food safety

Over the weekend, the New York Times reported on the unfortunate story of a 22 year-old woman who became paralyzed due to a reaction to E.coli that she contracted from a hamburger.  Even though preventable food-borne illnesses like this one continue to occur, not enough is being done to ensure safe food for consumers.

In 2008, USDA tested ground beef at processing facilities it regulates and found deadly E. coli contamination 54 times.  USDA already found it 31 times this year. But what happened after that? You might assume that the agency tried to find all the product in those batches that were tested so that it could be removed from store shelves before it could harm the public. That’s where you’d be wrong.

We don’t know exactly what happens because USDA refuses to explain it to the public and has blocked our attempts to use the Freedom of Information Act to determine it by looking at their records.  Just last week, USDA officials reneged on their promise for a 2009 meeting to explain exactly what actions the government takes when it finds the deadly E. coli  O157:H7 pathogen in products that have left meat plants. 

What we do know is that most testing is done at the smallest plants, so positive tests often reveal only the tips of the iceberg of how much product might be involved, especially because these small plants often buy scraps of beef from other larger companies to process into ground beef.  After government health departments link illnesses to particular product, all efforts are made to identify the rest of the “iceberg” and recall as much contaminated product as possible.  But, until someone gets sick, even confirmed E. coli 0157:H7 tests in ground beef, lead to a much milder response by USDA. If there are no illnesses and USDA has only a test showing contamination, it will check company paperwork at the slaughterhouses that supplied the beef to the processor and will likely collect one or more samples of current production to see if it is contaminated.  This will indicate nothing about the specific production lot from which the positive test came and will do nothing to alert consumers to the potentially deadly beef that is still in the market, if not already in their freezers.

How many more lives have to be sacrificed before changes are made in the food safety system?  Real action must be taken to prevent more senseless tragedies like this one from occurring. USDA needs to update their E. coli testing and response policies. 

– Felicia Nestor

On September 8, a new seafood safety bill authored by Representative Fred Mills (D-46) was formally signed in the Louisiana State Legislature by Governor Jindal.   The bill comes at a time when nearly two-thirds of the shrimpers in the state have participated in a strike in the last month to protest the low prices they receive for their catch. (Read more about the strike and the shrimpers' position here.) The primary problem is the low prices of farmed imported shrimp, which domestic shrimpers can't compete with. It's the same problem that's undermined so many other U.S. industries: it's cheaper to produce things in other countries where there aren't strong labor and environmental standards. While purchasing less expensive products may seem to be a short term answer to difficult personal economic times, it can perpetuate domestic financial problems – by causing loss of U.S. jobs. In this case, there is a risk to consumer health as well.

Much imported seafood is raised in dirty, poorly cared-for fish farms. The top countries the U.S. imports seafood from are China and Thailand. Shrimp is shipped to the U.S. to be sold more cheaply than the local, fresher seafood coming right off the dock each day. Local shrimpers aren’t receiving enough money per pound for their catch to stay in business – simply to pay for a day's gas and ice to go out on the water costs more than they have been receiving. This is also bad for consumers, because many foreign shrimp farms use high amounts of chemicals and antibiotics in production, and lack enforcement of food safety standards.

Seafood safety and U.S. jobs go hand-in-hand. With imports squeezing out our shrimpers and other fishermen, consumers can only access seafood that's been produced under questionable conditions, and is not as fresh as it could be by the time it reaches their plates. 

The seafood safety bill, Louisiana House Bill 551/Act 330, aims to establish some standards to protect consumers from unhealthy imported seafood—simultaneously offering some protection for U.S. jobs. It’s supported by a council of shrimpers who have come together across racial and ethnic lines and overcome past disagreements to send a unified message that action is necessary.

However, the bill only applies to seafood from China, and only creates voluntary standards. The Louisiana shrimpers need more help to be able to stay in business.

