{"id":9924,"date":"2025-10-23T02:16:30","date_gmt":"2025-10-23T06:16:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.packagingindustrynews.com\/?p=9924"},"modified":"2025-10-23T02:16:30","modified_gmt":"2025-10-23T06:16:30","slug":"governor-vetoes-california-pfas-ban-bill-citing-affordability-issues","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.packagingindustrynews.com\/?p=9924","title":{"rendered":"Governor vetoes California PFAS ban bill, citing affordability issues"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n \n <\/picture>
The bill would have banned PFAS-added products\u2014including cleaning goods, dental floss, juvenile items, food packaging, ski wax and, from 2030, cookware\u2014but the veto sends it back to lawmakers. \/ Credit: dba87 via Shutterstock<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

California Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed SB 682<\/a>, a proposal to widen the state\u2019s PFAS ban to more consumer products, citing concerns about the availability and cost of cooking products.<\/p>\n

The decision on 13 October 2025 sends the bill back to the Senate and leaves existing rules for food packaging and other categories in place.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\"\"\/<\/figure>\n

Discover B2B Marketing That Performs <\/h4>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCombine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n


\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tFind out more <\/svg><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\n

What SB 682 proposed<\/h2>\n

SB 682 aimed to prohibit the sale or distribution of products with intentionally added PFAS\u2014often called \u201cforever chemicals\u201d\u2014across cookware, cleaning products, dental floss, juvenile products, food packaging and ski wax.<\/p>\n

Draft timelines contemplated phased restrictions beginning in 2028 for most products and extending to cookware in 2030.<\/p>\n

The bill also would have exempted manufacturers from new registration fees created under earlier PFAS legislation, relying instead on certificates of compliance upon request.<\/p>\n

Those changes will not proceed following the veto.<\/p>\n

What California PFAS law already covers<\/h2>\n

California already restricts PFAS in plant-fibre food packaging under AB 1200, enforced by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). The rule bans intentionally added PFAS and sets a limit for total organic fluorine in paper-based packaging.<\/p>\n

In 2024, AB 347 established an enforcement and registration framework spanning juvenile products, textile articles and plant-fibre food packaging.<\/p>\n

Under AB 347, DTSC must adopt regulations by 1 July 2029 and begin enforcement by 1 July 2030; manufacturers of covered products are required to register with DTSC in that period.<\/p>\n

These measures sit alongside earlier California laws targeting PFAS in specific categories, including bans affecting juvenile products and plant-based food packaging adopted in 2021, and disclosure obligations for cookware.<\/p>\n

What happens next<\/h2>\n

The veto returns SB 682 to the Legislature amid lobbying by cookware, restaurant and packaging groups that argued a broader PFAS ban could limit affordable cookware choices and disrupt supply chains.<\/p>\n

Environmental and health advocates supported the bill, saying wider restrictions are needed because PFAS persist in the environment and build up in people.<\/p>\n

Any revived measure would need to balance those cost and availability concerns with public-health goals, while DTSC continues implementing AB 347\u2019s enforcement scheme for existing product categories.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n