I heard about this on KCRW's "Good Food" this morning and found this
among many articles about the use of arsenic in chicken feed to make
them eat more so they can be sent to market more quickly:


Arsenic In Chicken Feed May Pose Health Risks To Humans, C&EN Reports
[excerpt]

Pets may not be the only organisms endangered by some food additives. An
arsenic-based additive used in chicken feed may pose health risks to
humans who eat meat from chickens that are raised on the feed, according
to an article in the April 9 issue of Chemical & Engineering News, the
weekly news magazine of the American Chemical Society.

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......

<http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=67500&nfid=crss>

Emma Thackery said...

> Arsenic In Chicken Feed May Pose Health Risks To Humans, C&EN Reports


The article makes no mention of any chicken in the food supply testing
positive for arsenic, just a feed that contains it, severely overgeneralizing
the claim. Almost a scare tactic.

Arsenic does a better job of destroying the central nervous system.

Andy

On 2007-05-11, Andy <q> wrote:

> the claim. Almost a scare tactic.

....or a plug for Tyson.

nb

Emma Thackery wrote:
> I heard about this on KCRW's "Good Food" this morning and found this
> among many articles about the use of arsenic in chicken feed to make
> them eat more so they can be sent to market more quickly:
>
>
> Arsenic In Chicken Feed May Pose Health Risks To Humans, C&EN Reports
> [excerpt]
>
> Pets may not be the only organisms endangered by some food additives. An
> arsenic-based additive used in chicken feed may pose health risks to
> humans who eat meat from chickens that are raised on the feed, according
> to an article in the April 9 issue of Chemical & Engineering News, the
> weekly news magazine of the American Chemical Society.
>
> 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......
>
> <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=67500&nfid=crss>


Stupid article. They are trying to create a controversy where none
exists because people like to be hysterical these days.

I remember chick starter feed used to have arsenic in it back in the
60's to protect them from parasites. When the chicks got a little
older, the feed no longer had arsenic in it.

The risk here is that someone might poison themselves if they eat a
bunch of spoiled chicken feed?

Best regards,
Bob

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.

In the U.S., the FDA tolerance level for arsenic
from roxarsone in chicken muscle meat is 0.5 ppm.
Wild-caught crabs, oysters, and clams from the ocean
would never be able to meet an arsenic level that low.
The tolerance limit is 76 ppm in crabs, 86 ppm
in clams and oysters.

In article >, Andy <q> wrote:

> Emma Thackery said...
>
> > Arsenic In Chicken Feed May Pose Health Risks To Humans, C&EN Reports
>
> The article makes no mention of any chicken in the food supply testing
> positive for arsenic, just a feed that contains it, severely overgeneralizing
> the claim. Almost a scare tactic.

To what claim are you referring? And exactly how is it
over-generalized? On what specific wording are you basing your "scare
tactic" claim? With what do you disagree and what is your basis for
disagreement?

Emma

In article >,
zxcvbob > wrote:

> Emma Thackery wrote:
> > I heard about this on KCRW's "Good Food" this morning and found this
> > among many articles about the use of arsenic in chicken feed to make
> > them eat more so they can be sent to market more quickly:
> >
> >
> > Arsenic In Chicken Feed May Pose Health Risks To Humans, C&EN Reports
> > [excerpt]
> >
> > Pets may not be the only organisms endangered by some food additives. An
> > arsenic-based additive used in chicken feed may pose health risks to
> > humans who eat meat from chickens that are raised on the feed, according
> > to an article in the April 9 issue of Chemical & Engineering News, the
> > weekly news magazine of the American Chemical Society.
> >
> > 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......
> >
> > <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=67500&nfid=crss>
>
>
> Stupid article.

Exactly what is it that is so stupid about this article from the
American Chemical Society?

> They are trying to create a controversy where none
> exists because people like to be hysterical these days.

On what are you basing your assertion?

Emma Thackery said...

