Existing law, beginning January 1, 2025, prohibits a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale in commerce any cosmetic product that contains intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), as defined. Existing law similarly prohibits, beginning January 1, 2025, a person from manufacturing, distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state any new, not previously owned, textile articles that contain regulated PFAS, except as specified, and requires a manufacturer to use the least toxic alternative when removing regulated PFAS in textile articles to comply with these provisions.

This bill, beginning January 1, 2026, would prohibit a person from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale in the state a cleaning product that contains regulated PFAS, as specified. The bill, beginning January 1, 2028, would prohibit a person from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale in the state a floor sealer or floor finish that contains regulated PFAS, as specified. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable by a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 per day for each violation, upon an action brought by the Attorney General, a city or county attorney, a county counsel, city prosecutor, or a district attorney. The bill would exempt treatments containing PFAS for use on converted textiles or leathers, as specified, from these provisions.

Existing law, beginning January 1, 2025, prohibits a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale in commerce any cosmetic product that contains intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), as defined. Existing law similarly prohibits, beginning January 1, 2025, a person from manufacturing, distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state any new, not previously owned, textile articles that contain regulated PFAS, except as specified, and requires a manufacturer to use the least toxic alternative when removing regulated PFAS in textile articles to comply with these provisions.

This bill, beginning January 1, 2026, would prohibit a person from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale in the state a cleaning product that contains regulated PFAS, as specified. The bill, beginning January 1, 2028, would prohibit a person from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale in the state a floor sealer or floor finish that contains regulated PFAS, as specified. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable by a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for a first violation and not to exceed $10,000 per day for each subsequent violation, upon an action brought by the Attorney General, a city or county attorney, a county counsel, city prosecutor, or a district attorney. The bill would require the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney to provide a written notice of an alleged violation to a retailer before bringing an action, as specified. Under the bill, the retailer would have 30 days from receipt of the notification to cease selling or offering for sale the product alleged to violate these provisions. The bill would authorize the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney to bring an action if 30 days after receipt of the notice of violation the retailer continues to sell or offer for sale the same stock keeping unit (SKU) that is alleged to violate these provisions. The bill would exempt treatments containing PFAS for use on converted textiles or leathers, as specified, from these provisions.

Existing law, beginning January 1, 2025, prohibits a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale in commerce any cosmetic product that contains intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), as defined. Existing law similarly prohibits, beginning January 1, 2025, a person from manufacturing, distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state any new, not previously owned, textile articles that contain regulated PFAS, except as specified, and requires a manufacturer to use the least toxic alternative when removing regulated PFAS in textile articles to comply with these provisions.

This bill, beginning January 1, 2026, would prohibit a person from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale in the state a cleaning product that contains regulated PFAS, as specified. The bill, beginning January 1, 2028, would prohibit a person from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale in the state a floor sealer or floor finish that contains regulated PFAS, as specified. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable by a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for a first violation and not to exceed $10,000 per day for each subsequent violation, upon an action brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney. The bill would require the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney to provide a written notice of an alleged violation to a retailer before bringing an action, as specified. Under the bill, the retailer would have 30 days from receipt of the notification to cease selling or offering for sale the cleaning product alleged to violate these provisions. The bill would authorize the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney to bring an action if 30 days after receipt of the notice of violation the retailer continues to sell or offer for sale the same stock keeping unit (SKU) that is alleged to violate these provisions. The bill would exempt treatments containing PFAS for use on converted textiles or leathers, as specified, from these provisions.

Existing law, beginning January 1, 2025, prohibits a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale in commerce any cosmetic product that contains intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), as defined. Existing law similarly prohibits, beginning January 1, 2025, a person from manufacturing, distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state any new, not previously owned, textile articles that contain regulated PFAS, except as specified, and requires a manufacturer to use the least toxic alternative when removing regulated PFAS in textile articles to comply with these provisions.

This bill, beginning January 1, 2026, would prohibit a person from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale in the state a cleaning product that contains regulated PFAS, as specified. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable by a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for a first violation and not to exceed $10,000 per day for each subsequent violation, upon an action brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney. The bill would require the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney to provide a written notice of an alleged violation to a retailer before bringing an action, as specified. Under the bill, the retailer would have 30 days from receipt of the notification to cease selling or offering for sale the cleaning product alleged to violate these provisions. The bill would authorize the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney to bring an action if 30 days after receipt of the notice of violation the retailer continues to sell or offer for sale the same stock keeping unit (SKU) that is alleged to violate these provisions. The bill would exempt treatments containing PFAS for use on converted textiles or leathers, as specified, from these provisions.

Existing law, beginning January 1, 2025, prohibits a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale in commerce any cosmetic product that contains intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), as defined. Existing law similarly prohibits, beginning January 1, 2025, a person from manufacturing, distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state any new, not previously owned, textile articles that contain regulated PFAS, except as specified, and requires a manufacturer to use the least toxic alternative when removing regulated PFAS in textile articles to comply with these provisions.

This bill, beginning January 1, 2026, would prohibit a person from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale in the state a cleaning product that contains regulated PFAS, as specified. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable by a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for a first violation and not to exceed $10,000 for each subsequent violation, upon an action brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney. The bill would exempt treatments containing PFAS for use on converted textiles or leathers, as specified, from these provisions.

Existing law, beginning January 1, 2025, prohibits a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale in commerce any cosmetic product that contains intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), as defined. Existing law similarly prohibits, beginning January 1, 2025, a person from manufacturing, distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state any new, not previously owned, textile articles that contain regulated PFAS, except as specified, and requires a manufacturer to use the least toxic alternative when removing regulated PFAS in textile articles to comply with these provisions.

This bill, beginning January 1, 2025, 2026, would prohibit a person from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale in the state a cleaning product that contains regulated PFAS, as specified. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable by a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for a first violation and not to exceed $10,000 for each subsequent violation, upon an action brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney.

Existing law, beginning January 1, 2025, prohibits a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale in commerce any cosmetic product that contains intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), as defined. Existing law similarly prohibits, beginning January 1, 2025, a person from manufacturing, distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state any new, not previously owned, textile articles that contain regulated PFAS, except as specified, and requires a manufacturer to use the least toxic alternative when removing regulated PFAS in textile articles to comply with these provisions.

This bill, beginning January 1, 2025, would prohibit a person from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale in the state a cleaning product that contains regulated PFAS, as specified. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable by a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for a first violation and not to exceed $10,000 for each subsequent violation, upon an action brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney.

Existing law, beginning January 1, 2025, prohibits a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale in commerce any cosmetic product that contains intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), as defined. Existing law similarly prohibits, beginning January 1, 2025, a person from manufacturing, distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state any new, not previously owned, textile articles that contain regulated PFAS, except as specified, and requires a manufacturer to use the least toxic alternative when removing regulated PFAS in textile articles to comply with these provisions.

This bill, beginning January 1, 2025, would prohibit a person from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale in the state a cleaning product that contains regulated PFAS, as specified.

Existing law requires the State Department of Public Health to adopt standards for the packaging of substances that pose hazards to children, as specified. Existing law defines a household substance as any substance that is customarily produced or distributed for sale for consumption or use, or customarily stored by individuals in or about the household, and meets specified criteria.

This bill would additionally include any substance that is customarily produced or distributed for sale for consumption or use, or customarily stored by individuals in or about their residence.

GOVERNOR'S VETO

GV Bill Id:AB 727

Author:(Weber)

As Enrolled Ver:September 18, 2023

2/3 vote

SUMMARY

Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2026, a person or entity from manufacturing or selling a cleaning product containing perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), as defined.

The Senate Amendments:

1. Change the date, from January 1, 2025, to January 1, 2026, by which a person or entity shall not manufacture, sell, deliver, distribute, hold, or offer for sale in commerce in this state a cleaning product containing PFAS.
2. Specify that, in determining the amount of PFAS prohibited by the provisions of the bill, PFAS is measured in total organic fluorine with documented quality control procedures and analytical validations.
3. Change the date, from January 1, 2025, to January 1, 2026, by which PFAS in cleaning products is prohibited at levels above 50 parts per million.
4. Require, commencing January 1, 2028, PFAS in cleaning products to be prohibited at levels above 10 parts per million.
5. Prohibit, commencing January 1, 2028, a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale in commerce a floor sealer or a floor finish containing intentionally added PFAS; or, PFAS at or above 10 parts per million, as specified.
6. Delete the provisions in this bill that authorized the Attorney General (AG), a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney to levy a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for a first violation and not to exceed $10,000 for each subsequent violation.
7. Authorize, instead of the provisions above, the AG in the name of the people of the state, a district attorney, a city or county attorney, a county counsel, or a city prosecutor to levy a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 per day for each violation.
8. Require, in assessing the amount of a civil penalty for a violation of the provisions of this bill, the court to consider all of the following:
   1. The nature and extent of the violation;
   2. The number of, and severity of, the violation;
   3. The economic effect of the penalty on the violator;
   4. Whether the violator took good faith measures to comply with the provisions of this bill and when these measures were taken;
   5. The deterrent effect that the imposition of the penalty would have on both the violator and the regulated community as a whole; and,
   6. Whether there were contributing environmental factors about which a reasonable person knew or should have known.
9. Specify that the provisions of the bill do not apply to treatments containing PFAS for use on converted textiles or leathers that are listed as a Priority Product by the Department of Toxic Substances Control.
10. Specify that the provisions of bill do not impair the ability of a public agency, or its contractor, to distribute any cleaning products through a materials exchange program it operates as part of its household hazardous waste collection program.
11. Make other technical and conforming changes.

Governor’s Veto Message

This bill would prohibit, by 2026, the manufacture, distribution, or sale of cleaning products that contain intentionally added perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and would apply this ban, by 2028, to floor sealer or floor finish products.

This is one of three single-product chemical bans passed by the Legislature this year that attempt to address serious concerns with the presence of Pf AS in consumer products. These bills do not identify or require any regulatory agency to determine compliance with, or enforce, the proposed statute.

While I strongly support the author's intent and have signed similar legislation in the past, I am concerned this bill falls short of providing enhanced protection to California consumers due to lack of regulatory oversight. Previously enacted single-product chemical bans, which also lack oversight, are proving challenging to implement, with inconsistent interpretations and confusion among manufacturers about how to comply with the restrictions.

In order to instill consumer confidence and effectively address public health and environmental concerns, I am directing the Department of Toxic Substances Control to engage with the author and the Legislature and consider alternative approaches to regulating the use of these harmful chemicals in consumer products.

COMMENTS

Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): Per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFASs) are a large group of synthetic, highly fluorinated substances that have been widely used in industrial and consumer applications for their heat, water, and lipid resistance properties for more than seven decades. PFAS are long-lasting chemicals that break down very slowly over time. PFAS are ubiquitous, and researchers have found PFAS in indoor and outdoor environments, plants, soil, food, drinking water, wildlife, companion animals, production animals, and humans at locations across the nation and around the globe. Scientific studies have shown that exposure to some PFAS may be linked to harmful health effects in humans and animals. More than 9,000 PFAS chemicals are included in the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (US EPA's) Master List of PFAS Substances.

Exposure to PFAS: The main route of exposure to PFAS is through ingestion of contaminated food or liquid (accounting for up to half of total exposure), and through inhalation and ingestion of contaminated indoor air and dust. Food can become contaminated with PFAS through contaminated soil and water used to grow the food, food packaging containing PFAS, and equipment that uses PFAS during food processing. Some foods, such as fish, meat, eggs and leafy vegetables, may contain PFAS due to bioaccumulation and crop uptake. Studies have shown that PFAS can transfer from pregnant mothers to their fetuses via the placenta during gestation, as well as transfer from nursing mothers to their infants via breastfeeding. Dermal exposure is also possible when people touch products treated with PFAS, such as carpets or clothing. Young children may be susceptible to higher levels of exposure than adults because they ingest more dust containing PFAS and mouth PFAS-treated consumer products. Workers, such as carpet installers, carpet cleaners, firefighters, and workers in furniture, furnishings, outdoor clothing, and carpet stores, may also experience above average PFAS exposure levels.

Exposure to PFAS in drinking water is an escalating concern due to the persistence of PFAS chemicals in the environment and their tendency to accumulate in groundwater.

Hazard traits of PFAS: An intrinsic property of PFAS is the extreme environmental persistence of either the individual compounds or their degradation products or both, resulting in their classification as "forever chemicals." Most PFAS are mobile in environmental media such as air and water, and thus are widespread in living organisms and the environment. Several PFAS bioaccumulate significantly in animals or plants and emerging evidence points to their phytotoxicity, aquatic toxicity, and terrestrial ecotoxicity.

According to the US EPA, current peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown that exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to: reproductive effects such as decreased fertility or increased high blood pressure in pregnant women; developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, or behavioral changes; increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers; reduced ability of the body’s immune system to fight infections, including reduced vaccine response; interference with the body’s natural hormones; and, increased cholesterol levels and/or risk of obesity.

Regulating PFAS as a class: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has adopted a rationale for regulating PFAS chemicals as a class, concluding, "it is both ineffective and impractical to regulate this complex class of chemicals with a piecemeal approach." This rationale was presented in the February, 2021, Environmental Health Perspectives article, "Regulating PFAS as a Chemical Class under the California Safer Consumer Products Program," which states, "The widespread use, large number, and diverse chemical structures of PFAS pose challenges to any sufficiently protective regulation, emissions reduction, and remediation at contaminated sites. Regulating only a subset of PFAS has led to their replacement with other members of the class with similar hazards, that is, regrettable substitutions… Regulating PFAS as a class is thus logical, necessary, and forward-thinking."

PFAS in cleaning products: Cleaning products are commonly listed on governmental and academic websites as known sources of PFAS. To illustrate the prevalence of PFAS in cleaning products, the sponsors of the bill point to an informal Environmental Working Group (EWG) analysis of online cleaning product data, which found that approximately 50% of industrial and institutional floor cleaners, finishes, polishes, and restorers contain PFAS. These products are used in public buildings, schools, and commercial offices. EWG’s analysis also found that 1 in 6 household versions of these floor cleaning product categories contain PFAS.

A January 2022, study published in Atmospheric Environment focusing on PFAS in floor waxes conveys that the flooring industry reports a strong demand for PFAS-containing products. Fluorosurfactants are added to floor polishes to lower the surface tension of the product. The article says that DuPont, one of the world's largest PFAS-containing product manufacturers, reports that almost every acrylic/wax floor polish formulation on the market contains a fluorosurfactant. The authors of the article conducted a study that demonstrated occupational exposure to PFAS during floor stripping and waxing, and found that PFAS emitted during this process could also enter wastewater.

To further illustrate the problem, the sponsors of this bill report that many manufacturers indicate, but do not state, that their cleaning products contain properties (water-repellant, long-lasting, high shine) that are indicative of PFAS chemicals. They say that many other product categories are known to contain PFAS, including car waxes, dishwasher rinse aids, furniture polishes, and textile cleaners and treatments. In addition, the sponsors argue that manufacturers are marketing a type of PFAS for use as propellants in air-borne cleaning products and air fresheners.

This bill: This bill prohibits, commencing January 1, 2026, a person or entity from manufacturing or selling a cleaning product containing PFAS. For the purposes of the bill, cleaning products are defined as an air care product, automotive product, general cleaning product, or a polish or floor maintenance product used primarily for janitorial, domestic, or institutional cleaning purposes, or a water vessel product.

Enforcement: Like this bill, most of the state's chemical prohibition bills were placed in what is sometimes referred to as the "orphan codes." In these code sections, no state agency is designated to provide oversight of the provisions of the law. As a result, there is no compliance program, no guidance for manufacturers seeking to comply with these laws, no related information for consumers, and no state entity investigating complaints, testing products for compliance, or bringing enforcement actions against violators.

This bill: This bill provides the Attorney General (AG) and other government attorneys with specified civil penalties to bring against violators of the law. These penalty provisions are in addition to the AG’s existing authority to enforce this, and related product safety statutory provisions, such as through the Unfair Competition Law.

According to the Author

"According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, PFAS can harm our heart, liver, reproductive, and renal systems, can increase cholesterol levels and increase blood pressure in pregnant women. Overexposure of PFAS can put individuals at risk of developing kidney cancer, can cause liver damage, and reduce the immune system's ability to fight infections. Our use of PFAS is not sustainable. In the very near future, our public entities, such as wastewater agencies, will have to undertake the very expensive work to remove PFAS from wastewater and other resources. As a state, we need to move forward and get rid of the sources of PFAS. This can only be done by greatly restricting the use of PFAS in products. AB 727 will address one significant source of PFAS in our indoor environments and in our wastewater by prohibiting the chemicals’ use in cleaning products."

Arguments in Support

According to California Water Service, "In the coming years, substantial amounts of money will be spent to treat drinking water that has already been tainted with PFAS. Those efforts will be for naught if we don’t comprehensively stop the manufacturing of PFAS. By adding one more product category to California’s ban on PFAS, AB 727 will do much to help ensure that limited resources for water cleanup and treatment are not wasted and, more importantly, protect California’s drinking water supplies."

Arguments in Opposition

A coalition of opponents takes an "oppose unless amended" position, writing, "This bill proposes to enact overly broad language and far-reaching product restrictions without any authoritative scientific evaluation or consideration of alternatives. All the substances that meet the proposed definition of PFAS are not the same, and individual chemistries have their own unique properties and uses, as well as environmental and health profiles. As written, AB 727 would apply a one-size-fits-all approach to chemical regulation that creates new environmental concerns, and even prohibits technologies that are safe for humans and the environment."

FISCAL COMMENTS

This bill has little to no fiscal impact to the state and therefore met the conditions of Senate Rule 28.8.

VOTES

ASM ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS: 7-2-0

YES: Lee, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Connolly, McKinnor, Pacheco, Zbur

NO: Hoover, Ta

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-4-0

YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Papan, Pellerin, Robert Rivas, Weber, Wilson

NO: Megan Dahle, Dixon, Mathis, Sanchez

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 62-2-16

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Mike Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

NO: Megan Dahle, Hoover

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alanis, Chen, Essayli, Flora, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gallagher, Lackey, Lowenthal, Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Waldron, Wallis

SENATE FLOOR: 31-5-4

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Cortese, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener

NO: Dahle, Jones, Niello, Seyarto, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Caballero, Grove, Nguyen, Ochoa Bogh

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 65-11-4

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NO: Alanis, Chen, Megan Dahle, Flora, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Hoover, Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Sanchez

ABS, ABST OR NV: Essayli, Lackey, Stephanie Nguyen, Ta

UPDATED

VERSION: September 18, 2023

CONSULTANT: Shannon McKinney / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965 FN: 0002527

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 727

Author:(Weber)

As Amended Ver:September 8, 2023

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2026, a person or entity from manufacturing or selling a cleaning product containing perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), as defined.

