Industry urges narrow scope and exemptions as Vermont lawmakers probe PFAS in pesticides and packaging

Bill Driscoll of Associated Industries of Vermont told the Senate committee he supports addressing PFAS but urged caution over the bill’s scope, saying regulators must be precise about which products are covered and how PFAS itself is defined. "For the record, Bill Driscoll with Associated Industries of Vermont. Appreciate the opportunity to start the conversation about this bill," he said.

Driscoll told legislators that the term "pesticide" can be very broad — covering everything from agricultural applications to antibacterial soaps — and that overly broad definitions could unintentionally capture products not intended by the drafters. He recommended building an "unavoidable use" exemption into the statute for cases where no feasible alternative exists and where contamination may be beyond a manufacturer's control.

The witness flagged testing and regulatory design as additional pitfalls: certain PFAS testing requirements may detect trace compounds unlikely to be meaningfully present in a product, and not all PFAS-related compounds present the same health or environmental risk. He urged lawmakers to review other states’ experiences, noting Maine and Minnesota have taken different approaches and that Maine has amended some provisions after early problems.

A participant identifying himself as Michael asked whether regulators had established safe numeric thresholds for PFAS in products and food. Panelists responded that EPA and Vermont have adopted limits for drinking water and that food-level guidance is less developed and would require further study. Legislators asked the committee to invite the Agency of Natural Resources and the Agency of Agriculture to brief the committee on recent rules and reports.

Members also pressed on fluorinated packaging, which Driscoll said is sometimes the only practical packaging to meet federal transportation or product-safety needs. He noted that Vermont’s phased rules on fluorinated packaging have staggered timelines (some bans phased to 2032–2034) and that Maine implemented exemptions for federally regulated uses and unavoidable uses — protections he recommended for Vermont to consider.

The committee requested ledge counsel to review prior statutes and the list of affected products next week, and agreed to invite agency testimony so staff can return with specific options on scope, definitions, and any legal conflicts with federal pesticide regulation. No formal vote or motion was taken; the committee paused the PFAS discussion pending agency briefings and counsel review.