Archives: Press Releases

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.

Kenya Flower Industry is No Bed of Roses

Groups begin push to overthrow industrial flower farms in Lake Naivasha

Washington, DC — The Council of Canadians and Food & Water Watch launched their joint campaign today to save Lake Naivasha from the clutches of corporate flower farms that have spent decades assaulting the Kenyan lake to grow flowers for export to Europe and other wealthy destinations.

“On this Valentine’s Day, it’s important that we finally stop these international operations from depleting the lake‚ waters, poisoning the surrounding environment with pesticides, and exploiting workers,” said Maude Barlow, national chairperson of the Council of Canadians. “Unless we end this, these industrial floriculture factories will continue sowing the seeds of poverty, water deprivation, and environmental carnage.”

Barlow and Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, brought their newly released report, Lake Naivasha: Withering under the Assault of International Flower Vendors, to The Wilshire restaurant in Santa Monica, California, to kick off the grassroots effort on behalf of Lake Naivasha, its people, and its wildlife.

“I witnessed chemical spraying while people working nearby wore no protective gear,” Hauter said. “The pesticides applied on the farms and in the greenhouses eventually end up in Lake Naivasha and in the groundwater, threatening people and wildlife.”

The Council of Canadians and Food & Water Watch will work with organizations around the world in this effort to expel the flower farms from Naivasha‚ shores, urge the Kenyan government to promote small-scale agriculture and eco-tourism, and encourage consumers in Canada, Europe, and the United States to purchase local, ecologically sustainable flowers.

“These flower farms are harming people and animals alike,” said Josphat Ngonyo, director of the Africa Network for Animal Welfare, one of the organizations in the campaign. “Numerous bird and fish species are disappearing from the area and that’s a problem for the environment and the people who depend on the lake.”

Please click here to view the report.

Groups Call to Protect People in Kenya,
Not Corporate Flower Farms

Despite Violence, Corporate Flower Farms Keep Up Assault On Lake Naivasha People And Environment In Rush To Grow, Export Flowers For Valentine’s Day

Washington DC — Public interest organizations in Canada, Europe, Kenya, and the United States today called on the international community to help the people suffering from violence in the Lake Naivasha region of Kenya, not the global industrial flower farms that exploit the lake and its people. The groups released a new report highlighting the destructive practices of the flower farms that dominate the region.

“The farms surround Lake Naivasha. They deplete its waters and poison them with pesticides,” said Maude Barlow, national chairperson of the Council of Canadians. “They are sowing the seeds of economic and environmental devastation that, unless stopped, inevitably will yield a harvest of poverty, water deprivation, and violence.”

The report, Lake Naivasha: Withering Under the Assault of International Flower Vendors, was originally scheduled for release on Valentine’s Day but moved up due to the situation in Kenya and outrageous news coverage sympathetic to the flower industry.  Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter pointed to headlines, such as “Kenya violence upsets flower production ahead of Valentine’s Day” in the International Herald Tribune and “Kenya’s blooming industry is facing hard times” in the UK Telegraph, as examples.  Hundreds of people have been killed and thousands displaced due to violence that intensified last weekend.

“The situation in Naivasha is a human tragedy, not an investment loss. Our sympathy and aid should go to the people in the region, not the international corporate owners of these flower farms that exploit the workers, the lake, and the environment,” Hauter said.

Public access to the freshwater Lake Naivasha is limited because the flower farms own much of the land around the lake, leaving poor residents to find water from communal taps and waiting in long lines to do so. They’ve created an unsustainable increase in the labor population, depleted the lake’s waters, and pumped the local environment full of toxic pesticides and fertilizers.

“Factory flower farms have wreaked havoc on Kenya’s rivers and on Lake Naivasha, all to extract floricultural and horticultural commodities for export to wealthy destinations in Europe and elsewhere,” said Olivier Hoedeman of Corporate Europe Observatory. “Europeans don’t want to say I love you with flowers that cause that kind of harm.”

