British BBQ Society Forums

Excellent post Steve, I'll just respond to this bit, as I think we've covered the rest.

Biggest health risk with barbecuing - other than heat/fire - is smoking. There are clear, well-documented health risks associated with processed foods in general and smoked foods in particular. These include cancer and general shortened life expectancy.

It doesn't quite square to not use a particular form of briquette because it may or may not contain something you don't know about, which in turn may or may not have health issues, whilst at the same time eating smoked food which has several definite health risks which we definitely know about.Steve W[/quote]

Unless you are going to a reliable, reputable artisan establishment the majority of "smoked food" is chemically smoked hence processed. If you are using good fuel and chips/chunks of wood it is a totally different taste and texture. When I was a butcher (35+ years ago) we used a liquid smoke, i've spoken to local butchers and suppliers and they still use a liquid smoke. Don't confuse this industrial scale liquid to the contents of the small bottles you can buy which are literally distilled smoke in water. The industrial product is far far stronger and more pungent, and eats through rubber gloves (we went through a pair of Marigolds every month).
I doubt many of the Scottish fishermen and their familys or the East End Jewish community would have lived to the ripe old ages they have if they were getting ill from naturally smoked products.

Hi Keith.

There's definitely a health risk associated with eating processed meats, and that includes any form of salting or smoking. There are definitely additional risks associated with smoked foods in general.

Red meat can be eaten, risk free, in moderation, but above about 1lb of meat a week you introduce health risks. Processed (salted, smoked, etc) red meat almost doubles the risk, so your limit would be about 250g-300g a week.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17345967

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/03march/Pag ... -risk.aspx

In addition, all smoking, irrespective of the wood or method used, introduces polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons into the food, which are known carcinogens. It doesn't matter if its industrial scale or not, all smoking produces these known carcinogens.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7447916

These are not some unproven, flavour-of-the-month health scares, this is scientific resaearch carried out on hundreds of thousands of people.

Now before anyone bites my head off, I'm not suggesting everyone stops eating red meat, processed meat, or smoked foods, or even sticks to those guidelines. Eat what you like - it's your body!

What I am saying is that anyone who continues to eat smoked foods knows there are definite, established health risks, which they can obviously choose to ignore. But to then say that we shouldn't use a certain product because, well, who knows what's in it, and who knows what health risks there are, I think that's a bit of an unusual way of viewing it.

Having said that I just ate a smokey bacon sandwich for break, so what do I know?

Steve W

RobinC wrote:

Pecker wrote:It doesn't quite square to not use a particular form of briquette because it may or may not contain something you don't know about, which in turn may or may not have health issues, whilst at the same time eating smoked food which has several definite health risks which we definitely know about.

Not answering for Steve but I think it does square. One is about accepting a known risk and deciding to proceed anyway, the other is about not accepting an unknown risk, there is a difference.

There's a big difference. The first is a culculated risk, the second is playing it just too safe.

Everything you eat may contain something that's bad for you. It may be that there'll be a proven link between sprouts and bowel cancer published in next month's Lancet. Or next year's. Or in 50 years' time. So do you avoid sprouts because they might be found to be risky?

You can't say you want to avoid all unknown risks - that's impossible.

Where would we be if we applied that as a forum? Any new recipe, any new combination of ingredients, any new cooking technique, any new gadget might have an unknown risk attatched to it.

If you want to rubbish briquettes, or one brand of briquette, or lump, or wood, or a new barbecue sauce, you just say "We don't know if there's a health risk or not, so no one should buy it". You could rubbish any product you want.

Indeed, if we were to follow the Weber Briquettes criticism (we don't know what's in it so we shouldn't buy it) then there are hardly any brands of briquettes on the market which publish a comprehensive list of their ingredients, so we should avoid them all.

Here's the good news, there are some things we do know. There are strict health guidelines as to what fuels contain, introduced after all sorts of past health scares, smogs, etc. The Clean air Act 1956, the Clean Air Act 1993, the Control of Pollution Act 1974, and many, many others. We know Weber only put in their briquettes things they're allowed to put in by law.

The idea that a manufacturer could just slip in an unknown ingredient which is known to be a health risk is incorrect.

We can never be 100% sure that anything we use is completely safe. But we do know that, if we know something to be unsafe, they simply wouldn't be allowed to put it in.

Steve W

You're right you can't avoid all unknown risks but I don't think it is wrong to necessarily avoid a known unknown. Your argument that he accepts the risk in smoking full stop so therefore should accept the risk (if there is one) with these doesn't compute for me. I sometimes make home made burgers where I grind the meat. I cook these to medium rare. I'm accepting a possible food hygiene risk with this but that doesn't mean I accept all food hygiene risks.

For the record I don't agree with Steve's stance on the weber briquettes as I've already posted I've used them reasonably frequently. But I do get why he rejects them. They are the only ones that I'm aware of that give off yellow ash (and a lot of ash at that). They are not the only ones that use corn starch as a binder so clearly there is something going on in them that we don't know about. Personally I have no qualms about them but if Steve rejects them because they result in yellow ash and we don't know why I don't see that that is unreasonable. And given that there is a reasonable amount of choice in fuel then I don't really see it as an issue. Different strokes and all that. Anyway I'll butt out now as I'm in danger of making someone elses argument for them....

