Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Toxic Teflon: Compounds from Household Products Found in Human Blood

By Stan Cox, AlterNet. Posted January 2, 2007.


Evidence is piling up that emissions from the production of synthetic compounds in non-stick cookware, cleaning products, and a host of other common products may cause cancer and other health problems.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

"Better things for better living -- through chemistry." From the 1940s to the 1980s, E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. wooed customers with that slogan, one of the most memorable in American advertising. But today, two groups of DuPont products developed during that era -- fluorotelomers and fluoropolymers -- are showing how chemical-dependent "better living" can come at a high price.

DuPont and other companies use those synthetic compounds to make an extraordinarily wide range of products, including nonstick cookware (e.g, Teflon), grease-resistant food packaging (e.g., microwave popcorn and pizza boxes), stain-resistant fabrics and carpets (e.g., Stainmaster), shampoos, conditioners, cleaning products, electronic components, paints, firefighting foams, and a host of other artifacts of modern life.

But like many "better things" produced by industrial chemistry, these products can have disastrous side effects. The chemicals used to make them or that are released when they decompose are especially troublesome. They can easily escape to roam freely around the planet, persist in the environment, contaminate the blood of people and wildlife, change body chemistry, and are accused of causing health problems, including cancer.

Supermolecules

After decades of harnessing the almost miraculous properties of fluorotelomers and fluoropolymers, scientists are now showing that compounds that are used in their manufacture or thrown off when they break down -- fellow members of the perfluorochemical (PFC) family -- are turning up in people and animals all over the planet.

Although DuPont has never conceded that PFCs might cause health or environmental problems, the company has bowed to relentless and rising public pressure in recent years and moved to rein in its emissions. But whatever action is taken at this point, a class of molecules that did not exist on the planet before the 20th century is now here to stay.

Chemical properties that make PFCs so useful in industry also make them virtually indestructible in nature. For sheer persistence, two members of the family, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), stand out. They are not broken down by heat, light, or microbes. Other PFCs do break down, but in doing so, most of them end up giving off PFOA or PFOS.

Of these two compounds' many disturbing properties, the one setting off the most alarm bells is their potential for causing cancer. Studies reported by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (some of them conducted in the labs of Du Pont and a former producer, the 3M Company) have shown that rats fed PFOA were more likely to develop tumors in the pancreas, liver, testicles, and mammary glands. PFOS has been linked to liver and thyroid cancer in rats. A 1993 study found that 3M workers involved in manufacturing PFOA were three times as likely to die of prostate cancer as those who weren't (the difference was statistically significant, but because of the small number of deaths overall, the researchers warn that "results must be interpreted catiously.") Two of 3M's own studies also showed increased, but statistically nonsignificant, increases in prostate-cancer causing problems among PFOA workers. An EPA-appointed science advisory board has recommended labeling PFOA as "likely to be carcinogenic" in humans. DuPont has responded by maintaining that the "weight of evidence suggests that PFOA exposure does not cause cancer in humans," not exactly the kind of seal of approval you'd want to bet your family's health on.

In addition to developing cancers, rats and other laboratory animals fed varying amounts of PFOA have shown significantly increased rates of miscarriage, weight loss, and thyroid problems. Offspring of females fed the chemical had delayed growth but extra-fast sexual maturation. PFOS has caused a range of diseases in lab animals and shown a strong tendency to concentrate in humans and the wildlife food chain, prompting 3M to phase that chemical out of its big-selling Scotchgard fabric protector and other products in 2000-2002.

PFCs have turned up in wildlife on at least three continents and above the Arctic Circle, in the blood of dolphins, seals, sea lions, minks, polar bears, gulls, albatrosses, bald eagles, sea turtles, and dozens more species. They are widespread in seafood. Fifteen PFCs have been identified in human blood samples, with highest concentrations in Americans. PFOA has been found in the blood of 90 percent to 95 percent of U.S. residents who have been screened. Once in the body, it doesn't leave quickly; almost four years after being taken in, half of the original amount remains.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: teflon, public health

Stan Cox is a plant breeder and writer in Salina, Kansas.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
extensive
Posted by: rsaxto on Jan 2, 2007 1:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need a much more extensive system of government regulations to protect us and the environment from poisonous chemicals. The fact that we need this is related to the fact that life expectancy in the USA is much lower than in other comparable industrialized nations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Try Stainless Steel
Posted by: MAD on Jan 2, 2007 4:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think this should probably fall under the heading of good ol' "common sense". Here we have said chemically treated pots and pans that prevent sticking and clean oh-so-easily, but miraculously enough, don't shed any of those chemicals when heated to extreme temperatures. "Golly gee willikers Mr. Dupont, that sounds too good to be true but I'll take em anyway!". Of course you will Goober.

