Archives: Press Releases

Statement of Food & Water Europe Executive Director Wenonah Hauter

“The 7 September Agricultural Council showed once again that the fate of small and medium-size dairy farmers in the European Union is of little concern to governments or the European Commission.

“While milk farmers across the EU sell their milk below production costs, and many face bankruptcy, European Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel prefers to save the 2008 mini reform of Common Agricultural Policy known as “health check,” indicating that governments are either incapable of standing up for their farmers or indifferent to their pleas.

“Dramatic protests by milk farmers seen across the EU for over a year now may not convince the European Commission and governments that decisions dating back to 2003 to phase out of milk quotas by 2015 were wrong, but they do show the anger and desperation of the farming community.  Milk quotas, already too high, will continue to increase by 1 percent every year because the Commission and agricultural ministers appear to prioritise a supply of cheap milk for big, unsustainable corporations over the survival of small and family farmers.

“In doing so, the European Union is following the disastrous footsteps of the United States, where family based dairies have been replaced with intensive operations that can house thousands of cows, who never see daylight and cannot move.

“The biggest tragedy of small and medium-sized dairy farmers in Europe and the United States is that they are not responsible for the global overproduction of milk, but they are hit by it much harder than large, corporate producers.  Consumers everywhere pay as much for milk as they did before the crisis since big food companies such as Kraft and Nestle preserve and increase their profits.

Dismantling an effective and relatively inexpensive supply management tool such as milk quotas is hurting farmers and worse still, export refunds contribute to dumping in the developing world, hurting families there too, who would normally produce milk to ensure their survival but are now driven out of business.

“Food and Water Europe, which supports family farming in Europe and across the globe, has long been aware that the approach taken by the European Union towards milk is wrong.  We have written to Commissioner Fischer Boel asking her to freeze the quota indefinitely while finding ways to protect small and medium-size dairy farmers and continuing the investigation into anti-competitive practices of distributors and retailers of milk before it is too late. It is clear what needs to happen to rectify past mistakes, so reluctance to do so exposes the Commission to accusations of driving small farmers out of business by neglect.”

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

Contact:

Cap-and-Trade for Water: A Bad Idea for People
and the Planet

Statement from Wenonah Hauter, Food & Water Watch Executive Director, and Maude Barlow, Senior Advisor on Water to the President of the UN General Assembly

“Yesterday, the CEO of Climate Exchange PLC trotted out the incredibly bad idea to, essentially, apply the flawed model of carbon cap-and-trade markets to water. The head of the UK-based company that made millions of dollars last year from its business facilitating carbon trading wants to take this scheme that has failed to reduce emissions of climate changing carbon gas and apply it to water extraction rights from the Great Lakes, according to an interview titled, ‘Water cap and trade,’ posted yesterday on Global Dashboard: Notes from the Future.

“Trading the right to emit carbon in one location so that emissions will be reduced in another location has been tried in Europe and failed. Governments and industries there have found ways around the system in order to hand out emissions permits, according to the April 13, 2009 edition of U.S. News and World Report. It‚ left consumers paying more for energy , 25 percent more for electricity in Germany , while carbon emissions have increased. In short, it‚ meant money for the energy corporations and carbon traders, but nothing more than a lump of coal for consumers and the environment.

“Despite that, the head of Climate Exchange PLC supports the possibility of capping rights to extract water from the Great Lakes and then selling those rights to the highest bidder, be they in Asia, the Middle East or elsewhere in the United States.

“This amounts to taking water, which belongs to everyone and to no one, and trading it away. In short, it commodifies water.

“This notion of a sort of cap-and-trade system for water rights to decrease water use is even more far-fetched than buying and selling carbon emission permits to reduce pollution and slow down climate change. It‚ a form of bluewashing that industry has cooked up to look like environmental stewards. Nationally and internationally, all the businesses that use water, particularly giant food and beverage corporations, can never be water neutral because they cant use zero water. In other words, their voluminous water extraction in one place cant be offset somewhere else because other companies are using water in those other places.

