The Canary Report

24 Responses to “Our feathered friends know: Teflon cookware can be toxic”

1. 

   Connie Rae
   

   08. Dec, 2009

   My son raised parakeets and had foster parrots. He and his now ex-wife knew not to use teflon…I learned that from them and got rid of all my teflon. I am sure it contributed to my confusion in the kitchen.
   I think we all should have little beta fish or birds in our homes so we can tell when things get toxic…I had a beta when in a refuge and I called my husband to tell him I was sick and needed to get out, they were spraying something toxic in my area…he asked how the fish was…I looked and it was belly up…he came and got me out.

   Reply to this comment
2. 

   linda
   

   08. Dec, 2009

   When there was someone living downstairs and she cooked with teflon, I was always out of it for at least a few hours afterwards, if not longer. It took a lot of detective work to figure out that it happened whenever she used the teflon pots. I was fine when she used non-teflon.

   Reply to this comment
3. 

   Lou Cheese
   

   08. Dec, 2009

   After starting out with non-stick cookware, I’ve tried several different types of cooking surfaces and notice that every one didn’t need as much heat underneath to cook the food as the non-stick. This makes me suspect that non-stick surfaces act as an insulator, which leads to a deadly catch-22:

   Non-stick surfaces produce toxic vapors at high heat, but you have to heat the non-stick pans much higher than normal to cook the food.

   Reply to this comment
4. 

   Susie Collins
   

   08. Dec, 2009

   The other thing that’s really gross about Teflon is that it eventually starts to come up off the pan, peeling off into your food.

   Reply to this comment
5. 

   Jim
   

   09. Dec, 2009

   Sorry, but the CWG report you cite was badly flawed and outdated. A more recent (2007) report by Consumer Reports shows that Teflon (and various other non-stick coatings) are much safer than CWG would have you believe. You can find a summary of the report here:

   http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/06/consumer_report_1.php

   Even Trehugger.com calls the concerns about cookware/PFOA exposure a myth!

   Note that the conditions that cause non-stick coatings to become toxic are also likely to cause a grease fire in any pan.

   As for eating bits of Teflon, it is inert and simply passes through your digestive system and into teh toilet. Same thing happens with teh little bits of aluminum, cast iron, and stainless steel (which contains chromium) that come off your metal pans.

   Reply to this comment
6. 

   Susie Collins
   

   09. Dec, 2009

   Jim, so people’s birds are dropping dead in the kitchen when flashpoint is reached because…?? To people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, no level of toxic fumes is acceptable. By the way, the author of that Treehugger article is a consultant for a multinational chemical company. And as for your being ok with having pieces of Teflon passing through your system– you’re kidding, right? PS, It’s EWG for Environmental Working Group, an organization way ahead of the curve on protecting the public from toxic chemicals.

   Reply to this comment
7. 

   Lou Cheese
   

   09. Dec, 2009

   pwn’d…

   Now I know how all my classmates in grad school felt when I critiqued their papers.

   Reply to this comment
8. 

   Susie Collins
   

   09. Dec, 2009

   Lou, LOL. My guess is your classmates valued your input. I don’t think Jim is paying any attention.

   Reply to this comment
9. 

   jim
   

   10. Dec, 2009

   I am paying attention.

   Birds are dropping dead near the flashpoint due to the vapors being given off the item that is thermally degrading (the food). Put a bird your kitchen and cook your food too hot on cast iron pans. It will not be long before you are the only living creature in the kitchen. How do you blame that on Teflon?

   Because the author of the treehugger article is a consultant, that means the Consumer Reports study is bogus? Were did that logic come from?

   As far as Teflon passing through my system, try and break down a piece of teflon into soemthing that will harm you. There is nothing in your body that can decompose the Teflon. I would be a lot more concerned about some of the toxins present in a cup of coffee (because they do breakdown in my body) than the Teflon.

   Reply to this comment
10. 

    Lou Cheese
    

    10. Dec, 2009

    “…Sorry, but the CWG report you cite was badly flawed and outdated. A more recent (2007) report by Consumer Reports shows that Teflon (and various other non-stick coatings) are much safer than CWG would have you believe…..”

    Jim,

    The report you cite (2007) is also outdated.

