Iron cookware: a possible concern

[Gumby]

I think the group is way overestimating the risk from current non-stick surfaces e.g. cephalon is what I use.  And the amount of energy y'all put into a cooking pan is far to much for me.

Tell it to the EWG:

http://www.ewg.org/release/independent- ... carcinogen

Beyond the toxic vapors when overheated, you do ingest the non-stick coating in your food. This should be evident by the fact that the super-slippery spray-on coating from the manufacturer wears away (into your food) with just a few uses. And within a few years, the non-stick coating pretty much disappears. My guess is most of it goes into you (as well as down the drain). Whether or not that coating is somewhat inert or not I have no idea. But, I just don't feel like experimenting with it.

Stainless steel is a breeze to clean up as long as you use a highly stable cooking oil (lard, coconut oil, duck fat, etc). No extra energy or time needed.

[Benko]

Who mentioned teflon??  I said I use cephalon (see 2 below)

1.  Stainless Steel Cookware Combines Different Metals
In fact, stainless steel is really a mixture of several different metals, including nickel, chromium and molybdenum, all of which can trickle into foods. However, unless your stainless steel cookware is dinged and pitted, the amount of metals likely to get into your food is negligible.

2. Anodized Aluminum Cookware May Be a Safer Alternative [e.g. cephalon]
These days, many health conscious cooks are turning to anodized aluminum cookware as a safer alternative. The electro-chemical anodizing process locks in the cookware’s base metal, aluminum, so that it can’t get into food,

http://environment.about.com/od/healthe ... okware.htm

and I am well aware of the dangers of aluminum, but do some checking before you decide this form of aluminum is dangerous.

[Pointedstick]

Who mentioned teflon??  I said I use cephalon (see 2 below)

1.  Stainless Steel Cookware Combines Different Metals
In fact, stainless steel is really a mixture of several different metals, including nickel, chromium and molybdenum, all of which can trickle into foods. However, unless your stainless steel cookware is dinged and pitted, the amount of metals likely to get into your food is negligible.

Aren't chromium and molybdenum trace minerals that the body appreciates or at least doesn't mind?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molybdenum ... deficiency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium#Biological_role

Nickel isn't great though, you're right.

2. Anodized Aluminum Cookware May Be a Safer Alternative [e.g. cephalon]
These days, many health conscious cooks are turning to anodized aluminum cookware as a safer alternative. The electro-chemical anodizing process locks in the cookware’s base metal, aluminum, so that it can’t get into food.

That's an extremely generous description of anodization.   It certainly hardens the surface of the aluminum, but it by no means prevents it from getting into the food. The harder surface can still be chipped or scraped off, and the softer interior under the anodizing can as well if it gets exposed through this kind of surface marring.

[Benko]

1. Some forms (valences) of chromium are needed in small amounts.  Other forms/valences are toxic.

2. " It certainly hardens the surface of the aluminum, but it by no means prevents it from getting into the food. The harder surface can still be chipped or scraped off,"

So use plastic cooking utensils. 

3.  And there are different forms of aluminum, some more inert than others.

4.  The person who turned me on to cephalon is SUPER sharp and fanatical about actual (as opposed to theoretical) health risks. I am fairly  certain that if you look into the risks of cephalon you'll find that there are not sigificant.

NOT THAT I'M trying to convert anyone from cast iron.  I gather there are culinary and possibly other benefits (it is probably a really good way to get supplemental iron e.g. for anemic women).

[doodle]

So, I don't mean to derail this discussion, but when an environmental working group comprised of scientists releases a study showing Teflon to be a harmful carcinogen, most reasonably intelligent people react by altering or adjusting their behavior. But when a million and one scientific organizations and research institutions release studies saying that sending massive quantities of certain gases into our atmosphere could have very dire consequences for our climate and species, no one really gives a rip and blows them off as biased, scientifically unethical radicals. Sounds kind of hypocritical to me. If we are going to distrust scientists, then we should lump all of them in together. If I were to use some of the same arguments that most people use against global warming, I would say that these scientists just have a bone to pick with the Teflon industry and DuPont. Their studies are probably funded through the back door by the cast iron and stainless steel lobby. I'm gonna go right on cooking my kids eggs in a dry 900 degree preheated Teflon pan because I'm so damn sure that they are lying.

