Introduction: The Chemical Ghost That Never Fades
Lurking in our everyday non-stick cookware, water-resistant clothing, food packaging, and even firefighting foam is a class of dangerous substances known as “forever chemicals”—per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). These synthetic chemicals, widely used since the 1940s, are nearly impossible to break down in the environment due to their extremely stable carbon-fluorine bonds, accumulating in human bodies and ecosystems for decades or even longer. Today, scientific research has linked PFAS exposure to cancer, liver damage, immune system suppression, reduced fertility, thyroid disease, and numerous other health problems.
In December 2025, two far-reaching U.S. legislative moves and an environmental suit filed in the Netherlands have drawn PFAS pollution into the public spotlight, raising an alarm for world governments immediately.
Legislative Milestones Across U.S. States
In the past months, PFAS regulations have poured in at several states across the country as multiple states take different decisive actions in protection of the public health. From comprehensive labeling requirements to targeted product bans and occupational safety measures, state governments are now proving that the days of unregulated PFAS use are rapidly drawing to an end. The coordinated momentum at the state level over this issue represents one of the most profound shifts in environmental policy—where states are no longer waiting for a federal lead but taking the reins in resolution of this critical public health crisis.
New Mexico: First-in-Nation Comprehensive Labeling Requirement for PFAS
New Mexico is leading the charge in a new frontier of transparency: the first comprehensive labeling requirement for products containing PFAS. The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) has offered rulemaking as directed under HB 212, called the PFAS Protection Act, signed into law earlier in 2025. The rules would require labels on every product containing intentionally added PFAS—not just consumer products, but all products.
The proposed labeling bears a distinct symbol: the outline of a laboratory flask holding an exclamation point and the acronym PFAS, along with a warning statement in both English and Spanish: “CAUTION: Associated with environmental impacts and health effects such as cancer. www.env.nm.gov/pfas.”
New Mexico’s PFAS Protection Act creates a prohibition on a phased basis:
- Phase 1 (January 2027): Ban on food packaging, dental floss, juvenile products, and firefighting foam
- Phase 2 (January 2028): Ban on textiles, cosmetics, carpets and rugs, textile furnishings, upholstered furniture, cleaning products, feminine hygiene products, ski wax, and fabric treatments
- Phase 3 (January 2032): Prohibition of all other products absent a “Currently Unavoidable Use” determination or exemption
New Mexico importantly uses a scientific distinction between fluoropolymers—such as Teflon/PTFE—and the non-polymeric PFAS, exempting fluoropolymer-containing products from prohibitions and reporting requirements, although not automatically from labeling. This scientific distinction recognized that the fluoropolymers themselves generally are nontoxic, nonreactive, and highly resistant to degradation.
The labeling requirement, set to take effect on January 1, 2027, would apply even to products that are exempted from the ban or have received Currently Unavoidable Use determinations. NMED argues that labeling will allow consumers to “decide if they want to bring a product containing or made with PFAS into their home or business.” However, this sweeping approach has raised concerns about potential First Amendment violations regarding compelled speech, federal preemption for certain regulated products, and the burden on manufacturers to comply within just months of the rule’s adoption.
Washington State: Cutting Off PFAS at the Consumer Product Source
The Washington State Department of Ecology (DoE) formally adopted new rules regulating PFAS in 12 priority consumer product categories on November 20, 2025, marking a milepost in Phase 4 of Cycle 1.5 of the state’s Safer Products Program.
The rule bans three categories of products effective January 1, 2027:
- Cookware and kitchenware: Including baking sheets, pots and pans, grills, rice cookers, and other hard goods that come into contact with food
- Recreation and travel gear: Backpacks, luggage, tents, sleeping bags, and other products made of textile materials
- Carpets: Commercial or residential carpets, carpet tiles, and artificial turf
But the regulation goes even further, requiring manufacturers of nine other product categories to report to the DoE when products contain intentionally added PFAS. Non-compliant companies face up to $10,000 in civil penalties.
This rule is important to control PFAS at the source of consumer products and cut off the primary pathways by which these chemicals enter home environments. The use in Washington State of “total fluorine testing” (considering 50 ppm or above as containing PFAS) provides clear technical standards for enforcement that prevent companies from substituting similar compounds in order to circumvent regulations.
New York State and New York City: Protection for First-Line Firefighters
New York State has equally taken various legislative steps with respect to PFAS regulation. Of particular note is a package of four bills introduced on November 17, 2025, by New York City Council Minority Leader Joann Ariola, which aim to protect New York City Fire Department (FDNY) firefighters from PFAS dangers:
- Equipment replacement program: Mandates that FDNY phase out protective gear and equipment containing PFAS by 2028
- Medical surveillance: Annual health screenings with no expense to active firefighters for PFAS exposure, bi-annual check-ups after retirement
- Water quality testing: Testing drinking water in all firehouses for PFAS contamination to prevent chemicals from leaching through plumbing systems
- Alternative solutions research: Requires the fire department to identify and adopt safer alternative equipment
“This is about protecting our protectors,” Council Member Ariola said. “Our firefighters risk their lives for us every day. We should at least make sure the gear that is supposed to keep them safe isn’t slowly poisoning them.”
