In fact since 2000, FDA has been working with industry representatives to fast track irradiation. The National Food Processor’s Association (representing powerhouses such as Kraft Foods, Inc.) originally filed a petition to FDA to irradiate food ranging from sprouts and seeds, juices, frozen fruits and vegetables, to refrigerated ready-to-eat meat and poultry products (like deli and luncheon meats and hot dogs). But as soon as major E. coli outbreak was linked to California spinach in 2006, FDA asked the association to re-work their petition and separate the leafy greens from the rest of the food, in order to expedite the ruling. 
Unfortunately FDA’s ruling on irradiation holds no water when it comes to preventing foodborne illness. Instead, irradiation is an impractical, ineffective and very expensive technology. Very little testing has been conducted on the safety and wholesomeness of irradiated vegetables, and from the small amount of research that exists, we know treating lettuce or spinach with the equivalent of tens of millions of chest X-rays can ruin its flavor, odor, texture, color, and nutritional value.
And if you’re thinking you can just avoid buying irradiated vegetables, think again. While FDA is saying that irradiated fresh produce will be labeled, the agency proposed a rule in 2007 that would destroy the current labeling requirements for irradiated food. FDA could eliminate those requirements before the Bush Administration leaves office, leaving consumers in the dark.
Rather than pursuing irradiation, FDA needs to focus on how to address the cause of the problem -- contaminated water used to irrigate or process crops.
Allowing spinach and lettuce to be irradiated would simply mask unsafe production practices, while supplying lower quality, less nutritious and potentially hazardous food. Vegetable growers and processors should improve flawed sanitation practices and FDA should hire more inspectors to inspect vegetable-processing plants more thoroughly. American consumers expect more and deserve better than questionable ‘treatments’ like irradiation imposed by a weak FDA.
Such is the case in Akron, Ohio this week. On Monday, the citizen group Citizens to Save Our Sewers and Water (SOS) succeeded in putting on the November ballot a measure that would put to a public vote any effort by City Council to privatize city utilities.
The initiative drive—which collected nearly twice the signatures needed to order the issue to ballot—developed after Akron Mayor Donald Plusquellic announced in February his intention to lease Akron’s wastewater system to a private company. The mayor’s plan, which will also be on the November ballot, has the seemingly virtuous goal of financing a scholarship program for Akron youth.http://www.afsc.net/PDFFiles/mayorsplan0001.pdf
The contract, however, assembled in just a few short months, steps directly into many of the pitfalls of water privatization, not to mention fails to address questions of city and corporate responsibility and the degree and quality of services provided.
While the cause of financing education is a laudable goal, privatizing the city’s water system would create more problems than it would solve. Besides, the question at hand is not about the (inestimable) value of education, it is about whether or not corporations should control access to water in Akron.
A recent investigation by the BBC states that one third of Fiji’s population doesn’t have access to clean drinking water. Fiji, it says, has problems with typhoid and other diseases caused by a lack of clean drinking water.
According to the BBC, “Fiji Water would make the case that if you really care about the plight of Fijians you should buy Fiji water as it provides jobs and income for the islands.” The company donates money to fund clean water projects on the island. But it seems we are talking water indulgences here: a little cash to ease the conscience, perhaps? Because, according to another article, Fiji is still in shortage. And when the Fijian government tried to institute a tax on bottled water earlier this summer, they were quickly defeated by a powerful bottled water lobby. Meaning water companies want to give back to the country for its most precious resource, but only on their own terms. This doesn’t exactly ring of charity.
So one way to avoid exploiting environments and people is to take a pass on Fiji water and other bottled brands. Local tap water may not be as exotic, but at least it’s free of such moral quandaries.
]]>The decision to pull the beef from the stores was made after learning that seven people infected with E. coli 0157:H7 had recently purchased ground beef from Whole Foods.
