Are States Gearing Up to Ban Nonstick Cookware?
Photo: Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images
If frying eggs or bacon is a regular part of your morning ritual, take note. Soon, your ability to use nonstick cookware may come down to where you live. New York state lawmakers recently introduced a bill that would prohibit 'the manufacture, sale, and use' of cookware containing polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), the primary substance used to create a nonstick surface. Though the chemical compound, commonly known by the brand name Teflon, is approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration, New York has now joined a growing list of states that are proposing to ban—or in some cases, have already banned—nonstick cookware in their territories.
Find answers about nonstick pans
Is New York banning nonstick cookware?
Are nonstick pans safe?
What happens when PFAS accumulate in the body?
Should consumers throw out nonstick pans?
What other states have banned nonstick pans?
In January of this year, two New York State senators introduced Senate Bill S1767, which if passed, 'prohibits the manufacture, sale, and use of cookware containing polytetrafluoroethylene.' In the bill's justification, the sponsors write that the chemicals used in nonstick pans are 'within the family of polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) which are known to have severe health effects such as harm to reproductive and bodily functions, developmental effects in youth, increased cancer risk and increased risk for high cholesterol and obesity.' It acknowledges that additional research is needed to determine the full scope of risk, but 'we should not leave people vulnerable to the potential negative health effects,' it concludes.
The bill is currently in Senate committee, meaning it hasn't been brought to the floor for voting by the whole legislative body. Once on the floor, it needs to be approved by both the New York State Senate and Assembly, then signed into law by the governor.
I Tried It
I Tried It: Our Place's Cast Iron Always Pan Is The Real Deal
Your favorite pan now comes in a sturdier version
There is little debate about the safety risk of nonstick pans that do not use Teflon coating, for example ceramic or cast-iron pans. However, those that do use PTFE have raised concerns in recent years. 'PTFE belongs to a subgroup of what is known as PFAS,' explains Bruce Jarnot, PhD, global materials compliance expert, toxicologist, and product compliance advisor at Assent. PFAS are often colloquially called 'forever chemicals,' because they don't degrade over time, and the human body cannot metabolize them.
In some instances, this can come in handy. PFAS are used to insulate leads in a pacemaker or used in hip joint replacements since they are inert. 'In these instances, it's fine, it's inert,' Jarnot says. 'But there are other considerations to take into account when considering potential laws like New York State Senate Bill 1767.'
The first, he says, is the environmental waste and pollution that manufacturers of products containing PFAS make. 'We all have the monomers—the building blocks of polymers like Teflon—inside us from the manufacturing phase,' Jarnot says, adding that the waste ends up in water and soil, which eventually makes its way to the humans. 'So there's a strong argument against PFAS in general. Because they stay put in the body, and they can accumulate over time when they're in our environment.'
In cookware specifically, that potential risk increases because the products are used with high heats. 'That's probably the highest heat environment that a material like Teflon is exposed to. So when you have a pacemaker implanted, it's at body temperature. If you're searing fish or steak in a fry pan, it's being exposed to much higher heat,' he says. Chemical reactions occur faster in hot environments, and, 'You could have decomposition of the polymer giving rise to some really nasty airborne PFAS. And there is probably some internalization of these decomposing products at high temperature.'
According to the the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), exposure to PFAS could be harmful to human health. 'Scientists at EPA, in other federal agencies, and in academia and industry are continuing to conduct and review the growing body of research about PFAS. However, health effects associated with exposure to PFAS are difficult to specify for many reasons,' the agency says. For that reason, more research is required to determine the exact risks.
As Jarnot explains, toxicologists often say that it's the dose that makes the poison. 'So here you have something that's not metabolizing and that is accumulating in your body, creating aggregate exposure. In that case, every bit you add to your exposure cup counts.'
Even in states where nonstick pans are legal, some consumers may consider discarding theirs because of potential risk. 'As a toxicologist, I still use Teflon pans,' Jarnot admits. 'But you should never heat them without something in it, and should avoid very high heat.'
That said, eliminating nonstick pans could be an easy way to minimize exposure to PFAS. 'You're getting exposure in almost all drinks—water, wine, beer, soda—because it's in the water these drinks are made from. But you need water, you need food. So one of the places you could easily omit exposure is in cookware,' Jarnot adds.
Multiple states have passed or are considering legislation about polytetrafluoroethylene in their territories. California, for example, passed a law that states cookware with intentionally added PFAS must be disclosed on product labels; however, it hasn't passed a full ban. Others, like Connecticut, Maine, Vermont, and Rhode Island have passed laws that go into effect over the next few years and ban products with intentionally added PFAS. Minnesota passed a law banning PFAS in a number of consumer goods, including cookware, which went into effect in January of this year.
