Dunkin' Donuts ditches titanium dioxide – but is it actually harmful? (Updated)

March 12, 2015 by Andrew Maynard, The Conversation
Sweet, sweet donuts. Credit: www.shutterstock.com

In response to pressure from the advocacy group As You Sow, Dunkin' Brands has announced that it will be removing allegedly "nano" titanium dioxide from Dunkin' Donuts' powdered sugar donuts. As You Sow claims there are safety concerns around the use of the material, while Dunkin' Brands cites concerns over investor confidence. It's a move that further confirms the food sector's conservatism over adopting new technologies in the face of public uncertainty. But how justified is it based on what we know about the safety of nanoparticles?

Titanium dioxide (which isn't the same thing as the metal titanium) is an inert, insoluble material that's used as a whitener in everything from paper and paint to plastics. It's the in many mineral-based sunscreens. And as a pigment, is also used to make products look more appealing.

Part of the appeal to food producers is that titanium dioxide is a pretty dull chemical. It doesn't dissolve in water. It isn't particularly reactive. It isn't easily absorbed into the body from food. And it doesn't seem to cause adverse health problems. It just seems to do what manufacturers want it to do – make food look better. It's what makes the powdered sugar coating on donuts appear so dense and snow white. Titanium dioxide gives it a boost.

And you've probably been consuming it for years without knowing. In the US, the Food and Drug Administration allows food products to contain up to 1% food-grade titanium dioxide and there is no need to include it on the ingredient label. Help yourself to a slice of bread, a bar of chocolate, a spoonful of mayonnaise or a donut, and chances are you'll be eating a small amount of the substance.

Why does As You Sow want this substance gone from Dunkin' Donuts?

The answer in part comes from the little prefix "nano."

For some years now, researchers have recognized that some powders become more toxic the smaller the individual particles are, and titanium dioxide is no exception. Pigment grade titanium dioxide – the stuff typically used in consumer products and food – contains particles around 200 nanometers in diameter, or around one five hundredth the width of a human hair. Inhale large quantities of these titanium dioxide particles (I'm thinking "can't see your hand in front of your face" quantities), and your lungs would begin to feel it.

If the particles are smaller though, it takes much less material to cause the same effect. But you'd still need to inhale very large quantities of the material for it to be harmful. And while eating a powdered donut can certainly be messy, it's highly unlikely that you're going to end up stuck in a cloud of titanium dioxide-tinted powdered sugar coating!

This is the "nano" effect, where some particles smaller than 100 nanometers seem to be more "potent" – or capable of doing more damage in the body – than larger particles of the same material. It's an effect that is particularly clear when particles like titanium dioxide deposit in the lungs. But it can also occur elsewhere in the body. Depending on what they are made of and what shape they are, research has shown that some nanoparticles are capable of getting to parts of the body that are inaccessible to larger particles. And some particles are more chemically reactive because of their small size. Some may cause unexpected harm simply because they are small enough to throw a nano-wrench into the nano-workings of your cells.

Dunkin' Donuts ditches titanium dioxide – but is it actually harmful?
Not so nano. Credit: www.shutterstock.com

This body of research is why organizations like As You Sow have been advocating caution in using nanoparticles in products without appropriate testing – especially in food. But the science about nanoparticles isn't as straightforward as it seems.

First of all, particles of the same size but made of different materials can behave in radically different ways. Assuming one type of nanoparticle is potentially harmful because of what another type does is the equivalent of avoiding apples because you're allergic to oysters.

Food grade titanium dioxide is really common and not so "nano"

The titanium dioxide used by Dunkin' Brands and many other food producers is not a new material, and it's not really a "nanomaterial" either. Nanoparticles are typically smaller than 100 nanometers in diameter. Yet most of the particles in food grade titanium dioxide are larger than this. They have to be for the powder to be of any use in .

Admittedly food grade titanium dioxide does contain a few nanoparticles, and this shouldn't be dismissed. A 2012 study out of Paul Westerhoff's lab at Arizona State University tested 89 off-the-shelf food products for the presence of titanium dioxide. The list included everything from gum and soy milk, to Twinkies and mayonnaise. As well as finding evidence for the substance in every product, the research also indicated that up to 5% of the titanium dioxide in some of these products could be in the form of nanoparticles.

