#Perfluorooctanoic acid

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this New York Times story:

The Biden administration is designating two “forever chemicals,” man-made compounds that are linked to serious health risks, as hazardous substances under the Superfund law, shifting responsibility for their cleanup to polluters from taxpayers.

The new rule announced on Friday empowers the government to force the many companies that manufacture or use perfluorooctanoic acid, also known as PFOA, and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, known as PFOS, to monitor any releases into the environment and be responsible for cleaning them up. Those companies could face billions of dollars in liabilities.

The pair of compounds are part of a larger family of chemical substances known collectively as PFAS.

The compounds, found in everything from dental floss to firefighting foams to children’s toys, are called forever chemicals because they degrade very slowly and can accumulate in the body and the environment. Exposure to PFAS has been associated with metabolic disorders, decreased fertility in women, developmental delays in children and increased risk of some prostate, kidney and testicular cancers, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

The chemicals are so ubiquitous that they can be detected in the blood of almost every person in the United States. One recent government study discovered PFAS chemicals in nearly half of the nation’s tap water. In 2022, the E.P.A. found the chemicals could cause harm at levels “much lower than previously understood” and that almost no level of exposure was safe.

The announcement follows an extraordinary move last week from the E.P.A. mandating that water utilities reduce the PFAS in drinking water to near-zero levels. The agency has also proposed to designate seven additional PFAS chemicals as hazardous waste.

[olowan-waphiya]

of fucking course.....they fucking coated paper straws with pfas......its a fucking nightmare

--

Long-lasting 'forever chemicals', which can cause damaging health issues, found in 18/20 brands of paper straws

In the first analysis of its kind in Europe, and only the second in the world, Belgian researchers tested 39 brands of straws for the group of synthetic chemicals known as poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

PFAS were found in the majority of the straws tested and were most common in those made from paper and bamboo, the study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Food Additives and Contaminants, found.

PFAS are used to make everyday products, from outdoor clothing to non-stick pans, resistant to water, heat and stains. They are, however, potentially harmful to people, wildlife and the environment.

They break down very slowly over time and can persist over thousands of years in the environment, a property that has led to them being known as "forever chemicals."

They have been associated with a number of health problems, including lower response to vaccines, lower birth weight, thyroid disease, increased cholesterol levels, liver damage, kidney cancer and testicular cancer.

"Straws made from plant-based materials, such as paper and bamboo, are often advertised as being more sustainable and eco-friendly than those made from plastic," says researcher Dr Thimo Groffen, an environmental scientist at the University of Antwerp, who is involved in this study.

"However, the presence of PFAS in these straws means that's not necessarily true."

A growing number of countries, including the UK and Belgium, have banned sale of single-use plastic products, including drinking straws, and plant-based versions have become popular alternatives.

A recent study found PFAS in plant-based drinking straws in the US. Dr Groffen and colleagues wanted to find out if the same was true of those on sale in Belgium.

To explore this further, the research team purchased 39 different brands of drinking straw made from five materials -- paper, bamboo, glass, stainless steel and plastic.

The straws, which were mainly obtained from shops, supermarkets and fast-food restaurants, then underwent two rounds of testing for PFAS.

The majority of the brands (27/39, 69%) contained PFAS, with 18 different PFAS detected in total.

The paper straws were most likely to contain PFAS, with the chemicals detected in 18/20 (90%) of the brands tested. PFAS were also detected in 4/5 (80%) brands of bamboo straw, 3/4 (75%) of the plastic straw brands and 2/5 (40%) brands of glass straw. They were not detected in any of the five types of steel straw tested.

The most commonly found PFAS, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), has been banned globally since 2020.

Also detected were trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) and trifluoromethanesulfonic acid (TFMS), "ultra-short chain" PFAS which are highly water soluble and so might leach out of straws into drinks.

The PFAS concentrations were low and, bearing in mind that most people tend to only use straws occasionally, pose a limited risk to human health. However, PFAS can remain in the body for many years and concentrations can build up over time.

"Small amounts of PFAS, while not harmful in themselves, can add to the chemical load already present in the body," says Dr Groffen.

It isn't known whether the PFAS were added to the straws by the manufacturers for waterproofing or whether were the result of contamination. Potential sources of contamination include the soil the plant-based materials were grown in and the water used in the manufacturing process.

However, the presence of the chemicals in almost every brand of paper straw means it is likely that it was, in some cases, being used as a water-repellent coating, say the researchers.

The study's other limitations include not looking at whether the PFAS would leach out of the straws into liquids.

Dr Groffen concludes: "The presence of PFAS in paper and bamboo straws shows they are not necessarily biodegradable.

"We did not detect any PFAS in stainless steel straws, so I would advise consumers to use this type of straw -- or just avoid using straws at all."

[luulapants]

"Free of PFOA and PFOS!"

Just so everyone is aware, if you see this advertised on any product (cookware, period underwear, outdoor gear, etc), usually it means that the manufacturer is using a different PFAS chemical that is just as dangerous but hasn't had a call-out post yet. There are thousands (millions according to some sources) of possible PFAS chemicals and they are all thought to be dangerous to humans and the planet. So when PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) gets put on the shit list, a company can just shift to PFNA (perfluorononanoic acid) or PFHpA (perfluoroheptanoic acid) and declare themselves PFOA-free.

These chemicals are characterized by these long carbon-fluorine chains. They're called "forever chemicals" because the carbon-fluorine bond is incredibly strong and doesn't easily break down, meaning they're a contaminant that builds up in the environment. That chain is also hydrophobic, meaning it repels water, which makes PFAS incredible nonstick, waterproofing, or fire suppressant chemicals. And companies will not stop making them until the entire category is outlaws or people stop buying them, and people won't stop buying them if they don't realize they're buying them, which means companies have a great incentive to be shady as hell about them.

So you can look for products that say they contain no PFAS compounds because that covers the entire category. Except companies aren't actually required to disclose any of this shit and a disreputable company shipping products in from overseas could just lie about that, and the chances of them being caught are low and the chances of them facing consequences other than closing up one Amazon account and moving to another are even lower. So just assume that products that have contained those compounds in the past, if they still function the way they used to, contain another PFAS. "Proprietary nonstick compound"? PFAS. "Newly formulated PFOS-free period underwear"? PFAS.

I was prompted to write this because I saw a whole write-up on the TomboyX website about this. If you want to see my breakdown on their statement, look below the cut.

