Molecules: You'd better learn to live with them.
Via Fark: a blog last week remarked about McDonald's chicken products, quoting The Omnivore's Dilemma::
But perhaps the most alarming ingredient in a Chicken McNugget is tertiary butylhydroquinone, or TBHQ, an antioxidant derived from petroleum that is either sprayed directly on the nugget or the inside of the box it comes in to "help preserve freshness." According to A Consumer's Dictionary of Food Additives, TBHQ is a form of butane (i.e. lighter fluid) the FDA allows processors to use sparingly in our food: It can comprise no more than 0.02 percent of the oil in a nugget. Which is probably just as well, considering that ingesting a single gram of TBHQ can cause "nausea, vomiting, ringing in the ears, delirium, a sense of suffocation, and collapse." Ingesting five grams of TBHQ can kill.
I don't know whether we should be eating high quantities of preservatives in our food, but this is just scaremongering.
A nugget containing the claimed maximum, 0.02 percent, would require you to eat 5kg to attain a TBHQ dose of 1 gram. A 20-piece order has a mass of 320g. A maximally-preserved batch of nuggets would require one to eat 312.5 nuggets (13,125 kcal/54,915 kJ) to obtain this dose. I enjoy the occasional ultra-processed nugget, but they aren't that tasty.
Second, the post assumes you don't know chemistry: TBHQ contains a butyl moiety (a tert-butyl moiety, more accurately), but so does butter, which contains esters of the blameless butyrate (when degraded to free butyrate, it's the origin of the smell of rancid butter, esterified, as in fresh butter, it's not a problem). Butter is not lighter fluid, nor is TBHQ:
Contrast the very different butane or higher alkanes (such as the six-carbon hexane), which compose real lighter fluid, which will harm you if you ingest it (or inhale too much) and won't protect your food against spoilage.
A butyl group does not butane make. It's worth noting that preservatives might not be entirely benign (you also encounter BHT and BHA, your cereal box's cardboard is probably impregnated with one of these). However, none of these are lighter fluid by a long shot.
Comments
The horrors of natural antioxidants ("Mommy, why is chocolate brown?") are Officially good for you. Beautifully clean and exquisitely targetted synthetic antioxidants are Officially bad. Topical hydroquinine derivatives reduce pigmentation of your browneye. Imagine how the national economy would boom if female pornstars were not chronically impoverished by the professional standard of anal bleaching.
Whipping McDonalds products with some all-natural creosote bush (nordihydroguaiaretic acid) would improve both the preservation and the taste. Save Our Children! Preserve the US food supply with massive Federal subsidies for creosote bush farmers.
Posted by: Uncle Al | March 29, 2007 12:39 PM
Still and all, if 312 nuggets = "nausea, vomiting, ringing in the ears, delirium, a sense of suffocation, and collapse," doesn't it seem that 10 or 15 nuggets might be...not great? And especially if one was a once- or twice-weekly nugget-eater?
Just a thought.
Posted by: Katherine Sharpe | March 29, 2007 1:00 PM
When I read the sentence fragment "TBHQ is a form of butane" I instantly wanted to scream and claw out my eyes.
Just because a compound is harmful in large quantities does not imply that it will do anything bad in smaller ones. There is a flood of trite examples of compounds which are beneficial or necessary at small quantities but harmful when the dosage is increased 30 times. To expect different from something simply because it is synthetic is just chemophobia.
Posted by: Allan | March 29, 2007 1:31 PM
That's 0.02 percent of the oil in the nugget. While it's hard to tell exactly how much of the nugget consists of oil, 100% is likely a bit high.
Posted by: rehana | March 29, 2007 2:45 PM
Sure, if you eat 15 nuggets twice a week, you're ingesting some bad stuff - but the stuff you should be worrying about isn't TBHQ at that point...
Remember, pharmacology and toxicology only differ by dose...there are plenty of substances that can cause major problems for us in quantity that we routinely ingest in very minute amounts. In chicken nuggets, the damage you're getting from fat and cholesterol and its nutritional issues far outweigh any TBHQ you might ingest.
Posted by: cephyn | March 29, 2007 3:31 PM
"Topical hydroquinine derivatives reduce pigmentation of your browneye."
