Archives: Press Releases

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.

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 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.

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.

# # #

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

WTO Deadlock Good News for Consumers and Food Safety

Consumer Group Details Global Trade Threat to Domestic Food Regulations

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The indefinite suspension of the current round of trade negotiations at the World Trade Organization this week is a boon to U.S. consumers who could have lost vital food safety regulations, according to a new report by Food & Water Watch.

The WTO General Council, the highest level decision making body of the WTO, comprised of high ranking officials of member governments, is meeting over the next two days in Geneva in the wake of a stalemate. If the negotiations had proceeded, a growing list of food safety and labeling laws, ranging from limits on levels of toxic chemicals in food to restaurant sanitation regulations, would have been in violation of the WTO rules according to What‚ Cooking? Food Safety Gets Burned By the WTO. 

“Our trade representatives must look beyond a trade agenda that benefits corporate agriculture and will only increase the threats to our food supply,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. “The World Trade Organization is simply not an appropriate venue for making decisions about food safety, which is evident in the current collapse of the negotiations.”

WTO negotiations have major implications for domestic food safety laws, the report explains. Countries could have been required to prove that their regulations on animal husbandry, fishing, fish farming, food processing, labeling, storage, transport and even restaurant sanitation are “not more burdensome than necessary.” And many countries already identified an expansive list of food safety and labeling regulations in other countries that they would like to see removed, such as:

• strict limits on the concentration of heavy metals such as lead and mercury in seafood
• strict testing for residue of the antibiotic chloramphenicol in shrimp, crab and crayfish (the drug is banned in the U.S. and the EU)
• country-of-origin labeling for fish
• a series of sanitation, packaging and labeling requirements.

“The current WTO stalemate is good news for family farmers and consumers throughout the world,” said Edouard Morena, the European campaigner for Food & Water Watch. “We now have an opportunity to promote a different model of trade rules, which respect each country’s right to protect its own food supply.”

Joint Release with National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC) and European Farmers Coordination (CPE)

NO to a US-EU Free Trade Area

It would jeopardize food sovereignty in the US and the EU and would reinforce the grasp of a few giant agribusiness companies on our agriculture and food

At the end of May, the European Parliament will vote on a report presented by the Socialist MEP Erika Mann (Germany) – Report on EU-US Transatlantic economic relations – which calls for “a transatlantic barrier-free market by 2015.” The Committee on International Trade at the EP has already approved this report with a strong majority, with the support of the Socialist MEPs of the Committee.

The report recommends that by the June 2006 summit, the EU and the US agree to update the New Transatlantic Agenda (NTA) of 1995 and the Transatlantic Economic Partnership (TEP) of 1998 and design a new Transatlantic Partnership Agreement that covers both and leads to the achievement of a barrier-free transatlantic market by 2015.

While in 1994, the US and the EU succeeded in imposing the World Trade Organization which jeopardizes the food sovereignty of all countries by hampering their food policy, the current Doha Round of the WTO negotiations are uncertain to achieve any result. The US and the EU are using bilateral free trade agreements to achieve their goals. Such an agreement would not only deal with tariff barriers, but also with non-tariff barriers. The report denounces regulatory barriers that have become one of the most significant obstacles to trade and investment between the EU and the US and warns, in particular, against the proliferation of additional regulations at the state level, the non-use of relevant international standards as the basis for technical regulations, and the excessively burdensome labelling requirements.

This agreement puts into question the existing EU ban of bovine and milk hormones and whether European people would have no choice but to accept unlabeled genetically-modified food. The right of consumers to choose their food and the way it is produced would be broken by this bi-lateral agreement.

A free trade area would strengthen the penetration into Europe of the US agro-industrial model, particularly for animal production: for example the US company Smithfield, one of the companies responsible for the disappearance of family pig production in the US, which already succeeded in taking root in Central Europe, could develop more easily. Europe refuses the US food and agriculture model, which already pervades the continent too much, with large and destructive consequences for the environment, health and sustainable family farming.

Therefore, we call on US and EU authorities to change their agricultural and food policies: not only in order to provide a more suitable response to the increasing public demand for quality and locally/regionally produced food, but also to foster a sustainable and job-creating agriculture. Food sovereignty – the right of peoples and their nations to decide on what they eat and on how their food is produced, while avoiding dumping practices that negatively affect countries – ought to become the core principle of the new agricultural policies on both sides of the Atlantic.

We call on the members of the European Parliament to clearly reject the proposals of this report and to express their disapproval of a barrier-free US-EU market.

###