Irrigating Your Vegetables With Treated Sewage Water? Still Not a Good Idea if You Are Concerned About E. Coli

Frank since you declined to answer my comments of Jan.1 on your other article I have copied it here so you won't forget to reply!

Scaremonger January 1, 2007 at 11:27 AM

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 animal resevoirs that e coli emerges to contaminate some fields. Even the 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.

Scaremonger:

Why don’t you identify yourself? My guess is that you are an employee working for the food production industry or water recycling industry or any number of biased and scared people benefiting from the misuse of irrigating with treated sewage water on the nation’s vegetables. The truth about the CSIP is “out” just like the Genie and the bottle and you won’t be able to put the CSIP secrets back in the bottle either!

You should look at the Monterey health records and you would find that there have been 20 hospital and physician-reported incidences of E. coli and 26 separate cases of food-born outbreaks in Monterey County including Salinas and Monterey in recent years. Using the number of unreported incidents to reported incidents ratio suggested by the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention, there would be at least 200 E. coli cases in Monterey County during that period. What was that about there being no cases, Scaremonger?

Regarding where E. coli 0157H:7 comes from to infect humans, you need to educate yourself by reading my recently posted article above. Maybe you should present some academic credentials because I am beginning to realize that you are not acting as if you are educated and appear unable to understand the scientific material being made available. Are you just naturally stupid Scaremonger, or do you work at it?

Reduced to ad hominem attacks Frank? I'm not surprised. When the questions become too piercing it's natural for a charlatan to start calling people names and stop addressing the questions.

But the questions remain.

Why is the Chin Ranch the only location in CSIP that you can link to any of the e coli outbreaks? Why would the Chin Ranch be implicated in three seperate outbreaks but other locations in the 12,000 acres that receive CSIP water don't seem to have this problem? Why would it make more sense to believe the CSIP water that goes to 75 growers is the problem when only one grower in the project is linked to these e coli outbreaks than to believe the problem for the Chin Ranch stems from Santa Rita Creek which floods the Chin Ranch with as little as a half an inch of rain?

Remember now that Santa Rita Creek has had measured levels of fecal coliforms of 3000 per 100ml and total coliforms levels up to 24,192 per 100ml. Also keep in mind that the waters that drain into Santa Rita Creek drain across goat, horse and cattle ranches, all known hosts of e coli 0157:H7.

How in the world can anyone come to the conclusion that the problem is the CSIP water????

Are the e coli incidents you cite in Monterey County cases of 0157:H7? I think you need to substaniate that claim. Over what time period do these 20 cases occur? I have lived in Monterey County the last 15 years and am unaware of any local cases of e coli 0157:H7. That stuff makes pretty big news these days Frank, why is the local media not reporting these cases?

Also Frank what are you trying to pull by including "26 seperate cases of food born outbreaks" in the discussion? If they are not e coli 0157:H7 they are not germane to the discussion. Nice to try and slip those in as if they were related. Just shows how much you are reaching.

If you can Frank, answer the questions. If you can't I look forward to another slur ridden invective from you. It does seem to be your style.

I'd advise we all try to avoid the personal attacks here guys and try to stick a bit more to the issues at hand here. I don't mind passion, but explication will win more points with most readers.

There is, I think, a much bigger issue than just e. coli that goes to illnesses from food and what steps the government and industry ought to be taking about that. Also, there are many more cases of e. coli, as I understand it, that are not fatal or reported.

We don't publish anonymous articles on this site and I can understand frustration from an author about comments made that are often from anonymous folks. We've identified Mr. Pecarich and given his background. He is not a charlatan--and some of the comments we have had on past articles of his have been from folks who may have an unstated interest in this issue. He is also not alone in his approach, as there are going to be hearings in Sacramento on this.

So, lets all cool this down a bit--but discuss the important issues here, please.

"Scaremonger" misses the point. Will the nation's mothers feel comfortable providing spinach and other vegetables from the Salinas valley to their kids?

I think, No.

Now we have a multi-billion dollar problem as a State. We could fix it for about $200M. Take the tertiary treated water - maybe now repolluted by it's journey through the pipe - and run it through a new
"repurification" facillity. Every Water District h as a secret plan for "repurification" (transforming retreated sewage into potable water). I am not suggesting that - but i am suggesting that an upgrade in the quality of water used for irrigation might be justified - if only for consumer peace of mind.

