YORK, Maine — Competing studies regarding the presence of whiskey fungus in York have set expert opinions against each other as local efforts aim to block a distillery’s proposed expansion.

A recent report from the Canadian firm Sporometrics, dated September 23, disputes a study funded by Wiggly Bridge Distillery from earlier this year, which asserted that there was no whiskey fungus (Baudoinia) detected via DNA analysis near its location on Route 1. The new report, written by Richard Summerbell, has been presented by residents to the town Planning Board, which is currently evaluating the distillery’s proposed expansion plans.

Summerbell’s findings criticized the study by the University of New Hampshire for allegedly failing to utilize appropriate methods and for not taking into account several factors that might lead to whiskey fungus being overlooked. He characterized the claim that the study’s techniques were dependable as “grossly inaccurate.”

The DNA study commissioned by Wiggly Bridge was carried out by a microbial ecologist at UNH. Serita Frey, the professor who conducted the distillery’s DNA study, has since issued her own letter countering Summerbell’s allegations.

“(Summerbell’s) detailed criticism diverts attention from the absence of DNA-based proof of Baudoinia in York,” Frey mentioned in her reply.

More: York Beach lifeguard chief resigns after ignored calls for action on public drinking

There is growing worry among residents that Baudoinia, a dark fungus that flourishes on ethanol vapors, could proliferate if the distillery’s proposed expansion is granted.

The initial attempt by the distillery to expand was turned down by the Planning Board due to worries regarding the fungus and the town’s vapor emissions regulations. Currently, the distillery is looking to construct a similar storage facility for items other than aging whiskey, along with providing space for a kitchen.

Prior to the DNA study commissioned by the Wiggly Bridge, the town conducted its own study in 2023. This research involved Tora Johnson, a geographer from the University of Maine, who found that Baudoinia was identified using microscopy, suggesting that the distillery was likely the source of the findings.

In contrast, the UNH DNA study led by Frey determined that Baudoinia could not be identified through microscopy and necessitated DNA analysis instead. Amanda Woods, whose husband, David Woods II, along with his father, David Woods, established the distillery, asserted in September that the study offered an “undeniable answer” regarding the presence of whiskey fungus in the vicinity.

A resident named Adam Flaherty, who is an outspoken opponent of the distillery’s expansion, contacted Summerbell from the Ontario-based company Sporometrics following the DNA study’s report, which found no traces of Baudoinia.

“I reached out to (Summerbell) to gain clarity on the DNA report, hoping to understand why the findings could differ so significantly,” Flaherty mentioned. He also noted that he has not incurred any costs for Summerbell’s response thus far.

Summerbell pointed out a critical flaw in Frey’s report: the lack of a proper positive control. He contended that Frey’s choice of a “known fungal standard” as a positive control implied that any fungus could be randomly chosen.

“This is unreasonable,” Summerbell remarked. He emphasized that positive controls should consist of a field-collected sample that has been demonstrated to contain Baudoinia.

Summerbell observed that certain technical biases could obscure the detection of specific fungal community members while exaggerating the prominence of others, especially when employing methods akin to those in the Frey study. He highlighted several potential biases in Frey’s testing methodology, including DNA extraction bias, which suggests that some fungal materials might not release their DNA in proportion to how abundant they are.

Summerbell expressed that the sample sites were “far from optimal” for discovering Baudoinia. He noted that many of the organisms that were prominently detected had names that seemed “so implausible as alternative explanations for Baudoinia-like growth that, to the mycologist, the data… appear to function as an inadvertent smokescreen obstructing explanation of the original Baudoinia findings.”

Summerbell disputes the assertion that Baudoinia is untraceable through microscopy. He pointed out that Baudoinia is the unique fungus capable of starting blackening colonization on surfaces such as a glass tabletop or the windows and rooftops of cars when exposed to airborne ethanol from dewfall.

Community members have posted photographs showing dark substances on the sides of buildings in proximity to the distillery, including the nearby REMAX building.

More: Lawyer weighs in on whether York should buy Long Sands Beach for $4M

Amanda Woods mentioned that Wiggly Bridge received a reply regarding Frey’s DNA study from Flaherty the evening prior to the Planning Board meeting on September 27.

According to her, Frey responded to Summerbell’s critique within a day.

In his review, Frey emphasized that Summerbell’s own acknowledgment that microscopy alone is insufficient for the definitive identification of Baudoinia is the key takeaway.

Frey pointed out that Summerbell had not traveled to York while evaluating her study. She argued that Summerbell’s claim regarding the flawed positive controls in her research demonstrated his understanding was not in line with the current advancements in environmental metabarcoding.

Additionally, Frey contended that it was inconsistent to argue that a positive control must be a field-sourced Baudoinia sample when the objective of the study is to demonstrate the absence of Baudoinia. During their sampling expedition in York, she noted they observed no locations showing clear signs of extensive colonization by the “sooty mold” growth typical of Baudoinia.

“He appears to imply that to demonstrate the absence of Baudoinia at a certain location, one must first have gathered and recognized Baudoinia from that location,” Frey stated. “This is, in our view, evidently illogical and unscientific.”

Members of the Planning Board indicate that they do not plan to address the whiskey fungus reports during their discussions, as the present application does not pertain to the storage of aging barrels. The board made no determination regarding the suggested expansion and postponed the application to a subsequent meeting.

During public commentary on Sept. 27, Flaherty and other residents urged the Planning Board to reject the proposed expansion. He voiced concerns that the town should look into whether the distillery is breaching local vapor emissions regulations.

The code enforcement office responded with “no” when inquired if there was a violation, in an email presented to the Planning Board. Town planner DeCarlo Brown clarified in the Thursday meeting that “no” only indicated that a violation was not present at that moment but did not confirm whether the town has conducted any further investigations.

At the same time, Wiggly Bridge and its surrounding community are voicing their concerns about a citizen petition that will be on the ballot on November 5, which aims to impose new restrictions on the locations of distilleries. The proposed ordinance would mandate that distilleries must be at least 400 feet away from residential units and situated on a minimum of 25 acres of land.

In response, Wiggly Bridge has initiated a counter campaign against this petition, even organizing a launch event at their historic barn facility on Sunday, where they distributed signs to supporters. They have referred to the petition as a direct assault on local businesses.

“This ordinance is not simply detrimental to us,” stated the business in a press release. “Such a referendum poses a threat to small businesses everywhere.”

This article originally appeared on Portsmouth Herald: Dueling studies clash: Wiggly Bridge Distillery whiskey fungus debate