California Wants to Serve a Warning With Fries II
September 21st, 2005
Published: September 21, 2005
(Page 2 of 3)
The attorney general’s office cites a dozen acrylamide animal studies showing both cancer and birth defects, as well as the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of the chemical as a carcinogen for 13 years.
The food industry and the F.D.A., meanwhile, are calling for more studies. The agency says that it has been “very active” in acrylamide research and will do a thorough risk assessment once a large-scale experiment is completed in 2007.
The controversy started when Swedish scientists accidentally discovered acrylamide in food in 2002. The chemical had long been used in the manufacture of things like grout and adhesives and to perform tasks like separating solid sewage from water.
Its discovery in food sent the international scientific community into a tailspin and ignited a debate over how chemicals in food should be regulated.
Under the Delaney Clause, which amended the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in 1958, no substance that causes cancer in either humans or animals can be added to food. But that law is normally applied to substances introduced to food, like dyes and preservatives, not those, like acrylamide, created by cooking. Frying and baking potatoes at home create acrylamide as well.
Thus, the food industry wants acrylamide treated differently from food chemicals. “Acrylamide has been present in the food supply and safely consumed since human beings discovered that cooked food tastes good,” said Kristen Power, director of state affairs at the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which is leading the food industry’s efforts on acrylamide. “It is in 40 percent of the calories consumed in the average American diet.”
Acrylamide is also found in lesser amounts in breads, cereals, cookies and crackers, as well as roasted nuts and some vegetables that have been grilled or sautéed.
Elizabeth Whelan, executive director of the American Council on Science and Health, a group financed by the food industry, foundations and private individuals, said that in singling out potato chips and French fries, the California attorney general is applying a double standard.
Food like whole wheat toast and black olives, she notes, also have high acrylamide levels. (The chemical processing of black olives, which are not naturally black, forms acrylamide.) “This is really just another attack on what we call junk food,” Ms. Whelan said.
Mr. Weil of the California attorney general’s office said his office looked carefully at food consumption data before deciding which products to pursue. “If people ate as many olives as they do French fries, we’d have to be concerned about it,” Mr. Weil said.
Other foods that test positive for acrylamide, like breads, cereals and peanut butter, contain the chemical at comparatively low levels, Mr. Weil said.
“When the food industry says 40 percent of the calories in the food supply have some acrylamide in it, that’s true only if you count foods with even the tiniest bit,” he said. “The potato chips and French fries really stand by themselves as having high levels.”
Scientists say that is because acrylamide is created, generally speaking, when the naturally occurring amino acid asparagine is heated to temperatures above 250 degrees in the presence of sugars or starches. Potatoes have a lot of both asparagine and starch, and are often fried at temperatures of up to 400 degrees.
Alise Cappel, research director at the Environmental Law Foundation, a nonprofit group that recently sued four potato chip companies over acrylamide (the suit is expected to be joined with the attorney general’s), says people are increasingly eating foods with acrylamide.
“It certainly has been in the food supply for centuries, but the frying of food is a relatively new cooking technique,” Ms. Cappel said. “And we’re eating more cookies, crackers and breads than we ever have before.”
The F.D.A. is not convinced that such consumption is necessarily bad. The agency has said that warning labels on food could “confuse consumers” and create “unnecessary public alarm.”
Taken From www.nytimes.com
Entry Filed under: Nutrition News
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed