Printer Friendly

Arsenic in food.

Lasky et al. (2004) provided a notable contribution to the evaluation of the public health impacts of the use of arsenicals, among the many antimicrobials permitted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for administration in feed. To date, concerns have focused on the association between the use of these drugs and the prevalence of drug-resistant pathogens in beef, poultry, and pork products (Levy 2001). These concerns have prompted the European Union (EU) to ban the use of antimicrobial drugs for nontherapeutic purposes in food animal production (Sorum and L'Abee-Lund 2002), and the FDA has initiated processes to stop fluoroquinolone use in poultry and to reform its procedures for evaluating new drug applications for use in food animals.

There has been less concern, internationally or nationally, over the potential public health risks associated with residues of growth promoters in meat products, although the discovery of chloramphenicol in Asian shrimp in 2002 resulted in a requirement that all shrimp be tested before sale in the EU (Delegation of the European Commission to Thailand 2002). Arsenicals--arsanilic acid and roxarsone--are permitted for nontherapeutic uses as growth promoters in animal feeds in the United States [National Research Council (NRC) 1999]. Lasky et al. (2004) serve notice that we must re-evaluate this use of arsenicals not solely for environmental impacts (Jackson et al. 2003) but also for their role in human dietary exposures to arsenic. It is noteworthy that most studies of dietary sources of arsenic exposure do not examine flesh poultry or pork products (e.g., NRC 2000; Ryan et al. 2001).

However, in two respects, the conclusions drawn by Lasky et al. (2004) probably underestimate the true risks. First, as the authors carefully noted, they had to estimate the concentrations of arsenic in muscle using the only U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data available, analyses of liver concentrations. It would be interesting to know why the USDA does not analyze arsenic in muscle, the tissue most commonly consumed by humans. [In 1981, Westing et al. (1981) reported higher levels of arsenic in edible muscle tissue from cattle given feeds containing poultry litter.] In the absence of real data, Lasky et al. used information from the drug manufacturer, Alpharma (Fort Lee, NJ), which supported an inference of a liver:muscle ratio of 2.9-11, depending on withdrawal time before slaughter. However, these assertions must be supported by data, particularly because broiler chickens are fed arsenicals throughout their lifespan. I was unable to find any article on the toxico-kinetics of arsenic in birds under controlled conditions; however, following the guidance of the World Health Organization/Food and Agrigulture Organization (WHO/FAO) Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) 2000], I examined recent studies on arsenic metabolism in mammals. Hughes et al. (2003) reported that the body burden of arsenic in mice under repeated-dose exposure was significantly higher than that under acute exposures; moreover, elimination of arsenic after repeated doses was significantly slower than after an acute dose. Under repeated doses, the ratio of liver to muscle arsenic changed dramatically over time, and at day 17, arsenic in muscle was higher than in liver. Thus, it is likely that the actual concentrations of arsenic in edible portions of broiler poultry are higher than the estimates of Lasky et al. (2004).

In addition, Lasky et al. (2004) referred to a 20-year-old assessment of the human health risks of ingesting arsenic (JECFA 1983). Much more recently, in a risk assessment of arsenic in drinking water, the NRC (2000, 2001) concluded that the excess cancer risks associated with dietary exposures are considerably greater than those previously assumed by the WHO and other authorities. In its analysis of cancer risks (NRC 2001), the committee concluded that exposure to 50 ppb arsenic in drinking water could be associated with excess cancer risks on the order of 1 in 100 (all cancers). Exposure to 1.38-5.24 [micro]g/kg/day As from chicken consumption, as estimated by Lasky et al. (2004), would be a significant addition to drinking-water exposure based on the NRC's recommended maximum contamination level (MCL) of 10 [micro]g/L (~ 3 L/day, or 30 [micro]g/day; for an adult weighing 70 kg, a daily exposure of 0.43 [micro]g/kg/day).

Surely it is time for the U.S. government and international organizations to reconsider the acceptability of arsenic use in food-animal production. Arsenic contributes to the rise in drug resistance among pathogens (Liu et al. 2001), and its use contaminates the land when animal wastes are used as fertilizers (Arai et al. 2003; Garbarino et al. 2003; Rutherford et al. 2003; Wing and Wolf 2000). Also, direct consumer exposures via food may well be a significant and preventable portion of overall exposures to this human carcinogen.

The author declares she has no competing financial interests.

REFERENCES

Arai Y, Lanzirotti A, Sutton S, Davis JA, Sparks DL. 2003. Arsenic speciation and reactivity in poultry litter. Environ Sci Technol 37:4083-4090.

