NYU chemistry professor Kent Kirshenbaum. Photo: Jeff Potter

Like many inquisitive scientists, Kent Kirshenbaum regularly scans the ingredient list of prepared foods to uncover the chemical composites lurking within. The substance that most recently piqued the New York University chemistry professor's curiosity is liquid smoke. "My immediate thought was that it was a horrible mix of chemicals," he told us.

After distilling the concentrated smoke and liquid mix (often sold at the grocery store by the bottle to enhance barbecue) down to its roots of water and more than 400 chemical compounds, the scientist (who in person comes across as one part Einstein, one part Malcolm Gladwell) learned that liquid smoke is actually "safer [for human ingestion] than untreated wood smoke."

Kirshenbaum discussed his discovery last week during a monthly gathering of the Experimental Cuisine Collective -- food nerds who love to make things like edible foam. We caught up with him to chat smoke, bongs and homemade liquid smoke.

What is liquid smoke?
Liquid smoke is very simply smoke in water. Smoke usually comes as a vapor, but there are ways to condense it and turn it into liquid and that liquid can then be carried in water.

Do you want to save the world? Dr. John D. Floros, President of the Institute of Food Technologists, believes that if that's the case, you should look into becoming a food scientist. In his opinion, in the coming years food scientists are going to play a huge role in figuring out how to feed the ever-growing world population.

However, the number of food scientists is declining worldwide. According to an article in Confectionary News, numbers are down in Australia, South Africa, the UK, and elsewhere. In the U.S., it is a common misconception that food scientists are the same as chefs.

The Institute of Food Technologists has a plan to turn things around though. They have devised a "three-pronged attack" in which they get information to high school students, urge food science students to more actively recruit their peers, and to build an association or community of young food science professionals.

Their efforts must be working, because food science was recently placed at number three on a recent CNN list of nine well paying cool jobs. At a staring salary of around $53,000, I think that food science may just get some people's attention. Would you consider becoming a food scientist?

Y'know what I love about Ted Allen? Everything. His carefully sculpted coiff, his evasion of the Queer Eye curse, his smug yet disarming way of knowing so much more about everything than I ever will. And now, as if I needed another reason to worship the damn man, he is hosting the genius new Food Network series Food Detectives.

As if granting my TV prayers, Food Detectives is described as the epicurean answer to Mythbusters. The upcoming primetime show, debuting on July 29th, will feature Allen working with a team of culinary and technical scientists to verify or debunk famous food myths. Slated thusfar: the five-second rule, the gestation of gum digestion, and an apple-a-day's effect on doctors.

Additionally, viewers can submit their own culinary queries. First on my list: Can eating too many carrots turn your skin orange? 'Cause I'd sure like to see Ted all tannined. Which food fables would you like to see tested?

That's the latest theory on why we're so fat: we're addicted to food.

Now, if by "addicted" they mean "I need to eat it in order to survive," then yeah, I'm "addicted," but I don't think that this is true for most people. Not only do people eat too much in general, but they eat too much of the wrong foods, don't exercise and go on diets that ultimately fail. However, I think the theory is a twisting of the word "addiction." To compare it to drug addiction is strange. After all, in a normal, healthy situation, we don't need cocaine to live. We do need food and drink, so I think they should focus their research on something else.

There is a meeting at Yale's Rudd Center this week to explore this theory more.

In New Zealand, scientists have been able to determine precisely which genes are responsible for the individual flavors and scents of fruits and flowers. As a result of this breakthrough, it will now be possible to actually produce natural flavorings without having to resort to chemical extractions or other synthetic processes, not to mention that it will save time trying to match the flavors of new products to natural ones. The scientists inserted the newly-identified genes into bacteria and model plants, which then produced the same results. Using a process known as biofermentation, they will be able to harvest the flavors and smells from the cultures in which they are grown and then implant them into food products (or perfumes).

The upshot of all of this is that it opens the door to a nearly infinite number of flavors - all-natural flavors, at that. As consumer demand increasingly grows for "natural" products, it seems likely that novel, but natural, flavorings could catch on. Green apple potato chips, anyone?

The July edition of Food & Wine features a profile of David Arnold, who will soon be heading a food technology lab at the French Culinary Institute in Manhattan. Ideas like walk-in microwave ovens and tableside wine carbonation are just a few of Arnold's plans, according to F&W. Arnold also reviewed Molecular Gastronomy: Exploring the Science of Flavor by Hervé This in the June issue of Food Arts. He takes issue with some of This's ideas about what exactly molecular gastronomy is and who started it. Discover.com also has a great profile of This (pronounced either TEES or TISS, depending on who you read) and the early stages of the molecular gastronomy movement.

For years, chefs, food writers and even food scientists have said that cutting boards made of wood will absorb bacteria, and plastic ones will allow bacteria to flourish on the surface, lurking in each tiny cut. Each material has been declared worse in turns. Do plastic cutting boards really harbor more bacteria than wooden ones? Are wooden ones worse?

It looks like the food scientists at Cook's Illustrated have debunked this food myth, because according to their tests, the answer is "no". They collected the used cutting boards of several of their staff members, but found little bacteria on them. The boards, two wooden and two plastic, were then taken to a lab where they were inoculated with one drop of solution containing millions of bacteria. The bacteria were allowed to sit on the boards for 40 minutes, but after washing the boards with hot, soapy water, fewer than 100 bacteria from the original sample remained on each type of board.

While bacteria remained on each board, the amount was small and nearly equal for both materials. This shows that it doesn't matter what the board is made out of, but how you care for it. After each use, particularly if raw meat has touched the board, cleanse it with warm, soapy water. The FDA recommends sanitizing your boards in a solution of 1 tablespoon bleach to 1 gallon water.

I've been fiercely opposed to the chemically-altered and highly sweet high fructose corn syrup for years, and it's amazing to me that, as long as it's been known to have serious affects on health, contributing to rising obesity and diabetes rates, it's still ubiquitously available in foods. It's super sweet, and it's cheap.

Kate Hopkins from the Accidental Hedonist is, like me, a long-time member of the anti-HFCS camp. She's developed an exceedingly well-researched answer to a reader's question on how to argue the HFCS case when many corn industry marketing folks rave about how "natural" the product is.