“Research shows that withdrawing too much water from a single watershed can have myriad effects. According to a recent report by the U.S.-based Groundwater Protection Council, withdrawing too much ground water can dry up wells, springs and wetlands, and reduce stream flows and lake levels.

“Water is a human right, not a corporate commodity. The idea that it can or should be bought, sold or traded away to the highest bidder must be stopped.”

Contact:

Democratic Forum Demands Public Water For All

Istanbul, Turkey–International water justice activists converged at the People‚ Water Forum today to affirm the human right to water and present diverse visions of existing public and community-led water management practices that protect water for people and nature, and can ensure water access for all regardless of their ability to pay.

Maude Barlow, Senior Advisor on Water to UN General Assembly President Miguel DEscoto, delivered a statement from him. DEscoto was clear: ‚Water is a public trust, a common heritage of people and nature, and a fundamental human rightWe must challenge the notion that water is a commodity to be bought and sold on the open market. Those who are committed to the privatization of waterare denying people a human right as basic as the air we breathe.”

A diverse group of water justice activists also presented their forward-looking visions. Mary Ann Manahan, of Focus on the Global South in the Philippines said ‚Access to water and sanitation is not only about efficiency and effective delivery but about justice, gender equity, human dignity and ultimately, democracy.”

Sebahat Tuncet, a member of Turkey‚ Parliament, issued a strong statement against the construction of large dams, condemning especially the Ilisu and Munzur dams and others under consideration for construction throughout the region.

Adriana Marquisio, a member of Public Services International and President of Uruguay‚ Public Water Union, urged that water be managed publicly and not for profit.  ‚But let us be clear,” she added, ‚that the meaning of public extends beyond state control. Public management must recognize alternative, community-led structures of governance.”

Philipp Terhorst of Transnational Institute, speaking for the European Water Network, criticized the recent EU Parliament‚ resolution that fails to recognize the human right to water.

Also speaking at the conference was Al-hassan Adam, Coordinator of the Africa Water Network, who condemned the repression of activists, which, he said, reflects the larger exclusion of the majority of people from basic human rights.

These speakers represent a wide spectrum of visionary leaders offering practical, equitable, and just solutions to the world‚ current water crisis, said organizers of the Peoples Water Forum.

CONTACT:
Patrick Woodall or Erin Greenfield
(202) 683-2500

Laboratory Error: Majority of Seafood Imports Not Tested for Food Safety, According to New Food & Water Watch Report

Washington, DC － As food safety problems continue to make headlines, American consumers are in for more disturbing news:  that less than one in a million pounds of seafood imported into the United States are tested in laboratories for Salmonella, Listeria, chemical and drug residues, metals, and pesticides.  Laboratory Error, a report released today by Food & Water Watch, a national consumer advocacy organization, reveals that as the volume of imported seafood steadily increased between 2003 and 2006, the number of samples taken for laboratory testing by the Food and Drug Administration decreased by 25 percent.

“FDA is failing to adequately inspect seafood imports not just at ports, but also in laboratories used for detecting foodborne hazards invisible to the naked eye,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. ”The agency‚ appalling record on inspecting seafood imports poses a real threat to the health of American consumers.”

Laboratory Error is a follow-up to Food & Water Watch‚ 2007 report Import Alert, and delves deeper into the FDA inspection system.  In the new report, Food & Water Watch examined FDA‚ laboratory testing of imported seafood for seven food safety laboratory tests (such as microbial contamination and botulism risk), the number of tests FDA performed and whether the imported fish failed these tests. The group‚ analysis revealed some troubling trends:

* Imported seafood shipments grew by 15 percent between 2003 and 2006, and the volume grew by 11 percent to 5.4 billion pounds. During this same period, the number of imported fish samples taken for laboratory analysis fell by 25 percent.

* The number of laboratory tests the FDA performed declined by 27 percent from 9,552 laboratory tests in 2003 to 6,995 tests in 2006.

