USDA Is Removing Safeguards On Food While Everyone Else Is Fighting A Pandemic

Categories

Food System

During a pandemic, being able to trust our food system is crucial for our stability. So why is the USDA sneakily approving industry requests to put profit over safety for food and workers?

As the world focuses on the COVID-19 pandemic and its devastating impact on public health, the Trump Administration has been busy behind the scenes doubling down on its campaign to deregulate Big Ag. At the same time, it is not providing safeguards to food production workers and government inspectors who are being made to work on the frontlines without frontline employee protections. 

The USDA Is Playing Fast And Loose With Meat Inspection Lines During The Coronavirus Outbreak

USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is deregulating inspection in some of the largest pork processing facilities by reducing the number of inspectors assigned to the slaughter line. They turn over critical inspection tasks to untrained company employees, and remove the cap on how fast the line can run. FSIS anticipates that 40 hog slaughter facilities will convert to this method, which is being called the New Swine Inspection System (NSIS). Those 40 facilities process over 92% of all pork in the U.S. Some of the big names in pork processing are pushing for this, such as JBS, Tyson, Smithfield, Clemens, and Quality Pork Processors. In one plant that has been experimenting with the new system, FSIS inspectors have 2.6 seconds to determine whether the company employees have performed their tasks properly. As a consequence, it is not uncommon for hog carcasses to be contaminated with feces, hair, toe nails, and bile to be greenlit for processing into bacon, pork chops, hot dogs, sausage, and other pork products

Three lawsuits to challenge NSIS have been filed by unions representing the plant workers, animal welfare groups, and food safety advocates, including Food & Water Watch and the Center for Food Safety. FSIS hid critical information from the public when it first proposed the frighteningly minimal system. Food & Water Watch was forced to file separate litigation to obtain crucial, undisclosed information which revealed that NSIS would lead to more contaminated pork entering commerce and could lead to an animal disease — to ravage hog herds and/or be transmitted to humans. Plants that wanted to convert to NSIS had until March 30, 2020 to state their intentions. FSIS still refuses to disclose the names of those plants, leaving consumers in the dark.ADD YOUR NAME!Tell Congress to stop allowing USDA food safety waivers.

Meat Companies Are Being Given Almost Full Control Over Their Own Inspection Standards 

While it is struggling to keep poultry plants properly staffed with inspectors during the pandemic, FSIS has stepped up its approvals of regulatory waivers to chicken slaughter plants that want to increase their maximum line speeds from 140 birds per minute to 175 birds per minute. In the first two weeks of April, FSIS approved 11 such waivers for plants operated by Foster Farms, Tyson Foods (4 plants), and Wayne Farms (6 plants). These plants have all converted to the so-called New Poultry Inspection System (NPIS) in which the number of government inspectors assigned to the slaughter line is reduced and many of their tasks are turned over to company employees. Under traditional inspection, each FSIS inspector is assigned 35 birds per minute to inspect. Under NPIS, there is only one FSIS inspector stationed at the end of the slaughter line. When a plant is granted a line speed waiver, that sole FSIS inspector is expected to examine 3 birds every second — or 175 birds per minute. The waiver process that FSIS uses is done in secret; it is not open to public scrutiny until the FSIS reveals that it has granted the waiver. Since taking office, the Trump USDA has approved 28 new waivers under this process, mostly to the big players in the poultry industry. 

Inviting everyone to the new game, FSIS is recruiting cattle slaughter plants to deregulate inspection, too. In late March, FSIS approved a waiver through its secret process for a Tyson beef plant in Holcomb, Kansas that slaughters up to 6000 head of cattle per day. The waiver is designed to reduce the number of government inspectors assigned to its slaughter line, increasing its line speed. FSIS has not revealed how fast the line will run with this waiver or how many fewer government inspectors will be on the slaughter line, but we know it won’t result in safety for consumers.

Meat Inspection Deregulation Threatens Food Safety

All of these deregulatory moves are designed to increase production; they are not being done to improve food safety. They will contribute to expanding the industrial agriculture model by promoting the growth of factory farms. It’s even more disconcerting that it is occurring in the middle of a national crisis.

As the Trump Administration has stepped on the accelerator to deregulate in recent weeks, there are numerous examples around the country of meat and poultry plants being impacted by the spread of the COVID-19 virus. While the news has been focused on urban areas racked by the pandemic, hot spots have also emerged in rural communities in Colorado, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Iowa, South Dakota, and Nebraska where meatpacking plant workers have contracted the virus while being forced to work, forcing some plants to curtail or cease operations temporarily. 

In those instances where meatpackers have insisted on continuing with business-as-usual even when their employees have gotten sick, it has pitted public health officials against company officials and even USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue.

Plant workers and even government inspectors who work at these plants have not been given adequate personal protective equipment. It is virtually impossible to practice social distancing in these plants because plant workers and government inspectors work side-by-side in slaughter and processing facilities. When workers protested these conditions, Vice President Mike Pence had the audacity to urge the workers to continue “to show up and do [their] jobs.”

Urge Officials To Take Action Against Increased Line Speeds

Increased line speeds only create more opportunities for contamination and sickness. It’s unnecessary and it’s putting our health at risk.

