Chicken can contain arsenic FDA warns....
- Thread starter ChickyChickyBaby
- Start date
The ingredient's manufacturer, Pfizer, said Wednesday that it would pull feed containing Roxarsone off U.S. shelves. The ingredient has been used since the 1940s to kill parasites as well as promote growth.
Should chicken connoisseurs change their dinner plans? No need for that, the FDA says. But Michael Taylor, the agency's deputy commissioner for foods, said there were "concerns of a very low but completely avoidable exposure to a carcinogen."
Pfizer said in a statement that a subsidiary, Alpharma, would suspend sales of the ingredient next month to give chicken farmers time to transition their birds off the ingredient.
Glad to hear they are finally going to eliminate it. It's not needed any longer.
But I'll still eat chicken until they do. Just as I have all of my life. That particular compound has been in common use with commercial poultry since the Second World War.
Should chicken connoisseurs change their dinner plans? No need for that, the FDA says. But Michael Taylor, the agency's deputy commissioner for foods, said there were "concerns of a very low but completely avoidable exposure to a carcinogen."
Pfizer said in a statement that a subsidiary, Alpharma, would suspend sales of the ingredient next month to give chicken farmers time to transition their birds off the ingredient.
Glad to hear they are finally going to eliminate it. It's not needed any longer.
But I'll still eat chicken until they do. Just as I have all of my life. That particular compound has been in common use with commercial poultry since the Second World War.
I once had a water softener salesman try to panic me by saying that the tap water I was drinking contained arsenic. I responded by asking him where I was supposed to get the trace amounts of arsenic I needed to keep my bones from getting brittle if not from the tap water. He did not quite know how to respond.
Arsenic does not keep your bones from getting brittle. I just made that up because I didn't like his attitude. I've tried doing some research on it and as far as I have been able to find out arsenic is not in any way good for you. It should be avoided.
Even saying that, levels of arsenic below a certain level are not going to harm you. Just because there is some arsenic in there is no reason to get overly concerned. Without saying how much is in there, the story means practically nothing. I think it is great that they are changing the product to remove arsenic, but the way that story is presented does absolutely nothing to concern me.
Arsenic does not keep your bones from getting brittle. I just made that up because I didn't like his attitude. I've tried doing some research on it and as far as I have been able to find out arsenic is not in any way good for you. It should be avoided.
Even saying that, levels of arsenic below a certain level are not going to harm you. Just because there is some arsenic in there is no reason to get overly concerned. Without saying how much is in there, the story means practically nothing. I think it is great that they are changing the product to remove arsenic, but the way that story is presented does absolutely nothing to concern me.
- Thread starter
- #4
I wonder ...
Why not pull the feed immediately? Why wait until next month? Why do the birds need to be weaned from it? If so, maybe it is more than a "trace" amount.
Why not pull the feed immediately? Why wait until next month? Why do the birds need to be weaned from it? If so, maybe it is more than a "trace" amount.
- Sep 9, 2009
- 89
- 2
- 39
Quote:
This is not entirely true. In a perfect world it would be close, but we all know how imperfect the world is. Regardless, the body processes, breaks down and expels arsenic within the liver, as it does with most other toxins. IF the only toxin you had to deal with was the arsenic from the chicken then your body may never see the effects. However, with the broad range of toxins that the body gets exposed to (also allowed in food by the FDA) the liver is under a lot of stress. Obviously arsenic has no business being intentionally added to our food supply. Many of these elements are found in foods naturally and are in an organic state. Organic arsenic is much easier for the body to process, the arsenic added to these feeds are inorganic. There is no way for them to say that there is "X" amount of arsenic per ounce of chicken meat as every chicken eats different amounts of feed, and processes it at different rates. A loose guess is about all you MAY ever see.
This is not entirely true. In a perfect world it would be close, but we all know how imperfect the world is. Regardless, the body processes, breaks down and expels arsenic within the liver, as it does with most other toxins. IF the only toxin you had to deal with was the arsenic from the chicken then your body may never see the effects. However, with the broad range of toxins that the body gets exposed to (also allowed in food by the FDA) the liver is under a lot of stress. Obviously arsenic has no business being intentionally added to our food supply. Many of these elements are found in foods naturally and are in an organic state. Organic arsenic is much easier for the body to process, the arsenic added to these feeds are inorganic. There is no way for them to say that there is "X" amount of arsenic per ounce of chicken meat as every chicken eats different amounts of feed, and processes it at different rates. A loose guess is about all you MAY ever see.
Quote:
You can nitpick it all you wish. My point is that without talking about what the levels actually are and comparing them to established "safe" levels the article is an exercise in sensationalism. It does not really tell you anything you can realistically make a judgement on. To me, this seems to be a standard in reporting, even on major network news.
You can nitpick it all you wish. My point is that without talking about what the levels actually are and comparing them to established "safe" levels the article is an exercise in sensationalism. It does not really tell you anything you can realistically make a judgement on. To me, this seems to be a standard in reporting, even on major network news.
I heard on the radio news that it's only in the livers. So if you don't eat the livers you should be ok maybe. I used to eat dirty rice a lot which has a lot of chiken liver in it. My wife screwed up a batch of it though and i didn't eat it. Now she won't make it anymore.
- Sep 9, 2009
- 89
- 2
- 39
Quote:
This topic can be debated all day, there are two sides to every story. You call it nitpicking and that's fine I hold no grudges.
