3 ms·
I think the end goal is to not use a similar analogue. The problematic chemicals are fluorosurfactants used in production, and they are not actually useful in t
by amluto 4y ago
I think the end goal is to not use a similar analogue. The problematic chemicals are fluorosurfactants used in production, and they are not actually useful in the final pan. Manufacturers are working on getting rid of them:
https://www.solvay.com/en/article/eliminating-pfas https://www.solvay.com/en/article/eliminating-pfas
As far as I know, PTFE itself is also a “forever chemical”, but it’s an extremely inert polymer and is unlikely to be particularly dangerous as long as it doesn’t get too hot. (PFOA and PFOS are water soluble. PTFE is not.)
- gilrain 4y ago> Manufacturers are working on getting rid of them. It might be more ethical to stop selling the dangerous product until a replacement can be found, but I’m not a huge chemical manufacturer.
- mensetmanusman 4y agoMany stopped selling a generation ago, but the chemicals last longer than a generation…
- arcticbull 4y ago> ... but it’s an extremely inert polymer and is unlikely to be particularly dangerous as long as it doesn’t get too hot. You mean like on a stovetop?
- 124816 4y agoUsually beyond the range you normally cook at, but definitely achievable if you leave a pan unattended for a minute, or use it with insufficient coverage. Pet birds are extremely vulnerable, and there's plenty of stories of them dying due to nonstick cookware. I get little benefit from nonstick cookware, so for me the "canary in the kitchen" aspect was enough reason to eliminate it from the house.