    01/28/2009, “Maternal Levels of Perfluorinated Chemicals and Subfecundity”, Chunyuan Fei, Joseph McLaughlin, Loren Lipworth, and Jern Olsen, Human Reproduction, Vol.1, No.1, pp 1-6, linked PFOA exposure to decreased levels of reproductive hormones in women, as well as several other reproductive issues like infertility. This was published in a peer reviewed journal and has been widely disseminated in the medical and scientific community. As far as I can tell it’s findings has not been disputed by anyone in either community.

    The page you link to won’t load, so I haven’t had the opportunity to look at that information or see who wrote it. If I could read it, I assure you I would give it an honest evaluation.

    I can tell you this: In most cases, if the author of the article has a substantial conflict interest, it invalidates the information in the article that is attributed to the author, regardless of the publisher. So without having read the entire article, the part that originates from the consultant should be thrown out. The whole article might not be bogus, but the consultants part should not be taken into consideration.

    In grad school, researching the validity of our sources was a major part of every paper, and it was considered to be one of our greatest responsibilities. If we used a questionable source the entire assumption it was based upon would be thrown out, because any statement built with faulty sources or faulty logic was itself seen as faulty.

    Generally speaking, professional scientists and doctors who’s competency was established by licensing or other historical standards (like getting a MD), who had a successful history of posting peer reviewed material, who did not have any previous wildly conflicting published work, and who worked independently of a commercial sponsor or other group with a vested interest in a certain outcome was seen as a trustworthy source. So the guys I mentioned above, they would be seen as a fairly credible source. And they showed a link between PFOAs and impaired health.

    One step below independent and respected scientists & doctors would be an individual who’s education trained them to avoid flaws in logic and engage in critical thinking, who are also respected in their field and who do not have conflicts of interest or a proclivity to choosing a certain outcome, but have considerable experience with the subject matter. No one has submitted any information from someone like that in this thread.

    The next lower step in credibility would be research conducted by individuals like those above, but whose research is funded by a group with an agenda associated with the subject matter. An example of this would be the Environmental Working Group referenced in the original post in this thread. This information can be viewed as credible if the research and individuals conducting it could itself be researched for any of the conflicts mention in my post here. So this information could be used, and would not be considered bogus if the facts back it up. I haven’t looked it up because I’m writing this on my lunch hour, so I’m not saying it is valid, I’m just saying it could be.

    At the bottom end of the scale, far enough to be be argued and rejected (Argument in the classical sense, not how it is defined by the population today), would be a person with no assumption of medical or scientific training, who also has a vested interest in the outcome. This would be a consultant for a multinational chemical company. He’s getting paid by the company for his services, that is widely accepted as a conflict of interest. Once again, that web page won’t load so I don’t know his name or if he has any training, but if he doesn’t, his statements should be rejected because there’s a good enough possibility that his conclusions were influenced by other factors. And that is who you are basing your opinions on.

    If I had used information provided by a questionable source in a grad school paper, that information – and anything associated with it – would be rejected. Same thing would happen in a court of law. And Consumer Report’s credibility would be damaged for failing to determine the validity of the information they’re publishing, and for not vetting the source. So unless you can come up with a better source, I’m afraid you have lost the argument. And I mean that respectfully, true argument is stating an opinion, backing it up with reputable facts, and then examining it from the point of an opposing viewpoint from a person who is doing the same thing. It’s what our country (provided you live in the US too) was founded upon, at least at first.

    And by the way, as recently as March 2009 DuPont itself had their workers in the plants that manufactured Teflon product examined by doctors who found these workers had significantly higher levels of PFOA in their blood. This was also reviewed by the EPA but I’m running out of time to go into further. There has also been peer reviewed research that links high PFOA levels in the blood common Teflon exposure that is more recent than 2007 but again I am out of time. But I’m just putting this in to tell you that eating incremental bits of Teflon is probably not a good idea. And if you’re eating Teflon that likely means you’re cooking on Teflon, which has been proven to outgas. Even DuPont admits it. How do you not know the PFOAs are not being absorbed by your food? I’m not saying it is, but it could be. And that will be absorbed into your body, even if the Teflon passes.

    Back to work…

    Reply to this comment
11. 

