California Governor Gavin Newsom's decision to veto a bill that would have banned the sale of cookware and other consumer products made with toxic PFAS "forever chemicals" has dealt a significant blow to advocates fighting for greater regulation of these pollutants. The move, which was widely seen as a victory for industry interests, may slow or even kill similar legislation in other states, where PFAS are already being phased out.
Critics argue that the veto hands the industry a new weapon to use in battles over PFAS in other states, and that Newsom's reasoning is flawed. Clean Water Action, which lobbied for the bill, described the veto as a "blow" to momentum building towards removing PFAS from these products nationwide.
The decision followed intense pressure from the cookware lobby, including from celebrity chefs with financial stakes in selling PFS pans. However, public health advocates remain optimistic that the broader shift in public opinion, driven by growing awareness of the risks posed by PFAS, will ultimately drive change. Stores like Target are already phasing out cookware containing PFAS, and the public is increasingly demanding action to address this issue.
Gretchen Salter, policy director for Safer States, notes that while the veto may have won this round, it failed in other states where similar legislation was supported by lawmakers who represented their constituents. "If lawmakers represent their constituents then they'll pass a ban, and if they represent billion-dollar companies then they will oppose it," she said.
The decision offers some insight into how a potential President Newsom would approach environmental and toxic chemical issues. However, advocates are already regrouping and exploring next steps to push forward with their efforts. As Anna Reade, director of PFAS advocacy for the Natural Resources Defense Council, notes, "the veto was not reflective of the diverse support" in California that included water industry representatives, sewage treatment professionals, firefighters, independent scientists, and public health advocates.
Despite the setback, there is a sense that momentum is building towards greater regulation of PFAS. As Salter puts it, "Pfas is on the way out because consumers are demanding it." Whether this demand translates into legislative action remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the fight against PFAS is far from over.
Critics argue that the veto hands the industry a new weapon to use in battles over PFAS in other states, and that Newsom's reasoning is flawed. Clean Water Action, which lobbied for the bill, described the veto as a "blow" to momentum building towards removing PFAS from these products nationwide.
The decision followed intense pressure from the cookware lobby, including from celebrity chefs with financial stakes in selling PFS pans. However, public health advocates remain optimistic that the broader shift in public opinion, driven by growing awareness of the risks posed by PFAS, will ultimately drive change. Stores like Target are already phasing out cookware containing PFAS, and the public is increasingly demanding action to address this issue.
Gretchen Salter, policy director for Safer States, notes that while the veto may have won this round, it failed in other states where similar legislation was supported by lawmakers who represented their constituents. "If lawmakers represent their constituents then they'll pass a ban, and if they represent billion-dollar companies then they will oppose it," she said.
The decision offers some insight into how a potential President Newsom would approach environmental and toxic chemical issues. However, advocates are already regrouping and exploring next steps to push forward with their efforts. As Anna Reade, director of PFAS advocacy for the Natural Resources Defense Council, notes, "the veto was not reflective of the diverse support" in California that included water industry representatives, sewage treatment professionals, firefighters, independent scientists, and public health advocates.
Despite the setback, there is a sense that momentum is building towards greater regulation of PFAS. As Salter puts it, "Pfas is on the way out because consumers are demanding it." Whether this demand translates into legislative action remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the fight against PFAS is far from over.