Latest news with #SmartandFinal
Daily Mail
16-05-2025
- Health
- Daily Mail
Just 3 spoonfuls of gym diet staple could raise risk of brain damage and CANCER
Eating just three spoonfuls of brown rice every week could raise your risk of brain damage and cancer, a report suggests. Researchers at Healthy Babies, Bright Futures — a pressure group for infant health — tested more than 200 samples of rice bought from popular grocers like Trader Joe's, Whole Foods and Safeway. Each was tested for inorganic arsenic, a more toxic form of the element linked to a higher risk of neurodevelopmental delay, cancer and heart problems. All rice types tested — brown, white, basmati, sushi and jasmine — were found to contain the toxic substance, but levels were highest in brown rice on average. An uncooked brown rice brand sold by major grocer Smart and Final was found to have the highest levels of inorganic arsenic at 201 micrograms per kilogram. The findings suggest that for the average adult, eating just two-and-a-half tablespoons per day would lead someone to exceed their maximum safe levels set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The USA Rice Federation, which represents rice growers, noted that arsenic in food was 'alarming' but argued there was no public safety issue. This is likely because cooking rice in water removes up to 66 percent of the arsenic they contain, while washing them two to four times in tap water can remove up to 84 percent of arsenic present. Nearly all the samples were found to contain three other heavy metals linked to neurodevelopmental delay — lead, cadmium and mercury — but at much lower levels. The EPA has set a recommended limit of exposure to inorganic arsenic at 0.06 micrograms per kilogram of bodyweight, or 4.8micrograms per day for the average US adult who weighs 176lbs (80kg). For comparison, the uncooked brown rice contained 201 micrograms of inorganic arsenic per kilogram — more than 40 times higher than the recommended daily limit. It means that to stay within the safe limit, an adult could eat no more than 23.9 grams of this rice per day — roughly three tablespoons of uncooked rice. The EPA's limit was set based on studies that showed the minimum safe level to avoid heart disease or diabetes. Inorganic arsenic can contribute to the development of heart disease via causing inflammation within the heart and blood vessels, studies suggest. Research has also indicated that it raises the risk of suffering from cancer, with the EPA considering the element a 'human carcinogen'. Inorganic arsenic differs from organic arsenic because it is more likely to be absorbed into cells, where it can cause damage. About three-quarters of the arsenic found in the rice products were inorganic, though levels varied depending on the product. Overall across all brands tested, the researchers found that uncooked rice contained about 85 micrograms of arsenic per kilogram. The researchers also tested 66 samples of rice alternatives, such as couscous, quinoa and faro, finding the levels of heavy metals in these were 69 percent lower on average. All the rice samples tested in the research were uncooked, with the team noting that cooking rice in water would reduce heavy metal levels. This is because up to 66 percent of arsenic leaches out of the grains when they are cooked in boiling water and the water is drained away, according to a 2019 study. An additional 13 to 84 percent of arsenic can be removed from rice by washing it before cooking. The report's authors recommend cooking rice in a pot with six to ten cups of water per cup of rice, to remove the most arsenic. The USA Rice Federation said: 'We know that arsenic in food is alarming for many consumers and that you may have questions,' a spokesperson said. 'And while we do not agree that there is a public health safety issue as a result of trace amounts of arsenic in rice, we will continue to work with the FDA to ensure the US rice supply meets any threshold established.' For the report, researchers purchased more than 200 rice containers from 20 major metro areas across the US — including New York, Los Angeles and Washington DC. Overall, brown rice contained the most arsenic with an average of 130 micrograms per kilogram. The second highest levels were detected in Arborio, or risotto, rice from Italy, which contained about 100 micrograms of arsenic. White rice had the third highest level, at just below 100 micrograms per kilogram, followed by Jasmine rice from Thailand, at about 80 micrograms. Indian basmati rice and sushi rice grown in California had the lowest levels of the rice tested on average at about 60 micrograms. Roughly three-quarters of the arsenic detected in all the rice brands was inorganic, the report suggests. As part of the research, the organization also tested 66 samples of nine alternative grains like quinoa, faro and