prodchem
Jul 10, 2026
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have become one of the most closely watched contaminant groups in global food and agriculture. Recent discussion surrounding the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) draft guidance on PFAS in biosolids has renewed attention on how these persistent chemicals may move through agricultural systems before eventually reaching food ingredient supply chains.
For procurement professionals, the issue extends well beyond wastewater management. Biosolids are widely used as agricultural fertilizers because they provide valuable nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Where wastewater contains PFAS—including compounds such as PFOA and PFOS—those substances may remain in treated biosolids. When applied to farmland, they have the potential to accumulate in soil and, depending on crop type and environmental conditions, be taken up by plants.
Understanding this pathway helps food ingredient buyers strengthen upstream risk assessments for crop-derived raw materials.
The potential contamination pathway begins long before food manufacturing.
A simplified pathway includes:
PFAS entering municipal or industrial wastewater.
Persistence of PFAS during wastewater treatment.
Concentration of PFAS within treated biosolids.
Agricultural application of biosolids as fertilizer.
Potential uptake by crops grown on affected land.
Processing of harvested crops into food ingredients.
Because PFAS are highly persistent, managing contamination at the earliest stages of agricultural production is generally more effective than addressing it after ingredients have entered the food manufacturing chain.
Many commonly used food ingredients originate from crops that may be influenced by agricultural soil quality.
Examples include:
Corn starch.
Glucose syrups.
Sugar.
Vegetable oils.
Plant proteins.
Dietary fibres.
The extent of PFAS uptake varies according to factors such as the specific PFAS compounds present, soil characteristics, crop species and agricultural practices. Consequently, contamination risk should be assessed on a case-by-case basis rather than assumed across all agricultural regions.
Most food ingredient buyers do not purchase directly from farms, making supplier transparency increasingly important.
Supplier discussions may include:
Geographic origin of agricultural raw materials.
Agricultural sustainability programmes.
Traceability systems.
Environmental monitoring where appropriate.
Compliance with applicable food safety and contaminant regulations.
A transparent supply chain provides procurement teams with greater confidence when evaluating emerging environmental risks.
PFAS contamination illustrates how environmental issues can eventually influence ingredient quality, regulatory compliance and customer expectations.
Rather than reacting after contamination is identified, procurement teams can strengthen resilience by incorporating environmental risk considerations into supplier qualification, alongside traditional quality, food safety and commercial assessments
Food ingredient manufacturers cannot directly control how every crop is grown, but procurement teams can evaluate whether suppliers have systems in place to identify and manage environmental risks.
Areas worth reviewing include:
Agricultural sourcing policies.
Soil stewardship programmes.
Environmental monitoring initiatives.
Traceability from farm to processing facility.
Procedures for responding to emerging contaminant risks.
For suppliers operating in regions where biosolids are commonly used, additional discussions about environmental risk management may provide valuable insight into their quality assurance programmes.
Environmental contaminants are increasingly becoming part of supplier qualification alongside traditional food safety requirements.
Procurement teams sourcing ingredients such as starches, sugars and vegetable oils should consider evaluating:
Geographic sourcing regions.
Crop origin traceability.
Supplier environmental compliance programmes.
Third-party certifications where applicable.
Contingency plans if environmental contamination affects agricultural production.
These assessments support a proactive approach to supply chain resilience rather than relying solely on finished-product testing.
The discussion surrounding biosolids reinforces a broader procurement lesson: food ingredient quality is influenced by decisions made long before crops arrive at a processing facility.
Greater supply chain visibility enables organisations to better understand:
Agricultural production practices.
Environmental conditions affecting crop quality.
Regional contamination risks.
Supplier risk management capabilities.
Long-term sustainability of sourcing regions.
Improved transparency supports informed purchasing decisions while helping organisations respond more effectively to evolving regulatory expectations.
When qualifying suppliers of crop-derived ingredients, procurement professionals may consider asking:
What regions supply the agricultural raw materials?
How is farm-level traceability maintained?
Are environmental risks incorporated into supplier approval programmes?
How are emerging contaminants monitored and communicated?
What procedures exist if contamination is identified within the agricultural supply chain?
These discussions help strengthen supplier relationships while providing greater confidence in long-term sourcing strategies.
The growing attention on PFAS in biosolids demonstrates how environmental contamination can become an upstream food ingredient supply chain issue. While the degree of crop uptake varies depending on local conditions, soil characteristics and the specific PFAS compounds involved, the issue highlights the importance of understanding agricultural sourcing practices rather than focusing exclusively on finished ingredients.
For procurement professionals, the most effective response is proactive supplier engagement. Strengthening traceability, evaluating environmental risk management programmes and maintaining visibility into agricultural sourcing regions can improve preparedness as scientific understanding and regulatory requirements continue to evolve.
As food manufacturers place greater emphasis on supply chain transparency, procurement teams that incorporate environmental risk assessment into supplier qualification will be better positioned to protect product quality, support regulatory compliance and build more resilient sourcing networks.
Featured Product
Found this useful?
Continue Reading
One of the most practical changes in the revised Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) affects how companies request ESG information from suppliers. New protections for smaller businesses mean procurement teams should review supplier questionnaires to ensure requests remain proportionate and aligned with the revised reporting framework.
Scope 3 emissions have become a strategic priority for chemical manufacturers, traders and procurement teams. Understand value chain accounting, supplier engagement and practical approaches to reducing emissions across global chemical supply chains.
The revised Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) significantly narrows the number of companies required to publish mandatory sustainability reports. For chemical procurement professionals, the most important implication is not simply who leaves the reporting scope—but how buyers should continue collecting supplier ESG information from companies no longer subject to mandatory disclosure.
