Protect People in Kenya, Not Flower Farms

Categories

Food

CONTACT:
Jennifer Mueller
(202) 683-2500

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.

# # #

Consumer Groups Denied Hearing on Deceptive Meat Packaging

Categories

Food

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.

###

Starbucks Agrees to Hold the Hormones For Good

Categories

Food

Contact:
Erin Greenfield
(202) 797-6550

WE WON!

Starbucks Has Agreed to Hold the Hormones For Good

Washington, D.C. – Starbucks Coffee Company has already made a New Year‚ resolution! Today Starbucks committed to make 100% of the chain‚ milk supply free of artificial growth hormones by December 31, 2007.

The Starbucks announcement follows nearly two years of pressure from Food & Water Watch, which launched the Hold the Hormones Campaign in 2006, asking consumers to demand the company buy better milk. A protest event planned for today in front of a Seattle store from 4-6pm (Westlake Center Starbucks, 401 Pine St.) will now be a victory celebration, complete with partying cows, cookies, and of course, rBGH-free milk.

In a letter addressed to Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter, Starbucks Vice President of Sustainable Procurement Sue Mecklenburg stated, “We have committed that by December 31, 2007, all of our fluid milk, half and half, whipping cream and eggnog used in U.S. company-operated stores will be produced without the use of rBGH.”

“Our work has paid off,” exclaimed Hauter.  “American consumers have made their voices heard: We want safer and healthier milk. We congratulate Starbucks for rising to the occasion.”

Starbucks first considered offering hormone-free milk to customers in 2001. Today’s letter to Food & Water Watch states that as of August 2007, 72 % of their total dairy supply is sourced from milk suppliers that do not use rBGH in their milk. The Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone, or rBGH, is an artificial hormone that is often injected into dairy cows to increase their milk production. With a potential link between the hormone and higher risk of breast, prostate, and colon cancer in humans, rBGH is banned in all 27 countries of the European Union, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand.

“Starbucks is doing the right thing,” Hauter stated. “We look forward to other companies following Starbucks lead and making the switch to healthier milk.”

For more information on rBGH and the Hold the Hormones Campaign, visit www.HoldtheHormones.org.

Cows Ask Starbucks to Hold the Hormones

Categories

Food

CONTACT
Jen Mueller: 202-797-6553
jmueller [at] fwwatch.org

Half-a-Dozen Dairy Cows Ask Starbucks To Hold the Hormones

Food & Water Watch Asks Customers to Call Starbucks and

Request Artificial Hormone Free Milk

Washington, DC, Half-a-dozen‚ dairy cows “converged on a Starbucks near the National Mall in Washington DC today to ask the biggest coffee retailer in the world to hold the hormones. Lacking thumbs and fingers for dialing telephones, the‚ cows” encouraged pedestrians and Starbucks patrons to participate in a national call-in day to request the company use only milk produced without the artificial growth hormone, rBGH.

Food & Water Watch activists dressed as cows to draw attention to their effort to get Starbucks to switch to artificial hormone free milk. Among the groups concerns are that injecting cows with artificial growth hormone harms cows and may harm people. Cows treated with this hormone get more infections, which leads to more antibiotic use. Overuse of antibiotics in animal production creates antibiotic resistant bacteria, a serious threat to treating people. Additionally, there is a potential link between rBGH and higher risk of breast, prostate, and colon cancer.

Starbucks promotes itself as a socially responsible company but has refused to join the growing trend of dairies and food companies switching to milk that is free of artificial growth hormones” said Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter.

An enormous purchaser of milk, Starbucks has been considering offering better milk to its customers since 2001. Starbucks could use its purchasing power to work with dairies to get rid of artificial hormones, just like companies across the country have already done, asserted Food and Water Watch.

I am concerned about what my kids eat. When they come to Starbucks with me, I want them to have milk that is free from artificial hormones that could interfere with their development,” said Joiwind Ronen, a concerned mom in a cow suit.

Numerous companies are requiring their milk suppliers to be rBGH-free, including Ben & Jerry‚ ice cream and Tillamook County Creamery Association cheese. Additionally, certified organic milk cannot be produced with rBGH.

The European Union, Japan, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand do not allow the use of rBGH.

Consumers can find guides to rBGH-free dairy produces sold in their state at http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/dairy/rbgh-free-guide. Consumers can find instructions for calling Starbucks and more information at .