The urgency for this legislation is based on one underlying fact: cancer is the leading cause of death for firefighters. This exposure occurs when firefighters come into skin contact with equipment containing PFAS or use firefighting foam containing PFAS, resulting in much higher levels of PFAS in the blood than the general population. Currently, thousands of plaintiffs—including some New York firefighters—pursue class-action lawsuits against the manufacturers of PFAS products.
Additionally, the New York State Senate has proposed multiple related bills, including banning PFAS in cosmetics and personal care products (Bill S3205), and requiring industrial emission sources to monitor and report PFAS emissions (Bill S4574A). These bills demonstrate New York State’s comprehensive strategy to address the PFAS threat.
Dutch Litigation: When Civil Society Holds Government Accountable
While U.S. states fortify PFAS regulation, a lawsuit playing out across the Atlantic in the Netherlands may rewrite the history of European environmental law.
On December 2, 2025, five Dutch environmental organizations filed a lawsuit against the Dutch government in Rotterdam court, demanding an immediate halt to discharging carcinogenic PFAS chemicals into the environment. The class-action lawsuit is led by prominent attorneys Carry Knoops-Hamburger and Geert-Jan Knoops, representing regional nature and environment federations from Zeeland, North Holland, South Holland, and Friesland, along with organizations like the Healthy Water Foundation.
Core Demands of the Suit
The plaintiffs make three principal requests:
- Stop issuing permits for PFAS discharge: Immediately bars the administration from issuing permits to companies to discharge PFAS
- Map contamination sites: Thoroughly study and record all the sources of PFAS pollution and contaminated zones
- Start clean-up: Remediation and treatment of the areas already contaminated
Ira von Harras, director of the Zeeland Environmental Federation, said: “PFAS poses a very serious risk to human and environmental health. These forever chemicals don’t just disappear from the water on their own. It is a problem that will adversely affect many generations after us.”
Far-Reaching Impact of the Case
It has been equated with the landmark Urgenda climate case of 2015, in which a Dutch court ordered the government to cut greenhouse gas emissions—a ruling that remains influential in government policy today. If the court sides with the demands of the environmental organizations, the ruling could have wide-reaching effects, with the government being compelled to take far more aggressive measures in addressing PFAS pollution.
The Netherlands’ PFAS pollution problem is already quite severe. According to investigations by the Financial Times and Investico, the cost of cleaning up PFAS pollution in the Netherlands could reach billions of euros, as these “forever chemicals” may be present at up to 1,000 locations. High concentrations of PFAS have been detected in fish, shrimp, oysters, and mussels from the Western Scheldt estuary, and even in eggs from backyard chickens.
In July 2025, for instance, the Dutch government warned even more strongly, with advice against letting children play in sea foam on beaches; it may contain high levels of PFAS. It’s a worrisome fact that PFAS can be spread from industrial sites into normal living conditions.
Warnings for Governments Worldwide
Warning One: State Leadership Demonstrates the Cost of Federal Inaction
The surge of state-level PFAS regulations across the United States—from New Mexico’s labeling requirements to Washington’s product bans and New York’s firefighter protection measures—reveals a critical lesson: when federal governments fail to act, states must step in to fill the regulatory vacuum. This patchwork approach, while necessary, creates inefficiencies and compliance challenges for businesses operating across multiple jurisdictions.
The Dutch case also illustrates that delayed regulation comes with enormous social and economic costs. When governments act slowly on PFAS regulation, they ultimately face steep prices. Billions of euros in cleanup costs, public health crises, and civil society lawsuits are all direct consequences of regulatory lag.
The case of chemical company Chemours (formerly DuPont) is particularly illustrative. In September 2023, Rotterdam court ruled that Chemours was responsible for PFAS pollution in the Netherlands, opening the door for affected municipalities to claim compensation. Yet this pollution problem had existed since the 1960s, with both companies and government failing to take effective action for decades.
In contrast, proactive legislation in Washington and New York States demonstrates the wisdom of preventive regulation. By controlling PFAS at the source before it spreads widely into the environment, these states are avoiding potentially larger future crises.
Warning Two: Cannot Overlook Health Rights of the Occupationally Exposed Groups
New York City’s legislation targeting firefighters reminds us that certain occupational groups face extremely high PFAS exposure risks. Firefighters, military personnel, airport workers, and other frontline workers who must handle PFAS-containing equipment and materials due to job requirements need special attention to their health rights.
