Blog Categories: Europe

Lake Naivasha

Categories

Food

Excerpt from the introduction:

DOWNLOAD PDF

Isaac Ouma Oloo remembers Kenya‚ Lake Naivasha as pristine, its waters sustaining an abundance of fish, lions, antelope, leopards, hippopotamuses, and birds. But the overuse of water and environmental destruction caused by international flower farms have fouled his memories of the lake. “Kenya is a begging country,” he says. “We’re among the top on the list of the World Food Programme for food donations, even though in Naivasha we have a freshwater lake that would allow us to grow food to feed ourselves. Yet we take this water to grow flowers and then ship them 5,000 miles to Europe so that people can say I love you, darling and then throw them away three days later. To me that is an immoral act.” 1

Related Documents

Since the 1980s, industrial horticulture and floriculture farms in Kenya, centered for the most part in the Lake Naivasha region, have grown into the largest supplier of flowers to the European market. They ship more than 88 million tons of cut flowers a year, worth some $264 million.2

The more than 30 flower farms in the Lake Naivasha region pose a number of serious ecological problems for Kenya‚ rivers and for the lake, including loss of water, an unsustainable increase in the population because of the laborers they have attracted, and the overuse of pesticides and fertilizers.

In 2007, while researching The Blue Covenant: The Global Water Crisis and the Coming Battle for the Right to Water, Maude Barlow, National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians and President of the Food & Water Watch Board of Directors, learned of the crisis at Lake Naivasha and committed herself to visiting the lake during the World Social Forum in Nairobi during the winter of that year. Barlow, Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch, and documentary filmmaker Sam Bozzo bribed their way into one of the local flower farm facilities.3

“We saw pipes pumping water from the lake to the flower greenhouses and a ditch where waste water drained back into the lake,” Bar-low says. “Pesticides and fungicides were plainly visible in a storage facility on the property. If action isn’t taken immediately, the lake will not only be polluted, it will be drained.” 4

The Beef with Brazilian Beef

Categories

Food

Excerpt from the introduction: (Read about the report in Spanish.)

Beef from Brazil may taste fine and have an attractive price, but the reasons to ban it from being imported into the European Union are beginning to mount. Despite the EU‚ 176 percent tariff on Brazilian beef, cattle farmers in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Italy and elsewhere say the imported meat is still so cheap that it threatens to put them out of business.

Brazilian beef also poses numerous risks to European consumers — from the use of EU-banned hormones to traceability problems to bio, security lapses. Even though it has not eradicated foot, and, mouth disease, Brazil can still ship beef to Europe. European farmers whose cattle have been hit with the disease, however, face costly bans that have deprived them of millions of Euro in lost beef sales.

Environmental protection and human rights are also at stake. To make way for huge, factory, style cattle operations, rainforests in Brazil are being slashed, and, burned by slave labourers, who live in shacks and reportedly have been chained to trees and shot.

The dilemma has created a stand,off between members of the European Parliament who want Brazilian beef banned from the EU, and the European Commission, which has acknowledged serious problems with Brazil‚ meat production system but says a ban is premature and unjustified.

Consumer Groups Denied Hearing on Deceptive Meat Packaging

Categories

Food

CONTACT:
Erin Greenfield
202-797-6550

Consumer Groups Shut Out of Hearing on Deceptive Meat Packaging

Washington, DC — Four consumer groups are protesting not being given the opportunity to testify at an October 30, 2007 House Agriculture Committee hearing on a questionable food technology that is deceptive to consumers.

The four organizations, Food & Water Watch, Safe Tables Our Priority, Consumer Federation of America, and the Government Accountability Project, have been critical of decisions by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to allow the use of carbon monoxide in meat packaging that artificially prolongs the color of red meat. The House Agriculture Committee has decided to hold a hearing on October 30 to provide a platform for the supporters of this deceptive technology, without hearing from consumer advocates who have been critical of this practice.

The consumer organizations sent a letter to House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson on October 22, 2007 asking for the opportunity to testify, but they have not received a response (see attached).

