Minnesota last year enacted a sweeping ban on toxic “forever chemicals” considered one of the most aggressive worldwide.
Now, the man who signed that PFAS ban into law and is overseeing its implementation could end up in the White House. That’s fueling hope among some public health advocates that Tim Walz’s presence on the Democratic ticket could influence PFAS policies nationwide.
“The Minnesota law really is the most protective in the country, and maybe even in the world, at this point,” said Gretchen Salter, strategic adviser at the environmental health organization Safer States. “Knowing there [could be] someone in the White House who’s been so close with people who’ve been fighting these issues is really hopeful for us.”
Walz — whom Vice President Kamala Harris tapped as her running mate this week — is intimately familiar with the health risks and environmental consequences of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, according to those who’ve worked with him on the issue.
The human-made chemicals have been used in products like firefighting foam, dental floss and cookware and have been linked to various human health problems, including cancer. A Minnesota company, 3M, is often credited with having first manufactured PFAS for widespread use.
But Walz, who is serving his second term as governor, also presides over a state where chemical manufacturers like 3M are major employers with a strong political presence.
Before signing the far-reaching PFAS law, the governor’s office kept “a pretty steady hand” in addressing chemical makers’ concerns, said Kevin Fay, who leads the Sustainable PFAS Action Network, a lobbying organization for big industry players such as Honeywell and Intel.
That “sensible middle” approach continues, Fay said, as the Walz administration works out key details shaping how broad the new law will be.
“We’re optimistic that if he’s successful in this race, there will be a voice of reason on this topic in the administration,” Fay said of Walz’s addition to the presidential ticket.
Should Harris and Walz prevail in November, how much he could influence PFAS policy is an open question. Some legal experts aren’t sure if a Minnesota-style national ban on PFAS would even be feasible without legislation from Congress, a prospect that’s unlikely in the current political environment.
But considering that the federal government has yet to ban any uses of PFAS or any particular compounds within the chemical family, Walz’s experience in Minnesota could bring a new focus and drive for restrictions and regulations, advocates said.
“I’m just pleased that there’s a candidate who knows what PFAS are, knows how dangerous they are and is concerned about PFAS contamination, because I’m not so sure any of the other candidates understand it or care,” said Kyla Bennett, director of science policy at Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a nonprofit.
A ‘personal responsibility’ for Minnesotans
In the 1940s, the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company — now known as 3M — began manufacturing the first types of PFAS in the Twin Cities area and selling the novel substances to other companies.
PFAS are prized for their resistance to water, heat and oil and do not easily break down, hence the nickname “forever chemicals.” Today, they come in thousands of varieties.
3M was a pioneer in making PFOA and PFOS, two compounds linked to cancer that are now widespread in the environment and in some communities’ water supplies. This year, EPA set strict national drinking water limits on PFOA, PFOS and four related substances.
In a statement, 3M spokesperson Carolyn LaViolette said the company has announced plans to stop manufacturing PFAS “and work to discontinue the use of PFAS across our product portfolio” by the end of 2025.
Given Minnesota’s role in the history of PFAS, state lawmakers and advocates have wanted to lead the way on winding down their use, said Avonna Starck, Minnesota director at Clean Water Action.
“We all have this sense of personal responsibility that PFAS started in Minnesota, so we’re going to see the end of it,” Starck said.
By the time lawmakers began crafting a bill on PFAS in consumer products last year, the state was already facing a contamination crisis. In 2018, the state entered an $850 million settlement with 3M, over claims that the company had polluted drinking water in Twin Cities communities.
Amara Strande, who developed a rare form of cancer after drinking water contaminated with PFAS, galvanized concern among lawmakers in early 2023, becoming the namesake of legislation. She died in April 2023 at age 20, a month before Walz signed “Amara’s Law.”
Under the law, use of PFAS in 11 product categories — including cosmetics, cookware and cleaners — will be prohibited by early 2025. Manufacturers will need to submit reports for all products with intentionally added PFAS by 2026. Finally, PFAS must be completely phased out of most products by 2032, unless they are considered “essential” uses, such as in medical devices.
While several other states have also moved to ban PFAS in certain instances, Minnesota “set the bar” for regulating the substances in consumer goods, said Tom Lee, a partner at the law firm Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner in San Francisco. Lee works with companies that manufacture products containing PFAS.
