PFAS report urges farm input tests, records and Minnesota model

Fewer than 0.1% of 3,199 meat and poultry samples tested by the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service contained PFAS, according to a new Council for Agricultural Science and Technology report that urges farmers to test inputs and keep records.

The paper, “PFAS in Agriculture: Science, Uncertainty, and Risk Communication,” was released this month. It says most PFAS found on Minnesota farms came from other sources, framing contamination as unintended exposure rather than deliberate use.

CAST’s authors are Mark McDaniel of TechLaw Consultants Inc., Jon Entine of the Genetic Literacy Project and Thomas Redick of Global Environmental Ethics Counsel LLC.

What should growers test?

CAST recommends testing inputs, especially biosolids, with results broken down by compound. A detection alone, the report says, does not mean a hazard. The distinction matters.

PFAS usually reaches farms through:

• Biosolids: solid leftovers from wastewater treatment plants, sometimes spread on farms as fertilizer.
• Compost.
• Irrigation water.
• Feed.

The report calls land application one of the main outlets for biosolids and describes them as a valuable and often necessary nutrient source for agriculture. For growers using them as fertilizer, testing reaches beyond contamination screening into input quality and land-use decisions.

During a CAST webinar on Oct. 19, McDaniel said: “For the most part, farmers don’t put that PFAS there. They’re just unintentional receivers of that contamination.”

The practical step is to identify the input, test it by compound and retain the paperwork.

Why does Minnesota’s testing matter?

Since September 2025, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has required PFAS testing of biosolids before they are spread. Minnesota is one of the only states testing for PFAS at the farm level.

CAST calls that approach a model for the country. The report says Minnesota has found more farm contamination than many states, likely because it has looked harder. More detections may reflect that wider search, not necessarily more contamination.

How could EPA’s draft change biosolids use?

EPA’s voluntary 2026 draft guidance recommends:

• Spreading biosolids on lower-exposure crops, including grain, fiber crops or corn for ethanol.
• Placing applications away from drinking water, fishable waters and areas children under 5 can reach.

For farms that applied biosolids in good faith, EPA has said it will not pursue punishment, according to CAST. Future administrations could change that assurance.

CAST says growers who proactively managed inputs, tested for PFAS and documented those practices stand in a fundamentally stronger position, both legally and with buyers, than growers who did not.

For growers using biosolids as fertilizer, the draft links input sourcing and crop placement to legal and buyer scrutiny. The cited findings include no figures for testing costs, crop basis changes or farm-margin effects, so their business case rests on risk reduction rather than quantified savings.

Documented testing is the clearest immediate safeguard available to growers.

What do federal food tests show?

The FDA found no PFAS in 97% of about 800 food samples, according to CAST, though seafood results ran higher. The USDA finding covers 3,199 meat and poultry samples from a separate testing program. The report does not specify a sampling window for either figure, so neither percentage should be read as a current measure of on-farm contamination.

EPA lists more than 21,000 compounds on its PFAS list. It defines PFAS, short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances and often called “forever chemicals,” as widely used, long-lasting chemicals whose components break down very slowly over time.

CAST says evidence of harm is strongest for PFOA and PFOS, mostly at high exposures. USDA cannot set PFAS limits for soil, water or crops, leaving those farm standards unsettled.

Redick said: “As counsel for growers, I don’t have a lot of advice right now to tell them.” The 2026 guidance and any later EPA decision on penalties will test whether CAST’s recommended records can give growers durable protection from regulatory and buyer scrutiny.