If you happen to follow news either on print or on TV you would not have missed the reports on arsenic in rice and about organic food not having more nutrients. While it is good to inform the public of health related news, they should be careful in scaring the public by not providing the whole story.
The first one was related to a recent study by the consumer reports magazine on arsenic levels in rice. If you go to the details of the report from consumer reports, they mention that use of arsenic based fertilizers is rampant in any agriculture, including fruits, vegetables and animal farming. Besides, we have arsenic in our ground water too. One big flaw in the reports is that it talked about arsenic in rice as if arsenic was only present in rice, what about other foods? Has the study been done on other types of food, say corn? Such a study would be quashed by the corn industry as it wields huge power. I am not stating that corn contains more arsenic than rice, but we do not know that either. Rice cannot be so bad, if that was the case about 4 billion Asians, who make up two-thirds of the world population, would not have survived over generations :-). So maybe there is some truth to the reports, but it cannot be a problem with rice per se and there could be other factors
So here are some facts that I found to be useful in the context of the media reports and can help people from giving up on rice altogether.
· The U.S. is the world’s leading user of arsenic, and since 1910 about 1.6 million tons have been used for agricultural and industrial purposes
· Arsenic is used on vegetables, fruits and animal farming as well, and it is found in drinking water too. Hence it is found in small quantities in many food varieties.
· Arsenic levels on rice grown in the southern states were higher than from other areas, and it is the southern states that are the main rice growing states in the US .
· Arsenic was widely used for cotton crops, and most of the cotton in the US was grown in the southern states. So you see the connection with the above point…
· Organic rice has relatively less levels of arsenic, again this can vary based on the area of cultivation.
· Rice grown abroad has a much lower level of arsenic, again because of the difference in soil, ground water and fertilizers used.
· The arsenic levels on all foods will increase based on the arsenic levels in soil, and rice might have a higher absorption as it is grown in water flooded conditions.
So should we be concerned about the study? Yes.., but don’t be alarmed. If you are an Asian, you are most likely to buy rice grown in an Asian country and the levels should be lower than rice grown in the US. Also, try to use organic food if possible as it does not use fertilizers directly, but we cannot escape what is present in the soil due to previous fertilizer use over a sustained period. So do due diligence, but go back and enjoy that morsel of rice. So will I… :-)
On to the 2nd topic, and a very important one. The story that was all over the media world said that there is little evidence that organic foods have more nutrition than conventionally grown foods. This was based on a study by researchers at Stanford University. The media and the researchers got this all wrong, we don’t need PhD’s to know that organic foods might not be more nutritious when you just look at the vitamin content :-). What they missed is what negative impacts do the conventional foods have with higher chemicals, via pesticides/fertilizers. This is predominantly why most people take organic foods. The lead author of the study Crystal Smith-Spangler writes in the Annals of Internal Medicine that "Despite the widespread misperception that organically produced foods are more nutritious than conventional alternatives, we did not find evidence to support this perception." Mr Smith-Spangler, now who told you that we eat organic food under the same misconception that you speak of, on the contrary I had never even thought about it. Instead we take it for the following reasons:
· To reduce exposure to toxic chemicals via heavy use of pesticides and fertilizers used in conventional farming.
· To reduce/eliminate exposure to hormones and antibiotics that are used in conventional farming (especially animal products).
· Better tasting food, and food in its natural form. Try organic fruits and you will know the difference.
· It is better for the environment in more ways than one, including providing local communities good drinking water due to the soil not having the pesticides/fertilizers.
Apart from the points above, there is the question of huge health risks to the society due to conventional farming. Organic food can help to improve the overall health of people in the country and reducing healthcare costs in the long run, this does not affect an individual, but collectively can be big.
Some of the health risks include:
· Increase of diseases like cancer due to the presence of chemicals in our body
· Increase of new super viruses and new strains, especially due to factory based animal farming, a good example is the H1N1 (or swine flu as we know it) epidemic.
· Impact of hormones on kids development, including early puberty especially for girls
Now the study looked at just the vitamin content and ignored the rest of the positives of organic food. They did make a few passing suggestions on the positives without delving into the details and did not care to analyze them too, and the media promptly ignored them as it would not be sensational. One of the suggestions in the study was that eating organic foods can reduce the likelihood of consuming pesticides and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Hmm, just ‘can’ J, but they did not care to test on them. Which leads to the question, was the research sponsored by vested interests? They also reported a 33% increase in the risk of consuming antibiotic-resistant bacteria in conventionally raised chicken or pork compared with their organic counterparts, again just as a side note. They also note that no long-term studies has been done of the health outcomes for people consuming organic versus conventionally produced food, maybe it is time to do that too.
The point I am making is not to say everyone should move to organic food, it is for every person to decide what works best for them and their family. I think it is better for everyone in the short term and more so in the long term, and that is just my opinion based on what I read and experience. The reports by the media to discourage people from taking organic food came at a crucial time as there was a significant movement towards organic food and helping a lot of local communities. I hope they do not succeed in their attempt in the long run, even though they might have slowed the momentum to a certain extent. What was surprising was that reputed media including NY Times had this reported on its main page, so did CNN (but that was not a surprise). It looks like they are looking for attention grabbing headlines without thinking of the consequences. I guess these days we cannot just read the headlines and get the story, the media is forcing us to read the entire story and do more research on the topics by their incompetent reporting that is just interested in the number of clicks and eye balls.
PS: Looks like NY-Times is following iVichar :-), checkout the new article that came out on the 2nd of Oct:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/that-flawed-stanford-study/?hp
Hmm, what shall I say :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment