Fried Carbohydrates Form Carcinogens

An Anonymous Coward writes "Reuters (via Yahoo) is reporting that a Swedish team has found that cooking certain high-carbohydrate foods creates acrylamide (which is a suspected human carcinogen). The scientists felt this was so important that they have foregone publishing in favor of taking this public immediately. Potato chip stocks are taking nosedives in Scandanavia."

Comments

So important they couldn't wait to make mistakes?

[Wonko42]

They thought this was so important that they haven't bothered getting their facts checked or having their research reviewed? Sounds like they actually thought it was more important to alarm the public than to follow procedure and make sure their research is correct before announcing their findings. That's what publishing is for.

This sounds very fishy.

Right on.

[cjpez]

You beat me to the punch. There's a reason respectable scientists publish things in peer-reviewed journals. Just another scare tactic. Anyone want to place bets as to whether these people have ties with the "eat truckloads of meat" diet thing that was so popular last year? Bah.

Re:Right on.

[JabberWokky]

Actually the "eat truckloads of meat" diet (well, the real version, which encourages vegetables, and only discourages carbohydrates) has had studies done on it since the 1970s, and, while it may or may not be the healthiest thing (neither is being overweight), it does work, and when done right, is safe (the one oft quoted study contradicting that involved a study group of five people). It just suddenly got popular recently and a bunch of opportunists wrote what appear to be badly written books, and doctors freaked because normally ketosis is a symptom of very bad health problems - that your body is using its own tissues for energy. The idea for dietary, balanced ketosis (where the body substitutes internal stores for carbohydrates) is still a new one to the majority of the medical profession.

--
Evan

Re:Right on.

[TheLink]

Yah but if you read some reports, it was allegedly because of an infection.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/diet.fi tness/04/25/ atkins.diet/

But anyway he doesn't look too bad for 71. Not really old, but old enough to eat whatever he wants. It's those guys struggling to reach 55 that have got to watch it...

The sad thing is

[david duncan scott]

...the story made me hungry. Guess I'm doomed :)

Soylent Chips

[Servo5678]

high-carbohydrate foods creates acrylamide (which is a suspected human carcinogen)

Did anyone else read that and have a Soylent Green flashback?

Not NEARLY enough study.

[blair1q]

There's no way the rest of the food you eat with this stuff is irrelevant to its carcinogenic potential.

These scientists are being irresponsible in releasing this information prematurely without copious disclaimers.

Apparently, fame (or profit) is more important than truth.

--Blair

Acrylamide - main use : water treatment.

[freuddot]

Acrylamide

Acrylamide is an organic solid of white, odorless, flake-like crystals. The greatest use of acrylamide is as a coagulant aid in drinking water treatment. Other uses of include: to improve production from oil wells; in making organic chemicals and dyes; in the sizing of paper and textiles; in ore processing; in the construction of dam foundations and tunnels.

So, simply put : don't panic, you are getting it anyway. ;-)

Re:Acrylamide - main use : water treatment.

[beme]

Hold up there, cowboy. Reading that epa page a bit further down, it clearly states that the Maximum Contaminant Level goal (MCL) is set at zero. 'Course, that's an 'unenforcable' limit. The enforcable limit is mentioned here:
"The regulation for acrylamide became effective in 1992. EPA requires your water supplier to show that when acrylamide is added to water, the amount of uncoagulated acrylamide is less than 0.5 ppb."

Here's the stink about why it gets into your drinking water in the first place:
"The main source of concern for acrylamide in drinking water is from its use as a clarifier during water treatment. When added to water, it coagulates and traps suspended solids for easier removal. However, some acrylamide does not coagulate and remains in the water as a contaminant. Improvements in the production and use of acrylamide have made it possible to control this contamination to acceptable levels. "

And the health effects:
"Short-term: EPA has found acrylamide to potentially cause the following health effects when people are exposed to it at levels above the MCL for relatively short periods of time: damage to the nervous system, weakness and incoordination in the legs.

Long-term: Acrylamide has the potential to cause the following effects from a lifetime exposure at levels above the MCL: damage to the nervous system, paralysis; cancer."

Nice stuff. If you're getting a lot of it, you should be concerned.

Your life...

[jcenters]

...is ending a little every second, so stop worrying about every stinking thing you eat.

You have only a limited amount of time on planet earth, anyway. If you like eating potato chips, eat potato chips! If you like to smoke, fire one up! If you like to post inane comments on slashdot, type away! I'd rather enjoy life for thirty years as opposed to living perfectly clean, eating nothing but raw vegetables, and living to be 150.

And make an impact! If you're pissed about something your government does, raise hell about it! Write a book! Start a political movement! Paint a picture! LIVE!!!!

