Slashdot Mirror


FDA To Review Inhalable Caffeine

First time accepted submitter RenderSeven writes "Manufacturing.net reports that U.S. Food and Drug Administration officials plan to investigate whether inhalable caffeine sold in lipstick-sized canisters is safe for consumers and if its manufacturer was right to brand it as a dietary supplement. AeroShot went on the market late last month in Massachusetts and New York, and it's also available in France. Consumers put one end of the canister in their mouths and breathe in, releasing a fine powder that dissolves almost instantly."

124 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. Great by Soporific · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Instant jitters and an easy way to dose higher than you'd expect.

    ~S

    1. Re:Great by retchdog · · Score: 3, Interesting

      not to mention it's incredibly expensive. i computed it once, iirc it's about 100x as expensive as no-name caffeine pills, and 200x more expensive than bulk anhydrous powder. about its only upside would be that it's maybe harder to overdose, if the effects are actually immediate (which i'm not sure about).

      i can only imagine that this is due to some drug war-stigma against pills. maybe it's for women; studies have shown that women prefer to insufflate their drugs.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    2. Re:Great by Matheus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      WCPGW

      I used to have a chemlab-grade bottle of pure caffeine. It had no less than 8 different warning labels on it telling you how it could (and most likely would) kill you. Most people don't understand how small a 'real' amount of Caffeine they are consuming. In amounts the equivalent of say, snorting a line of cocaine, you would cause *serious damage. What's to keep your average marker-sniffing high school student from cracking these open and going to town (and then to the hospital)?

    3. Re:Great by Russ1642 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All chemicals destined for the lab have insane warning labels. Buy some cleaned sand from a chemical supply company (used for filtration). It's off a beach somewhere but you'd think it was a bottle of plague-infested death shards. They just slap the same FUD warning label on everything just because it's going in a lab. You never know when something is contaminated by the reagent next to it on the shelf but it's still pretty over-the-top.

    4. Re:Great by vlm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's to keep your average marker-sniffing high school student from cracking these open and going to town (and then to the hospital)?

      A fatal dose would cost about "three hundred" or so dollars and ripping all the canisters apart would take hours, I suppose. And probably more mechanical skill that your average stimulant addict.

      Probably a "easier" way to poison someone, since foul play is expected if they find your blood full of rat poison, but if there's so much caffeine in your blood that its crystallized (slight exaggeration) then they'll just shrug their shoulders and say "I saw this on Oprah; kids these days; too bad"

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    5. Re:Great by retchdog · · Score: 2

      or they could crush caffeine pills, which is even easier and hasn't been a problem.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    6. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Considering the LD50 is usually less than 5 grams ingested (a few among the more rotund of us, and those who have slowly built up very high tolerances will be outliers), but each canister only holds about 100mg of caffeine (according to their site), injecting a few canisters still won't get to the intravenous LD50 (something closer to 2grams IIRC). Snorting will probably be somewhere in between the ingested LD50 and the intravenous LD50, so I'd guess snorting a full canister is roughly equal to downing a double-grande something something overpriced coffe beverage in one chug.

    7. Re:Great by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      Yes, I highly recommend setting safe levels of substances to the LD50. Because a Lethal Dose for 50% of the population is safe.

      It would be amusing for kids to think taking lots of these Aeroshots is cool, and after taking a bunch of them get the shits from the overdose of B vitamins

    8. Re:Great by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      All the more reason to scale back your Caffeine intake and find your actual threshold. I'm on green tea now and feeling a lot better, less antsy and hyperactive.

      Can't imagine what some people are doing with all the caffeine they are ingesting, which isn't actually doing them much good, past the initial pick-me-up.

      let's not even get into the hazards of inhaleable sugar and cream

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    9. Re:Great by Renraku · · Score: 1

      Four Loko isn't actually a bad drink in my opinion, but they're so big and full of alcohol that I really don't want to drink more than one. However, there's the occasional idiot that will drink six and then die to it, but they're just as likely to snort pure caffeine powder if they had it and die anyway.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    10. Re:Great by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Except the double double mocha lacha chaka rakka mocacinno is about a 10th of the price of the inhailer.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    11. Re:Great by frosty_tsm · · Score: 2

      i can only imagine that this is due to some drug war-stigma against pills.

      Because inhaling something has never been mixed with the drug war.

    12. Re:Great by dissy · · Score: 1

      or they could crush caffeine pills, which is even easier and hasn't been a problem.

      No need for so much work and effort. You can buy it in bulk powder form pretty cheaply.
      PureBulk lists it as $8.50 for 100g, $60 for 1kg, and up to 20kg for $700

      The inhalers contain 300mg worth for $3. So at the smallest amount you can get in bulk, you get 100 times the caffeine for the same price.
      The pills are cheaper than the inhalers by far, but still not as cheap as bulk powder.

    13. Re:Great by msobkow · · Score: 1

      Heart palpitations in a healthy person are a full-scale heart-attack in someone with a heart defect.

      They're just lucky no one huffing on these things has died yet. Even the manufacturer warns you about how easy it is to overdose with them.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    14. Re:Great by QRDeNameland · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In amounts [of caffeine] the equivalent of say, snorting a line of cocaine, you would cause *serious damage.

      Citation please.

      In my misspent youth circa the early 80s, there were commonly available "fake speed" caffeine pills circulating...made to look like real 'pink hearts' or 'black beauties'..which were sold legally and prominently advertised in High Times. And kids would bust them open and snort them, something I tried exactly once. It burned like hell, but nobody died, went to the hospital, or even got particularly high from them.

