State PFAS Consumer Product & Food Law Tracker

The state PFAS patchwork: Overview

• Eighteen states now regulate PFAS in consumer products or food; thirty-two do not. The laws range from single-category rules (Hawaii’s four food-packaging categories, Utah’s menstrual-product label) to Maine-style bans on PFAS in every product by 2032.
• “PFAS-free” is a state-by-state question. The trigger differs (intentionally added vs. total-fluorine thresholds), the chemical scope differs (class-wide vs. 13 listed compounds vs. fluoropolymer carve-outs), and the dates differ. Compliance in the strictest state — usually Maine, Minnesota, or California — has become the practical national default for many categories.
• Minnesota’s first reporting deadline has arrived. Initial reports from manufacturers selling products with intentionally added PFAS into Minnesota fell due at MPCA on September 15, 2026, unless a manufacturer was granted the one-time extension, which moves its date to December 14, 2026. Updates, when required, are due each year on February 1.
• Nothing federal preempts any of this. EPA’s TSCA reporting rule collects data; it bans nothing. The state laws stand on their own.

The three all-products laws

Maine, Minnesota, and New Mexico ban intentionally added PFAS in essentially all products by 2032, with “currently unavoidable use” (CUU) exemption processes. Everything else on this page is category-by-category.

Category bans and disclosure laws — the other 15 states

The 32 states with no enacted requirements

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming have no enacted PFAS restriction or disclosure requirement covering consumer products or food as of this writing. Several have PFAS laws outside this tracker’s scope — firefighting-foam restrictions (Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois’s original act, Delaware) and drinking-water or cleanup programs (West Virginia, Michigan, Delaware) — which are sometimes miscounted as product laws.

The watch list — bills that came close or are still moving:

One correction that circulates in compliance materials: Kentucky’s HB 196 (PFAS reporting) was not signed into law — it died in House committee in January 2026.

Deadline timeline — the next 18 months and beyond

Why the definitions matter as much as the dates

Four structural differences decide whether a given product is caught. The trigger: most states ban “intentionally added” PFAS, but California (textiles) and Vermont (textiles) also capture products at or above total-organic-fluorine thresholds regardless of intent — 100 ppm now, 50 ppm in California from 2027. The chemical scope: most laws define PFAS as the full class (one fully fluorinated carbon), but Maryland’s and Virginia’s cosmetics laws enumerate 13 specific compounds, and New Mexico and New Jersey exclude fluoropolymers — meaning a PTFE-coated pan that is banned in Minnesota in 2032 stays legal in New Mexico with a label. The mechanism: Connecticut currently requires labeling and state notification before its 2028 ban; Utah requires labeling only; Washington’s cookware rule is reporting-only. The product-category definitions: “food packaging” means plant-fiber materials in California, Colorado, Maryland, New Jersey, and Hawaii, but all materials in Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Minnesota. For a multi-state seller, the strictest applicable combination sets the formulation.

How companies are responding

Compliance guidance broadly converges: inventory intentionally added PFAS across the product line and supply chain now, because Minnesota’s reporting regime (initial reports September 15, 2026; extended reports December 14; updates each February 1) forces the exercise regardless of where else a company sells; track the trigger differences (intentional-addition vs. total-fluorine) when certifying products PFAS-free; and treat the January 1, 2027 cluster — New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Mexico, Washington, Oregon — as the next de facto national reformulation date after Minnesota’s. Regbase reports these observable postures; it does not advise on them.

FAQ

Which states have enacted PFAS laws covering consumer products or food? Eighteen: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. The other 32 states have none enacted.

What was due September 15, 2026? Initial reports under Minnesota’s Amara’s Law: every manufacturer of products with intentionally added PFAS sold into Minnesota must report product descriptions, PFAS identities, and concentrations to MPCA. Manufacturers granted the one-time 90-day extension (requests closed August 16, 2026) report by December 14, 2026; those denied report 30 days after the notice of denial or by September 15, whichever is later.

Which states ban PFAS in food packaging today? Twelve bans are in force: New York (2022), California, Connecticut, Vermont, and Washington (2023–24), Maryland, Minnesota, and Colorado (2024), Hawaii (Dec. 2024), Oregon and Rhode Island (2025), and Maine (May 2026). New Hampshire and New Mexico follow in 2027, New Jersey in 2028. Scope varies — some cover only plant-fiber packaging, others all materials.

