Hacker News Reader

Comment by UnderProtest | Hacker News Reader

This headline isn't exactly accurate and the article is misleading. PFOA was used in the process of affixing Teflon to surfaces but is not present in the pan itself. PFOA has built up in the environment as a result of the manufacturing processes that use it.

It would be more accurate to say "3M knew that manufacturing non-stick pans, and a number of other products, was poisoning all of us in the '70s".

You didn't have to have a Teflon pan to be exposed and having a Teflon pan didn't increase your exposure significantly. Microwave popcorn bags and other food wrappers were hundreds of times worse.

Teflon pans remain safe to use. All these other non-stick products are potential problems but it's impractical to try to identify which ones have PFOA or PFOS... so it's a good thing it's being phased out.

View on HN

PFOA/S are bad, but ALL organofluorines are bad. That is pretty much a settled fact even though industry press will only point to peer-reviewed studies on specific molecules like PFOA/S.

Including chipping Teflon, and that winter boot waterproofing spray you have in your closet...

edit: Not sure why I'm being downvoted. The body does not have a way of breaking down the carbon-fluorine bond, therefore these chemicals tend to bioaccumulate.

Why the focus on bioaccumulation over harmfulness? Is it that bioaccumulation means that there is no safe exposure level to a substance that might have even minimal harmfulness?

Now I'm really going to reveal my ignorance...

I also don't understand how a substance with such a strong bond that we can't break it down, can interact with anything in the body. Is it something like a catalyst?

I'm also interested in the answers to those questions.

Bioaccumulation can cause harm in a number of different ways.

One of the biggest risks is cancer. For example, lung cancer is often caused (in part) by accumulation of soot in your lungs, or asbestos particles, that your body cannot remove. And yes, they say there is no safe exposure level to smoking or asbestos.

Other effects include mental illness, diseases of the liver or kidneys, often seen with heavy metals.

When foreign objects get in protected nooks and crannies of your body, like vital organs, and stay there for the rest of your life, bad things happen.

But just because our bodies bioaccumulate things doesn't mean they cause cancer. You didn't really address any of GP's questions. Do PFOA (and similar) molecules affect cancer rates, and if so - how significantly? Also if PFOA and friends are so unreactive with the body - can't be removed, then what is the mechanism by which they cause problems?

That's the real question. From a 2010 paper (admittedly dated):

Data on the human health effects of PFOA are sparse. There is relatively consistent evidence of modest positive associations with cholesterol and uric acid, although the magnitude of the cholesterol effect is inconsistent across different exposure levels. There is some but much less consistent evidence of a modest positive correlation with liver enzymes. Most findings come from cross-sectional studies, limiting conclusions. Two occupational cohort studies do not provide consistent evidence for chronic disease; both are limited by sample size and reliance on mortality data. Reproductive data have increased recently but are inconsistent, and any observed adverse effects are modest.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920088/

>But just because our bodies bioaccumulate things doesn't mean they cause cancer

And just because we can't pinpoint a mechanism of action doesn't mean it doesn't cause cancer :) There have been a number of MoA's proposed for PFOA specifically. Here are a couple:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22120428

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2516576/

Not everything has been studied. And may things are difficult to study. The "little black dots" or fake dirt on fancy astroturf fields are made from recycled road tires, which are a cocktail of all kinds of bad chemicals. And when they get lodged in goalkeepers' skin over time, they enter the body and cause some pretty rare and bad blood cancers. Do I have a study I can point to that says how? No. But do you want your daughter diving on one of those turf fields? https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/health/artificial-turf-cancer...

> The "little black dots" or fake dirt on fancy astroturf fields are made from recycled road tires, which are a cocktail of all kinds of bad chemicals. And when they get lodged in goalkeepers' skin over time, they enter the body and cause some pretty rare and bad blood cancers.

If this is true it should soon show up in people who work with tires or live near highways as well?

Yes and it does. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/11/pollutin...

In addition to that story there is another story I cannot find at the moment, that referenced a vegetable farm in Mexico which was linked to some bad human effects. Turns out it was right next to the highway and the pollution from diesel trucks was making it into the food. They moved the farm farther from the roadside and the problem stopped.

> I also don't understand how a substance with such a strong bond that we can't break it down, can interact with anything in the body. Is it something like a catalyst?

No, just an agonist or antagonist for some hormone, neurotransmitter, etc. Just search Google Books for "fluorinated agonist" or "fluorinated antagonist". That is, it's about 3D shape, to fit some receptor protein, and not about chemical reactivity.

Teflon is mostly inert and does not have much of an effect on the body. There is no reason to believe it is bad for you. It also does not generally bio-accumulate.

PFOA however has a head group that is not inert (the acid part).

More generally though the reason we don't like bio-accumulation is because it can have effects that are hard to detect and could take 20 years to show up (think asbestos). With something that is only in you body for a week, whatever it does to you would be detectable in that time.

Do you have any recommendations on where we could read more about the hidden history of PFOAs and teflon? These days all the nonstick pans say PFOA-free, but if they were never present in the actual pan, is it just a marketing gimmick? Like putting gluten-free on old foods that never contained gluten, or bpa-free on things that historically didn't use bpa?

