NMED Seeks Public Input on New Mexico’s PFAS Exemptions

/in ,

On October 8, 2026, the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) held an in-person meeting to discuss whether certain products and materials should continue to be exempted from the state’s Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances Protection Act.

The meeting follows the February 2026 passage of HJM 3, which directs NMED to report to the legislature “on the public health, environmental and economic risks of the exemptions codified in the” Act. The report must include recommendations on “whether such exemptions, such as the exemption for fluoropolymers, should be continued, modified or removed.”

HJM 3 characterizes the exemptions as “based on limited scientific literature regarding chemical degradation, environmental mobility and persistence, potential human exposure pathways and possible health impacts.”

The memorial also separately directs the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) to report on the Act’s implementation.

According to the meeting slides, NMED plans to present its interim findings to the Radioactive and Hazardous Materials Interim Committee on November 5, 2026. NMED is accepting public comments on the exemptions through December 31, 2026. The report to the legislature is due August 1, 2027.

NMED also held a webinar on HJM 3 on August 18, 2026.

Legal Background

Enacted in 2025, the Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances Protection Act imposes phased prohibitions on products containing intentionally added PFAS. The Act also requires manufacturers to report products containing intentionally added PFAS to NMED by January 1, 2027. However, sixteen categories of products and materials—including fluoropolymers, used products, medical devices, semiconductors, certain refrigerants, and motor vehicles—are exempt from these requirements.

Earlier this year, EIB adopted regulations proposed by NMED to implement the statute. The regulations also establish a near-universal PFAS labeling requirement for consumer products, effective January 1, 2027. The labeling requirement applies even to products covered by the statute’s exemptions, subject to limited exceptions for used products, pesticides, veterinary products, medical devices, and drugs.

The District of New Mexico has since preliminarily blocked the labeling mandate on First Amendment grounds. A separate state-court challenge to the rule is also ongoing.

Focus on the Fluoropolymer Exemption

Much of the discussion surrounding the statutory exemptions has focused on fluoropolymers, a subclass of PFAS consisting of substances with polymeric per- or polyfluorinated carbon backbones. One of the best-known fluoropolymers is polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), also known by the brand name Teflon. PTFE is used in nonstick cookware, electronics, industrial equipment, medical devices, and numerous other applications.

The statutory exemption for fluoropolymers also encompasses a separate but related PFAS subclass known as polymeric perfluoropolyethers.

Fluoropolymers are the only exemption specifically identified in HJM 3. The memorial directs NMED to consider whether the exemptions, “such as the exemption for fluoropolymers,” should be modified. It also states that “additional health and environmental studies are needed to understand more fully the toxicological profiles, exposure risks and public health implications of fluoropolymers.”

Several plaintiffs in the federal litigation challenging the regulations implementing the Act have submitted comments urging NMED to recommend continuing the fluoropolymer exemption. They argue that fluoropolymers do not present health or environmental risks, serve critical or irreplaceable functions, and have been treated separately from other PFAS in other jurisdictions.

For more on New Mexico’s regulation of PFAS in products, visit our NM PFAS archive.

California Scales Back Pesticide PFAS Bill, Enacts Disclosure-Only Law

/in , , ,

On September 27, 2026, California enacted legislation requiring the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to disclose the presence of PFAS in pesticides, defined as substances containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.

The chaptered version of AB 1603 is far narrower than an earlier iteration. As amended in March 2026, the bill would have prohibited the registration or re-registration of pesticides with intentionally added PFAS, imposed labeling requirements, and phased out PFAS in pesticides altogether. More on those proposed requirements can be found in a previous post.

As chaptered, the law instead requires DPR to:

  1. Indicate if a pesticide contains PFAS ingredients in its pesticide use reporting database and add PFAS as a category of interest in the database;
  2. Include PFAS trends in its annual pesticide use report and other relevant reporting documents; and
  3. Publish a list of all registered pesticides containing PFAS on its website and submit it to local officials.

The disclosures apply beyond active ingredients. Specifically, they apply to PFAS intentionally added to a pesticide as active, adjuvant, or inert ingredients.

