Between 1999 and 2003 there were a lot of news reports about studies showing that the chemicals known as PFO’s, PFOA’s and PFC’s were being released from cookware and getting into people’s bodies. Many groups came out with warnings suggesting that non-stick cookware be replaced by regular stainless steel or cast iron pots and pans. I have known about this warning for quite some time, but I am not surprised that cookware coated with the chemical commonly known as Teflon is still the vast majority of cookware in use today. The chemical coatings are inexpensive so non-stick cookware is less costly than stainless steel. The non-stick properties of Teflon make cooking some types of food so much easier that it is unlikely that most people will ever go back to using traditional pots and pans.
One of the reasons Teflon is still in wide use in cookware is that has been difficult to determine what the real source of these chemicals in the people’s bodies is. In addition to non-stick cookware, the chemicals are found in many consumer products including shampoo, food grade paper products, carpets, lubricants, rug cleaners, garden tools, and even zippers. PFOA is released as water and air pollution during the manufacturing of carpets, clothing, and paper. These chemicals have been found in tested air, water, and food in every U.S. city where testing has been done. In addition, studies have found the chemicals are in 90 -95% of the blood of people living in the U.S.
DuPont, the main manufacturer and user of these chemicals claims that its non stick coatings are safe. Of course the company has a huge financial investment and interest in the continued use of Teflon. It is also true, however, that some experts have called for caution in sounding an alarm about the use of these chemicals in non-stick cookware. Because of the many different sources of PFO’s in the environment, these scientists say it is impossible to know exactly how the chemical gets into the blood of virtually every person in the developed world.
In addition, some studies have shown that if Teflon coated cookware is not used at high temperatures, very little of the chemical is actually released into your food. The problem I see with these studies is that they only measure the toxic fumes given off when the cookware is heated to temperatures over 500 degrees. This sounds like a high temperature, but I think the direct contact with your gas or electric burner can easily achieve these temperatures. Many frying pans also get scratched with use and particles of the chemicals get into your food.
Another reason some experts urge caution in condemning the use of non-stick cookware is that in order to use the alternatives, you must use a much higher amount of oil or butter. These fats are known to be unhealthy for you, especially when heated to high temperatures. So, short of steaming or boiling all of your food, what should you do?
In my case, I simply stopped using non-stick pans a couple of years ago and my advice would be, especially for frying, and sauteing…. Do not use Teflon pots and pans, do not use non-stick cookware of any type. I don’t fry much food, and when I do, I use a stainless steel pan, and lower temperatures. I am less worried about the little bit of extra butter or oil I use than I am about having the chemicals from non-stick pans accumulating in my body. However, even in our household, we still have a few non-stick pans because not everyone in the family is willing to give up on their convenience. I suggest that you look at your cooking habits and see if you can at least reduce the use of this cookware. Certainly any pots or pans that are used for steaming, boiling, and sauteing, can be stainless steel. When you do fry something, you can use lower temperatures and get by with a good quality stainless steel or cast iron frying pan.
 |
|
October 29th, 2007
Posted By:
Will |
8 Comments |
Categories:
Small Changes, health
Trackback: http://willtaft.com/health/i-do-not-use-teflon-cookware/trackback/
I received a question from a reader concerned about the recent publicity given methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteria that is now resistant to multiple antibiotics. I am not an expert on the particular staph involved, but I think the problem arise when it causes an infection by gaining entrance to the body through an open wound or some other method. Doctors, not knowing the infection they are treating is caused by the resistant bacteria, begin treatment as they normally would. By the time it is realized that the infection is not responding to the antibiotic treatment, the patient is often very sick. A few recent cases have resulted in death.
My knowledge on this comes the same way as most of us, by reading and listening to news reports. If anyone has some more specific information or links to add, please post them in a comment. If you have more than two links, remember that the comment will go to the moderation que. I will release it to be posted as soon as I see it, however.
The reader in question was concerned about cleaning their house in a way to make sure to kill all germs. I am not sure that the recent publicity calls for any changes in house cleaning methods. Many common household cleaners have risks associated with them that surpass the risk of a fatal staph infection. The American Poison Control Center Organization has reported that the largest number of annual poisonings are caused by household cleaning products.
So I would say, just clean well. At the very least do not use bleach spray on everything in sight. If you feel you need to use standard cleaners with bleach and other disinfectants, just be sure to follow precautions listed on the label, use gloves, and be sure to have ventilation as good as possible. I would even wear a mask or respirator designed to stop fumes. In other words, not just a dust mask. If you are interested in green cleaning products, there is some good information put out by the Seattle Public Health Department. There are also internet vendors who sell people and earth friendly products. I recommend them.
Lastly, there is sometimes confusion about germ killing cleaning products and antibacterial products. Antibacterial products are dangerous because they contribute to the rise of resistant bacteria like the MRSA staff infection. I wrote about this a while ago in a post that has become, by far, the most read article on this web site. Germ killing products do not and should not contain antibiotics. My personal opinion is that cleaning products do not even have to contain chemicals like bleach or ammonia to be effective, but that is a choice everyone has to be comfortable making for themselves.
