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.

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.

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

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!

Hey all you DC/Metro foodies and water warriors:  We want to let you know about an exciting event tomorrow night in DC!

On Thursday, June 5, 2008, Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter will be reading from and signing copies of her new book, Zapped! Irradiation and the Death of Food.

This is a groundbreaking book that reveals irradiation as a decades-long PR stunt by the food industry, aimed at increasing profits, not food safety. Ms. Hauter chronicles the rise of food irradiation in America and explains the science-and the politics-behind it. 

The event will be held at Busboys & Poets, at 14th and V Streets NW (map), from 6:30 to 8:30 on Thursday the 5th. Please come join us for an evening of information, and learn how to fight back to keep your food safe.

Learn more about the book and Ms. Hauter and buy the book now.

Looking forward to seeing you there!

On Friday, the AP published an article about the USDA’s plan to announce the “retail consignees” of recalled meat and poultry products –– the stores where they were sold. This rule has been in the works for nearly two years, and has been held up by pressure from the food industry. Finally, after all this time, the information may be made available so consumers can figure out, without having to dig in the freezer and scour packaging for tiny numbers on a tiny seal, whether the meat they’ve bought is part of a recall.

That is, if the problem causing the recall is deemed serious enough by the experts at USDA. For instance, the potentially Mad Cow-infected beef involved in the largest recall in U.S. history would not have been covered under this new proposal. Because the agency deemed this situation a “Class II” recall, their new policy would not apply –– meaning you’re not allowed to know which retailers sold it.

The problem is, USDA has watered down the rule to the point where this information would only be released for some recalls, based on a system they’ve constructed of “recall classes.”  Under this new rule, a Class I recall merits giving the public all the available information, but classes II and III do not. Unfortunately, the decision–making process for what class a particular recall will fall into is still a bit mysterious; if USDA decides it’s not likely you’ll die from the problem sparking the recall, they can slot a recall into a lower class. But don’t you want to know where you might have bought any recalled goods –– even if you will probably live through it?

More importantly, the decision about telling consumers where recalled products were sold shouldn’t be left up to USDA.  After all, all these items have been recalled. If it was serious enough for a recall, isn’t it serious enough to let consumers get all the information they need to actually avoid the product?

-Erica Schuetz
email • bio

Orange County, NY is one of the few areas in the country where some growers earn their farm income exclusively from onion crops. The black soil there, which enriches onions with their characteristic pungent flavor and odor, is particularly well suited to the crop.

Despite the soil’s predisposition to onion cultivation, most of the area’s onion farmers have gone out of business in the past 15 years. While the price of running a farm has risen steadily, the price that growers earn for their onions has not.

Cheap imports have played a role in keeping American farmers from receiving a fair price for their onions. Total fresh onion imports have been increasing steadily since the 1990s. Between 1990 and 2006, edible onion imports have grown by 71 percent. The U.S. Department of Agriculture predicts that they will increase by another 32 percent in 2007. In that overall context, imports of onions and other vegetables from Peru have been increasing under current trade agreements. Peru’s exports to the United States have skyrocketed from 365 thousand pounds in 1994 to 122 million pounds in 2006.  In 2007, Congress has been considering a Free Trade Agreement with Peru that would further open our doors to cheap imports and, as a result, could send onion prices plummeting. Indeed, in early November 2007, the House of Representatives voted to approve the free trade deal with Peru. The Senate is expected to approve the agreement, as well.

Even The Packer, a produce industry publication, has raised concerns about Peruvian onion imports. It reports that both Peru and Ecuador glutted the onion market this fall with higher-than-expected yields and have pushed prices down from the $21 to $22 range for a 40-pound carton to a range of $10 to $12. The change in the market has hurt farmers who had no way of knowing they would have to produce more than usual in order to earn a decent profit.

As imports have increased, U.S. onion acreage has dwindled. Between 1997 and 2002, the harvested dry onion acreage in New York State decreased by 16 percent. Orange County, the number of harvested farms and the number of harvested acres has decreased by almost 50 percent.

