One crop that Carbofuran was used on is potatoes (Photo by Scott Bauer, courtesy of the USDA)
The Environmental Protection Agency says no amount of the pesticide carbofuran is safe on food. Mark Brush has more on the new EPA rule:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection Agency says no amount of the pesticide carbofuran is safe on food. Mark Brush has more on the new EPA rule:
The EPA has been phasing out this insecticide, but it’s still used on some crops like rice, corn, and potatoes.
When people are exposed to carbofuran, it can cause damage to the nervous system. And the EPA is particularly worried about kids exposure when eating food or when drinking water near treated farm fields.
Potato farmers say they use carbofuran to kill bugs that resist other pesticides.
John Keeling is the CEO of the National Potato Council. He says they were hoping the EPA would let them keep using it.
“We had tried to work with the agency to modify use patterns, or limit the use to particular areas, so that we could continue to use the product – but they obviously didn’t continue in that direction.”
FMC Corporation makes the chemical. Officials there issued a statement saying they’ll fight the EPA’s new rule.
One lawyer wants a class action suit against the manufacturer of Atrazine, an herbicide used on crops (Photo by Rebecca Williams)
Atrazine is a weed killer. It’s
used by farmers in several crops,
basically because the herbicide is
relatively cheap and effective.
When Atrazine is used in the spring,
it sometimes ends up getting in
water – and in some cases at levels
above the government’s drinking water
standard – the maximum contaminant
level of three parts-per-billion.
Steve Tillery is an attorney in a
lawsuit against the manufacturer of
Atrazine – Syngenta – and Synenta’s
partner, Growmark. Tillery represents
water suppliers and he’s seeking class-
action status to represent all water
suppliers who’ve had to deal with Atrazine
contamination. Lester Graham talked to
him about the lawsuit:
Transcript
Atrazine is a weed killer. It’s
used by farmers in several crops,
basically because the herbicide is
relatively cheap and effective.
When Atrazine is used in the spring,
it sometimes ends up getting in
water – and in some cases at levels
above the government’s drinking water
standard – the maximum contaminant
level of three parts-per-billion.
Steve Tillery is an attorney in a
lawsuit against the manufacturer of
Atrazine – Syngenta – and Synenta’s
partner, Growmark. Tillery represents
water suppliers and he’s seeking class-
action status to represent all water
suppliers who’ve had to deal with Atrazine
contamination. Lester Graham talked to
him about the lawsuit:
Lester Graham: Mr. Tillery, what’s this lawsuit about, if the level is less than the 3-parts-per-billion the government says is safe?
Steve Tillery: Well, actually, at different times of the year, Atrazine does in fact exceed the federal standard. The federal government refers to MCL – maximum contaminant level – and that’s the maximum, they say, a chemical should exist in the water supply to be consumed by people in the community. The maximum contaminant level for Atrazine is 3-parts-per-billion. Many times, throughout the Spring, throughout Illinois and other Mid-Western cities, the levels grossly exceed 3-parts-per-billion. So what happens is that the cities, the water districts, are required to pay large amounts of money to filter the water so it is below that level. In addition, some have gone to the expense of completely cleaning it out of their water supplies. So that it doesn’t exist at all. And they should, in our view, be entitled to reimbursement for the expenses that they have incurred for completely cleaning it out of their water supplies.
Graham: Scientists that worked, then, for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association told me that during the application season, during the Spring, that they measured levels of Atrazine exceeding the safe drinking water levels in the rain on the East Coast from all of the application in the Midwest. Rather than just cleaning it up, is this not a problem of too much Atrazine – maybe we limit the amount?
Tillery: Well, the issue is whether or not it should be banned completely. The European Union has done exactly that. For all of the reasons that people look at – scientists look at – this chemical and point to the adverse health affects, changes to the environment, all of those reasons, the Europeans banned it some years ago.
Graham: The defense in most cases like this is: this is a regulated product, the label is the law, if it isn’t applied correctly, it’s the applicator – the farmer’s – fault; and if it is applied according to the label, the government says it’s safe.
