Arsenic in your food? Scared? Shouldn’t be, but if so there’s a GMO fix

| April 17, 2015
en lapook x
This article or excerpt is included in the GLP’s daily curated selection of ideologically diverse news, opinion and analysis of biotechnology innovation.

A lawsuit filed last month in Los Angeles County claimed that some California wines tested for higher-than-allowable levels of inorganic arsenic. Among the defendants: Trader Joe’s, which sells some of the wines, and about two dozen California wineries, including Beringer, Fetzer and Sutter Home. The suit maintained that the wine contained “health risks” and that the wineries and the stores that sold the wines were “secretly poisoning wine consumers in direct violation of California law.”

Is there any basis for those fears? After all, celebrity “experts” like Dr. Oz have run alarmist shows about it.

Arsenic is prevalent in the natural environment in air, soil and water, and in food, and is generally not considered a health risk despite the claims by Dr. Oz and other professional fear mongers. Predictably it shows up in dairy products, grains, meat and fish. Arsenic exists in two forms: organic and inorganic. In the former, the arsenic is part of a carbon-containing compound, which renders it almost harmless.

It is the inorganic form that is slightly toxic–but at very high levels of consumption, and otherwise perfectly harmless despite what you might read on the Internet. At chronic levels of exposure–unrealistic doses hundreds or thousands of times higher than normal human exposure–animals exposed to inorganic arsenic at levels far higher than humans would ever be exposed to were linked to lung and bladder cancers, skin lesions, cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

The biggest hue and cry has focused on arsenic levels in grains. Rice in particular absorbs it better than many other plants. There are a few–very few–regions where rice absorbs enough inorganic arsenic soaked in groundwater that humans face similar documented health symptoms.

In 2012, the Food and Drug Administration released data confirming that rice and rice products can have elevated levels of arsenic. “All of the data suggest levels that are not high enough to give us cause for concern for immediate or near-term effects,” FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg said when it issued its original report. FDA maintains a website separating the dangerous Oz-perpetrated myths from from the facts.

But the overwhelming evidence that humans are not in harms way did not stop Consumer Reports from hyping those findings then–and again recently. CR issued its own report in 2012, challenging the FDA and greatly exaggerating the health risks. After sampling 60 different rice products, including cold breakfast cereals, infant rice cereal, rice milk, and brown rice, CR found that most contained some amount of inorganic arsenic–which would be expected as rice absorbs arsenic so well. CR recommended limited intake of rice products: no more than one serving of infant rice cereal per day, and adults should stop at two servings of rice per week.

The group also called on regulators to ban pesticides and arsenic-containing drugs used in livestock and crop production, which they say contributes to the elevated levels of the element found in foods. Currently, the federal limit for arsenic in drinking water is set at 10 parts per billion (ppb), equivalent to one microgram (one millionth of a gram) dissolved in one liter of water.

Consumer Reports has not backed away from its chemophobic-based campaign. Last fall it released its own guidelines, contending that rice “can have much more inorganic arsenic … than our 2012 data showed,” suggesting that it is only safe for adults to have 4½ servings of rice per week, and for children to have 2¾ servings. This does not apply to our apple juice, or rice milk, which contain much less. So, at best, this is a minimal or even theoretical risk, yet it is again all over the news.

Related article:  Public sorting through what labels shoppers want on sustainable, lab grown meat, Consumer Reports finds

The very limited dangers that might exist from arsenic in staples like rice are addressable–by limiting consumption. But that’s not always possible in countries heavily dependent on a rice diet. Now there’s another possible solution: genetic engineering–iif opponents do not scuttle the research.

Scientists in Japan and Korea have identified a protein in some varieties of rice that helps the plant sequester arsenic away from the grain – the part we eat. They are hoping to genetically engineer the mutation responsible for this protein into all cultivated rice plants to reduce our intake of arsenic.

States in the southeast United States – like Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas – have higher levels of arsenic in their rice than that grown elsewhere. This is a byproduct of the cotton and tobacco industries: when these crops were grown in these areas, they were treated with an insecticide that contained arsenic. The insecticide has not been in use since the 1980s, but it lingers in the groundwater.