> In article >, Andy <q> wrote:
>
>> Emma Thackery said...
>>
>> > Arsenic In Chicken Feed May Pose Health Risks To Humans, C&EN Reports
>>
>> The article makes no mention of any chicken in the food supply testing
>> positive for arsenic, just a feed that contains it, severely
>> overgeneralizing the claim. Almost a scare tactic.
>
> To what claim are you referring?
>
> Emma


Emma,

Specifically? The claim of "Arsenic in My Chicken" in your subject line!

Andy

In article >,
Mark Thorson > wrote:

> Emma Thackery wrote:

> > Arsenic In Chicken Feed May Pose Health Risks To Humans, C&EN
> > Reports [excerpt]
>
> > Pets may not be the only organisms endangered by some food
> > additives. An arsenic-based additive used in chicken feed may pose
> > health risks to humans who eat meat from chickens that are raised
> > on the feed, according to an article in the April 9 issue of
> > Chemical & Engineering News, the weekly news magazine of the
> > American Chemical Society.

> > 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. It references
arsenic, not arsenic in chicken feed. The concern here is that Federal
agencies responsible for food safety clearly do not know (1) what
comprises a safe level of such compounds in foods consumed by either
humans or chickens; or (2) how much of the toxic forms of inorganic
arsenic are actually making it into the chicken feed. Personally, I'd
like to know the answer to those questions. Ignorance is not bliss.

> In the U.S., the FDA tolerance level for arsenic
> from roxarsone in chicken muscle meat is 0.5 ppm.
> Wild-caught crabs, oysters, and clams from the ocean
> would never be able to meet an arsenic level that low.
> The tolerance limit is 76 ppm in crabs, 86 ppm
> in clams and oysters.

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,"...."

Emma

Emma Thackery said...

> In article >,
> Mark Thorson > wrote:
>
>> Emma Thackery wrote:
>
>> > Arsenic In Chicken Feed May Pose Health Risks To Humans, C&EN
>> > Reports [excerpt]
>>
>> > Pets may not be the only organisms endangered by some food
>> > additives. An arsenic-based additive used in chicken feed may pose
>> > health risks to humans who eat meat from chickens that are raised
>> > on the feed, according to an article in the April 9 issue of
>> > Chemical & Engineering News, the weekly news magazine of the
>> > American Chemical Society.
>
>> > 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. It references
> arsenic, not arsenic in chicken feed. The concern here is that Federal
> agencies responsible for food safety clearly do not know (1) what
> comprises a safe level of such compounds in foods consumed by either
> humans or chickens; or (2) how much of the toxic forms of inorganic
> arsenic are actually making it into the chicken feed. Personally, I'd
> like to know the answer to those questions. Ignorance is not bliss.
>
>> In the U.S., the FDA tolerance level for arsenic
>> from roxarsone in chicken muscle meat is 0.5 ppm.
>> Wild-caught crabs, oysters, and clams from the ocean
>> would never be able to meet an arsenic level that low.
>> The tolerance limit is 76 ppm in crabs, 86 ppm
>> in clams and oysters.
>
> 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,"...."
>
> Emma


Emma,

Stop putting your foot in your mouth!

The American Chemical Society is a publicly held company. Visit their
financial statement. They are not a government agency.

Andy

Here is another recent article on this topic from the Chemical and
Engineering News. Since arsenic isn't really necessary in chicken feed
and since it is definitely polluting the ground water and may be causing
human health concerns, it seems reasonable to want it out of our food.
It's been banned in the EU since 1999 IIRC.
____________________________

Arsenic In Chicken Production
A common feed additive adds arsenic to human food and endangers water
supplies
Bette Hileman

FOR ENVIRONMENTALISTS and some public health experts, one of the most
puzzling practices of modern agriculture is the addition of
arsenic-based compounds to most chicken feed. The point of the practice
is to promote growth, kill parasites that cause diarrhea, and improve
pigmentation of chicken meat. But Tyson Foods, the U.S.'s largest
poultry producer, stopped using arsenic compounds in 2004, and many
high-end and organic growers raise chickens quite successfully without
them. What's more, McDonald's has asked its suppliers not to use arsenic
additives, and the European Union banned them in 1999.
Stephen Ausmus/USDA

