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.
*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.*
No comments:
Post a Comment