Lawmakers weigh bills to exclude nonstick pans, farm equipment from PFAS product ban
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.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
4 hours ago
- Newsweek
How Animal Testing in US Could Be Transformed Under Trump
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Millions of animals each year are killed in U.S. laboratories as part of medical training and chemical, food, drug and cosmetic testing, according to the non-profit animal rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). For many animals held captive for research, including a huge range of species from dogs, cats and hamsters to elephants, dolphins and many other species, pain is "not minimized," U.S. Department of Agriculture data shows. The issue of animal testing is something most Americans agree on: it needs to change and gradually be stopped. A Morning Consult poll conducted at the end of last year found that 80 percent of the 2,205 participants either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: "The US government should commit to a plan to phase out experiments on animals." Since President Donald Trump began his second term, his administration has been making moves to transform and reduce animal testing in country, although the question remains as to whether it will be enough to spare many more animals from pain and suffering this year. Animal Testing In US Could Be Transformed Animal Testing In US Could Be Transformed Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva What Is The Trump Administration Doing About It? There have been various steps taken in different federal agencies to tackle the issue of animal testing since Trump was sworn in on January 20. In April, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it was "taking a groundbreaking step to advance public health by replacing animal testing in the development of monoclonal antibody therapies and other drugs with more effective, human-relevant methods." The FDA said that its animal testing requirement will be "reduced, refined, or potentially replaced" with a range of approaches, including artificial intelligence-based models, known as New Approach Methodologies or NAMs data. A Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) official told Newsweek: "The agency is paving the way for faster, safer, and more cost-effective treatments for American patients. "As we restore the agency's commitment to gold-standard science and integrity, this shift will help accelerate cures, lower drug prices, and reaffirm U.S. leadership in ethical, modern science." The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced it was "adopting a new initiative to expand innovative, human-based science while reducing animal use in research," in alignment with the FDA's initiative. The agency said that while "traditional animal models continue to be vital to advancing scientific knowledge," new and emerging technologies could act as alternative methods, either alone or in combination with animal models. The NIH Office of Extramural Research told Newsweek it was "committed to transparently assessing where animal use can be reduced or eliminated by transitioning to [new approach methodologies (NAMs)]." "Areas where research using animals is currently necessary represent high-priority opportunities for investment in NAMs," the agency added. It added that it will "further its efforts to coordinate agency-wide efforts to develop, validate, and scale the use of NAMs across the agency's biomedical research portfolio and facilitate interagency coordination and regulatory translation for public health protection." During Trump's first term, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed a directive to "prioritize efforts to reduce animal testing and committed to reducing testing on mammals by 30 percent by 2025 and to eliminate it completely by 2035," an EPA spokesperson told Newsweek. Although, the spokesperson added: "the Biden Administration halted progress on these efforts by delaying compliance deadlines." As a member of the House, Lee Zeldin, the EPA's current administrator, co-sponsored various bills during Trump's first term regarding animal cruelty, covering issues such as phasing out animal-based testing for cosmetic products; ending taxpayer funding for painful experiments on dogs at the Department of Veteran Affairs; empowering federal law enforcement to prosecute animal abuse cases that cross state lines; and others, the spokesperson said. What The Experts Think Needs To Be Done The Trump administration's efforts to tackle the issue of animal testing appear to be a step in the right direction, according to experts who spoke with Newsweek. "I was pleasantly surprised and quite frankly a bit shocked to read the simultaneous announcements by the NIH and the FDA regarding a new emphasis on the use of alternatives to animals," Jeffrey Morgan, a professor of pathology and laboratory medicine at Brown University in Rhode Island, told Newsweek. Morgan, who is also the director of the Center for Alternatives to Animals in Testing at Brown University, said that both agencies are moving together in the same direction on the issue "sends a unified and very powerful message to the research and biotech communities." He added that the announcements showed "a major acknowledgement of the limitations of the use of animals in research and testing." "What is especially exciting is that the NIH announcement will encourage the entry of new investigators into the field, further accelerating innovation in alternatives with exciting impacts for both discovery and applied research across all diseases," he said. He added that the FDA announcement and its emphasis on a new regulatory science that embraces data from alternatives was "equally exciting." "The demands of this new regulatory science will likewise accelerate innovation because it will establish the much-needed regulatory framework for the rigorous evaluation of data from alternatives," he said. While the administration's initiatives to shift research away from animal testing is heading in the right direction, its policies are "overdue," Dr. Thomas Hartung, a professor in the department of environmental health and engineering at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Maryland, told Newsweek. "The animal tests for safety were introduced more than 50 years ago. There is no other area of science where we do not adapt to scientific progress," he said. Hartung added that animal "testing takes too long and is too expensive to really provide the safety consumers want." He said that running animal tests for new chemicals can cost millions and take years in some cases. "Nobody can wait that long, even if they can afford the testing costs," he said. Hartung also believes the shifts in the industry to reduce animal testing have been "coming for a while," as over the last two decades, America's opposition to animal use in medical research has been increasing. "The alignment of FDA and NIH really makes the difference now, which I think is evidence of a strong relationship of their leaderships," he said. Yet in order to make a real difference, Hartung said clear deadlines are key to show that "this is not just lip service." He also said that he thought "the transformative nature of artificial intelligence in this field is not fully acknowledged." "We also need an objective framework for change to better science, such as the evidence-based toxicology approach," he said.
