Opinion
California can lead on PFAS reform—but not with SB 682
Image by Francesco Scatena. OPINION – At a time when California’s global economic leadership is under pressure, we cannot afford to adopt sweeping policies that put entire industries at risk without clear, science-based justification. Yet that’s exactly what Senate Bill 682 (Allen) threatens to do. Reintroduced this year without addressing previous critical concerns from legislators and stakeholders, SB 682 would create a vague and overly broad regulatory framework that could put California’s economy at risk.
SB 682 seeks to ban the manufacturing, sale, and distribution of any consumer products containing intentionally added PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), including in processes where they are used safely and are considered essential by federal standards. While the intent to protect public health is commendable, the bill’s current language ignores real-world applications and consequences. It casts such a wide net that it would effectively ban a range of products—including some cookware, dental floss, cleaning products, and food packaging—all items which many Californians consider critical to daily life and are vital sectors of our economy.
The California Manufacturers & Technology Association (CMTA), the leading voice for a sector that supports our $4 trillion economy, strongly opposes this manufacturer-breaking bill. California manufacturers are not seeking exemptions; we are demanding clarity. Our industry has invested billions in cleaner technologies and safer chemical processes. We believe in regulation that protects public health while allowing manufacturers to innovate, grow, and create good-paying jobs.
PFAS are used in the safe production of semiconductors, aerospace communication devices, automotive components like batteries and fuel lines, construction materials, food packaging, and even life-saving medical devices. These are not fringe products. They are the foundation of California’s innovation economy and infrastructure. The Environmental Protection Agency itself has acknowledged that, when used properly, certain PFAS serve critical functions in a safe and cost-effective way.
For manufacturers currently working to comply with Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws, this bill would inhibit those efforts due to its broad regulatory framework and rigidity. As manufacturers attempt to adhere to evolving regulations, we cannot risk further stress to a vital industry already facing uncertainty.
SB 682 would also exacerbate California’s housing crisis. Construction materials that rely on PFAS for safety and durability would be restricted, delaying progress on desperately needed housing projects. Our agricultural exports, which are crucial to both California’s economy and the global food supply, could face setbacks from material bans that competitors abroad aren’t facing. The healthcare industry could also experience significant setbacks without access to critical products and equipment.
As California aims to be a leader in artificial intelligence and advanced manufacturing, the timing of this bill could not be worse. Banning key PFAS applications would hinder the very technologies driving our future, including the semiconductors and high-performance computing systems powering AI. Likewise, with the automotive industry beginning to reshore operations, California’s inconsistent regulatory approach sends a troubling signal to investors.
We must regulate PFAS thoughtfully, guided by science and feasibility—not with vague mandates that leave manufacturers guessing and consumers footing the bill. Even the European Union, known for strict environmental regulations, has paused and reconsidered aspects of its PFAS restrictions due to implementation challenges and policy complications.
If California wants to continue to lead, it should lead with intention. In these economically uncertain times, we need policies that foster innovation, protect health, and ensure our industries can compete on the global stage. SB 682, as currently written, is not that policy. Lawmakers must go back to the drawing board and pursue solutions that protect people without paralyzing progress.
Lance Hastings is President & CEO of the California Manufacturers & Technology Association.
Want to see more stories like this? Sign up for The Roundup, the free daily newsletter about California politics from the editors of Capitol Weekly. Stay up to date on the news you need to know.
Sign up below, then look for a confirmation email in your inbox.
It is disappointing to see both hyperbole and misleading statements expressed in this commentary. A few corrections are warranted:
SB 682 will ban unnecessary uses of PFAS and well it should given that virtually all of us have PFAS in our bodies, 25 million Californians have them in their water supplies, and companies that profit from their use are placing the health and environmental costs on the public. All PFAS are persistent and independent science indicates that they are either harmful or can become harmful. Medical products will be available as they are not covered by the bill and components of complex products, such as airplanes, new construction or high tech will be allowed if there are no alternatives and the PFAS containing material is essential to public safety. The bill is an effort to stop the bleeding of toxic chemicals into our state as a commonsense step. If American industry can’t transition from truly unnecessary toxic chemicals and work toward innovation when those chemicals are currently necessary, then any future economic problems will stem either from their inability to compete in a world market which is pushing for these changes or by the liability that is growing around continued pollution around the country.
Here’s an indication of how carelessly CMTA read the bill and the level of inaccuracy that is pervasive in this uninformed opinion piece: contrary to CMTA claims, only dental floss, cookware, cleaning products, and food packaging *containing intentionally added PFAS* would be banned under SB 682. There are many, many products in these categories that do not contain PFAS, and numerous products in all these product categories will remain available. Do people really want harmful PFAS chemicals between their teeth when there are safer alternatives available?
For other product categories, SB 682 provides a pragmatic pathway for necessary uses to continue. For critical uses, as long as industry makes a showing that there are no safer alternatives and that the PFAS is needed for the main function of the product, uses can continue. Industry just doesn’t like the fact that the bill would no longer allow indiscriminate use of these harmful chemicals to continue without any checks. The bill also has an explicit provision providing that uses of PFAS that are federally required are exempt. Again, CMTA is misrepresenting the bill or worse.
Finally, let’s address another red herring. CMTA keeps saying things like PFAS are used in medical products and are therefore safe. That’s hardly the case. Take radiation and cancer treatment. Sometimes on balance, it is important to use harmful materials for limited purposes. That doesn’t make them safe and justify their use in all circumstances. And the claims that PFAS are used safely in production . . . Check out movies like Dark Waters and documentaries like The Devil We Know and How to Poison the Planet.
We’ve repeatedly seen industry oppose regulation that forces innovation (remember seat belts?)—even as they tout their ‘innovation’ when it comes to making money, they claim they can’t innovate when it comes to avoiding harm to people and planet.
SB 682 would phase out unnecessary uses of harmful PFAS chemicals, while providing a pathway for necessary uses to continue. CMTA’s bluster shouldn’t fool anyone.