Epa Administrator: Sewage Funds Have to Wait

Some Great Lakes mayors want more federal money to help pay for improvements to troubled sewage systems. But EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt says he first wants to see how current funds are being spent. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

Some Great Lakes mayors want more federal money, to help pay for improvements to troubled sewage systems, but EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt says he first wants to see how current funds are being spent.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:


Heavy rains in the Midwest have caused several cities to dump large amounts of sewage into the Great Lakes. The dumping has prompted some mayors to ask for federal help. They say local taxpayers can’t afford to pay for sewage system changes on their own. The mayors say 40 million people count on the Great Lakes for drinking water.


But U-S Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Mike Leavitt says more federal money for sewage treatment will have to wait until he sees what happens to all current dollars for Great Lakes clean up.


“We have 140 different programs right now and I’m interested to make certain we know how those dollars are being spent and using to them to the maximum efficiency, then we’ll have a plan I hope regionally as to how to move forward.”


President Bush recently told Leavitt to coordinate all the federal spending on the Great Lakes, and improve collaboration with the region’s state, local and tribal governments. Leavitt’s plan isn’t due until next year. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Monsanto Pulls Plans for Gm Wheat

If you look at the nutrition information on a package of muffins or a box of cereal you’re likely to see things such as soybean oil and milled corn. More likely than not, those ingredients are made from genetically modified crops. But for the foreseeable future, you won’t see store shelves stocked with bread made from GM wheat. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Matt Sepic reports:

Transcript

If you look at the nutrition information on a package of muffins or a box of cereal you’re likely to see things such as soybean oil and milled corn. More likely than not, those ingredients are made from genetically modified crops. But for the foreseeable future, you won’t see store shelves stocked with bread made from G-M wheat. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Matt Sepic reports:


Corn and canola plants that resist insects, and soybeans that resist herbicides are big business for St. Louis-based Monsanto, but the company recently stopped seeking government approval for Roundup-ready wheat, delaying the 5 million dollar program indefinitely. Monsanto claims it’s because farmers aren’t planting as much wheat these days.


But University of Illinois agribusiness professor Peter Goldsmith says the company is responding to consumer fears about genetically modified products, especially wheat.


“There’s obviously a lot of culture and religion and history associated with bread. And I think food manufacturing gave a very clear unified signal back to Monsanto that said we really don’t want to get consumers concerned about whether the bread they’re eating is commingled GM with non-GM wheat.


A Monsanto spokesman says the company wants to focus on its other biotech products. Those are already a major part of the American diet.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Matt Sepic.

Related Links

Polluting Province Shoots for Cleaner Air

Environmental groups are praising an Ontario plan to crack down on the pollution that contributes to smog. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:

Transcript

Environmental groups are praising an Ontario plan to crack down on the pollution that contributes to smog. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:

Ontario has announced new limits on the amount of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide that can be released into the atmosphere. The two are major ingredients in smog and acid rain.


Quentin Chiotti is with the environmental group Pollution Probe. He says the emissions reductions will be significant, and he sees it as an important step in dealing with a serious health problem.


“From an air pollution and smog perspective, that continues to cause quite significant health impacts. In Ontario, estimated to be about 2,000 premature deaths annually and upwards of 1 billion to 10 billion dollars to the Ontario economy and health care system.”


The new plan is modeled after regulations in the US, but covers a larger number of industries. Ontario’s industrial sector is consistently rated among the worst polluters in North America.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.

Related Links

Anglers to Profit From Whitefish Study

Great Lakes fishermen can collect five dollars for every tagged whitefish they catch. Biologists are collecting data for two studies on whitefish. If they prove the fish are in danger… that could reduce the number of animals fisherman can reel in. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Celeste Headlee reports:

Transcript

Great Lakes fishermen can collect five dollars for every tagged whitefish they catch. Biologists are collecting data for two studies on whitefish. If they prove the fish are in danger – that could reduce the number of animals fisherman can reel in. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Celeste Headlee reports:


Fish biologist Mark Ebener says zebra mussels in the Great Lakes have caused a severe reduction in the primary food source for whitefish – a tiny crustacean known as diporeia. He says many of the whitefish he’s seen have been emaciated.


The first study will determine the distribution of the fish throughout the Great Lakes Basin. The second will study the natural mortality rate of whitefish and how it affects the Total Allowable Catch, or TAC, for commercial fishermen.


