Report on PFAS Contamination, Agricultural Liability, and Sustainable Development Goals

Agricultural Sector Policy Recommendations for SDG Alignment

A coalition of agricultural organizations has issued federal policy recommendations to address Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) contamination. This initiative, crucial for advancing several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), involves key stakeholders dedicated to sustainable farming.

• National Farmers Union
• National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
• American Farmland Trust

The recommendations are designed to mitigate the adverse impacts of PFAS contamination on the agricultural sector, directly supporting the following SDGs:

1. Farmer Assistance and Land Remediation: Providing support for cleanup efforts on contaminated farms aligns with SDG 15 (Life on Land) by seeking to restore degraded land and halt biodiversity loss. It also supports SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) by ensuring the long-term viability of food production systems.
2. Future Contamination Prevention: Measures to reduce the introduction of new contaminants into the agricultural environment contribute to SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) by promoting the sound management of chemicals and wastes.
3. Liability Exemption for Farmers: A central recommendation is to clarify and confirm that farmers, as “passive receivers,” will not be held liable for contamination caused by regulated products such as fertilizers. This protects farmer livelihoods, a key target under SDG 2, and ensures that accountability is placed on primary polluters, in line with SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Institutional Responses and Liability Frameworks for Environmental Governance

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has acknowledged the challenge of “passive receiver liability.” An EPA announcement on September 17 highlighted the difficulty in holding polluters accountable while providing certainty for entities that did not manufacture or generate PFAS chemicals. The agency indicated that new statutory language from Congress would be necessary to fully address these concerns.

This call for legislative clarity underscores the importance of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), which advocates for effective, accountable, and transparent institutions at all levels. However, expert analysis suggests existing frameworks may already provide a solution.

• Betsy Southerland, former Director of the EPA’s Office of Science and Technology, stated that the 2024 enforcement discretion policy had resolved the issue.
• The policy clarified that EPA enforcement would focus on polluters, not on farmers or municipalities who passively received PFAS chemicals.

Challenges to Achieving Health and Environmental SDGs

While the EPA’s commitment to maintaining existing PFAS designations is noted, other agency actions present significant challenges to achieving critical health and environmental SDGs. These actions undermine progress toward ensuring public well-being and environmental protection.

Recent decisions by the EPA conflict directly with the following goals:

• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) & SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation): A previous decision to roll back limits on four other PFAS chemicals offers little relief to communities concerned about “forever chemicals” in their drinking water, directly threatening public health and the safety of water resources.
• SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production): The recent approval of four new pesticides that qualify as PFAS, based on an internationally recognized definition not used by the EPA, contradicts the goal of achieving environmentally sound management of chemicals throughout their life cycle and reducing their release to air, water, and soil.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The article raises concerns about “forever chemicals in drinking water,” which directly impacts human health. The discussion around PFAS contamination from fertilizers and pesticides highlights the health risks associated with chemical pollution.

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

  The core issue of PFAS contamination directly threatens water quality. The article explicitly mentions worries about these chemicals in “drinking water,” linking the topic to the goal of ensuring access to safe and clean water.

• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

  The article focuses on the environmental consequences of agricultural production inputs, such as fertilizers and pesticides containing PFAS. It discusses the need for better management of these chemicals and holding polluters accountable, which aligns with achieving sustainable production patterns.

• SDG 15: Life on Land

  The central theme is “PFAS contamination on farms.” This chemical pollution degrades agricultural land and soil, affecting terrestrial ecosystems and the sustainability of farming, which is a key aspect of this goal.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article is heavily focused on the role of institutions like the EPA, policy-making, and legal liability. The debate over the “enforcement discretion policy,” the need for “new statutory language from Congress,” and the advocacy by a “coalition of farm groups” all relate to developing effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.
     
     Explanation: The article’s focus on addressing PFAS (hazardous chemicals) contamination on farms and in drinking water directly relates to this target of minimizing health impacts from pollution.

2. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

   • Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials.
     
     Explanation: The concern about “forever chemicals in drinking water” and the policy discussions around cleanup and preventing future contamination align with the goal of reducing the release of hazardous chemicals into water sources.

3. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

   • Target 12.4: By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle… and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.
     
     Explanation: The article discusses the management of PFAS chemicals found in fertilizers and pesticides. The policy recommendations for “addressing PFAS contamination on farms” and the debate over EPA’s approval of “four new pesticides that qualify as PFAS” are central to this target.

4. SDG 15: Life on Land

   • Target 15.3: By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by… contamination, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world.
     
     Explanation: The article’s discussion of “PFAS contamination on farms” is a form of land degradation. The policy recommendations that include “assisting farmers with cleanup” directly support the restoration of contaminated land.

5. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
     
     Explanation: The article scrutinizes the actions and policies of the EPA, such as its “enforcement discretion policy” and the decision to “roll back limits on four other PFAS.” This debate over institutional effectiveness and accountability is a core element of the text.
   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.
     
     Explanation: The article mentions that a “broader coalition of farm groups… released federal policy recommendations.” This action represents participatory decision-making, where affected stakeholders actively engage in shaping policy.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Implied Indicator for Targets 3.9 & 6.3:

   Concentration levels of PFAS chemicals in drinking water. The article mentions the EPA’s “earlier decision to roll back limits on four other PFAS,” which implies that regulatory limits and measured concentrations of these chemicals in water are key metrics for assessing public health risk and water quality.

2. Implied Indicators for Target 12.4:

   Number of new hazardous chemicals approved for use and existence of management policies. The article explicitly states that the EPA “recently approved four new pesticides that qualify as PFAS.” Tracking the approval of such chemicals is a direct indicator of chemical management practices. Furthermore, the entire discussion of the “enforcement discretion policy” and the call for “new statutory language” point to the existence and strength of regulatory frameworks as a measure of progress.

3. Implied Indicator for Target 15.3:

   Area of agricultural land affected by chemical contamination. The focus on “PFAS contamination on farms” and recommendations for “assisting farmers with cleanup” imply that the extent (area) of contaminated land is a primary indicator of the problem’s scale and that a reduction in this area would signify progress.

4. Implied Indicator for Targets 16.6 & 16.7:

   Adoption of policies based on stakeholder recommendations. The article highlights that a “coalition of farm groups… released federal policy recommendations.” An indicator of institutional responsiveness would be the extent to which these recommendations are clarified, debated, and incorporated into official EPA policy or congressional legislation.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: civileats.com