I think Calphalon One Infused Anodized saute pans may be the product I
need, but I was hoping someone would respond with any nightmare
stories of clean-up and "sticking" of foods in order to give me some
idea about how it differs from the "non-stick" Calphalon One Infused
Anodized Nonstick as far as performance goes.

My main concern is the leeching of chemicals from the non-stick
surface applied material (some may call my concern ridiculous), and
plus, it exposes itself to so many other environmental conditions, as
eventually there may be some damage to the coating.

In comparison, the Calphalon One Infused Anodized may not demonstrate
these qualities, but may not "perform" as well... ? Would an egg
stick to it?

The question is, to what degree do they differ under testing?

Anyone know?

<keshift@.> wrote in message
...
>I think Calphalon One Infused Anodized saute pans may be the product I
> need, but I was hoping someone would respond with any nightmare
> stories of clean-up and "sticking" of foods in order to give me some
> idea about how it differs from the "non-stick" Calphalon One Infused
> Anodized Nonstick as far as performance goes.
>

I have used Calphalon anodized. It's older stuff and the new models may be
different, but here's my experience. Where sticking is possibly an issue it
is awful. For example, sauteeing chicken. It's like superglue. But for other
uses (soup, etcv.) it is fine.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

<keshift@.> wrote in message
...
> I think Calphalon One Infused Anodized saute pans may be the product I
> need, but I was hoping someone would respond with any nightmare
> stories of clean-up and "sticking" of foods in order to give me some
> idea about how it differs from the "non-stick" Calphalon One Infused
> Anodized Nonstick as far as performance goes.
>
> My main concern is the leeching of chemicals from the non-stick
> surface applied material (some may call my concern ridiculous), and
> plus, it exposes itself to so many other environmental conditions, as
> eventually there may be some damage to the coating.
>
> In comparison, the Calphalon One Infused Anodized may not demonstrate
> these qualities, but may not "perform" as well... ? Would an egg
> stick to it?
>
> The question is, to what degree do they differ under testing?
>
> Anyone know?

Tell anyone who thinks your concern is ridiculous to heat a nonstick pan
over high heat around a bird.
I have a set of these pans that I just got for Christmas from my darling
man. Obviously, cooking with nonstick is a bit different, and there may be
benefits to it....but there are benefits to not using nonstick pans too. For
example, you can sear and brown meats much better. You may have noticed when
using nonstick, you get hardly, if any, of the tasty brown bits that are
essential for flavorful sauces and gravies. Choose a good olive oil, peanut
oil or other monounsaturated oil to cook with. Choose a good high heat oil
like peanut for things like stir-frying, and a med-high heat oil, like olive
or canola for sautéing. You can also combine butter and oil to get the
flavor of butter with a higher smoke point (which allows you took cook over
a higher heat than butter alone).
These pans have an advantage over others because they don't stick, like most
anodized pans are prone to do. At least, I haven't had any problems with it.
So, you need very little oil.
Be careful: It heats up fast! Be careful and be ready to adjust the heat,
especially if you're using gas.
Hand wash and dry the pans. Dishwashers will ruin the surface and I'm pretty
sure I read that it will void the warranty. Also, if you dry with a towel
rather than drip dry, it will keep the "new" appearance much longer.

Hope this helps!
kimberly

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
. com...
> <keshift@.> wrote in message
> ...
> >I think Calphalon One Infused Anodized saute pans may be the product I
> > need, but I was hoping someone would respond with any nightmare
> > stories of clean-up and "sticking" of foods in order to give me some
> > idea about how it differs from the "non-stick" Calphalon One Infused
> > Anodized Nonstick as far as performance goes.
> >
>
> I have used Calphalon anodized. It's older stuff and the new models may be
> different, but here's my experience. Where sticking is possibly an issue
it
> is awful. For example, sauteeing chicken. It's like superglue. But for
other
> uses (soup, etcv.) it is fine.
>
>
> --
> Peter Aitken
>
> Remove the crap from my email address before using.

The old stuff and the Calphalon One are completely different animals, Peter.
I've been using mine since Christmas and have had no problems with sticking.
As long as you are meticulous in cleaning them (which, IMO, you should be
anyway), they shouldn't have any sticking at all.

kimberly
>
>

<keshift@.> wrote in message
...
> I think Calphalon One Infused Anodized saute pans may be the product I
> need, but I was hoping someone would respond with any nightmare
> stories of clean-up and "sticking" of foods in order to give me some
> idea about how it differs from the "non-stick" Calphalon One Infused
> Anodized Nonstick as far as performance goes.
<snip>
> The question is, to what degree do they differ under testing?
>
> Anyone know?

