Give Walmart An Earful -- Tell Them to Reject Monsanto GE Corn

Walmart’s customer service got so overloaded with calls from Food & Water Watch activists this morning — their phone lines got temporarily shut down. We can see why. In just two hours, activists from the VERY committed Food & Water Watch supporter list got busy calling Walmart — over 900 times in just two hours.

Walmart was able to restore its telephone service and our activists are continuing towards our goal of 2000 calls in this National Call-in Day to fight genetically engineered (GE) sweet corn.

Customer service representatives report that they are getting a lot of calls on this issue. It’s no surprise. People don’t want GE corn. Here’s why:

• Genetically engineered sweet corn will not be labeled, so you won’t know what you’re buying.
• Monsanto’s GE sweet corn hasn’t been tested for human safety.
• Monsanto’s GE sweet corn contains three different genetically engineered traits that have never been used in food eaten directly by people.
• GE corn threatens organic food and farming.
• GE corn production increases the use of dangerous chemicals.

Give Walmart an earful of activism (instead of corn!). It’s so easy to do, even people on Facebook are talking about it. Call now to help us reach 2,000 calls by 5:00 PM EST.

If you’ve already taken action, take a breather — for now. There will be plenty to do in the coming weeks on this important food safety issue. Meanwhile entertain yourself with the antics of Big Box Mama and GE Seed King. It’s not like any Food & Water Watch campaign you’ve seen before.

The new year has brought two significant developments for GM crops in the EU. BASF has pulled all R&D aimed at European markets and moved their operations to the U.S., and Monsanto has pulled sales of their GM MON810 maize from France.

BASF’s GM crop prospects in Europe suffered a serious blow in 2010 when the first ever planting of its flagship Amflora GM potato, designed to produce industrial starch, had to be destroyed when it emerged the seed stock was contaminated with an unauthorised GM potato. Caching up with what Europeans have known all along, a BASF spokesperson was reported to say, “It does not make business sense to continue investing in products exclusively for cultivation in this market.” The company clearly thinks it will have better luck selling its GM food in the U.S. — where there are no labels to tell consumers what they are buying.

Monsanto’s withdrawal of MON810 was more of a surprise. After all, the company had recently won a case at the EU Court of Justice against the ongoing French ban on cultivation. The French Government vowed to correct its administrative oversights and reinstate the ban, and Monsanto must have felt it wasn’t worth the fight – or perhaps didn’t want the renewed scrutiny of the crop the French would ignite so decided on a tactical retreat.

Either way Europeans are a step or two closer to the GM-free food and farming we want. Now all we have to do is clean up the problems the limited GM crops we’ve already grown and still causing for people like beekeepers.

Learn more about GMOs in Europe.

Move Over Perez Hilton, Take a Walk TMZ - There' a New Tattler in Town

By Maria Tchijov

First there was Bennifer. Then came Brangelina and TomKat. Now the latest “it” couple is Walsanto. And we’ve got the inside scoop you want on their budding romance.

Sure, this isn’t something you expect to hear from us here at Food & Water Watch, but even we like to do a little celebrity stalking every once in a while — especially if said celebrities are none other than Walmart and Monsanto, the stars of our current campaign. Check out their unfolding love story on our favorite new gossip site, Walsanto Watch!

It turns out that Monsanto is seeking a retail “mate” to sell his latest science experiment, GE sweet corn, and make his fortune doing it. After being turned down by Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods and General Mills, he is setting his sights on the industrial food darling Walmart.

Will she be convinced that his affection (and pocketbook) is enough, or will he once again be left alone with nothing but his GE sweet corn to keep him company? “Like” the Walsanto Watch Facebook page to keep up with the latest developments in this sordid love story.

Over the next two months, we’ll keep working hard to prevent Monsanto’s GE sweet corn from reaching Walmart’s shelves. But, while we’re organizing call-in days and collecting petitions in the field, we’ll also be using social media to raise awareness about the campaign.

Thanks for joining in the fun!

Unless you’ve been ignoring all forms of media recently, you’re no doubt aware of the Komen Foundation’s little snafu around funding for Planned Parenthood. Following a barrage of bad PR and a backlash in social media they eventually reversed their decision. What made this flip-flop possible of course was the mass outcry that emanated from the general public, aka the grassroots.

We here at Food & Water Watch know a thing or two about the possibilities for social change that can be realized when a major news development ignites people to take action on an issue that matters to them. That is after all, what we do—we organize the voices of concerned citizens into movements to protect our shared essential resources, improving all of our lives as a result.

