Environmental regulators in Canada and a growing number of U.S. states are tightening controls on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), even as the U.S. federal government eases them, according to Environmental Analyst’s recent conference Assessing, Managing and Remediating PFAS & Emerging Contaminants.

Speakers set out diverging paths for the persistent substances across North America at the online conference earlier this month.

Key highlights emerged. Canada is moving to list the entire PFAS class, excluding fluoropolymers, as toxic under federal law, echoing a class-based approach already taken in Minnesota. However, the US EPA has proposed extending PFOA and PFOS drinking water deadlines to 2031 and rescinding limits for further PFAS. It has replaced its risk assessment of PFAS in sewage sludge with voluntary guidance. Meanwhile, legal challenges to the drinking water standards and the Superfund listing remain unresolved in the U.S., with rulings set to shape future cleanup liability.

Canada moves on the whole class of PFAS

Canada is pursuing the broadest approach, Marc D’Iorio, according to assistant deputy minister of the science and technology branch, at Environment and Climate Change Canada.

In March 2025, the federal government published its State of PFAS report. This concluded that the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, is toxic to human health and the environment under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA).

The government has proposed adding the class to Schedule 1 of the Act – the step that unlocks regulatory action – and set out a phased risk-management plan. A final listing order is still pending.

Fluoropolymers, excluded because the evidence was less clear, have been added to Canada’s plan of priorities for future assessment.

Listing does not automatically trigger regulation, D’Iorio said. But the enforcement behind Canada’s chemicals law carries weight, much of it sitting under the Criminal Code.

“That’s a very powerful tool. And it does get people to pay attention, when you put out regulations that are under the Criminal Code,” said D’Iorio.

U.S. federal government eases the timetable

The U.S. federal picture is moving the other way, said Erik Olson, senior strategic director for health at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

In May, the EPA proposed two rules that would uphold the 4 parts per trillion drinking water limits for PFOA and PFOS but let systems apply for a case-by-case exemption of up to two years.

It extended the compliance deadline from 2029 to 2031, while rescinding the limits for three further PFAS and the hazard-index standard for their mixtures.

In July, the agency replaced its January 2025 draft risk assessment of PFAS in sewage sludge with shorter voluntary guidance, saying the earlier assessment “relied on assumptions too disconnected from real-world conditions.”

Environmental groups criticized the move as a retreat from findings that had flagged health risks from contaminated farmland.

A proposal to list a group of PFAS as hazardous constituents under federal waste law also remains unresolved.

Not every federal action points the same way. The EPA is continuing to defend its 2024 designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Superfund law, which underpins a polluter-pays model for cleanup.

Olson said the rollbacks leave US protections lagging the science, with up to 105 million Americans using water with chemical levels above the EPA’s limits.

The costs are already heavy. In California alone, NRDC puts the annual healthcare bill from a handful of PFAS-linked conditions at between $5.5 billion and $8.7 billion, which Olson called “the tip of the iceberg.”

Money to help utilities comply is tightening too. The $9bn provided for PFAS under the 2021 infrastructure law expires at the end of September. And Olson said an extension was “not looking likely.”

Certain states fill the gap

Minnesota is among the states pressing ahead, said Kirk Koudelka, assistant commissioner for land policy at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

The state has designated the PFAS class as hazardous under its state Superfund programme. This is similar to Canada’s approach and going beyond the federal listing, which covers only PFOA and PFOS.

Minnesota’s Amara’s Law will ban PFAS in most products from 2032, with earlier phase-outs already in force. And the agency is layering monitoring into solid waste, wastewater and stormwater permits, with mandatory reporting of about 280 airborne PFAS compounds from April 2027.

Tiered limits already ban land application of the most contaminated biosolids. An earlier contamination settlement with 3M in the state’s East Metro area reached $850 million.

Koudelka said Minnesota cannot remediate its way out of the problem.

“We cannot clean our way out of this issue,” he said. Prevention and source reduction have to be the long-term answer, he added.

The economics underline this: buying PFAS to make consumer products costs between $50 and $1,000 per pound, against an estimated $2.7m to $18m per pound to remove and destroy it from municipal wastewater.

Koudelka set out how Minnesota is not alone. At least 33 state attorneys general have sued PFAS manufacturers. And around a dozen states have set their own drinking water limits, several adopting the EPA’s April 2024 standards, even as their federal future is contested.

PFAS policy confusion persists

A landscape, in which class-based rules advance in Canada and some states, while federal limits stall, raises the compliance and advisory burden for multi-jurisdiction clients. They must track diverging standards, monitoring obligations and cleanup triggers. Unresolved litigation over the drinking water standards and the Superfund listing add a further layer. And rulings expected in the coming months will help determine how far cleanup liability extends.

For further information, click here.

Featured photo credits: Getty Images

🌱 Don’t miss updates from Environment Journal. Sign up for your free subscription here.