Heather Spalding is the deputy director of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA).

By now, most Mainers have heard of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), the ubiquitous “forever chemicals” that have contaminated dozens of farms statewide, polluted our drinking water and put farmers out of business.

Even for those who haven’t heard of PFAS, they’ve likely been affected by these forever chemicals — with PFAS pollution costing taxpayers over $100 million and found in high levels in the blood of farmers, their families and neighbors.

Maine is a leader in PFAS regulation, having passed numerous laws regulating the production of PFAS products and our food supply. But even as our state makes important advances to protect our health, the other side of the coin shows companies pushing for weaker standards.

Pesticide manufacturers unsuccessfully lobbied the Legislature for a blanket exclusion from PFAS regulations. Now, they are promoting new PFAS pesticides to the Board of Pesticide Control, which oversees the state’s pesticide registration system.

The Board of Pesticide Control has echoed industry talking points downplaying the dangers of PFAS. In order to protect our families from PFAS contamination, the Board of Pesticide Control needs to get on board with PFAS regulation.

Maine isn’t just cleaning up past messes but has adopted comprehensive laws to prevent future contamination by, as I put it in a Senate testimony in 2021, “turning off the PFAS tap.” Notably, the PFAS in Products Law, which was enacted that same year, requires pesticides sold in the state to be PFAS-free by 2032 — unless the manufacturer can establish that a product meets the narrow “currently unavoidable use” exemption.

While the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decides which pesticides may be sold in the U.S., federal law gives states leeway to endorse or reject the EPA’s decisions, and authority to set more protective environmental and safety standards. Maine regulators have exercised this prerogative over many years under Republican and Democratic federal administrations.

Thus, it was surprising and incredibly disappointing that the Board of Pesticide Control rushed to rubber-stamp the EPA’s approval of two new PFAS-laden pesticides: cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram. National farmworker, conservation and food safety organizations have challenged the EPA’s approval of these PFAS pesticides in federal court for failing to follow the agency’s own cancer guidelines and federal law.

Instead of digging into existing research on PFAS, the Board of Pesticide Control’s toxicologist downplayed toxicity concerns. Given the extent of PFAS contamination, costs and public concern, the Board of Pesticide Control had a responsibility to exercise independent judgment and carefully review the EPA decision. 

As Nathan Donley of the Center for Biological Diversity points out, the EPA’s decision didn’t address the worrisome data: that cyclobutrifluram is known to break down into a smaller forever chemical which is likely one of the world’s most pervasive water contaminants, nor that research has linked isocycloseram to reduced testicle size, lower sperm counts and liver toxicity.

Maine’s Board of Pesticides Control needs to go back to the drawing board.

Instead of rushing to approve new PFAS products, it should take seriously the mandate to phase out unnecessary PFAS and begin reviewing already registered products to prepare for the 2032 deadline.