Spring is around the corner and as Midwesterners might be dreaming about firing up their grills and stocking up for barbecues, there is a renewed push for a federal law change to boost label transparency for beef products.

A bipartisan bill has resurfaced in Congress to reinstate what's known as mandatory country-of-origin labeling for things like steaks and hamburgers. Supporters said the handful of large companies that dominate the meat industry have an unfair advantage because loopholes allow them to add a "Product of U.S.A." label on imported beef.

Terry VanderPol, a retired cattle producer from western Minnesota and member of the Land Stewardship Project, feels consumers do not want to be undermined.

"People want to know more about where their food is coming from," VanderPol asserted. "When they see a label, 'Product of the U.S.,' they want to know what that means."

Advocates for the bill said full transparency provides reassurance about beef being produced under tougher food safety regulations and would give smaller livestock farms a fair shake. In 2015, under pressure from multinational meat companies, Congress repealed mandatory labeling. Opponents of the bill said they worry about further disrupting trade relations with Canada and Mexico if the rule is put back in place.

VanderPol pointed out raising cattle has traditionally been a "wealth builder" for independent farmers. She argued if they do not have enough protections in place to keep prices fair, more will give up, which hurts surrounding communities.

"It's important for the school districts, it's important for the downtown businesses and churches and everybody else that as many independent farmers stay in business as possible," VanderPol contended.

Under the Biden administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced rule changes to bring more accuracy to meat labeling but the guidelines were voluntary.


get more stories like this via email

The South Dakota region has seen some wet weather in recent days, but the entire state is still in varying levels of drought status.

That has farmers prepping for a potentially dry planting and growing season.

Data show persistent droughts have become a headache for farmers in this part of the country, even with South Dakota's long history of dry conditions.

Jim Faulstich farms in the central part of the state. After nearly losing his ranch during a devastating drought in 1976, he's learned to adapt over the years.

Faulstich said diversifying his business model by welcoming hunters has eased the pressure, as well as planting "warm season grasses."

"The warm season grasses are a lot deeper rooted," said Faulstich, "they tend to stay greener into the summer."

He said that spreads out the grazing season for livestock. And if cows are in better shape, he said that means consumers have a better beef product at the grocery store.

Faulstich said he hopes emerging farmers and ranchers embrace sustainable practices so they, too, can withstand periods of drought and help their communities thrive.

Faulstich, also vice-chair of the South Dakota Grassland Coalition, said this holistic approach to managing a healthier landscape means farmers aren't caught flat footed when weather disasters strike.

"These weather cycles have been really extreme the last few years, and we don't give up," said Faulstich. "It's just a way of life, and we have to be prepared for it."

He said improving soil quality also benefits surrounding waterways for things like outdoor recreation.

Faulstich said that's important because much of the state still struggles with water quality in lakes, rivers and streams, despite recent progress.

That overview is reflected in a recent summary from the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

By Nina B. Elkadi for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Judith Ruiz-Branch for Illinois News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Cases of influenza A or H5N1, also known as avian flu, are now being detected in humans across the United States. At least one person has died from the virus, and at least 67 people have been infected. For now, at highest risk of infection are poultry and dairy farm workers — people who often have close contact with animals. But as with any outbreak, the risk could change. And a number of former public health officials say the current testing approach falls short.

Researchers are monitoring avian influenza through wastewater tracking, direct testing of people who may have been exposed displaying symptoms and surveillance testing, which involves testing random samples of influenza A in humans for the H5N1 subtype.

The virus has already mutated, spreading from poultry to cattle, causing it to have “pandemic potential,” says Meghan Davis, Associate Professor of Environmental Health and Engineering at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

“If it would mutate or reassort with other viruses to the point where it could transmit human to human, that would be a big concern,” she tells Sentient. “This is the reason that we say that the virus has pandemic potential.”

States Decide Their Own Tracking Protocol for Avian Flu

“There’s a lot of mistrust for the government right now, so the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] has been very dependent on the states to call the shots,” Amy Liebman, Chief Program Officer of Workers, Environment and Climate at Migrant Clinicians Network tells Sentient. That approach has led to mixed results, Liebman says. “I think there are some states that are responsive, but it’s really been somewhat piecemeal…It leaves room for us to not really understand the extent of what is happening.”

One gap in testing is that not everyone who tests positive for the flu is also tested for the H5N1 subtype. In Iowa, a state dominated by factory farms and meat processing facilities, influenza A samples are usually only tested if patients meet certain criteria and if they present symptoms.

State health departments are also relying on doctors to ask the right questions. “Physicians are being urged by Iowa Health and Human Services to ask a patient if they have a potential to be exposed to infected birds or cattle,” Michael Pentella, microbiologist and director of the State Hygienic Laboratory at the University of Iowa tells Sentient. “There’s people who have been exposed that we definitely want to test and subtype.”

In addition to these measures, Iowa has a state surveillance program, through which two random positive tests from all the clinical labs in the state are subtyped for H5N1. To date, there is one confirmed positive case of avian flu in a human in the state.

