Bicycle maintenance brand Green Oil has been criticised online for a series of social media posts linking Sir Chris Hoy’s cancer diagnosis to rival company Muc-Off’s chain lube. Joining those condemning the posts, Muc-Off has since said it is “shocked and saddened that Chris Hoy has been dragged into such squalid social media activity” and that the company would be “reviewing our options regarding these false allegations”.
Posts appeared on Green Oil’s Facebook, Instagram and YouTube pages over the weekend, videos uploaded with the title: “Did Sir Chris Hoy get cancer from PTFE bike lubricant exposure?”
The voiceover to the two-minute video said Hoy “was part of Team Sky” who were “sponsored by the company Muc-Off”, a rival bicycle maintenance products brand. Green Oil’s video then said Muc-Off “manufactured lubricants containing PTFE”, and later on that “there is a link between PTFE production and cancer”.
It finished by asking: “What do you think? Is there a link here or not?” The final 30 seconds of the video then transitioned to an advert promoting Green Oil’s products, including its chain lube.
Green Oil markets itself as “the world’s greenest bicycle maintenance products” brand and offers a range of chain lubes and cleaning products, some of which have received positive reviews on road.cc. Now the brand has received many comments criticising the “really poor taste” video and accusing the company of an “utterly scummy way to approach marketing”.
Muc-Off this lunchtime told road.cc that it was “in the process of reviewing our options regarding these false allegations” and expressed shock and sadness that Hoy had been “dragged into such squalid social media activity when he has other more important challenges right now”.
A spokesperson told us: “We are shocked and saddened that Chris Hoy has been dragged into such squalid social media activity when he has other more important challenges right now.
“There are comments about our brand that are simply wrong. To be clear, we do not use PTFE in any of our current product range as we took a decision many years ago to become 100% PTFE free due to environmental concerns. We are in the process of reviewing our options regarding these false allegations.”
One comment on Facebook accused Green Oil of “exploiting” Hoy’s illness for sales, while others on Instagram saw viewers commit to never purchasing Green Oil’s products due to the “distasteful marketing”.
A bike shop owner told the brand: “You or any of your products will never set foot in my shop. This is absolutely disgraceful.”
One YouTube viewer said that while PTFE is “an issue” the “unsubstantiated and tasteless” claims and “dragging Chris Hoy into your marketing” had “just lost you a customer/a shop”. Another called it “disgusting opportunism”, while a third urged Green Oil to take the “bang out of order” video down.
“Speculation like this (that smacks of commercial opportunism) is offensive and counter-productive,” they continued. “Chris Hoy is a real person with a family, I hope they don’t see this […] Drawing on a specific individual case is unscientific, and the backlash will hurt the cause. There is a debate to be had but this isn’t how to go about it.”
Green Oil has replied to numerous comments and doubled down on the video. In one reply, the brand said “the idea was to simply raise the question — and awareness”.
Without evidence to support the statement, another reply on the brand’s Instagram page says: “A fit healthy man like Sir Chris Hoy shouldn’t be getting cancer — it was likely caused by a carcinogen like PFOA. Will get in touch with him next week to see what he thinks, likely he would like people thinking about this to stop future victims of cancer don’t you think?”
road.cc contacted Green Oil for comment and received a lengthy reply in which many of the same claims were repeated, although there was an acknowledgement the video and posts were “misjudged”.
Hoy was diagnosed with cancer in 2023 and told the public of the news in February 2024. In October, he announced that the diagnosis is terminal and he has two to four years to live, adding that he is “feeling fit, strong and positive, and overwhelmed by all the love and support shown”.
The NHS joined the cycling community and wider public in praising Hoy’s bravery, the six-time Olympic champion’s terminal cancer revelation prompting a near sevenfold increase in prostate cancer advice searches.
“Thanks to his bravery, we have seen a significant spike in people accessing vital information on our website about the signs and symptoms of cancer,” NHS England’s National Clinical Director for Cancer Professor, Peter Johnson, said in a statement. “One in two people will develop some form of cancer in their lifetime and detecting the disease early gives the best chance of successful treatment.”
Responding to the figures released by the NHS, Hoy said the “massive increase” in men seeking advice has been a “huge comfort” to him and his family.
Hoy’s website, with information on an upcoming memoir about his life since the diagnosis, can be found here. For advice on spotting symptoms of prostate cancer, you can visit this page on the NHS England website.
64 thoughts on “Bike maintenance brand criticised for “really poor taste” video linking Sir Chris Hoy’s cancer diagnosis to use of rival company’s chain lube”
Poor show, Green Oil
Poor show, Green Oil
Whoever’s in their marketing
Whoever’s in their marketing needs to check themselves. The dated use of ‘sexy women’ is another issue
Indeed. Do they not have a
Indeed. Do they not have a sense-check before they press “post”?
How did they think this would go?
In what exactly are you
In what exactly are you basing you argument?
I volunteer to marshall iBike
I volunteer to marshall iBike London rides and at the midway point on this year’s santa ride, someone asked me to help him record a video for a indiegogo fund for Greenoil’s new big bike cleaning brush. I wish in hindsight I said no. Ironically, I feel dirty!
Not only is Green Oil’s
Not only is Green Oil’s attempt to leverage Chris’s cancer a disgrace, it is also entirely ignorant as evinced by its statement “A fit healthy man like Sir Chris Hoy shouldn’t be getting cancer — it was likely caused by a carcinogen like PFOA.” Chris has metastatic prostate cancer; prostate cancer has one of the highest rates of causation by inherited genetic factors, with approximately 60% of cases derived from them. Sadly although staying fit and healthy can have a small influence on one’s chances of developing prostate cancer it is only a small influence compared to the three major factors of genetics, age and ethnicity.
Not to mention that we are
Indeed, which is why my GP was very keen to know that my Father had prostate cancer 10 years or so back and discuss the potential implications for my own health.
Not to mention that we are constantly bombarded with information about how many things in our environmental potentially cause cancer that seeking to isolate one specific item in a specific patient solely to sell your own products that don’t include it is just appalling.
As one of the commentors online said … there is definitely a debate to be had about the presence of these “forever chemicals” in bike maintenance products, but GreenOil have picked probably the worst possible way of framing their contribution to it.
Jetmans Dad wrote:
I am all for informed debate, but please see my post above regarding toxicity. There is no possible causal link, and what the likes of Green Oil are doing is flagrantly conflating unrelated issues.
This absence of scientific understanding from them does rather cast doubt on anything else they might claim, about their own product or others’.
Jetmans Dad wrote:
— Jetmans DadI agree. I’ve been using Green Oil chain lube instead of petrochemical chain lube since it was first launched. I’m disappointed with this stunt, which is in extremely poor taste, but I’m not going to stop using the product because the alternatives are simply not acceptable.
I just hope Mr Nash learns his lesson from this monumental PR fuck-up.
There really are better ways
There really are better ways to wind up a business than by trashing your brand and personal image. Gerald Ratner provided the case study for this, perhaps they didn’t include this in the course at Southampton Uni. But he seems top have swerved the tirade of abuse that British Cycling got parternering with Shell… perhaps he’ll get away with this as well.
This quotation from ‘Simon
This quotation from ‘Simon Nash’ looks like another hacked account- lots of mistakes in it, such as ‘principals’
wtjs wrote:
Taken from his LinkedIn page.
If it’s genuine, he needs
If it’s genuine, he needs somebody with a GCSE to run his social media for him
I think we already know that
I think we already know that he doesn’t have that person.
wtjs wrote:
He also can’t seem to make up his mind as to whether he’s the Managing Director or the “CEO”.
Green oil, black heart.
Green oil, black heart.
“the idea was to simply raise
“the idea was to simply raise the question — and awareness”.
Clearly not: the idea is to trash the competition and sell more of your stuff. Asking questions like that is a Farage tactic e.g. “Are the police hiding anything.”
As a Green, I am disgusted that the concept of being green is disgraced and devalued by this company, which clearly doesn’t understand that being green also means being honest.
If a company has values this low, how can you trust anything they say?
eburtthebike wrote:
Currently being “green” is just another sales opportunity, or a box that needs ticked to allow a product to get to the starting line.
