Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS often called “forever chemicals,” have garnered significant attention due to their persistence in the environment and potential health risks.
These synthetic compounds are found in many consumer products, including non-stick cookware, water-repellent clothing, carpet, upholstery, personal care products, food packaging, electronics, and firefighting foams.
While legislative or regulatory efforts seem unlikely at the federal level under the new administration, several states are seeking to mitigate the chemicals’ impacts through their own legislation.
Among these is Minnesota, home to 3M – an inventor of certain PFAS. The state has implemented some of the most comprehensive measures affecting businesses selling, offering for sale, or distributing products into the state. This law, and others like it, will significantly impact consumers and businesses.
Minnesota’s actions
In May 2023, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signed into law House File 2310, known as Amara’s Law, establishing stringent regulations on products containing intentionally added PFAS.
The law broadly defines PFAS as “a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.” But its applicability is limited to products where PFAS are “intentionally added,” meaning PFAS is “deliberately added during manufacture” and its “continued presence…is desired in the final product or one of the product’s components to perform a specific function.” There are only a few exemptions to the statute, and they are very narrow.
The law introduces a phased approach to prohibitions and reporting requirements:
Jan. 1, 2025: The sale, offer for sale, or distribution of products in 11 specific categories containing intentionally added PFAS will be prohibited. These categories include carpets or rugs, cleaning products, cookware, cosmetics, dental floss, fabric treatments, juvenile products, menstruation products, textile furnishings, ski wax, and upholstered furniture. This prohibition extends to certain packaging and component parts.
Jan. 1, 2026: Manufacturers must report the use of intentionally added PFAS in their products to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). This reporting obligation aims to enhance transparency and assist in the state’s ongoing assessment of PFAS usage.
Jan. 1, 2032: A comprehensive ban will take effect, prohibiting the sale, offer for sale, or distribution of any product containing intentionally added PFAS, unless the MPCA determines the use of PFAS in the product is unavoidable. The agency may specify specific products or categories for which this applies.
Other states’ efforts
While Minnesota’s law is among the most stringent, it is not alone. At least 15 other states have enacted legislation targeting PFAS in consumer products.
Maine: In 2021, Maine became the first state to ban non-essential PFAS in products. The state is implementing a phased approach, with restrictions to certain product categories taking effect in 2023, 2026, and 2029. A total ban takes effect Jan, 1, 2032, unless the use is unavoidable or falls within a limited exception.
California and New York: Effective Jan. 1, 2025, both states have banned textile articles and apparel containing intentionally added PFAS. California’s law also limits the amount of PFAS (measured as total organic fluorine) in products or components. Similar bans on food packaging and cookware went into effect in 2023 and 2022.
Colorado and Maryland: Since Jan. 1, 2024, both states have prohibited the sale or distribution of food packaging, rugs, carpets, and certain firefighting foams containing intentionally added PFAS. Colorado has also adopted restrictions on PFAS in juvenile products.
Indiana: Indiana has enacted two laws to better protect firefighters from PFAS, establishing the Firefighter PFAS Biomonitoring Pilot Program to assess levels in firefighters’ blood and requiring PFAS-containing gear to display a label.
These laws create a patchwork effect with differing scopes, definitions, exceptions, and reporting regimes, making it difficult to discern compliance. For example, a product might be permitted for sale in one state under its PFAS laws, but not in another. And more states are proposing and passing new laws each legislative session.
Implications
The various state laws’ stringent regulation of PFAS have several implications for businesses and consumers:
Businesses: Companies producing, selling, offering for sale, or distributing products in states with PFAS restrictions should work closely with their supply chain to assess product lines and identify any items containing PFAS. This endeavor may itself be resource-consuming depending on the number of suppliers and product components. Companies should also be prepared to respond to similar requests from their downstream supply chain. Record-keeping will be especially important. Companies may need to reformulate products or packaging to eliminate PFAS or face prohibitions on sales and significant penalties.
Consumers: As these laws take effect, consumers may see reduced availability of PFAS-containing products. This change may also drive demand for safer, alternative products.
Conclusion
As states like Minnesota lead the charge with stringent PFAS regulations, businesses must navigate an increasingly complex compliance landscape.
The patchwork of state laws—from Maine to California—reflects a growing consensus on the urgent need to address risks posed by these “forever chemicals.”
For companies, this means reassessing product formulations and supply chains to eliminate PFAS or face legal and financial repercussions. For consumers, the wave of PFAS legislation represents a push towards safer, more sustainable products, albeit with potential shifts in availability and costs.
The states’ efforts to curb PFAS signals a transformative moment in environmental policy—one with rippling effects. As more states join the movement and federal action remains unclear, businesses should stay vigilant in compliance efforts and work closely with legal counsel to understand how these laws apply.•
__________
Kimberly DalSanto is a partner in the environmental and litigation groups at Taft Stettinius & Hollister. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.