So read the above links and consider making your house greener and safer for you and your family. And remember this when you read or listen to news reports about the latest person to die from one of the resistant bacteria…. There are over 300 million people in the United States alone! In 2005, there were 1,629 deaths from the infection, most of these, I have seen a figure of over 90%), a result of infections contracted when a patient was already in the hospital. If my quick math is correct, this means 5 thousandths of one percent of the U.S. population died from this in 2005. If you stay out of the hospital, your chances of death from MRSA were 5 ten thousandths of one percent! (No guarantees on the math, but it is a very small number!!) Numbers may be increasing, but they are still very small. My recommendations would be these: We need to stop using antibiotics to treat every small sinus infection that we might get. We need to stop using soaps, cleaners, and other products that contain antibiotics. As Meher Baba said and Bobby McFerrin sang… Don’t Worry, Be Happy! 
|
|
October 26th, 2007
Posted By:
Will |
4 Comments |
Categories:
Contemporary Issues, health
Trackback: http://willtaft.com/health/is-mrsa-a-danger-in-your-home/trackback/
I have been having some issues with phpMySQL queries timing out when posting comments. I think I have traced it to a fix that I applied to the wp-db.php file in version 2.1. Because I recently upgraded to WP 2.3, I applied the file fix again. It is at this site if anyone else needs it.
Hopefully this has resolved the problem, but if you get an error message when posting a comment, let me know. If it happens to you and you have not saved the text of your comment, then just just the “back” button in your browser and click submit again. It usually works the 2nd or 3rd time.
October 25th, 2007
Posted By:
|
5 Comments |
Categories:
Blogging, Will Taft . com
Trackback: http://willtaft.com/blogging/are-comments-working-for-everyone/trackback/
A one day survey of weight the world over shows that the rest of the world is catching up with the leader in overweight people, the United States. You can read a BBC news story summarizing the results, but a few things caught my attention.
Overweight is defined by having a BMI over 25. A BMI of over 30 is defined as obese. The problem I have with the “overweight” category is this. I play hockey and hike regularly. My main hobby is gardening. No one that looks at me would say I am overweight by even a few of pounds. But… I have a BMI of 26. Years ago when I was working out with weights more regularly, my BMI was 28. So according to all of these studies, I am overweight and at risk for heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. Clearly, because of the wide range of muscle and bone mass in humans, the use of just BMI to measure obesity is flawed. Some people with BMI’s of 22 could indeed be overweight, while others, like myself, with BMI’s well over 25 are not overweight at all.
Now this survey also looked at waist circumference in addition to BMI, but it is a bit unclear how that measurement factored into the interpretation of the results. I can not see how they determined what waist measurements were too high, but 56% of the men and 71% of the women in the study were said to be too fat around their mid-section.
There are also some numbers in the BBC report that are hard to figure out. One paragraph states that just 7% of people in eastern Asia were “obese” compared to 36% in Canada, and 40% in South Africa. It is stated that Canada, Europe and South Africa are catching up with the U.S., “long considered the country with the worst weight problem”. However, the article also states that 2/3 of Americans are overweight, with 1/3 of those obese. If I do the math correctly, this means 23% of Americans are obese, well below the levels in Canada and South Africa. Clearly something is wrong with the BBC’s interpretation of the numbers. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that the U.S. has an obesity rate of 32.9. Even the higher number now puts us below the level of Canada and South Africa.
It is also interesting to see that Americans, long thought of as the fattest humans on earth, may be less overweight than people in many other countries. It is also interesting that Eastern Asia, which I guess is basically Japan, has the lowest level of obesity at 7%. This is quite a low number compared to the rest of the world. Regardless of the true numbers, there can be no argument that falling into the BMI’s obese category of greater that 30 is an indication of real problems with your health. In the U.S. if 70% of people are overweight and 33% obese, we have a real problem. I wonder if any studies have shown exactly how much of our health care dollars are “eaten” up by this obesity epidemic?
October 23rd, 2007
Posted By:
Will |
6 Comments |
Categories:
health
Trackback: http://willtaft.com/health/study-shows-world-wide-obesity/trackback/
A new study from a group I had not heard of before, Consensus Action on Salt and Health (Cash), has found what I can only call absurdly high levels of salt in food from fast food restaurants. Even though most fast food joints claim they have reduced the level of salt in their food, the study found that a single fast food meal can contain 2 - 4 times of an individuals total daily salt intake recommendation. Here is a pretty in-depth article on the study.
I have written before about ways to reduce salt in your diet. Maybe I should add to the list: Stay as far away from Pizza Hut as possible! Of course, it is not just Pizza Hut and not only the salt that is in the food when it is delivered to you that is the problem. I remember eating at McDonalds a few years ago and noticing how most people added salt to their french fries. Imagine the intake level that would have created.
I think the real question that is raised here is: Does it really matter? I saw people in an Australian forum calling for government regulations on the salt level of food. If regulations are put into place to control the level of salt in food, will it just be another example of government trying to protect people from themselves? I mean, who does not know that a Quarter Pounder with cheese, fries, and a soda is terribly unhealthy for you!
I think the best approach is to require the restaurants to prominently display salt and fat levels of their food and then let people make informed choices. If we can educate people about what is really in their food, maybe the companies will be forced to make positive changes on their own.
October 20th, 2007
Posted By:
Will |
12 Comments |
Categories:
health
Trackback: http://willtaft.com/health/salt-level-in-fast-food-is-higher-than-thought/trackback/
Hope you’re having fun and that you’re...
Choose from box