“One of the things we need to really quantify well is the natural mortality rate because it also has a big effect on your estimates of TACs, and we’re sure that their natural mortality rate has changed since zebra mussels came into the lakes and diporeia abundance declined.”


The two studies will continue until 2006. Fishermen who catch tagged fish can collect a five-dollar reward for calling in the tag number. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Celeste Headlee.

Water Gardens a Route for New Invasives

  • These two goldfish were pulled out of a pond in Duluth. They started out as small, aquarium goldfish, but when introduced into the wild, they can grow up to more than a foot in length. (Photo by Chris Julin)

You can hear frogs croaking and chirping in the middle of a city these days. You can see cattails and water lilies out your window even if you live nowhere near a lake. Water gardens are all the rage. But some scientists are warning that we have to be careful with our gardens. If plants or animals get out of a backyard pond, they can endanger native species. As part of an ongoing series called “Your Choice; Your Planet,” the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chris Julin reports:

Transcript

You can hear frogs croaking and chirping in the middle of a city these days. You can see cattails and water lilies out your window even if you live nowhere near a lake. Water gardens are all the rage. But some scientists are warning that we have to be careful with our gardens. If plants or animals get out of a backyard pond, they can endanger native species. As part of an ongoing series called “Your Choice; Your Planet,” the Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Chris Julin reports:


For a while this spring, this pond was empty. Workers pumped out the water so they could catch fish. There were a few puddles, here and there on the pond bottom, and Tyler Winter got the job of scooping fish out of the puddles. He’s a college biology student. His five-gallon plastic bucket was half-full of fish — each one about the size of his hand.


“We got domestic goldfish, of various sizes and colors. This is the same kind of a thing that you would find at a pet store, but when introduced into the wild and they have more room to grow and they don’t die quickly, they can grow up to 10 or 16 inches.”


It appears that somebody — lots of somebodies — took the goldfish from their aquariums and water gardens and tossed them into this pond. They probably thought it was better than flushing the fish down the toilet.


The problem is, the pond flows into a designated trout stream. Trout need clean water, but goldfish stir up muck from the bottom when they feed. That could make the stream uninhabitable for trout.


People release lots of animals and plants, even though it’s often illegal. In the Great Lakes region alone, 38 species of aquatic animals and plants have reached the “infestation” level after being released into the wild. These plants and animals are crowding out native species.


(sound of gurgling pond)


Debbie Braeu’s back yard is thick with trees and shade-loving plants.


“There’s a pump in the pond that recirculates and the water comes down the stream, goes back up. As you can see, this is real close to our house, so we can sit and have coffee and we can watch the goldfish.”


The Braue’s run a nursery and landscaping business, and they’ve helped a lot of other people start water gardens. They’re big fans of native plants — irises and water lilies that naturally grow here. They sell some exotic pond plants, too, but not the ones that can escape, and live through a Great Lakes winter, and spread.


That’s what Barb Liukkonen likes to hear. She’s a hydrologist with Minnesota Sea Grant, and she’s trying to slow down the spread of non-native water plants. She wants gardeners to use more native plants.


“There are a lot of invasive aquatic plants — some that nobody would import intentionally. Things like Eurasian watermilfoil, or curly-leaf pondweed, things that cause a real problem in our lakes. But there are a whole range of plants that are being used for water gardens and to restore shorelines that may also be very invasive. They’re really pretty. Things like yellow iris, floating yellow heart — plants that look good, but they can be very invasive.”


Barb Liukkonen says gardeners sometimes put exotic plants in a lake intentionally — even though it’s against the law. And beyond that, gardeners sometimes spread exotic plants by accident. Liukkonen says the State of Minnesota recently paid for research into aquatic-plant-buying on the Internet.


“Ninety-two percent of time, the plants that are ordered had hitchhikers – that is, unintended plants or animals or seeds. And those can be introduced when you plant those plants along your shoreline or into your water garden.”


She says the researchers found something else disturbing.


“When they ordered plants that were prohibited, that is illegal to own or to plant or to sell in Minnesota, they still received them 13 our of 14 times. So even though they’re against the law here, people can still order those plants.”


Barb Liukkonen says local greenhouses are more likely to know what plants are banned in their areas. She and colleagues across the country are putting together a public education campaign. They’re designing stickers and fliers that businesses can attach to plants and aquariums. Their message is simple: Don’t release exotic plants and animals into the wild. Keep your goldfish and your garden plants at home.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Chris Julin in Duluth.