In California, where the majority of human H5N1 cases have been found, physicians also play a large role in surveillance efforts. Healthcare providers are instructed to consider the possibility of infection in patients with “Signs and symptoms consistent with acute respiratory tract infection and/or conjunctivitis;” as well as a “history of exposure in the last 10 days to animals suspected or confirmed to have avian influenza A, or who have had exposure to raw milk.”

Clinicians are on the frontlines of diagnosis, and in this case, on the frontlines of tracking this virus throughout the human population. But most of those on the frontlines of the virus are migrant and immigrant workers, who may face barriers to acquiring medical care in the first place.

Workers Most at Risk Have Limited Healthcare Access

“When you have migrant and immigrant workforces who may distrust authority, then you also potentially have workforces that lack access to healthcare,” Johns Hopkins public health researcher Davis says. This could be driven by “distrust, fear of recognition, or perhaps a status issue,” she says. Some workers may also be infected without major symptoms. “If it presents more mild, like sniffles, a little upper respiratory sign, some conjunctivitis, even someone with access to health care might not get tested.”

In practice, getting someone tested for avian flu can be a multi-pronged maze that includes educating workers about risks, getting them access to healthcare if they are sick and hoping that a clinician has the time and knowledge to query about exposure. And even then, departments of health are relying on doctors to decide to test the person.

In her role at Migrant Clinicians Network, Liebman is working to increase knowledge of H5N1 among clinicians, as well as “raise the index of suspicion” on whose tests can get subtyped, or tested for the particular variant.

“The majority of people that have been diagnosed with H5N1 are workers. Workers are at higher risk,” Liebman says. “We need to think about this disease in terms of worker health and safety…public health guidelines, while they are important, really have to consider what it means for workers and the agency that workers have to protect themselves.” For Liebman, that means better education efforts for avian flu and PPE, not only for workers but food producers and healthcare centers that serve workers.

Change of Leadership and Policy at Federal Agencies Under Trump

As President Donald Trump begins his second term as president, unexpected changes to federal agencies could upend tracking efforts. During his first week in office, the president halted all communications from governmental agencies — including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In his last term, Trump invoked the Defense Production Act and required meatpacking workers to re-open and re-enter slaughterhouses during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. As many as 269 meatpacking employees died and 59,000 workers tested positive for the virus.

“When you’re talking about workers and a workforce and a food supply chain in this country, understand one of the most valuable links there are those workers that are doing that job,” Mark Lauritsen, International Vice President and Director of United Food and Commercial Workers Food Processing and Meatpacking Division, tells Sentient. “The best way to protect the fragile food supply chain in this country is through workers having a voice and a collective agreement to take care of them while they are at the workplace.”

Liebman is concerned that the new administration might be placing less of an emphasis on infectious disease during a critical time. A proposed Occupational Safety and Health Administration rule that would provide extra protections for employees from infectious diseases is now in limbo as the new administration reviews all proposed rules.

“I’m sure that this administration does not want another pandemic as it moves forward. My concerns are that we might be taking our focus off of infectious disease in general, and then off of H5N1, when we actually need a lot more focus,” she says. “We need to remember that there are really important roles that government plays in protecting human health.”


Nina B. Elkadi wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

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

Less than one percent of the Earth’s water is available for human use. This limited supply, known as freshwater, can be sourced from rivers, lakes and groundwater. This is also the water we rely on for drinking, recreation, industrial use and our food system. The agricultural industry is the largest user of freshwater, making up nearly 70 percent of global withdrawals, according to the UN World Water Development Report. At the heart of this issue are the meat and dairy industries, both of which consume vast amounts of water, and pollute ecosystems.

“There’s a couple of things that are really, really important. One is to set formal limits on how much water can be extracted from each of our water sources,” Brian Richter, water conservation researcher and president of Sustainable Waters, an organization focused on water scarcity, tells Sentient. “Another important strategy that’s beginning to be used more and more, is shifting from water-intensive crops to crops that don’t require as much water.”

In California, concerns about water usage were brought into focus during the start of the wildfires that ravaged multiple communities in Los Angeles. False claims spread that there was not enough water to fight the fires, leading to more scrutiny about water waste. While firefighting efforts were not in fact hampered by a lack of water, the claims highlighted an underlying issue: the real competition for limited water resources.

California faces a cycle of extreme weather patterns, known as “whiplash” events. For the Golden State, this means going from extremely dry drought conditions, to much-needed record-breaking rain that facilitates plant growth. But when dry conditions return, that same new vegetation quickly becomes dry fuel, which heightens the risk of devastating wildfires.

This shifting weather cycle is driven in part by climate change, which is making extreme weather events more frequent and unpredictable. And by using vast amounts of water and contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, meat and dairy production also exacerbates these extremes.

Why Does Farming Use So Much Water?

