PFAS Farm Contamination: Managing the Impact of “Forever Chemicals”

In recent years, farmers and the agricultural industry have faced mounting concerns over PFAS contamination stemming from the use of sewage sludge-derived biosolids as fertilizer. PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of thousands of compounds also known as "forever chemicals" due to their inability to break down in the environment or in the human body. These substances tend to concentrate in waste streams due to manufacturing waste and the regular use of many products containing the chemicals. As a result, biosolids produced through the wastewater treatment process frequently contain PFAS. These compounds have been shown to have serious adverse effects on human health, including an increased risk of cancer, thyroid disorders, ulcerative colitis, infertility, pregnancy-induced hypertension, and preeclampsia.

Although farmers were reassured that biosolids were a safe and environmentally friendly fertilizer option, undetected traces of PFAS built up over time, leading to elevated levels that may now put farmers' livelihoods at risk. As farmers navigate the detection and mitigation of PFAS contamination on their farms, it is crucial to understand the health and financial risks and available recovery options. From identifying sources of contamination to evaluating remediation strategies and exploring cost recovery avenues, careful management is essential to protecting farm businesses and the health of families and communities.

The agricultural industry has already shown incredible resilience in the face of these threats. Farmers and researchers are finding new ways to mitigate contamination and continue producing healthy food for communities. However, these transitions come at a cost. In this article, we will explore the effects of PFAS from biosolids on U.S. farms and options for farmers to recover the costs associated with PFAS management.  

A Decades-Long History of PFAS on Farms

PFAS have posed a threat to farms and livestock since they were introduced over half a century ago. The negative effects of contamination first came to light for the public in the 1990s when a farmer named Wilbur Tennant, residing near a DuPont PFOA disposal site in West Virginia, observed health problems in his cattle. The animals had consumed water contaminated with PFOA leaching from DuPont’s unlined landfill. PFOA, or perfluorooctanoic acid, is a legacy PFAS chemical that was widely used in non-stick and stain-resistant consumer products, food packaging, firefighting foam, and industrial processes. More than 100 of Tennant's cattle died prematurely due to chemical ingestion, while others experienced stillbirths, birth defects, tumors, and discolored teeth. Despite knowing the toxicity of PFOA, DuPont had failed to inform Tennant of its potential to contaminate his farm. Instead, the company accused the farmer of inadequate care for his cows.

Seeking to recover the costs of lost livestock, contaminated land, and even health issues for his family, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of Tennant in 1999 against DuPont for PFOA water contamination. The lawsuit led to a settlement with DuPont when it was confirmed that the corporation had withheld information on PFOA levels and associated risks. Tennant's case was the harbinger of many to be brought by affected entities including drinking water providers, states, municipalities, and individuals against PFAS manufacturers in the years to follow.

How Does Fertilizer Become Contaminated with PFAS?

While the first cases of toxic PFAS discovered on US farms were due to chemical leaching directly from disposal sites, another source of pollution continued undetected for years: biosolids used as fertilizer on farm fields. Biosolids are produced through the wastewater treatment process when waste is separated from water, producing a semi-solid material known as sludge. Wastewater utilities must dispose of this material, whether through incineration, landfilling, or undergoing further treatment to produce biosolids for beneficial land application.  

For decades, state-approved programs encouraged farmers to utilize biosolids as low-cost soil amendments, touting their benefits in crop production, drought resistance, and the ecological advantages of re-using existing material. States and wastewater utilities believed biosolids were safe for agricultural use, and farmers were reassured that treatment processes would break down pollutants and kill germs. However, authorities were unaware of the presence of PFAS in wastewater, which led to the unintentional contamination of biosolids. Traditional treatment processes cannot remove PFAS "forever chemicals," meaning that if wastewater is contaminated before it enters treatment plants, the sludge produced may contain harmful concentrations of PFAS.

Sources of PFAS in Wastewater and Biosolids

PFAS have been used in a wide range of products, leading to elevated concentrations of these chemicals in wastewater. Some sources of PFAS in wastewater and biosolids include:

• Industrial Discharges: Manufacturing facilities and chemical plants often discharge their wastewater to municipal treatment plants.

• Consumer Products: PFAS chemicals are used in many household products for their non-stick, heat-resistant, and stain-resistant properties. The use and cleaning of these items can contribute to PFAS contamination in domestic wastewater and landfill leachate.

• Legacy Contamination: The historical use of firefighting foams and industrial products containing PFAS has resulted in soil and groundwater contamination over time. PFAS from contaminated wells and municipal water sources eventually becomes concentrated in wastewater when it goes down the drain after use, creating a PFAS cycle.

Although wastewater treatment plants do not produce PFAS, they are passive receivers from the above sources. Recent research indicates that PFAS found in biosolids used as fertilizer can lead to contamination of food produced on farms, leading farmers and the public to demand action to stop the spread of these chemicals.

What are the Effects of PFAS Farm Contamination?

