CDC warns coffee workers of hazardous chemicals | Hacker News Reader

CDC warns coffee workers of hazardous chemicals

jsonline.com

53 pointsjdnier21 comments

"It has also uncovered, through groundbreaking testing, that workers are being exposed to high levels of the chemicals in roasting facilities that don't use added flavors."

This article is a follow-up on a series done by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which has gotten the attention of the CDC.

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/gasping-for-action-32298865...

"As many as 70% of sweet-flavored e-cigs contain diacetyl [...]"

Happy to known at least the ecig fad is a problem that will solve itself.

I wonder if this affects home roasters who do it in popcorn poppers or the oven.

It almost certainly does. They question (that currently has no answer), is how much does it affect them?

See my other reply on this page.

I'm too, curious about that. I too popcorn-roast my coffee about once in two weeks on my back yard though some smoke finds its way inside. Been doing that for 6 years or so with no noticeable side-effects, though I'm not sure how immediate does diacetyl affects your (my) lungs.

It would be great if anyone had more insight on this. I roast a pound of coffee about once every other week in my garage. I obviously grind it later, as I use it.

It would be nice to know if this is something that compounds over time or if it is just the high concentration of the chemical that is affecting the people being reported on.

Obviously we are all speculating without an actual measurement, but it seems like at least ensuring adequate ventilation while doing this would be prudent. Most interesting to me was the fact that just the beans themselves (no flavorings) were still a concern.

Ditto. I usually roast outdoors, but I think after this I'll add some flexible ducting to my Behmor just to be safe.

> It would be nice to know if this is something that compounds over time or if it is just the high concentration of the chemical that is affecting the people being reported on.

I think the science is not settled yet, which is why they are having a hard time making an exposure rule, but:

"NIOSH noted that five of six current employees who worked in the quality control room popping nearly 100 bags of product in microwave ovens per shift suffered airway obstruction despite relatively low full shift exposure to butter flavoring vapors."

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-01-21/pdf/E9-1125.pdf

From what I read about it seems like a cumulative hazard with no known safe level, every exposure does some damage. So I would install ventilation, or just buy a gas mask (they are not expensive, you can get them at a hardware store, probably cheaper than a ventilation system).

But there are different levels of respirators, some with filters for organic vapors, which I think you'd want if your goal is lowering diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione exposure.

One rated OV for Organic Vapor should be enough.

Evidence:

https://www.aiha.org/events/AIHce/AIHceAbstracts/Pages/Respi...

Section "SR-101-02 Determination of the Service Life of Air-Purifying Respirators against 2,3-Pentanedione"

Talk about germane, that's an excellent link. Thank you.

Roasting coffee releases this stuff called smoke. It's a complete no brainer that you shouldn't breathe that, and that even low levels of chronic exposure are going to be bad for you similarly to second-hand cigarette smoke.

You're taking juicy green or red beans that visually resemble cranberries, and turning them hard and black to the point that they nearly resemble charcoal.

When you grind the results, the dust is probably something that in some ways resembles dust in a coal mine. Don't breathe that, either!

Stated this way it sounds obvious, but there's a difference between some smoke being bad for you and needing a lung transplant after grinding coffee! In the article the people interviewed were understandably shocked by the severity of the condition.

Yet free market capitalism doesn't account for this "no brainer". Or it does and workers, being commodities in its eyes, don't account for nothin'.

"I want my, I want my cheap coffee" (to the tune of Dire Straits Money for Nothing)

While its true that there's no sole economic incentive to purchase safety equipment, that incentive lacks regardless of an environment of free trade. In other words, unsafe work conditions can exist in communism, socialism, monarchy, etc. and regardless of the political environment safety equipment and procedures will always have a cost in real terms and as such there will always be economic incentive to avoid them.

You answered my point, how a free market approach to labor fails to sufficiently account for hazardous working conditions, with a set of truisms: such working conditions exist, it costs to address them, and that there is incentive to avoid those costs.

Different systems distribute power differently, and rest on different underlying morals. There is an incentive for workers to avoid health costs. There is an incentive for capitalists to avoid labor and production costs. In a system where people and their labor are treated like a commodity the same as rice or sugar, and there is an oversupply, guess which incentive wins?

If you view people as things, as commodities like rice and sugar, then just like those commodities the more people there are, the less they are "worth". Should we value people in this way? If more people are born, should my life be less protected? If the number of people born with the genes and/or the environment to produce neurosurgeons halves, should neurosurgeons get double (or more) the social, economic and political power?

> You're taking juicy green or red beans that visually resemble cranberries, and turning them hard and black to the point that they nearly resemble charcoal.

The beans are treated and dried before roasting. Before roasting, they resemble dry legumes more than anything else.

Modern coffee roasters don't expose the workers to the smoke. They have a big box mounted to the side of the roaster called the after burner. It filters the air that comes out of the roaster to remove the chaff (basically the thin paper that covers the bean). It then passes the air through a large heating element that finishes burning any particulates (A tiny coffee roaster's after burner draws 50 amps at 220 volts, or 11000 watts. A small space heater draws around 1500 watts, for comparison). This hot air is then either piped outside through a vent, or passed through the beans again to help them roast. Then, when the beans come out, they land on a grate with a stirrer. A large fan sucks air past them, and also blows it outside. There is very little smoke put into the room, basically only when the beans are falling from the roaster into the stirrer. It's a large, expensive, relatively complicated computer-controlled machine with the main goal of eliminating smoke. From my understanding of this research, they're saying workers are being exposed to harmful pollutants despite all of this equipment to reduce emissions.

And in all my time repairing coffee grinders, I have never noticed a significant amount of fine dust. Coffee is actually a little oily, so any fine particles turns into a thick buildup that's a huge pain to remove.

> A large fan sucks air past them, and also blows it outside.

But people go outside on their break, and indoor air comes from the outside.

Would this require particulate or chemical respirators?

edit: just re-read the headline. Nevermind.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com