“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.
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.”
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.







