Buffalo River Watershed Alliance
By Emily Walkenhorst
This article was published today at 4:04 a.m.
Two federal agencies again issued a finding of "no significant impact" for a Mount Judea hog farm near the Buffalo National River.
The farm sits along Big Creek, 6.8 miles from where it flows into the Buffalo National River. It is the first large-scale hog farm in the watershed -- the area that drains into the river.
C&H Hog Farms is permitted to have 2,500 sows and 4,000 piglets. It has been criticized by nearby residents and environmental groups upset about the perceived risk of pollution from hog waste.
In a report released last week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Services Agency and the U.S. Small Business Administration cited current data and the restrictions of C&H Hog Farms' permit as reasons why the farm would have no significant impact on the surrounding natural area.
People interested in the matter have until Jan. 18 to comment on the final study. Comments can be sent to CHHogFarmComments@cardnogs.com or to C&H Hog Farm Comments c/o Cardno, 501 Butler Farm Road, Suite H, Hampton, Va., 23666.
In September, the agencies requested that their Dec. 2 deadline for issuing a final assessment be extended to March 1. They cited an "unexpectedly high volume" of comments to respond to: 1,858.
A spokesman for the Farm Services Agency did not get back to an Arkansas Democrat-Gazettereporter Friday about why the assessment was released so much earlier than March 1.
On Dec. 2, 2014, U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr. ordered the final assessment shortly after finding fault with the original assessment done by the agencies. Marshall ordered a new study that would take the National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act into account and would work with other relevant agencies.
That order stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, the Arkansas Canoe Club, the National Parks Conservation Association and the Ozark Society over loan guarantees that the agencies made that allowed C&H Hog Farms to secure loans from Farm Credit Services of Western Arkansas and go into operation in the spring of 2013.
Gordon Watkins, president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, said his group was not anticipating a final assessment until much closer to March 1, and he was surprised to see it issued just before Christmas.
Watkins' alliance was created in response to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality's approval of C&H's permit for operating in late 2012.
He said the alliance didn't have an official comment yet about the final assessment but would issue one opposing it before the Jan. 18 deadline.
"We're really disappointed in the environmental assessment," he said Friday.
Jason Henson, co-owner of C&H Hog Farms, did not respond to a voice mail left for him Friday.
Officials with the agencies have declined to release public comments submitted on the assessment. An official with the Farm Services Agency told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that the agencies would attach public comments received as an appendix to the final environmental assessment when it is completed.
In the final assessment, released Wednesday, the agency summarized some comments, without specifying their sources, and then responded to them.
The newspaper obtained copies of the comments on the draft assessment, released in August, made by the plaintiffs and the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality.
In a three-page comment, Ellen Carpenter -- chief of the Water Division of the Environmental Quality Department -- offered mostly clarifications on the environmental assessment, which included pointing out that the department does not have numeric standards for nutrients in streams and rivers.
"To date, ADEQ does not have sufficient data to assess for nutrient impairment on Big Creek or the Buffalo River," Carpenter wrote.
In the plaintiffs' 40-page comment, they again argued that the assessment was incomplete. The comment also includes research and opinions from science professors at universities in the South that raise concerns.
The plaintiffs' comment also argues that the assessment is inaccurate about whether C&H is located on karst terrain, doesn't include relevant data being collected by various researchers and ignores findings of impairment in Big Creek, among other things.
They argue that the federal agencies did not consider the socioeconomic costs of the farm, given the potential harm to property owners and tourism in poorer-than-average Newton County. In 2014, the Buffalo National River -- the country's first national river -- had more than 1.3 million visitors who spent about $56.5 million at area businesses, according to National Park Service data.
In the final assessment released last week, the agencies incorporated National Park Service data to go with the previously used Big Creek Research and Extension Team data. The Big Creek team is conducting a five-year study by the University of Arkansas System's Division of Agriculture. Previous comments had lamented that the draft assessment did not take into consideration the National Park Service's data or other research that has been conducted in the area.
The agencies argued that the data used from the National Park Service indicated that the levels of nitrates in the water around the farm were acceptable.No increases in nitrate levels had been perceptibly measured since the farm started operating, the report said.
Additionally, the agencies said, "There would be no disproportionate effects to low-income populations because the operation of C&H Hog Farms [is] within the terms of its NPDES [National Pollution Discharge Elimination System] General Permit and other environmental regulations to protect public health and welfare effectively prevent significant impacts."
Further, they said, C&H Hog Farms has a "relatively small beneficial socioeconomic effect to the region," consisting of nine jobs and $7,000 in property taxes.
The agencies also studied the potential impact on several bat species found in Newton County.
"Significant changes in water quality could adversely affect macroinvertebrate populations occurring in Big Creek, which indirectly could affect bat species through a reduction in prey base. However, no measureable [sic] adverse impacts to surface water quality in Big Creek have been identified based on the BCRET [Big Creek Research and Extension Team] and NPS [National Park System] water quality monitoring data," the report reads.
Metro on 12/20/2015
Posted: December 13, 2015 at 2:10 a.m.
Gordon Watkins, the persistent and knowledgeable president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, says he sees red flags surrounding the controversial hog factory at Mount Judea.
Most of Arkansas and many across America know by now it's the place our state's Department of Environmental Quality (cough) permitted to become ensconced in the treasured Buffalo National River watershed back in 2012.
Watkins and his group are among several societies and associations actively opposing this factory housing up to 6,500 swine (and its millions of gallons of raw waste being openly spread on fields).
He bases his concerns over potential environmental damage to the river that studies already are reflecting. Among them are data being collected over five years by the University of Arkansas Agricultural Division's so-called Big Creek Research and Extension Team.
This state-funded team investigating the state's role was the result of former Gov. Mike Beebe's order to accurately and objectively determine the transport and fate of swine waste in such a misplaced location.
In short, they are to determine how much raw waste and resulting pathogens might be draining into Big Creek, a major tributary of the Buffalo six miles downstream, and flowing through the fractured karst subsurface that permeates the region.
By objectively I mean free from influences of groups who financially and politically support big agriculture. You know, a thorough, honest assessment that lets the chips fall where they do regardless of juicy campaign contributions and/or arm twisting to gain specific favorable results.
Not that this sort of unsavory practice that perverts truth and integrity ever occurs in Arkansas, of course.
Significant to Watkins from the findings thus far are the high nitrate-N levels discovered at the team's downstream sampling station, and high E. coli levels in the monitoring trenches and stream immediately below the factory's waste ponds. "Most concerning to me is the level reported in the house well which supplies drinking water for the swine and for the employees."
He said the Arkansas Department of Health considers any detectable amount of E. coli to be unsafe to drink. Records show the team took 23 well samples between March and August. In only two samples was E. coli at the threshold considered safe. Yes, I wrote two. All other samples were well above safe levels, some very high. "To be clear, [the Department of Health] does not have jurisdiction over private wells and so does not have the authority to enforce safe drinking water standards at C&H. If this was a public water supply, it would be shut down until the contamination source was eliminated."
In our discussion, I got the distinct impression there are several things Watkins would insist upon were he supervising the research and testing, or had a team of his very own.
For instance, rather than continually minimizing obvious red flags by attributing the contamination his imaginary team discovers to possible sources other than C&H, he'd find out with pinpoint certainty. His common-sense meter and a regard for the obvious would be moving him to action.
He said his team of experts and scientists would do far better than speculate by hopefully borrowing sophisticated source-tracking technologies from the University of Arkansas designed just for that purpose.
His imaginary team (I'll call it Gordon's Apolitical Research Team, or GART) could indeed determine with this borrowed technology (perhaps they could rent it if necessary) whether leaky waste ponds or waste runoff from the fields were the contaminant sources.
He'd also have personnel with expertise in the "application of stable isotopes and other geochemical indicators in determining the movement and behavior of contaminates in groundwater systems." He'd also have the university's specialized equipment.
"I'm no scientist but my understanding of stable isotopes is that they can provide a 'fingerprint' of a contaminant such as swine waste from waste containment ponds, for example," Watkins said. His team would then have a fingerprint to compare with the same contaminates discovered in the wells, stream, trenches, and Big Creek (also groundwater). For instance, "If a match was determined, it would be known the swine waste was the source."
Gordon said his team might even go so far as to perhaps borrow another source-tracking method also available from UA resources. This is a DNA analysis of E. coli.
The one thing Gordon's team would not do, he says, is obfuscate and misattribute the problem when a likely source lies squarely beneath their noses. His group would not be "scientifically weak or negligent in carrying out the work the governor had demanded of them. That specifically includes monitoring the fate and transport of nutrients and bacteria" at C&H.
If his imaginary team could, they'd get to the bottom of it by using the tools made for that very job, he said. You know, valued readers, somehow I believe the man would do just that.
------------v------------
Mike Masterson's column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at mikemasterson10@hotmail.com.
Editorial on 12/13/2015
By Mariana Lo | Friday, December 11, 2015
This fall, many North Carolinians found a cheery recording left on their answering machines:
Hi, this is Nannette Sutton, a North Carolina hog farmer calling on behalf of the North Carolina Pork Council with a message about hog farming in our state. I’m proud to be part of an industry that’s responsible for thousands of well-paid jobs. More than 46,000 North Carolinians rely on the pork industry for their livelihood, with an average annual wage of nearly $40,000. Please visit www.ncpork.org to learn how hog farmers are strengthening North Carolina communities and helping our local economy. This is paid for by the North Carolina Pork Council.
You might think this is just the voicemail equivalent of an infomercial. Perhaps it conjures up the image of a friendly local farmer watching over a herd of happy pigs or a bustling farmers’ market where customers pay top dollar for locally raised pork.
If you live next to a typical modern-day hog farm, though, you know that’s not what reality looks like. There are about 2,100 hog farms in North Carolina raising just under 10 million hogs per year. That’s an average of 5,000 hogs per farm. These are industrial operations, not bucolic barnyards. Such large-scale hog farms produce a lot of pork, but they also produce huge amounts of hog urine and feces.
