US rice imports 'contain harmful levels of lead' • Hacker News Board

Re: US rice imports 'contain harmful levels of lead'

#51

Post by mikecane » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 11:19 AM UTC

mistercow wrote: post #10

mikecane wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>What happened to the FDA's mission to protect the consumer? It was basically eviscerated in the 1980s. One example is the increased amount of fat and bone allowed in meats. And did you forget about the infamous pink slime? FDA Approved!

1. While use of ammonium hydroxide is FDA approved, approval of pink slime is really under USDA's jurisdiction. 2. Of all the failings of government regulation and the FDA in particular, pink slime is such a red herring that it's hardly even worth mentioning. If you want examples of the FDA screwing up, you can find way better examples than that.

>>>pink slime is such a red herring

So you think cast-off meat soaked in ammonia is a good thing? No, don't argue any science with me here. There is no way in hell this can be spun into anything good.

Re: US rice imports 'contain harmful levels of lead'

#52

Post by jjuliano » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 11:26 AM UTC

Any data about rice in the Philippines?

My family owns a farm in central Luzon, and I know that the majority of farmers there doesn't use irrigation from streams but instead uses a kerosine-powered pump deep-well system.

I know this might sound anecdotal, but for more than 20 or so years I've been visiting our farms every summer, even farmers near the River streams uses deep-wells and rain water, and the irrigation that runs along the farms are from deep-wells.

Also, here's a recent article about the Philippine rice are certified arsenic-free 'http://ph.news.yahoo.com/philippine-rice-certified-arsenic-f...

Re: US rice imports 'contain harmful levels of lead'

#53

Post by stan_rogers » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 11:37 AM UTC

tome wrote: post #50

rdouble wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found some sources on my own. Interesting. It looks like California rice is the safest, and white rice is better than brown.

White is better than brown? Isn't white just brown with the brown removed?

Yes, but it's a lot easier to buy the rice as white rice than it is to remove the part of the plant that is harbouring the toxin at home. Even in plants, different tissues do different things.

Re: US rice imports 'contain harmful levels of lead'

#54

Post by rdl » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 12:08 PM UTC

gmac wrote: post #48

jcromartie wrote: post #31

Specifically, Chinese rice contains harmful levels of lead. If there is one lesson we've learned about consumer products in the last decade, it's don't eat anything from China.

I do vaguely try to avoid buying food from China, but some things are hard to find from anywhere else (ginger, for example).

Hawaiian ginger is really good.

Re: US rice imports 'contain harmful levels of lead'

#55

Post by maxerickson » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 1:10 PM UTC

mikecane wrote: post #51

mistercow wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. While use of ammonium hydroxide is FDA approved, approval of pink slime is really under USDA's jurisdiction. 2. Of all the failings of government regulation and the FDA in particular, pink slime is such a red herring that it's hardly even worth mentioning. If you want examples of the FDA screwing up, you can find way better examples than that.

>>>pink slime is such a red herring So you think cast-off meat soaked in ammonia is a good thing? No, don't argue any science with me here. There is no way in hell this can be spun into anything good.

I think it is probably safe to eat (a pro meat propaganda website I was just looking at claimed that ammonia was present at much higher levels in other foods; given the prevalence of nitrogen in the environment, that isn't especially ridiculous).

Products using it should be required to say as much though.

Re: US rice imports 'contain harmful levels of lead'

#56

Post by 13b9f227ecf0 » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 1:16 PM UTC

jcromartie wrote: post #31

Specifically, Chinese rice contains harmful levels of lead. If there is one lesson we've learned about consumer products in the last decade, it's don't eat anything from China.

There's also seems to be a case against eating any concentrated feed lot raised meat from the USA. Russia and others have banned its import.

Re: US rice imports 'contain harmful levels of lead'

#57

Post by johnward » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 1:22 PM UTC

nicksergeant wrote: post #11

We heard about this a year ago and cut almost 95% of the rice in our diet. Now we have a rice dish about once a month or less. There were even warnings that small children should avoid rice completely. Unfortunately you just need to be proactive about what you put in your mouth, and don't assume that since you live in a "developed" country that everything sold is safe to eat. Don't even get me started on the FDA's st…

I eat a couple cups of brown rice a day. Now arsenic and lead. I need to find a new carb source. Hopefully oatmeal is still ok.

Re: US rice imports 'contain harmful levels of lead'

#58

Post by maxerickson » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 1:26 PM UTC

ern wrote: post #46

Although I acknowledge that lead is nasty stuff, something about this issue bothers me. According to some studies, increasing exposure to lead at low levels (1-10 micrograms/dl) shaves 4-7 points off IQ scores[1]. Yet, as population blood lead levels have plunged in recent years, there haven't been proportionately massive gains in IQ in the population. Indeed, the Flynn effect may have stalled in recent years[2]. Thi…

If the lead exposure is a threshold effect, most of the population might have already banked the benefits of going below it.

If it mostly impacts development (rather than ongoing performance), even more so.

Re: US rice imports 'contain harmful levels of lead'

#59

Post by mistercow » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 1:28 PM UTC

mikecane wrote: post #51

mistercow wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. While use of ammonium hydroxide is FDA approved, approval of pink slime is really under USDA's jurisdiction. 2. Of all the failings of government regulation and the FDA in particular, pink slime is such a red herring that it's hardly even worth mentioning. If you want examples of the FDA screwing up, you can find way better examples than that.

>>>pink slime is such a red herring So you think cast-off meat soaked in ammonia is a good thing? No, don't argue any science with me here. There is no way in hell this can be spun into anything good.

It's not soaked in ammonia. It's puffed with ammonia. And, no I don't think it's a good thing. I just don't think it's any worse than meat in general. The reason that pink slime caught the public imagination is that it sounds gross, but there's no scientific basis (and I will argue science because if you're going to go with your gut reaction, there's no point in discussing anything with you) for the hypothesis that adding pink slime to meat is harmful.

And I find it pretty baffling that people can have no problem with raising an animal in bondage, shooting a metal slug through his or her brain, skinning the corpse, rending its flesh, and then shipping the chunks around the country to be eaten — but if any of it is slimy, they get squicked out.

Re: US rice imports 'contain harmful levels of lead'

#60

Post by MichaelSalib » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 1:49 PM UTC

InclinedPlane wrote: post #24

MichaelSalib wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happened to the FDA's mission to protect the consumer? Why aren't rice imports tested for heavy metals? You know why. Because that would be onerous government regulation. Americans are obsessed with the idea that the government overregulates everything. That's why Congress is unwilling to fund enforcement actions.

The government does overregulate damned near everything. Even worse, it fails to regulate the right things. You can't buy Kinder Eggs in the US because of FDA regulations, and yet the FDA lets in literally tons of rice that is tainted with lead or arsenic. Does that seem like a problem to you? It seems like a problem to me.

Does that seem like a problem to you? It seems like a problem to me.

Your argument proves too much. I mean, this does sound like a problem, but it sounds like the same problem I've encountered in every government I've dealt with and in every corporation I've worked for. It is one of the fundamental problems of human organizations operating with rules. The rule sets are both too strict and too lenient. But what is the alternative to rule sets? Philosopher kings?

I tell you what: since we both agree that it is a problem, why don't you list some large organizations that consistently promulgate rule sets which everyone agrees neither underregulate nor overregulate?