PFAS in fertilisers blamed for killing livestock in Texas and wreaking havoc | Hacker News Reader

PFAS in fertilisers blamed for killing livestock in Texas and wreaking havoc

chemistryworld.com

107 pointschiffre0138 comments

> Synagro has denied that its fertilisers have harmed the health of farmers or livestock and is contesting the lawsuit.

Sign of the times. Deny, deny, deny, and maybe all the people suing you will die or run out of money.

> Sign of the times. Deny, deny, deny,

Not really a sign of the times. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a new concept. The burden of proof is on the people suing to show that PFAS both came from the fertilizer and is the cause of the issues.

The article mentions that microplastics was another theory. It's not encouraging when the leading theories appear to be plucked out of current trends for scary chemicals.

It would have been interesting if the article if the article gave prior concentrations as a baseline, such as when cattle died in WV from PFAS. Without a baseline it's hard to say. However, the levels being referenced in the calfs and the timing of the fish kills seems to indicate that a preponderance of the evidence supports the claims. In civil trials, it just has to be more likely than not.

> The article mentions that microplastics was another theory

The mention of microplastics was in relation to why the piles of biosolids were smoking. Speculation that heat from composting was burning microplastic particles.

Breathing burning plastic and ingesting large amounts of PFAS can both be harmful at the same time. The 'micro' part is irrelevant, you don't want to breath burning plastic regardless of the size of the particles burning.

Polluting your neighbor's property IS NOT OK. Normally externalities are more ambiguous, but this is literally polluting your neighbor's land. This isn't just a failure of our laws, this a failure of a community.

This is not new.

Ref: The Johnstown Flood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnstown_Flood

That's not really comparable because in the case of the flood, the damage was unambiguously tied to the dam bursting. That's not the case here. While I'm sure there's a non-zero amount of PFAS from the fertilizer that leeched into the nearby soil, it hasn't been established what its contribution was. This is closer to suing the local factory because you got lung cancer.

This doesn't address the underlying problem, but if this is something you'd like to avoid as a consumer, it's worth noting that sewage sludge is not permitted for use in growing organic produce:

> A very important part of the process-based regulatory framework is the prohibition of certain methods in organic production and handling. Methods like irradiation, sewage sludge, and genetic engineering are all expressly prohibited from being used when growing or processing organic foods.

https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/blog/organic-101-what-o...

Especially with all the junk (including meds) that goes down a sewer, I wouldn't want sewage sludge used.

And it can be used upfield though so the groundwater carries the dirt into organic fields. Many of these "rules" are written like physics stops at some arbitrary line. To be honest "organic" is a bit of a joke in the farming community , as their fields tend to "hug" coventional fields to prevent a fungi overgrowth .

And we all know agrarian traders who get certified "organic" stuff from countries were any seal or certificate is just a bribe away.

> fungi overgrowth

Can you elucidate ?

All plants i know get fungi, especially late in the dry and ripen stage.It reduces yield, is toxic and carcinogenic. So fungizides are deployed during the plants lifetime to keep the contamination in check and the product healthwise unproblematic. Organic farming does not have that option. So the fungi rate of some organic farms approaches a total loss. So they hug conventional farms to get the fungizide floatsome for a better result.

https://r.jordan.im/download/organic/lazzaro2015.pdf

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32835995/

it also depends on a lot of other factors (weather and crop rotation , but the key reasons are discussed )

The actual complaint is available here: https://peer.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/2024.02.27-First...

Not a lawyer and I didn't read with a fine-tooth comb, but I didn't see any smoking gun.

The complaint shows high quantities of PFAS measured on a farm, then it jumps to a section that says those PFAS were "also found" in a sample of the fertilizer used. The catch is that the concentration of those PFAS is measured in parts per trillion (ppt). Not a lawyer, but I feel like this is an uphill battle to show that the "smoking fertilizer" that caused the breathing problems is linked to PFAS contamination in groundwater at a different site at high concentrations.

Something to keep in mind is that modern equipment is very good at finding very small quantities of compounds. When you're able to measure down to parts per trillion you can start finding some level of various compounds in basically every water sample you test.

Near as we can tell, the levels of PFAS (depending on the compound!) or microplastics to actually be causitively fatal to a farm animal - especially on the timescales of their typical lifespan - would be mind boggling. Like drinking-from-the-outlet-of—a-teflon-factory likely wouldn’t even do it.

The concern everyone has been having is that these compounds may be (evidence at current known exposure levels still iffy!) causing long term cancer risk increases or interfering with hormones.

That is not even in the same ballpark of ‘dies in 3-5 years’.

> the levels of PFAS (depending on the compound!) or microplastics to actually be causitively fatal to a farm animal - especially on the timescales of their typical lifespan - would be mind boggling. Like drinking-from-the-outlet-of—a-teflon-factory likely wouldn’t even do it.

Counterexample: https://www.chicagotribune.com/2022/07/11/persistent-farmer-...

Paywall :(

Ah, sorry. Basically the most famous lawsuit involving PFAS in the US began because a farmer's cattle were dying downstream of a DuPont/Chemours plant in West Virginia that was dumping PFOA into the water. Dupont settled for hundreds of millions of dollars after an independent scientific review found probable links between the dumping and a variety of human ailments in the area. DuPont's own internal research suggested that the material is harmful to animals.

Here is Wikipedia on that lawsuit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bilott#Initial_actions_...

Thanks! So apparently drinking directly from the plant is enough. Impressive.

Johnson County is not in the middle of nowhere, Texas. It’s just about 30 minutes south of DFW.

It is well known that biosolids are full of PFAs and that they bio accumulate and cause organ failure.

The science is clear.

The mass deregulation the Trump admin is proposing is just going to make this worse for everyone.

PFAS and microplastics are not good, and likely bad.

But the sheer quantity that would be required to actually kill livestock in anything resembling a clear and causative timeframe is mind boggling.

Like 10% by weight or something, likely, if not more.

That seems either really unlikely to be true, or such gross malfeasance that it’s gonna be hell to pay.

pulls out popcorn

a cow could drink a can of 80s scotch guard and not die from the pfas, what a nonsense article

Reply on news.ycombinator.com