Blog Posts: Justice

By Wenonah Hauter

If I were to ask you to imagine that the frying pan you use to prepare meals was slowly dosing you and your family with radiation, what would you say? Or how about the steel water bottle you use to tote water? It’s not a far cry from reality if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy have their way.

This past December, the DOE released a proposal to recycle an initial 14,000 tons of radioactive metals from nuclear reactors and weapons facilities back into commercial production for consumer goods. If it gets approved, you can bet they’ll dump more of this toxic nightmare into the supply chain. 

Sadly, this is nothing new. Since the 1980s, the DOE and the NRC have been cooking up a scheme to recycle radioactive scrap metals back into consumer products. These radioactive metals, which wouldn’t be labeled as such under DOE provisions, could be used to manufacture any of a wide variety of products from metal water bottles to your children’s braces. Read the full article…

Last week, a condensed version of Andy Bellatti’s interview with Wenonah Hauter on her new book Foodopoly ran on Grist: Aisle be damned: How Big Food dominates your supermarket choices. We thought our blog readers would appreciate seeing the entire interview, which goes into the specifics on how fractured our food system really is,  how it got that way and what we can do about it.

1. In Foodopoly, you make a very convincing argument that, unlike what many in the “good food” movement think, crop subsidies are not the problem to solve, but rather the symptom of a much larger problem. Can you expand on that concept? Read the full article…

By Wenonah Hauter

Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter

Sometimes the forces working to commoditize our vital natural resources exist in plain sight, flaunting their selfish motives. Other times, they hide behind euphemistic smokescreens, which is far and away more menacing.  Regardless of where you may find them, their actions share a common consequence—undermining our collective right to access safe, clean, affordable water.

Last May, I traveled to Dubai for the Global Water: Oil & Gas Summit where I was surrounded by corporate executives discussing their “drill baby drill” philosophy with abandon and no mention of the environmental or societal costs. Then in August, I traveled to Los Angeles to speak at the premiere of a film about powerful corporate interests who conceal their intentions to privatize California’s water supply behind the guise of conservation and disaster preparedness. 

While half a world apart, these scenarios both represent the global force determined to privatize and commodify water for the sheer benefit of corporate profits. My colleague Scott Edwards says it best: “Water-related death, drought and degradation aren’t calamities; they’re profit opportunities.” This couldn’t be truer for California where political wars have been waged over water since the Gold Rush. Read the full article…

Mitch Jones, Common Resources Program Director

By Mitch Jones 

Although no one in the media seems to be talking about it, a meeting is taking place in Virginia that could cement the same economic interests that lead us to the 2007 crisis. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) being negotiated by 13 countries would lead to increased gas exports and increased imported foods, while undermining our domestic laws and increasing the financialization of nature.

The secretive talks are in their 14^th round, having begun under George W. Bush in 2008, and have so far managed to avoid real scrutiny. Little of the document being negotiated has been made publicly available, but what we do know is frightening. The TPP would go well beyond NAFTA tearing down protections in the areas of financial services, telecommunications and intellectual property. It would create free trade for dairy, sugar and textiles. American manufacturers and farmers would suffer, while Wall Street banks reap huge profits and move more operations offshore.

The TPP is being sold as just another “free trade” agreement. But don’t be fooled, it’s so much more. Only two of the twenty-six chapters of the agreement are directly trade related. 

Read the full article…

Ballistic BJ (left) and Heidi (right) were healthy dogs who passed away shortly after eating chicken jerky treats from China.

 The Chinese chicken saga continues…

By Walker Foley

Pet owners across America have reason to fear for their furry friends’ safety. Since 2007, the FDA has been conducting an investigation into pet owners’ claims that chicken jerky treats imported from China have been the cause of canine deaths – more than 600 cases of illness and death to date.

In response to a blog by Tony Corbo focusing on questionable Chinese poultry exports, a couple of dog owners contacted Food & Water Watch with their own horror stories detailing how tainted imports sold as treats have victimized their pets.

Rita from Illinois was unable to enjoy Memorial Day this year after her German Shephard, Heidi, died two days after being fed chicken jerky treats imported from China. Unable to contact her vet over the holiday weekend, Rita watched helplessly as Heidi suffered a painful death. In her words,

“The void her passing has left in my life is almost unbearable. I live alone and Heidi was my constant companion, my loyal friend, my fierce protector.”

Terie and Alex had a similar story. In February they fed their four dogs the same jerky treats with mixed results. A day later two of them, Tashi and BJ, refused food, drank water constantly and vomited. Tashi eventually got better, but BJ’s liver, kidneys and heart failed four days later in an animal hospital. Left without any other explanation, Terie only had the treats to blame.

When roughly 62 percent of American households own a dog, it would be reasonable to assume that chicken imports would be better monitored or, failing that, better regulated. As Corbo explained, the politics of international trade are taking priority over the safety and overall quality of food imports. The result? Canine casualties, expensive vet bills and heartbroken families.

Now, it has come to light that Chinese government officials overseeing the plants that make the treats blamed for thousands of illnesses and deaths among American dogs have refused to allow U.S. inspectors to collect samples for independent analysis.