Notably, despite its narrowed scope, the legislation declares the Legislature’s intent to “[b]egin phasing out the use of PFAS pesticides and take additional steps to address other PFAS in pesticides.”

The database update is required on or before January 1, 2028, or the posting of the pesticide use reporting database containing 2026 data, whichever comes first, and annually thereafter. The list of registered pesticides containing PFAS is also due January 1, 2028, and must be updated within 60 days of the registration of a new pesticide containing PFAS.

Connecticut Issues Guidance on PFAS Labeling and Notification Requirements

/in ,

Last month, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) released guidance on the state’s PFAS product restrictions, including the labeling and notification requirements that took effect for twelve product categories on July 1, 2026.

The guidance clarifies that the notification and labeling requirements apply to products manufactured before the July 1 effective date, despite the statute’s exemption for products manufactured prior to an applicable prohibition. This is because the notification and labeling requirements “are requirements, not prohibitions,” DEEP states.

“Manufacturers may direct retailers to apply a label for products that are already in their inventory,” the guidance adds.

DEEP also states that it is not issuing compliance extensions. “If your product is out of compliance, please submit the notification and begin labeling products immediately,” it says.

Other provisions of the guidance clarify that:

  • For online sales, the label disclosure must be provided on the same webpage as the product, without requiring the consumer to click to another webpage;
  • Labels may be affixed to the packaging of a product or the product itself, so long as they are clearly visible prior to sale;
  • Products subject to federal labeling requirements, such as those arising under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), are not subject to the state’s labeling requirement; and
  • Because “no person” may sell noncompliant products, retailers are required to stop offering any product that DEEP determines to be noncompliant.

The guidance is posted on DEEP’s PFAS in products webpage.

Covered Product Categories

The twelve product categories subject to the July 1, 2026, labeling and notification deadline are:

  • Apparel (excluding outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions)
  • Carpets or rugs
  • Cleaning products
  • Cookware
  • Cosmetic products
  • Dental floss
  • Fabric treatments
  • Children’s products
  • Menstruation products
  • Textile furnishings
  • Ski wax
  • Upholstered furniture

Beginning January 1, 2028, Connecticut will prohibit the sale or distribution of products in the categories listed above—as well as outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions and turnout gear—if they contain intentionally added PFAS. Outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions and turnout gear are subject to slightly different disclosure requirements, which took effect January 1, 2026.

DEEP has approved multiple label disclosure options. Most recently, it approved a symbol consisting of an outline of an Erlenmeyer flask with the word “PFAS” inside—the same design required under New Mexico’s near-universal PFAS labeling requirement, which a federal court has preliminarily blocked.

More information on the labeling and notification requirements can be found in a previous post.

Federal Court Blocks New Mexico PFAS Labeling Rule

/in , ,

A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction against New Mexico’s far-reaching PFAS labeling requirements for consumer products, finding that the trade associations challenging the rules are likely to prevail on their First Amendment claim. The court’s order turns on its determination that the labeling mandate is not a “reasonable fit” for the state’s asserted interests.

Issued September 16, 2026, the injunction bars enforcement of the labeling mandate in its entirety while the litigation proceeds—less than four months before the requirements were set to take effect.

Regulatory and Legal Background

New Mexico promulgated the PFAS labeling mandate in May 2026. If allowed to take effect, the rules would require all consumer products manufactured for sale or distribution in the state that contain intentionally added PFAS to bear a PFAS label after January 1, 2027. The required label consists of the term “PFAS” within an Erlenmeyer flask pictogram. Only used products and certain products subject to federal regulation, like pesticides and drugs, are exempt.

In July, the plaintiffs—which include the American Chemistry Council, Alliance for Automotive Innovation, American Coatings Association, National Association of Manufacturers, and several other industry groups—filed suit in the District of New Mexico. Their arguments revolve around which type of First Amendment scrutiny should apply to the labeling mandate.

