PFOA from "Scotchgard" & "Stainmaster" products

"3M’s Original Scotchgard and PFOA: Scotchgard products made by 3M before the year 2001 break down into PFOA, among other chemicals, in the environment [Extract | Full Document]. The Environmental Protection Agency forced 3M to alter its Scotchgard formulation because chemicals in the product were found to be toxic and persistent in the environment and the human body. The public record contains little information on the new Scotchgard formula. 3M is using PFBS, a sister chemical to PFOS, as a replacement to PFOS based chemistry for some products [Full document]. PFBS does not break down. If 3M's replacement chemistry is based on telomer alcohols, it likely breaks down into PFOA as well."
(from: http://www.ewg.org/reports/pfcworld/part1.php)

(more at : http://www.ewg.org/reports/pfcworld/part3.php)

No mention of the health and environmental effects of production processes including PFOA?

I guess polluted waters and abhorrent birth defects are a worthwhile price to pay for non-stick convenience.
=== author's response follows ===
It is true that there are several sites where significant occupational and community exposures to PFOA, via groundwater, have been alleged. In that legal proceedings are underway in at least one of these cases, I thought it best to focus on the most widely considered aspect of PFOA exposure potential: consumer product use as referenced in the cited source - Consumer Reports.

This post makes me want to stop reading treehugger.com forever. Don't you do any independent thinking on the stuff you repost? While I generallly have a lot of respect for Consumer Reports, TEFLON has no business being promoted on this website in any way, shape or form.

DuPont paid one of the largest civil fines ever in conjunction with it's hiding toxicological information from EPA regarding PFOA for violating TSCA and it's mandate that industry must inform regulators about the substantial risk of injury to human
health or the environment that PFOA has been posing all this time.

Perhaps treehugger needs to consider going wikipedia like and allow some peer reviewing of the crap that gets posted here, because this article is crap and should be revisited, deleted or... something...

=== author's reponse follows ===
I stand by the post. Risk equals hazard times exposure. My post did not address hazard at all. I focused on exposure and only to the extent that I wanted to point out that cooking equipment is trivial exposure route for consumers. We need to focus on the high exposure mechanisms to control risk. Ask EPA and I am absolutely certain that they will agree with this point of view.

I understand that normal cooking conditions do not harm people or various pets, but what about small birds? Some common house pet birds, such as zebra finches and parakeets are extremely susceptible to fumes. Even small amounts of toxins are fatal to these pets.
=== authors' response follows ===
yes. As the surface of a teflon coated pan approaches 500F the fluoropolymer begins to denature, off-gassing fluoride gases that are highly toxic to birds. However, focusing on this hazard begs the question of why any cook is allowing any fry pan to get that hot. If you are doing "blackened' fish, you should be using a cast iron pan anyway because it has a much higher heat holding capacity to get the job done right. Moreover, the grease aerosols from hot frying in any pan are also dangerous for tweety bird.

So put him/her in a room far from the kitchen, have a proper exterior vent fan at the range top, turn down the heat, and use the right equipment for the job. You'll save energy by turning it down! Good for the climate as well.

"=== author's reponse follows ===
I stand by the post. Risk equals hazard times exposure. My post did not address hazard at all. I focused on exposure and only to the extent that I wanted to point out that cooking equipment is trivial exposure route for consumers. We need to focus on the high exposure mechanisms to control risk. Ask EPA and I am absolutely certain that they will agree with this point of view."

Well, sadly I don't disagree that the EPA, especially under this administration, would agree that risk = hazard * exposure. If you're going to rely on EPA, well, more power to you. However, you might consider "getting with the times." This old toxicology adage is, well, quaint. This equation doesn't work for endocrine disruptors, where there may be a an upside down U-shaped dose-response curve, where very high and very low exposures have no effect, but where just the right exposure can cause a serious effect. Even the Wall Street Journal has recognized this phenomenon where the dose doesn’t necessarily make the poison, but where’s treehugger on this issue? Defending PFOA.

Secondly, with such endocrine disruptors, say bisphenol-A, the timing of the exposure could be far more important than the dose, and extremely small doses of a chemical at critical times in prenatal development could have serious consequences for a fetus. Now, whether PFOA is a true endocrine disruptor in this sense might be subject to debate -- but when the results come out from the West Virginia cohort study and show that the risk factors point towards reproductive organs, I think it will lend support to what I've just said.

Third, teflon/PFOA is admittedly in carpets, outdoor technical clothing, coating on receipts you might get for your latte, the fabric on your car seats and sofa, the wrappers of fast food burgers, etc.,. Now, when the body burden of people in this country shows that 95% of us have PFOA in our blood, I see no reason to dismiss any exposure, no matter how negligible it might be.

Fourth, this deals with inhalation exposure, primarily as it relates the urban myth of pets dying from teflon pans. What about the fact that the same teflon coating we're talking about is wearing off into your food? Yummy.

Fifth, Consumer Reports was clearly talking about “newer” Teflon pans. What’s going to happen with those old Teflon pans?

Sixth, by down-playing the risk, even if the risk is overexaggerated, treehugger is basically condoning the production of Teflon coated pans. That’s absurd.

Finally, I started a post in the forums section about this topic, and I invite you to go debate me there if you'd like, because this is the most inane post I've ever read on treehugger. It is something that could've been bought and paid for by DuPont, and it's disgraceful to read something with this tone on treehugger.com

[In the interest of full disclosure, I am an environmental attorney that handles toxic exposure cases, but I am not directly involved in any litigation involving PFOA or Teflon, though I do handle cases where DuPont is a defendant.]

==== author's response follows ===
I agree fully with your statement that endocrine disruptors do not fit the traditional toxicology risk model. In fact, I would go beyond that to say that everything toxicologists are taught in their beginning courses is irrelevant to the understanding of endocrine disruption. Notably, DDT is an endocrine disruptor and only by banning it did avian reproduction slowly start to return to normal in the US.

However, "pointing in the direction" of reproductive organs does not equate to endocrine disruption necessarily. Until more is known, I suggest it's not very productive to second guess the future of an ongoing health effects investigation

As for swallowing bits of teflon on the odd times some is scratched off a pan surface (assuming the scratched off material is indeed integrated into the food instead of swept aside), that's a very tiny exposure of a near-biologically inert material that you suppose may contain some residual PFOA. If it did the amount of PFOA would probably be undetectable.

I'd worry much more about eating the melted bits that fall off the plastic spatula when one cooks with far too much heat.

I'd worry much much more about the formaldehyde produced and mercury emitted by the gas range! Yes, natural gas does contain mercury. Not that the gas company will want to admit to it. But go check the stack permit of a natural gas fired electrical generator plant sometime if you think I'm wrong.

And yes, I did guess that you might have a legal interest in the subject matter.

Finally, I refuse to accept your characterization that my post "defended PFOA". It did no such thing. The purpose of the post, as I have state twice, is to point out that the PFOA exposure potential via cooking is extremely small relative to other likely exposures.

If exposure is so low why does the majority of the population have PFOA in our bloodstreams? I think EPA estimates somewhere around 95% of the population.

Here is the not so pretty picture of Teflon...

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/05/teflon_is_forever-2.html

The problem I have with this type of article is this: who cares if the exposure rates are lower than what is deemed dangerous in labs? First of all - those tests are not always applicable to humans in real life situations, and second - it's a chemical that is not supposed to be in our bodies. I don't care at all what levels are safe. It does not belong in my body and I will not knowingly expose my family to it. I do realize that non stick pans are probably not the main source of the PFOA that has been found in people. I don't care. I try to avoid ANY exposure to things like this and I think that helping me do that is the direction treehugger should take. I agree with everyone else that it is irresponsible to post this type of article, at least without discussing safer alternatives. Maybe a better article would have been something about how prevalent this chemical is and how to avoid it.

The "new-car smell" flavor from non-stick cookware tells me all I need to know. Gag.

Plus, when it wears out, which it will, it becomes landfill. Cast iron, stainless steel, copper: I have used the same set for over 20 years, and they have many centuries left in them. My cast iron muffin pan is already over 100 years old, and it looks and functions like new. The one non-stick pan I owned was a cast iron Le Creuset, when the Teflon gave out, the rest of pan was still as good as new, but totally worthless. Safe or not, this is not an acceptable product.

P.S. Butter is non-stick, delicious and, oh my goodness, nutritious. Afraid of butter? Try coconut, olive or rice bran oil. Heck, try any oil that strikes your fancy and start enjoying flavor.

==== author's response follows ====
As a dedicated cook I agree with most of what you say here! FYI the smell is likely from the anti-oxidant grease coating on the bottom of the pan and from the handle if it is plastic.

Mfee, you are the start of a long path to ignorance and self righteousness.

Since you have not been able to point out any facts of his that are incorrect, lets assume that it is 100% correct for the time being.

Should he have lied about the information he was processing to make TELFON look worse? A person like you im sure would be happy. Sling mud at the company EVEN if it isn't deserved.... You seem to fail to see or comprehend the idea of scientific ethics. As the author pointed out this is a limited discussion of the topic, and by no means comprehensive. It was addressing a SINGLE MYTH.

Trying to pretend that the author was in some way paid or bribed to write this article honestly goes far beyond absurd. Stir on this friend: Who would believe an article you write on the issue? not all of us have issues/agendas we try to push at all times in all manners. I have a feeling you might say something along the lines of "give the company an inch of slack and they win the war....." You are what polarizes are country, and destroys honest debate.

Coming from that point of view you are, i can only say i am extremely glad you are in the law sector, not science.

I am writing this article because I visited today the websites of green-pan.com and thermolon.com.
I found them through an article I read on forbes.com.

I must admit that I didn't know a lot about PTFE and PFOA etc. But I started reading, and I must say, I was shocked by the number of articles that I found.

I think everybody agrees that PFOA is not a very healthy chemical. The EPA states that it is a "likely carcinogen" and that it IS a carcinogen for lab-animals. I agree with the statements that are made in the previous posts: even if the % of PFOA in our vains due to cookware is only very small, it just does not belong there. Saying that we have to ban PFOA, means we have to ban it everywhere. Every small step is one for improvement.
The Washington Post published on May 1, 2007 an article about unborn babies in maryland. Out of 300 tested babies in the mother's womb, ALL 300 had already PFOA in their blood. We simply cannot accept this!!

A second thing that i would like to mention is the overheating of PTFE. Actually I didn't know I could not overheat my non-stick cookware above 500°F. Probably my fault as I didn't read the small capitals in the Care and Use instruction. BUT! Now I know. but what can I do about it????? I don't cook with a thermometer in my hand... Do you??? i was even more shocked when I saw the video on Dupont's website "how to use safely my cookware". They simply state that I have to open a window before start too cook and remove birds out of my kitchen !!!

To come back on Greenpan and Thermolon.
The whole discussion on PTFE, PFOA, fumes, etc... I don't know the impact on everything. What I do know is that this new technology "thermolon" gives on their website quite strong statements:
they dont use PTFE, nor PFOA
you can heat your pan up to at least 850°F
they save energy in the application...
and the product is perfect non-stick

If all of this is true of course (I couldn't buy the product yet), it seems like the Teflon alternative is born.

I have the impression that in the past nobody wanted to give up the ease of use of non-stick products. Cookware brands used it, shops sold them, consumers liked the low fat cooking and the easy clean. So what was the problem? A little bit unhealthy and a little bit wrong for the environment? What the heck, the product is nice to use. I have to admit, I was one of them.
Just by going through their website of GreenPan, they convinced me. I am sure that (and again, if their claims are true) they will be the right choice for the kitchen of tomorrow (and for my kitchen for sure).

is there anybody who actually tested them? If so, please feedback. Thanks.

We have to be very clear. I have the impression that especially PTFE manufacturers are trying to get away and are minimizing the real issues here:

This study claims that "environmental groups agree that the amounts of PFOA emitted by nonstick cookware probably don’t contribute much to your total PFOA exposure".
Waw, now I feel comfortable! I don't eat PFOA.

On the other hand the study also claims that the manufacture of products does emit PFOA. Meyer says clearly on their website that the coating contains PFOA, but that is is removed from the product during application.
And this is the point: PFOA is removed (or is supposed to be) and flows to the groundwater.
And yes, this is what we drink...

Conclusion: Asbestos was also removed from our daily life. And as far as I remember no study ever claimed that there was no problem because we didn't eat it... I rest my case.

Is PFOA a synthetic toxin? - YES.
Is PFOA a 'likely' carcinogen? - YES.
Is PFOA used to manufacture Teflon? - YES.

So why are we even talking about the damned stuff?
If Dupont have kindly 'agreed' to stop using it by 2015, why not now?

Finally, if as Zoe tells us, there is a safe alternative in Thermolon, why don't we simply encourage people to use that instead?
If this Greenpan/Thermolon stuff works then we should ensure it's the death of Teflon.

===== author's response follows ====

Teflon for cookware consumes only a tiny portion of the volume of PFOA and related materials made each year. Ban teflon cookware now and you'd make no difference whatsoever in the human exposure potential.

If all fluoropolymers that require PFOA like materials for manufacture were banned today, you'd be eliminating most of the promising lithium battery technologies, most fuel cell membranes, a great deal of the aerospace technology needed for military and civilian applications, essential parts of hand held electronic devices of every make and design, and much much more.

That's why.

So we plebs have to just put up with a carconogen so the chemical industry doesn't have the incovenience or cost of finding something safer.
If this Thermolon can be discovered, then why not others?
It's quite a sad day when the polluters get a mouthpiece on Treehugger...

=== author's response follows ===
From the very limited information I have been able to see, it looks possible (this needs corroboration) that Thermalon uses a fluorinated siloxane-based cook surface coating to achieve non-stick properties, with no significant PFOA left in the resulting cooking surface.

We at TreeHugger don't perform life cycle risk management reviews; and we have very little information on the properties of the new coating. So, until more published information becomes available on this new coating, you'll have to reach your own conclusions as to whether Thermalon represents an improvement in all respects.

