Alternatives To Teflon Frying Pans
In Chapter 4 of Listen To Your Gut, I write about the dangers of Teflon-coated (and other non-stick coated) pots and pans and give you all the data on why we shouldn’t use them.
Well, following is an interesting article from the New York Times, written by someone else who heard about the dangers of Teflon and set out to test a number of different pans to see which one worked best and was the easiest to cook with and clean up afterwards.
I was amused by the fact that she rated the enamel-coated Le Creuset pan as the best out of them all. I have one Le Creuset frying pan (bought while my hubby had a contract in Singapore and was making loads of moola – they’re very expensive) and I have to say I like it the best as well! A full set is definitely on my wish list of things to buy when I have enough money.
Dr. Joseph Mercola recently launched a new line of nano-glaze ceramic pots and pans. However, when I looked up the patent for this new nano-glaze technology, there seemed to me to be a lot of glue involved in getting the nano-sized ceramic particles to adhere to the surface of the pans. I emailed Mercola asking about the glue and if they had done testing to see if any chemicals from the glue were leaching during the cooking process, but received no response.
My other hesitation with this new nano-glaze cookware is that having spent several months now researching nanotechnology – specifically nanoparticle minerals – I am also concerned about whether the nanoparticle-sized ceramic glaze components leach into food or the air.
You know how we now have washing machines with nanosilver sterilization cycles and socks with nanosilver antibacterial protection? Well, now we’ve also found that the nanoparticle silver in the wash water is entering our ground water and in turn altering the algae and bacterial balance in waterways and ponds, etc.
Joe Mercola states that they tested for any leaching of common metals (like you can get from other pans), but you would have to test specifically for leaching of nanoparticle-sized compounds – which is a very different process.
So whilst those pots (and their light weight) are very appealing, I wish someone would carry out the testing necessary to answer these questions – until we have more data I won’t be trying them.
Anyway, onto the article….
____________________________________________________
In Search of a Pan That Lets Cooks Forget About Teflon
By: Marian Burros, New York Times – June 7, 2006
LIKE many home cooks, I have sent my nonstick skillets to the moldy recesses of my basement, where they have joined the 1950′s aluminum pots and the Dru casseroles (Dutch enamel coated cast iron, now eBay collectibles).
What led to this step were unsettling reports that an overheated Teflon-coated pan may release toxic gases. DuPont, the manufacturer of Teflon, says that its pans are safe and that their surfaces won’t decompose, possibly releasing the gas, until the pan’s temperature reaches 680 degrees. Some scientists say that an empty pan left on a burner set on high reaches 700 degrees in as little as three minutes. All pans with nonstick coatings are subject to the same problems, according to the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit environmental research and advocacy organization. I banished the skillets last year and spent months dithering over what to buy while making do with the pans I had left: a large Revere Ware skillet with a concave bottom; a small, warped hand-me-down from my mother; and a medium All-Clad in fine shape.
A few passes at online pot sellers made matters worse: there are too many choices. Finally, after consulting the ratings from Consumer Reports and Cook’s Illustrated and calling several experts, I decided to do a test of my own, using the most highly recommended pans, along with a few of my own choices.
While Teflon lets manufacturers make inexpensive pans usable, uncoated cheap pans have hot spots, so cheaper pans – other than cast iron – were never considered. The most important characteristic was how close the pans came to having the nonstick qualities people love about Teflon. Can they sauté and brown, even without oil? Almost as important, how easy are they to clean?
There were eight pans in the test, most of them 12 inches in diameter: All-Clad with an aluminum core, All-Clad with a copper core, Bourgeat copper; De Buyer carbon steel; Calphalon anodized aluminum; seasoned and unseasoned Lodge cast iron and Le Creuset enameled cast iron.
All-Clad was one of the top choices of most experts, but did not do well in my tests because sometimes food stuck to the pans and cleaning them was difficult. Top chefs with whom I spoke agreed. “All of my All-Clad sauté pans have brown spots on the sides and outside, too,” said Scott Conant of L’Impero and Alto. “And eggs always stick.”
