Lead Safe Mama


· 47 Comments

Caraway “cookware without the chemicals” positive for 20 metals, including Lead, Mercury, Cobalt & Antimony (tested with XRF technology)

2021· Ad-Free Article· Pots & Pans· Pots and Pans

 

For those new to the Lead Safe Mama website:

Tamara Rubin is a multiple-federal-award-winning independent advocate for childhood Lead poisoning prevention and consumer goods safety, and a documentary filmmaker. She is also a mother of Lead-poisoned children (two of her four sons were acutely Lead-poisoned in 2005).

  • Tamara owns and runs Lead Safe Mama, LLC — a unique community collaborative woman-owned small business for childhood Lead poisoning prevention and consumer goods safety.
  • Since 2009, Tamara has been conducting XRF testing (a scientific testing method) using the exact instrumentation employed by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to test consumer goods for toxicants (specifically heavy metals — including Lead, Cadmium, Mercury, Antimony, and Arsenic).
  • Since July of 2022, the work of Lead Safe Mama, LLC has been responsible for 5 product recalls (FDA and CPSC).
  • All test results reported on this website are science-based, accurate, and replicable.
  • Items that Lead Safe Mama, LLC reports on are tested multiple times to confirm the results published (for each component tested).
  • Recent notable press… There has been too much to mention already in 2024! Please check out our press page to see some of the amazing coverage of our work so far this year!

This is an ad-free article.

To make a contribution to help us keep our most widely-read articles ad-free, click here. Thank you.

The test results for most of the consumer goods reported on this website are from items that have been sent in by Lead Safe Mama readers for testing. This is a collaborative effort (with our readers) to help you make informed decisions for your family (so you can have an idea of what to look for — and what you might want to avoid — in making safer choices for your home).

To keep the research independent of any potential industry influence, this work is funded by Lead Safe Mama readers. Click here if you would like to support this work in some way. Thank you.

Continue reading below the images. All Specific Metals Detected in This Pan (20 in Total):

        1. Aluminum (Al)
        2. Antimony (Sb)
        3. Barium (Ba)
        4. Bromine (Br)
        5. Cadmium (Cd)
        6. Chromium (Cr)
        7. Cobalt (Co) 
        8. Copper (Cu)
        9. Lead (Pb)
        10. Indium (In)
        11. Iron (Fe)
        12. Manganese (Mn)
        13. Mercury (Hg)
        14. Molybdenum (Mo)
        15. Nickel (Ni)
        16. Platinum (Pt)
        17. Tin (Sn)
        18. Titanium (Ti)
        19. Vanadium (V)
        20. Zinc (Zn)

Metals noted above in red are considered toxic (even in trace amounts) by most standards.

Tuesday — August 3, 2021

I have to start by sharing how I feel about this. This is boring. This has got to be among the most boring things I do at this point. It drags me down and depresses me because it is so d*mn routine! It’s always the SAME headline: “Big company (that makes pots and pans and sells them with greenwashing marketing language and gimmicks) makes products that test positive for all the toxic metals.” So boring — I really could have written this article without even testing the pan (almost) but by having the exact test results for each and every component of the pan (see below). For tests (by a freshly-calibrated XRF instrument) that we repeated multiple times to confirm the results, I ensure the company cannot sue me for publishing the truth about what’s in their products.

Results as Expected 

I don’t have a lot to say about this particular product, other than the test results are exactly as I would have expected at this point. The one thing I would like you to consider is: what does their marketing slogan, “without the chemicals,” mean, exactly??

  • What does it really mean?
  • What does it mean to you?
  • What are the manufacturers trying to make it mean?
  • What does a customer buying these products expect these statements and promises mean?

It’s a big inquiry — and the answer might be best answered by a 25-page thesis on the subject, but I assert the following: the customer expects, based on the marketing language used, that there are no toxic heavy metals in these pans (none at all). Yet this is simply not the case.

Below are some of the images I recently shared on Instagram, to give context to the concern for the marketing language this company uses (and help address the above questions).

First some insight in response to the fundamental question: “What is a chemical?”

