You may have seen some alarming headlines over the past few weeks regarding arsenic in rice products so what is the science behind these claims? The headlines have stemmed from two research papers by the same scientist who has published limited data on the analysis of rice milk and baby rice. I have spoken to Agency scientists to ask them to explain what the real concerns are and if we as consumers should consider changing our eating habits.
You may remember arsenic in rice isn't new to this blog. The Agency has been aware of the possibility of arsenic accumulating in rice and has already carried out its own research including conducting a number of surveys on the levels of arsenic (and other metals) present in baby food and infant formulae. These showed that the low intakes of arsenic from infant foods have not increased over the time our surveys have been conducted. This means that the risk has not increased and, therefore, our conclusion is that the current measured levels do not raise the level of concern for the health of infants.
However, arsenic occurs naturally in a wide range of foods at very low levels. Its toxicity depends on the chemical form in which it is present. The organic form is less harmful but the inorganic form is known to cause cancer. The Agency's expert independent Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) has advised that exposure to inorganic arsenic should be as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP). Although arsenic occurs in a wide range of foods, most arsenic in the diet is present in the less toxic, organic form. However, while the concentration of total arsenic in rice is low, about 50% of it is present as inorganic arsenic.
One of our concerns with the most recent studies published is that, in the interpretation of the results, comparisons were made between intakes of arsenic from baby food and from water containing arsenic at the level of the drinking water standard. The researchers seem to assume the water guidelines define an acceptable level of risk, when in fact they are based on the World Health Organization’s Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, which define a realistic limit of measurement for arsenic in drinking water. This limit for water is ALARP, because a lower limit could not be reliably measured or enforced. We need to decide on whether intakes from food are ALARP. In this case, we think they are because the arsenic is naturally present, it is likely to have always been present in rice and our studies show that the intake levels are not increasing.
The baby rice study also claims that 35% of the samples would be illegal in China (which does set a regulatory limit for arsenic in rice) but the results presented for three of the samples are only marginally above the Chinese regulatory limit, whereas the other 14 samples were at or below the limit.
We will continue to monitor the situation and are commissioning further research on the levels of arsenic present in rice and rice products as well as the effect of cooking on arsenic concentrations. For the reasons explained above, we will publish our results and the conclusions drawn from them as soon as we can. Currently, the Agency does not feel that these reports require any changes in consumption of rice or rice products for either adults or children.