The change needed could come with legislation that requires country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for all seafood. Wait a second—don’t we already have country-of-origin labeling standards in the U.S.?  Well, we do–but the existing COOL rules are full of loopholes, and it seems seafood has fallen through one of those. We need to close the loopholes in COOL and require mandatory labeling of all seafood, whether it's in the grocery store or on a menu.

For more information on how you can get involved in helping our U.S. shrimpers, sign up for our new Shrimp Updates list and stay tuned for coming actions.

– Erica Schuetz

The Food Safety Enhancement Act (H.R. 2749) passed last week in the U.S. House of Representatives  by a vote of 283-142. 

The bill gives the U.S. Food and Drug Administration new mandates and authority to regulate food safety of the 80% of the food supply that falls under its jurisdiction.  It addresses some of the gaping loopholes in the food safety program at FDA that were tragically exposed by a series of food borne illness outbreaks in recent years that sickened and even killed U.S. consumers.  On balance, the bill is a positive first step to correcting the deficiencies at FDA, but there are still some issues that need to be addressed as the debate moves over to the Senate. Read more about the bill.

"A home is the place where, when you have to go there, they have to take you in." -Robert Frost

When we arrived on Joan Knoertzer's doorstep last night, she welcomed us into her library-themed B&B with open arms. Upon entering we discovered a wonderland brimming with laughter, stories, nibbles (her word for candy), and more books than you could possibly imagine. Sometimes being on the road gets tiring, but great Bed and Breakfasts give the impression that you are at a place where they would always take you in.

We fell asleep enveloped in the softest sheets we had ever felt and awoke to an elaborate breakfast. As we prepared for another full day of petitioning, Joan set us up for success.

Enjoying a cooler day in Ann Arbor, Becca, Alex and I hit the ground running. We donned the fashionable heifer suits, and over the course of the day, we collected nearly 150 postcards. As the sky darkened at the late hour of 10 pm, we treated ourselves to ice cream from the local parlor and reflected upon the day. It seemed appropriate that we would share some of our musings below.

We are thankful for kind and hospitable hosts, for receptive ears, for new coalition partners, for enthusiastic supporters, for artificial hormone-free ice cream, and for the breathability of two of the three cow suits.

When we embarked on this road trip several days ago, we expected to meet great people along the way. However, we had no idea what was in store. On every corner and sidewalk, while petitioning and asking folks to call their Senators, we continually meet fantastic people. Each time we stop into a restaurant, hotel, and B&B, we encounter friendly faces.

Over the last two days, we have been aided and inspired by our coalition partners. Karen Hansen from the Ohio Conference on Fair Trade was a lifesaver at the North Market Food and Wine Festival. We met over a cup of coffee, and before we could say “Healthy School Milk or Bust,” she was up and running, asking the folks at the next table to sign a postcard.

Then today she joined us again for a meeting with Senator Brown’s staff, along with Ellen Mee and Joe Logan from the Ohio Environmental Council. It was phenomenal to have Ellen and Joe in the meeting, as they’ve worked on rBGH and agricultural issues in the state for years.

The meeting was a great success, and we were thrilled to have media cover the event. Prior to entering Senator Brown’s office, local NPR affiliate WOSU interviewed Alex and Joe. Check the clip out here.

Tomorrow, we head north to Ann Arbor. There, we look forward to spreading the word on school milk. You know what they say, “what’s good for the goose, is good for the Michigander.”

- Becca, Meredith, and Alex

Those of us who grew up in the 1950’s fondly remember the Nestle’s television and radio commercials featuring the wooden puppets Danny O’Day and his trusty basset hound sidekick Farfel extolling the virtues of the company’s cocoa powder for milk.  For those who were not yet born to experience such great culture, Danny O’Day would sing: “N-E-S-T-L-E-S. Nestle’s makes the very best”… and Farfel would chime in “Cha-a-aw-klit.” (If you want to see what I am talking about, there are various renditions of the commercial on the Internet). Back then, Nestle’s had a wholesome image among U.S. consumers.

Fast-forward to 2009. Nestle’s now finds itself in an epidemiological investigation involving its Toll-House raw cookie dough that may be contaminated with E.coli 0157:H7 which has sickened at least 71 consumers in 30 states according to the Centers for Disease Control. The company has also recalled various products made with the cookie dough. The focus of the investigation has been the Nestle’s plant in Danville, Virginia.

Last weekend, a couple of news reports surfaced that revealed that inspectors for both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Commonwealth of Virginia (that was contracted by FDA to do inspections) were denied access to Nestle’s production records at the Danville plant going back to at least 2004. Nestle’s did not do anything illegal since under current law a company does not have to turn over its records to FDA unless there is a public health emergency, such as a food recall.  Nestle’s is claiming that it is co-operating with the FDA in the current investigation, but if the company were so confident of its food safety procedures in the past, why did it not simply turn over its production records when asked by inspectors? Had they had access to those records, the inspectors might have spotted something that could have exposed a weakness in the production process and they could have advised the company to take remedial action to correct those deficiencies BEFORE the company put adulterated product into commerce and people got sick.

The press revelations prove that that the FDA needs new statutory authority to prevent food borne illness outbreaks from occurring. They also show that FDA needs a strong and robust inspection program to make sure that the spirit and the letter of the law are being followed.

It would ruin my childhood memories if I saw an updated version of the Nestle’s commercial from the 1950’s that went something like this:
“N-E-S-T-L-E-S.  Nestle’s tries its very best...to hide."

– Tony Corbo

Now, it’s E. coli contamination of all things Toll-House cookie dough.  According to the Centers for Disease Control, 65 people in 29 states have become ill from either eating raw cookie dough or consuming another food item that became contaminated from coming into contact with raw cookie dough. Eating raw cookie dough is never a smart thing to do because there is always a chance that the dough is contaminated with a food-borne pathogen, but the usual culprit is salmonella from unpasteurized eggs – not E. coli which is more commonly associated with beef products.

Again, as was the case with the recent food-borne illness outbreaks associated with peanuts, peanut butter, spinach, and alfalfa sprouts, the Food and Drug Administration did not know there was a problem with the cookie dough until people started to get sick. We found out with the Peanut Corporation of America outbreak that FDA inspectors had not been in the Georgia plant that was the center of the outbreak for eight years. Had inspectors been there on a regular basis, they would have seen that the plant was manufacturing food under unsanitary conditions.  Information on the last FDA inspection of the Nestle’s plant involved in the cookie dough outbreak still has not been released, but we would not be surprised to learn if FDA has not been in there for years.

That is why we were dismayed to hear of comments attributed to the new FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg last week who stated that more frequent inspections of food establishments are not the answer to preventing food-borne illness, but more “smart” inspections were.  We have heard that line before from past FDA commissioners and that thinking has gotten us to where we are today. “Smart” inspections has been code in the past to fewer inspections, not more. It seems that she is being advised by some of the same people who have fought for decades transforming the FDA into an inspection agency. This is very troubling.

 
FDA publicly says that it wants to prevent food-borne illnesses. But it seems that the agency still wants to rely on the honor system and let industry police itself. You need “cops-on-the-beat” to prevent problems from happening. Otherwise, FDA will continue to be the fire department that puts out the fire after people have already been injured. The recent food-borne illness outbreaks prove that a paradigm shift is needed at FDA, but as long as there is resistance by key leaders within that agency to commit to a rigorous food inspection program, more consumers will get sick and even die.

It seems like year after year the same ol’ battle wages on about whether or not the U.S. should keep a ban on importing chicken from China.  And the same players are behind the effort this year (who else but Big Ag?), working hard to pressure the Obama administration and Congress to lift the ban.

While visiting Chinese facilities a few years ago, U.S. inspectors found defective equipment, lack of employee hygiene, unsanitary conditions, and an absence of regulations requiring pre-shipment testing for Salmonella, E. coli and other contaminants. And don’t forget about the hundreds of other products from China, ranging from seafood to cosmetics, that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration blocked at the border in recent years because they contained dangerous substances or violated other rules. 

At least we have U.S. chicken to fall back on, right?  But there’s still work to be done in this country to make sure we have safe chicken to eat.   A new report from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention cites poultry as the most commonly identified source of food poisoning in the U.S. in 2006. And that’s with a food safety net.

So, why would we bring in product from somewhere like China, where food safety problems are widespread and even the government admits it doesn’t have control?  The truth behind the push to “ban the ban” is coming from the meat industry because they want to get China to open its markets to U.S. beef and pork.  

Later this week, the House appropriations committee will decide whether or not to keep a provision in the USDA budget that prohibits the agency from allowing processed poultry products from China to enter the United States. 

We’ll keep you posted on what they decide. But in the meantime, what do you think? Should we keep the ban on Chinese chicken or “ban the ban”?

“The way we eat has changed more in the last 50 years than in the previous 10,000.”
…Narrates Michael Pollan at the beginning of a new movie entitled Food, Inc., hitting select theaters this Friday.

Joining the ranks of food documentaries – there are so many recently, there should be a new genre of film, foodiementaries anyone?  - Food, Inc. goes behind the scenes of our nation’s supermarkets and behind the machines of agribusiness. Many of the issues they tackle are right up our alley, including the numerous problems that put consumer safety, the livelihood of the American farmers, and the health of our environment at risk.

Food, Inc. also mentions one of our key issues, rBGH aka recombinant bovine growth hormone. There’s just one part in the script, however, that needs some clarification. The film states that Wal-Mart’s decision to go rBGH-free “put the nail in the coffin of rBGH.”  Too bad this is wishful thinking. While Wal-Mart did begin to sell rBGH-free milk for its generic brand, it does not label the product as such. Why? During the last past two years, state-by-state labeling battles popped up around the country that threatened to limit hormone-free milk labels. For example, Ohio’s labeling rule requires the prohibitive use of a misleading disclaimer that states "no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBST-treated and non-rBST-treated cows”, and bans accurate claims such as “rBGH-free” and “artificial growth hormone-free.” Wal-Mart decided not to label their milk pending the outcome of the state-by-state battles.

While we're glad that big retailers like Wal-Mart are bowing to consumer pressure and turning away from artificial hormones, we know that Big Ag will continue to look for new markets for rBGH milk.  That's why we're working to have Congress allow schools to purchase milk produced without artificial hormones. You can sign our School Milk Campaign petition and even see a nifty web application on Food, Inc.’s website that mentions our campaign ---Just click on the milk carton!
And, make sure you make your way to the theater this weekend to see Food, Inc. and snack on some rBGH-free candy.

Are you really passionate about food and water issues? Are you already active online? You can combine your interests and existing online habits by contributing to Food & Water Watch campaign outreach.

There are many ways you can help:

• comment on blogs about our issues

• write about FWW issues on your own blog
  

• share our alerts, reports, and news on social media sites (Facebook, Twitter, etc.)

If you are interested, please join our Special Blog Outreach Unit!

– Food & Water Watch

The Obama Administration is considering nominating Dr. Michael Doyle, a proponent of food irradiation, for Under Secretary of Food Safety. If this sounds familiar, it's because the Administration was recently forced to stop the consideration of another irradiation supporter, Michael Osterholm, for the same position after thousands of folks like you spoke up.

What's so bad about irradiation?  Some research suggests that irradiated food promotes tumor growth and may cause genetic damage. It's also ineffective, as it fails to kill all bacteria and may undermine food safety efforts by masking filthy conditions in slaughterhouses.  On top of all this, the technology is expensive, meaning we will all pay more to treat our food with something that may harm our health.

Dr. Doyle has been a zealot in promoting this technology as the panacea to contaminated food. He has been quoted in the media numerous times supporting irradiation as a quick fix to our food safety problems.  What's more, Dr. Doyle would also bring serious conflicts of interest to the position. He's served as a consultant for big agriculture for companies like ConAgra and the American Peanut Council.  He has also raised funds from Cargill, Coca-Cola, Hormel, and McDonald's as part of his job as Director of the Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia.  What are the chances that Dr. Doyle could effectively regulate the same companies that so recently funded his work at the University of Georgia?

We've already had a a food irradiation advocate who cared more about corporate interests than public safety as Undersecretary for Food Safety - under President Bush.  Help stop us from going down that road again.

Last week, Food & Water Watch launched a new online interactive tool for you to learn more about where your produce is coming from. The tool is called the "Global Grocer," and it was inspired by a recent Food & Water Watch report entitled The Poisoned Fruit of American Trade Policy.

Why is it so important to know where your produce is coming from? It’s because, as discussed in the report, Americans are now buying more imported produce than ever before. The concern with that comes from some countries not having equivalent food safety standards, combined with the Food & Drug Administration inspecting less than one percent of food shipments coming into the country. In addition, country-of-origin labeling rules have enough loopholes in them that much of this produce goes unlabeled.

So what exactly is the "Global Grocer"? It is a virtual supermarket, in which you can fill your shopping cart with a variety of fruits and vegetables, and then learn the probabilities of those products being imported and where from. In other words – it is a fun and informative way to learn about food safety, and find out which are the smart decisions to make while shopping for produce.

To give the "Global Grocer" a test drive, you can check it out here. We would also like to thank Poccuo, a local Washington, DC company, for helping us put this project together. Enjoy! 

- Food & Water Watch

H.R. 875, Representative Rosa DeLauro's bill for reforming the Food and Drug Administration – also known as the Food Safety Modernization Act – has been the victim of misguided accusations and allegations over the past several weeks. The bill is designed to improve our food safety system, which has proven itself to be full of holes – especially in recent months, with salmonella recalls and melamine scares becoming the rule rather than the exception. 

A lot of the concern revolving around the bill involves its potential implications for organic agriculture, home gardens, and farmers markets. We have created this game show widget, so those concerned can learn more about the bill, and clear up any misconceptions that have been dominating the food safety conversation. We hope you enjoy it– and feel free to share it with your friends!

 - Food & Water Watch

It's that time of year again! Wednesday April 22nd is Earth Day, with this year marking the event’s 39th anniversary. In this spirit, Food & Water Watch is attending a series of events throughout the country for current and new activists, and we would love to see you there!

Even if you can't make it to an event, there are a variety of ways to get involved. You could take action on any number of issues, such as fish farming, strengthening our food safety laws, improving our water infrastructure, fighting bottled water, and more. You can also host a film screening in your area – just contact us to find out how! 

Thanks for all of the great work, and have a happy Earth Day!

- Food & Water Watch

Can you imagine a food processing company that is given a Certificate of Achievement despite having dry-roasted rodents and salmonella-tainted products at their facilities? It’s one of the crazy things about the world we live in. Nine deaths and almost 700 illnesses have been counted since the peanut scandal began a few months ago. All because the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) decided to take a few shortcuts and withhold the fact that they had discovered salmonella in some of their production plants. Responsibility for this does not just fall upon PCA, however. The Food & Drug Administration’s lax oversight, coupled with the sporadic and ineffective use of state inspectors and third party auditors, allowed for this situation to unfold.

Third party audits of food production companies have become a common – and sloppy – way for the food safety system to conduct its operations. The case of PCA is no exception. PCA hired the American Institute of Baking International (AIB), the largest private food-inspection firm in the country – to inspect their facilities. However, not only did AIB notify PCA in advance about dates of upcoming inspections and tell them to get ready, but they then gave them excellent reviews that did not at all match the shoddy conditions state inspectors found this January. AIB even revealed, in a recent statement, that they did not test for food contamination – which seems nonsensical, considering recent events.

