Craig Zucker, founder of Tap’d NY, not only took back the tap, but took it and started using it for profit – basically putting himself in the same boat as some of the very bottled water companies he denounces. He’s begun his own bottled water company – but in this case, he bottles New York City tap water, which he purifies with a filter and then sells at the bottled water market rate.

What’s the point in buying bottled tap water at $1.50 a bottle when you can turn on your own tap for just $0.02 a gallon? Especially when the company’s owner pays that exact same $0.02 a gallon, and yet gets to make a financial killing out of cleaning it up a bit, putting it in a bottle, and selling it at the same price as traditional bottled water? Good question. Also considering that, when compared to a gallon of gas, the cost of a gallon of bottled water is much higher.

And yet somehow Zucker has managed to find consumers who believe there’s a good answer. His stance? Trying to take on the big, bad, overseas bottled water companies that try and lure consumers to drink their water over his bottled tap water – with a “local twist.” Making it seem like it’s a baseball game and he represents the home team, while other companies are the dreaded away team. Ignoring also that 40 percent of bottled water is actually purified tap water.

He’s right about one thing – tap water is a better option than bottled water. It’s regulated more often and by somewhat more stringent standards than those that regulate bottled water – though you can see from our September 23rd post that the EPA still has a long way to go in that regard. But in almost everything else, he’s misleading his customers. If you really want your water to be safe, inexpensive, and environmentally friendly, you have to remove the bottle from the equation.

So consider this – you can buy and install your own water filter and keep enjoying your affordable tap water, now purified, and in the long run you’ll have saved a lot more money than if you had switched to this bottled tap water business that offers you the same thing at an exorbitant price. In effect, you’ll have stopped a swindle in progress. And you’ll have done your part to take back the tap – responsibly.

- Sofia Baliño

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.

Food & Water Watch organizer Noelle Ferdon knows that bottled water is hard on the Earth, not to mention consumers’ wallets. This awareness inspired her as she spearheaded the Food & Water Watch effort to free the Aug. 29 though Sept. 1, 2008 Slow Food Nation gathering from H2O packaged in plastic. Instead of drinking bottled water, the 60,000 people in San Francisco to attend the sessions showcasing sustainable agriculture and healthful eating quenched their thirst with fresh, delicious tap water from the City by the Bay. Providing water for the event jibed with Food & Water Watch’s campaign urging consumers, the country and the world to kick the bottled water habit and, instead, Take Back the Tap.

“We were trying to get water to thousands of people, but also trying to get the message to thousands of people,” said Ferdon, who works in the California office of Food & Water Watch, a non-profit organization dedicated to freeing control of our food, water and marine resources from the clutches of corporations. Going into the event, Anya Fernald, director of Slow Food Nation, had said she wanted “people to make the connection between the plate and the planet, and that includes drink.” Slow Food Nation is affiliated with Slow Food USA, itself part of a growing global movement dedicated to deepening people’s understanding of the environmental connection to food.

By all accounts, Food & Water Watch’s role as Slow Food Nation water caterer, which relied on multiple taps at four water stations positioned in three venues, was a success because it:

• avoided the 100,000 bottles of water that normally would be sold at such an event.

•  helped to sell 4,000 stainless steel reusable water bottles made by Klean Kanteen and emblazoned with Food & Water Watch’s “Take Back the Tap”

  logo.

The event was such as success that consumers, caterers, conference planners and others are turning to Food & Watch as an authority on planning and executing a conference, workshop or other event without resorting to the bane of bottled water. Its recently published guide takes one through the steps and considerations involved.

Ferdon believes that Slow Food Nation called on Food & Water Watch to cater the water in large part because of its work organizing restaurants to jettison bottled water and instead serve tap water to diners. (The restaurant component of the Take Back the Tap campaign began last year in San Francisco with Ferdon forging key relationships with the City of San Francisco government, particularly the city’s Public Utilities Commission and the Department of the Environment. Food & Water Watch has since taken the restaurant work nationwide. In some cases, eateries are even making their own bubbly water by installing carbonation machines.

But beyond just the restaurant work, Ferdon says the organizers of Slow Food Nation were impressed by the entire Take Back the Tap campaign and realized that tap water was a natural fit for its Earth-friendly eating and drinking gathering.

“Tap water is the slow water equivalent of slow food,” Slow Food Nation’s Anya Fernald said in late August. “The goal is for people to leave the event with one, two or three things they can do to change the way they’re eating and interacting with the environment. Tap water is one way to do that.”

The San Francisco PUC eased the nuts-and-bolts work for the Food & Water Watch team by piping water to the two water stations at Civic Center and by using a tanker truck full of water at Slow Food Nation’s rock concert in the Great Meadow park area above Fort Mason.

U.S. Pure Water Corporation  made water service possible by hooking up taps to the water lines. San Francisco-based architects with the firm SMWM designed one of the water stations to have a roof made of plastic bottles and a rear wall that grabbed people’s attention with its presentation of the problems with bottled water.

But even with the help, “it was a challenge to make sure the message didn’t get lost in the logistics of getting water to people,” Ferdon said.

That meant not only serving water to people but also educating them about the downsides of bottled water.

The sobering tale of bottled water

Bottled water is a rip-off. In 2006, U.S. consumers wasted nearly $10 billion on close to 8 billion gallons of non-sparkling bottled water; almost 5 billion of those gallons were in single-serve PET plastic bottles. On a per gallon basis, bottled water costs anywhere from $0.89 to $8.26, far more than the $0.002 per gallon going rate for clean, healthful tap water.

Perhaps consumers have fallen for the marketing myth that water in a bottle is somehow safer or better than tap water.

It’s not. In fact, U.S. tap water is just as safe as bottled water and, in many cases, more so. The federal government requires far more rigorous and frequent safety monitoring of municipal drinking water than bottled water. Independent testing has found a wide range of heavy metal, microbial and chemical pollutants in bottled water.

Tap water is more strictly regulated than bottled water. The Environmental Protection Agency requires that municipal water be tested hundreds of times a month. And, water systems are required by law to make their testing results available to the public. EPA also mandates that surface sources of tap water be tested for cryptosporidium and, if it’s found, that the water be disinfected. More than 90 percent of communities met EPA standards this year. For citizens in communities that don’t meet standards, installing a filter at home is the best option.

On the other hand, the Food & Drug Administration has fewer than one full-time staff person overseeing the bottled water industry. The agency requires four empty bottles to be tested for bacteria once every three months and a sample of water to be tested after filtration and before bottling once a week. Bottled water is never tested after bottling and storage, and it is never tested for the chemicals that can leech from the plastic bottle into the water.

And even if FDA wanted to regulate bottled water more stringently, its hands are tied. The agency oversees only interstate sales of bottled water, which are less than half – 30 percent to 40 percent – of all bottled water produced in the United States.

The bottled water record is the model of economic inefficiency and environmental damage from beginning to end.

Producing a 20-ounce bottle of water can require as much as 60 ounces of water. What’s more, the production and transportation of plastics takes a significant toll on the environment. Annual U.S. plastic bottle production requires more than 17 million barrels of oil, enough to fuel one million vehicles on our roads each year. But that’s just to make the bottles. The energy used to pump, process, transport and refrigerate bottled water amounts to 50 million barrels of oil, enough to run 3 million cars.

What are the larger implications of using and burning all that energy? For one thing, bottling water produces more than 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. And that contributes to the ongoing crisis of global climate change.

Unfortunately, the bad news doesn’t stop after the last drop is drained from the bottle. About 86 percent of the empty plastic water bottles in the United States land in the garbage instead of being recycled. That amounts to about two million tons of PET plastic bottles piling up in U.S. landfills each year. Single serve water bottles and other beverage containers, often used on the go, are recycled at a lower rate than containers typically used at home.

The environmentally destructive footprint of the bottled water industry forms part of the frightening industrial waste scenario that threatens our country and the world. According to a recent report from the Institute for Local Self Reliance, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives and Eco-Cycle: "Wasting directly impacts climate change because it is directly linked to global resource extraction, transportation, processing and manufacturing. When we minimize waste, we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions in sectors that together represent 36.7% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions." 

However, we don’t have to be stuck with bottled water. U.S. tap water is as or more clean and safe than bottled water. That said, improvements always are possible. That’s why Food & Water Watch favors better enforcement of the Clean Water Act and other federal and state laws and regulations meant to protect our source water from pollution. We also strongly urge Congress to pass a federal trust fund to provide billions of dollars over the coming decades to repair, rejuvenate and refine our drinking water and wastewater systems.

Catering that message and lots of San Francisco tap water to the 60,000 Slow Food Nation attendees was a big job, but the Food & Water Watch team of 13 employees and 35 volunteers successfully pulled it off.

Behind the scenes, Noelle Ferdon and the rest of the Food & Water Watch crew had to deal with various logistical and budget issues. For example, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission generously donated branded compostable cups, but even with a three-month advance order, it could not guarantee more than 15,000 cups. Ferdon was concerned that might not be enough cups for all of the people expected to attend, and she didn’t want to seem elitist by offering only the Take Back the Tap stainless steel bottles for sale. It then it became a matter of training the staff and volunteers to encourage reuse of the cups. Ferdon also had Slow Food Nation encourage people to bring their own reusable bottles to refill throughout the weekend.

It worked. “We only used 15,000 cups out of 60,000 visitors,” Ferdon said. In addition, 4,000 of the Take Back the Tap bottles were sold over the course of the three-day event. They were such a hit that Slow Food Nation is selling the remaining 1,000 on its website. Food & Water Watch also is selling bottles without the Slow Food Nation logo. They can be ordered online.

In the wake of its successful water-curating project, Food & Water Watch got a call from the California Academy of Sciences about helping to facilitate its bottled water-free event. This event included use of the water station designed by SMWN, and Klean Kanteen sold stainless steel water bottles in an effort to reduce the use of cups.

Slow Food Nation “put us on the map because of the attendance and the message,” Ferdon said. “We got at least 2,000 signatures from people pledging to take back the tap.”

Robert Schubert
email • bio

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.

Congratulations to local water activists in Shapleigh, Maine who worked tirelessly for six months to safeguard their water. They canvassed at the local dump, hosted educational workshops and struggled to protect their local watershed from corporate greed. And they won the battle: no testing or drilling from Nestlé. The committed movement in Shapleigh was spurred on by the dedicated grassroots efforts of POWWR (Protecting our Water and Wildlife Resources). This is not only a victory for Shapleigh but for communities everywhere working to take back the tap!

Please send Shapleigh a note of congratulations and encouragement.

Food & Water Watch
email

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.

The fourth infant death from contaminated powdered milk was announced in China Thursday, highlighting once again the sad state of China’s food safety system. So far, more than 6,000 infants have fallen ill with more than a thousand requiring hospitalization since the scandal became public last week. All of the deaths have been traced to milk powder produced by the Sanlu Group, although milk and dairy products made by Yili, Mengniu Dairy, and twenty other companies have tested positive for melamine contamination.

While the first death from the tainted milk powder was reported in May, a recall was not ordered until the information became public in September. This revelation has shaken Chinese confidence in the safety of their own food supply with parents questioning what other foods may be contaminated without their knowledge.

This latest scandal has revealed the corrupt nature of the growing Chinese dairy industry. The Chinese dairy industry routinely dilutes the raw milk with water in order to increase their product while reducing its nutritional content.  Companies add the banned toxic substance melamine, which is used to make plastic, so the watered-down milk will pass chemical tests for protein levels.  Due to its high nitrogen content, melamine appears to be protein during chemical tests. To date, eighteen people have been arrested in connection with the contamination.

While so far the problem seems to be primarily affecting consumers in China, melamine was actually at the center of another food crisis last year involving imported pet food ingredients in the United States. Although the tainted pet food was recalled, some tainted livestock and fish feed made with the same imported ingredients was ignored because it contained only “low” levels of melamine.  Given this latest in a long string of scandals over tainted food in China – a growing source of imported food for the United States – it is past time for Congress and the FDA to establish strong standards (and enforce them) for imported food. 