Yet there is little evidence that this small quantity of nanoparticles skews the safety of food grade titanium dioxide. In 2004 the European Food Safety Agency carried out a comprehensive safety review of the material. After considering the available evidence on the same materials that are currently being used in products like Dunkin' Donuts, the review panel concluded that there no evidence for safety concerns.

Most research on titanium dioxide nanoparticles has been carried out on ones that are inhaled, not ones we eat. Yet nanoparticles in the gut are a very different proposition to those that are breathed in.

Studies into the impacts of ingested nanoparticles are still in their infancy, and more research is definitely needed. Early indications are that the gastrointestinal tract is pretty good at handling small quantities of these fine particles. This stands to reason given the naturally occurring nanoparticles we inadvertently eat every day, from charred foods and soil residue on veggies and salad, to more esoteric products such as clay-baked potatoes. There's even evidence that nanoparticles occur naturally inside the gastrointestinal tract.

Could there be a risk from titanium dioxide that we don't know about yet?

There's a small possibility that we haven't been looking in the right places when it comes to possible health issues. Maybe – just maybe – there could be long term health problems from this seemingly ubiquitous diet of small, insoluble particles that we just haven't spotted yet. It's the sort of question that scientists love to ask, because it opens up new avenues of research. It doesn't mean that there is an issue, just that there is sufficient wiggle room in what we don't know to ask interesting questions.

It's questions like this that are driving current toxicology research on nanoparticles. While there is no evidence of a causal association between titanium dioxide in food and ill health, some studies – but not all by any means – suggest that large quantities of titanium dioxide nanoparticles can cause harm if they get to specific parts of the body.

For instance, there are a growing number of published studies that indicate nanometer sized titanium dioxide particles may cause DNA damage at high concentrations if they can get into cells. But while these studies demonstrate the potential for harm to occur, they lack information on how much material is needed, and under what conditions, for significant harm. And they tend to be associated with much larger quantities of material than anyone is likely to be ingesting on a regular basis.

They are also counterbalanced by studies that show no effects, indicating that there is still considerable uncertainty over the toxicity or otherwise of the material. It's as if we've just discovered that paper can cause cuts, but we're not sure yet whether this is a minor inconvenience or potentially life threatening. In the case of nanoscale titanium dioxide, it's the classic case of "more research is needed."

Uncertainties like this – small as they are – are magnified when the perceived gains are low, which is why Dunkin' Brands is reformulating its donut coating. They claim to be able to recreate the same visual effect without the titanium dioxide. Other opacity additives are available, although in this case Dunkin' Brands aren't replacing the with anything else. If substitutes are used however, there needs to be thorough safety testing if these alternative additives are to find favor.

And this gets to the crux of the issue raised by Dunkin' Brands' decision – when there's uncertainty around the science, how can food companies make smart decisions that don't come back to bite them, either in the board room or in the court of public opinion?

Explore further: Children may have highest exposure to titanium dioxide nanoparticles

Related Stories

Are silver nanoparticles harmful?

March 14, 2012

Silver nanoparticles cause more damage to testicular cells than titanium dioxide nanoparticles, according to a recent study by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. However, the use of both types may affect testicular ...

Recommended for you

Graphene under pressure

August 25, 2016

Small balloons made from one-atom-thick material graphene can withstand enormous pressures, much higher than those at the bottom of the deepest ocean, scientists at the University of Manchester report.

Neuromorphic computing mimics important brain feature

August 18, 2016

(Phys.org)—When you hear a sound, only some of the neurons in the auditory cortex of your brain are activated. This is because every auditory neuron is tuned to a certain range of sound, so that each neuron is more sensitive ...

'Artificial atom' created in graphene

August 22, 2016

In a tiny quantum prison, electrons behave quite differently as compared to their counterparts in free space. They can only occupy discrete energy levels, much like the electrons in an atom - for this reason, such electron ...