The following are excerpts from this portion of the TomboyX website describing their period underwear:

Two significant corrections here. The estimates for the number of chemicals in the category of PFAS is somewhere between 4,730 (according to the OECD) and 6 million (per the NCBI). Not all of those have been linked to health issues because not all of those have been studied. Every single one that has been studied has been found to be dangerous to human health. The level of concentration for health impacts may vary, but they're all pretty darn low. We have no reason to believe that any chemical in this family is not dangerous to human health.

There's a lot going on here. First off, I want to say that this is all pretty typical for a self-regulating industry like textiles. Oeko-Tex is a for-profit third-party certification company which controls and owns its own standards, and the actual list of 100 chemicals known to be toxic to humans is not publicly listed on their website. We don't know how many PFAS compounds are "included" in that list, but if I had to guess, it's no more than 5, which explains why TomboyX claimed there were only hundreds of PFAS. "100 chemicals including PFAS compounds" out of hundreds of possible PFAS sounds a lot better than "a few compounds out of 6 million."

That they had an independent laboratory test their materials for PFAS does seem like an extra step, but it actually makes me more concerned. First of all, that laboratory would only have a very small set of PFAS compounds they test for, most likely, and was probably testing for the same ones covered by the Oeko-Tex certification. Second, why would they need to determine that through a test and not by, y'know, checking their own purchase records? It's because they're not creating their own fabrics and their fabric suppliers haven't shared their formulations with TomboyX. That means they don't actually know what's in those fabrics nor do they have an excess of control over their content. Visiting their factories doesn't mean that much if the formulations are confidential from them. Again, that's not unusual, but they're giving the impression that they have a lot more control over their fabric composition than they probably actually do.

They're correct that they've gone beyond the norm in investigating this sort of thing, but the fact is that the bar is so, so low.

So let's take a practical look at the likelihood that there are PFAS in these panties. The moisture-wicking twill and absorbent terry cloth are not risky - those are things those materials do naturally. However, cotton is not naturally water-resistant at all. It absorbs moisture like crazy. That means the cotton has been treated with something, and that something is probably a PFAS compound.

This is the second time they've used this phrase "PFAS commonly used in clothing production," and I think it's important to note that we are currently in a big transition where companies are shifting to a bunch of different, less-common compounds because of the sudden focus and pressure on PFAS. Manufacturers know which compounds people are going to test for, and it's not that difficult to shift to a different one.

Am I going to buy these panties? Absolutely not. Do I think TomboyX is somehow malicious in their manufacturing? It's hard to say. They're right, they're not "knowingly" producing a harmful product, but there's an element of plausible deniability there, right? They can know that PFAS are really the only compounds used to waterproof cotton but also say "hey, we tested this stuff for everything the labs test it for, and it's clean!" On the other hand, they're right that this is probably the safest and highest quality material available for this specific purpose. Some company out there is probably doing some great out-of-the-box thinking and figuring out how to add a layer of latex to period panties or something like that, but for the time being, these fabric reusable pads and panties are inevitably going to use PFAS.

[reasoningdaily]

The Guardian: In our blood: how the US allowed toxic chemicals to seep into our lives

For decades, it was the secret behind the magic show of homemaking across the US. Applied to a pan, it could keep a fried egg from sticking to the surface.Soaked into a carpet, it could shrug off spills of red wine. Sprayed onto shoes and coats, it could keep the kids dry on a rainy day.

But the most clandestine maneuver of perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, was much less endearing: seeping into the blood and organs of hundreds of millions of people who used products containing the chemical.

Most people who have heard of the chemical likely know about it because it was found to be toxic and removed from consumer goods in 2015 after decades of use, leading to modern boasts of “PFOA-free” on product packaging. In recent years, PFOA has also become the target of widespread regulatory action, news media attention and even a Hollywood movieas contaminated drinking water was discovered in hundreds of communities across the country.

While most concerns about the chemical’s health risks have centered on communities where research has linked PFOA to cancer and other serious illnesses, public health researchers say it serves as a klaxon of something more insidious.

PFOA is just one of dozens of modern-day chemicals that are found in the bodies of the majority of Americans, regardless of where they live. Research has also shown that more Americans are facing a growing number of ailments and disorders, from autoimmune disease to developmental disorders such as autism and some cancers. Scientists are increasingly concerned these two truths are linked, and some believe that the American public and lawmakers alike are dangerously unaware of the perils lurking in their veins.

“It’s very hard for people to understand exposure and effects when they can’t see a smoking gun,” said Linda Birnbaum, a former director of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences.

Sorting out the causes of troubling public health trends is extremely difficult. For example, how much is due to aging demographics, personal behaviors, diagnostic changes or environmental exposures? But in recent years, scientists have accumulated enough data to conclude with confidence that humans face significant health risks from exposure to common commercial chemicals,and that regulations designed to protect them are failing.

“I do think this area has been badly overridden by industry,” said Wendy Wagner, an attorney and professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law who has written about chemical contaminants. “People don’t realize that we actually encourage and even subsidize the production of tens of thousands of chemicals, while imposing essentially no requirements on manufacturers to test their safety. Nor do we ask whether we need the chemical, whether it’s useful, whether there are safer substitutes – or what it’s doing to the environment.”

When to declare a chemical safe or unsafe is critical. Experts say that due to flaws in federal regulation, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is perennially playing catch up. The majority of the 86,000 consumer chemicals registered with the agency have never received vigorous toxicity testing.

The EPA doesn’t dispute that untested chemicals have been approved for use, but told the Examination that “far fewer” than 86,000 chemicals are still used today. The agency further stated that it believes it has made “significant progress” in addressing the risks of chemicals over the past four decades and in recent years has worked to draft a bevy of new rules and actions to address remaining high-priority risks.

“Where we identify unreasonable risks from a chemical, we must take action to address [them]”, the agency wrote in an email. “These proposed rules are great examples of protective actions that have prompted strong engagement from industry and environmental [non-profit] stakeholders, but we made them by following the law and the science to protect human health.”

The American Chemistry Council (ACC), a trade group for the chemical industry, also pushed back on the notion that commercial chemicals are under-tested or there was a lack of toxicology data, saying in a statement: “Chemicals in commerce are subject to stringent government oversight.”

But PFOA is an example of how a chemical can slip through the cracks and cause damage even when its dangers are eventually identified.

