Blog Posts

By Mitch Jones

Sometimes the news reads like an edition of The Onion. Last week, The Guardian reported that Ecuador is looking to auction of as much as 3 million hectares of Amazon rainforest to Chinese oil companies. That’s 37 percent of the total rainforest in the country! And, indigenous leaders whose land is being sold out from under them have not been consulted in the process, despite a constitutional requirement that the government do so.

This is another example of outrageous land grabs taking place around the globe in which locals are being shoved aside for the interests of large corporations. Something similar is happening here in the U.S. with the development of shale oil and gas.

Developing this land for resource extraction will devastate the local environment; cut down forest for well pads, roads, and pipelines; and potentially lead to pollution of local waterways. At the same time it will undermine the indigenous groups’ way of life.

This latest attempt to exploit Amazonian forest for oil exploration comes only two years after a court ruled that Chevron had to pay indigenous farmers $8.6 billion in reparations for polluting the Amazon forest.

With such a history of environmental disaster, why would Ecuador be actively courting Chinese oil companies to drill for oil? It’s possible Ecuador’s $7 billion debt to China plays some role, as well as China National Petroleum Corp’s negotiations to buy a 30 percent stake in Ecuador’s Refineria del Pacifico oil refinery, which is expected to export up to 60 percent of the oil refined at it.

By Sam Bernhardt

Sam Bernhardt, Pennsylvania Organizer for Food & Water Watch

Last night’s Allentown city council meeting was the latest slap in the face for residents who have been trying to exercise their right to weigh in on the fate of their water and sewer system. Mayor Ed Pawlowski is rushing through a proposed 50-year lease of the city’s water and sewer system as fast as he can, and many members of the city council appear to be going along with it and silencing dissent.

At the meeting last night — a mere day after the city opened the final bids — the city council introduced a resolution and a bill to approve the lease to the winning bidder, the Lehigh County Authority.

More than 100 city residents, many wearing red shirts to show their opposition to the water lease, packed the council chambers to give public comment against the lease. However, the City Council President Julio Guridy and Vice President Ray O’Connell denied the public the right to speak on the water lease, stating that it was tradition not to discuss or take public comment on a bill the night it is introduced.

Residents made clear that the city charter did not say that the council should refuse public comment that night. Check out Rich Fegley, the owner of Brew Works, and other residents taking a strong stance and challenging the council, in the video on 69 News WFMZ-TV.

In fact, the charter explicitly states that the public has the right to comment on any topic of concern and be heard by the city council at the beginning of a meeting (see photo):

There are many good reasons why Allentonians oppose the lease, which Mayor Pawlowski touts as the only way to offset budget shortfalls and pay down the city’s pension debt. However, a new Food & Water Watch report released today, Borrowing Trouble: Water Privatization Is a False Solution for Municipal Budget Shortfalls, explains that taxpayers ultimately suffer when water systems are leased off. A lease is a one-shot ploy that simply masks, not alleviates, local budget shortfalls. Such backdoor borrowing may take debt off the city’s books, but it is only possible because the city is sacrificing future revenue and allowing the authority to hike water rates.

Residents in Allentown are well aware of these problems and have been working to try to stop the water lease. But they have faced an uphill battle against a mayor so intent on his lease scheme that he has undermined the democratic process. Last fall, for example, Mayor Pawlowski interfered with the residents as they worked to collect the signatures to put a question on the ballot to require voter approval before any major lease or sale of public assets.

Despite his interference, they collected more than 4,000 signatures, more than enough to get a public vote. Unfortunately, however, the county rejected the petitions because the residents collected them at the wrong time by following the city’s charter, which differed from state law.

The mayor’s administration has also bullishly supported the lease by limiting public input and refusing to disclose important information about the companies that sought to take over the water and sewer systems. It refused to reveal the full identities of the bidders and the responses to the request for qualifications for the water and sewer concession. This lack of transparency is common with these asset deals, and it is clear the mayor is trying to hide behind closed doors to rush this deal though.   

By Kate Fried

During his inaugural speech in January, President Obama proclaimed his administration’s intention to “respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.” Then he nominated Dr. Ernest Moniz to the position of Secretary of Energy, and some wondered if the president had already abandoned his plan to tackle global warming.

After all, as head of MIT’s Energy Initiative, Dr. Moniz fostered strong ties between the institution and the oil and gas industry, accepting more than $125 million in pledges from the industry in exchange for managing and participating in research projects. He has also sat on many industry related boards and advisory committees, sometimes in exchange for money. In testimony before Congress in July of 2011, Moniz referred to “environmental risks, which arise from shale development” including “contamination of groundwater aquifers with drilling fluids or natural gas” as “challenging but manageable.” He has also referred to natural gas as “a cost-effective bridge to…a low carbon future.”