Only Uncle Al can bring such visual hilarity to a post on antioxidants. Is there anything he doesn't know...
Posted by: around the corner and down the hall | March 29, 2007 3:36 PM
I'd like to nominate the active ingredient in the anal bleach for an upcoming Molecule of the Day. I think it's important to get this information out to the public.
Posted by: ricardog | March 29, 2007 6:59 PM
Shouldn't we be more worried about the chlorine in our (table) salt, a form of which is a toxic gas?
Oh wait, that's an essential element for our bodies - oops!
Posted by: David | March 29, 2007 9:18 PM
I agree that this sounds more like scaremongering, but most of The Omnivore's Dilemma is a real gem, especially the discussion of corn and its manifestations in our life.
Posted by: Wavefunction | March 30, 2007 2:19 PM
Whilst doing my PhD I used 2,5-di-(t-butyl)-1,4-benzohydroquinone (i.e. TBHQ plus an extra butyl group) to induce apoptosis in isolated rat thymocytes. It does this by inhibiting the endoplasmic reticulum calcium pump, thereby flooding the cytoplasm with calcium ions. Not sure whether this provides any insights into the mechanisms by which hydroquinone derivatives remove rust from one's sheriff's badge, but I'm not sure that extensive apoptosis in the anorectal epithelia would be a good thing...
Posted by: TLC | April 1, 2007 9:18 AM
rehana,
Good catch - if you use the fat content of the nuggets as an upper bound for oil, you get 2040.82 nuggets.
Kathrine,
To visualize the difference a factor of 100 can make consider acetaminophen. 500 mg is effective pain relief. 50,000 mg is likely to kill you.
Posted by: MattXIV | April 4, 2007 1:09 AM
I am highly allergic to MSG and TBHQ produces similar side effects.
Posted by: Tanya | April 12, 2007 3:20 PM
How about a general rule: You don't get to call something "poisonous" if the "hazardous dose" would hurt when thrown at your head?
;-)
Posted by: David Harmon | April 20, 2007 12:30 PM
WHY ON EARTH DOES THE FDA OR WHOEVER ALLOW THESE CHEMICALS THAT ARE SO HARMFUL BE PUT IN OUR FOODS? I WOULD CALL THAT A CHEMICAL WAR. PROTECT OUR CHILDREN AND GROW AS MUCH FOOD AS YOU CAN IN GARDENS AND PRESERVE IT YOURSELF. WARS TAKE OUR CHILDREN AND WE ARE HEADING TO EXTINCTION AND WE NEED TO PUT A STOP TO THIS.
Posted by: MARLENE CUPPY | September 24, 2007 5:40 PM
I just ingested some TBHQ.
Posted by: Navus Janus | December 18, 2007 5:58 PM
This is a very interesting site.
Am a clinical pharmacist and appreciate the scientific information presented. My daughter is doing a science project on food preservatives and enjoyed this discussion.
Her comment was "well it won't kill us today, but I am never eating fast food again" she is 9.
The TBHQ is in the fries the buns, ubiquitous in the MCD food.
Posted by: amy | February 8, 2008 2:12 PM
Hi, I'm not a chemist or student of science, just a mum!
Could I just throw out there (as I have been enjoying the discussion too) what about the age factor?
The nugget is particularly attractive too, and consumed by, children (with the exceptions of a few adults :) )
As I understand it, children are far less efficient at breaking down any toxins in their systems and the due to the growth and development they are going through, environmental toxins have the potntial to be far more damaging than in us adults.
I also worry about the synergistic effect for children. Their fries plus their blue sipper drink, plus the preservative in their bread, plus the sulphites in their museli bar at lunch and the fly spray mum just used in the kitchen! Toxicity may be dose related but do we know what a child's true "dose" is at the end of the day and how it is interacting with all the other stuff they come into contact with?
Unless any chemical additive is really essential, why are we putting it in again?
Mel
Posted by: mel | February 8, 2008 11:18 PM
I just saw this TBHQ on a package, and then another, and then another! Keep reading thoes labels, and make calls to keep the labels true!
Posted by: philip | February 14, 2008 10:41 PM
WE AND OUR KIDS ABSORB HUNDREDS OF TRACE AMOUNTS OF DIFFERENT TOXIC CHEMICALS DAILY.
