The Environmental Protection Agency said it was "very engaged with the public" before making its decision to scrap a major study examining the risks of spreadin
The Environmental Protection Agency said it was "very engaged with the public" before making its decision to scrap a major study examining the risks of spreading treated human waste on America's farmland.
We reviewed every public comment posted to the EPA's website and found a clear pattern that raises new questions about whose voices carried the most weight.
For months, we've documented the real consequences of PFAS-tainted sludge being spread on America's farmlands, from Texas to Michigan, Virginia to Maine and South Carolina; farmers are raising serious concerns.
The family broke down when speaking Lisa Fletcher, urging farmers to wake up to the dangers they say are lurking in sludge (Photo: Alex Brauer)Former EPA scientist Kyla Bennett said it's urgent the agency act.
Every time somebody applies biosolids to a farm field, you're dooming that farm to decades, if not hundreds of years or longer of contamination," Bennett said.
Despite doomed farmers, dead livestock, and contaminated fields, there's been no national action to address the wider problem, of which many who study the issue believe America has only scratched the surface.
The EPA released a nearly 300-page report in 2025, finding "elevated risk levels" associated with PFAS in sludge, made from human waste, often touted by the government, and used as fertilizer on tens of millions of acres of American farmland.
The 2025 risk assessment found risks to human health with even small amounts of PFAS chemicals in sludge (Photo: SBG)A year later, it's walking back the findings.
We wanted to know why, from EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin.
Lisa Fletcher: You just backed away from the EPA's original science on this issue and on the risk assessment. You rejected that science.
Lee Zeldin: What risk assessment are you referring to?
Lisa Fletcher: The risk assessment for PFAS and biosolids.
Lee Zeldin: First off, we're putting out guidance. We're soliciting public comments. We've been very engaged with the public on this particular topic.
EPA Chief Lee Zeldin dismissed our questions about PFAS in biosolids (Photo: SBG)That sent us to the public record. The EPA received more than 250 public comments, it said helped shape its decision.
So we read them all, and found a shocking divide.
The comments urging the EPA to keep or even strengthen its risk assessment came primarily from farmers, individuals, environmental organizations, and included letters representing more than 15,000 members of the public.
Dozens of comments, some including thousands of signatures, urged the EPA to regulate and/or ban the application of sludge (Photo: SBG)The comments calling for the assessment to be thrown out came overwhelmingly from industry: wastewater utilities, biosolids companies, trade associations and chemical manufacturers.
Major industry players argued that the assessment should be revoked (Photo: SBG)The divide couldn't have been clearer, and in the end, the EPA adopted the position industry had been urging. The risk assessment was scrapped.
It was a troubling development for Bennett, who spent 10 years inside the EPA, and today, and now leads science policy with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
By withdrawing the risk assessment that was done under the Biden administration, they are delaying any kind of real regulatory action," Bennett said.
We asked her what Lee Zeldin meant when he said the agency was listening to public comment.
"I think what they care about is industry," she replied. "And I think that's despicable because EPA's mission is supposed to be to protect human health in the environment."
We sifted through hundreds of pages of documents related to the EPA's risk assessment (Photo: SBG)Our review found another common thread repeated throughout industry comments: identical language, claiming the EPA's assessment relied on "unrealistic exposure scenarios."
Lee Zeldin: So you're framing it saying that we're rejecting the risk assessment.
Lisa Fletcher: You didn't reject the risk assessment?
Lee Zeldin: Yeah. So with regards to aspects of the risk assessment where you use a hypothetical that's not a reality on the ground.
Lisa Fletcher: I think the farmers would disagree.
Faced with comments that it had both over- and under-estimated the danger, the EPA scrapped the assessment and, in its place, issued draft guidance that "may be helpful."
Sorry, we couldn't load this embedded content
In it, the agency still calls the land application of biosolids "critical," yet at the same time suggests sludge not be used near young children and only be used for "lower risk" crops.
Contradictory guidance suggested keeping sludge away from kids and high risk crops (Photo: SBG)We asked Bennett how to square the agency saying to both minimize the risk and continue to use biosolids.
"You can't," she said. "You can't reconcile those two things. Biosolids should not be land applied full stop. It's outrageous that this PFAS-laden sewage sludge is being applied to crops that are being used either directly for food or for animals that we then use for food."
The guidance goes on to suggest that farmers avoid applying sludge near fishable waters, lakes or reservoirs that can be used for drinking water.
"I don't know where these mythical farms exist that aren't near a lake or a stream or drinking water supply," Bennett said. "I mean, it's not like farms exist in a vacuum. The farmlands that we have around this country are near aquifers, above aquifers, near lakes and streams."
It's not just farmers. If you buy soil amendments at your home and garden store, it could contain sludge. The EPA's new guidance actually says if you're concerned, you can "research the supplier of the sewage sludge."
Drone footage shows the spread of sewage sludge on farmland (Photo: Mission503.org)For farmers who say PFAS has already destroyed their land, the risk assessment is gone, but the questions are not.
"I don't understand what their end game is and why they don't care because it's not just you and me, it's them. It's their children, their grandchildren, their loved ones. How can they not care?" Bennett said. "I don't understand that. That will always puzzle me."
Our team has been hearing from farmers and communities nationwide that are concerned about this issue.
If you've been impacted, contact Lisa Fletcher at lfletcher@sbgtv.com and producer Andrea Nejman at anejman@sbgtv.com.
You can watch our full exchange with Lee Zeldin below:
