What's the verdict on non-stick pans?

[WiFO215]

There seems to be lots of contradictory rumors about non-stick pans lately, and I cannot tell fact from fiction. Are they safe to use? Am I supposed to be wary of some dangerous chemical in them that might be carcinogenic? How long can I use them.

Google search turns up lots of advertisements for non-stick pans, and they all claim to be safe, but there is only so much trust one can put into the marketing agencies.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

4-101.18 Nonstick Coatings, Use Limitation.
Perfluorocarbon resin is a tough, nonporous and stable plastic material that gives cookware and bakeware a surface to which foods will not stick and that cleans easily and quickly. FDA has approved the use of this material as safe for food-contact surfaces. The Agency has determined that neither the particles that may chip off nor the fumes given off at high temperatures pose a health hazard. However, because this nonstick finish may be scratched by sharp or rough-edged kitchen tools, the manufacturer's recommendations should be consulted and the use of utensils that may scratch, abrasive scouring pads, or cleaners avoided.

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFoodProtection/FoodCode/FoodCode2009/UCM188552.pdf

 

[BishopUser]

To help maintain the integrity of your nonstick pan avoid using the highest temperature settings of your stove, and also avoid cooking very acidic foods in them.

If your dish requires a high temperature (seared surface of a hashbrown maybe) stick to using stainless steel. Personally, I think its best to have both around for different cooking applications

 

[MotoH]

Who needs non-stick when you have butter and oil!

The non-stick fry pan we have at our shack lost all of its coating. Sometimes you would get chunks in meals and the like. I'm not dead so no worries

 

[WiFO215]

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFoodProtection/FoodCode/FoodCode2009/UCM188552.pdf

Thanks a lot!

 

[turbo]

Non-stick pans have PFOA, which has been called a likely carcinogen. When non-stick pans are overheated they release harmful gases. It is not known at what level these vapors are harmful to humans, but they kill birds, even at temperatures that can commonly be reached during cooking. I like stainless steel for cooking, and cast-iron for searing, pan-frying, etc. A nice smooth cast-iron pan that has been properly seasoned is pretty non-stick if it is taken care of. Never use soap in it - scour it out with coarse sea-salt after use, and if the interior finish is scratched or scraped, oil it well after scouring, and heat the pan to renew the surface.

 

[WiFO215]

Oh no! That puts me back at square one. Should I get one or not?

Turbo-1, do you have any material to support that claim? Seeing that the FDA has guaranteed it safe to use, I was about to go get one of those.

 

[turbo]

Oh no! That puts me back at square one. Should I get one or not?

Turbo-1, do you have any material to support that claim? Seeing that the FDA has guaranteed it safe to use, I was about to go get one of those.

Just Google on "non-stick pans" and you'll find out more than you'll ever need to know. The FDA cannot guarantee that anything is safe to use, though they can certify it as "safe" within the limits of their abilities to test.

I believe you will find that DuPont has agreed to phase out PFOA in non-stick cookware by 2015, probably though a consent agreement. If you have ever spent time on bird-enthusiast sites you should already know about the lethality of fumes from over heated non-stick cookware in our avian friends. Ever heard of the "canary in the coal mine"? Birds (probably budgies) were sometimes taken into coal mines because with their high metabolisms and small mass, they would be likely to die before the build-up of toxic gases could be very harmful to the miners.

 

[gravenewworld]

Like others have said, DO NOT cook at high temps with non stick pans. Also don't use metal utensils. I pretty much only use non-stick pans for cooking eggs and that's about it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Oh no! That puts me back at square one. Should I get one or not?

Turbo-1, do you have any material to support that claim? Seeing that the FDA has guaranteed it safe to use, I was about to go get one of those.

As far as I can tell you should be fine so long as you do not overheat the pan which is when the apparent possible health risks occur (possibly as well with chipping and flaking). Unless you are doing stir fry or searing you really have no reason to heat the pan all that much that I can think of.

Other types of pans are better over all cookware though as you can probably tell from Turbo's post they require much more care.

