[00:00] Bryan Hyde: Welcome to the Health Policy Podcast. I'm Brian Hyde, and today I'm joined by Susan Goldhaber. She is an environmental toxicologist with the American Council on Science and Health. And Susan, it's wonderful to see you. For those who are meeting you for the very first time, could you take just a moment to tell us a little bit about yourself and your background? [00:17] Susan Goldhaber: Yes, I've worked in the field of environmental toxicology for over 40 years. I worked for 10 years at the EPA. And then I worked on various consulting firms who did work for the EPA and other government agencies, and also for the state of North Carolina. My current job now, which I'm doing part-time, is for the American Council of Science and Health. I write articles usually about twice a month, and my goal is to translate scientific issues for the public. They're written not for the scientists, but for the public, and What I write about are issues that I've worked on, and it's primarily chemicals in the environment, in water, air, or land, and how they affect us. [01:08] Bryan Hyde: And Susan's joining us today to talk a little bit about a trend that we're seeing, particularly on the West Coast. Washington State in particular is looking to ramp up regulations on nonstick cookware. And before we can dive into Exactly what they're trying to do, I think we probably need to do a little bit of groundwork, Susan, in talking about some of the different abbreviations that will come up in the course of this conversation. And I'm going to ask you to, if you would, please set the stage for us when we're talking about the different types of chemicals that are part of nonstick cookware that Washington State is looking to regulate. What are some of the things we need to know and understand? [01:46] Susan Goldhaber: Yeah, well, to begin with, I'll use the PFAS. I'll use that. That's P-F-A-S. Capital letters, and it's actually the abbreviation for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. And what does that mean? Okay, it's really a group of chemicals that contain carbon-fluorine bonds. Okay, fluorine, which is the F, and carbon, which is the C. And why is that different than a lot of chemicals? It's basically because the carbon-fluorine bonds are very strong. They're stronger than They're like kind of like the strong man or person of chemistry. So they don't break down as easily as a lot of compounds do. So because of that, they can be used, they're used widely in all these different nonstick cookware, food packaging, firefighting foam, I mean cosmetics, all over the place, medical devices and dental floss, these chemicals. Now, How many chemicals fall into this group? Which is, well, the definition has shifted so much over the years. I mean, the name wasn't even until about 2011. They came up with that name. And at that time, there was 268 compounds. Pretty much a paper came out and said that, which is still fairly reasonable. You might be able to sort through those. But over the years, they kept making the definition bigger and bigger. Until in 2021, the organization for OECD, which is an international organization outta Europe, but came out and they expanded the definition to an— and I won't go into all the specifics, but it basically was any substance with at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom. Well, before the definition was you needed more than one. So they expanded it and it basically would cover over 7 million compounds. Okay. And so that's just crazy. But that was the definition. So basically anything that had this fluorine in it could fall, potentially fall under PFAS. So let's see, 2 other names that you might have heard about. PTFEs has been used in the— and I don't even know how to say that. PTFEs. I don't know. PTFEs is the abbreviation you'll see sometimes talking about. And what are these? Talking about the nonstick cookware. Okay. It's basically the group. It's a subgroup of PFAS. These are the ones that are marketed under the brand name of Teflon and used in non— particularly in the nonstick cookware. That's why a lot of times the articles about nonstick cookware will use that PTFEs, and you're like, is that the same as PFAS? Well, it's a subgroup. And again, this one, just like the others, but this one, its primary properties are its heat resistant, chemically stable, the kind of things you want. And it's also pretty— it's nontoxic unless heated over 500 degrees where you can get some. So this was why the fact— I don't know if back like 20— back in 2001, there was a— this is kind of the second one of those go-arounds. 2001, a lot of people— there was the first of the Teflon scares, and the media came out and said, everybody should throw out their pots and pans. And a lot of people did. Do you remember that? [05:27] Bryan Hyde: Oh, yeah. [05:27] Susan Goldhaber: But it turned out that, well, first of all, it was totally— it wasn't that anybody was in any degree of harm because the chemical that was in there, it wasn't even used in the Teflon at that time. It was a processing agent. But basically, even for the chemicals that were in the Teflon, you had to really burn it the whole thing. And then you might breathe a little bit, but it wasn't from using it in a normal way. But that kind of stuck with a lot of people, and people had this bad thing for Teflon. And what's happened is over the years, the original chemicals that they used, the PFAS, other chemicals that were less toxic came in. They still had it and came in to take their place. Okay, so there's a few chemicals like PFOA and PFOS, which you may have heard of. Those are the ones, again, if you hear those names, those are individual compounds that first kind of came out in the PFAS world when they were back and you hear about them. And so getting back to cookware, okay, so why is this such a pertinent topic? Well, because a lot of Americans own cookware and they like the fact they don't have to scrape it off. And What happened with this PFAS going back all this time, there's a lot of fear and even today, few facts about it. And part of the reason was the term, the forever chemicals, which I'm not sure anybody hasn't heard in the US. [07:04] Bryan Hyde: I wanted to ask you about the forever chemicals, 'cause does that include all PFAS or is that just one of the subgroups of PFAS? [07:13] Susan Goldhaber: Well, I'll tell you what it is. Yeah. I mean, and