Cook's Illustrated did a review of the Calphalon One infused anodized pans a
while back. I don't remember which issue. Their take was that the infused
anodized behaved cooking-wise like a normal sticking pan, i.e. not at all
non-stick. Thus, they said that it browned well producing good fond, etc.
They said that it cleaned up more easily than other non-non-stick pans. So
I wouldn't think of them as non-stick. I, personally, haven't used them,
yet, but hope to get one this summer and give it a go.

-Matt

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 08:48:56 -0800, "Nexis" > wrote:

>
><keshift@.> wrote in message
.. .
>> I think Calphalon One Infused Anodized saute pans may be the product I
>> need, but I was hoping someone would respond with any nightmare
>> stories of clean-up and "sticking" of foods in order to give me some
>> idea about how it differs from the "non-stick" Calphalon One Infused
>> Anodized Nonstick as far as performance goes.
>>
>> My main concern is the leeching of chemicals from the non-stick
>> surface applied material (some may call my concern ridiculous), and
>> plus, it exposes itself to so many other environmental conditions, as
>> eventually there may be some damage to the coating.
>>
>> In comparison, the Calphalon One Infused Anodized may not demonstrate
>> these qualities, but may not "perform" as well... ? Would an egg
>> stick to it?
>>
>> The question is, to what degree do they differ under testing?
>>
>> Anyone know?
>
>Tell anyone who thinks your concern is ridiculous to heat a nonstick pan
>over high heat around a bird.

Certainly, I think there is a concern. I repost an item below:

Chemical byproduct of Teflon contaminates water around DuPont plant

BY MICHAEL HAWTHORNE

Chicago Tribune


PARKERSBURG, W.Va. - (KRT) - More than 50 years after DuPont started
producing Teflon near this Ohio River town, federal officials are
accusing the company of hiding information suggesting that a chemical
used to make the popular stick- and stain-resistant coating might
cause cancer, birth defects and other ailments.

Environmental regulators are particularly alarmed because scientists
are finding perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, in the blood of people
worldwide and it takes years for the chemical to leave the body. The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reported last week that exposure
even to low levels of PFOA could be harmful.

With virtually no government oversight, PFOA has been used since the
early 1950s in the manufacture of non-stick cookware, rain-repellent
clothing and hundreds of other products. The EPA says at this point
there is no reason for consumers to stop using those items. But so
many unresolved questions remain about PFOA that the agency is asking
an outside panel of experts to assess the risks.

"The fact that a chemical with those non-stick properties nonetheless
accumulates in people was not expected," said Charles Auer, director
of the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

Critics say the lack of knowledge about PFOA and related chemicals -
called perfluorinated compounds - exposes a system where environmental
regulators largely rely on companies that profit from industrial
chemicals to sound alarms about their safety. Questions about
potential effects on human health and the environment often aren't
raised until years after a chemical is introduced to the marketplace.

The long and mostly secret history of PFOA began to unravel down the
road from DuPont's Teflon plant in a West Virginia courtroom, where a
Parkersburg family began asking questions in the late 1990s about a
mysterious wasting disease killing their cattle.

Jim and Della Tennant suspected the culprit might lurk in a
froth-covered creek that meandered past a DuPont landfill near the
Teflon plant before spilling into their pasture. Their lawsuit ended
with a monetary settlement that avoided assigning blame for the dead
cows, but the legal battle uncovered a trove of industry documents
about PFOA.

One document detailed how DuPont scientists started warning company
executives to avoid human contact with PFOA as early as 1961. Industry
tests later determined the chemical accumulates in the body, doesn't
break down in the environment and causes ailments in animals,
including cancer, liver damage and birth defects.

Recent studies have found that PFOA levels in some children are in the
range of those that caused developmental problems in rats.

"We're not very popular with some of the folks over at the plant,"
said Della Tennant, who lives in a subdivision known as DuPont Manor,
a sign of the firm's importance in this corner of Appalachia. "But I
don't know how you could sleep at night not telling people about this
contamination."

If found guilty of illegally withholding information by an
administrative law judge, DuPont could face more than $300 million in
fines - about $100 million more than the company is estimated to make
each year from products manufactured with PFOA.

DuPont already has agreed to pay up to $345 million to settle another
lawsuit filed on behalf of 60,000 West Virginians and Ohioans whose
drinking water is contaminated with PFOA. Much of what the public is
starting to learn about the chemical comes from industry documents
submitted during court proceedings.

