Archives: Press Releases

Washington, D.C. – Spurred on by reports that meat companies are abandoning the Australian Meat Inspection System (AEMIS) that USDA’s Inspection Service found to be equivalent, the national advocacy organization Food & Water Watch today asked USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack to re-evaluate the equivalency determination for AMEIS. This is the fifth time in two years that Food & Water Watch has made this request.

“Although the European Union has flagged definite problems in allowing meat companies to police their own inspection systems, the USDA has yet to speak out about this very obvious conflict of interest,” said Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. “Yet if the result of a privatized meat inspection system in Australian is food that is unsafe to eat, the United States owes it to consumers to revoke the equivalency determination for AEMIS.”

In 2013 alone the US imported over 620 million pounds of red meat from Australia, and that figure is expected to increase by the end of 2014. Since Australia implemented AEMIS, USDA import inspectors have found serious food safety violations, including traces of fecal matter on meat shipments and even positive test results for the pathogen E.coli 0157:H7.  An audit of the system conducted by FSIS and posted last month concluded that the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) was not holding Australian meat companies accountable for the contamination that was being found on meat being exported to the U.S. Specifically, FSIS found that DAFF did not require those meat companies that shifted to AEMIS to reassess their food safety plans to ensure that they were not putting contaminated meat into commerce.

“It’s clear that Australia’s privatized meat inspection system is failing consumers, particularly as some plants are asking that the government take up this essential service. With Australia a major trading partner, we need to take every measure possible to ensure that meat from that nation is safe to eat. That can only be accomplished under a government-led inspection system,” said Hauter.

Read the letter here.

Contact: Kate Fried, Food & Water Watch, (202) 683-4905, kfried(at)fwwatch(dot)org.

Maryland’s political leaders continue to choose the gas industry over citizens

Statement by Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter

Washington, D.C. — “In its approval of the Dominion Cove Point LNG export facility late Monday evening despite local opposition, the Federal Energy Regulation Commission (FERC) chose to sacrifice the well being of Maryland communities and endanger public health in favor of hefty profits for Dominion Resources. Cove Point will be one of the largest LNG export facilities in the U.S., and the first of its kind to be located so close to a community.

FERC’s authorization to render the Cove Point facility capable of processing and exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG) overseas is merely one part of the oil and gas industry’s aggressive push to expand fracking in the Marcellus Shale region – an agenda actively backed by the Obama Administration. By approving Dominion Cove Point, FERC puts the interests of oil and gas companies above the health of local communities—especially the 2,500 residents of Lusby, MD who live less than one mile away from the facility.

Dominion Cove Point is designed to send fracked gas to markets in Europe and Asia where it can fetch the highest price, accelerating the pace of fracking here in the U.S., and transforming rural communities into sacrifice zones that endangering public health, natural resources and local economies.

At a time when citizens should be looking to their political leaders to help lead them away from destructive fossil fuels toward a more sustainable energy future, they are working hand-in-glove with the oil and gas lobby, enabling a process that continues to sacrifice communities and the potential for a healthier environment.”

Washington, D.C.— In an effort to protect Americans from questionable meat imports, the national advocacy organization Food & Water Watch today pressured USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack to explain whether meat products produced under Australia’s newest inspection model will be allowed into the United States. The inquiry came on the heels of revelations that some Australian meat companies have opted to hire private third party firms to perform meat inspections on products destined for the European Union and expressed interest in using this system in plants sending red meat to the United States.

“I don’t understand the contortions that the Australian government is going through to avoid having competent government inspectors in its slaughterhouses,” said Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. “The meat industry there should certainly not be allowed to police itself. Moreover, our government has been complicit in this scheme, first by recognizing privatized inspection in Australia, and now by trying to foist questionable imports on U.S. consumers. Every year, the United States imports over 600 million pounds of red meat from Australia, so it’s critical we get to the bottom of this.”

