Archives: Press Releases

Confirms Food & Water Watch’s Previous Information

Washington, D.C. – This past week, the European Commission (EC) posted on its website its final report of the May 2012 audit its staff conducted of the Australian meat inspection system for products destined for Europe and concluded that the privatized meat inspection system called the Australian Export Meat Inspection System (AEMIS), implemented in September 2011, was not in compliance with European Union food safety regulations. In the report, the EC audit staff concluded that by having company-paid inspectors perform post-mortem inspection of animal carcasses was a conflict of interest.

“European regulators have made the right call by rejecting Australia’s privatized meat inspection scheme,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. “It’s time that U.S. regulators also reject a food safety regime where companies basically inspect themselves.”

Specifically, the report issued by the EC said AEMIS was “not in line” with the Commission’s regulations because it could not ensure that certifying officers would “have no direct commercial interests in the animals or products being certified”.

In its response to the European Commission audit, the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry informed the Commission that it was going to take some time to implement a new inspection procedure to avoid the conflict of interest issue.

USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), however, granted equivalency status to AEMIS in March 2011 based only on the findings from one Australian beef slaughter plant piloting the new inspection system. FSIS claimed that it had the authority to grant equivalency status to AEMIS based on a pilot project using a privatized inspection model in five hog slaughter plants here in the U.S. called the HACCP-based Inspection Models Project (HIMP) in market hog slaughter. In May and August of this year, the USDA Office of the Inspector General and the U.S. Government Accountability Office respectively issued highly critical reports questioning the food safety objectives of that hog slaughter pilot project.

In January, July and October of this year, Food & Water Watch sent letters* to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack informing him that meat shipments exported to the U.S. from Australian plants using AEMIS were being repeatedly rejected by USDA import inspectors for visible fecal and ingesta violations at our ports-of-entry. In addition, Food & Water Watch warned the Secretary that it was receiving information that the European Commission was about to reject AEMIS as an inspection system for meat products exported to Europe because of the conflict-of-interest issue. The same concern was expressed by an FSIS auditor who visited the AEMIS pilot plant in 2011, yet his concerns were dismissed by his superiors in Washington.

“Food & Water Watch, again, calls on USDA to revisit the equivalency determination it made regarding AEMIS,” says Hauter. “The determination was flawed since it was based on a pilot project – not the entire meat inspection system here in the U.S. In addition, the pilot project in hog slaughter upon which the equivalency determination was made has never been fully evaluated by FSIS to determine whether food safety is improved by privatizing inspection. As the Europeans have pointed out convincingly, there is an inherent conflict of interest having company-paid inspectors perform food safety functions. Lastly, USDA should withdraw its January 27, 2012 proposed rule to privatize poultry inspection because it suffers from many of the same deficiencies highlighted above.”

* Food & Water Watch letters to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack are available at the following links:

http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/AU_meat_equivalent_USDA_letter.pdf

http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/Vilsack_letter_AEMIS_July_2_2013.pdf

http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/VilsackletterAustrCanada102213.pdf

Contact: Darcey Rakestraw, 202-683-2467; [email protected]

Statement from Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter

Washington, D.C.—“Today, in another Friday afternoon special, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) announced its intention to publish a final rule that would permit some beef products to be imported from countries that have experienced cases of mad cow disease. The restrictions will be lifted on countries that are considered to have ‘minimal risk’ of the disease in their animal herds. This seems to be another case of trade trumping food safety.

“This development comes as the reopening of beef trade with Europe has been an issue under discussion in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations. Europe would like to increase its beef exports to the U.S., but because of our current policy of restricting the importation of beef products from countries that have experienced mad cow disease, those exports have been minimal. The new policy will allow Europe to increase its beef exports dramatically in exchange, we expect, for a quid pro quo. Will the Europeans drop their objections to the U.S. cattle industry’s use of bovine growth hormones or to the use of chlorine in poultry processing?

“This decision also comes at a time when the Obama Administration cut the frequency of on-site audits performed by inspection personnel of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of countries that have been deemed to have equivalent food safety systems for meat and poultry exports to the U.S. Unless there are sufficient resources for those audits to happen in countries that would like to export their beef, U.S. consumers could be at risk.