I had to look this up 'cause I had no idea. It's actually, it's not a scientific, it's not a regulatory term. It came out in 2018 in a Washington Post editorial by an assistant professor, wrote a thing about it, and he wasn't specific to any. He just was talking about all— at that point, he was talking about all the PFAS. And he said, however, he was just trying to get people upset about it. He said, however, this is a quote, these toxic chemicals are everywhere, even in your body, and they won't ever go away. And that was his quote. And he said, and then after that, everybody started picking it up. [07:53] Bryan Hyde: Right. [07:54] Susan Goldhaber: What you just brought up, they didn't distinguish because they're a huge number and some are more toxic, some are totally nontoxic. But that label stuck. And so it was anything that was a PFAS came under it. And that's why I won't even use the term forever chemicals, because number one, it's not correct. And number two, they don't last forever. So there's 2 kinds of ways to look at it. half-life, okay, when you look at how long it— some of it is how long does it stay in the environment, okay? If you have a spill in the soil and sediment, and most of those studies say it's about 6 months or so, maybe longer, but 6 months. And the other one, which is I think the one a lot of people worry even more about, is how much does it stay in the human body, okay, if you get it? And that one is about 2.5 years, okay? Now, They look at the decline in blood samples. Okay, that's not nothing, but that's not forever. And what you can see that when you look at the way there's studies of PFAS levels that have in the US population, and you look at the way they've been going down, actually, like if it was steady, we would be seeing them steady, but they've not, they vastly declined. And part of that is that Some of the most popular, the two that back in 2001 are no longer produced, is PFOA and PFOS, are no longer produced in the US. And the amount of these chemicals have been less and less. So people are getting less in the body. If they had it that many years ago, it's 2.5 years, it's gone. So it's not the crisis that the media makes it out. It was basically a way to scare the public and also frankly, to get a lot of money for scientists to study this because it became a really hot issue. It just used to be a few, you know, nerds in their thing were like, oh, I want to learn about carbon-fluorine bonds. And I was like, that's the chemicals. So, yeah, it's— I think those are a few of them. [10:11] Bryan Hyde: No, that's, that's some solid background. Now let's, let's shift to Washington State. And I'd love for you to talk about what they're doing about PFAS and cookware. And what is the controversy all about? [10:24] Susan Goldhaber: Yeah, so Washington State— so a lot of states are trying to figure out what to do with this issue. And so there's been several states that have just come out and said, we're going to ban all PFAS in cookware. We'll take— there's other places too, but we're going to deal with just cookware today. Cookware. Okay. And that's a little bit of a problem because we don't have good alternatives for it. So it's basically give up your pots and pans. Now, Washington State, so they, it started in 2023 where they adopted a rule to restrict PFAS in other things like carpets, rugs, leather, textiles. Okay. So in 2025, there's sort of been this race between the states to see who can be stricter on PFAS. in the ones that view that as a positive. And so there's been a race between them, and Washington State has been one of them. And so in 2025, they came out with the rule further restricting PFAS in cleaning products, automotive washes. But here's the thing, they started off trying to do it for PFAS in cookware, but they ended up They got, or for whatever the reasons, I wasn't there, so much pushback. But basically the rule that ended up right now is that it requires manufacturers to report, to only report the amount of PFAS in cookware instead of banning it. And they have to give a report by, let's see, January 31st, 2027. So it's not really, when I first started, I thought, okay, they've banned it. let's see which states. So 5 states, Vermont, Connecticut, Colorado, Minnesota, and Maine have enacted bans. And there's some things about that which I can talk about, but where they've— some of them have exempted certain chemicals from the ban. But Washington State came out with this. I guess they saw it as kind of a compromise Where they— you have to report, and then they're going to do— and then they're going to do a report and decide whether to do a complete ban after 2027. [12:49] Bryan Hyde: Susan, I'd like to get your take on California. As I understand it, actually did pass a ban, but then Governor Gavin Newsom turned around and vetoed the ban. And I'd love to get your take on that. That seems kind of unexpected coming from him. [13:06] Susan Goldhaber: It does. And so he vetoed it. I looked it up due to concerns over affordability, potential costs. And I think one of the most surprising things for me was knowing California was that there were— there was a big lobbying by prominent chefs, including Rachael Ray and some of these ones, David Chang, going against it, saying that we need our Teflon pans. They're safe, practical for home and restaurant use. So you don't usually get, you know, all the celebrities authorities usually want to be as strict as— The counterargument in California, or this would be the counterargument anywhere, was that from some of the environmental groups, is that if they say that these pans are safe, however, they say if they're scratched or overheated, that potentially they could shed toxic particles, which is the argument, which I don't really buy, but But one of the interesting things about the bans, which I think goes along with this, all these states that banned it, there's a few states that have banned it, but they exempted a group, New Mexico and Rhode Island are 2 that exempted a group of PFAS called fluoropolymers. Okay, this is another group. And they're all the ones that They're the ones that— the PTFEs are part of this group. So basically what they say is, all these ones that form the Teflon, we're going to have a ban on it, but you can still use all these what are called fluoropolymers, which are the group that include PTFEs. But there is a scientific difference for