Arsenic in Rice: Part 5 - What Does "Most Protective" mean in New Jersey?

There is a reason for all these posts on one topic.  If you have read any of my other post, you will see that some 'splainen has to be done to support my conclusion.  I am pretty sure I know what my conclusion will be about Consumer Reports' research on inorganic arsenic found in rice.

It's not that they went looking for the arsenic that bothers me, it is how they describe what they found to their readers:

• "troubling" 
• "worrisome" 
• "cause for concern"
• "potentially harmful"

Those words mean something.  They mean exactly what they sound like.

So the question I am posing at this point in time, before I run through all the numbers, is; Is this terminology appropriate for the concentration of arsenic that Consumer Reports detected in the samples of rice they tested?

I like Consumer Reports.  I think they do good science.  However, as with their report on apple juice, they are not able to properly and/or adequately explain what the data they gathered actually means.  Like their report on arsenic in apple juice, this one regarding arsenic in rice uses expertise that support and conclude an incorrect conclusions on the risk.

I am starting to see a pattern here with these two reports and the experts they rely on.  These claims of  "troubling," "worrisome," "cause for concern," or "potentially harmful," are not supported by the data nor reality.  The experts Consumer Reports consults with must - or should - be aware of this.

It appears to me that the agenda of Consumer Reports is to protect public health by supporting a move towards lower and lower exposure levels.  In principle, this is a noble goal, but it is not necessary.  The EPA seems to be following this same philosophy, which is why I posted this quote from TCEQ's Dr. Honeycutt on my second post and also used it in my presentation at the AHMP conference two weeks ago.

So onward...

With a Slope Factor of 11.6  (mg/kg-day)-1, New Jersey estimates no more than one excess bladder/lung cancer out of a million over a 70 year lifespan for a concentration of arsenic in the drinking water of up to 0.003 μg/L

0.003 μg/L = 1 in 1,000,000 excess cancer risk over a lifetime based on drinking 2 liters/day.

The regulatory limit that New Jersey sets for arsenic in the drinking water is 5 μg/L.  New Jersey claims that this level is "most protective." (NJ)

So if 0.003 μg/L = 1 in 1,000,000 excess cancer risk over a lifetime, what is the excess cancer risk we will see at the "most protective" concentration of 5 μg/L.

Fun Time with Math!

....substitute 0.003 for 5, and we get a risk of 2 excess cancers per 1,000 (2.E-03)

5.0 μg/L = 2 in 1,000 excess cancer risk over a lifetime based on drinking 2 liters/day

You can calculate those numbers yourself, but that's what you get - and - they are consistent with the risk reported in supporting documents used by New Jersey (more on that in a later post):

Arsenic in Drinking Water 2001 Update

So if two excess cancers in 1000 is considered "most protective," would increasing that risk to three excess cancers in 1000 be considered  "troubling," "worrisome," "cause for concern," or "potentially harmful,"

If we are "most protective" at a concentration that theoretically will bring about 2 excess cancers in 1000, are we that more worse off at a concentration that increases that risk by one or two?

We need to stick some reality in here.  If 10 μg of arsenic consumed when drinking 2 liters of water brings forth 2 excess cancers in 1000, does New Jersey see that rate of cancer in their population?

Think about that for a moment.  Do we see that many bladder and lung cancers in the United States?  Remember, that's the estimated excess cancers from drinking 2 liters of water.  For those folks in New Jersey that drink two liters of water AND eat rice at 10 μg of arsenic, their rate of excess bladder/lung cancer doubles.  Do we see that many cases of bladder cancer?  I'll look at that in a few posts from now.

If Consumer Reports believes that the level of arsenic in rice should be at the "most protective" level set by New Jersey, then "troubling," "worrisome," "cause for concern," or "potentially harmful," is based on exceeding that level.  They are reporting that we are safe at a concentration that results 2 excess cancers per 1000 and harmful at anything above that.  Are we?

Did anyone at Consumer Reports ask this question; What is the actual rate of bladder and lung cancer in the United States?  If we know the concentration in rice is that high, are we seeing that much bladder and lung cancer in our population?


Next post: Arsenic in Rice:  Part 6 -  In the beginning there was a model

.