Consumers cannot always recognize this difference when they choose onions at the supermarket. Be a smart shopper and combat crops in crisis with your fork.

1. Buy smart – Purchase food that is produced on small, local farms rather than large industrial operations, and choose organic over conventional foods.
2. Be label savvy – Demand Country of Origin Labeling for food so you know where it comes from.
   
3. Be in the know – Sign up for our e-mail lists to stay plugged into food issues that affect your dinner and your planet.

The Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company fiasco –– the largest meat recall in U.S. history –– most certainly has you worried. Let’s not even mention the fact that the last year and a half has been chock full of non–stop reminders of numerous food safety problems. Let’s see, there was:

• Topps Meat recalled 21.7 million pounds of ground beef after the meat tested positive for a deadly strain of E. coli bacteria. (Listen to our podcast here.)
• China offered up many food safety woes, including tainted pet food, toxic toothpaste and contaminated seafood.
  
• Several states have thought that it was a good idea to attempt to ban producers from advertising that their milk was hormone–free.
  
• And to top it all off, FDA ruled that cloned meat is safe to eat and could be sold without special labeling.
  

It's no wonder we want to know more about the derivation of our food.

Of course this bad news has us worried. In 2007, the Food Marketing Institute, a trade group of food retailers and wholesalers, reported that the number of shoppers confident that food at the grocery store was safe had dropped to 66 percent from 82 percent the previous year. (Just 43 percent were confident about getting safe food at restaurants.) In a GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media survey taken in November, only 50 percent of respondents said they were confident that there were adequate food safety regulations in place.

So, what are you waiting for? Take your food safety questions to USDA’s very own Karen. We’re certain that she’ll be just as helpful as the other USDA officials.

But seriously folks, it’s a sad state of affairs when The Washington Post runs headlines like “New Food Inspector: YOU”, but it’s not too far from the truth. Feel better about your food. Peruse our food safety articles.  And be sure to use the Eat Well Guide to find safe meat in your area and support local farmers. You too can become the New Oxford American Dictionary’s 2007 word of the year –– "locavore," a term for a person who seeks out locally produced food.

We've been pretty busy over here at Food & Water Watch. As many of you have probably been following, a dangerous trend has started with states trying to take away labels that tell consumers whether or not dairy products have been produced with rBGH, a genetically engineered growth hormone. This attempt to make it illegal for dairies to label their milk as rBGH–Free started in Pennsylvania, and has been followed by New Jersey, Ohio and Indiana. 

Well, due to tens of thousands of emails, faxes, and phone calls from our activists around the country, we’ve stopped this trend dead in its tracks, with victories in three of the four states, with our most recent victory coming Tuesday!

Indiana representative Bill Friend introduced a bill that would have made the rBGH–Free labels illegal, and last week the vote passed out of committee with unanimous approval. This is when we heard about the bill, and set our activist network into action. Through our activists, and the joint efforts of many allies and organizations on the ground, as of this week every member of the Indiana General Assembly had been contacted by their constituents!  It was this effort, which turned the tide from what seemed like a grim situation last week, to a victory today, when Representative Friend pulled his bill, saying he,  "didn't want to cry over spilled milk."  This was met with audible cheers from folks on the floor, who knew they had fought for consumers and won. I think we can attribute this victory to the amazing grass roots pressure we were able to mount over the last week. So while this may not be the last we’ll see of these bills,  we've held Indiana for another day!

On January 17th, we had a similar victory, when Governor Rendell of Pennsylvania announced the state was rescinding an earlier rule that would have forced dairies to stop labeling their milk as rBGH–Free by February 1, 2008. Citing once again the overwhelming consumer opposition to this rule. Even earlier in the month the State of New Jersey announced at a milk hearing that they would not pursue limiting these labels on dairy products.

The bottom line is consumers have a right to know what’s in their food, and dairies have a right to tell them.  Consumers overwhelmingly want more labeling not less, so it’s unwise for any state or elected official to try to take these labels away. While Ohio is still on the fence, we hope that they’re learning from the trend of consumer milk labeling victories that are sweeping the nation, and until they make a decision, our dedicated consumer activists will continue to keep the pressure on.

You can do your part by contacting your State Governor, and asking them to protect consumers’ right to know.

So the FDA has officially declared the meat and milk from cloned animals to be safe for consumption. But what’s this? USDA is urging the industry to continue a voluntary moratorium on sales of milk or meat from cloned animals.  Could they possibly have our best interests at heart (read food safety)? Not really. This delay is all about marketing transitions, allowing we the consumer to get used to the idea of ingesting frankenburgers (that won’t be required to be labeled. …) And they neglected to ask for the moratorium to apply to milk or meat from the offspring of clones. 

Besides, there are economic reasons, too. Consider the cost of creating a clone: $10,000 to $20,000 per cow. That’s a lot more expensive than ordinary cows, which is why producers will likely use clones’ offspring for meat instead.

And yet, ethical and health concerns remain. Studies of cloned animals detail very low survival rates; the success rate of live, healthy animals through the cloning process is less than 5%. And at this time, there is little scientific information on the effects of eating meat or drinking milk from cloned animals or their offspring.  But the FDA says not to worry, since in their words most cloned animals seem to “grow out” of the problems they experience early in life.  Feeling reassured yet?

The good news is that some big companies like Dean Foods Co. and Hormel Foods Corp. have said they will not sell milk or meat from cloned animals due to consumer anxiety. Which makes business sense because in a recent industry survey, 62% of consumers said they would be “very unlikely” or “somewhat unlikely” to buy animal products from cloned animals anyway.  And since the government won’t require food from cloned animals to be labeled, food companies that are worried about a consumer backlash are going to have to declare themselves clone–free.

Last Friday, our Senators were unsuccessful in trying to force a vote on the Farm Bill. This leaves the Farm Bill languishing until after the Thanksgiving Holiday, along with our priorities on country-of-origin labeling, competition, and factory farms. Here's hoping that Senators will be able to get their act together, and finally vote on the Farm Bill when they return.

But in the meantime, while you’re basting that turkey, we thought we’d give you something to digest during one of the biggest feasts of the year.

A few of our staff hosted an early Thanksgiving dinner, and invited friends to bring dishes made with local foods. There were many great dishes, and we decided to savor them forever in this cool film. We know you’re still cooking, so why not watch our film about local foods, and get a few ideas for your own local holiday dinner.

So go ahead and decrease your food miles this holiday season. Buying local helps reduce global warming, and supports farmers and local economies. While we work nationally to create a healthy and safe food system, we can take small steps locally, starting with purchasing local food from farmers and farmers markets. To find a market near you, check out the Eat Well Guide. While you're at it, take a moment to learn more about the importance of decreasing your fossil fuel usage in Climate Change: It's What's for Dinner and Fossil Fuels and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Industrial Agriculture.

Creative Commons Licensed Flickr Photo
Originally uploaded by su-lin.

It seems that our meat is getting a botox treatment of sorts, and turning back the clock on aging. But would you want to eat meat that looks like it’s three days old, when in fact it might be five weeks old? How about two YEARS old?

At a congressional hearing on Tuesday, meat producers, government officials, and consumer groups––including Food & Water Watch––testified in front of a panel examining the process of treating meat and fish with carbon monoxide (CO) that makes products look fresher than they really are. Congressman Stupak even brought in ground beef that was two years old, treated with carbon monoxide, and still as red as the day it was processed.

But, unlike good, old-fashioned meat not treated with carbon monoxide that begins to naturally turn brown after approximately 10 to 12 days, carbon monoxide-treated meat artificially retains its red color and masks spoilage even when improperly stored for weeks at a time. (Eeeewh.) Turns out that it’s all about convincing shoppers to judge a book by its cover, or in this case, a food by its color.

