PFAS Press

On January 29, 2025, New Mexico threw its hat more fully into the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) legislation ring with the introduction of a bill that adopts a broad “phase-out” ban to PFAS-containing products. HB 212, now before the House Judiciary Committee, would require manufacturers to remove PFAS from their products over time or cease the sale thereof. A ban on cookware, food packaging, dental floss and juvenile products containing intentionally added PFAS would kick in on January 1, 2027, while a ban on carpets and rugs, cleaning products, cosmetics, fabric treatments, feminine hygiene products, textiles, textile furnishings, ski wax and upholstered furniture will start January 1, 2028. The bill would prohibit the sale of all remaining consumer products containing intentionally added PFAS beginning January 1, 2029, unless the use of PFAS constituted a “currently unavoidable use,” a concept we have seen employed elsewhere. What we have not seen employed elsewhere is the New Mexico bill’s “PFAS Stewardship Program,” which (once established) would allow a manufacturer to sell otherwise-banned, PFAS-containing consumer products so long as they participate in a statewide program to collect and dispose of those products. We will have to watch how that program develops if the bill passes, and whether other states copy the approach.

On February 3-5, the PLASTICS’ Fluoropolymers Conference gathered several professionals involved with fluoropolymers to discuss the latest challenges, opportunities and technological shifts that are defining the fluoropolymer industry.

Our series on the impact of the election on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) policy takes us to the Senate, where Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) indicated in a hearing that the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (which she will chair) will continue to pursue PFAS.

Much will be written about the impact of the election on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) policy over the coming months (or even years), and we imagine many of our updates over that time will analyze this, as well. These impacts may present in the form of continued budgetary and technical challenges for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) such as those that led to a delay in implementation of the PFAS Reporting Rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). That said, given that PFAS is largely seen as a bipartisan issue (as evinced by the first Trump administration’s introduction of a PFAS Action Plan in 2019), we do not expect wholesale changes to existing PFAS rules, though the second Trump administration may ease regulatory thresholds and reporting deadlines relating to PFAS. As a consequence of federal developments, we expect state activity to remain steady, if not increase, in response to concerns that federal implementation may lessen. Unfortunately, this may mean the patchwork of state regulations and laws around PFAS may grow, imposing significant compliance burdens on regulated entities (which, ironically, may lead the federal government to increase its involvement).