[Pointedstick]

doodle, I think part of the explanation for the different reactions can be traced to the actionability of the recommendations. If it turns out that teflon or other chemicals are unsafe to cook with, I can use different products! I only have to change myself, not the whole world. But if it turns out that burning fossil fuels in the aggregate is causing climate change, then what can I personally do about it? Any attempt I make to lower my carbon footprint is going to be a negligible drop in the bucket on a macro level, but it will have very real and possibly expensive consequences on a micro level.

I'll have to give up my car or replace it with a very expensive one, eschew fossil fuel-based grid power and generate it entirely myself, stop consuming products made with plastic and food grown with the aid of fossil fuels, and so on and so forth. These are much more serious lifestyle changes than replacing your teflon-coated skillet with one made out of stainless steel or cast iron.

We live in an age of science, so I think that people who feel this way don't want to be labeled as "anti-science", so they tend to attack the science itself as biased or incorrect rather than just admit that they don't want to follow the advice it yields.

[doodle]

I agree with everything you said, PS...which is why I believe that moving forward humans are going to have to come up with effective ways to organize and undertake action to deal with large scale global issues whose effects transcend arbitrarily drawn national boundaries. Just as microeconomics cant deal with macro issues, individual state action wont solve larger tragedy of the commons type global problems.

[Pointedstick]

In the end though, centralizing under a higher authority has even more problems associated with it than it can potentially solve, in my opinion. Even if this global body were able to address the problem by forcing everyone to phase out fossil fuels or face invasion or crippling economic sanctions; is that something that's really desirable? And is it even possible at all given that the two largest nations by population (China and India) want nothing to do with reducing fossil fuels? This is also forgetting about the many many nations that derive riches from exporting fossil fuels (Russia, Canada, USA, much of the middle east, several north European, African, and central American countries). Clearly any body that ignored the wishes of the Indians, Chinese, and all the fossil fuel exporters would be a very undemocratic body... you see where I'm going with this? It is difficult for me to imagine any hypothetical global transnational government avoiding the dual pitfalls of becoming dominated by the wishes of a small number of populationally-dense nations or acting in a dictatorial way and ignoring large fractions of humanity.

Though I am pessimistic about humanity's ability to prevent climate change, I am optimistic about our ability to deal with the consequences, just like we did during the last major occurrence of global warming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period). If it happens faster now than it did before... well, we have better technology and more progressive attitudes than we did back then! 

[Benko]

I agree with everything you said, PS...which is why I believe that moving forward humans are going to have to come up with effective ways to organize and undertake action to deal with large scale global issues whose effects transcend arbitrarily drawn national boundaries.

Doodle,

1.  "Heaven" save us from your global gov't.

2.  Many many scientists do not believe in human driven climate change.

3.  The globe has stopped getting warmer.

4.  Obama has been re-elected and will continue to due things harmful to the economy.  By all means lets depress the economy further by enacting even more regulations. 

[doodle]

Benko,

1. Wait til the aliens invade :-)

2. Are you sure you dont want to add one more "many"? You are 100% wrong on this.

3. Wrong. Science misinterpreted by media.

4. Environmental regulations create jobs. Besides, since when is externalizing environmental costs a legitimate right of business?

[melveyr]

Besides, since when is externalizing environmental costs a legitimate right of business?

Doodle,

But factoring in externalities is tough. Can't we just pretend everything is great if we are making money? 

[Gumby]

Who mentioned teflon??  I said I use cephalon (see 2 below)

...

2. Anodized Aluminum Cookware May Be a Safer Alternative [e.g. cephalon]

I think you mean Calphalon. "Cephalon" is a pharmaceutical company. Hopefully you don't cook with pharmaceuticals.

I'm confused by what surface you cook with. In the OP you said, "I just deal with the toxicity (JK I hope) of non-stick cookware". I assumed you were talking about a non-stick teflon product. Now you are talking about Anodized Aluminum Cookware. Well, Calphalon has a few different types of cooking surfaces. Been hard to know which surface you cook with.

[Gumby]

When an environmental working group comprised of scientists releases a study showing Teflon to be a harmful carcinogen...Their studies are probably funded through the back door by the cast iron and stainless steel lobby.

Well, if it makes you feel any better, EWG did not do a "study." It was just an opinion. Opinions can obviously be flawed, since they are just opinions. But it's a pretty believable opinion since 'polymer fume fever' is a very real side effect of overheating a teflon pan. It tends to reliably kill birds and make humans sick (i.e. Teflon Flu).

