Center for Food Safety | Blog

After Durnell: Why the Fight Against Pesticides and their Health Harms Is Entering a New Chapter

Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 -0700

More than 200,000 Americans have sued Monsanto arguing that its blockbuster herbicide Roundup gave them cancer.

They are farmers, groundskeepers, landscapers, and regular folks tending to their own yards. People who worked in fields growing genetically engineered, glyphosate-resistant crops, where Roundup (with its active ingredient, glyphosate) was sprayed in increasing amounts right on top of those crops. People who spent years spraying what they believed was a "safe" weedkiller, before being diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

For more than a decade, juries across the country have heard their stories. They've listened to experts from both sides, considered scientific studies, and pored over a mountain of evidence, including incriminating company memos seeing the light of day for the first time. Again and again, they concluded that Monsanto (now Bayer) failed to warn the public about the cancer risks associated with Roundup. Those verdicts forced the company to pay over $11 billion to settle nearly 100,000 claims rather than risk resolving each claim individually, while over sixty thousand more cases remain pending. Monsanto even replaced glyphosate with other weed-killing ingredients in its residential Roundup formulations sold in stores like Home Depot across the country, in a transparent attempt to limit further liability for its product causing cancer in home users.

Then came Monsanto v. Durnell.

For over two decades, John Durnell sprayed Roundup to kill weeds in parks and playgrounds near his St. Louis, MO home. Like hundreds of thousands of other Roundup-using Americans, he contracted non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, the very cancer associated with glyphosate use in multiple epidemiology studies of farmers. In 2023, a jury agreed that Roundup was a cause of his cancer, and ordered Monsanto to pay him $1.25 million in damages. Like other cancer victims, Durnell had alleged that Monsanto should have warned him about the potential cancer risks associated with glyphosate use. Monsanto appealed his case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which just ruled in Monsanto's favor last week.

When SCOTUS handed down its decision in Monsanto v. Durnell, it delivered a significant victory to Monsanto and the pesticide industry writ large. By holding that certain state law "failure-to-warn" claims are preempted (or prohibited) by federal pesticide law, the Court closed the courthouse doors on an important means for people harmed by toxic pesticides to hold manufacturers accountable. For thousands of cancer victims and their families, the decision represents a painful setback. It is another tragic example of this Supreme Court elevating corporate rights over human rights.

But this is far from the end of the story. When regulators and courts fail in their duties to protect the public interest, nonprofits must step into the breach and fulfil that role. And the Durnell decision just made that public-interest-in-exile role more important than ever.

A Decision Built on a Captured Regulatory System

The Supreme Court's decision cited the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) classification of glyphosate as "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans," but the Court also correctly recognized that the EPA determination was found unlawful in a 2022 Center for Food Safety lawsuit. That federal court decision struck down EPA's human health determination, concluding that EPA violated its own scientific standards in concluding glyphosate posed no cancer risk.

Before the now-cancelled 2020 cancer determination, the last time EPA actually made any other determination of glyphosate's cancer risk was over three decades ago, in 1993. That stale decision came in the wake of enormous pressure from Monsanto to reverse EPA's initial stance that glyphosate was a possible carcinogen, based on rare kidney tumors in glyphosate-fed mice, among other evidence.

The 1993 determination also came long before the explosion in glyphosate's use due to Monsanto's genetically engineered glyphosate-resistant crops, and before the scores of scientific reports and farmer epidemiology studies creating a body of science which overwhelmingly shows the increased risk of cancer after glyphosate exposure. And it also arrived long before the 2025 retraction of a year 2000 study — ostensibly by independent scientists but actually ghost-written by Monsanto officers — that was among the most frequently cited studies cited by EPA and other regulators to support glyphosate's supposed safety.

EPA's treatment of glyphosate is far from singular; it exposes a deeper crisis at the heart of American pesticide regulation. For decades, EPA has repeatedly approved dangerous pesticides while failing to require meaningful warnings about their risks. New 2026 research released by Center for Food Safety and our allies at the Center for Biological Diversity demonstrates just how systemic that failure has become. Over the last forty years, EPA has identified approximately 200 pesticide active ingredients that are "likely" or "possible" human carcinogens. Yet virtually none of the thousands of pesticide products containing those chemicals carry cancer warning labels. Instead, the agency has routinely allowed pesticides to remain on the market despite acknowledging cancer risks far exceeding EPA's own benchmark level of concern of one additional cancer case per one million exposed people. The result? People unwittingly spray products they have no idea may give them cancer, and unknowingly consume food and water contaminated with possible or likely carcinogens. Would pesticide users continue to spend billions on such products if their manufacturers were required to warn them of the cancer hazard?

Why Lawsuits Matter

The lawsuits against Monsanto transformed the public conversation about Roundup. Internal company documents revealed through the litigation showed extensive Monsanto efforts to unduly influence scientific research and pesticide regulators, and avoid warning consumers about potential cancer risks. Juries repeatedly concluded that Monsanto failed to adequately warn users that Roundup exposure could contribute to non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Those verdicts led Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, to pay roughly $11 billion to settle approximately 100,000 claims, while tens of thousands more remain pending. Another Bayer-proposed $7.25 billion settlement is currently making its way through the courts (although this proposal would fail to cover most class members' expenses and has been accused in court of violating the Constitution and involving questionable ethics).

The Durnell decision will make these cases harder to bring and win, eliminating one of the main causes of action. That said, the cancer cases will continue, under other legal theories not at issue in Durnell, which is why Monsanto has been seeking broader immunity, covering all such cases, in Congress.

Still, the Durnell decision underscores why strong federal oversight is more essential than ever. If injured people are locked out of state courts to remedy corporate misconduct, then it becomes still more critical for EPA to prevent such injuries in the first place. The agency must fulfill its legal obligations to evaluate pesticides rigorously, require accurate warning labels, remove dangerous products from the market, and mitigate their harms when the science demands it.

The decision similarly elevates the role of Congress: to place the public's rights over corporations' profit margins. And it reaffirms the role we all must play, by continuing to speak truth to power and demand our representatives protect the public interest. To their credit, some members of Congress are already moving to introduce legislative amendments and new bills to override this victory for chemical corporations. However, history suggests this shift will not happen without persistent public pressure and legal accountability. That's where stakeholders like the Center for Food Safety, with expertise in litigation, science, and legislative advocacy, play a vital role.

Why Watchdogging and Advocacy Matter More Than Ever

For decades, Center for Food Safety has served as one of the country's leading watchdogs over EPA's pesticide program. Long before the Supreme Court considered Durnell, CFS was challenging EPA's unlawful approvals of glyphosate as well as numerous other pesticides. The organization has repeatedly taken EPA to court and held their feet to the fire over agency failures to consider cancer and other health risks to consumers, farmers and other users; unaddressed harms to endangered species and pollinators; groundwater contamination; and myriad violations of numerous federal environmental laws. Its legal victories have led to court decisions holding unlawful EPA approvals of pesticides such as glyphosate, dicamba, atrazine, neonicotinoid insecticides, malathion, and dozens of others.

Just as importantly, Center for Food Safety has helped expose a larger systemic problem. The agency charged with protecting public health and the natural world has too often instead become a rubberstamp for the pesticide industry's demands. Whether the issue is carcinogens, endocrine disruption, contamination of drinking water, or biodiversity loss, pollinator decline and endangered species, EPA has consistently underestimated risks while allowing dangerous products to remain on the market.

Glyphosate continues to be sprayed on nearly 300 million acres of American farmland every year. Millions more pounds are used in neighborhoods, parks, forests, schools, and along roadsides. The chemical remains detectable in food, water, soil, and the bodies of millions of Americans. The Supreme Court's decision does nothing to change those underlying scientific realities.

Today's ruling does not end Center for Food Safety's work. Rather, it makes it even more urgent. We will continue to pursue legal action and advocacy across a broad portfolio of pesticide and food safety issues, including:

Ongoing litigation over glyphosate and EPA's still-pending registration review of the herbicide, which remains under court order following CFS's 2022 legal victory
Protection of farmworkers and farmers from pesticides' health risks such as cancer and endocrine disruption
Protection of organic and conventional farmers from pesticide drift harm to their crops, vineyards, and native ecosystems
Legal action to protect pollinators from pesticides that devastate bee populations and threaten the collapse of critical ecosystems
Defense of the Endangered Species Act, including ongoing litigation to secure federal protections for the monarch butterfly, the Iowa skipper, and other species pushed toward extinction by pesticide use and industrial agriculture
Challenges to agency rollbacks to enforce federal environmental and food safety laws when the executive branch fails to do so

The legacy of Durnell has yet to be written. While the Court limited one avenue for justice, it also made clear how essential independent watchdogs have become. For the more than 200,000 people who have already alleged from Roundup, and for the millions still exposed to glyphosate every year, Center for Food Safety will continue fighting until the law, the science, and public health are finally brought back into alignment.

Protecting Washington's Sensitive Coast from Polluting Shellfish Operations

Tue, 19 May 2026 00:00:00 -0700

Tuesday, May 19, 2026: Today the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat were in federal court in Tacoma, Washington to protect Washington state's coast from industrial shellfish aquaculture. CFS attorneys and their co-counsel presented their arguments opposed by both the defendant the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the shellfish intervenors. The Plaintiffs were represented by counsel from CFS and the law offices of Karl Anuta.

The shellfish aquaculture facilities are massive operations spanning hundreds of acres of Washington's most sensitive coastal habitat. These plastic-intensive operations have significant adverse effects on the surrounding environment, including threatened and endangered species that depend on these waters for habitat.

Despite a court order in a prior litigation requiring the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ending in 2020 to fully analyze the environmental effects of industrial shellfish operations, regulators have instead relied on a streamlined permit review procedures known as LOPs to authorize these same operations without any environmental review or public notice.

"Industrial aquaculture must be accountable to science, law, and the communities whose lives and cultures are tied to these waters. We're calling on the court to do what the Corps failed to: protect our iconic marine ecosystems from being overwhelmed by plastic, pesticides, and profit-driven development," said Kristina Sinclair, staff attorney at Center for Food Safety, lead counsel on the case.

Shellfish aquaculture in Washington state already occupies a massive footprint:

Between 38,700 and50,000 acresof tidelands—nearly aquarter of all tidelands in the state—are used for commercial operations,including inPuget Sound, Willapa Bay, Hood Canal, and Grays Harbor.

These facilities use 43,000 PVC tubes per acre to grow geoducks, as well as netting, heavy machinery, crushed shell, and herbicides to prepare and harvest the seabed.

Washington's industrial shellfish sector generates more than $150 million in annual revenue, but at great cost to salmon habitat, water quality, migratory birds, and endangered marine species.

This legal fight is part of CFS's broader campaign to ensure that the expansion of industrial aquaculture doesn't come at the cost of ecological integrity, tribal sovereignty, or the public's right to clean and accessible shorelines.

Four Bees, One Future: Why Saving California's Bumble Bees Matters to Us All

Tue, 17 Jun 2025 00:00:00 -0700

On a warm spring day in California's Central Valley, a small bumble bee lands on a purple lupine blossom. With its fuzzy yellow-and-black body dusted in pollen, the Crotch's bumble bee hums from flower to flower, doing the quiet, vital work that keeps food growing and wildlands thriving.

But this bee and several of its close cousins are disappearing.

Across California, four native bumble bees are now teetering on the edge of extinction. The threats are many: pesticides, habitat loss, disease and climate change. And while the story starts in California, it has national consequences. About one-third of the food we eat depends on pollinators like bees. When bees are in trouble, so is our food system.

Read on to learn more about the four bees Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Food Safety and the Xerces Society are working to protect.

Meet the bees

Crotch's bumble bee (Bombus crotchii)

Found in Southern California and the Central Valley.
Persists in only 1/5 of the places that it did historically.

Western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis)

Found across Northern California mountains and meadows.
Has vanished from much of its historic range.

Franklin's bumble bee (Bombus franklini)

Once found only in a small area near the California-Oregon border.
Last seen in the wild in 2006.
Listed as Endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act in 2021.

Suckley cuckoo bumble bee (Bombus suckleyi)

Found in high mountain areas.
A nest parasite that relies on other bumble bees to reproduce.
Declining due to the loss of its host species, including the western bumble bee.

Why are bees in trouble?

Bees face many challenges. Farms and cities have taken over much of their habitat. Pesticides — especially ones called neonicotinoids — harm bees' ability to fly, feed and reproduce. Diseases from commercially raised bees can spread to wild bees. Climate change is also shifting where and when flowers bloom, making it harder for bees to find food.

Our organizations have worked for years to reduce pesticide use and protect pollinators. We pushed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to ban harmful chemicals through lawsuits and petitions, and worked to close loopholes that let pesticide-coated seeds go unregulated. We also work with farmers, ranchers and natural areas managers to restore pollinator habitat throughout the U.S.

In California, we filed the petition to list these four bumble bees under the California Endangered Species Act and worked with the Stanford Environmental Law Clinic to successfully defend that listing in court. The Bumble Bee Atlases allow us to track the status of these species in California and beyond.

Are bees endangered?

Our three organizations asked California in 2018 to give these bees full protection under state law. After years of public input, court battles and scientific review, the California Fish and Game Commission is expected to announce its final decision soon.

While we await the decision, these bees are considered 'candidates' and have interim protection from actions that could harm them or their habitat. If the Fish and Game Commission decides to list these species under California's Endangered Species Act, these protections will continue into the future. But we're not waiting for that decision. Projects to restore pollinator habitat are already underway on farms, in cities and along roadsides.
Why this matters everywhere

California produces more food than any other state: over 13% of the country's total. When California's pollinators suffer, the ripple effects can touch dinner tables in Alaska, Kansas, New York and everywhere in between. But this isn't just about crops; it's about biodiversity. More than 80% of wild plants need insect pollinators to reproduce. Bees serve as indicators of healthy ecosystems.

Save the bees

Everyone can help bees, no matter where you live. Here are four easy ways:

Plant pollinator-friendly flowers like milkweed, coneflower or bee balm.
Avoid pesticides in your yard and encourage others to do the same.
Support organic farmers who protect pollinator habitat.
Speak up for stronger protections for pollinators in your state.

One of the best ways to get involved in protecting our pollinators is to become a community scientist and participate in the Bumble Bee Atlas wherever you live. You can also explore how to build a pollinator garden at home. If you're thinking about building a garden, find a list of pollinator plants for your region and consider applying for a pollinator habitat kit if you live in a qualifying area.

As we wait for California's final decision, we'll keep fighting for the bees. With the right protections and a little help from all of us, these four species still have a chance to survive and thrive.

Our Impact in 2024

Tue, 17 Dec 2024 00:00:00 -0800

As 2024 comes to a close, all of us at Center for Food Safety (CFS) want to take a moment to celebrate all that we've achieved this year. In 2024, our small but mighty legal team won one groundbreaking David vs Goliath case after the next, protecting millions of acres of farmland and hundreds of endangered species, reducing agricultural toxins, and holding corporations accountable. We know our strategy works - over our 25 year history, CFS has won an amazing 75%+ of our cases! Below is a timeline of our most impactful wins from this year.

We don't take big checks from corporations or the government. Instead, we rely on people like you to support our critical work. To celebrate a quarter century of impact, and set us up to meet the challenges we'll face in the years to come, will you contribute to our efforts to transform the food system today?

February 2024: after 4 years of hard-fought litigation against Monsanto and the federal government, a federal court in Arizona struck down the EPA's approval of the controversial, drift-prone pesticide dicamba, halting its use across millions of acres across the country. The pesticide had previously caused unprecedented drift damage to thousands of neighboring farmers organic and conventional crops, as well as to orchards, gardens, and trees. Hundreds of endangered species, including many pollinators, are also threatened by the pesticide.

For further reading, here's some of the top articles on the win! (1, 2)

May 2024: After 2 years of hard-fought litigation in Oregon state court, defeating two motions to dismiss, and on the eve of trial, the state of Oregon pulled back a permit approval for a mega factory farm which would have been the largest in the state of Oregon, raising and slaughtering over 3.5 million chickens annually. CFS had challenged the permit representing of nearby organic farmers in the Willamette Valley. The factory would have been build 1,000 yards from a river home to endangered salmon.

For further reading, here's the top article on the win!

October 2024: In a challenge to USDA organic food standards and the organic label, a federal court sided with CFS, filing on behalf of many organic stakeholders, in a challenge to "grower group" certification of organic farms. This decision is vital for protecting small organic landholders, who without group certification, would not be able to farm organically.

October 2024: Based on our legal petition and subsequent legal action, the US Fish and Wildlife Service found that protection for the Iowa Skipper Butterfly under the Endangered Species Act may be warranted, the first step in the listing process. Like the Monarch, the Skipper is mainly threatened with extinction due to pesticide use due to conversion of its habitat to monoculture cropland.

For further reading, here's some of the top articles on the win! (1, 2)

October 2024: A federal court ruled in CFS's favor in a challenge to the establishment of industrial aquaculture in US federal waters after several years of hard-fought litigation, agreeing with us that the nationwide aquaculture general permit violated several core environmental laws, and sending it back to the agency. In the case, we represented pro bono a dozen other entities, including ocean conservation groups, commercial and recreational fishers, and the Quinault Indian Nation.

For further reading, here's the top article on the win!

October 2024: After decades of EPA inaction, CFS's litigation resulted in successful settlement with the agency to for the first time ever protect farmworkers and consumers from the endocrine disrupting harms of pesticides. The settlement sets out a years-long schedule of court-ordered deadlines for EPA to test pesticides for endocrine harms and take protective action based on that testing. In the case, CFS represents coalition of farmworker and environmental health organizations, including Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, Organización en California de Líderes Campesinas, Center for Environmental Health, Pesticide Action Network of North America, and Rural Coalition.

For further reading, here's the top article on the win!

December 2024: After 4 years of litigation, a federal Court struck down USDA rules from the 2020 Trump Administration which gutted the regulation of all genetically modified organisms (GMO), including seeds, plants, and grasses. Previously, new GMOs had to go through a formal approval and risk assessment process at USDA, including public notice and comment, with consideration of environmental risks and risks to farmers; the Trump era rules gave the industry the power to "self-regulate" for many GMOs.

For further reading, here's the top article on the win!

December 10, 2024: As a result of a ten year CFS-led legal and science campaign, two lawsuits, and subsequent settlements, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) formally proposed protection for the Monarch Butterfly under the Endangered Species Act. The main driver of Monarchs' dramatic decline in recent decades has been Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, sprayed on commodity crops engineered with resistance to it. The listing is a landmark one also in terms underscoring industrial agriculture's primary role driving the extinction crisis.

For further reading, here's some of the top articles on the win! (1, 2)

December 12, 2024: The final end of GE salmon, the first-ever (and still only) GE food animal. After a 20 year CFS fight, the makers of the GE salmon, AquaBounty, went bankrupt. This follows a 5-year successful litigation (2015-2020) holding that the FDA's approval of the GE salmon violated core environmental law. That holding was a result of a 10 year regulatory, media, and market campaign from 2005-2015, which opposed the federal governments' approval of the salmon, during which over 2 million consumers took action to oppose the approval. AquaBounty's GE salmon never became a commercial reality.

For further reading, here's the top article on the win!

The Summer the Supreme Court Tore Up the Rules

Mon, 12 Aug 2024 00:00:00 -0700

The Supreme Court's current conservative supermajority is not shy about overturning long-established settled law using extremist approaches to constitutional interpretation. This Court has upended substantial societal interests, endangering civil liberties and public protections. You're probably aware of some of the more seismic changes in recent years: Overturning Roe v Wade, eliminating a half a century of legal precedent and the constitutional protection of women's bodily autonomy; repeatedly gutting protections for voting rights and preventing election gerrymandering; radically expanding gun rights; weaponizing the First Amendment to discriminate against same-sex couples and LGBTQ+ protections; upending equal protection law to end affirmative action in college admissions; and making it harder for the government to address climate change and protect wetlands, to name a few. Most recently, creating sweeping new presidential immunity from criminal prosecution.

What you might not know is that last month an end-of-term flurry of Supreme Court opinions you might not have heard of caused an equal earthquake, shifting bedrock U.S. law, in yet another area: administrative and regulatory law. These decisions, lumped together in a matter of days, involved important albeit dry—and less media-friendly—topics, but nonetheless will work a sea change in how the governments regulates all manner of important subjects, including the food system, everything from environmental and public health protections to food safety and ingredient labeling.

The End of the Chevron Doctrine

First is the Court's overturning of the Chevron deference doctrine in the Loper Bright decision. Chevron was a cornerstone of administrative law and procedure for forty years, covering thousands of cases. An easy way to think of it is that, in litigation that involved government rules and regulations, under the Chevron framework, the legal scales were tipped towards the government agency, or that a "tie" went to the agency. Now think of any definitional inquiry: what counts as an environmental "pollutant"? Or what qualifies as a food ingredient that is "generally recognized as safe"? Is a factory farm manure lagoon's runoff into groundwater creating industrial or hazardous "waste"? If the court thought the law's wording and instruction to the agency clear on its face, that was the end of the inquiry. However, if the particular wording was ambiguous, then a judicial thumb was placed on the scale in the agency's favor and its view deferred to if reasonable. No longer: on June 28th, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts may not defer to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous law.[1] Now, rather than the agencies Congress empowered to implement the law, it will be the federal courts that have the final say on the best meaning in such cases.

The result is a dramatic redistribution of power from the executive branch (the agencies) to the judiciary. Agency decisions applying federal law will come down to the courts' views on the disputed question, no matter how big or small, or how policy, scientific, subject matter, or expertise-laden these issues are, from decisions on workplace health by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to student loans from the Department of Education. The list of food and agriculture regulation issues implicated is long, but could include everything from: food safety, ingredient labeling, and dietary supplements at FDA; to meat and poultry safety, organic food standards, and GMO labeling at USDA; to pesticides, PFAS, and slaughterhouse pollution at EPA; and many more.

Ending the Statue of Limitations

While Loper Bright got the most press, the Supreme Court decision with arguably broader ramifications was issued just one business day later in Corner Post. This decision also incinerated a foundational pillar of administrative law: the deadline to bring a court challenge to an agency decision. Most administrative law cases—the cases dealing with rules and regulations for the protections for consumers, workers, food, drugs, the environment—must be filed within six years of the rule's issuance (there are exceptions that require a challenge be brought sooner in some cases). After those first six years, any stakeholder who wanted to challenge a regulation was out of time and out of luck.

But in Corner Post, the Supreme Court changed the rules: the clock no longer starts when a rule is issued – instead, it doesn't "accrue," or start, until an entity is first affected by the regulation. So, a company incorporated in 2025 would have until 2031 to challenge any existing regulation of its operations, even if the rule had been on the books for decades. Instead of having one statute of limitations for a rule with a clear deadline running from the rule's publication, we now have an indefinite time to challenge agency actions. And it's easy to form a new corporation, and skirt even this new "deadline."[2]

The blast radius from Corner Post is expansive: there is effectively no longer any limitations period to challenge agency regulations, and litigants can create new entities or find new plaintiffs whenever they miss a statutory deadline. This creates considerable uncertainty for agencies, interested parties, and society, where any rule in the federal code can perpetually be challenged by new plaintiffs.

But that's not all. Two other new decisions warrant mention. The June 27th decision in Jarkesy, one day before Loper Bright, held unconstitutional the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) internal enforcement mechanisms for securities fraud. These are often handled using an administrative law judge in agency proceedings, instead of full-blown federal court trials. Such agency hearings are used because they are more efficient than taking all disputes to federal courts, which move more slowly, among other benefits. Now, enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties will have to be undertaken in federal court instead. While the facts of the case were limited to the SEC, its reasoning and fallout will topple all similar agency enforcement proceedings utilized by many other agencies. As Justice Sotomayor noted in her dissent, there are over two dozen federal agencies and over 200 statutes that currently utilize similar proceedings, including those that enforce against health, environment, and worker safety violations.

Finally, also on June 27th the Court stopped the EPA's plan to address air pollution that drifts across state lines under the Clean Air Act, known as the "good neighbor" plan. Ohio v. EPA is noteworthy not just for its unfortunate pollution consequences but also because of its reasoning: it issued the extraordinary relief of halting the plan pending further lower court review simply because EPA had not properly responded to commenters' questions during the process and thus the plan was not "reasonably explained." Reversal of agency action is normally judged by whether it is "arbitrary and capricious," a standard of review that some courts have interpreted as a high bar, which the decision in Ohio lowers.

In conclusion, combining Loper Bright and Corner Post: deference to agency interpretations concerning their authority was one limitation on challenges to agency decisions; a fixed statute of limitations tied to the agency action's publication was another. The Supreme Court just detonated them both. The doors now are open to future challenges, leaving the courts to unilaterally decide the fate of agency decisions. Ohio is a new example of courts halting government action for failure to follow proper processes. And the government's ability to itself watchdog and enforce violations of laws protecting health and the environment in its usual manner is now crippled by Jarkesy, again moving what had been executive authority to the judiciary.

Unsurprisingly, each of these decisions was decided on ideological lines 6-3, with Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson writing apoplectic dissents. As these dissents make clear, these decisions will undoubtedly make it harder for the federal government to promulgate, implement, and enforce rules and regulations needed to govern in the 21st century, to protect workers, the environment, and our food. Indeed, that's the point: to dismantle the modern administrative state and shrink the federal government.

The Path Ahead

The overarching solution naturally centers around winning elections and officials with the political will to make the changes necessary. Congress could overturn Loper Bright and Corner Post, as well as fix Jarkesy. More generally, agencies have been squeezing blood from statutory stones for decades, applying environmental protection laws passed in the 1970s to try and address 21st century challenges. We are far overdue for a new wave of legislation such as the Green New Deal to address climate change, industrial agriculture, and other challenges requiring fundamental paradigm shifts. Perhaps this new cutting back on agencies' flexibility to address problems through rulemaking will create new pressure and break the legislative logjam. Further, whoever is president the next 8 years will likely replace 2-4 justices, which could swing the Supreme Court dramatically, as well as populate lower court appointments, with resulting progressive shifts in the law.

In the meantime, the Court's tearing up of the administrative law rulebook creates significant opportunities for and the increased necessity of public interest advocacy and litigation. We must make lemonade out of lemons and use the opportunities presented to advance the public interest.

First, while Loper Bright makes it harder for agencies to defend doing good things, it should also make it easier to challenge when they do bad things. And we know that in many areas the problem of "regulatory capture" at agencies is so bad that even in Democratic administrations, the agencies do not prioritize protection of health and the environment. Pesticide and GMO regulation would be easy examples. Agriculture exceptionalism makes it such that—for all of Industrial Agriculture—you could say this agency capture is the default. Now, bad rules that cause environmental and health risks from industrial agriculture based on an agency's interpretation will no longer get deference from the courts. What "costs" to farmers and the environment can agencies ignore when they register pesticides? No deference, court decides. Can a new aquaculture industry be put in the ocean without new congressional authorization? No deference, court decides. Can USDA exempt GMO foods from labeling because they are "highly processed"? No deference, court decides. Can a factory farm cause pollution to rivers simply because the pollutant travels through the air? No deference, court decides. And so on.

Second, after Ohio, what we submit to agencies in rulemaking can no longer be ignored, making detailed legal and scientific administrative filings, as well as broad public "take action" campaigns, even more important.

Third, Corner Post provides unprecedented opportunities to challenge dusty agency decisions previously unassailable. There are many bad agency decisions from past decades causing harm to the environment, risks to health, and engraining industrial agriculture, that are newly vulnerable to being litigated and corrected.

Finally, Jarkesy will make it harder for agencies to police violators, making outside enforcement by third parties more vital. Many core environmental and health laws have "citizen suit" provisions that allow for exactly this type of substitute enforcement action, and they are one of the main tools of the public interest community. This includes enforcing water pollution from factory farms and slaughterhouses, and harm to endangered species from pesticides and monocultures. Those watchdog efforts will now become all the more important.

[1] Loper Bright itself was about an ocean fisheries management decision by the National Marine Fisheries Service regarding the Atlantic herring fishery vessel fees, but the facts of the case are secondary to the new legal principle it enshrines for all agency actions and all federal agencies.

[2] As with Loper Bright, what matters in Corner Post is the new legal principle set forth not the specific facts, but its own facts illustrate the hypothetical above is anything but unforeseeable. The case was about the regulation of debit-card transaction fees by the Federal Reserve Board. A 2011 regulation capped such fees charged by businesses, and several large trade groups sued. When it became clear that the trade associations were time-barred by filing ten years after the regulation was passed, they added a small convenience store, Corner Post, that opened in 2018, but otherwise made identical claims as before. As the dissent explained the case is the "poster child" of the type of gamesmanship now invited.

Mother's Day Recipe: Taiwanese-Style Mapo Tofu

Sat, 11 May 2024 00:00:00 -0700

Taiwan, the island country where I am from, is perhaps best known around travelers for its culinary delights. Growing up, mapo tofu (a ragu of tofu and pork simmered in fermented bean paste) was one of my favorite home-cooked dishes for its simplicity, and as a kid eager to get off the dinner table and get back to my life, I loved a ragu over rice dish that I can slurp up easily.

Most of us will agree that food is an easy entry point to share and grow community. I grew up with access to traditional farmers markets and fresh meats and seafoods. Moving to the United States was a shock to me not just of the difference in culture, but to my taste buds. Meats, in particular, tasted plain, or more precisely, they tasted like corn. I began to talk to local farmers and cooks about where and how they grow and source their food, and tasting the very difference from industrial vs. sustainable forms of food production. Getting to know my local farmers brought me out onto not just the farms themselves, but the ecosystems and biodiversity on and around them. That was the hook – it was my love for food and cooking that piqued my curiosity into how our food is produced, and led me to commit my legal career to uplifting the voices of the hands that feed us and the animals, insects, air, earth, and water that provide for us. I was fortunate enough to have gone to law school in the Bay Area, where Center for Food Safety had an office. An internship from law school led to a fellowship, and more than a decade later, my love and curiosity of food has helped me forge a new community of like-minded attorneys, advocates, farmers, beekeepers, and consumers, all dedicated to building a better food future.

As a mother to a toddler, I try my best to expose her to my (and her) Taiwanese heritage, from Mandarin storybooks and songs to of course, cooking and talking to her about food. I hope to nurture her connection to the bounty that surrounds us, as well as her pride in her Taiwanese roots. And as a busy working mom, I have a newfound appreciation for the versatility of this dish: Like many dishes in Taiwan, while meat is part of the traditional recipe, it is not the essential ingredient. The star of the dish is the tofu – my version uses just half a pound of ground pork (which you can substitute with another ground meat or plant-based meat alternative of your choice if desired). It comes together very quickly. You can even prepare the seasoning mix beforehand and store it in the fridge. A few minutes of cooking and you have a big batch of delicious, savory sauce, high in protein content, to serve over rice. [Finally, while a mapo tofu purist will frown upon hearing this, you can sneak in chopped up vegetables like peas and carrots if you want.]

And it is a dish you can easily make with your child. My daughter helps cut up the tofu with her wooden toddler knife and the green onions with her toddler scissors. Who cares if they are not uniform in size or pretty? It is going into a sauce and the proud look on her face and time spent with her in the garden and in the kitchen are what matters.

Recipe for Taiwanese-Style Mapo Tofu

Taiwanese-style mapo tofu differs from its Chinese/Sichuan counterpart in that it is usually less spicy, and in my version I add miso, which adds another layer of umami/savory goodness. And while the dish is traditionally made with soft/silken tofu, I prefer medium firm tofu in mine - either is fine. I would not recommend using extra firm tofu in this dish.

Ingredients:

For the seasoning mix:

3 tbsp of doubanjiang, preferably a Taiwanese brand (fermented broad/soy bean paste)*
1 tbsp of miso paste**
1 tbsp of soy sauce/tamari
1 tsp of sesame oil
1.5 tsp of cornstarch
5 tbsp of water

Other ingredients:

1 clove of garlic, smashed and minced
1 tbsp of ginger, skin-removed julienned and minced
1-2 stalks of green onions/scallion
14 oz/1 box of medium firm tofu (or soft/silken tofu)
1 tbsp of neutral oil (I use avocado oil)
½ lb of ground pork (preferably organic and pasture-raised), or ground chicken/turkey or meat alternative of your choice

Instructions:

Drain a 14 oz box of tofu to get rid of excess water for 10 min, then cut into ¾ inch cubes.
Make seasoning mix by measuring and mixing all seasoning mix ingredients into a jar.
Finely chop one clove of garlic and 2-3 slices of ginger. Thin slice green onions.
Heat a wok or large frying pan on medium heat, when the pan is pot, add 1 tbsp of neutral oil. Once the oil is shimmering, add your garlic and ginger to the wok
Working quickly to make sure that the garlic and ginger do not burn, add your ½ lb of ground pork and break up the pork into small chunks with a spatula until no longer pink (but not browned).
Add the seasoning mix and stir thoroughly.
Once the sauce comes to a boil, add your tofu pieces and gently stir it to mix it in the sauce (without breaking up your tofu pieces), then turn your heat down to low to bring it down to a simmer and let it cook for another 5 min.
Just before taking the pan off heat, scatter your green onions as garnish.

Serve with rice. Enjoy! You can keep any leftovers in the fridge for up to 3 days. Tofu changes its texture when frozen, so freezing is not recommended.

Notes:

* Doubanjiang is a fermented bean paste made from broad beans and soybeans that can be found in the Asian/International aisle of most supermarkets and your local Asian grocer or online Asian grocers. I prefer the Taiwanese brands in this dish, in part because the Taiwanese brands come in either spicy or non-spicy varieties and so can easily be adapted for cooking for kids. If you can't find doubanjiang (or the non-spicy ones), I have also substituted with Korean gojuchang or hoisin sauce in a pinch.

** You can use either white or red miso here. If you prefer a sweeter taste, go with the white, or with the red for a darker version, If you can, use miso made from organic non-GMO soybeans.

Mother's Day Recipe: Bogotánian Ajiaco

Sat, 11 May 2024 00:00:00 -0700

I come from a diverse family and background, experiences that profoundly shape my world view and the approach I bring to my vocation. My mother is a first-generation Colombian immigrant and lifelong educator. I identify as Latino and it is only by English naming convention that my name is not George Kimbrell-Zalamea.

As a boy I was very close to my maternal grandfather, who was in his later years, among many other things, a food writer for years for El Nuevo Herald (Spanish version of the Miami Herald). He also authored several best-selling cookbooks in Spanish. He and my mother taught me how to cook from a young age, but more importantly they taught me to love and savor food and cooking. The ritual of it. The delayed gratification of it. Food as a sacrament and cooking as a creative art. The natural world and its bounty as our heritage, connected to our ancestors. These principles are all deeply engrained in my ethos, qualities that undoubtedly steered me to my vocation of protecting planet and building a better future for our food.

Historically, because Colombia is a Catholic country, the meal was made on Christmas Eve because of midnight mass: people would fast all day and then attend mass; the soup was an easy to digest post-service meal.

So, growing up we made Ajiaco every Christmas Eve, and I have continued that cherished holiday tradition with my own family (even still with Abuela, when we can). Often we will couple it with homemade bread and a Jamaican recipe to represent my wife's heritage. We take pride in instilling in our three children the cultural traditions of both our families daily in big and small ways: cooking, music, language, religion, storytelling.

We also make Ajiaco other times of year of course; it is a comforting soup, at once both humble and proud, and perfect for our rainy days here in the Pacific Northwest.

Today we take time to honor and express our gratitude to all the mothers among us, as well as Mother Earth, and I'm proud of our collective work at CFS dismantling industrial agriculture and championing a new food future.

Bogotánian Ajiaco recipe (traditional Colombian peasant soup)

A few notes on the recipe:

This is my family's traditional recipe as taught to me by my mother and grandfather, and it differs slightly from some other Colombian ajiaco recipes you might find.

Using three different potatoes is important and serves a purpose. Sabanera/russet will give it the creamy quality; pastusa/Yukon golds provide flavor and texture; criolla provide yellow color and sweetness. The soup is from the Andean part of Colombia, where hundreds of types of potatoes are grown.

Guascas is the star of the soup, gives it a particular earthy taste and fragrance, a culinary herb with medicinal benefits. You can find it dried online, but in a pinch you can sub in watercress.

Ingredients:

2 pounds sabanera (substitute russet) potatoes
1 pound red potatoes
1.5 pounds papas criollas (or sub yellow potatoes)
3 pounds bone-in chicken (using a whole skin on chicken is best)*
1 beef shinbone
Large onion, peeled but not diced
2 teaspoons kosher salt
Black pepper
4 large scallions, trimmed
4 garlic cloves, diced
5 ears corn, husked and cut into 3-4 pieces
10 grams dried Guascas
1/5 cups heavy cream
1 large cup capers
3-4 ripe avocados, cut into wedges
3 cilantro stems
Lime wedges and aji

*Note: A vegetarian or vegan version can be easily made, by simply omitting the chicken and using vegetable stock instead to make the broth and vegan sour cream alternative.

Instructions:

Simmer the chicken in a large soup pot filled with water. Add the whole onion, shinbone, and half the chopped spices (guascas, garlic, scallions, salt and pepper). Skim off the foam that rises to the top occasionally. Cook until the chicken is cooked through (~45 m).
While the broth is simmering, peel and half or quarter all the potatoes. (A second pair of hands is helpful!)
Using tongs, remove the chicken from the pot and place on cutting board to cool. Discard the whole onion and shinbone.
Strain the fresh chicken broth twice and return to cleaned soup pot. Add the second half of spices and the potatoes. (Throughout, add more guascas liberally as needed to taste and aroma.)
While the potatoes are cooking, breakdown and shred the now cooled chicken into 1-inch long pieces. Discard the carcass and skin.
When the potatoes are soft (~45m), mash a few into the side of the pot, making the soup thick and creamy. Leave some potato chunks.
Now add back in the shredded chicken and chopped corn on the cob, and simmer on low/medium (~20m). Stir with wooden spoon and add water/more broth if/as needed for consistency.
To serve, in a large bowl first pour in heavy cream to taste, then the soup on top of it. Float the avocado wedges and sprinkle capers to taste, garnish with cilantro, squeeze of lime and aji optional.

Enjoy!

State Takes Back Mega-Chicken CAFO Permit: Victory for Neighbors and River!

Thu, 25 Apr 2024 00:00:00 -0700

The Willamette Valley of Oregon is home to rich and dense farming communities, growing food crops, nursery plants, and meat and dairy animals, including organic dairy on small and medium family farms. It is also veined with streams and rivers that feed the Willamette River, which are popular for local and tourist recreation and are home to myriad wildlife, including threatened and endangered salmon. This same valley was also recently the target of Foster Farms for expansion of its integrated meat chicken empire. Several plots of land were purchased by individuals to build massive chicken factories, raising 3.5-4.5 million chickens per year each. One was upwind of a school, another butting up against the property of a local farmer, and a third was located just one-quarter mile from the North Santiam River.

After local outcry and the formation of the Farmers Against Factory Farms, Center for Food Safety and the Stand Up to Factory Farms (SUFF) coalition expanded their mega-dairy moratorium campaign to include all factory farms. The SUFF coalition was co-founded by CFS and is managed by CFS senior attorney in Oregon, Amy van Saun. For years, SUFF has been building power to put a pause on further mega-sized factory farms moving into Oregon or consolidating from what used to be hundreds of individual dairies. Now, SUFF turned its sights to protecting all of Oregon, including the Willamette Valley, from this influx of Foster Farms chicken operations.

In 2023, SUFF and Farmers Against Foster Farms successfully passed a bill—SB 85—to rein in this industry with stricter water quality permitting, a cap on the previously unlimited stockwater loophole (which allowed "farms" of any size to take unlimited water for their livestock without a water right or permit), and authority granted to counties to require setbacks from residences for new large CAFOs. It also established for the first time in Oregon a permitting system to protect water quality when third parties spread exported CAFO manure in already-contaminated areas, designated as Groundwater Management Areas (GWMAs). With the new rules looming, two of the potential Foster Farms operations backed down and are selling off their land. One—J-S Ranch—was already permitted and would not be subject to the new rules.

Again, CFS jumped in to help, representing neighbors of the proposed factory farm, as well as Farmers Against Foster Farms, Friends of Family Farmers, and Willamette Riverkeeper in a legal action to prevent J-S Ranch from opening. Despite the community outcry in the form of comments and testimony at a public hearing, Oregon's Department of Agriculture (ODA) and Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) still gave J-S Ranch a permit to raise 3.5 million birds close to the North Santiam River, generating 4,500 tons of manure a year. CFS, along with the Sugarman Dahab law firm, brought ODA and DEQ to court, filing a petition to contest the permit in the Linn County Circuit Court in fall 2022.

As Petitioners argued, this operation would surely cause surface water pollution to the North Santiam River and other surface waters via contaminated stormwater running off the massive new infrastructure on what is now crop farmland, and via aerial deposition: ammonia and dust generated in the chicken barns spewed out of industrial fans and falling into the nearby River. But ODA only issued a state-law only permit meant to address just groundwater discharges, under the false assumption that these types of chicken operations are "dry" and would not impact surface water like the North Santiam. Before anyone discharges pollutants to navigable waters like the North Santiam, they must have an NPDES permit under the federal Clean Water Act and Oregon's own surface water quality laws. As neighbors and others told ODA over and again, this is an extremely wet area and not a suitable spot for a chicken factory farm. If ODA/DEQ were going to issue any permit, they had to account for the surface water pollution that would come. Moreover, the petitioners alleged that even the permit issued was not sufficient to protect groundwater, given that the floors of the chicken barns would not be concrete or another impermeable surface, merely compacted earth. In such a wet area, where the groundwater comes up to the surface during the wet winter months, the state simply could not say that groundwater would be protected from nitrogen and phosphorous pollution, among other elements of chicken waste (pathogens, animal drugs, etc).

In 2023 and 2024, the state attempted to kick these surface water claims out, filing two motions for summary judgment. They argued that the state does not have to address aerial emissions, because this type of water pollution is not covered under either the federal Clean Water Act or Oregon's broader laws protecting water quality. They also attempted to ignore the contaminated stormwater that would run off impermeable roof tops and the CAFO grounds, calling this exempt "agricultural stormwater discharge"—a term used for non-CAFO agriculture and only applied by the federal Environmental Protection Agency in a limited (and improper) way to runoff from land-applied animal waste. After two hearings, the Linn County Circuit Court denied the state's motions, allowing all issues to go to trial.

Rather than proceed to trial, on Friday, April 19, 2024, the state filed a notice in the lawsuit, withdrawing the permit for reconsideration. They gave themselves until October 31, 2024, to make a new decision, during which time the permit is paused, so no new construction may begin. The neighbors and community can sigh a breath of relief this summer, knowing that for now, their farms, homes, groundwater, and River are protected. And CFS remains vigilant: unless the state does the right thing and denies this permit, we will be back to court.

An Herbicide So Hazardous That Courts Have Banned It Twice

Thu, 25 Apr 2024 00:00:00 -0700

In early February, something rather extraordinary happened in the world of American farming. For the second time, a federal court banned the hazardous herbicide dicamba, which has been wreaking havoc on farmers, rural communities and the natural world for seven long years. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) re-approved dicamba after the first court action. Will it do so once again?

What about dicamba makes it so hazardous that courts have overruled EPA twice? It's an incredibly volatile, drift-prone weed-killer, and extremely potent as well: just one teaspoon over an acre stunts tomato plants. It vaporizes while being sprayed, but also evaporates from plant surfaces and soil days after a spraying operation. Once the vapor is airborne, it forms clouds that drift long distances to kill or injure virtually any flowering plant in its path.

And that's precisely what happened following Monsanto's 2016 introduction of soybeans and cotton genetically engineered (GE) to withstand dicamba's killing effects. Widespread planting of these new GE crops triggered a dramatic upsurge in use during late spring and summer, when heat enhances dicamba's volatility.

Dicamba has drifted rampantly from these GE fields, damaging millions of acres of non-dicamba-resistant soybeans. Wave after wave of dicamba vapor drift killed fruit trees, or left them with small, unsaleable fruit. Vegetable farms and gardens were devastated. Trees in natural areas suffered. And beekeepers reported steep drops in honey production where dicamba had devasted the flowering plants their bees require for nectar and pollen.

Echoing many of his colleagues, North Dakota pesticide expert Andrew Thostenson stated: "We are in unprecedented, unchartered territory. We've never observed anything on this scale since we've been using pesticides in the modern era."

Center for Food Safety and scientists warned EPA about the hazards of the dicamba crop system as early as 2010, but were ignored. So we teamed up with family farmers and environmental groups to sue the agency as soon as it approved three dicamba products for "over-the-top" spraying on dicamba-resistant GE crops in 2017. That lawsuit culminated in the first court decision, which rescinded those dicamba approvals in June 2020. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal's emphatic ruling reflected how egregious EPA's violations of pesticide law had been. Among six major findings, the Court noted the "enormous and unprecedented damage" caused by dicamba drift, and the extraordinary fact that "EPA refused to quantify or estimate the amount of damage... or even to admit that there was any damage at all."

Rather than accept the decision, the Trump Administration's EPA assigned a team of 50, working overtime, to resurrect the court-rescinded products in October 2020. The pretext for re-approval was a few more studies, and a few additional control measures. The same groups sued EPA again, and after three more years of devastating dicamba damage, the second court ruling was issued on February 6^th of this year.

Like the Ninth Circuit nearly four years ago, the District Court of Arizona cancelled three dicamba products. The court described how the continuing high number of dicamba drift episodes demonstrated that EPA had been wrong to put faith in the efficacy of the additional control measures introduced in 2020, and noted EPA's continuing failure to "assess costs from offsite movement." The Court found that EPA, in re-approving dicamba in 2020, violated the public input requirement of pesticide law. This violation was "very serious" because it deprived farmers and others of the opportunity to tell EPA about the damage they incurred from dicamba drift, which could have altered the Agency's 2020 decision on whether not to re-approve, and if so under what conditions.

What will happen now? Well, EPA has issued an "existing stocks" order that permits "millions of gallons" of the three dicamba products that had already entered commerce prior to February 6^th to be applied this year, according to the (otherwise cancelled) product labels: until June 30^th on soybeans and July 31^st on cotton. On March 11^th, Bayer applied to EPA for re-registration of its dicamba product, XtendiMax, for the 2025 season.

In making any decision for 2025 or beyond, EPA Administrator Michael Regan and his staff must finally own up to the Agency's past errors, and account for the enormous toll dicamba has taken on rural America and the natural world.

EPA must grapple with the fates of people like the Flamm family, whose fifth-generation, southern Illinois peach and apple orchard, founded in 1888, has been hit repeatedly with dicamba drift since 2018. Dicamba curls their trees' leaves, which fall to earth prematurely, resulting in sunburned and stunted fruit. As of 2022, the Flamms had lost $1 million in apple production alone, and as many as 6,000 trees.

Then there is Iowa farmer Rob Faux, who can no longer grow bell peppers nor rely on his farm for income thanks to devastating dicamba damage. South Dakota grower John Seward, who has seen his vegetable farm decimated several times by airborne dicamba, may be forced to give up farming as a result.

That dicamba could shut down a farm is no news to Bill Bader, whose peach orchard in the Missouri Bootheel was decimated by multiple exposures to the herbicide over years. Bader's farm has suffered not only from airborne drift, but also from dicamba in the very rain that falls on this region.

And Arkansas beekeeper Richard Coy was forced to move his operation to Mississippi to escape the devastating impacts of dicamba drift on the flowering plants his bees require for sustenance.

All told, EPA has received reports of over 80 different types of plants damaged by dicamba in 29 states, including pepper, squash, pumpkin, cucumber, melon, peas, potato, rice, sugarbeet, peanut and grapes, among others.

Soybeans are among the most dicamba-sensitive of crops, and according to USDA, up to 15.6 million acres were injured in 2018 alone. Depending on circumstances, dicamba drift has triggered everything from moderate damage, such as the collective $7 million in lost yields incurred by 200 Minnesota soybeans farmers, to the catastrophic, exemplified by Arkansas soybeans damaged so badly by dicamba as to yield just 5 bushels per acre, versus a typical 50 bushel/acre harvest.

If Administrator Regan decides to re-approve dicamba, he would not only be affirming the rightness of putting more farmers under financial stress and out of business, but also of stymieing new farmers before they even get started. The already daunting prospect of starting a new farm is made next-to-impossible if you are unlucky enough to break ground in the Land of Dicamba. Consider the case of Brad Miller, who purchased a small farm near Greenfield, Iowa in 2021. Over the following two years, he has seen his newly planted orchard, vegetable garden, alfalfa, canola and clover come to naught thanks to dicamba drift: trees were stunted; vegetables plants did not produce; radishes, turnips and canola died; alfalfa stopped growing. Neighbors lost all their tomatoes and similar vegetables. In a complaint lodged with EPA, Mr. Miller "expressed shock that this would happen," that "someone would be allowed to spray something … that would come onto his property and damage it." We agree. How could EPA permit this?

