active network espn
Community: Exchange advice in the forums and read running commentary Resources: Personal running log, calculators, links and other tools for runners News: Running news from around the world Training: Articles and advice about fitness, race training and injury prevention Races/Results: Find upcoming races and past results Home: The Cool Running homepage
Cool Running homepage  Search Cool Running Community
Login to Reply
1 2 Previous Next
Click to view CSuzette's profile Legend 290 posts since
Apr 8, 2005

Aug 21, 2006 12:48 PM

Acrylamide

Just when you thought it was safe to eat whatever you want a new food danger appears.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20021005/fob5.asp[/URL" target="_blank">

Apparently, this stuff is most commonly found in:

french fries
chips
coffee
pastries
cookies
rolls and toast

It is formed when glucose and certain amino acids are heated together.

The FDA calculates human exposure of the average man at 28 ug per per day. In 2002 the FDA applied conventional safety factors derived from an animal study and concluded that people should not consume more than 12 ug per day to protect against neurotoxic effects. But, after the discovery that Acrylamide exists in food the FDA totally ignored that previous recommendation.

Obviously, the food industry and its lobby has a huge impact on whether legislation is enacted.
Click to view seattlegirl018's profile Pro 71 posts since
Dec 14, 2007
1. Aug 21, 2006 1:01 PM in response to: CSuzette
I wouldn't exactly call an article from 2002 a "new" danger.
Click to view rlemert's profile Legend 250 posts since
Dec 14, 2007
2. Aug 21, 2006 1:56 PM in response to: CSuzette
Is this really a "new" food danger, or is it simply a case of someone finally bothering to take a look at things using modern analytical techniques? Given that glucose is naturally present in some form in many foods and that any proteins are going to contain amino acids, I would be tremendously surprised if acrylamide was NOT found in something.

If you take the report at face value, it would suggest that cooking food is bad for you. But then again, not cooking certain foods leaves you susceptible to various pathogens, so what are you to do? Not eat?
Click to view cipher057's profile Pro 180 posts since
Feb 20, 2003
3. Aug 21, 2006 2:11 PM in response to: CSuzette
This is old news. Breads of been in eaten for thousands of years. Maybe acrylamide IS a cancer-causing agent and nobody really knows what impact it has on the human body. Only time will tell. If you're worried about getting cancer from eating something, I have news for you. You might also increase your chances of getting cancer by not eating certain foods...like vegetables and fruit.

Also...I see this as a post with a hidden agenda...namely to further your rant that carbs are bad for you.
Click to view Darth II's profile Amateur 34 posts since
Oct 15, 2004
4. Aug 21, 2006 2:38 PM in response to: CSuzette
So here is how this thread will evolve.

Troll # 1, CSuzette, will respond maybe once to the responses thus far. She knows she has made a 'claim' based on outdated research...with this being obsolete information, she is sure to get a flurry of arguments.

Mysteriously, CS will disappear around this time and in an attempt to toy with those already sucked in, her alter ego (Troll # 2) totaleffort will chime in and respond to what everyone says without fail...sometimes making sense, most times not.

Moral: Please don't feed the trolls, folks.
Click to view totaleffort's profile Legend 280 posts since
Feb 10, 2006
5. Aug 21, 2006 9:55 PM in response to: CSuzette
Well Darth II please refrain from the Dr Phil business . You must have figured out by now that the so called "alter ego" stuff is an absurdity and I find it frankly rather offensive .I have nothing to say about chips, fries , pastries or cookies. You can figure all that out yourself ...old study new study or no study.

Now if this is all over I'll go on med tent or someplace where perhaps I can help somebody with asthma , a fx toe , high cholesterol, chest pains or some injury.
Click to view bigapplepie's profile We're Not Worthy 2,636 posts since
Dec 14, 2007
7. Aug 22, 2006 11:31 AM in response to: CSuzette
Wow, french fries, chips, coffee, pastries, cookies, rolls and toast are bad for you are bad for you I'll try and avoid them in future.