* Between 2003 and 2006, about one in 11 (8.7 percent) of FDA laboratory tests on imported seafood turned up unacceptably high levels of disease, decomposition or adulteration.

* The FDA waited several years to issue a ban on fish from China in 2007 after finding very high failure rates for illegal veterinary drugs and chemicals on the imports for several years － including violations much higher than the FDA admitted in 2007.

FDA‚ limited field laboratory resources and staffing, coupled with increasing fish imports and an already inadequate inspection system at portside, have all contributed to decreased testing on potentially dangerous seafood. Unfortunately, one of the solutions proposed by FDA to monitor imports is using private laboratories hired by exporters to certify which exporters and products are safe.

“FDA‘s plan for third-party certification would essentially privatize food inspection, allowing corporate interests to trump the interests of American consumers,” said Hauter. “We need FDA to increase inspections and laboratory testing to ensure imported products are safe for consumers.”

Food & Water Watch also recommends that FDA allow seafood imports only from countries with food safety regulations that are at least as strong as U.S. standards, increase its laboratory testing rates for imported seafood to the levels conducted in the European Union and Japan, and conduct at least annual inspections of domestic food establishments and annual visits to countries that export seafood to the United States.

Read all recommendations and key findings from Laboratory Error.

CONTACT:
Tony Corbo or Erin Greenfield
(202) 683-2500

Dairy Product with Unsafe Melamine Levels Found on U.S. Shelves, FDA Has Yet to Issue Recall

Food & Water Watch Enraged Over Agency‚ Negligence That Endangers Consumers

Washington, DC , Just two weeks after the Food and Drug Administration set ‚acceptable” levels for melamine in food instead of issuing a complete ban on Chinese milk-containing products, the Alabama Department of Agriculture announced that Koala‚ March brand cookies have tested positive for melamine with levels that exceed FDA‚ safe levels of exposure. FDA has not issued a recall for the product, and despite assurances from the agency that the parent company, Lotte USA, was removing the product from the marketplace, Koala‚ March cookies are still present on U.S. shelves. Food & Water Watch, a national consumer advocacy group, has called on the government to follow suit with many foreign countries that have closed their borders to Chinese dairy products and immediately issue a recall for the Koala‚ March cookies.

‚It is completely unacceptable that FDA has not issued a recall for a contaminated product that is on U.S. shelves and ending up in the homes of American consumers and their families,” stated Food & Water Watch Executive Director, Wenonah Hauter. ‚What‚ alarming is that not only had a product been found in stores where it shouldnt have been in the first place, but it also had exceeded FDA‚ safe levels for human consumption. This just makes it more apparent that without a complete ban on all Chinese dairy products, FDA is incapable of protecting American consumers.”

This is not the first time the Alabama Department of Agriculture took action before FDA. Last year the department found contaminated seafood from China that eventually led to FDA issuing an Import Alert two months later.  FDA is now considering lifting that import alert.

‚Perhaps the Alabama Department of Agriculture should do all of FDA’s testing because they seem to be more interested in protecting American consumers than protecting a corrupt food safety system in China,” stated Hauter.

During a conference call on October 8th with FDA officials and consumer groups, Food & Water Watch lobbyist Tony Corbo asked FDA officials if they were recalling the Koala’s March cookies and if the cookies had been tested. They responded that FDA was working with the parent company and its U.S. subsidiary to remove the product from store shelves, and that the Koala‚ March cookies the agency had tested were safe.

To date, Hong Kong, Macau, Canada and France have all banned the Koala product. The European Commission is also tightening their rules on Chinese imports, recently announcing that it will ban milk-containing products from China, and will test all other Chinese milk-containing products that are already in the EU.

‚We cannot take FDA at their word that dairy products from China are safe, since at this point it seems that FDA is more concerned with promoting imports than protecting consumers,” concluded Hauter. ‚It is time for FDA to follow the lead of countries around the world that have taken precautionary steps to protect their citizens by banning imports of Chinese dairy products and processed foods that contain Chinese milk ingredients.”