“And while USDA dismantles important safeguards to America’s food supply, the consumer’s last line of defense – Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) – is also under attack by the industry. After more than a decade of hard work, the COOL rule has had overwhelming support from both consumers and U.S. farmers, despite repeated attempts by the food industry to kill the program and delay its implementation. But as our regulators increasingly prioritize trade deals over keeping our food supply safe, COOL has never been more important.”

Contact: Anna Ghosh, aghosh(at)fwwatch(dot)org, 510-922-0075

October 19 Day of Action Will Unite Stakeholders Around the World to Call for Sustainable Energy Solutions

Washington, D.C.—On Saturday, October 19, thousands of people concerned about the threat that drilling and fracking for oil and gas poses to the environment, communities and their shared resources will unite through approximately 250 actions on six continents for the second annual Global Frackdown. A coordinated international day of action against fracking, the Global Frackdown will gather concerned citizens in over 25 countries who will send a message to elected officials around the world that they want a future powered by clean, renewable energy, not polluting fossil fuels. Initiated by Food & Water Watch, over 350 advocacy, environmental and public health organizations including 350.org, Environment America, MoveOn.org, Progressive Democrats of America, Democracy for America, Breast Cancer Action, Energy Action Coalition, Center for Biological Diversity and Environmental Action are expected to participate in the Global Frackdown.

“Fracking is a global issue with significant policy and political implications both in the United States and overseas,” said Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. “In January, President Obama promised to take ‘bold action’ on climate change, but his plans to accelerate drilling and fracking will only exacerbate the problem. It’s time for him to be a leader on the global stage and reject fracking as many communities around the world have already done.”

“The Global Frackdown shows that the movement for a ban on fracking is truly worldwide. To frack or not to frack comes down to this simple choice: do we want another fifty years of dependency and addiction to toxic fossil fuels, or do we want to move on, worldwide, to renewable energy,” said Josh Fox, the director of Gasland and Advisory Board Member for Americans Against Fracking. “From every perspective be it water and air contamination, global climate change or the health of our democracies worldwide, we need to break from the past. The Global Frackdown is one of many powerful moments where the world is saying we need to move on.”

In New York City, a broad coalition of groups will unite at the New York City Wine & Food Festival to articulate how fracking affects food systems and to ask Governor Andrew Cuomo to listen to the science and ban fracking in the state. Meanwhile, Californians Against Fracking will convene a rally in Oakland to urge Governor Jerry Brown to ban fracking. In Culver City, California, a coalition of organizations will hold a rally, followed by a five-mile bike ride and walking brigade, to raise aware of the effects of fracking in the Los Angeles Basin and to support a moratorium on fracking in the city of Los Angeles.

“Our elected leaders—from President Obama to small town city council members—should take notice: fracking is bad for our neighborhoods, bad for our drinking water, bad for the climate and bad for their own legacies, and MoveOn members and allies are holding them accountable,” said Victoria Kaplan, campaign director at MoveOn.org Civic Action.

A recent poll released by the Pew Research Group finds that opposition to fracking has grown significantly across most regions and demographic groups. Overall, 49 percent are opposed to increased fracking, while only 44 percent support it. As scientific studies continue to confirm the inherent dangers of fracking to the environment and public health, the American people are seeing through the millions of dollars being spent on advertising by the oil and gas industry, and are increasingly opposing fracking.

“Each fracking operation opens dozens of pathways for polluting our water, our air and our land,” observed John Rumpler, senior attorney at Environment America and co-author of the recent report, Fracking by the Numbers: Key Impacts of Dirty Drilling at the State and National Level. “Multiply those threats by tens of thousands of wells and waste disposal sites, and we have an environmental nightmare in the making. The prudent course is to stop this dirty drilling before more damage is done.”

Polls in key states such as New York, California and Pennsylvania show similarly high levels of opposition to fracking. A recent poll released by Siena College finds that 45 percent of New York voters oppose the state Department of Environmental Conservation plans to move forward with fracking in the Southern Tier, the part of New York that extends above Pennsylvania. Only 37 percent said they would support such a move. Meanwhile, in California, 53 percent of likely voters polled by the Public Policy Institute of California said they’re against the expansion of fracking in the state. According to a poll conducted by The Center of Local, State and Urban Policy at the University of Michigan in conjunction with the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion, almost two-thirds of Pennsylvanians support a moratorium on fracking until its effects can be better studied.

“Thousands of young activists are converging in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for Power Shift 2013, and will join the Global Frackdown, because our generation is determined to use its people power to move beyond fracking,” said Whit Jones, campaign director for Power Shift. “The thousands of young people at Power Shift 2013 are fighting fracking in their communities, and we’re uniting to demand that the Obama Administration and EPA stand up to fracking too.”

Last week, the European Parliament voted to require energy companies to conduct environmental audits before commencing drilling and fracking, and a French court upheld a ban on fracking. Bulgaria and some Swiss and German states have also adopted a ban or a moratorium on fracking activities. Other European Union member states, such as the Czech Republic, Romania and Germany are considering a moratorium on fracking until an adequate regulatory framework has been is in place for unconventional energy projects such as shale gas. To date, 383 communities in the United States have passed measures against fracking.

“On October 19, all of us have an opportunity to make our voices heard about the health and environmental effects of fracking, and the often corrupt process that allows energy companies to take private land and taxpayer-owned assets for fracking and big profits at our expense,” said Jim Dean, chair of Democracy for America. “It’s time to stand up for the rights of citizens and stand up to big energy. Show up, be counted and let’s win this fight.”

In August, a million Americans signed petitions objecting to the Obama Administration’s plans to frack on federal lands. Nearly 650,00 of those petitions were collected by Americans Against Fracking member organizations, and called for a complete ban. Weeks later, Food & Water Watch, MoveOn.org, Environmental Action, and other allied organizations in Americans Against Fracking and the Stop the Frack Attack Network collected over 250,000 petitions asking the Obama Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency to reopen investigations into the possible link between drilling and fracking and water contamination in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming.

“All over the world people are rising up to say, ‘Instead of fracking for ever dirtier fuel, it’s time to tap the endless energy of the wind and sun,’” said Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org.

Contact: Anna Ghosh, Food & Water Watch, (510) 922-0075; [email protected]

Today environmental and civil society groups on five continents warned that plans to release non-native strains of genetically modified (GM) flies in olive fields in Spain and fruit orchards in Brazil pose major risks to crops and the environment, as pesticide resistance or other harmful traits could spread into wild pest populations.

The UK-based company Oxitec plans to release GM olive flies in Spain and GM Mediterranean Fruit Flies (Medfly) in Brazil in the coming months (3). Both applications, made in January 2013, are for experimental open releases of the GM flies and are currently being considered by regulators. Oxitec’s agricultural pests use a “female-killing” approach in which female offspring of the GM insects mainly die as larvae. Mass releases of multiple millions of GM male insects are intended to suppress the number of pests by mating with wild females. The olive fly strain used by Oxitec is not native to Spain but was created from a Greek strain back-crossed with Israeli strains; the Medfly strain to be used in Brazil appears to originate from Guatemala (4). Studies of olive flies in Greece have identified different levels of resistance to different pesticides in different locations (5).

Release of non-native strains of pests is normally prohibited under plant pest control regulations in the EU because undesirable traits such as pesticide resistance, which may be present in the newly-introduced strain, can spread into the wild population when the flies mate. In the UK, a proposed release of GM diamond back moths was halted because Oxitec planned to use a non-native strain (1). The UK regulators warned Oxitec about “uncertainty as to whether your non-indigenous strain may contain insecticide resistance genes that are not present in UK moths” and advised the company to start its experiments by modifying a native strain. Even an experimental release of a non-native strain of pest is risky because the spread of pesticide resistance or other traits into wild native flies cannot be prevented or reversed. Due to this and other concerns environmental groups have already called for the proposed trials to be halted (2). Other major concerns include the large numbers of dead and living GM larvae that will end up in the fruit, and the impact of GM insects on ecosystems.

“Use of non-native strains is reckless because Oxitec’s GM pests are not sterile and the non-native strain of GM males will survive and breed with wild flies for many generations,” said Dr. Helen Wallace, Director of GeneWatch UK. “It is very risky to introduce non-native strains of pests into a new country. Harmful traits such as pesticide resistance would be impossible to eradicate once they spread through the wild population.”

