Blog Posts: July 2012

By Hannah Scott

Click here to learn more about Take Back the Tap.

One of Coca-Cola’s lead representatives to the Olympics was quoted as laughing while saying that he hopes for a hot a sunny summer with “lots of thirsty people.” But spectators at the Summer Olympics will not have to rely on Coca-Cola’s Abbey Well for their hydration needs, as there is another water resource available to consumers: tap water.

It began in 2008 when Tom Brake, an Olympics spokesperson and London Member of Parliament, actively worked to ensure that the Olympic organizers would provide tap water to spectators and athletes. “Everyone wants the 2012 Games to be the most sustainable on record. That must mean free non-bottled water for all visitors to the Games,” he said. That same year, Olympic organizers confirmed that tap water would be available to spectators and athletes of the Games.

London, however, is not the first city to provide attendees of Olympic Events free tap water. When Vancouver hosted the Winter Olympics in 2010, spectators were encouraged to enjoy tap water instead of purchasing bottled water.  (We heard a little rumor that Coca-Cola was upset about having to compete with tap water, despite claiming they did not see tap water as competition.) 

Although spectators will not be permitted to bring in bottles of liquid exceeding 100 mL (about 3.4 fluid ounces), or “excessive food,” due to security regulations, an empty reusable water bottle will be allowed. So instead of having to waste £1.60 (roughly $2.50) on a bottle of water, spectators can enjoy tap water from designated filling stations. 

We encourage all spectators and athletes to take advantage of the free water, and to bring their reusable water bottles to take back the tap in London. 

Hannah Scott is a Food & Water Watch summer water research and policy intern and a senior at American University.

By Wenonah Hauter

John Fenton from Pavilion, Wyo. and Josh Fox tell Governor Cuomo: Don’t Frack NY (at the Stop the Frack Attack Rally, July 28, 2012.)

Last Saturday at the Stop the Frack Attack rally on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., you could easily have convinced yourself you were at an anti-fracking rally in Albany. There were so many signs urging people to call Governor Andrew Cuomo that it is clear concerned citizens across the country have their eyes on New York. And it wasn’t only New Yorkers at the rally saying that if Governor Cuomo allows fracking in New York he will never be president. Folks from across the country are looking to Governor Cuomo as our best chance to stop the spread of fracking.

D.C. may be four hours from New York, but in some ways it wasn’t surprising that so many activists from other states are concerned about what Governor Cuomo will do. Fracking is a drilling process that pumps millions of gallons of water laced with chemicals into the ground to obtain oil and natural gas. By now many across the country are familiar with the risks fracking poses to our drinking water, our air and our quality of life. Further, many have seen the disturbing images from Pennsylvania of people who can light their tap water on fire.

It’s no secret to activists from all over that New York is our best chance to make a real stand against the oil and gas companies. Unlike Pennsylvania or Ohio, New York isn’t controlled by extreme right-wing politicians. Perhaps more importantly, the oil and gas companies are not yet completely entrenched in all layers of government in the state like they are in so many other parts of the country. Given all this, it should make banning fracking in New York a pretty simple proposition.

There’s just one problem. Governor Cuomo has presidential aspirations in 2016. If there is one thing we all know about running for president, it’s that it takes a lot of money. The governor thus finds himself in a classic dilemma. On the one hand he doesn’t want to go against the oil and gas companies because he will need their money to run a viable presidential campaign. On the other hand, he can’t afford to completely alienate his base and still win the nomination.

The message in D.C. this weekend was clear. The progressive base in New York, and across America, is adamantly opposed to fracking. It’s time for Governor Cuomo to realize that some things are more important than money. He may think he can’t afford to anger the oil and gas companies just four years before he runs for president, but the reality is he can’t afford to enrage the progressive base by accepting fracking. Governor Cuomo must not allow fracking in any part of New York. 

By Roxanne Darrow

Mexico City, the second largest city in the Western Hemisphere with 19.3 million inhabitants, is having major water problems. Over the past month, Mexico City’s water authority, Conagua, has been delivering water to consumers that has a foul odor and taste and activists there are questioning Conagua’s transparency in the matter.

The source of the problem is in the Valle de Bravo dam, which feeds into the Lerma-Cutzamala system that provides 30 percent of the water to Mexico City inhabitants.  