For many years, the standard way of dealing with that hog waste has been to store it in massive, open-air cesspools and then spray it onto nearby fields. This leads to dangerous contamination of nearby waterways with fecal bacteria, nitrates, phosphorus and parasites, not to mention unimaginable odors. Neighbors have no choice but to endure the stench, pollution and health impacts, such as respiratory problems, burning eyes, headaches and high blood pressure.
The Pork Council’s voicemail doesn’t mention any of those problems, preferring to focus on jobs and wages instead. But even there, the message rings hollow. In Duplin County, North Carolina, where there are more pigs per capita than anywhere else in the country, median household income is only about $34,000 (that’s household income, not individuals’ wages), and more than a quarter of the population lives in poverty. Meanwhile, the handful of corporations that control U.S. pork production are raking in billions of dollars in revenue every year. You can bet that that money isn’t staying in the local economy—especially since Smithfield Foods, which runs the world’s largest slaughterhouse in Tar Heel, North Carolina, was purchased by a Chinese holding company in 2013.
The consolidation of the pork industry hasn’t been good for the family farm. As is true in most of the country, the number of farms and farmers in North Carolina has been steadily decreasing, while the average size of farms has gotten larger and larger. The number of North Carolinians employed by hog farming makes up less than one half of one percent of the state’s population (9.94 million people as of the 2014 census).
In part, the decline is occurring because it’s harder and harder to make a decent living as a farmer, thanks to the dominance of big agribusinesses. These days, most hog farmers don’t own the hogs they raise. Rather, the farmer is under contract with a multinational corporation, which owns the hogs from conception to slaughter and dictates exactly how the farmer must raise them. In this scheme, the farmer does most of the work and bears most of the costs and risks, but the corporation gets most of the profits.
The North Carolina Pork Council probably wouldn’t be paying for thousands of robo-calls if they weren’t desperate to make a bad industry sound better than it is. Don’t believe the hype—North Carolinians deserve better. That’s why Earthjustice is partnering with state and local organizations to stand up for clean air, clean water and accountability from these so-called “integrator companies” that own the hogs “from squeal to meal.” We’re also taking on the hog industry on civil rights grounds for the impact hog feces and urine have on nearby low-income communities of color. Join us in sending the pork industry’s propaganda out to pasture.
Posted: December 11, 2015 at 1 a.m.
Action needed
to preserve Buffalo River
Fall is my favorite time of year for hiking and floating on the Buffalo National River. The kids are back in school and the Razorback fans are at a tailgate party. The Buffalo is left to those who want to take a slow, quiet float, watch the herons, and camp undisturbed on a limestone gravel bar.
Last month, six of us ranging in age from 54 to almost 84 floated 13.5 miles from the Spring Creek campground to Rush. Each and every one of us had floated the Buffalo many, many times at different seasons of the year and on all sections of the river. Yet we had never the seen the river so inundated with algae at every turn and pool. The algae plumes covered the bottom of the river an estimated 70 percent of our trip down the river. While we had the pick of the gravel bars for camping, we searched for a campsite that was algae free. None were to be had, at least when the time came for us to stop for the night. Algae blooms in rivers and lakes typically mean there are dangerous amounts of chemicals, pollutants and toxins harming the quality of the water. Algae covered the bottom of the river and created a green border along the shore. I passed on swimming in such green slime. It was disgusting and depressing.
Is this is the new normal for a trip down the once beautiful Buffalo River? Has contamination from hog manure and other sources destroyed our state treasure? Unfortunately, this is a national trend. Despite the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and passage of the Clean Water Act in the 1970’s, our rivers are becoming more and more polluted in part due to waste and runoff from industrial operations. Look no further than the Illinois River in western Arkansas degraded by chicken litter run-off and more recently, the Dan River in North Carolina, where a large pipe full of coal ash spilled more than 27 million gallons of contaminated water into the river.
While all rivers are important to our ecology, neither of these streams were national parks or rivers. But the Buffalo River is a national river, in fact, the first national river in our country. The National Park Service owns only 11 percent of the watershed. It is up to all of us, especially those who own land that borders the park and those who use the park, to be good stewards of the land. The Buffalo is also an economic engine for our communities by attracting visitors from around the world who shop in our stores, stay in our cabins and eat at our restaurants. These are important jobs for so many of us and it would be economically disastrous for the Buffalo River to continue to be mistreated.
That’s why it’s time for all of us to speak up. Let’s urge our elected officials in Little Rock and Congress to clean up our Buffalo National River and support implementing the new Clean Water Act rules.
MARGARET KONERT
Fayetteville
By Mike Masterson
Posted: December 8, 2015 at 3:34 a.m.
Meanwhile, back at that hog factory, which thanks to the accommodations of our state's Department of Environmental Quality (cough), landed squarely in our Buffalo National River watershed.
I doubt many across our state have forgotten C&H Hog Farms is still there regularly spreading tons of raw swine waste across fields with runoff into the Big Creek, a major tributary of the country's first national river six miles downstream.
