I don’t know enough about the risks to confidently say whether or not a ban is a good idea. (But what I do know leads me to keep using nonstick pans.) However, what jumped out at me in this article was this:
“Whether or not California passes a ban, Pfas is on the way out because consumers are demanding it,” Salter added. “If lawmakers represent their constituents then they’ll pass a ban, and if they represent billion dollar companies then they will oppose it.”
People freely choose whether or not to use nonstick pans, so how can passing a ban possibly represent constituents even in principle? A law regulating the negative externalities of pollution makes sense as something that constituents might want, but is the concern here really about the harm done to one person by a different person in a different house using nonstick cookware? It seems to me that laws like this are about protecting constituents from themselves, which is often justifiable but not really representative.
(A ban on pfas in other contexts where people don’t expect to find it does make sense as something that could represent constituents.)
I hate to break it to you but PFAs are in a lot more than just nonstick pans. They’re on literally anything that might be a tad bit on the non stick side such as dental floss or the cardboard under store bought cakes. They’re on nearly all water resistant products such as shoes, rain coats, and camping gear. They’re used as a fire retardant which means if you live near an airport, military base, or fire training facility your water supply is likely full of them. And even after all of this, we know that the factories that make and utilize these coatings don’t tend to dispose of them properly and taint the water supply in nearby areas. And if that wasn’t enough, these bonds have been found in water supplies and even rainwater around the world because they don’t break down easily.
TLDR: PFAs are in loads of products you may not expect, have proliferated worldwide water supplies, and don’t break down easily. This is about far more than nonstick pans and people don’t have a say in being exposed to them.
Teflon(PTFE) being one of the most common sources of PFAS is notably dirty to make and Dupont has had more than one major lawsuit or incident involving byproducts polluting the environment. I could see laws getting passed to reduce overall manufacturing capacity. -That said, Teflon is kind of a miracle material that can do what almost no other material can with it’s chemical stability which also happens to be it’s greatest flaw but i think it would be a mistake to completely ban that.
The article mostly focuses on cookware but they do mention a few other goods that would be affected by the proposed ban.
I don’t know enough about the risks to confidently say whether or not a ban is a good idea. (But what I do know leads me to keep using nonstick pans.) However, what jumped out at me in this article was this:
People freely choose whether or not to use nonstick pans, so how can passing a ban possibly represent constituents even in principle? A law regulating the negative externalities of pollution makes sense as something that constituents might want, but is the concern here really about the harm done to one person by a different person in a different house using nonstick cookware? It seems to me that laws like this are about protecting constituents from themselves, which is often justifiable but not really representative.
(A ban on pfas in other contexts where people don’t expect to find it does make sense as something that could represent constituents.)
I hate to break it to you but PFAs are in a lot more than just nonstick pans. They’re on literally anything that might be a tad bit on the non stick side such as dental floss or the cardboard under store bought cakes. They’re on nearly all water resistant products such as shoes, rain coats, and camping gear. They’re used as a fire retardant which means if you live near an airport, military base, or fire training facility your water supply is likely full of them. And even after all of this, we know that the factories that make and utilize these coatings don’t tend to dispose of them properly and taint the water supply in nearby areas. And if that wasn’t enough, these bonds have been found in water supplies and even rainwater around the world because they don’t break down easily.
TLDR: PFAs are in loads of products you may not expect, have proliferated worldwide water supplies, and don’t break down easily. This is about far more than nonstick pans and people don’t have a say in being exposed to them.
Yes, but the controversy (and Newsom’s stated justification for his veto) seems to be primarily related to the ban on nonstick pans.
“they’re trying to ban non-stick pans” is the same type of distraction as “they’re trying to ban gas stoves”.
It’s an attempt to reframe curbs on pollution as attacks on personal freedoms.
Teflon(PTFE) being one of the most common sources of PFAS is notably dirty to make and Dupont has had more than one major lawsuit or incident involving byproducts polluting the environment. I could see laws getting passed to reduce overall manufacturing capacity. -That said, Teflon is kind of a miracle material that can do what almost no other material can with it’s chemical stability which also happens to be it’s greatest flaw but i think it would be a mistake to completely ban that.
The article mostly focuses on cookware but they do mention a few other goods that would be affected by the proposed ban.