New Mexico Lawmaker Calls for Review of PFAS Exemptions

/in , ,

Ahead of the Environmental Improvement Board’s (EIB’s) February 23 rulemaking hearing on regulations to implement New Mexico’s PFAS Protection Act, a New Mexico lawmaker has introduced legislation that could prompt renewed scrutiny of the statute’s product exemptions, including the exemption for fluoropolymers.

Introduced on January 29, 2026, House Joint Memorial 3 (HJM 3) would direct the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) to develop a report on the implementation of the PFAS Protection Act, including the “efficacy” of rules promulgated by EIB.  NMED would also be required to assess the health, environmental, and economic risks associated with the act’s exemptions and provide recommendations “regarding whether such exemptions, such as the exemption for fluoropolymers, should be continued, modified or removed.”

HJM 3 characterizes the exemptions as having been adopted “based on limited scientific literature regarding chemical degradation, environmental mobility and persistence, potential human health pathways and possible health effects.”  The memorial specifically calls for additional research into “the toxicological profiles, exposure risks and public health implications of fluoropolymers.”

This legislative development comes less than a year before product phaseouts and reporting requirements take effect on January 1, 2027—as well as controversial PFAS labeling requirements proposed by NMED that would apply to nearly all products, including those exempted from prohibition and reporting requirements by the statute.

The PFAS Protection Act provides that EIB “may…adopt rules to carry out” the act’s provisions, “including requiring the labeling of products in English and Spanish.”  HJM 3, however, states that the PFAS Protection Act “requires” PFAS labeling, “including [for] products exempted from the phaseout and prohibition.”  The memorial further asserts that the statute does not exempt “products from other aspects of [EIB’s] authority” beyond phaseout and prohibition.

Revised Labeling Provisions in NMED’s Proposed Rule

Labeling remains a central component of NMED’s proposed rule to implement the PFAS Protection Act.  NMED petitioned the EIB to adopt the rule in October 2025, and the proposal is the subject of the February hearing.

On January 16, 2026, in response to comments, NMED released a revised proposal with several notable changes to the labeling requirements.

First, the revised proposal would exempt the following products from labeling requirements:

  • Products for which labeling requirements are preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),
  • Veterinary products and the packaging of veterinary products regulated by FDA, and
  • Medical devices, drugs, and the packaging of medical devices and drugs regulated by FDA.

Each of these product categories falls within exemptions included in the PFAS Protection Act.  However, the revised proposal does not extend labeling exemptions to other product categories that are exempt from prohibition or reporting requirements under the statute.

Second, the revised proposal eliminates the requirement that labels use “words and symbols approved by the department.”  Instead, the proposal would permit the following statements: “This product is made with PFAS,” “Made with PFAS,” or “Contains PFAS.”

NMED previously released draft labels containing health and environmental statements about PFAS.  While those labels may no longer be required, the proposal would still require product packaging to include a link to a New Mexico PFAS webpage, which currently makes health and environmental statements about PFAS as a class.

Third, the revised proposal adjusts the scope of the January 1, 2027, labeling effective date, allowing the continued sale and distribution of unlabeled products manufactured before that date.

Finally, the revised proposal clarifies the process for seeking waivers from labeling obligations and establishes associated fees.  The prerequisites for obtaining a waiver remain unchanged: for NMED to grant a waiver request, a product must be exempt from prohibition or reporting requirements and “none of the product’s material containing intentionally added [PFAS] will ever come into direct contact with a customer while the product is being used as intended during the useful life of the product.”

The EIB docket for the rulemaking can be found here.

Court Certifies PFAS-Based Class Action Over Smucker Pet Food

/in

The J.M. Smucker Co. faces a certified class action alleging its pet food labels misleadingly tout products as “100% healthy” and “nutritious” despite containing titanium dioxide and packaging that may contain PFAS.

In an opinion focused primarily on the alleged presence of PFAS in the packaging, the Northern District of California held that Smucker’s failure to disclose PFAS could conflict with its health-based marketing claims, satisfying the plaintiffs’ evidentiary burden for class certification.

“Smucker does not need to explicitly label its products as ‘PFAS Free’ for there to arise an assumption that the products are free of such materials; this is especially true when the rest of the packaging asserts benefits to the user’s health and nutrition,” the opinion, filed January 22, 2026, states.

The court additionally concluded that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged the presence of PFAS poses an unreasonable safety hazard that must be disclosed.  While there is uncertainty about whether PFAS could migrate from packaging to the pet food itself, Smucker’s arguments that PFAS would not migrate “go more towards the weight of the evidence, a question that gets to the merits of the case and is inapplicable at this stage,” the court held.

It is immaterial that different pets might be affected by PFAS differently, since the plaintiffs allege economic harms rather than health harms, the court added.

The court was also unpersuaded by Smucker’s argument that the named plaintiffs did not rely on the alleged omission.  While the plaintiffs initially testified that they had not reviewed the labels, the court credited supplemental declarations stating that they had done so.

The class certification encompasses all persons in California who purchased certain 9Lives, Kibbles ‘n Bits, or Meow Mix-branded products from November 4, 2018, through December 31, 2022.

The case is Jeruchim v. The J.M. Smucker Co., No. 22-cv-6913 (N.D. Cal.).

Tennessee Bill Targets “Forever Chemicals” in Food

/in , ,

Tennessee lawmakers have introduced legislation that would prohibit the sale of food containing PFAS beginning July 1, 2026, “unless the food is labeled as containing forever chemicals and discloses the known or possible health effects of the chemical.”

The legislation defines a “forever chemical” as a PFAS, described as a “group of man-made synthetic chemicals, including, but not limited to,” PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, and HFPO-DA, better known by the trade name GenX.  Tennessee’s definition of “food” is the same used by the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA), encompassing articles used for food or drink, chewing gum, and components of such articles.

SB 1818 and HB 1746 were introduced January 20, 2026.  The House bill has since been assigned to the Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee.

P&G Wins Dismissal of Dental Floss PFAS Lawsuit

/in ,

A federal court has dismissed a proposed class action alleging that Procter & Gamble misled consumers about the health and environmental qualities of its dental floss due to the alleged presence of PFAS, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish standing.

The suit relied on test results allegedly showing that Oral-B Glide products contain 302,400 ppm of organic fluorine.  The suit also cited results from a separate laboratory that allegedly detected specific PFAS—including four not disclosed by the company, which publicly acknowledges that some Oral-B products contain the chemical PTFE.

In an order issued January 9, 2026, the Southern District of New York concluded that significant gaps in the testing allegations prevented the plaintiff from establishing standing under a price-premium theory of injury.

“Plaintiff does not clarify, among other things, whether the samples tested were taken from products Plaintiff actually purchased; when the samples were collected; how many samples were collected and tested for each product line; or whether all tested samples yielded positive results for PFAS,” the opinion reads.

These deficiencies, as well as insufficient information about whether the test samples were acquired at the same time or within geographic proximity to the purchased products, would also doom arguments that the entire product line was contaminated, the court added.

The plaintiff’s benefit-of-bargain theory fared no better.  The court found no concrete and particularized injury, citing the vague test results, the lack of alleged physical harm, and the plaintiff’s failure to identify a less expensive, PFAS-free dental floss product necessary to support the notion of a premium.

The decision aligns with a growing body of case law dismissing cases challenging marketing claims based on the alleged presence of PFAS for lack of standing, including a recent dismissal involving similar allegations against Coca-Cola, a decision the court cited repeatedly.

The case is Dalewitz v. The Procter & Gamble Co., No. 22-cv-7323 (S.D.N.Y.).  The plaintiff has until February 10, 2026, to file an amended complaint.

Washington State Expands PFAS Restrictions

/in ,

Last month, a Washington State Department of Ecology rule expanding the state’s restrictions on PFAS took effect.  The rule adds three new product categories subject to prohibition and imposes new reporting requirements for manufacturers of nine additional categories.

Beginning January 1, 2027, the manufacture or sale of the following products containing intentionally added PFAS will be prohibited in Washington:

  • Apparel and accessories
  • Automotive washes
  • Cleaning products

The rule includes a sell-through provision allowing the continued sale and distribution of products produced prior to the prohibition’s effective date.

