The Makings of A Toxic Waste Dump

Arkansas rice growers don’t mess around! They’ve gone for the jugular asking the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Arkansas for a jury trial to decide the merits of their claim that chicken industry practices are responsible for high levels of arsenic being detected in their crops.

The lawsuit follows on the heels of Consumer Reports, November Issue, revealing data that white rice grown in Arkansas as well as Louisiana, Missouri, and Texas may contain arsenic levels that are too high. Named in the lawsuit are Tyson, Pilgrim’s Pride, George’s Farm, George’s Processing, George’s Inc., and Peterson Farms Inc. along with drug company czar, Pfizer.

The short version of the story is that Pfizer is the drug dealer, selling arsenic compounds such as 3-Nitro to the drug using poultry companies!
It’s a well-known fact that for decade’s arsenic has been fed to chickens raised in industrial poultry production.

Industry addiction to arsenic comes from the need to feed for rapid weight growth and control intestinal parasites, coccidiosis (cocci). Although both arsenic and cocci are naturally occurring in the environment in small amounts, the excessive levels in this case are said to be a result of heavily concentrated industrial chicken production.

Normally, cocci can be controlled through pasture management and rotational grazing of farm animals. When animals are raised in a totally confined space year after year cocci can’t be controlled through allowing that space to “rest”. As an intestinal parasite cocci becomes a problem. Chickens don’t convert feed to pounds of meat efficiently and that means slower growth and higher production costs. Enter arsenic.

The arsenical compounds added to chicken feed are consumed by the chicken and passes through the animal into its waste. That waste is then spread on farm fields as fertilizer for crops. Ironically, chicken manure has been touted as an asset by some industry leaders because of its value as a fertilizer. Arsenic is a heavy metal and doesn’t break down in the environment. Where is the value in a continual buildup of arsenic in farm fields and the environment?

Because chicken companies control every aspect of chicken production and retain title of the chickens, feed, and medications – the buck stops there. Known as “vertical integration”, chicken companies contract with farms to “raise” the chickens to a marketable age. Feed that those chickens eat is formulated, mixed, and delivered to contract farms by the companies. Under contract terms the farmers must use the feed formula delivered as dictated by the company.

The lawsuit should come as no surprise. Recent years have seen mounting evidence of residual arsenic at levels higher than normal from concentrated chicken production. http://oldfarmerlady.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/maryland-becomes-first-state-to-ban-arsenic-in-poultry-feed/ The state of Maryland went so far as to ban the use of one arsenical, Roxarsone, in chicken feed this past year. Roxarsone is a product acquired by Pfizer in its acquisition of Alpharma and was voluntarily withdrawn from the market by Pfizer. Good idea!

On the flip side – Tyson denies any wrong doing. According to Food Safety News, spokesperson for Tyson, Gary Mickelson, says that the company is still reviewing the lawsuit and that “it appears to be an example of creative lawyers trying to use frivolous litigation to extract money from companies that have done nothing wrong”…… Really, are you kidding me? One of my Facebook friends wondered if this was the best they (Tyson) could come up with.

In my last blog post, Food to Die For, I said that “I for one am sick and tired of continually hearing about evidence of arsenic in our food supply and it’s not because the evidence is uncovered and keeps mounting”. I’m also sick and tired of hearing industry denials of any wrong doing. It’s like a bunch of little kids who get into trouble and they all say “I didn’t do it”. I say “man up and own it”!

While poultry companies have reaped the benefits (dollars) of the use of arsenic they were also turning a blind eye to the consequences of their actions. They straight up just didn’t care. It brings to mind a discussion that I had with an industry trade union representative about contract growers having a right to know that arsenic was in the company feed and what they were being exposed to. The reply from this joker was “did you ask”. Another one of those creative and frivolous industry answers!

Some poultry companies are claiming that they don’t feed their chickens any additives containing arsenic. While that may be true at the present time, all of the arsenic that they used in the past hasn’t magically disappeared. My husband has often remarked that “we should put a chain link fence around the Delmarva Peninsula, and call it a toxic waste dump” because of all “the company toxic waste from their chickens that is dumped on our farm fields”. No one knows how much toxicity is in our soil and required government soil testing is only for nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium levels. It is not mentioned or recommended that soil testing should be done for heavy metals or toxic waste such as arsenic.

Chicken feed formulas are considered to be a “trade secret” and therefore companies don’t have to reveal what is in their feed. That being the case, secretive testing of feed would have to be done for anyone to get an idea of what is actually being fed to chickens, and of course that could be considered to be a “theft” because the chicken companies own the feed. Creative government regulations and laws make it impossible to verify any claims by chicken companies about what is or isn’t being fed to their chickens.

History will repeat its self! In the end I can imagine that the battery of defense lawyers will come up with some fancy foot work and legal maneuvering to either keep this lawsuit going for many years to come or go for a settlement which will be gag ordered! The arsenic will remain in our soil and we will more than likely read or hear about future discoveries of arsenic in our food supply.

Land of Confusion – Part III Is It Organic?

The summer has been busy on the farm and has kept me from my favorite pastime – writing! As I’ve been outside working I’ve conjured up all kinds of topics of discussion in our land of confusion called farming. I know, I keep intending to bring the subject of genetics into my next discussion but there are things that keep leading me astray.

A recent article in the New York Times, “Has Organic’ Been Oversized” written by Stephanie Strom on July 7th captured my attention and I’ve been thinking of little else.

What disturbed me the most was the admission by Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director at the Organic Consumers Association saying “I understand that there are very few 100 percent organic businesses left…”. If a consumers association readily admits what has been whispered among us farmers out here trying to the right thing I have to ask myself what’s the point in trying to produce under a label that has been bastardized like the rest of our food system. Is it any wonder that farmers and consumers are confused?

Becoming organic certified is an expensive and time consuming prospect for a farmer. In doing so, farmer’s intention is to produce food for consumers that is free of GMO’s, additives, chemicals, and the list goes on. Traditionally organic has had the implied meaning of food in its purist form.

In 1990 our government set into motion the Organics Food Production Act requiring the U.S Department of Agriculture to develop national standards for organically produced products and to assure consumers that agricultural products sold as organic meet consistent, uniform standards. A National Organic Standards Board was created to make recommendations in the development of organic standards and certification. The 15 member board was to be representative of interested parties: farmer/grower; handler/processor; retailer; consumer/public interest; environmentalist; scientist; and certifying agent. Okay, that sounds easy enough!

At the time organic products were a niche market being produced by farmers labeled as left over hippies and the production and sales didn’t put a dent into the mainstream food market. I distinctly remember in the mid 90’s meeting many of these so called “hippie farmers”. Being part of the industrialized food production world my mindset was not in the same mode as theirs and I wondered why in the world they would create so much more work for their selves on the farm when chemicals could take care of most of the work.

The organic markets began to develop and grow. By 2011 organic products demanded premium prices, consumers had become more aware of where their food was coming from and how it was being produced, and organic food was a $30 billion dollar industry. Consumers wanted better food without all of the junk.

Enter the “big boys” and let the bastardization party begin! Like Mr. Potter in the NY Times article I believe that the “so called organic food” needs to be challenged. I want to know where the protection is for the farmers who are doing all of the right things to be truly organic and where the protection is for the consumer to be totally assured that they are getting the real deal. According to the NY Times story – “Pure, locally produced ingredients from small family farms? Not so much anymore.”

Some believe that the organic standards are being watered down; green washed, and corrupted by corporate agribusiness giants who have entered the organic markets and are industrializing it. When I hear comments from the big boys saying that the demand is greater than the supply and that the demand requires the scale that only they can provide I say “look out”! Faux organics are here and confusion abounds.

This past year, I had reason to question organic and its relationship to raising chickens. I became aware of the fact that if I were to put 10,000 chickens into one of my chicken houses, feed certified organic feed, and allow them access to the outdoors, I could have an organic farm. I didn’t need to worry about the land around the chicken houses because no chemicals had been used over the past 3 years and I could easily fence in a “sun porch” for outside allowance and nothing said that the chickens actually had to go out.

In my mind organic was about much more than just what was fed to the chickens. 10,000 chickens crammed into a confinement house conjured up memories of the days of industrial production. What type of product would I be producing from animals living a miserable existence having only a look at the outdoors but never really experiencing it? The waste created from that many chickens would have to go somewhere.

A friend laughed at my irate comments over this and told me to go to the meeting of the National Organics Standards Board and express my thoughts. Then told me “come back and tell me if they heard you or if they even cared”. Something like – let me know how far you get. I knew it would be a waste of time. After reading the NY Times article and Mr. Potter saying he had done exactly as my friend suggested I do and got nothing but being allowed to speak for 3 minutes and then a “thank you”, I realize that this issue is much bigger. Assuring the integrity of organic food won’t come through government process it will only come from consumers knowing their farmer and seeing how their food is produced.