“It is shocking to learn that Oxitec was blocked from releasing non-native GM agricultural pests in England, but now plans to try the same approach in Spain,” said Blanca Ruibal of Friends of the Earth Spain. “Instead of learning lessons from previous mistakes the company seems to want to push ahead regardless and put our olive groves at risk.”

“Oxitec’s proposed open releases of non-native GM flies in Spain and Brazil are clearly a bad idea, and is another instance of the company rushing into field testing of its GM insects without scientific review and public consultation,” said Silvia Ribeiro of the ETC Group.

In 2012 a planned release of Oxitec’s GM mosquitoes in the Florida Keys was delayed due to widespread public opposition and a campaign by Friends of the Earth-US and allies which called into question environmental and public health risks and lack of adequate regulations. The Florida Keys Mosquito Control District is once again considering what would be the first-ever U.S. release of genetically engineered mosquitoes into the wild, and has allocated funding in its budget for this activity in the coming year pending approval of the field trial by regulators.

“From Brazil to Spain to the Florida Keys, Oxitec is once again playing Russian roulette and putting the pursuit profits ahead of common sense by introducing these GM insects into the environment which could potentially destabilize ecosystems and harm human health” said Dana Perls of Friends of the Earth-US. “Once these engineered organisms are released, they can’t be recalled and we must evaluate these very real risks through a serious and thorough environmental impacts review process before they are unleashed on the world. We are confident that any truly impartial, science-based reviews will lead to the cancellation of these risky experiments.”

For further information contact:

Silvia Ribeiro, ETC Group:  Tel: +52 55 5563 2664

Luca Colombo: FIRAB (Fondazione Italiana per la Ricerca in Agricoltura Biologica e Biodinamica) Tel.:   +39 06 45 43 74 85; Mob.:   +39 348 39 88 618

Eve Mitchell, Food & Water Europe:  Tel: + 44 (0)1381 610 740

Blanca Ruibal: Friends of the Earth Spain: 00-34-691471389 (mobile); 00-34-913069900 (office)

Dana Perls, Friends of the Earth US: Tel: 510-978-4425

Bob Phelps, Gene Ethics (Australia): Tel: 1300 133 868 or 03 9347 4500 {Int Code +613}

Dr Helen Wallace, GeneWatch UK:  +44-(0)1298-24300 (office); +44-(0)7903-311584 (mobile)

Frances Murrell, MADGE Australia Inc.: Mob 0401 407 944

Elizabeth Bravo, RALLT (La Red Por una América Latina Libre de Transgénicos): tel + 593 (2) 254 7516.

Lim Li Ching, Third World Network: +6012 2079744

Notes for Editors:

(1)   Feedback from the UK Scientific Advisory Committee on Genetic Modification (SACGM) to Oxitec (5th December 2011): http://www.genewatch.org/uploads/f03c6d66a9b354535738483c1c3d49e4/SACGM_correspondence.pdf  

(2)   Press releases: http://www.telecinco.es/informativos/sociedad/Amigos-Tierra-riesgos-liberar-transgenicas_0_1670550150.html and http://www.genewatch.org/article.shtml?als[cid]=566989&als[itemid]=573179 ; Briefing: https://www.tierra.org/spip/IMG/pdf/moscas_transgenicas.pdf

(3)   Oxitec’s application to release GM olive flies in Spain: http://gmoinfo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/bsnifs-gmo/B-ES-13-07-EN.pdf ; Oxitec’s Brazilian partner Moscamed’s application to release GM Medfly (Ceratitis capitata) in Brazil [in Portuguese]: http://www.ctnbio.gov.br/index.php/content/view/17825.html

(4)   Ant T, Koukidou M, Rempoulakis P, et al. (2012) Control of the olive fruit fly using genetics-enhanced sterile insect technique. BMC Biology, 10:51.;  Morrison NI, Segura DF, Stainton KC, Fu G, Donnelly CA, Alphey LS (2009) Sexual competitiveness of a transgenic sexing strain of the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 133(2):146–153.

(5)   Daane KM, Johnson MW (2010) Olive Fruit Fly: Managing an Ancient Pest in Modern Times. Annual Review of Entomology, 55(1):151–169

Friends of the Earth US News Release, “Controversial release of genetically engineered mosquitoes delayed” Jan. 4, 2012. http://www.foe.org/news/news-releases/genetically-engineered-mosquito-release-delayed