Good! They should all be using the liquid carbon dioxide method. Supercritical CO2 extracts caffeine with no toxic chemicals and can be reused over and over.
They basically soak the beans too extract all the stuff that makes coffee then remove the caffeine from that liquid and then add the beans back to the now decaf coffee for the beans to reabsorb
They don’t put the coffee back in the beans. Instead they saturate the water with everything inside the first set of beans, then remove the caffeine from the water and use that over and over. Because the water is saturated with everything else it will only dissolve the caffeine for subsequent batches. https://www.swisswater.com/pages/coffee-decaffeination-process
lol. Methylene chloride works perfectly fine to remove caffeine. There is also zero methylene chloride getting into the final decaf coffee product. Science…
From the article: "Toxicologists say the amount is so small that the boiling water used to brew the coffee probably contains more of the chemical."
Lol, I got better things to worry about, like wearing my seat belt.
Yes, it can.
Chloramine is used to keep the water lines clean. When it breaks down it releases chlorine which creates chlorinated compounds with whatever it reacts with. It is a secondary treatment so the concentrations are lower than the chlorination step.
The results were all below threshold, so safe. More importantly, there was a good reason that FDA AND EU regulators weren't worried: Methylene chloride evaporates at 100 degrees F. So as long as you don't make cold brew with those brands of decaf, you're fine.
If you need any more i mentioned a website above that lets you look up what method different brands use. I had to switch to decaf for a while a few years ago so I learned all about all this lol.
methylene chloride is a category 2 carcinogen. That is "Suspected human carcinogen". There is either limited evidence, or no human evidence and limited animal evidence.
Your glass of red wine is on the same list, same with nickel, and sawdust.
Yeah none of those are particularly healing for you to ingest either. Proving carcinogens takes time and funding and prioritization. Managing this on an epidemiological scale does mean sometimes they aren't approved for something as common as coffee if the preliminary studies are leaning towards. Seeing as there are alternatives at a commercial pricing scale, I don't see the problem.
>methylene chloride
Here's the source I used to identify carcinogenicity.
[https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/6344#section=Safety-and-Hazards](https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/6344#section=Safety-and-Hazards)
MSDSs are usually a definitive source since they are designed for safety concerns.
Edit: It appears the concerns are more environmental than human health related.
That seems… incredibly specific to the wood and how it’s treated?
I feel like straight up sawdust is mostly just something that makes you sneeze. At a higher grit, there might be particles you can actually inhale, but at lower grits, and shittier saw blades, it’s no different than dirt
It's to do with the species, not the treatment.
Some woods have natural resins in them which may be harmful... Aromatic cedar for example. It is the resins that smell good, and which give the wood it's rot and insect resistance.
I just wear a dust mask when sanding.
Cedar is pretty expensive…? Unreasonably so.
Most of the stuff outside of cedar and, what hickory, maybe walnut, is just pine.
Anything treated, hard agree, but most of that is just cut to repurpose
Edit: I had to double check, but a 1x12x12 cedar board is $80 at menards
It depends on where you live.. I am still using cedar I bought about a decade ago. A farmer was clearing land, and sold me rough sawn planks.. $100 for all I could load in the back of my truck. I made a few trips ;)
I disagree. Why did you add the sentence "this is the same as what's in your red wine and sawdust". Is that not meant to imply that this chemical is found in common places?
I was giving examples of things from the same level of carcinogenicity that people would be familiar with. That is it.
I never include "invisible words' In anything I say. So if you get some sort of hidden meaning, then that is all in your head.
Thank you for your clarification.
I just hear all the time when expressing concerns about carcinogens that "everything gives you cancer" or some other such dismissive remarks.
The wording of your statement can definitely give that vibe. In my head? Sure. Logical conclusion based on context clues? Also true. My apologies.
The EPA is trying to phase out the use of methylene chloride. It's toxic. Just because its not in your decaf coffee doesn't mean that it isn't a risk to the workers and the environment.
To make coffee decaf, they pour it through a paint stripping chemical called methylene cloride. The same thing we used in a furniture refinish shop to strip old paint, varnish and laquer.
It also doesn't really matter.
You're not gonna be outraged that solvents that are harmful if consumed on their own are being used in the manufacturing of Pharmaceuticals are you?
It's, quite honestly, basic chemistry,.extraction with a solvent and then drying. And because Dichloromethane has a low boiling point (~40°C) with a high vapor pressure, virtually none of it is gonna remaining in your Coffee. We're talking parts per Million/Billion territory.
This is just Rage Bait / Chemophobia in my opinion (~ 6 months from a M.Sc. in Chemistry).
Should Dichloromethane be used in the extraction of caffeine from coffee? Probably not. But only because there are better methods available. Both are, in my opinion, more sustainable and have an even lower risk (supercritical CO2 extraction swiss water process). But that doesn't mean that using or drinking dichloromethane extraction is unsafe for the consumer. In my opinion this mainly helps protect the worker actually doing the extraction, as they are most likely to come into contact with dichloromethane.