Tell Congress to stop allowing USDA food safety waivers. This is no time to gamble with Americans’ health. 

Increased line speeds should be stopped.

USDA and Industry Neglecting Food Safety Workers and It’s Going to Impact Our Meat Supply

Categories

Food System

Washington, DC – Over the weekend, Smithfield Foods announced that it will be closing its Sioux Falls, South Dakota pork processing facility indefinitely in light of the coronavirus pandemic. 

The Sioux Falls plant produced four to five percent of pork production in the U.S., but its focus was on export markets. 

In response, Tony Corbo, Sr. Government Affairs Representative for Food & Water Watch issued the following statement:

“Of course high numbers of meat plant workers are starting to test positive for COVID-19. USDA and food production companies like Smithfield have steadfastly refused to respond to the coronavirus pandemic. Their workers – the people who are critical to our food supply chain – have been left unprotected as frontline responders. 

Social distancing is impossible in meatpacking plants. The plants are incubators for spreading COVID-19 and neither the plant owners nor the USDA has provided adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) for workers and inspectors to use while on the job. Workers and inspectors at these plants must be immediately tested for COVID-19 and then immediately provided PPE and hazardous duty pay. We must treat these people who are critical to ensuring the safety of our food supply like the frontline workers that they are.

Smithfield’s failure to take immediate and appropriate action in response to the COVID-19 outbreak in its Sioux Falls facility was outrageous and demonstrates its ongoing commitment not to the health and safety of its employees or the security of our food supply but rather to its own bottom line. 

Attempts by USDA and industry to evade pandemic-response requirements will mean temporary disruptions to meat and poultry supplies in this country. None of the responsible parties seemed to plan at all for the inevitable possibility of such a pandemic and then dragged their feet to respond which put the safety of both workers and plant inspectors at risk. Meat processing facilities must immediately provide workers with PPE and hazardous duty pay to ensure their safety and the safety of our food supply.”

Coronavirus Has Brought A Major Warning About Our Water

Categories

Clean Water

Water has always been crucial to our survival. But the coming challenges from climate chaos and new diseases are about to put it into sharp perspective, and hopefully we can protect water in time.

COVID-19, or the new coronavirus disease, is affecting our nation and world in major ways. Between school and workplace closings, mandatory lockdowns in some places, a panicked run on grocery stores, and the burden on hospitals which are not equipped with enough supplies to help everyone who will need it, the coronavirus is showing us just how vulnerable we are. 

But with climate chaos nipping at our heels, coronavirus might just be the first of new viruses, or prehistoric ones, coming at us. Pair that with major threats to our water sources, like fracking, and it becomes clear we need to act now to protect our future.

We Need Running Water To Combat Coronavirus

Without running water for everyone, fighting the new coronavirus disease is impossible. Food & Water Watch demands a nationwide moratorium on water shutoffs and rapid restoration of water service for all people. Our leaders need to make sure water is turned back on in households where it’s been shut off for non-payment. Without water, people can not wash their hands to combat the spread of the coronavirus. 

Support the WATER Act by urging your member of Congress to support it!

Coronavirus is showing our nation the importance of universal access to water. Decades of federal underinvestment in water infrastructure has caused a water affordability crisis in our country. Let this moment prove the critical urgency of revamping our water systems. Congress must pass the Water Affordability, Transparency, Equity and Reliability (WATER) Act, dedicating $35 billion a year to help repair drinking water and sewage systems, while also creating almost 1 million jobs. It is a crucial step to proactively improve our water infrastructure and make access universal.

The WATER Act Is Our Best Tool To Protect Our Water Future

Safe water is non-negotiable. Access to affordable service is non-negotiable. Clean drinking water is a human right — people shouldn’t have to worry about whether their water is safe to drink or whether they can wash their hands.

We need dedicated funding to keep our water systems up-to-date and affordable, protecting our water for generations to come.

Senator Bernie Sanders (VT) and Representatives Brenda Lawrence (MI) and Ro Khanna (CA) introduced legislation that will help fix our aging water systems and ensure that every person has access to safe, clean water. And the Congressional Progressive Caucus unanimously endorsed the WATER Act on October 1, 2019. 

Now is the moment to call for federal action. In fact, today is World Water Day, an annual holiday designed to highlight the connection between water and public health. Let’s honor it by calling on Congress to pass the WATER Act to ensure every person in our country has safe water. 

Nearly Every Future Climate Change Headline Will Trace Back To Water

Warmer air holds more water than cooler air. As our planet warms, so changes our water cycles. Wildfires, supercharged hurricanes, flooding, drought, agricultural anomalies, rising sea levels, emerging viruses — our survival in all of these areas hinges on how we are protecting our planet and the water that’s on it. 

https://www.facebook.com/GLBLCTZN/videos/1450527581709672/

We must rewrite that water story for future generations — a story where the ones who came before them acted in time to preserve this precious resource. 

Fracking Threatens Our Water Supply

It turns out, fracking is even more of a water hog than many realized, even those of us critical of it from the beginning. A Duke study showed that not only was fracking sucking up more water than the industry told us, but that much of it was forever unusable and untreatable afterward. 

The study found:

  • From 2011 to 2016, the water use per well increased by as much as 770 percent. 
  • Toxic wastewater produced from fracking had increased up to 1440 percent between 2011 and 2016.

There has been no practice of water treatment that returns this water to usable condition for humans — and at this scale, one can reason that unless fracking is stopped, it’s on pace to severely impact U.S. water sources.

Add this on top of the fact that fracking and fossil fuels are largely responsible for climate change, and we can see that fracking is one of humanity’s number one enemies that must be stopped. 

We Must Stand Together To Fiercely Protect Our Water

Food & Water Watch and its members battle the corporations stealing water, polluting water, and causing climate change. We expose their playbook through our research and we organize community members to stop these predators. We’ve done this work for fifteen years, and shoulder to shoulder with you we will continue this work until our water is safe from these threats. Will you support The WATER Act to protect our water future?

Send Congress a message to show your support for the WATER Act.

New Consumer Lawsuit Challenges USDA’s Dirty and Dangerous New Swine Inspection System

Categories

Food System

Washington D.C. – Today, Food & Water Watch (FWW), Center for Food Safety (CFS), and two supporting members filed an action against the U.S. Department of Agriculture for issuing New Swine Inspection System (NSIS) rules that undermine pork-safety inspection in slaughter plants.

The NSIS rules are a draconian reversal to the swine slaughter inspection system that has existed in the United States since 1906. Prior federal law required that meat inspectors critically examine each and every animal for conditions (as dangerous as septicemia and salmonella) before and after slaughter.

The new rules prevent such inspection and hand over these responsibilities to the slaughter companies themselves. They also surrender federal control over removing contamination from carcasses to slaughter companies without any minimum training requirements for slaughter-plant employees.

At the same time, the NSIS rules lifted prior limits on slaughter-line speeds that were in place to prevent foodborne illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths. Even with these line-speed limits, contaminated pork may cause as many as 1.5 million cases of foodborne illnesses, 7,000 hospitalizations, and 200 deaths in the United States each year. 

The lawsuit claims NSIS rules cannot stand and must be permanently stopped. USDA is acting beyond its authority in essentially leaving inspection up to slaughter companies. These new rules are contrary to the Federal Meat Inspection Act.  

“There is no gray area here. The new rules curtail the ability of federal inspectors to detect serious food-safety problems and expose those who consume such pork products to serious health threats like salmonella,” said Zach Corrigan, Senior Staff Attorney, Food & Water Watch. “It’s easy to read between the lines with these new rules: the USDA is letting the wolf guard the hog-house. Food safety is one of the most important protections in our country and gifting the slaughter industry self-regulation powers will mean pork eaters in this country will be facing higher threats of disease.”

“Reducing the number of trained federal inspectors and increasing line speeds is a recipe for disaster,” said Ryan Talbott, Staff Attorney for CFS. “USDA has an obligation to protect the health and welfare of consumers. USDA cannot do that when it takes a back seat and lets the slaughter plants largely regulate themselves.”

This is the fourth action challenging the NSIS rules. FWW has filed a separate lawsuit for the agency’s violation of the Freedom of Information Act and concealing of information related to the rules. The newest complaint is the first to challenge the rules because of the harm posed to consumers. The 69-page complaint details in more than 358 paragraphs how the agency has delegated critical inspection activities to the slaughter companies themselves and how this will harm public health. Two other groups have challenged the rules because of the harm posed to plant employees and to the animals because they will result in inhumane treatment. 

Read the full action here.

Center for Food Safety’s mission is to empower people, support farmers, and protect the earth from the harmful impacts of industrial agriculture. Through groundbreaking legal, scientific, and grassroots action, we protect and promote your right to safe food and the environment. Please join our more than 950,000 advocates across the country at www.centerforfoodsafety.org. Twitter: @CFSTrueFood, @CFS_Press

Food & Water Watch mobilizes people to build political power to win bold and uncompromised solutions for the most pressing food, water and climate problems of our time. We work to protect our health, communities and democracy from destructive economic interests.

Understanding Food Labels

Categories

Food System

The labels on our food, from organic vegetables to USDA-inspected meat to cage-free eggs, can be confusing. How much do food labels actually tell you?

We all have a right to know what’s in our food, how it’s produced, and where it’s from. But food companies are often not required to give us the information we want to know. The current rules on food labeling leave a lot of room for vague claims that make it difficult to differentiate between food produced by sustainable farmers using humane practices, and corporate agribusinesses greenwashing their products.

As a result, the array of labels found on meat, milk, and eggs can be overwhelming. You can and should be informed what current labeling practices really mean and how they affect you – and this guide will help.

But we also need labels that are accurate and useful, and we won’t get them unless we tell our elected officials to put our interests ahead of those of corporations.

How Useful Are Food Labels?

These labels tell you something meaningful about your food and where it came from – though they may not mean quite what you think.

