The article is interesting but feels a little too alarmist, like they're obviously trying to push a narrative, which makes me worry how factual it all is.
Like about the gas release at a US factory and the improper dosing of caffeine in the sunkist drinks, neither of which had anything to do with anything other than sounding vaguely evil.
Otoh, I never really considered the provenance of caffeine in soft drinks (I don't drink soft drinks), it's interesting to hear about it. Something similar is probably true for many chemicals.
I notice the article doesn't directly claim that the production of synthetic caffeine is inherently and notably polluting/dangerous, merely that today the major manufacturer(s) happen to be located in industrial zones that are polluted/low-regulation.
I don't think that coincidence (with one data-point I can't call it a correlation) as very compelling. There are great many completely innocuous products or manufacturing steps which could likewise be located in a place like that for economic reasons.
So it seems another framing could fit, of: "Synthetic caffeine is easy to manufacture and compact to ship, so much so that most of the world's needs have been centralized to one place with cheap labor costs."
...there are none. you could argue residual solvent but FDA would not allow that, and depending on the industrial process this would be a concern with caffeine extracted from "natural" processes as well
This article is rife with innuendo and fabrications. Emil Fischer first developed a caffeine synthesis starting from uric acid. It's mentioned in his 1902 Nobel Prize address:
"Among the purine substances there are two valued drugs, caffeine and theobromine, which so far had to be prepared by extraction from tea and cocoa. Their production is not altogether insignificant for their value may be estimated at more than one million marks a year. Now that these drugs can be made synthetically from inexpensive uric acid the mind readily turns to exploiting the synthesis on an industrial scale: it is no secret that several factories in Germany are seriously tackling the problem. Synthetic theophylline has already appeared on the market and I have no doubt that synthetic theobromine and caffeine will very soon follow."
The 1938 edition of Thorpe's Dictionary of Applied Chemistry says:
"Caffeine is prepared synthetically in large quantities from theobromine by methylation with dimethyl sulphate in alkaline solution, a method which has largely displaced the older synthetic process from uric acid."
This advertorial junk page has exploited a perfect information gap:
- Most of the true history of synthetic caffeine is from the first half of the 20th century; much of it remains undigitized, and much of what has been digitized is still under copyright and behind paywalls or other access barriers.
- Germany was the world center of chemistry before World War II and so the most relevant documents won't be found by people searching with English key words.
- The real history of synthetic caffeine starts with a German chemistry professor who died while Hitler was still a nobody. That's far less "viral" as a story than an exciting weave binding together Nazis, Monsanto, China, and Pfizer.
If you want to read more about the early history of synthetic caffeine, the 1921 edition of "Modern Chemistry: Pure and Applied" shows Fischer's original caffeine synthesis and subsequent industrial processes along with patent numbers (mostly German):
Seriously? This article is obviously poorly written marketing copy and is just one step above the average InfoWars article.
"Caffeine anhydrous was first developed by the Nazis"
OK, so what? Not to mention the fact this is completely wrong. The first total synthesis of caffeine was described by Emil Fischer in 1895.
"Do the soda drink makers have to state how much caffeine is in the can?"
I have no idea if there's a law mandating it but literally every can of soda or energy drink I've ever had lists the amount of caffeine in it.
I have no idea if the assertions about the quality of the Chinese plants is true or not but there are so many things that are off the about the article The general alarmist tone, rehashing of standard chemophobic tropes (woah, _SYNTHETIC_ caffeine!), inserting some industrial mishaps related to the manufacturing of caffeine products (no logical connection is drawn between these mishaps and well, anything else in the article...) etc.
Like about the gas release at a US factory and the improper dosing of caffeine in the sunkist drinks, neither of which had anything to do with anything other than sounding vaguely evil.
Otoh, I never really considered the provenance of caffeine in soft drinks (I don't drink soft drinks), it's interesting to hear about it. Something similar is probably true for many chemicals.