Boston Globe
14 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court allows vape companies to pick courts to hear challenges
Advertisement Liberal Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the opinion, which sent the case back to a lower court for more proceedings. Jackson wrote that the majority's opinion allows Reynolds to make an 'end run around … venue restrictions.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The FDA had told the justices that R.J. Reynolds and other electronic cigarette manufacturers were gaming court system rules by filing the vast majority of product-denial appeals in the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, based in New Orleans, even though they were based in other appeals court circuits. The tactic was hindering the FDA's ability to regulate vapes that are used by hundreds of thousands of teenagers, the agency said. In the case before the justices, the 5th Circuit — widely seen as more sympathetic to the companies' arguments than other circuits — overturned the FDA's denial of an R.J. Reynolds application. Advertisement The electronic cigarette ruling was one of six decisions issued Friday, with at least a week left in the Supreme Court's term. Ten decisions remain, including cases involving the legality of age-verification laws to access online pornography and nationwide court orders blocking President Trump's ban on birthright citizenship. In addition to the vape decision, the Supreme Court on Friday revived lawsuits brought by US victims of terrorist attacks in Israel against the Palestine Liberation Organization. The opinion, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., upheld a 2019 federal law passed in response to attacks that allows Americans to sue. The court said that law does not violate the rights of the PLO. In a 7-2 decision, the justices also cleared the way for fuel producers to sue the Environmental Protection Agency over California's stricter standards for vehicle emissions. California's efforts are already in flux after being targeted by Trump and Republicans in Congress. Under the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, manufacturers must get FDA approval to sell some existing products, as well as new products, that are marketed in more than one state. The Vuse line of menthol vapes are the ones in question in the R.J. Reynolds case. Ryan J. Watson, who is representing R.J. Reynolds, told the justices at oral arguments that the company was permitted to file a challenge in the 5th Circuit because the act allows 'any person adversely affected' by a denial to file a challenge in the District of Columbia Circuit or the 'circuit in which such person resides or has their principal place of business.' Advertisement R.J. Reynolds partnered with a Texas vape store and the Mississippi Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores Association to bring the challenge to the FDA ruling. The 5th Circuit covers Texas and Mississippi, while R.J. Reynolds is in the 4th Circuit. Vivek Suri, an assistant to the solicitor general, arguing on behalf of the government, said Congress never meant for retailers or their representatives, rather than manufacturers, to be parties to such litigation when it passed the act. He pointed out that retailers aren't notified when the FDA rejects manufacturers' applications to market vaping products and said the tactic defeats the venue restrictions laid out in the law. But the Supreme Court said Friday it has long established a broad interpretation of what it means to be adversely affected by a law, including in the category anyone even 'arguably within the zone of interests' that the statute regulates. Vape industry groups applauded the ruling. Watson, the attorney for R.J. Reynolds, said the court 'recognized that federal agency action can have downstream effects that can be devastating for parties that are not the most direct target of the agency's action.' The ruling ensures that 'the courthouse doors are not closed for those adversely affected parties,' he said. Yolonda C. Richardson, president and CEO of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said the decision will bolster efforts to market addictive products to young people. The ruling 'gives e-cigarette manufacturers an open invitation to forum-shop for friendly courts in their relentless quest to lure and addict kids with flavored, nicotine-loaded products,' she said. In her dissent to Friday's ruling, Jackson noted that two other appeals courts had rejected similar challenges filed by other manufacturers of flavored electronic cigarettes before R.J. Reynolds filed its appeal to the 5th Circuit. Advertisement 'It thus became (perhaps) imperative from RJR Vapor's perspective that its own lawsuit challenging the FDA's denial of its flavored e-cigarette marketing applications be filed somewhere else,' Jackson wrote.
