E. coli: Is There a Cover-up of Poor Decisions on the Type of Water Used for Irrigation of Croplands in the Salinas Valley?

Thank you Frank for bringing this information into the light. Your conclusion that the use of effluent to irrigate food sources may be the source for e coli is one that needs to be taken seriously. Until this problem is resolved or the FDA can prove that there is no link, all American should stop buying produce from the area. Perhaps that would send a clear enough message to the elected officials of Monterey County.

Who needs to worry about bio-terrorists when we have government officials like that.

The Castroville Sea Water Intrusion Project provides water to a small part of Monterey County. The majority of farms in the Salinas valley are not connected to it. The recent spinach outbreaks were tied to fields in San Benito County and not even close to any of this tertiary treated water. I am not aware of any past incidents being located on farms that were connected to the CSWIP either. I don't think you have found out anything that relates to the current situation.

Even if this outbreak isn't connected to the treated effluent irrigation water, one must admit that the use of it is a big outbreak just waiting to happen. Thank you for bringing this to light!

Near the end of your article it states: They conclude their study with this statement "The results of this study suggest that regardless of the irrigation method used, crops can become contaminated; therefore, the irrigation of food crops with water of unknown microbial quality should be avoided."

Would this not put all groundwater and at the very least surface water sources in question too?

I just read yesterday that some lettuce is now suspected to have the same issues. Makes a lot of sense.

The lettuce being recalled now is green leaf lettuce grown by the Nunes Co. which packs their produce in the "Foxy" label. The lettuce recall is due to a water sample in a reservoir testing positive for generic E. coli NOT the dangerous 0157:H7 strain. It is an over reaction on their part caused by the media frenzy over the spinach problems. The company even made some statements to the effect that they didn't understand the test results and were just being super careful.

Scaremonger is humorous at the very least. He is one of those "lurkers" who hangs around blog sites to try and spin the facts to suit his or her agenda. That’s why he uses a pseudonym like “scaremonger” which seems to better describe him more than anything else. Come on out and identify yourself scaremonger. Come out of hiding, it will do your soul good.

Tell me Scaremonger, how do you explain the presence of the FBI and the Justice Department on this case? A federal judge had to be convinced by the facts presented to him by FDA and the FBI that there was a good chance criminality existed in Salinas Valley. The FDA has also said that the investigation has moved into the fields and water supply is a suspicious candidate.

You obviously haven't read or understand the article to which you comment. The evidence is irrefutable that this is a dangerous practice. With the FBI involvement it would appear that beyond being dangerous, it probably is criminal.

Now let’s move to the matter of your prolific use of disinformation. Maybe "Scaremonger" is another tern for public relations specialist? You obviously are unaware that testing for E.coli 0157:H7 requires passage of time and that time is still running. They immediately determined that it was E,coli and I'm sure sent the sample off for further testing. How do I know that? It was in the news articles, the ones you should have read more carefully.

You also say that 12,000 acres in the CSIP area is not much of the agriculture growing area of the Salinas Valley? Is that to imply that 18.75 square miles of some of the richest crop land in the nation, much less the Salinas Valley, is not sizable enough to be a potential problem? That’s silly talk. You haven't walked that land like I did when I worked on the USDA soil survey in the 1960s. You are a "spin master" and should move into the public relations business if you haven’t already.

You too need to be watching Cal Channel on Wednesday at 9am to see and hear the Senate Hearing in Sacramento. Maybe you can get yourself straight... Oh, and try reading the above scientific research information if you're able. It will prove enlightening.

I appreciate your concern, Mr. Pecarich, about using effluent as irrigation water.

However, another issue of equal importance, is the origin of the E. coli 0157H7 bacteria itself.

I used to collect and analyze water samples while working for the U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division.

We filtered water samples, then put the filters in incubators for 24 hours, in order to grow such things as E. coli.

