Speaker 1: Today, I'm pars Pervilion, a story about when doing the
Speaker 1: right thing goes horribly, horribly wrong. We hear about what
Speaker 1: happens when farmers discover potentially toxic chemicals in their livestock
Speaker 1: and about why the consequences for coming clean are so dire.
Speaker 1: Hello and welcome to another very special episode of parts Pervilion,
Speaker 1: the podcast from Bloomberg Environment. I'm your host, David Schultz.
Speaker 1: It's not always easy to do the right thing, but
Speaker 1: when it's this hard, well, on today's episode, we bring
Speaker 1: you the story of a dairy farmer in Maine who
Speaker 1: discovered that his cows and their milk were contaminated with
Speaker 1: a potentially toxic chemical. The decision he made next, it's
Speaker 1: not an exaggeration to say, totally changed his life and
Speaker 1: not for the better. And with me here to tell
Speaker 1: that story is Bloomberg Environments. Pat Rizzuto, Hi, Pat, Hi, David,
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me so okay, let's get started. The
Speaker 1: farmer's name is fred Stone. You went up to Maine
Speaker 1: to speak with him. Who is Fredstone and what happened
Speaker 1: to him? Well? Fredstone is a third generation dairy farmer.
Speaker 1: He grew up on this absolutely gorgeous ninety acre dairy
Speaker 1: farm in Maine, about forty minutes from the coast. His
Speaker 1: whole life has just been taken care of cows, and
Speaker 1: then something happened. I think it was around twenty sixteen, right,
Speaker 1: what happened, Yeah, about three years ago he got a
Speaker 1: letter from the local water district saying that they had
Speaker 1: detected levels of pfast chemicals, something called per and polyfloral
Speaker 1: alcohol substances, which is why we call them PIFAs. That's
Speaker 1: a mouthful that were twice EPA's health advisory. And we
Speaker 1: should say these are our chemicals that have been used
Speaker 1: in nonstick coatings like Taflon, Scotch Guard, and they're used
Speaker 1: very frequently in firefighting foam. They're very fire resistant. But
Speaker 1: they're also called forever chemicals because when they get into
Speaker 1: the ground or when they get into water, they stick
Speaker 1: around forever. And it sounds like on Fred's farm he
Speaker 1: had some of these chemicals in his soil. So what
Speaker 1: did he do next? Well, what made his situation really
Speaker 1: unusual was in the past when they found these chemicals,
Speaker 1: it's because of an obvious source of contamination. Maybe there's
Speaker 1: a military base where they were used as firefighting foam.
Speaker 1: Maybe there's an airport nearby, maybe there was a manufacturing facility,
Speaker 1: But in Christine, Maine, there was none of the above,
Speaker 1: and so it was really unclear how in the world
Speaker 1: these chemicals had gotten into the drinking water. So what
Speaker 1: did he do next? He learned that there's this chemical
Speaker 1: here on his farm and it may have impacted himself
Speaker 1: into his livestock. What happened next? So you know, when
Speaker 1: he got this letter way back in November twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: he had a meeting with what he calls his board
Speaker 1: of directors, his family, his lawyer, his vet and they
Speaker 1: had to decide what to do because there is absolutely
Speaker 1: no requirement that he come forward and tell anybody about
Speaker 1: this being in the water on his land. Yeah, this
Speaker 1: is a really new chemical. Well it's not a new chemical,
Speaker 1: but it's people are just becoming beginning to become aware
Speaker 1: of it. There aren't really any legal requirements to test
Speaker 1: for it, unlike with other environmental contaminants. So from a
Speaker 1: legal standpoint, he didn't need to do anything. No, he didn't.
Speaker 1: He didn't know anything about these chemicals. All he knew
Speaker 1: was that his water board was telling him that he
Speaker 1: had too much in his water. They talked about it,
Speaker 1: and he's an honest guy, and he just felt like
Speaker 1: the only thing that he could do was come forward
Speaker 1: and tell the company that bought is built and tell
Speaker 1: the state licensing board. Yeah, and he spoke about that
Speaker 1: as well, his decision to ultimately decide to disclose this information.
