As the federal government continues to water down PFAS protections, states have an opportunity to help their residents, but only if they avoid certain pitfalls and loopholes.
PFAS are one of the greatest public health threats of our time. These “forever chemicals” have invaded every aspect of our lives, from water and soil to kitchen utensils, safety equipment, and even baby toys. As a country, we need real urgency to address this risk quickly and in the right way.
Despite the rollbacks and suspensions of PFAS regulations by the federal government, we are seeing tremendous bipartisan support to permanently address the chemicals at the state level. This is an important step in the right direction. However, as states introduce legislation to regulate PFAS, it is imperative that they pursue responsible legislation that has proven effectiveness.
The state legislature has two policy paths, which I call the “Michigan Model” and the “Main Model.”
Although Maine and Michigan are both leading state-level PFAS regulations, there are two key differences in their approaches that make the Maine model the gold standard for states to follow.
First, the main model takes an aggressive approach by banning PFAS from consumer products before manufacturing.
Second, Maine is the first state in the nation to pass a comprehensive ban on the land use of sewage sludge, also known as biosolids, and the sale and distribution of sludge-derived compost. This will stop PFAS before they contaminate the state’s drinking water, farmland, and communities.
As a policy leader in Maine who helped pass this bill in my home state, I have seen the benefits of having an aggressive strategy against PFAS. All states except Maine and Connecticut are now further increasing PFAS contamination by spreading additional sludge, which will only deepen the crisis and increase future remediation and medical costs.
While Michigan was an early leader in setting drinking water standards (maximum contaminant levels or MCLs) for certain PFAS chemicals, the Great Lakes states are now lagging behind. Michigan’s PFAS strategy relies on detecting PFAS and mitigating them through cleanup efforts. Although well-intended, this strategy leaves room for harm to befall the general public.
In addition to this, states are finding they need more money to pay for PFAS cleanups because settlements from polluters don’t cover the costs.
Maine’s policy stands out because it anticipates the impact of widespread PFAS prevention efforts and creates safety nets for businesses and communities most at risk. This manifests itself in many ways, but a prime example is our partnership with farmers affected by toxic sludge that threatens their land and livelihoods.
About six years ago, we began working with farmers who were unable to safely grow and sell their products due to PFAS contamination from fertilizers and sewage sludge on their land. We created the PFAS Emergency Relief Fund to provide farmers with the resources they need to safely transition their farms. The fund will help farmers pay for their first PFAS test, access health and mental health services, in some cases receive short-term income replacement, and invest in infrastructure adaptation. These are all essential when you lose your livelihood.
We have supported over 100 farms since building the infrastructure to safely transition farms from the threat of PFAS contamination. Only the farms that discovered contamination earliest, before safety nets were in place, faced closure.
This safety net for agricultural leaders has been a huge success because it prioritizes public health, financial stability, and long-term sustainability. The vitality of our food system, public health, and economy depends on our policies both turning off the PFAS chemicals added to products that end up in the waste stream and building safety nets throughout the transition to cleaner infrastructure so small businesses are protected.
In addition to being proactive, states need to set sensible thresholds for sludge. Michigan has set incredibly high contamination thresholds for PFAS concentrations in biosolids, which means large amounts of contaminants will still be applied to the land. If the threshold is meaningless, no one will protect it.
Legislation with appropriate standards for sludge quickly proved important, as states across the country began to water down their sludge policies. These efforts have emerged as high thresholds for PFAS contamination in sludge and liability shields for companies involved in sludge treatment. To prevent this policy trend from spreading, it is imperative that anti-sludge and anti-PFAS laws address these corporate loopholes.
Maine policy opts for a more comprehensive approach, regulating PFAS as an entire category rather than regulating individual chemicals. Additionally, the state was the first to mandate a near-total ban on PFAS in products.
Our state has also passed laws requiring accountability for manufacturers who fail to remove PFAS from their products, granting them a Currently Unusable (CUU) designation. The Department of Environmental Protection will only issue CUUs to a company if the department determines that the product is essential to health, safety, or the functioning of society and no substitute is reasonably available.
Soon, the choice will not be whether states take action against PFAS, but how. And Maine’s policy is a blueprint for how the rest of America should address this problem to prevent this toxic public health threat from its source.
We will republish this article for free! Please read our reprint policy. The silent threat beneath our feet: How deregulation accelerates the proliferation of eternal chemicals
