
3M Knew About the Dangers of PFOA and PFOS Decades Ago, Internal Documents Show - adrian_mrd
https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota-pfoa-pfos/
======
UnderProtest
This headline isn't exactly accurate and the article is misleading. PFOA was
used in the process of affixing Teflon to surfaces but is not present in the
pan itself. PFOA has built up in the environment as a result of the
manufacturing processes that use it.

It would be more accurate to say "3M knew that manufacturing non-stick pans,
and a number of other products, was poisoning all of us in the '70s".

You didn't have to have a Teflon pan to be exposed and having a Teflon pan
didn't increase your exposure significantly. Microwave popcorn bags and other
food wrappers were hundreds of times worse.

Teflon pans remain safe to use. All these other non-stick products are
potential problems but it's impractical to try to identify which ones have
PFOA or PFOS... so it's a good thing it's being phased out.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Microwave popcorn bags (...) were hundreds of times worse._

Wait. Is it still true today?

~~~
tfehring
Looks like microwave popcorn bags still contained high levels of PFOA as of
2006, though I wasn't able to find a more recent reliable source. "Consumption
of just 10 bags of microwave popcorn a year could contribute about 20% of the
average blood PFOA levels, say the scientists interviewed anonymously for this
article." PDF:
[https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es062599u](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es062599u)

~~~
black_puppydog
For some of my friends that sounds like perfectly normal thing to do, so...
where does that leave us? :P

~~~
Cerium
You can easily cook popcorn on a stove top. Pour some popcorn and oil in a
pot, once is starts sizzling shake a bit, once it starts poping shake a lot.
Take it off when the pops slow to about once a second and pour into a bowl.
Add salt as desired.

~~~
ars
> Add salt as desired.

Don't just add any salt, add popcorn salt - morton sells it and it's not hard
to find.

It's salt that has been much more finely ground. It made a HUGE difference in
my popcorn.

~~~
mark-r
It's hard to find in my area - the stores only seem to carry the flavored
kind, not the pure popcorn salt.

~~~
ars
It does seem to be available online at inflated prices. I got mine at a
restaurant supply store, see if you have one near you.

Also try calling morton and asking who carries it in your area, they should be
able to tell you that.

------
fhood
Sad, but hardly surprising. It sometimes seems like every company in this
position did similar things. Tobacco, Oil, CFCs, Leaded gasoline etc... I'm
sure I could come up with others if I looked.

This is why I don't understand many of the arguments against federal
regulation. I know regulation hurts the economy and makes doing business
harder. I understand. But most corporations will not self-regulate even when
people's lives are at stake.

~~~
kungtotte
I don't think it's a given that it hurts the economy. Someone has to research,
develop, and manufacture the non-toxic alternatives. How is that money not
part of the economy?

Also, it doesn't make business that much harder _unless_ you built your
business on being shady. See: the recent GDPR kerfuffle. For some it was just
business as usual on May 26th.

~~~
sbjs
The more established, bigger, unethical companies will crush the "our products
don't poison you!" competitors out of existence before they even get started.
They will maintain their poison-happy monopolies. So without regulation
protecting anti-poison competition, there will be no money in these
alternatives, and the economy will remain unbalanced and literally deadly.

~~~
hammock
For those interested, in the outdoors industry (where fluorinated compounds
are pervasive in waterproof coatings), there are a couple companies doing
good:

Patagonia has switched to shorter-chain PFCs for many of its coatings (C6
instead of C8). They are also actively investing in research for alternative
chemicals with adequate performance.

Nikwax, which sells re-waterproofing products, never uses fluorinated
compounds and is a good brand to look for at the store.

~~~
selimthegrim
Are they in the stuff you use to waterproof dress shoes and suede shoes too?

~~~
hammock
Some of those are silicones or waxes. But possibly. Check the label.

------
jccc
[https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota-
pfoa-p...](https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota-pfoa-pfos/)

This is a Fast Company post about The Intercept’s report. Might we prefer to
link to it instead?

~~~
driverdan
Yes, please. The Fast Company post is blogspam.

~~~
wwhitlow
I agree as well the Intercept post has way more content.

------
throw2016
This is why its naive to think consumer choice can replace regulations because
in most cases consumers are in the dark like in this case, or are not a
collective to effect change and that then destroys the commons. The feedback
loop is too long.

On the other side anti-regulatory proponents fund hundreds of think tanks and
keep on aggressively pushing their agenda in the media and then when the
environmental damage or fraud is revealed they make themselves scarce or evade
responsibility. This is not a good model to run a society. It puts individual
greed over the common good and destroys the commons.

Civilized society has never worked without laws which is what regulations are
and and its high time basic tested principles are not allowed to be muddied by
self interested parties with PR budgets. Depending on 'goodwill', 'self-
regulation' and 'ethics' is a fairy tale version of reality.

------
Mediterraneo10
"Right now it’s hard to find a pan that uses Teflon in the old continent."

The French company Tefal sells its frying pans across Europe. It is one of the
most popular kitchen product around. As the name suggests, these used Teflon
as some point. Is Teflon really not used any more in making these pans, and if
not, then what is?

EDIT: I suspect that in the quotation above, the author really meant "PFOA"
not Teflon.