Arsenic added to chicken feed (roxarsone) is not added to control bugs. It is added as an attempt to control Coccidiosis, a subclass of microscopic, spore-forming, single-celled obligate parasite. They live and reproduce within the animals cells. So essentially our way of "Control" is to add a known poison and carcinogen to the animal, poisoning it as well as our food supply. Like the old adage says, "don't pee upstream from where you drink". Arsenic occurs naturally in our water and food supply. I am of the OPINION that we do not, and should not intentionally add more. Chicken is not the only source of intentionally added carcinogens, it is everywhere. Like I said, it is doubtful you will get hard numbers to play with since it is a variable across the board, however some stats from FDA, EPA and WHO are as fallows
-The FDA set levels for how much arsenic residue could remain in poultry in 1951. 2 parts per million (ppm) for liver and 0.5 ppm for muscle meat. These standards have not been revised since these levels were introduced. The average Americans annual chicken consumption has tripled from less than 20 Lbs in the 1940s to over 60 Lbs in 2008.
-The EPA reduced the maximum contaminant levels for arsenic in drinking water from 50 Parts per billion to 10 ppb in 2001. The cancer risk with this level of arsenic is still 50 times higher than allowed levels of other known carcinogens.
-Roxarsone-treated chicken has three to four times greater inorganic arsenic levels than in other types of poultry and meat from other animals, levels for heavy chicken eaters, would be greater than the tolerable daily intake recommended by the World Health Organization.
Quote:
Quote:
Comparing "safe" levels of a poison for consumption to those that are specified for the amount found in the chicken is a moot point considering the chicken alone is not your sole source of intake of this toxin. It is a food "Chain" and as such all sources would need to be accounted for and the sum would then tell you how close to the dangers you are. This feed may be fed directly to the chickens but do not be fooled into thinking that is where it stops. Commercially speaking the arsenic fed chicken litter is used in other food production. Chicken litter is often added directly to beef cattle feed. It is used as a fertilizer in vegetable and fruit production. All these trace amounts crossing into other foods does have a cumulative effect on your body. Hence my opinion that arsenic and other known carcinogens have no place being intentionally added to the food chain when the sole purpose for its addition can be managed in a more natural method with good animal husbandry and best management practices. Ultimately, the reason it has not been changed as of yet is not a lack of severity in the problem behind carcinogen use, but a slow transition from the mindset of bigger, faster, more money to one that is more aware of public safety.
Quote:
Not entirely. The liver is in fact the cleansing organ that will contain the residue as the chickens body works to pull this and other toxins from the flesh and bloodstream to attempt to rid itself of the toxin. However, as the chicken eats the feed it will be digested and then it hits the bloodstream where it is pumped into all tissue and organs. The liver can only work so fast to rid itself of the toxins and if it is coming in everyday the chicken will never fully rid itself of the toxins.
This topic can be debated all day, there are two sides to every story. You call it nitpicking and that's fine I hold no grudges.
Arsenic added to chicken feed (roxarsone) is not added to control bugs. It is added as an attempt to control Coccidiosis, a subclass of microscopic, spore-forming, single-celled obligate parasite. They live and reproduce within the animals cells. So essentially our way of "Control" is to add a known poison and carcinogen to the animal, poisoning it as well as our food supply. Like the old adage says, "don't pee upstream from where you drink". Arsenic occurs naturally in our water and food supply. I am of the OPINION that we do not, and should not intentionally add more. Chicken is not the only source of intentionally added carcinogens, it is everywhere. Like I said, it is doubtful you will get hard numbers to play with since it is a variable across the board, however some stats from FDA, EPA and WHO are as fallows
-The FDA set levels for how much arsenic residue could remain in poultry in 1951. 2 parts per million (ppm) for liver and 0.5 ppm for muscle meat. These standards have not been revised since these levels were introduced. The average Americans annual chicken consumption has tripled from less than 20 Lbs in the 1940s to over 60 Lbs in 2008.
-The EPA reduced the maximum contaminant levels for arsenic in drinking water from 50 Parts per billion to 10 ppb in 2001. The cancer risk with this level of arsenic is still 50 times higher than allowed levels of other known carcinogens.
-Roxarsone-treated chicken has three to four times greater inorganic arsenic levels than in other types of poultry and meat from other animals, levels for heavy chicken eaters, would be greater than the tolerable daily intake recommended by the World Health Organization.
Quote:
Quote:
Comparing "safe" levels of a poison for consumption to those that are specified for the amount found in the chicken is a moot point considering the chicken alone is not your sole source of intake of this toxin. It is a food "Chain" and as such all sources would need to be accounted for and the sum would then tell you how close to the dangers you are. This feed may be fed directly to the chickens but do not be fooled into thinking that is where it stops. Commercially speaking the arsenic fed chicken litter is used in other food production. Chicken litter is often added directly to beef cattle feed. It is used as a fertilizer in vegetable and fruit production. All these trace amounts crossing into other foods does have a cumulative effect on your body. Hence my opinion that arsenic and other known carcinogens have no place being intentionally added to the food chain when the sole purpose for its addition can be managed in a more natural method with good animal husbandry and best management practices. Ultimately, the reason it has not been changed as of yet is not a lack of severity in the problem behind carcinogen use, but a slow transition from the mindset of bigger, faster, more money to one that is more aware of public safety.
Quote:
Not entirely. The liver is in fact the cleansing organ that will contain the residue as the chickens body works to pull this and other toxins from the flesh and bloodstream to attempt to rid itself of the toxin. However, as the chicken eats the feed it will be digested and then it hits the bloodstream where it is pumped into all tissue and organs. The liver can only work so fast to rid itself of the toxins and if it is coming in everyday the chicken will never fully rid itself of the toxins.
Last edited:
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest threads
-
-
chicken laid perfect egg in AM, then in PM was acting withdrawn/unwell before dropping a soft shelled egg
- Started by sophiehatter1057
- Replies: 0
-
-
Is this sneezing or just chick noises? Anything of concern?- Started by Echelontheory101
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
-
Over researched and made myself anxious about coccidiosis
- Started by Echelontheory101
- Replies: 67
-
-
-
-