It’s not just “lies” always but the truth is usually nuanced. e.g. “zero emissions” vehicles? No, they emit particulates locally, same as ICE vehicles, and in fact they still emit greenhouse gases. It’s just that now happens somewhere else, and we have no idea what or how much or even where. “Out of sight, out of mind”.
As for “green means being honest” in the political field … good luck with that. Idealism and principles are going to be casualties for any movement that aspires to power. The competition isn’t going to be so scrupulous! Plus if your party succeeds it will become a magnet for … people who want to succeed. Some of whom may be more attracted to the “success” part than the cause.
chrisonabike wrote:
Currently being “green” is just another sales opportunity, or a box that needs ticked to allow a product to get to the starting line.
It’s not just “lies” always but the truth is usually nuanced. e.g. “zero emissions” vehicles? No, they emit particulates locally, same as ICE vehicles, and in fact they still emit greenhouse gases. It’s just that now happens somewhere else, and we have no idea what or how much or even where. “Out of sight, out of mind”.
As for “green means being honest” in the political field … good luck with that. Idealism and principles are going to be casualties for any movement that aspires to power. The competition isn’t going to be so scrupulous! Plus if your party succeeds it will become a magnet for … people who want to succeed. Some of whom may be more attracted to the “success” part than the cause.
— eburtthebikeAs a member of the Green party, almost everything you say there is nothing to do with being green, mostly it’s green-washing, something very different indeed.
Agreed – but – precisely
Agreed – but – precisely because of assiduous green-washing* – the two are going to be popularly conflated. Thus unfortunately “no, that’s nothing to do with…” may sound like “no true Scotsman…” to many.
* Or being charitable and less cynical one might say there’s quite a bit of overselling. Ignoring the blantant greenwash (e.g. “let us keep selling our product”) this is understandable. Unless there was some strong promotion why would you seek out a way to pay more for the same, or accept less convenience?
Plus small efficiencies / reductions in pollution get eaten up by increasing numbers of people, who all are highly motivated to keep up with the Jones, or would at least like to live a bit less miserably than their parents.
Green products are a real
Green products are a real phenomena. Green products are less harmful to the environment and mammals like humans. To use green credentials as a selling point ultimately helps eliminate toxins and contaminants from the air and soil and water. There’s nothing wrong with advertising based on green credentials. And cars not emmiting toxins on street corners is better despite emissions into the higher atmosphere from gas power plants.
Do you work for a petrochemical company per chance? Or maybe you’re hyper cynical. The fact the greens power share in Europe and have not abandoned core principles disproves your assumptions on that. Why do you think environmental laws are constantly improving?
stevemaiden wrote:
Can’t imagine much less likely.
On the Greens – I hope the
On the Greens – I hope the Green party sticks to principles of social justice, localism and environmentalism. I’m not familiar with European politics, exuse ignorance. The Bute House agreements in Scotland with the SNP allowed some commitments which I thought good and quite radical for us (e.g. active travel budget to be set to a sensible fraction of the “road budget” – and the SNP even stuck to it). FWIW they clearly stuck to their guns. But on the other hand it seems that was part of the reason the coalition ended (of course lots to do with “politics” e.g. the SNP struggling for supprot, as parties often do after many years in power).
Um… wrong end of stick?
Um… wrong end of stick? (unless you work in the chemical industry yourself. And – playing devil’s advocate – few industries have improved as much as the petrochemical businesses.) Although I don’t currently work at planting trees or organically composting people or grow all my own food or fuel … and yeah, I’m a bit cynical.
This would all be a meaningless discussion about feelings if we don’t have some definitions of what “green” means. I doubt many people will agree with each other on this one but perhaps we can say something like “causes fewer negative environmental side effects” (from raw materials through manufacture, in use or after it’s broken / ended)? And/or perhaps “uses fewer resources” (arguable, that)?
Are all “green products” thus?
What connection is there between “using x as a selling point” and “ultimately helps eliminate toxins and contaminants from the air and soil and water”? Are you saying that marketing will create a climate in which this actually happens – as opposed to say a market for “being able to talk about such things”? History seems to show that humans may care about what is (very) local to them, or care about “issues” for a short time. But generally social motivations drive us. And we want less detail rather than more.
