"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...

> > And the best popcorn popper isn't worth what
> > you paid for it if you don't use the best popcorn.
> > I'm an Orville Redenbacher fan, myself.

> I'm not impressed with Orville Redenbacher. Before
> putting the corn in the popper, I always spread the
> popcorn out in a dish or something and inspect it for
> bad kernels. I pick out all the bad kernels (especially
> the ones that are black at the tip) and discard them.
> I do that because corn is the second biggest source
> of cancer-causing aflatoxins in a typical U.S. diet.
> (Peanuts are the #1 source.)
>
> If you've ever noticed a piece of popcorn that had an
> off taste, it was made from one of these bad kernels.
> It's caused by a mold.
>
> In doing these inspections, I've found no difference
> between Orville Redenbacher and the cheaper brands.
> They all contain about the same number of bad kernels.

While I appreciate your concern about aflatoxins, I'm not sure where
you got the idea that you could successfully visually inspect popcorn
at home for such contamination. May I suggest some further reading on
the subject from reliable sources -- here's a good start:

***
Detection

Detection of aflatoxins in corn lots is necessary for regulatory
agencies, producers, and the grain buyers for obvious reasons. The
detection of aflatoxins is not exact and there are opportunities for
error in all of the steps involved. Perhaps the greatest chance for
error is in the sampling process, either in the field or from
truckload lots. The data obtained in this area indicate that at least
a 10 lb. sample should be obtained from the area to be sampled, and
the sample should be as representative of the total lot as possible.



Once the main sample has been obtained, a sub-sample must be obtained.
This is probably the second greatest source of error. The final
analysis for aflatoxin is done on a 50 to 100 gr. sample, which again
must be representative of the larger sample. The sub-sampling error
can be reduced if the total sample is ground before the sub-sample is
obtained. However, in many laboratories neither time nor equipment is
available to grind the entire 10 lb. sample. Thus, a sub-sample of the
intact kernels is taken before grinding.



Although there is a chance for error in the analytical process, this
is the most accurate step in the detection procedure. There are
several ways of detecting aflatoxin once the sub-sample has been
obtained. Detection methods range from procedures as simple as visual
observation of the toxin-producing fungi to complicated chemical
analyses of the toxins themselves.



Ultraviolet light. This is the so-called black light method and is
used by several buying stations. An ultraviolet light of 365 nm is
normally used. However, it is not a reliable method of detecting
aflatoxin since the compound that produces the bright, greenish-yellow
fluorescence is kojic acid and not aflatoxin. It may be used as a
presumptive screening method, but not as an analytical method since
fluorescence may occur without aflatoxin being present.



Minicolumn method. Velasco devised a minicolumn method employing
florisil for rapid screening of aflatoxin B1 (16). This procedure has
been modified and is used by several buying stations to determine
whether or not to purchase a lot of corn. Elevators frequently use
this method to follow up on black light positive samples, particularly
during years when aflatoxin problems are common. The method can detect
B1 as low as 5 PPB in cottonseed products, but cannot be used
analytically because it lacks resolution, and more importantly,
because it does not definitely identify B1. Normally, a sample is
called positive for B1 if an aflatoxin-like fluorescing material is
found absorbed to the florisil layer of the column. Generally, an
unknown sample is compared to one or more known aflatoxin positive
samples (usually at 20 and 100 PPB).



Fluorometric-iodine method. Davis and Diener developed a method for
detecting aflatoxins in which iodine is used to convert aflatoxin B1
into a more intensely fluorescent derivative which is then quantitated
using a comparatively simple photo-fluorometer and filter combination.
The instrument is adjusted to read directly in micrograms per kilogram
(PPB) of aflatoxin. This method also has the advantage of using less
solvents, which makes it much safer for the operator.



Thin layer chromatography. This method is approved by the Association
of Official Analytical Chemists and is referred to commonly as the CB
method. In this method, the aflatoxins are extracted from corn using
solvents concentrated and spotted on chromatograms. The presence of
spots on thin layer chromatograms with RF values similar to or
identical with those of aflatoxins B1, B2, G1, or G2 is a tentative
identification. To confirm the presence of aflatoxins, the suspect
spot is reacted with trifluoroacetic acid or glacial acetic acid, and
developing the reaction products in a new solvent system and comparing
with known standards. This method is used by several laboratories, but
is not used by buying stations.



High performance liquid chromatography. This is a relatively new
method of detecting aflatoxins and is very reliable. Again, it is used
by several research laboratories, but not by buying stations. A
recently developed HPLC procedure is more rapid, more sensitive, and
more precise than the TLC procedure at high toxin levels.



Mass Spectrometry. There is no more definitive confirmation of the
aflatoxins than mass spectroscopy because this method is a direct
molecular characterization of the molecule. However, this method is
used by only a few research laboratories.

***

From http://persephone.agcom.purdue.edu/A...CH/NCH-52.html

As you can see, the level of contamination we're discussing is
minute -- measured in parts per *billion*, far below anything which
could be viewed with the naked eye. Keep being concerned, of course:
make wise food choices, keep abreast of current regulations and
*compliance* with such regulations, write letters to food companies,
and lobby the government to increase the safety of the food supply.

But picking through your popcorn isn't going to do you any good.

I choose Orville's because it's, imo, a better tasting, better
performing, bigger, fluffier popcorn (if you believe their marketing
hype, they "specially condition" their kernels, thus retaining optimal
moisture for popping -- see
http://www.orville.com/A02-History.jsp?mnav=about). Since I don't
live in the US anymore, I eat popcorn maybe half a dozen times a year
(and even when I did, I didn't eat popcorn much more often). Now I'm
limited to when I bring a jar back with me when I visit San Diego ...
which has happened once in the last three years. But I digress ...

I just can't see getting too hysterical about popcorn or my corn/maize
intake (or too many other foodstuff concerns), since I don't eat much
processed food nor much corn-fed meat/poultry. Your mileage, and
hysteria, may vary.
-j