Blog Posts: Food

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…

By Patty Lovera

We need a Farm Bill that is as good for farmers and the land as it is for eaters.

The Senate headed home last weekend with no clear indication of how they would tackle the farm bill. There was no agreement on how they would handle the nearly 300 amendments introduced. Then, Monday evening, the deal was announced: they would start a “vote-o-rama” to consider only 73 of the amendments. There were some important amendments on the list of 73 that would make the farm bill stronger and some that would make it significantly weaker.

The biggest disappointment was that the list included no amendments on competition in livestock markets, including an amendment by Senator Grassley that would have banned the ownership of livestock by meatpackers. One bright spot on the list was an amendment by Senators Sanders and Boxer to allow states to require labeling of genetically engineered foods. On Tuesday, 30 amendments were voted on by the full Senate, leaving 43 more to get through on Wednesday before a final vote on the entire bill.

We picked six amendments that we think are particularly important. Three of them were up for a vote on Tuesday. Here’s what happened: Read the full article…

By Tim Schwab

Food & Water Watch recently published the report Public Research, Private Gain, which outlines how corporate agribusiness is purchasing influence at our nation’s land-grant universities. With hundreds of millions of dollars paying for university research, faculty chair endowments, naming rights at buildings and consulting contracts with professors, there is no shortage of examples of the ways in which corporate money is distorting the science and corrupting the public-interest mission of these schools, which seem more interested in partnering with corporations than with farmers or consumers like you and me.

The report was not received well by university administrations, who either defended the status quo or, incredibly, suggested that millions of dollars of corporate money was having no influence over the independence of their research.

While administrators are taking a defensive posture, some professors are saying that enough is enough. This week, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), which represents tens of thousands of professors, released a set of principles and practices designed to counter the corrupting influence that industry influence can have and address the pervasive conflicts of interests in academia. Read the full article…

By Patty Lovera

Take action now for a Fair Farm Bill!

From the absurd (ending the federal food stamp program and taking on Canadian geese) – to the outright irrelevant  (aid to Pakistan and protecting the Pentagon budget), amendments have flooded the Senate for consideration in the farm bill. Nearly 300 amendments have been introduced so far, and, currently, lawmakers are working to come up with an agreement on the number of amendments to allow. They’re expected to decide on Monday and the bill will be picked back up next week.

Food & Water Watch’s policy team has been diligently poring over the hundreds of pages of amendments and is working to let Senators know which ones put consumers and family farmers before the moneyed interests of Big Ag and Food. Most importantly, we need to ensure that imported products are subject to strong food safety regulations, livestock producers are protected from market manipulation, the nutrition safety net is preserved, and investments in local food systems, organic farming and a diverse seed supply are made.   

Specifically, we oppose these two amendments:

• Senator McCain’s amendment (S. Amdt. 2199) that would repeal a provision from the 2008 Farm Bill that created a USDA inspection program for domestic and imported catfish. This is a simple provision to protect consumers from potentially dangerous fish imported from Asia where food safety standards are lax. Even U.S. catfish farmers are asking for more inspection. Read the full article…

By Wenonah Hauter

We need a Farm Bill that is as good for farmers and the land as it is for eaters.

The Farm Bill debate is currently in full-swing in the U.S. Senate this week. The sprawling legislation covers food stamps, subsidies, international food aid, research grants — it literally dictates what and how we eat. And right now, the Farm Bill gives all the power to the biggest food companies, which they wield with impunity over farmers and consumers. But an amendment to the bill – the Packer Ban, introduced by Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota) – could begin to address this unfair advantage that giant food companies have over farmers.

A tiny number of corporations sit between fewer than a million full-time farmers and 300 million eaters. Only a handful of companies sell seeds and fertilizer to farmers, buy their crops and livestock, process the fruits of farmers’ labor into manufactured food, and sell it at a declining number of gigantic supermarket chains. Those that sell supplies and equipment charge farmers high prices. Meanwhile, the processors and meatpackers that buy from farmers pay low, and consumers see a smaller number of choices at often-higher prices at the grocery store. Read the full article…

By Wenonah Hauter

Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter

If you ever thought that the farm bill was just about agricultural subsidies and food stamps, think again. Not only does the farm bill dictate what we eat—it also establishes whom our nation’s leaders are listening to on issues far beyond food.

Right now the farm bill benefits a few large corporations, like Perdue, thanks to policies that help big agriculture companies keep getting bigger. The four largest companies in each industry slaughter nearly all the chicken and beef we eat, process two-thirds of the pork, sell half the groceries and process about half the milk in the United States. This is no accident. It’s the result of policies, largely outlined in the farm bill, which Congress has passed on behalf of these large companies for decades.

