Chocofreeze Label On A Electronics Cleaning Product

Lounge By trace0011 Updated 28 Jan 2013 , 1:09pm by costumeczar

trace0011 Posted 27 Jan 2013 , 5:00am
post #1 of 27

Has anyone else ever bought a can of chocofreeze and realized there's a label underneath for electronics cleaner? I'm trying to find out if my experience is an isolated experience. Disturbing!!!!!!!

26 replies
AAtKT Posted 27 Jan 2013 , 5:53am
post #2 of 27

I have never used this product, but it seems like it is just the same as the "canned air" most would use to spray off a keyboard or such... I know that stuff gets cold when you are using it... 

 

I guess I dont find it all that disturbing... though it is odd to just over-label like that...

trace0011 Posted 27 Jan 2013 , 6:00am
post #3 of 27

Its definitely not right do cover the label, but more importantly, its electronics cleaner is not food safe or regulated by the FDA. If people are unknowingly using this stuff and selling it to the public, its a real problem. What if it had long lasting effects on people? This was a topic of discussion on Kerry Vincents facebook page tonight. really, really disturbing.

Annabakescakes Posted 27 Jan 2013 , 6:08am
post #4 of 27

AThat doesn't seem right....

jason_kraft Posted 27 Jan 2013 , 6:26am
post #5 of 27

AYou need to talk to the retailer as well as the manufacturer about this. Which retailer did you buy it from? Was the price unusually low?

Evoir Posted 27 Jan 2013 , 10:20am
post #6 of 27

AIt's the same gas/propellant. I've seen Heston Blumenthal use canned air for just this purpose.

trace0011 Posted 27 Jan 2013 , 2:02pm
post #7 of 27

It's definitely not a retailer issue - Since this comment was posted, there's multiple people that posted on facebook of ripping the labels off there cans, and they all had the same thing. If you have a can, you should check and discontinue use. I know there are professionals in the industry that use electronic cleaner openly, but that definitely doesnt make it safe for sure. Chef Rubber has a product i'm told that actually is food safe for those looking for an alternative.

jason_kraft Posted 27 Jan 2013 , 4:59pm
post #8 of 27

A

Original message sent by trace0011

It's definitely not a retailer issue - Since this comment was posted, there's multiple people that posted on facebook of ripping the labels off there cans, and they all had the same thing.

If they were all purchased from different retailers it could be a rogue distributor, in which case the manufacturer would need to know. If the mfr is the one relabeling the product you'll want to contact your state AG, the FTC, and possibly the FDA.

costumeczar Posted 27 Jan 2013 , 11:51pm
post #9 of 27

AIt's exactly the same thing, here's the wiki on the chemical. It could be a case of the manufacturer making the same product for two different buyers and putting double labels on it, who knows. There isn't a "food safe" vs non food safe version of the same chemical...you shouldn't be huffing it but if you're just using it to freeze chocolate showpieces, which is what it's supposed to be used for, nobody should be eating those anyway, right?

All the stuff on facebook last night made it sound like people didn't know what they were using and were either overreacting, or they were mad that they were paying so much for it. Don't be mad, bro, just know what you're using and read labels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane

trace0011 Posted 28 Jan 2013 , 12:19am
post #10 of 27

The thing that just seems so blatantly wrong to me is I'm guessing the majority of cake decorators out there, not sugar artists who work with it all the time, don't know that its just for show pieces. Nowhere on the can does it say not food safe or that its just for show.  Its marketed for use with chocolate. For savvy chocolatiers, i'm sure you're right that they already know its for show pieces only, but cautionary labels and packaging needs to be explicit for everyday users. I totally agree with you that people need to read labels, myself included. I learned a good lesson from all this.  I've used this product on national TV multiple times, and have potentially perpetuated others using it in-appropriately as they watched me. I should have been more knowledgable for sure. Having said that, I don't believe you should  need to do research to find out if a product meant to be used with chocolate, is food grade. It should be apparent by the packaging. I agree with Kerry Vincent on that subject for sure. 

jason_kraft Posted 28 Jan 2013 , 1:47am
post #11 of 27

AI've never used this product, I just assumed that it was food safe. If chocofreeze itself is not food safe then it's not a big deal that they repackaged electronics cleaner as long as the ingredients are the same.

jason_kraft Posted 28 Jan 2013 , 1:50am
post #12 of 27

AHowever this site says that it is FDA approved for food application, I'm not sure if that applies to the chemical itself or if the Chocofreeze manufacturing process is different than that of electronics cleaners.

http://www.bakedeco.com/detail.asp?ID=4317

costumeczar Posted 28 Jan 2013 , 1:58am
post #13 of 27

A

Original message sent by trace0011

The thing that just seems so blatantly wrong to me is I'm guessing the majority of cake decorators out there, not sugar artists who work with it all the time, don't know that its just for show pieces. Nowhere on the can does it say not food safe or that its just for show.  Its marketed for use with chocolate. For savvy chocolatiers, i'm sure you're right that they already know its for show pieces only, but cautionary labels and packaging needs to be explicit for everyday users. I totally agree with you that people need to read labels, myself included. I learned a good lesson from all this.  I've used this product on national TV multiple times, and have potentially perpetuated others using it in-appropriately as they watched me. I should have been more knowledgable for sure. Having said that, I don't believe you should  need to do research to find out if a product meant to be used with chocolate, is food grade. It should be apparent by the packaging. I agree with Kerry Vincent on that subject for sure. 