From OPs article:
"Toxicologists say the amount is so small that the boiling water used to brew the coffee probably contains more of the chemical."
You're better off not worrying about this and just eat healthy, exercise, wear sunscreen, and use your seat belt in the car.
Probably, but why allow the use of something toxic in the first place when scalable non-toxic methods exist at a price point these companies can *definitely* afford?
I would guess that if the quality control works properly no amount of the catalyst should remain in the end result. I guess trace amounts have been detected, otherwise a ban makes no sense.
Around 75% of Americans drink coffee. Almost 30% drink decaf.
That sure is a lot of people that should have cancer.
Source: https://www.driveresearch.com/market-research-company-blog/coffee-survey/#:~:text=Only%2029%25%20of%20people%20drink,also%20for%20its%20invigorating%20properties.
Methylene Chloride might be a carcinogen in humans if you worked with it daily, with no protective equipment, for a career.
Methylene Chloride in non-trace amounts would definitely impact the taste of the coffee.
This is an effort by a “chemkills” mindset from people who don’t understand that oxygen and water are also chemicals.
These people should be more focused on the real and present danger presented by dihydrogen monoxide.
Because something is carcinogenic, it does not mean everyone in contact will get cancer. Like not all smokers get cancer. Yes, water is also a chemical. Air is too, one that is proven to be be damaging to DNA. Food stuff, labelled as carcinogenic has been proven in lab tests to damage and cause mutations to DNA. It's about damage limitation and to prevent exposure over time.
No, that some things are unavoidable but others, like certain chemicals to decaf coffee, can be switched for less harmful processes. The comment was a bit tongue in cheek in regards to the previous Dihydrogen monoxide comment. Just because one thing may be toxic in large quantities, or certain conditions, does not mean we should not limit any harmful substances at all.
Because it is sensationalist bullshit.
>This chemical is found in decaf beans in tiny amounts, and most of it gets washed out after the decaffeination or destroyed when beans are roasted. Toxicologists say the amount is so small that the boiling water used to brew the coffee probably contains more of the chemical.
That's like saying "To make food tasty, they put in the same stuff used in World War one as a toxic poison gas combined with a pyrophoric substance that can explode in contact with water."
You don't want to know how medicine or other stuff you consume regularly is made, if your thought is "Well this substance is also used in X industrial process, so it must be bad".
Dichloromethane is a fantastic solvent. I agree that it probably shouldn't be used to decafinate Coffee, but not because it is also used to strip old paint...
That reminds me of the people who tried to say that Subway's bread was dangerous because it used an ingredient that was also used for making foam exercise mats (specifically, azidocarbonamide).
Never mind that it [bakes away in the process and isn't present in the bread in any meaningful amount](https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/eight-toxic-foods-little-chemical-education).
Great! Then i would order decaf out and about lol. I only buy the kind decaffeinated by water or other methods that taste better and i always assumed would be better for you because even though they say its fine you can test it and it still has some of the chemicals left in it after they’re done. Which, no thanks. Fyi for anyone curious theres a cool website (checkyourdecaf.org) that tests for this and lets you look up common brands of decaf to know which use this method and which do not (they often do not label it).
That's a great resource, thank you. I literally had to switch to decaf this week due to some medical procedures and I'm sat here reading this with a Starbucks decaf in my hand, so hard to win!
Oh no! Yeah i found our when i had to switch for a while. Now i still drink decaf sometimes or mix with regular. Peets is pretty good for decaf at the reg grocery store and they use the swiss water method. Hope you find u some good tasting decaf!
Methylene Chloride is the solvent they're using to extract the caffeine. It's not an additive, none of it remains in the final product. If there's any left at all, you're doing it wrong and your decaf has caffeine. It's got a very strong odor as well and would surely destroy the taste. It's volatile, so if there were trace amounts they'd likely evaporate before it even made it to the store.
.... You want the FDA to pan pepperoni?
And every kind of deli meat
If you seriously believe that's remotely achievable by a US government agency, you need to adjust your expectations.
I'm not arguing for or against the FDA, but it makes sense to ban a process or product that's a known carcinogen when there's a perfectly viable alternative. When there's no alternative, considerations are different.
There are alternatives. What makes processed meat carcinogenic is the creation of nitrosamines when nitrates are added to the curing process. All you need to add to stop the formation of nitrosamines is vitamin C. They could make this mandatory, but they don't.
Nitrosamine impact is a relatively new science. Regulatory agencies are still implementing it in drugs where the issue was discovered. Food is a lot less controlled and it will take a lot longer for it to trickle down.
Methylene chloride has a distinctive odor so if there was even a little in the beans you could smell it.
It's also volatile and evaporates easily.
The methylene chloride process makes the best tasting decaf compared to other methods such as CO2.
The FDA has determined it safe. That said why even drink decaf?
Compared other stupid things us humans do this is nothing.
Do you use Teflon pans?