The Valle de Bravo dam has been infested with algae for several weeks, which means there is a large quantity of organic matter that provides food for bacteria, viruses and parasites to multiply and contaminate the water. Not only have citizens suffered from an unusual increase of intestinal illnesses from drinking contaminated water, they may also be at risk for liver damage if they continue to drink contaminated water over the long term.  

Conagua needs to act quickly to provide safe water to citizens while they remove algae from the dam, but Conagua argues their treatment system produces clean and safe water and that no epidemics have broken out. Bad smelling and poor tasting water is due to dirty water tanks at the municipal and consumer level, explain Conagua authorities.

However, Mexico City water activists call Conagua’s water safety into question and doubt the accuracy of water quality and treatment information available to the public. Food & Water Watch’s Claudia Campero works with the Coalition of Mexican Organizations for the Right to Water (COMDA) and consulted with a gastroenterology specialist who found an atypical increase of gastrointestinal illnesses in the part of Mexico City where most of the Valle de Bravo dam water ends up. Worse yet, Conagua’s activated carbon and chlorine treatment methods for last month’s algae infestation are similar to treatment methods that have been shown to produce carcinogenic chemicals.

Conagua needs to be transparent about their water treatment methodology and disclose the result of all their water samplings. How are they treating the water for human feces contamination and how effective has this been?

Access to clean water is a human right. Conagua is responsible for providing safe and clean water to Mexico City citizens.

COMDA calls for Mexican authorities to:

1. Abide by their constitutional obligations.
2. Provide continuous and accessible information about water quality.
3. Provide free, safe water to vulnerable populations while fixing the polluted water distribution system.

Learn more about our global water justice work here.

Roxanne Darrow is a summer intern with the Food & Water Watch International Policy Program. She graduated from the University of California, Berkeley with a BA in International Development Studies.

By Hannah Scott

Take Back the Tap for safe, affordable hydration during the Olympics.

Ah, the Summer Olympic Games: a favorite viewing pastime for sports lovers across the globe. It’s also an ideal opportunity for sponsors to establish brand loyalty with the spectators. Not surprisingly, major water bottling corporations are jumping at the chance to push their bluewashing, water-for-profit agenda.

In fact Coca-Cola, the parent company of the bottled water brand Dasani, plans on using this year’s games to attract new customers in the United Kingdom (they were also a very visible presence at the recent UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro). In 2004, Coca-Cola failed to enter the UK market when local newspapers revealed that Dasani is merely “purified” tap water, much to the outrage of customers. Making matters worse, Coca-Cola ultimately had to pull Dasani from shelves the same year it debuted after carcinogenic bromates were found contaminating the brand.

Four years later, Coca-Cola purchased Abbey Well, a small, locally-owned bottled water company that sells spring water. In doing so, Coca-Cola did not stick with the Dasani brand name, as it would certainly have reminded customers of the train wreck that ensued in 2004. Instead, they branded it under the Schweppes label, although the new Olympic design downplays that fact.

Due to the strict and controversial brand exclusivity rules that prohibit non-sponsor advertisement, Abbey Well will be the sole bottled water provider at Olympic events for both spectators and athletes. Moreover, a brand new design of Abbey Well has been crafted especially for the Olympics and is meant to instill a sense of “national pride.” But this doesn’t detract from the fact that big bottling companies often take water from municipal or groundwater sources that local residents depend on for drinking, sanitation, recreation and more.

Since athletes must drink a lot of water to stay hydrated, we encourage them to take back the tap by forgoing bottled water and drinking tap water in refillable water bottles. After all, when it comes to fostering a healthy environment and a healthy you, tap water medals over bottled every single time.

Hannah Scott is a Food & Water Watch summer water research and policy intern and a senior at American University. 

Is the First Dog being fed risky chicken treats from China? The President owes Bo and all of us finalized food safety rules to protect our health.
(Credit: Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)

The Chinese chicken saga continues…

By Tony Corbo

On July 18, I attended a meeting at the USDA to get an update on the status of poultry exports to the U.S. from the People’s Republic of China. When I returned from the meeting, I saw an email alert from the Food and Drug Administration entitled, “Questions and Answers Regarding Chicken Jerky Treats from China.” The press statement detailed FDA’s investigation into complaints from dog owners who claimed their pets got sick from eating chicken jerky dog treats imported from China. The Chinese will stop at nothing to force its dubious chicken into the U.S. market to unsuspecting consumers, I thought. What an ironic example of how screwed up our food safety system really is.