45 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Moebius
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2015
Are we really eating a rare metal? Dam near as stupid as putting helium in balloons.
Dethe
2 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2015
All nanoparticles (from graphite over silicon oxide to asbestos) are suspected or even confirmed carcinogens - their small particles have ability to slice & penetrate cellular membranes, cell nuclei membranes with genetic information in particular. Even though they're mostly chemically inert, they exhibit significant catalytic properties due to their large surface area. Do you want to eat a potent chemical catalyst? Me not. If nothing else, every food supplement requires thorough long term testing with FDA. For example the Stevia has been "tested" for thirty years, because of conflict of interest and competition of manufacturers of artificial sweeteners - well, and now the donuts with titanium dioxide are getting sold without any official test? Apparently something is rotten in the Kingdom of Denmark....
ryggesogn2
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2015
How many nano particles are inhaled while smoking cannabis?
Dethe
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2015
How many nano particles are inhaled while smoking cannabis?
Probably many - but these nanoparticles are formed with liquid aerosols, not with solid matter.
antigoracle
4 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2015
Mmmm... titanium dioxide. Guess I'll have to get my daily requirement from plastic bottles now.
hillmeister
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2015
I like your paper cut analogy, LOL!
Dethe
1 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2015
t's as if we've just discovered that paper can cause cuts, but we're not sure yet whether this is a minor inconvenience or potentially life threatening
This is more than just analogy. It's actually assumed, the carcinogenic properties of soot are caused with graphene membranes, which are soft, but they can slice the walls of cellular membranes like sheet of paper. The problem with mutagenic effects is, they do manifest itself after multiple generations of mitosis, i.e. cellular division. So that the breathing of asbestos or particles of soot may not be harmful for elderly people, but for youngsters which still have enough of time for development of cancer.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2015
How many nano particles are inhaled while smoking cannabis?
Probably many - but these nanoparticles are formed with liquid aerosols, not with solid matter.


What liquid aerosols?
Dethe
1 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2015
Droplets of tar and THC. How could you inhale the solid particles from vaporizer?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2015
Droplets of tar and THC. How could you inhale the solid particles from vaporizer?


What vaporizer?

Some people roll marijuana leaves into papers, light it on fire and inhale the dry smoke.

They claim its safe.
barakn
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2015
Are we really eating a rare metal? Dam near as stupid as putting helium in balloons.

No, we are not eating a rare metal. We are eating a very common metal oxide. The metal is rare only because of the enormous amount of energy needed to reduce the oxide to metal.
ab3a
4.2 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2015
We have been exposed to this relatively inert chemical for decades. It does not appear to have any deleterious effect. And if we're going to ban something because it has never been tested before, or because someone suspects there is a small chance that something might wrong, then we might as well stop eating.

In the scheme of things I worry about, this doesn't rate very high. Worry about the OTHER ingredients in the doughnut.
xstos
5 / 5 (2) Mar 13, 2015
"After considering the available evidence on the same materials that are currently being used in products like Dunkin' Donuts, the review panel concluded that there no evidence for safety concerns."

So what. They are voluntarily adding a non-essential ingredient for vanity's sake and then trying to disprove that it causes harm. They should only be able to add the ingredient in the first place if they have proven without a doubt, that this chemical is harmless, which they cannot currently do.
Dethe
3 / 5 (2) Mar 13, 2015
We have been exposed to this relatively inert chemical for decades. It does not appear to have any deleterious effect
It's easy to write this down it, but what about cancer rates? cancer on the rise, European Health Levels Suddenly Collapsed After 2003 And Nobody is Sure Why
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2015
Depending on what they are made of and what shape they are, research has shown that some nanoparticles are capable of getting to parts of the body that are inaccessible to larger particles.

If nanoparticles are capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier then that might spell trouble.

We have been exposed to this relatively inert chemical for decades. It does not appear to have any deleterious effect.

We have not been exposed to its nano variant for long. Chemicals have different toxicity at various cluster sizes (as the article repeatedly states). That a large cluster is not harmful because it cannot penetrate into body cells does not automatically mean that smaller particles of the same type that can get through cell walls aren't harmful.
cjn
5 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2015
antialias:
..If nanoparticles are capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier then that might spell trouble.
..We have not been exposed to its nano variant for long.


