7 Foods So Unsafe Even Farmers Won't Eat Them

A lot of this is just plain common sense. My kids ask me to make popcorn on the stovetop - they like it better than the nuked stuff. And in this market, it's now easier to get milk without Rbgh than with it - Maryland isn't letting that attempt to keep farmers from labeling it that way fly, and the consumer voice is pretty strong here (and our local farmers don't like Mastitis!).

I'm getting most of my produce from organic sources, including one of our local CSAs, and also from the urban agriculture site that I'm working for this summer (writing curriculum). Check us out if you're in the Baltimore area! If you aren't, but live in a big city, look for one - or contact me if need be - I've created a database with over 55 different urban agriculture sites across the country, and I bet I've got one in a city near you. You CAN farm in the big city. Or if you want, DIY. Grow a garden. If you're concerned, have your soil tested - remediation is not too expensive, and in the worst case scenario, you can always do raised beds or container gardening.

All this reminds me: I need to check on the fennel after last night's storms. Toodles! -k/ff

You can make your own microwave popcorn using brown paper bags.
http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/plain-brown-popper-recipe/index.html

My wife loves popcorn, but luckily, air popped popcorn is the only kind that doesn't make her sick. We don't know why, but at least she hasn't been eating microwave popcorn.

This is an excellent article, I'm going to save a copy of it in fact. Great find.

air popped popcorn is the only kind that doesn't make her sick.

It's the oil, I think. Does the same to me. Movie theater popcorn is the worst.

Shannoscubie

air popped popcorn is the only kind that doesn't make her sick.

It's the oil, I think. Does the same to me. Movie theater popcorn is the worst.

Same thing with my wife, movie theater popcorn is the worst.

NEARING, I also clipped it to my column, and a few more groups.

My jar of popcorn is next to the air popper as we speak...

Hey, look...you can make your own!

anyone watch Food Inc. ?

Good article...

ffeineandsugar...If you aren't, but live in a big city, look for one - or contact me if need be - I've created a database with over 55 different urban agriculture sites across the country, and I bet I've got one in a city near you.

Good for you!! Also check with Local Harvest who register small farmers and CSA's nationwide and have a database that can be searched by zip code and distance or product. Buy local, eat well!

You made a typo in the link, it doesn't work... (you had .ore instead of .org)
http://www.localharvest.org/

Just the "smell" (fumes) of microwave popcorn are a health issue. Not counting the fact that it smells gross, it's actually contaminated.

By the exact same chemical (diacetyl) that gives butter its flavor and English Ales their distinctive finish. There is no chemical difference between "natural" and "artificial" diacetyl, so you'd best avoid butter and beer as well.

#1.14....AdipicAcid....There is no chemical difference between "natural" and "artificial" diacetyl, so you'd best avoid butter and beer as well.

Can point me to any study data that tells us diacetyl is safe and at what levels? Is there a source that explains how synthesized diacetyl is derrived?

Scorecard lists many forms of diacetyl and it is unclear if any are relevant but interesting to note not a single, blessed one of them has had safety testing!! Please let me know which of the list applies to the diacetyl we are discussing or where to locate this different "safe" form if it isn't.

Simply because a substance is "natural" does not mean it is safe to consume. There's a whole lot of "natural" stuff that will kill you and even safe substances we have a maximum dose. A few years ago that lesson was reported by The Denver Post with microwave popcorn!

Wayne Watson never figured his two-bag-a-day habit of his favorite store-brand extra-buttery popcorn was something that would harm him, but every day over the past decade — sometimes 3 bags a day — it has been doing just that.

"I never eat out, never went to fast-food restaurants but I popped popcorn," the 52-year-old sofa salesman said Wednesday from his living room, chuckling along with his wife, Mary. "And I popped a lot of it!"

Watson can laugh now that his "15 minutes of fame" has come as the result of eating too much popcorn. His lung capacity, which deteriorated to about 50 percent while he was popping corn, has stabilized and improved to about 75 percent since a doctor at National Jewish Medical and Research Center pinpointed the cause of his condition, broncheolitis obliterans. Or as it has come be known: "popcorn lung."