Related Links

Interview: Bruce Chassy – Gm Foods Are Safer

  • Soybeans were among the first genetically engineered crops. (Photo by Scott Bauer, courtesy of USDA)

Critics of genetically engineered foods question the safety of using genes from different species to alter the behavior of plants. But the supporters of bio-engineered crops say the plants are rigorously tested before they’re allowed on the market. In the second of two interviews on the subject, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham talks with Bruce Chassy. Chassy is with the University of Illinois’ biotechnology center. Graham asked why the agriculture industry is pushing genetically engineered crops:

Transcript

Critics of genetically engineered foods question the safety of using genes from different species
to alter the behavior of plants. But the supporters of bio-engineered crops say the plants are
rigorously tested before they’re allowed on the market. In the second of two interviews on the
subject, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham talks with Bruce Chassy. Chassy is
with the University of Illinois’ biotechnology center. Graham asked why the agriculture industry
is pushing genetically engineered crops:


Chassy: “They’re much more environmentally friendly than regular crops. They allow us to move
away from using chemicals in agriculture. They allow us to use no-till agriculture in many cases
which is much better for the soil, stop soil erosion. We get better water quality because we’re
using less chemicals. A whole variety of environmental gains. Plus, in some cases, they’re
actually safer as foods. One of the problems with the controversy about bio-tech is that it gets our
mind off what are the real food safety concerns that consumers ought to have in their minds.
There are toxins in our food, but they’re natural toxins and toxins that things like molds put on
them. I’m sure you’ve heard of aflatoxins or microtoxins. These are really, really deadly toxins
that nature puts on our foods. And bio-tech corn, for example, has a lot less of them because the
insects don’t eat them and they don’t get fungus in their wounds and they don’t make microtoxins,
so you can get a safer crop because it’s bio-tech. And safer for another reason. Most of the
conventional foods we have on the market have never been safety tested by the FDA. In fact,
bio-tech foods at least have gone through a rigorous safety test.”


LG: “Well, most of the foods on the market have been through centuries of human testing.”


Chassy: “That’s true and it’s not true. It’s true in the sense that humans have been eating food for
an awfully long time, but most of the varieties of the foods we eat are only recently developed.
We do an awful lot of plant breeding. And, you know, when you say a ‘tomato,’ you’re talking
about 2500 different varieties of things. When you say ‘wheat,’ you’re talking about hundreds of
varieties of wheat. And all of them have been subjected to genetic manipulation by plant
breeders.”


LG: “We’ve gotten along with hybridization and different kinds of cross-breeding of genetically
like plants for centuries and have increased production and increased quality of food. Why isn’t
that cross-breeding enough?”


Chassy: “Well, simply because there are certain kind of traits that you’d like to introduce into
plants that you can’t introduce through cross-breeding because plants that are close enough to do
cross-breeding with don’t have those traits. They’re not in the family of things that would cross-
breed. By being able to move a gene from one place to another, you can, for example, take a
gene out of a bacteria – which is exactly what they do – and put it into a plant and make it
herbicide tolerant or to make it insect resistant. The other point about this that really needs to be
said is that too much has been made of this technology in a way. It’s probably not as powerful as
it’s made out to be, although it’s very powerful. It’s certainly not as dangerous as it’s made out to
be. But, to the plant breeder, it’s simply another tool in the tool kit. It’s a way of doing a specific
thing and that’s moving a trait around. But, we still have plant breeders that are doing classical
plant breeding. It’s a very useful kind of activity. So, think of this as not the replacement for all
plant breeding, but rather just one more implement that helps a plant breeder produce plants that
are more productive and more environmentally friendly and maybe someday more nutritious or
healthier for us.”


LG: “If that’s the case, then why don’t the industry and the government say ‘Fine. Look these
things are safe. You shouldn’t be concerned about them, but for those of you who are concerned,
we’ll make sure there are labels put on those foods that are using bio-engineered crops or foods.’
That way you can make up your own mind.”


