health

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

How far will Colin Beavan, aka "No Impact Man," go to reduce the effect his lifestyle choices have on the environment? So far, his quest to shrink his carbon footprint has catapulted him from the blogosphere to a book deal and up onto the silver screen.

Now, Food & Water Watch is joining Colin on the next leg of his eco-friendly adventure as he prepares to share the details of his experience with readers and moviegoers around the U.S.

Writer Colin Beavan began the No Impact Project when as a newly self-proclaimed environmentalist he could no longer avoid pointing the finger at himself. He began an adventure (and what turned out to be a popular and controversial blog) when he took a vow to make as little environmental impact as possible for one year.

Can you imagine living without automated transportation, electricity, imported foods, minimal consumption of any kind? Colin did and now there's a movie and a book along with Colin's blog telling the story of the fascinating year in the lives of Colin, Michelle his wife and their daughter.

No Impact Man will be premiering Sept. 11 and Colin will be touring the country with the movie and his book simultaneously.Food & Water Watch will also be joining in at screenings and events because if there is one thing No Impact Man learned it is having a big political impact is critical. (Which reminds us, if you haven't signed or shared the petition to protect public water, please act now! )

In support of Colin's efforts, we've set up an experiment of our own here at Food & Water Watch. Two of our employees, both self-described "regular guys and consumers, not typical activists or green types" are embarking on an adventure of their own to see which of them can learn to make smarter, better-informed water use choices in their personal lives. Will learning how to reduce their water footprints inspire them to become activists? You won't want to miss their experiences as they attempt to find out. Beginning on September 11, you can follow their progress here. Join in and share your stories of impact, low or high. You'll even get to choose whose efforts you think made the biggest difference.

In addition, the No Impact Project is challenging you to try and live "no impact" for one week. You'll be put on a team and guided through the steps day-by-day. You'll discover for yourself that less IS more. Learn more.

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.

Ever since I learned about the dangers of triclosan, I’ve started looking, really looking, before I buy. Triclosan is a pesticide that’s often used in personal care products like toothpaste, face-wash, hand and dish soap and laundry detergent.  Manufacturers add triclosan to these products in order to make the claim that their product is antibacterial and protects against disease.

But the reality is that triclosan is no more effective than plain soap and water in preventing illness. In 2000, the American Medical Association (AMA) said “there is little evidence to support the use of antimicrobials in consumer products.” Similarly, in 2005, an FDA panel of experts voted 11 to 1 that antibacterial soaps were no more effective than regular soap and water in fighting infections. So really, the manufacturers of these products are just fear mongering and trying to convince consumers that bacteria are enemy number one.

As a pesticide, triclosan can kill both good and bad bacteria. The good bacteria that live on our skin keep us healthy. So not only does triclosan remove good bacteria, it may allow for the strongest bad bacteria to survive. Research suggests that the overuse of antimicrobial products could lead to antibiotic resistance.

Triclosan has been linked to even more human health effects like endocrine and thyroid disruption. Triclosan also builds up in our bodies over time. Researchers have found triclosan in urine, breast milk and blood samples. 

Why would we continue to use products that are not effective and may in fact be doing more harm than good? I encourage you to start looking at ingredient labels. Really look.  Let us know where you find triclosan lurking in your house! 

Use our new triclosan tool to report where you spy triclosan. We’ll post your entries. Then, send the link to your friends and family too. Maybe you’re ready to take the anti-triclosan pledge!

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.

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.

Over the past several weeks, melamine has become a household name. It seems that not a day goes by without another product being recalled or suspected of contamination. All this begs the question, how did this not get discovered sooner? How did the range of products involved become so vast? Clearly China is going to have to do some fancy footwork to redeem their products in the eyes of the world. And the world must learn to respond quicker.

Recently 1,500 dogs bred for their raccoon-like fur died from eating melamine-tainted feed, leading to the development of kidney stones. All in one village. Yet this was not a first – last year, melamine-contaminated wheat gluten, a pet food ingredient made in China, caused dozens of dogs and cats in North America. Why was nothing done then?

Weeks after the food recalls in the U.S. began, Koala’s March cookies containing melamine were found on shelves in Connecticut. In Canada, Sherwood Brands Pirate’s Gold Milk Chocolate Coins were also found to have more than the supposedly “acceptable” level of melamine. Again, questions arise about our food inspection standards, and the production standards of China.

Every time we think we’ve heard the end of it, it seems that another products is discovered that has slipped through the cracks. And this isn’t just a U.S. problem or FDA failing – it’s an international issue. Australia had to order a recall of a milk drink and cake brand after tests showed melamine. Britain’s sex shop chain Ann Summers had to suspend sale of their “I Love You” sets of chocolate body spread for the same reasons. It almost makes you wonder what isn’t contaminated by melamine. It seems to be everywhere. And the potential consequences are anything but trivial, as shown by the thousands of babies that were sickened, and the unfortunate few that died, as a result of drinking tainted baby formula.

The fact that this has been allowed to continue for so long is unacceptable. While a short-term solution requires a ban of all melamine-contaminated products (not just those that meet the FDA’s arbitrary – not to mention meaningless – “safe” level of melamine), a long-term solution requires a complete overhaul of our food inspection system. In addition, we need to start holding other countries whose food we import accountable for their products, to ensure their safety and quality.

- Sofia Baliño

For those of you who don’t know, one of our big Octoberfish events this month has been our Get Cookin'! sustainable seafood recipe contest, in which we had contestants send in recipes featuring a recommended fish. Other criteria for the recipes included that they used sustainable/local ingredients and were unique, flavorful, healthy, and easy to prepare.

As part of our “judging” process, we recently held a massive cooking extravaganza at the house of a Food & Water Watch staff member, with the brilliant Chef Joseph “Rocky” Barnette in charge of the operation. We split the cooking/tasting process over two evenings, trying out an array of dishes such as “Idaho Meets the Sea” and the “Hogfish Hoagie” – just to name a few!

While we don’t want to give anything away until the winners are announced, we do have three favorites in the running for the top prize, and overall we were immensely pleased with all of our submissions. They were well-written, easy to make, and showed inventiveness and creativity – all things that make a good recipe, according to Chef Rocky. We were able to buy most of our ingredients at a local market that had all the selections we wanted at very affordable prices, and they tasted incredible. We also put to work our Smart Seafood Guide, using only sustainable seafood in our cooking.

We’ll be voting on our favorite recipe over the next few days, and will notify the winner by October 31st. And for those interested in trying some of these amazing recipes, we will be choosing several to publish in our recipe booklet, which will be available in time for the holidays – as well as an online video of the cooking event, which includes a few tips from Chef Rocky. Stay tuned!

- Sofia Baliño

In an especially passionate display of concern over food safety today, Food & Water Watch activists courted the chocolate giant Hershey's to their side, asking them to give U.S. consumers the same assurances about not using genetically modified (GM) sugar in their Hershey's Kisses™ the Brazilians receive.

What's the rumpus?

U.S. farmers planted have planted GM sugar beet crops for the first time this season. The beets are genetically altered to survive regular applications of Monsanto's weed killer, Roundup, and its active ingredient, glyphosate. Because the EPA increased the maximum allowable residues of glyphosate on the beetroots (from which sugar is extracted) by a staggering 5,000%, Food & Water Watch is concerned about:

• the possible impact on the environment
• gene pollution of other crops and plants, and
• human health
  

Since GM ingredients are NOT labeled, there is no way to know if consumers are eating GM beet sugar once it hits the market, which could happen as early as next year. That's why Food & Water Watch called on its activists. And their enthusiastic response may have surprised the food industry.

According to the New York Times article, Round 2 for Biotech Beets (registration required), several American food companies aren't resistant to the use of GM sugar in their products because they feel American consumers have come to accept biotechnology.

Ooops.

We wouldn't call it a "kiss-off," but the activists were clear: they want their sweets GM-free. Protect your Kisses™. Urge Hershey's to publicly reject the use of GM sugar.

You want safe shrimp to eat; restaurant owners want a good product to sell; chefs want delicious ingredients from which to create a winning menu; and domestic shrimpers need our business to survive as an industry. It’s one big circle – and our choices in one area impact others. This circle was made obvious by voices raised in New Orleans at the 2008 Women Chefs and Restaurateurs National Conference.

The attending women were eager to hear from Food & Water Watch, who sent me to get out the word about the health and environmental price of cheap imported shrimp. Chefs and restaurants got tips and important information about how they can improve their shrimp purchasing practices in the panel, "There’s Something About Shrimp."

 "The only way to make sure that we are getting safe seafood and that we continue to have a domestic industry to supply us with it is to shift demand. "

A lot is at stake for shrimp, and audience members got a well-rounded perspective on the issue from our esteemed panel. Panelists included moderator Leigh Belanger from the Chef’s Collaborative, local New Orleans shrimper Ray Brandhurst, chef of Commander's Palace in New Orleans, Tory McPhail, and Brennan Group operations head Haley Bitterman.

Giant shrimp buffets and growing portion sizes are just two reasons why demand for cheap, imported shrimp has grown immensely (learn more in our report Suspicious Shrimp). The safer, sustainable domestic shrimpers have lost and gone out of business. In addition, natural disasters such as hurricanes have wreaked havoc on shrimpers' boats and the industry’s infrastructure.

Ray, an innovative entrepreneur, talked about how the direct-purchasing relationships that he established with local restaurants have kept him afloat. He’s even begun shipping his shrimp directly to restaurants throughout the country via FedEx.

The overarching message from the panel was clear – eat domestic shrimp. The only way to make sure that we are getting safe seafood and that we continue to have a domestic industry to supply us with it is to shift demand. And we all have a part to play in that – whether we’re consumers, shrimpers, or chefs. To find out more about industrially produced shrimp and why you may want to avoid it, check out our Suspicious Shrimp report.

Plastics have been used in food packaging for years, but who knew that you could end up eating the chemicals used to make the plastic?  The U.S. Food and Drug Administration doesn’t have a problem with a certain plastic ingredient called Bisphenol A (BPA) leaking into your food as long as it stays below “safe” levels. But it turns out that even low levels of BPA may increase the risk of heart disease and diabetes according to a new study. The low levels found in the study to increase disease risk are around five times lower than the levels considered “safe” by the FDA.

So once again, it seems that the FDA has dropped the ball and it’s up to consumers to protect themselves.  While it’s tough to completely eliminate BPA from your diet (it’s used to line the inside of almost all metal cans containing food), you can lower your exposure.  Essentially, you want to avoid types of food packaging that will leak a lot of BPA into the food. The main perpetrators are plastic baby bottles and cans containing acidic foods (like tomatoes).  Look for acidic foods like tomato sauce in glass jars.  As for plastic bottles, BPA is typically found in hard plastics, not the softer types like soda bottles.  When it comes to bottles for water (from the tap, please!) or other drinks, glass or stainless steel are good options.  Finally, avoid heating food in plastic containers that have BPA in them (or any plastic containers, for that matter), since heat accelerates the leaching process.

There is at least one U.S. food company that forgoes the BPA in its metal cans,  but unfortunately for consumers, most companies have not yet switched to an alternative to BPA in canned foods.  You can contact the manufacturers of the brands you buy and tell them they should get rid of the BPA in their cans (look for the 800 number on the package). 

But there is no excuse for BPA to remain in plastic baby bottles.  Canada is in the process of banning the use of BPA in plastic baby bottles and the U.S. should follow their lead.

Rocket fuel in your water? No big deal, at least not to the group that’s supposed to protect our environment. Yes, you read that correctly: the Environmental Protection Agency evidently doesn’t think defending our most valuable resource is a “meaningful” priority. A document the EPA just released states that investing in the decontamination of perchlorate, a toxic rocket fuel, would not result in a "meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public-water systems." If reducing hazardous substances in our water supply isn’t meaningful enough for the EPA, what is? After such a ridiculously slack decision, perhaps the EPA’s water supply is in need of a test for brain impairing toxins.

Water in 35 states has tested positive for contamination with perchlorate at points high enough to affect thyroid and developmental health according to many experts. Even though every scientific panel that’s addressed the matter has appealed for a rigorous clean-up plan, the push for regulation has been hindered by political interference. The blame is being placed on the Pentagon and defense contractors for hampering with the ruling since they would likely be the ones to pay for any clean-up, being responsible for exposing the gunk to our water in the first place.

 "Even small changes in thyroid functions early on have impacts on functioning through high school and even into people's 20s."

Robert Zoeller, a University of Massachusetts professor spoke to the Washington Post about the health risk this chemical poses. "It's absolutely irreversible," he said. "Even small changes in thyroid functions early on have impacts on functioning through high school and even into people's 20s." The reference to the studies providing this evidence was deleted by officials from the White House Office of Management and Budget, who heavily edited the EPA proposal. With such political meddling, it appears that the country's so-called protection agency can't do much protecting after all.

Think drinking bottled water solves the problem? Think again. Even showering in water contaminated with high levels of toxins such as perchlorate could be harmful. Plus, bottled water isn't necessarily healthier and a lot of it comes from the tap anyway. Most importantly, supporting privatized water only makes the problem bigger, sending money to big corporations and away from our public resources. Help push for the only real solution, investing in clean and safe public water: ask Congress to provide the funds needed to protect our water sources.

Nanotechnology.  It’s a word we’ve been hearing for a while, describing what sounds like the wave of the future, building stuff tinier and tinier, so eventually we can have miniscule robots to climb into our mouths and brush our teeth for us. Right?

Well, no. It’s not quite like that.  Nanotechnology is the process of manipulating matter at a molecular level—or nanoscale. Nanomaterials have at least one dimension that is 100 nanometers or less. A nanometer is one billionth of a meter—approximately 1/100,000 of a human hair.

So while there is some research afoot to build tiny machines, the type of nanotechnology we’re talking about consists of engineering materials at the molecular level to create smaller versions of substances.  The technology has potential applications in healthcare, electronics, water filtration, food and agriculture, and consumer goods, to name a few. It can be used to create advanced materials that can make a surface water-repellent, anti-microbial, or electrically conductive, among other things. Nanomolecules are already being used in products from sunscreen and stain-resistant clothing to food and food packaging—over 600 nanoproducts are already on the market, with sales of over $50-88 billion in 2007. Products that contain nanotechnology are not required to be labeled, and they go largely unregulated.

In May, Food & Water Watch joined a group of organizations to petition the FDA to stop the sale of nano-silver because it is potentially dangerous to human and environmental health. Nano-silver, currently the most commonly commercialized nanomaterial, can act as a pesticide and an antimicrobial, and can leach into water and negatively affect marine ecosystems, killing off both harmful and beneficial microorganisms.

Now, preliminary reports have shown that carbon nanotubes, another type of nanoparticles used in sporting goods (tennis rackets, bike frames, etc), are carcinogenic in the same way as asbestos.

Not enough is known about nanomaterials for them to be widely used in commercial products. Some evidence shows that nanoparticles can be more completely absorbed by the body and may be taken up by organs and tissues. We have certain barriers in our bodies that function to keep dangerous things out of delicate places—for instance, the blood-brain barrier, and the placental barrier. Those barriers have been pretty good at protecting our brains and our fetuses thus far in the history of people. But when you have tinier particles, those barriers may not be as effective. Imagine rinsing couscous in a regular pasta strainer.

And it’s not just their size in relation to us—nanoparticles interact differently with the whole environment. Nanoparticles have different properties than their macro-sized counterparts. Food & Water Watch’s fact sheet “Sweating the Small Stuff” explains that nanoscale particles have “distinct electronic, magnetic, chemical, and mechanical properties.” They are more reactive and can even be explosive.

Food & Water Watch recommends that the government (EPA, FDA, and other relevant agencies) regulate all nanotech products as new chemicals, and the substances should be subject to more research and testing before being released into commercial products.  The Senate is currently considering a bill to reauthorize the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (S. 3274) which allocates over $1.6 billion in taxpayer funding for nano research with no funds specified for environmental, health and safety protection. Take action here to ask the Senate to include adequate funding for health and safety research on nanotechnology.

-Erica Schuetz
email • bio

Last week, Monsanto – the corporation that produces recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) in order to increase milk production in cows – announced its intention to sell the division that handles the artificial hormone, marketed under the brand name Posilac. This is a small victory for consumers on the path to eliminating potentially harmful and dangerous methods of producing milk.

Although Monsanto denies that consumer pressure had anything to do with its decision to abandon its “leading dairy animal production product,” it is clear that they are feeling the pressure of consumer demand for clean, safe, healthy milk. However, the battle is not over. It is yet to be decided who will take over rBGH, so we must keep campaigning for rBGH-free milk to ensure that it will be unprofitable for any company to sell.

Recently, Monsanto attempted to greenwash rBGH with claims that it allows fewer cows to produce the same amount of milk, thus reducing the industry’s carbon “hoofprint.” While this is a nice theory, the only study to support this assertion was conducted by scientists on the Monsanto payroll. But consumers who demand rBGH-free milk have shown that they know that Monsanto’s bottom line is profit, not environmental protection or consumer health. Faced with this strong opposition, Monsanto is finally tossing in the towel, hoping for someone else to step in. Let’s keep up the good work and convince any potential successors that pushing artificial hormones is a battle they won’t win.

It is easy to be overwhelmed by the ever-growing number of choices at the grocery store.  As consumers become more aware of how what they choose to eat influences their health, the environment, and their community, supermarket shelves are increasingly crowded with products claiming to be “sustainable” or “organic.”  But when it comes to fish, these labels can be confusing and hard to interpret, since an official set of U.S. standards for quality seafood has not yet been developed.  In an effort to address this problem, Whole Foods Market recently created its own standards to promote cleaner, greener and safer seafood.
 
Food & Water Watch strongly supports this decision to help protect the environment and assist consumers in making responsible choices, but we have some suggestions as to how the Market can improve the standards to make them successful and effective.  First, net pen and flow through aquaculture should be eliminated, as these production techniques are wasteful and environmentally damaging.  A second important revision is to establish a deadline by which producers must meet at least a 1:1 fish in, fish out ratio, which describes the amount of wild fish that a farm uses to make feed relative to the amount of fish it ultimately produces.  Any farm that does not meet this ratio is depleting wild fish populations, which can cause irreversible harm to both the individual species used to make fish food and ecosystems that depend on them.  Third, the standards should favor domestic and local suppliers as well as those farms that use re-circulating aquaculture, all of which benefit the environment and consumers.  Lastly, Whole Foods must set and enforce a timeline by which the standards are to be met.  If the Market allows companies to continue operating below the standards indefinitely, it will effectively be misleading consumers about the seafood Whole Foods carries and providing producers with little incentive to change.
 
To find out more about Food & Water Watch’s recommendations and why these provisions are important, check out the letter we sent to Whole Foods Market’s CEO and regional directors.  Whole Foods is taking an important lead on improving the seafood it offers to consumers every day, and with our recommendations, you may soon be able to buy fish with confidence that you are getting a safe and environmentally responsible product.

- Darcy White
email

Angelina Jolie has been receiving a lot of press, be it regarding her relationship with Brad Pitt, her newest children, or, most recently, her post-pregnancy diet. At first glance Angelina seems to have picked the perfect diet to optimize health, taste, and sustainability; it sounds delicious and includes key nutritional buzz words such as “Omega-3”, “organic”, and “fresh”.  But hold off on running to the store to copy her menu.  “Organic” seafood does not exist in the United States, and although standards have been developed in Europe, they are not what U.S. consumers expect from organic foods.

For a food to qualify as organic in the United States, it must be certified as meeting specific standards set by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).  With produce, meat, and dairy, the term signifies that the product is not genetically modified, irradiated, and has not been produced with pesticides. The spirit of organic includes production methods that are also environmentally responsible. Seafood, however, is difficult to regulate, as it is impossible to monitor and control the substances that wild fish are exposed to.  In the face of this complexity, USDA has not yet developed standards for certifying any seafood as organic.  You may find fish products boasting organic labels, but these labels are not official and have relatively little meaning.  Official USDA labels may appear soon, as the National Organic Standards Board is discussing criteria for organic seafood, but they are struggling to develop appropriate standards. 

There are organic standards in the European Union.  Is this just a case of the EU being ahead of the game?  Unfortunately, in this case, not at all.  The European organic standards are fairly vague and incomplete, failing to protect either consumer health or the environment.  They don’t prohibit open water aquaculture, neglect to regulate pollution and waste, permit the use of some chemicals and drugs, and allow wild-caught fish to be used in fish feed.  These practices are not clean, green or safe.

If we can’t trust the labels, how are we to decide what seafood to buy?  Ask important questions of your restaurants and markets:

• Where is it from? (Domestic or imported – try to choose domestic).

• Is it caught or farmed locally? (Try to choose local foods over those shipped from far away).

• Is it farmed or wild? (Try to choose wild, unless the farming system is known to be clean, green and safe)

• How is it caught? (Ask if the method has high bycatch or habitat damage).

• How is it farmed? (When available, buy seafood that has been farmed in the U.S. in indoor, recirculating facilities. Tilapia, shrimp, hybrid striped bass and arctic char are examples of fish that are or are soon to be farmed this way).

• Is it associated with any contaminants? (Mercury, PCBs, antibiotics, etc).
  

Another tip is to diversify consumption – eating a variety of fish helps to prevent overfishing of specific species.
                       
So, my advice to Angelina and anyone else concerned about making responsible food choices is as follows: don’t be fooled by marketing hype.  Ask questions and educate yourself about the products before you buy.  By choosing seafood that is clean, green, and safe, you will not only be protecting yourself and your family, you will help ensure the sustainability of our ocean resources for generations to come.

- Darcy White

email

The food industry is wild about developing innovative ways to maximize the efficiency of producing food from animals.  Cows are injected with hormones and antibiotics and are pumped full of food that they are not naturally adapted to digest in order to speed up their growth.  Similarly, as recently reported in a Washington Post blog, many tilapia are given a dose of methyl testosterone to convert them all to males, which grow to a bigger size and require less feed because they don’t need to expend as much energy developing reproductive organs. Proponents argue that the practice reduces waste, thereby benefiting the environment.

It seems, however, that many people, myself included, don’t want food that has been altered with substances that change its basic biology. But, one may argue, if we can increase production with technology, it would be a shame not to.  The problem with this reasoning is that new technologies often bring unexpected consequences.  We don’t know enough about the effects of testosterone on the fish or the environment to conclusively determine if it is good or bad.  This would not be the first time that a new food industry practice is later found to create major environmental and health problems.  I probably don’t need to remind you all of how using pulverized parts of cows in animal feed, which was intended to bulk up the animals with protein, led to cases of mad cow disease. 

Most consumers don’t want food produced with added hormones. And while it may seem like an environmentally friendly practice now, we don’t know the long-term consequences. Given the many unknowns regarding methyl testosterone, the tilapia industry should not be so quick to embrace its use simply as a means to increase production.

Is it in the tomatoes? The peppers? Perhaps the cilantro? Apparently, your guess of a random salsa ingredient may be as good as the FDA’s. Unfortunately, this is no game. Over 1000 cases of the recent salmonella strain have been reported while the hunt for the source continues.

The lack of progress and the inability to contain the spread of this bacterium for over a month now reveals the frightening state of the American food industry’s procedures and the Federal Government's food inspection system.  Instead of requesting the additional funds needed to hire more FDA food inspectors, Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael Leavitt would like to turn more of the inspection responsibilities over to the industry so that it can police itself.

This far-reaching problem not only threatens the health of citizens but that of the entire nation. It has resulted in significant losses to the economy. With the sinking of tomato sales, many farmers even resorted to allowing their crops to rot in order to save the money they would have otherwise spent in harvesting them for probably nothing.

''What Hurricane Katrina was to FEMA, this salmonella outbreak is going to be to the FDA,'' said one tomato grower.

Deplorably, this outbreak isn’t surprising. According to the CDC, illnesses caused by tainted food affect close to a quarter of the country’s population each year. Sick to your stomach yet?

This recent scare only further implicates the obvious and urgent need for action in order to improve the systems that are supposed to ensure our food’s safety. Read more about the issue here.

Have you cut tomatoes and peppers from your diet? Personally, I've been buying only local peppers and cherry or grape tomatoes. I look forward to a time where we can once again enjoy salsa without thinking about this nasty little thing called salmonella. Each of us can help bring that day closer: tell the FDA that it's long overdue for a system makeover.

email   

It’s almost time to pull out the lawn chairs, open the sparklers, and put on your red, white and blue.  Whether your plans for the Fourth of July are to head to the beach, attend a parade, or simply relax with friends and family, chances are food and drink will be involved.  Here are some suggestions on which products to pick and which to avoid in order to have a safe and healthy holiday.

Let’s start with the meat. According to the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the USDA, summer is the prime time for foodborne illnesses.  But with proper precaution, you can keep your guests from getting sick. Always make sure to cook meats thoroughly (160° on the inside, even steak – see table below and previous entry) and double-check the expiration date on the package. Paying careful attention to the expiration date is especially important because some processors use carbon monoxide gas to keep meat looking red and fresh even if it is several days past its prime. Another thing to look out for is meat marked with the irradiation symbol . Some stores – like Wegmans – promote irradiation as a solution to prevent contamination. But in truth, irradiation does not miraculously purge the product of any and all harmful elements, transforming that steak or patty to sushi-grade meat. In fact, irradiation destroys many vital nutrients and vitamins, and consuming irradiated food may cause immune system failures, tumors and a host of other problems. In addition, the process of irradiation often creates a nasty texture, smell, and taste.

For those of you who plan to serve up seafood, there are a number of things for you to consider as well. Much of the seafood available in the United States is imported from foreign, industrial aquaculture farms.  Bacteria, viruses and parasites thrive in the unsanitary conditions that often characterize these farms, such that some imported fish have been described as “filthy” by inspectors, with Salmonella and other contaminants not uncommon.  Where chemicals and antibiotics (many of which have been outlawed in the United States) are applied in an attempt to eliminate the disease-causing agents, harmful residues can accumulate in the flesh. To protect yourself and your guests, ask your grocers where the product is from and how it was produced. Generally, the best bet is to opt for domestic, wild fish.  A particularly healthy and sustainable option is U.S. troll-caught Mahi Mahi.  If you are set on having salmon, choose U.S. wild Pacific salmon over Atlantic/farmed salmon.  Domestic halibut, whiting, and tilapia are also good choices.  If shellfish is on your menu, again stick to products from the United States.

Now undoubtedly you will need something to drink. But pass up the bottled water and instead treat your guests to tap water (if you will not be near a tap, fill up a cooler before you leave and take it with you).  Bottled water is not safer than tap water; in fact, tap water is better regulated and tested more frequently.  True, there may be impurities and the mineral content may not be to your liking, but these issues can be easily fixed with a simple filter.  Bottled water creates unnecessary garbage and pollution, plus it is expensive (it costs more per unit volume than gas).  So save your money or spend it instead on that fancy cake you’ve been eying.

So remember, when it comes to food, the bottom line is to cook meats and eggs to appropriate temperatures and choose local, sustainably-produced products.  Not only will you be supporting local producers, you will also be protecting your safety and the environment.  For resources and more information, consult the Eat Well Guide. And check out our water filtration guide to learn how to serve the best water in town, straight from your tap.
Have a good Fourth!