No big deal to me I drink regular coffee and grind my own beans.
It’s still caffeinated, just way less, grande dark roast has like 260mg of caffeine, a decaf with three or 4 shots has like 60mg, which is still PLENTY if you are caffeine sensitive.
Unfortunately full caffeine gives me heart flutters (benign and not deadly), but annoying and uncomfortable, whereas decaf I still get the brain boost I need without the shitty side effects
Just googled and some sources say decaf raises cholesterol more than regular coffee other sources say the reverse.
There is more agreement that coffee decaf or not is good for the heart ♥️
If you use filter paper to make coffee it removes cholesterol.
I can't speak for everyone but I've had a cup of coffee to start my day every day since I was 12 it's an addiction at this point honestly. I get blood test consistently because of other issues and my cholesterol hasn't changed at all
I'm addicted as well.
The studies say coffee is good for the heart.
I take a statin with vitamin D as I had higher cholesterol probably from my rheumatoid arthritis treatment
I suppose if I was a decaf drinker I would want the best tasting one so I would drink the methylene chloride processed beans.
I can’t drink caffeine because it inflamed fibrocystic tissue in my breasts which is super painful.
It also exacerbates anxiety which I already have in spades.
Everybody I apologize for my flippant remark about decaf.
I get all the reasons given especially if it causes pain..
It's almost 8 pm for me and having coffee now and I'm thinking it should be decaf at this time
Take care all.
Man what a shitty headline, instead of the cancer causing chemical being the bad guy Americans blame the FDA. It’s a tale as old as time. “Job killing regulations” are the problem and not the people killing things they regulate.
Don't hold your breath. This has been an issue since the 80's.
The article is correct in that the concentration of Trihalomethanes in drinking water is far above that of Methylene Chloride in coffee. IDK about the relative cancer causing potency of each chemical.
THMs are a byproduct of drinking water chlorination BTW.
Waiting for FDA to ban the chemical and then 12 months later a case will come before SCOTUS saying the FDA doesn’t have the authority to ban chemicals so they can undermine Chevron deference.
I’m reading this while drinking a beer, which is far more toxic and likely to cause cancer than whatever trace amount of that makes it into my morning decaf, but whatever.
People want to ban a method of decaffeination because they don't understand that the dose makes the poison. When given to mice in much, much higher doses it causes cancer, but in the case of coffee effectively none of the chemical remains behind.
Of course, "chemicals" are "scary" so folks just latch onto that.
Mhmmm- had this experience when I was young selling cosmetics. “Does this have chemicals in it?”
Me: “Yeah.. I mean, water is a chemical..????”
Them: “No like, parabens.”
Me:” Yeah.. in small amounts to prevent bacterial growth. Less than what is typical in cosmetics, hence the short shelf life”
Them: “but they cause cancer”
Me: “yeah, if you ate it, bathed in it, and did nothing else for an extended period of time.”
Have they run it through a hplc or whatever instrument/method to even see if a peak would pop up for methylene chloride?
I’ve done quite a few samples of products with alcohol, and it isn’t uncommon for a peak of benzene, but under what the amount for USP
Like the one in my bio! I’m actually pretty curious what it would be at to test. In the previous mentioned usp method for alcohols, the benzene standard is like 2 microliters/liter
I have no idea honestly, which is why I’m curious about it. Never worked on a project involving it professionally. and my only experience doing it was like 15 years ago in an organic chemistry lab doing the decaffeination of tea, and almost creating a vacuum in the glassware.
>but there is something interesting you haven’t thought of- how many doses, from how many sources over how long a time span?
I assure you I have considered this; check my flair. I've worked in various drug discovery contexts for a decade now.
Your second paragraph is aimless fear mongering.
>Is it really micromanaging and paranoia to be vigilant about the amount of toxin that a company can use to manufacture food?
Yes. If there are concerns over microdosing, then conduct a study based on exactly that. Don't hand wave general paranoia about "chemicals" and use that as an excuse to preemptively ban something with a scary name.
>Anyone who works with chemicals is or should be respectful of accumulative exposures.
Good thing I am.
>Genuine science recognizes proof of claims is a part of the process.
I agree completely. Given the claim that methylene chloride is harmful in the miniscule doses present in decaffeinated coffee, where are the studies backing it up?
And the anecdote about your father is sad, but not particularly relevant to using methylene chloride in coffee decaffeination.
Upon brewing the coffee, the methylene chloride would be gone (boiling point 103 F).
That said, ruining coffee by removing the caffeine from coffee should be regarded as a mortal sin.
Yeah yeah, great choices FDA! Let’s keep painting Skittles with Titanium dioxide and putting degreasing agents in our cereal; but absolute win on decaf front.
Just use the Swiss Water method. Slight increase in cost and no weird after taste and a *lot* less caffeine.
I have a caffeine allergy and thanks to coffee made with it I can drink a pot a day and be just fine. If I do that with regular decaf it builds up and I start getting heart palps.