… and separately, an answer to the question “Are metals chemicals?”

And then evidence of the specific claims from the Caraway Home website — see images below:
NOTE — NONE OF THIS ACTUALLY MEANS ANYTHING!

  • “Healthy Cooking”
  • “Ceramic-coated cookware” (hint: it’s not really “ceramic!”)
  • “Non-Toxic”
  • “Mineral-Based Coating” (That’s “code” for metals — metals are minerals!)
  • “Discover A Healthier Way To Cook”
  • “Eco-Friendly”
  • “No Harmful Chemicals”
  • “Free of PTFE (such as Teflon), Lead, Cadmium, and other toxic materials…” (Nope! tested positive for trace Lead & Cadmium!)
  • “High Quality” (Who’s to judge?)
  • “Caraway products are made without any toxic materials…”
  • and more specifically: “Made without any toxic materials or … other hard-to-pronounce chemicals.” (Can you say Molybdenum? — I would say that’s hard to pronounce, I always have trouble with it and I have a college degree — lol!)

   

What’s really wrong with these pans, though?
The levels of toxic heavy metals found are relatively low, aren’t they?
Is it really a problem?

  1. Main Problem: This company is engaging in greenwashing that verges on false advertising (since no one really has a definition for what “cookware without the chemicals” means, as a standalone statement they might assert that it is not false advertising!).
  2. While these pans may not be leaching any toxic metals at the time of manufacture, all bets are off when they start to wear, and the coating is no longer perfect.
  3. The levels of Lead found seem to indicate that the aluminum base is (like similar pans) a Lead-contaminated-Aluminum substrate (this is not unusual to find, especially with recycled aluminum products). We cannot know for sure without destroying the pan (which I will ask the person who purchased it if I have permission to do — and if she says “yes” I will write a piece with test results from the destructive testing!).
  4. These aluminum-based (mixed metals) pans are also created as disposable cookware — cookware that will eventually wear out — so you’ll have to buy it again, which makes them awful for the planet on so many levels (in addition to any potential direct long-term impacts on the user). So their “60% less CO2” claim is irrelevant — considering you’ll have to buy 3 or 4 over time, as each replacement wears out.
  5. I also have concerns about the Titanium-based surface coatings in these pans (and so many others like them, made today). Others in the “environmental activism”/non-toxic products space as well as myself are quite concerned about the consistent wear of these Titanium-based coated surfaces and the fact that there do not appear to (yet) be long-term studies about the health impacts of ingesting micro-particulates from Titanium-based coating with your food every time you cook in these pans (as the coating wears off). That is not to say they are definitely harming you, but for me, the science is not yet settled as to whether or not they are definitely safe as a long-term cookware piece for your family.
  6. A recent alarm raised about Titanium dioxide found in certain candies (and the fact that this substance is not considered safe for human consumption in Europe) further supports my concern here — that I believe this type of Titanium-based cookware needs more study before it can be determined safe.

Continue reading below the image

What should we use instead?

If you would like my recommendations on how to purchase a truly Lead-free pan (what my personal “safer choices” are when cooking for my own family), please click through and read my recent overview on pots and pans. Here’s the link to that article. Continue reading below the image. You don’t even have to buy any specific pots and pans I recommend — just follow the GUIDELINES set forth in this article for buying ANY pots and pans, of any brand that adheres to these guidelines:

And with that, here are the full XRF test results for the cream-and-gray colored Caraway pan pictured in this article. Please continue reading below each of the images to see the reading set for the components featured in each image.

#1.) Silver-colored metal of bottom of pan (image above)
Stainless Steel 430/40
60-second reading

  1. Bromine (Br): 28 +/- 5 ppm
  2. Chromium (Cr): 162,700 +/- 400 ppm
  3. Vanadium (V): 943 +/- 95 ppm
  4. Manganese (Mn): 4,490 +/- 303 ppm
  5. Iron (Fe): 828,700 +/- 700 ppm
  6. Nickel (Ni): 1,775 +/- 121 ppm
  7. Copper (Cu): 945 +/- 69 ppm
  8. Zinc (Zn): 65 +/- 21 ppm
  9. Titanium (Ti): 170 +/- 109 ppm
  10. Tin (Sn): 35 +/- 10 ppm
  11. Barium (Ba): 117 +/- 38 ppm

Below, I have included three separate reading sets of the surface as a way of demonstrating that the levels of Lead and Antimony found are replicable. The balance of makeup on these readings is Aluminum (approx: 850,000 ppm).

