Andrew Gunther

GE Crop Thriller Leaves Bond and Bourne for Dust

2013-05-15T18:33:46-04:00

It's the kind of farfetched plot you'd expect to see in a James Bond or Jason Bourne movie. You know, where the bad guys are found to be secretly coercing governments -- and even entire countries -- to aid corporate global domination, and where good old Felix from the CIA saves the day and helps Mr. Bond defeat the evildoers.

But in a bizarre twist to the plot, it now looks like the real-life U.S. Government officials have actually been working for the likes of Monsanto and the Big Ag lobby all along. A devastating new report by Food & Water Watch -- entitled "Biotech Ambassadors: How the US State Department Promotes the Seed Industry's Global Agenda" -- reveals that the U.S. State Department has been aggressively pursuing foreign food and agricultural policies that seek to benefit the vested interests of the largest biotech seed corporations -- often collaborating directly with representatives from Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Syngenta, Bayer CropScience and Dow Agrochemical.

If you believe in democracy and the free market, this new report will make for somber reading. Analyzing five years of State Department diplomatic cables between 2005 to 2009, the Food & Water Watch report exposes a concerted and coordinated global strategy by the U.S. State Department to promote genetically engineered (GE) crop technology and corporate interests in other countries of the world, often against the overwhelming opposition of the public and governments, and to the near exclusion of other potentially more sustainable -- and more appropriate -- alternatives. Remember, too, that the U.S. State Department's work to promote Monsanto and GE crops outlined in this new report would have all been funded by us -- the U.S. taxpayer. As if Monsanto was short of a few dollars for its own publicity work...

It's fair to say that agricultural biotechnology dominates U.S. corn, soybean and cotton production. According to Food & Water Watch, by 2009, "nearly all of the soybean (93 percent) and four-fifths of the corn (80 percent) cultivated in the United States are grown from seeds covered by Monsanto patents." Whether or not the public is actually aware they're consuming GE products on a daily basis is another question entirely: Despite the fact that over 60 other countries require the labeling of GE foods, Big Ag is doing all it can to ensure that U.S. consumers remain completely in the dark over what they're eating.

But while GE seeds dominate U.S. commodity crop production, it might surprise you to know that most of the world actually remains steadfastly GE-free. Although the first GE crops were introduced in the U.S. almost 20 years ago, just five countries -- the U.S., Brazil, Argentina, Canada and India -- accounted for most of all GE crops sown in 2012. The fact is that the rest of the world is right to be suspicious, because GE is a failing technology. Despite all the golden promises of feeding the world, the only major GE crops on the market are designed to either resist proprietary herbicides or produce their own pesticides. As was predicted, both technologies are now experiencing significant problems in the countries where they are grown, with the widespread emergence of resistant weeds and pests. Mounting calls in the U.S. for the labeling of GE foods also represents a huge problem for the likes of Monsanto: What will happen to demand for GE seeds once consumers actually have a real choice over whether or not they consume GE food?

In light of such challenges, the corporate biotech giants need the power of the U.S. State Department to help develop new markets -- and thus ensure continued profit -- by forcing more countries, more farmers and more consumers to accept, cultivate and eat their products. Biotech Ambassadors reveals that the U.S. State Department has lobbied foreign governments to adopt pro-GE policies and laws, operated a rigorous public relations campaign to improve the image of biotechnology, and challenged commonsense biotechnology safeguards and rules -- including opposing laws requiring the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods in other countries. It's fascinating insight into the tactics and goals of the State Department and its closely coordinated efforts with the biotech industry to undermine the rights of other nations to determine their own food and agricultural policies and objectives.

Highlights -- or should that be lowlights? -- of Food & Water Watch's new report include evidence that the U.S. State Department has actively targeted foreign reporters, hosted and coordinated lavish pro-biotech conferences and public events, and paid for foreign opinion-makers to visit the U.S. on high-profile and extravagant trips in an effort to improve the image of GE crops overseas -- and overcome widespread public opposition to GE food and crops in other countries. The report reveals that the U.S. State Department has coordinated efforts to lobby countries in the developing world to pass legislation and implement regulations which would benefit the biotech seed industry, including in Kenya, Ghana and Nigeria, and that the U.S. State Department has worked with the U.S. Trade Representative to promote the export of biotech crops and to force nations that do not want these imports to accept U.S. biotech foods and crops, using bullying tactics and threats. You just couldn't make some of this stuff up.

For example, the cables reveal that the U.S. embassy in Paris advised Washington in 2007 to start a military-style trade war against any European Union country that opposed GE crops. One of the cables is from Craig Stapleton, the U.S. ambassador to France from 2005-2009. He expresses his concern that France might soon pass laws that could hamper the expansion of GE crops in Europe, and calls on Washington to punish the EU -- particularly countries not supporting the use of GE crops. The language used is the kind of stuff you'd expect in a James Bond movie:

"Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits... The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory... Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices."

The Wikileaks cables also reveal that U.S. diplomats have been working directly for GE companies such as Monsanto, with one of the cables from the U.S. Embassy in Madrid even warning that: "If Spain falls, the rest of Europe will follow." Is it just me, or does this sound like the paranoid Cold War rhetoric of the 1950s? It's hard to believe that these are recent communications from senior U.S. diplomats are simply about the possible EU public rejection of GE crops -- what about the freedom of choice?

No one can ignore the immense challenges we now face in our efforts to feed future global populations, particularly in a world of ever-diminishing natural resources and the looming threat of climate change. We are going to need all available technology, as well as diverse agricultural strategies to feed ourselves sustainably. But despite the fact that Big Ag is doing everything it can to convince us that the widespread adoption of GE crops is our only chance to stave off worldwide hunger, it's now widely acknowledged that GE technology is not the panacea we've been led to believe.

Indeed, numerous reports and policy documents are now singing from the same hymn sheet, calling for a wholesale shift in food production and consumption. For example, the increasingly influential International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) published the findings of a three-year project involving 400 independent scientists and development experts from across the world. It's the one report that Big Ag doesn't want you to read. The IAASTD report makes for fascinating reading and concludes that small-scale farming and so-called agro-ecological practices, such as organic farming, have a vital role to play in feeding the world in the future. The IAASTD also questioned the role of GE crops in feeding the world, concluding that the high costs for seeds and chemicals, uncertain yields, and the potential to undermine local food security -- and place control over food production in the hands of a few powerful global corporations -- makes GE technology a poor choice for the developing world.

In March 2011, the United Nations' Agro-ecology and The Right to Food report stated that small-scale farmers can double food production within 10 years in critical regions by using agro-ecological methods. Based on an extensive review of the recent scientific literature, the study called for a fundamental shift towards agroecology and supporting independent farms as a way to boost food production and improve the situation of the world's poorest. Similarly, the UN's "Dead Planet, Living Planet: Biodiversity and ecosystem restoration for sustainable development" recommends a blend of the new and the old: pest management using natural predators, intercropping agroforestry and green manures.

Forget Monsanto's claims of "feeding the world," or "sustainable agriculture," or "protecting the environment." The Food & Water Report reveals once again that corporate interests are the driving force behind GE technology. The reality is that GE crops were developed by corporate giants like Monsanto, Bayer and Syngenta to maximize profits for their shareholders -- nothing more, nothing less. And before the usual trolls start discrediting me as a Luddite, let me say that I have no problem with the science of biotechnology per se. Indeed, I am aware that this science can help us to select and breed better crops through non-risk technologies like Marker Assisted Selection, which does not produce GE organisms. Only last week, the BBC reported that UK scientists have developed a new "superwheat" which has the potential to increase yields by 30 percent -- all without the use of GE technology.

No, my problem with biotechnology is that the science has been hijacked by corporate interests, and that the subsequent wholesale rush to patent plant genes as the intellectual property of a handful of multinational corporations is placing the control of global food production directly into their hands. Food & Water Watch's report reveals that even our own government officials are now acting like Big Ag's hired hoods, coercing, threatening and bullying other countries that have been so-far unwilling to adopt this failing technology. At a time of rising global food insecurity and environmental concern, do we really want the future direction of global food production to be influenced and manipulated by what is essentially corporate bullying and short-term greed?

Within hours of the report, Monsanto issued a petulant post, attempting to somehow dismiss the new report as "old news." Yet Monsanto failed to address the real issues which will once again reignite public concerns. The Food & Water Report is very real news: It provides a thorough and highly detailed analysis of the Wikileaks cables, exposing the unhealthy relationship between Monsanto and our government, and how our tax money is being used to promote the special interests of the multi-billion-dollar biotech industry above all other alternatives. It also reveals just how far these corporations are willing to go to secure their global interests. Old news?! Who are they trying to kid...

Public Health Warning: This Meat May Contain Life-threatening Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria

2013-05-01T12:06:16-04:00

Maybe it's time we demanded a health warning on intensively produced meat products. Because when it comes to the link between modern so-called science-based industrial livestock farming and the rise of life-threatening antibiotic resistant bacteria, the evidence just keeps on coming.

Hot on the heels of a damning report by the Environmental Working Group, which revealed high levels of potentially life-threatening antibiotic-resistant bacteria on raw supermarket meat, the respected Consumer Reports has found potential disease-causing organisms in 90 percent of ground turkey samples purchased from stores nationwide. What's more, many of the bacteria they identified were resistant to more than three antibiotic drug classes.

In their first-ever lab analysis of ground turkey products, Consumer Reports' researchers carried out tests on 257 samples purchased at retail stores nationwide for the presence of five key food poisoning bacteria: enterococcus, E. coli, staphylococcus aureus, salmonella, and campylobacter. The results are of grave concern to us all.

Consumer Reports found at least one of these five food poisoning bacteria in 90 percent of the samples tested. Strains of enterococcus and E. coli bacteria -- both commonly associated with fecal waste contamination -- were identified on 69 percent and 60 percent respectively of the ground turkey samples tested. In addition, more than half of the enterococcus and the E. coli bacteria were resistant to three or more groups of closely related antibiotics. Three samples of ground turkey were contaminated with the life-threatening methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), while 12 of the samples harbored Salmonella bacteria, one of the most common causes of foodborne illness in the U.S. Again, it is worrying to note that two-thirds of the Salmonella bacteria were resistant to three or more important antibiotics.

"Our findings strongly suggest that there is a direct relationship between the routine use of antibiotics in animal production and increased antibiotic resistance in bacteria on ground turkey," says Dr. Urvashi Rangan, Director of the Consumer Safety and Sustainability Group at Consumer Reports, according to a press release. "It's very concerning that antibiotics fed to turkeys are creating resistance to antibiotics used in human medicine."

The problem is that most consumers are still not aware that virtually all intensively farmed animals in the U.S. now routinely receive low, sub-therapeutic levels of antibiotics in their feed and water. In fact, we use more antibiotics per pound of meat produced than any other nation in the world and a staggering 80 percent of all the antibiotics produced in the U.S. are used on food-producing animals. The reason? Feeding regular doses of sub-therapeutic antibiotics helps to maximize production of meat, milk or eggs by improving feed efficiency or by suppressing diseases that would inevitably spread in the confined, dirty, and stressful conditions of intensive livestock operations. But while the likes of Cargill, Purdue and Tyson will claim that the routine use of sub-therapeutic antibiotics is necessary for (sic) maintaining animal health and welfare, and enables them to maximize the production of cheap meat, milk and eggs (and to maximize their profits), we now know that there are some very serious costs.

