Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation News

Learn more about the issues presented in our films
Show Filters

Things to Know About the US Mine Safety and Health Administration and the Coal Industry

The federal government wants the number of offices that oversee U.S. mine safety laws to align more with a shrinking coal industry

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — The U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration is among the federal agencies selected for spending cuts by the Department of Government Efficiency.Nearly three dozen MSHA offices would have their leases terminated if the plans come to fruition. Where are the MSHA offices being considered for closure? According to the DOGE website, 34 MSHA offices in 19 states have been targeted for closure. This includes seven in Kentucky, which would leave the fifth-leading coal producing state with just two MSHA facilities. There also are four offices slated to close in Pennsylvania; two apiece in California, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Texas and West Virginia; and one each in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee and Wyoming. Are other mining offices involved? Also under consideration for closure are the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement facilities in Lexington, Kentucky, and Tulsa, Oklahoma, shrinking the national footprint of an agency created during the Carter administration to restore land damaged by strip mining and reclaim abandoned and damaged minelands. Ending the MSHA leases is projected to save $18 million. It’s unclear whether inspectors' positions and other jobs from those offices would be moved to other facilities. MSHA was created by Congress within the Labor Department in 1978, in part because state inspectors were seen as too close to the industry to force coal companies to take the sometimes costly steps necessary to protect miners. MSHA is required to inspect each underground mine quarterly and each surface mine twice a year. Agency inspectors are supposed to check every working section of a mine. They examine electrical and ventilation systems that protect miners from deadly black lung disease, inspect impoundment dams and new roof bolts, and make sure mining equipment is safe, said Jack Spadaro, a longtime mine safety investigator and environmental specialist who worked for MSHA.Mining fatalities over the past four decades have dropped significantly, in large part because of the dramatic decline in coal production. But the proposed DOGE cuts would require MSHA inspectors to travel farther to get to a mine, and Spadaro said that could lead to less thorough inspections. A review last month of publicly available data by the Appalachian Citizens’ Law Center indicates that nearly 17,000 health and safety inspections were conducted from the beginning of 2024 through February 2025 by staff at MSHA offices in the facilities on the chopping block. MSHA, which also oversees metal and nonmetal mines, already is understaffed. Over the past decade, it has seen a 27% reduction in total staff, including 30% of enforcement staff in general and 50% of enforcement staff for coal mines, the law center said.The coal industry has been in decline as utilities have installed more renewable energy and converted coal-fired plants to be fueled by cheaper and cleaner-burning natural gas.U.S. coal production was at 1 billion tons (907,000 metric tons) in 2014 and fell to 578 million tons (524 million metric tons) by 2023, the latest year available, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. It has been in a long, steep decline for decades.Coal industry deaths were in the hundreds throughout the 1950s and 1960s. After MSHA was created, deaths steadily decreased, then dropped even further in the last decade as a growing number of mining companies shut down and thousands of jobs were eliminated. There have been 11 or fewer deaths in each of the past five years, according to MSHA.Coal employment rebounded from 2022 to 2023, rising 4.2% to 45,476. West Virginia employed the most miners at 14,000, followed by Kentucky at 5,000. About half of the nation’s 560 coal mines are located in West Virginia (165) and Kentucky (112). Despite having just 15 mines, Wyoming was the highest-producing coal state due to mechanization.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Government
Health

NOAA research websites slated to go dark get reprieve with contract extension

The early cancellation of an Amazon Web Services contract means that a slew of NOAA websites are slated to go dark beginning at midnight, sources told Axios. Why it matters: This mainly would affect NOAA's research division, and will make numerous websites and data sets inaccessible to the public.It's another example of how the administration has been taking data offline across the government, said current and former NOAA staff members, who spoke to Axios on the condition of anonymity due to fear of retaliation. Zoom in: The Commerce Department is requiring NOAA — and possibly all department agencies — to cut its IT budget by 50% across the board. This is resulting in cloud services contracts being cut — and, potentially more significantly, agency networks that transmit weather and climate information. Some of the websites slated to go down include the National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL), the Climate Program Office, the home website of NOAA research and the Earth Prediction Innovation Center, which maintains a cloud-based weather forecasting system developed as a public-private partnership.The NSSL outage may affect some programs, such as the Hazardous Weather Testbed, that the NWS uses for severe weather forecasting.Bloomberg first reported the impending NOAA IT outages, and Axios independently confirmed them. Yes, but: It's possible that this and other contracts could still be extended at the last minute, but that's unlikely, sources said.NOAA operates complex computer models for weather forecasting and climate change studies, most of which run on supercomputers. It also must consistently keep its weather data flowing to the public to provide accurate, life-saving severe weather warnings. The intrigue: Some climate data may go dark Saturday morning as well. But the National Centers for Environmental Information, the U.S. clearinghouse for global climate data, shouldn't be affected, sources said. In addition, certain NOAA labs could see their websites go down early Saturday as well.NOAA is facing the prospect of another wave of staffing cuts following the loss of about 800 probationary employees in late February, as well as a new round of early retirements. Already, some National Weather Service forecast offices have cut back on some of their services, including weather balloon launches that provide key data for computer models. The other side: The Commerce Department didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.What's next: Additional contracts for IT services are due to be renewed or canceled in coming days, including ones that if terminated, may have a direct impact on NOAA's weather communication systems. Already, the termination of another contract has stopped the agency from automatically translating its audio forecasts and warnings into Spanish. As Axios reported, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick must approve any contract or contract extension that totals at or about $100,000, which is slowing NOAA to a crawl, along with research institutes it funds.Go deeper:Scoop: NOAA operations impaired by Commerce chief's approval mandate

The early cancellation of an Amazon Web Services contract means that a slew of NOAA websites are slated to go dark beginning at midnight, sources told Axios. Why it matters: This mainly would affect NOAA's research division, and will make numerous websites and data sets inaccessible to the public.It's another example of how the administration has been taking data offline across the government, said current and former NOAA staff members, who spoke to Axios on the condition of anonymity due to fear of retaliation. Zoom in: The Commerce Department is requiring NOAA — and possibly all department agencies — to cut its IT budget by 50% across the board. This is resulting in cloud services contracts being cut — and, potentially more significantly, agency networks that transmit weather and climate information. Some of the websites slated to go down include the National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL), the Climate Program Office, the home website of NOAA research and the Earth Prediction Innovation Center, which maintains a cloud-based weather forecasting system developed as a public-private partnership.The NSSL outage may affect some programs, such as the Hazardous Weather Testbed, that the NWS uses for severe weather forecasting.Bloomberg first reported the impending NOAA IT outages, and Axios independently confirmed them. Yes, but: It's possible that this and other contracts could still be extended at the last minute, but that's unlikely, sources said.NOAA operates complex computer models for weather forecasting and climate change studies, most of which run on supercomputers. It also must consistently keep its weather data flowing to the public to provide accurate, life-saving severe weather warnings. The intrigue: Some climate data may go dark Saturday morning as well. But the National Centers for Environmental Information, the U.S. clearinghouse for global climate data, shouldn't be affected, sources said. In addition, certain NOAA labs could see their websites go down early Saturday as well.NOAA is facing the prospect of another wave of staffing cuts following the loss of about 800 probationary employees in late February, as well as a new round of early retirements. Already, some National Weather Service forecast offices have cut back on some of their services, including weather balloon launches that provide key data for computer models. The other side: The Commerce Department didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.What's next: Additional contracts for IT services are due to be renewed or canceled in coming days, including ones that if terminated, may have a direct impact on NOAA's weather communication systems. Already, the termination of another contract has stopped the agency from automatically translating its audio forecasts and warnings into Spanish. As Axios reported, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick must approve any contract or contract extension that totals at or about $100,000, which is slowing NOAA to a crawl, along with research institutes it funds.Go deeper:Scoop: NOAA operations impaired by Commerce chief's approval mandate

Climate
Government

My dog recognizes the sounds a Waymo car makes

Most of us know the general (albeit simplified) story: Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov used a stimulus—like a metronome—around the dogs he was studying, and soon, the hounds would start to salivate. They had learned that the sound meant food was coming. The phenomenon, now known as classical conditioning, became one of modern psychology’s foundational discoveries. It’s an unconscious process where a neutral stimulus becomes associated with a naturally occurring stimulus, eventually leading to a connection between the two. The dogs, seeing the researcher who often brings them food or hearing the noise of the cart on its way, would immediately know they were about to have a meal. Flash forward 120 years: my dog and I are riding through San Francisco in a self-driving car. I’ve taken Waymo’s autonomous vehicles dozens of times, often with my 9-year-old chiweenie, Poppy, nestled on my lap. She usually naps peacefully, facing inward, oblivious to the world outside. Near the end of each ride, the car makes a familiar “ding-dong” chime, followed by a woman’s voice reminding me to take my phone, keys, and wallet. Poppy, unfazed, would remain in a deep sleep until the car stopped, I unbuckled my seatbelt, and picked her up to get out. Back to the world of smells and fresh air! Lately, I’ve noticed something strange: As soon as the ding sounds, Poppy wakes up, turns around, and readies herself at the door without my help—every single time. Is this . . . Pavlov’s Waymo? As a serious journalist in pursuit of all the hard-hitting truths, I emailed the veterinary team at Bond Vet. The short answer to my not-so-serious question? Yes. “In practical terms, the sound acts as a cue, prompting her anticipation to leave. This behavior develops because the sound repeatedly coincides with the end of the ride, and the reward of getting out reinforces her response,” Dr. Lisa Lippman, director of virtual medicine at Bond Vet, said in an email. “Dogs are incredibly perceptive and often pick up on routines and environmental cues like this, it’s a great example of how they learn and adapt!” Researchers at the University of California, Davis, found in 2021 that common household noises, like a microwave beep or the chirp of a smoke detector, can cause a dog anxiety. Thankfully, Poppy doesn’t seem very anxious about the car’s noise (although humans are notoriously bad at sensing a dog’s stress or real emotions). But it made me think of the constant notifications and dings of our world. At the same time as our pets, we as humans are being classically conditioned. The microwave beep alerts us that we’re about to be rewarded with food, the “tudum” sound when you open the Netflix app prepares us for entertainment, the Waymo chime let’s us know it’s almost time to get out. Brands especially have utilized classical conditioning to associate their product with an emotion. “When we play sound feedback for Waymo riders, our guiding philosophy is to be friendly and helpful,” Waymo’s Head of Design and Customer Research Ryan Powell said over email. “That means playing sounds that feel connected and familiar, but not intrusive. We want to be thoughtful about how and when we play sound, so that riders can rely on these signals for their safety and comfort. Sometimes we’ll play sound followed by a voice explanation for more detail.”

