Archives: Press Releases

Groups Applaud American Public Health Association for Opposition to Hormone Use in Beef and Dairy Production

Categories

Food

For Immediate Release
Contacts: David Wallinga, MD, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, 612-423-9666
Rich Bindell, Food & Water Watch, 202-683-2457
Rick North, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, 503-968-1520
Martin Donohoe, MD, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, martindonohoe(at)phsj(dot)org

Groups Applaud American Public Health Association for Opposition to Hormone Use in Beef and Dairy Production

Washington, D.C.–Public health and consumer groups today applauded the decision of the American Public Health Association (APHA) to oppose the use of growth hormones in beef and dairy production by calling for a ban on the use of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) in dairy cows and a slate of growth hormones in beef cattle.

APHA is the oldest and largest association of public health professionals in the world, representing 50,000 professionals nationwide. APHA‚ resolution follows an official position statement released last year by the American Nurses Association opposing rBGH. The past president of the American Medical Association (AMA) last year asked all AMA members to serve only rBGH-free milk in hospitals.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has estimated that over 42 percent of large dairy operations in the United States inject their cows with rBGH, a synthetic hormone that induces cows to produce more milk. Six steroid hormones are in widespread use in U.S. and Canadian beef cattle to speed weight gain.

“Americans are now awash in environmental hormones, while the science reveals that hormone-related diseases are on the rise,” said David Wallinga, M.D., physician/director of Food and Health at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. “The most prudent step — and the one called for by APHA — is to reduce the needless and risky addition of hormones to the food chain wherever possible.”

APHA‚ resolution asks the Food and Drug Administration to ban the use of rBGH and growth-promoting beef hormones, and recommends that hospitals, schools and other institutions — especially those serving children — serve food produced without these hormones. The resolution also supports product labeling for consumers to make informed purchasing decisions.

“For too long, regulators have looked the other way while industrial beef and dairy operations use hormones recklessly,” said Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. “APHA’s resolution against this practice sends a clear signal that public health, not industry convenience, should guide U.S. food policy.”

The use of rBGH has well-known negative impacts on the health of dairy cows.  Human consumption of dairy products produced using the hormone also may increase the risk of certain types of cancer. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all 27 members of the European Union have disallowed the use of rBGH. Codex Alimentarius, the United Nations main food safety body, twice determined that there was no consensus on the safety of rBGH for human health.

It is widely acknowledged that the use of hormones in beef production leaves hormone residues in meat, putting consumers at risk for prolonged exposure. While European Union authorities have never approved the use of hormones in beef production, the U.S. government has relied on very limited and now out-of-date research to back its claim that it is safe for producers to use growth hormones on their animals.

“In the marketplace, consumers are demanding meat and dairy produced without these hormones,” said Martin Donohoe, MD of Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility. “But access to safe food should not depend on the whims of the market. It is the government’s responsibility to ensure that all consumers are protected.”

The APHA resolution can be viewed at: www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1379

Guided by the values and expertise of medicine and public health, Physicians for Social Responsibility works to protect human life from the gravest threats to health and survival. PSR is the medical and public health voice working to prevent the use or spread of nuclear weapons and to slow, stop and reverse global warming and toxic degradation of the environment. www.psr.org/chapters/oregon

IATP works locally and globally at the intersection of policy and practice to ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems. Please visit www.iatp.org.

###

COP 15 in Copenhagen: Time to question industrial agriculture

Categories

Food

Food & Water Europe Fact Sheet Details Damaging Impact of Industrial Agriculture

As world leaders gather in Copenhagen to discuss climate change and strategies to prevent and alleviate effects on our planet, Food & Water Europe remains acutely aware of half-hearted solutions that such meetings typically bring.  A new factsheet issued today by the consumer group focuses on the lack of willingness to address in a meaningful manner the impact of industrial agriculture on the climate.

