April 26, 2002

11:14 AM

Cancer and Carbohydrates (per FT)may be closely linked according to recent international study - and not just any carbohydrates but those that are our favorites - deep fried potatoes, rice, and bread all may contain high levels of cancer causing acrylamides. What's your average carb eater to do?
posted by zia (13 comments total)

double post
posted by delapohl at 11:21 AM on April 26, 2002

Rice is mentioned nowhere in the article, and since rice is seldom fried or baked anyway, it's misleading for you to mention it in your fpp.

Not to nitpick, but...
posted by glenwood at 11:22 AM on April 26, 2002

What's your average carb eater to do?

Run a search for the topic.
posted by adampsyche at 11:25 AM on April 26, 2002

Rice is mentioned nowhere in the article, and since rice is seldom fried or baked anyway, it's misleading for you to mention it in your fpp.

First line of the article (amphasis mine):

"The health risks of eating fried and baked foods such as potatoes, bread and rice are far higher than previously thought, Swedish scientists warned yesterday."
posted by jennyb at 11:28 AM on April 26, 2002

Standing co-rrected.
Sorry for the mistake.
posted by glenwood at 11:29 AM on April 26, 2002

Q: what do you do when a chemical contained in the staple food of civilization for the past 6000 years is implicated as a carcinogen?

A: Re-evaluate the chemical's potential for carcinogenicity.
posted by darukaru at 11:43 AM on April 26, 2002

A brave new invention straight outa Shanghai:

*Fried* Rice

I tried it. Its tasty. I think its gonna be hugely popular. Just a hunch tho.
posted by BentPenguin at 11:50 AM on April 26, 2002

Leif Busk, head of research at the national food administration, Sweden's food watchdog, said: "... It may now be possible to explain some of the cases of cancer caused by food."
What the heck kind of quote is this? What cases of cancer is he talking about that we "know" are caused by food? Nobody has ever implicated BREAD in cancer (except white bread in colon cancer-- but only as a function of its lack of fiber, not because of any associated chemicals). I'd like to know what cancers this guy knows are caused by food, that are now explained by this finding. I don't trust these people.
posted by Faze at 12:09 PM on April 26, 2002

Faze, I think this is one of those cumulative risk things. Also, the resulting cancers may be masked -- may not be fatal causes -- because of more proximate results of diet such as heart disease.

And darukaru, we are living longer -- 20 to 40 years longer than just a couple of generations ago. That gives plenty more time for cancer to show up. And yet it still may be carcinogenic but as in my first paragraph may not cause a major rise in mortality.
posted by dhartung at 1:01 PM on April 26, 2002

This appears to be a particularly egregious case of junk science.
posted by aaron at 2:09 PM on April 26, 2002

heh, 35 thousand potato chips a day each day of your life to have an effect.
posted by delmoi at 4:16 PM on April 26, 2002

wait:

"Alarmingly high levels of acrylamide, a substance widely believed to cause cancer, damage to the nervous system and genetic mutation..."

does this explain the tall blond swedes? Genetic mutations? :)) After all, I don't know any other country (except maybe ireland) that love their spuds so. :)
posted by dabitch at 10:24 AM on April 28, 2002

Q: what do you do when a chemical contained in the staple food of civilization for the past 6000 years is implicated as a carcinogen?

A: Re-evaluate the chemical's potential for carcinogenicity.

Does this mean red meat won't give me a heart attack?
posted by mikewas at 4:37 PM on April 28, 2002