[atom_arranger]

There aren't any long term studies comparing people who cook with non-stick vs stainless or cast iron, so we can only guess about long term and population level effects based on limited information.

I personally would not take the risk given the benefit is just a pan that things stick to less. Medical uses are more justifiable.

[gruez]

>I personally would not take the risk given the benefit is just a pan that things stick to less.

Being able to use less cooking oils is a material benefit, especially considering the obesity rates we see in the developed world.

[atom_arranger]

Obesity rates going up may actually be a side effect of widespread PFAS exposure (some of which is possibly from these non-stick pans).

https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/26/a-chemical-hunger-p...

[nate_meurer]

No, we have lots of long term information about nonstick cookware. People forget we've been using teflon cookware since the 1950's. There have been billions of pieces of nonstick cookware in use every day around the world for decades.

The problem is that because there are so many free PFAS chemicals around us from other sources, studying the possible effects of cookware is a bit like studying whether it contains evil spirits. You won't be able to come up with a falsifiable hypothesis, because our PFC exposure via other routes is so high.

Another reason long term studies aren't viable is that there is no plausible mechanism of action of toxicity from nonstick cookware under the sort of use that it almost always gets. Unless it's badly overheated, PTFE is completely stable in inert.

Think about this logically: if you handle a water resistant jacket and then eat a sandwich, you'll ingest measureable quanities of PFAS. Every time kids or babies play on a stain-resistant carpetting and furniture, then ingest far greater quantities from their hands and toys.

In contrast, any PFAS that remains in nonstick cookware would be on the edge of detectability. PFAS surfactants are used in the manufacture of the coatings, but it boils off when the coating is baked on, and as far as I know, no detectable PFAS has ever been verified in finished cookware. Even when agressively overheated, nonstick cookware doesn't emit PFAS. It sublimates micro-size PTFA particles, which can lead to what we call "fume fever" but reports of this actually happening are rare, even in factory workers who are exposed at much higher levels than a home cook is.

So put these two things together: you are likely ingesting millions of times more PFAS from your clothes, carpets, and furniture than you ever could from nonstick cookware.

Worrying about nonstick cookware is sort of like a lifeguard who works in the sun all day, but obsessively blacks out the windows in his home because he's worried about UV radiation getting in his house. It makes no sense.

[atom_arranger]

> No, we have lots of long term information about nonstick cookware. People forget we've been using nonstick cookware since the 1950's.

That’s not a study.

> You won't be able to come up with a falsifiable hypothesis, because our PFC exposure via other routes is so high.

We’re so poisoned by these chemicals it’s impossible to run a study to figure out if one possible source of them specifically is measurably poisoning us. Maybe we should consider banning them, or just avoiding them in general.

> PFAS surfactants are used in the manufacture of the coatings, but it boils off when the coating is baked

See sibling comments.

> if you handle a water resistant jacket and then eat a sandwich, you'll ingest measureable quanities of PFAS

I try to avoid synthetic fabrics when I can, so in my case it’s not like your lifeguard scenario.

I also think the government should step in to limit the use of plastics generally.

[nate_meurer]

> We’re so poisoned by these chemicals it’s impossible to run a study to figure out if one possible source of them specifically is measurably poisoning us.

Sort of. My point is that teflon cookware is not a plausible source of PFAS, because there is no detectable PFAS in finished cookware. Further, because there have been billions of pieces of nonstick cookware in use around the world for decades, if there were negative health effects we would probably notice them by now. But there aren't.

Contrast this to the lead that has been widely used in glass and ceramic cookware and dishes over the same period of time. Manufacturers claimed that lead bearing glazes were perfectly safe. This is false, but we don't need any "studies" to tell us that. Rather we've plainly seen tangible health effects from the use of these items in many medical reports over the years, and we can easily test and verify the presence of lead that is leached into foods that are cooked and served in them.

This is not the case with teflon cookware. There is no detectable PFAS in nonstick cookware, nor are there verifiable reports of health effects from its use, in spite of the millions or billions of such uses happening every day over decades.

> See sibling comments.

Which ones? The ones where I addressed the poorly substantiated risks of overheating?

> I try to avoid synthetic fabrics when I can, so in my case it’s not like your lifeguard scenario.

I guarantee you're not able to avoid PFAS-treated upholstery, carpeting, and other home furnishings. And depending on where you live, chances are good that you ingest significant amounts of PFAS in your drinking water. If you've ever eaten fast food, the wrapper it came in was probably coated in PFAS. Due to these and other sources, I guarantee you have measurable levels of PFAS in your blood and tissues.

So by all means, avoid nonstick cookware if you want. It won't hurt, and it may have value just because it makes you feel better. That's legit. But in terms of actual harm reduction it is very much like the theoretical lifeguard blacking out his windows.

[atom_arranger]

> Further, because there have been billions of pieces of nonstick cookware in use around the world for decades, if there were negative health effects we would probably notice them by now.

Dropping testosterone levels and sperm counts, increasing levels of obesity. I think we're seeing the health effects, although as mentioned it is hard to pick apart exactly what is having what impact. Our lives are flooded with plastic, I suppose non-stick cookware is kind of like a drop in the bucket.

> This is not the case with teflon cookware. There is no detectable PFAS in nonstick cookware, nor are there verifiable reports of health effects from its use, in spite of the millions or billions of such uses happening every day over decades.

I would need a lot of evidence to be convinced there's not a risk. I think we'll look back on plastics a similar way to how we look back on our naivety about things like cigarettes, lead, asbestos, etc.

> I guarantee you're not able to avoid PFAS-treated upholstery, carpeting, and other home furnishings. And depending on where you live, chances are good that you ingest significant amounts of PFAS in your drinking water. If you've ever eaten fast food, the wrapper it came in was probably coated in PFAS. Due to these and other sources, I guarantee you have measurable levels of PFAS in your blood and tissues.

I don't dispute this. I just try to avoid plastics when it's practical. As mentioned I would like to have regulations passed to reduce sources. I would not like to give up and say "well alright I'm being so poisoned already, might as well risk having a bit more by using non-stick pans".

I also don't want to support the manufacturing of these chemicals generally. Putting aside the end consumer, the manufacturing seems very likely to have been harmful to people, and chemicals from the manufacturing could also end up spreading in the environment.

Non-stick pans may not be the absolute worst thing to come out of the plastics industry, but getting rid of them still seems like a step in the right direction.