What's new
Cooking Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Wolfgang Puck

T

TaterTot

Guest
I sometimes watch HSN or QVC (which ever Wolfgang is on) and it seems as though he has good products. I'm tempted to purchase his convection oven and/or his pots and pans set but would like to know....is his products as good as they seem?
 
I haven't a clue as to the quality---I don't know anyone who uses the Puck branded stuff.

But, as a general rule, I advise against buying sets of anything. Too often they contain pieces you never use. My son got an 11-piece high-end set of cookware for a wedding gift, for instance. To date they've used 4 of those pieces. They use those 4 often.

So it's better to buy what you need from open stock. Not only do you get exactly what you need, but you aren't locked into a particular brand and style. Sometimes something in that brand/style is perfect for you, but a different item might require a different make/model.
 
Nothing against Wolfgang Puck in particular but my thoughts are that he ran a restaurant, got famous, and is out 'branding'. Consider the George Foreman Grill. George was a great boxer. The grills cooked great yet were awfully hard to clean since you couldn't remove the grill plate from the grill, so you cleaned the grill on the counter with paper towel. Did GF help sell a lot of them? Certainly. Know anyone that still has one? Not me.
 
Old Bay - I have 2 of his grills! You wouldn't believe how I cleaned them! And not with paper towels! And - they aren't that great for cooking meats! They are wonderful for making grilled sandwiches, veggies or panini - but when it comes to meat - not! It's fast for warming something up - since I don't believe in microwaves - and it does do toast, grilled danish, buttered rolls, etc. Hotdogs aren't too bad - hamburgers - never.

Would I buy any TV cooks pots and pans - NO! Most likely made in China and of quality I would prefer not to have at that price. I like to see what I am paying for. Purchased 2 pan sets in all my years - not pleased with the whole set - better off buying what you want and what you will need open stock.
 
George Forman Grills

Nothing against Wolfgang Puck in particular but my thoughts are that he ran a restaurant, got famous, and is out 'branding'. Consider the George Foreman Grill. George was a great boxer. The grills cooked great yet were awfully hard to clean since you couldn't remove the grill plate from the grill, so you cleaned the grill on the counter with paper towel. Did GF help sell a lot of them? Certainly. Know anyone that still has one? Not me.

I have 2 different types of GF grills and I love them, but I will probable have to stop because I bought a parrot and they cant be around the gases that are produced while using nonstick cookware.
 
... I will probable have to stop because I bought a parrot and they cant be around the gases that are produced while using nonstick cookware.

Gases? What do you mean? I'm absolutely curious.
 
When teflon is heated, Old Bay, it gives off fumes. These have been demonstrated to definately be toxic to birds, and possibly toxic to other critters.

Question: Are babies considered in the category "other critters?"

There's some controversy over what temperature this happens at. I've seen figures from as low as 250F to as high as 450F.

What we do know, without question, is that at 450F and higher, teflon does give off fumes. What isn't known (because it hasn't been studied) is the full effects, and possible toxicity, of those fumes.

This is just one reason I refuse to use non-stick cookware.
 
FtFee fumes

Does anybody know if hard anodized cookware contain these FTFEE fumes?:confused:
 
These are non-smellable fumes? I've never heard of of this until the other day. I love non-stick cookware and don't know if I could cook a egg nowadays without it. It's just so easy to cook and clean. I understand the concern though, I might be considered a critter to some people I know. Anyone got a link to a credible resource on this that I can read?
 
Does anybody know if hard anodized cookware contain these FTFEE fumes?:confused:
'

Isn't there the concern about the relationship with aluminum and Alzheimer's disease? This has something to do with high amounts of aluminum in people with AD but not sure if the problem was because of access to aluminum or just the people having a 'thing' for storing it.

I'm just waiting for the day my car runs on aluminum ... really ... as a way to produce hydrogen gas and runs in a regular car engine. Coming soon, stay tuned.
 
Old Bay, you have it correct.

People suffering from Alzheimers have a build up of aluminin in certain parts of the brain. But the jury is out, as of now, as to whether the aluminum builds up, and contributes to the disease, or whether people with the disease attract aluminum to that part of the brain.

