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

Rural communities across Massachusetts are benefiting from state grants aimed at strengthening the local food supply and building climate resilience.

State officials have awarded nearly $4 million to help farmers improve soil health, upgrade irrigation systems and prepare for extreme weather events, including the current critical drought conditions.

Ashley Randle, commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources, said farms are helping the state meet its ambitious climate goals.

"They're a mitigation and resilience strategy so that farms can be best positioned to withstand the changing weather conditions that they are facing," Randle explained.

Randle pointed out grants will help farms improve efficiency and environmental controls and reduce greenhouse gases. Massachusetts has set a goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.

From cranberries to oysters, the majority of farms in Massachusetts are smaller, family-owned operations. Randle noted grants will help farmers purchase high tunnels and other equipment needed to extend their production season. She emphasized it helps secure jobs and provides income to local economies during the winter months.

"All of these grants are really helping to ensure that we have a stable food supply," Randle stressed. "And to continue to grow and adapt should there be climate change impacts like we saw last year that devastated the sector."

Last year, a deep freeze in February spoiled the peach crop while a late frost in May damaged most tree fruits. Significant flooding last summer severely damaged 13,000 acres, resulting in more than $65 million in losses. Randle added farms often face unpredictable factors but grant programs can help them adapt and thrive in the face of uncertainty.


get more stories like this via email

A Missouri-based farm group is fighting to keep the proposed "FARM Act" from becoming law, warning it would benefit large corporate farms at the expense of smaller ones.

The Farm Action Fund, a nonpartisan advocacy group, contended the proposed legislation in Congress, which is an extension of the five-year Farm Bill, would funnel more money to big corporate farms, giving them an unfair advantage and making it harder for small and mid-sized farms to survive.

Joe Maxwell, president of the Farm Action Fund, believes the legislation is making history but not in a good way.

"As far as I know, and I've been doing this for about 40 years, it's the first time there's been policy that would discriminate among the commodity crop growers in the United States, saying that the largest ones get more money," Maxwell explained. "Oftentimes, they're the ones that need the least money."

The National Farm Coalition reported 20% of farms control nearly 70% of U.S. farmland, which it said shows significant consolidation. If passed, The FARM Act would allocate around $21 billion in aid.

Nearly 90% of Missouri farms are smaller, family-owned operations. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, small farms are the backbone of U.S. agriculture. They make up 88% of all farms, controlling nearly half of the nation's farmland. Maxwell pointed out his organization is urging them to take a stand on the FARM Act, because the competition is formidable.

"I think it's the power of the dollar expressing itself in the halls of our United States Capitol," Maxwell contended. "The largest farmers have brought in the lobbyists and the trade organizations, to give them an upper hand."

Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo., and Rep. Sam Graves, R-Mo., are cosponsors of the FARM Act.


get more stories like this via email

As President-elect Donald Trump is sworn in next month, the farming community wonders if he'll follow through on tariff threats. One expert says for top soybean states such as North Dakota, farmers aren't in a great position to withstand any fallout.

The latest U.S. Department of Agriculture farm income forecast paints a gloomy picture, with declines in commodity prices dragging things down. And the incoming administration appears poised to enact more tariffs - as it did during Trump's first term.

Ben Palen, who runs the consulting firm Ag Management Partners, said this time around, there's increased political instability on the global front and greater export competition.

"I just don't think that you can have a coherent and consistent policy for agriculture if you go from one crisis to another," he said.

Trump regained strong support from agricultural counties in this election, but Palen said his fellow producers need to be prepared for what happens now that the votes have been counted. In Trump's first term, emergency aid was sent to farmers affected by the initial trade war. But Palen noted there's a strong push for the new administration to pursue budget cuts, so financial relief could be harder to come by.

Even though many farmers still back Trump, Palen said he feels this sector doesn't want to get swept up in trade rhetoric and have to be bailed out.

"I think farmers are very good at production," he said. "It's just part of our DNA; we want to produce, produce, produce."

He argued that it's up to policymakers to find new markets for farmers to sell their crops, as opposed to simply focusing on trade disputes.

Other voices, such as the Texas agriculture commissioner, have welcomed the idea of new tariffs, saying the U.S. needs to hold firm against countries such as China.

In the first trade war, U.S. agricultural export losses exceeded $27 billion.


get more stories like this via email