Two new bills would try to limit Minnesota’s PFAS ban

Two bills that would narrow Minnesota’s ban on PFAS chemicals in products passed a state House committee vote Tuesday, but a vocal group of activists say the changes would create huge loopholes in the nation-leading law.

The bills, led by chief author Rep. Josh Heintzeman, R-Nisswa, would exempt certain products from the ban on “forever chemicals,” so dubbed because they don’t break down in the environment and can build up in human bodies.

Some PFAS have also been linked with serious health conditions, including some cancers.

The first measure (HF 81) would exempt children’s snowmobiles, ATVs and e-bikes from the law. Many dealers were surprised at the beginning of the year when they learned these vehicles fell under the ban on PFAS in juvenile products.

The second bill (HF 1627) takes a broader approach: It nullifies the ban for any commercial or industrial product. PFAS chemicals are used for many industrial purposes, like lubricating machines, extruding plastics and even etching computer chips.

Heintzeman said businesses were grappling with how to comply with the law, especially for complex products with many internal components.

“We have the task of trying to figure out if they contain PFAS,” he said. “It’s creating confusion among manufacturers.”

But it’s unclear how an exemption for commercial products might reverberate. In a hearing at the House’s Environment Committee on Tuesday, Rep. Peter Fischer, DFL-Maplewood, gave the example of a company claiming its cookware was meant for commercial kitchens, to keep the chemicals in their products.

“We’re setting up these conflicts. If someone gets a lawyer, if you get the right judge, it could end up walking right through there,” Fischer said.

There has already been an outside challenge to the law. Just six days after it went into effect, a group of cookware manufacturers sued to overturn it, arguing the measure was unconstitutional.

Environmental advocates and a group of family and friends of the woman who was the namesake for the law also argued that the health risks were too steep to limit the ban.

The original PFAS ban is known as Amara’s Law, named for Amara Strande, a young woman from Woodbury who died at age 20 from a rare cancer. Strande, like many others in the east metro, grew up drinking water tainted by 3M’s PFAS chemical waste.

She campaigned for the ban in the last months of her life. On Tuesday, her sister Nora Strande testified that the bill “would let PFAS manufacturers off the hook, point blank.”

“The whole reason we have the whole plume area in the east metro is because of industrial dumping,” added Avonna Starck of advocacy group Clean Water Action.

Starting on Jan. 1, the law banned intentionally added PFAS in 11 categories, including cookware, children’s items, dental floss and menstrual products. By 2032, every product in Minnesota would be subject to the ban. There are a few exceptions built into the law now for FDA-approved medications and devices.

Advocates for the business community said the new exemptions were only meant to give clarity. The second bill also pushes back the deadline at which companies must report the chemicals that have been added on purpose to their products, from 2026 to 2028.

Tony Kwilas, a lobbyist representing electronics, automotive, medical and architectural industries, said businesses still need guidance on how to report, and were struggling to get data on what chemicals were in their supply chains.

“We think the focus should be on residential and personal use, where the greatest risks in exposure are,” he said.

Kirk Koudelka, assistant commissioner at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, said the law also was meant to stop PFAS contamination from manufacturing sites and in landfills and wastewater treatment plants, which collect the chemicals from disposed items. The agency opposes both pieces of legislation, he said.

Ultimately, both of Heintzeman’s bills passed out of the committee on a party line vote. It’s unclear, with a slim DFL majority, if the measures could pass the House floor.

Asked how he thought the legislation would fare, Heintzeman said, “It’s not just House Republicans who are hearing from constituents on this. It’s also DFLers.”

The exemption for commercial and industrial products has no sponsor in the Senate. The exemption for youth off-road vehicles has two Senate sponsors, Sens. Justin Eichorn, R-Grand Rapids, and Grant Hauschild, DFL-Hermantown.