      And just to look at numbers...the typical cup of coffee has 100mg of caffeine, a can of Jolt has 280mg. So 4 cans of Jolt is more damaging than ingesting a entire gram of pure cocaine? I don't see it.

      Not that I'm saying approving this is a good idea, even as someone pretty heartily opposed to drug prohibition in all its forms. But I don't think the proposition that pure caffeine is more dangerous than cocaine stands up to the facts.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    15. Re:Great by DMFNR · · Score: 1

      Well said. By the time someone starts getting up to between 500mg and a gram they will feel so shitty they won't want to consume any more. It's not like cocaine or speed where there's actually euphoria driving the urge to dose forwards. Sure someone with heart problems will be in trouble with a high dose, just as a diabetic would be if he spent a whole day binging on Little Debbies. Maybe pure sugar should only be available to licensed labs.

      The person above who said snorting a line of caffeine the size of an average line of cocaine would kill you obviously needs to either get himself a better coke dealer, or stop commenting on things they know nothing about other than what they've seen in movies. A non tolerant healthy person with some good coke would get good and high off a 50mg line, about half the 100 mg of caffeine that is found in a cup of coffee. I can't imagine the bioavailability of caffeine snorted would be so much higher than taking it orally that it would feel any different. If that same person snorted the entire gram in one go he could very likely end up in the hospital or worse, whereas a gram of caffeine would probably have him on the couch feeling like shit with an elevated heart rate, wishing he never did that shit, but would otherwise be just fine.

    16. Re:Great by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

      All chemicals destined for the lab have insane warning labels.

      Yea, but lab grade caffeine powder really is dangerous.
      The recommended dose is something like 1/16th of a teaspoon.

      A teaspoonfull is around 4 grams. That will put most of us in the hospital and will kill some light weights.
      A tablespoon of pure caffeine powder is significantly on the wrong side of the LD50 for most of us.

      You're better off not having pure caffeine powder in your home.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    17. Re:Great by Anarchduke · · Score: 1

      A kilo of powder for only sixty bucks? Hell yeah, now that's I'm talking about!

      --
      who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    18. Re:Great by Anarchduke · · Score: 2

      do they make that in a non-fat variety?

      --
      who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    19. Re:Great by retchdog · · Score: 1

      well, no, not from a dispenser. i think the point is that you have plausible cover that it's an asthma inhaler or something.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    20. Re:Great by retchdog · · Score: 1

      to put this into perspective, an entire inhaler of this stuff (300 mg) contains less caffeine than a 20 oz. ("venti") drip coffee from starbucks (~400 mg). this proves both that it is safe, and a rip-off.

      no one is going to die from this.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    21. Re:Great by surd1618 · · Score: 1

      Cocaine is ~10x smaller dose than caffeine for its LD50. Cocaine acts on epinephrine pathways, which promote built-in stimulation cascades, whereas caffeine blocks neuron adenosine signalling, causing neurons to remain in a metabolically fast state. So increasing cocaine dosage = exponential-type increase in cascade of certain effects, whereas caffeine's metabolic effects are more linear.

    22. Re:Great by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      So 4 cans of Jolt is more damaging than ingesting a entire gram of pure cocaine? I don't see it.

      Just try snorting 4 cans of Jolt. See if you live to tell the tale. Not only will your nasal septum dissolve, but you will likely melt all of your sinuses, tonsils, palate and tongue. Then your brain asplodes.

      (It does sound like something someone on 'Jackass' would attempt, however.)

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    23. Re:Great by alreaud · · Score: 1

      For $20 you can go down the street to the trailer park and get two dime bags of bathtub crank in most communities. Or your friendly neighborhood Rx dealer can hook you up with the real deal, Benzedrine tabs, and those can be crushed and snorted. So why are we dicking around with caffeine?

    24. Re:Great by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      What's to keep your average marker-sniffing high school student from cracking these open and going to town (and then to the hospital)?

      What's to stop someone from drinking a pint of Draino with a few tsp of rat poison dissolved in it, swallowing the "decorative" mercury globule treat which is meant to be left at the bottom of the glass, gouging their eyes out with an un-safety-labeled spoon, and then walking to the nearest NRA convention holding a sign "I want to take your guns, but first let me hold your cold dead hand"?

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    25. Re:Great by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      "Each AeroShot will give you 4-6 puffs. You can choose to use it all at once or take a puff and save the rest for later."

      I take it the professor who is marketing it thought of the downside and is confident of safety.

      http://www.aeroshots.com/faq/

      I don't think you are correct about B vitamins and I believe everyone should test your assertion throughly.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    26. Re:Great by Rogerborg · · Score: 1
      Straight up: caffeine's LD50 is about half that of cocaine. It's a vile, highly toxic, shockingly physiologically addicting drug that's only considered to be safe because it's generally taken in controlled doses, in known concentration, and you're unlikely to get shot in a Starbucks deal gone bad. Also, addicts are excellent at rationalising that they don't really have a problem and could quit any time they wanted to.

      If Coca Cola replaced the caffeine in their brown sludge with cocaine it would have many of the same (subjective) positives, without the worst of the physiological withdrawal effects.

      So, snortable caffeine? Let's see how soon it is before the first death, and which way the knee jerks.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    27. Re:Great by sFurbo · · Score: 2

      Caffeine is bitter and has an LD50 is around 200 mg/kg body weight in rats. For table salt, the LD50 for humans is around 1g/kg of body weight. Caffein is about 5 times more toxic then something normally considered utterly nontoxic(acutely, anyway), and it tastes really bad. You will not accidentally eat a lethal dose of caffeine. On the other hand, it is quite easy to take enough to make you utterly miserable for days, and unable to sleep it off.