Nothing showcases this often-murky relationship between Big Ag and our political leaders more than emails revealed between Martin O’Malley, the Democratic governor of Maryland (and likely presidential contender in 2016) and poultry giant Perdue, Inc.

The emails we obtained through a Public Information Act request show that Perdue profits from chicken sold in California and Michigan are going to exert inappropriate power over O’Malley through intense lobbying efforts on everything from poultry litter incineration to the cases that a university law clinic engages in. Read the full article…

By Darcey Rakestraw

Think you can’t do anything about factory farms? Think again—and sign our petition telling your Senator to support the Packer Ban amendment to the Farm Bill.

Whether you are a die-hard carnivore or a card-carrying member of an animal welfare organization, this story will affect you. And it ties into work we’re doing to demand a fair farm bill that “busts” the meat trusts that built the factory farm system.

In Chile, a conflict erupted when local residents escalated months of protests over the smells and pollution emanating from a factory farm in their town. The conflict ended with the facility’s employees fleeing—with half a million pigs left there over five days without food or water. The plant has been shut down, and those pigs—the ones that remain—will be slaughtered en masse.

Why were half a million pigs concentrated into this factory in the first place? It’s no secret that the U.S. has exported its factory farm model around the world. And U.S. agricultural policies have helped meat processors get even bigger, consolidating meat production in the hands of these few giant players who use animals from factory farms. (Check out our Factory Farm Map to learn more about how meat production has become more consolidated in the U.S.) Read the full article…

By Tim Schwab

You probably don’t know it, but you’re already paying dearly for genetically engineered (GE) salmon. Though many consumers have told the FDA that they don’t want this dangerous fish on their dinner plates, taxpayers have already wracked up a tab for one million dollars.

That’s how much the FDA has already spent reviewing the risks of GE salmon, according to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Food & Water Watch.

True, a comprehensive and rigorous risk assessment can be expensive, and it should be conducted by regulatory agencies like the FDA, not the companies that stand to profit from selling a new product. Let’s face it, comprehensive and rigorous assessment isn’t what is happening at the FDA. The FDA’s million-dollar effort on GE salmon appears to be less geared towards protecting consumers and more of a public relations exercise to convince the public that GE salmon is safe and good. Or, as the FDA might say, not unsafe and not bad.

The agency’s risk assessment utilizes extremely weak data that has been crudely manipulated to make GE salmon appear safe. Professor Anne Kapuscinski of Dartmouth College, an expert on the subject of environmental assessment of GE fish, notes, “…My main concern was that the kind of data presented had gaps, and the quality of the analysis of the data, especially the statistical analysis, was really quite a low bar.”

The FDA has gotten it wrong from the very beginning: it chose to regulate GE salmon as it would regulate a drug, not a food—even though consumers could end up eating it. This means that the FDA is not comprehensively examining many critical dimensions surrounding the food safety of GE salmon as an actual food product for human consumption. Read the full article…

Brother Dave Andrews, Senior Representative for Food & Water Watch

This post about our very own Brother Dave Andrews originally appeared on Nourishing the Planet’s blog (he is an advisor to the project). We are reprinting it here with their permission. Congratulations Brother Dave!

Nourishing the Planet Advisory Group Member to be Honored with Distinguished Service to Rural Life Award

By Alison Blackmore

On July, 28 2012 Brother Dave Andrews, Senior Representative for Food & Water Watch and a member of Nourishing the Planet’s advisory group, will be honored with the prestigious Distinguished Service to Rural Life Award for his commitment to enhancing the life of rural people. The award is the highest honor given by the Rural Sociology Society, a professional social science association founded in 1937 with the intent of improving the quality of rural life, communities, and the environment.

Andrews has worked for over 30 years on sustainable development, food and water issues, and public policy, both nationally and internationally, and has a long-standing commitment to bettering the spiritual, social, and economic lives of rural people.

Since the 1970s, Andrews has dedicated his life to ensuring that the dignity of rural people is respected. As the Executive Director of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference for 13 years, he supported rural Catholic congregations, worked with farm communities to determine the best way to care for the earth, and advocated on behalf of rural people on pertinent food policy issues. Today, as a senior representative for Food & Water Watch, Brother Andrews acts as a liaison to the faith community, motivating people of faith to be thoughtful and deliberate about their choices within the food system. Internationally, he represents farmer and peasant voices at various high-profile summits and meetings, including World Food Summits and the last three World Trade Organization meetings. He frequently attends UN Food and Agriculture Organization international and regional meetings on food security, and works with UN officials to advocate for justice for the most vulnerable laborers in the world’s food system.

For his relentless work on behalf of rural society, both national and internationally, Brother Andrews is well-deserving of this award and the Nourishing the Planet team is honored to congratulate him for his service.

Do you know of other outstanding people or work being done to better rural society? Let us know in the comments section!

Alison Blackmore is a research intern with Nourishing the Planet.