Counterpoint: this seems to be the crusade of a single researcher - I don't find the data personally convincing and am still using my black spatula for cooking.
That's true of nearly everything in this space. You'll find lots and lots of comments below about PFAS and Teflon pans, for example, ranging from factual-but-misleading (e.g. "Teflon pans can emit harmful gases when overheated") to bald assertions (multiple variations on "Teflon pans are harmful to your health") with no context or specificity to the claim.
Setting aside the fact that the purported harms (if specified at all!) are nearly always based on confounded observational studies and/or animal models at doses that may not bear any relationship to the doses you're being exposed to in real life, the claims for any particular item are usually presented out of context. For example, is exposure at X<10 parts per billion compound Y meaningful, as a human who lives in the real world? Typically, nobody knows, but you can nearly always find an "expert" who will confidently claim that any exposure is "dangerous."
Skepticism and awareness of risk magnitude is essential when reading stuff like this. Academics who specialize in obscure areas love to get their name in the press, and the easiest way to do that is to go to a reporter and make vague and irresponsible claims about risks to human health, even if those risks are very, very small. [1]
For what it's worth, I have a Teflon pan, I've used black plastic spatulas in the past, and I'm not worried about it. Compared to the reasons I already know that I'm likely to die, these things are irrelevant.
[1] Case in point: I knew a tenured professor at a prestigious university who was absolutely convinced that if we all continued to eat beef, we'd be looking at an epidemic of vCJK (aka Mad Cow Disease). Saw a lecture from this person on the subject over a decade ago now, where the risks were presented as looming and absolute. We're still eating beef. Guess what hasn't happened since then?
> Academics who specialize in obscure areas love to get their name in the press, and the easiest way to do that is to go to a reporter and make vague and irresponsible claims about risks to human health, even if those risks are very, very small.
I won't deny that many such academics exist. And yet...
The numerous successful academics at reputable universities that I know (including me) are uniformly mortified when our names are associated with mistaken interpretations in the press. Some of us (including me) simply stop doing press interviews because it happens so often.
If you want to find an incentive to get undeserved attention, I recommend you look at economic incentives within the press itself. Too much time pressure, not enough training, desperate need to gather attention to sell ads. All the opposite of the academic world.
> The numerous successful academics at reputable universities that I know (including me) are uniformly mortified when our names are associated with mistaken interpretations in the press. Some of us (including me) simply stop doing press interviews because it happens so often.
Absolutely! You're one of the good ones! I just wish you were in the majority. :-(
Edit: that's unfair. I don't know if you're in the majority or minority. I want to believe that most academics are still just silently plugging away and doing good work. It just really feels like things have shifted to the huckster side of the spectrum, and/or that is what is rewarded.
The hucksters would be over represented in the media for obvious reasons, and if you are not an academic, then you would primarily be exposed to academics via the media. Hundreds of thousands of academics doing great work, you only hear from a few dozen of them.
I was an academic in a past life. I left before I made it a profession, but I spent long enough there to see what I'm talking about. The people with the most successful careers get there by getting press, which doesn't usually correlate with academic rigor.
That said, I grant your broader point about selection bias.
> If you want to find an incentive to get undeserved attention
I think social media - such as HN comments that shoot down almost every OP without fail - is by far the best example? Most comments on social media on such things seek attention for being smarter-than-though and have no basis in anything, including the comment at the top of this thread by 'gidmkhealthnerd'.
> All the opposite of the academic world.
The pure academic world and the evil Media! If you're an academic, maybe we can something better than joining the mob against the bogeyman.
Agreed. So much hyperventilating about risks that, in context (e.g., driving, open water swimming, alcohol, tylenol), are infinitesimally small. Risk is a difficult subject for lay people to understand, and there are many professions built entirely on that human weakness.
”When PTFE is heated above 450 °C the pyrolysis products are different and inhalation may cause acute lung injury. Symptoms are flu-like (chills, headaches and fevers) with chest tightness and mild cough. Onset occurs about 4 to 8 hours after exposure to the pyrolysis products of PTFE.”
There is basically no safe limit for these chemicals — EPA limit for drinking water is 4 ppt. U.S. residents already have average blood PFAS levels to the tune of 4000 ppt.
Old folks, with a fine case of white matter decline. Distracted folks, because the baby just threw up. Sick folks, whose processing power is a bit covided. Young folks doing stupid things, possibly on a video dare.
To quote Chris Rock: if you're old and you die in an accident, you died of old age, not "that specific accident". If your mind's going, and that makes you do something that'll kill you, your mind going is what killed you.
Tell me you haven't had a baby without telling me you haven't had a baby.
You are fucking 10x more aware of bullshit you're doing just to keep baby safe. Probably more like 100x, really. Nothing focusses your mind like having CREATED A HUMAN THAT MUST BE KEPT SAFE AT ALL COST.
I'm confused by your interest in shifting the discussion away from the company that has enough money and lawyers to know better, and back towards anyone but them.
Indeed. When was the last time you left your nonstick pan sitting on a cooktop with nothing in it, for hours?
If you're the kind of person to leave empty pans burning for that long, I'd be more worried about cognitive decline and/or the risk you'll die in a fire of your own making.
A pan left on the stove will turn red, and it is an accident that happens with some regularity. This issue is a lot like ground fault protectors: a rare accident that could be avoided by never interacting with a product in a certain way nonetheless occurs, and can only be eliminated through technical means. Just imagine that you're at your parent's house, and you look over at a glowing pan. Oops, you have a headache...
It’s similar to climate scares, a decade ago people were saying that various coastal cities would be underwater by now and they aren’t even close. It’s alarmist propaganda from bored people. Sure, the climate is important, just as PFAS and mad cow all are, but pushing what amounts to conspiracy theories doesn’t solve it. And, personally, “climate change” isn’t even the big issue when we have unimaginably large trash islands in the ocean. First we have to solve multinational corporate pollution before we can worry about terraforming our planet.
After careful research, it turns out this conspiracy was actually started as a sales promotion by Spatula City! I have just as much evidence of this as most other theories
That is not how it works. You should ask if being for or against is more socially accepted. If everyone cooks in teflon it must be double plus good for your health.
To be fair to people, it is INCREDIBLY difficult to cope with the fact that a plurality or even most papers that come out may be found to be completely un-reproducible. For low stakes things like getting rid of a plastic spatula or cutting board, there is a sub-$20 cost to get rid of them and believe it is right (even if it ends up being wrong), while the cost of not believing and the paper being right is a massively increased chance of cancer. Science will likely never have its reckoning with reality, people will just believe in it less and less until it becomes background noise like everything else.
For some things maybe, but usually there's an option where the risk is pretty negligible. I feel pretty confident we're not going to declare wooden spatulas to be a massive health concern.
There's a risk for wooden ones that are glued, specifically bamboo, or finished with something toxic. You should probably stick to ones made from a single piece of hardwood and are unfinished.
There's also a risk that any cracks will fill with bacteria.
It's actually very easy to cope. Imagine that all your biases and intuitions are more correct than any given study, but why imagine it when it's already true.
Trillions invested, decades wasted by global institutions and here my Ego outdoes them all in factual accuracy with an offhand 30 second post. What's there to not like?
This is so true. Trying to explain to lay people how garbage peer review is (I show them my accepted NeurIPS paper reviews as evidence of how bad it is) tough. Most people imagine that (especially at the highest levels) that folks are independently reproducing results or at least doing something more than running ChatGPT on the paper. It's exactly the opposite - peer review is a joke.
The number one thing that made me mistrust scientists/science was doing it myself. I realized that they are not the arbiters of truth that Plato/Aristotle tried to make them out to be. The allegory of the cave/allegory of the divided line were fake/complete lies - and most of western philosophy implicitly acts as "footnotes" on these wrongful ideas.
As the secret of science-as-slightly-better-than-chance gets out to more and more, existing anti-intellectualism is supercharged. It's not just attacks of "cultural/postmodern neo-marxism" against your comparative literature department - it's claims of systemic academic fraud of your whole STEM field laboratories because it became known to the public that everyone cut corners so that they could be one step ahead in the academic careerist rat race.
The idea that those who engage is a "dialectical" fashion of academic style education are more "correct" or "see reality for how it is" compared to others.
I am firmly an Epistemology Anarchist - that is I agree with almost everything Paul feyerband ever wrote. I don't believe that knowledge/truth is influenced by the method for which it is found. Real, reproducible truth is found all the time outside of traditional academic or scientific norms/methods. The medium is firmly not the message and Marshall McLuhan is a quack.
Basically, when Plato says "the farmer should not rule" I respond with "neither should the philosopher or the so called philosopher king"
What you're quoting is satire of serious commentary. Few people unironically take it to such an extreme. But the undertone it's mocking is absolutely real and persistent.
Not everyone on 4chan is a flaming bigot but yet the community as a while gets (rightfully) judged for allowing it in their midst. Why are lesser forms of poor behavior not also reflective of the community?
Ah the ol' satire defense. Even a watered-down version of that isn't reflective of a large majority of the people here, so your statement still doesn't stand. Everywhere else, HN has a reputation for being hyper-critical and dismissive of almost everything. So much so, that this article which is essentially "don't burn plastic" has many, many comments discussing caveats, the single study, and vagueness...
Metal spatulas cause damage to frying pans. How do I know which is worse, the plastic melting off my black spatula or the non-stick coating scraping off my frying pan?
I suppose I could go cast iron, but I'm sure I can find a study saying those are terrible too.
I recently learned how to cook non-stick with my stainless steel pan [1]. Needless to say it's a bit more involved, but I felt more accomplished when I figured out how to cook with it.
Pros: SS can go right in the dishwasher, it's safe & you can use metal spatula, no worry about loss of efficacy over the years.
Cons: It takes a minute more to prep, harder to clean (sides/edges aren't non-stick)
Personally, between this option and carbon-steel pre-seasoned, I see no reason to own Teflon pans.
Although, I did hear that linoeic acid in excess may be detrimental for brain development (and may be one of a handful of reasons that neurodivergence appears to be on the rise). And more than just refined sugar, excess calories make you fat, which both LA and RS have a tendency towards making us eat in excess.
You need fat on 'nonstick' too. This is another common myth.
Sure, your T-Fal pan will "release a fried egg" instantly for the first 20~30 fried eggs, but then they will start sticking as the coating naturally erodes into your food and your body (including the adhesives that make a 'non-stick' surface adhere to metal). A splash of olive oil is all you need, and olive oil it is one of the healthiest foods out there.
cast iron is so slow and its seasoning is so tedious to build and maintain. I can only really see good reason to use if you cook a LOT of steak or similar. I exclusively use SS, but am I wrong? What am I missing from CI?
Seasoning cast iron has been rather easy, and you can get preseasoned pans as well. My method is: scrub a new (unseasoned) pan well with hot water and a brillo pad, being sure to thoroughly get into any grooves. This is to remove the wax coating present on some pans and to clean any potential surface rust. From there I preheat my oven to 450°F/230°C with my pan inside, this helps drive off any remaining moisture. Once its to temp I pull the pan out and give it a thin coating of flaxseed oil before putting it in the oven upside down for 30min. I do this 6 times, flipping the pan each time, but really 3-4 times is enough. And any fat is also good, I simply prefer flax because it has the best polymerization, which is a debatable quality. I’m just excessive and cast iron collection is a bit of a hobby. After the initial seasoning all you need to do is store your pans in a thin layer of oil if you won’t use them for long period, but even that isn’t a real problem for properly seasoned pans. I’ve never had a pan I seasoned rust.
As for what you’re missing: nothing for cooking smaller foods, but it is unmatched for baking and frying. I’ve found it to be a lot more capable in keeping oil temps consistent and giving good crusts to pan pizzas and cornbreads. So if deep dish pizzas, breads, seared/fried meats and veggies, and huevos ahogados sound good I’d definitely recommend having at least one 10-12” pan around.
> Needless to say it's a bit more involved, but I felt more accomplished when I figured out how to cook with it.
The rituals and sense of accomplishment. Teflon is very convenient, when it fails you buy a new one, RVS takes a bit more expertise and cast iron is even more of an adventure, it gets better over time, last many generations. It is different in that it heats very slowly but also stays hot when you put it on the table. Nice for slow dining and/or foods that don't stay warm for long. If the handle is also iron you can put it in the oven. You get to cook different dishes that go from the stove in the oven.
You don't have to get cast-iron necessarily. Try carbon-steel. My mother doesn't like cast iron because of the maintenance required, and we don't use non-stick for the alleged health issues.
Got a bunch of carbon-steel cookware and she loves it.
Or do you perform a quick season on the cooktop right before frying / searing? In that case, you could also use stainless steel cookware, which is even less maintenance than carbon steel.
Isn’t carbon steel more maintenance heavy than cast iron? I was always told that you always need to coat carbon steel after use otherwise it will oxidize, while cast iron has a protective polymerized coating that helps it to resist that naturally, and in my experience this has held true where CS equipment oxidizes readily (and stains from acids) while cast iron has more leeway due to the initial coating.
All non-stick frying pans die within a year or so. We recently took the plunge and invested in a stainless steel one. Yes, it takes some (very little) time to adjust your cooking style, but that thing comes with a lifetime guarantee and you don't have to worry about accidentally scratching the surface. Win-win.
Stainless steel can and will stick to some food, but a good one can hold very high amounts of heat and will heat up very evenly.
I think at the end, it boils down to cooking style and preference. We use both (non-stick and stainless steel), and some foods are easier to prepare in one w.r.t to other, however, nothing is impossible in either.
All non stick coatings require care though. Never scrape with metal, do not wash in the dishwasher, and do not overheat.
The rule 0 of item maintenance is, "if you care for your item, your item cares for you when you need it".
cast iron pans contain two materials, the seasoning (oxidized and polymerized food oils, occasionally oxidized iron) and the pan itself (an iron-carbon-silicon alloy, potentially with impurities).
some minor outputs of food oil oxidation/polymerization are believed to be probable carcinogens. these compounds will be present in all food cooked on any surface. this varies more significantly based on your food choice and preparation method than your cookware selection. if you're eating, you're consuming oxidized and polymerized food oils.
the pan itself could potentially contribute iron to your food, or molecular variants like rust or magnetite (oxidized iron). this iron isn't harmful. you're more likely to be deficient than have too much iron. in fact, cooking with iron is occasionally advocated as a way to supplement iron nutrition, to treat iron-deficient anemia.
there are potential impurities in the iron alloy of the pan. most impurities are removed by the foundry process as 'slag'. when iron is heated to molten temperature, everything reactive will burn off or evaporate. other metals will float or precipitate. slag is removed before casting, but some may remain mixed - these will be oxides of foundry inputs used to regulate the melt such as calcium, magnesium, aluminum, and barium. these are controlled to low fractions, but even so are nontoxic or nutritious when ingested. if you're using metal cookware, there is some slag in your cookware.
i just now tried to find a study indicating some harmful property of cast iron but i couldn't find one.
just stop using plastic to cook. it's not hard, and it's not expensive. it's even easier than being miserable on the internet
No they don't. How can you even say that with a straight face? Scuffing the surface != damage.
