
The Science Is Clear: Dirty Farm Water Is Making Us Sick - rafaelc
https://www.wired.com/story/the-science-is-clear-dirty-farm-water-is-making-us-sick/
======
jermaustin1
This is despicable. The cost difference is 9 fold between the consumer-end
medical expenses vs the producer-end safety testing.

In the US where we have a flimsy excuse for a safety net, and still-too-high
uninsured rate, the fact that this regulation has been pulled off of
businesses, and instead the burden placed onto the consumer is shameful.

There are certainly families who have been harmed economically and irreparably
so because of this.

Now that I'm done ranting, why is so much of the romaine lettuce market
concentrated in Yuma, AZ?

~~~
mc32
It'd be interesting to look at the economics of growing leafy greens like this
under artificial light (vertical/automated) farming. IIRC, leafy greens are
currently the main mainstream (i.e non pot) product which is economically
viable to grow indoors.

Japan turned a shuttered semi factory[1] of some sort into an automated leafy
greens farm. One would hope in this case there is no indirect contamination,
if the actual soil beneath the campus was contaminated.

[1][https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/travel-
food/article/209...](https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/travel-
food/article/2094791/future-farming-japan-goes-vertical-and-moves-indoors)

~~~
bjelkeman-again
In the Netherlands, in Spain and many other places leafy greens are grown in
greenhouses. So you only need to supplement with artificial light. Up north
where I live in Sweden we also have greenhouses, but there are quite a few
pilot projects with vertical farming indoors (not in greenhouses) including a
side project of mine with aquaponics in an old barn.

~~~
mc32
The thjng that throws a wrench into the economics of this in the US is that
land in semi-arid regions is very cheap, and imported farm labor is also
cheap, so those close to a water source and cheap labor, can be very
competitive compared to anything else.

------
skybrian
You can't test your way to safety. Here's a thread from a real expert:

"All a sample can tell you is that one sample, from that place, on that day,
was clean."

"A lot of water contamination events are very temporary: a rainstorm washes
manure into a well or canal, and then it's gone within a day or two. Testing
only catches that if you target your testing program for it. Guarantee you
most farms aren't doing that; they test on schedule."

[https://mobile.twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/10670960981...](https://mobile.twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/1067096098194550784)

~~~
gregmac
Very interesting points in this thread:

> Testing your irrigation water won't keep the feedlot next door from blowing
> dried-up cow shit dust all over your lettuce. (Or, you know, into your
> irrigation water on a day when you're not testing). [1]

> It won't keep harvest crew co's from putting so much time pressure on crews
> that they can't clean their harvest rigs properly between shifts. [2]

> And it sure won't solve our traceability problem. There's no way in hell
> we're having this much trouble tracing the lettuce to its source, unless
> there's massive supply chain fraud going on. We should be worried about
> THAT. [3]

This one reminds me of a situation I ran into once:

> (You also have to ask, WHY would a farm or any other business target their
> testing towards when they're likely to get red flags? They don't want that.
> Any time you do testing, there are lots of ways to game it to lean towards
> clean results. Which is what farms & companies want.) [4]

We were installing a drinking water monitoring system at a rural retirement
home (on well water), probably a couple hundred residents.

Up to that point, one of the tests they did was a manual daily chlorine level
check. Essentially you need to have a certain amount of residual chlorine in
the water at the point of use, which lets you know you you are putting enough
in (if you put too little in, it gets used up as it's breaking down organics
in the water, and you end up with a zero). If the level is too low, you have
to report it and explain what happened and how you fixed it, and if it happens
too much, inspectors will start looking closely at your practices and forcing
fixes and basically nobody likes that.

The new system had continuous monitoring of several parameters, one of them
being chlorine, and would record everything as well as send alerts to people
if anything dangerous happened. The chlorine monitor was installed at the
opposite end of the building from the water supply, trying be representative
of the worst case 'point of use' level.

As soon as it was online, it started sending alerts every night in the middle
of the night. The free chlorine level would drop starting late in the evening
(as the usage dropped), and then somewhere between 2 and 5 am would drop below
the alarm threshold, and around 6-7 am jump back to normal. The owner was
pissed that we had screwed the system up, because they didn't have this
problem before the monitoring system was in.

Of course what was happening was not new, it was just that as usage dropped
off as the residents went to bed, the water in the pipes just sat stagnant,
and residual chlorine was slowly used up to the point there was none left. The
daily checks were usually done mid-morning, after there was a lot of use as
everyone woke up, and so all the water in the lines was freshly chlorinated
when the check was done.

