Archives: Press Releases

Brussels – Food & Water Europe warmly welcomed the news that MEPs on the European Parliament’s Environment Committee voted last night for a moratorium on nanotechnology in food until proper risk assessment methods have been established and such products proved safe. The group also welcomed the vote to stand firm on clones in food, with Green MEP Bart Staes saying the Committee has “sent the EU Commission back to the drawing board with its flawed proposals”.

EU Food Policy Advisor Eve Mitchell said, “Thank goodness MEPs are standing up once again for the Precautionary Principle and basic food safety, this time on nanotechnology and clones. Working through the hundreds of amendments tabled is not easy, but it is incredibly important to get this right.

“This ‘safety first’ approach has not been matched elsewhere in the European machinery, and we all need to support the MEPs fighting our corner – the pressure will only grow to ‘compromise’. When there is such widespread admission that our knowledge on these issues so sparse, and when the risks are so grave, compromise simply is not an option.

“Added to the disagreements currently under discussion on GMOs, the gap between our elected representatives and other powers in Europe just keeps getting wider when it comes to food safety. We commend MEPs for holding a clear, sensible line and keeping this stuff out of our food.”

Contact: Eve Mitchell, EU Food Policy Advisor, Food & Water Europe +44 (0)1381 610 740 or emitchell(a)fweurope(dot)org

Food & Water Europe Calls Food Nanotech
“The Scariest Thing You’ve Probably Never Heard Of”

Brussels — Food & Water Europe today called on Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to secure a moratorium on the use of nanotechnology in food and food packaging, saying the risks of the technology are so grave that it needs its own laws.

MEPs on the Environment Committee of the European Parliament will vote Monday (24 November) on a raft of amendments aiming to “streamline” EU law for placing novel foods on the market. This includes nanotechnology — extremely small particles engineered at the molecular level to create materials with new behaviours and chemical properties. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) admits that, “The same special properties that make nanoscale materials useful are also properties that may cause some nanoscale materials to pose potential risks to humans and the environment.”

Some of the known risks include:

• Damage to DNA
• Disruption of cellular function and production of reactive oxygen species
• Asbestos-like pathogenicity
• Neurologic problems (such as seizures)
• Organ damage, including significant lesions on the liver and kidneys
• Destruction of beneficial bacteria in wastewater treatment systems
• Stunted root growth in corn, soya, carrots, cucumber and cabbage
• Gill damage, respiratory problems and oxidative stress in fish

Food & Water Europe’s EU Food Policy Advisor Eve Mitchell said: “We appreciate the work of MEPs trying to strengthen what’s on paper, but they can only make the best of a bad job. Nanotechnology is different — we don’t even know yet how different — and it has no place in our food until those differences are clear and until the technology is clearly demonstrated to be safe both now and in the long term.”

More than 1,300 products claiming to use nanotechnology are already for sale in the EU, including cosmetics and sunscreens, despite the lack of safety data. Health supplements and antibacterial household products already contain nanosilver, called “extremely toxic” by researchers, and which can kill both good and bad bacteria as it passes through wastewater treatment systems, negatively affecting their performance.

Nanoscale particles may persist in the environment after human use, with potentially serious effects on farmland, water and wildlife. Nanosilver is also used in food packaging, where it can pass into the food itself, something a peer-reviewed study published in the journal Nanotechonology said demands “a review of the long-term biohazard issues of silver nanoparticles.” The EPA says, “Not enough is known to enable meaningful predictions on the biodegradation of nanomaterials in the environment and much further testing and research are needed.”

Mitchell added: “EU Novel Food law aims to ensure that food is ‘safe and wholesome’ with ‘a high level of protection of human health’. Nanotech simply cannot be called safe or wholesome, and it shouldn’t be ‘streamlined’ into our food. MEPs must either support or table amendments that secure a full moratorium until dedicated regulation is in place for nanotech in food, until full safety analysis shows that it is safe and until clear labels on all affected products are enacted.”

