Brussels— Today, consumer organization Food & Water Europe wrote to Asda, Morrison’s and The Co-op asking them to clarify their corporate policies on megadairies, asking if they sell milk as a loss leader and, if so, how they justified selling milk below cost — a trend that is crippling the ability of small- and medium-sized farmers in the EU to make a living and stay in business. The letters also suggest they are supportive of massive megadaries, which consolidate milk production into the small number of giant massive operations that can scale up to meet the challenges of providing cheap milk to retailers—but at a great cost to communities where these megadairies operate and consumers who want sustainable dairy choices that support farmer livelihoods.

“Consumers need to know if their favourite retailer is helping, behind the scenes, to create polluting megadairies and harm farmer livelihoods,” said Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Europe. “We expect these retailers to clarify their policies about megadairies and justify selling milk as a loss leader.”

“The financial situation for dairy farmers across the EU is perilous, and many continue to go out of business. The reason they can’t stay in business is due to the way they are treated by processors and supermarkets,” continued Hauter.

The practice of selling milk as a loss leader piles additional pressure on farmers as supermarkets drive the farmgate price lower and lower while farmers’ costs of production are on the rise. “We have not noticed a commensurate drop in the retail price families pay for milk at the supermarket, so presumably the supermarkets are pocketing the difference. It’s time milk was valued properly and farmers paid a decent price for the hard work they do producing something we all have in our fridges,” said Hauter.

“As you may be aware, UK consumers are very hostile to megadairies, for very good reason. The continued practice of selling milk as a loss leader, coupled with repeated cuts in the price paid for milk in the first place, is undisputedly driving increasing numbers of UK small and family dairies out of business,” says Food & Water Europe in its letters to the retailers.

“All supermarkets need to change course urgently before the UK loses traditional dairy farming altogether. If that means supermarkets have to give up a tiny fraction of their profits, so be it. Anything else is artificial distortion of the market and comes at far too great a cost.”

Contact: Eve Mitchell – emitchell(at)fweurope.org, tel + 44 (0)1381 610 740)

 Soy Industry Stands to Gain Hundreds of Millions Annually from Open Ocean Aquaculture

Washington, D.C. and Brussels— If proponents of soy in aquaculture alliance have it their way, soy will be used to feed fish in open ocean pens in federal waters, a move that would negatively impact the marine environment as well as the diets of both fish and consumers.

Food & Water Watch and Food & Water Europe’s new report, “Factory-Fed Fish: How the Soy Industry is Expanding Into the Sea,” shows how a collaboration between two of the most environmentally damaging industries on land and sea —the soy and open ocean aquaculture industries, respectively—could be devastating to ocean life and consumer health. And since much of the soy produced in the United States is genetically engineered (GM), consuming farmed fish would likely mean eating fish that are fed GM soy.

“Our seas are not Roundup ready,” said Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch. “Soy is being promoted as a better alternative to feed made from wild fish, but this model will not help the environment, and it will transfer massive industrial farming models into our oceans and further exacerbate the havoc wreaked by the soy industry on land—including massive amounts of dangerous herbicide use and massive deforestation.”

The powerful soy industry, which is well represented in Washington, D.C. and Brussels, stands to gain over $200 million (€160 million) each year by aggressively promoting the use of soy to feed farmed fish at a time when more and more consumers are eating seafood sourced from aquaculture or fish farms. Close to half of the seafood we consume globally comes from these factory fish farms.

Unfortunately, increased use of soy in fish feed could do greater harm to the health of fisheries by increasing the amount of soybeans grown. Like other monoculture crops, soybeans require large amounts of fertilizer for their production. Much of this fertilizer gets washed off the fields and into waterways that eventually lead to important fisheries such as the Gulf of Mexico or the Chesapeake Bay. The nitrogen and phosphorus from this fertilizer contributes to the dead zones in these fisheries, reducing the number of fish that live there and the ability of fishermen to catch them.

Relying on soy to feed farmed fish could also have devastating affects on consumer choice. In 2007, there were total of 279,110 soybean farms. A 2008 report indicated that only 1,336 soybean farms were certified organic, which do not allow the use of GM crops. This leaves a lot of room for non-organic soybean farms to produce crops from GM seeds. GM soy-fed fish would probably not need to be labeled, so consumers wouldn’t know that they were eating fish fed with GM soy. Considering that Monsanto and Cargill would be big players—two agribusinesses that use GM seeds—this scenario seems likely.

