Live data from Hacker News

US rice imports 'contain harmful levels of lead'

bbc.co.uk

61–70 of 79 posts

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

#61
post #2

"If you look through the scientific literature, especially on India and China, they irrigate their crops with raw sewage effluent and untreated industrial effluent," he explained." ... "Dr Tongesayi also said that the increasing practice of sending electronic waste to developing countries - and the pollution it leads to - exacerbates the problem." This is seriously scary! I had no idea that the delicious Indian and P…

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.

Personally, I'd prefer to assume more of the responsibility for selecting healthful food for my family, if it came with the freedom to choose it. I've run into a number of "harm in the name of help" regulations in that regard. For example, in order to sell meat in packaged cuts, it must be butchered at a USDA inspected facility. That sounds sensible at first glance, but it creates a problem for people who want humanely-raised, hormone and antibiotic free meat: running a USDA inspected processing facility is very expensive, and the only way to do it (currently) is to go for large volume. That means that the same facility that processes the conventional meat will be processing my meat, exposing it to both chemicals and pathogens that it would never otherwise have come into contact with (resistant forms of e. coli, among other things). In a large facility such as that, contamination from one animal has the potential to spread to many more. Health threats from this are uncommon, but they do happen and the size of the facilities means that their effects are widespread rather than localized.

Add to that the common practice of adding fat (from other animals) to ground meat, and you end up with a recipe for reduced-quality meat. One of the biggest reasons to eat grass-finished meat is its balance of omega fatty acids. When the leaner grass-finished meat is fatted up with fat from industrial animals, that benefit is lost. The regulation that was meant to help did help in the average, but it also made it more difficult to go beyond average.

One side-effect of regulation in agriculture in general seems to be to cut the small producers off from the bottom by centralizing and raising inspection costs. That in turn reduces diversity in the food supply and makes it more prone to large-scale outbreaks of problems (e.coli in spinach recently comes to mind).

It also has a second effect, which is that people trust food too much (rice from China seems to be a case in point). Because all food is inspected and certified transparently by someone else, consumers take little interest in the process, which makes it easier for things that aren't on the standard inspection list to escape notice.

Personally, I'd love to see a voluntary style of inspection, where a producer can opt in to one or more inspection programs in order to receive a certification. Consumers would then look for labels indicating whatever style of inspection they prefer (right now we basically have organic and not organic, but there are many others that might be relevant). There is definitely a need for inspection in the food supply, but I think that our current model of forcing all producers into a tiny number of alternatives is less than optimal.

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

#62
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't you just buy rice grown in the USA?

No, even US-grown rice suffers the same problem (not as the article, though). Basically rice in the southern US is grown in fields that used to be used for cotton, and the use of arsenic as a pesticide was allowed back then. Fast forward and they're using the same fields to grow rice, and the metals are still in the soil... I'll try and dig up some sources when I'm not mobile.

That's not across the board, though. My family grows rice in northeastern arkansas in fields that have not been treated as such. Still spray for bugs though.

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

#63
post #50
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?

Depends on what you mean by with the brown removed It isn't bleached white. It is like they sold white and brown potatoes at the store, where a white potato was a pealed brown potato. Just as with potatoes, apples and others, the nutrients as well as the harmful stuff tends to collect in the skin.

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

#64

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 t…

I was under the impression that rice in Uruguay is similarly lead-free, using water from the "Guaraní" aquifer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guarani_Aquifer

I worry about the mushroom imports (I buy Chinese champignons and other stuff), maybe I should stop buying those.

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

#65

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.

Personally, I'd prefer to assume more of the responsibility for selecting healthful food for my family, if it came with the freedom to choose it. I've run into a number of "harm in the name of help" regulations in that regard. For example, in order to sell meat in packaged cuts, it must be butchered at a USDA inspected facility. That sounds sensible at first glance, but it creates a problem for people who want humane…

Producers and merchants of food have no reason not to lie to you about that food, including with bogus inspection programs and simply failing to measure.

That is why the government plays a natural role in regulating food safety.

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

#66
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I'd prefer to assume more of the responsibility for selecting healthful food for my family, if it came with the freedom to choose it. I've run into a number of "harm in the name of help" regulations in that regard. For example, in order to sell meat in packaged cuts, it must be butchered at a USDA inspected facility. That sounds sensible at first glance, but it creates a problem for people who want humane…

Producers and merchants of food have no reason not to lie to you about that food, including with bogus inspection programs and simply failing to measure. That is why the government plays a natural role in regulating food safety.

Actually, there are good reasons not to lie about that kind of thing. There are large costs associated with setting up a food production business, and as a result it is important to maintain a good reputation. If you are falsely advertising that you have been inspected to meet standard X, then the owners of standard X will eventually find you, sue you, and you will suffer large losses, both in legal damages and lost business due to reputation damage. Because of the large expense for getting started, it's hard to start over with a clean slate.

Also, I didn't make the claim that there is no role for government, only that inspections should be more diverse and voluntary. If government enforced a truth-in-advertising kind of regulation, where there are penalties for claiming false certifications beyond just reputation damage, I think that would be a much more beneficial arrangement.

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

#67
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.

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

Experts claim there is "no threshold"[1].

[1]http://www.chem.unep.ch/pops/pdf/lead/leadexp.pdf

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

#68
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Producers and merchants of food have no reason not to lie to you about that food, including with bogus inspection programs and simply failing to measure. That is why the government plays a natural role in regulating food safety.

Actually, there are good reasons not to lie about that kind of thing. There are large costs associated with setting up a food production business, and as a result it is important to maintain a good reputation. If you are falsely advertising that you have been inspected to meet standard X, then the owners of standard X will eventually find you, sue you, and you will suffer large losses, both in legal damages and lost…

"If you are falsely advertising that you have been inspected to meet standard X, then the owners of standard X will eventually find you, sue you, and you will suffer large losses, both in legal damages and lost business due to reputation damage."

Yet fears like these didn't stop massive fraud from companies like Enron,[1][2] companies in China adulterating milk with melamine,[3] and plenty of other companies making and growing food in unhygenic conditions and causing disease outbreaks.[4]

Time and again, some people will try to get away with the most eggregious crimes to make a quick buck, and damn the consequences. Relying on corporate self-regulation and the magic hand of the free market is incredibly naive.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Corporate_scandals

[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal

[4] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:21st-century_health_d...

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

#69
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What happened to the FDA's mission to protect the consumer? The formal name is "Regulatory Capture" [1] but the common name is simply corruption. The interesting thing the article fails to mention is most of the countries which the US imports rice from actually ban rice imports from the US. The US, specifically California central valley, had and mostly still has a huge rice industry, but since so many countries ban…

Think how it must feel to be Thailand, who is the largest rice exporter in the world? The US comes in at number 4 after China and Vietnam and just before India.

I'm unfamiliar with rice imports/exports/production in Thailand, so your question makes a loud "woooshing" noise over my head --I'm obviously missing something.

The only reason why I know about the California rice situation is due to living in the area for a while and making friends with some of the farmers.

BTW, on a totally different note, I've downloaded your "usable live programming" stuff from LtU (thanks!) but I still need to read/watch it.

Post reply on HN