There's a big difference between cooking on a piece of metal, and cooking on a multiple layers of chemicals invented by the aerospace industry; or overheating a metal spatula or overheating utensils made from recycled electronics' plastic.
This idea that it is impossible to cook without all this over-engineered, hyper-marketed, disposable, mass-produced QVC crap is utter nonsense.
Nobody needs teflon, or nylon, or plastic too cook with. You can cook perfectly fine with centuries old technology. The same way the people who invented the recipes cooked centuries ago.
Seriously lol, the effort vs risk ratio is insanely in favor of getting rid getting rid of plastic spatulas. Though, it should be pretty obvious even before this study that plastic, heat, and ingesting the result do not go together.
you're only focusing on the immediate, literal replacement cost though; what if (and there are as credible papers as this one, stating so) using a metal spatula on my teflon pan causes it to get into my food and that's what will kill me? Or various metals are an even bigger health risk?
>> should be pretty obvious even before this study that plastic, heat, and ingesting the result do not go together.
Metal spatulas are also just better. Plastic or silicone ones are like safety scissors, so of course you need non-stick pans. I don't run into sticking with cast iron and a metal spatula.
You are using them for the wrong purpose... Plastic spatulas are useful for sauces, batter, anything of that consistency. Of course, if you are already holding it in your hand and you need to flip a pancake, there's nothing wrong with it...
Similarly, there are plenty of different metal spatulas for different purposes, like decorating cakes or cooking on one big stove-top (as opposed to individual burners, that's something you see in the restaurant kitchens more often than in private use). And, again, you don't have to use any specific one for any specific task. My mom never had a spatula and did everything with a single chef knife she had, and it still worked for her.
At the very least, there’s about a 100% chance of microplastics getting into your food when using these things under heat. You can argue about the risks all day, but I imagine most people would want to avoid this bioaccumulation if possible.
This is my take as well. Can I avoid microplastics? No. Can I make simple household decisions that minimize my intake? Yes. Stainless pots and pans, stainless or wooden tools, stainless silverware, ceramic plates and bowls.
Yes, it takes slightly longer to clean some stuff up, but at least I'm not eating as much plastic/PTFE.
Try out carbon steel if you haven't. Season it once and it's essentially non-stick -- all I do is give mine a light rinse for a few seconds and then towel dry.
Carbon steel is not nonstick without adding oil. Also you can’t use it with acidic foods. I actually prefer stainless steel most of the time, the sticking is more of a feature for many foods since it promotes browning. (But I do use basically every type of pan for different things)
Oh interesting, that's a point I hadn't considered -- do people really cook in non-stick pans without any sort of oil? I've never owned one so genuinely didn't realize people did that. My Mediterranean family brought me up to use olive oil liberally!
And also true re: acidic foods -- I've got a couple stainless, but mainly use my enameled cast iron or clay (tagine) for tomato based dishes.
> do people really cook in non-stick pans without any sort of oil?
Definitely!
As much as I generally love it, e.g. pancakes with olive oil sound like a dubious idea, taste-wise.
Regarding frying things in olive oil, I was also under the impression that it's not particularly heat-stable and unhealthy substances can start forming at relatively low temperatures?
Oh lol, yeah, I wouldn't use olive oil on pancakes. That's definitely a butter situation.
As for high heat with olive oil, I'm not sure about it being unhealthy or not. I just found this overview [1], and it seems like there isn't great evidence. I again hadn't considered it, since it's something my ancestors have done for thousands of years. Sample size of one family, but my grandmother lived to her 90s and my great-aunt is still walking around Paris in her mid-90s!
It's important to understand that coloring plastics change their characteristics, though (I'll add the link if I can find it again).
Also, plastics have quality grades from "that's good stuff" to "this thing smells funny in a bad way". We have some IKEA food tweezers which use black plastic molded on steel prongs. It's stamped with "+150 degrees C" and the black is hazy, like it's colored with a dye or pigment, and plastic is hard like bakelite.
OTOH, I have used other "black" spatulas which are uniform in color, but neither as sturdy, nor smell neutral.
We have silicone counterparts to these items too. They're more rubbery, but they have hard plastic spines inside so, they don't flex.
Why do you trust gidmkhealthnerd, a psuedonym who likely knows nothing about it and offers nothing but a personal opinion, over the post of someone who studied it and gathered actual experimental evidence?
How do you know which person is the pseudo-intellectual. At least one gained professional expertise in chemistry and did an actual scientific experiment. The other posted their 'opinion' on Threads saying it is all wrong.
Yes, that's my point. I'm complaining about the one idiot pointing to the other idiot crapping on science and boasting about eating toxins being top comment on this fractally appalling story.
"I don't find the data personally convincing" is a poor retort. And that's all he says, without any further information.
Is his post supposed to be taken seriously?
If this person is a fact checker, he's probably run into plenty of people who would say "I don't find the data personally convincing" to explain why they don't trust vaccines.
A lot of people use it's black plastic tools like this one [1] -- like a lot of brands, OXO calls its black plastic tools "nylon" to differentiate from "silicone" -- and it would be really, really good to know if OXO has always rigorously made sure never to use recycled plastics, or if testing shows that its own products contain flame retardants.
In other words, when you pay premium prices for stuff like OXO as opposed to a dollar-store black plastic spatula, are you getting premium quality that avoids the kind of contamination described in the article? Or are the premium prices just going to the design and marketing, but not to the manufacturing?
Oxo claims they use Eastman Tritan Renew recycled plastics [1] which are FDA and EFSA certified for food use[2].
That said, I’ve personally been to multiple cookware factories in China and Taiwan and saw bags of Dow thermoplastic resins next to various cheaper-by-half China brands. The reason name brands go with Dow is the consistency in Pantone color matching colored parts. For black, it would be trivial for the contract manufacturer to cost-down to (toxic) China brands without the client (Oxo) ever knowing. It would also be trivial to spot check these products on a mass spectrometer for heavy metal contamination but I never saw that done.
If this kind of thing is important to you, I wouldn’t stop at just using Oxo but Oxo made in Asia. And if that’s your threshold you may as well use silicone.
I have worse stories about non-stick pan factories.
Where can I read all of your stories about all of it? I do a lot of work in food production but none in cook tool production and find it very interesting
>it would be trivial for the contract manufacturer to cost-down to (toxic) China brands without the client (Oxo) ever knowing. It would also be trivial to spot check these products on a mass spectrometer for heavy metal contamination but I never saw that done.
Aren't these contradictory statements? If it's "trivial" to spot check their product that is otherwise indistinguishable from the competition using mass spectrometry, why wouldn't QA do that? It -doesn't- sound like it's trivial for the supplier to rip off Oxo if it's "trivial" to use an industrial tool for quality control.
What am I missing here? Do you somehow have internal knowledge that Oxo does not do that "trivial" QC step?
Some corollary to Murphy's law? Whatever is not independently tested / audited will go wrong?
I've known plenty of people in my own country who don't take trivial steps, because they didn't feel like it.
Metal spatulas aren't an option for most, either, as they scratch pans. So what's the suggested realistic alternative? Wood?
Edit: wasn't trying to be snarky or anything. Honestly concerned for my family's health and trying to figure out the best path. Wood spatulas it is. Replacing all our PTFE pans with much more expensive cast iron pans isn't an option for our budget right now. Plus I haven't seen convincing scientific evidence that PTFE is as harmful as people here seem to imply. My understanding could be outdated though.
Nonstick pans are covered with plastic; that’s what PTFE is.
The answer is wood and metal tools with stainless steel, carbon steel, cast iron, glass, stoneware, and enameled cast iron cookware and bakeware. Aluminum bakeware is also great once you put a layer of seasoning on it to protect the aluminum from corrosion.
I've been a fan of using stainless steel spatulas on cast iron for years now and it doesn't seem to scratch or degrade the "seasoning" on the cast iron in any apparently meaningful way.
Seasoning isn't that precious either. I accidentally left my cast iron on the stove and burned off most of the seasoning, took it as an opportunity to smooth out the surface with sandpaper, gave it a couple of coats of canola and put it back into service. Within a couple of days it was basically where it was before.
I've been cooking exclusively with Le Creuset cast iron pans. I use to care about seasoning and never using soap to clean but I've gotten way more relaxed as of late. I still take care of the pans and "season them" when it looks pretty bare, but I haven't really noticed much of a difference between seasoned and nonseasoned as an amateur chef.
I make up for the lack of seasoning by using more butter or oil.
The true reason why I use these cast iron pans is that they have a very long lifecycle (going 12 years now for some of my pans) and they sear way better than other cookware.
Worth pointing out that this is also true of the Le Creuset "cast iron" skillets and frying pans with the black cooking surface. That surface is (annoyingly) enamelled too.
huh, TIL. There's a Le Creuset outlet store near me and when I bought 2 more it never really clicked how different they were from my Lodge pans (outside of the enamel bottom).
Just another plus one for cast-iron pans and wooden spatulas. We’ve been using those for over a decade, 20 bucks each, never needs replacing, works for everything.
We switched from gas stove to induction and now they work even better since the handle doesn’t get as hot and it’s easier to control the temperature.
The whole seasoning thing is extra credit, the only failure mode I’ve seen is trying to fry an egg on a completely unseasoned pan, which just means some extra soaking and scrubbing is needed. The pan seasons itself after a few uses. Hand wash the pan instead of sticking it in the dishwasher, done.
Yeah, eggs can be hard. What I do is have a smaller cast iron pan strictly for a single egg. I just make sure to use more butter and clean after right after.
I think it is healthy. There is basically nothing to be worried about that dealt killed by water or heat. A hot pan is twice the temperature of a medical autoclave.
Soap is more of a cleaning aid for removing flavor than a safety control.
A little mentioned downside to cast iron is that it's porous enough that it will absolutely absorb certain things like turmeric that will only come out once you cook something else in it, no amount of washing or soap seems to make a difference past a certain point. Kind of a non issue to me, just a quirk of the tool.
You hear this sometimes from cast iron owners that think using some soap will "ruin" the seasoning. It's a myth, you can absolutely use soap. My preferred method is chainmail + coarse salt + small drop of dawn.
Yes, I use a little bit of Dawn when the pan is really greasy or crusty. Hot water in the pan, a little bit of Dawn, let it sit for a few minutes, scrub. Dawn is not agressive enough to remove the seasoning, it will just emulsify the liquid grease/oil in the pan.
Do not put them in the dishwasher though, or you'll have to re-season them.
Dawn kinda smells tho, especially when the pan is heated again for the first time. Whatever it pyrolyzes to, I'm not sure I want to smell or eat it. The store brand dishwasher detergent seems to not smell as much but if there's no debris from the food I avoid soap or use it very sparingly.
Good tip with the coarse salt, I'll have to try that sometime.
I do almost all my cooking on cast iron—no philosophical reason, it just works well and once I figured out how to use it I found that I pretty much always reach for a cast iron pan over stainless steel or non-stick. (Except non-stick for omelettes and stainless steel for anything where I want the find.)
My big realization was that there’s a lot of macho information there about the care of cast iron, and it’s pretty much all pointless because the stuff is indestructible and the seasoning doesn’t matter much. Every time I make tortillas in a pan the seasoning gets wrecked, and it’s just not a problem. So long as you get the pan to the right temp and have enough fat, nothing sticks regardless of the quality of the seasoning. Skimp on the oil or set the temp too low, and stuff sticks no matter how good the seasoning.
I wash the pans with soap and water (and not too much scrubbing), I never season them deliberately, and they work wonderfully. It’s a very forgiving cooking surface.
When i went home to visit my dad, I cooked an egg on his decades old cast iron. He scrapes the absolute bejeezus out of it, has no idea what seasoning is, uses soap. It cooked wonderfully. That was my eye opener moment.
Man, I'm so turned off by the entire cast iron hype cult. I've tried so hard to make it work for me, and it just doesn't, and everyone's advice is totally different so it's impossible to know what to do. Wash it. Don't wash it. Scrub the shit out of it. Just remove the chunks and leave the rest.
The reply will inevitably be "it's simple, just...." where the words following "just" are different from anything ever written on the topic before.
I think the reason there is so much conflicting advise on the topic is because it's such a forgiving cooking medium, but people swear by their method as the one true method.
I cook on cast iron multiple times a week. Have for years, using a very antique pan from a dead relative. My rules are fairly straightforward. I don't do any other maintenance or cleaning than this after-care routine:
* Let the pan cool (if I'm lazy or it's late, possibly this is overnight and then I do the rest in the morning).
* Scrape out any easy solid waste (burnt food bits, etc) with a wood spatula edge and throw the waste in the trash.
* Toss a healthy amount of salt into the pan and scrub the pan using the salt, with your hands/fingers. The salt is a great abrasive, like sand, but I don't want sand ground into my cookware, while salt is fine for food.
* Rinse out the dirty-salt-mess with plain water from the sink.
* Occasionally, if stuck-on things are particularly stubborn, repeat some of the above steps as necessary until the pan surface is smooth and clean.
* Wipe off most of the remaining wetness with a paper towel (the towel will probably look pretty dirty, that's ok).
* Throw the pan back on the cooktop, pour a few tbsp of cheap olive oil in the middle, and turn the burner on as high as it goes. Wait a few minutes for the oil to thin, spread, and smoke. Once it's smoking pretty well, shut off the fire and leave the pan to cool again.
* Later when it's cooled off again (possibly overnight or hours later, whatever), gently wipe off any excess liquid oil with a paper towel and store the pan back in the cabinet, ready for next use.
If your cooking utensils are gouging or pulling up 'seasoning', it's not 'seasoning'. Seasoning is a micrometer-thin layer of polymerized oil. What you're describing is carbon build-up from a poorly cleaned pan.
At least once a week I give my vintage cast iron a good scrub with Dawn powerwash and chainmail, dry on the stovetop, apply a layer of Crisco, and then wipe it all off as if I put it on by mistake.
Wood food working implements get stained, develop cracks and chips that may retain bacteria, can't go through the dishwasher, may have finishes we'll all be concerned about later, etc.
They're my least favorite to clean and most likely to throw away because I can't get them cleaned.
Food-safe wood conditioner (or just beeswax, or coconut oil, etc.) is basically free, and you should be taking care of everything wooden in the kitchen on a semi-regular basis. If your wooden cookware is degrading, I'd be more worried about the state of your wooden cutting boards.
One thing that's helped me is to every-so-often oil my wood utensils the same way I oil my wood cutting board. It's helps protect the wood and retain moisture so it doesn't crack. Also, at least some (if not all) woods have anti-microbial properties.
Lodge cast iron pans are like $20 and will outlast your grandchildren. You can get a set of them for < $100. Carbon steel are more expensive, but are easier to handle and I think are worth investing in at least one for daily use. They'll also last generations.
Metal. I haven't noticed scratches, and have been using exclusively my whole adult life. I suspect my pans are covered in superficial scratches, but I don't notice.
Presumably you’re not using Teflon pans then, because there’s no way you wouldn’t notice the non-stick surface getting destroyed by metal utensils.
There’s also a potential health argument against cooking with Teflon pans to begin with, but people do and those people shouldn’t be using metal if they want their pans to stay non-stick for any reasonable length of time.
I've had my share of non-stick pans, including higher quality ones. They all degrade to the point where I need to use oil.
