Hacker News Reader

Comment by EscapeFromNY | Hacker News Reader

I can think of plenty of ways that sentence might be weaselly.

Maybe they "synthesized" them, not "manufactured"

Maybe they bought them from some other company (which they might happen to own)

Maybe they manufactured PFAs in general, but not the specific chemicals PFOA or PFOS (it's an awfully specific statement, after all)

View on HN

I think it will likely be this - I'm already seeing all sorts of companies pivot to marketing "PFOA" free teflon alternatives (Starflon was the one that popped up last).

I suspect that just like the whole BPA in plastic thing - the "___ free" alternatives will not be any better.

They will just be sidestepping the very precise legal definition of the chemical that got them in trouble.

Either that or it will be like gluten-free, and you'll start seeing it slathered all over stuff that never had it in the first place. Like, no duh non-flavored sparkling water is gluten free! (Actual example I saw in the grocery store today)

Well something like Soy Sauce often has gluten in it and I'd say judging by the name it doesn't.

So something that seems like it'd trivially not contain X may actually have X.

Not as silly as it sounds.

If you've got celiac, you may want to avoid sparkling water made in a plant that also bottles wheat beers. Gluten free refers not only to the ingredients, but to the manufacturing facility.

https://celiac.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Combined-..., point #6.

> "The gluten-free label represents that the procedures put in place to prevent cross-contact with gluten meet FDA standards."

Yeah I immediately just assumed they manufactured them "through" a "subsidiary." Like how you can manufacture carcinogenic talcum powder and not pay your victims much of anything.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com