~~~
conradfr
Yes according to their faq they use PTFE and not PFOA, but not sure since
when.

> Tefal/T-fal non-stick coating is a technical coating made from a polymer
> name polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). It is PTFE which gives the cookware the
> non-stick properties. Public health authorities in Europe and in the USA
> demonstrated that PTFE is an inert substance which does not chemically react
> with food, water or domestic cleaning products. It is totally harmless in
> case of ingestion. These Public health authorities confirmed the
> harmlessness of PTFE non-stick coatings in cookware. In fact, PTFE is so
> safe that it is frequently used in the medical profession to coat pacemakers
> and the tiny tubes made to replace arteries. It is also used for surgical
> procedures for the benefit of patients with severe kidney disease, and some
> joint prostheses are also partly coated with PTFE.

> PFOA is the standard English abbreviation of perfluorooctanoic acid. PFOA is
> used in the manufacturing process of many products such as non-stick
> coatings, compatible microwave packaging, some textiles, stain resistant
> carpet, pizza boxes which do not absorb fat, etc. On its finished products,
> Tefal/T-fal's commitment is to guarantee the absence of PFOA, lead and
> cadmium and to guarantee that its products with Tefal/T-fal non-stick
> coating are harmless for the environment and the consumer.

~~~
hammock
PTFE is not harmless in the body - the body cannot break it down - and there
is no independent study showing it as such.

"PTFE is so safe that it is frequently used in the medical profession to coat
pacemakers and the tiny tubes made to replace arteries" was written by a 3M
corp comms flunky.

~~~
hinkley
And only means that it’s much safer than dying from complications of having a
medical device embedded in your chest. Which is much safer than dropping dead
from a second heart attack.

This is what we like to call “faint praise”.

Teflon: much much safer than a second heart attack.

~~~
Doxin
Wouldn't it also be used to coat pacemakers etc specifically _because_ the
body can't break it down? Having teflon around a pacemaker is a different
thing than it accumulating in random places in the body.

~~~
hammock
You're not disagreeing with each other

------
shriphani
A point that I've read in N.N. Taleb's incerto series is that it is a matter
of scale. A small artisan who puts their name on their product is less likely
to poison you and fuck your life up. Megacorps though operate with a very
different risk profile and can take pretty antisocial decisions.

Regulation must keep a watchful eye on the megacorp - a small fishing
operation is a net positive for society but a fisheries giant can drive entire
species to extinction and threaten food supplies.

------
pwned1
PFAS are suddenly a HUGE issue here in Michigan. Paper mills and tanneries
were using and dumping it wholesale in the 60s. Now it's come back to bite us
and PFAS is showing up in pretty much every municipality's water supply:

[http://search.mlive.com/?q=pfos](http://search.mlive.com/?q=pfos)

------
tomohawk
From the article, the EPA sat on this information for quite a long time. While
3M was heavily fined - were any EPA employees held responsible?

MTBE is another example of a colossal screw up on the part of the EPA. EPA
required an oxygenate to be added to gas (even though car technology had long
since moved on - so no actual benefit). Then, when MTBE was used and became
known as problematic, they stalled efforts for several years to stop its use.
The result is that MTBE polluted much of our ground water.

Anyone at the EPA get held accountable?

Today, we have gas that is more expensive, less effective, and likely more
polluting due to these regulations. We also cannot buy gas cans without those
crazy spouts because the ethanol in today's gas evaporates so easily, causing
smog, that they had to add more regulations on spouts to try to prevent that.
Anyone ever used one of those spouts without spilling gas?

[https://fee.org/articles/government-reformulated-gas-bad-
in-...](https://fee.org/articles/government-reformulated-gas-bad-in-more-ways-
than-one/)

~~~
gwbas1c
I use the "No Spill" brand: No-Spill 1405 2-1/2-Gallon Poly Gas Can
[https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000W72GBC/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_ljzz...](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000W72GBC/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_ljzzBb4F14594)

It's great for my lawn tractor and snow blower, but it won't fill a car. If
you need to fill a car, look for one of the automotive racing gas cans with a
very long spout. I don't remember the brand name, but my John Deere dealer
sells them.

------
ars
This title is incorrect. This article is about chemicals used to make a non-
stick pan.

The pan itself, once made, is not poisoning anyone.

------
microcolonel
I wonder if BAM[1] coatings suffer from any of these ills (or anything else
which would prevent them from being used in cookware), seems like they would
be a decent way to go if the cost could be improved.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_magnesium_boride](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_magnesium_boride)

------
weavie
My cast iron pan is something I will keep until the day I die. Then it will be
passed down to my daughter..