These are just a sprinkling of the many thousands of cases of dicamba damage, none of them acceptable. But the impacts go still deeper. Dicamba poisons not only the air, but also farming communities. Dicamba drift damage has created deep divisions in rural America, with those who spray the herbicide at loggerheads with those whose crops are damaged by it. In the words of the Ninth Circuit, dicamba "has torn apart the social fabric of many farming communities."

Why has it taken civil society groups filing lawsuits and court decisions to take dicamba off the market? One might have expected better from the Biden Administration's EPA, which in March 2021 proclaimed a commitment to "scientific integrity" in regulatory decision-making. The EPA acknowledged that some important decisions had been corrupted by "political interference" during Trump's reign, citing dicamba as an example. Despite this commitment, and a damning EPA report laying out dicamba's many harms in December 2021, the Agency has failed to take the necessary step and cancel dicamba's registrations. That cowardice has condemned farmers to three more years of crop damage.

I suspect EPA's inaction has something to do with the political clout of dicamba manufacturers Bayer and BASF, as well as the many Big Ag commodity and trade groups that are joined at the hip to these companies. And not just their raw political power, but their false narratives as well.

One myth – that drift is attributable to older formulations of dicamba – is decisively refuted by state investigators, for instance in Indiana, who established that 92% of dicamba damage incidents were in fact due to the formulations approved for use on GE crops.

Similarly, the industry has sought to convince EPA that agriculture will suffer without dicamba. But nothing could be further from the truth. First, EPA scientists have identified dozens of alternative herbicides registered for use with soybeans and cotton, while USDA's most recent survey of soybean farmers' chemical use (2020) includes 53 herbicides other than dicamba or glyphosate. Farmers managed weeds before the dicamba system was introduced in 2017, and they will do so without it.

Second, scare stories about potential yield loss without dicamba are equally ridiculous. EPA found no evidence to support Bayer's claim that dicamba increases yield, while impartial university field trials showed that dicamba-resistant soybeans yielded less than Roundup Ready varieties. Thus, it's not surprising that average soybean yields have hardly budged since 2017, after growing substantially over the prior two "dicamba-less" decades.

The most perverse myth of all is that dicamba is needed to prevent the development of weeds resistant to other herbicides – perverse because it obscures the real story, which is that excessive reliance on dicamba is already driving evolution of dicamba-resistant weeds in multiple states. This development is drawing comparisons to the explosive emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds with the widespread planting of Roundup Ready crops. The only real solution to weed resistance is less reliance on herbicides overall, and in particular abandonment of the GE herbicide-resistant crop systems that are such potent promoters of weed resistance. Greater use of cultural techniques like complex crop rotations and cover crops can also suppress weeds.

In short, the sky will not fall if EPA does the right thing and abstains from resurrecting dicamba once again.

Good things, however, would certainly follow. The legions of growers who have purchased Monsanto's expensive dicamba-resistant soybean seeds simply to avoid crop injury, for self-protection, will regain the freedom to farm the seeds of their choice, and save money as well. Small seed firms that sell those alternative seeds will also benefit by regaining customers they lost to Bayer, the world's largest seed company. And public sector soybean breeding programs will no longer see their experimental plantings devastated by dicamba drift.

Perhaps most important, courageous farmers who dare to diversify the Midwestern landscape of corn and soybean fields by growing fruits and vegetables or keeping bees will once again be able to farm without fear of seeing their livelihoods devastated by this herbicidal menace.

Support our Legal and Policy work to keep dicamba out of our food system for good!

From Seed to Fork: Advocating for a US Farm Bill that Supports Organic

Mon, 22 Apr 2024 00:00:00 -0700

Arguably the largest & most impactful US food policy – The US Farm Bill – is in the works and it is set to determine the future of the food we eat for the next 5 years. Your voice is needed!

As organic advocates, we care deeply about our food and farming system. We imagine a future where the way we grow and produce food ensures that the food on our plates is not only delicious, but also healthy for us and the planet. Every 5 years, we have a powerful opportunity to vote for a healthier food future for our families & communities through the US Farm Bill – and that time has come again – we invite you to join us in taking action!

Nature's Path Organic Foods & Center for Food Safety have joined forces throughout 2024 to raise awareness & empower our community to make our voices heard in this pivotal moment for our food future.

Learn more & join us in sending a strong message to Congress today for a healthier, organic food future for all.

What makes the US Farm Bill so important?

The Farm Bill is a package of bills that directly shapes how our food is grown and ultimately, what ends up on supermarket shelves and our plates for the next five years. It allocates funding for agriculture, food assistance and other programs that impacts our entire food system from seed to fork – for better or worse.

Ensuring that organic agriculture is well supported within the Farm Bill is critical to tipping the scales toward a positive food future that keeps harmful agrochemicals out of our environment & food system, ensures fair working conditions for farm workers, promotes equitable access to healthy food for all, protects finite natural resources and combats climate change.

How powerful is organic agriculture? Here are a few of our favorite facts!

If organic farming standards (maintaining and improving soil health) were adopted globally, we could expect to save 2 billion tons of carbon a year — the equivalent of 12% of the total annual GHG emissions worldwide¹.
Organic diets have been shown to reduce pesticide levels in our bodies by up to 95% in just 6 days².
Organic production uses 45% less energy than conventional agriculture³.
Organic farming increases overall biodiversity by 30%⁴.
Organic farming protects nearby rural and urban communities from exposure to synthetic pesticides that can persist in the air, water, and soil⁵.

Organic agriculture is an important choice that benefits us all. Now, more than ever, we must urge Congress to increase critical support for organic agriculture in the Farm Bill.

Key Organic Priorities in the Farm Bill

Together with Nature's Path, we are advocating for several key bills within the Farm Bill that support the positive transformation we envision for our food system, and we invite you to do the same by joining with us to contact your Congressional representative to request they prioritize the following strategic marker bills in the Farm Bill:

Investing in Organic: The Opportunities in Organic Act (S.1582) would expand organic farming by making it easier for farmers to switch to organic. It would provide more technical assistance and mentorship programs, along with financial aid to reduce the initial costs of transitioning to organic practices.
Promoting Organic as Climate-Friendly Farming: Legislation like the Agriculture Resilience Act (H.R. 1840) encourages farming practices that combat climate change, which align with organic approaches that prioritize soil health and carbon sequestration.
Ensuring Social Equity in Agriculture: Legislation like the Justice for Black Farmers Act (S.96) promotes equal access to resources and opportunities, fostering a more diverse and inclusive food and farming sector.
Supporting Small Farms: The Farmland for Farmers Act (S.2583) safeguards small farms from corporate ownership by stopping new corporate ownership of farmland, a vital step to keep small organic farms in business.

By advocating for a Farm Bill that strengthens organic agriculture, we're investing in a future filled with healthy food, a thriving environment, less climate change and vibrant farming communities. Let's use our voices and urge Congress to prioritize organic as the priority solution within the Farm Bill toolbox. Together, we can cultivate a more sustainable and equitable food system for all.

Take Action Today!

Make your voice heard and help transform the US Farm Bill by urging your representatives to prioritize organic agriculture. Our pre-written letter template makes it easy to express your support for this important cause. Click this link or the button below and act now!

About Center for Food Safety:

As a leader in the food movement for over 25 years, Center for Food Safety (CFS) has used groundbreaking legal, policy, corporate, public education, and grassroots campaigns to protect our food, our farms, and our environment. We believe in the power of organic and sustainable farming and eating and are proud to stand with like-minded organizations and consumers to create a better food future. Learn more here: https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/

About Nature's Path Foods

Nature's Path Organic Foods is North America's largest organic breakfast and snack food company and produces USDA and Canadian Certified Organic and Non-GMO Project Verified breakfast and snack foods sold in grocery and natural food stores in over 50 countries around the world. Committed to the triple bottom line— socially responsible, environmentally sustainable and financially viable, Nature's Path works diligently to support communities and champion the cause of people and planet. Brands include Nature's Path®, Love Crunch®, Que Pasa®, EnviroKidz®, Anita's Organic Mills® and Love Child Organics®. Founded in 1985, Nature's Path is headquartered in Richmond, British Columbia and employs hundreds of valued team members at its four facilities in Canada and the United States.

To learn more about Nature's Path Organic Foods, visit their website at www.naturespath.com

Sources:

Organic Farming Research Foundation – South Health & Organic Farming Report – Organic Practices for Climate Mitigation, Adaptation, and Carbon Sequestration. https://ofrf.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Climate_Guide_FINAL-F_WebRes.pdf
Science Direct: Organic diet intervention significantly reduces urinary pesticide levels in U.S. children and adults . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935119300246
Rodale Farming Systems Trial. https://rodaleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/fst-30-year-report.pdf
British Ecological Society: Land-use intensity and the effects of organic farming on biodiversity: a hierarchical meta-analysis . https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2664.12219
PubMed: Dietary intake and its contribution to longitudinal organophosphorus pesticide exposure in urban/suburban children. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18414640/

Cultivate Change: Plant the Seeds of a Brighter Future with CFS

Wed, 20 Mar 2024 00:00:00 -0700

For 25 years, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) has empowered consumers, supported farmers, and protected the earth from the harmful impacts of industrial agriculture. Through groundbreaking legal, scientific, and grassroots action, we fight tirelessly to protect and promote our right to safe food and a healthy planet. CFS is a small but mighty organization of experts delivering significant impact. We represent our clients free of charge, and win an impressive 75% of cases, demonstrating our expertise and efficiency. As we celebrate our 25th anniversary this year, we invite you to join us in defending and creating a sustainable and regenerative food future of which we can all be proud: A future where pollinators are protected, rivers are clean, animals live unconfined, untested food technologies are regulated, and where we can eat food without having to worry about its integrity. By partnering with us, you'll illustrate your shared commitment to our vision of advancing sustainable, organic, and regenerative food systems for all.

Our legal cases represent a landmark body of food and agriculture law including:

- Protecting our public health and endangered species from pesticides like glyphosate,
drift-prone dicamba, and the bee-killing pesticide sulfoxaflor
- Ensuring strong standards for the organic label
- Protecting communities and wildlife from factory farm pollution
- Stopping GMO fish, wheat, potatoes, and tomatoes from showing up on our dinner table
- Protecting our oceans from industrial fish farms

And we are still going strong. From challenging EPA's failure to regulate endocrine-disrupting pesticides and protecting farmworkers, to stopping polluting factory farms from endangering the drinking water of communities and healthy rivers, to addressing the climate-change causing emissions of industrial agriculture, we are always spearheading a new future for our food, from farm to fork.

Our victories have fueled a growing consumer movement that is rejecting industrial agriculture and instead choosing viable, sustainable food and farming solutions. With over 1 million mailing members, 142K Facebook followers, 47.3K Twitter followers, 39.3K Instagram followers, and 9,700 TikTok followers, CFS empowers the public by providing scientifically and legally vetted information on their food choices. From sorting through complex food labels to advocating for the right to healthier food, CFS shares digestible resources about our work and the work we can do together to transform our food and farming systems.

Sponsor CFS today to showcase your commitment to transforming our food systems for the better, and become part of our ever-growing consumer movement for sustainable and regenerative foods.

One-time donation of $50,000 or more

- Opportunity for a company representative to be featured in a 1-min video that will be
highlighted on our social media (Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, YouTube, or CFS website)
- 3 targeted social media collaborations
- Logo and sponsorship recognition in select membership emails, on anniversary webpage, and
in our annual report.

One-time donation of $25,000 or more

- 2 targeted social media collaborations
- Logo placements on anniversary webpage
- Recognition in annual report

One-time donation of $10,000 or more

- A one-time targeted social media collaboration
- Logo placement on anniversary webpage

A Teenage Perspective on the Climate Crisis

Fri, 01 Dec 2023 00:00:00 -0800

As I stepped off of the Tube, I was immediately hit by a familiar smoky smell. I quickly turned my head towards my friend, our alarmed eyes locking. "Wildfire," we exclaimed in sync. Being from California, the smell was all too familiar to us. Of course, in that moment we were far from California, standing on the streets of London. We laughed, realizing that the possibility of a forest fire in the United Kingdom's largest metropolis was nearly impossible. But, our peers weren't laughing. They looked at us with concern, wondering how we were both so familiar with the smell of wildfires. At that moment, reality set in. We both realized that having a wildfire season and getting school canceled because of smoke wasn't a universal experience. In fact, those fires were a result of an increasing climate crisis.

The effects of increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) in our atmosphere are pervasive and undeniable. As a teenage girl living in California, I have been specifically impacted by wildfires, severe droughts, and increasingly frequent heat waves. But, throughout the U.S. and all over the world, people experience the impacts of our climate crisis in different ways. Despite the differences in the way people are affected by this crisis, the fact of the matter is that everyone, everywhere, is impacted by climate change in some way. This fact is what makes climate change one of the scariest but most important issues to solve.

As a teenager, I often feel powerless when it comes to seemingly massive issues like the climate crisis. It feels like the future of our planet is in my generation's hands, yet I've found myself questioning whether anything I do will make a meaningful impact. For a while, I felt stuck, staring at a mountain that felt impossible to climb. Only after I began to break down the issue of climate change into smaller, more manageable action steps, was I able to feel sparks of hope for the future. Understanding the origins of global warming has helped me feel more informed, in control, and confident in certain climate solutions. In light of the United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP28 starting yesterday, I wanted to share my journey grappling with these feelings of uncertainty in hopes to inspire others to make meaningful changes in their lifestyle for the benefit of our shared planet.

So, what is climate change and where does it come from? The straightforward answer is that greenhouse gas emissions are causing long-term shifts in the temperature and weather patterns of the earth. Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are some of the most common greenhouse gases. As emissions rise, so does the earth's temperature. The earth is now 1.1º C warmer than it was in the late 1800s. But, rising temperatures aren't the only consequence of climate change. Other repercussions include intense droughts, wildfires, rising sea levels, and unpredictable storms. When we think of fossil fuel emissions, many might imagine dark clouds of smoke emerging from massive factories. However, the most common way that greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere is through our everyday actions. Transportation, heating, and landfills are all contributors to increasing greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.

Some might be shocked to hear, however, that industrial agriculture is responsible for more than a third of all greenhouse gas emissions. About 70% of all nitrous oxide emissions come from agriculture, and about 50% of all methane emissions are caused by concentrated animal agriculture. Nitrous oxide emissions are especially dangerous because N2O has 298 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide. And, almost all of this dangerous gas is being released into the atmosphere through our agricultural systems. Yet, when we shop for our weekly groceries, we almost never consider how the food we purchase has permanently impacted the climate.

While the source of our changing climate is largely our agricultural system, the solution may lie in a part of that system: soil. The earth's soil stores 2,500 billion tons of carbon, which is more than plants and the atmosphere combined. But, over time soils have lost 50-70% of their original carbon contents, making it more difficult for soils to carry out their important functions. However, through photosynthesis, plants can take excess carbon out of our atmosphere and store it back in the earth's soil. Through composting, cover cropping, and conserving forests, we can simultaneously reduce carbon in our atmosphere and feed soils the carbon they need.

Solutions like these are simple but impactful. Each day, scientists are discovering new ways to mitigate our climate crisis. Although it won't be easy, it is possible. By understanding the origins of climate change, we can take steps to prevent further damage to our environment and possibly reverse preexisting damage. But, for it to be possible, everyone, including you and me, needs to start shifting their everyday lifestyles.

While a lifestyle shift seems like a massive change, there are simple steps we can all take to lessen our carbon footprints. With COP28 starting yesterday, here are some easy ways to lessen our impact on the climate. The most important step is to become more conscious. Learn to pay attention to your power usage, transportation choices, and heating. It is especially important for us to become more aware of our food choices. If possible, buy food from local farmers at farmers' markets and stores that source from organic, local farms. Additionally, it is important to eliminate food waste whenever possible. Most importantly, try to learn more about where your food comes from and how it impacts the environment. In addition to food choices, take shorter showers, remember to turn off the lights, do full loads of laundry, and shop secondhand. As teenagers, these small actions are invitations to make a meaningful impact on a crisis that seems so insurmountable.

A Community Voice on Waialua Fresh

Fri, 08 Sep 2023 00:00:00 -0700

It has been unsurprising to see local headlines probing the "sustainable" manure-to-biochar operations at Hawai'i's only large factory farm, Waialua Fresh. When it comes to industrial animal agriculture, I adhere to the motto "the greener the claims, the redder the flags." This wisdom also holds true for animal raising claims. Companies use such claims on animal product packaging labels, websites, and advertisements because consumers are willing to pay more for products that appear to align with their values. In actuality, these are greenwashing or humane-washing tactics, and such claims are often utterly meaningless.

Take the largest words on Waialua Fresh's egg cartons for example – "cage free." Waialua Fresh's website states that "it's [sic] solar arrays double as cage free shelter for the hens," and "not to mention, all of our chickens are cage-free." An average consumer might imagine "cage free" means the chickens are not only not in battery cages, but are also able to engage in their natural behaviors on open pasture, the sun on their feathers and trade winds at their backs. Not giving a cluck.

But Waialua Fresh's hens live with 50,000 others in a confined building, a giant cage disturbingly rebranded as "shelter."

In terms of Waialua Fresh's green claims, its "state of the art" facility boasts many features. It is fully powered by solar arrays; it (now) turns all its waste into biochar, a soil amending fertilizer; it is carbon neutral; it has an independent water well. There is, notably, zero runoff. All of this is fantastic considering Waialua Fresh's far from "green" factory farm counterparts on the mainland.

Yet for all these "sustainable" operations, Waialua Fresh is still missing one massive variable in its attempt to mitigate Hawai'i's food insecurity—its reliance on imported feed. To genuinely reduce "the amount of resources depleted by shipping eggs from the mainland," local growers would have to use approximately 5,000 acres of land and immense water inputs to grow enough (likely GMO) crops for the one million chickens that Waialua Fresh hopes to one day house.

Factory farms are anathema to planetary health.GHG emissions from industrial animal agriculture are a significant anthropogenic driver of climate change. Feed production has catastrophic environmental consequences because of the land and water inputs required to grow food for billions of animals. These billions of animals create 1.2 to 1.37 billion tons of manure per year. The manure management "system" is haunting. Manure lagoons can contain antibiotics, pathogens, and other animal feed additives that can pollute the groundwater during a storage leak or adverse weather event. These lagoons pollute the air with ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, methane, and "fecal particulate matter." This implicates environmental justice because companies intentionally build factory farms near impoverished communities, and pollutants sicken residents. (Imagine waking each morning to your neighbor spraying hog shit on their lawn. But, like, a really big lawn, and industrial amounts of shit.)

Our disparate legal treatment of species screams volumes about our ability to justify immense cruelty. We've seen the results of animal agriculture on supermarket shelves. Earlier this year, egg prices increased as availability nearly disappeared. Why were factory farms not the intuitive solution to increasing the egg supply? Because factory farms were a main driver behind the egg "crisis." Avian influenza (H5N1) killed over 50 million chickens, primarily indirectly due to mass culling, often by "ventilation shutdown." Rose Acre Farms, one of Waialua Fresh's mainland owners, lost 1.5 million hens in one of its Iowa facilities. Viruses love a packed "shelter" full of poultry; intensive animal confinement creates the perfect conditions for viruses to thrive. Widespread animal illness with the potential for zoonotic disease to jump to humans? That's not something that we've ever experienced or need to worry about. Shh.

Our islands' chickens may have been spared from this strain of the virus, but the mainland's bird flu outbreak should serve as cautionary, and we should not expect to create the same conditions and have different results.

Why did we let mainland corporations convince us that the production of eggs– eggs that rely on massive quantities of imported feed–was going to help solve our food insecurity? I mean, I'll say it—eggs are really, really small. I don't know how long we'll survive following another major supply chain interruption if eggs are our pièce de résistance.

As we endeavor towards food security in Hawai'i, we must avoid the devastating incidents that have resulted from the proliferation of factory farms as the main source of our nation's slaughter-based animal products. Factory farms do not promote the values we ought to promote locally—such as ecological stewardship and connections between smaller farms with the communities they feed.

I would encourage the public to visit Sweet Land Farm, to watch keiki feeding goats, and observe how everyone can wander the premises unsupervised. Waialua Fresh has yet to allow the public to tour its facilities, despite early statements that it would offer such tours. As you leave Sweet Land, you'll only be able to glance at Waialua Fresh's ultra-green facility from afar, its gleaming metal structures, nary a chicken in sight.

Jennifer Meleana Hee is a student at the University of Hawai'i William S. Richardson School of Law.

Suing to Protect Pollinators

Thu, 22 Jun 2023 00:00:00 -0700

One of every three bites of food we eat comes from a crop pollinated by bees. This bee-powered nourishment includes apples, blueberries, tomatoes, bananas, avocados, cashews, and almonds–a harvest of more than 130 fruits, vegetables, and nuts. Yet, all this is imperiled by a severe decline of bees and other pollinators worldwide.

A shocking new study just found that mass pollinator loss has already caused half a million early human deaths a year by drastically reducing the global supply of fruits, vegetables, and nuts. Between April 2018 to April 2019, the managed bee population in the U.S. decreased by a stunning 40.7%, which experts call "unsustainable."

Why is there such a crisis with these vital spark plugs of our food and fiber? An overwhelming number of scientific studies link these bee declines to pesticides, demonstrating the far-reaching impacts toxic chemical pesticides have on our environment. These bee-harmful pesticides have many long-term detrimental effects and pose an increased risk to fragile ecosystems.

The pesticides most directly linked to pollinator declines are a group of systemic insecticides called neonicotinoids. These "neonics," as they're often called, are the most widely used insecticides in the world. Unlike traditional pesticides, which are typically applied to plant surfaces, neonics are systemic—meaning they are absorbed and transported through all parts of the plant tissue.

Honey bees and other pollinators are exposed to these toxic chemicals through pollen, nectar, dust, dew droplets on plant leaves, and in the soil where many native bee species nest. Modeled after nicotine, neonicotinoids interfere with insects' nervous systems, causing tremors, paralysis, and eventually, death. Neonicotinoids are so toxic that one corn seed treated with them contains enough insecticide to kill over 80,000 honey bees.

Neonicotinoids are especially dangerous because they persist in the environment and can accumulate quickly–causing contamination of surface water, groundwater, and soil, endangering species that inhabit these ecosystems. This contamination has created widespread harm to aquatic invertebrates, such as mollusks and crustaceans, both vital to aquatic habitats; and evidence shows neonics have potential long-term impacts on waterfowl, rangeland birds, and other wild animals.

Imagine a world with no apples, melons, squash, broccoli or almonds. Three quarters of the crops we consume rely on pollinators, and if we're going to save them from extinction, scientists agree–we must ban the pesticides largely responsible for their demise.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)–which was created to protect our health and the environment from chemicals such as pesticides–continues to approve and register pesticides that are known to harm and kill pollinators such as bees and butterflies.

Last June, a federal court ruled that EPA's reapproval of glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, was unlawful for all uses. It even rebuked the agency for ignoring real-world evidence of cancer risks from glyphosate, and for failing to consider impacts to endangered species. While the court ordered EPA to redo its human health and ecological risk assessments by October 2022, the agency blew its deadline and now says it won't complete this vital review until 2026. Meanwhile, pollinators will continue to suffer harm from this toxic pesticide, one of the most widely sprayed in the U.S. and the world.

Equally disturbing is the ongoing proliferation of unregulated pesticide-coated seeds, which are quietly decimating our bees, birds, and butterflies. Just one GMO corn seed coated with neonicotinoid pesticides contains enough pesticide to kill over 80,000 bees or one songbird. Pesticide giants like Monsanto have been selling these deadly seeds with no safety testing or regulation for decades. Now, almost half of all U.S. farmland is planted with pesticide-coated seeds. And despite a Center for Food Safety petition to EPA and our subsequent lawsuit against EPA for denying that petition, the agency refuses to regulate these seeds. Without regulation under national pesticide laws, there is no balancing of the vast harms they cause against their minimal or nonexistent benefit, and for those that may be allowed, there are no instructions to the farmers planting them about how to mitigate impacts or safely dispose of unused seed. With the vast majority of neonic use going to seed coatings, it is illogical and unlawful for EPA not to uphold its duty to protect our environment and people from this unnecessary pesticide use.

The list of EPA failures goes on. Use of a little known super-pesticide made from one of the same ingredients as Agent Orange is skyrocketing across the United States. Now sold under the name Enlist, it threatens hundreds of endangered species and is linked to Parkinson's disease, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and other reproductive problems in humans. The pesticide industry's excuse for this revival of an old and dangerous pesticide is the widespread resistance of weeds to the pesticide Roundup. This resistance stems from Monsanto's push to convert all commodity crops (like corn, soy, and canola) to genetically engineered, glyphosate-resistant varieties — encouraging the indiscriminate spraying of glyphosate upon them. Natural evolution of weeds means development of a resistance to glyphosate, and the chemical companies are now trotting out older, deadlier chemicals to deal with the problem of their own creation. Despite these deadly risks, in 2022 EPA reapproved Enlist for seven more years.

While there are many tactics being used to stop toxic pesticides and protect pollinators and other species, courts are one of the best–and sometimes only–hope for creating meaningful change on the ground. Often, the only way to halt corporations from using toxic chemicals, and usurping democracy and regulatory integrity, is through litigation.

To save these essential pollinators, habitats, and biodiversity, we must continue to take these corporations–and the government agencies created to regulate them–to court. We all eat, and we all rely on honeybees and other pollinators to create and sustain our food supply. It is a moral and ecological imperative that we do everything possible to sustain them.

A Crucial Fight: Protecting the Beloved Monarch Butterfly

Wed, 21 Jun 2023 00:00:00 -0700

Intricate patterns, white speckles, and vibrant orange wings are all distinctive features of the beloved monarch butterfly. Chances are, you've encountered one of these dazzling insects at some point in your life. Flying up to 2,500 miles from the U.S. to Mexico and back, Monarchs are the only butterfly species that complete a two-way migration. Monarchs are both culturally and ecologically significant. As a pollinator, monarchs play an essential role in helping many ecosystems thrive. They are responsible for helping the world's favorite flowers and foods flourish.

This year, the count of migrating monarch butterflies is 22% lower than last year. There are currently 5.46 acres of occupied forest area in Mexico, a dramatic drop from the 7.02 acres occupied last year. This decrease in monarch populations has been a pattern for the past two decades, in which Eastern monarch numbers have declined by more than 80%. Since 2008, the monarch population has been dangerously low. So, why are these treasured insects disappearing?

Monarchs are threatened by pesticides, climate change, and illegal logging. A considerable population decrease can be attributed to the pesticide glyphosate, which is the main ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup. Glyphosate is the most widely used pesticide in the United States. Today, 280 million pounds of glyphosate are sprayed each year over 285 million acres of farmland in the U.S., and over 21 million pounds are sprayed by homeowners, on roadways, and in forests. Monarchs have lost an estimated 165 million acres of breeding habitat in the U.S. to the spraying of herbicides like glyphosate. These herbicides wipe out milkweed, the only food that monarch caterpillars consume. Monarchs are also threatened by neonicotinoid insecticides and fungicides. Neonicotinoids kill insects by disrupting their nervous systems and have rapidly become the most widely used insecticides. In addition to pesticides and herbicides, monarchs are significantly impacted by climate change. They are extremely sensitive to temperature changes and rely on temperatures to determine when they migrate, hibernate, and reproduce. Erratic changes in temperature caused by climate change disrupt critical stages of monarchs' life cycles.

The decrease in monarch population might be an indication that other elements of their ecosystems are fading as well. As our climate crisis intensifies, biodiversity loss continues to worsen. Right now, it is imperative to protect balance and biodiversity in our ecosystems, beginning with protecting endangered species such as monarchs. Some conservationists work to preserve monarchs by creating butterfly gardens and preserving land along the monarchs' migration path. Center for Food Safety, alongside the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the Fish and Wildlife Service to protect monarchs under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In a victorious response, the Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to grant monarchs ESA protections starting in 2024.

Now, more than ever, we need to take action in order to preserve this fleeting species. To help support monarch butterflies, plant milkweed and other pollinator-friendly plants, avoid using pesticides, and donate to or volunteer with conservation organizations. However, this fight goes beyond the colorful butterflies we know and love. The fight to protect monarchs is a fight against habitat loss and climate change. It is a crucial and urgent fight for all ecosystems impacted by these issues.

Twelve Ways To Make #EarthDay Count

Fri, 21 Apr 2023 00:00:00 -0700

It's both wonderful and odd that we have a thing called "Earth Day," celebrated on April 22. This earth is what makes our very existence possible–do we really need a reminder to take care of it? Actually, we do, and we need an extra reminder that how we get our food supply is central to caring for the planet.

Despite our ever-intensifying climate crisis, along with widening habitat loss and species extinction, we see our industrial food system literally adding fuel to these preventable fires through its ongoing reliance on fuel-based pesticides, massively polluting factory farms, and a destructive "get big or get out" system of subsidies and unfair prices that harm both farmers and consumers.

On Earth Day and beyond, we need reminders and real action to change our food system's destructive ways. To save this planet and humanity, we must create a food future that benefits all life on Earth–enabling every living being and species to thrive.

It is unacceptable–and profoundly unsustainable–that industrial agriculture is the largest emitter of methane in the United States, accounting for about 36 percent of all climate-wrecking methane emissions (compared to 30 percent for oil and natural gas). According to a recent study, the livestock industry's air pollution is responsible for more than 12,700 deaths per year — more deaths than are attributed to coal-fired power plants.

It's also unacceptable and unsustainable that our food system relies on toxic (and fossil-fuel-based) pesticides that destroy vital habitats, and that industrial farming is a key driver behind species endangerment and extinction. Peer-reviewed research shows that pesticides cause significant harm to honeybees and other essential pollinators, upon which more than one-third of our food depends, including popular mainstays such as apples, blueberries, strawberries, almonds, avocados, and other fruit, nuts, and vegetables.

How do we stop this ecological disaster in part caused by industrial agriculture? Simply put, we must work overtime to defend our food, farms, and planet from the constant harm of industrial agriculture's many toxins and pollutants.

This means going up against some of the most powerful multinational chemical companies in the world. It means filing lawsuits and advocating for policies and regulatory actions to stop chemical corporations from covering our Earth with deadly pesticide-coated seeds; and getting Monsanto's toxic moneymaker dicamba off the shelves. We must challenge government approvals of poisonous pesticides like atrazine, 2,4-D, and bee-killing neonicotinoids like sulfoxaflor, and push the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to do its job and test every pesticide for harmful endocrine-disrupting effects on farmers, farmworkers, and families.

Here, in the spirit of Earth Day, are twelve essential actions (in addition to many more!) Center for Food Safety is taking to make food and farming truly sustainable, healthful, and democratic for all.

1. Suing the EPA to make regulators do their jobs and rein in toxic dicamba drift, which is destroying farmers' crops, their livelihoods, and vital species' habitats.

2. Stopping pesticide corporations from covering our Earth with deadly pesticide-coated seeds by challenging an EPA loophole that allows these seeds on the market without reviewing their impacts on endangered species.

3. Removing the cancer-causing pesticide glyphosate from the market for all uses.

4. Stopping GMO foods and saving GMO food labeling by overturning regulations that could flood the market with GMO crops; and by strengthening U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rules for GMO food labeling.

5. Defending animal species and habitats, and biodiversity, by pushing for strong Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations on genetically engineered animals.

6. Protecting endangered species by ensuring that endangered birds and other species are safeguarded from the dangers of pesticides and industrial agriculture.

7. Challenging EPA approval of other pesticides like the endocrine disruptor atrazine.

8. Restoring strong animal welfare protections in organic livestock production, and stopping polluting factory farms.

9. Protecting oceans from polluting aquaculture facilities (factory farms of the sea) by challenging government permits for these facilities in state and federal waters.

10. Challenging EPA's lack of review of the whole formula of pesticides (not just the main ingredient).

11. Halting an $8 billion international GMO agenda through a new international coalition and campaign to end funding for biotech and pesticide companies pushing "false solutions" to the climate crisis.

12. Educating and mobilizing people nationwide to ensure that the 2023 Farm Bill prioritizes people's health, farmers' survival, and our climate future.

While this is certainly a lot to take on, it's what CFS has been doing successfully for 25 years. And these actions are vital to creating a healthy, sustainable future for us all. Washington, DC may be gridlocked, but nature casts its own votes every day, regardless of political party. Earth Day is no exception. Nature, the land, habitats, and ecologies do not care about politics–they simply live, struggle, adapt, or die based on our actions (and inactions). We must stay vigilant to give our environment and future a fighting chance.

Industrial Aquaculture's Harmful Lessons

Tue, 15 Nov 2022 00:00:00 -0800

Since the National Marine Fisheries Service's failed first attempt at permitting a brand-new offshore aquaculture industry in 2016, environmental and fishing groups' worst fears about industrial aquaculture have been realized by countries around the world. Industrial aquaculture involves cage or net pens, often made of flexible nylon or polyethylene nets, placed directly in the water, allowing for operators to directly discharge fish feed, feces, pharmaceuticals and other chemicals, and escaped fish directly into the surrounding waters. Massive fish escapes have occurred repeatedly due to weather damage to the net pens, equipment failure, and human error, wreaking havoc on ecosystems and releasing millions of farmed fish into the wild over the past few years.

The ecological hazards of industrial aquaculture have become abundantly clear. In Mowi, Scotland in January 2020, 73,600 salmon escaped from a net pen during a storm marking the third major escape in the area since October 2019. In Norway, a series of storms resulted in approximately four million escaped fish from aquaculture facilities over the past eight years. In 2018, 680,000 fish escaped from Marine Harvest Chile, and 120,000 fled from Huon Aquaculture in Tasmania in 2018. Another 109,515 fish broke out from Bakkafrost Faroe Islands in 2017. That same year, in Washington state, 260,000 farmed Atlantic salmon to escape an industrial net pen operation maintained by Cooke Aquaculture Pacific, LLC and fled into the Puget Sound and the Pacific Ocean.

These early adopters of offshore industrial aquaculture have caused numerous other harmful impacts. Caging millions of genetically identical fish in confined, concentrated spaces has proven to breed parasites and disease, inducing faster evolutions of more resistant strains. Norway's wild salmon population has been cut in half since the introduction of their aquaculture industry, partially because of the spread of sea lice from farmed fished to wild salmon runs passing the net pens during their ocean migration. Studies have also shown Scotland's salmon farming industry has harmed its wild salmon populations through sea lice and other impacts. The rise of Canada's farmed salmon industry has corresponded with the region's plummeting wild salmon populations, with sea lice and other pathogens a major culprit. In the U.S., a massive viral outbreak in Atlantic salmon net pens off the coast of Bainbridge Island in 2012 led to the deaths of over one million pounds of farmed Atlantic salmon.

As a result, states and other nations have moved away from industrial aquaculture. Two countries— Denmark and Argentina—have prohibited offshore aquaculture due to environmental impacts. And following the massive Cooke aquaculture fish escape in 2017, Washington state banned industrial aquaculture facilities that raise non-native fish. California and Oregon have similar bans in place on non-native factory fish farms in state waters.

But the U.S. government refuses to give up on this harmful industry. Instead of learning from other countries' experiences, U.S. federal agencies and industry are ramping up their efforts to launch offshore aquaculture in federal waters. Even when courts rule against these ocean fish factories, they keep pushing. In 2020, the Fisheries Service's first attempt to create a Fishery Management Plan specifically for aquaculture in federal waters fell through when the Fifth Circuit affirmed the agency does not have authority to regulate aquaculture under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. But instead of going to Congress for authorization, federal agencies resorted to individual permitting for offshore aquaculture. They handed out a Clean Water Act permit for Velella Epsilon, the nation's first offshore finfish facility in the Gulf of Mexico; a scoping notice under the National Environmental Policy Act for Pacific Ocean Aquafarms in federal waters off the San Diego coast; and a proposed Rivers and Harbors Act permit to Avalon Aquafarms offshore near Huntington Beach, California.

In May 2020, the Trump Administration used concerns over food insecurity from the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to issue an Executive Order streamlining permitting for this novel industry. This Executive Order quickly enabled the issuing of Nationwide Permit 56, a general permit under the Rivers and Harbors Act that streamlines permitting of individual finfish aquaculture operations in federal waters in the fifteen Army Corps districts that have adopted it. Many of these facilities will likely be sited in the two areas the Fisheries Service designated for aquaculture under the same Executive Order—the Gulf of Mexico and the Southern California Bight.

As industrial aquaculture in other countries has demonstrated, if this industry is allowed to move forward it will harm ocean ecosystems, fishing communities, and endangered species. Given all the risks and harms, why would the U.S. government continue pushing for this industry? There are numerous methods to practice sustainable aquaculture instead, including small-scale options such as responsible bivalve farming, sea kelp farming, or certain types of land-based recirculating systems. But the Nationwide Permit 56 is specifically designated for the opposite—massive net pens and cage designs, which directly release fish feed, feces, escaped fish, pharmaceuticals, pesticides, and other harmful chemicals directly into our oceans.

To stop the U.S. government from going down this path, Center for Food Safety and a broad array of stakeholders, including commercial and recreational fishing groups and conservation organizations, today filed a challenge to Nationwide Permit 56. The permit is unlawful because, rather than wait for proper new congressional authority for its decision, the Army Corps is claiming property rights for aquaculture on the Outer Continental Shelf without congressional authorization. The decision is also unlawful because the Corps violated several keystone environmental and fisheries protection laws in making it, including the Rivers and Harbors Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and the Endangered Species Act.

The long-term answer, though, must come from the people. The American public must take a stance against allowing special interests to repeat the same mistakes in fish production that other countries have made around the world. One way to take that stand is to become a member of Center for Food Safety so that together we can continue building a new sustainable food future.

Records Reveal U.S. Fisheries Service Censored Key Warnings of Industrial Aquaculture Impacts

Thu, 03 Nov 2022 00:00:00 -0700

As the U.S. government continues to push for the harmful expansion of offshore industrial aquaculture, new documents obtained by the Center for Food Safety show that the U.S. National Marine and Fisheries Service is censoring and downplaying many key environmental concerns.

Documents produced in response to a May 2021 Freedom of Information Act on a proposed aquaculture management program in the Pacific Islands Region show numerous deletions of officials' concerns about offshore aquaculture's ecological impacts. These concerns originate from industrial aquaculture's dire environmental consequences in state waters and abroad, such as impaired water quality, fish escapes wreaking havoc on ecosystems, harm to marine wildlife, and economic impacts on local fishing communities. These impacts have already resulted in prohibitions on offshore finfish aquaculture in Argentina and Denmark, and bans on nonnative aquaculture in Washington, California, and Oregon. Meanwhile, the U.S. government continues to push for industrial aquaculture, using its authority under numerous statutes that bear no mention of aquaculture nor contemplate its unique socioeconomic and environmental impacts.

The proposed Pacific Islands aquaculture management program serves as just one of the federal government's numerous recent attempts to authorize industrial finfish aquaculture in federal ocean waters. NMFS's authorization for this particular program began in May 2021 with a draft programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) evaluating the impacts of opening half of the United States' Exclusive Economic Zone to industrial aquaculture in the Pacific Islands Region.

Numerous groups, including the Center for Food Safety, submitted comments on the proposed Pacific Islands aquaculture management program in August 2021. These comments centered on NMFS's lack of authority to authorize this harmful industry, following Center for Food Safety's victory in the Fifth Circuit finding that NMFS lacks authority to regulate aquaculture as "fishing" under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

The Center for Food Safety filed a Freedom of Information Act request in May 2021 to gain insight into the Fisheries' Service decision to move forward with industrial aquaculture, despite questionable legislative authority and other countries' catastrophic environmental impacts. The documents, released in batches since July 2021, reveal the depth of those concerns and the internal debate over the impacts of opening half of the United States' Exclusive Economic Zone in the Pacific Islands Region to industrial aquaculture.

Comments seeking to downplay industrial aquaculture's impacts are present throughout early drafts. "REMOVE this sentence as it indicates that [aquaculture] facilities are polluting the environment," one official wrote in response to a suggestion to place facilities far apart to lower the likelihood of cumulative impacts on water quality. Indeed, industrial aquaculture facilities impair water quality through releasing fish feed, feces, pesticides, anti-foulants, fungicides, pharmaceuticals, and escaped fish directly into our oceans.

Downplaying Acidification and Climate Change Risks

Other officials debated acknowledging the climate crisis in the programmatic EIS. Discussing oceanic acid levels, one official wrote: "Stronger summary of the connection between pH and ocean acidification needs to be made and should include foreseeable estimates of pH reduction (thereby increasing ocean acidification) projections over the next forty years (given that permits could be issued for 20 years or more)." As the ocean absorbs more carbon dioxide, the pH decreases, rendering the ocean more acidic. And ocean acidification, along with reasonably foreseeable nutrient discharges from industrial aquaculture operations, could increase the occurrence of toxic algal blooms—but this predictable outcome was not included in the Fisheries Service assessments.

In the programmatic EIS, officials also debated disclosing to the public the severe weather events from the climate crisis, which inevitably result in fish escapes. For example, 73,600 salmon recently escaped from a net pen during a storm in Mowi, Scotland in January 2020, 680,000 fish from Marine Harvest Chile in 2018, 109,515 fish from Bakkafrost Faroe Islands in 2017, 120,000 from Huon Aquaculture in Tasmania in 2018 and approximately 260,000 farmed Atlantic salmon from Cooke Aquaculture in Washington state in 2017. Fish escapes spread pathogens and parasites to wild fish, compete with wild fish for precious resources, and wreak havoc on ecosystems. One NMFS official, referring to locations in Howland and Baker Island, wrote, "Do you think you should search a little more to try to find some info about the history or potential for extreme weather events at these locations?" These details did not make it into the final draft.

Instead, NMFS removed a requirement in earlier drafts for prospective aquaculture operators to submit documentation evaluating the structural integrity of their systems, "especially in regard to the proposed system's ability to withstand physical stresses associated with the open ocean and storm events." In one area, an official suggested mapping wave events that might harm the structural integrity of facilities in storms, but again this cautionary note did not make it into the final draft.

Erasing Ocean Species Concerns

Fisheries Service officials also debated whether to assess impacts on certain species of federally protected wildlife throughout the Pacific Islands region (PIR). In several areas in the PEIS, officials suggested adding descriptions of species in the region that could be impacted, such as hammerhead and silky sharks, that were never added; others insisted on disclosing to the public species observed in areas of the PIR but once again these were not mentioned. For example, earlier drafts included descriptions of numerous other whale species in Hawaii, such as the sei whale, references that were removed in the final version.

On fin whales, one official insisted: "We've actually had an observed Fin whale interaction with [longline] gear in HI in the last ten years, and I think a few more sightings." Yet the only mention of fin whales in Hawaii ignores these dangerous interactions with fishing gear and downplays any concerns, stating simply: "There have only been a few sightings of fin whales in Hawaii waters." Another official removed information about an entanglement incident involving a Sei whale altogether. One official noted (and provided documentation) that in the American Samoa region alone since 2017, there have been ten observed interactions of green sea turtles, two interactions of Hawksbill sea turtles, and four with olive ridley sea turtles—but again, none of this information survived drafting.

Conflicts Over Impacts on Wild Fish

One official also encouraged assessing aquaculture facilities' tendency to attract federally protected wildlife, rendering entanglement and vessel strikes more likely. "I'd like to add in something about monk seals being attracted to the pens in BOM, but nothing's currently published about it yet," the official noted. Predictably, this precautionary information was not disclosed in the final programmatic EIS.

Records also reveal internal conflict over whether to allow industrial aquaculture in Marine Protected Areas. One official commented that aquaculture could be allowed even in federally protected areas where commercial fishing is prohibited. But another official disagreed: "The assumption that since fishing is allowed, aquaculture would be allowed as well is a poor, and very likely a totally inaccurate connection."

One official acknowledged the lack of assessment regarding impacts on recreational fishing. The official warned that "gear conflicts with sited aquaculture areas could pretty much be guaranteed" if "ports and ocean areas of high recreational fishing activity are not considered in this EIS"—those areas were not considered. The same official noted that "recreational charter business landings are substantial, and should be fully considered, economically, ecologically, and spatially." None of the official's recommendations survived the drafting process.

Questioning NMFS Authority

Records also show that Fisheries Service officials remain uncertain about their authority to authorize this brand-new industry. The issue of NMFS's lack of authority to permit industrial aquaculture in the Exclusive Economic Zone came to a head in September 2018 when the Eastern District of Lousiana ruled that NMFS cannot use its authority to regulate "fishing" under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to regulate aquaculture in federal waters. The court rejected the Fisheries Service's attempt to permit a novel aquaculture scheme in the Gulf of Mexico based on its authority over "fishing," concluding that the Department of Commerce "acted outside of its statutory authority in shoehorning an entire regulatory scheme into a single unambiguous word." [Gulf Fishermens Ass'n v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 341 F. Supp. 3d 632, 642 (E.D. La. 2018).] In August 2020, the Fifth Circuit affirmed that ruling. [Gulf Fishermens Ass'n v. NMFS, 968 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. Aug. 2020).]

The NMFS' final published programmatic EIS still asserts authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. But early drafts show that the Fisheries Service was aware when assessing the massive industrial aquaculture program that the Magnuson-Stevenson Act may not provide authority to permit an unlimited number of industrial finfish facilities. One official described references to this law as "something to minimize where possible in case we lose the Gulf case," to draw attention away from the Fisheries Service's authority to permit this unregulated industry.

Preparing for a "Post-Water" Future?

Wed, 14 Sep 2022 00:00:00 -0700

OIL AND ADEQUATE FRESHWATER DON'T MIX

Even the most antediluvian oil exec knows what's coming. They and their minions in government chafe at it. They lie about it. They scheme to delay the inevitable. But they know.

It is undeniable that they and the rest of humanity are nearing the end of what could be aptly termed: "The Age of Extraction." For the last century and a half, our entire economy—and that of much of the so-called "developed" world—has been based on energy extraction, primarily of fossil fuels. It took millions of years for those fossil fuels to be created. It now appears that our industrial civilization, and the fossil fuel industry, will have run through most of them in less than two centuries. In retrospect, this was an astronomically profitable, but ultimately misguided, and inevitably catastrophic "spending spree" of unprecedented proportions.

And now the reckoning. As Richard Heinberg, energy guru at the Post Carbon Institute likes to say, "The party's over." By the time today's grandchildren are senior citizens our supplies of oil, natural gas, and coal will no longer be available. Sure, there will still be some fossil fuels remaining underground but the expense of retrieving them will not be competitive with other sources of energy. Eventually, energy input will exceed energy output. Though not well publicized, we are reaching some of these endpoints for fossil fuels right now.

A major reason for this is that the low-hanging "quality oil" days are a relic of the past. That is why we are seeing ever more destructive, intrusive, expensive, and energy-intensive extraction methods. Deepwater drilling, fracking, mountain top removal, and tar sands oil extraction have become widespread as energy sources become scarcer and much more expensive and difficult to obtain. As the scarcity of these fuels becomes greater, these drastic extraction methods will only further devastate human health and the natural world.

This dystopian future is not debatable. To quote the evergreen Leonard Cohen "everybody knows." It's simply that the powerful energy corporations don't like to talk about it, hoping they can squeeze out the last billion dollars before it all collapses. Given the rising seawater levels endemic to the climate crisis, this is literally an "apres moi le deluge" attitude fostered by unforgivable greed.

But in all this oily darkness there is light. A sober, hard look analysis of our situation has spurred an all-hands-on-deck approach in some countries to both promote solar and wind renewable energy and encourage a serious reduction in energy consumption. Even the U.S. put its reluctant toe in the water as it barely passed the recent Inflation Reduction Action (IRA), which significantly incentivizes the purchase of electric cars and other non-fossil fuel technologies. These incentives do not reduce the tens of billions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks given to the fossil fuel industry each year. Nor do they decrease drilling of oil and gas. In fact, the opposite. The bill has a poison pill—increased government investments in renewables are required to be matched by increased oil and gas drilling contracts on tens of millions of acres onshore and offshore. But heck it's a start.

"It is neither hypothetical nor
hyperbolic to say that the climate
crisis is a water crisis."

