[HN Gopher] Compostable fast-food packaging can emit volatile PFAS
___________________________________________________________________
Compostable fast-food packaging can emit volatile PFAS
Author : john-titor
Score : 153 points
Date : 2023-04-02 15:58 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (cen.acs.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (cen.acs.org)
| tingletech wrote:
| https://archive.is/J2Wfh
| throwaway892238 wrote:
| You know, we really don't need this disposable culture. Everyone
| just expects to get a disposable container everywhere they go (in
| the West, anyway). But we don't need disposable everything.
| People can carry their own set of utensils, and even their own
| food packaging; it's not uncommon for people to bring their own
| tupperwares to restaurants (wrap it in a decorative cloth to be
| fancy). Restaurants could also give out more robust packaging
| that costs more, or take a deposit to encourage returns.
| Personally, I keep the stronger plastic chinese take-out
| containers.
|
| Back in the day, the disposable container was food. You'd get a
| portable pie (meaning a meat pie, usually) in what was called a
| "coffin" - basically a bread bowl or pastry shell that was mostly
| thrown away after you'd eaten the inside of the pie. Summer rolls
| and spring rolls have their own wrapper. Meat on a stick was
| pretty common. Rice balls could contain fish or vegetables.
| Samosas would have vegetable or meat fillings.
| waboremo wrote:
| I thought this was where we were heading with the explosion of
| popularity with food trucks since they often provide so much
| quantity of food in "food container" like a burrito, but
| instead delivery took off.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| we cam have a country-wide system of reusable packaging that
| you can get from any takeaway, abd can return to any takeawatly
| for a refund
| 542458 wrote:
| I somewhat agree, but it's probably more complex than that -
| We have a country-wide system of reusable aluminum and glass
| containers that can be returned for refund and a significant
| portion of the population can't be bothered and just chucks
| them in the trash (or worse, the gutter). Lots of people
| don't respond to incentives well.
| carlmr wrote:
| The incentives aren't strong enough then.
|
| In Germany it's 25 cents for plastic and aluminum. 8cents
| for glass.
|
| A lot of people just throw the glass away in public bins,
| because a) glass is heavy and b) 8 cents is too little
| incentive.
|
| The 25 cent cans most people return. If it was 1EUR a glass
| bottle you bet your ass people would return them.
| mauvehaus wrote:
| We buy milk from local dairies in returnable glass
| bottles (available from some area supermarkets, it's not
| like we're going to the farm). The deposit is, indeed,
| $1-$2 (depending on the dairy and size of the bottle).
|
| You can bet your ass we return them.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > We have a country-wide system of reusable aluminium and
| glass containers that can be returned for refund and a
| significant portion of the population can't be bothered
|
| Typically metal is sorted out of every trash flow, it's
| really easy to detect and separate. Glass and metal are
| both 100% recyclable. If the incentive covers the cost of
| recycling / recovering the materials, it does not matter if
| people throw them away, they are just throwing away their
| own money.
| modzu wrote:
| i mean the refund has been like 10 cents since 1965, the
| incentive isn't what it used to be
| numpad0 wrote:
| And there's the Chesterton's fence principle. There must be
| reasons why restaurants provide utensils and packaging.
| "Because consumerism we can just stop" is not enough.
|
| > Summer rolls and spring rolls
|
| Are served on a dish. _May_ be picked up from a dish by _clean_
| hands, but may not be moved more than 5 ft away from a dish.
|
| > Meat on a stick
|
| Is on a stick, usually disposable. Which is barely a
| "packaging", too, certainly a bamboo stick is not an edible
| packaging, not to mention metal skewers.
|
| > Rice balls
|
| Are always eaten from non-edible containers, e.g. Saran wraps,
| bamboo leaves. Nori is not a packaging. Use of disposable
| gloves while making is recommended too.
|
| > Samosa
|
| Is served on a dish.
| beebeepka wrote:
| Man, I have to fight people in bakeries because the majority
| simply ignore my repeated requests for skipping the plastic
| bag. Some are fucking mental and simply refuse to comply. Most
| are incredibly stupid and will never get it. Very few
| understand immediately.
|
| I think that yes, the main problem is all the entitled fucks
| demanding "what they paid for"
| ars wrote:
| > People can carry their own set of utensils, and even their
| own food packaging;
|
| Carry this, carry your own reusable bags. But also get rid of
| the car which could hold these things for you.
|
| Why is there such a push to make life miserable for people?
