Steven Lasee, an environmental toxicologist and chemist living in Duluth, made a startling finding last year when studying “forever chemicals” known to many by their acronym: PFAS.
Lasee and the team of researchers from Texas Tech University found concentrations of the perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in six out of the 10 agricultural pesticides they tested in Texas that are commonly used to treat cotton. And PFAS, some forms of which are linked to health risks including certain cancers, was not a listed component in any.
“Regardless of how the PFAS got into the pesticides it will end up on anything they’re applied to, including our food,” Lasee told Minnesota lawmakers during a state House committee hearing in March.
The possibility of pesticides spreading PFAS across Minnesota and permeating soil, water and food has captured the attention of DFLers who control the state Legislature. And it’s behind a new effort to regulate the products.
Democrats are now poised to give the state’s Department of Agriculture the power to ban pesticides with PFAS. That won’t happen until at least 2032. However, by 2026, pesticide companies will need to report whether a product intentionally contains PFAS. Both policies were passed by the House and Senate on Thursday and sent to Gov. Tim Walz for his signature.
The regulations are part of a burgeoning effort to crack down on or research PFAS in agriculture, which has gained some traction in Maine and Maryland. And the limits come as Minnesota lawmakers agreed to ban a swath of other products from non-essential use of PFAS, including carpets and cookware, much sooner than 2032.
The Minnesota restrictions on pesticides still fell short of what at least some Democrats wanted. The House passed a bill earlier this year that would have banned any pesticide with PFAS starting this summer, a decision that could have impacted more than 14% of pesticides on the market, according to Walz’s administration.
But the potential for tougher action on PFAS in pesticides — and other DFL efforts to restrict pesticide use — drew fierce opposition from agriculture trade groups who said the regulations would hurt farmers and limit products that are closely scrutinized by federal environmental officials.
Even Walz’s ag department said the limits on PFAS could have prohibited more than 2,000 pesticides with little notice. And the Walz administration said it would have caused headaches for regulators who need more information to understand exactly where the chemicals are, why they are there, and what health risks they pose.
“I don’t think we have a full grasp of the PFAS situation,” said Peder Kjeseth, an assistant commissioner for the Department of Agriculture. “We say ‘roughly’ over 2,000 (pesticides) because we don’t have a clear picture of how much PFAS is in which pesticide.”
Ag department officials say while the department technically can deny or cancel state registration for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-approved pesticides, it has rarely done so and never has for PFAS. While the legislation envisions a gradual ban of PFAS in pesticides, ag department officials could take action sooner than 2032.
Democrats, and some Republicans take on PFAS
The high-profile campaign to crack down on PFAS in the state has been largely successful in Minnesota this year.
That’s in part because Amara Strande, a 20-year-old who died of cancer in April that she believed was linked to the pollutants, made an impression on lawmakers while crusading against PFAS.
The chemicals were developed by Minnesota’s own 3M. They are durable, heat resistant, prevent friction and can repel water and grease. And they are either currently in, or have been historically part of, a wide range of products like firefighting foam, non-stick cookware, carpets, ski wax, guitar strings and certain food packaging.
That durability is also why PFAS are called “forever chemicals.” They don’t break down easily and can build up over time in the environment and in people. 3M already phased out manufacturing of two common compounds — PFOS and PFOA — and last year announced it would phase out all types of the chemicals by the end of 2025.
House and Senate lawmakers negotiating a broader environmental bill struck a deal that would ban starting in 2025 the sale or distribution of many products with intentionally-added PFAS, including carpets, cleaning products, cookware, cosmetics, dental floss, menstruation products, ski wax, upholstered furniture and more.
And by 2032, no product that intentionally contains PFAS could be sold in Minnesota unless state officials say its use is essential for the “health, safety or the functioning of society” and there are no reasonably available alternatives. The agreement drew some Republican support.
A thorny debate over pesticides
Separately, lawmakers hashing out agriculture policy and spending have grappled with the question of pesticides.
During that hearing in March, state Rep. Rick Hansen, a DFLer from South St. Paul who chairs the House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy Committee, said recent publications showing PFAS in the ag products were driving his bill that would implement a quick ban.
“I think this is a really stunning question, because if they are in pesticides and they are being purchased and being spread with the pesticide that is very concerning,” Hansen said. “We’re finding PFAS everywhere now, and if it’s in the pesticides we need to know about it and do something about it.”