Roxarsone‹4-hydroxy-3-nitrobenzenearsonic acid‹is by far the most common
arsenic-based additive used in chicken feed. It is mixed in the diet of
about 70% of the 9 billion broiler chickens produced annually in the
U.S. In its original organic form, roxarsone is relatively benign. It is
less toxic than the inorganic forms of arsenic-arsenite [As(III)] and
arsenate [As(V)]. However, some of the 2.2 million lb of roxarsone mixed
in the nation's chicken feed each year converts into inorganic arsenic
within the bird, and the rest is transformed into inorganic forms after
the bird excretes it.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, long-term exposure to
inorganic arsenic can cause bladder, lung, skin, kidney, and colon
cancer, as well as deleterious immunological, neurological, and
endocrine effects. Low-level exposures can lead to partial paralysis and
diabetes. "None of this was known in the 1950s when arsenicals were
first approved for use in poultry," says Ellen K. Silbergeld, a
toxicologist at Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public
Health.

Three different pathways exist by which roxarsone in chicken feed can
contribute to human arsenic exposure. Roxarsone, or its breakdown
products, ends up in chicken meat and adds to the dietary intake of
arsenic; roxarsone excreted in chicken litter contaminates land and
groundwater after the manure is spread on cropland; and the large
amounts of poultry litter made into fertilizer pellets for home gardens
and lawns contaminate homegrown produce with arsenic and expose the
consumer to arsenic dust.

Last year, a team led by James A. Field of the department of chemical
and environmental engineering at the University of Arizona reported that
under anaerobic conditions, roxarsone is converted to inorganic arsenic
within eight months after poultry litter is spread on fields (Environ.
Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 2951). "Roxarsone is not very toxic," Field
says, "but in anaerobic environments, it is transformed into highly
toxic forms."

In January, Partha Basu, associate professor of chemistry and
biochemistry at Duquesne University and colleagues reported that
microorganisms of the genus Clostridium in chicken litter rapidly
transform roxarsone into inorganic arsenate under anaerobic conditions
(Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 818). "We see As(V) created in less
than 10 days," Basu says, noting it "can be readily leached into
groundwater."

Chicken manure introduces huge quantities of arsenic to agricultural
fields. According to Donald L. Sparks, professor of marine studies at
the University of Delaware, poultry litter is spread on land at the rate
of 9 to 20 metric tons per hectare. Each year, he estimates, 20 to 50
metric tons of roxarsone in chicken litter is applied to fields on the
Delmarva Peninsula, a region that includes parts of Delaware, Maryland,
and Virginia.

A group led by Johns Hopkins' Silbergeld analyzed arsenic in tap water
on the Delmarva Peninsula. It found higher levels of arsenic in areas
where chicken litter is spread on fields and lower levels in areas where
chicken manure is not spread. The research was reported at the Society
of Toxicology meeting in late March.

One reason for the increasing concern about roxarsone is that the weight
of evidence for arsenic as a carcinogen is much greater now than it was
a decade ago. In 2001, EPA proposed reducing the maximum contaminant
levels for arsenic in drinking water from 50 ppb to 10 ppb and required
water systems to comply by January 2006. The agency took this action in
response to three National Research Council reports that concluded the
standard of 50 ppb posed unreasonable risks. And even the new lower
maximum appears problematic. According to EPA estimates, the risk of
cancer from 10 ppb of arsenic in tap water is 1 in 2,000, a 50-fold
higher risk than that allowed for most other carcinogens.

Even though the drinking water standard for arsenic has been
strengthened, the standards for arsenic residues in poultry-2,000 ppb
for liver and 500 ppb for muscle-have remained unchanged for decades.
Furthermore, neither the Food & Drug Administration nor the Department
of Agriculture has actually measured the level of arsenic in the poultry
meat that most people consume. USDA has measured it only in chicken
livers.

In 2004, Tamar Lasky, an epidemiologist then at USDA's Food Safety &
Inspection Service, estimated intake of arsenic from chicken
consumption. To do this, she used liver measurements and a technical
bulletin published by the roxarsone producer Alpharma. She concluded
that the mean concentration in young chickens is 390 ppb, which is three
to four times greater than arsenic levels in other types of poultry and
meat from other animals.

Lasky also calculated that people ingest a mean of 1.3 to 5.2 µg per day
of inorganic arsenic from chicken alone. Those who eat much more chicken
than average may ingest 21 to 31 µg of inorganic arsenic per day, she
wrote, which for some is greater than the tolerable daily intake
recommended by the World Health Organization. Because per capita chicken
consumption has more than doubled since the 1960s, it may be necessary
to review the assumptions regarding the overall arsenic intake, Lasky
observed.

THE ONLY PERSON who actually has obtained data on the arsenic content of
chicken meat, other than livers, is David Wallinga, a physician and
director of the food and health program at the Institute for Agriculture
& Trade Policy. IATP, which is a research and advocacy organization in
Minneapolis, tested raw chicken from Minnesota and California
supermarkets.

Fifty-five percent of the 151 samples of raw chicken in these tests
contained detectable arsenic ranging from 1.6 to 21.2 ppb, Wallinga
wrote in a report. Nearly three-quarters of the samples from
conventional producers had detectable levels of arsenic, but only
one-third of samples from certified organic and other premium chicken
suppliers had detectable levels. On the other hand, no arsenic was found
in samples from Tyson and Foster Farms, which have both stopped using
roxarsone. "As a physician, I find it ludicrous that we continue feeding
arsenic to chickens now that we know it increases our cancer risk, and
it's unnecessary for raising chickens," Wallinga says.

According to the Washington, D.C.-based National Chicken Council,
Wallinga's report is not scientific and means very little. "There is no
reason to believe that there are any human health hazards from this type
of use" of arsenic-bearing feed additives, the council says. FDA's
Center for Veterinary Medicine declined an opportunity for an interview
about roxarsone.

Banning roxarsone in chicken feed would not eliminate all arsenic from
chickens or the environment. Some poultry consume water from wells
contaminated with natural arsenic. Some are raised on soil contaminated
from heavy use of arsenical pesticides in past cotton cultivation.
Arsenic also is released from coal-fired power plants. But banning the
additive in feed would eliminate a substantial portion of arsenic from
the human food chain and some of the arsenic in drinking water.

Even if regulators don't act, roxarsone may be on its way out because of
lack of demand. There are reports that Bon Appétit Management Co., a
$400 million food service company, may soon join McDonald's and Tyson
Foods in prohibiting poultry suppliers from using the additive.

In article >, Andy <q> wrote:

> Emma Thackery said...
>
> > In article >, Andy <q> wrote:
> >
> >> Emma Thackery said...
> >>
> >> > Arsenic In Chicken Feed May Pose Health Risks To Humans, C&EN Reports
> >>
> >> The article makes no mention of any chicken in the food supply testing
> >> positive for arsenic, just a feed that contains it, severely
> >> overgeneralizing the claim. Almost a scare tactic.
> >
> > To what claim are you referring?
>
> Emma,
>
> Specifically? The claim of "Arsenic in My Chicken" in your subject line!

But your reference was to the article, not my subject line. With regard
to my subject line, it may have been a bit prejudicial but it does
illustrate my concern.

In article >, Andy <q> wrote:

> Emma Thackery said...
>
> > In article >,
> > Mark Thorson > wrote:
> >
> >> Emma Thackery wrote:
> >
> >> > Arsenic In Chicken Feed May Pose Health Risks To Humans, C&EN
> >> > Reports [excerpt]
> >>
> >> > Pets may not be the only organisms endangered by some food
> >> > additives. An arsenic-based additive used in chicken feed may pose
> >> > health risks to humans who eat meat from chickens that are raised
> >> > on the feed, according to an article in the April 9 issue of
> >> > Chemical & Engineering News, the weekly news magazine of the
> >> > American Chemical Society.
> >
> >> > 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. It references
> > arsenic, not arsenic in chicken feed. The concern here is that Federal
> > agencies responsible for food safety clearly do not know (1) what
> > comprises a safe level of such compounds in foods consumed by either
> > humans or chickens; or (2) how much of the toxic forms of inorganic
> > arsenic are actually making it into the chicken feed. Personally, I'd
> > like to know the answer to those questions. Ignorance is not bliss.
> >
> >> In the U.S., the FDA tolerance level for arsenic
> >> from roxarsone in chicken muscle meat is 0.5 ppm.
> >> Wild-caught crabs, oysters, and clams from the ocean
> >> would never be able to meet an arsenic level that low.
> >> The tolerance limit is 76 ppm in crabs, 86 ppm
> >> in clams and oysters.
> >
> > 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,"...."
>
> Emma,
>
> Stop putting your foot in your mouth!
>
> The American Chemical Society is a publicly held company. Visit their
> financial statement. They are not a government agency.