The USDA has a fairly elaborate process to approve imported meat and poultry products for human consumption. If there are no major issues with the exporting country’s food safety system, it takes about two years between the time a country applies to USDA and publication of the final regulations approving its application. Unfortunately, such a system is not in place for other imported foods that are regulated by the FDA, including pet food.

Food & Water Watch has led a campaign to prevent China to export their poultry products for human consumption since 2005 when the Bush Administration supported regulation to allow China to export processed poultry products to the U.S. China first asked the USDA for approval to export its poultry products to the U.S. in 2003. Even though 2004 USDA audits turned up unsanitary conditions in several Chinese poultry plants they visited, and there had been several outbreaks of H5N1 bird flu in Chinese poultry flocks that killed thousands of animals and some humans, the Bush Administration proceeded to propose the new regulation in November 2005 anyway. Read the full article…

By Katherine Boehrer 

When I first saw Annie Leonard’s “Story of Stuff” I was amazed at how eloquently she laid out the problems with our consumer system — but I couldn’t for the life of me figure out what I could do about it. I still needed “stuff” — I needed food, clothes, textbooks, and a bunch of other things. So I tried to buy the best kinds of “stuff”, from local, vegetarian food to fair trade coffee and non-toxic detergent.

Those are all great steps to take, as Leonard is quick to point out. The problems begin, however, when we believe those are the only things we can do (or have time to do). Some may even believe that by making the right personal choices, we absolve ourselves from any further action. 

But that’s just not right. When it comes to our food system, making good consumer choices does not outweigh our duty to act as responsible citizens. As Grist’s Twilight Greenaway put it, we need to “pat ourselves on the back and then move on to see what else we can do.”

The “Story of Change” tells us what’s next. The short video shifts the question from “how can I buy better?” to “how can we change the system?” so that toxic and unfair choices no longer exist. Change, the film says, requires a Big Idea, a commitment to work together and, most importantly, action. Taking action, like voting, organizing, and coming together to influence decision makers, is what Leonard calls flexing our “citizen muscle”.

The concept of “voting with our dollars” reinforces the idea that the only power we have is financial power. If we’re only concerned about what we buy, it’s easy to forget that we have another kind of power — people power. People power is even more potent than purchasing power. By bringing together a group of individuals committed to changing the status quo, we are able to bring about systemic change. The kind of change that is far-reaching and long-lasting, not confined to our individual lifestyles.

Food & Water Watch’s executive director, Wenonah Hauter, champions this sentiment in her upcoming book Foodopoly:

“If we don’t confront and change the consolidation and corporate control of our food system, only a very small percentage of people will benefit from the good food movement. We can’t shop our way out of this mess” [emphasis mine].

So we must ask ourselves, with these kinds of problems can we afford to sit back and take the easy way out? There are lots of ways to get involved. As Leonard points out, bringing change doesn’t have to mean going to a protest. If you’d like to get more involved, visit our action center to flex your citizen muscle, or sign up to volunteer for a cause you’re passionate about.

Katherine Boehrer is a Food & Water Watch summer communications intern and a junior at Cornell University.  

By Genna Reed

Credit: NASA

Back in November of 2011, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) unveiled its new and improved, streamlined process for genetically engineered (GE) crop approvals. APHIS anticipated that its new process would shorten approval timelines by 13 to 15 months, expecting all stakeholders to be excited about their big news. Yet, while this process may delight the biotech companies, environmental and consumer advocates were less than thrilled.

USDA claims that the new system will be more collaborative, giving the public more notice and opportunity for comment and scoping earlier in the process. But given the pressure the agency is under to approve GE crops quicker, this collaboration could end up being more in theory than in practice.