At this time, E. coli was known as an "indicator organism", and was considered non toxic. When we found it in a water sample from a well, river, creek, etc, it indicated that there had been fecal contamination, but the E. coli was not dangerous, in and of itself.

In the early 1970s, we in the USGS WRD were concerned about news of "genetic engineering", a new process being proposed by various scientific organizations. One or our concerns was that the scientists were going to be doing their experiments on E. Coli, since it was so ubiquitous in our environment.

Many of us at USGS WRD were concerned about creating some sort of monster E. coli, which, if allowed to enter the environment, could be extremely dangerous, and could spread from species to species.

The scientists promoting genetic engineering assured us that these experiments would be conducted in highly safe, sealed laboratories, and that there was essentially no chance of this happening.

Over the years since that time, it would appear that the safety measures have largely fallen by the wayside. For instance, my niece, along with her teacher and classmates, was actually conducting genetic manipulation in her science class, while in middle school!

One has to wonder if our fears, back in the 1970s, may have come to pass.

The points I'm trying to make are two. First, E. coli should not be the issue. only E. coli 0157H7, which gives off a deadly toxin, which comes from another bacteria, with which E. coli has been genetically spliced with a variety of Shiga toxin bacteria.

Second, if this "frankengerm" continues spreading, and becomes common in such things as creeks, rivers, and irrigation canals, we are going to be in very deep doo doo. So to speak.

Historically, it has been common practice to water crops directly from these water sources, unless the sources were highly contaminated.

Apparenly, though, a little bit of E. coli 0157 goes a long way.

A question for anyone who can tell me: what concentration of E. coli 0157 is considered hazardous in irrigation water?

Malcolm Drake
Grants Pass, Oregon

Mike Huck asks, "Would this not put all groundwater and at the very least surface water sources in question too?"

good point, Mike. Not to mention all cow manure, horse manure, chicken manure, goat manure, bat guano, etc.

are we going to have to avoid organic food from now on, and stick to food fertilized with oil based chemical fertilizers? yech!

Fact is, when I sampled surface water, even relatively pure surface water, it very often contained E. coli. just not hte bad-ass 0157 variety, since that variety had not been invented yet, I think.

If the water was turbid (off color from containing sediment in suspension, as in after a rain, or snowmelt period) the water VIRTUALLY ALWAYS contained E. coli.

Sorry, Mr. Pecarich, but Scaremonger's statements are realistic. Whether it be the media, or the FBI and FDA, or all of the above, I can't say. But Scaremonger is absolutely correct in stating that the excitement about "normal" E. coli should not be freaking anyone out. As i said before, normal, non genetically modified E. coli has ALWAYS been considered non-toxic, and is fairly ubiquitous in surface water.

I mean no disrespect to you, Mr. Pecarich; I merely am interested in getting to the root of the REAL problem: our government agencies having allowed this type of experimentation to occur in the first place! Now that the Frankengerm has apparently escaped, what are we to do about it?

I suggest that prosecuting the farmers, or the shippers, is a terrible mistake. What's he farmer supposed to do, boil their irrigation water for five or ten minutes before applying it? Or are they supposed to somehow be able to tell the difference between E. coli and E. coli 0157H7 in the genetic laboratory they conveniently have located in the back of their potting shed?

And if one were to suggest monitoring the irrigation water, let me tell you something. When I sampled surface water, the number of colonies of E. coli, Total Coliform, Salmonella bacteria, etc change with each sample. They may change by several orders of magnitude in a few hours, or even in a few minutes, depending on the stream flow regime, the source and type of contamination, etc. If, for instance, a cow takes a dump in a small creek, there will be a "slug" of E. coli bacteria of extemely high concentration AT THE LOCATION WHERE THE COW TOOK ITS DUMP. Gradually, the concentration will lessen, as water flows downstream. However, the original high concentration will fairly rapidly pass a point which is close downstream. The farther downstream a sample is taken below said cow deposit, the lower the concentration of bacteria, but the longer the period of time that the lower concentraton will be present.