That’s the nature of stainless steel, said Harold McGee, author of “On Food and Cooking” (Scribner, 2004) and the scientist who can explain everything that happens in the kitchen. “Things stick to stainless,” he said, “and polymerized oil is one of them.”
For the two sets of tests, I cooked 6 dozen eggs; 24 pounds of chicken breasts with and without skin; 10 pounds of onions; and 10 pounds of potatoes. In one set of tests, pans were coated with one tablespoon of oil; in the other just a thin film of oil was applied with waxed paper. All the pans were preheated, the oil added and allowed to get hot enough to ripple; the food had lost its refrigerator chill.
With a tablespoon of oil, all of the pans cooked well and evenly. The chicken was nicely browned, the potatoes were crisp, the onions were meltingly sweet and the eggs were nicely done. The difference between cooking in All-Clad with copper and with aluminum is not significant enough for most cooks to make the more expensive copper pan worth the higher price. The Bourgeat copper pan, of course, cooked quickly and evenly, too, but the differences are too subtle in most situations to be worth the extra money.
But with just a film of oil, neither the All-Clad nor the Bourgeat pans cooked chicken or onions without sticking badly. But then, they don’t claim to be nonstick. The remaining pans cooked well with just a film of oil.
The Le Creuset pan and the two cast-iron pans produced amazing results. Nothing stuck, including the eggs, and it was quite easy to roll up omelets. There were almost no eggs to scrape up. I don’t recommend browning potatoes or onions with a film of oil because they won’t have much flavor, but these pans could do it. The chicken, on the other hand, was moist and browned beautifully, a result you wouldn’t get with Teflon-coated pans.
Calphalon did not do as well with just a film of oil: the chicken was nicely browned, but an awful lot of scrambled eggs stayed in the pan. The carbon steel, an old workhorse that wins the prize for ugly duckling, cooked all the foods, with the exception of the eggs, quite well. Like the Calphalon, this pan had a lot of scrambled egg left in it, and one of the sunny-side-up eggs broke when it was being lifted out of the pan.
The only other difference was that the cast-iron pans, with or without enamel, took longer to heat up and cool down. But bigger differences became clear when it was time for cleaning, the kitchen job I like least. The All-Clad, even more so than Bourgeat, required serious scrubbing to remove those pesky little brown spots that form when oil leaps up the sides of the pan and sticks. And food does stick to All-Clad sometimes, requiring removal by cleanser and elbow grease.
Cleaning the cast iron, Le Creuset and carbon steel was very easy. Food that clings to them can be easily scrubbed away with a stiff brush or, in the case of Le Creuset, soaked off. (Soap is not recommended for cast iron and carbon steel, but it can be used on the Le Creuset and the Calphalon.) Unlike the Calphalon and carbon steel, the cast-iron and enameled pans are heavy. The handles get hot, so pot holders must be used.
The carbon steel and the untreated cast iron must be seasoned, though the process is simple. They must be dried thoroughly and lightly oiled or they will rust. Cooking certain acidic foods like tomatoes in cast iron changes the taste and color, but it does add iron to the diet.
After all the tests, there was one pan I fell for: Le Creuset. It is easy to clean, and because of its enamel finish, acidic foods can be cooked without changes to color or taste. The cast iron pans were a very close second.
I recommend Le Creuset pans with a matte black enamel interior, not treated with any Teflon-like substance. (The company makes its black and white interior enamel from the same material, and says the black is fired at a higher temperature and withstands higher cooking temperatures.) David Bouley of Bouley and Danube said he uses Le Creuset in his country house because “it is the most reliable.”
For cooking fish, one of the most delicate of foods, Eric Ripert of Le Bernardin uses cast iron, as does Michel Richard of Citronelle in Washington. “We stopped using Teflon a long time ago,” he said. “The skin started coming off, and I didn’t want to give you a steak with a skin coating.
____________________________________________________
Happy Cooking!
Jini
Jini: Hi, my name is Rich Bergstrom and I am the founder and owner of Ceramcor. We make all of the cookware for Dr. Mercola. You are correct about the hazzards about teflon and PTFE coatings. The Mercola cookware does not contain any nano particles. We use the term nano as a marketing term because the glaze is made up of many small particles of ceramic minerals in the glaze. Our glaze is fired at 2600F which bonds all of the minerals together forming a solid non-porous surface. Our cookware is 100% green and 100% safe for the environment. That is not true about metal cookware and you do need to visit a steel mill to see the kind of pollution that it produces. Metal pans coated with an enamel cooking surface can not be heated over 500F or else the enamel surface will start to errode. Our Mercola cookware is also called Xtrema cookware and please visit our web site at http://www.ceramcor.com the see why our cookware is the healthiest cookware being sold in the USA. Blessings – Rich
Hi Rich, thanks so much for commenting. Hmmm, so the major thrust of your marketing is based on something that isn’t true? How can that be good for business long-term?
But you still haven’t answered my question about the glue – oh, except if your product really isn’t composed of nanoparticle-sized ceramic, then the patent I researched no longer applies…Although, then wouldn’t it be illegal – or at least an infringement – for you to be using a technology or registered mark that belongs to someone else? Okay, now I’m really confused.
I’m honestly not being sarcastic here – I’m just thinking out loud as I type. Because you need to understand that my motivation is that I too am currently not happy with my cookware and would LOVE to switch to something more ‘healthy’ that doesn’t weigh a ton (like the Le Creuset). So any further info you can give (the more detailed the better) would be great.
thanks,
Jini
Jini:
Our patent is very much alive but we are alway’ striving to make our product better and we are improving our product each and every day. The term nano means billions. Our ceramic glaze is made of billion of ceramic oxides that when fired become one solid non-porous solid surface. There is no glue in our glaze and I personally have never heard about glue being in any ceramic glazes. Most glazes are fired at very high temperatures exceeding 1600F. Our product and glaze is fired at 2600F. Steel can melt at 2400F. I do know for a fact that making is cast iron cookware is very toxic to both the worker and the environment. Our product is 100% worker and enviromentally friendly. We make the most innovative ceramic cookware in the world and we are changing the way food cooks and taste one kitchen at a time. Metal cookware adds no value to the taste of the food, only ceramic material with their far infrared heat can make the food taste better. We believe in healthy eating and healthy cooking using cookware that is free of any heavy metals. Blesings –
Jini: Okay and there is no glue in our glaze and I never heard of glue being used in any ceramic glaze. The term nano means billion and there are billions of natural minerals and oxides that make up our non porous glaze so that is why we call our glaze nano glaze. There is much confusion about the term nano. Our glaze is fired at 2600F which makes our glaze in to a solid mass and there are no nano particles that can flake off. It is imposible to scratch the surface of our cookware. Please note that metals can melt from 1700 to 2400F but not our product.
Our ceramic cookware will make your food taste better becasue our ceramic material produces far infar red energy which allows your food to cook from the outside and the inside at the same time where metal cookware only cooks the food from the outside.
Our product is lighter than cast iron and the manufacturing of cast iron is toxic to the factory woker and the environment. Our cookware does not leach heavy metal which can happen with metal cookware. We are an alternative to metal cookware and that is why Coring Ware when it was made was so successful in the USA. We are the new ceramic alternative – blessings –
Rich – founder of Ceramcor
Rich – I just found this bit of interesting information on the history of nanoparticle glazes. If your product uses a similar technology/process, then this would be a good indication for the long-term safety:
“Although nanoparticles are generally considered an invention of modern science, they actually have a very long history. Nanoparticles were used by artisans as far back as the 9th century in Mesopotamia for generating a glittering effect on the surface of pots.