I switched to carbon steel as a daily driver two years ago and it is is trivialy non-stick with a little maintenance. The non-stick properties are infinitely refresha le, unlike "non-stick" pans.
I also have cast iron and stainless pans for other uses.
Preaching to the choir here - I love carbon steel and cast iron.
Unfortunately try as we might to get people to switch, the fact is that undamaged Teflon is more non-stick than anything else and most people don’t want to put the effort into seasoning their pans.
Teflon is popular, and Teflon owners could do with utensils that don’t destroy their pans or give them cancer.
Yes, exactly. I can’t believe how little mention of silicon and wood there is here.
Silicon is much more resistant to heat and chemicals. I believe the polymers are also more tightly bound.
I also think people cook too much on nonstick. Non stick has a place in the kitchen for specific dishes. But for the most part you can cook most things in a combination of high quality stainless steel pans and cast iron. Some food sticking in stainless is a good thing (Maillard reaction), deglaze the pan and scrape it up with a good wood spatula.
It's not about cleaning. It's about the increased amount of oil needed to prevent delicate foods like eggs and fish from sticking. That adds cost and calories.
Carbon steel solves this issue. You can get nonstick eggs and fish with a very minimal amount of oil. You can also do this with stainless steel but it takes more practice to get the temperature control down.
Maybe one day we’ll all have affordable temperature controlled induction ranges similar to the Breville/Sage control freak. If you have the ability to preheat your pan to an exact temperature then getting nonstick results with tiny amounts of oil or butter becomes rather trivial.
The Control Freak is fantastic, but it doesn’t work all that well with some cast iron pans. I think there are a couple reasons:
1. Too much thermal mass and too little thermal conductivity. This causes poor feedback and unnecessarily high delay between heat being added and the measurement reflecting it.
2. Manufacturers love to cast their logo right in the bottom center, which means that the sensor doesn’t make good contact with the pan.
I wonder if someone makes a nice stainless-aluminum-carbon steel clad pan.
I wonder if someone makes a nice stainless-aluminum-carbon steel clad pan
This pan exists! It's made by an American company called Strata. Stainless steel on the bottom/outside, carbon steel on the inside/cooking surface, and aluminum sandwiched in between. It came out this year. I've seen a few cookware YouTube channels do some first looks, unboxing, seasoning, and first cook tests but no long-term reviews so far.
Cast iron is definitely the most challenging cookware material to use with any flat-top cooking appliance. Whether induction or traditional ceramic, flat-top ranges tend to be quite poor at creating even heating in cast iron. Gas on the other hand works quite well because of the natural upward draft produced by the hot combustion gases which wrap around the sides of the pan, enveloping it in a blanket of heat from below.
Counter-intuitively, it doesn't really add calories.
What a lot of people don't realize is -- in non-stick, virtually all the oil winds up in the food. Since it doesn't stick to the pan. With steel/iron, most of the cooking oil stays in the pan.
So yes you will end up using 3x or more oil. But you're not consuming 3x oil calories. It probably isn't any extra calories at all.
I think eggs and certain fish recipes are the primary use of non stick. But there are also ways to cook those without non stick.
For scrambled eggs you can use a double boiler (you’ll never have had fluffier eggs). An extremely well seasoned carbon steal pan will also work wonders (basically what fry cooks use)
For fish, cooking fish whole on a grill is amazing. Another technique with stainless pans is to get the pan searing hot first. Then add a tiny amount of oil and cook the fish and don’t touch it. This should set the surface protein quickly and create a crust that prevents sticking (requires a little practice but not too hard)
I have a cast-iron waffle maker from like the 20s that works very well and is very fun to use. Added bonus, you can bring it on a camping trip and make waffles in the woods.
We have a reconditioned electric waffle iron from like the 40s. There are folks out there who specialize in taking them apart and replacing all the electrical components with modern stuff.
It also works very well, and as an added bonus it makes much better waffles than the modern Teflon ones do. You just can't get the same crispy outside out of a nonstick surface.
A superficial web search reveals a handful of options; I'm sure if you spent a little time, like 10-15 minutes, you'd find dozens. If you only look at what's on offer in stores, and aren't in a place with a lot of variety, then you're not going to have many options.
Shipping something that weighs only a few pounds and can be shipped along with tens of thousands of shipping containers (i.e., is not needed at the destination in a day or two) costs almost no CO2 emissions.
It costs as much as shipping just one container. Just because you can distribute the emissions over more people doesn’t make it less bad for the environment. Not ordering something from overseas is the only solution.
If you go after buying the waffle iron THE RIGHT WAY, spending few days researching, reading reviews etc., you'll see that it's hard to buy a good one that still uses teflon.
Or if you're lazy, copy me and get Åviken Elegance.
If you're really and truly concerned about this, you have to take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask yourself, "what's more important to me, my health or waffles?"
It might be time to look for a johnnycake recipe, and that's OK.
As far as I know, I don't have gluten sensitivity, but it may be something that could make a difference.
Whenever I have anything made with pancake batter, I feel bloated and uncomfortable. I understand that gluten-sensitive people have much more ... adverse ... reactions.
Funny, though. I can usually eat most cookies, no problem. There's something about pancake batter that does it.
There’s a spectrum of insensitivity, all the way from “I’ll die” (celiac), to “I get migraines/etc.” (classically insensitive), to “if I have a lot I feel real bad” (perhaps more folks than they realize).
Pancake batter is characterized by lots of flour and baking soda, if it’s not one it’s likely the other.
I mentioned it because it was an issue for my family growing up. My mother is an oncologist and has long been concerned about any plastic cookware. However, we were never able to do anything about the waffle iron, and family waffle mornings were a pretty important fixture in my family.
ah yes, the good ole iron age where castings were likely to have large amounts of arsenic/beryllium/copper/bronze contamination. much better than 'black plastic'.
I get your point , waffle irons are plentiful and available throughout history -- but finding some antique is pretty likely to just swap your contamination from one to another.
Get enough researchers to train their metaphorical microscopes on it and it's interaction with any dimension of human biology for long enough and I have to think the answer will eventually be no.
We need to eliminate plastic wherever possible, especially where it might come into contact with food.
What I hate is even paper containers have plastic lids. I worry the plastic snap-off lid is shedding microplastics into my orange juice, or by beef is getting plastic strands when I cut in to the vacuum sealed packaging.
This article is brief and uses big numbers to make a scary point but I'd be interested in if there is proof of causation of significant physiological effects at the exposure level from domestic cooking.
Often media will say "people exposed to Y have increased Z" but fail to mention that in studies those people worked in industrial settings with Y and the exposure level is hundreds or thousands of times higher than in a consumer setting.
Indeed, panicking about everything little thing like this is a psychological nightmare— it leads to the same mental fatigue as the infinite list of item known to the State of California to cause cancer.
Why, exactly, would those California notifications cause even mild anxiety (let alone "a psychological nightmare") if you know as you claim that they are merely "panicking about everything little thing"?
If you're certain they're trivial concerns, then they should be easy to dismiss.
If the problem is that you're not sure if they're trivial -- or which are and which aren't -- then what we've uncovered is the shortcomings of a policy oriented primarily around notifications. You'd want judgments made by people with toxicology qualifications whose job it is to focus on questions like this. Which was the point of the comment you're responding to.
And yet the State of California helps drive regulation forward; e.g. the case of Red 3 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq9dhQIoDw8). CA may err too much on the cry wolf end of the scale, but it's serving a vital function.
Sure, but this is pretty low hanging fruit. Moving to only metal and wood spatulas, cooking spoons, etc. has been a pretty cheap and easy switch. I would love to ALSO see regulation, but in the meantime I can at least improve things for myself.
Those are either going to (metal) scratch my non-stick pans, which I’m also told (on scant evidence I believe) causes cancer, or they’re (wood) going to be inflexible and hard to wash (can’t dishwasher them), which is inconvenient.
Putting wooden spatulas in the dishwasher shortens their life, but it doesn't destroy them straight away. I don't feel bad at all about putting cheap wooden cookware in the dishwasher. And, of course, if you're using non-stick pans, worrying about black plastic is a mote/beam kind of situation.
I'm not even sure it does that. My cheapo wood spoons/turners/spatulas get dishwashed ~every time they're used, and they're 10? years old at this point. One finally cracked a few years ago but the rest are going strong.
I don't really understand that POV. It is easier to never have to worry about it if you simply decline to use plastic cooking utensils. You never have to revisit the topic, never had to read any Atlantic articles at all coming out with "new risks" because you just decided to use wood long ago.
Wood utensils are often coated to improve their stability (just like the inside of cans is coated in plastic, so joke’s on you if you choose cans for that reason).
Have you considered the safety profile of the ink used for any markings, the stain on the wood, and any oil or wax coatings?
I use Tried and True linseed oil or linseed oil + beeswax for my coatings. Occasionally I'll use pure walnut oil.
I understand that not everyone likes to make such things! But I don't suspect its hard to find pure wood ones. Lots of people make them. Even just searching "unfinished wooden kitchen utensils" yields a lot of results.
I'm not trolling, the commenter asked me if I had considered something, and it happens I have actually made them myself. Not because I think its necessary, it certainly isn't, I simply like to make things by hand and use things that I've made.
It is inexpensive to buy unfinished wood utensils, anyone can search for them. And in the context of the problem, silicone is just as well if wood seems too difficult to find.
Sure and that protects you in your own kitchen, but not if you're eating anywhere else. Also what about all the other harmful chemicals with easy alternatives that you don't know about yet?
Only a regulating agency can truly protect you from exposure to harmful chemicals, because they can spend the time cataloguing all these chemicals and remove them not just from your home but everywhere else as well.
I'm not saying you shouldn't try and reduce your own exposure, it seems like a good idea. But ultimately it may just be a token effort because of all the other ways that you're exposed to those chemicals.
Except, I don't think wood would be any better as you still have to worry about how it was sourced and made to make sure nothing was added to it, right? I see a lot of people using bamboo for example. The only really safe alternative is stainless if you want to avoid thinking about it again.
Being deliberate about the materials you choose for your cookware is not the same as stressing out over every little risk in your life. For some people these are the materials that they use to prepare their food literally every day and one purchase will last years.
Indeed. Although now I’m pretty annoyed about the 6 or so black plastic cooking utensils I received as a wedding gift nearly twenty years ago lasted this long, so I’ve been using them this whole time. Oh well, at least I don’t cook much :/
"Should I risk this?" is the wrong question in life. The burden of proof, as it were, is on those who are alleging a risk. I'm not gonna go through life worrying about every little thing just because it might be a problem. That goes double because people are constantly finding new things to worry about, most of which amount to nothing in the end.
Holding its probability constant, if the cost of avoiding a risk is sufficiently low and the potential harm sufficiently high, avoiding it is more rational than both looking further into it or taking it.
Obesity 5% to 42%, Alzheimer’s 0% to 33% in the last century.
I think there’s a balance between being neurotic and being blissfully ignorant, but given the high level health data in the west it’s probably time to be more neurotic.
That would make sense in a just society. Here in the USA, I would factor evidence in such as, do corporations have a habit of using chemicals that are later shown to be toxic? Do corporations prefer to let people die rather than recall, say an exploding car? Do corporation put out armies of lawyers and doctors to convince everyone that their product does not cause lung cancer? Do corporations now use automation to brigade and create the appearance of a majority?
Maybe a stupid question, but how can I tell the difference between plastic and silicone? We use a black spatula that's flexible (shapes a bit to the curvature of what you're wiping, super convenient) and doesn't scratch the pan while not being porous like wood (where I always wonder how many bacteria live in these crevasses). It seems perfect and is being sold specifically for cooking so I assumed this plastic, if that's what it is, is safe for that. Now, reading the article, it says it's not, but then in the comments I read it may be yet another material. How can one tell what's what?
Side note: If you regularly and promptly clean your wooden utensils, bacteria and germs won't set in. Bacteria only becomes an issue when the wood splinters or is damaged in some way.
Also "capillary action" takes place in wood, meaning water and/or bacteria on the outside of the wooden surface essentially diffuses into the wood, "choking out" the surface bacteria and therefore not providing them with a good environment on which to grow. Additionally, wood has antimicrobial properties.
There's no single important thing— It's a combination of killing as many pathogens as you can with heat or chemicals, removing as much material as you can that bacteria feed on, and drying. Drying isn't going to do any good if your spoon is contaminated with hepatitis a, for example, and drying is much less important if you're really taking down the bacteria count by sanitizing it and don't have much for bacteria to eat in there. But if the spoon has been around the block and you're just throwing it in the dishwasher on a regular cycle, drying is a larger part of the risk reduction.
Honestly though, in home kitchens, you're waaaay more likely to get foodborne illnesses from accidental cross-contamination or time/temperature abuse of particularly risky ready-to-eat foods that people aren't as careful with as they are with meat— like cut melons and questionable been sprouts, cooked cut vegetables, cooked rice, and others. It's funny how careful people are with jarred mayonnaise, which is pretty indestructible. If that potato salad left out on the table at the picnic made you sick, it's the potatoes, not the mayonnaise.
As an aside: most people are completely wrong about what gave them food poisoning. To get a better idea, you need to look up specific symptoms and incubation periods... But contact tracing is the only way to be sure. And the most common— norovirus— could have been picked up anywhere. Even if you wash your hands right before eating, you could have gotten it from the seat you pulled out before sitting down, and alcohol isn't great at killing it. Working on restaurants, when someone said "you made me sick! I'm going to call the board of health!" I'd say "feel free. They're going to tell you to get tested to see what you have so they can compare it to other reports, and in the unlikely event that some of the other hundreds of other people who ate here when you did got the same illnesses, I'd want the board of health to know about that."
Well they've got a couple things going for them— they're sealed so there's very little chance of cross-contamination in transit or storage, and since it's a ready-to-eat food item rather than a raw ingredient, at least the more reputable companies probably need a pretty solid HACCP plan (short for Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points— a formal for safety risk analysis and their mitigation procedures), which means at least someone is paying attention. But that's not a guarantee of course, as we've seen from McDonald's current sliced onion debacle, or Boar's
Head's recent listeria recall that lead them to discontinue liver wurst and shut down their huge plant in Virginia. Either way, it's probably safer than store-cut stuff, but there are a lot of factors.
The big problems I've seen with greens all came from field contamination that couldn't be washed off, but that could also be because other types of contamination don't have a single source point and therefore don't trigger a recall/definable outbreak/news coverage.
And when it comes down to it, these are natural organisms that don't come from industrial food production, and will always be somewhat of a risk as long as we eat natural foods. Botulism spores naturally occur more frequently in parts of the western US in places that grow a lot of garlic and onions, which is why we need to refrigerate garlic oil and such— industrial food production is excellent at killing botulism and cases of poisoning come from improperly prepared home canned goods, because doing it 80% right kills everything else, and you could go 3 generations using that recipe before getting over contaminated with botulism, and then everyone at dinner that night dies. Eating industrial canned food exclusively could eliminate most risk of pathogens altogether, but then there's other risks like chemical leeching in many products, nutritional considerations, other contamination (normally a negligible risk, but would it be if you only ate industrial food?) and who really wants to do that, anyway.