| ex3xu wrote:
| If a doctor told you to stop smoking and lower your blood
| pressure, would you berate him for pushing to make your life
| miserable?
|
| Our collective addiction to the conveniences of modern life
| is leading to the proliferation of carcinogenic materials and
| destroying the environment. Generations upon generations
| lived without these spoils uphill both ways without
| complaint. If the slightest suggestion of lifting some weight
| and going for a walk is enough to induce abject misery, it
| might be a good time to re-evaluate the way we do things.
| ars wrote:
| Plastic dishes are not hurting the environment. This is
| 100% about appearances, it's actually helping anything at
| all.
| throwaway892238 wrote:
| In Japan there's no public trash cans. To my astonishment, I
| quickly adopted to planning my day around whether I'd need to
| carry trash around with me. It actually worked out fine. In
| this same way, adapting our lives to whether we'll be
| carrying around utensils or a tupperware is also fine. From
| my experience, it doesn't make life miserable.
| lm28469 wrote:
| > But also get rid of the car which could hold these things
| for you.
|
| You don't need 2 tonnes of metal and 100+hp to carry "your
| own reusable bags"
| ars wrote:
| Not to carry them, to store them. It's basically a portable
| storage locker.
| lumb63 wrote:
| Huh, I too dislike disposable culture, but it never occurred to
| me I could bring my own tupperwares to restaurants. I'll try
| that next time!
| dbg31415 wrote:
| I use these, are these horrible?
|
| https://www.costco.com/snapware-pyrex-18-piece-glass-food-st...
|
| What should I use instead?
| ChancyChance wrote:
| Those should be fine since they don't have teflon and teflon-
| related materials: they are non-BPA plastics with silicon
| seals. Just don't microwave plastic (There are a lot of "ifs"
| and "buts" around that, but it is better just to not microwave
| plastic and be safe.) Granted, you are still throwing away
| plastic once the snaps break. They also make similar types with
| bamboo lids and a silicone seal.
|
| (Hopefully if I'm wrong someone will shout me down with the
| correct answer :)
| gruez wrote:
| The title literally says "Compostable fast-food packaging can
| emit volatile PFAS". Your glass container with plastic lid
| certainly isn't compostable.
| carabiner wrote:
| Just serve everything in banana leaves at this point.
| friend_and_foe wrote:
| That's because they were never designed to be enviroentally
| friendly. They were designed _to be able to be marketed_ as
| environmentally friendly. Big difference. If someone sees it
| disintegrate they 'll think "good, biodegradable" even if that's
| not actually what's happening. The manufacturers don't care. They
| know, most of the people raising the hubbub about it don't take
| the 5 minutes to understand what theyre screeching about, they
| don't have to appease the environmentalists, they have to appease
| the pantywads, the kind of people who don't buy animal tested
| cosmetics but flush them down the drain all the same.
|
| Just use paper for Christ's sake and quit it with all these
| shenanigans. Brown, recycled paper, maybe some wax. And glass for
| bottles and things. It's all you need.
| phoenixreader wrote:
| There has been a lot of food packaging toxicity research news
| lately, for some reason. For example, just two weeks ago, "BPA-
| like chemical seeps from labels to food"
| https://www.futurity.org/bisphenol-s-bps-bpa-plastics-chemic...
| rgrieselhuber wrote:
| https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/13/toxic-fo...
|
| This is worth noting as well.
| [deleted]
| hbarka wrote:
| Getting a TOTO bidet is a life-changer. We have running water
| and flushable toilets but we still dry smear?
| rgrieselhuber wrote:
| Agreed
| goodpoint wrote:
| tl;dr Toxic chemicals is toilet paper.
| samwillis wrote:
| I believe one of the other issues with compostable packaging is
| when it ends up in landfill, rather than being composted. It
| breaks down significantly quicker than other packaging in an
| anaerobic environment resulting in a spike of methane emissions.
|
| Obviously, many landfills now collect and use the methane, but
| many don't and it contributes to greenhouse emissions.
|
| Like many innovations to go green, it's complicated and often
| hijacked by corporations to sell products.
|
| Compostable packaging isn't the solution, reusable packaging is!
| nayuki wrote:
| Speaking as a complete noob here, what are some alternatives to
| PFAS linings? Wax? Plant-based plastics?
| w3454 wrote:
| Banana leaves
| Ekaros wrote:
| I actually doubt that plant-based plastics are any better in
| additives than oil based ones. Wasn't there some years ago
| whole thing about those reusable "bamboo" polymer coffee cups.
