Pyrex: They Don't Make It Like They Used To

 

Take a look at my chicken sitting amidst a bunch of broken glass that was once a 9 x 13 Pyrex casserole dish. Thank goodness the oven was closed when the dish shattered. Given the volume of the explosion from inside my oven, it would have likely blown the glass all over the kitchen had it not been contained. It's a very good thing I didn't choose that moment to peek into the oven to check on the meat.

So what did I do to cause this? Well, I started baking chicken the same way I have been doing for decades in my older Pyrex that dates back to the 1970s, except that this time, I did it in a dish I got for Christmas only 2 years ago. The dish was at room temperature, right out of the cabinet. The chicken had been out of the refrigerator for about 10 minutes. The oven was preheated to 400 before the chicken went in. About 10 minutes into cooking, the dish suddenly broke into a million pieces.

Now, to be fair, the Pyrex website indicates that I was supposed to cover the bottom of the dish with liquid. They also insist that Pyrex glassware is safe when used according to their directions. They aren't likely to sympathize with my complaint since I didn't add liquid, even though the chicken covered the entire bottom of the dish. The thing is, since new Pyrex is passed off as the same product it has always been - same look, same name - everyone assumes that it will behave the same way it always has. I've been cooking in my vintage Pyrex for twenty years and I've never added liquid to baking chicken. My mother and grandmother used Pyrex almost on a daily basis. They never added liquid to baking chicken and yet, they were both still able to hand down their Pyrex to me.

Pyrex is not the same product it has always been. It was once owned by Corning and its dishes were made of borosilicate glass.  It is now owned by World Kitchen, and the dishes are made with soda lime glass. Soda lime is more likely to shatter due to temperature changes. If you scroll down and watch the video I've posted from Consumer Reports, you can see that the newer Pyrex made of soda lime glass breaks in their tests 100% of the time (granted, they are using it in an unsafe way), but they report that when they did the same tests to European Pyrex which is still made of borosilicate glass, NONE of the dishes broke. A decades-old Pyrex dish that was subjected to even larger temperature differences also survived unbroken. World Kitchen puts out statements saying that Pyrex is made the same way it has always been made for the last 60 years, but a former Corning scientist says that they were still making Pyrex from borosilicate when he retired in 1987. Hmmm. More evidence that World Kitchen changed the composition of the glass is found in the fact that, after World Kitchen took over, the crack cocaine industry has had to switch from using Pyrex measuring cups (now made of soda lime) to stolen pyrex lab equipment (still borosilicate).

World Kitchen claims that soda lime glass is better because it is less prone to break when you drop it, but when I investigated a little more, I discovered that soda lime glass can be manufactured more cheaply and reduces impact on the environment. Ohhhhh. Now I get it. Note to World Kitchen:  I expect glass to break when I drop it, and I don't consider you responsible for my clumsiness.  However, I also expect Pyrex to be the same product my mother bought in 1970 and to respond to normal use and kitchen conditions in the same way.  If it's not the same product, give it a new name and a new look. Until you do, selling Pyrex and claiming it is the same as before is a covert bait and switch practice with potentially dire consequences.




As my vintage Pyrex wears out, I plan to replace it with some other kind of bakeware. Considering the possibility of glass flying into a face, or being thrown 6-8 feet across the kitchen, I certainly don't want to use a risky product around my aging mother or my daughter who will soon be learning to cook on her own, never mind my own safety. As you cook for your family this Christmas, please take extra precautions if you are using newer Pyrex.

World Kitchen will only take this seriously if they get enough reports. Consumer Reports has called for an investigation by the Consumer Products Safety Commission. If you've had Pyrex break under normal kitchen conditions, please file a report with the CPSC and report it to World Kitchen as well. WK claims they don't get very many complaints. I think that's just another cover up.

Where to report problems with Pyrex:

The Consumer Products Safety Commission:  info@cpsc.gov
World Kitchen, manufacturer of Pyrex: Go here and find the link to email.
Consumer Reports: Report a problem product
Consumer Affairs:  Add your story here.

Read More

Consumer Reports, Jan. 2011:  Blaming the Victim
Consumer Reports, Oct. 2011:  Shattered glass:  More than 140 new incidents reported 
Pyrex Glassware:  Is It Safe to Use?
Should Consumers Beware of Pyrex Bakeware?
New Warnings About Problems With Glass Bakeware

Review of Stephen Mansfield's book Where Has Oprah Taken Us?