THE ACCUMULATIVE EFFECT SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTES TO DISEASE AND
CHEMICALS AND ADDITIVES IN "INNOCENT" FOODS AND "INNOCENT" PRODUCTS ALSO CAUSE REDUCED COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE AND BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS.
INSTEAD OF COUNTING HOW MANY CHICKEN NUGGETS TO POISON A HUMAN, PLEASE DO THE REAL MATH... ADD UP EVERY CHEMICAL YOU ABSORB IN ONE DAY...
ALL CHEMICALS, ARTIFICIAL INGREDIENTS AND HYDROGENATED OILS ON FOOD LABELS, CROP PESTICIDES, HOME CLEANSER INGREDIENTS, PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS, COLOGNE, LOTIONS, SCENTED CANDLES, AIR FRESHENERS (WHICH IRONICALLY ARE CHEMICALS THAT REDUCE INDOOR AIR QUALITY), SHOE SPRAY, EVERYTHING CONTAINING "FRAGRANCE"... EVERYTHING YOU INHALE, EAT, OR ABSORB THROUGH YOUR SKIN... READ LABELS. IN JUST ONE DAY YOU HAVE A LONG LIST OF TOXIC CHEMICALS. MULTIPLY BY 365 DAYS A YEAR.
TRY REPLACING WITH NATURAL PRODUCTS. VINEGAR, BAKING SODA FOR CLEANING. SMALL HAND HELD HEAT STEAMER TO REMOVE TOUGH DIRT AND GERMS. 2 DROPS OF DISH LIQUID IN WATER SPRAY BOTTLE IS GREAT WINDOW CLEANER. COMMERCIALS PREY ON GERM FEARS TO SELL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TOXIC CHEMICALS.
THE WORD "FRAGRANCE" ON ANY LABEL IS VERY TOXIC. TEENS ARE OBSESSED WITH FRAGRANCES IN EVERY PRODUCT UNTIL THEY LEARN THE TRUTH. SOME NATURAL FRAGRANCES CAN BE FOUND IN HEALTH FOOD STORES.
IF WE FORGET THE DOZENS OF TOXIC PRODUCTS WE DON'T NEED, WE CAN AFFORD SOME 100% NATURAL AND ORGANIC FOODS... AND THEN A FEW CHICKEN NUGGETS HERE AND THERE WON'T HURT US.
Posted by: Sue | February 21, 2008 1:41 PM
I just emailed nutrition@utzsnacks.com this link, and told them I can not believe they have taken BHT and BHA out of most premium dog food and they are putting it in Grandmas's UTZ'S Handcooked potato chips. I am angry what these company's are allowed to do and call it safe. God Bless our children.
Posted by: Donna Aumick | February 27, 2008 11:20 AM
To answer all the questions on why this crap is in the food, one only needs to watch "ENDGAME: BLUEPRINT FOR GLOBAL ENSLAVEMENT" which is available on dvd and I believe it can also be found on utube and google video.
Posted by: Jim Dandy | March 1, 2008 7:40 AM
You people are pathetic. i am a retard. fuck you. im smarter.
nobody cares what is in their food, as long as it tastes good. cock suckers
Posted by: Luke Taylor | March 15, 2008 2:27 PM
I just googled this preservative because I found the ingredient in my daughters girl scout cookies!! Don't know whether to believe that it is butane but I know it can't be good. I wanted to eat another cookie. But now I feel like I can't. I am disguted by all the chemicals our governement allows to be put in our food that are outlawed all over the rest of the world. Including this preservative.
Posted by: Laura | March 15, 2008 8:32 PM
who cares? just eat
Posted by: Joe Anderson | March 22, 2008 6:45 PM
SAY NO TO TBHQ, BHT, BHA and other noxious preservatives (all natural Vitamin E [mixed tocopherols] is ok). Each of them gives me a bad headache within a few minutes of ingestion. That's a quick pathway across the blood/brain barrier. Oh, and by the way, BHT and its lovely cousins oxidize serotonin in lab rats. That's NOT GOOD in case you didn't know it.
Posted by: Peter | March 31, 2008 4:12 PM