I’m truly sorry for the title, but it says what I think about this succinctly. I tried half a dozen variations and kept coming back to the one word.
There are days when I think I just won’t see anything stupider cross my inbox. Then, today brings a new surprise on the winds of change. Carbon Free Sugar. Let me repeat that. Carbon Free Sugar – certified even.
Those of you who remember their basic high school chemistry might remember this simple and indelible truth: sugar contains carbon.
There is no getting around that. Don’t believe me? Try frying up some sugar in a sauce pan and watch the results. Or just pick up a used mass spectrograph on Ebay and run an analysis.
Or just consult any number of chemical handbooks. Sucrose is common table sugar (as pictured in the bag) and has the chemical formula: C12H22O11
Looks like twelve atoms of carbon combined with eleven molecules of H2O doesn’t it? That’s why it is called (drum roll please) a carbohydrate.
Eating and digesting sugar turns it into water and carbon dioxide that we exhale, so for it to be truly “carbon free” as the label says, we have to get those twelve molecules of Carbon out. So how do they get the carbon out of that sucrose anyway? It’s really easy, all we need is a catalyst.
Reacting sucrose with sulfuric acid (H2SO4) dehydrates the sucrose and forms the element carbon, as demonstrated in the following chemical equation:
- C12H22O11 + H2SO4 (as catalyst) → 12 C + 11 H2O
So assuming they get the acid out of the mix, we are left with some pure carbon and a bunch of water. Yummm! Perfect for cereal in the morning.
Ok, I’m being a bit extreme, I realize the idea is to promote a carbon neutral production of sugar.
But really, couldn’t the marketing people at Domino realize how stupid this claim sounds? I’ll bet the guys at the Domino company labs are having a fit. I’d love to see the emails that went flying when they learned of this one. Beakers were probably flying across the lab too.
But some companies will do anything to appear green these days, because they want to keep that “other green footprint” high.
Ah, the sweet smell of success.
My cornflakes will never taste the same again!!!
Not only is the sugar carbon free, but the ad says:
“Click here for our new carbon free TV commercial.”
click
I think that everything that has to be said is already said, except for this:
Bunch of hypocrites.
I read this out to my wife and had to keep stopping as I couldn’t see the screen for the tears … its so funny and yet … strangely sad…
If you did invent carbon-free sugar, it would probably kill you.
What’s next?
After they have suceeded in removing all the carbon from Earth, then there will be no more carbon-based life on it, because that contains carbon too.
Sounds like a script out of an Alien Invasion sci-fi flick.
@Smokey,
Hey now…can we be sure the enterprise was truly a carbon free expedition?
PS – Picard Facepalm is a classic.
This may be a case of false advertising. The appropriate wording would seem to be “Carbon Neutral”. The phrase “CarbonFree” appears to be deceptive and misleading to the consumer, as it does not appear that Domino’s Sugar is free of carbon, as their label and marketing materials claim.
My first response was, ‘You’ve got to be s****** me’, but then I remembered this should be a family-friendly blog,
so,
you’ve got to be kidding me!
When the marketing departments latch onto the latest craze fad in health and well-being you can figure that the fad’s in its death spiral.
And by the time all our processed food is all prepared in a politically correct manner, you can be sure it will be tasteless.
Maybe Domino could come out with a dehydrated version. Some folks would probably buy an empty box to reduce their carbon footprint.
I wonder when being a carbon based life form wil become passe?
This just doesn’t irk me….it makes laugh and painfully so.
Erik Ramberg (20:29:22) :
Which is about as meaningful a certification to me as if it came from the neighbor’s cat.
Yes. Seriously, yes.
Yes. If you can demonstrate a credible reason we should, maybe I’ll consider changing that. Otherwise, it’s nothing more than a fad. A mockable fad.
Seriously… come on… you’re playing devil’s advocate, right? You can’t actually be here telling us to not mock dishonest advertising, right?
Wait. The guy on the video is NOT talking about the chemical composition of sucrose but (QUITE CORRECTLY for AGWers) is saying “……reslting in net carbon emission”, n’est pas?
Carbon-free sucrose is also calorie-free. How can they possibly be missing that advertising angle?
OTOH, carbon-free sucrose is just DHMO. Hmm, dhmo.org needs to be warned about this nefarious sneak into pantries everywhere.
Sorry for my typo:
“net carbon emission” should read “no net carbon emission”
Unbelieveable.
Back in the Sixties as a 6th grader among the first chemistry experiments were getting a tablespoon of sugar and heating it until it turned black to show it was made of carbon and the second one was mixing baking soda and vinegar to show how a simple fire extinguisher worked and of course getting the dreaded carbon dioxide bubbles.I guess the EPA will have to issue permits to do these simple things nowadays.