“Cloning and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were removed from EU Novel Food regulations precisely because they are different and need dedicated regulations. It’s time we stopped trying to shoehorn nanotech into a law designed to handle things like traditional foods from other countries. It needs dedicated regulation, and a full regime for liability resting on the companies selling it. The industry shouldn’t have a problem with that if what they are selling is safe.

“This is a very new technology, and we already we know it is dangerous. We also know that the science on this is so young that there isn’t even an agreed scientifically robust definition which we can use to identify nanotech. We appeal to MEPs to not rush through a mechanism to accept it just because the industry wants to sell it to us.”

Contact: Eve Mitchell, EU Food Policy Advisor, Food & Water Europe, +44 (0)1381 610 740 or emitchell(at)fweurope(dot)org

October 28, 2014—Brussels and Washington, DC. Officials in Panama fined U.S. biotech company AquaBounty Technologies a near-maximum US$9,500 after ruling that the company has been operating in violation of environmental regulations during its experiments with genetically modified (GM) salmon. Food & Water Europe, Food & Water Watch, the Center for Food Safety and Friends of the Earth U.S. today called on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to terminate its ongoing safety review of GM salmon and to reject AquaBounty’s pending application to sell the company’s GM fish in the United States.

“The FDA has always assured the public that it is checking, monitoring and regulating AquaBounty’s production platform to ensure that the company can mitigate the well-documented environmental impacts of escaped GM salmon,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Europe. “We now know that AquaBounty is unwilling or unable to follow basic rules and regulations, and that the FDA is unable or unwilling to enforce them. It’s time to put an end to this dangerous experiment.”

Last week’s decision from the Panamanian National Environmental Authority came in response to a complaint filed last year by the Panamanian environmental organization Centro de Incidencia Ambiental (CIAM). Regulators found AquaBounty out of compliance with a raft of environmental safety rules and regulations, including failing to secure prior to beginning operations the legally required permits related to water use and water discharge. Regulators concluded, “We are of the opinion that it [AquaBounty] has repeatedly violated the aforementioned environmental regulations.” The US$9,500 penalty is very near the US$10,000 maximum penalty provided for in Panamanian law.

AquaBounty’s facility in Panama has long experienced serious security issues, including a storm-related accident that led to “lost” salmon in Panama. A visiting journalist described the company’s facility as a “run-down shed.”

To date, the FDA has made no regulatory decision on AquaBounty’s application to sell GM salmon, which, if approved, would be the first biotech animal to enter the food supply anywhere in the world. The FDA’s current regulatory review considers only one production scenario in which AquaBounty produces GM salmon at a remote facility in Panama, then sends fillets to U.S. retailers. Critics have long worried that AquaBounty chose its out-of-the-way production facility as a way to evade regulatory scrutiny.

“In the European Union, we are well aware that GM foods are not labeled in the U.S. One of the big reasons we are fighting the U.S. approval of GM salmon for food is the grave doubts surrounding the ability of either AquaBounty or the U.S. food system to keep these GM fish out of exports headed our way,” said Eve Mitchell, EU food policy advisor for Food & Water Europe. “If AquaBounty doesn’t even have legal permission to do what it is doing, it only adds to worries that the entire regulatory process is too full of holes to be trusted, especially on something as important as a safety assessment. We do not want GM salmon in the EU, and we don’t think anyone else does either, so it’s time for the FDA to reject the application and put this thing behind us.”

Contacts:
Eve Mitchell, Food & Water Europe (UK time), +44(0)1381 610 740, [email protected]
Rich Bindell, Food & Water Watch (Washington time), 202-683-2457, [email protected]

Washington, D.C.— Today, a coalition of consumer and advocacy organizations including Food & Water Watch, the Center for Foodborne Illness Research & Prevention, Consumer Federation of America, National Consumers League and United Food & Commercial Workers International Union called on the Office of Management and Budget to create an inspection program for domestic and imported catfish. The 2008 Farm Bill mandated the creation of such a program, to be administered by USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), which was supposed to be implemented by December 2009.