CNBC
20 hours ago
- CNBC
Healthy Returns: What to know about the FDA's plan to speed up some drug reviews
The Food and Drug Administration proposed a dramatic expansion of its power to speed up drug reviews. The agency on Tuesday announced a new national priority voucher plan that aims to cut drug review times to one-to-two months for companies it says are supporting "U.S. national interests." Currently, the FDA has a deadline of 10 months after a company files a drug application to make an approval decision. That review period is shortened to six months if a company has been granted a priority review. "The ultimate goal is to bring more cures and meaningful treatments to the American public," FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said in a release. The new voucher program is different from the FDA's existing efforts to speed up review processes. The plan is designed for companies to submit "the lion's share" of a drug application to the agency even before they have final results from a pivotal clinical trial, a process that Makary said would reduce inefficiencies. The FDA may also grant an accelerated approval to products in the new voucher program, which will include "enhanced" communication with companies while their application is under review. The agency said it may extend the review period if the application is particularly complex or if there is insufficient information to support it. In the first year of the program, the FDA plans to give a limited number of vouchers to companies aligned with what it called "national health priorities." That includes addressing a health crisis in the U.S., delivering "more innovative cures" to Americans, addressing unmet public health needs and "increasing domestic drug manufacturing as a national security issue." The criteria come as the Trump administration encourages the pharmaceutical industry to reshore drug manufacturing through executive orders and potential tariffs on medicines imported into the U.S. In a note on Tuesday, Jefferies analyst Michael Yee said the criteria are broad but appear to be positive for the pharmaceutical industry. The program could be more effective than tariffs at encouraging drugmakers to bring their manufacturing to the U.S. But questions remain about the risks of speeding up drug reviews to as little as 30 days – the fastest the FDA has ever done. Another potential concern is whether the vouchers will be offered to political allies of the Trump administration, which could include companies that the FDA staff would normally scrutinize. We'll be looking out for more information on the new plan, so stay tuned. Feel free to send any tips, suggestions, story ideas and data to Annika at Virtual mental health startup Headspace announced a new direct-to-consumer therapy service this week called Therapy by Headspace. It's new territory for the company, which has spent the last decade selling its product to employers and health plans. The new service is available to more than 90 million Americans through Headspace's 45 in-network partnerships with insurers, including UnitedHealthcare, Cigna and Blue Cross Blue Shield. "Headspace now can be your mental health companion, be there for the everyday, whether you need help with sleep, stress, anxiety or you need access to a therapist," Headspace CEO Tom Pickett told CNBC in New York City on Wednesday. "We've got it all, and we've got it in an insurance-backed way, so that we can hopefully make this really inexpensive for you." Pickett, who took on the chief executive role in August, said the new Therapy by Headspace service is part of his vision to round out the company's consumer offerings. Therapy by Headspace users can access one-on-one video sessions with licensed therapists, and most covered members will pay between $0 and $35 per session. If a user's insurance does not cover the offering, they have the option to pay $149 per session out of pocket. Headspace said it plans to add more in-network partners over time. Users will also get three months of access to the sleep, meditation and stress exercises on the Headspace app, as well as Ebb, an artificial intelligence chatbot that can converse and direct people to the best available content. Over time, Ebb will also help generate personalized care plans for each member, Headspace said. "We have not been fully serving the audience that we have, and so launching therapy to consumers made a lot of sense," Pickett said. Headspace, founded in 2010, has raised a total of more than $350 million from investors like Khosla Ventures, Kaiser Permanente Ventures and Cigna Ventures, according to PitchBook. Pickett said Headspace is "running neutral" and in "a very healthy economic position right now." In the near term, the company isn't looking to raise more capital, and is instead focused on building out its offerings and inking new partnerships. "The ultimate goal is really to become the 'Easy Button' in mental health," Pickett said. Feel free to send any tips, suggestions, story ideas and data to Ashley at