Maryland Becomes First State to Ban Arsenic In Poultry Feed

Proponents and advocates of banning the use of arsenic in poultry feed in Maryland are celebrating a hard won victory. On May 22, 2012, Maryland Governor, Martin O’Malley, signed into law, legislation banning arsenic in poultry feed. The bill goes into effect January 23, 2013. Maryland is the first state in the country to pass such a bill.

The legislation is a hard won victory for Environmental, Public Health, and Food Safety advocates and three long years of work is worth a celebration. Organizations such as Food and Water Watch, a Washington DC based non-profit appear to have their sights set on other states as well.

The use of arsenic in poultry feed has been a practice since the late 1940’s. Its use was intended for killing coccidiosis an intestinal parasite found in chickens. Referred to as “cocci” in the poultry industry the parasite reproduces in the intestinal tract of chickens and interrupts positive feed conversions raising the cost of production. Side benefits discovered by industry were faster weight gain (growth promoter) and added color. Arsenicals became more important for faster growth rather than killing intestinal parasites.

Mostly unknown to the outside world, arsenic is a routine feed additive for industrially produced chickens no matter if cocci is present or not or diagnosed by a veterinarian. Thinking back to my days of industrial chicken production there was a time when the higher ups of the company we contracted with told us we had a cocci problem. This went on for several months until we asked for a visit from the company vet. After having that visit and the company vet telling us we didn’t have a cocci problem feed conversion issues disappeared. Arsenic in the feed delivered by the company didn’t disappear as it continued to arrive in the company feed.

Banning the use of arsenic in poultry feed and specifically mentioning Roxarsone, is a great first step. I worry about this piece of legislation because there are ways around it. Loopholes!

Arsenicals are available in liquid form and can be delivered through the drinking water. Since the Maryland legislation specifies “feed”, industry in its infinite wisdom could use water administration of arsenic.

The legislation also specifies “commercial feed” and one wonders what the definition is for those words. Theoretically, there is no buying or selling of feed within the relationship between a poultry company and the farmers it contracts with. Although feed usage is used in the complicated formula administered by the company to pay farmers at the end of the flock there are no actual cash transactions when the company delivers feed to the farm. Technically, the company owns the feed.

Secondly, feed formulation is a “trade secret” and is proprietary information of the company. How will any government agency have authority to test feed ingredients? Claiming TOP SECRET will be a way out for poultry companies.

I have to applaud Maryland legislators in their efforts. However after the applause dies down, there are issues left in the dust.

I was particularly surprised with concerns listed over the use of arsenic and concerns excluded. The law specifies that it will be “abrogated and of no further force and effect if a specific arsenical additive receives approval by the US Food and Drug Administration if it includes evaluation of human food safety, impact on the environment, safety to animals, effectiveness of drug for its intended use, and chemistry and manufacturing procedures”.

Nowhere is there any mention of the effects on the farmers who are forced to be exposed to arsenic on a daily basis having no choice or say in what the company delivers to the farm. I gave testimony before the Maryland Senate committee hearing asking legislators to pass the bill for the sake of the farmer who has no choice in the matter. Quite frankly, I don’t believe that legislators are informed or had delved into the company/farmer contract relationship or how that system works.

The tangled web of how the poultry industry operates is nearly impossible to figure out unless one has operated within it. I look for future battles over the current law and judiciary proceedings over the loopholes that the Einstein’s within the poultry industry will use.

Independent Contractor – to be or not to be?

My last post about Waterkeeper Alliance vs. Perdue and Allen and Kristin Hudson brought out many issues associated with the case. The saga continues………..

The lawsuit is about pollutants finding their way to drainage ditches surrounding a chicken CAFO owned by the Hudson’s into a tributary of the Pocomoke River and eventually the Chesapeake Bay. It also questions ownership and responsibility of the waste discharged from the farm naming Perdue as the legal owner of the chickens that produce the waste.

On November 17, 2011 both sides in the case filed a motion for summary judgment and in doing so many legal documents in the case were made available to the public. Public perusal of these court records brings to light many other issues.

It’s hard for me to decide which of the other issues to start with.

Independent contractor status is a good place to begin. Contract poultry growers (chicken farmers) are classified as independent contractors by the companies they contract with to raise company owned chickens. The job of the farmer is to receive company chickens and raise them to a marketable age – PERIOD.

Not to put the chicken before the egg we have to look at where these contract chickens originate. It’s a complex web to untangle and there are many company steps involved before ever getting to the chicks placed on farms and grown. What is known is that the company designs, through genetic selection and engineering, what the final chicken will be. When placed on contract farms, the farmer has no choice or idea about the genetics, performance in growing of the chicken, or how much manure that chicken will produce.

