4 ms·

Its incredibly carcinogenic. Not just the carbonization of the food, but the heating to a high temperature and reheating of cooking oil is quite bad. "The repe

Its incredibly carcinogenic. Not just the carbonization of the food, but the heating to a high temperature and reheating of cooking oil is quite bad. "The repeated reheating of cooking oil changes its composition and releases acrolein, which is a toxic and potentially carcinogenic chemical." https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324806 https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324806 Other links. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39767-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39767-1 https://www.ift.org/news-and-publications/food-technology-magazine/issues/2018/may/features/do-cooking-oils-present-a-health-risk https://www.ift.org/news-and-publications/food-technology-ma...

ByThyGrace 5y ago
"It's incredibly carcinogenic" if you go completely overboard when using vegetable oils. As the ift.org article you linked to explains: > First of all, cooking with vegetable oil in the home (frying or sautéing) presents very little risk as the oil is typically used only once and heated for a short period of time (often less than 10 min). It is also possible to control the temperature of the oil, which should not exceed 190°C (374°F) and is best heated to 180°C (356°F) or lower. The oil should also not be heated at or above the oil’s smoke point. Then it explains that the actual risk is from frequently consuming deep fried meals produced commercially.
corty 5y ago
There is a huge difference between "incredibly carcinogenic" and "potentially carcinogenic". Basically everything that comes out of a pan or fryer and is even slightly darker than "basically raw" will have some carcinogenic compounds. Frying any biomatter will create some measurable quantity of carcinogens, depending on the temperature and composition. First you will get the likes of Acrylamide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (e.g. Furan), Amines. In the presence of salt, spices, certain oils you can get even nastier stuff like Dioxines. And if you heat it even further, getting a few black spots, you are left with basic carbon. Even that isn't harmless, carbon modifications that you will produce in some minute quantity, like nanotubes and fullerenes, are carcinogenic. Denaturing hydrocarbons like in cooking will inevitably produce some of the above compounds, there is no way around it. You can try to avoid producing some of them by carefully steering conditions in a way that reduces some of the above compounds. But usually that increases the risk of other ones being produced. You can also undercook everything, but then you'll be left with unsafe food because of the bacterial risk. All of the above are carcinogenic in (comparatively) huge quantities. Usually "in mice". The link to cancers caused by preparation of food is vague at best, totally speculative at worst. I don't worry about it, and neither should you. If you really want to learn about risky foodstuff, read up about cyanide in almonds and other fruits with a stone (people even eat that stuff "for health reasons"..., e.g. https://www.webmd.com/cancer/cancer-apricot-seeds https://www.webmd.com/cancer/cancer-apricot-seeds ), coumarin (basically an anticoagulant, in higher doses rat poison) in cinnamon, tonka beans and woodruff, and the funny flourinated compounds you get from overheated PTFE-coated cookware (the presence of acid lowers the "fun" temperature but at least might prevent production of gaseous hydroflouric acid). There, the risky dose is much much much closer to the usual kitchen use. In comparison, all of the kitchen cancer scare is harmless.
- jefftk 5y ago
  > Denaturing hydrocarbons like in cooking will inevitably produce some of the above compounds, there is no way around it. You can try to avoid producing some of them by carefully steering conditions in a way that reduces some of the above compounds. But usually that increases the risk of other ones being produced. You can also undercook everything, but then you'll be left with unsafe food because of the bacterial risk. You can use the sous vide approach, cooking to the safe temperature and no higher. But browning is tasty and the cancer contribution is very low.
  - wiz21c 5y ago
    Yep the "sous-vide" thing has been reported to me as the safest approach by a lab specializing in the design of new food for top cooks and industrial food. But you have to buy new cookware... And theses things are not exactly cheap (if you want something that works reliably)...
    - tstrimple 5y ago
      Sous vide is relatively inexpensive. You just need a container big enough (plenty of people use plastic or styrofoam coolers) and entry level Sous vide machine are a little over $100 last I checked. All the device does is recirculate water and it heat up to a certain temp for a few hours. Not much to them.
      - jefftk 5y ago
        Yes: if someone wanted to switch entirely from traditional cooking to sous vide they would need much less equipment, and it would be cheaper. (Not that I would want to give up browning)
    - BBC-vs-neolibs 5y ago
      I'm wary of the use of plastic in sous vide. What about softeners in plastic and unknown hormonal imbalances because of plastic.
    - 5y ago