The purpose of the original post was to point out the very limited PFOA exposure venues associated with cookware. My reasoning was and is that by distracting ourselves with the non-issue of PFOA in cookware we may be ignoring the more significant human exposures to PFOA, of which there are certainly several. (Again, TreeHugger does not do investigative reporting based on expensive sampling so we must leave it to others to identify those applications by name.)

=== author's response follows ===
From the very limited information I have been able to see, it looks possible (this needs corroboration) that Thermalon uses a fluorinated siloxane-based cook surface coating to achieve non-stick properties, with no significant PFOA left in the resulting cooking surface.

You are wrong!
I’ve just visited the Thermolon website and read their technical documents.
In them, it states Thermolon ‘does not use any PTFE or PFOA in its manufacture.’

It is not, as you speculate, ‘fluorinated siloxane-based‘. According to the document, it is ‘a polymer hybrid nanocomposite’.

I suggest that when faced with something new, you do not guess at what ‘looks possible’ to you, but instead, think it possible that there are scientists capable of original thought when not constrained by the commercial dictates of the big chemical companies.

=== author's second response ===
Leslie , we can be friendly and learn from each other.

I read the third party certificate prepared for Thermalon which stated that no significant PFOA was measured in the cookware. Maybe I missed the statement that no PFOA was even used. Apologize if that was the case.

As for the "polymer hybrid nanocomposite," that term does not tell me much about the actual nature of the material. It is marketing talk.

A 'nanomaterial' is an ordinary material uniformly pulverized or condensed into very small pieces. Nano materials exist in nature, in very small quantity. What makes any nanomaterial unique as a commercial material is the uniform size distribution: its nearly all smaller than would be commonly found. Even sand on the beach has a bit of nanomaterial in it.

Combining a nanomaterial such as a fluorosilicate with an organic polymer chain that likes to stick to metal would allow for it to be described as a "polymer hybrid nanocomposite’ But again, we are left to wonder what the coating really is.

No doubt the details are regarded as a trade secret. That puts us right back to where I felt we began: knowing next to nothing about exposure risks, if there are any.

Regarding your second 'Authors response'.
I find it odd you admit that Thermolons manufacturing methods are bound to be a trade secret but you still continue to speculate with wild guesses. The fact is, you are just shooting in the dark.

I'm no chemist, so I decided to contact Thermolon to enquire about your speculative ideas.
Within minutes I had a reply from Dr Phillips, the CEO of Thermolon, who said this:
''PFOA is not used at any stage in the manufacture and, therefore, there is none in the final product either.''
Dr Phillips also informed me that ''Thermolon is stable even when heated to over 1000°C. Had the 'Authors' theory about Thermolon comprising a hybrid of organic polymer “to help the coating stick” been correct then there would be serious thermal decomposition of carbon compounds.''
He seemed to find your theorising very amusing and advised you to ''keep trying.''

I would like to be friends but, I must admit, I find your dogged defence of the old, polluting technology mystifying.

I would appreciate information regarding the aluminum content of the Termolon cookware. Cooking on aluminum concerns me.

Thank you in advance.

I bought a set of Greenpan Thermolon pans and returned them after a few weeks. This non-stick coating does NOT pass the test of time. It performs very well at first but very quickly deteriorates. My pans were worthless within 3 weeks. :( These were seasoned as directed, never washed in the dishwasher and no hard utensils were ever used on them.

Look at all that went into this debate on if this Thermolon is bad or good, yet (though I haven't fullly researched it) I haven't found any discussions as to if this stuff is so good why are they selling it to us as a pan, and not applying it to all the stuff that makes the world work to make it more efficient. If they can make it stick to a pan (I can cook stuff on a hot rock heated by the sun.) why can't they make it stick to the spining shaft of a motor to reduce friction and increse efficiency. Or to the inside of the steam pipe at the power plants that might make them more efficient. Not too many people think about that (at least I haven't found very many.) They seem to be too busy being greedy, lazy and selfish to do any thing about it. I say stop fighting and argueing and start doing something about it.(this may apply more to people who don't read this sight) Stop buying all this crap they keep trying to convince us is so great at least in a nonproductive form such as a pan. Who knows there might be an invention worth some money here.

Me thinks you complain too much... just read the original article verbatim... they are only pointing out that the marketing hype has all of you confused... I agree with the author -- their only point was that cooking as described by the GreenPan advertisements is mostly hype and would have minimal effect on your health and welfare -- your pocketbook may be a different story..

By the way drinking water will kill you just as quick (or quicker as a radio contest found out)... I do own a set of GreenPans -- they are great pans, but I'll still eat of a teflon pan as well... (my real preference are the old cast iron but my wife hates them and threw them out long ago...)

So cook up and enjoy... the food you eat will probably kill you sooner anyway...