WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 2400

Prohibits the sale or distribution of products containing intentionally added PFAS and authorized the DNR to obtain information on the products and prosecute manufacturers for violations

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Marty Murray

Prohibits selling or distributing products with intentionally added PFAS in Missouri, with DNR power to collect data and prosecute violations.

Referred: Emerging Issues(H)
#environmentalprotection #fireprotection #naturalresources #departmentof
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 2400

Overview

HB 2400 (Missouri, 2026) prohibits the sale or distribution of products that contain intentionally added PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). The bill authorizes the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to obtain information about products containing PFAS and to prosecute manufacturers for violations. The measure includes a co-sponsor: Marty Murray. It was referred to Emerging Issues (H) on May 15, 2026, with prior readings in January 2026 and prefiling in December 2025.

Purpose and intent

  • To reduce human and environmental exposure to PFAS by cutting off the sale and distribution of products containing intentionally added PFAS.
  • To empower the state to gather information about PFAS-containing products and hold manufacturers accountable for violations.
  • To establish a regulatory framework within Missouri targeted at PFAS in consumer and/or industrial products.

Key provisions and changes

  • Prohibition on sales/distribution: The bill makes it unlawful to sell or distribute products that contain intentionally added PFAS. The scope of “products” is not specified in the summary provided, but typically would cover consumer goods and possibly industrial products.
  • Information-gathering authority: The DNR is authorized to obtain information related to PFAS-containing products. This may include production, supply chain, labeling, and ingredient disclosures, enabling enforcement and monitoring.
  • Enforcement mechanism: The DNR has authority to prosecute manufacturers for violations. This implies criminal or administrative penalties, though the exact penalties (fines, penalties, or injunctive relief) are not detailed in the summary.
  • Scope of penalties and defenses: Not specified in the provided information. If enacted, penalties would likely be defined in the statute or related sections and may include penalties per violation, ongoing penalties, and possible exemptions or safe harbors.
  • Effective administration: The bill designates the DNR as the primary enforcement and information-gathering agency for PFAS-containing products.

Who or what would be affected

  • Manufacturers and distributors of products containing intentionally added PFAS who sell or distribute such products in Missouri.
  • Retailers and supply chains that move or stock PFAS-containing products within the state, potentially affecting compliance duties.
  • Potentially consumers if the prohibition reduces PFAS-containing products available in the market, or if the bill sets labeling or disclosure requirements as part of information collection.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Prefiled: December 12, 2025.
  • First Reading: January 7, 2026.
  • Second Reading: January 8, 2026.
  • Referred to Committee: Emerging Issues (H) on May 15, 2026.
  • Next steps typical in Missouri: Committee consideration, possible amendments, floor debate and votes in the House, potential consideration by the Senate, and final passage before crossing to the governor for signature or veto. Specific committee actions and timeline would depend on committee schedules and legislative priorities.

Potential impacts and considerations

  • Public health and environmental protection: Aims to reduce PFAS exposure by removing these substances from products sold in Missouri.
  • Economic and supply-chain effects: Manufacturers may need to reformulate products, source PFAS-free alternatives, or adjust labeling and disclosure practices. Enforcement could influence compliance costs and regulatory burden.
  • Legal/consumer protection: The provision authorizing the DNR to prosecute could heighten enforcement risk for violators, potentially increasing penalties for noncompliance.
  • Clarity and scope: The bill’s effectiveness depends on defined terms (e.g., “products” covered, definitions of “intentionally added PFAS,” exemptions, safe harbors, and penalties), as well as procedures for information requests and due-process protections.

If you’d like, I can add a section outlining potential questions to seek from sponsors or draft proposed amendments to clarify definitions, penalties, and the scope of enforcement.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.