(air whooshing) - [Breanna] Coming up on "IMPACT," we share new discoveries from our investigation into deadly forever chemicals, known as PFAS.

This time, we examine how far they've traveled into our food supply.

- We can treat PFAS out of water.

We do not have a way of treating PFAS out of food.

(air whooshing) - [Breanna] And later, a national debate is mounting over the permanent bolts rock climbers use and how we should handle that hardware in our wilderness areas.

That's just ahead on "IMPACT."

- [Announcer] Production of "IMPACT" is made possible with support from the Otto Bremer Trust, investing in people, places, and opportunities in our region, online at ottobremer.org, the Greater Montana Foundation, encouraging communication on issues, trends, and values of importance to Montanans, and viewers like you who are friends of Montana PBS.

Thank you.

(air whooshing) - Welcome to "IMPACT," our in-depth reporting series examining issues across Montana.

I'm Breanna McCabe.

As scientists learn more about the dangers of forever chemicals known as PFAS, we're investigating their presence here in Montana.

We recently detailed how PFAS flushed from our homes and businesses concentrate at wastewater treatment plants.

The resultant sludge or biosolids are often used as fertilizers on farms or turned into garden composts sold at retail stores.

PFAS tests in our last investigation revealed high levels of the chemicals in biosolids and composts used to grow food across the nation.

The obvious next question, are these forever chemicals making it into our food supply?

Montana PBS' Anna Rau investigates.

(air whooshing) - [Alison] Do you want a little bit, B?

- [Anna Rau] Missoula mom, Alison Reintjes, does everything she can to keep toxic chemicals out of her home and away from her two teenage children.

- [Alison] Not only do they harm us and our kids and our pets, but they also make their way into the water, into the air, into the soil.

- [Anna Rau] Reintjes is so concerned about pesticides in particular that she founded Grow Safe: Non-Toxic Missoula, a group of like-minded moms who push for organic land management.

How familiar are you with PFAS?

- [Alison] I am familiar with them primarily in the context of pesticides and the fact that some pesticides, a decent percentage of them, I believe it's around 15%, the active ingredient itself is a PFAS.

- [Anna Rau] PFAS is short for per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

It's a whole family of chemicals, over 10,000 of them at last count.

But they all have one important thing in common, a chain of nearly unbreakable carbon-fluorine bonds.

- [Anna Reade] They're a very versatile, very useful chemistry.

- [Anna Rau] Dr. Anna Reade is a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, and she holds a PhD in developmental biology.

- [Anna Reade] They can be used as lubricants and surfactants, and then they can be made into polymers, kinda like a plastic material, to make Teflon to coat our non-stick pans.

- [Anna Rau] For nearly 80 years, PFAS had been added to almost everything, waterproof clothing and outdoor gear, stain-resistant carpets and upholstery, makeup and personal care products, packaging in plastics, even dental floss.

But all that convenience has come at a steep price.

- [Anna Reade] Unfortunately, because they're manmade, there's a chemistry that doesn't have a natural way of breaking down in our environment.

So they're actually most famous for being called forever chemicals because they are estimated to last in the environment for hundreds of thousands of years.

- [Laura] You already have that persistence, then you add more, and you add more, and you add more.

- [Anna Rau] Laura Orlando is a senior scientist at Just Zero, a group that promotes clean zero-waste policies, and she's also an adjunct professor at the Boston University School of Public Health.

Orlando says PFAS are not only persistent in the environment, they persist and accumulate in the human body, too.

- [Laura] It's really, really, really frightening for that reason.

- [Anna Rau] Recent lawsuits revealed the companies that produce PFAS have known about their dangers for decades.

This 1978 internal memo presented in congressional hearings shows scientists with 3M warning the PFAS chemicals they tested "should be regarded as toxic" and that "all reasonable steps should be taken immediately to reduce exposure of employees to these compounds."

- [Anna Reade] They affect multiple organs and systems in our bodies.

We think of them as systemic toxicants.

- [Laura] They negatively impact our immune system, our reproductive system, our endocrine system.

- [Anna Rau] High cholesterol, infant birth weight, low birth weight, impaired immune response to childhood vaccines, increased risk of preeclampsia and high blood pressure in pregnancy, cancer, specifically, kidney and testicular.