Scientists from around the world now emphatically suggest that the misuse of antibiotics in intensive livestock farming is one of the key causes for the dramatic rise in life-threatening antibiotic-resistant bacteria over recent years. By allowing intensive livestock farms to routinely expose bacteria to sub-therapeutic levels of antibiotics, we are providing the perfect conditions for some very dangerous bacteria to mutate and become resistant to their effects.

As Consumer Reports point out, we are all only human and common slip-ups while handling or cooking meat can sometimes put us all at risk of food poisoning. I suspect that most readers have had food poisoning at some point in their lives. In most cases, the illness is relatively mild (if rather unpleasant) and passes in a few days. But some of the nastier food poisoning bugs such as Salmonella can cause more serious disease and potential complications, particularly for the sick, the elderly or the young. As a result, antibiotics continue to have a vital role to play in treating these more serious cases of food poisoning and other resistant infections.

Yet the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is changing everything. Today, the danger is that if you do happen to contract a multi-resistant bug you may well find the normal antibiotics simply do not work. In some cases, we are running out of options altogether. This is precisely why the UK Government's Chief Medical Officer recently said that the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria risks a global health catastrophe that ranks alongside the threat of climate change or terrorism.

So is it right that consumers are unwittingly putting themselves and their loved ones at increasing risk of contracting what were previously treatable food poisoning and other bacterial infections simply for the sake of cheaper meat, milk and eggs? Is it acceptable that an accidental spillage in the kitchen refrigerator or the incorrect handling or cooking of meat at a restaurant can now result in a life-threatening -- yet entirely preventable -- antibiotic-resistant disease? Well, Big Ag seems to think so.

I've warned before that the intensive meat industry is actively trying to wash its hands of any responsibility for the emergence of dangerous antibiotic-resistant food poisoning bacteria. Following the infamous 2011 outbreak of antibiotic-resistant salmonella food poisoning, which left one person dead and sickened at least 136 people across 31 states after consuming Cargill's tainted ground turkey, the company's hollow public apology contained a chilling caveat. "We go to great lengths to ensure the food we produce is safe and we fully understand that people expect to be able to consume safe food, each serving, every time," Cargill wrote. But the company then attempted to deflect any responsibility for the outbreak by implicitly blaming the sickened customers involved. "We all need to remember bacteria is everywhere, and we must properly handle and prepare fresh foods wherever they are served." In other words, if people handled meat properly and cooked it thoroughly, says the industry, it doesn't matter if there a few antibiotic-resistant pathogens in it.

Since when did safe handling instructions for food become an excuse for the intensive meat industry to not only continue (mis)using precious antibiotics in a way which actively encourages antibiotic-resistance, but also to absolve themselves of any responsibility for subsequent illnesses or deaths that result? If that's the way Big Ag wants to play it, maybe it's time to demand that packs of intensively-raised meat are labeled with a public health warning of "This Meat May Contain Life-Threatening Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria." At least this would allow consumers to decide whether or not eating tainted meat is actually worth the risk?

I want to stress that good food hygiene practices are essential whenever we handle and cook raw meat. But it doesn't matter how good our hygiene practices are: accidents will inevitably happen. So we all need to do our best to ensure that these inevitable mishaps don't result in a life-threatening disease. If Big Ag isn't going to act responsibly and do all it can to minimize the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the first place, then we all need to take matters into our own hands.

The good news is that Consumer Reports found that ground turkey samples from production systems where antibiotics are strictly controlled contained fewer antibiotic-resistant bacteria than intensively-raised ground turkey products. To minimize the risk, Consumer Reports advises consumers to not only adopt good food hygiene practices, but to choose meat which is produced according to meaningful standards, such as Animal Welfare Approved (see Consumer Reports' online guide to what food labels really mean at www.eco-labels.org).

At Animal Welfare Approved, we believe that sick animals may sometimes need a course of antibiotics to treat disease and to alleviate pain or suffering. Our standards permit the targeted use of antibiotics on individual animals when alternative treatments are not suitable or not effective, or if a veterinarian has specifically recommended antibiotic treatment. We know that if antibiotics are used appropriately and judiciously in this way to treat only individual sick animals -- and not as a routine sub-therapeutic dose to prevent disease -- then the risk of the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is absolutely minimal. The result? Pain and suffering in farm animals is minimized, the risk of disease is minimized, and the efficacy of antibiotics -- for both humans and livestock -- is protected.

Consumer Reports is calling on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to phase out the use of antibiotics in livestock production except for the treatment of veterinarian-diagnosed sick animals. At Animal Welfare Approved, we couldn't agree more, which is why I implore you to contact your representatives and demand they support Congresswoman Louise Slaughter's introduction of The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA), which seeks to limit the overuse of antibiotics in livestock farming so these lifesaving drugs will remain effective in the treatment of human illnesses. In light of the mounting scientific evidence of the link between intensive farming systems and the emergence of antibiotic bacteria, the importance of PAMTA cannot be overstated. We wouldn't dream of lacing our morning breakfast cereal with low doses of antibiotics just to keep us "healthy," so why on earth should we allow intensive livestock farming operations to continue such unsustainable, irresponsible, and potentially life-threatening practices?

Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria: Big Ag Washes Its Hands of Any Responsibility

2013-04-26T15:31:05-04:00

We can be pretty certain that in the coming days we will hear this message over and over again "So what if most of the meat on our supermarket shelves is contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria? If you handle and cook your meat properly then a few bacteria shouldn't be a problem; and if you get sick with an untreatable disease then it's your own fault.'

The is the kind of contemptible retort we can expect from the intensive meat industry lobby and its many trolls in response to new research by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), which reveals high levels of life-threatening antibiotic-resistant bacteria on raw supermarket meat. Yet the "cook it properly and everything will be ok" spin is just Big Ag's latest attempt to absolve itself of any responsibility for squandering one of the most important medical innovations of our time- and putting American lives at risk.

The EWG analyzed data from the government's National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS), which was established to routinely test raw supermarket meat for antibiotic-resistant bacteria as a way of informing public health regulatory policy on the use of drugs in food-producing animals. Using the latest NARMS data, the EWG researchers detected antibiotic-resistant bacteria in a staggering 81 percent of ground turkey; 69 percent of pork chops; 55 percent of ground beef; and 39 percent of chicken breast, wings or thighs samples tested. The EWG's researchers also found "significant amounts" of antibiotic-resistant strains of Salmonella and Campylobacter, which together cause over 3.6 million cases of food poisoning a year. In addition, the researchers found that 53 percent of the raw chicken samples were contaminated with antibiotic-resistant strains of E. coli, some of which can cause severe diarrhea, urinary tract infections and pneumonia -- and even death.

I've written before that scientists from around the world now emphatically link the misuse of antibiotics in intensive livestock farming as one of the key causes for the dramatic rise in life-threatening antibiotic-resistant bacteria over recent years. Today, a staggering 80 percent of all the antibiotics produced in the U.S. are used on food-producing animals. In fact, we use more antibiotics per pound of meat produced than any other nation in the world. Virtually all intensively farmed animals in the U.S. receive regular sub-therapeutic levels of antibiotics in their feed and water to maximize production of meat, milk or eggs by improving feed efficiency or by suppressing diseases that would otherwise spread like wildfire in the confined, dirty, and stressful conditions of intensive livestock operations. The problem for humans is that by allowing intensive livestock farms to routinely expose bacteria to sub-therapeutic levels of antibiotics, we are actually providing the perfect conditions for some very dangerous bacteria to mutate and become resistant to their effects. This means that when we get infected with these antibiotic-resistant diseases, there are fewer and fewer options for treatment. For some particularly nasty disease, we are fast running out of options altogether.

But if people handled meat properly and cooked it thoroughly, says the industry, it doesn't matter if there a few pathogens in it. So what if they're antibiotic-resistant? It goes without saying that food poisoning is nothing new: Anyone who has had even mild food poisoning will know that it's not exactly a pleasant experience. I am the first to acknowledge that good food hygiene is important when handling raw meat -- at home and in the hospitality industry. But accidents inevitably happen. The difference is that, in the not too distant past, if you did accidentally get seriously sick with a nasty food poisoning bug such as Salmonella, you could generally rely on a quick course of antibiotics to make you better. Today, however, it's becoming increasingly likely that a bout of severe food poisoning may lead to serious illness, complications or even death as a result of a bacterial infection that's become resistant to not just one but often multiple antibiotics.

Of course, Big Ag knows only too well that handling and eating contaminated food isn't the only way that we can get sick from antibiotic-resistant bacteria. It's widely accepted that these antibiotic-resistant bacteria spread easily from animal to animal in the closely confined conditions of our factory farms, and then from farm to farm. And new research from Denmark has now confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that some strains of the dangerous antibiotic-resistant bacteria MRSA (Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus) can be transmitted from farm animals to people, such as farm workers and meat processing operatives, and eventually into the wider community.

But it doesn't end there. Bacteria are ubiquitous: they are everywhere in our living environment. Scientists have known for some time that bacteria can easily share genetic information --it's one of the reasons that they can mutate so rapidly. So even if bacteria have not been directly exposed to certain antibiotics themselves, they can pick up genetic information from other bacteria in the wider environment that are resistant. So when factory farms spread the millions of gallons of putrid toxic feces held in their open-air lagoons on to the land around their operations, and it leaches into the soils and water networks, the antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the feces can pass on their resistance to other bacteria species in the wider environment.

This is why the "cook it properly and everything will be ok" advice from Big Ag just doesn't cut it. Even if we were all to adopt the most stringent hygiene practices found in today's hospitals- a completely unrealistic, unpalatable and wholly unacceptable scenario - the threat of antibiotic-resistant bacteria to the human population will still exist. But Big Ag is already fully aware of this fact: Remember when the tobacco lobby fought tooth and nail to protect its market, despite overwhelming evidence that they were in fact killing their customers?

In 2011, food giant Cargill voluntarily recalled 36 million pounds of fresh and frozen ground turkey. This was one of the largest Class I recalls of tainted meat in U.S. history, following an outbreak of antibiotic-resistant salmonella food poisoning. The outbreak left one person dead and sickened at least 136 people across 31 states. "It is regrettable that people may have become ill from eating one of our ground turkey products and, for anyone who did, we are truly sorry," Cargill said in a chillingly-worded public statement. "We go to great lengths to ensure the food we produce is safe and we fully understand that people expect to be able to consume safe food, each serving, every time." Yet Cargill then appeared to abdicate any responsibility whatsoever and placed the blame of the outbreak well and truly on the shoulders of the public: "We all need to remember bacteria is everywhere, and we must properly handle and prepare fresh foods wherever they are served." The message? It's now our fault when the antibiotics don't work. We say don't blame us when your system breeds mutant bacteria and you cannot control them!

Safe handling instructions for food should exist to protect consumers from the risk of catching treatable food poisoning bugs. It should not be seen as an excuse for the intensive meat industry to continue to misuse these vital medicines in a way which is actively encouraging antibiotic-resistance, nor as a means of absolving itself of all responsibility for any illnesses or deaths that result. It's exactly the same kind of asinine mentality that thinks it's ok for industrial farms to continue to pollute our waterways with fecal waste, pharmaceuticals and agrochemicals: "Our drinking water is treated to ensure it's safe for consumption, so where's the problem?"