If you are concerned for your pet’s safety, there are a few precautions you can take. Several brands could be in question, but news outlets report that treats made by Nestlé Purina PetCare Co. and the Del Monte Corp. have the most complaints. Always check the country of origin labeling on your pet food containers and avoid products made in China. Commonly seen symptoms among affected dogs are loss of appetite, increased water consumption, lethargy, vomiting, diarrhea and increased urination. The FDA also provides more information on the problem and how to file a formal complaint, and a Facebook group has been started for more information and people whose pets may have been affected.

Join Food & Water Watch in asking FDA Commissioner Hamburg to issue a recall of the chicken jerky treats that are making pets sick, ban further imports of pet food from China and help implement new food safety laws to keep pets and people safe.

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…

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 Laetitia N’Dri

2012 Goldman Prize winners, left to right: Evgenia Chirikova, Edwin Gariguez, Ma Jun, Ikal Angelei, Caroline Cannon, and Sofia Gatica. Photo courtesy of Goldman Environmental Prize

“You won’t move us away.” This is the final message that Ikal Angelei of Kenya—one of the 2012 Goldman Prize Award winners and a member of the global water justice movement—sent to those willing to sacrifice people and the environment for the sake of short-term profits. The power of grassroots organizing was once again revealed at the 23^rd Annual Goldman Prize Award Ceremony on Wednesday, April 18, 2012 at the National Natural History Museum in Washington, D.C. This award honoring grassroots heroes (and “sheroes”) proves that the power of organizing can move mountains.

The recipients of the world’s largest environmental prize are tackling some of the most pressing environmental issues of our time—fighting against large dams, massive mines, poisonous pesticides, devastating roads, and criminal polluters—through grassroots efforts, civil disobedience, and education. Read the full article…

by Patty Lovera

It’s been a busy week for the folks who work hard to put the green sheen on Walmart’s public image. To counter the spin, Food & Water Watch and the Institute for Local Self-Reliance have put together the Top 10 Ways Walmart Fails on Sustainability for a little reality check. Check out my blog on Grist for an explanation of why it’s important for all of us to let Walmart know we see through their green smokescreen.

By Scott Edwards

It was one of those infrequent eye-openers that went largely unnoticed. On March 13, 2012 Chevron submitted an emergency motion to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, raising “serious environmental concerns” with a planned natural gas pipeline that is charted to run across land belonging to Chevron’s subsidiary, Texaco. The 16 mile long pipeline, proposed by Spectra Energy, is slated to bring fracked gas from New Jersey, across Texaco’s property in Bayonne, under the Hudson River and into the West Village in Manhattan. Now it seems that one of the dirtiest industries on Earth is siding with environmentalists who have been raising concerns for months about the adverse impacts of the Spectra pipeline.

Chevron is a company that has engaged in some of the most horrific environmental and human rights crimes across the planet. In Ecuador they poisoned Amazonian rainforest communities with hundreds of unlined oil pits and billions of gallons of poisonous sludge poured into local water sources. In Nigeria, Chevron has been linked to the deaths of indigenous activists who were against irresponsible oil production in the countryside. And just last week in Brazil, Chevron executives had their passports confiscated by a judge so they couldn’t flee the country after Brazilian prosecutors laid criminal charges arising from an oil spill. This is a company that sees the environment merely as a convenient place to dump its wastes, where every pristine land mass is a landfill in waiting and every waterway an opportunity to dilute their toxics. If Chevron has environmental concerns about a project, then you know that truly unmitigated devastation of biblical proportions is imminent. The end may truly be near. 

Chevron’s issue with the Spectra project is related to the release of benzene, a known human carcinogen, into the surrounding waterways and communities should the pipeline be built as planned. Of course, Chevron doesn’t really care about the ecological impacts of the Spectra pipeline – they’re concerned with their own liability for the additional releases of benzene from the highly polluted parcel of land they own that the pipeline would bring. Predictably, they’re not looking out for the environment, they’re looking out for their pocketbook. It just happens to be one of those very rare moments when corporate greed and community health happen to overlap. 

Nevertheless, Chevron’s concerns add to a long list of environmental and public health problems cited by environmental groups and community members who have been opposing the Spectra pipeline since its inception. The pipeline will cut through some of the most heavily industrialized and densely populated areas of New Jersey and New York – areas that already bear a disproportionate share of environmental burdens. The impact from construction activities alone will expose members of these communities to increased levels of health-damaging particulate matter in an area that is chronically in Non-Attainment for the Clean Air Act’s ambient air quality standards for PM2.5. Construction of the pipeline will also potentially impact numerous freshwater wetlands and other waterbodies and the species they support, in addition to disturbing already contaminated areas and thereby raising the potential for further exposing these communities to harmful contamination. Moreover, the operation of the pipeline in the midst of vulnerable communities increases the risk of exposure to hazardous air pollutants.

FERC, the federal agency that licenses and approves the Spectra pipeline, has been ignoring numerous concerns raised by the local and environmental communities. Just three days after Chevron filed its emergency request to halt the pipeline, FERC issued the final Environmental Impact Statement greenlighting the project. Given the agency’s willingness to kowtow to the big energy industries, one can only assume that Chevron’s request and FERC’s approval must have crossed in the mail. Whatever the case, this may be the only time in life I ever root for Chevron. 

The Spectra pipeline is an accident waiting to happen in one of the most heavily populated regions of the country. In addition, it’s being proposed to help facilitate the devastating practice of gas fracking in the Marcellus shale region. The environmental impacts of the project are undeniable. If you don’t believe the environmentalists, just ask Chevron.