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
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
California petitions FDA to undo RFK Jr.'s new limits on abortion pill mifepristone
California and three other states petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Thursday to ease its new restrictions on the abortion pill mifepristone, citing the drug's proven safety record and arguing the new limits are unnecessary. "The medication is a lifeline for millions of women who need access to time-sensitive, critical healthcare — especially low-income women and those who live in rural and underserved areas," said California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who filed the petition alongside the attorneys general of Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey. The petition cites Senate testimony by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. last month, in which Kennedy said he had ordered FDA administrator Martin Makary to conduct a "complete review" of mifepristone and its labeling requirements. The drug, which can be received by mail, has been on the U.S. market for 25 years and taken safely by millions of Americans, according to experts. It is the most common method of terminating a pregnancy in the U.S., with its use surging after the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade in 2022. The Supreme Court upheld access to the drug for early pregnancies under previous FDA regulations last year, but it has remained a target of anti-abortion conservatives. The Trump administration has given Kennedy broad rein to shake up American medicine under his "Make America Healthy Again" banner, and Kennedy has swiftly rankled medical experts by using dubious science — and even fake citations — to question vaccine regimens and research and other longstanding public health measures. Read more: Hiltzik: MAHA report's misrepresentations will harm public health and hit consumers' pocketbooks At the Senate hearing, Kennedy cited "new data" from a flawed report pushed by anti-abortion groups — and not published in any peer-reviewed journal — to question the safety of mifepristone, calling the report "alarming." "Clearly, it indicates that, at very least, the label should be changed," Kennedy said. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) on Monday posted a letter from Makary to X, in which Makary wrote that he was "committed to conducting a review of mifepristone" alongside "the professional career scientists" at the FDA. Makary said he could not provide additional information given ongoing litigation around the drug. The states, in their 54-page petition, wrote that "no new scientific data has emerged since the FDA's last regulatory actions that would alter the conclusion that mifepristone remains exceptionally safe and effective," and that studies "that have frequently been cited to undermine mifepristone's extensive safety record have been widely criticized, retracted, or both." Democrats have derided Kennedy's efforts to reclassify mifepristone as politically motivated and baseless. "This is yet another attack on women's reproductive freedom and scientifically-reviewed health care," Gov. Gavin Newsom said the day after Kennedy's Senate testimony. "California will continue to protect every person's right to make their own medical decisions and help ensure that Mifepristone is available to those who need it." Bonta said Thursday that mifepristone's placement under the FDA's Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program for drugs with known, serious side effects — or REMS — was "medically unjustified," unduly burdened patient access and placed "undue strain on the nation's entire health system." He said mifepristone "allows people to get reproductive care as early as possible when it is safest, least expensive, and least invasive," is "so safe that it presents lower risks of serious complications than taking Tylenol," and that its long safety record "is backed by science and cannot be erased at the whim of the Trump Administration." Read more: Q&A: The FDA says the abortion pill mifepristone is safe. Here's the evidence The FDA has previously said that fewer than 0.5% of women who take the drug experience 'serious adverse reactions,' and deaths are exceedingly rare. The REMS program requires prescribers to add their names to national and local abortion provider lists, which can be a deterrent for doctors given safety threats, and pharmacies to comply with complex tracking, shipping and reporting requirements, which can be a deterrent to carrying the drug, Bonta said. It also requires patients to sign forms in which they attest to wanting to "end [their] pregnancy," which Bonta said can be a deterrent for women using the drug after a miscarriage — one of its common uses — or for those in states pursuing criminal penalties for women seeking certain abortion care. Under federal law, REMS requirements must address a specific risk posed by a drug and cannot be "unduly burdensome" on patients, and the new application to mifepristone "fails to meet that standard," Bonta said. The states' petition is not a lawsuit, but a regulatory request for the FDA to reverse course, the states said. If the FDA will not do so nationwide, the four petitioning states asked that it "exercise its discretion to not enforce the requirements" in their states, which Bonta's office said already have "robust state laws that ensure safe prescribing, rigorous informed consent, and professional accountability." Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