Most of us know the general (albeit simplified) story: Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov used a stimulus—like a metronome—around the dogs he was studying, and soon, the hounds would start to salivate. They had learned that the sound meant food was coming. The phenomenon, now known as classical conditioning, became one of modern psychology’s foundational discoveries. It’s an unconscious process where a neutral stimulus becomes associated with a naturally occurring stimulus, eventually leading to a connection between the two. The dogs, seeing the researcher who often brings them food or hearing the noise of the cart on its way, would immediately know they were about to have a meal. Flash forward 120 years: my dog and I are riding through San Francisco in a self-driving car. I’ve taken Waymo’s autonomous vehicles dozens of times, often with my 9-year-old chiweenie, Poppy, nestled on my lap. She usually naps peacefully, facing inward, oblivious to the world outside. Near the end of each ride, the car makes a familiar “ding-dong” chime, followed by a woman’s voice reminding me to take my phone, keys, and wallet. Poppy, unfazed, would remain in a deep sleep until the car stopped, I unbuckled my seatbelt, and picked her up to get out. Back to the world of smells and fresh air! Lately, I’ve noticed something strange: As soon as the ding sounds, Poppy wakes up, turns around, and readies herself at the door without my help—every single time. Is this . . . Pavlov’s Waymo? As a serious journalist in pursuit of all the hard-hitting truths, I emailed the veterinary team at Bond Vet. The short answer to my not-so-serious question? Yes. “In practical terms, the sound acts as a cue, prompting her anticipation to leave. This behavior develops because the sound repeatedly coincides with the end of the ride, and the reward of getting out reinforces her response,” Dr. Lisa Lippman, director of virtual medicine at Bond Vet, said in an email. “Dogs are incredibly perceptive and often pick up on routines and environmental cues like this, it’s a great example of how they learn and adapt!” Researchers at the University of California, Davis, found in 2021 that common household noises, like a microwave beep or the chirp of a smoke detector, can cause a dog anxiety. Thankfully, Poppy doesn’t seem very anxious about the car’s noise (although humans are notoriously bad at sensing a dog’s stress or real emotions). But it made me think of the constant notifications and dings of our world. At the same time as our pets, we as humans are being classically conditioned. The microwave beep alerts us that we’re about to be rewarded with food, the “tudum” sound when you open the Netflix app prepares us for entertainment, the Waymo chime let’s us know it’s almost time to get out. Brands especially have utilized classical conditioning to associate their product with an emotion. “When we play sound feedback for Waymo riders, our guiding philosophy is to be friendly and helpful,” Waymo’s Head of Design and Customer Research Ryan Powell said over email. “That means playing sounds that feel connected and familiar, but not intrusive. We want to be thoughtful about how and when we play sound, so that riders can rely on these signals for their safety and comfort. Sometimes we’ll play sound followed by a voice explanation for more detail.”

Food
Science

‘Far Out: Life On & After the Commune’: An Interview with Harvey Wasserman

A new nonfiction film recounts urban “drop-outs” who returned to the land, igniting the movements for organic farming, U.S. grassroots anti-nuclear activism, and more.

A new documentary film, Far Out: Life On & After the Commune, directed by Charles Light, tells the story of a group of leftwing journalists who splintered off from what was known as Liberation News Service (LNS). With candid then-and-now footage, Light’s eighty-five-minute film reveals the communards as young hippies and senior citizens, and shows how their paths intertwined with folk/rock superstars to fight the good fight.  One of the film’s co-stars is author and historian Harvey Wasserman who is also the longest active contributor to The Progressive. His first article for the magazine, about campus protests, “Reform, Not Revolution”, appeared in August 1967, while his most recent, “Drones, Nukes, and the Myth of Reactor Safety,” was published in January. The irrepressible veteran activist was interviewed via telephone in Los Angeles for the following conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity. Q: What was the Liberation News Service? Harvey Wasserman: LNS was a pioneering news service that provided articles to the underground press, which consisted of about 400 counterculture newspapers burgeoning throughout the country in 1967 and 1968. We were antiwar, pro-civil rights and pro-pot legalization and known as the “Associated Press of the underground.” LNS was launched the day before the October 21, 1967, March on the Pentagon. Q: How did your commune grow out of LNS? Wasserman: It’s living proof of the law of unintended consequences. The FBI infiltrated our news service. As part of COINTELPRO, J. Edgar Hoover sent agents into LNS to break it up. We’d moved to New York City, and agents instigated horrible anti-gay attacks at our meetings against co-founder Marshall Bloom. George Harrison gave Marshall permission to screen the Beatles’ Magical Mystery Tour movie at Fillmore East benefits, and with that money, Marshall bought a farm in Massachusetts, where we secretly relocated with our mimeograph machine in August 1968: Montague Farm in Massachusetts.  Q: What was it like transitioning to living off of the land?  Wasserman: We didn’t know what we were doing. We were all suburban kids. We froze the first winter. Gradually, we learned how to live in the country, in a farmhouse. The first major decision came in the spring, when we were planting our garden and some wanted to spray. But one woman, Cathy Rogers, sort of the farm’s matriarch, said, “No, we’re not using chemicals.” We actually revived for our whole generation the whole ethos of organic farming. Within a couple of years, the garden was magnificent. To learn how to do it, we used a handbook on organic gardening.    Q: How were women involved in life at the communal farms?  Wasserman: They ran the place. The antiwar and civil rights movements in the early days were run by men. Women, in many cases, weren’t treated particularly well. A lot of the feminist movement came out of the communes. The environmental movement has really been a women’s movement, in touch with Mother Earth.   Q: Some of the communards were gay. How did other commune members react to that? Wasserman: You have to ask them. If you had asked me back then what it meant to be gay, I had no idea. A lot of it was new to us.  Q: What were relations like with other local residents in the area? Wasserman: All over the map. We were like aliens landing in Montague. Mostly the locals didn’t know what to make of us. We were smart enough to form relations. The farmer down the road had a maple sugar operation. He needed labor when he’d gather the maple syrup from the trees; we drove the tractors and emptied the buckets. In many cases, we formed really beautiful relations with locals.   Q: The communards went back to the land to remove themselves from a New Left factional fight. But how did the outside world catch up with you?   Wasserman: Some of us had a mindset to escape politics; others stayed active. The Vietnam War was still on. We considered our presence in the countryside to be very political. Then, as fate would have it, the world came to us. In December 1973, we opened the local paper and on the front page was an aerial photo of the Montague Plains and superimposed on it was an artist’s rendition of a nuclear power plant they wanted to build there. Collectively, instinctually, we said, “No fucking way we’re going to let them build this in our backyard.” We deepened our opposition to nuclear power by studying the books Secret Fallout by radiologist Ernest Sternglass, and Poisoned Power by Manhattan Project scientist John Gofman. Q: The film Far Out contends that the commune’s opposition to the construction of this plant sparked the U.S. grassroots anti-nuclear movement. Wasserman: The first thing is we came up with the slogan “No Nukes,” printed the first bumper sticker and T-shirt; it’s gone global ever since. Northeast Utilities put up a tower at the proposed site to test wind direction and in February 1974 Sam Lovejoy took a crowbar and knocked over the tower. Dan Keller and Charles Light, from the commune, who made Far Out, earlier also made the documentary Lovejoy’s Nuclear War.  In Seabrook, New Hampshire, you had really great antiwar activists. We’d drive up from Montague to Seabrook for meetings about a proposed nuclear power plant. The town was really against it—Seabrook voted four times to not allow the plant to be built. It became an issue of home rule. We hooked up with the American Friends Service Committee in Boston. They taught us the Quaker tradition of nonviolent resistance. On August 1, 1976, 100 people went onto the construction site; eighteen were arrested. Keller and Light made a movie about this, too, called The Last Resort. On August 22, we had a bigger demonstration; 180 people were arrested. We thought we could stop Seabrook by occupying the site. On April 30, 1977, we had a few thousand people at the rally; 1,414 were arrested at the site. The rightwing governor demanded that we post bail, so about 1,000 hippies were jailed in five National Guard Armories around the state, which became world news. At the end of two weeks, 550 people still refused to give bail.            Q: What role did musicians play in these protests? Wasserman: In the summer of 1978, we were allowed [by local authorities] onto the Seabrook site, then under construction, and we held a peaceful, illegal rally with Pete Seeger, Jackson Browne, and 20,000 people. Jackson, Bonnie Raitt, James Taylor, Carly Simon, and Graham Nash started doing concerts [to raise awareness, and funds, for the anti-nuclear efforts]. They were already involved in the movement. They said, “We gotta do a big concert, let’s go to Madison Square Garden.” Bruce Springsteen signed on and we added concerts. The four nights sold out immediately, and we decided to add a Sunday concert and rally at Battery Park City, in Lower Manhattan. We ended up with between 200,000 and 250,000 people. It was the Woodstock of the seventies. Then demonstrations started happening all over the country.    Q: How did the success of these concerts impact the communes?   Wasserman: New York was a complete psychedelic miasma [laughs]. We’d been in the country for ten years of communal living and all of a sudden, we were in Manhattan, at Madison Square Garden, and encountered all this money, media, and fame. It really took us to another place and kinda shattered the farm. But the commune did hold together. A core community stayed at the farm through the 1980s and 1990s, and in 2003 we sold it to a Buddhist community. People from the farm who stayed in Massachusetts are still active and just defeated a bad battery facility they wanted to build nearby. We’re all still anti-nuclear.   Far Out: Life On & After the Commune will be showing at five Laemmle venues in California (Encino, Glendale, Santa Monica, Claremont and Newhall) at 10:00 a.m. on April 5 and 6 and at 7:00 p.m. on April 7 as part of Laemmle Theatres’ Culture Vulture series. There will be panel discussions with filmmaker Charlie Light, Harvey Wasserman, and musician Patty Carpenter. The panels take place after the 10:00 a.m., April 5 show at Encino; the 10:00 a.m., April 6 show at Glendale; and the 7:00 p.m. screening at Santa Monica. The panel on April 7 also includes Mom actress/activist Mimi Kennedy and Judith Rubenstein, commune member and psychologist. Far Out can also be viewed online. Ed Rampell is a Los Angeles-based film historian and critic who contributes regularly to The Progressive. His novel about the Native Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement for Indigenous rights, The Disinherited: Blood Blalahs, will be published this spring. Read more by Ed Rampell April 3, 2025 8:00 AM

Activism
Chemicals
Indigenous

Many Firefighting Foams Contain Dangerous PFAS ‘Forever Chemicals.’ Have We Learned Our Lesson?

Protecting civilian and military firefighters — and the communities they serve — requires a comprehensive strategy, including disclosure of the chemicals in new firefighting foams. The post Many Firefighting Foams Contain Dangerous PFAS ‘Forever Chemicals.’ Have We Learned Our Lesson? appeared first on The Revelator.

Every week the lawyers at my firm talk to civilian and military firefighters whose health has been threatened by the very tool they relied upon to protect other peoples’ lives: aqueous film-forming foams. For decades aqueous film-forming foams were the gold standard in fire suppression. But like many seemingly foolproof solutions, these fire extinguishers bear a dark legacy through the carcinogenic toxic chemicals called per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Since its invention by the U.S. Navy and the 3M company in the 1960s, PFAS-based firefighting foams, especially aqueous film-forming foams AFFF, were promoted as “safe as soap” until PFAS’s hazardous nature came to light. AFFF is highly effective against flammable fuel fires, but the chemicals that make this foam a lifesaver also cause devastating health and environmental damage. You’ve probably heard of the alarming nationwide problem of PFAS contamination of our drinking-water sources and their link to various types of cancer, including testicular and kidney, and altered immune and thyroid function. While almost 97% of Americans are affected by the toxic chemicals, mainly through drinking water, firefighters are disproportionately affected. These hardworking, risk-taking first responders have found themselves directly exposed to PFAS chemicals for decades. The consequences are devastating. Firefighters have a 9% higher risk of developing cancer than the general population, mainly because of military and civilian fire departments’ extensive use of aqueous film-forming foam. The ‘Forever Chemicals’ and Their Cost PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” are a large family of human-made substances used in a variety of industries like firefighting and for the production of a wide range of household products. They do not break down naturally and can accumulate in water, soil, and even the human body. The Environmental Protection Agency has made it clear that there is no safe level of chemical exposure — implying that even low amounts of these substances can pose significant risks over time. The Environmental Working Group’s updated PFAS contamination map reveals that military installations and industrial facilities have the highest levels of PFAS in their groundwater. Due to the persistence of PFAS in the surroundings, contamination from these sites can easily spread to nearby water systems and endanger communities who rely on the same aquifers or water sources. This makes PFAS a critical public health and environmental issue, especially for firefighters whose exposure is often unavoidable. As the realization of the dangers of PFAS grows, so does the push to find safer and more sustainable alternatives. Yet the major question is whether these new formulations truly represent a breakthrough in safety or if they could merely be another regrettable substitution. The Rise of PFAS-Free Alternatives The market now offers a range of viable and biodegradable options that promise to reduce the environmental and health risks associated with traditional foams. Many of these formulations adhere to stringent international standards and have already been adopted globally. By April 2019 over 90 fluorine-free foams were produced and made available by 22 different manufacturers. These products vary in composition, but a notable innovation is the emergence of soy-based foams that are seen as more environmentally friendly. Yet such promising benefits still warrant caution. AFFF was hailed not long ago as nonhazardous — a claim that has since been debunked with the discovery of severe long-term health risks. This may similarly happen with the alternatives, which are not completely guaranteed risk-free. For instance, some solvent-laden formulations — though PFAS-free — still contain chemicals that can irritate the respiratory system, cause skin reactions, and lead to liver toxicity with prolonged exposure. Meanwhile, soy-based foams may trigger allergic reactions in some individuals, specifically those with sensitivities to the legume. A study published in May 2023 discusses concerns about hydrocarbon surfactants and other non-fluorinated surfactants commonly found in fluorine-free foam formulations. A 2011 medical study demonstrated that long-term exposure to hydrocarbon surfactants leads to hypotension, mental deterioration, respiratory failure, acute kidney injury, and arrhythmia. Such studies are necessary, and scientists call for more research to investigate the safety and efficiency of these alternatives. What Should Be Done Next? Certain states, such as Alaska, have already banned PFAS-containing firefighting foam. However, state laws do not apply to military bases. The Department of Defense planned to transition to fluorine-free firefighting foams by October 2024, but the deadline was extended. The DOD has been investing in studies to find suitable replacements that conform to its military requirements in terms of efficiency but do not pose environmental and health concerns. A significant concern linked to the quest for a suitable fluorine-free foam alternative is that many products claim to be greener and safer for the environment and human health. But manufacturers are still not required to disclose all the chemicals they use. Without proper third-party testing, knowing what some foam products contain is hard. To address this, the Massachusetts-based nonprofit organization Clean Production Action in 2020 launched the first eco-label certification program for PFAS-free firefighting foams, the “GreenScreen Certified Standard for Firefighting Foams.” The program ensures that foams claiming to be PFAS-free are indeed free of these added chemicals and thousands of other chemicals of high concern. Several states have already turned to the GreenScreen certification program. As thorough research and testing necessitate time and resources, we need a more comprehensive and collaborative approach involving all responsible parties, such as the Department of Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency, research institutes, and firefighting foam manufacturers, to develop a suitable replacement foam that does not pose a risk to firefighter’s health and does not contaminate the environment. Furthermore, finding a suitable replacement foam is only the first step. While there are guidelines, we need an overarching policy that fire departments can follow throughout the complex transitioning process, including training on handling the new foam, what kind of new equipment would be necessary, and how to decontaminate old equipment. The rise of PFAS-free alternatives is a positive development, as they appear to be better and safer. But it’s crucial to remember that “safer” does not always mean “safe enough.” As the world gets hotter and wildfires more severe and deadlier, firefighting foams — and firefighters — will become more important than ever. Let’s look out for their future — and ours. Scroll down to find our “Republish” button Previously in The Revelator: The Silent Threat Beneath Our Feet: How Deregulation Fuels the Spread of Forever Chemicals The post Many Firefighting Foams Contain Dangerous PFAS ‘Forever Chemicals.’ Have We Learned Our Lesson? appeared first on The Revelator.

Chemicals
Health
Sustainable

How Do Cancer Cells Migrate to New Tissues and Take Hold?

Scientists are looking for answers about how these confounding trips, known as metastases, occur throughout the human body

