Blog Posts

By Kate Fried

It’s a known fact that apathy is the enemy of social change. It’s the objective of any activist to not only take stock of the challenges confronting communities, but to galvanize their members to overcome the frustrations inherent to enacting true reform. Devin Schroeder has learned this lesson a little earlier than some. The 15 year-old Durham, New Hampshire resident recently won the Gloria Barron Prize for Young Heroes, awarded once a year to twenty-five young leaders between the ages of eight and 18 who have made a positive difference to people and the planet, for his work helping to reduce bottled water consumption in his community.

At age 13, Schroeder launched a Take Back the Tap campaign at Oyster River Middle School after watching the film Blue Gold and drawing inspiration from Ryan Hreljac, who raised $2,000,000 to build 319 wells in 11 countries through the Ryan’s Well Foundation.  Dismayed by the dismal figures regarding plastic bottled water recycling in the U.S.—about 75 percent of empty plastic bottles wind up in landfills, lakes, streams and oceans—Devin set out to educate his community about the problem, and its impact on oceans and the environment.

“They’re starting to drill [for bottled water] in Barrington, which is nearby,” said Shroeder in a recent interview. “And if we allow this to happen, the groundwater in my community will be affected at some point. Plastic bottles are contributing a lot to pollution in the oceans, which is affecting the climate. It’s not just affecting my community, but the world I live in.”

To kick off his campaign, Schroeder invited the community, including the town councilors and the school board, to a screening of the movie Tapped, followed by a question and answer session. He prepared for the event by touring the town’s water facility and learning the facts about tap water and bottled water. After the screenings, he donated to the town library a copy of the documentary, and to his school, he gifted a large water cooler to help faculty provide free tap water at events.

Devin continued to host screenings of Tapped, and although he is now a student at Phillips Exeter Academy, he still returns periodically to host more screenings and educate students about the negative environmental repercussions of bottled water.

His efforts are paying off. Oyster River Middle School has eliminated bottled water at all athletic events, and even amongst budget issues, it has since replaced all of its water fountains with hydration stations to encourage students to drink tap water, developments that Devin was instrumental in bringing about. Linda Rief, Devin’s former language arts teacher, noted recently that one of the stations alone has saved 10,000 plastic bottles from landfills.

“Devin is exceptional in his activism,” said Rief over email. “He believes that people can make a difference one person at a time, and in small ways that will make a big difference.”

These days, Devin continues to act on behalf of the planet. He is a member of the Environmental Action Committee at Exeter, where he is helping the school reduce waste by expanding its composting program. As for his future, he says that he will continue to engage in sustainability issues throughout college and beyond.

For one so young, Devin maintains a pragmatic, yet hopeful attitude towards the sometimes sluggish engine of social change. “People are apathetic about environmental issues because they see a huge problem and they don’t know how to tackle it…you can’t be overwhelmed by all the world’s problems,” he said. “You have to start small, and it will evolve into bigger things and more will happen. One person might succumb to apathy, but if you don’t, you can help someone else out,” he said.  

By Anna Ghosh

By Khalil Bendib, courtesy of OtherWords. Shared under Creative Commons

For the past 10 days or so, the anti-Prop 37 henchmen funded by Monsanto, Dow and their agribusiness cronies have been blanketing California with advertisements full of confusion and outright lies. So, it’s not terribly surprising that a Pepperdine Poll released yesterday shows that support for Prop 37 has taken a hit.

The good news is, Prop 37 is still leading in the polls with nearly 50 percent of respondents planning to vote yes, and we still have a few weeks to reach Californians who may not even know what genetically engineered food is or how pervasive it already is in our food supply. In addition to the truth and the power of information, we also have some pretty great celebrities on our side. And, while we’ll never match our opponents’ campaign coffers, Food & Water Watch and our allies have been busy getting the word out and we wanted to share some of the highlights with you.

Here’s an op-ed by our Executive Director Wenonah Hauter, syndicated by the Institute for Policy Studies OtherWords Project: Consumer Choice: As American as Apple Pie

And another great OtherWords op-ed by Jill Richardson: Big Food Fight

Wenonah’s Letter to the Editor of the Chicago Tribune was published on Oct. 10:

Genetically modified

Your Sept. 29 editorial “Corny scare tactics; New study attacking genetically modified crops falls flat” sings the praises of genetically modified corn, calling Monsanto’s Roundup-Ready corn a “boon” and questioning the validity of a study that recently linked consumption of genetically engineered corn to cancer in lab rats.

If the Chicago Tribune editorial board is so excited by the “contributions” of biotechnology to the food system and so sure that the research showing it’s unsafe is bunk, wouldn’t you advocate for making sure people could choose such a wonderful product in the supermarket? If GE foods are so great, why is the food industry fighting tooth and nail to stop labeling efforts around the country, like the more than $30 million being spent to stop a GE labeling ballot measure in California, Prop 37?