A phaseout of that chemical in consumer products began in the early 2000s and concluded in 2015, but it remains in the bodies of more than nine in 10 Americans today, its impacts still unfolding.

Tracey Woodruff, director of the University of California San Francisco program on reproductive health and environment, said the dangers of PFOA exposure are real, if difficult to appreciate. A study she helped lead, published in 2014 in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, calculated a relationship between decreased birth weight and PFOA.

“What we have learned is that even small amounts of these chemicals have an impact on fetal development, including increasing risk of infant death,” said Woodruff, who is on the advisory council of the Examination.

But the dangers of chemical exposure go far beyond PFOA.

Premature babies in intensive care units appear to have higher amounts of plastics chemicals called phthalates in their bodies, likely from exposure to breathing equipment, according to a 2020 paper authored by Chris Gennings, director of the division of biostatistics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, and colleagues. Phthalate mixtures, the report noted, can impact “neurobehavioral development”, with other studies finding links to aggression, inattention and rule-breaking behavior in boys from prenatal exposure. Gennings adds that even healthy children face similar risks from plastics chemicals still commonly found in baby bottles.

And studies show even the most cautious parents may not be able to escape the sins of the past.

Over the last 10 years, new research in the field of epigenetics, which studies how behavior and environmental exposures can affect how genes work, has found increasing evidence that harm from chemical exposures may become inherited. The chemicals change how the body operates, passing the changes down through two or three generations, and maybe even more. While the effect is well established in animal studies, researchers are now going about the much more difficult task of studying people and sorting correlation from causation, according to Carrie Breton, an environmental epidemiologist at the University of Southern California who published a review of recent research on epigenetics in 2021.

But for Breton, the data linking some chemicals to toxic effects is already strong enough to warrant action, even if the exact mechanism – epigenetic or otherwise – is not yet fully understood.

“Should we understand how it’s happening? Can that help inform interventions? Yes,” Breton said. “But from a policy point of view … If we have evidence of that harm, we should be able to start regulating and doing something about it now.”

Why chemicals in consumer products aren’t better regulated

Sixty-one years ago, the marine biologist Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, a book often hailed as revolutionary for its compelling communication of the risks of pesticides and other substances. The book is credited with helping propel a popular movement that led to the creation of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as well as the federal Clean Water and Clean Air Acts, which have dramatically reduced environmental pollution over the past half-century.

But, experts say, health threats from commercial chemicals remain fundamentally the same. So what went wrong?

Sarah Vogel, senior vice-president for healthy communities at the non-profit Environmental Defense Fund, says US environmental standards have improved in some ways since the publication of Silent Spring, especially in the first few decades after the book was published. Urban waterways like Ohio’s Cuyahoga River aren’t catching on fire anymore. Neighborhoods are no longer being sprayed with dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT),which has been linked to breast cancer, hypertension and obesity in the daughters of women exposed to the bug killer. Vogel’s organization and others successfully pushed for a widespread ban of the pesticide in the US in 1972.

Progress on chemicals in consumer products, however, has lagged behind, Vogel said.

“On the chemicals piece – chemicals that are going into everything from paints and carpeting, cars and planes and all the rest of it,” Vogel said. “Think of the complexities of plastics that we use now. There have been a lot of new chemicals we’ve produced.”

Ostensibly designed to enable the EPA to collect information on chemicals from the companies that created them and ban the ones found to be unacceptably toxic, experts say the law had major flaws from the start. Perhaps none loom larger than the law’s “grandfathering” of tens of thousands of chemicals already in the marketplace, removing most from scrutiny. Vogel says the law was further diminished by rollbacks and budget cuts.

“TSCA effectively became a dead letter law,” Vogel said, meaning its original intentions were gutted.

In one of the most significant moments in the law’s history, in the 1980s the EPA moved to ban asbestos, a well-known carcinogen. But a 1991 US court of appeals decision tossed out most of the ruling, weakening the power of TSCA, and the administration of President George HW Bush declined to appeal. Contrary to popular belief, asbestos remains legal for various uses today.

“That really kneecapped the EPA,” said Melanie Benesh, legislative attorney for the non-profit Environmental Working Group. “It made it much more difficult for them to do much for existing chemicals.”

In 2016, the US Congress passed the Lautenberg Act, which overhauled the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act and gave the EPA new authority, leading to the creation of two separate programs at the agency to review old and new chemicals. The agency announced a plan last year to fully ban asbestos.

But policy specialists like Vogel are withholding judgment on the significance of the reform as the Biden administration makes its mark, introducing new regulations on PFOA and similar chemicals in drinking water and evoking TSCA to potentially regulate 10 more toxic substances, including those used in rubber, plastics and fuels.

Although the EPA told the Examination it agrees that TSCA “largely failed to serve its purpose” over its first four decades, it said the 2016 update allows the agency to “effectively protect human health and the environment” through a slew of new mandates and regulatory authorities.

“Despite facing a massive increase in responsibilities and statutory deadlines from the most significant piece of environmental legislation enacted in a generation, the [Trump] administration never asked for any additional resources to implement TSCA,” the agency said. “Still, we’ve taken the resources we have and managed to make significant progress.”

For its part, the American Chemistry Council says it has “consistently called attention to challenges with TSCA” and supports the law.

But others say the numbers tell the story. Kyla Bennett, a former EPA employee and current director of science policy at the non-profit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, told the Examination that at recent rates of review, it would takethousands of years to assess all 86,000 chemicals currently approved for use.

EPA staff interviewed by the Examination say the agency’s chemical programs remain understaffed, overwhelmed and burdened by still-ineffective regulations and a persistent culture that enables the chemical industry instead of counterbalancing it.

Martin Phillips, an EPA chemist, was reassigned from the agency’s new chemicals program in 2020 after filing a whistleblower complaint. In an interview, Phillips noted that the EPA is currently assessing risks associated with asbestos, phthalates and ethylene dibromide – a fuel additive considered highly toxic and likely carcinogenic – nearly 40 years after Bill Drayton, a former EPA assistant administrator, warned in a report that the agency was moving too slowly to regulate them. “The agency felt it had enough information back then to regulate the chemicals, but that regulation hasn’t happened in 39 years,” Phillips said.

Cancer isn’t the only health risk from modern chemicals

Cancer is perhaps the first ailment that comes to mind when most people imagine the risks of chemical exposure. And with good reason: the disease is the number two killer in the US and remains a persistent threat from many modern chemicals, say researchers.