However, the microwaveable popcorn industry isn't laughing. Three manufacturers responsible for most of the products sold in the United States said on Wednesday they would stop using diacetyl — the chemical tentatively associated with Watson's damaged lungs - as soon as possible.

ConAgra Foods Inc., General Mills Inc. and the American Pop Corn Company will change their recipes, the Associated Press reported, because of consumer safety concerns brought up by Watson's case. The three companies sell Orville Redenbacher, Act II, Pop Secret and Jolly Time microwave popcorn.

Maybe the doctors and agri-giants could use your safety data for diacetyl-popcorn lung too!

Pamela - although diacetyl is used in the manufacture of margerine and butter substitutes, it is not present in true butter.

butter contains;

Fatty acid
Structure
% total fatty acid in butter

oleic acid
CH₃(CH₂)₇CH=CH(CH₂)₇COOH
31.9

myristic acid
CH₃(CH₂)₁₂COOH
19.8

palmitic acid
CH₃(CH₂)₁₄COOH
15.2

stearic acid
CH₃(CH₂)₁₆COOH
14.9

lauric acid
CH₃(CH₂)₁₀COOH
5.8

butyric acid
CH₃CH₂CH₂COOH
2.9

caproic acid
CH₃(CH₂)₄COOH
1.9

capric acid
CH₃(CH₂)₈COOH
1.6

caprylic acid
CH₃(CH₂)₆COOH
0.8

linoleic acid
CH₃(CH₂)₄CH=CHCH₂CH=CH(CH₂)₇COOH
0.2

linolenic acid
CH₃CH₂CH=CHCH₂CH=CHCH₂CH=CH(CH₂)₇COOH
0.1

Yes, Pamela, diacetyl has no established safety level. You should cease using butter, and just about anything with yeast in it immediately, just to be safe. I mean, think of the untold risk you are taking until deep scientific analysis is done on these foods that have been with us since the dawn of civilization!

Oh, and diacetyl is most definitely in butter.

Diacetyl and acetoin are two compounds that give butter its characteristic taste. Because of this, manufacturers of margarines or similar oil-based products typically add diacetyl and acetoin (along with beta carotene for the yellow color) to make the final product butter-flavored, because it would otherwise be relatively tasteless.^[2]

Interesting: From the same Wikipedia article you cited:

The United States National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has suggested that diacetyl, when used in artificial butter flavoring (as used in many consumer foods), may be hazardous when heated and inhaled over a long period.

Workers in several factories that manufacture artificial butter flavoring have been diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterans, a rare and serious disease of the lungs. The cases found have been mainly in young, healthy, non-smoking males. There are no known cures for bronchiolitis obliterans except for lung transplantation.

While several authorities have called the disease "Popcorn Worker's Lung," a more accurate term suggested by other doctors may be more appropriate, since the disease can occur in any industry working with diacetyl: diacetyl-induced bronchiolitis obliterans.

Now the article does go on to say that the EU has found no problems with the use of this as a flavoring agent. The question is two-fold. Some people do not want artificially created chemicals in their food, no matter what the safety tolerances. And is it morally proper to support buying a product that has been shown to harm the workers that manufacture it? I can't answer those questions for anyone - it's your call. Meanwhile, I have several pages more of writing to crank out, so enough of the distractions for the next few hours....

Some people do not want artificially created chemicals in their food, no matter what the safety tolerances.

These same people did badly in science class. Why is it that I need to respect their opinions while being harsh to the climate change skeptics? Antiscience is antiscience.

I think we disagree on this one. The way science is reported nowadays, it gets "spun" just as the news gets spun: whose data set is more in vogue?

I have a major project due this week, so forgive me if this is my last response for now. But I look forward to continuing this debate at a future time.

And BTW, I did very well in science class (especially physics), thank you kindly.