Those documents also prompted the EPA's ongoing review of health
risks, which could lead to rules that limit or phase out the use of
PFOA.

Company officials say they share the government's concerns about the
presence of PFOA in human blood but contend they did nothing wrong and
that the chemical affects animals differently than people.

"DuPont remains confident that based on over 50 years of use and
experience with PFOA there is no evidence to indicate that it harms
human health or the environment," said company spokesman R. Clifton
Webb.

The company's Teflon plant - a sprawling complex of towers,
smokestacks and metal buildings - rises above the flood plain in a
sharp bend of the Ohio River. The area has become something of a
makeshift laboratory as scientists scramble to learn more about the
chemical behind world-famous brand names such as Teflon, Stainmaster
and Gore-Tex.

Since 1976, federal law has required companies to disclose what they
know about any risks posed by toxic chemicals. The EPA says
independent efforts to figure out how people are exposed to PFOA and
what it might do to them should have started by the early 1980s, when
DuPont discovered an employee had passed the chemical to her fetus.

Among other things, the EPA accuses DuPont of failing to notify the
agency when two of five babies born to plant employees in 1981 had eye
and face defects similar to those found in newborn rats exposed to
PFOA.

DuPont also has known since at least 1984 that water wells in West
Virginia and Ohio were contaminated with PFOA, according to company
records. But people who rely on the wells for drinking water didn't
find out until 2002, when internal DuPont documents started pouring
into court.

"Someone made a conscious decision to expose us to this without
telling us," said Robert Griffin, general manager of the Little
Hocking Water Association, which supplies drinking water to 12,000
Ohio customers from wells across the river from the Teflon plant.

"If you wanted people to be lab rats for such a long period," Griffin
said, "nobody would ever allow it."

Company lawyers contend DuPont wasn't obligated to share the
information because PFOA doesn't meet the legal definition of a toxic
chemical that poses a "substantial risk."

DuPont documents, though, show company officials were worried the
public would learn that PFOA had contaminated local water supplies.
One benefit of settling the lawsuit over the Tennant family's dead
cattle, company attorneys advised in an internal e-mail, would be
preventing the release of information about PFOA in the water.

"Biggest potential downside: plant contamination issues surface, case
becomes class action," DuPont attorney Bernard J. Reilly concluded in
a March 2000 email outlining tradeoffs if the company chose to fight
the Tennants in court.

DuPont says it has reduced air and water emissions of PFOA by 90
percent at the Teflon plant. Yet levels of the chemical in water wells
on the Ohio side of the river are the highest recorded to date,
according to tests last fall.

"Drinking water data in possession of DuPont `reasonably supports the
conclusion' that PFOA `presents a substantial risk of injury to
health,'" the EPA wrote in an October filing.

Scientists are just now starting to learn how much of the chemical is
in people's blood and how far it has traveled from the handful of
sites where PFOA is manufactured or used - information that highlights
new challenges for scientists and regulators.

Substances added to food are regulated by the Food and Drug
Administration and must undergo rigorous testing before their use. But
critics say that with industrial chemicals the EPA is limited by laws
that make it difficult to order testing.

The agency reported in 1998 that it had no toxicity data or "safe
level" for 43 percent of the 2,800 chemicals produced in volumes of 1
million pounds a year or more.

"It borders on the ridiculous," said Tim Kropp, a senior scientist
with the nonprofit Environmental Working Group, which has helped draw
the EPA's attention to PFOA and other compounds. "There is no way
consumers can be knowledgeable about all of these chemicals. That's
why we need the government to ensure they are safe."

The EPA's case against DuPont has gradually evolved over four years as
industry concerns about PFOA came to light.

Agency officials initially were worried about a related perfluorinated
chemical in Scotchgard, the stain-resistant coating pioneered by 3M.
Regulators started focusing on PFOA after the EPA pressured 3M in 2000
to stop making the compounds, prompted by research that found the
chemicals in human blood and in foods such as apples, bread, green
beans and ground beef.

3M had been the chief supplier of PFOA to DuPont, which now makes the
chemical at a plant in North Carolina.

DuPont announced last week that a new study of more than 1,000 workers
at the Teflon plant found virtually no health effects from exposure to
PFOA. Some workers were found to have higher-than-expected cholesterol
levels.

Tests on lab animals have found links to illnesses including liver and
testicular cancer, reduced weight of newborns and immune-system
suppression. The findings concern EPA officials because rats flush the
chemical out of their bodies within days, while PFOA stays in human
blood for at least four years.

As a result, the EPA says, the potential for human health effects
cannot be ruled out.

