An act to amend Section 108240 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to hazardous substances. An act to amend Section 108076 of, and to add Chapter 17.5 (commencing with Section 109030) to Part 3 of Division 104 of, the Health and Safety Code, relating to product safety.
SB 730 would add a new chapter to the Health and Safety Code creating a targeted prohibition on consumer products containing intentionally added PFAS, beginning January 1, 2027. The bill specifically bars the sale, distribution, or offering for sale in California of artificial turf, carpets or rugs, cleaning products, cookware, dental floss, fabric treatments, and upholstered furniture if they contain intentionally added PFAS. It also authorizes the Department of Toxic Substances Control to expand the ban to additional consumer product categories by regulation if it finds that safer alternatives are readily available at comparable cost, while requiring an 18-month lead time before any newly designated category can be prohibited.
The bill defines key terms such as PFAS, intentionally added PFAS, safer alternative, consumer product, and several covered product categories. It excludes certain items from the definition of product, including used products, federally approved drugs and medical devices, pesticides approved by federal or state regulators, and products made with or containing fluoropolymers. SB 730 also ties enforcement of the new restrictions to the department’s existing PFAS enforcement tools, including registration, product testing, notices of violation, administrative penalties, and injunction authority. In addition, it makes a nonsubstantive change to the California Hazardous Substances Act’s general prohibition on banned or misbranded hazardous substances.
SB 730 would expand California’s PFAS regulatory framework by adding a direct statutory ban on intentionally added PFAS in several consumer product categories and by allowing future category-by-category expansion through rulemaking. It would amend Health and Safety Code Section 108076 to incorporate the new chapter into the existing definition of covered PFAS restrictions and covered products, and it would add Chapter 17.5 to Part 3 of Division 104 to establish the new prohibitions and definitions. The bill would not create a new appropriation or local program, but it would increase the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s enforcement responsibilities within its existing hazardous substance and product safety authority.
The bill’s stated purpose and legislative findings reflect a strong pro-regulatory, public-health-oriented sentiment focused on reducing PFAS exposure and environmental contamination. The text emphasizes PFAS as persistent and toxic chemicals and frames the bill as an immediate step to phase out nonessential uses in consumer products. At the same time, the bill also signals an intent to preserve uses of fluoropolymers, which it describes as lower concern and important for multiple industries, suggesting a balanced approach rather than a blanket PFAS ban. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no additional recorded debate or roll-call sentiment beyond the bill’s text and procedural status.
The main point of contention appears to be the scope of the PFAS restrictions and the treatment of fluoropolymers. The bill’s findings explicitly distinguish between PFAS chemicals of concern and fluoropolymers, stating that fluoropolymers are not soluble, are not bioavailable, and are critical to sectors such as health care, electronics, renewable energy, and transportation; accordingly, the bill exempts products made with or containing fluoropolymers. Another likely area of debate is the department’s authority to add more prohibited product categories by regulation, which gives DTSC significant discretion if safer alternatives are available at comparable cost. Industry stakeholders in affected product categories—especially turf, textiles, cookware, cleaning products, dental floss, and furniture—would likely be most affected by the ban, while environmental and public-health advocates would likely support the phaseout.