| That actually they do contained not so beneficial chemicals.
| tectonic wrote:
| Yes to both of those.
| justinator wrote:
| PFAS in dental floss:
|
| https://www.ehn.org/pfas-floss-2658203711.html
| ericpauley wrote:
| Not bashing the conclusion, but I seriously thought it was
| common knowledge that Oral B glide and equivalent products were
| PTFE based.
|
| It's also annoying that people lump PTFE with other PFAS when
| it is pretty clearly less of an issue (note: not completely
| trouble free) in most cases.
| ars wrote:
| Lumping PTFE with PFAS is willfully misleading people.
|
| The two might have things in common during manufacturing, but
| as a final product delivered to a consumer? Utterly
| different.
| photonbeam wrote:
| 'Common'? I suspect a sampling of random people on the street
| would approximate closer to zero
| zerocrates wrote:
| It used to be a big selling point of Glide that it's made
| with Teflon/Gore-Tex: it was originally made by Gore and
| had the Gore logo right on the package.
| justinator wrote:
| _> but I seriously thought it was common knowledge that Oral
| B glide and equivalent products were PTFE based_
|
| Nope. I bought it because I absolutely hate flossing, and I
| absolutely need to floss, so I bought Oral B Glide as an
| effort to get myself to floss.
| ars wrote:
| Yah that link is a lie, and I quote: "It's important to note
| that our lab is not looking for PFAS compounds directly,
| because it's simply impossible to look for all of them."
|
| "levels of organic fluorine, a marker for PFAS" - yah, that's
| basically an outright lie. Flourine is also a marker for Teflon
| (PTFE) which is 100% not a problem.
|
| This is junk science taken to it's ultimate level.
| r00fus wrote:
| I've switched to using Radius silk floss - it's better in
| almost every way compared to the various brands we've tried.
| Only annoying thing is the packaging but it's plastic free
| also.
| rcme wrote:
| Yea silk floss is really nice. Food caught between your teeth
| sticks better to the silk than to glide, and getting the silk
| between your teeth requires slightly more pressure, which
| feels nice to me.
| ChancyChance wrote:
| Dr Tung FTW!
|
| https://drtungs.com/products/92-smart-floss.html
| tome wrote:
| What do you mean? Dr Tung's is listed under '"Not Our
| Favorite" Tooth Floss Brands' and considered to contain PFAS
| (although there appears to be some dispute in the comments).
| ChancyChance wrote:
| wait what? what article are you reading? DR Tungs site says
| "All our floss is free of PTFE and PFAS (polyfluoroalkyl
| substances)."
| eikaramba wrote:
| the actual source
| https://www.mamavation.com/beauty/toxic-pfas-dental-
| floss-to...
| ChancyChance wrote:
| What on earth are you smoking, that is NOT the actual
| link. That is some woo-woo garbage page. Please check
| this thread again.
|
| The actual FA:
|
| https://www.ehn.org/pfas-floss-2658203711.html
|
| And the OP:
|
| https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistent-
| pollutants/Fast-f...
| EntropicBrew wrote:
| If you look at the actual FA, it cites the article from
| mamavation. That is literally the first link, in the FA.
| [deleted]
| hanniabu wrote:
| PFAS in many things you use every day:
|
| https://www.mamavation.com/product-investigations
| amluto wrote:
| If you believe the leading manufacturer in the US, they phased
| out PFAS in compostable bowls in 2021:
|
| https://www.worldcentric.com/leafplus/
|
| I assume the new coating is some kind of polymerized plant
| material.
| anonuser123456 wrote:
| >I assume the new coating is some kind of polymerized plant
| material.
|
| That's a bold assumption.
| noreiley wrote:
| > Packaging manufacturers typically don't reveal what's in their
| products
|
| It seems crazy to me that they don't have to disclose this.
|
| If it's in contact with the food, it will leak into the food and
| then in our system. We have food ingredients listed on stickers,
| why not packaging materials?
|
| I can understand keeping secrets about the manufacturing process
| in the name of competitive capitalism, but at the end of the day
| the material ends up in our hands (and mouth), so we can always
| send it to a lab and get its composition.
|
| We could skip this whole "let's do studies to analyze what we
| were eating daily for all this time" if the industry had to give
| us the list. If they don't know either, have them do the studies
| before releasing the product.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| It's kind of ridiculous that non-disclosure allows 'trade
| secret' protection of ingredients when, as you say, a lab can
| tell us the actual ingredients and relative quantities.
