Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US rice imports 'contain harmful levels of lead'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–79 of 79 posts

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

#71

Post by aethertap »

gnosis wrote: post #68
aethertap wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

You are correct, but I'd point out that the fear of regulatory consequences didn't stop them either, as evidenced by the fact that their actions were illegal. Regulation from the top is one way to approach this problem, which is neither perfectly effective (ref. your links) nor free of negative side effects. No solution is perfect, including the voluntary inspections I'm talking about. My point is merely that there are other reasons to distrust regulation as a one-stop solution for all food problems, as seemed to be the contention of the parent of my original post.

The government inspectors and agencies are just people, just like any other inspection agency would be. As such, they are subject to the same sets of errors and failures. They are likely neither more nor less effective than a private counterpart playing the same role would be. What I'm attempting to advocate is that consumers should have a say in what is being inspected, and how, and by whom, and that I think the best way to accomplish that is through a diverse, voluntary inspection program with labeling requirements. If you believe that is "incredibly naive" that's okay with me. I would say the same thing about trusting a single, central authority to create a one-size-fits-all set of best practices for a food system that feeds hundreds of millions of people.

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

#72

Post by gnosis »

aethertap wrote: post #71
gnosis wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 a…

You are correct, but I'd point out that the fear of regulatory consequences didn't stop them either, as evidenced by the fact that their actions were illegal. Regulation from the top is one way to approach this problem, which is neither perfectly effective (ref. your links) nor free of negative side effects. No solution is perfect, including the voluntary inspections I'm talking about. My point is merely that there a…

"I'd point out that the fear of regulatory consequences didn't stop them either"

I wouldn't rely on regulatory consequences to keep them from trying to defraud the consumer or trying to get away with unsafe and unhygenic practices. Though such regulatory consequences would still be far preferable to self-regulation or relying on the free market to do the job.

But what I would like rely on (if we had it) is thorough, randomized, mandatory inspections of food before it makes it on to the grocery shelves.

If rice had to be inspected for the presence of unsafe levels of heavy metals before it could be sold in the US, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

Clear labeling of heavy metal content on that rice which does pass inspection would also be a big help.

"What I'm attempting to advocate is that consumers should have a say in what is being inspected, and how, and by whom, and that I think the best way to accomplish that is through a diverse, voluntary inspection program with labeling requirements."

I don't see why we couldn't have both.

Foods should have to meet basic safety standards (like not containing unsafe levels of heavy metals) before being sold. In addition, if independent agencies, consumers, and corporations want to do additional inspection and labeling, that would be great! I'm all for it.

"If you believe that is "incredibly naive" that's okay with me. I would say the same thing about trusting a single, central authority to create a one-size-fits-all set of best practices for a food system that feeds hundreds of millions of people."

The reason centralized regulation in the US doesn't work as well as it could is because the ideological "pro-business" stance of many US politicians and their constituents have allowed the regulators to get in bed with the industries they're supposed to be regulating. On top of that, anti-regulation ideologues have tried to hobble the regulators at every turn by depriving them of funding, eliminating regulations, and lowering safety standards. Finally, corporations have way too much say in what safety standards and regulations they have to meet -- so they usually lobby for the lowest levels possible. The mess we're in is a direct result of that, and not of centralized regulation being inherently unworkable.

Getting rid of centralized regulation entirely would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What centralized regulation needs is more funding, stricter safety standards, more consumer advocate involvement, and greater distance from the industries they're regulating. Banning corporate lobbying would also be a big help.

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

#73

Post by nmz787 »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #33
astrodust wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Number of kids that've died from lead poisoned rice: Zero. Number of kids that've died from eating a Kinder Surprise, Darwin's Law notwithstanding: At least one? If you want to complain about regulation, you're really complaining about people who don't want to take personal responsibility for their own actions. Rather than not buy Kinder Surprise treats for infants, they'd rather ban them for everyone just in case .…

I'm not sure what sort of point you're trying to make. The major risk of lead poisoning isn't death it's the many other serious negative health effects, especially on children's development. Is there a particular reason why we should ignore lead exposure in children at levels several times higher than the current EPA limits? Moreover, if a simplistic analysis of deaths caused by "exposure" are to be used to guide pol…

I suffered through childhood lead poisoning and I'm still here on HN!

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

#74

Post by nmz787 »

gnosis wrote: 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?"

'FDA spokesman Noah Bartolucci told BBC News that the "FDA plans to review the new research on lead levels in imported rice released today".'

Seems like they're just laggy... is there requirement in law to test one gram of every Xth ton of imported food?

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

#75

Post by mikecane »

mistercow wrote: post #59
mikecane wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>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…

>>>because if you're going to go with your gut reaction, there's no point in discussing anything with you

Well that's how people react, so get used to it. I also reacted that way when I saw "Human Placental Extract" in a list of a woman's cosmetic ingredients. Full disclosure means you don't always get the nice welcome you want.

EDIT to fix clumsy sentence.

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

#76

Post by mikecane »

maxerickson wrote: post #55
mikecane wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>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.

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

Yes. But they don't want that, see? They don't want me and everyone else to be able to say No and spoil their payday.

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

#77

Post by seanmcdirmid »

jcr wrote: post #69
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Import quotas hurt Thailand the most since they export the most. Its a shame too, because they produce the best rice.

If you are a big rice consumer, you should really at least try Thai rice; it is higher quality than the Chinese/Japanese variety, the grain is a bit longer and so it cooks a bit drier (think fluffier). The second best rice on the market is from Taiwan, but they aren't a big producer.

Hope you enjoy the paper. I wrote it to make just one point; should hopefully be an easy read.

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

#79

Post by mistercow »

mikecane wrote: post #75
mistercow wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>>>because if you're going to go with your gut reaction, there's no point in discussing anything with you Well that's how people react, so get used to it. I also reacted that way when I saw "Human Placental Extract" in a list of a woman's cosmetic ingredients. Full disclosure means you don't always get the nice welcome you want. EDIT to fix clumsy sentence.

The issue under discussion was "the FDA's mission to protect the consumer". FDA-approved products that sound bad but aren't bad are irrelevant to that discussion. It's not about public reaction. It's about objective facts.
Post reply on HN