[Nicko]

Recently I had a discussion with a nutritionist who asked me what I recommend in terms of healthy cookware. She proceeded to go through all the different types of cookware such as Teflon, copper tin lined, stainless steel, etc, and describe what was wrong with each. After she was done there was not one type that was healthy in the sense that they all impart un-healthy components to the food. For instance Teflon is very bad for you especially if it starts to flake off after it has been used for awhile. We finally agreed that clay is great, but not the most practical. She also wanted to know if there was any type of glass cookware of which I was un-sure.

Love to get some feedback from everyone on this.

------------------
Thanks,

Nicko
ChefTalk Cafe Administrator
nicko@cheftalk.com
www.cheftalk.com "A food lover's link to professional chefs!"

[Greg]

Nicko, what were the detractors for stainless and anodized aluminum cookware?

I think the healthiest things for cooks to wear is made out of cotton.

[momoreg]

Pyrex is good for the oven, but I don't think they make any glass that can be used over an open flame.

I'm curious: Other than its potential to rust, what is hazardous about cast iron? I understand that it's great to use if you have an iron deficiency.

I was just thinking the same thing: cast iron cooks better, is almost as good as teflon and should not deteriorate if it is well seasoned. Tried and true.

[Nicko]

Interestingly enough, the first words out my mouth to my friend were "what about cast iron". She replied that cast iron imparts too much iron of which I am not so sure. My concern with cast iron would be if it is not cleaned properly and there are small particles of rust etc that get into the food.

------------------
Thanks,

Nicko
ChefTalk Cafe Administrator
nicko@cheftalk.com
www.cheftalk.com "A food lover's link to professional chefs!"

Good one, Greg, ROTFLMAO!

Like a lot (I think) of the people who enjoy this board, I'm not a professional chef - but I have been a professional ecotoxicologist (ecological tox rather than human, but most of the concepts are similar) for the last 30 years or so. I hate to disagree with Nicko's nutritionist friend, but I just don't buy it. Obviously just about anything can be "harmful" in excess, even oxygen and water (even wine ), but just because something CAN be harmful doesn't mean that it actually IS in the amounts we normally consume.

For example, as we all know, the body uses and needs iron and (as is the case for most chemicals that are used in large amounts) is very well equipped to deal with reasonable amounts of excess iron. I have no data in front of me, but I flatly reject the claim that cooking in cast iron can possibly result in the ingestion of iron in amounts that are anywhere near harmful (indeed, I've also heard that the small amount of additional iron is actually beneficial). Nicko, if your nutritionist has a technical journal reference (peer-reviewed only, please - no "gray" literature), I'll be happy to take a look at it and will report back.

Similarly, in a quick search of some of the available technical literature on polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE, better known as Teflon), I was unable to find any indication that ingestion of Teflon is hazardous. Apparently there is a large body of literature that burning Teflon can produce fumes (not fumes of Teflon, but rather a combustion product) that are particularly toxic to birds, and I found one study that was able to demonstrate toxicity to mice (again, by actually burning the Teflon). But nothing regarding ingestion. In fact, the Material Safety Data Sheet (information that all manufacturers of chemicals are required to provide to users and the public) for Teflon specifically says that there is no toxicity to humans from ingestion and that the material is "biologically inert". Again, I'd be happy to take a look at any technical literature to the contrary, if someone can provide a reference.

As we all should know by now, the aluminum and Alzheimer's connection has been discredited, if not actually disproven, though I suppose it's still possible to come up with some lousy (though not necessarily hazardous) results if you use aluminum pots for the wrong foods.

Then there's always Corningware, which can be used on stovetop and is a glass or glasslike product that I'm sure is also perfectly safe. It has lousy heat conducting properties, so I don't actually recommend using it except in the oven, but just want to point out that it's a stovetop-safe glass material that's available for the nervous nellies out there.

And we all know about the unlined copper thing, but that's a special case.

Sorry to drone on so long, but this sort of environmental/health scaremongering seems to strike a sensitive nerve in me. I've spent too much of my life dealing with tons of actual data, I guess, and I tend to go off a bit when people advance opinions based on no more than heresay or, at best, on misinterpretation of the available information.

There, I feel better now.

[Mezzaluna]

Bravo, Dick. Moderation in all things! (Okay, maybe not chocolate.... or caviar.... or really good St. Emilion.. )

[Nicko]

Dick I am total aggreement with you and I kind of felt that the idea of healthy cookwear was a little over board in terms of keeping things healthy. If anything the cookwear that is available today is so much more advanced that I don't really feel it is a huge issue. Besides you can beat the flavor you get from a great cast iron pan.

All who agree with the last statement can I get a "hear hear"!


------------------
Thanks,

Nicko
ChefTalk Cafe Administrator
nicko@cheftalk.com
www.cheftalk.com "A food lover's link to professional chefs!"

Hear, hear!
Dick,
I'm digging it! You're hot!

Hear, hear.

Dick:

I'm glad you were able to get that off your chest. I am sure you will feel much better now.

Nice job Dick, I'm glad you've joined our group.HEAR! HEAR!

[Pete]

WAY TO GO DICK!!!!! I really hate this type of scaremongering also. There are so many things out there that are bad for bodies, so they say, I'm surprized that no one has told us to stop breathing because of all the nasty things in the air!!!!

Foodnfoto -

Thanks for the kind words. I'm happy to share a few thoughts about irradiated food, but first let me say that there is a bit of a technical gulf between those who work with
the effects of hazardous chemicals, like myself (most of my work has involved PCBs and PAHs) and those who work with the various forms of ionizing radiation. There are comparatively few people who have expertise in both areas, and I am not one of them. So, I'm speaking primarily as a (perhaps) somewhat more educated and informed layman, not an expert.

The limited reading I've done in this area leads me to tentatively conclude that the risks from irradiated food, if they are real, are likely small. I think even the most ardent critics of irradiated food now recognize that there is no issue of lingering radioactivity, though this important point may be lost on much of the general public who have been made to (falsely and unreasonably, in my opinion) fear radioactivity and all its forms. The "real" issue (they claim) appears to be one of irradiated food potentially containing "unnatural" chemicals due to larger molecules being split by the radiation into daughter products that do not occur in nature and that these daughter products are carcinogenic. Without getting into all the details, which I am not conversant with in any case, I find this argument unconvincing and there appears to be considerable evidence in the technical literature that it is false. It is very difficult, if not impossible, however to prove a negative, so this is particularly fertile ground for pseudoscience and charlatanism.

I am also concerned that many of the groups that are most vocal in their opposition to irradiated food seem to have an "agenda" that is not likely to be changed by any facts to the contrary. In other words, they start with the answer and then go looking for evidence to prove it, which is 180 degrees away from what science is all about. Doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong, of course, but as they say a bell should to off in your head when you see that sort of thing.

I fear I've gone on too long again. But I think this is a great topic, by the way, and I'd like to learn more along with everyone else - so if there are some bona fide experts lurking around out there let's hear from them.

Hey Dick.....
What do you know about genetically altered food. Recently I read an article by a senator (if I recall, it was Kent) who was lobbying for widening the markets of these kinds of foods. On the other hand, there are huge protests throughout Europe. Bring us all up to speed.

Should we start an "Ask Dick" area of cheftalk? Maybe he should moderate the nutrition forum