|
| We should require disclosure for trade secret protection of
| chemically-based products. At least to the EPA or FDA. They can
| still keep the actual recipe and blending instructions secret.
| jacobsimon wrote:
| Dumb question but...why do humans keep using toxic chemicals for
| cooking and storing food? Surely we can find something edible.
| dghughes wrote:
| Florine is extremely reactive but that means whatever it reacts
| with should stay put. So in theory it should never degrade,
| breakdown, or leach out.
| olao99 wrote:
| Because they're legal. We would still use asbestos and lead if
| it were not because of the legality question
| hanniabu wrote:
| If asbestos was introduced today I'm doubtful it'd be
| outlawed
| Ekaros wrote:
| Because coming up with something light that can resist
| heat(food tends to be hot), moist or straight up water and fats
| and oils is hard. Plate or heavy container isn't that hard. But
| something that can be transported or even used to store stuff
| fore even couple days or weeks is quite hard task.
| zamfi wrote:
| It's not hard, it's just inconvenient and more time-
| intensive.
|
| For example, tiffin carriers, or dabbas, have existed for a
| very long time, but require frequent cleaning, and take up
| more space.
|
| When we decided that disposable packaging was an acceptable
| level of waste to incur, we set ourselves on a path to its
| ubiquity.
| goodpoint wrote:
| Profit.
| ChancyChance wrote:
| One reason I've heard over and over to support teflon cookware:
|
| "I don't want to use oil when frying eggs."
|
| I know all the arguments that follow, I'm just sayin'.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| In my mind frying implies fat of some kind. If they don't
| want the fat there are plenty of other ways to cook eggs.
| lm28469 wrote:
| It's cheap and convenient, the negative effects are seen
| decades later when the execs already cashed out
| kube-system wrote:
| They're chosen because they have other practical qualities that
| were desirable. Often we don't fully realize the drawbacks of
| materials we use with our food until many years after they are
| widespread.
| jiggywiggy wrote:
| Fresh food logistics are horrible. Did fresh food online for a
| few years. Makes things almost impossible.
|
| The smart companies try to extent the shelf life as long as
| possible. And make storage easy.
|
| Plastic and chemicals are great for those.
|
| Put some chemicals in that make your company profitable while
| the gov deems it safe? A no brainer.
|
| Only non chemical alternative is the freezer.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| > Only non chemical alternative is the freezer.
|
| Waxes are pretty natural chemicals, even when they're refined
| from oil. We used to use them all the time for fresh food
| storage. I assume they're more expensive than fluorinated
| packaging though.
| tectonic wrote:
| Yup: https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-
| contaminants/dan...
| blondie9x wrote:
| Pick your poison. Micro-plastics or PFAS. All consumption has a
| trade off. Some are worse than others. Micro-plastics are causing
| major endocrine system disruption in youth. Testosterone levels
| and estrogen levels are getting all our of whack and causing
| gender related diversification issues that will grow
| exponentially over time with micro-plastic consumption levels
| increasing.
|
| I would pick PFAS.
| verall wrote:
| Can you expand on "gender related diversification issues"? I'm
| not really sure what you mean.
| lm28469 wrote:
| Thanks god some people high up are not as defeatists and still
| fight for regulations
| goodpoint wrote:
| How about neither?!
| modzu wrote:
| if canada banned single use plastic, why doesn't that include
| fluoropolymers?
|
| does the legislation have a formal definition for "plastic"?
| userbinator wrote:
| I believe that was only (certain uses of) polyethylene and
| polypropylene, which are probably the most harmless of
| plastics.
| uejfiweun wrote:
| Looking at a lot of what you folks posted, it seems like PFAS are
| in just about everything, and there's no realistic way to avoid
| them without an absurd amount of effort. And they are unlikely to
| be regulated soon.
|
| So realistically, what's going to happen to people? We're all
| inevitably going to accumulate a bunch of PFAS, so what exactly
| can I expect for the future of my health?
| amelius wrote:
| Perhaps Darwin will kick in.
| janosdebugs wrote:
| So, when you order from the average restaurant, you get a meal
| made of pre-portioned frozen ingredients containing sometimes
| questionable substances and you also get poisoned by the
| packaging. And the restaurant industry is complaining. Makes
| sense. (If you are a German-speaker, ZDFbesseresser is a
| worthwhile channel to watch. We basically all but stopped going
| to or ordering from restaurants.)
