There have been concerns that non-stick products give you cancer or cause other health concern…it has been raised in this post…
What do you think? Please provide supporting information to your claims.
1 Like
The Phillips Premium All in One (pressure cooker, slow cooker, multi cooker) comes with both a non-stick pot and a 304 stainless steel pot 
And like all good quality non-stick products made after 2013, the non-stick is a PFOA-free coating made by Whitford (owned by PPG)
1 Like
In relation to non-stick coatings and cancer, the American Cancer Society has useful independent and factual information on their website…
The website addresses risks exposure associated with PFOA (and PFOS/PTFE).
While such chemicals may have in the past been used in production of non-stick surfaces, they are not present in the final product. It is like cyanide being used in gold production, but does not exist in gold products such as jewelry one wears on or in one’s body.
It also addresses the non-stick cancer relationship and concludes…
Other than the possible risk of flu-like symptoms from breathing in fumes from an overheated Teflon-coated pan, there are no proven risks to humans from using cookware coated with Teflon (or other non-stick surfaces). While PFOA was used in the past in the US in making Teflon, it is not present (or is present in extremely small amounts) in Teflon-coated products.
It appears that non-stick products causing cancer falls into the realms of a internet myth.
If you have any scientific research that proves otherwise, please provide details and also advise the American Cancer Society and government agencies as they appear to be unaware of such research.
2 Likes
Oh really? I bought the breville fastslow pro on the basis of the choice coverage of fast slow cookers nearly a year ago, and every one had non stick…as well I bought the best. I was stupid as it only dawned on me after purchase and too late to return…it sits in packing box…that it was non stick. I have an instant pot and perfectly happy now. Choice was unconcerned re issues of linings. Almost all cookware as well is non stick in Aus and imported. Goes into landfill. As well not overly impressed by Phillips brand.
And the careful commercial phrasing re non stick since 2013, there is a strong body of thought that the coatings AFTER the Teflon debacle are worse, NO THANKS and sadly your tone of commercial pushing has the effect of me being even more repelled by that company.
Which coatings are those? What is the problem with them?
1 Like
The metal (aluminum, stainless steel, steel etc) which the non-stick surface is applied can be recycled and transformed into new products. If individuals recycle their products at end of life…which is best for the environment, then it doesn’t go into landfill.
Environmental, there is little issue with landfilling non-stick coated products, however being a plastic, it will remain in the landfill for thousands of years.
2 Likes
All metal and coated cookware is carcinogenic, some more than others
Using glass cookware when you can is the only way to go
I would be very interested to learn how you come to that conclusion. The question seems to have rather extensive public health implications as the great majority of cookware is metal of some sort.
I am also interested in what kind of non-metal cookware you put on your stove and how well that works on the stove you use.
4 Likes
The sun is carcinogenic…And it causes far more cancer and death related to cancer than non-stick cookware. Dihydrogen monoxide is also the most deadly chemical on the planet, directly implicated in more deaths than any other single substance… the first question I ask someone who tries to tell me that something is carcinogenic (especially when I know that evidence says it isnt) is - do you drink water???
Actually, non-stick cookware, which requires less usage of fats and oils and also lower temperatures in cooking could potentially have a positive effect on lowering cancer rates from the carcinogenic effects of heating certain fats and oils.
5 Likes
Maybe the confusion started, with regard to cancers originating from the making of Teflon, which was shown in the movie “Dark Waters - 2019”, where it has been shown & proven that in its process & making of Teflon, by DuPont De Nemours, and then its callus dumping & handling of their waste products, in local environments, which caused many individuals to form 5 different types of Cancers.
Haven’t come across a reliable & independent research paper to then vet the safety of finished coated products.
I presume you are thus sceptical of the link @phb posted to the American Cancer Society that reference authoritative agencies and organisations that do such studies.
If you do not trust peak bodies, who do you trust to provide independent, quality, unbiased (such as any can be) information? With that perhaps we can find one you find trustworthy.
