7 ms·

This article is brief and uses big numbers to make a scary point but I'd be interested in if there is proof of causation of significant physiological effects at

• cogman10 2y ago
  The difficulty here is that the diseases happen years or decades after the exposer, sometimes. The industrial setting offers the hints that there might be a problem but, as you rightly point out, also might just be a case of too much exposure. An example of this is radiation exposure, it took an embarrassingly long time for society to link radiation to cancer, and that was a somewhat obvious link. Radioactive beverages were literally marketed as health beverages because of their radium content.
  • lupusreal 2y ago
    You can still find radioactive trinkets being sold for their alleged health effects. Thorium in pendants and that sort of shit. They don't disclose their radioactive nature but they market with some new age woo like "emits vitalizing energy waves using crystal technology." Most of it comes from China, presumably from people who see waste byproducts of rare earth metal processing as a business opportunity.
• MrSkelter 2y ago
  The precautionary principle plus what we know about heating plastic makes your reticence seem churlish. There are easy, safe alternatives in wood, metal and silicone. There’s no need to risk it.
  • michaelt 2y ago
    In my country we have some ridiculous newspapers that will publish any story with "may cause cancer" in the headline. So for a lot of people these stories are a boy-who-cried-wolf situation. Precautionary principle? I'm sorry to say stainless steel may leech heavy metals into food during cooking [1] And also silicone may leech potentially harmful chemicals into food [2] Nonstick coatings? Teflon flu "could be a real concern" [3] Wooden spoons are porous and can crack, making them a breeding ground for germs, and they can splinter [4] - and good luck finding a wooden spatula that doesn't suck. So personally I don't think it's churlish to take these warnings with a grain of salt. Especially for rarely-used pieces of cookware. [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4284091/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4284091/ [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19680914/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19680914/ [3] https://www.cnet.com/home/kitchen-and-household/teflon-flu-risks-safety-tips-and-nonstick-alternatives-for-cooking/ https://www.cnet.com/home/kitchen-and-household/teflon-flu-r... [4] https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/1941959/replace-five-kitchen-tools-immediately-health-hazards-expert-advises https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/1941959/replace-...
    • reedf1 2y ago
      A well made point, but you won't get through. When you're in the fad, it's the center of the universe. Plus there will be an endless number of presently unknown medical worries and niggles. It all comes out in the wash, the best bet is diversification.
    • ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
      I can relate to your distrust of the various click-baity headlines of papers, but Teflon flu is a real thing. It's easily avoided by not over-heating pans - keep them under 260°C and don't heat them when empty as that can result in hot spots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_fume_fever https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_fume_fever
      • jrmg 2y ago
        I think that’s kind of the point - all the things they listed are real things. Which are most important to avoid?
  • Aachen 2y ago
    Maybe a stupid question, but how can I tell the difference between plastic and silicone? We use a black spatula that's flexible (shapes a bit to the curvature of what you're wiping, super convenient) and doesn't scratch the pan while not being porous like wood (where I always wonder how many bacteria live in these crevasses). It seems perfect and is being sold specifically for cooking so I assumed this plastic, if that's what it is, is safe for that. Now, reading the article, it says it's not, but then in the comments I read it may be yet another material. How can one tell what's what?
    • alwayslikethis 2y ago
      Silicon is rubbery, but unlike rubber it is normally not sticky to either your hand or food.
    • ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
      Plastic isn't as heat tolerant, so you could subject the utensils to high heat (200°C should do it) and see if they start to melt. Whilst it's a destructive test, it's probably worth destroying and replacing plastic utensils as silicone ones are much better. Edit: apparently you can tell the difference by squeezing them too - silicone will feel rubbery.
    • dnpls 2y ago
      Side note: If you regularly and promptly clean your wooden utensils, bacteria and germs won't set in. Bacteria only becomes an issue when the wood splinters or is damaged in some way. Also "capillary action" takes place in wood, meaning water and/or bacteria on the outside of the wooden surface essentially diffuses into the wood, "choking out" the surface bacteria and therefore not providing them with a good environment on which to grow. Additionally, wood has antimicrobial properties.
      • ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
        I recall hearing from somewhere that it's not so much the cleaning, but the drying that kills off the microbes.
  • armada651 2y ago
    The problem is that even when there are easy, safe alternatives trying to avoid every little risk in your life will drive you crazy. This is a clear case where a regulator should step in and just ban these black plastic utensils in favor of their safe alternatives. That way you're not just protected from exposure in your own kitchen, but also when joining your friends for dinner.
    • Forgeties79 2y ago
      Being deliberate about the materials you choose for your cookware is not the same as stressing out over every little risk in your life. For some people these are the materials that they use to prepare their food literally every day and one purchase will last years.
      • xp84 2y ago
        > one purchase will last years Indeed. Although now I’m pretty annoyed about the 6 or so black plastic cooking utensils I received as a wedding gift nearly twenty years ago lasted this long, so I’ve been using them this whole time. Oh well, at least I don’t cook much :/
    • CalRobert 2y ago
      Sure, but this is pretty low hanging fruit. Moving to only metal and wood spatulas, cooking spoons, etc. has been a pretty cheap and easy switch. I would love to ALSO see regulation, but in the meantime I can at least improve things for myself.