Prior to chicks being placed on contract farms feed is delivered to the farm. This feed is formulated, mixed and delivered by the company. Feed ingredients are unknown to the famer and are a closely guarded secret claimed by companies to be a “trade secret”. The amount of feed delivered to the farm is unverifiable by the farmer and (s)he has to accept on “good faith” that the feed is what the company says it is. There are no options for contract farmers to acquire feed from another source because the contracts stipulate that feed comes from the company. This feed delivery process continues throughout the entire life cycle of the flock.

I have to insert here a few facts about the feed. Most people don’t understand that feed ingredient’s such as antibiotics/antimicrobials and arsenic isn’t the farmer’s choice to use or not use. This pertains to animal by-products in feed as well. Everything that goes into feed is decided by the chicken company and must be accepted and used by the farmer. Should a farmer decide to acquire feed from another source the farmer’s contract will be terminated.

The chicks delivered to contract farms derive from company owned hatcheries where the eggs are hatched into chicks. During the process at the company hatchery certain procedures could be performed such as in ovo injections of vaccines and antibiotics. In ovo is a process of injecting eggs before hatching and it’s anyone’s guess as to what is injected. Another company secret of which the farmer has no control over!

It could be assumed that the independent contractor, the farmer, comes into play once the chicks are on the farm for growing. That theory might hold water if the company only delivered the chicks and disappeared out of the raising process and returned to pick up the grown chickens for processing.

Throughout the flock company employees routinely come to the farm and manage the methods in which the farmer is raising the chickens. Court documents in the lawsuit revealed a company employee went so far as to leaving written instructions saying “need to work on these things ASAP’ and then listing things to be done. Some “notes” left by Perdue gave deadlines on work to be done and many notes referred to telling the farmer to do “heavy culling” (kill many chickens). If that is not telling the farmer what work to do, I’m at a loss to say what it is!

Other notes revealed that a Perdue employee set or adjusted equipment within the chicken house, moved fans around, culled chickens, and preformed many other tasks required in raising the chickens to a marketable age. These things are the job of the independent contractor not a company employee.

Again, I have to stop here and raise a question. Suppose some disaster should occur inside the chicken house because of the Perdue employee making a mistake in equipment adjustments such as ventilation and all of the chickens die (smother) – who would be responsible for the disaster? It’s my guess the blame would be laid at the farmer’s feet and income loss would be the farmer’s bitter pill to swallow. Having been a contract farmer I say this with ease because everything is always the farmers fault according to the company and there is no recourse for the farmer.

Reading court documents revealed that Perdue routinely performed farm operations inside of the chicken houses. It’s argued that the Perdue employee and Mr. Hudson had an understanding about this. The only time that I’m aware of the company coming on the farm, performing the daily tasks of the farmer, and caring for the flock would be if the company declared that the farmer was not doing his job and that the company was taking over. There is a clause in the contract that says that the company has the right to do that. However there are no supporting documents that say that Perdue made any such declaration or decision to take over the raising of the chickens on the Hudson farm.

Farmers have argued for a very long time that they aren’t independent contractors in their relationship with chicken companies. Independent – somebody or something that is free from control, dependence, or interference. Looking over court documents it’s clear that Perdue has some other definition of “independent”.

I remember a time in the early 1990’s Perdue declared all of its chicken catchers to be independent contractors. In the late 1990’s a lawsuit was filed against the company claiming that the chicken catchers were employees of the company not independent contractors. The lawsuit prevailed and a Federal Court found in favor of the chicken catcher’s. If memory serves me correctly, the court found Perdue willful in dealings with the chicken catchers.

Might Perdue also be willful in dealings with contract farmers?

Relevant legal documents and court pleadings

Thrown to the Wolves!

Up until now I’ve refrained from commenting about a monumental lawsuit which has been brewing in my neck of the woods, the Delmarva Peninsula.  I’ve done so because I knew that despite public persona there would come a time when the little guy in the case would be offered up as the sacrificial lamb.

The lawsuit filed by attorneys for the Waterkeepers Alliance (plaintiffs) against co-defendants Perdue and Alan and Kristin Hudson (defendants) claims discharge of pollutants from the Hudson’s farm in violation of the Clean Water Act and that Perdue has legal responsibility for it.