No one wants food poisoning and every individual should take care over how they handle and cook meat. But we all know that accidents will inevitably happen. The big question is: does anyone really think it's acceptable that an accidental spill in the refrigerator or a mistake in the restaurant kitchen could now result in a potentially untreatable -- but entirely preventable -- life-threatening antibiotic-resistant disease? Is cheap meat really worth it?

GM Salmon: Why You Should Care!

2013-02-11T11:31:55-05:00

UPDATE February 13: Following significant public pressure, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just announced that it is extending the public comment period for AquaBounty Technologies' application for AquAdvantage Salmon for a further 60 days. Originally slated to end on February 25, 2013, the comment period will remain open until April 26, 2013. It's more important than ever that we raise our concerns and make sure our voices are heard - see end of article for further details.

It's a well-known PR tactic to release bad or potentially unpopular news during the Holiday Season. So I always keep my eyes peeled to catch any news releases that might otherwise slip the net. I didn't have to wait long.

On December 21, when most people were focusing on their upcoming festivities, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) quietly released its draft environmental assessment on the highly controversial genetically engineered (GE) salmon, created by AquaBounty Technologies Inc.. The decision effectively gives the public less until February 25, 2013 to stop the commercial release of the world's first GE animal intended for human consumption.

Dubbed the "Frankenstein fish" by its critics, AquaAdvantage Salmon, according to AquaBounty, is genetically engineered to "include a growth hormone gene from Chinook salmon which provides the fish with the potential to grow to market size in half the time of conventional salmon." Introducing the new genetic material results in "shorter production cycles and increased efficiency of production." AquaBounty already has plans for GE trout and GE tilapia.

According to the company's proposals, the production of GE salmon eggs would take place on Canada's Prince Edward Island. From here, the eggs would be shipped to the Panama highlands, where the GE salmon would be raised to maturity in inland tanks (not at sea in nets), minimizing any risk of escape. Once they reach maturity, the fish would be slaughtered in Panama and processed into cuts, before being exported back to the U.S. for sale for human consumption.

I first wrote about AquaBounty's proposal to introduce GE salmon back in 2010 when it was still pending FDA approval. At the time, it looked like the "Frankenstein Fish" would stay in the lab where it belongs. But the FDA's recent decision could now signal a green light for the global production of GE salmon, and arguably open the floodgates for a range of other genetically engineered animals, including pigs, cattle and poultry.

As someone who puts animal welfare and the environment front and center in my food choices, AquaBounty's claim that their GE salmon will reach a marketable weight in half the time immediately set alarm bells ringing. You don't get such unnatural growth rates without some kind of cost -- whether that's to the animal, to the environment, or to the consumer. Indeed, an expert panel from the Royal Society of Canada was set up in 2001 to look at the potential impacts of genetically engineered animals. They noted documentation has focused on "deleterious consequences to fish morphology, respiratory capacity, and locomotion associated with the introduction of growth hormone (GH) gene constructs in some transgenic variants of salmonids, notably Pacific and Atlantic salmon..." and concluded that significant health and welfare problems are "the rule rather than the exception in fish... [and are] manifested by changes to enzyme activity, gross anatomy, behavior and, in all likelihood, hormonal activity."

We already know that our drive to produce ever-greater quantities of cheaper animal protein has led to significant welfare problems through intensive breeding programs and hybridization across all farmed species. You only have to look at the wretched breeds favored by the intensive poultry industry to see the extreme suffering they experience to fuel our demand for cheap chicken meat. The Cornish Cross breed has not (yet) been genetically engineered, but it's been bred to put on weight so quickly that its body cannot physically cope. If you could (legally) walk among the tens of thousands of birds that are cooped up in just one intensive poultry house, you'd see that most birds cannot walk more than a few steps without having to slump down in exhaustion. Many can't even move at all. These birds can suffer from heart strain and are prone to bone, joint and ligament problems. The point I am making is that the drive to constantly increase growth rates and shorten the time these animals need to reach a marketable weight has led to significant associated welfare problems that the industry would prefer us not to know about. So we should all take AquaBounty's claims that their GE salmon will bring about "fish health benefits" with a (very) large pinch of salt.

We also know that intensive fish farming already has a similarly appalling animal welfare and environmental record as, say, intensive broiler production. Both systems involve large numbers of animals packed together in a confined space, where they're pushed to grow as fast as possible; there is a high risk of disease and parasitism, leading to routine use of medication; and we know that the environmental pollution from intensively farmed fish feces is a huge cause of concern -- whether it's an inland operation, as proposed here, or out at sea in cages.

As an environmentalist, I am extremely concerned about the impact that these GE salmon will have on wild salmon populations when they inevitably escape into the wild. Forgive me if I don't swallow AquaBountry's promises about the environmental safety of their operations hook, line and sinker, but we've heard all these safety claims before. According to the environmental campaigning groups, Friends of the Earth, "the FDA's decision to approve the GE salmon without a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement under federal law is irresponsible and inexcusable." Friends of the Earth claim that FDA's assessment "relies heavily on data provided by AquaBounty" and, worryingly, "ignores the fact that up to five percent of the fish may be fertile at a commercial scale." When we're potentially talking about millions of fish, just five percent becomes a pretty big figure: "This opens the possibility that fertile, genetically engineered fish could escape into local waterways and wreak havoc on the ecosystem and already threatened wild salmon populations," warn Friends of the Earth. Despite promises from the likes of Monsanto and the biotech industry that GE crops were an environmental panacea, less than two decades after they first went on sale we're now seeing the widespread emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds and massively increased applications of ever-more toxic herbicide combinations -- problems which we were also told would either never happen or which were nothing to worry about.

Some critics have wrongly claimed that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service weren't involved in the recent environmental assessment. While internal emails and documents from the FWS (received by Food & Water Watch) sent in 2010 reveal significant concern among FWS staff about AquaBounty's GE salmon and the limitations of the FDA's expertise to undertake the assessment, both agencies have now officially provided supportive comments to the FDA (see pages 135-136 of the FDA's draft environmental assessment). But although the official FWS statement effectively concurs with the FDA's overall assessment on environmental risk, they did note this was only based on Aquabounty's current plans. In other words, if AquaBounty was intending to modify its production systems in any way or wanted to sell eggs to other fish farming facilities, they would have to apply to the FDA for each and every instance.

The problem is that Panama could be just the start: AquaBounty may be hoping its facility there will demonstrate the profitability of inland GE fish farming to other interested players. Indeed, the company's processing facilities at Panama are far too small to ensure its future viability -- particularly when you take into account the multi-million dollar "debts" AquaBounty now built up over the years to fund its research. No, some believe AquaBounty is hoping the real money will come from selling "millions upon millions" of GE salmon eggs to fish farms across the world.

And therein lays the risk. As production of GE salmon increases across the world, accidents could happen. In the pursuit of profit, corners are typically cut and risks typically taken. Regulations could be ignored or not enforced, and "best practice" advice could not be followed. I think it's inevitable. Indeed, the earlier internal emails from the FWS reveal that one of AquaBounty's initial proposals included plans to grow the GE fish in an area where they could be discharged into the ocean off the coast of Maine. Although the FDA has ruled out any ocean-based production of GE salmon in the U.S., who's to say that this won't happen elsewhere in the world?

Which is probably why there is still significant concern among FWS staff about AquaBounty's proposals: James Geiger, FWS assistant regional director in the Northeast region, recently spoke to the Boston Herald. "Although AquaBounty claims their fish are sterile, that sterilization process is not 100 percent," he said. "There is the possibility that some of these fish could escape and reproductively interact with wild native salmon. Any potential offspring could reduce the biological and ecological fitness of the native wild salmon."

As someone who enjoys eating sustainably-sourced salmon, I'm also concerned that the FDA's decision could jeopardize my health and the health of my family -- as well as the livelihoods of sustainable fishing businesses. Friends of the Earth claim that the FDA has ignored the potential risks to human health posed by the GE salmon, as research shows that GE salmon has higher levels of IGF-1, "a growth hormone that, according to the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, may increase the risk of several types of cancer." Consumers Union has also raised concerns about the potential allergic reactions from the fish, claiming that the FDA "has allowed this fish to move forward based on tests of allergenicity of only six engineered fish -- tests that actually did show an increase in allergy-causing potential." Yet despite these health concerns, current labeling laws mean that it's likely we won't even know if we're eating GE salmon. In this great nation of ours, it seems that we no longer have the right to know how the food we are eating is produced, let alone the freedom of choice over whether or not we actually eat it. As a result, some people may simply choose to avoid eating salmon altogether, to the detriment of countless U.S.-based sustainable salmon businesses.

Food & Water Watch claims the FDA recently came under intense fire at a Senate hearing last December for lacking the necessary expertise to properly assess the full range of risks GE fish pose to marine ecosystems. Over 40 members of Congress and scientists at other federal agencies have voiced strong opposition to GE salmon, citing the lack of scientific rigor and expertise at the FDA as a key concern. We already know that the regulatory regime for the approval of GE crops is founded on selected information provided by the GE companies themselves and that there is little, if any, truly independent or long-term assessment of their safety. Worryingly, the process for approving the world's first genetically engineered animal destined for our plates appears to be equally negligent: The FDA's draft environmental assessment for AquaBounty's GE salmon is almost entirely reliant on data provided by the very company which stands to profit most from its commercial release.

We now have less than 20 days to stop GE fish from reaching our plates. Please contact your member of Congress now by using Food & Water Watch's online petition.

Alternatively, you can submit your comments directly to the FDA on their website. For the required field "Organization Name," just enter "Citizen." Please send all comments to the FDA no later than February 25, 2013.

A Meat-Free Superbowl Party? Not for Me...

2013-01-31T19:15:50-05:00

As I join the 110 million or so Americans who will watch the San Francisco 49ers take on the Baltimore Ravens this Sunday, we will collectively chomp our way through an incredible 1.23 billion chicken wings, plus millions of burgers, hot dogs and steaks. That's a staggering amount of meat.

The Super Bowl weekend is second only to the 4th of July in terms of the quantity of meat consumed over just one weekend. But it's all too easy to forget that most of this meat will have come from industrialized livestock farming systems that are damaging to the environment, to animal welfare, and ultimately to our own health.

If you think that I'm about to tell you all to stop eating meat and to swap those BBQ chicken wings for carrot sticks and hummus dip, then think again. I enjoy eating meat just as much as the next person and our refrigerator is already stocked up, not just with meat, but balanced with a good range of fresh vegetables and other non-meat foods, ready for the game and our guests. But like millions of other Americans, I always try to ensure that the meat we'll eat comes from high-welfare, sustainable farms, not only because it tastes better, but also because it's better all round. But don't just take my word for it: listen to Will Witherspoon, linebacker for the Tennessee Titans -- and a sustainable farmer.

