Seeing this post closed it feels useful to review the motivation behind use of the close option. Yes, the OP considered a number of orthogonal options to rid said food of the offending substance, which suggests that more clarity behind the motivation and scope of the problem would be welcome (is this home cooking?) to identify a solution. However, such issues can [ed. sometimes] be clarified before closing and can lead to useful posts remaining open. Admittedly this might be the exception, not the rule, but is worth keeping in mind.

For reflection consider if the post had been about say coffee beans and caffeine:

The single topic that this question focuses on is - how to remove caffeine gingerol and only caffeine gingerol from coffee beans piece of ginger in a manner that it remains safe to eat.

Below I give some examples of things that I have tried.

I am trying to find out how to make roasted coffee beans without caffeine preserved ginger without pungency.I assume the main thing is to break down the caffeine gingerol into safe products. Or extract it out into a fluid that can be discarded - without removing the other tastes. Experiments suggest that boiling in lemon juice has some effect. I suspect that the acidity is the operative principle. I have tried acetic acid - eg white wine vinegar. Success is partial. Perhaps it should be heated under pressure or for a rather long time. And research suggests sodium chloride, sodium hydroxide, or potassium hydroxide.
What is the best, most effective and most safe, way to remove the caffeine pungency?

Changing the words "pungency" for "caffeine" is a stretch, admittedly. Point is, even if this is home chemistry or kitchen chemistry, would the modified question be closed as too unfocused?

** Note the first sentence was added by the OP after closing.

[Ed.] Admittedly the suggestion of allowing a question with problems to stay open in order to clarify the problem would seem to defeat having a vote to close (hold) system.

  • $\begingroup$ I know, not every kitchen is equipped with a supercritical CO2 chemical extraction apparatus. $\endgroup$
    – Buck Thorn Mod
    Commented Feb 17, 2023 at 6:18
  • $\begingroup$ Food chemistry is kind of iffy topic as it can belong to both cooking.SE or lifehacks.SE but if it contains some science that need explanation, that I think it is on-topic here (although the question needs to be trimmed to remove the offtopic part). Also see: chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4876/… and chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4957/… $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 19, 2023 at 5:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "such issues can be clarified before closing and can lead to useful posts remaining open." Such issues can also be clarified after closing and can lead to them being reopened. The idea that it might be fixed and therefore shouldn't be closed is ignoring the entire purpose of closure. It is not fixed now so it should not be open now. Future changes in quality allow for future changes in state, but it is current quality that must be the basis of current state. $\endgroup$
    – Nij
    Commented Feb 19, 2023 at 8:42
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ In this case, the post was not good enough, so it was closed. Then it was edited. Then it was good enough, so it was reopened. Far from being a reason to question the speed or necessity of closure, this is an exemplary and ideal application of closure, being used exactly the way it should. $\endgroup$
    – Nij
    Commented Feb 19, 2023 at 8:44
  • $\begingroup$ @Nij Yes, it was reopened, but in this case only when a mod chose to reopen. But if left to votes it takes 5 votes which can be an uphill trudge. By the time it collects 5 votes the Q is likely abandoned or forgotten. It is worth checking how many posts get reopened. Unfortunately there is no simple way of assessing how many deserve to be reopened. $\endgroup$
    – Buck Thorn Mod
    Commented Feb 19, 2023 at 12:06
  • $\begingroup$ I have to agree that the point of the close system is to put questions that require significant editing on hold. However perhaps the reopening process should be reconsidered to make it simpler. $\endgroup$
    – Buck Thorn Mod
    Commented Feb 19, 2023 at 12:09
  • $\begingroup$ A point that has been argued before is that if you vote to close you might want to leave an explanation for the reason. In this case mithoron actually did leave a reason. $\endgroup$
    – Buck Thorn Mod
    Commented Feb 19, 2023 at 12:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Questions like "how to unsweeten my tea", or remove any random chemical from any food should, be closed pre-emptively. Exceptions of this are rather unlikely. Sure if a food engineer already was using some process and wanted to tweak it, that could be reasonable, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for such post. $\endgroup$
    – Mithoron
    Commented Feb 19, 2023 at 17:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ And I wouldn't say the linked question is fine now. It's open-ended, asking for "best" thing to do. Not to mention I doubt OP really knows what he's doing - typical "I want to do something, but have barely any idea how" thing. $\endgroup$
    – Mithoron
    Commented Feb 19, 2023 at 17:48


You must log in to answer this question.