 

[Snoogans]

I use circulon ceramic titanium non stick pans, they don't have teflon in them and are completely safe from what I have found. They also cook very well.

 

[NeoDevin]

Just Google on "non-stick pans" and you'll find out more than you'll ever need to know. The FDA cannot guarantee that anything is safe to use, though they can certify it as "safe" within the limits of their abilities to test.

Because if it can be found on google, it must be true.

I believe you will find that DuPont has agreed to phase out PFOA in non-stick cookware by 2015, probably though a consent agreement.

And it wouldn't have anything to do with popular misinformation that is available online? The common perception that a chemical is "bad" is enough for a company to want to remove it.

If you are going to make claims like this, at least support it with a valid reference. I know we're in GD, but you're making a scientific claim.

 

[turbo]

Because if it can be found on google, it must be true.

And it wouldn't have anything to do with popular misinformation that is available online? The common perception that a chemical is "bad" is enough for a company to want to remove it.

If you are going to make claims like this, at least support it with a valid reference. I know we're in GD, but you're making a scientific claim.

You could have found this on DuPont's own web site, had you looked.

In January 2006, we committed to participate in the voluntary U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010/15 PFOA Stewardship Program to significantly reduce manufacturing emissions and product content levels of PFOA, its precursors and related higher homologues by 2010, and work toward the elimination of those sources by 2015. At the program launch, the EPA stated;
"I am pleased to say that DuPont has alerted us they are formally committed to the program. I would like to commend them for their leadership in moving to voluntarily reduce their emissions and uses of PFOA and I am hopeful that others will follow."
Susan Hazen, Acting Administrator of EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Jan. 25, 2006

http://www2.dupont.com/Sustainability/en_US/positions_issues/pfoa.html

[unacceptable link deleted]

If you google "DuPont PFOA" they are hits #2 and #3 respectively, after a sponsored "hit" paid for by DuPont.

 

[WiFO215]

You could have found this on DuPont's own web site, had you looked.


http://www2.dupont.com/Sustainability/en_US/positions_issues/pfoa.html

[unacceptable link deleted]

If you google "DuPont PFOA" they are hits #2 and #3 respectively, after a sponsored "hit" paid for by DuPont.

Thank you! I guess I'll get one, but use it sparingly. It's just that certain veggies such as potato, yam, beet-root turn out much better on these than on stainless steel.

So hopefully, I have comprehended right. If not, correct me. It's okay to use these things so long as I don't turn the flame too hard or scrape the pan using sharp objects. Right?

 

[lisab]

Thank you! I guess I'll get one, but use it sparingly. It's just that certain veggies such as potato, yam, beet-root turn out much better on these than on stainless steel.

So hopefully, I have comprehended right. If not, correct me. It's okay to use these things so long as I don't turn the flame too hard or scrape the pan using sharp objects. Right?

That's right. And I wouldn't worry too much about it...if you weigh all the risks we face in our daily lives, the risk posed by your cookware is way down on the list, IMO.

 

[russ_watters]

Oh no! That puts me back at square one. Should I get one or not?

Turbo-1, do you have any material to support that claim? Seeing that the FDA has guaranteed it safe to use, I was about to go get one of those.

These are the kinds of things you need to get the ability to judge: do you trust the FDA or an unsubstantiated rumor?

Essentially all of the negative commentary in this thread is unsubstantiated scaremongering. Teflon pans are safe and the main reason to be careful with them is so you don't destroy them.

 

[WiFO215]

That's right. And I wouldn't worry too much about it...if you weigh all the risks we face in our daily lives, the risk posed by your cookware is way down on the list, IMO.

Okay. Now you're just freaking me out on purpose. :tongue2: What risks in daily lives?

 

[russ_watters]

You could have found this on DuPont's own web site, had you looked.

