[ad_1]
California has become the first state to intentionally ban the use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFASs, in many types of clothing and textiles, banning the “forever chemicals” that persist in the environment. They have been linked to hormone disruption, organ damage and certain cancers.
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 1817, or the Safe Clothing and Textiles Act, into law on September 28. 2025 curtains, towels and bedding, a three-year extension for heavy wet-air gear and certain personal protective equipment, military clothing, carpets and rugs. The law also requires manufacturers to provide certification that their products do not contain PFAS.
“AB 1817 would identify the source of environmental pollutants by banning them from being used in textiles and reduce human exposure to these toxic chemicals,” Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting said in a statement. “This is the first law in the country to end the use of these ‘forever chemicals’ in this product category, setting a national model for efforts to prevent PFAS contamination.”
However, Newsom vetoed legislation that would have created a publicly accessible database of PFAS-containing products and product components sold and imported into the state. Cost was a factor, as was the potential for overlap with the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s Safer Consumer Products Program, he said in a statement.
“This bill is estimated to cost millions of dollars in new contracts, employee support, and increased state regulatory responsibilities that result in local pay rates or general funding sources,” Newsom wrote. “With our region experiencing lower-than-expected revenues in the first few months of the fiscal year, it is important to remain disciplined with spending.”
Not everyone agreed. Susan Little, senior government affairs advocate for the nonprofit Environmental Working Group, said the law would have given regulators tools to determine how much PFAS is being imported and sold in California. Until that happens, agencies will “continue to be in the dark” about the sources of PFAS.
“California sanitation and water agencies are struggling to clean up PFAS,” Little wrote on the nonprofit’s website. “They need to understand where chemicals come from to minimize their harmful effects. We are disappointed that Gov. Newsom has rejected this legislation. It is unthinkable that PFAS is contaminating our drinking water systems and harming some of our most vulnerable communities.”
Even with the exceptions, the law would go a long way, said Martin Mulvihill, founder and managing partner at SaferMed, a San Francisco-based venture capital fund that invests in companies that reduce human exposure to toxic chemicals.
“The new California law has put a new focus on PFAS-free finishing chemistry,” Mulvihill told Sourcing Journal. Despite the high-performance extension, we think the initial restrictions and labeling requirements will drive most brands to PFAS-free alternatives. Now there are several reliable options for both. [durable water repellent] and breathable lining functionality.
Because of the size of California’s economy, the law is expected to apply to a wide range of industries.
“This legislation is the first of its kind,” Avinash Kar, senior director of the Healthy People and Thriving Communities Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a co-sponsor of the bill, told Sourcing Journal. “And it will help protect California’s health and environment and beyond, because I think it will have an impact beyond California in the U.S. and beyond. [where] Clothes and textiles are produced and thrown away.
The bill had broad, if not universal, support from companies like Ikea, Patagonia and REI Co-op.
On the other hand, he wrote to Newsom last month urging his opposition to the measure, citing the need for changes to “make it workable,” including two more years until he has enough time to give manufacturers enough time. Develop viable alternatives and develop product lines. Other outstanding issues, the trade group said, include the “broad” scope of the affected products and the “continued” need to resolve the “unnecessary burden” of additional certifications.
Another concern is that the compliance limit will be lowered from 2025-2027 to 50 parts per million (ppm) after 2027. A level below 100 ppm, the organization argued, poses a risk of containing PFAS in products without any intentional additions. Even on products manufactured under strict chemical management process controls.
Still, California’s move is just part of a growing trend, said Nathaniel Sponsler, director of AFIRM, an industry group that promotes chemical management in the fashion supply chain. Washington also passed a law banning the manufacture, sale or distribution of consumer products containing PFAS by 2025, including clothing. Clothing, this term includes clothing worn on casual and formal occasions, but does not include professional uniforms and outerwear intended for serious situations. The EU and UK could be next to establish a blanket ban.
“I expect all national and international brands to respond by eliminating PFAS completely,” he told Sourcing Journal. “I think [the] The industry clearly sees the writing on the wall.
In another sign of things to come, the Environmental Protection Agency in August designated two common PFAS hazardous substances. While PFOA and PFOS have been on many brands’ banned ingredient lists for years, companies that have used and released PFOA or PFOS chemicals are now responsible for contaminated sites. The former tannery in Michigan is being evaluated as a potential Superfund site and could include Wolverine Worldwide, which has been placed under long-term federal supervision, according to NRDC scientist and project manager Ilch Yilqi.
Then PFOA and PFOS continued to show up in the products of the environmental nonprofit, Yiliqi told Sourcing Journal. Even manufacturers that avoid the properties can produce them as byproducts of other PFAS chemistry.
“The classification of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous chemicals should add greater clarity to companies’ voluntary commitment to reporting requirements and accountability for cleaning up collateral,” she said. “To protect the health of their customers and avoid further liability, [however]Brands and retailers need to take a closer look at their supply chain to ensure that all PFAS are eliminated.
[ad_2]
Source link