How Do Cancer Cells Migrate to New Tissues and Take Hold? Scientists are looking for answers about how these confounding trips, known as metastases, occur throughout the human body Illustration of a human cancer cell SCIEPRO / SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY via Getty Images Back in 2014, a woman with advanced cancer pushed Adrienne Boire’s scientific life in a whole new direction. The cancer, which had begun in the breast, had found its way into the patient’s spinal fluid, rendering the middle-aged mother of two unable to walk. “When did this happen?” she asked from her hospital bed. “Why are the cells growing there?” Why, indeed. Why would cancer cells migrate to the spinal fluid, far from where they’d been birthed, and how did they manage to thrive in a liquid so strikingly poor in nutrients? Boire, a physician-scientist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, decided that those questions deserved answers. The answers are urgent, because the same thing that happened to Boire’s patient is happening to increasing numbers of cancer patients. As the ability to treat initial, or primary, tumors has improved, people survive early rounds with cancer only to come back years or decades later when the cancer has somehow resettled in a new tissue, such as brain, lung or bone. This is metastatic cancer, and it’s the big killer—while precise numbers are scarce, anywhere from half to the large majority of cancer deaths have been attributed to metastasis. Offering people more options and hope will mean understanding how those cancers successfully migrate and recolonize. The prevalence of metastasis belies the arduous journey that cancer cells must make to achieve it. A cell that arises in, say, the breast, is well adapted to live there: to eat the fatty acids available to it, to resist local threats and to grow there in a solid tumor. If it manages to escape into the bloodstream, it finds itself zipping along at up to 15 inches per second with shear stresses sufficient to rip it apart. Should it survive that odyssey and land in a new tissue—say, the brain or spinal fluid—the environment is totally different yet again. The foods the cell is accustomed to may be absent; immune cells or other novel environmental molecules may attack. For a cell to manage this trip, and then adapt to a new environment, is truly a Herculean task. “It is not easy and trivial,” says Ana Gomes, a cancer biologist at the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida. “It’s just against everything in the nature of these cells.” Moving to a new site and forming a new tumor is an arduous journey that few cells can complete. A cell must exit the initial tumor, survive the bloodstream and enter a new tissue. Even then, the cell may remain dormant for a time, until the environment can support its division and growth to create a new tumor. Adapted from Ana Gomes / Knowable Magazine No wonder that, even though tumors regularly shed cells, most escapees perish or languish without successfully establishing themselves as metastases. “Personally, I think metastasis is an accident,” says Matthew Vander Heiden, a physician-scientist and director of the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at MIT. “It’s really, really inefficient.” The few cells that manage this epic feat are resilient and flexible in how they feed themselves and process the molecules around them. They may tweak their biochemistry to evade local dangers, or to get the fuel they need in sparse environments. Some even send signals ahead to modify the organ where they’ll land, creating a cushy nest with a food supply ready for when they arrive. “Metabolic changes help these cells to face all this challenge,” says Patricia Altea-Manzano, a biomedical researcher at the Andalusian Molecular Biology and Regenerative Medicine Center in Seville, Spain. Such findings suggest ways that metastasizing cells, because they’re so different from the original tumor, might be vulnerable to new kinds of treatment. Someday doctors might not have to wait for metastasis to take hold before they block or slow cancer’s spread: “That is a very big opportunity,” Gomes says. Novel adaptations Metabolically, there’s no place like home: Cancers tend to do best in the tissues where they initially grow, Vander Heiden’s group has found. And when they do move, these primary tumors have preferred target sites—prostate cancers tend to move into bone, for example. Some cells, however, will land in a place to which they are very unlikely to ever adapt: Certain sites, such as the spleen and skeletal muscles, seem to resist metastasis, and there are many possible reasons. Muscle cells, for example, use tons of energy, causing their mitochondria to release lots of a side product of energy processing: reactive oxygen species such as hydrogen peroxide. These vigorously oxidizing molecules are toxic, but local muscle cells can handle them. Yet even though plenty of tumor cells reach the skeletal muscle via the blood that copiously feeds it, they rarely take hold there, stymied, researchers suspect, by those reactive oxygen molecules. But adaptation to other novel environments is possible, as Vander Heiden discovered when his group implanted human breast cancer cells into either mammary fat or the brains of mice. Though the brain lacks the kinds of fat building blocks—fatty acids—that breast cancer cells are accustomed to eating, when the cells were dropped into the brain, they adjusted to manufacture their own fatty acids. The scientists then treated the mice with a drug that blocks fatty acid synthesis, and the cancer cells in brain tissue grew at half-speed. (The breast cells in the mammary fat continued to grow unbothered.) Vander Heiden has consulted for companies that are in the early stages of exploring this approach as a treatment. Sometimes, tumors can even prime a foreign site for their arrival, in a process some researchers call “education of the metastatic niche.” Cancers shed not only cells, but also hormones, DNA and little fatty bubbles called vesicles into the blood and lymph. These bubbles can contain chemical messages, and when these or other signals reach far-off organs, they can reshape the tissues to the tumor cells’ specifications. That “education” helps set up metastasizing cells to thrive in a new location says Gomes. Even microbes can get in on the act: In the case of colorectal cancer, bacteria from the intestines teach the liver to receive metastatic cancer cells. The gut bacteria colonize the intestinal tumor, then break through the multilayer barrier that normally keeps gut contents away from the rest of the body. Then the bacteria can go into the liver, where they induce inflammation in the organ. This creates a pro-tumor environment, so cancer cells that arrive later are able to settle in. The fatty acid connection Altea-Manzano studied this priming process during her time as a postdoctoral scholar with cancer biologist Sarah-Maria Fendt at the VIB-KU Leuven Center for Cancer Biology in Belgium. In this case, it was the lungs that were being primed by tumors residing elsewhere. And much as Vander Heiden observed with breast cancer metastasis to the brain, access to fatty acids was a key factor—specifically, the fatty acid palmitate, whose functions include serving as an energy source and as a component of cellular membranes. The lungs are already awash in a fat-rich material called surfactant, which coats the lungs’ interior and keeps the tissue from collapsing. When the researchers fed mice a high-fat diet, the levels of palmitate and other fatty acids in the lungs rose. And when the researchers injected mouse mammary (breast) cancer cells into the blood of those mice, the high-fat diet resulted in more than twice as much metastasis to the lung. To check whether tumor cells were secreting something that primed the lungs to host them, Altea-Manzano and colleagues grew pieces of mouse mammary tumor in a dish, then collected the liquid containing all the cellular secretions. When they injected this cell-free soup into mice, it boosted the palmitate levels in the lungs; if they also injected cancer cells, this treatment increased the level of lung metastases by those cells, too. Some ingredient made by the cancer cells cultured in that lab dish was sending the lungs a message: Make more palmitate. (The scientists still aren’t sure what the signaling substance is.) The result is that if a breast cancer cell lands in the lungs, it finds a fatty, ready-made feast to nosh on. To make the most of the new menu, however, a newly arrived breast cancer cell will have to alter its cell chemistry. It does that by changing its mitochondria so they can take up more palmitate. In experiments with mice, blocking that change interfered with metastasis, no matter how much palmitate was present. It might do the same in human patients, speculates Altea-Manzano, who with Fendt and others was a co-author of a discussion of metabolic changes that might promote or thwart metastasis for the 2024 Annual Review of Cancer Biology. A person’s lifestyle as well as their environment can influence their metabolism and microbiome. That, in turn, can be a factor in the success or failure of cancer to metastasize. But the relationships are complex: Things that seem good for metabolism on the surface—such as antioxidants—aren’t always things that directly counter cancer spread. Adapted from A. Vandekeere et al. / AR Cancer Biology 2024 / Knowable Magazine Knowing the enemy In addition to fat-rich places like the lungs, cancers can adapt to surprisingly challenging locales, such as the barren wasteland that is the spinal fluid surrounding the brain and spinal cord. Most places in the body where tumors originate are replete with nutrients: fats, amino acids, oxygen, metals—all the foodstuffs a rapidly growing cell needs. In contrast, “the brain is kind of a metabolic princess,” says Boire. “It prefers glucose only, please.” Not only is there precious little to eat, but cancer cells will find themselves surrounded by support cells of the nervous system and resident immune cells, both of which spew out anti-tumor agents. Boire’s work focuses on the spinal fluid. It’s a clear liquid devoid of many nutrients, and yet metastasis to the spinal fluid happens in some 5 percent to 10 percent of solid-tumor patients, and it usually kills within months. For Boire, this makes such a cancer “a worthy adversary. … It’s totally evil.” To learn how such an evil cell survives, Boire and colleagues examined metastatic cells from five patients in whom breast or lung cancers had taken over the spinal fluid. These cells had all ramped up a biochemical system that sops up iron, a necessary metal to produce energy and more cell parts. As one part of the system, the cells secreted a protein called lipocalin-2 that collects the sparse iron in the environment; for the other part, they made a protein called a lipocalin-2-iron transporter that pulls the iron-lipocalin-2 complex into the cells. Mice studied as models for metastasis to the spinal fluid normally all die within fewer than 40 days. But when scientists treated the mice with a drug, deferoxamine, that prevents the cancer from accessing iron, they live for longer. Adapted from Y. Chi et al. / Science 2020 / Knowable Magazine Studying the process further in mice, Boire’s team discovered that the cancer cells boost their iron collection in response to inflammatory molecules produced by local immune cells. The cancer cells then slurp up so much iron that the immune cells can’t meet their own needs for the metal. “They’re like the original jerks at the buffet,” says Boire. “You know these guys—they’re taking everything you want for themselves.” To starve out these cellular creeps, the researchers treated mice with a molecule called deferoxamine that snatches the iron before lipocalin-2 has a chance to grab it. Sure enough, the iron levels in the cancer cells dropped. Moreover, the mice survived nearly twice as long as animals who didn’t get the treatment. Boire has begun testing deferoxamine in a few dozen patients who have metastatic cancer in the spinal fluid and expects to publish results soon. She notes that the treatment doesn’t act directly on the cancer but changes its environment so it can’t fulfill its needs. “It kind of opens up this idea—there are other ways of targeting cancer cell growth,” she says. Stress points In addition to food, traveling cancer cells need protection from changes to their metabolism in new environments. Metastasis itself seems to cause cancer cells to generate reactive oxygen species, which can kill them from within, says Sean Morrison, a cancer biologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. His team studies this metastasis roadblock by injecting human melanoma cells into mice. The scientists can put the cells right under the skin where they should be comfortable, or stick them into other places, such as the bloodstream or spleen, to see if they can achieve metastasis. In the skin, melanoma cells don’t experience much oxidative stress. But melanoma cells in the blood or other organs experience stress from higher levels of reactive oxygen molecule levels. It could be that higher levels of iron and oxygen in places like the blood drive biochemical changes that produce these dangerous molecules, Morrison suggests. Oxidative stress kills wandering melanoma cells by a process called ferroptosis, in which polyunsaturated fatty acids in the cancer cell membrane react with iron. “It’s like a grease fire starting in the cancer cells as they’re trying to migrate,” says Morrison. But some melanoma cells gain a defense if they cruise the body’s lymphatic system before settling down. In the lymph, their membranes pick up monounsaturated fatty acids that can’t react with iron in the same way, helping them resist ferroptosis, the researchers reported. That’s not all. Melanoma cells that were the most efficient at metastasis rewired their metabolism, the scientists found. As a result, they gorged on a molecule called lactate in their surroundings, and they seemed to use this lactate to manufacture protective, oxidant-fighting molecules. When the scientists blocked the ability of the melanoma cells to suck up this lactate, metastatic disease in the mice was reduced. In contrast, when they treated mice with more antioxidants, metastasizing cells were more likely to survive in the bloodstream and other organs—in some treated mice, the numbers of metastatic cells cruising the bloodstream more than doubled. That result, published in 2015, was a huge surprise, says Morrison: “People think of antioxidants as being good for you.” Well, in his lab mice, antioxidants were good for cancer cells too—really good. The Washington Post called the study “terrifying,” “provocative” and “alarming.” In an experiment, scientists studied a line of mice that had melanoma injected under their skin. Treatment with an antioxidant greatly increased the fraction of cells in blood that were metastasizing melanoma cells (left), as well as the burden—quantity—of metastatic cancer cells in their internal organs (right). Adapted from E. Piskounova et al. / Nature 2015 / Knowable Magazine But the results do jive with past trials of antioxidants in cancer patients. In studies spanning decades, antioxidants such as beta-carotene and vitamin E were linked to increased lung cancer rates and deaths in smokers and higher prostate cancer rates in healthy men. Although those studies did not focus on metastatic cancer, Morrison sees a connection. “The reality is that at certain key phases of the evolution of cancer, the cancer cells are just on the edge of dying of oxidative stress, so they benefit more from the antioxidants than the normal cells do,” he speculates. If antioxidants are good for cancers, then boosting reactive oxygen molecules might fight some kinds of metastasis. Indeed, some current cancer treatments do amplify reactive oxygen molecules to kill cancers. These results imply that diet choices or supplements might influence cancer and metastasis risk. For example, Morrison speculates that a diet high in polyunsaturated fatty acids might lead to more of those pro-ferroptosis fatty acids in the membranes of cancer cells. If the cells are already quite vulnerable, a bit of polyunsaturated fat might be another way to nudge them over the cliff to cell death. For once, that’s an easy diet to swallow: One menu item might be salmon seared in soybean oil, Morrison suggests. Dietary change is not going to vanquish cancer on its own, Fendt says. But, she adds, it might slow progression or help other treatments to work—although as the antioxidant trials illustrate, the effects of diet can be tricky to predict. “It’s important to have really solid and rigorous science on those questions,” cautions Fendt. Some trials are underway—but, for now, there’s no “anti-metastasis” diet to prescribe.Knowable Magazine is an independent journalistic endeavor from Annual Reviews. Get the latest Science stories in your inbox.

