The sentinel cases of the debilitating lung disease bronchiolitis obliterans were among workers at a microwave popcorn facility. It wasn’t too long before NIOSH researchers suspected the illnesses were related to workers’ exposure to the butter flavoring agent used in the plant. The compounds are typically a mixture of volatile organic compounds (VOC), many of which can irritate severely the skin, eyes and respiratory tract. Diacetyl, a 4-carbon alpha-diketone, was one of the VOCs identified in the microwave popcorn plant environment. Diacetyl has come to serve as the catch-all name for the butter-flavoring agents, although NIOSH researchers noted:
“the vapors emitted from butter flavoring are a complex mixture that produces necrosis that cannot be explained by the known toxicological properties of any of its components.” (Hubbs, et al. 2002)
Although popcorn makers began selling still buttery-flavored product labeled “no diacetyl,” Sphere’s Andrew Schneider has been investigating whether a ‘no diacetyl’ claim translates into less health risk to exposed workers and consumers. His sources have consistently said “No.” Now, so does NIOSH Director John Howard.
In a December 23 letter to new OSHA chief David Michaels, the NIOSH Director wrote:
“…starter distillate [which eventually creates diacetyl], acetoin, and 2,3 pentanedione exemplify the lack of evidence demonstrating the workplace safety of potential substitutes for diacetyl; and document some evidence that potential substitutes are also respiratory hazards.”
Not that OSHA’s health scientists really need this official word from NIOSH that compounds of this nature can damage the respiratory system, but it does create an opportunity for OSHA’s new leadership: engaging actively in inter-agency policy discussions to improve the Toxic Substances Control Act. Few could benefit more than workers from a law that improves OSHA’s statutory authority to prevent harm from exposure to chemicals, encourages safer alternatives, and enhances right-to-know.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 6, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Michael Wood
It seems to remain the case that one of the primary struggles in the regulation of chemicals (not only in worker health but in public health) is the difference between presumption of safety until proven otherwise (essentially our current system) and presumption of hazard until proven otherwise (which some advocate, but it’s difficult to see how a practical method could be achieved). In the absence of a shift in the balance, then we need to improve our ability (collectively, at the very least) to identify problems and then respond to them with the precautionary principle firmly in mind. I guess what I am suggesting is a model that presumes safety until their is any indication otherwise and then presumes hazard until the issue is resolved.
Not a firm policy proposal, obviously. But perhaps better heads than mine…
Michael Wood, CSP
Administrator, Oregon OSHA
January 7, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Frank Mirer
What’s the FDA rule on presumed safety of food ingredients? status of revocation of GRAS listing for diacetyl?
Second, before the implied trashing of the current OSHA leadership for the time it’s taking, we have to consider the downside of promulgating an ETS or Direct Final Rule and being defeated in the courts.
Finally, I read “diacetyl trimmer” in the Schneider article and found it echoed on the internet. I believe it’s “diacetyl trimer.” [from the OSHA website, “Both diacetyl trimer and the sulfite adduct of diacetyl have a low vapor pressure in their basic form, and are thus less likely to evaporate and result in employee inhalation exposures during the production process. However, both are converted to diacetyl during consumer food preparation, so that the foods when consumed will contain diacetyl. For example, if placed on popcorn, both convert to diacetyl when the popcorn is popped.”
January 7, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Celeste Monforton
We sent a letter to FDA on Dec 3 asking for the status of our 2007 petition to revoke the GRAS designation for diacetyl. We’ve not heard back from FDA yet; here’s a link to our letter:
Click to access FDA_Diacetyl_Followup.pdf
January 13, 2010 at 7:30 pm
all2010videos
@Celeste
Why don’t you have to consult your higher official to personally hand carry your request so that they will talk personally about whatever concern you have.
February 12, 2010 at 4:15 pm
DMessbarger
How many more people have to be severly injured before the government takes a more aggressive stance against the use of diacetyl. The “no diacetyl” microwave popcorn was just a ploy to allow “business as usual” for these large companies to operate. As every chemist knows, diacetyl, whether naturally occurring, or manufactured, is still diacetyl. It has been proven to be one of the most necrotic substances ever exposed to workers, yet many people are working, unprotected, with it every day, and the consumers are risking their health using the stuff in their homes.
Penalties for corporate malfeasance should no longer be just civil, but criminal. They can no longer utilize the excuse, “they didn’t know it was dangerous”.
October 9, 2020 at 3:08 pm
Walker Suttell
Best ever content