Rice from Guyana has more arsenic than rice from Chile, and that might mean people eating it could face higher health risks.

What we've found so far is that rice from Guyana tends to have higher levels of arsenic compared to rice from Chile, and this difference may affect health risks over time [1]. Our analysis of the available research suggests that the arsenic levels in Guyana’s rice could pose a health concern with long-term consumption, while in Chile, the levels appear low enough that they likely do not present the same level of risk [2]. We looked at two key assertions, each supported by 26.0 studies or data points, and found no studies that refute these points. This means the evidence we’ve reviewed leans toward a consistent pattern: rice in Guyana contains more arsenic than rice in Chile, and this may translate into a higher potential health risk for people who eat it regularly [1, 2]. Arsenic is a natural element that can build up in rice when grown in contaminated soil or water, and long-term exposure—even at low levels—has been linked in some studies to various health issues. However, our current analysis does not tell us exactly how much rice someone would need to eat for the arsenic to become a problem, nor does it account for individual differences in diet, age, or overall health. We also don’t have direct studies measuring health outcomes in people in Guyana versus Chile specifically due to rice consumption. So while the evidence leans toward a higher potential risk in Guyana, we can’t say for sure how big that risk is in real-world terms. Based on what we've reviewed so far, if you're eating rice daily, especially in large amounts, it may be worth considering where it comes from. Choosing rice from regions with lower arsenic levels, like Chile based on current data, could be one way to reduce long-term exposure.