University of St. Thomas Law Journal

From Pollution to Policy: The High-Stakes Battle Over Minnesota’s PFAS Ban

Sheldon Noess*

Minnesota has taken bold steps to address the environmental and health hazards posed by perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often referred to as “forever chemicals.”1 These synthetic compounds, known for their persistence in the environment and links to serious health risks, have sparked growing concern across the nation.2 In response, Minnesota recently enacted one of the most comprehensive PFAS bans in the country, prohibiting the sale of products containing these chemicals, including cookware, textiles, and cosmetics, which started January 1, 2025.3 However, this progressive legislation has faced pushback, with the cookware industry filing a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality.4 This blog examines Minnesota’s efforts to address PFAS contamination through its groundbreaking ban, the legal challenges it faces from industry groups, and the broader implications for environmental policy, consumer rights, and state regulatory authority.

The PFAS Ban in Minnesota

Minnesota’s PFAS ban, often called Amara’s Law, is a landmark piece of environmental legislation aimed at curbing the spread of these harmful “forever chemicals.”5 Effective January 1, 2025, the law prohibits the sale of products containing intentionally added PFAS in key categories such as cookware, textiles, cosmetics, and carpeting.6 The legislation was driven in part by the state’s long history with PFAS contamination, particularly linked to 3M, the Minnesota based manufacturing company that was one of the first to produce and use PFAS on a large scale.7 Likewise, Amara’s Law is part of a broader effort to address the extensive contamination of Minnesota’s water and soil, which could cost taxpayers an estimated $14 billion to $28 billion in cleanup over the next two decades.8

The law also serves as a proactive step toward reducing the public health risks associated with PFAS, which have been linked to cancer, liver damage, and other serious illnesses.9 By targeting products where PFAS use is deemed non-essential, Minnesota hopes to encourage manufacturers to innovate safer alternatives and set a precedent for other states to follow.

The Legal Challenge

Despite its environmental and public health goals, Minnesota’s PFAS ban has sparked legal opposition from the Cookware Manufacturers Association, which recently filed a lawsuit challenging the law’s constitutionality.10 The lawsuit alleges that the ban violates the Commerce Clause by unfairly burdening interstate trade and discriminating against out-of-state businesses.11 The plaintiffs argue that complying with the law’s restrictions will impose significant economic and operational challenges, particularly for industries heavily reliant on PFAS for product durability and performance.12

Advocates in Minnesota, however, maintain that the law is a necessary and justified measure to protect public health and the environment.13 Further, advocates assert that the ban is narrowly tailored to target non-essential uses of PFAS while allowing room for innovation and safer alternatives.14 As the case unfolds, its outcome could set a crucial precedent, not only for PFAS regulations, but also for the extent to which states can enforce environmental protections that may impact interstate commerce.

Public Policy and Consumer Choice

The debate surrounding Minnesota’s PFAS ban highlights a fundamental tension between public health protections and consumer freedom. On the one hand, the law seeks to address the environmental and health risks associated with PFAS, prioritizing long-term safety and sustainability.15 On the other hand, industry groups argue that the ban significantly limits consumer access to products that meet federal safety standards, such as nonstick cookware made with fluoropolymers like polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), which the FDA has approved for food contact.16

The cookware industry asserts that the law unfairly categorizes all PFAS as equally harmful, despite scientific distinctions between small-molecule PFAS (e.g., perfluorooctanoic acid, perfluorooctane sulfonic acid) and larger, stable compounds like PTFE.17 By banning these substances outright, the law may inadvertently push consumers toward alternative products that are less effective or untested in terms of durability and safety. From this perspective, the ban could reduce consumer choice without necessarily achieving its intended environmental goals.

Minnesota’s approach also raises broader questions about the role of state governments in regulating products already approved by federal agencies. The cookware manufacturers argue that the state’s disclosure requirements and outright bans conflict with federal trade secret protections and regulatory frameworks, creating additional compliance burdens for businesses.18 For consumers, these conflicts could lead to reduced availability of certain products in Minnesota, driving up costs or forcing residents to purchase alternatives from other states.

Ultimately, this tension underscores the complexity of crafting effective public policy in the face of scientific uncertainty and competing interests. While Minnesota’s ban is driven by the need to protect public health and address the high cost of PFAS contamination, balancing these priorities with consumer choice and industry innovation will remain a challenge as the legal battle unfolds.

Broader Implications

Minnesota’s PFAS ban is more than just a state-level policy; it represents a growing national reckoning with the environmental and health hazards of “forever chemicals.” By taking such a strong stance, Minnesota positions itself as a leader in combating PFAS contamination and setting a model for other states to follow. If the legislation withstands legal challenges, it could pave the way for similar bans across the country, encouraging widespread adoption of safer, PFAS-free alternatives in consumer products.

At the same time, the lawsuit underscores the complex balance between environmental protection and economic concerns. Industries reliant on PFAS are grappling with the costs of reformulating products, while states and government agencies face mounting pressure to address contamination before it worsens.19 The case could influence future legal battles over state-led environmental initiatives, clarifying the boundaries of state power under the Commerce Clause and potentially reshaping the regulatory landscape for harmful chemicals.

Conclusion

Minnesota’s PFAS ban represents a bold and necessary step in addressing the growing crisis posed by “forever chemicals.” By prioritizing public health and environmental sustainability, the state has set a precedent that could influence national efforts to phase out these harmful substances. However, the legal challenges from industry groups highlight the tension between economic interests and environmental protections, raising questions about the limits of state authority in regulating commerce.

