Mark Thorson wrote:

>> But instead of simply admitting his mistake, went to unnecessary
>> lengths to try and cover it up.
>
> You denied the existence of food-grade propane
> and butane without any basis for saying so.
> As usual, you were just trying to bluff your
> way through.
>
> Your bluff was refuted by several patents to food chemists
> at Cargill, such as U.S. Patent 6,610,343:
>
> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6610343.html
>
> "Most preferably, the solvent is a category I solvent
> approved by The Council of the European Committees
> (Jun. 13, 1988 Council Directive) for use in food
> processing. Food grade propanes and butanes generally
> meet all of the above stated preferences."
>
> And it is further refuted by a study made by a
> scientist at the USDA:
>
> "A new commercial invention incorporating a supercritical,
> low-pressure, liquified gas extraction process using
> food-grade butane as the extraction gas is currently
> being used to extract chocolate liquor and peanuts and
> the oil and residue solids are both edible products."
>
> However, the original document has disappeared from
> the original link and Google's cache.
>
> The USDA and food ingrediants giant Cargill
> certainly believe that food-grade propane/butane
> exist. They are more reliable authorities than
> someone who just pulls factoids out of his ass.
>
> But perhaps what it will take to convince you of
> the fact that fuel-grade versions of these gases
> contain carcinogens will be proving it in court.
>
> There's a non-profit organization in Beverly Hills,
> Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc., which has been a
> leading plaintiff in California Proposition 65
> lawsuits. I could probably put together a package
> of reference materials that would get them interested
> in this topic. They'd have to hire somebody (not me)
> to do the gas chromatography needed to prove
> violations. If I can get them to do that, the
> data should finally convince the last curmudgeons
> that there is a hazard from the carcinogens in fuel
> gases. There are many products out there which are
> not properly labelled, some of which are specifically
> marketed for kitchen use. Others are sold for BBQ,
> and those are likely to be even more hazardous
> because of the larger volume of gas used and the
> longer exposure time.
>
> Yes, when I get some time, I'll gather the evidence
> and contact CAG. That would be an important public
> service, and if I don't do it, it might not get done.

Nice try. but you are still trying to weasel out of your claim that
anyone using a propane torch to caramelize should be sure to use food
grade propane. You have yet to provide a source for food grade propane.
Your site refers only to a patent to make it.