An environmental group is planning to sue the government because it’s too slow to warn people about high levels of bacteria in the water. The environmental group says government standards for beach closings are outdated. The GLRC’s Rebecca Williams reports:
Transcript
An environmental group is planning to sue the government because it’s
too slow to warn people about high levels of bacteria in the water.
The environmental group says government standards for beach closings
are outdated. The GLRC’s Rebecca Williams reports:
The current beach water standards haven’t been revised for 20 years.
Some scientists and environmental groups say that’s endangering public
health.
Nancy Stoner is with the Natural Resources Defense Council. Her group
recently announced plans to sue the EPA for failing to protect
beachgoers from contaminated water. Stoner says the current standards
are based on outdated methods.
“They’re too slow. They tell people whether the water quality was good
24 or 48 hours before they’re in the water, not whether it’s good
today. And they focus on bacteria only, not on viruses, not on
parasites like cryptosporidium and giardia.”
Stoner says the EPA failed to meet a deadline for issuing revised
standards. An EPA spokesperson says the agency is in the process of
revising the standards based on the latest science.
Federal researchers have detected Volatile Organic Compounds, or VOC’s, in many of the nation’s underground drinking water supplies. But the samples showed lower concentrations of the cancer-causing chemicals than some suspected. The GLRC’s Erin Toner reports:
Transcript
Federal researchers have detected Volatile Organic Compounds, or
VOC’s, in many of the nation’s underground drinking water supplies. But
the samples showed lower concentrations of the cancer-causing
chemicals than some suspected. The GLRC’s Erin Toner reports:
Volatile Organic Compounds are by-products of industrial and
commercial applications. They come from plastics, paints, dry-cleaning
products and gasoline.
Over the past few decades, researchers have detected many places in the
country where soil and groundwater is highly contaminated by VOCs.
This latest study by the U.S Geological Survey took a broader look at
VOC concentrations in the nation’s groundwater.
John Zogorski led the project.
“In most of the wells that we sampled, and we’re sampling before any
treatment by the water utilities, we didn’t find any of these 55
compounds using even our most sensitive analytical methodology.”
Zogorski says VOC’s were found in some drinking water wells, but he
says the good news is that where the VOC’s were found, they were
mostly below federal drinking water standards.
A new report indicates a commonly used pesticide is linked to public health problems. The GLRC’s Lester Graham reports the findings contradict government assessments in the U.S and Canada:
Transcript
A new report indicates a commonly used pesticide is linked to public
health problems. The GLRC’s Lester Graham reports the findings
contradict government assessments in the U.S and Canada:
The herbicide 2,4-D is found in hundreds of pesticide mixes for lawns
and crops. For 60 years it’s been the most widely used herbicide in the
world. It’s cheap and it’s effective.
Its impact on human health has been studied again and again. While
there have been suspicions about its affects on health, the US and
Canadian governments have maintained that 2,4-D can be used safely on
lawns and crops if the label directions are followed. But a report in the
journal, Pediatrics and Child Health, contradicts the governments’
assessments.
The Canadian authors of the report say 2,4-D is “persuasively linked” to
cancer, neurological damage and reproductive problems. The report
specifically points at Canadian government studies on animals. They say
those animal studies miss the problems that physicians are finding among
children who play on lawns and other people exposed to 2,4-D.
Ethanol plants are being built all over the corn belt. 97 plants are
operating and another 34 new plants or expansions are underway, according
to the Renewable Fuels Association. A by-product of the process is corn
mash, or distillers grain. The distillers are hoping to sell it all to
nearby livestock farms. (Photo by Lester Graham)
The federal government has called for more renewable fuels for cars and trucks over the next few years. Ethanol from corn is expected to meet much of that demand. As ethanol production increases, the distillers are looking for ways to make money on some of the by-products of the process. The GLRC’s Lester Graham reports on how the ethanol distillers might market what’s left over after turning corn into ethanol:
Transcript
The federal government has called for more renewable fuels for cars
and trucks over the next few years. Ethanol from corn is expected
to meet much of that demand. As ethanol production increases, the
distillers are looking for ways to make money on some of the by-
products of the process. The GLRC’s Lester Graham reports on
how the ethanol distillers might market what’s left over after
turning corn into ethanol:
(Sound of construction)
New ethanol plants are being built every year. 97 plants are in
operation today and the Renewable Fuels Association indicates 34 new or
expanded plants are under construction. The ethanol refinery
industry is gearing up for the expansion that the government wants.
