Blog Posts: June 2012

By Walker Foley

“On behalf of the department, we’re delighted to share our 150 years as part of this Folklife Festival. 150 years. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it’s our birthday.”

That was USDA Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Kathleen Merrigan as she welcomed onlookers to the Smithsonian Folklife Festival on the Mall yesterday afternoon. I was there alongside other Food & Water Watch staff, coalition partners – the National Consumers League, the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards and the American Federation of Government Employees – and a dozen helpful interns. We had heard the USDA planned to give a food safety demonstration for the average consumer, and couldn’t help but enjoy the irony accompanying their demonstration. 

As the Food & Water Watch savvy already know, the USDA has been pursuing a pilot program for little over a decade that purports to cut meaningful food safety inspection out of the budget, and out of poultry plants all over the United States. We decided it best to inform the crowd by handing out an abridged version of a recent LA Times editorial, aptly retitled by the Arizona Daily Star, “New US approach to poultry safety isn’t safe at all.” USDA organizers did not appreciate our efforts, and didn’t hesitate to tell us – more on that in a moment.

Merrigan’s speech glossed over the USDA’s mission statement, and gave a brief history of the USDA from its inception in 1862 to the present. However, one statement struck a poor chord and, had we not flyered the entire audience, may have gone unnoticed.

“We create jobs and economic opportunity in the nation’s rural communities. We help keep America’s food safe,” she said. But her words fell short of the truth, as the USDA’s new approach to poultry inspection would do just the opposite – eliminate jobs of skilled USDA food safety inspectors (about 800 of them) and increase conveyor line speeds. With fewer inspectors and faster birds, the process begs for higher rates of contamination. 

Shortly after Merrigan’s speech USDA workers gave a food safety demonstration in a specially-zoned area of the Mall. This was a no-free-speech zone, where we were not allowed to give flyers to participants. We quickly found ourselves directed out of the enclosure (a three foot mesh fence) by USDA event organizers. But the damage was done. We had already put a flyer in the hand of every participant.

If you would like to wish the USDA a happy 150th birthday, then call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard – 202-224-3121 – to be connected with your Senators and Representative. Let them know you don’t support this unsafe approach to the nation’s poultry production. 

By Ron Zucker

When we talk about cap-and-trade systems, one of the most striking flaws is its reliance on credits, buying allowances from unregulated sectors to allow polluters to continue to pump their sludge into the environment. We’ve pointed out that they are unverified and unrelated to the pollution problem we’re trying to address.

But a Maryland man clearly thinks we were understating the problem. It’s not enough for credits to be kind of fake. He wanted to make sure they were actually fake.

Rodney Halley has been convicted of selling $9 million worth of fake biodiesel credits to commodity brokers and oil companies. Now, you might wonder if this was a case of overselling his work, or of double counting. That would speak well of your faith in humanity. Unfortunately, if you’re of the Panglossian view, it’s misplaced faith.

Mr. Halley, in fact, produced NO biodiesel. He simply sold paper credits. Mr. Halley had a unique defense. He didn’t deny that he sold fake renewable credits. He simply claimed that there was no fraud because the buyers knew that the credits were fake! Read the full article…

By Kate Fried

Like leg warmers and Grunge, Where’s Waldo was an inescapable phenomenon for many who came of age during the 80s and 90s. I probably don’t need to remind you that these books featured colorful, detailed illustrations designed to trick the reader’s eye from finding the eponymous Waldo, hiding in plain site in his signature striped red shirt and round eye glasses. Where’s Waldo? He’s everywhere.

Another person who seems to be everywhere these days, hiding in plain sight, is Professor Timothy Considine, director of the University of Wyoming’s Center for Energy Economics & Public Policy and president of Natural Resource Economics, Inc. Considine is notable within the debate over fracking because he is the author of a number of studies that exaggerate and promote the so-called economic benefits of the process. In other words, he’s the oil and gas industry’s go-to guy when they need a little research to distract the public from the ways in which fracking negatively affects public health, rural economies and the environment.

Open up an “academic” study that finds value in fracking and chances are, Considine was either somehow involved, or influential. In fact, the Public Accountability Initiative (PAI) just published an interesting study highlighting exactly how central Considine is to the oil and gas industry’s propaganda machine.

As disturbing as it is, the symbiosis between the academy and corporations isn’t really news. But what is noteworthy is how, if you look closely, you’ll find Considine behind the scenes in so many of the industry’s spin jobs. Since 2009 he’s written or been linked to several pro-fracking studies published by Penn State, the American Petroleum Institute, the Manhattan Institute, the Wyoming Mining Association and the University at Buffalo Shale Resources and Society Institute to name a few.

A number of studies have debunked Considine’s key points, revealing his body of work to be a house of cards. Somehow his fuzzy math always makes fracking look better than it actually is for the economy. Waldo’s glasses are clear, but Considine’s are obviously rose-tinted.

The role of universities should not be to validate corporate rhetoric, and slapping an academic seal of approval over faulty research doesn’t make it accurate. Ultimately, partnerships such as the ones between Considine and the oil and gas industry undermine the value of all information generated by scholars.

By Katherine Boehrer

In Colorado, drought conditions and the worst wildfire season in a decade have brought renewed focus on water budgeting in the state. A new report by Western Resource Advocates (WRA) highlights community concerns about the impact of fracking on Colorado’s water supply. The study found that water used in one year for new oil and gas development throughout the state could supply the entire population of Lakewood, the fourth-largest city in Colorado.

Though oil and gas companies often point out that water used for fracking is a small percentage of that used for agriculture and municipal purposes statewide, in certain counties it can be much more. According to the report, in Weld County, water used for new oil and gas drilling operations equaled between one-third and two-thirds of domestic and public water use in 2011.

