by Peter Barclay

When Adam Nordell and Johana Davis bought their certified organic farm, their only plan was to build a happy life doing work that mattered. Instead, they were exposed to persistent “forever” chemicals, and the consequences were devastating: their mental health suffered, a thriving business collapsed, and their finances were ruined.

Four years on, they are sharing their story as a stark warning about how quickly things can go wrong, even when people act with the best intentions.

Many WFPB purists recommend certified organic produce because it’s meant to be free from industrial chemicals that accumulate in the body or alter natural flavours. That ideal — chemical-free food with better taste — certainly makes sense.

But the produce from Adam and Johana’s Songbird Farm in Maine betrayed that expectation in a way you couldn’t detect even with a perfect palette. Tragically, the same class of chemicals — PFAS, the so-called forever chemicals — was confirmed last year to have killed eight platypuses along the Kedumba River in Australia’s Blue Mountains.

That’s the point where this story intersects on a frightening and worldwide scale. It would be easy to think that Adam and Johana’s experience could have been avoided with a good dose of due diligence before they bought their farm, but, as is revealed in their video below, they were just as innocent as a platypus on the Kedumba River.

Domestic water impact

The wildlife experience here is bad enough, but the Kedumba and its tributaries also connect to Sydney’s domestic water supply. Overall, this is a story about food and the environment. On one hand, the purity of our food is irrelevant; it can still be contaminated at the source or by its packaging. On the other hand, the environment itself can no longer be considered perfectly safe.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large family of human-made chemicals used for decades to repel water, oil and heat in products from non-stick cookware to firefighting foams and paper packaging.

Their extreme persistence in the environment and resistance to degradation have earned them the nickname “forever chemicals,” and many PFAS can move easily through soil and water and accumulate in living organisms.¹

They enter the food chain through deliberate (albeit often innocent) environmental release and runoff.

PFAS released from industrial sites, firefighting foam use, or contaminated waste can enter waterways and sediments; because some PFAS bind to sediments and to organic matter, they can persist in rivers, wetlands and estuaries. ^1-2

Vegetables and pasture plants can take up PFAS in irrigation water or sludge-applied soils, or they can remain on crop surfaces. Additionally, food packaging and processing equipment that contains PFAS adds another direct contamination route.

PFAS tissue concentration

PFAS that stick to sediments concentrate in benthic invertebrates and small fish; animals higher in the food chain—fish-eating birds, otters, mink and platypuses—can then concentrate PFAS in their tissues through diet, a process that can bring PFAS into human diets via seafood and game. ^2-3

Contaminated groundwater or surface water supplies are a major human exposure route; PFAS also enter homes on consumer products and through airborne dust, contributing to low-level chronic exposure. ^1-3

Exposure isn’t limited to communities near industrial sites—PFAS have been detected broadly in food, water and biota in multiple countries, including New Zealand surveys of food and international reviews of environmental contamination. ^1-3

Epidemiological and toxicological studies link PFAS exposure to a range of adverse outcomes. Human studies report associations between increased PFAS exposure and higher cholesterol, reduced vaccine antibody responses, changes in liver enzymes, pregnancy-induced hypertension and small decreases in birth weight. ^4-5.

Animal studies at higher doses show liver and immune damage, developmental toxicity and changes in hormone systems, but translating those findings to low-level human exposures remains complex. ^5-4

Major reviews emphasise that risks depend on the specific PFAS compound, dose, exposure route and life stage, with foetuses, infants and children particularly vulnerable because of developmental sensitivity and changes in PFAS elimination with age. ^3-5

The platypus finding

Lead PhD researcher Katherine Warwick said the team was “shocked” by the levels and by PFOS being present in all wild individuals tested, noting that platypuses forage on riverbeds and likely ingest PFAS through contaminated sediment and aquatic invertebrates.⁶

The peer‑reviewed study concluded that platypus PFOS concentrations were similar to levels seen in river otters and raised concerns about potential health impacts for platypuses, including liver effects, immune changes and developmental harm—outcomes suggested by lab and wildlife studies of PFOS and related compounds.²

Associate Professor Ian Wright from Western Sydney University emphasised that these results demonstrate the need for routine, transparent monitoring of PFAS in freshwater systems and water supplies.⁶

The platypus results pose a significant concern for farmers and food producers for several reasons.

• Indicator species for freshwater contamination. The platypus occupies a high trophic position in freshwater ecosystems and consumes large amounts of benthic invertebrates; elevated PFOS in their tissues signals bioavailable contamination in river systems that may also affect fish, irrigation water, and crops grown near waterways.^2-6
• Risk to organic and small-scale farmers. Organic certification and consumer trust are sensitive to chemical contaminants. PFAS in irrigation sources, floodplain soils or recycled biosolids can migrate into pastures, fresh produce and dairy systems. Western Sydney’s researchers explicitly linked the platypus findings to broader concerns about water quality that “need to be managed for our wildlife but also for us”. ⁶
• Localised hotspots and supply-chain risk. The Western Sydney team found the highest PFOS in a platypus from a river near a known PFOS hotspot, underscoring how point-source contamination can create localised risks that affect neighbouring farms and food businesses—especially where groundwater, river abstraction or flood irrigation is used. ^2-6

For organic farmers, the presence of PFAS in catchments adjacent to grazing or vegetable areas creates both a real contamination risk and a potential reputational threat if products test positive for PFAS residues. That risk is heightened where water authorities or regulators lack routine, public monitoring data for PFAS in local supplies. ⁶

PFAS contamination lies at the crossroads of environmental science, public health, and food systems. Evidence from wildlife studies—including the first reports of PFOS in platypuses—demonstrates that these chemicals can enter freshwater food chains and accumulate in predators, with clear implications for farmers and communities that depend on those waterways.

References

1. Per- and Poly- Fluorinated Alkyl Substances (PFAS) in selected New …. https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/43975/direct/
2. First report of accumulation of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in …. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11356-024-34704-w
3. An insight into the environmental and human health impacts of per- and …. https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-025-01122-9
4. How PFAS Impacts Your Health | PFAS and Your Health | ATSDR. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/about/health-effects.html
5. PFAS Research | National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/programs/pfas
6. Pioneering research discovers PFOS in platypuses | Western Sydney …. https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/newscentre/news_centre/story_archive/2024/pioneering_research_discovers_pfos_in_platypuses