Bike maintenance brand criticised for "really poor taste" video linking Sir Chris Hoy's cancer diagnosis to use of rival company's chain lube

stevemaiden wrote:

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.

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 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:

Just saying PTFE is linked to cancer surely is enough...

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 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.

OldRidgeback wrote:

That's a new low in marketing.

Don't worry, I'm sure another company will be along in a minute to beat it 

S.E. wrote:

Poor taste and also PTFE is STILL widely used for cookware, so its toxicity should be limited (else much more people would get cancer)...

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 ingesting anything off a bike chain, I don't think the lube is the things I'd be most worried about!

Carior wrote:

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!

Hmm, that there plate(let) aggregation can be a real pest.

hawkinspeter wrote:

S.E. wrote:

Poor taste and also PTFE is STILL widely used for cookware, so its toxicity should be limited (else much more people would get cancer)...

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.

Sorry but this isn't correct. For starters, ask yourself what changes about the PTFE if you scratch it? Nothing.

Anonymousattorney wrote:

Sorry but this isn't correct. For starters, ask yourself what changes about the PTFE if you scratch it? Nothing.

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/

Quote:

Scientists from Newcastle University and Flinders University have now been able to measure how millions of tiny plastic particles potentially come off during cooking and in the wash as non-stick pots and pans gradually lose their coating. 

Just one surface crack on a Teflon-coated pan can release about 9100 plastic particles, found researchers from the Global Centre for Environmental Remediation and Flinders Institute of NanoScale Science and Engineering. 

And at a micro scale, their Raman imaging and an algorithm model have identified the release of 2.3 million microplastics and nanoplastics from broken coating.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Anonymousattorney wrote:

Sorry but this isn't correct. For starters, ask yourself what changes about the PTFE if you scratch it? Nothing.

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/

Quote:

Scientists from Newcastle University and Flinders University have now been able to measure how millions of tiny plastic particles potentially come off during cooking and in the wash as non-stick pots and pans gradually lose their coating. 

Just one surface crack on a Teflon-coated pan can release about 9100 plastic particles, found researchers from the Global Centre for Environmental Remediation and Flinders Institute of NanoScale Science and Engineering. 

And at a micro scale, their Raman imaging and an algorithm model have identified the release of 2.3 million microplastics and nanoplastics from broken coating.

The 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 effects I'd be worried about - more the ones with a long-term commitment.

Anonymousattorney wrote:

The 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.

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):

Quote:

Toxicology

PFOA is a possible carcinogen, a possible liver toxicant, a possible developmental toxicant, and a possible immune system toxicant, and also exerts hormonal effects including alteration of thyroid hormone levels at very high concentrations. Animal studies show developmental toxicity from reduced birth size, physical developmental delays, endocrine disruption, and neonatal mortality. PFOA alters lipid metabolism. It is an agonist of PPARα and is a peroxisome proliferator in rodents contributing to a well understood form of oxidative stress.

PFOA has been described as a member of a group of "classic non-genotoxic carcinogens". However, a provisional German assessment notes that a 2005 study found PFOA to be genotoxic via a peroxisome proliferation pathway that produced oxygen radicals in HepG2 cells, and a 2006 study demonstrated the induction and suppression of a broad range of genes; therefore, it states that the indirect genotoxic (and thus carcinogenic) potential of PFOA cannot be dismissed. As of November 2023, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified PFOA as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) based on “sufficient” evidence for cancer in animals and “strong” mechanistic evidence in exposed humans.

An additional study has shown PFOA to be developmentally toxic, hepatotoxic, immunotoxic, and to have negative effects of thyroid hormone production. Criteria have been proposed that would allow PFOA, and other perfluorinated compounds, to be classified as "weakly non-specific genotoxic".

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:

Anonymousattorney wrote:

The 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.

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):

Quote:

Toxicology

PFOA is a possible carcinogen, a possible liver toxicant, a possible developmental toxicant, and a possible immune system toxicant, and also exerts hormonal effects including alteration of thyroid hormone levels at very high concentrations. Animal studies show developmental toxicity from reduced birth size, physical developmental delays, endocrine disruption, and neonatal mortality. PFOA alters lipid metabolism. It is an agonist of PPARα and is a peroxisome proliferator in rodents contributing to a well understood form of oxidative stress.

PFOA has been described as a member of a group of "classic non-genotoxic carcinogens". However, a provisional German assessment notes that a 2005 study found PFOA to be genotoxic via a peroxisome proliferation pathway that produced oxygen radicals in HepG2 cells, and a 2006 study demonstrated the induction and suppression of a broad range of genes; therefore, it states that the indirect genotoxic (and thus carcinogenic) potential of PFOA cannot be dismissed. As of November 2023, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified PFOA as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) based on “sufficient” evidence for cancer in animals and “strong” mechanistic evidence in exposed humans.

An additional study has shown PFOA to be developmentally toxic, hepatotoxic, immunotoxic, and to have negative effects of thyroid hormone production. Criteria have been proposed that would allow PFOA, and other perfluorinated compounds, to be classified as "weakly non-specific genotoxic".

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.

Perfluorooctanoic 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:

Perfluorooctanoic 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.

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:

Quote:

For decades, DuPont used perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA, or C8) during production of PTFE, later discontinuing its use due to legal actions over ecotoxicological and health effects of exposure to PFOA. Dupont's spin-off Chemours today manufactures PTFE using an alternative chemical it calls GenX, another PFAS. Although GenX was designed to be less persistent in the environment compared to PFOA, it has proven to be a "regrettable substitute". Its effects may be equally harmful or even more detrimental than those of the chemical it was meant to replace

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:

Anonymousattorney wrote:

Perfluorooctanoic 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.

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:

Quote:

For decades, DuPont used perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA, or C8) during production of PTFE, later discontinuing its use due to legal actions over ecotoxicological and health effects of exposure to PFOA. Dupont's spin-off Chemours today manufactures PTFE using an alternative chemical it calls GenX, another PFAS. Although GenX was designed to be less persistent in the environment compared to PFOA, it has proven to be a "regrettable substitute". Its effects may be equally harmful or even more detrimental than those of the chemical it was meant to replace

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.

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.

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.