Manufacturers of certain products containing intentionally added PFAS will also be subject to new reporting obligations.  By January 31, 2027, and annually thereafter, manufacturers of the following products must submit a notification to the Department of Ecology:

  • Apparel intended for extreme and extended use
  • Footwear
  • Gear for recreation and travel
  • Automotive waxes
  • Cookware and kitchen supplies
  • Firefighting PPE
  • Floor waxes and polishes
  • Hard surface sealers
  • Ski waxes

Pursuant to WAC 173-337-060, the notification must include the name and CAS number of each intentionally added PFAS, the applicable product category and component, a description of the PFAS function, the concentration range, contact information, and any other information the reporting party deems relevant to appropriate product use.

The rule also establishes a rebuttable presumption that PFAS have been intentionally added when total fluorine is detected above 50 parts per million in the newly regulated product categories.  This represents a departure from earlier PFAS restrictions, under which the detection of any total fluorine was sufficient to trigger the presumption.

Existing Restrictions

The rule was promulgated under Washington’s Toxic Pollution Law, which is implemented by the Safer Products for Washington program.  Through the program, the Department of Ecology prioritizes chemicals, identifies products, and conducts rulemakings to prohibit or otherwise restrict their manufacture or sale.

A previous round of PFAS prohibitions, which took effect in 2025, applied to aftermarket stain- and water resistance treatments and to carpets and rugs.  The department also prohibited intentionally added PFAS in indoor leather and textile furniture and furnishings beginning in 2026, while imposing annual reporting requirements for outdoor leather and textile furniture and furnishings starting in 2025.

Other products subject to restrictions or reporting requirements under the program include ortho-phthalates in vinyl flooring and personal care product fragrances, organohalogen flame retardants in electric and electronic products, flame retardants in recreational polyurethane foam, and phenolic compounds in laundry detergent, food and drink can linings, and thermal paper.

Additional information on Washington’s PFAS rule can be found on the department’s website.

 

New Mexico to Hold Hearing on PFAS in Products Rulemaking

/in , ,

Beginning February 23, 2026, at 9am MT, the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) will hold a hybrid public hearing to consider the adoption of a proposed rule to implement the state’s PFAS in products law.  EIB is currently accepting public comments in advance of the hearing.

A previous post addressed the proposal’s novel PFAS labeling requirements, which would apply to all products with intentionally added PFAS beginning January 1, 2027.  In addition to labeling, the proposed rule implements statutory product prohibitions, establishes manufacturer reporting obligations, and outlines the process for manufacturers to obtain “currently unavoidable use” (CUU) designations from the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED).

Much of the proposed rule closely tracks the underlying statute, HB 212.  However, the statute merely authorized—rather than required—labeling requirements, and left the CUU framework unspecified.  The proposed rule fills in those gaps.

Product Bans

The proposed rule implements HB 212’s phased-in product bans.  Beginning January 1, 2027, New Mexico will prohibit the sale of the following products with intentionally added PFAS:

  • Cookware
  • Food packaging
  • Dental floss
  • Juvenile products
  • Firefighting foam

On January 1, 2028, the prohibition will expand to include:

  • Carpets or rugs
  • Fabric treatments
  • Feminine hygiene products
  • Textiles
  • Textile furnishings
  • Ski wax
  • Upholstered furniture

Finally, beginning in 2032, the prohibition will apply to all products except:

  • Products exempt from regulation under HB 212 (such as used products, medical devices, and veterinary products); and
  • Uses that EIB designates as CUUs.

Although HB 212 authorizes the EIB to add additional product categories to the 2027 and 2028 bans, the proposed rule limits prohibitions to those required by the statute.

Manufacturer Reporting Requirements

On or before January 1, 2027, HB 212 requires manufacturers that sell products containing intentionally added PFAS to submit the following information to NMED:

  • A brief description of the product;
  • The purpose of the PFAS in the product;
  • The amount of each PFAS in the product by exact quantity or concentration range;
  • Manufacturer and contact information; and
  • Any other information requested by NMED.

Manufacturers must update their submissions within 30 days of a significant change.  The proposed rule defines “significant change” as the intentional addition of a new PFAS, a 10% or greater increase in the concentration of PFAS, or a change in responsible official or contact information.

