California Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed Senate Bill 682, which sought to expand the state’s ban on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) (the so-called “forever chemicals”) to a broad range of consumer products including cookware, cleaning goods, dental floss, juvenile items, ski wax and food packaging.
Newsom justified the veto by warning that the bill’s wide scope could limit product availability and undermine household affordability, particularly for cookware.
Context: what SB 682 proposed
Introduced in early 2025, SB 682 aimed to prohibit the sale or distribution of products with intentionally added PFAS starting in 2028 (for most items) and 2030 (for cookware). The measure followed a series of California regulations — notably AB 1200 and AB 347 — already restricting PFAS in plant-fiber food packaging, juvenile products and textiles. These existing laws require the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to adopt enforcement regulations by 2029 and launch compliance programs by 2030.
By comparison, SB 682 would have accelerated the timeline and broadened coverage across consumer and packaging categories. With the veto, the bill now returns to the Legislature for reconsideration.
Implications for the packaging sector
For packaging manufacturers, converters and material suppliers, the veto represents a temporary pause in regulatory expansion, not a reversal of the state’s broader anti-PFAS direction.
- The current bans remain fully in force, especially for paper-based food packaging.
- Future bans are still expected, given California’s track record as a regulatory frontrunner.
- Companies exporting to or operating in the U.S. market should continue to map PFAS use across their supply chains and invest in PFAS-free barrier technologies such as water- or bio-based coatings.
The decision may also influence how other U.S. states, and international regulators, calibrate the balance between chemical safety and product affordability.
Between sustainability and accessibility
In his veto message, Newsom emphasized that while he supports reducing exposure to harmful chemicals, the bill in its current form “could rapidly change cookware availability and undermine affordability.” The move highlights a key tension at the heart of sustainable policy-making: environmental safety versus socioeconomic access.
Environmental and health advocates have expressed disappointment, arguing that PFAS are persistent pollutants that accumulate in ecosystems and the human body. Industry groups, meanwhile, praised the veto for preventing “supply-chain disruptions” and “unintended consequences” for consumers.
The veto does not derail California’s broader PFAS phase-out agenda. AB 347’s enforcement framework is still progressing toward 2030, and federal discussions on PFAS limits continue to intensify. For the packaging industry, this episode reinforces a clear message: compliance foresight and material innovation are no longer optional.
Companies that proactively transition to PFAS-free materials, exploring natural barriers, mineral coatings or polymer alternatives, will be better positioned as regulations tighten across markets.
