By Isabelle Atkins for Grady Newsource.
Broadcast version by Shanteya Hudson for Georgia News Connection reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration

When Hunt Revell and Tyler Leslie worked at Seabear Oyster Bar in Athens, they were struck by how many oyster shells they threw in the trash each day. The duo didn't yet know that these shells could be tools for coastal restoration, but they knew throwing them away seemed wasteful.

Through the help of industry professionals, Revell and Leslie discovered that oysters play a vital role in marine ecosystems. They are what's called a keystone species, an organism that other marine life depends on. Oysters filter water, reduce carbon, combat rising sea levels and foster biodiversity. All those oyster shells discarded by restaurants are the perfect material for baby oysters to attach onto to build more oyster reefs.

Three years ago, their curiosity and a grant from the Nature Conservancy led to the creation of Shell to Shore, a nonprofit organization based in Athens that is dedicated to oyster shell recycling.

Soon after Shell to Shore was established, Revell and Leslie brought on University of Georgia Distinguished Research Professor Nik Heynen as a board member, and Malcolm Provost as the recycling coordinator.

"One fun fact that we like to throw at people is that one full-grown oyster can filter 50 gallons of water per day," Provost said. So imagine what an entire oyster reef can do.

The nonprofit started out very grassroots-oriented, collecting from Seabear Oyster Bar and then expanding to restaurants like Five and Ten and, most recently, Square One. While they have continued to diligently work with Athens' restaurants, their reach has expanded to other cities, including Augusta, Savannah and Atlanta.

Thomas Bliss, director of UGA Marine Extension and Georgia Sea Grant's Shellfish Research Laboratory, has been collecting and recycling oyster shells on Skidaway Island for about 20 years.

"It's really great to see a group like Shell to Shore start up because we've been collecting on the coast, but we're very coastal-centric," Bliss said. "It's nice to see a group start to reach those inland areas where we don't have the capacity to always get to."

According to Noah Brendel, co-owner of Seabear Oyster Bar, this relationship is not only benefiting Georgia's coastline but also the restaurants themselves.

"The fact that we can say that we don't throw our shells into the landfill and we actually send them back to the coast to help with different initiatives that are all sustainable, I think bodes well for us. It is good PR," Brendel said.

Shell to Shore also provides opportunities for local restaurants to meet. Fausto Zamorano, chef de cuisine at Five and Ten, has enjoyed ShellFest, an annual fundraising event put on by Shell to Shore with live music, local drinks, and of course, oysters.

"It has been a really good networking opportunity. When they did their first ShellFest festival in 2022...it was a chance to meet other chefs and local restaurants," Zamorano said. "We all love to be a part of it."

According to Seabear Oyster Bar and Five and Ten staff, the act of putting the shells into a separate bin for Shell to Shore to collect adds a mere five minutes to their routine. As long as the shells don't accumulate for too long, which could cause an odor, the protocol creates little to no inconvenience.

In 2023, Shell to Shore recycled more than 72,000 pounds of oyster shells, bringing their three-year total to about 130,000 pounds of recycled shells.

After collecting the shells from the restaurants, they are brought to UGArden, a community farm, where they are dumped into blue and green bins. Just as the shellfish lab that Bliss directs, the shells are then cured by exposure to six months of sun and rain. This process promotes bacterial degradation of the soft tissue and after, Georgia law says the shells can be safely introduced into water systems without fear of microbial contamination.

Shell to Shore takes the shells to Sapelo Island, about 70 miles south of Savannah. However, finding the exact site to situate the shells has posed challenges. The primary sites the team identified were not viable to place incoming shells because there weren't enough oyster larvae.

Shell to Shore continues to work with Marine Extension and the Department of Natural Resources to find areas along the coast that have high enough oyster larvae levels to create more oyster reefs in places most affected by erosion, storm surges and more.

"There are lots of areas along the Georgia coast that are being impacted negatively by sea level rise and climate change in general, so it is just a matter of identifying a good starting point," Provost assured.

Once these sites are identified, volunteers will bag the shells and put them into the water where they will act as wave breaks, flood mitigation barriers and areas for oyster larvae to attach onto.

"In turn, it will build up oyster reefs, living shorelines, keep the soil where it needs to be, clean the water and generally make Georgia's coasts much healthier," Provost said.

As Shell to Shore continues to make waves in coastal conservation, their initiative is prompting a fresh perspective on the life cycle of an oyster. The journey of an oyster shell doesn't have to end at the dinner table, but could begin a new journey in preserving our coastlines.


