Earlier this week, Deena Winter reported in Lawmakers to name chemical ban ‘Amara’s Law’ to honor 20-year-old cancer victim at the Minnesota Reformer:
In late January, Amara Strande stood at the podium in the state Capitol press room and explained why — even though she was dying of a rare type of liver cancer — she was spending her precious time lobbying for legislation that would strictly regulate toxic chemicals made down the road by 3M.
Within four months, the cancer took her life. Lawmakers stood at that same podium Tuesday and announced that several bills banning the chemicals in most products have been agreed to by a conference committee, in what will be named Amara’s Law.
Rep. Sydney Jordan, DFL-Minneapolis, said the provisions were unanimously adopted by the conference committee and — if passed by the House and Senate and signed by Gov. Tim Walz — would be one of the nation’s toughest bans on products containing the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.
“Minnesota invented PFAS. By passing this, Minnesota is going to invent the solution and end this harm caused by forever chemicals,” she said.
A major environment bill contains provisions banning the chemicals in a number of products (from dental floss to cleaning products) beginning in 2025 except those deemed by state regulators to be essential; requires companies to disclose whether they use the chemicals in products; and bans the chemicals in firefighting foam (except at airports and in oil refineries). . . .
But the PFAS story in Minnesota--including issues addressed in the legislation--doesn't stop with stories about banning products. There's also addressing what's already in the environment across the state.
In New Ulm, the angle in Fritz Busch story, MPCA says most closed landfills have PFAS contamination, looks at post-consumption disposal of PFAS in landfills across the state:
Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), synthetic chemicals used in stain and water-resistant fabrics and carpeting and industrial products, some of which are known to be hazardous to humans, are in 98% of assessed closed landfills, according to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
Since PFAS contamination was found in the eastern Twin Cities drinking water about 20 years ago, it was found in water, sediment, soil and fish around the state.
At 62 of 111 sites in the Closed Landfill Program, PFAS levels exceeded Minnesota Department of Health drinking water guidance values. PFAS was found in 100 of the landfills.
PFAS levels 10 times state health standards were found at 16 landfills in Dakota, Faribault, Martin, Isanti, Le Sueur, Washington and Watonwan counties.
On March 23, 2023, the MPCA and Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) asked lawmakers to advance Minnesota’s progress on addressing per and PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals.” The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is also a partner in this work.
An interagency plan called the PFAS Blueprint has tested public water supplies of 98% of Minnesotans, funded pollution prevention partnerships, pioneered new clean up technology, and launched a statewide PFAS monitoring plan.
“Minnesotans should feel encouraged by our progress. However, there is much more work to be done to be done to build on this momentum and keep up with our evolving understanding of PFAS,” said MPCA Commissioner Katrina Kessler. “We are grateful for the opportunity to work with the Legislature on proposals that could accelerate essential pollution prevention measures and bring additional resources to work to avoid, manage and clean up PFAS.”
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s One Minnesota budget request includes a $45.57 million investment in the state’s capacity to prevent, manage, and clean up PFAS pollution. Funds would provide grants to public water supplies, assist local businesses with PFAS reduction, improve water and fish monitoring, and build lab and health guidance capacity for PFAS.
The budget request includes:
• $25 million in statewide grants to support drinking water systems.
• $4.42 million to assist businesses and local government with reducing PFAS use.
• $4.14 million to MPCA PFAS Blueprint capacity.
• $1 million to support MPCA PFAS water quality monitoring.
• $990,000 for DNR fish contamination assessment for mercury, PCBs and PFAS.
• $10.1 million to build a PFAS lab and health guidance capacity. . . .
The MPCA provides information about individual sites on its PFAS and closed landfills page.
And there's the possibility of PFAS entering ag and food systems. MinnPost's Walker Orenstein looks at agriculture policy discussions in ‘So many unknowns.’ Minnesota will study PFAS in agricultural pesticides ahead of a near-ban in 2032:
Steven Lasee, an environmental toxicologist and chemist living in Duluth, made a startling finding last year when studying “forever chemicals” known to many by their acronym: PFAS.
Lasee and the team of researchers from Texas Tech University found concentrations of the perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in six out of the 10 agricultural pesticides they tested in Texas that are commonly used to treat cotton. And PFAS, some forms of which are linked to health risks including certain cancers, was not a listed component in any.
“Regardless of how the PFAS got into the pesticides it will end up on anything they’re applied to, including our food,” Lasee told Minnesota lawmakers during a state House committee hearing in March.
The possibility of pesticides spreading PFAS across Minnesota and permeating soil, water and food has captured the attention of DFLers who control the state Legislature. And it’s behind a new effort to regulate the products.
Democrats are now poised to give the state’s Department of Agriculture the power to ban pesticides with PFAS. That won’t happen until at least 2032. However, by 2026, pesticide companies will need to report whether a product intentionally contains PFAS. Both policies were passed by the House and Senate on Thursday and sent to Gov. Tim Walz for his signature.
The regulations are part of a burgeoning effort to crack down on or research PFAS in agriculture, which has gained some traction in Maine and Maryland. And the limits come as Minnesota lawmakers agreed to ban a swath of other products from non-essential use of PFAS, including carpets and cookware, much sooner than 2032.
