BCLPemerging.com

PFAS in Cookware: State-by-State Regulations

PFAS in Cookware: State-by-State Regulations

Aug 07, 2024
Download PDFDownload PDF
Print
Share

Summary

In the absence of comprehensive federal regulation of PFAS in cookware, states are enacting and proposing their own laws.  Thus far, eight (8) states have enacted laws addressing PFAS substances in cookware and bakeware (“Cookware”), and seven (7) states introduced bills that are currently pending.

State Cookware Laws

As indicated below, the original PFAS cookware laws addressed labelling requirements, and the notification was usually required to appear on the product label as well as the product’s website.  Recently, several states have enacted outright bans of intentionally added PFAS in all cookware products.  This evolution of these laws underscores how PFAS are being more aggressively regulated in the cookware industry. 

Some states have also expanded the definitions in the laws, including the definition of “intentionally added.”  In some states the definition now includes both chemicals that have been deliberately added to perform some function in the finished product, and chemicals used as part of the manufacturing process. 

One of the most challenging aspects of the cookware laws was that the definition of “cookware” appears to apply to the entire cookware product, not just the food or beverage contact surface. Minnesota – the state with the first compliance deadline – recently addressed this issue and clarified that “cookware” would only be regulated if the product had a non-stick food contact surface which contains intentionally added PFAS:

"For the purposes of the 2025 PFAS prohibitions, the MPCA interprets cookware to include only items that have a food contact surface that has a nonstick PFAS coating. If an item does not have a nonstick PFAS coating on a food contact surface, it is not included in the cookware category. If an item is not included in the cookware category, the additional components are not required to be PFAS free to meet the 1/1/25 regulation, but will be required to be PFAS free to meet the 1/1/32 regulation."

This clarification has important implications for the industry, and is something that may be replicated in the other states which have similar definitions of “cookware.”

With respect to enacted laws, states have established different deadlines.  Some have already become effective, and others will go into effect in the future. 

Labelling restrictions: California, Jan 1 2023. Colorado, Jan 1 2024. Product bans: Minnesota, Jan 1 2025. Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont, Jan 1 2026. Rhode Island, Jan 1 2027. Washington to be decided.

This map and the following information below provide a more detailed analysis of each state’s regulatory approach and is current as of July 22, 2024. This area of law is changing, especially as demonstrated by the number of bills that are currently being proposed.

Map of USA highlighting enacted and proposed PFAS in cookware legislation. Details in accordions below.

 

Enacted Legislation

 

Proposed Legislation

 

Conclusion

Several states have started or are currently in the process of enacting laws prohibiting intentionally added PFAS in cookware. These laws present significant challenges to the regulated industry, and have already been the subject of clarification at the agency level, which is a trend that is expected to continue. BCLP is monitoring any actions that state legislatures are enacting or proposing with respect to PFAS and cookware.

If you have a question about how to identify, manage or address PFAS risk in cookware, please visit BCLP’s PFAS webpage or contact Tom Lee, Bryan Keyt, Merrit Jones, John Kindschuh, or any other member of our PFAS team.

This material is not comprehensive, is for informational purposes only, and is not legal advice. Your use or receipt of this material does not create an attorney-client relationship between us. If you require legal advice, you should consult an attorney regarding your particular circumstances. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. This material may be “Attorney Advertising” under the ethics and professional rules of certain jurisdictions. For advertising purposes, St. Louis, Missouri, is designated BCLP’s principal office and Kathrine Dixon (kathrine.dixon@bclplaw.com) as the responsible attorney.