#2.) Gray Food Surface reading #1 (image above)
60-second reading

  1. Lead (Pb): 44 +/- 4 ppm
  2. Chromium (Cr): 14,400 +/- 300 ppm
  3. Manganese (Mn): 2,846 +/- 116 ppm
  4. Iron (Fe): 4,628 +/- 93 ppm
  5. Copper (Cu): 5,218 +/- 71 ppm
  6. Zinc (Zn): 342 +/- 12 ppm
  7. Titanium (Ti): 118,100 +/- 1,100 ppm
  8. Tin (Sn): 12 +/- 3 ppm
  9. Antimony (Sb): 45 +/- 5 ppm
  10. Platinum (Pt): 159 +/- 14 ppm

#3.) Gray Food Surface reading #2
80-second reading

  1. Lead (Pb): 51 +/- 4 ppm
  2. Chromium (Cr): 14,900 +/- 300 ppm
  3. Manganese (Mn): 2,967 +/- 113 ppm
  4. Iron (Fe): 4,791 +/- 91 ppm
  5. Copper (Cu): 5,237 +/- 69 ppm
  6. Zinc (Zn): 342 +/- 12 ppm
  7. Titanium (Ti): 120,200 +/- 1,100 ppm
  8. Tin (Sn): 11 +/- 3 ppm
  9. Antimony (Sb): 45 +/- 5 ppm
  10. Platinum (Pt): 150 +/- 14 ppm

#4.) Gray Food Surface reading #3
120-second reading

  1. Lead (Pb): 48 +/- 3 ppm
  2. Chromium (Cr): 14,200 +/- 200 ppm
  3. Manganese (Mn): 3,117 +/- 93 ppm
  4. Iron (Fe): 4,726 +/- 74 ppm
  5. Copper (Cu): 5,078 +/- 55 ppm
  6. Zinc (Zn): 358 +/- 10 ppm
  7. Titanium (Ti): 115,300 +/- 800 ppm
  8. Tin (Sn): 11 +/- 2 ppm
  9. Antimony (Sb): 42 +/- 4 ppm
  10. Platinum (Pt): 159 +/- 11 ppm

#5.) Cream-colored exterior reading #1 (images at the top of this article)
80-second reading

  1. Lead (Pb): 47 +/- 4 ppm
  2. Chromium (Cr): 392 +/- 94 ppm
  3. Manganese (Mn): 5,219 +/- 121 ppm
  4. Iron (Fe): 2,766 +/- 71 ppm
  5. Nickel (Ni): 33 +/- 21 ppm
  6. Copper (Cu): 381 +/- 16 ppm
  7. Zinc (Zn): 409 +/- 12 ppm
  8. Titanium (Ti): 156,900 +/- 1,300 ppm
  9. Tin (Sn): 12 +/- 3 ppm
  10. Antimony (Sb): 11 +/- 4 ppm
  11. Platinum (Pt): 183 +/- 14 ppm

#6.) Silver-colored metal of handle of pan (image above)
Stainless Steel 201
30-second reading (over logo area)

  1. Chromium (Cr): 163,100 +/- 600 ppm
  2. Vanadium (V): 1,463 +/- 153 ppm
  3. Manganese (Mn): 64,100 +/- 700 ppm
  4. Iron (Fe): 712,100 +/- 1,100 ppm
  5. Nickel (Ni): 41,600 +/- 500 ppm
  6. Copper (Cu): 16,600 +/- 300 ppm
  7. Molybdenum (Mo): 706 +/- 52 ppm
  8. Tin (Sn): 49 +/- 15 ppm