      • jrmg 2y ago
        Those are either going to (metal) scratch my non-stick pans, which I’m also told (on scant evidence I believe) causes cancer, or they’re (wood) going to be inflexible and hard to wash (can’t dishwasher them), which is inconvenient.
        • NoGravitas 2y ago
  • xmodem 2y ago
    Wood is not dishwasher safe, metal will damage the cookware's non-stick coating, which may be worse than the plastic I'm trying to avoid. I guess that leaves silicone.
    • adrianN 2y ago
      Wood is technically not dishwasher safe, but I have wooden spoons that I’ve inherited from my grandma and they still hold up despite being in the dishwasher regularly.
      • kristjansson 2y ago
        The anecdata of this thread alone might be enough to re-categorize wood spoons as dishwasher safe.
    • palmtree3000 2y ago
      Silicone is not rigid, which is sometimes a problem.
    • emddudley 2y ago
      If we're talking about health and cookware, you're not going to want nonstick cookware.
      • mega_dingus 2y ago
        Didn't read the whole comment did you?
      • ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
        It's fine if it's not scratched and you don't overheat it.
        • hanniabu 2y ago
          > don't overheat it Good luck with that. Temperature isn't perfect and hot pockets of higher temperatures form.
  • canadianfella 2y ago
    [dead]
  • IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
    I'll add to that. 18/0 stainless steel is the best. No nickel etc.
  • nox101 2y ago
    in California, every metal utensil is marked with "causes cancer"
  • bigstrat2003 2y ago
    "Should I risk this?" is the wrong question in life. The burden of proof, as it were, is on those who are alleging a risk. I'm not gonna go through life worrying about every little thing just because it might be a problem. That goes double because people are constantly finding new things to worry about, most of which amount to nothing in the end.
    • yadaeno 2y ago
      Obesity 5% to 42%, Alzheimer’s 0% to 33% in the last century. I think there’s a balance between being neurotic and being blissfully ignorant, but given the high level health data in the west it’s probably time to be more neurotic.
    • Jeff_Brown 2y ago
      Holding its probability constant, if the cost of avoiding a risk is sufficiently low and the potential harm sufficiently high, avoiding it is more rational than both looking further into it or taking it.
    • lowbloodsugar 2y ago
      That would make sense in a just society. Here in the USA, I would factor evidence in such as, do corporations have a habit of using chemicals that are later shown to be toxic? Do corporations prefer to let people die rather than recall, say an exploding car? Do corporation put out armies of lawyers and doctors to convince everyone that their product does not cause lung cancer? Do corporations now use automation to brigade and create the appearance of a majority?
• ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
  It's a tricky subject to get solid numbers on as most studies focus on just a limited number of the thousands of PFAs now in our environment. There's also the issue of identifying the source of the PFAs as they're in our water etc. Also, due to their very slow breakdown, PFAs are likely to accumulate in our bodies over time. There's more information on our current understanding here: https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-health-and-environmental-risks-pfas https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-hea...
• erie 2y ago
  It is about the money:" The “black” in plastics is due to the addition of carbon black, which is basically a form of soot produced by the incomplete combustion of coal, petroleum or vegetable matter. It is added to plastics as a reinforcing substance, the same reason for which it finds widespread use in tires. Another benefit is that carbon black absorbs ultraviolet radiation that can cause plastics to degrade. Now for the problems. Carbon black contains numerous compounds, some of which, like the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), have carcinogenic properties and have led the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to categorize carbon black as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” Whether this is an issue in the containers used for many prepared foods, including those that are to be microwaved, is not clear, since the carbon black is locked within the matrix of the plastic and may not leach out in any significant amounts. Prepared food marketers like the black containers because they are cheap and are visually more appealing than their clear counterparts. https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/environment-did-you-know/dark-side-black-plastics https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/environment-did-you-know/d...
  • potato3732842 2y ago
    Carbon black is why the black nylon zip ties have a reputation for aging better all the other colors (like for like, not comparing a $20/100 hipster zip tie to a $2/100 cheap one).
• karaterobot 2y ago
  I appreciate your skepticism. This article has that feeling of almost being designed to create a panic. First, there's the headline, which is written in the same tone as someone warning you that you're about to step on a snake—a tone which does not invite critical thinking. Then there's the fact that since most people aren't subscribers to The Atlantic, they'll just see the first couple paragraphs and make their decisions based on that. I currently do not know how much weight I should put on what this article says, but I'm certainly scared by it, and I have enough media literacy to know that's when I should be really careful not to be fooled.
• potato3732842 2y ago
  Journalists I get. They're paid to attract eyeballs and they're not above being a little misleading in pursuit of that goal. "When a man's salary depends..." and all that jazz. I see it the same way I see cops who are misleading on the stand, despicable but understandable. The people who's moral compass seems far more faulty are the people in the comments who are doing the same thing but who have no comparable motive to behave in such a way. Generally, though there are a couple minor examples in here today.
• mmooss 2y ago
  There may be no investigation of your specific question, but is there evidence of known dangerous chemicals. If it was covered in dog poop, would you use it unless there was evidence that the use of dog-poop-covered spatula at the exposure level of domestic cooking caused significant physiological effects? A more fundamental error is say 'there's no proof, therefore I assume it's false'. There's no proof that it's safe either. We make almost all decisions without mass longitudinal studies. And worse, IMHO, is the poison rhetoric: 'If I can shoot their plane, I'm smarter than the person trying to fly.'