For an update, I naturally turned to Dr. John Van Brahana, the Fayetteville geosciences professor emeritus at the University of Arkansas who has voluntarily spent almost three years with his team examining the effects and after-effects of our state allowing the factory into this treasured watershed. He has abundant credibility in my mind because no one is paying him to conduct his testing. He does it simply because he cares deeply for the well-being of the Buffalo River and all it means to this state.
He said he has several observations and findings to share of all that has been transpiring at Mount Judea where the factory is situated.
First, Brahana says he believes "lobbyists and well-compensated special-interest salespeople continue to present inaccurate and misleading statements to generate fear among those who've not had the chance to fully study this highly emotional, political and economic controversy."
The amiable professor then addressed the past year of data collection that reflects the hydrology of Big Creek in the vicinity of this factory by his group and three separate agencies, as well as local, long-term residents and farmers who live along that stream. And all the findings "continue to convince me this agricultural factory is negatively impacting the ground and surface water of Big Creek."
Brahana says he bases his conclusions based on a number of factual findings, which include that during warm-weather months, the dissolved oxygen concentrations in Big Creek dropped below the Environmental Protection Agency's classification limit of "impaired" multiple times.
"Dissolved oxygen is necessary for fish and the ecology of other organisms in the stream and reflects the overall health of this drainage. A sampling of trace metals, which are chemicals in very low concentrations (measured in parts per billion) provide a fingerprint of where groundwater has flowed and the substances it has picked up," he said.
"Our recently initiated trace-metal sampling of springs, wells and streams in Big Creek Valley indicate from 10 to 100 times the background concentrations of trace metals that are components of pig feed are highest near the waste-spreading fields. Nitrate-N concentration in Big Creek [downstream] from the factory continue to be higher than than those measured at a stream study site upstream. Concentrations measured thus far are below EPA limits," he said, adding: "If we wait until EPA limits are exceeded--which appears to be the position of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality--before action is taken, the Buffalo will be imperiled."
The professor said farmers and long-term residents have noted and reported much greater growth of algal mat and biofilms on the bottom of Big Creek since the operation of the CAFO began. "Although this isn't proof of an impact from the CAFO, it is consistent with the other increases we are observing in our analyses. Algal mats and biofilm have an impact upon dissolved oxygen and degrade water health."
Brahana continued with findings that he says should place everyone who cares about the health of the river on alert: "Springs and creeks show highly variable concentrations of microbial organisms such as E. coli and fecal coliform, which is to be expected with rainfall pulses that cause greater flow and greater scouring of sediments on the stream bottom where organisms have been deposited ... the complexity of measuring these [during and after rainfalls] makes it difficult to determine if they show a long-term increase, although current measured values at high stream flow are at levels that can cause illness."
His team's earliest measurements of water quality in the Big Creek Valley conducted in the summer of 2013 when fewer than 1,000 of the factory's 6,500 allotted swine were housed there showed the valley was already near the uppermost limit limits of animal waste it could accommodate.
"Because this represents the earliest and most complete 'preconditions' of the water quality, the addition of thousands of more pigs close to the confluence of Big Creek with the Buffalo National River is consistent with some of the increases we are seeing."
He said dye testing shows groundwater moves through the porous limestone karst subsurface from the area of the waste-spreading fields to many sites within the within the Buffalo at a flow rate of about half a mile each day. This means there is a "remarkably close interaction of surface and groundwater."
He closed by saying the factory's permit is up for renewal soon and that those with an opinion should make their voices heard.
Editorial on 12/08/2015
By RICHARD H. MAYS Special to the Democrat-Gazette
Most Americans are spoiled by having clean water available by simply turning the spigot and letting drinkable water flow. Clean water is a necessity of life that we take for granted as part of our developed society, and we seldom give thought to whether there are harmful contaminants in what we are drinking.
It has not always been so. Until the 1970s, Americans frequently encountered water that had an unappetizing look and taste, and that occasionally made us sick because of bacteria or, worse, chemicals that might cause cancers and death. Many of our rivers and aquifers that serve as our sources of drinking water were contaminated with sewage and industrial wastes, and the states were unable or unwilling to require the municipalities and industries to pretreat their waste waters before discharging them into those water sources. There was no Environmental Protection Agency to do that for us.
This and other reckless uses of our surface and ground waters and air led to public outcry during the 1960s against the desecration of our environment, which in turn led to the 1970 creation of the Environmental Protection Agency by then-President Richard Nixon--a Republican, no less--and the enactment of the Federal Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and other laws designed to protect our environment and public health. We are far better off today than in the 1960s because of those laws and the EPA regulations that implemented them.
In June, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued new regulations commonly referred to as the Clean Water Rule. The Rule more specifically defines the water bodies that constitute "waters of the United States" subject to regulation by those agencies. It was made necessary because several decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court made it difficult, without further clarification, for the agencies, developers, farmers and others to obtain a timely, consistent and predictable determination of the water bodies or wetland areas subject to regulation. The Clean Water Rule attempts to make that clarification.