Chassy: “We have a labeling law in the United States that the FDA enforces which simply says
when food is materially changed, when it’s changed in such a way that it affects its health or
safety for the consumer, it must be labeled. If you ask people do they want something labeled,
they will always say ‘Yes.’ And then they will tell you they won’t buy it if it’s got a label on it
because people interpret that label as a safety warning. And, that’s why the manufacturers and the
FDA don’t want to put that label on there, because there is no safety concern. The problem is that
consumers have been misled about whether there should be safety concerns or not. They haven’t
really heard the whole story about these. So, why would you put a negative label on something
that offers a positive good?”


HOST TAG: Bruce Chassy, speaking with Lester Graham. Chassy works with various
organizations to promote using genetic engineering to alter the behavior of crops. He’s a
professor of food microbiology at the University of Illinois.

Related Links

Interview: Jeffrey Smith – Dangers of Gm Foods

  • OSU assistant farm manager Wayne Lewis cultivates for weed control in soybeans. (Photo by Keith Weller, courtesy of USDA)

Products made from genetically engineered crops are appearing in more and more foods. There’s a good chance just about any prepackaged food that’s made with soybean oil, soy flour, corn flour, corn oil or Canola will be derived from genetically engineered crops. Critics make strong claims about the risks associated with bio-engineered foods. In the first of two interviews on the subject, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham talked with Jeffrey Smith, who’s spoken and written extensively on genetically engineered crops. He asked Smith why he’s opposed to the approach to altering crops:

Transcript

Genetically engineered foods are appearing in more and more foods. There’s a good chance just
about any prepackaged food that’s made with soybean oil, soy flour, corn flour, corn oil or
Canola will be derived from genetically engineered crops. Critics made strong claims about the
risks associated with bio-engineered foods. In the first of two interviews on the subject, the Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham talked with Jeffrey Smith who has spoken and written
extensively on genetically engineered crops. He asked Smith why he’s opposed to the approach
to altering crops:


Smith: “Genetically engineered foods are inherently unsafe. In fact, the FDA’s own scientists, as
evidenced by internal memos that were made public by a lawsuit, described the dangers of
genetically modified foods as potentially allergens, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems
that would not necessarily be detected by the creators of those foods, and they urged their
superiors to require long-term safety testing in order to protect the public. But their superiors
were political appointees, including a former attorney for Monsanto, a leading biotechnology
company, and they in a memo, said that they were creating a policy in line with White House
policy, which was for the safe and speedy development of the U.S. biotechnology industry. So
they ignored their own scientists and allowed the foods on the market without safety testing, and
gave companies like Monsanto and others the complete authority to determine whether the foods
are safe. Those who have looked at the research studies by industry have been shocked at how
flimsy and superficial they have been and how they could be putting the public at risk.”


LG: “On the other hand, some of these genetically modified foods have been around for almost
20 years in some cases, and there have been relatively few problems with these. For instance,
Roundup Ready soybeans have been around for quite a while now, and there’s been no report of
any substantial problems.”


Smith: “It’s easy to say there’s no report because there’s no one looking for a report. There are
very few studies done on Roundup Ready soybeans, and the one, the big study by Monsanto that
was put out in ’96, was basically rigged to avoid finding problems according to many scientists
I’ve talked to.”


LG: “When I talk to people who are knowledgeable about growing food, using genetically
engineered foods, and worried about the food supply, they say the world needs genetically
engineered foods in order to feed the growing population. In fact, I talked to Nobel Peace Prize
winner Norman Borlaug, and he says the small risks that are associated with genetically
engineered foods are well worth it, and I’m wondering what you think of that.”


Smith: “Well, it’s irresponsible to say that it can only create minor risks, because it could put the
whole population in peril. But also, as far as the feed the world mythology, if you look at the
United Nation’s FAO report, they said we have more food per person than any time in history,
and if you project food production and if you project population growth, we’re not going to run
out of food any time soon. Many, many commentors have said that famine and hunger are not the
result of lack of production overall, they’re the result of economic and distribution problems, as
evidenced today by the fact that so many people go to bed hungry, and yet we have more food per
person than any time in history.”


LG: “Are you suggesting that we abandon genetically engineered foods altogether?”


Smith: “My suggestion is that at this point in the infant stages of understanding the DNA, where
every month we learn more and more about gene expression, we are way too early to be putting
the population at risk with foods. I’m not in favor of abandoning research on biotechnology, but I
am shocked that the United States government has allowed these foods on the market at this early
stage.”


LG: “That gets to another point – some would say, ‘well just let consumers decide.’ I’m
wondering what you think of the fact that we don’t know whether we’re eating soybeans or corn
or animals that have eaten those kinds of foods – it’s not on the label.”


