Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Fried Carbohydrates Form Carcinogens 79

Posted by michael from the you-can't-eat-just-one dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fried Carbohydrates Form Carcinogens More

Fried Carbohydrates Form Carcinogens

Comments Filter:
  • 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.

    • If you're right, hopefully we'll see some news from the 'other' side in the next few days.
    • 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. (Score:3, Informative)

        by JabberWokky ( 19442 )
        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

        • Interestingly enough, Dr. Atkins was just released from the hospital - he had a cardiac arrest. Not to make fun of his medical condition, but as the guy who basically pioneered the "eat tons o' meat" diet, what are the odds that he'd develop heart trouble?
          • 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...

    • As I recall it's actually old news that heating a wide variety of organic substances can damage them and create dangerous compounds. You'll see echoes of this all over the place...warnings about grilling meats, charring food etc. Many of the carcinogens in cigarette smoke are in fact formed by the slow burning process. They should have published first though. Bad call just tossing this to the media.
    • 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.
      • But wasn't published yet. Problem is, the journal of course want to be first, so now it's not a given it will be published, which is not a good thing for the scientist.

        It was rather the "National Food Administration" who wanted to go public early. (And they really seems to have funding problems.)

        In this case one also has to keep in mind that acrylamide has killed a number of livestock, rendered wells unusable and harmed workers during a tunnel construction in Sweden, so anything about it is automatically bigger news in Sweden.

  • The sad thing is (Score:3, Funny)

    by david duncan scott ( 206421 ) on Wednesday April 24, 2002 @03:50PM (#3404307)
    ...the story made me hungry. Guess I'm doomed :)

  • Soylent Chips (Score:4, Funny)

    by Servo5678 ( 468237 ) on Wednesday April 24, 2002 @03:59PM (#3404397)
    high-carbohydrate foods creates acrylamide (which is a suspected human carcinogen)

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

  • This may come as a shock, but until I inhale more carcinogens daily just driving to work. Not to undermine the work thes fellows have done, but until second-hand smoke and exhaust fumes are dealt with in a signifigantly better fashion, this is a small drop in a very large bucket.

    Tim
    • This may come as a shock, but... I inhale more carcinogens daily just driving to work.

      So as long as something worse is happening to you it doesn't matter that other bad things are also happening?

      • So as long as something worse is happening to you it doesn't matter that other bad things are also happening?

        Just because the Titanic is sinking doesn't mean we shouldn't correct these carelessly disarranged desk chairs.

        From the article:"contain alarmingly high quantities of acrylamide, a substance believed to cause cancer"...

        From another purveyor of nostrums [magnelyfe.com]:" The Japanese believe that because people live in houses, work in buildings and walk on concrete, their bodies are deprived of the earth's natural magnetic energy. Magnets replace the energy and promote health and well-being."... and from yet another loser [alexchiu.com]: "Immortality Device is believed to allow humans to stay physically young forever."

        I'm so sick of being told that I have to take stupid ideas seriously just because somebody believes it. I actually get criticized for my cubicle arrangement, because it's "bad feng shui", and I'm expected to respectfully listen to this hogwash.
        I acknowledge the placebo effect, but I'm not going to base my interface to reality on fooling myself.
  • Yep. And proud of it too. Not going to stop me at all from going out and eating potato chips. And bread? your going to advise the recall of bread? im sorry, but humanity has been eating bread for what, thousands of years?
    No, i cant see bread going off the shelfs anytime soon.

    • Re:No wonder americans are so unhealthy. (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      And bread? your going to advise the recall of bread?

      Well, of course. Every murderer has eaten bread. Such a high correlation MUST mean that bread causes people to become murderers, right? We must ban bread. For the children!

      </sarcasm>

      Maybe I've seen one two many studies that leaps from correlation to causation...
    • 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.

  • Not NEARLY enough study. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by blair1q ( 305137 ) on Wednesday April 24, 2002 @04:31PM (#3404717) Journal
    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 [epa.gov]

    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. ;-)

    • 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.
      • Yeah it has the potential to cause those things, but who knows if it actually does? It would be quite hard to test the substance in humans. Probably one of the health effects that has been measured is something like "twitching in the tail", but that didn't make the cut in the EPA report for humans.

        If the EPA had been aware of the levels of acrylamide consumed in french fries, etc then they may not have rated it so badly. As it was, they had the option of setting the MCL at 0.5 ppb (very low) for the purposes of water treatment and then they covered themselves by listing the nasty "potential health hazards" which were probably measured by injecting mice with the stuff until they were 50% acrylamide by weight.

        Anyway, the EPA never needed to do an in-depth study of this substance, but thankfully the Swedish agency is doing so now.

  • Your life... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jcenters ( 570494 ) on Wednesday April 24, 2002 @04:41PM (#3404802) Homepage
    ...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.
    • I'd rather enjoy life for thirty years as opposed to living perfectly clean

      It's easy to say that when you're still healthy. If you were in bad health, or actually had cancer, then your greatest and most persistent wish would be that you'd taken better care of yourself when you were younger and healthier.

      I know you don't believe me now, but one day you will.

    • Re:Your life... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by shrikel ( 535309 )
      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 [bbc.co.uk] 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.

      • Yes, a cigarette might take 11 minutes off my life. And certainly, those minutes are going to add up to days, weeks, months, years.