While the soy industry is busy promoting soy as an environmentally friendly alternative to fish feed from wild fish, it is clear that soy is not a natural food for fish to eat, and that its use can be destructive to ocean ecosystems. Fish have a difficult time digesting it, and it causes nutrient deficiency. As a result, fish tend to produce excessive amounts of waste, which attracts disease and bacteria, and disrupts the normal ecology of the immediate marine environment.

To access the report, go to: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/reports/factory-fed-fish-europe/

For any questions regarding the report, please contact Rich Bindell at +1 202-683-2457 or [email protected].

Statement by Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch and Food & Water Europe

Washington, D.C. and Brussels—“For the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (CSD) wrapping up today in Rio de Janeiro, 20 years has sadly not meant progress on critical environmental issues that affect our food and water and our communities that depend on vital common resources. In fact, the only sector that progressed at Rio+20 was the private sector. Corporations are more entrenched than ever before in the UN process.

“By our rough count in the final document that heads of state will consider today, the concept of the ‘public sector’ was mentioned 11 times in comparison to the ‘private sector,’ which was mentioned 20 times. Clearly, this is an indication of priorities. The conference was stamped with corporate marketing by Coca-Cola, Petrobras and others, while key panelist positions were given to Nestlé, Aquafed, Unilever, Dow Chemical and other major corporations at UN-hosted events.

Despite the highest turnout of heads of state for a global forum, both President Barack Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron were conspicuously absent at the CSD, preferring instead to offer their political heft at smaller, more elite events, such as the G20, which took place just a few days prior. The most powerful nations are not setting forth a global vision on the most critical issues affecting the globe and have squandered a key opportunity to advance concrete action.

“The final outcome document is in support of everything, but doesn’t commit to anything. It was continuously stated by the U.S., Canada, and other powerful countries that the CSD was ‘not a pledging conference,’ thus setting the tone for negotiations throughout the week and lowering expectations. There will be no legally-binding outcomes from this conference. It was effectively an exercise in public relations by the industrialized nations.

“Numerous promising ideas were proposed in the draft text only to be cut during the negotiating process due to lack of consensus and pressure from vested interests, including regulation that would curb food speculation, a tax on financial transactions that could contribute to poverty eradication and climate change adaptation and mitigation, and clear deadlines for ending fossil fuel subsidies.

“Rio+20 represents 20 steps back for both the multilateral UN process and global sustainability.”

Contact: (Gabriella Zanzanaini +32 488 409 662)

Joint statement of Maude Barlow, Chairperson of the Council of Canadians and Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Europe

Ottawa and Brussels – “As activists from around the globe are convening at the Rio +20 conference to protect our common resources from private interests, the Stockholm International Water Institute’s decision to award PepsiCo for water efficiency is a cruel irony. PepsiCo has inflicted massive harm on vital community water resources around the globe. This award validates and aids that activity, further justifying PepsiCo’s PR efforts to spin itself as “green.”

“This award legitimizes PepsiCo’s dubious business practices in an age of increasing water scarcity. PepsiCo has routinely depleted our groundwater resources, undertaken unsustainable intra-basin water transfers and polluted community water resources. Praising the corporation for reported water efficiency does little to reverse its damaging legacy. 

“PepsiCo recently touted its commitment to the human right to water. But privatizing and destroying a vital and irreplaceable resource directly undermines human rights. The company’s hollow promise won’t stop communities from fighting its control of their water.

“There are some resources that simply shouldn’t be bottled, traded or sacrificed to the market, and that is especially true of water. While multinational corporations lobby for an unfair share of our natural resources, no respectable institution should award them for their greedy, destructive behavior.

“Furthermore, the promotion of Pepsi through Stockholm Water Week highlights the influence of corporations within global policy spaces. Over the last decade, multinational corporations have gained tremendous access to decision-makers within UN agencies and summits, as well as through corporate-run multi-stakeholder meetings frequented by high-level government and UN officials—including Stockholm Water Week and the World Water Forum. This award to Pepsi underscores the need for international public institutions and policy spaces that defend the rights of people and nature, not ones that promote corporate interests.  

“We must not allow corporations to influence and benefit from the vital negotiations in Rio. Rio+20 must adopt principles for a true green economy, not a greenwashed economy that further privatizes nature for profit.”

###

Since 1985, the Council of Canadians has brought people together to act for social, economic and environmental justice in Canada and around the world. With chapters and members across the country, the Council of Canadians is Canada’s largest public advocacy organization.

