DOWNLOAD PDF

In light of these questions, there is a demand for straightforward guidance on seafood. To address the sustainability ques- tions surrounding fish consumption, a number of certification programs have developed sets of standards and labels to evaluate and then market “environmentally friendly” or “sustainably produced” fish.

Choosing the best fish to eat can be complicated. While you’re browsing the seafood counter or restaurant menu you may wonder whether certain fish are safe and sustainable. In many cases, the more a person knows, the more questions arise: Is this wild or farmed? Local or imported? Environmentally responsible and humane? High in mercury? Tainted with anti- biotics and chemicals?

Meanwhile, many retailers have begun sourcing their seafood predominately or exclusively from fisheries or companies that have been certified with eco-labels in an effort to promote their environmental awareness about seafood sustain- ability to consumers. Many of these labels claim to be in line with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) guidelines for aquaculture or fisheries certification, but are they? The European Commission has indicated it will make an effort to enforce these guidelines.

To determine what eco-labels really mean, Food & Water Europe examined various seafood certification programs and found that, unfortunately, labels do not always represent what consumers expect.

Our research reveals a variety of flaws and inadequacies associated with the eco-labels analyzed and suggests that private labels may not be the most appropriate means to convey neutral, credible information about seafood. While the intent to raise awareness about sustainability among seafood suppliers and fish farms is admirable, it is questionable whether labels are actually increasing sustainability in the marketplace or meeting consumers’ demand for reliable information on seafood. In fact, some labels with industry connections may actually be more successful at convincing consumers that the products found in markets are “sustainable,” than at offering the neutral guidance consumers truly seek.

This report proposes that in order to provide consumers with much-needed, unbiased and well-regulated information, the European Commission must develop and enforce strict criteria for interpreting the FAO guidelines on aquaculture and fisheries certification. Until that time, consumers can use our guidelines and recommendations for safer and more sus- tainable seafood choices at the end of this report.

Findings

• The eco-label certification programs reviewed in this report demonstrate inadequacies in regard to some or all of the following: environmental standards, social responsibility and community relations, labor regulations, international law, and transparency.
• Eco-labeling programs may cause increased public acceptance of products from controversial farming operations such as coastal shrimp ponds and open-water aquaculture.
• Eco-labeling programs fail to promote local seafood options or account for the miles that imported seafood travels.
• Existing eco-labels have the potential to override the authority of governments, particularly in developing countries.
• The eco-labels examined fail to meet FAO criteria for eco-labeling and certification programs for wild fisheries and aquaculture.
• Financial constraints have affected the ability of some otherwise eligible fisheries to attain certification.
• For some programs, there is a conflict between the intent to promote change within a certain fishery and the labeling program, which can place a seal of approval on a product from a certified fishery before it has made conditional improvements in ecological performance to actually meet the standards for the label.
• Eco-labels may negatively impact forage fish populations, which could damage marine food webs and harm food security in developing countries.

Why the Strategies Behind Nestlé’s New Bottled Water Brand May Be Good for the Company but Bad for Public Water

As many consumers in the United States and Europe are dropping bottled water, the industry is beginning to see a decline in sales. In fact, between 2007 and 2010, Nestlé Waters, the biggest water bottler in the world, saw its total sales drop 12.6 percent.

Today, Nestlé appears to have developed new strategies to combat this challenging sales climate, which center around its Pure Life brand. Unfortunately, while the brand has been profitable, these tactics do not bode well for public water in the United States or abroad.

Nestlé has shifted the focus of its advertising dollars in the United States to its new Pure Life brand. Between 2004 and 2009, spending on Pure Life advertising increased by more than 3000 percent; the company’s nearly $9.7 million expenditure on the brand in 2009 was more than any other bottled water company spent on a leading domestic brand, and more than Nestlé’s next five spring water brands combined.

While Nestlé’s global water division’s sales are falling in Europe, the United States and Canada, they are growing rapidly in the “emerging markets” that Nestlé is targeting in the rest of the word. In 2010, Nestlé’s sales of bottled water in these “other regions” increased by 25 percent over its 2009 sales in these areas.

Read the full report.

Pure Life differs from Nestlé’s previous brands in the United States in terms of the source of its water, the messaging used to sell it, and its target audience:

• Pure Life bottles municipal tap water rather than spring water, which can help the company avoid the costly conflicts over water access and labeling that have plagued its spring water operations in the past, allowing it instead to vie with its main competitors, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola, on price.
• The company focuses its messaging on the health benefits of bottled water, especially compared to sugary soft drinks, which improves the image of its product and helps it appeal to parents and teachers who are concerned about their children’s health.
• It also specifically targets Hispanic immigrants in the United States and “emerging markets” in developing nations abroad — consumers who are accustomed to inadequate water infrastructure and therefore less inclined to drink from the tap because of safety concerns.

While these strategies appear to have helped boost Nestlé’s profits, they have not been so beneficial for consumers or the environment. No matter the source, when there is safe tap water available, bottled water comes with unnecessary costs to the consumer as well as environmental damage from the associated energy, water use and plastic waste. In addition, Nestlé’s new Pure Life strategies could be especially worrisome when it comes to their potential impact on public water.

Nestlé’s shift to bottling municipal water in the United States has led an industry trend in shifting from spring water to municipal water. Between 2005 and 2009, the overall volume of tap water bottled by the industry grew by 66 percent while the volume of spring water increased by only 9 percent, which means that tap water bottling expanded at more than seven times the rate of spring water bottling. Today, many public water systems are inadequately funded and facing potential water shortages; allowing a corporation to bottle and sell community water can be a raw deal for the municipality. Bottling municipal water instead of spring water does not do away with the environmental concerns, which is why residents in Sacramento, for one, opposed a new Pure Life facility that would draw on their city tap water.

