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

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.

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.

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.

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

You will all be happy to know that Smithfield Foods, the largest producer and processor of hogs in the United States and in the world, was recently honored with an Environmental Recognition Award from the American Meat Institute (AMI).  A press release from Forbes explains that this award celebrates “companies that assess their own environmental challenges and develop unique solutions that encourage continuous improvement.”

So what are Smithfield facilities doing to prove their dedication to environmental stewardship?  According to Smithfield’s website, the corporation has been implementing programs to improve conservation, reduce emissions, and investigate alternative energy sources.  That all sounds great, but curiosity drove me to review Food & Water Watch’s 2008 report, The Trouble With Smithfield: A Corporate Profile, for more specifics.

In the report, I learned that the corporation has a multitude of environmental achievements, just not all positive.  Perhaps the company’s factory farms are being honored for their practice of storing hog waste in huge lagoons, which only overflow or leak occasionally, smothering nearby rivers and streams and killing millions of fish.  Or maybe it is the failure of slaughterhouses to properly treat effluent, allowing the entire watershed to benefit from fecal coliforms and phosphorus, among other contaminants.  A practice that I found particularly noteworthy is their efforts to share hogs’ waste and associated fumes with neighboring communities –the waste can even be potent enough to be enjoyed by pilots flying at an elevation of up to 3,000 feet!

Now you may be wondering, as am I, how Smithfield facilities earned this award.  I suppose it is possible that they have drastically changed their ways since our report…  Or, the standards being used to give the award aren’t exactly the same as my standards for good environmental performance.   

- Darcy White
email

Corporate attempts to label their products as “green” for the sake of turning a fast buck are nothing new. Corporations exist, after all, in order to make money, and capitalizing on whatever is capturing the public’s collective imagination is often the best way of doing so. But Fiji Artisanal Water’s entree into the green movement strikes us as particularly suspect.

The company has recently launched fijigreen.com, a website outlining the ways in which their water is “good for the environment.”

If you’re anything like us, you are probably wondering how this claim could be true.

It can’t. 

While Fiji’s Artisanal Water’s commitment to reducing their packaging, investing in rainforest renewal and reducing their carbon emissions may be applauded by some, these measures are not enough to make them a green company. By definition, bottled water is simply not an environmentally friendly product.

When companies package and sell water, they take a natural resource that falls freely from the sky from communities that need it, stick it in plastic bottles (made from oil, of course), and ship it across the globe to sell it for hundreds, sometimes thousands of times its actual value.  And while Fiji and its cohorts can encourage consumers to recycle, the fact of the matter is that 86% of empty plastic water bottles in the United States end up in the trash, instead of being recycled.

With citizens and governments around the world abuzz with worries of oil shortages, how can companies continue to manufacture a needless product that directly contributes to this impending crisis, let alone have the audacity to proclaim it “green?”

The most sustainable water option isn’t actually green at all (if it were, that would be a bit scary). It’s actually quite clear: tap water.  It’s convenient, delivered through energy-efficient means, and in most cases, is just as healthy and pure as its froufy bottled counterparts--sometimes cleaner.  Even better, it requires spending very little green in order to do something green.

For more on why tap water is a better alternative to bottled, check out our resources at www.takebackthetap.org. Then tell us how you feel about Fiji Artisanal Water’s not-so-green marketing machine.