Jake B. Goldman
Volume 77, Issue 1, 223-244
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of synthetic chemicals used for their unique qualities in manufacturing across numerous industries. PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals,” persist in the environment for long periods of time and cause serious health risks to consumers. Given mounting research on PFAS and their adverse health effects, the California legislature passed four laws banning the chemicals in specific consumer products.
This Note argues that three new California laws requiring manufacturers to replace PFAS with “the least toxic alternative” are inadequate because they are ambiguous. This ambiguity will invite litigation and create business challenges by allowing manufacturers to substitute chemicals that technically comply with statutory requirements but still pose health risks to consumers. This issue both raises environmental justice concerns and obscures manufacturing compliance. Because current statutory language raises more questions than it answers, a more concrete standard specifying which alternatives are permissible would benefit consumers and corporations alike.
While it is impossible to know how this language will play out in practice, California’s existing regulatory scheme needs clarification at a minimum. A one size fits all standard may not exist to judge PFAS alternatives across different sectors. However, further regulatory clarification and a technology-based approach would increase predictability and quell environmental justice concerns.