Let’s not let the food industry or editorial boards decide whether or not GE foods are desirable. Let’s let consumers decide. Let’s make GE labels the law.

And don’t miss Michael Pollan’s piece in this weekend’s upcoming New York Times Magazine or Dan Imhoff and Michael Dimock in the LA Times.

Good stuff! But we’re not out of the woods yet. Much more needs to be done to make sure California voters understand that a vote for Prop 37 is a vote for our health, our environment, consumer choice and information. The best way to chip away at the confusion and misinformation being strewn across California’s airwaves is to hit the airwaves ourselves. Are you with us? Please donate what you can to help us air a version of this excellent public service announcement featuring Danny DeVito, Bill Maher, Jillian Michaels and several other stars. With your help, we just might make history by making GE labeling the law in California.

By Kate Fried

When we watch the news, we would like to see credible, honest information about critical issues like our energy future — especially during election season. But the American Petroleum Industry (API) has other designs this year, shelling out untold amounts of cash on a misinformation campaign to sell the American public on the so-called wonders of natural gas. We aren’t buying it.

Large companies have always supported TV programming through their advertising dollars. There’s no getting around the fact that networks rely on advertisements to bring us our favorite shows. Yet there’s a distinct difference between a company trying to sell us a new car, and one that gobbles up the airwaves to seduce the public towards its thinly veiled political agenda.

API’s Vote 4 Energy campaign has flooded the airwaves and social media channels over recent months, trying to sell us on the notion that natural gas is clean and abundant, and that supporting its development is as patriotic as civic participation. According to the New York Times, the industry has spent more than $153 million this election year on ads promoting fossil fuels and knocking clean energy.

Why such an expense for an industry bent on making money? Because the oil and gas industry is in trouble. Even its darling, natural gas, is being debunked as just another dirty fossil fuel, and citizens around the world are fighting fracking.

It’s throwing money at its image problem—lots and lots of money, to wage its increasingly difficult public relations campaign. That’s the thing about powerful special interests; when they can’t get their way they try to spend their way out of their problems.

Many Americans are uninformed about the dangers of natural gas extraction, and with television ads on major networks costing a hefty sum, most of the groups seeking to educate the public with these facts can’t afford equal airtime.

That’s why we’re asking ABC, NBC and CBS to stop airing the oil and gas industry’s propaganda during national news broadcasts. We may not be able to match them in dollars, but we have two things on our side: the truth…and you. Are you just as tired of seeing oil and gas industry misinformation on your screen when you tune in to get the news of the day? If so, take action today, and ask the major networks to stop airing API’s fracking lies.

By Emily Wurth

I’m sure most residents of Allentown, Pennsylvania have never heard of Public Financial Management Inc. (PFM), but the company’s financial recommendations are a major factor behind the irresponsible water privatization scheme that could soon affect every city resident.

PFM, the top ranked financial advisory firm in the country, was hired by Mayor Ed Pawlowski to advise the city on how to address its serious fiscal shortfalls threatening to make Allentown unable to fund the pensions of police officers and firefighters.

After exploring options for how the city could shore up its finances and incorporating PFM recommendations, the mayor decided that the city should lease its water and sewer system for 50 years in exchange for a lump payment of between $150 million and $200 million. The plan has been met with widespread public criticism – at the September 27^th city council meeting, all 24 speakers voiced their opposition to this deal. Read the full article…

By Kate Fried and Elizabeth Schuster

 The United States has some of the cleanest, safest drinking water in the world, thanks in part to our government’s rigorous testing standards. In fact, consumer standards are actually more stringent for the quality and safety of tap water than that of bottled water. Everyone has a right to be informed about what is in their tap water, but as crazy as it sounds, the federal government may actually be about to make that a little more difficult. 

But before you throw up your hands and reached for the bottle, take heart. As always, Food & Water Watch has your back. 

Read the full article…

They all support California Prop 37, and they made a video about it. Click below to watch it now.

If you’ve been following this blog, you already know that GE ingredients are already in the majority of food sold in grocery stores across the country and, because there are no labels required, we have no idea when we’re eating them. Nutrition labeling tells us the amount of calories, fat and sugar we’re consuming, shouldn’t we also know if we’re eating GE food? Read the full article…

By Wenonah Hauter

Kathy Phillips, Assateague Coastkeeper and Executive Director, Assateague Coastal Trust. Photo by Meaghan Morgan-Puglisi.