These same people did badly in science class. Why is it that I need to respect their opinions

AdipicAcid....Antiscience is antiscience.

You don't need to be a science guru to see that hollow claims are empty no matter what the topic is. Where's the science? Why claim to stand on scientific facts and never give up scientific details?

The tired refrain of how industry skeptics and critics are ignorant and anti-science does not address the question of safety or anything else?

I asked to see how synthetic diacetyl is made and data showing it is safe. How hard is that?

It isn't anti-science to question, questioning is the basis for all scientific discovery. Folks who purport to have all the answers and certainty with limited knowledge are anti-science and undermining questioning as the cornerstone of scientific learning. Show me the studies!

OK, Pamela, please explain how the chemistry and safety of synthetic diacetyl differs from the kind made during brewing. The problem is not the chemical but the means of exposure: artificial butter flavor is safe to eat, but inhaling large amounts of diacetyl fumes does seem to promote lung damage in some studies. Others were negative.

And here's the report from the NIH that says as much. Warning: it's a long PDF.

Thanks for the pdf AdpicAcid, that's helpful to add some science to the discussion.

AdipicAcid....The problem is not the chemical but the means of exposure: artificial butter flavor is safe to eat, but inhaling large amounts of diacetyl fumes does seem to promote lung damage in some studies. Others were negative.

For openers it does NOT say this is safe, it says limited studies have been done. Lack of testing for harm does not automatically mean safety is assured, npr that we can assume the process has no effect on the product.

NIH.... To date, limited toxicological studies are available for artificial butter flavoring and its constituents.

Since butter flavoring mixtures consist of more than 100 different chemicals, the most prominent being diacetyl and acetoin, the UFCW also recommends that the flavoring mixture as a whole be tested and that the National Toxicology Program (NTP)

Inhalation studies in male rats showed that exposure to vapors from artificial butter flavoring caused necrosis of nasal and airway epithelium. Necrotizing bronchitis was observed in the lung, and necrosuppurative rhinitis and inflammation were seen at all nasal levels.

Toxicological Data

No short-term/subchronic or chronic inhalation studies were available for artificial butter flavorings,

diacetyl, or acetoin. Additionally, data regarding initiation/promotion, anticarcinogenicity, and

immunotoxicity were not found.

The conclusion was that inhalation was unsafe at any level, which does not mean it is the ONLY risk. As for its naturally occurring status as any indicator of safety, the list of other sources of exposure hardly screams good for you!

Sources of diacetyl in ambient air to which the general population may be exposed include:

• Exhaust emissions from combustion of petroleum-derived fuels in diesel-, gasoline-, and

jet-fuel-powered engines (Schauer et al., 1999b, 2002b [PMID:11944666]; Spicer et al.,

1992).

• Fine airborne particulate matter such as that sampled in a California roadway tunnel (Rao

et al., 2001; PMID:11417634).

• Cigarette smoke (Fujioka and Shibamoto, 2006; PMID:16463255)

• As a secondary air pollutant resulting from photooxidation of the common gasoline

aromatics toluene, xylenes, and ethylbenzene and of methyl-substituted aromatic

hydrocarbons reacting with nitrogen oxides (NTP, 1994)

• Volatilization of diacetyl-containing aqueous and solid livestock wastes (NTP, 1994)

• Moldy buildings (Wilkins et al., 1997)

When tested for effects unrelated to inhalation, but based on consumption, eating does show risks in the feeding trials. Maybe you should read the whole report before claiming it determines safety!

Daily oral administration of diacetyl (10, 30, 90, or 540 mg/kg [0.12, 0.35, 1.0, or 6.27

mmol/kg]) for 90 days to rats produced decreased weight gain, increased water consumption,

anemia, increased leukocyte count, and increased weights of the liver, kidney, adrenal gland, and

pituitary gland. Necrosis in the stomach was also observed [NOEL = 90 mg/kg] (HSDB, 2002).