Tillery: Yeah, we’re not safe. For two reasons. First of all, it’s not a problem with farmers. Farmers are doing exactly what is on the label. They are applying it precisely the way the manufacturer says it should be applied. So they’re not the issue. The problem is the manufacturer. To the extent that we rely on federal regulators to do the right thing, we are misdirected in this instance. For many years, the relationship between Syngenta – the principle manufacturer of this chemical – and the EPA has been under close scrutiny. And I’m hopeful that it’s reevaluated and examined under this new administration. Big corporations, in this case from Switzerland, who come here and sell this and make enormous profits in this country selling this chemical – 77 million pounds a year, average. When they make that money, and they cause taxpayers to incur $400 million a year in expense throughout the US to clean up their mess, they should be the ones that come back and reimburse them. We aren’t asking for anything else besides that. We are asking for compensation to these cities who’ve incurred this expense. The people who create the mess should pay for its cleanup. People should not be drinking water with Atrazine in it, at any level.
Graham: Steve Tillery is an attorney seeking class-action status trying to make the manufacturers of Atrazine pay to clean up the water their product contaminates. Thanks for your time.
Tillery: Thank you for allowing me to come here and speak.
It’s not uncommon for influenza viruses to be exchanged between pigs and humans
(Photo by Scott Bauer, courtesy of the USDA)
The current swine flu outbreak was first detected in a region of Mexico with large confined animal feeding operations – factory farms. Many environmentalists wonder if there’s a connection. Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
The current swine flu outbreak was first detected in a region of Mexico with large confined animal feeding operations – factory farms. Many environmentalists wonder if there’s a connection. Lester Graham reports:
A US government brochure indicates it’s not uncommon for influenza viruses to be exchanged between pigs and humans.
Mark Wilson is a professor of epidemeology at the University of Michigan. He says factory farms can make that exchange easier.
“The combination of animals being confined in close quarters as well as the large number of animals is likely to lead to more transmission of infectious agents among them. And as people – workers – are in contact with these animals, the possibility of transmission from those animals to those workers is increased. Absolutely.”
But, Wilson says it’s anyone’s guess whether this strain of swine flu began at a factory farm.
“Completely unknown at this point.”
Health officials from Mexico and the US Centers for Disease Control are investigating the source of the virus.
Brook Wilke and his son, Charlie, visit a test
farm at The Kellogg Biological Research Station. Wilke
and other researchers are testing how well perennial
versions of popular grain crops, such as wheat, will
grow in Michigan. The test farm isn't too far from Battle
Creek, the home of the commercial breakfast cereal industry. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
John Edgerton is a part-time farmer who's growing
test plots of perennial wheat on his Michigan farm. He's
interested in whether the plants might allow sheep to graze
a field after harvest, but still produce for years afterward. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
If you had a bowl of cereal or maybe a muffin this morning, you ate flour from an annual crop. They grow one season, they die, then get re-planted again the next year. Sounds as natural as could be, but repetitive planting can wear out farmland. It can cause soil erosion and cause more water pollution. Now, some scientists are trying to coax grain crops into growing for years at a time. Shawn Allee visited researchers who are testing perennial wheat in the heart of cereal country:
Transcript
If you had a bowl of cereal or maybe a muffin this morning, you ate flour from an annual crop. They grow one season, they die, then get re-planted again the next year. Sounds as natural as could be, but repetitive planting can wear out farmland. It can cause soil erosion and cause more water pollution. Now, some scientists are trying to coax grain crops into growing for years at a time. Shawn Allee visited researchers who are testing perennial wheat in the heart of cereal country:
I’ve headed to a test farm run by Michigan State University. It’s not that
far from Battle Creek,
Michigan where cereal companies like Kelloggs got started.
Dr. Sieg Snapp shows me grain that might make into our cereal bowls
someday.
Allee: “What are we looking at on this side?”
Snapp: “We have 6 varieties of perennial wheat.”
Right now, they kinda look like spindly blades of grass. But in some ways,
this is miraculous; regular
wheat dies after harvest. These have been harvested, and now they’re
popping back up.
“We’ll harvest these this summer, and then in the fall, they’ll re-grow.
They build a deep root
system, and they’re able to come back. So, at first, they start off very
similar, but they keep
growing longer, and they re-grow after harvest. That’s the real
difference.”
Actually, that’s just the start of the difference between annual grains
like wheat and perennial
varieties.