But in the US, no for we sell is as risky as raw chicken. Not by a long shot. It's really bizarre that the FDA is so upright that they won't allow soft raw milk cheeses to be sold, but the USDA still, I believe, doesn't legally classify the deadly Salmonella Heidelberg to be an adulterant, as they do e. Coli OH157. Not sure if it's outdated, but when I was in culinary school some time ago, 1 in 4 chickens had enough Salmonella or campylobacter to make a healthy adult sick.
The most impactful things it seems to me home cooks can do to reduce their risks are a) don't to anything else while cutting raw meat, and immediately wash everything that touches it as soon as you're done, b) invest in an instant read thermometer if you cook meat that has a lot of surface area exposure to equipment (e.g. ground meat, sausage, cube steak), c) don't keep cut melons or bean sprouts for more than a few days, d) keep all uncooked meat in the bottom of your fridge below everything else.
There are other things that are risky that people don't realize— cooked room temperature rice, raw flour, room temperature brewed tea, etc etc etc— but they're less frequently problematic. It's a risk/reward just like anything else. A tea shop in Boston made a ton of people sick not refrigerating it's iced tea some years ago, but it didn't kill anyone, and lots of people have made sun tea without getting sick. People WAY overestimate the risk of eating raw eggs, but something like 1 in 10k eggs could do it.
> It's really bizarre that the FDA is so upright that they won't allow soft raw milk cheeses to be sold
I'm in the UK and didn't realise that. We easily buy raw milk cheeses here, but they do carry a warning about people with compromised immune systems and pregnant women.
> There are other things that are risky that people don't realize— cooked room temperature rice, raw flour, room temperature brewed tea
I was aware of the issues with pre-cooked rice and how reheating it is unlikely to make it safe. Raw flour is a new one for me - I would assume that it being dried would kill off most nasties.
However, room temperature brewed tea is incredibly dangerous here in the UK as you're likely to get lynched if you serve that to someone as a nice cuppa. Otherwise, I'd guess that it's the sugar content that gives the bacteria something to munch - it's why kombucha can be dangerous if not brewed carefully though that's more a case of getting the desirable bacteria to out-compete the nasty ones.
The danger in the US involves general poor tea handling with iced tea. Sun Tea involves leaving water and tea bags in the sun for a long while to do kind of a cold brew. Many places (shitty donut shops, greasy spoon diners, etc) make iced tea by stuffing the filter basket on their coffee pots with tea bags, often not getting the tea up to a safe temperature to kill pathogens. It's often then let at room temperature until it's served. It doesn't need sugar in it to be a problem— heck, legionnaires disease grows in closed water circulation systems. It's not common, but in the past decade-and-a-half, there have been a few outbreaks in the US. Also, studies have shown that the containers for sliced lemons in restaurant service stations are frequently teeming with fecal coliform bacteria. If they toss lemons in there to cover up the disgusting residual old coffee flavor, even better.
Heathens over here.
So properly made kombucha wouldn't be risky, but as you noted, it isn't always properly made. You can do most culinary things wrong enough to get you sick if you really put your heart into it.
I recall reading many years ago when I was making some kombucha that one of the problems was using a ceramic container that could leach lead into the brew - presumably related to the acidity of it.
Nowadays, I like to make kefir as that seems like the easiest fermentation - milk and kefir grains in a covered glass jar (not airtight) and leave for a day. Temperature isn't critical and there's no sterilisation needed.
Yeah I avoid porous things in general for that sort of work, but I remember hearing that the lower-end of Mexican ceramic crocks are particularly bad. I see a lot of lead recalls for Chinese products but it could just be because there are so many products coming out of China. When I'm doing any yoghurt type thing, I use my instant pot. Works like a charm.
I make spoons and spatulas from various hardwood, one of me favorites being Mexican cocobolo. They hold up exceedingly welland despite reports of it containing irritants, neither myself or those I've made them for have any problems - I believe it's pretty much only the dust that tranfers the irritant.
Most of my utensils do not float. I finish them with a homemade or food grade beeswax. The act of cooking alters the new look, but they acquire their own, slightly less perfect, but reasonable finish.
I'll be making some katalox spoon/spats soon... another glorious wood, but not quite as remarkable as a good piece of cocobolo, which can be really special.
Anyway, my work with these utensils started for the precise purpose of avoiding plastic.
Plastic isn't as heat tolerant, so you could subject the utensils to high heat (200°C should do it) and see if they start to melt. Whilst it's a destructive test, it's probably worth destroying and replacing plastic utensils as silicone ones are much better.
Edit: apparently you can tell the difference by squeezing them too - silicone will feel rubbery.
Buy something that is silicone and use it as a reference. Silicone is distinct, but a lot of the words that one would use to describe it can also apply to plastic, strictly because language is vague. But once you have a reference it becomes pretty clear what is and isn't silicone.
Nope. In fact, the higher density silicone with better heat resistance will turn white on bending far more readily than the low grade stuff designed for hair dryer pockets and such.
The black part in plastics is due to the addition of cheap carbon black to recycled plastic which is usually pale and unappealing grey, it is a form of 'soot produced by the incomplete combustion of coal, petroleum or vegetable matter. It is added to plastics as a reinforcing substance, the same reason for which it finds widespread use in tires' .https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/environment-did-you-know/d...
Wood is not dishwasher safe, metal will damage the cookware's non-stick coating, which may be worse than the plastic I'm trying to avoid. I guess that leaves silicone.
My carbon steel pans are essentially non-stick and a fraction of the weight of my cast iron ones. They're cheaper than their stainless All-Clad counterparts. They're a pleasure to cook with.
Sure, you can get a cheap non-stick pan that may or may not give you cancer, but why? I'm in my 40s and since I can remember thought it made no sense to cook with plastic anything. My parents still cook with the same wooden spoons my dad brought back from Algeria before I was born. The pans will last multiple lifetimes. The same can't be said for their plastic and non-stick counterparts.
I spent some time fiddling with seasoning, etc. but at this point I just cook like normal, use a bit more oil with eggs (still not much), and keep steel wool handy. Some people decry steel wool but for me it works great and the pan is a delight.
The problem temperature is 260°C which can easily be avoided by not heating an empty pan (oil/liquids will distribute the heat more evenly) and you'd be unlikely to want to cook at that kind of temperature.
Teflon is not very thermally conductive, so the bottom contacting the metal substrate may be at a significantly higher temperature than the top. Chemistry reactions have activation energies, and you can generally always trade temperature for time. If it happens in a minute at 260 C, it will still happen at 200 C, just slower.
> If it happens in a minute at 260 C, it will still happen at 200 C, just slower.
I don't think that's particularly accurate unless you're considering the action of individual atoms. e.g. Water is considered to boil at 100°C but there will be some water evaporating at lower temperatures but this is a different process that only occurs at the surface. I don't think it's accurate to say that water is "slowly boiling" at low temperatures unless you're reducing atmospheric pressure.
The result is the same though. The water leaves the container and enters the atmosphere as vapor. You can call the former "decomposition", and the latter "leaching", but you are eating the degradation products either way.
Because of the way toxicity works happening slower is quite relevant. Similarly if you drink a bottle of vodka slowly enough you will have no significant health effects but if you drink it in 2 minutes then it’s not going to be great.
Different poisons have different accumulation characteristics. The relevant part here is that perfluorocarbons are fairly persistent in your body. Your body needs a few hours or a day to process the vodka, but the PFAS in your blood takes months/years to leave your body.
Sincere question - my mom always told me to never put wooden utensils in the dishwasher, but I never got a great answer as to why. I put my wooden spatulas in there. My question is, is it just because it's destructive to the wood? Or is there something else that I should be concerned about?
Within the last 20+ years one of about 5 wooden spoons in our household has cracked even though they're always cleaned in the dishwasher. I don't see the problem.
It really depends on the wood used. Some should absolutely, under no circumstance, be expose to a hot + wet environment. Some, you can put in the dishwasher and they are fine. I do use a lot of wooden cooking utensil and most of them go in the dishwasher. But I do have some nicer wooden spoon that are made from a more precious wood that I would always wash by hand.
Another thing is that a loot of wooden utensil are made in several piece stick together with glue. A lot of cutting board are made that way for example (especially the cheap ones). Most glue are not very dishwasher safe. It might be fine for a few wash, and then you end up with pieces of a cutting board.
What is your opinion on food-grade mineral oil for helping with wood that is starting to get dry (and dramatically extending the useful lifespan)? I've been told that it's fine, but who knows these days.
No clue honestly. I usually use something like sunflower oil to maintain wooden utensil. This is what Opinel recommend for their knife, although it is more for the metal locking mechanism.
Just to echo this comment. I don't put my wood cutting boards in the dishwasher because they dry out and crack. Wood utensils have been fine in the dishwasher. They seem much less prone to cracking than cutting boards and, when they do crack, I just throw them out and replace them with cheap new ones. I see wood utensils as a wear-item.
Wood is technically not dishwasher safe, but I have wooden spoons that I’ve inherited from my grandma and they still hold up despite being in the dishwasher regularly.
A lot of wood is dishwasher safe. But you should ask / check before hand. If it is made a several pieces glued together, it will probably not be.
For cookware with PTFE non-stick coating, it is basically the only solution, with silicone, but I personally don't like silicone utensil.
In any case, I also started to avoid PTFE coated cookware, because no matter how well you treat them, the coating will eventually get damaged (and PTFE is supposedly not very good for you). Now I just use stainless steel for anything that is not too sticky, and carbon steel for everything that need a bit of a non-stick surface to be cooked properly.
They are not too hard to maintain and they don't get damaged like PTFE non-stick pan.
Maybe, but they're so easy to clean without a dishwasher. And even easier to clean later if you rinse them off immediately after cooking so stuff doesn't stick.
After you have finished cooking and have transferred the food to the plates or serving dishes or wherever (and your cookware is still hot!), add some cooking wine or tomato juice (anything that is a bit acidic) and deglaze the cookware. You can use the result or discard it, but the end result is cookware that is far, far easier to clean.
Some other options include getting a spouse that will do it for you, or to use the dishwasher and just accept that you will have to replace things more frequently.
> Some other options include getting a spouse that will do it for you
Listen to yourself man. Get a spouse because you can't personally wash cookware by hand? If you make decisions in your own life how you're suggesting I should then I shudder to think what a horror show it must be.
Use a carbon steel or cast iron pan and learn how to season properly. They are very nonstick if you cook correctly in them, and their surface is incredibly durable (I use metal spatulas and I primarily cook on carbon steel and a cast iron griddle.) you can also incorporate stainless steel pots, although stainless pans are not nonstick and very hard to use for beginners.
A properly seasoned cast iron pan can be non-stick but the temperature has to be right, you need shortening, and you can't just put any amount of food in it at any temperature.
Stainless is can do the job too, but temperature and shortening is even more important. There's a much tighter window of temperature that it works at. You do the "water drop test" to determine that it's ready. See youtube for an infinity of videos on how to check the stainless is at right temperature!
I've given up on non-stick pans. They're semi-disposable because the don't last very long and you don't want to use them at high temperatures. All it takes is a little bit of skill to never have to use non-stick teflon pans.
I use cast iron for everything I possibly can, but there is one use case I still need non-stick pans for: frying eggs. The only way to get them to not stick in even the best seasoned cast iron pan is copious amounts of oil, which seems like it's probably worse than a few molecules of PTFE derivates.
I've been frying eggs in my cast iron every morning for years, works like a charm! I use a small slice of butter and it's nonstick. The eggs don't freely slide around like they would in a non-stick pan, but after frying on one side for a moment I can easily move them with a metal spatula.
My trick though is that I have a cast iron only for eggs... if I cook other stuff in it the smooth buttery coating gets lost and the eggs start sticking again. After a few days of eggs-only it becomes nonstick again.
I did actually polish this one, and to be fair it works mostly OK in that I'm not scraping the eggs off with a metal spatula, but it still sticks enough to be annoying, and for a teflon pot to be a measurably superior solution.
I haven't played much with preheating though, I'll have to try that - thanks for the suggestion :-)
I think you will be surprised how well stainless works when it has thin layer of fresh oil and preheated to the right temperature such that it passes the "dancing drop" test.
Really? I fry eggs in a cast iron pan almost every day, with just a little cooking spray or wipe of oil (like, put a little oil in, wipe it out with a paper towel, painting the whole surface with oil in the process). I mean, it's not no oil, but it's far from copious amounts.
I'm with Kenji Lopez-Alt on this one. No matter how nonstick your cast iron or carbon steel pan is, it's not as nonstick as Teflon, which is so nonstick that we had to come up with new methods to get it to bond to surfaces. Carbon steel pans are great, but they simply are not a replacement for nonstick.
a cast iron or "stainless" steel pan will get some gruff from cooking since its nonstick. It regularly goes to the dishwasher, some stuff won't get cleaned. Mostly oil burn stains it seems ("stainless" hardly!) .
Is that completely safe/expected ?
We obviously diddn't get that with the nonstick pans. We got rid of that stuff for a reason, now i'm not sure what is worse: nonstick pan surface OR hard-stuck burnt oil on a stainless steel pan. Thoughts?
Not the person you're replying to, but here's my $0.02. We have a couple stainless frying pans that we've had for a long time, and I've never been much a fan of them. I find they stick pretty bad no matter what procedures you use. Our main pan is a 12" cast iron that I smoothed out the bottom cool surface with a flapper wheel on an angle grinder. It's been used thousands of times over at least a decade and never gives me any trouble. I usually clean it with a stainless steel scrubber and hot water, and then either wipe it clean with a paper towel, or just put it on a burner on low to dry out. I'm not afraid to use soap if needed, but I find it rarely is. We also cook anything in it, including tomato sauce or whatever, and have never had a problem related to that. I find that most of the conventional wisdom around cast iron is just a bunch of voodoo. Just use it and don't worry about it. Beyond the cast iron, we have some ceramic coated cast iron dutch ovens/pots (including a real Le Crueset and a couple knock offs) and stainless steel pots. I'm real happy with our setup. No teflon, no grief, lots of thermal mass for even cooking. I don't feel like we've had to make a tradeoff. With the right equipment, it's really all upside from my point of view.
Not a cooking enthusiast but you should not put cast iron in the dishwasher. Heat some water in the pan, add a tiny drop of soap and use a spatula to scrape off any residue. Once dry add some oil (otherwise it will rust)
I have never been able to figure out stainless steel on the other hand. Apparently the trick is getting to the right temperature but I have never gotten it to work.
On the health side, Teflon pans used to be considered totally safe until they were not. Now they are considered safe again as they no longer use PFOA. Burnt oil and iron oxide might not be ideal either but at least it isn't novel to humans as it has been used for thousands of years. Unfortunately, difficult to get hard science on such subjects as it would have extremely large studies conducted over large periods of time to overcome the noise. In any case there are probably far more impactful decisions in life than which kind of pan to use.
A weak acid (tomato paste, dilute vinegar, ...) will help with burned-on stuff, but the real trick is just good, hard scrubbing with an abrasive (steel wool or similar).
Stainless, when used properly, won't have hard-stuck burnt oil on it. They clean up nicely by just boiling some water in it and then a light scrub-- no need for dishwasher.