‘A rational approach’
Walz’s office was supportive of a bill restricting PFAS use from the beginning, said Jennifer DeJournett, a Republican strategist at Ballot Box Strategies in Minnesota. That support was noteworthy given that chemical industry lobbyists, including some from Washington, were trying to “thwart” the process, she added.
“I don’t agree with the governor on all of his issues, but when you’re going against a very well-known company to pass a very important piece of legislation, and you have industry that obviously wasn’t happy about it … the odds were stacked against us,” DeJournett said.
But a few provisions pushed by industry still ended up in the final text, leaving some advocates who submitted comments to the agency worried about “loopholes” that could weaken the law.
The agency in charge of implementation, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, is currently working on a rule that lays out a guide for how it plans to enforce prohibitions set to start Jan. 1, 2025.
The draft rule, expected this year, will answer critical questions on how it interprets “currently unavoidable uses” and which products, if any, are exempt from the law because of it.
Dozens of manufacturers and trade associations noted in public comments submitted earlier this year they intend to file for exemptions.
The draft rule is also expected to clarify which of the substances MPCA will “prioritize” and those “most likely to contaminate or harm the state’s environment and natural resources.”
The PFAS definition included in Minnesota’s law could apply to upward of 23,000 substances, according to a recent EPA estimate, most of which have never been evaluated for health and environmental toxicity. The EPA-Tox Database, for context, includes toxicology information on only 29 substances.
Allowing regulators to “prioritize” certain substances based on risk was a change made to the bill in part due to influence from the governor’s office, said Fay with industry group Sustainable PFAS Action Network.
“It was also clear that he [Walz] was delegating the discussion through his staff to the [MPCA] commissioner,” Fay said. “The governor’s office has been pretty effective in finding, what I call, a rational approach.”
Carly Griffith, water program director at the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, said the law makes clear that the 11 product categories included in next year’s ban “cannot be reduced.”
“The risk is that industry pressure to have a broad definition of ‘currently unavoidable uses’ will mean that the ban on all non-essential uses of PFAS in consumer products that goes into effect in 2032 will not be as strong as it should be,” Griffith said in an email.
Walz’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Rollbacks or more regulations?
Walz’s addition to the Democratic ticket comes as the Biden-Harris administration faces pressure over its PFAS policies in the final hours of Joe Biden’s presidency.
Environmental groups want EPA to quickly wrap up unfinished regulations. Pending actions include a proposal to restrict the amount of PFAS plastics manufacturing plants and other facilities can dump into rivers and streams.
Some members of Congress, meanwhile, have chastised EPA for allegedly going too far, including through the new drinking water standard for PFAS. That rule is facing litigation from trade groups for the drinking water industry, which argue it will be profoundly expensive to implement. Chemical manufacturers have also sued to stop it.
EPA spokesperson Remmington Belford said the agency is committed to following through on its PFAS plan of action, especially as the agency “learns more about the family of PFAS chemicals.”
“EPA will continue to use every tool in our toolbox under [the Toxic Substances Control Act] to protect people and our environment from PFAS,” Belford said.
With the Democratic and Republican tickets for the election finalized, the contrast on PFAS policy is stark, said Bennett of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
“I think Walz is well aware of the dangers of PFAS coming from Minnesota. That gives me hope that if Harris and Walz win, there will be somebody who’s willing to listen and consider some stronger action,” said Bennett, a former EPA employee. “If it’s a Trump-Vance win, judging from what Project 2025 looks like, it’s going to be worse than it was the first time around with Trump.”
The Trump-Vance campaign did not respond to a request for comment and has not released plans for how they would handle PFAS, should former President Donald Trump and Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) win. The Harris-Walz campaign also did not respond to an inquiry.
Trump and Vance have sought to distance themselves from Project 2025. The conservative policy playbook issued by the Heritage Foundation envisions firing thousands of EPA employees and eliminating its enforcement office, among other deregulatory plans. The EPA section was written by Mandy Gunasekara, Trump’s pick for EPA chief of staff during his first term.
Lee, the attorney from San Francisco, said the outcome of the presidential election will have a “profound impact” on the nation’s PFAS policies. But that would’ve been true regardless of who Harris had selected as her running mate, he said.
“What I and certain industry groups are looking at is which ticket will win, and what will that mean on a more macro level for federal regulation of PFAS going forward,” Lee said. “Will what EPA’s done so far be rolled back, or will EPA continue to push forward?”