Disclaimer:  I received a free copy of this book through the blogger reviewer program at Booksneeze in return for writing an honest review. I received no other compensation.

Stephen Mansfield’s book Where Has Oprah Taken Us? chronicles Oprah’s spiritual biography and some of the cultural influences that have made her audiences so receptive to her eclectic spiritual ideas. It exposes the conflicts between traditional Christianity and Oprah’s pastiche of beliefs drawn from widely divergent religious traditions. The premise is that Oprah, through her celebrity influence, has normalized the idea that religious truth is weighed more by how our feelings resonate with it than by scriptural evidence.

Mansfield is a talented writer and a man of faith. I do think this is a book worth reading, but I can only give it 3 stars out of 5 because I think Mansfield turns a judgmental eye in the wrong direction and in doing so, kills the appeal of the book for anyone except those who already agree with him. This is unfortunate and ironic since the author made such a point of identifying himself as an evangelical.

I believe that Mansfield is correct in saying that Oprah’s faith is not in accord with the teachings of historical Christianity, for all of her laudable good works. I think that he offers some eye-opening revelations about how Oprah arrives at her own version of truth, even if I also think he sometimes paints with too broad a brush. Before we pass judgment on Oprah, though, let’s get the board out of our own eye. Oprah hasn’t taken us anywhere except right down the road that we evangelical Christians paved for her.  As a young adult trying to find God in the midst of residual pain from an unstable childhood and sexual abuse, she found in Christianity a set of burdensome rules, not grace. While I heartily wish she had investigated Christianity further, we are remiss if we do not accept our own responsibility in failing to communicate God’s healing love to her strongly enough. 

What’s more, we ourselves ensured that her future audience would find her brand of "how does it make me feel" spirituality appealing. We have failed to teach our youth or our converts how to discern real truth from subjective emotion. We have fostered a culture of Christian entertainment that glorifies celebrity and the opinions of celebrities. We have embraced a cult of personality by elevating pastors and performers to unrealistic heights. We have baited seekers to join our club with the things the world finds appealing instead of offering real community and real substance. We were making all of these mistakes before Oprah’s rise to spiritual stardom. If Oprah’s brand of feel-good-self-actualization disguised as spirituality has found a foothold among Christians or led seekers astray, we must blame ourselves first.

Mansfield only gives the slightest of nods to the idea that the Church has been ineffective in offering living water to seekers such as Oprah. I think it deserves much more attention, and a more humble approach would certainly be more likely to convey our sincerity about our faith to Oprah devotees. I would love to see Mansfield turn his pen to the subject of what the Christian church might have done to produce a different outcome to the Oprah story. I don’t mean to absolve Oprah from her considerable hubris or her unfortunate choices, but I think we should remember that Jesus reserved his sharpest words for church folk. I think lots of church folk will read this book and find it right on the mark, enthusiastically highlighting in yellow all the parts they agree with that show where Oprah’s theology is all wrong. Sadly, Oprah’s followers will likely not rush to unite with those church folk after reading this book. It’s a shame. We “evangelicals” are great at talking to each other, but we’re often hopelessly inept at communicating with those outside the fold. The irony would be funny if it weren’t so tragic.

Hall of Shame: Submarine's Ad Campaign for Girls' Swimwear

My latest Hall of Shame award goes to (drumroll, please) the current ad campaign from Submarine for girls' swimsuits. (My Hall of Shame awards go to anyone or anything that I deem to be disrespectful to girls or harmful to the healthy self-image of girls, especially tween girls like my own munchkin.) These COULD be cute suits but the sexualized presentation ruins them for me. Little girls in heavy makeup, wigs, dangling earrings, and insouciant pouts? Seriously? These girls don't look like sweet and innocent children out to have fun at the pool or beach. They look like sexy adult-wannabes.

Another blogger, Nancy at Parent Girls (part of New Moon Girls Network), puts it very well when she says Submarine is playing up the pending sexuality of these girls to sell a product, and that's repulsive. If you agree, you can let Submarine know. Both Nancy and Melissa posted examples of letters you can send to Submarine owner Deborah Soriano at deborah@submarineswim.com. I sent one.

