Funding for Surface Water Projects May Play an Integral Role in Lowering Arsenic Levels in Rice

Whether or not the concerns raised by Consumer Reports with regard to the safety of U.S. rice are warranted, the fact that this has created some unease among consumers is evident.  South Korea this week resumed US rice imports, deeming US rice safe after testing by the Korean Food and Drug Administration. (5) This is a positive development, but domestic concerns still remain.  These concerns must be addressed, and doing so will likely require changes to water management.  Abundant, on-demand surface water availability will be essential to any new water management techniques that address this issue.

Mandates Likely

It is likely the FDA will at some point in the near future establish arsenic level standards.  In fact, federal legislation has been introduced that, if passed, will mandate this. (1) Any federal mandate should be coupled with funding for surface water projects, like the Bayou Meto Water Project, that are already in process but have unfunded, shovel-ready components that must be completed to move water to farms.

Mitigation will Require Dependable Water Source

Research has indicated that arsenic uptake is lower in aerobic versus anaerobic growing conditions.(2) To take advantage of this, farms may need to move toward an intermittent flooding technique, where fields are flooded, allowed to dry, and the re-flooded.  While this could potentially use less total water over the course of a season than more traditional methods, it will require that sufficient water is available when it is needed.  As we learned from the drought of 2012, it is very difficult to irrigate rice from underground wells alone, and re-flooding drained fields is sometimes nearly impossible in hot and dry conditions.  For this reason, farmers will rightly be hesitant to move toward intermittent flooding until water is made more predictably available.  They will instead likely opt to bank as much rain or irrigation water that is available in wetter and cooler conditions in order to withstand oppressive summer heat and dryness that seems to have become the norm in rice growing regions across the mid-south.  But at some point, these new water management techniques will be necessary, and when they are, it will be important to have a dependable surface water supply.

Economic Impact of Rice Industry

Texas A&M, in a 2010 study, identified the US rice industry as having a $34 Billion dollar impact on the economy and as providing 128,000 jobs.  The industry also contributes to a secure and stable domestic food-supply, providing 86% of rice consumed domestically.(4)  

The rice industry touches every facet of our economy.  As our industry works to address these new issues that have been raised, it is important that policy makers consider the importance of funding water projects that will very likely play an integral role in the steps that will likely have to be taken.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.     http://farmfutures.com/story.aspx/lawmakers-announce-legislation-limit-arsenic-rice-0-63560

2.       http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/18754478/?i=6&from=/22425734/related

3.       http://www.calrice.org/pdf/RR-10-03-Economic+Contributions+of+the+US+Rice+Industry.pdf

4.       http://ww.usarice.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1815&Itemid=328
5.   http://www.brecorder.com/agriculture-a-allied/183/1247808/

Eating Rice; Eating Crow

It has been a few weeks now since the Consumer Reports article about arsenic in rice made headlines, and the concern about this issue is reaching further than some may realize.  I took my son to see the pediatrician a few days back and the pediatrician, knowing that I was a rice farmer, told me that she had received numerous questions about the safety of rice and rice cereal, and she wanted to hear my opinion.   Everyone wants to know if it is safe to eat rice (it is), but people should also be questioning the potential risk of not consuming rice.  What is the down side to eating less rice?

      1. You may be missing out on possible health benefits.

News stories have emerged recently that show a correlation between eating rice and lower cancer rates.  Two news articles (1,2) cite a University of Canterbury study that indicates that as rice consumption in Japan has decreased by almost 50 percent in the past few decades, incidences of bowel cancer have seen a rapid increase, indicating that rice consumption may play a role in staving off the disease.  The lead researcher was quoted as saying “There is some laboratory research that suggests that rice has a tumour-suppressing effect, and it’s a very interesting idea and we’re going to pursue it.”(1)

      2. It is an accessible and affordable source of calories.

Rice is a staple food for a good portion of the world.  In fact, it has “…fed more people, for a longer period of time, than any other crop on the face of the earth.” (3)  And it is consumed in larger quantities by the economically disadvantaged. (4)  While, then, it is immensely important to ensure the safety of such an important food staple, it is also irresponsible to use limited data to call into question the safety of such a staple item with a pristine food safety record of many decades with no known correlation with negative health effects.  Doing so could have negative economic repercussion for the economically disadvantaged with no commensurate gain in health benefits.