Weld County and other area farmers now face extreme water shortages from ongoing drought conditions, requiring them to remove hundreds of acres from production. Nearby cities can’t help because many have already auctioned off all of the water they had allotted for sale to agricultural users and oil and gas companies. Read the full article…

By Wenonah Hauter

Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter

Late last week, the Senate passed its version of the Farm Bill – the sprawling legislation that dictates what and how we eat. From the perspective of consumer protection and leveling the playing field for small and midsized family farmers, the Senate bill does little to address the problems of consolidation and anti-competitive business practices that plague our food system.

Although the Senate bill made changes to commodity policy that will be touted as reform, the bill reinforced prior farm policies that favor large industrial-scale agriculture and overproduction of commodity crops like corn and soybeans. Only a few companies sell what farmers need (like seeds, fertilizer and tractors) and only a few firms buy what farmers raise, which means they pay more for supplies and get less for their crops and livestock. The four largest companies in each industry slaughter nearly all the beef, process two-thirds of the pork, sell half the groceries and process about half the milk in the United States. Read the full article…

Nature? Priceless.

By Mitch Jones

With the failure of governments to provide a vision for sustainability at Rio+20, some environmental leaders are looking to other stakeholders—mainly the private sector—to develop a green economy. But we know that corporations are, by nature, profit-seeking entities, and when you bring them to the table at a multilateral forum, they will come representing their shareholders—to whom they have a fiduciary responsibility. But with government leaders like Barack Obama and David Cameron AWOL at Rio, who was representing the rest of us and the planet?

Hopefully not guys like Robert Johnson, executive director of the Institute on New Economic Thinking. Here’s what he said at a recent event at Bard College, which was also posted on Andrew Revkin’s Dot Earth blog:

Water and air are priced at zero…. On the other hand, if you cut off my air and water I would be willing to pay to get it turned back on. So there’s something amiss in a theory of value that doesn’t value these common resources, the common pool on which we all base our lives. Read the full article…

By Seth Gladstone

For the polluting natural gas drillers and corporate lobbyist hucksters that have come under his exposing lens, the investigative filmmaker Josh Fox has become a primary target. Since his 2010 documentary film Gasland opened the eyes of an uninformed nation (and Academy Awards nominators) to the horrific realities of hydraulic fracturing (fracking), the fossil fuel industry has recognized the threat Fox poses to its bottom line. That’s why it set about disparaging Fox and denying the conditions exposed in Gasland immediately upon the film’s release. But thankfully, Fox wasn’t deterred by the personal attacks and outrageous claims made against his work. He’s back, and in his latest anti-fracking expose, he’s honed his message for an audience of one: Governor Andrew Cuomo.

The Sky is Pink, Fox’s 18-minute short film released last week, is a concise and timely update on the battle against fracking that has been waged by countless families for years, and on the latest efforts of the gas industry to misinform the public and community leaders on the issue. But its focus is squarely on the latest front in the fight: New York State. As the Cuomo administration publically ponders a fracking future for the state, Fox uses his punchy, fact-driven piece to update the public – and one key governor – on how the debate has evolved and what real science and data on the issue actually tell us.

Read the full article…

By Patty Lovera

Patty Lovera, Assistant Director of Food & Water Watch

Today the Senate passed the 2012 farm bill, by a vote of 64 to 35. Lots of the votes against the bill came from southern senators who don’t like changes made in the commodity crop programs in the bill, which shifted many crops more heavily into crop insurance instead of government commodity programs.

Overall, this version of the farm bill amounts to a missed opportunity to tackle the root problem in our food system: consolidation and corporate control. The leadership of the Senate did not allow important amendments on antitrust issues, like one that would have banned meatpacker ownership of livestock, from being considered.

The last two amendments we were paying particular attention to today both failed. The debate on the amendment by Senators Sanders and Boxer (S. Amdt. 2310) to allow states to require labeling of genetically engineered foods was long overdue. This amendment received 26 votes with 73 Senators voting against it. Obviously, there’s much more work to be done to ensure our right to know what we’re eating, but the fact that this amendment initiated a debate on the Senate floor is a solid step in the right direction.

And finally, common sense prevailed as Senator Toomey’s amendment that would exempt community water systems from a requirement to mail drinking water consumer confidence reports (S. Amdt. 2247) FAILED. Food & Water Watch opposed this amendment.

The next step in the process is for the House to work on their version of the farm bill. The House Agriculture Committee is scheduled to begin work on the Farm Bill on July 11.

Watch a video explaining the financialization of nature.

By Darcey O’Callaghan and Gabriella Zanzanaini

The distance between the official UN Conference on Sustainable Development (or CSD, where heads of state, corporate stakeholders and NGOs convened this week) and the People’s Summit (an official venue for grassroots solutions) mandated between a one and two and a half-hour commute, which prohibited any meaningful dialogue between the two spaces. There were—literally and figuratively—several mountains between the two summits.

The final text for heads of state to consider makes no commitments, as evidenced by word counts. “We will” was used five times whereas “we support” was used 99 times.

It was continuously stated by the U.S., Canada, and other powerful countries that this is “not a pledging conference,” thus setting the tone for negotiations throughout the week and lowering expectations for outcomes. Read the full article…

By Patty Lovera

Patty Lovera, Assistant Director of Food & Water Watch

Today the Senate continued to plow through amendments to the farm bill, a process that started yesterday. As we mentioned earlier, out of almost 300 amendments introduced, 73 were on the list to get a vote and several of these would make the bill stronger while some would make it significantly weaker.

By the end of the day, here’s where things stood with the six amendments we think are particularly important: Read the full article…