California’s Gov. Gavin Newsom halted legislation that would have banned “forever chemicals,” known as PFAS, from several products in his state.
The legislation, which Newsom vetoed on Oct. 13, would have prevented the sale of cookware, cleaning products, dental floss, children’s products, food packaging, and ski wax containing the chemicals.
Cookware with harmful substances would have been banned starting in 2030, and the other products in 2028.
“Forever chemicals” is the nickname given to the group of chemicals called PFAS, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, which are synthetic and used widely in products, including non-stick, waterproof, or heat and stain-resistant items.
When announcing the veto, Newsom voiced concern about the availability of cookware if the ban were put in place.
“The broad range of products that would be impacted by this bill would result in a sizable and rapid shift in cooking products available to Californians,” he said.
“I appreciate efforts to protect the health and safety of consumers, and while this bill is well-intentioned, I am deeply concerned about the impact this bill would have on the availability of affordable options,” he added.
Dr. Anna Reade, director of PFAS advocacy with Natural Resources Defense Council, criticized Newsom for his decision in an Oct. 13 statement, saying, “By vetoing SB 682, Governor Newsom failed to protect Californians and our drinking water from toxic forever chemicals.”
According to Reade, the policy would have aligned with California with other states that have decided to phase out PFAS from these consumer products.
“Now, California is a laggard. It’s unfortunate that misinformation and greed by some in the cookware industry tanked this policy.
“But people are increasingly aware of the health and pollution risks associated with forever chemicals and are demanding PFAS-free alternatives for their homes and families.”
PFAS can stay in soil and water for centuries, and there has been a link found between the chemicals and health problems, including some cancers, and changes in immune and hormone systems.
However, those in opposition to the legislation said it wasn’t a clear-cut support of PFAS.
The California Manufacturers and Technology Association stood against the legislation, saying, “We support targeted efforts to address harmful PFAS chemicals.”
However, the association said, the bill “continues an overreach by banning broad categories of PFAS used safely in cookware and by establishing unworkable standards for sectors like cleaning products.”
“SB 682 fails to distinguish between harmful PFAS and inert, stable fluoropolymers like PTFE, which are FDA-approved for food contact and used in medical devices,” it said.
“These materials do not pose environmental or health risks and have been safely used for decades.”
The association continued, saying that because the bill bans the distribution of affected products, it could push manufacturers to relocate logistics operations out of state, “costing California jobs.”
Similarly, the Cookware Sustainability Alliance said, “The fluoropolymers used by our industry, primarily polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), do not have the same characteristics of nonpolymeric PFAS of concern, which should be the focus of environmental and public health policy.”
Several states, including Vermont, have signed a bill related to the limitation of PFAS use.
Last year, Vermont Governor Phil Scott signed legislation that prohibited manufacturers from intentionally adding PFAS into menstrual products, cosmetic products, certain consumer products, and food packaging.
It also restricted the use and sale of PFAS-containing class B firefighting foam, and from personal protective equipment.
