California Legislature Approves Ban on PFAS in Cookware and Other Products; Celebrity Chefs Urge Reconsideration

California lawmakers on Friday overwhelmingly approved legislation that would ban per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS or "forever chemicals," from cookware and a range of other consumer products. The bill, which targets products including nonstick cookware, cleaning supplies, dental floss, ski wax, food packaging and certain children's items, now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom's desk.

Supporters of the measure say it is a necessary step to reduce population and environmental exposure to a class of chemicals that are persistent, widely dispersed and linked by federal agencies to a range of adverse health outcomes. Critics — including a group of celebrity chefs who sell or endorse cookware that uses PFAS-related compounds — argue the bill's inclusion of polytetrafluoroethylene, or PTFE, could ban widely used nonstick cookware and disrupt products that industry and some federal agencies view as safe for food use.

The legislation seeks to restrict hundreds to thousands of specific PFAS chemicals, a diverse family of some 12,000 man-made substances that do not readily break down in the environment. Scott Belcher, a professor of environmental toxicology and director of North Carolina State University's Oceans and Human Health Center, described PFAS as "highly fluorinated, purely synthetic chemicals" with chemistries that did not exist before the mid-20th century. "That is partially why they're so difficult to break down and so challenging to remove," he said, adding that the California measure mirrors regulatory moves in the European Union.

A coalition of chefs including Rachael Ray, David Chang and Thomas Keller sent letters to state lawmakers urging a reconsideration of the bill, particularly its ban on PTFE, the substance that gives many pans their nonstick properties. Their statements, compiled and shared by the Cookware Sustainability Alliance — an organization created by major cookware manufacturers Groupe SEB and Meyer — argue that PTFE and related fluoropolymers are safe when manufactured and used responsibly and that the Food and Drug Administration authorizes their use with food.

"I respect and share the desire to protect Californians and our planet, but I urge you to look closely at the science before moving forward with legislation that could unintentionally do more harm than good," Ray wrote in the correspondence to legislators. Several chefs have commercial relationships with cookware companies: Ray markets her own cookware line, Chang has collaborated with Meyer on nonstick pans and woks, and Keller's cookware is produced by Hestan.

The Cookware Sustainability Alliance and other industry voices contend the ban would increase costs and eliminate options for consumers, and some proponents of the chefs' position note the same classes of fluoropolymers are used in certain medical devices. Environmental and public health groups counter that nonstick coatings can release harmful substances when heated to high temperatures and that manufacturing byproducts and components used in making the polymers can leach into the environment.

Federal agencies have documented widespread human exposure and potential health risks associated with PFAS. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says nearly all Americans have detectable PFAS levels in their blood. The Environmental Protection Agency has linked PFAS exposure to decreased fertility, high blood pressure during pregnancy, developmental delays in children, increased risk for some cancers, hormone disruption and reduced vaccine response. The CDC also notes that U.S. use of some PFAS has declined since 2002 and that certain blood levels have fallen for some people.

Public debate over the bill has been sharp and social-media heated. Actor and environmental activist Mark Ruffalo publicly criticized Rachael Ray on X for opposing the legislation, urging the cookbooks-and-television celebrity to prioritize getting toxic chemicals out of cookware.

Regulatory context complicates the dispute. The FDA has authorized certain fluoropolymers for contact with food, a point industry backers emphasize. At the same time, scientists and advocates stress that the PFAS family includes thousands of distinct chemicals with varying properties, and that long-term environmental persistence and evidence of harm have prompted governments worldwide to restrict or phase out some compounds. The European Union has moved toward broad restrictions on PFAS as part of a larger chemicals overhaul.

If Gov. Newsom signs the bill, the law would represent one of the most expansive state-level restrictions on PFAS in consumer products in the United States. Opponents have signaled plans to press for amendments or legal challenges to block or delay implementation, while proponents say the measure will protect public health and the environment from a class of pollutants that accumulates over time and resists degradation.

Lawmakers and advocates who supported the bill described it as filling a regulatory gap that has allowed PFAS to remain in everyday products despite mounting scientific evidence of harm. Industry representatives and the chefs argue that a ban on PTFE could remove effective, FDA-authorized nonstick options from the market, with possible unintended consequences for consumers and commercial cooking operations.

The California vote adds to a patchwork of U.S. state policies and federal efforts aimed at reducing PFAS exposure. The EPA has increased regulatory attention to PFAS in drinking water, and other states have enacted limits on specific PFAS in consumer goods. As the debate moves to the governor's office, Californians and national observers will watch whether the state finalizes the ban, how implementation rules are written, and whether legal and political challenges alter the measure's scope or timetable.