As the IRA compromise makes clear, the end of the age of extraction will be a very hard landing for countries such as the U.S. that have not adequately transformed their energy sectors. After all, it will take decades to reinvent national and international infrastructures for a "post-carbon" age. But it can be done. The urgency will become more obvious as our current fossil fuel infrastructure becomes increasingly useless, and our fuel-guzzling way of life impacts the general population with the widespread, chaotic impacts of an ever-intensifying climate crisis.

In sum, human civilization can survive without fossil fuels. And will do so either the easy way for those countries resisting the influence of the fossil fuel industry—or the hard way for those whose leaders might best be termed "knee pad" politicians, genuflecting before their energy corporation masters. Note bene: not a single Republican senator voted for the IRA.

WATER, WATER NOWHERE, NOR A DROP TO DRINK

The relief in realizing that humanity can create a "post-carbon" civilization, that it can survive the coming oil and other fossil fuel crises, is, however, short-lived. There is a catch. We all know that oil and water don't mix. But until our current epoch, we did not understand that oil production and use could deplete or even decimate freshwater on the planet.

This is the impact of the climate crisis as it inter alia increases the number and lengths of droughts, the need for irrigation and other water uses, and pathogens and other contaminants in water supply, while simultaneously diminishing snowpacks and drying up the rivers and streams that supply two-thirds of our drinking water supply. These rivers are also vital to our economy, and our food, transportation, and energy systems.

Imagining a "post-oil" society is therefore far different than imagining a "postwater" world. We can live in perpetua without CO2-emitting technologies. By contrast, the average person can survive about 3 days without water, and this necessity for water applies to the rest of the earth's other life forms.

It is neither hypothetical nor hyperbolic to say that the climate crisis is a water crisis and that the world is experiencing an exponentially increasing water shortage. If you primarily think in images, take a look at this recent CNN story on the earth's most important rivers. But there are plenty of factoids that bolster the same alarming narrative.

According to the World Health Organization, 1 in 3 people globally do not have access to safe drinking water.	1 in 5 children globally does not have water to meet their everyday needs.	The number of people living in river basins under severe water stress is projected to reach 3.9 billion by 2050, totaling over 40% of the world's population.
Rising temperatures can lead to deadly pathogens in freshwater sources, making the water dangerous to drink. Water and sanitation related diseases are one of the leading causes of death in children under 5 years old.	By 2050, drought could affect more than 75% of the world's population, 4.8 to 5.7 billion people could live in areas with water shortages for at least one month a year and as many as 216 million people could be displaced from their homes at least partially due to prolonged dry weather.	69% of critically endangered species in the U.S. are predicted to continue to decline in the future, with 48 species expected to suffer as a result of wastewater, industrial and agricultural effluents, pollutants, and excess energy pollution.

As noted, the age of fossil fuel extraction is a dead paradigm walking. Nonrenewables are just that – nonrenewable. The end is inevitable. But if it is a dead paradigm, it is also a zombie paradigm. It has no future but as long as it is allowed to exist, the fossil fuel industry—along with its fellow zombie paradigm industrial agriculture—will continue to threaten the survival of the earth community by aggressively exhausting the water supplies required for life.

The role of the fossil fuel industry in the climate crisis is well reported and recognized. However, it is rarely mentioned that the climate crisis is a water crisis caused in good measure by fossil fuel companies (and industrial agriculture). Yet it should be front and center in providing the rationale and needed urgency in ending the age of extraction and transforming our energy systems. Perhaps the relative invisibility of the climate crisis as a water crisis is a result of denial.

Psychologically dealing with a realistic scenario of future generations deprived of water to drink or grow their food can be frightening and overwhelming. But it is important to recall that denial is the most infantile of ego defenses. Small children often go into denial when they experience or witness something painful, traumatic, or very difficult to understand. They simply are too young to integrate these experiences. While a healthy and protective mechanism for infants and young children, this instinct for denial is a saboteur for adults. It keeps us from realizing exactly how dangerous a situation we find ourselves in and from taking action to rescue ourselves from an impending disaster.

Once we throw off denial, the full realization of how the fossil fuel industry is denying us the source of life and at the same time taking untold billions of our taxpayer dollars is and should be infuriating. Putting all the pressure we can on our policymakers and filing as many effective lawsuits as we can are important ways to stop this zombie paradigm. But there seems to me to be plenty of room
for protest and civil disobedience to spur and amplify these legislative and legal efforts.

That is what happened at Standing Rock and those heroically protesting the Dakota Access pipeline which courts subsequently found was illegally approved. It is well to remember that the protestors taking their stand there had as their anthem the Lakota phrase "Mní wi?hóni" ("Water is life"). For them and many other indigenous peoples, there is a spiritual element to this realization. For Native Americans, water does not only sustain life, it is sacred. And they know that they cannot survive in the absence of the sacred. Nor allow corporate greed to destroy and desacralize the essence of life.

_{References
1. 1 in 3 people globally do not have access to safe drinking water – UNICEF, who. World Health Organization. (2019).
2. One in five children globally does not have enough water to meet their everyday needs. UNICEF. (2021).
3. Water and the global climate crisis: 10 things you should know. UNICEF. (2022).
4. Rising pollution is endangering species. The Ecologist. (2019).
5. Water outlook to 2050: The OECD calls for early and strategic action. Global Water Forum. (2012).
6. Drought in numbers. UNCCD. (2022).}

To download a PDF version of the article, please click here

Why We Choose Organic

Mon, 28 Mar 2022 00:00:00 -0700

Despite overwhelming evidence supporting the health and environmental benefits of organic agriculture over its conventional or genetically engineered (GE) counterparts, there still remains controversy surrounding its adoption in spite of its increasing popularity. Opponents of organic agriculture claim its increasingly widespread adoption is due to marketing alone—that organic produce is simply perceived as healthier than conventional produce. However, multiple studies show not only is an organic diet healthier for you by reducing your exposure to toxic pesticides like glyphosate and heavy metals like cadmium, it has also been linked to a decreased cancer risk due to cutting carcinogenic pesticide residues out of your diet. A groundbreaking study found that just one week after adopting an organic diet, levels of pesticides detected in the body were significantly decreased. An increasing number of consumers want to buy and support organic products, not just because they seem healthier, but because they are.

As many pesticides are also endocrine disruptors which can seriously affect development, removing them from the diet of children is especially important. The American Association of Pediatrics has found that "organic diets have been convincingly demonstrated to expose consumers to fewer pesticides associated with human disease," and recommends limiting children's pesticide exposure "as much as possible." Pesticides have also been found to accumulate in the body, where they can be spread to infants through breast milk or to a fetus in the womb through cord blood. To protect the health and wellbeing of our children, organic is the clear choice.

This vast difference between GE and organic foods when it comes to pesticide use has much more far-reaching effects than just on the diets of consumers. For example, the widespread cultivation of GE crops engineered to resist herbicides has led to a 527 million pound increase in herbicide use, driven largely by the increase in the use of Roundup. Overall, the introduction of GE crops has increased pesticide use by 404 million pounds since 1996. These pesticides can be highly toxic to humans, causing endocrine-disrupting, neurological, and carcinogenic effects. The laborers who work in the fields and grow our food are most vulnerable to these harms. These pesticides do not just stay on the crop, they are spread throughout the environment—into the soil, air, and water—where they wreak havoc on soil microorganisms, pollinators like bees and butterflies, and fish in streams and rivers. The immense environmental benefits associated with organic agriculture's non-use of synthetic pesticides vastly outweigh any detrimental effects, especially in the long term.

Another frequently touted benefit of conventional farming and GE crops over organic is the idea that genetic engineering is needed to "feed the world" and meet increasing demand as population increases in turn. The reality is that the vast majority of GE crops (over 70%) are used to feed livestock, not people. Repeated claims regarding higher crop yields from GE crops are yet to materialize, and seemingly miracle GE crops like golden rice, virus-resistant sweet potatoes, or protein-rich cassava have not amounted in any benefits to the populations they were meant to help. Hunger is not an issue caused by scarcity, but one caused by poverty. If we want to feed the world, we need to focus on healthy, in-season, and local produce. We need to identify the resources and abilities of local communities and utilize them to improve access to food. We need to take steps to eliminate food waste and create better distribution networks to get the food we already produce, more than enough to feed the world, to the people that need it most. Currently, about 30-40% of the food produced globally is wasted. Eliminating this abundance of food waste would not only help to eliminate world hunger, but would drastically decrease greenhouse gas emissions as well.

Furthermore, GE crops go hand in hand with monocultures (growing only one crop over hundreds of acres), reducing biodiversity, worsening soil health, and increasing pesticide use. As climate change worsens, we will need to adapt to its effects on our crops. Organic, sustainable agriculture utilizing agroecological practices is uniquely positioned to do just that. Studies show that implementing sustainable farming practices, such as integrated pest management, cover cropping, and diversifying crops can lead to "a higher resistance to extreme climate events, which translates into lower vulnerability and higher long-term farm sustainability." Farmers all over the world, especially those in developing countries, should not have to rely on the whims of international agriculture giants for the means to adapt their crops to climate change—when the tools to do so already exist.

Organic produce, grown with agroecological practices that steward both the environment and our communities, touts many benefits when compared to GE agriculture. Organic is not just another marketing tactic used to trick green-minded consumers but represents practices which culminate in stewardship of the environment and improved public health outcomes. It is our responsibility as consumers to vote with our dollars for the earth by buying organic foods when possible, or supporting organic farmers and community organizations by shopping at farmer's markets, signing up for a local community-supported agriculture program (CSA), or volunteering at a community garden or food bank. We must also demand our government provide financial incentives to the farmers who are growing safe and healthy food using practices that build soil health, protect air and water quality, farmworkers, and the environment. And, just as they subsidize conventional agriculture, we must demand our government to make these agricultural products available to everyone. Organic practices that harmonize with our environment, heal our bodies, and strengthen our communities pave the way for the future of agriculture and of the planet.

Center for Food Safety works to maintain and enhance strong organic standards.
Support our work today!

Third Time Is Not the Charm for Secretary Vilsack

Thu, 10 Mar 2022 00:00:00 -0800

Today, the vast majority of the United States' food system can be characterized by extraction, exploitation, and extermination. Picturesque family farms and morning roosters have been replaced with toxic smoke, lagoons of manure, supervisors who bet on whether their meatpacking employees will contract COVID-19, and animals who live in squalor and confinement. Big Ag isn't about ensuring everyone gets fed—it's about ensuring the players at the top get paid very well.

So, it comes as no surprise that when President Biden nominated Tom Vilsack to serve a third term as U.S. Agriculture Secretary, groups and advocates from across the agriculture and farming world scrambled to prevent his appointment. Article after article emphasized Vilsack's wrongdoings during his two terms under President Obama. These included industry handouts, misdeeds rooted in racism, chairing the failed anti-opioid commission and approving GMOs and their toxic pesticide counterparts.

Fresh off four years making millions of dollars as a revolving door lobbyist with the U.S. Dairy Export Council, a trade group supported by a checkoff fee paid by dairy farmers, Vilsack knew he needed to assuage his critics' concerns. In classic political fashion, Vilsack publicly expressed he would be different this time, emphasizing his willingness to tackle today's greatest agricultural challenges. At the same time, during his confirmation hearing, Vilsack clearly indicated to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry that his leadership approach would be predicated on "voluntary and incentive-based programs," implying that under his watch, agriculture will continue to be largely unregulated and profit-focused. Over the course of the first year in his third term, Vilsack has demonstrated that—despite the looming and calculable threat of the climate crisis and the many opportunities to transform our harmful agricultural systems—his leadership will maintain the status quo and leave us worse off for it.

It only takes a few notable events and hearings to showcase that, despite his smooth talking, Vilsack intends to use his position of power in much the same way as before, that is, operating as an industry darling. Any statement made by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture on the global stage should not be taken lightly. At G20, a meeting of the world's 20 largest economies held last October, Secretary Vilsack criticized the European Union's (EU) "Farm-to-Fork" strategy, a thoughtful plan with concrete targets to drastically reduce harmful inputs and increase sustainable farming over the next eight years. "I believe you have to sacrifice productivity for sustainability or that you have to sacrifice sustainability for productivity," Vilsack stated.

But is it worth it to sacrifice sustainability if productivity itself, as it exists in its extractive, exploitative form today, cannot be sustained? This suggestion of necessary trade-offs dismisses the possibility of a middle-ground of cooperation and collaboration in the name of food security and environmental protection. Vilsack did not dismiss the EU's strategy because of its infeasibility, but because it asks the industry to take responsibility in ways it has never been asked to in America, while also taking steps to assure family farmers can make enough money to survive.

Countering the EU's strategy, Vilsack announced the U.S.' Sustainable Productivity Growth Coalition (SPG Coalition), phrased as an alternative approach to reach net-zero agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. This approach would be, as discussed in his hearings, "market-oriented," "incentive-based," and "voluntary". Under Vilsack's purview, agriculture would be transformed with the use of market-based innovation and production that the politician routinely describes as "climate-smart." In addition, Vilsack announced the United States' partnership with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a notable ally because the UAE boasts large reserves of oil and natural gas, that is, inputs needed to produce synthetic nitrogen-based fertilizers. The latter are critical for maintaining a fossil fuel-powered U.S. agribusiness and signal Vilsack's intention to ensure a steady supply of inputs for Big Ag.

At his January address to the American Farm Bureau Federation, one of the most powerful agribusiness interest groups in the country, Vilsack announced a new initiative with the United Soybean board, the National Corn Growers Association, and the National Pork Board called "Farmers for Soil Health." Utilizing USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Incentives Program (EQIP) and funded by taxpayers via the Farm Bill, Vilsack announced a new pilot program to expand corn and soybean acreage across 11 states. This was spun by Vilsack as a measure to experiment with the inclusion of "cover crops," a climate-friendly agricultural method often used in organic agriculture that, in this context, would not displace harmful production methods.

Corn and soy production in the U.S. is dependent upon agricultural methods known for having long-term harmful effects on the soil, such as the use of synthetic fertilizer and ever increasing quantities of chemicals. Further, the reinforcement of large-scale commodity production contributes to other harmful agricultural systems such as feed for confined animals, highly processed foods, and polluting biofuels. Lastly, cover crop application as a method to sequester carbon is imperfect in this context and not nearly as effective as politicians suggest. Unsurprisingly, this is not the first time Vilsack has directed EQIP funds to Big Ag. In the 2014 Farm Bill, Vilsack directed half of the EQIP money to Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) for methane digesters on dairy farms—another greenwashed, industry-backed effort to siphon off public funds and ameliorate public concerns without having to completely usurp business as usual.

Testifying before the House Agriculture Committee in January 2022, Vilsack made the astute observation that, "an extraction economy is an economy that essentially takes things from the land and off the land." Vilsack urged the committee to support him in the upcoming 2023 Farm Bill to help move rural America from "an extractive economy" to a "circular economy." Unfortunately, this weak attempt to support rural communities is largely in conflict with Vilsack's consistent support for industrial agriculture. Consolidated factory farms reign supreme across the country, commodity farmers already receive large government subsidies, and the high cost of land does little restore rural communities.

Vilsack's decision-making, like many politicians', acknowledges the urgency of climate change and community-building, but the proposed solutions do not challenge the status quo or his vested industry interests. No one employs more people in the civilian side of government than Tom Vilsack, and the Secretary has a significant level of autonomy over where agricultural funding is allocated, as well as where to direct governmental oversight. To create food systems that serve everyone, Vilsack could: dismantle vertically and horizontally integrated monopolies across the food sector; set transformative environmental targets and a meaningful plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; enforce obligatory requirements for the industry; promote and fund practices that are genuinely sustainable, support human health, and dismantle oppressive working conditions and animal husbandry practices. The Secretary could push agribusiness to change in ways it has never been asked to before, but actively chooses to hold back. When the head of USDA so overtly permits the agricultural industry to regulate itself and drives the rest of farming into the ground without consequence, will you remember his name?

A New Potential Threat in Infant Formula

Fri, 11 Feb 2022 00:00:00 -0800

This week, Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a legal petition with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) demanding the agency regulate nanomaterials in infant formula. Because infants are particularly vulnerable to food safety risks due to their developing immune systems, using novel, nano-ingredients in infant formula should be heavily researched and regulated. But just what are nanomaterials, what brands of infant formula may contain them, and why should you be concerned?

Nanomaterials are just what they sound like – extremely small particles of materials such as silver, titanium, carbon, and more that are created using various techniques, either by engineering atoms to make structures so small that they can go right into the nucleus of a cell, or by grinding materials down to nanoscale. According to the National Institutes of Health, nanomaterials are characterized by their tiny size, measured in nanometers. A nanometer is one millionth of a millimeter, or, for comparison, approximately 100,000 times smaller than the diameter of a human hair.

While nanomaterials have the potential to be great boons, especially for the medical and electronics fields, their small size also brings about novel health and environmental impacts when compared to their bulk material counterparts. Their radical reduction in size means that seemingly ordinary materials may behave completely differently than in their larger bulk or macro form. Due to their small size, nanoparticles can cross biological membranes, cells, tissues, and organs more readily than larger particles. Once in the blood stream, nanomaterials can circulate throughout the body and can lodge in organs and tissues including the brain, liver, heart, kidneys, spleen, bone marrow, and nervous system. Once inside cells, they may interfere with normal cellular function, cause oxidative damage, and even cell death.

By law, all new formulations of infant formula must be approved by the FDA. CFS's legal petition requests that the FDA immediately take the steps necessary to properly regulate nanoscale ingredients as new ingredients with new properties and prohibit all engineered nano ingredients in formula until they are demonstrated to be safe for infants.

The risks of nanomaterials in infant formula—although not well understood—are alarming in light of existing studies about toxicity, chemical reactivity, and nanomaterials' greater capacity to penetrate biological membranes, as infants are particularly vulnerable to food safety risks due to their developing immune systems. A study conducted at Arizona State University found nanomaterials in infant formula manufactured by four companies: Gerber, Enfamil, Well Beginnings, and Similac. The nanomaterials identified were nano-hydroxyapatite, nano-titanium dioxide, and nano-silicon dioxide. The materials are mostly used for their brightening/whitening, anti-caking, and flow-enhancing properties. Titanium dioxide, in both bulk and nano form, was recently banned in the European Union after scientists raised genotoxicity concerns, deeming it "no longer...safe when used as a food additive." Similar concerns have also been raised about nano-hydroxyapatite, with the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety concluding that its use in cosmetics can pose a risk to the consumer and should not be allowed.

This is a situation in which the precautionary principle—acting now to avoid potential unforeseen harm later—must be undertaken. Currently, the FDA's existing regulations do not include screening or safety testing of nanomaterials. The FDA must exercise its authority under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to ensure infant formulas are safe and meet certain nutritional requirements. The FDA should also prohibit all engineered nano ingredients until they are demonstrated to be safe for this vulnerable population. Although the totality of risks associated with allowing nanomaterials to remain in infant formula are not fully understood, the FDA has the responsibility to protect consumers, especially infants, from toxic materials.

CFS has been the leader in addressing the environmental, public health, and food safety impacts of nanotechnology and synthetic biology for 20 years. We undertake domestic and international legal, policy, and legislative actions regarding nanotechnology in order to safeguard human health and the natural environment; ensure that countries adopt adequate regulations for these new chemicals; verify that manufacturers remain responsible for any adverse impacts their products might cause; create transparent oversight and communication regarding the nanotechnologies' effects and social impacts; and foster open, meaningful, and full public participation at every governmental and non-governmental level.

TAKE ACTION: Join us in telling the FDA to protect babies from nanomaterials in infant formula!

The Dairy Digester Dilemma: A False Climate Solution

Mon, 04 Oct 2021 00:00:00 -0700

In a better-late-than-never move, the Biden administration recently announced an international initiative to reduce global methane emissions by at least 30 percent from 2020 levels by 2030. The pledge, which was announced ahead of its full unveiling at COP26 in Glasgow this November, is particularly important given that methane is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide (over a 20-year period) in terms of contributing to the climate crisis. Researchers have calculated that a serious push to cut methane emissions could slow the rate of climate chaos by as much as 30 percent.

But the key is in the execution of such an ambitious goal. While the pledge offers a good start to tackling our global methane emissions, it does not go far enough. In the announcement, the Biden administration discusses new regulations and stronger standards targeting oil, gas, and landfill operations. However, current plans for methane reductions in the agriculture sector are completely voluntary.

The agriculture sector is the largest emitter of methane in the United States, accounting for about 36 percent of all methane emissions (compared to 30 percent for oil and natural gas). Since 1990, methane emissions from manure management programs have almost doubled. It's therefore quite clear that in order to achieve meaningful reductions of methane emissions in the United States, aggressive reduction goals and strategies for agriculture must be included.

Unfortunately, the federal government and many states such as California are banking on a Band-Aid fix to cutting methane emissions from agriculture: methane (dairy) digesters. Dairy digesters capture methane from dairy manure lagoons and convert it to biogas. While this sounds promising, the fact is that dairy digesters are a false climate solution that actually increase environmental burdens and may even increase methane emissions. Here are just a few reasons why:

The biogas created from digesters is neither renewable nor clean. It emits significant pollutants, including particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and ozone-forming criteria pollutants (i.e. nitrogen oxides (NOx)).
Most small and mid-scale dairy operations do not produce enough manure to warrant the costs of installing a digester, as they cannot maintain one full time and are unlikely to have the capital for such an investment.
Digesters incentivize increased herd sizes, and therefore increased emissions, as subsidies and credit schemes create a network of perverse incentives for dairies to create more waste and more methane from cows. Along with it comes more air and water pollution in already environmentally-burdened communities and regions.
Dairy digesters are expensive, costing between $2 million to $9 million to install, often requiring public subsidies to build, and there are concerns about their long-term economic viability and environmental benefit.

Rather than clean up its act by addressing the issue of our destructive industrial agricultural system at its core, the industry (supported by government agencies) has fixated on using this technology-based false solution of dairy digesters to capture and process methane in the hopes of turning it from a climate liability into marketable biomethane gas.

Not only are digesters a false solution when reducing methane emissions, they can also cause further harm to vulnerable communities. As noted above, dairy digesters incentivize increased herd sizes and lead to more mega-dairies. Mega-dairies produce serious environmental impacts by contaminating groundwater, emitting air contaminants beyond methane, attracting heavy-duty truck traffic, and producing odors. Digesters do nothing to address nitrogen in manure, which seeps into groundwater, causing and contributing to groundwater pollution which will impact drinking water sources for disadvantaged communities for decades. Mega-dairies are a large source of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and ammonia, which contribute to harmful ozone (smog) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), respectively.

These harmful air pollutants, a direct result of industrial agriculture, have been attributed to 17,900 deaths a year in the United States. The resulting pollution, public health, and social equity effects fall especially on disadvantaged rural communities where these operations are located. For example, California's San Joaquin Valley, home to a number of large dairy operations, already does not meet state and federal air quality standards and cannot bear ongoing combustion of dirty fuels. Thus, incentives for digesters are perversely encouraging the expansion of unsustainable practices (i.e., large herd sizes, confinement, and manure lagoons) that create environmental and public health harms in the first instance, resulting in the production of new pollutants and emissions that may not have otherwise occurred.

Many states such as California require some polluters, such as the oil and gas industry, to pay for the environmental damage they cause, or at the very least, regulate them for such degradation. This is not the case for factory farm dairies. Industrial agriculture's harmful practices are often directly subsidized using tax and ratepayer money. A new United Nations report found that a staggering 90% of global agricultural subsidies support practices that harm the health of both people and the planet. Rather than subsidizing the technologies that perpetuate these polluting practices, the U.S. and individual state governments should invest in transitioning these dairies to more sustainable and socially just methods and help rebuild robust agricultural economies which nurture existing systems rather than cause harm.

Center for Food Safety and many other organizations advocate for a more diversified approach to manure management that is appropriate for a wider range of dairies and livestock operations. Those approaches include advanced solids separation, scrape systems, composted manure, compost pack barns, and pasture-based strategies. Properly incentivized with public funds, these practices can help create dairy systems that benefit people and the environment and reduce the harms caused by mega-dairies that are disproportionally impacting the health of people living in those vulnerable communities. Currently, programs like the California Department of Food and Agriculture's (CDFA) Alternative Manure Management Program (AMMP) provide a model for supporting production practices that reduce methane emissions in more environmentally sustainable ways. According to CDFA, 114 projects have already been funded by the AMMP which collectively are expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 1.1 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent over the next five years.

In addition to incentivizing alternative manure management practices rather than polluting digesters, the Biden administration must take immediate action to regulate methane created by agriculture. In April, a group of organizations including Center for Food Safety, led by Public Justice, petitioned the EPA to reduce methane by regulating industrial hog and dairy operations under the Clean Air Act, and to reject so-called solutions such as factory farm gas championed by the industrial agriculture industry. The petition calls on the EPA to set emissions limits based on well-established pasture-based farms which provide myriad co-benefits including reducing climate, air, and water pollution while supporting rural economies to build back better.

This groundbreaking legal petition calls for immediate action from the EPA to exercise its existing authority under the Clean Air Act and fulfill its obligation to protect public health, rural communities, and our land, air, and water by listing and regulating industrial dairy and hog operations. Industrial dairy and hog operations are defined in the petition as facilities that confine at least 500 cows or 1,000 hogs without access to pasture while liquefying manure. As major sources of the super pollutant methane, the category endangers public health and welfare and now accounts for 33 percent of agricultural methane emissions, 13 percent of total U.S. methane emissions, and 1.3 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

The Biden administration will be taking a bold and critically necessary step by committing to reducing methane emissions, thus helping to save the planet from climate chaos. How it actually does this has the power to transform agriculture toward one that benefits vulnerable communities, ecosystems, and the planet at large.

Government Deregulation of Biotechnology Signals a New Era of Corporate Politics. Why We Are Fighting for Oversight of GMOs

Mon, 02 Aug 2021 00:00:00 -0700

Last week, Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a groundbreaking new lawsuit that seeks to revoke the industry-friendly genetically engineered (GE) organism regulations issued by the Trump administration in 2020. This lawsuit is a culmination of more than two decades of work by CFS and, at its core, highlights the perils of the ever-increasing trend toward government deregulation of major industries, including the biotechnology industry, in the U.S. and abroad.

In short, the new regulations released by the Trump Department of Agriculture (USDA) exempt broad categories of GE organisms from any pre-market approval and pass assessment duties to the companies to "self-determine" whether their products are exempt or regulated. As we lay out in the 90-page lawsuit, the rule change violated numerous core environmental laws and unconstitutionally delegated USDA's responsibilities to self-interested industry.

There's a lot at stake: The outcome of our lawsuit could determine whether GE organisms will remain regulated by the federal government, or if their approval will now effectively be left to the devices of their manufacturers, regardless of their agronomic or environmental risks.

Problems with Genetically Engineered Crops

First approved in the 1990s, the vast majority of U.S. commodity crops grown today—corn, soybeans, and cotton—are genetically engineered. It is estimated that upwards of 75% of processed foods on supermarket shelves contain GE ingredients. All GE crops are developed using imprecise techniques that are known to produce unpredictable and unintended effects, which can have adverse health impacts. According to the Food and Drug Administration, the unintended effects of genetic engineering include increased levels of plant toxicants, creation of novel toxins or allergens, and nutritional deficits.

While there are no long-term or epidemiological studies in the U.S. that have examined the safety of human consumption of GE foods, the environmental impacts and injury from the cultivation of GE crops are well-documented—albeit often downplayed by the industry.

First, GE crops cause substantial harms via transgenic contamination. Time and time again, experimental and commercialized GE plants have shown their ability to escape confinement and contaminate conventional crops and wild relatives, or colonize wild places. Transgenic contamination of conventional or organic crops has cost U.S. farmers billions of dollars in market losses, as food companies, grain traders, and export markets have rejected contaminated supplies.

Secondly, pesticide-reliant GE crops are a pillar of inherently unsustainable industrial agriculture. The overwhelming majority of commercial GE crops are genetically engineered by pesticide companies to survive direct application of plant-killing pesticides (herbicides). It is estimated that GE corn, soybeans, and cotton alone have led to a 527 million pound increase in herbicide use over the first sixteen years of their cultivation, from 1996 to 2011.

Reliance on these toxic GE "crop systems" has caused a number of harms, including widespread pollution of our waterways and ecosystems, injury to beneficial insects such as pollinators, and harm to soil health. For example, the exorbitant increase in use of glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto-Bayer's Roundup) on glyphosate-resistant crops has nearly eradicated the common milkweed from farm fields in the Midwest, contributing to the dramatic decline in Monarch butterflies that critically depend on milkweed for survival. Last year, in response to a petition by CFS and allies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that Monarchs now warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act and will be listed as endangered in 2024.

Herbicide-resistant GE crop systems foster rapid emergence of "superweeds" immune to the GE crop's companion herbicide(s). For example, weeds resistant to glyphosate were virtually unknown through the mid-1990s but evolved in epidemic fashion with the massive increase in use of Roundup. These stubborn weeds now infest at least 120 million acres—nearly 40% of the nation's cultivated cropland

Efforts to control these resistant weeds involve soil-eroding tillage operations and spraying increasingly toxic herbicides on newer GE crops. For instance, the use of volatile dicamba herbicide has skyrocketed since crops resistant to it were introduced in 2017. Dicamba has drifted rampantly, causing unprecedented damage to scores of crops, wild plants and trees across many millions of acres, imposing huge costs on farmers and the environment. Our lawsuit challenging dicamba's most recent EPA approval is currently under review in the Ninth Circuit.

GE crops on the horizon pose additional risks. Experimental GE crops engineered as "biofactories" for experimental drugs and chemicals have already tainted the food supply with potentially hazardous compounds and have yet to produce any useful drugs or chemicals. GE trees engineered for unsustainable energy production threaten to replace still more forest with monocultural plantations bereft of most life, while depleting water supplies and posing fire threats.

Meanwhile, applications that GE is most touted for, such as drought-tolerant corn for Africa or Vitamin A rice, have failed to materialize, while conventional breeding methods have delivered the same in spades. It's time to bust the myths: Biotechnology in agriculture—a fast-growing field "shackled" by regulation according to the industry—is not a humanitarian enterprise to assist poor farmers. It's led overwhelmingly by seed-pesticide conglomerates like Bayer-Monsanto, which are responsible for practically every acre of GE crop grown today, the vast majority in a handful of nations with highly industrialized farm sectors like the U.S. and Brazil. Their goal is not to alleviate hunger or malnutrition, but to deepen the world's pesticide addiction, whatever the cost to farmers or the environment.

The USDA has the authority to rein in these abuses through enlightened regulation—but instead has chosen to loosen even further its already weak and ineffectual rules. CFS's lawsuit seeks to recall USDA to its statutory duty to protect American farmers and defend U.S. farming from the depredations of noxious biotech agriculture.

Regulatory History

USDA has repeatedly acknowledged the need for stronger GE crop regulations since 2000, when Congress enacted the Plant Protection Act (PPA) which gave the agency broad new authority to prevent agricultural, economic, and environmental harms.

Under PPA, USDA has the responsibility to prevent plant pest risks and noxious weed risks, both of which are broadly defined agricultural and environmental harms. The PPA defines "plant pest" harms broadly, as organisms with the potential to injure or damage any plant or part of a plant. Noxious weed harms are defined even more broadly, to include a plant's ability to "directly or indirectly injure or damage crops, livestock, natural resources, public health, the environment, or other interests of agriculture." USDA referenced as an example the need to regulate GE plants that produce pharmaceutical or industrial compounds that could pose human health or environmental risks. Yet, in the new rules, USDA completely failed to invoke its authority to regulate GE plants for noxious weed risks.

After several false starts to implement its new powers beginning in 2004, the USDA under the Trump administration reversed course and instead dramatically weakened its oversight of GE organisms, bringing us to CFS and allies' current lawsuit.

CFS's Lawsuit and Claims

First, our lawsuit alleges the final Trump USDA biotech regulations fail to comply with several federal laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the aforementioned Plant Protection Act. USDA did not complete adequate environmental reviews—as required by NEPA and ESA—to determine how loosening of biotechnology regulations (including introduction of increasingly toxic herbicides) could impact the general public or threatened and endangered species and their habitats.

Secondly, the final rule fails to comply with the 2008 Farm Bill, which included specific new strengthening mandates for GE crop experiments because already too lax USDA oversight had caused contamination and market rejection harm to U.S. farmers.

Finally, the rules violate the Constitution and the separation of powers principles by placing agency authority in the hands of self-interested corporations. To make matters worse, by letting developers decide when experiments are exempt from regulation, the government avoids making deregulation decisions, which means public interest and consumer groups won't be able to challenge these decisions or agency actions in court in the future.

What's Next

Moving forward, the likely barrage of future exemptions—as okayed by the industry itself—means a growing class of GE plants can be grown experimentally and commercially without any regulatory review. This is bound to result in more GMO contamination episodes, multiple-herbicide resistant crops and superweeds, pushing us deeper and deeper into a "toxic treadmill" that will have increasingly detrimental effects on our public health and ecosystems.

The lack of future environmental reviews remains a serious cause for concern. Under the current rules, future exempted GE organisms are not guaranteed to be evaluated for their potential effects on endangered species and their critical habitats. In many cases, USDA will not be notified or even be aware when a new GE organism is released into the environment.

Newer types of future GE organisms would also fall under USDA's new regulatory regime, or now lack thereof. For example, scientists are already warning that the consequences of gene drives—use of a few gene-edited individuals to spread new genes through the entire population of a species—could be severe, including adverse environmental outcomes and harmful effects on vegetable crops.

CFS will continue to fight for government oversight of existing and future GMOs and transparent GMO labeling in the U.S. While our lawsuit is under review by the court, you can help fuel this fight by making a contribution to support our legal work today. Thank you for standing with us!

Saving America's Pollinators Act: A Legacy of Progressive Pollinator Protection

Wed, 23 Jun 2021 00:00:00 -0700

For nearly 25 years, Center for Food Safety (CFS) has been using legal actions, policy initiatives, scientific research, and grassroots organizing to stop the use of toxic chemicals that threaten pollinator health and wildlife habitat. Some of our recent victories include getting 12 bee-killing noenicitinoid pesticides off of the market, securing future endangered species protections for Monarch butterflies, and more. In honor of Pollinator Week, CFS is pleased to endorse the newly introduced Saving America's Pollinators Act of 2021.

This week marks not only National Pollinator Week, but also the reintroduction of the Saving America's Pollinators Act (SAPA). Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) has built a legacy of pollinator protection through his leadership on a bill that has been continually improved as the urgency to address pesticide harm has grown. Blumenauer's work indicates how policy must shift as environmental knowledge expands. As science on the harmful effects of pesticides compounds, environmental policies should reflect the new information available. While the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) turns a blind eye to plummeting pollinator populations, proposing to extend pesticide registrations despite the harm, Representative Blumenauer continues to promote essential pollinator legislation in Congress. National Pollinator Week is the perfect time for Representative Blumenauer to reintroduce his progressive pollinator protection bill—and a perfect time to ask legislators to support this continued dedication to pollinators.

SAPA has been introduced in previous Congresses and seen several rounds of improvement since it was first introduced in 2013. The first iteration of the bill required the EPA to suspend all neonicotinoid insecticides, a class of pesticides known to have acute and chronic toxicity to pollinators. Upon suspension, these pesticides would be prohibited unless and until the EPA determined that their use would not harm pollinators.

While the first iteration of SAPA was an important initial step, it was a tentative one. Pesticide law already requires that a pesticide only be approved for use if the pesticide will not have an "unreasonable adverse effect on the environment." Pressure from the pesticide industry often results in the EPA registering harmful pesticides anyway. Center for Food Safety and allies work hard to respond quickly and have made significant strides in getting several toxic pesticides—including bee-killing neonicotinoids—withdrawn from the market.

Unfortunately, in the eight years that have passed since the first introduction of SAPA, pollinator health has continued to steeply decline. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, honeybee populations have dipped too low to meet the pollination needs of the agriculture industry. Eastern Monarch butterfly populations have decreased by over 80 percent in 20 years, and so few Western Monarchs remain that their extinction may be inevitable. Responding to a Center for Food Safety petition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recently determined that granting the Monarch butterfly Endangered Species Act protections is warranted. In total, USFWS has listed more than 70 pollinator species as endangered or threatened.

In 2019, SAPA posited taking the decision-making out of the hands of the EPA by creating a Pollinator Protection Board. The Board would be comprised of farmers, beekeepers, and scientists, ensuring that not just industry interests would be recognized.

The newly introduced SAPA takes another, more important leap forward. Representative Blumenauer's bill would require not a suspension, but a ban on all neonicotinoid pesticides. This change to the proposed legislation reflects that the time for requesting incremental action from the EPA has passed. Pollinators need swift action in order to survive—banning neonicotinoids would provide a lifeline for these essential species.

Let's Invest California's Budget Surplus on a Sustainable Food System

Wed, 19 May 2021 00:00:00 -0700

Great news: California has a record-setting budget surplus!

While Governor Newsom and the California State Assembly decide what to do with these funds, Center for Food Safety has joined a diverse coalition of food system advocates in supporting Assemblymember Robert Rivas' new plan to use this surplus to invest in California's recovery while making our food system more equitable and resilient.

Join us in urging your state legislators to support investing $779 million of our budget surplus to make our food and farm system more equitable and resilient in the face of the climate crisis.

Our coalition supports a food and farm resilience spending plan put forward by Assemblymember Robert Rivas and fellow Assembly and Senate members. It takes a holistic and equitable approach to the food and farming system, and would create jobs and speed up California's economic recovery. This plan calls for:

Making farms more resilient to wildfires, flood, and other climate crisis impacts
Supporting sustainable and organic agriculture practices
Increasing access of agricultural lands to farmers of color, beginning farmers, and indigenous tribes
Securing multi-unit housing for farmworkers and their families
Improving access to healthy foods through school kitchens, farmers' markets, and farm-to-senior programs
Decreasing food waste and increasing compost production
Protecting California's groundwater
Strengthening regional food systems so that your food doesn't have to travel far to reach your plate

Programs like these are essential if we're going to make sure our food system is sustainable for generations to come.

Learn more about AB 125 here and here. Read the full bill language here.

Take action: Urge your reps to invest California's unprecedented budget surplus on a sustainable food system!

A Resilient and Equitable Food and Farming System in California

Tue, 16 Mar 2021 00:00:00 -0700

Assemblymember Robert Rivas (D- Hollister) recently made an exciting announcement about a bill he just introduced called the Equitable Economic Recovery, Healthy Food Access, Climate Resilient Farms and Worker Protection Bond Act (AB 125). Center for Food Safety (CFS) is proud to be a member of the diverse coalition that is co-sponsoring the bill.

The coronavirus pandemic has revealed weaknesses within our food and farming system and exacerbated long-standing inequities. This bond measure proposed in AB 125 would invest in California's communities in order to address the multiple challenges we face today: recovering from the impacts of the pandemic and fighting the climate crisis while rebuilding our food and farming system to be more equitable and resilient in the face of future shocks.

CFS believes that a safe food supply requires an agricultural system where farmers use practices that reduce chemical use, promote soil health, and clean air and water. This legislation will ensure much needed funds to help farmers transition to these practices while also increasing access to safe and healthy food for all Californians.

At the press conference announcing the bill, Assemblymember Rivas and Assemblymember Kalra shared the reasons for their leadership on this initiative.

"It is time for a better food system in our state—one that is more resilient, more sustainable, and more just. AB 125 is an investment in our future that will help spur our economy and rebuild our food and farming systems to be more equitable for all Californians, while protecting our environment and our farmlands, so California's agricultural industry can remain competitive for many decades to come." — Assemblymember Robert Rivas

"There is a lot of connection between what is happening in our urban communities & our rural communities. I'm here to speak on the importance of this bond on the issues of economic recovery, climate change, food security & farm system workers." — Assemblymember Ash Kalra

For the first time, AB 125 will give voters the opportunity to invest in building the infrastructure needed to provide Californians a safe, reliable, healthy, and environmentally sustainable food supply. This measure aims to deliver healthy food for the most vulnerable Californians while climate-proofing our farms that face droughts, wildfires, and extreme weather. It also makes investments in disadvantaged communities, socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, Tribes, small- and medium-sized farms and small businesses to ensure an equitable economic recovery for California.

The four main areas in the bond are:

Investments in Farmworkers ($637 million) — Affordable housing for farmworker families, stockpiling PPE for workers, and improving indoor air quality in existing farmworker housing and better connecting farmworker housing with services.
Investments in Agricultural Solutions to the Climate Crisis ($1.135 billion) — Sustainable agricultural solutions to slow the impacts of climate change and reduce pollution; strategies that reduce wildfire risk and invest in farmland conservation to keep our farms viable and resilient; compost infrastructure to build healthy soils; groundwater sustainability.
Investments to Combat Hunger and Improve Healthy Food Access ($750 million) — Infrastructure to improve food access for all Californians through our schools, food banks, food hubs, urban farms, farmers' markets and other community-based investments to provide access to healthy, sustainably produced food.
Investments in our Regional Food Economies ($600 million) — Regional food processing, storage and distribution infrastructure to strengthen small- and medium-scale businesses across the food supply chain, and to increase equity, energy conservation and efficiency of farm (and sea) to table.

For a summary of AB 125, click here, and here for the full bill language.

TAKE ACTION!
If you would like to support AB 125, please click here to sign on to a letter.

A Harmful Legacy: 7 Reasons to OPPOSE Tom Vilsack's Nomination for Secretary of Agriculture

Thu, 28 Jan 2021 00:00:00 -0800

The nomination of former Iowa Governor and former Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack for President Biden's Agriculture Secretary is a huge step backwards in our urgent need to support agricultural systems that protect public health, the environment, and mitigate the ongoing climate crisis. His nomination will be voted on by the Senate Agriculture Committee on February 2nd and at a full Senate confirmation vote later in the month. Read our blog below, then take action here >>

Vilsack's past two terms as President Obama's Secretary of Agriculture between 2008-2016 permanently damaged our food system and the environment. Below, in no particular order, is a comprehensive overview of the myriad of ways in which Vilsack's two terms as U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)'s Secretary of Agriculture were destructive to our food system. During his tenure at USDA, Vilsack:

1. Undermined Food Safety

In 2011, the Center for Science in the Public Interest petitioned Vilsack, asking USDA to publicly declare the most dangerous strains of Salmonella "adulterants," and to prohibit the sale of any meat containing them. Vilsack's Food Safety and Inspection Service refused to develop new regulations and, as a result, salmonella has caused thousands of hospitalizations, hundreds of deaths, and the proliferation of antibiotic resistant Salmonella strains. In addition, Vilsack's USDA prioritized industry interests over public health by killing the Microbiological Data Program (MDP) which, at the time, provided the only meaningful harvest time testing of fruits and vegetables in the United States. Notably, for the last three years of the Obama administration, Vilsack had no appointed head of food safety.

2. Promoted Widespread Use of GMOs

Even before becoming Secretary of Agriculture, Vilsack was hailed for his aggressive promotion of genetic engineering. He even won the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) Governor of the Year award twice. As Secretary of Agriculture, Vilsack was able to use his power to push through the approval of several genetically engineered crops with little to no scientific oversight. On the subject of USDA regulating genetically engineered animals and insects, Vilsack ignored recommendations from his own Inspector General. Vilsack's USDA proposed further weakening GE crop oversight, which is already far too lax. In 8 years, his USDA sided with GE crop/biotech interests, and against the interests of conservationists and family farmers, in every single public interest case attempting to halt GE crop harms or have them better regulated. Further, after a GMO labeling bill was passed by Congress, Vilsack used his power to weaken regulations and wording requirements, limiting transparency in our food supply by replacing the widely-used term "genetically engineered" with "bioengineered."

3. Approved Pesticide-Promoting GMOs

Vilsack's USDA approved scores of herbicide-resistant GMOs that have driven a huge increase in the amount of weed-killing pesticides sprayed in U.S. agriculture. Ignoring numerous warnings from farming groups, scientists, and NGOs, USDA signed off on GMOs immune to the volatile, drift-prone herbicides dicamba and 2,4-D, developed by Monsanto and Dow.

USDA's approval of Monsanto's dicamba-resistant crops in 2015 led to a huge increase in the herbicide's use, and massive drift damage to millions of acres of crops, trees, and home gardens across the country. Dicamba damage cost victims of drift many millions of dollars in lower yields and lost harvests, and turned neighbor against neighbor, tearing apart the fabric of rural communities. Researchers at the University of Missouri found dicamba in rainwater at higher levels near sprayed fields and in the air for 72 hours after application. The National Cancer Institute has found that dicamba exposure increases the risk of liver cancer.

4. Promoted Factory Farms With Funds Intended to Cut Greenhouse Gases

Starting in 2009, Vilsack supported methane digesters as a way to reduce greenhouse gas production from manure lagoons in big dairy and swine CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations). As a result, in 2014, through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the taxpayer-funded Farm Bill directed half of EQIP money to CAFOs without requiring any evidence of digester efficacy in reducing methane release.

5. Enabled Privatized Meat Inspection and Harmed Meat Packing Workers

With no appointed head of food safety, Vilsack named Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) Administrator Al Almanza as Deputy Under Secretary and left him to his own devices. Almanza, who later went on to work for the Brazilian meat firm JBS, promoted industry-driven policies like the highly controversial privatization of meat inspection and line speed increases for chicken industry slaughterhouses. Vilsack supported these policies, citing them as opportunities for the USDA to save money and the poultry industry to increase their profits. Despite protests from worker safety advocates citing higher risk of injury to workers, Vilsack's USDA continued with the semi-privatization scheme. This set the precedent for future USDA leadership to allow faster line speeds which the Trump administration obliged, increasing speeds across the industry from 140 birds per minute to 175.

While he could not have foreseen the consequences of COVID-19 as they unfolded in meatpacking plants, lack of oversight at Vilsack's USDA set the stage for meatpacking workers' plight before and during the coronavirus pandemic. Because faster line speeds require workers to be closer together, poultry plants with line speed waivers have been found to be 10 times more likely to have COVID-19 cases than those without. Vilsack's leadership catalyzed the conditions in which workers are at higher risk today.

6. Lied About Helping Black Farmers and Fired Shirley Sherrod, a Black Leader at USDA

At the end of Vilsack's term, he wrote a Medium article highlighting the great work his USDA had accomplished regarding civil rights, ushering in a new "Black renaissance" in agriculture. Subsequently, many of the claims made and reiterated by Vilsack and Joe Leonard, his Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights, have since been refuted. A two-year investigation revealed Vilsack's USDA used census data in misleading ways to suggest there was an increase in Black farming during his tenure, the opposite being true. Further, not only did Vilsack's USDA employees foreclose on Black farmers with outstanding discrimination complaints, they also threw out new complaints and misrepresented their frequency. In addition, Vilsack's USDA sent a lower share of loan dollars to Black farmers than it had under President Bush.

Of particular note is Vilsack's firing of Shirley Sherrod, a Black farmer and Georgia civil rights leader who worked as USDA's Georgia State Director for Rural Development. In careless judgement, Vilsack impulsively terminated Sherodd after Breitbart, the right-wing news website, released footage doctored to portray Sherrod as anti-white. Although he later apologized and offered Sherrod a new job (which she declined), Vilsack's re-emergence as Biden's USDA pick has "enraged many farmers of color who say his record on civil rights should have disqualified him from the job."

7. Promised Industry Competition but Chose the Revolving Door

Early on during the first Obama administration, Vilsack's USDA and the Department of Justice promised to investigate harmful concentration in agricultural industries—seed, poultry and other livestock—and restore competition. Grain farmers who suffered from astronomical seed prices and lack of non-GMO options, livestock farmers forced to operate under oppressive contracts with industry behemoths that left them next to no freedom and even less profit—they told their stories, full of hope for change, to USDA-DoJ officials at hearings held across the country. The original goals were to restore competition, moderate input prices, and reign in abuses by corporate livestock firms. In the end, virtually nothing was accomplished. For instance, Vilsack's USDA made a promise that the Grain Inspection and Stockyards and Packers Administration (GIPSA) would finalize a rule to promote competition in the livestock and poultry industries. Eight years later, when Vilsack left the USDA, that rule had not been finalized. As a result, this gave Trump's new USDA head Secretary Sonny Perdue, who Vilsack backed, the opportunity to gut the proposed rule and defund GIPSA.

In 2010, Vilsack promised the USDA would investigate why most of the income from dairy landed in the pockets of big processors. The investigation went nowhere, permitting Big Dairy to grow bigger and displace family farmers. At the same time, Vilsack appointed Dairy Board members, many of whom continue to serve. After his term in office at the USDA, Vilsack used these connections, and was hired by the Dairy Board as the Dairy Management, Inc. Executive Vice President and CEO of the US Dairy Export Council.