Andy,

Stop making things up! I never said the ACS was a government agency.
Put your glasses on.

Emma

On 2007-05-11, Emma Thackery > wrote:
> In article >,
> zxcvbob > wrote:

> Exactly what is it that is so stupid about this article from the
> American Chemical Society?

First off, the article you reference is NOT from the ACS, it's from
www.medicalnewstoday.com, a news organ. Secondly, like most news
media articles, it's couched in all kinds of maybe's, noted's, and
other bullshit implieds. IOW, it's all hearsay and provides no
tangible facts on the subject, whatsoever.

> On what are you basing your assertion?

On the fact that the ACS hasn't really taken a stand on anything. If
you actually read ACS's article referenced by medicalnewstoday, the
ACS does't really have much to say about it one way or the other,
other than to reference a bunch of stuff other people have claimed,
just like med-news-today has. This makes sense as the ACS are neither
biologists nor medical professionals.

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/government/85/8515gov2.html

BTW, I eat Tyson and FF chicken, so it's not a big consern for me. I
think we can all agree that using poisons in our food supply is not a
good thing. But, you better have your ducks in a row before you start
throwing around alarmist claims in this group. Most of us have too
much time on the clock to give much credence to Chicken Littles.

nb

Emma Thackery said...

> In article >, Andy <q> wrote:
>
>> Emma Thackery said...
>>
>> > In article >, Andy <q> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Emma Thackery said...
>> >>
>> >> > Arsenic In Chicken Feed May Pose Health Risks To Humans, C&EN
Reports
>> >>
>> >> The article makes no mention of any chicken in the food supply
testing
>> >> positive for arsenic, just a feed that contains it, severely
>> >> overgeneralizing the claim. Almost a scare tactic.
>> >
>> > To what claim are you referring?
>>
>> Emma,
>>
>> Specifically? The claim of "Arsenic in My Chicken" in your subject line!
>
> But your reference was to the article, not my subject line.


Excuse me?

Andy

"Andy" <q> wrote in message ...
> Emma Thackery said...
>
>> In article >, Andy <q> wrote:
>>
>>> Emma Thackery said...
>>>
>>> > In article >, Andy <q> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Emma Thackery said...
>>> >>
>>> >> > Arsenic In Chicken Feed May Pose Health Risks To Humans, C&EN
> Reports
>>> >>
>>> >> The article makes no mention of any chicken in the food supply
> testing
>>> >> positive for arsenic, just a feed that contains it, severely
>>> >> overgeneralizing the claim. Almost a scare tactic.
>>> >
>>> > To what claim are you referring?
>>>
>>> Emma,
>>>
>>> Specifically? The claim of "Arsenic in My Chicken" in your subject line!
>>
>> But your reference was to the article, not my subject line.
>
>
> Excuse me?
>
> Andy

Ask your pet sponge to explain it to you, Mr. Special Bus.

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

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

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.

Emma,
(May I call you Emma?)

Mark is an alarmist about prion diseases (like "Mad Cow") contaminating
our food supply.

I worry about intentionally mislabeled -- and poisonous -- goods from
China, and about ever-expanding regulatory powers of the federal
government. (I realize that enough of the latter might alleviate the former)

"Joesparebedroom" gets upset about dog shit, of all things.

You however get hysterical about *everything*. You really need to
specialize. Otherwise you'll burn yourself out. HTH :-)

Bob

In article >,
zxcvbob > wrote:

> You however get hysterical about *everything*. You really need to
> specialize. Otherwise you'll burn yourself out.