    Susie Collins
    

    10. Dec, 2009

    Jim, I appreciate your returning to the discussion. The topic of this website is Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. Those with MCS get sick from extremely low levels of toxic chemicals including trace fumes, so no level of toxic fumes, nor the risk of exposure to toxic fumes, is acceptable to us. It may surprise you to know that many people with MCS cannot use stainless steel or cast iron pans either because the low levels of metals released can make them sick. I myself can use stainless, but some with MCS cannot; some believe this may be caused by the release of trace levels of nickel. It is common for people with MCS to become sick from exposure to heated Teflon pans; we are the canaries of the world. Even Dupont admits that Teflon does indeed emit toxic fumes when heated. I doubt very much that Consumer Reports understands this very serious medical condition.

    Reply to this comment
12. 

    Jim
    

    11. Dec, 2009

    Susie,

    I cannot comprehend how your life must be with the issues you have, and am not trying to minimize or dismiss them. I suffer from Celiac disease (gluten allergy) and get severe reactions (food poisoning) if there are even minor traces of gluten in my food. Your disease is an order of magnitude worse.

    I understand that the focus of the topic of the website is MCS, but the article that began this discussion implies that Teflon is dangerous to the general population, even when used in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. I am not disputing that Teflon and other fluoropolymers may cause problems for you, but like stainless steel, Teflon (and gluten) is safe for the vast majority of the population.

    Lou,

    My Background – BS in Mechanical Engineering; MS in Material Science from an Ivy League School (no mail order here). 25 years industrial experience in aerospace and the medical industries.

    The article I referred to was a summary of a Consumer Reports Study. No where is there any discussion about the health effects of PFOA, the question is whether Teflon coated pans should be considered a major source of PFOA. Consumer Reports Laboratories did the actual experiments and found that the amount of PFOA released by a Teflon (fluoropolymer) pan was minimal. Since you cannot load the article, here is a pertinent excerpt with direct quotes from the Consumer Reports publication:

    “Consumer Reports tested non-stick pans from various manufacturers to test the safety of new and used pans at heats of 204 C (400 F) and found that PFOA emissions were minimal. “The highest level was about 100 times lower than levels that animal studies suggest are of concern for ongoing exposure to PFOA,” the magazine reports in its June issue. “With the aged pans, emissions were barely measurable.” Health Canada has said that non-stick coatings are safe to use at temperatures under 350 C (662 F). But, the federal agency said that with higher heats, irritating or poisonous fumes may be released.”

    An honest evaluation of EWG would classify them as those with an agenda. I can remember a “stolen” EPA report published by EWG in the 80’s that purported to show that high tension electrical wires were clearly linked to a variety of illnesses. The validity of the report was never established, yet the EWG continued to consider it gospel.

    Perflourinated compounds – Although PFOA is used to manufacture Teflon resin, the vast majority of PFOA is removed from the resin before the dispersion leaves DuPont’s facilities (at least in the US). What is not removed is typically incinerated during the curing (melting and/or cross linking) of the resin at high temperature (750 – 800F).

    As far as DuPont testing their workers for PFOA exposure, that makes sense just as you would test a worker exposed to lead to verify that your controls are properly functioning and not creating an unsafe condition. It would be irresponsible NOT to test for exposure when a hazard may exist! If the workers do have higher levels of PFOA in their blood, that does not necessarily mean they are at risk. Maybe you ran out of time as you said, but what was the elevation 1%, 10%, 1,000%? That is obviously a question that someone trained in critical/logical thinking should be asking. Especially when these workers are potentially exposed to levels that are many 1000s of times higher than you and I would ever be exposed to.

    DuPont only admits to Teflon out gassing when the material is used outside of its safe working range. In fact, Teflon (PFA) is widely used in plasma environments, harsh chemical environments, the semi-conductor industry, and the medical industry because it is so pure and has some of the lowest extractable rates of any material known to man.

    How do I know there is not PFOA in the Teflon passing through my body? Because it is not there in significant levels, it does not leach out except under extreme (400F+) conditions, and Teflon is widely used in medical devices because there are little or no extractables.

    By the way, do you know how PFOA enters the human blood system? If it is from fumes, I would think it passes through the lungs. Is there any research showing PFOA passes through the intestinal barrier?

    My point in one sentence: Teflon may be a minor source of PFOA, but there are other sources (Scotch Guard in the 1990s for example) that used fluorinated telomeres and were produced in significantly larger amounts.

    Reply to this comment
13. 