But I figure just the suggestion is enough of an additional reason not to use aluminum cookware.
 
Aluminum is linked to Alzheimers - but do people ever stop to think that beer cans, soda cans, veggie cans, soup cans, etc, etc, etc, are also to blame??

As far as teflon, T-fal, etc. - there are poisons in that - and it is not good for you - I have several articles about aluminum, coated pans, etc. Also - don't forget the DuPont products - like the chemical coated wrappers that are used by fast food places and other take-outs which also causes cancer - and just what do they use on this release type aluminum foil, etc. I will not use any thing like that. I do not believe in microwaves and plastic should not be used in microwaves - it is poisonous as well. I have so much info on all this - and I won't use the crockpot liners for cooking either - I would much rather scrub my fingers off cleaning my crockpot than cook in plastic.

Old Bay - you mention cooking eggs in a non-stick skillet - I have skillets that I use and they are not coated - heat the pan, then oil it up to season it, wipe out the oil and you won't have a problem. And a well seasoned cast iron pan or griddle is great for eggs!

Any pan that has any coating in it - I do not want. I don't care how great they claim it is - 3 - 7 years later they will find something that it causes!
 
Don't hold back, Mama. Tell us how you really feel. :)

I have to say I'm getting pretty tired of hearing that song and dance from people about "you need at least one non-stick pan for eggs." Well, golly gee. Whatever did grandma use? And her mother before her.

Nonstick is part of the general "convenience first" world that we live in. In this case, people would rather use something they know has potential health risks than learn to use other cookware correctly. Just as they continue eating in those squat & gobble fast food joints, despite the documentation about how unhealthy they are.

Lets put aside cast iron for another, separate thread. It's unfair to compare anything to cast iron, cuz the anything will lose on any criteria except, possibly, weight.

The fact is, I regularly cook eggs in stainless, and they no more stick then they would in a non-stick pan. You just have to learn the properties of the material.

And it's not as if non-stick doesn't require oil. It still has to be greased, if for no other reason than the flavor and appearance of what gets cooked in it. So I don't understand what people who use it are really saving.

In my house there is no non-stick cookware. And no aluminum cookware. And, as to crockpot liners: The only think sillier than those are the Crockpot Classics from the frozen food locker.

Not that I'm real big on crockpots. But that, too, is grist for a different mill.
 
yahoo groups parrotflock is where I learned about this and bird talk magazine.
 
NO TEFLON, MICROWAVES, LINERS OR COOKING IN PLASTIC IN MY HOUSE!

I'll post some reasons:

DuPont Fined for Teflon Cover-Up


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it will fine Teflon maker DuPont $16.5 million for two decades' worth of covering up studies that showed it was polluting drinking water and newborn babies with an indestructible chemical. It was EWG's petition that sparked EPA's lawsuit against DuPont. The fine is the largest administrative fine the EPA has ever levied under a weak toxic chemical law. However, the $16.5 million fine is less than half of one percent of DuPont's profits from Teflon from this time period, and a fraction of the $313 million the agency could have imposed. Yet another reason to strengthen our toxic chemical laws, which EWG is launching a campaign to do.


The DuPont Co.'s failure to report widespread exposures to a potentially toxic chemical used to manufacture nonstick pans, stain-resistant carpet and hamburger wrappers will cost the company $16.5 million in fines and compensatory payouts.

Environmental Protection Agency officials said the settlement produced the largest administrative, noncourt civil penalty in agency history, and would serve as a warning to industries that flout federal toxic substance control laws.

"This settlement sends a strong message that companies are responsible for promptly informing EPA about risk information associated with their chemicals," said Granta Y. Nakayama, assistant administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assur- ance.

Although the action was triggered by revelations about problems at DuPont's Teflon plant in Parkersburg, W.Va., its terms require the company to spend $5 million studying how a wider variety of related chemicals and consumer products behave and break down in the environment.

