New York lawmakers are moving to curb exposure to PFAS, the so-called “forever chemicals” found in everyday products from non-stick pans to waterproof mascara.
PFAS — a class of more than 10,000 synthetic compounds — accumulate in soil, water and human bloodstreams. Studies have linked them to certain cancers, developmental effects in children, immune system suppression and reproductive harm.
This week, the State Senate passed two bills aimed at limiting exposure. One would require greater disclosure of PFAS discharges into waterways. Another would ban PFAS in many consumer and household products. Both now head to the Assembly.
“Addressing the PFAS contamination crisis in New York requires multiple policies,” said Kate Donovan, director of Northeast Environmental Health at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) . “There's not just one single piece of legislation that's going to solve the problem. We need to look upstream to kind of like turn off the tap to PFAS.”
Turning off the tap
Donovan says the consumer products bill targets PFAS at the source.
“That’s what the PFAS in consumer products bill does. It says, we don't need to use PFAS in these particular consumer products, because they're unnecessary. There are alternatives on the market and they're contributing to kind of the influx of PFAS into our system.”
At the same time, she says, the state needs to understand where contamination is coming from on the industrial side.
“There are thousands of manufacturing and industrial facilities across New York that use these chemicals in industrial processes as lubricants, as additives for cleaning machinery. We just don't know exactly where it's all coming from and the PFAS Disclosure Act would help us understand that. And it focuses on transparency.”
Advocates often describe PFAS as a life-cycle problem — from production to disposal. Donovan says the two Senate bills reflect that strategy.
“We know that these chemicals are being intentionally added to products that we use in our homes,” she said. “Ultimately, when these products get washed down the drain … they end up in our wastewater stream.”
From there, PFAS can pass through treatment plants and into surface waters. Other products end up in landfills or incinerators.
“Those pans and all of those other products end up in landfills,” she said. “The chemicals from those are ending up in landfill leachate or being emitted into air emissions.”
Federal rollbacks, state response
Several related PFAS bills are still pending in the Assembly, including one that would codify federal drinking water standards into state law.
Under the Biden administration, the Environmental Protection Agency set new maximum contaminant levels for certain PFAS in drinking water — standards that were more protective than New York’s in some cases. Donovan says advocates fear those rules could be weakened.
“There’s a piece of legislation that we're supporting that would require New York to, what we would say, codify those federal levels into state law,” she said. “And so, that's a direct piece of legislation to combat what's happening at the federal level.”
Currently, New York limits two PFAS chemicals — PFOA and PFOS — to 10 parts per trillion in municipal drinking water. But Donovan notes that represents only a fraction of the compounds in use.
“That's only two chemicals, right? And you mentioned there's over 10,000,” she said. “So that would leave several smaller systems in New York kind of under that 10 parts per trillion threshold, which would still be at risk.”
Cosmetics, sewage sludge and environmental justice
Among the other bills awaiting action is the Beauty Justice Act, which would phase out toxic chemicals — including PFAS — in personal care products and cosmetics.
“We know that PFAS is used in waterproof mascaras in different types of lotions and conditioners to make things kind of feel slick,” Donovan said. “In addition to PFAS, there's heavy metals, asbestos, all sorts of hormone disruptors and allergic additives.”
She says the legislation also addresses disparities in marketing.
“These particular products with these high levels of toxicity are marketed disproportionately to brown and black communities,” she said. “That's why we think it is a very important environmental justice piece of legislation.”
Another proposal would place a moratorium on spreading sewage sludge on farmland — a practice that has become part of the PFAS story.
Wastewater treatment plants separate liquids from solids. The remaining sludge, once promoted as a nutrient-rich fertilizer, can contain concentrated contaminants.
“That sludge … is highly concentrated in all of those other chemicals that came down the drain,” Donovan said. “Unfortunately, it's highly concentrated with PFAS chemicals and other toxins. So, it's a big concern.”
In New York, treated sludge is sometimes sold to farmers and spread on fields. Testing has shown that PFAS can move from soil into crops and livestock, raising concerns about the food supply.
“It gets spread onto our land and we know from testing that our food supply is at great risk of uptaking all sorts of things that are contained in that sewage sludge,” she said.
The human toll
For Donovan, the push for regulation is grounded in community experience.
“The community members are really why we're doing this work,” she said. “They have been poisoned for a lifetime.”
She points to places like Hudson Falls and Hoosick Falls, where residents have dealt with contaminated drinking water.
“I've heard some community members talk about living with kind of a ticking time bomb in their bodies of what particular illness they may develop over a period of time,” she said.
Research has linked PFAS exposure to serious health effects, including high cholesterol and reduced vaccine response. PFAS have also been detected in breast milk, placentas and umbilical cord blood.
“It really is pervasive in the human body,” Donovan said.
An analysis by NRDC and another organization estimated that PFAS contamination could cost New York between $2.7 billion and $4.4 billion annually in health care expenses.
“We conservatively estimated it range between $2.7 and $4.4 billion dollars annually in expected health care cost from PFAS contamination in these communities,” she said.
What comes next
Even if the full legislative package passes, implementation would vary. Some measures would take effect immediately. Others would give manufacturers time to comply.
“It depends on the implementation period,” Donovan said. “Some of the consumer product bills … give industry a year or two before it is actually implemented.”
Advocates say momentum is building nationwide, as states move to regulate PFAS amid uncertainty in Washington.
“We know enough to act,” Donovan said. “We just think that the time is right to really address this.”
For now, supporters are pressing lawmakers to take up the remaining bills before the end of the session.
“We'll continue our drumbeat,” she said. “We hope that this year is the year for the legislature to step up again and pass some really significant reforms on PFAS regulation.”
