The future of ‘forever’ chemicals in Minnesota

Per- and Polyfluorinated Substances (PFAS), man-made chemicals commonly known as “forever chemicals” because of how slowly they break down, have a long history in Minnesota.

3M, a corporation based in Maplewood, was one of the first and largest manufacturers of the chemicals. Detrimental health effects and increased cancer rates caused by PFAS contamination at dumping sites, such as four such sites in the east metro area, were the subject of a $10.3 billion lawsuit settled against 3M last year.

However, Minnesota is looking to go a new route and largely curb PFAS use at the start of 2025, when the bipartisan-backed Amara’s Law takes effect. Amara’s Law (named for Amara Strande, a 20-year-old woman who died of cancer and lived in Woodbury, which has PFAS-contaminated drinking water) will prohibit the sale of 11 categories of consumer goods at the beginning of 2025.

These include cookware, menstrual products, and children’s products. By 2032, all products with PFAS will be banned in Minnesota unless the product is essential for health or safety reasons and there are no alternatives for using PFAS. Andria Kurbondsk, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)  pollution prevention program lead, said companies must apply to MPCA for exemptions for essential products.

So far, the only exemptions already determined are medical devices and medicines covered by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Avonna Starck, the director of the Minnesota chapter of Clean Water Action, said it was “one of the unfortunate things we cannot ignore” that some products, such as MRI machines, will likely still require PFAS.

Starck worries that companies will try to apply for exemptions that could still harm Minnesotans. She cited appliance companies wanting to continue using PFAS on internal parts on the grounds that consumers would not come into direct contact with them.

Starck said cases like this still hurt workers, such as repairmen who come in contact with the parts, and that the parts still leech PFAS into groundwater when they are disposed of in landfills.

“Industry needs to prove that they are using the safest possible option and that there are no other options, and if they are using the safest options, they shouldn’t be worried about this process with the MPCA,” Starck said. “They have the obligation morally to use the safest product.”

Starck called PFAS “the great democratizer,” as everyone needs clean drinking water. Starck noted that while all communities in the United States, whether rich or poor, are affected by PFAS, poor communities (which are disproportionately communities of color) often suffer the most.

Residents of poor communities often lack quality health insurance and jobs that offer sick pay, making it more difficult to recover from serious illnesses caused by PFAS contamination. Starck recalled her family’s struggle growing up poor and trying to afford medical bills.

“We didn’t have insurance, and all of those bills fell on us, and my mom had to fight really hard to get us to the point that she was able to buy a house and graduate college,” Starck said. “And that’s what scares me, that there are countless families [affected by PFAS] in that same predicament.”

 Starck said that states with weak environmental regulations often end up as “dumping grounds” when products are banned in other states. For example, when California banned baby bottles made of BPA plastic, most of them ended up being shipped to discount stores in Arizona, where BPA restrictions were not as strong.

Starck said she “hopes” that corporations will not do the same with their stocks of products with PFAS in Minnesota, but she does not see a reason they will not. “When these businesses can’t sell it, they’re going to offload it, and low-income communities are going to be the ones who suffer,” Starck said. 

“So their babies are going to play with the toys, they’re going to wear the clothes, and anything that we throw away when those cheap dollar-store goods break, when you throw them in the garbage they end up in our landfills.”

Kurbondsk said ceasing the production of non-essential PFAS is the best option, as cleaning up PFAS contamination is an expensive endeavor. According to stats from Adam Olson, who works in public affairs at MPCA, the cost to remove a pound of PFAS from drinking water is at least 2,700 times the cost to purchase the chemicals.

“PFAS chemicals can be purchased wholesale from $50 to $1,000 per pound,” Olson said. “But the cost to remove and destroy those same chemicals from wastewater ranges from $2.7 million to 18 million per pound. The gap is enormous and impractical, which really helps make the case for PFAS pollution prevention.” 

A large coalition of industry lobbyists spoke out against Amara’s Law when it was debated in the legislature. Starck said the economic concerns of CEOs get no sympathy from her, as the first medical bill for Amara’s family was over $900,000. 

“When they’re making this argument that they’re so overburdened, maybe—I’m going throw it out there—maybe their CEOs who are making $20 million a year, maybe they’ll only have to make $19 million a year to implement this properly,” Starck said. “They get no sympathy from me if they get a little less of a bonus and we’re saving lives.” 

A representative at 3M confirmed to the Spokesman-Recorder that 3M plans to exit all PFAS manufacturing by 2025. “We have and will continue to deliver on our commitments—including remediating PFAS as appropriate, investing in water treatment at certain sites, and collaborating with communities,” the 3M representative said.