Shale gas a dangerous experiment on environment and human health

Shale gas, shale oil and coal bed methane have arrived in Europe under the banner of energy security, and more worryingly, environmental protection. However, the reality is that shale gas and the process of hydraulic fracturing (or ‘fracking’) represent a dangerous experiment on both the health of European citizens and the environment, while the economic viability is debateable.

Last month, following the presentation of MEP Boguslaw Sonik’s draft report on shale gas for the parliamentary committee working on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, our coalition of environmental and health NGOs released a joint position statement warning the European Parliament of the dangers of fracking. Sonik’s report either omitted or minimised the risks and negative impacts of fracking, and replaced them with overly optimistic industry assessments interests. This characterises how shale gas is being promoted at the European level: obvious loopholes in current regulatory frameworks are glossed over, and the true environmental and economic costs of shale gas, and the financial viability of the industry, are misrepresented.

The European debate however, is out of touch with citizens’ concerns about clean water, air quality, etc. This unconventional fossil fuel has not gone unnoticed across Europe. Citizens’ groups have sprung up around Europe that question the lack of consent or involvement in decision-making granted to local communities affected by shale gas exploration, and question outright the safety of the process. These grassroots groups have recognised that shale gas poses a serious threat to both local communities and the environment and are intent on opposing it. Bans on fracking are already in place in France and Bulgaria, moratoria in regions of Germany and Switzerland, and in the Netherlands, with Romania and the Czech Republic considering the same.

It’s time for decision makers to start listening. The rush for shale gas began without proper political debate on the costs and benefits of this energy source. To date, there has been no independent, comprehensive or detailed analysis of the EU regulatory framework that applies to both exploration and exploitation. We know little about how Europe’s Water Framework Directive might cover the specifics of fracking and its impact on water resources. Vast amounts of water are required to extract shale gas, creating significant social and environmental pressures at local and regional levels.

Water is definitely a key issue and there has been no assessment of the capacity of water treatment plants in affected regions to handle flow back waste water, nor has there been any assessment of monitoring and enforcement capacities of Member State authorities across all the different impact areas.

There has been no scientific study of the risks of fracking-related air or soil pollution or water contamination, and the long-term health impacts of large-scale shale gas extraction remains unknown. Loopholes in the European chemicals legislation (REACH) allow companies to remain secretive about chemicals used during fracking, making it impossible to assess the environmental and health risks. These toxic chemicals used whilst fracking, along with the hazardous and radioactive materials naturally present underground, smog particulates and other pollutants released during the process can contaminate surface and groundwater, and pollute the air and soil – seriously threatening human health.

There is still no consistent process in Europe that guarantees the free and fully-informed consent of local communities in decision-making – most communities only find out about shale gas developments when the drilling rigs arrive.

All these problems and unknowns amount to a serious question mark that hangs over shale gas and its position within Europe’s energy future. When European legislation catches up with the reality of shale gas exploitation and extraction, and industry covers all the costs involved, there is no way that shale will be a financially attractive option. The financial viability of shale gas is questioned even by those within the industry: Peter Voser, CEO for Royal Dutch Shell, concludes that the development of shale gas in Europe and worldwide “will be limited as a result of regulation, legislation, high population density and the challenge of obtaining permits” and could face major cost overrun in order to comply with environmental regulations.

The European Union has made a clear commitment to move to a low-carbon economy, agreeing to almost full decarbonisation of its power sector by 2050. Unconventional fossil fuels like shale gas sideline Europe’s vision for a more sustainable, low-carbon energy system. There is no scientific agreement that the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of shale gas will be significantly lower compared to other conventional fossil fuels, even the most carbon-intensive ones like coal. The combustion stage of natural gas may be cleaner than that of coal, but a life-cycle analysis of shale gas processes tells a different story and does not warrant the “transition fuel” label.  Such fuel could instead lock the EU into a continued dependency on fossil fuels at the expense of renewable energy, energy savings and significant reductions in emissions – the only genuine path towards an environmentally sustainable and healthy future.

We want European member states to suspend ongoing activities, to abrogate permits, and to place bans on any new projects, whether exploration or exploitation. Europe faces some serious challenges in the next decade, and this shouldn’t be one of them. Europe must embrace a low-carbon future, based on renewable energy and improved energy savings.

Contact:

Antoine Simon, Friends of the Earth Europe

Geert de Cock, Food and Water Europe

Lisette Van Vliet, Health and Environment Alliance