Decision from governor, eyeing presidential bid, could echo across US as similar bans considered in states like New York
And my supposed liberal, Atrioc watching friend wonders why I hate Gavin Newsom.
Maybe watch what he does and not what he says on your fav lil podcast and you might actually learn something.
Why is Newsom popular? Every time he makes the news it’s for the equivalent of kicking puppies…
Because he’s not a republican.
Because comparing household trash to industrial waste makes the trash seem less awful.
More like comparing industrial waste to radioactive fallout but I get your meaning.
He’s making headlines for turning dementia Donald’s style of rhetoric against him. I don’t think he’s necessarily popular, just…visible.
But I have been seeing people fall for him doing the literal same shit we make fun of the Republican voters for falling for, so…
Because he doesn’t kick puppies 100% of the time. Sometimes he does progressive tones, and seems to sprinkle dumb shit in with it. Yes, that’s the base, oh so you’re not evil all the time? You’re literally the best!
He made news for the vote to allow for redistricting mid cycle to counter the bullshit Texas pulled… That’s a huge fucking deal.
Is he though?
Because we’ve been reduced to slavering over things that are smaller than sound bites, and he puts out some of them. Memes (in the internet sense, not their general sense) have primed folks to only care about the retort ‘gotchas.’
“deeply concerned about the impact this bill would have on the availability of affordable options in cooking products”
This is a terrible reason to veto it, haha. Cast iron can be cheaper and just as effective. I think my cast iron set was cheaper than my single nonstick pan.
What a stupid veto
Calculated wallet padding
He folded to big AI too, vetoed AI bills for seemingly no reason.
$eemingly no rea$on?
Hah, the very $ame
California has always been there leader in environmental issues, I hate seeing them fold under corporate pressure.
Despite much ignorance and ado, California is politically moderate. Their own voters shot down basic protections for unsecured laborers for private equity-backed driver services who are then wards of the state; no workers comp, no unemployment, no flsa protections…these are the bare minimum of a society that doesn’t eat children. The states voters did this after the state just went through the clear and costly lesson of a mass layoff situation due to covid and it was clear these predatory companies were designed to screw workers and the state to maximize returns to shareholders, even beyond how bad a standard worker has it. If the states own voters arent anything more than moderate, why would the hope be the governor of the state would be?
Anything to the left of Pinochet is being labeled as anarchist left wing terrorist by fascists who are actively dismantling government, legal, social protections.
California has the largest population of Republican voters in the US (couldn’t find numbers for Texas, I think they don’t have voter party declarations?) https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-voters-have-a-party-affiliation/
Well that’s unsurprising since they have the largest population and trends usually scale.
I think it is important to note they have been moving more toward republican votes over the last presidential elections, which if anything shows why Newsom is a symptom, not the cause–and I say that not liking the dude.
You have to declare in Texas IF you want to mail-in vote in the primary. If you vote in person, you can skip party declaration and just ask for the desired ballot when you sign in.
(2016 was the only time I had to call myself a D. I still get their spam.)
Yes, and they also have the largest population of Democrat voters, and most other demographics you could name.
Yep - just drive through San Bernardino. Maga country, and yes, it’s not a very nice place to boot.
Newsom is just another old timey democrat in modern times. This is why the US is fucked. One side doesn’t do enough while the other side burns it all down.
I wish ceramic non-stick worked as well. I do think it’s improving so hopefully it’ll get there…
Ceramic nonstick sketches me out. It’s got silicone embedded in the material, which effectively lubricates the pan to produce the nonstick effect until it all eventually leaches out. It seems safe because a little silicone in your food is not considered dangerous currently. I recently started using the pans with a metal grid in them that’s supposed to produce a nonstick effect from its physical structure. They work well enough it’s not been a problem even though they aren’t quite as nonstick as pfas or silicone. They are stupid expensive unfortunately.
Edit: Misremembered, its “organic silicon compounds” and not silicone.
Silicone is not safe when heated: https://www.insidehalton.com/news/health-canada-study-silicone-bakeware/article_c722cdb8-ae14-58ac-bfd1-dbe93a63eb0d.html
Huh - I was under the impression that they were basically teflon/pfas with raised ridges so your metal utensils wouldn’t scratch the coating.
That is not based on any fact I saw anywhere - just the assumption my brain made when I saw them.
I had heard they were expensive but then I’ve also seen some generic/cheap ones at TJMaxx. Could be completely different material, though, while just copying the “look”.
All I know for sure is my inside out omelets only work with teflon pans (from what I’ve tested).
There are ones that are really just normal pfas pans that copied the look but you’re still not supposed to use metal utensils with them. The world of cookware is really confusing, it’s a huge industry and doesn’t seem to really be regulated or monitored for safety in any significant way.
He also stopped RCV.
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.
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.
I think this is a deeper decision than just folding to corporations. Lots of people probably don’t want it either.
How does one ban PFAS tho? And what does that mean for the consumers? Maybe lots of cooks prefer nonstick materials. It’s so widespread too, how would you effectively ban PFAS?
I personally do not like cooking on stainless steel pans because it sticks so much. Cast iron pans and woks are good but not for all purposes.
