DuPont, one of the major manufacturers of PFOA, maintains that the chemical does not cause cancer in human beings. After having this chemical classified as a "likely carcinogen" by an independent agency advising the EPA, a DuPont spokesman said in an AP article:
"We disagree with the panel's recommendation on the cancer classification, and we continue to support the EPA's draft risk assessment," said Robert Rickard, director of health and environmental sciences for DuPont. "This reflects recommended classification; what's more important is risk, and we are confident that PFOA does not pose a cancer risk to the general public," added Rickard, who said the carcinogenicity classification was based on animal data and does not reflect data from human studies."
(anyone want to volunteer for that study?)
Just what should I to believe? A distant relative who works for DuPont says it is an ethical company and would not put out a product that could cause cancer. In fact, they are so ethical that DuPont requires employees to report any auto accidents outside of the workplace because:
"It's required so that the employees may learn from the accident and possibly avoid the same situation in the future. Point being, DuPont would not have it's employees working with a product that they knew for certain caused cancer."
Great argument, huh?
He also pointed out that it would be very difficult for anyone to prove that PFOA can cause (or let's say contribute) to cancer. He is right. I don't know many people who will volunteer to be that guinea pig, which brings us back to the lab rats. Which we all know are not human...
He also says that the only exposure to PFOA a person like me would be exposed to would be if I heated my teflon cookware up to a whopping 500 degrees fahrenheit, and then my food would be too burned to eat, so forget it, there is no exposure risk for me then, right?
THEN EXPLAIN THIS:
Dated February 6, 2006--BALTIMORE (AP) - A suspected carcinogen used to make Teflon was found in nearly all the umbilical cord blood samples tested by researchers at Johns Hopkins Hospital. The researchers are now trying to determine whether it has harmed the newborns. Of the 300 newborns tested, perfluorooctanoic acid, was found in the cord blood of 298."
For the full text go here.
Teflon does contain benzene rings, but these shouldnt cause cancer unless chemically worked on. It is the strongest anti-acid chemical known to man, so unless people are stupid with it, it should be used.
What exactly do you mean?
Benzene rings are the only thig that would cause cancer in teflon, but in that chemical form, they are harmless. Unless you were going to rect specialized reactions on your teflon, it is safe.
Are you saying the researchers are wrong about PFOA?
I think you are talking about something entirely different.
Ever turn the wrong burner on, which had a pot or pan on it and burnt it?
I have.
Go to the EWG web site
http://www.ewg.org/reports/toxicteflon/es.php
which has nothing to gain or lose by selling or backing a product and read what their independent studies came up with.
Cast Iron the only way to cook
Very interesting article. Thanks for the info. I cannot believe I never took notice of how harmful it could be until now. Better late than never, in my case. For others who have suffered needlessly, my heart breaks.
Thanks Lane.
I've found a great source of information to be STATS.org. It's this research group in Washington, DC that looks claims like this from an apolitical point-of-view.
Everybody should give them a look.
http://www.stats.org
Interesting information, to be sure. But, something just doesn't jive here. Too be safe I am limiting my use of non-stick cookware.
Usually where there is smoke there is fire and I don't want to find out too late that I am harming my family.
I noticed that on the Stats site it states George Mason University. I work at a major University and I can tell you that college/university campuses are anything but apolitical.
Large corporations are highly influential at many universities because they donate large sums of money or other resources. They are highly influential in research and development, so please don't be fooled just by a University or College name attached to 'research'.
There is a lot of legit, unbiased research being done across the nation at colleges and universities alike, however, it is difficult to sort out which research was supported by corporate donations. It is difficult to ascertain whether any particular research may have been done to support an expected outcome without deeper scrutiny.
Thanks to the poster who referenced our work looking at Teflon and PFOA. I urge everyone who thinks there's a risk to read our analyses. We are not supported by industry - specifically, we have not received any money from DuPont.
