Published June 24, 2026
By April 2026, nearly 100 new PFAS bills had been introduced across 17 US states, on top of roughly 280 carried over from 2025. Colorado's SB24-081 took effect January 1, banning intentionally added PFAS in cookware sold or distributed in the state, alongside cleaning products, dental floss, and several other categories. Minnesota, Maine, Vermont, and Washington all have new PFAS prohibitions or reporting requirements that kicked in this year as well. On the regulatory side, this is the most active year for PFAS legislation in US history — and cookware and drinkware are squarely inside the target list.
The EU is moving on a parallel track. Starting July 2026, BPA-containing polycarbonate will be banned in food-contact products across the EU under Regulation (EU) 2024/3190, and a broader EU-wide PFAS restriction covering more than 10,000 fluorinated compounds — including the ones used in nonstick coatings — is on track for a European Commission decision in 2027. The compliance map is genuinely fragmented: manufacturers selling into the US now have to track roughly 30 different jurisdictions, each with its own definitions and timelines.
Industry sourcing guidance built around this wave of regulation consistently puts the same materials in the "low risk, inherently PFAS-free" category: bare stainless steel, cast iron, carbon steel, and ceramic. PTFE-based nonstick coatings are the explicit target of most of these laws — that's the chemistry the bans were written for. A fired ceramic surface was never built from PFAS chemistry in the first place, which is a different thing from being "PFAS-free by reformulation."
That distinction matters more than it sounds like it should. A lot of the "non-toxic" cookware and drinkware boom of the past few years has been built on PTFE-free nonstick coatings that are still, technically, a coating applied after the fact — durable for a year or two, then degrading the way any sprayed-on layer does. That's a separate conversation from a fired ceramic inner wall, which isn't competing on "doesn't contain the banned chemical" so much as it never had a reason to be evaluated against that chemistry to begin with.
We're not going to claim a sudden regulatory tailwind we didn't earn — we built RE3™ around taste and material stability, not around anticipating a 2026 legislative wave. But it's worth noting plainly: as more states finalize PFAS product bans through 2027 and 2028, and as the EU's broader restriction moves toward a 2027 decision, the materials least affected by any of it are the ones that were never built on that chemistry. That's a real compliance advantage, not a marketing one, and it's worth knowing the difference.