Other factors are such things as dairies cleaning out their milk sheds, which deliver huge quantities of bacteria to any stream the water happens to reach. This is another example of bacteria counts which will spike, then go down fairly rapidly.

Another type of contamination, which will tend to produce a more steady concentration downstream comes from ranches, dairies, feedlots (especially), etc. These sources may contribute bacteria to a stream at a RELATIVELY consistent rate over time, if the runoff is fairly steady, for example following a long, steady rain, or several days worth of flood irrigation.

By the way, the method we used to analyze bacteria in water supplies involved a 24hour (48 hour for some types) incubation, after the water had been filtered, and filter placed on an "agar broth" medium, which itself took perhaps a half hour to prepare. So it's a bit time consuming to test the water. This is only for "garden variety" E. coli. I wonder what might be involved in testing for E. coli 0157 specifically.

Mr. Pecarich, I believe you are over reacting to Scaremonger. As for myself, let me assure you I am not hiding anything. I'm a 61 year old human being, retired, and I live near Grants Pass, Oregon. Feel free to contact me, if you wish, at 476 6166 (541 area code)

Frank Pecarich is understating the potential dangers caused by treated sewage effluent and sludge. Current treatments not only fail to remove Ecoli, but also do not remove most toxic chemicals and drug residues as well. Herbicides, pesticides, fungacides, general household cleaning materials, many consumer products contain, and prescription drug residues contain toxic and carcinogenic chemical substances that are discharged with sewage effluent and sludge back into aquifers, reservoirs, lakes , rivers, oceans, and land . We live in "The Manmade Toxic Chemical Age" that was ushered in about 1930 with the development of PCB's. There are over 70,000 toxic chemicals now in use in our country many of them carcinogenic. Current government regulations regarding water quality are inadequate and often not enforced. I discuss all of this and much more, and present factual information that often comes from government scientists who regularly are ignored by politically appointed administrators. My book is "A Drinker's Guide to Pure Water--Is Your Water Safe? Thanks Frank for waking people up to the real water problems that we often fail to recognize. Keep it up, and ignore those who do not yet understand the problem. Unfortunately, they eventually will become aware, since it is certain that someone they are close to and love will be adversely affected by the toxins they drink and eat. Zalman P. Saperstein, ps. we in Wisconsin eat spinach too!!

Some good comments here I believe. Yes, it is E. coli 0157:H7 about which we are concerned. This mutation has no known cure and if you are infected, there is no specific viable treatment which makes young children and old people most vulnerable.

Let me deal with Scaremonger’s effort to dissemble again. He/she says that there has been no E. coli outbreak involving the Castroville Sea Water Intrusion Project (CSIP) where treated sewage water is used to sprinkler irrigate spinach and lettuce. Obviously Scaremonger has not read the State Department of Health report on the October 2003 E. coli 0157:H7 outbreak which affected many retirement home residents in Northern California.

The State Report stated that the Chinn Ranch 8 farm had been identifies as one of the culprit farms in that outbreak and that it received all of its water from the CSIP. Further, the report says that Chinn Ranch 8 spinach farm had been involved in two previous E. coli 0157:H7 outbreaks and needed close regulatory follow-up observation.

So I am to conclude that Scaremonger is either negligent in stating the facts or is lying. For me as a scientist, neither option is appealing.

And Malcolm, I am indeed sorry for implying that there was great concern about generic E. coli. Again, we are very concerned with this E. coli 0157:H7 version because of its pathological toxicity and it’s resistance to attempts to kill it in purification processes. I have no doubt that when the California State Senate finishes its review of this situation in Monterey County that agricultural cropping patterns within the boundaries of CSIP will have to be drastically altered.

