The bill places the responsibility of regulating, implementing, and enforcing the ban on local municipalities, shifting away from state oversight. This local authority means that municipalities will need to allocate resources potentially for product testing and enforcement. The expected fiscal impact includes indeterminable increases in expenditures at both local and county levels as municipalities would be required to dedicate staff and possibly acquire laboratory testing services to ensure compliance with the new regulations. Such costs could range significantly based on testing needs.
Summary
House Bill 242 aims to prohibit the use of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in disposable food service products within the state. This legislation is framed within the expanding concern over the health risks and environmental impacts associated with PFAS, which have been linked to various health problems. The bill mandates that starting January 1, 2024, no food service business can sell disposable food service products containing PFAS. It outlines clear definitions for involved entities and services while exempting certain items from this prohibition.
Contention
Discussions surrounding the bill may center on the practical implications for enforcement and the capabilities of local governments to manage new responsibilities. Opponents may express concerns about the costs related to local enforcement, potential legal challenges, or the adequacy of testing methods to identify PFAS in products. Supporters, on the other hand, are likely to argue that addressing the issues associated with PFAS in food packaging is a necessary step towards protecting public health and the environment.
Removing fees and charges for governmental records under the right-to-know law and reinstating potential liability for disclosure of information exempt from disclosure.