Still Using Toxic Non-Stick Cookware?

By Dr. Mercola

If you’re still using non-stick cookware, you may want to seriously reconsider. Ditto for using stain- and water-repellant clothing, and opting for stain-resistant carpets and fabrics.

All of these products — and many more — contain perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA, also known as C8), which has been revealed to be far more dangerous than previously thought.

For 50 years, DuPont used PFOA to make Teflon. Throughout that time, the company has defended the safety of PFOA, and still resists accountability for health problems resulting from exposure to this day. However, the truth has finally come to light.

I started warning people about the potential hazards of Teflon over 15 years ago. As a result, I was legally threatened by DuPont many times.

The evidence is now crystal clear for everyone to see, just as I have warned of for the last decade and a half. The dangers have become undeniable, and DuPont’s connection to this pernicious poison is starting to receive attention in the mainstream media.So far, some 3,500 individuals have sued DuPont for damages. The first case to reach trial was that of an Ohio woman named Carla Bartlett, who claimed PFOA-contaminated tap water caused her to develop kidney cancer.⁶ The case went to trial in September, 2015. DuPont/Chemours was found liable for negligence in this case,⁷ and the jury awarded Bartlett a total of $1.6 million in damages. DuPont is reportedly planning to appeal. As noted by The New York Times:

“DuPont’s continuing refusal to accept responsibility is maddening to Bilott. ‘To think that you’ve negotiated in good faith a deal that everybody has abided by and worked on for seven years, you reach a point where certain things were to be resolved but then remain contested,’ he says. ‘I think about the clients who have been waiting for this, many of whom are sick or have died while waiting. It’s infuriating.’’

Is Your Drinking Water Contaminated With PFOA?

In August 2015, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) released a Teflon report^8,9,10 noting that PFOA has been found in 94 water districts across 27 states. The EWG also highlights recent research showing that PFOA is dangerous at levels 1,300 times lower than previously recognized by the EPA! According to the report:

“… [T]wo leading environmental health scientists have published research with alarming implications…[E]ven very tiny concentrations of PFOA — below the reporting limit required by EPA’s tests of public water supplies — are harmful. This means that EPA’s health advisory level is hundreds or thousands of times too weak to fully protect human health with an adequate margin of safety.”

Areas with higher concentrations of PFOA include Issaquah, Washington; Wilmington, Delaware; Colorado Springs; Nassau County on Long Island; and Parkersburg, West Virginia.¹¹ With the exception of Parkersburg, these districts were all included in Bilott’s class-action lawsuit against DuPont.

Tests have also revealed that PFOA is present in the blood of virtually all Americans, including babies, as it transfers from the mother to the child via umbilical cord blood and breast milk. PFOA, which is very resistant to degradation, has also been found in wild animals all over the globe. Even albatrosses on Sand Island, a wildlife refuge in the middle of the North Pacific Ocean, have the chemical in their system.

As noted by The Intercept:¹²

“Although DuPont no longer uses C8, fully removing the chemical from all the bodies of water and bloodstreams it pollutes is now impossible. And, because it is so chemically stable — in fact, as far as scientists can determine, it never breaks down — C8 is expected to remain on the planet well after humans are gone from it.”

Hundreds of Scientists Issue Warning Over PFAS

Last May, more than 200 scientists from 40 countries signed the so-called Madrid Statement,^13,14 which warns about the harms of all fluorochemicals (PFAS), both old and new. It lists many of the documented health effects associated with the older, long-chain PFASs, including the following:¹⁵

The Statement also points out that:

1. Although some of the long-chain PFASs are being regulated or phased out, the most common replacements are short-chain PFASs with similar structures, or compounds with fluorinated segments joined by ether linkages.

2. While some shorter-chain fluorinated alternatives seem to be less bioaccumulative, they are still as environmentally persistent as long-chain substances or have persistent degradation products.

Thus, a switch to short-chain and other fluorinated alternatives may not reduce the amounts of PFASs in the environment. In addition, because some of the shorter-chain PFASs are less effective, larger quantities may be needed to provide the same performance.

3. While many fluorinated alternatives are being marketed, little information is publicly available on their chemical structures, properties, uses, and toxicological profiles.