Learn more.

- William Blakeley

Yesterday, Food & Water Watch's Executive Director Wenonah Hauter testified before the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security, and Water Quality. The committee was hearing testimony on legislation to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act so that it requires manufacturers of bottled water to submit annual reports about contamination.

“The people and businesses in a watershed have the right to use it reasonably for drinking, growing food and other activities in the community . . . To restore the public’s faith in tap water and to ensure that future generations of Americans have access to safe, clean, affordable water, Food & Water Watch recommends that Congress pass a clean water trust fund," she said in her comments.

Check out the coverage from CBS.

Write your member of Congress in support of a water trust fund.

Get more information.

Check the map to see if FLOW is screening near you

Around the country and around the world communities are fighting for control of and access to safe, affordable public water. Film Director Irena Salina's film FLOW is a passionate, fact-filled world-tour of the issues facing the planet’s water today. Focusing on human rights, environmental destruction and corporate greed, FLOW shows the public challenges and the public fights for control over their most essential resource. Set in countries across the globe, Flow will inspire you and call you to action.

Join Food & Water Watch in this historic time as our movement for social justice and community control of water comes to local theaters. We'll be attending screenings around the country to bring this important film and movement into your community.

WATCH THE TRAILER

olive oil
parsley
potatoes
a little garlic
lemon juice
pepper

These are some of the ingredients contestants are adding to showcase seafood in scrumptious sounding dishes submitted to our Get Cookin' Sustainable Seafood Recipe Contest.

We've got $250 to give away for the recipe that tickles us and our taste buds the most. All the top entries win a Food & Water Watch Chef's apron and have their recipes published in our Get Cookin' Sustainable Seafood Recipe Booklet.

Who are the lucky judges? In addition to Food & Water Watch staff, locally renowned chef Rocky Barnette will be evaluating the finalists' submissions based on the following criteria:

• Taste
• Uniqueness
• Healthiness
• Simplicity 

Bonus points are given for using sustainable/local ingredients.

Just weeks after Monsanto decided to divest of rBGH, Eli Lilly has acquired the artificial dairy hormone. Not surprisingly, Eli Lilly is now spreading the same misinformation about rBGH's safety and environmental benefits as Monsanto once did. 

Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone is a genetically engineered chemical that is injected into cows to make them produce more milk. Besides the documented increase of infections in dairy cows injected with rBGH, which necessitates increased use of antibiotics, there are ongoing questions about links to cancer in humans.

Despite Eli Lilly's claims, rBGH is not a 'vital technology.' Instead, it's a questionable one that has been shunned by several major dairy retailers this year alone. Help us maintain the momentum against the use of rBGH. Tell Eli Lilly that consumers want rBGH-free milk, and they want it to be labeled plain and simple.

-Filmona
Food & Water Watch
email

In another example of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration prioritizing industry interests over consumer safety, the agency announced last week that it will allow fresh spinach and iceberg lettuce to be treated with ionizing radiation. This just illustrates once again how misplaced this agency’s priorities really are, and how easily they cave in to industry pressure.

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.

- Food & Water Watch
email • bios

Too often these days it seems that large corporations and powerful individuals can do whatever they want. However, outrage over corporate control of water is causing more and more citizens to mobilize against efforts to profit from our public resources.

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 Fijian child isn’t.

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.

-Erica Schuetz
email • bio

Whole Foods proudly asserts that it is “highly selective about what [it] sell[s], dedicated to stringent Quality Standards, and committed to sustainable agriculture.” Consumers have responded to these promises of quality, as the chain has experienced tremendous growth in the last couple of years.  Which is why so many consumers, who choose to pay more at Whole Foods based on its promises of quality, were troubled to find out that that the company had to recall ground beef from its stores on August 8th.

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.

Food & Water Watch-sponsored Assembly Bill 2275, which requires water bottling companies to reveal the source and volume of water they’re taking, has recently been opposed by the California Department of Public Health on the grounds that the information is a “trade secret.” No, we’re not kidding.

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.

-Erica Schuetz
email • bio

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