Many of you missed the "gorilla in the room". Where was the Schwarzenegger administration and the California Department of Food and Agriculture during the E.coli outbreak? When you understand that the USFDA had warned California a least a year before the outbreak that there was a huge potential for a E.coli outbreak, the CDFA has the total responsibility for clean food leaving the fields, Schwarzenegger has been acepting huge donation from the Growers, and the personnel at CDFA has shrunk by over 100 in the last three years, you will have understood why this happened. Big Business and rich politicians will not protect the public's interests. It is a shame that two people had to die and over 100 lost kidney function before Schwarzenegger could be exposed.

Ricky Right:

Unfortunately it is not long after discussing science and dangerous issues that politics enters the discussion. It’s natural, as science does often control how “the pie is divided” which is my definition of “politics”.

Ricky, after all these years trying to “pin” the guilty verdict on one political party or another for some of these huge national disasters, I have concluded that just as often, both major parties are equally culpable.

Having said that, it is clear that this latest outbreak as well as those before which overlapped Arnold Swartznaggers administration are indeed his responsibility and occurred on his watch. It is also true that this is very, very big business with big bucks to spread around for campaign contributions.

And he can also be blamed for any resistance that may be occurring within his administration for expeditiously dealing with this serious threat to our food chain. Certainly his Department of Health hasn’t been very forthcoming in all of this and I would actually describe them as “hostile witnesses” when I read their efforts at dissembling in the press.

But having said that, let’s remember that this whole series of episodes started 10 years ago and during the time when Governor Gray Davis – a Democrat – was in office. What can we say about his lack of action when these outbreaks occurred every summer just like clockwork in the California vegetable growing areas?

Ricky, I’d like to believe differently, but often we must protect ourselves when all is said and done. It is particularly true now as politics and political influence have so deeply invaded the career civil service at all levels of government. It was Thomas Jefferson who reportedly said, “The price of democracy is eternal vigilance”.

Hey Frank,
do you yell fire in a crowded theater when someone lights a cigerette?
All your great copy-and-paste and still no bodies.
So CSIP has been dosing crops for 20 years with hundreds of millions of gallons of this e-coli broth and not 1 confirmed case of e-coli. You can study the study ad nausium but if your hypothosis had any weight we would have had plenty of evidence by now.
This reclaimed water has saved thousands of acres of prime farmland that would have been lost to seawater intrusion if not for this brilliant project.
After the recent spinich outbreak the last thing anyone needs is some knee jerk reaction that has nothing! repeat nothing! to do with reclaimed water.
I think you retirement was a good idea unfotunatly it left you too much time on your hands to dream up conspiracies and boogymen.
Your nonsense just adds fuel to paranoia.
Reclaimed water in a crowded world is a priceless asset
that should not be wasted. It seems your more interested in publicity than accuracy

I find people who post commentary with names such as “Yelling Fire” (YF) humorous. This particular individual did not bother to read much of any of what I have written or apparently didn’t understand what he or she had read. I guess if I had put so little thought into my commentary I would want a fake name too.

The CSIP has only been in existence for about 10 years and in that 10 years there have been 9 outbreaks of E. coli 0157H7. YF somehow came up with the idea that CSIP had been operative for 20 years.

Within those 10 years there have been hundreds of confirmed cases identified with the State of California’s last – written over two years ago – Department of Health report identifying the Chin Ranch 8 as a culprit which received water from the CSIP and had been involved in two previous outbreaks. There are other properties within the CSIP which have been identified in earlier reports.

But let’s leave behind TF’s efforts to whitewash maybe one of the biggest health disasters in the history of the United States. Let’s go directly to the USDA Agricultural Research Service’s 2005 Report which I have cited in my work. In that report they said:

"Using present technologies, municipal wastewater treatment may not completely disinfect recycled irrigation waters, allowing pathogenic microbial populations to re-grow in water storage and transmission systems. As a result, recycled water used for agricultural and municipal irrigation can contain enough pathogenic organisms to threaten human health once released into the environment. Moreover, little is known about the long-term environmental fate of synthetic organic compounds, including pharmaceutically active chemicals and disinfection byproducts, contained in recycled wastewater. Overall, the environmental and public health impacts of irrigation with reclaimed sewage effluent and the potential degradation of underlying groundwater are largely unknown."

