7 ms·
This headline isn't exactly accurate and the article is misleading. PFOA was used in the process of affixing Teflon to surfaces but is not present in the pan it
by UnderProtest 8y ago
This headline isn't exactly accurate and the article is misleading. PFOA was used in the process of affixing Teflon to surfaces but is not present in the pan itself. PFOA has built up in the environment as a result of the manufacturing processes that use it.
It would be more accurate to say "3M knew that manufacturing non-stick pans, and a number of other products, was poisoning all of us in the '70s".
You didn't have to have a Teflon pan to be exposed and having a Teflon pan didn't increase your exposure significantly. Microwave popcorn bags and other food wrappers were hundreds of times worse.
Teflon pans remain safe to use. All these other non-stick products are potential problems but it's impractical to try to identify which ones have PFOA or PFOS... so it's a good thing it's being phased out.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago> Microwave popcorn bags (...) were hundreds of times worse. Wait. Is it still true today?
- AckSyn 8y agoI’m also interested in knowing why they were worse, and harmful at all.
- tfehring 8y agoLooks like microwave popcorn bags still contained high levels of PFOA as of 2006, though I wasn't able to find a more recent reliable source. "Consumption of just 10 bags of microwave popcorn a year could contribute about 20% of the average blood PFOA levels, say the scientists interviewed anonymously for this article." PDF: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es062599u https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es062599u
- black_puppydog 8y agoFor some of my friends that sounds like perfectly normal thing to do, so... where does that leave us? :P
- justrobert 8y agoYou can use a brown lunch bag to microwave your own popcorn, it is maybe a minute more of work and you save money. Not to mention you can customize the popcorn better if you like to add seasoning.
- droopyEyelids 8y agoThis was a shocking revelation to me. I always assumed there was some magic technology in microwave popcorn bags. nope. The bag prevents the popcorn from scattering, and any kind of bag or container will work
- TeMPOraL 8y agoWow, I assumed similarly - that there's something in the bag that helps the air inside heat up. I guess maybe moisture in the corns is enough. I learned something new and useful today, thanks!
- rripken 8y ago"Microwave Susceptor". Its a super thin layer of aluminum or graphite that absorbs microwaves and gets really hot. Its in the bottom layer of the bag and the reason for "this side up".
- droopyEyelids 8y agoInteresting how I can get almost every single kernel to pop without burning in a plain paper bag.
- mikestew 8y agoGuess how early (70s) microwave cookbooks told you how to make popcorn, before Orville Redinbacher got involved. Yet my wife, same age I am and read the same cookbooks, buys pre-packaged unflavored microwave popcorn from the store. </shrug>
- Cerium 8y ago
- GuB-42 8y agoI don't know but 100x worse than something safe doesn't mean it is unsafe. It is like saying that fruit juice is 100x more dangerous than clean water. It may be true by some metric but it is completely meaningless.
- ulkram 8y agoIn January 2016, the FDA finally banned the Teflon-like, grease-resistant chemical that's been linked to various cancers, infertility, thyroid issues, and birth defects from being used in food packaging: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). That was great news since a study by the FDA found that up to 20 percent of PFOA levels in our bodies can come from consuming a mere 10 bags of popcorn a year. Unfortunately, the FDA has already approved nearly 100 PFOA-like compounds for use in food packaging—a majority of which have little to no information regarding long-term health consequences, according to the Environmental Working Group. So, although all of the bags listed below are PFOA-free, there is little evidence to support (or deny) that PFOA substitutes are safe to be in contact with your food. Ah, the joys of food manufacturing. https://www.eatthis.com/microwave-popcorn/ https://www.eatthis.com/microwave-popcorn/
- genericone 8y agoDo you have any recommendations on where we could read more about the hidden history of PFOAs and teflon? These days all the nonstick pans say PFOA-free, but if they were never present in the actual pan, is it just a marketing gimmick? Like putting gluten-free on old foods that never contained gluten, or bpa-free on things that historically didn't use bpa?
