Exposing the Green Revolution

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 12:28:13 PM PDT

Ghanaian: G8 Food Aid Might "Do More Harm Than Good"

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:30:23 AM PDT

On that note, Food and Water Watch just put out a press release that was critical of the Obama Administration's efforts to combat global hunger and poverty. They say Obama's policy "merely dusts off the tired, failed approaches of the Bush years," referencing free trade and reliance on biotechnology as policies that do not work. I've pasted it below in its entirety so you can take a look.

Where's the Local Beef? Good Luck Finding It Says New Report

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 10:34:03 AM PDT

Chinese Chicken, Again

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 04:56:48 AM PDT

So here's the latest from Meatingplace.com on the matter, written by Former Undersecretary of Agriculture for Food Safety Dr. Richard Raymond:

"Chickety China, the Chinese Chicken. Eat a drum stick, and your brain stops tickin'." Words from "One Week", a song by the Canadian group Bare Naked Ladies. If you have kids in their early thirties, you know of this group.

But Congress must have taken these words literally because they have banned cooked Chinese chicken supposedly so we can keep our brains tickin'. There is nothing about their action that is based on science, so I must assume they will quote these lyrics when responding to the WTO complaint filed by China.

I'm pretty sure he got the lyrics wrong, first of all. I believe it's HAVE a drumstick and your brain stops tickin'. Looks like he checked his facts on that about as well as he checked his facts on the Chinese chicken issue.  

Dear China, About the Poultry? Thanks But No Thanks

by: Jill Richardson

Tue May 19, 2009 at 12:33:12 PM PDT

Currently, the U.S. has a ban on processed poultry products from China. Those in favor of keeping it in place include poultry growers associations, family farm organizations, food safety groups, consumer advocacy groups, and others (see a full list below). They cite China's poor food safety regulatory system (with the recent melamine scandals as exhibit A) as a primary reason to keep Chinese poultry out of the U.S. and they also note the effect lifting the ban would have on American poultry growers. Why should we put our own poultry growers out of business so that Americans can eat cheaper but less-safe poultry from China?

And then there's the major multinational corporations (listed below). They are ALL FOR importing Chinese poultry. Their argument? We need to play nice with the WTO and its rules. Which, in my opinion, is a piss poor reason to disregard the health and safety of the American people and the fate of the already troubled domestic poultry industry. Growth in the chicken market has slowed recently and some of the large corporations signed onto this letter have been cutting contracts with America poultry growers, leaving them hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars in debt, stuck with enormous broiler houses and nobody to sell chickens to. Isn't now the exact WRONG time to start importing cheap and possibly unsafe Chinese chicken?

If you want to take action, shoot off an email to your Congresscritter, asking to keep the ban on processed poultry products from China in place. And, while you're at it, CC Barack Obama.

Looking for Food From China? Here's How to Find It

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 06:00:00 AM PDT

According to the report, in 2007 China was the #3 country that we imported food from - third after Mexico and Canada. What are the major foods did we get from China?
60.9% of our apple juice
51.4% of garlic
42.3% of processed mushrooms
15% of frozen spinach
11.4% of canned peaches
10.6% of frozen cauliflower
7.9% of canned pears
3.8% of fresh pears
1.7% of processed green peas
1.6% of frozen snap beans
1.2% of fresh mushrooms

Under new COOL rules, you might see a label telling you that your garlic or fresh pears are from China, but the rest of those foods will be unlabeled.

From the report:

China's farm and food processing sectors are plagued with problems that contribute to safety concerns for consumers. China has banned far fewer pesticides than the United States or Europe, meaning that pesticides that are banned in America may be immigrating to the United States on Chinese crops. The USDA reported that produce from China presents significant risks, noting, "Chinese fruits and vegetables often have high levels of pesticide residues, heavy metals and other contaminants.  Water, soil, and air are dangerously polluted in many rural areas as a result of heavy industrialization and lax environmental regulation."

Below, I've listed a table from the report that tells what food comes from where as well as a second chart that tells you the odds of whether each food is imported.

"Organic" Fish: A Bad Decision by NOSB

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 14:30:50 PM PST

Consumers Union sums up the problem with the new standards as follows:

Fish to be fed food other than 100% organic feed-the gold standard that must be met by other USDA-certified organic livestock;

Fishmeal used to feed farmed fish from wild fish-which has the potential to carry mercury and PCBs; and

Open net cages to be used-which flush pollution, disease and parasites from open net fish farms directly into the ocean, adversely impacting wild fish supply, sustainability and the health of the oceans.

When you eat an organic apple, you can feel good that you aren't biting into a bunch of pesticides or other toxins. When you drink a glass of organic milk, you can feel good that you won't be drinking antibiotics and growth hormones. But if this recommendation by NOSB becomes a reality, you will have no such assurances if you eat a "USDA Certified Organic" fish.

While some members of NOSB admitted they were under pressure to OK this from the aquaculture industry, it's clear what American consumers want:

Just this week, a Consumers Union Poll revealed that 93 percent of Americans think that fish labeled as "organic" should be produced by 100 percent organic feed, like all other organic animals. Nine in 10 consumers also agreed that "organic" fish farms should be required to recover waste and not pollute the environment and 57 percent are concerned about ocean pollution caused by "organic" fish farms. Nearly 30,000 signatures have been collected in favor of maintaining strong standards for the organic label for fish.

Not Even Monsanto Wants rBGH

by: OrangeClouds115

Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 17:04:01 PM PDT

"News of Monsanto's divestment of Posilac is one more sign that no-one wants the growth hormone rBGH used in milk production, not even the company that makes it," said Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. "In the last year we've seen retailers including Walmart, Kroger, and Starbucks fall like dominoes in the race to meet consumer demand for artificial growth hormone-free milk."

Food & Water Watch gives the full picture - from the bogus claims that rBGH is "green" to the Monsanto astroturf campaign to ban rBGH-free labeling in several U.S. states.

"RBGH is not used by small-eco-friendly farms.  The artificial hormone has contributed to the growth of mega-dairy operations that cram together thousands of cows generating mountains of waste that are toxic to us and to our environment," explained Hauter.

At the same time Monsanto tried to fix the image of rBGH, the company has been trying to limit consumer information on the artificial hormone.  Faced with consistent resistance in the marketplace and a failed attempt to get the U.S. Food & Drug Administration to restrict "rBGH-free" labels even more, through the group AFACT, Monsanto started going to state governments to limit "artificial hormone-free" labels.

"Monsanto has been urging state agriculture departments and Governors to deny consumers the right to whether or not rBGH was used on their milk and that threat is very real no matter who is manufacturing the hormone," continued Hauter.