{"id":30938,"date":"2022-04-19T00:01:30","date_gmt":"2022-04-19T04:01:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=30938"},"modified":"2022-04-18T18:44:08","modified_gmt":"2022-04-18T22:44:08","slug":"maine-moves-to-ban-pesticides-and-fertilizers-contaminated-with-pfas","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2022\/04\/maine-moves-to-ban-pesticides-and-fertilizers-contaminated-with-pfas\/","title":{"rendered":"Maine Moves to Ban Pesticides and Fertilizers Contaminated with PFAS"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, April 19, 2022)\u00a0Both houses of Maine\u2019s legislature have just approved a bill that would, by 2030, ban pesticides that contain PFAS chemicals<\/a> \u2014 the so-called \u201cforever chemicals.\u201d The bill\u2019s next stop is the Appropriations Committee, for approval of $200,000 in annual funding to enact the bill; if successful there, it will move to the desk of Maine Governor Janet Mills for her signature. The legislation is one of a suite of lawmaker efforts in the state to address the growing PFAS problem with which localities across the U.S. are struggling. In this Daily News Blog article, Beyond Pesticides continues its coverage of the scourge of PFAS chemicals, particularly as it relates to pesticide use<\/a> and the use of fertilizers made from PFAS-contaminated \u201cbiosludge<\/a>\u201d from municipal treatment facilities.<\/p>\r\n

PFAS \u2014 \u201cper- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances\u201d \u2014 are any of a family of more than 9,000 synthetic chemicals, invented in, and widely deployed since, the 1950s in a multitude of industrial and consumer products. PFAS molecules are made up<\/a> of a chain of linked carbon and fluorine atoms; the carbon\u2013fluorine bond is one of the strongest chemical bonds that exists, which means that these compounds do not break down in the environment. Scientists cannot even estimate the environmental half-life of PFAS (half-life being the amount of time required for 50% of the compound to degrade and \u201cdisappear\u201d). Hence, the \u201cforever chemicals\u201d moniker.<\/p>\r\n

NIEHS (the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) notes<\/a>: \u201cResearch on two kinds of PFAS forms the basis of our scientific understanding about this group of chemicals. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) were manufactured for the longest time, are the most widespread in the environment, and are the most well-studied. Although these two compounds are no longer made in the United States, chemical manufacturers have replaced them with alternative PFAS.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

PFAS have emerged during the past decade or so as a serious environmental contaminant and health concern<\/a>. They represent yet another \u201cchickens come home to roost\u201d scenario characteristic of the poorly regulated use of chemicals in the industrial, military, and commercial materials streams that, ultimately, end up in the environment and human (and other) bodies.<\/p>\r\n

In February 2022, Beyond Pesticides wrote<\/a>, \u201cThere has been precious little activity at the federal level to deal with PFAS. . . . The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced in 2019 that a \u2018Comprehensive Nationwide PFAS Action Plan\u2019 would be forthcoming. (It has not yet emerged.)\u00a0Since 1998, EWG [the Environmental Working Group] notes<\/a>, \u2018despite mounting evidence of PFAS\u2019 toxicity and contamination, EPA has inexcusably dragged its feet. The [agency] has failed to set a legal limit for any PFAS in tap water, and its non-enforceable health advisory level for PFOA and PFOS is\u00a070 times higher<\/a>\u00a0than what independent studies show is needed. In 2019, EPA announced a\u00a0toothless \u201caction plan\u201d\u00a0<\/a>that would do nothing to reduce ongoing PFAS releases or clean up legacy PFAS pollution.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\r\n

These chemicals are contaminating waterways, water bodies, and drinking water sources; the food supply; wastewater and biosolids; soils; and now, us \u2014 PFAS is present in the bloodstreams of 97% of the U.S. population. Exposure to these compounds has been linked\u00a0to a variety of human health anomalies, including cancers, kidney dysfunction, neurodevelopmental compromise in children, immunosuppression, pre-eclampsia, increased risk of cardiometabolic diseases<\/a> (via exposure during pregnancy), and respiratory system damage \u2014 not to mention that it may increase the risk of Covid infection and severity<\/a>. As Beyond Pesticides has written<\/a>, PFAS presents a chronic danger to Americans that demands immediate regulatory action.<\/p>\r\n