‚I dont understand what the House Agriculture Committee is afraid of,” said Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch. ‚Both FDA and USDA have allowed a practice that defines month-old meat as being fresh because using carbon monoxide keeps the pigment of meat red longer than meat that is untreated. This technology can mask spoilage because the product appears to be perfectly fine. Congress needs to hear both sides of the story on this issue,” added Hauter.

Testing conducted by Consumer Reports and reported in the July 2006 issue indicated that some CO-treated meat available on supermarket shelves could be spoiled by its use, or freeze,by date. Consumer Reports recommends that consumers ‚check the package and buy meat whose stamped date is a couple of weeks away.”

‚The use of carbon monoxide in meat packaging is clearly deceptive to consumers,” said Donna Rosenbaum, Executive Director of Safe Tables Our Priority. ‚Consumers rely on color to make meat purchasing decisions. It is not surprising that the European Union has banned the practice because of the consumer deception issue.”

‚Consumer Federation of America commissioned a national poll in September 2006 that showed 78% of respondents considered the use of carbon monoxide in meat packaging to be a deceptive practice, and 68% strongly favored mandatory labeling of any meat product that was treated with carbon monoxide,” said Chris Waldrop, Director of CFA‚ Food Policy Institute.

‚I find it interesting that some in the meat industry continue to devote incredible resources to promote this deceptive technology when it is clearly becoming unpopular even within its own ranks,” remarked Jacqueline Ostfeld, Food and Drug Safety Officer for the Government Accountability Project. ‚Industry giant Tyson Foods stopped using carbon monoxide in its meat packaging because it stated that its customers were not requesting meat treated with this technology. Furthermore, supermarket chains such as Whole Foods, Kroger‚, Publix, Safeway, Giant Foods, Stop & Shop, and A & P have either never carried or have stopped carrying meat packaged with carbon monoxide because consumers just do not want to buy it” added Ostfeld.

In addition to the letter sent by these consumer groups, telephone calls and e-mails to House Agriculture Committee staff about the hearing went unanswered.

###

rBGH: What the Research Shows

Categories

Food

rBGH_Health thumbnail

[pdflink file=”rBGH_Health.pdf”]

Although Canada and the European Union have banned the use of bovine recombinant growth hormone in dairy cows due to its health risks for both humans and cows, the Food and Drug Administration has dismissed evidence for these risks in order to approve the use of rBGH. The following is a sampling of research, funded by government agencies and major universities – that raises serious concerns about the safety of rBGH/rBST and challenges FDA approval of the use of this hormone. Please note that in some studies rBGH also is referred to as bovine somatotropin, or rBST.

Human Health

rBGH and Human Health Problems Resulting from Mastitis (I)

Based on the proposed label supplied by Monsanto, the increased risk of mastitis [inflammation of the udder] that may be associated with rBST has human health implications (antibiotic resistance in farm-borne human pathogens)

“BST-induced mastitis is harder to treat than naturally occurring mastitis and duration of treatment is longer due to higher incidence of infection with S. aureus… There is a one third higher incidence of antibiotic resistant bacteria. BST use increases the amounts of drugs in general to treat the various adverse effects it causes in cattle.”

rBST (NUTRILAC) Gaps Analysis Report.” Report of the rBST Internal Review Team, Health Protection Branch, Health Canada.. April 21, 1998.

rBGH and Human Health Problems Resulting from Mastitis (II)

“The public health and food safety aspects of mastitis in dairy cows are exclusively associated with the potential problems of side effects from using antimicrobials in the treatment or prevention of such cases. Treatment of clinical mastitis cases with antimicrobials is not limited to those cases, which may be classified as severe…, also, milk clinical cases are often treated with local application of antimicrobials… Even cases of sub-clinical mastitis are sometimes treated with antimicro-bials…”

“The public health reasons for limiting as far as possible the use of antimicrobials in dairy cows are the risk of: an in-creased incidence of allergic reactions from drugs and their metabolites in consumers of milk and dairy products; an in-creased selection of bacteria resistant to antimicrobials.”