Thanks for the information CSuzette. I read about this a while ago.

quote:<HR>
Some sources claim that people in the modern world consume daily on average around 25 micrograms of acrylamide, and that this accounts for a significant number of cases of cancer. There is as yet no consensus among the scientific and medical community as to the dangers of acrylamide in food; this topic is still being actively researched and investigated by government bodies in several different countries. Some research has not revealed any connection between acrylamide intake via food and cancer in the large intestine, rectum, bladder, or kidneys.

In 2002-04-24, Swedish Livsmedelsverket (National Food Administration) announced that acrylamide can be found in baked and fried starchy foods, such as potato chips and breads, and concern was raised as it may be a carcinogen. And in 2005, in a cooperation between the Harvard School of Public Health and the Swedish Karolinska Institutet, researchers were seeking a connection between acrylamide and breast cancer, but could not find any in that case either, as revealed in a press release published 2005-03-15. Many researchers therefore consider that former acrylamide reports have been exaggerated by media, although with the caveat that any substance in "astronomical doses" can still be dangerous to any organism, including humans. On the other hand, the preceding research might not have been able to isolate the effects of acrylamide due to it being ubiquitous in western diets.

On 2005-08-26, California attorney general Bill Lockyer filed a lawsuit against top makers of french fries and potato chips to warn consumers of the potential risk of consuming acrylamide.
<HR>
Click to view sixfeetsmall3x5's profile Pro 118 posts since
Apr 27, 2005
8. Aug 22, 2006 1:29 PM in response to: CSuzette
quote:<HR>Originally posted by CSuzette:
Actually, my manager put a recent article in my box about this because there are apparently bills in California and maybe in the U.S. House that are going to fail due to food industry lobbying.<HR>


And you were unaware previously that the food industry has impact on legislation? Maybe you should read more real literature...
Click to view Hairy Trotter's profile Expert 46 posts since
Dec 14, 2007
9. Aug 22, 2006 2:57 PM in response to: CSuzette
Oh no!!! A cooking method that produces chemical reactions at high temperatures that generate a substance that might be associated with cancer.

And it's all on those icky carbs.

Wouldn't it just be TERRIBLE if, like, there was a cooking method that, like, interacted with SALMON and RIB-EYE STEAK at high temperatures to generate substances that are associated with cancer and found in cigarette smoke?

Man, that would be terrible. Thank God something like that could never happen with perfect foods like salmon and rib-eye steak.....
Click to view bigapplepie's profile We're Not Worthy 2,636 posts since
Dec 14, 2007
10. Dec 26, 2007 3:16 AM in response to: CSuzette
quote:<HR>Originally posted by Hairy Trotter:

Thank God something like that could never happen with perfect foods like salmon and rib-eye steak.....
<HR>


quote:<HR>From the Commission on Life Sciences (1996)
Cooked beef steak contains a number of derived pyrolysis products such as benz(a)anthracene that have been shown to be carcinogenic in animals (cf. IARC 3:45, 32:135).

Heterocyclic amines formed during cooking of beef steak, such as 2-amino-3-methylimidazo4,5-fquinoline (IQ), are also in low concentrations ranging up to 20 ng/g (IARC 40:261, 56:165).

Beef steak may also contain traces of naturally occurring carcinogens acquired from the environment, including arsenic and ochratoxin A, a mycotoxin resulting from feed contamination (IARC 10:191, 31:191, 42:262, 56:489).

Synthetic carcinogens such as 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and other chlorinated polycylic hydrocarbons may also be present in beef steak as a consequence of contamination of packaging materials (IARC 15:41).