Animals
Chemicals
Culture

Study: Burning heavy fuel oil with scrubbers is the best available option for bulk maritime shipping

Researchers analyzed the full lifecycle of several fuel options and found this approach has a comparable environmental impact, overall, to burning low-sulfur fuels.

When the International Maritime Organization enacted a mandatory cap on the sulfur content of marine fuels in 2020, with an eye toward reducing harmful environmental and health impacts, it left shipping companies with three main options.They could burn low-sulfur fossil fuels, like marine gas oil, or install cleaning systems to remove sulfur from the exhaust gas produced by burning heavy fuel oil. Biofuels with lower sulfur content offer another alternative, though their limited availability makes them a less feasible option.While installing exhaust gas cleaning systems, known as scrubbers, is the most feasible and cost-effective option, there has been a great deal of uncertainty among firms, policymakers, and scientists as to how “green” these scrubbers are.Through a novel lifecycle assessment, researchers from MIT, Georgia Tech, and elsewhere have now found that burning heavy fuel oil with scrubbers in the open ocean can match or surpass using low-sulfur fuels, when a wide variety of environmental factors is considered.The scientists combined data on the production and operation of scrubbers and fuels with emissions measurements taken onboard an oceangoing cargo ship.They found that, when the entire supply chain is considered, burning heavy fuel oil with scrubbers was the least harmful option in terms of nearly all 10 environmental impact factors they studied, such as greenhouse gas emissions, terrestrial acidification, and ozone formation.“In our collaboration with Oldendorff Carriers to broadly explore reducing the environmental impact of shipping, this study of scrubbers turned out to be an unexpectedly deep and important transitional issue,” says Neil Gershenfeld, an MIT professor, director of the Center for Bits and Atoms (CBA), and senior author of the study.“Claims about environmental hazards and policies to mitigate them should be backed by science. You need to see the data, be objective, and design studies that take into account the full picture to be able to compare different options from an apples-to-apples perspective,” adds lead author Patricia Stathatou, an assistant professor at Georgia Tech, who began this study as a postdoc in the CBA.Stathatou is joined on the paper by Michael Triantafyllou, the Henry L. and Grace Doherty and others at the National Technical University of Athens in Greece and the maritime shipping firm Oldendorff Carriers. The research appears today in Environmental Science and Technology.Slashing sulfur emissionsHeavy fuel oil, traditionally burned by bulk carriers that make up about 30 percent of the global maritime fleet, usually has a sulfur content around 2 to 3 percent. This is far higher than the International Maritime Organization’s 2020 cap of 0.5 percent in most areas of the ocean and 0.1 percent in areas near population centers or environmentally sensitive regions.Sulfur oxide emissions contribute to air pollution and acid rain, and can damage the human respiratory system.In 2018, fewer than 1,000 vessels employed scrubbers. After the cap went into place, higher prices of low-sulfur fossil fuels and limited availability of alternative fuels led many firms to install scrubbers so they could keep burning heavy fuel oil.Today, more than 5,800 vessels utilize scrubbers, the majority of which are wet, open-loop scrubbers.“Scrubbers are a very mature technology. They have traditionally been used for decades in land-based applications like power plants to remove pollutants,” Stathatou says.A wet, open-loop marine scrubber is a huge, metal, vertical tank installed in a ship’s exhaust stack, above the engines. Inside, seawater drawn from the ocean is sprayed through a series of nozzles downward to wash the hot exhaust gases as they exit the engines.The seawater interacts with sulfur dioxide in the exhaust, converting it to sulfates — water-soluble, environmentally benign compounds that naturally occur in seawater. The washwater is released back into the ocean, while the cleaned exhaust escapes to the atmosphere with little to no sulfur dioxide emissions.But the acidic washwater can contain other combustion byproducts like heavy metals, so scientists wondered if scrubbers were comparable, from a holistic environmental point of view, to burning low-sulfur fuels.Several studies explored toxicity of washwater and fuel system pollution, but none painted a full picture.The researchers set out to fill that scientific gap.A “well-to-wake” analysisThe team conducted a lifecycle assessment using a global environmental database on production and transport of fossil fuels, such as heavy fuel oil, marine gas oil, and very-low sulfur fuel oil. Considering the entire lifecycle of each fuel is key, since producing low-sulfur fuel requires extra processing steps in the refinery, causing additional emissions of greenhouse gases and particulate matter.“If we just look at everything that happens before the fuel is bunkered onboard the vessel, heavy fuel oil is significantly more low-impact, environmentally, than low-sulfur fuels,” she says.The researchers also collaborated with a scrubber manufacturer to obtain detailed information on all materials, production processes, and transportation steps involved in marine scrubber fabrication and installation.“If you consider that the scrubber has a lifetime of about 20 years, the environmental impacts of producing the scrubber over its lifetime are negligible compared to producing heavy fuel oil,” she adds.For the final piece, Stathatou spent a week onboard a bulk carrier vessel in China to measure emissions and gather seawater and washwater samples. The ship burned heavy fuel oil with a scrubber and low-sulfur fuels under similar ocean conditions and engine settings.Collecting these onboard data was the most challenging part of the study.“All the safety gear, combined with the heat and the noise from the engines on a moving ship, was very overwhelming,” she says.Their results showed that scrubbers reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 97 percent, putting heavy fuel oil on par with low-sulfur fuels according to that measure. The researchers saw similar trends for emissions of other pollutants like carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide.In addition, they tested washwater samples for more than 60 chemical parameters, including nitrogen, phosphorus, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and 23 metals.The concentrations of chemicals regulated by the IMO were far below the organization’s requirements. For unregulated chemicals, the researchers compared the concentrations to the strictest limits for industrial effluents from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and European Union.Most chemical concentrations were at least an order of magnitude below these requirements.In addition, since washwater is diluted thousands of times as it is dispersed by a moving vessel, the concentrations of such chemicals would be even lower in the open ocean.These findings suggest that the use of scrubbers with heavy fuel oil can be considered as equal to or more environmentally friendly than low-sulfur fuels across many of the impact categories the researchers studied.“This study demonstrates the scientific complexity of the waste stream of scrubbers. Having finally conducted a multiyear, comprehensive, and peer-reviewed study, commonly held fears and assumptions are now put to rest,” says Scott Bergeron, managing director at Oldendorff Carriers and co-author of the study.“This first-of-its-kind study on a well-to-wake basis provides very valuable input to ongoing discussion at the IMO,” adds Thomas Klenum, executive vice president of innovation and regulatory affairs at the Liberian Registry, emphasizing the need “for regulatory decisions to be made based on scientific studies providing factual data and conclusions.”Ultimately, this study shows the importance of incorporating lifecycle assessments into future environmental impact reduction policies, Stathatou says.“There is all this discussion about switching to alternative fuels in the future, but how green are these fuels? We must do our due diligence to compare them equally with existing solutions to see the costs and benefits,” she adds.This study was supported, in part, by Oldendorff Carriers.

Chemicals
Health
Pollution

Rural families use innovative DNA tool to track pig farm pollution

Communities living near factory farms are using a new scientific tool to track pig feces in their homes — and fight back.Hana Mensendiek reports for U.S. Right To Know.In short:Residents in Duplin County, North Carolina, worked with Johns Hopkins scientists to create Pig-2-Bac, a tool that identifies pig manure DNA in household dust.The data helps communities prove that fecal waste from nearby factory farms is contaminating their air and homes, strengthening legal cases against polluters.Researchers say the tool could support lawsuits and Environmental Protection Agency enforcement, especially as new clean air rules targeting livestock emissions take shape.Key quote:“When we’re telling the powers that be how bad it is sometimes, that our eyes are watering, our nose is running, and we’re coughing, sometimes we hear, ‘oh, it can’t be that bad’”.— Devon Hall Sr., director of Rural Empowerment Association for Community HelpWhy this matters:Factory farm air pollution is a serious but underregulated health threat, linked to asthma, respiratory illness, and mental health conditions.For communities buried in the stink of Big Ag, this little dust test could be a breath of fresh air — and a shot at justice. As federal oversight stalls and right-to-farm laws shield industry, tools like Pig-2-Bac give communities a rare shot at holding powerful companies accountable. Read more from EHN:Peak Pig: Read our full series on the fight for the soul of rural America.

Communities living near factory farms are using a new scientific tool to track pig feces in their homes — and fight back.Hana Mensendiek reports for U.S. Right To Know.In short:Residents in Duplin County, North Carolina, worked with Johns Hopkins scientists to create Pig-2-Bac, a tool that identifies pig manure DNA in household dust.The data helps communities prove that fecal waste from nearby factory farms is contaminating their air and homes, strengthening legal cases against polluters.Researchers say the tool could support lawsuits and Environmental Protection Agency enforcement, especially as new clean air rules targeting livestock emissions take shape.Key quote:“When we’re telling the powers that be how bad it is sometimes, that our eyes are watering, our nose is running, and we’re coughing, sometimes we hear, ‘oh, it can’t be that bad’”.— Devon Hall Sr., director of Rural Empowerment Association for Community HelpWhy this matters:Factory farm air pollution is a serious but underregulated health threat, linked to asthma, respiratory illness, and mental health conditions.For communities buried in the stink of Big Ag, this little dust test could be a breath of fresh air — and a shot at justice. As federal oversight stalls and right-to-farm laws shield industry, tools like Pig-2-Bac give communities a rare shot at holding powerful companies accountable. Read more from EHN:Peak Pig: Read our full series on the fight for the soul of rural America.

