By Dawn Attride for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Mike Moen for Minnesota News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

On February 26, Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins released a five-pronged strategy and investment of $1 billion to combat avian flu and reduce rising egg prices. The new measures focus largely on fixing on-farm biosecurity gaps as well as push for a new poultry vaccine. The proposed plan marks a pivot away from current methods of handling infected birds, which rely mostly on “stamping out” — where poultry farmers “depopulate” or wipe out their entire flocks. Sentient spoke with a number of experts who were skeptical about moving away from the USDA’s longstanding depopulation strategy, especially given the virus’ high capability for mutation. These experts say they are encouraged to see more attention and investment paid to the ongoing outbreaks, at the same time they note the plan’s lack of concrete details.

Meghan Davis, associate professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, says that it’s encouraging to see large-scale investment going towards research and biosecurity measures, but that she would like to see more clarity on what the strategies actually are, if they are going to replace depopulation. “These stamping out policies have been in place for quite some time. There’s a reason it exists and one of them is animal welfare issues –– these birds get really sick… and [rarely] recover,” Davis tells Sentient. We really need to think thoroughly about ways to limit further amplification of an outbreak and monitor whether or not new strategies are working, she says.

The move comes at a chaotic time for avian flu response. Thanks to Elon Musk’s federal spending crackdown, several key avian flu workers were fired by USDA, and the Department is now struggling to rehire them.

Mass firings of researchers and communication freezes across various scientific disciplines has instilled little confidence in experts who fear the U.S. is already lagging in its avian flu response. In the past 30 days alone, and as of March 3, the virus has infected 107 flocks, affecting 12.7 million birds, according to the USDA. So far, 70 people have been infected, and one person has died from avian flu in the U.S. Given the unpredictable nature of the virus and its spread into cats, pigs and cows, there is concern of a pandemic if human-to-human transmission occurs.

‘Gold-standard’ Biosecurity Measures

The bulk of the $1 billion investment goes towards reinforcing existing biosecurity measures — such as ramping up protocols to guard against disease spillover from wildlife — at no cost to farmers. These aspects of the plan may prove challenging given that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the agency who carries out on-farm inspections, has lost roughly 400 workers amidst Musk’s federal firings.

The boost in biosecurity measures focuses on risk from waterfowl and other wild birds that can shed the virus through their droppings or direct contact with farm animals. Spread between wildlife and farm animals is a key aspect of why avian flu spread is so hard to control, along with research that shows spread by wind.

The Rollins plan is light on concrete details as to what exactly the new biosecurity strategies are, but typical protocols would be vehicle wash stations and protective gear for workers, who are currently the most vulnerable population to avian flu spread.

When asked for more details about the new plan, a spokesperson for the USDA cited principles from a set of biosecurity protocols established in 2016 as part of the National Poultry Improvement Plan, and says measures will focus on biosecurity gaps: “This includes both structural biosecurity (measures used in the construction and maintenance of coops, pens, poultry houses and other facilities) and operational biosecurity (practices, procedures and policies that farm owners and workers follow consistently).”

In her Wall Street Journal commentary, Rollins notes that of the 150 sites that followed recommended biosecurity protocols, only one was subsequently affected by avian flu. Director of the National Economic Council Kevin Hassett says he is preparing a “smart perimeter” plan, along with Rollins, to avoid depopulation.

Smart perimeters is essentially a fancy term for monitoring risk in the area around the farm, in this case geared towards wild bird migration. Picture a farm as a bullseye and then draw a 10 kilometer radius around it — that’s about the size of an avian flu risk perimeter.

“That’s a pretty crude way of assessing risk,” Maurice Pitesky, an associate professor and expert in poultry disease modeling at the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine, tells Sentient. Plopping 10 kilometer circles everywhere there’s an outbreak does little to account for bird movements in the region.

What works better, according to Pitesky: accurately tracking bird movement and holistically assessing different factors — such as wind or temperature — that might drive birds into this radius. Pitesky has developed a technology that can track where waterfowl are relative to commercial poultry, which, he says, is highly scalable to help identify farms historically under the highest burden. For now, however, it doesn’t appear the USDA is incorporating this into their smart perimeter work, he says.

Even as, broadly speaking, strengthening biosecurity is key to combat spread, it alone might not be the saving grace everyone hopes. “I think there is a lot of wishful thinking that this is going to be a game changer and that the farmers won’t have to euthanize non sick birds … that could be a bad thing [because] if you are not aggressive with depopulating, you have the potential to create reservoirs of virus that can potentially cause further spread,” Pitesky tells Sentient.

