Well, I'd sue Conagra too, if it were the faulty vent that made it blow up my kitchen.

I haven't used any of the stuff for years now, but I used to walk outside to spray my pan. Did not like an aerosol of oil in the kitchen. Did not like feeling like I was inhaling it either. Certainly, I'd always keep it away from the stove.

My sister in laws friend sat a can of spray starch on her stove top with the oven on. It got hot and blew up and blew half her face off. She went thru years of surgery and her face is severely damaged and scarred. She lived alone .. and woke up laying in bed with what was left of her face in her hands.

"Evidently, this woman didn't read the label"

Nor had any common sense.

Same as the comment above about having put or left (not sat) an aerosol can on a stove top.

I cook with butter or occasionally bacon fat, how could oil in a can stuff be all natural?

"Life is DANGEROUS" Especially if common sense isn't in your repertoire. Aerosol -i.e. "under pressure" cans should NEVER be near heat. Really not seeing how this is PAMs responsibility. This is why we teach freshmen in high school chemistry and physics.

I have little pump bottles that emit a fine mist of my oil of choice when I add pressure with a few pumps.

If you watch the ENTIRE report, the cans that exploded had 4 small vents in the bottom. Those cans were pulled from inventory and are no longer made. The explosions came from cans that were too close to a source of fire.

Normally I side with consumers but in this case using a kitchen range to heat is very problematic and leaving a can of any brand that is under pressure next to that stove shows a lack of judgement compounded. Sad situation.

I don't use cooking sprays. I can taste the carriers and it is an expensive way to oil a pan. I also have one of those pumps but I rarely use that either.

To be fair, people don't generally use their stoves for heating unless they have no other heat source.

FWIW

It's unfortunate others can be sued as if they should be accountable for someone else's stupidity instead of that person taking person responsibility for their own actions. However I'm reminded that's the case every time I open an owners manual and the first half of it is safety information that any idiot could figure out on their own.

> If you watch the ENTIRE report, the cans that exploded had 4 small vents in the bottom.

From what I've read the 4 small vents was a design change that was intended to make the product safer, so that if there was an explosion the explosion would be directed downward, but it may be that the presence of the vents made an explosion much more likely to occur which actually made the cans much less safe.

The company changed the can design purportedly to make the entire product line similar, but the real reason may be that they discovered that increased likelihood of an explosion occurring and are wont to disclose that for fear of increased liability.

Anytime you heat up a can holding flammable propellant, you may expect a burst followed by a bang and fire ball.

The company changed the can design purportedly to make the entire product line similar, but the real reason may be that they discovered that increased likelihood of an explosion occurring and are wont to disclose that for fear of increased liability.

Improvements that make a product safer are not admissions that that the old product was unsafe.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_407

Have not read all replies, but I am with Mathias. Some inhaled materials never leave your lungs — minerals, plastic dust fibers, and oils. Not good.

Experiment —> spray a pan while standing in a shaft of sunlight (low angle, as in the afternoon. See all those atomized droplets making up a sort of fog? It is unhealthy to inhale the air saturated with this oil mist. It can be harmful to your lungs (repeated small exposures). Our lungs don’t take kindly to being coated with insolvable materials or particulate matter.

Instead of using those aerosol oils, just use a lightly coasted pastry brush or an oil-dampened bit of toweling.

> Anytime you heat up a can holding flammable propellant, you may expect a burst followed by a bang and fire ball.

Not quite true, given that even holding a can in your hand will heat it up (some small amount) I would agree that if you heat such a can up enough that the pressure is larger than the can can contain, it will burst, followed by a bang and a fireball.

I think there is a matter of fact that should be determined for these cases. Specifically if the temperature at which the cans with the "4 small vents on the bottom" burst and explode is significantly different than the temperature at which other cans not having that feature will explode. If for instance other cans typically do not burst until they are heated to 180 - 220 deg F while the PAM cans with the vents have a tendency to burst at a much lower temperature, then I would feel there is some merit to these claims.

I discovered that those sprays also discolor cooking skillets, on occasion.

I've also discovered I can measure out some good healthy oils on my own without aerosolizing them to put on my skillet. Besides, I'm not thinking ConAgra products are healthy to begin with.

The lawsuit(s), however, seem entirely silly. YES - something in a pressurized can WILL explode if placed too close to heat. I mean: DUH.

The company might have had second thoughts about the can design with the four bottom holes. Their legal team might have warned them against “announcing” that the cans could be hazardous.