Even these days, pottery from the Middle Ages and Renaissance often retain a distinct gold or copper colored metallic glitter. This so called luster is caused by a metallic film that was applied to the transparent surface of a glazing. The luster can still be visible if the film has resisted atmospheric oxidation and other weathering.
The luster originated within the film itself, which contained silver and copper nanoparticles dispersed homogeneously in the glassy matrix of the ceramic glaze. These nanoparticles were created by the artisans by adding copper and silver salts and oxides together with vinegar, ochre and clay, on the surface of previously-glazed pottery. The object was then placed into a kiln and heated to about 600 °C in a reducing atmosphere.
In the heat the glaze would soften, causing the copper and silver ions to migrate into the outer layers of the glaze. There the reducing atmosphere reduced the ions back to metals, which then came together forming the nanoparticles that give the colour and optical effects.
Luster technique showed that ancient craftsmen had a rather sophisticated empirical knowledge of materials. The technique originated in the Islamic world. As Muslims were not allowed to use gold in artistic representations, they had to find a way to create a similar effect without using real gold. The solution they found was using luster.
Michael Faraday provided the first description, in scientific terms, of the optical properties of nanometer-scale metals in his classic 1857 paper. In a subsequent paper, the author (Turner) points out that: “It is well known that when thin leaves of gold or silver are mounted upon glass and heated to a temperature which is well below a red heat (~500 °C), a remarkable change of properties takes place, whereby the continuity of the metallic film is destroyed. The result is that white light is now freely transmitted, reflection is correspondingly diminished, while the electrical resistivity is enormously increased.”
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanoparticle
Hi Jini,
I was wondering what you think about the old fashioned glass amber pyrex frying pans such as these on e-bay?
http://cgi.ebay.com/Amber-Pyrex-Corning-Vision-Ware-Saucepan-Lid-Skillet
Thank you,
Cathy
I too was curious about safer cookware and found your blog when searching for info about the nano-glaze since I was interested in the ceramcor pans…until I read Bergstrom’s response. Regarding nano, the term actually means billionth (as in 0.000 00 001) not billion (as in 1,000,000,000, referred to as giga). It is used for things that are incredibly small or low in number…not high. Further, the lack of appropriate grammar from the founder and owner of the company and the vague nonsensical explanation makes me distrust the statements. I wanted to know what the “nano-glaze” contained; it concerns me that they do not disclose this information. Further, I can’t find any patent. Do any of you know where this was filed (in which country), under what name and patent number? Anyways, thank you for the review on the other cookware products; it was actually fairly thorough and informative.
More importantly, what’s UNDER the ceramic particles? most of these nonstick ceramic pans have Aluminium. The ceramic coating is so thin that it is certainly possible that nano holes are created down o the alumnium and the aluminium leaches into your food.
This discussion is awesome! I’m looking for healthy cookware options, especially my skillet which I use every day. I’m currently using cast iron – I make EVERYTHING in it. If it’s seasoned properly, it’s great. And yes, I do make eggs, and no, they don’t stick. I season with coconut oil and bake in the oven at 350 for about 45 minutes, then let cool at room temp. I usually do this two or three times in a row to season. Only thing I haven’t tried to cook in my cast iron is tomatoes.
Anyway, I’m wondering – are the ceramcor skillets SOLID ceramic, or are they a nano-coating over some other substrate? I’ve seen the video of Dr. Mercola talking about them, and the fact that if you drop them they will break, but I don’t see any info regarding what the pan is actually made out of and what material is under the glaze. I’m also wondering what’s different about your nano-glaze vs. other pots that are ‘nano-ceramic’ and which are a fraction of the cost.
Thanks!
Talk about a misuse of terms. Nano particles refer to the size of the particles that make up the substance. Not the atoms in the substance, as they are all nano particles. To say that something is made up of billions of particles is so wrong, as everything is made up of atoms that consists of billions of atoms. A drop of water contains billions and billions of atoms. Thus water is a nano particle? Gosh, it might kill me!
