What the guidance does not fully resolve is a growing structural contradiction: many of the same farms expected to deliver cleaner, healthier food continue to operate under unresolved exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often through no fault of their own.
Recent analysis from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) suggests PFAS contamination may affect nearly 70 million acres of U.S. farmland, largely linked to decades-old practices such as land application of biosolids derived from municipal wastewater. These “forever chemicals” persist in soil and water, accumulate in crops and livestock, and present long-term risks to both farmers and consumers.
For producers, the exposure is not theoretical. In multiple states—including Maine, Michigan, Texas, and New Mexico—farms have faced halted operations, livestock losses, or market exclusion after PFAS was detected in soil, water, or products. In many cases, contamination originated upstream from industrial discharges, military installations, or wastewater treatment systems—not from on-farm decisions.
This reality sits uneasily alongside federal messaging that promotes whole foods without fully addressing whether the production system itself is protected.
Federal agencies are not absent from the issue. USDA, EPA, and FDA have each taken steps to study PFAS pathways, test certain food products, and provide limited financial assistance. USDA programs such as the Dairy Indemnity Payment Program and targeted testing support offer relief in narrow circumstances, while EPA has moved to designate certain PFAS compounds as hazardous substances under Superfund law.
However, a comprehensive agricultural response remains fragmented.
A multi-stakeholder PFAS and Agriculture Policy Workgroup—convened by American Farmland Trust and supported by farm, commodity, and state agriculture organizations—outlined a coordinated federal framework in late 2025. The recommendations emphasize three core goals: protecting farmer health, keeping agricultural businesses operating, and maintaining confidence in the U.S. food supply.
Among the most pressing gaps identified:
Biosolids remain a key flashpoint. Roughly one-third of U.S. sewage sludge is applied to agricultural land due to its nutrient value and low cost. Yet PFAS concentrations vary widely, and federal thresholds for PFAS in biosolids have not been established.
Several states have begun to restrict or ban biosolid application, but without a national standard, farmers face uneven rules—and uneven risk. The policy workgroup recommends a federal health-based threshold for PFAS in land-applied biosolids, paired with testing requirements and transitional support for farmers who must shift nutrient sources.
USDA’s renewed emphasis on whole foods elevates expectations for domestic agriculture at the same time that PFAS exposure continues to undermine farm viability, market access, and public confidence.
Without clearer protections, farmers are left navigating a paradox: asked to produce healthier food while absorbing environmental and financial risks they did not create.
For policymakers, the disconnect raises a fundamental question. Can national nutrition goals be credibly advanced without parallel investment in protecting the land and producers responsible for delivering them?
As federal agencies continue refining PFAS policy across water, waste, and agriculture, the answer will shape not just food safety—but the long-term resilience of the U.S. farming system itself.
