Connecticut lawmakers are considering new exemptions to the state’s ban on so-called “forever chemicals” commonly found in nonstick cookware, clothing, artificial turf and a wide range of other products.  Heeding the suggestion of Gov. Ned Lamont, members of the General Assembly’s Environment Committee voted Friday to draft legislation that would exempt nonstick cookware that is approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture from the ban on PFAS in Connecticut. Last year, Connecticut joined a handful of states in banning a range of consumer products containing added PFAS chemicals. The legislation, Senate Bill 292, passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.  At the time he signed the bill into law, however, Lamont raised concerns about the lack of a waiver process for products that lack readily available alternatives, specifically mentioning nonstick or Teflon cookware.  “Although PFAS-free alternatives to nonstick cookware are already on the market, there may be challenges in the wide-spread manufacture and distribution of affordable cookware and certain other categories of products, such as outdoor apparel, manufactured with alternatives to PFAS that perform with similar functionality,” he wrote in a signing statement. PFAS refers to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a group of chemicals that have been linked to various health problems including cancer, liver issues and low birth weights. Because the chemicals are designed to break down slowly, PFAS can build up in the body over time, earning them the moniker “forever chemicals.” At the same time, their ubiquitous use in household products since the 1940s has made the task of reining in PFAS a challenging one for state lawmakers and regulators.  “PFAS isn’t a thing, it’s a category, and a category that encompasses thousands of different things,” said state Sen. Rick Lopes, D-New Britain, who co-chairs the Environment Committee.  Lopes, who proposed the exemptions bill to his committee Friday, said he decided to raise the issue after fielding complaints from the cookware industry that products designed with newer, stronger polymer coatings were being unfairly lumped in with other harmful chemicals. Still, Lopes said he’s not ready to commit to moving forward with the bill before holding a public hearing.  “I’m going to hear [their arguments], I’m not endorsing it at this point,” Lopes said.  Advocates who fought for the passage of last year’s ban, meanwhile, say they’re prepared to confront what they described as a “misinformation” campaign by cookware manufacturers to cast their products as safe.  Anne Hulick, the state director of Clean Water Action, said that while the chemicals used in today’s nonstick cookware are generally stronger than those used in older coatings associated with “Teflon Flu,”  they can still break down when subjected to high heats, scratches and overuse.  “Connecticut was a leader on PFAS chemicals,” Hulick said. “There’s no reason to make exemptions, in our view.”  The industry group leading the effort to exempt newer polymer coatings from state bans, the Cookware Sustainability Alliance, argues that its products have been evaluated and approved by both the USDA and European regulators. Steve Burns, the group’s president, pointed to its recent successes in obtaining exemptions for cookware in proposed PFAS bans in New York and California.  “A lot of pretty tough regulatory agencies around the world are saying, ‘No, no, no, the science says this stuff is not toxic,’” Burns said.  Connecticut’s ban does not take effect until the start of next year, though manufacturers will still be able to sell their products containing PFAS with a warning label approved by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. A complete ban is set to take effect later, in 2028.  Lamont’s office did not respond to requests for comment on the new legislation this week.  Lopes added that he’s also heard “inklings” of interest in the bill from other businesses — such as the manufacturers of rubber watch straps — who may seek to carve out exemptions for their products, as well.  “I hear what they’re saying,” Lopes said. “If they can make the argument that the types of PFAS they’re arguing for are not deleterious to human health, then we can make an exemption.”