#7.) Silver-colored exterior flat portion of handle rivets (image above)
120-second reading

  1. Lead (Pb): 14 +/- 2 ppm
  2. Cadmium (Cd): 3 +/- 1 ppm
  3. Mercury (Hg): 26 +/- 4 ppm
  4. Chromium (Cr): 1,046+/- 93 ppm
  5. Iron (Fe): 3,572 +/- 63 ppm
  6. Nickel (Ni): 73 +/- 18 ppm
  7. Zinc (Zn): 120 +/- 6 ppm
  8. Indium (In): 3 +/- 2 ppm
  9. Platinum (Pt): 339 +/- 13 ppm

#8.) Silver-colored interior rounded portion of handle rivets (image above)
30-second reading — Stainless Steel 321

  1. Chromium (Cr): 180,600 +/- 700 ppm
  2. Vanadium (V): 1,259+/- 193 ppm
  3. Manganese (Mn): 11,600 +/- 500 ppm
  4. Iron (Fe): 718,800 +/- 1,200 ppm
  5. Cobalt (Co): 995 +/- 628 ppm
  6. Nickel (Ni): 79.500 +/- 800 ppm
  7. Copper (Cu): 2,608 +/- 176 ppm
  8. Zinc (Zn): 106 +/- 41 ppm
  9. Titanium (Ti): 2,973 +/- 292 ppm
  10. Molybdenum (Mo): 1,026 +/- 66 ppm
  11. Barium (Ba): 471 +/- 77 ppm

Some additional reading that might be of interest:

Thanks for reading. Thank you for sharing this work. As always, please let me know if you have any questions and I will do my best to answer them personally as soon as I have a moment (which may not be right away — but I will try!).

Tamara Rubin
#LeadSafeMama

Amazon links are affiliate links. If you purchase something after clicking on one of our links Lead Safe Mama, LLC may receive a percentage of what you spend — at no extra cost to you.

 

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Ashutosh Kumawat says

    Can you share all of your testing setup and procedure as well so that we (those who can perform) can do these experiments with our utensils and could know and help others?
    Please

    Reply

  2. Nicole Osborne says

    Hi Tamara! Thank you for all of your research. I am trying to figure out what pans to buy. It seems like everything I research has something. I use a lodge cast iron and am looking into nickel free stainless steel. You say aluminum is bad but all the stainless steel I find has an aluminum core ? Is this with all stainless steel pans or what do you recommend? I’ve found ones with a copper core too but read that’s also bad. Just very confused and want to use the healthiest option. Thanks !

    Reply

  4. Autumn says

    Well crap! I have these pans. Been using everyday for like 9 months. If I understand correctly, they are safe until the coating wears off? Which I know will happen over time.

    Reply

  5. Linda says

    Thanks so much for this! I was tempted by the claims and cute colors, but knew enough to be wary. Titanium Dioxide is a concern for sure. I get some scary reactions from it – even in sunscreen applied to the skin. So hope that the FDA is considering it’s safety. It’s not just in candies, but is also used as a filler in so many medications (white pills, mostly) which makes it hard to take something if I need to. Glad to have found your blog. Thanks for all you do!

    Reply

    • Jo says

      IT’S IN OUR TAMPONS! I’m sorry for yelling that but did you hear that? Titanium dioxide, which is not safe to be in our foods or anything and is not legal in other countries, is in our TAMPONS. And PADS. It’s in ALL OF THEM.

      It’s in yours. Go check the box in your bathroom, ingredients are on the side. I can only find one brand that might be safe, and they’re hard as hell to find in my area.

      But I don’t need my feminine hygiene products artificially brightened with sparkly white cancer dust. I only see them for a few seconds anyway and I’m not sitting there marveling at how they’re pure as the driven snow.

      I don’t know how this is legal.

      Please, spread the word. Seriously. We need to all detox the box!

      Reply

  6. Jennifer B says

    Thank you for all that you do here!!
    I have an Our Place pan that is similar in branding/aesthetic/greenishness to Caraway, lost its “silicon dioxide non-stick” quickly and makes me very suspicious. Another one is the F52 pans. Also apparently “Ceramic”. These so-called non-stick properties probably ended up in our omelettes I assume, because they are gone now. I can donate these to your cause if you like!