Perhaps “the world is getting better – just very slowly”. Certainly e.g. industrial chemical processes have become more efficient, and there is more concern about not having or spilling nasties. On the other hand perhaps it’s just a series of something like Jevons’ paradoxes? As we “make better” or find a new source of resources (having used up the cheap form of the last lot) or have “less smoke coming out of the back” people react by using (a lot) more of it?
Looking back at the last century the way to e.g. climate hell (or plastic everywhere) was indeed paved with some good intentions – and lots and lots of “little”!
The media term for this is
The media term for this is “JAQing off” (JAQ = Just asking questions). Farage does it all the time (something like “Is there something behind the Southport riots – I’m just asking questions”). It’s the feeblest form of argument.
eburtthebike wrote:
Alongside honesty, a critical component of “green” practices is accountability. That’s what we have missing in so many of Capitalism’s failures is that companies make a lot of profit and then don’t have to worry about external pollution etc. (see water companies for more info)
Not a fan of either company,
Not a fan of either company, Muc-off have some form as well I believe. However, to use ANYBODY’S illness to try and sell your product over another one is sick beyond belief.
My best wishes to Chris, Sara and the family.
Poor taste and also PTFE is
Poor taste and also PTFE is STILL widely used for cookware, so its toxicity should be limited (else much more people would get cancer)…
S.E. wrote:
The recommendation with non-stick cookware (i.e. PTFE coated) is to never use metal implements as that can lead to scratches. When the coating is scratched, there’s far more chance that some PTFE (or various other nasties like PFOs) will leech into your food, so basically throw away any non-stick pans that get scratched. Also, you have to be careful to not over-heat them as the coating can release toxic gases.
In fairness, if you’re
In fairness, if you’re ingesting anything off a bike chain, I don’t think the lube is the things I’d be most worried about!
Carior wrote:
Hmm, that there plate(let) aggregation can be a real pest.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Sorry but this isn’t correct. For starters, ask yourself what changes about the PTFE if you scratch it? Nothing.
Anonymousattorney wrote:
It depends on the severity of the scratches, but it can compromise the integrity of the non-stick coating which can then lead to the coating flaking off and ending up in your food. There’s also a greater risk of toxic fumes being released, but that can be avoided by using lower temperatures.
https://news.flinders.edu.au/blog/2022/10/31/not-so-tough-teflon/
hawkinspeter wrote:
It depends on the severity of the scratches, but it can compromise the integrity of the non-stick coating which can then lead to the coating flaking off and ending up in your food. There’s also a greater risk of toxic fumes being released, but that can be avoided by using lower temperatures.
https://news.flinders.edu.au/blog/2022/10/31/not-so-tough-teflon/
— AnonymousattorneyThe non-stick coating IS teflon. All the way through. Your post suggests you think you are removing an outer coating that exposed something dreadful.
Again, the microparticles are a different issue. There is evidence that bioaccumulation of plastic micro and nanoparticles occurs, and that it is in most of us. There is a big step between that and finding some casual health effect, let alone that it is carcinogenic or more specially related in any way to prostate cancer.
It’s not the casual health
It’s not the casual health effects I’d be worried about – more the ones with a long-term commitment.
Anonymousattorney wrote:
You’ve misinterpreted my post.
Scratches on an otherwise intact surface increase the surface area and allow substances to penetrate the crack which can then lead to further damage as the substance expands and contracts with changes in heat. This can be easily seen on concrete surfaces which can develop faults as cracks are penetrated by water which can then freeze which further damages and widens the crack (concrete also being the same all the way through). There’s also the issue of a deep scratch which can penetrate the non-stick coating and thus allow oils/liquids to cause damage at the boundary between the metal pan and the non-stick coating – this can cause the coating to flake off.