But a focus on cancer can obscure other risks, including heart disease, which kills 90,000 more people annually.

Philip Landrigan, a world-renowned epidemiologist and director of Boston College’s global public health program and Global Observatory on Planetary Health, has been at the forefront of efforts to restrict toxic substances like lead and asbestos for decades. While asbestos is a potent carcinogen, lead impacts many parts of the body, including the brain and bones. Perhaps deadliest is its damage to the kidneys, which Landrigan says likely increases blood pressure and hypertension, raising the risk for heart disease and stroke.

“Cancer is a frightening disease,” Landrigan said. “But actually a larger number of pollution-related deaths are due to heart disease and stroke.”

Vogel says that over the past several decades, advancements in the understanding of the human genome, microbiome and other bodily systems have allowed researchers to begin developing a better picture of these types of non-cancer risks from exposure to even very small amounts of chemicals.

One of the most alarming varieties is “endocrine disruptors”, a moniker given to any substance that interferes with the body’s transmission of hormones – or even mimics them. This causes cascading effects in the body that may be difficult to predict or understand, impacting metabolism, energy levels, reproduction, development and mood. Scientists believe that many “forever chemicals”, including PFOA, operate this way by accumulating in the body and tinkering with its organs and systems.

Birnbaum, the formerdirector of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences,compares the effect to medicines such as birth control pills. Like medicines, commercial chemicals also alter the body’s processes.

Endocrine disruptors can compound the risks of exposure to other toxic substances. Landrigan points to bisphenol A, a plastics chemical American parents are perhaps most acquainted with because of the packaging of baby products marked “BPA-free.” Landrigan says research shows BPA, like lead, contributes to heart disease, likely by modifying cholesterol levels and increasing atherosclerosis.

But it is endocrine disruption during pregnancy and early childhood – what Landrigan calls “the first 1,000 days of life”– that most keeps researchers up at night.

“That’s when the organ systems in a child’s body are being formed,” Landrigan said. “The development of the brain, lungs, the immune system, the reproductive organs … It doesn’t take much to derail them.”

Studies show phthalates and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), both endocrine disruptors, can cause brain injuries in children, showing up as reduced IQ later in life, says Landrigan.

The health effects of endocrine disruption can be impossible for an individual to link to chemical exposure because they’re hidden among a sea of other variables, such as parenting, education and chance.

For some, the chemical effect will pale in comparison to other factors. But for an unknown percentage, it will be just enough to harm or kill.

“And multiply that by millions of people,” Landrigan said.

Changing how chemicals are regulated

Chemicals are everywhere in modern society.

The phthalates that Gennings’ research shows enter the bodies of babies in neonatal units likely come from the breathing apparatus they could otherwise die without. A slew of PFAS chemicals are integral in the manufacturing of microchips.

But Gennings says if certain types of breathing apparatus expose babies to fewer phthalates, simple awareness and selection of the better equipment could drive down exposures.

“People need to know about the chemicals they are exposed to. How can you make an informed consumer decision without knowing how to balance risks and benefits?” Gennings said.

Wagner, the University of Texas at Austin School of Law professor, doesn’t trust industry to be forthcoming. In 2008 she co-authored a book titled Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research.

Wagner has laid out a series of steps she believes the EPA could take to better regulate chemicals. The proposal includes requiring chemical companies to do more robust toxicity research and provide easy-to-understand analysis of a chemical’s risks and benefits to the EPA and the public. That would allow the agency to focus instead on enforcement.

Many experts say the EPA should ban entire classes of chemicals and create new regulations that consider cumulative risks from chemicals known to target the same organs.

The EPA told the Examination that it’s already thinking along these lines. For example, the agency said that earlier this year it released a “proposed approach” to assess the cumulative risk of phthalate chemicals and is also working to break hundreds of PFAS chemicals into subclasses based on shared characteristics.

“The agency is focused on improving its ability to address multiple chemicals at once, thereby accelerating the effectiveness of regulations, enforcement actions, and the tools and technologies needed to remove PFAS from air, land and water,” the EPA said.

Landrigan, the 81-year-old Boston College epidemiologist, takes the long view. Over his decades-long career, he’s worked with scientists and lawmakers to slowly but surely diminish the seemingly intractable global health threats of lead and asbestos. He’s optimistic it can be done again.

“There’s that old parable: ‘When’s the best time to plant a shade tree?’” Landrigan said. “The answer is 20 years ago. But the second best time is now.”

[manstrans]

a lawsuit claiming simply tropical by simply orange contains poisonous "forever chemicals" :)

In December 2022, a new consumer class action lawsuit was filed against Coca-Cola and its subsidiary The Simply Orange Juice Company in the Southern District of New York. The named plaintiff in the Simply Orange class action lawsuit is New York resident Joseph Lurenz, who is filing the case on behalf of all similarly situated parties. In this case, that includes everyone who bought Simply Tropical Juice made by The Simply Orange Juice Company. So that would include most people reading this. The lawsuit claims that Simply Tropical and Simply Orange is labeled and marketed as “All Natural” and claims that is “made simply” with “all-natural ingredients.” However, the lawsuit claims that the plaintiff has performed lab testing on Simply Tropical which confirms that the juice actually contains PFAS, synthetic chemicals which are obviously not natural. The Complaint goes on to recite the known health risks of PFAS: PFAS are a group of synthetic, man-made, chemicals known to be harmful to both humans and the environment. Because PFAS persist and accumulate over time, they are harmful even at very low levels. Indeed, “PFAS have been shown to have a number of toxicological effects in laboratory studies and have been associated with thyroid disorders, immunotoxicity effects, and various cancers in epidemiology studies. In fact, scientists are studying—and are extremely concerned about—how PFAS affect human health. Consequently, the CDC outlined “a host of health effects associated with PFAS exposure, including cancer, liver damage, decreased fertility, and increased risk of asthma and thyroid disease. The crux of the lawsuit is that the presence of PFAS is completely inconsistent with the marketing of Simply Tropical as an all natural juice product with natural ingredients. The Complaint asserts that this is false and misleading marketing in violation of various consumer protection laws The Complaint just makes a general allegation that third-party laboratory testing has shown “material levels” of PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) and PFOS (perfluorooctanesulfonic acid) contained in Simply Tropical. It does not specifically state the levels of PFAS found in the juice, but claims that they were found in excess of the EPA recommended levels for drinking water.