That article does not support any of your claims. Heck, in the same link, you find this:

Consumer products made with fluoropolymers include non-stick cookware, and breathable, all-weather clothing. These products are not PFOA, however. The information that EPA has available does not indicate that the routine use of household products poses a concern. At the present time, EPA does not believe there is any reason for consumers to stop using any products because of concerns about PFOA. EPA wants to emphasize that it does not have any indication that the public is being exposed to PFOA through the use of Teflon®-coated or other trademarked nonstick cookware.

anirudh215, read the entire link. What it essentially says is that such products are safe and there are no known (much less calculable) risk factors associated with the chemical. Nevertheless, scaremongering of the type that turbo-1 is doing has prompted the EPA to push for elimination of the chemical on a voluntary basis.

And the second link you posted is questionable at best.

 

[russ_watters]

Okay. Now you're just freaking me out on purpose. :tongue2: What risks in daily lives?

Does your house contain stairs? A shower? You should stop using both of them immediatly if you consider your teflon pans to be a risk worthy of worry. How about hardwood and linoleum floors? There is a significant risk of brain damage associated with them.

And your car? Don't ever go near that deathtrap again!

 

[Borek]

What risks in daily lives?

Risk of dying of skull fracture when you fall after stumbling on the ball left by your dog/kid on the floor?

I eat things prepared on the non-stick pans for over 30 years, I am still alive. In the meantime I have been to many funerals and I don't remember anyone dying because of non-stick pan. I remember reading about a person killed with a frying pan during family quarrel; I am not sure if identity of the pan (stick or non-stick) has been revealed.

 

[WiFO215]

Hehehe. Okay. I DID read both links, and the second one Turbo-1 posted seemed to be against what was posted on DuPonts webpage. EWG seemed to be picking holes in DuPont's analysis. That's why I was just re-confirming.

 

[rewebster]

I bought one of those 'George Foreman' style grills a few years back, and the first time I used it, some of the Teflon or whatever it was, came off in flakes with the pork chops.

well, anyway, the grill and the pork chops ended up in the hefty draw string kitchen size plastic garbage bag.

Some of those are just made better with better materials than others---there was a section on 'Country Kitchens' or whatever that show is called, and they had better results with some than others.

 

[turbo]

Hehehe. Okay. I DID read both links, and the second one Turbo-1 posted seemed to be against what was posted on DuPonts webpage. EWG seemed to be picking holes in DuPont's analysis. That's why I was just re-confirming.

DuPont's claims of product safety seem to rely on one narrowly-focused study, while EWG referenced dozens of scientific papers on medical studies. I don't believe for a second that the EPA relies on anecdotal evidence or opinions on blogs when it asks that a product be phased out, and on DuPont's own web-site, they claim that they are working toward a complete phase-out by 2015. Considering how much money DuPont makes from that class of product, it is very unlikely that they would have agreed to that phase-out unless they knew that the EPA had very good reasons to ask for it and would win in court if they were forced to litigate the issue.

 

[russ_watters]

Hehehe. Okay. I DID read both links, and the second one Turbo-1 posted seemed to be against what was posted on DuPonts webpage. EWG seemed to be picking holes in DuPont's analysis. That's why I was just re-confirming.

I read some of the link and the EPA study. One thing about it in particular, is it is not discussing use of non-stick cooking pans. They are claiming, essentially, industrial pollution around the plants where these chemicals are manufactured. A different issue entirely.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't believe for a second that the EPA relies on anecdotal evidence or opinions on blogs when it asks that a product be phased out, and on DuPont's own web-site, they claim that they are working toward a complete phase-out by 2015. Considering how much money DuPont makes from that class of product, it is very unlikely that they would have agreed to that phase-out unless they knew that the EPA had very good reasons to ask for it and would win in court if they were forced to litigate the issue.[emphasis added]

Well then let's hear it from the EPA, turbo-1. Please quote the EPA where they say that PFOP is dangerous and needs to be phased-out. Quite the contrary, in the link that you provided, the EPA states expicitly that:

The information that EPA has available does not indicate that the routine use of household products poses a concern. At the present time, EPA does not believe there is any reason for consumers to stop using any products because of concerns about PFOA. EPA wants to emphasize that it does not have any indication that the public is being exposed to PFOA through the use of Teflon®-coated or other trademarked nonstick cookware.