Dr. Snapp says when farmers plant most annual grain crops, soil gets torn
up again and again from
planting and replanting. Rain can wash away exposed top-soil.
Perennial crops get planted once every few years, so they might hold soil
and they might need less
fertilizer that runs off into streams and rivers.
Snapp: “So, the roots of traditional crops including annual wheat are
usually 1-2 feet. These
root systems might be down 6 feet. They can use fertilizers more
efficiently, so they can pick
it up from deep and then move it up where we want it, into the grain.”
Allee: “And if the roots are deep enough, you might need less herbicide
to kill weeds, right?
If that perennial wheat comes up strong enough, it’s already out-competing
the weeds that
are next to it?”
Snapp: “Right, and each year it should do it better for a couple years at
least, we don’t know
how long.”
Dr. Snapp and her colleagues use the word “maybe” a lot when they talk
about perennial grains. It’s
mostly because testing these crops is slow work. That’s one reason they’re
letting some farmers run
their own small tests.
She introduces me to one farmer.
“Hi John! Come on over!”
Part-time farmer and teacher John Edgerton says he checked his test batches
recently.
“I didn’t know what to expect and I went out there and low and behold,
it’s greening up
beautifully. In fact, now, it may be a little too thick. We’ll see.”
Edgerton wants to know whether sheep can get cheap feed from leftover wheat
grass, or whether
farmers could save on tractor fuel.
“One farmer said to me, you know, if I could get three or four years of a
decent crop of
perennial wheat without having to plow, there’d be enormous savings.”
Pretty soon, another perennial wheat researcher joins us in the test field.
He’s Brook Wilke.
He tells me, all this work on perennial wheat and other grains will work
best if the final product, the
grain, tastes like what we’re used to.
Allee: “I hear you baked some chocolate chip cookies with perennial
wheat.”
Wilke: “Yeah. A big component of this work is, “’will people eat the
perennial wheat?’”
Dr. Snapp tasted Wilke’s cookies. She says the wheat tasted kinda nutty,
but good.
Dr. Snapp says maybe one day, she and other researchers will prove
perennial grain plants can thrive.
After that, maybe bread or cereal companies, like Kellogs, will run
taste-tests of their own.
Wilson City Farm is part of Chicago's Resource Center, and Tim Wilson is the garden manager. The 1.25 acre plot produces eighty varieties of eleven crops. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
City Farm occupies a vacant lot owned by the City of Chicago. It lies at the heart of a fast-changing neighborhood. There are new condo buildings and non-profit housing centers cropping up alongside the Cabrini Green Housing Project. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
City Farm's greenhouse uses light-weight replaceable materials because the managers plan on moving every few years. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
Urban farming is supposed to be a solution to getting fresh, locally-produced food to city folk.
The movement’s taking off because a lot of cities have empty, vacant lots to plant on, but there’s a problem: city governments or developers won’t let growers stay on those lots forever.
Shawn Allee met one urban farmer who’s not worried about losing the farm:
Transcript
Urban farming is supposed to be a solution to getting fresh, locally-produced food to city folk.
The movement’s taking off because a lot of cities have empty, vacant lots to plant on, but there’s a problem: city governments or developers won’t let growers stay on those lots forever.
Shawn Allee met one urban farmer who’s not worried about losing the farm:
Ken Dunn’s City Farm looks less like a traditional farm than a construction site.
There’s fence around an acre or so of soil. There are two small sheds.
And there’s a greenhouse – but it’s not glass or anything – its plastic strung over a bunch of metal tubes.
These are available commercially for about 1,500 dollars and will last for many years. This is the third year this one’s been up.
Dunn makes no apology for the make-shift feel.
“This is a mobile farmstead. Our fence that surrounds this property has been in three locations in the past twenty years as have the tool shed, and office trailer. So, everything here can be picked up and moved within a week or, if necessary, within a couple days.”
In fact, Dunn’s planning on it. He’s on land owned by the City of Chicago, and he has to move next year.
“Our deal with them is that we are occupying it until they sell the property. I think it will be having luxury condominiums. I think they have a price tag of 6 million dollars on this acre. As tax payers we have to take the six million.”
But Dunn’s not worried – he’s lined up another lot to plant on.
