Saturday, August 1, 2009

When does green really mean GREEN?


"It's a simple and delicious way to prepare salmon" my friend Samara said. "All you need is a grill pan, olive oil, salt and pepper, and it comes out perfectly every time."
When I looked at her quizzically she said "You do have a grill pan, don't you?"
"You mean a broiler pan?"
I could tell my Barefoot Contessa loving friend was only partly surprised by my culinary naivete. But that's what friends are for, right? To love you for all that you are, and aren't. So Sam lovingly explained the ins and outs of grill pans...including the necessity of the stove top to oven variety and the non-stick surface. I cringed at the thought of buying a Teflon pan given all of its health hazards... but she said her sister had bought a cast iron one and it did not do as good a job. The non-stick surface, she said, was key.

I had to give this some some serious thought...this was the perfect addition to my Friday night dinner party, but I needed to explore more online.
Fast forward to yesterday midday... I needed to get out and buy some salmon and my grill pan, but time was running out before my friends were due to arrive, and I had not done any research on line.... so I ran (drove, actually) to Bed, Bath and Beyond to see what I might find.

There, in its own little section labeled "Green Gourmet" by Cuisinart, were half a dozen pieces of cookware touting 100% recycled packaging, and "eco-friendly" marketing jargon. Immediately, the doubt entered: Have I discovered the option of my dreams? Or just a cheap (well not so cheap) marketing ploy.


Let me just pause in my story here to say that I am IN the advertising and marketing business. For the past 16 years I have helped companies reach consumers looking for green/natural/organic products. Although for the most part my clients are the ones with the authentically green products, I am well aware of those who are not. "Greenwashing", the subtle and effective ways companies tout qualities (no matter how insignificant) to gain green consumers' trust, has become the rage. So immediately my "green-dar" started beeping and I wished I had done my homework before walking into the store.

  • PTFE and PFOA Free Nonstick Cooking surface (Sounds good, eh? But is this the stuff that makes Teflon hazardous?)
  • Ceramic based Petroleum-Free Nonstick Conserves Oil Consumption (OK, this one makes me laugh... conserves what kind of oil consumption? Petroleum or cooking oil? Was this lack of clarity purposeful? Some one in their marketing department needs to fix this bullet point)
  • Scratch-Resistant Nonstick surface won't peel (OK, well at least I do know that I don't want pieces of any surface in my food, so this sounds good)
  • And then, the absolutely meaningless jargon that always hits the target: "Eco-Friendly" Ceramica non-stick interior.
  • And the kicker: Packaging made from 100% recycled materials.

OK, so I had to make a choice (I think I covered my choice making challenges in my prior post!), and I was running out of time. Thoughts: Am I being bamboozled and falling for meaningless claims? Am I supporting the greenwashing trend by buying based on their bullet points? Will this pan be as good as a Teflon one, and will my salmon come out like Sam said it would? And, since I really don't cook that often, does it really matter?

After deliberating for far too long, I made the purchase (with out the 20% off coupon that went out with the recycling earlier that morning) and headed over to Whole Foods to buy the ingredients for my dinner. I was thrilled that they had Fresh (not previously frozen), Wild (not farm raised) Salmon, and that it was on sale!

Dinner, along with the rest of our evening was a huge success; including enjoyment of the fire pit once it stopped raining. I did, however, pay dearly this morning for my overindulgence in mixing beer, gin and tonics and Frangelico, but used my recovery time today to research what I now think was a good "green" purchase.

Oh, and on the subject of Wild vs Farm raised fish, some words of wisdom:

It's probably NOT the best idea on a first date to ask the waiter if the grilled salmon dish the guy has just ordered, and that you are now considering, is farm raised or wild. That is if you want to see him again ... :)

2 comments:

  1. down2earth - It's always nice to examine ones options when making purchases for the kitchen, as there are a lot of different choices available. I represent DuPont, and hope you'll let me share some information with you and your readers, so that everyone can make truly informed decisions.

    Regulatory agencies, consumer groups and health associations all have taken a close look at Teflon. This article highlights what they found -- the bottom line is that you can use Teflon without worry.

    http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/home-garden/kitchen/cookware-bakeware-cutlery/nonstick-pans-6-07/overview/0607_pans_ov_1.htm

    We believe that more durable, longer lasting non-stick coatings increase the functional life of non-stick cookware, which results in the need for fewer replacement pans. Fewer pans produced means less waste, which offers consumers a more sustainable cookware option and a better cooking experience, In 2009 DuPont has introduced new Teflon coatings with significantly improved durability compared to previously available coatings.

    Drop me an email if you'd be interested in any other information. Would be glad to help. Thanks. Cheers, Ross.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ross: thank you for your comments. Between the links we have both provided, I am confident that the readers will have the resources they need to make an informed decision that works for them.

    I do want to comment on the the Consumer Reports article however, as I was concerned about a couple of their comments:

    First, it states "We then heated new and aged pans to 400° F, a cooking temperature well below the makers’ recommended maximum of 500° F, and measured PFOA in the air above the pans"

    Well, if high heat is a known exacerbator of the problem, why did Consumer Reports not heat the pans to at least 500° F, and instead UNDER test the temperature? To me, this is a huge flaw in this testt- not only did they not measure at the highest recommended temperature, but what consumer is going to keep a thermometer on hand to make sure the pan does not go ABOVE the 500° F mark?


    In addition, I had a problem with this conclusion: "We found very little PFOA in the tested air samples. The highest level was about 100 times lower than levels that animal studies suggest are of concern for ongoing exposure to PFOA."

    Well, first of all ANY PFOA in the air sample is too much for me, personally. But the second issue with this is the test temperature of 400° F. What would have been the results of a 500° F pan? And what about those times (and I'm sure most of us have had them) when we let a pan get too hot while we're chopping vegetables or scrambling our eggs?

    I would err on the side of caution when it comes to choosing to emit and breath in a chemical known to be harmful regardless of the quantity, and would urge my fellow humans to do the same.

    D2E

    ReplyDelete