“European Commission. ‚Report on Public Health Aspects of the Use of Bovine Somatotrophin.” 15-16 March 1999. Food Safety – From the Farm to the Fork.

rBGH and IGF-1 (I)

milk truck“Six lactating, non-pregnant Jersey cows were given subcutaneous [below the skin] injections of recombinantly derived bovine growth hormone (rBGH) for seven days Concentrations of [a growth hormone called] insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) in the milk increased from 0.44 +/- 0.04 (mean +/- s.e.m.) during the seven days preceding treatment to 1.6 +/- 0.2 nmol/l on day seven of treatment. Taking the increase in milk yield into account, the total increase in the secretion of IGF-1 into milk of one udder half was 6-fold.”

Prosser, C. G., Fleet I. R., A. N. Corps. “Increased secretion of insulin-like growth factor 1 into milk of cows treated with recombinantly derived bovine growth hormone.” Journal of Dairy Research 56(1):17-26, 1989.

rBGH and IGF-1 (II)

The increased secretion of IGF-I into milk during rBGH treatment is of further relevance in view of the proposed com-mercial use of this compound in the dairy industry. Bovine IGF-I has an identical amino acid sequence to human IGF-I and would therefore be active in humans.

“Application of rBST increased the amount of excreted IGF-I in milk by 25-70% in individual animals. The Committee noted that bovine milk may contain truncated IGF-I (des(1-3)IGF-1), which was found to be even more potent than IGF-1 in the anabolic response when given subcutaneously to rats.”

European Commission. “Report on Public Health Aspects of the Use of Bovine Somatotrophin.” Food Safety – From the Farm to the Fork. March 15-16, 1999.

IGF-1 and Cancer

“The role of IGFs in cancer is supported by epidemiological studies, which have found that high levels of circulating IGF-I and low levels of IGFBP-3 are associated with increased risk of several common cancers, including those of the prostate, breast, colorectum, and the lung.”

Yu, Herbert and Thomas Rohan. Review. “Role of the Insulin-like Growth Factor Family in Cancer Development and Progression.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 92:1472-89, 2000.

rBGH, IGF-I, and Gastrointestinal Cancer

“The combination of IGF-1 in BST-milk and IGF-1 normally secreted into the human gastrointestinal lumen would aug-ment intraluminal concentrations of this hormone, increasing the possibility of local mitogenic effects [factors that cause cell division to commence] on gut tissues.”

Challacombe, D. N., and Wheeler, E. E. “Safety of milk from cows treated with bovine somatotropin.” Lancet 344:815-816, 1994.

IGF-I and Breast Cancer in Premenopausal Women

“We evaluated the association of plasma IGF-I and IGF binding protein-3 with risk of breast cancer in a study of 94 cases of premenopausal ductal carcinoma in situ and 76 controls. Compared with women in the lowest tertile [quarter] of IGF-I, women in the upper two tertiles of IGF-I had an elevated risk for ductal carcinoma in situ.”

Bohlke, Kari, Daniel W. Cramer, Dimitrios Trichopoulos, and Christos S. Mantzoros. “Insulin-Like Growth Factor-I in Relation to Premenopausal Ductal Carcinoma in Situ of the Breast.” Epidemiology 9(5):570-573. 1998.

IGF-I and Prostate Cancer

“IGF-I is a mitogen [factor encouraging cell division] for prostate epithelial cells. To investigate associations between plasma IGF levels and prostate cancer risk, a nested case-control study within the Physicians Health Study was conducted on prospectively collected plasma from 152 cases and 152 controls. A strong positive association was observed between IGF-I levels and prostate cancer risk.”

Chan, June M, Meir J Stampfer, Edward Giovannucci, Peter H. Gann, Jing Ma, Peter Wilkinson, Charles H. Henne-kens, and Michael Pollak. “Plasma Insulin-Like Growth Factor-I and Prostate Cancer Risk: A Prospective Study.” Sci-ence 279(5350):563-566. 1998.

IGF-I and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (Mad Cow Disease)

“It is speculated that IGF-I plays a role in the expression of genes that encode for prion [the infectious agent believed to cause BSE] synthesis and that increased IGF-I shortens the incubation period formilk bottle Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) [commonly referred to as Mad Cow Disease]. Thus, the use of BST might increase the risk of exposure to BSE infection.”

“rBST (NUTRILAC) Gaps Analysis Report.” Report of the rBST Internal Review Team, Health Protection Branch, Health Canada. April 21, 1998.

