The Only Thing Toxic About The White House Kitchen Garden Is The Misinformation: Scientists Correct The Record On Contamination
I think it's irresponsible that Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center For Food Safety, who claims to be "one of the country's leading environmental attorneys and authors," is trying to use the White House Kitchen Garden as a symbol for environmental tragedy in America. In a sensationalistic piece right here on Huffington Post, Mr. Kimbrell claims that the White House Kitchen Garden is producing toxic crops, and cites the National Park Service's lead test result of 93 parts per million as evidence of "alarming contamination." But a lead reading of 93 ppm is "ridiculously low" for any urban garden, according to Dr. Gabriel Filippelli, chair of Geology at Indiana University, and associate chair of the Center for Environmental Health.
"It would be nearly impossible to find a garden anywhere with [a lead level] less than 93 ppm," Dr. Filippelli said, and added that it's absurd to claim contamination based on this test result.
So why is Mr. Kimbrell essentially accusing the President and Mrs. Obama of poisoning their own children and visiting world leaders by feeding them suspect spinach and contaminated collard greens from the White House Kitchen Garden? Mr. Kimbrell is trying to make a point about the horrors of sewage sludge, and he hasn't done his own research. He's parroting a story that appeared on the Mother Jones website, which claims that sewage sludge spread on the White House lawns during the Clinton era has permanently contaminated the entire White House campus. This misinformation campaign has slithered around the blogosphere like a viral worm, but the only bit of truth in any of the stories is that the National Park Service did in fact test the White House Kitchen Garden for lead, and did in fact find that lead level reading of 93 parts per million. And Dr. Filippelli maintains that anyone suggesting the garden is contaminated based on a lead count of 93 ppm simply has no idea what he or she is talking about.
Dr. David L. Johnson, professor of Environmental Chemistry, Environmental Science, and Forestry at the State University of New York, agrees with Dr. Filippelli's assessment, and he adds that Washington, DC already has relatively low lead levels when compared to other cities that previously had heavy industry located within their borders. He said that lead testing is a good idea for all city gardens, so appropriate remediation measures can be taken to grow safe food if lead is present. But no remediation of the South Lawn, where the White House Kitchen Garden is situated, was indicated with a test result of 93 ppm.
"I have no concerns at all about growing vegetables in soil with a reading of 93 ppm," Dr. Johnson said.
Dr. Filippelli also said that planting right in the ground is perfectly appropriate at the White House.
"I would have no concerns about growing food there, and having kids eat it," Dr. Filippelli said. "I would be happy to grow on that."
He added that he and his colleagues recommend the same thing for lead readings of up to 200 ppm. "Most state day care centers identify 400 ppm as the dangerous level for exposure for children," Dr. Filippelli added, to give perspective.
It should be noted that almost every state agriculture extension agency in the US makes the same recommendation--that planting crops in soil with lead levels of between 200 and 400 ppm is no danger to human health.
Dr. Kimberly Gray agrees with both Dr. Filippelli and Dr. Johnson's assessments of the White House Kitchen Garden. She's the Director of the Environmental Sciences Program at Northwestern University, as well as Associate Director of the Institute of Environmental Catalysis, and has spent a lot of research time figuring out remediation solutions for environments that actually are heavily contaminated. She said she's frequently seen areas in Chicago with lead levels between 5,000 and 10,000 ppm. She noted that calling the White House Kitchen Garden "contaminated" based on a lead count of 93 ppm is "about politics, not lead."
"It's inflammatory," Dr. Gray said. "93 ppm is well below background lead for an urban environment. It's what you'd expect just from atmospheric deposition." Atmospheric deposition is lead particles that fall out of the sky, from things like auto emissions.
Dr. Filippelli said that the ppm reading for the White House Kitchen Garden is most likely even lower than the actual 93 level the garden has been tagged with, because not all lead that's actually present in the soil is bioavailable--capable of being absorbed by food crops. Dr. Gray agreed; both have studied the different ways various crops absorb lead.
Andrew Kimbrell's--and Mother Jones's--claims that the sewage sludge spread on the White House grounds was itself highly toxic is based on a shaky understanding of sludge, too.
"It's of little concern that there is enduring sludge contamination at the White House, given the lead reading," Dr. Gray said. "On average, sludge has elevated levels of heavy metals but not terribly high levels. You have to know what slipstream it [the sludge] came from, and that's impossible now."
Dr. Johnson concurred.
"As time has marched forward, any contaminants [at the White House] that might have come from sewage sludge have dramatically decreased," Dr. Johnson said. "And because there's no body of evidence about what was in it [the sludge], where it came from, it's not worth trying to make a story on the Internet that there's a story there."
No one is being poisoned by eating the bounty of wonderful crops that have been grown in the White House Kitchen Garden, and it's become a source of inspiration for people all over America and around the world. It's created a whole new interest in school and urban gardening, in nutrition and health issues, in local and organic sourcing--among many other things. There's simply no reason for any of these bizarre attempts to slam the project. So perhaps the most interesting, enduring story on the Internet will become why people who claim to be environmentalists and experts are trying to use the White House Kitchen Garden as a high-profile example of all that's gone wrong in America. Lastly, it's unfortunate that all Mr. Kimbrell's long, good work in promoting a more sustainable food system is being threatened by what he's saying about the White House Kitchen Garden.
