Pennsylvania committee hears bipartisan testimony on banning PFAS from select consumer products

At an informational briefing of the Pennsylvania House Consumer Protection, Technology & Utilities Committee, lawmakers and public-health and industry witnesses on Tuesday discussed proposals to prohibit the manufacture or sale in the Commonwealth of consumer products with intentionally added PFAS — a class of persistent chemicals often called “forever chemicals.”

The presenters urged lawmakers to act on products that come into intimate contact with people — including juvenile products, menstrual products, cosmetics and dental floss — citing studies that find PFAS in those categories and possible health risks for infants, children, women and firefighters. Industry representatives said some PFAS chemistries are critical for medical, defense and other applications and urged narrowly drawn rules and clear certification requirements for manufacturers.

The hearing matters because committee members said the proposed legislation would target a pathway of exposure that state officials and researchers say adds to widespread environmental contamination and human accumulation of PFAS. Proponents said state action is needed to protect vulnerable populations and to avoid consumer confusion caused by partial or misleading labeling, while industry witnesses pressed for exemptions for essential uses and for definitions that are defensible in court.

Representative Greg Scott, sponsor of the consumer-product restriction discussed at the hearing, told the committee that PFAS are “a group of chemicals of, over 9,000 human made forever chemicals” and said his bill would “ban the intentional use of PFAS in industrial applications, while making necessary exceptions for essential uses.” Scott said the goal is a bipartisan, science-based approach to “hold polluters accountable.”

Ian Lauda, Southeastern Pennsylvania legislative coordinator for the nonprofit Clean Water Action, told the committee Pennsylvania has taken “initial steps” but needs broader product restrictions. Lauda cited a 2023 attorney general complaint in Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court that named DuPont, Chemours and Corteva alleging violations of state consumer-protection law and referenced state and federal health findings that have linked PFAS exposure with immune suppression, reproductive harm and other conditions.

Stephanie Wine, Clean Water and Conservation Advocate at PennEnvironment, summarized health concerns and pathways of exposure: “PFAS are called forever chemicals because they're nearly indestructible and can build up in the environment and in our bodies over time,” she said, and urged lawmakers to focus on products used by infants and on items in “intimate contact” with the body because skin and mucous membranes can allow higher absorption.

Other public-interest witnesses presented results from recent laboratory testing. Lauda and Wine cited University of Notre Dame and Environmental Working Group analyses that found measurable PFAS or fluorine indicators in subsets of menstrual products, cosmetics and diapers. Lauda summarized the Notre Dame study results: about 33% of period underwear and 25% of reusable pads in the study had evidence of intentionally added PFAS; other testing found high fluorine in foundations, mascaras and lip products.

Melanie Benish, vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, urged the committee to regulate the class of PFAS for the targeted product categories and noted that “hundreds of companies already make these products without PFAS,” naming national retailers and brands that sell PFAS-free options as market evidence that reformulation is feasible.

Speakers for the chemical industry told the committee that PFAS represent a wide set of chemistries with distinct properties and uses. Steve Kratz, president of the Pennsylvania Chemical Industry Council, described the industry’s economic footprint in the state and said policy should “include an accurate science-based definition of PFAS” and “only address intentionally added PFAS.” Robert Simon of the American Chemistry Council said industry has phased out some legacy PFAS chemistries and recommended focusing regulation on specific chemicals and end uses rather than an indiscriminate classwide ban.

Committee members asked witnesses about several practical issues: the potential for regulated production to move offshore; whether PFAS-free alternatives cost consumers more; how to structure certificates of compliance and enforcement to avoid penalizing downstream small businesses that purchase products in good faith; and whether federal labeling or regulation is forthcoming. Witnesses pointed to existing state laws in at least a dozen states that have prohibited some PFAS uses and to voluntary and regulatory work at federal agencies (EPA, ATSDR/CDC, NIOSH) but said federal action on consumer-product labeling is limited.

No formal legislative vote or committee decision occurred during the informational briefing. Witnesses and committee members agreed on the need for further work on statutory definitions, enforcement mechanisms and narrow exemptions for essential public-health and national-security applications. Committee chairs said they will continue meetings with stakeholders to refine bill language.

The hearing included several references intended to inform future drafting: the 2023 drinking-water maximum contamination level mentioned by witnesses; a 2023 civil complaint filed by the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General alleging consumer-protection violations by manufacturers; and multi-state examples such as Minnesota’s phased “Amara’s Law” approach and California’s restrictions that took effect July 1, 2023.

The committee closed the hearing with mutual statements of willingness to continue negotiations among legislators, public-health advocates and industry representatives to craft enforceable, targeted legislation.