These are concerns that has been expressed by a lot of the researchers where I work. Another problem is with containment and environmental concentration, particularly with particles which are inert but easily coated or functionalized (natural imperfections in graphene and carbon nano tubes are perfect for binding reactive molecules). They may make excellent dry-lubricants, coatings, or drug delivery vehicles in the future, but the behavior of nano-scaed particles is much different than the micron and large sized constituents. Without effective ways to trap or contain them in manufacturing, distribution, application, and disposal, we may find that the environmental effects are much, much more adverse than we think right now.
Shakescene21
5 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2015
Smart move by Dunkin' Donuts to discontinue TiO2. The stuff is probably safe, but why take chances when it might turn out to be catastrophic for the company? (Think of asbestos.) Good for their customers too, and I hope that was a major factor in the decision. I'll be sure to avoid their shops for the next six months while they clear out the titanium dioxide.
MR166
not rated yet Mar 14, 2015
"Worry about the OTHER ingredients in the doughnut."

Well said! The processed simple carbs are the real killer here. Eat a McDonald's hamburger and it is not the meat that will kill you, it is the bun.
Moebius
not rated yet Mar 14, 2015
If I want stale donuts I can get them at the grocery. Did you know they used to be made fresh at each store? Not any more because it's more profitable to feed us crap.
Dethe
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2015
It's more profitable, because we want to buy that crap. Why do you think the titanium dioxide is added into sugar?
Shootist
1 / 5 (3) Mar 14, 2015
TiO2, harmful?

Like gluten and MSG. and AGW for that matter,

Pseudo science.
Dethe
3 / 5 (2) Mar 14, 2015
pseudoscience
.. there are a 221 of published studies, that indicate nanometer sized titanium dioxide particles may cause DNA damage at high concentrations if they can get into cells....

Thank You for your qualified opinion in this matter, dear anonymous internet troll.. ;-)
0rison
5 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2015
The history of asbestos use is a sad warning that the European "precautionary principle" is appropriate here. Carbon nanotubes might have similar effects. Just because "carbon" is a familiar material does not mean that nanotubes should be grandfathered in to health and safety standards. Titanium dioxide nanoparticles are analogous, and should be thoroughly vetted for their effects before we feed them to our children.
Eikka
not rated yet Mar 15, 2015
We have not been exposed to its nano variant for long.


Yes we have.

Any time you take something and grind it to powder, you get all sorts of particle sizes. For as long as we have had powdered titanium dioxide in paints and makeup and food additives, which is literally centuries (discovered in 1821), we've also been exposed to the nano-scale variant.

Dethe
1 / 5 (1) Mar 15, 2015
Any time you take something and grind it to powder, you get all sorts of particle sizes
Nice try, but the modern pigments aren't produced with grinding but with precipitation from solutions. After then the particle size depends on the technology used heavily. In general, the secret of good pigments is in their preparation as small particles as possible. It does increase the number of reflections and refractions, which in turn increases the light absorption with pigment. So that there is a good reason for increasing of nanoparticle content during evolution of pigments.
jazzy_j_man
not rated yet Mar 15, 2015
How laughable. This is a great illustration of how a country of anti-intellectuals deals with data. Screw the fact that refined sugar is implicated in about every disease process there is, is addicting and kills more people than smoking every year, forget that you're combining that poison with ridiculous levels of fat for no good reason except that all your taste is in your mouth...hold on! Here's something I can do for my health! Avoid the .001% chance that titanium dioxide does...something. Maybe.

BTW, if you want to see conservatives act just as hypocritical as the AGWites, ask them about sugar subsidies. No, it's not enough that we poison our children with it from birth, we actually have to take taxpayer monies to support the industry (bring back slavery?). Y'all hate subsidies. Eliminate this one? And the left are just as bad. Scream about fish kills from BP's Horizon well; ignore that it's much less than the ANNUAL kill from nitrate run-off used to farm sugar.
jazzy_j_man
not rated yet Mar 15, 2015
Look at the Muslim caliphates' decline in the 16th and 17th century. They put it down to sugar addiction. Look at the addiction level in the Levant today and how they act. The West as well. Yeah, slavery was worth it. We don't have MUCH of a problem with the fallout from that 400 years on. And back to the nitrate run-off, I can tell you veggie types that my eating game is far less cruel and better for the environment than your frickin' refined sugar. The English are the worse. Tea time? Has nothing to do with tea. "Bring me a biscuit!" The Muslims said they became, fat, ignorant, lazy and intolerant from sugar addiction. That's nothing like the US today, is it?
Eikka
not rated yet Mar 16, 2015
Nice try, but the modern pigments aren't produced with grinding but with precipitation from solutions.