    Reply

  8. Jane Smith says

    My concern with cast iron is that it emits huge amounts of VOC smoke. I use olive oil on the lowest setting possible but my house is filled with VOC levels triple that in the safe level (I have an accurate VOC reader). Breathing in toxic fumes for 30 plus minutes even with all of the windows open makes it seem worth the cost to just rebuy pots every year. Thoughts/suggestions?

    Reply

      • WaitWhat says

        Wait, olive oil is carcinogenic when heated? Do you mean it can become carcinogenic when olive oil is heated past it’s smoke point or do you believe olive oil is carcinogenic when heated 5 degrees above room temperature? I’m having trouble finding confirmation. Thanks!

        Reply

        • Tamara says

          I’ll find you some links. But that could be the source of your meter going off. It’s not likely it’s the cast iron (if it is plain uncoated cast iron.)

          Reply

      • KAREN ROCCO says

        Contrary to what you may have heard, olive oil does not lose its health benefits or become unhealthy when heated. Olive oil has been used for cooking for thousands of years. It is a cornerstone of the Mediterranean diet.

        Reply

  9. Etsy says

    I have these pans too. After reading this article I was mortified. Is there any type of lawsuit because of all the toxic chemicals present when they claim there are non?
    I at least would like a refund but I’m pretty sure I’ve had these over their return window. This is so disturbing considering I bought these so my family could be safer.

    Reply

    • Maria says

      Hi same here. I wish I had known better, I just sent an email to return them I bought them on October, maybe is too late but is worth trying, I have a 21 month old, I feel so mortified right now. I will update if they answer to my email. Between this and the KitchenAid.

      Reply

    • Teri says

      I too have purchased two sets one fir me one for my daughter in law. Plus I have the baking set which I have still yet to use. I want a refund! This is such deceptive marketing. Have you contacted them and had any response?
      Teri

      Reply

    • Edy says

      Etsy, I agree with you, there should be a lawsuit for all the toxic chemicals present in their products and for false advertisement! I have been using their pans for a while!

      Reply

    • Lisa says

      Same….i just bought for daughter as wedding gift. Luckily I bought thru Costco which will allow return even after use. I will let them know why too! I hate deception!

      Reply

  11. Teri says

    Thank you so much for testing these pans….I purchased them and have been unhappy with their performance and durability and they are NOT cheap!!! I have the bakeware as well and am so upset rigor now I just really want my money back as that is not non-toxic according to your testing. What pans do you recommend?

    Reply

    • Teri says

      They are not cheap and my set has not worn well either so upset anout this as we have illness in the family and try and avoid all chemicals. Have you contacted them Yet and heard anything back?

      Reply

  13. Savannah says

    Wow. Well now I’m questioning my Ozeri pans. They’re also “ceramic” coated. Thank you for your tireless efforts in bringing awareness to these issues.

    Reply

  14. Helen says

    Hi Tamara, do you know how long this pan had been in use at the time of testing? I have been using Caraway pans for a year now but am looking to switch after reading this. Thanks!

    Reply

  15. Sue says

    Does this mean we can’t rely on third party testing anymore? I found this link for third party testing for a Caraway saucepan in another article that says they trust these tests over the XRF tests. I realize it’s a different pan, but I read they readily give out their 3rd party tests for any product, so I’m assuming they would have similiar results available for the pan you tested.
    https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0258/6273/3906/files/SGS_SHA20-008889-LFGB_Test_Report_Jan_2020.PDF

    Reply

  16. Heather says

    How do you feel about their analysis of your testing?

    [Link Removed]

    They indicate:

    “Our main worry is that XRF testing is not necessarily reliable for this kind of product, especially as done using a handheld device on used cookware.”

