Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
A return guest joins us all the way from Maine. Glenda Pereira is an Extension professor at the University of Maine and is here to get us ahead on an issue that could become something we need to know more about in the near future. PFAS are chemicals that we use every day, could impact our health, and could impact the dairy and beef industries.
Hosted by members of the University of Minnesota Extension Beef and Dairy Teams, The Moos Room discusses relevant topics to help beef and dairy producers be more successful. The information is evidence-based and presented as an informal conversation between the hosts and guests.
[music]
[cow mooing]
Joe: Welcome to The Moos Room, everybody. The OG three is here. We're together again. Been a while since two weeks in a row happened. Emily's still here, still alive,
Emily: Still not dead.
Joe: It's great. Bradley is also here.
Bradley: I haven't blown away in a blizzard yet, so that's good.
Joe: Most importantly, we have a guest, a return guest. She was featured all the way back in episode 17 and 18, which was a while ago.
Emily: That's over 100 episodes ago at this point, isn't it?
Joe: Yes.
Emily: Wowsers.
Joe: It's a little weird to say things like that, but we have Glenda Pereira here today. I've been practicing. She's here to talk about something completely different from last time. We had her on to talk about where she grew up and some equipment and all the fancy technology that Bradley gets his hands on up at Morris. Today we've got a completely different topic I know nothing about. Glenda, why don't you first tell us where you are now and what you're doing, and then we'll get into the topic?
Glenda: Thanks Moos Room team for having me on again. Since those episodes, I have graduated from the Heins dairy production crew out there. He doesn't like when we call it the Hines lab. It's not a lab, it's a team and a crew of folks. I have graduated from the University of Minnesota and I am now an assistant Extension professor at the University of Maine, where I have statewide responsibilities as the dairy specialist. I do have a small teaching appointment within the School of Food and Agriculture here. I moved back to the New England area and am now a colleague of you all and a colleague of Brad's too, which is weird to say, but I'm officially a professor.
Joe: We can't really be colleagues of Brad until we're full professors and tenured, just so you're aware. Today we are talking about per- and poly�fluoroalkyl substances, better known as PFAS. I'm going to stop there. I'm not even going to attempt to give an intro to this topic because I know nothing about it. Glenda, what are we actually talking about today?
Glenda: I actually am relatively new to this topic as well because I've only been in my role as assistant professor for about a year and was introduced to this topic when I came here to Maine. PFAS are a group of chemicals that are made up of carbon-fluorine bonds, and they're really strong and they have the capability to not really break apart because what they were made for was to be resistant.
One of the things that they have is thermal stability. They're water dust and oil resistant and fire resistant as well. They have been used for well over 80 years in a lot of products that folks use on a day-to-day basis. Some of those are water-resistant fabrics and carpeting, cleaning products, paints, firefighting foams, some cookware such as Teflon, and food packaging, and food processing. These are things that are really convenient and useful on a day-to-day basis, but we are finding out now they may potentially have some negative effects that are a concern to humans.
Joe: The little reading that I've done like you said, they're super stable, which is great for their use, but it also means they stick around forever. Extended use, and we've been using these for a long time we're starting to find them just about everywhere. That includes drinking water everywhere. Where are we most concerned that we're finding them, Glenda?
Glenda: On this podcast, we talk all things dairy and beef. There's obviously some human concern because we do get exposed to it through contaminated food, drinking water, air, and dust. Then for those that are potentially manufacturing these products, they obviously have a direct line of contamination. Specifically for dairy, we're concerned because we can get contaminated with PFAS from drinking and consuming dairy products.