Information vs. Sensationalism

As I discussed here in a previous post, the questions raised by Consumer Reports have stirred a conversation within our industry that needs to take place.  Even though the levels discussed in the article are actually below levels established by the EPA for safe drinking water and have not yet been corroborated by any government regulatory entity, it may be possible to lower these levels further still, and that is a worthwhile aim.  There is research in progress of which the preliminary findings indicate that certain management practices could at least partially mitigate arsenic uptake in the rice plant.  The industry will do well to look seriously at this research.  But in the mean time, it is vitally important that the media does not sensationalize this issue.  A little knowledge, taken out of context, can be a bad thing.  Take the following, for example:

Radiation in your magazines: Is reading Consumer Reports bad for your health?*

Did that catch your eye?  Well there is some small amount of truth to it.  The substance that makes magazines glossy is Kaolin, a type of clay that harbors trace amounts of radioactive materials.(5)   Of course the amount of radiation in a single magazine is minuscule (less than what you would find in a banana), but it is present none the less.  And of course, the library of congress (I suppose that would be the appropriate regulatory body?) has yet to established standards for the acceptable level of radiation exposure from magazines.  Until they do, perhaps we should read a more balanced diet of magazines.  Just in case.

The point is this: It is easy to take a little data and make a big headline.  Rice has a well established health record.  And while it is appropriate for organizations to do new research into this, it is also important to realize that this data represents the quantification of something that was previously not quantified and for which standards have not been set.  And it is also important that the focus is more on reporting clearly instead of selling magazines.  When more data is available and viewed in the appropriate context, I think the long-established health record of rice will remain intact.   When it is all said in done, I think many will still be eating rice, but I also have to wonder if a few may be eating crow.

 _________________________________________________________________________________

1.     http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/wellbeing/7774623/Could-rice-help-fight-cancer

2.  http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-10-05/diet/34278458_1_bowel-cancer-rice-consumption-fight-cancer

3.     http://www.thirdage.com/alternative-integrative-health/the-health-benefits-of-rice

4.      http://www.slideshare.net/jvonbraun/the-changing-economics-and-politics-of-rice-implications-for-food-security-globalization-and-environmental-sustainability

5.      http://scienceray.com/chemistry/radioactive-glossy-white-paper/2/

*In case the fact is missed by the reader, please note this is stated satirically in order to make a point and is not to actually insinuate there is real danger in reading CR or any other magazine.*

October Baseball

    It is October now, and there is nothing like October Baseball.  In these last few days of the regular season, teams are making the final push to determine if they will make it to the post-season, and if they do, whether they will get a coveted game in the Division Series or have to battle it out in the new one-game play in for the wild-card.  It is looking like my beloved Cardinals may just squeak in, and if last year is any indication, they will take advantage of any opportunity they are given.

    There is a certain significance attached to late September and early October baseball that is altogether absent from those games played in the dog-days of summer when the stands are empty except for the most ardent of fans.  But the truth is, statistically, that mid-July game played in front of almost no one counts just as much as much toward a winning record as that 162^nd game played in primetime on the 2^nd or 3^rd night in October.  It just doesn’t seem like it at the time.  Our mid-season determines our post-season. Players would probably tell you that the pre-season is more important still.

    It is harvest now on farms across the south, and there is urgency in the air.  Maybe it is the cooling air that quickens my step, or maybe the coming winter and the knowledge of all I know must be completed before.  This is our post-season, and I’m starting to look toward next year’s season thinking those early games are just as important as those later ones.

    It has been a good year for baseball.  I got to take my 2-year old son to a couple of games at the local minor-league park, and we sat and ate nachos and watched a full 9 innings.  We got a foul ball at both games, and on the way home he learned “Take me out to the Ballgame.”   It is looking like my Cardinals are at least going to see some post-season action, despite the fact that they lost Pujols.