- [Alison] It makes me feel like crying, honestly, when I hear those lists.

It's so deeply wrong.

It shouldn't be allowed.

- [Anna Rau] Are there any PFAS that you know of that are safe?

- [Anna Reade] No.

So there has not been any PFAS that's been studied that has been shown to be safe.

In fact, any PFAS that has been well-studied has been linked to health effects.

- [Anna Rau] What's worse, recent studies are showing even extremely small concentrations of PFAS are enough to cause harm.

- [Laura] Where we're at right now is we know there's no safe level.

(faucet water running) - [Anna Rau] Based on the research, the Environmental Protection Agency recently announced extremely stringent, legally enforceable limits on a handful of different PFAS in city drinking water supplies, allowing only four parts per trillion.

- [Laura] The drinking water limits alert us to the harm caused by this class of chemicals at very, very low concentrations.

- [Anna Rau] The EPA set the extremely low drinking water standards with the most vulnerable population in mind.

- [Alison] Kids are uniquely susceptible to toxins.

Relative to their body weight, they eat, I think it's like 2 1/2 times more than adults.

They drink way, way more water than we do.

They breathe two times faster than we do.

So all of the sources for ingesting toxins go way up.

- [Anna Rau] So the EPA's focus on drinking water is a good start, but there's another potentially serious route of exposure for children and adults where water and food directly intersect, wild-caught fish from rivers, lakes, and streams across the nation.

Do you guys fish?

- [Alison] My husband's a big fisherman.

(chuckles) - [Anna Rau] Do you guys eat the fish?

- [Alison] We eat the fish some of the time, right, 'cause there's a lot of catch and release, so he catches and releases a lot of the time.

Yeah.

- [Anna Rau] Over the past 16 years, the EPA has done three rounds of fish tissue testing across the United States.

And each time, the agency has found astronomical levels of a dangerous PFAS known as PFOS in fish, including 283,000 parts per trillion in fish samples from West Virginia, 135,000 in Kentucky, and 127,000 in Tennessee.

- [Anna Reade] The last I looked, there were 14 states with fish advisories, and so is this particular area of our food system that is in jeopardy.

- [Anna Rau] Do you need a industrial producer of PFAS to contaminate?

- [Anna Reade] Unfortunately, you don't necessarily need to be near an industrial site to be getting PFAS contamination.

- [Anna Rau] For anyone who believes Montana, as a rural state with no manufacturing of PFAS, is immune to highly contaminated fish, the EPA fish tissue results are sobering.

In the 2014 round of tests, the EPA found brown trout in the Stillwater River and the south fork of the Musselshell with more than 23,000 parts per trillion and 11,000 parts per trillion of PFOS respectively.

They also found catfish in the Yellowstone River with 53,000 parts per trillion.

However, the most contaminated samples were catfish pulled from the Missouri River, where the EPA saw concentrations of 76,000 parts per trillion of PFOS.

Remember, the EPA limit for PFOS in drinking water is just four parts per trillion.

- [Alison] Wow, wow.

- [Anna Rau] And 53,000.

- [Alison] Wow.

Missouri River, wow.

- [Anna Rau] How do you feel about that and maybe eating some of these wild-caught fish?

- [Alison] Well, it makes you feel like you should never eat these fish.

- [Anna Reade] I personally, as a mom, would not want my child to eat a fish that's that contaminated.

We have a hard time eliminating PFOS from our bodies, so that one fish, that amount of PFAS that they're eating, will stay in their bodies for five, 10 years.

- [Abbie] We know from the EPA's results nationwide that like 91% of the fish tissue caught nationwide has some detection of a PFAS.

- [Anna Rau] Abbie Ebert is a senior water quality monitoring scientist with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality.

The DEQ and Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks have been doing more research.

They recently tested water and fish across the state, sampling from 13 different lakes, rivers, and streams.

- [Abbie] We are currently sifting through all of the fish tissue and surface water data that we collected.

We just recently got that full data package.

And also, with that, we're just kinda looking at overall toxicity of our results right now.

- [Anna Rau] The DEQ won't be ready to release that data and any potential new fish consumption guidance until the fall.

If we don't have these big point sources of contamination, right, why are we seeing it so high in some of these fish?

- [Abbie] I'm not quite sure.