| adrianmonk wrote:
| > _And the restaurant industry is complaining._
|
| Huh? This article is about academics doing research.
| beebeepka wrote:
| We're not big on ordering food, or take out in general, but
| I've been thinking about just providing our own metal/glass
| containers instead of wasting aluminium and paper. My wife is
| against it. I think she finds this idea embarrassing but I
| don't care.
| dwater wrote:
| Plastic use in commercial kitchens is pretty high too. Taking
| boiling hot food and putting plastic wrap over it or putting
| it in a plastic container is pretty common. With sous vide
| the food is cooked inside a brand new plastic bag. The only
| way to avoid it is to be fanatical.
| beebeepka wrote:
| Only speculating but something tells me mineral water is
| often bottled while it's at still hot.
|
| I didn't know what sous vide is. According to the wiki
| article, containers are either plastic or glass. It boggles
| the mind. Why would anyone cook in a plastic container
| arthur2e5 wrote:
| Sous vide is long waterbath at around 55 C or lower. Not
| a typical plastic safety issue temperature.
|
| Cooking in plastic (or any "original package") has a food
| safety point in restaurants. Keeping it sealed until the
| outside is sterilized reduces possible contamination.
| Immersion also makes for easier and faster heating.
| simmerup wrote:
| I imagine because it's easier. The plastic doesn't soak
| up as much of the heat and is easier to shift around and
| takes up less space
| tectonic wrote:
| Just. Stop. Putting. Teflon. On. Everything.
|
| Figuring out what does and does not have PFAS on it to protect my
| family is exhausting and infuriating. I've emailed with
| manufacturers, sent stuff to labs; basically, no one seems to
| know how much materials like this are used on every day products.
| andreygrehov wrote:
| Mailing manufacturers is a drop in the ocean. The only way to
| shut it all down is to implement a comprehensive ban on PFAS in
| all food-related products. In order to achieve this, several
| regulatory and legislative actions would likely need to take
| place.
| joseph_grobbles wrote:
| [dead]
| jiggywiggy wrote:
| It's not just teflon. It's most likely also going to be it's
| successors.
|
| Its going to deemed safe for a while till it's not.
|
| Most properties desired while at the same time being cheap and
| durable will leak and will not play nice and with our cells or
| hormone system.
|
| Especially because the goal of most of these chemical is to be
| cheaper the cheap. (Otherwise we would just use glass)
| akiselev wrote:
| Honestly I have no idea why people think we're going to find
| a safe and equally effective alternative. Most of the PFAS in
| use are powerful surfactants that change the surface tension
| of water, break up the lipids in cell membranes, and
| otherwise interfere with almost all the chemical processes
| that make life _life_. Everything from cell walls to
| capillary action are directly effected by these molecules.
| The same features that cause them to bioaccumulate so well
| give them their incredible industrial properties.
| tectonic wrote:
| Yes agreed. Teflon is shorthand for all of the fluorinated
| hydrocarbons in my mind. I know they're not identical but
| they're close enough and most if not all will end up being
| found to be toxic.
|
| The problem is a lack of a precautionary principle--
| manufacturers can change one molecule and re-market their
| product and groups like the EPA have to do extensive research
| on each new variant to show danger. Molecules are assumed
| safe and marketable until shown otherwise by underfunded
| agencies. It's insane.
| gruez wrote:
| >The problem is a lack of a precautionary principle--
| manufacturers can change one molecule and re-market their
| product and groups like the EPA have to do extensive
| research on each new variant to show danger. Molecules are
| assumed safe and marketable until shown otherwise by
| underfunded agencies. It's insane.
|
| I'm skeptical that would have made a difference. According
| to wikipedia teflon pans were introduced in the 1950s, and
| it was only until the last decade or so that the real
| dangers (ie. not just the fumes from it overheating) were
| known.
| ars wrote:
| They are not close enough! You are destroying your
| messaging and activism by combining them in this way.
|
| Tell a manufacturer "stop adding Teflon it's not safe" and
| they will laugh at you. Tell them "stop adding PFAS it's
| not safe" and they might actually listen.
|
| > Teflon is shorthand for all of the fluorinated
| hydrocarbons in my mind.
|
| That's a VERY un-smart thing to do!
|
| Saying they are the same because of the molecule is like
| complaining salt is unsafe before it has chlorine in it.