IGF-I‚ Resistance to Pasteurization

“IGF-I in milk is resistant to pasteurization and even elevated levels of IGF-I have been reported after pasteurization. The latter might be related to the standard analytical procedures, which fail to detect protein-bound (IGFBP-bound) IGF-I. Consequently, consumption of milk from rBST treated dairy cows will increase the daily intake of IGF-I.”

European Commission. “Report on Public Health Aspects of the Use of Bovine Somatotrophin.” Food Safety , From Farm to the Fork. 15-16 March 1999.

IGF‚ Carcinogenic Effects on Rodents (II)

“When exposed to insulin-like growth factor 1 or supraphysiologic [higher than normal] levels of insulin, NIH 3T3 cells that expressed high levels of receptors formed aggregates in tissue culture dishes, colonies in soft agar, and tumors in nude mice… The results demonstrate that when amplified, this ubiquitous growth factor receptor behaves like an oncogenic [cancer causing] protein and is capable of promoting neoplastic [uncontrollable cell] growth in vivo.”

Kaleko, Michael, William J. Rutner, and A. Dusty Miller. “Overexpression of the Human Insulinlike Growth Factor I Receptor Promotes Ligand-Dependent Neoplastic Transformation.” Molecular and Cellular Biology. 10(2):464-473. 1990

rBGH and Unstudied Human Health Problems

The following questions deserve attention:

  • Does the IGF-1 molecule remain in the gastrointestinal tract of humans (when products from rBST-treated animals have been consumed)?
  • Based on the biological activity of IGF-1 activity as cellular growth factor and assuming that IGF-1 is not immediately destroyed in the gastrointestinal tract, what is the consequence of the direct exposure of the gut mucosa?
  • What evidence can be provided that orally ingested IGF-1 enters systemic circulation and what are the possible conse-quences of this systemic bioavailability?

“Several reports express concerns about undesirable allergic reactions which might occur after the consumption of milk obtained from rBST-treated cows… the question of whether or not a change in milk protein composition as a consequence of rBST application to the dairy cows might pose an additional risk factor in the development of food allergies has so far not been addressed adequately.”

European Commission. “Report on Public Health Aspects of the Use of Bovine Somatotrophin.” Food Safety , From Farm to the Fork. 15-16 March 1999.

“Evidence from the subchronic rat study submitted by Monsanto had shown that rBST was absorbed intact from the GI tract following oral administration, albeit at high doses, and elicited a primary antigenic response. The full immunological and potentially toxicological consequences of this observation were not investigated.”

“rBST (NUTRILAC) Gaps Analysis Report.” Report of the rBST Internal Review Team, Health Protection Branch, Health Canada.  April 21, 1998.

Animal Welfare

rBGH and Animal Welfare

“Any exogenous treatment that modifies the physiology of an organism with the objective of increasing its productivity is likely to impair welfare if the individual is not able to adapt to the physiological and metabolic changes this treatment in-duces.”

European Commission. “Report on Public Health Aspects of the Use of Bovine Somatotrophin.” Food Safety , From Farm to the Fork. March 15-16, 1999.

rBGH and Animal Welfare: Mastitis

mechanical cow milkingMilk production, feed efficiency, health, and reproduction were evaluated in 46 Jersey cows that received either 500 mg of sometribove (n-methionyl bST) in a prolonged-release formulation or an equivalent volume of excipient biweekly be-ginning at 60 +/- 3 DIM

“During the pretreatment period, only one quarter in a control cow required antibiotic treatment, whereas 11 quarters in cows later assigned to the treatment group received antibiotic therapy. When the number of new cases of mastitis during the treatment period were examined, the control cows had 4 cases, and the treated cows had 29 cases.”

Pell, A. N., D. S. Tsang, B. A. Howlett, M. T. Huyler, V. K. Meserole, W. A. Samuelss, G. F. Hartnell, and R. L. Hintz. “Effects of Prolonged-Release Formulation of Sometribove (n-Methionyl Bovine Somatotropin) on Jersey Cows.” Jour-nal of Dairy Science. 75:3416-3431, 1992.

rBGH and Animal Welfare: Reproductive Side-effects (I)

“There is evidence that BST treatment can adversely affect reproduction. Pregnancy rate dropped from 82 to 73% in mul-tiparous cows and from 90 to 63% in primiparous cows… The frequency of multiple births, which can cause welfare prob-lems, was substantially increased by BST. Failure to conceive is an indicator of poor welfare and multiple births lead to poor welfare.”