As the lawsuit unfolds, its outcome will not only shape the future of Minnesota’s PFAS ban but also serve as a litmus test for the viability of similar legislation nationwide. In the face of mounting environmental and public health challenges, finding a balanced approach that fosters innovation, safeguards public interests, and respects legal boundaries will be essential for creating a sustainable and equitable future.

* Sheldon Noess, J.D. Candidate, University of St. Thomas School of Law Class of 2025 (Senior Editor).

  1. PFAS in Minnesota, Minn. Pollution Control Agency, https://www.pca.state.mn.us/pfas-in-minnesota#:~:text=State%20agencies%20in%20Minnesota%20are,The%20chemicals%20are%20produced%2C%20used [https://perma.cc/57E9-VFH7] (last visited Jan. 19, 2025). ↩︎
  2. PFAS Explained, Env’t Prot. Agency (Oct. 3, 2024), https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-explained [https://perma.cc/ZP4X-7FR6]; Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), Nat’l Inst. of Env’t Health Sciences, https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/pfc [https://perma.cc/SR4K-34YC] (last visited Jan. 31, 2025); Melba Newsome, ‘Forever Chemicals’ May Pose a Bigger Risk to Our Health than Scientists Thought, Science News (Nov. 29, 2022, 7:00 AM), https://www.sciencenews.org/article/pfas-forever-chemicals-health-risk-water [https://perma.cc/LKV8-YHW8]. ↩︎
  3. Minn. Stat. § 116.943 (2024); 2025 PFAS Prohibitions, Minn. Pollution Control Agency, https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air-water-land-climate/2025-pfas-prohibitions [https://perma.cc/QRS9-B6P9] (last visited Jan. 31, 2025). ↩︎
  4. Katie Wermus, Minnesota PFAS Ban: Nonstick Pan Makers Challenge New Law, Fox 9 KMSP (Jan. 7, 2025, 12:19 PM), https://www.fox9.com/news/cookware-lawsuit-pfas-ban-minnesota. [https://perma.cc/5WHG-LUJR]; Regina Medina, Cookware Group Files Lawsuit Against Minnesota’s PFAS Ban, MPR News (Jan. 8, 2025, 7:33 AM), https://www.mprnews.org/story/2025/01/08/cookware-group-files-lawsuit-against-minnesotas-pfas-ban [https://perma.cc/4VDZ-KHR6]. ↩︎
  5. Minn. Stat. § 116.943 (2024). ↩︎
  6. Id. ↩︎
  7. April Reese, Minnesota, a Birthplace of PFAS, Tackles Contaminated Waste Sites on Multiple Fronts, Waste Dive (Aug. 17, 2023), https://www.wastedive.com/news/minnesota-pfas-3m-walz-landfill-compost-wastewater/690941/ [https://perma.cc/YU3L-MV57]. ↩︎
  8. Groundbreaking Study Shows Unaffordable Costs of PFAS Cleanup from Wastewater, Minn. Pollution Control Agency (June 6, 2023), https://www.pca.state.mn.us/news-and-stories/groundbreaking-study-shows-unaffordable-costs-of-pfas-cleanup-from-wastewater [https://perma.cc/T7W3-2LRP]. ↩︎
  9. PFAS Exposure and Risk of Cancer, Nat’l Cancer Inst., https://dceg.cancer.gov/research/what-we-study/pfas [https://perma.cc/RC5Q-NVHH] (last visited Jan. 31, 2025). ↩︎
  10. See Complaint, Cookware Sustainability All. v. Kessler (D. Minn. 2025) (No. 0:25-CV-00041). ↩︎
  11. Id. at 33–36. ↩︎
  12. Id. at 16–21. ↩︎
  13. Kirsti Marohn, Far-Reaching Ban on ‘Forever Chemicals’ Set to Become Minnesota Law, MPR News (May 17, 2023, 3:54 PM), https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/05/17/farreaching-ban-on-forever-chemicals-set-to-become-minnesota-law [https://perma.cc/2R76-VMZG]. ↩︎
  14. Id. ↩︎
  15. PFAS in Products, Minn. Pollution Control Agency, https://www.pca.state.mn.us/get-engaged/pfas-in-products [https://perma.cc/HNC4-YFF7] (last visited Jan. 31, 2025). ↩︎
  16. Brooks Johnson & Chloe Johnson, Cookware Association Sues Minnesota over PFAS Ban, Calling It Unconstitutional, Star Tribune (Jan. 7, 2025, 2:27 PM), https://www.startribune.com/cookware-association-sues-minnesota-over-pfas-ban-calling-it-unconstitutional/601202977 [https://perma.cc/9AG3-S65J]. ↩︎
  17. Complaint at 19, Cookware Sustainability All. v. Kessler (D. Minn. 2025) (No. 0:25-CV-00041). ↩︎
  18. Id. at 21–33.   ↩︎
  19. Molly Brind’Amour, Issue Brief: The State of PFAS Forever Chemicals in America (2024), Env’t and Energy Study Inst. (Sept. 6, 2024), https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/issue-brief-the-state-of-pfas-forever-chemicals-in-america-2024 [https://perma.cc/U5LC-PF7N]. ↩︎

Posted

in

by

USTLawJournal

Tags:

Comments

Leave a comment