- hammock 8y agoIt is a marketing gimmick, but your description of the marketing gimmick is wrong. They say PFOA-free because they use PFOS or another analogue in their manufacturing. They are no more safe.
- ballenf 8y agoJust like with BPA free plastics that often have even higher levels of BPS, BPF, etc. or related compounds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuMGc0EswTc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuMGc0EswTc (exploration of literature and the plastic industry's move away from BPA -- as always with Nutrition Facts, Dr. Gregor is totally calm and uses no scare tactics)
- hammock 8y agoThank you for that addition. I was stuck on the gluten-free thing and you are right about the BPA-free thing - another area where manufacturers just switched to a different, bad chemical.
- zmk_ 8y agoWhat they mean when saying PFOA-free is that it wasn't used in the manufacturing of the product. For instance if you look at pans sold at Ikea they will explicitly say in the materials section: "No PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) has been used to make non-stick coating on this product."
- nielsbot 8y agoThat said.. seems reasonable to just avoid non-stick pans? Added health risk for low benefit.
- chickenfries 8y agoHave fun never eating out, or going over to someone else's house to eat?
- nielsbot 8y agoControl what you can, don't worry about the rest.
- adrianmonk 8y agoNot a chef, but I wouldn't think restaurants use nonstick pans much because they tend to wear out fast.
- sailfast 8y agoThey use nonstick for a helluva lot - it’s cheap, and it’s easier to clean which saves time. Check out your local restaurant auction for sauté pans.
- vonmoltke 8y agoCommercial-grade non-stick frying pans are available. I own one; it is significantly more durable than the consumer crap.
- bardworx 8y agoSome folks below are replying to the contrary, however, in my 10 years of working in NYC restaurants, from your local bar/pub to fine dinning and BRGuest, I have never seen a non stick pan in the kitchen. Chefs take their frustration out on pans and slam, toss, and scrape them to oblivion. Edit: adding an anecdote about cooking eggs: In one restaurant I worked, it was part of the interview process to ask a chef to make an omelette. If the eggs got stuck to the pan or the omelette was destroyed, they didn’t get hired. When I asked our Sous Chef why this was so difficult he explained that it’s a basic skill that every chef should have and understand the chemical reaction of proteins in a high heat pan with oil.
- hammock 8y agoPFOA/S are bad, but ALL organofluorines are bad. That is pretty much a settled fact even though industry press will only point to peer-reviewed studies on specific molecules like PFOA/S. Including chipping Teflon, and that winter boot waterproofing spray you have in your closet... edit: Not sure why I'm being downvoted. The body does not have a way of breaking down the carbon-fluorine bond, therefore these chemicals tend to bioaccumulate.
- ballenf 8y agoWhy the focus on bioaccumulation over harmfulness? Is it that bioaccumulation means that there is no safe exposure level to a substance that might have even minimal harmfulness? Now I'm really going to reveal my ignorance... I also don't understand how a substance with such a strong bond that we can't break it down, can interact with anything in the body. Is it something like a catalyst?
- cwkoss 8y agoI'm also interested in the answers to those questions.
- hammock 8y agoBioaccumulation can cause harm in a number of different ways. One of the biggest risks is cancer. For example, lung cancer is often caused (in part) by accumulation of soot in your lungs, or asbestos particles, that your body cannot remove. And yes, they say there is no safe exposure level to smoking or asbestos. Other effects include mental illness, diseases of the liver or kidneys, often seen with heavy metals. When foreign objects get in protected nooks and crannies of your body, like vital organs, and stay there for the rest of your life, bad things happen.
- rwcarlsen 8y agoBut just because our bodies bioaccumulate things doesn't mean they cause cancer. You didn't really address any of GP's questions. Do PFOA (and similar) molecules affect cancer rates, and if so - how significantly? Also if PFOA and friends are so unreactive with the body - can't be removed, then what is the mechanism by which they cause problems?
- legulere 8y agoIt’s pretty easy to heat up a nonstick-pan to temperatures where it releases toxic fumes. Just put it on an induction stove without anything in it. A very typical thing to do.