barley. These were found to contain 33 micrograms per kilogram of arsenic on average, well below the levels in the average rice. Results also showed they contained 69 percent less heavy metal contamination than rice, on average, making them safer substitutes. The researchers indicated these foods could be better to eat, but noted they were also much more expensive. As a compromise, they suggested people should try to eat rice with lower levels of arsenic — such as California-grown, Thai jasmine and Indian basmati rice. The highest levels of arsenic were detected in brown and white rice grown in Southeast US or labeled simply as 'USA' and in Arborio rice from Italy. A saffron-seasoned rice was also found to contain lead levels up to 32 times higher than the average for other samples. Rice is one of the most popular grains in the US, consumed by more than 257.7million people with the country eating 4.9million metric tons per year — equivalent to about 15 Empire State buildings. But it tends to contain more heavy metals because it is grown in water-logged paddies, where it can easily absorb them from its surroundings. Arsenic is a naturally occurring element found in the Earth's crust, that can exist in both organic and inorganic forms. Scientists are more concerned about inorganic arsenic because this is more readily absorbed into cells, where it can cause damage. It can be released into the environment through mining and smelting metals, or via pesticides, burning coal and incinerating waste.
Yahoo
22-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
California banned polystyrene. So why is it still on store shelves?
Styrofoam coffee cups, plates, clamshell takeout containers and other food service items made with expanded polystyrene plastic can still be found in restaurants and on store shelves, despite a ban that went into effect on Jan. 1. A Smart and Final in Redwood City was brimming with foam plates, bowls and cups for sale on Thursday. Want to buy these goods online? It was no problem to log on to to find a variety of foam food ware products — Dart insulated hot/cold foam cups, or Hefty Everyday 10.25" plates — that could be shipped to an address in California. Same with the restaurant supply shop KaTom, which is based in Kodak, Tenn. Smart and Final and KaTom didn't respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Amazon said the company would look into the matter. The expanded polystyrene ban is part of a single-use plastic law, Senate Bill 54, that Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law in 2022 but bailed on earlier this month. And while the full law now sits in limbo, one part remains in effect: A de facto ban on so-called expanded polystyrene, the soft, white, foamy material commonly used for takeout food service items. Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for Californians Against Waste — one of the many stakeholder organizations that worked with lawmakers to craft SB 54 — said the law had been written in a way that insured the polystyrene ban would go into effect even if the rest of the package failed. "So, it's still in effect whether or not there are regulations for the rest of the bill," he said. CalRecycle, the state's waste agency, is tasked with overseeing and enforcing the law. Asked why styrofoam food service products are still widely available, CalRecycle spokesperson Melanie Turner said in an email that her agency is in the process of identifying businesses producing, selling and distributing the products in the state and considering "ways to help them comply with the law." SB 54 called for plastic and packaging companies to reduce single-use plastic packaging by 25% and ensure that 65% of that material is recyclable and 100% either recyclable or compostable — all by 2032. The law also required packaging producers to bear the costs of their products' end-life (whether via recycling, composting, landfill or export) and figure out how to make it happen — removing that costly burden from consumers and state and local governments. In December, representatives from the plastic, packaging and chemical recycling industry urged the governor to abandon the regulations, suggesting they were unachievable as written and could cost Californians roughly $300 per year to implement — a number that has been hotly contested by environmental groups and lawmakers, who say it doesn't factor in the money saved by reducing plastic waste in towns, cities and the environment. Their pressure campaign — joined by Rachel Wagoner, the former director of CalRecycle and now the director of the Circular Action Alliance, a coalition for the plastic and packaging industry — worked. Newsom let the deadline for the bill's finalized rules and regulations pass without implementation and ordered CalRecycle to start the process over. However, the bill's stand-alone