State lawmakers are again considering sweeping legislation that would ban toxic PFAS chemicals from products such as food packaging, cookware and firefighting foam.
More than a dozen states have banned the use of PFAS chemicals in certain consumer products. But some industry groups are concerned that the expansive Massachusetts law could be costly for small businesses and difficult to enforce.
PFAS molecules are sometimes referred to as “forever chemicals” because they do not easily break down in the environment or in the body. Studies have linked them to health problems, including an increased risk of some cancers.
“The evidence that these are harmful chemicals is overwhelming,” said Laurel Scheider, a senior scientist at the Silent Spring Institute who has studied the health effects of PFAS for more than a decade. “This bill will go a long way toward addressing existing PFAS contamination and turning off the spigot on future contamination.”
The House and Senate bills are similar and would ban PFAS in a wide range of products, including children’s toys, car seats, carpets, cookware, cosmetics and menstrual products. Both bills would also require the Department of Public Health to investigate whether to limit PFAS in additional products.
If safer alternatives to PFAS do not exist, companies can request exemptions for essential products, such as medical devices.
The bill would also create a fund to help communities clean up PFAS in groundwater, soil, and sediment, and would provide assistance to private well owners and public water systems with the cost of PFAS treatment. The bill also directs MassDEP to regulate the disposal of PFAS-containing sludge from wastewater treatment plants.
The Senate bill’s provisions are expected to take effect by 2032. The House version extends that time even further, to 2038.
Jennifer Pederson, executive director of the Massachusetts Water Works Association, said her organization supports the bill’s overall goals, but expressed concern that the fund would not be able to cover the high costs of cleaning drinking water supplies.
“Success will depend on providing sustainable funding, protecting ratepayers, and ensuring that the costs of PFAS contamination are not borne solely by communities and water customers,” Pederson said.
A similar bill failed in committee at the end of the 2024 legislative session and did not come to a vote. Lawmakers drafted and passed a small bill banning the use of PFAS in firefighter equipment. Governor Maura Healey signed the bill into law in 2024.
Firefighter Christopher Harrington stands in his recently issued non-PFAS turnout suit next to the department’s old turnout suit at Fire Station 4 in East Providence. (Charles Krupa/Associated Press)
Democratic Sen. Julian Seale, who represents Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket, sponsored the Senate version and said it was “unfortunate” that Congress did not take up an omnibus bill last Congress.
“Historically, Massachusetts has been at the forefront of public health interventions and environmental protection. Currently, we lag behind major states when it comes to regulating PFAS,” he said. “If we don’t take action here, Massachusetts will only fall further behind in protecting public health and the environment.”
Seal noted that the Trump administration is unlikely to limit PFAS in consumer products, and recently announced plans to roll back federal regulations on PFAS in drinking water.
“As with so many other issues, it’s concerning that the federal government is so involved in this issue,” Shea said. “This reiterates the need for states like Massachusetts to take action.”
PFAS chemicals were invented in the early 20th century and are still used in thousands of products. It is prized for its ability to repel oil and water. Over time, chemicals wash away or flake off these products into landfills, soil, and water. It can enter the body if swallowed or inhaled.
A 2022 report from the National Academies found “sufficient evidence” of a link between PFAS exposure and a variety of health problems, including kidney cancer, decreased immune response, high cholesterol, and reduced growth in infants and fetuses.
At Stowe’s Gleasondale plant, a 2019 study detected PFAS compounds in public water supplies on Chestnut Street, a neighboring town in Hudson. (Jesse Costa/WBUR)
The pending PFAS bill faces opposition from business-oriented industry groups such as Massachusetts Associated Industries. “While we acknowledge the impact of PFAS on public health, this law goes beyond what is necessary to protect public health while negatively impacting a large portion of the business community here in Massachusetts,” the group said in a statement on its website.
A representative for the group declined WBUR’s request for an interview.
Bill Rennie, executive vice president of the Massachusetts Retailers Association, which represents many small businesses in the state, did not comment on specific aspects of the bill. But he said, “I hope that everything we do here is thoughtful and planned with a long execution date.”
Seal said he is working to address business owners’ concerns and ensure the bill is “implemented in a reasonable and common sense manner.”
Deirdre Cummings, MASSPIRG’s legislative director, said PFAS-free products have become cheaper and more widely available as more states and local governments have passed bans.
States such as Minnesota and Maine have banned PFAS in consumer products such as food packaging, dental floss, and cookware.
“We’re not going to do anything that other states aren’t doing,” she said.
Cummings said Massachusetts has long been a leader in combating PFAS contamination, passing some of the nation’s toughest drinking water regulations for PFAS in 2020, but the state has since been overtaken by other states.
“We have very good drinking water standards, but it doesn’t matter if we don’t eliminate the source of the problem,” she says. “So we need to catch up in this case.”
Laura Spark, environmental health program director for Clean Water Action, said her organization supports both bills. But she said the House bill’s implementation date “comes too late and will result in significant additional pollution and health hazards.”
Lawmakers are expected to vote on the comprehensive bill later this summer. Parliament adjourns on July 31st.
