California 2025-2026 Regular Session

California Senate Bill SB682

Introduced
2/21/25  
Refer
3/5/25  
Report Pass
4/7/25  
Refer
4/8/25  

Caption

Environmental health: product safety: perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

Impact

The implications of SB 682 are substantial, potentially reshaping product safety regulations throughout California. It mandates that, beginning on January 1, 2027, manufacturers must cease the distribution and sale of covered products, which include cleaning products, cookware, and food packaging, among others, if they contain intentionally added PFAS. This phase-out aims not only to reduce direct exposure to these harmful chemicals but also to mitigate broader environmental contamination and enhance public health protections. The proposal further commands the establishment of the PFAS Oversight Fund to support the regulation's initiatives.

Summary

Senate Bill 682, introduced by Senator Allen, aims to address the environmental and health challenges posed by perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). This legislative initiative proposes significant amendments to existing regulations under the Health and Safety Code, particularly focused on restricting the sale and distribution of consumer products containing intentionally added PFAS. The bill mandates the Department of Toxic Substances Control to enforce the prohibitions and ensure compliance with the established regulations. As it stands, the bill outlines a phased approach to eliminate PFAS from various product categories, starting in 2027 and expanding the restrictions over the years leading into 2040.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 682 appears largely positive among environmental activists and public health advocates who view it as a critical step toward reducing toxic exposures and protecting vulnerable populations. However, there is notable concern among some manufacturers and industry proponents about the economic impact this might have on product availability and business operations. Critics argue that the timeline for compliance may be too stringent, and there is apprehension about the potential costs associated with replacing or reformulating products to remove PFAS.

Contention

Notable points of contention regarding SB 682 include debates over the balance between public health benefits and economic implications for businesses reliant on PFAS-containing products. There is discussion regarding the criteria for determining what constitutes a 'currently unavoidable use' of PFAS and whether specific product categories can be exempted under certain conditions. The effectiveness of the proposed regulations in preventing adverse health outcomes and environmental damage continues to be a central theme in legislative discussions, highlighting the ongoing conflict between regulatory measures and industry interests.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA SB730

Product safety: consumer products: perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

CA AB872

Environmental health: product safety: perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

IA HF588

A bill for an act prohibiting the use, manufacture, distribution, and sale of consumer products containing certain chemicals and making penalties applicable.

NJ A1421

"Protecting Against Forever Chemicals Act"; establishes requirements, prohibitions, and programs for regulation of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

NM HB212

Per- & Poly-flouroalkyl Protection Act

MA S1504

To protect Massachusetts public health from PFAS

MA H2450

To protect Massachusetts public health from PFAS

MN HF1627

PFAS products exempted or prohibitions delayed, PFAS reporting requirements modified, lead-containing product prohibitions delayed, and PFAS-containing firefighting foam prohibitions at airport hangars delayed.