A judge ruled earlier this month that lawsuits against the City of Calhoun and a number of manufacturers allegedly responsible for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination in their waters can move forward.
The City of Calhoun was sued in March of 2024 by the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) on behalf of North Georgia residents affected by PFAS pollution in their waters. Affected residents say they were not properly informed of the PFAS in the sewage sludge waters, which were dumped on their land.
PFAS are a class of more than 12,000 synthetic chemicals that have gained the reputation of “forever chemicals” due to their strong resistance to breaking down. They’re found in all sorts of household products, from clothes, food packaging, nonstick cookware, batteries — and much more.
They’re also increasingly being found in our waters and bloodstream; one study from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) found that 45 percent of tap water in the nation could contain one or more types of the class of chemicals.
Treated sewage sludge is often turned into biosolids, which can then be used as fertilizer for agricultural crops; this allows the treated waste product to be disposed of — or rather, repurposed — instead of disposed of in a more costly manner, and acts as a cheap fertilizer for farmers.
With PFAS in the wastewater sludge eventually turned into this fertilizer, though, farmers and other landowners worry that the contamination will increasingly find itself in the food we eat, making people sicker in the long run.
Current understanding of PFAS suggests that there are indeed links between certain cancers and PFAS in peoples’ bodies. Official guidance from the EPA, however, states more research is needed to determine
The bigger picture
The ongoing lawsuits in Georgia stemming from PFAS pollution are part of a larger trend nationwide. The Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA), in conjunction with a collective of several “farming family plaintiffs,” is actively suing the EPA for violation of the Clean Water Act regarding identifying and promoting regulation against several types of PFAS in sewage sludge.
The lawsuit, brought forth in June of this year and later added MOFGA in July, also calls for Congress to provide financial assistance for farmers who have been unknowingly spreading PFAS-contaminated waters on their agricultural lands and to adopt measures so that testing for PFAS shifts from the burden of individual farmers and instead to regulate them.
Bill Pluecker, MOFGA’s Public Policy Organizer and Maine State House Chair of the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee, said MOFGA has been working on PFAS for over six years now.
Like Georgia, he said that a number of Maine farmers have been affected by PFAS contamination of their “land, water, blood and food” from biosolids on or near their land.
“It started in 2016 with a dairy farmer in Maine… PFAS was found in his milk after legacy spreading of PFAS on his hay cropland,” Pluecker said, adding that it contaminated his ground, hay and water. “Eventually the distributor of his milk decided that they couldn’t buy his milk anymore because of the PFAS contamination.”
This ignited conversations with the state about how similar biosolids had been spread across the state, leading to MOFGA’s eventual involvement and support of the farmers.
Maine has been applying biosolid fertilizer to farmers’ fields since the late 70s or early 80s, according to MOFGA, further adding to the damage that could have been wrought on farming land and emphasizing why new regulations must also come with aid to farmers.
“One of the things we’re really advocating for as an organization on the federal level is the passage of a bill called The Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act,” said Pluecker, adding that the bill would set up a fund for farmers so that when they find their land is contaminated they aren’t left hopeless. “We’ve had 78 farmers in Maine who we’ve found to be contaminated, but we’ve been able to keep everybody in business except for four.”
Due to the forever chemicals’ resistance to breaking down, most people generally have one or more types of PFAS in their bodies — but that amount normally is consistent with our daily lives, Pluecker said.
Wastewater treatment plants treat both residential and industrial waste; however, industrial wastewater can contain much higher levels of certain types of PFAS. This can vary depending on location, time of year and the products produced at an industrial site, too.
Because of all the variability and dangers associated with PFAS, MOFGA is advocating for the EPA to step up on regulations.
“They know that PFAS are carcinogenic and cause all types of problems in children and adults, but they haven’t gone that extra step to say that if you are applying sludge to fields, it shouldn’t have PFAS in it because it presents a danger,” Pluecker said. “Our argument as an organization is that the Clean Water Act requires them to regulate contaminants in sludge, and they have not taken that step.”
He also suggests that the Food and Drug Administration regulate PFAS in our food because of how prevalent it has become in our menus, and would encourage the U.S. Department of Agriculture to support farmers dealing with contaminated land like the dairy farmer who lost business because of it.
Slowly changing course
In April of this year, the EPA took a number of measures toward stronger regulation, including the first national drinking water standard for PFAS and designating two widely known toxic types of PFAS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
“We have begun the process of regulating PFOA and PFOS in our food packaging — and that started several years ago,” Pluecker said, adding that since the regulations have begun taking shape, they have been finding less of these chemicals in Americans’ bodies — signaling the regulations are effective.
As an independent politician, Pluecker said he’s seen bipartisan support for things like financially supporting farmers, though he has a bit more trouble when it comes to trying to regulate PFAS.
In the short term, he sees filtration as the most immediate solution — though the filtration method, which requires activated carbon charcoal, is expensive.
Instead, he hopes to stop the problem at the root cause rather than being reactive with bandaid solutions like the aforementioned filters, and hopes that this regulation will ultimately make food, water and land safer.
Leave a comment