Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Why we keep seeing egg prices spike

News Feed
Tuesday, April 30, 2024

With a new wave of bird flu affecting hens, egg prices are ticking up again. | Matthew Hatcher/Bloomberg via Getty Images How corporate greed plays a role in making bird flu outbreaks — and egg prices — worse. Egg prices are rising again. The culprit, again: bird flu. At least, that’s the surface-level reason. In the current wave, according to the CDC, the H5N1 bird flu has been found in over 90 million poultry birds across almost every state since 2022, and has even spread to dairy cattle, with over 30 herds in nine states dealing with an outbreak at the time of this writing. The last time bird flu struck US farms, in early 2022, egg prices more than doubled during the year, reaching a peak of $4.82 for a dozen in January 2023. During the bird flu outbreak in 2014 to 2015, egg prices also briefly soared. While prices now are still nowhere near the peak they reached in January 2023, they’ve been creeping up again since last August, when a dozen large eggs cost $2.04. As of March, we’re bumping up against the $3 mark, which is a nearly 47 percent increase. It’s also a huge increase from the price we were used to a few years ago: In early 2020, a dozen eggs were just $1.46 on average. The H5N1 strain of bird flu is highly contagious and obviously poses a big risk to hens. But the fact that bird flu outbreaks keep battering our food system points to a deeper problem: an agriculture industry that has become brittle thanks to intense market concentration. The egg market is dominated by some major players The egg industry, like much of the agricultural sector, is commanded by a few heavyweights — the biggest, Cal-Maine Foods, controls 20 percent of the market — that leave little slack in the system to absorb and isolate shocks like disease. Hundreds of thousands of animals are packed tightly together on a single farm, as my colleague Marina Bolotnikova has explained, where disease can spread like wildfire. According to the government and corporate accountability group Food & Water Watch, three-quarters of the country’s hundreds of millions of egg-laying hens are crammed into just 347 factory farms. The system also uses genetically similar animals that farms believe will maximize egg production — but that lack of genetic diversity means animal populations are less resistant to disease. When a hen gets infected, stopping the spread is an ugly, cruel business; since 2022 it has led to the killing of 85 million poultry birds. For the consumer, it often means paying a lot more than usual for a carton of eggs. Preventing any outbreaks of disease from ever happening isn’t realistic, but the model of modern industrial farming is making outbreaks more disruptive. And it’s not just these disruptions driving price spikes. Egg producers also appear to be taking advantage of these moments and hiking prices beyond what they’d need to maintain their old profit margins. “It is absolutely a story of corporate profiteering,” says Rebecca Wolf, senior food policy analyst at Food & Water Watch. Cal-Maine’s net profit in 2023 was about $758 million — 471 percent higher than the year prior, according to its annual financial report. Most of this fortune was made through hoisting up prices; the number of eggs sold, measured in dozens, rose only 5.9 percent. Last year, several food conglomerates, including Kraft and General Mills, were awarded almost $18 million in damages in a lawsuit alleging that egg producers Cal-Maine and Rose Acre Farms had constrained the supply of eggs in the mid- to late 2000s, artificially bumping prices. A farmer advocacy group last year called on the FTC to look into whether top egg producers were price gouging consumers. Are we doomed to semi-regular price surges for eggs? Our food system didn’t become so consolidated — and fragile — by accident. We got here because of three big reasons, Wolf says: by not enforcing environmental laws, by not enforcing antitrust laws, and by giving away “tons of money” to the agriculture industry. During the New Deal era, the federal government put in place policies that would help manage food supply and protect both farmers and consumers from sharp deviations in what the former earned and the latter paid. Under Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz in the 1970s, though, those policies started getting chipped away; Butz’s famous motto was for farmers to “get big or get out.” The spread of giant factory farms is in part a product of this about-face in managing supply. Because our food system is so concentrated and intermingled, it also means any single supply chain hiccup — whether due to disease, wars, or any other reason — can have ripple effects on others, affecting prices in a vast number of essential consumer goods and services. “When we have things like E. coli outbreaks, it’s hard to know where the problem lies because the way that we process and manufacture is so hyper-industrialized that you then have a problem with millions of pounds of food,” says Wolf. Thankfully, the Biden administration has been making some strides in loosening up food industry consolidation, often by shoring up enforcement of long-existing antitrust laws. But there’s still more we could do. There are bills that have been introduced to Congress, like Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s Price Gouging Prevention Act, that would give the FTC the authority to first define what counts as price gouging and then crack down on companies that raise prices excessively. The cycle of food chain snags and higher prices doesn’t have to keep repeating. “We are maximizing profit truly over everything else — over the welfare of the animals, over the rights and wages of people who work in the food system, for even consumers who are at the grocery store,” Wolf says. “None of this is inevitable — we shouldn’t have to be here.” This story appeared originally in Today, Explained, Vox’s flagship daily newsletter. Sign up here for future editions.

Cartons of eggs are seen stacked on the shelf of a grocery store cooler.
With a new wave of bird flu affecting hens, egg prices are ticking up again. | Matthew Hatcher/Bloomberg via Getty Images

How corporate greed plays a role in making bird flu outbreaks — and egg prices — worse.

Egg prices are rising again. The culprit, again: bird flu.

At least, that’s the surface-level reason. In the current wave, according to the CDC, the H5N1 bird flu has been found in over 90 million poultry birds across almost every state since 2022, and has even spread to dairy cattle, with over 30 herds in nine states dealing with an outbreak at the time of this writing.