| ralusek wrote:
| This is what I said to my wife. She got some new pans that
| called themselves green and healthy because they weren't
| teflon. They made our food taste like plastic chemicals. I
| said to her that the way this works is that teflon was proven
| to be bad, so they just move onto some other compound that
| hasn't yet proven to be bad. At a certain point I'd rather
| say better the devil we know, or stainless steel and cast
| iron.
| bboygravity wrote:
| I switched to stainless steel pans and literally have no
| idea why I ever used "anti stick" (that always ends up
| sticking after a few uses).
|
| The dishwasher has no problem cleaning my pans, no matter
| how sticky stuff gets.
| linhns wrote:
| I have been saying this for far too long. Surprisingly, after
| many legal battles the big chems like DuPont still grows
| every year. Guess that most people pay no attention to these
| subtle killers.
| ticviking wrote:
| Simple clay and glass would work better but cost more and
| require more careful handling. Both of those prevent cost
| optimizers from considering them
| jiggywiggy wrote:
| Yeah and most ceramic solutions you have to be careful with
| the paint they use. There have been cases of issues in slow
| cookers.
|
| Glass is safest and extremely long lasting but indeed more
| difficult to work with.
| ars wrote:
| Teflon. Is. Not. PFAS.
|
| Stop lumping them into the same category, they are NOT the
| same.
|
| Teflon is completely safe, PFAS is completely unsafe. It
| doesn't get more different than that!
| dangwhy wrote:
| can someone recommend a pan to make eggs in the morning without
| sticking or having to put tons of grease.
| lm28469 wrote:
| A well used cast iron pan with the proper technique will be
| just as non stick as teflon, and much more versatile.
|
| If you version of cooking is "put anything in the pan at
| whatever temperature and expect it to not stick" then stay
| with teflon because nothing will save you
| samcheng wrote:
| Cast iron works great for me. Another popular option is
| carbon steel. Both options require a bit of a learning curve
| as far as care/cleaning goes, but once you have a well-
| seasoned pan, eggs are easy.
|
| You have the added bonus of being able to put them into the
| oven, and you can get a much better sear than on teflon.
| throw_away1525 wrote:
| Poach them or boil them if you don't want to add fat to fry
| them in. But are you sure that frying them in butter or lard
| is actually bad for you?
| numpad0 wrote:
| Just put tons of grease, cut excess elsewhere.
| ok123456 wrote:
| I use a stainless steel baking pan, line the insides with a
| foil square, and spray it with a little PAM. Put it in an air
| fryer for 10 minutes at 178C flip it and do the other side
| for 2 minutes at 160C.
| tadfisher wrote:
| We use one cast iron pan and just leave it on the stove. It's
| basically self-cleaning if you use cooking oil, just a wipe
| with a paper towel will get the burnt bits out from the
| previous meal.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| Ceramic pans.
| liveoneggs wrote:
| I recently switched to this guy:
| https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000K9FKC4 and, after seasoning, I
| can still cook my eggs in a normal-amount of butter. It's not
| quite as easy as non-stick but getting better with use.
|
| Last year I tried switching to stainless but it was just too
| much trouble for my daily egg cooking. I just never figured
| it out.
|
| I use cast iron for many/most dinners but I wanted the sloped
| sides and reduced weight for flipping eggs.
|
| I still use the non-stick occasionally for things like crepes
| but moving from daily use to weekly or less seems like a win.
| jointpdf wrote:
| Carbon steel is much better than cast iron! It takes some
| time to build up a nonstick coating (seasoning), but once you
| do fried eggs will glide around like they're on ice.
|
| I have a Mauviel that I love, but the Matfer Bourgeat is
| better for eggs because it doesn't have the steel rivets on
| the inside of the pan. Both are made in France and cost like
| $70.
|
| This is a solid explainer on carbon steel pans:
| https://youtu.be/-suTmUX4Vbk
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| You don't need tons of grease, you just need the correct
| technique.
| crazygringo wrote:
| To make fried eggs in a non-nonstick pan? Of course you do.
| You need enough so it doesn't stick. There no technique
| that can rescue egg stuck to a pan.
|
| The thing is, any _more_ oil than that just stays in the
| pan. Fried eggs don 't _absorb_ oil.
|
| So put _plenty_ of oil in the pan, because it won 't wind
| up on your plate. There's zero reason to skimp, otherwise
| you'll just get eggs that stick.
