California governor rejects bill to phase out “forever” chemicals used in cookware, children’s products

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday vetoed legislation that would have phased out a range of popular consumer products, including nonstick pots and pans, that contain synthetic chemicals with potential links to cancer.

“I appreciate the 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 in cooking products,” Newsom wrote in his veto statement. “I believe we must carefully consider the consequences that may result from a dramatic shift of products on our shelves.”

The legislation would have prohibited the selling or distributing of cookware with intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS, by 2030. It phased out PFAS in products for infants and children, ski wax, dental floss, food packaging and cleaning products starting in 2028. Previously used items would have been exempt.

State Sen. Benjamin Allen (D-Santa Monica), who introduced the legislation, Senate Bill 682, said he will continue to work on the issue.

“We are obviously disappointed,” he told The Times. “We know there are safer alternatives, [but] I understand there were strong voices on both sides on this topic.”

Allen said the veto allowed manufacturers to “escape accountability” and kept the burden of cleaning the environment on the public.

“Ratepayers and local governments have been struggling to keep up with the ballooning costs of cleaning these ‘forever chemicals’ from our water infrastructure,” he said in a statement Monday evening. “I’m hopeful we can continue working on a transition away from these dangerous products which already have safer alternatives at reasonable prices available on the market.”

A study released in 2023 by the U.S. Geological Survey found that tap water in urban areas of Southern and Central California is more likely to contain PFAS than the drinking water in most of the nation’s other regions.

PFAS are commonly dubbed “forever chemicals” because of their well-established longevity. They are linked to adverse health effects, including liver enzyme changes and kidney and testicular cancer, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The chemicals have been used for decades to prevent food from sticking to pans or packaging, or to make materials more resistant to stains. California has taken steps in recent years to ban their use in certain items such as cosmetics and menstrual products.

Dozens of organizations weighed in on Allen’s bill, with the Sierra Club, California Health Coalition Advocacy, League of California Cities and Environmental Working Group supporting the legislation.

Susan Little, the working group’s California legislative director, criticized the governor for rejecting the bill.

“This veto is a major step backward for California’s leadership in protecting people and the planet from toxic PFAS,” she said in a Tuesday statement. “Gov. Newsom had the opportunity to protect millions of Californians from toxic ‘forever chemicals’ and he chose not to.”

The Chemical Industry Council of California and the Cookware Sustainability Alliance were among the organizations opposed to the bill.

Steve Burns, president of the sustainability alliance, was especially concerned by the provision barring the distribution of the banned products.

“California is the entry point for nonstick cookware and other products that come into the Port of Long Beach, the Port of Los Angeles or the Port of Oakland, and then get distributed throughout the country,” he told The Times. “They go to warehouses, distribution centers and get loaded up on rail or usually trucks — so there’s a lot of jobs in the California economy that depend on products that have Teflon.”

Allen’s spokesperson confirmed Tuesday that the bill would have applied to items shipping from California.

Burns said science hasn’t shown that all PFAS are harmful and said California should have studied the issue further. He pointed to Illinois, which recently passed similar legislation but ultimately nixed the line banning nonstick cookware. An amendment instead directs the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to assess scientific data on fluoropolymers, the type of PFAS used in nonstick pots and pans.

Several states recently moved toward restricting items with PFAS. In January, Minnesota became the first state to ban PFAS in cookware. The Cookware Sustainability Alliance filed a lawsuit arguing the law discriminated against out-of-state commerce. A judge dismissed the suit in August.

The sustainability alliance has shared letters of opposition on its website from several prominent chefs and culinary personalities, including cook and television host Rachael Ray and Mark Dommen, the chef at Hestan, a restaurant in Napa that’s slated to open this year.

Dommen said the legislation would have placed an unfair burden on restaurants and food service providers.

“Non-stick cookware is essential to our daily operations and eliminating these products without a viable alternative would drive up costs, disrupt our supply chain, and put California restaurants at a competitive disadvantage,” Dommen wrote.

Ray, who has a cookware line, said easy-clean cookware helps families eat more healthfully by making it easier to prepare meals without extra oils or fats.

Her letter drew a gentle rebuke from actor and environmental activist Mark Ruffalo, who implored Ray on social media to reconsider her stance and said her advocacy on behalf of the cookware industry was putting the bill in jeopardy.

“Some of us have so much PFAS in our blood that we face a far greater risk of developing cancer,” he wrote in a recent letter shared on X. “Let’s work together to get PFAS out of the everyday products we bring into our home.”

Scientific studies about the health effects of PFAS are ongoing, according to the CDC.

“Research has identified associations between PFAS exposure and several health impacts,” the agency’s website states. “There are many factors that can influence the risk of these effects, such as exposure, individual factors and other health determinants. Research is ongoing to understand the mechanisms of PFAS toxicity.”

Times staff writer Melody Gutierrez contributed to this report.