Certified Organic

USDA Organic LabelRight now the most meaningful label on your food, in terms of upholding specific government requirements, is the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic seal. For a product to be certified organic, it’s required to meet specific standards:

  • Organic crops cannot be grown with synthetic fertilizers, synthetic pesticides or sewage sludge.
  • Organic crops cannot be genetically engineered or irradiated.
  • Animals must eat only organically grown feed (without animal byproducts) and can’t be treated with synthetic hormones or antibiotics.
  • Animals must have access to the outdoors, and ruminants (hoofed animals, including cows) must have access to pasture. 
  • Animals cannot be cloned.

Country of Origin Labels

Country of Origin Label - Product of MexicoFor now, the United States requires Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) on chicken, seafood, produce and some nuts that tells us basic information about what country our food was produced in – but the food industry has limited even this most basic element of transparency. Until late 2015, beef and pork were also covered by mandatory country of origin labeling rules. But the meat industry pressured Congress to repeal the labeling requirement. This labeling for meat is regularly under attack. Most developed countries, including many in the European Union, Japan, China, Russia, Australia and Brazil, require country of origin labeling in addition to requiring food producers to label products with GMO ingredients.

USDA Inspected

USDA Inspected

A USDA inspection seal means that your food meets certain quality standards and has been inspected by USDA employees or company employees under USDA supervision to rank its quality. 

All USDA-inspected meat and poultry (the vast majority of the meat in grocery stores) should have a USDA seal of inspection and a code for the producing establishment. Meat and egg labels with a grade (such as USDA Grade A beef or Jumbo eggs) are graded based on quality and size, not production methods, so this seal tells you nothing about the company’s practices.

Private certification programs also exist, but they vary in standards, and it’s a good idea to do some research on their standards.

Treated with Irradiation 

Treated with IrradiationIn grocery stores, food that has been irradiated must be labeled and marked with a radura symbol. Unfortunately, this labeling policy does not apply to restaurants, schools, hospitals, or processed foods containing irradiated ingredients.

Food Labels That Give Limited Information

Cage-Free Eggs

Cage free eggs“Cage free” means that birds are raised without cages, but it tells you nothing about any other living conditions. For instance, cage-free eggs could come from birds raised indoors in overcrowded spaces at large factory farms.

Pasture Raised

“Pasture-raised” or “pastured” means that animals spent at least some time outdoors on pasture, feeding on grass or forage. This traditional farming method is typically done on a smaller scale than conventional factory-farmed animals. However, there are no government standards for this label, including how much of its life the animal spent on pasture.

Grass-Fed

“Grass-fed” means that, after weaning, an animal’s primary source of food comes from grass or forage, not from grains such as corn. There are no uniform government standards for this label, although some companies submit their own standards to the USDA so they can put a grassfed claim on their products. Some third party certifications also use a grass-fed claim. This does not tell you if antibiotics or hormones were used on the animal or what conditions it lived in.

No Antibiotics

“Raised without antibiotics” or “no antibiotics administered” means that the animal received no antibiotics over its lifetime. Some large-scale producers feed animals antibiotics at low doses to promote growth and prevent disease, which is linked to the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that may make people sick and are difficult to treat – a serious threat to public health. Other producers use antibiotics only to treat sick animals. This label does not tell you about other conditions where the animal was raised.

If an animal receives antibiotics for any reason, its meat, milk or eggs cannot be labeled “certified organic.” 

No Hormones

No added hormonesThe labels “raised without added hormones,” “no hormones administered” or “no synthetic hormones” all mean that the animal received no synthetic hormones. Hormone-free labels do not disclose what the animals were fed or if they had access to pasture. 

Federal law prohibits the use of hormones on hogs and poultry. Any hormone-free label on pork and poultry products is intended to mislead shoppers into thinking that the product is worthy of a higher price. The USDA requires that these labels on pork or poultry include a disclaimer: “Federal regulations prohibit the use of hormones in poultry/pork.”

However, federal regulations do permit the use of hormones in beef and dairy cattle. Recombinant bovine growth hormone (also known as rBGH or rBST) is a synthetic growth hormone commonly injected into dairy cattle to increase milk production. Several hormones are used in beef cattle to speed up growth.

Thanks to years of activism, “RBGH-free” or “rBST-free” labels can now be used on milk products to indicate that the cows did not receive synthetic hormones. However, due to pressure from Monsanto and the dairy industry, such labels on dairy products usually come with a disclaimer that the FDA acknowledges no difference between milk produced with or without the hormone.

Misleading Food Labels

Seafood Labels

Labels on seafood are frequently misleading – for example, you may see organic labels on fish, but there is no U.S. government standard for “organic” seafood certification. Learn more about what to look for in our Seafood Buying Guide.

Free Range

“Free range” labels are regulated by the USDA only for poultry produced for meat – it’s not regulated for pigs, cattle or egg-producing chickens. Nor are the requirements very high: poultry can use the label if the chicken had any access to the outdoors each day for some unspecified period of time; it could be just a few minutes, and does not assure that the animal ever actually went outdoors to roam freely.

Natural and Naturally Raised

All naturalAccording to USDA, “natural” meat and poultry products cannot contain artificial colors, artificial flavors, preservatives or other artificial ingredients, and they should be “minimally processed.” However, this label does not tell us how the animals were raised, what they were fed, if antibiotics or hormones were used, or other aspects of production that consumers might logically expect from something labeled “natural.”

Fresh

Contrary to what you might expect, the label “fresh” is used only on poultry to indicate that the meat was not cooled below 26 degrees F. Poultry does not have to be labeled as “frozen” until it reaches zero degrees F. This can be misleading to customers who assume that label means meat has not been frozen, processed or preserved in any way. The USDA does not define or regulate the use of the “fresh” label on any other type of products.

Missing: GMO Labels

Many of the processed foods available in our grocery stores include genetically engineered ingredients. GMOs have been altered at the genetic level by adding genetic material from different species or making other changes that couldn’t happen through traditional breeding.  Despite the industry’s claims, there is no scientific consensus regarding the safety of these foods and the weak approval process for new GMO crops relies solely on testing by the companies that want to sell these new crops.

Even though 90% of Americans want labels on GMO foods, in July 2016 Congress passed a federal law blocking states from requiring GMO labeling. This law overturns strong state laws like Vermont’s, and instead allows for GMOs to potentially be labeled with 800-numbers or QR codes. That’s not easy for people to understand, and it’s not a substitute for clear labels.

We’ve created a guide to understanding what foods are most likely to contain GMOs, but without clear, on-package labels, there’s no way to know for sure.

That’s why we’re pushing to require clear labels on all foods with GMO ingredients. Only by standing up for transparency in our food will we get the information we want.

Hallucinogenic Found In Meat, But The USDA Isn’t Taking Action

Categories

Food System

A hallucinogenic drug, an anti-inflammatory unapproved for human use, and a potent antibiotic with potentially life-threatening side effects have been detected in U.S. meat supplies, along with several other restricted substances. These results were uncovered in a set of data that it seems the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) didn’t intend to make public. Now the USDA has released a new set of data claiming that it trumps the original, but experts like those at Consumer Reports aren’t buying it.

How The Data Was Collected

The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) randomly tested nearly 6,000 samples of meat between 2015 and 2016. The samples were gathered at slaughterhouses nationwide and sent to labs for testing by the newest devices that can measure dozens of compounds at once, and are able to detect them in more minute doses than they could in the past — down to parts-per-trillion rather than parts-per-billion.

Then, food safety organizations submitted a Freedom of Information Act request as a result of a lawsuit against one of the nation’s largest poultry factory farms, Sanderson Farms. The data sets were released, and questions began rolling in from Consumer Reports’ analysis. FSIS claimed the data should not have been released, and that a new dataset based on a complicated new baseline should be used instead. Food safety experts see this as a pretense to avoid an investigation. Watch the video:

What Was In The Meat Is Concerning

From Consumer Reports:

“Hundreds of samples of poultry, beef, and pork appeared to show residue of drugs that the government says should never be used in food animals. Other samples had evidence of drugs that must be out of an animal’s system by the time it is slaughtered. The samples came from producers large and small, and included meat destined for supermarkets, restaurants, hospitals, schools, and elsewhere.”

Drug contaminants found in meat tested by the USDA were revealed by Consumer Reports' analysis of data.Copyright 2018. Reprinted with Permission from Consumer Reports.

How Do Drugs Like That Get Into Meat?

This is exactly the question that needs more investigation. There are a variety of possibilities, from contamination of the water the animals drink to misuse of these substances in the raising of the animals. But an investigation won’t happen until the USDA acknowledges that the data warrants it. Food safety advocates like Food & Water Watch and Consumer Reports are working to bring enough attention to the problem to pressure the FSIS to act. Once the cause is known, we can work on advocating for a solution — but it all starts with FSIS deeming this a problem worth exploring.

The USDA should stop hiding the facts about what is in the meat people feed their families. Consumers have a right to know what the drug residue sampling program found, not just get a sanitized version of what the USDA wants them to see. That’s why we are posting the original data set here. Download the files above to see the difference between the original files and the edited versions the USDA released, and share this so your friends and family get informed, too.

This is something your friends should know about.

It Turns Out Fracking Is A Water Hog That’s Stealing Our Futures

Categories

Climate and Energy

For years, the American people have been assured by energy companies that fracking is harmless and doesn’t use more water than other energy sources. The Duke research team that recently put out a new report begs to differ. They examined data across 12,000 wells and five years of operation. Here are key findings from the report and what they mean for our survival.

The Findings

Water is staying trapped in the shale, or if it does re-emerge, isn’t treated: 

Only a small fraction of the fresh water injected into the ground returns as flowback water, while the greater volume of FP (flowback and produced) water returning to the surface is highly saline, is difficult to treat, and is often disposed through deep-injection wells.

Right: Charts showing the increase in water use intensity over time. Left: Charts showing the decrease in usable Flowback & Produced waters over time. Courtesy of Duke University via Creative Commons

The amount of water used by fracking has been critically underestimated.

