No acrylamide in Boiled/steamed? Don't kid yourself...

One of my brothers is a top ranked chemist here in Texas who runs a large water municipality. Although he is a SAD eater himself, he was telling me some interesting things this past weekend about testing for chemicals in food, acrylamide in particular. I want to broadcast this across the board because awhile back mario was claiming there isn't any acrylamide in boiled food. I disputed this because I'd read differently. It turns out that I had remembered accurately. The test I'd seen had been conducted by the World Health Organization. It did in fact show acrylamide in boiled food. My brother confirmed this and explained the confusion over it. Yes, acrylamide has in fact been found in boiled and steamed food - and at higher concentrations than the EPA deems safe in drinking water. He said the only reason it isn't always found in boiled food is because the two tests used for acrylamide in food are notoriously insensitive. They are almost useless at detecting concentrations below a certain level. The significant detail, though, is that almost every level below those test-detection ranges is still considered a carcinogen by the World Health Organization. As soon as a more sensitive test is had, my brother says - and the EPA has recommended that one be developed due to the "inadequacy" of the current tests - as soon as a sufficient test is available, boiled and steamed will officially join all other cooked foods as containing cancer causing levels of acrylamide. The upshot: anyone eating boiled or steamed food thinking he isn't getting acrylamide, and at carcinogenic levels, is fooling himself... What would you expect an addict to do?

3 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Carl Andrews on June 21, 2012 at 8:11am

Liam,
: I don't think any major health organization will dub cooked vegetables "cancer causing".; Years ago, the FDA was saying that most cancers were genetic. Now they're saying most cancers are environmental. Waiting for them to tell you the truth is waiting too long.

So you're saying the WHO are saying any amount is carcinogenic?; No, they didn't say that, but the levels could easily be far above what the EPA considers safe in drinking water. This has been found true of foods cooked at well below the boiling point, as said. (The EPA established "safe" levels for drinking water because acrylamide is used as an agent to purify water.)

Thanks,

Carl

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Liam G on June 21, 2012 at 8:43pm

Carl

Acrylamide in drinking water will likely present a bigger risk then when contained in a whole food. Like the sugar or phytates in bananas. Neither do I think the EPA are saying those levels are cancer causing.

As far as I can see. The WHO haven't set a level. There's apparently no evidence for acrylamide causing cancer in humans, only animals. I dont think these animals would have been eating boiled brusseel sprouts either, but rather acrylamide in it's pure form or grilled/baked food. We have been eating cooked food for likely somewhere between 250, 000 and 2.5 million years so it would make sense that we're less sensitive to it than other animals.

Since you don't need acrylamide and it's a potential risk you could say it's best to avoid it, but saying boiled brocolli is causing cancer is ridicolous.

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/chem/acrylamide_faqs/en/...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carl Andrews on June 22, 2012 at 6:39am

Liam,

Acrylamide in drinking water will likely present a bigger risk then when contained in a whole food.

Really? What clinical support do you have for this idea?

Like the sugar or phytates in bananas.

Neither of these would be comparable to acrylamide. To my knowledge, sugar has not been shown to cause cancer. It feeds cancer cells, just as it feeds all cells, but it's certainly not the root of the condition. Phytates don't cause cancer either. They bind minerals and can reduce their absorption, but this is only a problem in foods high in phytates, like beans and grains, both of which must be cooked. There are in fact very small and benign levels of phytates in a few fruits but none at all in bananas. At any rate, in food or not, neither sugar nor phytates is a valid comparison to acrylamide, which is a highly caustic chemical, clinically shown to cause cancer in mamals.

We have been eating cooked food for likely somewhere between 250, 000 and 2.5 million years so it would make sense that we're less sensitive to it than other animals.

This is mere conjecture. And while this assumption would seem plausible at first perhaps, on second look, in making a few comparisons, it loses its leverage almost entirely. After all, by your logic here, other toxic byproducts of cooking like HCAs and PAHs, which have been included in the human folly for as long as acrylamide, should have lost their carcinogenic potency as well, but they haven't. On the contrary...