Isabelle Atkins wrote this article for Grady Newsource.


get more stories like this via email

Environmental groups are suing South Fork Coal Company, alleging the company has repeatedly violated federal law in Greenbrier County.

The lawsuit said the company has continued to discharge pollutants into nearby waterways at levels exceeding legal limits. Environmental advocates said despite years of dumping pollutants, the state's environmental protection department has not taken action to stop South Fork Coal.

Andrew Young, chair of the extractive industries committee for the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, said the lawsuit is asking for an injunction to immediately stop the dumping and ensure the company properly reclaims the land.

"We noticed that South Forks' own monitoring data showed that they were often discharging pollutants like iron, manganese, in excess of their legal limits," Young pointed out. "The allegations are based largely on what the company itself is reporting."

Advocates said the five mines in the lawsuit all discharge pollutants into the Laurel Creek Watershed and/or the South Fork of the Cherry River Watershed. Both streams feed into the Gauley River, an internationally renowned destination for whitewater rafting and kayaking, and home to the endangered candy darter.

The lawsuit also highlighted the company's failure to submit required water quality assessments and reclaim unused sites. Young argued the company's neglect of water and land standards puts local communities and the outdoor recreation economy at risk.

"The mines at issue here lie adjacent to the Monongahela National Forest, and it's less than six miles from the world-renowned Cranberry glades and Cranberry Glades Wilderness Area," Young explained.

The state's tourism industry brought in nearly $9 billion last year. According to the governor's office, more than 75 million visitors traveled to the Mountain State last year, and spent more than $6 billion.

By Nina B. Elkadi for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Mark Moran for Iowa News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

A new report from environmental watchdog group Food & Water Watch suggests that almost 2 million fish were killed from manure spills in Iowa between 2013 and 2023. The 179 spills occurred throughout the state, with a major hotspot for spills in the northwest corner of the state. Earlier this year, the group reported that Iowa factory farms produce more waste than any other state, at 109 billion pounds of manure annually, based on U.S. Department of Agriculture data.

The report and accompanying map, released on Dec. 9, designated over 700 segments of Iowa water as “impaired” — not meeting the standards necessary to support aquatic life, public water supplies or recreation. Details include where in the state spills occur, who owns the operation and if they are repeat offenders.

Manure spills in the state of Iowa have contributed to what environmental advocacy groups call a water quality crisis. In the capital city of Des Moines, the local water supply has one of the world’s largest nitrate removal facilities. Nitrate is the resulting chemical of manure that is not absorbed by the soil or crops. Due to high levels of nitrate in water, which can cause blue baby syndrome in children and colon cancer in adults, the Des Moines Water Works has to run its nitrate removal system more frequently as the situation worsens — at a cost of anywhere from $10,000 to $16,000 per day, which falls entirely on utility customers.

“When you think about the nature of what they’re spilling and the quantities of what they’re spilling, it’s the difference between life and death, and people are being strapped down with medical debt and suffering in a prolonged way,” Food & Water Watch Iowa Organizer Michaelyn Mankel tells Sentient.

According to the report, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources fined 171 of the 179 offenders at $635,808 over the ten-year period it studied. That’s less than half of what Des Moines Water Works spent on its nitrate removal system in 2015, at $1.4 million. There are gaps in the state reporting as well. The total volume of the spills is difficult to determine because most reports do not contain information on how much manure is spilled. And in those that do note volume, the range is anywhere from 500 to 1 million gallons.

“The fines that the DNR has leveled against these companies do not represent restitution for the damage that they’re causing to Iowa,” Mankel says. “They also don’t represent a real demand that these corporations change the way that they’re doing business.”

In 2024 alone, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources documented 13 fish kill events, one of which regulators directly tied to animal waste. This one “anthropogenic” spill in northwest Iowa — caused by dairy manure land-applied runoff —killed anywhere from 100,001-500,000 fish.

Many concentrated animal feeding operations operate without the proper discharge permits, rendering their spills more difficult to track. In October, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a petition from 13 groups — including Food & Water Watch — calling for stricter regulation and enforcement of the Clean Water Act. Today, Food & Water Watch is calling for a “Clean Water for Iowa Act” to be passed in the state legislature. The act would require all medium and large-scale concentrated animal feeding operations to get National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits.

This report and map are released in the midst of a health crisis in the Midwest, which some observers and critics argue is tied to, or exacerbated by, large-scale industrialized agriculture. Mankel points to cancer incidence in the state of Iowa; it’s the only state in the country with rising cancer rates (though other factors, like obesity and alcoholism rates may play a role).

