Mass. bills would ban PFAS in food packaging, kid's toys and more

State lawmakers are once again considering sweeping bills to ban toxic PFAS chemicals in food packaging, cookware, firefighting foam and other products.

More than a dozen states have outlawed PFAS chemicals in certain consumer products. But some trade groups worry that a wide-ranging Massachusetts law could be expensive for small businesses and difficult to implement.

Because PFAS molecules don't break down easily in the environment or the body, they're often called "forever chemicals." Research has linked them to health problems including increased risk of some cancers.

“The evidence is overwhelming that these are harmful chemicals,” said Laurel Schaider, a senior scientist at the Silent Spring Institute who has studied the health effects of PFAS for more than a decade.  "The bill goes a long way to addressing existing PFAS contamination and to turning off the tap on future contamination."

The Senate and House versions of the bill are similar, and would ban PFAS in a range of products, including children's toys, car seats, carpets, cookware, makeup and menstrual products. Both bills would also require the Department of Public Health to investigate whether to restrict PFAS in additional products.

Businesses could request exemptions for essential products — like medical devices — where no safer alternative to PFAS exists.

The bills would also create a fund to help communities clean up PFAS in groundwater, soil and sediment, and assist private well owners and public water systems with the cost of PFAS treatment. The bills also direct MassDEP to regulate the disposal of PFAS-laden sludge from wastewater treatment plants.

Provisions of the Senate bill would take effect by 2032; the House version provides more time — until 2038.

Jennifer Pederson, executive director of the Massachusetts Water Works Association, said the group supports the bill’s overall goals, but expressed concern that the fund would not cover the high costs of cleaning up 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 local communities and water customers,” Pederson said.

A similar bill fizzled out in committee at the end of the 2024 legislative session, never reaching a vote. Lawmakers carved out and passed a smaller bill that banned PFAS in firefighters' gear. Gov. Maura Healey signed that bill into law in 2024.

Sen. Julian Cyr, a Democrat who represents Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket, sponsored the Senate version and said it was “disappointing” that the legislature didn’t take up the comprehensive bill last session.

“Historically, Massachusetts has been at the vanguard of public health interventions and environmental protections. We are currently lagging behind leading states in regulating PFAS,” he said. "If we don't take action here, Massachusetts will just further fall behind in protecting public health and our environment.”

Cyr noted that the Trump administration is unlikely to restrict PFAS in consumer products and recently announced plans to roll back federal regulations on PFAS in drinking water.

“To have the federal government putting their heads in the sand on this issue, along with so much else, is concerning,” Cyr said. “It reiterates that we need states like Massachusetts to be taking action.”

PFAS chemicals were invented in the early 20th century and are still used in thousands of products. They're prized for their ability to repel oil and water, among other uses. Over time, the chemicals wash or flake off these products into landfills, soil and water. They can enter the body, for example when swallowed or inhaled.

A 2022 report from the National Academies found "sufficient evidence" of an association between PFAS exposure and an assortment of health problems, including kidney cancer, weakened immune response, high cholesterol, and decreased infant and fetal growth.

The pending PFAS legislation has faced opposition from business-oriented trade groups, such as the Associated Industries of Massachusetts. A statement on the group’s website said it “acknowledges the impact of PFAS on public health, but the legislation goes beyond what is necessary to protect public health while creating adverse impacts to large portions of the business community here in Massachusetts.”

A representative for the group declined WBUR's request for an interview.

Bill Rennie, senior vice president of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts, which represents many small businesses in the state, did not comment on specific aspects of the bills. But he said, “The hope is that whatever we do here is thoughtful, and planned with a long implementation date.”

Cyr said he is working to address the concerns of business owners and ensure that the bill is “implemented in a reasonable and common sense way.”

Deirdre Cummings, the legislative director for MASSPIRG, said PFAS-free products have become cheaper and more widely available as more states and municipalities have passed bans.

States including Minnesota and Maine have banned PFAS in consumer products like food packaging, dental floss and cookware.

“We're not going to be doing anything other states haven't done,” she said.

Cummings said Massachusetts has long been a leader in addressing PFAS contamination, passing some of the country’s strictest drinking water regulations for PFAS in 2020. But the state has since been eclipsed by others.

“We do have very good drinking water standards, but that's no good if we don't get rid of the source of the problem,” she said. “So we need to, in this case, catch up.”

Laura Spark, the environmental health program director with Clean Water Action, said her organization supports both bills. But she said the House bill’s 2038 implementation date was “much too slow and would result in significant additional contamination and health harm."

Lawmakers are expected to vote on a comprehensive bill later this summer. The legislative session ends on July 31.