The reasons from the article are about the quality of food through cooking consistency and how easy non-stick cookware is to use.

If there is proven data that the danger is meaningful how can those be arguments worth considering? There may be alternative cooking methods as people cooked without non-stick cookware for the vast majority of human history and consistency is just a quality level of food.

Safety and utility can often be at odds. Sometimes safety concerns outweigh utility, sometimes they don't.

For instance, car accidents are an incredibly prevalent cause of death, and even though we had methods of transport before (and in many places, better methods even today), the convenience and ease that cars bring is largely deemed to outweigh the risks in most places (though note that there has been a constant drive toward reducing those risks, without giving up cars altogether).

A meaningful downside to something is an important perspective, but arguments about upsides are also always worth considering.

For the pans in particular, consider that alternative cooking methods may have required much more manual effort to perform or clean, or that they were more difficult to exercise well. There are tradeoffs around people cooking at home less if cooking is less convenient, up against the risks of harm from the things that make cooking convenient.

Not saying one side or the other is right, but the arguments are basically always worth at least considering, even in the face of really strong counter-arguments.

I only cook on cast iron or stainless steel. I have no problems with the consistency of cooking. No clue what they’re on about