Speaker 1: In that scenario, you have two choices. First choices to
Speaker 1: say nothing because the state doesn't test for this, or
Speaker 1: the second is to notify the dairy and notify the
Speaker 1: state then it might be a problem. We did the latter,
Speaker 1: which is that's the only thing we could do, really,
Speaker 1: and this was really the decision that changed everything, was
Speaker 1: his decision to notify the people who buy his milk
Speaker 1: and notify the state that he has this chemical in
Speaker 1: his property. We'll get to where the chemical came from
Speaker 1: in a little bit, but what happened after that, because
Speaker 1: this is really, it seems like for him, a turning
Speaker 1: point in his life. Absolutely, because at that point, after
Speaker 1: the state and dairy got involved, his license to sell
Speaker 1: milk was suspended and he hasn't sold milk since. So
Speaker 1: his farm has been without income for almost three years.
Speaker 1: And even though there again there's no legal requirement to
Speaker 1: tell anyone about this. This is a chemical that is still,
Speaker 1: you know, not fully understood. It's not regulated by the
Speaker 1: EPA in any mandatory sort of way, and yet people
Speaker 1: won't buy his milk exactly. There's a lot of uncertainty
Speaker 1: about these chemicals. There's a lot of concern about these chemicals.
Speaker 1: The milk company understandably couldn't take that liability risk with
Speaker 1: there being questions about a chemical and its milk. It
Speaker 1: couldn't sell that milk. I mean, milk is sacred, it's
Speaker 1: what parents give their kids, and the licensing board couldn't
Speaker 1: allow him to sell it because it didn't want to
Speaker 1: put the public at risk. Well, to add insult to
Speaker 1: injury here, it seems like they later have a pretty
Speaker 1: good working theory about where these chemicals came from, and
Speaker 1: it's a very unexpected source. Why don't you go into that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the state did a lot of investigation, kept trying basically
Speaker 1: to see if it was something that Fred himself had
Speaker 1: done by chemicals he put on the land or chemicals
Speaker 1: he used in the farming supply, but none of that
Speaker 1: proved true. What the state ended up determining was that
Speaker 1: the chemicals were in the land, and they had gotten
Speaker 1: into the land because of sludge called by the fancy
Speaker 1: name biosolids but wastewater and paper mill sludge that he
Speaker 1: had spread on his farm as part of a state
Speaker 1: encouraged program. And yeah, we should say, you know, bio
Speaker 1: you call it what you want, biosolids, sludge, wastewater, This
Speaker 1: is fertilizer. This is fertilizer that the state encouraged farmers
Speaker 1: to use because this was disinfected or I guess treated,
Speaker 1: you know, essentially the stuff that comes out of of
Speaker 1: sewer pipes. They treated it, gave it to the farmers.
Speaker 1: You spoke with Norm Labby, who is retired from the
Speaker 1: local water district in Maine, and he's pretty familiar with
Speaker 1: the whole story, and he basically just summed it all up. Yeah,
Speaker 1: mister Stone did nothing wrong. He was just another struggling
Speaker 1: farmer who is looking to turn a profit support his family,
Speaker 1: and he had an opportunity to use low cost fertilizer
Speaker 1: which was offered to him and approved by the agencies.
Speaker 1: After he learned that the chemicals had come in via
Speaker 1: the sludge, he spent a year trying everything he could
Speaker 1: to see if he could do something to his farm
Speaker 1: to get the milk clean. He imported hey from farms
Speaker 1: that did not grow it in sludge. He bought new cows,
Speaker 1: he bought a filtering system for the water. He did
Speaker 1: everything that he and his vet and his attorney could
Speaker 1: think of, and it actually worked for a little while.
Speaker 1: They went down. They thought he'd be able to sell
Speaker 1: his milk again, but they waited and then the levels
Speaker 1: went back off, and his business is now ruined. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't that's that's sounds dramatic, but I don't think
Speaker 1: that's an exaggeration to say that his total his livelihood
Speaker 1: is gone. It is. And you know he had a
Speaker 1: retirement plan, but it is not doing too well right now.
Speaker 1: It's gone. Now, we had a plan on November two
Speaker 1: of sixteen. It all went out the window on November
Speaker 1: third of sixteen. And these cows, this land are our assets.