A lot of this is just nonsense to a material scientist. What is important is the breakdown temperature of a material (so that the particles that consist the material can leave the matrix and migrate to another material, like you body or the food being cooked), the density of the material (which is related to its hardness and abrasive resistance), the flaking resistance (the bonding energy of one molecule to another and the shear planes of that bonding). The term ceramic means many many things, but the basic definition is (from wikipedia) “A ceramic is an inorganic, nonmetallic solid prepared by the action of heat and subsequent cooling.[1] Ceramic materials may have a crystalline or partly crystalline structure, or may be amorphous (e.g., a glass). Because most common ceramics are crystalline, the definition of ceramic is often restricted to inorganic crystalline materials, as opposed to the noncrystalline glasses.” However, it can also contain metallic particles. It is basically a glass. Can be fired or non fired. Can be glazed or non glazed.
Ceramics can be high density, medium or low. They can be light or heavy. They can be conductive or nonconductive. It is a very broad term.
Under some of the scenarios presented here then ceramic knives are very dangerous to use because of their nano particles!
None of these have really been scientifically tested for the proper determination of what is happening, and most of it is really just marketing hype, as admitted by the owner himself. I would love to see real data on surface hardness, leaching testing, heat breakdown testing, material density, and then have these results published as real date. Leaching is different from heat, but can be related. Leaching refers to the passing of one material to another because of a fluid action and chemical reaction, whereas the material can outgas because of heat ( with nano particles?). They way to do this is use a mass spectrometer and measure the resultant fluids in the pan before and after and then do the same for temperatures and then with a gas spectrometer. The rest is just marketing hype for someone to make money from their product, whether it is safe or not.
Pretty much all ceramics are made from nano particles, so my plants sitting in clay pots are using “nano technology.” Nano is a buzz word nowadays, but it only really matters for semiconductors. While I think this RIch guy is an idiot (“far infrared heat can make the food taste better” makes absolutely no sense), I don’t think you need to worry about the nano particles, when the particles are fired they sinter together so they bond together and become one solid piece, although it can be porous. Ceramics are fired at high enough temperatures anything that would come out during cooking is already long gone.
I’m a metallurgist, not a materials scientist, otherwise I would rip into this guy more.
[...] [...]
A reader sent me this:
Here is another pan and pot material that is nontoxic: http://www.silit.com/silit-know-how/silargan_1120.html?sid=A1171891-DB90-4461-8F17-DB8ED6CF118C
CATHY – the glass cookware is safe and non-toxic. Some say you need to be careful about shattering, but I’ve never had glass baking dishes break or explode.
I wanted to comment on the frequently repeated and misleading claim that you can test for nickel contents using magnets.
I have seen it on many websites and I wonder where this claim originated. Was it Ray Peat’s statement?
First of all, 99% of cookware uses austenic 18/8 or 18/10 steel with nickel contents 8-10%. Stainless steel without nickel is prone to developing rust spots, is less shiny and generally would be a great turn off for an average buyer. I remember reading reviews of 18/0 (no nickel) stainless steel flatware on amazon. Buyers were really disappointed and many of them decided to return the product to the vendor. The flatware couldn’t stand the harsh environment of a dishwasher and began to rust.
Cookware without nickel would be either very old or expensive – sold as a “health” product to the niche customers who demand nickel free steel as a material of choice for their pans and pots.
A lot of modern cookware can be used on induction hobs. It means that the body of the pot/pan should contain magnetic alloy (non magnetic metal cookware could also work, but in a less efficient and controllable way). Manufacturers figured out that they can sandwich magnetic steel between austenic steel and this way allow for induction cooking without sacrificing the anti corrosion properties of austenic steel.
I have Matfer Bourgeat pots, series Excellence. They are induction ready. The magnet will strongly stick to all surfaces and lids. They are all made from 18/10 steel with sandwiched magnetic steel inside.
I have Lagostina pan. Magnet sticks to all surfaces. Material: 18/10 steel.