The last time bird flu struck US farms, in early 2022, egg prices more than doubled during the year, reaching a peak of $4.82 for a dozen in January 2023. During the bird flu outbreak in 2014 to 2015, egg prices also briefly soared.

While prices now are still nowhere near the peak they reached in January 2023, they’ve been creeping up again since last August, when a dozen large eggs cost $2.04. As of March, we’re bumping up against the $3 mark, which is a nearly 47 percent increase. It’s also a huge increase from the price we were used to a few years ago: In early 2020, a dozen eggs were just $1.46 on average.

The H5N1 strain of bird flu is highly contagious and obviously poses a big risk to hens. But the fact that bird flu outbreaks keep battering our food system points to a deeper problem: an agriculture industry that has become brittle thanks to intense market concentration.

The egg market is dominated by some major players

The egg industry, like much of the agricultural sector, is commanded by a few heavyweights — the biggest, Cal-Maine Foods, controls 20 percent of the market — that leave little slack in the system to absorb and isolate shocks like disease.

Hundreds of thousands of animals are packed tightly together on a single farm, as my colleague Marina Bolotnikova has explained, where disease can spread like wildfire. According to the government and corporate accountability group Food & Water Watch, three-quarters of the country’s hundreds of millions of egg-laying hens are crammed into just 347 factory farms.

The system also uses genetically similar animals that farms believe will maximize egg production — but that lack of genetic diversity means animal populations are less resistant to disease.

When a hen gets infected, stopping the spread is an ugly, cruel business; since 2022 it has led to the killing of 85 million poultry birds. For the consumer, it often means paying a lot more than usual for a carton of eggs.

Preventing any outbreaks of disease from ever happening isn’t realistic, but the model of modern industrial farming is making outbreaks more disruptive.

And it’s not just these disruptions driving price spikes. Egg producers also appear to be taking advantage of these moments and hiking prices beyond what they’d need to maintain their old profit margins.

“It is absolutely a story of corporate profiteering,” says Rebecca Wolf, senior food policy analyst at Food & Water Watch.

Cal-Maine’s net profit in 2023 was about $758 million — 471 percent higher than the year prior, according to its annual financial report. Most of this fortune was made through hoisting up prices; the number of eggs sold, measured in dozens, rose only 5.9 percent.

Last year, several food conglomerates, including Kraft and General Mills, were awarded almost $18 million in damages in a lawsuit alleging that egg producers Cal-Maine and Rose Acre Farms had constrained the supply of eggs in the mid- to late 2000s, artificially bumping prices. A farmer advocacy group last year called on the FTC to look into whether top egg producers were price gouging consumers.

Are we doomed to semi-regular price surges for eggs?

Our food system didn’t become so consolidated — and fragile — by accident. We got here because of three big reasons, Wolf says: by not enforcing environmental laws, by not enforcing antitrust laws, and by giving away “tons of money” to the agriculture industry.

During the New Deal era, the federal government put in place policies that would help manage food supply and protect both farmers and consumers from sharp deviations in what the former earned and the latter paid. Under Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz in the 1970s, though, those policies started getting chipped away; Butz’s famous motto was for farmers to “get big or get out.” The spread of giant factory farms is in part a product of this about-face in managing supply.

Because our food system is so concentrated and intermingled, it also means any single supply chain hiccup — whether due to disease, wars, or any other reason — can have ripple effects on others, affecting prices in a vast number of essential consumer goods and services. “When we have things like E. coli outbreaks, it’s hard to know where the problem lies because the way that we process and manufacture is so hyper-industrialized that you then have a problem with millions of pounds of food,” says Wolf.

Thankfully, the Biden administration has been making some strides in loosening up food industry consolidation, often by shoring up enforcement of long-existing antitrust laws. But there’s still more we could do. There are bills that have been introduced to Congress, like Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s Price Gouging Prevention Act, that would give the FTC the authority to first define what counts as price gouging and then crack down on companies that raise prices excessively.

The cycle of food chain snags and higher prices doesn’t have to keep repeating.

“We are maximizing profit truly over everything else — over the welfare of the animals, over the rights and wages of people who work in the food system, for even consumers who are at the grocery store,” Wolf says. “None of this is inevitable — we shouldn’t have to be here.”

This story appeared originally in Today, Explained, Vox’s flagship daily newsletter. Sign up here for future editions.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Left and right unite in panning House Republicans' farm bill proposal

House Republicans' new farm bill proposal is drawing opposition from a coalition of left- and right-wing groups that agree on little else. The proposed version of the $1.5 trillion omnibus unveiled last week by House Agriculture Chair Glenn “G.T.” Thompson (R-Pa.) includes several priorities of big agribusiness — proposals that frustrated both right-aligned groups like the Heritage...