I'll be damned if I'm going to waste hours of my life worrying about things that are going to kill me, because there are things a lot more immediately dangerous than POTATO CHIPS.

Re:Your life...

[shrikel]

Well, you have a point there, but sometimes a little caution goes a long way. There's a balance between "living in the moment" and "being responsible." (Or whatever you want to call it. Taking care of yourself.)

I wouldn't, for example, ignore out of hand the harmful effects of smoking. Statistically speaking, each cigarette costs its smoker 11 minutes of his/her life. So if you REALLY WANT to throw away that much time for a cigarette, more power to ya.

But at least consider the effects. I would certainly give up potato chips if I thought they would shorten my life by several years. Hey, they're tasty, but they're not THAT tasty.

I don't mean to say that what you're saying is unfounded. I personally don't plan to change my potato-chip eating habits ;), but I do think one ought to balance the risk against any benefits they may get out of something.

How does that saying go? "Don't trade what you want most for what you want now.

Re:Your life...

[Snafoo]

There are statistical problems with the study you linked to. The results are far, far too crude to be useful.

Consider:

* Is the effect of cigarette smoking linear with the number of cigarettes consumed? (No)

* Given some randomly chosen x ( as in the study), does the 'average amount' of life deducted by x cigarettes tell us much about what will happen to a given smoker? Not without including the standard deviation, it won't.

This, like the above article, is an example of scaremongering for no good reason.
People already *know* this stuff is bad for them; but media-savvy scientists have apparently discovered the extent to which the news is 'interrupt-driven', and therefore look around for "shocking new finds" or "novel interpetations" to fire off another round of warnings. Geez, scientists! Just buy a senator, like everyone else!

Beam Breaks Camel's Back

[4of12]

Carbohydrates are already rapidly gaining a bad reputation.

If you've read any of the low carb diet books (eg, Protein Power, Dr Atkins Diet) they can tell you all kinds of tales of hyperinsulinemia and many related ills coming from a high carb diet. Type II, adult onset diabetes is just the beginning.

Things like how archeologists can tell from excavated human bones if a society has made the transition from hunter/gatherer to agricultural based food sources by the fact that earlier bones are stronger (albeit fewer of them).

Also, that the early Egyptians, one of the first cultures to rely heavily upon bread, had many of the same problems of modern society with obesity, cardiovascular disease, tooth decay, etc.

How the problems of fat (particularly saturated fat) in the diet are exacerbated by a high carb diet and lessened in a low carb diet.

Not to mention that many traditional hunter/gatherer ethnic groups (such as Native Americans) are being decimated by diabetes. Where 150 years ago they ate buffalo meat, nuts and berries, now they eat a complete 7-11 based diet of spam, potato chips and soft drinks.

I tried the low carb diet ( about 50 grams/ day) for a while. It was quite effective in reducing body fat, but it was much harder to adhere to, much more than a traditional low fat diet, which allows you to find comfort in sugars and starches.

While I'm no longer on the stringent low carb diet, I still try to avoid the most egregious, high glycemic index carbs like sugar and starches, such as those in potatoes.

Re:Beam Breaks Camel's Back

[ivan256]

If you've read any of the low carb diet books (eg, Protein Power, Dr Atkins Diet) they can tell you all kinds of tales of hyperinsulinemia and many related ills coming from a high carb diet.

If you go to dhmo.org you'll find 100% acurate and scientifically verified tales about Dihydrogen Monoxide causing many ills including sudden death. You'd better go read it becuase Dihydrogen Monoxide is found in all the meat you eat! And you though carbs were your problem?

Re:Beam Breaks Camel's Back

[Mr. Slippery]

If you've read any of the low carb diet books (eg, Protein Power, Dr Atkins Diet) they can tell you all kinds of tales of hyperinsulinemia and many related ills coming from a high carb diet.

Of course, what they don't tell you is how dangerous these faddish high-protein diets are.

Avoid simple carbs with high glycemic index, sure. But the protein mania is simply unhealthy. Your caloric intake should still be mostly clean-burning carbohydrates. Best way to lose weight is still to get up off your ass and exercise.

(Exception: the protein focused diet can be useful as a temporary measure in adult onset diabetes, to sort of "reset" the insulin regulation mechanism. Otherwise, forget it - it's a very unhealthful practice.)

Bunch o' crap

[Paradise Pete]

This is absurd. Cooked carbohydrates are consumed in massive quantities. If it were as dangerous as this people would be dropping like flies.

And BTW, why does the headline read "Fried Carbohydrates," when the article itself doesn't single out frying, but rather says that any cooking method does this?