I didn’t intend to suggest a link between non-stick coatings and prostate cancer (I’ve not heard of there being any specfic link). However, historically Teflon has contained PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) as well as PTFE and there are many concerns about PFOA both in humans and in the environment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid#Health_effects):
However, PFOA is no longer used in the manufacture of Teflon, so modern (since 2013) pans are likely to be safer, although Europe has banned Teflon cookware since 2008. There does appear to be mixed reports about whether PTFE by itself is toxic/carcinogenic – in theory it’s inert enough to not react with anything and should just pass through your body, but due to the other chemicals used in its manufacture, I would much rather avoid ingesting any Teflon.
For the record, I use non-stick pans for cooking, but when higher temperatures are required (e.g. baking), I prefer enamel cookware as it just laughs at attempts to damage it, so you can scrape away with metal implements if there’s some burnt on food.
hawkinspeter wrote:
You’ve misinterpreted my post.
Scratches on an otherwise intact surface increase the surface area and allow substances to penetrate the crack which can then lead to further damage as the substance expands and contracts with changes in heat. This can be easily seen on concrete surfaces which can develop faults as cracks are penetrated by water which can then freeze which further damages and widens the crack (concrete also being the same all the way through). There’s also the issue of a deep scratch which can penetrate the non-stick coating and thus allow oils/liquids to cause damage at the boundary between the metal pan and the non-stick coating – this can cause the coating to flake off.
I didn’t intend to suggest a link between non-stick coatings and prostate cancer (I’ve not heard of there being any specfic link). However, historically Teflon has contained PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) as well as PTFE and there are many concerns about PFOA both in humans and in the environment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid#Health_effects):
However, PFOA is no longer used in the manufacture of Teflon, so modern (since 2013) pans are likely to be safer, although Europe has banned Teflon cookware since 2008. There does appear to be mixed reports about whether PTFE by itself is toxic/carcinogenic – in theory it’s inert enough to not react with anything and should just pass through your body, but due to the other chemicals used in its manufacture, I would much rather avoid ingesting any Teflon.
For the record, I use non-stick pans for cooking, but when higher temperatures are required (e.g. baking), I prefer enamel cookware as it just laughs at attempts to damage it, so you can scrape away with metal implements if there’s some burnt on food.— AnonymousattorneyPerfluorooctanoic acid isn’t teflon, it is a precursor.
I didn’t misunderstand your post. You could ingest an entire waterproof jacket’s worth of PFTE and digest none of it. There is no “leaching” of PFTE from itself. There could potentially be leaching of plasticisers or carriers from which it is deposited or extruded (depending on the application) but there is nothing unique to PTFE in this respect over any other plastic (e.g. your water bottle).
I am interested by your comments on ceramics. Have you researched what that is? It’s actually silica, not strictly a ceramic, and whilst entirely safe, if you search for example for “silica micro particles health” you will get a slew of articles about toxicity.
This is the joy of the internet – you can find on it whatever supports your preconceptions.
Anonymousattorney wrote:
I think you’re conflating PTFE and Teflon. Whilst Teflon is mainly PTFE, there are other chemicals used in it’s manufacture and certainly it’s not 100% pure, so comments about PTFE are missing part of the picture.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene:
Yes, micro particles of almost anything can be a problem, but it’s all to do with the level of risk. Typically, people use masks if they’re working with silica (e.g. cutting worktops) to avoid too much going into their lungs, but completely avoiding any silica dust would be very difficult. (see https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/silicosis/ for the very real problems with silica)
The big problem is with newer chemicals that we as a species are dumping into the environment in large amounts – we don’t know what level of risk they pose to life. Dismissing known risks as being artefacts of “the joy of the internet” isn’t a sensible approach to assessing environmental pollution.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Teflon is the trade name for PTFE. And “PTFE” or indeed any material will contain impurities. PTFE as it happens is made in a way that results in an unusually complete polymerisation reaction, and so it is an odd choice of plastic upon which to fixate of your concerns are related to trace amounts of precursors. As I mentioned earlier, if you worry about that sort of thing, you may wish to desist eating anything that uses plastic packaging at all.
With the greatest respect, you are confusing how things are made with what they are made of. You are also conflating environmental issues with health issues, and in addition conflating unrelated potential health issues with one another.