House Republicans' new farm bill proposal is drawing opposition from a coalition of left- and right-wing groups that agree on little else. The proposed version of the $1.5 trillion omnibus unveiled last week by House Agriculture Chair Glenn “G.T.” Thompson (R-Pa.) includes several priorities of big agribusiness — proposals that frustrated both right-aligned groups like the Heritage Foundation and left-leaning ones like the Environmental Working Group amid progressives' and populists' broader dislike of what they see as crony capitalism in the U.S. farmstand. The bill faces a tough road in the House, where Republicans hold only a narrow majority and both Democrats and some GOP lawmakers have pushed back against provisions included in the proposal. As it goes to markup this week, several key areas of shared left-right opposition will be front and center. The principal bone of contention is that Thompson's proposed legislation contains tens of billions of dollars in subsidies that would overwhelmingly go to a few thousand of America’s wealthiest cotton, rice and peanut farmers — money that would likely come from either climate funding or food aid. Heritage and Environmental Working Group (EWG) “may not agree on much, but we agree that farmers are sophisticated business leaders who should make their money in the market — not by becoming more dependent on federal support,” said Scott Faber, EWG’s vice president for government affairs. “We agree that we need a farm safety net,” Faber added. “But what Chairman Thompson has proposed is more akin to a trampoline.” The right and left have very different visions of the food system, which drive different ideas of why Thompson’s compromise is a problem.  For left-leaning groups and lawmakers — whose viewpoints hold a powerful sway in the Democratic-controlled Senate — cuts to food aid and climate funding are clear red lines, though such groups offered grudging support for House measures to increase resources for young or minority farmers or land grant universities. To the right, including the House Freedom Caucus, cuts in general would be attractive in an era of rising deficits — but Heritage characterized Thompson’s proposal as an attempt to smuggle in permanent subsidy increases to America’s wealthiest farmers through the back door. “There’s a reason you’re seeing so many groups from across the ideological spectrum in opposition — there’s not an economic justification for it,” David Ditch, a senior policy analyst at Heritage, told The Hill.  Increasing subsidies, Ditch added, would be understandable “if farmers were going bankrupt left and right.”  But while prices of farm supplies are going up, commodity prices have increased more. “It’s a distortion of markets,” he said of the proposed increases.  Rather than providing aid for farmers on the margins, he said, “this is like locking in historically high revenue levels for farming operations that are very financially stable, and who have access to credit markets for when times are tough — operated by households with dramatically above average income and wealth.” Of particular concern to both left- and right-wing opponents of the bill is the increase to what are called “reference prices,” a U.S. Department of Agriculture program that pays farmers when commodity prices drop below a certain level.  The higher that level is set, the higher the potential payment from the program, and the greater the likelihood that farmers will get it.  The increase to reference prices for the three chosen commodities — rice, peanuts and cotton — under the new House proposal mean that farmers of those crops would get automatic payments for each of the five years a new farm bill would be in effect, because levels would be set so high that farmers would get payments no matter what, according to an EWG report. EWG also found that between 2021 and 2023, thousands of farmers had “triple-dipped” by using distinct federal programs to cover the same drop in prices— amounting to a total cost to taxpayers of $55.2 billion. The bill would also increase subsidies for insurance for farmers of major commodities, like corn and wheat — programs that the Government Accountability Office found pay America’s wealthiest farmers about $2 for every dollar they put in. In a November report, the GAO suggested saving billions by cutting that proportion to more like $1.59 to $1 — a proposal Thompson called “not worth the paper it is printed on.” The office, he said, “completely ignores the benefits of Federal crop insurance, which is one of the most successful examples of a public-private partnership in existence.” The programs, he added, “bolster rural economies by ensuring that producers can pay back their lenders, retain their employees, and get back on their feet to farm again the following season.” Rather than cutting support, Thompson’s bill would raise coverage levels, increase the federal share of premiums and lower the amount of losses needed for farmers to claim a payment.  The issue of payment is another place where right and left both see problems — on one side, because of the increase in spending, and on the other, because of what would be cut to cover it. Because the farm bill’s total is capped, Thompson would need more than $90 billion in cuts to cover the proposed price tag and crop insurance increases, according to trade journal Dairy Herd Management. Thompson told the AgriPulse that cuts to the Commodity Credit Corporation — which makes loans according to administration priorities like trade or climate change — would net $53 billion; the Congressional Budget Office, however, says that number is more like $8 billion. Part of the projected shortfall would be made up by freezing the list of foods covered by nutritional aid (SNAP) programs — a change which Thompson has said would cut $30 billion from farm bill spending over the next decade. Some of the rest of the shortfall could be made up by cuts and creative reallocations to the approximately $19 billion in funding for agricultural programs to slow the onslaught of climate change, Ditch of the Heritage Foundation said. “If we go down the line, those reference prices are still going to be higher level, but won’t have IRA money to use as an offset,” he said.  That last bargain is unattractive for conservatives, because it would use a one-time package to pay for an increase in reference prices and crop insurance that is functionally permanent, Ditch said. He also noted that it would also violate a clear red line for Senate Agriculture Chair Debbie Stabenow (D-Minn.). “I’m very skeptical that the Senate is interested in that particular tradeoff.” Progressive farm groups like the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) have argued that the existing structure of “safety net programs” like crop insurance and reference prices effectively protect unsustainable forms of agriculture from the need to adopt a more resilient, diversified approach — at taxpayer expense. Though NSAC acknowledges that Thompson’s bill would also add support and subsidies to help smaller and more diversified farms access insurance — a long-time demand of farm groups — the group argues that it would do little to actually bring such aid to fruition.  While the proposed legislation would require studies of challenges that small producers face, for instance, NSAC said that “those barriers and corresponding solutions are already well documented” in similar studies ordered in the last farm bill. Another point of shared opposition from left and right comes in a perhaps surprising area: animal welfare.  As of January, California has banned the sale of pigs, chickens or veal calves kept in “extreme confinement” — which generally means cages that offer too little space for animals to move. The law is a serious concern for Republicans from states with big pork industries, which would not be able to sell in California without major, expensive reform. Last June, Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-Iowa) sponsored H.R. 4417, which would ban states from setting their own standards on what out-of-state produce can be sold locally.  The California law, Hinson said, “allows liberal lawmakers and radical activists in California — who don’t know the first thing about farming or raising animals — to regulate how farmers do their job, devastating small family farms and undermining food security.” But this argument is divisive among Republicans — in particular the influential House Freedom Caucus — many of whom have expressed more concern over the prospect of Congress regulating state agricultural policy than they are of states setting their own standards.  In letters in October and March, about two dozen House Republicans urged Thompson to drop H.R. 4417, which they argued was “at odds with our foundational Republican principles of states’ rights, national sovereignty, and fair competition.” The group included notable names like Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), Marjorie Taylor Green (R-Ga.) and Nancy Mace (R-S.C.).  The California bill’s constitutionality, the letter writers noted, had been upheld by the Supreme Court — and the attack on it, they argued, largely came from big agribusiness abroad.  “The Act proposes to undo legitimate statewide elections on animal-housing standards, and the influence of the Chinese government is hard to miss given the profound level of control of pig production in the United States,” they wrote.  “The biggest U.S.-based pork company is wholly owned by the Chinese, controlling 26 percent of the U.S. pork market, and produces one in six breeding sows in the United States.” Earlier this month, Sid Miller (R), Texas’s highly conservative Agriculture Commissioner, cast his support behind California on the matter. “Our states must be able to maintain their constitutional authority to pass agriculture laws ... and DC should never ride roughshod over states’ rights to do so," he wrote in an op-ed in AgriPulse. A final area of common left-right opposition to the proposed farm bill is the checkoff program, which takes a mandatory fee from the sale of covered commodities — like milk or beef — and funnels it into public-private programs intended to promote the sale of that commodity. For the last year, conservative Republicans and right-leaning groups have joined progressive lawmakers and groups in seeking to end what they call rampant conflict of interest and anti-competitive activity in the program, as The Hill reported. Last February, Mace introduced the Opportunities for Fairness in Farming Act (OFF Act), which would ban the programs from working for specific interest groups or lobbyists in their sector — in practice, big agriculture trade groups — whose priorities might be at odds with the sector as a whole, or smaller players. The House’s latest proposed version of the farm bill leaves the OFF Act out. Democrats on the House Agriculture Committee, for their part, sharply criticized the legislation on Tuesday and forecast a coming battle over the farm bill that could extend beyond the current proposal. “House Republicans have spent over a year ignoring the red lines and core values of House Democrats," Britton T. Burdick, communications director for House Agriculture Democrats, said in a statement. "The Republicans have lost credibility, which will only make it harder to convince Democrats to support a farm bill down the road. Farmers know that the only way we get a farm bill this year is if Republicans and Democrats work together and respect each other’s priorities. House Republicans should drop their partisan approach and work with Democrats to pass a truly bipartisan farm bill.”

