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.’
| 