    28. Re:Great by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Hey, Chong, wanna do a line of some Peruvian Espresso?

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    29. Re:Great by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      With an estimated LD50 at 150-200 mg/kg bodyweight (from WP), you call people weighing more than 35 kg rotund? I had heard that body images were distorted by anorectic-looking models, but I hadn't believed it.

    30. Re:Great by rednip · · Score: 1

      So why are we dicking around with caffeine?

      One is a lot less likely to go to jail for using or being caught with caffeine. However, until more people are used to seeing such a thing, I'd say away from using it in front of cops. BTW, it's still resisting arrest if you don't immediately comply to being hauled into jail and/or hospital, even if it's legal, also be careful (if you can) about where and when you seizures from over use, as it's possible for them to call it resisting.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    31. Re:Great by Jumperalex · · Score: 1

      No joke, read the MSDS for Sodium-Chloride. Forget high blood pressure, that shit is WICKED DEADLY!

      --
      If you can't be good, be good at it!
    32. Re:Great by retchdog · · Score: 1

      well, eventually you have to come down from amphetamine. it's not pleasant...

      now, modafinil/provigil, that's a different story, but good luck buying that at a trailer park.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  2. Snorting coffee? by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 5, Funny

    Next thing you know, they'll be snorting coke!

    --
    Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
    1. Re:Snorting coffee? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Been there, done that. The problem is that it keeps running back out of my nose and the fizzies make me sneeze.

    2. Re:Snorting coffee? by vlm · · Score: 2

      Next thing you know, they'll be snorting coke!

      I'm sure they'll be banned for that reason. Cops/security guard/schoolteachers can't tell at a glance what has been reloaded into the canisters.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:Snorting coffee? by jamstar7 · · Score: 2

      Last time I tried, I damned near drowned.

      It was that 'New Coke'. Didn't have a tenth the flavor or kick of the Classic.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  3. Tony Montana.... by dgrover13 · · Score: 2

    If only Tony Montana could have found a legal subsitute for his miami business... -"Have you guys seen my straw?"

  4. Caffeine Coccaine by realsilly · · Score: 1

    Next you'll break open the canisters to get at the powder and snort line of Caffeine.

    --
    Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
    1. Re:Caffeine Coccaine by LoP_XTC · · Score: 2

      Isn't pure caffeine powder deadly? I'm guessing this product doesn't actually contain "caffeine" powder or we'll hear about how some kid killed him/herself with a pack of these canisters.

      Even worse ... its odorless, tasteless, and dissolves instantly in water. Thankfully most of us from the 80's generation have built up an immunity to it.

      -LoPXTC

      --
      "Curiouser and Curiouser...." -Alice
    2. Re:Caffeine Coccaine by Pope · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sounds more like Iocane powder!

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    3. Re:Caffeine Coccaine by sjames · · Score: 1

      Caffeine is quite bitter (it is an alkaloid) and moderately soluble in water.

    4. Re:Caffeine Coccaine by electron+sponge · · Score: 1

      Inconceivable!

    5. Re:Caffeine Coccaine by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Its not tasteless, its actually quite bitter:
      Caffeine is a bitter, white crystalline xanthine alkaloid....

    6. Re:Caffeine Coccaine by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      If by "tasteless" you mean intensely bitter. Of course, for quite a few things, it would be tasteless for them to be bitter.

  5. FDA review means little by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The FDA is a gimp government department. The only thing it can review in depth is approval for new drugs, and that's only because the corporations submitting the drugs have to pay for that. Funding for everything else, from food and cosmetics inspection to even chasing down advertisers that use the phrase 'FDA approved' illegally, is so hamstrung as to be useless. The only time the FDA gets involved is when there's press coverage on people getting sick and/or dying. Only a very, very small fraction of meat is ever inspected... and there are holes in the system so big you could fly a 737 through it and still have ample room to fit at least a dozen Rush Limbaughs lengthwise through them. Take honey, for example: Honey is mixed and remixed with many other suppliers, such that the expiration date is never known. Should a particular batch of honey be close to expiring or would otherwise fail inspection, it is shipped across the border, mixed in with good honey, and then imported back. This is legal. There's so many examples of this it's not even funny.

    Bottom line here: Don't trust the FDA when it comes to food safety. It may be their responsibility to ensure food is safe, but they're so horribly underfunded and compromised by corporate interests that they cannot realistically be expected to succeed.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:FDA review means little by causality · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The FDA is a gimp government department. The only thing it can review in depth is approval for new drugs, and that's only because the corporations submitting the drugs have to pay for that. Funding for everything else, from food and cosmetics inspection to even chasing down advertisers that use the phrase 'FDA approved' illegally, is so hamstrung as to be useless. The only time the FDA gets involved is when there's press coverage on people getting sick and/or dying. Only a very, very small fraction of meat is ever inspected... and there are holes in the system so big you could fly a 737 through it and still have ample room to fit at least a dozen Rush Limbaughs lengthwise through them. Take honey, for example: Honey is mixed and remixed with many other suppliers, such that the expiration date is never known. Should a particular batch of honey be close to expiring or would otherwise fail inspection, it is shipped across the border, mixed in with good honey, and then imported back. This is legal. There's so many examples of this it's not even funny.

      Bottom line here: Don't trust the FDA when it comes to food safety. It may be their responsibility to ensure food is safe, but they're so horribly underfunded and compromised by corporate interests that they cannot realistically be expected to succeed.

      Are you aware that ancient Egyptian tombs have been unsealed and were found to contain honey thousands of years old that was still edible? It's an excellent preservative.

      I'm no fan of the FDA either but this isn't your strongest example.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    2. Re:FDA review means little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      [Citation Needed]

    3. Re:FDA review means little by gnick · · Score: 1

      Bottled water and/or meat are probably stronger examples here than honey.

      If only because Penn & Teller did Bullshit episodes on the topics that slashdotters will be familiar with...

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    4. Re:FDA review means little by girlintraining · · Score: 2

      Are you aware that ancient Egyptian tombs have been unsealed and were found to contain honey thousands of years old that was still edible? It's an excellent preservative.

      I'm aware that this fact is repeated often on the internet but nobody's ever been able to provide a citation that doesn't cite another, that cites another, that leads on in a circle forever. Regardless, such practices are unregulated and there is no tracking or auditing, so if something that wasn't honey made it into production, or if it contained botulism (yes, honey can indeed become infected with pathogens, le gasp)... there would be no way to trace it back to its source. That was my point. If the Egyptians happened to be really good at preserving things, you know, like people and honey, well all the more power to them. However, this is not Egypt during the time of the Parohs.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    5. Re:FDA review means little by Kenja · · Score: 1

      Turn on the TV and witness all the ads for snake oil and sugar pills with the disclaimer "these claims have not been reviewed by the FDA". Basically, you can sell anything now. The FDA has little enforcement power anymore.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    6. Re:FDA review means little by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      Honey doesn't expire or go bad, so I don't know what you are going on about there. The only thing that can happen to honey is if it is exposed to air it can solidify, but you can always just re-heat it and use it again.

    7. Re:FDA review means little by causality · · Score: 4, Informative

      Are you aware that ancient Egyptian tombs have been unsealed and were found to contain honey thousands of years old that was still edible? It's an excellent preservative.

      I'm aware that this fact is repeated often on the internet but nobody's ever been able to provide a citation that doesn't cite another, that cites another, that leads on in a circle forever. Regardless, such practices are unregulated and there is no tracking or auditing, so if something that wasn't honey made it into production, or if it contained botulism (yes, honey can indeed become infected with pathogens, le gasp)... there would be no way to trace it back to its source. That was my point. If the Egyptians happened to be really good at preserving things, you know, like people and honey, well all the more power to them. However, this is not Egypt during the time of the Parohs.

      The statements of the obvious ("this isn't ancient Egypt" etc.) reveal a slight impatient hostility on your part. It's not my fault you chose a weak example.

      The principle here is that honey has such a high concentration of varous sugars and such a low concentration of water relative to those, that it provides an environment quite hostile for microbes. Osmosis across their cell membranes would tend to dehydrate them. It's similar to what happens when food (or whatever) is packed in salt. For this reason honey was once used to dress wounds in order to help prevent infection.

      Knowing something about its nature is an alternative to dealing with any circular citations you might encounter. At least if your sole concern is whether you are likely to be harmed by eating "expired" honey. I for one am not worried about this at all, but as I am not a doctor, nutritionist, or other such practitioner I'm not telling anyone else what they should do. I simply consider it more than coincidence that such a widespread practice of selling expired honey (assuming I accept that at face value) hasn't resulted in reported cases of food poisoning like we saw with tainted spinach, cantaloupe, et al in recent years.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    8. Re:FDA review means little by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      You know what's funny, all those bullshit products say things like "proven by science" while the real stuff doesn't. So "proven by science" is a phrase that should now cause alarm bells to go off in your head.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    9. Re:FDA review means little by elfprince13 · · Score: 2

      Parent doesn't know wth they're talking about. In this case, the honey is the preservative. Back in the day, honey-glazed hams weren't just honey-glazed because it tasted good, they were honey glazed because it was a way to preserve the ham. As one of the other responders to this post mentioned, high concentrations of sugar make for a really hostile environment for bacteria.

    10. Re:FDA review means little by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Or take the more recent example of Walnuts where the actual verified health benefits are illegal to be represented in packaging and marketing material because that makes them a "drug"

      http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/8294-walnuts-are-drugs-says-fda

      It is also why you can't actually get natural Red Rice Yeast in any form unless it has been deneutered of any helpful benefits because it competes with STATIN cholesterol drugs.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_yeast_rice#Regulatory_restrictions

      The FDA is in criminal conspiracy to make the only available healthy choices "processed foods" of some sort or another. It no longer serves the purposes of its founding, but is now a gross caricature of its former self. I'm glad it is not funded well, because if it was, it would be even worse. It is also on my list of reasons why government regulations are evil, because they can't do what they are supposed to do, and therefore do things that they can do but shouldn't.

      Look, I'm not against regulation, I'm against OVER regulation. We don't need "more" we need "better" and more isn't better.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    11. Re:FDA review means little by izomiac · · Score: 1

      Bottom line here: Don't trust the FDA when it comes to food safety. It may be their responsibility to ensure food is safe, but they're so horribly underfunded and compromised by corporate interests that they cannot realistically be expected to succeed.

      It's not just corporate interests. Originally, they wanted to put dietary/herbal supplements through the same requirements as medications, i.e. that they aren't harmful and they actually do something. Public outcry stopped that measure. Apparently there's a very sizable number of people who do not believe their favorite supplement both works and isn't toxic, but want to take it anyway.

      Or at least they don't want to risk it being taken off the market for being either a waste of money or toxic (perhaps both)... Do people encourage their enemies to take these things, or what? "Try all-natural Coniine supplements, that'll help you stop smoking!"