This county is California’s harshest charging ‘desert’ for electric cars. Local activists want to change that 

Lack of EV chargers in remote areas could derail California’s aim to electrify cars. In Imperial County, residents have access to few public chargers and buy electric cars at only a fifth of the statewide rate.

In summary Lack of EV chargers in remote areas could derail California’s aim to electrify cars. In Imperial County, residents have access to few public chargers and buy electric cars at only a fifth of the statewide rate. Few places in California are as unforgiving for driving an electric car as the remote and sparsely populated Imperial Valley. Only four fast-charging public stations are spread across the valley’s vast 4,500 square miles just north of the US-Mexico border, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. That means if you’re Greg Gelman — one of only about 1,200 Imperial County residents who own an electric car — traveling almost anywhere is a maddening logistical challenge. “It’s been, I won’t say a nightmare, but it’s been very, very, very inconvenient,” Gelman said on a recent afternoon as he charged his all-electric Mercedes-Benz at a charging station in a Bank of America parking lot in El Centro. “Would I do it again? No.” California’s electric charging “deserts” like the Imperial Valley pose one of the biggest obstacles to the state’s efforts to combat climate change and air pollution by electrifying cars and trucks. Experts say the slow installation of chargers in California’s remote regions could jeopardize the state’s phaseout of new gas-powered cars. Under the state’s mandate, 35% of sales of 2026 models must be zero-emissions, ramping up to 68% in 2030 and 100% in 2035. Nestled in the desert in California’s far southeast corner, Imperial County ranks dead last in electric car ownership among California counties with populations of 100,000 or more, according to a CalMatters analysis of 2023 data. Only 7 out of every 1,000 cars are battery-powered there, compared with 51 out of every 1,000 statewide. High poverty and unemployment are a major factor in the region’s slow transition to electric cars, but its lack of public chargers are a big drawback, too. People living in rural, low-income regions like the Imperial Valley have the least access to electric car chargers, according to a state Energy Commission analysis. More than two-thirds of California’s low-income residents are a 10-minute drive or longer from a publicly available fast charger. Luis Olmedo, executive director of El Comite Civico del Valle, a nonprofit advocating for environmental justice, has battled for years against the Imperial Valley’s unhealthy air. Now he is making a bid to become its go-to supplier of charging stations for zero-emissions cars. Olmedo isn’t waiting for businesses or the state to make chargers a reality in Imperial County. Instead, his group has embarked on a $5-million, high-stakes crusade to build a network of 40 fast chargers at various locations. It’s an open question whether his somewhat quixotic endeavor will succeed. Electric car chargers “are an opportunity for us to be able to breathe cleaner air,” Olmedo said. “It’s about equity. It’s about justice. It’s about making sure that everybody has chargers.” Luis Olmedo, executive director of Comite Civico Del Valle, shown at a charging station in Calexico, is trying to build 40 fast chargers in the Imperial Valley. Photo by Adriana Heldiz, CalMatters Esther Conrad, a researcher at Stanford University who focuses on environmental sustainability, said getting chargers in places like Imperial County is critical to California’s effort to transition to electric vehicles in an equitable way. Apartment dwellers and others who don’t have charging at home need nearby and reliable places to charge.  “When you have a rural community that’s low-income and distant from other locations, it’s incredibly important to enable people to get places where they need to go,” Conrad said. Hours from urban centers A car is essential for traversing Imperial County, which is the most sparsely populated county in Southern California. Its neighborhoods are vast distances from urban centers that provide the services that residents need: El Centro — its biggest town, home to about 44,000 people — is much closer to Mexicali, Mexico, than it is to San Diego, which is about a two-hour drive away, or Riverside, nearly three hours. Its highways and roads cross boundless fields of lettuce and other crops that give way to strip malls, apartments and suburban tracts — and then even more crops and open desert.  Map highlighting Imperial County. If you drive an electric car the 109 miles from El Centro to Palm Springs, your route takes you through farmland, desert and around California’s largest lake, the Salton Sea, which is also one of its biggest environmental calamities. The Salton Sea has been receding in recent years, causing toxic dust to blow into Imperial Valley towns. The region’s air quality is among the worst in the state, with dust storms and a brown haze emanating from agricultural burning and factories in the valley or from across the border in Mexicali, a city of a million people. About 16% of Imperial County’s 179,000 residents have asthma, higher than the state average. The air violates national health standards for both fine particles, or soot, as well as ozone, the main ingredient of smog; both pollutants can trigger asthma attacks and other respiratory diseases. More than 85% of Imperial County’s residents are Latino, and Spanish is widely spoken here. Agriculture is a major employer, and many businesses are dependent on cross-border trade and traffic from Mexico. The county’s median household income is $53,847, much lower than the statewide median, and 21% of people live in poverty. El Centro, the biggest town in the Imperial Valley, is home to about 44,000 people. Photo by Adriana Heldiz, CalMatters Now the discovery of lithium, used to manufacture EV batteries, at the Salton Sea has the potential to transform the region’s economy. State officials say the deposit could produce 600,000 tons a year, valued at $7.2 billion, and assist the U.S. as it tries to foster a domestic electric car industry that rivals China’s.  