Until I know more about the lab testing I'm not sure just how true the claims against simply orange are but it wouldn't be surprising to learn that another megacorporation is poisoning its customers

a google search of the plaintiff's name does bring up a facebook page with the same name ended with Sr and general location (southern new york). all public status updates on said page are donations to various charities for causes like ending cancer and animal welfare. it also says he worked at new york state department of corrections and community supervision, though a linkedinn profile says he is retired. it's possible that this is not the plaintiff, maybe it could even be the Jr of the same name, but this does seem like a person who generally cares about causes such as poison in simply tropical

[sakhshimandal]

Advancements in Eco-Friendly Water Repellent Chemicals

Water repellent chemicals have long been essential in various industries, from textiles to construction, providing a vital function in protecting materials from moisture and extending their lifespan. However, many traditional water repellent chemicals, particularly those containing perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), have come under scrutiny due to their harmful environmental and health impacts. As a result, there has been a growing demand for eco-friendly alternatives that provide the same level of performance without the associated risks. In recent years, significant advancements in eco-friendly water repellent chemicals have emerged, driven by innovation in green chemistry and materials science.

The Problem with Traditional Water Repellent Chemicals

For decades, PFCs, including compounds like perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), have been the go-to chemicals for creating water-repellent surfaces. These chemicals are highly effective at creating hydrophobic barriers, making them ideal for a wide range of applications, from waterproof clothing to stain-resistant carpets and water-resistant coatings for building materials. However, PFCs are persistent in the environment, meaning they do not break down easily. They have been found in water supplies, soil, and even the bodies of animals and humans around the world. Studies have linked PFC exposure to various health issues, including cancer, hormone disruption, and immune system impairment.

The negative environmental and health impacts of PFCs have led to regulatory pressure and consumer demand for safer alternatives. This has spurred a wave of research and development aimed at creating eco-friendly water repellent chemicals that do not compromise on performance while being safer for both the environment and human health.

Innovations in Eco-Friendly Water Repellent Chemicals

One of the key areas of advancement in eco-friendly water repellent chemicals is the development of bio-based materials. These materials are derived from natural sources such as plant oils, waxes, and cellulose, making them biodegradable and less harmful to the environment. For example, some bio-based water repellent coatings use fatty acids derived from soybeans, which can create a hydrophobic layer without the need for synthetic chemicals. These bio-based solutions are particularly promising in the textile industry, where they can be applied to fabrics to create water-resistant clothing that is both effective and environmentally friendly.

Another significant innovation is the use of silicone-based water repellents. Silicone compounds have long been known for their water-repelling properties, but traditional silicone-based coatings often required the use of solvents that could be harmful to the environment. Recent advancements have focused on water-based silicone formulations that eliminate the need for harmful solvents while maintaining the performance of traditional silicone coatings. These water-based silicone repellents can be applied to a variety of surfaces, including textiles, glass, and ceramics, providing a durable and eco-friendly alternative to PFC-based products.

Nanotechnology has also played a crucial role in advancing eco-friendly water repellent chemicals. By manipulating materials at the nanoscale, scientists have been able to create superhydrophobic surfaces that repel water far more effectively than traditional coatings. These nano-coatings can be made from non-toxic materials and applied in thin layers, reducing the overall use of chemicals. Nanotechnology has opened up new possibilities for creating water repellent surfaces that are not only environmentally friendly but also more durable and resistant to wear and tear.

Real-World Applications and Success Stories

Several industries have already begun to adopt eco-friendly water repellent chemicals in response to growing environmental concerns. The outdoor apparel industry, for example, has been a leader in the push for safer alternatives. Major brands have introduced lines of waterproof clothing and gear that use bio-based or PFC-free water repellents, offering consumers effective protection from the elements without the associated environmental impact.

The construction industry is also benefiting from advancements in eco-friendly water repellent chemicals. Water-based silicone sealants and coatings are being used to protect building materials like concrete, wood, and stone from water damage, reducing the need for repairs and extending the lifespan of structures. These eco-friendly solutions not only help protect buildings but also contribute to sustainable construction practices by minimizing the use of harmful chemicals.

Challenges and the Path Forward

While significant progress has been made, challenges remain in the widespread adoption of eco-friendly water repellent chemicals. One of the primary obstacles is the cost. Eco-friendly alternatives are often more expensive to produce than traditional PFC-based chemicals, which can make them less attractive to manufacturers looking to keep costs down. However, as demand for safer products grows and production processes become more efficient, it is likely that the cost of eco-friendly water repellents will decrease over time.

Another challenge is ensuring that eco-friendly water repellent chemicals can match the performance of their traditional counterparts. In some cases, bio-based and water-based coatings may not be as durable or effective in extreme conditions. Ongoing research and development are crucial to overcoming these limitations and creating products that meet the needs of both consumers and the environment.

Conclusion

The advancement of eco-friendly water repellent chemicals represents a significant step forward in reducing the environmental impact of industrial and consumer products. Through innovations in bio-based materials, silicone formulations, and nanotechnology, industries are finding new ways to protect surfaces from water damage without relying on harmful chemicals like PFCs. As research continues and these technologies become more widely adopted, the future of water repellent chemicals looks promising, offering effective and sustainable solutions for a healthier planet.

[tsmom1219]

Tracing sources of diffuse PFAS pollution: PFAS contamination in soil near a municipal waste-to-energy plant

Dijkstra, J., Brunschwiler, N., and Griffioen, J. (2024). “Tracing sources of diffuse PFAS pollution: PFAS contamination in soil near a Municipal Waste-to-Energy plant.” EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-2002, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-2002. Abstract Poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), among which are perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and…

[freehawaii]

