OMAHA, Neb., Sept. 5, 2007
Popcorn Maker To Drop Flavoring Chemical
ConAgra Says It Will Replace Popcorn Chemical Linked To Lung Ailment
-
Orville Redenbacher brand popcorn is seen on shelves at a market in Omaha, Neb., Wednesday, Sept. 5, 2007. (AP)
-
Interactive HealthWatch Explore health issues including AIDS, cancer and antibiotics.
-
Quiz Health Myths Quiz What do you REALLY know about about flu shots, arthritic pain, nightcaps, antiperspirants, and healing cuts?
The announcement comes a day after a doctor at a leading lung research hospital said in a warning letter to federal regulators that consumers, not just factory workers, may be in danger from fumes from buttery flavoring in microwave popcorn.
ConAgra spokeswoman Stephanie Childs said the company decided in the past few months to remove the butter flavoring diacetyl from its popcorn because of the risk the chemical presents to workers who handle large quantities.
The chemical diacetyl has been linked to cases of bronchiolitis obliterans, a rare life-threatening disease often called popcorn lung.
ConAgra's announcement comes a week after another popcorn manufacturer, Weaver Popcorn Co. of Indianapolis, said it would replace the butter flavoring ingredient because of consumer concern.
ConAgra doesn't know how soon it will be able to replace diacetyl with a different butter flavoring, Childs said, but the change will be made sometime over the next year.
"We've made that decision based on the knowledge for the potential risk to our employees," Childs said.
The Omaha-based company has already been making changes at its popcorn plants over the past few years to reduce employee exposure to diacetyl, she said.
But the company doesn't believe diacetyl in popcorn represents a safety risk to consumers, Childs said.
"We're fully confident that microwave popcorn is safe for consumers in the home," she said.
It was reported Tuesday that a pulmonary specialist at Denver's National Jewish Medical and Research Center had written to federal agencies to say doctors there believe they have the first case of a consumer who developed lung disease from the fumes of microwaving popcorn several times a day for years.
Dr. Cecile Rose sent the letter to federal health officials in July.
The first government study to look at what fumes are produced by microwaving popcorn at home is due to be published as soon as this month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said Wednesday.
The two-year study by EPA researchers was completed in late 2005 and has been under wraps since then, prompting critics to charge that the agency was protecting industry interests. But an EPA spokeswoman said the delay was due to a string of requirements including scientific review, submitting the report to industry and the time it took to get into a scientific journal.
EPA spokeswoman Suzanne Ackerman said the paper was recently accepted for publication as early as this month in a major scientific journal that she would not name.
The EPA denied a Freedom of Information request last fall from The Associated Press for the report, arguing it was a draft still under review. The agency has not yet answered an AP appeal of that rejection.
Ackerman confirmed that the study had been submitted to popcorn manufacturers ahead of its release. She said that was done to let companies make sure there were no competitive secrets in the report. EPA scientists signed nondisclosure agreements with industry in return for lists of ingredients the makers use in the popcorn and the packaging.
The report, titled "Emissions from Cooking Microwave Popcorn," is not a study of the health effects of diacetyl or any other fumes on consumers. Instead, it looks at exactly what gases including diacetyl are produced in what amount when consumers make microwave popcorn at home.
The Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association said that Rose's finding does not suggest a risk from eating microwave popcorn. The concern instead focuses on workers inhaling it in manufacturing settings, either in making the flavoring or adding it to food products ranging from popcorn to pound cakes.
The Washington, D.C.-based association has said several flavor manufacturers are either researching alternatives to diacetyl or are already marketing butter flavors free of the chemical.
The trade group said the FDA has approved the use of diacetyl as a flavor ingredient, and diacetyl occurs naturally in foods such as butter, cheese and fruits.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More From Health
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 57 CommentsNow, I get it.
A molecule of "natural" diacetyl i.e. CH3.C:O.C:O.CH3, in butter, is completely different from a molecule of "chemical" diacetyl, i.e. CH3.C:O.C:O.CH3, produced by fermentation in a manufacturing plant.
toldyouso21, this is the first day of the rest of your mentally-retarded life!!!
LOL. I KNOW you are trying to be facetious, but actually it is different (though I did not write that) what compound is actually produced is determined by the number of atoms from each element. Therefore CO is NOT the same as CO2, etc and each will net a different biochemical response from living things and from the environment.
but we digress, you tout ''natural'' as if the fact that a synthesized version of a ''natural'' chemical that is manipulated industrially by a process that ''simulates'' the natural slow process of fermentation (yet must accelerate, control and stabilize that process) THEN is combined with other chemicals and placed on popcorn is a good thing and not to be worried about. The fact is, the minute any natural product is isolated and reproduced in a lab, it ceases to be a ''natural'' product and is instead a simulant of that chemical. Man made versions rarely contain the exact composition of the natural substance as we tend to create not what exists but to ''borrow'' and recreate to use a different way. This practice is often what gets us in trouble as we may be able to isolate various chemicals and recreate them, but we have neither the laws or the patience to conduct test trials to determine the long term effects of some of these manipulations.
