March 19, 2012
Cancer With A Side of Fries
In April of 2002, the results of a study were reported by the Swedish National Food Administration which discovered that starchy foods that had been fried or baked at high temperatures, above 120° C (248°F), produced acrylamide, a human neurotoxicant and chemical known to cause cancer in animals (EHP). French fries and potato chips were found to contain higher levels of acrylamide. Acrylamide is a chemical in cigarette smoke, and is used primarily in making polyacrylamide and acrylamide copolymers for industrial processes, such as manufacturing plastics and in the treatment of drinking water, wastewater, and sewage.
Small amounts of acrylamide are also found in consumer products, including cosmetics, food packaging, and some adhesives (NCI). Acrylamide in food is formed during the Maillard reaction, which is the chemical process that browns food during cooking. Sugars, including glucose, fructose, and lactose (EHP), react with Asparagine, an amino acid that is found in many vegetables, with higher concentrations in certain varieties of potatoes. Longer cooking times at high-temperature have been found to produce acrylamide, but boiling and microwaving appear to not produce the chemical (NCI). According to University of Southern California professor and nutrition expert Roger Clemens, black olives, breakfast cereals, coffee, and other foods have some acrylamide and “our foods have contained this compound since man started cooking with fire.” (WMD)
While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other health and scientific organizations continue to study acrylamide in food and its effect on health, they have not advised consumers to stop eating contaminated foods. According to the FDA, eating a balanced diet of foods high in dietary fiber, like fruits, beans, vegetables, and whole grains, and choosing foods low in sodium, saturated fats, trans fats, and cholesterol promote overall good health. The U.S. National Toxicology Program offers the following tips for reducing acrylamide exposure: 1) Fry foods at 338 degrees Fahrenheit or lower; 2) Cook potato strips, such as French fries, to a golden yellow rather than a golden brown color; 3) Toast bread to the lightest color acceptable; 4) Soak raw potato slices in water for 15 to 30 minutes before frying or roasting. Drain and blot dry before cooking; 5) Do not store raw potatoes in the refrigerator.
More specific dietary advice or federal regulation of specific food products may be implemented in the future based on further research (OEHHA), but the FDA has opposed warning labels, pending its own review of the matter. Fried potatoes are a big business throughout the U.S., with Americans spending an estimated $4 billion a year on fries and $3 billion a year on potato chips. The food industry does not want “cancer” on its products and argue that scientists do not know for certain that acrylamide is carcinogenic to humans at the levels present in food. Acrylamide is also not put into food, but is formed when starchy food is heated at high temperatures.
In 2005, under Proposition 65, approved in 1986 by California voters requiring the state to regulate chemicals that are known to cause cancer or reproductive harm and to force manufacturers to label their products or otherwise warn consumers, California’s attorney general, Bill Lockyer, filed suit against McDonald’s; Burger King; Frito-Lay, owned by PepsiCo; KFC, a division of Yum Brands; Wendy’s International; Lance, which makes Cape Cod potato chips; H. J. Heinz, which produces Ore-Ida frozen potato products; the potato chip company Kettle Foods; and Procter & Gamble, which sells Pringles. The lawsuits alleged that they had failed to warn consumers about the dangers of acrylamide found in food, accused the industry of concealing the facts, and demanded them to put labels on all fries and potato chips sold in California, stating: “This product contains a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer.” (NYT) In 2007, a number of fast-food chains agreed to post acrylamide warnings in their restaurants in California and pay civil penalties and costs.
By August 2008, the lawsuits brought by the Attorney General were settled out of court. The CAG again decided to sue a number of snack food producers in 2009 for acrylamide exposure, and in 2010 the California Environmental Protection Agency Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment announced plans to list acrylamide as a reproductive toxin based on findings by the National Toxicology Program’s Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (OLL). Debate, both scientific and non-scientific, over the dangers of acrylamide in food continue, but some action is necessary in the absence of regulatory decisions by the FDA. Over a dozen acrylamide animal studies show both cancer and birth defects, and the chemical has been regulated by the federal Environmental Protection Agency as a carcinogen for over 20 years. The California attorney general and several activist groups believe that consumers should be given notification so they can make informed food choices (NYT).
Citations/Resources:
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.118-a160
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/background/index.html
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20080508/acrylamide-in-diet-cancer-risk?page=1
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/risk/acrylamide-in-food
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01722.x/full – b18
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/chem/chemicals/acrylamide/en
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s003acry.pdf
http://www.cspinet.org
http://www.fda.gov
http://www.acsh.orga
Marc Chua and Kaylee Yang are undergraduates in the USC Dana and David Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.
First off, I loved the title! The blog post was extremely well written and provided a lot of insightful information on acrylamide. I had no idea about any of this! But after reading your post, I feel very well informed. The information was presented in a way that was very easy to follow and interesting to read. It will be my motivation to cut down on all the fried junk food I eat. Loved it!
In addition, what is the case in other states, besides California? Are they still following the “precautionary” risk philosophy? Are there any other benefits of eating potentially dangerous fried potatoes and French fries besides its economic benefit? I also would like to know some of the statistics on acrylamide’s ability to cause cancer and the mechanisms of how it does so before deciding whether or not it is an environmental risk.
