Talk:Brown rice

White rice comparison

Unless the magnesium content of both white and brown rice is sharpely reduced by cooking, this section's statement about the magnesium content of white, and brown, rice contradicts the nutritional information in the sidebars of wikipedia's white rice and brown rice sections. If it is true that cooking the rice reduces its nutritional value in this way, it should probably be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.241.220 (talk) 07:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Constipation

Theres a quote in the passage: "In addition to having greater nutritional value, brown rice is also said to be less constipating than white rice.". This almost implies that white rice is constipating. It isn't.

I'm choosing my words very carefully here. For some people, that isn't true, and foods high in starch with little or no fiber content can indeed have this effect on certain people.

Density?

Does anyone know the density of regular packaged brown rice? --DarkDragonite 03:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Restoring lost nutrients in white rice

How exactly is it done? Are vitamins sprayed onto the rice? It's not injected or genetically added, is it? Imagine Reason (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Enriched rice has water-soluble B vitamins added to it in purified powdered form, usually mixed with a small amount of white wheat flour, or, if not flour, then cornstarch or even powdered glucose. At least when it is manufactured in the US. In other nations, of course, there may be other methods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.24 (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of nutrition, the contents of raw brown rice is shown while the white rice page shows the contents of cooked white rice - not useful for comparison.78.105.6.51 (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Endosperm

The article reads, "If the bran layer underneath and the endosperm are removed, the result is white rice." According to[[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_grain]] , " in contrast to refined grains, which retain only the endosperm" Based on what the brown rice article says, white rice is only the germ part of the seed, that is, according to the whole grain article. 72.55.213.209 (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Other varieties

"Any rice, including long-grain, short-grain, or sticky rice, may be eaten as brown rice."

Unless brown rice is interpreted broadly enough to include red rice and black rice, this is inaccurate. Can this be expressed better? Not sure how... --Chriswaterguy talk 14:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Claim in the first sentence

"Brown rice (...) is (...) a kind of whole, natural grain."

"Natural" as opposed to... what, an "unnatural" grain? Sure is loaded in here. Era 08:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AstraEra (talk • contribs)

cooking differences?

I cannot prove this, but I suspect that a large portion of the reason that brown rice has traditionally been disdained in East Asia is that it takes twice as long to cook, or longer, compared with white rice. Note how much of Chinese cooking in particular revolves around techniques which maximize the utility of expensive cooking fuels, such as rapid stir frying.

The presence of the rice bran results in the rice taking longer than it otherwise would, all else being equal, to absorb the water during cooking. White rice is brought to a boil then simmered twenty minutes. Brown rice needs forty minutes.

carbs

I think there is an error in the number of carbs per 100 grams of rice. It says 77.24 but I suspect it's much less than this. Can someone verify and update this information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cengland0 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone comment on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.24 (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There is an error in the number of carbohydrates in brown rice as compared to white rice per 100g. Google advise 23g of carbohydrate per 100g of brown rice, and 34g of carbohydrate per 100g of white rice. Brown rice also prevents thiamine deficiency (and beri-beri), but flour is now enhanced in the US and Australia to counter the effects of thiamine deficiency especially in alcoholics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.25.188 (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The historical aspect.

My understanding is that brown rice in Japan was not historically "rarely eaten" at all but most likely one of the primary staples of ordinary people, with white rice consumption reserved to the upper classes. It wouldn't be until later industrial milling techniques arose that white rice became the norm, along with the prevalence of beriberi - similar to the history of white bread in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.136.245.219 (talk) 08:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure. In Japan rice used to be expensive and many poor people ate other stuff while growing rice for payment of taxes and rents to the samurai elite. Also, the article on beriberi says that it first got noticed by the Japanese in the highly artificial environment of naval service. So it's not like the Japanese white rice consumers were dumb enough not to supplement their diet with other readily available foods with the needed vitamins, but rather the dumb military bureaucrats forced such a diet onto the sailors. 76.119.30.87 (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I would have liked to find information about older habits (in and outside Asia). The article now states that "traditionally" brown rice was associated with poverty in many Asiatic countries.