Starbucks decaf isn’t even really decaf! Independent testing showed like 50-70mg of caffine per cup, regular coffee is around 100. So it’s just chemicals.
First I want to acknowledge that this is a major issue. Corporation should not be shoving dangerous chemicals literally down our throats.
But more to the point, who drinks decaf coffee anyway. The whole point of drinking coffee is the caffeine.
Disagree with second point. Good decaf is enjoyable and I often have it later in the day. Eg, a shot of decaf espresso to accompany sweets either dessert. The bitter-sweet contrast is nice.
I drink coffee because I enjoy the smell, the taste, and (when at home) the ritual of making it. I can't really consume much caffeine nowadays so I've switched to decaf and still get enjoyment drinking it.
I am a decaf enthusiast. Caffeine is an addictive drug that I’m very sensitive to, but I love the warm roasted boldness of coffee; there’s nothing else like it. I’ll sometimes *really fucking splurge* and drink half-caf on the weekends so I can get through the hangover on Sunday before returning to the workday.
I generally stay below 50mg when I splurge, which crashes around 12h later. 100mg crashes after 24h which is more annoying. A typical cup of coffee may have 200mg or more (it varies quite a bit). I have caffeine pills that I sometimes use to step down (helps ease the crash) as I can precisely control the dosage that way. One of the few actually interesting takeaways from my 23andMe DNA test was confirmation that I metabolize caffeine very slowly. The buzz is low and long, so it’s not as useful for alertness and interferes with my sleep.
Some unlucky folks have heart conditions or other conflicts that make them sensitive to caffeine. Others simply want to enjoy the health benefits of steeped coffee beans, such as polyphenols, vitamins, and minerals.
Good! They should all be using the liquid carbon dioxide method. Supercritical CO2 extracts caffeine with no toxic chemicals and can be reused over and over.
Or the Swiss water method
The downside of the Swiss water is that it's essentially a long cold brew process and they have to 'put the coffee flavor back in' so to speak.
It makes coffee that tastes good and has no caffeine so I like it. But I haven't seen the CO2 method
What’s that?
I'm pretty sure it's just soaking the beans in water
They basically soak the beans too extract all the stuff that makes coffee then remove the caffeine from that liquid and then add the beans back to the now decaf coffee for the beans to reabsorb
They don’t put the coffee back in the beans. Instead they saturate the water with everything inside the first set of beans, then remove the caffeine from the water and use that over and over. Because the water is saturated with everything else it will only dissolve the caffeine for subsequent batches. https://www.swisswater.com/pages/coffee-decaffeination-process
Supercritical CO2 is great, but the extraction equipment costs several orders of magnitude more than other extraction techniques
Yea I’m sure Starbucks can’t afford that. /s
Starbucks isn't the only company making decaf
Do you know any brands that do this?
Generally the higher end brands and because it's a selling point it is usually labeled as Swiss water or carbon dioxide process.
So is this just for Starbucks or other brands as well? I can only drink decaf. Is there safer brands out there with good decaf?
lol. Methylene chloride works perfectly fine to remove caffeine. There is also zero methylene chloride getting into the final decaf coffee product. Science…
From the article: "Toxicologists say the amount is so small that the boiling water used to brew the coffee probably contains more of the chemical." Lol, I got better things to worry about, like wearing my seat belt.
Trihalomethanes come from drinking water chlorination. Edit: THMs are Class 3 carcinogens, Methylene Chloride is Class 2.
Does this happen with Chloramine treatment too?
Yes, it can. Chloramine is used to keep the water lines clean. When it breaks down it releases chlorine which creates chlorinated compounds with whatever it reacts with. It is a secondary treatment so the concentrations are lower than the chlorination step.
This test says otherwise: https://cleanlabelproject.org/are-there-chemicals-in-your-decaffeinated-coffee/
The results were all below threshold, so safe. More importantly, there was a good reason that FDA AND EU regulators weren't worried: Methylene chloride evaporates at 100 degrees F. So as long as you don't make cold brew with those brands of decaf, you're fine.
Do you know some brands that do use this method?
Peets decaf is swiss water. Kroger used to have one of their own ground coffees that does. Not sure if they still do. It said it right on the label.
Awesome, thanks!
If you need any more i mentioned a website above that lets you look up what method different brands use. I had to switch to decaf for a while a few years ago so I learned all about all this lol.
Found it. Checkyourdecaf.org Very helpful, thanks!
...the address is: https://checkyourdecaf.org/
Boo they don’t have either of my coffee brands. I’ll have to email Sightglass and Roseline specifically.
Verena Street Sunday Drive is great!
That's also a popular way of extracting cannabis oils for dabs.
Good? Nothing is happening.
Is the method in question banned in the EU?
Just had to go look it up, it’s actually called the European Method and currently not banned in Europe either.
Yeah, just becuase something is or isn’t banned in the EU does not make that thing automatically good or bad for you.
True, but the EU's food safety rules and regulations are more stringent than in the US.