Some of the chemicals covered by the research deal are handled at DuPont's Chambers Works plant in Deepwater, N.J., at the foot of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, including C-8 -- also known as perfluorooctanoic acid or PFOA -- a chemical used in the production of Teflon.

One national organization, Environmental Working Group, said the penalty highlighted the federal government's weak hand in dealing with industrial polluters.

"What's the appropriate fine for a $25 billion company that for decades hid vital health information about a toxic chemical that now contaminates every man, woman and child in the United States?" Group President Ken Cook said in a statement. "We're pretty sure it's not $16 million, even if that is a record amount under a federal law that everyone acknowledges is extremely weak."

Under its pact with the EPA, DuPont acknowledged no liability for failure to report its 1981 discovery that a compound used to make Teflon had contaminated the placenta and bloodstream of a West Virginia worker's unborn child. The agreement also settled seven other claims of company failure to disclose violations of the Toxic Substance Control Act and a related hazardous pollution control law.

Among the complaints were allegations that DuPont withheld information for years about unexpected contamination in the blood of workers, and pollution releases that eventually contaminated water supplies serving thousands in West Virginia and Ohio.

"The fact of the matter is, we could have litigated this thing. We could have paid a lot of money and been in court for several years," said DuPont Senior Vice President and General Counsel Stacey Mobley. "We made a determination that we're going to put this thing behind us."

Mobley said DuPont believes there are no human health effects associated with C-8.

More cases pending

DuPont has come under intense scrutiny in recent years with disclosures that the company's synthetic chemicals, including PFOA, have been detected in the bloodstreams of people and animals around the globe. An EPA scientific advisory panel recently recommended labeling the material a "likely" carcinogen, although the finding remains in dispute.

Earlier this year, DuPont set aside $15 million in anticipation of settling the case. Still pending is a federal criminal probe of the company's handling of federal requests for information.

The settlement requires DuPont pay $10.25 million in fines while also spending $5 million on a three-year study of the environmental breakdown characteristics of nine "fluorotelomer-based" products. The group includes soil-, stain- and grease-resistant coatings. Another $1.25 million will go to support school projects in West Virginia that reduce student exposure to harmful chemicals in science classrooms.

A former DuPont Co. engineer who lives in Hockessin recently accused the company of covering up indications that one of those chemicals escaped at higher-than-expected rates from paper coatings widely used for fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags and other prepared foods.

Mobley said DuPont already has cut PFOA emissions by 98 percent at its U.S. plants "and we are committed to reducing those emissions by 99 percent by 2007."

Millions set for settlements

The company established a $108 million reserve last year to pay settlements in a West Virginia class action lawsuit involving citizen water pollution claims in Ohio and West Virginia. The settlement includes a medical monitoring agreement that could cost the company up to $235 million.

Vincent, Ohio, resident Kathy Minerd said tests had shown that she carries 480 parts per billion of PFOA in her blood, while her husband's levels are 290 ppb -- concentrations that were unknown outside of the workplace before the lawsuit forced community testing.

"At first they said it couldn't hurt you, but I'm sure it'll be a long time before they really know," Kathy Minerd said.

DuPont is the nation's only manufacturer of PFOA, although several other companies use the compound.

Company spokesman R. Clifton Webb said DuPont's experience at its Parkersburg, W.Va. plant, where emissions have fallen dramatically, would help in other pollution control efforts. He also said that the company releases at a different plant that makes PFOA in Fayetteville, N.C., were far lower than those experienced by 3M Co., DuPont's previous supplier. In 2002 3M stopped selling C-8; DuPont began producing at Fayetteville the same year, and now is investigating contamination of groundwater near the plant.
 
This I found interesting - makes you think about so much more!

FAST FOOD DANGERS and teflon dangers


This article also pertains to the "coated" wrappers that are used by Mc Donald's, Burger King, etc. to prevent the grease from their sandwiches from coming through the wrapper.

The gentleman who worked for the company was discharged for bringing this to news for publication -

EPA Fines DuPont $16.5M for Teflon Cover-Up

By E.J. Mundell
HealthDay Reporter

WEDNESDAY, Dec. 14 (HealthDay News) -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday ordered chemicals giant DuPont to pay a record $16.5 million in penalties for withholding health safety data on toxins linked to its lucrative Teflon group of non-stick, stain-resistant compounds.