...saying boiled brocolli is causing cancer is ridicolous.

Depending on personal affinities your claim here might at least carry some emotional weight. But as an objective starting point it hasn't any use at all. In science, one has to shed such emotional loyalties, whether for apple pie, whole milk, home cooking, plastic baby bottles, heat softened broccoli or cigarettes, and simply follow the findings. If cooking creates carcinogens, then it does - no matter the implications for god, home, mama and apple pie...

Since you don't need acrylamide and it's a potential risk you could say it's best to avoid it...

Now you're really cookin' Liam - in a good way, lol...

Thanks,

Carl

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Liam G on June 22, 2012 at 8:57am

You're not convinced things will have more impact in isolation. No, acrylamide is not in complete isolation when it's with water with other minerals, chemicals and whatever else is in tap water, but it's not like it's contained in a whole food either with fibre, vitamins, minerals, fats, carbohydrates and water etc. Drink it with water and the water will pass rather quickly into your small intestine where the acrylamide will be easily accessible. You might (or might not)still absorb the same amount when in food but at a slower pace your body will be more able to handle. When you're eating something like brocolli, or carrots, you're also consuming anti cancer nutrients. Yes those nutrients could have been used for something else you're probably thinking, but it still doesn't mean that cooked vegetables will likely cause cancer. Just that they might waste a few nutrients.

I'm not saying phytates or sugar cause cancer. I'm saying they're bad for your health. Refined sugar causes a lot of problems. I don't think you need that explaining. I know what phytates are. If phytates were higher in bananas than in mangoes, would you tell people to stop eating mangoes?

I haven't even seen these studies you're quoting. Maybe post them in the original thread post if you want me (and anyone else that requires a reference)to take you seriously.

Yes I would like to stick to the facts. The facts are, no-one has said acrylamide is cancer causing (to humans)at any level according to the link I provided (the WHO). With the cooking being around a long time for us thing, I was merely offering a hypothesis as to why we haven't yet found evidence of acrylamide being carcinogenic in humans. Just because other by products of cooking have been confirmed carcinogenic or toxic (according to you), doesn't prove all of them are does it? Why not just bring up these? If only everything was that simple. The WHO cleary don't even care enough about these things to tell people to stop eating cooked food.

So do you think cooked brocolli will cause people cancer? Have you heard of mcdougall diet? Do you not trust him or his testimonials? What makes people here more trustable if so? I'm not promoting cooked food or anything. I'm saying it's not always bad even if it's not the best. Even people like Harley will tell you this. Ask him, he'll tell you Mcdougall diet was great for him, but that he feels better eating fruits.

You seem to be the one with an emotional attachment. An emotional attachment to this argument. You don't really care about peoples health do you? If you did you wouldn't be saying this non sense.

If some organization says acrylamide shouldn't be consumed above this certain level you're quite happy to accept that as fact, but if they say cooked food is fine, you can't. That's kind of biased.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Liam G on June 22, 2012 at 8:08pm

Would you tell people to stop eating bananas i meant :D

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carl Andrews on June 22, 2012 at 10:39pm

Liam,

Thanks for the latest reply. It's rather lenghthy though and I won't be able to handle it today. Will get back to you tomorrow probably. Maybe Dangermouse will jump in in the meantime, lol. I've got plenty to say, myself. See you soon...

Carl

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dangermouse on June 23, 2012 at 3:38am

I'm sure Carl will be back with all kinds of information for you. In the meantime, regardless of the position of the WHO, consulting the Google will get you studies linking acrylamide consumption and cancer that you might like to look at. I don't think you can get away with saying

we haven't yet found evidence of acrylamide being carcinogenic in humans.

The fact that diets like McDougall's and like the Gerson therapy have such profound effects on people says more about how poor their diets were before switching. Try doing one of those programs after being lfrv for a year or two and you'll feel awful - I know.