Section 5 of the report goes on to say, "Microbiological work in the earlier projects included a laboratory study to assess the survival and re-growth potential of bacteria present in tertiary-treated effluent as it passed through a model distribution system. The results demonstrated that population numbers of indicator bacterial organisms increased by three to four orders of magnitude over the 11-day length of the experiment. This research established that although the reclaimed water met EPA standards for irrigation at the treatment plant, there is great potential for bacterial re-growth during transport that could place the water out of compliance at the point of intended use.

Well, there will always be YF’s I guess. This person didn’t bother to inform him or herself and wanted to condemn the messenger. As I have pointed out to others, I didn’t create these studies and information I have used for these essays, I only “reported” them.

If you want to find fault with the open and public access to the reports of your federal and state government you probably should contact them and not me.

To any other YF’s out there, try and do some homework before you embarrass yourself by pouring out in your writing everything that is going on in your head.

Frank, I'll take issue with your 'evidence' that the FBI involvement somehow 'raises' the stakes. From my very limited understanding, this issue involves product transported across state lines...thus, it is automatically in their jurisdiction...correct?

The other key here is the fear-mongering taking place...if we applied the same 'sense of reason' to safety for, say, cars that we do to our food supply, there would not be any cars on the hi-ways. Nor, I suspect, would we be allowed to eat with knives or have stairs in our homes.

Is it a serious issue? Absolutely. One that we should all agree to improve if we can...but how do you deal with the fact that crops are grown in dirt? Which is, at the end of the day, the biggest source of the risk, is it not?

As I respond to " Willie Boy", when he thought the key factor for FBI involvement was interstate commerce maybe he was thinking of the “Mann Act” which banned the interstate transport of females for “immoral purposes”?

According to an October 5, 2006 AP news article by Lisa Leff, Federal agents in the FBI and FDA were looking for negligence at two California spinach processing plants.

The article goes on to say:

“Federal investigators trying to build a criminal case against two companies in the contaminated spinach outbreak are following a script first used a decade ago to prosecute a company whose E. coli-tainted apple juice killed a baby and sickened dozens of other people.

Federal officials do not think anyone deliberately contaminated the spinach with E. coli, which has killed three and sickened at least 200 others. Instead, the probe is focused on whether the companies took appropriate steps to make sure their products were OK to eat.

To be convicted of criminal charges, the companies need not have known their products were contaminated, but merely negligent in their duties to keep tainted foods from the market, legal experts said.

Lawyers involved in previous food poisoning cases said the government will likely try to charge the companies under the 1938 Federal Food Drug and Cosmetics Act, which makes it a crime to sell or distribute "adulterated" products - defined as any item deemed unsafe for human or animal consumption.

Another possible course of action is to prosecute farmers and processors under federal clean-water laws and other environmental statutes.

In 1996 a Central Valley dairyman was convicted after authorities accused him of dumping thousands of gallons of wastewater contaminated with animal feces and urine into nearby creeks.

Christine Bruhn, a food scientist and director of the Center for Consumer Research at the University of California-Davis, said that kind of prosecution is "a really good deterrent" for other food producers who might be tempted to cut corners.

Distributing contaminated food through interstate commerce is usually a misdemeanor, but it can rise to a felony if authorities find evidence that company officials knowingly took action to compromise the safety of the food supply. Penalties can then include jail time.”

The fact that the FBI was called into action by the FDA clearly raised the stakes on this case.

Having the FDA in writing issue the growers clear warnings of their potential carelessness and poor production practices in 2005 tells me that they think that there was negligence in the way they performed their duties as the article cited above indicates. It was possible for the first time in 20 of these outbreaks that someone could do some jail time. That certainly would raise the stakes for me, I know.