Diacetyl

In several bacterial assays, diacetyl generally showed mutagenic activity in Salmonella

typhimurium strains TA100, 102, and 104 with and without metabolic activation but none against

strain TA98. Conflicting results were obtained in Escherichia coli strain WP2 uvra, but

nonmutagenicity was demonstrated in the SOS-chromotest using E. coli PQ37. Diacetyl was

also negative in a micronucleus test using mouse bone marrow cells (CCRIS, 1995; NTP, 1994).

Diacetyl induced sister chromatid exchanges (SCEs) in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) AUXB1

cells and unscheduled DNA synthesis in various organs of laboratory animals, such as the rat

stomach mucosa (HSDB, 2002; NTP, 1994).

Again, Pamela: the same levels of diacetyl are in most English Ales, butter, and Chardonnay. Do you also call for a ban on their consumption?

From the executive summary of the study:

Diacetyl is naturally found in foods and is also used as a synthetic flavoring agent and an aroma carrier in foods, including butter, caramel, vinegar, dairy products, and coffee. Acetoin is used as a fragrance carrier and in the preparation of flavors and essences; it is found in many of the same foodstuffs as diacetyl (e.g., butter, corn, wine, and cocoa). In the United States, diacetyl and acetoin are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration as substances directly added to human food and are generally recognized as safe.

Again, all of the toxicity concerns are with inhalation, or basic toxicological research with levels of the compound that normal people will never encounter. This is something like the problem with iodophor in brewing: it is a necessary sterilant but extreme care needs to be taken that the workers who receive regular exposure to it are protected. The trace amounts that make in to the finished product are for all intents and purposes harmless.

You can't take simpleminded zero tolerance approaches toward food safety, and I would argue that you don't in reality: most dietary supplements have had even less testing than diacetyl, yet the natural and alternative medicine lobbies continue to prevent the FDA from engaging the same level of science on them that is present on Big Food and Big Pharma.

Or to put it another way: bread is safe to eat, but inhaling large amounts of flour dust while working in a mill or bakery will lead to significant lung problems. The appropriate rational response is to put respiratory protection measures in place for the workers, not to condemn bread as an unsafe foodstuff.

Again, Pamela: the same levels of diacetyl are in most English Ales, butter, and Chardonnay

Nowhere does it say equivalent levels are naturally occurring and nowhere have you shown that the synthetic form and it's other chemical additives are equivalent to something that is naturally occurring in a food produced without additives. Salt is natural too, but by the time food processing is finished adding it there's way too much for a healthy diet. It isn't all or nothing so please spare me the ridiculous arguments suggesting we allow all forms or nothing at all.

Again, all of the toxicity concerns are with inhalation, or basic toxicological research with levels of the compound that normal people will never encounter.

Repeating yourself still will not make the statement true. Feeding studies cited above showed effects directly linked to consumption. Read all the pages of your NIH review and stop saying it is a risk from inhalation only when that is not what the feeding studies show.

most dietary supplements have had even less testing than diacetyl, yet the natural and alternative medicine lobbies continue to prevent the FDA from engaging the same level of science on them that is present on Big Food and Big Pharma.

Again, not true. The bulk of the supplement business is owned by big pharma and the "Natural" lobbying hasn't even been able to get Roundup Ready ingredients labeled so spare me the claims of regulatory restrictions. There was more oversight in MMS for BP than BigAg has at the FDA.

If you have an example feel free to cite it and we'll weigh the merits, by itself the claim is baseless.

Or to put it another way: bread is safe to eat, but inhaling large amounts of flour dust while working in a mill or bakery will lead to significant lung problems. The appropriate rational response is to put respiratory protection measures in place for the workers, not to condemn bread as an unsafe foodstuff.

Great example but hardly appropriate to reflect what's happened in the case of diacetyl. It's more like the difference between workers exposed to excessive levels of asbestos on the job at much higher risk than consumers with a casual exposure. Note the fellow in the article linked was not a worker in a popcorn plant but a consumer of microwave popcorn.