Given what we know about Big Pharma (another family favorite), Big Chem and Big [insert criminal enterprise here], why would anyone trust these guys to do the right thing and come clean? Of course this shit is dangerous. Do you even doubt it for a minute? I don't use any of the items mentioned above and I sure as hell don't prepare my food in Teflon coated cookware. Try stainless steel. Works great for me but doesn't clean as easily so you may actually be required to take 5 minutes out of your day and SCRUB - THE HORROR! Make sure to take a magnet with you when you buy . . . if it doesn't stick to the bottom of the frying pan or pot then it is poor quality and you need to move on.

Oh, and another thing - it's not cheap so a purchase on this order would necessarily mean that most Americans have to put off buying that spiffy new plasma for a month. Decisions, decisions - my family's health or NASCAR's "Yokel 500" on the big screen this weekend? Ok, tv it is. Oh well, I tried. And as for you lower income folks who could probably never afford stainless steel, why don't you just die already? Nobody cares about you anyway in case you haven't noticed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Try Stainless Steel Posted by: SekhmetsatRa
» How About Iron? Posted by: hole11
» Iron rules! Posted by: HeidiLockwood
» RE: Try Carbon Steel Posted by: DanoM
» RE: Try Carbon Steel Posted by: mviscid
» RE: Try Carbon Steel Posted by: phillipaweiss
» RE: Try Carbon Steel Posted by: drmeow
» Technigue problem Posted by: HeidiLockwood
» RE: Technigue problem Posted by: mkeeling@jam.rr.com
» That is correct. Posted by: HeidiLockwood
» RE: Try Stainless Steel Posted by: DRANNAN
» RE: Try Stainless Steel Posted by: bluebird
» Aluminum is dangerous! Posted by: williameon
» RE: Try Stainless Steel Posted by: CAED
Isn't it about time
Posted by: mysticalrae on Jan 2, 2007 5:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that the expensive burden of proof that a chemical is safe is switched from the EPA to the companies themselves? After all, it is the company that will gain the profits from the develpment and use of these chemicals, not the government. Why should the taxpayer foot the bill?
And . . .
Does it make any sense to anyone else reading this that unsuspecting people would have to suffer things like cancer, birth defects in their children, etc, so that there can be a bigger profit margin for the company? Where is the morality, stockholders of Dupont and other companies?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Isn't it about time Posted by: SufiLizard
toxic americans
Posted by: sasquuatch55 on Jan 2, 2007 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The businesses and industries that run this country, along with the Govt., know that they are poisoning us. And they will make billions of dollars before they are (found out) and have to change.We are living too long , and with all the chemicals one consumes voluntarily or not through processed foods and daily product use is making us unhealthy and does strange things to our systems. This won't change anytime soon. As with processed food it is impossible to consume anything healthy. We are being sold crap that is all dressed up nice and pretty, its a demon in disguise.One bright(?) side is that it provides the pharmaceutical companies with lots of business from people made sick from the crap that we are forced to use. Even the so called healthy foods (fresh fruits and vegetables) will never be healthy as long as its up to the Govt. and the industries have control. People need to get back to basics and grow their own food, individually or through co-ops. There will come a day when our individual survival will depend on whether one can fend for themselves and produce their own food. I recall not too long ago an older child from a big city was asked where vegetables come from and her reply was The Store, and had no idea where or how the store got them. We cannot afford to be dependant on others because basically others don't care about you, only about taking your money, and industries will produce things as inexpensively as possible and this poison is presented to the consumer, and new markets are opening up all over the world to ignorant ( not meant as derogatory)consumers.Its a selfish,cold world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Spinning studies and covering up releases
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 2, 2007 6:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Quote:

"DuPont officials point out that no statistically significant relationships between PFOA exposure and disease or mortality have been seen in humans. But the Environmental Working Group (EWG) argues that all employee-health studies carried out by 3M and DuPont had flaws in their experimental designs that tended to make it harder to show that effects of PFCs were statistically significant."

This is a common problem in pharmaceutical studies as well, were the spin is in the opposite direction - i.e. studies are manipulated to 'show' that a drug is better then a previously existing one. This is why independent researchers should be the ones doing the studies (the tobacco science scams are another good example of this).

Meanwhile, Cheney's EPA has cut the reporting rules on toxic releases to the environment by industry; the program was already rather weak (it ignored agicultural releases of toxic materials, for example) but now it has been weakened even more:

Relaxed rules on toxic-chemical reports upset thousands, By Judy Fahys, Salt Lake Tribune

This is what Cheney has been up to (mostly in secret) for the past few years - replacing the heads of government regulatory agencies with his Halliburton-friendly cronies. Note that Dow, DuPont, etc. are all petrochemical companies, i.e. part of the market for Big Oil.

