Concerns over the safety of fluoropolymers prompted Illinois lawmakers to drop two product categories from legislation aimed at restricting the use of PFAS, one of the bill’s co-sponsors has said.
The carveout for cookware and food packaging highlights how the debate over fluoropolymers – such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) – and their use in certain products has impacted PFAS legislation across US states (see box).
Lawmakers approved the bill (HB 2516) at the end of May. If enacted, it would amend the state’s PFAS Reduction Act to ban the sale of products containing intentionally added PFAS in five sectors, including intimate apparel. The restrictions would take effect in 2032.
However, prior to its passage, the bill was amended to extend the prohibition’s effective date by six years, and to remove two categories from the ban: cookware and food packaging. In its place, language was added requiring the state’s EPA to submit a report to the General Assembly by 1 August 2027, assessing "certain fluoropolymers used in consumer products and their potential threat to human health and the environment".
The changes were made "because industry and environmental organisations did not agree" on the safety profile of fluoropolymers used in these products, according to the office of bill co-sponsor Abdelnasser Rashid (D).
Industry groups have said fluoropolymers should be treated differently from other PFAS chemistries because they are inert, water-insoluble, and do not bioaccumulate. But studies have found that fluoropolymer production may generate PFAS of greater concern, and some scientists have urged governments to limit their use to essential applications.
'Ensure we get it right'
Rashid’s office told Chemical Watch News & Insight that the bill’s final language was a "compromise" struck between the two factions. The bill’s requirement for a report on the PFAS subgroup, they said, would allow the state’s EPA to "study how it can proactively identify whether PFAS fluoropolymers are safe for use" in cookware and food packaging.
Since HB 2516 would not take effect until 2032, "there is still time to consider these categories based on the findings of the IEPA", the office added. Depending on the findings, lawmakers may consider updating the state’s PFAS restrictions again in 2028.
Senator Sara Feigenholtz (D), one of HB 2516’s co-sponsors, said the bill’s amendment gave lawmakers "an opportunity to ensure we get it right and manufacturers time to make the transition".
The Cookware Sustainability Alliance (CSA), which advocated for the carveout, said fluoropolymers such as PTFE – used in non-stick cookware – are not the same as other PFAS.
"Regulatory bodies around the world recognise this, as do several states, which have recently begun to either exclude cookware specifically, or fluoropolymers more generally, from their PFAS product ban legislation," the CSA said.
Ongoing debate
The Illinois bill is the latest to debate whether and how to incorporate the PFAS sub-class.
In January, the CSA sued Minnesota over the state’s prohibition on cookware containing intentionally added PFAS as part of Amara’s Law. Simultaneous to its lawsuit, the trade group urged regulators to exempt non-stick cookware, citing the ‘low-risk profile’ of fluoropolymer substances.
In April, New Mexico enacted its own sweeping PFAS restriction law, but included an exemption for products containing fluoropolymers. Industry praised the move as a reflection of how widely fluoropolymers are used and their safety profile, while NGOs labelled it "problematic".
More recently, California’s Senate also approved a bill (SB 682) to ban PFAS in six product categories in the state by 2027. The Senate’s approval earlier this month followed debate over whether to add an exemption for products containing fluoropolymers.
The Senate opted not to include such an exemption in its bill. SB 682 does include language to define the substance class as any PFAS that is "water soluble, may decompose into PFAS that is water soluble, or may release PFAS that is water soluble", but that is likely to change as the State Assembly debates the bill.