The E. coli in this burger may not come from it being under cooked, but from the lettuce or onion that was possibly irrigated with effluent water from a municipal wastewater treatment plant that did not adequately filter out all bacteria prior to being used to irrigate farmland.
An ag industry newspaper called The Packer is reporting the discovery of E. coli in Romaine Lettuce coming out of the Salinas Valley in California. While this bit of news is not attached to reports of human illness preceding such a recall, this news serves as another black eye for California’s vegetable industry.
According to the article, the Andrew Smith Co. of Salinas recalled 1,000 cartons of lettuce on May 7 “after tests showed the presence of E. coli in a bag of romaine lettuce, the day after another company recalled romaine products — but the two recalls are apparently unrelated.”
While the article does not address it, it’s been reported that farms in the Salinas Valley have for several years now used treated sewage water from municipal wastewater treatment plants as a means of irrigating their crops. The move, according to one website, came in response about a decade ago to the intrusion of salt water in wells that irrigated the high-value vegetable crops grown in the Monterey and Salinas area of Central California.
Just a couple years ago more cases of E. coli were reportedly linked to spinach and other crops coming out of the same growing region of California.
This political and PR nightmare is not what Central Coast growers — or any farmers for that matter — need. But it’s one that farmers have invited upon themselves by agreeing with cities to take toxic water from wastewater treatment plants and use it to irrigate the crops we eat.
It was for this very reason that about a decade ago farmers in neighboring counties of Central California got together and banned the land application of sewage sludge and the use of treated effluent water on farmlands in agriculturally rich counties such as Stanislaus, Merced and San Joaquin. At the same time, farmers in Kern County California were being exposed in newspaper articles there about their practice of having sludge trucked in from nearby Orange and Los Angeles counties for use as “soil amendments.” That news surprised some vegetable farmers in Kern County, who immediately denied using sludge — the industry term is “biosolids” — on their farmland and tried to get an ordinance similar to other counties in order to ban the import and use of sewage sludge on farmlands there. Their fears not only stemmed from the possible contamination of their crops, but from the associated public relations nightmare they feared would befall them once word got out that municipalities were using carrot crops and other farmland to dispose of their municipally treated sewage.
Fast-forward a decade and we see the seeds of these fears bearing fruit in the form of tainted lettuce, spinach and other crops coming out of the nation’s salad bowl. In the expedience of getting rid of treated sewage solids and liquids, farmers have become an easy target for the cities as they push biosolids as a safe and cheaper alternative to other kinds of soil amendments.
The counties that argued against the land application of sewage sludge did so on the grounds that there are truly no guarantees that the treatment processes used eliminates all of the toxins and heavy metals that are part of the municipal waste stream. In short, it’s not just the human waste that gets flushed down all those toilets, but everything else from the petroleum products to the dangerous chemicals illegally dumped by businesses and clandestine drug labs that makes it into the waste stream at the municipal waste treatment facilities that is also a big part of what gets dumped on farmland through these agreements between the cities and farmers.
When are farmers going to learn that they can’t play roulette with cities and expect to not lose when the public learns of these practices and stops buying their produce? The cities surely have no stake in farms losing their ability to sell their crops; it’s the farmers who have everything to lose when consumers decide to stop buying their produce. What happens when packing industry efforts to move more fruits and vegetables through the USDA school lunch program are successful and we wind up with thousands of sick or dead school children because of a few bags of tainted lettuce or other commodities — all because cities coerced farmers to use treated sewage products on their farmland?
Thank you for alerting your readers to one of the hidden environmental problems caused by the EPA, the agency that is supposed to protect human health and the environment. Several decades ago, the EPA formed a coalition with sewage sludge lobbying groups who profit from sludge spreading, cities who need to get rid of this stuff, and industry-friendly scientists whose biased research would provide a bogus scientific foundation of the claim that spreading sludge on farms is safe, beneficial, and sustainable. This coalition ignored the fact that the Federal Clean Water Act defines sewage sludge/biosolids as a pollutant, in fact, a complex and unpredictable mix of ten of thousands of contaminant, generated by households and every industry that is connected to the sewage system. Every industry, business, and institution in the nation is permitted every month to discharge 33 pounds of HAZARDOUS wastes into sewage treatment plants. Here this waste, together with superfund leachate, radioactive waste, pathogens, is removed from the waste water and CONCENTRATES in the resulting sludge/biosolids.
Some sludge contaminants remain in the so-called clean waste water. But most concentrate in the biosolids.
Bioslids exposure has been linked to groundwater pollution, poisoned land, live stock deaths, and human illnesses and deaths. But the powerful EPA/industry coalition denies that there are problems and refuses to put in place tighter restrictions or bans. Does it really make sense to continue to use this highly contaminated waste as a “fertilizer”? Instead, sewage sludge should be used as a renewable source of non-fossil fuel energy. For additional information visit http://www.sludgefacts.org
It is not just the industrial and clandestine chemicals and other pollutants that are a worry, its the superbugs. But this is not new information In 1982, following a major EPA study on antibiotic resistant pathogens being generated and environmentally released by sewer plants, the study was published in a peer reviewed journal. But, interestingly, that study was soon sequestered by EPA as it could conflict with the EPA program of promoting the use of biosolids in agriculture. It would not look good to admit that sewage byproducts also spread antibiotic resistance. An interesting parallel is noted between the advancement of community acquired antibiotic resistance and the expanded use of sewage byproducts in agriculture and municipal green-scape. The EPA has, for years, been very cagey about discussing this; generally flatly refusing to discuss the topic at all. Unfortunately, the same thing happens in the reclaimed water that is controlled by the State of California. The state will not discuss this but at the same time it is promoting the use of recycled reclaimed water on crops as well as school playing fields. My research group has tested this type of water and we are finding it contains multi-antibiotic resistant pathogens and bacteria at levels that are astonishingly high. The Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF), which is the research arm of the water industry has released reports on both the failure of standards to protect the public health and also studies on reclaimed water, showing that the public health is at risk, see: http://www.werf.org/pdf/00PUM2T.pdf..
Harwood, et al (http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/short/71/6/3163) republished the WERF results and in discussing finished reclaimed (recycled) water demonstrated the following: “Microorganisms were detected in the finished state certified disinfected reclaimed water at the following frequencies: total coliforms, 63%; fecal coliforms, 27%; enterococci, 27%; C. perfringens, 61%; F-specific coliphages, 40%; and enteric viruses, 31%. Cryptosporidium oocysts and Giardia cysts were detected in 70% and 80%, respectively, of reclaimed water samples. Viable Cryptosporidium, based on cell culture infectivity assays, was detected in 20% of the reclaimed water samples. No strong correlation was found for any indicator-pathogen combination. When data for all indicators were tested using discriminant analysis, the presence/absence patterns for Giardia cysts, Cryptosporidium oocysts, infectious Cryptosporidium, and infectious enteric viruses were predicted for over 71% of disinfected effluents. The failure of measurements of single indicator organism to correlate with pathogens suggests that public health is not adequately protected by simple monitoring schemes based on detection of a single indicator, particularly at the detection limits routinely employed. “
Note in the above passage from Harwood, et al that pathogens are getting through these systems in worrisome amounts. These pathogens in the Harwood work were not tested for antibiotic resistant pathogens but from the work of the US EPA (see: Meckes (1982: http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/43/2/371.pdf), sewer plants are a major generator of antibiotic resistance. To this should be added the work of Amy Pruden on antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) which are not affected by chlorine at levels typically used by wastewater or drinking water treatment and are so small that they sail through typical filters, see: http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?0615216. None of this seems to be considered by the state regulators.