RobinC wrote:You're right you can't avoid all unknown risks but I don't think it is wrong to necessarily avoid a known unknown. Your argument that he accepts the risk in smoking full stop so therefore should accept the risk (if there is one) with these doesn't compute for me. I sometimes make home made burgers where I grind the meat. I cook these to medium rare. I'm accepting a possible food hygiene risk with this but that doesn't mean I accept all food hygiene risks.

For the record I don't agree with Steve's stance on the weber briquettes as I've already posted I've used them reasonably frequently. But I do get why he rejects them. They are the only ones that I'm aware of that give off yellow ash (and a lot of ash at that). They are not the only ones that use corn starch as a binder so clearly there is something going on in them that we don't know about. Personally I have no qualms about them but if Steve rejects them because they result in yellow ash and we don't know why I don't see that that is unreasonable. And given that there is a reasonable amount of choice in fuel then I don't really see it as an issue. Different strokes and all that. Anyway I'll butt out now as I'm in danger of making someone elses argument for them....

I don't mind agreeing to differ on this one. There's a very real difference with your 'food hygine' point. We know there are food hygine risks, and we act accordingly, calculated risks and all.

But at the moment, our starting point for any briquette on the market must surely be that there is no risk, unless we discover that this isn't the case. We know there are food hygine risks, but we are unaware of any risks here.

I know that, if I cook my egg runny, I take a calculated risk. But I know that the content of fuels for burning in this country, and other countries, is strictly regulated. Why would an extremely profitable company like Weber put something illegal and/or dangerous in their briquettes?

Of course, it's not impossible that they've put known poinsons in their briquettes, just as it's possible that Pepsi have done the same, but I think it's reasonable to work on the premise that they haven't, and probably unreasonable to not buy either Weber briquettes or Pepsi on the grounds that it's not impossible that they have, for some bizarre reason.

But I'll go back to Steve's point - if he personally feels dodgy, that's up to him, and a matter of personal choice, in the ame way it's personal choice not to eat meat, or not to eat offal, or not to eat prawns (I hate prawns - pink maggots). But to be fair to Steve's argument, I think he was going beyond that personal preference when he made the point that we don't know what's in them.

Sorry everyone, I didn't mean to start an argument.

Where do you draw the lines with avoiding known unkowns? I'll offer you a few known unknowns - you don't know that Pepsi are telling the truth about their ingredients. You don't know which 'spices' are in certain foods when it just lists 'spices' on the ingredients. You don't know that poisons weren't poured over that pack of resaraunt grade charcoal' to aid the manufacture in some way.

Yes, I agree, you can't avoid all known unknowns, which is why you have to apply a little risk assessment, balance of probabilities, some common sense, and so on. And not buying (in this instance) Weber briquettes because a multi national company may have risked their reputation and being sued by adding something dangerous to their product, in breach of laws in different countries, when we have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they've done this, is not working with the balance of probabilities.

Steve W

Wow, I'm at work and there's a lot of content in this thread, so I'll revisit it later to digest all of the info

Going to the other Steve's direct response...

I’m intrigued at how your responses seem to focus a bit on black and white. I seem to remember you mentioning you’d studied aspects of theology in one of your posts so you must think in infinite shades of grey. But then maybe you are just sparking discussion here.

Anyway, I think we’ve gone through application of logic and moved into the realm of decision making based on limited information and the unknown. The holiday destination argument doesn’t stack up against what I’ve said about considering risk.

Afghanistan – a dangerous place to be. A high level of risk can be measured via proven information regarding a real level of threat.

Mali – Current advise by Foreign office is to avoid travel there, so again high level of risk can be assumed.

Maldives (my addition as contrast) not currently perceived as a dangerous place over and above the normal risks of foreign traveling. No proven level of threat so low risk.

But then one would also give thought to benefit, if Afghanistan or Mali were number one on my top places to visit before I die list and I only had six months to live, I might pack the bullet proof beach towel and go anyway.

If the Maldives were a complete sh*t hole and I had no desire to visit, then I might sit at home and watch Eastenders instead.

Extemes I know, but considering the briquette question. Whatever fuel I choose, I am ingesting potentially carcinogenic residues on my food and current accepted scientific thought is that will increase my risk of developing some kinds of cancer. So any fuel carries a risk. I know there is something in the Weber briquettes that causes a yellow ash that on an emotional response level, I find unappealing. I know they emit a smell that I don’t find pleasant, again an emotional (or instinctive??) response. I don’t know what the ingredient is and whether it poses any risk to my health. I do know that if the yellow ash causing ingredient were to be harmful, there is a risk that the harm may be subtle, slow and irreparable, but I cannot asses the level of this risk.

