26 January 2017
Crispy Roast Potatoes And Browned Toast A Cancer Risk
‘Going for Gold’. Is the Food Standards Agency (FSA) warning really necessary?
By Lynda Goetz
With all that is going on in the world, the announcement by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) that we should avoid eating crispy potatoes or well-browned toast seems really rather trivial and something of a storm in a teacup. Based purely on research in mice, the advice has raised something of a controversy, with experts warning that it detracts from more serious issues such as obesity.
The advice, issued under the logo ‘Go for Gold’, states that people can lower their risk of contracting cancer by avoiding over-browning root vegetables including potatoes and keeping their toast ‘golden’ rather than on the burnt side. The chemical causing concern is acrylamide, which forms in some foods when they are cooked at temperatures over 120°C. It forms due to a chemical reaction between certain sugars and an amino acid in the food when this is fried, roasted, baked, grilled or toasted, rather than boiling, steaming or microwaving. Apparently, we should no longer ‘fluff’ the potatoes before roasting them (usually done by par-boiling them before putting into the hot fat or oil) as this increases the surface area and maximises crispness. What, you might ask, is the point of eating ‘uncrispy’ roast potatoes? Well, I’m not sure really, but what I am certain about is that warnings of this nature are really, really annoying. As Sir David Spiegelhalter, OBE FRS, a statistician and Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at Cambridge University (I had no idea there was such a post – fascinating) pointed out, “Many things in life may increase risk, but it’s the size of the risk that is important”.
Edwina Currie, a former Conservative Health Minister, said, “I think people will be puzzled when they see this campaign, as the Government appears to have launched it before doing all the research.” This echoed Professor Spiegalhalter’s comment that he was “ambivalent about public health campaigns that are not based on pretty firm quantitative evidence”. Various others have commented in similar vein. Quite why this has surfaced as an item of news again at this point is also something of a mystery, as the Daily Mail ran an article on it back in November 2015 and it does not seem clear whether any further evidence has come to light since that time. In fact, come to think of it, hasn’t it long been the case that we have been warned about the carcinogenic effects of eating overdone or burnt foods?
Some further investigation showed that a Dutch study in 2007, reported by the BBC, first found a link between acrylamides and cancer, although the dangers of acrylamides were first highlighted five years earlier. Food experts stated then that it is almost impossible to eliminate acrylamides from the diet altogether and that ‘a balanced diet with plenty of fruit and vegetables’ was advisable. Acrylamides, by the way, are not the same chemicals we have been warned about in relation to overcooked meats. These are heterocyclic amines (HCA) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). Meats cooked at high temperatures or for a long time tend to form HCAs. PAHs are formed when meat is exposed to charring or smoke. Both become capable of damaging DNA after they are metabolized by specific enzymes in the body, and studies have shown that exposure to HCAs and PAHs can cause cancer in animal models. Research is ongoing with regard to establishing a definitive link in humans, although researchers have apparently found that high consumption of well-done, fried or barbecued meats was associated with increased risks of colorectal, pancreatic and prostate cancers. Even though no official guidelines exist, there are various suggestions for ‘concerned individuals’ all of which (such as ‘using a microwave oven to cook meat prior to exposure to high temperatures’ or ‘refraining from using gravy made from meat drippings’) sound absolutely certain to make the meat less tasty and rule out barbecues altogether.
So, should we all be paying attention to these warnings issued by researchers and government bodies? Are the size of the risks sufficient to alarm us and warn us off certain foods, methods of cooking or lifestyles? Or is it this sort of scaremongering which leads to a loss of faith in experts and an increasing scepticism about the advice that is being given? As the outpourings of advice flow over us, it would seem to be increasingly a matter of personal judgement as to how much we should take notice and how much we should ignore. We are all going to die of something. At what age we do so is going to depend to some extent on our genes, to some extent on how healthy a life we lead and maybe also on that strange element called fate or what, depending on your beliefs, might be attributed to ‘the gods’ or ‘The Will of God’. However, if leading a totally healthy life means a life deprived of certain pleasures, then there are those who may choose to lead a shorter, less healthy life. Is that going to be a choice we are allowed to make in the future or will we be deprived of that choice on the basis that we might cost the taxpayer more in health or social care? If that is to be the case, then Government bodies such as the FSA must be very careful indeed that risk warnings issued are backed up by proper evidence and studies and are not simply fired off randomly. Should taxpayers’ money be spent on such campaigns? Many may well choose to go for silver, bronze or lower if the gold standard is just too hard or tedious to achieve, and where will that leave the standing of the Government bodies? Certainly not in line for gold, silver or bronze but somewhere right down at the bottom of the rankings.
If you enjoyed this article please share it using the buttons above.
Please click here if you would like a weekly email on publication of the ShawSheet