    12. Re:FDA review means little by Artagel · · Score: 1

      Please don't confuse FDA with other organizations. FDA is part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) generally handles inspections of food. I think fish are actually inspected by the Fish and Wildlife Service which is part of the Department of the Interior. Regarding food, FDA deals with approvals, labeling and definitions. (Definitions such as: evaporated milk: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/aprqtr/21cfr131.130.htm), not inspections.

    13. Re:FDA review means little by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      The "red yeast rice" has a number of published cases where serious health damage (liver, kidneys) occurred. That's not a good case if you want to highlight the "evil intentions" of the FDA. Especially as the content of the red yeast rice you can buy in supplement form is suspected to contain quite unnatural ingredients.

      The walnuts are plain silly though and more of a knee-jerk reflex with respect to making "medical claims".

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    14. Re:FDA review means little by Fned · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Citation needed.

      Every civilization that has had access to bees since before there was writing?

    15. Re:FDA review means little by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Im pretty sure that honey would crystalize before it would "expire". Theres not enough moisture in it for things to grow in, so bacteria and fungus tend to have a hard time with it.

      Ive had year+ old honey that was generally fine, if tasting a bit wierd because it had started to crystalize and become more concentrated.

    16. Re:FDA review means little by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      It's pretty hard to prove something isn't harmful to people. Even if a person seems fine, the product might be increasing risk of cancer, heart disease or something similar. It might take decades to notice the effects, and most studies don't last that long.

    17. Re:FDA review means little by powerlord · · Score: 1

      Heck, when we were cleaning out my grandparents house we found a jar of honey that had to be at least 30-40 years old (pre-zipcode in address and no barcode, but a "recognizable" brand name).

      We cracked it open and enjoyed it with some similar vintage alcohols (also found during the cleaning), on some (newly bought) crackers, as part of our "good-bye meal" after we finished emptying everything else.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    18. Re:FDA review means little by gknoy · · Score: 1

      http://www.honey.com/nhb/about-honey/frequently-asked-questions/category/honey-properties/

      Does honey have an expiration date?
      Honey stored in sealed containers can remain stable for decades and even centuries! However, honey is susceptible to physical and chemical changes during storage; it tends to darken and lose its aroma and flavor or crystallize. These are temperature-dependent processes, making the shelf life of honey difficult to define. For practical purposes, a shelf life of two years is often stated. Properly processed, packaged and stored honey retains its quality for a long time. If in doubt, throw it out, and purchase a new jar of honey!

      So, basically: "expiration" means that it's all crystallized. You can usually fix that by heating it, but it does not appear that it goes "bad" in the same way that most other food would. If it weren't an archaeological treasure, I'd totally be down to try some 3000 year old honey.

    19. Re:FDA review means little by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Honey can preserve botulism producing spores. It typically only affects infants and is pretty rare (perhaps 100 cases in the US per year). Just goes to show that nature abhors a vacuum.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    20. Re:FDA review means little by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      Damn your grandparents' laziness, you could have been drinking 30 year old mead!

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    21. Re:FDA review means little by powerlord · · Score: 1

      amn your grandparents' laziness, you could have been drinking 30 year old mead!

      I know you're joking, but ... the best find was a bottle of cherry liquor that my great-grandmother set to ferment in a cask (somewhere between the 20's and 60's), and that my grandmother found while cleaning up the basement and bottled.

      Probably only aged in the cask for ~30-60 years (depending on when she actually casked it), but knowing the people involved made it priceless.

      (we remembered my grandmother finding the cask and filtering/bottling it, but didn't know there was any left :) )

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
  6. We're all going to be thinner by concealment · · Score: 1

    The average soft drink contains something like 2 oz of sugar. This pseudo-cocaine...er....inhalable caffeine seems like a great solution for nerds. Now we can stay up all night, without the sugar (and without whatever flavored toxic waste they use in sugar-free drinks).

    1. Re:We're all going to be thinner by vlm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Caffeine pills. nodoz and friends. I used them to wean myself off caffeinated energy drinks without a headache. Its been awhile but I used a spreadsheet and I distinctly remember how much of a PITA it was to chop nodoz smaller than 1/4 size so I went for 1/2 pill intervals. I recall the process took a couple days.

      Psychological addiction was unaffected of course. Sit at computer, sip energy drink, right?

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:We're all going to be thinner by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      Psychological addiction was unaffected of course. Sit at computer, sip energy drink, right?

      FWIW I've been working on a serious diet-soda addiction. As in diet soda was my primary source of fluids every day of the week.

      I bought a "Primo Flavorstation" from Loews - it lets you carbonate tap water. They want you to buy syrups as a make-your-own-soda thing. But I've found that simply carbonated water does it for me about 90% of the time (and all of the syrups I've tried taste like shit).

      There is another brand out there - Sodastream. But sodastream sucks because they booby-trap their co2 tanks to force you to buy refils from them at ~$25 a tank (and their new units have half-size tanks too). The Primo takes standard paintball tanks, so you can refill the cansister for about $3 at almost any sports store (I use the sports authority that is just down the block from me). Primo also wants to sell you $25 refills, but they don't try to force you - only give you BS about "food grade" co2, which is no different from any other kind of non-medical co2.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:We're all going to be thinner by SomeJoel · · Score: 1

      Psychological addiction was unaffected of course. Sit at computer, sip energy drink, right?

      FWIW I've been working on a serious diet-soda addiction. As in diet soda was my primary source of fluids every day of the week.

