New study on the long term stability of thujone

For many years, proponents of the Czech absinth ideology (affectionately known as 'thujone hypers') have argued that Dr. Arnold's estimations of 260 mg/l of thujone in pre-ban absinthe is correct. They've used the argument that the chemical analysis of existing samples of pre-ban era absinthes would be meaningless, since the data doesn't take into account what the 'original' thujone levels were, solely what is remaining. They've gone on to state that thujone isn't chemically stable, and that levels of thujone must have decreased as the bottle aged. So a bottle of pre-ban absinthe which might measure in at 20 mg/l now, might have had 100 mg/l back when it was first bottled.

These arguments have always been countered by absinthe historians such as myself, Alan, and many others that:

1) Thujone doesn't readily come over into the distillate. It's one of the last components to come over. If the distillation process is cut at the right time, very little thujone should carry over.

2) Absinthe's alcohol level should act as a stabilizing factor. Long term storage shouldn't affect thujone levels.




Following on the heels of a groundbreaking thujone study last year, now there is yet another scientific study to debunk many of the myths that were supported by the esteemed Dr. Arnold.

Last year's study focused on analyzing current thujone levels in both existing pre-ban samples as well as several brands that are currently produced. This study showed that many of the brands tested (including almost all of the pre-ban samples) would fall below either EU or US thujone limits.

The current study was aimed at addressing the 'thujone hyper's' argument that the thujone in vintage bottles would have degraded. According to the abstract:


"Research was conducted to ascertain whether analyses of vintage absinthe samples represent their original composition in the early 1900s. Absinthe stored in traditional green glass bottles and irradiated with ultraviolet light for up to 200 h exhibited unchanged composition. Samples stored in clear glass exhibited an 18% reduction in beta-thujone content and a concurrent decoloration. These experiments indicate the stability of thujone in vintage absinthes, as these were stored in green glass bottles. The preserved color of the preban absinthes subjected to analysis indicates that no significant light exposure occurred throughout the duration of storage, and therefore provides indirect proof that no loss of terpenes occurred. The stability of absinthe was further demonstrated through the reanalysis of samples from 2001-2005, which exhibited no changes in thujone content as of 2008. A previous evaluation of preban absinthe was therefore valid and not confounded by significant thujone deterioration over time."

The importance of this new study cannot be underestimated. Not only does it support the arguments of traditional absinthe historians, it also is a huge blow to those unscrupulous marketers out there who use 'historical' thujone levels as the most important quality of their brand.

How will those marketers respond? Here are a few of my predictions:

1) Since they don't have any real scientific or legal basis to refute the studies, they will use internet forums and blogs to make derisive comments and ad hominem attacks, either going under the guise of anonymity or using fake names.

2) They will continue to use the 'don't believe the science, just trust us' argument. This is the same as the 'we have no proof because ALL evidence throughout the entire world was destroyed during the Communist regime' argument.

3) They will claim that the report is biased, even though it was peer reviewed, and published in a well known journal. Since they don't have any current, concrete scientific proof (other than flawed estimations, such as that of Arnold), they might try to discredit the new information.

4) They will possibly try to distance themselves from their previous claims by reinventing themselves, creating new histories for their brands, and subtly changing their marketing information to reflect the new lower limits that are acceptable in the EU and in the US. There is already a boatload of documented evidence that some brands have done this.

Yours in absinthe,


Brian

"Absinthe" kits

Like many others in the absinthe trade, I get absinthe news and blog alerts every day from Google. And over the last few weeks, the number of alerts that pretend to answer:-

1. What percentage alcohol is absinthe?
or
2. What are the effects of absinthe?
or
3. Sites for purchasing absinthe

has grown from a trickle to a flood. Either business is good, or very bad for these spammers who trick readers to read an article that links to a site selling so-called "absinthe" kits.

Now if this company was honest in its approach to other real absinthes, and to the nature of its own product, then I would just get bored of the blogs and hope that others would too. But their blog articles are wrong in so many ways, I feel I have no alternative but to comment. Here goes:-

Quote: Cost of bottled Absinthe can be quite high, over $100 sometimes, and you may not be able to get it delivered to your country.

Fact: very, very rarely over $100, and there are very few countries where you can't now easily buy or order a high quality absinthe for $80 or less.

Quote: Also, you may find it very hard to find real wormwood Absinthes because according to some countries legislation restricts wormwood as it contains the chemical thujone.

Fact: Most countries around the world (including USA) allow a level of thujone that is identical to that found in 19th century Paris. But, in any case, this is not relevant since the level of thujone in Absinthe Kit's "essences" will not produce any "green fairy effects" unless you drink enough of it to die from alcohol poisoning. Absinthe Kit's suggestion that thujone level is important is blatant deception.

