Lawmaker seeks to refine ‘overly broad' PFAS definition to allow for some pesticide use
Rather than creating a more limited definition, Maine Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Melanie Loyzim said uses of PFAS that are 'economically important' but don't pose health risks should be evaluated individually. (Photo by Getty Images)
After lawmakers couldn't agree on which committee should handle her proposal to regulate forever chemicals in pesticides, Rep. Amy Arata is taking a new, more sweeping approach.
The Republican from New Gloucester got approval from legislative leaders to introduce a late-session bill (LD 1982) that would change how perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS, are defined in state law. She believes the current definition is overly broad and could include chemicals that don't pose the same long-term health problems as PFAS, which have been linked to cancer and weakened immune systems.
During a public hearing Monday, Arata introduced her proposal for Maine to adopt the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's narrower definition for PFAS, which was changed under the Biden administration. The proposal would narrow the definition from any fluorinated organic chemical containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom to substances containing any one of three specific chemical structures.
She told the Legislature's Environment and Natural Resources committee that her bipartisan proposal is 'merely a refinement' of the existing definition.
Arata is largely concerned with farmers being unable to use certain pesticides that would fall under the state's current definition. She said changing Maine's definition to align with that federal definition would still 'protect the health of Maine citizens while also allowing our farmers and other industries to be competitive nationwide.'
However, Commissioner Melanie Loyzim said the Department of Environmental Protection opposes the bill because the state already has a process for people to seek exemptions to use products with PFAS that would otherwise be prohibited under the state ban that will be rolling out in the coming years.
Under the state's PFAS products ban, any product containing intentionally added PFAS can not be sold in the state after Jan. 1, 2030. The department's website includes step-by-step instructions for requesting exemptions for certain products with currently unavoidable use.
Rather than creating a more limited definition, Loyzim said uses of PFAS that are 'economically important' but don't pose health risks should be evaluated individually.
Loyzim also argued that this change wouldn't actually create uniformity with the federal guidelines because the EPA uses different definitions based on the specific regulation, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act versus the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Arata said her bill would not precipitate other changes in Maine laws related to PFAS, but Loyzim said that definition is used in multiple areas of statute including those pertaining to wastewater discharge, land application of sewage, food packaging and more.
Nancy McBrady, deputy commissioner for the Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry, acknowledged that farmers could be hurt by a prohibition on certain pesticides that would fall under the state's PFAS products bans, but warned LD 1982 is too broad.
Rather, she suggested the Legislature pursue a narrower discussion on PFAS and pesticides in the next session. However, that conversation would likely need to go before the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee.
The Maine State Chamber of Commerce argues Arata's proposal could create greater consistency and clarity for business, especially those who deal with national supply chains. The Maine Potato Board echoed this point when speaking in support of the bill.
However, other environmental organizations including the Friends of Casco Bay, Defend Our Health and the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association opposed the bill.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tesla Tumbles After Musk Escalates Attacks on Trump Tax Bill
(Bloomberg) -- Tesla Inc.'s shares sank as Elon Musk and President Donald Trump's simmering feud devolved into a public war of words between two of the world's most powerful people. ICE Moves to DNA-Test Families Targeted for Deportation with New Contract Next Stop: Rancho Cucamonga! US Housing Agency Vulnerable to Fraud After DOGE Cuts, Documents Warn The Global Struggle to Build Safer Cars Where Public Transit Systems Are Bouncing Back Around the World Trump on Thursday said he was 'very disappointed' by the Tesla chief executive officer's criticism of the president's signature tax policy bill. Musk fired back on social media, saying it was 'false' that the Tesla CEO knew the plan would unwind EV tax credits that benefit Tesla's business. Musk followed up with several more sharply worded posts, including saying Trump showed 'such ingratitude' for the help the billionaire entrepreneur has provided to Trump's administration. Tesla's shares fell as much 9.2% to an intraday low as the two traded barbs. The spat highlights how policies advanced by Trump and Republican lawmakers put billions of dollars at risk for Tesla. Trump's massive tax bill would largely eliminate a credit worth as much as $7,500 for buyers of some Tesla models and other electric vehicles by the end of this year, seven years ahead of schedule. That would translate to a roughly $1.2 billion hit to Tesla's full-year profit, according to JPMorgan analysts. After leaving his formal advisory role in the White House last week, Musk has been on a mission to block the president's signature tax bill that he described as a 'disgusting abomination.' The world's richest person has been lobbying Republican lawmakers — including making a direct appeal to House Speaker Mike Johnson — to preserve the valuable EV tax credits in the legislation. Separate legislation passed by the Senate attacking California's EV sales mandates poses another $2 billion headwind for Tesla's sales of regulatory