Last week, the SF
Chronicle ran an article with the headline “Cancer labels on cereal ruled
unnecessary.” Here is the link to the
article.
The article provides us
with an opportunity to investigate what regulation is intended to do, what it
does, and how we evaluate information.
California Proposition 65
requires that companies notify consumers of cancer- or birth-defect-causing
ingredients. As a result, we see things
like notices on fancy crystal, on alcoholic drinks, and even on
Disneyland. The goal of the proposition
is to allow us the opportunity to make informed decisions about what to ingest
and/or come in contact with.
Unfortunately, many of the warnings do not specify what ingredients are
problematic.
Digging deeper into the
specific case in the article, I checked out acrylamide. It is a chemical created by heat in specific
foods and also has topical effects. In
laboratory animals, it does seem to correlate with cancer of various
types. There is limited experimental
evidence of cancer-causing in humans and the levels in the foods in question
are low enough to be unlikely to cause issues.
That said, manufacturers
of the cereals don’t want to put the labels on their product because they want
to sell more product. While we can
assume that killing consumers is bad for marketing, the purpose of cereal
companies is not to make healthy consumers, but to make more profits. We can safely assume that companies will
trumpet health claims and bury danger signs whenever possible.
The position of the court
in the ruling focused on the fact that many of the cereals in question are
whole-grain products and that Americans, in general, should be eating more
whole grains. The court feels that the
risk of not eating whole grains is worse than the risk of contracting cancer from
acrylamide. Whether we agree with that
ruling is up to us.
Bottom line, as always,
is check it out. Research whenever
possible. Find the data and
evaluate. (Suggested further reading: Marion Nestle’s Food Politics, which explores some of the reasons why industry and
government nutrition information can have serious flaws.)