Nestle USA sent in its own inspectors to the South Georgia and Texas and found the plant conditions so poor that Nestle chose to buy its supplies elsewhere. Other companies like Kellogg were not so lucky, as they chose to rely on AIB’s audits only to lose millions of dollars from the recall. 

There is something good that can be drawn from this whole incident, which is that Congress has finally taken it upon themselves to overhaul the Food & Drug Administration, along with the food safety system as a whole. We only wish this had happened sooner. Food & Water Watch supports a bill by Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) that will help fix many of these problems.

The bill, known as HR 875, would fix FDA’s main flaw by splitting it into two separate agencies (one for food safety, one for drugs and medical devices).  HR 875 is one of several on the House floor that is hoping to address the food safety issue – but of these this bill clearly holds the most promise. Considering the variety of food safety debacles we have seen over the past year – melamine in Chinese imports, salmonella-tainted jalapeño peppers, and listeria-tainted cheese to name a few, we cannot afford to put off these reforms any longer.

- Sofía Baliño

You've got to hand it to the CyClone Dairy people. They've decided that, rather than hide the fact that they use milk from cloned animals and their offspring, they'll brag about it instead and hope that people assume that their positive attitude comes from a product that’s been proven "safe." Unfortunately, the reality is quite the opposite of the website's cheerful photos and catchy slogans.

The data on the safety of cloned products for human consumption is limited, while ethical concerns and negative animal health effects are extensive. However, the Food and Drug Administration, in keeping with their bad track record of approving questionable technologies with few questions asked, announced little over a year ago that they believed meat and milk from cloned animals safe to eat.  The agency managed to ignore the litany of problems that have yet to be solved with the entire cloning process. They also ignored over 30,000 comments opposing their stance on cloning.

To make matters worse, FDA does not require labeling on products from cloned animals or their offspring. And the only thing stopping the sale of meat and milk from cloned cows is a voluntary moratorium, making it very possible for this trend to spread – with no tracking system to figure out where clones and their offspring end up. Even industry trade associations have concerns over cloning, asking FDA to hold off on permitting cloned milk to enter the food supply until more research can be done – yet FDA refuses to respond.

A variety of food companies have already made it known that they will not be using products from cloned animals, including Kraft Foods Inc., Smithfield Inc. (a surprisingly good action on their part), Ben & Jerry's, and more. Not to mention that recent polling has shown a majority of consumers are wary of cloned products. The International Dairy Foods Association predicted in 2007 that the $20 billion dairy industry could fall by 15% should cloned milk be introduced into the market.

With dairy farmers already suffering an economic backlash due to falling milk prices not yielding enough revenue to cover costs, they cannot afford further losses from selling products that consumers do not trust. CyClone Dairy should take the hint. Putting a good face on an unnecessary and potentially unsafe product isn't slick marketing – it's bad business. 

We love The Onion.* Don’t you? Does anyone not love The Onion?

Check out their latest take on the food safety scandals that have been racking our nation. Of course, Salmonella is no joke, and we definitely don’t want to make light of the suffering of those who’ve been affected or lost loved ones to the outbreak. But when it comes to the almost Kafkaesque level of absurdity that seems to pervade our regulatory system, The Onion just seems to have it so right.

I mean, really… ’Nella Wafers?  Too good.

*In case you've never read The Onion, it's a humor newspaper that publishes entirely fictional, satirical articles.

The Food and Drug Administration is sadly becoming notorious for sloppy work. Not only has it failed to adequately protect consumers from recent food safety fiascos, it now seems to be allowing consumption of a well-known toxin… mercury.

First, FDA ignored the presence of mercury in high fructose corn syrup, and decided to forego further testing – while neglecting to make consumers aware of the problem. Now, FDA has added fuel to the fire by releasing a flawed report regarding mercury in fish that serves as yet another example of a lack of concern for the health and wellbeing of the U.S. public. Once again, FDA is dragging its feet on what is a critical consumer safety issue.