I've heard this before, in connection with India; but then I also heard that the introduction of polished rice actually was relatively late, and was done by the European colonialists; and that when the habit of eating the rice polished spread to the not so well-situated, this induced an increase of beriberi. I do not at all know the truth of this. I looked at the article Rice huller to get some clue; but found very little. The macines described there seem to be relatively modern (from the 19'th century); but there is no information on whether there were older types or alternative technology in use for milling rice earlier, or instead the rice was eaten brown or only partially milled.

The only mention of older technology I found is in Evaristo Conrado Engelberg#Invents rice and coffee peeler, where it is claimed that he in 1885 observed slaves peeling rice by hand. (Guessing by means of the context, I suppose this was in Brazil.)

Of course, the 'pre-colonialism' societies in e.g. India, China, and Japan were technologically sofisticated enough to have methods for milling rice - either by hand tools, or with simple machinery - if this was the way most people preferred their rice. However, if that was the case, I think that, too, should be mentioned somewhere.

If this information exists in other articles I haven't found, I think we should mention such places, and provide wplinks. JoergenB (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Bumped brown rice

'bumped brown rice' is an ingredient in a new line of Blue Diamond Artisan Nut-Thins. Per a patent published 2009 April 23, "Bumped rice is typically an intermediate form of rice between a par-cooked (partially-cooked) rice grain and crisp rice. Bumped rice grains are derived by partially-cooking rice grains, dehydrating the grains, heating them so that the outer layer plasticizes/hardens, and then slightly pressing or "bumping" them using a flaking roller." [1]

I suggest adding some form of this definition to this 'Brown rice' article.Penelope Gordon (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Phytic acid: I removed something about phytic acid because it says that it inhibits mineral absorption in the gut (of other foods) etc. There was no source to substantiate this claim and before you say something like that you should really substantiate it, otherwise it is very bad quality. Personally i am very interested in health and also looked into this. There are sources saying all kinds of things and as a lay person you just can't say what is true or not. Is the study done right? Is it only bad in certain situations? Sometimes there is synergy between ingredients, for example curcuma is said to be absorbed many times better when combined with black pepper, green tea egcg is better absorbed with a citrus fruit eaten together with it. Brown rice has far better mineral content than white rice. Maybe phytic acid reduces mineral absorbtion by 30% but then you still net gain minerals?! :-) So what is better? No or little minerals (white rice) or quite a bit but wich is inabsorbable a bit (brown rice)? What is important is the net gain, right? Do we really know that? Does science really know that? Does it only inhibit its own minerals (brown rice) or does it also have influence on the minerals of food with wich you eat it together with? Does vitamin c or other nutrients cancel out the phytic acid? And still, if phytic acid does inhibit the minerals of its own and other foods, i read on the internet that phytic acid also has very good characteristics (see whfoods.org). It is said to be an anti oxidant itself. Maybe people can undo phytic acid in their gut. Who knows? You can't be selective about evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.112.142.24 (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Arsenic section added

Please raise any concerns you have here instead of just deleting the entire section. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.93.239 (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Over half the article length devoted to this one topic? Perhaps it should be moved to its own article? 108.94.26.131 (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

A few paragraphs in an otherwise content-light article about a very important topic hardly is out of line. The article is about brown rice and the arsenic is in the brown rice. What could be more relevant?

I can understand that there are business interests involved. Many products use brown rice because it has been given the, now questionable, image of healthfulness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.93.239 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 11 April 2015

I disagree. The article is about the topic of brown rice in general, and the relative bulk of the text gives this topic an undue prominence. It would be much more encyclopedic if the article were structured and weighted like the article on Rice -- a light, standalone sub-section on arsenic content, with a link to the main article arsenic toxicity, under the main section "Nutrition and Health".

I perceive problems with the tone and style of the text as well. The whole piece is written more like a scare-mongering op-ed that borders on original synthesis and is designed to push a particular POV. Wikipedia is not a platform to promote or combat against perceived business interests. 108.94.26.131 (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The undue tag and concept is not supposed to be a tool of business to hide information from the public. After this article was cited on slickdeals.net, a site where businesses pay to have their product sales highlighted, in the context of deals for brown rice, I fully expected that the section would come under attack as it has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.93.239 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 12 April 201

I placed the tag there because of the reason stated above -- the piece is written as an op-ed that borders on original synthesis. You seem to think I'm representing some "business interest" trying to manipulate this article, but I'm just trying to keep this article from pushing a particular POV. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or Consumer Reports -- please keep these crusades off Wikipedia so that it remains a neutral and encyclopedic source of information. If you would prefer, we can involve neutral third party editors to look at the issue. 108.94.26.131 (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Your attacks on the section are not constructive. If you have specific issues with specific parts of the section then why not try to be productive and improve the writing?