San Diego has a "repurification" project that went as far as engineering drawings. Build it in Salinas -not for drinking, but so growers can market it as
pure and safe.

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 tend to 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.

Frank, I just spoke with Dr. LaPara who says that while he agrees that using "grey water" on human food crops (as opposed to feed crops like field corn, soybeans, or alfalfa) is not wise given the inadequate wastewater treatment processes used at most sites, you are inappropriately citing his research.

His research examined antibiotic resistance and he did not in any way characterize the bacteria present following treatment -- pathogenic or not, type, etc.

"totally out of context" were his words.

Another thought: you're hanging a lot of your premise on the temporal correlation with the apparent outbreaks of O157:H7 in 1999 and the coming online of the CSIP. However, 1999 was also when the CDC and state authorities started getting serious about characterizing and tracing back outbreaks. Thus, we began to "see" what was likely happening all along.

To prove your hypothesis that the CSIP has caused the O157:H7 outbreaks would take considerable work. I'm somewhat dubious because for you to be correct, the O157:H7 would need to be harbored and shed from human victims (we're not asymptomatic carriers), survive all the treatment processes, and survive for a period on irrigated veggies. Possible, maybe likely, but we don't know.

Hopefully, your articles will spur such research so that this currently open question can be addressed.

Cheers,
Alex Avery
Hudson Institute
Center for Global Food Issues
www.cgfi.org

Scarmonger is a very smart cookie with a lot more information than he would like to share. At least two newspaper articles have noted the first confirmed case of E. coli 0157:H7 was in Oakland, CA., in 1975 (a naval officer). A USDA investigation in 1982 found no E. coli 0157:H7 infected cattle anywhere in the United States.

This also answers Alex Avery's comment about 0157:H7 needing to be from human victims. I am a little concerned about Avery's comment on Dr. LaPara's remarks about grey water used as irrigation. The implication seems to be that the reclaimed water from sewage treatment is grey water - when in fact grey water is a term used for water used for dish washing, bathing etc., which contains no human waste. Also Dr. LaPara did discuss 173 drug-resistant bacteria released from the treatment process into the environment. In fact Dr. LaPara classified some pathogens as being non-pathogenic. Now I wonder where that came from.

Jim, "grey water" was my inaccurate term, not Dr. LaPara's. Sorry for the misuse and confusion.

As for your claim that LaPara DID characterize bacteria -- he was plain as day he did none. Zero. So to call the drug resistant bacteria "pathogens" is wholly inaccurate and inappropriate. He doesn't know what type of bacteria there were, only if they were resistant to antibiotics.

Call him yourself, but implying that he's in on some conspiracy or something (I'm not sure what your point really is) is silly.

Regarding the comments of Alex Avery:

Doing some research I found:

Hudson Institute is a conservative think tank that runs a number of research centers including the Center for Global Food Issues, which promotes the use of pesticides and biotechnology. The Hudson Institute for whom Alex Avery works has received funding from biotech companies Aventis, Dow, Monsanto, Novartis and Zeneca as well as AgrEvo, Dow AgroSciences, Du Pont, DowElanco, ConAgra, Cargill, and Procter & Gamble.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=14

Regarding Avery's conversation with Tim LaPara, I have had Dr. LaPara tell me personally that irrigating with tertiary treated sewage water as is done in the CSIP is “a very bad idea”.

We are told in Timothy LaPara’s study that the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Facility in St. Paul, MN. regularly wins state and national awards for operational excellence. However, La Para found that the facility still releases treated effluent (“clean water”) carrying 300,000 tetracycline-resistant bacteria per liter in winter (November to April) and 30,000 tetracycline-resistant bacteria per liter in the summer. Anyway you look at it, that is some very hazardous water.

LaPara said, "About 99.6% and 99.97% of the resistant bacteria in the aeration tanks are removed in the winter and summer." Using the summer figure of 99.7%, according to LaPara, there are still "10 trillion tetracycline-resistant bacteria released each day from this treatment facility into our waterways”.

It seems apparent that Avery doesn't understand that E.coli 0157H:7 is an antibiotic resistant bacterium. It is also well documented that E.coli 0157H:7 pass through sewage treatment facilities. It is resistant to tetracycline as well as other antibiotics and therefore is in the 10 trillion tetracycline-resistant bacteria released each day from this treatment facility.