However, the EPA has become a favorite target for certain politicians and their contributors who generally oppose any kind of regulation except those affecting our most private and personal activities, and they are making the Clean Water Rule a political campaign issue. That includes U.S. Senator Tom Cotton and U.S. Representative Rick Crawford, both of whom have published op-ed pieces attacking the Rule, and Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, who files suit against any decision the EPA makes that potentially affects Arkansas, regardless of whether the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality asks her to do so or not.
These politicians are not criticizing the Clean Water Rule on its scientific and environmental merits, but on completely false claims of EPA's "desire to regulate nearly every drop of water in the United States," to quote Cotton.
For example, Cotton's op-ed article in the Nov. 7 edition of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette hyperbolically states that the Rule "will allow the EPA to dictate everything from when Arkansas farmers can plant their crops to how often they can run a tractor. They could even regulate mud puddles on family farms." He added that "any landowner in Arkansas ... could face federal criminal charges for disturbing [a small drainage] ditch in any way." These statements are simply false, or, to use an Arkansas farmer's words, "pure BS."
The best way to poison anything in Arkansas is to link it to President Obama, and Senator Cotton doesn't miss the opportunity to do that by concluding his article with the admonition that we "don't need President Obama's EPA to tell us what to do and not do with mud puddles on our property."
Attorney General Rutledge contributed her bit of exaggeration about the Clean Water Rule in testimony to a Senate committee in Washington in March. She reportedly pointed to a thick stack of paper and testified that "If you are a farmer in Arkansas trying to determine whether or not one of your fields would fall under this proposed rule, you would look to this," adding, "Nearly every farmer in Arkansas would have to obtain legal counsel to determine whether or not a field on their land falls under this EPA proposed rule."
It is not clear what Rutledge was referring to. The complete text of the regulations included in the Rule cover only 23 pages in the Federal Register, which is short by comparison to many regulations, and certainly not a thick stack. Only a few pages relate to farmers, mostly to clarify that the Rule exempts agricultural operations.
More important, Cotton, Crawford and Rutledge have apparently not even read the Clean Water Rule. The Rule, in Part 401 (general definitions), specifically provides that ditches such as those used on and in farms, artificially irrigated areas, farm, stock and irrigation ponds, and "puddles" are not "waters of the United States," and are therefore not regulated.
Furthermore, the preamble to the Rule specifically explains that it not only maintains the current statutory exemptions, but "expands regulatory exclusions from the definition of 'waters of the United States' to make clear that it does not add any additional permitting requirements on agriculture." If Cotton, Crawford and Rutledge have read the Rule, they are deliberately misrepresenting it.
According to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, some 40 percent of Arkansas' rivers and streams and over 30 percent of our lakes do not meet minimal water quality standards, in part due to agricultural and municipal runoff. Cotton, Crawford and Rutledge are willing to misrepresent the contents of the Clean Water Rule for their political gain when a large percentage of our rivers, streams and lakes--sources of our drinking water--are impaired and would benefit from the Rule.
By doing so, Cotton, Crawford and Rutledge ignore the lessons of the past regarding the contamination of our water and air and sacrifice the public environmental and health benefits that have been demonstrated through scientific analysis to be gained by the Rule.
Richard H. Mays is a Heber Springs attorney whose practice includes environmental law.
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/11/21/mcr-gene-colistin/
A Blog by Maryn McKenna
POSTED SAT, 11/21/2015
I mentioned on Monday that this past week was intended by the CDC, WHO and other health authorities to be a global awareness week for antibiotic resistance. Alarming news that came out of China at the end of the week certainly created new awareness of resistance, but possibly not what the organizers had in mind.
On Thursday, researchers from several Chinese, British and US universitiesannounced in the journal Lancet Infectious Diseases that they have identified a new form of resistance, to the very last-ditch drug colistin—and that it is present in both meat animals and people, probably comes from agricultural use of that drug, can move easily among bacteria, and may already be spreading across borders.
This is very bad news.
To understand why, it’s necessary to know a little bit about colistin. It is an old drug: It was first introduced in 1959. It has been on the shelf, without seeing much use, for most of the years since, because it can be toxic to the kidneys. And precisely because it hasn’t been used much, bacteria have not developed much resistance to it. It remains effective.
That neglect turned out to be very fortunate a few years ago when several different resistance factors—NDM, OXA, KPC—started hopscotching around the globe. All of them made bacteria invulnerable to a group of drugs called carbapenems that had been considered a last line of defense: They were the last drugs that were in common use and were able to take care of complex infections that happen in hospitals, caused by E. coli, Klebsiella, Acinetobacter and similar gut-dwelling organisms. Once those bacteria became resistant to carbapenems (earning them the general name of “carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae,” or CREs), colistin was all that was left—and colistin use began rising.
