featured articles heading subscribe click here for home page about us
 
Living below Sea Level
People are buying homes in the Delta--what are they thinking?
Shirley Skeel
Tainted Greens
E. coli panic puts farmers in the crossfire
Carl Nagin
George Davidson and the Point of the Beginning
"Once seen, it will never be forgotten."
John Cloud
Treasure Hunting along Monterey Bay
Geocaching uses GPS to find surprises
Anne Canright
ebb & flow heading
Sam's Page
Oops
Coastal Conservancy News
coastal viewpoint heading
In This Issue
our gallery heading
Poems
Photographs
other publications heading
Useful Sources
tile
coastal_conservancy_home back issues links our gallery contact us
banner photo
 

| home | print page | email to a friend |

1
Living below Sea Level
< | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | >

canal next to busy road & link to delta galleryWhen word got out about some of the measures proposed in discussions, such as plowing up riparian buffers, eliminating wildlife, and erecting high fences around fields, alarm spread through the farming, regulatory, and conservation communities.

On October 25, 2006, Roger W. Briggs, executive officer of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), aired his agency's concerns in a letter to Brackett at the FDA, with copies sent to Giclas at Western Growers and other industry groups. The emerging guidelines (known variously as metrics and GAPs--good agricultural practices), "may conflict with the [RWQCB's] mission to protect water quality and may increase water quality violations in farming areas," Briggs wrote. "We are aware of concerns that riparian or on-farm vegetation may attract wildlife that may spread the 0157:H7 E. coli, but are not aware of any research to support those concerns." He requested a meeting with the FDA and the opportunity "to review any future proposed food safety guidelines or suggested farm practices that may affect water quality."

Almost three months later, on January 10, 2007, with Briggs still awaiting a response to his letter, the water board's chairman, Jeffrey Young, wrote to CDFA and Western Growers, noting that 92 percent of the region's total irrigated acreage--including all the acreage farmed by the large growers of leafy greens--was enrolled in collaborative programs designed to improve water quality. "We know that vegetated conservation practices are among the most effective tools for protecting and improving water quality," Young wrote. "Millions of federal and state taxpayer dollars have been invested in researching and promoting conservation practices, and in assisting farmers in implementing such practices." He warned that a "major accomplishment on the part of the agricultural industry" was now at risk.

Not until after Young's letter, as well as letters from the EPA, the Department of Commerce, and other agencies were fired off, did Western Growers respond to these concerns. It amended an early draft of the marketing agreement to incorporate the conservation concerns and comments of resource agencies, including this language:

Fencing, vegetation removal, and destruction of habitat may result in adverse impacts to the environment. Potential adverse impacts include loss of habitat to beneficial insects and pollinators; wildlife loss; increased discharges of sediment and other pollutants resulting from the loss of vegetative filtering; and increased air quality impacts if bare soil is exposed to wind. It is recommended that producers check for local, state, and federal laws and regulations that protect riparian habitat, restrict removal of vegetation or habitat, or restrict construction of wildlife deterrent fences in riparian areas or wildlife corridors.

The Marketing Agreement addresses a wide range of food safety issues, including sanitizing farm equipment; preventing transfer of pathogens from field workers; wildlife encroachments from deer, goats, pigs, cattle, and sheep; soil amendments; and water usage. (See Western Growers' website, www.wga.com, for the June 2007 draft.)

Among those who thought that the agreement fell short of what was necessary was Dr. Charles Benbrook of the Organic Institute, who sent comments to Western Growers, some of which, he acknowledges, were adopted in various drafts of the agreement. But Benbrook found the document remains most seriously flawed with respect to water testing requirements. The required test is based on the wrong organism, and the standard applied to testing for E. coli in irrigation water is "unscientific and indefensible," because it relies on "an outmoded recreational water quality risk assessment" from the mid-1980s used by the EPA to test swimming water, he states in a June, 2007 report, "Unfinished Business: Preventing E. Coli 0157 Outbreaks in Leafy Greens" (available at www.organic-center.org).

The metrics do not require testing irrigation water specifically for E. coli 0157, only for generic E. coli, Benbrook states. He concludes: "Water with detectable levels of E. coli 0157 should not be used to irrigate leafy greens. Period."

Numerous phone calls to Hank Giclas of Western Growers asking for comment went unaswered.

The Marketing Agreement went into effect last April, and as of June, 111 produce handlers, who process nearly all the leafy greens produced in California, have signed on to it. However, the conflict over ways to ensure safety is far from over, and farmers are hard-pressed in its midst. Some major handlers and contractors who have signed the agreement, including packaged salad giant Fresh Express, are individually demanding that farmers take additional safety measures, including some that have little science or common sense behind them.


  home < | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | >
Send Feedback and Back to Top send feedback back to top

 

bottom navigation site map contact us privacy policy terms of use submission guidelines subscribe index past issues coastal conservancy website past issues conservancy site

Copyright 2007 © California Coastal Conservancy All Rights Reserved