By Gabriella Sotelo for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Suzanne Potter for California News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

California is known throughout the country for its fruit and vegetable bounty. The golden state produces more than 40 percent of the vegetables we eat and 75 percent of its fruits and nuts. But the state has also struggled with deadly outbreaks of the E. coli pathogen on many of its produce farms — romaine lettuce and walnuts are two recent examples. When outbreaks happen, investigators work round the clock to trace the outbreak, sometimes leading back to contaminated water used to irrigate crops.

Yet exactly where the pathogen comes from originally can be harder to pinpoint. A new report from the Environmental Working Group adds some important data points. Researchers mapped 1,062 industrial meat and dairy operations in the state, and found a worrying 93 percent were located within a mile of a water source for irrigating fresh produce. What’s more, 42 percent of the meat and dairy operations mapped — close to half — were found even closer: within a quarter of a mile of a waterway used for irrigation.

California is a leading producer of dairy, as well as beef. The more than one thousand concentrated animal feeding operations, called CAFOs, mapped by EWG house 76.8 million farm animals at any given time.

This many millions of farm animals produce a massive amount of manure, some of which inevitably carries dangerous pathogens like E. coli or salmonella. The bacteria then spreads, traveling through the air in the form of dust, which can settle anywhere, including irrigation canals.

Once in the canal water, pathogens travel right along with it. “If canal water is contaminated with pathogens, there is the risk to pass the pathogens to farms or the produce in the farm,” Xiaohong Wei, a researcher at University of California, Davis, who was not involved with the study, told Sentient by email. “It could cause outbreaks and consumers [can] get sick…Especially while consuming the raw produce.”

Typically, multiple livestock operations are clustered in close proximity to each other and a waterway, Ethan Bahe, a data analyst at EWG and an author of the report, tells Sentient. “These irrigation canals are a spiderweb,” he says. “They go by multiple facilities,” which makes tracing any foodborne illness outbreak back to one meat or dairy operation close to impossible.

Besides the waterways, there are also 2.6 million acres of crop fields that are located within a three mile radius of a CAFO, the report found, many of which — 60 percent — are where fruits and vegetables are planted, rather than feed crops, for instance.

On one farm, Bahe says he discovered that only a driveway appeared to separate the feedlot and the canal. And there was no berm — the raised strip of ground often found near waterways — or any other type of protection to stop contaminants from leaking into the water.

EWG researchers say the risk of contamination increases the closer a CAFO is to a body of water. Researchers for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration reached a similar conclusion: more samples of dust contained E.coli when in closer proximity to livestock operations.

Stressed and unhealthy livestock — a staple of industrial meat and dairy operations — are far more prone to spreading pathogens than their healthier counterparts, according to University of Minnesota researchers.

Yet the EPA inspects just a fraction of these operations. According to a report from the Natural Resources Defense Council, the EPA inspected just 0.6 percent of all CAFOs in 2017, for instance.

CAFOs, despite being required to obtain permits under the Clean Water Act for discharging pollutants into waterways, are not required to treat animal manure, unlike human waste. The EPA largely relies on self-reporting, which enables CAFOs to self assess and decide whether they need a permit to pollute.

Consumers can’t see whether produce is contaminated, says Kerry Hamilton, a professor at Arizona State University with a background in microbial risk assessment.

While there are steps consumers can take to minimize risk, including washing produce thoroughly, The Environmental Working Group’s position is that stronger protection for consumers is urgently needed at the policy level.

“What we’re really hoping to call attention to here is the need for policy change,” says Sarah Graddy, a senior communications director with EWG. There is an urgent need, she says, “to hold these polluters accountable for the contamination they’re introducing into waterways.”


Gabriella Sotelo wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is making direct payments to minority ag producers that the government had previously discriminated against. But some advocates are hoping for more transparency about selection criteria and other information.

More than $2 billion is going to tens of thousands of farmers, ranchers and foresters, with 129 awards going to Missourians.

The USDA has a long history of discriminatory practices, including denying loans to Black and other minority farmers at greater rates than their white counterparts.

Sharon Mallory, executive director of the 2020 Farmers Co-op, said these payments are great, but the program could be improved.

