Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Troubling chemicals found in wide range of fast-food wrappers

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 73 posts

Re: Troubling chemicals found in wide range of fast-food wrappers

#61

Post by ars »

nate_meurer wrote: post #54
joezydeco wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recipes vary, but many go up to 375F (at least in this McD engineering document) https://www.filepicker.io/api/file/9dQcRSZ8TMeeM7Y8Lx6w I want to believe that teflon is indeed totally inert until 500F, but somehow I just don't trust that. It's the low-temp PFOA leakage into the product I'm looking at here, not the fumes released at higher temps. If the wrappers are doing it at ambient, what's happening at cooking te…

Absolutely, don't trust it. The fact of Teflon's extreme toxicity at temperatures commonly encountered in cooking is undisputed. Quoting from http://www.ewg.org/research/canaries-kitchen/teflon-offgas-s... : > The lowest temperature at which nonstick coatings have been reported to kill birds in a peer-reviewed study is 396°F (202°C) That website offers a lot of evidence regarding Teflon's toxicity in other animals as…

> The lowest temperature at which nonstick coatings have been reported to kill birds in a peer-reviewed study is 396°F (202°C)

If you want to be fair, you should also quote some numbers for oil. Most oils will kill birds at much lower temperatures.

Which makes Teflon safer than oil.

Re: Troubling chemicals found in wide range of fast-food wrappers

#62

Post by dekhn »

mikeatlas wrote: post #27
dekhn wrote: post #9

Do we have any estimates on how many actual deaths (or sicknesses) occur due to the use of these chemicals? I care because if we can't positively attribute death or sickness to the use of these chemicals, it seems unfair to tarnish them.

They're certainly worth tarnishing. Knowledge of PFOA and PFAS is not without science and evidence of it's harm already established. Here are two sites where the chemicals have contaminated groundwater and caused illness in communities. http://healthvermont.gov/response/environmental/pfoa-drinkin... https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/13/nyregion/military-base-co...

The first link shows contaminated well water at very high concentrations. That's bad.

The second link mentions more contaminated water supply, and mentions cancer.

I am asking if anybody can directly demonstrate that using this in food liner has an even detectable rate of harm.

If it doesn't then there is no reasonable basis, just fear, to remove the chemicals from the liners.

Re: Troubling chemicals found in wide range of fast-food wrappers

#63

Post by DanBC »

dekhn wrote: post #62
mikeatlas wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're certainly worth tarnishing. Knowledge of PFOA and PFAS is not without science and evidence of it's harm already established. Here are two sites where the chemicals have contaminated groundwater and caused illness in communities. http://healthvermont.gov/response/environmental/pfoa-drinkin... https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/13/nyregion/military-base-co...

The first link shows contaminated well water at very high concentrations. That's bad. The second link mentions more contaminated water supply, and mentions cancer. I am asking if anybody can directly demonstrate that using this in food liner has an even detectable rate of harm. If it doesn't then there is no reasonable basis, just fear, to remove the chemicals from the liners.

Could there be harm from removing these particular chemicals?

If not, isn't the precautionary principle good?

I guess this highlights how poor humans are at identifying and thinking about risk.

Re: Troubling chemicals found in wide range of fast-food wrappers

#64

Post by VLM »

dpark wrote: post #59
VLM wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I donno most of the energy going into stovetop ends up as air currents rising to the ceiling and the insulation is pretty good in my sealed oven. Also its very cheap to heat air (compared to water or iron) so it doesn't take much energy to heat that enclosed well insulated oven. I have the EE gear to do it and I'm almost tempted to figure out which takes more KWh, in my infinite spare time. I season my CI to 400 a…

> Oh I donno most of the energy going into stovetop ends up as air currents rising to the ceiling and the insulation is pretty good in my sealed oven. Also its very cheap to heat air (compared to water or iron) so it doesn't take much energy to heat that enclosed well insulated oven. I have the EE gear to do it and I'm almost tempted to figure out which takes more KWh, in my infinite spare time. But you're going to u…

"getting it clean without destroying the seasoning"

I've had excellent luck with a nylon bristle brush from the dishwashing aisle. Looks like it would work as an elephant handler's toothbrush (giant toothbrush for the elephant, not the handler).

Hot pan cleans a lot easier than cold pan. About a cup of water helps. Probably I'm slowly clogging my drains with grease by doing this, but it cleans up so well.

Re: Troubling chemicals found in wide range of fast-food wrappers

#65

Post by dekhn »

maxerickson wrote: post #25
dekhn wrote: post #9

Do we have any estimates on how many actual deaths (or sicknesses) occur due to the use of these chemicals? I care because if we can't positively attribute death or sickness to the use of these chemicals, it seems unfair to tarnish them.

