California’s SB-682 Targets PFAS in Consumer Products
California’s SB-682 bans PFAS in key consumer products from 2028, driving urgent compliance actions and reform across the chemicals and manufacturing sectors.
The California Legislature has introduced Assembly Bill 1148 (AB-1148), which proposes banning bisphenols, ortho-phthalates, and antimony trioxide in food packaging from 1 January 2027. If enacted, this law will affect packaging manufacturers, food service providers, and retailers, requiring a transition to safer alternatives. Non-compliance could lead to fines of up to $10,000 per violation.
Key Insights
Key Chemicals Targeted by the Proposed Ban
The Safer Food Packing Act of 2025 builds on California’s existing PFAS restrictions, expanding the list of banned chemicals due to health and environmental risks.
The bill proposes prohibiting:
- Ortho-phthalates, used as plasticisers, linked to endocrine disruption.
- Bisphenols (A, B, S, F, AF), commonly found in plastic coatings and can linings, associated with reproductive health risks.
- Antimony trioxide, a flame retardant with potential carcinogenic effects.
If passed, this law will require manufacturers to reformulate materials or seek compliant alternatives before the 2027 deadline.
Regulatory Process and Next Steps
The bill is currently in the proposal stage and must go through the legislative approval process before becoming law. If enacted, California’s Attorney General and local prosecutors will oversee enforcement, with penalties including:
- Fines up to $5,000 for the first violation, rising to $10,000 for repeat offences.
- Potential litigation from environmental or consumer groups.
- Supply chain disruptions if non-compliant products are banned from sale.
Manufacturers, retailers, and packaging suppliers should monitor legislative developments and assess potential impacts on their supply chains.
Potential Impact on the Packaging Supply Chain
Manufacturers and Material Suppliers
If AB-1148 is passed, producers of plastic and coated food packaging must phase out restricted substances. Investment in biodegradable coatings and phthalate-free plastics may be necessary to remain compliant.
Food and Beverage Brands
Companies using pre-packaged goods or takeout containers will need to source compliant packaging to avoid disruptions if the law is enacted.
Retailers and Distributors
Retailers selling non-compliant packaging could face fines and reputational damage. Partnering with verified compliant suppliers will be essential.
What Businesses Should Do Now
- Track legislative updates to stay ahead of potential compliance requirements.
- Assess current packaging materials to identify restricted substances.
- Engage with suppliers and material experts to explore alternative materials.
- Prepare for possible reformulation to ensure compliance if the law is enacted.
Proactively addressing these challenges could position companies as leaders in sustainable packaging while avoiding potential regulatory risks.
Access the original source
Foresight continuously tracks 1000s of sources and maps updates to your portfolio:
- Get alerted when changes affect your products or operations
- Access source documents with full citations
- Collaborate with your team on alerts and decisions
Related Articles
California’s SB-682 Targets PFAS in Consumer Products
California Advances Permanent SB 54 Regulations to Drive Packaging Reform
ChemSec Adds Neurotoxicants to SIN List in Landmark Step for EU Chemicals Regulation
California Advances Permanent SB 54 Regulations to Drive Packaging Reform
California proposes permanent SB 54 packaging rules requiring recyclability or compostability by 2032, redefining producer responsibility across the supply chain.
ChemSec Adds Neurotoxicants to SIN List in Landmark Step for EU Chemicals Regulation
ChemSec updates the SIN List with neurotoxicants, spotlighting brain-damaging chemicals and urging EU regulators to act swiftly on these hidden threats.