The reason why we are concerned as well is because they bind to albumin. In our bloodstream, it's regularly flowing. Then within dairy cows, we know that blood makes milk. That is one of the ways that the PFAS get into the milk. We are able to urinate most of the PFAS so there's long chain and short-chain PFAS chemical substances. There's well over 6,000 of these chemicals, but we are able to urinate and excrete most of the short chain, but specifically to dairy cattle and specifically for people, there's two that we are most concerned about, and those would be PFOS and PFOA. PFOA is Perfluorooctanoic acid and PFOS is Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid. There's two that are longer chain, so more than six carbons, which would then make them be more of a concern because we cannot regularly excrete them or urinate them as the shorter chain PFAS chemical compounds.
Joe: I think important to note is that there's so many different kinds of PFAS out there. The two that Glenda mentioned, PFOA and PFOS are the ones that we are concerned about. They have in recent years in the US been replaced by other PFAS chemicals. We know so little. What do we know? There's just so little that we do know. What do we know about these chemicals,
Glenda: Right. As you mentioned, there's so many, and when you regularly test for, if you're doing a blood test or a water test or whatever, you're obviously looking for those specific ones that you know are more likely to be present. Some of the research has indicated that these chemicals once accumulated-- That's part of the equation too. They accumulate over time because they do have a half-life. When they do accumulate and you're consistently either ingesting, drinking, et cetera then that's when you start to see the adverse effects. Again, we'll circle back to dairy because that's why we're talking about it today.
There can be an increase in the risk of cancer, elevated cholesterol levels. It can impact fertility and immunity, but because they do have a half-life with no additional exposure in two to four years, you can see a reduction in the level of contamination within the human body. Then it's important to note too, that we are phasing out a lot of these chemicals, but they persist. Still exist in the soil and in the water, which obviously we are always consuming food that comes from those sources, which is part of the cycle and why we would reintroduce the contamination.
Joe: When I've read about it, what I see is, is that it's just so ingrained in daily life that it's hard to not be exposed especially when we're finding it just about everywhere. One of the things I think about is that they've been using these chemicals for so long. Let's just take carpet for example. That they use it in carpet, how often do you really replace your carpet? That carpet could be in your house for the next 15, 20 years and you've got continual exposure. I don't know. This sounds like this is something we're going to be stuck with for quite a while. What are the next steps? We got to find out more. How are we going to do that?
Glenda: I'm optimistic because as a researcher and scientist, we're always looking for ways to get new data to be able to make informed decisions for the future. I think the dairy cow and the ruminant can be part of that solution. Stick with me and I can explain some of that. Right now there's been some action levels that are in place federally for water, but within Maine specifically. We'll introduce the Maine story here so that we can segue into it. An action level to just make sure that everybody knows is a concentration of a chemical in an environmental medium that serves as a threshold to determine if there needs to be further action.
In Maine specifically and why I was introduced to this topic there was and the sources of where PFAS came from in Maine and other areas. There's many sources, but primarily in the agriculture sector, it was a lot through the introduction of fertilizers or biosolids for fertilizers. If we think about all of the sludge that goes into the wastewater treatment plant. You wash your dishes and that goes somewhere. The manufacturing plants that exist around the state all of that drainage ends up somewhere. One of those places can be the landfill septage and all of that can accumulate and lead up into wastewater treatment plants.
When you separate the biosolids from the rest because there is clean water in that wastewater treatment plant. When you have these solids that about 30 years ago, a lot of farmers, not only in Maine but in a lot of other places in the US were indicated that those had some beneficial properties to be used as fertilizer on agricultural land. What we didn't know was that a lot of these PFAS chemicals would be then in those biosolids and they accumulated from various sources.
Specifically for Maine one of the sources could have been the paper mill. When we make paper products and in short paper fiber there is always residue and that ends up in the wastewater treatment plant. For other companies and manufacturing facilities that are near a river or another property, a body of water, because it's persistent and it travels through water, that's how it's getting into that wastewater treatment plant again, and then into the soil.
Unfortunately, firefighting foam was used with PFAS and so there was a case earlier this year where a dairy was negatively impacted by PFAS because they were near airport base that had used these firefighting foams, which included PFAS for trainings. There's a lot of leaching going on, and the PFAS, they just are persistent and permeate into the environment through water, air, dust, et cetera.
To wrap that up in Maine in 2016, there was a farmer who was near a monitoring well for the state. Monitoring well exists throughout the state. This water district specifically was testing and picked up elevated levels of PFOS the Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid. Then it was near a dairy farm. Then form there they took action to-- The well had elevated levels so then they looked at the dairy farm in terms of their water and their milk. That was one of the initial detections in Maine.
From there was some random store shelf sampling. The state of Maine randomly sampled milk on the shelf at the grocery store. In 2019, it just happened to be that that random jug that they picked up was traced back to an area in Maine that did have PFOS. Then again, it was a dairy farm. Then that traceability started. That was one farm, and then there was another farm very nearby. They did some additional testing.
That farm also had elevated levels, not as much but substantial for obviously to continue testing. There's been three farms that were affected and the last firm we were talking about, they have actually remained in business through mitigation strategies and trying to produce clean milk and stay below that action level.
Joe: How widely available is testing? I think we've all come to know that a lack of tests can be a big issue. If I'm worried about my livestock grazing certain land or drinking certain water, I need to test or else I have no idea. How widely available is testing?
Glenda: It is widely available and there's many labs throughout the United States that you can send your samples to. Obviously in Maine, we've been sending a lot of samples. We work closely with a couple of labs here in the Northeast. I would incentivize folks that potentially have a history-- They're like, I remember maybe there was a biosolid application, but because it's important to know the source, so not every source leads to contamination. It's not like all of the biosolids in the world have PFAS in them, it's important to have that traceability, know your source.
If folks are concerned, then they should contact their state officials because for example, here in Maine, we're going through a testing process. The state is testing almost all of the areas in Maine where there has been a source of contamination of PFAS. We have history, we have records and we can follow that traceability and follow that source. For folks that potentially have a well and might be concerned, I would just recommend contacting your state officials because it's going to be different for everybody. There's maps out there and for example, Maine has a map of where there's history of biosolid application.
It's expensive. Again, I would just [unintelligible 00:14:41] folks to reach out to state officials because there might be reimbursement programs as well. It's important to state that there are testing protocols. It's important that you're using the appropriate tools to collect these samples because you can contaminate your sample.
Brad: How much is a test? I think that's maybe it can be sometimes the sticker shock to people and maybe that's not why they do it, but that's probably the wrong reason to not test, is because of the expense. It's like a few hundred dollars a test, isn't it?
Glenda: Right. 230 to 400 is what we've been seeing for milk and feed TMR hay samples. You're right, it shouldn't be the reason that they don't test. I just wanted to say that don't go out and test all of your land and blood test. Make an informed decision. If you believe that you are near a source of PFAS contamination then take the right measures. Obviously in Maine, we have a lot more resources regarding that because we have had some issues with PFAS contamination on agricultural land and people live on a property adjacent to that and then that's the well that they're getting water from. It's important that people make informed decisions as well.
Emily: Kind of what Brad was saying, don't let sticker shock stop you, don't let thinking that it's all going to blow over and be fine stop you. This is something to take seriously. The little knowledge that I have on PFAS, I actually learned from one of the farm safety and health farm stress colleagues I work with at University of Maine. Because in Maine specifically, since they've had these issues for longer, more severely, et cetera, there's been a lot of stress and real tax on mental health for farmers with this as well. This is a thing that I think we might have an advantage that maybe it's not super severe here yet, so we can get ahead of it.
Part of that too is getting ahead of the mental strain that can be attached to this. Words like contamination I know can be really scary, but it's important that we really be proactive on these things. Proactiveness is one of the characteristics of resilience actually. I had to chime in from the farm stress and safety standpoint as well. This is something we should take seriously and be proactive about. Recognize if you have been having troubles and you can't identify the problem, maybe this is a new place to look as well.
It can be hard when we deal with something we don't have a lot of knowledge about. We know that. I think we all learned that in March of 2020, but again, I think it's so critical that we're having this conversation and that you've been on with us today, Glenda, to talk about it because it is going to be a problem. In Emily's brain, I of course think about it as a stressor. The last thing we need is more of that.
Glenda: We're going to find more sites across the US that have elevated levels. Right now, Maine has action levels and is the only place in the world that has action levels for milk and beef and milk specific to dairy cows, it's not sheep or goat, it's dairy cow milk. We do have a federal action level for drinking water, but for milk and beef, it's a main action level.
Joe: How did they determine those action levels if we know so little about these chemicals? How do they determine those levels?
Glenda: Long story short of it, and I'd have to obviously gather a lot more data, but you back-calculate what the average consumption would be of dairy products and then what would it be for an average American diet? Then that action level is the threshold that would be not safe for consumption or to begin those adverse effects that we mentioned in the beginning.
Joe: Well, this seems like something that's looming. I love what Emily said that we can try to get ahead of it, which would be great. You've dealt with this more than we have at this point. What's your advice to someone who thinks they might have an issue? What should they get done first and who should they reach out to? Where do they go?
Glenda: If we're talking about a residence that's different than a farm. If you own a home and you're concerned that you are near land or a well that has potential contamination or you worked in a place where these products were produced, then obviously your first thing to do is to consult your physician and then find the appropriate method and lab to conduct a blood test. That's, I think, one of the natural routes for somebody in that situation.
Then additionally contacting your state officials. For example, here we work closely with the Department of Environmental Protection and the Center for Disease Control, as well as the Department of Ag for Conservation and Forestry, to help us in assessing and guiding, and making those decisions. Again, there's protocols and that's important that you're not contaminating the sample when you're taking the sample. There's a lot of information to know before doing that.
Reach out to DEP and your Department of Ag because they will have some further information on how to test or somebody who can come out and test your site. If you are a farm, as I mentioned, there is no regulation for food outside of Maine. In Maine, we do have an action level for dairy, cow milk, and for beef. We've been doing a lot of observational and then taking a lot of notes on data in farms that we've been working with, but the research is still to come, but we believe that some of the research we conduct can potentially find solutions.
Learning more about what to do related to your crops. How can we minimize PFAS contamination? Unfortunately, it's in the soil and it's being uptaken by the plants. There's a lot to learn because when we think about drug stress and feeding those crops, the PFAS won't travel as much, and so you have a concentrated plant. There will be some recommendations we hope to have as we do our research. Some of the research we're going to be conducting is looking at feeding binders and [unintelligible 00:21:47] similar to an aflatoxin binder that we feed regularly and how we can use that to trap PFAS in the gastrointestinal tract.
Joe: I think about coal cows immediately when we talk about this, anything that you accumulate over time. The older the animal, potentially, the more that's their right. I think about coal cows on the dairy side, but also coal cows on the beef side, bulls, animals that live longer and are around a lot longer time. That's where my mind goes right away because I assume that they've been around longer, exposed longer, they're going to have higher levels. That makes me very nervous because that's a huge cash flow for both dairy and especially beef. That makes me very nervous that this is something that could impact that market.
Brad: It hasn't been at the forefront here. Maybe the Upper Midwest like it maybe has in the northeast. There are some here at the University of Minnesota that are looking at PFAS, not from a livestock perspective, just doing some exploratory research, seeing where it is. Where might they find it? Is it in water? Looking at soil at land. I don't want to alarm people and say it's like the end of the world, but people are looking at it here in the Midwest, and we just don't know yet what might happen and how we might have to deal with it. It's scary. It really is. We need more research, more exploratory stuff to see what's happening here, at least in the Midwest, and in the Northeast. You don't have all the answers there either. It's a tough thing.
Joe: Glenda, do you think we're getting ahead of ourselves with some of it in terms of putting regulation down without really knowing what's going on?
Glenda: That might be a piece of it. As I think about it, we need a lot of information to make informed policy. It's important to have a lot of data to then be able to put that policy in effect. I do think so. One of the things that we're struggling with right now is that we do have a state policy but not a federal policy, so it's government, it's not federal.
A big stressor to a lot of our farmers as well is that they have a market in Maine, but then how do we regulate milk from other states and whatever products we're importing here and selling and sharing our shelf space with? That's one of the things that our farmers are struggling with, too, because they have to meet that actual level in Maine. Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, whatever other states that may be selling milk in Maine, how do we regulate that? It's a tough position to begin, and it's a concern that a lot of our farmers talk about because, at the end of the day, this was something they agreed to spreading biosolids on their land. Unfortunately, 30 years later, we didn't expect this to be the consequences for those farmers.
Joe: Well, I hope we haven't depressed everyone too much. Like Brad said, we don't want to throw off alarm bells and say it's the end of the world here, but we do want people to be aware of this issue and the fact that, if you hear it being talked about, this is why. The main players in the game that are going to be talking about it that you probably will hear it from the Pollution Control Agency, and the EPA.
Traditionally, maybe a little bit of a strange relationship between those organizations and our dairy and beef communities. We need to be aware of this issue, we need to make sure that everyone is committed to a evidence-based or scientific-based approach to the how we approach this problem and decide if it is a problem or not. All of that. That's the goal. I don't really know what else to say about it at this point. I think what we're going to have to do is have Glenda back to give us an update on what's going on, and hopefully, give us an update on all the great research she's done on this topic. Any final thoughts Glenda?
Glenda: Yes, I want to echo your thoughts that I'm always optimistic. When I started working with this, it is something that isn't really associated with a positive experience and it's a lot of stress and a weight to bear because the outcome, unfortunately, with dairy farmers, not being able to produce clean milk is a reality for Maine.
As I mentioned, I'm optimistic because dairy and ruminant dairy cows and ruminants, again, can be part of that solution. Something I didn't talk about, was that there's a lot of biomass where these PFAS exist but if the research as we think it'll work in the digestive system of the ruminant, if we can find it and we can excrete it, pass it through their manure, we can potentially then accumulate that manure and run it through another process that creates smaller organic material of these PFAS chemicals.
Again, I think dairy cows and ruminants are part of the solution. It's just because they're great recyclers. We have some pretty cool technology that exists today for us to be able to do some remediation of PFAS. I just want to say, lastly, that we share this information to make an informed decision so you as a consumer, you as somebody who is concerned about your health and your community can make informed decisions. It's not the end of the world, but be sure to do some of your own research and to read up on it on a reliable and reputable source to then be able to make an informed decision for you and your family.
Joe: Perfect. I will also do some looking and see if I can get some more Minnesota-specific information about PFAS. Then if there are areas of the state that are a concern, in Minnesota, I'll look for that too. I might be able to find where people need to be more concerned than others. Obviously, if you've had biosolids spread on your land, that's a big, big indicator. I'll look and see what I can find specific to Minnesota. Well, thank you, Glenda. We really appreciate you coming back. We'll have you again eventually to tell us an update on all the great research you're doing.
Glenda: Thanks so much for having me on.
Joe: All right. Let's wrap it, Em.
Emily: If you have questions, comments, concerns, or scathing rebuttals about today's episode, you can email those to themoosroom@umn.edu. That's T-H-E-M-O-O-S-R-O-O-M@umn.edu. You can also call in leave us a voicemail for a chance to be featured on a future episode of The Moos Room. That number is 612-624-3610. You can also find us on Twitter @UMNmoossroom. We encourage you to visit the University of Minnesota Extension website, extension.umn.edu. That's a wrap.
Joe: Bye.
Brad: Bye.
Emily: Bye.
[00:29:30] [END OF AUDIO]
1