Report finds that despite PFAS ban, some Minnesota merchandise still test positive

NINA MOINI: Well, it's been nearly three months since Minnesota's ban on forever chemicals in household products went into effect. The PFAS ban is the widest in the country. Its first stage includes products in 11 categories, from kids clothes to cookware. And a pair of reporters went shopping for some of those items and then tested them in a lab.

And they did find a few of them that failed their test. Here to talk more about this experience are Star-Tribune Environmental Reporter Chloe Johnson and Business Reporter Brooks Johnson joining me in the studio to talk about their recent experiment or experience. Thanks for both of you for being here.

CHLOE JOHNSON: Thanks so much for having us.

BROOKS JOHNSON: Thanks, Nina.

NINA MOINI: I really like the way that you teamed up as an environmental reporter and a business reporter. Chloe, can you start by reminding people, what is the concern around these PFAS chemicals? And why are they a concern throughout our lives, like in the business realm and in the environmental realm?

CHLOE JOHNSON: Yeah, absolutely. So PFAS chemicals, some people might know the name "forever chemicals." They're called that because they build up in our bodies. They can bioaccumulate. And they also don't break down naturally in the environment.

They're pretty much wholly man-made. There's a very familiar Minnesota company that pioneered these chemicals, 3M. And they were used in products like scotchgard. And we find them all over the place because they're really useful. They can make things grease-proof, waterproof, non-stick. And they're even used to put out dangerous fuel fires.

NINA MOINI: OK. And then from a business perspective, how does this pertain to your beat, Brooks?

BROOKS JOHNSON: Yeah, well, I cover 3M, and I wanted to see, too, if all of the companies were ready for this ban-- the first in the nation to go this far, to target this many consumer products and say you can't have PFAS in there. It's really tricky, because supply chains are long.

And this law applies to not just the retailer who's selling the product, but the manufacturer on the other end, and also their supplier, and the distributor, and everyone in between. So we wanted to go out day one, day two, technically, January 2, when we went shopping, and find out if folks were ready.

NINA MOINI: So, Chloe, tell me a little bit about were you in lab coats for fun? What was the experience like? What was some of your procedure here?

CHLOE JOHNSON: Yeah, the shopping was certainly fun. We went to four different stores around the metro. And we chose a pretty small lab, Novum Scientific. I don't even think they have a sign outside, now that I think about it.

But Andrew Christiansen, who runs Novum, was just a great shepherd to help us do this test, the type of test we chose, we chose because we talked to MPCA, our environment regulator here in Minnesota, first. And we asked them, when you are enforcing this law, when you are checking products to see if they're following this law, what test are you going to use? So we used the same method.

NINA MOINI: OK. And, Brooks, why did you all feel that it was important to do the testing yourselves and not take other people's word? A lot of times as journalists, you're not doing that involved of a thing yourself. Why did you want to do that?

BROOKS JOHNSON: Yeah, this was kind of a Consumer Reports approach, right? It's not something the Star-Tribune has done very often, if ever, before. And we wanted to know firsthand because, after talking to MPCA, we learned that they weren't even going to start their own testing until probably later this year.

They haven't started their own testing yet. So we didn't want to wait around and, as we wrote in the story, just kind of take it on faith that companies were following these new protocols. And we wanted to find out, too, what does it look like?

And we found out quickly it's more difficult than we think to just go in and test these products. It's more than just sending it to a lab, and getting it back, and that's that. It was a whole process. It was a learning process.

NINA MOINI: Will you tell me a little bit more about that? What was so surprising?

BROOKS JOHNSON: Yeah, well, you can't just give someone a coat, for example-- a children's coat, which can no longer contain PFAS under state law-- you can't just bring it to the lab and say, here, test this. You have to find out what part of the coat you want to test, right?

Is it the inside material, the outside material? What part of the coat? Is it the hood? The sleeve? We ended up going with the sleeve, right-- so the exterior part that maybe a kid would wipe their nose with, like my kid would do. And also, the interior, because it touches your skin. The products we chose and the parts of the products we chose, we chose because of their just--

CHLOE JOHNSON: The potential for exposure.

BROOKS JOHNSON: Exactly. For sure.

NINA MOINI: Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. So, Chloe, summarize for us, if you would, what did you find out what stood out?

CHLOE JOHNSON: Yeah. So we found four out of 20 products that were above this kind of threshold that MPCA has set. And I'll say we didn't definitively find the specific chemicals in these products. Our results are really more of a signal.

And what the state said is that above this threshold, they would ask the company, what's going on here? Maybe do additional testing, because no one test method is perfect, right? They all have drawbacks.

