An Open Channel post last week from the Food & Environment Reporting Network drew the attention of Steve Everley, a spokesman for Energy In Depth, a research and public education program of the Independent Petroleum Association of America. Here is his rebuttal to the article, which appeared in a longer form in The Nation.

A recent article in The Nation magazine, in collaboration with the Food & Environment Reporting Network (FERN), made a series of declarations and assertions about the impacts of hydraulic fracturing, specifically with respect to agriculture and America’s food supplies. It was a frightening tale, but the facts that were left out were just as notable (if not more so) than what was selectively chosen to be included.

The central thesis of the article is that shale development, including hydraulic fracturing, is contaminating the food we eat. As the author states early on, “there’s growing evidence that these two impulses, toward energy and food independence, may be at odds with each other.”

From there, the story advances as one would imagine. Using the fatally flawed Bamberger-Oswald “study” on hydraulic fracturing as the focal point, the author weaves a carefully constructed narrative that does everything from repeating common (and debunked) activist talking points to claiming America’s cows are being poisoned to death by oil and natural gas development.

Of course, the story would have been much different had the author included (instead of deliberately omitting) scientific assessments that weren’t tailor-made for an anti-natural gas crowd.

How do we know they were deliberately omitted? Well, to her credit, Elizabeth Royte (the author of the piece) reached out to Energy In Depth several weeks ago about this article. She acknowledged having read EID’s work on the subject, and then asked me some pointed (but fair) questions about potential impacts on livestock and crops from hydraulic fracturing. I sent her a detailed response, including links to studies (more on that below) that demonstrate little if any negative impact on health as a result of nearby shale development. I also emphasized that concerns about public health should always be taken seriously, and the industry naturally does exactly that. But I also cautioned that simply blaming impacts on the most convenient thing (i.e. hydraulic fracturing) without scientific evidence does not solve problems, nor does it encourage the proper kind of public dialogue to address concerns.

Unfortunately, Ms. Royte did not see fit to print any of that, choosing only to include a brief mention of the lack of scientific pedigree in the Bamberger-Oswald paper – which was promptly bracketed by ascribing fault to the natural gas industry for a supposed lack of disclosure.

So, what else didn’t make it into the report?

First of all, the flaws in the Bamberger-Oswald study have been publicly documented. Dr. Ian Rae, for example, a Co-Chair of the Chemicals Technical Options Committee for the U.N. Environment Programme, called the study “an advocacy piece” written by individuals who “cannot be regarded as experts” in the subject about which they were writing. “It certainly does not qualify as a scientific paper,” Rae added. Rae also critiqued the journal that published the study – New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health – by saying “the refereeing process evidently was not very stringent.”

Spencer Platt / Getty Images file

Cabot Oil and Gas workers examine a natural gas valve at a hydraulic fracturing site in South Montrose, Penn.

I shared all of this information with Ms. Royte, but Dr. Rae’s commentary on the Bamberger-Oswald paper was omitted entirely from the story.

Secondly, although the article purports to be part of an “investigative reporting” effort, there was clearly a lack of interest in discussing anything that deviated from the Bamberger-Oswald paper’s conclusions. Here are just a few items relating to health impacts from development that I shared with the author, who nonetheless did not see fit to print:

• Denton County, Texas: An analysis by two public health experts found that, “even as natural gas development expanded significantly in the area over the past several years, key indicators of health improved across every major category during those times.” Denton County is situated atop the massive Barnett Shale, one of the largest natural gas fields in the United States.

• Fort Worth, Texas: An air quality study conducted for the City of Fort Worth – the largest and most comprehensive of its kind to date – determined there were “no significant health risks” from shale development in the area. Fort Worth, located in Tarrant County, also sits atop the Barnett Shale.

• Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, in two separate reports of air monitoring in Pennsylvania – one each for the northeastern and southwestern portions of the state – “did not identify concentrations of any compound that would likely trigger air-related health issues associated with Marcellus Shale drilling activities.”

There are, of course, many more examples, including hard data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that undermine the suggestion that hydraulic fracturing is a grave threat to occupational or community health. Most of us also know about the AP investigation earlier this year, which found that activists’ claims about hydraulic fracturing causing cancer and other health problems had little or no basis in fact, much less scientific evidence.

So again, why were these examples omitted from the report? It’s really anyone’s guess. The one common denominator, however, is that none of them conforms to the notion that hydraulic fracturing is somehow a “tornado on the horizon” – as Sandra Steingraber, the lead-in voice to the Bamberger-Oswald paper, once put it. In fact, a sober review of these materials – and a proper weighting of the credibility of those who released the information – might even lead people to realize that claims about impending doom are hyperbolic and, in many cases, flat out untrue.

Read the original piece: Livestock falling ill in fracking regions

Here’s the bottom line: Landowners, farmers, and any other individuals can and should ask questions about the impacts of natural gas development. Those who ask questions should demand answers based on facts, and communities weighing the costs and benefits should, by definition, seek input on both sides and make decisions based on a careful review of that information.

The problem with Ms. Royte’s report, though, is that it did not seek to be a part of that good faith dialogue. By relying on anecdotes and a single, fundamentally flawed research paper – and refusing to even discuss findings that contradict the singular message that those sources conveyed – the story that was presented to readers was not only one-sided, but actually harmful to the broader public discussion about developing oil and natural gas from shale.

Despite that, the story has been reprinted in news outlets and other media as if it carefully weighed competing viewpoints and came to a frightening conclusion. But the truly scary part is that the author, in more than 4,000 words, flat out refused to include even a few sentences about the scientific findings that fell outside what was apparently a pre-determined conclusion.

Maybe the next investigative report will examine the reasoning behind such a glaring omission, though we won’t be holding our breath.

Click here to read Food & Environment Reporting Network's Elizabeth Royte response.

More from Open Channel:

Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

Jacki Schilke

This cow on Jacki Schilke's ranch in northeast North Dakota lost most of its tail, one of many ailments that afflicted her cattle after hydrofracturing, or fracking, began in the nearby Bakken Shale.

In the midst of the domestic energy boom, livestock on farms near oil- and gas-drilling operations nationwide have been quietly falling sick and dying. While scientists have yet to isolate cause and effect, many suspect chemicals used in drilling and hydrofracking (or “fracking”) operations are poisoning animals through the air, water or soil.

Earlier this year, Michelle Bamberger, an Ithaca, N.Y., veterinarian, and Robert Oswald, a professor of molecular medicine at Cornell’s College of Veterinary Medicine, published the first and only peer-reviewed report to suggest a link between fracking and illness in food animals.

The authors compiled 24 case studies of farmers in six shale-gas states whose livestock experienced neurological, reproductive and acute gastrointestinal problems after being exposed — either accidentally or incidentally — to fracking chemicals in the water or air. The article, published in “New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health,” describes how scores of animals died over the course of several years. Fracking industry proponents challenged the study, since the authors neither identified the farmers nor ran controlled experiments to determine how specific fracking compounds might affect livestock.

The death toll is insignificant when measured against the nation’s livestock population (some 97 million beef cattle go to market each year), but environmental advocates believe these animals constitute an early warning.

Exposed livestock “are making their way into the food system, and it’s very worrisome to us,” Bamberger said. “They live in areas that have tested positive for air, water and soil contamination. Some of these chemicals could appear in milk and meat products made from these animals.”

In Louisiana, 17 cows died after an hour’s exposure to spilled fracking fluid, which is injected miles underground to crack open and release pockets of natural gas. The most likely cause of death: respiratory failure.

In New Mexico, hair testing of sick cattle that grazed near well pads found petroleum residues in 54 of 56 animals.

In northern central Pennsylvania, 140 cattle were exposed to fracking wastewater when an impoundment was breached. Approximately 70 cows died, and the remainder produced only 11 calves, of which three survived.

In western Pennsylvania, an overflowing wastewater pit sent fracking chemicals into a pond and a pasture where pregnant cows grazed: Half their calves were born dead. Dairy operators in shale-gas areas of Colorado, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Texas have also reported the death of goats exposed to fracking chemicals.

Drilling and fracking a single well requires up to 7 million gallons of water, plus an additional 400,000 gallons of additives, including lubricants, biocides, scale- and rust-inhibitors, solvents, foaming and defoaming agents, emulsifiers and de-emulsifiers, stabilizers and breakers. At almost every stage of developing and operating an oil or gas well, chemicals and compounds can be introduced into the environment.

Cows lose weight, die
After drilling began just over the property line of Jacki Schilke’s ranch in the northwestern corner of North Dakota in 2009, in the heart of the state’s booming Bakken Shale, cattle began limping, with swollen legs and infections. Cows quit producing milk for their calves, they lost from 60 to 80 pounds in a week and their tails mysteriously dropped off. Eventually, five animals died, according to Schilke.

Ambient air testing by a certified environmental consultant detected elevated levels of benzene, methane, chloroform, butane, propane, toluene and xylene -- and well testing revealed high levels of sulfates, chromium, chloride and strontium. Schilke says she moved her herd upwind and upstream from the nearest drill pad.

Although her steers currently look healthy, she said, “I won’t sell them because I don’t know if they’re OK.”

Nor does anyone else. Energy companies are exempt from key provisions of environmental laws, which makes it difficult for scientists and citizens to learn precisely what is in drilling and fracking fluids or airborne emissions. And without information on the interactions between these chemicals and pre-existing environmental chemicals, veterinarians can’t hope to pinpoint an animal’s cause of death.

The risks to food safety may be even more difficult to parse, since different plants and animals take up different chemicals through different pathways.

“There are a variety of organic compounds, metals and radioactive material (released in the fracking process) that are of human health concern when livestock meat or milk is ingested,” said Motoko Mukai, a veterinary toxicologist at Cornell’s College of Veterinary Medicine. These “compounds accumulate in the fat and are excreted into milk. Some compounds are persistent and do not get metabolized easily.”

Jacki Schilke

An oil-drilling rig is visible from Jacki Schilke's ranch in North Dakota.

Veterinarians don’t know how long chemicals may remain in animals, farmers aren’t required to prove their livestock are free of contamination before middlemen purchase them and the Food Safety Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture isn’t looking for these compounds in carcasses at slaughterhouses. 

Documenting the scope of the problem is difficult: Scientists lack funding to study the matter, and rural vets remain silent for fear of retaliation. Farmers who receive royalty checks from energy companies are reluctant to complain, and those who have settled with gas companies following a spill or other accident are forbidden to disclose information to investigators. Some food producers would rather not know what’s going on, say ranchers and veterinarians.

“It takes a long time to build up a herd’s reputation,” said rancher Dennis Bauste of Trenton Lake, N.D. “I’m gonna sell my calves and I don’t want them to be labeled as tainted. Besides, I wouldn’t know what to test for. Until there’s a big wipeout, a major problem, we’re not gonna hear much about this.”

Fracking proponents criticize Bamberger and Oswald’s paper as a political, not a scientific, document. “They used anonymous sources, so no one can verify what they said,” said Steve Everley, of the industry lobby group Energy In Depth. The authors didn’t provide a scientific assessment of impacts -- testing what specific chemicals might do to cows that ingest them, for example -- so treating their findings as scientific, he continues, “is laughable at best, and dangerous for public debate at worst.” Bamberger and Oswald acknowledge this lack of scientific assessment and blame it on the dearth of funding for fracking research and on the industry’s use of nondisclosure agreements.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the main lobbying group for ranchers, takes no position on fracking, but some ranchers are beginning to speak out. “These are industry-supporting conservatives, not radicals,” said Amy Mall, a senior policy analyst with the environmental group, Natural Resources Defense Council. “They are the experts in their animals’ health, and they are very concerned.”

Last March, Christopher Portier, director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, called for studies of oil and gas production’s impact on food plants and animals. None is currently planned by the federal government.

As local food booms, consumers wary
But consumers intensely interested in where and how their food is grown aren’t waiting for hard data to tell them their meat or milk is safe. For them, the perception of pollution is just as bad as the real thing.

“My beef sells itself. My farm is pristine. But a restaurant doesn’t want to visit and see a drill pad on the horizon,” said Ken Jaffe, who raises grass-fed cattle in upstate New York.

Only recently has the local foods movement, in regions across the country, reached a critical mass. But the movement’s lofty ideals could turn out to be, in shale gas areas, a double-edged sword.

Should the moratorium on hydrofracking in New York State be lifted, the 16,200-member Park Slope Food Co-op, in Brooklyn, will no longer buy food from farms anywhere near drilling operations -- a $4 million loss for upstate producers. The livelihood of organic goat farmer Steven Cleghorn, who’s surrounded by active wells in Pennsylvania, is already in jeopardy.

“People at the farmers market are starting to ask exactly where this food comes from,” he said.

This report was produced by the Food & Environment Reporting Network, an independent investigative journalism non-profit focusing on food, agriculture, and environmental health. A longer version of this story appears on TheNation.com. 

More from Open Channel:

Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook