"Which Brands and Sources of Rice Have the Least Arsenic?"
The arsenic found in five servings of rice a week
poses a hundred times acceptable cancer risk.
What does the rice industry have to say about that?
When the story first broke that U.S. rice had some of the highest
arsenic levels in the world, and all the headlines started,
the USA Rice Federation said, "Enough nonsense about arsenic already."
The study, in their minds, was "not only inaccurate in the highest degree,
but also maliciously untrue."
To which one of the researchers replied,
look, you're the one who's been ignoring the arsenic problem for decades.
Had the problem of planting rice in arsenic pesticide-soaked former
cotton fields been addressed, then safe soil could have been
identified and low arsenic rice varieties developed,
instead of just developing arsenic- resistant varieties, so the plants
can build up excessive levels of arsenic without dying themselves.
Not all rice producers have been so head-in-the-sand dismissive, though.
After a subsequent Consumer Reports exposé,
one rice company detailed how it was taking matters into its own hands.
Lundberg Farms started testing hundreds of samples of its rice
to share the results with the FDA.
"We're committed to providing safe food," said the CEO,
"and dealing with this problem very openly."
They're not just sharing their results with the FDA, but with everyone.
And if you go to their website, you can see
they apparently followed through on their testing promise.
This is for their brown rice.
Now they use parts per million to make it look better than it is,
but compared to the average U.S. brown rice level of 154,
Lundberg does do better.
In fact, their aromatic brown rice,
presumably their brown basmati and brown jasmine,
average less than national white rice levels.
And so, apparently, does their red and black rice.
In fact, none of those samples even reached
the average U.S. brown rice level.
Most other brands were pretty comparable, Uncle Ben's, for example,
and Wal-Mart, though Whole Foods scored the worst,
about a third higher than these others and exceeding the national average.
In the largest review to date, based on 5,800 rice samples from 25 countries,
the highest total arsenic average came from the United States,
with U.S. studies averaging overall about double that of rice out of Asia,
with the high levels in the U.S. blamed
on the heavy historic use of arsenic-based pesticides.
But not all of the U.S.
Yes, U.S. rice averages twice the arsenic of Asian rice;
for example, nearly all rice samples--- tested in upstate New York---
imported from India or Pakistan had arsenic levels lower
than 95% of domestically produced rice, but look at the range here.
U.S. produced rice went from here, all the way up to here.
Rice grown in the U.S. showed the widest overall range
and the largest number of outliers, primarily due to where it was grown.
There's significantly more arsenic in rice from Texas and Arkansas
than rice from California.
If you just look at California rice,
then it's actually comparable to rice produced around the rest of the world.
This is presumably some of the data that led Consumer Reports
to suggest brown basmati from California, India, or Pakistan
might be among the safer rice choices.
If the arsenic is from pesticides,
would organic rice have less than conventionally-grown rice?
No, which makes sense because arsenic pesticides
were banned like 30 years ago.
It's just that 30,000 tons of arsenic chemicals already got dumped
onto cotton fields in the Southern states, so it's understandable why
there's still lingering arsenic residues, even if you don't add an ounce
of any new pesticides.
That's why they specifically select for
arsenic-resistant varieties of rice plants in the South.
If only there were arsenic-resistant humans.