    TAMARA RESPONSE: 100% not true, I use an XRF instrument specifically designed for testing consumer goods – the same one used by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    XRF has, like any test, certain detection limits for heavy metals. In the case of titanium and cobalt, this can be around 250 parts per million, while lead can have a detection limit of around 50 ppm. The detection limits vary depending on the sample and how it is prepared. The length of the sampling process also matters.

    TAMARA RESPONSE: This is ridiculous for her to state given the EXTREMELY HIGH levels of Titanium Dioxide found. Just Silly Really. Plus the XRF instrument I use has a limit of detection of single digits parts per million, so this further demonstrates that she does not know what she is talking about. She did not bother to research the type of instrumentation I use because she is too invested in trying to sell these toxic pans.

    The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) considers XRF testing reliable for use in testing for lead in paint. This is in large part because paint is a homogenous substance. For metal cookware with a thin surface coating, XRF may not be suitable, however.

    TAMARA RESPONSE: The specific instrument I use is EXPRESSLY DESIGNED to test for toxicant concentrations in surface coatings – which is why it is the technology that costs $35,000 to $55,000 (and not the XRF instrumentation she is referring to). Again illustrating she is just grasping and making shit up.

    In fact, for aluminum cookware, it may be particularly problematic. This is because XRF testing is not effective for elements with an atomic number less than 16. This includes aluminum (atomic number 13). The presence of aluminum (and sulfur and silicon!) can cause interference with the results for other metals. This seems especially relevant in a pan made with an aluminum core and a relatively thin surface coating. Ideally, any XRF tests would be of the ceramic coating only, as provided by the manufacturer or scraped off an unused product.

    TAMARA RESPONSE: Also not relevant. My Instrument specifically has settings for detecting Aluminum and contamination within Aluminum, but reads the surface coating well (as it is a shallow depth reading). The funny thing is that the Toxicant readings are actually low compared to what would find with lab analysis – BECAUSE of the Aluminum substrate and the Titanium Coating. If the items were tested separately the Lead level would be higher and the Titanium level would be higher. This person doesn’t understand science.

    In practice, XRF analysis is limited by these interference effects among elements. This can render some elements “invisible” to the detector and make others impossible to accurately quantify. The limits of detection vary greatly between elements. Arsenic is often masked by lead, for instance, while chromium levels often appear higher at the expense of iron.

    TAMARA RESPONSE: Not relevant in this application, with my instrumentation.

    It’s great that Rubin carried out three periods of sampling, up to 120 seconds for the surface coating of the Caraway pan. However, the very low levels of lead reported in Rubin’s tests (14-51 ppm) seem to be quite close to potential detection limits. This could mean the readings are actually a reporting error.

    TAMARA RESPONSE: This statement is 100% incorrect. The limit of detection with my instrument is in the single digit ppm range, not the double digit ppm range. This woman is REALLY WORKING HARD TO SELL YOU TOXIC PANS!

    For titanium, the levels detected by Rubin are much more pronounced. This suggests either significant contamination of the test material or that Caraway Home uses titanium dioxide in its sol-gel coating. Without further testing, or full disclosure from Caraway Home, we can’t know if titanium is part of the ceramic coating. The company’s third-party tests do, however, show no detectable titanium leaching from the pans.

    TAMARA RESPONSE: Titanium Dioxide (a known carcinogen) is the primary component of the Caraway Home cookware coating. The concern is not for LEACHING of Titanium Dioxide when the product is new, the concern is for TITANIUM DIOXIDE being scratched off with use (with even gentle utensils) and that this chemical is then added to your food and eaten.

    Surface smoothness and contamination concerns
    Contamination is another confounding factor when testing used cookware. Such contamination could come from oil, food, and utensils. Rubin tested a used pan sent to her by a consumer. We don’t have a photo of the pan, but the sense is that the coating was cracked and stained. XRF professionals consistently highlight a clean test surface as key for accurate results.