I didn't make any edits because my "edit" would've been to remove the entire section. The constructive thing for me to do was to discuss that here with you first and point out the problems with the section. 2602:306:C5E1:A830:41A3:38D8:8E5E:384D (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It's easier to destroy than to create. That you admit that you want to delete all of the content makes it very clear that your input is hardly objective in this matter.

Yes, of course I want to remove the content -- I've mentioned that since my first comment! And of course my input is not "objective": I have an opinion on what it means for an article to be NPOV, and I don't believe that the content that you added meets that standard. Commenting here was obviously the courteous thing to do. Would you rather I remove it straight off the bat? In any case, I don't think we are going to be able to move forward in this discussion. I will request for some third party editors to come in and have a look. 2602:306:C5E1:A830:A159:83CC:87D0:81C1 (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I have added a request for dispute resolution here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Brown_rice -- Furthermore, please do not revert the undue weight tag before our dispute has been resolved. 2602:306:C5E1:A830:A159:83CC:87D0:81C1 (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The DRN request has been closed for insufficient discussion, but I have started a RFC, below, to work out these issues. Let me strongly encourage both of you to create accounts and only edit signed-in. Your shifting dynamic IP addresses make it very difficult to determine who is saying what. And — this is to the editor in favor of retaining the material — please sign your talk page posts with four tildes: ~~~~; when you add your failure to do that to the dynamic IP addresses it really makes the conversation difficult to follow. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

RFC regarding Arsenic section

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus that the section has undue weight. The suggested solutions however do not have consensus. But the options of 2E and 2B have the most support with good arguments for each, 2E having slightly more support. AlbinoFerret 18:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Topic 1: Does the current Arsenic section, in its current form, give undue weight to the issue of arsenic in rice, that is, does it cause the article to not have a neutral point of view?

• (Option 1A) Yes.
• (Option 1B) No.
• (Option 1C) Other (explain).

Topic 2: If there is consensus that the current section gives undue weight to the Arsenic topic in this article, should the response be to:

• (Option 2A) Merely delete the section and do nothing more.
• (Option 2B) merely substantially reduce the length of it here and do nothing more.
• (Option 2C) Do nothing and wait for the rest of the article to expand to cause the arsenic material to not be NPOV.
• (Option 2D) Do both 2A in part and 2B in part by cutting the section down somewhat but not enough to cure the NPOV problem entirely, but then allowing the rest of the article to catch up.
• (Option 2E) Move the Arsenic section in this article to the Arsenic article (where there is already some coverage of this subject matter), leaving behind only a "See also" or one or two summary sentences here.
• (Option 2F) Fork the section into an article of its own (perhaps Arsenic in rice) and leave behind only a "See also" or one or two summary sentences here (and also perhaps reduce the coverage in arsenic.
• (Option 2G) Other (explain).

I express no opinion on these issues, having only come as a neutral party to add this RFC as a response to attempt to resolve the dispute of the parties set out above. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Responses