Global Action Week Against Food Irradiation

Categories

Food

CONTACT:
Jen Mueller (202) 797-6553
jmueller [at] fwwatch.org

Global Week of Action Against Food Irradiation

Statement of Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter

Each November since 2003, activists around the world have worked together to organize a Global Week of Action Against Food Irradiation. Events ranging from educational forums to protest rallies have been held in the United States, Italy, France, the Philippines, Australia, and Brazil, highlighting the dangers posed by irradiated foods and by the facilities where they are irradiated. This year’s activities will be similarly diverse, marked by events focused on irradiated fruit in Australia and New Zealand, and public education about irradiated food in Europe.

U.S. consumers have been wary of irradiated food, for good reason. The technology doesn’t just kill bacteria; it depletes vitamins and creates new chemicals in foods that affect taste and smell. Studies have shown that irradiation destroys vitamin A, beta-carotene, and vitamin C in potatoes, orange juice and other foods.

Today, Food & Water Watch released a new report on the Status of Food Irradiation Around the World. While the technology is not popular in the United States, plans to build irradiators overseas could mean more irradiated imports for U.S. consumers.

Irradiation is a Band-aid, not a cure. It‚ an expensive technology that does not address contamination at the processing plant and may damage the food. Consumers around the world deserve better.

Factory Dairy Farm Tour

Categories

Food

CONTACT:

Jennifer Mueller: (202) 797-6553
jmueller [at] fwwatch.org

U.S. Factory Farms , So Bad They’re A Tourist Attraction

Consumer Group Brings European Farmers to United States Dairies

Washington, D.C. , Food & Water Watch welcomed farmers from France, Spain, and Germany this week for a first hand look at the environmental and public health consequences of factory farm dairies in three states , Michigan, Oregon and Washington.

‚U.S. factory dairy farms are so bad theyre a tourist attraction,” said Wenonah Hauter, Food & Water Watch Executive Director. ‚European farmers touring U.S. factory dairies and communities will take home a snapshot of what European agriculture could become if farmers and their governments arent careful.”

Factory farms have been linked to health problems for farm workers and neighbors, and contaminated water and air in surrounding communities. The stench alone can ruin rural communities, as residents rush to shut their windows and bring their children indoors when the wind shifts. These communities have been fighting lonely, uphill battles against operators that take advantage of lax enforcement of zoning and environmental laws.

‚In a 16 mile corridor we have dairy operations dumping five times the amount of raw sewage as that produced by the entire population of Seattle onto our fields,” said Helen Reddout, president of Community Association for Restoration of the Environment in Yakima County, Washington. ‚Contaminated waste on our fields is dangerous as we can see in the California spinach case.”

“The U.S. EPA and state agencies turn a blind eye to the air and water pollution caused by giant dairies and other factory farms,” explained Hauter. “Rural communities and U.S. consumers deserve better.”

‚It‚ sad that when there‚ so much in Oregon agriculture that is right, we become known to the international community for operations like the Threemile Canyon Farm complex, that dont represent the agriculture we value in our state,” said Kendra Kimbirauskas, a regional consultant with the GRACE Factory Farm Project.

Factory farming can also affect the health of consumers far from the dairy. According to the American Public Health Association (APHA), the overuse of antibiotics for livestock is creating antibiotic-resistant bacteria that threatens human health. An estimated 70% of antibiotics used in the United States are for promoting growth and preventing disease in food animals.

“We wanted to see U.S. factory dairies because big agriculture interests plans to export the factory farm model to Europe and replace our traditional family dairies,” said Jean Cabaret, a French dairy farmer and member of the French farmers union Confederation Paysanne. ‚Europeans want sustainable, chemical free, and humanely raised dairy and meat products , not factory farm pollution.”

Industrial agriculture companies have dramatically expanded their operations in parts of Europe in recent years, transforming the landscape from one of numerous small family farms to one of giant animal confinement facilities. The European Union is considering reforms to its Common Agricultural Policy for dairy that could potentially drive European dairy farmers out of business and towards a model similar to the U.S system. Food & Water Watch supports efforts to encourage local food production through numerous sustainable family farms instead of an industrialized model that relies on factory farms.

‚Showing just how bad it is in Lenawee and Hillsdale Counties is one way to advocate for stronger laws here as well as to make sure Europeans dont weaken their laws to allow these horrible facilities to move into their communities,” said Lynn Henning, Sierra Club CAFO Water Sentinel and a leader of the Environmentally Concerned Citizens of South Central Michigan.

# # #