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.
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?
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?
>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:
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?
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.
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.
> 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."
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
"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".
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!
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>
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.
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.
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.
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”?
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.
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.
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. :)
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)
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.
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.
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.
Sad, but hardly surprising. It sometimes seems like every company in this position did similar things. Tobacco, Oil, CFCs, Leaded gasoline etc... I'm sure I could come up with others if I looked.
This is why I don't understand many of the arguments against federal regulation. I know regulation hurts the economy and makes doing business harder. I understand. But most corporations will not self-regulate even when people's lives are at stake.
I don't think it's a given that it hurts the economy. Someone has to research, develop, and manufacture the non-toxic alternatives. How is that money not part of the economy?
Also, it doesn't make business that much harder unless you built your business on being shady. See: the recent GDPR kerfuffle. For some it was just business as usual on May 26th.
The more established, bigger, unethical companies will crush the "our products don't poison you!" competitors out of existence before they even get started. They will maintain their poison-happy monopolies. So without regulation protecting anti-poison competition, there will be no money in these alternatives, and the economy will remain unbalanced and literally deadly.
For those interested, in the outdoors industry (where fluorinated compounds are pervasive in waterproof coatings), there are a couple companies doing good:
Patagonia has switched to shorter-chain PFCs for many of its coatings (C6 instead of C8). They are also actively investing in research for alternative chemicals with adequate performance.
Nikwax, which sells re-waterproofing products, never uses fluorinated compounds and is a good brand to look for at the store.
> They will maintain their poison-happy monopolies.
They will because people will still buy their crap. There are plenty of lazy, misinformed, ignorant people who would do anything to keep happy-poisoning themselves, including fighting legislation meant to protect them.
Oh, I'm decidedly pro-regulation. I was just answering the argument that the economy suffers under regulations, which I don't think is a given at all.
Existing businesses might go belly up, but new ones will spring up to fill the post-regulation needs, and as long as there are businesses doing stuff the economy will grow.
There is much less evidence that the economy suffers under regulations than the opposite. Just look at California, for instance.
>The more established, bigger, unethical companies will crush the "our products don't poison you!" competitors out of existence before they even get started.
And then they'll eat their babies. More realistically though they'll try to buy these companies to get their talent and patents. So in the end you banned the poisonous stuff, people who innovated made a lot of money and everybody's better off.
Maybe my hypothesis is overly optimistic but yours is comically grim. Do you think that we shouldn't have banned asbestos or leaded paints? That's exactly the kind of completely dogmatic rant I complained about in my sibling comment. "Things don't work perfectly all the time so let's do absolutely nothing".
HN is quite open intellectually and it's probably the only large online community I know where unpopular opinions will mostly not be buried in downvotes on sight, at least as long as they're well argued. I value that dearly. That being said it's also rather obvious that all these years later it's still more "startup news" than "hacker news", I find that there's rather strong USA-style libertarian dogma expressing itself in many discussions and shortcuts like "regulations = bad" that are meant to be self-evident and therefore not argued are annoyingly common. It's not the fact that I disagree with the point of view that annoys me, it's the somewhat condescending tone and lack of argumentation that accompanies it that's rather frustrating.
Interestingly that whole cryptocurrency epic we're witnessing is quite educative from that point of view, it makes the dogmatic "government = bad" position rather precarious and forces a more nuanced approach from either side.
Regulations can legitimately protect the public, or they can originate from well organised companies and other groups wanting anti-competitive practices to protect their own position.
So somewhat problematically arguments against regulation either tend to originate from people and companies who want to benefit from its absence, and typically don't care, or don't want to care, about the larger cost of their actions; or from people and companies trying to compete against the former.
Aiding and abetting all this, are theoretical (and incorrect) arguments from economics about self-regulating systems, which in the case of economics, and apparently only in economics, are devoid of features such as positive and negative feedback loops.
The regulations frequently don't help, and because people have come to rely on them, even wind up harming the situation.
That seems to be the case in this very example. TFA kicks off with "News that the Environmental Protection Agency pressured the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to suppress a study showing PFAS chemicals to be even more dangerous than previously thought".
Also look at the water problems in Flint, MI, where governmental empire building led to a lot of health problems. It's sometimes the government's own refusal to self-regulate that causes the problems.