That proposed ban, and a host of other regulations on pesticides, were approved by the House as part of a larger bill containing policy and spending tied to agriculture.
The Environmental Protection Agency has taken some steps to limit PFAS in pesticides. Last year the agency blocked the use of 12 chemicals from being used as inert ingredients in pesticides.
But the definition of PFAS in Hansen’s bill was broad, leading to a more expansive restriction on the chemicals.
Using that definition, at least 2,000 of the roughly 14,000 of the agricultural pesticides currently registered in Minnesota would include PFAS as an active ingredient. That does not include pesticides with PFAS as an inert ingredient. “So it’s likely the number of pesticides that contain PFAS is probably well above 2,000,” said Dan Stoddard, an assistant director in the ag department’s pesticide and fertilizer management division.
That, said Rep. Paul Anderson, R-Starbuck, would be a “pretty staggering number of ag chemicals.” It’s unclear whether or not there could be alternatives for every product, Stoddard said.
In a conference committee — made up of House and Senate lawmakers — meeting last week to negotiate a final omnibus agriculture bill, the ag industry pushed back hard against the proposed ban.
Daryn McBeth, a lobbyist for the pesticide trade group CropLife America, said the EPA and other federal agencies carefully evaluate pesticides. He said testing isn’t available to show a product is free of all types of PFAS laid out by Hansen’s bill and that those compounds aren’t the same. The one approved EPA method for testing in pesticides can only detect 28 PFAS substances, McBeth said.
“The practical effect would be, likely, a lot of products that are already registered and deemed to be safe would be unable to be registered because industry and the department couldn’t disprove whether there’s these molecules in there or not,” McBeth said.
Some have raised Maine’s experience with restricting PFAS as a cautionary tale more than a success.
In January, the Press Herald in Maine reported the state’s law could block more than 1,300 pesticides. That ban begins in 2030, but an earlier deadline for manufacturers to disclose the PFAS could lead to higher prices for farmers or chemical producers exiting the market altogether, the newspaper reported.
Minnesota’s ag department echoed some concerns from industry. Ag officials raised questions on testing and other issues, too. “The ban, I don’t even know logistically how we would have pulled that off in the time frame given in the original bill,” Kjeseth said. “It would have just been mass confusion not only with producers but also the registrants of these various products.”
What the Legislature passed
In the end, the conference committee rejected some regulations the House wanted on pesticide-treated seeds that had also frustrated Republicans and ag groups. But the lawmakers agreed to a PFAS ban — starting much later, and with some exemptions.
Those provisions were part of the larger agriculture omnibus bill passed by the House and Senate on Thursday with a large chunk of Republican support. The bill, which contains a bevy of other policy and spending, now goes to Walz, who plans to sign it, said a spokeswoman for the governor.
Starting in 2026, pesticide manufacturers will be required to notify the state when their product intentionally contains PFAS. And they’ll have to state why it has PFAS, and the amount of it.
And by 2032, the commissioner will have to ban any pesticide that intentionally contains PFAS — with exceptions. If the use of PFAS is a “currently unavoidable use,” the product does not have to be banned.
That phrase is defined as use of PFAS essential for the health, safety, “or the functioning of society” when alternatives are not reasonably available.
Until then, the ag department will be asked to review published literature and other available information on the presence of PFAS in pesticides in Minnesota to gain a better understanding of the issue.
The proposal does ban unavoidable use of PFAS in cleaning products, which are regarded as pesticides, by 2026. That includes substances used for things like air care, vehicle maintenance and polishes.
The upcoming ban still drew some concerns from Republicans. Sen. Torrey Westrom, R-Alexandria, said on the Senate floor Thursday that lawmakers should retain the power over PFAS and pesticides, not an unelected agency commissioner. And he said he worries about prohibiting products when there may not be an alternative.
Kjeseth, from the ag department, said the bill would help state officials understand the issue better and look at viable alternatives for farmers. He said it’s too soon to know if PFAS in agriculture is some sort of “crisis situation.”
“At this point in time, I just think there’s so many unknowns that it’s really hard to speculate as to how major a problem this is,” he said.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to clarify that the ag department currently can deny state registration for certain pesticides.