How did this happen given the market’s commitment to safety and health? In all fairness, it wasn’t entirely Whole Foods’ fault. The meat was from Coleman Natural Foods, which produces natural and organic products that are supposed to meet the high standards at Whole Foods. However, what Whole Foods didn’t know is that Coleman was getting some of its meat processed at Nebraska Beef, a company that has a long history of safety violations.In the past two months alone, E. coli contamination has led to two large recalls from Nebraska Beef. Last month, over 5 million pounds of ground beef were recalled, and this month’s recall totals 1.2 million pounds. Sadly, these types of problems are nothing new. Back in 2003, USDA tried to shut down the plant, citing unsanitary conditions. But Nebraska Beef filed a lawsuit and USDA backed down, agreeing to simply increase monitoring. However, since then there have been numerous food borne illness outbreaks traced to the company, including these most recent two, which show that whatever system is in place to regulate contaminants is inadequate.
The fact that Whole Foods didn’t know that it was selling meat processed by Nebraska Beef undercuts the claims about their stringent standards.
Whole Foods should be responsible for knowing where the products they sell were processed and making sure they buy from plants with good food safety practices. And the USDA needs to crack down on plants with repeated food safety problems.
Let’s hope that Whole Foods learned a lesson about checking out their suppliers. And in the meantime, remember that there are lots of places you can find healthy and sustainable food. Check out the Eat Well Guide to find them.
]]>
It’s no secret that water bottlers exploit local water resources while contributing
to global warming and creating plastic waste. But we know what they don’t want people to know, and that’s how much water they’re taking in a region already notorious for water shortages. With an already-taxed water system and ever-expanding demand, California isn’t drowning in clean water. So the “important business information” we’re talking about here is simply an indictment for wastefulness.
The California Department of Public Health isn’t doing its job here. Bottling companies already have the upper hand—seeing as they profit off a substance they obtain for practically nothing—and the Department of Public Health’s job is to stand up for citizens. What remains to be seen is whether Governor Schwarzenegger, who has recently been touting efficient water management and conservation, will straighten out the department or keep his head under the water.
]]>
Well, no. It’s not quite like that. Nanotechnology is the process of manipulating matter at a molecular level—or nanoscale. Nanomaterials have at least one dimension that is 100 nanometers or less. A nanometer is one billionth of a meter—approximately 1/100,000 of a human hair.
So while there is some research afoot to build tiny machines, the type of nanotechnology we’re talking about consists of engineering materials at the molecular level to create smaller versions of substances. The technology has potential applications in healthcare, electronics, water filtration, food and agriculture, and consumer goods, to name a few. It can be used to create advanced materials that can make a surface water-repellent, anti-microbial, or electrically conductive, among other things. Nanomolecules are already being used in products from sunscreen and stain-resistant clothing to food and food packaging—over 600 nanoproducts are already on the market, with sales of over $50-88 billion in 2007. Products that contain nanotechnology are not required to be labeled, and they go largely unregulated.
In May, Food & Water Watch joined a group of organizations to petition the FDA to stop the sale of nano-silver because it is potentially dangerous to human and environmental health. Nano-silver, currently the most commonly commercialized nanomaterial, can act as a pesticide and an antimicrobial, and can leach into water and negatively affect marine ecosystems, killing off both harmful and beneficial microorganisms.
Now, preliminary reports have shown that carbon nanotubes, another type of nanoparticles used in sporting goods (tennis rackets, bike frames, etc), are carcinogenic in the same way as asbestos. 
Not enough is known about nanomaterials for them to be widely used in commercial products. Some evidence shows that nanoparticles can be more completely absorbed by the body and may be taken up by organs and tissues. We have certain barriers in our bodies that function to keep dangerous things out of delicate places—for instance, the blood-brain barrier, and the placental barrier. Those barriers have been pretty good at protecting our brains and our fetuses thus far in the history of people. But when you have tinier particles, those barriers may not be as effective. Imagine rinsing couscous in a regular pasta strainer.
And it’s not just their size in relation to us—nanoparticles interact differently with the whole environment. Nanoparticles have different properties than their macro-sized counterparts. Food & Water Watch’s fact sheet “Sweating the Small Stuff” explains that nanoscale particles have “distinct electronic, magnetic, chemical, and mechanical properties.” They are more reactive and can even be explosive.
Food & Water Watch recommends that the government (EPA, FDA, and other relevant agencies) regulate all nanotech products as new chemicals, and the substances should be subject to more research and testing before being released into commercial products. The Senate is currently considering a bill to reauthorize the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (S. 3274) which allocates over $1.6 billion in taxpayer funding for nano research with no funds specified for environmental, health and safety protection. Take action here to ask the Senate to include adequate funding for health and safety research on nanotechnology.
]]>
Last week, Monsanto – the corporation that produces recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) in order to increase milk production in cows – announced its intention to sell the division that handles the artificial hormone, marketed under the brand name Posilac. This is a small victory for consumers on the path to eliminating potentially harmful and dangerous methods of producing milk. Although Monsanto denies that consumer pressure had anything to do with its decision to abandon its “leading dairy animal production product,” it is clear that they are feeling the pressure of consumer demand for clean, safe, healthy milk. However, the battle is not over. It is yet to be decided who will take over rBGH, so we must keep campaigning for rBGH-free milk to ensure that it will be unprofitable for any company to sell.
Recently, Monsanto attempted to greenwash rBGH with claims that it allows fewer cows to produce the same amount of milk, thus reducing the industry’s carbon “hoofprint.” While this is a nice theory, the only study to support this assertion was conducted by scientists on the Monsanto payroll. But consumers who demand rBGH-free milk have shown that they know that Monsanto’s bottom line is profit, not environmental protection or consumer health. Faced with this strong opposition, Monsanto is finally tossing in the towel, hoping for someone else to step in. Let’s keep up the good work and convince any potential successors that pushing artificial hormones is a battle they won’t win.
Everyone wants to be green, and these days it seems like anyone can. We recently saw Fiji attempt to advertise itself as sustainable, and now, having just received environmental certification from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Cargill is projecting an image of itself as an environmental steward. Before we dole out our praise, let’s review a few of Cargill’s other claims to fame:
- In the past decade, Cargill has managed to spill toxic waste into San Francisco Bay and nearby marshes six times.
- Emissions from its processing plants have violated the Clean Air Act.
- By expanding production in Latin America, Cargill has destroyed acres of valuable rainforest.
So what are we to make of this environmental certification? It turns out that it means very little in terms of the corporation’s overall environmental impact. According to the ISO website, the standard that Cargill met (ISO 14001) “does not itself state specific environmental performance criteria.” Instead, it establishes requirements for an environmental management system that “applies to those environmental aspects which an organization identifies as those which it can control and those which it can influence.” Cargill gets to choose the issues that it thinks it should work to improve, and as long as it works on them it is up to par and gets a pat on the back.
In a press release, Cargill Meat Solutions president Bill Rupp proudly states that the certification “allows us to assess what we’re doing so we can continuously improve.” Let’s hope that this is true and that they take advantage of it, because Cargill has a lot of room for improvement before it can honestly qualify as an environmental steward.
]]>
the environment, and their community, supermarket shelves are increasingly crowded with products claiming to be “sustainable” or “organic.” But when it comes to fish, these labels can be confusing and hard to interpret, since an official set of U.S. standards for quality seafood has not yet been developed. In an effort to address this problem, Whole Foods Market recently created its own standards to promote cleaner, greener and safer seafood.Food & Water Watch strongly supports this decision to help protect the environment and assist consumers in making responsible choices, but we have some suggestions as to how the Market can improve the standards to make them successful and effective. First, net pen and flow through aquaculture should be eliminated, as these production techniques are wasteful and environmentally damaging. A second important revision is to establish a deadline by which producers must meet at least a 1:1 fish in, fish out ratio, which describes the amount of wild fish that a farm uses to make feed relative to the amount of fish it ultimately produces. Any farm that does not meet this ratio is depleting wild fish populations, which can cause irreversible harm to both the individual species used to make fish food and ecosystems that depend on them. Third, the standards should favor domestic and local suppliers as well as those farms that use re-circulating aquaculture, all of which benefit the environment and consumers. Lastly, Whole Foods must set and enforce a timeline by which the standards are to be met. If the Market allows companies to continue operating below the standards indefinitely, it will effectively be misleading consumers about the seafood Whole Foods carries and providing producers with little incentive to change.
To find out more about Food & Water Watch’s recommendations and why these provisions are important, check out the letter we sent to Whole Foods Market’s CEO and regional directors. Whole Foods is taking an important lead on improving the seafood it offers to consumers every day, and with our recommendations, you may soon be able to buy fish with confidence that you are getting a safe and environmentally responsible product.
- Darcy White
email
Some people misplace keys, others struggle with sunglasses, but the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) loses track of cattle. This oversight would surely be troublesome in any circumstance, but it is especially so when the cattle may have mad cow disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) or other health problems. All imported cattle are required by law to be tracked with identification and health records. However, a recent audit completed by the Office of Inspector General reported numerous instances of cattle entering the United States from Canada – where 13 cases of mad cow disease have been detected – without sufficient documentation. In addition to hundreds of cattle slipping across the border without record, at least 436 animals allegedly sent for slaughter were later unaccounted for. From a consumer perspective, it is worrisome to think that something could be wrong with the meat that ends up in my burger.
Mad cow disease first appeared in Canada in 2003, after which many countries – including the United States – stopped importing Canadian cattle. However, in the past few years, judging that the disease was no longer a formidable threat, USDA has cut back on the number of cattle tested in the U.S. and reopened U.S. borders to imports from Canada. The decision to re-open the border has upset a lot of people, especially now that the audit shows that USDA cannot effectively control the imports. Reacting to the problem, R-CALF USA, a cattle industry organization, and a coalition of consumer groups that included Food & Water Watch, sued USDA. The judge ruled that the decision to allow imports of older cattle – which are more likely to be afflicted by mad cow disease than younger animals – should be reevaluated. However, as of yet, no substantial reforms have taken place.
Given that our government is struggling to protect our food supply, must we all completely stop eating beef if we hope to stay healthy? While that is one option, it is not the only one. Starting in October, food manufacturers will be required to label products with its country of origin. As a result, consumers will be able to select beef that is known to be from source they trust. Although companies are not yet obligated to, some already include information about where the product came from. So look for beef from local sources – even better if it’s grass fed!
- Darcy White
]]>
For a food to qualify as organic in the United States, it must be certified as meeting specific standards set by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). With produce, meat, and dairy, the term signifies that the product is not genetically modified, irradiated, and has not been produced with pesticides. The spirit of organic includes production methods that are also environmentally responsible. Seafood, however, is difficult to regulate, as it is impossible to monitor and control the substances that wild fish are exposed to.
In the face of this complexity, USDA has not yet developed standards for certifying any seafood as organic. You may find fish products boasting organic labels, but these labels are not official and have relatively little meaning. Official USDA labels may appear soon, as the National Organic Standards Board is discussing criteria for organic seafood, but they are struggling to develop appropriate standards. There are organic standards in the European Union. Is this just a case of the EU being ahead of the game? Unfortunately, in this case, not at all. The European organic standards are fairly vague and incomplete, failing to protect either consumer health or the environment. They don’t prohibit open water aquaculture, neglect to regulate pollution and waste, permit the use of some chemicals and drugs, and allow wild-caught fish to be used in fish feed. These practices are not clean, green or safe.
If we can’t trust the labels, how are we to decide what seafood to buy? Ask important questions of your restaurants and markets:
- Where is it from? (Domestic or imported – try to choose domestic).
- Is it caught or farmed locally? (Try to choose local foods over those shipped from far away).
- Is it farmed or wild? (Try to choose wild, unless the farming system is known to be clean, green and safe)
- How is it caught? (Ask if the method has high bycatch or habitat damage).
- How is it farmed? (When available, buy seafood that has been farmed in the U.S. in indoor, recirculating facilities. Tilapia, shrimp, hybrid striped bass and arctic char are examples of fish that are or are soon to be farmed this way).
- Is it associated with any contaminants? (Mercury, PCBs, antibiotics, etc).
Another tip is to diversify consumption – eating a variety of fish helps to prevent overfishing of specific species.
So, my advice to Angelina and anyone else concerned about making responsible food choices is as follows: don’t be fooled by marketing hype. Ask questions and educate yourself about the products before you buy. By choosing seafood that is clean, green, and safe, you will not only be protecting yourself and your family, you will help ensure the sustainability of our ocean resources for generations to come.