     But it has been a tough year for farming: droughts, disease, hurricanes, and no small amount of uncertainty about policy and markets.  I’m looking forward to the post-season in baseball, but I’m looking forward to the pre-season in farming, and to playing every game like it counts.

Close reading of Consumer Reports article on arsenic in rice reveals that exposure from rice is less than the EPA’s allowable daily intake from drinking water, and comes in third behind vegetables and fruit.

When people see the words Arsenic and Food in the same sentence, especially if it is a headline from Consumer Reports, customer concerns can be expected. However, a closer reading of the Consumer Reports article can put the issue in better perspective and help alleviate some of these concerns.

Take, for example, their treatment of the comparison of arsenic exposure from rice versus that from EPA standards for water:

 No federal limit exists for arsenic in most foods, but the standard for drinking water is 10 parts per billion (ppb). Keep in mind: That level is twice the 5 ppb that the EPA originally proposed and that New Jersey actually established. Using the 5-ppb standard in our study, we found that a single serving of some rices could give an average adult almost one and a half times the inorganic arsenic he or she would get from a whole day’s consumption of water, about 1 liter. (1)

 By using the 5ppb standard, which is actually the strictest in the nation and not the standard established by the EPA, as opposed to the established EPA standard of 10ppb, they make it seem as if exposure from rice is higher than that from the EPA standard from water, when in fact it is substantially lower than that of the established EPA standard. This claim also seems to be based not on the mean of tests results from their study, but from “some rices,” likely those at the higher end of the testing range.

 A person eating a serving of rice, even if the results of Consumer Reports are fully corroborated, will be exposed to less arsenic than the established EPA standard for safe drinking water.

 Further on in the article we find that rice is far from the highest contributor, coming in third behind fruit and fruit juices and vegetables:

 Rice is not the only source of arsenic in food. A 2009-10 study from the EPA estimated that rice contributes 17 percent of dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic, which would put it in third place, behind fruits and fruit juices at 18 percent, and vegetables at 24 percent. (2)

 Unfortunately, many media outlets have failed to pick up these subtleties when reporting on this study, likely leading to greater customer concern than is warranted by the data. Perhaps the story would have been received a bit differently if headlines had been “Rice comes in third, behind fruits and vegetables in study on arsenic,” or “Exposure from rice is less than that of established standards for drinking water.”

 What is needed is an ongoing conversation within the context of the established historical healthfulness of U.S. produced rice that begins incorporating this newly available data, not a conversation based on sensationalized headlines.

 It is important to remember that rice has been cultivated in the U.S. for over 300 years and in the South for over 150 years.(3)   Of the rice consumed in the U.S., 90% is produced domestically (4) and of the rice grown in the U.S., nearly 80% is grown in the southern region.(5)

 As stated by the FDA, “There is an absence of scientific data that shows a causal relationship between those who consume higher levels of rice and rice products and the type of illnesses usually associated with arsenic.” (6)

Still, those within our industry would do well to take the concerns raised by Consumer Reports seriously, and welcome the development of new food safety standards that take these concerns into account. Also, our industry should move toward broader testing and support research to identify and establish management practices that bring us even further below acceptable levels so that our valued customers can be reassured that their health is of paramount importance.

Meanwhile, customers should be reassured by a 2012 World Health Organization study showing arsenic levels in U.S. rice below that of other rice producing regions, including Australia, China, the European Union, and Japan. (7)

The FDA has stated that it is “critical to not get ahead of the science,” and that “Based on the currently available data and scientific literature the FDA does not have an adequate scientific basis to recommend changes by consumers regarding their consumption of rice and rice products.” (8)

_________________________________________________________________________________
Sources

1.http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2012/11/arsenic-in-your-food/index.htm
2. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2012/11/arsenic-in-your-food/index.htm
3.http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/our_offices/research_stations/Rice/Features/Publications/The+History+of+US+Rice+Produc tion++Part+1.htm
4. http://www.foodreference.com/html/art-rice-history.html 5.http://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/acrg0612.pdf
6. http://deltafarmpress.com/rice/us-rice-industry-responds-consumer-reports-arsenic-study 7.http://www.usarice.com/doclib/188/218/6252.pdf 8.http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm319972.htm