Kathy Phillips is a real heroine. She’s standing up to Perdue, a company responsible for a large percentage of the pollution pouring into the Chesapeake Bay and surrounding waterways. Kathy is braving the anger and malice of a powerful corporation that wields power in her community. While all Maryland agriculture combined contributes only 0.35% to the state’s Gross Domestic Product, with chicken contributing only a fraction of that number, the poultry industry in particular wreaks havoc not only on the environment, but also on its contract growers. Contract growers earn on average less than $20,000 a year.

A single Perdue farm generates hundreds of tons of animal manure a year, far beyond what can ever be properly and responsibly used by contract growers to fertilize crops. As a result of all this excess waste, damaging amounts of nutrients and other pollutants are impacting the Bay and other waterways around the country.

Enter Kathy Philips. Kathy and her husband, Jeff, who has taught in Worcester County Maryland for more than 30 years, moved to the Eastern Shore from Silver Spring, Maryland in the late 1970’s. They were both surfers and wanted to spend their lives near the ocean that they love.  Kathy directed the Eastern Surfing Association for 15 years. During this time she and Jeff, who is still an enthusiastic surfer, saw the Bay, as well as their local waterways, continue to deteriorate. As watersport enthusiasts, they spend much of their free time on waterways in Maryland, and they have seen first hand how the Chesapeake Bay, the largest and most productive estuary in the United States, is impacted by the onslaught of factory farm waste. Kathy’s particular focus has been on the Pocomoke River and water quality there. She’s worked tirelessly with the Assateague Coastal Trust (ACT) to protect the Coastal Bays and the Pocomoke from agricultural pollution.  

In 2010, Kathy stepped forward to be a plaintiff in the case brought by Waterkeeper Alliance against Perdue and one of its contract growers, Alan and Kristin Hudson. The suit seeks to put a stop to the pollution found pouring off the farm and hold Perdue liable for the discharges. For several decades, Perdue and other poultry industry integrators have been hiding behind the men and women who accept all of the risk for growing chickens, while Perdue sucks up the profits.

Unfortunately, throughout the nearly three years of litigation, Perdue has been using the contract grower involved in the suit as a “human shield.” Rather than taking responsibility for the chicken waste their business produces, they suck up the profits and hide behind their contract growers. Poultry-processing companies, known as integrators, ruthlessly control every step of chicken production from providing the chicks and feed to monitoring them on an almost daily basis. Contract abuses abound for the growers—Perdue, Tyson and the other integrators use production contracts to keep the cost of raising chickens low and to manage the supply of birds needed in the slaughter plants they own. The integrators don’t invest any capital in the factory farm facilities or equipment necessary for growing birds. Growers assume all of the debt and financial risk for building the warehouse-like barns, while Perdue walks away with the profits.

Perdue’s abuse of contract farmers goes beyond their refusal to take responsibility for their own waste. It goes to unconscionable contracts, economic inequity, inappropriate uses of drugs and horrendous working conditions. Perdue, and the other mega-meat companies like it, is the biggest threat to family farming in the United States and around the world.

When this case was filed in 2010 Perdue was enjoying $4.6 billion in sales while Alan Hudson, the contract grower involved in the litigation, was driving a school bus to make ends meet. If Perdue really cared about contract growers like the Hudsons, they’ve had the opportunity for almost three years now to stand up and say, “This is our waste and our problem.” Instead, they’ve chosen to once more hide behind the false guise of the family farmer and hold the Hudsons out as the only ones responsible for the mess created by Perdue’s own industrial chicken empire. Perdue owns the chickens, the feed, and the profits. The Hudsons, apparently, own Perdue’s waste—and Perdue is fighting hard to keep it that way.

We should all thank Kathy Philips for being brave enough to call Perdue out for their pollution of our waterways.

Food & Water Watch Volunteer Adam Hofbauer, in San Francisco

Breaking News:The No on 37 Campaign, financed by Monsanto, Dow, Coke, and the like, was forced to yank their TV ad that featured their “top scientist” who misrepresented himself as being affiliated with Stanford University. Click here to learn more.

By Adam Hofbauer

This past Wednesday, while most of America was focused on the scuffle taking place between the presidential candidates, there was another debate raging in San Francisco. This debate focused on California Proposition 37, which would require California to label all of its genetically engineered food products. Hosted by the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), the debate featured Stacey Malkan of the California Right to Know Campaign arguing for the proposition against “No on 37” spokesperson Brandon Castillo.  The event demonstrated how multinational corporations have been able to take sound legislation with majority support and engineer around it an artificial debate based on junk science and disinformation.     Read the full article…

By Wenonah Hauter

Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director, Food & Water Watch

This week, Food & Water Watch and Friends of the Earth filed a joint lawsuit to force the Environmental Protection Agency to preserve the integrity of the Clean Water Act as it turns 40 years old this month. Represented by the Columbia Law School’s Environmental Law Clinic, we are suing for the removal of the water pollution trading provisions that are part of the 2010 plan to clean up the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

This cap-and-trade plan for water, known as the Bay total maximum daily load or TMDL, is being promoted by both the EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, both of which view the program in the Bay region as a national model that would be replicated in watersheds across the nation. But if this scheme is allowed to move forward it will allow new and increased pollution discharges into the Chesapeake Bay watershed under a complex system of market-based offsets and pollution trading that we believe is illegal under the Clean Water Act.

