The lawmaker fighting forever chemicals

Presented by Panasonic:

Feb 15, 2023 View in browser   By Marcia Brown Presented by Panasonic VERBATIM Rep. Chellie Pingree is trying to get more money for farmers whose land is contaminated by PFAS. | Kris Connor/Getty Images Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), a former small-scale organic farmer, is worried about the impact of so-called forever chemicals on the people who grow our food. She's part of the bipartisan delegation leading the charge on the federal response to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and a member of the Congressional PFAS Task Force. The Maine lawmakers introduced legislation last Congress for testing and disaster relief. They also secured $5 million in the recent omnibus package for the Agriculture Department to test for the toxic chemicals and provide relief to farmers. Maine's delegation plans to reintroduce the bill this Congress, but the House Appropriations Committee member says it's only the beginning of how she hopes the federal government will meet the emerging need, which goes far beyond farmers. EPA announced $2 billion in funding on Monday from the bipartisan infrastructure law to pay for testing and treatment of drinking water. Pingree is also a member of the House Agriculture Committee, which is responsible for the farm bill, a trillion-dollar spending package that Democrats are hoping to use to advance their climate goals in agriculture. The farm bill may also be home to federal PFAS testing and relief legislation. This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.  What are some of the things that are working in Maine that you'd like to see emulated at the federal level?  The Maine legislature, to their credit, has tackled this really full steam ahead. I think they allocated $60 million. So far, we've moved forward on $5 million. Obviously, we’re going to look for much higher levels than that. I think a lot more is going to happen and there’s money in the [Inflation Reduction Act] and there's going to be money in the defense bill. There's a lot of different ways to go [about it]...so that's $60 million [in Maine]. That's testing, treatment, provisions to support the income levels of the farmers who are impacted. We're going to have to take a very comprehensive approach [at the federal level]. Number one is expecting the USDA to set acceptable levels because that's something I think that's not very well understood right now. Right now, a farmer doesn't know what's an unacceptable level in a carrot. In terms of agriculture, I'd say immediate financial support for the farmer in terms of testing themselves, testing the land. Financial support for those who are already in a contaminated situation and have to deal with instant loss of their livelihood. Research related to what's an acceptable standard in meat, milk and other vegetable products. We don't have a lot of research about remediation of soil. That's going to be the biggest question: Can my soil be cleaned up? Or are there certain crops that will be less susceptible? Do you have more PFAS in a carrot than in a cucumber? Do you think it should be required? Should every farm in the United States have to test now, given that the exposure seems to be [from] so many different places?  I don't see how we don't eventually get to that point. I understand that it's hard to say, ‘Implement a testing regime tomorrow,’ when we're still so uncertain about what's a toxic level. I understand how, from my own state's perspective, it's no fun to be the first state. You don't want people immediately thinking, ‘Oh, wow, well, I'm not buying my carrots from Maine anymore. They're contaminated. And you're like, ‘Well, hey, what about New Jersey? They're probably worse,’ you know? No agriculture commissioner wants to be the one who says, ‘Okay, we're going to have testing in our state,’ because then they're like, ‘Whoops, didn't mean to find that out.’   A message from Panasonic: Deepening our commitment to sustainability. Learn more about Panasonic’s green impact.   At this point, there is some litigation against these companies [for PFAS pollution]. But Maine is saying, we're going to try to help farmers now and worry about trying to recoup the costs [from the companies] later. How are you thinking about that? I think it's just the compassionate side of the state that recognizes its citizens are — these small businesses and farmers — are already in dire straits. It's sort of like saying to somebody like, ‘Yeah, I know, you're hungry. But you know, we gotta settle that lawsuit and we can't help you and your family for five more years.’ We know how long it takes in the courts. This is like tobacco litigation and all those other things that there's going to be a huge fight for a long time. But it's hard. I mean, like at the federal level, does the federal government say, ‘Yeah, we see the problem. We'll take on this massive undertaking, which is probably unaffordable at any, you know, federal or state level.’   DOWNLOAD THE POLITICO MOBILE APP: Stay up to speed with the newly updated POLITICO mobile app, featuring timely political news, insights and analysis from the best journalists in the business. The sleek and navigable design offers a convenient way to access POLITICO's scoops and groundbreaking reporting. Don’t miss out on the app you can rely on for the news you need, reimagined. DOWNLOAD FOR iOS– DOWNLOAD FOR ANDROID.     Do you plan to reintroduce the PFAS legislation this Congress in the hopes of it being in the farm bill? Absolutely. I think we're looking for ways to examine all this in the farm bill. And then also just, you know, look for more funding at the appropriations level. I know you're probably in the early stages of thinking about what this would look like. But one of the problems with PFAS contamination as opposed to a flood or avian flu, is that at least in the immediate future, it's permanent, especially if the contamination is land and not water. So, how are you thinking about how to keep farmers afloat long-term? And how are you thinking about land use? Is it planting trees? If there's no way for that land to be productive for food or for textiles, what is the solution? I don't want to propose what the solution is, but that's certainly what we've been talking about. Right now, if you were a farmer with contaminated land, there isn't a program that says, If you cover your land with trees.… I mean, I suppose there's some ways you might be able to get conservation funds to do some of that. But would it be sufficient to replace the entire livelihood you just lost? I don't know. I don't think so. What if those are just the best sites possible for solar farms? That's a huge issue in a lot of agricultural states is siting solar farms because people are like, ‘We can't give up good land.’ But maybe if it was [no longer good] and then, how do we certify that you specifically have contaminated land? Because we don't even know right now…what would be an acceptable level. So the research, the standards. Do we want to turn everything into solar farms when in fact, we could remediate it with three seasons of hemp or a crop that we destroy or maybe cotton is just fine because it doesn’t uptake PFAS. So I feel like there’s a lot of unknowns. But we have to have some intention here to say, the problem is real. The problems are [that] there are already farmers who are not in a position to wait five years for us to figure out what are the standards, how do we remediate. If their land was flooded or they were dealing with some other kind of disaster, we would be there tomorrow to say, ‘How do we help you rebuild?’   A message from Panasonic:   YOU TELL US  GAME ON — Welcome to the Long Game, where we tell you about the latest on efforts to shape our future. We deliver data-driven storytelling, compelling interviews with industry and political leaders, and news Tuesday through Friday to keep you in the loop on sustainability. Team Sustainability is editor Greg Mott, deputy editor Debra Kahn and reporters Jordan Wolman and Allison Prang. Reach us all at gmott@politico.com, dkahn@politico.com, jwolman@politico.com and aprang@politico.com. Want more? Don’t we all. Sign up for the Long Game. Four days a week and still free!   LISTEN TO POLITICO'S ENERGY PODCAST: Check out our daily five-minute brief on the latest energy and environmental politics and policy news. Don't miss out on the must-know stories, candid insights, and analysis from POLITICO's energy team. Listen today.     WHAT WE'RE CLICKING — Oil companies aren't going to save us from themselves, the FT says. — Sustainability-linked bonds aren't that attractive or effective, the FT also reports. — Even Al Gore's ESG fund is having trouble balancing returns and do-gooderism, Bloomberg reports.   A message from Panasonic: Panasonic is helping lead the changes necessary to address the climate crisis. Here’s how: From creating more sustainable business practices, products and solutions to helping our customers integrate sustainable technologies in their projects. Learn More     Follow us on Twitter Debra Kahn @debra_kahn Greg Mott @gwmott Jordan Wolman @jordanwolman Allison Prang @AllisonPrang   Follow us

To change your alert settings, please log in at https://www.politico.com/_login?base=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com/settings This email was sent to rouf@idiot.cloudns.cc by: POLITICO, LLC 1000 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA, 22209, USA Please click here and follow the steps to unsubscribe.