When people ask me what I like most about working for Food & Water Watch, I don’t tell them I’m in it for the reusable water bottles, although that is a nice perk. Instead, I usually tell them, tongue firmly planted in cheek, that being a part of our work satisfies my innate need to fight “the man.” Of course I’m joking, but you get the gist of what I mean. While activism is sometimes dismissed as soap boxing, people like you and me do have the ability to change bad policies. The Komen controversy reminds us of that, but it’s nothing new. If you’re reading this, you may have played a role in some of the victories that Food & Water Watch has achieved over the past few years such as convincing Starbucks to stop using milk produced with artificial growth hormones, halting several bottled water plants throughout the United States and passing dozens of local measures against hydraulic fracturing, just to name a few.  

The fact is, grassroots activism works. So the next time you’ve turned off the evening news in a fit of depression at the state of the world and its leadership, don’t just get sad and move to Canada— do something.

Case in point— you can join Walsanto Watch, our new campaign exposing Walmart’s flirtation with Monsanto GE sweet corn, which will be unfolding on Facebook and Twitter over the coming weeks. Meanwhile, we’ll still be right here, doing what we’ve always done—keeping you abreast of the latest efforts to protect our most essential resources, and giving you ways to get involved too. Keep up the good work.

By Kate Fried

While I’ve been writing about water privatization for almost four years now, it sometimes still seems to me like an extremely abstract issue. Sure, I know that private water companies tend to raise consumer rates, scrimp on customer service, and downsize their work forces. But how often do I meet consumers who have been personally affected by the problems inflicted by private water companies? Not terribly often. Yes, perhaps I should get out more.

Therefore, when a series of emails floated through my inbox detailing some of the frustrations that customers of Aqua America and its subsidiaries have encountered in recent months, my attention was piqued because they connected the problems of privatization to actual humans. Join me as I introduce you to a few of them and their water woes.

Meet Ruby Williams. Ms. Williams, a 78-year-old Aqua Pennsylvania customer, gained nation attention not long ago for being hit with a $40,000 water bill after a leak left her plumbing lines gushing more water than it takes to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool. The leak occurred on the side of her water line that Aqua Pennsylvania does not claim responsibility for, so instead of offering solutions for resolving it, they sent her a bill that rivaled the cost of tuition at a private university and offered to set her up on an installment plan. Only after Ms. Williams’ situation garnered national media attention, and only after a county social services agency began collecting donations to help her pay her bill did the company agree to reduce her bill to hundreds of dollars instead of tens of thousands.  

Now meet the Price family of Stallings, North Carolina. Aqua North Carolina recently cut off their wastewater service despite the fact that they had paid their bill, and then demanded $1000 to restore it. According to state regulators, the actual cost should have been $645–still a hefty price, but about a third less than what Aqua asked. Luckily, the state intervened, and the company restored their service at no charge. An investigation is now underway.

Finally, meet the residents of Newlin Greene, a subdivision of Newlin Township in Chester County, Pennsylvania. Residents there are facing a drinking water bill increase less than a year after their provider Aqua Pennsylvania raised sewer rates by 60 percent. They are already paying nearly $2000 a year for sewer service on average, and if the company gets it way, they will ending up paying more than $1000 a year for water service. That’s a total of about $3000 a year for water and sewer service.  Ouch.

Not long ago, presidential contender Mitt Romney opined “corporations are people,” but the experience of these Aqua America subsidiary customers suggests that some corporations are not people who should be trusted with our valuable water resources, nor should they necessarily be invited into our homes. After all, what would you do if your life and your wallet were turned inside out by one of these companies?

Crossposted from Ecocentric

by Chris Hunt

Download the podcast.

When I first met Carole Morison in 2006, she and her family operated an industrial poultry facility on the Delmarva Peninsula where they’d been raising chickens under contract with agri-giant, Perdue, for two decades.  In her spare time, Carole was an outspoken critic of factory farming, a staunch advocate for farmworkers’ rights and an effective organizer intent on exposing the ills of the industrial livestock production system in which she was so deeply involved.

Purdue couldn’t stand Carole.  I liked her immediately.

It was clear to me from the start that Carole wasn’t a follow-the-crowd sort of person; indeed, she demonstrates the classic characteristics that make the American farmer great: fierce independence combined with a strong dedication to community, a steadfast commitment to justice and the unwavering resolve to voice her beliefs.

In 2008, Carole was featured prominently in Food, Inc. In it, she described her experience as a contract poultry producer, telling one of the most compelling – and heart-wrenching – stories included in the landmark film.  The same year, Purdue terminated the Morisons’ contract, leaving them with empty single-purpose industrial poultry barns in which they’d already invested hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The American farmer has always been known for the ability to solve problems through prudence, resourcefulness and innovation – and Carole Morison is no exception.  Ultimately, she and her husband repurposed one of their old industrial chicken barns and transitioned the facility into a humane, sustainable farm for laying hens.

But the American farmer has always been known for ingenuity and the ability to solve problems through prudence, resourcefulness and innovation – and Carole Morison is no exception.  Ultimately, she and her husband repurposed one of their old industrial chicken barns and transitioned the facility into a humane, sustainable farm for laying hens.  The fruit of their labor, Bird’s Eye View Farm, was recently certified as the first Animal Welfare Approved farm on the Delmarva Peninsula.

An effective shift from the industrial food system of the past to the sustainable model of the future will require widespread implementation of exactly this sort of agricultural transition. Ultimately, Carole’s is a story of hope and triumph, not just for the Morisons and sustainable food advocates, but for all of us.

In this Our Heroes podcast, Carole discusses her own transition to sustainable agriculture, the challenges currently facing other industrial producers hoping to make similar transitions, the impact of her involvement in Food, Inc.and the joys of raising Rhode Island Red hens.

Listen to the 34-minute interview by clicking on the audio player (above left), download as a podcast or read a PDF transcript. Find an excerpt from the interview below.

You can learn more about Carole’s transition to sustainable egg production (along with her outstanding insights into the food system) by reading her blog, Food for Thought.

Q: For those who are unfamiliar with the poultry industry and with your involvement in it, can you give us some background?

We raised chickens under contract for an international corporation for 23 years.  It was industrial production… I married into it. When I first started, I was under the impression that that’s the only way you raise chickens. Throughout the adventure of raising the chickens under contract, it became more and more evident that there were a lot of things wrong with the whole system of industrial production. And that kind of led me to speak out about the industry practices… I didn’t like what we were doing, and chickens were like a number. We just counted flock after flock of chickens.

So that led me to speak out about things: environmental issues, public health issues, worker issues. I mean, the industry is just rampant with all kinds of issues and it’s a system that I finally came to understand is not sustainable. I think the biggest problem is that there is no care about how the animals are raised, how they go to market, just as long as we mass produce. There is no concern for the farmers, or the workers, or their welfare; they’re just another cog in the wheel that’s going to move these chickens to market… And to me, it’s driven by greed. The corporations that dominate the industry, their bottom line is the dollar, and nothing else matters… There were really no scruples or morals within when it pertained to anything. I think that’s what bothered me the most, was the lack of care for anything.

Q: How did you make the transition from industrial farming to sustainable?

Between 2010 and 2011, I had the opportunity to see a lot of different ways of farming. And you know, it started giving me ideas. Well, maybe we could do this on the farm, or maybe we could do that on the farm. We wanted to do meat – chicken, pasture raised. However, the infrastructure here on the Delmarva Peninsula doesn’t exist to support independent production; everything is owned by industry… So then we came up with the idea of laying hens. There is not a lot to the processing; we do everything right here on the farm. And transportation – we’re working that out now; we’re going to piggyback with someone who is hauling another load to where our market is. And that way we can cut down on costs.

We were able to retool one of the chicken houses using some of the equipment that was already in there. The major thing was taking off the curtains that were on the sides; they were what they call “dark-out curtains,” which made everything inside really dark. So we took them off and put clear on so the chickens have fresh sunlight and air all the time, unless it’s really cold out. But they still have the sunlight with the clear curtains, which I love.

And we cut access doors so that the chickens could roam in and out freely as they want to during the day. We do put them up at night for predator control; we have a lot of foxes here. So yeah; it was fairly simple. First I kind of looked at it as a real daunting task, but it was fairly simple to do.

Q: Do you get the sense that there are many other industrial producers who would like to make a similar transition?

Definitely…We’ve already had farmers come to visit individually and take a look at what we’re doing. Yes, there’re definitely farmers out there who would like to get out of the system they’re in. And right now they’re stuck simply because, like I mentioned earlier, there’s no infrastructure to help the independent farmer or that the independent farmer can use. There’re no government programs that the farmer can go through to get up and running, and there’re just a whole lot of roadblocks there.

Q: How did the experience of being featured in Food, Inc. affect you and your work?

I think it made me seek out answers instead of always pointing out the problems. For a long time, even before Food, Inc., I worked on problems within the poultry industry, whether they were environmental, worker related, public health, whatever. However, after Food, Inc. and being in touch with so many different people around the country, it was kind of like, well, yeah, there’re problems there; they are not going away. But let’s see if we can’t find some solutions that will give both farmers and consumers choices, instead of being stuck in one system of producing food.

Q: What can people do to support sustainable chicken production and sustainable egg production in the US?