it. And basically because these are the much larger chemicals. So if you think about it, and because of their size, people can't take them up as easily. They've really been found to be— even like the people argue against this say, yeah, they're pretty nontoxic. I mean, they're rarely found in drinking water. So it seems like kind of a no-brainer that if you were going to— if California wanted to pass this bill, they're going to have to— you need to exempt these fluoropolymers. The problem is that the environmental groups are against that because they want just a total ban on PFAS, that they're all bad. But there have been several states that have— let's see, those 2 and some of the upcoming Now, yeah, the fight has been where the environmental groups say, well, it's the cookware manufacturers, they're the ones who are coming up with this exemption, which is probably true, but it does make a lot of sense. So that's kind of what's going on with Washington State. I don't know how it's really being reported out there because I'm from North Carolina, But that's kind of interesting. And then there's— but like I said, a lot of the states are coming up with their own ways to do these bans. [16:30] Bryan Hyde: So Susan, tell me this, and I don't know if there— if it's— if it can— if there's a concise way to quantify this, given all the different things that you're working with, all the different chemicals, what are the health effects of PFAS? Are there like measurable effects on our health? [16:47] Susan Goldhaber: Right. Yeah, that's a great question, which is rarely asked because— so if you look at any article, they'll always say the same thing. PFAS, or most will say they are linked to— they'll say PFAS are linked to kidney, liver problems, heart disease. I'm just reading off a few I've seen. Immune system depression, cancer. Okay. They'll never say PFAS cause these. They'll say they're linked to. Okay, so that's as soon as you see that, or they'll say they're associated with. Those are 2 words, okay, that means that they haven't been shown to do that, but they've either been linked. And when you look at where they've been linked, most of the time it's in some animal studies. Okay, like they're getting, you know, they— I mean, they haven't totally made that up. They'll find an animal study that showed that Or they find some, you know, you might have 20 studies that showed it didn't cause cancer in humans, but you have one that did. And so you say it's linked to cancer. So, so going back to the animal studies, when you look at the animal studies and then you look at the human studies, because we have 2 of these chemicals, PFOA and PFOS, that have been studied for over 20 years. They, these were the ones that were originally back that started the Teflon spill. They're not new. These are the ones that caused— these are the ones that basically DuPont then stopped producing them. And there's been a lot of studies on these over the years. They've studied the workers who worked with them who were exposed to high levels. They've studied loads of populations. And what they've seen is that very few human studies confirm the things in animal studies. Okay. Because animal studies, as we all know, they use really high doses. It's very difficult to— I think more and more scientists are saying you can't just say because you saw this in an animal study it's going to happen in humans. It just doesn't work that way. You need to have, you know, the— there's— and then there's some— a lot of scientific reasons for it. Because, well, first of all, because of these high doses, they basically, you know, overwhelm— when you're at that high doses in animals, they overwhelm just kind of common sense, their immune systems. And so they get stuff that we don't get. There's also some more complicated ones, like there's some inside the body of rats and mice, there's some proteins that make them a little more sensitive to PFAS. Some are arguing about that. And so that's why you can't just take animal studies and say that. I mean, that's kind of common sense. But the The problem is that we keep doing— and then when we do these human studies, and most of them have not shown these effects. In fact, there's been like, okay, I'll take one. This was a review where they looked at 28 studies that examined one of the chemicals, PFAS, and cancer. Again, these are human studies, not the animal studies. The author said, this is the quote, overall, the evidence for an association between cancer and PFAS remains sparse. I mean, they looked across studies, they looked at that, and you see that for all the kinds of cancer. And so then when you see it causes cancer, what happens is there might have been one study, a small study where there was an increase in it and the people had more this is how they do PFAS in the blood, and then that's how it gets out there. But that's not the way you do this kind of science. You have to look at the whole evidence. And that's why— and the whole evidence is really, again, like any chemical, if you have at high enough levels, it would probably affect your kidney. But at the levels in the environment, which are super low, you really can't find anything. Okay. And that's why it's kind of like, I remember trying explain this to someone, they're like, well, how can that be? I said, well, look at the fact that they say linked to. It doesn't— if there was more, it would say they have known to cause it. And people say, well, but that's not typical for all chemicals. There are chemicals like, let's say, lead. We have loads of human studies and animal, but human studies showing that it affects the nervous system. So for chemicals, the same thing with with some of the chemicals that cause cancer, benzene. We have lots of human studies. So my point is, by now we would be seeing it in human studies. [21:34] Bryan Hyde: Susan, I appreciate you pulling some of the fear back from this issue, because I know they're, you know, those associated with and, you know, consistent with, those are kind of weasel words that can be used to steer people. And so I feel like we have a bigger picture thanks to your input on this subject. Again, we're talking with Susan Goldhaber. She's an environmental toxicologist with the American Council on Science and Health. And Susan, thanks so much for joining us today on the Health Policy Podcast. [22:04] Susan Goldhaber: Thank you very much for having me.