(From around that time: Here’s a great story that Jason Gale of Bloomberg wroteabout colistin, and one I wrote for Nature about CREs. A long series of posts I wrote for WIRED about the discovery of NDM and the bitter political fights over its apparent origin in India can be found here. Of note, one of the discoverers of NDM is one of the authors of this new research.)
A thing about colistin, which no one seems to have connected the dots on: Because it is an old drug, it is cheap. And because it is cheap, it is an affordable addition to animal feed for all the uses I’ve talked about before: to make animals put on muscle mass faster, and protect them from the conditions of intensive farming.
Which, apparently, is how it is being used in China—but not only in China. From the paper:
China is… one of the world’s highest users of colistin in agriculture. Driven largely by China, the global demand for colistin in agriculture is expected to reach 11,942 tonnes per annum by the end of 2015 (with associated revenues of $229·5 million), rising to 16,500 tonnes by the year 2021, at an average annual growth rate of 4·75%. Of the top ten largest producers of colistin for veterinary use, one is Indian, one is Danish, and eight are Chinese. Asia (including China) makes up 73·1% of colistin production with 28·7% for export including to Europe.
Where sampling for the MCR resistance study took place.
GRAPHIC FROM LIU ET AL, LANCET INFECTIOUS DISEASES; ORIGINAL HERE.
The findings reported this week originate in an ongoing project in which the Chinese authors were looking for resistance in the E. coli that reside in the guts of food animals. (It’s encouraging that such a project exists.) They say they first perceived a colistin-resistant E. coli in 2013, in a pig from an intensive farm near Shanghai, and then noted increasing colistin resistance over several years. They expanded their research to include, not just samples from animals as they were slaughtered, but sampling of retail meat from supermarkets and street markets, and testing of samples previously taken from patients in two hospitals. The samples were collected between 2011 and 2014.
Here’s what they found. The gene they discovered, which directs colistin resistance and which they dubbed MCR-1, was present:
That last is important: The bacteria possessing this resistance were not, as sometimes happens, merely gut bacteria that had acquired the necessary DNA but were hanging out quietly in the intestines and not causing trouble. They are already causing human infections.
And, of most concern: The MCR-1 gene that creates this resistance is contained on a plasmid, a small piece of DNA that is not part of a bacteria’s chromosome. Plasmids move freely around the bacterial world, hopping from one bacterium to another; in the past, they have transported resistance DNA between bacterial species, facilitating resistance’s rapid movement around the globe. This gene, the authors predict, will be able to do that as well.
The rapid dissemination of previous resistance mechanisms (eg, NDM-1) indicates that, with the advent of transmissible colistin resistance, progression of Enterobacteriaceae from extensive drug resistance to pan-drug resistance is inevitable and will ultimately become global.
“Pan-drug resistance,” to be clear, means that nothing at all will work—that infections are untreatable by any known compound.
How plasmids (the blue loops) move among bacteria.
GRAPHIC VIA WIKIMEDIA COMMONS.
It’s worth noting that not every dire superbug prediction comes true. In the early 2000s, physicians were very alarmed when resistance to vancomycin—like colistin, another last-resort antibiotic preserved from the 1950s—moved via a plasmid fromEnterococcus into Staphylococcus aureus, or staph. At the time, people were already worried about the better-known form of drug-resistant staph, MRSA; the emergence of VRSA, as it became known, ratcheted worries way up. In the end, though, VRSA turned out not to be much of a threat: In 15 years, there have been only 14 such infections in the United States.
But what makes MCR, this new colistin resistance, different from VRSA is the role that agriculture seems to be playing in its evolution and dispersal. There are two problems here. First, that thousands to millions of animals are getting the drug, which exponentially expands the opportunities that favor resistance. And second, that projects such as the Chinese one that allowed the new gene to be discovered are rare—so colistin resistance could begin moving, from animals and into people, without being noticed.
And, in fact, it may be on the move now. The authors note that, while they were writing up their findings, the European Molecular Biology Laboratory received five submissions of bacterial data that appeared to contain the MCR gene—but not from China; from Malaysia.
What will happen next? Unfortunately, we have to wait and see—and hope that systems are built that will perceive this new resistance if it arrives. Meanwhile, I especially appreciate the reaction of Mike the Mad Biologist, who knows a great deal about resistance in his real life and can be counted on to be exasperated and blunt. He said, about this discovery:
If this doesn’t convince people to get serious about the agricultural side of the problem, I don’t know what will.
http://www.coastalreview.org/2015/11/11738/
Just a `Misunderstanding,’ State Says
11/19/2015 by Mark Hibbs
RALEIGH – Faced with the threat of losing its federal permitting authority, the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality said this week that it is working with federal officials to clarify their “misunderstanding” over the public’s right to challenge state-issued pollution permits.
Environmental advocates challenging two coastal permits on the public’s behalf say the misunderstanding lies with DEQ and how its lawyers are arguing the ongoing appeals.
The department was responding to a recent letter from an Environmental Protection Agency regional director warning the agency that if decisions in the cases unduly restrict the public’s ability to challenge state permits, then EPA can decide that the state is not meeting the minimum requirements of federal environmental laws. Like most states, North Carolina now issues permits and enforces those laws under an agreement with EPA. The agency could decide to rescind that authority.
