USDA can remediate 'forever chemical' pollution on U.S. farmlands, new study shows

The new report found that the USDA can respond to
PFAS contamination on U.S. farmland. (TNL photo)

The Department of Agriculture has the resources to address PFAS contamination on U.S. farmland, a National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine report finds.

The study, which was partially sponsored by the USDA, lists the various tools and remediation planning that can be used to reduce contamination caused by "human-made chemicals that accumulate in the environment and the bodies of humans and animals," which are collectively called "PFAS" or "forever chemicals," reports Shannon Kelleher for The New Lede.

Fertilizer use is one way farmers have unintentionally polluted their soil with forever chemicals. Kelleher explains, "PFAS end up on agricultural lands when farmers apply tainted sewage sludge as a fertilizer, contaminating crops and soil with chemicals linked to certain cancers and other health harms." Forever chemicals can also be added to soil through PFAS-laced pesticides.

The report included a remediation outline and noted that the USDA could leverage its considerable resources to address the farmland PFAS crisis. Researchers suggested the USDA use predictive models, on-site testing and "develop PFAS screening levels for different types of agriculture facilities, soil types and climates," Kelleher reports.

The report also recommends the USDA analyze how forever chemicals interact with different soils and climates to "develop better mechanisms to trap or sequester PFAS, and research ways to minimize the uptake of PFAS in plants and animals," Kelleher writes.

The February Farm Bill draft includes "language that would permit research grants on the agricultural impacts of PFAS in land exposed to firefighting foams, sewage sludge or compost containing the chemicals," Kelleher adds.

Analysis: Growing up in the Corn Belt may contribute to higher cancer rates in younger adults

Skin and kidney cancer rates are higher in big corn-growing
states than the rest of the country. (Adobe Stock photo)

The alarming rate of cancer among younger adults in the U.S. has led to questions and research aimed at addressing the "shift in cancer diagnoses in America, with rates for young adults in their 20s, 30s and 40s trending up even as overall cancer rates decline," report Ariana Eunjung Cha, Dan Keating, Jahi Chikwendiu and Luis Melgar of The Washington Post.

When groups of younger cancer victims were analyzed, growing up in the Midwest emerged as a key risk factor, according to the article. "Cancer rates among young adults in the Corn Belt are rising more rapidly than in the country as a whole." The Corn Belt includes Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana and Kansas.

When states began tracking their cancer rates in 1999, Corn Belt states reported cancer rates that fell in line with the rest of the country. But in 2015, an unsettling shift began as corn-growing states recorded "a significantly higher cancer rate among those ages 15 to 49," the Post reports. "In the latest data from 2022, those states have a rate 5% higher for young adults and 5% higher for the overall population."

Young adults raised in Corn Belt states "have significantly higher rates of several cancers, especially kidney and skin cancers," Cha writes. "The skin cancer risk for young adults in the corn-producing states is 35% higher for men and 66% higher for women than their peers in other states."

As younger Midwesterners grapple with cancer diagnoses, many are starting to look at the agriculture around them and wonder about its health impacts. The Post reports, "They are raising questions about the role of agribusiness and the water that runs through their communities, and pushing politicians to act in a region where such questions have long been taboo."

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds recently "announced a $1 million investment to establish a research team dedicated to investigating the underlying causes of the state’s growing cancer rates," Cha adds. "Researchers are still working to disentangle national trends from regional anomalies, and the data doesn’t yet offer a satisfying explanation for why cancer rates among the young have shot up here."

Iowa's water is polluted with farming nitrates and pesticides, but a potential solution challenges the 'status quo'

Crop and animal farm runoff has polluted at least
four Iowa rivers. (Adobe Stock photo)

In agriculturally dominated Iowa, what's good for corn producers gets top billing while residents face a deluge of polluted water. "In Iowa, which by some measures has the most polluted water in the U.S., people who advocate for the environment are widely scorned as enemies of farming," reports Peter Waldman of Bloomberg.

In a state where farmers spread copious amounts of pesticides, nitrogen fertilizers and nitrogen-rich manure, towns like Remsen, which is surrounded by Iowa corn country, are "saturated with pollution," Waldman writes. "Researchers have linked trace exposures to nitrate in drinking water to cancers, birth defects and thyroid disease. Iowa has the second-highest cancer rate in the U.S., after Kentucky."

Although concerned citizens, including many farmers, have pushed for fewer pesticides and nitrates, most efforts failed. "The state government has crushed almost every effort to hold farmers and agribusinesses accountable for their increasingly dirty footprint," Waldman explains. Last year, the EPA ordered Iowa to "add parts of four rivers to the state’s list of impaired waters needing cleanup, including the drinking supply for about a fifth of Iowa’s population."

Even with some of the state's drinking water in question, the state complained about the EPA's sanction, which the Trump administration lifted. Waldman reports, "Now even the feds defer to Big Ag, led in Iowa by the industry’s undisputed champion in the state, the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation."

Remsen is located in eastern Plymouth County, 
in the heart of Iowa's corn belt. (Adobe Stock photo)

Without support, Remsen's water continued to be polluted. Despite investigations, area wells were allowed to fill with possibly toxic nitrates. "From 2016 to 2020, Remsen’s five-year rate of colorectal cancer, one of the cancers associated with nitrate exposure, was 19% higher than Iowa’s," Waldman adds. "By 2017, the shallow wells that supplied Remsen’s drinking water were so loaded with nitrates they had to be shut down."

Farming without so many nitrates and pesticides is possible. Matt Liebman, a retired agronomy professor at Iowa State, told Waldman, "What it takes to grow food with less pollution isn’t a mystery. . . .But the solution threatens the status quo. You can’t sell as much fertilizer, hybrid seeds or animal feed. For those companies, the solution is the problem.”

The 'demise' of plow-based farming is coming as farmers use healthier ways to grow food

Jesse Stubs plowing, prepares soil to plant corn on newly-terraced land in Flint River Farms, Ga.,
in May 1939. (Marion Post Wolcott, Library of Congress Prints &Photos via the Post)

The enduring match of farms and plows seems destined for a breakup as more farmers incorporate no-till farming practices. "The demise of the plow and other tools that turn the soil is a rare good-news story in these depressing times for Planet Earth," writes Dana Milbank in his Washington Post opinion. "Modern, mechanized tillage [is] an ecological disaster, killing all that was alive in the soil while worsening erosion and runoff."

Over the past five decades, farmers realized how much harm tilling was doing and began to step away from their plows. Milbank explains, "In 1973, 82.2% of U.S. cropland was managed by conventional tillage, and only 2% was managed by 'no-till' methods, with the remaining 15.8% using reduced tillage. Half a century later, only 27% of U.S. cropland uses conventional tillage, with 38% now using no-till and 35% using reduced tillage."

Part of the shift to no-till includes a change in farming culture. Milbank adds, "If Big Ag destroyed the soil with its heavy use of chemicals and monster tilling equipment, the new agriculture is about building soil health so that it can nurture as it once did." The no-till resurgence takes its lessons from "traditional farming methods that existed for centuries before chemical fertilizers and pesticides. . . . and newer technologies, such as drilling seeds into the soil to preserve the soil’s structure."

John Piotti, head of the American Farmland Trust, which has been working on regenerative practices with big and small farmers and food companies including Land O’Lakes and General Mills, told Milbank, "It’s a very good trend — an excellent trend . . . . It’s really about whether we’re going to have a planet we can live on.”

Reporting tips: PFAS drinking water rule offers a wealth of opportunities for local stories and angles

PFAS are found throughout the
environment. (Adobe Stock photo)

The Environmental Protection Agency's new rule limiting polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as "forever chemicals," in U.S. drinking water supplies opens the door to local reporting opportunities, writes Joseph A. Davis of The Society of Environmental Journalists. "The new PFAS drinking water rule is a big deal — and also a great local story for environmental journalists."

Why is limiting PFAS important? These chemicals can cause devastating health issues for humans, partially because they build up in the body over time. Despite their toxicity, they have been used in countless household goods, from electronics to frying pans. Using common-sense labels, they could also be called "everywhere chemicals." Davis writes, "There are many routes of human exposure — from french fry wrappers to high-end rain jackets. Even playing with the baby on the carpet. What matters is human exposure: how much over what length of time."

To get a local story going, find out your area's PFAS backstory. "People started getting worried about PFAS back in 2016, when PFAS chemicals were found in private wells around Bennington, Vermont, caused by waste from a nearby plant. The concern spread. Other communities across the country found PFAS in their water, too," Davis reports. While Vermont went on to set its own PFAS limits, the EPA took a long time to unravel the PFAS problem. The agency's new rule was announced in April 2024.

For forever chemical stories in your neck of the woods, Davis has several suggestions, a few of which are lightly edited below.

• Find the utility provider for your area's drinking water and get its latest 'consumer confidence report.' It will tell you if PFAS has been tested for/detected in your water. Look under 'detected unregulated contaminants.'
• Check other local media, testing services and state/county health departments to see if any private wells have had PFAS detected in their water.
• Explore any known sources of PFAS pollution in your area, especially manufacturing plants.
• Are there any airports or aircraft firefighting operations in your area that may have used PFAS-containing foam? What happens to their runoff? Check with well owners in the vicinity about any pollution.
• If your utility's water contains PFAS, ask what it will do to correct the problem. Ask what it would cost to remove PFAS and whether it would have to raise water rates. Sometimes, changing water sources is a cheaper solution.

Read the full article here for more on PFAS history and ideas for reporting angles.

Companies aren't the only ones that spread the use of 'forever chemicals;' the U.S. military is also responsible

Firefighting foam was created in the 1960s.
(Adobe Stock photo)

Commercial product companies aren't the only ones to blame for PFAS, also known as "forever chemicals," making their way into U.S. soil and drinking water. Through its extensive use of firefighting foam, the U.S. military has also contributed to the slowly degrading and noxious chemicals spreading across the country, reports Sachi Kitajima Mulkey of Grist. "The Department of Defense is among the nation's biggest users of firefighting foam and says 80% of active and decommissioned bases require cleanup."

The Environmental Protection Agency doesn't consider any exposure to PFOA and PFOS, two of the most toxic PFAS, safe. In mid-April, the agency also "designated these two compounds' hazardous substances' under the federal Superfund law, making it easier to force polluters to shoulder the costs of cleaning them up," Mulkey explains. "Meeting these regulations means that almost all of the 715 military sites and surrounding communities under Defense Department investigation for contamination will likely require remediation."

The history of PFAS chemicals dates back to a 1930s lab accident, but their extensive commercial use in products began in the 1950s and 60s. Mulkey reports, "In the 1960s, the Defense Department worked with 3M, one of the largest manufacturers of PFAS chemicals, to develop a foam called AFFF that can extinguish high-temperature fires. The PFAS act as a surfactant, helping the material spread more quickly. By the 1970s, every military base, Navy ship, civilian airport, and fire station regularly used AFFF."

From that point, PFAS chemicals were used in everything from cookware to raincoats to carpets. It would take decades for government agencies and communities to realize that these human-made, fluorine-based chemicals were harmful to animals and humans. Once their harmfulness came to light, another set of problems evolved — how to remove the chemicals from the environment, which research has proven is both expensive and difficult to accomplish.

Today, military sites have some of the most extensive cleanup work. "Congress ordered the department to publish the findings of drinking and groundwater tests on and around bases," Mulkey reports. "Results showed nearly 50 sites with extremely high levels of contamination and hundreds more with levels above what was then the EPA's health advisory. Following further congressional pressure, the military announced plans to implement interim cleanup measures at three dozen locations."

"Nationwide, the Environmental Working Group found unsafe water in wells near 63 military bases in 29 states."

A new EPA rule means polluters, not taxpayers, will have to pay for some 'forever chemicals' cleanup

PFAS have been used in the U.S. since 1938.
(Adobe Stock photo)

The presence of PFAS, or "forever chemicals," in U.S. drinking water led the Environmental Protection Agency to issue its first drinking water standards earlier this month. Tagging onto that action, "The Biden administration is designating two 'forever chemicals,' as hazardous substances under the Superfund law, shifting responsibility for their cleanup to polluters from taxpayers," reports Coral Davenport of The New York Times. "The new rule empowers the government to force the many companies that manufacture or use perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) to monitor any releases into the environment and be responsible for cleaning them up."

