Arsenic in Brown and White Rice

I recently added more rice into my diet and wanted to understand the nutritional value of switching from white to brown rice. Then I recalled hearing about the potential risk of more arsenic so I dug into the research.

This 2016 risk assessment from the FDA provided baseline numbers of the amount of arsenic in rice and rice products as well as a quantitative estimate of lung and bladder cancer risk from long-term exposure of these products.

We found that average concentrations of inorganic arsenic – the more toxic form of arsenic – were as follows:

• 92 parts per billion (ppb) in white rice

• 154 ppb in brown rice

• 104 ppb in infants’ dry white-rice cereal

• 119 ppb in infants’ dry brown-rice cereal

The primary culprit of damage is inorganic arsenic in foods, which I learned in not a traditional heavy metal but a "toxic metalloid". The good news is this means inorganic arsenic doesn't bioaccumulate the same way other heavy metals do. The risk however is still continuous exposure over a long period of time which can damage DNA, the skin, and the vascular system.

Dr. Michael Greger also provides a good summary and insights in his video

Which Rice Has Less Arsenic: Black, Brown, Red, White or Wild?Evaluating differences in rice, we can observe:

• brown rice contains more arsenic than white rice

• long grain contains more than shorter grains, though this may be due more to where these grains are grown

• arsenic accumulates in the rice bran, which is why brown rice contain so much more arsenic

• many of the varieties of colored rice were worse than white rice for the reason above

• children under 6 should almost definitely avoid rice AND rice products, with regulations in the EU now adding more conservative limits on the amount of acceptable arsenic in rice products for infants

One bit of good news is brown rice MAY make the arsenic less bio-available as shown in this population study. As Dr. Greger says:

So, if you test the urine of thousands of Americans who don’t eat rice at all, they’re still peeing out about eight micrograms of toxic, carcinogenic arsenic a day. It’s in the air; it’s in the water; there’s a little bit in nearly all foods. But, eat just one food—a cup or more of white rice a day—and your exposure shoots up 65%.

Okay. But, what about those who eat a cup or more a day of brown rice, which technically contains even more arsenic? Your exposure shoots up the same 65%. No difference between the urine arsenic levels of white rice-eaters compared to brown rice-eaters. Now, this was not an interventional study, where they feed people the same amount of rice to see what happened, which would have been ideal. This was a population study. So, maybe the reason the levels are the same is that white rice-eaters eat more rice than brown rice-eaters. So, that’s why they ended up with the same levels? We don’t know, but it should help to put the minds of brown rice-eaters at rest.

So what is the risk? This analysis from the EPA used a Bayesian approach to estimate the dose response of inorganic arsenic exposure from water. It found a linear relationship of more arsenic exposure with bladder and lung cancer. If we extrapolate the EPA's 2025 upper-bound estimate: one daily cup of brown rice for life adds up to 0.42 percentage points of bladder or lung cancer risk (+5.5% relative to a 7.6% baseline); white adds 0.25 (+3%). At three cups: 1.45 (+19%) for brown and 0.8 (+10%) for white.

A more direct causal study would need to prove out this relationship, but this definitely took me aback. For rice staple cultures, three cups of rice daily is pretty normal. These upper bound figures begin to look similar to increased risk of cancer from a daily beer or alcoholic drink.

Unfortunately rinsing rice does little to remove arsenic, especially in brown rice. But researchers did find a parboil method could dramatically reduce the amount of arsenic, removing 54% & 73% iAs from brown & white rice.

My takeaway? We are exposed to arsenic across a number of ways. The increased cancer risks are linear from exposure, which means rice is only one factor, meaning arsenic exposure is a real concern due to the variety of vectors. If I was a country with a population of rice eaters, I would set significantly more regulations to reduce the health impacts. Individually, it doesn't seem worth eating rice regularly, especially brown rice.

HAZE in Malaysia

As the haze gets worse, I find myself wondering if this is one of the worst ones we've had since the 2019 or even 2015 El Nino fires.

Excerpts from News Article from South China Post

Fire emissions from Indonesia from September 1 to September 7 reached 19.7 million metric tons.

Emissions were 273% higher than the seasonal average, though still lower than the 21.7 million tons emitted in the same week of 2015.

Today we are at API 170-180+ range, and the fires in Kalimantan don't seem to be stopping anytime soon.

While looking it up, it was interesting to read that -

1. While El Niño events explain most of the year-on-year variation in fire, the creation of new districts increases fire and exacerbates the El Niño impacts on fire.

2. There are two plausible and related explanations for this finding: (a) districts use fire to create economic opportunity and grow the local economy, and (b) economic growth increases residents’ and local firms capacity to move, acquire land, and burn further.

I also found this recent review paper that outlined Malaysia's current air quality monitoring system, and more. Though given that our haze crises mostly stem from Indonesian forest fires, improving our own laws and infrastructure seems to be a bit helpless in this case, with the AATHP acting 'non-existent' once again, becoming a never-ending problem.

Can AI make scientific discoveries?

One thing I hear often is that "AI will help research, but it can't make original discoveries" (or some variant).

This article New ‘AI scientists’ are improving – but reveal their fundamental limits seems to say that LLM models can help research, but as they are based on language, they lack precision needed to validate fully hypothesis (and make discoveries on their own).

Surely this is all just a temporary limitation? Or is there some fundamental barrier?

(By the way check out credo summary of the article, which automatically pulls out the research papers cited!)

Claim: The “Living Carnivore” Diet is Good for Weight Loss

Verdict: Broadly true, but misleading

“Within 30 days I lost 20 pounds. JD Vance is also on the diet and you can see how different he looks.”

“The way that you're supposed to eat it is bite for bite. You take a bite of the meat, you take a bite of the sauerkraut”

RFK Jr.

After Vice President JD Vance credited his weight loss to RFK Jr’s recommended “meat and sauerkraut” diet, the “Living Carnivore” diet has been under the spotlight. But does it really work?

The Good News: Weight Loss is Reasonable

For the goal of weight loss – without considering other issues – and despite no direct evidence on the Living Carnivore diet specifically, it doesn't seem too bad. This largely comes down to the benefits of eating fermented foods. Generally speaking, there are multiple benefits to consuming fermented foods, as shown by a study using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2001 to 2018.

The study found that each 100 g of microbe-containing foods was associated with reduced BMI, waist circumference, systolic blood pressure, C-reactive protein, plasma glucose and triglyceride, and increased high density lipoprotein cholesterols. The mechanisms of action get a little complicated, but generally include influencing gene expression, slowing gastric emptying and modulation of the gut microbiome.

The carnivore side of the diet is where the problems come in. Purely for weight loss, there is some evidence that they can lead to weight loss and increased satiety.

The Bad News: Nutrient Deficiencies and Cholesterol

A 2026 scoping review focused on the carnivore diet noted these benefits for weight loss, but stressed the “substantial risks” of nutrient deficiencies. Overall, the carnivore diet can lead to deficiencies in thiamine, vitamin C, vitamin D, magnesium, iodine, potassium, calcium and fibre. The deficiency in fibre is also pretty extreme, at less than 1/25th of the adequate intake. It's debatable whether you could rectify these issues by adding fermented foods.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and total cholesterol generally increase, carrying risks of heart disease, and some versions have high sodium, potentially leading to high blood pressure and more.

And it should go without saying that eating “bite for bite” is probably useless, it takes a long time to digest food, relative to actual eating process. It all hits your stomach basically simultaneously anyway.

Overall, the diet – especially fermented foods – could help weight loss, but it’s terrible as an overall diet.

The "carnivore diet" may promote weight loss, but risks nutrient deficiencies and high cholesterol.

Claim: Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields Pose a Risk to Human Health

Verdict: False and misleading

“We are also examining electromagnetic fields [...] I've litigated on this issue, there's a lot of science out there, there's over 10,000 studies that we submitted to the court of appeals in a case that we won, that ordered FCC to redo its regulations, but there are still gaps in knowledge and we're filling those. [...] these questions deserve rigorous science, transparency and answers.”