"I'm not personally dazzled about numbers or dollar amounts unless I can connect that to the people that are being most impacted," said Mallory, "which is our our Black and small-scale farmers."

She said she wants the USDA to disclose its methodology for choosing applicants for these payments. Plus, more info about who reviewed the grants, and the racial demographics and farm sizes of the payouts.

The range of awards is large - between a few thousand dollars and a half-million dollars, with the average being about $82,000.

The money was authorized through the Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act, and the majority of the recipients are from the deep South.

Mallory said agriculture has been consolidating in recent decades and smaller minority farmers have often been forced out of business. She said she's pushing for the USDA's program to improve, in part because of this history.

"You can be like an ostrich and put your head in the hole, you can put your blindfolds on, you can turn your head the other way," said Mallory. "But the fact of the matter is, it did happen. It's documented. It's not a secret, so let's address it."

One study found that Black American farmers lost more than $300 billion worth of land in the 20th century, in part due to the USDA's discriminatory practices.




get more stories like this via email

Ever order a hamburger at a restaurant and wonder where the ingredients came from? Farmers in North Dakota and surrounding states are leaning on a new federal program to help ensure those menu items come from their operations.

This week, partners under the Regional Food Business Center for North Central States gather in Fargo to help small and mid-sized food and farm businesses navigate government resources. The virtual center is one of 12 across the country announced by the USDA over the past year.

Jenny Lester Moffitt, undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs at the USDA, said some of the early funding went to North Dakota's Square One commercial kitchen, a rental space for culinary startups.

"Someone who's making jams, you can't afford a commercial kitchen just on your own," Moffitt pointed out. "What many folks will do is they'll come together and they'll say, 'We need a space in which to make our product that meets the different food safety requirements; also has the types of equipment that we need.'"

Another example is a family farm in North Dakota, specializing in pasture-raised poultry, receiving funds to expand its wildflower honey operations. The USDA has faced criticism for how it awards funding under separate initiatives, with money flowing to large-scale farms. But Moffitt noted requirements built into this program allow them to focus on under-resourced farmers and businesses.

Moffitt argued it is about more than awarding money and helping these farm and food businesses apply for other grants. She emphasized marketing expertise is another component, so places like restaurants and hospitals have more choices when buying food in bulk.

"It's choice for farmers and producers to be able to have more places that they can sell their product," Moffitt explained. "But also it's about choice for the buyers."

In the end, officials say building a more resilient and diversified food system benefits consumers, who might not feel the squeeze as much during future market disruptions. The north-central food hub covers North and South Dakota, and Minnesota. In its first year, more than $600,000 was awarded to local recipients, with application demand much higher.


get more stories like this via email

In a move to address historical injustices, the Biden administration announced $2 billion dollars in direct payments for Black and minority farmers discriminated against by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But for many in Florida, this aid comes too little, too late.

According to the USDA, more than 23,000 farmers have been approved for payments ranging from $10,000 to $500,000. An additional 20,000 people who planned to start farms but did not receive USDA loans will get between $3,500 and $6,000, mostly in Mississippi and Alabama.

Courtney Wilson, president of the Florida Black Farmers and Agricultualists Association, said the assistance comes amid ongoing struggles for land and financial support in the Sunshine State.

"It's a move in the right direction," he said, "but it's kind of late because of the ones that was going through the process of getting loans and doing things that way - trying to buy tractors and land, and farm equipment and fertilizer - either sold their land or lost their land."

Loss of land is a significant issue. Wilson said many Black farmers who leased land have been forced out because of new developments, and finding new land to lease is becoming more difficult. He said he plans to visit his local USDA office for more details on how he and his members can tap into needed funds.

According to legal documents, the historical context of this struggle is rooted in systemic discrimination. During President Barack Obama's era, the Pigford Settlement provided $50,000 to Black farmers who were discriminated against. Wilson said that also came too late to make anyone whole.

"If you go back to the Pigford case, you gave those farmers $50,000," he said. "But when they lost 200 acres and lost their tractors and lost equipment, what's $50,000 going to do for the ones that lost their land? All we're doing is playing catch-up."

And yet, Wilson said he appreciates the little help that comes around, and he's hoping to attract more young people to farming so they can breathe new life into the industry.


get more stories like this via email