Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it isn't a significant source of dietary arsenic.
the article states: >Billions of people eat rice daily, but it contributes more arsenic to the human diet than any other food. so that is in direct contradiction to your claim, according to you, what are then the more significant sources of dietary arsenic? then we can start comparing levels...
My comment is sarcasm and intends to indicate that arsenic comes in such an insignificant quantity as to not even be on FDA's radar for even defining levels for reporting on nutritional labels.