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.
@ur momisugly Fuelmaker (21:54:25) :
“You all are being a little hysterical about this. Domino is doing a good thing by burning the cane stalks (called bagasse) to run their process. It certainly deserves a lot more support than all the bogus organic certifications, which are fundamentally anti-science.”
True, but burning bagasse is nothing new. It has been done for centuries. If Domino’s has found a way to extract more energy from bagasse than has been done for centuries, then that would be of merit, but they should explain it.
@ur momisugly Erik Ramberg (20:53:10) :
“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.”
Please see above regarding burning of bagasse. I would take issue with your statement of “even more efficient,” unless Domino’s is doing something significantly different and better than what has been done for centuries.
Nevertheless, I doubt burning bagasse provides more than a small portion of the entire sugar refining energy budget. Refining sugar like Domino’s does involves two crystallizations. Each crystallization requires the sugar solution to be boiled (some energy is saved by boiling under vacuum) to concentrate the solution and precipitate sugar crystals. Then the crystals are spun in centrifuges and washed with water to remove the sorghum which is mostly on the surface of the crystals. Then the whole process is repeated for the second crystallization. It is an energy intensive process as it involves 3 phase changes: liquid (cane sugar) to solid, solid to liquid (redissolving the first-crystallization sugar) and then liquid to solid (to obtain twice crystallized sugar). The liquid to solid phase changes are the most energy intensive, but the whole thing involves many pumps, motors, boilers, etc. as very large masses are being moved around.
“Rhys Jaggar (04:31:49) :
Is this what you call ‘radical innovation’?
a few more suggestions:
‘pork-free porkers for Muslims’?
‘grape-free wine’?
‘English-free football in England’”
If you mean English teams without English players: They’ve got it (that’s why “England” plays so badly).
And now my wife gets a carbon-free diamond.
I drink carbon-free sugar almost daily. but I call it ‘water’. Southern colloquialism I guess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_oil
“Snake oil is a traditional Chinese medicine used to treat joint pain. … The Chinese water snake (Enhydris chinensis) is the richest known source of EPA, the starting material the body uses to make the series 3 prostaglandins. These prostaglandins are the biochemical messengers which control some aspects of inflammation, rather like aspirin which also affects the prostaglandin system. … In time, snake oil became a generic name for many compounds marketed as panaceas or miraculous remedies, whose ingredients were usually secret, unidentified, or mischaracterized — and mostly inert or ineffective, although the placebo effect might provide some relief for whatever the problem might have been.”
Climate Fear Profiteer Corporations make snake oil claims such as the following:
“Our certification is unique because our Florida farmed products’ carbon neutrality is the result of our own production and supply of clean, renewable energy, which replaces the use of fossil fuels. Our renewable energy facility generates eco-friendly power for our sugar milling and refining operations as well as tens of thousands of homes.”
—————————————————————————————————-
“Beware the Eco-Industrial Complex”
Sunday, January 28, 2007
By Steven Milloy
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,246915,00.html
“USCAP members include: Alcoa, BP America , Caterpillar Inc., Duke Energy, DuPont, Environmental Defense, FPL Group, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, Natural Resources Defense Council, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, PG&E Corporation, PNM Resources, World Resources Institute.
USCAP is obviously a politically and economically formidable group that plans to press Congress and the Bush administration hard for global warming regulation, including the ever-dubious cap and trade of greenhouse gas emissions.”
Ah, the old concentrated sulphuric acid and sugar mixture. Don’t try this at home children, highly exothermic as all that solar energy is released.
The carbon released has a volume many times that of the sugar causing a large spongy black tube to emit from the mixing bottle.
Huge problems with landfill and explaining the damage to the kitcen table!
Those were the days when kids could be kids and not ‘young adults’.
> [Reply: Providing Domino’s email address would be helpful. ~ dbstealey, moderator]
No Email, just an annoying web form: http://dominosugar.com/ContactUs.aspx
adoucette (08:26:31) :
> I think this attack on Domino is entirely unfounded.
I think Domino’s attack on our intelligence is entirely unfounded.
> Domino is making use of CarbonFund.Org’s certification to show their product is Carbon Neutral.
Do you shift your car into “free”? Do you expect us to make “free” statements? Is Fox news “Free and Neutral”. (That was a throwaway, please excuse the litter.) Of course, had they trademarked “CarbonNeutral” we’d still have a field day. Sorry, my opinion of this is not free.
> Domino clearly explains the meaning of CarbonFree.
The video refers to “carbon free” with no explanation that it’s a trademark, not even text disclaimer on the bottom of the screen.
The beginning of the end was when “Marketing” became a sought after college degree back in the early 80’s, I think.
Since this is a carbonated post, I will note that our local (Atlanta) sweetened, carbonated beverage company (Coca Cola) markets water with lots of extra carbon – both sugar (yes, now corn syrup) and CO2.
The extra special ingredient in the formula, though, is “marketing”.
Those folks at Domino® Sugar must really think their customers are light in the head.
