Arsenic in brown rice: do the benefits outweigh the risks?

Brown rice has been advocated for as a healthier alternative to white rice. However, the concentration of arsenic and other pesticide contaminants is greater in brown rice than in white. The potential health risks and benefits of consuming more brown rice than white rice remain unclear; thus, mainstream nutritional messaging should not advocate for brown rice over white rice. This mini-review aims to summarize the most salient concepts related to dietary arsenic exposure with emphasis on more recent findings and provide consumers with evidence of both risks and benefits of consuming more brown rice than white rice. Despite risk-benefit assessments being a challenging new frontier in nutrition, researchers should pursue an assessment to validate findings and solidify evidence. In the interim, consumers should be cognizant that the dose of arsenic exposure determines its toxicity, and brown rice contains a greater concentration of arsenic than white rice.

Association Between Household Income and Self-Perceived Health Status and Poor Mental and Physical Health Among Cancer Survivors.

Background: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is multidimensional and is composed of, at a minimum, self-perceived health status, physical functioning, and psychological well-being. HRQoL measures reflect the extent of disability and dysfunction associated with a chronic disease such as cancer. The objective of this study is to examine factors associated with HRQoL among cancer survivors. Methods: Data from the 2009 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey was used to examine factors associated with HRQoL among participants who reported having ever been diagnosed with cancer. Four questions associated with HRQoL included self-perceived health status, number of bad physical health days, and number of bad mental health days per month. Least square regression and logistic regression models, adjusted for confounding variables, were used for an ordinal and dichotomous [5 (bad) vs. 1-4 (excellent, very good, good, fair)] scale of HRQoL, respectively. Results: Fifty nine thousand one hundred seventy three participants reported having ever been diagnosed with cancer. Adjusted mean self-perceived health status (5-point scale) among survivors of thyroid, colon, lung, cervical, breast, prostate, and ovarian cancer was 3.83 (0.05), 4.02 (0.04), 4.36 (0.06), 3.77 (0.03), 3.88 (0.03), 3.78 (0.04), and 3.96 (0.05), respectively. After adjusting for confounders, a positive dose-response effect was observed between income range and all three HRQoL measures across all seven cancer sites. Income was consistently and inversely associated with a higher chance for reporting poorer HRQoL [OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.57-0.71], [OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.48-0.82], [OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.56-0.80], [OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.56-0.86], [OR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.49-0.62], [OR:0.55, 95% CI: 0.44-0.69], [OR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.62-0.91] among those with thyroid, colon, lung, cervical, breast, prostate, and ovarian cancer, respectively. Discussion: This study found that income range was associated with HRQoL among cancer survivors. It is plausible that financial resources may lessen the overall burden of cancer survivors, which could improve health-related quality of life among cancer survivors.