- Darcy White
]]>
Cows are injected with hormones and antibiotics and are pumped full of food that they are not naturally adapted to digest in order to speed up their growth. Similarly, as recently reported in a Washington Post blog, many tilapia are given a dose of methyl testosterone to convert them all to males, which grow to a bigger size and require less feed because they don’t need to expend as much energy developing reproductive organs. Proponents argue that the practice reduces waste, thereby benefiting the environment. It seems, however, that many people, myself included, don’t want food that has been altered with substances that change its basic biology. But, one may argue, if we can increase production with technology, it would be a shame not to. The problem with this reasoning is that new technologies often bring unexpected consequences. We don’t know enough about the effects of testosterone on the fish or the environment to conclusively determine if it is good or bad. This would not be the first time that a new food industry practice is later found to create major environmental and health problems. I probably don’t need to remind you all of how using pulverized parts of cows in animal feed, which was intended to bulk up the animals with protein, led to cases of mad cow disease.
Most consumers don’t want food produced with added hormones. And while it may seem like an environmentally friendly practice now, we don’t know the long-term consequences. Given the many unknowns regarding methyl testosterone, the tilapia industry should not be so quick to embrace its use simply as a means to increase production.
Is it in the tomatoes? The peppers? Perhaps the cilantro? Apparently, your guess of a random salsa ingredient may be as good as the FDA’s. Unfortunately, this is no game. Over 1000 cases of the recent salmonella strain have been reported while the hunt for the source continues.
The lack of progress and the inability to contain the spread of this bacterium for over a month now reveals the frightening state of the American food industry’s procedures and the Federal Government's food inspection system. Instead of requesting the additional funds needed to hire more FDA food inspectors, Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael Leavitt would like to turn more of the inspection responsibilities over to the industry so that it can police itself.
This far-reaching problem not only threatens the health of citizens but that of the entire nation. It has resulted in significant losses to the economy. With the sinking of tomato sales, many farmers even resorted to allowing their crops to rot in order to save the money they would have otherwise spent in harvesting them for probably nothing.
Deplorably, this outbreak isn’t surprising. According to the CDC, illnesses caused by tainted food affect close to a quarter of the country’s population each year. Sick to your stomach yet?
This recent scare only further implicates the obvious and urgent need for action in order to improve the systems that are supposed to ensure our food’s safety. Read more about the issue here.
Have you cut tomatoes and peppers from your diet? Personally, I've been buying only local peppers and cherry or grape tomatoes. I look forward to a time where we can once again enjoy salsa without thinking about this nasty little thing called salmonella. Each of us can help bring that day closer: tell the FDA that it's long overdue for a system makeover.
Cows produce significant quantities of greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are bad. Therefore, anything that might reduce the number of cows is good, right? This is the line of argument that proponents of recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH, also referred to as rBST) have taken in an effort to garner support for the artificial hormone. The claim that rBGH will benefit the environment is based on a new study that allegedly shows that the use of the artificial hormone will allow fewer dairy cows to produce the same quantity of milk. However, a little digging will reveal a number of problems with this study, and hence, with this claim.But first I’d like to remind you about Monsanto, the enormous agricultural corporation that developed rBGH and markets it as the drug Prosilac. The company clearly has a large stake in any publicity regarding the artificial hormone, so the fact that two of the researchers who conducted the study have significant ties to Monsanto is suspicious, to say the least. One of the researchers, Roger Cady, is the company’s technical project manager for rBGH, and the main researcher, Dale Bauman, has served the company as a paid consultant since the 1980s.
Additionally, the trustworthiness of the results is questionable given that previous investigations into the environmental impact of rBGH have not reached the same conclusion. The Food and Drug Administration, the National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have concluded that any change in greenhouse gas emissions is negligible and the use of the artificial hormone might even result in more emissions. Dale Bauman argues that his study is more accurate, but given his and Roger Cady’s ties to Monsanto, I find myself siding with the government organizations on this one.