• Option 1A Yes. Option 2E "See also" or one or two summary sentences --Jeff (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Option 1A: Yes. Option 2E: (Move the Arsenic section in this article to the Arsenic article (where there is already some coverage of this subject matter), leaving behind only a "See also" or one or two summary sentences here.) Yes, this seems like a amenable solution to me. Option 2F is what I originally suggested, but now that I think about it more, option 2F may simply spawn a POV fork, which I would like to avoid. Heliumcharcoal (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support 1A 2E as above and agree generally with foregoing responses for apparently similar reasons. See also discussion below. JonRichfield (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Preferred options: 1A, 2E.Rgdboer (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, it's over done It does look like the fact of arsenic in the grain is given more weight than it should, however I don't think it verges upon exceeding the WP:NPOV guidelines. I would support reworking the text a bit to merely mentioning that -- like many other food stuffs -- brown rice contains minute quantities of arsenic. Damotclese (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support 1A (yes, it's undue weight) and Support 2E because a passing mention here, with more content in the arsenic article, would more accurately reflect reliable sources. -- Scray (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• 1A, 2B. The sentence "Consumer Reports is not the only source of information about arsenic in rice" makes it clear that the section has not been written with a neutral POV, and is among the content that should be removed. I also find it odd that the brown rice article has a long section on the dangers of arsenic, while the white rice article never uses the word "arsenic", even though (according to the section being discussed) white rice has 55% of the arsenic of brown rice. And, irrelevant to the current debate, there's an US bias to the article, comparing arsenic levels in rice from California and Missouri, but with no mention of rice from India, Bangladesh (where arsenic levels can also be a problem) and Thailand. Maproom (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
• 1A, 2E If there are sources disputing the Consumer Reports's data or its interpretation they should be included. At the moment even if the information is 100% accurate, it takes over 50% of the article which is undue - surely this is not the most important single thing that can be said about brown rice. 2C is also an option, but it can be done after 2E - if the article expands, more material about arsenic can be brought back here. “WarKosign” 07:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
• 1A, 2B, 2G. 1A: The section is quite out of proportion here. Arsenic in crops from areas where the water contains high levels of arsenic is not confined to brown rice, nor to rice; giving it this sort of prominence here suggests that it is specific to this food. 2B: so the section should be substantially reduced. 2G: But most importantly the standard of references needs to be radically improved; this is a human health issue, so the sources should be up to the standard expected in medical articles. This ScienceDirect search gives me 127 hits for "arsenic" and "rice" in the article title; they may not all be suitable, they may not all be relevant, but they might provide a starting-point for an unbiased scientific account of the problem. I'm not qualified to write that content, and don't know whether it would fit better in the Arsenic article or in a separate page on, say, Arsenic contamination of crops. It doesn't belong here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• 1A + 2B + (2F or 2G)Simply looking at the titles of the references it becomes clear that Arsenic in rice is a notable topic by itself, and quick search in google books confirms it. Furthermore, the vast majority section in question itself speaks about arsenic in rice in general. Therefore I am for boldly cut the section into a separate page and briefly mention "arsenic in brown rice" in the section which compares it with white rice. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• 1A + 2B + (2F or 2G) I 100% agree with Staszek Lem. This may be an interesting additional reference: [2] A well formulated RfC by the way. PizzaMan (♨♨) 07:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support 1A, 2A. If anything, this is merely fear-mongering. Also, it's only about rice sprayed with pesticides. Organically grown brown rice, or rice grown without pesticides, contains no arsenic; therefore brown rice does not intrinsically contain arsenic. Perhaps this material belongs in an article about agricultural pesticides, but not in an article on brown rice. Why did the report only test rice? That in itself is misleading and prejudicial. Softlavender (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• 1A, 2E Move from this article to the article on arsenic, that's where it should be. Darx9url (talk) 09:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• 1A, 2E Definitely undue weight. This is based primarily on a single report from consumer reports (ironically, as evidenced by "Consumer Reports is not the only source of information about arsenic in rice" more than halfway through the section), and goes on to talk about arsenic in other foods which is completely irrelevant. A careful reading reveals the section to say, essentially, "Brown rice may have higher levels of arsenic than other grains in certain conditions." I'm not convinced this is notable enough to warrant its own article (which would almost certainly be a POV fork, per Heliumcharcoal). Everything else has been said already. As an aside, the unanimity of commenters so far on question 1 is revealing (though I'll still follow WP:AGF). Arathald (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support 1A 2A, 2E is undue weight. I agree with Softlavender's comments.Silvio1973 (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support 1A, 2F thee is arensic in various other forms of rice, and the problem is fundamentally the same for all of them. It would best be discussed together. There are quite enough sources to make an article. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I tried to make a few revisions that I thought would be noncontroversial. I moved the stuff about rice being used as filler to another section, since using it as a filler isn't only related to arsenic in brown rice.

I removed part of a sentence that read something like "It's not only Consumer Reports, there's other research in [citation]" which sounded to my ear like it ws meant to persuade someone. It seemed like a bizarre sentence for an encyclopedia.

And I removed other vectors of arsenic, because it was tangential and if you can't shorten that, what can you do?

And is the Proceedings of Nature article even specifically about BROWN rice?