Will is passionate about producing healthy and nutritious food on his Animal Welfare Approved Shire Gate Farm near Owensville, Mo: "As a pro football player, I am only too aware of the connection between the food I eat and my health. As a father, nothing is more important than protecting the future health and well-being of my children." Being a professional athlete involved in one of the world's most physical sports, Will is particularly aware of the health benefits of grassfed, high-welfare meat. "My cattle are raised as nature intended, on grass, and aren't fed growth hormones, antibiotics or other unnatural additives," says Will. "I can't take over-the-counter cold medicine without letting my trainer know about it. So why would I want my kids eating beef from cattle fed hormones or routine antibiotics?"

American's are fast waking up to the fact that our fast-food diet and addiction to cheap meat has very serious costs. As our diets have changed to incorporate the ever-increasing availability of cheaper meat and dairy products and highly processed food, devastating diet-related diseases -- like heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and some diet-related cancers -- have reached epidemic levels in the U.S. In 2008, 33.8 percent of U.S. adults were diagnosed as clinically obese, while one in three people born in 2000 in the U.S. will develop Type 2 diabetes by 2050. But the impact on our children is the most worrying of all: Obesity rates among U.S. pre-school age children -- that's kids just two to five years old -- increased from five percent to 10.4 percent between 1976-2008. During the same period, obesity among six to 11-year-olds increased from 6.5 percent to 19.6 percent, while obesity among 12 to 19-year-olds rose from five percent to 18.1 percent. And we haven't even touched on the devastating impact that intensive farming is having on our environment and our very future on this planet.

"Every day, more and more people are starting to understand where their food comes from, where it begins, and instead they're learning that there's another way to do this," Will Witherspoon recently told the Athens-Banner Herald. "Sure, we live in the fast-food generation, but we also have an understanding of how we can improve all of this." In today's junk food world, health-conscious football stars like Will Witherspoon are just the kind of sporting role models we need to help wean our kids off our high-calorie, high-processed, fast-food diet.

Choosing the right food is one of the most simple but important ways we can all improve our health and reduce our individual environmental impact. And despite what you might have read or heard, making the right food choices doesn't mean having to give up eating meat! But we do all need to cut back big time on the amount of unhealthy, intensively reared meat and dairy we consume -- and choose high-welfare, pasture-based meat and dairy products instead.

So when you're shopping for your Super Bowl party, why not start by choosing some grassfed ground beef to make your burger patties or pasture-raised chicken wings and see if your guests can taste the difference? I bet they will. If your grocery store doesn't stock what you need, make a play for your local farmers' market -- or use our online directory to find a supplier of Animal Welfare Approved meat and dairy products near you. Above all, have a great -- and sustainable -- Super Bowl Sunday.

Big Ag Profits From Food Waste

2013-01-11T13:16:50-05:00

Almost half of all the food we produce in the world never makes it to a plate. Today, we allow a staggering two billion tons of food to go to waste each and every year. If we eliminated this unnecessary food waste, we could potentially provide 60-100 percent more food to feed the world's growing population.

These are just some of the shocking statistics from a new report by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IME), highlighting once again how staggeringly wasteful our food and farming system is. But it's not just simply the food that's going to waste: think about all the wasted energy, water, chemicals and labor that went into producing, transporting, and storing what is ultimately just left to rot.

The IME's new report mirrors a 2011 study by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), entitled Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention. The FAO found that industrialized countries waste 222 million tons of food every year -- almost equivalent to the annual net food production in sub-Saharan Africa. In the United States alone, we waste more than 29 million tons of food each year. That's enough to fill the 90,000-seat Rose Bowl every day, according to food-waste guru, Jonathan Bloom, author of American Wasteland.

Look around and it's clear that we're not just wasting food by letting it rot or throwing it away. It's a well-known fact that we already produce more than enough food today for everyone to have the nourishment they need to thrive. But while the number of people suffering from chronic hunger increased from under 800 million in 1996 to over one billion in 2009, obesity and diet-related ill health in the West is running out of control. Although the U.S. makes up only five percent of the world's population, we account for almost a third of the world's weight due to obesity. As our diets have changed to incorporate the ever-increasing availability of cheaper meat and dairy products and highly processed food, devastating diet-related diseases -- like heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and some diet-related cancers -- have reached epidemic levels in the US.

In 2008, 33.8 percent of U.S. adults were diagnosed as clinically obese. One in three people born in 2000 in the U.S. will develop Type 2 diabetes by 2050. Between 1976 and 1980 and 2007 to 2008, obesity among U.S. pre-school age children -- we're talking about kids of just two to five years of age -- increased from five percent to 10.4 percent. During the same period, obesity among six to 11-year-olds increased from 6.5 percent to 19.6 percent, and among 12 to 19-year-olds we saw an increase from five percent to 18.1 percent. According to a study of the national costs attributed to overweight and obese people, medical expenses associated with these conditions alone accounted for 9.1 percent of total U.S. medical expenditures in 2006 -- and may have reached as high as $78.5 billion ($92.6 billion in 2002 dollars).

We know that most of the world's hungry live in the developing nations in the South. They are hungry because they cannot afford to buy food or grow it themselves, usually because of poverty, but also due to conflict, poor infrastructure, poor agricultural practices and the over-exploitation of the environment, among other things. They are also hungry because much of their agricultural production is focused on generating food and livestock feed to supply Western markets. Recent price rises caused by harvest failures, commodity speculation and the diversion of grain to produce biofuels over recent years have hardly helped matters (see for example Tom Philpott's excellent blog on the horrendous impact U.S. biofuels policy is having on global food prices -- and hunger).

In response to concerns about how we can feed the world's growing population, which is predicted to reach nine billion by 2050, the industrial food lobby has misleadingly claimed that we urgently need to double food production. They argue that the only way we can hope to feed the world is by further intensifying agricultural production, with more agrochemicals, the global uptake of GM crops and a dramatic increase in intensively farmed livestock -- methods which happen to be highly profitable for their promoters. Yet people are waking up to the fact that food security is not simply about producing "more" of the same food, as those with vested interests would like us to believe. This argument is not only far too simplistic, but will simply exacerbate the significant human health and environmental problems that I have written about many times before -- particularly in a future where climate change and ever-diminishing supplies of natural resources (such as fossil fuels) are now the accepted reality.

Many leading scientists, development organizations and policymakers now recognize that the further intensification of agriculture is just no longer an option. Increasingly, scientists and global development institutions alike are recognizing that we need to make fundamental changes in the way we farm and how we feed ourselves. The consensus is that we need to find ways of farming that not only produce sufficient quantities of the right kinds of food, grown in the right places, but which also minimize greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts associated with intensive farming practices. In other words, we not only need to reduce the amount of food we currently waste, but we also need to dramatically improve our high-calorie, high-processed, high-waste Western diet -- a diet which is literally killing us and destroying our planet.

Numerous reports and policy documents are now singing from the same hymn sheet, calling for a wholesale shift in food production and consumption. For example, the increasingly influential International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) published the findings of a three-year project involving 400 independent scientists and development experts from across the world. The IAASTD report makes fascinating reading and concludes that small-scale farming and agroecological practices, such as organic farming, had a vital role to play in feeding the world in the future. The IAASTD also questioned the idea that GM crops are the panacea many people believe them to be.

In March 2011, the United Nations released "Agro-ecology and The Right to Food," which states that agro-ecology can double food production within 10 years in critical regions by using ecological methods. Based on an extensive review of the recent scientific literature, the study called for a fundamental shift towards agroecology and supporting independent farms as a way to boost food production and improve the situation of the world's poorest. A recent U.N. report, entitled "Dead Planet, Living Planet: Biodiversity and Ecosystem Restoration for Sustainable Development," recommends a blend of the new and the old: pest management using natural predators, intercropping agroforestry and green manures. The Animal Welfare Approved program has routinely held the position that scientifically sound high-welfare, sustainable systems offer a real alternative to the failed experiment of industrial farming, and are the only way we can feed and water the world sustainably for the long term.

Don't be fooled by the Doomsday rhetoric of those who want nothing more than to maintain the status quo. As fast food, obesity and the market for drugs to treat diet-related health problems spreads worldwide, it's now blatantly clear that Big Food simply wants to continue profiting from our misery. We need to fundamentally change our food and farming system, our diet and global food distribution infrastructure -- and we need to do it now. At a time when we are being bombarded by vested corporate interests to further industrialize food production in order to feed the world's growing population, simply producing more of the same would be the biggest waste of all.

Big Ag's Gifts for 2012

2012-12-30T21:05:13-05:00

As the year comes to an end it's become a tradition of mine to write a note of gratitude to Big Ag for the many 'gifts' they've given us throughout the year that we didn't really want, need or -- in some cases -- didn't even know about. Here's my top 10 for 2012...

#10 - Undermining Organic With Industrial Practices

Many people are putting their faith in the "certified organic" label as an easy way to support farming systems that care about animal welfare, our health and the health of the planet. But the popularity of organic food is attracting industrial-scale operators who are exploiting the organic regulations for their own short-term gains. In October, news broke that a large-scale "organic" egg producer was being sued for making misleading marketing claims about the welfare of its chickens. Judy's Family Farm Organic Eggs' cartons feature images of hens roaming on green fields, while the carton explains the hens are "raised in wide open spaces in Sonoma Valley, where they are free to 'roam, scratch, and play.'" Yet it's alleged that the birds are kept in covered sheds with no outdoor access, misleading consumers. Sadly, this isn't an isolated incident: A 2010 report by the Cornucopia Institute found numerous instances where industrial-scale poultry operations were exploiting loopholes and managing thousands of so-called organic hens in single houses without offering adequate access to the outdoors, undermining the organic principles and threatening the livelihoods of countless real organic farmers.

#9 - "Ag Gag" Bills Make Law

If there's one thing we have learned during 2012, it's that Big Ag will do everything they can to prevent consumers from knowing how their food is produced. After numerous undercover animal welfare investigations which exposed routine welfare abuses at industrial farming operations across the U.S., Big Ag fought back the only way they know how -- by flexing their financial and political muscles. Earlier this year, Iowa became the first of a handful of new states to enact so-called "Ag Gag" bills. This legislation, which was openly supported by the industrial farming lobby and pushed through by their political lackeys, was introduced on the almost laughable basis that it would help to improve animal welfare and protect family farms. But you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see that these laws have absolutely nothing to do with animal welfare. It's now a felony in several states to expose the horrific practices that are going on daily behind the gates of our industrial farms. It's a shocking abuse of power and the politicians involved should be utterly ashamed.

#8 - A Small Matter of $46 Million to Prevent Freedom of Choice

In November, Californians arguably had the opportunity to change the very direction of U.S. agriculture. Following a groundswell of popular support, Proposition 37 (or Prop 37) was introduced as a statewide ballot, calling for the labeling of all foods containing ingredients from genetically engineered (GE) crops in California. Prop 37 shook Big Ag to its very core: if California introduced GE labeling, chances are that other states would soon follow suit. Giving consumers a choice about whether or not they eat GE foods was a risk Big AG couldn't take. Employing the same PR suits who defended Big Tobacco, the "No on 37" campaign swung into action, bankrolled by a "Who's Who" of agribusiness and food industry giants. Monsanto and DuPont donated $8,112,069 and $5,400,000, respectively, to the "No on 37" campaign's coffers, joined by PepsiCo ($2,145,400), BASF ($2,000,000), Bayer ($2,000,000), Dow ($2,000,000), Syngenta ($2,000,000), Coco-Cola ($1,690,500), Nestle ($1,461,600) and ConAgra Foods ($1,176,700) -- to name but a few. In fact, the "No on 37" campaign spent a staggering $46 million on a barrage of TV and radio advertisements designed to scare the public into voting against Proposition 37. But it didn't end there: the "No on 37" campaign was subsequently accused of carrying out a range of professional dirty tricks to derail the campaign to label GE food. The Prop 37 initiative was narrowly defeated by 51.5 percent to 48.5 percent, so it was $46 million well spent on keeping consumers in the dark about what they're eating.