Speaker 1: I mean, those the ones that I lend us, lend
Speaker 1: us money on because of the assets now and so
Speaker 1: now they're worthless. So let's take a step back and
Speaker 1: you know, talk about what this means for other farmers,
Speaker 1: not just Fred. I mean, Fred's story is pretty heartbreaking,
Speaker 1: but you know, what does this mean for other farmers
Speaker 1: who may also have spread this fertilizer on their land
Speaker 1: that contains this chemical. I have to imagine if I'm
Speaker 1: a farmer, I'm not really too excited to tell anyone
Speaker 1: about this given what happened to Fred. Well, I think
Speaker 1: one of the lessons from what happened to Fred is
Speaker 1: the point about these being forever chemicals. I mean, Fred
Speaker 1: stopped spreading sludge on his land fifteen years ago and
Speaker 1: the levels are still so high that it didn't make
Speaker 1: a difference. And the state looked at all sorts of options,
Speaker 1: including you know, digging up soil and applying new soil,
Speaker 1: and it realized that a that would would have been
Speaker 1: way too exp but more importantly, it wouldn't have made
Speaker 1: a difference because when the rain came back down, the
Speaker 1: chemicals would have mobilized again and come back up to
Speaker 1: the surface, and again the cows would have gotten contaminated.
Speaker 1: So when they dug these forever chemicals, there's a really
Speaker 1: good reason for that, and that's what spells a lot
Speaker 1: of concern for other farmers, right And you know, you
Speaker 1: spoke with Patrick macroy, who is the Deputy Director of
Speaker 1: the Environmental Health Strategy Center, which is an environmental group
Speaker 1: in Base out of Maine. And he said that right
Speaker 1: now the buck is you know where the buck is stopping.
Speaker 1: The buck is stopping with the farmers. You know, I
Speaker 1: don't want farmers to be bearing the costs of this, right.
Speaker 1: You know, fred Stone's a perfect example. The state, the
Speaker 1: localities were encouraging farmers to spread the sludge. Right they said, hey,
Speaker 1: this is a great deal for you. You're going to
Speaker 1: get free fertilizer and you're helping out the town at
Speaker 1: the same time by reducing our disposal costs. Right, so
Speaker 1: it's a win win situation. You know, you're doing your
Speaker 1: civic duty by taking advantage of this program. And they
Speaker 1: said at the time, you know, we're testing for the metals.
Speaker 1: We you know, this stuff's perfectly fine, it's great, go
Speaker 1: for it. And then twenty years later they say, oh,
Speaker 1: that's stuff we gave you actually poisoned your fields. You
Speaker 1: can't sell your milk anymore because it's too toxic. You're
Speaker 1: out of business. Sorry, have a nice day. So, from
Speaker 1: a policy standpoint, what can be done to make this
Speaker 1: situation a little bit more equitable? I guess for these
Speaker 1: farmers you know, I'm not saying they should have to,
Speaker 1: you know, force people to buy their milk, but you know,
Speaker 1: what are people like Patrick and Fred and maybe others,
Speaker 1: what are they talking about in terms of changing the policy. Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, we should keep in mind, we don't
Speaker 1: know how widespread this problem is, so whether it's a
Speaker 1: call for alarm. Nobody is saying that it might just
Speaker 1: be affecting like a handful of farmers. It might. We
Speaker 1: just have no clue. And the way it's going to emerge,
Speaker 1: if it does emerge, is really on the basis of
Speaker 1: states that are being proactive, and there aren't a whole
Speaker 1: lot of states that are being proactive. When I did
Speaker 1: my story, there was only one state, Michigan, that would
Speaker 1: test agricultural land. Now there's another state that is Connecticut,
Speaker 1: that's also considering that. But it just seems to me
Speaker 1: one of the things that was so interesting about your
Speaker 1: story and your reporting was that the people can really
Speaker 1: learn the wrong lesson here. Maybe it's the right lesson actually,
Speaker 1: which is that the more you test, the more problems
Speaker 1: you have. So if we you know, to avoid that,
Speaker 1: just don't test for this, don't It's like it's such
Speaker 1: a cynical way to go about it. But it also
Speaker 1: seems like I bet you Fred is thinking I wish