I started telling my 84-year-old mother about this product and she started immediately rolling her eyes. She knows, as any good cook does, that when sugar’s heated to too high a temp it turns to black carbon; all the water’s been boiled off. That’s why you use a double pot with water in the lower pot to slow heat the sugar. Of course she understands this is just a marketing gimmick to show they’re being ‘environmentally responsible’ and limiting the release of CO2 in the product’s production. That part of the concept just left her shaking her head as if, what’s this world coming to?
Gary: I have no idea how many books! I’ve always been an avid reader, but now I’m reading real books
That is wise indeed!. You know, alchemists, when about to reach the highest level of psychological development, discovered how to read the “mutus liber” (the mute book). The only one who fools won’t ever find in any bookstore just because it is very far and very near, at the same time.
Good for you!!
Well if sugar consists of “twelve atoms of carbon combined with eleven molecules of H2O” maybe they just sell you the H2O. Probably need a different bag though.
Jeremy wrote:
“It has nothing to do with science. This is akin to holy water. Those who buy it and use it will feel more righteous. They are doing their little part to “save the planet”. Hallelujah.”
Jeremy,
While I passionately believe that the science of global warming – and its associated political and commercial fads – are hogwash, that is not true of my Roman Catholic faith. I invite you to read this Wikipedia article on sacrementals for a better understanding of what the use of holy water in the life of faith is truly about, particularly this paragraph speaking of the differences beteen sacrementals and Sacrements:
The Sacraments give grace of themselves and are always fruitful when the faithful place no spiritual obstacles in the way; the sacramentals excite pious dispositions, by means of which the faithful may obtain grace. It is not the sacramental itself that gives grace, but the devotion, the love of God, or sorrow for sin that it inspires, and the prayers of the Church that render sacramentals efficacious against evil.
We can all agree on the nonsense of global warming without denigrating real religion.
Thanks,
-Matt
NOBODY has shown WHO CERTIFIES this product as “carbon free”:
Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), also known as Green tags, Renewable Energy Credits, or Tradable Renewable Certificates (TRCs), are tradable environmental commodities in the United States which represent proof that 1 megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity was renewable (generated from an eligible renewable energy resource)….A popular incentive for buying RECs is to make the claim that your energy use is carbon neutral and hence does not contribute to global warming. However, “off-setting” results in the same amount of pollution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_tags
Matt Beck (Man of the West) (11:24:35):
We can all agree on the nonsense of global warming without denigrating real religion.
Thanks,
-Matt
I agree. I’m not a religious person, but I deeply do respect other people’s beliefs.
Regarding the carbon free sugar… Is it kosher? 🙂
The sugar industry is dependent on the Government’s support. The owners of the Domino-brand must obey the Eco-Industrial-Government Complex’s FIAT to purchase “carbon free” certification from members of the Eco-Industrial-Government Complex. It is kind of like the Government’s fiat to Chrysler to deal with the Italian carmaker Fiat.
http://www.allbusiness.com/food-beverage/food-industry-food-mfg-sugar-confectionery/8955887-1.html
Excerpts follow:
American Sugar Refining, Inc. has finalized its purchase of Ingenio San Nicolas S.A. de C.V., a sugar mill and refinery in Veracruz, Mexico, according to candybusinessinsider, a candy industry newsletter.
American Sugar Refining, maker of the Domino-brand, is owned by Florida Crystals Corp. and Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida.
Florida Crystals is a subsidiary of Flo-Sun Inc., a Fanjul Family company, and Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative is an agricultural cooperative owned by 50 sugar cane farmers.
http://www.answers.com/topic/cane-sugar-except-refining
Excerpts follow:
Sugar mills are located near the plantations on which sugarcane is grown and harvested. In many cases, these are operated by the plantations or as cooperatives by the owners of several sugarcane plantations. United States Sugar Corporation in Clewiston, Florida, for example, is both a grower and manufacturer of raw cane sugar.
In recent decades, the United States has imposed strict quotas on import of foreign sugar, cutting imports 80 percent since 1975. The tariff on sugar imports in excess of the quota was also high enough to discourage imports.
Price supports for sugar in the United States are provided in the form of nonrecourse loans so that sugar growers can borrow money with the crop as collateral. The government sets the value of the crop collateral at a minimum price per pound, guaranteeing that the sugar producer will receive at least that price, even if the commodity price drops. Loans are made to the processor because the raw sugarcane must be milled before being sold or stored. When the raw sugar is sold, the growers reportedly receive payment as well. In many cases the processor and the grower are the same concern.
Pollution in the Everglades. According to environmentalists, agricultural run-off from sugar plantations and milling processes in southern Florida have been responsible for damage to the Everglades. In 1991, United States Sugar Corporation was fined $3.75 million for improper disposal of hazardous materials from one of its Clewiston mills in the Everglades. The company pleaded guilty to knowingly allowing hazardous wastes into local landfills during three harvest years. Environmentalists continue to raise concerns about the impact of the sugar industry on the fragile ecosystem of the Everglades.
This is almost as amusing as the recycled toilet paper that Costco was selling recently. That is nearing the extreme “end” of environmentalism. Where is Sheryl Crow when you need her?