HAS THE US OCCUPATION OF HAWAI`I WORKED? - CLEANUP OF PEARL HARBOR FOREVER CHEMICALS COULD TAKE DECADES

  Stripes.com - April 16, 2024 FORT SHAFTER, Hawaii — The Navy has identified 20 sites on and near Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam suspected of contamination by PFAS “forever” chemicals, but cleanup could take decades, according to a federal government watchdog. “The Navy is taking steps to assess these sites and, where appropriate, develop plans for their long-term cleanup,” the Government Accountability Office said in a report released Monday. Long-term cleanup for some sites could take more than 30 years, the report states. PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl, is a class of hazardous chemicals that have been commonly used in manufacturing and fire suppressants since the 1950s. The Environmental Protection Agency refers to PFAS components as “forever” chemicals because they persist in the environment and do not break down readily. PFAS exposure may lead to a variety of health effects, including an increased risk of cancer, according to the EPA. Last week, the EPA finalized a rule that established the first-ever nationally enforceable drinking water standard for six PFAS substances. Among those are perfluorooctane sulfonate, or PFOS, and perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, which have been among the most widely used PFAS compounds in America. Hawaii’s congressional delegation requested the GAO report in response to a November 2022 spill of about 1,100 gallons of a PFAS-infused firefighting foam concentrate at the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility near the joint base. The accidental release from a tank near the top level of the massive underground facility followed a jet fuel leak a year earlier that had contaminated the Navy’s drinking water distribution system. The Navy is in the process of decommissioning the facility. The firefighting foam incident “raised concerns about how the Navy would remediate PFAS contamination at the installation,” the GAO report states. In September, the Navy conducted sampling tests for PFAS at 21 wells in the vicinity of the Red Hill fuel facility. “This sampling found low-level PFAS detections in four wells that exceeded the state of Hawaii groundwater screening levels,” the GAO report states. “DOD officials stated they are not concerned that these PFAS detections will impact drinking water as the nearest drinking water well is upgradient and approximately six miles away.” Navy officials told the GAO that the PFAS detected in the wells was not from the 2022 accidental spill at the fuel facility. In a report submitted to the EPA in November, the Navy identified 124 potential “areas of interest” for PFAS contamination on and near Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, the GAO report states. Those sites included all aircraft hangars, locations of known or suspected jet fuel fires, firefighting foam training sites and other locations possibly used for storing the foam, the GAO report states. The Navy found that 20 of those sites, including the area of the Red Hill spill, had known of potential releases of firefighting foam. The Defense Department has directed that the investigation and cleanup of those sites advance under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, more commonly referred to as the EPA’s “Superfund,” the GAO report states.

[dnahealthsa]

Air fryers have become a staple in many kitchens, promising healthier cooking by reducing the need for oil while still delivering deliciously crispy results in half the time. However, recent concerns have arisen about the potential health hazards associated with certain components of these handy kitchen appliances.

One of the primary concerns revolves around the non-stick coatings used in many air fryers. While these coatings certainly make cleaning a breeze, not all of them are created equal in terms of safety. Some non-stick coatings contain chemicals such as PFOAs (perfluorooctanoic acid) and PTFE’s (polytetrafluoroethylene), commonly known as “forever chemicals.” These chemicals have been linked to various health issues, including cancer, thyroid disorders, liver conditions, reproductive disorders, and more.

The irony is that while these forever chemicals excel at repelling grease and oil, making them ideal for non-stick surfaces, they pose a significant risk to human health when inhaled or ingested. So, how can you determine if your air fryer contains these potentially harmful substances?

Identifying Air Fryers with Non-Stick, Forever Chemicals

Unpleasant Odors: When heating your air fryer to high temperatures, take note of any unpleasant odours. This could indicate the presence of harmful chemicals being released.

Check the Packaging: Look for indications on the packaging that the air fryer is free of PFOAs, PTFEs, and Teflon. Manufacturers who prioritize safety will often advertise this prominently.

Contact the Manufacturer: If in doubt, reach out to the manufacturer directly and request a food-grade test report. Reputable companies should be transparent about the materials used in their products.

What Can You Do if You’re Still Concerned?

If you’re worried about the safety of your air fryer, there are steps you can take to mitigate any potential risks:

Choose a Reputable Brand: Opt for air fryers from well-known and trusted brands that prioritize safety and transparency in their manufacturing processes. Researching customer reviews and ratings can also provide valuable insights into the reliability of a particular brand.

Select Alternative Materials: Consider air fryers made from stainless steel, glass, or ceramic, which do not require non-stick coatings to achieve optimal cooking results. While these options may require a bit more effort in terms of cleaning, they eliminate the risk associated with forever chemicals.

Why Choose DNA Health When Choosing an Air Fryer?

When it comes to selecting an air fryer that prioritizes both performance and safety, DNA Health stands out as a reliable choice. Here’s why:

Variety of Safe Materials: DNA Health manufactures air fryers using stainless steel and ceramic, ensuring that your cooking surfaces are free from potentially harmful chemicals like PFOAs and PTFEs. Whether you opt for the DNA Airfryer Oven, the DNA Dual Airfryer Oven, or the DNA Smart Airfryer, you can trust that your appliance is crafted with your health in mind.

Stainless Steel Accessories: To complement our stainless steel air fryers, DNA Health offers stainless steel accessories alongside coated options made from food-grade silicon. This versatility allows you to choose accessories that align with your preferences and cooking needs. Plus, you have the option to purchase most coated accessories in stainless steel, providing peace of mind for those who prefer metal utensils.

Food Grade Approved Accessories: At DNA Health, we understand the importance of using safe materials in every aspect of your cooking experience. That’s why all of our accessories are food-grade approved, ensuring that they meet the highest standards of safety and quality.

Chemical-Free Cooking: Our accessories are designed to withstand high temperatures without leaching any chemicals into your food. You can confidently cook at maximum temperatures knowing that your DNA Health air fryer and accessories are free from harmful substances.

At DNA Health, your health is our top priority. We believe that you shouldn’t have to compromise on safety when it comes to enjoying delicious, crispy meals. Explore our range of air fryers and accessories at www.dnahealth.co.za to discover how you can elevate your cooking experience while prioritizing your well-being.

[mihikavasant]

Harmful Effects Of Aluminum On Your Oral Health | Surya Dental Care

Selecting the appropriate cookware is as vital to your well-being as choosing nutritious foods, as recent evidence suggests that the materials used in cooking utensils can introduce harmful substances into our diets.

For instance, aluminum cookware, widely used due to its affordability and rust-resistant properties, has come under scrutiny from health professionals. They warn that dishes prepared in aluminum utensils can contain toxic compounds like cadmium and mercury, which can leach into food, posing health risks over time.

The ingestion of such toxins may lead to adverse effects on various bodily systems, including damage to brain cells, interference with bone growth, and suppression of the immune system. Additionally, consuming foods cooked in aluminum utensils has been associated with increased rates of acidity, indigestion, and peptic ulcers.

Moreover, aluminum particles released during cooking can disrupt the mineral compounds in food, further compromising its nutritional value.

