In an especially passionate display of concern over food safety today, Food & Water Watch activists courted the chocolate giant Hershey's to their side, asking them to give U.S. consumers the same assurances about not using genetically modified (GM) sugar in their Hershey's Kisses™ the Brazilians receive.

What's the rumpus?

U.S. farmers planted have planted GM sugar beet crops for the first time this season. The beets are genetically altered to survive regular applications of Monsanto's weed killer, Roundup, and its active ingredient, glyphosate. Because the EPA increased the maximum allowable residues of glyphosate on the beetroots (from which sugar is extracted) by a staggering 5,000%, Food & Water Watch is concerned about:

• the possible impact on the environment
• gene pollution of other crops and plants, and
• human health
  

Since GM ingredients are NOT labeled, there is no way to know if consumers are eating GM beet sugar once it hits the market, which could happen as early as next year. That's why Food & Water Watch called on its activists. And their enthusiastic response may have surprised the food industry.

According to the New York Times article, Round 2 for Biotech Beets (registration required), several American food companies aren't resistant to the use of GM sugar in their products because they feel American consumers have come to accept biotechnology.

Ooops.

We wouldn't call it a "kiss-off," but the activists were clear: they want their sweets GM-free. Protect your Kisses™. Urge Hershey's to publicly reject the use of GM sugar.

You want safe shrimp to eat; restaurant owners want a good product to sell; chefs want delicious ingredients from which to create a winning menu; and domestic shrimpers need our business to survive as an industry. It’s one big circle – and our choices in one area impact others. This circle was made obvious by voices raised in New Orleans at the 2008 Women Chefs and Restaurateurs National Conference.

The attending women were eager to hear from Food & Water Watch, who sent me to get out the word about the health and environmental price of cheap imported shrimp. Chefs and restaurants got tips and important information about how they can improve their shrimp purchasing practices in the panel, "There’s Something About Shrimp."

 "The only way to make sure that we are getting safe seafood and that we continue to have a domestic industry to supply us with it is to shift demand. "

A lot is at stake for shrimp, and audience members got a well-rounded perspective on the issue from our esteemed panel. Panelists included moderator Leigh Belanger from the Chef’s Collaborative, local New Orleans shrimper Ray Brandhurst, chef of Commander's Palace in New Orleans, Tory McPhail, and Brennan Group operations head Haley Bitterman.

Giant shrimp buffets and growing portion sizes are just two reasons why demand for cheap, imported shrimp has grown immensely (learn more in our report Suspicious Shrimp). The safer, sustainable domestic shrimpers have lost and gone out of business. In addition, natural disasters such as hurricanes have wreaked havoc on shrimpers' boats and the industry’s infrastructure.

Ray, an innovative entrepreneur, talked about how the direct-purchasing relationships that he established with local restaurants have kept him afloat. He’s even begun shipping his shrimp directly to restaurants throughout the country via FedEx.

The overarching message from the panel was clear – eat domestic shrimp. The only way to make sure that we are getting safe seafood and that we continue to have a domestic industry to supply us with it is to shift demand. And we all have a part to play in that – whether we’re consumers, shrimpers, or chefs. To find out more about industrially produced shrimp and why you may want to avoid it, check out our Suspicious Shrimp report.

Plastics have been used in food packaging for years, but who knew that you could end up eating the chemicals used to make the plastic?  The U.S. Food and Drug Administration doesn’t have a problem with a certain plastic ingredient called Bisphenol A (BPA) leaking into your food as long as it stays below “safe” levels. But it turns out that even low levels of BPA may increase the risk of heart disease and diabetes according to a new study. The low levels found in the study to increase disease risk are around five times lower than the levels considered “safe” by the FDA.

So once again, it seems that the FDA has dropped the ball and it’s up to consumers to protect themselves.  While it’s tough to completely eliminate BPA from your diet (it’s used to line the inside of almost all metal cans containing food), you can lower your exposure.  Essentially, you want to avoid types of food packaging that will leak a lot of BPA into the food. The main perpetrators are plastic baby bottles and cans containing acidic foods (like tomatoes).  Look for acidic foods like tomato sauce in glass jars.  As for plastic bottles, BPA is typically found in hard plastics, not the softer types like soda bottles.  When it comes to bottles for water (from the tap, please!) or other drinks, glass or stainless steel are good options.  Finally, avoid heating food in plastic containers that have BPA in them (or any plastic containers, for that matter), since heat accelerates the leaching process.

There is at least one U.S. food company that forgoes the BPA in its metal cans,  but unfortunately for consumers, most companies have not yet switched to an alternative to BPA in canned foods.  You can contact the manufacturers of the brands you buy and tell them they should get rid of the BPA in their cans (look for the 800 number on the package). 

But there is no excuse for BPA to remain in plastic baby bottles.  Canada is in the process of banning the use of BPA in plastic baby bottles and the U.S. should follow their lead.

Rocket fuel in your water? No big deal, at least not to the group that’s supposed to protect our environment. Yes, you read that correctly: the Environmental Protection Agency evidently doesn’t think defending our most valuable resource is a “meaningful” priority. A document the EPA just released states that investing in the decontamination of perchlorate, a toxic rocket fuel, would not result in a "meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public-water systems." If reducing hazardous substances in our water supply isn’t meaningful enough for the EPA, what is? After such a ridiculously slack decision, perhaps the EPA’s water supply is in need of a test for brain impairing toxins.

Water in 35 states has tested positive for contamination with perchlorate at points high enough to affect thyroid and developmental health according to many experts. Even though every scientific panel that’s addressed the matter has appealed for a rigorous clean-up plan, the push for regulation has been hindered by political interference. The blame is being placed on the Pentagon and defense contractors for hampering with the ruling since they would likely be the ones to pay for any clean-up, being responsible for exposing the gunk to our water in the first place.

 "Even small changes in thyroid functions early on have impacts on functioning through high school and even into people's 20s."

Robert Zoeller, a University of Massachusetts professor spoke to the Washington Post about the health risk this chemical poses. "It's absolutely irreversible," he said. "Even small changes in thyroid functions early on have impacts on functioning through high school and even into people's 20s." The reference to the studies providing this evidence was deleted by officials from the White House Office of Management and Budget, who heavily edited the EPA proposal. With such political meddling, it appears that the country's so-called protection agency can't do much protecting after all.

Think drinking bottled water solves the problem? Think again. Even showering in water contaminated with high levels of toxins such as perchlorate could be harmful. Plus, bottled water isn't necessarily healthier and a lot of it comes from the tap anyway. Most importantly, supporting privatized water only makes the problem bigger, sending money to big corporations and away from our public resources. Help push for the only real solution, investing in clean and safe public water: ask Congress to provide the funds needed to protect our water sources.

Nanotechnology.  It’s a word we’ve been hearing for a while, describing what sounds like the wave of the future, building stuff tinier and tinier, so eventually we can have miniscule robots to climb into our mouths and brush our teeth for us. Right?

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.

-Erica Schuetz
email • bio

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.

It is easy to be overwhelmed by the ever-growing number of choices at the grocery store.  As consumers become more aware of how what they choose to eat influences their health, 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

Angelina Jolie has been receiving a lot of press, be it regarding her relationship with Brad Pitt, her newest children, or, most recently, her post-pregnancy diet. At first glance Angelina seems to have picked the perfect diet to optimize health, taste, and sustainability; it sounds delicious and includes key nutritional buzz words such as “Omega-3”, “organic”, and “fresh”.  But hold off on running to the store to copy her menu.  “Organic” seafood does not exist in the United States, and although standards have been developed in Europe, they are not what U.S. consumers expect from organic foods.

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

email

The food industry is wild about developing innovative ways to maximize the efficiency of producing food from animals.  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.

''What Hurricane Katrina was to FEMA, this salmonella outbreak is going to be to the FDA,'' said one tomato grower.

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.

email   

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.

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!

What if I told you that your soap might harm you?  And so might your cosmetics, cutting board, carpet, clothes, and many other products.  The culprit is a pesticide called Triclosan. On account of its antibacterial properties, manufacturers have put it into many of the things we interact with everyday. Marketed under the trade names Microban and BioFresh and an unlabeled ingredient in countless products advertising their antimicrobial properties, it can be detected in the blood, urine, and breast milk of people worldwide.  The problem is that research suggests that this chemical may have negative health and environmental effects.  It is thought to interfere with endocrine and cellular processes, contribute to antibiotic resistance, and break down into toxic chemicals such as dioxin and chloroform.  In addition to its effects on humans, it is also toxic to algae, phytoplankton, and other critical aquatic organisms. And it has been accumulating in water, generating concern that it will destroy fragile ecosystems.

So why is it used if it is so bad?  Good question. It is actually not any more effective at killing germs than warm water and a little soap, so its widespread application is unnecessary, little more than a marketing gimmick.  The Environmental Protection Agency is currently reviewing the product to determine if it is safe.  But they have registered it in the past, and their assessment so far has ignored evidence of its risks.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t like the idea that the things that fill my bathroom, kitchen, and closet could impair my health.  If you feel the same way, tell the EPA to ban non-medical use of Triclosan!

- Darcy White
email

Chinese government and agribusinesses want to send processed chicken to the United States for your consumptive pleasure.  The problem?  This chicken may not be safe.  The main concerns stem from the findings of U.S. inspectors upon visiting Chinese facilities.  Their reports cite defective equipment, lack of employee hygiene, unsanitary conditions, and an absence of regulations requiring pre-shipment testing for Salmonella, E. coli and other contaminants.  Reports of avian flu outbreaks in China also raise questions about the safety of Chinese poultry.
That Chinese imports may compromise the health of consumers is not a new problem (Washington Post, NPR).  In recent years, the FDA has refused to import hundreds of products from China, ranging from seafood to cosmetics, in which it detected dangerous substances or other regulatory violations. 

However, the USDA continues to attempt to approve the importation of Chinese poultry.  The Administration even went so far as to propose an absurd back-and-forth trade system whereby birds would be raised in North America, shipped to China to be processed, and then sent back to be sold.  Having been blocked by Congress last year, the USDA is again trying to open up the American meat market to Chinese chicken.

 Why is the USDA so determined to allow this trade?  Are we facing a national chicken deficit?  On the contrary, the United States has been producing too much chicken.  The real reason seems to lie in the interests of the meat industry.  It is thought that accepting Chinese poultry is an important prerequisite to China opening its markets to U.S. beef and pork.    

 
While it is important that we stay on good terms with China, this should not happen at the expense of your safety.  Sign our petition to tell Congress not to import Chinese Chicken!

email