FOOD & AGRICULTURE QUARTERLY | SEPTEMBER 2026
PFAS: Patchwork changes keep agribusiness on watch across Europe and US
Shifts in chemical regulations impact everything from soil and water to food packaging
NEIL SIMON
The Environmental Protection Agency’ s actions this summer to delay regulations on some so-called“ forever chemicals,” including those found in metalplating, 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 waterquality updates, emissions reporting, and foodcontact 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 supplychain 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
PAGE 13