3 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
California petitions FDA to undo RFK Jr.'s new limits on abortion pill mifepristone
California and three other states petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Thursday to ease its new restrictions on the abortion pill mifepristone, citing the drug's proven safety record and arguing the new limits are unnecessary. 'The medication is a lifeline for millions of women who need access to time-sensitive, critical healthcare — especially low-income women and those who live in rural and underserved areas,' said California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who filed the petition alongside the attorneys general of Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey. The petition cites Senate testimony by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. last month, in which Kennedy said he had ordered FDA administrator Martin Makary to conduct a 'complete review' of mifepristone and its labeling requirements. The drug, which can be received by mail, has been on the U.S. market for 25 years and taken safely by millions of Americans, according to experts. It is the most common method of terminating a pregnancy in the U.S., with its use surging after the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade in 2022. The Supreme Court upheld access to the drug for early pregnancies under previous FDA regulations last year, but it has remained a target of anti-abortion conservatives. The Trump administration has given Kennedy broad rein to shake up American medicine under his 'Make America Healthy Again' banner, and Kennedy has swiftly rankled medical experts by using dubious science — and even fake citations — to question vaccine regimens and research and other longstanding public health measures. At the Senate hearing, Kennedy cited 'new data' from a flawed report pushed by anti-abortion groups — and not published in any peer-reviewed journal — to question the safety of mifepristone, calling the report 'alarming.' 'Clearly, it indicates that, at very least, the label should be changed,' Kennedy said. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) on Monday posted a letter from Makary to X, in which Makary wrote that he was 'committed to conducting a review of mifepristone' alongside 'the professional career scientists' at the FDA. Makary said he could not provide additional information given ongoing litigation around the drug. The states, in their 54-page petition, wrote that 'no new scientific data has emerged since the FDA's last regulatory actions that would alter the conclusion that mifepristone remains exceptionally safe and effective,' and that studies 'that have frequently been cited to undermine mifepristone's extensive safety record have been widely criticized, retracted, or both.' Democrats have derided Kennedy's efforts to reclassify mifepristone as politically motivated and baseless. 'This is yet another attack on women's reproductive freedom and scientifically-reviewed health care,' Gov. Gavin Newsom said the day after Kennedy's Senate testimony. 'California will continue to protect every person's right to make their own medical decisions and help ensure that Mifepristone is available to those who need it.' Bonta said Thursday that mifepristone's placement under the FDA's Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program for drugs with known, serious side effects — or REMS — was 'medically unjustified,' unduly burdened patient access and placed 'undue strain on the nation's entire health system.' He said mifepristone 'allows people to get reproductive care as early as possible when it is safest, least expensive, and least invasive,' is 'so safe that it presents lower risks of serious complications than taking Tylenol,' and that its long safety record 'is backed by science and cannot be erased at the whim of the Trump Administration.' The FDA has previously said that fewer than 0.5% of women who take the drug experience 'serious adverse reactions,' and deaths are exceedingly rare. The REMS program requires prescribers to add their names to national and local abortion provider lists, which can be a deterrent for doctors given safety threats, and pharmacies to comply with complex tracking, shipping and reporting requirements, which can be a deterrent to carrying the drug, Bonta said. It also requires patients to sign forms in which they attest to wanting to 'end [their] pregnancy,' which Bonta said can be a deterrent for women using the drug after a miscarriage — one of its common uses — or for those in states pursuing criminal penalties for women seeking certain abortion care. Under federal law, REMS requirements must address a specific risk posed by a drug and cannot be 'unduly burdensome' on patients, and the new application to mifepristone 'fails to meet that standard,' Bonta said. The states' petition is not a lawsuit, but a regulatory request for the FDA to reverse course, the states said. If the FDA will not do so nationwide, the four petitioning states asked that it 'exercise its discretion to not enforce the requirements' in their states, which Bonta's office said already have 'robust state laws that ensure safe prescribing, rigorous informed consent, and professional accountability.'