      I bought a "Primo Flavorstation" from Loews - it lets you carbonate tap water. They want you to buy syrups as a make-your-own-soda thing. But I've found that simply carbonated water does it for me about 90% of the time (and all of the syrups I've tried taste like shit).

      There is another brand out there - Sodastream. But sodastream sucks because they booby-trap their co2 tanks to force you to buy refils from them at ~$25 a tank (and their new units have half-size tanks too). The Primo takes standard paintball tanks, so you can refill the cansister for about $3 at almost any sports store (I use the sports authority that is just down the block from me). Primo also wants to sell you $25 refills, but they don't try to force you - only give you BS about "food grade" co2, which is no different from any other kind of non-medical co2.

      I have a Sodastream. The refills are actually more like $15 (still quite a bit higher than $3, but I didn't even know that Primo Flavorstation existed when I bought it). I'm sure the syrups for Sodastream are compatible with your machine, and some of them aren't terrible. The Cola one is pretty good (and it uses real sugar!). Stay away from the Red Bull one though, it truly is nasty.

      As far as food-grade CO2 goes. BS it may well be, but I once worked for a company that used bulk CO2 as a key ingredient for some of its processing. They had to pay more for the food-grade, because the process engineers claimed that it was necessary. I'm not a process engineer though, so I don't really know.

      --
      <Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
    4. Re:We're all going to be thinner by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Lots of restraunts get their soda carbonation tanks refilled from the same places the guys who refill paintball tanks get their large tanks filled. Same thing with the guys who homebrew beer. From the reading I did, the only difference in grades of co2 has to do with the container - medical grade requires a certain kind of lining on all the tanks and hoses. Otherwise nada.

      You can buy an adapter for your sodastream to use a regular paintball tank or even a larger 5 to 20 lb co2 tank. Check out co2doctor.com - I haven't ordered anything from them but have been thinking about getting a 10lb tank for my primo since I go through a paintball tank about once a week.

      As for syrups, I've tried that Mio "water enhancer" stuff too but really my personal goal is to go straight water so I'm better off not finding something that tastes good.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    5. Re:We're all going to be thinner by tzanger · · Score: 1

      I usually avoid starbucks because I think their coffee is awfully bitter, but tried a "triple tall americano" once. The barista convinced me that espresso wasn't at all bitter like "normally" brewed coffee. She was right, and americano is now probably my favourite coffee to drink, although I don't often get that extra shot.

  7. not inhaled by greghodg · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's not "inhaled." You puff the powder into your mouth, it dissolves in the saliva in your mouth, then you essentially swallow the saliva+caffeine and it's absorbed in your digestive system. No better or faster than any other caffeine that you swallow, and I guarantee a bottle of Vivarin is going to cost a HELL of a lot less than this gimmick.

    1. Re:not inhaled by WillgasM · · Score: 1

      apparently you're not using the optional intubation kit.

    2. Re:not inhaled by IcyHando'Death · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, well that's what their marketing stuff says, but that's just their end-run around the FDA. When used as directed: i.e. puffed into the mouth and swallowed, it can pass as a dietary supplement. But it's pretty clear that the fastest hit will come from inhaling and everybody knows it. The French manufacturer is named "Breathable Foods" for god's sake. Pretty transparent

    3. Re:not inhaled by jriskin · · Score: 1

      Agreed, if it looks like an inhaler and works like an inhaler... users are going to inhale...

      Not that I have anything against people inhaling anything they want, but lets be realistic here.

  8. .NET by zigurat667 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    had to read that three times until I realized that this Manufacturing.net is a website and has nothing to do with .NET reporting

  9. Re:5 months by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I give it 5 months before some stupid kid dies chain huffing these until his heart goes.

    That's called natural selection.

  10. Most dangerous object in the office by IllogicalStudent · · Score: 1

    Saw this on Wired a few weeks ago. Looks dangerous indeed. I prefer my caffeine in liquid or solid, not gaseous, form, TYVM.

    (Yes, I'm aware that an inhalant powder is technically solid; don't get pendantic).

    --
    But Maaa! Everyone else has a .sig !
    1. Re:Most dangerous object in the office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you'd bothered to RTFA, you'd know that this caffeine is in solid form, not gaseous form.

    2. Re:Most dangerous object in the office by WillAdams · · Score: 1

      Moreover, the FDA has already been regulating what's available in liquid form (once the tea is brewed) --- Celestial Seasonings' Morning Thunder used to have much more caffeine than expresso coffee, the original packaging even included a ``caffeine-o-meter'' showing graphically how much, but apparently the FDA demanded that the formulation be changed.

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    3. Re:Most dangerous object in the office by afidel · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]
      Seriously, the first three pages of "Morning Thunder caffeine FDA" turn up no useful results in Google.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    4. Re:Most dangerous object in the office by WillAdams · · Score: 1

      Try limiting the search to discussions --- FWIW, I do distinctly remember the caffeine-o-meter graphic and the measurement showing it had more caffeine than expresso.

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    5. Re:Most dangerous object in the office by 1729 · · Score: 1

      There's still a "Caffeine Meter" on their website:

      http://www.celestialseasonings.com/products/herbal-teas/morning-thunder

      I don't see any source for your claim, though. All I found was a couple of people on usenet saying that Morning Thunder is different than they remember, and that they thought it used to have more caffeine. I can't find anything that definitively states that Morning Thunder's formulation was changed, much less that the FDA mandated such a change.

