Consumo de alimentos fritos aumenta incidencia de agentes carcinógenos, concluye estudio

POR LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | FEBRERO 9, 2013

Consumir alimentos fritos más frecuentes, como las patatas o el pollo, se asocia con un mayor riesgo de cáncer de próstata, según un estudio realizado por investigadores del Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center en Seattle, EE.UU..

Estudios anteriores han sugerido que comer alimentos preparados con los métodos de cocción que utilizan altas temperaturas podría aumentar el riesgo de cáncer de próstata, sin embargo, este es el primero en examinar la adición de fritura.

En concreto, el autor principal Janet L. Stanford y su equipo analizaron los datos de 1.549 hombres diagnosticados con cáncer de próstata. A los participantes se les pidió que completaran un cuestionario sobre la dieta y la ingesta regular de alimentos, incluidos los alimentos fritos.

Ellos encontraron que los hombres que comían papas, pollo frito pescado y buñuelos, entre otros alimentos, por lo menos una vez a la semana, tenían un riesgo mayor de cáncer de próstata en comparación con aquellos que sólo comían por una vez al mes. Por lo tanto, aquellos que comían una o más de los elementos anteriores a la semana tuvieron un riesgo mayor de cáncer de próstata — entre 30 y 37%.

El consumo semanal de estos alimentos también se asoció con un riesgo ligeramente mayor de padecer cáncer de próstata del tipo más agresivo. “La relación entre el cáncer de próstata y los alimentos fritos parecía limitarse al nivel más alto de consumo — se define en el estudio como más de una vez a la semana, lo que sugiere que el consumo regular de alimentos fritos crea un riesgo particular de desarrollar cáncer de próstata”, dijo Stanford .

Su hipótesis es que cuando se calienta el aceite, se crean compuestos potencialmente cancerígenos, tales como acrilamida, aminas heterocíclicas, hidrocarburos aromáticos policíclicos, aldehídos y acroleína. La presencia de estos compuestos tóxicos aumenta con la reutilización del aceite, que es algo que se hace en prácticamente todos y cada uno de los restaurantes de comida rápida en el mundo.

The Real Agenda permite la reproducción del contenido original publicado en el sitio SOLAMENTE a través de las herramientas proporcionadas al final de cada artículo. Por favor NO COPIE contenido de nuestro sitio para redistribuirlo o enviarlo por correo electrónico.

Fried oil enhances appearance of carcinogens, concludes study

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JANUARY 29, 2013

Frequently consuming fried foods such as potatoes or chicken is associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer, according to a study by researchers at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, USA.

Previous studies have suggested that eating foods prepared with cooking methods that use high temperatures could increase the risk of prostate cancer, however, this is the first to examine the addition of frying.

Specifically, lead author Janet L. Stanford and his team analyzed data from 1,549 men diagnosed with prostate cancer. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire about diet and regular intake of foods including fried foods.

They found that men who ate potatoes, fried chicken, fish and donuts, among other foods, at least once a week had a higher risk of prostate cancer compared to those who only ate at least once a month. So, those who ate one or more of the items above per week had a higher risk of prostate cancer — 30 to 37 %.

Weekly consumption of these foods was also associated with a slightly increased risk of developing prostate cancer of the more aggressive type. “The relationship between prostate cancer and fried foods seemed limited to the highest level of consumption — defined in the study, as more than once a week, which suggests that regular consumption of fried foods creates a particular risk to develop prostate cancer, “said Stanford.

His hypothesis is that when the oil is heated, potentially carcinogenic compounds, such as acrylamide, heterocyclic amines, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, aldehyde and acrolein are created. The presence of these toxic compounds increases with oil reuse, which is something done at virtually every single fast-food restaurant in the world.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

U.S. Feds: Airport Scanners DO Store Naked Body Images

TSA requires all airport body scanners it purchases to be able to store and transmit images for “testing, training, and evaluation purposes.”

CNET

For the last few years, federal agencies have defended body scanning by insisting that all images will be discarded as soon as they’re viewed. The Transportation Security Administration claimed last summer, for instance, that “scanned images cannot be stored or recorded.”

Now it turns out that some police agencies are storing the controversial images after all. The U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had surreptitiously saved tens of thousands of images recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse.

This follows an earlier disclosure (PDF) by the TSA that it requires all airport body scanners it purchases to be able to store and transmit images for “testing, training, and evaluation purposes.” The agency says, however, that those capabilities are not normally activated when the devices are installed at airports.

Body scanners penetrate clothing to provide a highly detailed image so accurate that critics have likened it to a virtual strip search. Technologies vary, with millimeter wave systems capturing fuzzier images, and backscatter X-ray machines able to show precise anatomical detail. The U.S. government likes the idea because body scanners can detect concealed weapons better than traditional magnetometers.

This privacy debate, which has been simmering since the days of the Bush administration, came to a boil two weeks ago when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that scanners would soon appear at virtually every major airport. The updated list includes airports in New York City, Dallas, Washington, Miami, San Francisco, Seattle, and Philadelphia.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, has filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to grant an immediate injunction pulling the plug on TSA’s body scanning program. In a separate lawsuit, EPIC obtained a letter (PDF) from the Marshals Service, part of the Justice Department, and released it on Tuesday afternoon.

These “devices are designed and deployed in a way that allows the images to be routinely stored and recorded, which is exactly what the Marshals Service is doing,” EPIC executive director Marc Rotenberg told CNET. “We think it’s significant.”

William Bordley, an associate general counsel with the Marshals Service, acknowledged in the letter that “approximately 35,314 images…have been stored on the Brijot Gen2 machine” used in the Orlando, Fla. federal courthouse. In addition, Bordley wrote, a Millivision machine was tested in the Washington, D.C. federal courthouse but it was sent back to the manufacturer, which now apparently possesses the image database.

The Gen 2 machine, manufactured by Brijot of Lake Mary, Fla., uses a millimeter wave radiometer and accompanying video camera to store up to 40,000 images and records. Brijot boasts that it can even be operated remotely: “The Gen 2 detection engine capability eliminates the need for constant user observation and local operation for effective monitoring. Using our APIs, instantly connect to your units from a remote location via the Brijot Client interface.”

This trickle of disclosures about the true capabilities of body scanners–and how they’re being used in practice–is probably what alarms privacy advocates more than anything else.

A 70-page document (PDF) showing the TSA’s procurement specifications, classified as “sensitive security information,” says that in some modes the scanner must “allow exporting of image data in real time” and provide a mechanism for “high-speed transfer of image data” over the network. (It also says that image filters will “protect the identity, modesty, and privacy of the passenger.”)

“TSA is not being straightforward with the public about the capabilities of these devices,” Rotenberg said. “This is the Department of Homeland Security subjecting every U.S. traveler to an intrusive search that can be recorded without any suspicion–I think it’s outrageous.” EPIC’s lawsuit says that the TSA should have announced formal regulations, and argues that the body scanners violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits “unreasonable” searches.

TSA spokeswoman Sari Koshetz told CNET on Wednesday that the agency’s scanners are delivered to airports with the image recording functions turned off. “We’re not recording them,” she said. “I’m reiterating that to the public. We are not ever activating those capabilities at the airport.”

The TSA maintains that body scanning is perfectly constitutional: “The program is designed to respect individual sensibilities regarding privacy, modesty and personal autonomy to the maximum extent possible, while still performing its crucial function of protecting all members of the public from potentially catastrophic events.”