Here's an ethical issue that my wife and I have been pondering. We've been increasingly vigilant about trying to detoxify our house, and not just in terms of organic food, but trying to buy solid wood furniture rather than stuff with MDF, which apparently de-gases formaldehyde and other nasty stuff. Another step we've taken is getting rid of all our non-stick cookware, because the teflon coating breaks down at high temperatures (high, but within the range of cooking).
But what to do with that cookware? We could donate it to Goodwill, not so much for the tax write-off as to help lower-income people . . . but is it really helping them to make available something that we don't want because we think it's potentially hazardous? I mean, the FDA hasn't issued regulations to ban this kind of stuff yet, so it's still legal, but then, the FDA still hasn't banned BPA yet either. In other words, just because the teflon coated cookware is still legal doesn't mean it's ethical to pass it along.
On the other hand, cookware without teflon coating can be expensive, and probably not the sort of thing that low-income persons would be in the market for, when there are cheaper (if potentially hazardous) alternatives available, at least until such time as the FDA actually decides to take action.
This raises the age-old question of regulation and paternalism. On the one hand, I have a mild libertarian streak (that's small-l libertarian, not the Libertarian party type), so I sort of think people should be free to make decisions for themselves. On the other hand, if people are buying non-stick teflon cookware because it's cheaper than the better stuff, not because they want to, then it's not really a case of "deciding" so much as "being forced to."
So, I'm at an impasse about the right thing to do. For what it's worth, we ended up just tossing the stuff.