In addition to trace levels of these carcinogenic substances, beef steak contains anticarcinogenic substances such as conjugated linoleic acid and selenium.<HR>


Also:
quote:<HR>From the Institute for Health and the Environment at Albany University
Analysis of salmon fillets from about 700 farmed and wild salmon produced in eight major farmed salmon producing regions and purchased in 16 large cities in North America and Europe found significantly higher concentrations of contaminants in farmed salmon than in their wild counterparts. The study, which was sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts, focuses largely on the elevated concentrations of four contaminants because of the abundant health risk information for these compounds and because the patterns of their occurrence are similar to patterns of all contaminants evaluated in the study: PCBs, dioxins, dieldrin, and toxaphene.<HR>


http://This message has been edited by bigapplepie (edited Aug-22-2006).
Click to view randymar's profile We're Not Worthy 2,243 posts since
Dec 14, 2007
11. Aug 22, 2006 4:22 PM in response to: CSuzette
I thought that acrylamide was what they made those aqua leisure suits out of ... highly flammable.

------------------
Life is Short ... Make Fun of It.[/URL" target="_blank">

400 Beers[/URL" target="_blank">
Click to view standophish's profile Expert 52 posts since
Apr 12, 2006
12. Aug 22, 2006 6:11 PM in response to: CSuzette
quote:<HR>Originally posted by CSuzette:
Just when you thought it was safe to eat whatever you want<HR>


WHO exactly thinks it is "safe to eat whatever you want"?? I sure don't!
Click to view cipher057's profile Pro 180 posts since
Feb 20, 2003
13. Aug 22, 2006 9:32 PM in response to: CSuzette
Don't forget this study that came out last year...

quote:<HR>Processed and Red Meats May Increase Pancreatic Cancer Risk
Contributed by Lisa Olen| 21 April, 2005 14:48 GMT


Eating a lot of processed meats -- like hot dogs, sausages and bologna -- was linked with the greatest risk of pancreatic cancer in a large multiethnic study reported at the 96th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research. Heavy consumption of pork and red meat also increased pancreatic cancer risk substantially.

"The results suggest that carcinogenic substances related to meat preparation, rather than their inherent fat or cholesterol content, might be responsible for the association," said Ute Nöthlings, DrPH, MSE, the study's lead investigator from the Cancer Research Center at the University of Hawaii in Honolulu.

Meat consumption has been linked to pancreatic cancer in several case-control studies in the past, but the results have been inconsistent and data from prospective studies has been lacking.

Heavy Red Meat Consumption Also Increased Risk

For this study, researchers from the Cancer Research Center and USC examined the relationship of diet to pancreatic cancer among 190,545 men and women of African-American, Japanese-American, Caucasian, Latino and Native Hawaiian origin who were part of the Multiethnic Cohort Study in Hawaii and Los Angeles. An average follow-up of seven years yielded 482 incident cases of pancreatic cancer.

The researchers found that the heavy consumption of processed meats resulted in the highest risk for pancreatic cancer, after adjusting for age, smoking status, history of diabetes, familial history of pancreatic cancer and ethnicity.

Those who consumed the greatest amount of processed meats had a 67 percent increase in risk over those participants with the lowest intake of this food category. A diet rich in pork and red meat also increased pancreatic cancer risk by about 50 percent, compared to their counterparts who ate less meat.

Fat Not a Likely Contributor

Consumption of poultry, fish, dairy products and eggs showed no link to pancreatic cancer risk, nor did overall intake of total fat, saturated fat, or cholesterol.

"An analysis of fat and saturated fat intakes showed a significant increase in risk for fats from meat, but not from dairy products, indicating that fat and saturated fat are not likely to contribute to the underlying carcinogenic mechanism," said Nöthlings.

In particular, the scientists suggest that chemical reactions that occur during the preparation of processed meats might be responsible for the association. Such reactions can yield carcinogens including heterocyclic amines or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

"Our study is the largest of its kind to demonstrate a link between high consumption of processed meats over long periods of time and pancreatic cancer," said Nöthlings. "The sample size allowed us to obtain statistically significant risk-estimates that support this hypothesis."

<HR>