Specifically, this report gives off the highly improbable impression that the benefits that come from eating fish, specifically from omega-3s, somehow cancel out the risks from ingesting mercury – even for pregnant women and children. These claims now have the Environmental Protection Agency, along with a variety of consumer groups like ours, in an uproar, and with good reason.

The report itself is a scientifically flawed mess, as we at Food & Water Watch made sure to mention in a letter to FDA's Acting Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Frank Torti. One notable problem is that the report groups all fish together. This is highly problematic as various fish have different average concentrations of both omega-3s and mercury, making the supposedly "positive" net effects different for every fish. FDA did not take the time to generate a meaningful report, hoping instead that the existing report’s content would simply be accepted as credible without questions.

The implications of this report could go beyond human health. Specifically, it may provide cover for industrial fish farms to hide behind, as the pollution from some of these farms may cause mercury contamination in surrounding sediments and wild-caught fish. Should this mercury suddenly be considered harmless based on a faulty FDA report, this gives fish farms little incentive to improve their practices and limit pollution. In addition, it gives off the general impression that fish farms are far more benign than they actually may be.

If this report goes unchallenged, consumers are likely to ingest fish containing more mercury than is acceptable, under the mistaken belief that it is safe to do so. The problems mentioned here are just a few of the several that FWW found in the report.  We urge FDA to conduct a more thorough analysis for the sake of the consumers that they claim to serve, rather than rest on their (rather questionable) laurels. 

-Sofía Baliño

The last thing you want to think about when shopping for this season’s Easter candy is whether or not it’s safe to eat. It is entirely possible that those candy treats you love, along with a variety of foods and beverages, could be using sugar from genetically modified (GM) sugar beets – beets that have been genetically engineered to withstand herbicide.  How can you find out if your favorite candy is made with GM sugar? Unfortunately, you can’t since the Food and Drug Administration does not require products that use GM crops to be labeled. Now, however, there is an online resource available for consumers to find out which companies have committed not to use this sugar.

Known as the Non-GM Beet Sugar Registry, the registry is sponsored by twelve organizations, including Food & Water Watch, with the purpose of creating both a resource for consumers, as well as an incentive for producers to join the registry and abandon the practice of using GM beet sugar.

So what’s the problem with GM crops? Simple – it’s because, like food irradiation and rBGH-milk, the potential dangers of these crops are unclear. For one, GM crops have yet to be proven safe for consumers, with no long-term studies of GM food’s effects on human health having ever been conducted by a government agency, such as our ever-sloppy FDA. Seems typical of FDA’s notoriously poor handling of the food industry.

The potential environmental effects are also cause for concern. GM crops increase herbicide use; in addition, the possibility of cross-pollination with related crops could also risk the economic future of other farmers. These issues themselves should be enough to cause sugar beet farmers to have second thoughts. Hershey's has already made public assurances to Brazil that they will not be using GM sugar in the products that Brazilians receive.

While over 70 organizations have already signed on to the Non-GM Beet Sugar Registry, two major organizations that promised back in 2001 to not use GM beet sugar have yet to fulfill their promise and sign the registry – specifically, Hershey’s and Mars. It’s both disappointing and alarming to see these companies’ lack of concern with regards to their consumers. Consumers need to take this opportunity and urge these companies to make the same commitment that the other registry members have made and assure the public of their dedication to the environment and food safety. Now that Monsanto’s Roundup Ready ® GM sugar beets (a type of beet resistant to the Roundup Ready ® herbicide) are already in their first season of planting in the U.S. and have achieved widespread popularity among some farmers, it’s time to stop the problem before it has a chance to really take root. 

-Sofía Baliño

We are very pleased (see photos) that Senator Gregg, an offshore aquaculture advocate, withdrew his nomination for Commerce Secretary yesterday. 

Thank you for voicing your concern. Over 15,000 letters were sent from our supporters to the White House in opposition to his nomination – you definitely helped make a difference.

• Learn why Senator Gregg was not the right choice for the job.
• Learn more about offshore aquaculture.