3 ms·

Why can't they be made illegal to use?

• rayiner 7y ago
  Because we have no idea whether the benefit from doing so would outweigh the loss of non-stick and stain-free products?
  • shmerl 7y ago
    That's supposed to be a joke?
    • pw 7y ago
      No, it’s not. He’s pointing out that there are legitimate trade offs here.
    • thewebcount 7y ago
      No, it's a legitimate question. Think of it this way. If we stop using Teflon coatings on pots and pans, will that, for example, increase the amount of cooking oil used in cooking? And if so, will that cause other health effects such as more oil being aerosolized and getting in people's lungs more? Will it cause more oil to clog up pipes (think London's "fatbergs" for example)? Will it cause more oil to go into landfills, etc.? There are frequently unintended consequences to these sorts of changes and you may just be trading one poison for another one or a worse one.
      • shmerl 7y ago
        I think oil concerns are much less problematic since you can decide what oil to use (or use no oil altogether) than ones that come from the chemicals you can't control because they are already in the water or your frying pan. You can simply cook, not fry if you worry about oil. On the other hand you can't avoid poisoned water unless you filter it. So it's a false argument here.
        • buckminster 7y ago
          You can choose to use non-non-stick frying pans.
          • istorical 7y ago
            But if the coating from non-stick pans makes its way down the drain (or down the toilet) and back into the water system of the planet then you really can't.
            • jdkee 7y ago
              Not with properly seasoned cast-iron cookware, it won't.
              • shmerl 7y ago
                Pollution already comes from production alone, whether you are using it or not.
          • shmerl 7y ago
            That won't stop pollution of the water sources, so it will come to you either way.
      • bobthechef 7y ago
        Trade offs, yes, but they must be comparable and proportionate. For example, you cannot compare proven carcinogenicity with fatberg risk. You could, however, compare the toxicity of consuming larger amounts of overheated cooking oil with that of Teflon.
      • jokoon 7y ago
        This is speculative > and you may just be trading one poison for another one or a worse one. What poison exactly? This almost is whataboutism.
        • rayiner 7y ago
          It's not at all speculative. At the very least, getting rid of PFAS will cost money and reduce convenience. Those things are valuable. People will accept some level of risk in order to have comfort and convenience and save money--and to do so is completely rational. That's why people drive, eat red meat, etc.
          • shmerl 7y ago
            > People will accept some level of risk in order to have comfort That's a pretty evil argument, when poisoned people for the most part have no clue they are being poisoned, or even that many are being poisoned due to spread of these chemicals. "Accept" implies they know the consequences. Those who profit on this, benefit from obscurity.
          • munk-a 7y ago
            That's a very valid point to bring up but I think it makes a big mistake in assuming that people would rationally respond to the risk. People are pretty terrible at rationally evaluating risk and participate in provably harmful actions all the time - going to vegas or playing the lottery to spend some money and feel like a rich person for a while is totally valid, but playing the slots or the lottery to make money for your retirement is completely irrational. And yet, folks will play the lottery in the hopes they can retire more comfortably - even when their financial situation isn't so dire that structured saving wouldn't give them their desired level of comfort.
      • munk-a 7y ago
        The issue is that the historical arguments lean toward using oil - we know that our ancestors used cooking oils and lards for greasing and survived with it, there may be quite legitimate questions about the ability to scale that approach up to our current population but I think it's reasonable to put the burden of proof on Teflon to guarantee it's no worse for humans, the environment and our plumbing than lard and oil... this also logically extends to exotic oils like avocado oil and palm oil. I think our cavalier attitude toward food additives is proven to be an incorrect stance by the utterly massive obesity crisis in America - there literally couldn't be a clearer sign that we're doing something seriously wrong. In the defense of Teflon there's nothing that directly signals it's chemicals on cookware and most research is pointing toward sugars, but it's an ongoing problem we all recognize and are not fixing.
  • salawat 7y ago
    Funny how that didn't seem to be a problem moving to Teflon and such. Kinda sounds like a post-facto rationalization for maintaining the status quo. Prior to it's synthesis there are centuries of use of stick pans without much issue.
    • harryh 7y ago
      We live in a free society. The burden for passing laws outlawing particular products is supposed to be higher than the burden to bring those products to market in the first place.
      • munk-a 7y ago
        I don't think that's sensible. The burden for crime prevention follows that rule (preventing someone from leaving their home because they may rob someone else requires a heavy burden of proof) but there isn't any assumption of harmlessness encoded anywhere in the legal system. Back in ye olde founders day these sorts of harmful chemicals weren't a consideration that warranted any specific inclusion in the foundation of our laws so I think it's a bit disingenuous to take the lack of any precedent as acceptance.
• jonahhorowitz 7y ago
  Corruption and regulatory capture.
  • russh 7y ago
    Corruption, regulatory capture, and worst of all... convenience.