For these reasons, Center for Food Safety and dozens of other organizations strongly oppose the nomination of Vilsack, a revolving door politician whose decisions at USDA greatly harmed the environment, workers, food safety, Black farmers, and industry competition. If Vilsack is confirmed by the U.S. Senate, the Biden-Harris administration's reincarnation of a Vilsack USDA will inherit scandals rooted in Vilsack's past poor decision-making.

We need a fresh vision for USDA, not Tom Vilsack. Ask your Senators to oppose his nomination. Take action now >>

Know the Health Risks Before Investing in an Antimicrobial Nano-Silver Mask (and What to Buy Instead!)

Mon, 23 Nov 2020 00:00:00 -0800

Capitalizing on the novel COVID-19 virus and the need for face coverings, several companies are now selling masks embedded with nano-silver. They claim these products are "especially" antimicrobial due to the addition of nano-silver and therefore ensure enhanced protection from the virus. Nano-silver's antimicrobial properties come from silver ions interacting with the DNA of pathogens to prevent reproduction and limiting key enzymes. Nano-silver has been found to kill a broad range of microbes that affect food. Its efficacy with regard to protecting against COVID-19, however, is less clear. Unfortunately, while nano-silver does have antimicrobial properties, its ingestion or inhalation by humans can cause significant harm and it is not approved for use in face masks by federal government agencies.

The Basics

Nano-silver is one of the most common and widely used antimicrobial nanomaterials on the global market. Nanomaterials are so small that a nanometer cannot be seen by an ordinary microscope. Due to their small size, they have different chemical, physical, and even biological properties than conventionally-sized materials. As such, the size and novel properties of nanomaterials are not properly understood with regard to how they interact with the human body's immune and inflammatory response systems or the external environment.

Human Health Concerns

Due to their size, nanoparticles can enter the body and pass through biological membranes such as cell walls, cell tissue, and organs more easily. Following ingestion and inhalation, nanoparticles can easily cross the blood-brain barrier and produce damage to the barrier integrity. When ingested, nanoparticles have been found to circulate through the body and reach potentially sensitive target sites such as bone marrow, lymph nodes, the spleen, the brain, the liver, and the heart. Overall, research has shown many types of nanomaterials can be toxic to human tissue and cell cultures, resulting in oxidative stress, inflammatory cytokine production, DNA mutation, and even cell death. The health ramifications from nano-silver are of particular concern because human exposure is increasingly widespread. Neither the EPA nor the FDA has approved nano-silver for use in face coverings or masks.

With the advent of nano-silver being put in and on face masks, excessive exposure is more and more likely. This is concerning because with the aforementioned nanomaterial health concerns, nano-silver ingestion and inhalation is dangerous. In vitro studies demonstrate that nano-silver is toxic to mammalian liver cells, stem cells, and even brain cells. Further, an overwhelming majority of studies report that contact with nano-silver causes abnormalities in basic cell functions. Nano-silver may also affect the liver and interfere with beneficial bacteria within the gut upon ingestion. Further, nano-silver may potentially compromise the ability to control harmful bacteria by increasing antibiotic resistance which may have an overall negative impact on human health.

Environmental Hazards

In tandem with human health concerns, nano-silver also has a negative impact on the environment. Silver in regular form is already known to have harmful impacts with high toxicity for fish, algae, crustaceans, plants, fungi, and bacteria. In fact, EPA already regulates silver as a pesticide and requires labeling stating silver pesticides as, "toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates." In nano-silver form, it can be many times more toxic. Additionally, the research found that washing nano-silver embedded clothing caused substantial amounts of nano-silver to leech into the discharge wastewater and eventually into the environment. Due to their greater surface area, nano-silver is more chemically reactive and more readily ionized than silver in large particle form. This is of concern because while that property makes nano-silver have strong antibacterial properties, it also has more toxic effects.

Regulatory Oversight of Nano-Silver

In 2015, EPA granted a petition filed by the Center for Food Safety seeking greater regulatory oversight of nano-silver products. In its response to the petition, EPA agreed that since nano-silver is used to kill microorganisms, nano-silver products qualify as pesticides. Further, EPA agreed that developers of such products must seek EPA review and registration before the products are allowed in the marketplace. Like many other nano-silver products, the companies selling these masks make unsubstantiated public health claims with regard to nano-silver and it's protection against COVID-19. These claims can only be made on products that have been properly tested and are registered with the EPA. With regard to nano-silver masks, EPA should order these untested and unregulated products off the market and fine the companies until they perform stringent safety assessments by independent experts and submit them to EPA for registration.

Nano-silver mask providers to avoid:

Boomer Naturals
Caregiver USA
PureSpa Direct
Veco Face Mask
Nano
Ghluv
ASRV
Tommy Bahama
Risk Reactor Inc.
Silver-Nano
Dr. Sturm
Jaanuu
Aero Tech Designs
Hammacher Schlemmer

Mask Recommendations

Due to the public health concerns regarding nano-silver exposure and the fact that nano-silver has not been approved for these uses by the FDA or the EPA, to protect against COVID-19 CFS advocates for the use of masks that do not contain nano-silver substances and is working to get EPA and FDA to pull unapproved masks from the market. CFS supports and recommends consumers follow CDC mask guidelines and purchase certified organic cotton masks that are either triple-layered or with a HEPA filter option for maximum protection. If you wear a gaiter, please be sure it is not single layered.

Triple-layer masks:

Jenmay
Eileen Fisher
The Woven Threads
Mary Ruth Organics
Ever Violet
Kishubaby
Avocado Green Mattress
Etee
MALUORGANIC
The Simple Folk
Graf-Lantz
Lakeshore Dry Goods
Filter Inserts:
Steve Madden
Vida
ZTIOOP
Ouba

Originally published at https://www.onegreenplanet.org on November 18, 2020.

Celebrating Democracy!

Mon, 09 Nov 2020 00:00:00 -0800

A message from our Executive Director Andrew Kimbrell:

I'm sure many of you are relieved about what the election results mean for the future of our health, the environment, and our country. Thankfully, democracy won the day — but our work continues.

As a first step, we're already working to pressure the new administration to undo all the dangerous government actions from the past four years. From overturning the approval of toxic pesticides to restoring environmental laws that protect our air, water, pollinators, and wildlife, it's going to be a busy few months!

Here are our top five policies approved under the Trump administration that we will be pressuring the Biden administration to reverse:

— Strengthen USDA rules for GMO labeling requirements to ensure on-package labeling and our right to know;
— Restore animal welfare protections in Organic livestock production that were rescinded under the Trump administration;
— Restore the ban on GMOs and bee-killing neonicotinoid pesticides in National Wildlife Refuges;
— Undo the Environmental Protection Agency's re-approval of the toxic, cancer-causing pesticide glyphosate and the endocrine-disrupting pesticide atrazine;
— Overturn regulations that strip away the environmental review of GMO crops prior to their approval; and much more!

Center for Food Safety will be vigilant, as we always are, in holding the new administration to their promise to overturn agency actions and regulations that have been detrimental to the Earth and our communities.

As we embark on 2021, I am hopeful that the outcome of this historic election will move us forward in our quest to protect the Earth and ensure everyone's access to safe food. And while today is a day to celebrate, tomorrow we will go "all in" and continue our work. Together, victory by victory, at the federal, state, and county levels, we will create and defend a food future that empowers people and protects the planet.

Thank you for your continued support and partnership in our work.

Onwards, together!

Andrew Kimbrell

Executive Director

P.S. If you'd like to support our work to reverse Trump policies that negatively impact human health and the environment, a tax-deductible donation to Center for Food Safety is an investment in creating a safe and healthy environmental legacy for generations to come.

Is Lab-Grown Meat Healthy and Safe to Consume?

Sun, 20 Sep 2020 00:00:00 -0700

It goes by many names: cultured, cell-based, cultivated, lab-grown meat, etc. As the names imply, it is a meat alternative made in a lab via animal cells and a cultured medium, like fetal bovine serum or a proprietary mix of sugars and salts. Several companies around the world are promoting this new technique as a way to cultivate a meat alternative that is supposedly "cleaner" and safer than traditional meat.

(We are only looking at those products that culture cells taken from animals into a new meat-like formulation. There are many other products that culture plant, fungi, or algal cells into a meat substitute, but we are not reviewing them here.)

29 companies are planning to bring lab-cultured "meat" to market in the form of chicken, beef, pork, seafood, pet food, and beyond. These companies include Memphis Meats, Aleph Farms, Mosa Meat, Meatable, SuperMeat, and Finless Foods. These companies are backed by huge investments from meat industry corporations (Cargill and Tyson), venture capitalist firms (Blue Yard Capital, Union Square Ventures, S2G Ventures, and Emerald Technology Ventures), and billionaires (such as Bill Gates and Richard Branson).

While the hype is certainly there, is lab-cultured "meat" actually better? Its proponents tout it as an environmentally responsible, cruelty-free, and antibiotic-free alternative to current meat production. While the goal of producing sustainable "meat" without killing animals is admirable, lab-cultured "meat" is in its infancy and the science behind the production methods requires more scrutiny.

Of particular concern is the genetic engineering of cells and their potential cancer-promoting properties. To be able to better assess whether the products are being produced by methods that involve genetic engineering and use genetic constructs (-called onco-genes, typically used to make stem cells keep growing; this is not a problem for lab experiments, but could be for food products-) that might encourage cancer cells, we need more information on how the cells are engineered and kept growing. Many of the companies are claiming this information is confidential and a business secret. These companies are not yet patenting their production processes wherein this information would be more fully disclosed. Some suggest that the production will follow the FDA cell culture guidelines, but the FDA's cell culture guidelines do not apply to this because they're not designed for food.

Lab-cultured "meat" is not always cruelty-free

To produce lab-cultured "meat," many producers extract animal cells from living animals. This is typically done via biopsy, a painful and uncomfortable procedure that uses large needles. If a company could scale up with this method, it would require a consistent supply of animals from which to acquire cells and innumerable painful extractions. To make the cell-based product more consistent, the producer may biopsy the same animal many times for the cells that growing "meat" requires.

Growing animal cells (typically muscle cells) also requires a growth medium. When lab-cultured "meat" production first began, companies depended on fetal bovine serum (FBS) as a growth medium. Producing FBS involves extracting blood from the fetus of a pregnant cow when the cow is slaughtered.

New methods for scaling up

Given its high cost, it appears that FBS is usually only used during small-scale lab trials. Additionally, increasing production capacity using FBS comes with its own set of concerns. Even disregarding the high cost of FBS, non-genetically engineered animal muscle cells only proliferate or increase to a certain degree. In order to overcome this limitation, large companies such as and Memphis Meats claim they've found an FBS alternative that does not involve animals along with an effective way to expand production. For Memphis Meats, this process involves the utilization of a bioreactor and the creation of immortal cell lines.

Curious about how we make our Memphis Meat? See below! #sogood pic.twitter.com/co5d7OY0bI
- Memphis Meats (@MemphisMeats) May 8, 2018

These companies are using a bioreactor — essentially a very large vessel for containing biological reactions and processes — to implement a scaffold-based system to grow "meat," which uses a specific structure for cells to grow on and around. The scaffolding helps the cells differentiate into a specific meat-like formation. Researchers cite using cornstarch fibers, plant skeletons, fungi, and gelatin as common scaffold materials. Instead of animal muscle cell precursors (otherwise known as myosatellites), researchers have been using cultured stem cells. This distinction is important because extracted muscle cells will only proliferate to a certain extent. Companies are trying cultured stem cells as an alternative type of cell(s) that could proliferate exponentially so that they could scale up production, and later differentiate the cells into the various cell types that make up animal meat (muscle, fat, and blood cells) in a bioreactor.

In this process, the stem cells still come from animals or animal embryos, but what differentiates the two methods is that in the scaffold-based system, the cells can be genetically engineered to proliferate indefinitely. These cells are otherwise known as pluripotent (which make many kinds of cells, like stem cells) or totipotent (which make every kind of cell, as do embryos). This would greatly expand a company's capacity to make lab-cultured "meat," but the methods by which companies make these cells proliferate come with human health and food safety ramifications.

Human health and food safety concerns about genetically modified cell lines

While the FDA has previously reviewed enzymes, oils, algal, fungal, and bacterial products grown in microorganisms, these new animal cell-cultured products are much more complicated in structure and require a more thorough review. The scale required for making lab-cultured "meat" feasible for mass consumption will be the largest form of tissue engineering to exist and could introduce new kinds of genetically engineered cells into our diets. Further research will also be needed to confirm or dispel uncertainties over various potential safety issues. Candidate topics for research include the safety of ingesting rapidly growing genetically-modifed cell lines, as these lines exhibit the characteristics of a cancerous cell which include overgrowth of cells not attributed to the original characteristics of a population of cultured primary cells. If lab-cultured "meat" enters the market, there are several human health concerns associated with this new production method, specifically that these genetically-modified cell lines could exhibit the characteristics of a cancerous cell.

While these companies don't disclose much to the public about their processing methods, their public patents reveal the creation of oncogenic, or cancer-causing, cells. A Memphis Meats patent on the creation of modified pluripotent cell lines involves the activation or inactivation of various proteins responsible for tumor suppression. Another patent from JUST Inc. describes the utilization of growth factors as part of its growth medium. This process could promote the development of cancer-like cells in lab-cultured "meat" products. Additionally, it is possible certain growth factors can be absorbed in the bloodstream after digestion.

If they are using stem cells, cell-based meat companies need to pay attention to the risk of cancer cells emerging in their cultures. A research team from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute (HSCI), Harvard Medical School (HMS), and the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard has found that as stem cell lines grow in a lab environment, they often acquire mutations in the TP53 (p53) gene, an important tumor suppressor responsible for controlling cell growth and division. Their research suggests that inexpensive genetic sequencing technologies should be used by cell-based meat companies to screen for mutated cells in stem cell cultures so that these cultures can be excluded.

Cancer-causing additives are prohibited in our food supply under the Delaney Clauses in the 1958 Food Additive Amendments and the 1960 Color Additive Amendments. These new rapidly growing cell lines might be considered color additives Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) if they are being used to produce the color in the "meat." The federal statutes regulating meat also prohibit the selling of animals with symptoms of illness, such as cancerous cells in meat. Regardless, all of these new ways of making cells that continue to grow or differentiate should require a safety assessment to determine if they contain cancerous cells before they can be sold.

In describing the scaffolding and growth media being used, lab-cultured "meat" companies need to be fully transparent about what ingredients they're using. During the above-mentioned industry nonprofit's presentation, the presenter suggested the growth media could be composed of a variety of different ingredients like proteins, amino acids, vitamins, and inorganic salts classified under the GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) process that allows companies to do their own testing and not submit to a new FDA food additive review. Since companies are not required to fully disclose the composition of their scaffolding or growth media, potentially exposing consumers to novel proteins and allergens, the new mixture of ingredients should be reviewed under a full FDA supervised food additive review, not GRAS.

Another major issue associated with processing methods using cell lines and/or culture medium is contamination. Unlike animals, cells do not have a fully functioning immune system, so there is a high likelihood of bacterial or fungal growth, mycoplasma, and other human pathogens growing in vats of cells. While lab-cultured "meat" companies emphasize that this type of "meat" production would be more sterile than traditional animal agriculture, it's unknown how that is true without the use of antibiotics or some other pharmaceutical means of pathogenic control.

Based on commentary from various companies, antibiotic usage across the industry is still very unclear. While the industry's promoters have outlined many uses for antibiotics in lab-grown "meat" production in preventing contamination, they have not disclosed the amount of antibiotics being used in the various processes. Instead, they suggest that because mass production of lab-grown "meat" will be done in an industrial rather than lab setting, with bioreactors and tanks, there will be higher safety oversight than in medical labs. It is suggested that the many preventative measures in the industry will maintain a sterile boundary and deter antibiotic use in production. It remains a question of how a food production plant would be more sterile than a medical lab.

Companies such as Memphis Meats claim they are genetically engineering cell lines to be antibiotic-resistant, which would suggest they plan on using antibiotics, but don't want their "meat" cells to be affected bacterial and viral contamination plague medical cell culture, so they generally use antimicrobials. Still, any large-scale production that requires antibiotic use even if just for a short-term duration should require such lab-cultured "meat" undergo even stricter USDA drug residue testing, pathogen testing, and FDA tolerance requirements than conventionally-produced meat. Many other companies claim they don't plan to use antibiotics in expanded production which begs the question, in addition to supposed sterile bioreactors, are they using other undisclosed processes to prevent contamination? For example, Future Meat Technologies describes the use of a "special resin" to remove toxins.

The companies have also not disclosed plans for how they will dispose of the toxins from bioreactors, scaffolding, and culture media like growth factors/hormones, differentiation factors, often including fetal calf serum or horse serum, and antimicrobials (commonly added to cultured cells to prevent bacterial and fungal contamination, particularly in ). In conventionally-produced meat, animals dispose of these toxins in their urine and feces. If companies can't find a way for this "meat" to dispose of these toxins, the long-term cultures could potentially build up within the "meat" itself. Given the lack of clarity of these companies and their processes, there must be continuous monitoring of the cell lines and growth media/bioreactor for contaminants and some sort of standardization established across the industry to ensure safety.

Final considerations and regulatory recommendations

The industry is new and the exact production process and inputs needed for large-scale, lab-cultured "meat" production are unknown (or not being disclosed by the companies). It is the responsibility of both FDA and USDA to ensure that all inputs used in production and the final product are safe for human and animal consumption. These agencies must ensure that lab-cultured "meat" is labeled appropriately, including if any of the product ingredients are genetically modified or if the ingredients are produced using unmodified cells from animals. These agencies must also ensure that this product doesn't introduce new allergens into the food supply, that any hormones or antibiotics used are not found at unsafe levels in the final product, and that the product doesn't contain any compounds or oncogenic (cancer-causing) cells that have not been approved for use in food.

Lab-cultured "meat" should not be allowed to use the Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) regulatory loophole wherein companies can hire their own experts to evaluate their products, often in secret without any notice to the public or FDA. GRAS is an inappropriate designation because the consensus among knowledgeable experts regarding the safety of lab-cultured "meat" does not yet exist. Instead, FDA should require that lab-cultured "meat" products be regulated more thoroughly as food additives. "Meat" companies should submit complete food additive petitions for each of the novel ingredients used to produce these "meats" as well as a final food approval petition for the entire product. The production facilities, like all meat processing plants, should then have USDA inspectors on-site monitoring the process and inspecting the "meat." The USDA announced in August that it will start the process of developing regulations for these new kinds of "meat. Adequate regulation will be necessary to address the concerns raised in this blog.

Overall, due to the novel nature of lab-cultured "meat," the lack of transparency from the companies involved, and the myriad potential health risks to consumers, rigorous regulation of this product is vitally important.

A Landmark Victory Protecting the Future of Our Oceans, Many Years in the Making

Mon, 10 Aug 2020 00:00:00 -0700

Trump Administration's arguments that it can regulate fish farming as fishing don't hold water

This month we are celebrating a landmark legal victory for our oceans and fishing communities! The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with Center for Food Safety (CFS) and allies, deeming illegal the Department of Commerce's decision that would have permitted, for the very first time, large-scale, polluting aquaculture offshore in U.S. federal waters and deep-sixing the program. This huge victory comes after a two decades-long fight in Congress, at the agency level, and finally in the courts the last 4 years, during which the Trump Administration has continually put out its typically loud but meaningless propaganda in support of greenlighting the new industry, without regard for its known destructive effects to oceans, wild fish, and the coastal fishing communities that depended on them.

We have seen this movie before: fighting to prevent industrial aquaculture's installation in our oceans is like trying to prevent our industrial animal factories of pigs and cows on land, before they are polluting our water, soil, and food. Like factory farms growing poultry and livestock for meat and dairy products, industrial aquaculture is the mass breeding, farming, and harvest of finfish and shellfish in underwater nets, pods, and cages. And just like its land-based factory farm counterparts, industrial aquaculture is full of false promises of cheap and plentiful food, while jeopardizing our aquatic ecosystems and endangered species. Industrial aquaculture operations cause serious environmental, health, and societal impacts that we simply cannot ignore in pursuit of profit. We know this because everywhere else in the world they have been adopted they have already caused these harmful impacts.

Fortunately, this month's Court ruling protects our fragile ocean resources from the many threats posed by offshore aquaculture. Continue reading to learn more about the importance of this case, and why industrial aquaculture is NOT the way forward when it comes to sustainable seafood production.

Overview of Our Case

CFS filed the case in 2016 on behalf of a broad coalition of environmental and fishing groups, after the Department of Commerce issued rules allowing industrial aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico, as the test region for similar schemes in all U.S. ocean waters. Unlike existing aquaculture operations in the U.S. — the majority of which are nearshore operations for shellfish and shrimp — the government's proposal would have extended industrial fish farms out of state coastal zones and into deep ocean waters offshore (3 to 200 miles!) for the production of large marine finfish such as tuna and amberjack (commonly known as yellowtail).

Two years into our case, in 2018, the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana agreed with our arguments about the Commerce rules, and held that the agency grossly overstepped its authority: existing fishing law was never intended to regulate the different and novel harms of aquaculture, or the farming of fish in net-pens. The Department knew this and tried to get new authority from Congress between 2004 and 2012 annually, but when they were defeated, decided to attempt the massive and unprecedented new ocean farming activity anyway, using its "fishing" authority. The Court torpedoed these arguments.

The Trump Administration appealed, fishing for a reversal, but CFS and allies refused to back down. The Court of Appeals in New Orleans held argument in January 2020, and issued its decision August 3, 2020. And the appellate court refused to take the bait: A majority of the judges agreed with the district judge. Absent new authority from Congress, industrial aquaculture, with its harms to commercial and recreational fisheries, and environment and imperiled species, cannot be permitted in the U.S. federal waters of the Gulf under existing law. And since the federal regulatory scheme for the Gulf waters was the government's test case, the ruling will have ripple effect (pun intended) of halting industrial fish farms from being built in U.S. marine waters. In short, the victory sunk the bad idea and the entire legal theory on which was based.

Myths Busted: The Problem with Offshore Industrial Aquaculture

If not shut down by the courts, the federal permitting scheme would have allowed industrial facilities to collectively house up to 64 million pounds of farmed fish each year in the Gulf. To give some idea of this size, that's the same amount of total wild fish caught on average each year in the Gulf! These industrial aquaculture facilities cause many serious environmental and health concerns, including: the escape of farmed fish into the wild; outcompeting wild fish for habitat; food and mates or intermixing with wild fish and altering their genetics and behaviors; the spread of diseases and parasites from farmed fish to wild fish and other marine life; and pollution from excess feed, wastes, and any antibiotics or other chemicals used flowing through the open pens into natural waters.

In addition to ecological and public health risks, industrial aquaculture can also come with significant socioeconomic costs. A massive amount of cheap fish would have drown the local fishing communities and their markets and employment, communities that have for generations lived by the ebb and flow of the Gulf. The rules would have allowed aquaculture operations for the first time to privatize large swaths of the ocean, banning fishing boats from what has always been a resource held in the public trust.

And contrary to often-repeated myths that farmed fish production helps alleviate pressure on wild fish stocks, industrial aquaculture has actually been shown to worsen wild fish declines. To farm large fish requires trawling the ocean bottom for wild forage fish, like menhaden or anchovies, to grind up and feed them. The industry's ever-growing demand for feed jeopardizes the survival of wild fish and disrupts the balance of the marine ecosystem.

The appeals court affirmed that the Department of Commerce's legal claims did not float: it overstepped its bounds in trying to allow a new offshore aquaculture industry under 1970s laws that regulate fishing, clearly never intended for that purpose. Indeed, there is no federal regulatory scheme in place that would examine the unique harms of offshore aquaculture. Instead, the current administration should support America's struggling fishing communities and work to develop a comprehensive regulatory scheme that would promote modern, sustainable methods of additional seafood production, like recirculating land-based farming.

What's Next?

Despite the tidal victory, industrial aquaculture proponents and their cheerleaders in their Trump Administration are still angling for unlawful other ways to put fish farms in our waters. Even though there can be no full industry now, proponents may attempt "experiments" instead, requiring more litigation. And, amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the Trump Administration issued a sound-and-fury, signifying nothing executive order mandating federal agencies to craft a program for rapid authorization of aquaculture farms under the patchwork of existing laws. [Of course, the Courts have now already rejected this very idea.] As we have always done, CFS will continue to watchdog these attempts to circumnavigate the law, and advocate for sustainable seafood production, based only on rigorous federal regulatory authority that first protects wild fisheries.

What You Can Do

If we've learned anything from the devastation 20th century industrial agriculture has caused to our planet, our food, and our family farmers, it is that we most definitively do not want that model for our 21st century oceans. Particularly when government is held hostage to special interests, it's up to us as the public to safeguard the public interest, hold our government accountable, and protect our oceans for future generations. Join CFS's True Food Network to help build a sustainable and regenerative food future, today!

Lawsuit Challenges Discriminatory GMO Food Labeling Rules

Tue, 28 Jul 2020 00:00:00 -0700

For more than 20 years, corporations behind the creation and promotion of genetically engineered foods have tried to keep secret that their products would fail, and fail badly, in an informed marketplace. Their problem is that over 90% of GMOs are designed to withstand massive amounts of pesticides. GMOs do not provide any advantages to the public—no better taste, or lower costs, or more nutrition. In short, GMOs have no benefits however they do increase the risk for consumers because these engineered foods can contain larger amounts of pesticide residue and there are possible harms from the genetic changes in these altered foods.

Accordingly, chemical corporations like Monsanto had a major problem: they wanted to keep profiting from selling the millions more pounds of pesticides that GMOs allow, but to do so they needed to hide exactly which foods were GMOs, and which were not, from the American public. Corporations wanted to hide these facts because if GMO food is adequately labeled, many more consumers would choose a non-GMO food over a GMO food which offers more potential risk and zero benefits. That's why in countries around the world where it is required to label GMO foods, including the European Union countries, engineered foods are almost nonexistent.

The answer for these corporations was to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to halt state or federal laws requiring GMO labeling. They knew they had to sabotage our right to know about their foods otherwise their entire business would collapse. And for a while, it worked. GMO labeling initiatives in California, Washington, and Oregon were narrowly defeated under an avalanche of corporate advertising and misinformation. In time, as more of the public became aware of the dangers of GMOs, the situation changed. Vermont became the first state to pass a mandatory GMO labeling law. Two other states also enacted GMO labeling laws and many more were in the process of doing the same thing. A panicked biotech industry then went to its friends in Congress and lobbied hard to pre-empt the Vermont law and stop it from coming into effect. The industry's first three attempts to halt state labeling failed due to the successful grassroots organizing of the food movement. However, Congress finally arrived at a compromise bill that did pre-empt the Vermont law just days before it was to come into effect.

This rushed compromise bill was badly written and deeply flawed but it did require labeling of GMO foods. Unfortunately, it left open the possibility that GMO labeling could occur through digital QR codes or 1-800 phone numbers rather than clear on-package labeling stating that the product contained GMOs. The bill did require that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) conduct a study to see if QR codes would be adequate for labeling. The USDA did this study and after litigation forced them to make it public, it was clear that QR code or other digital labeling was inadequate, completely impractical, and discriminatory against at least 44 million Americans, primarily low-income Americans who do not have Smart phones.

Regardless of its own finding, when USDA published its final GMO labeling regulations last year, it specifically allowed for the use of these discriminatory and impractical QR codes without requiring that they always be accompanied with clear on-package labeling. The USDA regulations also included provisions that will leave the majority of GMO derived foods unlabeled; prohibit the use of the widely known terms "GMO" and "GE"; and prohibit retailers from voluntarily providing more information to consumers. In other words, the corporations had pressured the agency into once again hiding from the public which foods were GMO and which were not, but this time under the guise that labeling was actually happening.

That's why Center for Food Safety (CFS) just filed a groundbreaking lawsuit against USDA challenging the GMO labeling regulations on a number of grounds, including discriminating against tens of millions of Americans.

The lawsuit makes clear that the discriminatory impact of QR codes should be enough to declare the entire misguided idea illegal, but it is still important we take a deeper look at the other problems with QR code labeling that impact all Americans.

QR Codes Put an Undue Burden on the Shopper

Even assuming you are among those with a smart phone, the appropriate app, the knowledge of how to use the QR function, and funds to keep the phone in use, let's contrast the QR labeling process with clear and conspicuous on-package labeling. With conventional labeling you walk down the grocery aisle examining the products on the shelves, pick up each one and quickly find the information you need on the package—simple, fast, and effective. Now, imagine that each time you pick up a product you have to pull out your phone, open up an app (if you can connect to the internet), wait for the camera to scan the bar code, wait for a webpage to load, and then finally read to see if the information you need is there. That's a lot of effort to go through to get basic information that any company could easily have put on the package. And the industry knows it. Corporations have calculated that excluding those that do not have or know how to use smartphones, plus those that cannot spend the considerable extra time for the burdensome QR process, will mean that only a very small percentage of shoppers will actually be informed about whether or not their food is genetically engineered. Once again, a great pseudo-solution from the biotech industry that gives the impression of labeling while in reality, the public is not actually being informed about what they are purchasing.

Adding to this impracticality is the current COVID-19 pandemic. Many Americans are visiting grocery stores less frequently to avoid exposure to the virus and purchasing more items during each visit. Requiring a shopper to scan every single item they purchase would not only place an undue burden on the shopper, but would increase a shopper's exposure risk to this deadly virus as they spend extra time in the store.

QR Codes Raise Privacy Concerns

Proposals to use QR code technology in lieu of on-package labeling also raise serious questions about the privacy of consumer data. When using QR codes, what data would be exchanged and how might companies be able to use that data? For instance, would a company be able to determine which customers are viewing their products through QR codes? Could companies use that data to target consumers through advertising? Would any personal data be exchanged? The government thus far has a poor track record of protecting consumer data and curbing the massive marketing interests of the food industry. This system only opens up consumers to further exploitation and invasions of privacy.

Other Challenges to the USDA GMO Labeling Regulations

In addition to the QR code issue, this CFS lawsuit also challenges USDA's labeling language restrictions. When on-package text is used, the regulations limit it to only using the term "bioengineered" or "BE." In reality, for 25 years, every aspect of the issue—science, policy, and marketplace—has used the term genetically engineered (GE) or genetically modified (GMO).

Retailers and shoppers have relied on the term GMO for more than a decade to identify and avoid GMO foods. Banning the use of this term and replacing it with a term nobody has ever heard of is misleading and will create massive confusion in the marketplace. That is why CFS is representing a number of food retailers in its lawsuit, including Natural Grocers, operating 157 stores in 20 states, Puget Consumers Co-op, the nation's largest community-owned food market, and Good Earth Natural Foods based in Northern California.

CFS's lawsuit also challenges USDA's severe restriction on which foods are covered and require disclosure. The vast majority of GE foods (by some estimates over 70%) are not whole foods, but highly processed foods with GE ingredients, like sodas and oils. Yet in the final rule, USDA excluded these "highly refined" products, unless the GE material was "detectable." A disclosure law that exempts 70% of the foods it is supposed to disclose is not a meaningful disclosure law: it is a fraud and allows producers to keep their GMO ingredients secret.

The goal of CFS's litigation is to have the court declare USDA's regulations unlawful and nullify them, and then return the issue to USDA with orders to fix the unlawful portions of the GMO labeling rules. Americans deserve the same meaningful labeling of GMO foods enjoyed by more than 60 other countries. This lawsuit is designed to ensure that Americans have the right to know how their food is produced, and that it's a right that everyone deserves.

Feeding Hawai'i: Stories from the Frontlines of Hawai'i's Response to COVID-19

Thu, 09 Jul 2020 00:00:00 -0700

Photo credit: Aunty Mona Silva, Uncle Glenn's Hawaiian Food, Kane'ohe. Photo by Dave Homcy.

Feeding Hawai'i: Stories from the Frontlines of Hawai'i's Response to COVID-19

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, my view of food security in Hawai'i focused on our reliance on the 6 million pounds of food that are imported to the islands daily and what would happen if the barges stopped.

Although the barges haven't stopped, for many, food insecurity in the islands has been the highest ever experienced. The Hawai'i Center for Food Safety has had the opportunity and privilege to check-in with many stakeholders across the food system during these challenging times. As we are conducting one-on-one interviews with farmers, ranchers, hunger relief agencies, restauranteurs, and legislators about their experiences during COVID-19, I am learning firsthand about the pukas in our local food system and what we can do to fill these gaps.

In the process, I have discovered my own local food system blind spots, which has motivated me to get absolutely clear on the definition of food security.

Sol Kahn, Rising Sun Organic Farm, Anahola, Kaua'i.Photo by Harneet Bajwa Photography.

Food security, as defined by the United Nations, means that ALL people, at ALL times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their food preferences and dietary needs for an active and healthy life.

With the loss of restaurant and hotel expenditure, local farmers are facing an overabundance of crops. Some are able to pivot to direct consumer sales, while others find themselves burdened with crops grown specifically for visitor consumption.

I was feeling confident of my efforts to help farmers reach a direct customer base until the sobering discovery that online purchasing was unavailable to SNAP/EBT recipients. The closure of local farmer's markets further exacerbated these inequities, forcing our most food insecure populations to shop in the stores that many of us can avoid by ordering groceries online.

I had a similar reality check when confronted with the fact that it doesn't matter how many pounds of produce a farmer has to donate if the crop doesn't match the cultural needs of the community.

These intimate interviews reveal that our food challenges differ from island to island, and from ahupua'a to ahupua'a. There are, however, undeniable common experiences, one being the sentiment that there could be ample food in our islands to feed us through this crisis. Our challenges lie in insufficient infrastructure and distribution obstacles.

The solutions that have arisen during our interviews directly mirror those that food system analysts and ag working groups have espoused for decades.

To address the bottlenecks we are facing, local agricultural producers need support for aggregation and processing facilities including refrigerated storage and transportation, and increased capacity for animal processing, and inspectors. The barriers to successful farming (cost of land, water, and labor) will not be solved without critical consideration by our state, yet our legislature allocates less than half of one percent of the state budget to our Department of Agriculture.

Local experts have long been beating the drum for the cross-sector collaboration that is finally emerging out of necessity in the wake of COVID-19. As hotels and restaurants closed, the Department of Education and hunger relief agencies stepped up as viable and large-scale consumers of locally sourced produce and protein. Now is the time to revisit our policies and campaigns to support comprehensive local institutional procurement, and to fund full-time positions for food access coordinators on every island.

One farmer we spoke to hung his hat on being in the business of "farming kama'aina". Policymakers need to take a page out of this book and double down on investments in programs that steer homegrown youth into agricultural careers. We need to farm not only farmers but agricultural planners and food systems analysts. By supporting school garden and farm to school programs, we can also grow new consumers (and palates) for local agriculture.

Tita Kaiwi, Agency Director, Maui Food Bank. Photo by Cadencia Photography.

We also need to take a serious look at our food waste. Backyard gleaning services and ugly produce movements are having their moment. Excess prepared food needs to legally make its way to the hungry. We need commercial composting facilities to ensure that everything compostable is diverted from our landfills, including animal byproducts. With the high expense of synthetic inputs and fertilizers, we need to support initiatives for regenerative and natural farming methods, including the production of cover crops seeds, indigenous microorganisms, biochar, and bloodmeal.

A recurring value amongst the farmers we've spoken to is the obligation to m'lama 'aina. Without healthy 'aina, we don't have healthy food. The ancestral wisdom of kanaka 'oiwi and the values of the ahupua'a system holds the keys to sustainability. In 2020, it should go without saying that every organization, working group and think tank dedicated to rebuilding a resilient local food system needs Hawaiian representation at the table.

We ask our interviewees what the general public can do to strengthen our local food future. The resounding answer is to BUY LOCAL NOW and to continue to buy local as we reopen and rebuild. Each of us can make small and meaningful impacts every time we choose to shorten our own personal food supply chain.

Now is the time to invest in Hawai'i's food future. COVID-19 has offered us a trial run in demonstrating what might happen if the barges stopped. In terms of food security, we are still a long way from ensuring that all of the people of Hawai'i have access to safe, healthy, nutritious, and culturally appropriate food.

Check out our interviews and more at feedinghawaii.org.

Originally published on Sierra Club of Hawai'i's blog.

Double Victory! Monsanto pesticide and GMOs just got whacked!

Wed, 17 Jun 2020 00:00:00 -0700

We just made history! Center for Food Safety (CFS) just had one of the most important legal victories ever against pesticides and GMO crops.

After years of litigation, a Federal Court just banned Monsanto's toxic pesticide dicamba. This also effectively halts the use of GMO crops designed to tolerate that pesticide.

This massive win protects farmers, our health, and hundreds of endangered species.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that EPA's approval of the pesticide be immediately revoked and its use stopped. This provides relief to thousands of farmers across the country whose crops have been decimated by the drift of this pesticide onto their fields.

In ruling the pesticide approval unlawful, the Court cited "enormous and unprecedented damage" caused by dicamba in the last few years, damage that has "torn apart the social fabric of many farming communities."

This victory took years of effort by CFS's legal and science teams and we could not have asked for a better result. We are so proud of them, and so incredibly grateful to our members and donors that enable these major victories to happen.

MORE INFORMATION ON THE MAJOR VICTORY:

Monsanto's dicamba pesticide was approved to be sprayed directly on Monsanto's GMO corn and soybeans which are genetically engineered to be resistant to it. This toxic pesticide is notorious for drifting to neighboring farms, damaging wild plants, trees, and organic fruits and vegetables that we all enjoy. Here are some more exciting facts on the impact of this victory:

1. Hundreds of endangered species — including dozens of important wild plants, birds, and insect pollinators — were at risk from this pesticide.

2. By winning this case, we have likely stopped more than 25 million pounds of dicamba being sprayed over 100 million acres!

3. By banning the use of dicamba on GMO crops, this victory has the potential to massively reduce the use of GMO soy and cotton!

The government's approval of Monsanto's dicamba pesticide was not just irresponsible, but unlawful. Heroic farmers and farmworkers put themselves in harm's way every day so that we can all enjoy a safe food supply. They should be protected; not made scapegoats in order for Monsanto to fatten its bottom line at their expense. With your support, we made our case in court on behalf of farmers and the environment over many years, based on all of the evidence produced through our litigation — AND WE WON!

Not surprisingly, just days after our legal victory, EPA issued a disingenuous and illegal order stating farmers can use dicamba until July 31. This agency order flies in the face of the Court decision and CFS immediately filed a legal motion with the Court asking them to clarify their legal opinion. As always, the CFS legal team is there to hold agencies and corporations accountable.

Here at CFS, we do all of our legal work pro bono — without charge — and these years-long lawsuits are truly only possible because of our long-time supporters.

As we celebrate this important victory, know we are working hard on multiple additional lawsuits and campaigns challenging pesticides and GMOs, including our recent lawsuit challenging EPA's re-approval of Monsanto's notorious cancer-causing pesticide, glyphosate.

DONATE TO CFS FOR MORE VICTORIES AGAINST MONSANTO!

Onwards, together!

Make Quick Pickles for Quarantine

Thu, 07 May 2020 00:00:00 -0700

Lately I've been spending much more time contemplating the state of my fridge and pantry than I ever did before the coronavirus pandemic. Never before have I paid so much attention to what produce is about to go bad, which is often followed by a desperate attempt to use all my vegetables before anything goes to waste.

Then it dawned on me, why wasn't I preserving all this amazing produce instead?

There are many ways to preserve different foods, but let's focus on the art of pickling as well as its lesser known cousin, quick pickling, which is also known as quickling.

In a nutshell, pickling takes fresh produce, combines it with some salt, vinegar, and whatever spices you want in a jar to create a delicious, tangy product with a long shelf life.

The process of pickling includes essential steps that ensure there are no organisms in the jar that would spoil the pickles. When correctly processed, pickles should last on the shelf safely for up to 18 months.

Pickles can be processed two ways. You can use the boiling water method, in which you submerge your jars for at least 10 minutes in boiling water. If you've got a pressure canner, you can use the pressure canning method by following the directions provided by the manufacturer of your pressure canner.

Pickles should last up to 18 months unopened, but once you open a jar of pickles, treat it as you would any other refrigerated food in a jar that's no longer sealed.

To learn all about pickling and recipes for different pickles, relishes, and chutneys, check out this guide from The Old Farmer's Almanac here >>>

Do you need pickles now? Try making quickles!

Quick pickling does not require any specialized equipment for processing. Simply combine your vegetables with your brine of choice, let them sit or cool for an hour (or less depending on the recipe), and enjoy.

Quickles must be kept in the refrigerator and should be consumed within two weeks. Quickling is the perfect way to add some homemade crunch and tang to your meals while making sure no veggies go to waste.

There are countless pickle recipes out there, and most are pretty easy to experiment with and adapt according to the ingredients you have on hand.

If you need some inspiration to begin your pickling journey, here is a simple recipe for awesome quick pickled onions to add to your next sandwich:

RECIPE: Quick Pickled Red Onions

Note: I usually use red onions with this quickle recipe, but this time I substituted shallots instead without any problems.

Ingredients

1/2 cup apple cider vinegar
1 tablespoon sugar
1 1/2 teaspoons kosher salt
1 red onion, thinly sliced

Preparation

1. Combine the apple cider vinegar, sugar, and kosher salt with 1 cup water in a bowl. Stir until the sugar and salt dissolve.
2. Place sliced red onion in a jar then pour vinegar mixture over your onion.
3. Let sit at room temperature for 1 hour.
4. These quickles will last for 2-3 weeks in the refrigerator.

Happy quickling!

Celebrate Earth Day By Growing Your Own Food!

Wed, 22 Apr 2020 00:00:00 -0700

Happy Earth Day!

Now that spring has sprung, seed companies are experiencing an onslaught of orders as a result of the stay-at-home orders we're following due to the COVID-19 outbreak. As food lovers, this is a trend we at Center for Food Safety (CFS) can surely get behind. It's never been a better time to experiment with different seed varieties and growing your own food.

Why Start a Garden Now?

The timing is right for so many reasons. In most places in North America, the best time to start planting seeds is usually late March to late May. Furthermore, gardening is known to reduce stress — something we could all use during this challenging time. And producing your own food — such as easy-to-grow leafy greens and herbs — can save you a trip to the grocery store or farmers' market, while ensuring that, at any given time, a delicious side dish is only minutes away. Growing your own food really is a win-win-win in the age of social distancing!

Getting Started

Before getting your hands dirty, make sure to choose organic seeds and potting soil. Because organic growers are not permitted to use synthetic pesticides on their plants, the plants naturally adapt to withstand pests and other natural enemies. When buying seeds, look for independent seed companies. Organic seed can be bred to produce more flavorful, nutritious foods that bring greater variety to the food we eat. By choosing organic seeds, you are supporting organic growers whose farming practices lead to healthier soils and diverse agricultural eco-systems.

Our free Global Seed Network makes it easy for you to source or trade seeds with independent farmers and gardeners. When independent farmers and gardeners exchange seeds through grassroots networks, it also helps preserve a diverse seed supply for future generations. Sign up for our free Global Seed Network to start sharing seeds now.

What to Grow

Some seed varieties grow well when seeds are started indoors and later transplanted into outdoor pots or the ground, while other seed varieties grow best when sown directly outdoors. Check out this handy primer to get started.

Easiest seeds to start indoors (and that transplant well): Broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, eggplant, kale, lettuce, onion, okra, pepper, sweet potato, and tomato.

Seeds to start outdoors: Root vegetables (potatoes, carrots, beets, etc.), peas, radishes, corn, and beans (which grow very fast).

Make the Most of Your Space

Good news! You can grow food as long as you have a pot, some potting soil, water, and sun. Look for seeds with the words patio, pixie, tiny, baby, or dwarf in their name. These are bred to grow in small spaces. Read up on companion and succession planting techniques to help you make the most of your limited space.

Growing plants in containers allows you to squeeze edible gardens into the smallest spaces, including patios and balconies.

No outdoor space whatsoever? Many herbs (basil, thyme, oregano, mint, chives, savory, and dill) and vegetables thrive on a windowsill. Also consider growing microgreens, which are young vegetable greens approximately 1–3 inches tall, for your salad fix.

Wishing you and your loved ones health and safety this Earth Day and throughout the year!

Frequently Asked Questions: COVID-19 and Food Safety

Fri, 10 Apr 2020 00:00:00 -0700

At Center for Food Safety, we define food safety very broadly. To make our food system safer and more environmentally sustainable, we do everything from protecting pollinators from toxic pesticides to improving soil health to reduce climate change. We also do work to ensure FDA's food testing protocol is as efficient as it can be in the event of a foodborne illness outbreak.

We've been getting a lot of questions about how to eat safely during the COVID-19 pandemic. Here's a roundup of answers to the most frequently asked questions with links to reliable resources to help you stay safe. Sign up for Center for Food Safety's email list to get tips, resources, and advocacy opportunities delivered to your inbox.

Frequently Asked Questions: COVID-19 and Food Safety

Q: Can I become sick with coronavirus (COVID-19) from food?

The USDA states that it is "not aware of any reports at this time of human illnesses that suggest COVID-19 can be transmitted by food or food packaging." In general, one should still follow good hygiene practices (i.e., wash hands and surfaces often with soap and water, separate raw meat from other foods, cook to the right temperature, and refrigerate foods promptly) when handling or preparing foods.

Q: Will food products be recalled that were produced in a facility during which a worker was potentially shedding the virus while working?

The FDA "does not anticipate that food products would need to be recalled or be withdrawn from the market because of COVID-19, as there is currently no evidence to support the transmission of COVID-19 associated with food or food packaging."

Prior to the pandemic, production facilities have already been required to control risks associated with potentially ill workers. Food production facilities are required to maintain sanitized food contact surfaces and workers are required to take cleanliness steps when working in a facility. Some production facilities have closed their plants out of precaution after one or several employees tested positive for COVID-19, but this should not be a concern for purchasing groceries as long as you are following best hygiene practices in the store, at home, and when handling the products.

Q: Can I get sick with COVID-19 from touching food, the food packaging, or food contact surfaces, if the coronavirus was present on it?

According to statements from USDA, CDC, and FDA, "there is no evidence of food or food packaging being associated with transmission of COVID-19" at this time. Since it is still possible for the virus to survive on surfaces and objects, we recommend following the USDA's 4 key steps of food safety: clean, separate, cook, and chill.

Additionally, you should continue to frequently wash your hands and avoid touching your face and mouth when handling food products from the store or restaurant. It is also a good practice to carefully discard the packaging that a food came in to avoid any possibility of contamination from handling by people who have the virus.

Q. Should I avoid takeout or delivery from restaurants?

Food from your local restaurants is still a safe option, especially when you can opt for contactless delivery options or pick-ups. To go the extra mile, we recommend transferring food to your own serving ware, getting rid of the packaging, and washing your hands before eating.

Q: How do I handle self-service food buffets such as salad bars in a retail setting related to COVID-19?

While there is no current evidence to support the transmission of COVID-19 associated with food or food packaging, we recommend avoiding these self-service areas. Avoiding these buffets helps increase our physical distancing and contact with high traffic areas. Buffets are a frequent source of food pathogens, so it is best to avoid them now. When you do visit public settings like the grocery store, make sure to follow the hygiene and social distancing guidelines recommended by the CDC.

Q: Is food imported to the United States from countries affected by COVID-19 at risk of spreading COVID-19?

The FDA, CDC, and USDA are not aware of any reports of human illnesses at this time that suggest COVID-19 can be transmitted by food, food packaging, or any other imported goods from these countries. The COVID-19 virus is not known to survive for the period it takes to ship products from overseas. However, it is still especially important to follow good hygiene practices (i.e., wash hands and surfaces often, separate raw meat from other foods, cook to the right temperature, and refrigerate foods promptly) when handling foods and goods.

Q: Does cooking foods kill the virus that causes COVID-19?

The Institute for Food Safety at Cornell University states that, "Yes, the coronavirus is killed by cooking to the safe minimum cooking temperatures specified by FDA and USDA." Read more about the minimum cooking temperatures for different foods.

To date, there have been no known cases of COVID-19 being contracted from food or food packaging. However, continue washing your hands and avoid touching your face when handling and preparing foods, especially when handling uncooked food products. Make sure to properly clean and sanitize food contact areas and tools as well. Read more advice from USDA about proper sanitization and cleaning.

Encouraging Transparency in the Hemp CBD Product Industry

Sun, 01 Mar 2020 00:00:00 -0800

Center for Food Safety's updated Hemp CBD Scorecard evaluates many of the top hemp CBD producers on their production methods, testing protocols, and transparency to consumers.