Senate Amendments

1. Change the date, from January 1, 2025, to January 1, 2026, by which a person or entity shall not manufacture, sell, deliver, distribute, hold, or offer for sale in commerce in this state a cleaning product containing PFAS.
2. Specify that, in determining the amount of PFAS prohibited by the provisions of the bill, PFAS is measured in total organic fluorine with documented quality control procedures and analytical validations.
3. Change the date, from January 1, 2025, to January 1, 2026, by which PFAS in cleaning products is prohibited at levels above 50 parts per million.
4. Require, commencing January 1, 2028, PFAS in cleaning products to be prohibited at levels above 10 parts per million.
5. Prohibit, commencing January 1, 2028, a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale in commerce a floor sealer or a floor finish containing intentionally added PFAS; or, PFAS at or above 10 parts per million, as specified.
6. Delete the provisions in the bill that authorized the Attorney General (AG), a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney to levy a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for a first violation and not to exceed $10,000 for each subsequent violation.
7. Authorize, instead of the provisions above, the AG in the name of the people of the state, a district attorney, a city or county attorney, a county counsel, or a city prosecutor to levy a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 per day for each violation.
8. Require, in assessing the amount of a civil penalty for a violation of the provisions of this bill, the court to consider all of the following:
   1. The nature and extent of the violation;
   2. The number of, and severity of, the violation;
   3. The economic effect of the penalty on the violator;
   4. Whether the violator took good faith measures to comply with the provisions of this bill and when these measures were taken;
   5. The deterrent effect that the imposition of the penalty would have on both the violator and the regulated community as a whole; and,
   6. Whether there were contributing environmental factors about which a reasonable person knew or should have known.
9. Specify that the provisions of the bill do not apply to treatments containing PFAS for use on converted textiles or leathers that are listed as a Priority Product by the Department of Toxic Substances Control.
10. Specify that the provisions of bill do not impair the ability of a public agency, or its contractor, to distribute any cleaning products through a materials exchange program it operates as part of its household hazardous waste collection program.
11. Make other technical and conforming changes.

COMMENTS

Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): Per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFASs) are a large group of synthetic, highly fluorinated substances that have been widely used in industrial and consumer applications for their heat, water, and lipid resistance properties for more than seven decades. PFAS are long-lasting chemicals that break down very slowly over time. PFAS are ubiquitous, and researchers have found PFAS in indoor and outdoor environments, plants, soil, food, drinking water, wildlife, companion animals, production animals, and humans at locations across the nation and around the globe. Scientific studies have shown that exposure to some PFAS may be linked to harmful health effects in humans and animals. More than 9,000 PFAS chemicals are included in the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (US EPA's) Master List of PFAS Substances.

Exposure to PFAS: The main route of exposure to PFAS is through ingestion of contaminated food or liquid (accounting for up to half of total exposure), and through inhalation and ingestion of contaminated indoor air and dust. Food can become contaminated with PFAS through contaminated soil and water used to grow the food, food packaging containing PFAS, and equipment that uses PFAS during food processing. Some foods, such as fish, meat, eggs and leafy vegetables, may contain PFAS due to bioaccumulation and crop uptake. Studies have shown that PFAS can transfer from pregnant mothers to their fetuses via the placenta during gestation, as well as transfer from nursing mothers to their infants via breastfeeding. Dermal exposure is also possible when people touch products treated with PFAS, such as carpets or clothing. Young children may be susceptible to higher levels of exposure than adults because they ingest more dust containing PFAS and mouth PFAS-treated consumer products. Workers, such as carpet installers, carpet cleaners, firefighters, and workers in furniture, furnishings, outdoor clothing, and carpet stores, may also experience above average PFAS exposure levels.

Exposure to PFAS in drinking water is an escalating concern due to the persistence of PFAS chemicals in the environment and their tendency to accumulate in groundwater.

Hazard traits of PFAS: An intrinsic property of PFAS is the extreme environmental persistence of either the individual compounds or their degradation products or both, resulting in their classification as "forever chemicals." Most PFAS are mobile in environmental media such as air and water, and thus are widespread in living organisms and the environment. Several PFAS bioaccumulate significantly in animals or plants and emerging evidence points to their phytotoxicity, aquatic toxicity, and terrestrial ecotoxicity.

According to the US EPA, current peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown that exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to: reproductive effects such as decreased fertility or increased high blood pressure in pregnant women; developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, or behavioral changes; increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers; reduced ability of the body's immune system to fight infections, including reduced vaccine response; interference with the body's natural hormones; and, increased cholesterol levels and/or risk of obesity.

Regulating PFAS as a class: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has adopted a rationale for regulating PFAS chemicals as a class, concluding, "it is both ineffective and impractical to regulate this complex class of chemicals with a piecemeal approach." This rationale was presented in the February, 2021, Environmental Health Perspectives article, "Regulating PFAS as a Chemical Class under the California Safer Consumer Products Program," which states, "The widespread use, large number, and diverse chemical structures of PFAS pose challenges to any sufficiently protective regulation, emissions reduction, and remediation at contaminated sites. Regulating only a subset of PFAS has led to their replacement with other members of the class with similar hazards, that is, regrettable substitutions… Regulating PFAS as a class is thus logical, necessary, and forward-thinking."

PFAS in cleaning products: Cleaning products are commonly listed on governmental and academic websites as known sources of PFAS. To illustrate the prevalence of PFAS in cleaning products, the sponsors of the bill point to an informal Environmental Working Group (EWG) analysis of online cleaning product data, which found that approximately 50% of industrial and institutional floor cleaners, finishes, polishes, and restorers contain PFAS. These products are used in public buildings, schools, and commercial offices. EWG's analysis also found that 1 in 6 household versions of these floor cleaning product categories contain PFAS.

A January 2022, study published in Atmospheric Environment focusing on PFAS in floor waxes conveys that the flooring industry reports a strong demand for PFAS-containing products. Fluorosurfactants are added to floor polishes to lower the surface tension of the product. The article says that DuPont, one of the world's largest PFAS-containing product manufacturers, reports that almost every acrylic/wax floor polish formulation on the market contains a fluorosurfactant. The authors of the article conducted a study that demonstrated occupational exposure to PFAS during floor stripping and waxing, and found that PFAS emitted during this process could also enter wastewater.

To further illustrate the problem, the sponsors of the bill report that many manufacturers indicate, but do not state, that their cleaning products contain properties (water-repellant, long-lasting, high shine) that are indicative of PFAS chemicals. They say that many other product categories are known to contain PFAS, including car waxes, dishwasher rinse aids, furniture polishes, and textile cleaners and treatments. In addition, the sponsors argue that manufacturers are marketing a type of PFAS for use as propellants in air-borne cleaning products and air fresheners.

This bill: This bill prohibits, commencing January 1, 2026, a person or entity from manufacturing or selling a cleaning product containing PFAS. For the purposes of the bill, cleaning products are defined as an air care product, automotive product, general cleaning product, or a polish or floor maintenance product used primarily for janitorial, domestic, or institutional cleaning purposes, or a water vessel product.

Enforcement: Like this bill, most of the state's chemical prohibition bills were placed in what is sometimes referred to as the "orphan codes." In these code sections, no state agency is designated to provide oversight of the provisions of the law. As a result, there is no compliance program, no guidance for manufacturers seeking to comply with these laws, no related information for consumers, and no state entity investigating complaints, testing products for compliance, or bringing enforcement actions against violators.

This bill: This bill provides the Attorney General (AG) and other government attorneys with specified civil penalties to bring against violators of the law. These penalty provisions are in addition to the AG's existing authority to enforce this, and related product safety statutory provisions, such as through the Unfair Competition Law.

According to the Author

"According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, PFAS can harm our heart, liver, reproductive, and renal systems, can increase cholesterol levels and increase blood pressure in pregnant women. Overexposure of PFAS can put individuals at risk of developing kidney cancer, can cause liver damage, and reduce the immune system's ability to fight infections. Our use of PFAS is not sustainable. In the very near future, our public entities, such as wastewater agencies, will have to undertake the very expensive work to remove PFAS from wastewater and other resources. As a state, we need to move forward and get rid of the sources of PFAS. This can only be done by greatly restricting the use of PFAS in products. AB 727 will address one significant source of PFAS in our indoor environments and in our wastewater by prohibiting the chemicals' use in cleaning products."

Arguments in Support

According to California Water Service, "In the coming years, substantial amounts of money will be spent to treat drinking water that has already been tainted with PFAS. Those efforts will be for naught if we don't comprehensively stop the manufacturing of PFAS. By adding one more product category to California's ban on PFAS, AB 727 will do much to help ensure that limited resources for water cleanup and treatment are not wasted and, more importantly, protect California's drinking water supplies."

Arguments in Opposition

A coalition of opponents takes an "oppose unless amended" position, writing, "This bill proposes to enact overly broad language and far-reaching product restrictions without any authoritative scientific evaluation or consideration of alternatives. All the substances that meet the proposed definition of PFAS are not the same, and individual chemistries have their own unique properties and uses, as well as environmental and health profiles. As written, AB 727 would apply a one-size-fits-all approach to chemical regulation that creates new environmental concerns, and even prohibits technologies that are safe for humans and the environment."

FISCAL COMMENTS

This bill has little to no fiscal impact to the state and therefore met the conditions of Senate Rule 28.8.

VOTES:

ASM ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS: 7-2-0

YES: Lee, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Connolly, McKinnor, Pacheco, Zbur

NO: Hoover, Ta

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-4-0

YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Papan, Pellerin, Robert Rivas, Weber, Wilson

NO: Megan Dahle, Dixon, Mathis, Sanchez

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 62-2-16

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Mike Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

NO: Megan Dahle, Hoover

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alanis, Chen, Essayli, Flora, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gallagher, Lackey, Lowenthal, Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Waldron, Wallis

UPDATED

VERSION: September 8, 2023

CONSULTANT: Shannon McKinney / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965 FN: 0002305

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 727

Author: Weber (D)

Amended: 9/8/23 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/21/23

AYES: Allen, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Menjivar, Skinner

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle, Nguyen

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 8-1, 7/6/23

AYES: Umberg, Allen, Ashby, Durazo, Laird, Min, Stern, Wiener

NOES: Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Caballero, Niello

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 62-2, 5/15/23 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Product safety: cleaning products and floor sealers or floor finishes: perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances

SOURCE: California Association of Sanitation Agencies

Environmental Working Group

DIGEST:

This bill prohibits, commencing January 1, 2026, a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale in commerce in this state a cleaning product, as defined, containing intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS); or, PFAS in a cleaning product or ingredient at or above 50 parts per million (ppm) commencing January 1, 2026, 25 ppm commencing January 1, 2027, and 10 ppm commencing January 1, 2028. Prohibits PFAS in a floor sealer or floor finish that is intentionally added or exceeds 10 ppm commencing January 1, 2028.

Senate Floor Amendments of 9/8/23 specify considerations a court shall make in determining the amount of a civil penalty for a violation of the prohibitions in this bill, specify who may bring actions pursuant to this section, and specify where civil penalties shall be paid to. The amendments remove industrial cleaning products from the prohibitions in this bill. The amendments add a requirement for documented quality control procedures and analytical validations in determining PFAS concentrations.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65) (HSC § 25249.5 et seq.):

1. Prohibits a person, in the course of doing business, from knowingly discharging or releasing a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity into water or onto or into land where such chemical passes or probably will pass into any source of drinking water.
2. Prohibits a person, in the course of doing business, from knowingly and intentionally exposing any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual.
3. Requires the Governor to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity and to annually revise the list. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has listed perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), which are members of the PFAS class, as chemicals known to the state to cause developmental toxicity and cancer.

Cleaning Product Right to Know Act of 2017

1. Requires manufacturers of cleaning products to disclose specified chemical ingredients on a product label and on the manufacturers’ website (HSC § 108950 et seq.).

This bill:

1. Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2026, a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale in commerce in this state a cleaning product containing any of the following:
   1. Intentionally added PFAS; or,
   2. PFAS in a cleaning product or cleaning product component at or above the following thresholds:
      1. Commencing January 1, 2026, 50 ppm.
      2. Commencing January 1, 2027, 25 ppm.
      3. Commencing January 1, 2028, 10 ppm.
2. Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2028, a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale in commerce in this state a floor sealer or floor finish containing any of the following:
   1. Intentionally added PFAS; or
   2. PFAS in a product or ingredient at or above 10 ppm.
3. States that PFAS content for the purposes of these prohibitions is to be measured in total organic fluorine with documented quality control procedures and analytical validations.
4. Defines “cleaning product” as a finishing product that is an air care product, automotive product, general cleaning product, or a polish or floor maintenance product used primarily for janitorial, domestic, or institutional cleaning purposes, or a water vessel product. Each of these products are further defined.
5. Defines “floor sealer” or “floor finish” as a chemically formulated industrial or institutional floor product that cures into a film upon application and is advertised for or labeled solely as a sealer, finish, or combination of sealer and finish.
6. Defines “perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances” or “PFAS” as a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.
7. Defines “intentionally added PFAS” as PFAS that a manufacturer has intentionally added to a product or ingredient and that has a functional or technical effect in the product or ingredient.
8. Provides that a person or entity that violates the prohibitions in this bill is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 per day for each violation.
   1. Provides that the civil penalties may be assessed and recovered in any a court of competent jurisdiction.
   2. Provides that an action to enforce the prohibitions in this bill may be brought by Attorney General in the name of the people of the state, by a district attorney, by a city or county attorney, by a county counsel, or by a city prosecutor.
   3. Provides that that civil penalties shall be paid to the office that brought the action.
9. Requires the court in assessing the amount of the civil penalty to consider:
   1. The nature and extent of the violation;
   2. The number of, and severity of, the violations;
   3. The economic effect of the penalty on the violator;
   4. Whether the violator took good faith measures to comply with this chapter and when these measures were taken;
   5. The deterrent effect that the imposition of the penalty would have on the violator and the regulated community; and
   6. Whether there were contributing environmental factors about which a reasonable person knew or should have known.
10. Provides that these penalty provisions do not impair or impede any other rights, causes of action, claims, or defenses available under any other law. Provides that the remedies delineated in the bill are cumulative with any other remedies available under any other law.
11. States that the prohibitions in this bill do not apply to treatments containing PFAS for use on converted textiles or leathers that have been listed as a Priority Product by the Department of Toxic Substances Control.
12. States that the prohibitions in this bill do not impair the ability of a public agency or its contractor to distribute any cleaning products through a materials exchange program it operates as part of its household hazardous waste collection program.

Background

1. Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large group of synthetic substances that have been widely used in industrial and consumer applications for their heat, water, and oil resistance properties since their invention in the 1930s. PFAS are used extensively in carpets, furniture fabrics, apparel, paper packaging for food, non-stick cookware, personal care products, and other products designed to be waterproof; grease, heat, water and stain resistant; or, non-stick. Scientific studies have shown that exposure to some PFAS may be linked to harmful health effects in humans and animals. PFAS are long-lasting chemicals that break down very slowly over time. During production, use, and disposal, PFAS can migrate into the soil, water, and air. The persistence and proliferation of PFAS chemicals makes it challenging to study and assess the overall potential human health and environmental risks of PFAS exposure.
2. Hazards of PFAS. PFAS exposure occurs mainly through ingestion of contaminated food or liquids. Exposure can also occur though inhalation and touch, and PFAS can be transferred through pregnancy and breastfeeding. PFAS remains in the body for a long time, so as people continue to be exposed to PFAS, the PFAS levels in their bodies may increase to the point that they suffer adverse health effects. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), current peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown that exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to reproductive effects such as decreased fertility or increased high blood pressure in pregnant people; developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, or behavioral changes; increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers; reduced ability of the body’s immune system to fight infections, including reduced vaccine response; interference with the body’s natural hormones; and, increased cholesterol levels and/or risk of obesity.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, PFAS can harm our heart, liver, reproductive, and renal systems, can increase cholesterol levels and increase blood pressure in pregnant women. Overexposure of PFAS can put individuals at risk of developing kidney cancer, can cause liver damage, and reduce the immune system's ability to fight infections. Our use of PFAS is not sustainable. In the very near future, our public entities, such as wastewater agencies, will have to undertake the very expensive work to remove PFAS from wastewater and other resources. As a state, we need to move forward and get rid of the sources of PFAS. This can only be done by greatly restricting the use of PFAS in products. AB 727 will address one significant source of PFAS in our indoor environments and in our wastewater by prohibiting the chemicals’ use in cleaning products.”
2. PFAS in cleaning products. The Environmental Working Group, a co-sponsor of this bill, analyzed online cleaning product data and found 1 in 6 household cleaning products (including general cleaners, floor products, and dishwasher rinse aids) contain PFAS and approximately 50% of industrial grade floor polishes, which are used in public buildings, schools, and commercial offices, contain PFAS. Janitorial and domestic workers may have especially high potential for PFAS exposure when cleaning buildings and homes. PFAS from cleaning products also end up in household and industrial wastewater and can contaminate drinking water or otherwise persist in the environment.
3. Who is in charge? Many chemical prohibition bills, including this one, are placed in a unique location in the California Codes, sometimes referred to as the “orphan codes.” In these code sections, no state agency is designated to provide oversight of the provisions of the law. As a result, there is no direct enforcement, no establishment of standardized testing methods, no compliance program, no guidance for manufacturers seeking to comply with these laws, and no related information for consumers. Because of these deficiencies, it is challenging for some manufacturers to comply and difficult or impossible to know if manufacturers are complying with the requirements of the law. The only current option for enforcement of the prohibitions in the “orphan codes” is for a district attorney or the state Attorney General to bring an action against a manufacturer under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), unless specified otherwise. This bill takes a step forward on statutory chemical prohibitions by adding civil penalties for violations of the restrictions in the bill. These penalty provisions are in addition to the authority to enforce under the UCL and are similar to provisions in AB 888 (Bloom, Chapter 594, Statutes of 2015) which bans plastic microbeads in personal care products.
4. PFAS concentration thresholds. This and several other PFAS prohibitions prohibit intentionally added PFAS and additionally set a concentration threshold for any PFAS in a product, intentionally added or not. Such a threshold may be warranted because determining whether PFAS were truly unintentionally added in the manufacturing of a product can be a challenge, and unintentionally added PFAS still pose health and environmental risks. Setting a concentration threshold can further protect public health, but the chosen concentration should be appropriate. There is no concentration of PFAS that has been proven safe, and as long-lasting chemicals, they build up in the human body and in the environment over time. PFAS in different types of products may be of greater concern than others depending on how likely the chemicals are to enter the body. Even if direct exposure to the product is limited, any PFAS in a product can, eventually, end up in the environment, including in drinking water. As with enforcement, determining an appropriate concentration threshold could benefit from a public entity with scientists with health and environmental backgrounds determining the risks of chemical exposure at different levels. Without that resource, the Legislature is tasked with setting the appropriately protective standard in statute. An agency performing oversight would also be better-equipped to establish testing methodology standards. This bill prohibits intentionally added PFAS starting in 2026, as well as PFAS concentrations over 50 ppm in 2026, 25 ppm in 2027, and 10 ppm in 2028. Ten parts per million is low compared to most legislation from the past several years, but there are examples of concentration limit this low or lower, including AB 246 (Papan) which would set a threshold of 10 ppm in menstrual products beginning in 2027. For drinking water, which may deserve the most stringent limit, the US EPA’s proposed legally enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) is 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and PFOS, two chemicals in the PFAS family. While research laboratories test for PFAS in concentrations lower than 1 ppm, there is uncertainty about the current reliability of commercial testing for concentrations as low as 10 ppm. Testing capabilities have improved over time and the 10 ppm threshold would not be reached until 2028 under this measure, allowing several years for reliable testing to potentially become more widely available.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 246 (Papan, 2023) prohibits, commencing January 1, 2025, a person from manufacturing, distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state any menstrual products that contain intentionally added PFAS, or, commencing January 1, 2027, concentrations of PFAS above 10 parts per million. As of the writing of this analysis, this bill is in the Assembly after passing out of the Senate.

