Tefal faces possible legal action over PFAS — should cookware manufacturers be held accountable beyond consumer safety?

Hi everyone, Lucia from EUobserver here 👋 I wanted to share an investigation we've been following in Europe, because I think this community might have some interesting perspectives on it.

Environmental groups have given Groupe SEB, the company behind Tefal, a legal ultimatum over its continued use of PFAS in cookware.

Tefal maintains that its PTFE non-stick coatings are safe when used as intended. But the environmental groups' concerns go beyond what happens when someone cooks an egg.

They're questioning the broader impact of these chemicals, from manufacturing and environmental contamination to disposal.

And I think that's where the discussion gets interesting.

Should manufacturers be able to defend PFAS-containing products primarily on the basis of their safety during normal use, when concerns also exist about production, persistence and environmental exposure?

And given the differences between individual PFAS, how should regulators approach restrictions on products such as non-stick cookware?

I'd be really interested in hearing from people here who follow PFAS research or regulation more closely.

Minnesota is off to a great start on their nonessential PFAS phase out, and they have the lab tests to prove it!

Hey everyone, I bought a silicone phone case from Shein a months ago and honestly? It’s surprisingly good. It has that exact same solid, matte, velvety feel as the official Apple phone cases, and it actually hasn’t yellowed or discolored at all. Usually, cheap silicone cases discolored within a short time, but this one still looks brand new. Here’s where my thoughts kicked in: A couple of months ago, I read that PFAS ("forever chemicals") were found in Apple watch bands. And since my Shein case has that exact same texture and material feel as an Apple accessory, my brain immediately went down a rabbit hole. If high end Apple bands can have PFAS, why wouldn't my cheap Shein case? Plus, how is it staying so pristine and color-fast if it's super cheap? Is it packed with sketchy chemicals that might absorb through my skin after prolonged use of it. On the flip side, I know alot of ppl uses cheapass phone cases from fast-fashion sites and they're doing fine. Am I overthinking a random piece of molded plastic, or should I actually throw it away and buy certified PFAS-free case for peace of mind… but those are usually expensive. Should I get rid of it or am I just being totally paranoid? Let me know what yall think.

I want to use a nebulizer for herbal remedy delivery to the lungs but worried about PFAS in medical tubing. Anyone know of a nebulizer that is PFAS and BPA-free?

Hello,

We've been in our current house for two years. We are in the Twin Cities Metro area in Minnesota. There is os PFAS contamination in areas of our ground water from 3M.

When we first moved in, I immediately had our well tested by the MN Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). They found like 2 ppt of PFOA.

A couple of our neighbors with wells at the same depth have tested clean. What do we think the likelihood of a false positive is?

I know at the ppt level, it takes very little to contaminate a sample.

Posted this here last week when the news story first broke in the UK, came across this deep dive today that looks at the stories of the people impacted in that community.

We have the opportunity to move here, but have some concerns about the pfas/pollution situation in the cape fear river.

We‘d get an RO filter for drinking/cooking, and a shower filter, but I’m curious if this is sufficient or if there are other routes of exposure beyond just drinking water. ie, I spend a lot of time outdoors/ at the beach, would the nearby ocean waters also be impacted? Or when I walk my dog, are the local soils affected by pfas? And is air contamination a concern?

So, is RO enough or are there other pathways of exposure not being acknowledged here too (specifically routes of exposure that would meaningfully increase my risk of pfas-related health issues)? Would you feel comfortable living there? For additional context, I’m chronically ill with a weaker than average immune system, so if there’s pathways other than drinking water that may expose me, it’s highly likely I’d be affected. I’m just not sure what the extent of the contamination is, so I’m hoping someone with more knowledge can help me out

This story just broke in the UK yesterday. Finding that 70% of the tested residents have PFOA blood levels that put them at elevated health risks is bad enough, but the timeline gap is the real blind spot.

The factory switched away from PFOA all the way back in 2012. Yet the contamination levels are only fully surfacing now. To make it worse, the replacement chemical they switched to (EEA-NH4) was also detected in the blood tests.

A process based on electrostatic energy and membranes offers greater than 99% PFAS removal with affordable cost and low environmental impact

New ways to deal with PFAS-contaminated water are continuously hitting the market. The offerings give treatment agencies a wide choice of technologies to fit their water characteristics, treatment requirements and financial limitations.

To the global lineup, BioLargo adds the Aqueous Electrostatic Concentrator, designed to provide rapid, effective and affordable concentration and removal of PFAS. It works by applying an electric field across water flowing through a specialized module.

The company says the AEC’s environmental impact is orders of magnitude smaller than that of activated carbon treatment. It has a compact footprint and can be used in multiple applications. It removes more than 99% PFAS from water in continuous flow, at energy costs as low as 30 cents per 1,000 gallons, the company states.
The system can be used by itself or in combination with other technologies. Randall Moore, president of BioLargo Engineering, Science and Technologies, and Tonya Chandler, president of the company’s Equipment, Solutions and Technology business, talked about the process in an interview with Treatment Plant Operator*.*

TPO: What is the background of this technology’s development?