"Low-level exposure to people over time produces blood concentrations
that may be of concern," Auer said. "As time goes on and the
opportunity for exposure continues, those blood concentrations could
move to even higher levels."

Scientists still aren't sure how PFOA is spreading around the planet.
While DuPont says the manufacturing process leaves only trace amounts
of the chemical in non-stick cookware and other goods, some
researchers think that as Teflon products age they release chemicals
that then break down into PFOA.

The compound also is released into air and water during manufacturing.
Studies that have found PFOA in salmon in the Great Lakes, polar bears
in the Arctic and dolphins in the Mediterranean Sea suggest the
chemical travels easily through the atmosphere.

Another theory the EPA and academic researchers are testing is that
other perfluorinated chemicals, known as telomers, break down to PFOA.
Made by DuPont and other companies, telomers are used in stain- and
grease-repellent coatings for carpets, clothing and fast-food
packaging.

Researchers studying PFOA levels in the Great Lakes think that when
carpets and clothing treated with telomers are cleaned, some of the
chemicals wash into sewage treatment plants that are not equipped to
remove them before wastewater is dumped into lakes and rivers.
Landfill runoff could be another source.

Last spring, former DuPont chemist Glenn R. Evers told a lawyer for
people living near the DuPont plant that the chemicals can be absorbed
from french fry boxes, microwave popcorn bags and hamburger wrappers,
among other items, according to a partial transcript filed by the EPA.
The company responded by describing Evers as a disgruntled former
employee with little direct knowledge of PFOA.

In Parkersburg, some are reluctant to question one of the community's
leading benefactors, even after the PFOA contamination became public.
With more than 2,000 employees, the Teflon plant is the largest
manufacturer in a valley lined with plastics factories and refineries,
a hub of economic strength in a region plagued by chronic
unemployment.

"We're not ignoring it, but you've got to look at all the good things
they do," said George Kellenberger, president of the Mid-Ohio Valley
Chamber of Commerce.

But others drawn to the area by the promise of a good job and the
rolling, pine-covered hills aren't so sure.

By the time Matt and Melinda McDowell built their dream home a few
miles north of the Teflon plant, DuPont had known for more than a
decade that the local water supply was contaminated with PFOA.

Like thousands of others in the valley, the McDowells recently
received a letter informing them that DuPont promises to install
treatment equipment for six area water systems under terms of the
recent legal settlement. But they worry about their two sons, ages 8
and 12, who have drunk and breathed PFOA for most of their lives.

"We are subjecting our children and ourselves to a giant science
experiment," Matt McDowell said. "We don't know what it's doing to us.
But the bottom line is it doesn't belong in drinking water and it
definitely doesn't belong in our bodies."

---

© 2005, Chicago Tribune.

Try Circulon. I have been useing four of them for the past several years.
Excellent. Just put hot water in them immediatly after cooking for a few
minutes and they just wipe clean.

MK

keshift@. wrote:
> I think Calphalon One Infused Anodized saute pans may be the product I
> need, but I was hoping someone would respond with any nightmare
> stories of clean-up and "sticking" of foods in order to give me some
> idea about how it differs from the "non-stick" Calphalon One Infused
> Anodized Nonstick as far as performance goes.
>
> My main concern is the leeching of chemicals from the non-stick
> surface applied material (some may call my concern ridiculous), and
> plus, it exposes itself to so many other environmental conditions, as
> eventually there may be some damage to the coating.
>
> In comparison, the Calphalon One Infused Anodized may not demonstrate
> these qualities, but may not "perform" as well... ? Would an egg
> stick to it?
>
> The question is, to what degree do they differ under testing?
>
> Anyone know?

Dunno about the Infused Anodized but I recently got a lot of the
Commercial Hard-Anodized stuff. Last night I tried my hand at Egg Foo
Young in one of the pots using peanut oil. (Not my greatest success, but
that's another show). Afterward I found a brown ring all the was around
the pan at the 'oil line' and the stains extended up to the lip of the
pan in the area across from the handle. Nothing could get this off,
including Comet which was recommended in the documentation that came
with the pan. I have an email in to Calphalon and am interested in what
they say.

I love my Calphalon cookware. This the only problem, except that when I
used my Simply Calphalon (the bottom end stuff) under the broiler
recently it did appear to warp badly. When it cooled down it straigtened
out 'almost' completely, but not as much as I'd like. I don't think I've
done anything with any of my Calpholon that doesn't follow the
guidelines they give for using their cookware.