Quote: AbsintheKit.com sell Absinthe essences, that contains real common wormwood , both to the Absinthe industry and to general customers.

They may sell to companies that sell essence-based absinthe, but none of those companies are selling products that absinthe drinkers would recognise as real absinthe. I challenge Absinthe Kit to produce a list of Absinthe brands made with their essences.

Quote: To make your very own bottle of the Green Fairy, mix 20ml of essence with 730ml of neutral alcohol such as vodka or Everclear and add some sugar (about 75g) if you want a smoother Absinthe. Shake the bottle until the sugar has dissolved and there you have it, your very own Absinthe.

Fact: this is not real absinthe, anymore than grape juice and vodka can be blended to make wine (or blended together with soda to make champagne!).

And so on.

Does this matter? Yes, because it deceives those who buy these products into thinking they are getting real absinthe. It preys on the ignorance of some consumers, probably of younger, poorer and more susceptible consumers too.

However it gets even worse: the Wikipedia article on absinthe states this:

"Numerous recipes for homemade 'absinthe' are available on the Internet. Many of these require mixing a kit that contains store-bought herbs or wormwood extract with high-proof liquor such as vodka or Everclear. However, it is not possible to make authentic absinthe without distillation. Besides being unpleasant to drink and not authentic absinthe, these homemade concoctions contain uncontrolled amounts of thujone and absinthins, and may be poisonous — especially if they contain wormwood extract. Many such recipes call for the use of a large amount of wormwood extract (essence of wormwood) with the intent of increasing alleged psychoactive effects. Consuming essence of wormwood is very dangerous. It can cause kidney failure and death from excessive thujone, which in large quantities is a convulsive neurotoxin. Thujone is also a powerful heart stimulant; it is present in authentic absinthe only in extremely small amounts."

In other words, the products of Absinthe Kit could kill.

The Wormwood Society comments as follows:-

Important Note: DO NOT BUY ABSINTHE “KITS”! These are gimmicks aimed at the gullible. They will not make absinthe or anything remotely like it. The people selling these kits either know nothing about absinthe or how it is made, or simply don't care. The results of these kits are a positively vile-tasting, insanely bitter, potentially poisonous mess.

Looking further at the Absinthe Kit site, I find that it is owned by Gert Strand of Sweden who also operates Partymanshop. This site sells Scotch whisky oak chips, which, it is suggested, will turn vodka into scotch, as well as a wide range of liqueur essences, all to be added to vodka to produce drinks that are labelled to look like Malibu, Southern Comfort, Passoa, etc.

Now in case Absinthe Kit feel that I am unfairly picking on them, I have looked at other similar companies.

Green Devil states: "There is a chemical in traditional absinthe called Thujone, this chemical is banned in food products by the FDA. This one chemical is what makes absinthe illegal to sell.

Companies and the liquor industry have found that by filtering out this chemical they can legally sell their brand of absinthe in the USA."

Not true.

And "Absinthe is legal in many countries in Europe. But it is not the same as the absinthe of old."

Not true.

Now maybe I am being unfair to these companies. I have to admit to not having drunk their products. They may be excellent wormwood flavored vodka. But they are not absinthe, and the sooner they stop deceiving consumers, the better. Do any of my readers have any nice things to say about these products?

Censorship is still alive in the Czech Republic

I don't like to give them a link, but I have to refer today to the Czech "absinth" blog.

Having written eight negative articles about Lucid absinthe in the last few months, the blog authors finally persuaded Ted Breaux, the distiller of Jade Absinthes and of Lucid, to join a debate on the blog.

Now frequent visitors to the Czech blog are well aware that posts disappear, which the blog admin blames on the system. I have had responses edited.

This time, the blog admin posted one of Ted Breaux's answers, and soon afterwards it disappeared. I had saved a copy of Ted's answer, so it was clear to me that this was blatant censorship. I had thought that censorship had died in the Czech Republic, but absintheur, our "host" at the Czech "absinth" blog, seems to be doing his best to keep it going!

Ted Breaux's deleted post follows below. The first part is shown on the screen grab: click on it to see the details.



"AbsintheMan:

I appreciate your professionalism and candor.

