This is a major topic in and of itself. Briefly, there are 2 major
theories. One being that every common wood finish will EVENTUALLY be safe
for food contact given enough time for the solvents and other nasties to
evaporate/bind/or otherwise become inert enough to not harm. The other
theory is that that is a bunch of BS and you can only use immediately
natural foodsafe ingredients to be truely safe.

The proponents of the "everything is foodsafe eventually" idea tend to only
concentrate on the solvents used in those finishes. There's more to it than
just solvents, you know. They also tend to cite (or, more accurately, cite
a common finishing article-writer) the notion that nothing in most of these
finishes are listed as a health concern with the American USDA. Of course,
lead wasn't listed for many many years before its effects were known either.
This is only one example out of thousands.

Personally, I'm in the middle. If I'm making something (like my kitchenware)
that I'm going to sell or send to my retailers relatively soon, then I'm
going to use natural oils, waxes, etc. because I don't want to have to hold
on to them for MYSELF feeling safe. If I have something that I can hold
onto for awhile (again, long enough for me to feel like it's safe) then I
MIGHT use some other finish IF that finish is the best for the piece given
what it's going to be used for, etc.

I also don't take product labeling or advertising at face value either.
Many so-called "Salad Bowl Finishes" have solvents and other ingredients in
them that I don't consider immediately food-safe. In fact, a couple of these
products have changed their labeling recently to reflect their, let's just
say creative marketing ideas. They've changed them to read something like
"Food Safe small print after 30 days".

As for your question about applied finish over dyes/stains, as long as your
dye/stain doesn't have ingredients that could leech out/under/over/around
the finish, then you're safe. Just because you put a finish over something
doesn't mean that what is under it stays under it. It depends on many
factors.


- Andrew


"Antony Sykes" wrote in message
m...
Anyone care to point me in the right direction regarding "food safe"
finishes? I've looked into a few, such as walnut, salad bowl, and a few
other oils. Can these, or any other finishes, be applied over dies or
stains and remain food safe?

Thanks,
Antony Sykes
WWW (Wannabe Wood Worker)

To the vast majority of the people in this world who are neither finishing
experts nor woodturners, "food safe" means that it doesn't smell like paint,
and it doesn't leave an oil slick on the surface of the wine.


Russ Fairfield
Post Falls, Idaho
http://www.woodturnerruss.com/

For projects that are going to come in contact with liquids and salads I always use MINERAL OIL. A
project with a good sanding and mineral oil will look fine. The disadvantage is having to replenish
the oil finish every once in a while depending on useage. It's the one finish that is completely
safe. Food dies would be okay but I would be leary about others.

Phil https://home.comcast.net/~phileen/index.html




On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 13:53:13 -0700, "Antony Sykes" wrote:

Anyone care to point me in the right direction regarding "food safe"
finishes? I've looked into a few, such as walnut, salad bowl, and a few
other oils. Can these, or any other finishes, be applied over dies or
stains and remain food safe?

Thanks,
Antony Sykes
WWW (Wannabe Wood Worker)

Bacteria have cell walls with a hydrophobic (water-hating) exterior, which
is why washing with water and a surfactant - detergent, Leif - or soap kills
bacteria. Oil protects and shelters them. To get to the bacteria when
washing, you have to destroy the oil, too. So why bother?

Now, food safe and safe as food are two very different things. Food safe
includes a host of indigestible polymers, safe as food includes things like
vegetable oils and resins like shellac, most of which are extracted with
_deadly_ solvents in process. Once the solvent's gone, however, different
story. Oh yes, mineral oil is as indigestible as polyurethane, it's just
that it's also an intestinal irritant, provoking release of water in an
effort to break it up. That's why it's used as a laxative.

You might want to avoid "organic" nut oils which are pressed, not solvent
extracted, as they can contain the proteins which act as allergens, and can
induce severe anaphylaxis in about 1/10th of a percent of the population.


"fipster" wrote in message
...

For projects that are going to come in contact with liquids and salads I
always use MINERAL OIL. A
project with a good sanding and mineral oil will look fine. The
disadvantage is having to replenish
the oil finish every once in a while depending on useage. It's the one
finish that is completely
safe. Food dies would be okay but I would be leary about others.

Phil https://home.comcast.net/~phileen/index.html




On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 13:53:13 -0700, "Antony Sykes" wrote:

Anyone care to point me in the right direction regarding "food safe"
finishes? I've looked into a few, such as walnut, salad bowl, and a few
other oils. Can these, or any other finishes, be applied over dies or
stains and remain food safe?

Thanks,
Antony Sykes
WWW (Wannabe Wood Worker)

Hi George, I enjoy your commentary; always readable, thought provoking
and instructive. You don't argue from dogmatic authority or perpetuate
misinformation just because it was printed somewhere. Thanks.

An easily understood, in depth rcw review of the physical chemistry
involved as wood dries and cracks and stabilizes (or doesn't) would be a
convenient reference printed out or archived. Summed up in one essay,
anecdotes aside, what we really know today. What is happening as wood is
dried by all the different ways that are revealed to our true believers.
You could do it very well. So?

Do you think that adding salt to LDD solution might help transfer the
intracellular water by osmosis across
a cell membrane made water-loving? Which is the real perp anyway, intra
or extra cell water? I doubt that inquiring minds give a damn.
Arch

Fortiter,

Wood in water is well-preserved, that's for sure, but osmosis is about
solute, not just solvent, and I'm not sure that's what we want, given the
wood has dissolved salts as well. The problem is that "bound" water, not
the casual stuff.

Keeping the surface evaporation equal to the capillary flow from the wood is
what we want. If we get a higher rate of evaporation than the interior can
replace, we'll get checking as the expanded interior refuses to collapse
with the dryer exterior. So anything that either slows the surface loss -
high humidity in a bag, in a wax/latex envelope, sitting on a concrete
basement floor - is great. The micro and vacuum people use the principle of
increased flow, one by pressure from within, one by pulling from without,
but they have greater potential for damaging the wood.

Then there are other factors - some woods are more porous than others, some
have huge pores with diminished capillary pull, and then there's the closed
tyloses in the heart versus the open passages in the sapwood, not to mention
orientation and distance between early wood and late wood in trees which
experience cycles of heat/cold or wet/dry versus those which don't.

I don't think there's one size to fit all, but I think that easy is the best
way to go, even if that means delayed gratification.

Oh yes, then there's the advice I got years ago as I researched the pouring
of my first concrete. You can do it so badly as to guarantee failure, but
you can't guarantee success. Sometimes it just cracks.

"Arch" wrote in message
...


Do you think that adding salt to LDD solution might help transfer the
intracellular water by osmosis across
a cell membrane made water-loving? Which is the real perp anyway, intra
or extra cell water? I doubt that inquiring minds give a damn.
Arch