We haven't done full ecological or source assessments, so we don't even really know where all the PFAS is coming from.

(water rushing) - [Anna Rau] And when regulators don't know where it's coming from or how much, it's hard to know how widespread the problem is.

Indeed, concerns over PFAS in our food supply go way beyond wild-caught fish.

What about the food grown on farm fields where PFAS-laden biosolids have been applied?

What about the food we buy in grocery stores every day?

- [Anna Reade] We do know that there are studies that show PFAS in food.

We just don't know how pervasive it is because we haven't done systematic testing in the way we have for drinking water.

- [Anna Rau] Dr. Reade says shorter-chain PFAS tend to accumulate in crops, leafy greens, like kale and lettuce.

While longer-chain PFAS tend to accumulate in proteins, like beef and seafood.

(cow mooing) The US Food and Drug Administration has done limited random testing for PFAS in the domestic food supply since 2019 as part of its Total Diet Study program.

At first, the FDA's results look reassuring.

Almost all foods show up as non-detects for various PFAS.

But you need to look closer at the method detection limits.

Critics have said the method detection limits the FDA is using are too high.

For instance, the method detection limit for PFOS, the known dangerous PFAS chemical the EPA says shouldn't exceed four parts per trillion in water, is set for 21 parts per trillion in the FDA's tests.

So a non-detect under those limits doesn't necessarily mean there is no PFOS present.

In fact, it could be present at five times the level set for drinking water.

- [Anna Reade] Ideally, we'd want to improve those testing capabilities and test at lower limits so that we can better understand what we're dealing with in terms of people's exposures.

- [Anna Rau] The FDA did find enough PFAS in seafood samples to conduct a more targeted study in 2022, and the results were surprising.

74% of the seafood they tested contained at least one PFAS, including samples of clams, crab, cod, and tuna.

Perhaps more concerning, independent studies of leafy greens have found far more PFAS contamination than the FDA.

In 2023, researchers with the Alliance for Natural Health found PFAS contamination in seven out of eight random kale samples purchased in four different states across the nation.

Do you think the FDA is doing enough?

- [Anna Reade] I think the FDA could monitor for PFAS in food more comprehensively.

- [Anna Rau] Montana PBS wondered, what would we find if we tested groceries from a store that's part of a national grocery chain here in Missoula?

We decided to test canned tuna, pork chops, cod, and kale.

We purchased several versions of each item and mixed them together as one sample.

This allowed us to stretch our testing budget and look for any contamination that might be occurring across several samples of the same food.

The results, the canned tuna and the pork chops both came back as non-detects for the 40 different PFAS we tested for.

The cod came back positive for one PFAS.

It was over the method detection limit but under the reporting limit.

That means there could be anywhere from 123 parts per trillion to 389 parts per trillion in the cod.

The real surprise, however, was the kale.

So we don't know if it was the organic or the non-organic, we don't know what brand, but if you check and see what happened on the next page.

- [Anna Reade] Oh, wow.

- [Anna Rau] This is over 500 parts per trillion in that kale.

- [Anna Reade] It's a little unsettling, right, to not know what you're getting when you buy food, and whether or not you don't have an issue or you're buying some kale that you think is healthy and it has over 500 parts per trillion of PFAS in it.

- [Anna Rau] Dr. Reade says, "Unfortunately, we don't know if that PFAS came from the food packaging and processing or the food itself."

What does it say about the fact that we were able to go to a grocery store chain that's in 34 states, buy several products right off the shelves, and find PFAS just right there?

We bought it locally.

- [Anna Reade] It is concerning.

It doesn't fit necessarily the trend that we've been seeing with the Total Diet Study that the FDA is conducting that 1 to 2, 3%, of the food that you could just buy off the shelf is contaminated with PFAS.

But you tested four things and found PFAS in two.

It just really shows that we are not doing a very good job of testing our food.

- [Anna Rau] Dr. Reade believes we will see more and more PFAS in our food supply, (rain trickling) because there's so much in our environment, it's literally raining down from the sky.

- [Anna Reade] We're finding PFAS in snow in the Arctic, in rainwater across the globe.

- [Anna Rau] Studies are showing that, in some places, rain and snow contain more PFAS than the EPA's drinking water limit.

We wondered how much might be in Montana's rain and snow.

