Committee hears farmers’ concerns about PFAS in manure, septage and pesticide containers
Loading...
Summary
Members and the presenter flagged examples where PFAS in septage and sludge applied to fields led to contaminated livestock/produce and asked whether current waste‑application practices and container materials risk moving PFAS into the food system; Mike said some practices are being restricted and pilot removal work is underway.
During questions following the presentation, committee members raised practical concerns about PFAS entering the food system through land application of septage, manure and food residual compost.
Mike told the committee that PFAS are present in human and industrial wastestreams because they have been widespread in products for decades; when waste or sludge containing PFAS is land‑applied, it can move into soil, groundwater and crops. He described a Maine case where septage applied to farm fields “tested off the charts for PFAS” and reported PFAS found in cow milk; that incident was cited as an illustration of the agricultural risks the state must manage.
The Agency of Natural Resources and the Agency of Agriculture, Mike said, have been cautious about permitting septage and certain food‑residual application practices. "They were previously discharging them into waters through wastewater treatment plants, and they're not doing that anymore," he said, noting that captured PFAS are now typically transported to hazardous‑waste facilities or managed at specific landfills.
Committee members also asked whether pesticide containers and bulk storage (large cubes) can leach PFAS into products; Mike said some container manufacturers have moved away from PFAS‑lined consumer containers, but assertions remain about bulk agricultural containers. Members asked whether industry would change only at scale; Mike said larger markets (Maine, Vermont, California, Washington) have pushed manufacturers to change packaging and product formulations.
Farmers and participants in the meeting described concern about legacy spreading and the difficulty of distinguishing intentionally added PFAS from contamination introduced during processing or packaging. Committee members requested additional technical testimony on removal technologies, testing frequency, and which regulatory definitions most directly address agricultural exposures.
The committee paused the discussion to hear a separate witness on hemp/CBD and planned to return later to continue PFAS testimony, including input from a timed expert named Matt Chapman from ANR.