It’s scary to think that so many things we eat, especially as college students, on an almost daily basis should be carcinogenic. The problem is not so much that these toxic chemicals are present in fried food, but rather our consumption habits as well as the economic interests of major food corporations. Consumer patterns are so heavily influenced by fastfood product placement as well as accessibility, that it is hard to break many of this habit. It also seems to become a social issues because it is a well-known factors that poorer people usually cannot afford or do not have access to good, healthy food, and will choose the unhealthier options because it is cheap and they can get more for their money, or because they live in food deserts. Thus, the population that will be more affected by this seems to be the poor. Are we unfairly subjecting them to carcinogenics? Perhaps. As always, education on healthy food choices is always the best choice.
I appreciated the somewhat aggressive tone is this article as it demanded for better representation on the foods that we eat. It is well known that America as a country suffers from eating and obesity issues. It definitely has to due to the $4 billion spent on fries and $3 billion spent on potato chips a year that has brought us to this issue. In some sense, people need to take responsibility for the foods they eat. But if there are contaminants or threats that are included in these foods, the public needs to be made aware of those threats. Hopefully some of these chemicals and additives that are included in these unhealthy foods will prevent people from choosing chips over an apple. Many restaurants and fast food chains are now labeling their menus with calorie counts, but these labels about harmful chemicals need to be included as well. People need to be educated about what they are eating, but they also need some help in the sense that they don’t automatically know each and every chemical that is placed in their food, and that is why the labeling needs to happen.
It seems to me that this issue goes back to overall nutrition as a whole. We have known for many years that fried foods do not contribute positively to our health, and it seems to just add to the fire that they have been discovered to cause cancer and birth defects.
I do not feel that by simply adding a warning to foods people will stop consuming fried foods such as french fries. However, I do not feel that it could hurt. The underlying issue, as Andrina suggests, is the disparity between healthy food, cost, and availability. If the United States wants to be healthier, we need to make better food easier to access. If the food is available and cheap, humans will consume it. Whether or not it is healthy is up to the providers.
It is scary to think that something as common place as a french-fry could cause cancer, but I guess that is where our world is heading. There are definitely two sides to this debate though: the precautionary argument and free market side. On the precautionary side, there is evidence that it may lead to cancer in humans, so foods that produce acrylamide should be banned. On the other hand, it seems from the blog that acrylamide has been around since people started cooking with fire. So could it really be all that bad? Also, what kind of a concentration of acrylamide does it take to actually cause cancer in humans? When they were testing it on animals they may have used astronomical concentrations of the chemical, and people may not eat that many french-fries or chips. In my opinion there needs to be a middle ground where standards are set to avoid unnecessary production of the chemical in the foods that people eat. Needless to say, I will be eating less fried starches thanks to this blog.
I found this blog very interesting, especially considering the high rates of cancer that Americans face. However, I question the how strong the linkage between acrylamide and cancer really is. Considering that the vast majority of the population consumes food products that contain acrylamide, why is it that the majority of people do not suffer from cancer? In my personal experience, I feel that the term “carcinogen” is used too frequently and hastily. On one hand I understand that products containing carcinogens should be labeled as such, but when consumers are inundated with carcinogenic labels on multiple products they use daily, the effectiveness of the warning label becomes null.
On a different note, I agreed with Marc and Kaylee that much of the problem has to do with the power that food corporations attain in this country. Although California has taken legislative steps toward resolving the acrylamide labeling issue, I do not see the federal government following suit anytime soon due to the power and influence of the mega-billion-dollar food industry.
As fast food consumption has increased rapidly over recent years, it is very interesting to finally learn more about what people are actually eating and the consequences of these diet choices. Nutritional content such as the caloric content and fat content of fast foods has recently become more readily available in many chains as consumers and regulations have pushed for access to this information. I found this blog extremely informative because it introduced another human health threat associated with the frying process used for fast food. I am pleased to know that individuals and organizations in California are arguing for warning labels on foods with this chemical and I am curious: what initiatives and progress other states have taken? I also wonder the extent to which knowledge of this harmful chemical will change consumer habits since fast food appeals to many for its taste, accessibility, and inexpensiveness.
Wow. What can you after reading this article? Some people joke around and say that everything nowadays causes cancer, but when reading something like this it makes you reevaluate everything. How could something as simple as eating a French fry expose you to carcinogens? I do agree that everything nowadays can cause cancer, but it is because we are doing more and more studies and finding that every chemical we use exposes us to some risk. It is easy to think that developing countries have riskier lives, that they are exposed to harmful environments; we think this all while sitting back in America stuffing our faces with greasy fast food that in the end can be riskier. The saddest part about that statement is that for the most part it is people that live in poverty that decide to eat fast food, simply because it is cheaper to feed a family with that.
I have taken this article and forwarded it to several friends and family to have them think twice before they eat that Happy Meal. I like the tips that are given, it definitely makes me think about not storing raw potatoes in the fridge anymore. This has been highly eye opening and I think it is great that more and more attention is being brought to the issue of food safety. Also great title!