But Olmedo worries that when the mineral is removed from the valley, it won’t meaningfully change people’s livelihoods or their health. He points to examples in the developing world where local people have been left behind as extractive industries take what they need. “We’re about to extract, perhaps, the world’s supply of lithium here, yet we don’t even have the simplest, the lowest of offerings, which is: Let’s build you chargers,” Olmedo said. Chicken and egg: Too few EVs and too few chargers Last year, electric cars were only 5% of all new cars sold in Imperial County, compared with 25% statewide. Getting chargers into low-income and rural places will become more and more important as California struggles to meet its ambitious climate targets. The Energy Commission estimates that California will need 1.01 million chargers outside of private homes by 2030 and 2.11 million by 2035, when more than 15 million electric cars are expected on the roads. So far the state has only about 105,000 nonprivate chargers.  Edgar Ruiz, air control technician, and José Flores, research and advocacy specialist with Comite Civico Del Valle, demonstrate how electric vehicle charging stations will work when installed in the Imperial Valley. Photo by Adriana Heldiz, CalMatters First: New electric vehicle chargers in Calexico. Last: Components of an electric vehicle charging station. Photos by Adriana Heldiz, CalMatters Nick Nigro, founder of Atlas Public Policy, which researches the electric car market, said charging companies won’t locate chargers in regions with few electric vehicles. “You need revenue, and if the EVs aren’t there, then your customers aren’t necessarily there, so you do have a legitimate chicken and egg problem,” Nigro said. “We have to look to public policy to help that market failure.” The Biden administration will invest $384 million in California’s electric car infrastructure over five years. And state officials are investing almost $2 billion in grants for funding zero-emission vehicle chargers over the next four years, including some special grants in rural, inland areas for up to  $80,000 per charger.  Olmedo says the funding has been insufficient so he’s had to turn to donations and other sources of funding. Patty Monahan, one of five members of the California Energy Commission, said “it’s particularly important that we see chargers in the Imperial Valley and other low-income counties with poor air quality. Imperial Valley has only four fast-charging stations open for public use, where people can find chargers capable of juicing their batteries up to 80% in under an hour, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Three of those stations are in El Centro, with one exclusively for Teslas; another is in the border town of Calexico and was recently installed by El Comite. Another six stations offer only slower chargers. Olmedo envisions a network of 40 publicly accessible chargers throughout the valley. El Comite has received funding from the California Energy Commission as well as donations from Waverley Streets Foundation, the United Auto Workers and General Motors. The group is seeking more state funding. Olmedo acknowledged that he is facing a slew of challenges with his project, including some local opposition and the high cost of installation and maintenance. At a warehouse in the city of Imperial where El Comite stores the chargers, Jose Flores, project manager for the group’s charging initiative, said he and three colleagues spent four days in Santa Ana, about 200 miles north, at a facility managed by BTC, the company that makes the chargers that El Comite is installing. They received training on installation and maintenance techniques, and discussed how not all chargers can be used by all electric vehicles. He learned about payment and cooling systems, and that the chargers might need more frequent maintenance because of Imperial Valley’s harsh desert conditions. “We’re like a testing ground because we have poor air quality here due to the Salton Sea and being in a desert,” he said. Chris Aldaz, of Calexico, charges his car at an Electrify America charging station in El Centro. Photo by Adriana Heldiz, CalMatters El Comite installed its first charger at its Brawley headquarters in 2022. Last December, El Civico pressed ahead with a more ambitious project: Four of their fast chargers are now operating in a park in the border town of Calexico. Chris Aldaz, 35, a U.S. Postal Service worker who lives in Calexico, charges at home, but at times uses chargers at the group’s Brawley headquarters that people can use for free. It is a Level 2, which can take several hours to charge. “The reason why I wanted to get an EV was that it was cheaper,” Aldaz told CalMatters. “I don’t want to be spending all this money on gas, and on maintenance, and it was better for the environment.” Nevertheless, Olmedo’s electric car chargers have become a local political issue. Maritza Hurtado, Calexico’s ex-mayor, and coordinator of a City Council recall campaign, said it was inappropriate for El Comite to have built four electric car chargers in a downtown park. The chargers were a distraction “from our police needs and our actual community infrastructure needs,” Hurtado said at a public hearing at the county’s utility, the Imperial Irrigation District, in January. She declined to speak to CalMatters. “We had no idea they were going to take our parkland,” Hurtado said at the hearing. “It is very upsetting and disrespectful to our community for Comite Civico to come to Calexico and take our land.” Olmedo hopes that the chargers ultimately will be something the county’s Latino community takes pride in. “Put this in perspective: It’s a farmworker-founded organization, an environmental justice organization, that is building the infrastructure. It’s not the lithium industry. It’s us, building it for ourselves.” Data journalist Erica Yee contributed to this report.

The EPA moves to ban acephate pesticide over health risks

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a ban on acephate, a pesticide linked to potential harm to children's developing brains. Sharon Lerner reports for ProPublica.In short:The EPA proposed banning acephate after a recent ProPublica report highlighted the agency's controversial risk assessment.Evidence indicates that acephate poses risks to workers, the public, and children through contaminated drinking water.The proposal to ban acephate applies to all food crops but would allow usage on non-fruit and non-nut bearing trees.Key quote: “The pushback on this is going to be really intense. I hope they stick to their guns.”— Nathan Donley, scientist at the Center for Biological DiversityWhy this matters: Banning acephate reflects a shift toward stricter regulation of potentially harmful chemicals that have been used in agriculture for decades. Read more: New analysis warns of pesticide residues on some fruits and veggies.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a ban on acephate, a pesticide linked to potential harm to children's developing brains. Sharon Lerner reports for ProPublica.In short:The EPA proposed banning acephate after a recent ProPublica report highlighted the agency's controversial risk assessment.Evidence indicates that acephate poses risks to workers, the public, and children through contaminated drinking water.The proposal to ban acephate applies to all food crops but would allow usage on non-fruit and non-nut bearing trees.Key quote: “The pushback on this is going to be really intense. I hope they stick to their guns.”— Nathan Donley, scientist at the Center for Biological DiversityWhy this matters: Banning acephate reflects a shift toward stricter regulation of potentially harmful chemicals that have been used in agriculture for decades. Read more: New analysis warns of pesticide residues on some fruits and veggies.

Milk Can’t Catch a Break

The bird-flu panic has gotten out of control.

