California Bill Would Phase Out PFAS Pesticides, Require Label Disclosures

/in , , , ,

California is considering legislation to phase out use, require labeling, and prohibit registrations of pesticides containing PFAS, defined as a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.

AB 1603 states that PFAS exposure “poses a significant threat to the environment and public health” and that their intentional use in pesticides is increasing.  The bill notes that EPA has approved 70 active ingredient PFAS pesticides, including 53 allowed for use in California by state regulators, and that a 2025 analysis found that approximately 2.5 million pounds of active ingredient PFAS pesticides are applied in California annually.

The bill would immediately prohibit the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) from registering or re-registering pesticides with intentionally added PFAS as an active or inert ingredient, and would phase in the following additional requirements:

  • January 1, 2028: Prohibition on manufacturing, distribution, or sale unless labeled with the following statement: “This product contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, and can contaminate produce, groundwater, drinking water, soil, and the environment.”
  • January 1, 2030: Prohibition on using, manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale pesticides with 23 specific intentionally added PFAS.
  • January 1, 2035: Blanket prohibition on using, manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale pesticides with any intentionally added PFAS.

AB 1603 would also designate pesticides with intentionally added PFAS as a restricted material.  By January 1, 2028, CDPR would be required to prescribe the times and conditions under which such materials may be used or possessed across the state, with authority to prohibit use or possession in certain areas.  Use or possession would require a written permit from the county agricultural commissioner, and those permits and related public disclosures would be subject to the same label statement described above.

Any state labeling requirement must contend with the preemption provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which prohibit states from imposing labeling requirements “in addition to or different from those required under” the statute.  EPA does not currently require any label disclosure for pesticides containing PFAS.

AB 1603 was introduced on January 16, 2026.  The Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials will hold a hearing on the bill on April 14, 2026.

EPA: Single Fluorinated Compounds Aren’t PFAS

Late last year, EPA published a webpage pushing back on concerns about pesticides containing a single fluorinated carbon—the threshold for designation as PFAS under AB 1603.

“EPA-approved single fluorinated compounds are not forever chemicals, they are not PFAS, and do not pose any risks of concern when used as labeled,” the webpage states.

EPA emphasizes that, regardless of a pesticide’s contents, registration under FIFRA requires a determination that the product will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment.  The agency conducts “robust, chemical-specific” hazard and exposure assessments, “ensuring that every scientific aspect of these compounds is thoroughly evaluated before any registration decision is made.”  It conducts a similarly thorough evaluation when setting food tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), which requires a “reasonable certainty of no harm,” EPA states.

EPA notes that pesticides containing a single fluorinated carbon can offer agronomic benefits and may replace more harmful alternatives, such as organochlorines.  The agency also points to the European Union, United Kingdom, Canada, and other jurisdictions that have registered or are considering registering pesticides containing a fluorinated carbon.

Latest Prop 65 Challenge Targets DEA After Series of Industry Wins

/in ,

A cosmetics industry trade group is asking the Eastern District of California to enjoin a Proposition 65 warning for diethanolamine (DEA), arguing that the label disclosure violates the First Amendment.

The suit was filed March 2, 2026, by the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC).  It follows a string of court victories challenging other Prop 65 warning requirements for chemicals including glyphosate, acrylamide, and titanium dioxide, the last of which was also brought by PCPC.

DEA was automatically added to the Prop 65 list after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that the substance is “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”  However, PCPC argues that IARC was unable to find a single study establishing a link between DEA and cancer in humans, instead basing the determination on a study of “questionable relevance” in a highly susceptible strain of mice.  Other regulatory bodies, like FDA and EPA, have not reached the same conclusion, and some have “expressed skepticism” about the mouse study, PCPC argues.

“Indeed, no California agency has made any scientific determination as to whether DEA causes cancer in humans.  Nor has any federal agency done so,” the complaint states.

According to PCPC, laws regulating commercial speech are typically subject to intermediate scrutiny, with a more lenient standard for purely factual and noncontroversial disclosures.  However, because the “cancer warning requirement as applied to DEA in cosmetic and personal products is false, misleading, and factually controversial, it cannot survive any level of constitutional scrutiny” and therefore violates the First Amendment, the complaint alleges.