I'm perplexed that these changes were reversed. If given an option, move as much of it as possible to the Arsenic article.--Jeff (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I am not not one of the unsigned commenters above. I just was looking for nutritional info, and made changes after looking at the talk page and finding the content a bit strange.--Jeff (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I am one of the editors engaged in the above dispute (IP: 2602:306:C5E1:A830:A159:83CC:87D0:81C1, 108.94.26.131). Following @transporterman's advice, I have created an account.

The problems I have with the section are primarily with its tone. I believe that it reads more like an op-ed piece than an encyclopedia article, and the original author disagrees. In our dispute above, I've failed to explain exactly why the section seems to be pushing a particular POV. To correct that, I will try to outline specific details here. Hopefully this forms a coherent summary of my points above:

• The length of the section is disproportionate to the topic's importance. An encyclopedia article, I believe, should give a balanced weight to all aspects of the topic. The article on rice, for example, describes the crop's history, preparation methods, nutrition, environmental impact, and so forth. The treatment is concise yet comprehensive, and none of the sections seem to overtake the other in prominence. However, this article in its current state magnifies the prominence of the topic of arsenic in brown rice. Reading the article, it feels as though the title of the article ought to be "The Dangers of Arsenic in Brown Rice", rather than just "Brown Rice" itself.

• The bigger problem that I see, however, is the written tone and style of the section itself. Like @Dresdnhope mentions above, the section reads as though it is attempting to persuade the reader on the dangers of brown rice, which I believe to violate the neutrality of the article. In fact, the whole section seems to be engineered to lead the reader to conclude that brown rice is dangerous. To the author's credit, the phrase "brown rice is dangerous" never quite appears in the section, and the facts are all fairly well-cited, but we can see what the section is attempting to imply by examining its structure:

1) The first paragraph talks about how arsenic is found in brown rice, as well as other cereal products, but then goes on to describe the dangers of arsenic toxicity -- which, in and of itself, has nothing to do with brown rice. While all the facts are well-cited, the author is attempting to demonstrate a logical implication s/he has originally synthesized -- arsenic is found in brown rice, and arsenic is toxic to the human body, therefore brown rice is dangerous to humans.

2) The second paragraph moves on to talk about US regulations, and how arsenic can enter the soil. Again, not pertinent to the topic of brown rice itself, but extremely pertinent to the argument that the author is trying to establish -- that brown rice is dangerous.

3) The fourth paragraph then moves on to describe the toxicity of arsenic. At this point, the fact that brown rice contains arsenic has been well established. The author is now attempting to demonstrate just how dangerous all this arsenic actually is.

4) The next paragraph attempts to solidify that fear by assuring the reader that the sources are well-cited.

5) And the final two paragraphs then moves on to talk about exposure to arsenic in general, just to really home it in how dangerous all this arsenic is. It's everywhere and in every food.

In sum, the style and tone of the section has been designed to push a particular argument -- that brown rice contains arsenic, and because arsenic is so dangerous to the human body, brown rice is dangerous as well, and you better watch what you eat. While all this research may make for a great op-ed piece, original synthesis and POV pushing really have no place in an encyclopedic article. The dangers of arsenic toxicity are already well described in other articles, and a simple sentence or two on how arsenic has been found in brown rice should suffice to highlight the connection to arsenic. Heliumcharcoal (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• This is the first I have seen of the matter and I have responded to the RFC above accordingly. The section is not in principle out of place in the Rice article, but firstly it could better be put into the As article as suggested, with a reference and link to be sure. In either position the material as it stands is misleading in context and requires a lot of rewriting and preferably the attention of an editor competent in the subject matter. I would do it myself but I am neither a professional toxicologist nor dietician, so I will not offer to do it myself unless requested after no one else is willing or if I see that anyone undertaking such a task is making a real dog's breakfast of it. As it stands, whatever the merits of any case for or against rice or arsenic or the consumers, the material is IMO unacceptable, either in tone or fact. (A half-truth is worse than a whole lie as I see it, and I say so as having no connection to the food industry.) JonRichfield (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• The references cite "rice" as containing arsenic, not "brown rice" in particular. My only contribution here was in 2004 with this edit. Bulk rice is often very dusty, requiring washing before preparation. The insinuation that brown rice is not healthy can be understood as a reaction to the frequent suggestion that brown rice is superior to other foods.Rgdboer (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Implementation