In related news, Gale Norton, former secretary of the Interior, will be working for Shell http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_4910177. "Shell said in a statement Wednesday that Norton, 52, will "provide and coordinate legal services" for its unconventional-resources unit, which is developing and testing proprietary technology to recover oil from shale and extra-heavy oils." Note that this technology produces more carbon dioxide per unit of energy recovered then any other. Burn, baby, burn.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I live in area of Washington Works Plant
Posted by: DivaCleavage on Jan 2, 2007 6:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People in our area have always suspected we've had much higher than normal cancer rates and other childhood problems - lots of mental illness, retardation, autism, etc. DuPont isn't the only problem. I am not kidding or exaggerating when I tell you this: If you buy those white plastic lawn chairs - within one year, after raining, etc, it has a black film on it. If you put a mat out front your door and pull it up in a few years, there will be a noticeable difference in the blackness of the concrete and how much lighter it is where the mat was. That is the carbon black in the air from the Degussa plant - we breathe it all day. Those plants threaten all the time to leave if we bitch too much, and that will then take not just some of the only union jobs left (Walker plant already shut down, Kardex shut down and moved to a smaller town in Pennsylvania, others have downsized), but the support companies like trucking companies, and everything else will go away, too. This is the extra tragedy.
At night, you can see extra emissions coming from the Eramet (formerly Union Carbide) plant, against their plant lights, and on heavy days, you can smell it bad. I called the EPA one day, and asked about it, but they said to measure it would require someone allowing them to put instruments on their property - which would be public record, and nobody wants to do that. Can you imagine the intimidation?
Basically, the runoff goes down the river to Parkersburg, WV, but the plumes from the plants drift UP river to Marietta, Ohio.
Oh yeah, they have us by the short and curlies.
I want to move back to California, but my entire family lives here.
What do we do?
Erin Brokovich was already here for the DuPont thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A little perspective
Posted by: Jesse on Jan 2, 2007 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is terribly easy to go off and assume that chemical companies are all run by a bunch of criminals who are hell bent on killing us all.

But that isn't the case. They are companies who are working to make a profit, and while I certainly have no problem regulating them further -- lord knows, they need it-- let's remember that we can't go back to a world based on wood, metal and glass.

Far be it from me to laud the plastics industry for its environmental consciousness. But try to imagine a world without some of these things. Warm coats? Back to wool. Computers? Forget it. Lightweight cars with better fuel efficiency? Nope. Condoms? They're gone.

If we keep the issue to emissions, then we are all on firmer ground. There are plenty of ways to control that, and no particular reason we can't use more recyclable plastics insofar as that's possible.

Teflon wasn't invented to kill people, you know. Now, given that the stuff doesn't seem to stay where it is supposed to on food-cooking equipment, that's worrisome. But it has plenty of other uses that aren't related to that-- bearings, insulators and suchlike. I don't think many people reading this would be eager to give up the printed circuit boards that make doing so possible.

Besides, if you tell me there must be a better way to do this than Teflon, you'd better tell me how one is supposed to find such a miracle substance. Industrial research is where that kind of stuff happens (and in the case of Teflon, accidentally at that as a result of another research project entirely). Would it be better in a public lab? Maybe, but that isn't the world we live in.

So before we all jump on the "evil DuPont" bandwagon, let's think this through a little bit-- and come up with solutions that address the very real issues of technology use and development.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A little perspective Posted by: mviscid
» RE: A little perspective indeed Posted by: Alan Muller
Gee..
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jan 2, 2007 10:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... another miracle of science is slowly killing us. I guess its worth it to not have to go to the trouble of stirring your food as it cooks or using butter or olive oil as a lubricant for it.

And still... no questioning of technology will go on.. at least not in the mainstream.