The National Academy of Science—National Research Council was asked to review the use of land applied biosolids. In the 2002 NRC report in discussing antibiotic resistance cited six papers in its review of land applied sewage sludge. Recycled water receives considerably more treatment than biosolids but we are still seeing the pass-through of complex multi-drug-resistant pathogens that pose serious threats to the public health. Some of the cited NRC papers are briefed below because the bear on the topic and citations are found at the end. When we discuss gene transfer, especially transfer that can be acquired by the human intestinal biota, the paper by Lawrence bears note. It has been held by some industry pundits that acquired resistance (lateral gene transfer) is a sometime–short time thing. Such is not the case. Lawrence notes that incorporation of DNA fragments conferring resistance or virulence can transform a benign strain of bacteria into a pathogen in but a single step. Acquired horizontally transferred genes do last for some time, Lawrence suggests, however, very few are maintained more than 10 million years [that's right 10 (Myr)]. Pillai (1996) also notes that wastewater associated bacteria which exhibit multiple resistance patterns are able to transfer genes while within sewer plants at relatively high rates. Others have noted this. For example, Nakamura et al, as found elsewhere, noted——-”The further along that wastewater had progressed through the treatment process the greater the tendency was for appearance of the multiresistant isolates. Ochman notes that transformation involves the uptake of naked DNA from the environment. It also has the potential to transmit between vary distantly related organisms. Some bacteria are constantly ready to take up naked DNA but others need to reach certain stages in their life cycle, nonetheless are capable of high-level transformation.
The question, following all this, what political pressures are placed upon growers and the state regulators by the wastewater industry to allow this? There is a long history of good science saying this is bad for public health. Perhaps the profits and reelection contributions are just too big and can not be ignored. It is something that the people need to deal with, the government has failed and industry seems interested in profit over public health.
Papers cited in the 2002 NRC report chapter discussing antibiotic resistance..
Arana, I. Survival and Plasmid Transfer Ability of Escherichia coli in Wastewater. Water, Air & Soil Pollution 126: 223-38, 2001.
Chee-Sanford, JC. Occurrence and Diversity of Tetracycline Resistance Genes in Lagoons and Groundwater Underlying Two Swine Production Facilities. Appl & Environ Microbiol, Apr 2001, p. 1494-1502.
Hirsch, R. Occurrence of antibiotics in the aquatic environment. Sci Tot Environ 225 (1999) 109-118.
Lawrence, JG. Molecular archeology of the Escherichia coli genome. Proc Natl Acad Sci, USA, Vol 95, pp. 9413-17, Aug 1998.
Ochman, H. Lateral gene transfer and the nature of bacterial innovation. Nature. Vol 405/18 May 2000, pp. 299-304.
Pillai, SD. Prevalence of Fluoroquinolone-Resistant Escherichia coli in Agricultural and Municipal Waste Streams. Bioresouece Technology 68 (1996) 57-60.
Pillai, SD. Antibiotic Resistance Profiles of Escherichia coli Isolated from Rural and Urban Environments. Environ Sci & health. A32(6), 1665-75 (1997).
Why are we forever trying to make farmers the scapegoats and the gate keepers?!!! Why are farmers supposed to be able solve the sludge problem for all of us?!!! The logic of this article in placing the blame for the disposal of our waste materials on farmers escapes me. We enlightened ones know the terrible lasting damage that sludge causes to the soil and therefore crops and animals. How many of your neighbors, friends, colleagues know this? Why then farmers???? Go educate them, good idea, but don’t hang the blame on them for being ignorant!!!!
Nobody’s making farmers the scapegoats on the sludge issue, at least not yet. The EPA banned the ocean dumping of sludge many years ago after they determined that it was hazardous to aquatic life. How then is the same stuff not hazardous to humans? Certainly pouring it on our food supply can’t be better than pouring it in the oceans. All that aside, farmers have been duped by cities and the EPA into accepting these toxic waste materials under the guise that it’s been rendered safe by the municipal process.
I’m simply trying to get farmers to wake up to the connection they have with consumers and to realize that it’s their livelihoods and the entire American agricultural industry that they’re sacrificing by accepting sewage sludge as a fertilizer product. I’m not a farmer; I’m a consumer. I want the food I buy to be safe and not make me or my daughter ill, or worse, kill us.
The US EPA, in concert with the municipal waste lobby, has duped some farmers into accepting this stuff under duress. I know farmers no longer in business because the agencies that held their government permits to operate forced them out of business through onerous regulations and downright illegal moves.
Why?
Here is a heads-up on what is happening with biosolids in Florida:
http://seeing2020.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/central-florida-sewage-sludge-dumping/
Pingback: Spreading the News about Bad Fertilizer « Sludgeblog Site
Pingback: Is sewage sludge to blame? | Across the Back Fence