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.

Last month, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) announced that it would delay the January 1, 2026, reporting deadline for manufacturers of intentionally added PFAS-containing products. Though MPCA did not provide the new deadline at that time, it announced last week that the deadline has been extended six months to July 1, 2026. In its announcement, MPCA states that the six-month extension should give manufacturers more time to coordinate with suppliers to report on their behalf and become familiar with the reporting platform that MPCA expects to release for testing this fall. We will continue to monitor MPCA actions as it finalizes its rulemaking process through the fall.

Earlier this week, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) announced it will extend the upcoming reporting deadline under the state’s PFAS-in-Products law. As currently written, the law requires manufacturers of intentionally added PFAS-containing products in the state to report detailed information to MPCA—including the type of PFAS used and its purpose in the product—by January 1, 2026. In its recent response to stakeholder comments on the draft “PFAS in Products: Reporting and Fees Rule,” however, MPCA invoked its authority to “extend the compliance deadline if more time is needed for manufacturers to comply,” though it reiterated that it did not intend to make substantive changes to other obligations under the draft rule at this time. MPCA did not provide the new deadline, but promised further information in the near future. Stay tuned!

On May 13, 2025, Ohio legislators, apparently inspired by New Mexico’s similar legislation, introduced HB 272 to phase in a ban on the sale of consumer products with intentionally added per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The bill would ban the sale of cookware, food packaging, dental floss and juvenile products with intentionally added PFAS beginning 2027; carpets and rugs, cleaning products, cosmetics, fabric treatments, feminine hygiene products, textiles and textile furnishings, ski wax and upholstered furniture beginning 2028; and all other products beginning 2032, unless the use of PFAS in a product is deemed a currently unavoidable use (CUU) or the product falls within another categorical exemption provided in the bill. It would also establish a reporting requirement for all such products beginning 2027. The bill adopts the same exemptions as New Mexico’s, including importantly an exemption for fluoropolymers. Watch this space for updates on the progress of the bill, and others like it.