    6. Re:Most dangerous object in the office by Spykk · · Score: 1

      don't get pendantic

      *twitch*

    7. Re:Most dangerous object in the office by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      don't get pendantic

      *twitch*

      "Click"

      I just turned Illogicalstudent's spell checker back on. You should feel better in a few moments.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  11. How dare they!!! by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Funny

    The FDA checking the safety of a Food/Drug for general public consumption.
    Just because it is legal elsewhere it doesn't mean it is safe for public consumption.
    When the FDA lets a dangerous food and drug go free, they will get people yelling at them for not doing their job.
    If the FDA bans a food or drug that isn't as dangerous, it is the strong arm of the mighty big brother keeping us poor folk who use this stuff as a cheap replacement for a 50' Boat, and 3 Vacation homes, from having any joy in our lives at all.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  12. Re:This needs to stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Dontcha think it's better to test and remove BEFORE the problems crop up rather than after?

  13. I've heard of... by Genda · · Score: 1

    Inhaling your food, but this is ridiculous! Garcon, I'd to huff a nice Columbian Supremo, please!

  14. tastes like cr@p by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Don't forget "tastes like crap" as a feature...nasty.

  15. Re:5 months by AZURERAZOR · · Score: 1

    And the Darwin award goes to...

    www.darwinawards.com

  16. Re:Can someone... by InvisiBill · · Score: 1

    You'll find that "pages.mail.advantagebusinessmedia.com" is the source of most of your problems.

  17. Snorting alcohol by peter303 · · Score: 1

    I've heard of teens putting vodka in vaporizers for faster highs. Its rather corrosive to sinus tissues.

    1. Re:Snorting alcohol by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      I've heard of teens putting vodka in vaporizers for faster highs. Its rather corrosive to sinus tissues.

      Just stick your foot in a bucket of 100 pf Vodka - not only will you get intoxicated, it could clear up any foot fungus you have.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Snorting alcohol by jones_supa · · Score: 2

      Confirmed also by MythBusters that vodka will remove bad odor from your feet. :)

    3. Re:Snorting alcohol by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      ...although it will taste just awful afterward unless drunk off Salma Hayek's foot (obligatory From Dusk Til Dawn reference).

    4. Re:Snorting alcohol by DMFNR · · Score: 1

      Far better than stuffing it in your vagina and/or asshole.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/14/vodka-tampon-teens_n_1092594.html

      Note: Probably not true, but I could see more than a few people trying it after the media hype.

      http://www.snopes.com/risque/kinky/vodka.asp

      Some people even tried Jenkem for real after it hit the airwaves.

    5. Re:Snorting alcohol by sFurbo · · Score: 1
      It doesn't work.

      Conclusion: Our results suggest that feet are impenetrable to the alcohol component of vodka. We therefore conclude that the Danish urban myth of being able to get drunk by submerging feet in alcoholic beverages is just that; a myth. The implications of the study are many though.

  18. why so small in scope? by roc97007 · · Score: 3, Funny

    It seems the natural outcome of this would be giant fire-extinguisher sized containers in each corner of the building regularly spritzing caffeine into the air to generally improve employee output. You could even hide the canister behind ceiling tiles. Just another service provided by your company.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:why so small in scope? by Rhacman · · Score: 2

      But why hide it? It was listed in the benefits package.

      --
      Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
    2. Re:why so small in scope? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      But why hide it? It was listed in the benefits package.

      Because people like me would steal it and stuff it in their desks. ZZZZZOOOOOOOMMMMMM!!!!!!!!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  19. Re:LOL by khr · · Score: 1

    Just how bad can it be to drink a nice coffee?

    Sounds like an improvement. If you drink a nice cup of coffee you seen need to pee a cup of coffee... This eliminates half of that inconvenience...

  20. Inhaling powder? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    Inhaling powder? Rarely a good idea- common sense says it can't be good for the lungs.

    Also, I think many people over-estimate how much caffeine really does for them. There have been studies that show that people get more of a "caffeine high" if they are given a decaf and told it has caffeine in it- than they are if they are given a caffinated coffee and told it is decaf.

    Sure, caffeine does help- and does things to the brain; but 50% of the effect of caffeine is pure placebo effect.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:Inhaling powder? by greghodg · · Score: 2

      You're right, although it's left pretty ambiguous, it is definitely NOT inhaled. It's a fine powder that dissolves in the mouth, absorbed through digestive system. Just like every other orally consumed caffeine. Also, it costs roughly 100 times more than the exact same thing in a pill ($3/100mg aeroshot vs. 200 count 100mg caffeine pills for ~$6).

    2. Re:Inhaling powder? by Yosho · · Score: 1

      Rarely a good idea- common sense says it can't be good for the lungs.

      Common sense is frequently wrong. How about all of the pollen you inhale on a regular basis? How about the burning hot particles you inhale every time you smell a hot cup of tea or coffee?

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    3. Re:Inhaling powder? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      You mean the pollen that give many people allergic reactions and have people flowing rivers of phlegm out their nose? Yeah, hadn't forgotten that.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    4. Re:Inhaling powder? by Yosho · · Score: 1

      Which has nothing to do with being "bad for your lungs" and more to do with growing up in a sheltered, sterile environment such that your body doesn't get used to the pollen.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    5. Re:Inhaling powder? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      That is not necessarily true.

      Anyhow- as people elsewhere have noted- this isn't really inhaled- that is an incorrect blurb in the summary. Still, powders of all kinds have been linked with pulmonary problems and/or cancer. Our bodies have numerous mechanisms to try keeping solid particles out of our lungs.

      I know I make a conscious effort to breathe through my nose when changing the litter box/doing laundry- etc.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  21. Re:behind the counter by Genda · · Score: 1

    To answer your question, right after some tween snorts about 30 of these things on a dare and his heart explodes at the dinner table.