~~~
peatmoss
You have just one? ;-)

High fives for iron. I bought an old cast iron pan from a second hand store
that had been machined to a very smooth finish. After cooking eggs in it, I
immediately stripped and sanded my modern Lodge cast iron.

The difference is pretty big. It may not be as non-stick as Teflon, but it’s
pretty darned non-stick. I assume my cast iron is also putting less cancer in
my body.

~~~
buckminster
I'd like to try that with my Lodge. Did you sand it by hand? How long did it
take? I'm not very handy!

~~~
peatmoss
Strip it with a wire cone brush on a power drill (wear full face shield!).
Then start with ~60 grit (EDIT: sandpaper). Once sanded smooth move to 80 then
100 grit.

Once you’re done, give it a rinse, wipe dry thoroughly, and then season
immediately or it’ll rust.

I like to initially season by heating to a very hot temp, and then using flax
seed oil on a paper towel held by tongs, and brush thin layers of oil on that
will smoke and turn amber colored immediately. I don’t like the oven method
that people write about on the internet, because the seasoning doesn’t last,
it takes forever to do, and it takes way more energy to hear and cool. The
“wipe oil on to hot skillet” approach works better and only takes a few
minutes.

~~~
buckminster
Cheers. I'd realised it was quicker to heat the pan on the stove than in the
oven but it hadn't occurred to me to apply more oil while it was hot. I'll
give the sanding a go.

------
mnm1
This is merely an example of many of living in a poorly regulated market where
profits are constantly put ahead of people's lives and profits. If el chapo or
Pablo Escobar sold nonstick pans or the chemicals to make them you think they
would have continued this study and ruined their profits? No? Then why get mad
at 3M? This is the system we as Americans have agreed to put in place. Most
people would do the same thing in their position. Profit and ignore the
negative consequences while lobbying to keep regulators away. After all, it's
not their lives being put at risk...

------
legitster
Without knowing too much about PFOA specifically, I would hazard a guess that
the chemical itself is not necessarily dangerous - it's the delivery via
aeresol that would worry me. Namely, spraying down pans to apply Teflon and
spraying it as Scotchguard. There are plenty of chemicals that are perfectly
fine inert, but when you push them into the air haphazardly they get into
really bad places and create negative environmental effects.

~~~
LeifCarrotson
Knowing a lot about PFOA (Wolverine World Wide operated a tannery in my home
town and dumped Scotchguard-treated leather scraps in the swamp, now I have
100 ppt PFOA in my well water), it is incredibly dangerous. They were
incredibly careful to wear the full gamut of protective gear when handling it,
but assumed the infinite sink of nature would dilute it to safety. A few
decades later, it's still not diluted to safe levels.

The article is newsworthy because WWW are claiming 3M assured them it was safe
until 2003 when they stopped using it because the FDA told them to. And 3M is
claiming that there wasn't sufficient evidence to say it could be bad until
they finally did. And rational people are looking at the whole thing knowing
that everyone knew it was bad but they kept using it because it made them
money.

To be fair, I and thousands of my neighbors now have a whole-house carbon
filter that costs thousands in my home - bought, installed, and maintained on
WWW's dime - that takes that 100 ppt down to nondetectable levels. That keeps
my toddler safe. But I have been drinking it for 30 years...

------
al_ramich
Assuming the article is valid and the facts check out, this is pretty
astonishing and incredibly troubling. How can profit at any cost be justified?

~~~
godzilla82
Either you are incredibly naive or you were born yesterday!

~~~
al_ramich
well, thank you for that grown-up comment. Many organizations will have
questionable implications of the products they sell but in most cases, this
comes down to things that are less obvious than selling something that has a
substance that has been proven to contribute to cancer.

------
Retric
I wonder what articles in 2050's are going to say about such things in the
2010's.

~~~
thatjsguy
“Food and drink companies knew all along that sugar was making you obese and
diabetic.”

~~~
tarwater11
Fat (edit: typically) causes type 2 diabetes, not sugar.

~~~
Verdex_3
Is this what your meant to write?

I've worked on diabetes medical devices for about 8 years, did some research
on diabetes to augment my ability to work on said diabetes medical devices,
and personally know several people with type 1 diabetes and as well type 2
diabetes.

Did you mean instead to write: Sugar causes type 2 diabetes, not fat?

~~~
tarwater11
[https://nutritionfacts.org/2016/11/17/fat-is-the-cause-of-
ty...](https://nutritionfacts.org/2016/11/17/fat-is-the-cause-of-
type-2-diabetes/)

I suppose high sugar consumption could cause it, but it doesn't look like that
is the typical mechanism.

~~~
mrfredward
Michael Greger, the author of that post, owns the website nutritionfacts.org.
He appears to be taking the celebrity doctor career route, since his bio
boasts about the lectures he gives and appearing on the Dr. Oz show.

Shows us something peer reviewed.

Edit: I haven't found anything to definitively say Greger is a quack, but
given that searching his name brings up mainly alternative medicine type
sites, I remain suspicious.