Originally Appeared on Architectural Digest
More Great Stories From AD
Not a subscriber? Join AD for print and digital access now.
This Lower East Side Loft Is a Sexy Riff on '90s Basements
How a Financial Influencer Upgraded Her Brooklyn Apartment on a Budget
13 Best Platform Beds of 2025 We Use In Our Own Bedrooms
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Senate bill's Medicaid cuts draw some GOP angst
The Senate's deep cuts to Medicaid in the tax and spending megabill are setting off alarm bells among some Republicans, complicating leadership's effort to get the legislation passed by July 4. It seeks to clamp down on two tactics states use to boost Medicaid funding to hospitals: state-directed payments and Medicaid provider taxes. The restrictions are a major concern for rural hospitals, a key constituency for senators. Republicans have set an ambitious July 4 deadline to pass the bill and send it to President Trump to be signed into law. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who has been warning his colleagues about making cuts to Medicaid for weeks, said the changes took him by surprise. 'I had no idea that they were going to completely scrap the House framework with this. I mean, this totally caught me by surprise. And I've talked to other senators, and that's what I've heard consistently from everybody I've talked to, that no one was expecting this entirely new framework,' Hawley told reporters Tuesday. States impose taxes on providers to boost their federal Medicaid contributions, which they then direct back to hospitals in the form of higher reimbursements. Critics argue it's a scheme for states to get more federal funding without spending any of their own money. But provider taxes have become ingrained into states' Medicaid financing systems. States and provider groups say the taxes provide a steady source of financing for hospitals that operate on thin margins and would otherwise face closure. 'The draconian Medicaid cuts contained in the Senate bill would devastate health care access for millions of Americans and hollow out the vital role essential hospitals play in their communities,' said Bruce Siegel, president and CEO of America's Essential Hospitals, an organization that represents hospitals that serve low-income patients. The legislation would effectively cap provider taxes at 3.5 percent by 2031, down from the current 6 percent, but only for the states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The cap would be phased in by lowering it 0.5 percent annually, starting in 2027. Nonexpansion states would be prohibited from imposing new taxes, but as was true in the House-passed version, their rates would be frozen at current levels. The lower cap would not apply to nursing homes or intermediate care facilities. All states except for Alaska finance part of their share of Medicaid funding through health care provider taxes, and 38 states have at least one provider tax that exceeds 5.5 percent. When asked if his concerns were enough to make him vote against the bill if it were brought to the floor as written, Hawley hedged. 'It needs a lot of work, so I would say maybe we could, I guess, try to fix it on the floor, but it'd be better to do it beforehand,' he told reporters. Republicans can afford to lose only three votes in the Senate and still pass their bill if Democrats remain united in opposition. Sen. Jim Justice ( said he was also surprised by the Senate's change. If provider tax changes are on the table, he said he wants leadership to keep the House version. Justice wouldn't say how he would vote if the provision was left unchanged but expressed some unease about the July 4 deadline. 'I promise you, I won't rubber-stamp anything,' Justice said. 'I want this thing to come out and come out quickly, but when it really boils right down to it, you may have to hold your nose on some things that you just absolutely don't like because we can't like everything.' Similarly, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) indicated he would also prefer the House-passed freeze on provider taxes but was still analyzing the impact on his state. Louisiana expanded Medicaid in 2016. Senate Republican leaders huddled with members Tuesday during a closed-door caucus lunch to talk through the details of the bill. Speaking to reporters afterward, Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said leadership was listening to members' concerns, especially about provider taxes. 'We think [the changes] rebalance the program in a way that provides the right incentives to cover the people who are supposed to be covered,' Thune said. 'We continue to hear from members specifically on components or pieces of the bill they want to see modified or changed, and we are working through that.' Members were also briefed by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, who downplayed the impact of a lower provider tax cap. 'We do not believe that addressing the provider tax effort is going to influence the ability of hospitals to stay viable,' Oz told reporters. Without weighing in on the exact details, Oz said some changes to provider taxes and state-directed payments should be included. 'The framework of addressing the legalized money laundering with state-directed payments and provider taxes must be in this bill, it should be in this bill,' Oz said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
7 hours ago
- The Hill
Louisiana hospitals press Johnson over megabill Medicaid cut proposals
As the 'big, beautiful bill' teeters towards passage in the Senate, every major health system in Louisiana sent a letter Saturday to the state's entire congressional delegation, including Speaker Mike Johnson (R), warning that planned cuts to Medicaid would be 'historic in their devastation.' The letter said that the Senate's version of the bill would cut more than $4 billion in Medicaid funding, with a loss of more than 16,000 jobs. Even the House's version of cuts, the letter stated, would be a more palatable solution. However, the 'economic consequences pale in comparison to the harm that will be caused to residents across the state, regardless of insurance status, who will no longer be able to get the care that they need,' the letter reads. 'Steep cuts will force consolidation of services, staffing reductions and closures, reducing healthcare access to everyone in our communities. Our rural communities will especially feel the impact as many of these hospitals are already in difficult financial situations and are likely to experience a significant reduction of services.' The letter was also sent to Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who expressed concerns about the cuts to Medicaid in the Senate version of the bill Thursday and said that the House version would be preferable. However, Cassidy has not since spoken out against the bill, a vote for which kicked off in the Senate Saturday night.
