arsenic

RECENT POSTS

Study: Well-Water Can Raise Arsenic Levels In Formula-Fed Babies

Parents already concerned by recent revelations about arsenic in rice, grains and juices, brace yourselves: A new study found higher levels of arsenic excreted by infants exclusively fed formula, compared to breast-fed babies. A likely culprit: well-water.

In the small study of private well-water users in New Hampshire, overall arsenic exposure was relatively low for most 6-week-old infants regardless of how they were fed. “So that’s good news,” says Kathryn Cottingham, a professor of biological sciences at Dartmouth and the study’s co-lead author. “That said, infants fed exclusively with breast milk were less exposed to arsenic than infants fed with formula, and some infants fed with formula may have been exposed to very high levels of arsenic due to high concentrations in their home tap water.”

In the study, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, researchers measured arsenic in the home tap water of 874 families, urine from 72 infants and breast milk from nine mothers.

(Donald Clark/Flickr)

(Donald Clark/Flickr)

Arsenic levels in the tap water tended to be well below the EPA’s recommended upper limit, researchers report. Still, they found that: “measured urinary arsenic concentrations were 7.5 times higher in exclusively formula-fed infants compared to breast-fed infants,” says Cottingham.

The bottom line, she says, is get your well-water tested.

“In terms of fear mongering, that’s the fear I’d like to instill: if you have well-water, get your water tested,” she says.”I don’t want to freak people out about feeding their babies formula.”

Arsenic is a naturally occurring element found in groundwater around the world — and in some places, in very high concentrations.

Exposure to high levels of arsenic, a human carcinogen, has a number of potential health consequences, the study authors note, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, adverse birth outcomes and altered immune systems. Continue reading

FDA’s Reassurance On Arsenic In Rice Not So Reassuring

FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg and colleagues visited research facilities and rice farms in California on Sept. 4-5, 2013 in an effort to gain a greater understanding of the presence of arsenic in rice. Photo: United States Government Work/flickr

FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg and colleagues visited research facilities and rice farms in California on Sept. 4-5, 2013 in an effort to gain a greater understanding of the presence of arsenic in rice.
Photo: United States Government Work/flickr

I was a little confused last week when the FDA issued what was portrayed as a reassuring update on levels of arsenic in rice and rice products. After analyzing more than 1,300 rice-containing foods, the agency said, essentially, that the arsenic in rice won’t kill you, at least not today. The headline in The New York Times mirrored most of the media coverage: “No Immediate Risk Found In Arsenic Levels in Rice,” it said.

OK, but what about last year’s Consumer Reports investigation (which the FDA confirmed) that showed “worrisome levels” of arsenic in rice, notably brown rice, in common food products including  “organic rice baby cereal, rice breakfast cereals, brown rice [and] white rice”? Consumer Reports noted that “arsenic not only is a potent human carcinogen but also can set up children for other health problems in later life.”

When I read the updated FDA materials, including an FAQ for consumers and a blog by FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, who went on a fact-finding mission and visited with U.S. rice growers, it became clear that we should still be concerned about arsenic in our rice. The key point in this new flurry of agency news? “We still need to better understand long-term health risks,” Continue reading

Study: Genetic Damage Linked To Arsenic In Rice

(Dano/flickr)

(Dano/flickr)

It was big news last year when both the FDA and Consumer Reports came out with studies showing alarming levels of arsenic in brown rice. (At least I thought it was alarming, as did scores of readers who commented here on the findings.)

A little background from Consumer Reports should remind you of the problem:

Rice absorbs arsenic from soil or water much more effectively than most plants. That’s in part because it is one of the only major crops grown in water-flooded conditions, which allow arsenic to be more easily taken up by its roots and stored in the grains. In the U.S. as of 2010, about 15 percent of rice acreage was in California, 49 percent in Arkansas, and the remainder in Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas. That south-central region of the country has a long history of producing cotton, a crop that was heavily treated with arsenical pesticides for decades in part to combat the boll weevil beetle…

Inorganic arsenic, the predominant form of arsenic in most of the 65 rice products we analyzed, is ranked by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as one of more than 100 substances that are Group 1 carcinogens. It is known to cause bladder, lung, and skin cancer in humans, with the liver, kidney, and prostate now considered potential targets of arsenic-induced cancers.

Now comes a study of heavy rice-eaters in West Bengal, India that links high levels of arsenic in the rice to elevated genetic damage in humans.

From the news release:

Over the last few years, researchers have reported high concentrations of arsenic in several rice-growing regions around the world.

Now, University of Manchester scientists, working in collaboration with scientists at CSIR-Indian Institute of Chemical Biology in Kolkata, have proven a link between rice containing high levels of arsenic and chromosomal damage, as measured by micronuclei in urothelial cells, in humans consuming rice as a staple.

The researchers discovered that people in rural West Bengal eating rice as a staple with greater than 0.2 mg/kg arsenic showed higher frequencies of micronuclei than those consuming rice with less than this concentration of arsenic.

The study, published in Nature Publishing Group’s Scientific Reports, looked at the frequency of ‘micronuclei’ — a tell-tale sign of chromosomal damage (that has been shown by others previously to be linked to cancer) Continue reading