Our favorite non-toxic, Pfas-free pan is finally on sale ⁠90%

By Karen Yuan⁠0%

5/21/2026, 7:15:31 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Loss Aversion, Halo Effect, and Appeal to Authority, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 71.6% saturation with 313 hits. Analysis detected 2,101 faulty-reasoning hits from 437 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 82.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠90% (2,336 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 89.30% of the article peer group.

If you, like me, are trying to detox your kitchen from Pfas forever chemicals and microplastics, I have great news: the pan collection that beat out a dozen others to win our test of the best non-toxic pans is finally on sale. 
The premium chrome and gold edition of Our Place’s Titanium Always Pan Pro is now 10% off, and the rest of the brand’s titanium line has even steeper discounts of up to 42% off as part of its Memorial Day sale. 
For two weeks in a real commercial kitchen, our partners at the Drexel Food Lab tested 13 pans free of harmful Pfas, PFOA, BPA and PTFE chemicals. 
After reviewing each on heat rate, heat retention, non-stickiness and cooking and baking performance, they named the 10.5in Always Pan Pro the best overall. 
“The Titanium Always Pan Pro stood out for its combination of lightweight handling, impressive non-stick performance and genuinely useful design,” the research chefs at Drexel wrote. 
It heated evenly and eggs slid right off. 
And, unlike traditional non-stick coatings that can release toxic fumes above 650F – a risk the Drexel team flagged for anyone cooking on high heat – this pan withstands up to 1000F due to its no-coating titanium construction that’s completely Pfas-free. 
What’s more, unlike carbon steel or cast iron (which we also love, don’t get me wrong), it requires minimal care and is safe to pop in the dishwasher. 
Our Place has even deeper discounts on some of its other titanium products. 
If you need something smaller, the 8.5in Mini Always Pan Pro is normally $155 and currently $109. 
For pots, the 6.75qt Perfect Pot Pro is down from $195 to $115, and the 2.75qt version is down from $169 to $99. 
But the bundles might be where the real savings are. 
The Titanium Pro Cookware Duo – which pairs the Always Pan Pro and the Perfect Pot Pro – is normally $414 but is now $289.95. 
That’s for both pieces, plus lids and utensils. 
Similarly, the Mini Duo normally runs at $364 but is now down to $199.95. 
If you’d rather not worry about what is leaching into your dinner, this is a great opportunity to get a low price on our favorite fix. 
Other pieces you might enjoy from the Filter, the Guardian’s guide to buying fewer, better things: 
The seven best non-toxic cooking pans in the US, tested in a food lab 
Field Company’s new No 5 chef skillet fixes everything I hated about cast iron 
The seven best induction cookware sets in the US for 2026 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.8%Karen Yuan: 5.1%the Guardian: 3.7%Confirmation Bias12.8%This article: 30.4%Karen Yuan: 6.6%the Guardian: 0.6%Anchoring Bias30.4%This article: 9.6%Karen Yuan: 2.5%the Guardian: 3.1%Availability Heuristic9.6%This article: 11.7%Karen Yuan: 1.4%the Guardian: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic11.7%This article: 0.0%Karen Yuan: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Karen Yuan: 8.5%the Guardian: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias5.5%This article: 25.9%Karen Yuan: 7.5%the Guardian: 6.1%Framing Effect25.9%This article: 36.4%Karen Yuan: 3.4%the Guardian: 0.6%Loss Aversion36.4%This article: 6.4%Karen Yuan: 1.3%the Guardian: 0.6%Status Quo Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Karen Yuan: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 23.1%Karen Yuan: 5.4%the Guardian: 2.5%Optimism Bias23.1%This article: 0.0%Karen Yuan: 0.5%the Guardian: 2.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Karen Yuan: 4.7%the Guardian: 10.4%Negativity Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Karen Yuan: 1.0%the Guardian: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen Yuan: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen Yuan: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 16.0%Karen Yuan: 2.2%the Guardian: 1.3%In-Group Bias16.0%This article: 0.0%Karen Yuan: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 33.0%Karen Yuan: 12.6%the Guardian: 3.2%Halo Effect33.0%This article: 0.0%Karen Yuan: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen Yuan: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 15.6%Karen Yuan: 2.8%the Guardian: 1.2%Recency Bias15.6%This article: 2.5%Karen Yuan: 1.5%the Guardian: 0.4%Primacy Effect2.5%This article: 0.0%Karen Yuan: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen Yuan: 0.0%the Guardian: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen Yuan: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 32.7%Karen Yuan: 18.1%the Guardian: 3.8%Appeal to Authority32.7%This article: 15.8%Karen Yuan: 2.3%the Guardian: 1.7%False Dilemma15.8%This article: 0.0%Karen Yuan: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen Yuan: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.2%Karen Yuan: 4.7%the Guardian: 6.3%Hasty Generalization3.2%This article: 0.0%Karen Yuan: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 9.6%Karen Yuan: 2.1%the Guardian: 0.7%Bandwagon9.6%This article: 17.6%Karen Yuan: 6.5%the Guardian: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion17.6%This article: 5.9%Karen Yuan: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.9%Begging the Question5.9%This article: 0.0%Karen Yuan: 2.8%the Guardian: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen Yuan: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.2%Karen Yuan: 1.2%the Guardian: 0.4%Burden of Proof6.2%This article: 0.0%Karen Yuan: 3.3%the Guardian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen Yuan: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.8%Karen Yuan: 17.4%the Guardian: 3.1%Anecdotal1.8%This article: 0.0%Karen Yuan: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 18.1%Karen Yuan: 5.7%the Guardian: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)18.1%This article: 0.0%Karen Yuan: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.4%Karen Yuan: 0.7%the Guardian: 0.1%Middle Ground9.4%This article: 0.0%Karen Yuan: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen Yuan: 0.6%the Guardian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen Yuan: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.9%Karen Yuan: 1.2%the Guardian: 1.6%Unattributed Quote5.9%This article: 5.9%Karen Yuan: 1.5%the Guardian: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection5.9%This article: 29.3%Karen Yuan: 13.5%the Guardian: 10.4%Biased Writer Voice29.3%This article: 15.6%Karen Yuan: 5.4%the Guardian: 1.8%Indoctrination15.6%This article: 0.0%Karen Yuan: 0.0%the Guardian: 3.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karen Yuan: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 71.6%Karen Yuan: 63.0%the Guardian: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…71.6%

437 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker5.9%attributed speech411writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageDrexel Food Lab • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Drexel Food Lab

100%flagged-word coverage
26 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Drexel Food Lab: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Drexel Food Lab: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -76.2 ptsWriter: 76.2%Drexel Food Lab: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-31.1 ptsWriter: 31.1%Drexel Food Lab: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-16.5 ptsWriter: 16.5%Drexel Food Lab: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.