This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← On rice and arsenic

On rice and arsenic - Comments

TeraBrat's Avatar Comment 1 by TeraBrat

Since our bodies are capable of removing arsenic I doubt there are ong term exposure issues either. This is probably funded by the HFCS lobbyists.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 21:40:21 UTC | #920541

Teknical's Avatar Comment 2 by Teknical

Snap, crackle and pop your clogs.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:51:16 UTC | #920566

dandelion fluff's Avatar Comment 3 by dandelion fluff

After reading this I am underwhelmed. People have been eating rice forever.

(Wasn't there a Sherlock Holmes story where a guy killed another guy by sharing an arsenic-laced omelette with him? Only the murderer didn't die because he'd been dosing himself with smaller amounts of arsenic and developed a tolerance.)

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 23:22:34 UTC | #920578

aroundtown's Avatar Comment 4 by aroundtown

Yeah I ran and checked my quaker oats rice cakes immediately and soon discovered it was a false alarm. No rice syrup, no scare. Could be a problem for the children that have this crud sweetener in their formula.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 00:06:48 UTC | #920586

Vorlund's Avatar Comment 5 by Vorlund

The Japanese are doing well on arsenic enhanced rice.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:29:24 UTC | #920651

Geoff 21's Avatar Comment 6 by Geoff 21

Comment 3 by dandelion fluff

(Wasn't there a Sherlock Holmes story where a guy killed another guy by sharing an arsenic-laced omelette with him? Only the murderer didn't die because he'd been dosing himself with smaller amounts of arsenic and developed a tolerance.)

'Strong Poison' (1930) by Dorothy L. Sayers; she's brilliant.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:21:24 UTC | #920686

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 7 by Alan4discussion

Comment 1 by TeraBrat - Since our bodies are capable of removing arsenic I doubt there are long term exposure issues either. This is probably funded by the HFCS lobbyists.

The article seemed to suggest that we were more vulnerable to the inorganic arsenic.

@OP - The efficiency of this system also means that the arsenic tends to be absorbed directly in its more toxic inorganic from rather than being converted to an organic form of arsenic. Here I mean organic not in the USDA-approved farming sense but in the chemistry sense in which organic refers to carbon-based compounds. And this is important because we metabolize organic arsenic compounds pretty neatly, reducing their toxic potential. It’s inorganic arsenic that’s most dangerous – it tends to bond tightly into living cells where it destroys them by disrupting their metabolism. And rice, experts say, may be the largest source of inorganic arsenic in our diets.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:31:37 UTC | #920689

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 8 by SaganTheCat

dying is the most 'natural' thing in the world

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:54:33 UTC | #920721

locka's Avatar Comment 9 by locka

I suspect that most of the time organic food is like bottled water. People think it's better because the label says it is, not because it actually tastes any different. It's just an excuse to jack up the prices by 50-80% in supermarkets over the same varieties produced by modern means.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:45:48 UTC | #920739

Valerie_'s Avatar Comment 10 by Valerie_

Comment 1 by TeraBrat :

Since our bodies are capable of removing arsenic I doubt there are ong term exposure issues either. This is probably funded by the HFCS lobbyists.

If I understood her summary correctly (and I'll read the actual paper tomorrow), the problem is that rice takes up INORGANIC arsenic, which isn't so easily removed. I'm speculating that it gets concentrated in the syrup (but I don't know).

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:45:25 UTC | #921400

Zeuglodon's Avatar Comment 11 by Zeuglodon

From the article: In other words, these are pay attention numbers rather than immediate alarm numbers. They should remind us that, as always, a varied diet is healthier than relying too much on any single source of food. But as Jackson also pointed out the growing body of work on arsenic contamination of food in general, should also serve as prompt to our government agencies to take some of these unexpected hazard issues out of our food supply, start working out those much needed official safety standards for arsenic in our diet, and provide us with some kind of realistic assessment that will allows to make our own decisions about such risks.

Oh, well, that's alright, then. No need to worry just yet.

Comment 10 by Valerie_

I was about to ask how you can get organic and inorganic arsenic when arsenic is an element, but then I caught this part of the article:

The efficiency of this system also means that the arsenic tends to be absorbed directly in its more toxic inorganic from rather than being converted to an organic form of arsenic. Here I mean organic not in the USDA-approved farming sense but in the chemistry sense in which organic refers to carbon-based compounds. And this is important because we metabolize organic arsenic compounds pretty neatly, reducing their toxic potential. It’s inorganic arsenic that’s most dangerous – it tends to bond tightly into living cells where it destroys them by disrupting their metabolism. And rice, experts say, may be the largest source of inorganic arsenic in our diets.

Compounds. Gotcha.

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:05:16 UTC | #921459

TeraBrat's Avatar Comment 12 by TeraBrat

Yep, it will kill a few cells. Guess what. Cells die all the time. That's why they are constantly splitting to create new cells. This is a non-issue.

Comment 10 by Valerie_ :

Comment 1 by TeraBrat :

Since our bodies are capable of removing arsenic I doubt there are ong term exposure issues either. This is probably funded by the HFCS lobbyists.

If I understood her summary correctly (and I'll read the actual paper tomorrow), the problem is that rice takes up INORGANIC arsenic, which isn't so easily removed. I'm speculating that it gets concentrated in the syrup (but I don't know).

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 22:14:04 UTC | #921644