- 155ec111-9...webp
- - 57.32 KB
- (612x612)
> Made with rice
Rice is among the most poisonous foods commonly eaten because the processing stage often causes it to become contaminated with toxic heavy metals such as cadmium and lead. Washing rice and straining the rice post-cooking is the most effective way to reduce the levels of these contaminants, but it cannot reduce their levels to 0.
>>2061
https://www.fda.gov/files/food/published/Arsenic-in-Rice-and-Ri
Yes, they wrote a 284 page study on the effects and acceptable levels of arsenic in rice.
You should usually be skeptical of labels that say "made with ___" because it's often a legal loophole, but it's probably not the case here because rice is so cheap.
In the US the FDA forbids foods from being labeled certain ways unless they're the primary ingredient, for example Hershey's Chocolate Syrup is these days "Chocolate-flavored syrup". in this case "made with rice" could be a way around saying "rice crackers".
But, again, rice is cheap so I have no doubt it's actually rice crackers.
>>2060
What~? Anonymous isn't trustworthy? :P
My knowledge on this matter was partly informed by this recent third-party study by an action group analyzing the levels of heavy metal contamination in baby food, which is seeking to get the FDA to revise it's standards to reflect this newfound risk to infants (although, of course heavy metal contamination isn't good for any age group, but it's especially deleterious when affecting infants):
https://www.healthybabyfoo
This image (which itself is in the study) gives a very broad overview of their conclusions, but the linked study includes per-category averages of PPB levels of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and lead in common foods served to infants. Needless to say, it would undoubtedly also be prudent to evaluate the sources and contamination levels of all foods more broadly, but that's not their main focus.
Don't worry I work for the government and can assure it is safe!
>>2069
That graphic seems to be saying that US rice(and therefore I would assume rice products) are not regulated well enough for consumption by children.
My rice comes from Asia, but rice snacks, perhaps. Still, there's a risk-reward analysis with food production. Certain methods are less than healthy for a person living to the age of 70, but can lower food prices meaning more of the population doesn't go malnourished(a potential case which could make populations less productive or even live less than the age of metal pollution in the body).
I think it's correct though, that the FDA doesn't treat rice with the same standards it does grain. And the FDA acknowledges that there's some problems which need addressing.
Reducing inorganic
limiting the l
cancer risk, a
• In the g
not change the
in rice and
arsenic in ric
reduction is b
products. Fina
would decrease
dependent on t
• Setting a
availability in
these foods, t
the type of
• In the g
serving size a
Executive Summary
May 13, 2014
would double o
per day to
• Eliminating
could reduce t
and 23%, respe
or rice produc
cancer from ar
who is fed
>>2074
It's not really a regulation issue, it's just that arsenic is naturally present in the water/soil in much of the US and rice tends to uptake metals more efficiently than most other common grains. There's no economically feasible way to prevent the metals from getting in the rice.
But yeah, I wouldn't eat southwestern US grown rice every day. The California rice should be fine. And white rice has less metals, although that includes good metals like zinc too.
And like you said, it's all relative risk. There is no known safe consumption rate of arsenic, but we usually consider a 1:100,000 or 1:1,000,000 cancer risk as the
"acceptable" amount, depending on the regulatory agency.