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

Massachusetts farmers said they are bracing for revenue losses due to cuts in fresh produce SNAP benefits.

Starting Dec. 1, families who utilize the state's Healthy Incentives Program to buy food directly from farmers will see their benefits cut to just $20 a month, regardless of household size.

Rebecca Miller, policy director for the Massachusetts Food System Collaborative, said many farmers have structured their operations around SNAP customers.

"A lot of them are worried that they might have to do layoffs," Miller pointed out. "Especially for folks that they've hired that are multilingual that serve folks with SNAP benefits."

Miller stressed less money being spent at farmers' markets will have a ripple effect across the state's agricultural industry. Nearly 300 farmers participate in the SNAP program but state officials said the cuts are needed due to budget constraints.

The Healthy Incentives Program provides a dollar-for-dollar reimbursement when SNAP users buy healthy, local food directly from Massachusetts farmers. A state survey found that each dollar spent in the program results in an additional $2 in local economic impact, when farmers spend the money on local goods and services. Miller emphasized she is concerned about families getting through the winter.

"We expect to see increased food insecurity," Miller explained. "Folks needing to visit food pantries more, folks having to take more medicine to address chronic diet-related health needs."

Miller noted a study found each program participant increased their fresh fruit and vegetable intake by one serving per day, which leads to lower public health care costs over time. She added supporters are asking the legislature for an additional $10 million to maintain current funding levels through June. State officials say they are restructuring the program to ensure long-term viability.


get more stories like this via email

Kentucky farmers are using biosolids or "biosludge" from city sewage as cheap fertilizer but the price tag is high in terms of health, from toxic industrial chemicals known as PFAS and heavy metals contaminating produce, groundwater and soil.

Kentucky lawmakers have passed regulations experts said weaken protections for biosludge application on farmland.

Tom FitzGerald, attorney and former director of the Kentucky Resources Council, warned farmers in the Commonwealth trying to save money on fertilizer by using biosludge could end up with a significant headache down the road.

"Unless the cities are properly managing the waste that come into the system, and are sampling and clearing them for release for public use, I would simply tell the farmers not to take these biosludges, because the risks are so high," FitzGerald asserted.

According to open records request data from the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet, lab samples from around a dozen wastewater treatment plants statewide revealed most contained detectable levels of PFAS.

Adam Nordell said his small family-owned vegetable farm dream in Maine became a nightmare when he discovered sewage sludge applied decades prior had irreparably contaminated his land and groundwater with high levels of PFAS. He stressed he wants to raise awareness among farmers in other states about the risks, and the importance of testing.

"We had been living on contaminated land," Nordell explained. "We've been drinking contaminated water. We've been irrigating our crops and supporting our livestock with contaminated groundwater."

FitzGerald said Kentucky's regulations reduce accountability and do not require cities to test the biosludge before it's applied to farmland.

"The cabinet should have used its authority to broaden out the list of contaminants, to broaden out the sampling and testing requirements and to broaden out the notice requirements to farmers," FitzGerald contended.

According to the Environmental Working Group, at least 5% of all crop fields nationwide could be using biosludge likely contaminated with PFAS. And since 2016, more than 19 billion pounds of biosludge have been applied to farm fields.


get more stories like this via email

Some Iowa farmers are putting a new spin on an age-old animal behavior.

They're using goats to remove weeds, overgrown brush, and non-native grasses - while helping some landowners restore native habitat to their acres at the same time.

Goats are pretty well known for producing milk and cheese. They're even used to help practice yoga these days.

Matt Vermeersch is a member of Practical Farmers of Iowa who farms about 170 acres near Red Oak - near the Nebraska state line - and operates Goats-On-The-Go, a side business stocked with herds of goats hungry for woody vegetation.

"A lot of really what we refer to as weeds, or pain-in-the-butt plants," said Vermeersch. "Things that they love are things like poison ivy, nettles, wild berry species with their thorns - then more woody species like Honeysuckle or buckthorn."

Vermeersch estimated his three Goats-On-The-Go herds cleared about 120 acres of various vegetation this year, and could have done more had it not been for Iowa's severe spring and summer weather.

There are ecological benefits to the practice, too. People hire Vermeersch's goats to clear land where native species once grew, and where farmers want it to return.

Vermeersch said while Iowa landowners are often trying to clear overgrown brush and reintroduce native species, sometimes they just need stands of troublesome weeds and brambles removed.

At which, Vermeersch said, the goats have no equal.

"It almost looks like a wildfire went through there the day after you take the goats off," said Vermeersch. "We refer to it as a grazing line - and pretty much anything under 6 feet tall all that will be left are sticks and stems. All of the leafy material underneath that is usually consumed."

Vermeersch said the goats are used for different reasons across the country.

In western states, for example, they are dispatched to clear brush that can serve as wildfire fuel, reducing the chances that a fire can become catastrophic by keeping the underbrush down.