Without wanting to condemn the professional input, if they endorse product, this may have a contractual component. I'd expect a decent food journalist to ask if their conditions of payment for endorsement required their support in these times.
That said, there are also alternate non-stick formulations, which are not PFOA/PFAS based chemicals. People decry them, but they do exist. I believe I have either low or no PFOA pans, with ceramic/fused surfaces amongst my cookware. Not to mention Le Creuset and like, which are anything but non-stick once you've cleaned them too aggressively, but are a lot better than bare metal if you can't go the cast iron surface path and this sticking bothers you. Personally, I find food does what it does. I'm ok with "burned crunchy pieces" or BCPs in many things, not all. [Vimes/Pratchett]
I made a decision to stop using the dishwasher on my non-stick pans, and cook at lower temperatures now I have "hot enough" indicators in the handles and pan base and the pans, grease stains outside aside, are as good as new. I'm getting 4-5x as much lifetime from them in a domestic cooking context. I think there's both a cooking temperature, and a cleaning cycle component to what makes non-stick pans age out.
Still grinds my gears when I see TV chef using steel, sharp-edge implements in a non-stick. Wood!
Anyway. where is the cooks treat of Umami-rich lamb fondant coming from, if not stuck to the bottom of the pan to scrape off with a fingernail? After the gravy/jus making I mean. [puts gravox box out of site]
> I'd expect a decent food journalist to ask if their conditions of payment for endorsement required their support in these times.
From the article:
> Mr. Chang and Mr. Samuelsson did not respond to request for comment. In a text, Ms. Ray said she had written her letter to the California legislature “after giving the issue much thought” and that she stood by it.
The reasons from the article are about the quality of food through cooking consistency and how easy non-stick cookware is to use.
If there is proven data that the danger is meaningful how can those be arguments worth considering? There may be alternative cooking methods as people cooked without non-stick cookware for the vast majority of human history and consistency is just a quality level of food.
Safety and utility can often be at odds. Sometimes safety concerns outweigh utility, sometimes they don't.
For instance, car accidents are an incredibly prevalent cause of death, and even though we had methods of transport before (and in many places, better methods even today), the convenience and ease that cars bring is largely deemed to outweigh the risks in most places (though note that there has been a constant drive toward reducing those risks, without giving up cars altogether).
A meaningful downside to something is an important perspective, but arguments about upsides are also always worth considering.
For the pans in particular, consider that alternative cooking methods may have required much more manual effort to perform or clean, or that they were more difficult to exercise well. There are tradeoffs around people cooking at home less if cooking is less convenient, up against the risks of harm from the things that make cooking convenient.
Not saying one side or the other is right, but the arguments are basically always worth at least considering, even in the face of really strong counter-arguments.
the only things stopping all food handling ,processesing, preperation, serving, and storage of food from bieng easy, clean, strong, and reliable is greed ,vested interests, and no system that makes fighting rational implimentation of good practice, extitentionaly dangerous to anyone who threatens basic saftey in food, water, and public infrastructure.
Not that I against extream danger in the persuit of happyness, or gaining enormous wealth, not at all, but that certain things and places must be off limits to those , more energetic, expressions of human ambition.
Without wanting to condemn the professional input, if they endorse product, this may have a contractual component. I'd expect a decent food journalist to ask if their conditions of payment for endorsement required their support in these times.
That said, there are also alternate non-stick formulations, which are not PFOA/PFAS based chemicals. People decry them, but they do exist. I believe I have either low or no PFOA pans, with ceramic/fused surfaces amongst my cookware. Not to mention Le Creuset and like, which are anything but non-stick once you've cleaned them too aggressively, but are a lot better than bare metal if you can't go the cast iron surface path and this sticking bothers you. Personally, I find food does what it does. I'm ok with "burned crunchy pieces" or BCPs in many things, not all. [Vimes/Pratchett]
I made a decision to stop using the dishwasher on my non-stick pans, and cook at lower temperatures now I have "hot enough" indicators in the handles and pan base and the pans, grease stains outside aside, are as good as new. I'm getting 4-5x as much lifetime from them in a domestic cooking context. I think there's both a cooking temperature, and a cleaning cycle component to what makes non-stick pans age out.
Still grinds my gears when I see TV chef using steel, sharp-edge implements in a non-stick. Wood!
Anyway. where is the cooks treat of Umami-rich lamb fondant coming from, if not stuck to the bottom of the pan to scrape off with a fingernail? After the gravy/jus making I mean. [puts gravox box out of site]
> I'd expect a decent food journalist to ask if their conditions of payment for endorsement required their support in these times.
From the article:
> Mr. Chang and Mr. Samuelsson did not respond to request for comment. In a text, Ms. Ray said she had written her letter to the California legislature “after giving the issue much thought” and that she stood by it.
"The chefs, all of whom sell or endorse cookware lines" - wow, who could have predicted a conflict of interest would round out this title?
https://archive.is/bWwGC
Tim ferris recommended these guys https://fromourplace.com as a nonstick stainless steel pan and I've had a great experience with my set!
I am not affiliated just very happy with the product if anyone was looking for stuff to try.
The reasons from the article are about the quality of food through cooking consistency and how easy non-stick cookware is to use.
If there is proven data that the danger is meaningful how can those be arguments worth considering? There may be alternative cooking methods as people cooked without non-stick cookware for the vast majority of human history and consistency is just a quality level of food.
Safety and utility can often be at odds. Sometimes safety concerns outweigh utility, sometimes they don't.
For instance, car accidents are an incredibly prevalent cause of death, and even though we had methods of transport before (and in many places, better methods even today), the convenience and ease that cars bring is largely deemed to outweigh the risks in most places (though note that there has been a constant drive toward reducing those risks, without giving up cars altogether).
A meaningful downside to something is an important perspective, but arguments about upsides are also always worth considering.
For the pans in particular, consider that alternative cooking methods may have required much more manual effort to perform or clean, or that they were more difficult to exercise well. There are tradeoffs around people cooking at home less if cooking is less convenient, up against the risks of harm from the things that make cooking convenient.
Not saying one side or the other is right, but the arguments are basically always worth at least considering, even in the face of really strong counter-arguments.
I only cook on cast iron or stainless steel. I have no problems with the consistency of cooking. No clue what they’re on about
the only things stopping all food handling ,processesing, preperation, serving, and storage of food from bieng easy, clean, strong, and reliable is greed ,vested interests, and no system that makes fighting rational implimentation of good practice, extitentionaly dangerous to anyone who threatens basic saftey in food, water, and public infrastructure. Not that I against extream danger in the persuit of happyness, or gaining enormous wealth, not at all, but that certain things and places must be off limits to those , more energetic, expressions of human ambition.