Crystal Feldman, a DEQ spokeswoman, declined to answer directly questions Coastal Review Online submitted by email and instead referred to a blog posted Monday afternoon on the department’s website. Her blog seems to blame the state’s legal process.
“DEQ is working with the EPA to clarify that it was the court, not DEQ, that dismissed the challenges to the permits. DEQ is preparing a letter to EPA to rectify the misunderstanding. If the EPA remains dissatisfied with the state’s legal process, legislative action may be required to clarify North Carolina law. DEQ has been and will continue to be committed to providing citizens judicial review and effectively executing environmental permitting programs,” Feldman wrote.
EPA authorizes the state to issue and enforce federal pollution permits under the Clean Air and the Clean Water acts. The department, Feldman wrote, it administers the programs “in accordance with federal law, which includes ample opportunity for public comment and permit appeal.”
She charged that the EPA had been “persuaded” to take action against the state agency by the Southern Environmental Law Center, a nonprofit group of lawyers that represented environmental groups in the two permit challenges questioned by EPA. Feldman described the law center as “frustrated” that the two cases had been “thrown out of court.”
The cases, which are still pending in the state’s legal system, involve challenges to state permits for a proposed cement plant near Wilmington and a planned mining operation near Washington, N.C.
Heather Toney, an EPA regional administrator, said in a letter dated Oct. 30 to DEQ Secretary Donald van der Vaart that initial decisions in the cases, which were based on DEQ’s arguments, “cast serious doubt” on whether the state’s federally authorized permitting programs can satisfy minimum federal requirements.
Attorneys with the law center turned to EPA officials regarding its appeal, along with the N.C. Coastal Federation, of the N.C. Division of Air Quality’s air permit for Carolinas Cement Co. for the company’s proposed cement plant near Wilmington. The plant would emit more than 5,000 tons of air pollution each year. A law judge sided with DEQ that the plaintiffs couldn’t challenge the permit because they didn’t have legal standing. The case is pending before the N.C. Court of Appeals.
In the other case, environmental groups Sound Rivers and the federation challenged the N.C. Division of Water Resources’ water quality permit for Martin Marietta Materials that would allow the mining company to dump 12 million gallons of mine wastewater a day into Blounts Creek, a popular fishing spot east of Washington.
Administrative law judge Phil Berger Jr., the son of N.C. Senate leader Phil Berger, agreed with the state’s contention that the public didn’t have the right to challenge the permit. The decision was later reversed by the Beaufort County Superior Court and has been sent back the N.C. Office of Administrative Hearings.
Feldman’s blog says state law provides the public greater input in the permitting process than federal law and more opportunity to appeal permit decisions.
“Under North Carolina law, citizens have to meet a much lower threshold to appeal a permit in court than the threshold required by the EPA. For example, the EPA requires citizens to have commented during the public comment period or participated in a public hearing to appeal a permit. North Carolina has no such requirement” according to the post, which also includes a chart to explain the additional hurdles the public faces in order to challenge a permit under the EPA process.
Mike Giles, a coastal advocate with the federation, called DEQ’s response “ridiculous.” The state’s lawyers were doing DEQ’s bidding in defending the permits, Giles said. “The blog shows that these folks are just not paying attention and forgets to mention the fact that the state lawyers were front and center with this decision as they were arguing the case,” he said.
Feldman, in her email, did respond regarding the law center’s involvement in the cases. “The SELC’s inconsistency about the value of public input undermines their credibility. They think it’s important today when it comes to permitting, but not long ago they tried to bypass public comment on the cleanup of coal ash,” Feldman said.
Derb Carter, SELC’s state director, said Feldman’s comment on public participation on coal ash “is nothing short of astounding coming from DEQ.”
Carter said the department has opposed proposed agreements in court that will require full public review to clean up polluting sites and just reached “a secret deal” with Duke with no public review that would relieve Duke of responsibility for groundwater contamination at all the utility’s coal ash disposal sites.
Carter said that Feldman appears uninformed regarding the two permit challenges at issue in the EPA letter.
“First, someone needs to let the DEQ spokesperson know that the Superior Court in Beaufort County has ruled against DEQ and the mining company to allow citizens to challenge in court the permit authorizing the discharge of millions of gallons of mine waste into Blount’s Creek,” Carter said, “Second, if DEQ is now saying it supports the rights of citizens to challenge the permit authorizing Titan to emit toxic air pollutants, it has the opportunity to reverse its position on appeal and the citizens we represent would welcome that. Since the new mission of DEQ is customer service, and the polluters are the customers, it is more important than ever that citizens have the right to protect their air and water in court.”
BRIAN FANNEY ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE
A plan to avoid water shortages in Arkansas will head to state lawmakers for final approval.
The Arkansas Natural Resources Commission voted Monday to approve the Arkansas Water Plan, which seeks to measure and address the anticipated gap between the demand and availability of water. The projected gap is wide — as much as 2.3 trillion gallons per year by 2050. The plan indicates the state will demand 4.6 trillion gallons per year by that time.