Suffice to say, Dr. Moniz is hardly a poster scientist for deploying truly clean renewable energy resources. His appointment concerns so many Americans and members of the environmental community that over 34,000 people have told Congress and President Obama not to go through with it.

Now we’re getting down to the wire. Dr. Moniz goes before the Senate’s Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on April 9. While some expect a smooth confirmation process, there’s still time to tell the Senate and President Obama that appointing Dr. Ernest Moniz to energy secretary will only reaffirm the oil and gas industry’s power to keep us hooked on polluting fossil fuels, while true renewable solutions languish. With Dr. Moniz on the job, our water, public health and climate will suffer.

So what can you do about? We’re glad you asked. Starting today, Food & Water Watch and our friends at Americans Against Fracking are taking to social media to remind our nation’s leaders that clean air and water are more important than oil and gas industry profits. We hope you’ll join us. 

By Patty Lovera

If there is one thing you can count on with this Congress, it’s drama over money. The month of March has seen plenty of funding fights, with sequestration in the beginning of the month and an ugly process to prevent a federal government shutdown at the end.  

One of the many problems with operating this way is how many opportunities for mischief are available when Congress is dealing with a huge package of “must pass” legislation. That’s exactly what happened last week when Congress passed a “continuing resolution” to fund the federal government for the rest of the year (the President signed it into law this week). This continuing resolution was necessary because Congress did not complete the normal process for setting budgets for federal agencies and the government has been running on an extension of the previous year’s budget that was about to run out. Read the full article…

Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter

By Wenonah Hauter

It’s not what you know, but who you know. Relationships are everything, and they’re the key to understanding why certain partnerships do not represent the real social justice and environmental movements opposing the oil and gas industry’s continuing efforts to compromise public resources and wreak havoc on the environment. Last week, two separate announcements introduced us to new alliances that stand in the way of authentic initiatives to develop renewable energy. One creates a marketplace for carbon pollution and another promotes weak regulations for oil and gas companies. Both are maneuvers that will prolong our troubled reliance on fossil fuels and undermine efforts to usher in an obtainable new age of sustainability.

In Pennsylvania, AP reported on the creation of the New Center for Sustainable Shale Devlopment (CSSD), a coalition of “environmental groups, philanthropic foundations and energy companies” whose goal is “making Marcellus Shale drilling companies more accountable.” Some of the partners on the list are evidence enough that accountability will be hard to find. Energy companies Chevron, CONSOL Energy, EQT Corporation and Shell have concocted their own certification system to convince some citizen groups that they support strict regulation, when they are really promoting industry self-regulation.

To think that a set of voluntary standards created in concert with the fossil fuel industry would succeed in properly regulating that industry is naive at best. In fact, the numerous public health risks, environmental risks and climate change impacts that result from shale gas development can’t be properly regulated at all. The industry is inherently bad for human health and global sustainability.

In Maryland, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, a government program under the U.S. Department of Agriculture, issued a press release to announce they awarded a grant for a joint project between the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) and the Environmental Defense Fund (which is also a part of the aforementioned “sustainable shale” initiative) for the purpose of creating a carbon offset trading market. The claim is that the collaboration was created to work with polluters to reduce agricultural pollution, but we know better. This partnership disguises what the project is actually promoting. We know it better by its nickname: the pay-to-pollute program. Read the full article…

By Seth Gladstone

One of Maine’s most essential resources is its clean freshwater; it is critical for supporting public health and key local economic sectors such as farming, fishing and tourism. When bottled water companies like Nestlé tap groundwater sources for profit, they don’t do states like Maine any favors.

Unlike local irrigation and agricultural water users who do return water to aquifers, bottled water companies do not replenish what they pump out. Groundwater sources are often connected to surface waters, and when an aquifer is over-pumped, the water levels of a connected surface water body can fall and water flows can change. As stated in a U.S. Geological Survey report, “changes in the natural interaction of ground water and surface water caused by human activities can potentially have a significant effect on aquatic environments.” Case in point: after Nestlé groundwater pumping from a Michigan aquifer, water flows in connected surface waters fell to the point that mud flats developed.