So it's wrong to believe that corporations are necessarily the culprits, and we can count on government to save us.
Yes, we need some regulations, especially when we're talking about tragedy-of-the-commons destruction of public resources. But don't go into it with a naive idea of "corporations evil, the government will save us".
Regulations are written by large corporations to protect themselves.
It’s the reason why the SEC never caught Maddoff (who ran the SEC!!!), or literally ANY of the 2007/08 bad actors. Or why the EPA sat quiet on the 3M situation other than small slap on the wrist fines.
The only way around the corruption in the system is the open flow of information, which has only just been picking up steam. The amateur and crowd sourced expert/investigator is our best hope to find the truth in these situations.
Eh, I'm not entirely sure people knew about these things when they occurred. I mean, people generally don't want to explicitly kill other people even for a profit. For instance, with your reference to leaded gasoline, or "ethyl" gasoline, its creator, Thomas Midgley Jr., inhaled the stuff in a press conference to prove it was safe. Lead poisoned.
Regulations are generally bad because they can be gamed. They produce a huge population of rent seeking parasites who work for the government to make regulation complex so only they can understand it, then move to private sector to help the business game the broken system they themselves created.
All you need to keep businesses honest is to let individuals/localities/states sue the hell out of the businesses if they are harmed by the business.
The only place regulations make sense is where harm is at a very large (country/planet) scale, where there is no coming back from, such as climate change.
All you need to do to refute this is look at the history of fraud, incompetence and other abuse in the Bitcoin/*coin marketplace. Adam Smith's invisible hand drives price competition in the marketplace, but it doesn't govern conduct.
Punting the need for regulation to the courts is just robbing justice from the public at large. Instead of having a rule that can be easily enforced and understood through the regulatory process, you're going to organically create rules via litigation and precedent. But in the process you're raising the bar in terms of cost and preventing entities without the resources to litigate from realizing justice.
This is why its naive to think consumer choice can replace regulations because in most cases consumers are in the dark like in this case, or are not a collective to effect change and that then destroys the commons. The feedback loop is too long.
On the other side anti-regulatory proponents fund hundreds of think tanks and keep on aggressively pushing their agenda in the media and then when the environmental damage or fraud is revealed they make themselves scarce or evade responsibility. This is not a good model to run a society. It puts individual greed over the common good and destroys the commons.
Civilized society has never worked without laws which is what regulations are and and its high time basic tested principles are not allowed to be muddied by self interested parties with PR budgets. Depending on 'goodwill', 'self-regulation' and 'ethics' is a fairy tale version of reality.
"Right now it’s hard to find a pan that uses Teflon in the old continent."
The French company Tefal sells its frying pans across Europe. It is one of the most popular kitchen product around. As the name suggests, these used Teflon as some point. Is Teflon really not used any more in making these pans, and if not, then what is?
EDIT: I suspect that in the quotation above, the author really meant "PFOA" not Teflon.
Yes according to their faq they use PTFE and not PFOA, but not sure since when.
> Tefal/T-fal non-stick coating is a technical coating made from a polymer name polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). It is PTFE which gives the cookware the non-stick properties. Public health authorities in Europe and in the USA demonstrated that PTFE is an inert substance which does not chemically react with food, water or domestic cleaning products. It is totally harmless in case of ingestion. These Public health authorities confirmed the harmlessness of PTFE non-stick coatings in cookware. In fact, PTFE is so safe that it is frequently used in the medical profession to coat pacemakers and the tiny tubes made to replace arteries. It is also used for surgical procedures for the benefit of patients with severe kidney disease, and some joint prostheses are also partly coated with PTFE.
> PFOA is the standard English abbreviation of perfluorooctanoic acid. PFOA is used in the manufacturing process of many products such as non-stick coatings, compatible microwave packaging, some textiles, stain resistant carpet, pizza boxes which do not absorb fat, etc. On its finished products, Tefal/T-fal's commitment is to guarantee the absence of PFOA, lead and cadmium and to guarantee that its products with Tefal/T-fal non-stick coating are harmless for the environment and the consumer.
