Why Farmers May Be Able to Continue Fertilizing Fields With PFAS-Contaminated Sewage Sludge – Inside Climate News

 

Report on Proposed U.S. Legislation to Block PFAS Regulation and its Conflict with Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Executive Summary

A legislative rider introduced into a U.S. House appropriations bill aims to prohibit funding for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) draft risk assessment of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in sewage sludge, also known as biosolids. This action directly threatens to derail regulations designed to limit the agricultural application of contaminated biosolids, a practice linked to severe environmental pollution and public health crises. This report analyzes the legislative action and its profound negative implications for achieving several key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those concerning health, clean water, sustainable agriculture, and responsible production.

2.0 Background and Context

The issue centers on the disposal and reuse of sewage sludge, a byproduct of wastewater treatment. While rich in nutrients, sludge is frequently contaminated with industrial chemicals, including PFAS.

• Biosolids Application: Approximately 60% of the nation’s sewage sludge is treated and applied to agricultural land as fertilizer.
• PFAS Contamination: Testing in states like Maine and Michigan, as well as a 2001 federal review, has consistently found PFAS in biosolids. These “forever chemicals” do not break down, accumulating in soil, water, crops, and livestock.
• Regulatory Action: In response to growing evidence of harm, the Biden administration initiated a draft risk assessment for two common PFAS compounds, PFOA and PFOS. The draft proposed an advisory health guideline of 1 part per billion (ppb), a level that would effectively prohibit the application of most biosolids if implemented.

3.0 Legislative Challenge to Regulation

A rider was inserted into a House appropriations bill following a meeting between the EPA and a waste industry trade group. The rider’s language seeks to block the regulatory process.

1. Industry Engagement: On June 12, representatives from the Coalition of Recyclers of Residuals Organics by Practitioners of Sustainability (CRROPS) met with the EPA to discuss the draft risk assessment.
2. Appropriations Rider: Subsequently, language was added to the bill funding the EPA, stating: “None of the funds made available by this or any other Act may be used to implement, administer, or enforce the draft risk assessment titled ‘Draft Sewage Sludge Risk Assessment for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS)’.”
3. Legislative Status: An attempt by Representative Chellie Pingree to remove the rider failed along party lines. The full House has yet to vote on the bill.

4.0 Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The proposed legislative action to halt PFAS regulation in biosolids directly undermines progress toward multiple SDGs by prioritizing short-term waste disposal convenience over long-term environmental and human well-being.

4.1 SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

The rider poses a direct threat to ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all.

• Health Risks: PFAS exposure is linked to serious health problems, including cancer. The EPA’s risk assessment was specifically designed to protect the health of farmers and their neighbors.
• Food Chain Contamination: By allowing contaminated sludge on farmland, the rider perpetuates the entry of toxic chemicals into the food supply through produce, meat, and dairy products, endangering the wider public.
• Blocking Protective Measures: Halting the risk assessment prevents the establishment of science-based health protections, leaving populations vulnerable to ongoing exposure.

4.2 SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

The goal of ensuring the availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation is severely compromised.

• Water Contamination: The application of PFAS-laden biosolids is a documented source of groundwater and surface water contamination, violating the principles of the Clean Water Act.
• Undermining Water Safety: The legislative rider effectively permits the continued pollution of water resources that communities rely on for drinking, agriculture, and recreation.

4.3 SDG 2: Zero Hunger

The rider jeopardizes food security, nutrition, and the promotion of sustainable agriculture.

• Destruction of Livelihoods: Farmers across the country have faced financial ruin after their land, livestock, and water were contaminated by PFAS from biosolids, forcing them out of business.
• Threat to Food Safety: Contamination of agricultural land renders food produced on it unsafe for consumption, threatening the integrity of the food supply.
• Unsustainable Agriculture: The practice of knowingly applying persistent toxic chemicals to farmland is fundamentally opposed to the principles of sustainable agriculture.

4.4 SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

This action fails to ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns, particularly in waste management.

• Irresponsible Waste Management: Labeling contaminated sludge as “biosolid” fertilizer and spreading it on cropland represents a failure of responsible production and waste management, shifting a toxic liability onto the environment and food system.
• Perpetuating a Harmful Cycle: The rider supports a linear economic model of “take-make-dispose” by failing to hold producers of PFAS and managers of waste accountable for the full lifecycle of their products and byproducts.

4.5 SDG 15: Life on Land

The goal to protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems is directly contradicted.

• Soil Degradation: PFAS are “forever chemicals” that accumulate in soil, causing long-term, potentially irreversible contamination and degradation of terrestrial ecosystems.
• Impact on Biodiversity: The contamination of soil and water systems with toxic chemicals harms wildlife and disrupts local ecosystems.

4.6 SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The legislative maneuver raises concerns about the integrity and effectiveness of governance.

• Weakening Institutions: The rider is an attempt to preempt the scientific and regulatory authority of the EPA, an institution tasked with protecting human health and the environment.
• Lack of Accountability: Public health advocates argue the move prioritizes industry interests over public welfare and scientific evidence, undermining the principles of accountable and transparent governance.
• Legal Conflict: The rider may be illegal, as it appears to preempt the EPA’s mandate to regulate sludge under the Clean Water Act.