Follow Eddie Gehman Kohan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/obamafoodorama
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Well, wouldn't you know that Huffington POST would come up with something to persuade the public that ANYTHING THE OBAMAS DO is above reproach! I wonder why the Mrs. Huffington doesn''t go and live in the WH with her best friends?
I don't think that anyone here on either side is saying 'Sludge is great! Sludge is safe! Use it on your garden just like the White House!" I think they are saying that although sludge WAS used over a decade ago on the WH lawn, the grounds were tested and the soil lead content deemed acceptable to grow a garden in.
Acceptable depends on who you talk to, BUT- may I respectfully submit, as a home gardener doing everything the organic way- *I* cannot confirm that my soil is organic or sludge free, etc. because I did not LIVE here 8 or 10 years ago. Neither can the Obamas. What seems really sad is that the Park Service put this stuff on the lawns themselves years ago, and even THEY weren't 100% sure what was in it.
But with all that, I firmly believe that the health and social benefits of growing your own garden and harvesting and eating your own food far outweigh the risks in this situation. Also, MOST of us growing gardens are not doing so under perfect circumstances. In a way, Michelle Obama is just like any other mom who moved into an old house and wants to plant a garden to enjoy with her kids. It's the same situation- just a bigger, more famous house!
Here is an analogy that may blow you away. In the case of the White House Garden, we have a toxic sludge masquerading as a healthy soil additive (fertilizer), and it is endorsed by government agencies.
Would you believe that there is yet another and potentially even more horrific story that also involves fertilizer and a toxic waste masquerading as a healthy additive, and is also endorsed by government agencies?
It is called water fluoridation. The chemicals used to fluoridate water, primarily fluorosilicic acid (FSA) and sodium silicofluoride (silicofluorides), are untested industrial waste products from the phosphate fertilizer industry. Here is an even more bizarre link to the White House debacle. FSA is a corrosive acid which has been linked to higher blood lead levels in children! A study from the University of North Carolina found that FSA can - in combination with chlorinated compounds - leach lead from brass joints in water pipes.
Silicofluoeides are neurotoxins that are used to make rat poison. They are known carcinogens and can cause brain, thyroid gland, bone and kidney diseases.
For more information on this issue, go to http://www.fluoridealert.org/ and watch the thirty minute video.
As a research scientist, I have studied the effects of toxic halides such as fluoride, as well as natural detoxification strategies. Ask your librarian for a copy of "The Wellness Project," designed by Nature, and researched by me.
Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www.MontecitoWellness.com
That lead in the soil is probably left over from when leaded gasoline was used in cars. Especially in the cities, nearby main roads.
No matter whether the lead level is toxic or not, this could be a teaching/learning experience. Teaching folks that soil testing and remediation is important and learning how to clean up the lead out of the soil if they do decide it is toxic.....AND - Given that that lawn is so green, green, green, one wonders what else is lurking in that soil. Call EPA, maybe the Obamas have their own superfund site in their backyard!!! This is not unusual in cities.
Dr Kimbrell is highly respected and one of the best advocates against GMOs and for organic food production in the world. He has authored some very important books including Your Right to Know: Genetic Engineering and the Secret Changes In Your Food. Everyone should read this.
I agree that his piece was slightly misleading but the emphasis was on the dangers of sludge as it relates to people handling the soil. It's clear that there is no danger from eating the vegetables from the garden but it is not as clear that picking them and handling the dirt is such a good idea for children.
A recent article in the NY Times (MSM no?) (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/garden/14lead.html) stated that In the Netherlands, 40 p.p.m. is unacceptable and in Minneapolis 100 p.p.m. is considered hazardous so this is not an open and shut case of Dr. Kimbrell being sensationalistic about the numbers and HuffPo being a crappy editor. According to the CDC natural levels of lead in surface soils are usually below 50 ppm so something has added some lead to the soil. Was it sludge? lead paint from the White House or simply urban pollution from car exhausts?
Also, what type of lead can also change its absorption numbers. Lead chromate, lead octoate, lead naphthenate, lead sulfide, lead tallate, lead carbonate, or something else?
Nice research.
I am going to disagree with the author. While lead levels in the White House garden may be deemed "low" by governmental standards, the tragedy is we accept toxins in our soil as safe or acceptable at any level.
The US government has a well-documented history of raising "safe levels" as environmental contamination increase, does not take into account their accumulative effect given the numerous forms of exposure, does not adequately test them on children, and routinely ignores scientific concerns for the benefit of corporate profits. Remember, the US published studies on BPA lead many European nations to outlaw its use while our government said exposure was acceptable and safe. Americans are beginning to understand how dangerous that lie was and continues to be to the health of our children.
However, these facts do not take away from the positive message Ms. Obama made with her organic garden. The need for local, unadulterated, organic foods and concern over environment toxins are equal truths.
If we truly want to reduce the cost of healthcare, these two issues are critical and should be at the forefront of the debate on lowering healthcare costs. No matter how much sense it makes, it will be difficult to achieve. Too much wealth is tied to making people sick and keeping them sick while controlling their symptoms. We first need to educate ourselves on these issues and demonstrate our political will in order for politicians to find their own.
As a research scientist and author of several books dealing with heavy metal detoxification, here's a look at what the science and medical communities "know" about lead toxicity as related to humans.
The maximum safe human blood level for lead established by the CDC (ug/dL) is 60. Whoops, that was in 1965. Then it was dropped to 40 in 1970. Then it was dropped to 30 in 1979. Then it was dropped to 25 in 1985. Then it was dropped to 10 in 1991, where it remains today. According to many studies, that number is still too high, and can cause IQ impairment in children. Get the picture?
Now, let's look at lead levels in soil, which is the second most common source of poisoning for children after lead paint. What is a safe level? Depends on what state you live in. In Minnesota, for example, the White House garden at 97 ppm, is just about at the level of being considered toxic in that state (100 ppm). At 100 ppm, a child ingesting just two teaspoons of soil per week would end up with a toxic blood level. Kids planting and harvesting in that soil might easily end up ingesting that amount. Which plants absorb the most lead from the soil? Leafy vegetables, which seems to fit the White House garden profile.
Moving on to sludge as a fertilizer, the only word that comes to mind is insane.
Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www.MontecitoWellness.com
Lead levels in tap water tested at my home is 3 ppb (parts per billion). Maximum contaminant level (MCL) in drinking water allowed is 15 ppb. It is hard for me to dispute the findings of distinguished individuals on both sides of this story. However, it seems to me that a ppm level is a ppm, regardless of whether that testing was performed on soil or water. If we cant drink 15 ppb, then how can 93 ppm or more be regarded as acceptable without limits in the foods themselves being taken into consideration as well?
As far as the sludge itself being used as fertilizers is concerned, it seems to me that this practice is likely, as dangerous as those practices or factors that led to mad cow disease. Not to get into that, but I would doubt that the gardeners had crops in mind over the years as they made the yard look green. It seems to me that consuming crops grown where human sludge has been diposited, offers a shorted cycle of bacteria and chemicals - right back into another human's body.
mikebw, the difference between levels in drinking water and levels in garden soil is that you consume the water directly, but you don't eat a plate of soil. I don't anyway. We eat parts of the plants that grow in the soil. Not all of the substances in the soil will go into the plants in that same concentration. There isn't 93 ppm of lead in the spinach or the carrots on the First Family's dinner plates. If soil was fully depleted of nutrients by one crop, we would have run out of land for farming generations ago.
Sure, the White House gardeners probably use commercial fertilizers on the lawn, maybe even sludge at one point. But give them and the First Lady some credit for testing the soil before planting the garden. If there had been any problem of contaminated soil, they would have dealt with it. As the soil in the garden is amended each year, the levels of nutrients will be raised as the levels of contamination fall.
Thank you for bringing balance to this story. Except that now it sounds like sludge is fine, which it's not. The main motivation for using sludge as fertilizer to generate income for people who want to sell sludge. There's no other excuse. Better, cheaper, safer ways to fertilize are abundant. So the White House yard may not be poisoned, which is awesome. But if you aren't worried about what is being dumped on everyone's lawns and in the fields where your food is grown, you're a fool.
Glad to see this post. After I read the other post on Huff Po, I thought, This sounds like a bunch of inflammatory malarkey, like the kind of stuff that regularly gets swatted down on snopes.com. I agree with Whatevah. If HuffPo wants to get treated like a real news organization, somebody needs to hire an editor.
Inflammatory malarkey? No way. The diatribe about the garden was to cover the real story. To wit: The excessive manure produced by Gibbs's regular press briefings must be spread quietly somewhere to avoid a big (uh) stink. So the little organic garden undoubtedly is betng covered with gobs of the stuff at night after each Gibbs performance. Rest assured, the manure produced in the White House is most likely no more toxic than that spread on organic garden plots everywhere, assuming it's all well rotted, of course. Just to be sure, FDA should regulate the spreading of manure just like it now regulates the puffing of cigarettes, since it doesn't have enough to do.
I'm glad you were allowed to post your rebuttal on HuffPo. Tracking back on this story, I was led to your blog entry on the matter, which I confirmed for myself against other reports on urban lead levels. It's a shame that with access to all the information out there, so few make the effort to research beyond what's in front of them.
With all due respect to HuffPo, this is the problem with blogs. In MSM there are editors who say things like "Wait a minute! Find out what mainstream authorities have to say about this!"
The loss of the MSM is a serious societal problem. All you MSM bashers will live to see the day that you wish the MSM was back.
How did that work with WMD, Saddam & 9/11, war in Iraq, etc.?
The key is having an informed, educated readership that doesn't passively accept everything they read or see. It looks like the system probably worked pretty well, actually.
I miss the MSM that existed 40 or so years ago.
I already wish we had that MSM back. It's been missing since 1999, at least.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
