Inorganic arsenic (iAs) is a well-characterized carcinogen, and recent epidemiologic studies have linked chronic exposures to non-cancer health outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, skin lesions and respiratory disorders. Greater vulnerability has been demonstrated with early life exposure for health effects including lung and bladder cancer, immunotoxicity and neurodevelopment. Despite its well-known toxicity, there are important gaps in the regulatory oversight of iAs in food and in risk communication. This paper focuses on the US regulatory framework in relation to iAs in food and beverages. The state of existing regulatory agency toxicological assessments, monitoring efforts, standard setting, intervention policies and risk communication are explored. Regarding the approach for standard setting, risk-based evaluations of iAs in particular foods can be informative but are insufficient to create a numeric criterion, given current uncertainties in iAs toxicology and the degree to which traditional risk targets can be exceeded by dietary exposures. We describe a process for prioritizing dietary exposures for different lifestages and recommend a relative source contribution-based approach to setting criteria for arsenic in prioritized foods. Intervention strategies begin with an appropriately set criterion and a monitoring program that documents the degree to which this target is met for a particular food. This approach will promote improvements in food production to lower iAs contamination for those foods which initially do not meet the criterion. Risk communication improvements are recommended to ensure that the public has reliable information regarding sources and alternative dietary choices. A key recommendation is the consideration of meal frequency advice similar to what is currently done for contaminants in fish. Recent action level determinations by FDA for apple juice and infant rice cereal are evaluated and used as illustrations of how our recommended approach can further the goal of exposure mitigation from key sources of dietary iAs in the US.

Rice accumulates 10-fold higher inorganic arsenic (i-As), an established human carcinogen, than other grains. This review summarizes epidemiologic studies that examined the association between rice consumption and biomarkers of arsenic exposure. After reviewing the literature we identified 20 studies, among them included 18 observational and 2 human experimental studies that reported on associations between rice consumption and an arsenic biomarker. Among individuals not exposed to contaminated water, rice is a source of i-As exposure — rice consumption has been consistently related to arsenic biomarkers, and the relationship has been clearly demonstrated in experimental studies. Early-life i-As exposure is of particular concern due to its association with lifelong adverse health outcomes. Maternal rice consumption during pregnancy also has been associated with infant toenail total arsenic concentrations indicating that dietary exposure during pregnancy results in fetal exposure. Thus, the collective evidence indicates that rice is an independent source of arsenic exposure in populations around the world and highlights the importance of investigating its affect on health.

The diet is emerging as the dominant source of arsenic exposure for most of the U.S. population. Despite this, limited regulatory efforts have been aimed at mitigating exposure, and the role of diet in arsenic exposure and disease processes remains understudied. In this brief, we discuss the evidence linking dietary arsenic intake to human disease and discuss challenges associated with exposure characterization and efforts to quantify risks. In light of these challenges, and in recognition of the potential longer-term process of establishing regulation, we introduce a framework for shorter-term interventions that employs a field-to-plate food supply chain model to identify monitoring, intervention, and communication opportunities as part of a multisector, multiagency, science-informed, public health systems approach to mitigation of dietary arsenic exposure. Such an approach is dependent on coordination across commodity producers, the food industry, nongovernmental organizations, health professionals, researchers, and the regulatory community. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP3997.

Older adults are more susceptible to adverse health outcomes during and after a disaster compared with their younger counterparts. Ageing-in-place organisations such as senior centres and Villages provide social services and programming for older adults and may support older adults’ resilience to disasters. This study examines the role of ageing-in-place organisations in building disaster resilience for older adults. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 14 ageing-in-place organisation leaders in King County, Washington in the United States of America. The sample included representatives of five government-run senior centres, seven non-profit senior centres and two Villages. Interviews were audio-recorded and professionally transcribed. We used a combined inductive and deductive approach to code and thematically analyse the data. Ageing-in-place organisation leadership recognise disasters as a threat to older adults’ health and safety, and they see opportunities to provide disaster-related support for older adults, though the type and extent of participation in resilience-building activities reflected each organisation's unique local context. Organisations participate in a variety of disaster-related activities, though respondents emphasised the importance of collaborative and communication-focused efforts. Findings suggest that ageing-in-place organisations may be best equipped to support older adults’ disaster resilience by serving as a trusted source of disaster-related information and providing input on the appropriateness of disaster plans and messages for the unique needs of older adults ageing-in-place.

Background: As climate change is expected to result in more frequent, larger fires and associated smoke impacts, creating and sustaining wildfire smoke-resilient communities is an urgent public health priority. Following two summers of persistent and extreme wildfire smoke events in Washington state, the need for additional research on wildfire smoke health impacts, risk communication, and risk reduction, and an associated greater coordination between researcher and practitioner communities, is of paramount importance. Objectives: On 30 October 2018, the University of Washington hosted a Wildfire Smoke Risk Communication Stakeholder Synthesis Symposium in Seattle, Washington. The goals of the symposium were to identify and prioritize practice-based information gaps necessary to promote effective wildfire smoke risk communication and risk reduction across Washington state, foster collaboration among practitioners and academics to address information gaps using research, and provide regional stakeholders with access to the best available health and climate science about current and future wildfire risks. Methods: Seventy-six Washington state practitioners and academics with relevant professional responsibilities or expertise in wildfire smoke and health engaged in small group discussions using the “World Café Method” to identify practice-relevant research needs related to wildfire smoke and health. Notes from each discussion were coded and qualitatively analyzed using a content analysis approach. Discussion: Washington state’s public health and air quality practitioners need additional evidence to communicate and reduce wildfire smoke risk. Exposure, health risk, risk communication, behavior change and interventions, and legal and policy research needs were identified, along with the need to develop research infrastructure to support wildfire smoke and health science. Practice-relevant, collaborative research should be prioritized to address this increasing health threat.