For years, anyone getting water in the middle of the night was drinking
technically unsafe water (it still had been treated and likely posed no real
health risk, so long as there was no contamination in any of the pipes or
fixtures), and all that happened was the situation was exposed.

We eventually added a solenoid to the end of the line, and programmed it so it
would open and dump water when the chlorine level got low but before the alarm
threshold, at least getting fresh water into the main distribution lines of
the building and avoiding the alarm condition.

It always stuck with me that the owners reaction was not "Oh, thank you for
finding and fixing a problem I didn't even know about before it got someone
really sick" but more like "your stupid system made things WORSE, we should
rip it out and go back to how it was before."

[1]
[https://mobile.twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/10670961003...](https://mobile.twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/1067096100304232448)

[2]
[https://mobile.twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/10670961010...](https://mobile.twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/1067096101021454336)

[3]
[https://mobile.twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/10670961017...](https://mobile.twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/1067096101700947968)

[4]
[https://mobile.twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/10670961060...](https://mobile.twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/1067096106025316353)

~~~
opejn
Thank you for sharing your story. I hope you don't mind if I turn it into a
thought experiment, because I find it a good example of how tricky finding and
fixing a problem can be. I know nothing about water quality standards, so they
might be naive, but the following questions stick out to me:

* Is there a reasonable contamination hazard from water sitting in pipes that are flushed daily with chlorinated water? In other words, is it vital that there always be residual chlorine 100% of the time, or were the standards designed to accomodate this sort of periodic lapse?

* If the dips were harmless, would the inspectors be willing to accept that?

* Was the dump solenoid effective at flushing the entire network of pipes, or just the branch containing the sensor?

Depending on the answers, the end result could range all the way from "the new
system let us eliminate a serious hazard", through "we were probably fine
before but now we can be sure at a little extra cost", down to "now we have to
waste water to avoid tripping a sensor so we don't get fined, with no actual
improvement to the water quality". It's a great example of how what we want,
what we test, and what we enforce can get just a little out of alignment, and
make a hinderance out of what ought to be a definite improvement. Thanks again
for sharing.

~~~
gregmac
Caveat: I come from the monitoring and control system side, so I've only
learned about the actual water treatment part as a side effect from working on
monitoring and control systems for it.

1)

My understanding is there is very little actual hazard here, provided the
pipes are in reasonable shape and there isn't a source of contamination.

One example of a source of contamination: dead ends in plumbing (eg, an old
branch that's been capped off). The stagnant water can grow bacterial colonies
which can then contaminate everything downstream from where the dead end
branches off. The residual chlorine can fight this but it's of course better
to not have the dead end at all.

2)

The problem with the dips is it's not possible to distinguish between the
"expected" nightly dips and real problems.

For example: do you just ignore all alarms between 3am and 6am? or should that
be 7am? Is there another check (+alarm) to be sure the clock is correct (and
do you now need a secondary clock source for that) and that DST is respected?

Or do you build something very complex that checks against recent flow rates
before raising the alarm -- in which case, how do you test that code and
ensure it never breaks (keeping in mind it's safety-related and it's very hard
to unit test real-world flow meters, chlorine sensors etc). This gets
difficult because you might have different plumbers / maintenance people doing
things (adding branches, fixing leaks, etc) that might change the physical
layout and not even realize there _is_ control software that might be affected
by changes. You can add more sensors to try to check for some of these
potential conditions but each sensor costs even more money and adds more
complexity.

A lot of this is really "CYA". If something ever did happen and a resident got
sick (or worse) from the water, and it came to light that not only were there
alarms every night but they were specifically suppressed, even though that
might be a rational decision given the facts, at best, that decision would
still be faced with a lot of scrutiny and at worse it could be considered
criminally negligent.

3)

It's basically not possible to flush the ENTIRE building, because you'd have
to open every fixture (every sink, shower, and flush every toilet). In this
case, the solenoid dumped water from what was effectively the main line
through the building which everything branched from, so from any apartment
running the water for maybe a minute would get you fresh water from that main
line.

So I'd rank this in the middle of what you said: "quality was probably
(usually) fine before, definitely more likely to be fine now, and if an alarm
goes off at any time it's real".

------
gowld
[https://www.foodpoisonjournal.com/food-poisoning-
information...](https://www.foodpoisonjournal.com/food-poisoning-
information/marler-what-you-need-to-know-about-e-coli/)

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has estimated that every
year at least 2,000 Americans are hospitalized, and about 60 die as a result
of E. coli infection and its complications. A study published in 2005
estimated the annual cost of E. coli O157:H7 illnesses to be $405 million (in
2003 dollars), which included $370 million for premature deaths, $30 million
for medical care, and $5 million for lost productivity."