Teflon is a brand name for PTFE. PFOA is one of several possible organofluorides that can be used to manufacture PTFE. Tefal didn't replace PFOA with PTFE, because PFOA isn't a nonstick coating to begin with.
In fact, that site tells us nothing, because PFOA is largely a problem for the workers manufacturing it, so telling us that it's not in the "finished products" doesn't address the main concern. Furthermore, other synthesis routes aren't necessarily better; you have to have a reactive organofluoride at some point in the pipeline.
PTFE is not harmless in the body - the body cannot break it down - and there is no independent study showing it as such.
"PTFE is so safe that it is frequently used in the medical profession to coat pacemakers and the tiny tubes made to replace arteries" was written by a 3M corp comms flunky.
And only means that it’s much safer than dying from complications of having a medical device embedded in your chest. Which is much safer than dropping dead from a second heart attack.
This is what we like to call “faint praise”.
Teflon: much much safer than a second heart attack.
Wouldn't it also be used to coat pacemakers etc specifically because the body can't break it down? Having teflon around a pacemaker is a different thing than it accumulating in random places in the body.
A point that I've read in N.N. Taleb's incerto series is that it is a matter of scale. A small artisan who puts their name on their product is less likely to poison you and fuck your life up. Megacorps though operate with a very different risk profile and can take pretty antisocial decisions.
Regulation must keep a watchful eye on the megacorp - a small fishing operation is a net positive for society but a fisheries giant can drive entire species to extinction and threaten food supplies.
PFAS are suddenly a HUGE issue here in Michigan. Paper mills and tanneries were using and dumping it wholesale in the 60s. Now it's come back to bite us and PFAS is showing up in pretty much every municipality's water supply:
From the article, the EPA sat on this information for quite a long time. While 3M was heavily fined - were any EPA employees held responsible?
MTBE is another example of a colossal screw up on the part of the EPA. EPA required an oxygenate to be added to gas (even though car technology had long since moved on - so no actual benefit). Then, when MTBE was used and became known as problematic, they stalled efforts for several years to stop its use. The result is that MTBE polluted much of our ground water.
Anyone at the EPA get held accountable?
Today, we have gas that is more expensive, less effective, and likely more polluting due to these regulations. We also cannot buy gas cans without those crazy spouts because the ethanol in today's gas evaporates so easily, causing smog, that they had to add more regulations on spouts to try to prevent that. Anyone ever used one of those spouts without spilling gas?
It's great for my lawn tractor and snow blower, but it won't fill a car. If you need to fill a car, look for one of the automotive racing gas cans with a very long spout. I don't remember the brand name, but my John Deere dealer sells them.
I wonder if BAM[1] coatings suffer from any of these ills (or anything else which would prevent them from being used in cookware), seems like they would be a decent way to go if the cost could be improved.
High fives for iron. I bought an old cast iron pan from a second hand store that had been machined to a very smooth finish. After cooking eggs in it, I immediately stripped and sanded my modern Lodge cast iron.
The difference is pretty big. It may not be as non-stick as Teflon, but it’s pretty darned non-stick. I assume my cast iron is also putting less cancer in my body.
Strip it with a wire cone brush on a power drill (wear full face shield!). Then start with ~60 grit (EDIT: sandpaper). Once sanded smooth move to 80 then 100 grit.
Once you’re done, give it a rinse, wipe dry thoroughly, and then season immediately or it’ll rust.
I like to initially season by heating to a very hot temp, and then using flax seed oil on a paper towel held by tongs, and brush thin layers of oil on that will smoke and turn amber colored immediately. I don’t like the oven method that people write about on the internet, because the seasoning doesn’t last, it takes forever to do, and it takes way more energy to hear and cool. The “wipe oil on to hot skillet” approach works better and only takes a few minutes.
Cheers. I'd realised it was quicker to heat the pan on the stove than in the oven but it hadn't occurred to me to apply more oil while it was hot. I'll give the sanding a go.
Also keep your eyes peeled for an old one. No 8 is a good size. Rust is fine (easy to get rid of). A good old one will be smoother and lighter than a new Lodge. $30 is a reasonable price.
Still, you can't just go to the store and pick one up. I give new ones that I smooth out and season as short notice gifts.
