More and More on Acrylamide

Folks, this just keeps going on and on. Check out http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Publications/Food-Beverage-Nutrition/FoodNavigator.com/Science-Nutrition/Dietary-acrylamide-not-linked-to-lung-cancer-risk-Study/?c=%2BlZ8zGql8moeqNT7u5MAZg%3D%3D&utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily

Now, no one in their right mind would buy into the notion that acrylamides prevent lung cancer in women. But it seems clear that there is no harmful effect for any one. Tie this tidbit together with all the recent studies that fail to show a link between acrylamides and cancer in actual humans. It seems that the data are converging on a conclusion: there is no such link, given normal human exposure levels. Now, that cannot yet be a firm conclusion, but it certainly appears to be where the tracks are heading.

How much science was actually performed to form the basis for California's actions against Pepsico and others of a year or so ago? Who determined that 270 ppm was a safe level of acrylamide, but 271ppm is dangerous? As I mentioned a few months ago, I do not personally shrink from hard facts, but I am not a believer in throwing lots and lots of money at perceptions that are not based on fact.

It seems that we need to consider a more sane approach!

Tim

Stumble It!

Bookmark on del.icio.us