#7 - GE Crops: Big Ag's Silver Bullet Continues to Misfire

Despite claims from the outset that genetically engineered (GE) crops would reduce pesticide use, new research in 2012 revealed that the widespread adoption of GE crops had actually led to a massive increase in herbicide use across the U.S. Published in the Environmental Sciences Europe journal, the study by Washington State University's Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, reveals that the introduction of GE herbicide-resistant crops led to a 527-million-pound increase in herbicide use in the U.S. between 1996 and 2011, with ever-increasing glyphosate application rates and, in recent years, the use of older, more toxic herbicides like 2,4-D in order to combat glyphosate-resistant weeds. Indeed, Monsanto and Dow are planning to introduce new GE crops that are resistant to 2,4-D -- a key ingredient in Agent Orange, the infamous defoliant used in the Vietnam War. With ever-growing concerns about the impact of pesticides on our health -- particularly among babies and young children -- the dramatic rise in herbicide use is one gift that Big Ag really can keep to itself.

#6 - Colony Collapse Disorder: Are Insecticides to Blame?

Staying with pesticides, 2012 may well be the year when the scientific evidence that neonicotinoid insecticides were harming global bee populations became too great to ignore. Each year, farmers in the U.S. plant millions of acres of crop seeds coated with neonicotinoid insecticide. As the vulnerable seedlings grow, the plant absorbs the insecticide, protecting it from hungry pests. The problem is that important non-target insect species are also affected -- including the honey bee, which plays a vital role in global food production. Yet despite the mounting scientific evidence, the main neonicotinoid producer -- chemical giant Bayer -- continues to deny any link between the insecticide and Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), which has devastated U.S. bee populations over recent years. The evidence against these chemicals is so strong that they have been banned or suspended in France, Germany and Italy. Yet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency still refuses to act.

#5 - Polluting Our Back Yard to Feed China

We've long known that industrial farming systems pollute our land, waterways and air, and that our diet of cheap meat and dairy has also had a devastating impact on our health, with obesity, heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and diet-related cancers reaching epidemic levels in the U.S. -- even among our children. Perhaps as a result, we've seen a dramatic decline in domestic demand for intensively produced meat over the last few years. But rather than shift to more sustainable and healthful production systems, Big Ag is making plans to continue to pollute our environment and make our families sick in order to profit from China's appetite for meat. More than a quarter of all the meat produced worldwide is now eaten in China, and the country's 1.35 billion people are hungry for more. With U.S. meat consumption falling and Chinese consumption rising, the U.S. intensive meat industry is targeting China as an alternative market for its unwanted products. Of course, the Chinese are only too happy to pay other countries to produce their cheap meat -- and avoid the associated environmental and health costs to their own citizens. The problem is that it's U.S. citizens who will pick up the ultimate check. Thanks, Big Ag.

#4 - Malign Myths to Undermine Pasture-Raised Beef

Over recent years, intensive livestock farming has come under increasing fire for its awful record on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. But rather than clean up its act, Big Ag has gone on the offensive, claiming that research shows that feeding cattle in confinement is the most efficient and environmentally friendly way to produce beef, because feedlot cattle emit less methane -- an important GHG -- per pound of meat than grassfed or pasture-raised cattle. The problem is that most of the research used to support this argument tells only part of the story. First, it ignores the significant non-methane GHG emissions associated with intensive livestock farming, such as the carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions resulting from grain-based feed production or feedlot manure lagoons. Second, it ignores the potential role that carbon sequestration could play in offsetting the overall GHG emissions associated with pastured beef production. The fact is that methane emissions from pasture-raised cattle are more than offset by the overall benefits of pasture-based production systems -- including no environmental costs of producing corn and grain, no pollution from manure lagoons, and the positive impact of carbon sequestration on overall GHG emissions. Look out for AWA's forthcoming report, A Breath of Fresh Air (request a free PDF at Info@AnimalWelfareApproved.org).

#3 - "Voluntary" Action on Farm Antibiotics

Anyone who follows my blog will know that exposing the link between the subtherapeutic use of antibiotics in intensive farming and the rise of life-threatening antibiotic-resistant bacteria is one of my passions. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria present one of the greatest threats to humankind, yet we're throwing away these vital medicines for the sake of cheap protein -- and Big Ag profits. So why didn't I welcome the FDA's announcement earlier this year that it was introducing limits on the use of a class of antibiotics called cephalosporins in food animal production? During 2009 alone, the FDA revealed that 80 percent of all antibiotics produced in the U.S. were used for animals. Yet cephalosporins amounted to less than half of one percent of all antibiotics used. Moreover, recent data also shows that cephalosporin use was already declining. The bottom line is that the FDA's action was way too little, way too late. But what's worse is that this all came just weeks after the FDA quietly announced that it was no longer seeking to regulate certain uses of the key antibiotics penicillin and tetracyclines for food-producing animals and would instead focus on encouraging the livestock industry to introduce "voluntary measures" on antibiotic use. It's a tragedy in the making.

#2 - Hidden Ingredients in Our Meat: Tylenol and Ractopamine

Last year, I wrote about the routine use of highly toxic arsenic in intensive poultry feed that was not only poisoning the environment, but also the poultry meat. I'm afraid that things haven't improved much. Research published earlier this year by Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future (CLF) and Arizona State University -- and first picked up by the New York Times -- raised serious questions about the concoction of pharmaceutical products used by unscrupulous industrial poultry farmers. The researchers found an astonishing variety of drug residues, including an antibiotic called fluoroquinolone that was banned for use in poultry in 2005, as well as unusual drugs such as the antihistamine diphenhydramine (the active ingredient in Benadryl) and acetaminophen (the active ingredient in Tylenol). The results just beggar belief. But it's not just industrial chicken meat we should be worried about. I recently wrote about new research which found low levels of the growth-promoting drug ractopamine in almost one-fifth of all the 240 U.S. pork products analyzed. Ractopamine is widely used on intensive livestock farms in the U.S. -- particularly for pigs -- because it increases the rate of weight gain and carcass leanness. Up to 80 percent of the U.S. pig herd is fed the drug every year. Yet the European Union, China, Taiwan and more than 100 other countries have long banned its use in livestock farming because of concerns about the effect of ractopamine residues in meat on human health and animal welfare.

#1 - It's Beef. Well, Almost...

On March 5, 2012, The Daily broke the news that the USDA was planning to buy seven million pounds of Lean Finely Textured Beef (LFTB) for use in school meals. The story would lead to one of the biggest consumer backlashes to hit the meat processing industry for years. Just 20 days later, Beef Products, Inc. (BPI) -- the company at the center of the so-called "Pink Slime" affair -- would close down most of its processing plants due to lack of demand.

Although BPI described LFTB as the meat and fat that is trimmed away when beef is cut, these trimmings were used for pet food or converted into oil rather than being served as hamburgers to people. But BPI came up with a technique to add more value. First, the trimmings were heated so that the fat separates from the muscle, before being spun in a centrifuge to separate the fat and protein. As trimmings from the outer surface of the beef carcass have the potential for greater contamination with bacteria than other cuts of meat, BPI's solution was to spray the mixture with ammonia gas to kill the bacteria. Some estimates suggest that as well as being fed to school kids, 70 percent of all hamburgers contained at least some LFTB. But what BPI didn't count on was that once the existence of LFTB became common knowledge, almost everyone (aside from those making money from LFTB) could see that when you have to use a centrifuge and add ammonia to fatty scraps of meat to make it lean and "safe," you really shouldn't be trying to sell it as "beef." The rest, as they say, is history.

Last thoughts

I believe that the public outrage over "pink slime" is a symptom of a wider, latent concern about the over-industrialization of food production. Many people innately feel that the pendulum has well and truly swung too far towards the adoption of highly-questionable and secretive practices on the basis of "what can make us the most money -- regardless of the costs." As a result, they are looking for a real alternative -- and a growing number of farmers and ranchers are stepping up to the plate.

The Animal Welfare Approved program has experienced yet another year of fantastic growth and innovation, driven by this ever-increasing demand for healthy, environmentally-friendly and high-welfare products. As we look towards 2013, I would like to take this opportunity to thank our farmers and ranchers, donors, consumers, and everyone else who has helped to change the way we farm and feed ourselves over the past year. Happy holidays, and a prosperous, sustainable New Year to you all.

Would You Like Extra Ractopamine With Your Pork, Sir?

2012-12-05T15:31:24-05:00

If you haven't heard of the drug ractopamine before, you're probably not alone. But if you've eaten intensively reared pork, beef or turkey, then you will almost certainly have consumed meat from an animal that's been fed the drug -- and probably eaten ractopamine yourself.

In a recent test of pork chop and ground pork samples from six U.S. cities, Consumer Reports found low levels of ractopamine in almost one-fifth of the 240 pork products analyzed, as well as a range of other nasties -- including several strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Ractopamine is a growth promoter drug. It is widely used on intensive livestock farms in the U.S. because it increases the rate of weight gain and carcass leanness in pigs, cattle and turkey. It's estimated that up to 80 percent of the U.S. pig herd is fed the drug every year. Of course, the drug doesn't come without its costs.

The European Union, China, Taiwan and more than 100 other countries have long banned its use in livestock farming because of concerns about the effect of ractopamine residues in meat on human health. As a result, many countries will not import U.S. meat from animals that have been fed the drug.

Of course, proponents of industrial farming are very quick to point out that ractopamine is perfectly "safe" and that there is no risk to humans from consuming meat from treated animals. Indeed, they argue that the ongoing ban on ractopamine-tainted meat imports by China and the EU is simply an act of trade protectionism to protect their farmers from the more "efficient" production practices of U.S. industrial farms. Or perhaps it's because their government food and safety agencies are a whole lot better at putting human health concerns above industry interest and profits. I'll leave that for you to decide.

One thing is for sure, we're likely to hear a lot more about ractopamine over the coming months. Earlier this summer, the Codex Alimentarius Commission (a UN food standards-setting body) controversially voted to set a minimum residue limit (MRL) for the drug in meat for human consumption. In effect, this sets a global standard on the use of the growth promoter in livestock production, and could allow countries like the U.S., Canada and Brazil which use the drug to challenge those countries that currently ban meat from ractopamine-fed livestock.

But dig a little deeper and the concerns that other countries have about ractopamine appear more than justified. According to an excellent report by food safety researcher Helen Bottemiller, ractopamine was originally approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) back in 1999. It might surprise you, however, to learn that this approval was based solely on research data provided by Elanco, the drug's manufacturer. Unfortunately for Elanco, the regulatory processes in other countries are a little more robust than ours: Bottemiller reports that the scientist who led the European food safety panel studying the drug stated that "The main problem for us is that the safety of the product could not be supported with the data."

Indeed, concerns about the original safety research data provided by Elanco lie at the very heart of the ongoing international safety disputes. According to Bottemiller, Elanco mainly used lab animals to establish how much ractopamine could be safely consumed. However, a detailed evaluation of the study by European food safety officials in 2009 revealed that "Only one human study was used in the safety assessment by Elanco, and among the six healthy young men who participated, one was removed because his heart began racing and pounding abnormally."

This is why the angry reaction of the European Union over the recent Codex Alimentarius decision to set maximum residue limits (MRLs) for ractopamine comes as no surprise. In a strongly worded response, the EU said that its ban on imported meat from animals that have been treated with ractopamine would remain in place: "The European Union's risk assessment body, the European Food Safety Authority, has concluded that there is insufficient data upon which to make a proposal for MRLs for ractopamine and that thereby risks to human health cannot be ruled out."

Before I'm accused of being unpatriotic, I'm afraid that the risk of finding harmful residues in our food as a result of some of the hidden practices on industrial livestock farms is nothing new. I've written before about the routine use of highly toxic arsenic in intensive poultry feed, which is not only poisoning our environment, but also the poultry meat itself. But for many people, eating meat isn't just about ensuring that it's free from potentially harmful residues of additives. Many of us who choose to eat meat and livestock products also want to know that the animals were raised to the highest welfare standards and treated with respect.

Despite Elanco's original claims that "no adverse effects were observed for any [ractopamine] treatments," records from the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine reveal that within a few years of ractopamine's approval for commercial use of the product the company had received hundreds of reports of sickened pigs from farmers and veterinarians. According to Bottemiller, we now know that ractopamine "has triggered more adverse reports in pigs than any other animal drug on the market." Recent data released by the FDA under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that more than 160,000 pigs were reported to have suffered ill effects since ractopamine was introduced: "Pigs suffered from hyperactivity, trembling, broken limbs, inability to walk and death."

As leading ag blogger, Tom Philpott, recently wrote, the pork industry slaughters more than 100 million pigs each year, so a measly 160,000 animals is more than a price worth paying. I mean, what's wrong with knowingly feeding animals a drug that's very likely to make them stressed or sick -- or might even kill them -- just as long as they put on a few extra pounds? That's just good farming practice, right?

Routine animal welfare abuse has become so commonplace that it doesn't matter to the intensive food industry, just as long as the animals keep on producing more and more meat, milk or eggs. Indeed, this simple "cost benefit" approach forms the very foundations of the industrial livestock industry model -- and it doesn't just stop at animal welfare.

If a few humans get sick in the pursuit of profit, then that's a price worth paying, too. Why else is the intensive farming industry fighting tooth and nail to prevent the introduction of the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA), which would end the sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics on healthy animals and help curb the real threat of antibiotic-resistant bacteria -- recognized as one of the gravest known threats to human health? Or the fact that our diet of cheap meat and dairy products and highly processed food has been linked to near-epidemic levels of obesity, heart disease and Type 2 diabetes? That's not to mention the devastating impact that industrial livestock pollution is having on the environment.

Ractopamine is yet another symptom of an industrial farming system that's sick to the very core. I've said it once, and I'll say it again: The people involved at every level of the intensive meat industry would do well to take a long, hard look in the mirror, and recognize the latent public concern about the over-industrialization of food production before it's too late. People across the U.S. are waking up to the highly questionable and hidden practices adopted by the intensive livestock industry over recent years in its desperate attempt to squeeze yet more cents from the carcass, and they're no longer willing to pay the price.

In case you were wondering, perhaps the simplest way to avoid ractopamine or arsenic -- or any other growth promoter you'd care to mention -- is to buy Animal Welfare Approved-certified meat. You'll find your nearest supplier at http://www.animalwelfareapproved.org/.

The Dirty Tricks of the 'No on 37' Campaign Are Nothing New

2012-11-06T12:45:59-05:00

Last week, the "No on 37" campaign was called out for allegedly misusing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's logo on a campaign flyer opposing the labeling of genetically modified (GM) ingredients in food.

The "No on 37" campaign flyer includes the FDA logo next to a quote (allegedly) from the FDA which states that a GM labeling policy like Prop 37 would be "inherently misleading."

The clear implication from this flyer is that the FDA stands with the "No on 37" campaign and opposes the labeling of GM ingredients in food. Yet according to a Reuters report, FDA spokeswoman Morgan Liscinsky has clearly stated that the agency had made no such statement and had no position on the initiative.

It looks like the FDA will now investigate whether the use of the logo was a criminal act, but the problem is that this won't be resolved until well after the election. By then, the damage will have been done: some people who read the flyer will have no doubt believed that the FDA is opposed to the labeling of GM ingredients in food.

Was the allegedly improper use of the FDA logo and quote on this "No on 37" flyer a calculated act or a simple mistake? Well, one thing is for sure: This isn't the first mistake of this kind.

In October, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics publicly criticized the "No on 37" campaign for inaccurately claiming in its campaign materials that the Academy had concluded that GMOs were safe. The Academy's president stated that "We are concerned that California's voters are being misled to believe the nation's largest organization of food and nutrition professionals is against Proposition 37, when in fact, the academy does not have a position on the issue." "Whoops," said the "No on 37" campaign. But the damage was already done.

One of the "No on 37" campaign's first TV adverts had to be pulled for a similar error. The advert featured the campaign's well-known spokesperson, Henry I. Miller, identified on the screen as "M.D., Stanford University, founding Dir. FDA Office of Technology." Yet it turns out that Miller is not a Stanford professor at all: He is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a right-wing think-tank that's simply located on the Stanford campus. As leading ag blogger, Tom Philpott, points out, Miller is also a well-known spokesperson for industrial chemical lobby and an outspoken climate-change skeptic. Stanford University demanded that the misleading ad was changed in order to reflect Miller's true status, which it duly was. But the damage had already been done.

Dirty tricks aren't simply limited to the "No on 37" campaign. Back in 2011, I wrote about the unbelievable fact that the diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks revealed that U.S. diplomats were actively working with GM companies such as Monsanto in clandestine moves to undermine any European Union country that opposed GM crops. It's the kind of fanciful plot that you'd expect to see in a James Bond movie - but this was for real. So is it any wonder that we're seeing similar dirty tricks to undermine efforts to provide U.S. consumers with fair and transparent labeling of foods containing GM ingredients?

Even if an internal FDA investigation eventually proves that the FDA logo was misused -- and a criminal act therefore did take place -- it's widely acknowledged that the end result is likely to be nothing more than a large fine. Now, if there is one thing that the "No on 37" campaign can say with complete honesty, it's that they have ready access to literally millions of dollars, all kindly donated by the world's largest biotechnology and pesticide producers and food industry leaders.

The "No on 37" campaign has amassed a combined war chest of over $46 million to spend on a barrage of TV and radio advertisements designed to pummel the public into voting against Proposition 37. Indeed, Reuters claims that the total money spent on the "No on 37" campaign is already one of the largest figures ever spent on a California ballot initiative. Looking at the leading funders, it's like a "Who's Who" of agribusiness and food industry giants: Monsanto ($8,112,069), DuPont ($5,400,000), PepsiCo ($2,145,400), BASF ($2,000,000), Bayer ($2,000,000), Dow ($2,000,000), Syngenta ($2,000,000), Coco-Cola ($1,690,500), Nestle ($1,461,600) and ConAgra Foods ($1,176,700) have all contributed huge sums of money to blow the campaign to label GM ingredients in food out of the water.

The core assertion of the "No on 37" campaign is that GM labeling will significantly increase the weekly shopping bill for hardworking Americans -- a particularly poignant message given the current economic climate. But we know from experiences in Europe that there were no changes in food costs following the labeling of GM food -- despite similar "doom and gloom" claims from the biotech lobby. According to David Byrne, who was the European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection of the European Parliament, "When the current labeling regime ... was introduced in 1997, it did not result in increased costs, despite the horrifying (double-digit) prediction of some interests."

I want to make it very clear that I am not opposed to the science of biotechnology. Indeed, I believe that biotechnology has a vital role to play in helping us to select and breed better crops, but through non-risk technologies like Marker Assisted Selection, which does not involve or produce GM organisms. No, my problem is how the science of biotechnology has been hijacked by corporate interests, and how the wholesale rush to patent plant genes as the intellectual property of a handful of multi-national corporations is now placing the control of global food production into their very hands.

Read the above list of corporations that are bankrolling the "No on 37" campaign once again: Do you really think that these organizations have our interests at heart, or are they simply seeking to protect their own vested interests? We all know that the tobacco lobby fought tooth and nail to protect its market, despite overwhelming evidence that they were in fact killing their customers. In an infamous news clip from 1971, Joseph Cullman, CEO at Phillip Morris, says "I believe that they [cigarettes] have not been proven to be unsafe... " When confronted with evidence that babies who were born to women who smoke are smaller, Cullman explains that "they're just as healthy as the babies born from women who do not smoke -- and some women would prefer having smaller babies."

Forget claims of wanting to "feed the world" or "protect the environment." The dirty tricks, semantics and subterfuge used by the biotechnology lobby today are the very same as those used by the tobacco industry in the 1970s. The reality is that GM crops were developed by corporate giants like Monsanto, Bayer and Syngenta to maximize profits for their shareholders -- nothing more, nothing less.

Californians have the chance to decide whether or not they continue to swallow Big Ag's lies. Vote YES on Proposition 37, and vote for freedom of choice and transparency in the food we eat.

Don't Be a Mushroom!

2012-10-26T16:25:50-04:00

Two separate but very much related events that could radically change the way America farms and feeds itself are big in the news right now. Both concern a matter dear to my heart: food labeling.

As leading food and ag writer, Tom Philpott, recently wrote that the upcoming vote in California on Proposition 37 "could spur a revolution in the way our food is made." If adopted, Prop 37 would simply require the labeling of food containing genetically modified (GM) ingredients.

Predictably, the biotech and food industries are fighting Prop 37 blood, tooth, and nail (plus a small matter of almost $40 million dollars). They're terrified that, if GM ingredients must be labeled in California, consumers there might choose to avoid eating GM food altogether. They're even more worried that food manufacturers might just decide to avoid the cost of producing one food product for California and another for the rest of the U.S. by seeking to source only non-GM ingredients. When you consider that many "radical" laws that first appeared in California were subsequently adopted by other states, such as car emission standards, smoking in the workplace, or civil rights, you begin to understand just why the likes of Monsanto, Bayer, BASF, and Syngenta, plus major food corporations such as Kelloggs, Nestle and PepsiCo, have amassed the war chest of almost $40 million to persuade the good people of California that it's really not in their best interest to know if the food they're eating contains GM ingredients or not. The blatantly self-serving positioning of these corporate megaliths has already received much derision, including this excellent star-studded video by consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch, in which Danny DeVito ironically asks, "What makes you think you have the right to know?"

As if Prop 37 wasn't significant enough, recent news that the same lawyers who took on the big U.S. tobacco companies -- and won -- are now setting their sights on the food industry will have ruffled more than a few feathers in boardrooms across the nation. And rightly so.

Don Barrett, the Mississippi lawyer who won hundreds of millions against the giants of the tobacco industry in the 1990s, is one of several lawyers who claim that major food manufacturers are misrepresenting their products -- and therefore misleading consumers -- by promoting them as "natural" or "healthy," for example.

At Animal Welfare Approved (AWA) we couldn't agree more. For years, we have been campaigning to raise public awareness about the deceit and often downright lies that people are literally swallowing each and every day. That's why we published Food Labeling for Dummies -- our free downloadable guide to the bewildering and frequently misleading claims and terms found on food packaging. It's an eye-opening read, to say the least.

Sadly, as consumer concern about the negative impact of intensive farming on our health and the environment has grown, so too has the number of food labels making so-called health, animal welfare or environmental claims. The extent to which some of these unscrupulous food manufacturers and processors will go to in order to make a quick buck just beggars belief.

Nowhere is this truer than with meat, eggs and dairy products. The fact is that if most people could actually see the real farming systems hiding behind the bucolic farm images or positive-sounding claims found on many food labels, they probably wouldn't want to touch the food -- let alone eat it.

Let's start with the term "all natural," which is commonly found on packaging for meat, dairy and eggs. It's actually one of my favorites, because despite what you might think, it has absolutely nothing to do with how the animals were raised. In other words, that "all natural" beef label, which also happens to display happy cattle out on pasture, refers only to the fact that the beef contains no artificial ingredients or added colors, and that it was minimally processed. In reality, the "all natural" beef cattle were finished on dirt feedlots -- barren environments where thousands of cattle are kept in close proximity with limited space and fed an unnatural, unhealthy diet of mainly corn and grain to achieve slaughter weight as quickly as possible. Cattle on feedlots are routinely given antibiotics and hormones to help to prevent inevitable disease outbreaks and maximize growth rates. Sounds "all natural"? I think not.

Similarly, the dozen eggs in a carton that boasts the statement "all natural" can legally come from an industrial indoor poultry operation where tens of thousands of hens are permanently confined in battery cages. Every battery cage contains half a dozen birds that each have less than the area of a sheet of letter paper in which to live. The birds are routinely fed a concoction of antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals -- including arsenic -- to prevent outbreaks of pests and disease. Their beaks are trimmed back to prevent them from pecking each other to death out of sheer frustration. They will never see a blade of grass or natural sunlight, let alone roam and forage the way a chicken does naturally. Would you describe this production system as "all natural?" Of course you wouldn't. Yet companies are making millions of dollars by misleading well-meaning consumers in this way.

Sticking with eggs, how about that carton which describes the hens as "free roaming"? Surely the carton's attractive hand-drawn image of happy chickens out on grass means that the birds have had the freedom to roam across pasture, right? Yet so-called "free-roaming" eggs normally come from hens that spent their entire lives indoors. Although the hens aren't kept in cages, with literally thousands of birds per barn, each bird has very little space to move around. Her beak will be trimmed to prevent her from pecking other birds, and routine antibiotics are the norm here, too. How can companies get away with such misleading labeling?

What about the increasingly-popular "antibiotic free" claim? Antibiotics are often added to the diet of feedlot cattle as their intensive diet of corn and grain can lead to liver abscesses and bloat, while the dusty feedlot environment can cause respiratory disease. Sub-therapeutic antibiotics prevent the inevitable outbreak of diseases and help to maximize the cattle's growth-rate. However, evidence that the routine use of antibiotic in intensive beef, pork and poultry systems is directly linked to the rise of life-threatening antibiotic-resistant bacteria has led to an explosion of consumer interest in "antibiotic free" label claims.

But while any farm or ranch that supplies "antibiotic free" products must provide evidence to the USDA that no antibiotics were used, the USDA doesn't ever inspect or verify farms that make such claims. Instead, they rely on an affidavit -- nothing more than a written statement to say that the farmer or rancher has or has not carried out a particular activity. As I've reported on Huff Post before, the vast majority of food companies will accept these affidavits without a second thought.

It is also important to remember that anyone who chooses to buy meat and dairy products labeled as "antibiotic free" has absolutely no assurance whatsoever that the farm animals were raised according to any environmental, welfare or socially responsible standards; or that the animals were raised on pasture or range - or indeed whether they were given ANY access to the outdoors at all; that the animals weren't crammed into or on slatted floor, crates, cages or feedlots; that the animals weren't fed an inappropriate or unhealthy diet; that the food wasn't produced using other drugs or hormones; or that the farmer undertook any steps to protect or enhance the local environment. So if you're looking to change the way we farm and feed ourselves, buying "antibiotic free" labeled products isn't going to make one bit of difference.

At AWA, we welcome the efforts of Don Barrett and other expert lawyers in exposing misleading claims made by major food manufacturers. It's unfortunate that a lawyer will make millions when we already pay millions to our government in taxes, presumably to protect us from these misleading claims in the first place. Food claims and labels play a vital role in providing consumers with information about how their food is produced. As the public wakes up to the negative impacts of intensive farming on the environment and human health, they're looking for food labels that provide real assurances that the food they buy is healthful, and produced with animal welfare and the environment in mind. Let's hope that this increased scrutiny marks the beginning of the end for those unscrupulous food manufacturers who continue to profit by misleading their customers.

Food labels also offer consumers an opportunity to "vote with their dollars" and influence the kind of farming systems they want for the future. Initiatives like Proposition 37 will not only enable people to decide whether or not they consume GM food; it will also allow them to decide whether or not their money goes to support the further application of GM technology in food and farming in the future.

In a free market, the freedom of choice begins with the freedom of information. As I've said before, many consumers now have a profound feeling that something is very wrong indeed with the way we farm and what we're eating. If the food industry continues to deny people the right to make real choices about the food they buy and how it's produced, dealing with the inevitable consumer backlash will make the recent "pink slime" fiasco seem like a walk in the park.

And in case you were wondering about the earlier reference to mushrooms, I heard this one the other day: "What have mushrooms and American consumers got in common? Big Ag keeps them both in the dark and feeds them SH!@..."

Download AWA's Food Labeling for Dummies - our free guide to the bewildering range of claims and terms, here.

False Organic Egg Claims Come Home to Roost

2012-10-03T16:11:24-04:00

I'm sorry to say it, but news that a large-scale "organic" egg producer is being sued for making misleading marketing claims about the welfare of its chickens comes as no real surprise. To be honest, I'm more shocked that it's taken this long to make the headlines.

Several news agencies are reporting that the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) has filed a class-action lawsuit against Judy's Family Farm Organic Eggs and Petaluma Egg Farm for allegedly violating California's consumer protection laws. Judy's Family Farm Organic Eggs cartons feature images of hens roaming on an expansive green field, while the carton wording states that the hens are "raised in wide open spaces in Sonoma Valley, where they are free to 'roam, scratch, and play'." However, the ALDF claim that the organic hens at Judy's Family Farm "are crammed in covered sheds with no outdoor access. Implying their hens are free-range when they are not provides an unfair advantage over actual free-range egg producers, and also cheats consumers." The complaint? The packaging used by these egg producers leads consumers to mistakenly believe the eggs come from free-range hens. From what I know about the farm in question, I couldn't agree more.

When people buy organic eggs they expect the hens to have plenty of space and free access to pasture, where the birds can exhibit their natural behaviors. After all, that's why most people are willing to pay the organic premium. But, as this lawsuit may in fact highlight, a minority of so-called organic operations are repaying this trust with downright deceit.

I'm only too aware of the shocking limitations of the National Organic Program and the unsavory practices that some unscrupulous operators can get away with -- and yet still market their eggs as "organic" to unwitting consumers. I'm talking about industrial farms where tens of thousands of "organic" birds are kept indoors in a single house, where their outdoor access consists of nothing more than a tiny concrete area or an enclosed wooden porch. As any farmer worth his or her salt will know, the reality is that most of these birds will never actually venture outside to peck at grass or eat bugs. Some of these major "organic" operations can even get away with providing no outdoor access at all on the basis of a statement from their veterinarian of a "hypothetical" disease risks to the birds from outdoor access -- and still market their eggs as organic. If you don't believe me, read the Cornucopia Institute's excellent exposé of the industrial organic egg scandal that is threatening the very existence of the real organic farms out there.

I know countless certified organic farmers who are farming in the organic spirit, who pride themselves on the highest welfare standards, and whose livestock facilities far exceed the alleged conditions at Judy's Family Farm. Many of these organic farmers are also part of the Animal Welfare Approved (AWA) program -- a clear statement of their dedication to providing their animals with the highest standards of welfare. At AWA, we know that keeping appropriate numbers of hens in a given field space, combined with a strategy of moving the birds regularly around the fields on the farm, can massively reduce the incidence of parasites and other health and disease problems, as well as allowing birds to perform their natural behaviors. Research shows that outdoor pasture- and range-based systems deliver higher welfare for animals, as well as a range of health and nutrition benefits from the products that pasture-raised animals provide.

As the old saying goes, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." While there are still many reputable organic farmers who are passionate about the organic ethos, I am afraid that a small minority of operations are only interested in providing the minimum welfare for their livestock -- and whose sole aim is to maximize profit at all cost. The problem is that these operators can supply "organic" eggs on a massive scale and, as a result, they are slowly wiping out real organic farmers out there who are farming to the high standards that consumers reasonably expect. And they are cheating consumers, too.

At AWA, we don't accept cheats. So when you see the AWA logo on a carton of eggs, it's your guarantee that the hens were raised outdoors in accordance with the highest animal welfare standards of any program in the U.S. and Canada. In fact, AWA is also the only farm certification which guarantees the animals were raised outdoors for their entire lives on an independent family farm, using truly sustainable agriculture methods. No other food label offers these distinctions. And as we don't charge farmers any fee to participate, the program can remain completely independent and impartial in its auditing. The result? An unrivaled level of both the integrity of the program and consumer trust in the AWA logo.

In this social media age, people are waking up to the fact that commonly used food claims and terms like "all natural" or "free-range" -- and even "organic" -- can actually mean very little, and are often used to hide the same old intensive farming systems. If there was one positive outcome from the "Pink Slime" debacle, it was that it served as an urgent wake-up call to the entire food industry. Any food business that continues to abuse consumer trust simply for short-term profit does so at its own peril.

Are We Playing Russian Roulette With Every Meal?

2012-09-24T18:25:22-04:00

New research suggests that eating genetically modified (GM) maize -- and drinking water containing permitted levels of Roundup herbicide -- may cause tumors, premature death and other serious health problems.

Published in the Food and Chemical Toxicology journal, the peer-reviewed study is the first to examine the potential long-term effects of exposure to GM food and the world's best-selling herbicide, Roundup. Researchers at the University of Caen fed groups of male and female rats a diet of Monsanto's GM maize and water containing glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide) at levels permitted in the U.S. water supply over a two-year period. The researchers found that rats fed a GM diet, and exposed to Roundup in their water, developed tumors and damage to their livers and kidneys and died much earlier than those fed a normal diet. The rats were fed Roundup resistant GM maize (from 11 percent in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb in their water). According to the research, around 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females exposed to GM maize and Roundup died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group.