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
House passes bill overhauling cannabis laws, Cannabis Control Commission
Advertisement Frustration with the slow pace of regulatory changes, headline-grabbing internal conflicts at the CCC, and a plea from the inspector general for the Legislature to intervene at the 'rudderless agency' combined last summer to get lawmakers thinking more seriously about a response. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up House Speaker Ronald Mariano recounted Wednesday how he went to Donahue last year to say 'we're going to have to fix this.' He said Treasurer Deborah Goldberg's removal of CCC chairwoman Shannon O'Brien had been dragged into court by that point, a long-running saga that has shined a light on internal strife at the CCC. That directive to Donahue led to a series of hearings and conversations that resulted in the bill before the House on Wednesday. 'He did the work. You could talk to him, and he could explain the process. It got us where we thought we had to take it away from the treasurer,' Mariano said before yielding to Donahue to give a more thorough explanation of the House's thinking around accountability at the CCC. Advertisement Today, the CCC is a five-commissioner independent body, with appointments made singularly and jointly by the governor, attorney general and treasurer, with the treasurer selecting the chair. Under the House-approved bill, the CCC would be consolidated entirely under the governor. The state's executive would appoint all three commissioners and select one of them to serve as chair (who would be the only full-time commissioner). The CCC would be 'subject to the laws applicable to agencies under the control of the governor.' Asked what makes the CCC's existing model unworkable, Mariano said it was a structural problem but gave a conflicted explanation. 'It was created by a ballot question that had no rhyme or reason to it ... there was no accountability,' he said. The speaker, who started his scrum with reporters by raising the subject of 'legislation by referendum' and the trend of advocates going around a slow-moving Legislature to make laws at the statewide ballot, added, 'We've been railing against government by referendum, and this is a perfect example why it doesn't work.' The CCC's existing structure is largely modeled on the Gaming Commission, where five full-time members with specific areas of expertise are appointed by the governor, treasurer and attorney general. But Mariano claimed Wednesday that 'the problem is they weren't written by the same people.' 'The gaming stuff was written by House people,' he said. 'The people in the marketplace wrote this bill, and they weren't interested in controlling it, in making sure there was accountability up and down the line. As a matter of fact, this was a rush to get into the market. Everyone thought they were going to get rich.' Advertisement The Mariano, who was majority leader at the time, was the lead House negotiator on the 2017 law that structured the CCC. The structure that was put in place 'This is legislation by referendum, and this is the problem, no one really focused on the writing of the ballot question on how this would be administered. And when it hit, the public had no idea what the problems were going to be and where they were going to be,' Mariano said Wednesday. Last summer, Inspector General Jeffrey Shapiro's office Advertisement Mariano was not available to clarify his comments Wednesday afternoon, but a spokesperson sent a statement saying his 'main point was that the Legislature was responding to a law that was passed by a referendum, which created a new industry outside of the typical legislative process, forcing the Legislature to address a number of unknowns.' 'In order to safely and effectively carry out the will of the voters, the Legislature has been forced to revise the original language multiple times. The legislation that the House is voting on today is better because of what we have learned since 2016, and establishes a new structure, different from the one that the ballot initiative spelled out,' Mariano spokesperson Ana Vivas said. The bill the House passed Wednesday also seeks to address intoxicating hemp-based products that largely fall into a gray area of the law and between the regulatory cracks by banning their sale without a license and setting up a new framework to regulate and tax them. Hemp beverages could only be sold by retailers licensed by the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission to sell all alcohol and all hemp-based products would need to be registered with the CCC. 'This ban and accompanying regulatory structure will help provide guidance and clarity on hemp products, removing those which are unregulated, of unknown origin or composition, and too easily accessible to minors,' Donahue said Wednesday. The House bill adjusts the existing cap on retail licenses any one operator can hold. The current limit is three, and the House bill would raise the cap on retail licenses to six over a three-year period (increasing first to four, a year later to five and finally to six). Opponents of that idea have slammed it as a 'gift to corporate cannabis and a death sentence for local and social equity businesses.' The existing three-license caps would remain in place for cultivation and manufacturing. Advertisement On the medical side of the legal marijuana world, the bill eliminates the requirement that medical marijuana businesses be 'vertically integrated,' meaning they must grow and process all the marijuana they sell. Patients and advocates have been calling for that change for years, saying the medical-only options have become scarce across Massachusetts since cannabis was legalized for non-medical use.