Dunn thinks more urban farmers should be just as mobile as he is by keeping their equipment light and scouting for the next available growing space.
Here’s his argument: City governments or developers might let you squat on vacant land for a while, but you can’t count on them selling it to you at an affordable price – or just giving it you.
Seems reasonable enough, but I thought I’d ask urban farming groups how they take this mobile farm idea.
“In my opinion, it should be permanent.”
This is Erika Allen.
She heads the Chicago branch of a group called Growing Power.
“It shouldn’t be something that you have access to some land for a few years and then have to move. In my mind, that’s not agriculture.”
Allen says across the country, urban farms have provided fresh food and even jobs.
She says mobile farming kind of let’s city governments off easy; if urban farms are so useful, cities should help them own farmland.
“I think once we were able to prove you can grow food in the city and it can be productive and beautiful, then it’s an issue of policy. What’s the priority? Why aren’t we relegating some of this space just for urban agriculture?”
Ken Dunn says he’s heard this criticism before. He calls his mobile farming approach a little more realistic.
Dunn says rural farmers can’t grow everything they want, however they want; they have to adjust to the landscape, soil conditions, and weather.
He says he’s just adjusting to an urban reality: real-estate markets value commercial and residential property more than farmland.
“We have to operate this sustainably. That is, working within the forces that are operating instead of hoping to always get 15 years in some hidden corner or somewhere and it might turn into less because someone comes in overnight and bulldozes your project. So, sustainability means keeping operative from year to year with no setbacks. A planned move is no set-back at all.”
With that, Dunn has to leave.
It’s planting season and he and his staff have a lot of work. They want this crop to be special, since it could be their last growing season on this vacant lot.
Organic steak is hard to find, partly because so few slaughterhouses are certified organic. (Photo by David Benbennick, Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)
Organic farmers would love to have you dig into more of their pork, chicken and beef. It’s not just because they’re proud about how they raise their animals – it’s because certified organic meat fetches high prices. But organic meat is harder to find than you’d expect, and it’s partly because there are few organically-certified slaughterhouses.
Shawn Allee found a farming community that came up with a solution:
Transcript
Organic farmers would love to have you dig into more of their pork, chicken and beef.
It’s not just because they’re proud about how they raise their animals – it’s because certified organic meat fetches high prices.
But organic meat is harder to find than you’d expect, and it’s partly because there are few organically-certified slaughterhouses.
Shawn Allee found a farming community that came up with a solution:
Dennis and Emily Wettstein turned their Illinois farm organic a while ago, mostly because conventional farming wasn’t practical for them.
“All the money seemed to go to pay for the fertilizers and the chemicals. And then I was more or less allergic to the chemicals. And so we were interested in getting away from that, especially if we were going to raise a family out here.”
The Wettsteins didn’t just raise grain organically – they kept chemicals and hormones out of their cattle.
“We started raising meat for ourselves and our families. Then, pretty soon, just word of mouth, friends and neighbors wanted meat.”
And, they found people who’d pay top dollar for their meat.
“We sell at the Oak Park farmers market.”
That’s just west of Chicago.
“Right. The Oak Park market managers, they are working on all the farmers to go towards organic.”
And that worked for the Wettsteins – they had USDA certified organic chicken.
“There’s one other meat vendor there – it’s not organic. So, we have no competition. We feel that, with that label on there, we can set our price to where we can make a profit.”
But Emily Wettstein says that term – organic – gave them trouble when it came to beef and other meat.
“We were getting a little bit pressured from other people, ‘Well, you can’t call your item organic. You don’t have a processing facility with the term of certified organic.'”
Here was the problem: For meat to get labeled USDA certified organic, it’s gotta be certified from the farm to the slaughterhouse.
The Wettsteins had someone to process organic chicken, but they were out of luck with pigs and cows.
There was no certified slaughterhouse for beef or pork in Illinois.
So, the Wettsteins and some relatives prodded meat lockers to get certified.
There was one taker.
“I’m inside a meat locker that’s about a fifteen minute drive from the Wettstein farm. It’s owned by Scott Bittner, and I’m here to understand what organic certification means for his business. How do I put this, there’s a headless, hoofless, skinless cow hanging from your ceiling. Where are we exactly?”