Milk is defined by its percentages: nonfat, 2 percent, whole. Now there is a different kind of milk percentage to keep in mind. Last week, the FDA reported that 20 percent of milk it had sampled from retailers across the country contained fragments of bird flu, raising concerns that the virus, which is spreading among animals, might be on its way to sickening humans too. The agency reassured the public that milk is still safe to drink because the pasteurization process inactivates the bird-flu virus. Still, the mere association with bird flu has left some people uneasy and led others to avoid milk altogether.That is, if they weren’t already avoiding it. Milk can’t seem to catch a break: For more than 70 years, consumption of the white liquid has steadily declined. It is no longer a staple of balanced breakfasts and bedtime routines, and milk alternatives offer the same creaminess in a latte or an iced coffee as the original stuff does. Milk was once seen as so integral to health that Americans viewed it as “almost sacred,” but much of that mythos is gone, Melanie Dupuis, an environmental-studies professor at Pace University and the author of Nature’s Perfect Food, a history of milk, told me. In 2022, the last time the Department of Agriculture measured average milk consumption, it had reached an all-time low of 15 gallons per person.If concerns around bird flu persist, milk’s relevance may continue to slide. Even the slightest bit of consumer apprehension could cause already struggling dairy farms to shut down. “An additional contributing factor really doesn’t bode well,” Leonard Polzin, a dairy expert at the University of Wisconsin at Madison’s Division of Extension, told me. For the rest of us, there is now yet another reason to avoid milk—and even less left to the belief that milk is special.The risks of bird flu in milk can be simplified to this: Thank god for pasteurization. Straight from the udder, in its raw form, milk is “a substance that’s very much open to contamination if not managed well,” Dupuis said. Milk is like a petri dish of microorganisms, and before pasteurization became the norm, milk regularly caused deadly diseases such as tuberculosis, scarlet fever, and typhoid fever. The pasteurization process, which involves blasting milk with high temperatures then rapidly cooling it, is “intended to kill just about anything a cow could have,” Meghan Schaeffer, an epidemiologist and bird-flu expert who now works at the analytics firm SAS, told me.That includes the bird flu. On Wednesday, the FDA reported new results from ongoing studies reaffirming that the bird-flu fragments it found in milk and other dairy products aren’t active, meaning they can’t spread disease. The agency confirmed this using a gold-standard test that involved injecting samples into chicken eggs to see if any active virus would grow. None was detected afterward. “That process really saves us,” Schaeffer said.There is never a good time to drink unpasteurized milk, but now is an especially bad one. A number of states have legalized the sale of raw milk in recent years, part of a right-wing embrace of the beverage. Raw milk from sick cows contains bird-flu virus in high concentrations, and the FDA has warned against drinking it. There are no reports of people getting bird flu from drinking unpasteurized milk, but “it is possible” to become infected from it, Schaeffer said. Already, this has been shown in animals: This week, researchers reported that cats who drank raw milk from sick cows got bird flu and died within days.But much about bird flu and milk is unknown because the virus has never been found in cattle before now. That one in five milk samples tested by the FDA had remnants of bird flu doesn’t mean one in five cows tested positive; milk sold in stores is pooled from many different animals. Rather, it suggests that many cows may be infected beyond those currently accounted for. It may also mean that asymptomatic cows, which are not being tested, shed virus in their milk. (Milk from symptomatic cows, which can be yellow and viscous, is routinely discarded.) Although it isn’t clear how the virus is circulating among cows, a leading explanation is that it’s transmitted via contact with surfaces that have touched raw milk, including milking equipment, vehicles, and other animals.Bird flu is widespread among poultry, but it isn’t clear how long it will keep circulating among cattle. The USDA is doing only limited testing of cows, and has not shared all of its data publicly, making the full extent of the outbreak impossible to know. Even if milk is still safe to drink, the thought of bird-flu fragments swimming around in it is unappetizing for a country that has already turned away from milk.Just how much milk Americans used to drink can be hard to grasp. Consumption peaked in 1945 at 45 gallons a person annually, enough to overfill a standard-size bathtub. Americans believed that “more milk makes us healthier,” and drank accordingly, DuPuis said. Government marketing pushed milk as a necessary, perfect food that could solve virtually all nutrition problems, especially in children; milk-derived healthiness eventually became associated with strength, affluence, and patriotism. Holes in the health narrative have since appeared: Consuming too much milk and other dairy products is now considered unhealthy because of the fat content. And long-standing myths about milk, such as that its calcium is required for strengthening bones and growing taller, have largely been debunked.Today drinking milk can get you “milk-shamed” by people who think that it’s disgusting. It’s particularly unpopular with younger people, who are grossed out by the milk served in schools. Where dairy once reigned supreme, milk alternatives made of oats, almonds, soy, peas, and countless other things have found a foothold. The FDA even lets plant-based milk call itself “milk,” as I wrote last year.Less demand for milk would have consequences. “I suspect the dairy industry is on the edge of their seat,” DuPuis said. Outbreaks are expected to take a financial toll on farmers, who will not only sell less milk but also have to care for sick animals, and the costs may be passed on to consumers. In rural areas that once thrived on milk production, such as upstate New York, abandoned small farms are now overgrown with trees, said DuPuis. “Are we going to end up with fewer farms and more trees because of this latest problem? I can imagine so,” she said.The myth of milk has been eroded from many fronts: nutrition research, shifting societal norms, and an abundance of new beverages. With bird flu, it has never seemed less like the magic health elixir it was once thought to be. But the turn against milk might have gone too far. Pasteurization was invented in the 19th century, yet it works to kill modern-day pathogens. Dairy has a great track record when it comes to safety, Polzin said. And it is still a decently healthy choice, with some significant advantages over plant-based alternatives, such as having more vitamins and minerals, less sugar, and more protein. Even during the bird-flu outbreak, milk may still have some magic to it.

A Uniquely French Approach to Environmentalism

The biodiversity police might just work.