As the LaPara study clearly stated:

“We found substantial numbers of resistant bacteria at the wastewater treatment facilities and that, although effluent treatment reduced the numbers of bacteria, large quantities of resistant bacteria were discharged. Numerous bacteria isolated from the effluent stream were resistant to multiple antibiotics and closely related to potentially pathogenic bacteria. Our research suggests that the existing wastewater treatment infrastructure should be modified to better prevent release of these potentially dangerous bacteria to the environment.”

Corporate-funded think tanks and food industry front groups have been trying to tap dance their way through the science as my previous articles have illustrated. Alex Avery's highly questionable conclusions and writings have drawn the attention of many scientists and authorities over the years.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alex_Avery

But I have earlier referenced other studies which prove the fallibility of treated sewage water. One such study is the USDA Agriculture Research Service (ARS) study that concludes that pathogens pass through tertiary treated sewage water such as used by CSIP.

We can start with the 2005 interim research report. In their report entitled "Groundwater Recharge and Wastewater Irrigation" the soil scientist researchers were unequivocal in their conclusion that E. coli was present in treated effluent that passed through pipelines on its way to the point of irrigation. Specifically they said, “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.”

In their published ARS 2006 annual report available on the Internet, they state, “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.

The facts are irrefutable and warrant serious action by government entities to protect the public irrespective of what biotech industry promoter Alex Avery says.

I found your article while looking for what others had to say about VBNC which is invisible to standard PCR testing. Recently, biosolids with a MPN less than 200 re-tested to a 2,000,000 plus MPN immediately after being centrifuged. Using other microbial tests they discovered that the 'phantom' e. coli were there all the time. Further investigation found that four of the seven treatment plants tested contained VBNC bacteria in their effluent. At this time, they don't know exactly what the difference is. But the problem is very serious. Also, PPCP's (Prescriptions and Personal Care Products have only recently become a concern due to the increased ability to test for them.
You are absolutely right about the Title 22 of the CWA. The EPA is already considering re-writing the testing methodologies and establishing tdmls for the 70 or so "emerging pathogens of concern". As you already indicated water currently being re-used, perc'd into ground water, discharged into rivers, streams, estuarys and bays presently a coctail of products dangerous to human health.
I can fully understand why those in government and the water/wastewater treatment industry are in the "CYA" mode. The exposure to litigation could become enormous.

I am working at a site employing Sewage Treatment Plant. The treated water is finally subjected to sodium hypochlorite dosing to have 1.0-2.5 mg/litre residual chlorine and then used for gardening. I would request to be informed of the potential hazards and remedies if any in this scenario.

Mr. Kamran:

As you may already know, sodium hypochlorite is a common tertiary treatment oxidizing agent sewage treatment plants add to their sewage effluent in an attempt to “disinfect” the water from pathogens such as E. coli 0157:H7. What many studies have now shown is that pathogens slip past that chemical and others like it and are released back into the environment. In my writing I have focused on the scientific evidence that the “kill” rate for these “disinfecting” oxidants is not 100%.

To illustrate why that is important, one must remember that the number of pathogens introduced to a sewage treatment facility is huge. Even getting a “kill” of 99.7% still leaves a massive number of viable pathogens in the released effluent. Looking at Dr. Timothy LaPara’s recent study report illustrates what I mean.

He reported:

“Throughout the year, we quantified about 100,000 (105) tetracycline-resistant bacteria per milliliter of water in the aeration tanks at the Metropolitan plant. From the treated wastewater, we quantified about 300 tetracycline-resistant bacteria per milliliter in the winter (i.e., when disinfection was not performed) and about 30 tetracycline-resistant bacteria per milliliter during the summer (i.e., during the disinfection period). That is, about 99.6 and 99.97 of the resistant bacteria in the aeration tanks are removed in the winter and summer, respectively. Although this removal efficiency might seem sufficient, 30 bacteria per milliliter translates to more than 10 trillion (1013) tetracycline-resistant bacteria released each day from this treatment facility into our waterways."

You must remember that as few as ten (10) E. coli 0157:H7 bacteria are enough to infect a human. Now you can see why Monterey County spraying tertiary treated sewage water on leafy green vegetables is so dangerous.

As it has been identified as a possible carcinogen, some researchers are quite concerned that the residual effect of continually being exposed to a product like sodium hypochlorite is in itself, dangerous. But I’ll leave that issue to other scientists and another day.

i like your information on sewage water.
please send me more information on effect of sewage water on soil and vegetable,fruit crop for my P.G. studies.
Thank you.
abhijit patil

Post a comment