So?

We have been producing titanium dioxide pigments by grinding, which also produces some nanosize particles, and so we've been exposed to them all the while we've been using the stuff. It is not a new phenomenon.

So that there is a good reason for increasing of nanoparticle content during evolution of pigments.


Particles smaller than the wavelenght of visible light (<400 nm) aren't really very useful as pigments. There's no reason to make nano-TiO2 - it exists as a byproduct of the process and they aren't deliberately making it "more nano" than before.

If anything, the processes are tuned to make the exact right size of particles rather than just making them smaller. Maximum scattering occurs right around 200 nm and for particles smaller than that, the pigment becomes transparent.

MR166
not rated yet Mar 16, 2015
Jazzy while you are on your refined sugar rant you should include wheat flour. It's glycemic index is higher than table sugar.
WesD
not rated yet Mar 16, 2015
Everyone here needs a lesson in solid-state chem and nanoparticle toxicity. TiO2 is white because it's bandgap absorbs no visible light, it's that simple. Making it bigger or smaller won't change that (until you get very small, like <2 nm). For food grade TiO2, about 30% exists as nano-sized (<100 nm by traditional definition). TiO2 is inert and non-toxic (shall I repeat that?). Concern over the smaller sized particles passing through barriers is definitely something people should have. However, let's talk about dose and risk. Everything is toxic at a certain dose, even water. You would literally have to eat about 100 donuts a day for 10 years to even come close to being at risk for adverse effects of <20 nm TiO2 (i.e., there just isn't that much present and the adverse effects are small). You are more likely to die from the sugar and fat.
antigoracle
5 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2015
So, did they just remove the least harmful substance from that donut?
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Mar 16, 2015
We have been producing titanium dioxide pigments by grinding, which also produces some nanosize particles, and so we've been exposed to them all the while we've been using the stuff. It is not a new phenomenon.

Ingesting the this stuff is a bit different than slathering a substance on a wall. It's the difference of wearing a watch with radium dials and licking the paintbrush.
http://en.wikiped...um_Girls
MR166
not rated yet Mar 16, 2015
Ah it is amazing that my generation has survived. We had glow in the dark radium watches and lead tinsel on our Christmas trees. I remember putting the tinsel on the Lionel train tracks and watching it spark. I used to take mercury and pour a little bit of it in my hands and coat pennies with it. According to today's "Wisdom" I should be a blathering, incontinent idiot who died 20 years ago.

I know, I am a "Denier", and the temptation to blame this on the lead and the mercury will be too much for some "Believers" to resist.
michael_frishberg
not rated yet Mar 16, 2015
Worry about the OTHER ingredients in the doughnut.

Sugar is poison for sure.

However, your initial premise, that we have been guinea pigs for the chemical industry since forever, is exactly right.

Why shouldn't chemicals be deemed 'safe enough' to the environment, to people, to fish, to nematodes or whatever...BEFORE BEING BROUGHT TO MARKET?

Now, chemicals are being introduced with no controls, further than letting us know via MSDS how corrosive or vaporous or whatever it is, no hint to toxicity via ingestion in the microgram dose over decades, or differences by gender or age or whatever...

Almost every chemical law is concerned with hazardous waste.

Why should there be any hazardous waste? Why are chemical allowed to create hazardous waste? How is the cost of hazardous waste NOT reflected in the price of the ultimate product?

Why aren't new chemical regulated to a standard (one new cancer in 1,000,000 or whatever)?
Eikka
not rated yet Mar 17, 2015
TiO2 is white because it's bandgap absorbs no visible light, it's that simple. Making it bigger or smaller won't change that


That's only half the story. The other half is scattering, which creates the opaqueness of the pigment. If you have a single crystal block of TiO2 it's like glass - light goes through unabsorbed and unaltered - at least for the visible spectrum.

In order to make it white, you have to break it down to small particles that scatter light.

Ingesting the this stuff is a bit different than slathering a substance on a wall.


You forget the people who are exposed to the powder in their professional quality.