Americans' interest in hemp CBD products has reached an all-time high. The recent federal legalization of the growing of hemp, combined with some level of cannabis legalization in 33 states, has led to an explosion of personal care products and supplements such as oils, tinctures, capsules, and body lotions containing cannabidiol—better known as CBD—which is derived from hemp and sold everywhere from trendy pop-ups to grocery stores to pharmacies.

As with most supplements, hemp CBD products are minimally regulated by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). As a result, this new industry is a bit like the "wild west," in terms of how products are produced, processed, and advertised to consumers. Hemp CBD products are everywhere. But are they safe?

CBD is one of the naturally occurring, non-psychoactive cannabinoids found in cannabis plants, specifically within the hemp plant. Hemp is different than marijuana in that it has less than 0.3% of the psychoactive chemical compound, THC, and therefore cannot get you "high." CBD has become popular for its purported ability to help reduce pain and anxiety, which has led to huge growth in the market for products containing CBD. Some go so far as to tout CBD products as an alternative to opioid painkillers.

Although producers of hemp CBD products cannot advertise their products as having these health benefits (which is one area where FDA actually does step in), many producers are not adequately providing information about their products to the public. According to an updated Center for Food Safety (CFS) report that evaluated select CBD producers, companies are moving toward increased transparency about how their products are produced—including posting test results for pesticides, heavy metals, and other contaminants on their websites—which is an important step in the right direction, underscoring the importance of consumer advocacy and independent review of these products by organizations like CFS.

Why Be Concerned?

While there are currently only a few pesticides that are federally registered for use on hemp, growers may be using other pesticides—such as glyphosate—illegally in order to eradicate weed seed in the field prior to planting, or they may be using fungicides in order to kill mildew and fungus.

Perhaps even more significantly, hemp is a known bioremediator, meaning it can break down hazardous substances found in soil, such as heavy metals like lead and arsenic, pesticides, or oil. These dangerous substances can end up in the hemp plant and the oils extracted from the plant for use in CBD products.

There are also potential concerns with how CBD oil is extracted from the hemp plant. Liquid solvents such as ethanol, butane, or alcohol are often used during processing. The majority of ethanol is made from GMO corn—which is sprayed with glyphosate, a pesticide classified as a probable carcinogen by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer. GMO content and/or pesticide residues could easily end up in the final product. Alternatively, some CBD products are produced using the less controversial CO2 or lipid extraction, or using non-GMO ethanol or alcohol.

What to Look for When Purchasing Hemp CBD Products

Fortunately, there are a number of CBD products in the market that are meeting high standards when it comes to how their products are produced and processed. If you're concerned about potential pesticides and how the hemp oil and other carrier oils in CBD products are produced, look for the USDA Certified Organic label, which ensures that ingredients were grown without pesticides and GMOs. For example, CFS's updated Hemp CBD Scorecard found that 72% of companies reviewed state they are using organic ingredients on their product labels, with 24% of companies increasing their use of organic ingredients since September 2019. Additionally, seek out products that are Sun + Earth Certified. To avoid GMOs (or the use of butane), look for products that use CO2, lipid extraction methods, or non-GMO ethanol.

The good news is that many companies are posting the official testing results of their products on their websites, which should be the industry standard. It's important that products are tested for pesticides, glyphosate (which requires a separate test), heavy metals (such as lead and arsenic), microbiological contaminants (such as mold or bacteria), and efficacy. All of these tests should be done by an ISO Certified Lab and the results should be publicly available on company websites.

As the CBD industry continues to grow, producers should ensure their hemp CBD products are produced using practices that are safe and healthy for consumers and the environment, and these practices should be communicated clearly to consumers. This includes sourcing Certified Organic and non-GMO ingredients, testing for pesticides and contaminants, utilizing independent certifications, and providing clear and transparent information on the packaging of their products as well as company websites.

In the meantime, find out which products received high grades by reviewing CFS's Hemp CBD Scorecard!

3 Ways You Can Eat Safely During the COVID-19 Outbreak

Thu, 26 Mar 2020 00:00:00 -0700

With so many restaurants, schools, and events closing around the country, small farmers are at risk of losing a large portion of their income. But you can still support the small farms near you, while buying fresh, organic foods for you and your family, even as we practice social distancing in an effort to curb COVID-19.

Here are three ways you can buy fresh, healthy foods and help the local farms stay in business:

1. It's never been a better time to join a CSA! Anyone can buy a share of a local farm through a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) program. Investing in a CSA gives you the freshest fruits and vegetables that your favorite local farm has harvested each week! CSAs are typically delivered to you for a small fee or you can pick them up from a central location, but there is minimal person-to-person contact involved in the hand-off of produce and farms are implementing best food safety practices.Since you're investing in the same farm for the entire season and eliminating any supermarkets or other retail middlemen, joining a CSA is the most direct way you can financially support your favorite local farmers. It's also a great excuse to try new fruits and vegetables. Find a CSA near you.

2. Go to the farmers' market! Like grocery stores, USDA has classified farmers' markets as essential businesses, and many remain open throughout this period of social distancing. Farmers' markets offer a safer shopping experience than supermarkets do because they are open air and spacious with more distance between shoppers than a grocery store while offering the freshest fruits and vegetables around! The temporary nature of the booths allows for easy cleaning and less contact with people as well.

Find a farmers' market near you, but remember to call to make sure that it's one of the farmer's markets still in operation before you go!

3. Order takeout or delivery from farm-to-table restaurants. Many restaurants are still offering takeout and delivery meals during this time. Don't worry about contracting coronavirus from food. The CDC has stated that there is no evidence that the COVID-19 can start in your gastrointestinal tract, and that your stomach acid would likely inactivate the virus upon contact.

Both restaurants and the farms they source from are vulnerable to going out of business in an economic downturn brought on by these necessary COVID-19 precautions because both business models have very thin profit margins. Most local farms get a good chunk of their income from farm-to-table restaurants, which has been drastically reduced or removed entirely as we stay home to prevent COVID-19 from spreading further.

The restaurants that are open for takeout and delivery near you will vary from location to location. Seek out independent restaurants that buy produce from local farms. Farm-to-table restaurants often list the farms they source from in the descriptions of the relevant dishes on their menus.

Thank you for helping us protect our local food system, and our health, during this trying time. Eat well and stay safe!

17 CFS Victories You Helped Make Possible in 2019

Thu, 05 Dec 2019 00:00:00 -0800

Photo: CFS team in November 2019 in Portland, OR.

Working for a fairly small organization, it's easy for those of us who wear so many hats to get lost in the weeds of the daily "non-profit grind." One day, we're busy building a legal strategy; the next, we're sitting down with our supporters to get to know more about the issues you're facing in your communities. One week, we're talking to key elected officials; the next, we're shooting amazing video content about the future of agriculture.

If I just stared at my task list all day long, ticking off item by item, maybe I'd forget the larger force that all this "doing" makes me a part of.

But that's why I love this time of year… when we start to slow down, reflect, and connect with the people and things that matter to us the most.

As 2019 enters its final quarter, I'm sitting here at my computer, in Hawaii, working "alongside" my colleague, Brenna, in Los Angeles, taking in all that Center for Food Safety (CFS)—from Portland to San Francisco, from LA to D.C.—has accomplished. We're a group of radical and passionate doers, collectively changing the landscapes and food-scapes of our communities, our country, and Mother Earth. Here are 17 of the groundbreaking victories we achieved together in 2019:

1. CFS is preventing the mass approval of GMO crops and foods! We're in court fighting some of our earth's biggest polluters: Monsanto, Dow Chemical, and the agency that gives a green light to these polluters—the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—in an effort to stop the approval of a Monsanto weedkiller that's been engineered to work with several new generation GMO crops, as well as Dow Chemical's "Enlist Duo" pesticide cocktail, a combination of glyphosate and 2,4-D (one of the active ingredients in "Agent Orange").

We should not be exposed to unsafe and carcinogenic chemicals in our food. Our team is here to stop the use of dangerous pesticides that threaten our health and the health of our planet. If we work together, we can stop the next generation of dangerous GMO crops!

2. The CFS legal team is on the frontlines of stopping GE salmon from making its way to store shelves. We have an active lawsuit right now against the largest GE salmon company—but it doesn't stop there!

Salmon was first, but at least 35 other genetically modified animal species are currently being developed!

If we don't win, it's just the start of a domino effect that could be the end of our natural, wild fisheries. That's why we're challenging every aspect of the FDA's approval, including their failure to evaluate the environmental impacts of GMO fish.

3. CFS is saving the bees! Our legal team scored a groundbreaking legal victory when a federal court concluded that the EPA approval of dozens neonicotinoid pesticides was illegal. As a result of our lawsuit, a dozen of these bee-killing pesticides will be taken off the market this year! EPA has also agreed to assess neonic impacts on other endangered pollinators and species by specific deadlines. Both of these announcements are the first time in U.S. history such steps have been required for addressing the impacts of neonic pesticides on pollinators. To complement this legal work, CFS created the Wild Bee ID website and phone app to help you identify bees in your own backyard and cultivate your own bee-friendly garden.

4. CFS is protecting our food! Our legal team just won a huge lawsuit that will force the FDA to identify and better protect us from the most high-risk foods! No more waiting in the dark for weeks or months when there's a foodborne illness outbreak, not knowing what's safe to feed your family. Now it'll be much easier to find the source of outbreaks and act fast to stop them!

5. CFS is protecting our waters and fishers. We're one of the only organizations fighting industrial aquaculture facilities, or the so-called "factory farms of the ocean." CFS won a major lawsuit protecting our oceans from massive contamination, as a federal court declared that raising fish in aquaculture facilities using toxic chemicals is illegal.

6. CFS is saving our children's brains! In a victory for our children, we wrote, lobbied, and passed a bill that banned the brain-damaging pesticide, chlorpyrifos, in Hawaii and also secured similar bans in California and New York. We're working hard to replicate these wins in other states as well as working with Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz to pass a bill at the federal level!

CFS is stopping atrocities committed by factory farms:

7. CFS and allies barred the state of Iowa from enforcing a controversial new "ag-gag" law which would have criminalized investigations at factory farms, slaughterhouses, and puppy mills! The state is prevented from enforcing its new ag-gag law while the lawsuit proceeds. CFS has historically defeated numerous laws designed to squash investigations at factory farms—these are victories for all those who support humane treatment of farm animals and safe food!

8. CFS and allies shut down a mega-CAFO dairy and stopped it from polluting local waterways and the environment with animal discharge in Hawaii! CFS and Hawaii community group Kupale Ookala sued Big Island Dairy, LLC, a large concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) located on Hawaii's Big Island. This year's settlement resulted in the closure of the offending dairy, and settlement funds for impacted communities, which is a huge win for the local groups and the environment.

9. We had a huge success with our national petition against Tillamook Creamery. The beloved Oregon company markets their products as sustainable and humane, but actually sources milk from polluting factory farms. We got 50,000 people to agree that they should #BeTheTruth and support local family farms instead. We also launched EndIndustrialMeat.org, a groundbreaking "go-to" resource on the impacts of industrial animal agriculture and alternatives to the system.

CFS is protecting water and pollinators in California:

10. CFS defeated the proposed Cadiz water project in court, a 43-mile-long pipeline through California's Mojave Trails National Monument. A favorite of the Trump Administration, this project was a for-profit privatization scam that would severely degrade Los Angeles' water supply and take water from an essential desert ecosystem.

11. CFS and allied organizations successfully stopped the $17 billion Twin Tunnels water project. The project would have been one of the largest corporate water giveaways in California history, transferring water and control of the Delta ecosystem to some of California's most powerful and wasteful agricultural giants.

12. CFS is protecting bumblebees by filing a petition asking the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to list four species of bumblebees as endangered and eligible to receive protection under California's Endangered Species Act. This year, the Department responded to our petition and is now in the formal process of exploring protecting the four bumblebee species—we are on our way toward listing bees and insects as endangered for the first time in the State!

CFS helped protect the waters and wildlife of Washington State:

13. CFS won a case against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to stop polluting commercial shellfish aquaculture operations in Washington State, a huge win for the environment and iconic species like salmon and orcas.

14. CFS stopped the shellfish industry from spraying oyster beds with a dangerous neonicotinoid insecticide, imidacloprid, protecting Washington's Willapa Bay from the use of this neurotoxin in the water.

CFS is protecting our precious land in Hawaii from pesticide conglomerates!

15. CFS worked with many organizations to secure the Board of Education's statewide policy banning herbicide use on all public school campuses in Hawaii.

16. CFS, in tandem with a robust coalition, protected Hawaii's public trust resources with an unprecedented defeat of a special interest "water theft bill."

17. CFS and allied organizations co-hosted a four-island speaking tour with historic Monsanto plaintiff Dewayne "Lee" Johnson in anticipation of upcoming Hawaii County-level herbicide ban.

All of this wouldn't be possible without the day-to-day support of our administrative team, our interns, our science team, and our donors!

Thank you from the bottom of our hearts for making all this progress and many victories possible in 2019! Onward!

5 Myths Impossible Burger is Serving Up

Mon, 28 Oct 2019 00:00:00 -0700

Impossible Foods' Rebuttal to Accusations of Illegal Sales Distorts the Truth

BACKGROUND: On September 3, 2019, Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed legal objections regarding the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) approval of Impossible Foods' color additive petition for its genetically engineered soy leghemoglobin (also known as GMO "heme"). This is the new coloring additive Impossible Foods uses to make Impossible Burgers appear to "bleed."

Impossible Foods makes this GMO "heme" through a new kind of genetic engineering process called synthetic biology (or "synbio") in which the company takes DNA from the roots of soy plants, where a small amount of "heme" is produced, and inserts it into genetically engineered yeast that is then fermented to mass-produce GMO "heme." This substance has never been consumed before.

CFS objects to the approval of the new color additive petition for GMO "heme" because (1) FDA did not require testing of the raw product or the genetically engineered yeast; (2) FDA's approval will allow GMO "heme" to be used in new cell-based products without additional testing; (3) the product is not properly labeled; and (4) FDA failed to satisfy the "convincing evidence" standard that applies for approval of new color additives. The law states that until FDA responds to our objections, uncooked Impossible Burgers cannot be sold in grocery stores.

Nevertheless, several grocery stores have started selling uncooked Impossible Burgers anyway.

CFS responded by sending a letter to FDA explaining why these sales are unlawful and requesting the agency to take action against grocery stores that are unlawfully selling uncooked Impossible Burgers.

Impossible Foods attacked CFS and unleashed a torrent of falsehoods and misleading statements that cannot go unanswered.

Here are a few things that Impossible Foods got wrong in that rebuttal.

MYTH #1: "CFS' claim that stores are selling the Impossible Burger 'illegally' is an egregious, deliberate, cynical lie."

TRUTH: When CFS objected to FDA's approval of soy leghemoglobin as a color additive, by law that approval is on hold until the agency responds to our objections[i] (see citation in the U.S. Code of Laws for the legal reference).

Nowhere in Impossible Foods' response does it refute the fact that it is unlawful for grocery stores to be selling uncooked Impossible Burgers without a valid color additive regulation. This is quite telling.

MYTH #2: "In 2014, a panel of America's top food-safety experts reviewed extensive test data and unanimously concluded that soy leghemoglobin is 'generally recognized as safe' (GRAS)."

TRUTH: What Impossible Foods failed to mention is that the "experts" on the panel were selected by none other than the company itself!

Impossible Foods selected Joseph Borzelleca, Michael Pariza, and Stephen Taylor to review the test data. All three fought for Big Tobacco as members of the Phillip Morris Scientific Advisory Board. All three are now frequently used by the food industry to sit on sketchy ingredient approval panels like these.

Maybe that's why Impossible Foods calls them "top food-safety experts," but we agree with Center for Public Integrity's description of the trio as a "standing panel of industry hired guns."

MYTH #3: "In addition to the recognition of safety by the FDA, the respected academic publication International Journal of Toxicology published this peer-reviewed study on safety of soy leghemoglobin. Another respected academic publication, Molecular Nutrition and Food Research, published this peer-reviewed study on potential risks of allergy and toxicity of soy leghemoglobin."

TRUTH: Both of the studies Impossible Foods cites were authored by Impossible Foods' employees.

Three of the five authors of the first study work for Impossible Foods. In the second study, one of the authors works for Impossible Foods while another author, who used to work for Monsanto, is currently paid to be a consultant for Impossible Foods.

Other studies that Impossible Foods submitted for FDA review suffer from similar conflicts. One study from 2017 lists the "principal investigator" for the "conduct and reporting of the analysis of the neat test substance and all dietary preparations" as Rachel Fraser, who is employed as the director of research at Impossible Foods.

Considering the financial conflicts-of-interests of those who authored and reviewed these studies, CFS does not consider these to be truly independent peer-reviewed studies.

MYTH #4: "The FDA has acknowledged multiple times that the Impossible Burger's key ingredient is safe to eat…We've gone far above and beyond all regulatory requirements."

TRUTH: FDA has not acknowledged that soy leghemoglobin is safe to eat "multiple times." Impossible Foods chose to go through a legal loophole to get its GMO "heme" served in restaurants. FDA relied on that unreliable, biased data when it responded to Impossible Foods' petition to serve products with GMO "heme" in grocery stores.

The GMO "heme" in Impossible Burgers was first introduced to consumers in restaurants through a fast-track legal loophole that food companies exploit in order to market products with substances that they believe should be "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS). In this flawed process, companies like Impossible Foods get to decide for themselves whether or not a new substance added to our food should be reviewed by FDA or is safe for human consumption.

As you might expect, conflicts of interest run rampant when companies get to decide their own food safety review process, which is why CFS has joined other organizations in suing FDA over this broken GRAS system.

In July 2018, FDA issued a "no questions" letter in response to Impossible Foods' notification to the agency that the company had self-determined that soy leghemoglobin to be GRAS. But FDA specified that this "no questions" letter "is not an affirmation that soy leghemoglobin preparation is GRAS under 21 CFR 170.35." Contrary to Impossible Foods' statement, FDA explicitly stated that this "no questions" letter is not an acknowledgement by the agency of the safety of soy leghemoglobin.

While it is true that FDA approved Impossible Foods' color additive petition for GMO "heme" earlier this year, that is the only time that FDA has affirmatively made a decision on safety regarding this GMO "heme."

The color additive approval process to sell GMO "heme" in grocery stores was further tainted by the fact that FDA — instead of requiring independent testing — just relied on Impossible Foods' previous GRAS filings, which is insufficient to satisfy the "convincing evidence" standard for color additives[ii] (see citation in Code of Federal Regulations for the legal reference).

Impossible Foods claims to care about transparency in its statement, but in relying on the broken GRAS process to get its burgers into restaurants, the company chose the least-transparent review process available. Impossible Foods can't claim that it went "far above and beyond all regulatory requirements" in a "very public review" when it's been relying on GRAS' self-determined approval loophole in which there is no opportunity for public comment or appeals.

MYTH #5: "CFS regularly floods the FDA with auto-generated appeals for stricter regulation of genetic engineering in its quest to 'oppose industrial agriculture and food production technologies.'"

TRUTH: Center for Food Safety submits scientific and legal comments to FDA. Like many consumer advocacy non-profits, we share this information with our members who have voluntarily elected to receive opportunities to submit comments to regulatory agencies or to send emails to companies, at their own discretion, in hopes of building a safer and healthier food system.

Notably, the "its quest" link referred to in Impossible Foods' response takes you to a website called "Left Exposed," which is described as a "free-market think tank" run by The Heartland Institute, a staunch climate change denier and defender of global warming skeptics. One wonders why Impossible Foods — a company that claims that its burgers are "poised to provide a major wedge in the fight against climate change" — is using climate change deniers to attack CFS. It is almost impossible to believe.

__________________________

[i] See 21 U.S.C. § 379e(d); 21 U.S.C. § 371(e)(2) ("Until final action upon such objections is taken . . . the filing of such objections shall operate to stay the effectiveness of those provisions of the order to which the objections are made.").

[ii] See 21 C.F.R. § 70.3(i)("Safe means that there is convincing evidence that establishes with reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the intended use of the color additive.").

Too Big to Fail? Not on Our Watch! Fighting Factory Dairies to Protect Pacific Northwest Communities

Fri, 30 Aug 2019 00:00:00 -0700

We know what we love about the Pacific Northwest: unique and breathtaking landscapes from the mountain ranges to the Pacific Ocean; acres of local farms growing everything from berries to wine grapes to pastured chickens; and an unrivaled farm-to-table food culture. What you don't picture when enjoying cheese from a local creamery or trendy ice cream are factory dairies that confine thousands of cows, generating lakes of animal waste that pollute groundwater and emitting not just foul odors but dangerous air pollutants and greenhouse gases. This disturbing picture is the unfortunate reality of the factory dairy industry in Oregon and Washington.

That is why Center for Food Safety (CFS) is working to protect what we love about the Pacific Northwest and the communities sacrificed to this dirty industry. From the massive concentration of dairies in Washington's Lower Yakima Valley threatening public health to the unchecked expansion of large-scale mega-dairies across the Columbia River in Oregon, CFS is fighting this polluting industry and holding our government accountable for not sufficiently protecting our air, water, animals, and family farmers.

Instead of pasturing animals, factory dairies raise large numbers of animals in intensive confinement, concentrating their manure which is then spread untreated on open fields. The sheer amount of waste is shocking: in Washington, around 1.4 billion gallons of dairy cow waste is produced each year, which is the equivalent of 2,143 Olympic swimming pools or more than 66 times the population of Seattle. Morrow County in eastern Oregon is home to tens of thousands of dairy cows generating several times the waste of the Portland— untreated! The groundwater in the Lower Yakima Valley, WA and Lower Umatilla Basin, OR is so contaminated by factory dairies that the nitrate levels are many times higher than the safety threshold for drinking water. Nitrates, which are odorless, colorless, and flavorless, can cause serious health impacts, like "blue baby syndrome," cardiovascular and reproductive disease, and even cancer. Despite creating as much or more pollution than other industrial activities, factory farms have largely been exempted from following federal and state laws protecting water and air quality.

The rapid growth and consolidation of the dairy industry has fueled the rise of super-large factory dairies in Oregon, known as mega-dairies. Opened in 2001, Threemile Canyon is the largest mega-dairy in Oregon—likely largest in the country—housing a whopping 70,000 cows. This many cows in one place cause air pollution that contributes to haze in the Gorge (ammonia) and climate change (methane and nitrous oxide). This expansion of mega-dairies not only brings massive amount of pollution—it threatens small and midsized Oregon dairies. Between 2002 and 2007, an average of nine family dairies went out of business each month, and Oregon has lost more than third of its licensed dairies since 1997, despite the total number of dairy cows and number of dairies with over 1,000 cows tripling.

In 2017, despite a flood of public opposition, Oregon welcomed in the state's second-largest mega-dairy: the ill-fated Lost Valley Farm, a 30,000 cow operation just down the road from Threemile Canyon, which would have generated 187 million gallons of waste per year. CFS, along with a coalition of local and national groups urged the state to say no to Lost Valley, given the existing air and water quality problems in the Columbia River Gorge and Lower Umatilla Basin, caused by Threemile and other mega-dairies. CFS and the coalition sounded the alarm when the now-infamous Greg te Velde, a factory dairy owner from California, started building Lost Valley before even receiving a permit. Oregon's Department of Agriculture and Department of Environmental Quality ignored this red-flag, and approved the permit despite opposition from over 4,000 Oregonians on the grounds that Lost Valley would produce as much waste as a mid-size city, but be totally exempt from air quality controls and worsen the existing groundwater nitrate pollution and scarcity. Not only are mega-dairies massive water polluters, they are also enormous water users, and Lost Valley was poised to extract nearly 1 million gallons of water per day. What's more, because the state approved its permit before it secured water rights, Lost Valley was exploiting a water permit loophole to draw water from an aquifer closed to new withdrawals for decades.

CFS and its partners asked the state to reconsider its decision, but despite the warnings, Oregon rolled out the red carpet for Lost Valley, assuring the public that the permit was strong and the environment and public health would be safe. However, from the time it opened, Lost Valley committed over 200 permit violations: letting waste pile up in pens and forcing cows to stand ankle-deep in their own manure; improper storage of manure; overflowing lagoons and improper management of dead animals. The state first attempted to get Lost Valley to comply with its permit through the courts, but te Velde ignored the weak settlement, forcing the state to seek criminal contempt of court sanctions to stop the violations before the 2018 winter rains started. VICTORY: CFS, along with our coalition partners, mobilized our members and called on Governor Brown to shut down Lost Valley, and thankfully the state finally revoked Lost Valley's operating permit in June 2018.

Sadly, the story of Lost Valley is not over: it was bought by Easterday Farms, a feedlot and crop outfit from Washington State. The new owners have already submitted an application to reopen the mega-dairy with nearly the same number of cows, before cleanup at the site is even complete. Nor is Lost Valley an isolated case or lone bad-actor—the problem is more complex than one badly managed operation. The state's existing rules are not up to the task of protecting our water, air, public health, animal welfare, and family farms from mega-dairies, especially those like Lost Valley that are "too big to fail." That is why CFS and its coalition partners are calling for a moratorium on new or expanded mega-dairies in Oregon. The moratorium campaign succeeded in getting a bill introduced during the 2019 Legislative Session, but our legislators failed to take any meaningful action to prevent another Lost Valley disaster.

Like Oregon, Washington's Governor Inslee and Department of Ecology have completely failed to reign in the pollution from the factory dairy industry, instead issuing an extremely weak general permit that fails to protect the state's ground and surface waters, including drinking water. Over a third of all the dairy cows in Washington are concentrated in the Lower Yakima Valley, causing the kind of drinking water contamination that has been liked to rural America's "own private Flint". Despite a landmark lawsuit and settlement years ago—where four dairies in Lower Yakima Valley agreed to implement sweeping changes to their operations, including groundwater monitoring—Washington's regulators have failed to require these same protections of the rest of the industry. While some dairies have begun to clean up their act, many others have not and continue to violate federal laws by polluting groundwater with excess nutrients, causing unsafe levels of nitrates in neighbors' wells. Rather than enforce the laws and live up to its supposed commitment to defending the environment, the Inslee administration has sacrificed the people of Yakima County (nearly 50% Latinx) for the profit of the factory dairy industry. That is why CFS is challenging Washington's weak dairy water quality permit in the state courts, and taking factory dairies to court to stop their contamination of local drinking water supplies.

Mega-dairies do not represent the values of the Pacific Northwest. Join us in our fight to clean up this industry and hold our elected officials to their duty to protect our communities, environment, and what makes the Pacific Northwest such a special place to live.

Can The Seed Industry's Decline Lead To A Sustainable Food System?

Mon, 19 Aug 2019 00:00:00 -0700

Originally published on Honolulu Civil Beat.

Agricultural land use in Hawaii has been steadily declining, while our reliance upon imported food has been increasing. Following the closure of Maui's last sugar plantation, there are even fewer croplands today because of the advent of large acreage land transactions and the increasingly common practice of converting agricultural lands into housing developments.

Hawaii's leaders need to take meaningful action to protect these agricultural lands by investing in sustainable farming methods and improving soil health to create a sustainable food system that produces food for local consumption.

Since the beginning of the biotechnology industry, international chemical conglomerates have purchased and leased Hawaii's prime agricultural land to test crops and develop seeds that are genetically engineered to withstand greater applications of pesticides.

A recent USDA report announced a measurable downturn in Hawaii's pesticide-intensive seed industry, reporting a 17% decline in harvested acreage and a 13% decrease in the value from the previous season.

The GE seed industry in Hawaii has been experiencing a downturn for close to a decade. Hawaii seed exports are projected to total only 4.8 million pounds this year. That's a 60% decline from the 12 million pounds exported in the 2009-2010 season.

Despite this slowdown, Hawaii still leads the country in the number of GE field trials, with 3,780 permits issued since the tests began in 1987.

In May 2015, Hawaii's GE seed industry had five corporate players: Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont, Pioneer, Dow (Mycogen), and BASF. Following a series of buyouts and mergers, today there are just four: Bayer, Hartung, Becks, and Corteva Agriscience (Dow DuPont).

Intense community pressure across the islands has pushed these operations to move away from sensitive areas. On Kauai, there is no longer an agrochemical field operation adjacent to Waimea Canyon Middle School, where more than one incident of pesticide drift caused students and teachers to evacuate. With the passage of last year's groundbreaking law (Act 45), no entity is permitted to apply any restricted-use pesticides within 100 feet of a school in Hawaii.

As the footprint of Hawaii's GE seed industry shrinks, valuable — and most importantly, irrigated — agricultural lands are being returned to state land-leasing agencies.

How can we rehabilitate these croplands from the intensive synthetic pesticide and fertilizer practices of their export-based predecessors? How can we transform them into successful agricultural operations that provide safe and stable jobs while growing nutritious foods for our local economy?

We often cite high overhead costs and inflated land value driven by developer speculation as significant barriers to a successful food farming industry in Hawaii. Luxury developers are salivating at the chance to gentrify Hawaii's agricultural land with fake "gentleman" farms.

With the continued closure of seed operations, we must do everything we can to keep these agricultural lands producing food, as they were intended to. Hawaii must step up and unequivocally prioritize agriculture if we intend to meet our food security goals. When the budget for Hawaii's Department of Agriculture amounts to less than 0.5% of the entire state budget, it is easy to see how the islands have become so food-insecure.

Hawaii's state agencies once aggressively courted these multinational GE seed "life science" corporations. Today, they need to be just as aggressive, ambitious, and visionary in securing new tenants for these lands. We don't merely need tenants that won't repeat the mistakes of their corporate predecessors, but tenants who can be embraced by communities justifiably concerned about the legacy of pesticides left behind by the previous occupants.

We need bold and progressive policies that prioritize regenerative agriculture for local food consumption. If our state land-leasing agencies would invest in and incentivize soil remediation, we could restore these abused lands to the fertile, productive agriculture lands they once were.

How Hemp Can Help

Hawaii could follow the example of innovative farms like Hudson Hemp in Upstate New York, which successfully rehabilitated a former Syngenta agrochemical experiment site into an organic hemp farm. Hudson Hemp has taken advantage of hemp's exceptional ability, with its long root system, to draw pesticides, pollutants, and heavy metals out of the soil.

Although there is interest within the cannabis industry to use genome editing on hemp, there is no evidence that any such varieties are being cultivated at this time. No such varieties are on the list of approved cultivars to be grown in Hawaii.

"Soil restoration is the first step on our path to a healthy food system."
The chemical companies have no interest in genetically engineering hemp for herbicide resistance because there are no registered pesticides for use on hemp crops yet. It may only be a matter of time before pesticide regulation catches up with hemp legalization.

Soil restoration is the first step on our path to a healthy food system. Unfortunately, the state of Hawaii chose to limit the regenerative potential of hemp this past legislative session when Gov. David Ige vetoed Hawaii's hemp legalization bill.

This bill would have freed Hawaii's hemp program from its current state of requiring research permits. It would have increased the number of farmers who could participate, the amount of acreage and funding to oversee the program.

With the future of Hawaii's ag land in such a vulnerable position, it is hard to imagine that the state can afford to prevent farmers from growing this valuable, legal and restorative crop.

No matter how you feel about the GE crop debate, we can all agree that we want Hawaii to be food-secure. We all envision a thriving agricultural community that's made up of diverse operations that provide safe and secure jobs as well as fresh food to locals.

As the GE seed industry in Hawaii continues to plummet, now is the time to come together and build something greater. We must find unity in our common vision to restore these long abused soils to the fertile, productive agriculture lands they once were. We must ensure that Hawaii is making savvy investments today that will establish a healthy and secure food system tomorrow.

When a Ripple Becomes a Wave: What Happened When the Man Who Beat Monsanto Came to Hawai'i

Tue, 30 Jul 2019 00:00:00 -0700

When you're managing a small grassroots campaign fighting against the powerful pesticide-seed industry, it's easy to feel like your actions are just small drops in a big bucket. You organize for years to move the needle just one small sliver forward. Though each win is important, they can feel small in comparison with all of the work that still needs to be done.

As a surfer, it can feel like you are paddling endlessly through choppy waters, where each forward stroke is met with resistance from elements on all sides. It's tiring and inefficient.

But every once in a while, the sea calms, the wind stops, all of our little ripples work together in the same direction to make one large, powerful wave. And any surfer knows, these moments are when the magic happens.

That's what happened when Lee Johnson and his family came to Hawai'i.

For years, a committed group of organizations—including the Hawai'i Center for Food Safety and individuals across Hawai'i—have been working to lighten the load of pesticide use on our islands. We spent three to four years getting a handful of parks to eliminate pesticides. We organized for over a decade just to get access to information about pesticide use in our communities, and to create small no-spray buffer zones around our schools.

Meanwhile in California, Lee Johnson was fighting his own battle. He was preparing what would become the first ever successful lawsuit against Monsanto/Bayer, when a jury ruled that Johnson's Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma was a direct result of his use of Roundup. Since Johnson's victory, a judge declared Monsanto responsible in two similar cases, and there are now more than 13,000 lawsuits against Monsanto/Bayer in process.

Knowing that it would make history, I followed Johnson's case closely. Lee Johnson stood up against a powerful company, with seemingly endless resources, even while being warned not to. Monsanto/Bayer appealed the decision—of course—and Johnson's road to a final ruling in court will be a long one. But he's not stopping there.

Johnson and his family came to Hawai'i to help us with our efforts last month. When the ripples of his story in California united with our years of organizing here in Hawai'i, waves of change started to crest.

For two weeks, we had the pleasure of hosting Lee and his family while we toured across four islands, spreading his powerful story. When they arrived, they were strangers, but we soon became friends. Fresh off the airplane, I showed Lee how to open coconuts in the back of my truck, and we shared fresh picked mango and lychee. I could tell his background was in landscaping by the way he immediately focused on all of the tropical plants around us. He was in awe. "This place is paradise. Why would anyone think it's a good idea to dump poisons on the land here?" he wondered.

Over the next two weeks, Johnson and I had inspiring conversations with people on Maui, 'Oahu, Big Island, and Kaua'i about the true cost of using toxic pesticides to manage weeds on public lands. He shared his story with the people who spray our parks and roadways, County Council members, and the Department of Education. We enlisted the help of Duane Sparkman, an organic landscaper, to educate people about safer alternatives. We have been organizing and meeting with these agencies to discuss eliminating pesticides from public lands for years, but this time I noticed a difference in reception; Lee's presence in the room contributed to a marked shift in the conversation.

For years, we had been told:

"I understand your concerns about possible risks of pesticides, but we are following all federal and state laws."

"We have a limited budget, and can't afford to manage weeds with anything more expensive or labor intensive."

But with Lee's powerful story on our side, we were paddling through smoother seas. The resistance we had faced previously suddenly shifted to sincere questions about potential challenges, brainstorming solutions together, and commitments to try new pest control strategies. We agreed to share information, and to move away from pesticides in our public spaces. A collective understanding that we HAVE to do better emerged.

The wave crested at the Board of Education hearing, where Lee spoke to concerned parents and the superintendent of Hawai'i public schools. We were all seated in a circle in an elementary school library. The passion and concern for the health of our children was palpable. Lee talked about his job as the Integrated Pest Management Specialist for a school district in California. He talked about how he followed all of the safety protocols, wore the protective gear, and used pesticides only as a last resort. He did everything to protect himself and got sick anyway. He described his new mission to keep kids safe from the pesticides that had given him cancer. The very next morning, Hawai'i's superintendent acted with unprecedented speed and issued a notice that the use of herbicides is banned on school grounds in all public schools in the state, followed by instructions advising schools how to dispose of any pesticides currently on school grounds.

We have been working toward these goals, in increments, for years. In a period of just two weeks, everything shifted. The years and years we spent on grassroots education and community organizing, priming Hawai'i for this change, had paid off. Hawai'i was ready to commit to herbicide-free schools. An educated public, Lee's experience, solutions-oriented discussions, and media coverage all came together. I believe that organic land management of our public lands across Hawai'i is something that we will achieve, very soon. And I didn't believe that a few weeks ago.

Between meetings over the course of these two weeks, Lee's family and organizers across Hawai'i ate together, swam together, and played music together. Our kids became friends. We discussed what motivated us to do this work, and what makes it challenging.

Right before they left, Lee said to me, "I don't know what you guys did to me, but I've been smiling so much my face hurts."

I know the feeling. When the perfect wave breaks; you paddle, drop in, and get a smooth ride down the face of it. It's your reward for all of the hard work you put in to get yourself to that moment. It happens because you had the patience to get through all the choppy days, knowing that eventually, all of the ocean's chaos and energy will converge, smooth out, and create a beautiful, perfect wave.

To all of the organizers, activists, movement makers out there: Keep paddling! You never know when the little ripples will become a big, beautiful wave.

Protect Your Pup: FDA's New Warning on Dog Food Safety and Canine Heart Disease

Fri, 05 Jul 2019 00:00:00 -0700

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently announced a link between some grain-free dog food brands and a serious—and sometimes fatal—form of canine heart disease called dilated cardiomyopathy, or DCM. At Center for Food Safety (CFS), we adore our pets, and we know you do too. Learn how you can better protect your pup from harmful ingredients in dog food and sign our petition!

CFS is a national nonprofit that (among other things) acts as a watchdog over the federal agencies that govern our food, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Part of what we do is monitor the rules and regulations these agencies propose to oversee our food supply. Our legal, science, and policy staff regularly comb through hundreds of federal rules and regulations related to food for human consumption.

FDA just sent out a major alert on pet food safety, so we thought it important to get the word out about it. The things we at CFS worry about in human food – pesticides, toxic contaminants, allergens, nutritive content, and more – are the same things that many of us look out for when purchasing food for our pets.

What you need to know about FDA's pet food safety alert:

· FDA has been alerted to a possible link between a serious and sometime fatal form of heart disease called DCM in dogs with certain pet foods, many labeled as "grain-free."

· The number of DCM cases reported to FDA is likely an underestimate as many veterinarians may not have been aware of the need to report these conditions to FDA "because animals are typically treated symptomatically, and diagnostic testing and treatment can be complex and costly to owners." (FDA Investigation update, June 27, 2019).

· The number of cases released by FDA do not include many general cardiac reports submitted to the agency that did not have a DCM diagnosis. FDA notes that this case information is still valuable, as it may show heart changes that occur before a dog develops symptomatic DCM.

· FDA lists the top dog food brands named most frequently in the DCM cases that were reported to the agency – these include some grain-free product lines of the brands Acana, Zignature, Taste of the Wild, 4Health, Earthborn Holistic, Blue Buffalo, Nature's Domain, Fromm, Merrick, California Natural, Natural Balance, Orijen, Nature's Variety, NutriSource, Nutro, and Rachael Ray Nutrish.

· Peas, lentils, and potatoes were among the top ingredients of every variety of dog food eaten by dogs that received DCM diagnoses.

FDA acknowledges that the link between grain-free dog foods containing peas, lentils, and potatoes with canine heart disease is merely a correlation. The agency cannot prove causation without further research, but this news is nonetheless very concerning to many dog owners.

A large majority of major dog food brands have moved to grain-free ingredients because of consumer demand. This is due to the belief that there are many health benefits to feeding dogs a grain-free diet, including that these foods contain more protein and animal fats as well as fewer carbohydrates than a diet made primarily with rice, wheat, and other grains. Grain-free dog foods are also believed to be less likely to cause allergies, including conditions that cause dry, itchy skin.

While the FDA lists 16 brands associated with the heart condition DCM, there are dozens of other dry and raw varieties of dog food that also list peas, lentils, and potatoes among their top ingredients. As pet guardians, we are now faced with a big decision: should we be precautionary and change to grain-based foods? Or should we stick with grain-free pet food, even though FDA has not shown causation between grain-free pet foods and DCM? More research must be done before we can make an informed decision. While we wait to find out more, CFS recommends you feed your pet a diversified diet.

Please sign our petition demanding that FDA immediately conduct further independent research on this issue, instead of relying on industry-provided data. And as our staff uncovers more on this important issue, we'll be sure to update you about this and other pet food safety issues.

SIGN THE PETITION >>

Our Beef with the GMO Impossible Burger

Thu, 20 Jun 2019 00:00:00 -0700

In the foodie world, 2019 might as well be named The Year of the Impossible Burger. This plant-based burger that "bleeds" can now be found on the menus of Burger King, Fatburger, Cheesecake Factory, Red Robin, White Castle, and many other national restaurant chains. Consumers praise the burger's meat-like texture and the product is advertised as an environmentally friendly alternative to traditional beef burgers.

In January, Impossible Foods launched the Impossible Burger 2.0. The company has stated that the new burger is "tastier, juicier, and more nutritious"—featuring 40% less saturated fat than the old recipe, and just as much protein as 80/20 ground beef from cows. The new product is also gluten-free, replacing wheat with soy protein. Unfortunately, the Impossible Burger might just be too good to be true. At Center for Food Safety, we encourage consumers to eat less meat and choose plant-based proteins, but we believe that replacing conventional animal products with ultra-processed, poorly studied, and under-regulated genetically engineered products is NOT the solution to our factory farm and climate crisis. Here's the science to back this up.

The Science

The Impossible Burger is manufactured from two different methods of genetically engineering soy products. This "impossible in nature" union is neither healthier nor more environmentally friendly than other kinds of non-meat burgers. While Impossible Foods, the company behind the Impossible Burger, has been trying to spin its product as both healthier and more sustainable than those of its competitors, a quick examination of the company's own data suggests otherwise.

1. The first kind of genetic engineering in the "Impossible Burger" is found in the soy used for the protein in the "burger" itself.

Rather than starting with organic soy beans, which have higher levels of protein and lower levels of Omega 6 fatty acids (the bad Omega), the company chose to use GMO soybeans, probably because they are cheaper than the organic beans. The company uses both GMO soy protein concentrate and GMO soy protein isolate for the protein in its burger. Impossible Foods does not describe how it processes the soy, but alcohol is the most common solvent used to process soy protein concentrate, as it produces products with a neutral taste. But the beneficial isoflavones in soy are removed by this method. Soy protein concentrate has the lowest level of healthful isoflavones—including daidzein, genistein, and glycitein—of any form of processed soy.

Unfortunately, GMO soy is also sprayed with large amounts of the herbicide glyphosate, a product shown to cause cancer in people exposed during its application. GMO soy has been found to use significantly more herbicides than conventional soy or organic soy. At a time when juries are awarding billions of dollars in damages to those affected by exposure to glyphosate, it is startling that Impossible Foods would double down on the GMO soy that is inextricably linked to this toxic herbicide.

2. The second kind of genetic engineering of soy produces the "heme" that makes the Impossible Burger "bleed." In order to manufacture its burgers, Impossible Foods takes DNA from the roots of soy plants, where a small amount of "heme" is produced, and inserts it into genetically engineered yeast that is then fermented to mass-produce heme. This is the first time that people have consumed this product. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is supposed to require testing in this situation to make sure that this novel protein does not cause allergic reactions in people. Unfortunately, instead of requiring Impossible Foods to file a new Food Additive Petition, FDA allowed the company to use a weak regulatory process called "Generally Recognized As Safe" (GRAS) where the company does its own research and chooses its own reviewers to self-certify that its product is safe for human consumption. Center for Food Safety has a lawsuit challenging the GRAS food additive loophole that the Impossible Burger went through, allowing it and many other novel food substances to unlawfully evade government analysis and approval before coming to market.

Even under the weak GRAS process, the first time the company submitted data on the allergenicity of its "heme," it was so inadequate that the FDA raised questions about the company's data and the company withdrew its application so that it could redo its research. Although the FDA now says that it has "no questions" about Impossible Foods' latest research on the safety of "heme," the agency itself has not affirmatively declared that "heme" produced in genetically engineered yeast is safe for human consumption. Moreover, FDA has warned Impossible Foods that it cannot claim its "heme" is a source of iron based on this review and that it must label its product as a potential allergen. The FDA also notes that the company should request a review of the "heme" as a new color additive.

Conclusion

Most customers of the Impossible Burger will not see labels saying that the burgers are made from GMO soy or could cause allergic reactions as Impossible Foods are currently only selling to fast food chains which do not put such labels on their menus.

Rather than buy the GMOx2 Impossible Burger, choose a non-GMO plant-based burger, perhaps one that has been made in your local area. The Washington Post recently highlighted 6 veggie-based burgers being made by local restaurants that are not serving the Impossible Burger. Send us a picture of your favorite non-GMO plant-based burger!

ADDITIONAL READING: 5 Myths Impossible Burger is Serving Up >>

Taking Foodborne Illness Off the Menu

Tue, 11 Jun 2019 00:00:00 -0700

Taking Foodborne Illness Off the Menu

Just before Thanksgiving last year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued an alert about yet another E. coli outbreak in romaine lettuce. Instead of informing the public that the source of the contamination had been swiftly identified and removed from the food supply, CDC stated:

"At this time, no common grower, supplier, distributor, or brand of romaine lettuce has been identified. CDC is advising that consumers not eat any romaine lettuce, and restaurants and retailers not sell any, until we learn more about this outbreak and the source of the contaminated lettuce."

It took another week for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to find the traceback evidence that indicated the contaminated romaine was harvested somewhere in northern or central California. Even nearly a month after the outbreak started, FDA was only able to narrow the source of the contamination down to three California counties: Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Barbara. All too often, this is the government's response to a foodborne illness outbreak: identify that there is an outbreak and take weeks (if not months) to figure out where the source of the contamination is if it's ever identified at all. In this case, the source was never identified.

This E. coli outbreak was just one in an ongoing epidemic of foodborne illness outbreaks in our country. 47.8 million people, or one in six Americans, are sickened annually as a result of foodborne illness every year according to the CDC,. Tragically, nearly 128,000 of those people are hospitalized and 3,000 die every year. Many suffer serious long-term effects such as kidney failure, chronic arthritis, and nerve and brain damage. These illnesses cost the U.S. economy over $93 billion in medical bills and productivity losses every year, even though we have the technology to handle foodborne illness outbreaks efficiently. Blockchain is a tool that allows retailers to identify the origin of certain produce shipments in seconds. We just have to get FDA to implement it.

Now that FDA has agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by Center for Food Safety (CFS) to enforce vital provisions of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), we're one step closer to doing just that. FDA has agreed to implement FSMA by identifying foods at "high-risk" for foodborne illness as a part of our settlement. Once these "high-risk" foods are identified, FDA must establish special recordkeeping requirements for those who handle such foods.

These requirements will allow FDA to rapidly identify the source of contamination at the beginning of an outbreak so that the agency can swiftly implement a recall process to reduce the potential for illnesses, hospitalizations, and death. Congress required FDA to designate "high-risk" foods no later than January 2012 and to propose recordkeeping requirements for those foods no later than January 2013. But FDA did not do its job, so we at CFS had to sue the agency simply to force it to do what it should have done more than six years ago.

Faced with our strong argument, FDA agreed to settle the case and comply with the law. Under new deadlines set by the Court, FDA must both designate "high-risk" foods and propose recordkeeping requirements for those foods by September 2020. FDA is required to finalize the rulemaking process for the recordkeeping requirements by November 2022.

We're thrilled that our settlement put FDA on a deadline to finalize the rulemaking process for the recordkeeping requirements. Without CFS's lawsuit, FDA could have continued to drag its feet for years! This settlement ensures that FDA will fully implement FSMA's "high-risk" food provisions to reduce the potential of foodborne illness outbreaks. It also requires the agency to create a rapid-response recall protocol so that when an outbreak does occur, fewer people are sickened. Our food system just got a whole lot safer.

Center for Food Safety Secures Legal Victory for Bees!

Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:00:00 -0700

CFS scored another huge legal victory! As a result of our lawsuit against EPA, 12 toxic, bee-killing "neonic" pesticides will soon be withdrawn from the market!

Neonicotinoids (neonics) are a relatively new class of insecticides, related to nicotine. These pesticides interfere with the nervous system of insects, causing tremors, paralysis, and eventually death at very low doses. Numerous scientific studies have demonstrated that exposure to neonics is one factor in the decline of bee populations around the world over the last decade or two.

Unfortunately, neonics are now the most widely used insecticides in the world. They are systemic chemicals, which means neonics are distributed throughout the plant, making the entire plant toxic. Bees and other pollinators are exposed to these toxic chemicals through pollen, nectar, dust, dew droplets on plant leaves, and in the soil where many native bee species nest.

Center for Food Safety (CFS) scored a groundbreaking legal victory when a federal court concluded that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approval of dozens of neonic pesticides was illegal. And now:

• EPA and the pesticide companies announced that they will take a dozen of these bee-killing pesticides off the market this year as a result of our lawsuit.