Since 1997, Nestlé has been buying water from the Fryeburg Water Co., after the Maine Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) approved the lease of one of the Company’s wells to Pure Mountain Springs—a middleman company that purchases water then resells the water to third parties, including Nestlé, at higher prices. According to an estimate in an ECONorthwest study, Pure Mountain Springs sold approximately 450 million gallons of water to Nestlé between 2003 and 2007 alone, which comes out to an average of 90 million gallons of water a year and roughly 1.3 billion gallons of Fryeburg’s water over the past 15 years.

Now the Fryeburg Water Co. and Nestlé are seeking to enter into a new 25 to 45 year water contract. Despite their claims that this would benefit the public at large by generating substantial revenue, there is no certainty that this plan would keep water rates down. An attorney from the state public advocate’s office stated recently that the MPUC “does not have sufficient information and data” to determine whether this agreement could sufficiently supplement Fryeburg’s general revenues and offset the need to increase the cost of services and sustain water rates.

The fact that after 15 years of water sales to Nestlé the Freyburg Water Co. is more than $1 million in debt would further debunk any suggestion that the continued sell-off of billions of gallons more will make economic sense for Freyburg. The State Public Utilities Commission is investigating this contract and we hope it will make a decision that is best for the people of Maine. A year-to-year contract would certainly make more sense than a long-term sell-off.

According to the plan, Nestlé would be granted the right to extract as much water as it desires so long as pumping did not exceed the annual, sustainable capacity that Emery & Garret Groundwater, Inc. established in an August 2005 report. Unfortunately, what was considered a “sustainable” amount of water extraction in 2005 is likely to differ greatly by 2058, which is when the proposed 45-year contract would end.

Maine should not allow the interests of a multinational bottled water company to take precedence over the interests of the public, and our water sources should be protected from for-profit exploitation. After all, water is a public resource and should always remain so.

By Eve Mitchell, Food & Water Europe

Click to see a larger image.

Watching UK’s National Farmers Union (NFU) President Peter Kendall testify to the UK Parliamentary Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ inquiry into horse meat contamination of the EU beef supply on March 5, I was struck again by the inconsistencies in the NFU approach when it comes to GM animal feed.

I have three questions for the NFU:

1) In his testimony, Mr. Kendall repeated the position that short supply chains are the answer to predictable control of our meat supply and regaining consumer confidence. How does this tally with the repeated insistence that UK livestock farmers need industrial GM feed from the Americas traded through complex international commodity markets?

Much is made about the allegedly dwindling availability of non-GM soy (known in the UK as soya), but the non-GM soya industry itself paints a rather different picture. On February 26, Augusto Freire, Managing Director of Cert-ID (a company certifying non-GM soya supplies), said, “20-25% of Brazilian soybean production is free from genetic modification for the 2012/13 crop. China’s and India’s soy production is 100% Non-GMO….Estimates for 2013 are strongly up compared to earlier years due to adoption of the CERT ID and ProTerra [non-GM certification] programs by new operators in Brazil, as well as increased demand in Europe.”

In the current climate, before supply and demand reduce the cost of non-GM feed, it may well be a bit more expensive per tonne, but according to our calculations if non-GM feed costs an extra £14/tonne (about $21.00), this works out to be a mere 3p/dozen eggs (about 5 cents). Mr. Kendall asks, “Are we going to produce chickens in this country that are non-GM, but buy them in from Asia because they are 20% cheaper and they are fed on GM [feed]?” Is he perhaps confusing feed costs with the poor animal husbandry that keeps meat from many non-European factory farms cheap?

We also need to be careful in working out how much animal feed is actually GM – any amount of GM feed comingled with an otherwise non-GM shipment means the entire quantity, and all subsequent feed bags, are labelled GM. This does not mean that feed is anything like 100% GM, and in fact the bulk of any animal feed is probably non-GM.

2) If, as Mr. Kendall says, UK farmers need “confidence” in the market to invest and improve UK beef production levels, why does this logic not apply to the farmers in Brazil already growing non-GM soya but unable to risk the costs of certification without confirmed advance orders from the EU to ensure they gets a return?

Augusto Freire notes, “An additional volume of Brazilian soy meal representing 1.5 million metric tonnes of soybeans could have been certified [as non-GM] if EU buyers had expressed their demand early in the year.” The non-GM soya is there, and more can be grown, we just need to say we want it. It’s not hard.

Consumer demand should boost confidence enough to take this step. A 2010 GfK/NOP poll showed fewer than 40% of supermarket shoppers were aware that imported GM animal feed fuels British factory farming, and 89% wanted these products to be clearly labelled. In January of this year the UK Food Standards Agency published research showing again that two-thirds of respondents want all use of GM feed to be labelled. Even among those undecided about GM food and crops respondents felt “some form of labelling should be in place to help them determine GM content and avoid choosing foods containing GM if they so wish”. Overall there is a clear indication this need to identify GM use applies to animal products in particular. People don’t want GM feed in the food chain, and they want clear labels to help them see where it is – or isn’t.

