Craig Zucker, founder of Tap’d NY, not only took back the tap, but took it and started using it for profit – basically putting himself in the same boat as some of the very bottled water companies he denounces. He’s begun his own bottled water company – but in this case, he bottles New York City tap water, which he purifies with a filter and then sells at the bottled water market rate.

What’s the point in buying bottled tap water at $1.50 a bottle when you can turn on your own tap for just $0.02 a gallon? Especially when the company’s owner pays that exact same $0.02 a gallon, and yet gets to make a financial killing out of cleaning it up a bit, putting it in a bottle, and selling it at the same price as traditional bottled water? Good question. Also considering that, when compared to a gallon of gas, the cost of a gallon of bottled water is much higher.

And yet somehow Zucker has managed to find consumers who believe there’s a good answer. His stance? Trying to take on the big, bad, overseas bottled water companies that try and lure consumers to drink their water over his bottled tap water – with a “local twist.” Making it seem like it’s a baseball game and he represents the home team, while other companies are the dreaded away team. Ignoring also that 40 percent of bottled water is actually purified tap water.

He’s right about one thing – tap water is a better option than bottled water. It’s regulated more often and by somewhat more stringent standards than those that regulate bottled water – though you can see from our September 23rd post that the EPA still has a long way to go in that regard. But in almost everything else, he’s misleading his customers. If you really want your water to be safe, inexpensive, and environmentally friendly, you have to remove the bottle from the equation.

So consider this – you can buy and install your own water filter and keep enjoying your affordable tap water, now purified, and in the long run you’ll have saved a lot more money than if you had switched to this bottled tap water business that offers you the same thing at an exorbitant price. In effect, you’ll have stopped a swindle in progress. And you’ll have done your part to take back the tap – responsibly.

- Sofia Baliño

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.

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

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   

What if I told you that your soap might harm you?  And so might your cosmetics, cutting board, carpet, clothes, and many other products.  The culprit is a pesticide called Triclosan. On account of its antibacterial properties, manufacturers have put it into many of the things we interact with everyday. Marketed under the trade names Microban and BioFresh and an unlabeled ingredient in countless products advertising their antimicrobial properties, it can be detected in the blood, urine, and breast milk of people worldwide.  The problem is that research suggests that this chemical may have negative health and environmental effects.  It is thought to interfere with endocrine and cellular processes, contribute to antibiotic resistance, and break down into toxic chemicals such as dioxin and chloroform.  In addition to its effects on humans, it is also toxic to algae, phytoplankton, and other critical aquatic organisms. And it has been accumulating in water, generating concern that it will destroy fragile ecosystems.

So why is it used if it is so bad?  Good question. It is actually not any more effective at killing germs than warm water and a little soap, so its widespread application is unnecessary, little more than a marketing gimmick.  The Environmental Protection Agency is currently reviewing the product to determine if it is safe.  But they have registered it in the past, and their assessment so far has ignored evidence of its risks.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t like the idea that the things that fill my bathroom, kitchen, and closet could impair my health.  If you feel the same way, tell the EPA to ban non-medical use of Triclosan!

- Darcy White
email