It is important to note that the length of this trial -- over two years -- is far longer than any previous research undertaken in this area. As the authors note, several studies consisting of 90-day rat feeding trials have been conducted by the biotech industry and these have formed the basis of the regulatory approval of GM crops for human consumption. But as rats can live for two years or more (700-plus days), some scientists have long highlighted the limitations of these short-term trials, as well as the lack of any truly independent research. As a result, these latest findings raise serious questions about the efficacy of regulatory process for approving GM crops for human consumption, as well as the long-term health effects from exposure to pesticide residues on our food and in our water.

It's interesting to see that some commentators have been quick to denounce the lead author of the research -- Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini -- as "anti-GM" on the basis that he has previously published work which raises safety concerns about GM. This new research has been published in a peer-reviewed journal and it should not be swept under the carpet or dismissed out of hand. With 85 percent of all maize sown in the U.S. being GM, and 70 percent of all the processed foods on the supermarket shelves containing unlabeled GM ingredients, we'd better all take it very seriously indeed.

I am not someone who advocates turning our backs on science, nor returning to some Dark Age of farming. Science has a crucial role to play as society progresses and has a vital role to play in helping us to find ways to sustainably feed an ever-growing global population where climate change and scarce natural resources are the stark reality -- and arguably the unintended consequences of our previous blunders and lack of foresight. This new research further exposes the lack of sufficient oversight, caution and vigilance when science and business intersect, and where Big Ag profit surpasses all other concerns -- including our health and well-being.

We urgently need truly independent scientific analysis of the environmental and food safety impacts of GM crops, paid for using truly independent funds. The fact is that most parents have no easy way to protect their children from this potential new risk -- perceived or otherwise. Without any form of GM labeling on our food there is no way to choose whether or not we actually eat this stuff. We are already playing roulette with our health -- and it would appear the stakes might have just got a lot higher.

Ranching With Wolves

2012-09-12T12:55:17-04:00

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)'s recent decision to lift the federal regulation protecting wolves in Wyoming -- and allow hunters and ranchers to shoot wolves on sight across 90 percent of the state -- has reignited the decades-old conflict between wildlife conservation objectives and the ranching industry.

Native predator species, such as coyotes, bears, wolves and mountain lions, are critical to the functioning of ecosystems, helping to keep nature in balance. But as livestock farms and ranches have expanded, problems have often occurred where large predators come into direct contact with farmed animals, such as sheep and cattle. The FWS's decision will allow anyone to shoot wolves on sight across most of Wyoming, although wolves will still remain off-limits inside the state's national wildlife refuges and national parks, such as the Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks and the Wind River Indian Reservation.

But therein lays the crux of the problem: Most people still see "conservation" and "ranching" as two very separate -- and often incompatible -- objectives. In the pursuit of maximizing food production, we have done our utmost to eradicate the threat posed by nature to modern farming systems. At the same time, growing recognition of the damage that human activity is inflicting on the environment has fueled campaigns to protect and conserve threatened species and wildlife habitats.

The political solution has always been to ring fence dedicated to "conservation areas," which we then protect and do our best to conserve. But the problem is that nature sees no such boundaries and the result of this cognitive separation between modern food production and nature conservation is that conflict inevitably arises wherever "nature" and "ranch" subsequently meet.

Which is precisely why Animal Welfare Approved (AWA) is promoting the "Certified Wildlife Friendly™" program -- the only audited certification program in the U.S. for farms and ranches that are working to coexist with some of our most important native predator species.

The Certified Wildlife Friendly™ program, which is the result of a three-year partnership between AWA, Predator Friendly®, and the Wildlife Friendly Enterprise Network, was developed to meet growing consumer demand for food and other products from farms and ranches that are committed to coexisting with our native predators. By adopting mixes of non-lethal strategies and commonsense management techniques, such as scheduling pasture use when predation pressure is low and using guardian dogs to deter predators, farmers and ranchers can keep livestock safe and wildlife alive without resorting to lethal control measures. Using these techniques is a way to minimize the risk of conflict between farming and conservation objectives.

Farmers and ranchers who undergo a third-party audit and demonstrate compliance with strict standards on wildlife conservation can market their products -- including wool, meats, eggs, honey, leather good, and more -- using the Certified Wildlife Friendly™ logo. Using this approach, we can encourage farmers and ranchers to help protect some of the most important habitats and species across the United States, while opening up new business opportunities for sustainable farms and ranches.

Last year I traveled to north-central Wyoming to visit a living example of how farms and ranches can work in harmony with nature, rather than trying to control it. At 580,000 acres, the Arapaho Ranch is the largest USDA certified organic ranch in the United States. As I drove across the ranch with the ranch manager, I noticed significant numbers of non-farmed animals, with moose, elk and deer grazing the pastures. This was in complete contrast to other ranches that I had visited before. The ranch manager explained that the Arapaho approach to ranching recognizes these fellow "users" of the range as equal inhabitants, rather than as competitors. I knew that wolves lived on the ranch and had heard that wolves would readily prey on domesticated animals. So how did the ranch deal with this threat to their livestock?

I was quickly put straight: First, the Arapaho ranchers aren't convinced that the threat is nearly as significant as some might think. Second, the beliefs of the Arapaho Tribe mean that the ranchers can only address the challenge using non-lethal management. Indeed, the ranch operates a unique wolf management plan, which has been approved by the federal government and gives the tribe full control over decisions concerning the local wolf population.

The Arapaho Ranch wolf management plan is as fascinating as it is common sense. The ranch manager explained that the ranchers know the whereabouts and hunting patterns of the wolves very well, so they ensure that any cattle grazing in the areas patrolled by wolves "are cattle that the wolves do not consider as prey." I must have looked a little confused. He went on to explain that wolves generally take the injured, sick and young cattle. By ensuring that any injured, sick or young cattle are not grazed in the range of the wolves, the issue of predation is avoided. Similarly, the very presence of the wolves discourages wild moose, elk and deer from staying too long in the grassland, which helps to prevent the potential spread of diseases like brucellosis from wildlife to the cattle, which can cause abortion of calves. It's a simple and symbiotic solution to the challenge of native predators, which is reflected elsewhere on the ranch. The ranch team is made up of cowboys who grew up with the philosophy of respect for and knowledge of their surroundings, and who know how to interact with the other non-farmed inhabitants of the ranch.

Some people might argue that ranching in this way could not possibly make a bottom line profit without some complicated argument about the "value" of habitat conservation or external funding. So I was a little taken aback to find out that the ranch is making an operating profit. Here was a living, breathing, working example of how to ranch in a truly sustainable way, in harmony with the surrounding environment, and still make a living. And many other ranches and farms across the United States are doing just the same.

Pilot audits for the Certified Wildlife Friendly™ program are now underway, after which the program will become available to farmers and ranchers nationwide. To stay informed, sign up to receive AWA's free monthly email newsletter at www.AnimalWelfareApproved.org or see our Facebook page at www.facebook.com/AnimalWelfareApproved.

Environmentally Sound Solutions for Barbeques on the Fourth of July

2012-07-03T14:54:20-04:00

All recipes used with permission.

Food Claims: Who Can You Trust?

2012-06-21T15:49:02-04:00

Despite the recent recession, it's great to see that demand for high-welfare, sustainable meats, dairy products, and eggs continues to grow. As the public wakes up to the negative impacts of intensive farming, they're looking for food labels that provide real assurances that the food they buy is healthful, and produced with animal welfare and the environment in mind.

Many different businesses have now set up programs to offer consumers certain assurances about the food they buy. It goes without saying that the many different labels offered by food businesses vary enormously in terms of their scope and operation. However, most of the claims are centered on claims that farmers are using humane, sustainable farming practices, or that animals are fed a strictly controlled diet, or that medications or hormones are restricted or even prohibited. Since it's impossible for each of us to go out and check the farms ourselves, we effectively take it on face value that the food label we choose to support really does deliver the benefits that it promises.

So it might come as a surprise to know that many of the companies using these kinds of claims do not actually go out and assess the farms that supply them. Instead, they simply rely on an "affidavit system," where farmers who want to use the label or supply the program just sign a declaration form to say that they are (in theory) following the rules of the program -- and that's it. No more questions asked.

Businesses that use this simple affidavit approach will rarely -- if ever -- go out to visit the farms who supply their meat and dairy products to check if they are actually following the rules. In other words, a farmer could agree to supply the business and start selling meat or eggs using a particular label simply by signing a piece of paper. They might choose to ignore some or even all of the label's requirements or rules on a day-to-day basis without anyone knowing.

Similarly, a food business might make all manner of positive claims about their food -- that their farmers don't confine their animals on feedlots and have free access to pasture; that they don't feed any grain or fishmeal; or that the use of genetically modified (GM) feed or antibiotics is strictly prohibited. But if no one is actually going out to the farm to physically check how the animals are being managed, to see what medicines have been given, or to assess what the animals are being fed -- or even if they really do have daily access to pasture -- how can we have any confidence in the company's claims?

It is also worth pointing out that many of the programs which rely solely on affidavits are also buying the farmers' livestock and reselling it. Retailer-owned programs, such as those operated by McDonalds or Kentucky Fried Chicken, are a classic example of where farm programs are unlikely to meet many consumers' expectations. In such cases, the organization which wants to sell you the product -- and which will profit from the transaction -- is also in charge of setting the rules and then making sure that its suppliers are actually meeting them. In such cases, the potential conflict of interest is extremely obvious.

You could argue that buying food from a company that relies solely on affidavits is a bit like buying a used car. Would you take the window sticker detailing the car's flawless history at face value, or accept the car salesman's assurances that the car had never been wrecked without question? Or would you want to get an independent third party report on the safety and condition of the car before you drive it away?

Of course, I am not saying that every affidavit-based label is untrustworthy, or that every farmer who signs an affidavit is cutting corners. But if you are spending your money on meat, dairy products or eggs that are sold under pasture-raised or antibiotic-free labels, then you want to know that your money really is helping to support high-welfare, sustainable production.

At Animal Welfare Approved (AWA), we believe that trust between the consumer and the food producer is absolutely vital. This is why we are the industry leader in auditing and certifying family farms that raise their animals sustainably, outdoors on pasture or range, according to the highest welfare standards.

The AWA seal is a hard-earned badge of integrity: participation in the AWA program demonstrates the farmer's unmatched commitment to the care of their animals and land. Farmers in the AWA program agree to a minimum of one on-farm audit a year (with the possibility of additional visits if deemed necessary) by some of the most experienced auditors in the world to confirm compliance with our comprehensive standards, which are available online for everyone to see. Participation in the program must be renewed every year. Since we don't we charge our farmers any fee to participate in the program, we can remain completely impartial in our auditing. The result? An unrivaled level of both the integrity of our program, and trust in the AWA seal among today's conscientious food consumers.

In this information age, people are waking up to the fact that commonly used food claims and terms like "all natural" or "free range" have absolutely nothing to do with real animal welfare or environmental sustainability, and are being used to hide the same old intensive farming systems. As a result, food labels have an increasingly important role to play in providing consumers with greater assurances that their food really is being produced to specific welfare and environmental standards. But without more robust standards and regular on-farm auditing by an independent third-party, people will quickly realize that many of the label claims and promises made by food companies that rely solely on affidavits are worth less than the paper they're written on.