Arsenic finds its way into your body through the most common means: drinking water or chicken, for example. This is a potential health risk according to an article by Marion Burros last week (The New York Times, 5 April 2006). Her story is based on a 2004 Department of Agriculture study, which recommended a revision of allowable intake of arsenic. While many might be aware of industrial contamination of soil and ground water (Naturally Resources Defence Council), less media attention is directed at the current practice (and dangers) of raising chicken on arsenic-laced feed. Roxarsone, used in feed by chicken producers to kill intestinal parasites and to promote growth, is an arsenic additive which is retained in the muscles of the birds (R. L. Wershaw, J. R. Garbarino, and M. R. Burkhardt, U.S. Geological Survey). Because the chemical compound is unchanged in this process, humans and other animals that consume the chicken meat ingest arsenic indirectly. Chicken manure also contaminates soil and drinking water. The National Chicken Council claims that arsenical levels in chickens are harmless and in accord with the FDA’s safe levels at 500 parts per billion, a standard set 46 years ago when chicken consumption was a third of today’s intake. Although there are plenty of arsenic-free chickens in the market, there are plenty of arsenic-enhanced chickens, not least are those used for fast food. (Marian Burros, The New York Times, 5 April 2006)
Arsenic is a carcinogen. The National Academies warned that: "the data indicate arsenic causes cancer in humans at doses that are close to the drinking water concentrations that occur in the United States." The concern have centered on contaminants in water, historically. The issue of arsenic in meat is a topic that receives much less media coverage, which does not mean that the dangers do not exist (John Vandiver, Daily Times, 4 January 2004).
No one will drop dead from the arsenic content in one piece of chicken. The amount retained in chicken meat may be so miniscule that it is considered neglible by health authorities. Such health risks ought be evaluated in context with other sources of arsenic contamination. That is, it is more important to consider this matter in terms of aggregate consumption. It is difficult to accept assurances on the innocuousnessness of small doses of arsenic, especially when scientists warn that these small doses will add up in the long term. Where is the FDA, EPA, and USDA in all this? Arsenic chicken is more evidence of the regulatory agencies' rubber-stamping tolerance of risky food industry methods. What's worse, in this case, is that the practice upheld by the industry is widespread but unnecessary, as one chicken producer has demonstrated. Tyson Foods discontinued the use of Roxarsone in chicken feed after an Arkansas town filed a class-action law suit against it, several other poultry companies, and Alpharma Inc., manufacturer of the feed additive 3-Nitro. Tyson, the country’s largets chicken producer, proves that elimination of arsenic-feed is an economically viable option. (John Vandiver, Daily Times, 4 January 2004)
_________________
NOTE:
I am curious about why Burros chose to report this now. Most of the research on arsenic concentration in chicken meat concluded two years ago, as far as I can see (unless there is a more recent study of which I am unaware). That is not to say that news must necessarily be driven by splashy events or new findings. I do applaud Burros for reporting on what may continue to be a public health risk.