Factory farms use water for animals — to raise and feed them, and to slaughter them. But a good share of water usage in agriculture comes from the irrigation needed to make feed for livestock. In the U.S., irrigation alone made up for 42 percent of all freshwater withdrawals in 2015, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“The other generality about the western United States is that the majority of water that’s used on irrigated farms is going to produce a couple of different crops that we refer to as cattle feed crops,” Richter tells Sentient.

Feed crops for animals include barley and wheat, but cattle feed crops also include alfalfa, corn and other hays and grasses — crops that require massive amounts of water to grow. Alfalfa, for example, requires roughly five feet of water per acre to thrive. The sheer scale of water use needed for these crops is a considerable part of the environmental toll of animal agriculture.

Meat and dairy production is also the leading source of methane pollution in the U.S. And water being diverted for irrigation has serious consequences for vital water sources. When too much water is taken for irrigation, it drains rivers and aquifers, leaving less water for people and wildlife. This can hurt local ecosystems, drying up wetlands, and affecting fish and bird habitats. The over-extraction of groundwater can also lead to the gradual sinking of land.

California’s Water Wars

The agriculture industry in California is a powerhouse, producing a significant portion of the nation’s crops and employing workers across the state. However, this agricultural success comes at a steep environmental cost. The sector uses approximately 80 percent of the state’s developed water supply, and much of that water supports both the state’s food industry and the livestock sector — dairy alone is one of the most valuable commodities in California at $8.13 billion. A significant portion of the state’s water is directed toward cattle feed; feed crops make up a quarter of the state’s farmland and 27 percent of its water usage.

California’s agricultural sector is deeply dependent on both surface water from rivers and reservoirs, and groundwater drawn from underground aquifers. However, in recent years, reductions in surface water availability, driven by drier conditions, have pushed farms to rely more on groundwater. This shift has led to rapid depletion of the state’s underground water reserves, especially in regions like the Central Valley, where water scarcity is becoming an urgent issue.

Richter points out that there is currently no effective control on the overall volume of water being used in agriculture. “The number of people that get served by our water resources is just dependent on how much water is coming down the river, or how much is in the reservoirs,” he says. In other words, if we exceed the natural replenishment of water supplies, we risk consequences.

“Replenishment happens naturally each year through rainfall and snowmelt, but if our consumption surpasses that replenishment, we start facing real problems,” Richter adds. “In the western U.S., there are farmers who simply don’t have enough water, because it hasn’t been replenished.” These challenges, Richter warns, could lead to more widespread water shortages if we don’t change our approach to agricultural water use.

While California has implemented some measures, such as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, which aims to curb overuse of groundwater, a report from the Groundwater Leadership Forum found that the plans are failing many of its users. These water disputes have threatened local food systems across the state, with communities caught in the crossfire between industrial agriculture and the need for equitable, sustainable water access.

“A reduction in the production of agriculture in general, but more specifically, those cattle feed crops, is going to be necessary to return to a more sustainable use of water,” Richter says.

The Great Salt Lake, Shrinking

These issues aren’t only affecting California: The Great Salt Lake in Utah has been shrinking at an alarming rate as water is continually diverted for agricultural use. A 2024 study on reducing irrigation for livestock feed found that 62 percent of river water that would have originally gone to replenish the lake is instead being diverted for human activities. Of that, 71 percent of it was used for agriculture, specifically irrigation. This diversion has contributed to a dramatic drop in the lake’s water levels, putting its delicate ecosystems at risk.

The Great Salt Lake is a critical biodiversity hotspot, supporting 10 million migratory birds from 350 bird species. Reduced water levels threaten these habitats and could disrupt the food web, with far-reaching consequences for both local wildlife and human communities.

To reverse the lake’s decline, the study’s researchers call for a 35 percent reduction in human water consumption, particularly in the agricultural sector. They say one of the most effective ways to achieve this would be through a significant reduction in alfalfa production, which is one of the largest water-consuming crops in the region.

“But different levels of reduction in these cattle feed crops is going to be necessary in many other places in the western United States,” Richter says. “It’s going to be absolutely necessary in the Central Valley of California.”

The Bottom Line

Crops grown for livestock feed take a huge toll on our water supply. Research finds that shifting production patterns, or scaling back on feed crop cultivation, could have a substantial impact on water consumption in the sector. However, if meat and dairy consumption continues, the pressure on freshwater supplies will only grow worse.

Globally, agriculture already accounts for about 70 percent of all freshwater withdrawals — and demand is only rising. By the year 2050, meat production is predicted to grow to around 550 million metric tons of meat, up from 367 million metric tons in 2013. This will significantly intensify the strain on water resources.

One way to address this is through more efficient water management practices. Researchers at the World Resources Institute say that farmers can adopt techniques such as switching to irrigation methods like drip or sprinkler systems, which use far less water than traditional flood irrigation.

Another switch, as Richter previously mentioned, would be to move away from water-intensive crops and foods like beef, to more water-efficient alternatives. Reducing beef consumption, particularly in high-consuming regions, would ease pressure on global water resources and contribute to a more water-efficient food system.


Gabriella Sotelo wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email