The growers themselves in a 1999 Monterey County Grand Jury Report questioned the use of recycled water for irrigation in the Castroville Sea Water Intrusion Project. There have been repeated incidences since then with contaminated food and that obviously led the FDA and the FBI to believe they “knew better”. I believe they knew better too.

http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/100606HA.shtml

Frank, you keep wanting to implicate CSIP in the e coli 0157:H7 problems but you are forgetting the fact that for it to be spread by the CSIP it would have to be in the water from CSIP to begin with. How would it get there? 0157:H7 is not normally found peoples excrement it is found in cows. Do you think cows in the CSIP area are flushing their cow pies down peoples toilets? Are people in the CSIP area somehow constantly sick with 0157:H7 and it's just not getting reported? You point to the Chin ranch as some sort of smoking gun yet the reports on it implicate Santa Rita Creek as the source of 0157:H7 not CSIP. Rightly so, Santa Rita Creek drains off of mountains that are used by cows for grazing and thus littered with their excrement that contains 0157:H7. It has been shown that after rainfall events the e coli levels in this creek spike. The Chin ranch is subject to flooding and thus was contaminated with 0157:H7 that originated in a cow.

I mean really, CSIP has been used for irrigating crops for 9+ years and all you can come up with is one incident that was most likely caused by Santa Rita Creek flooding. If this CSIP water is so dangerous why aren't there incidents happening all the time and in areas where animals can't be implicated?

If your idea is to have any merit please explain how the 0157:H7 gets into the CSIP water?

I think you are the real scaremonger here.

Scaremonger:

You haven’t been reading my articles closely enough. You ask how E. coli 0157H:7 gets into the Castroville Sea Water Intrusion Project (CSIP) water used for irrigation of 12,000 acres of Salinas area crop land?

CSIP irrigation water is composed of 66% tertiary treated sewage effluent. Sewage ends up containing pathogens like E. coli 0157H7 because people who are sick with E. coli 0157H:7 use the toilet and it passes through their feces into the sewage treatment system.

It has been estimated that there are 10 more sick individuals with E. coli 0157H:7 for every one who seeks treatment. Those others do not receive treatment for whatever reason but their excrement still ends up in the sewer and municipal sewage treatment plants. It’s that simple and should be no big mystery

If you have read my articles, it is clear that E. coli 0157H:7 is not killed by tertiary sewage treatment which is what is used on the CSIP “recycled” effluent. What is so difficult for you to understand here?

Approximately 75 growers in the Salinas Valley participate in receiving irrigation water from the CSIP. That includes the property known as Chin Ranch #8 which has been implicated officially by the California State Department of Health and the FDA in three E.coli 0157H:7 outbreaks in the past 9 years. Once again, the Chinn Ranch #8 has an irrigation pipeline turnout from CSIP which provides the grower CSIP water. The water used on the Chin Ranch #8 is from the CSIP.

None of the testing done by Monterey County of the waters used in CSIP adequately tests the water at the sprinkler end of the system. It is clear from the numerous scientific studies I have cited that tertiary treated sewage effluent such as that used in the CSIP in Monterey County can contain E. coli 0157H:7 and their treatment process does not kill these pathogens.

The Chin Ranch #8was apparently not involved in this 2006 latest spinach outbreak but was identified in three previous E. coli 0157H:7outbreaks in the last few years.

Can you show any evidence of 0157:H7 amongst the population whose sewage ends up being used in CSIP?

Frank, where are the 10% who would show symptoms of illness? Where are the deaths in Castroville?

E coli 0157:H7 is too virulent to exist at some low level in the background amongst the general population. E coli does exist in cows and some other wildlife without harming them though. It is from these resevoirs that e coli emerges to contaminate some fields. Even recent spinach outbreak is related to wild pigs defecating in cropland.