Speaker 1: I hadn't, you know, tested for this. Well, he told
Speaker 1: me that he could fully understand why it would be
Speaker 1: really hard for anybody else to come forward. I mean,
Speaker 1: why would they want to put themselves into this kind
Speaker 1: of calamity? And now you know, Patrick mccroy, the environmental
Speaker 1: activists also mentioned that, you know, the least that the
Speaker 1: state can do now is try to help out fred
Speaker 1: and make him at least partially whole. But it sounds
Speaker 1: like that's even that's not happening. The State's not providing
Speaker 1: a lick of assistance to fred Stone. And I don't
Speaker 1: want to see that happen to more farmers, right, So,
Speaker 1: you know, they didn't create the chemicals, they didn't create
Speaker 1: the policies that allowed contaminated ways to be put on
Speaker 1: their fields. They shouldn't be the ones who have to
Speaker 1: bear the economic burden of this legacy pollution. Well, you
Speaker 1: were talking about policy solutions. I heard about a couple
Speaker 1: as I was investigating this. One is that if you
Speaker 1: have a party that's responsible for the contamination, be it
Speaker 1: a private company or the military or an airport. Either
Speaker 1: the either the person who used the chemical or the
Speaker 1: person who made the chemical that it could be responsible
Speaker 1: for making that situation right, be responsible for providing clean
Speaker 1: drinking water to the livestock or to the crops. It
Speaker 1: could be responsible for purchasing the property. Those are possibilities
Speaker 1: right now that has to be accomplished through litigation. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and then closing it out. Let's let's sort of end
Speaker 1: with with Fred and what's next for him. You know,
Speaker 1: he is in a really difficult spot. It sounds like
Speaker 1: he's just sort of barely hanging on. What's what's uh,
Speaker 1: what's happening with him in the near term. He's letting
Speaker 1: a tremendous number of things go untaken care of on
Speaker 1: his farm, and the barn has problems, His family's health
Speaker 1: has problems, and he's just not taking care of those.
Speaker 1: He's also applied for some help that might be available
Speaker 1: from us DA where it pays for at least the
Speaker 1: maintenance of livestock that have been contaminated through pesticides or
Speaker 1: some other source. He has qualified for that program, but
Speaker 1: when I spoke with him, he had not gotten any
Speaker 1: money from that program. And yes, he's pursuing legal options. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and you know, I get the sense that he doesn't.
Speaker 1: He's not really embracing his you know, he's not really
Speaker 1: embracing the the role that he's playing is sort of
Speaker 1: this pioneer of pfast issues, kind of like yippie. No,
Speaker 1: it's it's very disconcerting. Nowhere along the way here did
Speaker 1: we want to play don Quixote? You know, we just
Speaker 1: wanted to milk our college and be left a hell alone.
Speaker 1: And no, I take no comfort in being the first
Speaker 1: style of the box. I really don't. That was fred Stone,
Speaker 1: a dairy farmer in Main talking with Bloomberg Environment's Pat Rizzuto,
Speaker 1: who is talking with me here today. You can find
Speaker 1: much more of her reporting on pfas at our website
Speaker 1: news dot Bloomberg Environment dot com, and if you want
Speaker 1: to chat with us on social media, use the hashtag
Speaker 1: parts per b. That hashtag, once again is parts per b.
Speaker 1: Today's episode of Parts Paviillion was produced by myself along
Speaker 1: with Marissa Horn and Jessica Coombs. Music for this episode
Speaker 1: is a message by Jizarre, who was used under a
Speaker 1: Creative Commons license. Thanks for listening. Cases and Controversies is
Speaker 1: all about the Supreme Court. Come on, come on, well,
Speaker 1: I agree with you. Serious we sit down with leading
Speaker 1: practitioners and scholars to break down these cases. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm glad you brought that up so I didn't have to.
Speaker 1: But that's interesting. I guess my imagination is running wild.
Speaker 1: Tune in every week for our Deep Dive and Sneak
Speaker 1: Peak episodes wherever you get your podcasts. As always, check
Speaker 1: out the latest at news dot Bloomberg, law dot com