Subscribe to RSS





Recent Comments

- Organic Chemistry Extra Credit You Tube Parody Videos
azmanam, Fang, hasan, Gabe,
- Fruit Ripening: How Does It Work?
micky, micky, azmanam, micky,
- Hydrogen Sulfide Suicide
azmanam, Suicide_Boi, Suicide_Boi, MR,

Chemistry News

- Behind A Mushroom Scourge
Chemical & Engineering News: Latest News
- Famed Materials Scientist Charged With Grant Fraud
Chemical & Engineering News: Latest News
- Lawmaker Questions ACS Journal Editor
Chemical & Engineering News: Latest News
- Once more unto the breach
Babbage
- Nanoparticle Catalysts That Rest On Graphene
Chemical & Engineering News: Latest News
- How the Andrulis Paper Got Published
In the Pipeline
- Chemical Double Act Triggers Spreading Of Spores
Chemical & Engineering News: Latest News
- China Tied To Trade Secret Theft
Chemical & Engineering News: Latest News
- Chemistry World’s roundup of money and molecules
Chemistry World blog
- Stanford’s Long Tradition Of Laughing At Itself
C&ENtral Science
- Difference engine: Going along for the ride
Babbage
- Biofuels from Seaweed
C&ENtral Science
- What are your best job interview tips?
Chemjobber
- Unemployment rate at 8.3%, broader measure at 15.1%
Chemjobber
- AstraZeneca at Waltham: not being smart
Chemjobber

A Tooth in an M&M?

by azmanam on Sep 12 2009 (36317 Views)

M&m2A Raleigh, NC, woman bit into a peanut M&M... and something didn't feel right.  Instead of a peanut, she found... this (Via the Raleigh News & Observer):

[UPDATE: Photo removed at the request of the N&O.  Click the link above to see the image.]

What would you do?

She called Mars (the candy maker), who quickly sent her coupons and an envelope for her to send the mystery object to Mars labs for testing.

Uh...  no.   She actually wanted to know what the object was, and didn't trust Mars to be forthcoming with her results.

After calling a number of state departments and university labs, the News & Observer got involved as part of their Troubleshooter program.  Most state labs and departments either didn't have the resources or wouldn't do the testing, or referred her to private labs (costing upwards of $1000 dollars for testing).

Finally, the N&O talked to the Agriculture Department's Food and Drug Protection Division.

The director decided to make an exception - as long as the woman agreed not to sue - and got to work.

What tests would you run?  In short order, the director found out what the object was.  Was it tooth?  Bone?  Something else?  If you were the director, what would you do to find out what was in the M&M?  Find out below the jump.

Well, before it got to the Department, the NC Museum of Natural Science said it wasn't bone (although they didn't tell us how they found that out).  In fact, the only test they really give any detail on is, of course, the one that gave a positive result.  The sample gave a positive result to the iodine/starch test.  That means the material is a carbohydrate.  Probably sugar.

An External Affairs Manager at Mars says that, based on the test results, an unfortunately shaped lump of sugar made it through the various QC examinations to be treated like a peanut and get coated in chocolate and colorful candy shell.

So don't worry - no Mars line worker is missing a tooth.  M&Ms are safe to eat again.  Did you think of iodine/starch?  If so, you win!  And by win, I mean you don't actually win anything.  But there might be a job waiting for you at the NC Agriculture Department's Food and Drug Protection Division.

And the woman?  Even though the lump turned out to be innocuous... she's still not eating M&Ms.


Posted on : Sep 12 2009
Tags: , , ,
Posted under science news |

7 Responses to “A Tooth in an M&M?”

  1. 1

    how did they know that the sugar didn't come from the chocolate/candy shell?

  2. 2

    The first test I would have done was an EDAX. That would have eliminated both calcium and phosphate off the bat and I wouldn't need to trust a museum curator.

  3. 3

    In Ontario Canada, I found what looks like a broken tooth inside an M&M Peanut flavored candy. That was today September 12, 2009.
    A

  4. 4

    IR would also be go if EDX isn't available. Everyone has IR. Even poking at it with knife (something that in all honesty I would expect everyone here to do if they really had the sample) would show the fragible nature of the lump.

Leave a Reply



Announcements




Google Ads




Reagent Table Widget


Desktop version



Social Chemistry

Titration of EDTA with NaOH [1 hour ago]
Things that are fatal vs the four branches of engineering [2 hours ago]
Automated text mining into codified (Automatable!!! ) chemical structures .... Help please :D [5 hours ago]
kcat/Km and kon [6 hours ago]
Physical Organic Text? [9 hours ago]
Periodic table wallpaper [10 hours ago]
MOVED: Stay for PhD or leave with masters [10 hours ago]
Identifying Lattice Structures and Bohr Diagrams [11 hours ago]
Nanoputian Love [11 hours ago]
Stay for PhD or leave with masters [12 hours ago]
Why is the exact formula for pH used so seldom? [12 hours ago]
Teach myself chemistry? [12 hours ago]
The Chemistry of Cheesemaking [14 hours ago]
Hey r/chemistry, I need some advice. [14 hours ago]
[Ask/r/chemistry] pressure increase though T and V constant? [15 hours ago]
mystery product formed in borneol > camphor > isoborneol experiment (oxidation / reduction). IR inside! [17 hours ago]
Fifth Grader Discovers New Molecule [19 hours ago]
Potassium hydroxide KOH [19 hours ago]