Mercola, (the "shock-jock" of the medical world):
http://v.mercola.com/blogs/public_blog/ ... 10528.aspx
The link to the suggested-reading article, by Colleen Huber, (which supposedly describes where to buy organic produce for the same price as conventionally grown produce), does not work, by the way. I trust that whoever writes his web articles, will eventually "fix" the broken link.
I had a little trouble tracking down that article, but here it is:
http://www.writersontheloose.com/writer ... tory=32564
Okay, I read the article, but it doesn't actually give any advice on where to buy organic food for the price of conventional food. All I can see is comparative menus and prices, rather than a description of where to find bargain prices. There is a list of organic food sources, but these are the typical sources available to everyone. IOW, it's really an article on menu and budget planning, rather than an article on economical sources of organic food products. Dr. Mercola has used a rather misleading context, in describing the article. He should have used the title that the author used, because it's a menu cost comparison analysis, rather than a primer on where to find cheap organically-produced foods. Other than Dr. Mercola's over-zealous description of it, it's an excellent article.
Thanks, Dee.
Tex
http://v.mercola.com/blogs/public_blog/ ... 10528.aspx
The link to the suggested-reading article, by Colleen Huber, (which supposedly describes where to buy organic produce for the same price as conventionally grown produce), does not work, by the way. I trust that whoever writes his web articles, will eventually "fix" the broken link.
I had a little trouble tracking down that article, but here it is:
http://www.writersontheloose.com/writer ... tory=32564
Okay, I read the article, but it doesn't actually give any advice on where to buy organic food for the price of conventional food. All I can see is comparative menus and prices, rather than a description of where to find bargain prices. There is a list of organic food sources, but these are the typical sources available to everyone. IOW, it's really an article on menu and budget planning, rather than an article on economical sources of organic food products. Dr. Mercola has used a rather misleading context, in describing the article. He should have used the title that the author used, because it's a menu cost comparison analysis, rather than a primer on where to find cheap organically-produced foods. Other than Dr. Mercola's over-zealous description of it, it's an excellent article.
Thanks, Dee.
Tex