Pollution
Health
Water

Analysis raises concerns about potential misuse of atrazine weedkiller in US Midwest

Editor's note: This story was originally published by The New Lede and is republished here with permission.Corn growers across Midwestern states appear to be flouting regulations aimed at protecting important waterways from contamination with toxic atrazine weedkiller, according to an analysis of satellite imagery and field data that comes as US regulators ponder changes to rules for use of the pesticide.The analysis, which was conducted by an agricultural industry consultant in Illinois and shared with The New Lede, found what could potentially be thousands of violations by farmers in Illinois and neighboring states. The analysis honed in on geographic points where farm fields planted by corn growers are seen closely abutting waterways, and assumes that farmers sprayed their crops with atrazine, a common practice in the US Midwest.Though it could not be determined if atrazine was used on the fields, the chemical is applied to the majority of corn acres in the state, and the satellite images show clear pathways for the flow of farm chemicals off the fields and into waters. Critics say the information exposes critical problems with current regulation of atrazine, which is known to pose an array of health risks to humans and animals and is considered a dangerous water contaminant.The images and supporting data from the analysis were submitted this week to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), which also obtained the information from the consultant, who wishes to remain anonymous.Though the analysis identified areas of concern in multiple states, it focuses on Illinois, the nation’s No. 2 corn-producing state. In just three counties of Illinois, and along key lakes that provide drinking water for the state, the analysis shows nearly 1,000 parcels of land where farmers planted corn and soybeans right up against rivers and streams and lakes, within required buffer zones where spraying atrazine is not allowed. (Farmers in the Midwest typically rotate planting corn and soy.) This satellite image shows surface runoff from an Illinois farm field channeling into concentrated flow paths, which causes washed out gullies that drag soil, pesticides, and fertilizers directly into an adjacent stream. Credit: The New Lede Overall, there were more than 1,420 individual sites on the parcels of land where cropped area was less than the required 66 feet from the nexus where runoff enters streams or rivers, according to the analysis. There were more than 100 parcels with crops planted closer than the 200-foot margin required as a no-spray zone along the edges of drinking water lakes and reservoirs. These buffer zones, or setbacks, are spelled out on atrazine’s label.“Given the high use of atrazine on corn in Illinois (estimated at 90%), the noted erosion adjacent to many of these fields, evidence of considerable channel runoff within many of these fields, and/or the presence of culverts/spillways that bypass filter strips in many of these fields, it is likely that many of these fields are a considerable source of atrazine in nearby surface water,” CBD said in its submission to the EPA.The analysis and supporting data must be taken into account by the EPA as it finalizes new rules designed to reduce atrazine runoff and provide better protection for waterways against atrazine contamination, the CBD asserts. The public comment period on the new plan closes on Friday.“Willful ignorance is no longer an option for EPA because we’re literally showing them how bad this problem is field-by-field in the most atrazine-contaminated state in the country,” said Nathan Donley, CBD’s environmental health science director.A history of contaminationAtrazine is the second-most commonly used herbicide in the US and most Midwestern states. Farmers rely heavily on the effectiveness of atrazine in killing weeds in corn fields, in particular, but the ample use has created concerns for water quality across corn-growing states.Research has shown that atrazine is an endocrine disruptor that has been linked to increased risk of various cancers, preterm birth, birth defects, and diminished immune function.Syngenta, the longtime maker of atrazine herbicides, paid over $100 million in 2012 to settle litigation with community water systems in six Midwestern states over atrazine contamination. But contaminated water has persisted as a problem.In Illinois, the focus of the analysis, many creeks, lakes and reservoirs have been found to be contaminated with atrazine, including those supplying public drinking water. More than 50 water utilities serving more than 150,000 people in Illinois were found to have atrazine contamination in water supplies at levels that exceed health guidelines set by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), according to a recent EWG drinking water quality report.With input from Syngenta, the agency has proposed making several changes to the rules around atrazine use, including establishing a “concentration-equivalent level of concern” (CELOC) at 9.7 parts per billion (ppb) in streams and lakes. That level is allowed before any mitigation efforts are required in any given watershed.The new CELOC is nearly three times higher than the level of 3.4 ppb proposed by the EPA in 2016 and reiterated by the agency as properly protective in 2022. But it is lower than levels historically allowed. The agency says the new limits will not create any human health risks and will be protective of aquatic life, including fish and amphibians.The agency additionally has proposed expanding the number of options of mitigation measures growers can choose from. The EPA describes its approach as aimed at providing “maximum flexibility (recognizing atrazine’s high benefits) while addressing the need for mitigation” of atrazine contamination.Under the measures proposed by the EPA, in areas where concentrations of atrazine in water exceeds the CELOC, farmers can pick and choose from a point-based “mitigation menu” meant to promote practices that reduce runoff. Some farmers can achieve points based on the properties of their fields or actions they take that are associated with lower runoffs.How many points farmers need varies by area, and includes factors, such as quantity of rainfall, soil type, and whether or not farmers irrigate or till their land. Farmers need up to six points to comply with the proposed label’s instructions. Practicing no-till farming yields three points, as does not irrigating.Critics say points are too easily achieved and will not do much to stop atrazine pollution of waterways. Looking only at Illinois as an example, using the field location analysis, the new mitigation plan would not reduce atrazine runoff in 99% of “runoff-vulnerable” fields in Illinois, CBD said. Even in watersheds where atrazine levels are more than four times higher than the CELOC, farmers would not need to do anything differently under EPA’s proposed mitigation plan, CBD said.In the CBD comments that accompany the data from the Illinois analysis, the CBD told the EPA that the contamination problem overall is “frightening.”“Atrazine contamination is so widespread that dangerous levels of the pesticide are predicted in waterways in 11,249 US watersheds … out of 82,921 watersheds in the continental US,” the CBD wrote in its letter to the EPA. “That is 1/8th of the landmass of the entire continental US. The contaminated areas include about 20% of all land used for US agriculture – roughly 250 million acres feeding into contaminated waterways throughout the country.”Where fields and water meetIn the analysis conducted by the agricultural consultant, satellite imagery showed a range of routes where runoff from farm fields appears to be entering surface waters. In one example, the consultant identified a field where cropped areas abutted up against a stream cutting through the field. Six erosion points were identified where water, soil, and farm chemicals could be carried directly into the water.The consultant said a complete assessment of Champaign County found 499 individual culvert/erosion points in 269 fields that border streams. Assuming the entire cropped area is sprayed, as is standard practice, those fields would be in violation of atrazine labels.Looking at Illinois lakes that supply drinking water to residents, the analysis found that 14 of those lakes had at least one field where crops were planted within the 200-foot zone that is supposed to serve as a buffer against runoff.And, as CBD reported to the EPA, there were 85 land parcels identified with “high runoff vulnerability” into the waterways that feed Lake Springfield, which serves 150,000 people and has a history of atrazine contamination problems.The imaging also shows sites of potential violations outside of properties managed by the Illinois Nature Preserves Commission, which include sensitive natural areas protected under state law. The properties include Wagon Lake, in southwestern Illinois and Calamus Lake, east of Springfield.“There is substantial evidence of widespread chemical misuse” in Illinois and other corn-growing states, the analysis by the consultant concludes.The Illinois Department of Agriculture, the agency that investigates pesticide misuse, declined an interview for this story, but spokesperson Lori Harlan said that “applicators are not required to submit their pesticide records, so the Illinois Department of Agriculture would not have a record of where atrazine applications occurred.”Some of the landowners identified in the analysis owned fields showing multiple points of potential runoff, but those landowners did not respond to requests for comment, and it is not known if they in fact applied atrazine near the waterways.Without landowner confirmation, it is impossible to know if the sites identified as potential sources of violations and atrazine runoff were sprayed with atrazine. Farmers could simply leave those cropped areas close to waterways unsprayed, or use a different weed treatment.Leaving portions of fields unsprayed would be unusual, however, said Vernon Rohrscheib, a farmer who also works as an herbicide applicator in Fairmount, Illinois. “There’s not many corn acres that don’t get some form of atrazine,” he said.Farmers or their hired applicators usually spray entire fields at a time, whenever possible. To spray a different herbicide mix on edges close to waterways, an applicator would have to load a different mix and come back a second time.Illinois corn farmer Tom Smith said the potential violations were “a pretty big deal.” Smith, who also grows soybeans and other crops, said he quit using atrazine years ago due to environmental concerns. He now grows some crops organically, without the use of pesticides.To truly reduce atrazine runoff and also atrazine drift, buffer zones, also called setbacks, are vital measures, and if farmers are not following those guidelines, it creates a significant problem, said Micheal Owen, a weed scientist and extension specialist who recently retired from Iowa State University.“Anything that potentially compromises the environment is important, and wrong,” Owen said.The EPA said it could not comment on the atrazine concerns. Syngenta did not respond to a request for comment.(Carey Gillam, managing editor of The New Lede, contributed to this report.)