The Alabama Department of Agriculture press release can be viewed at .

CONTACT:
Erin Greenfield or Marianne Cufone
(202) 683-2500

Consumer Organization Pans NOAA Propaganda Report about Ocean Fish Farming

Washington, D.C. , Today, Food & Water Watch, a national consumer advocacy organization, panned a new report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on offshore aquaculture – the industrial production of fish using cages located in open ocean waters. Legislation to create a national program for offshore aquaculture has been discussed in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, but not approved.

‚This report is nothing more than a desperate effort by NOAA to pressure Congress into authorizing a bill for a national offshore aquaculture program in our oceans, ” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. ‚We believe real facts clearly show that ocean fish farming could cause serious economic and environmental problems for our country.”

NOAA‚ report contends that the practice of cramming thousands of fish in cages between about three and 200 miles from shore would, among other things, bring fiscal benefits and dramatically reduce U.S. reliance on foreign seafood products.

However, a report released just last month by the independent U.S. Government Accountability Office on the very same topic, indicated otherwise. It showed that ‚significant barriers still exist in the development of an environmentally safe offshore aquaculture industry,” according to a statement from the U.S. House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee. Representative Nick Rahall, Chair of that Committee, requested the GAO report in 2007.

The evidence that ocean fish farming is problematic goes beyond the GAO findings. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, one of eight regional councils Congress established to help manage U.S. fisheries, is drafting regulations to allow ocean fish farming in their region, with support from NOAA. Their very own plan concedes that the increased supply of farmed fish could decrease the prices that fishermen get for their catch. That in turn could harm the economies of coastal communities that depend on fishing and related activities.

In a mad rush to get any big legislative victory, the Bush Administration and NOAA are promoting development of the offshore aquaculture industry, while ignoring trends in the global seafood trade. The United States exports more than 70 percent of its wild-caught and farmed seafood. At the same time, we import cheaper, often lower quality seafood from countries such as China and Thailand for U.S. consumers to eat. These places recently have had have questionable food safety records. Meanwhile, Japan and Europe, known for high seafood safety standards, receive nearly half of U.S. exports. This means that if offshore aquaculture were allowed in the U.S. commercially, likely trends would remain the same ,producers will export the majority of ocean farmed fish for higher dollar returns, and U.S. consumers will continue to eat imported , and potentially unsafe , farmed fish.

Offshore aquaculture also could cause problems for our marine environment. For example, fish waste, uneaten fish feed, antibiotics used to maintain the health of fish crowded into the farm pens and chemicals that prevent organisms from growing on the nets and cages can pollute the seafloor and surrounding ocean ecosystem.

‚Little is known about the assimilative capacity of the marine environment for these pollutants,” concluded a report commissioned by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. ‚Pollution from a greatly expanded [aquaculture] industry could have significant effects locally and regionally.”

Parasites and disease can spread from fish farms to wild species. In British Columbia, the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council found that fish farms increased the number of parasitic sea lice and likely caused the collapse of pink salmon in the Broughton Archipelago in 2002.

Farmed fish, which can be behaviorally, physically and even genetically different from similar wild fish, escape their pens. Once out in the wild, they could mate with native species, spawning inferior wild fish that could be more susceptible to disease or unable to survive well in the wild. In the alternative, some escaped farmed fish may be super fish , bred to grow bigger, faster and may out-compete wild fish for increasingly scarce food resources, mates and habitat. Either of these scenarios could lead to fewer , and possibly less desirable , wild fish for fishermen to catch and people to eat.

‚NOAA is the agency tasked with conserving and managing our living marine resources.   Rather than wasting time and taxpayer dollars to crafting reports trying to justify a national program for offshore aquaculture, our government needs to spend time ensuring strong U.S. fisheries and clean, green and safe methods of seafood production for U.S. consumers,” Hauter said.

To learn more about the problems with offshore aquaculture and viable alternatives, visit us at  .

# # #