Yes, it is important to lower emissions, but we do not need rBGH in order to do this, as there are several other effective approaches that the industry should focus on. Already, changes in nutrition and breeding have resulted in a substantial decrease, and scientists from the University of Melbourne claim that altering the composition of the feed could further reduce emissions by half. The diary farms that use rBGH most are large and industrial – the same farms that produce most of the pollution in the first place. If these farms truly want to reduce their environmental impact, they need to focus first on changing their basic practices to be more sustainable. So the question is this: Do we ignore the bias in this new study and use rBGH to lower emissions, or do we put our energy into the alternative, less controversial approaches? Considering the health risks associated with rBGH, I think the answer is pretty clear; we should be opposing rBGH, not celebrating it.
It’s almost time to pull out the lawn chairs, open the sparklers, and put on your red, white and blue. Whether your plans for the Fourth of July are to head to the beach, attend a parade, or simply relax with friends and family, chances are food and drink will be involved. Here are some suggestions on which products to pick and which to avoid in order to have a safe and healthy holiday. Let’s start with the meat. According to the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the USDA, summer is the prime time for foodborne illnesses. But with proper precaution, you can keep your guests from getting sick. Always make sure to cook meats thoroughly (160° on the inside, even steak – see table below and previous entry) and double-check the expiration date on the package. Paying careful attention to the expiration date is especially important because some processors use carbon monoxide gas to keep meat looking red and fresh even if it is several days past its prime. Another thing to look out for is meat marked with the irradiation symbol
. Some stores – like Wegmans – promote irradiation as a solution to prevent contamination. But in truth, irradiation does not miraculously purge the product of any and all harmful elements, transforming that steak or patty to sushi-grade meat. In fact, irradiation destroys many vital nutrients and vitamins, and consuming irradiated food may cause immune system failures, tumors and a host of other problems. In addition, the process of irradiation often creates a nasty texture, smell, and taste.
| TYPE OF MEAT |
MINIMUM INTERNAL TEMP (°F) |
|---|---|
| - Fish | 145° |
| - Beef, lamb and Veal (steaks, roasts and chops) |
145° (medium-rare) 160° (medium) **Important note: Steaks and roasts that have been boned, rolled, tenderized, etc. should be cooked to an internal temperature of at least 160° |
| - Ground beef, pork, veal, and lamb - Pork (chops, roasts, ribs) - Egg |
160° |
| - Poultry (ground, breasts, legs, thighs, wings, whole) - Stuffing and casseroles - Leftovers |
165° |
| References: USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service – “Foodborne Illness Peaks in the Summer - Why?” “Thermometer Placement and Temperatures” |
For those of you who plan to serve up seafood, there are a number of things for you to consider as well. Much of the seafood available in the United States is imported from foreign, industrial aquaculture farms. Bacteria, viruses and parasites thrive in the unsanitary conditions that often characterize these farms, such that some imported fish have been described as “filthy” by inspectors, with Salmonella and other contaminants not uncommon. Where chemicals and antibiotics (many of which have been outlawed in the United States) are applied in an attempt to eliminate the disease-causing agents, harmful residues can accumulate in the flesh. To protect yourself and your guests, ask your grocers where the product is from and how it was produced. Generally, the best bet is to opt for domestic, wild fish. A particularly healthy and sustainable option is U.S. troll-caught Mahi Mahi. If you are set on having salmon, choose U.S. wild Pacific salmon over Atlantic/farmed salmon. Domestic halibut, whiting, and tilapia are also good choices. If shellfish is on your menu, again stick to products from the United States.
Now undoubtedly you will need something to drink. But pass up the bottled water and instead treat your guests to tap water (if you will not be near a tap, fill up a cooler before you leave and take it with you). Bottled water is not safer than tap water; in fact, tap water is better regulated and tested more frequently. True, there may be impurities and the mineral content may not be to your liking, but these issues can be easily fixed with a simple filter. Bottled water creates unnecessary garbage and pollution, plus it is expensive (it costs more per unit volume than gas). So save your money or spend it instead on that fancy cake you’ve been eying.
So remember, when it comes to food, the bottom line is to cook meats and eggs to appropriate temperatures and choose local, sustainably-produced products. Not only will you be supporting local producers, you will also be protecting your safety and the environment. For resources and more information, consult the Eat Well Guide. And check out our water filtration guide to learn how to serve the best water in town, straight from your tap.
Have a good Fourth!