A pan manufacturer’s team is suing Minnesota in federal court, alleging the state’s extensive new PFAS ban is illegal and unfair to local manufacturers.
According to the national complaint,” Producers will be forced to either retain their products out of the Minnesota business or treat Minnesota’s rules as the national standard.” Each of the 50 states do have their own opinions on what cookware products may be sold in their states, making conformity expensive if not impossible, according to a choice allowing state legislation like Minnesota’s.
The Cookware Sustainability Alliance, a California-based business, filed the lawsuit this week against Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Commissioner Katrina Kessler. People of the empire make pots and pans under brand names like Farberware, Circulon, T-fal, All-Clad and Tramontina.
The MPCA stated that while it is unable to comment on pending litigation, it thinks the new legislation is “legally good.”
The best and least expensive ways to avoid PFAS-related harm are protection and resource decrease, according to a statement from the organization. We just don’t clear our way out of this issue because it is estimated that Minnesota taxpayers will have to spend$ 28 billion on PFAS removal from landfill leachate and waste in the position over the next 20 years.
PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl elements, are a group of hundreds of substances that make products slick, grease-proof and water-resistant. They also don’t break down obviously, build up in the bodies of people and pets, and some Substances have been , linked to cancers and other health problems. Although numerous manufacturers are now replacing nonstick cookware with ceramics and other materials, they have long been used for this purpose.
In 2023, Minnesota enacted the country’s strictest restrictions on PFAS in client items,  , named for Amara Strande, a young girl who grew up eating water contaminated with PFAS and who died of a rare tumor at 20. On January 1, the second stage of the rules became effective. It bans consciously added PFAS from 11 item groups, including appliances. By 2032, virtually all functions of PFAS may be banned, unless they are given an exemption.
In her position as Minnesota state producer for the lobbying group Clean Water Action, Avonna Starck argued that manufacturers” should be using their skills, their time, and their money to produce products that are safer and less dangerous” rather than resorting to legal action.
The cookware manufacturers contend that PTFE, the primary type of PFAS used as a nonstick coating, is FDA-approved and does not harm people’s health or the environment. Critics point to the , production process , as a continuing source of pollution, however.
The industry group’s suit also suggests the law favors the state’s only major cookware producer,  , Minnesota-based Nordic Ware, which has changed its production and is complying with the law. Nordic Ware is not named in the lawsuit as a defendant.
David Dalquist, the CEO of Nordic Ware, said in an interview that he thought consumers would still want PFAS-free cookware, regardless of what state law says.
The company has not been using the chemicals since last June, he said, and was  , recognized by the state of Minnesota , recently for its transition efforts.
He acknowledged that the businesses responsible for the lawsuit have “big budgets to go after it, and they will probably cause a ruckus.”
Several states, including Connecticut, Rhode Island and Maine, have adopted phase-outs of PFAS in cookware. No other state has as broad a product ban as Minnesota, however. The first state to pass a cookware ban is Minnesota, too.
According to the industry group, it will cost the cookware companies millions to either leave Minnesota, switch away from PFAS in their goods, or create new production capacity specifically for Minnesota. The lawsuit makes no mention of any other states that will soon outlaw PFAS in cooking equipment.
The Cookware Sustainability Alliance lawsuit is a part of a protracted conflict between the federal government’s constitutional duty to establish a free-flowing interstate market and the right of states to regulate what is produced and sold within their borders.
The complaint cites court precedents that point to a “discriminatory effect” in state regulations that violate the U. S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause. The suit wants Minnesota’s law deemed unconstitutional, at least as it affects cookware, or an order barring enforcement against pots and pans with PFAS.
” States generally should not be regulating in ways that are protectionist, that’s one way courts have interpreted the Commerce Clause doctrines”, said Mitchell Hamline School of Law professor Mehmet Konar-Steenberg. Even laws that don’t impose protectionist measures could still be overturned if they cause too much of an upheaval in interstate commerce.
In contrast to other interstate commerce challenges, Konar-Steenberg said the suit takes a novel approach, arguing that “any law that has a disparate impact on out-of-state firms is subject to challenge.”
___
© 2025 The Minnesota Star Tribune
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