www.greenanarchy.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Bottom Line Is..????
Posted by: coyote on Jan 2, 2007 12:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This was a very wordy and technical article. What I wanted to know was, where are these chemicals and how do I avoid them if possible. And if they are everywhere and I can't avoid them what's the point?
The information I wanted may be in the article somewhere but the technical monotony glazed my brain. I just could not finish it........moving on.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Bottom Line Is..???? Posted by: electricmonk
» No, the REAL lesson is Posted by: nickptar
ATTENTION STAN COX: PLEASE CONNECT THE HEMP PROHIBITION TO BIG CHEMICAL FOR ONCE.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 2, 2007 1:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's time we fought Big Chemical for the crimes as you have correctly reported. It is no coincidence that Big Chemical is free to POISON the planet all the while counting on its DEA crony to ban good plants.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More anal-obsessive fakeLeftist trivia. Meanwhile 18K americans die yearly without healthcare
Posted by: emmanuel_goldstein_fights_fake_lefties on Jan 2, 2007 1:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you think the fakeLefties give a damn about the 18000 americans who die every year because they lack basic healthcare? Nooooo.....they would rather obsess over some damn chemical in pots that no one needs to buy. But everyone needs healthcare or they die. But the Fakeleft would rather divert leftist populist activism into these sorts of meaningless articles about teflon rather than explaining how europe funds universal healthcare through taxation.

Gee, what a perfect tool for the rich and powerful these fakeLeft is....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Genealogy
Posted by: Maryanne on Jan 2, 2007 2:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having done extensive genealogical research, some interesting medical data has resulted.

The first generation died relatively young (either as children or as adults prior to age 60) primarily of pnuemonia or other illnesses that were subsequently able to be treated by antibiotics.

The second generation almost exclusively died as a result of strokes.

The third (and current) generation, with the exception of a few whose age falls into that of the second generation, has been dying from cancer. One, a beautician, battled various cancers for years before succumbing.

The air, the water, the soil and the food are all contaminated- and the EPA is doing nothing to correct this. The various organizations attempt to make progress and do make some gains but these are miniscule in the light of all the damage that has been and continues to be done,

We need a safe environment in order to live; in order for life to continue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DuPont Hates America and Americans (DuPont only loves our money)
Posted by: fiskhus on Jan 2, 2007 2:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For multiple generations, DuPont has hated America and Americans.

First, DuPont profiteered and defrauded the American People by selling defective weapons and ammunitions to the Army. Then, through ownership of Remington, DuPont participated in a plot to overthrow FDR by military coup. Next, by exercising ownership interest in GM, DuPont prevented safe anti-knock compounds derived from Corn/ethanol from reaching the US auto market, demanding that GM designers utilize DuPont's tetra-ethyl lead, instead - which poisoned our air and water.

Then, it was their experimentation with Fluorine chemistry that led to fantastic breakthroughs - and pollution that was just as unbelieveable.

DuPont has no use for America and Americans, in fact, DuPont seems to hate us, preferring to kill us rather than support us - but DuPont sure does love our money!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Family Ties?
Posted by: hellga on Jan 2, 2007 4:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"...a vice president of the Cookware Manufacturers Association told a Columbia News Service reporter, "There's no evidence of safety concern whatsoever with using nonstick pans, and sales figures prove that."'

?? Is this individual possibly related to Bush??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

By the way, one has to wonder where are the "pro-lifers" on this one?
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 2, 2007 8:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Never mind, Big Chemical gives them happy bribes just like the petrol folks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The messeage is simple
Posted by: Shey on Jan 4, 2007 6:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Re. "The Bottom Line Is???" Granted, this was a long, wordy article and maybe difficult to follow, if the subject is new to you. But the "what can I do?" is pretty simple. Avoid non-stick cookware. This includes the expensive variety where the non-stick chemicles are soaked into the metal, rather than "coated', like Teflon. Using only stainless steel and glass cookware is the solution. Those of us who live with companion birds such as parrots have known about this issue for more years than I can remember. Of course cookware isn't the only issue regarding these toxic chemicals, but it is something we as individuals can do, on a daily basis. The overall issue of chemical contamination of the planet and all it's inhabitants, we humans included, is overwhelming. But I have to believe that every little thing we do to try & make it better, is better than doing nothing.
Get rid of that toxic Swiffer, avoid those "air freshners" like the plague, stop using Clorox & just get over the fact that your whites may look "dingy", replace your WD40 (correct name?) with mineral oil, simply do not use EasyOff or any of the other toxic oven cleaners, use "free and clear" laundry soaps, if you can't afford the really non-toxic stuff from the Health Food Stores & catalogs (as I can't), replace any and all toxic household cleaners that promise to "disolve dirt and stains on contact" with Simple Green & a little elbow grease. It's just a matter of adopting the philosophy "If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem". We nay not save the world this way, it may be too little, to late .... and most of all, too few willing to educate themselves and take action. But at least you will know that you, as an individual, have done the right thing, to the best of your ability. And no doubt improved your health and that of your family in the process. And maybe educated a few others, along the way.
Off topic, I have to wonder .... why do so many posters waste their time and energy replying to rants like the one by emmanuel_goldstein? The best way to get rid of trolls is to starve them to death. And it's non-toxic, in the bargain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]