styrofoam proviso — which doesn't require the finalization of rules and regulation — makes clear that producers of expanded polystyrene food service ware "shall not sell, offer for sale, distribute, or import into the state" these plastic products unless the producer can demonstrate recycling rates of no less than 25% on Jan. 1, 2025, 30% by Jan. 1, 2028, 50% by Jan. 1, 2030 and 65% by 2032. And on Jan. 1, that recycling target hadn't been met and is therefore banned. (Recycling rates for expanded polystyrene range around 1% nationally). Neither CalRecycle or Newsom's office has issued an acknowledgment of the ban — leaving plastic distributors, sellers, environmental groups, waste haulers and lawmakers uncertain about the state government's willingness to enforce the law. "I don't understand why the administration can't put out a statement saying that," said Lapis. "At this point, silence from the administration only creates additional legal liability for companies that don't realize they are breaking the law." At a state Senate budget hearing on Thursday, lawmakers questioned the directors of CalEPA and CalRecycle about its lack of action regarding the polystyrene ban. CalRecycle is a department within CalEPA. "Why hasn't Cal Recycle taken steps to implement the provisions of SB 54 that deal with the sale of expanded polystyrene?" Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), the sponsor and author of the bill, asked Yana Garcia, the secretary of CalEPA. "You know, the product has not met the strict requirements under SB 54, so there's now steps that need to be taken to prohibited sale." Garcia responded that in terms of the messaging around polystyrene, her agency and CalRecycle "possibly need to lean in more there as well, particularly at this moment." Jan Dell, the founder and president of the Laguna Beach-based environmental group Last Beach Cleanup, said the continued presence of expanded polystyrene on store shelves throughout the state underscores one of the major problems with the law: CalRecycle cannot easily enforce it. This "proves that CalRecycle is incapable of implementing and enforcing the massive scope of SB 54 on all packaging," she said in an email, suggesting the whole law should be repealed "to save taxpayer money and enable strict bans on the worst plastic pollution items to pass and be implemented." Turner said via email that the agency could provide "compliance assistance," initiate investigations and issue notices of violation. According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale or distributed during 2023 in California. Single-use plastics and plastic waste more broadly are considered a growing environmental and health problem. In recent decades, the accumulation of plastic waste has overwhelmed waterways and oceans, sickened marine life and threatened human health. On March 7, Newsom stopped the landmark plastic waste law from moving forward — rejecting rules and regulations his own staff had written — despite more than two years of effort, negotiation and input from the plastic and packaging industry, as well as environmental organizations, waste haulers and other lawmakers. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
22-03-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
California banned polystyrene. So why is it still on store shelves?
Styrofoam coffee cups, plates, clamshell takeout containers and other food service items made with expanded polystyrene plastic can still be found in restaurants and on store shelves, despite a ban that went into effect on Jan. 1. A Smart and Final in Redwood City was brimming with foam plates, bowls and cups for sale on Thursday. Want to buy these goods online? It was no problem to log on to to find a variety of foam food ware products — Dart insulated hot/cold foam cups, or Hefty Everyday 10.25' plates — that could be shipped to an address in California. Same with the restaurant supply shop KaTom, which is based in Kodak, Tenn. Smart and Final and KaTom didn't respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Amazon said the company would look into the matter. The expanded polystyrene ban is part of a single-use plastic law, Senate Bill 54, that Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law in 2022 but bailed on earlier this month. And while the full law now sits in limbo, one part remains in effect: A de facto ban on so-called expanded polystyrene, the soft, white, foamy material commonly used for takeout food service items. Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for Californians Against Waste — one of the many stakeholder organizations that worked with lawmakers to craft SB 54 — said the law had been written in a way that insured the polystyrene ban would go into effect even if the rest of the package failed. 