While government-compelled speech is generally subject to heightened scrutiny, a lesser form of scrutiny applies to certain types of compelled commercial disclosures under Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel. As discussed in a previous post, the plaintiffs argue that Zauderer does not apply and that the labeling mandate should therefore be subject to heightened scrutiny.

The Preliminary Injunction

Analyzing the label under Zauderer, the court first found that the required disclosure was likely to be purely factual and uncontroversial. However, the court then preliminarily determined that there was no reasonable connection between the labeling requirement and New Mexico’s asserted interests, making Zauderer inapplicable.

New Mexico asserted interests in protecting consumer health and safety, protecting the environment, and providing relevant information about the manufacturing process to consumers. In response to the plaintiffs’ argument that the label is not purely factual because it misleadingly communicates hazard, New Mexico stressed that the label is not a warning. Instead, the state argued, the label merely promotes consumer awareness of PFAS.

This proved to be the state’s undoing. “In characterizing the required label as a ‘consumer awareness label,’ and not a ‘warning label,’ Defendants destroy the connection between the purpose of the required disclosure – to promote consumer and environmental health – and the means employed to realize that purpose, which in other instances is achieved with a warning,” the order states.

“A label that conveys no information cannot, be ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the goal of reducing the health and environmental impact of PFAS for the label does not provide any advice or information about PFAS,” the order continues.

In the court’s view, New Mexico’s characterization of the label makes its goal more akin to addressing “consumer curiosity.” The court noted that other courts have found consumer curiosity to be an insufficient basis for compelled labeling.

The court also observed that New Mexico appears to want the label to operate as a warning, pointing to statements in the state’s expert declarations and on its website characterizing the label as a warning. “However, the Regulation cannot simultaneously, as Schrödinger would have it, be merely a consumer awareness label and not a warning label, and if it is a consumer awareness label it serves to promote consumer curiosity about the contents of various products,” the order states.

Because the court found no reasonable fit between the disclosure requirement and the state’s asserted interests, it concluded that the mandate could not survive heightened scrutiny either.

The case is Am. Chemistry Council v. Kenney, No. 1:26-cv-2130 (D.N.M.), filed July 1, 2026.

New Mexico PFAS Labeling Mandate Faces First Amendment Challenge in Federal Court

/in , ,

A collection of trade associations has sued in federal court to block New Mexico’s PFAS labeling requirement for consumer products, arguing that the regulation violates the First Amendment and the dormant Commerce Clause.

The plaintiffs—including the American Chemistry Council, Alliance for Automotive Innovation, American Coatings Association, National Association of Manufacturers, and several other industry groups—filed their complaint on July 1, 2026, along with a motion for a preliminary injunction based solely on their First Amendment claim.  As it stands, the labeling requirement applies to nearly all products manufactured for sale in New Mexico on or after January 1, 2027.  While several other states have adopted PFAS labeling rules, none apply so broadly.

The federal suit follows a state-court challenge to the labeling requirement, which also alleges First Amendment violations.  That case, filed by a paint manufacturer in May, separately argues that the regulation violates state law because it exceeds statutory authority and imposes an impracticable labeling deadline.

Regulatory Background

New Mexico’s PFAS Protection Act, enacted in 2025, phases in prohibitions on products containing intentionally added PFAS and requires manufacturers to report their use of PFAS to the state.  The law defines PFAS broadly but exempts certain products from its requirements, including fluoropolymers.

In April 2026, following a rulemaking hearing, the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) approved regulations proposed by the New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED) to implement the Act, including a labeling requirement.  The mandated label consists of the term “PFAS” inside an Erlenmeyer flask symbol.  Notably, the statutory exemptions to the prohibitions and reporting requirements do not extend to the labeling mandate.

The First Amendment Claims

The plaintiffs’ First Amendment arguments center on which level of scrutiny applies.  Compelled commercial speech is ordinarily subject to heightened scrutiny, which the plaintiffs argue the labeling requirement cannot survive.  A lesser standard applies only to disclosures that are purely factual and uncontroversial, relate to the terms under which a product or service is offered, and are not unduly burdensome—the test established in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel.  In the preliminary injunction motion, the plaintiffs contend the label fails on every count.

