Report on Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS) Contamination in Agricultural Systems and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction: A Challenge to Global Sustainability

A comprehensive literature review reveals that the pervasive contamination of agricultural soils by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) presents a significant threat to global food safety, public health, and environmental integrity. This issue directly challenges the achievement of several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those concerning health, food security, and sustainable resource management. The persistence of these “forever chemicals” in soil-plant systems necessitates an urgent and coordinated global response to mitigate risks and align agricultural practices with sustainability targets.

2.0 Sources and Transmission Pathways

The contamination of farmland is primarily driven by industrial and consumer activities, creating a conflict between waste management practices and environmental health objectives.

• Origin of Contamination: Widespread use of PFAS since the 1940s in consumer and industrial products has led to their accumulation in waste streams. This directly relates to SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), highlighting failures in managing the life cycle of chemicals.
• Primary Vector: The application of biosolids from sewage treatment plants as agricultural fertilizer is identified as the main pathway for introducing PFAS into farmlands. While intended to support a circular economy by recycling nutrients, this practice inadvertently propagates persistent pollutants.
• Geographic Hotspots: High levels of contamination are noted in Western Europe, Australia, and East Asia, indicating a global challenge to SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) regarding effective urban and industrial waste management.

3.0 Impacts on Agroecosystems and Food Security

The behavior of PFAS in soil and their uptake by crops pose a direct threat to food safety and soil health, undermining progress towards Zero Hunger and environmental protection.

3.1 Soil-Plant Dynamics

1. Long-Chain PFAS: These compounds exhibit strong adsorption to soil particles, leading to accumulation in plant roots. This compromises soil health, a key component of SDG 15 (Life on Land).
2. Short-Chain PFAS: Their higher mobility allows for translocation into the edible aerial parts of plants, such as leaves and grains, creating a direct route for human dietary exposure.

3.2 Threat to Food Safety and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger)

• Crop-Specific Accumulation: Soybeans, a critical global protein source, demonstrate a high capacity for PFAS accumulation. This finding raises significant concerns for food security and nutrition, central tenets of SDG 2, by compromising the safety of a staple food commodity.
• Dietary Exposure: The transfer of PFAS from soil to crops represents a major and previously underestimated pathway for human exposure, threatening the goal of ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all.

4.0 Public Health Consequences and Regulatory Deficiencies

The health risks associated with PFAS exposure and the fragmented policy landscape create significant barriers to achieving global health and well-being targets.

4.1 Health Implications and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being)

Scientific evidence links PFAS exposure to severe health issues, directly impeding the achievement of SDG 3. These health risks include:

• Endocrine system disruption
• Impaired developmental processes
• Reproductive toxicity
• Elevated risk of cancer and immune dysfunction

4.2 Inadequate Governance

The global policy response is insufficient to address the scale of the contamination. Only a few nations, including the United States, Germany, and Australia, have established regulatory limits for PFAS in biosolids. This governance gap hinders the protection of public health and the environment, failing to meet the chemical and waste management targets outlined in SDG 12.

5.0 Recommendations for Mitigation and Future Action

Addressing the PFAS crisis requires a multi-faceted approach that integrates policy, technology, and research to safeguard public health and advance the SDGs.

1. Immediate Policy Intervention: The most effective and enforceable action is to implement immediate restrictions on the agricultural application of PFAS-contaminated biosolids. This measure is critical for halting the influx of these chemicals into the food chain, thereby supporting SDG 3 and SDG 12.
2. Development of Predictive Models: Creating regional risk assessment models that integrate soil properties and PFAS behavior can enable targeted management strategies. This approach supports evidence-based policymaking to protect ecosystems under SDG 15.
3. Reconciling Circular Economy with Safety: The reuse of wastewater and biosolids must be re-evaluated to ensure that sustainability initiatives do not inadvertently introduce hazardous pollutants. This requires stringent controls to align the objectives of SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and SDG 12 with public health protection.
4. Prioritizing Interdisciplinary Research: Future research must focus on understanding PFAS behavior in complex environmental systems, improving analytical detection methods, and developing effective remediation technologies to support long-term solutions.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on PFAS contamination in agricultural environments connects to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) due to the multifaceted nature of the problem, which spans public health, environmental management, food safety, and sustainable agriculture.

