As more research emerges about the chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, government agencies are faced with the task of figuring out how to keep the public safe.

A new Minnesota study said removing the so-called "forever chemicals" from wastewater will be very expensive. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency estimates it would cost $14 billion to $28 billion to remove PFAS from the water and biosolids leaving regional wastewater treatment facilities, over a 20-year period to implement the technology, along with operating expenses.

Scott Kyser, wastewater effluent engineer for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, led the research project and said trying to add the equipment would be a big adjustment.

"Those treatment systems are new, they're complicated, and they just take a lot of money to operate," Kyser pointed out.

The study added new types of PFAS are more difficult and up to 70% more expensive to remove and destroy, compared to older substances. Forever chemicals are found in a range of products and create serious health risks for consumers. They also can contaminate surface water, groundwater, drinking water, fish and other wildlife.

Sophie Greene, PFAS coordinator for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, said given the magnitude of the cost, they hope the findings compel policymakers and manufacturers to focus on preventing the chemicals from reaching wastewater facilities in the first place.

"I think this is telling us source reduction is the most important thing right now," Greene asserted. "Installing these expensive and complicated treatment systems at all of our wastewater treatment plants is just probably not feasible."

She acknowledged it is still a major challenge in swapping out PFAS for less-harmful materials, since their use in manufacturing has been so widespread.

There has been pushback from some business groups when proposed regulations surface. Still, Greene noted there is hope in Minnesota, with the Legislature this year adopting bans on the chemicals for nonessential items.


get more stories like this via email

In 2022, Colorado passed a law requiring oil and gas operators to let the public know what chemicals were being used underground. Chemicals are routinely used for drilling and fracking and many are considered hazardous to human health.

But a new report showed as of May 1, 2025, 65% of operators have not disclosed the chemicals they use.

Dusty Horwitt, consultant for the group Physicians for Social Responsibility, said people living near oil and gas wells disproportionately experience negative health effects.

"It's really critical for people living near oil and gas operations, for their health providers, for first responders to know what chemicals are going into the wells," Horwitt contended.

Chevron and its subsidiaries operate more than half of the 439 wells with no chemical disclosures posted on FracFocus, the official state-designated repository. The company has come under increased scrutiny after an explosion in Weld County released a watery mix of chemicals and crude oil into surrounding properties and waterways for five days straight last month. Chevron has not yet responded to a request for comment.

Many oil and gas companies have pushed back against revealing their chemicals, arguing the information was a proprietary trade secret. Horwitt pointed out the 2022 law requires operators to disclose the names of chemicals, but not the formula.

"Similar to the way that food makers have to publish the list of the ingredients in a food product, but not the recipe," Horwitt explained.

Colorado has also banned the use of PFAS but Horwitt noted the new report raises serious concerns about whether forever chemicals continue to be used. He argued ultimately, Gov. Jared Polis and his appointees on the Energy and Carbon Management Commission are responsible for upholding the law.

"Is it that the companies who operate the wells aren't complying, is it that the companies that manufacture the chemicals aren't complying?" Horwitt asked. "Whatever the case may be, the governor and the state agency -- the ECMC -- need to get to the bottom of this."


get more stories like this via email

North Dakota lawmakers have opted to side with farm chemical manufacturers facing legal challenges about the safety of their products.

The state has finalized an update that limits the scope of how warning labels on these products can be viewed by the courts. This week, Gov. Kelly Armstrong signed a bill which said for a product like the weed-killer Roundup, a label consistent with federal Environmental Protection Agency language is good enough when warning about potential hazards. The agency currently finds no evidence Roundup causes cancer.

Sam Wagner, field organizer for the Dakota Resource Council, is among critics of the plan. He said the EPA's efforts and wording do not have enough teeth.

"The 'sufficient warning' clause basically would grant immunity to a company, saying that, 'We have warned you and the label has adequately told you what the risks are. So, if you have developed cancer, then you have done it on your own accord,'" Wagner explained.

Farm groups backed the new law, arguing it helps keep products on the market to protect crops from pests and disease. Similar bills surfaced in states like Iowa, Missouri and Georgia this year. Other states, like California, require more detailed labels amid a wave of lawsuits against manufacturers, some of which led to large monetary awards for plaintiffs.

Wagner contended his group's opposition is not just about high-profile products sold to farmers. He pointed to the roughly 1,600 chemicals registered with government agencies.

"Can you, with 100% certainty, say that every other chemical that we have -- and will be made in the future -- that they're going to be able to get it 100% right?" Wagner asked.

Sen. Janne Myrdal, R-Edinburg, a farmer and bill supporter, said agricultural workers are well aware of the dangers thanks to the labeling and go to great lengths to protect themselves.

"There are strict label requirements on how you're supposed to dress," Myrdal pointed out. "You have rubber gloves, facial (and) eye (shields), long boots, all of those things when you deal with those chemicals. And you should do that, because that's what the label said on some of these chemicals."

One organization is taking the Trump administration's promises to "Make America Healthy Again" seriously.

The Center for Biological Diversity is petitioning the new Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and several federal agencies responsible for different facets of food safety. The group is asking them to ban what it said Kennedy has called "extraordinarily toxic pesticides" from food.

Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director and senior attorney at the center, thinks Tennesseans would agree it is time for action, since it is estimated more than 1 billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the U.S.

"For Tennessee, that would mean, essentially, that the most dangerous pesticides would no longer be used on food crops, so it would benefit consumers," Burd asserted. "It would also help to keep farmworkers, growers and their surrounding communities safer because they wouldn't have any exposure to these pesticides after they would be banned."

Recent Consumer Reports testing found concerning pesticide levels, some 100 times higher than deemed safe, in 20 percent of 20% of the foods tested, including common produce items like blueberries and green beans.

Burd noted Secretary Kennedy has already called out herbicides like atrazine as toxic. It is used primarily on corn crops and has been linked to water contamination, fertility issues and other health risks.

"We've also named glyphosate, which is the most used herbicide in the country and the most used pesticide overall," Burd noted. "We use about 330 million pounds of that in agriculture each year in the United States, and that is a suspected carcinogen."

The Modern Ag Alliance called glyphosate "Tennessee farmers' Number One tool to control weeds and keep crop yields high." The petition urges the Food and Drug Administration to enforce safety for imported foods, the Environmental Protection Agency to ban toxic pesticides, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to tie farm subsidies to pesticide-free practices. It also called for clear warnings in federal dietary guidelines to avoid foods contaminated with harmful pesticides.


get more stories like this via email