I'm saying it's not always bad even if it's not the best. Even people like Harley will tell you this. Ask him, he'll tell you Mcdougall diet was great for him, but that he feels better eating fruits.

And that's what it always comes down to for me - good, better, best. No one's saying steamed veg aren't better for you than other things. No one's saying "broccoli causes cancer." We're talking about a scale of risk factors. If a person is happy with better than average, fine. We all make compromises. That doesn't mean we should pretend to people that it's anything other than better than average and not let them know that there's a best out there.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Liam G on June 23, 2012 at 5:04am

"as soon as a sufficient test is available, boiled and steamed will officially join all other cooked foods as containing cancer causing levels of acrylamide."

That's in the original post. So yes, Carl pretty much is saying cooked brocolli is cancer causing.

If someone has cancer, and they do Mcdougall diet and lose the cancer, that means either the diet is cancer reversing or not carcinogenic enough that the body can't heal itself. Either way you can't really say it's cancer causing. If someone can reverse cancer on the diet then what chance does someone without cancer have of getting it?

High levels of acrylamide probably do contribute to cancer growth sure, I won't argue with that, but low levels (the kind you'd find in boiled foods) of acrylamide is a different story.

Carl thought he could get away with saying boiled/steamed foods are cancer causing because they've apparently found levels in them which surpass the EPAs safety limit. I don't see how this relates to diet really and they didn't even say higher levels would be cancer causing. Sure there's a level where it would likely become significantly carcinogenic, but nobody seems to really know what that level is. If he has further evidence to support his claims then great. I'm all ears, but so far it's a rather sloppy argument.

You can't really even say that raw food is significantly safer than foods containing low levels of it. Where's that science? Come on. There are far bigger issues than this.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carl Andrews on June 26, 2012 at 10:02pm

Liam,

Sorry for the delay but I'm no longer as willing to spend much time on the computer when I don't have to. However, it's an important issue so I can't resist forever, lol... I think you are smart and make good points, but have some things for you to consider...

...but it still doesn't mean that cooked vegetables will likely cause cancer. Just that they might waste a few nutrients.

Aside from harmful byproducts, my biggest concern is that the beneficial nutrients are fairly diminished in cooking. Why expose food to almost twice the temperature (in boiling) it takes to destroy vitamins, alter proteins and create toxic peroxides from fats? If boiling or steaming for the shortest time possible does the least harm, why not go all the way to no harm by not cooking at all? Moreover, in addition to the toxicity, it also seems that any advantage gained in nutrient availability in cooking is more than annulled by the loss of nutrients to heat damage. Up to 80% of nutrients like folate and 50% of those like B12 and antioxidant are lost in short boiling. Dr. D. says research has shown that the fifty or more greater percentage of nutrients in raw than cooked more than overrides the nutrient release "advantage" cooking might occasionally have. Even in those instances, the sum total of assimilated nutrient is still considerably larger in raw because there is so much more nutrient in raw to begin with.

If some organization says acrylamide shouldn't be consumed above this certain level you're quite happy to accept that as fact, but if they say cooked food is fine, you can't. That's kind of biased... The WHO cleary don't even ...tell people to stop eating cooked food.

Government organizations make no secret of their need to "balance" recommendations with concerns for things other than bodily health, namely, the health of the economy. They reveal this unabashedly in their mission statements. That, as well as the individual biases of scientists, such as their own addictions or preferences, certainly act as a considerable bulwark against change in food recs. That's what I was illustrating about their slow, begrudging progress in cancer research. It was their concern for industry, coupled with personal preferences, that made certain kinds of research and certain kinds of interpretation rather hard to come by for far too long, lol. This is the same highwire act I think could be happening now with acrylamide.

"as soon as a sufficient test is available, boiled and steamed will officially join all other cooked foods as containing cancer causing levels of acrylamide."

That's in the original post. So yes, Carl pretty much is saying cooked brocolli is cancer causing... High levels of acrylamide probably do contribute to cancer growth sure, I won't argue with that, but low levels (the kind you'd find in boiled foods) of acrylamide is a different story... Carl thought he could get away with saying boiled/steamed foods are cancer causing because they've apparently found levels in them which surpass the EPAs safety limit.

