Essay
All legislators should vote yes on Bill HF1000. This bill would prohibit PFAS in certain products, make disclosure required, and rulemaking authorized. It limits how much a carcinogen is used, it benefits the people instead of companies, and it restricts unnecessary forever chemicals.
This bill would provide restrictions on forever chemicals per- and polyfluoroalkyl, or PFAS. PFAS are chains of carbon-fluorine bonds, which are hydrophobic, with a “head” that is hydrophilic. PFAS are forever chemicals because their bonds do not break down and last forever. They get built up in our groundwater, our livestock, and our grain. Then they get built up in our bodies and environment. Stopping the continued adding of PFAS will help us by giving us time to clean our environment.
PFAS are known to cause cancer, even in small amounts, in the parts per quadrillion. According to the EPA, PFAS are linked to increased risk of certain cancers, like prostate, kidney, and testicular. PFAS are linked developmental delays in children, such as low birth weight, accelerated puberty, and low bone density. This connection shows how harmful PFAS are, proving their need to be restricted. Restriction would help by limiting the amount of PFAS people are exposed to, decreasing their risk of cancer.
The main concern brought up by the opposition was how would companies be able to operate in Minnesota under these new regulations. I think the benefits outweigh the potential economic loss. There were concerns that companies would relocate to other states or overseas. I think that the benefit to people’s health in Minnesota outweighs the negatives. If a company cares more about their product than our community’s health, it should not be allowed in our community.
HF 1000, which is an act relating to the environment, prohibits PFAS in certain products, makes disclosure required, and rulemaking authorized should be passed because it is beneficial to the people of Minnesota’s health and to the health of our environment, because it restricts PFAS that cause cancer. It would not cause companies to leave. It would force companies to create better products for consumer health, and companies would adapt their products. Please vote yes on HF1000.
Works cited
Kibuye, F. (2023, November 1). Understanding PFAS - What They Are, Their Impact, and What We Can Do. Penn State Extension.
https://extension.psu.edu/understanding-pfas-what-they-are-their-impact-and-what-we-can-do
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (2024). PFAS in Minnesota. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/pfas-in-minnesota
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (2024). Minnesota's PFAS Blueprint. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air-water-land-climate/minnesotas-pfas-blueprint
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2024, November 19). Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). FDA.
https://www.fda.gov/food/environmental-contaminants-food/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2024, November 26). Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and Environmental Risks of PFAS. EPA.
https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-health-and-environmental-risks-pfas
Marohn, K. (2023, May 17). Far-reaching Ban on 'Forever Chemicals' Set to Become Minnesota Law. Minnesota Public Radio.
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/05/17/farreaching-ban-on-forever-chemicals-set-to-become-minnesota-law