Delegation of the European Commission to Thailand. 2002. Chloramphenicol in Shrimps. Available: http://www. deltha.cec.eu.int/en/news_2002/chloramphenicol_in_ shrimps.htm [accessed 2 April 2004].

Garbarino JR, Bednar AJ, Rutherford DW, Beyer RS, Wershaw RL. 2003. Environmental fate of roxarsone in poultry litter. I. Degration of roxarsone during composting, Environ Sci Technol 37:1509-1514.

Hughes MF, Kenyon EM, Edwards BC, Mitchell CT, Del Razo LM, Thomas DJ. 2003. Accumulation and metabolism of arsenic in mice after repeated oral administration of arsenate. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 191:202-210.

Jackson BP, Bertsch PM, Cabrera ML, Camberato JJ, Seaman JC, Wood CW. 2003. Trace element speciation in poultry litter, J Environ Qual 32:535-540.

JECFA (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives). 1983. Evaluation of Certain Food Additives and Contaminants. Twenty-seventh Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. WHO Technical Report Series 696. Geneva: World Health Organization. Available: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/ WHO_TRS_696.pdf [accessed 6 April 2004].

JECFA (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives). 2000. Procedures for Recommending Maximum Residue Limits--Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Food. Available: ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esn/jeefa/2000-06-30_JECFA_ Procedures_MRLVD.pdf [accessed 6 April 2004].

Lasky T, Sun W, Kadry A, Hoffman MK. 2004. Mean total arsenic concentrations in chicken 1989-2000 and estimated exposures for consumers of chicken. Environ Health Perspect 112:18-21.

Levy SB. 2001. Antibiotic resistance: consequences of inaction. Clin Infect Dis 33 (suppl 3):S124-S129.

Liu J, Chen H, Miller DS, Saavedra JE, Keefer LK, Johnson DR, et al. 2001. Overexpression of glutathione S-transferase II and multidrug resistance transport proteins is associated with acquired tolerance to inorganic arsenic. Mol Pharmacol 60:302-309.

NRC (National Research Council). 1999. The Use of Drugs in Food Animals: Benefits and Risks. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

NRC (National Research Council). 1999. Arsenic in Drinking Water. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

NRC (National Research Council). 2001. Arsenic in Drinking Water: 2001 Update. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Rutherford DW, Bednar AJ, Garbarino JR, Needham R, Stayer KW, Wershaw RI. 2003. Environmental fate of roxarsone in poultry litter. II. Mobility of arsenic in soils amended with poultry litter. Environ Sci Technol 37:4083-4090.

Ryan PB, Scanlon KA, Macintosh DL. 2001. Analysis of dietary intake of selected metals in the NHEXAS-Maryland investigation. Environ Health Perspect 109:121-128.

Sorum H, L'Abee-Lund TM. 2002, Antibiotic resistance in food-related bacteria--a result of interfering with the global web of bacterial genetics. Int J Food Microbiol 78:43-56.

Westing TW, Fontenot JP, McClure WH, Kelly RE, Webb KE. 1901. Mineral element profiles of animal wastes and edible tissues from cattle fed animal waste. In: Livestock Waste: A Renewable Resource. Proceedings of the 4th Internationl Symposium on Animal Feeds. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 81-85.

Wing S, Wolf S. 2000. Intensive livestock operations, health, and quality of life among eastern North Carolina residents. Environ Health Perspect 108:233-238.

Ellen K. Silbergeld

Johns Hopkins University

Bloomberg School of Public Health

Baltimore, Maryland

E-mail: esilberg@jhsph.edu
COPYRIGHT 2004 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2004, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Correspondence
Author:Silbergeld, Ellen K.
Publication:Environmental Health Perspectives
Article Type:Letter to the Editor
Date:May 1, 2004
Words:1335
Previous Article:Methyl mercury reference dose: response to Schoen.
Next Article:Food and population growth.
Topics:


Related Articles
Chronic arsenic poisoning from burning high-arsenic-containing coal in Guizhou, China. (Commentaries).
Risk of arsenic contamination in groundwater: response from Chakraborti et al.
Funky chicken.
Mean total arsenic concentrations in chicken 1989-2000 and estimated exposures for consumers of chicken.
"Arsenic in food": opinion parading as science.
"Arsenic in food": Silbergeld responds.
Arsenic on the hands of children after playing in playgrounds.
Arsenic on the hands of children: Wang et al. respond.
Arsenic: a roadblock to potential animal waste management solutions.
Nutritional factors and susceptibility to arsenic-caused skin lesions in West Bengal, India.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters