Reader max used the "Contact Me" on this website on April 2, 2023 to inquire:
"Hello Professor Lin, I recently discussed the safety of non-hardware with my wife. The reason is that I saw a video released by YOUTUBER " annual iron fluoride plate! The most common question for netizens is to solve the problem once. The general idea is that if you don’t stick, you will more or less "perfluoro/polyfluoroalkyl substances" (PFAS) will harm humans. However, manufacturers will only make minor changes in the chemical structure and sell them to avoid the laws. After checking the recent news, the four European Union countries and Norway also said that PFAS should be banned simultaneously. Even the Executive Yuan published a reprint "Before the EU, Denmark took the lead in announcing that PFAS is banned in food packaging " and mentioned PFAS in the article Chemicals are related to a series of health risks in humans. Although I have read your 2020 "Is it poisonous to stick to non-stick? "The masterpiece, but governments in various countries have been banning PFAS. Does it really make us feel uneasy? Is it a pity that Professor Lin will be grateful for it."First of all, I hope readers can understand that one of the methods used by the Internet of YOUTUBER to attract attracting points is marketing horror. For example, · a man named "Dr. Ah x" attached the picture below to a face post on 2021-10-28 (I added the little black man in the lower right corner). But if, as she said, “The EPA, the EPA, announced this week that the toxicity of the current non-sticking raw materials is seven times more toxic than the previous PFOA/PFOS,” then why is it still not banned non-sticking in the United States one and a half years later? (Note 1: Regarding the marketing horror of this YOUTUBER, I posted on July 30, 2021, which oil should I use to fry?, comment on her video "23 types of oil science analysis! Healthy ones are the ones that cause cancer."Note 2: In the United States, the review of non-stripping safety is the power of the FDA, not the EPA. Please see below.)
{999 999}The PFAS mentioned by the reader max is perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances). Fluorotechnology/Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) published by the American Chemistry Council , PFAS is a large and diverse family of chemistry that makes products that power our lives into possible mobile phones, tablets and telecommunications equipment that we use every day to contact our friends and family; power aircraft for the U.S. military; alternative energy; and medical equipment that helps us maintain healthy life. PFAS is of great importance to realizing our 21st century life.
As reader max said, "You are not sticky in 2020 " is poisonous? "The masterpiece" is the non-stick pot published by me on 2020-5-8, is it poisonous? , and I said in this article: "'Not-stick layer' is the familiar teflon. The production of teflon requires a 'surfactant', and before 2013, the surfactant used by DuPont was ………… Whether it is PFOA or GenX, it only It is used in the process of making iron fluorons. But many individuals or groups, including Taiwan's Disease Foundation, regard iron fluorons as PFOA. This is why instruments containing iron fluorons are said to be toxic and cancer-causing. "(Note: PFOA and GenX are both members of the PFAS family)
The American Cancer Association (Last updated on March 21, 2023) Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), and Related Chemicals, and the content related to non-stick cookware is: "There is no evidence that using these products is risky to humans except that smoke from inhalation with non-stick layers may cause flu symptoms. Although PFAS It can be used to manufacture some of these layers, but it does not exist in the product in the end (or in very small amounts). ”
The US FDA issued Authorized Uses of PFAS in Food Contact Applications on 2022-24. I translate the full text as follows (red words):
Since the 1960s, the FDA has authorized specific PFAS for specific food contact applications. Some PFAS are used in cookware, food packaging and food processing due to their non-stick and oil-resistant, waterproof properties. To ensure that food contact materials are safe for their intended use, the FDA conducted a strict scientific review before approving their placement in the market.
PFAS approved for contact with food are usually divided into four application categories:
1. Non-stick cookware: PFAS can be used as a layer to make the cookware non-stick..2. Barriers, O-rings and other components used in food processing equipment: PFAS can be used as resin to form certain components in food processing equipment that require chemical and physical durability.
3. Processing aid: PFAS can be used as a processing aid for the production of other food contact polymers to reduce stacking on manufacturing equipment.
4. Paper/Paper Plate Food Packaging: PFAS can be used as an oil-proofing agent in fast food packaging paper, microwave popcorn bags, exterior paperboard containers and pet food bags to prevent oil and fat in food from leaking through the packaging.
FDA reviews new scientific information on the use of food contact materials to ensure that these uses continue to be safe. When the FDA discovers potential safety issues, the FDA will ensure that these issues are resolved or that these substances are no longer used in food contact applications. The FDA can cooperate with the industry to achieve a self-desirable market phase-out agreement on the quality of this type of food contact. The FDA can also withdraw the food contact authorization when the FDA determines that it is no longer reasonable to confirm that the use of food contact materials will not cause harm.
A committee composed of six U.S. national departments will issue Guidance on PFAS Exposure, Testing, and Clinical Follow-Up on July 28, 2022. The six departments are: (1) the National Institutes of Science, Engineering and Medicine; (2) the Department of Health and Medicine; (3) the Department of Earth and Life Research; (4) the Commission on Population Health and Public Health; (5) the Commission on Environmental Research and Toxicology; (6) the Committee on PFAS Testing and Health Results Guidelines.
This report is over 300 pages, and the content about non-stick cookware is on page 264. I translated its full text as follows (red words):
Non-stick cookware has been studied as a source of PFAS exposure. In terms of drying, the question is whether replacing non-stick cookware with items without PFAS will result in a measured reduction in human PFAS exposure. Although no dry pre-study was determined, we briefly introduce a study conducted in the United States that compared the amount of PFAS pellets in air and water by non-stick and non-stainless hot pot. Sinclair and colleagues (2007) purchased four brands of domestic and imported non-stick pan-frying pots and one brand of non-stainless pan-frying pots (three to five for each brand). The flat bottomed bulb brand name is not identified. All flat bottomed tines are pre-cleaned with hot soapy water; rinse with Milli-Q water; and wipe dry with a towel. The stainless steel plate is used as a counter. The authors reported that under normal cooking conditions (179 to 233° C surface temperature), the PFOA in the gas phase was measured from non-stick pellets of 11– 503 pig/cm² (pg/cm2). (Fluorinated polyols were also detected, but these are not chemical substances discussed in this article and therefore not discussed further.) After repeated use of one brand of flat bottom pot, the atmosphere PFOA decreased, while other brands of flat bottom pots did not (n = 1 per brand). The authors also measured PFOA in Milli-Q water boiled for 10 minutes in selected flat-bottomed tines and found inconsistent results (some flat-bottomed tines produce measurable PFOA levels in water, while others do not).
Since the brand name is not included in the article, this information cannot be used as the basis for specific dry recommendations. Even if brand names are included, this information is difficult to use as a basis for general suggestions due to the small sample size and lack of duplication of research. Finally, since neither air nor water supply is provided, the extent to which this exposure source pays for the total intake is not clear.
According to these three authoritative (at least reliable) information above, so far, there is no accurate evidence that non-sticking is a health risk. Of course, I know that "no exact evidence" does not mean "no exact risk", so if you choose to believe that non-sticky is a health risk, I will respect it. However, I still sincerely hope that readers will not live in the fear of online red.
Original text: The current non-stick is seven times more poisonous than before, the Internet's terrifying marketingEditor: Gu Zihuan