US GDP is $20T/yr, 325 Mpopulation.

The cost of E.coli is 1/50K of US GDP, affecting about 1 person per 150K per
year, killing 1 in 5 million.

Meanwhile, second-hand is claimed to kill 7000 people per year and cost
$5B/yr.

[https://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/health-
effec...](https://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/health-effects-of-
secondhand-smoke.html)

~~~
namuol
What's your point? Are smoking/tobacco regulation and E Coli testing somehow
mutually exclusive?

~~~
abfan1127
I assume his point is perspective. There are bigger problems to solve.

~~~
namuol
Unless you are personally working to stop the inevitable Heat Death of the
Universe, there are always bigger problems to solve.

~~~
code_duck
The heat death of the universe poses no risk to me, though. I don’t consider
that to be a problem.

~~~
namuol
Climate change poses no risk to people over 70.

~~~
code_duck
I don’t think that’s necessarily true, since it could even cause problems
during their lifetime (~20 years?). It could cause problems for their
children, friends, society, loved ones, and so forth over the next 100 years
and that could be construed to be a personal risk. However the heat death of
the universe can’t possibly affect with certainty any entity we now know, even
the earth itself or solar system. The difference between 10^2 years and 10^100
years is significant enough for me to discount that comparison.

------
bluGill
I wish I could buy irradiated salad which would solve this problem. Organic
cannot be treated this way and people are convinced organic is better so I
can't get what is really safe.

~~~
dmm
I wish I could buy salad uncontaminated by feces but I guess I'll take
irradiated if feces salad is all we can get.

~~~
bluGill
A co-worker (I work for John Deere) went to look at a lettuce farm during
harvest. He had to wear gloves and a hair net. He looked up and there were
birds flying overhead with not even a diaper!

Moral of this story: all greens are contaminated with feces - wash your
greens.

~~~
novia
Birds typically poop as they take off to fly. Less weight to carry. E. coli
outbreaks are typically caused by animal farm runoff, especially from hog or
cattle farms.

~~~
bluGill
Birds can poop in the air at anytime. Takeoff is the most common one of course
- but that isn't even an out as the birds are feeding in that field and thus
landing.

~~~
novia
Oh, I gotcha. I thought the birds were only flying above, not landing and
eating. In that case, wouldn't the onus be on the harvester to not pick
produce that has obvious bird poop on it?

~~~
bluGill
yeah, but the rain last week washed the visible poop off - but there are
invisible residues left. (others have pointed out you cannot wash e.coli off -
I'm not qualified to evalueate that claim but if true washing isn't enough)

------
namuol
> “I think the whole thing is an overblown attempt to exert government power
> over us,” said Bob Allen, a Washington state apple farmer.

I'm really looking forward to the urban farming revolution.

~~~
yellowapple
The urban farms would have the same risks if they're relying on greywater for
irrigation (and if they're not, then they're needlessly wasting potable
water).

~~~
epicureanideal
I wouldn't consider using clean water a waste. Greywater for irrigation sounds
disgusting, although I'll bet that's commonly done...

~~~
squish78
It's a very common practice, thoroughly researched, and very beneficial for
small scale irrigation

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
I'm genuinely shocked at how many people commenting here seem to be completely
unaware of where their food comes from. Is this a US thing?

~~~
yellowapple
It's definitely a city thing, in my experience/observation (but that
experience/observation is limited to American cities, so it might be an
American city thing). Rural areas tend to (for obvious/intuitive reasons) be
at least slightly more cognizant of where their food comes from, since they're
in much closer proximity to it.

------
yellowapple
Maybe the right answer here is to cook (or otherwise sterilize) our food
before we eat it, or else accept that not doing so is risky? The prevalence of
contagions in uncooked/undercooked meat is already well-known;
uncooked/undercooked lettuce apparently warrants similar treatment.

Sure, if it's easy and cheap to test and sterilize irrigation water, then
let's do so. I strongly doubt that's the case, though, and requiring farms to
do so is one of those regulations that would be a small dent in a large
corporate farm's checkbook and a gaping hole in that of a small independent
farm.

~~~
rtkwe
You can't really cook greens to sterilize them they'll just wilt and won't be
the same food even.

~~~
sp332
Restaurants have had similar problems with sprouts (like mung bean sprouts)
and their solution largely has been to stop serving them. Except Jimmy Johns,
which makes users click a button that confirms it's a health risk.
[https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/raw-sprouts-at-
jimmy...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/raw-sprouts-at-jimmy-johns-
linked-to-another-outbreak-at-least-the-7th/)

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
I've eaten bean sprouts cooked on the street in dubious conditions in various
Asian countries and never contracted anything as a result. The risk to health
must be vanishingly small.

~~~
sp332
This is about raw bean sprouts.

------
sevensor
Does rinsing salad greens do anything to remove _e. coli_? Or does that just
get the mud off?