On a Wednesday morning last December, Bruno Landier slung his gun and handcuffs around his waist and stepped into the mouth of a cave. Inside the sprawling network of limestone cavities, which sit in a cliffside that towers above the tiny town of Marboué, in north-central France, Landier crouched under hanging vines. He stepped over rusted pipes, remnants from when the caves housed a mushroom farm. He picked his way through gravel and mud as he scanned the shadowy ecru walls with his flashlight, taking care not to miss any signs.Landier was not gathering evidence for a murder case or tailing a criminal on the run. He was searching for bats—and anything that might disturb their winter slumber. “Aha,” Landier whispered as his flashlight illuminated a jumble of amber-colored beer bottles strewn across the floor. Someone had been there, threatening to awaken the hundreds of bats hibernating within.Landier is an inspector in the French Biodiversity Agency (OFB), an entity that was given sweeping powers to enforce environmental laws when it was founded, in 2020. Its nationwide police force, the only one of its kind in Europe, has 3,000 agents charged with protecting French species in order to revive declining biodiversity in the country and its territories. Damaging the habitat of protected animals such as bats—much less killing a protected animal—is a misdemeanor that can carry a penalty of 150,000 euros and three years in prison. It’s a uniquely draconian, uniquely French approach to environmentalism.The environmental police watch over all of France’s protected species, including hedgehogs, squirrels, black salamanders, lynxes, and venomous asp vipers. Bats are a frequent charge: Of the 54 protected mammal species on French soil, 34 are bats. The Marboué caves patrolled by Landier are home to approximately 12 different species.[Read: How long should a species stay on life support?]When Landier visits each morning, he sometimes must crouch to avoid walking face-first into clusters of sleeping notch-eared bats, which he can identify by their coffin-shaped back and “badly combed” off-white belly. They hibernate in groups of five, 10, or even 50, dangling from the ceiling like so many living umbrellas for as long as seven months each year. If roused before spring—by a loud conversation or even prolonged heat from a flashlight—the bats will flee toward almost-certain death in the cold temperatures outside the cave.Bats, of course, aren’t the only nocturnal creatures attracted to caves. Landier has spent more than 20 years patrolling this site, beginning when he was a hunting warden for the French government. In that time, he has encountered ravers, drug traffickers, squatters, geocachers, looters, local teens looking for a place to party. When he comes across evidence such as the beer bottles, he’ll sometimes return on the weekend to stake out the entrance. First offenders might receive a verbal warning, but Landier told me he’s ready to pursue legal action if necessary. (So far, he hasn’t had to.) “I’m very nice. But I won’t be taken for a fool,” he said. In the neighboring department of Cher, several people were convicted of using bats as target practice for paintball, Landier told me. A fine of an undisclosed amount was levied against the culprits. (France prevents details of petty crimes from being released to the public.)[From the June 1958 issue: Is France being Americanized?]Across France, many of the caverns and architecture that bats call home are themselves cherished or protected. Landier told me that relics found in his caves date back to the Gallo-Roman period, nearly 2,000 years ago; on the ceiling, his flashlight caught the glitter of what he said were fossils and sea urchins from the Ice Age. The floor is crisscrossed with long wires trailed by past explorers so they could find their way back out.In nearby Châteaudun castle, built in the 15th century, several dozen bats live in the basement and behind the tapestries. At Chartres Cathedral, to the north, a colony of pipistrelle bats dwells inside the rafters of a medieval wooden gate. Bats flock to the abbey on Mont Saint-Michel, in Normandy, and to historic châteaus such as Chambord, in the Loire Valley, and Kerjean, in Brittany. In Paris’s Père Lachaise Cemetery, they chase insects from the graves of Molière, Édith Piaf, and Colette.France is fiercely protective of its landmarks, and that sense of patrimoine extends to less tangible treasures too. For more than a century, French law has prohibited any sparkling-wine producer worldwide to call its product “champagne” unless it comes from the Champagne region of France. As part of the French naturalization process, I had to learn to match cheeses to their region (Brie to Meaux, Camembert to Normandy). Their craftsmanship, too, is included in the cultural imagination: In 2019, the French government asked UNESCO to recognize the work of Paris’s zinc roofers as part of world heritage (the jury is still out).[Ta-Nehisi Coates: Acting French]In recent years, even animals have begun to be incorporated into this notion of cultural heritage. When two neighbors ended up in court in 2019 over the early-morning cries of a rooster—embraced for centuries as France’s national animal—the judge ruled in favor of Maurice the rooster. Inspired by Maurice, France then passed a law protecting the “sensory heritage of the countryside.” In the immediate aftermath of the Notre-Dame fire, a beekeeper was allowed access to care for the bees that have been living on the rooftop for years. The Ministry of Culture insists on provisions for biodiversity on all work done on cultural monuments.Bats, despite receiving centuries of bad press, are a fitting mascot for biological patrimony. They are such ferocious insectivores—a single bat can eat thousands of bugs a night—that farmers in bat-heavy areas can use fewer pesticides on grapes, grains, and other agricultural products. On Enclos de la Croix, a family-owned vineyard in Southern France that has partnered with the OFB, insectivorous bats are the only form of pesticide used. Agathe Frezouls, a co-owner of the vineyard, told me that biodiversity is both a form of “cultural heritage” and a viable economic model.Not all farmers have the same high regard for biodiversity—or for the OFB. Earlier this year, 100 farmers mounted on tractors dumped manure and hay in front of an OFB office to protest the agency’s power to inspect farms for environmental compliance. The farmers say that it’s an infringement on their private property and that complying with the strict environmental rules is too costly. Compliance is a major concern for OFB, especially when it comes to bats. If someone destroys a beaver dam, for instance, that crime would be easily visible to the OFB. But bats and their habitats tend to be hidden away, so the police must rely on citizens to report bats on their property or near businesses.Agriculture is part of the reason bats need protection at all. The Marboué caves’ walls are dotted with inlays from the 19th century, when candles lit the passageways for the many employees of the mushroom farm. Until the farm closed, in the 1990s, the cave network was home to tractors and treated heavily with pesticides; their sickly sweet smell lingers in the deepest chambers. The pesticides are what drove off or killed most of the bats living here in the 20th century, Landier told me—when he first visited this site, in 1998, only about 10 bats remained. Today, it’s home to more than 450.[Read: Biodiversity is life’s safety net]After several hours inspecting the cave, Landier and I ambled back toward the entrance, passing under the vines into the harsh winter light. In the next few weeks, the bats will follow our path, leaving the relative safety of the cave to mate.With summer coming on, the slate roofs ubiquitous throughout rural France will soon become gentle furnaces, making attics the perfect place for bats to reproduce. Homeowners reshingling roofs sometimes discover a colony of bats, and Landier is the one to inform them that they must leave their roof unfinished until the end of the breeding season. Most people let the bats be, even when it’s a nuisance. Perhaps they’re beginning to see them as part of the “sensory heritage of the countryside” too.Support for this article was provided by the International Women’s Media Foundation’s Kari Howard Fund for Narrative Journalism

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.