AB 888 (Bloom, Chapter 594, Statutes of 2015) prohibited the sale or offering for promotional purposes personal care products containing plastic microbeads used to exfoliate or cleanse in excess of 1 part per million by weight.

[NOTE: See the Senate Environmental Quality analysis for detailed background of this bill.]

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/8/23)

California Association of Sanitation Agencies (co-source)

Environmental Working Group (co-source)

A Voice for Choice Advocacy

Active San Gabriel Valley

American Bird Conservancy

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists District IX

American Nurses Association/California Chapter

Ban SUP

Breast Cancer Over Time

Breast Cancer Prevention Partners

California Product Stewardship Council

California Professional Firefighters

California Water Service

Californians for Pesticide Reform

CALPIRG

Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice

Center for Environmental Health

Center for Public Environmental Oversight

City of Camarillo

Clean Earth 4 Kids

Clean Water Action

Defend Them All Foundation

East Bay Municipal Utility District

Elders Climate Action NorCal Chapter

Elders Climate Action SoCal Chapter

FACTS: Families Advocating for Chemical & Toxics Safety

Friends of the Earth

GMOScience

Grassroots Environmental Education

Green Science Policy Institute

Indivisible Alta Pasadena

Irvine Ranch Water District

Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts

Mamavation - Non-toxic Products for Healthy Families

National Stewardship Action Council

Natural Resources Defense Council

Non-Toxic Neighborhoods

Pesticide Action Network

Physicians for Social Responsibility - San Francisco Bay Area Chapter

Recolte Energy

Republic Services - Western Region

Resource Renewal Institute

Responsible Purchasing Network

Safer States

San Diego County Water Authority

San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility

Santa Barbara Standing Rock Coalition

Sierra Club California

The Growing Solutions Fund

Women's Voices for the Earth

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/8/23)

American Chemistry Council

California Manufacturers & Technology Association

Household and Commercial Products Association

National Aerosol Association

Western Aerosol Information Bureau

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the supporters, “According to an informal EWG analysis of online cleaning product data, approximately 50% of institutional-grade floor polishes, which are used in public buildings, schools, and commercial offices, contain PFAS. Recent studies have demonstrated that these widely-used PFAS floor polishes can expose janitorial workers and the public to air-borne PFAS. This PFAS also enters wastewater when floors are mopped and cleaned. In addition to floor polishes, other household cleaning products (including general cleaners, floor products, and dishwasher rinse aids) contain PFAS, as do automotive polishes, machinery cleaners, and air fresheners. And online information indicates that manufacturers are marketing a type of PFAS for use as new propellants in air-borne cleaning products and air fresheners. So if not banned, PFAS chemicals will soon be in the products that we spray inside our homes.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the opponents, “This bill proposes to enact overly broad language and far-reaching product restrictions without any authoritative scientific evaluation or consideration of alternatives. All the substances that meet the proposed definition of PFAS are not the same, and individual chemistries have their own unique properties and uses, as well as environmental and health profiles. As written, AB 727 would apply a one-size-fits-all approach to chemical regulation that creates new environmental concerns, and even prohibits technologies that are safe for humans and the environment.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 62-2, 5/15/23

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Mike Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

NOES: Megan Dahle, Hoover

NO VOTE RECORDED: Alanis, Chen, Essayli, Flora, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gallagher, Lackey, Lowenthal, Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Waldron, Wallis

Prepared by: Theresa Keates / E.Q. / (916) 651-4108

9/11/23 12:22:52

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 727

Author: Weber (D)

Amended: 8/16/23 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/21/23

AYES: Allen, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Menjivar, Skinner

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle, Nguyen

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 8-1, 7/6/23

AYES: Umberg, Allen, Ashby, Durazo, Laird, Min, Stern, Wiener

NOES: Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Caballero, Niello

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 62-2, 5/15/23 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Product safety: cleaning products and floor sealers or floor finishes: perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances

SOURCE: California Association of Sanitation Agencies

Environmental Working Group

DIGEST:

This bill prohibits, commencing January 1, 2026, a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale in commerce in this state a cleaning product, as defined, containing intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS); or, PFAS in a cleaning product or ingredient at or above 50 parts per million (ppm) commencing January 1, 2026, 25 ppm commencing January 1, 2027, and 10 ppm commencing January 1, 2028.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Enacts the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65) (HSC § 25249.5 et seq.), which:
   1. Prohibits a person, in the course of doing business, from knowingly discharging or releasing a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity into water or onto or into land where such chemical passes or probably will pass into any source of drinking water.
   2. Prohibits a person, in the course of doing business, from knowingly and intentionally exposing any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual.
   3. Requires the Governor to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity and to annually revise the list. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has listed perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), which are members of the PFAS class, as chemicals known to the state to cause developmental toxicity and cancer.
2. Requires, under the Cleaning Product Right to Know Act of 2017, manufacturers of cleaning products to disclose specified chemical ingredients on a product label and on the manufacturers’ website (HSC § 108950 et seq.).

This bill:

1. Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2026, a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale in commerce in this state a cleaning product containing any of the following:
   1. Intentionally added PFAS; or,
   2. PFAS in a cleaning product or cleaning product component at or above the following thresholds:
      1. Commencing January 1, 2026, 50 ppm.
      2. Commencing January 1, 2027, 25 ppm.
      3. Commencing January 1, 2028, 10 ppm.
2. Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2028, a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale in commerce in this state a floor sealer or floor finish containing any of the following:
   1. Intentionally added PFAS; or
   2. PFAS in a product or ingredient at or above 10 ppm.
3. Defines “cleaning product” as a finishing product that is an air care product, automotive product, general cleaning product, or a polish or floor maintenance product used primarily for janitorial, domestic, industrial, or institutional cleaning purposes, or a water vessel product. Each of these products are further defined.
4. Defines “floor sealer” or “floor finish” as a chemically formulated industrial or institutional floor product that cures into a film upon application and is advertised for or labeled solely as a sealer, finish, or combination of sealer and finish.
5. Defines “perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances” or “PFAS” as a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.
6. Defines “intentionally added PFAS” as PFAS that a manufacturer has intentionally added to a product or ingredient and that has a functional or technical effect in the product or ingredient.
7. Provides that a person or entity that violates the PFAS restrictions of this bill shall be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for a first violation, and not to exceed $10,000 per day for each subsequent violation, not to exceed $1 million.
8. Provides that an action to enforce the prohibitions in this bill may be brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney in a court of competent jurisdiction.
9. Specifies that a violation is deemed to have occurred upon the manufacture, sale, delivery, distribution, or offering for sale of a product in violation of the prohibitions in this bill, and that products that belong to the same stock keeping unit (SKU) of a product violation are considered part of the same, single violation incurred by each violating entity.
10. Provides that the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney shall provide a written notice of an alleged violation and a copy of the requirements of this bill to a retailer before bringing an action against a retailer. Provides that the retailer will have 30 days from receipt of the notification to comply by ceasing to sell or offer for sale the product alleged to be in violation of the prohibitions in this bill, and if the retailer continues to sell or offer for sale the product after 30 days, the Attorney General, a county counsel, or a district attorney may bring an action.
11. Provides that these penalty provisions do not impair or impede any other rights, causes of action, claims, or defenses available under any other law. Provides that the remedies delineated in the bill are cumulative with any other remedies available under any other law.
12. States that the prohibitions in this bill do not apply to treatments containing PFAS for use on converted textiles or leathers that have been listed as a Priority Product by the Department of Toxic Substances Control.
13. States that the prohibitions in this bill do not impair the ability of a public agency or its contractor to distribute any cleaning products through a materials exchange program it operates as part of its household hazardous waste collection program.

Background

1. Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances. PFAS are a large group of synthetic substances that have been widely used in industrial and consumer applications for their heat, water, and oil resistance properties since their invention in the 1930s. PFAS are used extensively in carpets, furniture fabrics, apparel, paper packaging for food, non-stick cookware, personal care products, and other products designed to be waterproof; grease, heat, water and stain resistant; or, non-stick.

Scientific studies have shown that exposure to some PFAS may be linked to harmful health effects in humans and animals. PFAS are long-lasting chemicals that break down very slowly over time. During production, use, and disposal, PFAS can migrate into the soil, water, and air. The persistence and proliferation of PFAS chemicals makes it challenging to study and assess the overall potential human health and environmental risks of PFAS exposure.

1. Hazards of PFAS. PFAS exposure occurs mainly through ingestion of contaminated food or liquids. Exposure can also occur though inhalation and touch, and PFAS can be transferred through pregnancy and breastfeeding. PFAS remains in the body for a long time, so as people continue to be exposed to PFAS, the PFAS levels in their bodies may increase to the point that they suffer adverse health effects. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), current peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown that exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to reproductive effects such as decreased fertility or increased high blood pressure in pregnant people; developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, or behavioral changes; increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers; reduced ability of the body’s immune system to fight infections, including reduced vaccine response; interference with the body’s natural hormones; and, increased cholesterol levels and/or risk of obesity.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, PFAS can harm our heart, liver, reproductive, and renal systems, can increase cholesterol levels and increase blood pressure in pregnant women. Overexposure of PFAS can put individuals at risk of developing kidney cancer, can cause liver damage, and reduce the immune system's ability to fight infections. Our use of PFAS is not sustainable. In the very near future, our public entities, such as wastewater agencies, will have to undertake the very expensive work to remove PFAS from wastewater and other resources. As a state, we need to move forward and get rid of the sources of PFAS. This can only be done by greatly restricting the use of PFAS in products. AB 727 will address one significant source of PFAS in our indoor environments and in our wastewater by prohibiting the chemicals’ use in cleaning products.”
2. PFAS in cleaning products. The Environmental Working Group, a co-sponsor of this bill, analyzed online cleaning product data and found one in six household cleaning products (including general cleaners, floor products, and dishwasher rinse aids) contain PFAS and approximately 50% of industrial grade floor polishes, which are used in public buildings, schools, and commercial offices, contain PFAS. Janitorial and domestic workers may have especially high potential for PFAS exposure when cleaning buildings and homes. PFAS from cleaning products also end up in household and industrial wastewater and can contaminate drinking water or otherwise persist in the environment.
3. Who is in charge? Many chemical prohibition bills, including this one, are placed in a unique location in the California Codes, sometimes referred to as the “orphan codes.” In these code sections, no state agency is designated to provide oversight of the provisions of the law. As a result, there is no direct enforcement, no establishment of standardized testing methods, no compliance program, no guidance for manufacturers seeking to comply with these laws, and no related information for consumers. Because of these deficiencies, it is challenging for some manufacturers to comply and difficult or impossible to know if manufacturers are complying with the requirements of the law.

The only current option for enforcement of the prohibitions in the “orphan codes” is for a district attorney or the state Attorney General to bring an action against a manufacturer under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), unless specified otherwise. This bill takes a step forward on statutory chemical prohibitions by adding civil penalties for violations of the restrictions in the bill. These penalty provisions are in addition to the authority to enforce under the UCL. This bill also states that products that are part of the same SKU are to be considered part of the same, single violation. It allows a retailer 30 days following receipt of a notice of alleged violation to comply with the prohibitions in this section by ceasing to sell or offer for sale the product alleged to be in violation.

1. PFAS concentration thresholds. This and several other PFAS prohibitions prohibit intentionally added PFAS and additionally set a concentration threshold for any PFAS in a product, intentionally added or not. Such a threshold may be warranted because determining whether PFAS were truly unintentionally added in the manufacturing of a product can be a challenge, and unintentionally added PFAS still pose health and environmental risks. Setting a concentration threshold can further protect public health, but the chosen concentration should be appropriate. There is no concentration of PFAS that has been proven safe, and as long-lasting chemicals, they build up in the human body and in the environment over time. PFAS in different types of products may be of greater concern than others depending on how likely the chemicals are to enter the body. Even if direct exposure to the product is limited, any PFAS in a product can, eventually, end up in the environment, including in drinking water.

As with enforcement, determining an appropriate concentration threshold could benefit from a public entity with scientists with health and environmental backgrounds determining the risks of chemical exposure at different levels. Without that resource, the Legislature is tasked with setting the appropriately protective standard in statute. An agency performing oversight would also be better-equipped to establish testing methodology standards.

This bill prohibits intentionally added PFAS starting in 2026, as well as PFAS concentrations over 50 ppm in 2026, 25 ppm in 2027, and 10 ppm in 2028. Ten parts per million is low compared to most legislation from the past several years, but there are examples of concentration limit this low or lower, including AB 246 (Papan, 2023) which would set a threshold of 10 ppm in menstrual products beginning in 2027. For drinking water, which may deserve the most stringent limit, the US EPA’s proposed legally enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level is four parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and PFOS, two chemicals in the PFAS family.

While research laboratories test for PFAS in concentrations lower than one ppm, there is uncertainty about the current reliability of commercial testing for concentrations as low as 10 ppm. Testing capabilities have improved over time and the 10 ppm threshold would not be reached until 2028 under this measure, allowing several years for reliable testing to potentially become more widely available.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 246 (Papan, 2023) prohibits, commencing January 1, 2025, a person from manufacturing, distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state any menstrual products that contain intentionally added PFAS, or, commencing January 1, 2027, concentrations of PFAS above 10 parts per million. The bill is currently pending before the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.

[NOTE: See the Senate Environmental Quality analysis for detailed background of this bill.]

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/22/23)

California Association of Sanitation Agencies (co-source)

Environmental Working Group (co-source)

A Voice for Choice Advocacy

Active San Gabriel Valley

American Bird Conservancy

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists District IX

American Nurses Association/California Chapter

BAN SUP (Single Use Plastic)

Breast Cancer Over Time

Breast Cancer Prevention Partners

California Product Stewardship Council

California Professional Firefighters

California Water Service

Californians for Pesticide Reform

CALPIRG

Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice

Center for Environmental Health

Center for Public Environmental Oversight

City of Camarillo

Clean Earth 4 Kids

Clean Water Action

Defend Them All Foundation

East Bay Municipal Utility District

Elders Climate Action NorCal Chapter

Elders Climate Action SoCal Chapter

FACTS: Families Advocating for Chemical & Toxics Safety

Friends of the Earth

GMO Science

Grassroots Environmental Education

Green Science Policy Institute

Indivisible Alta Pasadena

Irvine Ranch Water District

Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts

Mamavation - Non-Toxic Products for Healthy Families

National Stewardship Action Council

Natural Resources Defense Council

Nontoxic Neighborhoods

Pesticide Action Network

Physicians for Social Responsibility - San Francisco Bay Area Chapter

Recolte Energy

Republic Services - Western Region

Resource Renewal Institute

Responsible Purchasing Network

Safer States

San Diego County Water Authority

San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility

Santa Barbara Standing Rock Coalition

Sierra Club California

The Growing Solutions Fund

Women's Voices for the Earth

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/22/23)

American Chemistry Council

California Manufacturers & Technology Association

Household and Commercial Products Association

National Aerosol Association

Western Aerosol Information Bureau

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the supporters, “According to an informal EWG analysis of online cleaning product data, approximately 50% of institutional-grade floor polishes, which are used in public buildings, schools, and commercial offices, contain PFAS. Recent studies have demonstrated that these widely-used PFAS floor polishes can expose janitorial workers and the public to air-borne PFAS. This PFAS also enters wastewater when floors are mopped and cleaned. In addition to floor polishes, other household cleaning products (including general cleaners, floor products, and dishwasher rinse aids) contain PFAS, as do automotive polishes, machinery cleaners, and air fresheners. And online information indicates that manufacturers are marketing a type of PFAS for use as new propellants in air-borne cleaning products and air fresheners. So if not banned, PFAS chemicals will soon be in the products that we spray inside our homes.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the opponents, “This bill proposes to enact overly broad language and far-reaching product restrictions without any authoritative scientific evaluation or consideration of alternatives. All the substances that meet the proposed definition of PFAS are not the same, and individual chemistries have their own unique properties and uses, as well as environmental and health profiles. As written, AB 727 would apply a one-size-fits-all approach to chemical regulation that creates new environmental concerns, and even prohibits technologies that are safe for humans and the environment.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 62-2, 5/15/23

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Mike Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

NOES: Megan Dahle, Hoover

NO VOTE RECORDED: Alanis, Chen, Essayli, Flora, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gallagher, Lackey, Lowenthal, Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Waldron, Wallis

Prepared by: Theresa Keates / E.Q. / (916) 651-4108

8/23/23 14:42:46

**** END ****

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2023-2024 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 727 (Author:Weber)

Version: June 22, 2023

Hearing Date: July 6, 2023

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: AM

SUBJECT

Product safety: cleaning products: perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances

DIGEST

This bill prohibits a person from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale in the state a cleaning product that contains any intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) beginning January 1, 2026. The bill prohibits a person from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale in the state a cleaning product that contains any PFAS at 50 parts per million (ppm) beginning January 1, 2026; 25 ppm beginning January 1, 2027; and 10 ppm beginning January 1, 2028. The bill makes a violation of these provisions punishable by a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for a first violation and not to exceed $10,000 for each subsequent violation, upon an action brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PFAS are a large group of synthetic substances that have been widely used in industrial and consumer applications for their heat, water, and oil resistance properties since their invention in the 1930s. They are often referred to as “forever chemicals” due to the long time they take to break down. These chemicals are pervasive and have been found almost everywhere—indoor and outdoor environments, plants, food, soil, drinking water, wildlife, domestic animals, and humans. Studies have shown that exposure to PFAS may be linked to hazardous health effects and that PFAS can be transferred through ingestion or touch. California has enacted several laws banning PFAS in various products, such as textiles and children’s products. This bill seeks to ban PFAS in cleaning products. The bill bans intentionally added PFAS in cleaning products beginning on January 1, 2026, and phases in a ban on unintentionally added PFAS in cleaning products.