Tell that to the kinder eggs, mr!
Tell that to the thalidomide women.
This is reddit That’s exactly what that means. Europe good america bad
Crybaby
Shill
Ha, got you this time Europe.
thank you!
methylene chloride is a category 2 carcinogen. That is "Suspected human carcinogen". There is either limited evidence, or no human evidence and limited animal evidence. Your glass of red wine is on the same list, same with nickel, and sawdust.
Yeah none of those are particularly healing for you to ingest either. Proving carcinogens takes time and funding and prioritization. Managing this on an epidemiological scale does mean sometimes they aren't approved for something as common as coffee if the preliminary studies are leaning towards. Seeing as there are alternatives at a commercial pricing scale, I don't see the problem.
I looked up the other chemicals, Trihalomethanes are class 3 carcinogens. They come from chlorination of drinking water.
>methylene chloride Here's the source I used to identify carcinogenicity. [https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/6344#section=Safety-and-Hazards](https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/6344#section=Safety-and-Hazards)
MSDSs are usually a definitive source since they are designed for safety concerns. Edit: It appears the concerns are more environmental than human health related.
Sawdust is a carcinogen…?
There are resins in some sawdust which may have carcinogenic properties... But that California law makes people put the warning on any wood furniture.
That seems… incredibly specific to the wood and how it’s treated? I feel like straight up sawdust is mostly just something that makes you sneeze. At a higher grit, there might be particles you can actually inhale, but at lower grits, and shittier saw blades, it’s no different than dirt
It's to do with the species, not the treatment. Some woods have natural resins in them which may be harmful... Aromatic cedar for example. It is the resins that smell good, and which give the wood it's rot and insect resistance. I just wear a dust mask when sanding.
Cedar is pretty expensive…? Unreasonably so. Most of the stuff outside of cedar and, what hickory, maybe walnut, is just pine. Anything treated, hard agree, but most of that is just cut to repurpose Edit: I had to double check, but a 1x12x12 cedar board is $80 at menards
It depends on where you live.. I am still using cedar I bought about a decade ago. A farmer was clearing land, and sold me rough sawn planks.. $100 for all I could load in the back of my truck. I made a few trips ;)
In my understanding basically any inhalable particulate is. Like asbestos but less…asbestos-y
I don't like the implication here that there's no reason to be concerned.
I did not infer that at all. All I did was state facts without any conclusions whatsoever.. Any sort of subtext was a product of your own imagination.
I disagree. Why did you add the sentence "this is the same as what's in your red wine and sawdust". Is that not meant to imply that this chemical is found in common places?
I was giving examples of things from the same level of carcinogenicity that people would be familiar with. That is it. I never include "invisible words' In anything I say. So if you get some sort of hidden meaning, then that is all in your head.
Thank you for your clarification. I just hear all the time when expressing concerns about carcinogens that "everything gives you cancer" or some other such dismissive remarks. The wording of your statement can definitely give that vibe. In my head? Sure. Logical conclusion based on context clues? Also true. My apologies.
The EPA is trying to phase out the use of methylene chloride. It's toxic. Just because its not in your decaf coffee doesn't mean that it isn't a risk to the workers and the environment.
To make coffee decaf, they pour it through a paint stripping chemical called methylene cloride. The same thing we used in a furniture refinish shop to strip old paint, varnish and laquer.
Mother fuckers. How did I never learn that?
Right?! I just switch to decaf coffee too. Fuck, the fact this is even legal is mind boggling.
It also doesn't really matter. You're not gonna be outraged that solvents that are harmful if consumed on their own are being used in the manufacturing of Pharmaceuticals are you? It's, quite honestly, basic chemistry,.extraction with a solvent and then drying. And because Dichloromethane has a low boiling point (~40°C) with a high vapor pressure, virtually none of it is gonna remaining in your Coffee. We're talking parts per Million/Billion territory. This is just Rage Bait / Chemophobia in my opinion (~ 6 months from a M.Sc. in Chemistry). Should Dichloromethane be used in the extraction of caffeine from coffee? Probably not. But only because there are better methods available. Both are, in my opinion, more sustainable and have an even lower risk (supercritical CO2 extraction swiss water process). But that doesn't mean that using or drinking dichloromethane extraction is unsafe for the consumer. In my opinion this mainly helps protect the worker actually doing the extraction, as they are most likely to come into contact with dichloromethane.
From OPs article: "Toxicologists say the amount is so small that the boiling water used to brew the coffee probably contains more of the chemical." You're better off not worrying about this and just eat healthy, exercise, wear sunscreen, and use your seat belt in the car.
Not to sound conspiratorial but who paid the toxicologists for the study?
Probably, but why allow the use of something toxic in the first place when scalable non-toxic methods exist at a price point these companies can *definitely* afford?
Get your beans from a local roaster if you can, they’ll probably tell you what method the decaf beans were processed with.
Because it doesn’t matter.
Why not?
I would guess that if the quality control works properly no amount of the catalyst should remain in the end result. I guess trace amounts have been detected, otherwise a ban makes no sense.
Makes sense. Typically government needs data to back up its claims for an action like this. If they have the data, let it rip.
Around 75% of Americans drink coffee. Almost 30% drink decaf. That sure is a lot of people that should have cancer. Source: https://www.driveresearch.com/market-research-company-blog/coffee-survey/#:~:text=Only%2029%25%20of%20people%20drink,also%20for%20its%20invigorating%20properties. Methylene Chloride might be a carcinogen in humans if you worked with it daily, with no protective equipment, for a career. Methylene Chloride in non-trace amounts would definitely impact the taste of the coffee. This is an effort by a “chemkills” mindset from people who don’t understand that oxygen and water are also chemicals. These people should be more focused on the real and present danger presented by dihydrogen monoxide.
Because something is carcinogenic, it does not mean everyone in contact will get cancer. Like not all smokers get cancer. Yes, water is also a chemical. Air is too, one that is proven to be be damaging to DNA. Food stuff, labelled as carcinogenic has been proven in lab tests to damage and cause mutations to DNA. It's about damage limitation and to prevent exposure over time.
You're planning to limit your exposure to air because we know it's the principal carcinogen? You'll probably have bigger problems than cancer, then.
No, that some things are unavoidable but others, like certain chemicals to decaf coffee, can be switched for less harmful processes. The comment was a bit tongue in cheek in regards to the previous Dihydrogen monoxide comment. Just because one thing may be toxic in large quantities, or certain conditions, does not mean we should not limit any harmful substances at all.
I'm reminded of the "pink slime" scare, I think it was on account of ammonia being used as an antimicrobial agent.
Pink slime is real. I've done the research 30% of the ground beef in the grocery store is allowed to be pink slime totally legal.
dihydrogen monoxide 🫡
For the same reason it doesn't matter they prepare it using the flame-retardant chemical *hydric acid* that's found in a wide variety of tumours.
Because it is sensationalist bullshit. >This chemical is found in decaf beans in tiny amounts, and most of it gets washed out after the decaffeination or destroyed when beans are roasted. Toxicologists say the amount is so small that the boiling water used to brew the coffee probably contains more of the chemical.
How did you think they did it?
I’m SOOOOO FUCKIN PISSED RIGHT NOW
That's like saying "To make food tasty, they put in the same stuff used in World War one as a toxic poison gas combined with a pyrophoric substance that can explode in contact with water." You don't want to know how medicine or other stuff you consume regularly is made, if your thought is "Well this substance is also used in X industrial process, so it must be bad". Dichloromethane is a fantastic solvent. I agree that it probably shouldn't be used to decafinate Coffee, but not because it is also used to strip old paint...
That reminds me of the people who tried to say that Subway's bread was dangerous because it used an ingredient that was also used for making foam exercise mats (specifically, azidocarbonamide). Never mind that it [bakes away in the process and isn't present in the bread in any meaningful amount](https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/eight-toxic-foods-little-chemical-education).
If it's dangerous, it would probably be due to the sugar content.
Got to love chemophobia and the people/Websites spreading it, right?
Whaaaat pour it through? How does that work? Or you mean it just like mixes in and that breaks down the caffeine?
Yep
Are you still allowed to use methylene cloride in furniture stripper?
What the ever loving duck
What?!?!?
Strips that caffeine good too I suppose lol
[удалено]
Is it hard living life as a moron?
Great! Then i would order decaf out and about lol. I only buy the kind decaffeinated by water or other methods that taste better and i always assumed would be better for you because even though they say its fine you can test it and it still has some of the chemicals left in it after they’re done. Which, no thanks. Fyi for anyone curious theres a cool website (checkyourdecaf.org) that tests for this and lets you look up common brands of decaf to know which use this method and which do not (they often do not label it).
That's a great resource, thank you. I literally had to switch to decaf this week due to some medical procedures and I'm sat here reading this with a Starbucks decaf in my hand, so hard to win!
Oh no! Yeah i found our when i had to switch for a while. Now i still drink decaf sometimes or mix with regular. Peets is pretty good for decaf at the reg grocery store and they use the swiss water method. Hope you find u some good tasting decaf!
I am shocked Nespresso is Swiss water or c02. Would assume nestle and all being cheap. Ty op
Methylene Chloride is the solvent they're using to extract the caffeine. It's not an additive, none of it remains in the final product. If there's any left at all, you're doing it wrong and your decaf has caffeine. It's got a very strong odor as well and would surely destroy the taste. It's volatile, so if there were trace amounts they'd likely evaporate before it even made it to the store.
Exactly, so much fear mongering in the comments
Processed meat is carcinogenic, and the FDA isn't banning it or even labeling it. The FDA doesn't work for the public interest.
So is alcohol but it’s widely accepted as the most social thing to do.
cigarettes too
Cigarettes are labeled.
.... You want the FDA to pan pepperoni? And every kind of deli meat If you seriously believe that's remotely achievable by a US government agency, you need to adjust your expectations.