[Benko]

Who mentioned teflon??  I said I use cephalon (see 2 below)

...

2. Anodized Aluminum Cookware May Be a Safer Alternative [e.g. cephalon]

I think you mean Calphalon. "Cephalon" is a pharmaceutical company. Hopefully you don't cook with pharmaceuticals.

I'm confused by what surface you cook with. In the OP you said, "I just deal with the toxicity (JK I hope) of non-stick cookware". I assumed you were talking about a non-stick teflon product. Now you are talking about Anodized Aluminum Cookware. Well, Calphalon has a few different types of cooking surfaces. Been hard to know which surface you cook with.

Spelling is not one of my strong points.  You are right, the stuff is labeled Calphalon.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought non-stick cookware was a concept referring to cookware to which food does not stick which includes calphalon.  If you "google best non-stick cookware" you'll find discussions of products containing teflon, calphalon, etc.  AM I missing something?

I had no idea they make several kinds.  It was recommended to me 5 or more years ago and I just went on amazon and bought cookware with that name.  Anyway there are a number of options for non-toxic pans to which food does not stick which do not contain teflon which was my only point.  There are probably newer options wor looking into as well

[Gumby]

Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought non-stick cookware was a concept referring to cookware to which food does not stick which includes calphalon.  If you "google best non-stick cookware" you'll find discussions of products containing teflon, calphalon, etc.  AM I missing something?

Well, Calphalon is Anodized Aluminum, but their "nonstick" line of products is anodized aluminum with Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) sprayed on top. PFOA (which the EPA is asking manufacturers to phase out by 2015) is also used in the manufacturing process. I read somewhere that, supposedly, most human exposure to PFOA happens when factories release the chemical into the air and groundwater.

I had no idea they make several kinds.  It was recommended to me 5 or more years ago and I just went on amazon and bought cookware with that name.  Anyway there are a number of options for non-toxic pans to which food does not stick which do not contain teflon which was my only point.

Calphalon manufacturers cookware with the following different surfaces:

- Calphalon Unison Slide Nonstick & Sear Nonstick
- Traditional Nonstick
- Stainless Steel
- Anodized Aluminum and Infused Anodized Aluminum

The "nonstick" surfaces are PTFE-based but Calphalon claims the following on their website:

"The nonstick coatings applied to the cookware of Calphalon are safe. Calphalon cookware's nonstick coatings have been approved for food contact surfaces by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Calphalon carefully controls its nonstick coating process to maximize the durability and resilience of the cooking surface. The nonstick coating is designed for long-term use when used properly and at the recommended cooking temperatures. If your nonstick coating is chipping or peeling, and your pan has been cared for according to the Use and Care guide, your pan should qualify for replacement under the manufacturer's warranty.

Nonstick materials are made from synthetic polymers. Calphalon uses PTFE (Polytetrafluoroethylene) material with proprietary reinforcements for wear resistance, as well as additional components to enhance heat transfer. Layers of nonstick coatings are used to increase the durability and thus the quality of nonstick cookware.

PFOA or C8 is used during the manufacture of nonstick coatings that are used in connection with stain-resistant fabrics, food packaging, and fire-proof coatings as well as nonstick cookware. It is however, released completely from the nonstick coatings applied to cookware as a result of the high temperature curing process used to manufacture nonstick cookware. For example, Calphalon Unison Nonstick cookware is cured at 800°F."

It's probably fine when cared for properly. Anyway, just saying that their nonstick cookware is basically the same PTFE surface as Teflon.

[Pointedstick]

PTFE is just the non-trademarked name for Teflon, and it is something that you DO NOT want to inhale in gaseous form, FYI. I build 3D printers that use PTFE as thermal barriers and I work with PTFE heated to a high temperature every day. Past 260c or so, it can start to melt and give off terrible fumes that have been known to seriously sicken people. This is NOT just some random opinion, it's a real occupational hazard I deal with!

It's possible that the PTFE they coat pans with has modifications to increase the melting point, but it's definitely nothing I want anywhere near food or the interior of my body. It's not edible stuff.

[Gumby]

Gotta say it's a weird statement from Calphalon about PFOA being fully released from the cookware during manufacturing process. It's like they are saying, 'don't worry about PFOA being in your cookware, we already cured it at 800ºF and released it into the environment instead.'

[TripleB]

The EPA has mandated that all nonstick coatings be nontoxic starting at the beginning of next year.

