Want chemicals with those fries?

Mikawa Ossan

いかんわ!
Ten-year veteran Fifteen-year veteran Twenty-year veteran
Joined
17 Sep 2005
Messages
6,017
Reaction score
1,970
Newspaper I found recently. What do you think?



Last update: September 24, 2005 at 11:00 PM
Want chemicals with those fries?
Paul Levy, Star Tribune
September 25, 2005 FRIES0925


Mary Buchanan stared at the French fry she cradled between her fingers. Golden. Glistening. Gone.

"They're warm, filling," Buchanan, 49, said Friday in a McDonald's in Uptown.

"And salty," her colleague, Karie Young, 41, said from across their table. "They have such a nice texture."

They also contain a chemical called acrylamide, which has been proved to cause cancer in laboratory rats and mice. And if California's attorney general has his way, packages of French fries, potato chips and other foods loaded with acrylamide soon will come with a warning of its potential dangers, at least in California. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says the chemical is in 40 percent of the calories consumed in the average American diet.

In a lawsuit filed last month, Attorney General Bill Lockyer demanded that McDonald's, Burger King, Frito-Lay and six other food companies put warnings of the dangers of acrylamide on package labels of French fries and potato chips.

Officials in the Minnesota Department of Health and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, sounding slightly bemused, say the state has no plans to take similar legal action. And questions over the level of concern about acrylamide are being raised by local food companies such as Old Dutch and General Mills.

Yes, even cereal contains the chemical. And so do a wide variety of cooked foods -- from soup to nuts.

"But is this really a public health risk, and how much of a health risk is it?" asked Simone French, a University of Minnesota nutritionist. "Some of the [acrylamide] foods listed by the Food and Drug Administration -- like prune juice, roasted almonds, black olives, corn -- are promoted as healthful foods."

The FDA, which has been studying acrylamide since 2002, opposes California's labeling idea -- possibly because the chemical has been found in granola bars, asparagus, baked potatoes, toasted bagels and other foods that are part of what the agency considers healthy, balanced diets.

Even as debate on acrylamide expands, the FDA has yet to find data that would prompt it to alter its current dietary guidelines, General Mills spokesperson Marybeth Thorsgaard said.

So how does a chemical known to cause cancer in lab rats wind up in foods that most humans consider healthy?

Acrylamide is a natural byproduct of the cooking process. It's not added to food; it's created when starchier foods are cooked at high temperatures.

Especially in America's favorite fast food, French fries. By a super-sized margin, they top the list of foods containing the chemical. There are 54.4 micrograms of acrylamide per serving in home-baked fries and 40.3 micrograms per serving in restaurant fries.

Surprisingly, prune juice is listed third, at 36.1 micrograms per serving, followed by potato chips, at 13 micrograms per serving.

But French fries -- soaked in trans-fats and full of sodium and carbohydrates -- have again jumped out of the fryer and into the fire in debates about eating well.

"Some people make jokes about the diet aspect of ordering French fries," said Dick Henke, manager of the Malt Shop in Minneapolis. "But years ago, we weren't doing as many fried foods, and people told us that they wanted them.

"Are we in the business to tell people what to eat or to give them what they want to buy?"

At the Convention Grill & Fountain in Edina, where 1,500 pounds of hand-cut French fries are served each week, more attention is paid to fryer oil than to acrylamide, said manager Mark Girouard.

"It's the oil that can ruin a French fry," explained Girouard, whose customers regularly order 24-ounce baskets of fries with their burgers and shakes. As for dietary concerns, he added, "The State Fair just ended. I don't think anybody's thinking about that right now."

They should, said Michael Jacobson, executive director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a watchdog group from Washington, D.C. Acrylamide could account for hundreds, possibly thousands of human deaths each year, he said.

Others scoff at such urgent concern. "Oh, come on, this has been going on since a Swedish food agency discovered this natural occurrence in the cooking process," Kristen Power, director of state affairs for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, said from Sacramento, Calif. "People need to have balanced, healthy diets. Label warnings like this could almost have an adverse affect."