– RFK Jr.

RFK Jr. Says HHS Is Examining The Impacts Of Chemtrails And Electromagnetic Fields

Before making a widely-reported comment on “chemtrails,” RFK Jr. spoke on the supposed risks of radio-frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) this week. He references a lawsuit he submitted with Children’s Health Defense, which focused on the risks of wireless technology generally and 5G in particular.

But are RF electromagnetic fields really a risk to human health?

RF-EMF and Cancer

Much of the concern around RF-EMF is about possible links to cancers.

The first of two systematic reviews from the same team covers the “most researched” cancer outcomes for RF field exposure. Based on 63 studies conducted between 1994 and 2022, the review finds no risk for these cancers. These include glioma, meningioma, acoustic neuroma, pituitary tumours, salivary gland tumours or paediatric brain tumours. Factors like the amount of time participants had been using mobile phones or cumulative call time made no apparent difference.

RF-EMF and Cognition

A systematic review and meta-analysis on RF-EMF exposure and cognition indicators – such as memory, executive function and complex attention – only found five eligible studies. Therefore, the evidence was low to very low certainty. Regardless, the studies found little to no link.

RF-EMF and Self-Reported Symptoms

Many people report symptoms such as headaches and sleep issues, which they link to RF-EMF exposure. A systematic review on this topic included 41 studies, and all either found no effect or small, non-significant effects. Notably, it also found that people were no better than chance at determining whether they were exposed to RF-EMF.

RF-EMF and Oxidative Stress

Many claims in the lawsuit referenced by RFK Jr. relate to oxidative stress and RF-EMF. A systematic review on this topic included 45 in vivo and 11 in vitro studies, and generally found inconsistent results and studies with a high risk of bias. Rodent studies suggest a possible increase in oxidative stress in the testes, serum and thymus, but more evidence is needed.

Overall, none of these claims are backed by strong evidence.

We should probably parboil rice, to remove harmful heavy metals

Building on a prior post that highlights harmful arsenic levels in rice.

Found this paper that says parboiling rice: "removed 77.9% of toxic metals and 68.4% of essential metals."

The cons are "essential metals" are removed as well, but on balance it's probably safer.

I'm not sure the exact method the paper used to parboil, but here's a recipe!h

Politics of transboundary haze in Southeast Asia

Seasonal haze has gone on for decades. I'm interested in digging into the politics of haze

Why has Indonesia not been able to stop illegal forest burning? Why has regional pressure not worked?

Here's one paper to start with, that found:

The study reveals a significant electoral cycle (a repeated pattern linked to elections) in forest fires. Both the number of ignitions and the area burned decline during election years. They then increase steeply in the year after elections. The authors argue that politicians may suppress forest burning when it could damage their electoral chances. After elections, those incentives weaken, allowing more burning for land conversion.

I find this somewhat encouraging -- as it suggests that forest burning can be reduced, when political incentives align.

The challenge is how to align incentives more permanently -- beyond the narrow pre-election period.

"Sugar high" is a myth?

I remember reading that "sugar high" isn't actually real! In other words, children don't actually get overexcited after eating a bunch of sugar.

I find this hard to believe!

But, here's a (pretty old - 1995) meta-analysis which is pretty clear: sugar high is probably a myth.

The meta-analysis covered 23 other studies, and none of them found a significant effect (of sugar intake and child behaviour).

I'm still somewhat skeptical though 😆. Would be interested to delve into more recent analysis and debate.

Do phone bans in schools work?

Most parents have some concerns about phone use. This is an interesting study from the UK, that investigated phone bans in schools.

The study covered 30 schools (20 had phone bans, 10 didn't), with the students aged 12-15.

Their main finding: phone bans don't meaningfully affect/improve mental wellbeing.

Basically the phone bans only reduced phone and social media use slightly, and kids still used their phones at home.

Important point: the phone bans weren't uniform or super strict in all cases -- e.g. some schools just told students keep their phones in their bags.

So we can't say that "phone bans will NEVER work". They just didn't have a huge impact, on average, in the way they were implememted in those 20 schools.