Consumer Reports Finds ‘Worrisome Levels Of Arsenic’ In Rice And Cereal

(Consumer Reports)

The independent testing group Consumer Reports says it has found worrisome quantities of inorganic arsenic, which is known to cause cancer, in many types of rice and popular rice products, including breakfast cereals and organic baby cereal.

Earlier this year, Consumer Reports found significant levels of arsenic in apple juice and the watchdog group wants the federal government to take action, by setting standards for arsenic in food. The Food and Drug Administration is conducting its own study to measure arsenic levels and says it won’t have conclusions till the end of the year.

Consumer Reports: Arsenic In Rice And Rice Products
Consumer Reports List: Arsenic Levels In Food

Guest:

Urvashi Rangan, director of Safety and Sustainability at Consumer Reports

We welcome comments from all of our listeners. Post below. Please stay on topic and be civil. Comments may be moderated by us, but you are solely responsible for the content of your comments.

Ellen

How about not feeding arsenic to chickens and other livestock to begin with? And how about boycotting those products?
Better to stop the source of the problem, and have arsenic-free rice!
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003000884786 Navin R Johnson

There is a huge difference in the danger of inorganic arsenic when compared to organic arsenic. Organic arsenic is extremely poisonous. This should have been better explained in your story.
- http://www.facebook.com/steven.goodheart Steven Goodheart
  
  Actually, Navin, you got it exactly backwards:
  
  “The oxides of arsenic are the most common threat since arsenite and arsenate salts are the most toxic. These forms are components of geologic formations and are extracted into the ground water. Thus although arsenic poisoning can be related to human activities such as mining and ore smelting, the most serious problems are natural, resulting from water wells drilled into aquifers that have high concentrations of arsenic. “Inorganic arsenic” (arsenate and arsenite salts) are more harmful than organic arsenic exposure.
  
  Organic arsenic is 500 times *less* harmful than inorganic arsenic,and is a minor problem compared to the groundwater sitation which affects many millions of people. Food is a source of the less toxic organic arsenic, with the predominant source being seafood” (Wikipedia)
  - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003000884786 Navin R Johnson
    
    I didn’t get it wrong, the problem is applying the terms “organic” and “inorganic” to an element like Arsenic. Organic v. Inorganic is a chemistry term, but it has been co-0pted by other branches of science and now has different meanings depending upon how you are discussing it.
    
    In chemistry terms, there really is no such thing as “Organic Arsenic” since Arsenic doesn’t form carbon based molecules. All arsenic is inorganic by the definition used by chemists. I made the mistake of using the term “Organic Arsenic” also, but I was referring to arsenic in a form easily absorbed by the human body (i.e. arsenic salts). Arsenic salts are easily absorbed by humans and are very dangerous, but that is not what they are talking about in this story.
    
    On a side note, this is a similar problem when discussing mercury poisoning, the metal form of mercury is much less dangerous than mercury salts.
    - http://www.facebook.com/steven.goodheart Steven Goodheart
      
      I appreciate your clarification. Frankly, I had never heard of the term “organic arsenic” until I saw you using it — my understanding is that arsenic is simply inorganic, as you point out. So, when I looked it up, there was the term, to my surprise, but you did say that “*organic* arsenic is extremely dangerous.” That’s still backwards, according to the Wiki article, but I hear you saying you actually meant inorganic. No problems.
      - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003000884786 Navin R Johnson
        
        I read the wiki article you referenced, but I can’t find the exact text you quoted (perhaps someone edited it already). However, I did a little more reading and I found references that refer to arsenic based pesticides herbicides as “organoarsenic compounds,” which are dangerous to humans. Some plants form chemical compounds with arsenic and carbohydrates, but compounds are not chemically bonded. There were also organoarsenic based chemical weapons used in WWI.
        
        So, turns out I was correct after all in my initial post. I have a Bachelor’s in Chemistry, but don’t work in the field of chemistry so it took me a little while to figure this all out. Your reference in the wiki article is not correct.
http://www.facebook.com/steven.goodheart Steven Goodheart

And lets never forget the wonderful contributions of the Bush Administration to the health of us all:

http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/water_drinking.asp
stalkinghorse

Rice is already pretty much a nutrition-free food: starch and calories and little else. Arsenic won’t help its reputation.
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003000884786 Navin R Johnson
  
  I think half the people in the world who live on rice would disagree with your ignorant statement.