And it’s not only white rice: ironically, brown rice, touted by foodies, is 80 percent higher in arsenic than white rice. Ironic because brown rice is generally healthier than white because it retains the nutrient rich outer husk and bran that is shed in the making of white rice, but it is in these outer layers that arsenic builds up. Organic rice also contains arsenic and often at higher levels than their conventional counterparts, because it are often sweetened with brown rice syrup which is erroneously perceived as healthier than sugar. This was found to be the case for baby formula.

According to the FDA, the levels of arsenic currently present in rice only pose a very limited potential risk to populations that rely heavily on rice as a food source–Asians, Southeast Asians, Hispanics, and people on a gluten free diet (most gluten-free items are made primarily from rice flour)–and only in the few areas where inorganic concentrations are high. In other words, arsenic in food is not a serious health hazard, as CR claims, and no restrictions are warranted except in very extreme cases.

The researchers intend to follow up on their initial findings in three ways: they will look for rice strains that naturally produce high levels of this protein, so they can breed it with more mainstream varieties; they will use genetic modification to increase the levels of this protein in rice to see if they can get arsenic levels in the grains even lower; and they will look for similar proteins that can possibly combined with this one to get arsenic levels lower still.

“Because the rice grain is the major source of arsenic intake, reducing the transfer of arsenic from soil to the grain is a pressing public health issue,” write the researchers in their new paper. “Our work suggests a strategy for limiting arsenic accumulation in rice grains and thereby reducing human arsenic exposure.”

Their work also suggests the potential of genetic engineering and genetically informed breeding practices to correct for the agricultural oversights of the past.

Jon Entine, executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, is a Senior Fellow at the World Food Center, Institute for Food and Agricultural Literacy, University of California-Davis. Follow @JonEntine on Twitter

Additional Resources:

The GLP featured this article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. The viewpoint is the author’s own. The GLP’s goal is to stimulate constructive discourse on challenging science issues.

Outbreak Daily Digest
Biotech Facts & Fallacies
Talking Biotech
Genetics Unzipped
a a b b a f ac a

Video: Death by COVID: The projected grim toll in historical context

The latest statistics, as of July 10, show COVID-19-related deaths in U.S. are just under 1,000 per day nationally, which is ...
mag insects image superjumbo v

Disaster interrupted: Which farming system better preserves insect populations: Organic or conventional?

A three-year run of fragmentary Armageddon-like studies had primed the journalism pumps and settled the media framing about the future ...
dead bee desolate city

Are we facing an ‘Insect Apocalypse’ caused by ‘intensive, industrial’ farming and agricultural chemicals? The media say yes; Science says ‘no’

The media call it the “Insect Apocalypse”. In the past three years, the phrase has become an accepted truth of ...
types of oak trees

Infographic: Power of evolution? How oak trees came to dominate North American forests

Over the course of some 56 million years, oaks, which all belong to the genus Quercus, evolved from a single undifferentiated ...
biotechnology worker x

Can GMOs rescue threatened plants and crops?

Some scientists and ecologists argue that humans are in the midst of an "extinction crisis" — the sixth wave of ...
food globe x

Are GMOs necessary to feed the world?

Experts estimate that agricultural production needs to roughly double in the coming decades. How can that be achieved? ...
eating gmo corn on the cob x

Are GMOs safe?

In 2015, 15 scientists and activists issued a statement, "No Scientific consensus on GMO safety," in the journal Environmental Sciences ...
Screen Shot at PM

Charles Benbrook: Agricultural economist and consultant for the organic industry and anti-biotechnology advocacy groups

Independent scientists rip Benbrook's co-authored commentary in New England Journal calling for reassessment of dangers of all GMO crops and herbicides ...
Screen Shot at PM

ETC Group: ‘Extreme’ biotechnology critic campaigns against synthetic biology and other forms of ‘extreme genetic engineering’

The ETC Group is an international environmental non-governmental organization (NGO) based in Canada whose stated purpose is to monitor "the impact of emerging technologies and ...
Share via
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.
Send this to a friend