Fast forward to two weeks ago. On July 13th, USDA moved forward with notices of twelve new petitions that became available for 60-day public comment periods as well as the deregulation of two GE crops. Among the GE petitions up for comment in this rocket docket are a non-browning apple, a 2,4-D resistant soybean and a dicamba-resistant soybean. Both 2,4-D and dicamba are more toxic herbicides that will be stacked with glyphosate-resistance in a likely futile attempt to combat superweeds. With the spread of multiple resistances in weeds, USDA now more than ever needs to thoroughly review these crops, examining the myriad environmental risks involved with stacking herbicide resistance traits in crops.

Since the start of 2011, USDA has approved 12 GE crops for commercialization—13 percent of the 91 crops that have been approved since the technology was born. A growing number of petitions coupled with a growing number of approvals (the USDA has never denied a single GE crop petition) means more unlabeled GE foods heading towards our plates.

And pretty soon, our opportunity to weigh in on these approvals through the statutory requirements of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) could be entirely stripped away. NEPA is a statute that requires environmental review (in the form of environmental assessments or environmental impact statements) for any major federal actions, including the unrestricted planting of genetically engineered crops.

Just a couple weeks ago, the House Agriculture Committee passed its version of the Farm Bill that contained three biotech riders that could effectively get rid of any science-based review that remains for genetically engineered crops. If left unchanged, these riders would:

• Allow for default approval of a GE crop if USDA does not fully approve or even thoroughly analyze the product by a certain target date.
• Allow for default approval of a GE crop if USDA is unable to approve the crop within 90 days of its expired comment period.
• Limit the quality of the USDA’s review of a GE crop and essentially forego the statutory requirements of NEPA and the Endangered Species Act, even when a threatened or endangered species may be negatively impacted by the GE release.

Food & Water Watch and 40 other groups and organizations signed a letter urging Congress to strike these biotech giveaways from the Farm Bill.

There are currently 20 petitions for deregulation still in the pipeline and there were over 2,500 petitions and notifications for field trials last year. Between the rocket docket and the biotech giveaways in Congress, we could be facing an uncertain future of even more untested, unlabeled and potentially unsafe GE foods than we have today. If you don’t like those odds, sign this petition asking your state and federal elected officials to require labeling for all GE foods and tell your Representative to stop the House Farm Bill biotech riders.

By Katherine Boehrer

Find out what President Obama learns about food safety in Food & Water Watch’s video, “Washington Burger.”

It wouldn’t be summer without a…Cargill meat recall? You read that right: corporate food giant Cargill has issued yet another recall of a meat product. This time its ground beef – more than 29,000 pounds of it – that has been contaminated by salmonella. This isn’t the first time that the company has had a big problem with salmonella. Just last summer, Cargill was forced to recall more than 30 million pounds of ground turkey.

At least 33 people in seven states have been sickened in this summer’s salmonella outbreak. Five cases led the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) back to Cargill’s meat. The recall is complicated, as the ground beef was sold under many different brand names at many retail locations. The recall also comes after the sell by date has passed, meaning the product is no longer on store shelves, but could still be in consumers’ homes. Read the full article…

The greenwashed economy threatens our ability to pursue sustainable development.

By Wenonah Hauter

Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch

(This post originally appeared at Otherwords.org.)

A group of international scientists says that the earth is dangerously close to its tipping point of irreversible damage. Clearly, we need a way out of the mess we’ve made of the planet.

The so-called “green economy,” which governments, business leaders, and some environmental organizations touted at last month’s United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, is actually a greenwashed economy. Its proponents ask questions such as: how can we put a price on nature so as to better manage it? Or, how can we make it financially undesirable to pollute? Those are the wrong questions, and they don’t lead us to real solutions.

Putting a price on nature — as if it were a widget to be bought and sold on the market — devalues its life-giving properties. It partitions the environment off as a commodity, leaving it for sale to the highest bidder. And pollution trading is like paying a robber not to steal from your home. Neither gets to the root causes of our environmental problems: the failure to take meaningful regulatory actions and the undemocratic means by which our natural resources are managed worldwide.

As our access to the planet’s resources that once seemed endless has become limited, corporations, multinational institutions, industry-funded non-profits, and policymakers are eagerly offering market-based solutions. They typically position private interests to profit from our increased need for shared natural resources.

Calling this dangerous trend “the green economy” just isn’t appropriate. It’s more accurate to say that these special interests are promoting the same old dirty economy under a new banner. And this failure to prevent pollution threatens our ability to pursue sustainable development.