'So, it's still in effect whether or not there are regulations for the rest of the bill,' he said. CalRecycle, the state's waste agency, is tasked with overseeing and enforcing the law. Asked why styrofoam food service products are still widely available, CalRecycle spokesperson Melanie Turner said in an email that her agency is in the process of identifying businesses producing, selling and distributing the products in the state and considering 'ways to help them comply with the law.' SB 54 called for plastic and packaging companies to reduce single-use plastic packaging by 25% and ensure that 65% of that material is recyclable and 100% either recyclable or compostable — all by 2032. The law also required packaging producers to bear the costs of their products' end-life (whether via recycling, composting, landfill or export) and figure out how to make it happen — removing that costly burden from consumers and state and local governments. In December, representatives from the plastic, packaging and chemical recycling industry urged the governor to abandon the regulations, suggesting they were unachievable as written and could cost Californians roughly $300 per year to implement — a number that has been hotly contested by environmental groups and lawmakers, who say it doesn't factor in the money saved by reducing plastic waste in towns, cities and the environment. Their pressure campaign — joined by Rachel Wagoner, the former director of CalRecycle and now the director of the Circular Action Alliance, a coalition for the plastic and packaging industry — worked. Newsom let the deadline for the bill's finalized rules and regulations pass without implementation and ordered CalRecycle to start the process over. However, the bill's stand-alone styrofoam proviso — which doesn't require the finalization of rules and regulation — makes clear that producers of expanded polystyrene food service ware 'shall not sell, offer for sale, distribute, or import into the state' these plastic products unless the producer can demonstrate recycling rates of no less than 25% on Jan. 1, 2025, 30% by Jan. 1, 2028, 50% by Jan. 1, 2030 and 65% by 2032. And on Jan. 1, that recycling target hadn't been met and is therefore banned. (Recycling rates for expanded polystyrene range around 1% nationally). Neither CalRecycle or Newsom's office has issued an acknowledgment of the ban — leaving plastic distributors, sellers, environmental groups, waste haulers and lawmakers uncertain about the state government's willingness to enforce the law. 'I don't understand why the administration can't put out a statement saying that,' said Lapis. 'At this point, silence from the administration only creates additional legal liability for companies that don't realize they are breaking the law.' At a state Senate budget hearing on Thursday, lawmakers questioned the directors of CalEPA and CalRecycle about its lack of action regarding the polystyrene ban. CalRecycle is a department within CalEPA. 'Why hasn't Cal Recycle taken steps to implement the provisions of SB 54 that deal with the sale of expanded polystyrene?' Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), the sponsor and author of the bill, asked Yana Garcia, the secretary of CalEPA. 'You know, the product has not met the strict requirements under SB 54, so there's now steps that need to be taken to prohibited sale.' Garcia responded that in terms of the messaging around polystyrene, her agency and CalRecycle 'possibly need to lean in more there as well, particularly at this moment.' Jan Dell, the founder and president of the Laguna Beach-based environmental group Last Beach Cleanup, said the continued presence of expanded polystyrene on store shelves throughout the state underscores one of the major problems with the law: CalRecycle cannot easily enforce it. This 'proves that CalRecycle is incapable of implementing and enforcing the massive scope of SB 54 on all packaging,' she said in an email, suggesting the whole law should be repealed 'to save taxpayer money and enable strict bans on the worst plastic pollution items to pass and be implemented.' Turner said via email that the agency could provide 'compliance assistance,' initiate investigations and issue notices of violation. According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale or distributed during 2023 in California. Single-use plastics and plastic waste more broadly are considered a growing environmental and health problem. In recent decades, the accumulation of plastic waste has overwhelmed waterways and oceans, sickened marine life and threatened human health. On March 7, Newsom stopped the landmark plastic waste law from moving forward — rejecting rules and regulations his own staff had written — despite more than two years of effort, negotiation and input from the plastic and packaging industry, as well as environmental organizations, waste haulers and other lawmakers.