The comments I made 7+ years ago concerning thujone and vintage absinthe were based upon *assumptions*. Unfortuntately, I *assumed* those who published such figures did so from actual analysis. When the results of my first actual analyses proved to be in complete disagreement with what had been published up to that time, I contacted the researchers (Arnold, etc.) to discuss. Upon doing so, it became clear that their figures were dependent upon essential oil studies and not actual analyses of finished spirits, old or new. At that time, I realized that I was the first to analyze actual spirit samples, and I realized that everything I had assumed, AND everything they had published prior to that point was without actual proof. At first, I was hesitant to contradict myself without further investigation. When other researchers followed suit and demonstrated results similar to mine, I became more convinced that the old estimations did not consider many details that were not apparent from paper research. These details would eventually clarify themselves to me, but not until I actually had a hand on real-world distillation, from cultivation of herbs through a finished distilled product – something the prior research has never considered nor conducted.

Again, no 'shop' was ever mobilized in Thailand. An associate there offered a quick, low-cost, low risk solution toward getting production initiated in a country where there was no public perception of absinthe, good or bad. This remained a possibility during a time when it was unclear how absinthe would be received by regulators and the public in France.

I created Lucid for the purpose of introducing the U.S. to something that was handcrafted, made true to antique methods, using correct materials and original equipment, free of industrial adulterants, artificial dyes, etc. It had to be possible to produce it in sufficient quantity to secure nationwide distribution (a real challenge), and the price point requirements determined that it should be a mid-level offering. It remains an ongoing challenge, and the unfavorable exchange rate makes things even more difficult.

John Q. Epoch:

Like any genuine absinthe, Lucid contains a trace of thujone. Some absinthes contain a little more, some a little less. I can't give you an exact figure for Lucid, as it varies a little from batch to batch. It tests consistently <10 mg/l, which satisfies the 'thujone-free' requirement of the U.S. government. Nevertheless, we employ as much absinthium in its crafting as one finds in any of the best protocols in the old treatises. Lucid's construction involves NO alteration of the details of the traditional methods, and no reduction in the quantity of materials used.

absintheur:

Either I wasn't entirely clear in my previous account, or you misread it. Allow me to clarify.

I happened to have a telephone conversation with Dr. Arnold just before I was notified of the Time blurb. It became clear to both of us in our conversation that he had been under the impression that we were not using traditional absinthe distillation methods (e.g. Duplais, Brevans, Fritsch, etc.), primarily because a journalistic account of my distillation activities in an older article omitted certain details. Upon his expressing the nature of his impressions from that article, I corrected and clarified them. We discussed other points of misunderstanding as well, which I went to great lengths to correct and clarify. I sought nothing else from the conversation. It isn't the first conversation we've shared over the years, and it won't be the last.

Let's refer to the BMJ article reference by the TIME journalist. In that article, we find the following statement:

"The thujone content of old absinthe was about 0.26 g/l (260 ppm)8 and 350 ppm when the thujyl alcohol from the wormwoods is included.3"

8 – References Duplais – a 19th century treatise.
3 – Arnold references himself

If we apply simple logic:
This statement doesn't say, "our best estimates imply that . . . ", and it doesn't say, "we have reason to believe that . . . ", and it doesn't say, "barring any unforeseen details that may influence our estimations . . . " It says, "the thujone content of old absinthe WAS . . . "

This statement was made as an absolute, without any 'safety valve', and was not based upon actual testing of the very substance to which it referred (old absinthe). Clearly one can see the potential precariousness of this statement. We ALL assumed it to be correct (as did I for many years), but actual testing revealed something very different, and continues to do so.

As for Jad Adams, AFAIK, he is a journalist, not a scientific researcher. I know of no scientific research/analysis undertaken on his part. I don't recall seeing anything in his writings that reflect the revelations of new research, possibly because much of what he wrote (IIRC) was done *before* the latest research.

I cannot stress how important it is to realize that anyone who has pubished writings and theories that are heavily dependent upon thujone for sensationalism would have reason to NOT WANT to accept all the latest revelations, and some will undoubtedly refute that which contradicts their beliefs beyond a reasonable point. This is simply human nature. As for the rest of us, we had our beliefs, we tested our beliefs, we admitted our beliefs were wrong, we attempted to resolve the facts that make the truth what it is, we adapted our thinking to accommodate the truth and moved on.

And on that note, I can tell you there is more coming . . .

Absinthist

(1) I checked two original samples of B-65 for glycyrrhizinic residues some years ago, with interesting results The analytical data from my original samples concurs precisely with the written protocol (from an original distiller's notes) that came to me from Switzerland some time later.

(2) The wine spirits I use are indeed expensive and in short supply, but I wanted something distilled using the appropriate varietals and to my exacting standards in the interest of being as historically correct as possible. You can take comfort in the fact that the spirits I use exhibit a methanol content that is well within the contemporary health standards."

Why would this post be censored? Maybe because it shows the blog's eight attacks on Lucid were misfounded?

I doubt that the debate at the Czech blog will progress now, so for further information, read the coverage on the Wormwood Society.