or Connect
ChefTalk.com › ChefTalk Cooking Forums › Cooking Discussions › Food & Cooking › Teflon and non stick surfaces.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Teflon and non stick surfaces.

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 
We often have questions on here re .which is better non stick surface or regular.Here is a health fact from Consumers Report this monthes edition.
Flaking of surface in some pans and grills could accelerate emissions of perfluoroocatonoic acid. That chemical can cause cancer and birth defects in animals and might pose similar risk to humans.. Whats more your food is more likely to stick and burn. When you cook with non stick have plenty of ventelation and do not cook over high heat. Yes I know it says MIGHT, but why chance it.:lol::lol:
CHEFED
Reply
CHEFED
Reply
post #2 of 14
I've also heard that no one at Consumer Reports uses the sidewalk in cities or around tall building because a piano might just fall on them.

actual real science from them there paid off people in the government - oh, and also them there paid off people in industry - has shown there are no detectable levels of PFOA remaining in PFTE coated devices.

of course, one's own conspiracy mileage may vary.
post #3 of 14
Thread Starter 
Some people dont use sidewalks, and nothing fell on their heads. And if you believe government thats your headache:D:lol:
CHEFED
Reply
CHEFED
Reply
post #4 of 14
the problem is Ed, "they" have bought off every government and every lab that does anything. not just the USA - UK, Germany, Japan, France and Australia have all done research on whether or not PFTE cook ware has the PFOA problem, they've all come to the same basic conclusion.

now, I grant you: if you stand on the corner with a sign "The World Is Coming To An End" - you will, sooner or later, be right. you may not be alive, but you can always say "See, I told you so."
post #5 of 14
Thread Starter 
I really believe in Consumer Reports, Haveing purchased many things that they do recommend always paid off for me. I do not feel they can be bought off. Many companies have tried to solicit their recomendation but were turned down. As far as government testing, yes they can be bought off. An example would be how Canada paid off our USDA to Test? :lol: Cannola Oil. Millions of dollars were paid under the guise of testing for our govenments good words. (as far as I am concerned the stuff should only be used in insecticides). BUT ALAS such is life, all based on dollars and cents.:mad:
CHEFED
Reply
CHEFED
Reply
post #6 of 14
News to me, Ed. What's wrong with canola oil?
post #7 of 14
Has anyone seen a "canola seed"? There is no such thing.
"The pressure's on...let's cook something!"
 
Reply
"The pressure's on...let's cook something!"
 
Reply
post #8 of 14
"Has anyone seen a "canola seed"? There is no such thing. "

Really? That's interesting, I was under the impression that "canola" was a strain of rapeseed and that the name "Canola" was created to avoid problems with trying to market "rapeseed oil".

If I remember correctly, though "bred" for specific characteristics by normal plant breeding practices, I do not believe there is any "genetic modification" in Canola's geneology.
Chef,
Specialties: MasterCook/RecipeFox; Culinary logistics; Personal Chef; Small restaurant owner; Caterer
Reply
Chef,
Specialties: MasterCook/RecipeFox; Culinary logistics; Personal Chef; Small restaurant owner; Caterer
Reply
post #9 of 14
According to this Wikipedia article, which may or may not be accurate, "canola" is indeed a strain of rapeseed, so named as a sort of acronym: CANadian Oil Low Acid. However, apparently the great majority of Canadian (and US and Australian) canola is now genetically modified.

There was apparently an email circulated which stated that canola oil has serious health risks, but it's thought to be a hoax and is apparently unsubstantiated.
post #10 of 14
Thread Starter 
There are sight on the web re. this . But to be brief canada or the original cannola was used extensifly for makeing insecticides. Before being Genetically altered it is considered a poison. The Canadian government after experimenting and altering it paid our usda to TEST it and finally granting them permission to ship it to the US. This is what I have read over the past few yeas. Again I dont trust either our USDA or FDA:D
CHEFED
Reply
CHEFED
Reply
post #11 of 14
Which is a statement of opinion, not fact.

It would be nice to have some other independent testing groups such as UL and CR for food additives and safety to help on these matters. On the other hand, CR has it's biases against high ground clearance SUVs.

Lots of vegetable oils are not safe for human consumption. Rapeseed has a long industrial history and you'll find other interesting health issues about rapeseed oil such as the famed Lorenzo's oil was originally from rapeseed.

There are a great many varieties of rapeseed. Some few good for human consumption and many that are not. A blanket dismissal of the canola varietal is not supported by the evidence I've seen.

In my book (opinion again), canola oil is fine. There are other oils I like better but when I need an inexpensive bulk oil for deep frying, canola is my preference.
Palace of the Brine -- "I hear the droning in the shrine of the sea monkeys." Saltair
Reply
Palace of the Brine -- "I hear the droning in the shrine of the sea monkeys." Saltair
Reply
post #12 of 14
Well, that's also true of potatoes. Or so I read somewhere... not that this has anything to do with the discussion at hand - sorry.
post #13 of 14
I don't think Consumer Reports was "bought off" to publish PFOA dangers in teflon pans - them being bought off is entirely contradictory to your post.

my statement is simply that multiple government and private labs around the world have investigated the claims and all scientific research - which does not include kooks reading periodic table tarot cards - have come to the conclusion PFOA is not detectable post manufacturing. this does not support or advise PFOA is an not an enviromental/human health bad actor.

so far as Canada paying the US government to approve canola oil - it's utter BS - that that BS assertion is backed up even by the kooks who "alledge but can not be proven" literature.

furthermore there is no mechanism for anyone in any country to pay for any FDA testing to approve any foodstuffs. period, end of statement. go find the law / program / proof Ed - you won't.

that rapeseed is in the mustard family and mustard seed is used to make mustard gas is absolute BS - go check the facts.

>> but it's an insecticide - yeah, so is soap.

wild rapeseed has naturally elevated levels of an acid harmful to rats. that trait was selectively bred out of wild rapesseed for the farmed version - and that happened before the term "generically modified" had been invented. go check the facts.

if you choose to insist that selective plant breeding is bad, you'll need to give up pretty much all plant sources in your diet because humans have been selectively breeding vegetable and grain and <everything else> since the Pharohs had their way.

the rapeseed has since been "genetically modified" to be RoundUp resistant.
and if that upsets you, you'll need to give up on all commerically grown sweet corn because it too has be genetically modified to resist RoundUp.

>>>This is what I have read over the past few yeas.
Ed, I highly recommend less tabloids, more science reading.

>>>Has anyone seen a "canola seed"?
okay, somebody show me a Wesson seed.......
post #14 of 14
Yes, "canola oil" is produced from rapeseed, but to my knowledge, the seeds have not been re-named. You are also correct that it is not a genetically modified product. The plants have, however, been hybridized to eliminate or reduce a particular toxin that had been problematic.

for more information, click here---> www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/canola.asp
"The pressure's on...let's cook something!"
 
Reply
"The pressure's on...let's cook something!"
 
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Food & Cooking
ChefTalk.com › ChefTalk Cooking Forums › Cooking Discussions › Food & Cooking › Teflon and non stick surfaces.