I am fairly confident of dismissing the health risks from Teflon because it is not a particularly new plastic and is extremely well studied. The plasticisers and extrusion aids tend to be benign things such as paraffins, the most profound health effects of which is laxative.
Anonymousattorney wrote:
You’re over simplifying – Teflon is the trade name for a PTFE-based composition.
I’m not trying to state that Teflon is the only problematic plastic, so you’re kind of building a strawman with your comments and ignoring the issues around Teflon.
Anyhow, I’m getting bored with this discussion now.
Somehow the points you’re
Somehow the points you’re both making seem to be sliding past each other with very little interaction…
FWIW – on what we know currently (always subject to discovering new things) Teflon as applied to things and its degradation products are indeed pretty safe as plastics go. That’s not to say that its producers were/are completely honest about possible negative effects of precursors (or when they spilled stuff) – nor that the growing concentration of these things in the environment (as they’re so inert) is good news. Nature has ways of bioaccumulating things to surprising concentrations.
My bet is that some bugs will be found which eat – or evolve to eat – this stuff (like they do concrete) – producing who knows what?
chrisonabike wrote:
Look Teflon was the original trade name for PTFE itself, that’s just a historical fact.
But as to products comprising it, you are using the term “PTFE based” out of context, since it will be around 99.5% PTFE or more. Like all materials (polymers or otherwise) there are impurities, but Teflon is comparatively of high purity and so should be the least of your worries.
Accumulation of plastics is a problem, yes. But plastics (including but by no means limited to PTFE) in the environment is completely unrelated to the nonsense that Green Oils UK has posted.
Thanks, I’ve heard of that…
Thanks, I’ve heard of that…
My idea was that these cookware mostly lose their Teflon layer when dish washing (abrasion of the sponge, brush), but I noticed that after a few months of cooking on the same limited area of a large frying pan, the layer looks more worn out on this area than on the rest of the surface!
I’m not that worried anyway, my guess is the risk remains limited, a bit like this Roundup scare, when you look carefully at studies, toxicity is on par with cell phone use, processed red meat, very (too) hot drinks, etc.
My point is that you’d need to literally eat large amounts of PTFE to be in danger (i.e. to make it “probably carcinogenic”).
S.E. wrote:
— S.E.I’d agree on this. It’s interesting how often it’s low risk sources are discussed/argued over at great length but the more insidious ones glossed over. I’m thinking of things like air pollution (exhaust emissions are very obvious while riding to work on cold mornings like today), ingesting stuff in food and drink (particularly meat & UPF) or skincare products. It’s something I’m conscious of, and we eat more organic food now than we used to. And I know that when I clean the gunk from my chain and cassette that the lube is benign. It’s not going to ‘save the planet’ (a silly statement if ever there was one) but it’s a choice I’m comfortable with.
“else much more people would
“else much more people would get cancer”
Err… what!?
A huge amount of people DO get cancer ?
But not linked to PTFE. Do
But not linked to PTFE. Do keep up 003.5, the context isnt that hard to see.
Is no one even going to pick
Is no one even going to pick up on the fact that Chris never road for Team Sky with a Muc Off sponsor…. The only association with a Team Sky, was the British Cycling track team for world cups called Team Sky + HD—nothing to do with the road cycling team who were sponsored by Muc Off. So not only have they messed up with that link, but they have tried to associate a widely used product with one cancer diagnosis in horrible taste. They should be removed from this site and any other giving them publicity through reviews.
If there was a link, I think many mechanics would be suffering from complaints as they are the daily users of it and in contact with it the most, but Green Oil have never let facts stand in the way of trying to get some attention for an at most average product.
Twats!
Twats!
Sir Chris Hoy ❤️
Sir Chris Hoy ❤️
That’s a new low in marketing
That’s a new low in marketing.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Don’t worry, I’m sure another company will be along in a minute to beat it
I feel compelled to jump in
I feel compelled to jump in here and inject some basic science into the comments.
Clearly the marketing is incredibly ignorant for speculating about SCH’s health. It is also scientifically utterly illiterate.
PTFE (i.e. sold as Teflon) is one of the most chemically inert and biocompatible polymers known. It is very widely used in catheters, stomas, stents and other medical devices because it has such extremely low toxicity. These devices remain implanted in literally millions of people for decades.