In 2013, the European Union rejected an inspection model, the Australian Export Meat Inspection System (AEMIS), that privatized most inspections in Australian red meat plants. The EU argued that AEMIS inspections created an inherent conflict-of-interest. The U.S. granted approval to AEMIS in 2011 for red meat exports. The formation of private third party inspection firms was intended to alleviate the concerns expressed by the European Union. There is no record of USDA recognizing this new inspection scheme.

“In June, Food & Water Watch petitioned the USDA to revoke their approval of privatized meat inspection systems in several countries, including Australia, for import to the United States,” said Hauter. “This latest example of the chaos in the Australian meat inspection program is further proof that we should not be importing meat from companies that do not use government employees for inspection.”

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

Statement of Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter 

Washington, D.C.—“A mere four days after the consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch filed a citizen’s petition with USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to revoke the equivalency determinations for privatized meat inspection systems for Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the head of Australia’s meat inspection system sent a letter to FSIS Administrator Alfred Almanza requesting modifications be made to the equivalency determination for the Australian Export Meat Inspection System (AEMIS) – a privatized meat inspection system that FSIS approved in 2011.

“In the June 10, 2014 letter, Greg Read, first assistant secretary of the Food Division for Australia’s Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), explains that because of the 2013 decision by the European Union not to recognize AEMIS due to the inherent conflict of interest of having company-paid employees perform food safety inspections, DAFF is proposing that in addition to restoring full government inspection in slaughter facilities, it is also advocating the creation of private independent inspection entities that would be paid by the Australian government to perform meat inspections for products that are exported to the EU and the U.S.

“This letter shows how hasty FSIS was to recognize the privatized inspection scheme in Australia, even ignoring the observations of its own auditor who expressed concerns in 2011 about potential conflicts-of-interest just as the Europeans eventually did. However, this letter also shows the great lengths Australian government officials are willing to go to in order to replace government inspection with a new, convoluted private third-party inspection scheme, even though it would be paid for with public dollars.  

“Mr. Read should bring back his highly trained and competent government inspectors. Ever since Australia shifted to AEMIS, the number of import rejections of Australian meat shipments to the U.S. has skyrocketed for contaminants such as visible fecal and ingesta contamination. FSIS import inspectors are doing the job that should have done back in Australia before the meat ever leaves the slaughterhouses. Consequently, U.S. taxpayers are shouldering the cost of the inspection failures from an ill-conceived privatized system in Australia. It’s time for FSIS to admit its mistake and revoke the equivalency determination for AEMIS and the privatized inspection systems the agency has also approved for Canada and New Zealand that are also exhibiting the same problems.

“FSIS should abandon its efforts to privatize poultry and meat inspection here in the U.S. because it does not work. We urge the House of Representatives to support the DeLauro amendment to the FY 2015 Agriculture Appropriations bill that would prevent FSIS from moving forward with its proposed rule to privatize poultry inspection.” 

Contact: Kate Fried, Food & Water Watch, (202) 683-4905, kfried(at)fwwatch(dot)org. 

Washington, D.C.— In an effort to ensure the safety of the meat Americans eat, the national advocacy organization Food & Water Watch today petitioned the USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) to immediately revoke the recognition of privatized inspection schemes used in several countries that are allowed to export red meat products to the United States. The group’s petition urges FSIS to revoke the “equivalency” status of four meat inspection programs used in Canada, Australia and New Zealand because the programs have replaced government meat inspectors with company employees. 

“The basis for FSIS’s equivalency determinations for meat imports is shaky at best,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. “But using the U.S. pilot program HIMP (which is only in place in five hog slaughter facilities) to approve meat imports for entire countries using privatized inspection is unconscionable. Moreover, USDA has so far failed to prove that privatized inspection even works.” 

Canada, Australia and New Zealand have changed their meat inspection systems, allowing company employees, rather than government inspectors, to conduct food safety inspections. Despite this obvious difference from U.S. inspection programs, which by law require USDA employees to conduct inspections, the agency has declared these new systems as equivalent, and has allowed those products to be imported. 

“The risk to U.S. consumers from USDA’s decision to allow privately inspected meat to enter the United States is real,” says Hauter. “In the fall of 2012, XL Foods’ operation in Canada was implicated in the largest meat recall in Canadian history while operating under a high-speed privatized inspection program. Eighteen Canadian consumers were sickened with E. coli 0157:H7 from beef processed at that plant and 2.5 million pounds that had been exported to the United States had to be recalled.” 

 The petition offers examples of other problems found in products inspected under privatized systems in Australia and New Zealand, including persistent problems with fecal contamination, and actions taken by the European Union to bar meat imports from Australia because of the inherent conflict of interest of having company employees perform food safety inspections.

 “USDA should be looking out for U.S. consumers when it evaluates foreign inspection systems,” said Hauter. “Unfortunately, the agency seems to be using the import approval process as a way to weaken meat inspection overall and hasten the arrival of privatized inspection in the United States.”

Read the letter here.

Contact: Kate Fried, Food & Water Watch, (202) 683-4905, kfried(at)fwwatch(dot)org. 

 Cap-and-trade, offsets allow power plants to pay to pollute

Statement from Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter and Institute for Policy Studies Climate Policy Program Director Janet Redman  

Washington, D.C.—“On the heels of two telling reports from the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) and the National Climate Assessment detailing the substantial negative impacts from climate change around the world, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) decision to incorporate emissions trading and offsetting in their new carbon dioxide rule undermines its ability to deliver the real reductions in carbon emissions so urgently needed.

“We applaud the President for using the tools he has available, with a Congress that refuses to act and for setting hard targets for emissions reductions. However, the targets don’t make the U.S. a leader in seeking emissions reduction. Because this rule applies to only one segment of our economy, existing coal-fired power plants, the reduction targets fall far short of the IPCC’s goals for developed countries of economy-wide reductions of 15 to 40 percent below 1990 emission by 2020. With these targets, U.S. economy-wide emissions would still be above 1990 levels in 2030.

“In addition by allowing states the option of using cap-and-trade and offsets, the administration has cut the legs out from under its own rule. Carbon trading is designed to benefit big corporate polluters. It lets industry decide for itself how to limit carbon emissions based on profit motive, and makes it cheaper for the dirtiest power plants to simply pay for permits instead of cleaning up pollution.

“The U.S. need only look to the European Union (EU) for evidence that cap and trade fails to deliver on its promises. The EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) for carbon – the largest and longest-running in the world – has been fraught with problems, including corporate giveaways, gaming by the energy industry, volatile carbon prices, and fraud.

“Proponents claim the U.S. can design cap-and-trade better than the Europeans, but they’re already importing one of the worst aspects – offsetting. Offsets allow regulated power plants to pay farmers, foresters and others outside the cap to reduce their emissions, and then claim those cuts for themselves. Power plants keep polluting, and the families living in their shadow continue to breathe toxic emissions. Communities near the polluters don’t see any benefits from the supposed reduction in pollution taking place elsewhere.

“To top it off, it is nearly impossible for the supplier of an offset to guarantee that the offsetting action will be in place for the duration of a power plant’s life. Given the 50-year lifespan of carbon in the atmosphere after is it released, offsetting poses a real risk to long-term climate stability.

“Even the U.S. Government Accountability Office points out that, ‘offsets allow regulated entities to emit more while maintaining the emissions levels set by a cap and trade program or other program to limit emissions.’

We need a bold rule that truly seeks legitimate carbon emission reduction by burning less fossil fuel, supporting energy efficiency, and ramping up the use of sustainable renewable energy in order to address climate change. The Clean Air Act calls for the “best system of emissions reduction” to reduce emissions from existing power plants. Unfortunately, trading and offsetting merely perpetuate pollution and encourage business-as-usual. The EPA should uphold the Clean Air Act by enforcing rules that reduce pollution – not promote a system that allows power plants to pay to pollute.”

Contacts: 
Food & Water Watch – Rich Bindell, +1-202-683-245, [email protected]
Institute for Policy Studies – Janet Redman, +1-202-787-5215, [email protected]