It is time to question the prevailing model of agriculture, one that is based on monoculture and factory farming.  Large-scale animal operations, whether using pigs or cattle, release lots of methane, which is known to be detrimental to the climate.  Furthermore, they rely on soya-based animal feed, usually imported from overseas.  Not only does industrial monoculture soya production contribute to climate change in terms of deforestation of the Amazonian region, it also uses tremendous amounts of energy for processing and transport to reach livestock in Europe and other parts of the world.  Studies estimate that feedlot cattle require twice as much fossil fuel energy to raise as grass-fed cows.  Producing one pound of beef in a factory farm results in the by-product of eight pounds (3.6 kilograms) of carbon dioxide in addition to other greenhouse gases and using a tremendous amount of water.

Food processing takes its toll on the environment as well.  Globally, the food & drink sector use about 23 % of energy resources.  This energy can be saved if local, sustainable food solution based on family farms are promoted.  Locally rooted food production, respectful of biodiversity, animal welfare and fair income for farmers can cool down the earth

To learn more about the perils of industrial agriculture on our climate read the factsheet, Climate Change: It’s what for Dinner.

Food and Water Europe is the program of Food and Water Watch, Inc (a non-profit consumer NGO based in Washington, DC), working to ensure clean water and safe food in Europe and around the world.  We challenge the corporate control and abuse of our food and water resources by empowering people to take action and transforming the public consciousness about what we eat and drink.

Contact: Gabriella Zanzanaini, Food and Water Europe, Brussels

[email protected], +32488409662

Are we moving from Nanotechnology to Nanotoxicity?

Categories

Food

Food & Water Europe Report questions the unseen hazards of nanotechnology

Brussels – Industries claim that nanotechnology is both good for business and good for consumers quality of life, a seemingly obvious win-win situation. Yet the less advertised risks of nanotechnology applications require close scrutiny.

The application of nanotechnology began with semiconductors, but the presence of nanomaterials in your laptop and car is not the same as ingesting it from your chocolate bar.

In its new report on the hazards of nanotechnology, released to coincide with the proposal for a Framingnano governance platform at the European Commission, Food & Water Europe believes that basic human needs such as food and water should remain nanotechnology-free, as potential harms may be much greater than the alleged benefits.

Justifying the risk taken in the use of nanomaterials by saying that everything we use contains an element of risk anyway, is a weak argument. The analogy between the risk of driving a nanotechnology powered car and that of consuming a product that we apply to our skin or swallow is over simplistic, as the nature of the risks involved in these two cases differs significantly. Given today’s immense uncertainty with respect to absorbing a nanoparticle (through ingestion or application to hair and skin), the precautionary principle should be enforced through a moratorium on all consumer products whose safety has not been proven beyond doubt.

Food & Water Europe focuses on the risks of nanotechnology applications in areas such as occupational safety, environment and consumer products while pointing out the insufficiency of existing regulations both in the United States and the European Union alike.  In the absence of meaningful regulations that would prioritize consumers safety over profit, Food & Water Europe supports the “no data no market” approach of the European Parliament’s environment committee, which includes market withdrawal of consumer products containing nanotechnology until reliable and independent safety assessments can be made.

Lawmakers need to scale back the widespread proliferation of consumer products containing nanoparticles until a robust regulatory program is in place.  In the interim, it is essential that regulators require all consumer products containing nanotechnology to be labelled (even when the production process contains less than 1 tonne of nanomaterials) and that an inventory of such products will be available to consumers through the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General (SANCO) of the European Commission.

The application of nanotechnology takes different forms along the manufacturing chain and each individual holder only remains liable for their stage of the production and not for whatever manipulations are carried out further down the line. Taking this into account, voluntary best practice codes are insufficient; a mandatory code of conduct needs to be enforced among all parties dealing with the application of nanotechnologies.

The European Commission may be increasing its funding for nanotechnology R&D, but should not put the focus on innovation and the commerciality of nanomaterials as was previously done. More attention needs to be given to the pressing matter of risk assessment and exposure hazards of nanoparticles. When products are already on the shelves, we cannot afford a “wait-and-see” approach.

Read Food & Water Europe’s report.

Food and Water Europe is the program of Food and Water Watch, Inc (a non-profit consumer NGO based in Washington, DC), working to ensure clean water and safe food in Europe and around the world.  We challenge the corporate control and abuse of our food and water resources by empowering people to take action and transforming the public consciousness about what we eat and drink.

