Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pfas Cookware Exemption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Industry seeks FDA-based exemption to Rhode Island PFAS cookware ban; advocates urge upholding 2024 law
Summary
Senate Bill 645 would allow limited PFAS use in cookware if and only if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the specific use; sponsors and industry testified in favor while environmental groups urged the committee to uphold the 2024 statewide PFAS ban.
Senator Palmer introduced Senate Bill 645, a narrowly focused measure that would permit two PFAS compounds in cookware if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves their use. Palmer said the bill would allow cookware uses only if FDA approval exists; if the FDA does not approve, the bill would not allow the substances.
The bill drew sharply contrasting testimony. Emily Howe, executive state director for Clean Water Action Rhode Island, urged the committee to oppose SB 645 and to “hold on to your convictions,” citing the unanimous 2024 Consumer PFAS Ban Act that prohibited intentional use of PFAS in many consumer products, including cookware. Howe cited cases from other states and a personal example involving contamination and illness in Minnesota to argue states should maintain strict limits rather than create exemptions.
Industry witnesses and trade groups told a different story. Kevin Messner of Groupe SEB, representing cookware manufacturers and the Cookware Sustainability Alliance, said fluoropolymers such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) are chemically distinct from short-chain PFAS that bioaccumulate and argued PTFE is inert, not water soluble and has been evaluated for decades. Brian Jordan of the American Chemistry Council said the trade group supports the legislation and is working on proposed amendments.
Clean Water Action’s New England Zero Waste organizer Amber Schmidt testified about community outreach and concerns that nonstick cookware has a short usable life, cannot be recycled, and eventually reaches landfills where PFAS can leach to the environment. Several senators, including Senator Coleman (sponsor of the 2024 Consumer PFAS Ban Act), signaled skepticism about rolling back provisions of last year’s law and said the committee should be cautious before changing the ban.
Committee members asked detailed questions about the chemical distinction industry witnesses drew between fluoropolymers used in nonstick coatings and other PFAS, about FDA review processes, and about the availability of non-PFAS cookware alternatives. Witnesses cited the American Cancer Society and international regulators in support of their positions.
No final committee vote on SB 645 was recorded in the hearing; committee members said they expect to consider technical amendments and further input before taking formal action.