Absent such protective federal action on these chemicals, states have been stepping up, particularly in the past five years or so, to deal with the host of problems PFAS represent. Maine has been a particular hotbed of activity; media have helped put the PFAS issue in front of plenty of eyeballs in the state (and elsewhere). A recent (and small) sampling includes The Penobscot Times<\/em><\/a> coverage of PFAS runoff from a Two Rivers Paper Company landfill into the St. John River; the Press Herald\u2019s<\/em><\/a> reporting on PFAS contamination of Maine fish stocks and wild deer; and publication about research by Northeastern University and the Penobscot Nation<\/a> on PFAS-contaminated leachate from the Juniper Ridge Landfill.<\/p>\r\n

The Penobscot Times<\/em> article noted that the Two Rivers pollution is not unique: \u201cEvery landfill that has produced results so far from the first of five rounds of state-required testing of landfill runoff shows some concentration of the so-called forever chemicals.\u201d The problem extends to PFAS in wastewater and solid waste; a University of Maine Cooperative Extension newsletter<\/a>, quoting from another Penobscot Times<\/em> issue, writes: \u201cPFAS is flowing into Maine waters, but no one knows the level of contamination. Treatment plants release millions of gallons of wastewater into Maine\u2019s waterways each day that could contain elevated levels of so-called forever chemicals.\u201d Indeed, from wastewater and solid waste treatment plants, and from septic systems that discharge the PFAS from consumer product use, PFAS is finding its way into myriad water sources.<\/p>\r\n

Recent high-profile cases of PFAS contamination in Maine have no doubt added momentum to the legislature\u2019s pursuit of controls. For several years running, an Arundel dairy farmer testified to Maine legislators<\/a> about the ruination of his multi-generational dairy operation by the discovery of PFAS in his water and soils, and in his cows\u2019 milk. The farmer attributes the wholesale contamination to the \u201cbiosolids\u201d (waste sludge) he had used on his silage crop fields for years through a state program, and\/or ash from a nearby paper mill.<\/p>\r\n

Early in 2022, Beyond Pesticides wrote about another Maine farming operation<\/a>, Songbird Farm in Unity, Maine, which is now facing similar issues. The farmers grow diversified, organic grain and vegetable crops and were stunned to learn that their fields were victims to the legacy use, a quarter century before their tenure on the land (starting in 2014), of contaminated sludge. Now, their water, soil, and produce were all likewise contaminated; their well water has tested at 400 times the state limit.<\/p>\r\n

Because Songbird Farm is a Certified Organic operation, in which trust between farmer and consumer is fundamental, the owner-operators felt they needed to halt sales of their crops. They now await answers from the state and some kind of way forward. One of the farmers said to WBUR Radio<\/a>, \u201cAt least we know and we can stop drinking our water. But who still doesn’t know? Who is drinking water right now that’s as high as ours? Who is about to have a baby? Who is thinking about having a baby? It’s so too late . . . to be telling everybody this.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

Her partner added that the state has to assure farmers and homeowners of some kind of long-term financial support in the face of this calamity. \u201cTo leave people in limbo is untenable. It’s not going to be good for the farming community and it is not going to be good for the state to do that. And I know that everyone is scrambling to catch up on this issue. We’re just learning about PFAS contamination in Maine. We’re just acknowledging it. It’s 30 years old, but we’re just recognizing it.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

The Maine legislature has moved more quickly in response than have many other states; in its 2019\u20132020 session, it passed \u201cAn Act To Protect the Environment and Public Health by Further Reducing Toxic Chemicals in Packaging<\/a>,\u201d which included measures to reduce the use of PFAS in food packaging. In 2021, Maine lawmakers passed \u201cAn Act To Stop Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Pollution<\/a>,\u201d which bans (in 2023) the sale or distribution of carpets, rugs, or fabric treatments, and in 2030, use of PFAS in all consumer products in the state.<\/p>\r\n

It also passed, as the Press Herald<\/em> reported last year<\/a>, \u201cBills . . . with broad, often-unanimous support . . . set[ing]\u00a0among the nation\u2019s strictest limits<\/a>\u00a0on PFAS pollution in drinking water, prohibit[ing] the uncontrolled testing of PFAS-laced firefighting foam, and provid[ing] millions of dollars to detect and clean up contamination.\u201d The drinking water legislation<\/a> established a limit of 20 ppt (parts per trillion) for the six most common types of PFAS; this more protective than the federal government\u2019s current \u201cadvisory level\u201d of 70 ppt for two PFAS compounds.<\/p>\r\n

Most recently, the legislature has been considering a group of four bills<\/a>:<\/p>\r\n