Food & Water Watch
There’s never a shortage of interesting and incendiary stories about food issues to choose from at the end of the year. This year is no exception. As we continue to build our campaign to improve the Farm Bill in 2012, we can see examples of why this work is so important just by taking a look at some of the most outrageous food stories of 2011…
1. Attack on Food Safety Budgets
2011 started out with a bang. Our food safety programs got banged up by threatened budget cuts. In addition, we witnessed a number of food recalls due to contamination that threatened public health with serious illness and, in some cases, even death. It’s not a surprise that a large and complex food system such as ours requires an aggressive approach to food safety. Unfortunately, federal and state governments’ ability to use that strategy was weakened when food safety budgets were slashed. While the meat and poultry inspection program at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) escaped relatively unscathed, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) didn’t fare as well. FDA’s budget only allotted about half of what it needed to put the newly passed Food Safety Modernization Act into action. In 2012, Congress needs to get their food safety priorities in order.
2. Fair Livestock Rule
2011 gave USDA another opportunity to level the playing field for livestock producers in a marketplace controlled by large meatpackers and chicken processing companies. But along with Congress, they blew it again. When USDA submitted the final version on the long-awaited GIPSA rule for final White House approval, they cut out the most critical parts that would have equalized competition for independent cattle and hog producers. USDA has had the authority to crack down on unfair practices meatpackers and processing companies use to put farmers and ranchers at a disadvantage since 1921. But the department has never used the authority it had. As a result, the livestock marketplace has become highly consolidated to the point where a mere four companies supply most of the meat sold in supermarkets. The 2008 Farm Bill included a provision that told USDA to finally use its authority and stop the most abusive practices in the meat industry. But as soon as that bill passed, the meat industry went to work in Washington, D.C., and three years later they succeeded in gutting the proposed rule. House republicans, Big Ag and President Obama’s lack of leadership are to blame for this failure to change agriculture policy for the better. Which is why we need to keep building a powerful movement that can take this industry on.
3. Taxpayers funding Genetically Engineered (GE) salmon
AquaBounty’s GE salmon is controversial enough on its own merit—we certainly weren’t thrilled to learn that the FDA continues to fund further research by the company that wants to bring the first genetically engineered animal to our dinner tables. The FDA themselves questioned some of AquaBounty’s claims that their GE salmon eggs were 100 percent sterile and that it would be virtually impossible for GE salmon to invade the natural habitat of wild salmon, yet they still managed to round up some money—$494,000 in a troubled economy, no less—to give to the Massachusetts-based company for further research on sterilizing the eggs. In fact, since 2003, the federal government has provided AquaBounty with $2.4 million in federal research grants. That’s taxpayer money being thrown at an experiment that most Americans have insisted they don’t want. And who would blame consumers for their concerns? AquaBounty’s egg production facility in Canada had tested positive in 2009 for what appears to be a new strain of Salmon Anaemia virus, which can be deadly to salmon. Its presence at the AquaBounty facility casts serious doubt on their production practices. Let’s hope that 2012 is the year when the FDA abandons GE salmon.
4. Arsenic in Apple Juice
According to ABC News, one of the top five health stories of 2011 was the unfortunate discovery that many of the biggest brands of apple juice products contained arsenic. This summer, Food & Water Watch and Empire State Consumer Project shared some test results with the FDA regarding the amount of arsenic that was found in several popular brands of apple juice. The amount of arsenic found was higher than the level allowed in drinking water. Moms around the country were understandably concerned and many expressed outrage over using a poisonous chemical in a food product primarily consumed by kids. Dr. Mehmet Oz from The Dr. Oz Show invited Food & Water Watch Deputy Director Patty Lovera to appear on his show and blog on his website in order to discuss how arsenic ended up in apple juice, as well as why consumers should pay close attention to where their food is coming from. In the case of apple juice, much of it comes from China, where food safety standards are not as high as they are here in the U.S. It’s time for the FDA to set a limit for arsenic in juice so there is no more confusion about how much is acceptable. In 2012, let’s get rid of the arsenic. That’s so 2011.
5. Beaver Anal Glands (A rude awakening from a former food exec.)
This year, we found out about something so horrific and so wrong that it seems to defy logic. We found out the hard way what it means to the food industry when they include “natural flavors” in the ingredients list. Thanks to the blog of former food executive Bruce Bradley, it’s clear that some natural flavorings are best left alone. Some processed food companies, somehow (I don’t want to know exactly how), extract (gracefully and gently, I hope) bodily fluids from the back door of those loveable, semi-aquatic mammals known as beavers. That’s right, we learned that beaver anal glands are a somewhat common substance found in processed food, used to replicate or enhance the flavor of raspberry or vanilla. Yuck. Advice for 2012? Use raspberries for raspberry flavor and leave the beaver butts alone.
For more information, click here.
Though made in large part of plastic, glass, ceramics, gold and copper, they also contain critical resources. The gallium used for LEDs and the camera flash, the tantalum in capacitors and indium that powers the display were all pulled from the ground — at a price for nature and people.
"Mining raw materials is always problematic, both with regard to human rights and ecology," said Melanie Müller, raw materials expert of the German think tank SWP. "Their production process is pretty toxic."
The gallium and indium in many phones comes from China or South Korea, the tantalum from the Democratic Republic of Congo or Rwanda. All in, such materials comprise less than ten grams of a phone's weight. But these grams finance an international mining industry that causes radioactive earth dumps, poisoned groundwater and Indigenous population displacement.
Environmental Damage: 'Nature Has Been Overexploited'
The problem is that modern technologies don't work without what are known as critical raw materials. Collectively, solar panels, drones, 3D printers and smartphone contain as many as 30 of these different elements sourced from around the globe. A prime example is lithium from Chile, which is essential in the manufacture of batteries for electric vehicles.
"No one, not even within the industry, would deny that mining lithium causes enormous environmental damage," Müller explained, in reference to the artificial lakes companies create when flushing the metal out of underground brine reservoirs. "The process uses vast amounts of water, so you end up with these huge flooded areas where the lithium settles."
This means of extraction results in the destruction and contamination of the natural water system. Unique plants and animals lose access to groundwater and watering holes. There have also been reports of freshwater becoming salinated due to extensive acidic waste water during lithium mining.
But lithium is not the only raw material that causes damage. Securing just one ton of rare earth elements produces 2,000 tons of toxic waste, and has devastated large regions of China, said Günther Hilpert, head of the Asia Research Division of the German think tank SWP.
He says companies there have adopted a process of spraying acid over the mining areas in order to separate the rare earths from other ores, and that mined areas are often abandoned after excavation.
"They are no longer viable for agricultural use," Hilpert said. "Nature has been overexploited."
China is not the only country with low environmental mining standards and poor resource governance. In Madagascar, for example, a thriving illegal gem and metal mining sector has been linked to rainforest depletion and destruction of natural lemur habitats.
States like Madagascar, Rwanda and the DRC score poorly on the Environmental Performance Index that ranks 180 countries for their effort on factors including conservation, air quality, waste management and emissions. Environmentalists are therefore particularly concerned that these countries are mining highly toxic materials like beryllium, tantalum and cobalt.
But it is not only nature that suffers from the extraction of high-demand critical raw materials.
"It is a dirty, toxic, partly radioactive industry," Hilpert said. "China, for example, has never really cared about human rights when it comes to achieving production targets."
Dirty, Toxic, Radioactive: Working in the Mining Sector
One of the most extreme examples is Baotou, a Chinese city in Inner Mongolia, where rare earth mining poisoned surrounding farms and nearby villages, causing thousands of people to leave the area.
In 2012, The Guardian described a toxic lake created in conjunction with rare earth mining as "a murky expanse of water, in which no fish or algae can survive. The shore is coated with a black crust, so thick you can walk on it. Into this huge, 10 sq km tailings pond nearby factories discharge water loaded with chemicals used to process the 17 most sought after minerals in the world."
Local residents reported health issues including aching legs, diabetes, osteoporosis and chest problems, The Guardian wrote.
South Africa has also been held up for turning a blind eye to the health impacts of mining.
"The platinum sector in South Africa has been criticized for performing very poorly on human rights — even within the raw materials sector," Müller said.
In 2012, security forces killed 34 miners who had been protesting poor working conditions and low wages at a mine owned by the British company Lonmin. What became known as the "Marikana massacre" triggered several spontaneous strikes across the country's mining sector.
Müller says miners can still face exposure to acid drainage — a frequent byproduct of platinum mining — that can cause chemical burns and severe lung damage. Though this can be prevented by a careful waste system.
Some progress was made in 2016 when the South African government announced plans to make mining companies pay $800 million (€679 million) for recycling acid mine water. But they didn't all comply. In 2020, activists sued Australian-owned mining company Mintails and the government to cover the cost of environmental cleanup.
Another massive issue around mining is water consumption. Since the extraction of critical raw materials is very water intensive, drought prone countries such as South Africa, have witnessed an increase in conflicts over supply.
For years, industry, government and the South African public debated – without a clear agreement – whether companies should get privileged access to water and how much the population may suffer from shortages.
Mining in Brazil: Replacing Nature, People, Land Rights
Beyond the direct health and environmental impact of mining toxic substances, quarrying critical raw materials destroys livelihoods, as developments in Brazil demonstrate.
"Brazil is the major worldwide niobium producer and reserves in [the state of] Minas Gerais would last more than 200 years [at the current rate of demand]," said Juliana Siqueira-Gay, environmental engineer and Ph.D. student at the University of São Paulo.
While the overall number of niobium mining requests is stagnating, the share of claims for Indigenous land has skyrocketed from 3 to 36 percent within one year. If granted, 23 percent of the Amazon forest and the homeland of 222 Indigenous groups could fall victim to deforestation in the name of mining, a study by Siqueira-Gay finds.
In early 2020, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro signed a bill which would allow corporations to develop areas populated by Indigenous communities in the future. The law has not yet entered into force, but "this policy could have long-lasting negative effects on Brazil's socio-biodiversity," said Siqueira-Gay.
One example are the niobium reserves in Seis Lagos, in Brazil's northeast, which could be quarried to build electrolytic capacitors for smartphones.
"They overlap the Balaio Indigenous land and it would cause major impacts in Indigenous communities by clearing forests responsible for providing food, raw materials and regulating the local climate," Siqueira-Gay explained.
She says scientific good practice guidelines offer a blueprint for sustainable mining that adheres to human rights and protects forests. Quarries in South America — and especially Brazil — funded by multilaterial banks like the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank Group have to follow these guidelines, Siqueira-Gay said.
They force companies to develop sustainable water supply, minimize acid exposure and re-vegetate mined surfaces. "First, negative impacts must be avoided, then minimized and at last compensated — not the other way around."
Reposted with permission from DW.