Pollution trading violates the fundamental concept that the Clean Water Act is built upon, which is that pollution is illegal and industries don’t have a right to poison our shared waterways. Ironically, this evisceration of the Clean Water Act is taking place as the landmark piece of legislation that was passed during the Nixon Administration is about to have its 40th anniversary. It is built on the premise that we should strive to eliminate water pollution from our lakes, rivers and bays. Water pollution trading schemes are a disastrous substitute for proven means of regulating harmful chemical discharges into our waterways.

And we should be clear that the Clean Water Act (CWA) has been an enormously successful piece of legislation. In 1972, two-thirds of our nation’s waterways were unsafe for fishing. Chemicals and wastewater were indiscriminately dumped into our waterways. Today, according to EPA about one-third of our nation’s waterways are unhealthy. Obviously there is more work to do, but why would we allow such an effective piece of legislation to be replaced by a scheme that essentially legitimizes pollution?

The water pollution trading that is being promoted in the Chesapeake Bay is based on buying and selling unverifiable pollution credits. It turns what is now illegal under the CWA into the right to pollute. It’s essentially an “entitlement” program for the financial services industry and polluters.

The federal plan for the bay that includes trading is based on the total maximum daily load of pollutants that can be discharged and still allow a water body to meet water quality standards set by the states under CWA. These pollutants come from energy facilities, factories and wastewater treatment plants and those harder to control nonpoint sources like many of the Bay’s agricultural operations.

The TMDL is, in the simplest sense, a rationing plan. It seeks to allocate pollution loads to our waterways among the many sources of pollution in the Bay. The TMDL can be an effective tool to reduce pollution, but it must be developed and implemented consistently with the goal to eliminate the biggest threats to the Bay watershed – nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment.

As a practical matter, the trading of pollution credits is inherently fraught with problems.  In this case, EPA is allowing trading without setting clear and enforceable minimum limits on trading activity, including providing safeguards to prevent fictitious or overstated pollution reductions from being used as offsets.

The “pay-to-pollute” trading program allows financial middlemen to identify and purchase nitrogen and phosphorus “credits” from industrial agriculture operations in the watershed that attest to reducing their pollution levels in the future. These unverifiable credits are then aggregated and bundled together, and sold to power plants, wastewater treatment plants and other “point source” polluters who are either unable or simply unwilling to meet their CWA permit limits.

Many states have tried to implement nutrient trading schemes around the country, but there is no documented, successful nonpoint-to-point source trading program implemented in any watershed in the United States.

And, we must look at this trading scheme in context. Rather than regulating pollution, it is part of an on-going effort spurred by the financial services industry of using the market to allocate costs to the environment, rather than using the performance-based indicator of meeting a regulated standard.

But, in the wake of the largest financial crisis in 75 years, one both created and spread by the irresponsible behavior of the financial service sector, the argument that free market-based principles should replace traditional environmental regulation is wrong minded. It represents a financialization of nature and the transferring of the stewardship of our common resources to private business interests. It makes the responsibility of caring for our natural resources secondary to the economic interests of the few.

Leaving the health of the bay to this trading scheme is reckless and it is a recipe for disaster.

By Tim Schwab

AquaBounty Technologies has made a desperate plea to President Obama, apparently enlisting a tiny battalion of biotech advocates to pressure the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve the company’s main product, genetically engineered (GE) salmon, which has been stuck in the approval process for two years. 

AquaBounty represents the biotech industry’s avant-garde, as its fish would be the first ever GE animal to enter the food supply anywhere in the world. Biotech corporations have tremendous interest in this regulatory approval, and the main trade group (the Biotechnology Industry Organization, which is supported by groups like AquaBounty, Monsanto and Syngenta) spent $8 million last year lobbying on issues like GE salmon.

But consumers have made clear their feelings in several polls, repeatedly and overwhelmingly indicating they don’t want to eat GE salmon. And if GE salmon is eventually approved by the FDA, consumers want it labeled so they can choose to avoid it. Food & Water Watch personally delivered more than 170,000 letters from consumers to the FDA, expressing widespread opposition to GE salmon. Read the full article…