credits, according to JPMorgan. Taken together, those measures threaten roughly half of the more than $6 billion in earnings before interest and taxes that Wall Street expects Tesla to post this year, analysts led by Ryan Brinkman said in a May 30 report. Tesla didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. The House-passed tax bill would aggressively phase-out tax credits for the production of clean electricity, and other sources years earlier than scheduled. It also includes stringent restrictions on the use of Chinese components and materials that analysts said would render the credits useless and limits the ability of company's to sell the tax credits to third parties. Tesla's division focused on solar systems and batteries separately criticized the Republican bill for gutting clean energy tax credits, saying that 'abruptly ending' the incentives would threaten US energy independence and the reliability of the power grid. The clean energy and EV policies under threat were largely enacted as part of former President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. The law was designed to encourage companies to build a domestic supply chain for clean energy and electric vehicles, giving companies more money if they produce more batteries and EVs in the US. Tesla has a broad domestic footprint, including car factories in Texas and California, a lithium refinery and battery plants. With those Biden-era policies in place, US EV sales rose 7.3% to a record 1.3 million vehicles last year, according to Cox Automotive data. --With assistance from Kara Carlson, Keith Laing, Josh Wingrove and Kate Sullivan. (Updates shares, adds Trump, Musk comments starting in the fourth paragraph.) Cavs Owner Dan Gilbert Wants to Donate His Billions—and Walk Again YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce Is Elon Musk's Political Capital Spent? Trump Considers Deporting Migrants to Rwanda After the UK Decides Not To ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Axios
32 minutes ago
- Axios
Tesla stock sinks as Musk and Trump's relationship blows up
Tesla shares hit the skids Thursday as the relationship between Elon Musk and President Trump turned fully south. Why it matters: Musk and Trump were close political allies for a time, after the Tesla CEO poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Republican campaigns and led the budget-slashing Department of Government of Efficiency. The halo of that relationship was seen as a boon to Tesla's shares and the valuations of Musk's other companies like SpaceX. The big picture: Musk has repeatedly assailed Trump's "big, beautiful bill" in recent days, saying it'll unacceptably increase the national debt and wipe out DOGE's budget savings. On Thursday, Musk began reposting pre-presidency Trump tweets promoting a balanced budget and arguing against a debt ceiling increase. Trump responded in the Oval Office: " Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore." Between the lines: Tesla's stock was down more than 8% just after 1 p.m. ET Thursday. That decline would cost Musk nearly $11 billion personally. The downward trajectory suggests that investors are worried that a Musk-Trump breakup could hurt the empire of the world's richest person, which also includes xAI and Neuralink. Threat level: Tesla investors have been hoping for favorable policies from Washington, including for EVs and self-driving cars.
The Hill
32 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump and Musk's relationship flames out just as it started, intensely and publicly
WASHINGTON (AP) — The breakup between the president of the United States and the world's richest man is unfurling much like their relationship started — rapidly, intensely and very publicly. As President Donald Trump sat in the Oval Office on Thursday with Germany's leader at his side, he lamented his soured relationship with Elon Musk, his adviser-turned-social media antagonist. Trump said he was 'very disappointed' with Musk after the billionaire former backer lambasted the president's signature bill of tax cuts and spending plans. Trump suggested Musk, who left the government last month after spearheading the tumultuous Department of Government Efficiency, misses being in the White House and has 'Trump derangement syndrome.' 'He hasn't said bad about me personally, but I'm sure that will be next,' Trump said. 'But I'm very disappointed in Elon. I've helped Elon a lot.' Observers had long wondered if the friendship between the two brash billionaires known for lobbing insults online would flame out in spectacular fashion. It did, in less than a year. 'Look, Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore,' Trump said. He said that he had helped Musk a lot and brushed aside the billionaire's efforts to get him elected last year, claiming that he would have won closely contested Pennsylvania even without Musk's help, which included spending at least $250 million supporting his campaign. The Republican president's comments came as Musk has continued a storm of social media posts attacking Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' and warning it will increase the federal deficit. Musk has called Trump's big tax break bill a 'disgusting abomination.' As Trump spoke to reporters at the White House on Thursday, Musk was watching. 'False,' he fired back on his social media platform as the president continued speaking. 'This bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!' Trump said Musk, the CEO and founder of Tesla, 'only developed a problem' with the bill because it rolls back tax credits for electric vehicles. 'Whatever,' Musk snapped back in a post on X responding to a video clip of the moment. He went on and said Trump could keep the cuts but should 'ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill.' The bill would unleash trillions of dollars in tax cuts and slash spending but also spike deficits by $2.4 trillion over a decade and leave some 10.9 million more people without health insurance, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, which for decades has served as the official scorekeeper of legislation in Congress.