That's too low a bar. A lot of the worst environmental mistakes used that approach and it has gotten less sensible as our knowledge of chemistry and biology has advanced.

I understand the desire to eliminate all health hazards, but that is not economically feasible. Does it not seem reasonable to state that if you cannot find any death or illnes in a chemical, when used for a specific purpose, that is it not reasonable to simply eliminate the chemical?

This isn't really abotu advancing chemistry or biology, either. We have a pretty good understanding that these contaminants need to be consumed repeatedly, at high exposure levels, to have a detectable effect. Epidemiology would be more likely to create a compelling for or against case than additional medical research.

I mean, I'd have an easier time if you could show at least a compelling argument that harm has been done.

Re: Troubling chemicals found in wide range of fast-food wrappers

#66

Post by maxerickson »

dekhn wrote: post #65
maxerickson wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's too low a bar. A lot of the worst environmental mistakes used that approach and it has gotten less sensible as our knowledge of chemistry and biology has advanced.

I understand the desire to eliminate all health hazards, but that is not economically feasible. Does it not seem reasonable to state that if you cannot find any death or illnes in a chemical, when used for a specific purpose, that is it not reasonable to simply eliminate the chemical? This isn't really abotu advancing chemistry or biology, either. We have a pretty good understanding that these contaminants need to be…

Sure it is economically feasible to leave the PFOA related chemicals out of fast food wrappers, the big consequence is that the wrappers will be greasier (I guess this might bug people that eat their fries with a fork).

I'm not proposing that the safety of all chemicals be proven before they are used, I realize that it is logically impossible. I'm saying that spraying tons of stuff that is chemically similar to known problematic compounds out into the environment to see if it is bad is the wrong approach.

Stuff that isn't chemically similar to known problematic compounds? Take a more relaxed approach.

Re: Troubling chemicals found in wide range of fast-food wrappers

#67

Post by dekhn »

DanBC wrote: post #63
dekhn wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first link shows contaminated well water at very high concentrations. That's bad. The second link mentions more contaminated water supply, and mentions cancer. I am asking if anybody can directly demonstrate that using this in food liner has an even detectable rate of harm. If it doesn't then there is no reasonable basis, just fear, to remove the chemicals from the liners.

Could there be harm from removing these particular chemicals? If not, isn't the precautionary principle good? I guess this highlights how poor humans are at identifying and thinking about risk.

removing the chemicals would make the food liners not work anymore. then the people who make the liners will find something else. It's not clear there is anything else that works as well, or is as safe.

in this case it's almost certainly true that food liners do not contribute enough of the toxin to have an effect- below a certain dosage the body simply mops up all the toxin and there is no cumulative harm. On the other hand where people are exposed to massive amounts, they develop obvious and clear health problems.

Re: Troubling chemicals found in wide range of fast-food wrappers

#68

Post by julian_t »

ams6110 wrote: post #7

At home I cook on cast-iron pans with metal utensils. Once they are seasoned well they are remarkably non-stick and easy to clean with just hot water and a stiff brush.

Cast iron? Pah!

Tinned heavy-gauge copper with brass handles works the best (for me, ymmv). There are drawbacks - they need re-tinning every now and again, and you have to be careful with metal utensils, but the heat distribution and evenness of cooking is amazing on a 3mm copper pan.

Re: Troubling chemicals found in wide range of fast-food wrappers

#69

Post by nate_meurer »

ars wrote: post #61
nate_meurer wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely, don't trust it. The fact of Teflon's extreme toxicity at temperatures commonly encountered in cooking is undisputed. Quoting from http://www.ewg.org/research/canaries-kitchen/teflon-offgas-s... : > The lowest temperature at which nonstick coatings have been reported to kill birds in a peer-reviewed study is 396°F (202°C) That website offers a lot of evidence regarding Teflon's toxicity in other animals as…

> The lowest temperature at which nonstick coatings have been reported to kill birds in a peer-reviewed study is 396°F (202°C) If you want to be fair, you should also quote some numbers for oil. Most oils will kill birds at much lower temperatures. Which makes Teflon safer than oil.

LOL, safer than oil? Read up on it a bit, and if you think cooking oil emits anything nearly as poisonous as fluoroacetic acid, show me a citation.

Re: Troubling chemicals found in wide range of fast-food wrappers

#70

Post by LoonyBalloony »

DarkKomunalec wrote: post #6
LoonyBalloony wrote: post #3

The government started the drug war to keep drugs from "destroying" our bodies. Surely big daddy government keeps bad chemicals out of the products we all use since he is so interested in keeping us healthy and safe. Yup we are all in safe hands.

"Repeal food safety laws, let the Free Market sort it out"?

My comment is more to point out the hypocrisy of having a war on drugs but allowing shitty chemicals in the things we use.

But I'm glad the comment was not deleted and I forgive the downvoters.

Post reply on HN