Vaccination Instead of Depopulation?

The USDA has given conditional approval to a Zoetis vaccine H5N2 for chickens, but has yet to give the go ahead for vaccinating commercial poultry flocks against avian flu. Some may be surprised to hear Rollins has committed to invest $100 million in research and development of such vaccines, given the anti-vax sentiments from Trump appointees like Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Industry groups have chimed in their support, applauding the new USDA plan and expressing enthusiasm for vaccination. However, the reason the USDA has been hesitant to implement vaccination remains: many countries won’t accept vaccinated chickens. The U.S. is the second-largest exporter of poultry and should a vaccine be rolled out, the federal government would have to negotiate agreements with its trading partners.

“Before making a determination, USDA will solicit feedback from governors, state ag commissioners, veterinarians, farmers and the American public. In fact, USDA will immediately begin holding biweekly meetings to provide updates and hear your input,” a spokesperson for the USDA tells Sentient.

Rollins also suggested loosening “unnecessary regulatory burdens” on egg standards. One such law mentioned is California’s Proposition 12, which established minimum space requirements for egg-laying hens, and which Rollins says contributes to the state’s high egg prices. Prop 12 expanded the tightest confinement standards for some farm animals by mandating specific space requirements for products like pork and eggs sold in and to California, with a few exceptions. Nevada has just moved to allow suspension of its cage-free standards in an effort to increase egg supply, though many experts say the approach is largely flawed. Increasing more backyard chickens for eggs was also a suggestion — however, these chickens are also at risk of interacting with infectious waterfowl, as 51 backyard flocks have gotten avian flu in the past 30 days.

Watching and Waiting

Both Pitesky and Davis would like to see a wider range of experts deployed in order to curb the spread long-term — including animal behavior experts to make farms less attractive to wild birds, and environmental public health experts.

We already lag behind other countries who have “One Health” collaborative teams of experts to holistically assess outbreaks, says Davis. It’s unclear whether the USDA $1 billion accounts for this kind of avian flu analysis but it might be a tall ask, given the current administration’s erasure of non-essential research costs.

“Patchwork investment” won’t make up for the huge federal workforce losses of key researchers in this area and siloing scientific agencies with the communications ban, Davis says. “I have major concerns moving forward that we will not have good eyes on this virus and that heaven forbid, start to develop a human-to-human transmission chain, and that’s a huge step down that path towards a pandemic. I would hate to look back in five or 10 years at this moment and think, ‘wow, what we could have done right now could have prevented so much.’”


Dawn Attride wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

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

New Mexico is one of five U.S. states that frequently encounters exceptional drought that can damage crops but one farmer is doing her part to reduce food wasted due to extreme weather events.

Rachael Ryan, owner and CEO of Backyard Farms, said in addition to growing food, she has learned how to freeze-dry less-than-perfect raw produce, much of it purchased from other farmers. Ryan then retails packets of apples, pears and even green chilies.

She pointed out peach growers and others have needed her help in recent years to mitigate crop losses.

"They contact us when they're in a bad situation, when they're at a loss of their entire crop," Ryan explained. "That's when they contact me. We're that safety net when you've lost everything and you're going to go into the red."

After demonstrating success in freeze-drying fruits and vegetables, Ryan's Backyard Farms qualified for a grant to grow the business from the initially skeptical U.S. Department of Agriculture. While most of her products are sold or donated locally, ultimately Ryan also would like to market them to FEMA, the Red Cross and other relief groups.

Ryan noted New Mexico farmers, like many others, often must discard crops because grocery stores will not buy fruits or veggies with imperfections in shape, size, color or appearance. That's where her Las Cruces team takes over by hand-washing, slicing, freeze-drying and packaging the items, putting perfectly good produce back into the food system. She added demand is exceeding her workspace.

"This last year I actually had to turn away farmers because we just did not have the capability to process all the food," Ryan stressed. "We've actually gotten a very large grant, about a half-million dollars from the State of New Mexico, to expand our processing center."

Freeze-drying produce is known to create a shelf-stable product that can be stored for up to 25 years without spoilage. It was first discovered by the Incas, refined during World War II to preserve medicine and later perfected by NASA to feed astronauts aboard spaceflights to the moon. But it has not gone mainstream in the ag community.

A common refrain Ryan hears from people who learn about her business is, "What a great idea! How come nobody thought of this before?"

"We are the only one of our kind in the entire United States," Ryan added. "Everybody has been coming to me to learn about what we're doing and everybody wants to mimic us."


get more stories like this via email