Indiana is losing wetlands even as the state has made some effort to protect them. Wetlands provide wildlife habitat, purify and recharge groundwater for drinking, and reduce flood risks by storing water. However, Indiana has lost up to 90% of its wetlands. The legislature provided some protection for the rest in 2021, but last year, a special task force found that shrinking wetlands are having significant negative effects on the environment.

Indra Frank, director of environmental health and water policy at the Hoosier Environmental Council says lawmakers should be doing more.

"Now we have data showing that our state's wetlands law is not doing much in the way of protection. So, the Indiana General Assembly certainly could make changes," Frank said. "They could also make changes to provide incentives for landowners who preserve or who restore wetlands."

Indiana has about 800,000 wetland acres, down from more than 5 million 200 years ago - and has no statewide plan to manage them. A poll by the Audubon Society

found more than half the people surveyed in Indiana said they would prioritize protecting water sources and habitats over landowners' and developers' rights.

Frank contends another governing body of 'tossing the ball' rather than protecting wetlands. This spring, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling restricted which bodies of water can be protected under the federal Clean Water Act. She said the decision dropped the amount of Indiana wetlands with federal protection from 80%, to 20%.

"Now we're in a position where Indiana's remaining wetlands have very little federal protection and very little state protection," Frank continued. "The Supreme Court's decision basically said that the fate of the wetlands is up to the states."

Since then, attempts have been made in the Indiana General Assembly to make wetlands protection even harder. But the Audubon Society poll also found almost 75% of residents surveyed would have a "less favorable" impression of a state lawmaker who voted to relax wetland protections.


get more stories like this via email

By Nina B. Elkadi for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Mark Moran for Iowa News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

A new report from environmental watchdog group Food & Water Watch suggests that almost 2 million fish were killed from manure spills in Iowa between 2013 and 2023. The 179 spills occurred throughout the state, with a major hotspot for spills in the northwest corner of the state. Earlier this year, the group reported that Iowa factory farms produce more waste than any other state, at 109 billion pounds of manure annually, based on U.S. Department of Agriculture data.

The report and accompanying map, released on Dec. 9, designated over 700 segments of Iowa water as “impaired” — not meeting the standards necessary to support aquatic life, public water supplies or recreation. Details include where in the state spills occur, who owns the operation and if they are repeat offenders.

Manure spills in the state of Iowa have contributed to what environmental advocacy groups call a water quality crisis. In the capital city of Des Moines, the local water supply has one of the world’s largest nitrate removal facilities. Nitrate is the resulting chemical of manure that is not absorbed by the soil or crops. Due to high levels of nitrate in water, which can cause blue baby syndrome in children and colon cancer in adults, the Des Moines Water Works has to run its nitrate removal system more frequently as the situation worsens — at a cost of anywhere from $10,000 to $16,000 per day, which falls entirely on utility customers.

“When you think about the nature of what they’re spilling and the quantities of what they’re spilling, it’s the difference between life and death, and people are being strapped down with medical debt and suffering in a prolonged way,” Food & Water Watch Iowa Organizer Michaelyn Mankel tells Sentient.

According to the report, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources fined 171 of the 179 offenders at $635,808 over the ten-year period it studied. That’s less than half of what Des Moines Water Works spent on its nitrate removal system in 2015, at $1.4 million. There are gaps in the state reporting as well. The total volume of the spills is difficult to determine because most reports do not contain information on how much manure is spilled. And in those that do note volume, the range is anywhere from 500 to 1 million gallons.

“The fines that the DNR has leveled against these companies do not represent restitution for the damage that they’re causing to Iowa,” Mankel says. “They also don’t represent a real demand that these corporations change the way that they’re doing business.”

In 2024 alone, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources documented 13 fish kill events, one of which regulators directly tied to animal waste. This one “anthropogenic” spill in northwest Iowa — caused by dairy manure land-applied runoff —killed anywhere from 100,001-500,000 fish.

Many concentrated animal feeding operations operate without the proper discharge permits, rendering their spills more difficult to track. In October, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a petition from 13 groups — including Food & Water Watch — calling for stricter regulation and enforcement of the Clean Water Act. Today, Food & Water Watch is calling for a “Clean Water for Iowa Act” to be passed in the state legislature. The act would require all medium and large-scale concentrated animal feeding operations to get National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits.

This report and map are released in the midst of a health crisis in the Midwest, which some observers and critics argue is tied to, or exacerbated by, large-scale industrialized agriculture. Mankel points to cancer incidence in the state of Iowa; it’s the only state in the country with rising cancer rates (though other factors, like obesity and alcoholism rates may play a role).

“We’re paying for it,” Mankel says. “I really want Iowans to understand that these problems are a policy choice, and that we are being burdened with paying the true cost of massive profits that these corporations are reaping from our state, and that’s a very intentional choice on behalf of lawmakers.”


Nina B. Elkadi wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

By Julieta Cardenas for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Freda Ross for Texas News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Microplastics are tiny pieces of plastic less than 5mm in size. Small and ubiquitous - they are only about as thick as a paperclip - microplastics have been detected in our water supply, agricultural soils and the farm animals we raise for food. One study suggests the presence of microplastics might be anywhere from 4 to 23 times higher in farm soils than in waterways. Whether in soils or water, plastic pollution flows throughout our food system, Brett Nadrich, communications officer for Break Free From Plastic, tells Sentient, and "we have to turn off the tap."

Break Free From Plastic is an international advocacy group working to combat plastic pollution. "More than 99 percent of plastics are made of fossil fuels that used to be mostly oil," Nadrich says. Now it is also made from fracked gas, he says. In the communities of West Pennsylvania, Appalachia, the Gulf, Louisiana and Texas, "you're already seeing toxic chemicals entering the water table." Pollution from fracking extraction sites settles on soil as particulate matter, Nadrich says, which is then absorbed by plants and animals, including crops and farm animals.

Plastic Pollution Begins at the Source, But Is Found Everywhere

In 2022, Break Free From Plastic released a brand audit to identify the top plastic polluting corporations for the past five years, naming Coca-Cola as the top contributor to the plastic problem, followed by Pepsi-Co and Nestlé, among others. These corporations produce a wide range of products, including packaged meats, dairy and also plant-based brands.

Foods packaged in plastic can end up in the food itself. In one example, researchers tested cuts of meat and found plastics that matched the surrounding wrapping and polystyrene trays.

How Microplastics End Up in the Food System

One of the more surprising ways plastics end up in the food system happens on livestock farms in a practice called garbage feeding. Legal in 27 states, the practice is shown in a 2022 video taken by a maintenance technician at a grain elevator owned by Smithfield, where bread in plastic wrappers was being processed into feed. The video went viral, and an executive from Smithfield responded to say most plastic is vacuumed out onsite. The technician disagreed, but there is no agency that inspects or oversees the process to tell for sure.

Garbage feeding sometimes results in wrapped food from schools, bakeries and markets thrown directly into a shredding machine, churned up, plastic and all, to be fed later to pigs. From there, the plastic ends up in the pigs, in turn slaughtered for pork for human consumption.

There are a host of other ways that plastics end up traveling through the food system. On farms, plastics break down into microplastics thanks to a variety of factors - exposure to sunlight, farm animals brushing up against on-farm plastic and from agricultural practices like adding compost that contains plastic, and fertilizer and using mulch film.

Mulch film, often used to prevent weeds and conserve water, ends up deteriorating, and need to be prelaced every one to two years, when the process starts all over again.

Researchers have also found that plants, including crops fed to farm animals, are capable of accumulating microplastics, absorbing them from the soil. Some farm animals like poultry are also fed feed derived from marine sources like fishmeal and seaweed, and these too can contain microplastics.

Microplastics have also been detected in the feces of various domestic animals, including sheep, dairy cows, poultry and pigs. The microplastics in animal waste re-enter the food system when applied to fields, and in turn can also leach into nearby water sources. Irrigation can also bring microplastics into agricultural soils, especially when it contains waste water, either from humans or from factory farms.

According to a 2022 report from the Center for International Environmental Law, another source are synthetic fertilizers and pesticides that are encapsulated in a plastic coating and marketed as "controlled-release." Much like slow release pills, they break down in the soil, releasing not only the pesticide or fertilizer, but the plastic into the ground.

What Can We Do About Microplastics?

Though the exact human health risks of microplastics are not known, some studies have found microplastics present in patients with adverse health outcomes, like cancer and cardiovascular disease. Another study found more microplastics in recent tissue samples as compared to those taken ten years earlier. As toxicology researcher Phoebe Stapleton told People magazine, "while it might not affect my health today, it may affect my health in 50 years."

While researchers and advocates have a variety of recommendations for reducing individual plastic use - like shifting to reusable bottles and filtered tap water rather than bottled - it will likely take a policy intervention to curb plastic pollution. The Biden administration issued a briefing on plastic pollution over the summer, but there are few signs the incoming Trump administration will carry on those policies.


Julieta Cardenas wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

Livestock being raised with antibiotics is on the rise in Iowa, the nation's number one hog producer.

Doctors say the trend increases the risk of antibiotic-resistant infections for people who consume drug-treated meat.

Scientists have described drug-resistant infections as a growing crisis. The National Institutes of Health say the drugs are overused.

The Food Animal Concerns Trust's Safe and Healthy Food Program Director and Senior Analyst, Steven Roach, said federal data show sales for antibiotics used in cattle and other animals is as high as it's been in nearly a decade.

That's especially important in Iowa.

"In pigs in the U.S. - it's up by 24%, and in cattle it's up by 10%," said Roach. "The chicken industry has continued to reduce their use, so it's possible for the animal ag industry to make changes - but we haven't seen that happen in cattle and pigs."

Data for 2024 show the use of antibiotics in chickens dropped by 50% over the last 7 years.

In Iowa, livestock, including hogs, are mostly raised in large corporate confinements - which are known to pollute the air and nearby ground and surface water.

Confinement operators say they are trying to keep up with consumer demand for a high-quality, consistent source of meat.

Roach said most of the meat available at grocery stores has been raised in confinements and treated with antibiotics.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates antibiotic-resistant infections kill at least 35,000 Americans every year.

Roach said large-scale ag producers could help reduce that number by changing their philosophy of routinely using drugs in their operations.

"We know we're raising animals in unhealthy conditions," said Roach, "so then we're going to give them antibiotics independent of whether they've been diagnosed with an illness."

Roach said meat in the grocery store that has been raised without antibiotics is identified as such on the packaging.




get more stories like this via email