According to the EPA, seven of the eight violations in the lawsuit involved DuPont's failure over the past two decades to report important data on perfluorooctanic acid (PFOA) -- a breakdown product of "fluorotelomer" compounds that include the Teflon brand of non-stick chemicals.

"This is the largest civil administrative penalty EPA has ever obtained under any environmental statute," Granta Nakayama, EPA's assistant administrator in the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, said at a press conference Wednesday afternoon. "The settlement sends a clear message to the regulatory community that EPA takes very seriously the requirement to submit substantial risk information about toxic chemicals."

The EPA settlement mandates that DuPont pay a $10.25 million penalty and another $6.25 million to support two EPA environmental projects, including a $5 million, three-year look at the "degradation potential" of nine of DuPont's fluorotelomer-based products to break down and form PFOA.

In a statement, Dupont noted that "the settlement closes this matter for DuPont without any admission of liability."

A second statement from DuPont senior vice president and general counsel Stacey Mobley said, "We have already cut PFOA emissions from U.S. plant sites by 98 percent, and we are committed to reducing those emissions by 99 percent by 2007."

Susan Hazen, principal deputy assistant administrator in the EPA's Office of Prevention -- Pesticides and Toxic Substances, told reporters that the jury is still out on the health effects -- if any -- of PFOA in humans.

"The agency has information based on animal studies and toxic effects in animals, [but] we have no information at this point that would lead us to believe there is a significant human health impact," she told reporters, adding that EPA-funded studies looking at PFOA's impact on human health are ongoing.

But Lauren Sucher, director of public affairs for the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Environmental Working Group, said that research suggests PFOA collects over time in the bloodstream and takes decades to eliminate.

"There are also studies showing harm to workers, including an increased risk of leukemia, and workers with higher cholesterol levels, which is clearly a risk factor for heart disease," Sucher said.

PFOA accumulates in the blood over time. Although the EPA has not yet labeled PFOA a human health hazard, prior studies have linked the compound to increased risks for leukemia and high cholesterol.

"Whistleblower" testimony earlier this year from Glenn Evers, a former long-time DuPont scientist, also bolstered the case that the company had withheld data for years on risks posed by PFOA.

According to a recent ABC News report, DuPont officials "strongly dispute" Evers' claims, which they labeled "personal opinions that are inaccurate."

Because of their fire-, grease- and water-repellant properties, fluorotelomers have been ubiquitous for decades in products such as Gore-Tex fabric, upholstery, carpeting, paper food containers and "Teflon" non-stick cookware.

The Environmental Working Group filed a petition with the EPA more than two years ago claiming a DuPont cover-up, which in turn helped prompt the agency's lawsuit against the company.

"We're very satisfied that the EPA acted on our petition and actually sued DuPont for covering up vital health and safety information for over two decades," Sucher told HealthDay.

But she pointed out that, under existing rules, the agency could have levied fines of up to $313 million. Even that amount would be just a fraction of the billions of dollars in revenue DuPont has made from its Teflon-related products, she said.

"Given that DuPont has profited from illegal cover-ups over the past two decades, would the maximum fine have been more satisfying and a stronger deterrent? Sure," she added.

According to Nakayama, the eight counts cited against DuPont in the EPA suit included:

* failure to submit data from 1981 on the trans-placental movement of PFOA in humans,
* failure to submit data on PFOA levels in household drinking water,
* failure to reply to an EPA request for PFOA toxicity data,
* failures to submit information on elevated PFOA levels in the blood of residents living near DuPont's Washington, W. Va. Plant;
* data withheld from PFOA-related rat studies.

Nakayama said the first count was considered the most serious.

"This is the first and only information about human placental transfer and levels of PFOA in children," he said. "Human data is very rare, and information concerning PFOA in children, much less the fetus, is extremely rare and significant in researching the potential developmental effects of the chemical."

