On February 21, 2025, California introduced SB 682, which requires California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to enforce prohibitions on the distribution, sale, or offering for sale of a cleaning product, dental floss, juvenile product, food packaging, or ski wax that contains intentionally added per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) on and after January 1, 2028. SB 682 also prohibits the distribution, sale, or offering for sale of cookware that contains intentionally added PFAS, “except for previously used products and as otherwise preempted by federal law,” on and after January 1, 2030. The bill authorizes DTSC, on or before January 1, 2029, to adopt regulations to carry out these provisions. Manufacturers with products containing intentionally added PFAS must provide a statement of compliance and technical documentation at the request of DTSC.
Senator Ben Allen, who authored the bill, stated that the purpose of SB 682 is to eliminate “unnecessary uses of PFAS while creating a pathway for necessary uses to continue.” SB 682 follows other California bills focused on banning PFAS in certain products, including AB 1200 that was signed into law on October 5, 2021, and prohibits the use of PFAS in food packaging comprised specifically of materials derived from plant fibers. Comparatively, SB 682 casts a wider net than AB 1200 by prohibiting PFAS from a broad range of materials, not just those derived from plant fibers.
SB 682 has changed significantly over the past few months and notable amendments were recently made on June 23, 2025, and July 17, 2025. These amendments were made in part by strong industry opposition to the bill’s scope and language.
“Intentionally Added PFAS” Definition
The bill’s definition of “intentionally added PFAS” has been amended several times since being introduced. Section 108945(b)(1)-(2) of the California Health and Safety Code defines “regulated PFAS” as “PFAS that a manufacturer has intentionally added to a product and that have a functional or technical effect in the product, including, but not limited to, the PFAS components of intentionally added chemicals and PFAS that are intentional breakdown products of an added chemical that also have a functional or technical effect in the product.” As introduced, SB 682 would have expanded the definition of “intentionally added PFAS” by eliminating the requirement that the regulated PFAS confer a “functional or technical effect in the product.” SB 682 instead defined “intentionally added PFAS” as “PFAS intentionally used or produced during a product’s manufacture or processing that is introduced into or onto the product, whether or not it confers a functional or technical effect in the product.” The language was broad and left the door open for practically any form of PFAS to be prohibited.
Following industry opposition to SB 682’s broad definition of “intentionally added PFAS,” the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality recommended that the definition of “intentionally added” be further clarified; SB 682 was then amended on April 8, 2025 to remove the “whether or not it confers a functional or technical effect” expansion.
SB 682 currently defines “intentionally added PFAS” as “PFAS added to a product that has a functional or technical effect in the product, including the PFAS components of intentionally added chemical mixtures and PFAS that are intentional results or outcomes of an added chemical or process, such as PFAS created as a result of fluorination of plastic.” The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorizes the use of certain fluorinated polyethylene containers in contact with food under 21 C.F.R. 177.1615 (“Polyethylene, fluorinated”).
Exemptions
Prior to the June 23, 2025, amendments, the bill exempted products from prohibition upon a determination from DTSC that PFAS in the product was a “currently unavoidable use.” The bill defined “currently unavoidable use” as “a use of PFAS that [DTSC] has determined is permissible for a limited time pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 109030.2.” Section 109030.2(a) stated that DTSC would find an exclusion only if the department found no safer alternatives, that PFAS in the product was necessary, and the use of PFAS was critical for health, safety, or the functioning of society. The bill appointed DTSC with covering the cost of administering these provisions.
The “currently unavoidable use” exemption has now been removed from the bill, and DTSC is no longer obligated to make these determinations. Now, the only exemptions to the bill’s prohibition of intentionally added PFAS are for products for which federal laws govern the presence of PFAS in a manner that preempts state law, or in a “previously used product.”
Criticisms of SB 682
SB 682 seems to follow the approach of SB 903, which also aimed to prohibit the distribution, sale, or offering for sale of products containing PFAS. The California Senate Appropriations Committee ultimately voted to abandon SB 903 following strong opposition by industry groups and cost concerns raised by DTSC regarding implementation. During deliberations of SB 903 before the Appropriations Committee, DTSC stated that they anticipate “it would require at least 44 positions and over $10 million to sufficiently implement [SB 903] as currently written,” and that there are “unknown but potentially significant state costs for state boards, departments, and organizations to comply with the provisions of this bill.” In an effort to avoid SB 682’s being abandoned for similar reasons, the bill had created a tiered timeline to allow for DTSC to more efficiently review exemption petitions and give industry an opportunity to adjust. However, following the June 23, 2025, mark-up, the tiered timeline has been removed. Costs of implementation remain a significant issue, however. In fact, the Senate Appropriations Committee estimates that administration of the bill could cost DTSC up to $12 million annually, and that the “startup costs for SB 682 would require a loan to the PFAS Enforcement Fund and PFAS Oversight Fund from [the Toxic Substances Control Account].”
Even though amendments have been made to the bill’s scope and language, SB 682 continues to receive a slew of criticism from industry stakeholders. Several organizations have signed an opposition to the bill, including the Cookware Sustainability Alliance (CSA) and the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. Additionally, the American Chemistry Council argues that SB 682 “could dramatically increase industry costs” and impact California residents through “higher prices, unavailable products, business closures, and job losses.”
Another key area of dispute centers around a polymeric PFAS used in cookware referred to as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). Manufacturers of cookware claim that this polymeric PFAS is safe for use, citing to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of fluoropolymers and nonstick cookware in food preparation, as well as approval for use from other European regulatory bodies (21 C.F.R. §§ 175.300, 177.1150). CSA stated that “fluoropolymers used by our industry, primarily [PTFE], do not have the same characteristics of nonpolymeric PFAS of concern, which should be the focus of environmental and public health policy.” Additionally, the California Manufacturers and Technology Association stated that, for cookware, the bill “threatens distribution and warehouse operations in California . . . . even those entering through California ports for sale in other states could be blocked—pushing manufacturers to relocate logistics operations out of state, costing California jobs.” Notably, in a peer reviewed article published in Environmental Health Perspectives, DTSC recommended that PFAS be regulated as a class and included fluoropolymers within this recommendation.
In addition to other policy discussions, stakeholders are looking to clarify if refrigerators fall within the definition of food packaging, and if internal components of cookware are included within the scope of the bill.
SB 682 passed through the California Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials on July 15, 2025, and was re-referred to the Appropriations Committee on July 17, 2025. During an Appropriations Committee meeting on August 20, 2025, SB 682 was sent to a “suspense file,” because its fiscal impact exceeds certain thresholds. A hearing to determine the fate of SB 682 is scheduled for August 29, 2025.