3 ms·
The article is interesting but feels a little too alarmist, like they're obviously trying to push a narrative, which makes me worry how factual it all is. Like
by version_five 3y ago
The article is interesting but feels a little too alarmist, like they're obviously trying to push a narrative, which makes me worry how factual it all is.
Like about the gas release at a US factory and the improper dosing of caffeine in the sunkist drinks, neither of which had anything to do with anything other than sounding vaguely evil.
Otoh, I never really considered the provenance of caffeine in soft drinks (I don't drink soft drinks), it's interesting to hear about it. Something similar is probably true for many chemicals.
- coin 3y agoYes, the article never outlined the practical differences between natural and synthetic caffeine.
- valec 3y ago...there are none. you could argue residual solvent but FDA would not allow that, and depending on the industrial process this would be a concern with caffeine extracted from "natural" processes as well
- Terr_ 3y agoI notice the article doesn't directly claim that the production of synthetic caffeine is inherently and notably polluting/dangerous, merely that today the major manufacturer(s) happen to be located in industrial zones that are polluted/low-regulation. I don't think that coincidence (with one data-point I can't call it a correlation) as very compelling. There are great many completely innocuous products or manufacturing steps which could likewise be located in a place like that for economic reasons. So it seems another framing could fit, of: "Synthetic caffeine is easy to manufacture and compact to ship, so much so that most of the world's needs have been centralized to one place with cheap labor costs."