Metal Cookware Safety

Recently there has been a tremendous amount of concern over water bottle safety and BPA free plastics. Serious enough that it made it's way before a US Congressional committee.

This has raised a question in my mind as to the overall safety of metal cookware. I have already become disinclined toward using non-stick's. Also, it seems like everytime you turn around there is a scary news story about the unsafe lead content and environmental concerns over products coming out of China.

My question....Does anyone know of any research on this matter?

I am inclined to gravitate toward products manufactured in the US or Europe as the safety measures tend to be taken more seriously in their manufacture.

I don't worry too much about such matters. Considering how few days in a year most people are likely to use the products I doubt there is much of a health risk. I'd prefer the no-lead version myself, but there is a good chance I'll die from something else.

Avoiding products made where both wages and safety standards are rock bottom is always a good idea.

You might try http://www.cpsc.gov/ (consumer product safety comission) - http://www.consumerreports.org (consumer reports) might have some testing information and statistics as well.

A big problem, however, is that when manufacturing standards and QC are low, the content of the alloy used isn't always consistent, meaning that CPSC could have tested batch A of a product five years ago, and that batch was fine - if the alloying isn't consistent there's no assurance that batch C, from which you're buying, won't have a high lead content.

There are lead-test kits available which you can use yourself to check out the cookware. Here in the SFBay Area, there are several groups that will test products for you for free. They are primarily aimed at children's toys and other children's products, but they will test cookware (that's how I discovered that you should never buy a used dutch oven - seems the ammunition self-loaders find cast-iron cookware just right for melting the lead to make their bullets).

Lots of research is being done. Unfortunately, the results are often contradictory. For instance, a few years ago, it was "certain" that use of aluminum cookware was a major cause of Alzheimer's. More recently, doubt has been cast on this conclusion. At the same time, cooking or storage of acidic foods (citrus juices, for example) in aluminum does cause chemical reactions between the acids and aluminum, with some of the resulting salts having bad effects in the long run (most of the aluminum bottles coming out now are lined with a plastic coating). Anodizing the aluminum gets around this to a large extent (most backpacking aluminum cookware is hard-anodized).

climbhigh is right on! Every time you turn around the drive-by media is highlightina another scare story from some guy with a computer and a fax machine, like the Center for Science in the Public Interst. In cases like these, I say we bring back public flogging! Seriously, non-stick is safe until it becomes worn and scratched. Do not use non-stick in the oven (obviously not happening when we camp).

AHH! The politics of science. I use titanium.
Also I have to take issue with the baking. I bake, in the woods. I'm not a thru-hiker so I have the time. My food beats the pants off freeze dried, and at one tenth the cost. Which gives me more money to spend on quality EUROPEAN gear.
I do think that anodized aluminum is safe, according to the experts. For what that's worth!

tplife:

You've already told us that you're a scientist, not an "Environmentalist Wacko." However, your glib description of the CPSI as "some guy with a computer and a fax machine" does nothing to enhance your stature as a scientist. You're certainly free to disagree with its conclusions (without fear of public flogging) but at least the CPSI backs up its statements with reference to actual research.

rexim,
While I agree that tplife's description of CSPI is a bit glib, CSPI does have an agenda and they do carefully select the data they present to support that agenda. And they are often a bit careless about the "research" they quote - a fair amount of it is unrefereed, but it does fit their agenda. Their conclusions are often stated in stronger terms than the original research. While I pay attention to their releases, I find it prudent to immediately look at other sources and weigh all sides of the question. Remember who started CSPI and what he is continuing to push in his public statements.

Bill,

I agree. I am aware of the history of the CSPI; I am also familiar with the critics at cspiscam.com. Although I am not a scientist, I also agree that it is best to weigh all the information available. My point is simply that one is not likely to carefully weigh the available information if one immediately discounts the CSPI as "some guy with a computer and a fax machine."

Gee, rexim, you mean some (all?) people have pre-conceived notions and are instantly judgmental? Who would have thunk?

One of the things I learned early in my training as a scientist (astrophysicist, in particular) was to work hard at avoiding selection effects and the tendency to force-fit observations to "known" theories. It is hard (perhaps impossible) to avoid all bias and the tendency to stick with "conventional" knowledge, but as a scientist, ya gotta make the effort (politicians and lawyers are different, not that I have any prejudices concerning politicians, lawyers, and used car salesmen {8>O], and maybe media people, for whom sensation sells papers and attracts viewers).

There is an interesting letter to the editor in the current issue of American Scientist (journal of Sigma Xi, the professional scientists equivalent of Phi Beta Kappa). It concerns an article last summer in American Scientist about Lord Kelvin. There is no doubt that Kelvin was a great scientist with huge contributions in math, thermodynamics (the absolute temperature scale is named for him), and the foundations of electromagnetic theory that allowed Maxwell to obtain his equations (which allowed the Internet, radio, TV, etc etc to be invented and developed). The article and the letter point out that even the greats, like Kelvin, make some astounding blunders (Einstein did, as well). And the mistakes came about through trying to force-fit to preconceived ideas.

Which is to say, CSPI does put out some valuable information. But the "grain of salt" does have to be applied, and perhaps a bit more than some other organizations.

Or maybe, we know their agenda. That maybe makes it easier to compensate than for those whose agendas we don't know. Just don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

An interesting letter, indeed. And I just stepped down from the soap box.

There seem to be many interest groups these days that don't mind putting out erroneous info if they believe it will win support for their cause. Even when I agree with their position, if I get one "whiff" of that kind of behavior they not only loose my support, but earn my condemnation. In my book integrity is the best promotional tool you can have. "A scout is honest..."