PFAS: Patchwork changes keep agribusiness on watch across Europe and US

Shifts in chemical regulations impact everything from soil and water to food packaging

The Environmental Protection Agency’s actions this summer to delay regulations on some so-called “forever chemicals,” including those found in metal-plating, plastics, and non-stick coatings, may signal a deregulatory trend. However, more European regulations on PFAS and state-level action in the United States give agribusinesses new reason to consider examining their chemical supply chains.

There is little doubt PFAS will remain a top concern on regulators’ agendas. The immediate issue is which PFAS compounds, products, waste streams, packaging materials, and export channels will be subject to testing, disclosure, phaseout, litigation, or consumer-driven expectations.

In the U.S., the EPA is moving to preserve enforceable drinking water limits for PFAS while extending and proposing to rescind federal limits for certain types of PFAS, including PFHxS, PFNA, and GenX.

Meanwhile, over a dozen U.S. states have already initiated bans on products that contain PFAS, and in Europe, regulators are moving even faster with broader class-based restrictions, more frequent mandatory drinking water monitoring, soil and water-quality updates, emissions reporting, and food-contact packaging restrictions.

For companies that touch agricultural chemicals, irrigation or process water, biosolids, packaging, firefighting systems, or EU-facing supply chains, the practical message is clear: PFAS compliance is shifting from an environmental issue to a supply-chain and market-access one.

US regulatory direction: Narrower federal limits, longer timelines, more uncertainty

EPA’s PFAS drinking water program has shifted quickly from the comprehensive 2024 rule toward a narrower federal framework. The EPA announced proposed rules in May 2026 that would keep the maximum contaminant levels for PFOA and PFOS in place while giving eligible drinking water systems extra time to come into compliance by 2031.

This may give water utilities additional implementation flexibility, but for agribusinesses, landowners, processors, and input suppliers, the risk forecast is more complicated. While less federal limits may remove compliance demands in the short term, businesses still face other risks to navigate from state enforcement rules, consumer demands, lender diligence, or export-market expectations.

Companies should therefore avoid treating the U.S. federal rollback as a safe harbor. The more prudent posture is to assume that PFAS testing, documentation, and risk allocation will continue expanding through permits, contracts, transactions, insurance reviews, product stewardship programs, and groundwater or waste-stream investigations. Preparedness on these fronts now could generate key savings later.

Europe’s direction: Broader controls and supply-chain pressure

The European Union is taking a broader and more integrated approach. Rather than regulating PFAS compound by compound, EU regulators are advancing class-based restrictions through the European Chemicals Agency while also layering sector-specific controls on water, soil, emissions, packaging, and product uses. EU institutions are updating water-pollutant lists to better reflect emerging science, soil monitoring requirements are being designed to identify contamination hotspots, and food-contact packaging restrictions are moving toward tighter limits on intentionally added PFAS. As of this year, member states also now have mandatory drinking water monitoring obligations.

“We need to protect our environment, the health of current and future generations, but we also need to incentivize innovation and provide our businesses with regulatory clarity,” said Jessika Roswall, European Commissioner for Environment, Water Resilience and a Competitive Circular Economy, this past June.

The result is a compliance model that reaches beyond chemical manufacturers and into agricultural inputs, packaging, waste handling, and cross-border trade—all adding scrutiny to EU imports that could have PFAS-related risk.

For U.S. agribusinesses with EU customers or multinational buyers, these European rules may become their functional standard for ease of doing business even if there are no changes to U.S. laws.

What this means for US agribusiness and water law

The combined U.S. and EU policies point toward a more fractured yet demanding compliance environment. In the United States, a narrower federal drinking water rule may push more responsibility to states, plaintiffs, commercial counterparties, and sector-specific regulators. States have already been adopting more PFAS restrictions for firefighting foam, biosolids, consumer products, packaging, wastewater, and groundwater, leaving companies to manage a patchwork of requirements.

The leading voice for state environmental directors, Ben Grumbles, called for a unifying national standard in the U.S. for PFAS in drinking water. “States need more specific implementation frameworks, stronger federal investment, and more coordinated national leadership. Guidance is useful, but insufficient without enforceable standards and funding support,” said ECOS’ executive director Ben Grumbles at a PFAS briefing organized by Porter Wright in Congress this spring.

Businesses and landowners should also expect more PFAS language on warranties, insurance exclusions, permit questions, and lender inquiries in transactions involving farmland, processing facilities, water infrastructure, chemical storage, or legacy industrial sites. And where government regulators do not ask for PFAS related documentation, customers, retailers, or expert partners likely will.

Practical steps to prepare

To get ahead of this issue, agribusiness should proactively consider taking these steps:

• Map risk. Begin by mapping where PFAS risks may enter or leave the business. Consider crop protection products, packaging, process water, irrigation sources, wastewater, biosolids, firefighting systems, equipment coatings, storage areas, and legacy sites. Each poses their own risks and comes with its own mitigation strategies.
• Review agreements. Have legal counsel review contracts, purchase terms, leases, environmental diligence protocols, and insurance policies to determine whether PFAS risk is allocated clearly.
• Check your export practices. Companies that export should also compare their current practices against EU expectations. Where testing is appropriate, businesses should work with qualified environmental laboratories and preserve chain-of-custody records that may be needed for regulatory, transactional, or litigation needs down the road.
• Consider the business, not just compliance. Finally, business leaders should treat PFAS as an enterprise risk rather than a technical compliance issue: organizations that build inventory controls, supplier documentation, alternative chemical plans, and legal review processes now will be better positioned whether the next binding standard comes from EPA, a state agency, the European Union, a retailer, a lender, or a plaintiff’s lawyer.

Neil is a government affairs principal at Porter Wright. He previously covered agriculture and rural America as a journalist and worked on appropriations for a member of Congress. He can be reached at 202.778.3036 or [email protected].