Rice is among the most poisonous foods commonly eaten because the processing stage often causes it to become contaminated with toxic heavy metals such as cadmium and lead. Washing rice and straining the rice post-cooking is the most effective way to reduce the levels of these contaminants, but it cannot reduce their levels to 0.

>>2059
We have a thing called the CFIA analogous to the FDA which analyzes these things instead of random commenters on the internet.

>>2060
They do incredible work for us.

>>2061
https://www.fda.gov/files/food/published/Arsenic-in-Rice-and-Rice-Products-Risk-Assessment-Report-PDF.pdf
Yes, they wrote a 284 page study on the effects and acceptable levels of arsenic in rice.

>>2062
Could you give me a qrd on whats considered acceptable levels of arsenic in rice?

>>2063
Read the executive summary on pages 3 through 6.

You should usually be skeptical of labels that say "made with ___" because it's often a legal loophole, but it's probably not the case here because rice is so cheap.
In the US the FDA forbids foods from being labeled certain ways unless they're the primary ingredient, for example Hershey's Chocolate Syrup is these days "Chocolate-flavored syrup". in this case "made with rice" could be a way around saying "rice crackers".
But, again, rice is cheap so I have no doubt it's actually rice crackers.

>>2066
it doesn't actually say it's rice crackers. It's just a rice cracker looking thing made maknly with rice.

>>2060
What~? Anonymous isn't trustworthy? :P

My knowledge on this matter was partly informed by this recent third-party study by an action group analyzing the levels of heavy metal contamination in baby food, which is seeking to get the FDA to revise it's standards to reflect this newfound risk to infants (although, of course heavy metal contamination isn't good for any age group, but it's especially deleterious when affecting infants):
https://www.healthybabyfood.org/sites/healthybabyfoods.org/files/2022-08/StoreVsHomemade_2022.pdf

This image (which itself is in the study) gives a very broad overview of their conclusions, but the linked study includes per-category averages of PPB levels of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and lead in common foods served to infants. Needless to say, it would undoubtedly also be prudent to evaluate the sources and contamination levels of all foods more broadly, but that's not their main focus.

Uh oh...
I eat rice with almost every home-cooked dinner...

>>2069
What do they think about Canada's enforcement on heavy metals in baby food

Don't worry I work for the government and can assure it is safe!

>>2069
That graphic seems to be saying that US rice(and therefore I would assume rice products) are not regulated well enough for consumption by children.

My rice comes from Asia, but rice snacks, perhaps. Still, there's a risk-reward analysis with food production. Certain methods are less than healthy for a person living to the age of 70, but can lower food prices meaning more of the population doesn't go malnourished(a potential case which could make populations less productive or even live less than the age of metal pollution in the body).
I think it's correct though, that the FDA doesn't treat rice with the same standards it does grain. And the FDA acknowledges that there's some problems which need addressing.

Reducing inorganic arsenic exposure by either reducing consumption of rice and rice products or
limiting the level of inorganic arsenic in rice grain and rice products would decrease lifetime
cancer risk, as follows:
• In the general population, limiting levels of inorganic arsenic to 200 ppb or higher would
not change the cancer risk significantly. Setting a limit below 200 ppb of inorganic arsenic
in rice and rice products would decrease the risk. Setting a limit of 150 ppb of inorganic
arsenic in rice and rice products would decrease the risk between 0% and 23%. The risk
reduction is between 2% and 47% at a limit of 100 ppb of inorganic arsenic in rice and rice
products. Finally setting a limit at 75 ppb of inorganic arsenic in rice and rice products
would decrease the risk between 17% and 79%. The percentage of risk reduction is
dependent on the product (see Table 5.6).
• Setting a maximum level for inorganic arsenic in rice and rice products could affect
availability in the U.S. market. For example, were we to set a maximum level of 100 ppb in
these foods, the availability in the marketplace might decrease by 4% to 93%, depending on
the type of rice.
• In the general population, the cancer risk would decrease in proportion to decreases in
serving size and frequency of consumption of rice and rice products. Conversely, the risk
Executive Summary |
May 13, 2014 Arsenic in Rice and Rice Products Risk Assessment Report (Revised March 2016) | 5
would double over a lifetime if the consumption frequency were increased from 1 serving
per day to 2 servings per day during that entire period (see Table 5.9).
• Eliminating rice and rice products from the diets of infants and of children up to 6 years old
could reduce the lifetime cancer risk from inorganic arsenic in rice and rice products by 6%
and 23%, respectively. In other words, the risk model predicts that an infant not fed any rice
or rice products has an approximately 6% lower chance of developing lung or bladder
cancer from arsenic contamination of these foods, over the lifetime, compared with an infant
who is fed these products (see Table 5.7)

>>2074
It's not really a regulation issue, it's just that arsenic is naturally present in the water/soil in much of the US and rice tends to uptake metals more efficiently than most other common grains. There's no economically feasible way to prevent the metals from getting in the rice.

But yeah, I wouldn't eat southwestern US grown rice every day. The California rice should be fine. And white rice has less metals, although that includes good metals like zinc too.

And like you said, it's all relative risk. There is no known safe consumption rate of arsenic, but we usually consider a 1:100,000 or 1:1,000,000 cancer risk as the
"acceptable" amount, depending on the regulatory agency.