Worst case-- you've gone too high in temperature for too long and you need some bon-ami.
And Barkeeper's Friend makes it easy to polish up stainless if you like it to look fresh. I find it's mostly cosmetic, but I still do it a few times a year.
Just gonna throw this out that as a long time seasoned cookware junkie:
There isn't really any clear data on what exactly the seasoning on our pans is, and what by-products are also formed. It seems somehow no one has done an academic deep dive on cast iron. Heating oils to the point of polymerization is very likely to have byproducts.
Now for the conspiratorial part, it seems likely that large manufacturers (Lodge) have done the research internally, but they haven't released anything along the lines of "We have research backing the safety of our pans!".
In some ways I really would not be surprised if it comes out that the seasoning process creates all manner of nasty byproducts.
I could be wrong but I thought it was well known and studied that the seasoned part of oil in cast iron were types of trans fats. Not great for you in any amount but also probably very tiny amounts are actually consumed.
Personally I make a lot of pressure cooker stews and things with more liquid which is less hassle and less chance of burning. If it needs to be seared in the outside then that can be done quickly without needing to cook the whole thing (pan or oven)
isn't it more that silicone absorbs lipids and soaps? so you are tasting the dishwasher or last meal. I bake silicone cookware in the oven on broil, as it removes absorbed food. Fair warning, this is a terrible idea if the cookware isn't 100% silicone.
The only unsafe thing I've ever experienced with wood in the dishwasher is a fire risk from a spoon getting blown off the top rack onto the heating element at the bottom.
In my country we have some ridiculous newspapers that will publish any story with "may cause cancer" in the headline. So for a lot of people these stories are a boy-who-cried-wolf situation.
Precautionary principle? I'm sorry to say stainless steel may leech heavy metals into food during cooking [1]
And also silicone may leech potentially harmful chemicals into food [2]
Nonstick coatings? Teflon flu "could be a real concern" [3]
Wooden spoons are porous and can crack, making them a breeding ground for germs, and they can splinter [4] - and good luck finding a wooden spatula that doesn't suck.
So personally I don't think it's churlish to take these warnings with a grain of salt. Especially for rarely-used pieces of cookware.
I can relate to your distrust of the various click-baity headlines of papers, but Teflon flu is a real thing. It's easily avoided by not over-heating pans - keep them under 260°C and don't heat them when empty as that can result in hot spots.
The part that really drives me up the wall is that the demographics who decades ago decried plastics to be superior because they don't harbor bacteria like wood or break dangerously like glass are roughly the same ones who are now complaining about plastic.
I don't have a cultural analogy for this situation but whatever it is is worse than "boy who cried wolf".
i only use wooden spoons and spatulas and i almost never had them crack or splinter. if an edge does break off i can use a knife or sandpaper to make it smooth. the only downside is that some spatulas are not thin enough on the front edge, making them more difficult to use for things like pancakes or omelettes. i always keep an eye out for good wooden spatulas. i had some quite nice ones over the years. and when i move i take them with me, just in case i can't get another good one in the next location.
Dismissing the papers as lies is very different from considering your usage of the studied tools/materials, and deciding you're not actually recreating the failure-modes studied in the papers enough to worry about your current tools.
A well made point, but you won't get through. When you're in the fad, it's the center of the universe. Plus there will be an endless number of presently unknown medical worries and niggles. It all comes out in the wash, the best bet is diversification.
I appreciate your skepticism. This article has that feeling of almost being designed to create a panic. First, there's the headline, which is written in the same tone as someone warning you that you're about to step on a snake—a tone which does not invite critical thinking. Then there's the fact that since most people aren't subscribers to The Atlantic, they'll just see the first couple paragraphs and make their decisions based on that. I currently do not know how much weight I should put on what this article says, but I'm certainly scared by it, and I have enough media literacy to know that's when I should be really careful not to be fooled.
The difficulty here is that the diseases happen years or decades after the exposer, sometimes.
The industrial setting offers the hints that there might be a problem but, as you rightly point out, also might just be a case of too much exposure.
An example of this is radiation exposure, it took an embarrassingly long time for society to link radiation to cancer, and that was a somewhat obvious link. Radioactive beverages were literally marketed as health beverages because of their radium content.
You can still find radioactive trinkets being sold for their alleged health effects. Thorium in pendants and that sort of shit. They don't disclose their radioactive nature but they market with some new age woo like "emits vitalizing energy waves using crystal technology."
Most of it comes from China, presumably from people who see waste byproducts of rare earth metal processing as a business opportunity.
It's a tricky subject to get solid numbers on as most studies focus on just a limited number of the thousands of PFAs now in our environment. There's also the issue of identifying the source of the PFAs as they're in our water etc. Also, due to their very slow breakdown, PFAs are likely to accumulate in our bodies over time.
There may be no investigation of your specific question, but is there evidence of known dangerous chemicals. If it was covered in dog poop, would you use it unless there was evidence that the use of dog-poop-covered spatula at the exposure level of domestic cooking caused significant physiological effects?
A more fundamental error is say 'there's no proof, therefore I assume it's false'. There's no proof that it's safe either. We make almost all decisions without mass longitudinal studies.
And worse, IMHO, is the poison rhetoric: 'If I can shoot their plane, I'm smarter than the person trying to fly.'
Journalists I get. They're paid to attract eyeballs and they're not above being a little misleading in pursuit of that goal. "When a man's salary depends..." and all that jazz. I see it the same way I see cops who are misleading on the stand, despicable but understandable.
The people who's moral compass seems far more faulty are the people in the comments who are doing the same thing but who have no comparable motive to behave in such a way. Generally, though there are a couple minor examples in here today.
It is about the money:" The “black” in plastics is due to the addition of carbon black, which is basically a form of soot produced by the incomplete combustion of coal, petroleum or vegetable matter. It is added to plastics as a reinforcing substance, the same reason for which it finds widespread use in tires. Another benefit is that carbon black absorbs ultraviolet radiation that can cause plastics to degrade. Now for the problems. Carbon black contains numerous compounds, some of which, like the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), have carcinogenic properties and have led the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to categorize carbon black as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” Whether this is an issue in the containers used for many prepared foods, including those that are to be microwaved, is not clear, since the carbon black is locked within the matrix of the plastic and may not leach out in any significant amounts. Prepared food marketers like the black containers because they are cheap and are visually more appealing than their clear counterparts. https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/environment-did-you-know/d...
Carbon black is why the black nylon zip ties have a reputation for aging better all the other colors (like for like, not comparing a $20/100 hipster zip tie to a $2/100 cheap one).
Another thing to think about is the pigment used is often "carbon black" instead or in addition to some of the other colorful powders that are opaque enough to provide a full pallette, when starting from virgin white or clear polymer pellets.
Similar to its use in car tires, carbon black can impart strengthening and durability properties to the final product that other pigments do not exactly match.
Now if the final product is always going to be black anyway, then you wouldn't really need to start with clean virgin plastic, you could actually use some pretty ugly stuff and cover up unsightliness or inconsistency better in black.
Well the carbon black is made from a "special" oil scientifically known as CBO. I know the chemical jargon can be confusing most of the time so just take my word for it that the "full chemical name" is Carbon Black Oil. Unintuitive nomenclature, but aren't they all ;)
CBO is from some real dregs of petroleum refining, it is raw material that is going to be coked further and it does not need to pass the kind of testing that is required for black fuel oils. Shady operators have targeted these heavy black oil stocks as diluents for their non-refinery chemical byproducts that would otherwise end up as "chemical waste" in some cases.
In the heavy oil lab where people are checking things like viscosity or flash point, you need good ventilation all the time everywhere and never turn off the hoods. It has to be below acceptable levels without a respirator when an H2S-bearing crude is being handled. You still smell it because H2S is just that rough, but at least it doesn't linger and it's not enough to give you a headache. Tolerable now, not like it was decades ago before they started certifying fume hoods.
CBO doesn't have any H2S but it is never tolerable. It bears quite a variety of disagreeable notes that do not resemble any characteristic form of crude or refined petroleum, and it is often described as "weird smelling" by experienced oil chemists. The variety is amazing and hard not to notice, some batches are just so different and others so repulsive. This is when the most sensitive people reach for their respirators, even though they are just fine handling pure benzene without, because the ventilation really is that good.
Are you sure this is the same thing? The word ‘petroleum’ is not in the paper you link.
Naively, I would think the paper you linked is about carbon (the charcoaley substance) derived from vegetables being used as a black food coloring, and the poster above is talking about “carbon black oil”, a type of oil derivative that looks black - two completely different things.
> Carbon black (with subtypes acetylene black, channel black, furnace black, lamp black and thermal black) is a material produced by the incomplete combustion of coal tar, vegetable matter, or petroleum products, including fuel oil, fluid catalytic cracking tar, and ethylene cracking in a limited supply of air.
"Carbon black" refers to both types, but "carbon black oil" is referencing the petroleum derived one which is not allowed to be used in foods as far as I know.
I thought this was going to be about clean cooking fuels. One of the significant projects of the WHO is transitioning the world towards cooking with clean fuels that reduce indoor air pollution. In the worst case certain populations are burning plastics to heat their water, food, and homes, and as you can imagine this is incredibly destructive to health.
We also need trash collection, otherwise people are forced to burn plastic to get rid of their trash. The whole city of Kinshasa is nauseating due to this.
What better option? resistance electric is clearly worse in other ways. I've heard induction is good but it is an expensive luxury option and not common even in that niche.
i've heard it is reasonable priced in other countries but not the us.
Is $59 for a single hub, or $849 for a full cooktop really that much of an "expensive luxury"? These things last for decades and cost less than most mobile phones.
A hob takes up space my tiny kitchen doesn't have to spare, and besides the limited power available at the wall in the US means it isn't that useful.
In the US we almost always use a range not a cooktop. I need one with an oven. Something like https://www.homedepot.com/p/Amana-30-in-4-Burner-Element-Fre... - which is several hundred cheaper than what you linked. As long as I'm going to replace what I have, spending a little more for the other features I want seems like a good idea - I will likely use it for decades as you say, and induction is in a very limited selection such that I can't really get any other options at any price. (well I did eliminate some Samsung options - Samsung has earned their bad reputation in kitchen appliances)
You're linking to literally the lowest end builder grade piece of crap* non flat range, you even picked the one that doesn't have the oven window! I've even had near slumlords at least spring for the windowed glass top GE special when it was on sale. (I say crap, but that is unfair, having used these growing up, they are simple and basically won't break down and exceptionally easy to get parts for and repair [because it doesn't have any, not even a timer], and if the tenants destroy it, who cares). But Ikea doesn't even cater to that market at all, so it's disingenous to use that as a counter example.
Most people are looking for something at least slightly better and those are going to cost more in the $800 and up range.
And now that I have a job and a little money I would never willingly go back to a calrod electric cooktop. I'm sure there are some John Bircher types that pine for the days of mom's 1961 GE P7, but that seems like a minority.
Yes, induction is still more expensive, but it is not crazy more expensive either for middle class homeowners that no matter the fuel want something nicer than that shitty Amana linked (that's low end even for grad student slums).
What must have features are you unable to find in the current crop of induction ranges?
ikea is for people who will settle for worse than builer grade so long as they can convince themselves it is better. sure it is better than walmart furniture and a lot of 'high end' is just as bad, but it isn't real quality. Rant over, I'm sure some who don't know better will challenge that, but I'm not responding.
I expect my range to last for a few decades and I cook often. If I'm going to spend several thousand dollars I want something worth it and so far I can't find anything that fixes all the issues with the 40 year old range that came with my house and so I'm saving my money for some other 'toy' I will enjoy. as an engineer I'm in good finiancial shape but not so good I can replace my range whenever I feel like it (if I was I'd have a much larger kitchen)
> ikea is for people who will settle for worse than builer grade so long as they can convince themselves it is better. sure it is better than walmart furniture and a lot of 'high end' is just as bad, but it isn't real quality.
Irrelevant. I'm not debating the merits of Ikea furniture, but they do not produce appliances, they rebadge Electrolux, Whirlpool (Amana) and Frigidaire, and the models they are offering are simply not the most basic ones (though they have just the tier above - this gets you at least a fucking oven timer and lighted, windowed oven), that's just a fact.
I grew up with a Calrod cooktop, like non-stick cookware they are iconic post WW2 marketing Americana. Like Oscar Mayer bologna, they were considered suburban "luxury" and marketed as superior to gas (the marketing of gas superiority is whole other thing, but prior to inductive it was actually superior for most things, that's why it was/is the mainstay of the restaurant industry).
https://thisoddhouseblog.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/electric-s...
But I have no desire to go back to that. Terrible heat conductivity, slow response, imprecise temperature control, terribly inefficient especially in the summer (as a side effect, piss poor cooking power compared to even a domestic gas range, yet no ability to go as low). It's hard to overstate how much easier (if not just possible) to cook certain foods on something with precise wide range heat control whether it be gas or inductive.
Obviously people made do with these for years, and if one is happy with that level of functionality and convenience (especially at the lowest of the low end of features), and it allows them to prepare what they want, it's unlikely they'll appreciate any of the benefits of an inductive cooktop.
But it gives precise and rapidly changeable heat control, a radiant heater does not. This is important to people preparing more varied dishes. This sounds like this is simply of little benefit to you, because you still haven't mentioned what features on the current selection of inductive ranges is missing.
They're also wickedly more efficient because you're not radiating a ton of waste heat into the conditioned space (at least in summer and warm climates). There are people that cook and bake enough that the electricity of both the heating and the space cooling are a noticeable monthly expense. Not the primary benefit point though, true.
I'd like to see a good comparison in running cost of a gas stove versus an induction stove.
Comparing BTU's wouldn't be an accurate metric since with gas a lot of the heat is lost just going around the pan/pot and heating the air. This source [1] claims it took 992 BTUs for gas and 430 BTUs for induction to boil 1qt of water.
I don't think any cook at home has ever used enough energy that that matters. Once in a while someone will have a broken furnace and try to use the oven to heat their house (this is dangerous: don't try it), but otherwise cooking doesn't use energy to really matter.
This would be a relatively major thing, since you generally have no choice but to breathe the air in your dwelling. As a policy matter (i.e., one in which the government can offset out-of-pocket costs for greater savings on the back end), subsidizing electrification so that Americans can have a better quality-of-life with less incidence of cancer, respiratory illness, and catastrophic detonation of inhabited residences seems like a no brainer.
And for people who must have their gas appliances, there are always portable units/generators. They can use those.
It's a tale as old as time: "I don't want to poison myself, but I also cannot bear a minor inconvenience." This is honestly one of the main reasons I believe that environmentalism will never meaningfully succeed.
There are many options to make environmentalism also the better choice. My electric is 104% from wind last year (which is to say for every 100kwh my entire city used last year, my utility claims they generated 104kwh from wind - I don't know what they did when the wind wasn't blowing or what happened to that other 4kwh) Cooks tell me induction is better, but there are enough roadblocks that shouldn't exist such that I can't try it.
My real rant though is there is no reason why induction should be an expesnive niche. There is no reason I should pay extra for features that don't cost extra.