    Meg
    

    11. Dec, 2009

    Well, teflon most certainly IS DANGEROUS for birds, and it alone DOES KILL. Yes, overheated oils can also kill, but they have to be fairly overheated, and your bird pretty much has to be right in with the fumes. PTFE/PFOA are much more dangerous, in any form they are found in, including scotchguard, as mentioned, as well as ovens, space heaters, coffemakers, hairdryers, popcorn/microwave/oven bags, etc. In regards to teflon pans, it is stated that it has to be heated to 500 degrees to release the toxic fumes, but this ignores many variables. It has been proven the level needed to release toxins lowers with each use, so tests done only on new pans are inaccurate. If you are cooking something at low heat, but have parts of the pan clear with no food in them, they will over heat very quickly to release dangerous fumes. And these fumes can move quickly through an entire house; I can not tell you how many times I have heard of birds and other animals dying from such fumes even though they are on another floor with a closed door.

    Of course, like everything in life, not every time fumes are released will all birds die. It depends strongly on how well heir body can handle the fumes, how strong their lungs, and how much damage their lungs have already accumulated. While many people have their entire flocks wiped out, some will find that a few birds survive. Also, as further proof it is not oil, many people have had the fumes released when a pot of water boiled dry, although the pans DO NOT have to be forgotten or very hot to kill birds, this is known.

    As I said, it is not just frying pans. I know of many birds that have died from other sources of the chemicals, such as new furniture. There are many examples, such as the time a zoo had their entire collection of chicks, of a variety of species, killed from the new heat lamps that were coated with teflon.

    The reason birds are so sensitive to chemicals, not just PTFE/PFOA, is their unique lungs. In order for them to fly, something which takes much energy and requires a streamlined shape, their lungs go the length of their body, but are very skinny. This means chemicals are quickly pulled through their whole body as well, and can quickly clog the lung due to its shape. On top of that, they are constantly taking in air, instead of only inhaling half the time. This means they are getting a higher dose than we do.

    All of this is common knowledge for anyone that has done much research on birds, it is not disputable. And as you can see, birds simply react more quickly to smaller amounts. Many people may be healthy enough to remove all the chemicals. But to say that just because most of the population are not greatly bothered by a toxin it is fully safe and should not come with warnings is not correct. babies and children will not know how to say that something is making them sick, now even will adults if they have never been educated that such things could be making them sick. I don’t think scaring people is necessary, but I am tired of information that could so drastically affect people’s lives being covered up because most are ok. Most is not all, and if you or someone you care about is the one that is sick, even one person without the knowledge is bad.

    Oh yes, one more thing. Blood tests show that PFOA (among other chemicals supposedly “safe” that are “quickly removed by the body”) is in high levels in many people’s blood, you can look it up, if you like. I believe there was a time article on it a few years ago my Dad told me about.

    Now, off my soapbox, you all can relax! It has been a bad day, and I hope at least some of this makes sense!

    Reply to this comment
14. 

    M Rodriguez
    

    14. Dec, 2009

    First of all please note that those abreviatons (PFOA, PFTE…) may be rather obscure for non-American visitors. Some of us often skip and do not read a text full of lose letters because it requires real mental acrobatics to understand it.

    Concerning the subject of the non-sticking pans it is very interesting and unclear. I have MCS and I have abandoned teflon frying pans because of the noise and the advice of toxicologists.

    I just discovered what looks to me like a different sort of non/sticking frying pan with a new material, some sort of nano/ceramics. I bought the pan because I must cook somewhere but I am also aware that nanomaterials are posing an increasing concern. Apparently there is the possibility that the nanoparticles may come into the bloodstream and get stored somewhere in the body doing whatever harm. If anyone has any good information about alternative non/sticking layers for cooking pans like the one I mention please do tell. I basically rely on old/fashioned ceramics and good stainless steel for most of my cooking but for certain foods it is really necessary to have a truly non/sticking pan.

    Reply to this comment
15. 

    Lou Cheese
    

    14. Dec, 2009

    Another porcelain guy! I just started using porcelain and enameled porcelain as an alternative to my stainless steel pans. But this is the traditional type of porcelain cookware, most of it looks at least 10 years old. I only buy pieces that are undamaged from thrift stores.