        The problem is that while, yes it does take years off one's life, IT TAKES OFF THE ONES AT THE END! The adult diaper wearing, spoon-feeding, kidney dialysis years!

        Your can have those years! Us smokers don't want them!

        (With thanks to Denis Leary.)
        • before i quit smoking, my roommate and I said the same thing.

          Which then followed up with,
          "We'll have Iron Lungs right next each other in the hospital"

          So, you do knock out the infantile latter years, but you do so by adding 10 years of a painfull wheezing death.
      • 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!
  • If you think fried or baked carbohydrates are a danger check out the bad news about dihydrogen oxide! [foxtail.com]
  • "But smoking, which is known to cause cancer, remained a bigger risk, she said."

    At least that cigarette I had after lunch is still more dangerous to my health than my BigMac was.

    Although, it would be awesome if I could say that my smoking of a cigatette was healthier than the next non-smoker who gives shit about smoking, as he/she is wolfing down that BigMac.

  • 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.


    • 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 [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?
    • 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 [hopkinsafter50.com] these faddish [drfuhrman.com] high-protein diets [healthatoz.com] 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 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Paradise Pete ( 33184 ) on Wednesday April 24, 2002 @05:41PM (#3405420) Journal
    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?

  • 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!

  • "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.

  • 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....

  • Chemistry?! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dragonfly28 ( 466802 )
    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).
  • Cancer is only one side of the story. Everything cause cancer (at least everything that tastes good) IMO the more scary part is that "It is also known to cause damage to the central and peripheral nervous system."

    Living in Israel I've suspected long ago that people have gone mad. Now I know why.
  • A funny detail is that this was found out. The study of acrylamid actually started with the drilling of a tunnel in western Sweden. The rockwalls had to be sealed with a product (Rocka Gil) that contained acrylamide and the workers got sick. In the folloing study they found that it wansn't only the tunnelworkers that had the substance in their bodies, and it has now been traced to our food.

    I submitted this story two days above (when it was news) but was rejected.
  • So long and thanks for all the fish'n'chips.


  • fast food stock shares they shorted just before announcing this??? 8-)
  • .. Don't believe any unpublished scientific findings.

    Maybe I'll cut down on the Doritos anyway.. ;)
  • I suppose it's news that cooking will generate acrylamide, but really, cooking of any carbohydrate will create carcinogens, in the form of aromatic carbon compounds. For example, a well-cooked burger and a slightly-burnt piece of toast both contain anthracene, which is a carcinogen.

    But it isn't anything new that people are eating carcinogens. Peanuts are (relatively) high in carcinogens, beer even more so. Eating "organic" foods doesn't help, because plants have developed chemical ways to deal with pests, and generate these toxic chemicals in even greater amounts when grown without pesticides.

    One problem with reports like these is that they treat something that is "carcinogenic" as being a "kiss of death". Carcinogens are merely capable of causing cancerous mutations, given the right conditions. But then the question is, what kind of cancer? What types of tumors? The danger with smoking isn't just that it is so carcinogenic, but that the cancers that it causes are really nasty ones. Compare this with skin cancer, which also has a high rate of occurance, but is at the same time very treatable.

    Trying to make an emergency out of this is ridiculous, and goes against all reason. It would be a lot more logical to perhaps try to determine the particulars of how (and if) the small amounts of acrylamide in food are treated by the body. The current bans on acrylamide in drinking water are reasonable, if there is nothing known about it, then don't allow it to be added. But the fact is that acrylamide has apparently been present in the human diet for a very long time, so why suddenly make a big fuss about it?

    It seems to me that this is just a way to turn some rather boring research "we found chemical X in cooked food" into a hot-button issue. Maybe they'll get some more funding out of it. And with Sweden's tax rates, they'll probably be able to get a lot, too.
    • Eating "organic" foods doesn't help, because plants have developed chemical ways to deal with pests, and generate these toxic chemicals in even greater amounts when grown without pesticides.

      What, you think organic farmers just let insect pests run rampant over their crops? They use IPM strategies, and lower-toxicity and low-peristance insecticides. They also use no herbicides and no fungicides. The result is less toxic crap in your food, in the soil, and in the water.

  • 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?
  • Sometimes I wonder at the motives for some of these announcements. Remember alar? Turned out not to be such a bad thing. There's carcinogens in heated carbohydrates now, eating meat is bad, eating fat is bad, beer is bad, power lines cause cancer, driving my car is singlehandedly responsible for global warming, the list goes on. It doesn't matter to some of these people if any of this is true or not. The people who make these kind of announcements are usually either misguided, mistaken, or have some sort of agenda.
    Sometimes I suspect those with the agenda won't be happy until they scare us into living in a non-technological society eating only nuts and berries. That's all well and good for them, but I personally like living in a heated apartment when it's 20 below zero (Centigrade) eating 5cm thick steaks while sucking down a couple beers and reading slashdot.
    Nothing they say scares me and it shouldn't scare any other rational being. Unfortunately, most people aren't rational, so these fear-mongers get ratings and ratings means big bucks, which just encourages others to do the same. Those of us with more than a couple brain cells have the responsibility to educate those who don't know any better.

Slashdot Top Deals

Let's organize this thing and take all the fun out of it.

Close