James

In rec.food.cooking, Peter Aitken > wrote:

> I have used Calphalon anodized. It's older stuff and the new models may be
> different, but here's my experience. Where sticking is possibly an issue it
> is awful. For example, sauteeing chicken. It's like superglue. But for other
> uses (soup, etcv.) it is fine.

I made some boneless chicken breasts two nights ago in an anodized
Calphalon saute pan.

I put in a tiny bit of oil, heated up the pan until the oil was fragrant,
and then put in the raw, cold chicken.

Nothing stuck.

You blame the pan, but from what I have experienced, I suspect that other
factors are the real problem.


--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight David Eisenhower

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 01:51:00 GMT, keshift@. wrote:

quick note: from
http://productopia.consumersearch.co...fullstory.html

"Calphalon also sells an eight-piece(*est. $300) and a ten-piece(*est.
$400) set of stainless steel cookware. Like All-Clad, Calphalon
Tri-Ply Stainless cookware sandwiches aluminum between two layers of
stainless steel. These pieces are dishwasher safe and come with a
lifetime warranty. We did not see any evidence in reviews that the
Calphalon Tri-Ply Stainless outperforms All-Clad Stainless, but it is
a bit cheaper. "

end quote... AND...

It has been heard that the sandwiched aluminum did NOT go up the side
of the Calphalon pan like the All-Clad. Is the cross-section of the
pans the same? Are those at Bed Bath & Beyond Inc (BBBY) bullshitting
(or just in sales) me? Will my food cook "up the side" in a stainless
exterior for both brands? i.e. - rice/long cooking rice/Italian?

HUMMMM???

>I think Calphalon One Infused Anodized saute pans may be the product I
>need, but I was hoping someone would respond with any nightmare
>stories of clean-up and "sticking" of foods in order to give me some
>idea about how it differs from the "non-stick" Calphalon One Infused
>Anodized Nonstick as far as performance goes.
>
>My main concern is the leeching of chemicals from the non-stick
>surface applied material (some may call my concern ridiculous), and
>plus, it exposes itself to so many other environmental conditions, as
>eventually there may be some damage to the coating.
>
>In comparison, the Calphalon One Infused Anodized may not demonstrate
>these qualities, but may not "perform" as well... ? Would an egg
>stick to it?
>
>The question is, to what degree do they differ under testing?
>
>Anyone know?

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 02:08:10 GMT, keshift@. wrote:

This is from Calphalon, Inc. :

Our Tri-Ply Stainless has heavy gauge, conductive aluminum bonded
between layers of 18/10 stainless steel to form a three ply disk. The
three ply disk is then formed into a pan shape with equal side wall
and bottom thickness. The even thickness throughout the pan ensures
that it conducts heat quickly and evely across the bottom and up the
sides, allowing foods to cook at a consistent temperature. If you have
further questions or concerns, please let us know.

Thank you,
Consumer Relations


>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 01:51:00 GMT, keshift@. wrote:
>
>quick note: from
>http://productopia.consumersearch.co...fullstory.html
>
>"Calphalon also sells an eight-piece(*est. $300) and a ten-piece(*est.
>$400) set of stainless steel cookware. Like All-Clad, Calphalon
>Tri-Ply Stainless cookware sandwiches aluminum between two layers of
>stainless steel. These pieces are dishwasher safe and come with a
>lifetime warranty. We did not see any evidence in reviews that the
>Calphalon Tri-Ply Stainless outperforms All-Clad Stainless, but it is
>a bit cheaper. "
>
>end quote... AND...
>
>It has been heard that the sandwiched aluminum did NOT go up the side
>of the Calphalon pan like the All-Clad. Is the cross-section of the
>pans the same? Are those at Bed Bath & Beyond Inc (BBBY) bullshitting
>(or just in sales) me? Will my food cook "up the side" in a stainless
>exterior for both brands? i.e. - rice/long cooking rice/Italian?
>
>HUMMMM???
>
>>I think Calphalon One Infused Anodized saute pans may be the product I
>>need, but I was hoping someone would respond with any nightmare
>>stories of clean-up and "sticking" of foods in order to give me some
>>idea about how it differs from the "non-stick" Calphalon One Infused
>>Anodized Nonstick as far as performance goes.
>>
>>My main concern is the leeching of chemicals from the non-stick
>>surface applied material (some may call my concern ridiculous), and
>>plus, it exposes itself to so many other environmental conditions, as
>>eventually there may be some damage to the coating.
>>
>>In comparison, the Calphalon One Infused Anodized may not demonstrate
>>these qualities, but may not "perform" as well... ? Would an egg
>>stick to it?
>>
>>The question is, to what degree do they differ under testing?
>>
>>Anyone know?