Teflon concerns don’t stick

Last week, an Environmental Protection Agency scientific advisory panel expressed concern about the safety of a chemical, PFOA, used to make Teflon, the nonstick coating on everything from frying pans to clothing to pizza boxes.

The panel relied solely upon the fact high doses of PFOA cause cancer in mice and rats. Under the EPA definition of “cancer-causing agent,” this is enough to classify the chemical as a “likely human carcinogen” — though (a) there is not a shred of evidence either Teflon or PFOA poses a human cancer risk and (b) a full spectrum of naturally occurring chemicals also cause cancer in lab animals, just as PFOA does.

Radical environmental groups immediately seized upon the opportunity to move in for the kill. On Wednesday, Richard Wiles of the Environmental Working Group opined on NBC’s “Nightly News” that “it has now been determined to be a likely human carcinogen. That ranks up there with DDT, PCBs, dioxin as a very serous hazard. It needs to be banned.”(Apparently, Mr. Wiles is unaware the regulated, approved use of the three much-maligned chemicals he cited never made anyone sick.)

A ban on Teflon? Now that would be the ultimate environmentalist victory. Teflon, probably more than any industrial product, is the poster child of modern technology, one that has made our lives easier and more enjoyable.

Ever since DuPont’s Dr. Roy J. Plunkett accidentally discovered Teflon in his lab in 1938, it has proven miraculously useful, first in machine and military applications in the 1940s — and dramatically changed cooking and cleanup in the 1960s when first used as a nonstick surface for pots and pans.

Teflon’s stellar success story makes it a very ripe target for those who spew chemical-phobia in their crusade to eliminate the tools modern industrial chemistry has given us — pesticides, pharmaceuticals, food additives, and more.

We can all hope the trumped-up charges against Teflon do not pan out so we consumers continue having access to the safe and useful products that contain it. But don’t count on it.

Those in the environmental camp, who still tenaciously argue a rodent is a little man, will insist on purging all such “carcinogens” no matter the cost or loss of benefits.

Unless scientists emerge from their classrooms and laboratories and express their outrage that junk science like this is used to set public policy, the EPA will continue to “protect” us from cancer risks that do not exist — and pass the extraordinarily high costs on to us.

Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan is president of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org) and editor of “America’s War on Carcinogens: Reassessing the Use of Animal Tests in Predicting Human Cancer Risk.”