“In 2013, Americans consumed more than 305 million pounds of catfish, 78 percent of which was imported, mostly from Vietnam,” said Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. “Americans want to be sure that the catfish they eat and feed their families is safe, yet bowing to pressure from importers and other nations, the Obama administration continues to hold up the implementation of this important rule. Enough is enough.”

The Food and Drug Administration currently regulates catfish. Domestic catfish processors are subject to FDA inspections once every 5 to 10 years and only 2 percent of imported catfish gets inspected. The new inspection program would subject domestic catfish processors to daily USDA inspection, and imported catfish, much of which is raised in unsanitary conditions and is treated with antibiotics and other chemicals that have been deemed to be illegal in the U.S., would receive more rigorous inspection by the USDA.

There is clear scientific evidence that the residues of chemicals used in aquaculture can remain in the edible portion of the fish through harvesting, processing and consumption. The FDA has determined that the potential immediate and long-range human health consequences may include hypersensitivity reactions, toxicity-related reactions, potential carcinogenic and mutagenic effects and increasing prevalence of antibiotic-resistant microorganisms.

A 2011 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that the FDA imported seafood sampling program did not generally test for drugs that some countries and the European Union have approved for use in aquaculture, despite the fact that many of those drugs remain unapproved in the United States. Moreover, only a small share of imported seafood is tested. For example, GAO determined that in fiscal year 2009, FDA tested about 0.1 percent of all imported seafood products for drug residues. Specifically regarding catfish during fiscal years 2006 through 2009, GAO found that the FDA did not analyze a single catfish sample for nitrofurans, which is a class of antibacterial drug commonly used in foreign aquaculture that has been banned by the FDA because of its carcinogenic effects and potential risk to public health.

“USDA catfish inspection has the potential to significantly improve consumer safety, without negatively impacting U.S. seafood companies, international trade or the regulatory responsibilities of federal agencies. The domestic catfish industry welcomes this regulation, as do consumers. Six years is more than enough of time, let’s get this rule implemented,” urged Hauter.

Read the letter here: http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/CatfishLetter.pdf

Contact: Kate Fried, Food & Water Watch, (202) 683-2500, kfried(at)fwwatch(dot)org.

Brussels – This morning, Members of the European Parliament and environmental groups played the board game ‘Fracking RISK’ to highlight how shale gas fails to offer a real solution to climate change or to the EU’s growing dependency on imported natural gas. In the lead up to the ‘Global Frackdown’, an international day of action against shale gas on 11 October, Food & Water Europe and Friends of the Earth Europe were warning against the environmental and social harm that fracking for shale gas brings.

Commenting, director of Food & Water Europe Geert Decock said “Communities across Europe are standing up on this Global Frackdown day to make their voices heard and call for a ban on the risky and unnecessary practice of fracking for shale gas. Any energy security concerns resulting from the Ukraine crisis should motivate the EU to seek real, renewable solutions, not to further lock itself into dependence on fossil fuels like shale gas.”

Local groups are springing up all around Europe in opposition to fracking, and their message is echoed in numerous opinion polls, showing strong public support for ambitious policies on energy efficiency and renewable energy. Amplifying the message of the Global Frackdown, citizens’ groups across Europe are protesting against the opaque negotiations on free trade agreements between the EU and Canada and the United States. Also on October 11, a European day of action against the EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and EU-Canada Comprehensive Trade and Economic Agreement (CETA) will highlight that these deals risk opening the back door to the expansion of fracking in Europe. A report by Friends of the Earth Europe earlier this year outlined how the TTIP could limit governments’ ability to regulate the development and expansion of fracking, stopping efforts to address climate change and to protect citizens.

“European decision makers haven’t listened to the concerns of the citizens they are supposed to represent. This is why the anti-fracking movement keeps on growing,” said Friends of the Earth Europe shale gas campaigner, Antoine Simon. “Relying on the fossil fuel industry to have the best interests of citizens at heart is absurd. Considering the danger shale gas poses, both in terms of climate change and local pollution, only an outright ban can protect the environment and people’s health.”

Video courtesy Greens EFA.