~~~
Wohlf
From my understanding, no, e. coli is inside the plant.

~~~
venantius
Probably more technically it's inside the water which is inside the plant.

------
ajoy
Maybe consumers can rise up to demand the change if the government doesn't.

Boycott all growers who do not test their waters. If one farm can start
testing and do marketing around that and consumers show a preference, the rest
will follow.

~~~
turc1656
How could you ever do that realistically? You can't consistently know which
farm/grower the produce came from. Sure, sometimes it is labeled. But a lot of
times it is not. Or a brand buys multiple farms and uses their combined output
to create their brand name that they put forward to the world. The only case I
see is when a grower has their stuff labeled or has the end-supplier label it
and it is never combined with any branding with other growers.

You also have no control over what any business buys and it would be virtually
impossible to find out. You'd never know, for example, where the Romaine used
at your local Chipotle was purchased.

I also think you're giving way too much credit to human beings if you think
they care enough to take action on this and boycott over this (even if they
had full information that was easily available). They didn't even demand that
the US government stop spying on them and jail the perpetrators within the CIA
after the Snowden incident and after an investigative panel during Obama's
administration acknowledged that the acts committed by the CIA's PRISM program
were illegal.

~~~
ajoy
I wouldn't draw the parallel to the spying. Thats not something ordinary
people have direct control over. What I am suggesting is to make the change by
determining where your dollar is spent. A consumer has direct control over
that dollar. Eg. "Organic" food. Consumers have shown a preference for it and
that has led to more supply of "Organic" food. (I put it in quotes, since its
sometimes questionable how organic it really is)

But you are right, it's hard to track down individual suppliers/farms/grower.
Maybe blockchain does have a use-case!

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
We have very thorough food traceability laws in the EU (I develop software in
this area). No blockchain required.

------
redleggedfrog
Solution is easy: Once the outbreak is traced back to a particular farm, let
them be sued. See how long they don't test.

~~~
ThrowawayIP
Why not actually solve the problem? Ban animal agriculture within the
watersheds of produce growers.

~~~
redleggedfrog
Hmm, I think I could get behind that as well.

------
ElijahLynn
Just so everyone knows this is an option: Veganic Farming/Gardening >
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan_organic_gardening](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan_organic_gardening),
which doesn't involve the animal products that usually cause E. coli.

~~~
noobiemcfoob
Isn't the issue here waste entering the water supply from upstream animal
farms? Unless everything went 100% vegan (please don't take that bait), you
can have the best processes you want on a given farm and still be at risk.

------
pbreit
This is a classic example of incorrectly blaming Trump for everything bad. The
breathless media made it seem like Trump had halted ongoing testing despite
that it had never actually started in the first place.

~~~
scrooched_moose
The testing would have started well before this outbreak if the administration
hadn't postponed the rule change:

> After several high-profile disease outbreaks linked to food, Congress in
> 2011 ordered a fix, and produce growers this year would have begun testing
> their water under rules crafted by the Obama administration’s Food and Drug
> Administration.

> But six months before people were sickened by the contaminated romaine,
> President Donald Trump’s FDA – responding to pressure from the farm industry
> and Trump’s order to eliminate regulations – shelved the water-testing rules
> for at least four years.

I don't understand how "it had never actually started in the first place" is
relevant at all. There were plans to help address this problem, but those
plans were delayed by the Trump administration.

~~~
turc1656
" _I don 't understand how "it had never actually started in the first place"
is relevant at all. There were plans to help address this problem, but those
plans were delayed by the Trump administration._"

It's relevant because of a comment another user made here, which explains why
the tests are not effective and would almost certainly have not resulted in
catching this:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18536230](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18536230)
The full Tweet thread linked to in that comment provides more info but the
base theme is that the tests are not an appropriate solution because spot
checks would not catch events like this.
[https://mobile.twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/10670960981...](https://mobile.twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/1067096098194550784)

~~~
lkbm
That might be relevant, but it's a completely different argument than you
initially provided.

~~~
turc1656
That wasn't me who made the initial argument.

In any event, the original comment was regarding journalistic
misrepresentation. The comment I responded to brought up the issue of
relevance given an _apparent_ solution. My comment merely addresses the issue
of relevance that was raised.

~~~
lkbm
> That wasn't me who made the initial argument.

My apologies. I wasn't paying attention to the names.

