How is it an overreaction if it can be done without losing anything in life? I retired all my pans with non-stick coating years ago and haven’t missed them a single time and appreciate that it makes it easier to minimize the number of plastic cooking utensils my kitchen has, too.
there is nothing as non-stick as non-stick coatings; some alternatives come close, but you are still losing something
what about other applications of PTFE? PTFE tape for sealing pipes, PTFE feet on computer mice, PTFE-based lubricant, electrical insulation, … the uses are many.
Yeah but if I use stainless steel pans, I can use stainless steel wool to clean them, so the sticking doesn’t really matter aa much when it does happen, plus cooking techniques can reduce or eliminate sticking even on stainless steel. So I’ll adjust to say I’m not losing anything I value.
And I don’t have a huge issue with it being used on things that doesn’t touch our skin or food/water often. And my goal is to minimize exposure in this plastic world. I understand that at least some restaurants (if not most that use pans) probably use nonstick pans and that I’m getting exposed to BPA every time I touch a receipt. So I don’t use those pans at home and don’t let receipts linger in my hands and use gloves when going through a bunch of them.
Looking back at the thread, bans were mentioned, but the context that I was following looked like it was about wanting to go beyond what’s banned because the industry just rotates in variations of the chemicals whenever specific ones are banned.
But we do have evidence that a lot of chemicals in the PFAS family stick around for a long time, and we have evidence that they’re harmful. That’s enough for me to be wary of anything in that group, especially when there are easy alternatives.
I think in the case of PFAS it’s very reasonable. There’s no real harm done in avoiding them except possibly making less money and having to figure out other ways to do certain things - which cannot even be compared to the the potential danger they pose to the whole ecosphere
Well if we have evidence of that sure, but in the case of PTFE for example (which is a PFAS) we don’t have that, so banning it seems just as nonsensical. Yos be banning it because it might be harmful.
Damn, you’re right, I was thinking of PFOA not PFAS.
However, I think blanket avoiding an entire class of chemicals without evidence is an overreaction.
How is it an overreaction if it can be done without losing anything in life? I retired all my pans with non-stick coating years ago and haven’t missed them a single time and appreciate that it makes it easier to minimize the number of plastic cooking utensils my kitchen has, too.
Yeah but if I use stainless steel pans, I can use stainless steel wool to clean them, so the sticking doesn’t really matter aa much when it does happen, plus cooking techniques can reduce or eliminate sticking even on stainless steel. So I’ll adjust to say I’m not losing anything I value.
And I don’t have a huge issue with it being used on things that doesn’t touch our skin or food/water often. And my goal is to minimize exposure in this plastic world. I understand that at least some restaurants (if not most that use pans) probably use nonstick pans and that I’m getting exposed to BPA every time I touch a receipt. So I don’t use those pans at home and don’t let receipts linger in my hands and use gloves when going through a bunch of them.
Cool, I’m not gonna tell you you must use teflon pans, but I think we were talking about bans…
Looking back at the thread, bans were mentioned, but the context that I was following looked like it was about wanting to go beyond what’s banned because the industry just rotates in variations of the chemicals whenever specific ones are banned.
But we do have evidence that a lot of chemicals in the PFAS family stick around for a long time, and we have evidence that they’re harmful. That’s enough for me to be wary of anything in that group, especially when there are easy alternatives.
I think in the case of PFAS it’s very reasonable. There’s no real harm done in avoiding them except possibly making less money and having to figure out other ways to do certain things - which cannot even be compared to the the potential danger they pose to the whole ecosphere
That kind of thinking applies to any chemical though, surely
Only if they are persistent organic pollutants as well
Well if we have evidence of that sure, but in the case of PTFE for example (which is a PFAS) we don’t have that, so banning it seems just as nonsensical. Yos be banning it because it might be harmful.
There is evidence, and there’s been conspiracies around it.