PCPC argues that the warning requirement effectively forces companies to choose between “conveying the unsubstantiated message that DEA in cosmetic products increases cancer risk in humans” or facing “a significant and imminent risk of an enforcement action.”  Although an exception exists for products that do not present significant risk, the complaint notes that companies must be able to prove that defense in court if challenged, a costly and uncertain process that leads many to “acquiesce and provide a warning” even if they believe it is inaccurate.

PCPC also claims that, since the warning requirement took effect in 2013, hundreds of companies manufacturing or selling personal care products have paid over $7 million in settlements with private enforcers.

The trade association seeks a declaration that the warning is unconstitutional as applied to personal care products and a permanent injunction barring enforcement by California or private parties.

The case is The Personal Care Products Council v. Bonta, No. 26-cv-682 (E.D. Cal.), filed 3/2/26.

Prop 65 Updates: New MFH Listing and BPS Developmental Toxicity Endpoint Added

/in , ,

On December 5, 2025, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced the addition of N-methyl-N-formylhydrazine (MFH) to the Prop 65 list as a carcinogen.  On the same day, OEHHA also announced that it is adding the developmental toxicity endpoint to the listing for bisphenol S (BPS).  Both listings took effect December 8, 2025.

MFH (CAS RN 758-17-8)

MFH was added to the Prop 65 list via the “state’s qualified experts” mechanism following a November 18, 2025, determination by the Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC).  The warning requirement for significant exposures to MFH will take effect one year after its listing, on December 8, 2026.

According to an August 2025 OEHHA document describing the evidence of MFH’s carcinogenicity, MFH is naturally occurring in edible Gyromitra mushrooms.  MFH is also used in the production of marbofloxacin (an antibacterial agent used in veterinary medicine) and for research purposes.

BPS (CAS RN 80-09-1)

The developmental toxicity endpoint for BPS was also added via the state’s qualified experts mechanism after an October 9, 2025, meeting by the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DRTIC).  OEHHA’s evidence document for BPS’s developmental toxicity can be found here.

BPS has been included on the Prop 65 list since December 2023, when it was listed for female reproductive toxicity.  The warning requirement for significant exposures to BPS took effect in 2024.  In January 2025, OEHHA also added the male reproductive toxicity endpoint for BPS.

OEHHA has not established a maximum allowable dose level (MADL) safe harbor for BPS (under which a warning is not required).  As of the date of this post, private enforcers have sent over nine hundred 60-day notices to companies, alleging that customers may be receiving significant exposures to BPS from receipt papers without warning.

In recent out-of-court settlements, including an October 2025 settlement with Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc., companies have committed to using “BPS free” thermal receipt paper.  In these settlements, BPS free is typically defined as less than 100 or 200 parts per million BPS and no intentionally added BPS, with some agreements also requiring no intentionally added bisphenol A (BPA).

The complete, updated Prop 65 list can be found here.

DTSC Releases Microplastics Background Document Ahead of December Workshop

/in , , , ,

This month, California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) released a public background document summarizing its research on products that contain or generate microplastics.  DTSC is requesting comment on the specific product categories evaluated in the document through January 16, 2026.  The department will also hold a virtual workshop to receive public input on December 11, 2025, at 9:30am PT.

Background

The background document and workshop are part of DTSC’s rulemaking to add microplastics to the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) program candidate chemicals list.  As discussed previously, adding microplastics to the list would not itself create new regulatory requirements, but it would allow DTSC to pursue restrictions in specific products that contain or generate microplastics in the future.

According to DTSC, the background document is part of its “external engagement process, which helps us decide whether to conduct additional research or potentially list one or more products that contain or have the potential to generate microplastics as Priority Products.”  The department also notes that, based on its evaluation, it is “concerned about the potential for adverse impacts from exposure to microplastics in consumer products frequently used by the general public, workers, and children.”

Evaluated Product Categories

DTSC outlines preliminary screening results for the following product categories:

  • Artificial turf infill
  • Children’s toys that contain primary microplastics
  • Cleaning products
    • Intentionally added polymers in laundry and dishwashing detergents
    • Polymeric fragrance microcapsules in laundry detergents and fabric softeners
    • Water-soluble polymers in laundry and dishwashing detergents pods
  • Food contact articles
    • Plastic baby feeding bottles
    • Plastic beverage bottles and caps
    • Plastic cling wraps and films
    • Plastic wrappers for snacks and candy
    • Polystyrene foam foodware
    • Single-use plastic tea bags
  • Plastic film mulch used in agriculture
  • Single-use cigarette filters made of cellulose acetate
  • Water-based interior wall paints

For each evaluated product category, DTSC describes the type of microplastics present (primary/secondary), the potential for exposure, potential alternatives, and relevant US and international regulations.  An appendix lists additional evaluated product categories that may be considered for further research.

