4 ms·

What are you talking about? You can ban the sale of products containing PFAS, not just their local manufacture. If you wanted, you could levy fines like 5-10%

What are you talking about? You can ban the sale of products containing PFAS, not just their local manufacture. If you wanted, you could levy fines like 5-10% of gross annual revenue for any company or marketplace or retailer found distributing product containing PFAS. You don't have to agree it's feasible or worth it, but it's possible.

AlanSE 3y ago
Maybe get rid of them in clothes and personal care products at least?
logifail 3y ago
> You can ban the sale of products containing PFAS [...] "Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large, complex group of synthetic chemicals that have been used in consumer products around the world since about the 1950s. They are ingredients in various everyday products. For example, PFAS are used to keep food from sticking to packaging or cookware, make clothes and carpets resistant to stains, and create firefighting foam that is more effective."[0] Should we ban those uses, outright? Q: What do you suggest we use instead? [0] https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/pfc/index.cfm https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/pfc/index.cfm
- ipaddr 3y ago
  Yes ban them. The cookware usage is unnecessary and hard to purchase without. Clothes get replaced so often that stains are not and issue worth dying over. Carpets usage is down. Firefighting foam that is more effective sounds good until the other choice is poisoning firefighters for slightly more effectiveness.
  - logifail 3y ago
    > The cookware usage is unnecessary and hard to purchase without Q: If the first part of that statement is true then why is the second part of that statement true? I would suggest that nonstick cookware is popular because consumers like it ... because "it works". If there were an alternative that was as good then it would be readily available and frequently sold.
    - Dah00n 3y ago
      Because it is either more expensive or require retooling. Greed, profit, the same reasons as always.
      - katbyte 3y ago
        it also comes with an expiry date and will need to be replaced once the coating wears off. stainless steel cookware (or cast iron if taken care of) will last forever
        Dah00n 3y ago
        Yes, I never touch products like Teflon. Why these are not illegal is beyond me.
    - duped 3y ago
      There once was a miracle material that came from an abundant resource, was extremely cheap to manufacture in a variety of forms, was extremely light, and had incredible properties that made it perfect for both industrial and consumer uses. It had one small issue though, which was that it was hard to dispose of. It was so good, for its purpose it was pretty much the only material you could buy to do its job for a long time. That material is called asbestos. It turned out to be so hard to work with that it gave millions of people cancer, even though it's pretty much the perfect insulator when left alone. --- Non-stick cookware is not nearly as bad as asbestos, but it's cheap and easy to use because it doesn't require maintenance like stainless steel, copper, or cast iron. It's not surprising that it's popular and the cheapest to make at scale since you don't need the surface of the material to be very good at all, if it's getting coated with teflon. There's the small problem that you've made a disposable product that probably won't get recycled and everyone who uses it will be eating small amounts of plastic everyday, but they'll thank you for the privilege.
      - katbyte 3y ago
        > doesn't require maintenance like stainless steel stainless steel cookware requires the least maintenance of all types imho and is near impossible to ruin/damage. The issue is its not non-stick and requires a bit more skill to cook with. Most people are too used to coated non-stick and how easy it makes cooking.
- matthewdgreen 3y ago
  We should absolutely ban the use of PFAS in applications where it isn't strictly necessary, like the (relatively recent) explosion of fast-food containers that are marginally more waterproof and/or cheaper because of it. This isn't even an interesting question. Use of PFAS in (airport) firefighting foam is a more complicated question, but that mostly illustrates that the question isn't well-formed.

AlanSE 3y ago

Maybe get rid of them in clothes and personal care products at least?

logifail 3y ago

> You can ban the sale of products containing PFAS [...] "Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large, complex group of synthetic chemicals that have been used in consumer products around the world since about the 1950s. They are ingredients in various everyday products. For example, PFAS are used to keep food from sticking to packaging or cookware, make clothes and carpets resistant to stains, and create firefighting foam that is more effective."[0] Should we ban those uses, outright? Q: What do you suggest we use instead? [0] https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/pfc/index.cfm https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/pfc/index.cfm

ipaddr 3y ago
Yes ban them. The cookware usage is unnecessary and hard to purchase without. Clothes get replaced so often that stains are not and issue worth dying over. Carpets usage is down. Firefighting foam that is more effective sounds good until the other choice is poisoning firefighters for slightly more effectiveness.
- logifail 3y ago
  > The cookware usage is unnecessary and hard to purchase without Q: If the first part of that statement is true then why is the second part of that statement true? I would suggest that nonstick cookware is popular because consumers like it ... because "it works". If there were an alternative that was as good then it would be readily available and frequently sold.
  - Dah00n 3y ago
    Because it is either more expensive or require retooling. Greed, profit, the same reasons as always.
    - katbyte 3y ago
      it also comes with an expiry date and will need to be replaced once the coating wears off. stainless steel cookware (or cast iron if taken care of) will last forever
      - Dah00n 3y ago
        Yes, I never touch products like Teflon. Why these are not illegal is beyond me.
  - duped 3y ago
    There once was a miracle material that came from an abundant resource, was extremely cheap to manufacture in a variety of forms, was extremely light, and had incredible properties that made it perfect for both industrial and consumer uses. It had one small issue though, which was that it was hard to dispose of. It was so good, for its purpose it was pretty much the only material you could buy to do its job for a long time. That material is called asbestos. It turned out to be so hard to work with that it gave millions of people cancer, even though it's pretty much the perfect insulator when left alone. --- Non-stick cookware is not nearly as bad as asbestos, but it's cheap and easy to use because it doesn't require maintenance like stainless steel, copper, or cast iron. It's not surprising that it's popular and the cheapest to make at scale since you don't need the surface of the material to be very good at all, if it's getting coated with teflon. There's the small problem that you've made a disposable product that probably won't get recycled and everyone who uses it will be eating small amounts of plastic everyday, but they'll thank you for the privilege.
    - katbyte 3y ago
      > doesn't require maintenance like stainless steel stainless steel cookware requires the least maintenance of all types imho and is near impossible to ruin/damage. The issue is its not non-stick and requires a bit more skill to cook with. Most people are too used to coated non-stick and how easy it makes cooking.
matthewdgreen 3y ago
We should absolutely ban the use of PFAS in applications where it isn't strictly necessary, like the (relatively recent) explosion of fast-food containers that are marginally more waterproof and/or cheaper because of it. This isn't even an interesting question. Use of PFAS in (airport) firefighting foam is a more complicated question, but that mostly illustrates that the question isn't well-formed.