California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law two bills banning per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in textiles and cosmetics on September 29, 2022, while simultaneously vetoing a bill that would have required manufacturers and certain other businesses to submit annual reports concerning the usage of PFAS in products sold or imported into the state. These new consumer regulations will have far-reaching implications for companies up and down the supply chain doing business in one of the world’s largest economies.
California’s latest prohibition on PFAS in textiles and cosmetics comes on the heels of its October 2021 ban of PFAS in paper-based food packaging and juvenile products, and pushes California to the forefront of PFAS regulation in consumer goods. While other states have regulated or in some instances banned PFAS in certain products, California’s newest PFAS restrictions are some of the strictest in the country.
Assembly Bill No. 1817 prohibits the manufacture, distribution, or sale within the state of any new textile articles containing regulated PFAS beginning January 1, 2025.
“Regulated PFAS” is broadly defined as either (1) PFAS that a manufacturer intentionally adds to a product for a functional or technical effect, or (2) PFAS present in a product at or above 100 parts per million in total organic fluorine (commencing January 1, 2025) or 50 parts per million in total organic fluorine (commencing January 1, 2027). The bill requires that textile manufacturers use the least toxic alternative when removing regulated PFAS from textile articles.
Manufacturers must also provide distributors or sellers in the state with certificates stating that textile articles are compliant with the law and do not contain any regulated PFAS. As defined in AB 1817, “textile articles” are textile goods customarily and ordinarily used in households and businesses, such as apparel, accessories, handbags, backpacks, draperies, shower curtains, furnishings, upholstery, beddings, towels, napkins, and tablecloths.
AB 1817 specifies that the ban on PFAS does not apply to “outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions,” including personal protective equipment (PPE) such as firefighting gear, until January 1, 2028. However, starting January 1, 2025, distributors or sellers of any new PPE containing regulated PFAS in California must provide a legible and easily discernable disclosure with the statement, “Made with PFAS chemicals.”
Assembly Bill No. 2771 prohibits the manufacture, distribution, or sale of any cosmetic product in the state that contains “intentionally added PFAS” starting January 1, 2025.
AB 2771 greatly expands on AB 2762, a bill passed on September 30, 2020, that banned the manufacture, distribution, or sale of 13 specified PFAS substances in cosmetic products. “Intentionally added PFAS” means either (1) PFAS that a manufacturer intentionally adds to a product for a functional or technical effect, or (2) PFAS chemicals that are intentional breakdown products of an added chemical. As defined in AB 2771, a “cosmetic product” is any product for retail sale or professional use intended to be applied to the human body for cleansing or cosmetic purposes.
Assembly Bill No. 2247, which Governor Newsom vetoed, would have required the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to implement a publicly accessible database of information about PFAS and products containing intentionally added PFAS by January 1, 2026. The bill would have required manufacturers of PFAS or products containing intentionally added PFAS to annually register the PFAS or PFAS-containing product and other specified information on the publicly accessible database. These reporting requirements would not have applied to certain products regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration or products intended for certain animal uses that are regulated by federal law.
In his veto statement, Governor Newsom explained that AB 2247 may be duplicative of the DTSC’s efforts through the Safer Consumer Products Program and “premature” because the US Environmental Protection Agency is currently undergoing rulemaking to require reporting of PFAS. He noted that the bill “is estimated to cost millions of dollars that would result in increased Environmental Fee rates or General Fund resources for the new contract, staff support, and state oversight responsibilities. With [California] facing lower-than-expected revenues over the first few months of this fiscal year, it is important to remain disciplined when it comes to spending.”
If you have any questions or would like more information on the issues discussed in this LawFlash, please contact any of the following: