SUBSCRIBE
Here’s an issue that came out of nowhere, completely unexpected. If you’re not familiar with the acronym PFAS — and honestly, who has time to keep up with life’s acronyms anyway? — it stands for “per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.” And now we understand why we need acronyms.
PFAS compounds have been around since the 1940s and are now found everywhere in the environment. Some common PFAS compounds you may recognize are surfactants such as Teflon and firefighting foam.
There is no agreement on an exact definition of what constitutes a PFAS compound, nor is there agreement on how many there are. The Environmental Protection Agency says, based on the definition they have established, that there are 14,735 compounds. However, another database using a broader definition lists 7 million different PFAS compounds.
You may have heard of PFAS being referred to as “forever chemicals” because they do not break down rapidly in the environment. Some PFAS compounds have been shown to have detrimental effects on human health and the environment, while others do not. Most PFAS compounds have never been through a thorough human and environmental risk review, as is the case with pesticides regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
Allow me to illustrate how the PFAS issue can muddy the waters. In 2019, there was an outbreak of Eastern equine encephalitis (EEE) in Massachusetts that resulted in 17 human cases and seven deaths. EEE is one of the arboviral diseases transmitted by infected mosquitoes and attacks the central nervous system of humans and horses.
The 2019 outbreak in Massachusetts required widespread aerial spraying of swampy areas that had an abundance of infected mosquitoes. This spraying was done according to a long-standing plan the state had developed to deal with similiar situations.
And as you can probably guess, although there had been deaths, there were people who opposed the spraying. The opposition was such that the legislature passed a bill into law creating a commission to study the problem called “The Mosquito Control for the Twenty-First Century Task Force.”
When I read the bill, I noticed that there wasn’t anyone earmarked to represent professional pesticide applicators on this task force. The legislature thought that was a great idea and amended the bill. Not long afterwards, I got a call that the professional pesticide applicator being appointed to the task force was me.
The task force met twice a month virtually since it was during the pandemic, and the dynamics of the group never really developed because we never met face-to-face. This became problematic when the day before a scheduled meeting, a story ran in The Boston Globe proclaiming “Toxic ‘forever chemicals’ found in pesticide used on millions of Mass. acres when spraying for mosquitoes.”
When the task force meeting convened the next day, some members weren’t interested in learning which of the 14,735 PFAS compounds were found, how much was found, if the PFAS was part of the active ingredient used or how the PFAS actually got there. No, they immediately zeroed in on the complaint that the state was spraying for mosquitoes and weaponized the issue to achieve their goal of not allowing the state to control mosquitoes.
As it turned out, there was no PFAS in the active ingredient — it was discovered that the PFAS had leached from the treated inside surface of the pesticide container — and the PFAS that was applied was such a small amount that it was below levels found in the environment already.
This incident foreshadowed future activism, but weaponizing PFAS is problematic. Because PFAS comprises thousands of compounds with unique toxicological profiles, a one-size-fits-all strategy fails. Demonizing all PFAS without differentiating between them robs us of the utility of those PFAS compounds that would pass a risk assessment. Second, other products that may have PFAS as a contaminant get swept up in the maelstrom.
My gut tells me that there’s a pathway to remediating PFAS contamination by applying biosolids to lawns and landscapes. We see a great deal of research that indicates that plants have the capability to phytoremediate toxic compounds. We also know that soils can serve as a sink for certain contaminants as well.
