PTFE is a PFAS, as is PFOA.

> Now, since PFOA belongs to a large group of chemicals called PFAS, consisting of 4,700 similar substances, it might be tempting to just switch to one of the other PFAS chemicals that hasn’t been restricted yet. But that wouldn´t solve the problem, it would only postpone and perpetuate it. [1]

[1] https://marketplace.chemsec.org/articles/news/2020/04/01/the...

I.e. there's a whole zoo of similar compounds, and all those type specific safety claims are all at room temperature. The whole point of their use is often on heated surfaces, getting near and over the safety limit.

Sorry, but PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) may be a PFAS (per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances but not a Perfluorooctane Sulfonate PFOAS) however, it is definitely not a PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid).

Your link does not contain a reference to PTFE and looking at the meaning of the acronyms should provide evidence fluorethylene is not a sulfonate or an octanoic acid.

The manufacture of PTFE may involve generating these as bio-hazardous byproducts and PTFE could be contaminated or even break down into them, but they are chemically not the same.

I think you misread: GP claimed that PTFE is a type of PFAS, and separately: PFOA is also a type of PFAS. And if PFAS is the problem, it wouldn't be useful to ban specific classes like PFOA if they are just replaced by different classes of PFAS.

I'm not sure about the last claim: it isn't clear that all PFAS are equally bad, so replacing PFOA with a different PFAS might be worthwhile. It seems hard to study, but with Europe banning PFOA, perhaps we'll get some more insight.

Here’s a direct quote from your link: “Health Risks of Teflon Coating

Teflon is generally safe, but heating it to above 300 degrees Celsius or 570 degrees Fahrenheit poses a danger to your health.”

Note they didn’t say Teflon was safe at 299C, the risk is chemical breakdown not a phase transition like water which boils at a specific temperature and pressure. When used properly pans shouldn’t get anywhere close to that temperature range but it’s very possible to get to a dangerous temperature if there isn’t food in the pan.

All the carbohydrates will be coated with Acrylamide or burnt to a crisp. Acrylamide is believed to be a carcinogen (Acrylamide is converted to a compound called glycidamide , which causes mutations in and damage to DNA) and shown to be in animal models.

Once you're frying, roasting, and grilling things at this temperature you are increasing cancer risk completely unrelated to any cooking materials involved. That's true of french-fries, bread, steaks and a zillion other things. It's why they're tasty (see Malliard reaction).

I certainly consider cast iron relatively safe, but it's polymerized unsaturated oil is likely to leach acrylamide and associated chemicals. It's just that compared to the food you're eating it's not relevant.

Hate to be the raving "seed oils are going to kill you" guy, but Acrylamide can be greatly reduced by swapping your vegetable-based cooking oil with something like tallow, lard, or coconut oil: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27374529/

I see online a lot of talk of the temperature and off-gassing relationship. I've also heard that it's slightly misleading because it's temperature and time dependent, where the temperature risk has to occur in such a short period of time that it doesn't reflect cooking use. However, I could not find the off-gassing studies; do you have links? It seems like the temp of 340C most often cited, apparently from a DuPont study.

> When used properly pans shouldn’t get anywhere close to that temperature range

What frying pan when used properly doesn't get near 300 C? A pan surface temp of 200-250 C is nothing strange when frying a steak.

250C is quite a long way from 300C.

It’s the same gap was walking outside into 25f and 115f Aka below freezing to punch you in the face hot.