Locally known as the “Hudson Lawsuit” the case has a lot of history and has turned neighbor against neighbor.  At the crux of the issue is that the Hudson’s raise chickens under contract for Perdue and do so accordingly to dictates by the company.  Since the farmer doesn’t own the chickens or the feed they eat its questionable as to who owns the manure (chicken poop).

In the beginning, claims by the Hudson’s and Perdue were that photographs of mountains of manure stored on the Hudson farm were piles of bio-solids (waste) from Ocean City, MD not chicken poop.  Regardless of what was in the photographs, at issue is that the farm, that houses Perdue’s chickens, is a point source of discharge of nitrogen, phosphorous, and ammonia as well as bacteria (fecal coliform and E Coli) which the Waterkeeper Alliance sampled at high levels downstream from the farm and also citing on-site and leaving the farm sampling conducted by the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE).  Plaintiffs say this “confirms the poultry house pollutants are reaching the facility’s drainage ditches.”

The drainage ditches on the farm drain into Franklin Branch a tributary of the Pocomoke River which drains into the Chesapeake Bay.  Nitrogen and phosphorous have been long standing culprits in the killing of the Chesapeake Bay and efforts to clean up the Bay and revive it to its natural state have failed miserably over the years at the cost of millions to taxpayers.

We have a volatile mixture of people involved and interested in the outcome of the lawsuit and this is where the story gets really good.  Earlier motions filed by Perdue attempted to have the company dismissed as a defendant in the case which was denied.  This puts Big Chicken into hot water because if found guilty a precedent will be set for the country where corporate ag is responsible for the manure their animals produce.  I say “their animals” because legally they own the chickens, not the farmer.

Backing up Big Chicken are the usual attendees such as the Delmarva Poultry Industry INC. (DPI) the local industry trade union, allied industries and Farm Bureau.

Farmers have been propaganda-ized to the point of fearing for their livelihoods and believe that the environmentalists want to put them out of business.

The environmentalists, taxpayers, and the local public have become the nemesis of the farming community and are accused of not getting how it all works.  Outsider’s is what they’ve been labeled.

Just recently Maryland’s Governor, Martin O’Malley, stepped outside the bounds of legal decorum weighing in on the case and in a letter asked attorney’s for the plaintiffs to drop the case.

If anyone is confused by now don’t feel bad, you’re not alone.  I specifically recall asking the question in 1995 – who owns the manure.  In all of the initiatives set out toward cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay, no one, including our illustrious politicians, has answered that question in 16 years.  It’s come down to a lawsuit to determine the answer.

On November 17, 2011, court filings in U.S. District Court have asked for “summary judgment” in the case scheduled for a 3 week trial March 5, 2011.  Both sides presented arguments why the case should be resolved in their favor immediately.

This is where the story confirms my belief that the little guy (the farmer) would be thrown to the wolves.  Throughout the past couple of years Perdue and the camp followers have publically supported the Hudson’s, holding fund raisers for their legal defense fund and publishing a website in defense of the Hudson’s. Court documents recently filed cite internal Perdue email’s  – the Hudson Farm “is one of its 10 worst on the Eastern Shore of Maryland”.  This was based on an informal survey of Perdue farm managers.  I can only imagine what the farmer must think after staunchly defending Perdue.

Furthermore, in an effort to absolve the company from blame, Perdue legal arguments suggests ways that the judge could find the Hudson’s to be at fault for polluting – it was the Hudson’s cows that are the source of any pollutants.  I have to laugh because we have now moved from waste from Ocean City to waste from the cows.  In one deposition a suggestion is introduced that it was the wild geese.  Oh no folks, it can’t be from the chickens.

Perdue arguments also contend that Mr. Hudson “did not always follow Perdue’s advice”…  and “Mr. Hudson has not adopted various ‘best management practices,’ (such as hosing down the vents in a chicken house) recommended by Perdue.”

Could this be a case of “he who speaks with forked tongue”?  This is a perfect example of talking out of both sides of the mouth depending on who the target audience is at the moment.

I have to step up on my soap box…….  Big Chicken adamantly claims that they want to save farm families and then turn around and submit legal arguments to the contrary.  It reminds of little kids who get into trouble over something and they all claim “I didn’t do it” all the while coming up with some of the most ridiculous arguments as to why they shouldn’t be blamed and putting the blame off on another! PROPAGANDA – ized indeed!

Somewhere within the tangled web weaved practiced to deceive responsibility for pollution of the Chesapeake Bay from industry chicken poop will be decided.

