The Trump administration’s recent decision to eliminate nearly $15 million in research funding aimed at understanding the impact of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) on U.S. farmland has drawn significant criticism from environmental advocates and local farmers. PFAS, a class of around 15,000 synthetic compounds often referred to as “forever chemicals,” are notorious for their persistence in the environment and the human body. This significant funding cut has led advocates to sound alarm bells over continued widespread contamination and its effects on public health and agriculture.
PFAS do not ever break down naturally, meaning they build up both in the ground and inside living things. Whether used in conventional, organic, or biodynamic farming, researchers found the compounds. They were especially common in areas where PFAS-laden pesticides and sewage sludge were spread on farmland. These dangerous chemicals leach into the soil, local crops, and water sources. This practice endangers the health of consumers and farmworkers.
Investigations in Maine have revealed widespread PFAS pollution on 84 farms. Consequently, five of those farms have closed their doors as a result of the pollution’s severity. Many farmers have attested to suffering serious health effects related to PFAS exposure, increasing fears that food is unsafe. Maine stands out as the only state with a comprehensive testing program for PFAS in agriculture, further underscoring the need for thorough research into the issue.
The research initiative funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) included ten studies led by universities nationwide focusing on the uptake and bioaccumulation of PFAS in plants and animals. Yet, without the funding withdrawn by the Trump administration, these pivotal studies would continue blurring the lines between our real and modeled worlds. To its credit, the administration recently reversed course and reinstated funding for two of those studies. Most experts agree that this is a paltry sum compared to the size of the problem.
Kyla Bennett, the science director at Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) expressed her dismay about the appropriation cuts. Having served as an EPA attorney, she appreciates the work these cuts will save. She stated, “Cutting funding into research on how these toxic chemicals get into our food will doom us to decades or even hundreds of years more of exposure.”
The ramifications of PFAS contamination reach far past any individual farm. If a child were to go grab ten blueberries from a contaminated garden, they could ingest GenX levels. That would be like drinking a single liter of water that goes over federal safety limits. This shocking statistic highlights the need for immediate action to help mitigate PFAS contamination throughout our food systems.
Bill Pluecker, a Maine state representative who has felt PFAS’ impact personally. As a public policy organizer for the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, he knows more research is needed in this space. He stated, “We have to do this research and take steps to not just make sure that our food supply is safe, but ensure our farms and farmers are safe.”
The health effects of PFAS are deep and multifaceted. These chemicals continue to stick around in the environment. Consequently, we find ourselves with some very consistent questions still unanswered about their long-term impacts on human health. The removal of any dedicated research funding only deepens these worries.