Some lawmakers would like to ban the use long-lasting, dangerous chemicals known PFAS across the board. However, the House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy Committee was the first to ban the use common in cosmetics and cookware.
There have been many links between perfluoroalkyl and the polyfluoroalkyl substances. Negative effects on the healthAccording to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The man-made chemicals were found in Groundwater and surface waterAccording to the Department of Health, Minnesota.
Rep. Ami Wazlawik, DFL-White Bear Township, sponsors three bills to prohibit the manufacture, distribution, and sale of cosmetics, cookware, and ski wax containing PFAS. The ban will take effect Jan. 1, 2024. All three bills were approved Thursday and referred by the House Commerce Finance and Policy Committee.
13-3 was approved HF2906. HF2907 was approved 13-3. HF2952 was approved 12-4. There are no companion bills in Senate.
House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy Committee 2, 10/22
Wazlawik stated that Maine will be the first state to ban all nonessential PFAS from products by 2030.
That was actually an approach that I preferred to take in our state, but I knew we didnt have the support in the Republican-controlled Senate to actually get that done, despite the fact that we know these chemicals are harmful and that they are in our environment and theyre expensive to clean up, Wazlawik said. We tried to use this approach to try to address some of the low-hanging trees, knowing that we wouldn’t be able to pass a comprehensive bill in the other body. I would have preferred if we had.
Rep. Josh Heintzeman, R-Nisswa, disagreed with the assertions that Republicans are the main obstacle to banning PFAS. Heintzeman agreed that chemicals are a concern, and that laws should be considered at a federal level.
Heintzeman said that there is not opposition to working together on this issue. However, we all recognize that PFAS poses a danger. These chemicals need to be examined more closely, it is clear.
Heintzeman said later that he thought this was something we could discuss in a bipartisan fashion. This approach, which was mentioned in testimony today, would target retailers as the enemy, and potentially levy fines of more than $10,000 if you cumulatively have many violations. It doesn’t seem to me to be the solution.
According to the House Research Department, civil sanctions could reach $10,000 per violation. The state could also require defendants to pay for damages such as wildlife cleanup, loss, or destruction.
Tony Kwilas from the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce is the director of environment policy. He stated that more than 4,000 chemicals are considered PFAS, but not all of them have harmful effects or require further research. He claimed that there are more then 6,000 current uses for PFAS.
Rep. Tama Theis, R-St. Cloud). I doubt that we have the data that shows that we are on a right path with the bill.