The study finds that from 2011 to 2016, the water use per well increased by as much as 770 percent. In an interview for ThinkProgress, one of the authors of the study explained how early estimates of fracking’s irresponsible use of water had been so skewed:

“Previous studies suggested hydraulic fracturing does not use significantly more water than other energy sources, but those findings were based only on aggregated data from the early years of fracking… After more than a decade of fracking operation, we now have more years of data to draw upon from multiple verifiable sources.”— Avner Vengosh, Duke professor of geochemistry and water quality

The toxic wastewater produced is a much bigger problem than previously understood.

The study found that toxic wastewater produced from fracking had increased up to 1440 percent between 2011 and 2016. There has been no satisfactory practice of water treatment that returns this water to usable condition for humanity — and at this scale, one can reason that fracking is on pace to destroy U.S. water sources and leave us without water for our population’s consumption: 

The total water impact of hydraulic fracturing is poised to increase markedly in both shale gas– and oil-producing regions. On the basis of modeling future hydraulic fracturing operations in the United States in two scenarios of drilling rates, we project cumulative water use and FP water volumes to increase by up to 50-fold in unconventional gas-producing regions and up to 20-fold in unconventional oil-producing regions from 2018 to 2030, assuming that the growth of water use matches current growth rates and the drilling of new wells again matches peak production.

What We Do Next Is Critical

Waiting another five years for a new report to bolster this or to show an even bigger spike in fracking’s greedy water consumption is not an option.

“At a time when large parts of our county are suffering through persistent droughts and year-round fire seasons, it’s truly unconscionable that the fossil fuel industry would be allowed to divert vast volumes of water to fracking for oil and gas. The fact that the burning of this oil and gas is driving our climate chaos and intensifying the droughts and fires makes this reality all the more shameful and absurd.” – Seth Gladstone, Food & Water Watch

Organizations like Food & Water Watch and people like you need to double down on our efforts to ban fracking now and to move to 100% renewable energy ASAP. Humanity doesn’t get a do-over on saving our water supply.

Showing your support for a ban on fracking helps persuade Congress.

FULL DUKE UNIVERSITY STUDY ON WATER USAGE IN FRACKING 

Understanding Food Labels

Categories

Food System

By Amanda Starbuck, updated 6/14/2021

We all have a right to know what’s in our food, how it’s produced, and where it’s from. But food companies are often not required to give us the information we want to know. The current rules on food labeling leave a lot of room for vague claims that make it difficult to differentiate between food produced by sustainable farmers using humane practices, and corporate agribusinesses greenwashing their products.

As a result, the array of labels found on meat, poultry and eggs can be overwhelming. You can and should be informed about what current labeling practices really mean and how they affect you – and this guide will help.

But we also need labels that are accurate and useful, and we won’t get them unless we tell our elected officials to put our interests ahead of those of corporations.

How Useful Are Food Labels?

These labels tell you something meaningful about your food and where it came from – though they may not mean quite what you think.

Certified Organic
Right now, the most meaningful label on your food, in terms of upholding specific government requirements, is the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Organic seal. For a product to be certified organic, it’s required to meet specific standards:

  • Organic crops cannot be grown with synthetic fertilizers, synthetic pesticides or sewage sludge;
  • Organic crops cannot be genetically engineered or irradiated;
  • Animals must eat only organically grown feed (without animal byproducts) and can’t be treated with synthetic hormones or antibiotics;
  • Animals must have access to the outdoors, and ruminants (like cows) must have access to pasture; and
  • Animals cannot be cloned.

Donate toward work like this. We need to keep food labeling honest!

Country of Origin Labels

The U.S. requires Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) on certain foods including chicken, seafood, produce, and some nuts – but the food industry has limited even this most basic element of

transparency. Until late 2015, beef and pork were also covered by mandatory country of origin labeling rules. But the meat industry pressured Congress to repeal the labeling requirement.

USDA Inspected
A USDA inspection seal means that your food meets certain quality standards and has been inspected by USDA employees or company employees under USDA supervision to rank its quality.

All USDA-inspected meat and poultry (the vast majority of the meat in grocery stores) should have a USDA seal of inspection and a code for the producing establishment. Meat and egg labels with a grade (such as USDA Grade A beef or Jumbo eggs) are graded based on quality and size, not production methods, so this seal tells you nothing about the company’s practices.

Private certification programs also exist, but they vary in standards, and it’s a good idea to do some research on their standards.

Treated with Irradiation
In grocery stores, food that has been irradiated must be labeled and marked with a radura symbol. Unfortunately, this labeling policy does not apply to restaurants, schools, hospitals, or processed foods containing irradiated ingredients.

Food Labels That Give Limited Information

Cage-Free Eggs
“Cage free” means that birds are raised without cages, but it tells you nothing about any other living conditions. For instance, cage-free eggs could come from birds raised indoors in overcrowded spaces at large factory farms.

Pasture Raised
“Pasture-raised” or “pastured” means that animals spent at least some time outdoors on pasture, feeding on grass or forage. This traditional farming method is typically done on a smaller scale than conventional factory-farmed animals. However, there are no government standards for this label, including how much of its life the animal spent on pasture.

Grass-Fed
“Grass-fed” means that, after weaning, an animal’s source of food comes from grass or forage, not from grains such as corn. This does not tell you if antibiotics or hormones were used on the animal or what conditions it lived in.

