Market Basket Survey Shows Elevated Levels of As in South Central U.S. Processed Rice Compared to California: Consequences for Human Dietary Exposure:consequences for human dietary exposure

We report the largest market basket survey of arsenic (As) in U.S. rice to date. Our findings show differences in transitional-metal levels between polished and unpolished rice and geographical variation in As and selenium (Se) between rice processed in California and the South Central U.S. The mean and median As grain levels for the South Central U.S. were 0.30 and 0.27 µg As g-1, respectively, for 107 samples. Levels for California were 41% lower than the South Central U.S., with a mean of 0.17 µg As g-1 and a median of 0.16 µg As g-1 for 27 samples. The mean and median Se grain levels for the South Central U.S. were 0.19 µg Se g-1. Californian rice levels were lower, averaging only 0.08 and 0.06 µg Se g-1 for mean and median values, respectively. The difference between the two regions was found to be significant for As and Se (General Linear Model (GLM):? As p < 0.001; Se p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed in As or Se levels between polished and unpolished rice (GLM:? As p = 0.213; Se p = 0.113). No significant differences in grain levels of manganese (Mn), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), or zinc (Zn) were observed between California and the South Central U.S. Modeling arsenic intake for the U.S. population based on this survey shows that for certain groups (namely Hispanics, Asians, sufferers of Celiac disease, and infants) dietary exposure to inorganic As from elevated levels in rice potentially exceeds the maximum intake of As from drinking water (based on consumption of 1 L of 0.01 mg L-1 In. As) and Californian state exposure limits. Further studies on the transformation of As in soil, grain As bioavailability in the human gastrointestinal tract, and grain elemental speciation trends are critical.

Similarity or Variation? Employee Representation and Consultation Approaches Amongst Liberal Market Economy Multinationals

This paper engages with the varieties of capitalism literature to investigate the employee representation and consultation approaches of liberal market economy multinational companies (MNCs), specifically Australian, British and US MNCs operating in Australia. While the literature would suggest commonality amongst these MNCs, the paper considers whether the evidence points to similarity or variation amongst liberal market headquartered MNCs. The findings contribute to filling a recognized empirical gap on MNC employment relations practice in Australia and to a better understanding of within category varieties of capitalism similarity and variation. Drawing on survey data from MNCs operating in Australia, the results demonstrated that UK-owned MNCs were the least likely to report collective structures of employee representation. Moreover, it was found that Australian MNCs were the most likely to engage in collective forms of employee representation and made less use of direct consultative mechanisms relative to their British and US counterparts. In spite of the concerted individualization of the employment relations domain over previous decades, Australian MNCs appear to have upheld more long-standing national institutional arrangements with respect to engaging with employees on a collective basis. This varies from British and US MNC approaches which denotes that our results display within category deviation in the variety of capitalism liberal market economy typology. Just as Hall and Soskice described their seminal work on liberal market economy (LME) and coordinated market economy (CME) categories as a “work-in-progress” (2001: 2), we too suggest that Australia’s evolution in the LME category, and more specifically its industrial relations system development, and the consequences for employment relations practices of its domestic MNCs, may be a work-in-progress.