Nearly 50 business associations, including groups representing the plastics and flexible packaging industries, recently endorsed a letter opposing a bill in New Mexico that would heavily regulate per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
House Bill (HB) 212 would create a new program that would regulate all commercial and consumer products, as well as any industrial manufacturing processes that may use PFAS substances, according to the letter sent to the chair of the New Mexico House Judiciary Committee and the state’s Environment and Economic Development departments.
The measure would restrict the sale or distribution of any personal, residential, commercial, or industrial product that contains a PFAS compound unless the Environmental Improvement Board creates an exemption, says the letter signed by Tim Shestek, senior director of state affairs at the American Chemistry Council, and Jason Espinoza, co-owner of KW Consulting, LLC.
“Thousands of companies, and the hundreds of thousands of products and product components these companies manufacture, could only remain in the marketplace pending rules that would be promulgated by the board,” according to the letter.
“Given the sweeping scope of products and processes that would have to be reviewed, we are concerned that the board may not have the necessary technical expertise with the various chemistries, the manufacturing processes, the function of the product, or the complicated—often global—supply chains that bring these products and product components to New Mexico.”
Broad Opposition
The associations that endorsed the letter include the Consumer Brands Association (CBA), The Toy Association, The Vehicle Suppliers Association, Plastics Industry Association, and Flexible Packaging Association (FPA).
Dan Felton, president and CEO of FPA, says that states nationwide have been looking to regulate PFAS at different levels and in different areas, not just plastic packaging.
“There is stuff happening all over the place on PFAS, and some of it is PFAS in water, and some of it is on products,” Felton says. He added that the New Mexico measure is a particularly “bad bill.”
The six-page letter from Shestek and Espinoza outlines their concerns about the measure but also argues that PFAS chemicals have significant attributes such as providing strength, durability, stability, and resilience to products.
“These properties are critical to the reliable and safe function of a broad range of products that are important for industry and consumers,” according to the letter.
“They impart a wide range of performance characteristics that are vital for the manufacture and performance of thousands of different products and industrial equipment. HB 212 impacts products ranging from consumer smart phones to satellites.”
Faulty Foundation
The letter also says the bill is based on a “foundation that incorrectly characterizes all PFAS substances as equal, regardless of any unique properties and uses, environmental and health profiles, potential exposure pathways, and any potential risk.”
Similar measures passed in other states or jurisdictions have been challenging to implement, the letter adds.
“For example, in the European Union (EU), industries have submitted thousands of comments on the widespread consequences of a ban and the lack of suitable alternatives,” according to the letter.
“As a result, EU authorities have had to delay implementation given the complexity of the issue, the number of industries and applications impacted, and the potential consequences for the EU’s long-term sustainability, public health, and economic growth goals.”
The letter ends by saying that while the groups oppose the current bill, they will work with the state on other solutions.
“We are committed to working with you and other stakeholders on a PFAS policy that is grounded in strong scientific principles, protects human health and the environment, leverages existing regulatory requirements and resources, encourages innovation and economic development, and provides regulatory certainty to the business community,” it says.
Thomas A. Barstow is senior editor of FlexPack VOICE®.
Sidebar: Associations That Signed the Letter
Here is a list of the organizations that signed onto the letter opposing the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances legislation in New Mexico:
- Alliance for Automotive Innovation
- Alliance for Chemical Distribution
- American Apparel & Footwear Association
- American Chemistry Council
- American Coatings Association
- American Forest & Paper Association
- American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers
- Animal Health Institute
- Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry
- Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
- Auto Care Association
- Bio-Process Systems Alliance
- Center for Polyurethanes Industry
- Center for Baby and Adult Hygiene Products
- Color Pigments Manufacturers Association
- Consumer Brands Association
- Consumer Healthcare Products Association
- Cookware Sustainability Alliance
- European Federation of the Cookware, Cutlery and Houseware Industry
- Flexible Packaging Association
- Fluid Sealing Association
- Household and Commercial Products Association
- International Sleep Products Association
- Juvenile Product Manufacturers Association
- LKQ Corporation
- Motorcycle Industry Council
- National Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers
- North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers
- Outdoor Power Equipment Institute
- Personal Care and Products Council
- Plastics Industry Association
- Power Tool Institute
- PRINTING United Alliance
- Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association
- Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment
- Specialty Equipment Market Association
- Specialty Vehicle Institute of America
- Spray Foam Roofing & Building Envelop Specialists
- Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance
- The Cookware and Bakeware Alliance
- The Toy Association
- The Vehicle Suppliers Association
- Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association
- Valve Manufacturers Association
- Window and Door Manufacturers Association
- Worldwide Cleaning Industry Association