By PFAS Database · Updated July 24, 2026
We graded 166 cookware for PFAS. Here is what we found (2026 data study)
An analysis of 166 cookware products from 41 brands found that 93 percent scored a D or F on PFAS-related material grading, and 89 percent scored an outright F. Only 11 products, roughly one in sixteen, earned an A or B grade. These findings come from model-based estimates built on materials disclosure and public documentation, not laboratory testing, but the pattern is stark enough to be worth reporting on its own.
Key findings
- 166 cookware products across 41 brands were graded for PFAS-related risk factors.
- 89 percent of graded cookware, 147 products, received the lowest possible grade, an F.
- 93 percent of products, 155 out of 166, landed in the failing range of D or F combined.
- Only 6 products, 4 percent of the total, achieved an A grade.
- 16 products, 10 percent of the category, carry confirmed PTFE or fluoropolymer signals in their materials profile.
- The top-scoring products in the category reached 90 out of 100, while the lowest-scoring products scored as low as 5 out of 100, an 85-point spread.
Grade distribution across the category
The distribution of grades is heavily skewed toward failing scores. Very few products cluster in the middle grades of B or C level performance, which suggests that cookware manufacturing in this dataset tends to fall into one of two camps: a small group using ceramic or alternative non-stick technology that scores well, and a large majority still relying on conventional non-stick formulations that score poorly.
| Grade | Number of products | Share of total |
|---|---|---|
| A | 6 | 4% |
| B | 5 | 3% |
| C | 0 | 0% |
| D | 8 | 5% |
| F | 147 | 89% |
Top and bottom performers
The best-performing products in this dataset are dominated by ceramic and ceramic-titanium formulations, each scoring 90 out of 100. The worst performers, all scoring 5 out of 100, come from well-known mainstream cookware brands whose non-stick lines appear to rely on more conventional fluoropolymer-based coatings.
| Rank | Product | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Top 1 | GreenPan Ceramic Non-stick | 90/100 |
| Top 2 | Scanpan Ceramic Titanium | 90/100 |
| Top 3 | GreenPan Chatham Ceramic Nonstick Frypan Set | 90/100 |
| Bottom 1 | All-Clad HA1 Non-stick | 5/100 |
| Bottom 2 | Tefal Non-stick Frying Pan | 5/100 |
| Bottom 3 | Calphalon Classic Non-stick | 5/100 |
What the PTFE signal tells us
Of the 166 products graded, 16, or 10 percent, show confirmed PTFE or fluoropolymer signals based on available materials data. That figure is notably smaller than the 89 percent that scored an F, which indicates that failing grades in this category are not driven by confirmed fluoropolymer content alone. Instead, low scores likely reflect a broader mix of factors, including limited public disclosure, coating type ambiguity, and other formulation risk indicators that our model weighs alongside direct PTFE confirmation. In practical terms, a majority of low grades appear to stem from insufficient transparency rather than from confirmed PFAS presence, though that distinction matters less to a shopper trying to make a quick decision at shelf.
Why so few products pass
The near-total absence of C-grade products, combined with only 11 products reaching A or B, suggests that cookware brands in this dataset are largely polarized between two manufacturing approaches. Brands like GreenPan and Scanpan, which lean on ceramic and ceramic-titanium coatings, cluster at the top of the grade range. Meanwhile, several long-established cookware brands using traditional non-stick coatings cluster at the very bottom, scoring as low as 5 out of 100. This bifurcation may reflect genuine differences in formulation, but it may also reflect differences in how forthcoming brands are with materials documentation, since grading models depend heavily on available disclosure.
Methodology
Grades referenced in this study are model-based estimates derived from publicly available materials documentation, brand disclosures, and product specifications, not from independent laboratory testing of finished products. Scores reflect an assessment of PFAS-related risk factors including confirmed PTFE or fluoropolymer signals, coating type, and the completeness of public disclosure. Full details on how grades are calculated, including weighting and data sources, are available on our methodology page. Readers should treat these grades as directional risk indicators rather than definitive chemical test results.
Cite this study
"We graded 166 cookware for PFAS. Here is what we found (2026 data study)." PFAS Database. https://pfasdatabase.com/guides/pfas-study-cookware-2026. Published February 2026.
Now check your own stuff
See every product we’ve graded in this category, safest first.
Get the safe list, free
The products we score each week, and the safest alternative in every category.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.