I think the biggest thing that people can do is to support their local farmer – your small farmer who is producing locally… And when you’re in the grocery store, if they are not carrying a product, talk to the manager in the grocery store and ask, “Why not?” Or say you’d like to see that product on the shelf. Consumer demand is what’s going to be the ultimate drive…  And without the support from the community and the consumers, it’s not going to happen. That’s just point blank the way I see it…

The biggest thing that I’m hearing from potential buyers is that the supply can’t meet the demand. They need more farmers; they need more people producing food to be able to carry the local foods. So we need to find farmers. And I think there’re more and more people who are doing it, getting into it on a smaller basis. You can produce a lot on five acres, believe it or not. It doesn’t take hundreds or thousands of acres to be able to do it. So I just think that we’re going to see it moving forward, rapidly.

See Our Video: The Washington Burger and Tell Obama: Protect Our Food Safety

“I will not back down from … making sure that our food is safe and our water is clean.”

This quote from President Obama’s State of the Union speech last week expresses the very reason Food & Water Watch exists. It’s great to hear that the President supports our mission in such forceful terms. But when it comes to putting those words into action, he has room for improvement. Food inspection independent of corporate control is under attack by this administration, and frankenfoods are green-lighted. Food & Water Watch pushes back on these issues and we have had successes against a food industry that lobbies for profits over food safety. Public pressure on legislators and the administration is making a difference and we can turn the tide against these dangerous practices that the public does not want.

But the public’s need for clean water is another issue entirely. That’s colliding with the ultra-powerful fossil-fuel industry and their number one profit scheme for the 21st century — fracking. This is what the President had to say: “We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly one hundred years, and my Administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade.”

This quote could have come from an energy company TV commercial. The President made no reference to ground water contamination or earthquakes or the problems of fracking fluid disposal. And we know the fossil fuel industry has overestimated job creation from fracking. The environmental toll and health risks are glossed over by industry just as they were glossed over in this speech. The public is opposed to fracking, but it will take a massive outcry to counter industry pressure.

You may have already signed this petition, but now you can get it to other people who already oppose fracking and to people who need to know the truth. This will be a long and tough fight, but with enough support, we can win this together.

Parting thoughts:

The director of our water program, Emily Wurth, also had some thoughts on the SOTU speech.

Until next week,

Lane Brooks
Chief Operating Officer
Food & Water Watch
See my recent messages

Last week’s State of the Union Address found President Obama bragging about how few regulations he had implemented as president and how much support he’s going to continue offer the private sector. This sounds an awful lot like business as usual for the White House—promoting innovation at any cost, no matter the impact on human health and the environment. 

Case in point: nanomaterials. 

The National Research Council (NRC) released a long report last week identifying major gaps in environmental, health and safety research of nanomaterials. Its conclusion: “Despite the promise of nanotechnology…the future of safe and sustainable nanotechnology-based materials, products, and processes is uncertain.” 

This warning follows a growing body of science demonstrating potential dangers associated with nanomaterials—a new class of chemicals developed through shrinking the particle sizes of existing elements, like carbon and silver. Turns out that changing the size of particles radically changes their behavior, properties and risks.

Corporations have blithely embraced nanomaterials as the next big thing, embedding them in everything from cutting boards to cosmetics to food itself. Unregulated, unmonitored and unlabeled, these nanomaterials may be lurking in your own home.

More than 50 scientists collaborated on the NRC report, which highlights a lack of public knowledge about how nanomaterials are being used by industry. The report also underlines the need for more and better science on how to monitor and test the safety of these materials. 

The report identifies a serious gap – missing research on the effects of ingested nanomaterials on human health. Food processors are using nanomaterials in an attempt to tinker with the color and nutritional content of food (like shrinking fat molecules of cream used in ice cream) and to preserve and package it (like coating fresh produce with a thin nano-wax to keep it fresh). 

The scope of nanomaterials in our food system is unknown. Even the National Organic Program, which sets the rules that govern the USDA organic label, is having an ongoing debate about whether food processors should be allowed to use nanomaterials.

The NRC is calling for the U.S. government to spend an additional $24 million a year for the next five years to fill in some critical gaps in environmental, health and safety data. This relatively small expenditure of money could yield important information that could help policy makers and regulators understand the behavior of nanomaterials, according to the NRC.

But understanding the risks is only part of the problem. We also need rules and regulations that protect consumers from these risks. The regulations that do exist for chemicals aren’t being rigorously applied to nanomaterials and are largely ill-equipped to do so. We need new rules to address these new risks.

The NRC has identified a clear need for more science and more understanding of nanoparticles, noting the possible dangers they pose to human health and the environment. In the absence of information regarding the danger of nanomaterials, government cannot simply give industry a free pass to do as it pleases. This appears especially germane to nanomaterials, which are often needlessly embedded in consumer products as a marketing gimmick. Check out this nano-silver fridge. Do we really need a nano-pesticide touching all of our food? 

READ the Food & Water Watch report on nanotechnology here.

Download the Food & Water Watch report on nanotechnology here.