Editor's note: This story was originally published by The New Lede and is republished here with permission.Corn growers across Midwestern states appear to be flouting regulations aimed at protecting important waterways from contamination with toxic atrazine weedkiller, according to an analysis of satellite imagery and field data that comes as US regulators ponder changes to rules for use of the pesticide.The analysis, which was conducted by an agricultural industry consultant in Illinois and shared with The New Lede, found what could potentially be thousands of violations by farmers in Illinois and neighboring states. The analysis honed in on geographic points where farm fields planted by corn growers are seen closely abutting waterways, and assumes that farmers sprayed their crops with atrazine, a common practice in the US Midwest.Though it could not be determined if atrazine was used on the fields, the chemical is applied to the majority of corn acres in the state, and the satellite images show clear pathways for the flow of farm chemicals off the fields and into waters. Critics say the information exposes critical problems with current regulation of atrazine, which is known to pose an array of health risks to humans and animals and is considered a dangerous water contaminant.The images and supporting data from the analysis were submitted this week to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), which also obtained the information from the consultant, who wishes to remain anonymous.Though the analysis identified areas of concern in multiple states, it focuses on Illinois, the nation’s No. 2 corn-producing state. In just three counties of Illinois, and along key lakes that provide drinking water for the state, the analysis shows nearly 1,000 parcels of land where farmers planted corn and soybeans right up against rivers and streams and lakes, within required buffer zones where spraying atrazine is not allowed. (Farmers in the Midwest typically rotate planting corn and soy.) This satellite image shows surface runoff from an Illinois farm field channeling into concentrated flow paths, which causes washed out gullies that drag soil, pesticides, and fertilizers directly into an adjacent stream. Credit: The New Lede Overall, there were more than 1,420 individual sites on the parcels of land where cropped area was less than the required 66 feet from the nexus where runoff enters streams or rivers, according to the analysis. There were more than 100 parcels with crops planted closer than the 200-foot margin required as a no-spray zone along the edges of drinking water lakes and reservoirs. These buffer zones, or setbacks, are spelled out on atrazine’s label.“Given the high use of atrazine on corn in Illinois (estimated at 90%), the noted erosion adjacent to many of these fields, evidence of considerable channel runoff within many of these fields, and/or the presence of culverts/spillways that bypass filter strips in many of these fields, it is likely that many of these fields are a considerable source of atrazine in nearby surface water,” CBD said in its submission to the EPA.The analysis and supporting data must be taken into account by the EPA as it finalizes new rules designed to reduce atrazine runoff and provide better protection for waterways against atrazine contamination, the CBD asserts. The public comment period on the new plan closes on Friday.“Willful ignorance is no longer an option for EPA because we’re literally showing them how bad this problem is field-by-field in the most atrazine-contaminated state in the country,” said Nathan Donley, CBD’s environmental health science director.A history of contaminationAtrazine is the second-most commonly used herbicide in the US and most Midwestern states. Farmers rely heavily on the effectiveness of atrazine in killing weeds in corn fields, in particular, but the ample use has created concerns for water quality across corn-growing states.Research has shown that atrazine is an endocrine disruptor that has been linked to increased risk of various cancers, preterm birth, birth defects, and diminished immune function.Syngenta, the longtime maker of atrazine herbicides, paid over $100 million in 2012 to settle litigation with community water systems in six Midwestern states over atrazine contamination. But contaminated water has persisted as a problem.In Illinois, the focus of the analysis, many creeks, lakes and reservoirs have been found to be contaminated with atrazine, including those supplying public drinking water. More than 50 water utilities serving more than 150,000 people in Illinois were found to have atrazine contamination in water supplies at levels that exceed health guidelines set by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), according to a recent EWG drinking water quality report.With input from Syngenta, the agency has proposed making several changes to the rules around atrazine use, including establishing a “concentration-equivalent level of concern” (CELOC) at 9.7 parts per billion (ppb) in streams and lakes. That level is allowed before any mitigation efforts are required in any given watershed.The new CELOC is nearly three times higher than the level of 3.4 ppb proposed by the EPA in 2016 and reiterated by the agency as properly protective in 2022. But it is lower than levels historically allowed. The agency says the new limits will not create any human health risks and will be protective of aquatic life, including fish and amphibians.The agency additionally has proposed expanding the number of options of mitigation measures growers can choose from. The EPA describes its approach as aimed at providing “maximum flexibility (recognizing atrazine’s high benefits) while addressing the need for mitigation” of atrazine contamination.Under the measures proposed by the EPA, in areas where concentrations of atrazine in water exceeds the CELOC, farmers can pick and choose from a point-based “mitigation menu” meant to promote practices that reduce runoff. Some farmers can achieve points based on the properties of their fields or actions they take that are associated with lower runoffs.How many points farmers need varies by area, and includes factors, such as quantity of rainfall, soil type, and whether or not farmers irrigate or till their land. Farmers need up to six points to comply with the proposed label’s instructions. Practicing no-till farming yields three points, as does not irrigating.Critics say points are too easily achieved and will not do much to stop atrazine pollution of waterways. Looking only at Illinois as an example, using the field location analysis, the new mitigation plan would not reduce atrazine runoff in 99% of “runoff-vulnerable” fields in Illinois, CBD said. Even in watersheds where atrazine levels are more than four times higher than the CELOC, farmers would not need to do anything differently under EPA’s proposed mitigation plan, CBD said.In the CBD comments that accompany the data from the Illinois analysis, the CBD told the EPA that the contamination problem overall is “frightening.”“Atrazine contamination is so widespread that dangerous levels of the pesticide are predicted in waterways in 11,249 US watersheds … out of 82,921 watersheds in the continental US,” the CBD wrote in its letter to the EPA. “That is 1/8th of the landmass of the entire continental US. The contaminated areas include about 20% of all land used for US agriculture – roughly 250 million acres feeding into contaminated waterways throughout the country.”Where fields and water meetIn the analysis conducted by the agricultural consultant, satellite imagery showed a range of routes where runoff from farm fields appears to be entering surface waters. In one example, the consultant identified a field where cropped areas abutted up against a stream cutting through the field. Six erosion points were identified where water, soil, and farm chemicals could be carried directly into the water.The consultant said a complete assessment of Champaign County found 499 individual culvert/erosion points in 269 fields that border streams. Assuming the entire cropped area is sprayed, as is standard practice, those fields would be in violation of atrazine labels.Looking at Illinois lakes that supply drinking water to residents, the analysis found that 14 of those lakes had at least one field where crops were planted within the 200-foot zone that is supposed to serve as a buffer against runoff.And, as CBD reported to the EPA, there were 85 land parcels identified with “high runoff vulnerability” into the waterways that feed Lake Springfield, which serves 150,000 people and has a history of atrazine contamination problems.The imaging also shows sites of potential violations outside of properties managed by the Illinois Nature Preserves Commission, which include sensitive natural areas protected under state law. The properties include Wagon Lake, in southwestern Illinois and Calamus Lake, east of Springfield.“There is substantial evidence of widespread chemical misuse” in Illinois and other corn-growing states, the analysis by the consultant concludes.The Illinois Department of Agriculture, the agency that investigates pesticide misuse, declined an interview for this story, but spokesperson Lori Harlan said that “applicators are not required to submit their pesticide records, so the Illinois Department of Agriculture would not have a record of where atrazine applications occurred.”Some of the landowners identified in the analysis owned fields showing multiple points of potential runoff, but those landowners did not respond to requests for comment, and it is not known if they in fact applied atrazine near the waterways.Without landowner confirmation, it is impossible to know if the sites identified as potential sources of violations and atrazine runoff were sprayed with atrazine. Farmers could simply leave those cropped areas close to waterways unsprayed, or use a different weed treatment.Leaving portions of fields unsprayed would be unusual, however, said Vernon Rohrscheib, a farmer who also works as an herbicide applicator in Fairmount, Illinois. “There’s not many corn acres that don’t get some form of atrazine,” he said.Farmers or their hired applicators usually spray entire fields at a time, whenever possible. To spray a different herbicide mix on edges close to waterways, an applicator would have to load a different mix and come back a second time.Illinois corn farmer Tom Smith said the potential violations were “a pretty big deal.” Smith, who also grows soybeans and other crops, said he quit using atrazine years ago due to environmental concerns. He now grows some crops organically, without the use of pesticides.To truly reduce atrazine runoff and also atrazine drift, buffer zones, also called setbacks, are vital measures, and if farmers are not following those guidelines, it creates a significant problem, said Micheal Owen, a weed scientist and extension specialist who recently retired from Iowa State University.“Anything that potentially compromises the environment is important, and wrong,” Owen said.The EPA said it could not comment on the atrazine concerns. Syngenta did not respond to a request for comment.(Carey Gillam, managing editor of The New Lede, contributed to this report.)

Agriculture
Animals
Chemicals

The Barons Who Rule What We Eat

Growing up, Austin Frerick recalls the fields of Iowa as lush and full of farm animals. Now, when he visits his hometown of Cedar Rapids, he sees a more barren landscape. The shift, or as he describes it, “the collapse of Iowa,” inspired the seventh-generation Iowan to look into the wealth and power that’s shaped […]