Ethanol plants are basically giant corn alcohol stills. They produce
huge batches of – well – moonshine, but like moonshiner stills,
there’s a corn mash left over. It’s called distillers grain, and with
all the new plants coming online, there’s going to be a lot more of the
by-product in the future. Distillers grain can be used as livestock feed.
So, the agricultural industry is trying to get more cattle farmers and
others to buy it.
Tracy Jones is a farmer in northern Illinois. He says the agriculture
industry and the ethanol plants that want to get rid of the distillers
grain cheaply, have been encouraging farmers to expand their
livestock operations.
“And I know some producers that are maybe expanding. It’s a
good deal, but it’s not that good of a deal, and there’s a lot of other
issues that go into the cattle feeding business besides just getting
cheap feed.”
Jones has been feeding wet distillers grain from Wisconsin to his
cattle for about a year. Jones says the distillers grain makes sense
as long as the price doesn’t get too high.
“We need to buy it cheaply. We’re basically using it as a corn
replacer. So, when we have cheap corn, you still need to buy the
by-products cheaply also.”
Jones says his cattle are gaining weight at about five-cents a pound
cheaper using distillers grain as part of the mix of feed. Part of the
reason is the price is lower, but distillers grain has another
advantage… it’s higher in protein than plain corn. It’s got about the
same protein content as soybean meal.
That makes Jason Anderson think this stuff might be good to
export overseas as a food for people. Anderson is the Economic
Development Director for the city of Rochelle, Illinois. An ethanol
plant is being built in his city. With a couple of major railways and
a cargo container transfer station in his town, exporting dried distillers
grain would be easy. Because of the nation’s trade deficit, about
half the cargo containers go back to their original country empty.
Anderson says the by-product could be dried to a sort of high-
protein corn meal and shipped.
“Dried distillers grain could be put into intermodal containers,
which are sealed containers, put on a train and sent to the west
coast. They could also be shipped over the Pacific Ocean to starving
countries on the other side of the world.”
Corn tofu, anyone?
Exporting dried distillers grain as human food overseas hasn’t been
discussed much, but shipping it to cattle feedlots in Texas and
other cattle country has been discussed. Agriculture experts think
the ethanol plants located in the corn-belt won’t find enough
livestock in the immediate area to buy the product.
“At this point, where the livestock are and where the plants are
there’ll be a lot of them that has to be shipped.”
Jim Hilker is an agriculture marketing expert at Michigan State
University. He says he’s not sure the ethanol plants will make
much money on distillers grain, especially if they have to ship it to
cattle feedlots out west. That’s because they’ll have to dry the
product… and that adds to the cost.
“The first ones, I think, are making some money before we get
saturated on this, and I think if we put a system for handling it and
stuff in place, they’ll probably. But, if they can more than cover
the cost – remember, otherwise there’s disposal fees too. So, a
break-even here is a pretty good deal.”
So if the distillers just recover the drying and shipping costs, it
would be better than paying to dump the distillers grain in a
landfill.
But farmer Tracy Jones says he thinks the ethanol manufacturers
have already figured out the by-product will be abundant… and
they’re still counting on making some money on it.
“When they do their financials for their ethanol plant, they don’t
plan on giving this product away. So, they need to get something
for it.”
Jones says he’s noticed the ethanol producers don’t call distillers
grain a by-product of the process. They call it a co-product. He
thinks that’s a little marketing ploy that indicates the ethanol
plants definitely plan to demand a good price for the livestock feed,
regardless of the glut on the market.
In the next six years, the amount of ethanol production is expected to double. With more corn ethanol plants coming online, the distillers are looking for ways to sell one of the by-products.
The GLRC’s Lester Graham reports ethanol distillers are selling the corn mash left over from turning corn into ethanol:
Transcript
In the next six years, the amount of ethanol production is expected to
double. With more corn ethanol plants coming online, the distillers
are looking for ways to sell one of the by-products. The GLRC’s
Lester Graham reports ethanol distillers are selling the corn mash
left over from turning corn into ethanol:
The mash, called distillers grain, is a good livestock feed. It’s
higher in protein than the same amount of corn. Since most of the
ethanol plants are being built in the corn-belt, the distillers are
trying to get nearby livestock operations to buy the distillers grain.
