Health commissioner, attorney general endorse stricter PFAS limits in H238, urge technical fixes

Vermont Department of Health Commissioner Mark Levine and Attorney General Charity Clark told the Senate Health and Welfare Committee on April 1 that proposed restrictions in bill H238 to expand limits on PFAS in consumer products would strengthen public health protections but need technical fixes on exemptions and enforcement.

The testimony centered on the health harms associated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances and on suggested statutory changes in H238 (and an associated H91 discussed briefly) to clarify when PFAS are "intentionally added," how water-related exemptions should work, and how the Attorney General’s office would implement a carve-out for “currently unavoidable uses.”

Levine, who identified himself as Mark Levine, Commissioner of Health, summarized decades of scientific evidence tying PFAS exposures to health outcomes. He said the clearest associations include increases in cholesterol levels and effects on immune response to vaccines, pregnancy-associated problems (including elevated blood pressure and preeclampsia), developmental impacts such as changes in birth weight, and cancers with the strongest links to kidney and testicular cancers. "This has been accumulated scientific evidence over many decades," Levine said. He noted PFAS are persistent in the environment and in people’s bodies, and that preventing PFAS from entering products is the most effective way to reduce exposure.

Levine also described exposure pathways and factors that affect risk, including ingestion (primarily through contaminated drinking water), inhalation and skin absorption; dose and duration; and individual health and access to care. He warned that some harms can be more acute, particularly for pregnant people and young children, as well as cumulative over time.

Committee members asked about federal oversight and funding. Levine said recent federal shifts have already affected work in Vermont: an EPA environmental-justice grant to the state was stopped as of the previous day, and he expressed concern that federal priorities could shift away from setting stricter environmental limits. He said Vermont already has taken steps to set protective levels and that existing state efforts would not be reversed by the federal changes, but that future federal leadership remains uncertain.

Attorney General Charity Clark told the committee her office is generally supportive of H238 but urged clarifying edits. Clark said the bill’s current definition of "intentionally added" contains an exemption for PFAS present because of use of water that contains PFAS, and recommended tying that exemption to Vermont’s drinking-water standards so a manufacturer would only be exempt if the water met state standards. "What if instead of the phrase ... ‘present in the product due to use of water containing PFAS,’ it connects that water to Vermont's drinking water standards," Clark said.

Clark raised a second practical concern about a provision that would require the Attorney General’s office to determine whether particular uses are "currently unavoidable," defined in the draft as uses essential for health, safety or societal functioning where no reasonable alternative exists. Clark said most staff in her office are lawyers rather than environmental scientists and that the consumer-protection division does not currently possess the technical expertise implied by the provision. She recommended either building capacity in the office in partnership with the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) or delaying implementation to allow time to develop the necessary expertise; she noted the bill already lists a 2027 implementation date for the fluorinated-container provision and suggested that timeline might be suitable to phase in enforcement responsibilities.

Clark expressed support for enforcing PFAS prohibitions under the state Consumer Protection Act and said her office would work with ANR and other agencies on rule language and the intentionally added definition. She also offered a narrower, pragmatic suggestion to keep manufacturers from using widely contaminated water as a blanket exemption: exempt manufacturers only if the PFAS levels in their water are within Vermont’s drinking-water standards.

Committee members asked technical questions about filtration and removal. Levine said carbon filtration methods are among known treatment options for PFAS and that the Department of Health will follow up with additional details. Committee members also raised related concerns about PFAS entering the food chain (for example from pesticide-treated seed), and staff indicated they would return with more information.

The committee heard examples of product categories covered in the bill: dental floss, certain flooring products and fluorine-treated containers, among others. Clark said she personally supported removal of PFAS from products such as dental floss and encouraged broad consumer-product prohibitions where feasible, while acknowledging narrow medical or industrial exemptions may remain.

No formal motions or votes on H238 or H91 were recorded during this session. Committee members and agency representatives agreed to continue working on statutory language, technical clarifications and interagency coordination before further committee action.

Next steps noted during the hearing include the Attorney General’s office and Agency of Natural Resources coordinating language on "intentionally added" and "currently unavoidable uses," the Department of Health providing additional information on PFAS treatment technologies and pesticide/food-chain questions, and staff follow-up on the status of related federal guidance and funding.