SDGs Addressed in the Article

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger: The article highlights the contamination of food supplies, including produce, dairy, and meat, which compromises food safety. It also discusses the destruction of farmers’ livelihoods, which impacts sustainable food production systems.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The core issue revolves around the health risks of PFAS chemicals, which have “sickened farmers” and are linked to cancer and other health problems. The proposed regulations are based on a “draft health risk assessment.”
• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation: The article explicitly states that PFAS from sludge contaminate “groundwater and nearby surface waters.” The sludge itself is a byproduct of “wastewater treatment plants,” directly linking the issue to water quality and sanitation processes.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: The contamination has “destroyed their livelihoods,” with farmers in Maine having “lost their entire livelihoods and their farms.” This represents a direct threat to economic stability and decent work in the agricultural sector.
• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: The article focuses on the improper management of waste (sewage sludge) and hazardous chemicals (PFAS). The practice of spreading contaminated sludge on farmland is a failure of environmentally sound waste management.
• SDG 15: Life on Land: The spreading of PFAS-contaminated sludge leads to the pollution and degradation of terrestrial ecosystems, specifically “farmland” and “cropland.” This practice directly harms soil quality and the health of the land.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article details a conflict over environmental regulation, involving the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Congress, and industry groups. The attempt to “derail the risk assessment process by cutting off funding” through a legislative rider highlights challenges to developing effective and accountable institutions for environmental protection.

Specific SDG Targets Identified

SDG 2: Zero Hunger

• Target 2.1: “By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people… to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.” The article connects to this target by describing how PFAS contamination affects the safety of the food supply, noting contamination of “food,” “produce, dairy and meat.”
• Target 2.4: “By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices… that help maintain ecosystems… and progressively improve land and soil quality.” The practice of spreading contaminated sludge is the opposite of a sustainable or resilient agricultural practice, as it degrades soil and has “destroyed their livelihoods.”

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

• Target 3.9: “By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.” The article directly addresses this target by focusing on PFAS, a hazardous chemical that has “sickened farmers” and poses risks of “cancer or other health problems” through contaminated water and soil.

SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

• Target 6.3: “By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater…” The article discusses the failure to manage hazardous chemicals (PFAS) in sewage sludge, which is a byproduct of wastewater treatment. This sludge then contaminates “groundwater and nearby surface waters,” directly undermining efforts to improve water quality.

SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

• Target 12.4: “By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle… and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.” The entire article is a case study of the failure to meet this target, detailing how PFAS chemicals in sewage sludge are released into the soil and water, causing adverse impacts.

SDG 15: Life on Land

• Target 15.3: “By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by… pollution…” The contamination of “farmland” with “forever chemicals” is a form of land degradation caused by pollution. The article notes that “dozens of Maine farmers have contaminated fields,” illustrating this target’s relevance.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• Target 16.6: “Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.” The article describes how a political rider in an “appropriations bill” aims to block the EPA from implementing a risk assessment. This action, which public health advocates call “insane,” challenges the effectiveness and accountability of governmental institutions responsible for protecting public health and the environment.
• Target 16.b: “Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.” The EPA’s risk assessment and potential regulation of PFAS in sludge is a policy for sustainable development. The legislative rider is an attempt to block its enforcement, as described by Rep. Chellie Pingree who tried to squash the “poison pill” rider.

Indicators for Measuring Progress

• Concentration of PFAS in sludge: The article explicitly mentions the EPA’s proposed advisory health guideline of “1 part per billion (ppb) of PFOS or PFOA” in sludge. This provides a specific, measurable threshold. Progress could be measured by testing sludge and tracking the percentage of samples that meet or fall below this 1 ppb limit.
• Proportion of sewage sludge applied to land: The article states, “About 60 percent of the nation’s sludge is applied to farmland.” This percentage serves as a baseline indicator. A reduction in this figure, particularly for sludge that exceeds safety thresholds, would indicate progress towards safer waste management.
• Number of contaminated farms: The article mentions that “dozens of Maine farmers have contaminated fields.” While not a national statistic, this serves as an indicator of the scope of land degradation. Tracking the number of identified contaminated farms nationally would be an indicator of the problem’s scale and the effectiveness of preventative measures.
• Status of environmental regulations: The article centers on the political battle over a specific regulation: the “Draft Sewage Sludge Risk Assessment for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS).” The status of this assessment—whether it is funded, finalized, and implemented or successfully blocked by the legislative rider—is a direct indicator of institutional action on the issue. The subcommittee vote of “31-28 along party lines” is a concrete data point on this indicator.

Summary of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

SDGs	Targets	Indicators
SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being	3.9: Reduce deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and pollution.	Concentration of PFOA and PFOS in sludge (Proposed limit: 1 ppb).
SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation	6.3: Improve water quality by reducing pollution and minimizing the release of hazardous chemicals.	Percentage of the nation’s sewage sludge applied to farmland (Current baseline: ~60%).
SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production	12.4: Achieve environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes.	Implementation of the EPA’s “Draft Sewage Sludge Risk Assessment.”
SDG 15: Life on Land	15.3: Restore degraded land and soil affected by pollution.	Number of farms identified with contaminated fields (e.g., “dozens of Maine farmers”).
SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	16.6: Develop effective, accountable, and transparent institutions.	Passage or failure of the appropriations rider intended to defund the EPA’s risk assessment (Subcommittee vote: 31-28).
SDG 2: Zero Hunger	2.1: Ensure access to safe food.	Reports of PFAS contamination in food supplies (e.g., “produce, dairy and meat”).
SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth	2.4 & 8.4: Ensure sustainable food production systems and decouple economic growth from environmental degradation.	Number of farms/livelihoods lost due to contamination.

Source: insideclimatenews.org