We took a composite sample of snow from the top of Lolo Pass and we captured rain that fell over Missoula during a storm this spring.

We were hopeful that there wasn't enough PFAS near Montana to contaminate our rain and snow.

We were wrong.

The snow results were small, showing just over 1/2 a part per trillion of one PFAS.

The rain sample, however, was shocking.

The lab found three different PFAS that together totaled more than three parts per trillion.

Just in the rain falling over Missoula, two of the PFAS the lab found in the rain sample, PFOS and PFOA, are some of the most studied and most concerning PFAS at this time.

Together, they totaled 1.57 parts per trillion.

While that does not surpass the EPA's drinking water standard, Dr. Reade says it's a wake-up call.

- [Anna Reade] To have PFAS show up in rainwater or snow kind of all over the world, especially not near contamination sources, I would think of it as a sentinel for the general contamination we're facing.

- [Anna Rau] So no state and no person is immune, not when it's in our fish, our food, and even our rain and snow.

- [Laura] Let's stop making this stuff.

We really, really need to turn off the spigot.

- [Alison] We do not typically see industry acting as the leader for positive change without public pressure.

We have to keep that pressure on, even if it shouldn't be our job.

- [Anna Rau] For "IMPACT," I'm Anna Rau.

- 3M recently announced it is phasing out production and use of PFAS while numerous states have moved to ban the chemicals from products where they're not considered a critical use.

Critical uses include medical devices, semiconductors, and electric vehicles.

The DuPont company continues to manufacture PFAS.

Turning now to a debate in our wilderness areas over rock climbing equipment.

For decades, climbers and wilderness advocates have disagreed over whether those permanent climbing holds follow the legal principles of Leave No Trace.

And as Montana PBS' Joe Lesar reports, that debate is now in the national spotlight.

(air whooshing) (birds chirping) (gear clanging) (Akio faintly speaking) - [Joe] Working as a rock climbing and mountaineering guide takes Akio Joy into some of Montana's most wild places.

- [Akio] Close to 90% of our work in Montana, Wyoming, is in wilderness.

- [Joe] Climbing here near Red Lodge, about six miles from the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness, Joy relies on tiny anchors bolted into the rock to safely navigate routes.

- All of the wilderness guiding we do, there's some sort of fixed equipment usually involved with it.

We have to use fixed anchors to safely navigate a lot of terrain.

- [Joe] In federally designated wilderness where Joy regularly guides, installing and repairing these fixed anchors has largely been up to the discretion of climbers.

But right now, differing ideas on how fixed anchors ought to be managed in wilderness are being considered and could bring big changes for climbers.

(gear clanging) If the Protect America's Rock Climbing Act becomes law, installing and repairing fixed anchors would be legally recognized as an appropriate use in wilderness, both enshrining and expanding the status quo.

But a set of proposed National Forest and National Park Service rules would make doing so more difficult.

Fixed climbing equipment would become classified as installations, similar legally to say a fence, sign, or structure.

- [Corey] That is a form of equipment being installed, and that does elevate our level of review for approving that.

- [Joe] That would mean a site-specific analysis would be needed before new fixed equipment could be installed and existing equipment could be repaired or retained.

Corey Lewellen with the Custer Galatin National Forest says the proposed directives are an attempt to create a management framework as the sport of climbing grows.

- Currently, we don't have any agencywide direction in regard to managing climbing, but we've really seen an increase in growth over the last 10 years.

And so as we're seeing that demand and that growth, it's really time for us to kinda take a bigger look across the agency.

- [Joe] Lewellen says the rules are also an attempt at making sure that, as wilderness climbing grows, fixed anchors, existing or new, keep within principles outlined in the 1964 Wilderness Act.

- There's no motorized use, there's no mechanized use, and we're really managing it to have natural process take place on the landscape and to allow for a really remote, primitive type of form of recreation.

(water rushing) - [Joe] To wilderness advocates, like Friends of the Bitterroot president, Jim Miller, leaving equipment behind contradicts wilderness principles.

- The writers of the act designated and passed the Wilderness Act so that there would be areas that are untrammeled by man, that are areas where we can go and experience nature on its own terms without human intervention.

(leaves rustling) - [Joe] Here in the Bitterroot's Mill Creek Canyon, growing popularity of sport climbing, a bolt-intensive discipline where climbers follow preset routes, prompted forest officials to place a ban on new bolts in 2015.