• EPA has also agreed to assess neonic impacts on other endangered pollinators and species by specific deadlines.

Both of these announcements are the first time in U.S. history such steps have been required for addressing the impacts of neonic pesticides.

If bees go extinct, so will we. Bees and other insects are needed to pollinate more than one-third of our food, yet many pollinating species are in decline, largely because of pesticides, parasites, and climate change. Their disastrous decline highlights that we are deeply connected to and dependent on the natural world. It's clear that unless we dramatically change our ways—specifically the use of pesticides—our future is in peril too.

Despite this victory, a colossal battle still lies ahead for bees. While neonic pesticides can be applied in many different ways, they are most commonly applied to seeds as a "seed coating" prior to planting. After these coated seeds are planted, some of the toxic neonic is taken up and distributed throughout the growing plant, including its leaves, pollen, and nectar. A large portion, however, is washed off, contaminating the soil and water, and even neighboring wild plants – all of which pose significant threats to foraging or nesting bees.

Shockingly, EPA has never regulated these coated seeds as pesticides. That's why in 2017 CFS also filed a new legal action against EPA demanding that these damaging coated seeds no longer escape regulation. And recently, we submitted thousands of member comments from passionate CFS members (like you!) in support of our legal petition to the EPA. Thanks for standing with CFS to protect bees!

That's not all we've got planned. We have another legal action demanding that EPA assess the pesticide formulations that farmers and homeowners actually use, which are mixtures of multiple ingredients and are often more toxic than the single "active ingredient" that the Agency assesses under current practice. Additionally, we have notified the Trump administration that in 2019, we intend to sue the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for suddenly reversing a 2014 decision prohibiting neonics and genetically modified crops on national wildlife refuges. On the federal policy front, CFS has endorsed the Protect our Refuges Act of 2019, which would reinstate this important rule and once again ban the use of neonics in our national refuges.

Center for Food Safety also just launched the Wild Bee ID website and phone app to help you identify bees and tips on creating bee-friendly gardens in your backyard. Now we can all take action in our own backyards or balconies to help conserve these essential pollinators! The app is easy to navigate, visually engaging, and highly informative, making it the ideal tool for students, home gardeners, and bee-enthusiasts of all ages! Download the free Wild Bee ID app today!

With you by our side, we are on our way toward a seminal victory of removing a dozen of these bee-killing pesticides, and many more efforts to protect pollinators and human health!

As always, check out our action center for more actions you can participate in.

Take Action: Stop The Dairy Digester Scam!

Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:00:00 -0700

Would you believe that there are California legislators who are currently pushing for State funds to support large-scale factory farms under the guise of mitigating climate change and promoting alternative energy?!

Agriculture is the largest source of methane emissions in the U.S. Forty percent of all emissions of this potent greenhouse gas come from the agriculture sector—primarily from livestock production. In California, most of the methane either comes from dairy cows—as part of their digestive process—or from the "lagoons" that factory farms use to store manure.

Despite Center for Food Safety's (CFS's) strong objections, California policymakers have focused almost all their efforts to combat methane from the agricultural industry on one technology: dairy digesters. This strategy aims to capture the methane emitted by these large cow manure lagoons, convert it to a biogas or biomethane, and inject it into utility pipelines.

The problem with this strategy is that biomethane is not clean. Burning manure-produced gas emits the same air contaminants as the combustion of fossil fuel. To make matters worse, the factory farms that produce the biomethane are also continuing to emit harmful pollutants into the air and to discharge nitrates into groundwater.

Lobbyists for the dairy and biogas industries have persuaded California policymakers to heavily subsidize this dairy digester technology and the pipelines it uses. And as if that wasn't enough market manipulation, these lobbyists are also pushing bills to lock in these subsidies and mandate procurement of this biomethane.

Unfortunately all of Big Ag's lobbying has been paying off. More than half a billion cap and trade and utility ratepayer dollars have gone into this dirty boondoggle so far. Meanwhile, these factory farms haven't been asked to change one thing about their animal welfare or pollution management practices.

Your voice is needed to help us stop this scam. If you live in California, please contact your California State Assemblyman and California State Senator and ask them to stop falling for the false promise of dairy digesters. Look up your California State Senator and Assemblymember's contact information here. Here's a sample script to help you make your case:

Sample Script

"As your constituent, I am deeply troubled by the attempts to fund building more dairy digesters on factory farms. This technology contributes to air pollution, and does nothing to address the massive water contamination and other environmental impacts of these massive dairy operations. Please stop supporting this false promise and start investing in regenerative farming practices such as pasture based dairy production that protect public health, the environment, and animal welfare. Thank you!"

Thank you for standing with us in supporting healthy and regenerative farming in California!

Five Ways to Celebrate Earth Day

Mon, 22 Apr 2019 00:00:00 -0700

On Earth Day, we appreciate our planet, its ecosystem, and the food it produces.

Here are 5 ways you can celebrate the Earth today!

1. Save the bees by downloading our new Wild Bee ID app or visiting the website. Several species of wild bees have gone extinct in the last few years in part due to the decreasing diversity of our agricultural landscape and increased use of pesticides. We built the app with the hope that gardeners across the country will use it to actively participate in their conservation by creating new habitat for these vital pollinators. Use Wild Bee ID to identify the bees that are native in your own backyard, find out which plants they're best suited to pollinate, and plan your garden accordingly.

2. Opt out of industrial meat to combat climate change, reduce your ecological footprint, and fight back against animal cruelty. More than 90% of the meat eaten in the U.S. is industrial meat produced on factory farms with inhumane conditions and significant environmental consequences. Use EndIndustrialMeat.org to give your diet an eco-friendly makeover. Check out the Meet the Farmers section to find sources of meat that are raising animals humanely in systems that protect the environment and manage resources effectively. Pledge to opt out of industrial meat by replacing half the industrial meat you're eating with meat from more sustainable sources and the other half with plant-based proteins like beans, lentils, chickpeas, nuts, seeds, and quinoa.

3. Join CFS' Global Seed Network! Keep independent farming and gardening alive by signing up to exchange seeds. Now that Bayer and Monsanto have merged, it's even more important we preserve a diverse seed supply through grassroots networks of independent farmers and gardeners for future generations.

4. Watch the latest video in our Dig Deeper series featuring celebrity chef Dan Barber discussing how his menu planning strategy evolved when he discovered which crops Blue Hill Farm needed to grow to produce the best quality wheat.

5. Add your name to our petition calling for a Green New Deal that fixes our broken food system in order to combat climate change. The food and farming sector is the United States' largest overall employer, and a top contributor to climate change. Fortunately, there are solutions — well-demonstrated, effective, and profitable agricultural practices at all scales and in all regions of the country — that can help reduce pollution and repair our environment and climate while revitalizing communities across the country. Support a Green New Deal that reflects the central role that the food and agriculture system play in addressing our climate crisis.

Thanks for all you do to help us fight for a safe and sustainable food system to help make every day Earth Day!

Organic Foods: Not a Lifestyle, But a Lifesaver

Tue, 12 Feb 2019 00:00:00 -0800

A groundbreaking new study published in the journal Environmental Research found that switching to an organic diet for just one week significantly reduced the levels of synthetic pesticides found in all human participants. On average, the pesticides detected dropped by 60.5 percent after six days of eating an all-organic diet. The study found significant reductions in pesticides that have been associated with increased risk of autism, cancers, autoimmune disorders, infertility, hormone disruption, Alzheimer's disease, and Parkinson's disease.

And that's not all. A 2018 study published in the The Journal of the American Medical Association followed 70,000 adults for five yearsâ??most of them womenâ??and found that the most frequent consumers of organic food had 25 percent fewer cancers overall than those who never ate organic food. Those who ate the most organic fruits, vegetables, dairy products, meat, and other foods had a particularly steep drop in the incidence of lymphomas, and a significant reduction in postmenopausal breast cancers.

As Center for Food Safety (CFS) has been advocating for more than 20 years, choosing organic foods isn't a lifestyle, but a lifesaver. And now the facts are clearly on our side.

We know that organic food is better for our health, especially for children and pregnant women. We know that pesticide residues are detected four times more often in conventional food than organic food. And we know that eating organic food lowers the risk of impairment in the physical and mental development of children.

For the general population, exposure to pesticides is predominantly through food. Consumption of organic food reduces our exposure to pesticides. Organophosphates, like chlorpyrifos and malathion, and pyrethroids, which have several harmful impacts on humans, are particularly reduced by eating an all-organic diet.

Chlorpyrifos, a pesticide widely used on corn, wheat, apples, and citrus, is linked to lower IQ, poorer memory, and ADHD in children. Pyrethroid pesticides are also linked to ADHD. Just last year, CFS and our allied community organizations were able to ban the use of the toxic pesticide chlorpyrifos in Hawaii, and we will continue to advocate for bans of this toxic pesticide in other states and at the federal level.

Despite the affirming results of recent studies, the integrity of organic foods is under threat by our government agencies that regulate these foods, and the multi-national corporations pressuring these agencies to weaken the national organic standards. Many popular organic food brands on the market today are owned by some of the largest multinational food and beverage companies in the world, whose organic products represent only a tiny fraction of their total company revenue. For many of these companies, less than one percent of their U.S. sales and revenue come from organic products. The rest of these multimillion dollar food corporations' market lines originate from chemically-dependent farming systems that could not be farther from meeting organic standards. This creates an inherent conflict of interest.

These companies spend millions of dollars lobbying to change and weaken organic standards so they do not have to adapt their procurement practices or production systems to fit organic standards. They use multimillion dollar advertisement campaigns and high-paid lobbyists in Washington D.C. to influence and mislead policymakers, the media, and the public into believing that there are no health or environmental advantages to eating organic foods. By propagating this myth, these companies offer no reason for consumers to change their purchasing patterns or for policymakers to incentivize, expand, or protect organic standards. Chemical and biotech companies like Monsanto (now owned by Bayer), Syngenta, and DuPont also attack organic eating from the same angle in an attempt to defend their use of chemicals such as glyphosate (Roundup), 2-4D, and dicamba, as well as the genetically engineered (GE or GMO) crops that are now dependent on these chemicals.

CFS will continue to defend organic standards through advocacy and litigation. One of our current lawsuits to protect strong organic standards challenges the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) attempt to gut protective rules for organic livestock production. Another recent successful case closed a loophole that was unlawfully allowing pesticide-contaminated compost to be used in organic farming. We also are in the middle of several lawsuits that we filed against the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) challenging the approval of the toxic pesticides 2,4-D and dicamba. If successful, these lawsuits will result in a massive decline in pesticide use on our farms and in our food.

We know it's not always easy, convenient, or affordable to buy organic foods. But for your own health as well as the health of your family, prioritize buying organic whole fruits, vegetables, meat, and dairy products. No one deserves the adverse health consequences that come with eating food produced by chemically-dependent farming systems. Tell your representatives that every American deserves organic, pesticide-free food. In the meantime, we at CFS will work to maintain strong organic food standards and increase access and availability of organic foods for everyone.

Midterm Election Analysis

Tue, 30 Oct 2018 00:00:00 -0700

Midterm Election Analysis
Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director
Washington, DC
November 14, 2018

While it has been a week since the polls closed, not all of the races have been decided, nor all the votes counted. Nevertheless, we wanted to provide an update on the midterm elections and some context for what they may mean for the issues that most concern our work at Center for Food Safety (CFS).

IMPACT ON FOOD AND ENVIRONMENT ISSUES

We at CFS interpret the word "safety" in our name very broadly. Our mission is to promote a food system that is safe for all of us, our families and communities, but also safe for our soils, air, water, and the living creatures with whom we share the planet. We also are devoted to making "organic" the basis for all food production in the U.S. We tirelessly defend the current organic standards even as we also push to evolve the organic ethic by promoting "beyond organic" agriculture that is local, appropriate in scale, biodiverse, humane, socially just, and climate friendly.

The first important message about the midterm elections for the food movement is that they did not change those who lead the federal agencies. So whether it is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) approval of toxic pesticides, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) attempts to weaken organic regulations or undermine GMO labeling, or the Department of Interior (DOI) trying, once again, to allow GMOs and neonicotinoid pesticides on national wildlife refuges, CFS' legal and science teams remain the main line of defense. We stop harmful proposals at the agency level, and take these agency's to court to halt illegal actions when necessary. CFS will remain vigilant and inform you about what actions you can take.

It is important to keep in mind when reviewing election results that while Democratic legislators generally are more favorable than Republicans to protecting our food and environment, there are exceptions.

For example, the "Organic Caucus" in the House of Representatives, while dominated by Democrats, does have some Republican members. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has been a champion in the fight against the approval and marketing of genetically engineered salmon. Libertarian leaning senators such as Rand Paul (R-KY) and Mike Lee (R-UT) have occasionally been opponents of federal regulations preempting state and local laws on GMOs. Conversely, Democrats like Senators Joe Donnelly (D-IN) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) are very pro-GMO and have both played negative roles in the struggle for mandatory labeling of GMOs. (Both lost their elections last Tuesday.) Working on a bipartisan basis remains an important feature of CFS' legislative strategy.

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Though not all the results are in, the Democrats will have control of the House of Representatives with a sufficient margin to overcome "defections" and control any legislation that would be forthcoming from that body as of January, 2019. This is the first time that the Democrats have controlled the House since losing their majority in 2010. As a result of Democrats taking back the House, it is less likely that legislation undermining protection of our food or environment will emerge from that body. Regardless, we at Center for Food Safety (CFS) will continue to monitor legislative action, keeping an especially close eye on the Farm Bill, which still could include provisions that would undermine organic and environmental issues.

Another positive outcome from the election is that the investigative and oversight powers of the House may now be used to make federal agencies more accountable for actions that threaten food safety, farm communities, or the environment.

The next speaker of the House is likely to be Nancy Pelosi, who has been generally supportive of the food and environment issues relevant to the CFS mission. We are therefore hopeful that, over the next two years, we will not see any attempt to weaken the Organic Food Production Act (OFPA), or the many environmental and consumer protection statutes that our legal team, and other organizations, depend on to protect food safety and the environment. That being said, CFS will continue to monitor legislative action, in particular the Farm Bill, which had numerous dangerous provisions in it, and likely could still include provisions that undermine organic standards.

Additionally, the various House committees, now more friendly to our mission, can compel the heads of the EPA, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), USDA, DOI, and other relevant agencies to appear at hearings and account for their actions and decisions. This can have some effect in reducing malfeasance at the agency level and encouraging more responsible regulatory behavior.

However, it is important to note that while most of the new Democratic committee chairs are now more apt to be in line with parts of the CFS mission, this is not true of the House Agriculture committee whose new Democratic chairman, Colin Peterson, has been a major supporter of the agro-chemical industry. CFS will continue to keep a close eye on Peterson and other Democrats on the House Ag committee and pressure them to stand up for organic and sustainable food production.

Of most immediate concern is the future of the Farm Bill, which we at CFS call the Food Bill. This bill is of critical importance in shaping all of American agriculture. There are ongoing attempts to compromise between the current House version of the bill, which had numerous damaging provisions that CFS opposes, and the Senate version which has problems, but is more acceptable. If the parties are not be able to agree during the "lame duck" session in the coming weeks, it would present the new Democratically-controlled House with an important opportunity to craft a version that is better for our farmers, organic, soil conservation, and species protections; a bill that promotes food aid allowing safe, nutritious food for all Americans, with special emphasis on allowing all our children to live healthy, active lives. Should that happen, we will be urging you to contact your member of the House to make this bill the strongest it can be.

THE SENATE

Though the Republicans gained a seat in the Senate (or two, as not all the results are in yet), their majority falls short of the 60 votes necessary to pass legislation that would undermine our food or environmental protections, unless they can convince several Democrats to join them. However, the added Republican majority in the Senate will make it easier for judicial nominees and federal agency appointees to be approved. Given the President's past nominees and appointments, it is probable that subsequent candidates for these positions will be hostile to regulatory protections of our food and environment.

As it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation, the Republican majority is not sufficient to accomplish any legislative moves without some Democrats joining them. Given the Democrats who remain in the Senate, it seems doubtful that there would be a significant number of "defections," so it's less likely that any weakening of food safety, consumer protection, or environmental laws will be forthcoming from the Senate despite the slight increase of Republican seats.

Unfortunately, the larger Republican majority may make it easier for the President to appoint agency officials. The President's past appointees to the EPA, USDA, DOI, and other relevant agencies have most often been industry-friendly and hostile to the very regulatory control their agencies were designed to wield. It is expected that many staffers in the agencies will be leaving the posts after the midterms, and it is very doubtful that the Senate, which is responsible for consenting to any new appointments, will put up any road blocks to candidates whose actions are devoted to increasing industry profits and not defending the public's welfare or the environment. CFS will keep the public closely informed about these changes and what actions you can take to reduce the negative impact of these nominees over the next two years.
The larger Republican majority will also make it easier for the President to appoint federal judges. There are currently 135 vacancies in all federal courts and 48 nominees pending. The President's past appointments have been near uniform in their hostility to environmental regulations and consumer protections. We hope that certain Republican senators will reject candidates whose views on these issues are out of the mainstream, but given the current make-up of the Republican caucus, that does not appear likely.

THE STATES

Democrats made gains at the state level, winning governorships in several important states and majorities in some state Houses. This may make it easier for CFS supporters and others to work effectively at the state level in the coming years.

The Democrats flipped the governorship in Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, and Wisconsin. The Democrats flipped state legislative chambers in Colorado (Senate), Maine (Senate), Minnesota (House), New Hampshire (House and Senate), and New York (Senate). The Republicans flipped Alaska (House). The Democrats increased their "trifectas" â?? as defined as gaining the governor, Senate, and Assembly in the same state â?? in six new states for a total of 14 states. Even with so many Republican losses, Republicans still have trifectas in 22 states. The gains in governors, trifectas, and state legislators offer a greater opportunity for the food movement to work at the state level over the next two years while a divided federal legislature and the veto power of the President will make any progress at the federal level difficult.

If you haven't already, please sign up to receive CFS's action alerts and stay informed on all these issues. Thank you for your support for our work!

Keeping Your Family's Food Safe, Bite by Bite

Tue, 30 Oct 2018 00:00:00 -0700

Especially these days, it can feel like nobody in government is looking out for the public's welfare, which is supposed to be its main job. And when it comes to food and agriculture's effects on public health and the environment, the story is much the same. For these reasons, public interest organizations are even more needed than ever.

At Center for Food Safety (CFS), our mission is to protect food, farms, and the environment on behalf of all Americans. For over two decades, CFS has spearheaded the food movement, fighting the industrial model of food production, and safeguarding organic, ecological, and sustainable alternatives. We have many program areas, but a key aspect of all our work is ensuring that laws intended to protect the safety of the U.S. food supply are implemented and enforced.

CFS recently sued the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its failure to implement vital provisions of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) intended to identify foods at "high-risk" for foodborne illness. Foodborne illness is an ongoing epidemic in our country. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), every year, 47.8 million people, or one in six Americans, are sickened as a result of foodborne illness. Tragically, 3,000 die and nearly 128,000 are hospitalized every year. Many suffer serious long-term effects such as kidney failure, chronic arthritis, and nerve and brain damage. The annual cost to the U.S. economy in medical bills and productivity losses alone is over $93 billion.

To help stem this tide, Congress required FDA to classify these "high-risk" foods and establish special recordkeeping requirements for them, which were both supposed to be done over 5 years ago. These requirements are meant to enable FDA to identify the source of contamination rapidly, while an outbreak is still occurring, and then swiftly implement the recall process to reduce the potential for illnesses, hospitalizations, and death. Because FDA has fallen down on the job, CFS's lawsuit will simply force the agency to do what it should have done years ago.

The need to complete the "high-risk" food designations is glaring. Earlier this year, an E. coli outbreak linked to romaine lettuce sickened hundreds in 36 states. While the first illnesses were detected on March 13, 2018, it wasn't until April 13, 2018 that government officials traced the contamination to the "Yuma, Arizona growing region." That is one month in which the public was completely in the dark about whether the romaine lettuce in their grocery store was safe to eat. Even though investigators narrowed the contamination source to the "Yuma, Arizona growing region," a specific source was never identified. This is unacceptable since recent technological advances, such as Blockchain, allow retailers to identify the origin of certain produce shipments in seconds.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time CFS has had to sue FDA for failing to do what FSMA requires. From 2012-2014 CFS successfully litigated over FDA's failure to comply with FSMA's timelines for issuing seven major rules implementing FSMA in vital areas such as preventing contaminated food imports, contamination in transportation, and field and factory preventative controls and hazard analysis requirements. That case resulted in FDA's enactment of those regulations based on new Court-set deadlines. Without CFS, FDA, almost certainly, would still have not completed these critical food safety rules to this day.

The safety of ubiquitous food additives is another area where CFS has been holding FDA accountable. The short story is this: In the U.S., food additives must undergo premarket reviews by FDA, and are approved or rejected based on scientific evidence. There is an exception, for some food ingredients that are "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS), based on a history of their safe use, like sugar or gelatin. Manufacturers can also file a formal petition to FDA requesting that it approve a food additive as "GRAS" based on published studies.

However, way back in 1997, FDA proposed a change to its regulation of food additives: to replace the GRAS petition process with a mere "notification" process. That is, manufacturers could unilaterally determine if a food additive was GRAS, and then just notify FDA. Because FDA review under the notification process is so cursory, FDA itself does not confirm whether or not an additive is GRAS. Instead, it just relies on manufacturers' assertions about the safety of their own products. CFS and others filed objections to the proposed change.

Here's the catch: even though FDA never officially made the new rule into law, it operated as if it had been. For over 15 years, FDA used this fast-track "notification" process to allow potentially unsafe food additives into the food supply. The notification process is the loophole that has swallowed the food additive rule, completely replacing the old petition process.

In 2014, CFS sued FDA for failing to finalize the 1997 rule and continuing to operate under the inadequate and illegal notification process. FDA subsequently agreed to a settlement in which it was required to finalize the GRAS rule by August 2016. Unfortunately, when FDA finalized the rule, it simply rubberstamped its 1997 practice where manufacturers simply tell FDA they are using a substance that they believe is safe, without any safety review by FDA.

Thus in 2017 CFS went back to court, this time to challenge FDA's new GRAS rule. FDA sought to have the case dismissed but in September 2018, the court rejected FDA's motion. We now are progressing to the merits stage, where we'll ask the court to hold FDA accountable and order the agency to promulgate a new GRAS rule; one that protects public health.

Finally, earlier this year, CFS joined a coalition of groups in filing a legal action aimed at forcing FDA to decide whether to prohibit seven cancer-causing artificial chemicals from use in food as flavorings. The seven chemicals are benzophenone (a.k.a. diphenylketone), ethyl acrylate, eugenyl methyl ether (a.k.a. 4-allylveratrole or methyl eugenol), myrcene (a.k.a. 7-methyl-3-methylene-1,6-octadiene), pulegone (a.k.a. p-menth-4(8)-en-3-one), pyridine, and styrene. Though these seven chemicals are used to flavor a wide variety of processed foods, they are likely unfamiliar to consumers because, under food labeling rules, they would all appear only as "artificial flavor" on food ingredient lists. In response, FDA agreed to withdraw its approval of six of the seven flavors and granted the industry's request to abandon the seventh flavor (styrene), which is no longer approved for use in food.

Keeping our food supply safe and healthy requires an ongoing commitment. And we're on the front lines every day, trench by trench, fighting for a safe food system. But it's not all bad news. With your help, we will continue to move to a better food future, one bite at a time.

How to Combat Climate Change with What You Eat

Wed, 10 Oct 2018 00:00:00 -0700

Last month, Center for Food Safety (CFS) launched a new report and website for consumers seeking to disrupt the intensive confinement model of food animal production. With sections including "Ten Reasons to Opt Out," and "How to Opt Out of Industrial Meat," EndIndustrialMeat.org outlines the "why's" and "how's" of keeping factory-raised meat and poultry off your plate. The site also has a section profiling farmers and ranchers that are producing sustainably and humanely raised meats.

Whatever your motivationâ??be it personal health, social justice, animal welfare, or conservationâ??CFS's new resources aim to help you identify sources of protein that better promote an equitable and ecological food system.

Through EndIndustrialMeat.org, CFS encourages and assists consumers in avoiding buying meat and poultry from animals raised in factories, and instead purchasing certified sustainably and humanely raised meats and choosing alternative healthy proteins.

Over the past several decades Animal Feeding Operations (AFO), which confine animals indoors for 45 days or more per year and do not regularly grow any crops or forage on site, have become the norm in the U.S. AFOsâ??especially Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO), which house 1,000 animal units or moreâ??are characterized by poor sanitation, overcrowding, water pollution, high greenhouse gas emissions, and over-reliance on veterinary drugs. They produce billions of pounds of meat and poultry each year at great costs to public health and the environment. For years, CFS has advocated for policies that establish baseline standards for food safety, animal welfare, and waste management as well as policies that hold food animal operators accountable if their operations don't meet these standards.

AFOs/CAFOs have severe consequences for individual health, natural resources, wildlife, animals, farmers, food workers, climate, community health, and the economy, including:

Increased prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria on meats and in the environment.
Higher rates of trauma-related injuries for workers than other manufacturing jobs.
Excessive water consumption.
Torture and cruel conditions for animals, such as painful physical procedures and use of steroid growth promoters.
Emissions of toxic air pollutants that sicken nearby residents.

Many people rightfully find animal factories unsettling, if not downright disturbing. However, they may not know that unless you are actively sourcing alternatives, chances are extremely high that the meat and poultry you feed your family came from a CAFO. Recent estimates show that 99 percent of U.S. food animals are now factory raised (Farm Animal Investment Risk & Return, 2016). This figure may be daunting, but it should not be discouraging.

But opting out of the environmental, social, human health and economic consequences of animal factories is possible. Here's how:

1. EAT MEAT OCCASIONALLY

Keep from over-consuming animal proteins. Lowering animal proteins can not only improve heart health, but can better enable you to use your same allotted budget to invest in buying certified humane, organic, and pasture-raised meat. Cutting your typical meat portion in half, making hybrid meat and vegetable dishes, and eating a diverse array of fruits, vegetables, grains, and legumes with each meal can all help reduce the animal protein portion on your plate.

2. CHOOSE CERTIFIED ORGANIC, HUMANE, AND PASTURE-RAISED MEATS

Producers who certify their farms as humane, organic, and pasture-raised are required to meet specific standards of practice. By finding certified farmers at your local farmers' markets, looking for meaningful labels at the store, and eating at restaurants that source from certified farms, you avoid meat from industrial systems. Read our profiles of certified farmers to learn more about the many organic, humane, and pasture-based producers around the country.

3. EAT MORE ORGANIC AND NON-GMO PLANT PROTEINS

Eating a diverse mix of plant foods that are high in protein (like beans, nuts, seeds, and certain fruits and vegetables); being aware of your daily protein needs and the amount of protein certain plants provide; and eating at establishments that focus on organic, non-GMO, plant-based menus will help you create meals that do not contribute to industrial meat production. Diets high in organic and non-GMO plant proteins also help to lower the risk of heart disease, lower cholesterol, lower systolic blood pressure, reduce risk of obesity in children, and lower mortality.

With this resource CFS is demonstrating that avoiding factory-raised meat is not only possible, but necessary for our health and the health of our planet.

Find out more at: EndIndustrialMeat.org

And take the pledge to opt out of industrial meat:

1. I pledge to cut the meat I eat in half for the next year.

2. When I do eat meat, I will source certified humane, organic, and pasture raised meats.

3. I will eat more plant-based foods that are high in protein like beans, lentils, peas, chickpeas, nuts, seeds, and quinoa.

The Organic Industry Isn't Perfect, but It's Transparent

Fri, 10 Aug 2018 00:00:00 -0700

In a recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal titled "The Organic Industry is Lying to You," Henry I. Miller claims that the organic food industry is guilty of "false and deceptive advertising" when it asserts that its products are less toxic than "conventional" food. Subsequent to the publication of Miller's Op Ed the Trump FDA indicated they would look into his claims.

Before showing that it is not organic that is "false and deceptive' but rather Miller's article, it is important to look at the messenger. Henry Miller does not reveal his funding sources, but he has long been a propagandist for the pesticide industry. He has argued for the re-introduction of DDT, claimed that the decline in bee population is a hoax and promoted increased use of bee-killing neonicotinoid insecticides. As the organic food market has grown to $50 billion, Miller's attacks on it have become more virulent. Clearly the pesticide industry sees this fastest growing sector in American agriculture as a real and present threat, and sends its representatives like Miller out to try and discredit organic and undermine public trust in it.

Moreover, genetically engineered (GE) crops are prohibited in organic and this has raised the ire of Miller who is perhaps best known as a tireless promoter of GE, especially those crops that massively increase the use of herbicides such as RoundUp. And Miller's cozy relationship with Monsanto finally was his undoing. As was reported in the New York Times and elsewhere, internal Monsanto documents revealed that Miller submitted an article to Forbes, attempting to dispute an international study that showed that RoundUp was a probable carcinogen. While Miller submitted that article under his own name, this was a ruse. It was actually Monsanto that solicited him to submit the article, it and the real author of the piece was Monsanto's PR department. When this journalistic fraud was revealed, Forbes dropped Miller as a contributor and erased articles he wrote or co-authored from their website. In the name of journalistic integrity the WSJ should have done the same.

Whether authored by Miller or one of the pesticide companies he shills for, his characterization of organic is misleading and deceptive. The organic industry isn't hiding anything. Simply put, organic foods provide an alternative to "conventional" foods that reduce your exposure to toxic chemicals, promote ecological farming practices, and conserve vital resources like soil, water, and biodiversity.

Mr. Miller argues that marketing organic foods as grown "without toxic or persistent pesticides" is inaccurate. He notes that "organic farmers rely on synthetic and natural pesticides to grow their crops, just as conventional farmers do, and organic products can contain numerous synthetic as well as natural chemicals." What's implied here is that organic farmers are able to use any pesticides they choose at any time they like, and that all pesticides pose equal harm to consumers when used in farming.

Here's the truth.

Organic farming is built on the foundation that synthetic inputs are prohibited and the law requires that food labeled organic shall "have been produced and handled without the use of synthetic chemicals" (1). Now, the law does allow certain synthetics to receive temporary exemptions for use in organic farming and handling. In order to be exempted, someone must petition the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for it to be added to the approved list, at which point it may only be added after a rigorous scientific review demonstrates that its use "would not be harmful to human health or the environment" (2) and "is consistent with organic farming and handling" (3).

This means that any synthetic chemical that a U.S. organic farmer could use does not pose substantial risk to organic consumers, farm workers, or the environment. By their nature all pesticides are poisonous, yes. But they do not affect all organisms in the same manner or to equal degree. The process in organic regulations means that approved synthetics are not causing toxicity in humans or persisting in the environment from their approved use. And, if you want to know exactly which substances organic farmers may use and for what purposes, you can find the full list here. Mr. Miller also fails to inform readers that everything on this list must be re-evaluated within five years of its most recent review to determine whether new information shows the substance may be harmful and if viable alternatives have become available (4).

What's more, the entire organic community, including farmers, consumers, food companies, processors, and advocates, have an opportunity to tell USDA whether the petitioned substance should be allowed or not. This public participation is the backbone of organic integrity and serves as an additional mechanism for ensuring that harmful chemicals are not permitted.

Additionally, organic regulations limit use of any synthetic input to moments of last resort when all other practices have failed to curb the problem. In other words, not only are organic farmers only allowed to choose from a short list of rigorously reviewed synthetics, they can only look to these inputs if they've exhausted all their options. In order to prevent pests, weeds, and plant diseases, organic farmers are required to use crop rotation, apply cultural practices like selecting resistant plant varieties, and create habitat for natural predators of pests. Only when all of the practices outlined in the regulations have been inadequate may "a substance included on the National List of synthetic substancesâ?¦be applied" (5). When such substances are used, a farmer must document with their certifier the reason it was needed, the manner in which it was used, and strategies to prevent the need for its use in the future.

All of this contributes to the fact that organic farmers may access roughly 25 approved synthetic pesticides if proven necessary, compared to the more than 900 available synthetic pesticide products approved for use conventional farming (6). It is also why studies consistently demonstrate that organic foods and the people who eat them have fewer pesticide residues compared to conventional. Pesticide residues are detected on conventional food at four times higher frequency than on organic (7), and only 4 percent of U.S. organic produce tested from 2010-2011 contained residues above 5% of what EPA allows on conventional produce, and some of these outliers were thought to be mislabeled conventional products (8). Switching to an organic diet has been shown to drastically reduce urinary concentrations of pesticides, with more pronounced reductions in children (9,10,11). That is precisely why physician, public health expert, and bestselling author Dr. Michael Greger emphasizes that, "Eating organic provides a dramatic and immediate protective effect against exposures to pesticides commonly used in agricultural production" (12).

Consumption of organic foods reduces consumer exposure to toxic pesticides, in particular organophosphates, like chlorpyrifos and malathion, and pyrethroids, which are especially harmful to developing children. Exposure to pesticides for non-farmworkers is predominantly through food, and pesticide exposure most significantly impacts the health and development of children. Chlorpyrifos, widely used on conventional corn, wheat, apples, and citrus, is linked to lower IQ, poorer memory, and ADHD in children, and pyrethroids are linked to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (13). Concentration of chlorpyrifos in umbilical cord blood has been associated with delayed psychomotor and mental development in children in the first three years of life, poorer working memory and full-scale IQ at seven years of age, structural changes, including decreased cortical thickness, in the brain of the children at school age, and mild to moderate tremor in the arms at 11 years of age (13).

Use of an approved synthetic may be significantly restricted through the regulations as well. Take Mr. Miller's example of copper sulfate. Copper sulfate has been used in agriculture and non-agriculture settings in the U.S. for hundreds of years, contributing to the accumulation of copper in soils nationwide. To insinuate that organic farmers are to blame for copper sulfate residues is ludicrous, especially considering that the organic regulations severely restrict its use, including prohibiting farmers from applying it to rice fields more than once every two years and requiring documentation of soil copper levels (14).

Mr. Miller also notes that many natural, or non-synthetic, pesticides exist that could be harmful to humans or the environment and may be allowed in organic. In fact, the organic law allows USDA to prohibit the use of specific natural pesticides on organic farms if their use is considered harmful to human health or the environment (15).

The organic industry and regulations are complex, certainly, but it is clear that use of synthetic chemicals in organic farming is the exception, not the rule. Any use of approved substances must be thoroughly documented in a farmer's Organic Systems Plan with their certifier. Conventional farmers have no equivalent requirement to identify the types, amounts, purpose, or frequency of chemicals used on their fields. Conventional farmers can freely use life-threatening chemicals like chlorpyrifos, malathion, 2,4-d, dicamba, and glyphosate. Mr. Miller's parallel that organic farmers use pesticides "just as conventional farmers do" is a dangerous inaccuracy.

Simply put, you are not being duped by organic advertising claims. Organically grown foods are the best way to reduce your dietary exposure to toxic and persistent pesticides. Supporting organic farmers is also the best way to protect wildlife habitats and reduce agricultural pollution. Research also shows that organic farming supports robust regional economies (16). There are so many reasons why choosing organic foods protects food security and public health. Mr. Miller's and the pesticide industry's self-serving attempts to equate organic production with "conventional," chemically dependent production is wrong on the facts and hopefully will not mislead the public into choosing the safer organic alternative.

--------------------------------

Citations

1) 7 U.S.C. 6504.

2) 7 U.S.C. 6517(c)(1)(A)(i).

3) 7 U.S.C. 6517(c)(1)(A)(iii).

4) 7 U.S.C. 6516(e).

5) 7 C.F.R.§205.206(e).

6) Organic Trade Association, https://ota.com/advocacy/organic-standards/national-list-allowed-and-prohibited-substances.

7) M. BaraÅ?ski, et al. (2014). "Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses," British Journal of Nutrition, 112: pp. 794-811.

8) USDA National Organic Program & USDA Science and Technology Programs (2012). 2010-2011 Pilot Study: Pesticide Residue Testing of Organic Produce. Washington, D.C.: USDA (November).

9) J. Magner, et al. (2015). Human Exposure to Pesticides from Food, Stockholm: Sweden. Swedish Environmental Research Institute.

10) C.L. Curl, et al. (2015). "Estimating Pesticide Exposure from Dietary Intake and Organic Food Choices: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis," Environmental Health Perspectives, 123(5): pp. 475-483.

11) C. Lu, et al. (2006). "Organic Diets Significantly Lower Children's Dietary Exposure to Organophosphorus Pesticides," Environmental Health Perspectives, 114(2) (February): pp. 260-263.

12) https://nutritionfacts.org/2017/04/18/the-food-safety-risk-of-organic-versus-conventional/

13) A. Mie, et al. (2016). Human health implications of organic food and organic agriculture, Report by the Science and Technology Options Assessment Panel, Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA) of the Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (DG EPRS) of the European Parliament. Brussels, Belgium (December).

14) 7 C.F.R.§205.601(a)(3), (e)(4), & (i)(3).

15) 7 U.S.C. 6517(c)(2)(A)(i).

16) https://www.ota.com/hotspots.

Food Self-Sufficiency Doesn't Have to Damage Environment

Sun, 05 Aug 2018 00:00:00 -0700

This op-ed was originally published on Honolulu Civil Beat.

This past May, the Idaho-based Big Island Dairy confirmed that they dumped 2.3 million gallons of cow manure-tainted water into the streams of Ookala on Hawaii Island. Astonishingly this was not its first offense. Rather, the Dairy was fined $25,000 in May 2017 for unlawful discharge of wastewater

Since 2012, when the dairy was bought by Idaho dairyman Steve Whitesides and expanded into Hawaii's first confined animal feeding operation, residents have had their pristine waterways turned brown with manure runoff and a constant stench so awful they can't use their own backyards and must keep windows shut at all times. Many have had to completely cease all recreational and food-gathering activities in the contaminated gulches, and some have even had to go to the local hospital emergency room for infections related to fecal bacteria.

We should not just stand aghast at this egregious violation of our public health protections, but see the story of Big Island Dairy as yet another cautionary tale for our food future.

Since the days of Gov. Neil Abercrombie, state officials have been touting the goal of "doubling local food production." The political will that motivated the state to set these food self-sufficiency goals matter. Hawaii boasts one of the most powerful and active community food movements in the country. This movement is found in small scale farms, in farm to table restaurants, and in a statewide network of non-profit organizations that are reconnecting people with their aina and the cultural practices that sustained Native Hawaiians pre-contact.

'Groundbreaking Victories'

Again and again, our food movement has had legislative victories that have inspired the entire world. Such groundbreaking victories include Kauai County Council Bill 2491, Senate Bill 3095, which banned the use of the toxic pesticide chlorpyrifos, House Bill 1578, which led to the creation of a carbon farming task force aimed at improving soil health, and of course the 2014 Maui Miracle, where voters in Maui County overcame $8 million in campaign spending by Monsanto and Dow to require the companies to perform an environmental and public health impact assessment.

Our movement has not just argued for more local food. We want food that does not harm the people growing it, the people living around where it is being grown, and the people eating it.

Rushing to meet food self-sufficiency goals without critically examining what kind of farms will take us there will likely result in the increase in large-scale environmentally destructive agricultural operations that will exploit our natural resources in ways that maximize profit at the expense of people and the environment. Rumors of a million-hen eggery in Wahiawa prove this point.

Rose Acre is a mainland confined animal feeding operation operator with a history of health problems. As recently as April 13, 2018, after a FDA inspection, Rose Acre egg facility announced a recall of nearly 207 million eggs due to a salmonella outbreak. The health inspection found that these issues of salmonella persisted even after proper cleaning procedures were carried out.

Where will the waste from this operation go? While we would love to see our state produce more food, we should not be willing to trade the safety of future generations and our amazing biodiversity in the process.

Despite the rhetoric of Big Ag, small-scale diversified agriculture is neither a joke nor a pipe dream. Rather, in 2013 the UN published a report that determined it is how the majority of the food is produced on our planet.

We have outstanding models for food production in our state that do not trade the well-being of our environment and the public for sector growth and state goals. Take MA'O Farms and Kahumana Organic Farms, for example. Both farms grow tons of organic produce. MA'O Organic Farms produces about 1.5 tons of crops each week that one can purchase at local farmers' markets, Whole Foods Market and Foodland. MA'O employs dozens of youth from the Waianae Coast, helping them create a nest egg while paying for them to go to college.

Kahumana Farms, which grew 81,000 pounds of food last year, similarly employs young farmers from Oahu's west side, while also providing transitional housing for the houseless and programs for adults with developmental disabilities. Both will argue that the challenges organic farms face are primarily on the supply side. Both have rapidly scaled production in the past five years. Both have done so in ways that have profoundly benefitted the community where they are operating.

Complementing these developing agribusinesses are organizations like Elemental Excelerator, Mana Up, and Hawaii Investment Ready, who are growing triple-bottom-line, food-focused enterprises through education, capacity building, and direct investment. These are the projects that deserve state support. These are the stories that should inspire us.

Why are we looking to mega-corporations from the continent, again, to drive our agricultural sector? Haven't we learned, time and time again, that that they do not have our best interests at heart?

Hawaii has models and practices for food self-sufficiency, dating back centuries, that it can share with the world. Let's be that global bright-spot, a place that, in pursuit of increasing local food production, develops agricultural models that benefit people, planet, and profit margins. Let's not become another banana republic exploited by mega-corporations who use our streams, our oceans, and our aina as their toilet.

When elected officials claim to support increasing local food production, they're speaking to Hawaii's food movement because they know that we are civically engaged and ready to vote Aug. 11. The food movement will not sit idly by and watch more corporations come into our islands and exploit our food systems, our health and our natural resources for their profit. We've stopped them before. We'll stop them again. I urge our elected officials to get this chapter of our story right.

Editor's note: The Center for Food Safety is a part of a lawsuit against Big Island Dairy.

How Can Consumers Find A Safe Sunscreen in the Age of Nanotechnology?

Thu, 02 Aug 2018 00:00:00 -0700

In July 2018, Hawaii's governor, David Ige, signed a law that will ban the sale of sunscreens containing oxybenzone and octinoxate starting in 2021. The landmark legislation aims to protect Hawaii's coral reefs, many of which have already been bleached by the banned chemicals. The news is encouraging, and comes not a moment too soon for our environment. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that all sunscreen sold in Hawaii will be "safe."

Unbeknownst to many consumers, nano-chemicals have made their way into sunscreen. Zinc oxide (ZnO) and titanium dioxide (TiOâ??) have long been used in their non-nano forms, but nowadays their nano versions are often preferred, as they go on clear and don't leave behind white residue. Like all nanomaterials, nanoZnO (nZnO) and nanoTiOâ?? (nTiOâ??) have novel properties that aren't well-understood. Despite the popularity of sunscreen with nano-chemicals, government review of these additives has been far from robust. Although the FDA conducted research to determine if nanoTiOâ?? penetrates skin, it has never explicitly approved nanometals in sunscreen. FDA's 2016 guidance for sunscreen products states:

"Sponsors should also provide any known chemical and/or manufacturing characteristics of the active ingredient that may be relevant to FDA's GRASE [Generally Recognized as Safe and Effective] evaluation and to the establishment of the conditions of any resulting final sunscreen order. Such information should include known interactions with other sunscreen active ingredient(s) or commonly used sunscreen vehicle component(s) and particle size information for micronized or nanoscale active ingredients."

FDA's GRASE protocol relies on sunscreen manufacturers to evaluate their own products. In lieu of a comprehensive, independent government review, the system allows nano sunscreen to be sold as long as its manufacturers claim their products are safe and effective.

It should be noted that EU's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) has approved nTiOâ?? and nZnO in cosmetic products. However, that doesn't mean there's no question about their safety. SCCS acknowledges in its evaluations that both materials are dangerous when inhaled, and therefore conclude that spray-on sunscreen containing nanometals is not safe for consumers. (FDA did not examine the nZnO and nTiOâ?? spray formulations.) Studies suggest that spray-on nano sunscreen could cause permanent damage to the respiratory system, including lung tumors. There is also uncertainty about the safety of nTiOâ?? as a food additive. Some researchers believe it should be re-evaluated, citing potential damage to internal organs and a dearth of studies on the subject. This means that toddlers, who might lick the sunscreen, should not be using sunscreen with nTiOâ??.

Some forms of nano sunscreen may be safe, but most consumers don't have the information needed to decide if it's worth the risk. The EU requires sunscreen and cosmetic manufacturers to label products that contain nano ingredients, but no such regulations exist in the US â?? and most are unwilling to disclose their formulas even when asked. In a 2007 investigation conducted by Friends of the Earth, over 120 companies were asked if their sunscreens contained nano ingredients; only 38 agreed to participate, and just nine were nano-free. The largest sunscreen manufacturers â?? Coppertone, Banana Boat, and Unilever â?? sold products containing nanometals or didn't disclose. What's worse, even brands that cater to the "natural" crowd were not always transparent about their ingredients.

Despite EU and FDA's findings, debate continues over whether nanometals can penetrate skin. Investigations on dermal absorption have been criticized for failing to consider real-life factors â?? e.g. sunburned or cut skin, long-term exposure, and penetration enhancers commonly found in sunscreen.

Nano-Chemicals in Kids' Sunscreens

All this adds up to an incomplete picture of how these widespread substances affect adults - much less children, who are much more likely to ingest it, purposefully (e.g. babies and toddlers licking it off themselves) or otherwise. This is all the more concerning because an August 2018 study by Friends of the Earth suggests that nano ingredients are widespread in sunscreen aimed at children. Of the four products tested (Aveeno Baby Natural Protection, Banana Boat Kids, Neutrogena Pure and Free Baby, and Thinksportâ?¢ Kid's Safe), all contained nanometals. In spite of their marketing, it seems that these formulas are no more "natural" than any other sunscreen.

How Nano-Chemical Sunscreens Impact the Environment

Even if nano sunscreens were to be shown to be safe for (adult) human use, they may not be for our planet. There's a growing body of research suggesting that nZnO and nTiOâ?? may harm marine life. According to a 2009 study, there is evidence that these ingredients can negatively impact aquatic microbes, the foundation of the ocean's ecosystem. ZnO was also found to make sea urchin embryos less viable, while TiOâ?? was found to be potentially toxic to daphnids and algae. Perhaps most concerning is evidence that nanometals like nZnO harm coral reefs. The issue of nano sunscreen's impact on ocean life is an especially urgent one because nanoparticles can travel from household drains to oceans, leading your sunscreen to hurt sea creatures even if you aren't at the beach.

Recommendations

As we've seen with oxybenzone, government approval and decades of use does not prove a substance is safe for people or the planet. Scant research and lax regulations have made consumers and wildlife test subjects, and even the most conscious consumer doesn't always have the tools they need to opt out of the experiment. It's laudable that Friends of the Earth has helped consumers in this regard, and that a coalition of nonprofits led by the International Center for Technology Assessment sued FDA to get the agency to issue new regulations on nanotechnology. But ultimately, we shouldn't need to rely on nonprofits to make decisions about our health. It's FDA's job to protect us.

Until FDA takes regulating nanomaterials more seriously, consumers will continue to fend for themselves. In the meantime, non-nano ZnO and TiOâ?? are better options than the alternatives. And remember that for babies, limiting sun exposure altogether is preferable to any sunscreen.

Thanks for taking the pledge!

Fri, 29 Jun 2018 00:00:00 -0700

Thank you for pledging to opt out of industrial meat! Download the Meatless Monday Burger E-Cookbook (pdf) for 10 delicious, meatless burger recipes perfect for your Fourth of July BBQ and beyond.

Stay tuned for our new Opt Out of Industrial Meat website coming soon!

Government Approval of Bayer-Monsanto Merger a Losing Proposition for Farmers, the Public and the Environment

Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:00:00 -0700

On May 29, 2018, the Department of Justice (DoJ) gave its blessing to the mother of all agribusiness mergers, the union of pesticide-seed conglomerates Bayer AG and the Monsanto Company. Germany-based Bayer is to acquire Monsanto for $66 billion, pending a 60-day public comment period and a court finding that the merger is "in the public interest."

The merger is the latest chapter in a decades-long consolidation of the once separate seed and pesticide industries. Recent years have seen ChemChina acquire Swiss multinational Syngenta; and the fusion of American giants Dow and DuPont to form DowDuPont. Yet the behemoth forged by the merger of Bayer and Monsanto is the most troubling yet.

The DoJ refused to reject the merger despite finding it would "significantly increase concentration" in already "highly concentrated" markets for genetically engineered (GE) seeds and pesticides, as well as vegetable seeds. This in turn would bring "higher prices, less innovation, fewer choices, and lower-quality products for farmers and consumers throughout the United States and around the world."