In addition, selling bottled water as healthy, especially to children, distracts consumers from another option that is also healthy — the tap. Promoting the mindset that bottled water is a good source of healthy water undermines public confidence in tap water, which is especially dangerous today as our disappearing public drinking water sources need political support and funding.

Specifically selling bottled water to populations around the world that do not have access to safe drinking water capitalizes on the world water crisis. While this may be profitable for Nestlé, it does not provide a long-term solution for the billions of people abroad who lack access to adequate water and sanitation. In fact, the company will likely sell bottled water to the customers abroad who can afford it, not those who are in most dire need of better water supplies.

Just as consumers in the United States are better served by properly maintained public water infrastructure than bottled water sales, the water needs of populations abroad cannot be addressed without recognizing that access to water is affected by governance. To address the world water crisis, the global community must treat access to water as a basic human right, not a source of profits.

U.S. poultry farmers have used drugs containing arsenic, a known poison, to control the common disease coccidiosis for decades. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the arsenic-based drug roxarsone as a feed additive in 1944. The chicken industry discovered that roxarsone promoted growth, increased feed efficiency (pounds of chicken produced from each pound of feed), and improved flesh pigmentation as well. Between 1995 and 2000, 70 percent of broiler chicken producers used roxarsone feed additives.

While the chicken industry maintains that arsenical drugs are safe, arsenic poses problems to human health from exposure to chicken meat and waste. A study of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s limited data found arsenic levels in young chickens to be approximately three times higher than average levels in other meats. Most arsenical drugs fed to chickens are excreted in waste, which can rapidly decompose into more toxic forms. Typically used as fertilizer, the waste can contaminate soil, water and crops.

Chronic arsenic exposure increases the risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and other health problems.

Read the full report.

The FDA, USDA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) coordinate a fragmented system to regulate arsenic.

• The FDA set allowed levels for arsenic residues in poultry in 1951 and has not revised them since. Yet, the average American’s annual chicken consumption has tripled from less than 20 pounds in the 1940s to nearly 60 pounds in 2008.
• The EPA reduced the maximum contaminant levels for arsenic in drinking water from 50 parts per billion (ppb) to 10 ppb in 2001. The cancer risk at the new standard is still 50 times higher than the risk allowed for many other carcinogens.
• The USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) tests very few broiler chickens for arsenic residues. In 2005 and 2008, FSIS did not test any domestically produced chickens for arsenic residues. Just over half the chickens tested be- tween 2000 and 2008 contained detectable arsenic residues.

Two major chicken companies, Tyson Foods and Perdue Farms, have claimed to stop using arsenical feed additives, though some evidence raises questions about those claims. The European Union has set a ban on arsenicals in poultry feed and a zero-tolerance level for arsenic in chicken meat, which leaves little doubt that alternative methods are available. There are ongoing legislative efforts to ban arsenic use in U.S. chicken production.

It’s high time to re-evaluate the use of arsenic in U.S. poultry production. Food & Water Watch recommends:

• A Ban on Arsenical Feed Additives and Drugs: The FDA should prohibit the use of arsenic-based additives in animal feed.
• Research on Poultry Production: USDA research priorities should include means to improve chicken gut health through improved nutritional and flock management, including studying the effects of stocking density on disease prevalence.
• Mitigate Environmental Contamination: Ground and surface water monitoring in areas with concentrated poultry pro- duction should include testing for arsenic. Contaminated drinking water must be treated to protect public health.
• Growth promotion and improved pigmentation are not sufficient reasons to introduce carcinogens into the food supply and the environment. It is time for an end to the use of arsenic in U.S. poultry and livestock production.

Suez Environnement has a poor track record in the United States. From sewage overflows in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to contaminated drinking water in Gloucester, Massachusetts, serious problems have afflicted municipalities across the country after they turned their water or sewer systems over to Suez-owned United Water.

Under the leadership of Suez, United Water has become the second-largest private operator of municipal water systems in the country. DOWNLOAD PDF

Under the leadership of Suez, United Water has grown into the second-largest private operator of municipal water systems in the United States. However, because the company has had a large number of high-profile failures, in recent years, it has won few new contracts to operate city water systems. As a result, it has focused on taking over other water companies to eliminate its competition..

Poor performance has cost the company several of its largest contracts. Suez’s flagship effort in the United States — a long-term contract with Atlanta, Georgia — ended 16 years early in 2003 after the city documented numerous problems from a large maintenance backlog to inadequate bill collection. After issuing 20 notices of noncompliance to United Water, the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, decided against keeping the company when its contract came up for renewal in 2007. Gloucester, Massachusetts, similarly ended its contract with the company after water quality violations in 2009.

Expensive service has cost United Water several other deals. From Gary, Indiana, to Fairfield-Suisun, California, cities across the country have ended contracts with the company, opting to run their water and sewer systems themselves. For these municipalities, public operation has saved money and improved services.

Reliable public operation with a renewed federal commitment to infrastructure funding will allow municipalities to responsibly address the growing infrastructure needs facing many of the nation’s aging water systems With access to a dedicated source of federal funding to improve water systems, cash-strapped municipalities can avoid the financial pressure that leads them into privatization schemes with companies like Suez in the first place. Public control and federal funding are the best ways for the United States to ensure that safe, clean and affordable water service is available for generations to come. Read more.

En Français