| sosborn wrote:
| cast iron
| fhackenberger wrote:
| You can create a perfect non-sticky surface on cast iron pans
| like this:
|
| - clean well with strong soap and a metal sponge until it's
| one smooth silver surface
|
| - put a few drops of flax oil on a paper and rub the pan with
| it (also inner sides)
|
| - take off all excessive oil with a dry kitchen paper
|
| - remove any non-metal handles from the pan
|
| - open your windows
|
| - heat your oven to the max and put the pan in for about 20
| minutes
|
| - repeat about 5 times
|
| After using the pan, wipe with a kitchen paper. Maybe a
| little bit of warm water, better not. Never any soap.
| coryrc wrote:
| Flax oil had been debunked over and over again. Just use
| canola.
| rpvnwnkl wrote:
| Cast iron you can scramble and end up with a clean pan
| afterwards. Just have to let it heat up all the way first.
| crazygringo wrote:
| If you don't want a non-stick pan?
|
| Just use a stainless steel pan and a pat of butter.
|
| There's no option to not use fat/oil if you don't want non-
| stick.
|
| Cast-iron is not a great choice for eggs because it holds too
| much heat, so if your temperature goes too high up you can't
| bring it back down quick enough and your eggs will
| crisp/burn. And both cast-iron and carbon steel are a pain to
| maintain (keep seasoned and avoid rust). (Cast iron is ideal
| for other uses though, particularly searing meat, where
| holding heat is the main feature.)
|
| Also, the idea that a cast-iron (or carbon steel) patina is
| somehow non-stick is a myth that keeps getting repeated. It's
| better than the raw metal (and therefore quite necessary for
| those materials) but it's _nothing_ like an actual non-stick
| pan. Nowhere even close. And you _still_ always need a normal
| amount of oil for cooking in them, in fact just for
| maintaining the patina.
| floren wrote:
| The other day I tried making scrambled eggs in my cast iron
| pan for the first time in years. Turns out that years of
| use had finally got it to the point where the eggs actually
| cooked beautifully without sticking at all! I used butter,
| of course, but I'd have used the same amount of butter in
| any pan.
| samwillis wrote:
| > I've ... sent stuff to labs;
|
| I really want more details here! Sounds super interesting.
| geepytee wrote:
| What do you use to store food? I obviously need to go find some
| alternatives now.
| tectonic wrote:
| Glass, metal, ceramic, old fashioned plastic. The problem is
| generally packaging materials not things like Tupperware or
| glassware.
| tectonic wrote:
| See this site: https://www.foodpackagingforum.org/fccmigex
| pera wrote:
| Yeah that's what I use as well, but I only use plastic for
| storing cold things like salad.
| ChancyChance wrote:
| Not OP, but: glass with metal lids and silicon seals, or
| glass... with hard plastic lids. :|
|
| I also keep my rices and legumes in bamboo boxes.
| germinalphrase wrote:
| " metal lids and silicon seals"
|
| Are you in the US? I don't think I've seen these around.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| I frequently order too much in restaurants on purpose to have
| leftovers. I'm gonna start bringing reusable glass
| containers.
| waboremo wrote:
| Glass containers are fantastic and usually cheap enough.
| Whether it's spice jars or leftover food containers, it all
| works great. Make sure the lids are also either glass, wood,
| or stainless steel.
|
| The one "downside" is you do need adequate cushion if you're
| taking it on the go say for lunch or to a dinner gathering,
| but even a towel wrapped around suffice.
|
| If you want recommendations, the Ikea 365+ glass containers
| are fantastic and very cheap. Again avoiding the "plastic
| lid" variant they have for extra measure.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > Make sure the lids are also either glass, wood, or
| stainless steel
|
| Plastic lid is normally fine, plastics leech at high
| temperatures, you arent normally heating food with the lid
| on. .Even eith a fully steel container you need a bit of
| soft material lile silicone to ensure waterproof seal
| waboremo wrote:
| Good point. I also generally dislike plastic lids because
| the "snap lock" mechanic always tend to go wonky. The
| bamboo lids with silicone edges tend to be the least
| hassle.
| amluto wrote:
| > If you want recommendations, the Ikea 365+ glass
| containers are fantastic and very cheap.
|
| I beg to differ. The IKEA 365+ non-glass containers are
| fantastic. The glass ones don't stack properly and tend to
| have little glass shards break off when unstacking them. I
| can imagine a v2 being better.