Davenport explains, "PFOA and PFOS are no longer manufactured in the United States but can be imported in the form of consumer goods such as carpet, leather and apparel, textiles, paper and packaging as well as in coatings, rubber and plastics; the agency said. . . . Industries that use the chemicals have said that the designation is too expensive and would lead to litigation that could impose new costs on businesses and communities and slow the cleanup of chemicals."

The fact remains that all PFAS are harmful to humans. The compounds "degrade very slowly and can accumulate in the body and the environment. Exposure to PFAS has been associated with metabolic disorders, decreased fertility in women, developmental delays in children and increased risk of some prostate, kidney and testicular cancers, according to the EPA," Davenport writes. "Under the new rule, companies are required to immediately report releases of PFOA and PFOS that meet or exceed one pound within a 24-hour period to the National Response Center, and also to state, tribal, and local emergency responders."

As far as cleaning up PFAS -- it isn't simple or cheap. Even after PFAS are removed from water, there is no easy way to dispose of the products produced by the removal process. "Studies have shown that PFAS can be broken down with energy-intensive technologies," reports Fast Company. "But this comes with steep costs. Incinerators must reach over 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit (1,000 Celsius) to destroy PFAS, and the possibility of creating potentially harmful byproducts is not yet well understood."

Click here to review a study and map of PFAS in U.S. tap water.

Federal court bans use of dicamba weedkiller on crops; ruling says EPA broke the law when it reapproved it in 2020

Dicamba can cause stunted growth and yield
reduction in plants. (Farm Progress photo)

Dicamba, a weedkiller used to eradicate broadleaf, brush, vines and woody plants in agricultural crops, was banned by an Arizona federal court, which ruled that "The Environmental Protection Agency broke the law in allowing them to be on the market," reports Johnathan Hettinger of The Guardian. "The ruling is specific to three dicamba-based weedkillers manufactured by Bayer (Monsanto), BASF and Syngenta, which have been blamed for millions of acres of crop damage and harm to endangered species and natural areas across the Midwest and South."

The three companies dominate the agrochemical sector, and this ruling is the second to outlaw their dicamba-based herbicides, which are sold on shelves as Banvel, Trimec, Vanquish and Q4 Plus. "In 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its own ban, but months later, the Trump administration re-approved the weedkilling products," Hettinger explains. "In this ruling, an Arizona federal court found the EPA "made a crucial error in re-approving dicamba, finding the agency did not post it for public notice and comment as required by law."

Dicamba was introduced in the United States in the late 1960s, but remained unpopular because of how the chemical interacts with the environment. For instance, it "can volatilize and move long distances when temperatures climb," Hettingger reports. "It is also prone to drifting on the wind far from where it is applied. And it can move into drainage ditches and bodies of water as runoff during rain events."

To address the chemical's harmful elements, "Monsanto, along with the chemical giant BASF, introduced new formulations of dicamba herbicides they said would not be as volatile, and they encouraged farmers to buy Monsanto's newly created dicamba-tolerant crops," Hettering notes. "The EPA first approved Monsanto and BASF versions of dicamba for the 2017 growing season. Since then, dicamba has caused millions of acres of crop damage and has been the subject of several lawsuits."

Rhonda Brooks reports for Farm Journal: The "EPA has not said when it will respond to the court's decision. The ruling, for now, means U.S. farmers will not be able to use dicamba for weed control this season."

Reporting on 'forever chemical' hazards can be hard, but this previously obscure database of information can help

A contractor documents potential PFAS contamination in a waterway.
(Photo by Michigan DEQ, Flickr Creative Commons via SEJ)

A once obscure database can help journalists uncover previously hidden "forever chemical" hazards. "The advocacy nonprofit Environmental Working Group has found a Trump-era loophole in U.S. chemical reporting law, which allowed major companies to hide the amount of toxic PFAS they released into the environment," reports Joseph A. Davis of the Society for Environmental Journalists. What the working group did was "compare and cross-check two databases. One database was the Environmental Protection Agency's Toxics Release Inventory and the other was the Chemical Data Reporting database. The CDR's data collection is required under the Toxic Substances Control Act ...  as is the TRI."

"Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, companies are required to report to the EPA every four years about chemicals they use in commerce or import," Davis explains. "The field covers more chemicals than TRI, essentially all chemicals in commerce, namely those included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory. This list now includes more than 86,000 chemicals."

The CDR's original purpose was to "help the EPA manage the regulation of chemicals under TSCA, rather than to inform the public about exposure. It is meant to be comprehensive, but there are exemptions for certain substances and companies below a certain size. And companies are only required to report if they handle more than a certain amount," Davis reports. "The database is, however, publicly available and downloadable online. It is not, however, easily searchable online. Here's the access point for downloading data files."

The EPA maintains a superfund priorities map.

Other environmental reporting sources include the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, an arm of the Department of Health and Human Services. Its website has multiple resources, including a "Toxic Substance Portal" and "Toxicological Profiles." The agency's work includes: "Investigating emerging environmental health threats; conducting research on the health impacts of hazardous waste sites; and building capabilities of and providing actionable guidance to state and local health partners."

The Environmental Protection Agency has a "superfund" map, which is useful for hazard site background and discovering where your community might be as far as EPA priorities go. The listing also provides site listing narratives, progress profiles and Federal Register Notices.

22 attorneys general urge federal court to reject 3M Co.'s $10.3 billion settlement offer for 'forever chemicals' pollution

Water sample testing for PFAS research at the EPA
(Photo by Joshua A. Bickel, Associated Press)

Twenty-two attorneys general argue that the proposed settlement 3M Co. has offered to resolve claims that it contaminated water systems with "forever chemicals" wouldn't be enough. The group "urged a federal court to reject a proposed $10.3 billion settlement . . . saying it lets manufacturer 3M off too easily," reports John Flesher of The Associated Press. They argue that the agreement needs to give water suppliers more time to compute what their portion of the settlement would be and compare it to "their costs of removing the compounds known collectively as PFAS, said the officials with 19 states, Washington, D.C., and two territories."

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, leader of the multi-state coalition, told Flesher, "While I appreciate the effort that went into it, the proposed settlement in its current form does not adequately account for the pernicious damage that 3M has done in so many of our communities." 3M spokesman Sean Lynch said, "It is not unusual for there to be objections regarding significant settlement agreements. We will continue to work cooperatively to address questions about the terms of the resolution."

3M's "forever chemicals" problems began with its use of "polyfluorinated substances — a broad class of chemicals used in nonstick, water- and grease-resistant products such as clothing and cookware, as well as some firefighting foams," Flesher reports. "PFAS have been linked to a variety of health problems, including liver and immune-system damage and some cancers." The American Chemical Society describes polyfluorinated chemicals as "toxic, extremely resistant to degradation, bioaccumulate in food chains, and can have long half-lives in humans."

Three hundred communities have sued 3M and other companies over water and soil pollution from their products. Flesher writes, "Although the company put its value at $10.3 billion, an attorney for the water providers said it could reach as high as $12.5 billion, depending on how many detect PFAS during testing the Environmental Protection Agency has ordered over the next three years."

The attorneys general disagreed with the deal's opt-out provision, which would "shift liability from 3M to water suppliers that don't opt out. That could enable the company to seek compensation from providers if sued over cancer or other illnesses in PFAS-affected communities," Flesher reports. "The attorneys-general filings said it would force nearly all public water providers nationwide to participate unless they withdraw individually — even those that haven't filed suits or tested for PFAS. 'Troublingly, they would have to make their opt-out decisions without knowing how much they would actually receive and, in many cases, before knowing the extent of contamination in their water supplies and the cost of remediating it, the officials said in a statement. . . . As such, the proposed settlement is worth far less than the advertised $10.5 billion to $12.5 billion."