That's pretty strongly worded and specific, isn't it, turbo-1?

And more on the bolded part in the first quote:
1. The EPA isn't mandating phase-out, so there is no issue of litigation.
2. Corporations have to deal with public opinion and due to scaremongering of the type you are doing, they get pressured into doing things they - and even the EPA - don't feel are necessary.
3. Again, if the EPA has "good reasons", you need to cite them, otherwise you are just speculating.

 

[russ_watters]

All: I've deleted references to the environemental activist organization's website. It does not meet our quality guidelines. To meet our guidelines, sources must be direct. Ie, if the EPA says something, then cite exactly what the EPA says, not a 3rd party's interpretation of it.

 

[turbo]

Three-quarters of the Panel judged that the weight-of-evidence conclusion for the potential of PFOA to cause cancer in humans was more aligned and consistent with the hazard descriptor of “likely to be carcinogenic” as described in the Agency’s cancer guidelines (i.e., 2003 EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment). They also recommended that a risk assessment be conducted for carcinogenic effects.

http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/sab_06_006.pdf

More information here: including the process for engaging in an enforceable consent decree and the PFOA Stewardship Program.
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/pfoa/

 

[Evo]

http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/sab_06_006.pdf

More information here: including the process for engaging in an enforceable consent decree and the PFOA Stewardship Program.
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/pfoa/

It's sems Russ is correct, the concern is with the manufacturing, and is backed up by your second link

Major pathways that enable PFOA, in very small quantities, to get into human blood are not yet fully understood. PFOA is used to make fluoropolymers and can also be released by the tranformation of some fluorinated telomers. However, consumer products made with fluoropolymers and fluorinated telomers, including Teflon® and other trademark products, are not PFOA. Rather, some of them may contain trace amounts of PFOA and other related perfluorinated chemicals as impurities. The information that EPA has available does not indicate that the routine use of consumer products poses a concern. At present, there are no steps that EPA recommends that consumers take to reduce exposures to PFOA.

 

[turbo]

It's sems Russ is correct, the concern is with the manufacturing, and is backed up by your second link

If you read the study that I linked, you'll find that PFOAs bioaccumulate in the general population, not just people who make the chemicals or employ them to make non-stick cookware. So how are men, women, and children (including infants) winding up with this stuff in their tissues? Logic tells us that the wide-spread use of non-stick cookware (about 60% of the cookware market) is a likely factor with degradation due to mechanical abuse and over-heating high on the list. It's not just cookware, either. Drip pans under range burners can get really hot, and there is normally no food, etc, in contact with them to provide cooling. Honestly, who has not had a pan boil dry on their range?

The recommendations of the EPA's Science Advisory Board came out in 2006, so unless Bush packed the EPA with liberal, chemistry-hating, tree-huggers, it is reasonable to assume that the board saw enough epidemiological evidence to prompt not only the "likely carcinogen" designation, but to also pursue elimination of PFOAs by 2015. That's not a move any government agency would take lightly, especially during a conservative pro-business administration. I'm not saying that non-stick cookware is a death sentence for any healthy person. My wife and I have two articles that have non-stick coatings - a cookie sheet, and the pan in our bread maker. That's it.

 

[Evo]

it is reasonable to assume that the board saw enough epidemiological evidence to prompt not only the "likely carcinogen" designation, but to also pursue elimination of PFOAs by 2015.

Three fourths of the EPA said that PFOA (not the teflon on your pans) was

‘likely to be carcinogenic to humans’. According to EPA’s Guidelines for Carcinogen
Risk Assessment2 (also known as EPA’s Cancer Guidelines), this descriptor is typically applied
to agents that have tested positive in more than one species, sex, strain, site or exposure route,
with or without evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.

One fourth of the panel said that PFOA (not the teflon on your pans) was

A different view expressed by the remaining one-quarter of the Panel members was that
currently available evidence does not exceed the descriptor “suggestive” of carcinogenicity,
based on the belief that PPAR-alpha agonism does serve as the sole MOA for PFOA-induced
rodent liver tumors (Issue 1) and that mammary tumors were not demonstrated in animals when
compared to historical controls. Thus, these members did not believe the evidence exceeded the
draft document descriptor of “suggestive”.

