State PFAS cookware laws, explained (minus the legalese)

The map at a glance

Nine states, three flavors of rule. Dates come straight from the statutes or the state agencies. The details are further down.

Ban, label, report: three very different rules

California has one rule worth knowing even if you never shop there. A cookware maker can’t claim a pan is “free of” a chemical in a listed group unless that chemical wasn’t intentionally added. Consumer Reports reported in 2022 that the U.S. distributor of one PTFE pan planned to drop its “PFOA-free” claim to comply.^7,14 More on reading those words in our label decoder.

What a ban doesn’t promise

A ban is a rule about what makers may add on purpose. It isn’t a lab test of the pan in your cart.

• It’s about intent. Minnesota defines “intentionally added” as PFAS put in on purpose, where the PFAS is meant to stay in the product and do a job.¹ Maine and Colorado also write their bans around intentionally added PFAS.^3,4
• Testing happens on request. In Minnesota, a maker has to send test results only when the state has reason to suspect a product and asks for them.¹ No law we read requires a public test report for every pan.
• Some parts are carved out. Minnesota’s 2025 ban skips PFAS used only in electronic or internal components. Those wait for the state’s broader 2032 ban.^1,2
• Secondhand is exempt. Minnesota, Maine and Vermont don’t apply their cookware rules to used products.^1,3,5
• Stores get some slack. Maine’s ban doesn’t apply to a retailer unless that retailer has been notified that a product is prohibited.³
• “PFAS-free” is still the seller’s word. There are thousands of PFAS, and most lab tests look for fewer than a hundred.¹⁴ A state ban doesn’t change that math.

How to use this at the checkout

• Treat “compliant with state PFAS laws” as a starting point. It says how the pan was made, not what a lab found.
• Still ask for the coating’s name. A named coating (or no coating at all) tells you more than a legal badge does. See what “PFAS-free” cookware actually means.
• Ask for the test, if there is one: who tested, which method, which PFAS, which product and when.
• Buying used or vintage? Bans don’t cover secondhand pans in the states that exempt them, so old coated pans are a separate question.^1,3,5
• Building a registry? Go material-first. Our kitchen registry guide shows how.

State by state: the fine print

Want the exact wording? Open a state. Every row comes from the statute or the state agency page cited.

See the evidence: Minnesota

• Ban: beginning January 1, 2025, no one may sell, offer for sale or distribute for sale cookware that contains intentionally added PFAS.¹
• What counts as cookware: durable houseware items used to prepare, dispense or store food, foodstuffs or beverages, including pots, pans, skillets, grills, baking sheets, baking molds, trays, bowls and cooking utensils.¹
• Carve-out: the 2025 ban doesn’t cover products with intentionally added PFAS only in electronic or internal components.¹ MPCA says those products fall under the 2032 prohibition unless a rule finds the use “currently unavoidable.”²
• Teflon: MPCA says PTFE, sold under the Teflon™ name, is a PFAS and “will be prohibited from use in cookware.”²
• Testing: if the state has reason to believe a product contains intentionally added PFAS, it can direct the maker to provide test results within 30 days. A maker whose testing shows no intentionally added PFAS must give the state a certificate saying so.¹
• Exempt: the sale or resale of used products.¹

See the evidence: Maine

• Ban: effective January 1, 2026, no one may sell, offer for sale or distribute for sale a cookware product containing intentionally added PFAS.³
• Definitions: “intentionally added PFAS” covers PFAS added to give a specific characteristic, appearance or quality or to perform a function, and also includes degradation by-products.³
• Packaging: the ban also reaches covered products sold in fluorinated containers or containers that otherwise contain intentionally added PFAS.³
• Exempt or limited: products sold in used condition; retailers, unless they’ve been notified that a product is prohibited.³

See the evidence: Colorado

• Ban: on and after January 1, 2026, no one may sell, offer for sale, distribute for sale or distribute for use in the state cookware that contains intentionally added PFAS chemicals.⁴
• Commercial kitchens: “cookware” excludes food equipment intended primarily for commercial settings. Starting January 1, 2028, a separate ban covers commercial food equipment that comes into direct contact with food.⁴

See the evidence: Vermont

• Ban (manufacturers): a manufacturer may not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, distribute for sale or distribute for use in Vermont cookware to which PFAS have been intentionally added “in any amount.” The statute marks the cookware item as effective July 1, 2028.⁵
• Why 2028: the 2024 law (Act 131) set January 1, 2026. Act 54 of 2025 moved the cookware provision to July 1, 2028.⁶
• Definition: Vermont’s cookware definition covers items “intended for direct food contact.” Act 54 says a processing agent, mold release agent or intermediate counts as intentional when PFAS are detected in the final product.⁶
• Exempt: products previously used by a consumer for their intended purpose.⁵

See the evidence: California

• Disclosure: under AB 1200, a cookware maker that intentionally includes a chemical from the state’s “designated list” in the handle or any food-contact surface must list it on the product website (from January 1, 2023) and on the label (from January 1, 2024).⁷ The Attorney General’s advisory says that list “includes many PFAS compounds.”⁷
• “Free of” claims: a maker may not claim a pan is free of a specific chemical in a listed group or class unless that chemical wasn’t intentionally added.⁷
• No ban: SB 682 would have banned cookware with intentionally added PFAS beginning January 1, 2030. The Governor vetoed it on October 13, 2025, citing the effect on “affordable options in cooking products,” and the Senate record shows “Veto sustained” on March 2, 2026.⁸

See the evidence: Washington

• Reporting, not a ban: manufacturers must notify the state Department of Ecology when cookware and kitchen supplies contain intentionally added PFAS. The requirement took effect January 1, 2026, with the first notice due January 31, 2027 and every January 31 after that.⁹
• Scope: it doesn’t cover disposable or single-use items, internal parts that don’t touch food, or products made before January 1, 2026.⁹
• Fluorine screen: Ecology presumes that total fluorine above 50 ppm means PFAS were intentionally added, and a maker can rebut that with evidence.⁹ The FDA notes that total fluorine tests can’t tell PFAS apart from other fluorine-containing substances.¹⁵
• Online sales: Ecology says its rule covers products sold online by direct-to-consumer retailers shipping to Washington.¹⁰

See the evidence: Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Mexico

• Connecticut: from July 1, 2026, cookware with intentionally added PFAS can’t be sold unless the maker has notified the state in advance and the product is labeled. The label must tell buyers PFAS is present. From January 1, 2028, the sale of such cookware is banned.¹¹ Connecticut’s cookware definition also names plates and cutlery.¹¹
• Rhode Island: the state environmental agency lists cookware among products barred from January 1, 2027 if they contain intentionally added PFAS.¹² It says electric PFAS-coated pans are covered, and so is an air fryer, rice cooker or microwave part such as a basket, tray or grill pan with intentionally added PFAS on the food-contact surface. An appliance with PFAS only in its electronics is excluded.¹²
• New Mexico: the state Environment Department says cookware is among the products banned from January 1, 2027, and that manufacturers must also start reporting PFAS content by 2027.¹³

What we don’t know

• How the bans are enforced. We found no public list of the pans states have checked, pulled or certified.
• Other states. We read these nine states only. Others may have passed or proposed their own rules.
• Colorado’s current code. We read the signed 2024 act, not the current codified statute.⁴
• Rhode Island and New Mexico wording. We relied on agency summaries, not the statutes or New Mexico’s 2026 rule.^12,13
• Whether Washington’s reports will be public, and in what form.
• Any single pan. A law can’t tell you what’s in a specific product. Only a disclosed coating or a published test can, and even tests have limits.¹⁴