- Things had just gotten so out of hand.

We're talking over 500 fixed anchors along the canyon walls there.

I think they just realized that we need some direction on this and we need a pause in this development before we go forward any more.

- [Joe] Forest officials here are working on a special Climbing Management Plan to guide the sport moving forward.

Under the proposed rules, jurisdictions throughout the country would be tasked with creating their own plans.

(water rushing) Miller sees it as an opportunity to make sure that, as wilderness climbing grows, it's done in a responsible way.

- Like with anything, you've gotta stay within bounds to a certain degree so that other people's enjoyment of this area is not compromised.

And there's opportunities for climbing and wilderness as long as you follow the Leave No Trace principles.

- [Joe] Wilderness advocates and some climbers see traditional or trad climbing as the form of the sport that's most appropriate for wilderness.

Fixed anchors aren't used.

A climber places their gear on the way up and then removes it on the way down.

But Ben Hoiness, co-founder of the Southern Montana Climbers Coalition, says fixed anchors are already fairly governed by existing wilderness laws that require bolts to be hand-drilled rather than with power drills, like in areas outside of wilderness, and also that they're installed judiciously, particularly in Montana's wilderness climbing areas.

- If you're climbing in the wilderness, you're usually not seeking out something that's super bolt-intensive, purely because you have limited time in the mountains.

The more time you spend there, the higher the risk is.

If it's bolt-intensive at all, you're looking at 30 minutes a bolt.

And so the use of bolts is kind of your last resort in a lot of ways.

- [Joe] Climbers say that Protect America's Rock Climbing Act would validate the system that is already working.

If they're installed in a wilderness-friendly way, Hoiness questions how detrimental anchors are to overall wilderness character.

- A lot of times, climbers get off route because they can't find the anchors because they're not visible enough.

So yeah, I think I don't quite buy into the fact that it may be hindering people's wilderness experience.

(birds chirping) (gear clicks) - [Joe] Climbers say by requiring approval to maintain bolts or rope webbing that is often attached to them, the proposed rules would create confusion and safety risks.

They'd be able to make repairs in emergency situations, but Joy says that's a gray area.

- You can make an argument that it's not life-threatening to replace the webbing on whatever climb.

But the reality is, when you didn't put the webbing there, you don't know how old or safe it is.

- [Joe] In designated wilderness where, for instance, mountain bikes aren't allowed under the mechanized travel restriction, Miller argues, by expanding climbers' ability to add hardware, the Protect America's Rock Climbing Act would favor a particular user group at the expense of everyone's wilderness.

- There are rules, and regulation, and environmental laws in our country.

They're there to protect the forest, the canyons, the mountains for everyone.

So we just believe the rules apply to everyone.

- [Joe] But Hoiness points to the contributions climbers have made to wilderness exploration and wonders what would happen if it's limited.

- If we start to limit the ways people can get into the mountains, I think my worry is that not only do those people not get to the mountains, but who then cares about the mountains, especially with generations moving forward?

- [Joe] As the sport's wild routes further overlap with its growing popularity, will land managers have more of a say?

- We want to affirm that rock climbing is an appropriate use of National Forest System lands.

We just need to manage it to minimize impacts and user conflict.

- [Joe] Or will Congress set the standard?

For "IMPACT," I'm Joe Lesar.

(birds chirping) (wind blowing) - Public comment on the proposed directives ended in January.

Forest Service officials say there's no timeline for that decision.

Meanwhile, the Protect America's Rock Climbing Act, which is part of a larger bill called the EXPLORE Act, received bipartisan support in its passage from the US House.

It now awaits review from the Senate.

Well, that's all for this edition of "IMPACT."

You can watch all episodes of this series on our website.

For now, I'm Breanna McCabe, and on behalf of all of us here at Montana PBS, thanks for watching.

(pensive music) (pensive music continues) (pensive music continues) - [Announcer] Production of "IMPACT" is made possible with support from the Otto Bremer Trust, investing in people, places, and opportunities in our region, online at ottobremer.org, the Greater Montana Foundation, encouraging communication on issues, trends, and values of importance to Montanans, and viewers like you who are friends of Montana PBS.

Thank you.

(air whooshing) (bright music)