In 99% of cases your magnet test will be positive, because it will stick to the magnetic steel sandwiched in between layers of austenic steel and you will be mislead thinking that your cookware doesn’t contain nickel. Wrong!
Please do not propagate this falsehood.
If I wanted to check for nickel contents the best would be a metal spectrometer, spark test or nickel test kit.
Another way of determining if the steel contains nickel could be visual comparison of two identically polished pieces in neutral light. Nickel makes steel slightly more yellowish.
Testing aside, I consider Staub’s black enamel to be quite nonstick. I have a saucepan and tried frying lamb brains in egg and breadcrumbs batter. No sticking and if any it was very slight. I haven’t tested omelets or fish, since I’m waiting for the bigger pieces to arrive. I suspect Le Creuset or Chasseur with black interior would behave in a similar way.
I have many Lodge raw cast iron pieces which I seasoned myself over the years, but I’m not satisfied with their performance. Eggs, potatoes, rice stick a lot, even if using large amount of fat. Also, in my opinion, its use is limited to frying, because adding any liquids removes the seasoning very fast and changes the taste of the food. It also leaches lots of iron which could be a bigger concern that minute amounts of nickel from asutenic steels.
I have a Mexican griddle which sticks less than Lodge.
In the past I was using teflon coated aluminum pan but discarded it after it started flaking and after I realized of the teflon potential dangers.
I wanted to test Visions cookware – there are many pieces on ebay, but after reading this I gave up:
http://www.amazon.com/forum/cooking/?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx211KPGGBLHNC6&cdThread=Tx105CBKW8EWL0A
I wouldn’t like any cookware to explode on my stove with hot liquid inside even if the chance is minimal.
I’m also going to try traditional Spanish clay cookware.
Thanks Jack and well-researched – I have removed the bit about magnet-testing after reading more about austenic steel on wikipedia. Please let us know how the Spanish clay cookware works out…
Is nano glaze the same as micro glaze?
DEE – If you google “micro glaze” most of the info is about a waterproof fixative glaze for paper products. So you would need to contact the company who is using the term “micro glaze” and ask them what it is and what it is made of. Then you can compare.
Hello,
I would like to know more about the colorants used to color ceramics, nano or not, and if there are any concerns regarding that? I’ve read that titanium dioxide, and even uranium (not the nuclear kind), is used as colorant. Before I read into this some, I purchased Le Creuset pots in yellow, and now I’m wondering if the colorant showed up in the hair test I had done–the uranium level in my hair was almost off the chart. Granted, a hair test alone isn’t always the most accurate in measuring metals in the body. I use Le Creuset ceramic, Warner cast iron and Flamemaster glass cookware depending on my mood.
Is there anyone reading this thread that could comment more; point me to some reading materials; share experience on this topic regarding their cookware?
I would like to have the most inert material to use for cooking. Almost makes me want to go down the raw-foods path.
Appreciate it.
BTW, I visited Ceramcor’s website to see if I could find any info on colorants. I couldn’t find anything, so I contacted their offices via the website. Hopefully I get an answer.
I was also a bit annoyed that their cookware is made in China. My tone may be phobic, but I’m wary about buying certain things manufactured in China nowadays…not to mention certain things manufactured here in the U.S. too.
Interesting discussion. I recently ordered a couple “Art of Cuisine” ceramic pans after doing some of my own research. They were expensive, but I’m thinking you want to go more expensive with something like this? They appear to be made in France. Ceramic coating over stainless steel. My understanding is that you definitely want to avoid the colored ceramic due to leeching of lead, etc. I haven’t gotten the pans yet, but I’m looking forward to it.
LAURA – oooh ceramic over stainless steel, now that sounds like a great idea! PLEASE post back here after you’ve used them and let us know what you think. Sounds like a great compromise between inert substance next to your food, but lighter weight due to the stainless steel rather than cast iron….can’t wait to hear…
Add A Comment