“We’re paying for it,” Mankel says. “I really want Iowans to understand that these problems are a policy choice, and that we are being burdened with paying the true cost of massive profits that these corporations are reaping from our state, and that’s a very intentional choice on behalf of lawmakers.”


Nina B. Elkadi wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

By Julieta Cardenas for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Freda Ross for Texas News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Microplastics are tiny pieces of plastic less than 5mm in size. Small and ubiquitous - they are only about as thick as a paperclip - microplastics have been detected in our water supply, agricultural soils and the farm animals we raise for food. One study suggests the presence of microplastics might be anywhere from 4 to 23 times higher in farm soils than in waterways. Whether in soils or water, plastic pollution flows throughout our food system, Brett Nadrich, communications officer for Break Free From Plastic, tells Sentient, and "we have to turn off the tap."

Break Free From Plastic is an international advocacy group working to combat plastic pollution. "More than 99 percent of plastics are made of fossil fuels that used to be mostly oil," Nadrich says. Now it is also made from fracked gas, he says. In the communities of West Pennsylvania, Appalachia, the Gulf, Louisiana and Texas, "you're already seeing toxic chemicals entering the water table." Pollution from fracking extraction sites settles on soil as particulate matter, Nadrich says, which is then absorbed by plants and animals, including crops and farm animals.

Plastic Pollution Begins at the Source, But Is Found Everywhere

In 2022, Break Free From Plastic released a brand audit to identify the top plastic polluting corporations for the past five years, naming Coca-Cola as the top contributor to the plastic problem, followed by Pepsi-Co and Nestlé, among others. These corporations produce a wide range of products, including packaged meats, dairy and also plant-based brands.

Foods packaged in plastic can end up in the food itself. In one example, researchers tested cuts of meat and found plastics that matched the surrounding wrapping and polystyrene trays.

How Microplastics End Up in the Food System

One of the more surprising ways plastics end up in the food system happens on livestock farms in a practice called garbage feeding. Legal in 27 states, the practice is shown in a 2022 video taken by a maintenance technician at a grain elevator owned by Smithfield, where bread in plastic wrappers was being processed into feed. The video went viral, and an executive from Smithfield responded to say most plastic is vacuumed out onsite. The technician disagreed, but there is no agency that inspects or oversees the process to tell for sure.

Garbage feeding sometimes results in wrapped food from schools, bakeries and markets thrown directly into a shredding machine, churned up, plastic and all, to be fed later to pigs. From there, the plastic ends up in the pigs, in turn slaughtered for pork for human consumption.

There are a host of other ways that plastics end up traveling through the food system. On farms, plastics break down into microplastics thanks to a variety of factors - exposure to sunlight, farm animals brushing up against on-farm plastic and from agricultural practices like adding compost that contains plastic, and fertilizer and using mulch film.

Mulch film, often used to prevent weeds and conserve water, ends up deteriorating, and need to be prelaced every one to two years, when the process starts all over again.

Researchers have also found that plants, including crops fed to farm animals, are capable of accumulating microplastics, absorbing them from the soil. Some farm animals like poultry are also fed feed derived from marine sources like fishmeal and seaweed, and these too can contain microplastics.

Microplastics have also been detected in the feces of various domestic animals, including sheep, dairy cows, poultry and pigs. The microplastics in animal waste re-enter the food system when applied to fields, and in turn can also leach into nearby water sources. Irrigation can also bring microplastics into agricultural soils, especially when it contains waste water, either from humans or from factory farms.

According to a 2022 report from the Center for International Environmental Law, another source are synthetic fertilizers and pesticides that are encapsulated in a plastic coating and marketed as "controlled-release." Much like slow release pills, they break down in the soil, releasing not only the pesticide or fertilizer, but the plastic into the ground.

What Can We Do About Microplastics?

Though the exact human health risks of microplastics are not known, some studies have found microplastics present in patients with adverse health outcomes, like cancer and cardiovascular disease. Another study found more microplastics in recent tissue samples as compared to those taken ten years earlier. As toxicology researcher Phoebe Stapleton told People magazine, "while it might not affect my health today, it may affect my health in 50 years."

While researchers and advocates have a variety of recommendations for reducing individual plastic use - like shifting to reusable bottles and filtered tap water rather than bottled - it will likely take a policy intervention to curb plastic pollution. The Biden administration issued a briefing on plastic pollution over the summer, but there are few signs the incoming Trump administration will carry on those policies.


Julieta Cardenas wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email