The proposed rule sets a fee of $2,500 for the initial report and $1,000 for each subsequent significant change report, with fees adjusted for inflation.  It also establishes procedures for requesting reporting deadline extensions or waivers where substantially equivalent information is already publicly available.

Under HB 212, reporting obligations do not apply to products that are statutorily exempt or that have received a CUU designation.

Currently Unavailable Uses (CUUs)

To avoid prohibition of a product containing intentionally added PFAS, the proposed rule would allow a manufacturer—or a group of manufacturers—to submit a proposal to NMED requesting a CUU designation.  A separate proposal would be required for each individual combination of product category and associated industrial sector.

CUU proposals would generally be due at least 12 months before the effective date of the applicable sales prohibition.  For products subject to the January 1, 2027 prohibition, however, CUU proposals submitted by October 31, 2026 would be deemed approved pending NMED review.

The proposed rule would require that CUU proposals include:

  • Identification of the specific PFAS intentionally added to the product;
  • A brief description of the product;
  • An explanation of why the PFAS use “is essential for health, safety or the functioning of society”;
  • A description of how the PFAS is essential to the product’s function;
  • A description of whether alternatives for the specific use of PFAS are available;
  • A list of applicable federal and state regulations governing the product due to its intentional use of PFAS, including any sales prohibitions;
  • If the product is prohibited or lacks a CUU determination in another jurisdiction, a list of comparable products that remain on the market in that jurisdiction;
  • Where similar products are available despite a comparable prohibition, a justification for why those products are not reasonably available alternatives or documentation demonstrating that they would not perform as intended in New Mexico;
  • Contact information; and
  • Any known or reasonably ascertainable information regarding the human health or environmental impacts of PFAS in the product.

Most of these categories include additional, detailed information requests.  For example, when identifying comparable regulatory programs in other jurisdictions, submitters must specify whether the prohibition is absolute or includes a CUU-like process and, if so, whether the submitter has applied under that program and the status of the application.

CUU designations would expire three years after approval unless a manufacturer submits a new CUU proposal.  The proposed rule establishes a $5,000 fee for an initial CUU application and a $2,500 fee for renewals, with fees adjusted for inflation.

For CUU proposals related to the 2027 prohibitions, NMED would issue final determinations by March 1, 2027.  A list of approved CUUs would be made available on NMED’s website.

Testing and Enforcement

HB 212 authorizes NMED to require manufacturers to test products if the department has reason to believe that a product contains intentionally added PFAS.  The proposed rule sets a threshold for PFAS of 100 parts per million (ppm).  If test results exceed that threshold, the manufacturer would be required to submit an initial report and, if the product is prohibited, notify distributors and retailers.

Manufacturers that violate HB 212 or its implementing regulations may be subject to civil penalties of up to $15,000.  NMED may also assess administrative costs incurred in enforcing the statute and rules for each day a violation occurs.

More information about HB 212, also known as the PFAS Protection Act, is available on NMED’s website.

New Jersey PFAS in Products Bill Awaits Governor’s Signature

/in , ,

On December 22, 2025, New Jersey’s legislature passed SB 1042, which would restrict the use of intentionally added PFAS in cosmetics, carpet treatments, and food packaging, and impose additional labeling requirements for cookware.  If signed into law, New Jersey would join over a dozen states that have adopted similar restrictions.

The bill employs a familiar definition of PFAS: “any member of the class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.”

Product Bans and Labeling Requirements

Two years after enactment, SB 1042 would ban the sale of the following products with intentionally added PFAS:

  • Cosmetics
  • Carpet or fabric treatments
  • Food packaging

In addition, two years after enactment, SB 1042 would require that cookware containing intentionally added PFAS in a handle or food contact surface include the statement “This product contains PFAS” on its product label.  This statement would be required in both English and Spanish and on online listings.

The bill provides the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety’s Division of Consumer Affairs significant enforcement authority, including civil penalties of up to $20,000 per day per violation and the ability to conduct random audits to ensure manufacturer compliance.