Smith: “Well, the vast majority of Americans, more than 90%, want GM foods to be labeled.
Also, about 58% said that if the foods were labeled, they would choose not to eat it. Now the
FDA has a specific mandate to promote the biotechnology industry. So if they’re trying to
promote biotechnology, they certainly don’t want to do what the citizens want, which is to give
them a chance to avoid it. So those who want to avoid eating GMOs have to eat no soy, no corn,
no cottonseed oil, no canola oil whatsoever, unless it says non-GMO or organic. So it puts a
higher burden on the consumer and it goes against what the consumers want. The United States
is one of the very few industrialized countries that don’t have labeling laws about GMOs.”


HOST TAG: “Jeffrey Smith, speaking with Lester Graham. Smith is the author of the book,
Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the
Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating
.”

Related Links

Still No Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites

A new government report finds that twenty-four years after the federal government told the states to find ways to dispose of low-level radioactive waste, not a single site has been built. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

A new government report finds that 24 years after the federal government told the states
to find ways to dispose of low-level radioactive waste, not a single site has been built.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


In 1980, the states became responsible for providing disposal sites for most of the low-
level radioactive waste. Low-level waste includes things such as clothing and tools
exposed to radiation in medicine, research and at nuclear power plants. But to date… not
one disposal facility has been built by a state. The investigative arm of Congress, the General
Accounting Office, reports that an older facility in South Carolina is the only
site still accepting waste… but it’s expected to restrict shipments by the middle of 2008.
The GAO’s Robin Nazzaro says it’s not a crisis situation yet…


“The bottom line fall back, though, is that sites can also store this waste at their facilities.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission does allow for storage of waste as long as it’s safe
and secure.”


The GAO says a few states have plans to build facilities in the future… but nothing is
under construction right now.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Coast Guard to Fine Ships for Ballast Violations

Later this summer, the U.S. Coast Guard will be able to fine cargo ships that don’t comply with ballast water reporting regulations. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports on this new effort to stop invasive species from being introduced into the Great Lakes:

Transcript

Later this summer, the U.S. Coast Guard will be able to fine cargo ships that don’t
comply with ballast water reporting regulations. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Lester Graham reports on this new effort to stop invasive species from being introduced
into the Great Lakes:


Ocean-going vessels have transported aquatic nuisances to the Great Lakes such as the
zebra mussel and the round goby in the ships’ ballast water. Those ships are now
supposed to take measures to prevent bringing in more problems. Beginning in mid-
August, the Coast Guard will have the authority to fine ships up to 27,500 dollars if they
don’t submit a report on the measures taken. Bivan Patnaik is with the Coast Guard’s
Environmental Standards Division…


“The movement of non-indigenous species from one area to another is a very important
environmental issue and we’re all working as hard and as fast as we possibly can.”


Critics say the government has not worked hard and fast enough. Patnaik says the Coast
Guard’s new penalties and other efforts to better manage ballast water are steps in the
right direction.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Cleaning Up School Bus Pollution

The Environmental Protection Agency has picked school districts in the Great Lakes region as the first to receive its so-called “Clean School Bus” grants this year. The money will be used to help diesel-fueled school buses pollute less. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland has more:

Transcript

The Environmental Protection Agency has picked school districts
in the Great Lakes region as the first to receive its so-called
“Clean School Bus” grants this year. The money will be used to
help diesel-fueled school buses pollute less. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Michael Leland has more:


(sound of bus accelerating)


When a diesel school bus accelerates, it often leaves behind a black puff of
smoke. Health experts say that pollution can cause or aggravate respiratory
problems in young children. The EPA has given a couple of Michigan school
districts money to install devices on 160 buses, to reduce carbon monoxide and
small particle emissions. EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt says the government
wants to retrofit or replace all of the country’s 400,000 diesel school
buses by 2010. The agency is also working to develop cleaner-burning fuel
for all diesel vehicles.


“That black puff of diesel smoke that we’ve been accustomed to seeing
coming out of the tailpipe of not just school buses but big trucks and
construction equipment is going to be a thing of the past.”


The Union of Concerned Scientists says the government will have to spend billions
of dollars to meet its goal. Congress has allocated five million dollars for this
fiscal year’s round of grants.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Michael Leland.

Related Links