4. Increasing use of fluorinated alternatives will lead to increasing levels of stable perfluorinated degradation products in the environment, and possibly also in biota and humans. This would increase the risks of adverse effects on human health and the environment.

New Reform Law May Gut State Rules on Hazardous Chemicals

While it’s becoming clear that we need much more stringent regulations on chemicals, proposed updates to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act may actually hinder efforts to protect Americans against hazardous chemicals by nullifying chemical regulations enacted by individual states.

The Senate’s bill (The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act), which was passed in December 2015, makes it more difficult for states to regulate chemicals once the EPA has evaluated them. It also prohibits states from taking any action against any chemical that the EPA is currently investigating.

The House version (the TSCA Modernization Act) — which preempts states from regulating new chemicals, and is supported by more than 100 industry groups — was passed in June 2015. At present, they’re trying to reconcile the two bills, as they contain a number of differences. As reported by The Intercept:¹⁶

“Although the Senate’s TSCA bill would leave existing state restrictions on specific chemicals intact, provisions in the bill would stop states from setting regulations going forward — and obliterate efforts that are already underway. Take Washington state’s pending legislation to ban a group of flame retardant chemicals used in furniture and children’s products.

Advocates there have been working for years to ban these endocrine disruptors and likely human carcinogens … Although Washington’s House passed the ban 95-3 and the state Senate is working on a similar bill, TSCA reform could invalidate the whole thing. If the EPA puts these flame retardants on its yet-to-be-drafted priority list … the Senate bill would preempt new state efforts to restrict them …

In addition to limiting state regulations, the TSCA reform bills now being combined into one law contain provisions making it harder to intercept dangerous chemical imports at the U.S. border and requiring the EPA to designate some chemicals ‘low priority’ without fully evaluating them. And neither version addresses the huge problem of companies being allowed to introduce new chemicals to the market without first proving their safety.”

How to Avoid These Dangerous Chemicals

It’s quite clear that the chemical industry cannot be trusted to regulate itself, and DuPont stands as a shining example of this. It can take decades before a dangerous chemical is recognized as such, and then the company can simply switch over to another untested, unregulated chemical, and the whack-a-mole game continues — all because chemicals do not have to be proven safe before they’re used. As noted by The New York Times:

“‘The thought that DuPont could get away with this for this long,’ Bilott says, his tone landing halfway between wonder and rage, ‘that they could keep making a profit off it, then get the agreement of the governmental agencies to slowly phase it out, only to replace it with an alternative with unknown human effects — we told the agencies about this in 2001, and they’ve essentially done nothing.

That’s 14 years of this stuff continuing to be used, continuing to be in the drinking water all over the country. DuPont just quietly switches over to the next substance. And in the meantime, they fight everyone who has been injured by it.’’’

The Madrid Statement¹⁷ recommends avoiding any and all products containing, or manufactured using, PFASs, noting they include products that are stain-resistant, waterproof, or non-stick. More helpful tips can be found in the EWG’s “Guide to Avoiding PFCS.”¹⁸

Besides listing a number of sportswear brands known to use PFCs in their shoes and clothing, the Guide also notes that Apple admits the wristband of its new Apple Watch Sport model is made with PFCs. Other suggestions that will help you avoid these dangerous chemicals include avoiding:

Sources and References

• ^1, 11 New York Times January 10, 2016
• ^2, 12 The Intercept August 5, 2015
• ^3, 4 Environmental Working Group May 15, 2003, “Canaries in the Kitchen: DuPont has Known for 50 Years”
• ⁵ C8 Science Panel Research Studies
• ⁶ Reuters October 6, 2015
• ⁷ Salt Lake Tribune October 7, 2015
• ⁸ Environmental Working Group Teflon Report, August 2015
• ⁹ Environmental Working Group August 21, 2015
• ¹⁰ Environmental Working Group August 20, 2015
• ^13, 15, 17 Environ Health Perspect 123:A107–A111, Madrid Statement
• ¹⁴ Newser May 1, 2015
• ¹⁶ The Intercept January 11, 2016
• ¹⁸ EWG’s Guide to Avoiding PFCS (PDF)
• ¹⁹ Clean Water Action, PFC Fact Sheet
• ²⁰ EWG Skin Deep Cosmetics Database

The post Still Using Toxic Non-Stick Cookware? appeared first on LewRockwell.