The bill is sponsored by the California Association of Sanitation Agencies and the Environmental Working Group. The bill is supported by numerous organizations, including local governments and environmental organizations. The bill is opposed unless amended by several associations representing manufacturers of cleaning products. The bill passed the Senate Environmental Quality Committee on a vote of 5 to 0.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Prohibits, beginning January 1, 2022, a manufacturer of class B firefighting foam from manufacturing, or knowingly selling, offering for sale, distributing for sale, or distributing for use, and a person from using, class B firefighting foam containing intentionally added PFAS chemicals. (Health & Saf. Code § 13061(b)(1).)
2. Prohibits, beginning on January 1, 2025, a person from manufacturing, distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state any new, not previously used, textile articles that contain intentionally added PFAS, or PFAS at or above 100 ppm, and on or after January 1, 2027, 50 ppm, as measured in total organic fluorine. (Health & Saf. Code § 108971.)
3. Prohibits, commencing on January 1, 2023, a person from distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state any food packaging that contains intentionally added PFAS or PFAS at or above 100 ppm, as measured in total organic fluorine. (Health & Saf. Code §109000.)
4. Authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) to order a public water system to monitor for PFAS; requires community water systems to report detections; and, where a detected level of these substances exceeds the response level, to take a water source out of use or provide a prescribed public notification. (Health & Saf. Code § 116378.)
5. Requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to adopt regulations to establish a process to identify and prioritize chemicals or chemical ingredients in consumer products that may be considered chemicals of concern, as specified. (Health & Saf. Code §25252.)
6. Requires DTSC to adopt regulations to establish a process to evaluate chemicals of concern in consumer products, and their potential alternatives, to determine how to best limit exposure or to reduce the level of hazard posed by a chemical of concern. (Health & Saf. Code §25253(a).)
7. Specifies, but does not limit, regulatory responses that DTSC can take following the completion of an alternatives analysis, ranging from no action, to a prohibition of the chemical in the product. (Health & Saf. Code § 25253.)

This bill:

1. Prohibits a person from manufacturing, distributing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale in the state any cleaning product that contains intentionally added PFAS beginning January 1, 2026.
2. Prohibits a person from manufacturing, distributing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale in the state any cleaning product that contains PFAS measured in total organic fluorine as provided:
   1. 50 ppm beginning January 1, 2026;
   2. 25 ppm beginning January 1, 2027; and
   3. 10 ppm beginning January 1, 2028.
3. Provides that a person or entity that violates these provisions, upon an action brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney, is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for a first violation and $10,000 for each subsequent violation.
4. Specifies that these provisions do not impair or impede any other rights, causes of action, claims, or defenses available under any other law. The remedies provided in this bill are cumulative with any other remedies available under any other law.
5. Provides an exemption for treatments containing PFAS for use on converted textiles or leathers, which are listed as a Priority Product by the Department of Toxic Substances Control.
6. Defines various terms for these purposes.
   1. “Air care product” means a chemically formulated consumer product labeled to indicate that the purpose of the product is to enhance or condition the indoor environment by eliminating unpleasant odors or freshening the air.
   2. “Automotive product” means a chemically formulated consumer product labeled to indicate that the purpose of the product is to clean, disinfect, maintain the appearance of, polish, protect, buff, condition, or otherwise care for a motor vehicle. Automotive products include products for washing, waxing, polishing, cleaning, or treating the exterior or interior surfaces of motor vehicles.
   3. “Cleaning product” means a finishing product that is an air care product, automotive product, general cleaning product, or a polish or floor maintenance product used primarily for janitorial, domestic, industrial, or institutional cleaning purposes, or a water vessel product.
   4. “General cleaning product” means a soap, detergent, or other chemically formulated consumer product labeled to indicate that the purpose of the product is to clean, disinfect, sanitize, or otherwise care for any of the following:
      1. Fabric, dishes, or other wares.
      2. Surfaces, including, but not limited to, floors, furniture, countertops, showers, or baths.
      3. Other hard surfaces, such as stovetops, microwaves, and other appliances.
   5. “Intentionally added PFAS” means PFAS that a manufacturer has intentionally added to a product or ingredient and that have a functional or technical effect in the product or ingredient.
   6. “Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances” or “PFAS” means a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.
   7. “Polish or floor maintenance product” means a chemically formulated consumer product, such as polish, wax, a stripper, or a restorer, labeled to indicate that the purpose of the product is to clean, disinfect, polish, protect, buff, condition, temporarily seal, strip, or maintain furniture, floors, metal, leather, or other surfaces. Polish or floor maintenance products do not include treatments containing PFAS for use on converted textiles or leathers.
   8. “Treatments containing perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances for use on converted textiles or leathers” has the same meaning as provided in Section 69511.5 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations.
   9. “Water vessel product” means a chemically formulated consumer product, such as an all-purpose cleaner or wash, deck or nonskid surface cleaner, hull or bottom cleaner, product that descales or dissolves marine growth, wax, polish, or restorer, labeled to indicate that the purpose of the product is to maintain the appearance of, or otherwise care for, a water vessel.

COMMENTS

1. Stated need for the bill

The author writes:

PFAS are synthetic chemicals that are found in a staggering array of consumer products, usually to create a nonstick, water-resistant, or stain-repellent coating. Nonstick pans, umbrellas, nail polish, grease-resistant packaging like popcorn bags, and plastic water bottles are examples of products commonly known to contain PFAS. These chemical compounds are extremely stable and are very difficult to break down, earning them the nickname "forever chemicals." Many PFAS compounds contain a strong carbon-fluorine bond which allows them to build up, accumulating over time.

According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, PFAS can harm our heart, liver, reproductive, and renal systems, can increase cholesterol levels and increase blood pressure in pregnant women. Overexposure of PFAS can put individuals at risk of developing kidney cancer, can cause liver damage, and reduce the immune system's ability to fight infections. Our use of PFAS is not sustainable. In the very near future, our public entities, such as wastewater agencies, will have to undertake the very expensive work to remove PFAS from wastewater and other resources. As a state, we need to move forward and get rid of the sources of PFAS. This can only be done by greatly restricting the use of PFAS in products. AB 727 will address one significant source of PFAS in our indoor environments and in our wastewater by prohibiting the chemicals’ use in cleaning products.

1. Bill bans PFAS in cleaning products

This bill was first heard by the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, which has primary jurisdiction over the majority of the provisions in this bill, including, but not limited to, the effects of PFAS on the environment and human health, the level of PFAS that is acceptable in cleaning products, how PFAS should be measured under the bill’s provisions, and the existing and future testing capabilities for PFAS. As such this analysis will focus on the provisions of this bill in the primary jurisdiction of this Committee, mainly the enforcement mechanism of the bill through the imposition of civil penalties. For a detailed analysis of PFAS and the environmental impacts see the Senate Environmental Quality Committee analysis of this bill.^[1]

This bill intends to address the issue of PFAS in cleaning products in two ways. First, it prohibits a person from manufacturing, distributing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale in the state any cleaning product that contains intentionally added PFAS beginning January 1, 2026. Second, the bill prohibits a person from manufacturing, distributing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale in the state any cleaning product that contains PFAS at: 50 ppm beginning January 1, 2026, 25 ppm beginning January 1, 2027, and 10 ppm beginning January 1, 2028.

1. PFAS in cleaning products

The Senate Environmental Quality Committee notes that consumers are “unwittingly being exposed to PFAS from cleaners while spending time in their homes, schools, offices, and other commercial and public spaces.”^[2] According to an analysis of online cleaning product data by the Environmental Working Group, a co-sponsor of the bill, “1 in 6 household cleaning products (including general cleaners, floor products, and dishwasher rinse aids) contain PFAS and approximately 50% of industrial grade floor polishes, which are used in public buildings, schools, and commercial offices, contain PFAS.” A U.C. Berkeley paper regarding alternatives to PFAS in floor polish notes that exposure to PFAS during floor polishing by janitorial workers is especially high with a “risk for dermal contact and inhalation.”^[3] Domestic workers also have a risk of exposure to PFAS from cleaning products in households. Contamination of PFAS in the environment can be caused from household and industrial wastewater, which leads to contaminated drinking water or PFAS otherwise persisting in the environment.^[4]

The Senate Environmental Quality Committee further noted:

PFAS remains in the body for a long time, so as people continue to be exposed to PFAS, the PFAS levels in their bodies may increase to the point that they suffer adverse health effects. According to the US EPA, current peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown that exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to reproductive effects such as decreased fertility or increased high blood pressure in pregnant people; developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, or behavioral changes; increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers; reduced ability of the body’s immune system to fight infections, including reduced vaccine response; interference with the body’s natural hormones; and, increased cholesterol levels and/or risk of obesity.^[5]

1. California has a long history of regulating PFAS in consumer products and is not alone in regulating these “forever chemicals”

The Legislature has enacted numerous bills addressing the issue of PFAS at different levels across various products—see the Prior Legislation section, below. California is not the only state concerned with PFAS, as just this year 195 new bills were introduced in dozens of state legislatures across the country seeking to ban PFAS in an expanding list of products.^[6] Earlier this year, the European Union (EU), proposed an across-the-board ban on the use of PFAS that, if adopted, would likely become effective in 2027—the same year that the ban on the unintentional level of PFAS at 10 ppm would go into effect under this bill. However, the proposal is in initial stages and currently undergoing a consultation period where stakeholders may provide comments to the European Chemical Agency before final adoption, and as such could change from its current form. The current proposal suggests two potential regulatory approaches: one approach would include a total ban on PFAS above a threshold amount after a limited 18-month transition period, and the second approach would include a similar ban except there would be limited exemptions and/or phase-ins for certain as yet defined categories of PFAS use, which would likely be time-limited as well. The EU’s proposal would ban concentration limits in mixtures and articles above 25 parts per billion of any PFAS (based on targeted analysis), 250 parts per billion of any combination of PFAS substances (either based on targeted analysis of a sample, or after chemical degradation of a sample), and 50 parts per million of PFAS (inclusive of polymeric PFAS).^[7] The third standard applies where the first two standards are not applicable (e.g., for fluoropolymers).^[8]

In regards to regulating PFAS as a class of chemicals the Senate Environmental Quality Committee states:

There are many thousands of chemicals in the PFAS class (the US EPA’s master list of PFAS chemicals listed over 12,000 as of the writing of this analysis) and more types of PFAS can be developed. DTSC has adopted a rationale for regulating this large and diverse number of PFAS chemicals as a class rather than with a piecemeal approach. This is because all PFAS share at least one common hazard trait and regulations that focus on subsets of these chemicals have resulted in their replacement with other PFAS with similar hazards.^[9]

1. Opposition concerns

The opposition to the bill states they are opposed unless amended. They note several concerns they have with the bill, some of which have been addressed by recent amendments. The opposition states they have concerns with how the 50 ppm and 25 ppm thresholds will be enforced stating:

The limits established in AB 727 are based on total organic fluorine. While it can serve as an initial screening test, total organic fluorine testing is qualitative, not quantitative, and thus nothing can be fully determined by using only this method. The lower the threshold used for total organic fluorine, the higher the likelihood that compliant products are tested and found noncompliant due to testing “background noise.” This is because a test for total organic fluorine will not only pick up any organic fluorine (not just those that meet the definition of PFAS), but it also has the ability to pick up various inorganic fluorine (fluorine that isn’t bonded to carbon). As such, we recommend giving the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) a role in evaluating testing methods for PFAS thresholds and scientifically valid testing.

The opposition additionally argues that the bill will decimate an entire product category, floor products used in schools, hospitals, and office buildings, because they claim there is no raw material replacement to comply with the bill’s provisions. They take issue with the regulation of PFAS as a class and claim this approach can hamper new innovations.

1. Enforcement mechanism in the bill

This bill provides for enforcement through civil liability. A violation of these provisions makes a person liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for a first violation, and not to exceed $10,000 for each subsequent violation, upon an action brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney. The bill expressly states that it does not impair or impede any other rights, causes of action, claims, or defenses available under any other law, and that the remedies provided in this section are cumulative with any other remedies available under any other law. The enforcement mechanism in the bill is unclear as to what “each violation” means. Due process concerns may call for more specificity into what each violation means in order to provide adequate notice to manufacturers on how to comply with the bill’s provisions. As such, the Committee may wish to amend the bill to specify that a violation is each noncompliant product, and that products belonging to the same stock keeping unit (SKU) as the noncompliant cleaning product are considered part of the same, single violation. In order to ensure that the civil penalty effectively serves as a deterrence, the Committee may also wish to amend the bill to clarify that the civil penalty is per day, but in no instance should the penalty exceed $1 million.

Under the bill currently, a retailer can be held liable even though they do not control the manufacturing process. As such, the Committee may wish to amend the bill to provide a retailer with notice of an alleged violation and provide them with a 30 day period to remove the noncompliant cleaning products from their shelves. If after notice and the 30 day period the retailer continues to sell non complaint products, then they would be subject to liability under the bill.

1. Proposed Amendments

The specific amendments to address the issues mentioned above in Comment 3) are:^[10]

Section 109031 as added to the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:

(a) Commencing January 1, 2026, a person or entity shall not manufacture, sell, deliver, distribute, hold, or offer for sale in commerce in this state a cleaning product containing any of the following:

(1) Intentionally added PFAS.

(2) PFAS in a product or ingredient at or above the following thresholds, as measured in total organic fluorine:

(A) Commencing January 1, 2026, 50 parts per million.

(B) Commencing January 1, 2027, 25 parts per million.

(C) Commencing January 1, 2028, 10 parts per million.

(b) (1) Upon an action brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney, a A person or entity that violates subdivision (a) shall be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000) per day for a first violation, and not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per day for each subsequent violation. violation, but in no instance shall the civil penalties authorized by this paragraph exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000). The civil penalties under this subdivision shall begin accruing on the date an action is brought pursuant to paragraph (2).

(2) An action to enforce this section may be brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney in a court of competent jurisdiction.

(3) For purposes of this section, a violation is deemed to have occurred upon the manufacture, sale, delivery, distribution, holding, or offering for sale, as applicable, of a cleaning product in violation of this section. Cleaning products that belong to the same stock keeping unit (SKU) as the cleaning product in violation of this section are considered part of the same, single violation incurred by each violating person or entity.

(c)(1) Before bringing an action pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney, as applicable, shall provide a written notice of an alleged violation and a copy of the requirements of this chapter to a retailer that sells or offers for sale the cleaning product alleged to violate this section. The retailer will have 30 days from receipt of the notification to comply with this section by ceasing to sell or offer for sale the cleaning product alleged to violate this section.

(2) If 30 days after receipt of the notice of violation pursuant to paragraph (1) the retailer continues to sell or offer for sale the same stock keeping unit (SKU) that is alleged to be in violation of this section, the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney, as applicable, may bring an action for violation of this section pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b).

(2) (d) This section does not impair or impede any other rights, causes of action, claims, or defenses available under any other law. The remedies provided in this section are cumulative with any other remedies available under any other law.

(c) (e) This section does not apply to treatments containing perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances for use on converted textiles or leathers, which are listed as a Priority Product by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 69511 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations.

1. Statements in support

A coalition of numerous environmental and health organizations write is support stating:

According to an informal EWG analysis of online cleaning product data, approximately 50% of institutional-grade floor polishes, which are used in public buildings, schools, and commercial offices, contain PFAS. Recent studies have demonstrated that these widely-used PFAS floor polishes can expose janitorial workers and the public to air-borne PFAS. This PFAS also enters wastewater when floors are mopped and cleaned.

In addition to floor polishes, other household cleaning products (including general cleaners, floor products, and dishwasher rinse aids) contain PFAS, as do automotive polishes, machinery cleaners, and air fresheners. And online information indicates that manufacturers are marketing a type of PFAS for use as new propellants in air-borne cleaning products and air fresheners. So if not banned, PFAS chemicals will soon be in the products that we spray inside our homes.

Consumers are unwittingly being exposed to PFAS from cleaners while spending time in their homes, schools, offices, and other commercial and public spaces. Cleaning product PFAS also ends up in household and industrial wastewater, and workers are exposed to the PFAS when cleaning buildings and homes.

It’s time to end the use of PFAS in cleaning products of all sorts. PFAS-free cleaning products are readily available and provide the same function as PFAS-containing products.

1. Statements in opposition

A coalition of associations representing manufacturers of cleaning products write in opposition stating:

This bill proposes to enact overly broad language and far-reaching product restrictions without any authoritative scientific evaluation or consideration of alternatives. All of the substances that meet the proposed definition of PFAS are not the same, and individual chemistries have their own unique properties and uses, as well as environmental and health profiles. As written, AB 727 would apply a one-size-fits-all approach to chemical regulation that creates new environmental concerns, and even prohibits technologies that are safe for humans and the environment. […]

The safety of human health and the environment is our top priority, and we support efforts to address the release of PFAS into the environment. However, we believe AB 727 undermines ongoing efforts in California, captures products that are not persistent, bioaccumulative, or toxic, and introduces unintended consequences that impact our environment.

SUPPORT

California Association of Sanitation Agencies (sponsor)

Environmental Working Group (sponsor)

A Voice for Choice Advocacy

Active San Gabriel Valley

American Bird Conservancy

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists District Ix

American Nurses Association/California Chapter

Ban SUP

Breast Cancer Over Time

Breast Cancer Prevention Partners

California Product Stewardship Council

California Professional Firefighters

California Water Service

Californians for Pesticide Reform

California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG)

Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice

Center for Environmental Health

Center for Public Environmental Oversight

City of Camarillo

Clean Earth 4 Kids

Clean Water Action

Defend Them All Foundation

East Bay Municipal Utility District

Elders Climate Action Nor Cal Chapter

Elders Climate Action So Cal Chapter

Facts Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxics Safety

Facts: Families Advocating for Chemical & Toxics Safety

Friends of the Earth

GMO Science

Grassroots Environmental Education

Green Science Policy Institute

Growing Solutions Found

Indivisible Alta Pasadena

Irvine Ranch Water District

Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts

Mamavation

National Stewardship Action Council

Natural Resources Defense Council

Non-Toxic Neighborhoods

Pesticide Action Network

Physicians for Social Responsibility - San Francisco Bay Area Chapter

Recolte Energy

Resource Renewal Institute

Responsible Purchasing Network

Safer States

San Diego County Water Authority

San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility

Santa Barbara Standing Rock Coalition

Sierra Club California

The Growing Solutions Fund

Womens Voices for the Earth

OPPOSITION

American Chemistry Council

California Manufacturers & Technology Association

Household and Commercial Products Association

National Aerosol Association

Western Aerosol Information Bureau

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation:

AB 246 (Papan, 2023) prohibits, beginning January 1, 2025, a person from manufacturing, distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state any menstrual products that contain intentionally added PFAS, and prohibits, beginning January 1, 2027, any menstrual products that contain, whether intentionally or unintentionally, concentrations of PFAS at or above 10 ppm. AB 246 will be heard in this Committee on the same day as, this bill.