Right, but the premium tends more to $1000 for the brands that have earned a bad reputation. If you want something that you can expect to be good quality you are looking at more like $2000.
it works, but it is covered to 90% with a "subscribe now" popup that i can't seem to close. perhaps for your browser size the popup covers the whole screen. reader mode makes it all go away and reveal the article text and pictures
Your coffee maker is exposed to at most 100 degrees C. Spatulas are exposed to temperatures over 200 C.
Instinctively, I'm much more worried about the latter, though I admittedly don't know anything about the science behind what temperatures flame retardants or other undesirable contaminants might leach out of the plastic.
The article also speaks of a black necklace for children that was found to be 3% flame retardant chemicals by weight, saying
> Those flame retardants migrate into toddlers’ saliva and into the dust in our homes
Perhaps it's fine if you don't lick your coffee machine, or perhaps not. I guess being less worried makes sense but I'm not sure that we need not be worried about boiling our drinks in fire retardants (assuming they're present in these materials)
Ugh you reminded me how much I hate flame retardants and the horrible laws we have in America that have us spray it everywhere.
I was just recently looking at bicycle seats for small kids and the one I found interesting happened to recently have a recall (Thule) as they grossly over applied the flame retardant to a point where it was immediately toxic. I am guessing it was in the foam pieces but such a depressing idea that we need to make outdoor bicycle seats flame retardant.
The necklace, that sounded like a byproduct of recycling plastic.
In general though, through the 50s-70s there were some tragic events where people died in fires. Part of this is federal legislation, part of this is California who required household furnishings to withstand an open flame. Most of the legislation still stands, some of it like CA's has been reduced to a smolder test but it still requires some retardants.
People don't pay attention to this one but its in everything, mattresses, couches, baby sleep wear. And for me, a bigger issue than PFAS.
The people of the 1970s clutched their pearls and wrung their hands about flammable sofas in the same way that we today clutch our pearls and wring our hands about leeching plastics. The breathless articles were mostly the same except they were in places like Readers Digest instead of The Atlantic.
As another commenter stated laws were passed but more so than that the companies who make things were concerned about lawsuits and reputation damage so treating consumer textiles for flame retardants just became standard industry practice.
As an aside, I know a historical reenacter who had a need to make some char-cloth. The only thing he could find that wasn't treated was cotton work gloves.
All of them, I don't believe they serve any to the net of society and probably harm more individuals than protect.. YMMV like everything, flame retardants are generally just like PFAS, they are forever chemicals. The mains ones used up until the 2000-2013s were PBDEs, these bio-accumulate just like PFAS. THe EU and US have switched to alternatives but I don't believe these to be any better, just newer.
There is no way to tell, as stated in the article.
"Of the more than 200 black plastic products Liu bought at retail stores for her study, hardly any were labeled as being made from recycled materials, she said. Consumers have no way to tell which black plastics might be recycled e-waste and which aren’t. “It’s just a minefield, really,” Turner said."
I was under the impression that labelling something as "recycled" was a value add, and it would be done where possible. I suppose that is not actually the case.
The article is nonsense. Only engineering plastics carry UL94 ratings (and if it's got flame retardants in it, it's got a UL94 rating... otherwise no one would go to the expense!) and there are just not a lot of engineering plastics in the waste stream compared to consumer single-use plastics.
The point is that these plastics with flame retardants would go to recycling, and would eventually find their way into cooking utensils made of recycled plastics. Nobody adds the flame retardant there intentionally, but nobody removes the flame retardants from the recycled mass either, at least not in places where plastic recycling is normally done (not the richest countries).
Frankly, the idea of using recycled plastic with no control for its origin for cooking utensils looks weird to me. OTOH it should look like a great opportunity to cut costs, and shoppers very often try to save that last cent as a matter of principle and sport, so...
Coffee machines from reputable makers should be safe, I think.
"To investigate the extent to which kitchen utensils are contaminated with BFRs and the potential for resultant human exposure, we collected 96 plastic kitchen utensils and screened for Br content using a hand-held X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometer. Only 3 out of 27 utensils purchased after 2011 contained detectable concentrations of Br (≥ 3 μg/g). In contrast, Br was detected in 31 out of the 69 utensils purchased before 2011."
Let me emphasize: Only 3 out of 27 utensils purchased after 2011 contained detectable concentrations of Br.
Further vital information: "Simulated cooking experiments were conducted to investigate BFR transfer from selected utensils (n = 10) to hot cooking oil, with considerable transfer (20% on average) observed."
Fine, I don't cook with hot oil. I don't melt my utensils when cooking, I don't damage them at all. I see the reason for concern, but for my cooking styles this really doesn't affect me.
I am bit weirded by using recycled plastics for anything interact with regularly with my hands for example. Also stuff that get heated. Sure it has places like furniture, decking and so on where contamination doesn't really matter. But what about something like re-usable cup for hot beverages or disposable cutlery?
It's admittedly been a while since I've looked but there don't seem to be any (automated) drip makers whose use doesn't result in plastic coming into contact with hot water.
I'm well aware of and own many of the more manual options that don't have this issue. However, the automatic feature is killer (heh) and this seems like an obvious miss by manufacturers.
We make coldbrew coffee in the fridge. No need to heat up the coffee until it is in your cup with some extra water and into the micro. And it taste a lot better than anything else I tried. And I didn't even drink coffee a year ago because it taste so bad. Now I can even drink it without milk! :-)
I think Coldbrew is even more dependent on what coffee beans and roast you use, we have tried a few and they are very different. But so far I liked them all. Maybe you preffer the bitter taste of cooked coffee? That is something that is missing from all our tries with coldbrew.
> Maybe you preffer the bitter taste of cooked coffee?
Definitely not.
But the thing about cold-brew is that it tastes mostly sour to me and nothing else (which is unsurprising given our taste-buds are most sensitive at higher temperatures, and proper extraction of coffee can't happen at those lower temperatures as some compounds just won't dissolve at the same rate, and sour compounds in coffee dissolve the fastest). With warm brewed (+ warm drank) coffee things are more balanced (not just straight sour) and you get the interesting flavour notes from the bag.
I don't think the quality of the coffee I am using is the problem. It might be the variant, but I enjoy natural light roasts (and light roast is already difficult to brew without it getting too sour).
Ours is not sour at all and I'm pretty sensitive to sour stuff.
700 ml water, 50-60 g beans, 24 hours in fridge. When drinking we mix with 3-4 parts water. I always drink cold, wife drinks it hot. Lots of flavour and fun to try the local roasterys seasonal tastes.
The article does speak of black specifically, not just any plastic. Even if there aren't any that don't put the hot liquid in contact with plastic, it might be worth looking at the color (is my understanding from the article)
Yeah, sorry, that was implied. I would assume that's what they all use. Based on my recent personal experience, even the higher end options like Moccamaster and OXO use black plastic.
There's a bottom of the barrel, dollar store brand under the Betty Crocker name brand in Canada - all black plastic cooking utensils, cheapest you can get in all varieties.
Every time I go over to mom's place it's so shocking to see these utensils being used for high heat applications they were never meant to be used for.
Flipping burgers in a pan, moving fries on a baking sheet - the ends of them are all warped and disfigured, bits carved out of them from scraping something and a piece of plastic chips off and ends up in the food.
Same with the pots and pans, she's been using the same teflon coated set for the better part of a decade and to her it doesn't matter that there's a spiral from the stovetop element burned into the inside of the pot where the teflon's overheated and chipped off.
I've tried buying her new pots and pans, utentils, etc. and educating her about how much plastic and teflon she has (and by extension I have) been eating over the years but it's in one ear and out the other.
We really need to stop making plastic cooking utentils. I've moved mostly to glass or metal bowls for storing, microwaving, baking foods - silicone for utensils (which I've heard is still somewhat risky even though it's inert?)
Microplastics are the leaded gasoline of my generation it seems like.
>Every time I go over to mom's place it's so shocking to see these utensils being used for high heat applications they were never meant to be used for.
>educating her about how much plastic and teflon she has (and by extension I have) been eating over the years but it's in one ear and out the other.
I have much the same problem, though luckily I haven't lived with her for ages. According to her, eating plastic and teflon isn't a problem because she's so old that it's not going to make a difference.
Maybe the most interesting takeaway from this article is that black plastic is dirtier than other colors because it’s easier to use recycled materials if you don’t care about color. Very good to know.
I minimize my use of nonstick pans to as little as possible but some things are pretty much impossible to cook in stainless steel pans. Like how would you go about making over easy eggs? That’s something I have a lot of.
I do fried and over-easy in my stainless all the time. My procedure:
1. heat empty stainless over med-high flame until a drop of water scatters and glides over the whole surface (leidenfrost). It should look like beads of mercury.
2. drop to a med flame, add a bit of oil (avacodo, ghee, ....). If you're going to a lower temp oil (butter, olive, ...) drop the flame even lower and let the pan cool for a minute before adding.
3. crack eggs into the pan, and don't touch them until there's a bit of fried edge
4a. if you want over-easy, turn the flame off well before you flip, and let the residual heat cook the top.
4b. alternatively, cover the pan with a pot lid to steam the tops.
If they stick, a little bit of extra oil, or a few drops of water on the edge can help release.
Seconding steps 1-2. I don't do step 3 because I want to whisk the eggs. It takes some practice, but the end result is worth it. The eggs taste better when cooked on a stainless pan.
I cook over easy eggs a few times a week in my cast iron. Works great.
I've also done it in stainless steel and while it does work there's a bit more of a learning curve imo. Have to heat the pan first then add the oil at just the right heat (when a drop of water glides around but doesn't evaporate too fast).
All in all I'm glad I learned how to use and care for cast iron.
Years back I took a "common sense" decision to eliminate plastic from my food storage and cooking and only use steel or glass. The basis for this decision was primarily that there have been many instances in world where after decades it was found that something generally used was harmful for humans. Steel and glass have existed longer than plastics and are generally known to be safe (also I have to use some products, can't leave everything).
for people arguing about the quality of research, yes you can argue on research but use your common sense and ask yourself if plastics are really safe?
It will solve itself, nature adapts fast, if you have enough dice throws- and plastic is everywhere. A million evolutionary dices roll everywhere out there- and one day all the plastics get a mold and that building block of civilization just drips away.
Indeed. The first step is for the planet to get rid of the pesky pollutants, perhaps by way of launching several “natural disasters” such as mighty strong winds, excessive floods, and particularly pesky deathly organisms. Then it can deal with plastic at its leisure.
> The real solution is sunsetting single-use anything...but $$$
Those $$$ correspond to real-world costs.
For examplee, we also want to lower car usage. Do you imagine that people who commute by bicycle or train are going to carry around durable versions of every single-use item they currently encounter? Cups, straws, plates, utensils, napkins, takeout containers, grocery bags, produce bags, tissues? Carrying around dirty versions of all the above until they get home to clean them?
Even if they do, detergent is also single-use, and damaging to aquatic environments.
I'm not some kind of hyperlibertarian, but I think we need to properly tax externalities (such as poisoning customers and destroying the viability of the biosphere), use the proceeds of that for mitigation, and let the market take care of the rest.
Straws are useless. Plates and ustensiles can be provided by and cleaned at the place you eat. Takeout containers don’t take more space than the non reusable container you will have to carry back anyway. They can also be provided by your place of work if you generally go for take out for lunch. Reusable tissue bags take no space or paper bags can be used for a cost.
Napkins and tissues are not made of plastics.
So, yes I fully expect people to carry around reusable things even when they bike. It’s not that hard. You know how I know? Because I do it every day.
Honestly stopping using single use items must be the easiest thing to do to limit the amount of trash you generate. It has absolutely no impact on your daily life.
Would you be surprised to learn that napkins and tissues and paper towels have all sorts of plastic coatings on them? It’s an untold story and I’d love one of these pubs to do some research the way they did about pizza boxes back in the day
Your 100% cotton sweater has petroleum-derived coatings on it too, which give it a soft handfeel in the store and keep bugs from eating it on its way over from SE Asia :)
I just want to be able to buy ketchup or mayonnaise in glass at the grocery store. But apparently that's not enough, you want me to bring my own container and have the grocer fill it up from the 55 gallon condiment drum?
Don't turn the argument into a parody of itself because you don't like what it implies.
No one is asking you about buying using refilable containers you bring to the store. That's not what's talked about when people talk about single use items.
I am 100% in favour of putting in place a container-deposit scheme however because these glass containers are actually reusable most of the time and should be collected back. Plastic overpackaging should just be banned. The whole thing is just a waste of ressource only possible because externalties are not priced in.
> because these glass containers are actually reusable most of the time
As far as I am aware, those are mostly obsolete/moot/whatever. Still used for pickles, to the best of my understanding. Tomato sauces (spaghetti, etc) have started to switch over already several years ago. Glass is mostly for premium products, the $12/qt organic-grass-fed-shoulder-massaged milk.
Even if I'm generous and assume you're not talking about grocery stores... it's practically impossible to have a fast food industry without single-use packaging. Most of the McDonald's in my area are designed around drive-thru and delivery. The closest probably seats 30 inside, but has two drive-thru lanes and a large rack right next to the counter for the Uber Eats bags.
> They won’t be if you start pricing plastic packaging generated externalities in the products prices.
Sure. let's make food more expensive for poor people. That's always grand policy. It'd be one thing if it was limiting how many Chic-Fil-A sauce packets they got in their drive-thru paper bag, but this also (believe it or not) affects those trying to eat at home with minimally processed foods. At some point the 72-serving Gigantosaurus bulk Hot Pocket box in the freezer section looks better than some of the stuff that resembles food people should eat.
> It’s so impossible it’s actually done in France if
I have no clue why people can't just magically wish themselves French and have entire centuries of French culture and habits imprinted on them just because people who played too much SimCity 2000 as a kid think that other people's lives should be micromanaged for a higher score. God save us from the technocrats.
> Sure. let's make food more expensive for poor people.
I know I started this whole argument by speaking up in favor of efficiently throwing things away, but I do want to speak out in favor of making (harmful) things more expensive for poor people; and giving poor people enough money to make up for it.
This also applies to a lot of other things, like taxing semi trucks for the insane amounts of damage they do to the roads compared to other vehicles, and then paying poor people for the increased price of goods at Wal-Mart. It may sound like taking extra steps to have the same result; but because you're reducing externalized costs instead of subsidizing them, everybody ends up better off.
> Sure. let's make food more expensive for poor people.
The magic of deposit refund system is that you only pay more once. Plus really poor people can actually collect unreturned items to make some change. Have you ever considered how things worked before plastic?
> I have no clue
That much is pretty clear.
I’m very happy to see that you are able to claw at anything so that your initial impossible as actually been exposed as entirely possible. I think it’s nice that you are so afraid of change you can’t even fathom taking such large steps as using reusable containers to limit trash.
> The magic of deposit refund system is that you only pay more once.
Your insight into the economics of this is shallow. If plastic is cheaper than glass, a "deposit refund scheme" doesn't fix the fact that forcing everything to glass makes it more expensive. Glass jars aren't just washed and reused, they have to be melted down to be reused at all. There's a big fuel usage penalty there (not to mention this is fossil fuel, so all the climate change connotations). In some really pathological scenarios, the single-use plastics can actually be better for the environment, since once the plastic is landfilled the carbon stays out of the air.