But consumers are able to tell the difference… right?

Think again. According to a poll conducted in 2006, 63% of adults believed that “the freshness of meat is directly related to the color of the meat.” Even worse, CO-treated meat is not required to be labeled.

At least some supermarket chains such as Giant Foods, Stop & Shop, and Safeway have announced they will voluntarily stop carrying CO-treated meat products. Tyson Foods, the largest protein processor in the country, has also announced they will stop using carbon monoxide in its packaging systems. Hopefully, others will soon follow.

For now, if your meat smells bad and looks slimey… better toss it.

Better yet, contact your Member of Congress, and tell them to support H.R. 3115, which would require all meat, poultry and seafood products treated with CO to carry a safety notice informing consumers that the product has been treated and its freshness should not be judged by its color.

- Erin Greenfield
email • bio

Three little news items from this week to inform and amuse:

1. That "offshore aquaculture in Gulf of Mexico 'may yield economic distress"'" won't surprise you if you've been following our work on the issue.

2. What might is that law enforcement has been enlisted to recapture escaped culinary (though not biological) relatives of farmed fish as we discovered in the same issue of FishUpdate.com where we found our news story above. Saucy crayfish.

3. A compromise on the before-mentioned controversy over allowing interstate shipment of state inspected meat has been announced and would be a victory for producers and consumers alike.  Read the coalition press statement and letter here.

Drive a hundred miles away from Chicago, Illinois and you could easily find yourself in another state.  Conscientious supporters of local food trying to adhere to a 100 mile diet could easily find themselves buying from small farmers in Wisconsin, Ohio, or Michigan.  It seems crazy then that those farmers couldn't ship their meat into Chicago. But if the meat was processed by a plant that was inspected by state employees (instead of USDA inspectors) it cannot be sold across state lines.  And these frequently smaller state-inspected plans are often used by independent, small farmers.  Conundrum, no?

Enter Congress, the 2007 Farm Bill, and big, big controversy in the sustainable ag community.

Food & Water Watch has fought for years for stronger food safety standards, especially federal meat inspection.  We understand the obstacles that small livestock producers face in getting their animals to market and don’t want food safety rules to favor large companies over the little guy.  And like most people examining the current state of our food supply, we think it’s obvious that consumers would be better off if more sustainable, independent livestock producers could get their products into more markets.

BUT… we don’t support the measure in the farm bill to allow meat from plants that are inspected by state governments instead of the USDA to cross state lines.  Why?  Because as the language stands right now it would do far more damage than good.  There are several specific things in the bill that go way overboard and put consumer safety at risk:

•  The bill covers much more than “small” plants.  The bill would allow any meat plant with up to 50 employees under state inspection to ship its products across state lines.  This means that 80 percent of plants currently under USDA inspection could switch to state inspection.  Instead of creating a system for truly small producers and processors to have access to the marketplace, this proposal could radically change food safety requirements for 80 percent of the industry.
• The bill would let meat plants switch back and forth between state and federal inspection every 4 years.  Besides creating a logistical (and funding) nightmare for both the states and the feds, this opens the door for meat companies to “shop around” for more sympathetic regulators if they are having quality or safety problems.
• Not all state inspection programs are created equal – and not all of them are equal to USDA inspection.  Federal courts and investigators at the USDA have documented problems in several state programs that amount to their inspection being weaker than USDA's.  But rather than require each state to be evaluated individually to see if it is up to snuff, this bill would make all of them eligible for interstate shipment at the same time.

We need to find ways for small meat plants and the sustainable livestock producers they serve to get into more markets.  A great start would be by making sure that USDA had enough inspectors to get to every plant that needs inspection by filling vacant positions that have plagued the agency for years and possibly working cooperatively with states to use state employees to enforce federal standards (a wonky, but important, distinction from the farm bill proposal.)

The language in the farm bill might be well-intentioned, but it doesn’t get it right.  Tell them so here.

Welcome to Issue 16 of SnackCast.

Food recalls have been making headlines in the past two weeks –– specifically the ground beef recall from Topps Meat Company –– bringing into question the vulnerability of our food supply. This week we are joined by Patty Lovera, Assistant Director of Food & Water Watch, who will discuss our nation’s food safety and the weaknesses in our food system that led to the Topps Meat Company recall.

Subscribe in a reader

What happens to a nation's farmers when the amount of imported food doubles within 10 years? In the United States, the value of agricultural products coming from overseas soared from $30 billion in 1995 to $60 billion last year.

Larry Thompson’s family has grown strawberries in Boring, Oregon since 1947, when “five acres was all you needed to make a living.”  Today, imports from Mexico and Chile make turning a profit more difficult.

Last year, $220 million worth of strawberries were imported into the United States, and only $1.5 million were grown domestically. The low wages paid to farm workers abroad make imported berries cheaper. Thompson used to sell his berries to processors, but now with prices so low, he only sells directly to the public.

To grow strawberries today, “you have to love it,” says Thompson, who now works seven days or 96 hours a week to keep up.  Many farmers have given up the crop all together. If this trend continues, Oregonians could lose all access to local berries.

Food & Water Watch regularly profiles crops in crisis on our website and in our Food Alert newsletter.  To find out what you can do to protect local food, sign up for our email lists and tell Congress to expand country-of-origin-labeling.

Last week we bade farewell to Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns (flatteringly photographed to the right eating an irradiated mango from India) only to find he was being replaced by another big agribusiness champ, Chuck Conner.

Tom Philpott who writes for Grist and his own Bitter Greens Journal blogged on Connor's background in 2005.

From 1997 to 2001, Conner served as president of the Corn Refiners Association. ADM is the dominant corn refiner: As stated above, it buys 12 percent of all field corn grown in the US, the country's largest crop. And it controls a third of the high-fructose corn syrup market, and about a third of the market for ethanol. The corn-refining industry is so highly concentrated that the association has only seven member companies, among them ADM and another shadowy agri-giant, privately held Cargill.

- Bitter Greens Journal, April 2005

But Conner has been around.  Prior to his tenure with the corn refiners, Conner served as special assistant to the president for agricultural trade and Food Assistance in 2001 and was the lead player on the last farm bill.  In fact, Connor was also a key staff person over at the Senate when the horrendous 1996 farm bill was written.  For more on problems with ethanol and how the current farm subsidies structure benefits big ag at the expense of farmers, check out

• The Farm Bill: Food Policy in an Era of Corporate Power or Farm Bill 101
• The Rush to Ethanol: Not all BioFuels are Equal

Bottom line: Expect business as usual at USDA

do you think Wal-Mart? 

Yeah, we don't either.

Earlier this month, the Big Box Collaborative announced the release of “Wal-Mart Sustainability Initiative: A Civil Society Critique” written by 23 organizations and analyzing Wal-Mart's smoke in mirrors sustainability initiatives. This report calls on Wal-Mart to reframe their sustainability efforts so that workers, the environment and communities are all respected.  Here are a couple excerpts from the sections Food & Water Watch contributed:

Food Safety

Ultimately, food retailers like Wal-Mart need to pay producers a fair price for their products so our food supply is not coming entirely from the lowest cost producers in places with lax safety standards and no labor protections.

Sustainable Seafood

In 2006, Wal-Mart announced that is was dedicated to selling only sustainable seafood in North American stores within three to five years. . . . The company’s foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, is funding Conservation International, which is collaborating with Wal-Mart and the [Marine Stewardship Council] to develop standards for sustainably sourced seafood. The reality is that it is impossible within the  big-box model that Wal-Mart operates.

Read more about Wal-Mart and organics, illegal logging, toxic toys, and other critical issues or find out about the Big Box Collaborative international day of action here.