Out of some sort of masochistic curiosity I visited the Carbonfund.org web site. I pressed the “Lets get started” button and filled in the requisite information in the “individuals” forms.
Goodness gracious me! I discovered that all I had to do to be Carbon Neutral was to send a couple of hundred dollars a year to Carbonfund.org! They even gave me the choice of paying by credit card.
What would I get for my payment? A Carbon-clear conscience.
Isn’t that a GREAT bargain?
Try it and see for yourself.
http://www.carbonfund.org/Calculators/
Buffalo Bill, thanks for reminding us how much our legislators and industrialists care about us and can therefore be relied upon to protect us from the menace of “global warming” aka “climate change” aka “climate chaos” aka “atmospheric deterioration”. I for one will sleep much better now.
This makes me think of all the attempts to remove calories from sweetners:
saccharin
cyclamate
aspartame
splenda
stevia
Probably many more. I remember the trials proving cyclamate caused bladder cancer in laboratory mice. I think they were injecting a few grams intramuscularly. Poor little vermin.
Buffalo Bill (12:02:39)
Thanks for the post, BB!
I was reading these wondering when someone would make that point.
If the Obamanation really cared about the prices American consumers pay, and really cared about about Third World farmers, and really cared about CO2, they’d get rid of the sugar tariffs and price supports.
Ric Werme wrote:
I think Domino’s attack on our intelligence is entirely unfounded.
> Domino is making use of CarbonFund.Org’s certification to show their product is Carbon Neutral.
Do you shift your car into “free”? Do you expect us to make “free” statements? Is Fox news “Free and Neutral”. (That was a throwaway, please excuse the litter.) Of course, had they trademarked “CarbonNeutral” we’d still have a field day. Sorry, my opinion of this is not free.
> Domino clearly explains the meaning of CarbonFree.
The video refers to “carbon free” with no explanation that it’s a trademark, not even text disclaimer on the bottom of the screen.
There is no attack on your intelligence.
Domino fully expects you to USE your intelligence to understand that the clearly trademarked term CarbonFree refers to the net CO2 emissions and not the carbon content of the sugar.
Its stated in the print ad and the video CLEARLY states that its the PRODUCTION of the sugar that has a net zero impact on EMISSIONS.
They never claim that the sugar doesn’t contain carbon.
Again, I have to wonder, why are people this ANGRY that Domino has found a way to produce sugar and not use 1 million barrels of oil a year to do so?
If Domino has found an enviornmentally sound way of producing sugar and not using fossil fuels to do so, and do it cost competitively, what about that is not a GOOD THING?
Arthur
Total BS all the way. Forget the product. The only thing they are doing is calculating how much CO2 regular sugar takes to make, then offsetting that in some ways that the Carbon Fund people count as ‘offset.’ Nobody really knows whether it works, and if it does whether it really matters (it doesn’t). ICECAP had a great news item here:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/04/30/what-you-cant-do-about-global-warming/#more-376
If the ‘global warming’ bill in Congress doesn’t have much of any effect, then “carbon-free” sugar is not worth the sugar cane it’s grown from. That’s the truth.
adoucette, nobody here is “ANGRY”
We’re laughing at something that is really funny. That’s pretty much 180 degrees from anger.
I’m sorry you don’t get the joke. Maybe studying up on some chemistry texts might help?
If the green people really want to keep the atmosphere free of carbon, they should stop exhaling! Just kidding! I really do love them no matter how ignorant.
No Bobby, its not BS and what you describe is not what they are doing.
This is not a highly illusionary offset scheme with trees supposedly planted somewhere, this is a comprehensive life cycle analysis and they are using the plant waste material and urban wood waste to generate the energy needed to make the sugar.
According to the company:
The certification began with a life cycle assessment (LCA) by the Edinburg Center for Carbon Management that determined each product’s entire carbon footprint. The analysis spanned from the primary inputs of planting and growing the sugar cane, through the harvesting, milling, processing and packaging, to the product’s final delivery to store shelves. The carbon footprint was then displaced by the company’s own production and supply of clean, renewable energy, which cuts greenhouse gas emissions.
The Domino® CarbonFree® Sugar line is grown, processed and packaged in South Florida. The sugar process is powered by the company’s own renewable energy facility, the largest of its kind in North America, which uses sugar cane fiber and recycled urban wood waste to produce clean energy. The facility also provides electricity for tens of thousands of homes.
Again, why are people attacking this?
Would you rather they use up a million barrels of oil a year instead?
One other thing I find strongly in their favor.
I’ve yet to see any of their videos or press releases use the term Climate Change or Global Warming.
They talk about eco-friendly planting methods, producing renewable energy and reducing the use of oil.
By the way, I strongly suspect that they put they went through the certification process to get that CarbonFree label because its from a reputable orginization and they have to charge a bit more for this sugar (hard to compete with the grid for cheap electricity) and thus it allows consumers who want to tax themselves to pay for this CO2-neutral product the free-market alternative to do so.
And I’m all about free-markets.
Arthur
“And I’m all about free-markets.
Arthur”
Fine, Arthur, buy the expensive sugar. It’s still funny though.
Mike