Back then the famed Gilbert chemistry set was still around as were other brands. A kid could go to either the hobby shop or the drug store and buy all the necessary ingredients to make black powder.The drugstore was where you could get the chemicals in bulk versus an ounce or two at the hobby shop. Not any more in CT. I wonder sometimes if the now adults who had chemistry sets and the science project kits as kids are more skeptical of AGW and all this going green ,know your carbon footprint stuff that is going on today.
The label doesn’t seem to suggest buying the bag and storing it, to sequester the non-carbon.
Inspired, I looked for a thermometer made of sugar, but “candy thermometer” has a different meaning. No luck either in finding a candy Stevenson screen.
However, the search did find a community college in the U.K. who summarized a student weather project. “Our readings are split between an automatic weather station on the roof and
a Stevenson Screen at the edge of the playing fields (by a tall hedge).” Argh!
http://www.metlink.org/resources/schools/casterton.html
Are there still any laws on the books about “Truth in Advertising?” I would think that a good trial lawyer could do wonders with the misleading packaging.
Once again, people:
1. CarbonFree is a designation from a separate organization, not from Domino.
2. They explain quite specifically what it means in their ad.
3. The carbon in sugar comes out of the atmosphere, powered by sunlight, thus making cane sugar a very close to carbon neutral product.
4. They are making their production even more efficient by burning their wood waste to create electricity to power their plant – this is again a carbon neutral transaction.
Regardless of whether you think excess carbon dioxide will cause global warming, the true conservative position would be to try and halt the massive change in our planet’s atmospheric composition. This company is doing their part, and making a profit. Good for them.
Oh, this is a bad thing. It’s as bad as saying life as we know it is toxic.
You cannot have the industrial age and the population supported by it without the aid of fossilized biomass.
Did we come this far to have it all come crashing down because of someone’s sick agenda?
Carbon is not the problem. Green Agenda is the problem, and all it’s attendant propaganda and lies. We are carbon too.
Seems to me that the Green Agenda is run by people who are tired of life itself.
Out of the frying pan and into the fire it goes.
Outlaw carbon fuels and replace them with what?
Nuclear.
And where will you place all the nuclear waste?
Dump it and ignore it.
Like all the dumping that Green Agenda conveniently ignores.
At one time, you had the respect, with your Superfund agenda.
OOGreen: Liscense to spill.
Oh what the heck. On the off chance that Domino’s customer service reps aren’t scientists (or don’t remember junior high chemistry), I sent the following to their customer feedback site:
I just read about your new “Certified CarbonFree Sugar” and salute your efforts in reducing carbon. It occurred to me that carbon-free sugar must also be calorie-free and would like to know why you aren’t including that fact in your advertising.
Smokey (20:41:58) When you mentioned dehydrated sugar, all I could think of was a black powder. 🙂
Anthony I have to agree this is stupid, don’t know if mirth or chagrin is appropriate. I suspect it will get stupider and stupider as George M is probably correct.
George M (20:07:48) I agree, this is the root cause.
Mmmmmm ! . Dolphin Friendly sugar, thats what we need.
Now, how do you suppose that Carbon-Free Sugar is package and gets to Market?
What energy will the Market burn to keep it’s store open?
What energy will the consumer expend to get to the Market, get the Carbon Free Sugar and get it home?
What energy will the consumer expend to keep thier home heated/cooled?
What energy will the consumer expend to go to work to earn the money to buy the Carbon Free sugar?
I’m sorry, but while the efforts to produce one product at locale may seem significant, it’s not.
Not only does the lifestyle of the consumer have to change, but so does the efficiency of the other two: Commercial and Industrial.
Then you will have something.
In the meantime, with Coal being given a black eye, the rest of the Fossil Fuels must travel across whole oceans, and don’t tell me that the supertankers are equipped with sails.
Erik Ramberg (20:53:10) :
1. Why don’t they use the standard term, “carbon neutral”?
2. The video says “carbon is a major cause of global warming.” The speaker also refers to their sugar as carbon free with no reference to CarbonFree(tm).
3. So why don’t they call it a carbon neutral?
4. What did they do before? Hold nightly bonfires?
5. Every so often, one should fly off the handle over something trivial. I’m not sure this is something trivial – anyone concerns with the state of science education should be appalled. And we are.
6. Conservation good. It just doesn’t cool the Earth. Or warm the Earth.
“Massive change in our planet’s atmospheric composition?” I put a heck of a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere driving to and from work than I do from the sugar I buy when I need some.
The true conservative approach would be to address the issue top down.
Reduce the immense waste in oceanic and continental transportation.
Reduce the immense waste in power plants who make $$$ running with generators offline or powering Vegas style lighting grids while everyone is sleeping (or trying to sleep !).
Cute little bottom up efforts are swallowed whole by the vast distribution and generation system.
The rest of them will buy some carbons credits with liscence to tax & spill.
They will all claim Green, just like everyone packaged Jumbo and Giant Size (sold by weight, not by volume).
Superfund was a good thing.
This is a paint job. A facade.
I am not impressed.