Not purely factual.  The plaintiffs argue the Erlenmeyer flask symbol doesn’t convey factual information so much as a warning.  Commercial manufacturing doesn’t actually use Erlenmeyer flasks, they note, and there is ongoing scientific debate over which substances even qualify as PFAS.  Like a skull-and-crossbones for poison or a flame symbol for flammability, the flask is designed to signal danger, the filing argues.  While NMED testified that the flask tells costumers that the product contains a chemical “they might want to know about,” that interpretation “does not pass the straight face test,” since the state “does not require the Erlenmeyer flask graphic for any other chemical on the neutral theory that consumers ‘might want to know about’ it.”

Not uncontroversial.  The filing next argues that this warning is controversial because the risks associated with PFAS as a class are “at best unsettled.”  For example, the plaintiffs point to fluoropolymers, which they say are understood to present little to no risk when used in products.  To the extent that uncertainty exists on this point, they argue it does not help New Mexico, because it only suggests that the question is controversial.  “If the government wants to present its position concerning an unsettled scientific topic to consumers, then it must do so itself,” the filing states.

Not related to the consumer transaction.  The plaintiffs argue that any upstream or downstream harms associated with PFAS—including releases from manufacturing or disposal—fall outside Zauderer‘s scope because they don’t relate to the terms of the transaction with the consumer.

Unduly burdensome.  Finally, the plaintiffs assert that compliance will be extraordinarily costly and disruptive, potentially running into the hundreds of millions of dollars, in part because manufacturers with global distribution chains may need to relabel their entire product lines.

The motion for a preliminary injunction ends by requesting that the court, at a minimum, enjoin enforcement of the labeling mandate as applied to products only containing fluoropolymers or PFAS to which consumers will not be exposed.

The Dormant Commerce Clause Claims

The complaint also raises two Commerce Clause claims not included in the preliminary injunction motion.

The first argues that the regulation improperly reaches conduct entirely outside New Mexico.  No products containing intentionally added PFAS are manufactured in the state, the complaint notes, yet the mandate applies even when a manufacturer never directly transacts in New Mexico—for instance, when it sells to a third-party wholesaler that independently distributes there.  The plaintiffs argue this amounts to direct regulation of interstate commerce.

The second claims that the regulation’s burdens on interstate commerce exceed its local benefits.  In part because no products are manufactured with intentionally added PFAS in New Mexico, the complaint argues, the costs of compliance will fall almost entirely on out-of-state commerce.  New Mexico had less burdensome alternatives—like carving out fluoropolymers or eliminating the flask symbol—that would have a lesser impact, evidencing that the requirement is excessive, the complaint concludes.

The case is American Chemistry Council v. Kenney, No. 1:26-cv-2130 (D.N.M.), filed July 1, 2026.  A hearing on the preliminary injunction motion has been set for August 27, 2026, at 8:30 AM MT.

New Mexico PFAS Labeling Rule Faces Appeal Over Free Speech, Agency Authority

/in , ,

A docketing statement has been filed in a state-court challenge to New Mexico’s near-universal PFAS labeling requirements, finalized by the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) in April as part of a broader rule implementing the state’s PFAS Protection Act (HB 212).

The docketing statement, filed June 22, 2026, identifies four issues on appeal:

  1. First Amendment. The rule requires manufacturers to affix a PFAS label—an Erlenmeyer flask bearing the term “PFAS”—to products containing any substance meeting HB 212’s definition of PFAS.  The appellant argues that the definition is among the broadest in use by any government or regulatory body, and “encompasses substances whose status as PFAS is subject to robust scientific debate, compelling businesses to make untrue and misleading claims on their products.”
  2. Exceedance of statutory authority—exemptions. HB 212 expressly exempts sixteen categories of products from its prohibitions and reporting requirements.  The appellant contends that the rule nevertheless requires labeling for most of those exempt products, extending the rule’s reach beyond the enabling statute.
  3. Arbitrary deadline. The rule requires labels on products manufactured on or after January 1, 2027, less than nine months after the rule’s adoption.  According to the appellant, relabeling requires packaging redesign, legal and regulatory review, coordination with printers and suppliers, and production schedule alignment.  The administrative record showed manufacturers need at least 18 months to comply, but the EIB arbitrarily rejected that evidence, the appellant argues.
  4. Exceedance of statutory authority—fees. The rule imposes fees for PFAS reporting submissions, currently unavoidable use applications, and label waivers.  The appellant contends that HB 212 does not grant the EIB authority to impose fees.