So where does all this leave consumers, who every day touch, and dine from, products containing fluorotelomer chemicals that may degrade to form PFOA?

"It's something consumers should be concerned about, but not alarmed by," Sucher said. "We'd suggest, though, that consumers definitely take opportunities to minimize exposure to these chemicals."

Those "opportunities," she added, include staying away from Teflon cookware; microwaving take-out food on a plate rather in the potentially PFOA-emitting container it came in; avoiding water- and stain-repellant clothing; and foregoing those special "stain-guard" coatings the next time you buy a carpet or sofa.

More information

For more on PFOAs, visit the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov ) .

SOURCES: Dec. 14, 2005, Environmental Protection Agency press conference, with Granta Nakayama, assistant administrator, EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Susan Hazen, principal deputy assistant administrator in the EPA's Office of Prevention -- Pesticides and Toxic Substances; Lauren Sucher, director, public affairs, Environmental Working Group, Washington, D.C.; Dec. 14, 2005, Dupont press release; Nov. 18, 2005, ABC News

According to the gentleman who exposed this - the coating on the wrappers is made by a cancer causing substance and it also causes others health-related problems.









:eek:
 
The EPA, huh? Doesn't that stand for Eternally Playing Around?

Among other things, this is the organization that says a proven toxic chemical, when thrown away, is a toxic waste subject to strict controls, but when mixed in a fertilizer is a product, and is ok for human contact.

This is the organization that said gene-transference in frankenfoods would take, at a maximum, five years. But so what?

The is the organization that had no idea how many toxic waste sites it had permitted, or what when into them.

This is the organization that said that you could not store, dump, bury, incinerate, or drown, or shoot PCBs into space. But get rid of them.

This is the organization that permitted Love Canal.

So just which environment are they protecting?
 
After a while they have to admit their mistakes! When an employee of a company steps forward with evidence they have no choice.

Love Canal is not the biggest problem - nor is it the only one in the area - it is only the tip of the iceberg! I know that for a fact! There is a lot that has ben hidden and it is slowly coming out - thank our government for their honesty - LOL!

There is so much going on that they will not reveal - but sooner or later they will have to!
 
Here is how our paternalistic gubmint works.

It should be taken as a given that Love Canal should never have been permitted, not given the sponge that that part of the world is. But it was. By the EPA, who said it was perfectly safe to do so.

So, Hooker Chemical operates a fully permitted site, using all the then state-of-the-art engineering knowledge. When the time comes to close it, it is closed, again using all the latest state-of-the-art. Which included a 4-foot thick clay cap over the whole area, to act as a seal.

The site is then deeded to the City of Niagara Falls, for use as a park, with the deed including severe restrictive covenents. Among them: Construction involving excavation will never take place. In short, you can erect playground equipment, but don't dig any holes.

The language is totaly nonambiguous. Hooker clearly said, don't dig holes. And the City clearly said, we won't.

Apparently, the City of Niagara Falls defines "never" as lasting about ten minutes. The first thing Niagara Falls does, almost immediatly after acquiring the site, is build a school on it. And then comes a developer who reasons that the people putting kids in the new school we'll need housing; and the City permits him to build 120 houses on, and adjacent to, the site.

Then the mud hits the fan. People living in those houses have strange liquids leaking into the basements. And they're getting sick. And plants won't grow in their yards.

The long and the short of it is after condeming the site and calling in recovery experts, what happens? Not a trace of that seal (you know, the 4-feet of clay) was extant. It had all been removed when building the school and the houses.

And who takes it on the chin? The EPA, which permitted the site? The City of Niagara Falls which allowed excavation despite the restrictive covenents forbidding it? The contractors who did the excavating and removed the clay seal?

Bzzzt! Wrong! Thanks for playing!

All the blame was layed on Hooker Chemical.

That's what happens when you do things legally. Meanwhile, there has yet to be a significant prosecution of a midnight dumper.

What was that lie? I'm from the gubmint; I'm here to help you.
 
Boy of boy, Mamma, when we hijack a thread we really hijack it.

Sorry, TaterTot.

What was the question, again. :eek:
 
Back
Top