Again, they are talking PFOA only.

 

[turbo]

OK, here are quotes from the letter accompanying the SAB report.

PFOA is a synthetic (man-made) chemical used in the manufacture of several commercially important products. PFOA has been detected in the blood of the general U.S. population although it is not fully understood how individuals are exposed to the chemical. To determine whether environmental exposure to PFOA might pose a risk to human health, EPA’s draft assessment provided an evaluation of available information on the health effects and human exposure to PFOA.

Three quarters of the Panel considered the available human biomonitoring studies
adequate to characterize environmental risk to PFOA for the general population. However, about one-quarter of the Panel believed that the available studies are inadequate for risk assessment of subpopulations possibly more highly exposed to PFOA. The scientific rationales for these viewpoints along with specific recommendations on these issues are detailed in the Panel’s report.

The letter was signed by the co-chairs of the EPA's Science Advisory Board.

If PFOA is found in the general population - even neo-natal individuals and children, how is it getting into them? It is fair to assume that the chemicals are ingested or breathed in, and since these are synthetic chemicals produced only by one company in the US, and they don't have plants all over the US to contaminate everybody's water supplies or air, PFOA must be showing up due to something ubiquitous and non-specific WRT geographic location. Cookware? Got a better idea?

 

[rewebster]

Warning: Do not, repeat, do not chew on your non-stick cookware!

 

[russ_watters]

http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/sab_06_006.pdf

So the worst that you could find is that the EPA says it is probably carcinagenic, but needs further study to see if any risks exist? turbo-1, that's not much of a statement. It does not support your assertions.

 

[russ_watters]

If you read the study that I linked, you'll find that PFOAs bioaccumulate in the general population, not just people who make the chemicals or employ them to make non-stick cookware. So how are men, women, and children (including infants) winding up with this stuff in their tissues? Logic tells us that the wide-spread use of non-stick cookware (about 60% of the cookware market) is a likely factor with degradation due to mechanical abuse and over-heating high on the list.

Perhaps, but virtually every industrial chemical in use is detectable in trace amounts in our water supply and blood. All that really tells us is that the tools of science are really good at measuring extremely small quantities of chemicals in our blood and water. It says nothing at all about the health risks of these exposures.

As an example of another chemical, Philadelphia's water contains roughly 60 ppb of cyanide: http://www.phila.gov/water/pdfs/WQR_2007-f.pdf

Again, tubo-1, this does nothing for your burden of proof. Your claim - and therefore your burden of proof - is that the EPA has recognized an actual health hazard that requires the phase-out of PFOA's.

The second part of your claim fails obviously at face value, since the phase-out is voluntary. And that speaks to the inaccuracy of the first part of your claim.

One more chance to substantiate or retract your claim, turbo-1. We're not going to humor this misinformation forever.

 

[Proton Soup]

Just Google on "non-stick pans" and you'll find out more than you'll ever need to know. The FDA cannot guarantee that anything is safe to use, though they can certify it as "safe" within the limits of their abilities to test.

I believe you will find that DuPont has agreed to phase out PFOA in non-stick cookware by 2015, probably though a consent agreement. If you have ever spent time on bird-enthusiast sites you should already know about the lethality of fumes from over heated non-stick cookware in our avian friends. Ever heard of the "canary in the coal mine"? Birds (probably budgies) were sometimes taken into coal mines because with their high metabolisms and small mass, they would be likely to die before the build-up of toxic gases could be very harmful to the miners.

yeah, but birds have a different physiology than we do. they can eat habaneros all day long without their eyes watering. that PFOA is one funky-looking molecule, tho. like a saturated fatty acid, but with Flourines instead of Hydrogens on the tails.

and from what i understand, the newer pots outgas a lot less of it than they used to. still, it wouldn't be much either way. i would look at it like formalin. maybe it will make you go blind if you're a biologist, but most of us will never get enough exposure to amount to jack.