It is a marketing gimmick, but your description of the marketing gimmick is wrong. They say PFOA-free because they use PFOS or another analogue in their manufacturing. They are no more safe.

Just like with BPA free plastics that often have even higher levels of BPS, BPF, etc. or related compounds:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuMGc0EswTc (exploration of literature and the plastic industry's move away from BPA -- as always with Nutrition Facts, Dr. Gregor is totally calm and uses no scare tactics)

Thank you for that addition. I was stuck on the gluten-free thing and you are right about the BPA-free thing - another area where manufacturers just switched to a different, bad chemical.

What they mean when saying PFOA-free is that it wasn't used in the manufacturing of the product. For instance if you look at pans sold at Ikea they will explicitly say in the materials section: "No PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) has been used to make non-stick coating on this product."

> Microwave popcorn bags (...) were hundreds of times worse.

Wait. Is it still true today?

Looks like microwave popcorn bags still contained high levels of PFOA as of 2006, though I wasn't able to find a more recent reliable source. "Consumption of just 10 bags of microwave popcorn a year could contribute about 20% of the average blood PFOA levels, say the scientists interviewed anonymously for this article." PDF: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es062599u

For some of my friends that sounds like perfectly normal thing to do, so... where does that leave us? :P

You can use a brown lunch bag to microwave your own popcorn, it is maybe a minute more of work and you save money.

Not to mention you can customize the popcorn better if you like to add seasoning.

This was a shocking revelation to me.

I always assumed there was some magic technology in microwave popcorn bags.

nope. The bag prevents the popcorn from scattering, and any kind of bag or container will work

Wow, I assumed similarly - that there's something in the bag that helps the air inside heat up. I guess maybe moisture in the corns is enough. I learned something new and useful today, thanks!

"Microwave Susceptor". Its a super thin layer of aluminum or graphite that absorbs microwaves and gets really hot. Its in the bottom layer of the bag and the reason for "this side up".

Interesting how I can get almost every single kernel to pop without burning in a plain paper bag.

Guess how early (70s) microwave cookbooks told you how to make popcorn, before Orville Redinbacher got involved. Yet my wife, same age I am and read the same cookbooks, buys pre-packaged unflavored microwave popcorn from the store. </shrug>

You can easily cook popcorn on a stove top. Pour some popcorn and oil in a pot, once is starts sizzling shake a bit, once it starts poping shake a lot. Take it off when the pops slow to about once a second and pour into a bowl. Add salt as desired.

IMO it tastes better this way too.

So much better. It also lets you imitate movie theater flavors if that’s your thing, with refined coconut oil and some Flavocol. As a bonus you can find the kind of popping corn you prefer. For me, I love the smaller “hullless” varieties, they’re sweet and you don’t get stuff in your teeth.

+1 for introducing me to flavocol.

It is Magic, and a single container will last for so many rounds of popcorn you wouldn’t believe it. I found as a trick you add the falvacol to the popcorn and oil before popping, not after for the best results. Bonus? House smells like good, fresh theater corn!

Oh, and if you like buttered corn, add a teaspoon or two of clarified butter to the mix. Like kettle corn? Add some sugar to taste before popping. Like it cheesy? Buy some freeze dried cheddar and add it immediately after popping. If you’re feeling fancy, try some freshly grated parmasean. Cinnamon sugar also works well, as does powdered peanut butter, a bit of cocoa, and some confectioners sugar.

I love popcorn. :)

add a teaspoon or two of clarified butter to the mix

I make mine in a special bowl in the microwave (because I'm lazy) using ghee, so yeah...

add a teaspoon or two of clarified butter to the mix

To save some calories I add a bit of splenda afterwards (heat seems to destroy splenda, so it's got to be after the fact). Not as good, but better than nothing.

> Add some sugar to taste before popping

I tried that once and ruined a pan - the sugar just burnt and stuck to it. Salt's OK beforehand, but now I always add sugar after popping.

> Add salt as desired.

Don't just add any salt, add popcorn salt - morton sells it and it's not hard to find.

It's salt that has been much more finely ground. It made a HUGE difference in my popcorn.

It's hard to find in my area - the stores only seem to carry the flavored kind, not the pure popcorn salt.

It does seem to be available online at inflated prices. I got mine at a restaurant supply store, see if you have one near you.

Also try calling morton and asking who carries it in your area, they should be able to tell you that.

Heat the oil sufficiently before adding kernels. Drop a few kernels into the oil as a gauge. When two of them have popped then you can pour in the rest and give it a vigorous shake.

And for the sake of completeness, be sure the pot has a lid!

I've used hot-air popcorn poppers for decades. They draw a lot of power (they're pretty similar to hair-dyers, electrically speaking), but they work well.

I don't know but 100x worse than something safe doesn't mean it is unsafe.

It is like saying that fruit juice is 100x more dangerous than clean water. It may be true by some metric but it is completely meaningless.

