18622_Authority_August_Web

municipalauthorities.org | 5 Food Processing Residuals By Nate Merkel, GISP, LO., Chief Technical Officer, Capital Region Water The Promise and Peril of Food Processing Residuals in Agriculture Food processing residuals (FPRs) are defined as “residual materials generated in the processing, converting, or manufacturing of fruits, vegetables, crops, and other commodities into human food or animal feed.” These byproducts can include fruit and vegetable peels, spent grains, starchy residues, scraps of raw meat, and liquids such as blood and fat, as well as hair, feathers, and pulp waste from industrial food manufacturing. FPRs are distinct from traditional manure and are regulated differently across states. Using FPRs in agriculture presents an opportunity to reduce food industry waste while enhancing soil health. However, concerns about water quality, odor, and legal responsibility have led to differing regulatory approaches across the country. This article explores the benefits and environmental risks of using FPRs in farming, with a focus on Pennsylvania’s HB 586 and SB 763, as well as the more restrictive policies we see in Maryland and Virginia. A Sustainable Solution? As farmers and food processors pursue more sustainable practices, FPRs are increasingly being repurposed as soil amendments and livestock feed. These nutrient-rich materials offer both economic and environmental benefits – enhancing soil fertility with essential nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, while also reducing disposal costs for processors. Redirecting FPRs from landfills to farmland contributes to lower methane emissions and supports more circular, waste-free agricultural systems. For farmers, FPRs provide a low-cost or even free alternative to commercial fertilizers, potentially reducing dependency on synthetic inputs. Environmental Risks: Water Quality at the Forefront Despite their advantages, FPRs pose significant environmental risks – especially to water quality. When not properly managed, FPRs can lead to nutrient leaching and microbial contamination. Excess nitrogen and phosphorus from these materials may seep into groundwater or run off into streams and rivers during rainfall, contributing to eutrophication – the over-enrichment of water bodies. This process can trigger harmful algal blooms, deplete oxygen levels, and result in fish kills. Some algal blooms release toxins that contaminate drinking water and threaten recreational waters. Of particular concern is nitrate contamination, which can infiltrate aquifers and affect well water. High nitrate levels in drinking water are associated with methemoglobinemia (or “blue baby syndrome”) in infants – a potentially fatal condition affecting the blood’s oxygen-carrying capacity. Long-term exposure to nitrates has also been linked to certain cancers and thyroid disorders in adults. A real-world example occurred in Antrim Township, Pennsylvania, where several residential wells tested positive for elevated nitrate and E. coli levels. While official attribution is still under review, residents and environmental advocates pointed to nearby FPR applications as a likely source of groundwater contamination. This case highlighted the vulnerability of rural communities that rely on shallow wells and are situated on karst geology – a porous limestone formation that allows contaminants to travel rapidly from the surface to underground water supplies. Karst regions, common in central Pennsylvania, western Maryland, Continued on page 51.