AB 1423 (Schiavo, 2023) prohibits, commencing January 1, 2025, a person or entity from manufacturing, distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state any covered surface that contains PFAS, as defined, and prohibits, commencing January 1, 2024, a public entity, a public or private school, or a public or private institution of higher learning, as specified, from purchasing or installing a covered surface that contains PFAS. This bill is pending before the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.

Prior Legislation:

AB 1817 (Ting, Ch. 762, Stats. 2022) prohibited, beginning January 1, 2024, a person from distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state a textile article, as defined, that contains regulated PFAS, and requires a manufacturer to use the least toxic alternative when removing regulated PFAS in textile articles to comply with the provisions of the bill.

AB 2771 (Friedman, Ch. 804, Stats. 2022) prohibited, commencing January 1, 2025, a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale in commerce any cosmetic product that contains intentionally added PFAS.

AB 1200 (Ting, Ch. 503, Stats. 2021) prohibited, commencing January 1, 2023, the sale of food packaging that contains PFAS; requires, commencing January 1, 2024, cookware manufacturers to label their product if it contains an intentionally added chemical on specified lists.

AB 652 (Freidman, Ch. 500, Stats. 2021) prohibited, on or after July 1, 2023, a person from selling or distributing in commerce any new juvenile products that contain PFAS.

SB 1044 (Allen, Ch. 308, Stats. 2020) prohibited the manufacture, sale, distribution, and use of firefighting foam containing intentionally added PFAS chemicals by January 1, 2022, with some exceptions, and requires notification of the presence of PFAS in the protective equipment of firefighters.

SB 1056 (Portantino, 2020) would have required the State Water Board to establish an analytical laboratory method that can be used as a tool to assess the extent of PFAS contamination in drinking water, surface water, groundwater, and wastewater. This bill was held in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.

AB 1989 (Cristina Garcia, Ch. 272, Stats. 2020) enacted the Menstrual Products Right to Know Act of 2020.

AB 756 (Cristina Garcia, Ch. 162, Stats. 2019) authorized the State Water Board to order one or more public water systems to monitor for PFAS and required municipalities to notify consumers for PFAS detected above notification levels.

AB 958 (Ting, 2018) would have required a manufacturer of food packaging or cookware sold in the state to visibly disclose on an exterior location of the food packaging or cookware packaging a specified statement relating to the presence of PFAS in the product. This bill was held on the Senate Floor.

SB 1313 (Corbett, 2008) would have prohibited the manufacture, sale, or distribution of any food contact substance, as defined, which contains perfluorinated compounds, as defined, in any concentration exceeding 10 parts per billion. This bill was vetoed by then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger whose veto message said, "I have signed AB 1879 (Feuer) and SB 509 (Simitian) which mark the beginning of California's historic Green Chemistry Initiative. It is within this process that chemicals like PFCs should be addressed."

PRIOR VOTES

Senate Environmental Quality Committee (Ayes 5, Noes 0)

Assembly Floor (Ayes 62, Noes 2)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 12, Noes 4)

Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee (Ayes 7, Noes 2)

**************

1. Sen. Environmental Quality Committee analysis of AB 727 (2023-24 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 7, 2023. ↑

2. Id. at p. 6. ↑

3. Yuning Xu, Tessa Wardle, and Jenna Tan, to PFAS in Floor Polish Formulations (2021) at p. 11, available at https://bcgc.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/pfas-in-floor-polish-final-report.pdf. ↑

4. Sen. Environmental Quality Committee analysis of AB 727 (2023-24 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 7, 2023 at p. 6. ↑

5. Id. at 4. ↑

6. Kimberly Kindy, States take matters into their own hands to ban ‘forever chemicals’, Washington Post (Jun 5, 2023), available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/06/05/forever-chemicals-state-bans-pfas/. ↑

7. European Chemical Agency, Annex V Restriction Report, v. 2 (Mar. 22, 2023) at p. 75, available at https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/f605d4b5-7c17-7414-8823-b49b9fd43aea. ↑

8. Ibid. ↑

9. Sen. Environmental Quality Committee analysis of AB 246 (2023-24 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 7, 2023 at p.4. ↑

10. The amendments may also include technical, nonsubstantive changes recommended by the Office of Legislative Counsel. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Allen, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

SUBJECT: Product safety: cleaning products: perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances

DIGEST: Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2026, a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale in commerce in this state a cleaning product, as defined, containing intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS); or, PFAS in a cleaning product or ingredient at or above 50 parts per million (ppm) commencing January 1, 2026, 25 ppm commencing January 1, 2027, and 10 ppm commencing January 1, 2028.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Under the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65) (HSC § 25249.5 et seq.):
   
   1. Prohibits a person, in the course of doing business, from knowingly discharging or releasing a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity into water or onto or into land where such chemical passes or probably will pass into any source of drinking water.
   2. Prohibits a person, in the course of doing business, from knowingly and intentionally exposing any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual.
   3. Requires the Governor to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity and to annually revise the list. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has listed perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), which are members of the PFAS class, as chemicals known to the state to cause developmental toxicity and cancer.
2. Under the Safer Consumer Products (Green Chemistry) statutes (HSC § 25252 et seq.):
3. Requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to adopt regulations to establish a process to identify and prioritize chemicals or chemical ingredients in consumer products that may be considered chemicals of concern, as specified.
4. Requires DTSC to adopt regulations to establish a process to evaluate chemicals of concern in consumer products, and their potential alternatives, to determine how to best limit exposure or to reduce the level of hazard posed by a chemical of concern.
5. Specifies, but does not limit, regulatory responses that DTSC can take following the completion of an alternatives analysis, ranging from no action, to a prohibition of the chemical in the product.
6. Under the Cleaning Product Right to Know Act of 2017, requires manufacturers of cleaning products to disclose specified chemical ingredients on a product label and on the manufacturers’ website.

This bill:

1. Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2026, a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale in commerce in this state a cleaning product containing any of the following:
   1. Intentionally added PFAS; or,
   2. PFAS in a product or product component at or above the following thresholds:
      1. Commencing January 1, 2026, 50 ppm.
      2. Commencing January 1, 2027, 25 ppm.
      3. Commencing January 1, 2028, 10 ppm.
2. Defines “cleaning product” as a finishing product that is an air care product, automotive product, general cleaning product, or a polish or floor maintenance product used primarily for janitorial, domestic, industrial, or institutional cleaning purposes, or a water vessel product. Each of these products are further defined.
3. Defines “perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances” or “PFAS” as a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.
4. Defines “intentionally added PFAS” as PFAS that a manufacturer has intentionally added to a product or ingredient and that has a functional or technical effect in the product or ingredient.
5. Provides that, upon an action brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney, a person or entity that violates the PFAS restrictions of this bill shall be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for a first violation, and not to exceed $10,000 for each subsequent violation.
6. Provides that these penalty provisions do not impair or impede any other rights, causes of action, claims, or defenses available under any other law. Provides that the remedies delineated in the bill are cumulative with any other remedies available under any other law.
   

Background

1. Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large group of synthetic substances that have been widely used in industrial and consumer applications for their heat, water, and oil resistance properties since their invention in the 1930s. PFAS are used extensively in carpets, furniture fabrics, apparel, paper packaging for food, non-stick cookware, personal care products, and other products designed to be waterproof; grease, heat, water and stain resistant; or, non-stick. Commercial applications span many sectors of the economy, including aerospace, apparel, automotive, building and construction, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, paints, electronics, semiconductors, energy, oil and gas exploration, first responder safety, firefighting foams, and health care.

Scientific studies have shown that exposure to some PFAS may be linked to harmful health effects in humans and animals. PFAS are long-lasting chemicals that break down very slowly over time. During production, use, and disposal, PFAS can migrate into the soil, water, and air. PFAS have been found in indoor and outdoor environments, plants, soil, food, drinking water, wildlife and domestic animals, and humans. The persistence and proliferation of PFAS chemicals makes it challenging to study and assess the overall potential human health and environmental risks of PFAS exposure.

1. Hazards of PFAS. PFAS exposure occurs mainly through ingestion of contaminated food or liquids. Exposure can also occur though inhalation and touch, and PFAS can be transferred through pregnancy and breastfeeding. PFAS remains in the body for a long time, so as people continue to be exposed to PFAS, the PFAS levels in their bodies may increase to the point that they suffer adverse health effects. According to the US EPA, current peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown that exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to reproductive effects such as decreased fertility or increased high blood pressure in pregnant people; developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, or behavioral changes; increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers; reduced ability of the body’s immune system to fight infections, including reduced vaccine response; interference with the body’s natural hormones; and, increased cholesterol levels and/or risk of obesity.
2. Regulating PFAS as a class. There are many thousands of chemicals in the PFAS class (the US EPA’s master list of PFAS chemicals listed over 12,000 as of the writing of this analysis) and more types of PFAS can be developed. DTSC has adopted a rationale for regulating this large and diverse number of PFAS chemicals as a class rather than with a piecemeal approach. This is because all PFAS share at least one common hazard trait and regulations that focus on subsets of these chemicals have resulted in their replacement with other PFAS with similar hazards.
3. DTSC’s Safer Consumer Products Program. DTSC administers the Safer Consumer Products (SCP, previously known as Green Chemistry) Program, which aims to advance the design, development, and use of products that are chemically safer for people and the environment. DTSC's approach provides science-based criteria and procedures for identifying and evaluating alternatives with the objective of replacing chemicals of concern with safer chemicals and avoiding the use of substitute chemicals that pose equal or greater harm. Under DTSC’s SCP Program, all PFAS chemicals are “Candidate Chemicals” because they exhibit specified hazard traits.

While the intent of the SCP regulations is to establish a robust and thorough regulatory process rooted in science to consider exposure to chemicals in consumer products, it has long been recognized that DTSC does not have the resources to evaluate all, or even a significant percentage of, chemicals in every consumer product application. The permutations of product and chemical combinations are virtually limitless. To that end, the SCP statute does not preclude the Legislature from taking legislative action on the use of chemicals in consumer product applications. When there is credible scientific evidence to support a change in state policy to protect public health, the Legislature can respond to that science more quickly than DTSC can. However, many PFAS prohibitions, including this bill, have not been assigned to an agency and therefore lack oversight and enforcement (see “Who is in charge?” Comment).

1. Prior PFAS legislation. The Legislature has enacted several PFAS prohibitions in the last several years. These include PFAS prohibitions at different levels across many product categories: a ban on PFAS in textiles (AB 1817,Ting, Chapter 762, Statutes of 2022); cosmetic products (AB 2771, Friedman, Chapter 804, Statutes of 2022); food packaging (AB 1200, Ting, Chapter 503, Statutes of 2021); new juvenile products (AB 652, Freidman, Chapter 500, Statutes of 2021); and, firefighting foam (SB 1044, Allen, Chapter 308, Statutes of 2020). The Legislature also authorized the State Water Board to order public water systems to monitor for PFAS and required municipalities to notify consumers for PFAS detected above notification levels (AB 756, C. Garcia, Chapter 162, Statutes of 2019). California is not alone in this: just this year, 195 new bills were introduced in dozens of state legislatures in the country seeking to ban PFAS in an expanding list of products. In early February 2023, the European Union, which already bans certain PFAS types, proposed an across-the-board ban on the use of PFAS. If adopted, the E.U.’s ban would come into effect in 2027.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “PFAS are synthetic chemicals that are found in a staggering array of consumer products, usually to create a nonstick, water-resistant, or stain-repellent coating. Nonstick pans, umbrellas, nail polish, grease-resistant packaging like popcorn bags, and plastic water bottles are examples of products commonly known to contain PFAS. These chemical compounds are extremely stable and are very difficult to break down, earning them the nickname “forever chemicals.” Many PFAS compounds contain a strong carbon-fluorine bond which allows them to build up, accumulating over time.

“According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, PFAS can harm our heart, liver, reproductive, and renal systems, can increase cholesterol levels and increase blood pressure in pregnant women. Overexposure of PFAS can put individuals at risk of developing kidney cancer, can cause liver damage, and reduce the immune system's ability to fight infections. Our use of PFAS is not sustainable. In the very near future, our public entities, such as wastewater agencies, will have to undertake the very expensive work to remove PFAS from wastewater and other resources. As a state, we need to move forward and get rid of the sources of PFAS. This can only be done by greatly restricting the use of PFAS in products. AB 727 will address one significant source of PFAS in our indoor environments and in our wastewater by prohibiting the chemicals’ use in cleaning products.”

1. PFAS in cleaning products. Consumers are unwittingly being exposed to PFAS from cleaners while spending time in their homes, schools, offices, and other commercial and public spaces. The Environmental Working Group, a co-sponsor of this bill, analyzed online cleaning product data and found 1 in 6 household cleaning products (including general cleaners, floor products, and dishwasher rinse aids) contain PFAS and approximately 50% of industrial grade floor polishes, which are used in public buildings, schools, and commercial offices, contain PFAS. Janitorial and domestic workers have especially high potential for PFAS exposure when cleaning buildings and homes. PFAS from cleaning products also end up in household and industrial wastewater and can contaminate drinking water or otherwise persist in the environment.

Cleaning products that would be subject to this measure would encompass a potentially wide range of materials. A common testing method for organic fluorine content uses combustion, which can be conducted on a wide range of materials.

Opposition to the bill is concerned that manufacturers of semi-permanent floor coatings will need more time to develop alternatives to PFAS. These are products that are applied to porous flooring to protect and seal them and are periodically replenished or removed by a stripper. They are often used in schools, hospitals, and office buildings. Recent studies have demonstrated that widely-used PFAS floor polishes can expose janitorial workers and the public to air-borne PFAS. A recent study from the University of California Berkeley found that most floor polishes contain between 100-275 ppm of PFAS. It is the understanding of committee staff that the author is continuing to work with the opposition to address these concerns.

1. Who is in charge? Many chemical prohibition bills, including this one, are placed in a unique location in the California Codes, sometimes referred to as the “orphan codes.” In these code sections, no state agency is designated to provide oversight of the provisions of the law. As a result, there is no direct enforcement, no establishment of standardized testing methods, no compliance program, no guidance for manufacturers seeking to comply with these laws, and no related information for consumers. Because of these deficiencies, it is challenging for some manufacturers to comply and difficult or impossible to know if manufacturers are complying with the requirements of the law.

The only current option for enforcement of the prohibitions in the “orphan codes” is for a district attorney or the state Attorney General to bring an action against a manufacturer under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), unless specified otherwise. However, this requires a member of the public to pay for the testing of a product for the presence of a prohibited chemical, and then the Attorney General or district attorney must have the resources and ability to prioritize action on these complaints. To the knowledge of this and prior Committees that have considered this bill, this kind of enforcement has not happened, nor has any comprehensive report or investigation been done on compliance with the prohibitions in the “orphan code.”

This bill takes a step forward on statutory chemical prohibitions by adding civil penalties for violations of the restrictions in the bill. These penalty provisions are in addition to the authority to enforce under the UCL, and are consistent with existing statutory penalties relating to PFAS in firefighting foam. However, there remains no entity providing guidance, including details such as testing standards, or ensuring compliance with the prohibitions. Moving forward, the authors of chemical prohibition bills, along with stakeholders, the policy committees, and the Administration, should continue to discuss effective oversight of these new and existing chemical prohibition laws.

1. PFAS concentration thresholds. This and several other PFAS prohibitions prohibit intentionally added PFAS and additionally set a concentration threshold for any PFAS in a product, intentionally added or not. Such a threshold may be warranted because determining whether PFAS were intentionally added in the manufacturing of a product can be a challenge when certain manufacturing information is proprietary or contaminated product components are used. Setting a concentration threshold can further protect public health, but the chosen concentration should be appropriate. There is no concentration of PFAS that has been proven safe, and as long-lasting chemicals, they build up in the human body and in the environment over time. PFAS in different types of products may be of greater concern than others depending on how likely the chemicals are to enter the body. Even if direct exposure to the product is limited, any PFAS in a product can, eventually, end up in the environment, including in drinking water.

As with enforcement, determining an appropriate concentration threshold could benefit from a public entity with scientists with health and environmental backgrounds determining the risks of chemical exposure at different levels. Without that resource, the Legislature is tasked with setting the appropriately protective standard in statute, and presumably updating those statutory thresholds by legislation when needed. An agency performing oversight would also be better-equipped to establish testing methodology standards.

This bill prohibits intentionally added PFAS starting in 2026, as well as PFAS concentrations over 50 ppm in 2026, 25 ppm in 2027, and 10 ppm in 2028. Other bills have differing PFAS thresholds in different product categories ranging from 1 ppm to 100 ppm, and some similarly have this threshold decrease over time (see the “Related/Prior Legislation” section of this analysis). Ten parts per million is low compared to most legislation from the past several years, but there are examples of concentration limit this low or lower, including AB 246 (Papan) which would set a threshold of 10 ppm in menstrual products beginning in 2027. For drinking water, which may deserve the most stringent limit, the US EPA’s proposed legally enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level (MCLs) is 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and PFOS, two chemicals in the PFAS family.

While research laboratories test for PFAS in concentrations lower than 1 ppm, there is uncertainty about the current reliability of commercial testing for concentrations as low as 10 ppm. Testing capabilities have improved over time and the 10 ppm threshold would not be reached until 2028 under this measure, allowing several years for reliable testing to potentially become more widely available.

