The Washington Post published an article focusing on the PFAS saga of Adam Nordell and Johanna Davis, owners of Maine’s Songbird Farm since 2014. Earlier this year, Maine’s Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and Maine’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention jointly published a report on PFAS in deer in the Fairfield area of Maine—close to the couple’s organic farm. That led a concerned customer of the organic farm to reach out to the couple to inform them that their farm had been treated in the 1990s with “industrial sludge” potentially contaminated with PFAS and allegedly traceable to a disposable dishware manufacturer in the region. The couple then tested certain produce, soil, and water at the farm, finding PFAS at levels 400 times greater than Maine’s current drinking water standard. The couple also ordered two over the counter blood tests to determine the amount of PFAS in their blood, with the results claiming that the couple had PFAS at levels 250 times greater than the average American. This prompted the couple—who had not been involved in PFAS issues in any way before this point—to become highly active in this area, testifying before the state legislature in support of financial aid and land buyout options for people in similar positions as well as raising awareness for potential health effects of PFAS. Maine’s legislature is now contemplating a bill that would provide, among other items, compensation to affected landowners and monitoring the health of individuals whose agricultural lands are found to be contaminated by PFAS.

The New York Times recently published an overview of “what you should know about PFAS” following Consumer Reports’ recent investigation of PFAS in food packaging (discussed in detail in our March 29, 2022 issue). According to The New York Times, you should know some basics (that loyal readers of this page undoubtedly already know):

• PFAS are everywhere—from food products to human blood to polar bears to even the bottom of the ocean—because these chemicals were used in a variety of different products and they are highly resistant to breaking down over time given the strength of the chemicals’ carbon-fluorine bond;

• PFAS regulations in the U.S. are a patchwork of state and federal guidelines, with the federal government increasing its activity following last year’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap; and

• Some studies on certain PFAS chemicals have suggested possible increased risk of certain cancers, immune system issues, and fetal development. On this point, The Times also quoted a Brown University epidemiologist who opined that there is not “an immediate disaster” or “an immediate threat to health” generally from PFAS in the U.S. And, circling back to the Consumer Reports investigation, the Times noted that the FDA recommends not reading too much into reports that food products may have “detectable” levels of PFAS given that safety assessments have not shown cause for concern.

Again, this is helpful background for those who are not regular readers of our humble Newsletter.