> That much is pretty clear.
Cheap shot. About all you have, isn't it? Just big dumb ideas that make you feel good, that you've never much contemplated to any depth, that would make things worse for everyone.
At present, yes, I believe bicyclists are more likely to carry some reusable items with them.
Some of the reason being that they are planning their trips and know what they can carry, and know that they don't want to carry more. Reusable water bottles in a work backpack are an example.
The other aspect is you don't have to carry all of these things. If you eat in a restaurant or at a house you are more likely to have reusable options available (ie washable plates and dinnerware). In many ways, car culture is linked to takeaway culture, which causes single use culture.
Top of mind; it's easy to picture the American automobile with bags of fast food trash.
> Do you imagine that people who commute by bicycle or train are going to carry around durable versions of every single-use item they currently encounter? Cups, straws, plates, utensils, napkins, takeout containers, grocery bags, produce bags, tissues? Carrying around dirty versions of all the above until they get home to clean them?
Doesn't seem uncommon at all to me, that's what my colleagues and I do, same for my wife and her colleagues (and we work in very different environments and places, different countries even).
Some of my colleagues wash their dishes at work, I just bring them back and put them in my dishwasher a home. My wife has a dishwasher at work so they just put their stuff there. The products we use for washing at home or at work claim to be biodegradable and not harmful for the environment.
Properly taxing externalities is an obvious thing to do though of course.
While I get your point, unfortunately “civilised” means plastic cups. You don’t see people in poor countries with no industry going to coffee shops to drink expensive coffee from plastic, they drink from handmade reusable cups.
I wouldn't worry too hard about the coffee cup lid. It's almost certainly made of PLA (polylactic acid). Nobody's making flame-retardant consumer appliances out of PLA.
and it absolutely won’t be limited to coffee lids. when we don’t hold creators and sellers of products to any kind of real standard, they over and over and over will cut corners. we know this is a fact.
when we don’t hold them responsible for the harms they directly or externally cause, we have to waste our fucking time scrutinizing ridiculous items like coffee lids. soon it will be each of the hundreds of items we buy during our regular trips to target—from toothbrush to laundry soap to shampoo to batteries.
we have to get some actual enforceable testing, standards, and holding bad actors to account soon or it’s going to be a very very real mess.
when we can’t trust companies to sell us safe spatulas or the lids on our coffee cups, we know we’ve gone off the rails.
no one has time to “do their own research” on the hundreds or thousands of random products they come in contact with every single day, “the market” has never fixed this, this requires regulations with teeth.
If we as a society leave "safety" to the producers, yes it is.
It's bizarre to see how new chemicals are basically "allowed because they are new" (maybe except in food additives), and the producers are expected to do inhouse undisclosed self-testing without being held to any standard.
im lost.
whats a plastic? silicone is not plastic?
why specifically black plastic? which black pigment? all black plastics use the same pigment?which plastic? is black silicone ok? how about rubber?
other colors with same flame retardant is ok? or somehow only black (all plastics?) use 1 particular flame retardant?
"This study sought to determine whether black plastic household products sold on the U.S. market contained emerging and phased-out FRs and whether polymer type was predictive of contamination."
and they do say its mostly abs, followed by hips , then pp; and do not say anything about other colors and other materials, plastic or not.
The correlation-causation in this article is really rather screwed up.
The way it really works for plastic is this: almost all bad plastic is black, but not all black plastic is bad. That's it.
There is nothing wrong whatsoever with virgin black plastics. (Well, at least, nothing more than is wrong with plastics in general.) So there is no reason to fear black plastic from reputable sources.
The trouble comes in when plastics get recycled. There may be sourcing issues for black resins, but the root of the matter is this: black plastics are typically pigmented with carbon black. Carbon black as a pigment is cheap, safe, and very effective. That's good! But that also means that when you throw together a pile of recycled sludge mix and it comes out beige, greige, or worse, you can't sell that (who would buy greige resin?? wait, don't answer that)... so you color it, cheaply... which means carbon black. So almost all random crappy recycled plastic resin ends up black. That's the real problem with black plastic.
This is correct. Sadly, this is also unhelpful. As long as you can't guarantee that the cooking utensil is from newly-made and clean black plastic from a reputable source, there is still risk. Think about a random convenience store item. OTOH e.g. a green or red utensil is free from that particular risk (unless a new investigation finds something for these types).
That is, a reputable source, e.g. an established cookware company, may proclaim that their existing black plastics are fine, safe for cookware, and have been tested. But a smart move for them would be to stop using black plastics for cookware, because a customer will just remember one highly reductionist association: "cookware + black plastic = poison". It's not always true, but it may sometimes be true, and that's enough.
Even if the particular research will be found lacking by new investigations and reproduction attempts, a lot of people will still remember this association for years, due to its shock value, simplicity, and trust to The Atlantic (which is generally a really good resource).
> because a customer will just remember one highly reductionist association: "cookware + black plastic = poison". It's not always true, but it may sometimes be true, and that's enough.
This and the fact that it's a high risk / low reward scenario.
> That is, a reputable source, e.g. an established cookware company, may proclaim that their existing black plastics are fine, safe for cookware, and have been tested.
Frankly, nobody should be so credulous as to trust what a consumer goods company claims. You just have to look up how often well trusted consumer goods companies get caught "accidentally" using slave labor.
The need is for a regulatory body like the EPA or FDA to step up and check that the claims are more than just that.
The issue here is that these plastics are super cheap and testing is expensive enough. I have absolutely no faith that a consumer goods company will follow through or continue to follow through without a monetary penalty. This is something that's just to easy to cut once headlines die down.
> So there is no reason to fear black plastic from reputable sources.
But how do you even judge that? My coffee machine is all black plastic. It has dozens of parts. The hot water runs by/over black plastic.
It's an expensive and reputable brand of coffee machine, but I have absolutely no illusions that some/most of the black plastic parts it contains are straight from different factories in China.
And I would be surprised if anybody QAs the chemical makeup of raw plastic input. As long as the parts mold correctly and hold up structurally, nobody would notice when the Chinese injection molder changes suppliers mid-batch.
> some/most of the black plastic parts it contains are straight from different factories in China.
Yes, they are.
> I would be surprised if anybody QAs the chemical makeup of raw plastic input. As long as the parts mold correctly and hold up structurally, nobody would notice when the Chinese injection molder changes suppliers mid-batch.
And yes, they do care. Critical parts (and food contact parts are always critical) usually specify a specific resin from a specific manufacturer on the procurement documentation. The major brands absolutely 100% audit this when they check in on their suppliers. And the major brands absolutely do check on their suppliers. (Many of them are even supplying the resin themselves, so they really care if it's getting diverted.) The factories are not incentivized to mess this up, because they know it's game over for their business with that brand (or even OEM/CM) if they screw up, so they instead get it right and just charge more. This is what you pay for when you buy name brand products.
And it's what you give up when you "save money" buying on AliExpress!
The recycled plastic may, indeed, be worse than "virgin", but any plastic melting in your food seems ill advised. I'm not a zealot refusing to drink out of a plastic cup, but spatulas see a lot more heat than most cookware. My wife and I noticed our plastic spatulas (including one from a well known "reputable" brand) showing signs of melting years ago, and into the trash they went. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
I don't think it's worth nit-picking in this case.
Everyone wants to reduce their plastic intake, but nobody wants to throw 80% in their kitchenware in the trash.
There's no obvious steps you can get people to follow to check if their spatula is one of the "good" ones, so tossing black plastic is a good concrete step to advise people to take.
Are you sure there's absolutely nothing wrong with virgin plastics? Maybe it'd be safer and simpler to just avoid plastic in e.g. cooking since the growing amount of research about effects of plastics doesn't seem very positive.
Maybe I'm having some kind of brain fart or mixed something up, but I thought "absolutely nothing" was a direct quote from them and no mention of plastics in general.
Is there a way to see if/how comment was edited?
I'll try to quote things more directly from now on...
Silicone rubber itself is much more inert than carbon-based polymers, but it could always contain undesirable additives. Hopefully such additives would not be used in food-contact products and silicone does not need at all some of the additives frequently used in plastic products, like flame retardants.
This said, the parent article recommends silicone utensils among the safer alternatives.
Ok, but why? It's a synthetic molded polymer, so I think it fits all the definitions that I can find.
Are we saying that plastics are bad and then redefining "plastic" as the subset of the previous classification which are bad? That's the kind of language trickery that duped us into making utensils out of an industrial waste product in the first place. If we're going to protect future generations from whatever harm comes after plastic we're going to need to stop being so vage.
What we commonly refer to as "plastics" are mainly chains of carbon atoms, whereas silicone is a chain of siloxanes instead.
Silicone is better for food preparation as it withstands heat better, has low toxicity (especially compared to additives used with plastic utensils), low reactivity, high resistance to oxygen, ozone and ultraviolet light, doesn't support microbes and repels water which is great for things like spatulas.
I would like to know if the plastic used in my Moccamaster is subject to these hazards. I bought it specifically because they claim to use food-grade quality plastic that is supposed to be safe.
Even if you don’t care about chemicals, plastic does in my experience absorb a lot of “burnt/old” coffee flavor, especially if it goes through rubber/plastic/silicone tubing.
I can recommend porcelain pour over and paper filters. I fill up around 1L in the morning with hot water from the boiler. It’s very boring and non-fancy, takes about as much time as a coffee maker (pouring is slower but cleaning is faster). Use a thermos if you want it hot for longer. Great flavor for non-snobs.
I just went through a whole thing trying to get rid of plastic from my coffee setup, since I make coffee almost every day (sometimes twice). I couldn't find any plastic-free drip coffee makers, other than maybe the Ratio 8. In the end, I settled for a Chemex and doing pour over, which I've actually really enjoyed. So I recommend that if the plastics are giving you pause, although I can imagine giving up your Moccamaster is a hard sell! How do you like it, by the way?
My problem with a pour over is how agonizingly slow it is, and it requires 3-4 refill interactions to actually make a decent “pot” of coffee even with the largest chemex they sell.
I timed it once and I can literally get in the car and drive somewhere and get home with a 32oz coffee faster than my chemex can produce the same amount.
I’d pay $3k or more for a coffee maker that
1) had water line hookup capability, or at least a large glass reservoir
2) integrated conical grinder
3) all stainless/glass internals/zero plastic
4) timer functionality
I want to wake up and get ready finding a perfect pot of coffee on my schedule, with the only manual work being to remove the previous grounds each day and periodic maintenance.
Just checked my Moccamaster and it says that it uses PET 7 plastic, which supposedly designates "other" resin. Not sure what that means if anything for food safety.
My Aeropress filter cap is the only remaining black plastic in my kitchen. The Aeropress is pretty much the only plastic that remains in my kitchen. I'd pay good money for a replacement cap made out of white nylon, PMMA, PEEK, etc.
I had no idea either. Thanks! When I first got my Aeropress, really hot water being forced through all dark-colored hard plastic had me concerned. Still does. But after getting the routine down it takes only three minutes and my daily coffee is so much better since I got it, I don't want coffee any other way anymore.
The glass one is most likely going on my Christmas list (even though that is sort of expensive for what it is)
The Aeropress is absolutely great, but I have the same reservations about putting 96c water through what's essentially a bunch of plastic. What I'm about to suggest is not a substitute, but there are solid glass/metal french press kits, and chemex/filtered glass/ceramic coffee setups which will make great drinks.
Once you have nailed the grinding process (with a single dose grinder for consistency, for example), the filtering parts of the procedure are 2 minutes.
Toxicological evidence takes a long time to acquire. By it's very nature it's a lagging indicator. Remember when everybody freaked out about BPAs? That's because good studies showed the accumulation of those compounds in the body, and the potential health issues it could drive.
And what about now that we have all these BPA free plastics? Most of them have replaced the BPA with other compounds. They haven't been studied, so there isn't evidence against them. But the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
Finally: what, in their long and storied history, has led you to believe that 3M, DuPont, or Eastman are acting in the best interest of your health? Because their incentive structure favors wealth creation, not population health.
Same. Cleaning up the hot water and coffee grounds slurry off the counter top or floor early in the morning is already a huge pain in my assholes, I don't want to add glass shards in the mix.
Or the thought of pressing too hard on a glass AeroPress, having it tip over and shatter, slicing through my arm. Would be the silliest way to go out.
Avoid plastic if you want to live long, whatever if it's cooking or drinking.
Now I know that yet I drink water exclusively from plastic bottle, because ground water is contaminated with pesticides here. So it's either micro plastic in the water or pesticide, choose your poison.
Because I don't use Teflon (plastic) covered pan, I need more oil to avoid food to stick to the pan. The oil comes in plastic bottle, category 1, that are known to transmit pollutants to liquids and especially oils because they're fat.
I choose to go with butter then, so I can avoid the plastic bottle. Every butter comes in a soft plastic coating that definitely doesn't look natural. Didn't search internet for it but pretty sure it is also plastic and it exchange pollutants with the butter.
Not even speaking about the cow milk used to make butter and it's different contaminants, mainly pesticide residues, metals, mycotoxins, hormones, and others reaching the cow through feeding or drug administration by producers.
My rant could go on forever, the point is that plastic and pollution is absolutely everywhere. You can at best mitigate it by being proactive and wealthy enough but it's still not enough.
Even if you buy good quality food from non pollutated area, you don't really know if it hasn't been tampered with. Findus sold beef lasagna that were made with Romanian rotten horse meat..
You’re falling down that slippery slope pretty fast there.
You can filter your tap water; there are various ways to do so. I’m sorry your water is contaminated. That’s awful.
I wouldn’t always assume the worst with the cows milk and butter. There is a wide range of product and conditions out there.
Certain kinds of plastics and applications are known to leach chemicals far worse than others. Frozen peas in plastic? It’s minimal. Food pouches for kids? Awful - it’s liquid that’s heated in the plastic to pasteurize it.
You can get olive oil in glass very easily. It’s usually the default. I order from the Napa valley olive oil company in bulk - glass jars with high quality oil that used to be excellent value. They’ve gone up in price but still decent value compared to the market.
But in what concentrations? Seems to require paying to access, couldn’t see the raw data. That’s not the only thing to worry about - other chemicals leach over time. Constantly putting olive oil in contact with plastic will just continue to concentrate it.
If you eat a lot of fruit (I guess not seeing your tastes), you almost don't need to drink extra water, or very few, and vegetable water is extra pure and super valuable. Trees should be so much protected, they're doing a hell of a job
I went through my drawers and I have a bunch of black nylon Joseph Joseph spatulas and fish slices and things [1]. ChatGPT tells me that nylon is not frequently recycled because it's tough to do so - so I'm hoping that these are safe. They also say:
> All of our food contact products comply with EU regulations which states that materials do not release their constituents into food at levels harmful to human health. [2]
and they aren't some no-name brand that wouldn't suffer from lying about that.
Anyone know if I should ditch this thing before thanksgiving? Oxo makes great stuff, this is food grade plastic but who knows what that’ll really mean in 50 years…
ALL my black plastic utensils are OXO and I'll be damned if I'm throwing them all out. They'll have to pry them from my room temperature dead carcinogenic fingers.