No Antibiotics
“Raised without antibiotics” or “no antibiotics administered” means that the animal received no antibiotics over its lifetime. Some large-scale producers feed animals antibiotics at low doses to prevent disease, which is linked to the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that may make people sick and are difficult to treat. This label does not tell you about other conditions where the animal was raised.

If an animal receives antibiotics for any reason, its meat, milk or eggs cannot be labeled “Certified Organic.”

No Hormones
The labels “raised without added hormones,” “no hormones administered” or “no synthetic hormones” all mean that the animal received no synthetic hormones. Hormone-free labels do not disclose what the animals were fed or if they had access to pasture.

Federal law prohibits the administration of hormones to poultry, veal, and exotic meat (like bison). Any hormone-free label on these products is intended to mislead shoppers into thinking that the product is worthy of a higher price. The USDA requires that these labels include a disclaimer: “There are no hormones approved for use in [poultry/veal/etc.] by Federal Regulations.”.”

However, federal regulations do permit the use of hormones in beef and dairy cattle, and for some uses in pork (such as for gestation). For instance, recombinant bovine growth hormone (also known as rBGH or rBST) is a synthetic growth hormone commonly injected into dairy cattle to increase milk production. Hormones are also administered to beef cattle to speed up growth.

Thanks to years of activism, “rBGH-free” or “rBST-free” labels can now be used on milk products to indicate that the cows did not receive synthetic hormones. However, due to industry pressure, they must come with a disclaimer that the FDA acknowledges no difference between milk produced with or without the hormones.

Misleading Food Labels

Free Range
“Free range” labels are regulated by the USDA only for poultry produced for meat – it’s not regulated for pigs, cattle or egg-producing chickens. Nor are the requirements very high. Poultry can use the label if the chicken had any access to the outdoors each day for some unspecified period of time; it could be just a few minutes, and does not assure that the animal ever actually went outdoors to roam freely.

Natural and Naturally Raised
According to USDA, “natural” meat and poultry products cannot contain artificial colors, flavors, or preservatives, and they should be “minimally processed.” However, this label does not tell us how the animals were raised, what they were fed, if antibiotics or hormones were used, or other aspects of production that consumers might logically expect from something labeled “natural.”

For all other foods (milk, eggs, and non-animal food products), the “natural” label is virtually meaningless.

Fresh
Contrary to what you might expect, the label “fresh” is used only on poultry to indicate that the meat was not cooled below 26 degrees F. Poultry does not have to be labeled as “frozen” until it reaches zero degrees F. This can be misleading to customers who assume that label means meat has not been frozen, processed or preserved in any way. The USDA does not define or regulate the use of the “fresh” label on any other type of products.

Pasture Raised
“Pasture-raised” or “pastured” means that animals spent at least some time outdoors on pasture, feeding on grass or forage. However, there are no government standards for this label, including how much of its life the animal spent on pasture.

Bioengineered (GMOs)
In July 2016, Congress passed a weak federal law for labeling genetically-modified food (GMOs) that blocked states from requiring stricter GMO labels, such as existed in Vermont. It requires food companies to disclose whether their products contain GMOs, but they can make this information difficult to access. For instance, in lieu of using the “Bioengineered” label, companies can simply include a QR code, web address, or 1-800 number that connects consumers with more information. This requires users to have a cell phone and access to cellular data or Wi-Fi — and the leisure time to go through this cumbersome process for each product.

Despite industry claims, there is no scientific consensus regarding the safety of GMO foods, and the weak approval process for new GMO crops relies solely on testing by the companies that want to sell these new crops. That’s why we’re pushing to require clear labels on all foods with GMO ingredients. Only by standing up for transparency in our food will we get the information we want.

Donate toward work like this. We need to keep food labeling honest!

We’re Literally Eating and Drinking Plastic. Fossil Fuels Are To Blame.

Categories

Climate and Energy

Care about plastic pollution? Then it’s time to work to start moving away from fossil fuels.

Plastic is a serious problem, and it’s time we addressed it at its source: fossil fuel production. Plastics are increasingly fueled by fracking in the U.S.—the extreme method of extracting fossil fuels that is polluting our air and our water, and exacerbating climate change. Fracking provides the cheap raw materials for plastics production, which has lead industry publication Plastics News to say fracking “represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity.” More fracking equals more profit in plastics (which equals, you guessed it…more plastics.)

It is so pervasive in our environment that it’s become commonplace to digest it through the microplastics present in our food and water.

Plastic in Water, Salt…Even Beer?

Everyone drinks water, and whether you drink tap water or bottled water, you are very likely ingesting some level of plastic pollution. A recent study by Orb Media tested 159 drinking water samples from cities and towns around the world, and 83 percent of those samples contained microplastic fibers. That means food prepared with plastic-contaminated water becomes contaminated as well.

Bottled water samples fared even worse than tap water—unsurprising because it is manufactured with plastic. Another recent study by the same organization found 90 percent of bottled water analyzed from around the world contained plastic microfibers. A single bottle of Nestlé Pure Life had concentrations of microfiber plastics up to 10,000 pieces per liter. The type of plastic used to make bottle caps was the most common type of microplastic fiber found in bottled water.