Again, I wouldn't see cancer as a single dose issue but rather one of accumulation. If the level is unsafe it's in relation to long term exposures. The important factor it would seem is one of toxic load. Or how much carcinogen one is exposed to from all sources. When it's a matter of choice you avoid exposure to acrylamide or BPA or fluoride, etc. In my opinion, a healthful low fat raw diet gets closer to a zero sum game than McDougal's.

So do you think cooked brocolli will cause people cancer? Have you heard of mcdougall diet? Do you not trust him or his testimonials? What makes people here more trustable if so? I'm not promoting cooked food or anything. I'm saying it's not always bad even if it's not the best. Even people like Harley will tell you this. Ask him, he'll tell you Mcdougall diet was great for him fo, but that he feels better eating fruits. You seem to be the one with an emotional attachment. An emotional attachment to this argument. You don't really care about peoples health do you? If you did you wouldn't be saying this non sense.

I think our disagreement is more of perspective than lack of care or intelligence on either side. You say cooking isn't the best, yes, but that it's good enough. As Dangermouse has acutely surmised,

my diet perspective is governed by a view of the optimal. That's not to out-rank anybody but just to aim at the best and lengthiest life possible. My opinion of just what the optimal is comes from as rigorous a combination of data and experience as I can manage.

From your question above, you might be surprised that I personally followed a McDougal like diet for some years, albeit a somewhat higher fat version than he recommends. My health improved significantly when I displaced that diet with a raw one of roughly the same fat content. (Of course it improved even more when I lowered the fat.) This experience, along with that of others around me, combined with supportive science, led me to conclude that cooking is neither necessary nor optimal and that it's better to eat all raw.

Since you brought it up, let me tell you a little story involving my my grasp of all things McDougal. Not long after I adopted a raw diet I became acquainted with a woman who had cured herself of advanced cancer. Her method involved little more than switching to an all raw diet. The successful shunning of radiation and chemo made it a story for the local media, in fact. However, in the long run, it wasn't such a pleasant narrative. It seems she was never able to quite relinquish her attachment to certain cooked ways. While she was raw she still used salt- replacement products and spices in her salads. I think it was this, this chemical and emotional reminder, coupled with some under-carbing, that kept up her cravings for cooked foods in general. Consequently, even as her health and confidence improved on raw, she couldn't evade the allure of her former habit and started conjuring up and reading about "healthier" ways to eat cooked foods, like McDougal's. Eventually it seems, the temptation overwhelmed her and she returned wholeheartedly to a McDougal style cooked diet. Within months she was dead of cancer. Her cancer roared back so swiftly on cooked food she hadn't even time to enact a second reversal. The suddenness of it shocked us all very deeply. I should say, my ex wife had weekly contact with this woman and I would personally talk to her at raw events such as Dr. D. lectures and local pot lucks, as well as when she'd visit at our house. In other words, my witness of her case was first-hand, so there's as little chance for distortion as possible. Out of respect, though, I won't use her name publicly here. But if anyone would like to verify this story on their own, just PM me and I'll let you know her identity.

Cancer rates may decrease on McDougal compared to SAD but in contrast to a healthful raw diet it's the other way around, I believe.

That's all I can say this morning. Will continue below later...

Thanks,

Carl

Permalink Reply by Carl Andrews on June 26, 2012 at 10:32pm

Fantastic, Dangermouse! This post says it all!

Thanks so much!

Carl

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jelle on June 21, 2012 at 2:51am

Just a question, I may be wrong here, doing this from memory. As I understood the human body also creates acrylamide as waste product from several metabolic processes. Does somebody know how high these values are?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carl Andrews on June 21, 2012 at 8:09am

Jelle,

Have read that too, and as I recall the amount is infinitesimal. Again, the important thing is that the EPA has set the "safe" levels well below what is in cooked foods. Eat raw and don't worry.

Thanks,

Carl