In January 2025, Minnesota’s law to regulate PFAS, a class of synthetic chemicals used to make products resistant to heat, oil, grease and water, went into effect. The law, one of the strongest of its kind in the United States, bans the chemical in 11 categories, from cookware to upholstery.
From July 2026, the state will also require manufacturers report the presence of PFAS in their products and ban companies from selling any products with intentionally added PFAS from 2032, with some exceptions. The goal, according to the information of the State Pollution Control Agency, is this to protect “human health, the environment and taxpayer dollars” by reducing the use of PFAS.
But a coalition of manufacturers and distributors, the PFAS Pharmaceutical Working Group, or PPWG, is pushing back, arguing that Minnesota’s sweeping restrictions would burden companies that use PFAS (an acronym for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in production and packaging. Even some medications, including Prozac and Lipitor, can be considered PFAS under some definitions. Although medical devices and drugs regulated by the Food and Drug Administration are exempt from the final sales ban, companies must disclose detailed information about each product and the amount and purpose of each PFAS compound used.
The comprehensive strategy adopted by Minnesota and Maine, which also includes a reporting component, is “a very pragmatic, very simple and smart approach to a very big problem.”
-Anna Reed, Natural Resources Defense Council
“The unprecedented scope of Minnesota’s law — applying to all products entering the Minnesota market — effectively imposes a nationwide PFAS limit and reporting obligation that is not risk-based, imposes requirements with unworkable deadlines, and contains provisions inconsistent with federal law,” wrote the group, which represents major pharmaceutical companies Merck and PFAS, among others. letter to the Department of Justice.
In addition, the PPWG wrote that different regulations in each state create a regulatory patchwork for companies, “where companies often must adjust operations to comply with the state’s most restrictive law.” Federal law should eliminate state mandates, it concluded. The comment, which was made public in September, came in response call from the administration of President Donald Trump to define onerous state laws.
However, environmental advocates are not convinced that improvements to the regulations or the Minnesota law, which does not prohibit PFAS in medical products—regulated by the FDA—is a burden for companies.
A comprehensive strategy has been adopted by Minnesota and Maine, which also has reporting componentAnna Reed, director of PFAS advocacy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an international environmental advocacy group, said, “It’s a very pragmatic, very honest and smart approach to a very big problem.” “And it’s being framed as a radical ban on all products with PFAS, and that’s really not the case.”
“Industry may try to avoid possible broader state regulation of PFAS,” said Albert Lin, a professor at the University of California, Davis School of Law who specializes in environmental and natural resource law.
PFAS—known as perennial chemicals because they can persist in the environment for 1,000 years or more—are increasingly associated with a range of chemicals. health concernsincluding cancer developmental delays, and hormonal disorders.
In the mid-2010s, the prevalence of PFAS in the environment and everyday products began to become clear. “It was really seen as a public health emergency,” said Eva Gartner, director of Crosscutting Toxics Strategies at Earthjustice, a nonprofit that addresses environmental issues. So states, which can be faster than federal agencies, have begun to address PFAS regulations in waves, targeting individual product industries such as firefighting foams and packaging, Gartner said. “Recently,” he wrote in an email, “state legislation has focused on products in different sections in one bill.”
Today, 30 states have adopted policies to regulate PFAS, according to a tracker maintained by Safe States, an alliance of environmental health organizations and coalitions around the United States. For example, Colorado bans the sale and distribution of oil and gas products and certain fabrics containing PFAS chemicals. But several states, including Minnesota and Maine, have moved to ban the sale of a long list of products containing intentionally added PFASs and require companies to report the chemical’s presence when it’s unavoidable that they use it.
“The unprecedented scope of Minnesota’s law — applying to all products entering the Minnesota market — effectively imposes a nationwide PFAS limit and reporting obligation that is not risk-based, imposes requirements with unworkable deadlines, and contains provisions inconsistent with federal law.”
– Pharmaceutical PFAS Working Group
In addition to keeping communities safe from toxic chemicals, said Kathy Pelch, senior scientist at NRDC, these measures will “encourage brands to become more aware of the PFAS problem and realize that it’s not dangerous.”
But for pharmaceutical companies, the growing list of laws “differ in scope, definitions, exemptions and compliance deadlines,” according to the PPWG. Tracking and reporting every PFAS used in complex global supply chains, the group argued, would be a burden on industry.
However, the process is important for industry transparency, Gartner said, especially pharmaceuticals, which by 2024 to read A large contribution to the presence of PFAS in waste water. “It seems that knowing that PFAS is present in pharmaceuticals is something that many consumers want to know and companies need to know.”
Undark reached out to all PPWG companies, as well as the group’s advisors, who wrote letters. Only Roche’s representative responded and refused to comment; other companies did not respond.
While it is true that states have different rulesReed, director of PFAS advocacy with the NRDC, said public policy isn’t that different. Most of them target the unnecessary use of PFAS in consumer products where there are safer alternatives on the market. “Obviously, there’s some variation from the legislative process, but the goals are all the same,” Reed said. Additionally, most states with PFAS regulations on the books have harmonized definitions, he noted, and those that differ are weaker, making compliance easier, not harder. “At this point, many, many states have virtually identical laws on the books,” Gartner said. “This shouldn’t be a compliance nightmare for resource-strapped organizations.”
Today, 30 states have adopted policies to regulate PFAS. For example, Colorado bans the sale and distribution of oil and gas products and certain fabrics containing PFAS chemicals.
But the PPWG argued in its letter that federal requirements should take precedence over state laws — a legal doctrine known as federal preemption — to ensure standard regulation across the country. The group said the safety of drugs, biologics, medical devices, veterinary drugs and their packaging has already been evaluated by the FDA. For this reason, she continued, state laws should not apply.
But that legal argument may not be correct, Lin said. Federal preemption applies when state law conflicts with federal law or when federal law expressly prohibits state regulation, but federal control over reporting requirements is limited. “The FDA regulates whether you can sell your product or use your product as well as the packaging that comes with it,” Lin said. “But it doesn’t actually regulate the reporting requirements for PFAS in products.” (Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Environmental Protection Agency requires manufacturers and importers of PFAS to report detailed information to the agency between 2011 and 2022, but which is delayed by April 2026. EPA was recently presented According to agency administrator Lee Zeldin, certain exceptions to the rule are intended to “help combat PFAS contamination without imposing ridiculous requirements on manufacturers.”)
“It’s being made out as a radical ban on all products with PFAS, and that’s really not the case.”
-Anna Reed, Natural Resources Defense Council
In August, a judge suspended Minnesota’s reporting rules, saying in particular that the rules were “not rationally related” to the purpose of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, which proposed the PFAS rule, and that it exceeded the agency’s authority. The judge recommended the agency make revisions and resubmit the rules. The MPCA declined to respond to the PPWG’s comment, but pointed to a statement that removing and destroying PFAS in wastewater in Minnesota would cost between $11 billion and $25 billion over 20 years, and that Minnesota is therefore prioritizing pollution prevention by reporting PFAS use and phasing out non-conventional use in products.
For advocates, state regulation closes an important loophole in PFAS tracking, helping consumers and agencies identify sources of potentially harmful chemicals and proactively reducing PFAS exposure for their residents, Reid said, and not really a deterrent to pharmaceutical companies’ compliance.
“If you look at the meat of the story, it’s very reasonable,” he said. “And given the impact that PFAS is having now and will continue to have for generations, frankly, it’s not enough right now.”
This article was originally published Darkness. read the original article.
Claudia López Lloreda is a freelance science journalist covering the life sciences, health care and medicine. He is a major contributor to Undark.