In January 2016, the FDA finally banned the Teflon-like, grease-resistant chemical that's been linked to various cancers, infertility, thyroid issues, and birth defects from being used in food packaging: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). That was great news since a study by the FDA found that up to 20 percent of PFOA levels in our bodies can come from consuming a mere 10 bags of popcorn a year. Unfortunately, the FDA has already approved nearly 100 PFOA-like compounds for use in food packaging—a majority of which have little to no information regarding long-term health consequences, according to the Environmental Working Group. So, although all of the bags listed below are PFOA-free, there is little evidence to support (or deny) that PFOA substitutes are safe to be in contact with your food. Ah, the joys of food manufacturing.

https://www.eatthis.com/microwave-popcorn/

That said.. seems reasonable to just avoid non-stick pans? Added health risk for low benefit.

Have fun never eating out, or going over to someone else's house to eat?

Control what you can, don't worry about the rest.

Not a chef, but I wouldn't think restaurants use nonstick pans much because they tend to wear out fast.

They use nonstick for a helluva lot - it’s cheap, and it’s easier to clean which saves time. Check out your local restaurant auction for sauté pans.

Commercial-grade non-stick frying pans are available. I own one; it is significantly more durable than the consumer crap.

Some folks below are replying to the contrary, however, in my 10 years of working in NYC restaurants, from your local bar/pub to fine dinning and BRGuest, I have never seen a non stick pan in the kitchen.

Chefs take their frustration out on pans and slam, toss, and scrape them to oblivion.

Edit: adding an anecdote about cooking eggs:

In one restaurant I worked, it was part of the interview process to ask a chef to make an omelette. If the eggs got stuck to the pan or the omelette was destroyed, they didn’t get hired.

When I asked our Sous Chef why this was so difficult he explained that it’s a basic skill that every chef should have and understand the chemical reaction of proteins in a high heat pan with oil.

Usually restaurants use aluminum pans and oil.

As somebody that enjoys cooking and also eating (eggs, for example), this sounds like an impossible task that accomplishes very little health-wise as you will still be consuming the problem on bad pans. May I suggest the less painful “don’t use metal on your nonstick and throw anything with scrapes / gashes in the trash”?

> impossible task

A well seasoned cast iron pan is almost as convenient, so it’s not impossible.

Fair, and I also use cast iron for high temp cooking. I meant more avoiding it at restaurants as well as at home. Nonstick seems to be the go-to for omelettes and other dishes (giant skillets excepted of course)

I cook eggs in nice, thick stainless steel/Aluminum pans and cast iron, and never have issues with it sticking. Ditto for things like grilled cheese. The secret is letting them heat up before using them; not getting them too hot, and using a little oil or butter.

I hate non-stick pans. I can't baby them (I'm not responsible enough) and things just stick endlessly for me. It's just a bad experience. Invest in some nice, non-non-stick pans and you won't have stickage.

> The secret is letting them heat up before using them; not getting them too hot, and using a little oil or butter.

And "before using them" means also: before putting on that oil. Heat empty first, then oil.

Non-stick is good for things not used for frying: rice cookers, loaf pans, muffin baking sheets, ...

The best line ever from a friend about cooking eggs.

'The pan must surprise the eggs'

I use butter mostly, and wait for the water to boil off before adding the eggs. Works fine.

Cast iron and ceramic pans are both available & effective.

Agreed, though looking through the ceramic today they all seemed to mention one or the other PF* chemical, which makes me doubt their marketing.

Eggs are easily cooked on, e.g., cast iron. I do it all the time - been cooking for decades without teflon.

I've used mostly cast iron and wood since I started cooking, with some steel pans for acidic things and special cases. As a bonus, you never have to throw it away - if you somehow get it rusty enough that steel wool won't do the job (say, leave it in a moldy basement for a few years), just take it to your local auto body shop for sandblasting and re-season.

It's not impossible to cook eggs in a steel pan without sticking. (That's my preferred method) You have to heat your pan before adding oil. And you have to be careful with the surface, avoid scratching it and also making sure to remove any bits to do get stuck.

I agree that avoiding non-stick is probably minimally beneficial, but knowing that normal pans can be cooked on without things sticking, I avoid them.

This thread has really diverted into a pile of anecdotes. :)

Anecdotes are weak as data. One-off instructions are good, and presumably repeatable.

Ceramic non-stick performs better than bare stainless steel. Vitrified finish on iron is less non-stick but still a lot easier to use than maintaining a properly seasoned iron pan. Cooking in these kinds of pans still requires a little butter or oil, but they perform well for people who want to minimize the use of fat.

Agreed. The idea that I would want chemicals on anything I buy by default is nuts. Maybe it's safe, maybe a study will come out in 50 years showing it's not, maybe you let your pan get too hot and the teflon breaks down into your food[1]. And in exchange for... non-stick? Worst trade-off ever.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene#Safety

>The idea that I would want chemicals on anything I buy by default is nuts.

The idea that you could possibly buy a pan without chemicals is nuts

It’s pretty easy to heat up a nonstick-pan to temperatures where it releases toxic fumes. Just put it on an induction stove without anything in it. A very typical thing to do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com