The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) January 2025 draft risk assessment on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in biosolids has sparked significant concern across the agricultural sector. The EPA’s modeling suggests that even 1 part per billion (ppb) of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) or perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in biosolids could pose health risks—a threshold many argue is impractical and could function as a de facto ban on biosolids use. The public comment period for the draft risk assessment was set to close in March 2025 but, after several extensions, closed in mid-August.

While the draft risk assessment is intended to guide future regulations from federal and state agencies regarding PFAS and biosolids, instead, critics argue, it relies on extreme assumptions that do not account for realities in modern agriculture. This includes arguments that the proposed 1 ppb threshold could effectively ban biosolids use, eliminating a cost-effective fertilizer and increasing operational burdens for farmers and municipalities alike, in a landscape of already high agricultural farming input costs.

Agricultural Industry Pushback: Key Perspectives

Several key agricultural industry groups voiced strong criticisms, publishing comments on the draft risk assessment. While supporting the goal of PFAS regulation, these groups highlight that the methodology within the draft risk assessment depends on hypothetical scenarios with conservative and unrealistic assumptions.

• The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) voiced strong criticism of EPA’s “farm family” model, arguing that it is based on impractical assumptions. According to NMPF, the idea that a farm would apply biosolids every year for 40 years and that a family would exclusively consume food and water from that land does not reflect modern agricultural practices.
• Similarly, the Illinois Farm Bureau, along with commodity groups such as the Illinois Corn Growers Association and Illinois Soybean Growers, questioned EPA’s reliance on outdated or incomplete data, and urged EPA to incorporate more current state-level research.
• The Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association emphasized the importance of considering Maine’s experience as the first state to ban biosolids land application due to PFAS concerns. Maine also criticized the EPA for failing to include its current research on the topic in the draft risk assessment.
• On a national level, the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), in its public comment (EPA-HQ-OW-2024-0504-0150) signed by several other national agricultural groups, warned that the proposed threshold could have severe economic consequences, including higher fertilizer costs and increased operational burdens for farmers and municipalities. The groups argue that this approach does not account for real-world variability in agricultural practices such as crop uptake rents or best management practices, and also argue that the health effects of PFAS are still largely unknown, including by EPA itself.
• Even environmental regulation groups, such as the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, stated that EPA did not consider states such as Virginia that already regulate the area, and must do so to “clarify the scope and purpose of the final Risk Assessment to avoid misinterpretation of the findings.” The National Association of Clean Water Agencies also argued that the draft risk assessment does not account for relative exposure risks, and does not consider the fact that a vast majority of land used in agricultural production does not produce foods intended for human use, but rather is used in the production of livestock feed, fuel or fiber—something that the Science Advisory Board in its final report to the Office of Water identified as a “potential pitfall and limitation.”

Business Implications

The evolving regulatory landscape of PFAS and biosolids presents both risks and opportunities for the agricultural sector. The ongoing conversation will likely create potential compliance challenges for the agricultural industry, including farmers and ranchers, agribusinesses and even waste-management firms. On the risk side, agribusinesses must prepare for stricter PFAS controls and potential liability exposure. At the same time, there are opportunities for innovation, particularly in the development of PFAS destruction technologies and advanced biosolids treatment solutions. Environmental and agricultural consultants must be well-positioned to provide critical support in compliance planning, risk mitigation and navigation of the complex web of federal and state regulations as the potential regulation in this area progresses.

Final Thoughts

EPA’s draft risk assessment signals a transformative moment for biosolids management and PFAS regulation. Stakeholders should monitor developments closely, engage in policy discussions, and explore strategies to adapt to this evolving landscape. Although it is still unknown how the current administration will address these concerns, if at all, EPA has signaled potential intention to revisit the science behind the draft risk assessment. While the draft risk assessment does not have the power of a final regulatory action, it is likely to inform the conversation around the future regulation of PFAS and biosolids, at both a state and federal level. For agribusinesses operating in environmental consulting, waste management, or agricultural services, this evolving regulatory landscape presents both challenges and opportunities in navigating PFAS compliance and biosolids reuse.

By Associate Caitlin Robb