Archives: Press Releases

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  .

# # #

Cargill: Key Player in Global Food Crisis

New Food & Water Watch Report Reveals the Damaging Impacts of
Agribusiness Giant

Washington, DC — While millions of people around the world face severe hunger, the handful of agribusiness corporations that dominate the global agricultural market are seeing huge profits. One of the key players in the global food market, Cargill, is profiled in a new report released today by the national consumer group Food & Water Watch. The report, entitled Cargill: A Corporate Threat to Food and Farming, details Cargill‚ vast influence over international trade and how the company threatens consumers, family farmers, workers, the environment, and even entire economies around the world.

‚Cargill is making enormous profit from the international trade system that is causing all this food instability around the world,” stated Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. ‚This corporate behemoth is behind almost every aspect of the worldwide agricultural system with no accountability for consumer health, the environment or human rights.”

The name Cargill largely goes unnoticed by many consumers, yet their products appear on shelves in grocery stores and in menus at fast,food chains across the world. According to the report, Cargill has gained control over huge swaths of the world‚ agriculture processing, storage, transport and trade, operating numerous business sectors and divisions. Cargill produces and markets chicken and egg products to McDonald‚ in the United Kingdom and Western Europe, in addition to Pizza Hut, Burger King, and school cafeterias in the United States.

Cargill‚ meat and poultry divisions are just a fraction of the products they control. The company deals with oilseeds, wheat, corn, biofuels, oils, lubricants, salts, health and pharmaceutical products and animal feed and fertilizers — products that have contributed to environmental degradation both in the United States and abroad.

The report details the numerous threats Cargill‚ operations pose to air, water and rainforests. Cargill is responsible for spilling toxic chemicals into the San Francisco Bay, releasing hazardous compounds into the air, and clearing South American rainforests to expand its production of soy and palm oil.

And it is not just controversies over global trade or environmental impacts that surround the company. Cargill is also linked to questionable food technologies such as irradiation, genetically modified foods, and the use of carbon monoxide to artificially enhance the color of meat long past its expiration date.

The report recommends action by Congress and regulators to rein in this agribusiness giant, as well as telling consumers how to opt out of Cargill‚ model of industrial meat production.

To view the report Cargill: A Corporate Threat to Food and Farming, visit: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/report/cargill-a-threat-to-food-and-farming/

New Report Finds Deception and Danger Behind Carbon Monoxide Meat

Food & Water Watch Report Reveals CO-treated Meat Threatens Consumer Safety

Washington, DC — A deceptive and questionable food technology approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration is putting consumers health at risk, according to a new report released today by Food & Water Watch. The report entitled Carbon Monoxide : Masking the Truth About Meat? details the use of this toxic gas in meat and fish packaging to create a red color typically associated with freshness — a practice that is considered misleading and unsafe by several consumer groups.

“The FDA rubber stamped a potentially unsafe meat treatment without doing the proper scientific research to back up its decision,” stated Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. “If FDA was serious about its goal of protecting Americans health, it would not allow a process that intentionally disguises the quality and safety of meat.”

Whereas meat not treated with carbon monoxide will begin naturally to oxidize and turn brown after approximately 10 to 12 days, meat treated with carbon monoxide in modified atmosphere packaging will retain its color and mask spoilage even when improperly stored for weeks at a time. According to the report, the presence of CO can cause fish to accumulate dangerous levels of scombrotoxin or histamine and can mask a wide variety of pathogens in meat including E. Coli and Salmonella.

Despite the potential risks, FDA approved the use of carbon monoxide in modified atmosphere packaging as “Generally Recognized as Safe” or GRAS. During this designation process, the public has no opportunity to comment on the safety or health concerns associated with the substances. FDA does not require labeling for any products treated with the gas.

“Sixty three percent of adults believe that the freshness of meat is directly related to the color of the meat. The artificial red color of carbon monoxide-treated meat poses the risk that consumers will eat spoiled meat that looks fresh,” stated Hauter. “Consumers have a right to know what has been done to their food in order to make educated decisions about their purchases and health.”

The European Union banned CO in meat and tuna packaging because of the consumer deception issue, and several U.S. supermarket chains and meat and poultry processors have voluntarily banned CO meat from their shelves and food practices. However, there is no legislation to prevent these companies from reneging on their current policies.

“Leaving it up to companies to decide whether or not to sell carbon monoxide treated meat is an incomplete solution since companies can change their mind at any time,” said Hauter. “In fact we just received a letter from Wal-Mart admitting that their stores are not completely free of meat products that have been treated with CO.”

Food & Water Watch is asking for change at the federal level and urging FDA to reexamine and revoke its approval of the questionable technology.

“At worst, it’s dangerous. At best, it’s a consumer rip-off,” said Hauter at a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on the use of carbon monoxide. “We need to make sure our government agencies are making consumer safety a top priority in all their decisions.”

View the report Carbon Monoxide: Masking the Truth About Meat?

CONTACT:
Patty Lovera or Jennifer Mueller
(202) 683-2467

New Report Highlights the Trouble with Smithfield

Food & Water Watch corporate profile reveals the damaging environmental and public health impacts posed by the agribusiness giant

Washington, DC — A new report by consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch arms consumers with the facts about a major player in the meat business, Smithfield Foods. The group‚ new report, The Trouble With Smithfield: A Corporate Profile, details the damage the world’s largest pork producer has caused to the environment, animal welfare, public health, family farmers, and workers around the world.

“Smithfield is a threat to the future of agriculture everywhere,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. “Its continuous consolidation hurts farmers and consumers, and its factory farms put the environment, public health and animal welfare at risk. Just as important, Smithfield‚ treatment of its workers is inexcusable, as is its habit of pointing its pollution at poor rural communities.”

The company‚ opportunistic acquisitions and the failure of the federal government to enforce anti-trust laws have allowed Smithfield to dominate almost all aspects of pork production and processing.

The factory farms that the company owns or controls cram hundreds or thousands of pigs into long, warehouse-like barns. And all those hogs generate lots of waste.  In 1997, the company received one of the largest Clean Water Act fines in history for failing to install adequate pollution control equipment.

In addition to environmental damage, Smithfield operations threaten the health of people living nearby who suffer from a wide range of ailments, including asthma, allergies, eye irritation, compromised immune function, depression and other disorders.

The company allegedly has broken workplace health and safety laws and is part of a long running high-profile dispute over worker injuries and rights to representation at a plant in North Carolina. In recent years, Smithfield has expanded into Eastern Europe, buying Poland‚ leading processing company and taking advantage of the country‚ lax environmental laws and cheap labor. The report recommends action by Congress and federal and state regulators to rein in this agribusiness giant, as well as telling consumers how to opt out of Smithfield‚ model of industrial pork production.

The Trouble With Smithfield: A Corporate Profile is available here.