TiO2 is used in about 70% of the food colorings and dyes out there, and we've been putting it in foods and cosmetics since the 1940s. If there was any significant risk, it would have shown up by now, since we're actively looking for such risks.
MR166
not rated yet Mar 17, 2015
"Why should there be any hazardous waste? Why are chemical allowed to create hazardous waste? How is the cost of hazardous waste NOT reflected in the price of the ultimate product?

Why aren't new chemical regulated to a standard (one new cancer in 1,000,000 or whatever)?"

In life every hazard has to be weighed against it's benefits. This is called the cost benefit ratio. If every food or product that caused some harm to someone was banned there would be no foods or products for sale.
ryggesogn2
not rated yet Mar 17, 2015
Why aren't new chemical regulated to a standard (one new cancer in 1,000,000 or whatever)?"


How is this measured? That's one challenge.

Dosage makes the poison. Another challenge.

antialias_physorg
not rated yet Mar 17, 2015
Why should there be any hazardous waste?

Because for many things you only know they are hazardous after the hazard has made itself obvious (e.g. the pervalence of x-ray machines in showe shops at the beginning of the last century until someone figured out that this might not be a good idea)
How is the cost of hazardous waste NOT reflected in the price of the ultimate product?

By the time the material is in widespread use there is enough money already being made by it...which in turn means lots of lobbyists and lawyers who will prevent that the private companies who benefit from it will have to pay for the hazards or the cleanup. (Prominent examples are any kind of fossil fuel, the nuclear power industry, most any factory that pumps pollutants into the air, ... )
WesD
not rated yet Mar 17, 2015
That's only half the story. The other half is scattering, which creates the opaqueness of the pigment. If you have a single crystal block of TiO2 it's like glass - light goes through unabsorbed and unaltered - at least for the visible spectrum.


Nope, sorry, "large" single crystal anatase is opaque and nearly black. Find me a picture of single crystal of anatase that is clear. Good luck.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2015
"By the time the material is in widespread use there is enough money already being made by it...which in turn means lots of lobbyists and lawyers who will prevent that the private companies who benefit from it will have to pay for the hazards or the cleanup. (Prominent examples are any kind of fossil fuel, the nuclear power industry, most any factory that pumps pollutants into the air, ... )"

Anti please explain to me exactly how the nuclear and fossil fuel energy have not been a net benefit to mankind. Do you really think that draft animal based power is superior and has not caused major health issues in the not too recient past.
ryggesogn2
not rated yet Mar 17, 2015
draft animal based power

NYC residents welcomed the replacement of horse with autos.
Dried horse dung dust was everywhere and dead horses on the sides of roads were not healthy.
MR166
3 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2015
If I remember the last PBS special correctly, NYC had to dispose of 100s of tons of disease producing horse manure each day.

Now all that feed is available to feed humans. God bless fossil fuels and the oil and coal companies for what they have done to benefit mankind.
barakn
1 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2015
According to today's "Wisdom" I should be a blathering, incontinent idiot who died 20 years ago. -MR166
You are a blathering idiot, so today's wisdom gets partial credit.
ab3a
1 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2015
Why aren't new chemical regulated to a standard (one new cancer in 1,000,000 or whatever)?


Safety is a state of mind. It is the recognition of the known and potentially unknowable risks, and the decision that the return is worth the risk. It is a very individual decision. If you don't like the possibility that the powder might be dangerous, don't buy it, and don't eat it.

The problem is that there are so many ways of processing and using the same stuff that devising chemical tests of every permutation and combination to "prove safety" is ridiculous.

For example, Teflon, commonly used to coat pots, can break down in to some rather nasty compounds at higher temperatures. Nobody thought to check that. Should we prove that teflon is "safe" before using it to coat a frying pan?

Do note that there is a cost to NOT using newer methods too. It could be shortened life spans. Using oil for the frying pan can also be unhealthy. Living requires taking chances.
Dethe
1 / 5 (1) Mar 28, 2015
Nobody thought to check that.
It were indeed checked it out, the compounds from Teflon are particularly harmful for example for domestic birds, which are more sensitive to them ("dead canary" effect). Safety indeed isn't state of mind - or we could apply the cyanide infusions during sleep without any harm. Stop with spreading of these nonsenses at public.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.