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Yahoo
California will see 'devastating' healthcare cuts under GOP bill, Newsom says
As many as 3.4 million Californians could lose their state Medi-Cal health insurance under the budget bill making its way through the U.S. Senate, Gov. Gavin Newsom said Friday. Newsom said the proposed cuts to healthcare in the "one big, beautiful bill," a cornerstone of President Trump's second-term agenda, could force the closure of struggling rural hospitals, reduce government food assistance for those in need and drive up premiums for people who rely on Covered California, the state's Affordable Care Act health insurance marketplace. "This is devastating," Newsom said. "I know that word is often overused in this line of work, but this is, in many ways, an understatement of how reckless and cruel and damaging this is." Medicaid provides health insurance for about 1 in 5 Americans and generally uses income, rather than employment, as a condition for enrollment. Roughly 15 million Californians, more than a third of the state, are on Medi-Cal, the state's version of Medicaid, with some of the highest percentages in rural counties that supported Trump in the November election. More than half of California children receive healthcare coverage through Medi-Cal. The Senate is still debating its version of the bill. But the current version would require many Medicaid recipients to prove every six months that they work, volunteer or attend school at least 80 hours per month. States would be required to set up their work eligibility verification systems by the end of 2026, just after the midterm elections. States that do not set up those systems could lose federal Medicaid funding. Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters last month that the aim of the policy was to encourage poor Americans to contribute and "return the dignity of work to young men who need to be out working instead of playing video games all day." The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated this month that the requirements would cut about $344 billion in Medicaid spending over a decade and leave 4.8 million more people uninsured. Health policy experts warn that work requirements can lead to people who are eligible, but can't prove it, losing their benefits. Newsom said 5.1 million people in California would need to go through the work verification progress and about one-third would "likely" meet the requirements. The other two-thirds would "go through the labyrinth of manual verification," Newsom said. He said 3 million people in California could lose coverage through the new Medicaid work requirements, and 400,000 more could lose their insurance if they were required to re-verify their eligibility every six months. Newsom said that the state's estimate was based on the number of people who dropped off Medicaid in New Hampshire and Arkansas after those states briefly implemented their own work requirements. Last year, California became the first state in the nation to offer healthcare to low-income undocumented immigrants. The expansion, approved by Newsom and the Democratic-led Legislature, has cost the state billions and drawn sharp criticism from Republicans. Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher (R-Yuba City), who has previously called on Newsom to walk back that coverage, said on social media Friday that Newsom and Democratic legislative leaders had "obliterated" the healthcare system. Newsom's budget proposal in May proposed substantial cuts to the healthcare program for undocumented immigrants, including freezing new enrollment in 2026, requiring adults to pay $100 monthly premiums and cutting full dental coverage. Lawmakers ultimately agreed to require undocumented immigrant adults ages 19 to 59 to pay $30 monthly premiums beginning July 2027. Their plan adopts Newsom's enrollment cap but gives people three months to reapply if their coverage lapses instead of immediately cutting off their eligibility. Democrats agreed to cut full dental coverage for adult immigrants who are undocumented, but delayed the change until July 1, 2026. In Congress, the GOP bill could also pose a serious threat to 16 struggling hospitals in 14 rural counties, which received a $300-million lifeline in interest-free loans in 2023, Newsom said. He said the Republican members of Congress in California who supported the bill and represent rural parts of California, including Central Valley Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) and Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), are "gutting an already vulnerable system." Some senators are pushing to change a requirement that would require states to freeze and cut by half the tax they impose on Medicaid providers, slashing a key source of funding for rural hospitals. Michelle Baass, the director of the California Department of Health Care Services, said that change could be "fatal for the many rural and critical-access hospitals that are already financially strained." Newsom said in aggregate, the cuts could threaten California's progress in reducing the share of residents without health insurance, which stands at about 6.4%. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