The case is Diamond Vogel, Inc. v. New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, No. A-1-CA-43483 (N.M. Ct. App.), filed 05/22/2026.

New Mexico PFAS in Products Rule Appealed

/in , ,

A legal challenge has been filed in state court against New Mexico’s PFAS in products rule, which was finalized last month.

As noted in a recent Chemical Watch article, concerns include product labeling issues and timelines that emerged during the rulemaking process.  The final rule’s labeling requirements apply to all products containing intentionally added PFAS manufactured on or after January 1, 2027, with narrow exceptions.

More details will become available after the appellant files a docketing statement, due within 30 days of the suit’s filing on May 22, 2026.  The notice of appeal can be found here.

For more on the rulemaking, view our New Mexico PFAS archive.

New Mexico Adopts Nation’s Most Far-Reaching PFAS Labeling Rules

/in ,
Update (April 23, 2026)

The final rule, as submitted to New Mexico State Records Center and Archives, is available here.  The final order and statement of reasons, dated April 17, can be found here.  The rule is slated for publication in the May 5, 2026, volume of the New Mexico Register.

* * *

New Mexico has approved “universal” PFAS labeling requirements beginning in 2027, according to the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED).

The Environmental Improvement Board approved the requirements on March 23, 2026.  Although the final rule is not yet available, the final proposed rule requires the term “PFAS” inside an Erlenmeyer flask on all products containing intentionally added PFAS manufactured on or after January 1, 2027.  “PFAS” is broadly defined by statute to include all substances with at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.

Only used products, pesticides, veterinary products, and medical devices and drugs are exempt from the labeling requirements.  Although the controlling statute includes additional exemptions from PFAS prohibitions and reporting requirements, the final proposed rule does not extend them to labeling.  Manufacturers may, however, request a labeling waiver if the product falls within one of the statutory exemptions and no PFAS will ever come into direct contact with a consumer.

The New Mexico legislature recently instructed NMED to make recommendations on whether those statutory exemptions should be modified or removed, including an exemption for fluoropolymers.

In addition to the labeling requirements, the adopted regulations will implement the statutory prohibitions and reporting requirements, which also begin in 2027.

Changes Made During Rulemaking

The final proposed rule’s labeling requirements substantially differ from the original proposal.  After commenters raised First Amendment concerns, NMED removed a requirement that manufacturers use labels with claims about the hazards of PFAS and link to a NMED webpage on PFAS.  In response to concerns about the practicability of labeling before January 1, 2027, NMED relaxed the deadline, allowing continued sale of unlabeled products manufactured prior to that date.  And, after commenters argued that certain products labels are preempted by federal law, NMED added the exemptions for pesticides, veterinary products, and medical devices.

Nevertheless, New Mexico’s PFAS labeling requirements are now the most far-reaching in the country.  Other states, like Connecticut, have adopted labeling requirements, but they only apply to a discrete selection of products.

California Bill Would Phase Out PFAS Pesticides, Require Label Disclosures

/in , , , ,

California is considering legislation to phase out use, require labeling, and prohibit registrations of pesticides containing PFAS, defined as a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.

AB 1603 states that PFAS exposure “poses a significant threat to the environment and public health” and that their intentional use in pesticides is increasing.  The bill notes that EPA has approved 70 active ingredient PFAS pesticides, including 53 allowed for use in California by state regulators, and that a 2025 analysis found that approximately 2.5 million pounds of active ingredient PFAS pesticides are applied in California annually.

