Americans may have plenty of reasons to fear French fries. While they are one of the country's favorite foods, they are soaked with trans fats, loaded with sodium and full of simple carbs, the bad kind. And, it turns out, they are also full of a chemical called acrylamide, which is known to cause cancer in laboratory rats and mice.
Bill Lockyer, California's attorney general, says that warning labels about acrylamide in fries and chips are intended to benefit everyone.
That discovery a few years ago has raised questions about the safety of fries, as well as potato chips, which are also packed with acrylamide.
It ultimately led to a showdown this summer over whether such foods should bear health warning labels and whether companies should be required to reduce acrylamide levels in their food.
The battle pits the activist attorney general of California against the food industry and the Food and Drug Administration.
What happens over the next few months could have a huge bearing on the eating habits of Americans, and may make a dent in the bottom lines of restaurants and food companies. French fries are the No. 1 consumed food in restaurants, according to the NPD Group, a research firm.
California's attorney general, Bill Lockyer, filed suit in August against McDonald's; Burger King; Frito-Lay, owned by PepsiCo; and six other food companies, saying that they should be forced to put labels on all fries and potato chips sold in California. The proposed warning might say something to this effect: "This product contains a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer."
The food industry, which might prefer seeing every American become vegan to being forced to put the word "cancer" on its products, is worried. Food companies argue, accurately, that scientists do not know for certain that acrylamide is carcinogenic to humans at the levels present in food. Acrylamide is not put into food, but is formed when starchy food is heated at high temperatures.
The F.D.A. is also opposed to labeling, pending its own review of the matter, which began in 2002 when scientists first discovered that acrylamide could be formed in food.
While legal specialists say the attorney general's lawsuit is something of a long shot, it is likely to spur further action. The California Environmental Protection Agency, which has also been looking at acrylamide for several years, says it will issue regulations by the end of this year. Proposals include displays of warning labels and signs in supermarkets and restaurants, as well as a total exemption for acrylamide in food - an option the food industry has lobbied heavily for but which is considered unlikely to be adopted.
Under Proposition 65, which California voters approved in 1986, the state is required to regulate chemicals that are known to cause cancer or reproductive harm and to force manufacturers to label their products or otherwise warn consumers. Acrylamide, a chemical that has a variety of industrial uses, has been on the Proposition 65 list since 1990.
In California, warning labels are currently found on products like paint solvents and fertilizer. In response to another lawsuit by the attorney general's office, supermarkets in the state recently started posting signs warning about mercury in certain fish at their seafood counters.
Were they ever to materialize, French fry and potato chip warning labels or signs would be required only in California. But among states, California has the nation's biggest economy, representing 13.5 percent of the national gross domestic product, and is often a regulatory trendsetter.
And fried potatoes are a big business throughout the country. Americans spend an estimated $4 billion a year on fries and $3 billion a year on potato chips. In addition to McDonald's, Burger King and Frito-Lay, other companies named in the suit are KFC, a division of Yum Brands; Wendy's International; Lance, which makes Cape Cod potato chips; H. J. Heinz, which produces Ore-Ida frozen potato products; the potato chip company Kettle Foods; and Procter & Gamble, which sells Pringles.
The regulation of chemicals in food has, for the last four decades, relied upon animal study extrapolation to determine risks to humans. For obvious ethical reasons, the testing of potential carcinogens is not done directly on humans; animals, particularly mice and rats, have served as proxies.
The California attorney general and several activist groups say that consumers should be given information so they can make informed food choices.
"Proposition 65 requires companies to tell us when we're exposed to potentially dangerous toxins in our food; the law benefits us all," said Mr. Lockyer, in a statement.
Edward G. Weil, California's deputy attorney general, said he was "not trying to ban French fries," but that he needed to take action in the absence of regulatory decisions by either the F.D.A. or the California E.P.A.
The attorney general's office cites a dozen acrylamide animal studies showing both cancer and birth defects, as well as the federal Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of the chemical as a carcinogen for 13 years.