I’ve spent countless hours reading over court documents.  Evasiveness and playing just plain dumb is the theme.  I especially loved reading some of the Perdue internal emails.  It’s quite obvious how the company big shots go about business.  One asks about farms that don’t have “curb appeal” meaning farms which don’t present a pretty picture.  Guess esthetically pleasing is now part of grower performance and whether the farmer has a contract to raise chickens for the company!

It’s my bet that the Hudson’s will not continue to contract with Perdue and more than likely any other chicken company on the Delmarva Peninsula.  It’s easy to sacrifice the little guy!

Relevant legal documents and court pleadings

Maryland Governor O’Malley Letter

Fast Forward….. Kill The Chesapeake Bay!

The Washington Post reports that an alarming “dead zone” is growing in the Chesapeake Bay because of unusually high nutrient levels this year. No kidding it’s being called alarming!

For as long as I can remember alarms have sounded about nutrient pollution associated with runoff into the Bay. Unfortunately, no one has paid much attention. Now officials in Virginia and Maryland are saying that this year the area of “dead zone” is on track to be the Bay’s largest in history.

We’ve pushed the “Fast Forward” button in the effort to kill the Chesapeake Bay and I have to wonder why. How much more needs to happen before we put a stop to the continuous bad behaviors that significantly contribute to the killing of the Bay?

Protectionism of Big Ag is a major culprit. It’s not the farmers, as we know farmers, it’s the powerful and tremendously wealthy lobbying associations of the major corporate players of food production and it’s no secret. Will Baker, President of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) has finally put a foot forward, after years of handling Big Chicken with kid gloves, and specifically said that we need to look at the amount of money that Washington lobbying associations “have given to candidates and lobbying, it’s in the hundreds of millions.”

Baker says that it’s “not mom and pop farmers” and the American Farm Bureau Federation’s director of energy and policy, Paul Schlegal, second’s that saying that “farmers in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed take a backseat to no one in their commitment to helping to clean up the bay”. This is where it gets confusing for ordinary folks.

If it’s not the farmers who are wantonly polluting and killing the bay with nitrogen and phosphorous runoff, who is it? The farm has been the scapegoat for decades because it’s the end of the line for Big Ag. Intensified, concentrated animal feeding operations to raise our nation’s meat and poultry has become the major player of production and if farmers want to remain on the farm this is the choice that they have. Unless a farmer raises animals according to the dictates of corporations there are not many who are able to stay on the farm. Period!

The dictates by Big Ag have turned farming into industrial sized production cramming animals into confined buildings on as little land as possible without thought as to how the land will safely handle all of the manure produced. It’s not about feeding people it’s about lining the coffers, and pockets, of a handful of select corporations who control our nation’s food supply.

The madness of the vicious circle we are entrapped in positively indicates that we can no longer afford to turn a blind eye. The land can only handle a certain amount of animal production before runoff from manure causes major problems in our streams, rivers, and eventually the Chesapeake Bay.

Studies, plans, initiatives, and nutrient reduction goals are continuously conducted, set, and not met. Every year increase in animal production occurs regardless of the fact that nutrient levels must be reduced. What does it take for our illustrious politician to understand that increased animal production means increased amounts of manure leading to more runoff?

It’s become a joke where EPA is easily blamed and lawsuits from both sides of the issue are thrown at the agency. The environmental side sues EPA for having weak anti-pollution measures. When the agency set forth a “pollution diet” last December to dramatically reduce the amount of nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment that states in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed can allow in the Bay from municipalities and farms, the Farm Bureau sues EPA to stop the plan from going forward. A damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation for EPA!

Meanwhile, the Chesapeake Bay continues to die. As a taxpaying citizen who still doesn’t know what the additional environmental portion of my county taxes go to I have to say that I don’t appreciate my hard earned money going to the support of environmental initiatives that are not working. I expect results not failures!

In addition, I want answers. The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure and I want to know who gave anyone the right to play stupid manipulative games all the while degrading something that belongs to all of us. That’s right, the Chesapeake Bay is there for everyone to enjoy not just for the whims of a select greedy few.

Farm Bureau says that their lawsuit is not about the quality of water in the Chesapeake Bay it’s about the confines of what EPA can or can’t do based on laws our illustrious politicians have written. I think that says it all. Big Ag with its powerful lobby machine has influenced the laws crippling the very agency within our government that is supposedly there to protect OUR water.

When will we, the American citizen, be afforded some protectionism?

---

Alarming “dead zone” grows in the Chesapeake Washington Post

EPA Pollution Diet For the Chesapeake

Growing Influence: the Political Power of Agribusiness and the Fouling of America’s Waterways