SB 682, vetoed by Gavin Newsom, would impact chefs, lawmakers, and environmentalists.

Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed a California Senate Bill , SB 682, on October 13. This attempted legislation sought to prohibit the distribution, sale, or offer for sale of certain products containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

Newsom 's veto sparked a debate among chefs, lawmakers, and environmentalists, given the law's potential impact on a wide range of consumer products. The governor issued a statement explaining the reason for his decision , even though he shared the ultimate goal.

The governor supported the goal of protecting human health and the environment from the use of PFAS, but explained that the bill would affect too broad a range of products , resulting in a “substantial and rapid shift” in the kitchen products available to Californians.

On the other hand, he encouraged the author and stakeholders to continue discussions , but invited them to ensure that it does not sacrifice Californians' ability to afford essential products and that it does not severely limit options in the Golden State's kitchens.

Finally, he emphasized that the state must carefully consider the consequences that could result from such a dramatic change in the products available on shelves. "For these reasons, I cannot sign the bill," he concluded.

SB 682 established progressive bans on products containing intentionally added PFAS. Beginning January 1, 2028, the legislation would have prevented the distribution, sale, or offering for sale of the following products:

Following this initial phase, on January 1, 2030, the regulation would have prohibited the distribution, sale, or offering for sale of cookware containing intentionally added PFAS , which would impact chefs, cooks, and those related to the sector.

The legislation's author, Senator Ben Allen, expressed his disappointment after The Guardian vetoed the bill. While acknowledging that there were strong voices on both sides of the issue, he plans to press the issue further.

The bill was supported by major environmental groups , who argued that phasing out non-essential uses of PFAS should be an immediate legislative goal. From their perspective, they are a significant source of pollution.

The use of fluorinated organic chemicals, which are persistent and highly toxic , was the primary target of the regulation . They are also known as "forever chemicals" because they do not decompose naturally.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), studies on PFAS have been linked to several types of health problems :

In another study shared by the CDC , between 1999-2000 and 2017-2018, PFOS blood concentrations decreased by more than 85%; while PFOA blood concentrations decreased by more than 70%.