Exceptions and Exclusions

The bill includes several exemptions that may reduce compliance burdens for manufacturers:

  • Trace quantities: Intentionally added PFAS does not include “a technically unavoidable trace quantity of PFAS which stems from impurities of natural or synthetic ingredients or the manufacturing process, storage, or migration from packaging of the product or product component.”
  • Cosmetics: The prohibition does not extend to electronic components or internal components of cosmetic products.
  • Cookware: Products intended solely for commercial use are exempt. Cookware is also exempt from labeling if its surface area cannot accommodate a label of at least two square inches and it lacks an exterior container, wrapper, or tag.

Unlike some state-level PFAS legislation, SB 1042 does not establish specific limits on the amount of total organic fluorine in covered products.

Other Provisions

The bill directs the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) to:

  • Conduct PFAS research and environmental monitoring
  • Recommend additional product bans
  • Operate a source reduction program

The legislation appropriates $4.5 million for NJDEP to carry out these objectives.  NJDEP would be required to submit annual reports starting two years after enactment to summarize its findings.

More on SB 1042, known as the “Protecting Against Forever Chemicals Act,” can be found on the New Jersey Legislature’s website.

Update – January 18, 2026

On January 12, 2026, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed SB 1042 into law.

Federal Legislation Introduced to Create PFAS Cause of Action

/in ,

On December 11, 2025, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Representative Madeleine Dean (D-PA-4) introduced the PFAS Accountability Act of 2025 (S.3460/H.R.6626).  The legislation would establish a federal cause of action and allow courts to award medical monitoring for persons exposed to PFAS.

In a press release announcing the bill, Senator Gillibrand stated: “For years, companies have knowingly manufactured toxic, carcinogenic chemicals that have devastated families and communities.  Those companies must be held accountable for their actions.”

Versions of the PFAS Accountability Act have been introduced in every Congress since 2018.  The legislation has never passed either chamber, however.

Cause of Action

If enacted, the PFAS Accountability Act would add a new section to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) titled “Individuals Exposed to Perfluoroalkyl And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances.”  The amendment would allow individuals who have been “significantly exposed to PFAS,” or have “reasonable grounds” to suspect significant exposure, to bring suit individually or as a class in any district court.

Claims could be brought against any person that:

  1. Engaged in any portion of a manufacturing process that created the PFAS to which the individual was significantly exposed; and
  2. Foresaw, or reasonably should have foreseen, that the creation or use of PFAS would result in human exposure.

The bill establishes rebuttable presumptions of “significant exposure.” An individual would be presumed to have been significantly exposed if:

  • The PFAS at issue was released into one or more areas where the individual would have been exposed for a cumulative period of at least one year; or
  • The individual submits testing results demonstrating the presence of the PFAS in their body.

If plaintiffs do not submit test results, defendants could rebut the presumption of significant exposure by offering test results conducted by an independent testing provider.

Medical Monitoring

The legislation would authorize courts to award medical monitoring for qualifying claimants if:

  1. The individual’s significant PFAS exposure resulted in an increased risk of developing disease;
  2. That increased risk provides a reasonable basis for additional or more frequent medical examinations; and
  3. Those examinations are effective in detecting a disease associated with PFAS exposure.

Where insufficient toxicological data exists to determine whether exposure resulted in an increased risk of disease, courts “may lower the standard for scientific proof” until such data exists.  Courts would also have authority to order studies to assess whether an increased risk of disease occurred.

Definition of PFAS

Notably, the bill defines PFAS as “a perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance with at least 1 fully fluorinated carbon atom,” which is significantly broader than the definition used by EPA in the TSCA section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting rule and the 2024 significant new use rule (SNUR) for inactive PFAS.

More information on the PFAS Accountability Act of 2025 can be found here.

Connecticut Releases Approved PFAS Label Language

/in , ,

On December 1, 2025, the commissioner of Connecticut’s Department of Energy & Environmental Protection (DEEP) issued an order approving the following phrases that satisfy the state’s PFAS labeling requirements.  The approved language includes:

  • Contains PFAS
  • Made with PFAS
  • Made with PFAS chemicals
  • Made with intentionally added PFAS
  • This product contains PFAS chemicals

Manufacturers or producers can petition DEEP to approve other words or symbols.  Petitions must be submitted via email to DEEP.PFASInProduct@ct.gov.  Emails should include the proposed words or symbols, as well as the petitioner’s name, title, email address, and telephone number.