Some individuals opt for non-stick aluminum cookware coated with Teflon, believing it to be a healthier choice. However, heating Teflon pans can release perfluorooctanoic acid, a highly acidic substance harmful to the immune system and overall health.

Prolonged exposure to aluminum can also lead to oral health complications, including gum diseases, salivary gland disorders, and risks to dental implants. Gum diseases, caused by infections and autoimmune responses, can result in tooth loss and other dental issues. Similarly, reduced salivary flow due to salivary gland disorders can lead to bad breath, cavities, and dry mouth, as saliva plays a crucial role in combating oral bacteria.

Furthermore, aluminum's adverse effects on bone mineralization can jeopardize the success of dental implants, reducing their integration with the jawbone and stability.

To mitigate these risks, transitioning to alternative cookware such as cast-iron, stainless steel, or earthenware pots is recommended. By doing so, individuals can minimize exposure to aluminum and its detrimental effects on both oral and overall health.

FOR MORE INFO VISIT: https://www.suryadentalcare.com/harmful-effects-of-aluminium-on-your-oral-health

[sunaleisocial]

A new sensor detects harmful “forever chemicals” in drinking water

New Post has been published on https://sunalei.org/news/a-new-sensor-detects-harmful-forever-chemicals-in-drinking-water/

A new sensor detects harmful “forever chemicals” in drinking water

MIT chemists have designed a sensor that detects tiny quantities of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) — chemicals found in food packaging, nonstick cookware, and many other consumer products.

These compounds, also known as “forever chemicals” because they do not break down naturally, have been linked to a variety of harmful health effects, including cancer, reproductive problems, and disruption of the immune and endocrine systems.

Using the new sensor technology, the researchers showed that they could detect PFAS levels as low as 200 parts per trillion in a water sample. The device they designed could offer a way for consumers to test their drinking water, and it could also be useful in industries that rely heavily on PFAS chemicals, including the manufacture of semiconductors and firefighting equipment.

“There’s a real need for these sensing technologies. We’re stuck with these chemicals for a long time, so we need to be able to detect them and get rid of them,” says Timothy Swager, the John D. MacArthur Professor of Chemistry at MIT and the senior author of the study, which appears this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Other authors of the paper are former MIT postdoc and lead author Sohyun Park and MIT graduate student Collette Gordon.

Detecting PFAS

Coatings containing PFAS chemicals are used in thousands of consumer products. In addition to nonstick coatings for cookware, they are also commonly used in water-repellent clothing, stain-resistant fabrics, grease-resistant pizza boxes, cosmetics, and firefighting foams.

These fluorinated chemicals, which have been in widespread use since the 1950s, can be released into water, air, and soil, from factories, sewage treatment plants, and landfills. They have been found in drinking water sources in all 50 states.

In 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency created an “advisory health limit” for two of the most hazardous PFAS chemicals, known as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctyl sulfonate (PFOS). These advisories call for a limit of 0.004 parts per trillion for PFOA and 0.02 parts per trillion for PFOS in drinking water.

Currently, the only way that a consumer could determine if their drinking water contains PFAS is to send a water sample to a laboratory that performs mass spectrometry testing. However, this process takes several weeks and costs hundreds of dollars.

To create a cheaper and faster way to test for PFAS, the MIT team designed a sensor based on lateral flow technology — the same approach used for rapid Covid-19 tests and pregnancy tests. Instead of a test strip coated with antibodies, the new sensor is embedded with a special polymer known as polyaniline, which can switch between semiconducting and conducting states when protons are added to the material.

The researchers deposited these polymers onto a strip of nitrocellulose paper and coated them with a surfactant that can pull fluorocarbons such as PFAS out of a drop of water placed on the strip. When this happens, protons from the PFAS are drawn into the polyaniline and turn it into a conductor, reducing the electrical resistance of the material. This change in resistance, which can be measured precisely using electrodes and sent to an external device such as a smartphone, gives a quantitative measurement of how much PFAS is present.

This approach works only with PFAS that are acidic, which includes two of the most harmful PFAS — PFOA and perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA).

A user-friendly system

The current version of the sensor can detect concentrations as low as 200 parts per trillion for PFBA, and 400 parts per trillion for PFOA. This is not quite low enough to meet the current EPA guidelines, but the sensor uses only a fraction of a milliliter of water. The researchers are now working on a larger-scale device that would be able to filter about a liter of water through a membrane made of polyaniline, and they believe this approach should increase the sensitivity by more than a hundredfold, with the goal of meeting the very low EPA advisory levels.

“We do envision a user-friendly, household system,” Swager says. “You can imagine putting in a liter of water, letting it go through the membrane, and you have a device that measures the change in resistance of the membrane.”

Such a device could offer a less expensive, rapid alternative to current PFAS detection methods. If PFAS are detected in drinking water, there are commercially available filters that can be used on household drinking water to reduce those levels. The new testing approach could also be useful for factories that manufacture products with PFAS chemicals, so they could test whether the water used in their manufacturing process is safe to release into the environment.

The research was funded by an MIT School of Science Fellowship to Gordon, a Bose Research Grant, and a Fulbright Fellowship to Park.

[jcmarchi]

A new sensor detects harmful “forever chemicals” in drinking water

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/a-new-sensor-detects-harmful-forever-chemicals-in-drinking-water/

A new sensor detects harmful “forever chemicals” in drinking water

MIT chemists have designed a sensor that detects tiny quantities of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) — chemicals found in food packaging, nonstick cookware, and many other consumer products.

These compounds, also known as “forever chemicals” because they do not break down naturally, have been linked to a variety of harmful health effects, including cancer, reproductive problems, and disruption of the immune and endocrine systems.

Using the new sensor technology, the researchers showed that they could detect PFAS levels as low as 200 parts per trillion in a water sample. The device they designed could offer a way for consumers to test their drinking water, and it could also be useful in industries that rely heavily on PFAS chemicals, including the manufacture of semiconductors and firefighting equipment.

“There’s a real need for these sensing technologies. We’re stuck with these chemicals for a long time, so we need to be able to detect them and get rid of them,” says Timothy Swager, the John D. MacArthur Professor of Chemistry at MIT and the senior author of the study, which appears this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Other authors of the paper are former MIT postdoc and lead author Sohyun Park and MIT graduate student Collette Gordon.

Detecting PFAS

Coatings containing PFAS chemicals are used in thousands of consumer products. In addition to nonstick coatings for cookware, they are also commonly used in water-repellent clothing, stain-resistant fabrics, grease-resistant pizza boxes, cosmetics, and firefighting foams.