Let me put a few issues into context: Around 2.5 million women have died from heart disease since 2000. There is not a single study that shows any negative health effects from PFOA - a precursor chemical that bonds a fluropolymer coating like Teflon to a metal surface.
This is why the FDA and EPA have repeatedly said there is no risk from using teflon-coated pans - and the FDA specifically rejected the claims made by the Environmental Working Group.
The wider issue here is whether there can be a risk from exposure to trace amounts of chemicals in consumer products and the environment - and everything we have read or heard from toxicologists is that there isn't. If we regulated spinach or carrots or coffee or the dinner you'll eat today by the standards we apply to industrial chemicals, you'd starve.
Why don't you get that message in the media? Because the media rarely ever call up toxicologists to give their perspective on the health risk of the day. It is instructive that one news organization that did - the Washington Post - produced one of the few articles dismissing the idea of a threat from Teflon.
What if the theory that some chemicals are metabolized into estrogen in the body, and the top 4 cancers are linked to too much estrogen, is true?
What if it's not a matter of just PFOA being in our system that causes cancer but the residual build up of estrogen from our constant exposure to chemicals in our environment?
Look at how breast cancer is so hormonally charged and the theory above... PFOA might just be another "silent" contributor to cancer.
Trevor,
Didn't the last independent study show that PFOA caused cancer in lab animals? Isn't that a negative effect?
First, PFOA is less reactive than most fatty acids. The overwhelming majority bonds with the albumin in blood and is thus not biologically available.
Even in the case of workers with much higher levels of PFOA in their blood stream, epidemiological studies have failed to show any correlation with any negative health effect.
As for the rats, 10 percent developed benign tumors after being dosed with 25,000 times the level currently in your and my blood (5 parts per billion). The EPA draft risk assessment concluded that the mode of action which caused the tumors was not applicable to humans.
The recommendation that the EPA upgrade their designation of PFOA to a "likely" carcinogen sounds worse than it is. One of the reason that their scientific advisory board (on a split decision) made this recommendation is because they couldn't rule out absolutely that there wasn't another mode of action which caused liver tumors.
Now - here's the rub, the advisory board couldn't quantify what "likely" actually meant in terms of risk. There is simply no data to make this kind of calculation.
Now compare PFOA to PCBS which are considered probable human carcinongens by the EPA. Remember the scare a couple of years ago over PCBs in farmed salmon? Based on the EPA exposure guidelines, you would have had to eat 8oz of raw salmon with the skin on each month for seventy years to have one in 100,000 risk of getting cancer.
This isn't a "real" risk - it's hypothetical. The EPA is extremely risk-cautious in its decision making compared to the FDA or other non-US regulatory bodies. It also evaluates risks in a way that many scientists find controversial - namely dosing animals with incredibly large amounts of a substance, finding a level that makes the animal ill, and then treating the risk as linear - in other words, even one molecule of the substance will be toxic.
There is the suggestion that the combined effects of multiple exposures to trace amounts of chemicals could have an adverse effect on developing fetuses (though the chemicals cited are dioxins,, lead and mercury). There is also a body of recent research showing that exposure to trace amounts of chemicals actually benefits our immune systems (hormesis).
What is bizarre about all these scares is that they pale - PALE - into insignificance next to the risks of smoking. One cigarette will do far more real damage than any amount of cooking with a teflon pan.
BTW - I recommend everyone to take a look at "The Poison Paradox" by John Timbrell, a biochemical toxicologist, which was published by Oxford University Press this year. It really puts a lot of this stuff into perspective.
Best - Trevor
Thanks Trevor, for your candor, knowledge and time.
It is most appreciated.
Maybe I am just looking for that common denominator in what causes cancer. I just went through it with my mother.
Thanks again,
Paula
You are welcome. This is a very interesting site and forum.
T
So far the verdict is Teflon can be used at low temperatures. I don't know the exact degree. And don't preheat pans with teflon.
home equity line of credit