Jim Hilker is an agriculture marketing expert at Michigan State
University. He says that works… up to a point…
“It depends on whether the livestock is near. It appears, as many
plants are going up, that we’re going to saturate some areas. They’ll
have to be shipped somewhere.”
That means drying the distillers grain… and shipping it… both adding
to the cost. The trick is to keep the price the same or cheaper than
corn… to keep it competitive. With 97 plants operating and another 34
under construction to meet the government’s call to produce a lot more
ethanol… there could soon be a glut of distillers grain.
Organic farms are concerned about nearby farms that produce genetically modified crops. They fear that the genetically modified crops will cross with and alter the genes of their own crops. (Photo by Rene
Cerney)
Proponents of genetically modified crops say the crops can be grown with fewer pesticides. (Photo by Daniel Wildman)
The nation’s agricultural seed companies are fighting local restrictions on their genetically engineered products. They say it’s the federal government’s job to regulate food safety. But critics say federal agencies aren’t doing a good job of testing genetically modified food for safety. They’re backing the right of local governments to regulate genetically engineered crops themselves. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:
Transcript
The nation’s agricultural seed companies are fighting local restrictions on
their genetically engineered products. They say it’s the federal
government’s job to regulate food safety, but critics say federal agencies
aren’t doing a good job of testing genetically modified food for safety.
They’re backing the right of local governments to regulate genetically
engineered crops themselves. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Sarah Hulett reports:
Genetically engineered crops are created when genes from other plants,
animals or bacteria are used to alter their DNA.
Critics call them “Franken-foods,” and two years ago, three California
counties banned farmers from growing genetically altered crops. That
alarmed the agribusiness industry, and now it’s fighting to keep that from
happening elsewhere.
So far, the industry successfully lobbied 14 states to pass laws preventing
their local governments from putting restrictions on engineered crops.
Four other states are considering similar measures.
Jim Byrum is with the Michigan Agri-Business Association.
“Frankly, it’s pretty frustrating for us to look at some of the rumors that
are floating around about what happens with new technology. It’s
reduced pesticide use; it’s reduced producer expense in production. It’s
done all sorts of things.”
Genetically engineered seeds are created in the laboratories of big seed
companies like Monsanto and DuPont. The modified plants can produce
higher-yield crops that make their own insecticides, or tolerate crop-
killing problems such as drought or viruses.
Proponents of the technology say genetically altered crops have the
potential to feed the world more efficiently, and they say it’s better for
the environment. That’s because the crops can be grown with fewer
polluting pesticides, but critics say not enough is known yet about
engineered crops’ long-term ecological impact, or on the health of
people who eat them.
(Sound of farm)
Michelle Lutz is among the skeptics. She and her husband run an 80-
acre organic farm north of Detroit. She’s watching about a dozen head of
the beef cattle she’s raising. They’re feeding on cobs of organic corn
grown several yards away.
“I’m surrounded by conventional farmers. The farmers right over here to
my east – they’re good people, and I don’t think they would intentionally
do anything to jeopardize me, but they are growing genetically modified
corn.”
Lutz worries that pollen from genetically modified corn from those
nearby fields could make its way to her corn plants – and contaminate
her crop by cross-breeding with it. Lutz says people buy produce from
her farm because they trust that it’s free from pesticides, because it’s
locally grown, and because it has not been genetically altered. She says
she shares her customers’ concerns about the safety of engineered foods.
Lutz says letting local governments create zones that don’t allow
genetically engineered crops would protect organic crops from
contamination.
But Jim Byrum of the Michigan Agri-Business Association says no
township or county should be allowed to stop farmers from growing
genetically modified crops. He says every engineered seed variety that’s
on the market is extensively tested by federal agencies.
“Frankly, that evaluation system exists at the federal level. There’s
nothing like that at the state level, and there’s certainly nothing like that
at the local level. We want to have decisions on new technology, new
seed, based on science as opposed to emotion.”
Critics say the federal government’s evaluation of genetically modified
crops is not much more than a rubber stamp. The FDA does not approve
the safety of these crops. That’s just wrong.
Doug Gurian-Sherman is a former advisor on food biotechnology for the
Food and Drug Administration.
“It’s a very cursory process. At the end of it, FDA says we recognize that
you, the company, has assured us that this crop is safe, and remind you
that it’s your responsibility to make sure that’s the case, and the data is
massaged – highly massaged – by the company. They decide what tests
to do, they decide how to do the tests. It’s not a rigorous process.”