1. Avoiding conflict with SCP Program. DTSC’s 2021-2023 Priority Product Work Plan includes several subcategories of cleaning products including carpet treatments, air care products, automotive products, general cleaning products, and polish or floor maintenance products. While the Legislature may enact chemical prohibitions separately from DTSC’s SCP Program, which can be a much slower process, it may be prudent to avoid overlap when DTSC has already adopted a regulatory response to avoid overlapping jurisdiction and confusion. DTSC listed PFAS-containing treatments used to eliminate dirt or stains or to repel stains, dirt, oil, or water for textile or leather consumer products, such as carpets, upholstery, clothing, and shoes, as a Priority Product in April 2022. A Priority Product is a consumer product identified by DTSC that contains one or more Candidate Chemicals and that has the potential to contribute to significant or widespread adverse impacts to humans or the environment. Manufacturers of a Priority Product must submit certain documentation regarding their product to DTSC and submit an alternatives analysis or they can remove the product for sale in California or remove or replace the chemical of concern. The committee may wish to amend the bill to carve out from the prohibitions in this bill leather and textile treatment products already designated as Priority Products by DTSC.
2. Regrettable substitutions. When prohibiting a toxic or otherwise hazardous chemical, it is important to avoid replacement of the prohibited chemical with another hazardous chemical, or a chemical even more hazardous than the one prohibited. Like several other statues dealing with chemicals in the “orphan code,” this bill requires a manufacturer to use the least toxic alternative, including alternative design, when removing regulated PFAS in cleaning products to comply with the restrictions in this bill. However, without a state entity overseeing these substitutions, it is difficult to know whether manufacturers are replacing prohibited chemicals with substances that are safer or more hazardous. DTSC does have a process for this that takes a lifecycle perspective: manufacturers conduct alternative analyses which consider not only the toxicity of a chemical, but also its persistence and environmental impact.
3. Committee amendments. Staff recommends the committee adopt the bolded amendments contained in comment 5 above.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 246 (Papan) would prohibit, commencing January 1, 2025, a person from manufacturing, distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state any menstrual products that contain intentionally added PFAS, or, commencing January 1, 2027, concentrations of PFAS above 10 parts per million. This bill is currently pending before the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.

AB 1423 (Schiavo) would prohibit, commencing January 1, 2024, a public entity and certain educational institutions from purchasing or installing a covered surface that contains intentionally added PFAS or PFAS at a concentration at or above 1 part per million, and commencing January 1, 2025, would prohibit a person or entity from manufacturing, distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state any covered surface that contains intentionally added PFAS or PFAS at a concentration at or above 1 part per million. This bill is pending before the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.

AB 347 (Ting) would require DTSC to enforce and ensure compliance with PFAS prohibitions and require DTSC to test at least 200 juvenile products and 200 food packaging samples by January 1, 2025. It would authorize DTSC to assess fines against manufacturers in violation of the PFAS prohibitions. This bill is pending before the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.

AB 1817 (Ting, Chapter 762, Statutes of 2022) prohibits, beginning January 1, 2024, a person from distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state a textile article, as defined, that contains intentionally added PFAS, or starting January 1, 2025, any PFAS at concentrations of 100 ppm or more, or starting January 1, 2027, 50 ppm or more.

AB 2771 (Friedman, Chapter 804, Statutes of 2022) prohibits, commencing January 1, 2025, a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale in commerce any cosmetic product that contains intentionally added PFAS.

AB 502 (Allen, Chapter 701, Statutes of 2022) makes a number of updates to California’s Safer Consumer Products Program in line with perceived shortcomings from its first ten years with regards to the speed of the program to filling existing data gaps.

AB 1200 (Ting, Chapter 503, Statutes of 2021) prohibits, commencing January 1, 2023, the sale of food packaging, as defined, that contains intentionally added PFAS or PFAS at concentrations at or above 100 ppm. This bill also requires, starting January 1, 2024, certain labels for cookware products containing intentionally added chemicals from specified lists.

AB 652 (Friedman, Chapter 500, Statutes of 2021) prohibits, on or after July 1, 2023, a person from selling or distributing in commerce any new juvenile products that contain intentionally added PFAS or PFAS at or above 100 ppm.

AB 2762 (Muratsuchi, Chapter 314, Statutes of 2020) prohibits, commencing January 1, 2025, a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale, in commerce any cosmetic product that contains any specified intentionally added ingredients, including some PFAS chemicals.

SB 1044 (Allen, Chapter 308, Statutes of 2020) prohibits the manufacture, sale, distribution, and use of firefighting foam containing intentionally added PFAS chemicals by January 1, 2022, with some exceptions, and requires notification of the presence of intentionally added PFAS in the protective equipment of firefighters.

DOUBLE REFERRAL:

If this measure is approved by the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, the do pass motion must include the action to re-refer the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

SOURCE:

Environmental Working Group and California Association of Sanitation Agencies (co-sponsors)

SUPPORT:

American Bird Conservancy
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists District IX
American Nurses Association/California
Ban Sup (Single Use Plastic)
Breast Cancer Over Time
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners
California Association of Sanitation Agencies
California Product Stewardship Council
California Professional Firefighters
California Water Service
Californians for Pesticide Reform
CALPRIG
Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice
Center for Environmental Health
Center for Public Environmental Oversight
City of Camarillo
Clean Earth 4 Kids
Clean Water Action
Defend Them All Foundation
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Elders Climate Action Norcal Chapter
Elders Climate Action Socal Chapter
Environmental Working Group
Facts: Families Advocating for Chemical & Toxics Safety
Grassroots Environmental Education
Green Science Policy Institute
Indivisible Alta Pasadena
Irvine Ranch Water District
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
Mamavation - Non-toxic Products for Healthy Families
National Stewardship Action Council
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Nontoxic Neighborhoods
Pesticide Action Network
Physicians for Social Responsibility - San Francisco Bay Area Chapter
Recolte Energy
Republic Services - Western Region
Resource Renewal Institute
Responsible Purchasing Network
Safer States
San Diego County Water Authority
Santa Barbara Standing Rock Coalition
The Growing Solutions Fund
Women's Voices for The Earth
Www.gmoscience.org

OPPOSITION:

American Chemistry Council
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
Household and Commercial Products Association
National Aerosol Association
Western Aerosol Information Bureau

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

According to a coalition of 36 environmental and consumer protection associations, “Consumers are unwittingly being exposed to PFAS from cleaners while spending time in their homes, schools, offices, and other commercial and public spaces. Cleaning product PFAS also ends up in household and industrial wastewater, and workers are exposed to the PFAS when cleaning buildings and homes. It’s time to end the use of PFAS in cleaning products of all sorts. PFAS-free cleaning products are readily available and provide the same function as PFAS-containing products. We would ask that the committee support AB 727 and rid California of another source of PFAS exposure and contamination.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

According to a coalition of five manufacturing associations, “This bill proposes to enact overly broad language and far-reaching product restrictions without any authoritative scientific evaluation or consideration of alternatives. All of the substances that meet the proposed definition of PFAS are not the same, and individual chemistries have their own unique properties and uses, as well as environmental and health profiles. As written, AB 727 would apply a one-size-fits-all approach to chemical regulation that creates new environmental concerns, and even prohibits technologies that are safe for humans and the environment. […] The safety of human health and the environment is our top priority, and we support efforts to address the release of PFAS into the environment. However, we believe AB 727 undermines ongoing efforts in California, captures products that are not persistent, bioaccumulative, or toxic, and introduces unintended consequences that impact our environment.”

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 727

Author:(Weber)

As Amended Ver:April 13, 2023

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2025, a person or entity from manufacturing or selling a cleaning product containing perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), as defined.

Major Provisions

1. Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2025, a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale in commerce in this state a cleaning product containing any of the following:
   1. Intentionally added PFAS; or,
   2. PFAS in a product or product component at or above the following thresholds:
      1. Commencing January 1, 2025, 50 parts per million.
      2. Commencing January 1, 2027, 25 parts per million.
2. Provides that, upon an action brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney, a person or entity that violates the PFAS restrictions of this bill shall be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for a first violation, and not to exceed $10,000 for each subsequent violation.

COMMENTS

Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): Per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFASs) are a large group of synthetic, highly fluorinated substances that have been widely used in industrial and consumer applications for their heat, water, and lipid resistance properties for more than seven decades. PFAS are long-lasting chemicals that break down very slowly over time. PFAS are ubiquitous, and researchers have found PFAS in indoor and outdoor environments, plants, soil, food, drinking water, wildlife, companion animals, production animals, and humans at locations across the nation and around the globe. Scientific studies have shown that exposure to some PFAS may be linked to harmful health effects in humans and animals. More than 9,000 PFAS chemicals are included in the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (US EPA's) Master List of PFAS Substances.

Exposure to PFAS: The main route of exposure to PFAS is through ingestion of contaminated food or liquid (accounting for up to half of total exposure), and through inhalation and ingestion of contaminated indoor air and dust. Food can become contaminated with PFAS through contaminated soil and water used to grow the food, food packaging containing PFAS, and equipment that uses PFAS during food processing. Some foods, such as fish, meat, eggs and leafy vegetables, may contain PFAS due to bioaccumulation and crop uptake. Studies have shown that PFAS can transfer from pregnant mothers to their fetuses via the placenta during gestation, as well as transfer from nursing mothers to their infants via breastfeeding. Dermal exposure is also possible when people touch products treated with PFAS, such as carpets or clothing. Young children may be susceptible to higher levels of exposure than adults because they ingest more dust containing PFAS and mouth PFAS-treated consumer products. Workers, such as carpet installers, carpet cleaners, firefighters, and workers in furniture, furnishings, outdoor clothing, and carpet stores, may also experience above average PFAS exposure levels.

Exposure to PFAS in drinking water is an escalating concern due to the persistence of PFAS chemicals in the environment and their tendency to accumulate in groundwater.

Hazard traits of PFAS: An intrinsic property of PFAS is the extreme environmental persistence of either the individual compounds or their degradation products or both, resulting in their classification as "forever chemicals." Most PFAS are mobile in environmental media such as air and water, and thus are widespread in living organisms and the environment. Several PFAS bioaccumulate significantly in animals or plants and emerging evidence points to their phytotoxicity, aquatic toxicity, and terrestrial ecotoxicity.

According to the US EPA, current peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown that exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to: reproductive effects such as decreased fertility or increased high blood pressure in pregnant women; developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, or behavioral changes; increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers; reduced ability of the body's immune system to fight infections, including reduced vaccine response; interference with the body’s natural hormones; and, increased cholesterol levels and/or risk of obesity.

Regulating PFAS as a class: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has adopted a rationale for regulating PFAS chemicals as a class, concluding, "it is both ineffective and impractical to regulate this complex class of chemicals with a piecemeal approach." This rationale was presented in the February, 2021, Environmental Health Perspectives article, "Regulating PFAS as a Chemical Class under the California Safer Consumer Products Program," which states, "The widespread use, large number, and diverse chemical structures of PFAS pose challenges to any sufficiently protective regulation, emissions reduction, and remediation at contaminated sites. Regulating only a subset of PFAS has led to their replacement with other members of the class with similar hazards, that is, regrettable substitutions… Regulating PFAS as a class is thus logical, necessary, and forward-thinking."

PFAS in cleaning products: Cleaning products are commonly listed on governmental and academic websites as known sources of PFAS. To illustrate the prevalence of PFAS in cleaning products, the sponsors of the bill point to an informal Environmental Working Group (EWG) analysis of online cleaning product data, which found that approximately 50% of industrial and institutional floor cleaners, finishes, polishes, and restorers contain PFAS. These products are used in public buildings, schools, and commercial offices. EWG's analysis also found that one in six household versions of these floor cleaning product categories contain PFAS.

A January 2022, study published in Atmospheric Environment focusing on PFAS in floor waxes conveys that the flooring industry reports a strong demand for PFAS-containing products. Fluorosurfactants are added to floor polishes to lower the surface tension of the product. The article says that DuPont, one of the world's largest PFAS-containing product manufacturers, reports that almost every acrylic/wax floor polish formulation on the market contains a fluorosurfactant. The authors of the article conducted a study that demonstrated occupational exposure to PFAS during floor stripping and waxing, and found that PFAS emitted during this process could also enter wastewater.

To further illustrate the problem, the sponsors of the bill report that many manufacturers indicate, but do not state, that their cleaning products contain properties (water-repellant, long-lasting, high shine) that are indicative of PFAS chemicals. They say that many other product categories are known to contain PFAS, including car waxes, dishwasher rinse aids, furniture polishes, and textile cleaners and treatments. In addition, the sponsors argue that manufacturers are marketing a type of PFAS for use as propellants in air-borne cleaning products and air fresheners.

This bill: This bill prohibits, commencing January 1, 2025, a person or entity from manufacturing or selling a cleaning product containing PFAS. For the purposes of the bill, cleaning products are defined as an air care product, automotive product, general cleaning product, or a polish or floor maintenance product used primarily for janitorial, domestic, industrial, or institutional cleaning purposes, or a water vessel product.

Enforcement: Like this bill, most of the state's chemical prohibition bills were placed in what is sometimes referred to as the "orphan codes." In these code sections, no state agency is designated to provide oversight of the provisions of the law. As a result, there is no compliance program, no guidance for manufacturers seeking to comply with these laws, no related information for consumers, and no state entity investigating complaints, testing products for compliance, or bringing enforcement actions against violators.

This bill: This bill provides the Attorney General (AG) and other government attorneys with specified civil penalties to bring against violators of the law. These penalty provisions are in addition to the AG's existing authority to enforce this, and related product safety statutory provisions, such as through the Unfair Competition Law. The author of this bill, Committee staff, and stakeholders are continuing to discuss the development of a more comprehensive enforcement program for laws regulating dangerous chemicals in consumer products.

According to the Author

"According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, PFAS can harm our heart, liver, reproductive, and renal systems, can increase cholesterol levels and increase blood pressure in pregnant women. Overexposure of PFAS can put individuals at risk of developing kidney cancer, can cause liver damage, and reduce the immune system's ability to fight infections. Our use of PFAS is not sustainable. In the very near future, our public entities, such as wastewater agencies, will have to undertake the very expensive work to remove PFAS from wastewater and other resources. As a state, we need to move forward and get rid of the sources of PFAS. This can only be done by greatly restricting the use of PFAS in products. AB 727 will address one significant source of PFAS in our indoor environments and in our wastewater by prohibiting the chemicals' use in cleaning products."

Arguments in Support

According to a coalition of supporters, "…PFAS are highly toxic to humans and the natural environment, and are incredibly persistent. These toxic chemicals are extremely resistant to breaking down in our bodies or in the environment. Decades of heavy use of PFAS have resulted in contamination of water, soil and the blood of people and animals in the farthest corners of the world…

According to an informal EWG analysis of online cleaning product data, approximately 50% of institutional-grade floor polishes, which are used in public buildings, schools, and commercial offices, contain PFAS. Recent studies have demonstrated that these widely-used PFAS floor polishes can expose janitorial workers and the public to air-borne PFAS. This PFAS also enters wastewater when floors are mopped and cleaned.

In addition to floor polishes, other household cleaning products (including general cleaners, floor products, and dishwasher rinse aids) contain PFAS, as do automotive polishes, machinery cleaners, and air fresheners. And online information indicates that manufacturers are marketing a type of PFAS for use as new propellants in air-borne cleaning products and air fresheners. So if not banned, PFAS chemicals will soon be in the products that we spray inside our homes…

PFAS-free cleaning products are readily available and provide the same function as PFAS-containing products."

Arguments in Opposition

According to a coalition of opponents, "This bill proposes to enact overly broad language and far-reaching product restrictions without any authoritative scientific evaluation or consideration of alternatives. All of the substances that meet the proposed definition of PFAS are not the same, and individual chemistries have their own unique properties and uses, as well as environmental and health profiles...

AB 727, encompasses cleaning product categories without a comprehensive scientific review and, as a result, an entire product category will be decimated while creating new environmental challenges. Floor maintenance products used in schools, hospitals, and office buildings have no "drop in" raw material replacement to comply with AB 727 and would therefore be eliminated from use….

…PFAS properties vary widely across uses and applications. For this reason, it is important to distinguish between PFAS categories, use, function, exposure, and chemical properties as opposed to treating the substance as a single group… PFAS should not be considered as a single group or class, especially given it is possible to scientifically define distinct categories of PFAS based on shared properties.

Under California's Safer Consumer Products Program (SCP) -- implemented by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) – regulations and product restrictions are put in place following a clear science-based process to "identify products that contain potentially harmful chemicals and to evaluate potential safer alternatives." …The Legislature is not designed to perform the same rigorous scientific evaluation of chemicals and products.."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, the Department of Justice (DOJ) anticipates minor and absorbable costs as a result of enactment of this bill. The DOJ notes, however, that while enactment of individual chemical prohibition bills this session may result in no significant impact to the DOJ, should several of the current chemical prohibition bills with similar enforcement provisions become law, the DOJ would need to request additional resources to process the increase in its workload.

VOTES

ASM ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS: 7-2-0

YES: Lee, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Connolly, McKinnor, Pacheco, Zbur

NO: Hoover, Ta

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-4-0

YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Papan, Pellerin, Robert Rivas, Weber, Wilson

NO: Megan Dahle, Dixon, Mathis, Sanchez

UPDATED

VERSION: April 13, 2023

CONSULTANT: Shannon McKinney / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965 FN: 0000314

Date of Hearing: May 3, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 727

Author:(Weber) – As Amended Ver:April 13, 2023

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: >

SUMMARY:

This bill bans perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in cleaning products.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2025, a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale in commerce in this state a cleaning product, as defined, containing any of the following:
   
   1. Intentionally added PFAS.
      
   2. PFAS in a product or product component at or above the following thresholds:
      1. Commencing January 1, 2025, 50 parts per million.
      2. Commencing January 1, 2027, 25 parts per million.
2. Provides that, upon an action brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney, a person or entity that violates the PFAS restrictions of this bill shall be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for a first violation, and not to exceed $10,000 for each subsequent violation.
3. Provides that these penalty provisions do not impair or impede any other rights, causes of action, claims, or defenses available under any other law. Provides that the remedies provided in this bill are cumulative with any other remedies available under any other law.
   

FISCAL EFFECT:

The Department of Justice (DOJ) anticipates minor and absorbable costs as a result of this bill but notes as numerous bills this session may result in no significant impact to DOJ, should an aggregate of these bills become law, DOJ would need to request additional resources to process the increase to its workload.

COMMENTS:

1) Purpose. According to the author:

Our use of PFAS is not sustainable. In the very near future, our public entities, such as wastewater agencies, will have to undertake the very expensive work to remove PFAS from wastewater and other resources. As a state, we need to move forward and get rid of the sources of PFAS. This can only be done by greatly restricting the use of PFAS in products. AB 727 will address one significant source of PFAS in our indoor environments and in our wastewater by prohibiting the chemicals’ use in cleaning products.

2) Background. PFAS are a ubiquitous class of more than 9,000 synthetic chemicals that have been in use in a wide range of industrial and consumer products since the 1940s for their heat, water, and lipid resistance properties. PFAS are linked to a variety of health harms, such as cancer, endocrine disruption, developmental and reproductive toxicity, and immune dysregulation. These chemicals are harmful at extremely low doses; contaminate the air, soil, drinking water, plants and wildlife during production, use and disposal; and are extremely persistent in the environment. In fact, PFAS are commonly referred to as “forever chemicals” because they do not break down and instead bioaccumulate and persist in human and animal tissues.