Added Matt Colford, an Old Dutch spokesman: "Regardless of the product -- potato chips, tortilla chips, pretzels -- we don't expect customers to make this the only component of their diet."

At Minnetonka High School, where prepackaged French fries are a lunchroom staple, kitchen manager Linda Chase said there are no plans to alter menus. "Three years ago we switched to a different brand and we're using a clear canola oil," she said. "We're happy. The kids are happy."

Outside of the Uptown McDonald's, Eric Hannah, 20, stood by his bicycle, inhaling a burger.

"Burgers and fries compliment one another," he said. "French fries are greasy, salty, fatty. They're messy. We're always hearing about how bad they are, what they're going to do to us.

"But they're soooo good. I wish I had time for some right now."

Paul Levy is at

[email protected].
 
Obviously, a steep potato tax is called for in order to curb consumption and pay for the health costs arising from eating french fries.
 
I can now die in peace: a Republican suggesting a new tax... :-)
 
I also suggest removing all potato products from vending machines and requiring people to be 21 or over in order to purchase potatoes and/or potato products. We must rely on the government to protect the people from themselves. Children under 18 should not be permitted in establishments serving potatoes.
 
from the article said:
They should, said Michael Jacobson, executive director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a watchdog group from Washington, D.C. Acrylamide could account for hundreds, possibly thousands of human deaths each year, he said.

You should keep in mind what a nutbar Michael Jacobson is, and perhaps further scratch your head and wonder why so many media organizations include him in their reporting as though he and his group were anything resembling reasonable and unbiased.

Check him out:

http://www.activistcash.com/biography.cfm/bid/1284

Read down far enough and you'll find a whole subsection on CSPI and acrylamides:
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/13
 
How about a Constitutional ammendment banning potatoes? We can call it "Potatobition".

On a more serious note, diet truly is important for one's health. I have a friend with atopy, which apparently is some kind of skin ailment, and after he completely changed his diet, he finally got his atopy under control.
 
I'm against Potatobition; it would just result in a new Joseph Kennedy getting rich running spuds in through Canada. People would be bootlegging potatoes and growing them surreptitiously (bathtub spuds, anyone?). The effect on public morals would be devastating.

I agree that diet is important. I had never heard of atopy until I came to Japan. It seems quite a few people here are troubled by it.
 
Yeah, it'd probably be repealed after only a couple of years, anyway...

I'd never heard of atopy until I moved here, too. An ex-girlfriend of mine had it. She was so happy that her face wasn't affected. It seems to be not uncommon at all. Some "old folks" tell me that back in the day, there never used to be atopy, or at least it was very rare. I hope my children don't develop atopy...it seems quite annoying.
 
In my humble view I think americans should really relook their dieatary ways. I mean the nation just feeds itself on bad food that causes too many health problems in a society where health care splits ur head open if ur in trouble. It's up to the people to change their ways and to certain groups to get awaraness out there for those who have their blinds still on.
 
Well, that would be the Nanny State Socialist way of looking at it, yes.
 
yeah well a state needs to take care of their people if they are stupid enough to self sabotage themselves. I don't think any state would like to have a population that is 60% or more obese. What kind of of services can they give to the state if they are in health problems. Human resources are prolly the most important and precious asset a state has, and it needs to safeguard it. I see nothing wrong with a state who looks out for the health of its people.......... and what is so bad about socialism ?
 
I know im not a scientist so forgive this but....If humans have eaten this food, most considored healthy and required part of a balanced diet, forever, then why is it a health risk to us, just because RATS get cancer from it?....Komodo dragons have bacteria in their saliva that will kill a human dead, but they dont bother the Komodo, their's poisonous creatures who are happy and fine with their own poison, but are dangerous to us....can we come to the conclusion for once theres a chemical thats okay with us but bad for another animal?.

Anyway, they might aswell put a label on food just saying "Warning!: life is 100%, eat at your own risk of prolonging it".

Lol, i just laugh at this knida stuff i mean, every other week theres a new "frightening" revelation that something is bad for us....go figure, welcome to life, as of yet, no survivors.
 
there is a difference between regular produce and one that undergoes a chemical process and is modified by it
 
Back
Top Bottom