Last week, I wrote a post called "The FDA Side Steps on Arsenic in Rice" in which I pointed out that the agency's big announcement that it had discovered that said grain is not acutely poisonous wasn't anything new. We've known that for years.
In fact, the announcement seemed to deliberately downplay the real health issue, which is chronic exposure to low-dose arsenic. This is a problem which is increasingly linked to health issues ranging from diabetes to cardiovascular disease. I speculated this emphasis was largely a move to appease the U.S. rice industry, which has not particularly enjoyed news coverage linking its product to one of history's more famous poisons. I received a strong positive response to that story, including a note from the folks at Consumer Reports, who have been advocating for safety limits on arsenic in food supply, and who agreed that "this was never about short term risk."
Perhaps my favorite feedback - and this undoubtedly says something about me - was a column by the excellent Minnesota environmental writer, Ron Meador, who described me as snarky but sensible (a description I love). And then went on to strike a similar note: "If you doubt Blum's conjecture as to FDA's interest in comforting industry, check out the commissioner's blog post that accompanied announcement of the test results — a sort of upbeat travel story from the California rice fields, full of praise for all the growers and processors who are working so hard "to better understand how arsenic gets into rice and what growing and processing strategies might be employed to reduce arsenic levels."
But today I got a note from the FDA's press office. It said: "Deborah – We read your blog, "The FDA sidesteps on arsenic and rice" and wanted to bring your attention to our FDA Blog which addresses many of the issues you raised in your blog. It included a link to a piece posted yesterday titled "Next Steps on Arsenic and Rice" and written by agency researcher Suzanne Fitzpatrick.
Fitzpatrick's point is that most serious phase of the agency's evaluation of rice safety is just beginning - and that actually is an assessment of long-term risk:* "I am a toxicologist and will be looking at the data on possible different adverse effects from arsenic exposure in rice. Nutritionists will be studying rice consumption patterns and epidemiologists will be looking for patterns of disease. There will be statisticians, experts on exposure to arsenic, and many others."*
And I think it's important to emphasize that here because I find that far more reassuring than last week's happy talk announcement. I like knowing that a federal agency tasked with protecting the public health both recognizes the critical questions raised by arsenic in the food supply and is working to address them. And I even like knowing that they're going to take some time to get it right, another point that Fitzpatrick emphasizes. (In the meantime, she recommends that we consumers eat a varied diet of grains that also includes wheat, barley and oats. And she adds that although rice cereal has often been touted as the starter cereal for infants, there's no medical evidence suggesting that it's a better choice than other grains.)
The "FDA is very focused on the long-term risks and we appreciated your article," was the closing line of my email from the agency, Which I thought was a pretty smart way to respond to criticism.
So I'd like to return the compliment. And I mean that in a sensible way with no snark at all.
Image: Rice Plant/Duke University