Growing up, Austin Frerick recalls the fields of Iowa as lush and full of farm animals. Now, when he visits his hometown of Cedar Rapids, he sees a more barren landscape. The shift, or as he describes it, “the collapse of Iowa,” inspired the seventh-generation Iowan to look into the wealth and power that’s shaped the state, and subsequently, the American agriculture and food systems. Frerick’s widely-praised book, Barons: Money, Power, and the Corruption of America’s Food Industry, explores the titans who have amassed near monopolistic market domination of what we eat every day–and the systems that enabled them to amass power.  Chapter by chapter, Frerick profiles a family or company dominating the hog, grain, coffee, dairy, berry, slaughter, or grocery industries. Some are household names like Driscols and Walmart; others, like the Batista family who run the world’s largest butchering company, keep their names off their products. The profiles cover how each baron came to and maintained power, whether through government corruption, rapid acquisitions, or developing production models that dodged labor or environmental regulations.  The barons’ growth reveals how, in both visible and invisible ways, their products are intertwined in the larger food system. Ultimately, Frerick connects their actions—from building enormous hog confinements to skirting safety laws—to the various health and climate threats ailing communities across Iowa, America and the globe. Mother Jones recently caught up with Frerick to discuss the 2024 book and what it says against the backdrop of Trump’s plans, a growing MAHA movement, and skyrocketing food costs. Where did your interest in agriculture and food systems begin?  Cedar Rapids is a corn town, so much of your cereal, so much of your food, is manufactured there, and so it’s painted into the background. Also, part of my family is from up in the part of Iowa that used to be the prettiest; The Driftless region with rolling hills, dairy; and now there’s no animals on the land. You smell them, but you don’t see them. And you see the collapse of the family farm which has hollowed out these towns. There’s this imagery—people think of Iowa as like this Field of Dreams. But that’s not Iowa anymore. Field of Dreams Iowa died in my lifetime, and I think about that all the time. How did you first learn about the agriculture barons? I had an internship at a think tank, and they asked me to proofread school district data, and I sorted it by non-white, free and then reduced lunch rates; And I kept noticing the same seven small towns in Iowa. I was like, What’s going on here? Turns out they were all slaughterhouse towns. So I did my college thesis on this. I interviewed a principal where he told me about the additional support services that schools are required to bring because of the working poverty a lot of these students are growing up in. And in the next instant, he literally said, ‘The packers are great. They give me unlimited hot dogs for the back-to-school bash.’ And it was my advisor who said, ‘Do you not realize what’s going on there? That’s power. He can’t connect the fact that like all these issues are because of the slaughterhouse. These are modern day company towns.’ Your book centers on how these barons rose to become pillars of our global food system. How did they come to be?  This laissez faire era rewards a race to the bottom and the most ruthless players. Like most hog farmers, they weren’t willing in Iowa to shove their pigs into a metal shed where they don’t see a blade of grass. You reward the worst actors. And I think so much of the current American economy gets the worst people winning. “Iowa should be the Tuscany of North America. It has some of the world’s best soil yet it has an obesity crisis, a water crisis, and a cancer crisis.” Also, I think the food industry is the most concentrated space in America, but also the least appreciated. Look at Cargill (a multinational company that trades agriculture commodities and produces ultra-processed ingredients like corn syrup). It blows people’s minds when I tell them they’re the largest private company in America–they’re bigger than the Koch brothers. No one knows who they are, because they have a lot of middlemen who are not consumer facing. Even when they are consumer facing, a lot of times they own multiple brands, so you don’t even realize how consolidated that space is because you have this illusion of choice. How do the monopolies or oligopolies established affect the food we eat and what we pay?  We spend more money than the United Kingdom, Spain, Mexico, Canada, Greece, Japan, France, Germany, Sweden, Australia, Italy. So it’s like literally, we spend $1,000 more per person per year than some in the United Kingdom. So right now, the system is expensive, which, first of all, we shouldn’t be shocked about. That’s economics 101: concentrated markets gouge. It’s what they do. But second, something that I’ve come to appreciate is how much the system makes bad tasting food. We’re actually paying more for garbage.  And how do these barons impact the environment? Textbook monopoly is innovation: taste and price. But the environment, everything in the environment, there is a shifting of cost. They call it negative externalities in economics. You see it in Iowa. I view Iowa now as an extraction colony, like it’s really a 19th century coal mining town in terms of the power dynamics. The family hog farmer essentially died in my lifetime and this mass of industrial hogs took its place.  So Iowa has like 25 million hogs a year and they defecate three times more than us, so that’s manure of 75 million people. At the same time the regulatory structure has collapsed. And so Iowa is drowning in shit. The waterways were an open sewer, like 50 to 63 percent of the waterways in Iowa are too polluted for you to go in.  And then the last scary new thing we’re seeing is Iowa has the second-highest cancer rate in the country. And it’s clear it’s tied to the agricultural system in Iowa.  Iowa really is the canary in the coal mines of the American food system. Iowa should be the Tuscany of North America. It has some of the world’s best soil yet it has an obesity crisis, a water crisis, and a cancer crisis. In February, the Senate confirmed Brooke Rollins as Trump’s USDA secretary. What can we expect from her leadership, and how does that look in comparison to the legacy of Tom Vilsack, the former USDA secretary? More of the same. I really don’t see a policy difference between her and Vilsack. I would love to be proven wrong. To be fair, there hasn’t been a good secretary in my lifetime at USDA. But Vilsack failed to reign in the meat monopolies, these companies gouging everyone, gouging farmers, gouging at the store, employing children in slaughterhouses. He not only failed to do something, they actually got larger under the Biden administration.  In the most recent election, the rising cost of groceries was a major issue. Still, since Trump won we’ve seen him claim it will be hard to lower the price of groceries. What role do these barons have in the pricing of goods?  When you have so few players in the space, it’s so easy to act like a cartel and gouge. I think the best example, just the extent of the price gouging by the barons, is that McDonald’s is the largest buyer of beef in the world. Usually, you treat your largest customer the best: They say bark, you say woof. McDonald’s filed a lawsuit against the beef packers this fall for price fixing. So if you’re gouging your largest, best customer, that tells you everything.  I think that the really scary thing now is even Walmart’s getting hurt. Walmart’s like the king of kings, it’s the head honcho. People judge your grocery store based on the price and quality of the meat and dairy case. And Walmart’s response to being gouged by the barons is taking things into its own hands and making vertical plays into both beef and dairy by building its own beef plant in Wichita and then three dairy plants in America. I believe it wants insight into cost structure, so that way it knows when it negotiates with these barons it knows what it costs to produce a gallon of milk. I think the most powerful person in the American food system right now is a Walmart buyer.  Last congress extended the farm bill by one year as part of an effort to avert a government shutdown, so now it’ll likely be brought back up sometime this year. It’s become an industry defining bill. Can you share the gist of the farm bill and how it has shaped agriculture into a baron ruled system? Essentially, you have a quarter of it incentivizing people to over produce grains (through crop insurance systems), and then the other three fourths of it is a food assistance subsidy to the working poor of America. And I think the Farm Bill is collapsing in front of us right now because [Congress] can’t push it through. They’re trying to essentially pass a status quo Farm Bill, and they can’t even get it done. And I think partly it’s the MAHA influence, where younger men are obsessed with their bodies and so they’re repulsed by the Farm Bill. I mean, in fact, we get subsidies for Oreos, but not healthy food. And so you’re kind of seeing that break off into the MAHA. Senate Republicans want to pass it. House Republicans are much more like, let’s blow this thing up. And I think that’s what’s gonna be really curious to see.  It’s not like we’re eating more hogs. It’s more for export, and a lot of it’s to places like Mexico and China. Why are we destroying Iowa to feed China and Mexico?  I think the most likely outcome, actually, is they’re going to gut SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program], which is basically going to screw poor people or the working poor.  But again, one idea [Republicans] had, that I thought was a good idea, was they actually want to put SNAP under HHS, take it away from USDA. I think that’s a good idea. I don’t think they’ll actually do it. I assume everything they’re going to do is in the interest of the barons and the oligarchs.  Does change have to happen at state and local level first?  To me, that’s like the curse and blessing of the laboratories of democracy…You get things like unemployment insurance starting in Wisconsin and going national. Or, hopefully down the road, we see free school meals of Minnesota go national. But on the dark side, you see it play out too in the food system. In North Carolina, a state senator deregulated the hog industry that allowed this really exploitative industrial model to take hold and Iowa just copied it. One thing to keep in mind too about this hog production: It’s not like we’re eating more hogs. It’s more for export, and a lot of it’s to places like Mexico and China. Why are we destroying Iowa to feed China and Mexico?  I really do think there’s no party more tied into China than the Republican Party of Iowa. I mean, (former Iowa governor) Terry Branstad was Trump’s ambassador to China. The whole model of Iowa is overproduction and dumping these surpluses abroad. They can’t imagine a world of like, ‘Maybe we do less industrial pork, maybe we grow carrots, maybe we grow sheep?’ The really dark undercurrent is there’s all the xenophobic rhetoric, but [Iowa Republicans] are the most tied into that model. RFK Jr. and the MAHA movement seem keen to ban pesticides, seed oils, and ultraprocessed foods, many of which are central to some of the massive agriculture barons noted in your book, from Driscoll’s genetic work to Cargill’s high fructose corn syrup. How do you anticipate Big Ag industry leaders to respond to this?  Well, first of all, I think they have already started exerting some influence because no MAHA people got into USDA. So like, let’s just start there, they don’t have power. My takeaway from that whole thing is there really is a bipartisan chance to do something meaningful. Here you have a weird coalition of everyone just not seeing the system work. I mean, that is, you have the MAHA types latching onto it.  The barons tend to use the classic playbook. They drag things out. And so they’re going to try to delay the MAHA and hopefully the passion falls away.  Another policy change that agriculture may face is navigating the ongoing tariffs. Some Canadians are refusing to purchase produce made in the US. How does it impact these big Ag businesses? So much of the American Farm Bill now is designed to over produce a few things. So we essentially need to dump our surpluses abroad at the same time. These free trade agreements essentially allow the races to the bottom for produce production. Forty percent of your vegetables and 60 percent of fruit comes from outside the borders. Kind of like a T-shirt, when these supply chains move offshore, you see transparency collapse.  “This system is incredibly fragile, and it’s not sustainable.” But also keep in mind, farmers can’t compete on price, so they exit the market and then end up doing more corn and soy. These tariffs could break the current Farm Bill model in America, where we’re producing too many hogs for our consumption. We need to sell them to China. But also if a tariff war were to break out, what’s going to happen? What Trump did last time was essentially spend billions of dollars to do bailouts, to buy the surplus and take it off market. If anything, the tariffs are going to cost a lot of money.   What gives me hope is this system is incredibly fragile, and it’s not sustainable, and it’s going to break at some point. What we’re seeing with eggs is going to become normal, because you’re playing Russian roulette with disease in this industrial meat and dairy system. When you pack that many genetically similar animals into a metal shed, you’re going to get these massive disease outbreaks, and they will only continue to happen. So at some point you got to be like, is it worth it, or do we need a different production model? And these super concentrated systems are fragile. They’re going to keep breaking.  In the coffee baron chapter you note how in many cases researchers and economists earn a hefty income providing evidence that encourages monopolistic behavior. How does this impact everyday citizens? And what do you anticipate the future of this research industry?  I think the most corrupt academic discipline in America right now is agricultural economics. When you start talking to folks, you realize every commodity has go-to hack academics. I talk about a certain Ag economist at Iowa State, who is just the go-to academic for the hog baron. Even though, for example, we know that working at a slaughterhouse is one of the most dangerous jobs in America, and the hog baron wants to speed up the kill lines to make more money, magically, this Ag economist says this is good for Iowa farmers. He’s also in business with a hog baron. He is a corporate witness for them, and he usually doesn’t disclose it. So not only is it corrupting the literature, it’s corrupting the public discourse. And, to your average American, here’s a fancy sounding title from an academic from a university saying this is not a real issue. It’s helping to hide the crisis among the workers, the climate, and the food system.  In a time where agriculture is, as you note in your book, largely dominated by these oligopolies. Where is the most progress being made to disrupt these barons?  There’s two questions I always get asked when I do book events. One is, do you worry about your safety, and it’s always from a nice old lady. The second one is always, and this is usually from audience members at the more coastal events: Why are these people voting against their economic interest? And that question always bothered me because it was a Democrat [Vilsack] in Iowa that undermined the rebellion of people fighting with hog barons. I think there’s a degree of people, especially in these more rural communities, that just don’t trust anyone anymore. They want to blow up the whole system.  Here’s the thing: people for decades have been talking about monopolies, but no one’s done anything. We all agree that we’re being short changed by these barons. You have to articulate to folks what the system could be so that people feel like they can overcome that.  Start locally. The first anti-monopoly laws in the world started in Iowa, were written by Iowa farmers mad about being gouged by grain elevators. It rippled across the country and then the federal government essentially did a version of that bill. There’s a lot of people doing it right.  I really learned while writing this book that most people are trying to do the right thing. They’re just running uphill. And it’s just the greed of a few people holding us back. The system we have now is radical. So much of what we talked about is traditional. I just want animals on the land.  This interview has been edited and condensed.

Animals
Agriculture
Climate

No Results today.

Our news is updated constantly with the latest environmental stories from around the world. Reset or change your filters to find the most active current topics.

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.