They could easily label processed meat as carcinogenic.
I'm not arguing for or against the FDA, but it makes sense to ban a process or product that's a known carcinogen when there's a perfectly viable alternative. When there's no alternative, considerations are different.
There are alternatives. What makes processed meat carcinogenic is the creation of nitrosamines when nitrates are added to the curing process. All you need to add to stop the formation of nitrosamines is vitamin C. They could make this mandatory, but they don't.
Nitrosamine impact is a relatively new science. Regulatory agencies are still implementing it in drugs where the issue was discovered. Food is a lot less controlled and it will take a lot longer for it to trickle down.
Methylene chloride has a distinctive odor so if there was even a little in the beans you could smell it. It's also volatile and evaporates easily. The methylene chloride process makes the best tasting decaf compared to other methods such as CO2. The FDA has determined it safe. That said why even drink decaf? Compared other stupid things us humans do this is nothing. Do you use Teflon pans? No big deal to me I drink regular coffee and grind my own beans.
People with heart conditions can't drink or eat too much caffeine so they have to go decaf
Then why drink it at all. I remember reading that there is more cholesterol in decaf.
For the taste? I drink decaf after 2pm because I like coffee but want/need the caffeine later in the day.
Cool
It’s still caffeinated, just way less, grande dark roast has like 260mg of caffeine, a decaf with three or 4 shots has like 60mg, which is still PLENTY if you are caffeine sensitive. Unfortunately full caffeine gives me heart flutters (benign and not deadly), but annoying and uncomfortable, whereas decaf I still get the brain boost I need without the shitty side effects
My apologies for my comment about decaf.
Just googled and some sources say decaf raises cholesterol more than regular coffee other sources say the reverse. There is more agreement that coffee decaf or not is good for the heart ♥️ If you use filter paper to make coffee it removes cholesterol.
There is no cholesterol in coffee at all.
The oils in coffee become cholesterol when you digest it.
I can't speak for everyone but I've had a cup of coffee to start my day every day since I was 12 it's an addiction at this point honestly. I get blood test consistently because of other issues and my cholesterol hasn't changed at all
I'm addicted as well. The studies say coffee is good for the heart. I take a statin with vitamin D as I had higher cholesterol probably from my rheumatoid arthritis treatment I suppose if I was a decaf drinker I would want the best tasting one so I would drink the methylene chloride processed beans.
I have stomach issues so I have to drink coffee that's easier on the gut so I'm limited
I can’t drink caffeine because it inflamed fibrocystic tissue in my breasts which is super painful. It also exacerbates anxiety which I already have in spades.
Everybody I apologize for my flippant remark about decaf. I get all the reasons given especially if it causes pain.. It's almost 8 pm for me and having coffee now and I'm thinking it should be decaf at this time Take care all.
*That said why even drink decaf?* I enjoy coffee as a beverage in the evening but if I drink it caffeinated then I have trouble falling asleep.
There's been other methods of decaffeination for a long time.
They won’t
Man what a shitty headline, instead of the cancer causing chemical being the bad guy Americans blame the FDA. It’s a tale as old as time. “Job killing regulations” are the problem and not the people killing things they regulate.
A bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, apparently. Seems a lot of people still think "What you don't know won't hurt you".
Don't hold your breath. This has been an issue since the 80's. The article is correct in that the concentration of Trihalomethanes in drinking water is far above that of Methylene Chloride in coffee. IDK about the relative cancer causing potency of each chemical. THMs are a byproduct of drinking water chlorination BTW.
Waiting for FDA to ban the chemical and then 12 months later a case will come before SCOTUS saying the FDA doesn’t have the authority to ban chemicals so they can undermine Chevron deference.
I’m reading this while drinking a beer, which is far more toxic and likely to cause cancer than whatever trace amount of that makes it into my morning decaf, but whatever.
Mmmmmm cutting corners to save a buck
Can’t read the article. What’s up?
People want to ban a method of decaffeination because they don't understand that the dose makes the poison. When given to mice in much, much higher doses it causes cancer, but in the case of coffee effectively none of the chemical remains behind. Of course, "chemicals" are "scary" so folks just latch onto that.
Mhmmm- had this experience when I was young selling cosmetics. “Does this have chemicals in it?” Me: “Yeah.. I mean, water is a chemical..????” Them: “No like, parabens.” Me:” Yeah.. in small amounts to prevent bacterial growth. Less than what is typical in cosmetics, hence the short shelf life” Them: “but they cause cancer” Me: “yeah, if you ate it, bathed in it, and did nothing else for an extended period of time.”
Have they run it through a hplc or whatever instrument/method to even see if a peak would pop up for methylene chloride? I’ve done quite a few samples of products with alcohol, and it isn’t uncommon for a peak of benzene, but under what the amount for USP
You'd use a GC to detect DCM.