Because of its inability to break down in the environment over time, PFAS on farms can be catastrophic even decades after biosolids were applied to land. Below are several common challenges and potential solutions for affected farms:

• Water: When PFAS is present in biosolids used as fertilizer, the chemicals can infiltrate into groundwater beneath and near affected fields. The contaminants can leach into wells used for drinking water or irrigation, leading to health risks for farm families and the potential for further contamination of crops. Drilling new wells away from affected areas or installing water treatment systems can be extremely costly.

• Soil: PFAS can remain for decades after they are applied to soil. This means that crops grown on fields treated with biosolids many years ago may still become contaminated, rendering them unsafe for human or animal consumption. Some farmers have had to stop using, or even sell, areas of land that can no longer be farmed safely, resulting in lost income.

• Forage: Research continues on the uptake of PFAS in various crops grown for livestock forage. The latest data indicates that hay grown on contaminated land retains high PFAS levels, increasing the risk of passing contamination on to animals. Corn and small grains tend to contain less PFAS, as the chemicals mostly remain in the stalk and do not go into the edible grain. Affected farms may be able to salvage affected land by transitioning to new crops. These changes can be expensive, and additional feed may need to be purchased to make up for lost hayfields.

• Milk: Cows that graze on contaminated grass or eat hay cut from affected fields may have PFAS in milk. It is recommended to dispose of contaminated feed or keep it separate from "clean" feed to ensure that lactating dairy animals do not consume it, as milk may remain contaminated for 8-10 months or longer after consuming feed with PFAS.

• Beef: Beef cattle should not be fed contaminated feed during finishing. Hay with low levels of detected PFAS may be able to be diluted with "clean" hay at certain growth stages. The University of Maine Cooperative Extension encourages concerned farmers to reach out with specific questions.

The solutions available for those affected by PFAS farm contamination depend on the concentrations of chemicals detected as well as the type of livestock or crops produced. However, any mitigation strategy will likely result in increased costs and/or lost income.

How Can Farms Recover After PFAS Detection?

PFAS detections are likely to come as an unwelcome surprise to farmers and ranchers, who dedicate their lives to tending the land. The costs of remediation can send any farm into a financial crisis. Several funding sources have been made available to affected families and businesses to ease this burden.

State Support and Grants for PFAS-Affected Farms  

When it became clear that PFAS on Maine farms could put farmers and ranchers out of business, the Maine Farmland Trust (MFT) and Maine Organic Farmers & Gardeners Association (MOFGA) joined forces to create the PFAS Emergency Relief Fund. The fund aims to provide short-term income replacement for farms with high PFAS detections, help pay for initial PFAS testing on farms, and support access to mental health services for those affected.

The Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry (DACF) also established the Maine PFAS Fund in 2022, appropriating $60 million in state funding to help create a safety net for farmers. The funding is earmarked for direct financial support to PFAS-impacted commercial farmers, purchasing and managing contaminated land from willing sellers, research into effective mitigation and management strategies, and healthcare for affected individuals.

In Massachusetts, initial steps have been taken to develop an Agricultural PFAS Relief Fund program. If completed, its goal will be to assist farmers impacted by the presence of PFAS in soil, water, or agricultural products.

Dairy farmers nationwide that have detected PFAS in milk may be able to receive financial relief through the USDA's Dairy Indemnity Payment Program. This program offers compensation to dairy farmers who have been ordered to stop selling their milk due to contamination from pesticides and other substances.

These funds can help provide much-needed resources as farmers and ranchers work to move forward after detecting PFAS. However, they may not cover all expenses, especially ongoing costs that could continue for years to come. For example, water treatment systems can successfully remove PFAS and restore drinking water safety, but they require regular maintenance and replacement of treatment media. For farms with affected livestock, it may take years of careful monitoring and testing before milk and meat return to safe levels. Plus, contaminated soil may render some fields unusable, resulting in lost income well into the future. To help with these costs, farmers and ranchers will need alternative funding sources.

Following Water Providers’ Example to Hold Polluters Accountable

As an additional funding strategy, some farmers are seeking to hold PFAS manufacturers accountable for contamination recovery costs through litigation. U.S. public water systems have had success with this strategy and are in the process of receiving settlements totaling over $14 billion from PFAS manufacturers. Following their example, farmers and ranchers can similarly seek to recover the costs of PFAS cleanup from the manufacturers who profited from these hazardous products.  

Farmers and ranchers have been unfairly left to deal with PFAS contamination that they did not cause. Things like lost income due to depopulated animals, land that must be repurposed or abandoned, and transitioning to new crops are all hardships that shouldn't fall on farmers' shoulders. While no amount of money can take away the emotional toll of losing animals or farmland, farmers may be able to hold manufacturers responsible for their actions.

Learn About Your Farm’s Cost Recovery Options

If your farm or ranch has had PFAS detections, there are options available to recover remediation costs. Each situation is unique and multiple funding solutions may be necessary to help build a path forward for your farm, as state grants may not cover all expenses in the years to come. If you would like to learn more about how you can seek to hold polluters responsible for contamination, schedule a free consultation with our legal team. Together, we can work to shift the costs of PFAS cleanup to the manufacturers responsible for pollution.