[00:00] Bryan Hyde: Welcome to the Health Policy Podcast. I'm Brian Hyde, and today I'm joined by David Clement of the Consumer Choice Center. David, it's good to have you on the program. We've got a great topic to explore. For people who are meeting you for the first time, take a moment here, tell us a little bit about who you are and what you do. [00:16] David Clement: So I am David Clement, as you said, Policy Director at the Consumer Choice Center, which is an international consumer advocacy group. that works on issues that infringe on consumer choice. And so that ranges from what we cook with, which is what we'll talk about today, to whether or not you should be able to get into an autonomous vehicle, to free trade, to food policy, you name it. So we are the voice for consumers when the government is overstepping. [00:47] Bryan Hyde: You know, I'm curious to hear that a couple of states, most notably Washington State and California, have made some pretty bold moves in, in regulating, or at least attempting to regulate cookware and kitchen supplies. And it comes back to a type of chemical that's used in the manufacture of nonstick cookware. PFAS, or PFAS is the acronym that I see. Can we get kind of a working definition of when we hear that term, what is that referring to? [01:16] David Clement: Yeah. So it's a, it's a grouping of manmade chemicals. It's basically the best way to describe it, often used for purposes of heat resistance. Or water resistance. So everything from cookware to the lining on wires to prevent them from overheating, or the coating on a semiconductor, for example, a chip in your phone to prevent it from exploding. That would be the easiest layman's terms way of describing that class of chemicals. But it is important to note that there are, let's say, 5,000 or so chemicals in that class. They're not all the same. They vary in terms of what they're used for, but they also vary in terms of if there are any potential risks, which is, I think, really where some of these cookware potential bans and registries and things like that miss the mark. [02:12] Bryan Hyde: You know, I mean, I want to believe, well, you know, if the government's taking an interest in perhaps banning it, there must be something dangerous going on. But then I remember virtually every product I receive has some kind of a warning. The state of California has determined that this causes cancer. So I'm not sure how serious to take it. Let's start with last year, I believe California lawmakers passed a bill that would've prohibited cookware that had intentionally added PFAS starting in 2030. What was the outcome of that? They passed the bill, what did the governor do? [02:44] David Clement: Well, he vetoed it and it carries a lot of weight because Gavin Newsom is not a deregulatory governor and he's signed dozens of chemical and environmental restrictions into law. So his veto carries a big weight. And in his own words, I mean, he was deeply concerned about the impact of the bill would have on affordability, in particular for cookware. So I mean, just to add some more color to this, he banned or he vetoed it even though the ban wasn't going to be set to take effect immediately. It was going to take effect gradually, I believe until 2030, but he vetoed it anyway. And obviously it matters. It's the most populous state in the US. And so there are some lessons to learn here in terms of when the government can maybe go too far and be too heavy-handed on something without thinking about the negative externalities. And in this case, Gavin Newsom thought about the negative externalities and decided to scrap that bill. [03:51] Bryan Hyde: And what about Washington State lawmakers? I understand they too are taking aim at these particular chemicals. the proposed regulation that they're facing? [04:03] David Clement: Yeah, I mean, similar, I would say, moving in that direction, right? The Safer Products Rule doesn't start off per se by banning things, but it requires manufacturers to identify where they've added PFAS for something like nonstick cookware. And the concern here is that, one, that can pave the road to a ban because there's a ton of reporting and compliance associated with that. But 2, increased reporting and compliance is a cost, right? It's a cost on manufacturers that almost certainly gets passed on to consumers. And so you end up in that affordability bucket there as well. And so The concern here is what happens next and the road forward. We've seen this as part of the playbook before in terms of, okay, we create a registry on something and then that slowly creeps into bans on certain use cases. And so that would be the big concern in Washington. But I really think that they should learn from Governor Newsom's veto here on what the consequences are if you actually take this to its logical conclusion. [05:33] Bryan Hyde: So let's talk about that, that affordability. I mean, I don't often find myself agreeing with Gavin Newsom, but I