Examination of commercial potato chips to determine if baked versions are truly healthier than fried as advertised.
Most consumers associate baking to be a healthier manner of preparation of food than frying.
This would certainly be true for home cooking.
A baked potato, for example, would be a more nourishing choice than a fried potato given that starch subjected to high heat cooking forms acrylamide, a potent carcinogen.
Acrylamide forms even if a healthy cooking oil suitable for high heat cooking is used, like ghee, coconut oil, or pastured tallow.
What about processed foods like baked chips?
Does the same truism that baked is healthier than fried hold up to scrutiny or is it just marketing bling?
Let’s take a look at the labels for a popular brand of baked and fried potato chips.
Fried Potato Chips
Below is the label for a bag of Lay’s Classic Potato Chips.
The ingredients for the fried chips shown in the picture are very simple: Â potatoes, oil, and salt.
The oils used are very unhealthy as you can’t fry in sunflower, corn, or canola oil without completely denaturing them (some bags list soybean oil as well).
The fact that the oils aren’t hydrogenated does not mean they are healthier.
These vegetable oils are rancid from being highly processed at high temperatures. In addition, frying the potatoes ensures exposure to the carcinogen acrylamide.
So, are the fried chips healthy? Â Of course not.
Baked Potato Chips
Now let’s look at the ingredients label for the same brand’s version of baked potato chips. Â
The potatoes used are dried so they aren’t even fresh potatoes! Â
No information on how the potatoes were dried is provided. Â
If the potatoes were dried using a very high heat, which is likely, then acrylamide would be formed just like with the fried chips as the lower temperature baking occurs after the drying process!
Tricky, tricky, eh?
In addition, corn starch, corn oil, and soy lecithin are used. Since they are not organic, there is a high likelihood that these ingredients are all from genetically modified (GMO) sources.
Given that GMO corn is linked to liver and kidney damage in rats, these are not the innocuous ingredients food manufacturers would have you believe. (1)
In addition, sugar (from GMO beets) and corn sugar (aka, high fructose corn syrup) is stealthily included.
This means that while you are getting less of the unhealthy vegetable oils in the baked chips, you are getting ingredients that are arguably just as bad in return!
Note: Some bags list dextrose instead of corn sugar, but both are from GMO corn. Six of one and a half dozen of the other.
The Truth about Baked Chips vs Fried
Studies have shown that roughly half the tested samples of commercial high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) are contaminated with mercury. (2)
Even if not laced with heavy metals, many scientists note that HFCS can dramatically increase the risk of obesity, metabolic syndrome, and liver damage.
So it would seem that the baked chips are no better than the fried chips after all!
Buying the baked chips is robbing Peter to pay Paul by swapping one set of toxins for another.
In fact, the baked chips may actually be the more unhealthy choice as the baked chips are more highly processed than the fried chips.
They also contain more genetically modified ingredients and possibly a bit of neurotoxic mercury residue to boot.
Skip the Baked Chips Upsell
Some well-known restaurant chains like Subway try to make a big deal out of the fact that they offer baked chips.
Now you know that this choice is no better and likely even worse than the fried chips alternative.
By the way, tests show that Subway chicken is less than 50% real meat.
What’s more, the Subway tuna sandwiches don’t test for any fish DNA either.
This chain isn’t exactly on the up and up about their food including the baked chips upselling strategy.
How to Enjoy Truly Healthy Chips!
Just because the baked chips at the store are a scam doesn’t mean that there are no healthy chips to be found!
Here are a few recipes I use in my home so our family can enjoy chips for salads, sandwiches, lunch boxes, and snacks.
(1) Monsanto’s Corn Linked to Organ Failure
(2) Mercury in High Fructose Corn Syrup
Huh? I think she’s trying to point out that since both baked and fried chips have 9 grams of fat, save yourself the trouble and eat regular old chips. I don’t really see your point. She explained hers well, though.
Easier to make your own baked tortilla chips! Cut into pieces, spray with cooking oil, bake at 400F for 5+ minutes. You can make your own wraps with the tortilla itself, and have the chips on the side! (:
hey, im a high school student doing a research project about this. it would be helpful if you could possibly give me some links.
You make a lot of silly assumption that herd-minded people will eagerly agree with. I know of no one who views baked chips as “healthy.” Instead, most people want something that is less calorie dense. Also, there is a taste factor, some people prefer the taste and texture of baked chips. So stop making your oh-so-cool assumptions; we all know you are too cool to “fall” for anything, so just end your nonsense there.
Here are some scientific abstracts and journals showing no link between dietary consumption of acrylamide and various types of cancer. A simple search of the internet can provide a few more articles in regards to various other cancer types. The cancer caused in rats doesn’t appear to have the same effect on consumption in humans. Here are actual facts to back it up. The Dave has a very valid point on Sarah’s beliefs (not facts) of acrylamide. Definitely a big difference between showing vague links between something and providing factual links between two things. Thank you for highlighting concerns about acrylamide but please provide facts (in the article you are typing, not just links) when trying to convince me to change my life.
“During a mean follow-up of 17.4 years, a total of 2,952 incident cases of breast cancer were diagnosed in the cohort. In multivariate analyses controlling for breast cancer risk factors, no statistically significant association was observed between long-term acrylamide intake (assessed at baseline and in 1997) and the risk of breast cancer, overall or by estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) status.”
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/169/3/376
“Compared with the lowest quartile of acrylamide intake (<29.6μg/d), the multivariate rate ratios for the highest quartile (41.7μg/d) were 0.95 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74—1.20) for colorectal cancer, 0.97 (95% CI 0.71—1.31) for colon cancer and 0.91 (95% CI 0.62—1.34) for rectal cancer. In conclusion, this study provides no evidence that dietary acrylamide in amounts typically consumed by Swedish men is associated with risk of colorectal cancer."
http://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(08)01005-8/abstract
I know that we should limit our fried food intake and on the whole potato chips are really not a good thing. However, I confess they are my nemesis and I do break down and eat a few on occasion. The good news for me is that I think I have found a decent chip for these times. They are Jackson’s Honest Chips and they are made from organic potatoes, organic cold pressed coconut oil and sea salt. I wanted to share in case there is someone else out there who has my weakness. 🙂
I can only agree with the point about the hidden unhealthy elements behind the “healthy” marketing of bake chips, but Sarah, you are lacking the evidence to back up your claim that baked chips are as bad as or worse than fried chips. You make assumptions from a few studies, instead of presenting information from many studies to verify the results. For example, just because some samples of high-fructose corn syrup in 2009 was discovered to contain mercury does not mean that baked chips contain “likely a bit of neurotoxic mercury to boot”. You have also failed to provide proper references for your sources. The Dave has the right mentality as someone who is seeking the truth.
i stubbled upon this site whilst searching how to fry chips, and thought the title sounded a bit iconoclastic and was intrigued, especially as I come from a medical background. In reading the article, i was irked subtly irked by the speculative tone of the writing and the unsubstantiated premises that were asserted. I’m not usually one to enter into the internet comment board fray, but thought it prudent.
I feel ‘the dave’ brings a balanced view to the table, and thought followers of the blog may be quick to come to its defence; i do not believe that he has made any transgressions of decency but is frustratingly trying to convey his sincere view, and as i read his post he raised the very issues that were on my mind. In general, i feel that my views are quite moderate, and i find extremist views alienating. I think people may feel that his views are personally directed and instinctively adopt a defensive position. But if you took a second, on some level i think you would recognise that he is simply maintaining a reasoned position to not blindly sip from the kool-aid.