These fluorinated chemicals, which have been in widespread use since the 1950s, can be released into water, air, and soil, from factories, sewage treatment plants, and landfills. They have been found in drinking water sources in all 50 states.

In 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency created an “advisory health limit” for two of the most hazardous PFAS chemicals, known as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctyl sulfonate (PFOS). These advisories call for a limit of 0.004 parts per trillion for PFOA and 0.02 parts per trillion for PFOS in drinking water.

Currently, the only way that a consumer could determine if their drinking water contains PFAS is to send a water sample to a laboratory that performs mass spectrometry testing. However, this process takes several weeks and costs hundreds of dollars.

To create a cheaper and faster way to test for PFAS, the MIT team designed a sensor based on lateral flow technology — the same approach used for rapid Covid-19 tests and pregnancy tests. Instead of a test strip coated with antibodies, the new sensor is embedded with a special polymer known as polyaniline, which can switch between semiconducting and conducting states when protons are added to the material.

The researchers deposited these polymers onto a strip of nitrocellulose paper and coated them with a surfactant that can pull fluorocarbons such as PFAS out of a drop of water placed on the strip. When this happens, protons from the PFAS are drawn into the polyaniline and turn it into a conductor, reducing the electrical resistance of the material. This change in resistance, which can be measured precisely using electrodes and sent to an external device such as a smartphone, gives a quantitative measurement of how much PFAS is present.

This approach works only with PFAS that are acidic, which includes two of the most harmful PFAS — PFOA and perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA).

A user-friendly system

The current version of the sensor can detect concentrations as low as 200 parts per trillion for PFBA, and 400 parts per trillion for PFOA. This is not quite low enough to meet the current EPA guidelines, but the sensor uses only a fraction of a milliliter of water. The researchers are now working on a larger-scale device that would be able to filter about a liter of water through a membrane made of polyaniline, and they believe this approach should increase the sensitivity by more than a hundredfold, with the goal of meeting the very low EPA advisory levels.

“We do envision a user-friendly, household system,” Swager says. “You can imagine putting in a liter of water, letting it go through the membrane, and you have a device that measures the change in resistance of the membrane.”

Such a device could offer a less expensive, rapid alternative to current PFAS detection methods. If PFAS are detected in drinking water, there are commercially available filters that can be used on household drinking water to reduce those levels. The new testing approach could also be useful for factories that manufacture products with PFAS chemicals, so they could test whether the water used in their manufacturing process is safe to release into the environment.

The research was funded by an MIT School of Science Fellowship to Gordon, a Bose Research Grant, and a Fulbright Fellowship to Park.

[leedsomics]

Investigating the mode of action for liver toxicity and wasting-like responses produced by high dose exposures to longer chain perfluoroacid substances (PFAS) using high throughput transcriptomics

Single doses of perfluoro-n-decanoic acid (PFDA) cause wasting, a progressive loss of 30 to 50% body weight, increasing liver/body weight ratios, and death within several weeks (Olson and Andersen, 1983). Repeat high doses of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) produce a subset of these responses in rats and monkeys. The mode of action (MOA) of these wasting-like syndromes is not clear, nor is it understood if these responses are limited to a subset of perfluoroacid substances (PFAS) or a common response to high dose exposure with a larger number of PFAS. To identify pathway perturbations in liver caused by PFAS, we analyzed published in vitro gene expression studies from human primary liver spheroids treated with various PFAS for treatment times up to 14 days (Rowan-Carroll et al., 2021). With treatment times of 10 to 14 days, longer-chain PFAS compounds, specifically PFOS, perfluorodecane sulfonate (PFDS) and higher doses of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), downregulated large numbers of genes in pathways for steroid metabolism, fatty acid metabolism and biological oxidations. Shorter chain PFAS compounds upregulated genes in pathways for fatty acid metabolism. Although PFDA was more toxic and could only be examined at 1-day of treatment, it also downregulated genes for lipid metabolism, steroid metabolism, and biological oxidations. Shorter chain PFAS, both carboxylic and sulfonic acids, did not lead to downregulation of pathways for fatty acid or steroid metabolism. TCDD is also known to cause wasting responses in rodents and humans. In intact rats, high dose responses of longer chain PFAS produce downregulation of batteries of genes associated with fatty acid oxidation and lipogenesis similar to those seen with TCDD. Based on our results, when combined with other literature, we propose that the longer-chain PFAS impair lipogenic pathways through inhibitory interactions between PPARbeta; PPARalpha; and PPARgamma. http://dlvr.it/T3kTzj

[aviasindia]

In the world of modern kitchenware, non-stick cookware has gained immense popularity for its convenience and ease of use. However, there have been concerns and debates regarding the health implications of using non-stick cookware. In this blog post, we will examine the truth behind the myths and explore the health aspects of non-stick cookware.

Understanding Non-Stick Cookware: Non-stick cookware is typically coated with a synthetic polymer called polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), commonly known as Teflon. This coating prevents food from sticking to the surface, making cooking and cleaning a breeze.

The Myth of Toxic Fumes: One prevalent concern associated with non-stick cookware is the potential release of toxic fumes when heated. It is important to note that when used responsibly .Overheating the cookware beyond the manufacturer's recommended temperature can lead to the release of fumes, but this is a rare occurrence in normal cooking scenarios.

PFOA and PTFE: Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) is a chemical that was previously used in the production of PTFE coatings. However, reputable brands have taken steps to eliminate PFOA from their manufacturing processes.

Proper Usage and Maintenance: To ensure the longevity and safety of your non-stick cookware, it is essential to use and maintain it correctly. Avoid using metal utensils that can scratch the non-stick coating, and opt for wooden or silicone utensils instead. Additionally, handwashing  your non-stick cookware is recommended, as dishwashers can cause gradual wear and tear on the coating.

Alternatives to Non-Stick Cookware: If you still have concerns about using non-stick cookware, there are alternative options available. Avias's world offers a wide range of stainless steel, cast iron, and ceramic cookware, which are all excellent choices for healthy cooking. Each type has its own unique benefits, and exploring these alternatives can be a great way to diversify your kitchen cookware collection.

Non-stick cookware is a safe and convenient option for everyday cooking. By following the manufacturer's guidelines and using the products responsibly, you can enjoy the benefits of non-stick cooking without compromising your health and prioritize safety and quality.