PFAS Press

We have previously discussed here the somewhat groundbreaking approach (in the U.S. anyway) taken by New Mexico’s Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Protection Act, enacted in March 2025, which included a first of its kind exemption for fluoropolymers from the law’s sales bans on PFAS-containing products. Subsequent regulatory actions in the state proposed excluding certain federally-regulated (and fluoropolymer-containing) products, including U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulated medical devices, from the scope of labeling requirements. The New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) currently is accepting public input on those proposed labeling rules, with public testimony scheduled to begin February 23 and written comments due by March 31. After recent legislative moves, it appears that participation in this comment period may be of the utmost importance to the regulated community. On February 5, 2026, the House Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee recommended passage of House Joint Memorial 3, which alleges a “limited scientific literature” supporting the above moves to exempt fluoropolymers and requests that the New Mexico Environment Department prepare a report evaluating implementation of the PFAS Protection Act, including the effectiveness of EIB’s rules and assessing the health, environmental and economic implications of statutory and regulatory exemptions, and provide recommendations on whether exemptions such as the fluoropolymer carve out should be maintained, revised or eliminated. Manufacturers seeking to maintain the exemptions will want to use the comment period to support doing so.

Akin environment & natural resources practice head David Quigley is quoted by Chemical Watch news & events by Enhesa in the third part of its 2026 Global Outlook series titled, “What’s next for state-level chemicals policy in the US in 2026?” discussing his expectations for state-level chemical policy trends in 2026 and the outlook for regulation and enforcement especially as it relates to PFAS.

To ring in the new year, New Jersey became the latest state to enact legislation banning intentionally-added PFAS in certain consumer products. In the final days of his term, Governor Murphy signed into law the Protecting Against Forever Chemicals Act (S 1042), which prohibits the sale of cosmetics, carpets, fabric treatments and food packaging containing intentionally-added PFAS starting in January 2028. The law also requires manufacturers to label certain direct food contact consumer cookware that contains intentionally-added PFAS. Interestingly, the legislature stripped forward-looking provisions excluding fluoropolymers just prior to passage. Definitely an area to watch as additional states dip their feet in the PFAS pool in 2026.  

On December 8, 2025, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) finalized its PFAS-in-Products program rules in response to an Administrative Law Judge order requiring the Agency to reduce fees, among other changes. Under the rule, manufacturers must submit PFAS information – including product descriptions, PFAS type, quantity, function and manufacturer details – to MPCA by July 2026, and pay a fee to support the program.

On November 20, 2025, the Washington Department of Ecology adopted a new twist to its Safer Products for Washington rule’s per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) restrictions.The rule, which prohibits the manufacture and sale of apparel and accessories, automotive washes, and cleaning products with intentionally added PFAS beginning January 1, 2027, previously included a presumption that any detection of total fluorine (TF) in these products would indicate that PFAS had been intentionally added. After much criticism during the public comment period, the Department adjusted its final adopted rule to provide a de minimis threshold. Specifically, the Department will presume that detection of TF above 50 ppm indicates intentional addition of PFAS. Manufacturers still have the opportunity to rebut the presumption with credible evidence that PFAS were not intentionally added, but they obtain a modicum of relief in the interim from the revision.

On November 10, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the pre-publication draft proposed rule to amend the PFAS reporting requirements under TSCA, entitled “Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Data Reporting and Recordkeeping Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Revision to Regulation.” The proposal aims to augment the exemptions to the scope of the reporting requirements and introduces additional modifications to make the rule “more practical and implementable and reduce unnecessary, or potentially duplicative, reporting requirements for businesses.” Potentially offering even greater flexibility, it concludes with a request for comment on additional provisions. 

On September 4, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (finally) published its Spring 2025 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (UA), a semiannual publication outlining federal agencies’ regulatory priorities and timelines for the upcoming year. The UA included a notice of its intent to rescind drinking water limits set by a Biden-era rule for three per- and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) substances and one PFAS mixture. EPA also published a notice of intent to retain limits on PFOA and PFOS, although with extended timelines for compliance.

On August 20, 2025, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden submitted an update to the proposal to restrict PFAS under the European Union’s REACH regulation that they originally submitted in January 2023. The revision reflects their comprehensive evaluation of more than 5,000 scientific and technical comments submitted by stakeholders, including industry representatives, researchers and civil society organizations.

On August 6, 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) became the latest governmental agency to confirm that fluoropolymers are both safe and necessary. After an independent safety review of fluoropolymers in medical devices showed no conclusive evidence of health issues, FDA concluded that fluoropolymers are “very unlikely to cause toxicity” because of molecular size and further that they are essential for medical devices to function. As a result, “FDA’s evaluation is that currently there is no reason to restrict their continued use in devices.”