The order states that DEEP will publish and maintain an updated list of all approved labeling language on its PFAS in Products website.

Labeling Requirements

Beginning July 1, 2026, no person may sell or distribute certain products in Connecticut that contain intentionally-added PFAS unless the products include the required labeling disclosures.  A complete list of covered product categories can be found in a previous post.

Labeling is the responsibility of the manufacturer unless the wholesaler or retailer agrees to accept responsibility for their application.  Labels must:

  • Be clearly visible prior to sale
  • Use words or symbols approved by DEEP
  • Be sufficiently durable to remain legible for the product’s useful life

If a covered product is incorporated as a component of another product, the final product containing the component must be labeled.

Connecticut is not the only state that will soon impose PFAS labeling requirements.  Effective January 1, 2027, New Mexico has proposed to require labeling on all products containing intentionally added PFAS that are sold or distributed in the state.  More information on New Mexico’s proposed rule can be found here.

Final PFAS Reporting Requirements Set in Minnesota

/in ,

On December 8, 2025, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) adopted a final rule governing manufacturer reporting on intentionally added PFAS in products, ahead of the July 1, 2026 deadline for initial submissions.  The rule outlines what manufacturers must report, how reports must be submitted, and the conditions under which waivers or extensions may be granted.

Initial Reporting Requirements

A manufacturer or group of manufacturers of new products sold or distributed in the Minnesota that contain intentionally added PFAS must submit an initial report to MPCA by July 1, 2026.  Each report must include:

  • A description of the product or a description of the category or type of product.
  • The PFAS chemicals used in the product or its components.
  • The concentration range of PFAS chemicals in a product or components of a product made up of homogenous material.
  • The function that each PFAS chemical provides to the product or its components.
  • Manufacturer information.
  • Contact information.

A flat $800 fee must accompany each initial report. Manufacturers may request trade secret protection for chemical identities, identifying numbers, and certain supply-chain information.  On its website, MPCA says that reported information that is not trade secret will be disclosed to the public.

All manufacturers must​ assume responsibility to report unless manufacturers in the same supply chain enter into an​ agreement to establish their respective reporting responsibilities.  To meet due diligence requirements, manufacturers must “request detailed disclosure of information…from their supply​ chain until all required information is known.”  Manufacturers must maintain documentation of all communication with other manufacturers regarding PFAS reporting compliance and reporting responsibility agreements and provide it to MPCA upon request.

MPCA may grant waiver requests for all or part of the required information upon request if substantially equivalent information is publicly available.  Extension requests must be submitted at least 30 days before the deadline.  Reports will be filed through MPCA’s PFAS Reporting and Information System for Manufacturers (PRISM), which MPCA plans to soft-launch to selected manufacturers this month and release in full in January 2026.

Changes from the Proposal

After two public comment periods and an administrative law judge’s review, the final rule incorporates several adjustments, including:

  • Clarifying that manufacturers must submit a single initial report, not individual reports for each product or component.
  • Reducing the reporting fee from $1,000 to $800, and clarifying that only one fee be submitted per initial report, rather than a fee for each reported product or component.
  • Removing language that would have allowed MPCA to deny a waiver request based on the burden of accessing publicly available information.
  • Limiting manufacturers to one extension of the reporting deadline.

The final rule also makes several key changes to subsequent reporting requirements after the initial report, including:

  • Requiring that manufacturers of new products containing intentionally added PFAS report by February 1 of the following year, rather than prior to sale or distribution in the state.
  • Removing the requirement that manufacturers annually recertify their report. Now, manufacturers must only submit an update by February 1 of the following year if a significant change was made to a product, new product information was provided to a manufacturer, or a new product was sold or distributed in the state during the previous year.
  • Removing the option for manufacturers to voluntarily update their report whenever a PFAS is reduced or eliminated from a product or component.
  • Eliminating the fee for annual updates.

The Minnesota Register notice for the rule, including MPCA’s explanation of changes, can be found here.

MPCA is in the process of developing a separate rule establishing a process for currently unavoidable use (CUU) determinations.  More information on Minnesota’s PFAS in products program can be found on the agency’s website.