3) I completely agree that there is, as Mr. Kendall told the Committee, “too much focus on price” in the food industry. If this is the case, why are industrial crops feeding industrial megafarm production to produce cheap meat worthy of such vocal support?

True, there are vested interests on both sides of the discussion, and there are rumours that Indian soya is less desirable than Brazilian. Overall we’d be far better off moving away from the industrial meat model. Yet this does not explain why supermarkets can’t do their part in delivering what the market demands now by placing clear orders for non-GM soya (or non-GM fed products) to give Brazilian farmers the confidence they need to grow and certify non-GM crops. The NFU position invokes the market, but goes directly against the basics of supply and demand. The more non-GM feed is demanded, the more will be supplied, and the costs will come down—unless vested interests interfere with the market. Large supermarkets and dairies in other parts of Europe seem to be able to manage it, so it is very difficult to see why the UK is different.

Mr. Kendall told the NFU 2013 conference, “Today I want to talk about a pact with the great British consumer to get things changed…We now need supermarkets to stop scouring the world for the cheapest products they can find and start sourcing high quality, traceable, product from farmers here at home…That may mean more dedicated supply groups. It will certainly mean longer-term thinking and a shorter supply chain.” We agree, and we’re here to help.

Mr. Kendall, if you truly “Do not want food safety and standards to be politicised,” as you told the Committee, why do you say GM skepticism is “directly comparable to Nazi book-burning in the 1930’s”? Why do you not support your members in providing what the market clearly wants?

The situation with regard to GM animal feed looks increasingly like lucrative supply lines controlled by shippers and importers, not farmers, attempting to force an end to non-GM supplies on an unwilling market. The NFU position, which wedges farmers uncomfortably between their market and these vested interests, remains very difficult to understand. The sooner the NFU applies the logic it uses in the meat chain to the feed chain, the sooner consumers will begin to regain confidence in our food.

Mr. Kendall also told your 2013 conference consumers should demand answers from the people they buy from. We agree European consumers can and should get what they want.

This action is a good first step.

When it Comes to GE Seafood, Defend Your Power to Choose

By Rich Bindell

At some point today, you’ll probably make a seemingly mundane choice that you make every day, without even thinking about it. Maybe you’ll choose to drink decaffeinated coffee (to avoid caffeine) or pick a movie for your family to watch this weekend (R-rated movies might not be appropriate for your seven year old). That choice likely involves collecting information before making your decision. But what if some of that information wasn’t available? If the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves genetically engineered (GE) salmon as the first GE food animal to enter the marketplace, it will likely be without a label, forcing you to either risk buying a genetically engineered salmon or give up salmon completely. Thanks to the Campaign for GE-Free Seafood, consumers can start to look for stores who promise to not to sell GE salmon.

Food & Water Watch joined forces with Friends of the Earth—and a coalition thirty groups-strong—to kick off the Campaign for GE-Free Seafood. Today, we submitted a letter to the nation’s top grocery stores, asking them to honor an important commitment to their customers: promise not to sell GE seafood and make it their company policy to not knowingly purchase or sell GE seafood. Many stores have already agreed to sign-on to this promise, including Whole Foods, Trader Joes, Marsh Supermarkets, Aldi, and PCC Natural Markets!

The Campaign for GE-Free Seafood coalition includes consumer, food safety, fishing, environmental, sustainable agriculture, parent, public health and animal health and welfare organizations, representing millions of members across the nation who demand that GE salmon be labeled so that consumers can identify it and avoid it. Having a GE label is critical for consumers, especially considering that polls show that 91 percent of them do not want the FDA to approve GE salmon.

The FDA has already said that GE salmon would likely not require labeling, so it could be impossible to tell if the salmon we buy at the market is genetically engineered. Hopefully more stores will join this list and help their customers know what they’re buying. And in the meantime, tell the FDA to reject GE salmon.

The Denver GE food labeling volunteer team

By Candace Johnson

If you were to only pay attention to news headlines, you would think that the campaign to label GE foods in Colorado was squashed on Feb. 21 when the hearing committee voted down House Bill 1192.