This (amongst other properties) also makes it ideal for cookware. The risks from ingesting it are minimal, because it is acid resistant and cannot be digested enzymatically. Any risks at all would likely be due to additives used in manufacture and would also be vastly outweighed by the risks posed from the underlying metal used for cookware (which risks are themselves tiny).
Most people, including some commenters here, therefore assume PTFE is “bad” for entirely the wong reasons, because the issues are not with PTFE but rather with the eco toxicity associated with its industrial manufacture.
It is also a “forever chemical” because of its chemical inertness. However, even from this perspective it is not markedly worse than the alternatives such as polyethylene or polypropylene.
So all in all there is essentially zero credence in the “discussion points” raised in the Green Oil social media posts, and hopefully this is a Gerald Ratner moment for them.
Reading the You Tube comments
Reading the You Tube comments, the Company is doubling down in the most sanctimonious way.
Apprently, he’s “DonE hIs ReSeaRch”.
I think we should raise the
I think we should raise the question and promote awareness of the irrefutable link between working at Green Oil and being a total, rampant bellend of utterly enourmous proportion
What ad marketing company did
What ad marketing company did they hire? Was it a elementary school project?
Regardless, Green Oil watched the commercial and read the lines, so they approved the ad to go public.
Very poor taste.
As other comments said about PTFE, it wouldn’t matter if it wasn’t if Muc Off PTFE was dangerous or not, very few people ever touch the chain with their fingers. Besides if Muc Off PTFE was dangerous lawsuits would have arisen from that, obviously there’s been no lawsuits because it’s not dangerous.
This is a company that makes
This is a company that makes a degreaser called Agent Apple, a pun on Agent Orange, the defoliant used by the US in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and British in Malaysia that left millions disabled. They have form for this kind of thing.
It’s a valid and progressive
It’s a valid and progressive question, but not when used as the key line in a commercial campaign.
Just saying PTFE is linked to cancer surely is enough without name dropping a UK legend.
As a side note, not long before Sir Hoy’s diagnosis he was on R1 talking to his friend Paddy Mcguiness where he said he was a massive fan of barbecues and often has them at his house. The science is in on flame burnt meat, it is carcinogenic and over exposure is associated with bowel cancer.
stevemaiden wrote:
That is undoubtedly true, but Chris has metastatic prostate cancer so it’s not relevant in his case; I only found out recently, because someone dear to me had colon cancer that spread to the liver (fully recovered I’m delighted to say), that they can actually tell the difference between cancer in a particular organ that originated in the organ and cancer that has spread from elsewhere.
they can actually tell the
they can actually tell the difference between cancer in a particular organ that originated in the organ and cancer that has spread from elsewhere
The pathologists will be relieved to hear this as they have been telling people they can do this for well over 100 years, and the distinction is one small facet of a discipline which stands behind all cancer treatments today
stevemaiden wrote:
I disagree, this needs to cite primary publications. As far as know PTFE (Teflon) is not linked to cancer but chemicals used in its production are (e.g., PFOA, GenX).
Exactly. PTFE is used in a
Exactly. PTFE is used in a number of plumbing products, all of which are approved by WRAS under EC1272/2008 – items permitted for use on potable (drinkable) water systems. If the final product was dangerous, it would not be in used so ubiquitously. Yes, it’s manufacturing process is particularly nasty but once finished it is not an issue. If it was, it would have been banned already, like asbestos as a building material.
In heating and combustion, ignition electrodes used to have a pink ceramic insulator, but the manufacturing process was also very carcinogenic. Once they were finished, they were perfectly safe. Now they are white with a modern ceramic, and much less harmful to produce. Once something better comes along, PTFE will wipe itself out eventually.
Is it just me or this
Is it just me or this tasteless publicity stunt has got an Elon vibe to it, where a misguided idiot doesn’t mind their own business?
Thankfully the video seems
Thankfully the video seems now to have been taken down.
Simon Nash needs to just
Simon Nash needs to just stick to making the produts and seriously step back from social media and all the marketing. He’s an absolute liability to himself.