The Chin Ranch being involved in three outbreaks only highlights the fact the problem there is not in CSIP water but in Santa Rita Creek bringing e coli down from the grazing lands in the hills and spreading it into the field when it floods. If e coli was getting to the Chin Ranch in the CSIP water other farms that use CSIP water would also be producing contaminated crops. Why aren't any outbreaks being tied to any of the other 75 growers who use CSIP water?

Face it Frank, your argument is not supported by the facts.

To: “Scaremonger”

The fact that you refuse to reveal your name and your credentials makes me wonder if you have something to hide. The people who reveal these deficiencies in food safety are often attacked by those representing their own economic and financial interests. Are you of that group? I wonder because your arguments make no sense but parallel those used by the interests in question. I have no way of knowing one way or the other and I think it's legitimate to ask.

First, as to the Number of E. coli Cases in Monterey:

You say you live in Monterey. Anyone living in Monterey County or with access to a computer can get Monterey County health records which show the reported cases of E. coli. Rather than question whether they exist, why don’t you do some work and see for yourself. Responding any further to your attempts to distort the documented factual County record is folly and I refuse to do so.

The service area for the CSIP is in a very rural area. The highest probability of those who would be most likely victims of this disease are agricultural field workers, both documented and undocumented. These are not exactly the types of victims who would show up on the rolls of doctors and hospitals. Further, the CDC clearly reports that they are aware of the many cases of E. coli which have gone officially unreported, since official reporting can be sporadic and is strictly up to the motivation of the physician or health facility. The research is clear on this matter.

Second, on the theory of Animal Contamination:

The notion that a winter rain washing E. coli 0157H:7 from an animal environment into a field that is used for summer spinach and somehow contaminates that crop grown months later is a factual stretch of monumental proportions. As a soil scientist who knows the geomorphology, classification and soil-water dynamics in that area, the whole notion is pretty fanciful.

Moreover, these animal containment areas would have been in that area for years prior to 1998 along with the continual use of the acreage for growing vegetables. Why has that whole area existed for past generations of time growing these same crops without these international outbreaks? Why do the 21 recorded outbreaks overlap almost perfectly in time with the initiation of the CSIP? If you believe the cause is water migration from cow-pies, goat droppings, etc., and you now know where the cow-pies are created, why do the FDA, CDC and other scientific officials continue to say there will be more outbreaks arising from that area? Why do they continue to say that the probable source is irrigation water and not pigs feet walking through cow pies and then wandering into spinach fields or some other fantastical mythology?

This condition did not occur overnight and yet only since the inception of the CSIP have these massive food disasters occurred. This cow pie- to water runoff - to creek explanation is simply a convenient one that has possibilities of distracting attention from an obvious source of danger, the CSIP.

The Role of the CSIP:

Let me say clearly, my objective is to urge those investigating the problem to follow and stay true to the scientific method: Look at all possibilities and investigate each thoroughly. Don’t dismiss the CSIP irrigation water as a source just because it is politically or economically convenient to do so.

Further, the management of the CSIP has been all about PR (and little about science) as my earlier writings attest. For example, WateReuse Association member instruction material tells property owners to post “no trespassing” or “private property” signs on property irrigated with treated sewage water rather than the normal signs warning the public such as those you would see at a golf course being irrigated with this hazardous brew. The public is not even given the chance to protect themselves as the property owners are encouraged to dissemble and diffuse the truth about the environment around them. This is clearly an example of the deceit and dishonesty being fomented by this group of industries.

There is much more to be revealed to the public that the growers, food producers and water recycling industry have been covering up. Since so far nothing of substance has been done to alleviate the problematic conditions, and as the FDA has pointed out repeatedly, it is certain that there will be more outbreaks that anonymous Internet “lurkers” like Scaremonger can try and explain away with half-logic and partial truths. That should prove interesting.

Post a comment

Commenters: You must preview your comment before posting. And please only hit "Post" once; it may take a while, but your comment is being processed. Thanks.