Kerry vincent should do her research before getting all worked up, though. They say that they also use it for a pharmaceutical propellant in bronchodilators, which would be asthma medicine. So if you can inhale it I would also assume that it isn't a big deal to spray a quick blast of it onto a cake. Here's the EPA study on toxicity in rats, and they found nothing. So it's the same chemical, it's not going to kill you unless you huff it from the can, and it would seem that people are just reacting without looking up the facts. My suspicion is that they also feel stupid for paying so much more for it when it's labelled for chocolate and not dusting off your computer, but that's a case of being a better comparison shopper. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0656.htm

costumeczar Posted 28 Jan 2013 , 2:00am
post #14 of 27

APlus, the label does say that it's for chocolate, and that it leaves no residue. I've never used it myself, but I don't see what the big deal is other than being fun to be outraged by something every now and then.

costumeczar Posted 28 Jan 2013 , 2:04am
post #15 of 27

A[quote name="jason_kraft" url="/t/753462/chocofreeze-label-on-a-electronics-cleaning-product#post_7353142"]However this site says that it is FDA approved for food application, I'm not sure if that applies to the chemical itself or if the Chocofreeze manufacturing process is different than that of electronics cleaners.

http://www.bakedeco.com/detail.asp?ID=4317[/quote]

It is food safe, people were just getting all riled up because of the label. When someone pointed out that it was the same thing the argument turned to "well, then they shouldn't charge so much for it." I don't think that people understand that the same manufacturer can make the same product for different sellers. This is just much ado about nothing.

trace0011 Posted 28 Jan 2013 , 2:13am
post #16 of 27

The whole thing is just weird. I don't feel quite as clear cut about it as you do, but agree people need to do research. you very well may be right... no issue.. i'm not quite as sure as you  just yet.  and I promise, I'm not a big online "post"er for the sake of getting people riled up.  I think this very well be the first post I've ever made that could be considered argumentative, lol 

costumeczar Posted 28 Jan 2013 , 2:16am
post #17 of 27

AJust look it up, there's nothing wrong with it. I wouldn't inhale it from the can but to squirt it onto chocolate isn't a big deal. As long as there aren't any other propellants in the can and you follow the usage directions it's no big deal.

trace0011 Posted 28 Jan 2013 , 2:26am
post #18 of 27

you have a plethora of links:)

costumeczar Posted 28 Jan 2013 , 2:29am
post #19 of 27

A

Original message sent by trace0011

you have a plethora of links:)

Haha! All you have to read the label and google it, it's all there for anyone who wants to look it up.

Evoir Posted 28 Jan 2013 , 2:58am
post #20 of 27

AExactly, as I said its the same stuff.

costumeczar Posted 28 Jan 2013 , 3:08am
post #21 of 27

A

Original message sent by Evoir

Exactly, as I said its the same stuff.

I was looking for the "like" button :)

jason_kraft Posted 28 Jan 2013 , 3:32am
post #22 of 27

A

Original message sent by costumeczar

It is food safe, people were just getting all riled up because of the label. When someone pointed out that it was the same thing the argument turned to "well, then they shouldn't charge so much for it." I don't think that people understand that the same manufacturer can make the same product for different sellers. This is just much ado about nothing.

So electronics cleaner is also food safe?

Annabakescakes Posted 28 Jan 2013 , 3:46am
post #23 of 27

So, I can do to Office Depot and buy some can of keyboard cleaner to use to freeze my edible chocolate bits together? And I won't get sued?

trace0011 Posted 28 Jan 2013 , 3:47am
post #24 of 27

I have the bottle.  There's nothing on it that says food safe either from the electronic cleaner label or the chocofreeze label.  That's my whole point.  I don't think its clear cut as these posts state.  If its only supposed to be used for show pieces that don't get consumed, then it needs to state that on the container. If it is completely safe to use either electronic cleaner or chocofreeze on food because they're literally the same product packaged in the same manner with no contamination, than that makes my life easier and less costly. But the packaging needs to  state that. Either way, the packaging is a problem that needs clarification. it needs research beyond google (in my opinion anyway).  On that note, im going to sleep and will dream of sprouting an extra arm due to all my use of chocofreeze :) (kidding, kidding!)

Annabakescakes Posted 28 Jan 2013 , 4:00am
post #25 of 27

I agree with needing more research and better clarification on the label! It's not like it's a standard product we have all grown up with and know it's every use and caution. And, I'm betting it's an extra eye, rather than arm ;-)

 

You know, I was gluing a gumpaste spray to a fondant  cake a couple weeks ago and holding an ice cube wrapped in a bag, and a paper towel to it for a couple seconds at a time, to get it to firm up, and was telling my husband,"I need some of that chocolate freezy stuff in the can so this is less time consuming!"

costumeczar Posted 28 Jan 2013 , 12:59pm
post #26 of 27

AConsidering the FDA and the EPA both allow it to be used in asthma inhalers I would say that yes, it's safe for human consumption in small amounts. Again, if you want to suck it from the can then you have bigger problems. The label also says that it leaves no residue, so it muct be pretty volatile and doesn't coat whatever you're spraying.

If everyone was so concerned about the propylene glycol that's in cake mixes it would be interesting. That's considered "generally safe for human consumption" and they also use it in antifreeze and a bunch of other food products, so you probably are consuming more of it than you know,and who knows if that's safe over time. Yum!

costumeczar Posted 28 Jan 2013 , 1:09pm
post #27 of 27

AMy guess for why they haven't got a "food safe" label on it would be that they haven't gone through the FDA approval process since that's expensive. I bet they noticed that the compressed air got cold, so chefs started using it on showpieces that nobody's going to eat anyway. Then someone else sees that people are using it and thinks how they can make a buck on it by putting a different label on it. That would be my guess,anyway, I have no evidence to support that theory.

You could also just use a blowdryer with a cold setting if you don't want to mess with the freeze spray. It would take longer, but it's cheaper and chemical free.

Quote by @%username% on %date%

%body%