Vol. 113, No. 4 PerspectivesOpen Access“Arsenic in Food”: Silbergeld Respondsis accompanied by“Arsenic in Food”: Opinion Parading as Science Ellen Silbergeld Ellen Silbergeld Search for more papers by this author Published:1 April 2005https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.113-a225bCited by:1AboutSectionsPDF ToolsDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InReddit Bernard comments on the calculations in my letter (Silbergeld 2004) to criticize my conclusions, which were that the use of arsenic for growth promotion in poultry feeds results in contamination of chicken products (and other food animal products because of the use of poultry litter in feeds), and that the estimates of risk have not been adequately calculated, even by Lasky et al. (2004) because of unsubstantiated inferences of the arsenic concentrations in edible tissues and a puzzling use of outdated risk assessments for arsenic. I find it interesting that Bernard (who has consulted for the Food and Drug Administration, the agency that permits this nontherapeutic use of arsenicals in animal feeds) does not comment on these conclusions in his letter.I acknowledge the error in quoting Lasky et al. (2004); I used the wrong metric in quoting her conclusions. Please do not ascribe responsibility to my colleagues, who read this letter in manuscript form, or to EHP’s editorial office. However, I do not agree that this mistake invalidates the conclusions of my letter. If the concentrations of arsenic in edible chicken meat are not one-tenth of those in liver (as claimed by Alpharma, the manufacturer of roxarsone), then the exposure of Americans who consume chicken (such as my son, who appeared to exist largely on chicken wings during high school) is in fact 3–10 times higher than Lasky et al. estimated, resulting in an intake of 4–50 μg/day. This is still in excess of the current National Research Council (NRC) recommendation (NRC 2001).This risk estimate does not include the potential for additional exposures to arsenic from confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) wastes via land disposal, which may reach human populations though soil contact, groundwater contamination, and plant uptake, as noted in my letter (Silbergeld 2004). These exposures may be important for regions such as the Eastern Shore, where between 600 and 800 million broiler chickens are raised each year. The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that thousands of kilograms of arsenic may be land disposed with poultry wastes (Garbarino et al. 2003).Given the article by Lasky et al. (2004) and new information on the environmental pathways of arsenic releases from CAFOs (Han et al. 2004; Jackson et al. 2003), as well as new studies on the health effects of arsenicals (Simeonova and Luster 2004), I suggest that it is time for a thoughtful consideration of the use of arsenicals as growth promoters in animal feeds.ReferencesGarbarino JR, Bednar AJ, Rutherford DW, Beyer RS, Weshaw RL. 2003. Environmental fate of roxarsone in poultry litter. I. Degradation of roxarsone during composting. Environ Sci Technol 15(8):1509-151412731831. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarHan FX, Kingery WL, Selim HM, Gerard PD, Cox MS, Oldham JL. 2004. Arsenic solubility and distribution in poultry waste and long-term amended soil. Sci Total Environ 320:51-6114987926. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarJackson BP, Bertsch PM, Cabrera ML, Camberato JJ, Seaman JC, Wood CW. 2003. Trace element speciation in poultry litter. J Environ Qual 32:535-54012708677. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarLasky T, Sun W, Kadry A, Hoffman MK. 2004. Mean total arsenic concentrations in chicken 1989–2000 and estimated exposures for consumers of chicken. Environ Health Perspect 112:18-2114698925. Link, Google ScholarSilbergeld EK. 2004. Arsenic in food. Environ Health Perspect 112:A338-A33915121529. Link, Google ScholarSimeonova PP, Luster ML. 2004. Arsenic and atherosclerosis. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 198:444-44915276425. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited by Jones F (2007) A Broad View of Arsenic, Poultry Science, 10.1093/ps/86.1.2, 86:1, (2-14), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2007. Related articles“Arsenic in Food”: Opinion Parading as Science1 April 2005Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 113, No. 4 April 2005Metrics About Article Metrics Publication History Originally published1 April 2005Published in print1 April 2005 Financial disclosuresPDF download License information EHP is an open-access journal published with support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health. All content is public domain unless otherwise noted. Note to readers with disabilities EHP strives to ensure that all journal content is accessible to all readers. However, some figures and Supplemental Material published in EHP articles may not conform to 508 standards due to the complexity of the information being presented. If you need assistance accessing journal content, please contact [email protected]. Our staff will work with you to assess and meet your accessibility needs within 3 working days.