Company pitching PFAS-free packaging from sugar-beet pulp draws committee interest; two bills laid over

A Scottish firm with a newly established Minnesota presence told the Senate agriculture committee Feb. 26 that it plans to convert sugar-beet pulp into a microfibrillated cellulose product that can be used in coatings and substrates as a PFAS-free packaging alternative.

The presentation described a circular manufacturing model that would use local beet pulp, produce a fiber additive called "Curran," and supply coating and converter partners to make grease-, water- and oxygen-resistant fiber-based packaging. Company CEO Christian Kemp-Griffin and other representatives said the firm chose southern Minnesota because of year-round sugar-beet processing and nearby paper and packaging supply chains.

Why it matters: PFAS contamination and single-use plastics have drawn state and federal attention. Witnesses and advocates told the committee that state support for PFAS-free alternatives can create jobs, reduce pollution and protect drinking water. The committee considered two related bills: Senate File 302 (a grant program authorizing reimbursement-style grants) and Senate File 304 (a named appropriation model). Both files were laid over for possible inclusion.

CelluComp representatives described product development from lab to demo scale and a plan to build a larger commercial facility in Renville that would draw pulp from the neighboring Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative. The company said a seven-year expansion could consume about 80,000 tons of beet pulp and produce roughly 10,000 tons of microfibrillated cellulose, supporting a small manufacturing workforce onsite (the bill sponsor cited roughly 24 total jobs, with about 17 in the factory in initial estimates).

Senator Lang, sponsor of the bills, said one draft (SF 302) originally had a drafting error about where funds would be directed; the committee adopted a technical amendment to direct funds to the commissioner of agriculture. The committee also adopted an A-2 amendment to SF 302 and then laid both SF 302 and SF 304 over for possible inclusion.

Clean Water Action Minnesotarepresented by state director Vanna Starktestified in support of state grants for PFAS-free alternatives, saying the approach could protect water and soil while creating manufacturing jobs. Committee members raised technical questions about barrier coatings and recyclability. Company executives said their coating contains no PFAS and the fiber additive is compatible with recycling streams; they estimated the prototype product would be costlier than comparable plastic in the short term but could be cost-competitive at scale.

Senators asked about scale, the local supply of beet pulp and job numbers; company representatives said the initial plant would use a small fraction of local pulp and that Minnesota's supply was more than adequate. The bills discussed in committee were Senate File 302 (grant/reimbursement model) and Senate File 304 (direct appropriation model). Both Senate File 302 and Senate File 304 were held over for possible inclusion in the omnibus process.

Ending note: Committee members expressed interest in the project's potential economic and environmental benefits and directed staff to consider appropriate funding sources during omnibus negotiations; the committee took no final appropriations vote at the hearing.