The bill would immediately prohibit the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) from registering or re-registering pesticides with intentionally added PFAS as an active or inert ingredient, and would phase in the following additional requirements:

  • January 1, 2028: Prohibition on manufacturing, distribution, or sale unless labeled with the following statement: “This product contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, and can contaminate produce, groundwater, drinking water, soil, and the environment.”
  • January 1, 2030: Prohibition on using, manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale pesticides with 23 specific intentionally added PFAS.
  • January 1, 2035: Blanket prohibition on using, manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale pesticides with any intentionally added PFAS.

AB 1603 would also designate pesticides with intentionally added PFAS as a restricted material.  By January 1, 2028, CDPR would be required to prescribe the times and conditions under which such materials may be used or possessed across the state, with authority to prohibit use or possession in certain areas.  Use or possession would require a written permit from the county agricultural commissioner, and those permits and related public disclosures would be subject to the same label statement described above.

Any state labeling requirement must contend with the preemption provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which prohibit states from imposing labeling requirements “in addition to or different from those required under” the statute.  EPA does not currently require any label disclosure for pesticides containing PFAS.

AB 1603 was introduced on January 16, 2026.  The Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials will hold a hearing on the bill on April 14, 2026.

EPA: Single Fluorinated Compounds Aren’t PFAS

Late last year, EPA published a webpage pushing back on concerns about pesticides containing a single fluorinated carbon—the threshold for designation as PFAS under AB 1603.

“EPA-approved single fluorinated compounds are not forever chemicals, they are not PFAS, and do not pose any risks of concern when used as labeled,” the webpage states.

EPA emphasizes that, regardless of a pesticide’s contents, registration under FIFRA requires a determination that the product will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment.  The agency conducts “robust, chemical-specific” hazard and exposure assessments, “ensuring that every scientific aspect of these compounds is thoroughly evaluated before any registration decision is made.”  It conducts a similarly thorough evaluation when setting food tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), which requires a “reasonable certainty of no harm,” EPA states.

EPA notes that pesticides containing a single fluorinated carbon can offer agronomic benefits and may replace more harmful alternatives, such as organochlorines.  The agency also points to the European Union, United Kingdom, Canada, and other jurisdictions that have registered or are considering registering pesticides containing a fluorinated carbon.

Michigan Bill Would Mandate PFAS Labeling for 13 Product Categories

/in ,

On March 4, 2026, Michigan lawmakers introduced legislation that would impose PFAS reporting and labeling requirements on manufacturers of 13 product categories.

Senate Bill 816’s reporting provisions would take effect first, prohibiting the manufacture or sale of covered products on January 1, 2028, unless prior notification is submitted to the state.  The labeling requirement—the phrase “Made with PFAS chemicals”—would apply one year later, on January 1, 2029.  Intentionally added PFAS in covered products would not be prohibited so long as the notification and labeling requirements are met.

PFAS is broadly defined as “all members of the class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least 1 fully fluorinated carbon atom.”  The bill grants the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy discretionary rulemaking authority to implement its provisions.

Covered Products

The bill covers the following product categories:

  • Apparel
  • Carpets and rugs
  • Cleaning products
  • Cookware
  • Dental floss
  • Fabric treatment
  • Children’s products
  • Menstruation products
  • Textile furnishings
  • Ski wax
  • Upholstered furniture
  • Turnout gear
  • Adult mattresses

These categories largely mirror those covered by Connecticut’s PFAS notification and labeling provisions, which take effect this July.

The bill excludes products manufactured before its effective date, which in Michigan is typically 90 days from the end of the session at which a bill is passed.  Also excluded are used products, products preempted by federal law, medical drugs and devices, and replacement parts for products manufactured before the effective date.  The bill does not apply to businesses with fewer than 10 employees.

Notifications and Labeling

Notifications would be required at least one month before a covered product’s release, including chemical identifiers, PFAS amounts and concentration ranges, and manufacturer contact information.  Manufacturers would be required to update notifications upon any change.

Labeling is established as a manufacturer responsibility unless a wholesaler or retailer agrees to assume it. The bill would require labels to be clearly visible prior to sale and sufficiently durable to remain legible for the product’s useful life.