Hundreds of Scientists Issue Warning About Chemical Dangers of Non-Stick Cookware and Water-Repellant Items
By Dr. Mercola
Non-stick cookware and bakeware has become enormously popular because
of its convenience. Foods slide right off, reducing the amount of
elbow-grease required to clean the pan.
Ditto for stain- and water-repellant clothing, carpets and fabrics, and
many other treated products that have emerged over the past six decades.
But there may be a high price to pay for this convenience, as the poly-
and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) used to create these surfaces are
toxic and highly persistent, both in your body and in the environment.
As you can tell by the names, PFAS are fluorinated chemicals. It's
actually the fluorine atoms that provide that hallmark slipperiness. I
first became aware of the dangers of fluoride-impregnated non-stick coatings back in 2001.
I revised my cookware recommendations back then, and many of the health
concerns I've warned about since then were recently confirmed by
hundreds of international scientists.
You Probably Have PFAS in Your Home—And in Your Body
When heated, non-stick cookware becomes a source of perfluorooctanoic
acid (PFOA), a long-chain perfluorinated chemical linked to a range of
health problems, including thyroid disease, infertility in women, and organ damage and developmental and reproductive problems in lab animals.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has also ruled
perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) as "likely carcinogens." Despite that,
these chemicals are still used in a wide array of household products.
Besides non-stick cookware, PFCs are used to create heat-resistant and
non-stick coatings on:
- Soil- and water-repellant carpet and furniture treatments
- Stain- and water-repellant clothing
- Protective sprays for leather and shoes
- Food wraps, pizza boxes, and microwave popcorn bags
- Paint and cleaning products
They're also found in flame retardant chemicals (and, hence, items
treated with flame retardants). PFCs are also being released into the
environment via factory emissions, and during house fires when treated
items burn.
According to the CDC's "Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals,"1
published in 2009, 12 different PFCs were detected in Americans,
including PFOA. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances &
Disease Registry (ATSDR):2
"Once in your body, perfluoroalkyls tend to remain unchanged for
long periods of time. The most commonly used perfluoroalkyls (PFOA and
PFOS) stay in the body for many years. It takes approximately four years
for the level in the body to go down by half, even if no more is taken
in."
While there's a dizzying array of chemical names in the PFAS groups, if
an item is either non-stick, waterproof, or stain-resistant, it has some
type of fluoride-impregnated coating that provides the slipperiness,
and you can be virtually guaranteed it will be problematic.
Phased Out PFAS Replaced with Others of Similar Concern
In 2006, the EPA launched the 2010/15 PFOA Stewardship Program,3
and companies agreed to voluntarily reduce the use of PFOA and related
chemicals by 95 percent by 2010, with the aim to eliminate them by 2015.
Unfortunately, it was only a voluntary program and much of the damage
has already been done, as these chemicals have been found to be
extremely resistant to biodegradation. Some polyfluorinated chemicals
also break down to form perfluorinated ones.
Making matters worse, the chemicals targeted for phase out are being
replaced with anothergroup of PFAS that share many of the same problems
as the ones being eliminated.4
The newer, short-chain PFAS are thought to be less hazardous, but
scientists warn we don't yet know enough about them to make a solid
determination about their safety. There are certainly warning signs
suggesting we're just trading one danger for another...
For example, a recent Danish study5
looking into the health effects of PFAS, including the newer
short-chain versions that are replacing the older long-chained ones,
found that women with higher blood levels of PFAS had a 16-fold
increased risk for miscarriage.
We see the same problem happening with flame retardants,
which has lead a group of scientists to propose a ban on an entire
class of chemicals (organohalogens) rather than tackling them
one-by-one, in an effort to put an end to this "toxic whack-a-mole game"
played by the chemical industry.6
As for the newer, short-chain PFAS taking over the market, Arlene Blum, a
University of California chemist, and the executive director of the
Green Science Policy Institute says:7
"We know these substitutes are equally persistent. They
don't break down for geologic time... It's a very serious decision to
make chemicals that last that long, and putting them into consumer
products with high levels of human exposure is a worrisome thing."
Non-Stick Cookware Release Toxic Fumes
In studies of heated non-stick pans on conventional stovetops,
commissioned by the consumer watchdog organization Environmental Working
Group (EWG),8 it only took two to five minutes of heating to reach temperatures at which dangerous toxins were produced.
The coating begins to break down and release toxins into the air at 464
degrees Fahrenheit. When the pot or pan reaches 680 degrees F, they
release at least six toxic gasses, including two carcinogens (PFOA and
TFE), and monofluoroacetic acid (MFA), a chemical warfare agent that is
deadly to humans even at low doses.
According to the EWG, studies conducted by DuPont's own scientists
revealed that when its non-stick cookware is heated it breaks down into
15 types of toxic gases and particles.9 For a list reviewing them all, please see EWG's 2003 report, "Canaries in the Kitchen: DuPont Has Known for 50 Years,"10 which also notes:
"DuPont acknowledges that the fumes can also sicken people, a
condition called 'polymer fume fever.' DuPont has never studied the
incidence of the fever among users of the billions of non-stick pots and
pans sold around the world. Neither has the company studied the
long-term effects from the sickness, or the extent to which exposures
lead to human illnesses believed erroneously to be the common flu."
Hundreds of Scientists Issue Warning Over PFAS
Arlene Blum (mentioned earlier) is also the lead author of the recently published Madrid Statement,11,12 signed by more than 200 scientists from 40 countries,13
which presents the scientific consensus on the harms of PFAS chemicals,
old and new. For example, the Statement points out that:
- "Although some of the long-chain PFASs are being regulated or
phased out, the most common replacements are short-chain PFASs with
similar structures, or compounds with fluorinated segments joined by
ether linkages.
- While some shorter-chain fluorinated alternatives seem to be
less bioaccumulative, they are still as environmentally persistent as
long-chain substances or have persistent degradation products.
Thus, a switch to short-chain and other fluorinated alternatives may not
reduce the amounts of PFASs in the environment. In addition, because
some of the shorter-chain PFASs are less effective, larger quantities
may be needed to provide the same performance.
- While many fluorinated alternatives are being marketed, little
information is publicly available on their chemical structures,
properties, uses, and toxicological profiles.
- Increasing use of fluorinated alternatives will lead to
increasing levels of stable perfluorinated degradation products in the
environment, and possibly also in biota and humans. This would increase
the risks of adverse effects on human health and the environment."
An editorial14 accompanying the Madrid Statement echoes the same warning, saying: "Given
the fact that research raised concern about the long-chain PFASs for
many years before action was taken and that global contamination and
toxicity have been documented in the general population, potential risks
of the short-chain PFASs should be taken into account when choosing
replacements for the longer-chain compounds."
In fact, 10 years ago, the EPA fined DuPont $16.5 million for
withholding decades' worth of information about health hazards
associated with PFAS. As noted in a recent report15 by the Environmental Working Group (EWG):
"DuPont had long known that PFOA caused cancer, had poisoned
drinking water in the mid-Ohio River Valley and polluted the blood of
people and animals worldwide. But it never told its workers, local officials and residents, state regulators, or the EPA." At the time, that fine was the largest the EPA had ever assessed, but it was still too small to act as a deterrent.
Documented Health Effects of PFAS
The Madrid Statement lists many of the documented health effects
associated with the older, long-chain PFASs, including the following:16
| Liver toxicity |
Disruption of lipid metabolism, and the immune and endocrine systems |
| Adverse neurobehavioral effects |
Neonatal toxicity and death |
| Tumors in multiple organ systems |
Testicular and kidney cancers |
| Liver malfunction |
Hypothyroidism |
| High cholesterol |
Ulcerative colitis |
| Reduced birth weight and size |
Obesity |
| Decreased immune response to vaccines |
Reduced hormone levels and delayed puberty |
How to Avoid These Dangerous Chemicals
The Madrid Statement17
recommends avoiding any and all products containing, or manufactured
using, PFASs, noting they include products that are stain-resistant,
waterproof, or non-stick. More helpful tips can be found in the EWG's
Guide to Avoiding PFCS.18 Besides
listing a number of sportswear brands known to use PFCs in their shoes
and clothing, the Guide also notes that Apple admits the wristband of
its new Apple Watch Sport model is made with PFCs. Other suggestions
that will help you avoid these dangerous chemicals include avoiding:
| Items that have been pre-treated with stain-repellants, and opt out of such treatments when buying new furniture and carpets |
| Water- and/or stain-repellant clothing. One
tipoff is when an item made with artificial fibers is described as
"breathable." These are typically treated with polytetrafluoroethylene
(PTFE), a synthetic fluoropolymer |
| Items treated with flame-retardant chemicals,19
which includes a wide variety of baby items, padded furniture,
mattresses, and pillows. Instead, opt for naturally less flammable
materials such as leather, wool, and cotton |
| Fast food and carry out foods, as the wrappers are typically treated with PFCs |
| Microwave popcorn. PFOA may not only present
in the inner coating of the bag, it also may migrate to the oil from the
packaging during heating. Instead, use "old-fashioned" stovetop popcorn
|
Non-stick cookware
and other treated kitchen utensils. Healthier options include ceramic
and enameled cast iron cookware, both of which are durable, easy to
clean (even the toughest cooked-on foods can be wiped away after soaking
it in warm water), and completely inert, which means they won't release
any harmful chemicals into your home. While some will recommend using
aluminum, stainless steel, and copper cookware, I don't for the
following reasons:
Aluminum is a strongly suspected causal factor in Alzheimer's disease,
and stainless steel has alloys containing nickel, chromium, molybdenum,
carbon. For those with nickel allergies, this may be a particularly
important consideration. Copper cookware is also not recommended because
most copper pans come lined with other metals, creating the same
concerns noted above. (Copper cookware must be lined due to the
possibility of copper poisoning.) |
| Oral-B Glide floss and any other personal care products containing PTFE or "fluoro" or "perfluoro" ingredients. The EWG has an excellent database called Skin Deep20 you can peruse to find healthier options |
-
Spread the Word to
Friends And Family
By Sharing this Article.
-
-
-
29
inShare
-
-
-
Email
No comments:
Post a Comment