Is PFAS cookware banned anywhere? Yes — Minnesota (since 2025), Maine and Colorado (since January 1, 2026), with Rhode Island and New Mexico following January 1, 2027 (New Mexico’s fluoropolymer exemption spares PTFE coatings), Vermont in July 2028, and Connecticut’s ban in 2028. California requires disclosure; New Jersey will require a warning label from 2028; Washington requires reporting from 2027.

Is there a federal PFAS product ban? No. EPA’s TSCA Section 8(a)(7) rule is a one-time retrospective data collection, currently deferred, and it preempts nothing — full coverage here. The state laws operate independently.

Do these laws catch trace or unintentional PFAS? Mostly no — the dominant standard is “intentionally added,” and many laws expressly excuse technically unavoidable trace quantities. The exceptions: California and Vermont textiles use total-organic-fluorine thresholds, Rhode Island’s packaging law counts processing agents from mid-2027, and Washington presumes intent above 50 ppm total fluorine.

How fast is this moving? Nearly 100 new PFAS bills were introduced across 17 states in the 2026 sessions, atop roughly 280 carried over. Three enactments landed in the last nine months (New York menstrual products, New Jersey, Virginia), and Pennsylvania’s HB 2145 has passed one chamber. Each enactment lands on this page within 24 hours.

Changelog

• September 16, 2026 — Massachusetts’s omnibus PFAS bill is still pending, though past formal sessions. The bill stays live until the 194th General Court ends in early January 2027: on July 22 the Health Care Financing Committee reported H.4870 as a substitute bill, H.5598, and referred it to House Ways and Means; S.3034 has been in Senate Ways and Means since April 2. Neither chamber passed a version before July 31, when Joint Rule 12A ended formal business for the session, so it can now advance only in informal sessions, where a single objection blocks action — the row now reads pending-but-past-formal-sessions rather than dead. Verified against malegislature.gov (H.4870, S.3034, Joint Rules), September 23. Not re-checked this pass: the other state rows in the table, carried forward unchanged.
• September 15, 2026 — Minnesota’s initial reporting deadline arrived. MPCA’s reporting page, re-read on the deadline date, continues to state that initial Amara’s Law reports are due by September 15, 2026, with no further postponement announced; extended reports remain due December 14, 2026, and the page now also reports MPCA’s due date for manufacturers denied an extension (30 days after the notice of denial or September 15, whichever is later). MPCA’s annual February 1 date for subsequent reports and updates, when required, is now in the Minnesota row, the summary, and the timeline (February 1, 2027). Updated: description, pill, first-deadline line, latest-change summary, plain-English summary, nearest-deadline entry, Minnesota row, “How companies are responding” paragraph, timeline, and FAQ; the passed August 16 and September 15 rows were folded into the December 14 row. The other 17 states were not re-read in this pass, so the “Status (as of August 10, 2026)” column and watch-list positions are carried forward unchanged, except for the Massachusetts row (see the September 16 entry above).
• August 10, 2026 — Page launched after a full 50-state review against primary sources (state statutes, agency implementation pages, and 2025–26 session records). Verified enacted status for all 18 states; confirmed the 32 no-law states, including debunking a circulating claim that Kentucky HB 196 was signed (it died in committee January 2026). Newest enactments logged: Virginia HB 122 (in force July 1, 2026), New Jersey S1042 (signed January 12, 2026), Utah HB 493 (signed March 19, 2026), New York S.1548 (signed December 19, 2025), Illinois HB 2516 (signed August 15, 2025). California SB 682 veto (October 13, 2025) noted on the watch list.

Primary sources: MPCA — Reporting PFAS in products · Maine DEP — PFAS in Products · NMED — PFAS Protection Act · WA Ecology — Safer Products compliance · Vermont AGO — PFAS product ban guidance · RIDEM — PFAS in consumer products · CT DEEP — PFAS in products · NYSDEC — PFAS in apparel · N.J. P.L. 2025, c. 202 (S1042) · Va. Ch. 910 (2026), HB 122 · Ill. P.A. 104-0231 · Colo. SB24-081