Acrylamide Unknowns

Can we get real? Can we deal with facts, and not assumptions/guesses? Can we limit government to act on what is known?

I am referring to the recent news of the settlement in California with potato chip processors, the most thorough report I've seen is : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Financial-Industry/Chip-companies-settle-acrylamide-lawsuit/?c=%2BlZ8zGql8mrs55yGt7mytg%3D%3D .

Another version is:http://myprocessexpo365.packexpo.com/NST-1-50082183/story.aspx?utm_source=myprocessexpo365&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=enewsletter&ocuid=NTQ5MTA5Nw==-SXWzjM76cNA=

Notice in the latter article: "Acrylamide forms naturally when starchy foods are baked or fried. Studies have shown that the chemical, which also has industrial uses, causes cancer in lab animals and nerve damage to workers who are exposed to high levels. The Food and Drug Administration is researching whether acrylamide in food poses a health risk."

Normally, I think of the FDA as a bit paranoid about food safety, taking a "better safe than sorry" approach that I think serves the US well. The quote above seems to indicate otherwise. I mean, what does "causes cancer" and "nerve damage" mean to you?

I would bet that the reason the FDA has not drawn conclusions is related to acrylamide concentration. I wonder how much concentration was needed to induce cancer in lab animals, or nerve damage in humans? Almost certainly, those would require acrylamide concentrations and levels of exposure that far, far exceed what anyone could imagine acquiring through eating current products. Otherwise, the US FDA would raise the red flag immediately, and control its concentration in all foods.

Of course, leave it to California to lead the charge in litigation sans facts. Targeting a 275 ppb level of acryamide... I wonder how that number was determined? Certainly, not based on experimental studies that determine what safe levels are. Surely, they are simply targeted at reduction without any link to resultant food safety. Lower must be better. But what is sufficient? The question is not yet addressed, based on what I have read.

And the economic consequences of this blind litigation are not taken into consideration.

Not good news for the industry, folks. As you may have already ascertained from reading my other blog entries, I am very much in favor of safe food. But "safe" should be defined and measurable before extreme measures are taken. And government should not be used to bully industry into spending its own money in areas that have no defined, broad public benefit.

Tim

Stumble It!

Bookmark on del.icio.us