| waboremo wrote:
| I don't think the glass containers stack well if you
| stack them separately from their lids, but I have the
| bamboo and glass ones and they stack flawlessly closed. I
| have high shelf space though so I know that's not an
| option for everyone.
| floren wrote:
| I got glass containers with plastic lids because I figure
| the lid rarely contacts the food, and I always take it off
| to microwave... although now that I'm thinking about it, I
| usually put that plastic splatter guard thing _over_ the
| container in the microwave which probably isn 't much
| better.
| iam-TJ wrote:
| I usually put a saucer or plate over the top!
| vharuck wrote:
| I put a paper towel on food in the microwave to stop
| splatter. As a bonus, I've found a moist paper towel
| helps when microwaving leftovers that got dehydrated in
| the fridge.
| waboremo wrote:
| Used to do the same. Thankfully there are glass splatter
| guards out there, some of them with plastic handles on
| the outside. More expensive than you would hope though, I
| suppose because it's such a niche use, but it's not as if
| you're going to be buying many glass microwave covers in
| one's lifetime!
| connicpu wrote:
| I have a set of glass containers with tight sealing lids. A
| little heaver and doesn't pack together as small as plastic
| does when not in use, but it's a lot easier to clean
| agtech_andy wrote:
| The reality is that US regulatory agencies have been extremely
| permissive for many years. Many other nations piggy back on their
| findings. We need a massive increase in enforcement.
|
| What we will see with cheaper and more available testing is that
| PFAS are everywhere. It is hard to find waterways or soils, even
| in remote areas, that are not contaminated. It is really tragic
| and the extent of the pollution can make you crazy.
| [deleted]
| jorvi wrote:
| > Many other nations piggy back on their findings.
|
| This is not true at all. The European Union has been the
| principal regulatory body for the world for a few decades now,
| with other countries reactively shaping their policies in the
| wake of EU regulations.
| jiggywiggy wrote:
| It will cause things to move much slower. But I'm thinking we
| are at the point where we need to move to burden of proof to
| being safe instead of it being unsafe.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| That's the root problem. It's "release first" maybe ask
| questions later. Imagine if food or drug - which also end up
| in your body - were done the same way.
|
| But even if individual chemicals are proven to be safe,
| there's the issue of combining with other chemicals in the
| wild.
|
| In the case of these containers...I grew up when the local
| takeout (e.g., Chinese) used paper containers. We survived.
| These newer "high tech" solutions are silly.
| gtop3 wrote:
| I don't think proof is the right word. It's impossible to
| prove something is safe.
| tfourb wrote:
| Of course you can proof the safety of a chemical compound
| for human consumption (at least to the best of current
| technical abilities and within an acceptable margin of
| error). This is done for i.e. drugs thousands of times each
| year. Yes it costs money and time, but that is about the
| only serious objection. You could also go to a risk based
| model, where the burden of proof for groups of chemical
| compounds shifts based on experience with similar
| compounds, potential environmental impact, local and global
| measurements, etc.
| gtop3 wrote:
| The FDA approves medical treatments, many of which are
| chemicals. They approve treatments based largely on how
| effective it is as treatment. It's safety profile is
| studied and considered in a broader context. Many drugs
| approved by the FDA are incredibly blatantly unsafe. The
| FDA spends non-trival amounts of effort communicating
| risks associated with chemicals to doctors and patients.
|
| Outside of this example, proving a negative on this scale
| is a 1000x larger problem than proving there are no
| leprechauns. No one has proven there are no leprechauns.
| It is logically possible to prove a negative, but we
| simply cannot observe all of the places a leprechaun
| might be hiding at the same time. The best thing we can
| do is list off all the places we know there are no
| leprechauns. This is very different than "proof".
| chmod600 wrote:
| Scientists show the safety by searching diligently for
| unsafety and not finding it.
|
| That's not proof. A ten year drug trial may fail to show
| problems that take 20 years to surface, but that doesn't
| mean the drug is safe.
|
| I suspect a lot of these chemicals fall into that hard-
| to-find-problems category. Only when they are an
| overwhelming part of our environment for decades or even
| generations will we start to understand the effects.
|
| So this is not just a matter of money. It's a hard
| problem.
| steponlego wrote:
| We'll yeah they have to spray cancer poison on the stuff so it's
| water and grease resistant. Wax is way too expensive, especially
| beeswax which wouldn't have this issue.
|
| You ever wonder what the ingredients are in a paper straw? Don't
| look it up. You won't like it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-02 23:02 UTC)