In Last Month's Recall, Kellogg's Called It "Off-Flavor & Smell" In Cereal; a.k.a. Methylnaphtelene

[hatrack]

When Kellogg Co. pulled about 28 million cereal boxes from store shelves last month, the company said only that an "off-flavor and smell" coming from the packaging could cause nausea and diarrhea. But the culprit behind the recall is a class of chemicals now making news in the Gulf of Mexico: hydrocarbons, a byproduct of oil. The nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG) reported yesterday that the hydrocarbon methylnaphthalene, which the government has yet to evaluate for human carcinogenicity, was behind the recall. For EWG and other public-health advocacy groups, the appearance of a chemical missing consistent risk data in popular products such as Apple Jacks strengthens the case for food safety reform -- an issue that remains stalled in the Senate.

"There are potentially many thousands of chemicals that could leach out of these materials into our food," said Jane Houlihan, EWG's vice president for research. "In this case, methylnaphthalene and other hydrocarbons are what Kellogg's is saying publicly about what ended up in their cereal. They need to be more forthcoming about what exactly they found." A food-safety bill passed by the House one year ago this month gives the Food and Drug Administration power to order mandatory recalls, rather than voluntary efforts such as the one initiated with Kellogg. But that legislation sits in limbo in the upper chamber as industry groups chafe at Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-Calif.) bid to ban another chemical with an unclear safety history, bisphenol A, from food containers.

Sarah Klein, an attorney at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said the mandatory recall provisions in the pending food-safety measure would provide greater consumer protections in the case of packaging hazards such as the Kellogg case. But, she added, "in this particular instance, it's clear that FDA needs to take a closer look at the packaging of consumer products and this chemical that's been identified as a problem."

Kellogg consulted independent toxicologists and chemists before pinpointing "elevated levels of hydrocarbons, including methylnaphthalene," as the source of the smell and flavor defects in the cereal, company spokesman J. Adaire Putnam said via e-mail. The paraffin wax at issue in the June 25 recall is FDA approved and "commonly used as a protective coating for foods including cheese, raw fruits and vegetables," he added. "We have verified that the elevated levels of hydrocarbons are not present at harmful levels. We are working with our supplier to ensure that this situation does not happen again." Putnam declined to name the other hydrocarbons found in the cereal boxes and to state whether the company would back EWG's call for increased FDA testing of food packaging.

EDIT

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/07/13/13greenwire-hydrocarbons-in-cereal-stoke-new-debate-over-f-30342.html

[valerief]

1. I can't reconcile these two statements.

the hydrocarbon methylnaphthalene, which the government has yet to evaluate for human carcinogenicity, was behind the recall.

"We have verified that the elevated levels of hydrocarbons are not present at harmful levels.

[jberryhill]

2. Because you are equating "carinogenicity" with "harmful"

"Harmful" includes a lot of thing, such as toxicity.

It may have simply been a statement intended to relate to whether the material was present at below toxic levels.

Typically, in a box of Apple Jacks, there are Apple Jacks present at harmful levels.

[valerief]

4. But if they don't know if it's carcinogenic, how can they know it's not harmful?

:shrug:

[jberryhill]

5. Context is everything

When making a statement, not everybody speaks like a lawyer and covers any and all possible interpretation.

The way the Internet works, things get picked over like never before.

My assumption is that nobody thinks this stuff is good for you. The most common measure of "harmfulness" of anything is what is called the "LD50" level. That is the extrapolated lethal dose at which 50% of exposed mice die (lethal dose, 50%).

I would also assume the immediate question someone has upon exposure to a harmful substance is "do I need to seek medical attention or do anything about it?". If it was a toxic exposure, yes. If it was exposure to a potential carcinogen, no. You'll either get cancer or not.

But, sure, there is an inconsistency between the two sentences if you want to look at it that way.

Just about any organic solvent is potentially carcinogenic because, yah, it's an organic solvent, and cell reproduction depends on a careful disassembly and re-assembly of long organic molecules.

[joshcryer]

6. Water is extremely toxic at high doses, with no known cure.

That doesn't make it harmful for consumption at typical doses.

[valerief]

8. Yep, and the govt has tested this (waterboarding). I'm talking about what the

govt hasn't tested but Kellogg says is not harmful.

[JoeyT]

7. There are other kinds of harmful, so even if it isn't carcinogenic, it could still be godawful.

Mutagenic, cytotoxic, mitotoxic, etc. They don't know that it isn't harmful. They just haven't really checked very hard. Given how common the stuff is you'd think someone would've gotten around to it.

It's rated as a respiratory toxicant by some groups, but there's been little other research done. It was found to cause an increase in http://www.epa.gov/IRIS/subst/1006.htm">pulmonary alveolar proteinosis in rats, but the study was pretty screwed up and they didn't control the stuff very well, so all the rats inhaled it and a bunch in the control groups ended up with the condition (probably) from it.

[Juneboarder]

3. Clear as mud, huh!?! nt