In response to the mounting evidence showing plastic is present in our drinking water, the World Health Organization is now looking into the problem.

Plastic has also been found in sea salt, and researchers attribute that to the ubiquitous nature of single-use plastics such as water bottles, which comprise the majority of plastic waste. In 2015 about 70 percent of plastic water bottles went unrecycled, and much of this plastic waste ends up in landfills, incinerators or in—you guessed it—our oceans and seas. Plastic has also been found in seafood, beer, honey and sugar.

We need more research on the extent of microplastic pollution and the best ways to treat water to remove it. It’s also clear that we need to upgrade water treatment plant infrastructure so it can handle this new pollutant. But the best way to address this pollution is at the source by reducing plastic waste in the environment.

Fracking in the U.S. Promotes a Global Plastics Bonanza

Fracking, which causes many negative public health problems and harms our air, water, and climate, is now powering a dangerous plastics bonanza. It was the rapid expansion of fracking in the United States that led to a gas glut, which drove real natural gas prices to the lowest level in decades. This is where the plastic industry came to the rescue of the oil and gas industry: low-cost ethane, a byproduct of fracking, is used to manufacture plastics.

Both plastic and ethane are being exported across the globe. More than half of the raw plastic produced in the U.S. is headed to distant shores. Whereas the chemical giant Ineos, based in the United Kingdom, is receiving ethane to help fuel European plastic factories. The controversial Mariner East pipeline system delivers this gas byproduct to the Marcus Hook export terminal in Pennsylvania—where it is then carried via massive “dragon ships” across the Atlantic to Ineos’ facilities in Grangemouth, Scotland and Rafnes, Norway.

What represents an “opportunity” for the plastics, oil, and gas industries means adverse health effects and climate catastrophe for all of us. To learn more about the toxic relationship between the plastics and fracking industry read our fact sheet, and spread the word: we can’t tackle plastic pollution without moving off fossil fuels. 

This is important for people to see.

The True Price of a $4.99 Rotisserie Chicken

Categories

Food System

Forbes recently named Costco to its list of the top 10 Fortune 500 companies most loved by liberals. Maybe that’s because Costco CEO Craig Jelinek has championed important causes like a livable wage and company sponsored health benefits. The company’s starting pay is above the federal minimum wage—$13.00 per hour, and the average employee wage is $21 per hour. Nearly 88 percent of employees have company sponsored health benefits. At the height of the recession Costco actually gave raises to help struggling employees.

And yet, despite this commitment to social responsibility, Costco is about to venture into vertical integration and contract farming—a system that is the antithesis of fair. Why? Because Costco sells a lot of rotisserie chickens. So many, in fact, that they’re planning to build their very own chicken slaughterhouse in Fremont, Nebraska where they will slaughter 85 million chickens annually—or about 1.7 million per week. Where will the chickens come from?

Factory farms. And they’re planning to sign up farmers under a contract growing system.

What’s wrong with this? Well, where do we begin…

As Nebraska Communities United points out, this is not your grandparent’s farm. In a system of vertical integration (how the vast majority of chicken is produced in the U.S.) the “integrator” (usually a company like Tyson or Perdue) delivers the chicks and feed and dictates farm operations through a contract. They often require the growers to build and continually upgrade expensive barns to keep obtaining contracts. Farmers generally take out loans lasting more than a decade to pay for this expensive infrastructure, but the contracts are often flock-to-flock, meaning a grower only has guarantee of income for six or seven weeks at a time. The poultry sector is less like a free market than abject serfdom. Contracts are often unfair or abusive and farmers often have no legal recourse against integrators as John Oliver helped expose in this scathing piece on the poultry industry.

Factory farms like the 100 farms Costco plans to have raise its birds also produce a lot of waste which is spread on farmland at levels far exceeding what is needed to fertilize crops. The contract farms are likely to be constructed upstream from the cities of Lincoln and Omaha—and their drinking water supplies. But evidence of the problems factory farms pose isn’t hard to find. Next door in Iowa, the Des Moines Water Works is in a years-long struggle to treat its water for nitrites discharged from the thousands of factory hog farms in counties upstream. And the city of Tulsa, Oklahoma sued upstream chicken producers in Arkansas for polluting its water, resulting in a legal battle that lasted for years.

Since lots of factory farms are exempt from permitting that would protect communities from waste, pollution often runs unchecked into nearby waterways—where it becomes a costly source of contamination in our drinking water supplies. Cheaper rotisserie chicken just simply isn’t worth the cost of healthy drinking water for hundreds of thousands of people.

We’ve seen this again and again: Corporations, even ones that try to do well by consumers, workers and the environment, fall down when it comes to sourcing their products. But if Costco wants to live up to its progressive bona fides, factory farming isn’t the way to do it.

Ultimately, we need to call on our elected officials to do their jobs: protecting the public’s health. The Lincoln City Council and the mayor need to take action to stop this slaughterhouse, and the City of Omaha should take a hard look at these issues as well—sooner rather than later.