From: sbhattac@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Shankar Bhattacharyya)
Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking
Subject: Re: Sulfate in cooking
Date: 17 Dec 92 07:04:09 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <memo.809101@cix.compulink.co.uk> jazzie@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:

>There are about a gazillion foods that have naturally occurring sulfites
>in them.  I remember laughing when NY State passed a law disallowing
>sulfite additives... there are plenty more foods out there that can
>affect a person without even *adding* anything to them.

I'd argue with both points here. First, there is not a whole lot of stuff
that contains much "natural" sulfite. Sulfite is not the sort of stuff that
hangs around. It's fairly reactive. Also, there are simply not a great many
biochemical mechanisms by which sulfite is likely to be produced. I don't
know any more about biochemically produced sulfite in foods, and if anyone
has information on that I would appreciate a message, but I very much doubt
that there is a whole lot out there.

Second, NY State hasn't banned sulfite. As far as I know, nobody has. What
the law requires is rather prominent labeling. The most overt piece of
labeling regulation in this regard is that salad bars are required to post
a sign if they use sulfite to keep their stuff looking good. Sulfite levels
in salad bars used to be quite ridiculous. I used to be able to taste it in
a lot of cases.

Of course, given the generally schizoid American attitudes towards
additives, requiring prominent labeling is almost equivalent to a ban.
Competitive pressures pretty much imply that.

Yes, there are plenty of foods that can affect a person, even without any
additives in them, but not because of sulfites. I'd hardly think that that
is in itself a good reason for ignoring sulfites as a hazard. The people
who suffer reactions to sulfite often suffer extremely drastic reactions.

Of course, it is not clear to me that a whole lot of regulation is really
in order, since the number of people who are seriously sensitive to sulfite
is really very small, much smaller than the number who believe they are
sulfite-sensitive. (Actually, I believe that's true about almost any kind
of alleged sensitivity, though I would prefer not to argue that point. It's
the sort of argument that gets people all hot and bothererd.)

It is likely that a good information campaign, along with labeling
requirements, would have done just fine.

>I'm sorry, I don't have a list, but I do know that many nuts and wines
>have naturally occurring sulfites, as do most/all shellfish.  I bet the
>person involved (the allergic person) would have a list of sulfite-
>bearing foods.  Why not have the host/hostess ask him/her?

I don't know where your information comes from, but most of the sulfite in
shellfish is added. Frozen seafood, shrimp for instance, is often frozen in
a medium which contains several hundred ppm of sulfite. (We once analyzed
for sulfite in a large batch of frozen shrimp. We took about five shrimp
out of each of 45 or so 5 lb packs for analysis, and then we ate the rest.
It kept us in shrimp for weeks.)

FDA rules say that if the sulfite content exceeds 10 ppm, expressed as
sulfur dioxide, it must be declared, except for wines and such, where use
of sulfite is almost assumed.

Dried apricots often contain 3000 ppm sulfite. That's enough to choke on
when you pop a bag open. I'm not sulfite sensitive, but that's annoying
independently of any sensitivity issues.

In nature it takes a volcano to produce that sort of sulfite level.

- Shankar
Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking