PFAS out? EPA’s rollbacks and approvals contradict pledge to curb “forever chemicals”

• The EPA’s “PFAS OUT” initiative promises outreach to water systems, but the agency under the current administration has withdrawn Biden-era limits for four PFAS chemicals and scrapped a review of sewage sludge risks.
• Despite claims of prioritizing health, the EPA recently approved three new herbicides that international experts classify as PFAS, bringing the total approved under the current administration to five.
• Nearly 70 million acres of U.S. farmland are potentially contaminated by PFAS through the use of sewage sludge, with no national testing requirements or warnings to farmers.
• The EPA’s internal data has linked new herbicides to animal tumors, yet the agency maintains these chemicals do not fit its definition of PFAS, contradicting OECD standards.
• Concurrently, the EPA is fast-tracking the review of a new PFAS coolant for data centers, a move environmental groups argue could expand the use of toxic chemicals into new sectors.

A policy of contradiction: The EPA’s PFAS pledge vs. its actions

In a move that critics call a stark contradiction, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Trump administration is championing a public-relations campaign to eliminate PFAS from drinking water while simultaneously rolling back safety regulations and approving new types of these toxic compounds. The disconnect between the agency’s rhetoric and its regulatory actions raises urgent questions about the safety of the nation’s water, food supply and farmland.

The conflict was thrust into the spotlight recently when the EPA announced the “PFAS OUT” initiative, an outreach program designed to help water systems address contamination from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Weeks earlier, the same agency withdrew proposed rules for limiting PFAS in sewage sludge and rescinded drinking water limits for four cancer-linked chemicals. Now, environmental groups are sounding the alarm that these rollbacks are actively increasing public health risks.

The hidden cost of new herbicides

The EPA’s most recent approvals highlight the discrepancy between its promises and its actions. In late June, the agency quietly greenlit three new herbicides—trifludimoxazin, diflufenican and epyrifenacil—for use on major food crops. The approvals were made without a press release or media briefing, and the EPA does not classify these chemicals as PFAS. However, international experts at the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) explicitly define them as PFAS, which are substances linked to cancer, hormonal disorders and immune system suppression.

The EPA’s own data reveals potential dangers. Last year, the agency classified trifludimoxazin as having “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential” based on the development of thyroid tumors in animals. Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, criticized the agency’s stance, stating that the administration is putting more effort into excluding chemicals from PFAS regulations than in protecting people from them. These approvals bring the total number of PFAS pesticides greenlit under the current administration to five, per the OECD definition.

Contaminated farmland and the sewage sludge loophole

Perhaps the most concerning rollback involves the use of sewage sludge, often sold as fertilizer. According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), this sludge is spread on nearly 70 million acres of U.S. farmland—an area roughly the size of Nevada. A recent EPA risk assessment confirmed that even at extremely low levels, PFAS in sludge could elevate cancer risks for farmers and consumers. However, the Trump administration scrapped a Biden-era scientific review of the sludge in July.

This decision leaves a significant regulatory gap. There are no national testing requirements for biosolids, and farmers are not warned about potential contamination. Bill Pluecker, an independent state representative from Maine, noted that the review recognized a specific danger to farmers and the food supply. The practice remains largely unregulated, despite evidence that PFAS can leach into crops, water sources and livestock, forcing some farmers to euthanize animals with high PFAS levels in their systems.

Data centers: The next frontier for PFAS

In a new and expanding concern, the EPA is prioritizing the review of a PFAS chemical intended for use in data center cooling systems. With the surge in artificial intelligence and cloud computing, data centers are seeking alternatives to water-based cooling. Chemours, a major chemical supplier, is pushing for approval of Opteon 2P50, a specialized liquid coolant.

While Chemours argues the chemical should be evaluated on its own merit, 17 environmental groups have filed formal comments urging rejection, citing severe risks to health and the environment. Earthjustice staff scientist Adriana Antezana warned that once approved, the chemical could be used for any purpose without stringent restrictions. Rainer Lohmann, director of a PFAS research center at the University of Rhode Island, noted that the focus on deregulation comes at the cost of accepting environmental degradation as a price for economic activity.

A legacy of inaction and a global standard

This deregulatory push echoes a pattern of historical inaction. The EPA has known about the toxicity of PFAS for decades but has failed to enact decisive federal limits. The agency’s current lifetime health advisory level of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) stands in stark contrast to independent studies recommending a safe level of 1 ppt. While states like New Jersey, Michigan and Maine have established their own stricter limits—with Maine banning sludge use on farm fields entirely—the federal government has consistently lagged, leaving millions of Americans exposed.

A call for accountability and action

The situation draws parallels to past controversies where regulatory agencies prioritized industry profits over public health. As the EPA championed the “PFAS OUT” initiative, its actions have directed more PFAS into the environment. The implications for American health are severe, affecting everything from the safety of drinking water to the integrity of the food chain. For people living near affected farms or using municipal compost, the risks are tangible.

To mitigate exposure, consumers are advised to choose organic products, which are prohibited from using sludge-based fertilizers, and to avoid bagged compost sourced from wastewater utilities. However, individual action offers limited protection against systemic pollution. Advocacy groups argue that the EPA must immediately ban PFAS in pesticides, reinstate strict drinking water standards, and require industrial polluters to pretreat their waste.

The promise of “PFAS OUT” rings hollow as long as the policies of the current administration continue to let more “forever chemicals” in. The future of American farmland, water and public health depends on closing the gap between the EPA’s rhetoric and its regulatory reality.

Sources for this article include:

TheNewLede.org

EPA.gov

EWG.org