Legislation at the federal and state levels directed at regulating or banning per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) has reached a frenzy. PRINTING United Alliance has been engaged through a variety of approaches urging regulators and legislators to take a systematic approach to regulating PFAS chemicals and not imposing blanket bans and similar requirements.
The Alliance applauds the U.S. Chamber for establishing Essential Chemistry for America which has launched a campaign aimed at increasing awareness about the importance of PFAS substances. The initiative is dedicated to safeguarding access to fluorinated chemicals (PFAS) by increasing awareness of their essential role across every major sector of the U.S. economy including healthcare, defense, and semiconductors.
Marty Durbin, the chamber’s senior vice president for policy, said in a statement that the group supports cleanup of specific legacy “forever chemicals,” but argued that “not all PFAS are the same, and the regulatory environment should reflect those differences.”
Vice President of Environmental, Health, and Safety Affairs for the Alliance, Gary Jones, agrees with Durbin. “PFAS substances should not be treated the same. Each individual chemical has its own unique properties and uses, as well as their own environmental and health profiles. Authorities should consider a science and risk-based approach when it comes to regulating PFAS,” according to Jones.
The U.S. Chamber campaign comes as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants to crack down on PFAS on multiple fronts. The agency is seeking to strengthen review of new PFAS entering the market, regulate existing PFAS, and finalize a first-ever limit on their presence in drinking water, and a Superfund designation that would force cleanup of at least a handful of chemicals in the class.
Like the federal agency, state legislatures have been busy introducing legislation requiring consumer notices for PFAS and bans on PFAS in a variety of products. Many states have focused their legislation on food packaging, cosmetics, apparel, textiles, paper products, carpets, fabric treatments, and cookware. The legislation would impact the printing and packaging industry, notably in the market segments of apparel/textiles, paper products, and food packaging.
The Alliance has been engaged in the legislative and regulatory process to help inform and guide lawmakers on responsible restrictions. The Government Affairs team has either joined coalitions that share the same concerns for their members or directly submitted its own letters opposing legislation and regulations. Recent opposition letters sent by the Alliance to state legislatures include the following:
- California SB 903. This bill would create a sweeping and complex new regulatory program at the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to regulate all commercial and consumer products, as well as any industrial manufacturing process that may use PFAS. Since 2021, Governor Newsom has signed bills that ban the sale of PFAS-containing cosmetics, textiles (with exceptions), and juvenile products, but he has also vetoed bills that would have phased out PFAS in cleaning products, artificial turf, and feminine hygiene products.
- Colorado SB 81. Colorado was the first state in the country to pass a law that explicitly bans the entire class of PFAS in cosmetics, textile furnishings and indoor and outdoor furniture. SB 81 creates more restrictions against the sale and distribution of products containing PFAS.
- Connecticut SB 292. This bill would ban intentionally added PFAS in apparel, carpets or rugs, cleaning products, cookware, cosmetics, dental floss, fabric treatments, children’s products, feminine hygiene products, textile furnishings, ski wax and upholstered furniture by 2026.
- Vermont S. 197. This bill would prohibit the sale, offer for sale or distribution of any product with intentionally added PFAS unless the Department of Health has determined that the use of PFAS is a currently unavoidable use. This legislation is overly broad, lacks sufficient scientific basis, and could have unintended consequences that could eventually ban important products from sale and transport in Vermont.
These four pieces of legislation join others that have been passed by Minnesota and Maine and would have sweeping impacts on manufacturers, retailers, distributors and the business community at-large. Due to the significant impact, Maine has delayed implementation of its law and is considering several important revisions. While there is uncertainty about the final form of these actions, be assured that the Alliance is monitoring the situation in California, Colorado, Connecticut and Vermont.
We will continue to monitor relevant developments, provide updates and make the voice of the printing industry known to legislators and regulators.
In this article, Stephanie Buka, Government Affairs Coordinator, PRINTING United Alliance, addresses federal and state actions seeking to ban or restrict PFAS. More information can be found at Business Excellence-EHS Affairs or reach out to Steph should you have additional questions specific to how these issues may affect your business: sbuka@printing.org.
To become a member of the Alliance and learn more about how our subject matter experts can assist your company with services and resources such as those mentioned in this article, please contact the Alliance membership team: 888-385-3588 / membership@printing.org.