But the four products that we found that were above this level was a frying pan, which actually disclosed on the label that it contained these chemicals. So it shouldn't have been on the shelf at all in the fleet farm where we bought it. It was also two makeup items, a foundation and a mascara, which I think, among academics, it's pretty well known that a lot of makeup has these types of chemicals in it, but maybe less well known to the public. And then also a pair of waterproof children's gloves had these chemicals.

NINA MOINI: And then you took them to the state, and you're saying the state was like, oh, that's concerning. Or what was the response again?

CHLOE JOHNSON: Yeah. It was interesting. We got a broad range of responses from the various experts we contacted. Some people were like, no amount is OK. And other folks felt like four out of 20, that's not so bad.

I think the response we got from the state is there's definitely more work to do. It's not perfect. But it's definitely not as bad as it could have been.

NINA MOINI: And so, Brooks, you mentioned you all went the second day of the ban-- I'm assuming businesses, by that point, had not pulled everything off the shelf that was not in compliance. And then you mentioned that the state hasn't done a ton of testing through your reporting, it sounds like, quite yet. I'm curious to know if you have an idea of where are retailers and companies at in pulling these items off the shelves?

BROOKS JOHNSON: Hopefully after we published our story, that they're taking it a little more seriously now that they know that, oh, we really need to go back and check. The retailers didn't respond. We sent them our results, and they didn't respond.

Target acknowledged our results but didn't want to comment on the record. I think talking with experts and talking with folks who track PFAS through supply chains, they're seeing a lot of folks are just coming to realize, this applies to them, too. And you need to take action.

And there is no sell through date, as we pointed out in the story. You couldn't just still have it on the shelf January 1, January 2. The law kicks in-- the law was passed in 2023. There's been a lot of time to catch up, but I think they're still playing catch up. And regulators are especially helping people catch up before they start handing out fines.

NINA MOINI: OK. So no fines yet, it sounds like. Chloe, what do you hope people take away from this report?

CHLOE JOHNSON: Yeah. I think what I've learned is we can't quite say we're PFAS-free yet here in Minnesota. There is a little bit of a way to go. And you should think about the products you're buying and what they're claiming to do, like in the makeup space, waterproof mascaras, long-wear formulas-- again, well known in the academic community, but maybe less well known in the public.

NINA MOINI: Yeah.

CHLOE JOHNSON: We didn't test any product that I personally use, but I've thought about what's in my makeup bag since we've done this story. So it's tough. And also, I feel that the only way to clear this stuff out is for the state to enforce, right? That's what I've concluded. That's the only way we're going to know. So there's some time yet before that happens.

NINA MOINI: I got to check my makeup bag. What about you, Brooks? What do you hope people take away?

BROOKS JOHNSON: Yeah, I think there's both an optimistic and pessimistic takeaway from this. For one thing, if we had done these tests five years ago on these same items, we would have found a lot more fluorine, which is what we tested for. Because even just a few years ago, floss had quite a bit of PFAS.

CHLOE JOHNSON: Yeah, we actually learned that glide floss has been reformulated. And it's a totally different formula and had very low levels in our testing. And that was something we previously knew had quite a bit of PFAS in it.

BROOKS JOHNSON: So for folks to say that this is good news that only four of the 20 items you tested had high levels of fluorine, yeah, I'd agree with that that what we found is better than what we would have if we didn't have this law in Minnesota. Pessimistically, of course, there's still work to be done, and retailers shouldn't have had some of these items on the shelves in the first place.

NINA MOINI: Absolutely. And just last question for you, Chloe-- you mentioned waterproofing. Do you have a good handle for our listeners on just a few things they should be looking for on packaging on things to make sure that it doesn't include PFAS? Or is it hard to tell sometimes?

CHLOE JOHNSON: In theory, it shouldn't. And I have seen some notifications on websites that ship children's clothing nationwide, right, where now certain products, say, cannot be shipped to Minnesota.

NINA MOINI: Wow.

CHLOE JOHNSON: So you might actually find signs of certain things that this applies to. It's tough. And I think it's going to take time. I think anything that says, again, in makeup-- waterproof, longwear-- you might want to be a little bit skeptical.

NINA MOINI: OK. Yeah. Research stuff, find out what you can. And in the meantime, happy to know that you all are looking into it. Thank you so much for being here.

CHLOE JOHNSON: Thanks for having us.

BROOKS JOHNSON: Thank you.

NINA MOINI: That's Star-Tribune environmental reporter Chloe Johnson and business reporter Brooks Johnson.