Adulterated Syrup with NF 270 membranes

[not_for_sale]

If you google nano filtration membranes you get to a PDF that discusses Reverse Osmosis membranes that are used in the Maple business.

It states that NF270 membranes remove a large percentage of the Potassium In Syrup.

Doesn't that constitute adulteration?

[Flat Lander Sugaring]

no i dont believe it does. Adulteration is adding another sugar substitute to the maple syrup, like brown sugar, corn syrup etc

[not_for_sale]

Dr. Tim keeps mentioning that using Carbon filters on the sap is adulteration because it removes some organics.

Removing stuff is adulteration too. I always thought RO only removes water, but most Nanofiltration membranes also remove some minerals.

Here is the PDF

http://www.centreacer.qc.ca/uploaded/Publications/108_en.pdf

Joe

[PerryFamily]

I learned from a cdl rep the 270 will pass minerals at high pressure, or trying to achieve high concentrations. He said it should only be used up to 8% Max. I plan on shooting for 6-7% Max and keeping the pressure as low as possible. Then getting a new membrane for next year.

[Mark]

I was told by the owner of the RO company Ecochem that washing with a caustic increases the pores size for a while. An acid wash right after shrinks them back down. He said the first high flow membranes were made by damaging a RO membrane with caustic at high ph. I don't know how true it is but he said some of the problems were caused by washing and that can happen with any membrane. I ran NF 270's for many years and could not detect any sugar passage. I was worried and went to NF-90's but they fouled fast and threw them away after one season. I now have XLE 440's that seem to be as fast as the NF 270's.

[Flat Lander Sugaring]

The Vermont Statutes Online
Title 18: Health
Chapter 82: LABELING OF FOODS, DRUGS, COSMETICS AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
18 V.S.A. § 4059. Adulterated food defined




§ 4059. Adulterated food defined

A food shall be deemed to be adulterated:

(1)(A) If it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to health; but in case the substance is not an added substance the food shall not be considered adulterated under this clause if the quantity of the substance in the food does not ordinarily render it injurious to health;

(B) if it bears or contains any added poisonous or added deleterious substance which is unsafe within the meaning of section 4062 of this title;

(C) if it consists in whole or in part of a diseased, contaminated, filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance, or if it is otherwise unfit for food;

(D) if it has been produced, prepared, packed, or held under unsanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been rendered diseased, unwholesome, or injurious to health;

(E) if it is the product of a diseased animal or an animal which has died otherwise than by slaughter, or that has been fed upon the uncooked offal from a slaughterhouse; or

(F) if its container is composed, in whole or in part, of any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render the contents injurious to health.

(2)(A) If any valuable constituent has been in whole or in part omitted or abstracted therefrom;

(B) if any substance has been substituted wholly or in part therefor;

(C) if damage or inferiority has been concealed in any manner; or

(D) if any substance has been added thereto or mixed or packed therewith so as to increase its bulk or weight, or reduce its quality or strength or make it appear better or of greater value than it is.

(3) If it is confectionery and it bears or contains any alcohol or non-nutritive article or substance except harmless coloring, harmless flavoring, harmless resinous glaze not in excess of four-tenths of one percent, harmless natural wax not in excess of four-tenths of one percent, harmless natural gum and pectin; provided, that this subsection shall not apply to any confectionery by reason of its containing less than one-half of one percent by volume of alcohol derived solely from the use of flavoring, extracts, or to any chewing gum by reason of its containing harmless nonnutritive masticatory substances.

(4) If it bears or contains a coal tar color other than one from a batch which has been certified under authority of the federal act. (Added 1959, No. 172, § 10, eff. May 12, 1959.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2A might cover the process of using an RO in sugaring, if so there are a lot of people producing Adulterated syrup.
Ok Doc your turn.

[DrTimPerkins]

2A might cover the process of using an RO in sugaring, if so there are a lot of people producing Adulterated syrup.
Ok Doc your turn.

At least in Vermont there are maple-specific statutes and regulations that supercede these general statutes.

RO is an allowed process for maple sap, so it is not considered adulteration. Some membranes pass more elements, some less.

[DrTimPerkins]

Dr. Tim keeps mentioning that using Carbon filters on the sap is adulteration because it removes some organics.

Using carbon-fitration (or decolorizing/flavor removal resins of any sort) on sap OR syrup is absolutely not allowed. It is considered economic adulteration (it takes a product that is worth less and makes it appear to be a product that is worth more).

[markct]

Thats interesting Dr Tim, not to be argumentive but couldnt the same be said for filter presses, ie it makes the product clearer thus more valuable? or also in the case of the procedure that you had posted i believe to heat buddy syrup past syrup to burn off the buddy flavor then thin back with water, wouldnt that also be making the product more valuable? Again not trying to pick a fight in any way just curious how these things are classified differently. Thanks

[DrTimPerkins]

...couldnt the same be said for filter presses, ie it makes the product clearer thus more valuable? or also in the case of the procedure that ....i believe to heat buddy syrup past syrup to burn off the buddy flavor then thin back with water...

Are you a lawyer or something? :)

RE: filtering. There is a requirement for syrup to be clear (free of niter or sediment), so filtering (or settling) is actually required.

RE: reheating and adding water to remove metabolism off-flavor (not buddy). Processing or reprocessing of syrup by heating and adding water back to correct for density is a permitted activity. The actual grade for this is "Substandard syrup for reprocessing", which can be done either by boiling or by blending.

Processing or reprocessing using carbon-filtration (activated charcoal) or decolorizing/deionizing/taste removal resins are not permitted. A while back (late-1990s), there was a demineralizing system that was developed (Strain-Rite I believe it was called) to remove lead from maple syrup (also took out some other things), but it was only permitted briefly on an experimental basis, then dropped. Several things actually fall into the category of "gee wouldn't this be useful if it weren't illegal" in maple. That is the price we pay for being able to call maple syrup "pure".

If you ever get a chance, go to a sugar cane or sugar beet factory. The first squeezings of cane are called "mud".....it looks like mud and smells far worse (rhymes with "it"). But the cane industry can (and does) throw chemicals into the process like crazy. At the end, the product is actually very light colored crystals....but this isn't yet table sugar.....for that, it has to be sent to another factory to be "refined", where they toss more chemicals at it to make it pure white (and flavorless, except for sweet).

[markct]

Thanks Dr Tim, again wasnt trying to argue just was curious how this stuff if decided!

[DrTimPerkins]

Thanks Dr Tim, again wasnt trying to argue just was curious how this stuff if decided!

No problem Mark.....your question wasn't argumentative at all.

[PerryFamily]

In the same conversation, the CDL rep was also telling us how great their membrane was. Salesman....you know.