These categories fall under DTSC’s current work plan product category of products that contain or generate microplastics, discussed in a previous post.

Requested Information

The background document identifies a number of data gaps for which DTSC seeks public input.  For example, regarding water-based interior wall paints, DTSC requests information on whether manufacturers are developing non-plastic alternatives to primary microplastics, obstacles to replacing them, whether alternatives can provide comparable performance, and which types of paint could feasibly transition away from microplastics while still meeting performance requirements.

Interested parties can submit comments trough DTSC’s CalSAFER portal.  As noted above, comments will be accepted through January 16, 2026.

Update – December 4, 2025

DTSC has announced that written comments on the background document will now be accepted through 11:59pm PT on January 30, 2026.

California Settles $1.75M Lawsuit Over False Plastic Bag Recycling Claims, Launches Another

/in , , , ,

California’s attorney general has reached a $1.75 million settlement with four plastic bag producers and initiated a lawsuit against three more, alleging that the companies falsely claimed their plastic bags were recyclable to comply with a state ban on single-use plastic bags known as SB 270.

According to the October 17, 2025, announcement, the defendants in both cases labeled their bags with the “chasing arrows” recycling symbol, made recyclability claims, and self-certified their products as recyclable.  However, when the attorney general’s office sent demand letters requiring that the producers substantiate their claims, they were allegedly unable to provide sufficient evidence.

“[D]espite the manufacturers’ claims and widespread consumer belief, these bags do not, in fact, appear to generally be recyclable, let alone ‘recyclable in the state,’ as SB 270 requires,” the announcement states.

California’s recycling authority, CalRecycle, has “released several reports indicating that the vast majority of plastic carryout bags in California are not being recycled in California,” the most recent complaint states.  Even plastic bags deposited in designated collection bins mostly “end up in landfills or incinerators or are shipped to other countries.”

In addition to violating SB 270, all defendants face alleged violations of California’s Environmental Marketing Claims Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law.  Some of the violations stem from alleged noncompliance with the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) Green Guides, which are incorporated into California law.

The settlement is subject to court approval.  A copy of the proposed final judgement can be found here.

California Governor Blocks Bill Targeting Microbeads and Glitter

/in , ,

A California bill that sought to expand state restrictions on the use of small plastic particles known as microbeads in consumer products was vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 11, 2025.

Beginning in 2029, AB 823 would have prohibited the sale of:

  • Personal care products containing plastic glitter.
  • Non-rinse-off personal care products that use microbeads as an abrasive to clean, exfoliate, or polish.
  • Cleaning products that use microbeads as an abrasive to clean, exfoliate, or polish.

Under the proposal, companies would have been permitted to sell their existing inventories of these products until 2030.

In his veto message, Newsom wrote:

“I support efforts to protect California’s waterways, ecosystems, and public health from the real and significant harms caused by the prevalence of microplastics in our environment.  However, I am not supportive of the approach this bill takes to ban specific ingredients, such as glitter, which may incidentally result in a prohibition on biodegradable or natural alternatives.”

Existing California law already prevents the sale of personal care products that use microbeads to exfoliate or cleanse in a rinse-off product, such as toothpaste.  Products containing less than one part per million by weight of plastic microbeads are exempt.

Two days after the veto, Newsom rejected a separate bill that would have expanded restrictions on the use of PFAS in many consumer products.  More on that can be found here.

California Governor Vetoes PFAS Bans, Citing Cookware Concerns

/in , ,

On October 13, 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed SB 682, a high-profile bill that would have phased out the use of intentionally added PFAS across a wide range of consumer products.   The legislation represented one of California’s most comprehensive efforts to limit PFAS use, covering items from cookware to cleaning products.

In his veto message, Newsom wrote that “the broad range of products that would be impacted by this bill would result in a sizable and rapid shift in cooking products available for Californians.”  He added that “while this bill is well-intentioned, I am deeply concerned about the impact this bill would have on the availability of affordable options in cooking products.”

Under SB 682, the use of intentionally added PFAS would have been prohibited in cleaning products, dental floss, juvenile products, food packaging, and ski wax beginning in 2028.  The ban on PFAS-containing cookware was set to take effect in 2030.

