In article >,
Mark Thorson > wrote:

> Emma Thackery wrote:
> >
> > In article >,
> > Mark Thorson > wrote:
> >
> > > Emma Thackery wrote:
> >
> > > > Roxarsone, the most common arsenic-based additive used in chicken
> > > > feed, is used to promote growth, kill parasites and improve
> > > > pigmentation of chicken meat. In its original form, roxarsone is
> > > > relatively benign. But under certain anaerobic conditions, within
> > > > live chickens and on farm land, the compound is converted into more
> > > > toxic forms of inorganic arsenic. Arsenic has been linked to
> > > > bladder, lung, skin, kidney and colon cancer, while low-level
> > > > exposures can lead to partial paralysis and diabetes, the article
> > > > notes......
> > >
> > > That last sentence would be true as a stand-alone
> > > sentence, but in context it implies something which
> > > is not even remotely true -- that arsenic from
> > > chicken feed additives has actually caused any
> > > of the listed dread diseases in people.
> >
> > That's a stretch. I don't think it implies that.
>
> Baloney! It's a sentence in the same paragraph,
> immediately following other sentences on arsenic
> -based additives in chicken feed.

Because one sentence follows another it says what you claim? Now that's
pretty funny. With logic like that you should be working in the White
House.

> It most certainly does imply that, despite your lame attempt to spin
> it otherwise.

You not only have a vivid imagination but appear to be angry about this
for some reason. Merely quoting something is not "spin". It is
quoting. Get it now?

> > I guess you didn't read the rest of the Chemical
> > and Engineering News article (which was based on
> > a news release from the American Chemical Society:
> >
> > "Complicating the issue is the fact that no one knows the exact
> > amount of arsenic found in chicken meat or ingested by consumers who
> > frequently eat chicken. "Neither the Food and Drug Administration
> > nor the Department of Agriculture has actually measured the
> > level of arsenic in the poultry meat that most people consume,"...."
>
> More baloney!

Ah.... the "baloney" argument again. Am I supposed to be impressed?

> ...Precisely this question has been studied by the USDA. But you
> choose to pretend it doesn't exist.

I pretend nothing. And what an asinine contention regarding something
I've never even seen. (Are you always this needlessly contentious or is
it perhaps some hormone imbalance?) I'm merely quoting the ASC news
release as reported. That you fail to comprehend the difference and are
clearly too threatened by this topic to calmly & rationally discuss
actual facts is far more conspicuous. I find your hostile behaviour
most perplexing.

The study you cite, while seemingly in the ballpark, does not meet the
criteria quoted above by the ACS. I'm not saying your information is
necessarily invalid or that I disregard it--- just that it does not
answer the above questions.

Please try to be less emotional about this. I am interested in facts---
whatever they happen to be. I can only hope that thoughtful others
would be similarly curious.


> Environ Health Perspect. 2004 Jan;112(1):18-21.
> Mean total arsenic concentrations in chicken 1989-2000
> and estimated exposures for consumers of chicken.
> Lasky T, Sun W, Kadry A, Hoffman MK.
> Office of Public Health and Science, Food Safety and
> Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
> Washington, DC, USA.
>
> The purpose of this study was to estimate mean
> concentrations of total arsenic in chicken liver
> tissue and then estimate total and inorganic
> arsenic ingested by humans through chicken
> consumption. We used national monitoring data
> from the Food Safety and Inspection Service
> National Residue Program to estimate mean
> arsenic concentrations for 1994-2000.
> Incorporating assumptions about the
> concentrations of arsenic in liver and muscle
> tissues as well as the proportions of
> inorganic and organic arsenic, we then
> applied the estimates to national chicken
> consumption data to calculate inorganic,
> organic, and total arsenic ingested by eating
> chicken. The mean concentration of total
> arsenic in young chickens was 0.39 ppm,
> 3- to 4-fold higher than in other poultry
> and meat. At mean levels of chicken
> consumption (60 g/person/day), people may
> ingest 1.38-5.24 microg/day of inorganic
> arsenic from chicken alone. At the 99th
> percentile of chicken consumption (350 g
> chicken/day), people may ingest 21.13-30.59
> microg inorganic arsenic/day and 32.50-47.07
> microg total arsenic/day from chicken. These
> concentrations are higher than previously
> recognized in chicken, which may necessitate
> adjustments to estimates of arsenic ingested
> through diet and may need to be considered
> when estimating overall exposure to arsenic.