5 ms·

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

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.

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.