I note for the record that instead of addressing the topic like an
adult, you can only make a personal attack. That shouts "lack of
substance". Unable to address my questions regarding your previous
claims, you respond like a juvenile. Sounds to me like you're the
hysterical one. If you cannot conduct yourself rationally, don't expect
others to take the trouble to respond.

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.

Emma Thackery wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Mark Thorson > wrote:
>
> > ...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?)

Huh? When I do it, it's "asinine", but
when you do it, it's perfectly okay?
Like this example from a few days ago?

Emma Thackery wrote:
>
> Here is but one of hundreds of such expert references
> you chose to igno
>
> <http://www.sekj.org/PDF/anz42-free/anz42-091.pdf>

I didn't choose to ignore that one, I didn't even
see it. But for some reason, you felt it necessary
to insinuate that I had. Was that not "asinine"
behavior on your part?

You wouldn't be treated like a fool in this
newsgroup if you'd at least do a little more
research before posting your wild ranting and
raving. All of your recent assertions have
been easily disproven. That does not speak
well about your ability to comprehend what
you read.

In article >,
Mark Thorson > wrote:

> Emma Thackery wrote:
> >
> > In article >,
> > Mark Thorson > wrote:
> >
> > > ...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?)
>
> Huh? When I do it, it's "asinine", but
> when you do it, it's perfectly okay?
> Like this example from a few days ago?

Looks like you're still smarting because I proved you wrong in that
other thread too. Yes, you're the one who professed a desire to feast
on little songbirds, the killing of which is banned in the EU. <snicker>

Let's put the instant matter back in context which you so conveniently
and unscrupulously omitted:
--------------------------------------------
> Emma Thackery wrote in another thread:

> > In article >,
> > Mark Thorson > wrote in another thread:

> > > I did check my facts.
> >
> > Here is but one of hundreds of such expert references
> > you chose to igno
> >
> > <http://www.sekj.org/PDF/anz42-free/anz42-091.pdf>
--------------------------------------------------
Emma said:
> I didn't choose to ignore that one, I didn't even
> see it. But for some reason, you felt it necessary
> to insinuate that I had.

The clear difference is that, in the other thread, you *insisted* that
you checked your facts when you plainly had not. My cite was one of
scores that indicated the same information so you could not possibly
have checked your facts. OTOH in this thread, I made no such claim.
Unlike you, I'm open to factual information. I have no vested interest
in 'beliefs'; I prefer facts. The problem here is your obviously
fragile ego, your tendency to jump to erroneous conclusions, your
flagrant dishonesty, and your puerile habit of making personal attacks
when you can't deal with facts.

> Was that not "asinine" behavior on your part?

What is asinine is your belief that you could somehow pull off another
misrepresentation without me putting it back into context. Now grow up
and act like an adult, lay off the personal attacks, or you can expect
to be ignored.

Emma Thackery wrote:
>
> Looks like you're still smarting because I proved you wrong
> in that other thread too.

You're trying to rewrite history. Here's my last posting
in that thread, to which you never responded. I refuted
your last response, and you wisely backed out of the
discussion, once it was obvious you couldn't back up anything
you said with facts. The facts support me, not you.

That's just burns you up. It's about time somebody
put you in your place, and I've done a masterful job
of it. Get used to it!

Emma Thackery wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Mark Thorson > wrote:
>
> > I did check my facts.
>
> The assessment you cited was a relative one. Your logic is faulty and
> your research expediently selective. For starters, "Least concern" does
> not mean "no concern". As I said before, hunting of the species has
> been banned in certain regions because of the significant decline in
> the ortolan population--- especially in the European Union. Here is
> but one of hundreds of such expert references you chose to igno
>
> <http://www.sekj.org/PDF/anz42-free/anz42-091.pdf>

This is a classic trick of the propagandist: to cite
a reference as though it supports what you said in
the hope that nobody would look at it and verify that
it really does support what you said. It does not.

You said:

> I hope you're joking given the protected nature of this
> endangered songbird species.