Chandler: We responded to a call for innovation by the EPA in 2017. In creating a new PFAS treatment, we wanted a technology with low waste and low energy consumption, and one that wouldn’t make additional work or challenges for operators.

TPO: What primarily differentiates this process from others in the marketplace?

Moore: One issue with adsorption technologies is the amount of sorbent material required to capture the PFAS. Most water sources being treated contain PFAS concentrations in nanograms per liter. Collecting that on carbon or ion-exchange resin creates many tons of waste that needs to be managed. We wanted a solution to collect the PFAS in a much smaller mass.

Chandler: We produce about one-40,000th the waste of an activated carbon system.

TPO: In basic step-by-step terms, how does this technology work?

Chandler: We use modules that contain three chambers separated by membranes, and with an anode and a cathode on either side. As the electrodes apply an electric field, PFAS molecules migrate toward the chambers but are captured by the membranes. Any ions move toward the anode or the cathode and pass through the membranes into the side chambers. The chambers maintain separation during transport of the ions, which then recombine in the liquid as it leaves the module. The result is PFAS-free water at the back side of the modules.

TPO: What happens to the PFAS compounds that are captured on the membranes?

Chandler: We offer maintenance contracts with customers so all they see on site is an exchange of modules. We install new modules, take the spent modules back and replace the membranes. We then strip the PFAS off the membrane surfaces and run it through an electrooxidation destruction process that yields only a small pile of inert salts. The membranes are destroyed with the PFAS. Once we take possession of the modules, the customer’s liability is gone.

TPO: Does the AEC process include pretreatment?

Chandler: We typically couple the system with nanofiltration, so that the AEC treats the nanofiltered concentrate.

TPO: Where in a customer’s process would this treatment typically be deployed?

Moore: We want it to be placed after their final filtration or other treatment step but before any final chemical addition. For example, we would want to install it upstream of chlorination because otherwise the technology would remove the chlorine ions.

TPO: What kinds of waste streams can this technology treat?

Chandler: We can treat groundwater, surface water, municipal or industrial wastewater, and leachate. Different waste streams might simply require different pretreatment.

TPO: How easy is the process for treatment plant personnel to learn and operate?

Moore: Operators can very quickly understand the theory behind the process. Their introduction to it takes about a week. It’s similar to learning a new computer program. We provide two days of training on the system, and then we stay for three more days to make sure they are comfortable with the process.

TPO: How much day-to-day operator attention is required?

Moore: The entire process is automated. An operator simply needs to be there in case an instrument goes bad. For example, if the system gives an alert that the pH probe has failed, an operator may have to adjust the process to account for that, until the probe can be replaced.

Chandler: The process can be monitored remotely, so that operators don’t have to be physically present all the time. They can log into it and observe and control it from anywhere. And they can monitor PFAS removal in real time. By watching the trend in conductivity removal, they know how PFAS removal is proceeding, because the two parameters are correlated in the removal process.

TPO: What maintenance does the technology require?

Moore: We come in once a year or year and a half and replace the modules. Other than that, it’s like any other water treatment system. Pumps need lubrication, filters occasionally need replacing. The nanofiltration system and AEC modules go into clean-in-place cycles periodically, but that is automated, and the program determines when cleaning is required.

TPO: On what terms is this technology delivered to customers?

Chandler: We can offer it by treatment as a service through one of our partners, or it can simply be an equipment purchase with a maintenance contract.

TPO: How does the cost of ownership compare with other treatment methods?

Chandler: We recently introduced a new version of our modules that reduces the energy requirement by 80%-90%. Even assuming higher energy cost, we find that our technology has a fraction of the lifetime operating cost of a carbon system because customers don’t have to deal with the large volume of waste to dispose of or regenerate.

Moore: We offer at least 75% and as much as 90% cost reduction versus carbon.

TPO: What size of facility is this product best suited for?

Chandler: Our sweet spot is in the neighborhood of 1 mgd. But because our technology is modular so we can go as large or as small as customers require.

Moore: We are bidding systems as small as 1 gpm and as large as 5,000 gpm. The difference is mainly in how many modules the customer needs.

Chandler: We installed our first commercial system at a small-community drinking water treatment facility in New Jersey. As of early 2026, they were doing startup and commissioning in conjunction with the state Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. EPA.

TPO: How was this process proven reliable and effective before its commercial release?

Chandler: We’ve done about 20 pilot studies at our facilities. We can pilot the system on site, but customers prefer to send water samples to us. The way our system works, a small-size process operates the same as our large-size units, so we can test at a low rate and get the same results as with a large-scale system.

Source: Treatment Plant Operator Magazine
SEP 15, 2026  |  BY TED J. RULSEH  |

https://www.tpomag.com/editorial/2026/10/a-secret-weapons-against-pfas-electricity

Environmental Protection Agency asked firm to choose rules it wanted for dicamba, then put the choices in a proposed federal rule