[ RadSafe ] Risk in general - not radiation-specific

[James Salsman]

The acrylamide story, and the history of its proposed
regulation in California is more complicated and less
oppressive than the news posted today might make one might
think.  There is no question that acrylamide is a
carcinogen in large doses, and nobody knows whether
effects from exposure to it fits the LNT model or not.
However, the OEHHA has been bending over backwards to
exempt moderate levels of the substance, which is common
in very many foods to some degree.

Acrylamide doesn't just occur in high-fat foods.  It is a
product of certain kinds of cooking processes, and I think
it is reasonable for the government to regulate it.  In many
cases it will be easy for bread bakers and french fry fryers
to change there processes to reduce acrylamide levels in
their products to below the new "no significant risk" level
which, I might add, is new for acrylamide and hasn't even
been proposed for any other Proposition 65-regulated
substance before.  The OEHHA went way out of their way with
their acrylamide "no significant risk" proposal, beyond
the letter but within the spirit of the Proposition 65 law,
and those of us opposed to excessive government regulation
(yes I am, too) should give credit to OEHHA in this case.

See the CA-OEHHA public comments for the whole story:
   http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/3proposedacryl.html
and more background information here:
   http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/acrylamide.html

Sincerely,
James Salsman