“Report on Animal Welfare Aspects of the Use of Bovine Somatotrophin.” Report of the Scientific Committee on Ani-mal Health and Animal Welfare of the European Commission. March 10, 1999.

rBGH and Animal Welfare: Reproductive Side-effects (II)

“There were a number of effects on reproductive performance that were associated with the use of rBST. These included a substantial increase in the risk of non-pregnancy and a slight increase in days open in cows that do conceive. There was also inconclusive evidence of increased risks of cystic ovaries and twinning.”

“Report of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association Expert Panel on rBST.” Canadian Veterinary Medical Asso-ciation Expert Panel on rBST Executive Summary.

Starbucks Agrees to Hold the Hormones For Good

Categories

Food

Contact:
Erin Greenfield
(202) 797-6550

WE WON!

Starbucks Has Agreed to Hold the Hormones For Good

Washington, D.C. – Starbucks Coffee Company has already made a New Year‚ resolution! Today Starbucks committed to make 100% of the chain‚ milk supply free of artificial growth hormones by December 31, 2007.

The Starbucks announcement follows nearly two years of pressure from Food & Water Watch, which launched the Hold the Hormones Campaign in 2006, asking consumers to demand the company buy better milk. A protest event planned for today in front of a Seattle store from 4-6pm (Westlake Center Starbucks, 401 Pine St.) will now be a victory celebration, complete with partying cows, cookies, and of course, rBGH-free milk.

In a letter addressed to Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter, Starbucks Vice President of Sustainable Procurement Sue Mecklenburg stated, “We have committed that by December 31, 2007, all of our fluid milk, half and half, whipping cream and eggnog used in U.S. company-operated stores will be produced without the use of rBGH.”

“Our work has paid off,” exclaimed Hauter.  “American consumers have made their voices heard: We want safer and healthier milk. We congratulate Starbucks for rising to the occasion.”

Starbucks first considered offering hormone-free milk to customers in 2001. Today’s letter to Food & Water Watch states that as of August 2007, 72 % of their total dairy supply is sourced from milk suppliers that do not use rBGH in their milk. The Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone, or rBGH, is an artificial hormone that is often injected into dairy cows to increase their milk production. With a potential link between the hormone and higher risk of breast, prostate, and colon cancer in humans, rBGH is banned in all 27 countries of the European Union, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand.

“Starbucks is doing the right thing,” Hauter stated. “We look forward to other companies following Starbucks lead and making the switch to healthier milk.”

For more information on rBGH and the Hold the Hormones Campaign, visit www.HoldtheHormones.org.

The Rush to Ethanol

Categories

Food

Excerpt from the executive summary

Rising oil prices, energy security, and global warming concerns have all contributed to the current hype over biofuels. With both prices and demand for oil likely to continue to increase, biofuels are being presented as the way to curb greenhouse gas emissions and to develop homegrown energy that reduces our dependency on foreign oil.

Related Documents

In this context, corn-based ethanol has emerged as a leading contender to reduce dependence on fossil fuel,based gasoline. At first glance, corn,based ethanol seems simple, even patriotic: take the sugar from corn that U.S. farmers grow, and ferment it with yeast to distill basically the same stuff found in alcoholic beverages. By products, such as distiller‚ grain and corn gluten, serve as livestock feed and help offset refining costs. The industry claims that ethanol blends will lower tailpipe emissions, promote energy independence, and revitalize rural America.

Farmers and investors envision a new gold rush. Ethanol production is registering record growth rates, and reached nearly five billion gallons in 2006. Dozens of new ethanol refineries are being constructed, with production capacity forecast to double as early as 2008.1 President Bush intensified this momentum in his 2007 State of the Union address with a call to produce 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels by 2017 — a fivefold increase from the currently established goals.

However, the leading raw material for ethanol in the United States-corn-is among the least efficient, most polluting, and overall least sustainable biofuel feedstocks.

This report reviews the most up to date scientific evidence and concludes that corn-based ethanol is not the silver bullet everyone is seeking.