California Bans PFAS in Household Products

California Takes Bold Step Toward Banning PFAS in Household Products

In a major environmental move, California lawmakers voted late last Friday to phase out the use of PFAS—commonly referred to as "forever chemicals"—in cookware and a variety of household products. Senate Bill 682 passed the state Assembly with a 41–19 vote, with 20 lawmakers abstaining from voting. Shortly after, the bill cleared the state Senate, and now it is heading to Governor Gavin Newsom for final approval. Newsom has until October 12 to sign the bill into law, which could mark a significant shift in consumer products across the nation.

The new legislation targets a wide range of items, from cookware and cleaning products to dental floss, ski wax, food packaging, and some children’s products. While the law mandates that cookware must be PFAS-free by 2030, different timelines are set for other products.

What Are PFAS and Why Should We Care?

PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are a family of thousands of synthetic chemicals developed over 70 years ago. These compounds are highly valued for their resistance to heat, water, and stains, which is why they are used in everything from nonstick cookware and carpets to firefighting foam and cosmetics. However, the very durability that makes them so effective also poses a serious environmental and health risk.

PFAS are virtually indestructible, persisting in soil and water for decades and accumulating in the human body over time. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has found PFAS in the blood of nearly every American. Exposure to these chemicals has been linked to a variety of health issues, including cancers, liver and kidney damage, and harm to the reproductive and nervous systems.

A Measure for Public Health

Senator Ben Allen, a Democrat from Southern California and the bill’s sponsor, emphasized that the dangers posed by PFAS outweigh the convenience they provide. "PFAS pose a level of serious risks that require us to take a measured approach to reduce their proliferation and unnecessary use throughout the marketplace," he said following the vote. "With SB 682, California can take another strong step toward responsibly phasing out these toxins."

This legislation is part of California's broader efforts to tackle PFAS contamination. The state has already banned these chemicals in products like carpets, textiles, and firefighting foam, and the new law aims to further reduce their use in everyday household items. If signed, California will continue to set the pace for environmental regulation, driving change in both consumer markets and manufacturing practices.

A Divisive Debate

While many environmental advocates have celebrated the bill's passage, it has sparked significant debate, especially around nonstick cookware.

Industry representatives, including the Cookware Sustainability Alliance, have lobbied fiercely against the bill, warning that banning Teflon-coated pans will lead to higher costs and inferior alternatives for consumers. High-profile chefs like Rachael Ray, Thomas Keller, Marcus Samuelsson, and David Chang have all voiced concerns, with Ray arguing that "PTFEs, when manufactured and used responsibly, are proven to be safe and effective."

We've heard that line before. Supporters of the bill argue instead that the long-term health risks associated with PFAS outweigh any short-term convenience. Environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), point to studies showing that scratched or overheated nonstick pans can release PFAS particles or microplastics into food. Actor and environmental advocate Mark Ruffalo has become a vocal proponent of the ban, citing independent scientific research that links PFAS in cookware to contamination in food.

Studies Showing Long-Term Harm to Human Health

The C8 Health Project, conducted in communities near a DuPont chemical plant, found associations between PFOA exposure and several serious health issues, including cancer, liver disease, and hypertension (1). A systematic review published in Environmental Health Perspectives examined multiple studies and concluded that PFAS exposure is linked to immune system disruption, increased cancer risk, liver damage, and developmental issues, particularly in fetuses (2). Finally, a longitudinal study published in JAMA focused on pregnant women, finding that higher PFAS blood levels were associated with an increased risk of hypertension and preeclampsia, which can lead to dangerous complications during pregnancy (3). These studies collectively underscore the widespread and severe health risks of PFAS exposure.

Looking Ahead: California's Environmental Leadership

If Governor Newsom signs the bill into law, California will once again lead the charge on environmental protection, urging manufacturers to adopt safer alternatives such as natural clay and ceramic, safe stainless steel and cast iron. Supporters of the legislation argue that the move is necessary for public health, while critics caution that lawmakers may be moving too quickly without fully considering the scientific evidence.

Regardless of where one stands on the issue, it's clear that California is pushing for a significant reduction in the use of harmful "forever chemicals," setting a bold example for other states and the nation as a whole. As the debate continues, one thing is certain: the fight against PFAS is just getting started, and California is taking a strong stance in moving these chemicals closer to complete removal from the market.

Sources

1. C8 Health Project. (2014). The C8 Health Project: A large-scale study on health effects from exposure to PFOA. Environmental Health Perspectives, 122(2), 173-179. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1307157

2. Environmental Health Perspectives. (2021). PFAS exposure and human health: A review of the evidence. Environmental Health Perspectives, 129(9), 090501. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP8080

3. JAMA. (2019). Longitudinal study on PFAS and the risk of hypertension in pregnant women. Journal of the American Medical Association, 322(4), 378-385. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.7980