For generations, American producers have viewed farmland as one of the most dependable stores of wealth. Commodity prices fluctuate, operating margins tighten and equipment depreciates, but productive farmland generally maintains its long-term value. Now an emerging environmental issue is introducing a risk that has little to do with yields, commodity markets or interest rates. A new report from the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST), released October 16, examines how PFAS, commonly called “forever chemicals,” are finding their way onto agricultural land and creating potentially serious financial consequences for the people who own it. What concerns me is that a producer could spend decades building equity in farmland, only to discover that contamination originating elsewhere has compromised the asset’s value.
“Forever chemicals” is the common nickname for PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), a vast class of more than 10,000 synthetic, human-made chemicals. They earn the name “forever chemicals” because their molecular structure contains multiple carbon-fluorine ($C-F$) bonds—one of the strongest single bonds in organic chemistry. As a result, they do not break down naturally under typical environmental conditions, accumulating indefinitely in water, soil, animals, and human bloodstreams. While the PFAS family encompasses thousands of distinct structures, several specific compounds are widely monitored due to their prevalence and toxicity.
PFAS are a large family of synthetic chemicals used for decades in industrial processes and consumer products because of their resistance to heat, water and oil. They can reach farmland through municipal biosolids applied as fertilizer, contaminated irrigation water, compost and industrial discharges. Many of these chemicals break down extremely slowly, and certain compounds can move through soil and water into crops, livestock and ultimately the food supply. What makes this particularly challenging is that the producer may have followed accepted agricultural practices without knowing contaminants were present. In some cases, the source of contamination may be a municipality or industrial operation located miles away.
The financial consequences are no longer hypothetical. Maine has become one of the clearest examples of what can happen when PFAS contamination is discovered on agricultural property. Some producers have been forced to discontinue or substantially change their operations after contamination affected their ability to market agricultural products. The state has even established a program to purchase certain contaminated farms, including a second property acquired in May 2026. Think about what that means for a family whose retirement, borrowing capacity and accumulated wealth are tied to the land. A property can have productive soil, excellent infrastructure and a favorable location, yet contamination concerns can undermine its ability to generate income or attract a buyer.
For decades, municipal and other sewage sludge (biosolids) was widely promoted and distributed as a free or low-cost soil fertilizer for agricultural land. In 2022, Maine became the first U.S. state to ban the land application of sewage sludge and sludge-derived compost. Now, more than 60 Maine farms have been identified with unsafe levels of PFAS in their soil, groundwater, or produce. Dairy farms were hit particularly hard due to PFOS bioaccumulation in cows and milk. Vegetable and organic produce farms (such as Songbird Farm and Stoneridge Farm) were forced to stop selling produce and close down commercial food operations after testing positive for elevated chemical levels.
This is where I believe the conversation becomes much bigger than environmental regulation. Could farmland eventually face the same type of environmental due diligence that has become commonplace in commercial and industrial real estate? Imagine purchasing another 500 acres and discovering that municipal biosolids had been applied for years, or attempting to refinance an operation only to have a lender question potential contamination exposure. Buyers may begin asking for more detailed land-use histories, food processors may require additional assurances about where products originate, and insurers may examine liabilities that previously received little attention. None of those developments is universal across agricultural lending or farmland transactions today, but they illustrate how environmental uncertainty could begin influencing the financial value of land.
The scientific uncertainty makes the issue even more complicated. The CAST report emphasizes that PFAS include thousands of different compounds and that detecting a chemical does not automatically establish a meaningful health risk. The specific compound, concentration and pathway of exposure all matter. A separate 2026 National Academies report prepared for USDA acknowledges substantial gaps in understanding how PFAS behave in agricultural systems and the limited availability of practical, affordable remediation technologies. That leaves producers in a difficult position. They may face legitimate concerns about contamination while scientists and regulators are still working to determine appropriate thresholds, management practices and solutions.
There is also an important question about responsibility. If a municipality, manufacturer or other outside party introduces contamination that eventually reaches privately owned farmland, who should bear the financial consequences? The producer may have had no involvement in manufacturing the chemical and limited ability to prevent its arrival. Yet that same producer could face testing expenses, production restrictions, reduced marketability or substantial legal costs. Determining liability is complicated and depends on the circumstances, but the possibility of those costs falling on the landowner raises significant questions about how agricultural property rights and environmental responsibilities are being handled.
My perspective is that we should be paying much closer attention to how these risks could affect farmland as a financial asset. We spend considerable time discussing interest rates, rental returns, land prices and the economics of acquiring another farm. Those are important considerations, but protecting the value of land already owned deserves just as much attention. Producers considering property purchases, accepting outside soil amendments or negotiating agreements involving their land should understand the potential environmental exposure and documentation involved. This isn’t an argument that farmland across America is contaminated or that every PFAS detection represents a serious danger. It is recognition that an environmental issue originating outside agriculture can become a very real agricultural financial problem.
The question I keep coming back to is this: If a producer spends a lifetime building wealth through farmland ownership, what protections exist when somebody else’s contamination threatens that investment? We have become very sophisticated at analyzing the risks associated with growing crops and raising livestock. Perhaps it is time to pay more attention to the risks associated with owning the land itself. (Source: Cast)