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger: The article directly addresses food safety, a key component of this goal. The contamination of staple crops like soybeans with PFAS threatens the safety of the food supply, which is critical for achieving food security.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: This is a central theme, as the article extensively discusses the public health risks of PFAS exposure through diet. It highlights links to endocrine disruption, cancer, and immune dysfunction, directly relating to the goal of ensuring healthy lives.
• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation: The article identifies wastewater and biosolids from sewage treatment as primary sources of PFAS contamination in agriculture. This links the issue to the management of water and sanitation systems and the quality of treated water and its byproducts.
• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: The problem originates from the widespread use of PFAS in consumer and industrial products. The subsequent contamination from waste products (biosolids) highlights failures in the environmentally sound management of chemicals and wastes throughout their life cycle. The article questions the sustainability of current reuse and recycling practices within a circular economy framework when they spread persistent toxicants.
• SDG 15: Life on Land: The contamination of farmland soils with “forever chemicals” constitutes a form of land degradation. The persistence of PFAS in the soil affects the health of terrestrial ecosystems and undermines efforts to maintain and restore them.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets are relevant:

1. Target 2.1: “By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people… to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.” The article’s finding that PFAS accumulate in staple crops, particularly high-protein ones like soybeans, directly threatens the “safe” aspect of food security.
2. Target 2.4: “By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that… progressively improve land and soil quality.” The practice of applying PFAS-contaminated biosolids to farmland is unsustainable and degrades soil quality, running counter to this target. The article calls for interventions to make these practices more resilient and less harmful.
3. Target 3.9: “By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.” The article explicitly links PFAS exposure from contaminated soil and food to severe health risks, including cancer and reproductive toxicity, making this target highly relevant.
4. Target 6.3: “By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials…” The release of PFAS into agricultural environments via biosolids from wastewater treatment is a clear example of the pollution this target aims to reduce.
5. Target 12.4: “By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle… and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.” The article’s core argument is that the current management of PFAS-containing waste (biosolids) is not environmentally sound and leads to widespread soil contamination and health impacts.
6. Target 15.3: “By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by… contamination, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world.” The pervasive contamination of agricultural soils with persistent PFAS chemicals is a form of chemical land degradation that this target seeks to address.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article mentions or implies several indicators that could be used to track progress toward the identified targets:

• Concentration of PFAS in agricultural soil and crops (Implied for Targets 2.1, 2.4, 15.3): The article discusses the detection of PFAS in farmland soils and their accumulation in crops, especially soybeans. Measuring the levels of these chemicals in soil and food products serves as a direct indicator of the extent of contamination and the risk to food safety and soil health.
• Number of countries with regulatory frameworks for PFAS (Mentioned for Target 12.4): The article explicitly states that “only a limited number of countries—including the United States, Germany, and Australia—have established enforceable PFAS concentration thresholds for biosolid applications on farmland.” Therefore, an indicator of progress would be the number of countries that adopt and enforce such regulations.
• PFAS concentration thresholds in biosolids (Mentioned for Targets 6.3, 12.4): The establishment of “enforceable PFAS concentration thresholds” is a specific, measurable policy action mentioned in the article. Monitoring these thresholds and the volume of biosolids applied to land that meets these standards would be a key indicator of responsible waste management.
• Incidence of PFAS-related health conditions (Implied for Target 3.9): While not directly measured in the article, the discussion of health risks such as “cancer and immune dysfunction” implies that tracking the incidence of these diseases in populations with known PFAS exposure would be a relevant public health indicator.
• Development and application of predictive models (Mentioned for Target 15.3): The article proposes the development of “regional predictive models that integrate detailed soil physicochemical properties with PFAS migration behaviors.” The creation and use of these models to guide contamination management and agricultural practices can be considered an indicator of progress in managing land contamination.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

Source: bioengineer.org