We’re on the kill floor. We had seventeen, eighteen cattle today. Seven of those were organic.
So, walk me through how you have to treat that organic cow differently.
It’s the first thing we did this morning – that’s one thing. Other than that, it’s segregating it in the cooler from the non-organic product and then processing it at a later time, which, again, you have to do first thing in the morning.
So, the basic idea is segregation?
Yeah, it is. The whole way through. Exactly.
Bittner’s simplifying things, but not much.
He has to clean or swap equipment between batches of organic and conventional meat.
There are rules on the kinds of chemicals he can use. And he hires a certification company to monitor his paper work.
Bittner says overall, it’s easy, and he’s surprised more slaughterhouses haven’t done it.
“Here we’re doing all our fabricating – grinding sausage, ground beef. Cutting some chops, ribs.”
“How does it feel to be the only guy who can process an organic side of beef?”
“I want to keep it quiet – I don’t want too many people to get started doing what I’m doing because it’s nice. I get two or three customers every year that I didn’t have before. When you go to bed at night and think about this economy being the way it is, every little bit helps.”
Bittner says farmers drive animals up to four hours to slaughter their animals here.
He says he’s proud of his work but can’t take too much credit; he knows he’s got a local organic slaughtering monopoly going.
That might change some day, but for now it’s reason enough to keep his knives sharp.
Rice harvesting in Fort Bend County, Texas (Photo by David Nance, courtesy of the USDA)
The US is not farming as much land. Kyle Norris reports farmland equal to the size of the entire state of West Virginia has been taken out of production in the last few years:
Transcript
The US is not farming as much land. Kyle Norris reports farmland equal to the size of the entire state of West Virginia has been taken out of production in the last few years:
The United States Department of Agriculture surveyed farmers from 2002 to 2007.
During that time farmers stopped planting more than 16 million acres of farmland.
In some cases farmers retired. Or they just decided not to plant crops. Or sold the land to developers in sprawling areas.
Don Buckloh is with the American Farmland Trust. He says what happens to farmland should be important to people.
“They should be interested in whether good farm land is remaining available to produce the food they’re interested in eating. And then secondly just how strong is agriculture in the community as an economic force.”
While less land is being farmed, the USDA says there are more farms. The survey counted 291,000 new farms during that time. Most of those new farms are smaller operations.
A corn ethanol refinery- The ethanol industry is asking the EPA to raise the legal limit of ethanol that can be added to regular gasoline from 10 to 15%. (Photo by Grant Hellman, Courtesy of US Department of Agriculture)
In the 1970s, the government limited the amount of ethanol that can be blended with gasoline at 10 percent. Now, a trade group called Growth Energy has asked the U-S EPA to raise the limit to 15 percent:
Transcript
In the 1970s, the government limited the amount of ethanol that can be blended with gasoline at 10 percent.
Now, a trade group called Growth Energy has asked the U-S EPA to raise the limit to 15 percent.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has already said that 12 or 13 percent ethanol is possible soon.
But, an environmental groups says, “slow down.”
Jeremy Martin is with the Union of Concerned Scientists. He says, first, the government should make sure that a higher-ethanol blend doesn’t damage pollution controls on vehicle engines.
“We don’t want to quickly make a change and then find out that we’ve caused a lot of damage to lots of vehicles on the road or caused a lot of air quality impacts.”
Supporters of the increased ethanol blend say it would help US corn farmers and reduce the demand for foreign oil. But opponents say ethanol made from corn does more harm to the environment than good.
USDA Wildlife Services Killed 90,000 Coyotes in 2007 (Photo courtesy of Michigan Department of Natural Resources)
More than a hundred environmental
organizations want the incoming head of
the US Department of Agriculture to stop
killing wildlife. The agency has an office
that kills wild animals to save livestock.
Jennifer Szweda Jordan has more:
Transcript
More than a hundred environmental
organizations want the incoming head of
the US Department of Agriculture to stop
killing wildlife. The agency has an office
that kills wild animals to save livestock.