Damn govment' agencies always regulatin' ...trying to take control of my body! It's the devil's work I tells you!

If the EPA's regulation on cooking wear is anything like their CARB compliance laws, people will be importing cookwear from Canada on the blackmarket at a 10x markup like they do with fuel cans.

CARB compliance sounds great - let's have fuel cans that don't leak... but the reality is the only fuel cans that "pass" CARB compliance are ones that are flimsy and do leak. The solidly built ones that don't leak actually fail CARB compliance.

The only way to get a good fuel can is to illegally order one from Canada at a 5x to 10x markup to compensate for shipping, risk, and effort.

Thanks Federal Government!

[doodle]

When an environmental working group comprised of scientists releases a study showing Teflon to be a harmful carcinogen...Their studies are probably funded through the back door by the cast iron and stainless steel lobby.

Well, if it makes you feel any better, EWG did not do a "study." It was just an opinion. Opinions can obviously be flawed, since they are just opinions. But it's a pretty believable opinion since 'polymer fume fever' is a very real side effect of overheating a teflon pan. It tends to reliably kill birds and make humans sick (i.e. Teflon Flu).

Kind of like the very real side effect that greenhouse gases have in warming the planet? That is not an "opinion" though....rather an observable scientific fact that can be recreated under laboratory conditions.

If I were to take the same line of reasoning that AGW deniers use and apply it to teflon, I would say "well, I've been cooking in teflon for 20 years and haven't experienced any negative side effects yet. Sometimes it gives off a funny smell when overheated, but that doesn't bother me or my kids. These scientists are just trying to make my life difficult by warning me that I should use a pan that always causes my eggs to stick."

Sorry to hijack this thread. I have changed over to stainless pan for cooking certain things as a result of the info here. :-)

[MediumTex]

Every time I look at this thread's title, I see "Iran cookware: a possible concern" and I think to myself: "Those dang Iranians are now messing up our cookware.  Maybe it is time to attack them."

[Pointedstick]

doodle, I think most of the "AGW deniers" are just people who want an excuse to avoid admitting that they don't want to change their habits and lifestyle. Honestly, can you blame them? Any changes they might make--even radical ones like living car-less in a zero net energy home--will have no effect on the climate; a fact supported by all the science that now says we're already beyond the tipping point.

So why browbeat people when even the most radical changes they could possibly make wouldn't affect anything? Wouldn't it be more sensible to convince people and lawmakers to prepare for the inevitable consequences rather than continue a doomed effort to prevent from happening what I assume you acknowledge has already been set in motion?

[doodle]

PS, yes and no. I do think scientists and lawmakers should be actively engaged in coming up with mitigation strategies should the worse case scenario present itself. To fail to do so given the evidence would be the height of irresponsiblity. That said, I think it is time to have a larger societal dialogue regarding the long term sustainability of our behavior. I was watching a documentary recently called "The Corporation" that spent about two hours taking corporations to task for their behavior. I thought the documentary sucked and was incredibly one sided, nevertheless, there was one particular CEO of a carpet company (Ray Anderson from Interface Carpets) that  really impressed me.  After 20 years of running a successful carpet manufacturing company he saw the light. His final conclusion after much thought and consideration was that if companies couldn't manufacture carpets in a sustainable way that didn't harm the environment, then perhaps we shouldn't manufacture carpeting as a flooring at all. They interviewed him a couple of times throughout the film and it was amazing to see a leader of industry talking in such an enlightened and thoughtful way. Here is a two minute snippet of how he came around to his new way of thinking. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUG4JXE6K4A

[Benko]

I think it is time to have a larger societal dialogue regarding the long term sustainability of our behavior.

Would that include the country spending more money than it has? 

[doodle]

Benko,

Money is a tool that measures wealth. There is an unlimited amount of money, there is a limited amount of stuff that money can buy. Our society will consume what it is able to produce...money is only the tool that facilitates that creation of wealth. It is not wealth itself.

[Gumby]

I think it is time to have a larger societal dialogue regarding the long term sustainability of our behavior.

Would that include the country spending more money than it has?

Benko,

Our society uses a debt-based monetary system. In a debt-based monetary system, all of the money (except coins) comes into existence as debt (i.e. money we don't have). In other words, a country must spend money it does not have in order to create it's own fiat monetary system.

Most spending is actually private credit (also money we "don't have"). In a sense, the only debt-free 'money' in our society is coins. Everything else is just debt. Does that make sense to you?