[co-author: Shivani Swami (International Policy Advisor)]
In many ways, Maine and Minnesota had the first words on the regulation of PFAS in the U.S. Their broad definitions of the chemicals set the stage for similar regulation across the continent. So when legislators in both states nearly simultaneously propose to shrink those definitions, it bears watching.
- Maine considers exempting fluoropolymer-coated cookware. On March 4, 2025, Senator Jeffrey Timberlake (R) introduced a bill in the Maine Senate proposing to exempt certain polymer-coated cookware from the state’s PFAS in Products law, marking the latest in a series of amendments to the legislation. As the state’s January 1, 2026, ban on cookware approaches, Sen. Timberlake’s bill specifically proposes to exclude polymer-coated durable items that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorizes for food contact from the ban’s definition of “cookware product” and to exempt cookware products with direct food contact surfaces containing polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP) and perfluoroalkoxy alkane (PFA).
- Minnesota considers exempting commercial and industrial products. In Minnesota, Representative Josh Heintzeman (R) introduced a bill that would amend the state’s PFAS in Products law to remove “commercial or industrial” uses from the definition of covered products and to delay manufacturer reporting requirements by two years from January 2026 to 2028.
How far either proposal goes remains to be seen, but both moves may signal uneasiness with the scope or cost of incoming regulatory burdens. While those concerns may be better addressed by a more targeted definition of PFAS that does not include fluoropolymers at all, the proposed category-by-category relief will be welcomed by an industry- and consumer-base that struggles to find suitable alternatives.
