The bill became a source of controversy in the Golden State, with celebrity chefs among those who rallied against the cookware ban, while environmental and health activists have argued for it.
It would have blocked the sales of cleaning products, dental floss, children’s products, food packaging and ski wax that contained such chemicals starting in 2028 and cookware with them starting in 2030.
While the bans would have only applied in California, the state’s sheer size gives it significant influence over what gets manufactured for sale across the nation.
Newsom, in his veto message Monday, raised concerns about the availability of affordable cookware if the ban were to be implemented.
“The broad range of products that would be impacted by this bill would result in a sizable and rapid shift in cooking products available to Californians,” the likely 2028 presidential hopeful wrote.
“I appreciate efforts to protect the health and safety of consumers, and while this bill is well-intentioned, I am deeply concerned about the impact this bill would have on the availability of affordable options,” he added.
However, proponents of the bill say the veto will result in more exposure to toxic chemicals.
“By vetoing SB 682, Governor Newsom failed to protect Californians and our drinking water from toxic forever chemicals,” said Anna Reade, director of PFAS advocacy with the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a written statement.
Read more at TheHill.com.
Like
0
Dislike
0
Love
0
Funny
0
Angry
0
Sad
0
Wow
0