    TAMARA RESPONSE: THIS IS TOTAL BULLSHIT – indicating she doesn’t know how to read. I was sent a NEW IN BOX pan sent to me by a reader, not a used pan. What a doufus. THE ARTICLE IS FULL OF PHOTOS OF THE PAN – lots of photos – photos of every component of the exact pan tested. Man this woman’s head is in a hole. She must be making A LOT OF MONEY from selling CARAWAY pans that she can be so intentionally ignorant – but again I refer to the Updon Sinclair Quate:

    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

    -Upton Sinclair

    Though oil itself usually won’t interfere with test results, Caraway pans can be used with metal and silicon utensils. This may leave traces of metal and silicon on the cook-surface. Similarly, certain foods are actually fairly high in lead. These include meat (especially offal), fish (including seafood), vegetables (especially sweet potatoes and carrots), and cereals. Cookware may also become contaminated with lead from household dust or other objects.

    TAMARA RESPONSE: Such total bullshit. And separately I tested a new-in-box unused pan! Plus the food levels of Lead will never be high enough for XRF readings to detect them. BECAUSE SCIENCE. She is so dumb. The instrumentation detects ppm readings. Food is toxic in ppb readings. There are 1000 ppb in 1 ppm – so this is a ridiculously ignorant attempt at argumentation.

    It’s possible, then, that used cookware (especially with surface staining) could test positive for heavy metals even if the pan itself doesn’t contain lead, cadmium, and so forth. The condition of the test surface can also affect the results of XRF testing.

    TAMARA RESPONSE: Such total bullshit. And separately I tested a new-in-box unused pan!

    Reply

    • Tamara says

      Someone trying REALLY HARD to defend their bottom line! “What follows is a long article, however, for those concerned about home testing of Caraway Cookware by blogger Lead Safe Mama, here is our bottom line. ” lol -Anyone who calls me a “blogger” or says that my testing is “home testing” – is just all about discrediting science. Did you see my recent Instagram post on this? Here’s what I wrote:

      The article linked below is my response on the Always Pan (article link below and clickable in instagram highlights) … the point by point may be slightly different for Caraway but the considerations are generally the same.
      –
      Re: Caraway
      –
      They do leachability testing, not total content testing.
      –
      They cannot claim their product is free of heavy metals (or other “chemicals”) without total content testing.
      –
      The testing they do is only relevant (to the safety of the product) when the product is in new (undamaged / unused) condition.
      –
      Per this email (two images with this post), the company does not evaluate the substrate and the toxicant contaminants of the substrate – they only (apparently – per the admission in this letter) evaluate their (Nano-particulate Titanium-Dioxide-based) coating.
      –
      They don’t take into account exposure to the (toxicant-contaminated) aluminum substrate when the coating is worn.
      –
      They don’t discuss the concern for exposure to / ingestion of nano-particulate Titanium Dioxide (a carcinogen which is a main component of the coating) with wear of the coating (scratches) when used as intended…
      –
      They engage in false advertising and greenwashing by calling their coating “ceramic” which it is not, and “non-toxic” – which it is not.
      –
      Caraway Home #Caraway #CarawayHome is a textbook example corporate greenwashing for the purpose of selling large quantities of an environmentally detrimental product with planned obsolescence (products that – due to the very nature of the materials used- needs to be replaced every five years (if you do buy it)) further contributing to the pollution of the planet and our communities.
      –
      If you are interested in learning about HOW to make safer choices for your home – check out the articles on the home page of LeadSafeMama.com today (or click through to the Lead Safe Mama website menu, which is the link in my Instagram bio). Otherwise just continue buying what companies are trying to sell you as “safer choices” – following influencers who don’t research…
      –
      https://tamararubin.com/2020/12/from-readers-our-place-says-their-always-pan-is-lead-free-they-sent-me-their-test-results-tamaracan-you-explain/

      Reply

    • Tamara says

      She is really so full of shit, it’s not worth my time to respond to her nonsense point-by-point – but check out what I just shared.

      Reply

  17. Suzie says

    Hi Tamara,
    I keep seeing the same trends too and I have to wonder if you have ever just considered suing these companies for false advertisement , deceptive trade practices etc. I feel like getting the word out is great but after a few of these companies getting sued Im sure they would start being more accountable for their claims

    I appreciate all you do!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Don’t Miss Out!