Jennifer Szweda Jordan has more:
The Center for Biological Diversity, the Sierra Club, and dozens of other groups signed on to a letter to Tom Vilsack. Vilsack is President-elect Obama’s pick for Agriculture Secretary. The environmental coalition is upset about the department’s Wildlife Services Agency. That agency removes or kills animals that threaten crops, farm animals, or cause other nuisances. Wildlife Services agents reported in 2007 that they killed more than two million animals, including 90-thousand coyotes, sometimes through poisoning.
Tom Vilsack did not return a call seeking comment about the letter.
The environmental groups say the poisonings and killings disrupt the balance of nature, and can leave persistent chemicals behind.
For The Environment Report, I’m Jennifer Szweda Jordan.
The Government Accountability Office identified food safety as one of the major issues for the new administration to address
(Photo by Ken Hammond, courtesy of the USDA)
As President Obama starts looking at
priorities, he or his staff will
have to take a look at the “Urgent
Issues” identified by the Government
Accountability Office. There’s a list
of 13 Urgent Issues, ranging from the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the
oversight of financial institutions and
markets. Food safety is also on that list.
The Environment Report’s Lester Graham
spoke with Lisa Shames. She’s with the
GAO. She says food safety issues such
as the current recall of peanut butter
contaminated by salmonella are becoming
a real concern:
Transcript
As President Obama starts looking at
priorities, he or his staff will
have to take a look at the “Urgent
Issues” identified by the Government
Accountability Office. There’s a list
of 13 Urgent Issues, ranging from the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the
oversight of financial institutions and
markets. Food safety is also on that list.
The Environment Report’s Lester Graham
spoke with Lisa Shames. She’s with the
GAO. She says food safety issues such
as the current recall of peanut butter
contaminated by salmonella are becoming
a real concern:
Lisa Shames: I think we’re all becoming more aware of how globalized our food
supply is. More and more is being imported. And, we’re also keenly aware of
the publicity that the recent outbreaks have had. Two and a half years ago, it
started with spinach, and, most recently with peanut butter. And, in between,
we’ve become aware of ingredients that may have become part of the food
supply, such as the melamine in pet food, and, most recently, in milk products.
And, we’re also facing the risk that federal dollars are not being spent as
efficiently and effectively as possible.
Lester Graham: Well, I guess I understand that, but I’m more concerned about
whether I can buy food at the supermarket or at other places and be sure that it’s
safe.
Shames: Well, let me say at the outset that, overall, our food supply is generally
safe. But there are challenges, because the demographics are such that we’re
going to be more susceptible to food-borne outbreaks. The population is getting
older, pregnant women are more vulnerable to these food-borne outbreaks, as
well as those who have immune deficiencies.
Graham: Now, a GAO report that I read indicated there are a lot of government
agencies duplicating efforts, and, in some cases, there are gaps in food
inspection. How did we end up with such a hodge-podge of efforts on something
as important as food safety?
Shames: The food safety structure has evolved piece-meal. And, what has
happened is that the Department of Agriculture is responsible for meat, and
poultry, and processed eggs, and the Food and Drug Administration is
responsible for seafood and fresh produce. Even that now has become a little
more fragmented, in that the oversight of catfish is now the responsibility of the
Agriculture Department. So, it’s a system that has many players involved, and
there really is no formal mechanism for them to work in a more coordinated and
efficient manner.
Graham: We also get some conflicting messages from agencies. Recently, the
Food and Drug Administration proposed that women who are pregnant or could
become pregnant eat more fish, while the Environmental Protection Agency
advises that those same women eat less fish because of contaminates such as
mercury. Why is there so much confusion?
Shames: Well, part of it is that there’s no convening mechanism for these
agencies to talk with each other. For example, a number of years ago, there was
a food safety council that was in place. We’ve also found that a government-
wide plan could also ensure that the goals of these agencies are complementary,
as well as the data that they collect, and the information they disseminate is
consistent and minimizes any confusion on the public’s part.
Graham: Are we talking about a sort of food czar?
Shames: Well, that is a possibility. We feel that agencies at least have to sit
around the table. And that really is one of our key recommendations to the
Congress and to the new administration. We’ve also asked for re-examination of
the food laws to make sure that they are consistent and uniform, as well as risk-
based. And that way we can target the scarce federal dollars where they’re
needed the most.
One crop that Carbofuran was used on is potatoes (Photo by Scott Bauer, courtesy of the USDA)