think that he might have a point here. [05:42] David Clement: Yeah, I mean, nonstick cookware is most— more often than not the cheapest entryway for cooking at home. So I mean, if you're looking at between $10, $15 to $30 for a pan, comparable stainless steel or enameled cast iron and things like that can cost double or or even as much as 4 times. There are some alternatives like PFAS-free ceramic-coated alternatives, but the kind of consumer feedback on that is that they lose their nonstick aspects pretty fast. And so there's the home cookware aspect of this, but then there's also the restaurants, school cafeterias, institutional kitchens, right? These are high-volume, food preparation sites where the cooking is going on for hours and hours on end. And that is where the reliability and the durability and the cost-effectiveness of some of these products really matters, because then you're looking at increased input costs for restaurants and everything like that based on general wear and tear, food quality, you name it. [07:00] Bryan Hyde: So it's not just about, you know, safety. I mean, obviously, you know, we want to be safe, but there's also consumer choice that comes into play here. And what happens? What's the practical thing that happens when we lose choice as consumers? [07:14] David Clement: Well, you see upward pressure on prices. Whenever you lose a supplier and limit the availability of suppliers, you see prices go up because there's less competition. And so the, the, that's the immediate knock-on effect. Now, as we know, with whenever we see an artificial increase in prices, it's always the poor who bear the biggest burden. And they're the ones who can least absorb price increases, whether that be cooking at home or eating out of the house. It becomes a very— when you artificially inflate prices, it becomes very regressive very fast because it's the hardest the hardest cost increase for low-income Americans to absorb. [08:06] Bryan Hyde: So let's, let's talk about Washington State once again. The suggestion is they want reporting from manufacturers. Does that also, though, impact prices, even if there isn't like an outright ban? [08:19] David Clement: Yeah, yeah. Well, it— yeah, the short answer is yes, because it depends on how onerous the compliance cost associated with manufacturing is. Right. And so there are 2 options. There is compliance, meaning that the companies who make this stuff have to do all of the additional testing, all of the additional registration by SKU of all the different products that they make. That is an in-house cost, which obviously hurts the bottom line. And the easiest way to recover that is by passing those increased costs on to consumers. And so So that's where you see gradually prices go up. The other alternative is if the compliance costs become so onerous and so difficult that manufacturers abandon entire classes of products altogether. And so you don't get— it's not an out. It doesn't become a ban, but it serves as one because the business community simply doesn't have the resources to jump through all the hoops and over the hurdles. And so they abandon making that type of product altogether. to begin with. And then what you have, you're back at square one. You have a reduction in supply and that upward price pressure. [09:40] Bryan Hyde: Wow. Let's talk a little bit about the PFAS category of substances. And look, I'll admit, I try to be an informed consumer, but I don't be— I'm not informed to the point where I'm looking into what chemicals have gone into, you know, this product or that product. Beyond cookware, nonstick cookware, um, how far do these chemicals reach? [10:05] David Clement: Yeah, I mean, uh, the chips in our— are in the computers that are making this conversation possible, the wiring on your phone. Um, what most people don't know is it's heavily relied upon in the medical community. So everything from catheter wires to heart stents, um, to the PPE that, that, uh, first responders wear, um, right? It has the, the, the, um, the makeup that make them resistant to all of the other things that could go wrong in a medical setting. Um, one of the interesting asides is there was a congressman out of Indiana who was a former heart surgeon who has raised this very objection about being too heavy-handed on these regulations is that they're a critical component of the things that make heart surgery possible. And you need, you need that durability. I mean, if you're going to have something implanted in your body, it has to be safe, but it has to be durable because nobody wants to be having a major implant replaced every 3 to 5 years because it breaks down because The product that used to work has now been either overregulated out of existence or outright banned. [11:26] Bryan Hyde: Again, we are talking with David Clement of the Consumer Choice Center. David, I want to thank you for joining us today here on the Health Policy Podcast. [11:34] David Clement: Thank you very much.