For more information, visit www.foodandwaterwatch.org.
Contact: Gabriella Zanzanaini, Food and Water Europe, Brussels
[email protected], +32488409662

COP 15 in Copenhagen: Time to question industrial agriculture

Categories

Food

Food & Water Europe Fact Sheet Details Damaging Impact of Industrial Agriculture

As world leaders gather in Copenhagen to discuss climate change and strategies to prevent and alleviate effects on our planet, Food & Water Europe remains acutely aware of half-hearted solutions that such meetings typically bring.  A new factsheet issued today by the consumer group focuses on the lack of willingness to address in a meaningful manner the impact of industrial agriculture on the climate.

It is time to question the prevailing model of agriculture, one that is based on monoculture and factory farming.  Large-scale animal operations, whether using pigs or cattle, release lots of methane, which is known to be detrimental to the climate.  Furthermore, they rely on soya-based animal feed, usually imported from overseas.  Not only does industrial monoculture soya production contribute to climate change in terms of deforestation of the Amazonian region, it also uses tremendous amounts of energy for processing and transport to reach livestock in Europe and other parts of the world.  Studies estimate that feedlot cattle require twice as much fossil fuel energy to raise as grass-fed cows.  Producing one pound of beef in a factory farm results in the by-product of eight pounds (3.6 kilograms) of carbon dioxide in addition to other greenhouse gases and using a tremendous amount of water.

Food processing takes its toll on the environment as well.  Globally, the food & drink sector use about 23 % of energy resources.  This energy can be saved if local, sustainable food solution based on family farms are promoted.  Locally rooted food production, respectful of biodiversity, animal welfare and fair income for farmers can cool down the earth

To learn more about the perils of industrial agriculture on our climate read the factsheet, Climate Change: It’s what’s for Dinner.

Food and Water Europe is the program of Food and Water Watch, Inc (a non-profit consumer NGO based in Washington, DC), working to ensure clean water and safe food in Europe and around the world.  We challenge the corporate control and abuse of our food and water resources by empowering people to take action and transforming the public consciousness about what we eat and drink.

Contact: Gabriella Zanzanaini, Food and Water Europe, Brussels

[email protected], +32488409662

Bluefin quotas are meaningless – EU misses another critical opportunity

Categories

Food

Statement of Food & Water Europe Executive Director Wenonah Hauter

FWE today said that quotas to limit the catch of bluefin tuna will not be enough to help save these fish, and that stronger leadership from the EU would be supported by many worldwide.

(Brussels, Belgium)

“Attempts to prevent the extinction of the Atlantic bluefin tuna received another setback this week in the run up to the EU fisheries council meeting, when the EU-led meeting of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) decided to lower the annual catch quota rather than institute a temporary catch ban. The new catch “limit” is 13,500 tons, but between chronic failure to enforce quotas and illegal fishing, this number is actually meaningless.

“The ICCAT could pick a number out of a hat and call it a quota for what it will matter to the bluefin tuna. In 2008 when the quota was already set 42% above scientific advice, it is estimated that the total catch was almost three times the set quota due to “pirate fishing.” [1] The Japanese food industry alone imported amounts of Atlantic bluefin tuna almost equalling the entire 2008 quota[2], and Japan is not the only market driving the demand that far outpaces supply. It’s quite incredible that there is no accountability for these short-term decisions or the failure to enforce them.

“We need the EU and US to act to halt trade in bluefin so that stocks can recover and collapse averted. A moratorium is the only clear way forward, but this is the second time this Autumn EU leadership has failed to secure one. This is no longer a political question, but an ecological and economic imperative, unless the EU wishes to admit it has abdicated responsibility in this area to illegal fishing.

“Genuine artisanal fishing communities will need support, and may need special dispensation to protect their way of life. This can and should be done, but the industrial trade in bluefin must be halted.

“It has been suggested that measures to halt the industrial trade in bluefin will lead to illegal fishing. If so, then this prediction should be used to step up monitoring and enforcement, not as an excuse not to act.”

“Atlantic bluefin tuna are both an emblematic conservation and culinary species, being an important part of Mediterranean ecosystem, and highly prized for sushi and sashimi. However, strong demand from Japan has fueled industrial and illegal fishing practices that have pushed the species to the brink of economic extinction – effectively disenfranchising sustainable artisanal fishermen in the process.

