Minnesota could ban 'forever chemicals' from household items, firefighting foam

Minnesota lawmakers are moving ahead on what would be one of the country's most aggressive bans on "forever chemicals" in consumer products, compounds that have become pervasive worldwide and are linked to several health effects.

In a hearing Thursday before the Senate's environmental committee, senators heard emotional testimony from Amara Strande, a former student of Tartan High School in Oakdale. The school is in a large swath of the East Metro where residents for years unknowingly drank water contaminated with the chemicals, called PFAS.

Strande, 20, said she has a rare form of liver cancer that resulted in surgeries and finally a terminal diagnosis from her doctors. She can no longer lift her right arm and said tumors had cracked two of her ribs.

"I have seen neighbors and friends who have also been affected by these toxic chemicals, and it's time for action," Strande said.

Committee members approved a bill banning "nonessential" PFAS in several home products, including cosmetics, dental floss and cookware, by 2025 and in all other uses by 2032. The legislation allows for exceptions in the case of "health, safety or the functioning of society."

A slew of manufacturing groups, however, warned that the ban and other PFAS bills passed through the committee would be a challenge to enforce, given complex production processes. The breadth of industry represented showed how broadly the chemicals have penetrated consumer markets, covering carmakers, medical device sellers, appliance manufacturers, home products sellers and others.

Andrew Hackman, a lobbyist for the Juvenile Products Manufacturing Association, said the makers of cribs, bassinets and other products "are not intentionally adding PFAS chemicals, but we do have severely long supply chains."

PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are called forever chemicals because their strong carbon-fluorine bonds don't break down in the environment and tend to build up in the human body.

The category includes thousands of chemicals used as nonstick coatings, fire suppressants, oil repellents and water repellents. They were pioneered by Maplewood-based 3M, which disposed of the PFAS that tainted East Metro groundwater.

The chemicals have been linked by research to problems with immune response and the reproductive system, as well as some cancers.

Lawmakers in both houses are considering bills that would set new rules for the chemicals. Besides the bill barring PFAS from consumer items, senators advanced one requiring companies to report the types and amounts of the chemicals in their products by spring of 2025, and another limiting the use of PFAS in firefighting foams by 2024.

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is largely tasked with carrying out the legislation. The agency has long supported a ban on nonessential uses of PFAS, including in its blueprint for containing the chemicals.

"We stand ready to implement these bills if passed by the committee and the legislature as a whole," Johnson said.

There are some exceptions in the legislation, particularly concerning PFAS used in firefighting foams. Oil refineries would get extra time to make the transition to non-PFAS foams. The chemicals are particularly good at choking off oxygen from dangerous fuel blazes, one of the reasons they became the go-to solution for airports and military installations.

DFL Rep. Matt Norris of Blaine, author of the firefighting foam bill in the House, said refiners were concerned about switching to a new product without additional testing first.

But opposition to the PFAS bills from chemical companies and manufacturers has been staunch in both chambers.

A group letter signed by 61 companies and associations warned the Senate environment committee that the bill banning nonessential PFAS "could eventually ban thousands of products from sale and transport of those products into Minnesota."

3M, one of the main U.S. producers of PFAS, has said it would stop using and producing the chemicals by the end of 2025 — behind the timeline of the proposed ban in products, which would start at the beginning of that year.

Spokesman Sean Lynch wrote in an email that 3M was not taking a position on the bills. The company is also a member of the American Chemistry Council, which opposes the ban, but Lynch did not respond to a query about whether 3M supported the group's campaign.

Not all affected firms are opposed. David Dalquist, the chief executive officer of Minneapolis-based Nordic Ware, said the PFAS ban has "been coming for a while." He said his company already was working to eliminate the chemicals from its Bundt pans, baking sheets and other products.

"I don't see that as a huge hurdle" because substitutes are being developed, Dalquist said. "The thing that our industry is struggling with is that substitutes aren't necessarily as durable as the products that contain PFAS."

House and Senate bills generally have multiple stops before they can reach the floor of either chamber for a vote.