ByThyGrace 5y ago

"It's incredibly carcinogenic" if you go completely overboard when using vegetable oils. As the ift.org article you linked to explains: > First of all, cooking with vegetable oil in the home (frying or sautéing) presents very little risk as the oil is typically used only once and heated for a short period of time (often less than 10 min). It is also possible to control the temperature of the oil, which should not exceed 190°C (374°F) and is best heated to 180°C (356°F) or lower. The oil should also not be heated at or above the oil’s smoke point. Then it explains that the actual risk is from frequently consuming deep fried meals produced commercially.

corty 5y ago

There is a huge difference between "incredibly carcinogenic" and "potentially carcinogenic". Basically everything that comes out of a pan or fryer and is even slightly darker than "basically raw" will have some carcinogenic compounds. Frying any biomatter will create some measurable quantity of carcinogens, depending on the temperature and composition. First you will get the likes of Acrylamide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (e.g. Furan), Amines. In the presence of salt, spices, certain oils you can get even nastier stuff like Dioxines. And if you heat it even further, getting a few black spots, you are left with basic carbon. Even that isn't harmless, carbon modifications that you will produce in some minute quantity, like nanotubes and fullerenes, are carcinogenic. Denaturing hydrocarbons like in cooking will inevitably produce some of the above compounds, there is no way around it. You can try to avoid producing some of them by carefully steering conditions in a way that reduces some of the above compounds. But usually that increases the risk of other ones being produced. You can also undercook everything, but then you'll be left with unsafe food because of the bacterial risk. All of the above are carcinogenic in (comparatively) huge quantities. Usually "in mice". The link to cancers caused by preparation of food is vague at best, totally speculative at worst. I don't worry about it, and neither should you. If you really want to learn about risky foodstuff, read up about cyanide in almonds and other fruits with a stone (people even eat that stuff "for health reasons"..., e.g. https://www.webmd.com/cancer/cancer-apricot-seeds https://www.webmd.com/cancer/cancer-apricot-seeds ), coumarin (basically an anticoagulant, in higher doses rat poison) in cinnamon, tonka beans and woodruff, and the funny flourinated compounds you get from overheated PTFE-coated cookware (the presence of acid lowers the "fun" temperature but at least might prevent production of gaseous hydroflouric acid). There, the risky dose is much much much closer to the usual kitchen use. In comparison, all of the kitchen cancer scare is harmless.

jefftk 5y ago
> Denaturing hydrocarbons like in cooking will inevitably produce some of the above compounds, there is no way around it. You can try to avoid producing some of them by carefully steering conditions in a way that reduces some of the above compounds. But usually that increases the risk of other ones being produced. You can also undercook everything, but then you'll be left with unsafe food because of the bacterial risk. You can use the sous vide approach, cooking to the safe temperature and no higher. But browning is tasty and the cancer contribution is very low.
- wiz21c 5y ago
  Yep the "sous-vide" thing has been reported to me as the safest approach by a lab specializing in the design of new food for top cooks and industrial food. But you have to buy new cookware... And theses things are not exactly cheap (if you want something that works reliably)...
  - tstrimple 5y ago
    Sous vide is relatively inexpensive. You just need a container big enough (plenty of people use plastic or styrofoam coolers) and entry level Sous vide machine are a little over $100 last I checked. All the device does is recirculate water and it heat up to a certain temp for a few hours. Not much to them.
    - jefftk 5y ago
      Yes: if someone wanted to switch entirely from traditional cooking to sous vide they would need much less equipment, and it would be cheaper. (Not that I would want to give up browning)
  - BBC-vs-neolibs 5y ago
    I'm wary of the use of plastic in sous vide. What about softeners in plastic and unknown hormonal imbalances because of plastic.
  - 5y ago