2 Likes
I wouldn’t be relying on a Hollywood movie for factual information. Dark Waters ‘dramatizes Robert Bilott’s case against the chemical manufacturing corporation DuPont after they contaminated a town with unregulated chemicals.’
This movie is also not about whether non-stick products cause cancer, but an individuals fight against DuPont where it was alleged that chemicals (inc. PFOA) used to manufacture DuPont products, including Teflon, were released into the environment.
As indicated above, while PFOA may have been used in the manufacture of non-stick products, the American Cancer Society has indicated that this group of chemicals is not present in the final product.
Thinking that non-stick products contain PFOA, is incorrect and can lead to a misunderstanding of the risks of non-stick products.
3 Likes
I can see from your reply that you are easily misled by Marketing & Sales. Unless you are trying to prop up the so called reference authoritative agencies? Unless you conduct the relevant tests yourself and by adding known additional quantities as a recovery indicator, you’ll never be 100% assured of the results being presented are actually true. This is a pity of course, but too many Test Reports are produced to satisfy & further the narrative of vested interested parties. I’ve witnessed this first hand many times and from so called reputable agencies … so yes I am sceptical … sorry…!!
We can disagree on my being mislead, easily or otherwise.
I trust ‘something’ while testing facts and questioning and dismissing conspiracies.
I thus presume you have a lab and the expertise to use it to form your own valid opinions then?
I am one who goes with the best available information, especially when it is consensus. No need to be sorry for scepticism, but no need to disparage different views, either.
5 Likes
That happens. It is why reputable sources go for peer reviewed studies and actually want their own work to be criticised to make sure they have not made any errors. Just because some studies carried out by vested interest are biased does not mean all studies are biased.
Whether DuPont may or may not have misbehaved at some point in the history of teflon production does not lead to the conclusion that non-stick products give you cancer. The connection is not a logical one for several reasons - including that many non-stick coatings do not involve teflon or PFOA.
Despite the prevalence of magical thinking, preference for feel good over fact and very powerful people who deliver amazing statements like ‘What I feel is better than what I think’ it is possible to get real facts in this age. Relevant authorities in the public health domain do say valuable and accurate things which are a good guide to the best current information about what you should ingest or not. They do not need any propping up.
Scepticism is a fine attitude provided it is based on evidence and not on conspiracy theories. There are too many speakers who proudly declare their credentials as sceptics who are as biased, or more biased, than those they criticise - they have just drunk a different flavour of kool aid.
4 Likes
This 50 minute Washington Post discussion ‘Dark Waters: A Conversation with Mark Ruffalo, Rob Bilott & Emily Donovan’ available on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgKdn_FPR_k makes clear Dark Waters is more than a Hollywood corporate crime thriller inspired by true events. It is a passionate expose and call for protection from untested and sometimes unregulated toxic chemicals.
“The chemicals being discussed were PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), a class of 5,000 synthetic chemicals. They are also known as “forever chemicals” because of their tendency to persist in our bodies and in the environment for unknown lengths of time” https://saferchemicals.org/2019/12/02/protecting-communities-from-forever-chemicals-anybody-can-do-this/.
This website claims:
- Food : PFAS can build up in crops, fish, and livestock, ultimately contaminating the food we eat. In addition, when PFAS are used in food packaging, such as sandwich wrappers and takeout container (https://saferchemicals.org/newsroom/new-study-finds-nonstick-pfas-chemicals-in-takeout-packaging-at-top-grocery-stores/), they can migrate to our food.
- Indoor air and dust : When PFAS are used in products such as stain-proofing for furniture and carpets or waterproofing for clothing, these items become “PFAS factories,” releasing the chemicals over time into air and dust.
- Home and workplace products : PFAS use in cleaners, personal care products, and specialty products such as ski wax can lead to direct exposure from product use".
A 2015 ABC News article ‘US lawsuit making waves in Australia as communities deal with toxic water contamination’ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-02/us-lawsuit-may-impact-australian-communities-with-contamination/6821674 says C8/PFOA (a PFAS) has been a component in firefighting foam used for decades in Australia, where it has also leaked into ground water.