“Food and Water Europe supports artisanal and historic fishing and an exception for traditional catch in a few Mediterranean countries. Coastal fishing communities who practice artisanal methods have centuries of experience balancing their harvesting behavior against available resources for long term management. Once the fish stock is rebuilt, if fishing is once again permitted, it should be conducted in a sustainable manner that promotes the livelihoods of responsible artisanal fishermen. It is industrial and illegal fishing that is destroying the delicate balance of the ecosystem.

“The March 2010 CITES meeting of its 175 parties could vote to ban bluefin fishing, but this would require the EU bloc to reconsider its failure to support a temporary ban in September. That proposal was tabled by Monaco and backed by 21 EU Members, as well as the US, but faltered due to a lack of support from Mediterranean countries. Food and Water Europe urges both the EU and US to do what they can to persuade opposing countries to see that the future lies in working together and heeding expert advice to list bluefin tuna in Appendix I as an endangered species. [3]

Food and Water Europe is a project of Food and Water Watch, Inc (a non-profit consumer NGO based in Washington, DC) working to ensure clean water and safe food in Europe and around the world. We challenge the corporate control and abuse of our food and water resources by empowering people to take action and transforming the public consciousness about what we eat and drink.

Contact: Gabriella Zanzanaini, Food and Water Europe, Brussels
[email protected], +32 488 409 662

Notes

[1] “2008 scientific recommendation 15,5000 tons, quota set at 22,000, with illegal fishing estimated to bring the total catch to some 61,000 tons.” See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5237057.ece.

[2] “About half of the 43,000 tons of bluefin tuna supplied to the Japanese market in 2008 was imported Atlantic bluefin.” See .

[3] See Food and Water Europe press release “EU Member States Fail to Protect Bluefin Tuna”, 24 September 2009 at .

Cargill Poses Threat to Consumer Health, the Environment and Human Rights, New Research Finds

Categories

Food

Food & Water Europe Fact Sheet Details Damaging Impact of Agribusiness Giant

(Brussels, Belgium) A new fact sheet issued today by consumer group Food & Water Europe examines how Cargill, the agribusiness giant and one of the key players in the global food market, is posing harm to consumer health, workers and the environment and causing food instability around the world. Cargill, a leading oilseed and grain processor and top U.S. meat packer, is the largest private company in the U.S., with 160,000 employees in 67 countries and operations in 21 European countries. Cargill seemingly escaped the economic downturn in 2008 by reporting sales of over 83 billion Euros and record profits of over 2.5 billion Euros, its sixth straight year of record-breaking earnings. However, recently, its net profit for the fourth fiscal quarter was down by 69 percent from the same period last year. Maybe it is time for Cargill to rethink its operations, since it benefited from the race in commodities prices which started in 2002, particularly in the last two years when food prices swelled.

Cargill has gained control over huge swaths of the world‚ agricultural system, and its ability to influence food prices is pushing millions of people around the world to the brink of starvation,” said Food & Water Europe Executive Director Wenonah Hauter.

Key findings of the fact sheet include:

  • Cargill‚ record earnings in 2008 were driven by its ability to influence high grain and fertilizer prices that year, which, in turn, caused food instability around the world.
  • Cargill‚ operations pose a threat to the environment, and its operations in Brazil and Papua New Guinea have been liked to a number of destructive environmental practices, including clearing rainforests to expand its production of soya beans and palm oil.
  • Cargill is linked to questionable food technologies, including genetically modified crops and foods.
  • Cargill is linked to human rights violations, including forced child labour in its cotton operations in Tashkent, Uzbekistan and Central Asia and child slavery in its cocoa operations in Cote dIvoire.

Food and Water Europe is the program of Food and Water Watch, Inc (a non-profit consumer NGO based in Washington, DC), working to ensure clean water and safe food in Europe and around the world. We challenge the corporate control and abuse of our food and water resources by empowering people to take action and transforming the public consciousness about what we eat and drink. 

Contact: Gabriella Zanzanaini, Food and Water Europe, Brussels [email protected], +32488409662