Which states have banned PFAS in cookware

Two things are true at the same time and they get conflated constantly. Some states have banned the sale of cookware containing intentionally added PFAS. Others have only required a label or a disclosure, which keeps the product on the shelf and puts the decision back on you.

If you are trying to work out whether a pan can legally be sold where you live, that distinction is the whole question. Here is the current position, with each entry linked to the statute or the agency rather than to somebody’s summary of it.

The three categories, in plain terms

1. Sales bans

A retailer cannot legally sell the product in that state. Colorado, Maine and Minnesota are live now; Kansas, Missouri, Ohio and eventually Vermont follow. In practice, a national brand facing a ban in several states usually reformulates for the whole country rather than running separate lines — which is why state law tends to change what is on shelves well beyond the state that passed it.

2. Labelling and disclosure

The product stays on sale, but the manufacturer has to tell you. New Mexico’s rule, approved in March 2026, requires a warning symbol. Connecticut’s duty starts in July 2026. These are useful to you precisely because they generate documents — and documents are what we score on the checked list.

3. Reporting to the state

The manufacturer files with a state agency. Nothing appears on the packaging. Washington and Minnesota both run versions of this. It creates a public record eventually, but it does not help you in a shop.

The federal picture: less than you would think

There is no federal ban on PFAS in cookware. The main federal instrument is the EPA’s TSCA section 8(a)(7) reporting rule, which requires manufacturers and importers to report PFAS in their products — and it has now been delayed four times.

The most recent Federal Register notice, published 13 April 2026, moved the start of the reporting window again: to 31 January 2027, or 60 days after a forthcoming revised rule takes effect, whichever comes first. EPA received over 8,500 comments on the November 2025 proposed revision. EPA’s own explainer is here.

So the single federal mechanism that would have produced a comprehensive picture of which products contain PFAS has not yet started collecting anything.

What about the EU?

The EU-wide PFAS restriction is real, advanced, and still years away. ECHA’s risk assessment committee has backed a restriction; its socio-economic committee has favoured a general prohibition with use-specific exemptions rather than an outright ban, and a public consultation on both closed in May 2026. A final committee opinion is expected by the end of 2026, Commission adoption no earlier than 2027, and any restriction would begin biting from 2029.

Nothing about it is binding today.

What we’d actually do

• Do not read a label rule as a safety verdict. A state requiring disclosure has not decided the product is dangerous; it has decided you are entitled to know.
• “Intentionally added” is the operative phrase in nearly every one of these statutes, and it is the same hedge brands use in marketing. It does not cover residual PFAS from feedstock or process. We wrote about that in what ‘PFOA-free’ actually tells you.
• If you want to sidestep the whole question, uncoated stainless and cast iron have no coating to regulate. The cookware page scores every pan on this site on what it is made of.
• Check your own state before relying on this. We will keep the table current, but a legislature can move faster than we can.

We are not currently in any affiliate programme, so nothing on this page is a paid link. When that changes, the disclosure page says so first.

Related

• What PFAS in cookware actually means
• The one test that would settle it
• What “PTFE-free” doesn’t tell you