The Minnesota restrictions on pesticides still fell short of what at least some Democrats wanted. The House passed a bill earlier this year that would have banned any pesticide with PFAS starting this summer, a decision that could have impacted more than 14% of pesticides on the market, according to Walz’s administration.
But the potential for tougher action on PFAS in pesticides — and other DFL efforts to restrict pesticide use — drew fierce opposition from agriculture trade groups who said the regulations would hurt farmers and limit products that are closely scrutinized by federal environmental officials.
Even Walz’s ag department said the limits on PFAS could have prohibited more than 2,000 pesticides with little notice. And the Walz administration said it would have caused headaches for regulators who need more information to understand exactly where the chemicals are, why they are there, and what health risks they pose. . . .
Orenstein notes the legislation reported in Winter's article, then returns to the complications of regulating farm chemicals:
. . . Separately, lawmakers hashing out agriculture policy and spending have grappled with the question of pesticides.
During that hearing in March, state Rep. Rick Hansen, a DFLer from South St. Paul who chairs the House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy Committee, said recent publications showing PFAS in the ag products were driving his bill that would implement a quick ban.
“I think this is a really stunning question, because if they are in pesticides and they are being purchased and being spread with the pesticide that is very concerning,” Hansen said. “We’re finding PFAS everywhere now, and if it’s in the pesticides we need to know about it and do something about it.”
That proposed ban, and a host of other regulations on pesticides, were approved by the House as part of a larger bill containing policy and spending tied to agriculture.
The Environmental Protection Agency has taken some steps to limit PFAS in pesticides. Last year the agency blocked the use of 12 chemicals from being used as inert ingredients in pesticides.
But the definition of PFAS in Hansen’s bill was broad, leading to a more expansive restriction on the chemicals.
Using that definition, at least 2,000 of the roughly 14,000 of the agricultural pesticides currently registered in Minnesota would include PFAS as an active ingredient. That does not include pesticides with PFAS as an inert ingredient. “So it’s likely the number of pesticides that contain PFAS is probably well above 2,000,” said Dan Stoddard, an assistant director in the ag department’s pesticide and fertilizer management division.
That, said Rep. Paul Anderson, R-Starbuck, would be a “pretty staggering number of ag chemicals.” It’s unclear whether or not there could be alternatives for every product, Stoddard said.
In a conference committee — made up of House and Senate lawmakers — meeting last week to negotiate a final omnibus agriculture bill, the ag industry pushed back hard against the proposed ban.
Daryn McBeth, a lobbyist for the pesticide trade group CropLife America, said the EPA and other federal agencies carefully evaluate pesticides. He said testing isn’t available to show a product is free of all types of PFAS laid out by Hansen’s bill and that those compounds aren’t the same. The one approved EPA method for testing in pesticides can only detect 28 PFAS substances, McBeth said.
“The practical effect would be, likely, a lot of products that are already registered and deemed to be safe would be unable to be registered because industry and the department couldn’t disprove whether there’s these molecules in there or not,” McBeth said. . . .
What survived the Ag Mafia lobbying? Orenstein reports:
In the end, the conference committee rejected some regulations the House wanted on pesticide-treated seeds that had also frustrated Republicans and ag groups. But the lawmakers agreed to a PFAS ban — starting much later, and with some exemptions.
Those provisions were part of the larger agriculture omnibus bill passed by the House and Senate on Thursday with a large chunk of Republican support. The bill, which contains a bevy of other policy and spending, now goes to Walz, who plans to sign it, said a spokeswoman for the governor.
Starting in 2026, pesticide manufacturers will be required to notify the state when their product intentionally contains PFAS. And they’ll have to state why it has PFAS, and the amount of it.
And by 2032, the commissioner will have to ban any pesticide that intentionally contains PFAS — with exceptions. If the use of PFAS is a “currently unavoidable use,” the product does not have to be banned.
That phrase is defined as use of PFAS essential for the health, safety, “or the functioning of society” when alternatives are not reasonably available.
Until then, the ag department will be asked to review published literature and other available information on the presence of PFAS in pesticides in Minnesota to gain a better understanding of the issue.
The proposal does ban unavoidable use of PFAS in cleaning products, which are regarded as pesticides, by 2026. That includes substances used for things like air care, vehicle maintenance and polishes.
The upcoming ban still drew some concerns from Republicans. Sen. Torrey Westrom, R-Alexandria, said on the Senate floor Thursday that lawmakers should retain the power over PFAS and pesticides, not an unelected agency commissioner. And he said he worries about prohibiting products when there may not be an alternative. . . .
Read the rest of the whole hot mess at MinnPost.
Related posts
- Proposed federal EPA PFAS regulation could cost South Dakota millions for testing, cleanup
- PFAS industry written testimony on Minnesota House bill takes logos to a whole new level (2023)
- MNReformer opinion: If drinking water can go bad in Bemidji, it can be contaminated anywhere (2022)
- Bills banning use of PFAS approved by bipartisan MNHouse environment committee vote (2021)
Map: Closed Landfill Program sites in Minnesota and the level of PFAS found at each site labeled. PFAS was detected at 100 of the landfills. At 62 of the landfills PFAS levels exceeded health standards and PFAS levels were 10 times above health standards at 16 landfills. From MPCA's PFAS and closed landfills page.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6
Comments