Gurian-Sherman says local governments obviously don’t have the
resources to do their own safety testing of engineered foods, but he says
state lawmakers should not allow the future of food to be dictated by
powerful seed companies. He says local governments should be able to
protect their growers and food buyers from the inadequacies of federal
oversight.
Every few years, the amount of corn being used to produce ethanol doubles in the United States. That’s causing concern that too much of the country’s corn crop is being taken out of food production. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner reports:
Transcript
Every few years, the amount of corn being used to produce ethanol
doubled in the United States. That’s causing concern that too much of the
country’s corn crop is being taken out of food production. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner reports:
Demand for ethanol is increasing as more states start requiring the corn-
based fuel to be blended with gasoline, and Congress has required that
the amount of renewable fuel used in the U.S. triple in the next six years.
Keith Collins is chief economist for the USDA. He’s says he’s not
worried about a food shortage. He says there were record corn crops in
2004 and 2005, and there’s 35 million acres of cropland in reserve in the
U.S.
“Some of that has to stay there because its environmentally fragile land,
but some of it could come out if demand for food goes up, and demand
for fuel goes up. I think we have a very strong resource natural resource
base that can produce a lot more agricultural commodities, both for food
and for fuel.”
Overproduction has kept corn prices as low as they were in the 1950s,
but Collins expects corn to get more expensive over the next few years as
ethanol production increases.
A biotech company is hoping to cash in on a genetically modified salmon. If the F-D-A approves the fish, it would be the first transgenic animal species available for human consumption. The Great Lake Radio Consortium’s Nancy Cohen reports:
Transcript
A biotech company is hoping to cash in on a genetically modified
salmon. If the FDA approves the fish, it would be the first transgenic
animal species available for human consumption. The Great Lake Radio
Consortium’s Nancy Cohen reports:
Aquaculture firms are developing fish that are resistant to disease,
consume low-cost diets and grow faster. The Massachusetts-based Aqua
Bounty Technologies took part of the genetic code from a fish called the
ocean pout, and added it to the Atlantic salmon. The ocean pout’s
genetic material acts as a kind of switch that turns on the salmon’s
growth regulators.
Joe McGonigle is with Aqua Bounty. He says the result is a salmon that
grows twice as fast as other farmed salmon.
“You can get more heart healthy omega 3 protein on the market at a
lower price, you can produce fish more quickly, you can use fewer
resources and you can manage water quality and fish health, in a much
better way than under current conditions.”
But critics are concerned about the environmental impact on native fish
populations if genetically modified fish were to escape into the wild.
Rising energy prices for natural gas have been hurting homeowners. Now, economists say 2006 is going to be a rough year for farmers as well. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner explains:
Transcript
Rising energy prices for natural gas have been hurting homeowners. Now, economists say 2006
is going to be a rough year for farmers as well. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner
explains:
At the American Farm Bureau’s annual convention, agriculture economists predicted a 10 percent
drop in farmers’ income this year. Rising energy prices can affect a farmer’s ability to borrow
money, and they make nearly everything on a farm more expensive – fertilizer, fuel for
machinery and irrigation.
Keith Collins is chief economist for the USDA.
“As we look out to 2006, the general forecasts are for slightly higher diesel prices and for higher
natural gas prices which is the main component in nitrogen fertilizer, the most important fertilizer
that farmers use.”
Collins says to address the problem, the USDA is targeting grants and loans to energy production
and conservation projects in rural areas. The agency is also developing tools for producers to
evaluate and improve energy efficiency on their farms.
Lawmakers in three states (California, Michigan, North Carolina) are considering measures to block communities from regulating the use of genetically modified seeds. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:
Transcript
Lawmakers in three states (California, Michigan, North Carolina) are
considering measures to block communities from regulating the use of
genetically modified seeds. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah
Hulett reports:
More than a dozen states have already passed laws to prevent local
governments from banning the use of seeds that have been modified to
produce high-yield crops.
Peter Jenkins is with the Center for Food Safety. He says organic
farmers worry that pollen from genetically altered plants could drift into
their fields, and contaminate their crops.
“So, local control’s important to allow towns and counties to stake out
particular areas that should be set aside for organic or for GMO crops. In
some cases, you know, you could have zoning, or bans altogether.”
Supporters of the legislation say there are other ways to protect organic
crops from gene drift – including buffer zones and timed plantings. They
say it should be up to the federal government to regulate the use of
genetically modified seeds.
