Liquid Smoke

So I'm loving all the new recipes for bringing the outdoors into the kitchen. I'm just wondering about liquid smoke. I've avoided it for a while because someone told me it was a carcinogenic (or rather had a carcinogenic in it) and could cause/increase risk of cancer.

Is this just crazy-talk? Or should I still be avoiding the stuff?

I've done some googling but I still can't seem to work it out.

Thanks!

Find more posts tagged with

All About Ingredients

Comments

Brendan_Lee_56950

It's smoke that has been condensed and then bottled. If you are OK with eating smoked food then the liquid smoke is no different

artstype

it also contains that dangerous carcinogenic compound, H2O

tshewman

It's not crazy-talk, but perhaps over stated. Per usual a bit of a complex topic. For the short answer, used in small amounts periodically, it's unlikely to cause a great deal of harm. There's been some compound research a number of years ago and some of the take aways are that some of the compounds in liquid smoke are supposed carcinogens. However, they are at very low levels (like it would take a few bottles in a short period to notice any immediate affect). Where it becomes "fuzzy" is that most of these carcinogens in their initial state are worse when they are fat soluble. So, in liquid smoke it is an aqueous (water) solution, not a fat. What we don't know for certian is what happens when we brine, or coat a meat with it. It can mutate DNA in a petri dish, but that's about all we can say (though many things other than water can do similar things). It remains to be determined what happens if we ingest it with a protein......does anything happen, does something local happen, or does something happen to disrupt the metabolic chain. So far, it seems clear very little will do very little (if any) harm.

Afonso_Tito_de_Morais_164825

I've been using the stuff for years, restaurants included and I love it. Not sure about the carcinogens, but at least give it a try once, it's a really good alternative to smokers if used well.

HammeredChef_DEFINITELY_does_NOT_work_at_22134

How could it be worse for you than eating naturally smoked meat?

tshewman

In theory, it would bypass some systems that filter smoke so any elements would have more direct access to affect/alter systems. No different than anything else that is injested.....the systems are set up a certain way for a biologic reason. As an example, if we eat a food we are allergic to, our body is set up to react to it a certain way. If we acquire that food or alergic element a different way that bypasses those systems, the body responds, but it's generally different systems that respond to the allergy component.This is not limited to liquid smoke, and I'm not saying that LS is worse (or better) than smoked food. Some studies compare smoked foods and mention some of the carcinogens are higher in smoked foods. Do they do anythiung once eaten? No clue. Certainly standing over a smoker is unlikely to be healthy for us (but who does that). So, unlikely to be worse, but still Many systems in play, none easy to follow.

Andy_Parrott_66285

It's pretty much a standard ingredient in the food industry, and a way of getting smoked flavour into food, that doesn't taste acrid. Although retailers in the UK are trying to use alternatives, such as smoked salt, smoked onion powder etc which are more costly and don't deliver the same richness. I finally got around to ordering some to make the indoor bbq brisket, and it delivered great results

stenehjemj

Do you have any links or references for this? I understand there are some chemicals in smoke that are considered carcinogens and research is warranted. I'm confused as to how wood smoke that condenses in water and then is placed on food is somehow worse, or even different, than wood smoke that condenses directly on the food.

Thanks Todd.

coryhansen78

Right on. I recall McGee talked about it a bit in On Food and Cooking, so I just looked it up - he mentions that studies have shown that the "biologically active compounds" in liquid smoke are in such small quantities that they are harmless in amounts people normally use. Also, the Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs - known carcinogens) aren't very water soluble, but those that do make it into the liquid smoke "tend to aggregate and sink over time". So, don't pour out the dregs in the bottom of the bottle maybe...

tshewman

it HAS to be different (though not necessarily worse-as you see aove and the links below suggest smoked foods "may" be worse) and generally is not the only thing in the bottle. Below are some links to some of the abstracts. I’ve reached out to some of the authors last evening (no response as yet) for full citations though the most recent (first on the list) is full citation. As you can imagine, an abstract is a small window into a complex topic. I suspect most of us will use LS from time to time (similar to smoked foods).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3608747/

http://www.academia.edu/8383152/Polycyclic_aromatic_hydrocarbons_in_smoked_food_products_and_commerical_liquid_smoke_flavourings

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14975607_Polycyclic_aromatic_hydrocarbons_in_smoked_food_products_and_commercial_smoke_flavourings

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/jf9908998

List of older related articles on pubmed

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?linkname=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=8224319

tshewman

shake slather repeat? ;-) says the guy with the chicken in the fridge.

GaryT_92514

Wood smoke is a complex chemical mixture, but the main flavours come from water-soluble phenol volatiles. Phenols are also anti-oxidants that control rancidity (and so contribute to food preservation). These volatiles are a gas and invisible, the smoke you ‘see’ is made up of solids (soot) and oils (tars). It is these that might be carcinogenic, although they cannot penetrate into the meat and remain a surface treatment. They are easily separated out by dissolving smoke in water, and waiting for the solids and tars to separate out from the liquid phase that contains the dissolved phenols. This is what is bottled as liquid smoke – smoke flavour without the potential carcinogens.

tshewman

the research at this point would both agree and disagree with this theory. At least in the lab the data would suggest there are potential carcinogens and.....wait for it......carcinogen protective reactions. This is why this stuff can be so complicated it makes one's head spin.

GaryT_92514

Excellent point about protective compounds. Also, PAHs are already a widespread organic pollutant - released by burning any fossil fuel (oil, coal, gas) or plant matter (barbecues, wood fires, bushfires, tobacco, incinerators, incense). They are found in air, water, soil and the food-chain. Liquid smoke probably doesn't get on the radar.

tshewman

Yes it's low on the radar. I found the high levels of p53 activation interesting. Some speculated this is b/c it's responding to carcinogen (DNA breaking) activity, and if that was the case, we would say the same about fish sauce (also high) and........well, ALLOT of green vegetables, so not so fast on the "it's bad for you". Are there some negatives? Of course, though VERY small (esp in the quantities seen in these recipes) and bound and not free (as tested in a petri dish or in the rodent case), so then weighing the ingredient as part of the meal or recipe becomes important (IMHO) which is why I think many agree, there's not allot of bad.

Zach_Karpinellison_211776

Thanks everyone! I really appreciate the detailed advice! I bit the bullet and bought some smoked salt and liquid smoke today.

HammeredChef_DEFINITELY_does_NOT_work_at_22134

Enjoy, it will add a whole new dimension to the food. I suggest (if not following a recipe) that you use just a little to start. I found that to much does not make it more smokey tasting, it just makes it taste bad.

tshewman

Chefsteps' Chris young posted a nice video on this topic on their facebook page last evening. Recommend checking it out.