Using too high of heat, abrasive cleaners or other materials that cause the coating on a nonstick pan to chip can increase the risk for PFAS exposure, said Anne Sedlack with the Maine Medical Association.
The Maine Legislature is taking up two proposals to carve out exceptions for the state’s ban on products containing intentionally added forever chemicals.
“Cookware containing specific FDA-approved fluoropolymers should not be subject to an overly broad ban,” said Sen. Jeff Timberlake (R-Androscoggin), when introducing LD 827, which would modify the pending ban on cookware containing PFAS.
The bill would not eliminate the prohibition set to take effect in January 2026, but amend it to allow for certain cookware containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS, that are authorized for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration such as nonstick pans. Though critics pointed out there are plenty of PFAS-free alternatives including cast iron and stainless steel.
In addition to Timberlake’s bill, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee held a public hearing Monday for LD 987, which would expand an exemption to heavy machinery and other equipment used by the farming, forestry and construction industries. These products will not be subject to the state’s ban until 2032 or later.
Kerri Farris, who manages the Department of Environmental Protection’s Safer Chemicals Program, said the language in both bills is broad and counterproductive to the legislative intent behind the product ban.
Sen. Brad Farrin (R-Somerset), who introduced the farm equipment carve-out, said his bill could be amended to take a simpler approach than what’s laid out in the current language.
Testifying against both proposals, Farris said the department is in the process of developing rules to implement the ban, which will further clarify what products will be included.
Multiple lawmakers who testified in opposition to the bills, including Sen. Henry Ingwersen (D-York), who sponsored several bills regulating the toxic chemicals as well as legislation last session that led to certain exemptions, said passing new exclusions would delay rulemaking and thus implementation of the products ban.
The environment committee spent two years working on Ingwersen’s bill to amend the PFAS products law. The cookware industry didn’t ask for an exemption during those discussions and the farm sector showed up on the last day of a well-reported, multi-year discussion, Ingwersen said in his testimony Monday.
Many people who spoke against the bills also pointed out that state law already includes a process for industries to seek permission to keep using certain products through what’s called a Currently Unavoidable Use exemption.
While environmental and public health advocacy groups were disapproving of the bills, organizations from the farming, forestry and cookware industries, as well as the Maine State Chamber of Commerce, testified in support.
Representatives from the cookware industry argued the PFAS used in the cookware outlined in LD 827 do not pose the same public health and safety risks that perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances do.
They also argued that prohibiting this sort of cookware would harm small businesses that currently sell those products. Committee co-chair Sen. Denise Tepler (D-Sagadahoc) said this argument reminded her of the tobacco industry citing worries about hurting businesses who sell products that pose a public health risk.
However, the Cookware Sustainability Alliance said its argument differed because the PFAS contained in the specific cookware that would be exempt under LD 827 is different from the variations that can cause serious long-term health complications including cancer.
Proponents of the bill also repeatedly pointed out that the FDA has not restricted use of this type of cookware. To this point, Tepler asked a representative from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers if they believe the FDA is always on the cutting edge of understanding the dangers posed to consumers.
Though they argued that is the role of the FDA, opponents of the bill pointed out many instances where the federal agency has allowed the use of certain products known to pose health risks, such as red dye 3 which was banned earlier this year.
“We cannot wait for the FDA,” said Rep. Lori Gramlich (D-Old Orchard Beach), who sponsored the original legislation creating the PFAS products ban law.
Though the products in question may be considered safe under “normal use” conditions, many consumers don’t use them this way. Using too high of heat, abrasive cleaners or other materials that cause the nonstick coating to chip can increase the risk for PFAS exposure, said Anne Sedlack, in testimony against LD 827 on behalf of the Maine Medical Association.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.