Now vs benefit, eating BBQ presents a risk to my health, from carcinogens, fat, cholesterol, salt and probably many more, but I love eating BBQ and I’d rather live a shorter more fulfilled life than a longer more boring one.

So risk assessment on BBQ, I’m going to cook it and eat it.

I can cook with lump wood which I know contains no additives so I see this as the base level of risk. Now if I start to cook with any briquettes, I add the burning binders, borax and whatever else into the mix, If I use Weber briquettes I add the yellow ash and smell into the equation too. Now I cannot measure whether these factors elevate the danger to me because I don’t have the information to do so but I am adding an unknown which by definition increases uncertainty and therefore risk.

Now what benefits do the briquettes give me over my lump wood, or rather does the use of lump wood meet my requirements and does it have any shortcomings that may be addressed by changing to briquettes, in particular the Weber briquettes? In short, no, lumpwood meets my requirements and I cannot identify any area where I would seek, let alone require improvements.

So by changing to the briquettes, I increase my exposure to risk for no discernible benefits. At least when I go to Afghanistan on holiday I should pick up a tan

Top post - thanks for putting up with my online thunks, and keeping a sense of humour. You don't find that everywhere in internetland - it's very much appreciated.

Steve wrote:Extemes I know, but considering the briquette question. Whatever fuel I choose, I am ingesting potentially carcinogenic residues on my food and current accepted scientific thought is that will increase my risk of developing some kinds of cancer. So any fuel carries a risk. I know there is something in the Weber briquettes that causes a yellow ash that on an emotional response level, I find unappealing. I know they emit a smell that I don’t find pleasant, again an emotional (or instinctive??) response. I don’t know what the ingredient is and whether it poses any risk to my health. I do know that if the yellow ash causing ingredient were to be harmful, there is a risk that the harm may be subtle, slow and irreparable, but I cannot asses the level of this risk.

Now vs benefit, eating BBQ presents a risk to my health, from carcinogens, fat, cholesterol, salt and probably many more, but I love eating BBQ and I’d rather live a shorter more fulfilled life than a longer more boring one.

So risk assessment on BBQ, I’m going to cook it and eat it.

I can cook with lump wood which I know contains no additives so I see this as the base level of risk. Now if I start to cook with any briquettes, I add the burning binders, borax and whatever else into the mix, If I use Weber briquettes I add the yellow ash and smell into the equation too. Now I cannot measure whether these factors elevate the danger to me because I don’t have the information to do so but I am adding an unknown which by definition increases uncertainty and therefore risk.

I think that's just it. You don't know your lump wood contains no additives. It's not impossible it was sprayed with something before the initial burn, or to cool it down more quickly, or whatever. In place of '"I know" you'd have to say "It's reasonable to assume". And you have to apply the same standards with any briquette.

Steve wrote:Now what benefits do the briquettes give me over my lump wood, or rather does the use of lump wood meet my requirements and does it have any shortcomings that may be addressed by changing to briquettes, in particular the Weber briquettes? In short, no, lumpwood meets my requirements and I cannot identify any area where I would seek, let alone require improvements.

Now that's fair enough, and quite a different argument. All briquettes contain something other than charcoal. I think, way back at the start of this, my point was that there's no reasonable premise for us believing that the 'yellow' in Webers is any more or less dangerous than any of the other additives.

Steve W

ps. Never knew that about Mali - it was just the first country that popped into my head.

pps. Great first name!

SW

An interesting discussion so,SW assuming you have all the right ingrediants, your choice of fuel, and the totally ideal circumstances do you low n slow or eat organic vegan raw food (true organic minimum of 3 years fallow without chemicals within 5 miles)? OR like the rest of us (as Steve put it) have a happy (when it goes right) and tasty menu?

keith157 wrote:An interesting discussion so,SW assuming you have all the right ingrediants, your choice of fuel, and the totally ideal circumstances do you low n slow or eat organic vegan raw food (true organic minimum of 3 years fallow without chemicals within 5 miles)? OR like the rest of us (as Steve put it) have a happy (when it goes right) and tasty menu?

No, I gargle lard.

I always go for good quality ingredients and tasty food, first. I keep an eye on the best information as to what is or isn't healthy, and try to moderate my diet as much as I feel able, without spoiling the very life I'm trying to look after by making it bland and unadventurous.

I'm lucky, in that I love food. I mean all food (well, most). I love a steak. But I also love a greek salad - the two would compete for my favourite meal.

By the way, for my next barbecue adventure, I'm looking at this:

http://blogs.laweekly.com/squidink/2011 ... e_mayo.php

My local West Indian food suppliers sell frozen goats heads, so I might give it a go.

Steve W

Steve, I've enjoyed this thread. Truth is, I didn't know where it was going at first but discussion of different opinion that is objective, thoughtful and above all, remains well natured is something I particularly like.

I mean we all make hundreds if not thousands of small decisions each day, many of which our brains process pretty much on a sub-conscious level. Going back and looking at a decision and thinking it through is an interesting exercise, particularly when you have someone challenging it with reason and logic.

So what's next then Although if I remember your post right I might be out of my depth if we get onto religion