Q&A: State Sen. Ginny Lyons Shares Vermont's Path Forward to Eliminate PFAS Contamination

The governor of Vermont, Phil Scott, signed bill S25 into law on 30 May 2024. This bill, which passed Vermont's House of Representative and Senate in May 2024, expands the scope of products covered under the distribution and sales ban on products containing intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), such as food packaging and cosmetics.

Xiaolu Wang, on behalf of 3E, had a conversation with Vermont Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons, the primary sponsor of this bill, to learn about the efforts to regulate consumer products containing intentionally added PFAS in the Green Mountain State. Senator Lyons also shared her view on the path forward to better protect public health and the environment of Vermont from the potential dangers of PFAS containing consumer products.

The following is an edited transcript of the conversation.

Bill S25 does not include a product notification requirement for PFAS-containing products. Considering that many states have incorporated such requirements in their legislation on PFAS in consumer products, what is the rationale behind excluding a formal product notification requirement in this bill?

We are eliminating PFAS in specific products, so we wouldn't need to have notification for most products named under the bill, such as artificial turf and cookware and so on. With that said, all the regulated products would require a certificate of compliance. They need to state they are complying with Vermont state law.

The second bill we passed over to the House was S197, which was integrated into S25 when it came back from the House. If you look at the section where we ask the Agency of Natural Resources to look at what other states are doing and to work with others in our state, you'll see the provisions for them to come back with recommendations about unintentionally added PFAS or other chemicals and how we will oversee those products. Basically, it's about making a legislative recommendation for a full implementation plan.

Maine initially included a product notification requirement in their PFAS legislation, but they have recently narrowed its scope, possibly due to budgetary constraints. Was budgetary concern also a factor in Vermont's decision not to include a product notification requirement in Bill S25?

I don't think there's any feet-dragging here. Our biggest goal is to really put our arms around all PFAS and other toxic chemicals and to do what we can in a more systemic way to keep these chemicals out of any products we have, while also establish a compliance structure and framework for state oversight. This involves determining which departments will be responsible, such as the Department of Health, the Agency of Natural Resources, and the role of the Attorney General.

We understand Maine has had to pull back on some things, but we did not specifically look at anything that they've done. My goal is to implement a plan and ask the Agency of Natural Resources to collaborate with the Agency of Agriculture, the Department of Health, and the Attorney General to propose a full program to identify and restrict the sale and distribution of consumer products containing PFAS chemicals that impact public health and the environment.

We aim for a comprehensive approach, moving beyond listing specific PFAS chemicals to eliminating these “forever chemicals” as much as possible. We’ve heard that some PFAS chemicals are less problematic, so having experts in the working group evaluate this is crucial. We do have one person in our Agency of Natural Resources who has been working very hard in this area with other states and looking at rational, regional oversight.

We want a full plan without loopholes to address PFAS entering the state and in groundwater. We expect recommendations for this implementation plan to involve all relevant agencies and possibly lead to specific legislation. We may have multiple pieces of legislation to address this issue thoroughly. I am committed to this effort, as it is crucial for public health and the environment. We expect recommendations by November 1 this year, and if they are not satisfactory, we will strengthen the legislation further.

S25 has a much broader scope, covering 17 harmful substances in cosmetics, not just PFAS chemicals. Is this part of a more comprehensive approach to regulate all chemicals entering Vermont?

That's one way of looking at it, yes. When I think of a comprehensive approach, I think about taking the categories of chemicals and eliminating them, rather than going product by product. Obviously, the whole range of cosmetics is something we have not addressed previously, so this is our first opportunity to identify and eliminate potential toxins that people are exposed to when they use cosmetics. It's about time that we eliminated them.

In the public comments submitted for this bill, the Department of Health of Washington state provided input on their experience regulating PFAS-containing cosmetics. Have you or the committees reviewing this bill worked with other states in drafting S25? If so, can you explain how this interstate collaboration worked?

Historically, I've put together legislation based on various inputs and then shared it at forums like the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). Years ago, I presented on emerging issues like BPA, which caught the attention of Washington state. We've been working together and separately ever since. The bill I introduced included recommendations and concerns from other states, as well as input from environmental groups and public health experts.

So, the answer is yes, we do look at what other states are doing. While I don't have a staff dedicated to communicating directly with other states, my legal counsel and our advocacy organizations gather and share information on state-level activities. This helps us identify key chemicals and understand the science behind their negative effects on people, the environment, and wildlife.

However, states like Washington and California have substantial regulatory programs with significant investments in people, labs, and resources. We can't compete with that level of infrastructure. Instead, we rely on collaboration and staying in sync with other states. We have knowledgeable individuals in our Agency of Natural Resources and Department of Health who work closely with counterparts in New England states like Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire. This collaboration helps us get the best possible recommendations tailored for Vermont.

While we can't establish extensive regulatory bodies like some larger states, we can build on our existing programs for oversight through consumer product regulation, such as our children's product program.

Are you hearing from your constituents regarding PFAS and this legislation? Is PFAS something that concerns them?

Yes, and yes. A few years ago, some of my constituents approached me about eliminating PFAS, particularly in relation to fire foam, so we worked on that. My constituents are very concerned about PFAS, especially regarding article-treated seeds and other agricultural applications.

Interestingly, I've only heard positive comments about this legislation. There is a lot of support and interest in moving forward. Occasionally, I hear concerns about specific chemicals used in essential applications, where substitutes might not be available. However, I have not heard concerns suggesting that this legislation would harm small businesses, particularly regarding cosmetics. Overall, the feedback has been very positive.

States appear to be leading the charge when it comes to banning and regulating PFAS. Do you feel states are stepping in because the federal government is moving too slowly, or is PFAS an issue that states should regulate for their citizens and business community?

Because the federal government hasn't been proactive, we're left to make these decisions at the state level. The culture in the U.S. has long been one of “generally regarded as safe,” relying on outdated research from the 1980s that favored keeping certain chemicals in products without thorough risk-benefit analysis.

The federal government should have required concrete, objective testing from independent sources like universities or labs to assess which chemicals are appropriate for consumer products and the environment. Not just test it once – we should have ongoing clinical information about the effects on people, animals, and plants.

So yes, I do blame the federal government, but this is also part of a broader cultural issue that prioritizes industrial chemical production over precautionary testing. Our culture has allowed this situation to develop, but I do think now we know better. I blame Congress, the EPA, and all of us for not acting with alacrity to improve the outcomes here. It is time to change this and ensure better regulation and safety for everyone.

——

Editor’s Note: 3E is expanding news coverage to provide customers with insights into topics that enable a safer, more sustainable world by protecting people, safeguarding products and helping business grow. Q&A articles feature our reporters’ exclusive 1:1 interview with regulatory and industry influencers.