The word "endangered" does not even appear in this
article. In fact, it says that BirdLife International
has classified this species as "vulnerable" in 2000.
However, that is certainly not its present classificiation
by BirdLife International, which is given he

http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sea...sid=8 941&m=0

BirdLife International ranks it as "Least Concern",
and they are the authority used by the IUCN for
the IUCN Red List.

Also, this article only concerns a small area in
southern Finland. As the article itself notes,
"The main distributional area of the ortolan bunting
is in the east and south of Europe, mainly in dry
and open landscapes (Cramp & Perrins 1994)."
The relevance of a population decline on the
remote fringe of its range hardly seems relevant
to whether the species itself is endangered or
threatened. These are migratory birds not
confined to any particular region. As the
articles notes (on page 13), the ortolan bunting
winters in sub-Saharan Africa.

Furthermore, the article describes a so-called
population "crash" occurring between the late
1980s and mid-1990s. But this "crash" merely
restored the population to what it had been
fifty years earlier. As the article says on
page 10, "Within our study area in particular,
the ortolan bunting densities in the period
1936-1939 (Soveri 1940) were only about 35%
of the densities observed during the early
1980s (Tiainen & Pakkala 2001)." It would be
just as accurate to describe the period of the
early 1990s as the end of a surge in population
rather than a "crash".

In no sense can this article be considered
evidence that the ortolan bunting is endangered.
It only considers a small population on the
fringe of its range, and it admits that fifty
years earlier population densities were about
the same as after the so-called "crash".

And yet, this is the best evidence you can
muster that there's any problem taking ortolan
for eating purposes. In areas where these birds
live in abundance, there's no shortage at all.
They are not endangered or threatened at all.
You can't eat enough of them to significantly
impact the population. Eat and enjoy!

Emma Thackery wrote:
> In article >,
> zxcvbob > wrote:
>
>> You however get hysterical about *everything*. You really need to
>> specialize. Otherwise you'll burn yourself out.
>
> I note for the record that instead of addressing the topic like an
> adult, you can only make a personal attack. That shouts "lack of
> substance". Unable to address my questions regarding your previous
> claims, you respond like a juvenile. Sounds to me like you're the
> hysterical one. If you cannot conduct yourself rationally, don't expect
> others to take the trouble to respond.


That wasn't a personal attack, that was friendly advice. Mark already
refuted your claims. If I had done the same, you'd be crying "fowl"...
err... "foul" for piling on. I added some anecdotal evidence that
arsenic has been used in chicken feed (for chicks, anyway) for many
years (more than I care to admit) on family farms and is not some new
evil Big Chicken conspiracy.

You're not looking at the *context* in which things are written. Note
the word "however" in the two sentences you quoted above. I wonder what
that referred to?

And the article you posted about arsenic started out talking about
arsenic in chicken feed, then suddenly switched to talking about the
dangers of arsenic poisoning in humans -- it never established any link,
and the writer hoped that nobody would notice. That's dishonest and/or
incompetent writing; I don't know why you are defending it.

Find something to worry about, and then do it well. HTH :-)

Best regards,
Bob

In article >,
zxcvbob > wrote:

> Emma Thackery wrote:
> > In article >,
> > zxcvbob > wrote:
> >
> >> You however get hysterical about *everything*. You really need to
> >> specialize. Otherwise you'll burn yourself out.
> >
> > I note for the record that instead of addressing the topic like an
> > adult, you can only make a personal attack. That shouts "lack of
> > substance". Unable to address my questions regarding your previous
> > claims, you respond like a juvenile. Sounds to me like you're the
> > hysterical one. If you cannot conduct yourself rationally, don't expect
> > others to take the trouble to respond.

I can only assume you won't respond to my questions because you don't
have a cogent response.

> Mark already refuted your claims.


That's pretty funny. Mark refuted no such thing because I actually made
no substantive claims on this topic.

I merely posted an article and asked a couple questions. That you and
Mark have whipped yourselves into a freakish frenzy, like two whirling
dervishes, because I simply posted an article betrays a hefty magnitude
of bias--- maybe even irrational bias--- on your part. That a
professional opinion on the topic, from the American Chemical society,
could activate such malevolence in you two says far more about your
character and aptitude than my alleged opinions. Either address the
topic absent all the jackassery or be ignored.