Not all PFAS are the same; it’s now the MPCA’s job to define which are essential to Minnesotans’ health and economy

When Gov. Tim Walz signed HF 2310 into law last year, it was described by some observers as the most restrictive PFAS legislation in the nation. Beginning in 2032, a ban on non-essential uses of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS, will go into effect.

Although the bill exempts the use of PFAS in items considered essential to health and safety, and for which no alternatives currently exist, the challenge that exists now will be identifying and preserving the uses of PFAS that are essential to Minnesotans’ livelihoods and critical to the state’s economy. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has been tasked with this important role of defining a “currently unavoidable use” of PFAS.

The conversation around PFAS is as complex as the chemical compounds themselves. The term “PFAS” has become synonymous with “harmful” or “dangerous,” but in fact, it merely means that a chemical’s structure contains a combination of carbon and fluorine atoms. Scientists agree that not all PFAS are the same, and not all PFAS present risks to human health and the environment.

According to the OECD, whose definition of PFAS the bill uses, PFAS “is a broad, general, non-specific term, which does not inform whether a compound is harmful or not.” It is no surprise this misunderstanding exists. PFAS can include as many as 14,000 chemical formulations that are technically PFAS under the broadest of definitions, including some compounds that are no longer in use and are known to negatively impact public health. Important to consider is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s recently released federal reporting rules, which uses a definition that EPA states contains just over 1,400 compounds, of which less than 800 are considered to be commercially active.

It is critical to follow EPA’s lead in prioritizing commercially active compounds. Many of these make notable contributions to society that cannot be ignored, while some have been thoroughly tested and found to be acceptable for human use. For example, pharmaceutical and medical products industries use and manufacture many life-saving products dependent on PFAS compounds. We can credit the treatment of COVID-19 in large part to FDA-approved pharmaceuticals (such as Paxlovid) that contain PFAS as the active ingredient. In addition, antidepressants and certain cardiovascular medications that utilize PFAS as a pharmaceutical ingredient provide lifesaving care to countless Americans each year.

Certain PFAS compounds also play an integral role in enabling the state’s clean energy revolution as Minnesota aims to generate 100% carbon-free electricity by 2040. If not carefully implemented, the new law could scrap these plans. Solar installations and wind turbines depend on PFAS in the manufacturing process and for energy storage, and today, no suitable PFAS alternatives are available for the sector to support Minnesota’s ambitious clean energy goals.

Beyond the societal benefits we see from the responsible use of PFAS, we must acknowledge the economic impact. A recent study conducted by Inforum found that PFAS-related industries in Minnesota — including aerospace, batteries, refrigeration and air conditioning, automobiles, medicine and pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors — helped support over 26,000 jobs and contributed over $4.3 billion to state GDP.  Because no viable alternative for PFAS exists for many industrial and consumer applications, a risk-based approach must be considered when classifying compounds as essential versus non-essential so that Minnesota maintains its economic strength.

Importantly, the Minnesota statute does require the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to prioritize its actions according to risk. That is a positive policy advancement. But the law does not specify the stepwise approach for implementation. The agency needs to clarify this to make for a rational process, focusing first on consumer products, and identifying a schedule if and when it may turn to the important industrial uses. This analysis should first focus on key issues such as identified risks, volumes and emissivity.

The non-essential use exemption included in Minnesota’s recently passed PFAS ban is also a positive step forward and it will hopefully be used to help identify and preserve the sustainable uses of PFAS that are essential to critical industries and consumers, enabling Minnesotans to have access to the tools they need to remain competitive in a global economy, while enhancing human health and safety.

Kevin Fay brings over four decades of experience as a leader in global environmental policy to his role as executive director of the Sustainable PFAS Action Network (SPAN), where he works with stakeholders to advocate for scientifically sound, sustainable, and risk-based management of PFAS at all levels of government.