After I learned about the harmful effects of Teflon, I became much more cautious about consumption. It's nearly impossible to avoid the toxins when eating out because wax has been replaced with synthetics that leach into food from packaging.
Just use metal wood or glass. One thing I'm not aware of is if Pyrex or the other tempered glasses are safe or if they also contain plastic. That would be good to learn.
Will I actually see actual difference if I throw away all my cook ware and replace it with non-non-stick ones and wooden utensils?
What about pollutants in the air from car and industry exhaust? Is this cookware worse? Should we first consider moving somewhere else than worry about cookware?
What about just the ingredients you cook with? Is using teflon worse than buying highly processed foods? What about GMO vs non-GMO? What about grass fed/free range vs in-prison-meats? What about vegan vs meat?
What I am trying to say is that it is easy to point to something that is (or even might be) toxic and say that we should fix it, but we have to put things in context. You simply can not be afraid of everything. Like drinking out of plastic vs glass vs metal, I know people who swear that drinking from a plastic cup is about the worst thing you can do, but I have been doing it my whole life and at least aren't dead yet.
So let me ask you again. Its Friday. You have a rib eye, asparagus, and an old credit card on your plate. I’m sure you would not eat a credit card, and would think people were insane for doing so.
So why not try and avoid it if you can. Sure you can’t avoid everything but if you can avoid some things in your control why wouldn’t you?
Well, for one it does not say that. And if that was the case does most of it just pass through me or why isn’t there hundreds of credit cards worth of plastic in my body?
The argument is that you probably are doing way worse things health wise than using a teflon cookware or black plastic cooking utensils. This is just a scare click bait.
Heat is a transforming agent in nature, and time is the ultimate test. That's the context i think missed from your thesis.
Every single thing you mention, except for cooking, does not get exposed to fundamental transformation via heat, or if they have (such as ingredients), they have passed the test of time (nutrients).
Ingredients being heated has happened for millenia with fire wood and metal. This is why we care about what we cook and what we put into our bodies. Have we done this before for a long time? Was it safe for a long time? Time matters
I can't say the same about teflon, highly processed foods, etc.
TBH it might not matter in a normal life for the individual. But (as long as the claims have some truth too it) statistically, it definitely matters.
The "scares" are overwhelming only because you live in a society where things are (slightly) toxic by default, because those things are cheaper and can be engineered to barely pass safety standards.
We can and should change this situation. Hopefully not on the individual level, but at least public awareness is useful.
The "scares" are also overwhelming because some people are extreme in everything, for example the person who swears never to drink from a plastic cup. But it doesn't mean the opposite stance (i.e. drinking from plastic cups is good for you) is true. You can believe plastics are slightly bad for you without overreacting, and acknowledge that if it's feasible it's better to avoid them. Reacting emotionally to extremists isn't what a rational person would be doing.
There are many things to consider and it's up to each individual. It can become exhausting if you choose to continue to learn and grow, but if you don't ... what are you doing?
I don't think it's like that. These substances cause nasty forms of cancer and are easily avoidable. I don't understand the purpose of Teflon other than to poison people. It's really odd how people follow even when they admit they're killing themselves for no benefit. Other than to fit in.
Tempered glass does not contain plastic. No glass contains plastic. The formula to make glass has been known for centuries. Tempering is a thermal process, it doesn’t change the chemistry of the product. Old school pyrex involved the addition of Boron —- no hydrocarbons in the mix.
Regardless of the health concerns that arise from using Teflon, the industrial process used to produce it has caused significant issues that were covered in the documentary "The Devil We Know"[0].
Teflon itself is not the issue (unless it goes over about 260°C), but the PFAs which should have been phased out of modern non-stick coatings. The problem is if the surface is scratched from using metal utensils or scourers as this can cause PFAs to leach into the food.
It's not possible to fry in a safe range. The safe range is <500F. I use pans at a greater temperature than that for frying. Additionally, when the pans wear the surface degrades and becomes your food. This probably always occurs, but more when the products wear.
Also the vaporization of teflon is probably not a step function but a curve, and they set the safety range at some threshold. So in all likelihood you are inhaling who knows what at even the safe ranges.
I never use glass for cooking. I've had two Pyrex dishes explode on me. One was contained in an oven, thankfully, so that all that was lost was a week's worth of chicken. The other, unfortunately, shattered in the "kitchen" of my studio apartment, 5 feet from my bed. I had to spend the next hour using a flashlight to try to find and pick up the tiny shards that had flown everywhere.
A lot of vintage glass things including Pyrex contain high levels of lead. I need to look into it more, but it seems to be from paint or colors added, and clear glass items are likely fine.
I have some old glazed ceramic plates that I won't use any more. One of them developed a crack half way through and I noticed that, in the microwave, food on it would stay frozen but the plate would be blazing hot. The glaze was conductive with presumably lead and was absorbing all the energy. The crack created a slot that blocked eddy currents.
> One thing I'm not aware of is if Pyrex or the other tempered glasses are safe or if they also contain plastic.
They're glass. They don't contain this. In particular, oven-safe glass is supposed to be of the borosilicate variety... but about 20 years ago manufacturing was moved to China (haha!). They're not properly formulated or tempered anymore, and in many cases not oven safe. They tend to shatter with large temperature changes, spilling hot casseroles over people who aren't in the habit of having steaming hot casserole showers and then complain about those.
> Just use metal wood or glass.
I like those materials, but think of the damage you're doing to the CPI with your advice. How would we combat inflation if we weren't able to constantly substitute in cheaper packaging materials and so forth?
Personally, I just got afraid of ever buying takeout sushi, put a label on the black spatula and hope to use it for garage experiments but you do you...
The main problem here is that many people use non-stick cookware, and metal spatulas will scratch them up badly. Plastic or rubber spatulas don't do that.
Of course, you can say that they shouldn't use non-stick cookware, but they are, so...
Wood is an option, but look for solid wood, I don't trust these bamboo ones that are made from laminated / glued slats. Bamboo "wood" will be the next major thing I'm sure, sold as co2-neutral and biodegradeable, but soaked in glues / resins to make it useful.
I have a Japanese electric fry pan, non-stick. I use a bamboo spatula for it. It was not originally intended for the purpose, but I took a rasp and file to it to give it a sharp edge. I usually don't need the spatula. I flip things with chopsticks. I mean that's why you use a non-stick pan! If you have to peel the food off it with a spatula, what good is the non-stick surface? I mostly use the bamboo spatula for lifting things that are delicate, like sunny side up eggs.
Do you have any sources for wood cooking implements being unhygienic? I recall one a few years ago finding that wooden cutting boards are _more_ hygienic than plastic as they pull bacteria into their pores and trap and kill them: https://news.ncsu.edu/2014/09/cutting-boards-food-safety/
I don't think I've ever even seen a wooden spatula, and I don't see how you could make one thin enough to flip pancakes (or worse eggs) and it stay durable.
I use wooden spatulas, and gladly take the short-term biological risk over the long-term hormonal risk. In any case, in a modern kitchen where utensils are washed thoroughly and regularly I don't see an issue with wood.
It's a common thing in woodworking class at school. We have a spoon, butter knife and a cutting board made by our daughter. We also have a bunch of other wooden kitchen utencils since half the family works with wood on their free time... :-)
You can use a well made, smoothly polished metal one with round edges. Your eggs are not sticking to your non-stick pan, right? So you will never use any of the kind of force that will gouge the surface.
> you can say that they shouldn't use non-stick cookware
Using metal spatulas with non-stick is a big no due to the scratching. Ideally, you should throw away any non-stick cookware that gets a scratch on it.
I am still not convinced that scratched non-stick stuff is a real danger. As far as I know, the whole point of PTFE (what the coating normally is made of) is that it’s chemically mostly inert. I don’t know the mechanism by which eating PTFE flakes would be harmful. I’m not a chemist though so I would be grateful for corrections.
It's the perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) that's the issue. It's mainly been phased out of cookware now, so if it's less than 10 years old then you should be okay.
This particular article seems to be referring to brominated flame retardants (BFRs) -- there's a single reference to "PBDEs" in the text, and the original cited research paper [0] talks about various BFRs. The purported issue is with plastics recycling, where both new and old products may contain previously banned compounds.
For what it's worth, the simulated cooking experiments involved cutting up the utensils into small pieces, grinding those into a powder, then vigorously combined with hexane (the terms "vortexing" and "ultrasonication" are used), then subsequently combined with sulfuric acid, and dried. Small samples were then immersed in olive oil maintained at 160 Celsius for 15 minutes. (I may have misinterpreted this section, but it described the first step as "pre-treatment of samples")
It's perhaps interesting to note that the only sample listed as "new" in Table 1 with substantial levels of bromine was a thermos cup lid (180 μg/g), and only a small number of other items had detectable levels in the 3-10 μg/g range. Meanwhile, many samples purchased to 2011 had levels well over 100μg/g. That said, I also don't know how representative this study is in the context of, say, a thermos lid if you're not storing any liquids substantially above 100 C.
But wasn’t that only used in production? Some bouillon is also made by using hydrochloric acid, but it is neutralized and only NaCl remains. Isn’t it the same here? The PFOA is basically used as a precursor for PTFE and doesn’t remain in the product?
I'm also not a chemist, but the coatings used to contain significant quantities of PFOAs that get released into food etc. from scratches. There's also doubts about how PFOA-free the newer "non-toxic" pans actually are. Also, there's the issue of over-heating (more than 260°C) pans as that will release toxic gases that can be lethal to birds and cause "teflon flu" in humans.
The big "no" with non-stick is using steel wool scrubbers for cleaning. That and using sharp instruments like forks.
A nice, smoothly polished stainless steel spatula with round corners and a slightly convex edge shouldn't do anything to your non-stick pan.
You have to deliberately be trying to damage the non-stick surface with such a spatula to do any harm.
If the non-stick surface actually working, you shouldn't be using any force to scrape anything off. And there's margin for that.
I use one of those 5-in-1 painter's tools to remove grime from just about any surface without damaging it. I would cheerfully use it to take a dried paint splatter off a $100K Steinway. :)
This entire discussion points me towards a conclusion that metal-on-metal is the conservative way to go. So what is the problem with this as a solution ? Do we have to worry about microbits of metal disrupting physiology ?
Raw metal like cast iron is pretty terrible for red sauces due to tomato sauce acidity. You will get tremendous amount of iron oxide (rust) into the food to the point when you can taste it, with no idea if you don't cross safety thresholds.
Plus stickiness affects quite a few foods - eggs, pancakes, but also ie low burn simmer. There are cca inert linings like porcelain enamel on La creuset and similar, but in convenience its still subpar to non-stick and prices are high.
The whole point of why people go for non-stick is that you don't become a bit a slave to such an insignificant stuff like freakin' pans. Maintaining them, redoing the 'non-stick' surface... that's not direction we generally call quality of life, in fact it goes directly against it (have less things, free up yourself to have more time for yourself and our closest ones and not just continuously maintain gazillion stupid little or bigger things).
It is perfectly alright to cook tomato sauces in cast iron, especially a well-seasoned one which should defend against the acidity attacking the metal fairly well. Another way is to neutralise the acid with some sodium bicarbonate. Oh, and
> You will get tremendous amount of iron oxide (rust) into the food to the point when you can taste it
is generally not a problem. In fact, cereals are fortified directly by adding iron oxide—enough that if a magnet is run over it, it will pick up a substantial quantity of iron filings.
If you're especially concerned about your food tasting iron-y, a good substitute is stainless steel. Bring it up to 200°C, add in a small touch of high smoke point oil, add your proteins, and cook. No sticking.
All my cookware is metal including my spatulas, spoons, pots, and pans etc which are stainless steel, aluminium, or enamelled cast iron. Metal is infinitely more durable and flexible (in terms of where and how it can be used, not literal flexibility à la Young's modulus) than any silicone/plastic/non-stick cookware. You can pop a stainless steel pan directly from the stove into an industrial oven. You can put metal (even cast iron, really) in a dishwasher. You can violently scrub at any metal with steel wool and Cif/Gif to attack stubborn stains. The likelihood of something sticking to it is a small price to pay for the sheer peace of mind and flexibility.
Oh, final point. If scrubbing stuff off is such a pain, get a dishwasher.
I really disagree on the tomato sauce being okay in cast iron. Cooking high acidity food will absolutely strip all the seasoning off your pan if done for long enough. It has nothing to do with rust.
> Cooking high acidity food will absolutely strip all the seasoning off your pan if done for long enough
That statement doesn't seem compatible with the chemistry. The seasoning on a cast-iron is a (plastic) polymer that is fairly resistant to acid attack—especially the weak acids in food. It's why the strongest and most concentrated acids are stored in plastic and not glass beakers.
Try it. 60 minutes boiling tomatoes takes the seasoning right off. its recommended as a way to restart seasoning from nothing. vinegar is also an alternative.
I just started cooking in an iron pan, and I love it. It's actually not significantly more difficult to clean once you learn to leave the seasoning on and get over the cultural conditioning of what clean is essentially.
The cooking process it also far better, with the whole pan being uniformly hot and staying that way.
There are a lot of old misconceptions around about cast iron seasoning. It's a layer of bioplastic formed by the polymerization when heating a thin layer of oil on the pan to high temperature - It's not about leaving your pan dirty or 'flavored'. You can clean it with regular dish soap just fine, that isn't strong enough to take the layer off.
Yes, correct. I'll add, though, that this takes skill to develop. Even the soap just left on the sponge from washing other utensils is too much. So I'll often just foregoe the soap unless there is an egregious bit of food stuck on it - which is rare as the heat is so well distributed on cast iron that I don't burn food anymore using it.
The fear of using soap was real back 100 years ago when soap contained lye, which would destroy the seasoning on your pan. Today is this no longer true, so clean away!
No, that's not me. In any case, in our language we don't use the same word for the pan coating that we use for food flavouring. There is no smell on these pans! But yes, if people are treating their cookware as referenced in that page, then I understand why you are appalled.
You need to preheat the pan and not cook at a temperature where the oil polymerizes or the ingredients can burn. When you put something sticky in it, you need to wait a bit for the crust to form before moving it.
metal spatulas make scratches into the pan, which destroys any surface coating (so it goes into the food) or, if there is no coating, at least destroys the smooth surface which makes food stick even more.
maybe they have higher quality pans that are less easy to scratch, or they are learning how to use those tools without causing scratches, or they simply replace them more often.
in every pot or pan i have ever used, scratches were a problem. and only metal tools could have caused them.
Higher quality and generally made in free countries (https://www.restaurantsupply.com/saute-pans), versus the cheap stuff made in authoritarian countries with questionable coatings/materials that some consumers opt for. Vollrath stuff has always been good in my experience. Preventing sticking and scratching are mostly skill issues, but everybody burns something (during prep) every now and then. I never saw a new pan or a pan thrown away in any kitchen I worked in.
Counterpoint: this seems to be the crusade of a single researcher - I don't find the data personally convincing and am still using my black spatula for cooking.
https://www.threads.net/@gidmkhealthnerd/post/DBxbQERykRx?hl...
reply