This is merely an example of many of living in a poorly regulated market where profits are constantly put ahead of people's lives and profits. If el chapo or Pablo Escobar sold nonstick pans or the chemicals to make them you think they would have continued this study and ruined their profits? No? Then why get mad at 3M? This is the system we as Americans have agreed to put in place. Most people would do the same thing in their position. Profit and ignore the negative consequences while lobbying to keep regulators away. After all, it's not their lives being put at risk...
Without knowing too much about PFOA specifically, I would hazard a guess that the chemical itself is not necessarily dangerous - it's the delivery via aeresol that would worry me. Namely, spraying down pans to apply Teflon and spraying it as Scotchguard. There are plenty of chemicals that are perfectly fine inert, but when you push them into the air haphazardly they get into really bad places and create negative environmental effects.
Knowing a lot about PFOA (Wolverine World Wide operated a tannery in my home town and dumped Scotchguard-treated leather scraps in the swamp, now I have 100 ppt PFOA in my well water), it is incredibly dangerous. They were incredibly careful to wear the full gamut of protective gear when handling it, but assumed the infinite sink of nature would dilute it to safety. A few decades later, it's still not diluted to safe levels.
The article is newsworthy because WWW are claiming 3M assured them it was safe until 2003 when they stopped using it because the FDA told them to. And 3M is claiming that there wasn't sufficient evidence to say it could be bad until they finally did. And rational people are looking at the whole thing knowing that everyone knew it was bad but they kept using it because it made them money.
To be fair, I and thousands of my neighbors now have a whole-house carbon filter that costs thousands in my home - bought, installed, and maintained on WWW's dime - that takes that 100 ppt down to nondetectable levels. That keeps my toddler safe. But I have been drinking it for 30 years...
well, thank you for that grown-up comment. Many organizations will have questionable implications of the products they sell but in most cases, this comes down to things that are less obvious than selling something that has a substance that has been proven to contribute to cancer.
"Social networks knew all along that the dopamine-based intermittent reward system of their products was causing decreased attention spans, addictive behaviors, and mental illness, but continued expanding until the whole globe was in a stupor."
The difference is that most/all sugars are not inherently harmful, and we believe that they can be consumed safely at reasonable doses. A bit of glucose or fructose won't kill you, and is a (small) natural component of your diet. So banning sugar would be rather hard, compared to complex toxic chemicals which can't be processed by our bodies, decay slowly, and where we really have fairly limited reason to put in products.
I've worked on diabetes medical devices for about 8 years, did some research on diabetes to augment my ability to work on said diabetes medical devices, and personally know several people with type 1 diabetes and as well type 2 diabetes.
Did you mean instead to write: Sugar causes type 2 diabetes, not fat?
Michael Greger, the author of that post, owns the website nutritionfacts.org. He appears to be taking the celebrity doctor career route, since his bio boasts about the lectures he gives and appearing on the Dr. Oz show.
Shows us something peer reviewed.
Edit: I haven't found anything to definitively say Greger is a quack, but given that searching his name brings up mainly alternative medicine type sites, I remain suspicious.
The science was mostly settled and obvious on climate change, to the extent that the corporate actors with the most incentive to pretend it was nothing acknowledged it. They invested heavily in contingency plans under the assumption that it was only a matter of time until regulation made it untenable to burn fossil fuels for energy on anything like the previous scale. Nothing was done.
From one friend which is working in agriculture, glyphosate was used before planting the crops, to remove invasive species. But it does not change the fact that it's toxic to humans.
Doubtful. Glyphosate is one of the safest and most effective herbicides developed. If we develop alternatives to herbicides, such as GMOs or different growing methods, I can see that reaction to herbicides in general but not specifically glyphosate.
One big one is air pollution. It is huge in terms of health affects on the population but we ignore it because of the feeling that it cannot be helped. When we finally clean our air it is going to seem ridiculous that we accepted our faith to live our whole lives in toxic fumes for two whole centuries.
We've already made huge strides in this. Here's [0] a gallery of shots of LA smog in the middle part of the last century. It's full of pictures of people crying because the air pollution is stinging their eyes. It's nearly unthinkable today, aside from the random winter day in Salt Lake where an inversion traps everything. But it was a daily occurrence back then!
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.