In observation of WP:PRESERVE, the following is the Arsenic section following the RFC:

Extended content

A 2012 report from Consumer Reports found measurable levels of arsenic in nearly all of the sixty varieties of rice and rice products it tested. Its 2013 analysis found that rice cereal and pasta can possess significantly more inorganic arsenic than the 2012 data showed. Consumer Reports said just one serving of rice cereal or pasta could place children over the maximum amount of rice it recommended for their weekly allotment, due to arsenic content. Those following gluten-free diets, pregnant women, and infants and toddlers are groups that have been cited as being particularly at risk from rice-borne arsenic. In the United States, there is no federal limit for arsenic in rice and its products. Arsenic enters soil and water as a result of the addition of arsenical chemicals such as roxarsone, carbarsone, arsanilic acid, and nitarsone to poultry and domestic pig feed to do such things as improve animal growth by killing intestinal parasites. The first three of those were banned for use in the USA by the FDA in 2013, after seventy years of usage for chemicals of this type. It also was used heavily as a pesticide prior to DDT and is still used in that capacity in some parts of the world. It is persistent in soil. In the US, rice grown in soil that once was used for cotton is especially prone to high levels of arsenic as large amounts of the arsenical pesticides, such as Paris Green, were used to kill the boll weevil. Paris Green and lead hydrogen arsenate were also sprayed heavily in orchards prior to the introduction of DDT. The heavy use of arsenical pesticides in much of the USA explains why rice grown in California, which saw comparatively less use of these pesticides is estimated to be, on average, 33% lower in inorganic arsenic by Consumer Reports. Consumer Reports states that brown rice has 80 percent more inorganic arsenic on average than white rice of the same type, because the arsenic tends to accumulate in the outer layers of the grain. Organic rice farming does not lower arsenic levels because the arsenic originates from other types of farming, such as poultry and hog, as well as from earlier soil contamination. The highest level found in their 2012 testing was 9.6 micrograms per serving from long grain brown rice originating in Missouri. Its analysis of federal health data also found that those who ate rice had arsenic levels that were 44 percent higher. Consumer Reports is not the only source of information about arsenic in rice. There have been studies done by academic institutions in the past as well, such as one published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal. That study found a median level of arsenic that was 56% higher in the urine of women who had eaten rice. Rice cereals and other products also raised levels. Although most inorganic arsenic that is consumed is rapidly excreted in urine, not all of it is. Additionally, kidney damage from other toxic elements such as cadmium can reduce excretion. In addition to rice consumption the study found that 15% of women additionally had drinking water from wells with too much arsenic. Due to its low cost and perceived improved nutritional value, brown rice is commonly used as a filler ingredient in products such as pet food, baby food, and cereal for adults. Momtastic.com’s wholesome baby food site, for instance, states: “Always use brown rice when making homemade cereals, it's just more nutritious!” Some infant and toddler formulas are made with rice syrup. Multiple vectors exist for arsenic contamination in addition to rice, such as drinking water, consuming chicken products, and apple juice. WebMD states: “3-Nitro-treated birds were found to have more than 800 times more total arsenic in their livers, and 14 times more total arsenic in their meat, than untreated birds.” Some birds were found to have levels as high as 2,900 parts per billion. Concerns have been raised over the cumulative effects involved in people being exposed to multiple vectors, in addition to just the potential effects from exposure to a single one. The amount of arsenic a person is exposed to from one source, such as rice, can be only a portion of the total amount of exposure. References

I'm going to take a shot at cutting this down to two or three sentences. If someone else would like to try to incorporate it into the Arsenic article, please have at it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I was going to also include the sentence which begins "Those following gluten-free diets," but the references for that sentence appear to me to not be reliable: The Dr. Oz reference is self-published and the two individual studies violate the rules set out in MEDRS about individual studies. It's redundant as to children, but might be useful as to pregnant women and those who are gluten-intolerant if someone can find a better source. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I've done the minimum necessary to try to cut the POV-problem-by-bulk issue out. If others feel that there are topical POV issues remaining, please feel free to edit to fix them. Other than making sure this doesn't come back in bulk, I'm probably done here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Clarity on species

There's some ambiguity around whether brown rice is another species, ie African Rice, since the image used is apparently of that (rare) species. 41.164.33.145 (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)