“These flower farms are harming people and animals alike,” explained Josphat Ngonyo, director of the Africa Network for Animal Welfare. “Numerous bird and fish species are disappearing from the area and that’s a problem for the environment and the people who depend on the lake.” Plant life has vanished, and the local hippopotamus population has decreased from 1,500 in 2004 to 1,100 in 2006.

Barlow and Hauter witnessed the destruction first-hand when they visited a local flower farm with a documentary film-maker Sam Bozzo during the World Social Forum in 2007. Quoted in the report, Barlow recalled seeing “pipes pumping water from the lake to the flower greenhouses and a ditch where waste water drained back into the lake If action isnt taken immediately, the lake will not only be polluted, it will be drained.”

Chemicals used in the flower facilities are sickening workers. Wenonah Hauter observed some workers in protective gear spraying flowers, while others had no protective clothing. One worker experienced skin rashes two to three times a month.

The report on Lake Naivasha was prepared by Food & Water Watch and the Council of Canadians to launch a campaign to protect the lake and the local communities that surround it. The campaign will urge the Kenyan government to promote small-scale agriculture and eco-tourism and encourage consumers in Canada, Europe, and the United States to purchase local, ecologically sustainable flowers.  The report is posted here.

# # #

CONTACT:
Erin Greenfield
202-797-6550

Consumer Groups Shut Out of Hearing on Deceptive Meat Packaging

Washington, DC — Four consumer groups are protesting not being given the opportunity to testify at an October 30, 2007 House Agriculture Committee hearing on a questionable food technology that is deceptive to consumers.

The four organizations, Food & Water Watch, Safe Tables Our Priority, Consumer Federation of America, and the Government Accountability Project, have been critical of decisions by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to allow the use of carbon monoxide in meat packaging that artificially prolongs the color of red meat. The House Agriculture Committee has decided to hold a hearing on October 30 to provide a platform for the supporters of this deceptive technology, without hearing from consumer advocates who have been critical of this practice.

The consumer organizations sent a letter to House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson on October 22, 2007 asking for the opportunity to testify, but they have not received a response (see attached).

‚I dont understand what the House Agriculture Committee is afraid of,” said Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch. ‚Both FDA and USDA have allowed a practice that defines month-old meat as being fresh because using carbon monoxide keeps the pigment of meat red longer than meat that is untreated. This technology can mask spoilage because the product appears to be perfectly fine. Congress needs to hear both sides of the story on this issue,” added Hauter.

Testing conducted by Consumer Reports and reported in the July 2006 issue indicated that some CO-treated meat available on supermarket shelves could be spoiled by its use, or freeze,by date. Consumer Reports recommends that consumers ‚check the package and buy meat whose stamped date is a couple of weeks away.”

‚The use of carbon monoxide in meat packaging is clearly deceptive to consumers,” said Donna Rosenbaum, Executive Director of Safe Tables Our Priority. ‚Consumers rely on color to make meat purchasing decisions. It is not surprising that the European Union has banned the practice because of the consumer deception issue.”

‚Consumer Federation of America commissioned a national poll in September 2006 that showed 78% of respondents considered the use of carbon monoxide in meat packaging to be a deceptive practice, and 68% strongly favored mandatory labeling of any meat product that was treated with carbon monoxide,” said Chris Waldrop, Director of CFA‚ Food Policy Institute.

‚I find it interesting that some in the meat industry continue to devote incredible resources to promote this deceptive technology when it is clearly becoming unpopular even within its own ranks,” remarked Jacqueline Ostfeld, Food and Drug Safety Officer for the Government Accountability Project. ‚Industry giant Tyson Foods stopped using carbon monoxide in its meat packaging because it stated that its customers were not requesting meat treated with this technology. Furthermore, supermarket chains such as Whole Foods, Kroger‚, Publix, Safeway, Giant Foods, Stop & Shop, and A & P have either never carried or have stopped carrying meat packaged with carbon monoxide because consumers just do not want to buy it” added Ostfeld.

In addition to the letter sent by these consumer groups, telephone calls and e-mails to House Agriculture Committee staff about the hearing went unanswered.