Arsenic in our rice

A recent report accused American rice of being contaminated with arsenic, slandering a delicious staple of the human diet and encouraging people to avoid eating rice. The problem? It reeks of smelly food politics.It was just a year or two ago when daytime talk show host Dr. Oz revealed to America the presence of arsenic in apples and apple juice. As a result of his revelation, furious rebuttal erupted from the big-food industry reassuring the safety of apples to the American public, but most importantly, reassuring the American public that Dr. Oz was a crazy nut-job with no credibility. Big-food attacked Dr. Oz’s character, found fault in his research, and forced a tail-between-the-legs apology from him. If Oprah can’t say she dislikes beef on the Oprah show, how much chance does Dr. Oz have of criticizing apples?Strangely enough, when the Consumer’s Union article appeared about arsenic in rice recently, there was no outcry from big-food. None. Stranger still is any criticism of arsenic at all, given there are no standard levels defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for arsenic to be either safe or unsafe. Without definition, any level of arsenic could scare the American public to alter their eating habits. “Oh no, not 2.8 micrograms per serving!” — even though most Americans have no idea if 2.8 is high or low, or for that matter, how much one serving constitutes.Is arsenic in rice a bad thing? Probably. Do I want arsenic in my rice? No, but this isn’t the point of clever food politics at work.Since the early 1990s, there has been a major push by big-food corporations to decrease the human consumption of grains, allowing for more consumption of grain by animals. Humans are in competition with animals for grain, whether we know it or not, and fight a constant battle over market prices and availability. Whether it’s the Atkins diet, the South Beach diet, increased points on Weight Watchers, or constant defamation of carbs by nutritionists, major food producers have been utilizing a plethora of strategies to discourage the consumption of rice and wheat by American humans.Why?Animals eat at a much higher inefficiency than humans. Cows, for example, eat at an inefficiency rate of 13x, meaning they eat 13 pounds of food for every 1 pound they produce (pigs eat at 7-8x inefficiency, chickens at 3-4x inefficiency). For every pound of beef a human eats, he/she is actually eating 14 pounds of food, when calculating the amount of grain the cow ate to produce the meat. Meat is more expensive than grain in the supermarket, and feeding cows instead of humans means more profit for the food industry. How do big-food corporations make more money? They get humans to eat fewer carbs and more meat.There are other, more complex reasons for decreasing the human consumption of grain. Farmers can grow a much cheaper variety of corn, soy, and rice for animals than humans, and can ship them more cheaply to CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) than to supermarkets. Animal feed is in higher and more stable demand, and can be a more predictable market for farmers.The laws for using GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) seeds are much more lax for growing animal feed than human food. While many and most grains for human consumption are forbidden to be GMO, grains grown for animals are much more likely to be GMO as the law allows. GMO companies such as Monsanto, for example, are much more likely to push farmers into growing animal feed with GMO seeds.How does Monsanto increase demand for its patented GMO seed? By reducing human consumption of carbs and increasing the appetite for meat.Americans must realize our dietary advice is saturated in politics, and no, the health of our citizens is never at the heart of its intent. Americans are so convinced of the purity of the dietary advice we receive, because we want to believe our food corporations and government agencies are on our side. Following the advice of a food system seeking financial profit at the expense of our national health leads people to ostracize a beautiful food like rice from their diet, replacing it with more chicken nuggets and hamburgers. Does rice have dangerous levels of arsenic? I don’t know, I’m not a scientist. But I do know this report is in perfect alignment with two decades of propaganda to reduce human consumption of grain, and no, I will not stop eating my beloved rice so a cow can have it instead.Aaron Zweig is director of the Food Studies program and history teacher at the Marvelwood School in Kent, a veteran restaurant cook, and an experienced organic gardener.