Senate committee hears evidence on testing orthophthalates in packaged food (SF188)

Senate File 188, a bill that would require food manufacturers and brand owners to test packaged foods for ortho‑phthalates every two years and post results online, received an informational hearing April 21 before the Minnesota Senate Committee on Agriculture, Veterans, Broadband and Rural Development.

Senator Sarah Gustafson introduced the topic and framed the hearing as educational; no action was taken. Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumer Reports, told the committee the organization "strongly support[s] Senate File 188" and summarized Consumer Reports' January 2024 study in which staff tested 85 packaged foods for 10 ortho‑phthalates and "found ortho‑phthalates in 84 of the 85 items we tested." Hansen said some products had levels “above which research has linked to health problems,” and that public reporting would let consumers make informed choices.

Other public‑health and conservation witnesses echoed concerns. Hannah Rezendes Olson, a Climate and Health Equity Leaders Fellow with Health Professionals for a Healthy Climate, said Minnesota has previously moved ahead of federal regulators on chemicals and that "Minnesotans deserve to know what is in their food." Vonn Stark, State Director of Clean Water Action Minnesota, and Laurie Olinger of the Coalition for Plastic Reduction urged transparency and noted state and federal reviews of phthalates are ongoing.

Industry witnesses cautioned the committee about implementation challenges. Darren Bridal, executive director of Minnesota AgriGrowth, described the bill as "unworkable for four main reasons," emphasizing there is no U.S. health‑based value for phthalates in food and warning that publishing concentrations without an agreed health standard could spur litigation and misinformation. Andrew Morley of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce raised questions about laboratory capacity, supply‑chain tracing and whether test results would identify sources of contamination.

Several witnesses described technical and policy context cited by proponents: the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned eight ortho‑phthalates in certain children's products in 2017; the U.S. Food and Drug Administration was reported by witnesses as reviewing authorized phthalate uses and, in 2022, removing some phthalates from food‑contact uses; and the Minnesota Department of Health lists multiple phthalates among chemicals of high concern. Supporters argued a Minnesota testing requirement could supply data for federal review and spur manufacturers to reduce contamination in packaging and processing equipment.

Committee members asked clarifying questions about how tests would be conducted and whether labs have capacity. Witnesses said most commercial labs already perform phthalate testing (one international lab cited doing about 10,000 food tests per day) and described a plausible process: purchase retail product, ship to a lab, receive results in roughly two weeks, then publish them online.

The informational hearing closed after additional public testimony from medical researchers and environmental groups. Chair Putnam reiterated that the session was educational and that SF188 would not move forward this session.

Ending: The committee did not take action on SF188; the hearing produced testimony and technical questions that sponsors and stakeholders said would inform future work on testing protocols, reporting formats, laboratory capacity and interactions with ongoing federal reviews.