Several state agencies, including the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the State Water Board, and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, have undertaken efforts to address PFAS. The Legislature has also enacted bans on PFAS in textiles, food packaging, juvenile products, certain cosmetics, and firefighting foam; authorized the State Water Board to order public water systems to monitor for PFAS; and required municipalities to notify customers for PFAS detected above notification levels.

Writing in support, a coalition of organizations state:

According to an informal EWG analysis of online cleaning product data, approximately 50% of institutional-grade floor polishes, which are used in public buildings, schools, and commercial offices, contain PFAS. Recent studies have demonstrated that these widely-used PFAS floor polishes can expose janitorial workers and the public to air-borne PFAS. This PFAS also enters wastewater when floors are mopped and cleaned. In addition to floor polishes, other household cleaning products (including general cleaners, floor products, and dishwasher rinse aids) contain PFAS, as do automotive polishes, machinery cleaners, and air fresheners…Consumers are unwittingly being exposed to PFAS from cleaners while spending time in their homes, schools, offices, and other commercial and public spaces…It’s time to end the use of PFAS in cleaning products of all sorts. PFAS-free cleaning products are readily available and provide the same function as PFAS-containing products.

Writing in opposition, a coalition of organization writes:

We share the goal of moving away from perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) substances, and where they are still used, industry is working to innovate and reformulate away from them. We support sensible regulations of priority chemicals, however this bill proposes to enact overly broad language and far-reaching product restrictions without any authoritative scientific evaluation or consideration of alternatives. All of the substances that meet the proposed definition of PFAS are not the same, and individual chemistries have their own unique properties and uses, as well as environmental and health profiles. As written, AB 727 would apply a one-size-fits-all approach to chemical regulation that creates new environmental concerns, and even prohibits technologies that are safe for humans and the environment.

Enforcement. Like this bill, most of the state’s chemical prohibition bills are placed in what is sometimes referred to as the "orphan codes." In these code sections, no state agency is designated to provide oversight of the provisions of the law. As a result, there is no compliance program, no guidance for manufacturers seeking to comply with these laws, no related information for consumers, and no state entity investigating complaints, testing products for compliance, or bringing enforcement actions against violators. This bill and the bills listed under “related legislation” include provisions that provide the Attorney General (AG) and local government attorneys with specified civil penalties to bring against violators of the law. These penalty provisions are in addition to the AG’s existing authority to enforce this and related product safety bills, such as through the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), although this committee and the policy committee are not aware of any enforcement actions taken by the AG or a district attorney under the UCL, or any other law, to enforce the chemical prohibition laws under the "orphan codes." The authors of these bills, committee staff, and stakeholders are continuing to discuss what a more comprehensive enforcement program might look like for laws regulating dangerous chemicals in consumer products.

3) Related Legislation. AB 246 (Papan) prohibits, commencing January 1, 2025, a person from manufacturing, distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state any menstrual products that contain regulated perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). AB 246 is pending in this committee.

AB 418 (Gabriel) prohibits, commencing January 1, 2025, a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale, in commerce a food product that contains any of several specified substances. AB 418 is pending in this committee.

AB 1423 (Schiavo) prohibits, commencing January 1, 2025, the manufacturing or sale of artificial turf that contains PFAS, and, commencing January 1, 2024, a public entity, a public or private school, or a public or private institution of higher learning, from purchasing or installing artificial turf that contains PFAS. AB 1423 is pending in this committee.

Analysis Prepared by: Nikita Koraddi / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 18, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS

Alex Lee, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 727 (

Author:Weber) – As Amended Ver:April 13, 2023

SUBJECT: Product safety: cleaning products: perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances

SUMMARY: Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2025, a person or entity from manufacturing or selling a cleaning product containing PFAS, as defined. Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines "air care product" as a chemically formulated consumer product labeled to indicate that the purpose of the product is to enhance or condition the indoor environment by eliminating unpleasant odors or freshening the air.
2. Defines "automotive product" as a chemically formulated consumer product labeled to indicate that the purpose of the product is to clean, disinfect, maintain the appearance of, polish, protect, buff, condition, or otherwise care for a motor vehicle. Provides that automotive products include products for washing, waxing, polishing, cleaning, or treating the exterior or interior surfaces of motor vehicles.
3. Defines "cleaning product" as a finishing product that is an air care product, automotive product, general cleaning product, or a polish or floor maintenance product used primarily for janitorial, domestic, industrial, or institutional cleaning purposes, or a water vessel product.
4. Defines "general cleaning product" as a soap, detergent, or other chemically formulated consumer product labeled to indicate that the purpose of the product is to clean, disinfect, sanitize, or otherwise care for any of the following:
   1. Fabric, dishes, or other wares;
   2. Surfaces, including, but not limited to, floors, furniture, countertops, showers, or baths; or,
   3. Other hard surfaces, such as stovetops, microwaves, and other appliances.
5. Defines "intentionally added PFAS" as PFAS that a manufacturer has intentionally added to a product or component and that has a functional or technical effect in the product or component.
6. Defines "perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances" or "PFAS" as a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.
7. Defines "polish or floor maintenance product" as a chemically formulated consumer product, such as polish, wax, a stripper, or a restorer, labeled to indicate that the purpose of the product is to clean, disinfect, polish, protect, buff, condition, temporarily seal, strip, or maintain furniture, floors, metal, leather, or other surfaces.
8. Defines "water vessel product" as a chemically formulated consumer product, such as an all-purpose cleaner or wash, deck or nonskid surface cleaner, hull or bottom cleaner, product that descales or dissolves marine growth, wax, polish, or restorer, labeled to indicate that the purpose of the product is to maintain the appearance of, or otherwise care for, a water vessel.
9. Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2025, a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale in commerce in this state a cleaning product containing any of the following:
   1. Intentionally added PFAS; or,
   2. PFAS in a product or product component at or above the following thresholds:
      1. Commencing January 1, 2025, 50 parts per million.
      2. Commencing January 1, 2027, 25 parts per million.
10. Provides that, upon an action brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney, a person or entity that violates the PFAS restrictions of this bill shall be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000) for a first violation, and not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each subsequent violation.
11. Provides that these penalty provisions do not impair or impede any other rights, causes of action, claims, or defenses available under any other law. Provides that the remedies delineated in the bill are cumulative with any other remedies available under any other law.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires, commencing January 1, 2022, a person that sells firefighter personal protective equipment to provide a written notice to the purchaser if the firefighter personal protective equipment contains intentionally added PFAS chemicals. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 13029 (b)(1))
2. Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2022, a manufacturer of class B firefighting foam from manufacturing, or knowingly selling, offering for sale, distributing for sale, or distributing for use, and a person from using, class B firefighting foam containing intentionally added PFAS chemicals. (HSC § 13061 (b)(1))
3. Prohibits, on and after July 1, 2023, a person, including, but not limited to, a manufacturer, from selling or distributing in commerce in this state any new, not previously owned, juvenile product, as defined, that contains intentionally added PFAS or PFAS at or above 100 ppm, as measured in total organic fluorine. (HSC § 108946)
4. Prohibits, on or after January 1, 2025, a person from manufacturing, distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state any new, not previously used, textile articles that contain intentionally added PFAS, or PFAS at or above 100 PPM, and on or after January 1, 2027, 50 PPM, as measured in total organic fluorine. (HSC § 108971)
5. Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2025, a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale, in commerce any cosmetic product that contains any specified intentionally added ingredients, including some PFAS chemicals. (HSC § 108980 (a))
6. Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2025, a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale in commerce any cosmetic product that contains intentionally added PFAS. (HSC § 108981.5)
7. Prohibits, commencing on January 1, 2023, a person from distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state any food packaging that contains that contains intentionally added PFAS or PFAS at or above 100 ppm, as measured in total organic fluorine. (HSC § 109000)
8. Authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) to order a public water system to monitor for PFAS; requires community water systems to report detections; and, where a detected level of these substances exceeds the response level, to take a water source out of use or provide a prescribed public notification. (HSC §116378)

Under the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65):

1. Prohibits a person, in the course of doing business, from knowingly discharging or releasing a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity into water or onto or into land where such chemical passes or probably will pass into any source of drinking water. (HSC § 25249.5)
2. Prohibits a person, in the course of doing business, from knowingly and intentionally exposing any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual. (HSC § 25249.6)
3. Requires the Governor to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity and to annually revise the list. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has listed perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), which are members of the PFAS class, as chemicals known to the state to cause developmental toxicity. (HSC § 25249.8)

Under the Safer Consumer Products (Green Chemistry) statutes:

1. Requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to adopt regulations to establish a process to identify and prioritize chemicals or chemical ingredients in consumer products that may be considered chemicals of concern, as specified. (HSC § 25252)
2. Requires DTSC to adopt regulations to establish a process to evaluate chemicals of concern in consumer products, and their potential alternatives, to determine how to best limit exposure or to reduce the level of hazard posed by a chemical of concern. (HSC § 25253 (a))
3. Specifies, but does not limit, regulatory responses that DTSC can take following the completion of an alternatives analysis, ranging from no action, to a prohibition of the chemical in the product. (HSC § 25253)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

Need for the bill: According to the author, "PFAS are synthetic chemicals that are found in a staggering array of consumer products, usually to create a nonstick, water-resistant, or stain-repellent coating. Nonstick pans, umbrellas, nail polish, grease-resistant packaging like popcorn bags, and plastic water bottles are examples of products commonly known to contain PFAS. These chemical compounds are extremely stable and are very difficult to break down, earning them the nickname "forever chemicals." Many PFAS compounds contain a strong carbon-fluorine bond which allows them to build up, accumulating over time.

According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, PFAS can harm our heart, liver, reproductive, and renal systems, can increase cholesterol levels and increase blood pressure in pregnant women. Overexposure of PFAS can put individuals at risk of developing kidney cancer, can cause liver damage, and reduce the immune system's ability to fight infections. Our use of PFAS is not sustainable. In the very near future, our public entities, such as wastewater agencies, will have to undertake the very expensive work to remove PFAS from wastewater and other resources. As a state, we need to move forward and get rid of the sources of PFAS. This can only be done by greatly restricting the use of PFAS in products. AB 727 will address one significant source of PFAS in our indoor environments and in our wastewater by prohibiting the chemicals’ use in cleaning products."

Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): Per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFASs) are a large group of synthetic, highly fluorinated substances that have been widely used in industrial and consumer applications for their heat, water, and lipid resistance properties for more than seven decades. PFAS are long-lasting chemicals that break down very slowly over time. PFAS are ubiquitous, and researchers have found PFAS in indoor and outdoor environments, plants, soil, food, drinking water, wildlife, companion animals, production animals, and humans at locations across the nation and around the globe. Scientific studies have shown that exposure to some PFAS may be linked to harmful health effects in humans and animals. More than 9,000 PFAS chemicals are included in the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (US EPA's) Master List of PFAS Substances. The persistence and proliferation of PFAS chemicals makes it challenging to study and assess the overall potential human health and environmental risks of PFAS exposure.

The breadth of uses of PFAS is immense, making it impossible to avoid exposure. PFAS are used extensively in surface coating and protectant formulations due to their unique ability to reduce the surface tension of liquids. In consumer products, PFAS is used in carpets, furniture fabrics, apparel, paper packaging for food, non-stick cookware, personal care products, and other products designed to be waterproof; grease, heat, water and stain resistant; or, non-stick. Commercial applications span many sectors of the economy, including aerospace, apparel, automotive, building and construction, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, paints, electronics, semiconductors, energy, oil and gas exploration, first responder safety, firefighting foams, and health care. During production, use, and disposal, PFAS can migrate into the soil, water, and air.

Exposure to PFAS: The main route of exposure to PFAS is through ingestion of contaminated food or liquid (accounting for up to half of total exposure), and through inhalation and ingestion of contaminated indoor air and dust. Food can become contaminated with PFAS through contaminated soil and water used to grow the food, food packaging containing PFAS, and equipment that uses PFAS during food processing. Some foods, such as fish, meat, eggs and leafy vegetables, may contain PFAS due to bioaccumulation and crop uptake. Studies have shown that PFAS can transfer from pregnant mothers to their fetuses via the placenta during gestation, as well as transfer from nursing mothers to their infants via breastfeeding. Dermal exposure is also possible when people touch products treated with PFAS, such as carpets or clothing. Young children may be susceptible to higher levels of exposure than adults because they ingest more dust containing PFAS and mouth PFAS-treated consumer products. Workers, such as carpet installers, carpet cleaners, firefighters, and workers in furniture, furnishings, outdoor clothing, and carpet stores, may also experience above average PFAS exposure levels.

Exposure to PFAS in drinking water is an escalating concern due to the persistence of PFAS chemicals in the environment and their tendency to accumulate in groundwater. Groundwater PFAS contamination typically has been associated with industrial facilities where these chemicals were manufactured or used in other products, and in airfields where the chemicals have been used for firefighting. PFAS chemicals can also enter the environment and drinking water through composting, landfilling, recycling, and incineration of products containing PFAS. The State Water Board indicates that the four major sources of PFAS in drinking water in California are fire training/fire response sites, industrial sites, landfills, and wastewater treatment plants/biosolids. The State Water Board notes that because of their presence and persistence in many drinking water supplies, PFAS remain a serious source of exposure decades after their release into the environment.

Like humans, wildlife is exposed to PFAS by consuming contaminated water or food. Within aquatic food webs, PFAS were found to increase in concentration from ambient water to plankton and further up the food chain.

Hazard traits of PFAS: According to DTSC, all PFAS display at least one of the hazard traits identified in California's Safer Consumer Products (Green Chemistry) Hazard Traits Regulations (22 C.C.R § 69401 et seq.). An intrinsic property of PFAS is the extreme environmental persistence of either the individual compounds or their degradation products or both, resulting in their classification as "forever chemicals." Most PFAS are mobile in environmental media such as air and water, and thus are widespread in living organisms and the environment. Several PFAS bioaccumulate significantly in animals or plants and emerging evidence points to their phytotoxicity, aquatic toxicity, and terrestrial ecotoxicity.

DTSC contends that exposure to PFAS can lead to adverse health outcomes in humans. If humans are exposed to PFAS through diet, drinking water, or inhalation, some of these chemicals remain in the body for a long time. As people continue to be exposed to PFAS, the PFAS levels in their bodies may increase to the point that they suffer adverse health effects. According to the US EPA, current peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown that exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to: reproductive effects such as decreased fertility or increased high blood pressure in pregnant women; developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, or behavioral changes; increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers; reduced ability of the body’s immune system to fight infections, including reduced vaccine response; interference with the body’s natural hormones; and, increased cholesterol levels and/or risk of obesity.

Regulating PFAS as a class: DTSC has adopted a rationale for regulating PFAS chemicals as a class, concluding, "it is both ineffective and impractical to regulate this complex class of chemicals with a piecemeal approach." This rationale was presented in the February, 2021, Environmental Health Perspectives article, "Regulating PFAS as a Chemical Class under the California Safer Consumer Products Program." The authors of the article state,

"The widespread use, large number, and diverse chemical structures of PFAS pose challenges to any sufficiently protective regulation, emissions reduction, and remediation at contaminated sites. Regulating only a subset of PFAS has led to their replacement with other members of the class with similar hazards, that is, regrettable substitutions. Regulations that focus solely on perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) are ineffective, given that nearly all other PFAS can generate PFAAs in the environment… We at the California DTSC propose regulating certain consumer products if they contain any member of the class of PFAS because: a) all PFAS, or their degradation, reaction, or metabolism products, display at least one common hazard trait according to the California Code of Regulations, namely environmental persistence; and b) certain key PFAS that are the degradation, reaction or metabolism products, or impurities of nearly all other PFAS display additional hazard traits, including toxicity; are widespread in the environment, humans, and biota; and will continue to cause adverse impacts for as long as any PFAS continue to be used. Regulating PFAS as a class is thus logical, necessary, and forward-thinking."

Other researchers have made the case for managing PFAS as a chemical class, including in "Scientific Basis for Managing PFAS as a Chemical Class" published in June, 2020, in Environmental Science & Technology Letters and "Strategies for grouping per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to protect human and environmental health," also published in June, 2020, in Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts.

PFAS in cleaning products: Cleaning products are commonly listed on governmental and academic websites as known sources of PFAS. To illustrate the prevalence of PFAS in cleaning products, the sponsors of the bill point to an informal Environmental Working Group (EWG) analysis of online cleaning product data, which found that approximately 50% of industrial and institutional floor cleaners, finishes, polishes, and restorers contain PFAS. These products are used in public buildings, schools, and commercial offices. EWG’s analysis also found that 1 in 6 household versions of these floor cleaning product categories contain PFAS.

A January 2022, study published in Atmospheric Environment focusing on PFAS in floor waxes conveys that the flooring industry reports a strong demand for PFAS-containing products. Fluorosurfactants are added to floor polishes to modify their flow, leveling, and wetting properties, or more specifically, to lower the surface tension of the floor polish. The article says that DuPont, one of the world's largest PFAS-containing product manufacturers, reports that almost every acrylic/wax floor polish formulation on the market contains a fluorosurfactant. The authors of the article conducted a study that demonstrated occupational exposure to PFAS during floor stripping and waxing. PFAS emitted during this process could also enter wastewater.

To further illustrate the problem, the sponsors of the bill report that many manufacturers indicate, but do not state, that their cleaning products contain properties (water-repellant, long-lasting, high shine) that are indicative of PFAS chemicals. They say that many other product categories are known to contain PFAS including car waxes, dishwasher rinse aids, furniture polishes and textile cleaners and treatments. In addition, the sponsors argue that manufacturers are marketing a type of PFAS for use as propellants in air-borne cleaning products and air fresheners.

This bill: This bill prohibits, commencing January 1, 2025, a person or entity from manufacturing or selling a cleaning product containing PFAS. For the purposes of the bill, cleaning products are defined as an air care product, automotive product, general cleaning product, or a polish or floor maintenance product used primarily for janitorial, domestic, industrial, or institutional cleaning purposes, or a water vessel product.

Recent US EPA action on PFAS: According to the US EPA, "Under the Biden-Harris Administration, [US] EPA has restored scientific integrity and accelerated the pace of research and actions needed to tackle the PFAS crisis and protect American communities." On October 18, 2021, US EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan announced the agency’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap, which laid out a whole-of-agency approach to addressing PFAS. The roadmap sets timelines by which US EPA plans to take specific actions and commits to, "bolder new policies to safeguard public health, protect the environment, and hold polluters accountable."