It’s true; the failure of our legislators to act on HB 1192 was unfortunate. Dan Hobbs, a Colorado farmer and spokesperson for the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union put the sentiment succinctly when he said, “The death of HB 1192 is not only a defeat for basic consumer rights, but it hurts Colorado’s family farmers and ranchers who work hard to maintain strong relationships with their customers. Giving consumers more transparency about how their food is produced will return a little bit of fairness to our agricultural markets and give small and midsized farmers a fighting chance to stay in business through alternative market systems. After all, if a seed is unique enough to patent, it is unique enough to label.”

However, the movement is stronger than ever and continues to pick up momentum. Just ask the dozens of moms, businesses, farmers and activists who turned out to support Jeanne Labuda’s bill and continue to fight for the simple right to know whether or not our food is genetically engineered.

The fact that HB 1192 was heard at committee served the great purpose of educating more Coloradans about the need for GE food labels, unifying labeling activists across the state and galvanizing our campaign. But the hearing was just one of the exciting happenings in the evolution of our campaign, which has been pushed forward by a dedicated team of volunteers, staff and coalition partners.

Way back in August 2012, we officially launched our GE food labeling campaign with a kick-off event Aug. 28. That night we spoke to a packed house about the power of grassroots organizing and what it takes to build a movement.  But my most memorable moment from our kick-off actually occurred the night before as we prepared organic food donated by a local urban farm to be served to the attendees.

As we chopped veggies and stirred the pot of chili, we shared stories about what brought us to this issue. For Sherry, a volunteer with Food & Water Watch and longtime activist, the reason was clear: the corporate takeover of our food system was unconscionable. To her, labeling is one step towards putting the power back in our hands.  As each of us shared, it became clear that we all have a personal stake in this issue.

After the kick-off event, we went on to plan and execute one successful event after another with each team member bringing something valuable to the table. At a screening of The Future of Food, volunteer Debbie Brady rocked the house with a passionate speech about the perils of corporate greed. Dedicated Food & Water Watch “lifers”, Sara Gunderson and Deja Walker were the glue the held Denver FWW group together by showing up for every meeting, rally, and event. More recently, our newest volunteer Danielle Marrow jumped into the mix right away by helping design an interactive game about GE foods for a community gathering we held.  Not surprisingly, the community gathering turned into a focused conversation. Community members voiced their frustrations and we ended by determining actionable steps for us all to take.

HB 1192 was a success in gaining media, educating the public and, ultimately, fortifying the labeling movement in Colorado. In true grassroots fashion, folks reached out to their networks and turned out an impressive amount of testimony in an extremely short amount of time.  Family farmers, concerned parents, restaurant owners and many more spoke in support of the bill. We formed ties with groups like GMO Free Colorado, Grow Local Colorado, and Denver Metro Moveon.org, who are doing great work statewide.

We’re looking forward to working with our FWW members and allies to continue to develop this movement to label GE foods in Colorado. Follow us on Facebook!

Candace Johnson is Food & Water Watch’s Denver Local Coordinator

By Mary Grant

This morning, the Senate is discussing a new bill that, among other things, will give federally subsidized loans to companies that sell water to the oil and gas industry.  

Tagged onto a big water infrastructure bill is the “Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2013,” often referred to by its acronym WIFIA. This speciously named, industry-backed program will give low-interest loans primarily to large water companies to finance certain projects, including desalination and other water supply activities.

Hidden in the fine print is evidence that the program seeks to use public dollars to finance water projects that benefit the oil and gas industry. In fact, it will give funding preference to those projects. The program has just nine criteria for determining which eligible projects will get financial support, and one of these nine factors is: “the extent to which a project serves regions with significant energy exploration, development, or production areas.”

This means projects that produce more water for fracking will get priority over other water projects outside of oil and gas drilling areas.

Fracking uses millions of gallons of water per well, and the major water companies are salivating at the opportunity to sell water to water-guzzling oil and gas companies. Aqua America, the second largest U.S. investor owned water company, has a whole section of its website describing its efforts to sell water to shale drillers. The company is an associate member of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, and the company’s CEO seems to act as a gas industry shill.

American Water — the largest U.S. investor owned water company — also sells water to the oil and gas industry. This month in a presentation to investors, the company reported that it made about $3 million in revenue last year from fracking deals and sold more than 430 million gallons to frackers.

Our issue brief “Why the Water Industry Is Promoting Shale Gas Development” delves deeper into the cozy relationship between large water corporations and the oil and gas industry. These two powerful industries held their first ever Global Water: Oil & Gas Summit in Dubai last year to come up with plans for how to mutually benefit from water intensive shale development.

One thing is clear: The federal government should not use our tax dollars to subsidize corporate water sales to the oil and gas industry.  

Act now to tell your Senators to oppose WIFIA and its low-interest loans to large water corporations that sell water for fracking.