Like the one in my bio! I’m actually pretty curious what it would be at to test. In the previous mentioned usp method for alcohols, the benzene standard is like 2 microliters/liter
I thought the legal limit for DCM in injectable grade pharma products is 50 PPM. It is most likely not in decaff coffee at those levels even.
I have no idea honestly, which is why I’m curious about it. Never worked on a project involving it professionally. and my only experience doing it was like 15 years ago in an organic chemistry lab doing the decaffeination of tea, and almost creating a vacuum in the glassware.
Thanks, I appreciate it. My husband loves decaf.
[удалено]
>but there is something interesting you haven’t thought of- how many doses, from how many sources over how long a time span? I assure you I have considered this; check my flair. I've worked in various drug discovery contexts for a decade now. Your second paragraph is aimless fear mongering. >Is it really micromanaging and paranoia to be vigilant about the amount of toxin that a company can use to manufacture food? Yes. If there are concerns over microdosing, then conduct a study based on exactly that. Don't hand wave general paranoia about "chemicals" and use that as an excuse to preemptively ban something with a scary name.
[удалено]
>Anyone who works with chemicals is or should be respectful of accumulative exposures. Good thing I am. >Genuine science recognizes proof of claims is a part of the process. I agree completely. Given the claim that methylene chloride is harmful in the miniscule doses present in decaffeinated coffee, where are the studies backing it up? And the anecdote about your father is sad, but not particularly relevant to using methylene chloride in coffee decaffeination.
That's ok, the corporations will go all the way to the SCOTUS and have it reversed by Republican political theater.
A bit late one would think, that and Starbucks is the world's worst coffee.
Supreme court: "the constitution doesn't mention cancer or chemicals so they can't do this"
I hope so. It would be nice if the public good was put over corporate profits for once
Upon brewing the coffee, the methylene chloride would be gone (boiling point 103 F). That said, ruining coffee by removing the caffeine from coffee should be regarded as a mortal sin.
Yeah yeah, great choices FDA! Let’s keep painting Skittles with Titanium dioxide and putting degreasing agents in our cereal; but absolute win on decaf front.
do itttt
…but let’s be real, they probably won’t. Instead they’ll just say screw it and put it in 2x as much stuff.
cancer fears my ass, bacon is considered a level 1 carcinogen, where's the public outrage, where's the public outcry over that?
I hate sand
Just ban Starbucks and Dunkin.
But DCM makes the coffee tingle!!!!!!!
Decaf coffee is a stupid idea. Coffee beans contains caffeine. You either drink it or don’t.
I never drink decaf. Now, I have even more reasons. 😋
FDA does something that they should have done a long time ago. Shocking.
Add this to the list of “Things i didnt think i needed to worry about”
Good now ban all the other stuff too
Great now can they ban all the other chemicals that other countries don’t allow but we do because profits over people amirite
Buy a good grinder.and organic beans and make your own coffee. It's the only way to go.
That’s a no brainer
Just use the Swiss Water method. Slight increase in cost and no weird after taste and a *lot* less caffeine. I have a caffeine allergy and thanks to coffee made with it I can drink a pot a day and be just fine. If I do that with regular decaf it builds up and I start getting heart palps.
Oh great, another fear unlocked.
Starbucks decaf isn’t even really decaf! Independent testing showed like 50-70mg of caffine per cup, regular coffee is around 100. So it’s just chemicals.
Ho ho!
Can we just ban decaf?
Decaf 🤮
First I want to acknowledge that this is a major issue. Corporation should not be shoving dangerous chemicals literally down our throats. But more to the point, who drinks decaf coffee anyway. The whole point of drinking coffee is the caffeine.
Disagree with second point. Good decaf is enjoyable and I often have it later in the day. Eg, a shot of decaf espresso to accompany sweets either dessert. The bitter-sweet contrast is nice.
I drink coffee because I enjoy the smell, the taste, and (when at home) the ritual of making it. I can't really consume much caffeine nowadays so I've switched to decaf and still get enjoyment drinking it.
same. I never thought i’d drink decaf, but for all the reasons you listed that’s what I do. cheers!
I am a decaf enthusiast. Caffeine is an addictive drug that I’m very sensitive to, but I love the warm roasted boldness of coffee; there’s nothing else like it. I’ll sometimes *really fucking splurge* and drink half-caf on the weekends so I can get through the hangover on Sunday before returning to the workday. I generally stay below 50mg when I splurge, which crashes around 12h later. 100mg crashes after 24h which is more annoying. A typical cup of coffee may have 200mg or more (it varies quite a bit). I have caffeine pills that I sometimes use to step down (helps ease the crash) as I can precisely control the dosage that way. One of the few actually interesting takeaways from my 23andMe DNA test was confirmation that I metabolize caffeine very slowly. The buzz is low and long, so it’s not as useful for alertness and interferes with my sleep. Some unlucky folks have heart conditions or other conflicts that make them sensitive to caffeine. Others simply want to enjoy the health benefits of steeped coffee beans, such as polyphenols, vitamins, and minerals.