Through clever greenwashing campaigns, huge companies have somehow created the ability to buy and trade credits that they claim will curb pollution. These cap-and-trade programs do little but encourage larger companies with deeper pockets to continue with business as usual. That ultimately leads to the continued disposal of contaminants into our waterways and our atmosphere.

Likewise, thanks to relentless lobbying and a hefty advertising campaign, the oil and gas industry has managed to convince key lawmakers and consumers alike that fracking for natural gas is the key to energy independence. However, that process — formally called hydraulic fracturing or shale-gas drilling — requires large quantities of water and a cocktail of toxic chemicals. Fracking can poison drinking water supplies, air, and farmland, endangering public health.

Meanwhile, some of us are struggling to protect the marine environment from pollution and overfishing of endangered species, while large commercial interests try to privatize access to fish or acquire permits to establish aquaculture enterprises in federal waters. These factory fish farms threaten the health of ocean ecosystems. What’s “green” about that?

And while we struggle to maintain that water is a human right, multinational corporations are privatizing public water utilities in communities around the world and profiting in places where safe drinking water is scarce.

Our food system is also rigged to benefit a select few companies who monopolize markets and profit from farmers who have no choice but to sell their goods cheaply. Walmart, for example, says it wants to offer healthier food options at affordable prices, but until it changes its business model — which squeezes farmers and workers and drives food production to become more consolidated and industrialized — highly processed foods will remain more accessible than healthier, better quality food.

We must promote real solutions that involve communities in the decision making, not just companies. We must protect the land and our water and decrease carbon emissions for the benefit of the public — not for the profits of private interests.

By Sarah Borron

Hungry family circa 1946

The Farm Bill drafts coming out of both the Senate and the House Agriculture Committee fail to address many problems in our broken food system.  In the case of hunger, they make the problem worse. Despite having the word “farm” in its title, the vast majority of the bill’s budget goes towards nutrition programs, not agriculture. The Supplemental Nutrition Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps, provides monthly financial assistance for poor families to spend on groceries. The Senate farm bill cuts SNAP by $4.5 billion over ten years, while the House bill calls for $16 billion in cuts.

SNAP is a proven “effective and efficient” program to alleviate hunger in America. During the economic crisis, SNAP rolls increased to record levels as more and more families needed the support of our social safety net. Forty-six million Americans currently receive SNAP benefits, primarily children and seniors, and, in 2010, SNAP kept 4 million people out of poverty. SNAP stimulates our economy as recipients spend their dollars quickly, benefiting food producers, processors, and retailers. As the economy recovers, the money spent on SNAP will naturally decrease, as fewer people will need benefits.

Before coming to Food & Water Watch, I worked at a food bank where I interacted with people in need and the agencies that served them. For families, finding food is especially dire—hunger and food insecurity inhibits children from learning and contributes to health problems.

Despite cutting billions in benefits, both versions of the farm bill do make modest improvements to programs that increase low-income people’s access to healthy foods:

• Healthy Food Financing Initiative: $125 million to improve healthy food retail options in low-income neighborhoods (Senate)
• Hunger-Free Community Incentive Grants: $100 million to incentivize SNAP use for fruits and vegetables at farmers markets (Senate)
• Community Food Projects grants: $15 million (House) and $10 million (Senate), up from $5 million, to provide communities with grants to promote community food security
• SNAP and CSAs: SNAP benefits would be allowed to be used for community supported agriculture shares (House)
• SNAP and Farmers Markets: Pilot programs to use smartphone apps to allow SNAP benefits to be spent at farmers markets (Senate)

 These programs provide valuable services to low-income communities and, in many cases, build local markets for farmers as well. Many SNAP participants, like many Americans, face challenges eating a healthy diet and maintaining a healthy weight, so efforts like these to improve nutrition for SNAP participants are welcome. But making it easier to use SNAP at farmers markets won’t do much to help those that lose their SNAP benefits altogether, will it? No matter where we fall on the socio-economic ladder, all consumers deserve a fair Farm Bill and unless the cuts to SNAP are reversed, this Farm Bill is shaping up to be anything but fair to low-income consumers.

 Sarah Borron is a food researcher for Food & Water Watch.