    After Teflon and traditional non-stick cookware got a bad reputation in the US, there’s been a couple of types of new surfaces that are advertised as non-stick and claim to use a new type of surface. My thoughts are to just avoid them. It took many years before the dangers of Teflon and non-stick became known, I don’t want to take the chance of being first in line to get another disease.

    Reply to this comment
16. 

    Amestress
    

    15. Dec, 2009

    Jim,

    I have to leave the house when Teflon is used. What Lou cited is real. Just because non-MCSers can’t “feel” it doesn’t mean that nothing is happening to them.

    You feel gluten. Some people don’t. Does it mean that gluten isn’t passing through the people who don’t feel it?

    Just because your liver works better than mine doesn’t mean your liver isn’t pumping when Teflon is heated up in your environs.

    This stuff is very real, and an over-exposure to too much of it risks the health of even the healthiest of person. I think it’s important for the general public to be educated on every little hit that they’re not feeling, so that they’ll never HAVE to feel the hits. Before I got full-blown MCS, I took no measures to avoid chemical exposures. I figured humans were built to tolerate them.

    Well, we are, but only up to a certain point. And people deserve to know when they are putting themselves at risk, even when they can’t feel it. It’s far better to avoid the exposures when you can’t feel them to wait until you can and your life gets turned upside down, believe me.

    And that’s what articles like Lou’s are for. Awareness is everything in terms of prevention. I wish I still had the option to prevent this, but now I’m in it and have to find a way back out.

    I wish I’d read Lou’s articles and others like it long ago, but I know myself well enough to know I’d not have paid them any attention anyway. I was hard-headed, and now I’m learning the hard way.

    Reply to this comment
17. 

    M Rodriguez
    

    16. Dec, 2009

    Crockery and all cooking implements are absolutely essential for everyday’s human life. However there seems to be among the average citizen little concern about what particles, what chemicals these cooking aids can bring into our food and our stomach. In the past people had no choice but to use what now seems rather dangerous, particularly if damaged: copper or iron pans and spoons, faience dishes, tin drinking bowls, aluminium milk boilers and so on. They also used cosmetics made out of lead and had to drink plenty of alcoholic beverages and filthy water.

    We, the people of our century, have got rid of those ancient dangers. Only to replace them with new hazardous materials. Most of the times we do not have too much choice, we have to buy what comes around in the shops of our town and hope for the best that someone has honestly studied the impact of these kitchen materials under proper use. And that the results of that study truly show a harmless implement, and not a delayed killer. Personally, after seeing what happened to me and others with multiple chemical sensitivity I can only fear the worst and try to keep to the cooking aids that seem the less offensive.

    I hope that this forum helps people like me to reliably find out what materials could be most suitable for the chemically sensitive. And this taking into account that we have to be realistic and purchase what is relatively easy to find and is available somewhere, including non-anglosaxon cocuntries.

    I am also concerned with the constant use of different plastics in the kitchen and to contain or hold different foods. There is a group of these plastic substances (called pftalates or something equally exotic) which apparently can happen in plenty of our daily food packages. These “pftt” are known as endocrine disruptors, because it seems that they work inside our body as hormones, obviously disrupting such a delicate organic function.

    If someone really knows about the subject please be kind to provide useful information for the chemically sensitive readers here. We need safe non-sticking frying pans. Anyone knows perhaps by chance of some old/fashioned trick to turn common ceramic frying pans into non-stickers? I seem to remember that my mother would burn with something an old cheap iron pan making it suitable for cooking a most annoyingly sticky dish: Spanish omelettes, -the ideal food to cook when you want to make a mess in front of your guests-. Unfortunately she is no longer here and in those times I did not bother about grandma’s tricks).

    By the way, can anyone suggest some suitable, known product for the dishwaser? I am using ordinary commercial tablets. First I was not thinking that they would be offensive. But they indeed are, I notice a most disturbing smell of bleach or who knows what coming off the machine. Until now I have got used to go away from the kitchen when the machine is washing but on a second thought I realize now that perhaps there are particles of who knows what chemicals the dishwasher tablets are made out of, which remain in the dishes and then I eat them next day. Can anyone comment something useful?

    Reply to this comment
18. 

    Jim
    

    18. Dec, 2009

    M Rodriguez

    Here is an article on the nano-ceramics that may prove of interest to you.

