California prides itself on setting the nation’s environmental standards. From vehicle emissions to plastic waste, we often lead while others follow.
But when it comes to PFAS “forever chemicals” in pesticides, California is falling behind.
As reported by the media in California, recent testing has found that a significant share of produce contains pesticide residues, and some of those pesticides are part of the PFAS chemical family. These chemicals, prized by manufacturers for their durability, can persist in the environment for decades and some have been linked to cancer, immune system damage and developmental harm.
If California wants to remain a world-leader in the environmental space, it cannot allow its farms to become a new pipeline for forever chemicals in our food and soil. Other states like Maine, Rhode Island, Minnesota and North Carolina are all way ahead of us when it comes to PFAS study and mitigation.
Now, it’s true that a major reason East Coast states are so ahead in this matter is that they’ve been actively battling PFAS chemicals for decades. California has been fortunate not to be dealing with the discovery of rampant river pollution dating back 40 years, which is the case for North Carolina.
But let’s not pat ourselves on the back, because with every new report that comes out about PFAS chemicals, we’re discovering that the threat has been prevalent here for far longer than we initially thought.
Think too that California’s produce feeds much of the U.S. PFAS chemicals in California’s produce means that our state is actively contributing to the spread of toxic forever chemicals across the country.
The economic burden of PFAS contamination is another reason why proactive solutions are needed. The EPA estimates that the cost of removing PFAS from U.S. water systems will reach between $2 billion and $4 billion dollars every year — and that doesn’t account for agricultural losses, soil remediation or medical expenses linked to long-term exposure.
These are expenses that taxpayers may ultimately shoulder. Investing in stronger oversight of pesticides and water treatment technologies now is vastly cheaper than paying the cleanup bill later, once the damage has spread across thousands of acres and millions more people.
Although California is more progressive than some states, this is a wake-up call for our state. Let’s continue our tradition of being leaders in health and environmental matters.
Thankfully, in many ways, California already leads by example. We do have some of the strictest laws regarding consumer goods, particularly apparel. But there’s room for improvement. With PFAS found in everything from dental floss to tampons, regulations will need to be more comprehensive.
With states like Maine and Minnesota already implementing strong restrictions on PFAS in consumer products, California’s regulations are anticipated to become increasingly broad, making it essential for businesses to proactively focus on testing and compliance.
There are business and entrepreneurial opportunities here for key services, including laboratory testing and regulatory guidance to detect PFAS in various consumer goods, produce, water and soil. Companies will also need consultation on alternative product solutions, such as non-PFAS formulations for apparel and pesticide uses, to help companies meet future regulatory standards.
By implementing PFAS-reducing practices and infrastructure in various aspects of the state, from water treatment to agriculture to apparel, we can lead the nation in ridding ourselves of this toxic threat.
The good news is that while other states are making progress ahead of us, progress is being made. New Jersey’s landmark settlement created a $1.2 billion remediation fund that the state is already using to implement PFAS-destroying technology in its water treatment plants. California has a similar lawsuit in the works, and, if successful, it could be the big step we need to detoxify our water, food, and soil.
Dennis P. Calvert is president and CEO of BioLargo, an Orange County-based cleantech company. He serves on the Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee, advising the U.S. Department of Commerce, and chairs its Enabling Innovative Technology subcommittee.