Because farming accounts for about 80 percent of Arkansas’ water use, the plan calls for farmers to find ways to conserve. Its recommendations have faced opposition from several farming groups.
The plan forecasts that if nothing changes, the alluvial aquifer — the Delta’s supply of underground water — will be mostly dry by 2050. The plan proposes making up for this loss by impounding excess surface water.
The first Arkansas Water Plan was published in 1975 and later updated in 1990. The Legislative Council could vote on the current version as soon as next month.
Speaker of the House Jeremy Gillam, R-Judsonia, said he supported it. He said he didn’t see how the plan would adversely affect his berry farm in White County.
“It’ll be well-vetted by the Legislature, rest assured on that,” he said. “I think agriculture should be pleased on the whole of the plan. There might be some parts of the state affected slightly differently than others.”
Farming is the most popular job among lawmakers.
Evan Teague, director of environmental and regulatory affairs for the Arkansas Farm Bureau, said his organization is “fairly comfortable” with the plan, but farmers would need to support it during the group’s annual convention in early December for him to back it.
“All we’ve looked for is sound, scientific reasoning behind the decisions they’re making and we feel like they’re taking that into consideration,” he said. “It’s been a bit of a give and take and we feel like they worked with everyone in a fair manner.”
Some poultry and rice organizations have voiced concerns about the plan.
Arkansas produces more than half the rice grown in the United States. The water-intense crop used 1.8 trillion gallons of water in 2010
— 55 percent of all irrigation water used — according to the water plan.
The plan doesn’t include any recommendations to limit usage, but it does call for incentives to encourage conservation.
The plan also “may encourage the General Assembly to consider the need for nutrient management plans for the application of poultry litter and animal manure in other regions of the state.”
That’s a change from previous wording, which stated the commission “will encourage” the Legislature to “require” nutrient management plans for the application of poultry litter and animal manure “throughout” the state — as opposed to current requirements just in Northwest Arkansas.
“Discussion about that came up kind of late in the process and there was some concern about whether there should have been more discussion,” said Randy Young, executive director of the Natural Resources Commission.
“We softened the language a little bit for more time for discussion, more time for science to be developed.”
Teague said he was much more comfortable with the new language.
To turn the plan’s recommendations into law, legislators will need to enact bills during the regular session in 2017.
Lawmakers would need to vote to finance water storage and wastewater projects and look at enhancing conservation incentives to fully enact recommendations in the plan, Young said.
Changing nutrient plan requirements would also involve a change in law, he said.
“I think you’re going to see the Legislature being very open-minded at the front end of this process,” Gillam said. “I think we do need to have some long-term strategies in place so we don’t end up like California.”
Arkansas uses more than 8.3 billion gallons of groundwater per day from aquifers, the second-highest total in the United States, behind California.
California has faced years of drought and dwindling groundwater available for farming. Gillam said the situation there has been instructive for Arkansas farmers, who have to strike a balance between present needs and future concerns.
“I think this is the beginning of a lot of dialogue,” Gillam said. “This is the plan, but it’s not the end of discussion. It’s kind of the beginning.”
Arkansas produces more than half the rice grown in the United States. The water-intense crop used 1.8 trillion gallons of water in 2010 — 55 percent of all irrigation water used — according to the water plan.
October 30, 2015
JBS S.A. (BM&FBOVESPA: JBSS3, OTCQX: JBSAY, “JBS” or “Company”), pursuant to the announcement made in the Material Fact of July 1st, 2015, communicates to its shareholder and to the market in general that its subsidiary JBS USA concluded, on this date, the purchase of certain assets, properties, rights and liabilities, operations and the right of Cargill Meats ownership into Cargill Pork LLC ("Cargill Pork").
The completed acquisition includes:
The Company obtained the necessary regulatory approvals from the competent antitrust authorities, including the Department of Justice in the US, to conclude the transaction without restrictions.
“Today’s announcement signifies a strengthening of our pork business through the combination of our established track record of adding value for our customer base and Cargill’s complementary specialty-product offerings, including bacon, antibiotic-free and sow housing production system options,” stated Marty Dooley, President and COO, JBS USA Pork.
The total amount paid was approximately US$1.450 million, on a debt-free, cash-free basis, adjusted at closing by the net working capital variation and long-term liabilities of Cargill Pork.
The Cargill Pork acquisition, combined with the existing JBS Pork business in the US, has pro forma net revenue of approximately US$6.3 billion, and a processing capacity of about 90,000 hogs per day and two million pounds of bacon per week.
“This acquisition is fully aligned with JBS' strategy to grow our portfolio of prepared and value-added products, further expanding our Company’s customer base and enhancing our premium pork product mix,” stated Wesley Batista, Global CEO of JBS
São Paulo, October 30, 2015
Jeremiah O’Callaghan Investor Relations Officer
Buffalo River Watershed Alliance is a non profit 501(c)(3) organization
Copyright @ 2019
Contact Us