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
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
More and More on Acrylamide
Friday, April 24, 2009
Comment back to "foodman"
Take a look at the comment attached to my March 26 posting. "Foodman" sounds like he is skeptical that the food processing industry is really as green as I make it sound. I thought his comments worthy of a response y'all can see.
I think foodman makes a fair point. Food processing takes quite a bit of energy, starting at the farm, through raw transport, storage, cooking/blanching/drying/frying freezing, etc, transport of finished good, etc. Lots and lots of energy. And, let's be honest, quite a bit of waste, in many forms. Waste of raw product, waste of energy (vs. use of technologies that could conserve), waste of labor, waste of finished product, waste of water.
But my basic response is that there is a broad continuum of conservation vs. waste that I see in the processed potato industry. One one end, I see McCain building wind turbines and waste processing facilities to recover power. And I see Pepsico with their "new" Casa Grande plant, that is essentially power-neutral, from what I hear. On the other ends, as I walk around the factories in the potato industry, I see lots of spillage and piles of raw and semi-finished product on the floor, lots of steam going out stacks, lots of water dripping everywhere.
Even here at Key, our solutions include features that greatly reduce energy consumption (e.g., our new cameras and LED lights), while we have some equipment that continues to drip.
The point is, we all start the conversion to green from where we are and continually make progress. There is no point to which we arrive and say the job is finished. We continue to invest in energy-saving technologies, and make those available to those who choose our solutions. Are we perfect? No way! But we have a direction, and are committed to doing our part to reduce energy and water consumption, not to mention making maximum use of raw materials.
Good comment, foodman!
Friday, April 3, 2009
More and More GMO news
Lots of buzz in the news lately, again surrounding GMOs.
It seems US President Obama is not going to second-guess scientists who say that GM sugar beets are fine. http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Legislation/Obama-administration-upholds-GM-sugarbeet-deregulation/?c=%2BlZ8zGql8mrDsx8CmEjESA%3D%3D&utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily
Of course, there are a number of groups who want the second-guessing to continue. The Center for Food Safety and Earthjustice have filed a lawsuit to prevent the introduction of herbicide-resistant sugar beets, because "they have not been proven safe". This begs the question: what do these other groups need to see to be assured of food safety? Or is this a never-ending stall tactic? What is the real danger here, anyway?
Now, these are "only" sugar beets- the resultant refined sugar is quite a bit removed from the roots themselves- we don't eat sugar beets! But if such a processed product arouses this level of scrutiny, how much more will vegetables that are consumed at lower degree of processing (e.g., frozen potato strips, vegetable)?
Hats off to Monsanto and the USDA for sticking to their guns and moving forward based on the best scientific evidence!
Tim