    Meg,

    I do not dispute that things that are bad for other life can be bad for humans, but that is not always the case. Chocolate is toxic to dogs, and although not “healthy” for humans, it is not toxic. I watched some buzzards finish off a rabbit in my backyard a few days ago, something that would have made me very sick if not kill me.

    You should read the Consumer Reports article. The findings are exactly opposite of the study you fail to cite. CR found that used pans actualy emitted less than new pans.

    You should look at the time article yourself. “High levels” is in the parts per trillion and billion. Additionally, it is a telomer that is found in the blood and recent scientific thought is that much of it occurs “naturally” (although it is not understood how) as there is more present in the environment that has been industrialy made.

    To be blunt your response is exactly why I wrote my response. You cite “this is known”, or “this cannot be disputed” but you offer nothing to support your conclusions.

    Amestress,

    Again, just because something is a problem for some people does not mean it is harmful to everybody and should be denied to the majority. My body feels gluten (and i react significantly worse than most with CD), but that does mean that wheat barley and rye should be denied to the 99% of the population that are unaffected. It means that I have to make accomodations!

    My problem with Lou’s article is that he draws conclusions that I disagree with and uses sources of information that I feel have an agenda. I am sure he feels similarly towards my response. We respectfully (I hope) disagree, but present two side of the story for others to draw their own conlusions from.

    Reply to this comment
19. 

    jim
    

    18. Dec, 2009

    Sorry, here is the link to the nano-ceramics article:

    http://lavieverte.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/safety-in-cookware-ptfe-vs-nano-ceramic-coatings/

    Reply to this comment
20. 

    linda
    

    18. Dec, 2009

    Jim, who do you work for? The teflon chemical industry?
    We don’t need your continual defense of a product here that makes us sick. If you want to keep using it, that’s your choice. In the meantime, please go study some epidemiology (however it’s spelled).

    Reply to this comment
21. 

    jim
    

    21. Dec, 2009

    Linda,

    I never said Teflon does not make you or others ill. What I stated is that the research indicates that Teflon is safe when used under normal circumstances for the majority of the population. I am sure Teflon is not the only chemical that makes you ill, so why do you insist on singling out Teflon?

    Reply to this comment
22. 

    linda
    

    21. Dec, 2009

    Jim, You didn’t answer my question: who do you work for?

    Reply to this comment
23. 

    Lou Cheese
    

    21. Dec, 2009

    “…My problem with Lou’s article is that he draws conclusions that I disagree with and uses sources of information that I feel have an agenda….”

    Jim, I cited a well-respected, peer reviewed report that was created by an independent team of scientists and was published in a medical research journal.

    If you think they have an agenda, perhaps it’s time for you to admit your bias.

    I must say, as a person who has a privileged private school education from a university well known for academic excellence, who has a master’s degree, and who is an engineer, things which you also claim to possess, I can say without reservation that you are an embarrassment to us all. Look at where you are and what you are saying.

    Go to a regular consumer web site and defend Teflon as much as you want. But defending Teflon use under “normal” circumstances to a group of people that have completely abnormal sensitivities to chemicals is a foolish endeavor. Someone trained in critical thinking skills would have realized that quite some time ago.

    Reply to this comment
24. 

    Jim
    

    22. Dec, 2009

    Lou,

    My reference to a group with an agenda was not directed at the 1/28/09 reference, but the reference to the EWG findings in your original post. Re-reading the thread, I can see how you thought I was disputing the 1/28 article.

    It is a shame you have to resort to personal attacks rather than accept an opposing viewpoint. Your original post does not caution about the use of Teflon (or other chemicals) by those with MCS, but infers that the general population is at risk. Not exactly objective thinking on your part.

    Linda,

    I work for a company that produces packaging for parenteral drugs. In the past 25 years I have seen targeted attacks on products that represent a concern for a small percentage of the population, but are then portrayed as a threat to all of mankind. Silicone oil was one of the first I witnessed, then latex, this whole Teflon thing has been going on for almost a decade. The latest irrational attack is on energy use. A very complicated issue that both sides are trying to narrow down to 10 second sound bites.

    In each case I will be the first to admit that there are problems with the substance. But the damage to society if we just abandoned them would be devastating! Yes, we need alternatives and we need to help those who have issues, but that does not mean we should scare everybody into avoiding these substances.

    Any objective person who reads Lou’s original article would come away with the impression that Teflon was a threat to all, there is no mention of MCS.

    Reply to this comment