233
Gavin Newsom’s veto on bill to ban Pfas hands industry a win, advocates fear
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2025
233 points (97.9% liked)
News
36086 readers
2957 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't know enough about the risks to confidently say whether or not a ban is a good idea. (But what I do know leads me to keep using nonstick pans.) However, what jumped out at me in this article was this:
People freely choose whether or not to use nonstick pans, so how can passing a ban possibly represent constituents even in principle? A law regulating the negative externalities of pollution makes sense as something that constituents might want, but is the concern here really about the harm done to one person by a different person in a different house using nonstick cookware? It seems to me that laws like this are about protecting constituents from themselves, which is often justifiable but not really representative.
(A ban on pfas in other contexts where people don't expect to find it does make sense as something that could represent constituents.)
I hate to break it to you but PFAs are in a lot more than just nonstick pans. They're on literally anything that might be a tad bit on the non stick side such as dental floss or the cardboard under store bought cakes. They're on nearly all water resistant products such as shoes, rain coats, and camping gear. They're used as a fire retardant which means if you live near an airport, military base, or fire training facility your water supply is likely full of them. And even after all of this, we know that the factories that make and utilize these coatings don't tend to dispose of them properly and taint the water supply in nearby areas. And if that wasn't enough, these bonds have been found in water supplies and even rainwater around the world because they don't break down easily.
TLDR: PFAs are in loads of products you may not expect, have proliferated worldwide water supplies, and don't break down easily. This is about far more than nonstick pans and people don't have a say in being exposed to them.
Yes, but the controversy (and Newsom's stated justification for his veto) seems to be primarily related to the ban on nonstick pans.
"they're trying to ban non-stick pans" is the same type of distraction as "they're trying to ban gas stoves".
It's an attempt to reframe curbs on pollution as attacks on personal freedoms.