Here, Lambert says, “it takes away all of our precious bodily fluids and makes them impure.”
By Hannah Norman, a video producer and visual reporter who joined KFF Health News after covering health care for the San Francisco Business Times. Previously, he was a fellow at AtlanticLIVE, Atlantic’s events division. Originally published on KFF Health News.
When Juana Valle bought her five-acre farm in San Juan Bautista, Calif., three years ago, she never imagined she’d be afraid to drink tap water or eat fresh eggs or walnuts. I didn’t even do it. Escape from city life and grow your own food was a dream come true for the 52-year-old.
Valle then began to suspect that the water from the well was causing the disease.
“Even if everything is organic, if the groundwater is not clean, it doesn’t matter,” Valle says.
This year, researchers discovered shocking levels of chemicals called PFAS in her well water. A federally funded report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found that exposure to PFAS, a group of thousands of compounds, can lead to cancer, decreased response to vaccines, low birth weight, and more. It is said to be related to health issues. Valle worries that the health problems she has recently experienced may be due to eating food and drinking water from farms that have also been found to contain arsenic.
Researchers found that toxic chemicals were introduced into Valle’s water supply through nearby agricultural operations that may have used PFAS-containing fertilizers made from dried sludge from sewage treatment plants, or pesticides found to contain the compounds. It is suspected that there may have been an intrusion.
These chemicals were unexpectedly detected in well water in rural farmland, far from known contaminated sites such as industrial areas, airports, and military bases. Agricultural communities already face the risk of contaminating tap water with heavy metals and nitrates. Researchers are now concerned that PFAS could further disproportionately harm farmworkers and communities of color. They requested further tests.
“This seems to be a more widespread problem than we realized,” said Claire Pace, a researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, who is investigating possible exposures to PFAS-contaminated pesticides. speak
stubborn sludge
There is growing concern nationwide about PFAS contamination transferred by the common practice of spreading solid waste from sewage treatment across farmland. In 2022, Maine officials banned the spraying of some sewage byproducts, called biosolids, on farms and other land. A study published in August found elevated levels of PFAS in the blood of people in Maine who drank water from wells next to farms. Biosolids were applied.
Sewage pollution mainly comes from industrial waste. But because PFAS are widely used in personal care products and other commonly used items, household sludge also contains PFAS, said Sarah Alexander, executive director of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association. said.
“We found that farms that were sprayed with sludge in the ’80s are still contaminated,” Alexander said.
The first PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) were invented in the 1940s to prevent household products from staining and sticking. Today, PFAS chemicals are used in everything from cookware to cosmetics to some types of firefighting foam, and they end up in landfills and sewage treatment plants. Known as “forever chemicals” because they do not break down in the environment, PFAS are so toxic that they are measured in parts per trillion in water, equivalent to one drop in 20 Olympic-sized swimming pools. do. Chemicals accumulate in the human body.
At Valle’s farm, the PFAS levels in the well water are eight times higher than the safety standard set this year by the Environmental Protection Agency for a PFAS chemical called perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). The new drinking water standards are in a five-year implementation phase, and it is unclear whether they will be implemented by the incoming Trump administration.
The Valle well was tested in California’s San Joaquin Valley and Central Coast region in the first round of preliminary sampling by UC Berkeley researchers and community water centers. It is one of 20 locations (10 private domestic wells and 10 public water systems). Non-profit. They are planning a community meeting to discuss the results with residents once they are finalized. Valle’s results showed 96 ppt of total PFAS in the water, including 32 ppt of PFOS. Both are considered potentially dangerous amounts.
Haley Singler, part of the team that conducted the water sampling, said the site’s proximity to agricultural operations could be the source of the contamination, or that the chemicals are ubiquitous in the environment. He said that it suggests that there is.
The EPA requires public water systems serving at least 3,300 people to be tested for 29 types of PFAS. But private wells are particularly susceptible to groundwater contamination because they are unregulated, tend to be shallow and vary in quality of construction, Shingler said.
Water burden
California is already facing a drinking water crisis, with farmworkers and communities of color disproportionately affected. More than 825,000 people across nearly 400 water systems in the state lack access to clean, reliable drinking water due to contamination with nitrates, heavy metals, and pesticides.
California’s Central Valley is one of the nation’s largest agricultural producing regions. The EPA found PFAS contamination in public drinking water supplies in some cities, including Fresno, Lathrop and Manteca, above new safety standards, according to state data.
Shortly after moving in, Valle began to feel unwell. Her leg joints were painful and burning. She said medical tests revealed that her blood contained high levels of heavy metals, particularly arsenic. She also plans to get tested for PFAS soon.
“That’s why I stopped eating. [or drinking] “We ate everything from the farm,” Valle said. “And after a week, the numbers went down.”
She has since installed a water filter in her home, but the system does not remove PFAS, so she and her family continue to drink bottled water, she said.
In recent years, the agrochemical industry has increased its use of PFAS in both active and “inert” ingredients, said David Andrews, a senior scientist with the Environmental Working Group, who has submitted EPA filings over the past decade. The registered pesticide ingredients were analyzed. Recently published research results.
“PFAS not only endangers farmers and communities, they also endanger downstream water sources, with pesticide runoff potentially contaminating drinking supplies,” Andrews said.
The highest concentration of pesticide use in California is along the Central Coast and in the Central Valley, where Valle lives, Pace said, adding that his research has shed light on the potential for PFAS contamination from pesticides. It has been found to have a disproportionate impact on communities of color.
“Our results demonstrate racial and ethnic disparities in the potential PFAS threat to local water systems, thus raising environmental justice concerns,” the paper states. .
Spotty solution
Some treatment facilities and public water systems have installed filtration systems to capture PFAS, which can cost millions or even billions of dollars. California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, signed legislation restricting PFAS in textiles, food packaging and cosmetics to get the wastewater treatment industry moving, hoping to solve the problem at its root.
But states, like the EPA, require monitoring of PFAS in solid waste from wastewater treatment plants, but do not regulate them.
In the past, biosolids were routinely sent to landfills as soon as they were spread on land. But in 2016, California passed regulations requiring businesses to reduce the amount of organic waste they dispose of by 75% by 2025 to reduce methane emissions. To this end, the facility promoted the reuse of wastewater treatment in fields, forests, and other locations with products such as fertilizers, compost, and soil conditioners.
Greg Kester, director of the Renewable Resources Program at the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, says the benefits of using biosolids as fertilizer include improving soil health, increasing crop yields and reducing irrigation needs. He said it has benefits such as carbon sequestration. “We need to consider the risks of not applying.” [it on farmland] Similarly,” he said.
Nearly two-thirds of the 776,000 dry tons of biosolids used or disposed of in California last year were applied this way, with most of the material coming from wealthy, densely populated areas such as Los Angeles County and the Bay Area to the Central Valley and the state. carried outside.
When asked if California would consider banning agricultural use of biosolids, Wendy Link, a senior engineering geologist with the California Water Resources Control Board, said, “I don’t think that’s in the future. ” he said.
The average PFAS concentrations found in California’s sampling of PFAS biosolids collected at wastewater treatment plants are higher than those found in more industrialized states like Maine, said Rashi Gupta, wastewater practice director at consultancy Carolo Engineers. It is said to be relatively low compared to the state.
Still, two wastewater treatment facilities in San Francisco produced biosolids samples with combined PFAS levels above 150 ppb, according to monitoring conducted in 2020 and 2022.
Starting in 2019, the water board began testing wells near known contaminated sites, such as airports, landfills and industries, and found high levels of PFAS.
The agency is currently testing about 4,000 wells across the state, including wells far from known sources of contamination, said Dan Newton, assistant director for drinking water at the state water agency. The event is free of charge in underprivileged areas. This initiative will take approximately two years.
Solano County, which has vast pasturelands about an hour northeast of San Francisco, tested soil that had biosolids applied to fields, most of which came from the Bay Area. In preliminary results, consultants found PFAS in all locations, including locations where biosolids have not historically been applied. In recent years, landowners have balked at the county’s biosolids program, and by 2024 no farms will be participating in the practice, said Trey Strickland, manager of environmental health services.
“It was probably like, ‘Not in my backyard,'” Strickland said. “Spread your poop somewhere else, away from us.”
Meanwhile, Los Angeles County ships much of its biosolids to Kern County or out of state. Green Acres, a Los Angeles city-owned farm near Bakersfield, applies 80,000 dry tons of biosolids annually as fertilizer to feed crops such as corn and wheat. Concerned about the environmental and health impacts, Kern County fought the practice for more than a decade until a legal battle ended in 2017. At the time, former state Sen. Dean Flores told the Los Angeles Times: It was a Goliath battle from day one. ”
“We probably won’t see the effects of this until many years later,” he added. “One thing we know: If it’s healthy and OK, Los Angeles will do it in Los Angeles County.”