The American Psychological Association also agrees that this type of imposed sexualization is harmful to children. It contributes to an inability to concentrate, anxiety about appearance, eating disorders, low self-esteem, depression, and poor sexual well-being.  A publication from 2007 by the APA Task Force addresses the sexual objectification of girls, and is worth taking the time to read if you are a parent or a manufacturer or distributor of kids' products. Be sure to read pages two and three which contain suggestions on what parents and kids can do. Think about the girls in that Submarine ad when you read this quote from the APA:

Girls get this message repeatedly: What matters is how “hot” they look. It plays on TV and across the Internet. You hear it in song lyrics and music videos. You see it in movies, electronic games, and clothing stores. It’s a powerful message.

As parents, you are powerful too. You can teach girls to value themselves for who they are, rather than how they look. You can teach boys to value girls as friends, sisters, and girlfriends, rather than as sexual objects. And you can advocate for change with manufacturers and media producers.

In fact, Nancy has come up with a great idea for communicating with companies. It's called Girl-Caught. She's made up some printable stickers you can put on any product ad or packaging that show that you either hate it because it objectifies and disrespects women or girls, or that you like it because it is respectful. Mail the offending (or exemplary) ad or product packaging to the company with the sticker, and before you do, scan or photograph what you're sending and share it with NewMoonGirls.com under "My Stuff."  I'm going to do this with my munchkin to teach her how to evaluate the advertising she sees.

  =

EBIIT Hall of Shame: Skechers Shape-Ups for Girls

That's my girl! For you moms who still have girls in the baby/toddler/preschool ages, here's fair warning. The body image hangups start early. "Momma, I don't like that outfit! It makes me look faaaat!"  (I ask you, do you see an ounce of fat on that 8-year-old body?)  She doesn't hear that kind of self-denigrating talk from me. My daughter hears this stuff from her friends, and they all hear it from the overwhelming truckloads of marketing aimed at women and their insecurities. Yoni Freedhoff, M.D., agrees with me over at Huffington Post.

The sad truth is, my girls are almost certainly facing a lifetime of advertisements that will be geared to make them feel like their looks are inadequate. They'll regularly be made to feel that their bodies are too fat, their lips insufficiently red, their skin too rough, their hair too frizzy, their breasts too small, and their butts too big. Magazines, TV spots, product placements, celebrity spokespeople -- there will be no shortage of unrealistic expectations to eat away at my babies' self-esteem.

The truth is, she's beautiful just as she is. And that's why I'm disgusted with the latest ad campaign from Skechers.

Yep, Skechers has decided to capitalize on the insecurities of tweens by marketing their Shape-Up shoes to  girls as young as 7. They start at size 2 - the size my munchkin wears. Of course, their excuse is that they're promoting fitness. I might buy that if they made Shape-ups for little boys. They don't. The message to girls? You're never too young to hate your body, and we hope you will be gullible enough to think our silly-looking shoes will tone up your fanny.

Skechers Shape-Ups For Girls

So, for shame, Skechers! I hereby confer upon you the first-ever Everything Beautiful In Its Time Hall of Shame Award! This award will be periodically offered to anyone or anything that I deem to be a bad influence on my tween girl. Now, pick your shoes up off the floor and go stand in the corner.

Dear Zippy the Elf,

Welcome back to another slightly frantic December at the Lowe home. Your first season with us was a big hit with the munchkin, although less so with me if you recall.

Since you are already on thin ice, so to speak, I'd like to request some help from you and your cohorts. You see, sometimes, the munchkin wakes to discover you in the same spot as the night before when you are supposed to have moved to a new spot after your nightly trip back to the North Pole to report to Santa. In the next edition of The Elf on the Shelf, I'd be grateful if you'd point out to eager munchkins everywhere that since Santa has so many elves flying in daily, he has to schedule appointments for them throughout the day and night. Apparently, your appointment is approximately 11 am. It has taken some effort to convince the munchkin of this.

See, the problem is that we already have enough trouble with our tricky Tooth Fairy. Many's the morning that we've found the money hidden in odd places in the munchkin's room rather than the usual under-the-pillow spot. You elves and fairies sure do keep us on our toes.

Thanks,

Mama Lowe