Gov. Newsom missed key opportunity to protect Californians from forever chemicals | Opinion

Last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed Senate Bill 682, a bill authored by Sen. Benjamin Allen, D-Santa Monica, that would have banned the distribution of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals”) in cookware. Although California often leads the way in environmental regulation, this decision appears to retreat from that leadership role on one of today’s most pressing environmental health issues.

Indeed, PFAS exposure is linked to reproductive damage, developmental delays and certain kinds of cancer. Against the current backdrop of federal deregulation, state action is more important than ever. It’s up to California’s leaders to ensure that consumers’ health doesn’t bear the cost of PFAS contamination.

Over the past few years, many states have stepped up to fill the gaps left by federal inaction, adopting legislation that bans PFAS in a wide range of products. In California, PFAS-containing food packaging was banned in 2021, as well as the manufacture, distribution and sale of forever chemicals in juvenile products, such as crib mattresses, car seats and bottles. In 2022, the state banned the sale of textiles containing PFAS, including clothing, upholstery and other common household items.

These actions illustrate the state’s growing awareness of the harms posed by PFAS exposure, as does the implementation of disclosure laws that require manufacturers to notify consumers of the presence of PFAS in their products. A public reporting platform for these disclosures was mandated in California in 2022.

In theory, such reporting laws ought to lead to regulations that protect consumers from these harms. This was the case for cosmetic products: In 2019, the state mandated their disclosure of PFAS use, and this was followed by increasingly restrictive bans in 2020, 2022 and 2023.

Therefore, we might have expected a similar trajectory for cookware, but this has not been the case. In 2021, Assembly Bill 1200 was passed in California, requiring that cookware manufacturers list their use of PFAS products. And yet, four years later, PFAS bans in these products still could not make it past the governor’s desk.

SB 682 did face opposition — most notably from celebrity chefs whose own lines of nonstick cookware contain PFAS. However, Newsom has also vetoed previous bills to ban PFAS in cleaning products and artificial turf, citing worries that adequate enforcement mechanisms were not in place.

This time around, Newsom defended his veto by claiming he is “deeply concerned about the impact this bill would have on the availability of affordable options in cooking products.” But what good is affordable cookware if it is making your family sick? Ultimately, those who can afford to protect themselves will, with or without regulation. In the meantime, manufacturers still bear no responsibility for the risks they outsource to consumers.

Besides that, cookware is hardly a top affordability concern, especially compared to previously regulated and more everyday items, like makeup and clothing. There is no apparent evidence of economic fallout from these earlier PFAS regulations.

The state has already conceded that PFAS pose real risks to human health — it’s why disclosure laws are currently on the books that inform consumers about the presence of forever chemicals. And yet, disclosure is no substitute for regulation. Consumer choice is a woefully inadequate solution for environmental health hazards, as it can only exacerbate the divide between those who can and cannot shop their way to safety. Universal protections are needed for all Californians.

Decisions in California impact the state’s nearly 40 million residents, but because of its critical leadership role, they also have repercussions that reverberate well beyond its borders. Newsom missed a key opportunity here to create real momentum against PFAS, particularly in an increasingly uncertain federal regulatory landscape. Californians are already paying the price for PFAS, and Newsom must act to limit the costs to their health as well as their wallets.

Adrienne Brown is a postdoctoral researcher at the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy. Andrea Gerlak is a professor at the University of Arizona and director of the Udall Center. This opinion does not reflect the view of the University of Arizona.

This story was originally published November 7, 2025 at 5:00 AM with the headline "Gov. Newsom missed key opportunity to protect Californians from forever chemicals | Opinion."