Read the article carefully

[Snafoo]

According to the article, this phenomenon not limited to fried food. *All* heated high-carb /aliments/ --- eg, the staple foods of pretty much every industrialised society --- are now ostensibly Bad Food. So don't eat that sandwich; shun that rice: Death lives in every bite!

Me? I'm just glad that I only eat deep-fried pork giblets. Mmm. Healthy *and* refreshing! Beefcake! BEEFCAKE!

The usual 'Duh' advice

[Ogerman]

"Frying at high temperatures or for a long time should be avoided," Busk said, adding: "Our advice to eat less fat-rich products such as french fries and crisps, remains valid."

Since there are so many variables and so many unknowns, the best diet is a diverse diet. That's about the best anyone can try for. Everything in moderation. Nearly every chemical known to man is carcinogenic in sufficient concentration.

Re:hoo haw

[spike hay]

foregone publishing in favor of taking this public immediately.

Of course still by far the biggest danger of eating crap like fries is the cholesterol and fat. Everyone knows that fries aren't the greatest for your health. It shouldn't take a carcinogen scare story like this one keep people from eating too much unhealthy food.

I also would like to point out that we eat all sorts of carcinogens. There are so many carcinogens out there that I don't worry about it when they discover a new one.

Here are a few:
1. Comfrey
2. Sassafras (in higher-quality root beer)
3. Some meat preservative. Forgot what it's called.
4. The sun. Probably the biggest carcinogen of all.
5. Numerous body compounds
6. Burned meat
7. Benzene
8. Cadmium
9. Carbon Black
10. Formaldehyde
11. Gasoline
12. Nickel
13. Quartz
14. Radon
15. Mineral Oil
16. Urethane
17. Wood Dust.

Just about everything is carcinogenic. I, personally, don't worry about it. I can't isolate myself from all of these carcinogens anyway. A more complete list is available here.

I just hope this doesn't lead to tobacco-industry style class action lawsuits.

I hate people like that. For example, I am no fan of big tobacco, but if you smoke, it is your fault! Everyone has known for years that tobacco is harmful and addictive. The tobacco companies shouldn't be sued for your idiotic actions. I just think tobacco should be taxed even more heavily. Anyway, im drifting offtopic.

Stupid conclusions

[zenyu]

So you learn that there is 500 times more of some suspected cacrinogen in (a loaf of?) bread than you allow in water. Humans have been eating bread for 10,000 years. In those years average life expectancy has tripled. And they conclude bread is dangerous?

Wouldn't this tell a thinking person that you can increase that safe limit on the chemical in water by 500x?

And the very fact that they didn't try to publish it tells me there is something wrong with their measurements. There must be at least one graduate student watching that dream of a PhD disappearing into the ether as she curses her advisor....

Re:So important they couldn't wait to make mistake

[!splut]

I'm sorry, but I forgive them for going public with this prior to publication. The issue isn't going to cause a panic, since we already knew that fried foods are bad for you. The researchers and the institution aren't going to become rich off of the short-lived publicity. They just felt a moral obligation to release this data to the public as soon as possible, which is fine.

They didn't decide to *skip* the peer-review publication process. Their findings will still be submitted to a journal, and funding for further research by their lab and their institution will be contingent on the merit of that report.

Countless food related epidemiological studies of questionable validity, or performed by groups with biasing connections to industry, are published in journals and reported by the media every year - and half of them conflict with the other half. Remember the butter-margerine debate? Cholesterol in eggs? You can't count on peer review to weed out all the bad epidemiological correlations - you can only do that looking for corroborating experimental evidence.

Chemistry?!

[dragonfly28]

So food contains high levels of acrylamide. It's very nice that the authors are so worried about the general publics safety. But ususal procedures are there for a reason: to make sure no stupid mistakes occur.

I find this story really hard to believe, especially that how the acrylamide is produced is never stated in a chemical way. Then there is the fact that acrylamide has the tendensy to produce polymers quite easily and if the values found in food are so high. I'm quite surprised that no acrylic polymers are found (which are a lot less harmfull).

I wonder how many...

[Muad'Dave]

fast food stock shares they shorted just before announcing this??? 8-)

Re:No wonder americans are so unhealthy.

[Alkaiser]

Man...I don't know about which part of the country you live in, but here in the decent parts, we don't do any frying of bread, and we haven't for oh, say, thousands of years.

Carbs cause cancer? I thought they cured cancer!

[donutz]

Isn't oatmeal supposed to help prevent cancer? Now I find out that it possibly causes it....Is my breakfast food in a delicate balance of life and death?

Re:No wonder americans are so unhealthy.

[jackal!]

Man...I don't know about which part of the country you live in, but here in the decent parts, we don't do any frying of bread, and we haven't for oh, say, thousands of years.

So where you live there's no place to get donuts?

Mmmmm... donuts...