More on SB 682 can be found in a previous post.

California Releases Preliminary List of Companies Covered by New Climate Disclosure Laws

/in , ,

On September 24, 2025, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released a preliminary list of covered entities under two new California climate disclosure laws that will require thousands of companies to report, with initial reporting deadlines beginning in 2026.

California’s SB 261 and SB 253, enacted in 2023, apply to companies formed under U.S. law that do business in California and have total annual revenues above certain thresholds:

  • SB 261 ($500 million threshold): Requires biennial disclosure of climate-related financial risk beginning January 1, 2026.
  • SB 253 ($1 billion threshold): Requires annual disclosure of scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions for the prior fiscal year beginning in 2026, and scope 3 emissions beginning in 2027. CARB has proposed a June 30, 2026, deadline for the first submission.

For each company, the preliminary list indicates whether reporting is required under both laws or only under SB 261.

SB 261 Reporting Guidance

The preliminary list follows CARB’s September 2 release of draft guidance on compliance with SB 261, which clarifies what information covered entities must include in their biennial reports.

Under the draft guidance, covered entities can choose between three reporting frameworks to meet disclosure requirements for four different areas: governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets.  For each reporting area, the draft guidance outlines minimum disclosure requirements.

The draft guidance acknowledges that disclosures “will vary depending on the company, the discretion of the preparers, and the chosen reporting framework.”  CARB also states that a “guiding principle in preparation of these reports should be meeting the needs of the users of the biennial reports,” such as “investors and other stakeholders.”

Notably, CARB is not currently requiring disclosure of scope 1, 2, or 3 emissions for the initial reporting period.  In addition, companies may submit disclosures based on either calendar year or fiscal year data for their first biennial report.

Prop 65 Warning for Titanium Dioxide Struck Down

/in ,

California’s Proposition 65 warning requirement for respirable titanium dioxide violates the First Amendment, the District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled on August 12, 2025, in The Personal Care Products Council v. Bonta, No. 2:23-cv-01006.

The decision is the latest in a series of rulings invalidating Prop 65 warnings for chemicals with disputed health risks. In 2023, the Ninth Circuit struck down a warning requirement for glyphosate, and in early 2025, the Eastern District of California invalidated a warning requirement for dietary acrylamide.  Blog posts on those cases can be found here and here.

The titanium dioxide order follows the same analytical framework. First, the court held that the warning failed the test set forth in Zauderer v. Office of Disc. Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), which allows for compelled commercial disclosures when they are “purely factual and uncontroversial.”

“[T]he parties admit that there is a clear debate over whether Listed Titanium Dioxide cases cancer in humans,” the order states.  “The Court finds the Prop 65 warning would likely improperly elevate ‘one side of a legitimately unresolved scientific debate.’”

As in the glyphosate and acrylamide cases, the court focused on how an average consumer would perceive the warning, not just whether each sentence was literally accurate.  “Even though each sentence on its own may be factually true, ‘the totality of the warning’ is nonetheless misleading,” the order states.

Second, the court found that the warning failed intermediate scrutiny under Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980) and was therefore unconstitutional.  The court concluded that the warning does not advance California’s interest in public health because titanium dioxide’s risks are not confirmed, and the state has less burdensome alternatives—such as making information available online.

Titanium dioxide is commonly used as a whitening pigment in cosmetic and personal care products. Its Prop 65 listing applies only to “airborne, unbound particles of respirable size.”

California Legislature Moves to Ban PFAS in Many Consumer Products

/in , ,

On September 12, 2025, California’s Assembly and Senate approved SB 682, a bill imposing sweeping prohibitions on the use of intentionally added PFAS in a wide range of consumer products.  The legislation now heads to Governor Gavin Newsom for consideration.

As reported in a previous post, SB 682 would prohibit the distribution, sale, or offering for sale of cleaning products, dental floss, juvenile products, food packaging, and ski wax with intentionally added PFAS starting in 2028, and cookware beginning in 2030.

Since that earlier update, lawmakers amended the bill to exempt certain components of cleaning products until 2031.  The final version also clarifies that, beginning in 2028, cleaning products must comply with California Air Resources Board volatile organic compound (VOC) regulations without reliance on regulatory variances.

Governor Newsom has until October 12, 2025, to act on the bill.