Stop eating products with fake ingredients---the way the industry uses the word ''natural'' does not mean it comes from nature, it means that they make a fake simulation of it based on it''s chemical composition--but as was found out with margarine--they often negate the other ingredients or the reaction of the simulant in the human body.
So the simplistic idea that something "natural" recreated by Scientist must be good in manipulated popping corn, because it occurs naturally in butter is stupid. The reactions of any chemical is conducive to the chemical environment and the physiology it is found in.What is good in the stomach can be deadly in the lungs and what is good in the lungs will kill you if in the blood stream. NIX this product. If you can, NIX all fake or enhanced foods. They are not nearly tested enough--they readjust the harm of these products as people later get sick and die. WAnt to be a guinea pig? Juwboy seems to want you to be one. LOL
see next post
There''s a virtually zero probability that you''re going to read this but.....
.....diacetyl, although it''s called a "chemical" throughout this report is the substance that gives butter its characteristic NATURAL taste.
You only have to read the last sentence of the report to verify that this is the case.
The diacetyl used to flavor popcorn is produced on an industrial scale by the NATURAL process of fermentation of material obtained from NATURAL sources.
There is nothing "chemical" about it in the sense that you are using the word.
I was making the point that the scientifically illiterate among us don''t understand this. The scientifically illiterate believe there''s a difference between "chemical" and "natural", so CBS''s use of "chemical" when referring to diacetyl, a natural substance, is inflammatory and misleading as far as those people are concerned. You and I, we understand this.
Besides having difficulty with spelling, it''s apparent you also have problems with reading.
I have not, at any stage, claimed that natural=harmless, chemical=harmful. That is what scientifically-illiterate posters believe.
However, I have objected to the description of diacetyl as "chemical" (with the associated implications for the scientifically illiterate among us), when it is clearly a "natural" substance. Read what it says in the last sentence of the report. It is produced industrially by a natural process, fermentation, on natural material.
Everyone who''s commented here has eaten butter, a natural product, so they''ve eaten diacetyl whether they realise it or not.
As for acetic acid, it''s used by the liver to biosynthesise cholesterol, which is partly converted into the reproductive hormones such as testosterone, estrone and progesterone, without which we would cease to exist.
Where did I say that diacetyl is the same as acetic acid? I said it''s metabolized (rapidly) to acetic acid, which, I''ll repeat, is a natural substance that is present in every cell in your body.
Thank you soooooooo much for explaining that a mixture of carbon and oxygen is different from carbon monoxide. I didn''t know that :-):-):-)
i thought everything that came from a microwave was okay to eat...
who would have thunk it...
The logic you appear to have that since a product is natural or occurs in the body, (ie., that it must be harmless) is disingenuous and indicates that your background is definitely NOT Science. Ketones are natural in fact the heart and brain prefer ketones as fuel--too much or produced from the wrong biochemical process will kill you.
Think about this: an injected parenteral medicine that misses a vein, is not readily absorbed by muscle tissue--at best a hematoma results from muscle being exposed to a drug--at worse (as in the case of neoplastics) exposure would result in necrosis or death of the muscle tissue. The same is true of lungs and blood. a bubble of Oxygen in the lungs is just fine--but that same bubble in a vein would mean death.
Mode of transmission, how a chemical is industrially manipulated, what other chemicals it is combined with, and personal physiology determine outcome. Natural does not mean good--it just means it occurs in nature--most of our most deadly poisons--occur naturally--many can be injested in minute quantities --so what?
As for typos--funny, how you are pedantic about spelling yet cavalier about the effect of chemicals on your health. Talk about having one''s priorities screwed up.
Sorry. Your deducement about how something is ingested is dead wrong. Acetic acid may be present in the human body in small amounts--but Diacetyl 2,3-Butadione is not present naturally and is never naturally present in lung tissue.
There are many chemicals which are relatively harmless if swallowed but deadly if breathed. Many fibers that cause lung disease are actually inert, however once disseminated in the lung tissue, the cells within the lung react differently to the inert item, than the stomach would. In the stomach, many items would pass undigested, back out of the body but in the lungs or blood stream, the same chemical molecules could wreak havoc. Often, the lung tissue reacts by swelling (which makes it difficult to breath) or trying to encapsulate the foreign substance. Over time, the lung walls could thicken or even cause the body to try to fight the chemical invader--this can lead to more fluid build up as well as affect the process of cell mutations.
This being said, the idea that diacetyl is the same as vinegar is the same type of idocy as presuming Carbon and Oxygen is the same as carbon monoxide. Both Carbon and Oxygen are need for life--but in the chemical composition of CO--it means death. Derivatives of products are not the same as originals. ANY manipulation of a chemical--no matter how originally natural will NOT have the same effect on the biochem. as the original product. Every single change be it thermal, preservatives/stabilizers, environmental, etc will change and effect how the body reacts to the new product. As for those who think this is harmless or any thing else is harmless--maybe for you it is--on the other hand--maybe it isn''t, just because you aren''t dead yet--does not mean you are not well on your way and helped immensely by the fake stuff you eat, breathe and drink.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 57 Comments