    I have mixed feelings about this product, I feel bad that people keep coming up with new ways to get each other addicted for profit. The upside is that this will almost certainly help flush out some of the shallow end of the gene pool. The problem of course is collateral damage. The downside is that I'll have to share the road with the already impatient, attention deficit type A, folks who will now be peaking on a caffeine, adrenaline and nicotine trifecta. Hell, just add poppers to this mix, and we could simply televise our freeways as some kind of reality TV demolition derby on a cultural scale. See! this is a golden argument for nationalized telecommuting!

  22. Bonghits for Breakfast! by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

    What's next, snorting No-Doz?

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    1. Re:Bonghits for Breakfast! by omi5cron · · Score: 1

      thats old news....i used to snort nodoz back in the early 80s. was not a coffee drinker then, but had been used to snorting cocaine. so when i wanted caffeine, break out the old coke prep setup. however, was NOT that effective, and was actually a real pain chopping it up fine enough to snort. no mortar/pestle available. youth and stupidity....

  23. Re:LOL by Pope · · Score: 1

    Caffeine is still a diuretic.

    --
    It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  24. more legal bribery by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

    "...and paid them enough money to brand it as a dietary supplement."

    FTFY

    1. Re:more legal bribery by will_die · · Score: 1

      Not you did not fix it, you just showed you where are major idiot, and could not learn why they choose to label it as a dietary supplement.
      There FTFY.

  25. Re:This needs to stop by cshark · · Score: 1

    Assuming there are problems. Their track record on this is awful. The overwhelming majority of the products that succeed in challenging the FDA on this policy never have issues.

    --

    This signature has Super Cow Powers

  26. Re:What? by eternaldoctorwho · · Score: 1

    It's the AMERICAN WAY!

    So is snorting caffeine, apparently.

  27. so lets get this straight by nimbius · · Score: 1

    if we wanted inhalable instantaneous stimulants, cocaine has been around a long time. but if we legalized cocaine that might allow for new markets and businesses to operate where historically monopolies have presided unchallenged.

    but if we want inhalable caffeine, thats okay, because the monopoly powers in place have developed tested and stand poised to maket the product accordingly.

    and if you dont believe me, check out the wiki article on Stevia, because this is exactly how this works.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia
    first there was sugar, then came aspartame as an alternative, then stevia manufacturers wanted a piece of the market, afterwards the FDA was basically handed an anonymous document from major industry members that implied stevia was a horrorshow poison, which in turn killed off market competition from stevia producers by effectively making the US the only country to outlaw stevia as a food additive. 25 years later both coca cola and pepsi offer versions of their product sweetened with stevia (cokes product is called rebiana.)

    me personally? ill keep my cup of coffee black, fresh ground, free trade, organic and locally owned.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  28. Re:This needs to stop by bws111 · · Score: 1

    That's kind of a useless metric, isn't it? Ideally ALL of the products that succeed in challenging the FDA should never have issues. Now, what about all the products that FAILED at challenging the FDA, or never even bothered to challenge?

  29. packaging innovation by greghodg · · Score: 1

    We could all learn from this company. Take an existing product, put it in a new container, make it look "sexy" and sell it at an exorbitant price. Every time I see something like this, it's obvious that its a useless gimmick and I dismiss it, because of course everyone else will see through it as well. And nearly every time, I'm wrong. Another one in the insanely-expensive caffeine area is "Five Hour Energy." Just another horribly overpriced caffeinated liquid that provides the user with exactly the same drug as a pill that you can get for 1/200th the cost. WHY would anyone ever buy this? So what's next? Where can I score millions from stupid people? How about a little spring loaded canister with mini cookies that ejects one into your mouth with the push of a button? Bingo. Now I can sell $.10 worth of cookies for $3!

  30. I tried one of these by brando56894 · · Score: 2

    I got a free sample of one of these in the mail, they're from the company that makes Le Whiff "breathable chocolate". They work, but it's a horribly planned product. The experience is equivalent to inhaling pixie stix but it tastes a lot worse. You put the product in your mouth and instead of the logical idea of putting the hole that the power comes out of directly on top of the product (facing the back of your throat) so when you inhale it goes directly down your throat, the holes are on the sides facing the roof of your mouth and your tongue; so when you inhale your tongue and the roof of your mouth get coated in this nasty powder (mine was lime flavored) and the taste lingers for about a good 10-15 minutes.You have to insert the product far in your mouth (about 90% of it in your mouth) to avoid the nasty coating and for it to properly go down your throat. The product only contains about 3-5 doses, so overdoses are highly unlikely. I doubt these things contain more than 50mg of caffeine per dose, so even if you emptied the whole container and snorted it, it'd be equivalent to a large energy drink or a strong cup of coffee. I tried to crack one open and it isn't an easy task, they're made out of very tough plastic.

  31. let's get some numbers by surd1618 · · Score: 1
    caffeine ld50 in rats: 192 mg/kg
    cocaine ld50 in rabbits: 15 mg/kg

    I have known people to ingest 1.2-1.4g of caffeine. They felt awful, but didn't even throw up. That much coke would endanger the life of someone not highly habituated.

    In amounts the equivalent of say, snorting a line of cocaine, you would cause *serious damage. What's to keep your average marker-sniffing high school student from cracking these open and going to town (and then to the hospital)?

    An 'average' line of coke is 50-100mg. That's a cup of coffee (a small one at Starbuck's; their large drip has ~300).

  32. Smoke it? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Put it in a cigarette, and call it a day.