Research shows firefighters have significantly higher blood PFAS levels than the general population, and cancer is the leading cause of death among firefighters. This is not just a personal health issue but a social justice issue. Governments have a responsibility to ensure that those who protect public safety don’t sacrifice their own health in fulfilling their duties.
The Protecting Firefighters from Adverse Substances (PFAS) Act passed by the U.S. Congress in July 2025 requires the federal government to develop guidelines to help firefighters prevent PFAS exposure at work. This provides a model worth emulating for other countries: even before completely phasing out PFAS, all possible preventive measures should be taken to protect high-risk groups.
Warning Three: Civil Society’s Oversight Power Should Not Be Neglected
The Dutch lawsuit demonstrates how civil society organizations can become important forces for driving change when government action is inadequate. Environmental organizations are no longer satisfied with lobbying and advocacy but are choosing to hold governments accountable through legal channels, demanding that governments fulfill their fundamental obligations to protect citizen health and the environment.
This “climate litigation” model is becoming increasingly common in the field of environmental law. From the Netherlands’ Urgenda climate case to the current PFAS lawsuit, courts are becoming important battlegrounds for resolving environmental issues. This reminds governments worldwide that inaction on environmental protection issues may face serious legal consequences.
Warning Four: The Need for Comprehensive and Systematic Regulatory Strategies
Legislation in Washington, New York, and New Mexico States demonstrates several key elements of effective PFAS regulation:
- Full product lifecycle management: Regulation covering the entire process from manufacturing and sales to use and disposal
- Clear technical standards: Such as Washington State’s 50 ppm total fluorine detection threshold
- Reporting and transparency: Disclosure of the usage of PFAS by the manufacturer
- Enforcement mechanisms: Clear penalty measures that ensure regulatory compliance
- Alternative solution incentives: Encouraging and supporting companies to find safer substitute substances
The combination of these measures forms a multi-layered protective network that is more effective and sustainable than single bans.
Warning Five: International Coordination and Cooperation is Unavoidable
PFAS pollution is a global problem that crosses borders. The Dutch government is pursuing accountability for Scheldt River pollution caused by Belgium’s 3M factory, demonstrating that chemicals don’t stop at border lines.
The European Union is considering a comprehensive PFAS ban, which would be one of the largest chemical substance bans in European history. Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway submitted a restriction proposal to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in 2023. This type of regional coordinated action provides lessons for other regions.
Governments need to recognize that fighting PFAS problems alone is difficult to be effective. Only through international cooperation, sharing scientific research results, regulatory experience, and best practices, can we truly protect human health and environmental safety.
Conclusion: From Warning to Action
The recent wave of U.S. state regulations—Washington’s product bans, New York’s firefighter protection laws, and New Mexico’s pioneering labeling requirements—combined with the Dutch lawsuit, collectively send a clear signal: the era of unregulated PFAS is coming to an end. Whether through proactive legislation or reactive judicial rulings, governments will ultimately have to face this environmental and health crisis.
What makes the current moment particularly significant is the coordinated momentum across U.S. states. Rather than waiting for federal action, states are taking the lead, creating a cascade effect that will likely influence national and international policy. New Mexico’s labeling approach, Washington’s comprehensive product bans, and New York’s occupational safety measures each represent different regulatory strategies, yet all share a common goal: protecting public health from forever chemicals.
These cases yield valuable lessons for those governments that have not yet taken any action:
- Early action is more cost-effective than remediation: The cost of preventive regulation is far lower than future cleanup and compensation costs
- Listen to science and civil society voices: Scientific research has clearly established PFAS hazards, and civil society demands reflect legitimate public concerns
- Protect vulnerable and high-risk groups: Ensure the health rights of occupationally exposed groups receive special attention
- Establish comprehensive and rigorous regulatory systems: A complete chain from source control and process regulation to end-of-pipe treatment
- Promote international cooperation: Coordinate actions at the global level to avoid pollution transfer and regulatory arbitrage
The PFAS problem is one legacy of the industrialization process. But unlike the past, we now possess more complete scientific understanding, more powerful detection technology, and more mature regulatory tools. The key lies in whether governments have the determination and courage to place public health above short-term economic interests, allowing the scales of justice to truly tip toward health.
As New York City Council Member Ariola said: “Our responsibility is to protect those who protect us.” This statement equally applies to all governments’ attitudes toward PFAS issues: protecting citizens from these “forever chemicals” is not only the government’s responsibility but the fundamental reason for government existence.
From U.S. states to the Netherlands, from legislative actions to judicial litigation, global regulation of PFAS is entering a new phase. This is not only progress in environmental law but humanity’s inevitable choice to take responsibility for its own health and future generations. History will record who stood on the right side in this battle concerning human health.