Additionally, the US EPA reported that since the roadmap’s release in October 2021, US EPA has taken a number of key actions to address PFAS, including it proposed to designate two PFAS as hazardous substances under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; released drinking water health advisories for four PFAS; laid the foundation for enhancing data on PFAS; and, began distributing $10 billion in funding to address emerging contaminants under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

State action on PFAS: California has undertaken efforts to address PFAS substances across several state entities.

At DTSC, all PFAS chemicals are "Candidate Chemicals" under the Safer Consumer Products (SCP, previously known as Green Chemistry) Program, because they exhibit a hazard trait and/or an environmental or toxicological endpoint, and the entire class of PFAS was added by the California Environmental Contaminant Biomonitoring Program to its list of priority chemicals.

On July 1, 2021, DTSC designated carpets and rugs containing PFAS as a "Priority Product." A Priority Product is a consumer product identified by DTSC that contains one or more Candidate Chemicals and that has the potential to contribute to significant or widespread adverse impacts to humans or the environment. The Priority Product designation required domestic and foreign carpet and rug manufacturers that use PFAS and related chemicals in their products to submit information on all of the manufacturer’s products that contain PFAS and are sold in California, by August 30, 2021. Manufacturers were then required to show intent to remove or replace PFAS in their products, remove the product from the market, or identify potential alternatives to PFAS to be used in the product by December 28, 2021.

In regulations that went into effect on April 1, 2022, DTSC also designated treatments containing PFAS for use on converted textiles or leathers such as carpets, upholstery, clothing, and shoes as a Priority Product. Domestic and foreign manufacturers of treatments for converted textiles or leathers that contain any member of the class of PFAS selling their products in California were required to submit information on those products by May 31, 2022. After submitting the required information, manufacturers were then required to show intent to mitigate exposure to PFAS in their products by September 28, 2022.

DTSC has also proposed evaluating artificial turf with PFAS in their Draft Priority Product Work Plan for 2021-2023. Previously, DTSC proposed investigating PFAS in other product categories, such as food packaging and children’s products, but during the investigative period the Legislature prohibited PFAS in those product categories and it appears DTSC has shifted its resources to investigating other product/ chemical combinations.

OEHHA, under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65), listed PFOA and PFOS as chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity. In July, 2021, OEHHA announced the release of a draft document for public review describing proposed Public Health Goals (PHGs) for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water. A PHG is the level of a chemical contaminant in drinking water that does not pose a significant risk to health. PHGs published by OEHHA are considered by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) in setting drinking water regulatory standards (Maximum Contaminant Levels, or MCLs) for California.

The State Water Board has taken a number of additional recent actions related to PFAS in drinking water, including, in July 2020, issuing investigative orders to publicly owned treatment works that receive PFAS in their influent wastewater flow to include sampling for 31 PFAS compounds. In August 2020, it also issued a General Order for public water systems to sample for and report PFAS. It also issued drinking water notification levels and response levels for several PFAS compounds.

Recently, the State Legislature has taken action on PFAS by enacting a slew of bills prohibiting PFAS at different levels across many product categories. These include a ban on textiles that contain PFAS (AB 1817,Ting, Chapter 762, Statutes of 2022); a ban on cosmetic products that contain PFAS (AB 2771, Friedman, Chapter 804, Statutes of 2022); a ban on food packaging that contains PFAS (AB 1200, Ting, Chapter 503, Statutes of 2021); a ban on new juvenile products that contain PFAS (AB 652, Freidman, Chapter 500, Statutes of 2021); and, a ban on firefighting foam containing PFAS (SB 1044, Allen, Chapter 308, Statutes of 2020). The Legislature also authorized the State Water Board to order public water systems to monitor for PFAS and required municipalities to notify consumers for PFAS detected above notification levels (AB 756, C. Garcia, Chapter 162, Statutes of 2019).

Chemical bans and the Safer Consumer Products Program: In 2008, California enacted AB 1879 (Feuer and Huffman, Chapter 559, Statutes of 2008) to establish a regulatory process for identifying and prioritizing chemicals of concern in consumer products, to create methods for analyzing alternatives to existing hazardous chemicals, and to ultimately take regulatory action to reduce the level of harm from the chemicals in those products. DTSC did this by promulgating the Safer Consumer Products regulations, which took effect in October 2013. DTSC's approach provides science-based criteria and procedures for identifying and evaluating alternatives with the objective of replacing chemicals of concern with safer chemicals and avoiding the use of substitute chemicals that pose equal or greater harm.

While the intent of AB 1879 is to establish a robust and thorough regulatory process rooted in science to consider exposure to chemicals in consumer products, it has long been recognized that DTSC does not have the resources to evaluate all, or even a significant percentage of, chemicals in every consumer product application. The permutations of product and chemical combinations are virtually limitless. To that end, the Safer Consumer Products statute does not preclude the Legislature from taking legislative action on the use of chemicals in consumer product applications. When there is credible scientific evidence to support a change in state policy to protect public health, the Legislature can respond to that science more expeditiously than can DTSC. Since AB 1879 was enacted, the Legislature has enacted policies on various chemical-product applications, which include, in addition to the PFAS prohibitions listed above, a ban on flame retardants in children's products, mattresses, and upholstered furniture (AB 2998, Bloom, Chapter 924, Statutes of 2018); a ban on BPA in toddler sippy cups and bottles (AB 1319, Butler, Chapter 467, Statutes of 2011); a ban on the sale of jewelry with cadmium at certain levels (AB 929, Pavley, Chapter 313, Statutes of 2010); and, a ban on the sale of brake pads containing copper in exceedances of certain levels (SB 346, Kehoe, Chapter 307, Statutes of 2010).

DTSC, in fact, wrote in support of AB 1319 (Butler) stating: "DTSC does not believe that the [Safer Consumer Products] regulations should ever be viewed as excluding action that the Legislature might take to address specific product related concerns that are brought to its attention. Not only have the regulations taken longer to adopt than originally anticipated, DTSC also expects that the process to be represented in the regulations will be subject to time and resource constraints. There may be circumstances that warrant more timely action than DTSC can accommodate through its process."

Enforcement and compliance for chemical prohibition laws: Most of the chemical prohibition bills listed previously are placed in a unique location in the California Codes, sometimes referred to as the "orphan codes." In these code sections, no state agency is designated to provide oversight of the provisions of the law. As a result, there is no direct enforcement, no compliance program, no guidance for manufacturers seeking to comply with these laws, and no related information for consumers. This means there are no regulations or public guidance documents clarifying the intent of the law and no state entity investigating complaints, testing affected products for compliance, or bringing enforcement actions against violators. Because of these deficiencies, it is challenging for some manufacturers to comply and impossible to know if any manufacturers are complying with the requirements of the law.

This bill: The provisions of this bill are placed in the "orphan code" section of the Health and Safety Code.

Unfair Competition Law (UCL): The only current option for enforcement of the prohibitions in the "orphan codes" is for a district attorney or the state Attorney General to bring an action against a manufacturer under the UCL (unless specified otherwise). The UCL is one of the primary tools currently available to government attorneys to protect the public from "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising[.]" (Business and Professions Code Section 17200.). As recently summarized by the California Supreme Court:

The statute’s purpose is to protect both consumers and competitors by promoting fair competition in commercial markets for goods and services. In service of that purpose, the Legislature framed the UCL’s substantive provisions in broad, sweeping language to reach anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law. By proscribing any unlawful business practice, section 17200 borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable. [T]he Legislature…intended by this sweeping language to permit tribunals to enjoin on-going wrongful business conduct in whatever context such activity might occur. To that end, the Legislature has created a scheme of overlapping enforcement authority. […] While the UCL provides for both public and private enforcement, authorized public prosecutors have an additional tool to enforce the state's consumer protection laws: civil penalties. (Abbott Laboratories v. Superior Court (2020) 9 Cal. 5th 642, 651-52 [internal citations and quotations omitted.])

Remedies under the UCL include injunctive relief, restitution, and civil penalties. It is important to note that even though a district attorney or the Attorney General can take an action to enforce these chemical prohibitions in the "orphan codes" using the UCL, before a case is filed, a member of the public must purchase and test products at a certified laboratory for the prohibited chemical, which is expensive. Then, the Attorney General or district attorney must have the resources and ability to prioritize action on these complaints before other responsibilities.

To date, the Committee is unaware of any comprehensive report or investigation by any entity on compliance with the chemical prohibitions in the "orphan code," nor is it aware of any entity that is sampling, testing, or tracking compliance with the "orphan codes." Additionally, to date, the Committee is not aware of any enforcement actions taken by the Attorney General or a district attorney under the UCL, or any other law, to enforce any of the chemical prohibition laws under the "orphan codes."

This bill: While the provisions of this bill are placed under the "orphan" section of the Health and Safety Code, the author has added provisions that provide government attorneys with civil penalty options to bring against violators of the law. Specifically, this bill provides that, upon an action brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney, a person or entity that violates the PFAS restrictions for covered surfaces as delineated in this bill shall be liable for a civil penalty, capped at $5,000 for a first violation and $10,000 for each subsequent violation. The bill additionally provides that these penalty provisions do not impair or impede any other rights, causes of action, claims, or defenses available under any other law. AB 727 also provides that the remedies delineated in the bill are cumulative with any other remedies available under any other law. These penalty provisions are in addition to the authority for government attorneys to enforce under the UCL, and are consistent with existing statutory penalties relating to PFAS in firefighting foam.

Acceptable levels of exposure to PFAS: This bill prohibits, in cleaning products, intentionally added PFAS, and, commencing January 1, 2025, any PFAS above 50 ppm, and, commencing January 1, 2027, any PFAS above 25 ppm. There are two other bills pending before the Committee with differing PFAS thresholds in different product categories, and 5 statutes with differing PFAS thresholds for other products (see the "Existing Law" section of this analysis.) As with enforcement, setting thresholds on chemicals in products would benefit from a public entity with oversight responsibility. In that case, a team of scientists with related public health backgrounds could set the appropriately protective thresholds and be able to update the thresholds through regulation consistent with emerging science. Without that resource, the Legislature is tasked with setting the appropriately protective standard in statute, and presumably updating those statutory thresholds by legislation when needed.

This bill: For the thresholds set in this bill, the sponsors of the bill argue, "No level of PFAS exposure is safe. We understand that as little as 50 ppm is intentionally added to cleaning products. So we are setting the 2025 threshold at 50 ppm and then lowering it to 25 ppm by 2027."

Regrettable substitutions: While each of the laws listed in the "orphan code" prohibit a chemical that has been suspected of or found to be toxic or hazardous the laws do not prevent a manufacturer from replacing the prohibited chemical with another hazardous chemical, or a chemical even more hazardous than the one prohibited. In addition, several of the laws dealing with chemicals in the "orphan code" require manufacturers to use the least toxic alternative when replacing the chemical in question. Without a state entity overseeing these substitutions, it is difficult or impossible to know whether manufacturers are replacing prohibited chemicals with substances that are safer or more hazardous.

Moving forward: This bill, along with the other PFAS bills pending in front of the Committee, takes a step forward on statutory chemical prohibitions by adding civil penalties for violations of the restrictions in the bill. However, there remains no entity proving guidance or ensuring compliance with the prohibitions. Moving forward, the authors of these bills, along with stakeholders, the Committee, and the Administration, should continue to discuss effective oversight of these new and existing chemical prohibition laws.

Arguments in support: According to a coalition of supporters, "…PFAS are highly toxic to humans and the natural environment, and are incredibly persistent. These toxic chemicals are extremely resistant to breaking down in our bodies or in the environment. Decades of heavy use of PFAS have resulted in contamination of water, soil and the blood of people and animals in the farthest corners of the world. A recent study conducted by Environmental Working Group scientists highlighted the breadth of PFAS pollution by demonstrating that wild, freshwater fish caught in US waters contain an extraordinary amount of PFAS chemicals.

According to an informal EWG analysis of online cleaning product data, approximately 50% of institutional-grade floor polishes, which are used in public buildings, schools, and commercial offices, contain PFAS. Recent studies have demonstrated that these widely-used PFAS floor polishes can expose janitorial workers and the public to air-borne PFAS. This PFAS also enters wastewater when floors are mopped and cleaned.

In addition to floor polishes, other household cleaning products (including general cleaners, floor products, and dishwasher rinse aids) contain PFAS, as do automotive polishes, machinery cleaners, and air fresheners. And online information indicates that manufacturers are marketing a type of PFAS for use as new propellants in air-borne cleaning products and air fresheners. So if not banned, PFAS chemicals will soon be in the products that we spray inside our homes.

Consumers are unwittingly being exposed to PFAS from cleaners while spending time in their homes, schools, offices, and other commercial and public spaces. Cleaning product PFAS also ends up in household and industrial wastewater, and workers are exposed to the PFAS when cleaning buildings and homes.

It’s time to end the use of PFAS in cleaning products of all sorts. PFAS-free cleaning products are readily available and provide the same function as PFAS-containing products."

Arguments in opposition: According to a coalition of opponents, "This bill proposes to enact overly broad language and far-reaching product restrictions without any authoritative scientific evaluation or consideration of alternatives. All of the substances that meet the proposed definition of PFAS are not the same, and individual chemistries have their own unique properties and uses, as well as environmental and health profiles. As written, AB 727 would apply a one-size-fits-all approach to chemical regulation that creates new environmental concerns, and even prohibits technologies that are safe for humans and the environment.

AB 727, encompasses cleaning product categories without a comprehensive scientific review and, as a result, an entire product category will be decimated while creating new environmental challenges. Floor maintenance products used in schools, hospitals, and office buildings have no "drop in" raw material replacement to comply with AB 727 and would therefore be eliminated from use….

…PFAS properties vary widely across uses and applications. For this reason, it is important to distinguish between PFAS categories, use, function, exposure, and chemical properties as opposed to treating the substance as a single group. Chemical and structural differences among different types of PFAS may create properties that underline legitimate concerns over potential health and environmental risks associated with some substances—this most certainly does not apply to all PFAS chemicals and applications. For this reason, PFAS should not be considered as a single group or class, especially given it is possible to scientifically define distinct categories of PFAS based on shared properties.

Under California’s Safer Consumer Products Program (SCP) -- implemented by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) – regulations and product restrictions are put in place following a clear science-based process to "identify products that contain potentially harmful chemicals and to evaluate potential safer alternatives." …The Legislature is not designed to perform the same rigorous scientific evaluation of chemicals and products. California has established and funded programs like SCP for this purpose and by fast tracking restrictions through the legislature, it conveys a lack of confidence in these important programs."

Related legislation:

1. AB 246 (Papan). Prohibits, beginning January 1, 2025, a person from manufacturing, distributing, selling, or offering for sale a menstrual product that contains intentionally-added PFAS, and beginning January 1, 2027, a menstrual product that contains PFAS at or above 10 PPM. This bill is pending before the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee.
2. AB 1423 (Shiavo). Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2025, a person or entity from manufacturing, distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state any covered surface that contains PFAS, as defined, and prohibits, commencing January 1, 2024, a public entity, a public or private school, or a public or private institution of higher learning, as specified, from purchasing or installing a covered surface that contains PFAS. This bill is pending before the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee.
3. AB 1817 (Ting, Chapter 762, Statutes of 2022). Prohibits, beginning January 1, 2024, a person from distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state a textile article, as defined, that contains regulated PFAS, and requires a manufacturer to use the least toxic alternative when removing regulated PFAS in textile articles to comply with the provisions of the bill.
4. AB 2771 (Friedman, Chapter 804, Statutes of 2022). Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2025, a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale in commerce any cosmetic product that contains intentionally added PFAS.
5. AB 1200 (Ting, Chapter 503, Statutes of 2021). Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2023, the sale of food packaging that contains PFAS; requires, commencing January 1, 2024, cookware manufacturers to label their product if it contains an intentionally added chemical on specified lists; and prohibits, commencing January 1, 2023, for the internet and January 1, 2024, for the cookware package, a cookware manufacturer from making a claim that cookware is free of a chemical, unless no chemical from that chemical class is intentionally added to the cookware.
6. AB 652 (Freidman, Chapter 500, Statutes of 2021). Prohibits, on or after July 1, 2023, a person from selling or distributing in commerce any new juvenile products that contain PFAS.
7. SB 1044 (Allen, Chapter 308, Statutes of 2020). Prohibits the manufacture, sale, distribution, and use of firefighting foam containing PFAS chemicals by January 1, 2022, with some exceptions, and requires notification of the presence of PFAS in the protective equipment of firefighters.
8. SB 1056 (Portantino, 2020). Would have required the State Water Board to establish an analytical laboratory method that can be used as a tool to assess the extent of PFAS contamination in drinking water, surface water, groundwater, and wastewater. This bill was held in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.
9. AB 756 (C. Garcia, Chapter 162, Statutes of 2019). Authorizes the State Water Board to order one or more public water systems to monitor for PFAS and requires municipalities to notify consumers for PFAS detected above notification levels.
10. AB 841 (Ting, Chapter 372, Statutes of 2019). As heard by the Assembly, would have required OEHHA to assess PFAS substances, especially as they might be found in drinking water, to determine which might pose a potential risk to human health. The contents of this bill were deleted in the Senate and amended with unrelated content.
11. AB 958 (Ting, 2018). Would have required a manufacturer of food packaging or cookware sold in the state to visibly disclose on an exterior location of the food packaging or cookware packaging a specified statement relating to the presence of PFAS in the product. This bill was held on the Senate Floor.
12. SB 1313 (Corbett, 2008). Would have prohibited the manufacture, sale, or distribution of any food contact substance, as defined, which contains perfluorinated compounds, as defined, in any concentration exceeding 10 parts per billion. This bill was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger whose veto message said, "I have signed AB 1879 (Feuer) and SB 509 (Simitian) which mark the beginning of California's historic Green Chemistry Initiative. It is within this process that chemicals like PFCs should be addressed."

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Association of Sanitation Agencies (Co-Sponsor)

Environmental Working Group (Co-Sponsor)
A Voice for Choice Advocacy
Active San Gabriel Valley
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists District IX
Ban Sup (Single Use Plastic)
Breast Cancer Over Time
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners
California Professional Firefighters
Californians for Pesticide Reform
CALPIRG
Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice
Center for Environmental Health
Center for Public Environmental Oversight
Clean Water Action
Cleanearth4kids.org
Defend Them All Foundation
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Facts Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxics Safety
GMO Science
Grassroots Environmental Education
Green Science Policy Institute
Indivisible Alta Pasadena
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
National Stewardship Action Council
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

Nontoxic Neighborhoods

Pesticide Action Network
Resource Renewal Institute
Responsible Purchasing Network
San Francisco Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility
The Growing Solutions Fund
Women's Voices for The Earth

Opposition

American Chemistry Council
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
Household and Commercial Products Association
National Aerosol Association
Western Aerosol Information Bureau

Analysis Prepared by: Shannon McKinney / E.S. & T.M. /