Why then was the merger nevertheless approved? DoJ imagines that it can make things right by requiring Bayer to divest some of its GE seed and pesticide assets to German chemical giant BASF. In its proposed settlement, anti-trust officials will thereby transform BASF (which currently has few seed holdings) into a new pesticide-seed conglomerate, while doing little to reign in the "Baysanto" beast.

Despite the divestitures, the merged company will still be the world's largest seed firm, and command a considerable portfolio of weed-killing pesticides (herbicides) as well as fungicidal seed treatments and insecticides. Not only will seed prices continue rising, and traditional seed options narrow; the merged giant will have every incentive to further tighten the poisonous nexus between seeds and pesticides that characterizes the GMO era, in two critical sectors.

Seeds + Herbicides: Resistance is Futile

As many already know, Monsanto initiated the GMO revolution by genetically engineering a slew of crops (corn, soybeans, cotton, canola, sugar beets and alfalfa) to survive direct application of glyphosate, the active ingredient of its flagship Roundup herbicide. The huge increase in glyphosate use triggered by these Roundup Ready crops has generated an epidemic of glyphosate-resistant weeds that Roundup no longer kills. Monsanto recently introduced 2nd generation crops â?? GMOs immune to dicamba â?? and marketed them and its new dicamba herbicide as a means to kill weeds resistant to glyphosate. As weeds evolve resistance to dicamba as well â?? and it is already beginning â?? the merged giant will be perfectly positioned to further exploit this toxic transgenic treadmill of increasing chemical use and weed immunity by engineering crops resistant to ever more herbicides. Resistance may be futile, but it is highly profitable.

It gets worse. Even farmers with no interest in these GMOs will feel compelled to buy them, just to avoid having their crops damaged by rampant herbicide drift. We know this because it has already happened. Just last season, dicamba sprayed on Monsanto's GMOs drifted uncontrollably to cause unprecedented injury to millions of acres of soybeans as well as many other crops. And many of these injured soybean farmers are now reluctantly buying their seeds from the firm whose products did the damage, purely for self-defense. Growers of other crops do not even have this option.

Ironically, some farmers have sued Monsanto under antitrust laws for being forced to purchase the company's expensive seeds to avoid drift damage. Perhaps this is why DoJ's analysis does not even mention Monsanto's dicamba-resistant crop system (among the company's biggest product releases ever), much less factor into its analysis the loss of seed choice and income it has entailed for so many farmers.

And it's not just farmers who will suffer. Herbicides are bad news for all of us. For instance, the World Health Organization's cancer experts recently determined that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans," and glyphosate residues in food have risen sharply since the GMO era began. On the environmental side, beekeepers have reported steep declines in honey production where dicamba is heavily sprayed. This is likely because dicamba is so effective at killing the flowering plants that bees and other pollinators require for sustenance.

Seeds + Pesticidal Coatings: Whether You Want Them or Not

Bayer is a leading producer of pesticides that are coated onto seeds, often called seed treatments, that diffuse throughout the tissues of the growing seedling. The best known are insecticides called neonicotinoids, which are incredibly toxic to bees, and have been implicated as one factor in the decline of pollinators around the world. While the Department of Justice is compelling Bayer to divest its neonicotinoid seed treatments (and certain others), the merged firm will still likely license their use from other companies. In addition, it will retain a considerable number of fungicides used to coat seeds.

Seed treatments really only took off in the GMO era. Yet EPA has found that in most situations they provide little or no benefit in terms of crop yield. Pesticide firms nevertheless market them aggressively, often as "insurance" for protection against seldom-present pests and diseases, and as a "price point" to justify further hiking the price of GMO seeds. Still worse, farmers are increasingly denied the choice of untreated seeds. A merged Monsanto-Bayer would likely expand the use of seed treatments to Monsanto's huge seed portfolio, whether farmers want them or not, increasing pesticidal pollution for no good reason.

Government Ignores Interests of Traditional Farmers

The DoJ's merger analyses read in part like pesticide industry sales material. Its attorneys have picked up buzzwords like "innovation," "integrated solutions," and "blockbuster products," and parroted falsely claimed benefits for GMOs and seed treatments. It is unfortunate that our nation's antitrust officials accepted industry hype so uncritically, apparently without vetting it against objective information.

The government's biggest sin, however, lies in ignoring the needs of many thousands of farmers who require affordable, traditionally bred seeds to practice sustainable farming. Bayer-Monsanto (and their few competitors) control the all-essential germplasm needed for both GMO and traditional seeds. But increasingly they offer only GMO versions, in profitable "systems" designed to sell their pesticides. This does not serve farmers nor the broader public interest, and thus the court should reject the proposed merger.

Fighting for Our Water, Against Power: Interview with Attorney Adam Keats

Thu, 31 May 2018 00:00:00 -0700

Adam Keats in Water & Power. Still from the documentary.

Photo credit: National Geographic

The recent National Geographic documentary, Water and Power: A California Heist, highlights the severe impact of corporate greed and its manipulation of water allocation in California. The film follows Center for Food Safety Senior Attorney Adam Keats along CFS's intensive legal battle exposing the mishandling of the Golden State's water supply. The documentary is a fascinating exploration of the loopholes in our water laws. To make matters worse, some companies haven't hesitated to take advantage of these loopholes in the midst of drought. This manipulation has lined the pockets of a few elites, and severely impacted the livelihoods of small farmers and rural communities. Read the interview with Adam Keats below to learn more about what's happening in California.

Why don't more people know about the water crisis in California?

There is actually a lot of awareness, and maybe a bit of unreasonable fear, regarding our regular droughts in California. If anything, we've had an unusually wet hundred years or so, and we should expect that to correct downward, with more droughts, some of which will last multiple years. Additionally, these droughts will be exasperated by climate change. In fact, most states—not just California—should expect longer-lasting droughts, more severe flooding, and increasingly frequent major storms.

In California, only about 20% of our surface water is used by people, meaning homes and businesses. The other 80% is used by agriculture. In this past drought, cities and industry did a great job of tightening their belts and using less water, while agriculture, as a whole, did not. We ended up with thousands of acres of new almond trees planted in the desert of the San Joaquin Valley, while people across the state took shorter showers and let their lawns die. That's not to say that conserving water in urban areas is a bad thing, but rather that there ought to at least be a comparable effort by Big Ag. Water & Power sheds light on this discrepancy that might not be obvious to the public.

The Wonderful Company, a multi-billion dollar enterprise owned by Beverly Hills billionaires and philanthropists Stuart and Lynda Resnick, is the number one almond and pistachio grower in the U.S., and the biggest water user in California's San Joaquin Valley. The Resnicks refused to participate in the documentary. Is there any evidence of the Wonderful Company attempting to become more transparent about their practices?

I was quite heartened by the attention placed on the almond industry during this past drought. Almonds are just one crop, and in many ways are very nutritious and water-efficient. Yet, the insane amount of acreage devoted to that crop, and especially the incredible number of acres planted with new trees during the drought, highlighted the broken nature of our water distribution system. It should be noted that the vast majority of almonds, pistachios, and other nuts are grown as commodity crops for high-profit foreign export. So almonds became the poster child for the wastefulness of Big Ag for a reason.

Like you said, The Wonderful Co is California's largest almond and pistachio producer, and they did not fare well in the spotlight. They are now desperately trying to improve their image. Mark Arax, for example, wrote a fantastic article describing the lengths the Resnicks are going to improve the lives of their workers. This can only be a good thing.

Our cynical side recognizes that real change never happens without significant pressure. That is why we are continuing our lawsuits and political campaigns.

"Monterey Plus" refers to the effort, now going on 20+ years, to re-write the contracts that govern the management of California's State Water Project. One of its biggest effects is the privatization of the Kern Water Bank and the facilitation of a privatized water marketplace. CFS has been fighting this privatization effort in multiple lawsuits. Do you think that these lawsuits have a real chance? And what is the ultimate goal?

I truly believe that our Monterey Plus lawsuits have a chance to transform water policy in California for the better. We can seriously accomplish a tremendous amount with a legal victory in these cases. But even without a victory—and there are significant non-legal obstacles we'll need to overcome—I think the tide is turning against Big Ag and the "water buffalos" who control our statewide water policy and systems.

Sixty years ago, when they built the State Water Project, the environment and ecology were not part of the conversation. Now they are the start of the conversation, and eventually will be the entire conversation. We're learning that it is impossible to "manage" our water supplies without recognizing the ecological cycles and systems in which that water exists. That is leading to an ecological perspective in water management, which is and will continue to have profound impacts. To the extent they are not already there, the laws will inevitably follow the science.

Since the release of Water and Power, are there any more victories that seem to be closer to the horizon concerning the water crisis?

Probably the biggest one here in California is the downsizing, and even possible elimination, of California WaterFix, also known as the "Twin Tunnels" project. This is a massive 1960's-style boondoggle of a public works project, designed to pipe water from the Sacramento River under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ecosystem.

WaterFix is intimately connected to our Monterey Plus litigation. If we're successful in our lawsuit, we'll roll back the amendments to the State Water Project's long-term contracts that set up the current, unsustainable over-pumping of the Delta, and we'll have a good chance of forcing a more ecologically sustainable management of the system. If that happens, many of the problems WaterFix is attempting to address or avoid (or ignore!) could be taken care of, removing the need for the WaterFix boondoggle.

The lack of access to water can't but affect small farmers. How will this shape the future of our food system, for example, our increasing reliance on imports?

The shift from vegetable row crops to commodity tree crops owned by large-scale agribusinesses has had a profound effect on California's food production abilities. Our water policy has played a big role in this by favoring a mechanistic, market-based system, at the expense of a local, bioregional, and ecological-based system. When food and water are mere commodities, it's easy to end up with a system where almonds are grown for export to Asia, while we import our vegetables and fruit from South America.

While our water situation here created this problem, it will also prove to be the solution! Therefore, a sustainable water policy, (for both surface and groundwater), is absolutely necessary. It's hard to see global capitalists maintaining their current control over our food and water in California when the laws get passed and enforced, requiring sustainable use of our shared water resources. That's why they're fighting so hard against us.

Has the reception of Water and Power made you more optimistic about the future overall? You mentioned people are sending you impassioned notes after watching the documentary on Netflix.

Absolutely! Our legal case is very strong, but it's hard to win big cases like this if the political will isn't there to support the legal victory. One thing Water and Power has demonstrated to me is how much support there is for our campaign, and how much it resonates with people. People overwhelmingly want and support fairness in how we use and distribute our limited water resources. There might have been a brief window where lots of people drank the Kool-Aid of "market-based solutions" and privatized public resources. But that's changed. Even if we can't roll back the privatization of the Kern Water Bank completely, (though I firmly believe we can), we can at least stop the movement towards privatization and market solutions elsewhere in the water supply world.

Label Frankenfish!

Mon, 30 Apr 2018 00:00:00 -0700

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) recently introduced new legislation, the Genetically Engineered Salmon Labeling Act (S.1528), which would require genetically engineered salmon to be labeled as "genetically engineered" or "GE."

"These 'Frankenfish' can wreak havoc upon wild stocks and pose a serious threat to the livelihoods of fishermen everywhere. Americans deserve to know exactly what the effects of these new species will be upon the ecosystem," said Senator Murkowski.

The bill also requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to ensure an independent, third party scientific review of FDA's environmental assessment for all GE finfish, including GE salmon, for human consumption.

Call your senators and urge them to co-sponsor and support The Genetically Engineered Salmon Labeling Act today!

You deserve to know how your food is produced.

Send a message to your Senators.

CALL YOUR SENATORS NOW

Urge them to support the Genetically Engineered Salmon Labeling Act (S.1528)!

Call your Senators at 202-224-3121 now. Press 1 and enter your zip code to be redirected to your state's Senators.

Sample Phone Script:

As your constituent, I urge you to support The Genetically Engineered Salmon Labeling Act (S.1528). There is a huge difference between genetically engineered salmon and wild, healthy salmon which is sustainably caught. As the production of genetically engineered salmon could have unintended consequences to wild salmon and its habitat, I am glad this bill requires a review of FDA's current approval process for new genetically engineered fish species.

Genetically engineered salmon should be clearly labeled. People need to know what production practices we're supporting with our food choices because genetically engineered salmon production comes with environmental risks.

Please co-sponsor and support The Genetically Engineered Salmon Labeling Act (S.1528).

Send a message to your Senators urging them to support the Genetically Engineered Salmon Labeling Act (S.1528)

JOIN THE FOOD MOVEMENT

Sign up for campaign updates

Salmon People: The Risks of Genetically Engineered Fish for the Pacific Northwest premieres!

Mon, 30 Apr 2018 00:00:00 -0700

In 2015, the FDA approved genetically engineered salmon, the first ever GE animal to be approved for human consumption anywhere in the world. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians called for sufficient consultation with Tribes to assess the environmental impact of GE salmon production, a legal requirement the FDA did not honor. In 2016, the Quinault Nation joined 11 environmental and food safety organizations in a lawsuit against the FDA. On April 30, 2018, Center for Food Safety and Community Alliance for Global Justice premiered, "Salmon People: The Risks of Genetically Engineered Fish for the Pacific Northwest," followed by a panel discussion featuring indigenous and advocacy perspectives on the risks, labeling, and lawsuits currently surrounding GE salmon.

"Salmon is the pillar of our culture," said Valerie Segrest, cofounder of the Muckleshoot Food Sovereignty Project, featured in the film and on the panel. "For thousands of years the Coast Salish people have organized our lives around salmon. Corporate ownership of such a cultural keystone is a direct attack of our identity, and the legacy our ancestors have left us." Segrest is currently developing a curriculum to teach grades K-12 about environmental issues like the risks and impact of GE salmon on the Pacific Northwest's ecosystem. Fawn Sharp, President of the Quinault Nation, will join Segrest on the panel to discuss Northwest Tribal opposition to GE salmon at state and national levels.

Dr. Pete Knutson, a local fisherman who teaches environmental anthropology at Seattle Central College, will connect the dots between aquaculture and GE salmon. "Salmon feedlots in our waters are subsidized by the degradation of the wild marine environment. Salmon farming multinationals have now joined biotechnology giants to produce synthetic salmon-like fish which presents new dangers," Knutson cautioned.

George Kimbrell, senior attorney for Center for Food Safety and co-counsel for the plaintiffs argues that the FDA didn't have the authority to approve and regulate GE salmon in the first place. The FDA claimed The 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act grants it the right to approve and regulate GE salmon, but those provisions were meant to ensure the safety of veterinary drugs given to livestock, not address entirely new GE animals that can pass along their altered genes to the next generation. "This case is about the future of food: FDA should not, and cannot, responsibly regulate this GE animal, nor any future GE animals, by treating them as drugs under a 1938 law," said Kimbrell.

Boyce Thorne-Miller, Science Advisor of Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance, a co-sponsor of the webinar, says: "Nothing about farming or eating GE [Atlantic] salmon makes any sense. It's bad for the wild salmon [both Pacific and Atlantic], bad for the wild fish that are caught to feed farmed salmon, bad for the ocean into which farmed salmon escape and excrete, bad for the people who rely on wild salmon for their livelihoods, and bad for those who eat salmon expecting high nutritional value. [And on top of all that, farmed Atlantic salmon don't even taste good!]"

In 2017, four U.S. Senators introduced SB 1528, the Genetically Engineered Salmon Labeling Act, including WA Senator Maria Cantwell. Labeling laws offer one necessary stop gap measure toward the prevention of biotech corporations proceeding without having made any good faith consultations with the Tribes, or without adequately addressing concerns raised by Tribes, fisheries, biologists, food system experts, environmental groups, food safety organizations, and citizens. Urge your Senators to support the Genetically Engineered Salmon Labeling Act!

4 Ways To Show The Earth You Care

Sun, 22 Apr 2018 00:00:00 -0700

We appreciate our planet, its ecosystem, and the food it produces. Here are 4 ways you can celebrate the Earth!

Save the bees by choosing pollinator-friendly plants for your garden to provide bees with ample foraging opportunities. Get our guide on what's best to plant during different seasons to help the bees!

â?¨â?¨Eat green! When you strive to eat an eco-friendly diet, it can be tricky to consider the full picture of what's on your plate and how it was produced. Check out CFS's 9 ways to eat green.

Join CFS' Global Seed Network! Sign up to exchange seeds and keep independent farming and gardening alive. With the impending Monsanto-Bayer merger, it's even more important we preserve a diverse seed supply through grassroots networks of independent farmers and gardeners so we can ensure there will be a diverse seed supply for future generations. Join our Global Seed Network!

Start saving seed! If you're new to saving seeds, we've got a resource to help you get started! Download 6 tips for saving seeds.

Thanks for all you do to help us fight for a safe and sustainable food system.â?¨â?¨

Looking Back so We Can Move Forward: All of Us Have a Place in a Movement for a Pesticide-Free Future for HawaiÊ»i

Thu, 22 Feb 2018 00:00:00 -0800

From left to right: Autumn Rae Ness, Senator Maile Shimabukuro, Lauryn Rego

Hawaiian Sovereignty has a lot to do with food security in Hawai'i. For 125 years, history and politics in Hawai’i have been intertwined with the inequitable distribution of land and water, and have led to an agricultural economy dominated by chemical companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer, Syngenta and Dow-DuPont. It has led to a system where prime agriculture lands and water are banked by real-estate corporations for development, and the growth of GE corn, soy, and sorghum, while the state of Hawai'i imports over 90% of its food from overseas.

This year, ironically enough, Opening Day of the 2018 Session of the Hawai'i State Legislature, January 17th, coincided with the 125th anniversary of the overthrow. The culture of exploitation of land, water and labor is alive and well in the current halls of government. We call it politics as usual. But on January 17th, the hallways of the State Capital were full of community advocates, unions, community advocates, lobbyists, and media. Legislators' doors were open for photos, food, and conversation. I and the Hawai'i Center for Food Safety (HCFS) team were there too, gathering support for bills that would once and for all protect our children and the environment from toxic pesticide exposure. Last year, we won and unfortunately we lost. This year we’re back and hoping you will join the fight!

What’s at stake for HawaiÊ»i?

Come to think of it, we’re not asking for much. Take chlorpyrifos, for example. This commonly used insecticide is known to harm children’s neurological development. Long-term studies sponsored by the EPA and National Institutes of Health demonstrate that when pregnant women are exposed to chlorpyrifos, their children grow up to have lower IQ scores, increased rates of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and poorer mental development than unexposed children. President Obama’s EPA was on track to ban this toxic chemical, only to have the Trump administration overturn the ban in March 2017.

HCFS has highlighted the perils of chlorpyrifos in the state, where the pesticide is heavily sprayed in the production of genetically engineered seed corn by the agrichemical giants that operate in Hawai’i. Chlorpyrifos is a likely culprit in several pesticide poisoning episodes at a school on Kaua’i, due to its volatility, intensive use, and because after-the-fact tests found traces of it there. Farmworkers are also at risk, as demonstrated by the 10 Syngenta workers who were sent to the hospital after walking onto a corn field sprayed with chlorpyrifos on Kaua’i in January 2016, a violation that led to EPA sanctions. Last week, we found out that Syngenta had to pay a mere $150,000 in penalties for the incident. Wrist-slap penalties mean pesticide-seed companies get the green light to operate without accountability. It is clear that chlorpyrifos has no place in HawaiÊ»i. We are calling for a complete ban of this toxic chemical on the Islands and urge you to speak up in support of HB 1756!

Then there is the (seemingly never-resolved) issue of pesticide disclosure and buffer zones. There are at least 27 schools in the state of Hawai‘i within a mile of large-scale agricultural operations known to use high-volumes of restricted used pesticides. Currently, we do not have any laws on the books that would protect our kids from pesticide spraying near schools. But there is hope. The state of California recently banned spraying of certain pesticides within one-quarter mile of educational facilities on weekdays. We are organizing around HB 2721 and SB 3095, bills that would require the chemical [and industrial ag] companies to disclose the Restricted Use Pesticides they are using in and around our communities and sensitive areas, because we have the right to know. Lastly, HCFS is advocating for HB 2722 that would prohibit the use of neonicotinoid insecticides and glyphosate herbicides on public lands.

For our keiki, for our Queen, and for HawaiÊ»i

Returning to January 17th, I have never witnessed an Opening Day quite like this. While our team was meeting with allies and State Senators at the Capitol, thousands of people were directly next door, at 'Iolani Palace, united in ceremony honoring Queen Lili'uokalani and commemorating the 125th year of the overthrow. My heart was split in two. Half of my heart was outside, showing my respect to the Queen and the Hawaiian Kingdom. The other half was telling me to commit to this fight for better protections for our keiki and the 'aina.

All of us have a place in this movement for food security in Hawai'i. For now, my and HCFS’s place is making sure our keiki have a voice in the Hawai'i State Legislature, and that they are protected from the toxic pesticides used by chemical companies and industrial agriculture. I've made peace with that, but I am looking forward to a day when we don't have to do this anymore.

Farmers and Environmentalists Sue Trump's EPA Over Approval of Monsanto's Disastrous Dicamba Pesticide

Fri, 16 Feb 2018 00:00:00 -0800

Originally published on Alternet.

With the help of the federal government, Monsanto is set to make things worse.

Last year's farm season was the first year Monsanto’s newly approved XtendiMax pesticide was used. Crop damage was so bad that multiple states had to step in and take action to protect their farmers. Why? Because, as revealed below, U.S. agriculture has rarely if ever seen such a dramatic and disastrous season as 2017, the result of our government regulators failing to protect farmers and the environment—instead doing the bidding of chemical companies.

Dicamba and Monsanto’s XtendiMax

Monsanto's "new" pesticide is actually just an old pesticide with a new twist: dicamba, a pesticide more than 50 years old, intended for use on Monsanto's new genetically engineered dicamba-resistant corn and soybeans. Dicamba has been sold in various forms since 1967 and used primarily with cereal crops like corn and wheat, which can tolerate small doses of it. However, its notorious propensity to drift made it unpopular with most farmers, who switched to safer herbicides as they became available. Because dicamba is extremely toxic to traditional cotton and soybean, the pesticide previously could be used only before these plants sprouted, to clear a field of weeds early in the season, and few used it for that purpose.

Monsanto's genetically engineered varieties changed all that, allowing XtendiMax to be sprayed "over-the-top" of the dicamba-resistant crops, much later in the season. This is also when neighboring crops have leafed out and are susceptible to crop injury—and when higher temperatures increase vapor drift. Now, the agribusiness giant can conveniently market patented GE dicamba-resistant seeds (which are also resistant to Roundup herbicide) together with XtendiMax, as the "Roundup Ready Xtend Crop System."

Doubling down on the pesticide treadmill

This crop system is Monsanto's false solution to a problem of its own making. For 20 years, the company has sold Roundup and seeds genetically engineered to resist Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate. This "Roundup Ready" crop system has dramatically and controversially increased the overall pesticide output into our environment, making Roundup the most used pesticide in the history of mankind, contaminating our watersheds, soils and harming biodiversity. However, it also caused a related agronomic problem: Monsanto told farmers they could rely entirely on Roundup without weeds becoming resistant to glyphosate, contrary to weed science experts' warnings. But as with overusing antibiotics, Roundup overuse generated an epidemic of glyphosate-resistant "superweeds" infesting an estimated 100 million acres of U.S. cropland.

So now, Monsanto's new business model consists of GE soybean and cotton to resist both dicamba and Roundup so they can both to be sprayed freely without killing the crops. Although Monsanto presents the ability to kill glyphosate-resistant weeds with dicamba as a quick fix to the glyphosate-resistant weed epidemic, it will actually make things worse. The massively increased dicamba use spurred by Monsanto's crops—nearly a 100-fold increase on soybeans alone—will foster rapid evolution of still more intractable superweeds, now resistant to both pesticides. There are already initial signs of dicamba resistance arising in farmers' most feared weed, Palmer amaranth, in Arkansas and Tennessee.

Disastrous 2017 Season

Just as critics had warned, dicamba sprayed on Monsanto's GE soybeans and cotton volatilized, forming vapor clouds that drifted to damage a host of crops and wild plants. By July, farmers officially reported dicamba drift damaged 2.5 million acres of soybeans alone, rising to over 3.5 million acres in 16 states by August. Many other crops were also damaged, including tomatoes, melons, fruit and nut trees, and vegetables. Because experts estimate only one in ten dicamba drift episodes were reported, the true impacts could be ten times greater. Dicamba also injured residential gardens, shrubs and trees. Flowering wild plants near cropland also suffered, with potential harms to pollinators robbed of nectar and pollen resources, as well as hundreds of endangered species. Agronomists reported the scale of damage was "uncharted territory," and they had never seen herbicide-related drift damage on anything approaching this scale before.

Dicamba drift threatens farmers' livelihoods, by slowing soybean growth and reducing yields, costing them millions. Dicamba has drifted so rampantly that many farmers feel compelled to plant Monsanto’s seeds, which are considerably more expensive than others, to avoid crop injury—which many feel is a form of extortion. Farmers have banded together to file class action lawsuits against Monsanto, in an attempt to recoup their losses. Dicamba drift has torn apart rural communities, pitting farmer against farmer. One dicamba drift dispute resulted in the gunshot death of an Arkansas grower.

EPA and Monsanto's failure to protect farmers

The U.S. government was well aware of dicamba's dangers to the environment and farmers, but Monsanto pressured the EPA to approve its business' future cash cow anyway. EPA relied on Monsanto's assurances that XtendiMax was significantly less volatile than other dicamba formulations, and ignored warnings and documented analysis from farmers, scientists, and groups like Center for Food Safety that approval would lead to precisely the devastating crop injury that in fact occurred during the 2017 crop season.

While the tragedy unfolded over the summer, university scientists were finally allowed to test XtendiMax’s drift properties themselves, something Monsanto had strictly prohibited until it gained EPA approval at the end of 2016. These scientists confirmed through independent research that volatility, or vapor drift, was in fact one of the major routes of the dicamba drift injury, despite Monsanto's disingenuous claims to the contrary. For months, they repeatedly shared this data with EPA. They showed that, for example, contrary to Monsanto’s claims, XtendiMax volatilized "for as many as 3 or 4 days following the application," and urged the agency to address the problem. Numerous state agricultural departments reported to EPA ongoing extensive damage. A dozen scientists expressed unanimous concern that XtendiMax and other new dicamba formulations were more volatile than manufacturers admitted.

Beyond vapor drift, which EPA did not address, farmers also found the byzantine usage restrictions (that EPA was forced to apply in a vain attempt to suppress dicamba drift) extremely difficult to follow in real-world farming conditions. These restrictions include a ban on spraying in still or in windy conditions, or when rain is forecast in the next 24 hours. According to weed scientists, the 16,000-word label instructions were "unlike anything that’s ever been seen before." A Missouri farmer said, "You have to be a meteorologist to get it exactly right."

In August 2017, EPA briefly considered state experts' recommendations to prohibit dicamba applications after a spring to early summer "cutoff date" as the only sure means to mitigate vapor drift damage. But after Monsanto opposed it, EPA rejected this solution. Instead, when EPA finally took action to amend the label in October, the agency followed Monsanto’s lead. EPA made XtendiMax restricted use, imposed record-keeping requirements and more applicator training, and a dusk to dawn spray ban. However, EPA left the critical issue of vapor drift unaddressed. In contrast, four states understood the centrality of vapor drift to crop damage and instituted cut-off dates and temperature limits to mitigate it.

EPA did not provide any new rationale or analysis or data to suggest that the new amended label would do any more to protect farmers’ crops from dicamba drift damage than the original label. Worse, EPA admitted that it had done no new assessment, nor gathered any new data at all as to why the new label amendments would reduce dicamba drift damage in the 2018 crop seasons. Instead, EPA continued to rely unlawfully on its prior analyses and determinations, even though they were proven tragically flawed. Millions of acres of damaged crops, with tremendous costs to farmers, are the predictable result of EPA recklessly pushing to market a product well known to drift on to neighboring plants and damage them. All of this could have been avoided if EPA had followed the law.

The litigation

The government's decision to approve Monsanto's dicamba pesticide was not just irresponsible, it was unlawful. Farmers should be protected from this unprecedented damage, not made scapegoats in order for Monsanto to fatten its bottom line at their expense and the environment’s expense. That’s why a coalition of environmental and farmer nonprofits filed suit challenging the XtendiMax approval early last year, and this past Friday the challengers made their case, based on all of the evidence described above and produced in the litigation.

The government violated the federal pesticide law and the Endangered Species Act in approving XtendiMax without addressing volatility, failing to consider the significant costs of drift damage to U.S. farmers, failing to protect endangered species, and more. Should the farmers and environmentalists prevail, XtendiMax’s approval can be rescinded and the pesticide withdrawn from the market.

Photo Credit: Goran Jakus/Shutterstock

This article was made possible by the readers and supporters of AlterNet.

FAQs About Monsanto's Dicamba-Resistant Crops and XtendiMax

Mon, 12 Feb 2018 00:00:00 -0800

For further documentation, see ¬Center for Food Safety’s comments to the Arkansas Plant Board on the State’s dicamba restrictions and Monsanto’s petition to rescind them

What is XtendiMax?
XtendiMax is Monsanto’s formulation of dicamba, a weed-killing pesticide first introduced in the 1960s, and long notorious for its propensity to drift and damage neighboring crops. The EPA approved XtendiMax for “over-the-top” application to Monsanto’s genetically engineered, dicamba- and glyphosate-resistant soybeans and cotton in November 2016.

Hasn’t there always been herbicide drift? What’s the big deal with dicamba?
There has never been anywhere close to so much herbicide drift injury as was caused by dicamba alone in 2017. There have been roughly 3,000 official complaints of dicamba damage to soybeans covering an astounding 3.6 million acres (Figures 1 & 2). Because experts estimate only one in 10 dicamba drift episodes were reported, the true impacts could be 10 times greater. According to North Dakota pesticide specialist Andrew Thostenson: "We are in unprecedented, uncharted territory. We've never observed anything on this scale in this country since we've been using pesticides in the modern era."

Figure 1: Official dicamba-related injury investigations as reported by state departments of agriculture as of October 15, 2017. South Dakota updated from 114 to 221 complaints. North Dakota updated from 40 to 207 complaints. The additional 274 complaints in ND and SD raise the original total of 2,708 complaints to a new total of 2,982.

Why has XtendiMax caused such devastating crop injury?
First, while any pesticide can drift in the wind while it is being sprayed, dicamba poses a second threat. It volatilizes (vaporizes) from soil and plant surfaces hours to days after application, forming vapor clouds that can drift long distances to injure sensitive crops. Second, while dicamba has traditionally been sprayed around planting time, when most crops have not yet sprouted, XtendiMax is applied later in the season when crops have leafed out and are susceptible to injury; this is also when higher temperatures increase volatilization. Finally, dicamba is so potent that even extremely low vapor concentrations can harm flowering crops and other plants.

Figure 2: Estimates of dicamba-injured soybean acreage as reported by state extension weed scientists (as of October 15, 2017). Total of roughly 3.6 million acres. “k” stands for “thousands”

Is it only soybeans that have been injured by dicamba drift?
No. Dicamba drift has caused widespread injury to vegetables, melons, orchards, grapes, pumpkins, peas and tobacco, not to mention residential gardens and trees, and wild plants. We hear more about soybean injury because soybeans are among the most widely planted crops in America and are incredibly sensitive to dicamba. A beekeeper operating in Arkansas and several other states reports that honey production is down sharply in areas where dicamba was heavily sprayed, a possible sign that dicamba drift is killing off the flowering plants that bees depend upon for nectar and pollen.

Isn’t crop damage also from illegal use of older dicamba formulations?
Investigations have found that most farmers have used XtendiMax or other formulations (Engenia, FeXapan) approved for use on dicamba-resistant crops (new dicamba), and complied with extremely complex and restrictive usage (label) instructions – and still injured their neighbors’ crops via drift. There is also no evidence the label directions actually prevent drift in real world farming conditions. Independent field trials show that over time, XtendiMax is at best only slightly less volatile than other versions of dicamba, directly contradicting Monsanto’s claims. While some farmers have likely made illegal use of old dicamba, there is abundant evidence that drift injury occurs even with label-compliant use of new dicamba.

Isn’t XtendiMax “low-volatility”?
This is what Monsanto claims. Yet scores of independent studies demonstrate that XtendiMax is at best only slightly less volatile than Clarity and other dicamba formulations (see last question).

Why did Monsanto prohibit independent testing of XtendiMax for drift?
Monsanto prohibited independent scientists from testing the drift properties of XtendiMax until 2017, following its approval by EPA. This extraordinary prohibition was at odds with the universal practice of pesticide companies permitting agronomists to test their products before commercial release. Monsanto’s explanation for the prohibition – to avoid any delay in EPA approval – rings true. Had the independent tests that prove XtendiMax’s volatility been allowed prior to EPA approval, they might well have delayed or even stopped EPA’s registration of this defective product for use on dicamba-resistant crops, an outcome that Monsanto avoided with its ban.

Will the new XtendiMax label, revised in October 2017, prevent dicamba drift injury?
None of the recent changes to the XtendiMax label – restricted use status, record-keeping requirements for applicators, more training, and a dusk to dawn spraying ban – address volatility, which experts regard as a “major route” of dicamba drift injury. The disappointing label changes appear to have been drafted by Monsanto, not EPA, which ignored calls from independent scientists to establish a spring cut-off date to prevent most dicamba drift injury.

How did states respond to dicamba drift?
Because EPA failed to address risks from volatility, at least four states have established cut-off dates – or dates after which dicamba may not be sprayed – in order to reduce the risk of crop injury in 2018: Arkansas, Missouri, North Dakota and Minnesota. Others states, such as Indiana and Tennessee, have enacted other requirements.

Does dicamba injury lead to reduced yield?
In many cases, yes. Conditions that make yield loss more likely occurred frequently in the 2017 crop season. These include dicamba drift exposure during the crop’s sensitive reproductive phase; exposure to drift two or more times; and unfavorable weather conditions after the exposure(s), such as drought. For instance, Missouri peach grower Bill Bader lost at least 30,000 trees to dicamba drift, while Missouri soybean farmer Chris Crosskno anticipated an 8-10 bushel/acre yield reduction, for a loss of about $180,000. Arkansas agronomist Jason Norsworthy predicted less than 5 bushel/acre harvests (pp. 142-143) for some dicamba-injured soybeans in his state (roughly 90% yield reduction), while Minnesota farmers report that dicamba drift is costing them millions of dollars in lost soybean yield. Dicamba drift also retards growth, which gives weeds the upper hand. This in turn can lead to more herbicide spraying.

Did average soybean yields decline due to dicamba drift?
While there is extensive evidence that dicamba drift caused yield losses for many individual farmers (see last response), at state and national scales it is impossible to disentangle its influence from that of many other factors. Weather conditions always exert a substantial influence on yield, and can either ameliorate or exacerbate dicamba’s effects. Tennessee and North Dakota – both hard hit by dicamba drift (Figures 1 & 2) – are good examples. Tennessee had good growing conditions, which helped uninjured soybeans reach near their full yield potential and dicamba-damaged soybeans recover somewhat. Average Tennessee yield rose 10% from 2016 (Figure 3). In contrast, heat stress and severe drought conditions in North Dakota suppressed soybean yields generally, and exacerbated the impacts of dicamba injury. The average North Dakota yield fell 22% from 2016 (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Average soybean yields in the U.S. and selected states. Source: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Quik Stats.

If dicamba drift reduced yield, why did soybean production rise in 2017?
Because American farmers planted far more soybeans than ever before in 2017 – 90.1 million acres – 8% more acres than in 2016, the previous record. Average national soybean yield, however, fell by 6% (Figure 3).

Why are farmers growing dicamba-resistant crops?
Some farmers with serious infestations of glyphosate- and multiple herbicide-resistant weeds see the ability to spray XtendiMax “over-the-top” of dicamba-resistant crops as a convenient way to control them. Other farmers have switched to dicamba-resistant soybeans to avoid the crop injury they fear (and which many have experienced) growing non-dicamba-resistant varieties. Some farmers regard this as “tantamount to extortion,” given the high cost of Monsanto’s seeds, and class action lawsuits charge Monsanto with illegal monopolistic behavior on these same grounds.

Why aren’t dicamba-resistant crops a solution to glyphosate-resistant weeds?
Herbicide-resistant (HR) crops are developed and marketed to farmers as weed control systems that rely entirely on the HR crop-associated herbicide(s). Total reliance on dicamba and glyphosate with the Roundup Ready® Xtend Crop System is certain to promote rapid evolution of dicamba resistance, resulting in glyphosate-resistant weeds acquiring additional resistance to dicamba.

Are there any dicamba-resistant weeds?
2017 is the first year dicamba-resistant soybeans and cotton have been widely planted, yet scientists are already finding initial signs of dicamba-resistance in Palmer amaranth, farmers’ most feared weed, in Arkansas and Tennessee. Other likely candidates for dicamba resistance are kochia, waterhemp and horseweed – all of which have large populations already resistant to glyphosate, with dual resistance to both herbicides highly likely.

Why did Monsanto develop dicamba-resistant crops?
Monsanto acquired the rights to dicamba-resistance technology from its developers at the University of Nebraska in 2005. Monsanto understood even then that the glyphosate-resistant weed epidemic it was helping to create (see next question) would eventually open a profitable market for a second-generation of crops resistant to dicamba, sold to farmers as a means to control glyphosate-resistant weeds.

Is Monsanto really to blame for glyphosate-resistant weeds?
In the early to mid-2000s, Monsanto ran “advertorials” in farm press publications that misled farmers into thinking they could rely entirely on glyphosate and Roundup Ready crops, every year, without risk of glyphosate-resistant weeds. Agronomists took Monsanto to task for this self-serving, profit-seeking advice, which helped set the stage for a massive epidemic of glyphosate-resistant weeds that infest up to 100 million acres of cropland.

Are there other dicamba-resistant crops coming?
Yes, Monsanto already has dicamba-resistant corn approved, while it has experimented with dicamba-resistant versions of wheat, canola and sugar beets.

Where does the dicamba-resistance gene come from?
The dicamba resistance gene in Monsanto’s crops was derived from bacteria that had evolved dicamba resistance in storm water retention ponds at a dicamba production plant in Texas. This dicamba-degrading gene was initially viewed as a means to break down and hence “bioremediate” soil and water polluted with dicamba (then viewed as a hazardous pesticide, even by EPA). Ironically, University of Nebraska and Monsanto repurposed the gene to dramatically increase pollution of the environment with dicamba.

Does dicamba pose human health risks?
Because Monsanto’s GMOs are also engineered to withstand applications of Monsanto’s Roundup, the overuse of Roundup (containing the active ingredient glyphosate) will continue at current high levels. Dicamba use is projected to increase 20-fold with Monsanto’s GMOs, increasing exposure. Dicamba is linked to increased rates of cancer in farmers and birth defects, while glyphosate was recently classified as a “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the World Health Organization. Both dicamba and glyphosate are associated with increased rates of the same immune system cancer – non-Hodgkin lymphoma – in farmers. EPA dismissed pesticide industry studies providing evidence of dicamba’s carcinogenicity in rodents and potential neurotoxicity.

The Real State of the Union: 6 Ways Trump Is Bad for Food, Health and the Environment DUPLICATE

Fri, 02 Feb 2018 00:00:00 -0800

Trump has gutted regulations meant to protect our food and ecosystems.

Read this on Alternet.

One year down, three to go. Trump and his enablers are hell bent on destroying or selling to the highest bidder the federal agencies they are charged with running in the public interest. In the past year, they have been unrelenting in their attacks on food safety, environmental protections, climate change, government transparency, and so many other values we hold dear. We are in the midst of the most significant environmental and public health challenges imaginable. We’re no longer dreading the harm the Trump Administration could do to our health and environment—we’re living it.

If you watched the State of the Union address this week, you may have picked out a common thread: gutting regulations—many of them crucial to protecting our food and environment—for the sake of higher corporate profits. Trump’s boast that “we have cut more regulations in our first year than any other administration in history”, may be good if you’re Monsanto or Exxon, but it’s dangerous for you and me and our families.

Let’s take a look back at Trump’s first year in office. What is the State of the Food and Environment Union? Here are just a few (of the many) ways the Administration is undermining the food system, public health and the environment.

1. Trump and GMOs

At the wishes of Big Ag and their deep pockets, the Trump Administration is keen on approving new GMO plants, fish, insects, and animals as fast as possible, with as little oversight as possible. These actions will result in new risks to our food system and environment, not to mention millions more pounds of cancer-causing pesticides poured onto our crops and sprayed near schools, the extinction of native salmon species, the disastrous collapse of pollinators, harm to children, and much more.

In two current lawsuits, Center for Food Safety (CFS) sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force it to rescind approvals allowing dangerous pesticides to be used in new ways, over-the-top of genetically engineered (GE) crops resistant to them. Monsanto’s Round-Up Ready crops have become obsolete because of “superweeds” resistant to its main ingredient, glyphosate. In response, the chemical companies are peddling new GE crops that can tolerate older, even more toxic herbicides, namely dicamba (produced by Monsanto) and 2,4-D (a chemical compound in “Agent Orange”). The approval and release of these GE crop systems—pesticides and GE seeds resistant to them—will result in hundreds of millions of more pounds of toxic pesticides being sprayed on our food.

Meanwhile, Trump is delaying long-overdue disclosure of all GMO ingredients in foods, required by federal law starting July 2018. Last August, CFS sued and won a case against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) when missed the first labeling deadline. (The administration immediately relented and complied with the law 12 days later).

The Trump administration also has delayed new rules for the regulation of GMOs, withdrawing proposed updated regulations late last year, despite being long overdue and urgently needed. This was not an accident: Recently, in a speech at the American Farm Bureau Federation, President Trump declared that he is "streamlining regulations that have blocked cutting-edge biotechnology—setting free our farmers to innovate, thrive, and grow. “Oh, are you happy you voted for me. You are so lucky that I gave you that privilege."

Tell the Trump Administration that GMO labeling must be clear and on the package >>

2. Trump and Pesticides

In March, President Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reneged on a proposed ban on chlorpyrifos, a pesticide that’s known to harm kids’ brain development, and chose instead to protect the profits of Dow Chemical, the maker of the pesticide. And in November, a hidden bill being pushed by the pesticide industry was obtained by CFS that would dismantle Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections against deadly pesticides.

Two of Trump’s cabinet nominees—Michael Dourson and Sam Clovis—were so toxic that they were forced to withdraw their nominations instead of being rejected in Congress. At his committee hearing, Dourson’s questionable track record and refusal to commit to recusing himself from working on chemicals he’s been paid by industry to “study” in the past led Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) to tell Dourson, “You’re not just an outlier on this science, you’re outrageous in how far from the mainstream of science you actually are. It’s pretty clear you have never met a chemical you didn’t like.”

Sam Clovis withdrew from consideration for Chief Scientist at USDA after being roundly criticized by Congress and the public for being an admitted climate change “skeptic”, saying that climate science is “junk science” and “not proven.” To make matters worse, Clovis has a history of racism, sexism, and homophobia.

3. Trump and Food Safety

In March, Trump announced billions in dollars of cuts to USDA and FDA, undermining their ability to keep our food safe. In November, the Trump administration proposed a delay in enforcement of urgently needed rules aimed at keeping produce free from fecal contamination. Contaminated irrigation water is a major cause of foodborne illness outbreaks. In 2006, a major outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 linked to Dole baby spinach was eventually traced back to water contaminated with cattle and wild pig feces. Foodborne illness had become a full-blown epidemic, affecting 1 in 6 Americans.

In response to that and many other foodborne illness outbreaks connected to food such as peanuts, fruit, and vegetables, Congress passed the landmark 2011 Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which includes requirements that the Food and Drug Administration develop rules governing produce safety, including the water quality used to grow, harvest, and pack produce. From 2012-2014, CFS previously challenged FDA’s unlawful delay in drafting and completion of all of FSMA’s six major rule-makings, including the produce rule, succeeding in having all the rules completed by court-ordered deadlines.

The rule allowed growers to phase in water quality and testing requirements between 2018 and 2022, depending in part on the size of the farm. However, now under the new proposed Trump administration delay, growers would not have to test water for E. coli contamination until between 2022 and 2024—11 to 13 years after FSMA’s passage, endangering food safety.

4. Trump and Factory Farms

Many of today’s farms are actually large industrial facilities, not family farms with green pastures and red barns that most Americans imagine. The operation of these factory farms has little to no regard for the environment, animal welfare, or food safety, and they often put the health of consumers and rural communities at risk for the sake of profit. Yet, the EPA, the agency charged with protecting our environment and public health, made a third attempt to further delay the hazardous substance release reporting requirements for industrial-scale livestock operations (concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs).

In November, CFS joined other groups to oppose this egregious action that would allow these facilities to keep operating in a way that sees health-harming pollution as status quo. We asked the court to make it clear that EPA’s “preliminary guidance” is illegal because it represents the agency’s third attempt to hide information from the public about CAFO releases of dangerous pollution, particularly ammonia and hydrogen sulfide.

Sonny Perdue, Trump’s pick to head the USDA, is also no stranger to putting people’s health and animal welfare at risk. Earlier this year, inspectors detected bird flu outbreaks in a Tennessee-based poultry breeding operation contracted by Tyson Foods, Inc., the largest chicken meat producer in the United States. This event demonstrates that confining birds indoors for their entire lives in no way safeguards against disease. The pathogen responsible for bird flu becomes more lethal in large, over-crowded, confined, indoor farming operations like those contracted by food giant Tyson.

Preventing these deadly outbreaks requires reforming how chickens are raised. Strategies implemented by many organic chicken producers, for example--such as access to the outdoors, low densities, and adequate lighting--are necessary to raise chickens and other food animals in the most healthy, safe, and sustainable manner.

USDA also is charged with overseeing the National Organic Standards, for labeling organically grown food. Yet rather than taking steps to prevent future outbreaks and ensure higher animal welfare standards for organic, USDA gave in to Big “Organic” Poultry and in December announced plans to withdraw previously finalized organic animal welfare rules that had been the culmination of almost fifteen years. Rather than listen to the public who have concerns about public health and animal welfare, USDA sided with large-scale producers who fear the new rules will expose their less-than-organic practices.

5. Trump and Oceans

Livestock and poultry are not the only animals living in factory farm conditions. Our oceans are the new frontier. Commercial fishing and industrial aquaculture are polluting waterways as well as leading some species toward distinction. Despite a 97 percent decline in population, in August the Trump Administration denied endangered species status of Pacific Bluefin tuna. It’s not enough for people to stop eating Bluefin tuna; it needs a protected status to prevent it from being fished. The Trump Administration would rather side with large-scale fisheries than protect our natural world.

The Gulf of Mexico sees its fair share of pollution resulting in growing annual dead zones from industrial agriculture runoff down the Mississippi River as well as oil spills. Yet, The Trump Administration wants to pile on the pollution by allowing factory fish farms in the Gulf, which would be the first time ever for aquaculture in U.S. federal waters, anywhere. Industrial aquaculture will harm Gulf fishing communities and ocean ecosystems.

Last year, CFS filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration for violating our core fisheries and environmental laws in attempting to set up this unprecedented industrial activity in our ocean waters. This is not just happening in the Gulf, but also in the Pacific Northwest. CFS is also in court, in another case filed last year, to stop a commercial shellfish aquaculture permit approved in Washington State by Trump’s US Army Corps of Engineers (the same Army Corps that approved the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline). This irresponsible permit approval would allow a massive expansion of this already large industry, with no protections for wildlife, water quality, ecosystems, or people.

Oh, and remember Trump’s GMO “streamlining”? It’s not just plants: the first ever GE animal for food, a genetically engineered salmon is currently under court review. However, that case provided a major win for those of us fighting for transparency and accountability within the Trump Administration just last week. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the FDA’s attempt to hide thousands of pages of key government documents revealing how the agency arrived at its controversial approval. The court order rejected the Trump Administration’s position that it can unilaterally decide which documents to provide and which to withhold from public and court review.

A broad coalition of commercial and recreational fisheries interests, environmentalists, and tribes, led by CFS, challenged the GE salmon approval in 2016. Although FDA considered the application for the GE salmon for nearly two decades, the agency’s record for court review was paltry, including mostly documents already publicly available on their website and only four agency emails. FDA refused to provide thousands of critical documents about how and why it approved the GE salmon.

6. Trump and Climate

One of Trump’s first acts in office was to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement. President Trump’s decision to pull out from the 2015 Paris climate agreement was a major setback for the treaty, and for our ability to combat the climate crisis. The U.S. is the world’s second-largest carbon polluter after China.

In March, President Trump signed an Executive Order that drastically rolls back progress made by the Obama administration to tackle the environmental, economic and public health impacts of global climate change. The order specifically set into motion the unravelling of the Clean Power Plan, which was intended to cut pollution from coal-fired power plants and create new jobs in the renewable energy sector. Trump’s coal-focused energy program as outlined in the order will also make it nearly impossible for the U.S. to meet climate solution commitments set by the 2105 Paris Agreement.

The Executive Order also revoked the requirement that federal agencies analyze climate change impacts in all their decision-making. If President’s Trump exclamation in his State of the Union address, “we have ended the war on American energy, and we have ended the war on fuel, clean coal” are only the latest signal that his administration’s attacks on our climate and environmental laws are far from over.

Your Voice Has Power

If the first year of the Trump Administration is any indication, we clearly have our work cut out for us. The public interest, which should be government’s highest duty, is in exile. Government agencies are being unduly influenced by Big Ag’s lobbying and money, if not simply controlled directly by those doing their bidding, the foxes in the henhouse. Now is when nonprofit organizations are needed more than ever. CFS will continue to watchdog the Trump Administration and challenge the agencies that are supposed to oversee our food system. But you are the most important voice for Congress and the Trump Administration to hear.

Here are a few important actions you can take right now:

1. Tell the Trump Administration that GMO labeling must be clear and on the package

Make sure the Trump Administration issues GMO labeling regulations that requires the labeling of ALL GMOs, and does so on food packages, for all Americans, not only through discriminatory and secondary “QR code” smart phone disclosure.

2. Protect Endangered Species from Pesticides

The pesticide industry is pushing a bill that threatens the survival of endangered species. Tell Congress to oppose any legislative attempt to weaken ESA protections for species affected by pesticides!

3. Tell the Senate: Ban chlorpyrifos

While Trump’s EPA put corporate profits over public health, Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico (D) has introduced a bill that would outlaw chlorpyrifos. The bill is called the Protect Children, Farmers and Farmworkers from Nerve Agent Pesticides Act of 2017 (S. 1624). Tell your senators to protect our kids and ban this toxic pesticide once and for all.

This article was made possible by the readers and supporters of AlterNet.

5 Ways The Wonderful Company Misinforms Consumers about Oil Wastewater Use

Fri, 26 Jan 2018 00:00:00 -0800

The Wonderful Company, maker of Halos mandarins and POM products, continues to give consumers misleading information about their use of oil wastewater to irrigate crops. Last October we reported on the response the company gave to consumer concerns. Fast forward over a year since we launched the campaign to tell the company to stop using oil wastewater and the company is still trying to be slick (pun intended). While the company spouts claims of “filtered” we know the waters are murky, so to speak. Pressure is mounting but The Wonderful Company is digging in its heels.

Based on the misinformation The Wonderful Company continues to water us with, we answer five frequently asked questions about oil wastewater use:

1. Is the water clean?

While The Wonderful Company claims to use “filtered” water, exactly how it is filtered we do not know, and we do not know what chemicals make it through their filters. Part of their process involves blending the water with freshwater, which is designed to reduce the concentration of chemicals, not eliminate them, so it is more than likely that their filtration process is not removing all of the chemicals. The water is tested but not for all the chemicals that we believe are possible in the wastewater. There is also no adequate state oversight of this type of irrigation to ensure the process is safe.

2. What is the difference between gray water and oil wastewater?

Oil wastewater is not gray water, at least not in the way we regard gray water as being recycled water. Gray water is wastewater generated from residential, commercial, and industrial bathroom sinks, bath tub shower drains, and clothes washing equipment drains (excluding water streams from toilets). Instead, oil wastewater is a byproduct of the oil extraction process. As such, it has a very particular exposure to toxic chemicals that would not be expected in normal gray water.

3. Is there oil residue on the fruit?

There has been extremely limited testing of crops to determine whether it contains toxic chemicals from the oil wastewater; we’re working on getting more testing done, along with our campaign to have more (all) of the possible chemicals disclosed. It is hard to test for something without knowing what you are looking for. A recent report examined the chemical additives used in the oil operations that supply wastewater for crop irrigation. The result is alarming. They found that a total of 173 different chemical additives were used in oil and gas fields, of which 38 percent were not sufficiently identified for preliminary hazard evaluation. Why are so many unknown? Largely, it is because the companies are withholding information under proprietary claims.

4. How can we be sure there is no oil wastewater in my food?

Independent testing is the only way we can be sure the water is clean. Of the 173 chemicals researchers were able to analyze mentioned above, they found that 43 percent of them can be classified as “potential chemicals of concern from human health and/or environmental perspectives and require more thorough investigation.” We are seeking rigorous independent testing of the water and the produce grown with the water, and until and unless that water can be proven to be pure and free of toxins associated with oil extraction, we are calling for a ban on the practice.

5. How else can using oil wastewater hurt our food system?

The presence of chemicals in the end-product is just one aspect of the problem. Even if the chemicals do not remain on the produce, they could still pose high risks to agricultural workers and the environment.

The truth is the use of oil wastewater to irrigate crops has not been proven safe for farm workers who are exposed firsthand to these chemicals or the environment, including the fish, birds, and animals that may be exposed. When identification of chemical additives remains a trade secret and/or lacks toxicity and environmental profile information, it puts consumers, farmworkers, and the environment at risk.

6. How can I help?

We will keep putting pressure on The Wonderful Company to stop watering our food with oil wastewater. Please join us! Take action or share it with your friends if you have already added your name!

2018: What's on Your Activist Wish List?

Wed, 03 Jan 2018 00:00:00 -0800

We’ll be honest: 2017 was a challenging year. The Trump Administration has been unrelenting in its attacks on food safety, environmental protections, climate justice, women and immigrant rights, and so many other values we hold dear. But, together, we fought back. We marched; we litigated; we organized. We are making change. And we feel the promise of 2018. As we make our New Year’s wish lists, we ask you: what’s on your activist wish list for the coming year?

Here at Center for Food Safety (CFS) our wish list for 2018 includes:

· Protecting our children and families from toxic pesticides
· Saving threatened bees and butterflies
· Securing on-package labeling of GMO foods
· Stopping the horrific animal cruelty and environmental destruction caused by factory farms
· Protecting salmon and our oceans from genetic engineering and industrial aquaculture
· Protecting the integrity of the organic standards
· Ending the monopoly by Monsanto and other companies on the world’s seed supply and creating a “people’s seed movement”
· Stopping the Trump Administration from reversing the hard fought progress we have made together in building an organic, sustainable, humane, and socially just food system

It’s no small list, but with our expertise and experience, we’re confident in our ability to achieve our ambitions. When our team at Center for Food Safety (CFS) litigates, we litigate to win, and we continue to be the legal leaders in the food movement protecting you, your family, and our environment. In 2017, CFS and the food movement had several major successes which moved many of these wishes closer to coming true. But, there is much more to be done and we are working on many fronts in the coming year designed to move us even further towards realizing our collective aspirations. These include several major lawsuits we are currently fighting in federal court in order to:

· Protect farmers, public health, and the environment from GMO crops designed to tolerate massive doses of Monsanto’s dicamba herbicide and Dow’s Agent Orange toxic pesticides;
· Eliminate any and all use of bee-killing “neonic” pesticides;
· Halt the sale and distribution of genetically engineered (GE) salmon, which threatens the survival of native salmon species;
· Protect wild fisheries and oceans from the pollution and diseases caused by industrial aquaculture;
· Safeguard organic foods and protect the national organic standards;
· Keep drugs and harmful chemicals out of food animal production and off our plates;
· Plus many more policy, legal, and grassroots actions that address climate change, guarantee on-package labeling of GMO foods, protect our soils and water, stop animal factories, halt the use of toxic food additives, and defend our farmers and communities.

We know that in the coming year there will be more attempts by the Administration to gut laws protecting our health and our environment. But we promise, any time the Administration’s agencies attempt to pass regulations that undermine organic standards, compromise food safety, undo food labeling, reduce restrictions on pesticides, or roll back advancements to address climate change, our top team of scientists and lawyers will be there.

Our message to the Trump Administration is clear: We’re watching, and every time you cross the line, we’ll see you to court. We’ll prove your “alternative facts” are bogus. And we will win.

As we begin 2018 together, and face the new challenges ahead, please join us in this historic fight. Together, victory by victory, at the federal, state, and county levels, we will create and defend a food future that empowers people and protects the planet.

Want to be part of the resistance? Sign up here to get alerts on actions and breaking news and never miss a chance to act!

6 Podcasts You Can Sink Your Teeth Into

Thu, 14 Dec 2017 00:00:00 -0800

We can probably all agree that 2017 brought its share of ups and downs for the food movement. But thankfully, there are podcasts to help us get through it! This year, podcasts became a trendy way to give audiences a new way to learn, be entertained, and stay abreast of the news. Chances are you’ve started listening to some, too. Here’s a list of food and ag podcasts we’ve been listening to that provide insight, humor, and thought-provoking food and farming facts.

1. Bite – Acclaimed Mother Jones food and farming blogger Tom Philpott, and editors Kiera Butler and Maddie Oatman are serving up “a podcast for people who think hard about their food.” Bite has covered a range of topics such as the controversial Impossible Burger, migrant rights within the restaurant industry, and small farmers’ rights in the midst of the challenging Trump Administration, just to name a few. Check out the “If You Are Buying Pumpkin Spice Protein Powder, You Should Just Give Up” episode that pokes fun at the pumpkin spice sensory overload that we have all experienced in recent fall seasons.

2. Real Food Reads – Hosted by Anna Lappé, an important author and food expert herself, this podcast focuses on book reviews and conversations with authors who delve into subjects such as activism, practical food waste solutions, and the use of antibiotics within the fast food industry. Tuning into this podcast is a great way to learn and get new insight into these topics while also getting new titles to add to your “Want to Read” list on Goodreads. Take a listen to the episode where Anna interviews author Carey Gillam on her book, WHITEWASH: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science, on the deception in the way science has been handled around the herbicide glyphosate.

3. The Racist Sandwich – Want a podcast that cultivates conversation around current issues in the food industry, and how they often intersect with politics, race, class, and gender? This one is for you. Hosts Soleil Ho, Zahir Janmohamed, and Juan Diego Ramirez have candid conversations with activists, restaurateurs, and food writers about the ins and outs of their experiences in their respective workplaces and spaces. Check out a Bonus Episode from this past August “Waking up from the Dream” that discusses the potential impacts ending the DACA program would have on undocumented farm workers.

4. The Female Farmer Project – Writer and photographer Audra Mulkem started the project as a multi-platform documentary that chronicles female farmers globally. Since we love podcasts, we are thrilled the project includes one! It aims to serve as a platform for women to discuss agricultural issues and give power to their knowledge. In the most recent episode, Stacey Gose discusses her frustration with the lack of farm-appropriate clothing for women despite being the fastest growing group of farmers. She is a former Iowa farm kid and founder of the women’s workwear brand TOUGHER. “Women have been getting it done before Rosie the Riveter came around,” said Gose. Amen!

5. Gastropod – Through fascinating stories with food experts, on field visits, and at archeological digs, co-hosts Cynthia Graber and Nicola Twilley look at food through the lens of science and history. They discuss attention-grabbing topics and take us on a journey into our food we never knew we needed or wanted to go on. We recommend “The Birds and the Bugs” where Maryn McKenna tells the tale of chickens and the chicken industry in her new book Big Chicken.

6. Earth Eats – Producer Kayte Young and Chef Daniel Orr deliver a fresh episode every week. Based out of Indiana, its contributors provide intricate looks into local happenings, interviewing celebrity experts like Alton Brown. Spotlights are given to recipes that include sustainable ingredients, federal and local food and environmental policy, and food safety tips.

What food and ag podcasts are you listening to? Let us know! (Pro-tip: You can listen to more and more of them if you increase the speed to 1.5x!)

Center for Food Safety To FDA: Tell the Truth About GMOs, Avoid Myths Put Out by Biotech Industry and its Followers

Wed, 22 Nov 2017 00:00:00 -0800

On November 14th, Center for Food Safety (CFS) testified at a public meeting held by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in San Francisco on the agency’s new Agricultural Biotechnology Education and Outreach Initiative. Our purpose was to warn FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) against recycling long-discredited claims about genetically engineered (GE) crops and foods (aka GMOs), and presenting them to the public as fact.

These warnings are essential since the pesticide-seed industry has spent tens of millions of dollars on PR to mislead the public about GE crops and defeat mandatory labeling of GMOs. We’re referring here to the “Big Five” biotech companies – Monsanto, DowDuPont, Syngenta, Bayer and BASF – that have developed the great majority of commercially grown GE crops. The result has been widespread misconceptions regarding GMOs, some of which have infiltrated supposedly objective information purveyed by government agencies.

One of the hoariest myths we urged FDA to avoid is the notion that genetic engineering creates “biofortified” crops – foods with vitamins or minerals they don’t possess naturally. While there have been many experimental attempts to genetically engineer such crops over the past three decades, to our knowledge “there are currently no commercialized GMOs that increase vitamin or mineral content,” as we told FDA. So-called “golden rice” – rice genetically engineered to express beta-carotene, which is broken down by the body into Vitamin A – has been the biotechnology industry’s poster child for over two decades. But it has still not been introduced, and likely never will be. Numerous attempts to breed golden rice into rice varieties Asian farmers actually grow have been foiled by low yield and what one scientist recently referred to as “metabolic meltdown.” Golden rice has thus not saved a single child from Vitamin A deficiency.

In this context, it is interesting to note that Karl Haro von Mogel, the head of an outfit whose website’s name is “biofortified,” saw fit to misrepresent and mistakenly criticize our comments to the FDA. This organization regularly attacks individuals and groups like CFS that dare to criticize biotechnology. The group’s name gives away its PR-centric mission: to disguise a technology used chiefly to promote greater pesticide use as one that instead produces non-existent crops “biofortified” with vitamins and minerals to alleviate malnutrition

The organization’s Board of Directors includes Kevin Folta, a University of Florida scientist who was paid by Monsanto to travel the country spouting the biotech industry’s talking points, assuring his benefactor “a solid return on investment” in him, even as he presented himself as independent, denying any funding by or ties to Monsanto. Former board member Pam Ronald, who has long been a tireless obfuscator of GMOs and their supposed benefits, was several years ago embroiled in a scientific scandal that forced her to retract two major articles in Science and PLoS One. Biofortified blogger Steve Savage has defended chlorpyrifos, the infamous neurotoxic insecticide that damages kids’ brains, comparing its toxicity to that of caffeine! Savage is perfectly aligned here with chlorpyrifos manufacturer Dow, and the anti-science Trump Administration, which reversed a preliminary decision by Obama’s EPA to ban the neurotoxin. Savage’s defense of an insecticide condemned by the American Academy of Pediatrics is perhaps not surprising, given his employment history with chemical giant DuPont (now DowDuPont), and his association with biofortified.org.

As we informed FDA in our comments, roughly 90% of GMO acreage in the U.S. is planted to crops engineered to survive the direct application of weed-killing pesticides. These herbicide-resistant GE crop systems have led to dramatically increased weed-killer use in U.S. agriculture, which in turn has triggered an epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds, and fostered unprecedented levels of herbicide drift, injuring sensitive crops growing on millions of acres. The folks at biofortified appear blissfully ignorant of this real-world biotechnology. A search of their website for “dicamba,” the herbicide that when sprayed on Monsanto’s GE dicamba-resistant soybeans and cotton caused the crop injury debacle noted above, turns up nothing at all, even though this was undoubtedly the biggest story in agriculture this year.

We also urged FDA to avoid parroting biotech industry PR to the effect that genetic engineering helps make crops better adapted to climate change, for instance, more drought-tolerant. We pointed to the development of 153 new varieties of drought-tolerant maize for Africa, via conventional breeding, as just one of many signs of how superior conventional breeding is to biotechnology in this regard. Especially in light of the fact that genetic engineering has produced just one such crop, whose drought tolerance is no better than that of many conventionally bred cultivars. Von Mogel again misrepresents our clear and uncontroversial statements on this topic and appears to be unaware that traditional breeding has generated drought-tolerant cultivars of many crops in addition to maize (corn).

Another industry talking point we recommended that FDA and USDA avoid repeating in their outreach initiatives is the myth that GMOs are higher-yielding and necessary to “feed the world.” Contrary to von Mogel, who once again misrepresents our views, we correctly cite a 2016 report by the National Academy of Sciences, which found that a steady increase in crop yields that spans both the pre-biotech and biotech eras strongly suggest[s] that non-GE factors such as advances in conventional breeding methods have played a critical role in increasing crop productivity. In the context of our brief comments, we did not have space to discuss most GMO-related yield studies. Thus, we neglected to describe the substantial 5% yield drag (i.e. 5% lower yield) associated with first-generation Roundup Ready soybeans, one of the world’s most widely-grown GMOs.

We also did not mention the report Failure to Yield, by former CFS scientist Doug Gurian-Sherman. Von Mogel cites Failure to Yield as proof that GMOs have higher yields, when in fact Dr. Gurian-Sherman’s conclusion was that “traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down” for increasing crop yields. Finally, we urged FDA to recognize that poverty is the chief cause of hunger, something that yield improvements do not cure, and which biotech boosters regularly ignore.

Center for Food Safety will continue to advocate that media outlets and government agencies accurately report the facts about real-world GMOs, and avoid the myths about biotechnology promoted by the pesticide industry and its supporters.

Tips for a Turkey that Puts the Thanks in Thanksgiving

Mon, 20 Nov 2017 00:00:00 -0800

On Thursday, November 23, many families in the United States will gather together to share a meal and celebrate all that they cherish in their lives. For many, the centerpiece of the Thanksgiving meal is still the traditional turkey, cooked to perfection and accessorized by an assortment of traditional side dishes.

As with any other day, the food on your table matters: it matters for your family’s health, the heath of the planet, the success of our farmers, and the wellbeing of our communities. Turkey is no exception. Raising turkeys in intensive, industrial confinement systems takes an enormous toll on the environment through unmanageable amounts of waste and routine use of animal drugs to boost productivity. The turkeys themselves undergo inhumane physical alterations and are forced to live in stressful, overcrowded conditions. This leads to suppressed immunity, poor health, high prevalence of disease and pathogens, and violent behaviors towards one another.

If turkey is on your Thanksgiving menu, seek out brands and producers that raise animals humanely, without unnecessary pharmaceuticals, and in a manner that maintains or improves the natural environment near the farm. Check out this Holiday Turkey Buying Guide for resources on where to look and what to look for.

If you are not able to get a more humane and environmentally friendly turkey for this Thanksgiving, be sure to keep this in mind for other turkey-centric holidays or your regular turkey purchases throughout the year.

Looking for certified humane, organic, and/or pasture-raised turkeys from reliable and verified sources means, among other things, you are keeping animal drugs off your Thanksgiving menu.

A wide range of pharmaceuticals are allowed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for routine use in healthy animals to increase rate of weight gain, improve feed efficiency, or in anticipation of disease brought on by unsanitary, stressful conditions. This last practice, disease prevention, relies on drugs to reduce the significant risks to animals in intensive confinement conditions instead of improving living conditions through sufficient lighting, adequate space, access to the outdoors, and appropriate nutrition. FDA continues to consider using drugs for disease prevention an acceptable practice, even for antibiotics considered medically important.

FDA has taken some minor steps to eliminate the use of medically important antibiotics for growth promotion and feed efficiency in animal feed. However several drugs, including other antibiotics, continue to have approvals as feed medications to increase rate of weight gain and improve feed efficiency, including:

· Antibiotics like bambermycin, lasalocid, monensin, and bacitracin methylene disalicylate.

· Antiparasitics like amprolium, diclazuril, halofuginone, and zoalene.

· Steroidal agents like ractopamine.

Roughly 60-80% of the antibiotics eaten by animals raised for food are excreted in their waste. As a result, low levels of antibiotics are present in soil and water near confinement systems, and common veterinary antibiotics have acute and chronic toxicity on freshwater wildlife. Ractopamine is also found at high levels near CAFOs, but its impact on wildlife and persistence in the environment has not been sufficiently studied. See our Pharming Profits fact sheet for more information on the human, animal, and environmental impacts of common animal drugs.

When planning your Thanksgiving or other holiday menus, opt out of the industrial, over-medicated, inhumane system, and support your local, organic, humane, or pasture-based turkey farmers. Check out Holiday Turkey Buying Guide to find tips on what to look for, and what to avoid. Our farmers will thank you!

6 Tips for Saving Seeds

Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:00:00 -0800

Calling all farmers and gardeners – be a part of the resistance this fall and save your seeds!

Seed saving is fundamental to preserving biodiversity, plant genetic diversity, and protecting our food independence. For millennia, people around the world have been collecting, processing, storing, and saving seeds. But, in recent years, small, local seed breeders have been replaced by large corporations that now control our seed supply, producing primarily genetically engineered crops designed to be grown with toxic pesticides (which these same companies make and sell). At their hand, we are losing plant diversity at an alarming rate. But we have the power to fight back by growing and saving seeds in our own backyards. Don’t worry – this ancient tradition doesn’t require you to be a formal botanist to participate. Below are a few tips to get you started.

1. Assess the condition of the whole plant.
When selecting which plants to save seeds from, you’ll first want to check the plants for disease and insect resistance, drought tolerance, vigor, color, earliness or fruiting, lateness of bolting, hardiness, uniformity, and trueness. You can influence your future crop characteristics by selecting seeds based on these characteristics (though it’s not guaranteed the same traits will be expressed in the next generation, over time you’ll be able to influence the traits of your seeds).

2. Remove unwanted plants prior to flowering.
This may be challenging for those of you who are small-scale gardeners since it may mean pulling out plants that would otherwise produce edible fruit, but removing plants with undesirable characteristics prior to flowering will ensure their genes don’t influence your seed stock.

3. Collect seed from the most plants possible.
In order to maintain genetic diversity in your seed collection, it’s important to collect seed from the greatest possible number of desirable plants. This diversity is critical for hardiness and vigor, which will influence the ability of plants to adapt to varying environmental conditions.

4. Learn how to harvest seeds, experimenting with different techniques to learn what best suits you and your plants.
There are two types of seed harvesting used for different types of crops: dry processing and wet processing. Seeds that grow in pods or husks, like corn, lettuce, radish, and legumes, can usually be left on the plant until they are completely dry and are then harvested individually by removing the entire plant (dry processing). By contrast, seeds embedded in the flesh of fruits, like tomatoes, squash, and berries, are harvested when they are ripe and processed right away before the fruit rots (wet processing). It’s important to know when your seeds are mature, as sometimes this can be after the fruit is ripe for eating.

5. Store your seeds safely.
Store your seeds in airtight containers, preferably glass or metal, and keep your seeds in a cool, dry, dark location. Glass jars with rubber gaskets, like baby food jars and canning jars, are perfect. Plastic bags, like Ziplock, are not moisture-proof and should not be used.

6. Keep good records.
Be sure to label your seeds! The most important information to record is the species name, variety, and date of harvest. If possible, it’s also useful to include other information about the seeds in your records, including: common names, historical or cultural information, location grown, germination rate, days to maturity, plant descriptors (height, fruit size, color, shape), productivity, ideal growing conditions, and theoretical seed viability.

For more information and to connect and share your seeds with a community of seed savers, visit Center for Food Safety’s Global Seed Network. Happy seed saving!

Your Candy Shouldn't be the Scariest Thing about Halloween

Fri, 27 Oct 2017 00:00:00 -0700

In just a few days, kids and adults alike will slip into fantastical costumes, adorn their homes with fake spider webs and plump pumpkins, and gobble down sugary candy from dawn to dusk. This Halloween, you can avoid stomach-churning tricks in your treats by opting for Organic and non-GMO candy.

What’s in my candy?

By choosing Organic and non-GMO candy, you can prevent exposure to genetically engineered crops and their associated pesticides, for which children are particularly at risk. Here are the ingredients to look out for:

Sugar (GE sugar beets)
High Fructose Corn Syrup (GE corn)
Fructose, Dextrose, Glucose (GE corn)
Canola oil (GE rapeseed)
Soybean oil (GE soy)
Cottonseed oil (GE cotton)
Vegetable oil (GE rapeseed, GE soy, GE cotton)
Soy Lecithin (GE soy)
Corn starch (GE corn)

When you see “sugar” on the ingredients list, unless specified, it is usually genetically engineered sugar beets…and may contain residues of the toxic weed killer glyphosate. Glyphosate-sprayed GE beet sugar can be avoided by opting for products made with 100% cane sugar, evaporated cane juice, or organic sugar. Choose ethically sourced and organic sugar options whenever possible.

What are some alternatives?

When you make your Halloween grocery run, outsmart brands producing GMO-ridden treats by looking for products with certified organic and non-GMO labels. Watch out for Halloween candy and chocolates produced by Hershey’s, Mars, and Nestle, which are likely to contain GMO ingredients. Instead try treats from Newman’s Own, Jelly Belly, Chocolove, YummyEarth Organic Lollipops, Endangered Species Chocolate Bug Bites, or Amy’s Organic Candy Bites, which all avoid GMOs in their products. Making your own candy, chocolates, or snacks for your Halloween party is another fun, easy way to avoid frightening hidden ingredients. Check out our Halloween Organic and non-GMO candy guide for more tips on what to get for your neighborhood trick-or-treaters.

What else can you do?

Sign our petition to make sure all GMOs are labeled on the package, and be sure to have a spooktacular Halloween!

Big Island [Mega] Dairy Dumps on Local Communities

Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:00:00 -0700

Big Island Dairy’s website features a picture of barns beneath a clear blue sky, surrounded by lush, green pasture, with words like “local” and “fresh” describing the milk it produces. The pictures on the Dairy’s Facebook page similarly show dairy cows out in rolling hills of green pasture. Unfortunately, this image of pastoral bliss is not the reality facing the Dairy’s neighboring community of Ookala on Hawai‘i’s Big Island.

Big Island Dairy is not your typical local family dairy, it’s an industrial megadairy operated by the Idaho-based Steven and Derek Whitesides—who reside full time in Idaho—where they also own and operate another large-scale industrial dairy. The Whitesides purchased the facilities from a pre-existing dairy back in 2012 and since then have rapidly expanded its operations in order to maximize profit. As of April 2017, Big Island Dairy had more than 2,600 cows onsite. Despite pictures of cows in pasture on its Facebook page, the Dairy actually confines all of its active mature milking cows—the vast majority of the Dairy’s herd—indoors full-time.

The federal Clean Water Act defines a “concentrated animal feeding operation,” more commonly known by the acronym CAFO, based on the number of animals in confinement. Given the size of its operation, Big Island Dairy is regulated as a large CAFO under the Clean Water Act, and the discharge of animal waste from the Dairy’s hundreds of dairy cows is subject to the Act’s permitting requirements. But, the Dairy never obtained a permit for its CAFO operations.

The reality is that Big Island Dairy produces local pollution: lots and lots of it. The cows at Big Island Dairy produce a lot more than milk. Due to its size and confinement of animals, the Dairy generates millions of gallons of animal urine and feces that, if not properly handled and treated, become a significant public health and environmental risk.

No one knows those risks better than the community of Ookala, whose residents reside just downhill from the Dairy’s operations. The Dairy is supposed to collect and use all of the animal feces and urine generated by its cows onsite, by composting manure, applying it to the croplands, and storing liquid manure in at least two onsite storage lagoons. Instead, residents of Ookala have witnessed brown murky water smelling of animal feces—and which testing confirmed to contain high levels of dangerous bacteria—flowing from the Dairy into the community’s waterways, and ultimately into the Pacific Ocean. They have also observed the dairy spraying liquid manure on its crops during high-wind days, or immediately before or during rainfall, leading to increased runoff and drift. Animal waste from large CAFOs, such as Big Island Dairy, contains a myriad of pathogens and dangerous fecal coliform and E. coli bacteria.

And that’s not all: Big Island Dairy has a documented history of jeopardizing the local environment.

In 2014, after receiving a complaint of smelly brown water flowing into a local stream, the Hawai‘i Department of Health inspected the Dairy and ultimately confirmed that cow manure from the Dairy had contaminated local streams. In a December 2016 inspection report, the Department noted that the Dairy’s lagoon systems were so poorly maintained that there was “a high potential” of discharge. The Department also noted other troubling operational practices, including burying dead cows directly into an open pit in an existing gulch on its property that ultimately flows into local waterways, and unsafe storage and handling of toxic chemicals. Public records obtained from the State of Hawai‘i also show that the Dairy stores composted manure solids on an uncovered, concrete-padded loading area in close proximity to local streams.

Apparently unconcerned, Big Island Dairy continues to endanger the local community and the environment and the local community’s repeated efforts to get the industrial Dairy to stop contaminating local waterways have fallen on deaf ears.

The local community has had enough and, joining forces with the Center for Food Safety (CFS), is taking action. Even after CFS and the local group formally sent Big Island Dairy a notice of intent to sue on April 28, 2017, local residents continued to observe animal urine and feces flowing into local streams from the Dairy, prompting the groups to file a supplemental notice detailing the additional incidents of contamination. At a community meeting in May 2017, when asked if he would promise not to spray liquid manure over the crop fields under adverse weather conditions to reduce runoff and drift, Steven Whitesides, one of the owners of Big Island Dairy, refused to make that promise.

The inertia doesn’t stop with the Dairy: neither has the State of Hawai‘i taken adequate action to stop Big Island Dairy from polluting local waterways. The Department of Health has, on numerous occasions, found that the Dairy’s operations put the community and the local environment at risk, but it was only after the community groups sent the first formal notice of intent to sue that the Department of Health finally issued the Dairy a notice of violation. However, the Department’s eleventh hour notice only concerned one specific incident of discharge from one area of the Dairy’s operations. It does not address the multiple problems with the Dairy’s mismanagement, and has not stopped the Dairy from continuing dumping animal feces and urine into the waters of Hawai‘i.

That’s why on June 28, 2017, CFS, along with community group Kupale Ookala, sued Big Island Dairy, LLC for violating the federal Clean Water Act.

It’s a shame that the local community has been forced into litigation to resolve their concerns, but residents will not stand for this blatant law-breaking, nor the pollution of their environment, and are demanding environmental justice!

Originally published on Impact Fund's blog.

Activism as Art: Giving Dolores Huerta her Rightful Place in American History

Tue, 03 Oct 2017 00:00:00 -0700

Lessons Learned from the New Documentary “Dolores” about the Life of Dolores Huerta

We live at an age where personality cult is rife, yet there are fewer heroes. At the age of 87, the legendary organizer and United Farm Workers (UFW) co-founder Dolores Huerta is an American hero whose life’s work, amazingly, is still not done. Peter Bratt (Director) and Carlos Santana (Producer) tell her story in the new documentary Dolores, finally giving her the rightful place in history she deserves.

Why isn’t Huerta a household name outside of California?

Dolores sets out to answer this question while chronicling her relentless organizing and advocacy work spanning over six decades. Though she was an equal partner in co-founding the UFW alongside Cesar Chavez, she barely got credit. Oftentimes, she was the subject of blatant sexism and discrimination. Fortunately, Huerta never paid much attention to the naysayers and kept working day and night for farmworker justice.

Here’s what we learned from watching Dolores:

1. Huerta is closely connected to the rise of the environmental justice movement.

As the documentary points out, American farmworkers were amongst the first to question our deepening reliance on pesticides and industrial agriculture. Chronic exposure to toxic synthetic chemicals brought about a surge in birth defects and mystery illnesses in rural communities, mostly impacting people of color. As Gloria Steinem notes in the documentary: “To talk about grapes and lettuce produced in poverty and suffering felt like the first step. An additional step was to talk about grapes and lettuce produced in poisons.”

The documentary features archival footage of Huerta raising awareness on the impacts of pesticide poisoning during the Vietnam War era. In comparison, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring was published in 1962. A recent article by Martin Lukacs in The Guardian explains how neoliberalism has conned us into fighting climate change as individuals. With the challenges that lie ahead for the environmental movement and mankind in general, we must revisit Huerta’s notion of “people power” and solidarity amongst groups.

2. Huerta and Chavez’s professional relationship falls into the “It’s complicated” category.

In an interview featured in the documentary, the reporter asked Chavez why he picked Huerta, a woman, to work alongside him. He admitted that he preferred surrounding himself with women because they “do the work.” Despite that, sexism was rife within the UFW and for many years, Huerta was the only female Board member. Huerta called Chavez out over these issues in the media, which didn’t go down well with the UFW leadership. In the public eye, Huerta’s romantic relationship with Chavez’s brother added fuel to the fire. To this day Huerta is often referred to as Chavez’s ex-girlfriend.

3. After leaving the UFW, Huerta reinvented herself as an all-around activist.

Huerta co-founded UFW but wasn’t elected president of the union upon Chavez’s death in 1993. This part of the documentary will make you cringe, but Dolores Huerta wasn’t done quite yet. She went on to create the Dolores Huerta Foundation and continues to work as an educator, organizer, and activist.

CFS has been lucky to work with Dolores Huerta on food and environmental issues. Here’s Huerta at the Climate Rally in Washington, DC in November 2015, discussing the DARK Act and the urgent need to label genetically engineered foods in the United States:

In California, state offices and schools are closed on Cesar Chavez Day on March 31st. In Los Angeles, the famous Sunset Boulevard turns into Cesar Chavez Avenue. It’s about time for Dolores Huerta to receive similar recognition for her work. She clearly deserves it.

Dolores is in cinemas now! Get to know Dolores Huerta in this truly celebratory documentary. Find screenings and more information here.

A WonderfulDay of Action: How We Delivered Nearly 100K Signatures to The (Not So) Wonderful Company

Thu, 28 Sep 2017 00:00:00 -0700

On September 19th, California residents joined Center for Food Safety, Food and Water Watch, Daily Kos, and Climate Hawks Vote to deliver boxes of petition signatures to The Wonderful Company headquarters in West LA, urging the billion-dollar company to stop using oil wastewater to irrigate crops. Below is a recap of the event.

The Wonderful Company might not be a household name, but millions of Americans have enjoyed the company’s products, such as Halos™ mandarins, Wonderful Pistachios™ and POM Wonderful™ Juice. The $4 billion company was founded and is currently privately owned by Beverly Hills billionaires Stewart and Lynda Resnick. The Resnicks are widely known in Southern California for their philanthropic work and political contributions to both the Democratic and Republican Parties. But they are also major players in California water politics, leading some to dub them as the "Koch brothers of California water.“

It is less known that The Wonderful Company uses oil wastewater to irrigate their crops in Kern County, CA. We currently have very little information on the safety of this “water saving” practice. The main thrust of CFS’s campaign has been getting more information about the chemicals used in the process and whether they make it to the produce, and subsequently, the consumer. The purity of the end-product is not the only concern – we must also focus on the environmental and worker health issues stemming from exposure to toxic chemicals found in oil wastewater.

So what can be done? The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is the main agency that has the power to regulate the use of oil wastewater on crops, along with the local water district that is acquiring the water from the oil companies. The RWQCB claims to be addressing this issue, but the process is slow and very political.

Consumer pressure is an important tool to speed up the process for getting rid of the oil wastewater in our food system. This is why we decided to deliver our members’ petitions to The Wonderful Company in person.

The core of the action consisted of two parts: speeches and a theatrical petition delivery. We livestreamed the entire action — watch above! CFS’s Senior Attorney Adam Keats begins speaking at 4:10.

Statement from CFS’s Senior Attorney Adam Keats:

We are here to say that we know full well what it means to water our crops with toxic oil wastewater. It means chemicals, known and unknown, being flushed into our rivers and groundwater. It means chemicals, known and unknown, being sprayed on our food. And even if those chemicals slough off or get washed off before we eat those fruits, it means farmworkers breathing, touching, smelling, and tasting those chemicals. It means birds, fish, animals and bugs breathing, touching, smelling and tasting those chemicals.

We are here to say that we want nothing to do with this practice. We want nothing to do with the watering of food with oil wastewater, and just as importantly, we want nothing to do with the oil drilling that is creating that toxic water in the first place.

We are here to say that we know full well that using oil wastewater to grow crops is not water recycling—it is greenwashing the unnecessary use of massive amounts of water to extract oil and it is greenwashing the massive amounts of polluted wastewater that necessarily result from this toxic practice. It is greenwashing a toxic oil industry that simply should not exist—not here in California and not anywhere.

We are here to say that we know that the false logic on which this whole scheme is based necessarily resulted when our food production was taken over by corporations—when our family farms and community agriculture become Big Ag.

And we are here to say that we know that there is something that we can do about all of this. We know that we can stop buying these Big Ag products. We know that we can support farming practices that do not do more harm than good; that work in harmony with the environment rather than in competition with it. That support farmworkers with real living wages and a safe and healthy workplace.

We are here to say NO to Big Ag and its toxic stew of unsustainable crops, wasteful water use, and codependency with the worst and most harmful industry on this planet: the oil industry.

We are here to say NO to Big Ag polluting the environment, poisoning our food, and harming farmworkers.

Even though we delivered nearly 100K signatures that day, we will continue to put pressure on The Wonderful Company until Stewart and Lynda Resnick agree to stop irrigating our food with oil wastewater. Add your name! Tell The Wonderful Company: Don’t pollute our fruit!

PHOTO GALLERY:

Chain Reaction III - In Weaning Fast Food Off Drugs, Chickens Get the Better Deal

Wed, 27 Sep 2017 00:00:00 -0700

New report shows more restaurants are taking action to save antibiotics, but are slow to move beyond chicken

For the third year in a row, the Chain Reaction scorecard and report rates the top 25 U.S. restaurant chains on their commitments and actions to end antibiotics misuse in meat and poultry. Published by Center for Food Safety, Consumers Union, Food Animals Concerns Trust, Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group, this year’s report found that more of the largest restaurants are recognizing their important role in preserving human medicines by committing to restrict the use of medically important antibiotics.

What’s new in Chain Reaction III?

As pressure from consumers and medical health professionals grow, more companies are listening. The new report shows that 14 of the top 25 companies have now taken at least some steps to limit the use of antibiotics in all or some of their meat and poultry. These companies control or purchase a substantial portion of the animals raised for food in the U.S. Their progress in adopting, strengthening, and implementing restrictive antibiotics policies will likely continue to have ripple effects throughout the restaurant and food animal industries. While the individual corporate commitments vary in scope and progress towards completion, the industry as a whole is responding to concerns from the global community about antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

There has been a lot of progress worth celebrating. Five companies—KFC, Burger King, Starbucks, Dunkin’ Donuts, and Jack in the Box—announced plans to address antibiotics use in their supply chains since last year’s publication. With more than half of the top 25 companies taking at least a small step in the right direction, tackling the issue is now the norm rather than the exception in the industry.

What’s missing?

First, restaurants have focused almost all of their antibiotics action on changing the chicken supply. This is perhaps unsurprising, as several of the largest meat chicken producers in the U.S., like Tyson Foods and Perdue, have already transitioned some or all of their production to animals raised without routine antibiotics. Panera and Chipotle remain the only companies that currently source pork and beef raised without routine use of antibiotics, which was the case the first year this report was published. Subway’s commitment promises to bring its beef and pork supplies into compliance by 2025, but as of yet has made no public progress. Considering that we produce roughly 26 billion pounds each of beef and pork in the U.S. per year, routine antibiotics in pigs and cows cannot continue to go unaddressed.

Second, 11 of the 25 companies have failed to take any public steps on antibiotics use in their meat and poultry supply chains. More than half of these laggards are fast casual/dine-in chains that appear to be “casual” about the issue of antibiotic resistance as well, including Cracker Barrel, Olive Garden, Applebee’s, Chili’s, Buffalo Wild Wings, and IHOP.

Lastly, eliminating routine uses of medically important antibiotics is one component of a broader shift companies must take to reform the food animal industry and protect public health, the environment, and animals. Companies must continue to use their purchasing power and relationships with their meat and poultry suppliers to implement higher welfare standards that: prohibit all animal drugs used for growth promotion or disease prevention; and provide animals with adequate access to sunlight and the outdoors, sufficient space to turn around and lie down, and appropriate diet and nutrition.

Antibiotics Use and Resistance

This year’s report comes just one week after the World Health Organization published an alarming finding that the number of new antibiotic drugs in development is not enough to address the threat of multi-drug resistant bacteria. It is clear that in order to protect global health and preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics we must identify strategies for using existing antibiotics less. Restricting uses in food animals is critical to achieve reductions in overall use. Data collected by the Food and Drug Administration shows that approximately 70 percent of all medically important antibiotics and 80 percent of all antibiotics sold each year in the United States are intended for use in animals raised for food.[1] Historically, antibiotics have been given routinely to animals who are not sick, used instead to accelerate weight gain and prevent disease in intensive confinement. Ultimately, using antibiotics for these purposes put animal welfare at risk and maintain the factory farm status quo.

The practice of routinely administering doses of antibiotics to animals through feed and water is a key contributor to the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria, which can spread into communities via air, water, soil, meat products, and workers. Resistant bacteria make illnesses harder to treat, resulting in longer hospital stays and higher risk of death. They can also pass resistance on to other bacteria that have never been exposed to the antibiotics directly. “Bacteria that are resistant to several antibiotics are called “superbugs;” and we are now facing a reality in which superbugs are resistant to every life-saving antibiotic available.

Preserving these critical medicines and protecting public health requires ending the use of medically important antibiotics for growth promotion and disease prevention in all species raised for food and implementing higher welfare production practices that protect the health and well-being of the animals.

Sign our petition to tell the restaurants that received an “F” rating on our 2017 scorecard to adopt strong policies that prohibit antibiotics misuse in their meat and poultry!

How Monsanto Is Devastating Thousands of Farms Across 20 States

Fri, 08 Sep 2017 00:00:00 -0700

Monsanto's GE cotton and soybeans were made to be resistant to an herbicide that drifts to nearby crops.

Bill Bader is Missouri’s largest peach grower, supplying produce to retailers throughout the mid-South. But the last two years have found him struggling to save his farm. Thousands of his trees have defoliated limbs and walnut-size peaches not worth the picking, with 30,000 trees irreparably damaged.

Bader is not alone. Over 2,200 other farmers growing soybeans, tomatoes, melons, grapes and other crops across 20 states have reported crop damage on more than three million acres, slashing harvests by a third or more. Losses are estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

What’s responsible for this devastation? The agricultural community points to Monsanto’s introduction of cotton and soybeans genetically engineered to withstand dicamba, an old herbicide long notorious for its propensity to drift and damage nearby crops. These new GMOs have led to dramatically increased dicamba use and associated crop damage.

Many farmers have embraced dicamba-resistant soybeans and cotton because they see no alternative for controlling yield-robbing weeds that have evolved resistance to glyphosate (i.e. Roundup) and other herbicides. These resistant weeds infest over 60 million acres of U.S. cropland thanks to massive use of glyphosate on Monsanto’s Roundup Ready GMOs, which are genetically engineered to survive direct application of the herbicide.

Dicamba devastation should come as no surprise. Farmers and agronomists warned precisely of this outcome years ago. My organization and others urged USDA and EPA to deny approval of Monsanto’s GMOs and the use of dicamba on them. Instead, the government listened to Monsanto and BASF, which claimed that their new “low-volatility” dicamba formulations were unlikely to cause drift injury.

These assurances have been proven false, as dicamba drift injury complaints continue to flood in even with label-compliant use of the newer versions, first made available this year. It remains to be seen if extraordinary state-level dicamba restrictions will mitigate the problem, or if farmers will make good their huge losses through class-action lawsuits against Monsanto.

However, the problems extend well beyond dicamba. The pesticide-seed industry is developing scores of GMOs resistant to other (and multiple) herbicides, long its top R&D priority. By shifting herbicide use from planting time to later in the season—when neighboring crops have leafed out and are more susceptible to injury—herbicide-resistant crop systems pose a greater risk of crop damage than early season use of the same weed-killers with traditional crops. This helps explain why glyphosate became a leading cause of drift injury only in the Roundup Ready crop era.

And the issues extend well beyond crop damage. Herbicide-resistant crop systems are potent promoters of resistant weeds, promising a future of still more intensive herbicide use, with attendant risks to human health and the environment. Indeed, dicamba resistance is already beginning to emerge in Palmer amaranth, the most feared weed plaguing farmers, and ironically the one they most depend on dicamba to kill.

Moreover, herbicide drift pits farmer against farmer, "tearing at the fabric of rural America," as epitomized by a dicamba dispute that ended in a tragic gunshot death last October. Finally, many soybean and cotton farmers who have no interest in Monsanto’s new GMOs feel compelled to grow them anyway, purely to safeguard their own crops against drift.

Of course, this option is not available to Bill Bader, as he strives to save his peach farm, nor to many other threatened growers of fruits, vegetables, organic and non-GM crops. In an agricultural landscape dominated by GMO monocultures of corn, soybeans and cotton, increasing herbicide drift threatens to ruin many small family farmers, and eliminate what little agricultural diversity remains in the heartland.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Organic growers manage weeds entirely without the use of synthetic herbicides, and reap substantial premiums for their harvests. Low-input systems involving a greater diversity of crops help suppress weeds while slashing herbicide use by 80 percent, with no loss of revenue.

It’s long past time for USDA and EPA to stop approving these hazardous herbicide-resistant GMOs and use of their companion herbicides, and instead promote sustainable farming practices to help farmers meet the growing demand for healthier foods.

Originally published on AlterNet. This article was made possible by the readers and supporters of AlterNet.

What Netflix's Okja Gets Right about an Industrial Food Future

Tue, 22 Aug 2017 00:00:00 -0700

Netflix’s recent, original feature film Okja has triggered a bit of disruption amongst both those in the film industry and enthusiasts in the food movement. The movie targets several issues concerning the current state of our food system, and could be a great watch for those curious about where our food system could soon be headed.

Okja follows the fictional Mirando Corporation, a chemical weapons company looking to rebrand itself with the presentation of an exciting new discovery: the miraculous “superpig.” Mirando presents the animal as an ideal way to efficiently end world hunger. Along with their announcement is a competition. They have bred 10 superpigs, which will be raised by 10 smallholder farmers around the world to see who can raise the best animal. With her grandfather, a young Korean girl named Mija raises the superpig Okja, only to find herself in a fight against Mirando to save her best friend.

Mija’s and Okja’s journeys from Korea to New York serve to reveal the dangerous intentions of Mirando Corporation, the truth behind the origins of the superpigs, and a conceptual look into what truly goes on in industrial animal facilities. While Okja’s characters are fictional, the underlying story that is told is not far from reality. (In fact, Mirando Corporation sounds an awful lot like many big agribusiness corporations we know.)

Here are several aspects of the film that hold true:

1. Mirando Corporation’s lack of transparency

Mirando Corporation executives go to extreme measures to cover up their corrupt practices. They also mislead the public, claiming that a superpig was discovered in the wild and then bred naturally to produce only the 10 animals for the competition. In reality, we soon learn they genetically engineered the animals, created thousands, and confined them in a secret facility. Once the competition generated fanfare and interest, they could flood the market with superpig meat products.

This secrecy and corporate greed certainly takes place within the current industrial animal model, benefitting producers at the expense of animal health and consumers. The realities of the animals’ conditions inside animal factory systems are kept hidden from the public. Animal factory owners have lobbied governments to pass Ag-Gag laws, which threaten anyone who reveals the cruel treatment of food animals with severe fines or jail time. These laws restrict human and animal rights and impede the recording and reporting that has played a critical role in bringing awareness to the mistreatment of animals in factory farms. A new poll conducted by Mercy for Animals demonstrates that Americans care about holding farms accountable for their conditions and practices. Perhaps, consumers would make different decisions about their meat consumption if they were aware of the practices that are common in animal factories.

2. The move toward genetically engineered food animals

In Okja, it is revealed that Mirando created the superpigs through genetic engineering. GE food animals are not science fiction. Recently, AquaBounty salmon became the first genetically engineered food animal approved for human consumption by the FDA. Mirando’s executives insist that consumers do not care what they are eating as long as it is inexpensive, but public outrage towards GE salmon suggests otherwise. Before the salmon was approved, 300,000 concerned citizens signed a petition to Costco to reject the sale of GE salmon. In 2013, over 1.8 million comments were submitted telling the FDA not to approve GE salmon.

Nevertheless, there is continued interest by industry to genetically modify other food animals. For example, there are efforts to engineer pigs to excrete less phosphorus in their waste, reducing the nutrient pollution associated with hog factories,¹ rather than address the unsustainable levels of production that generate billions of gallons of manure every year. Such genetic alterations will continue to promote unsustainable confinement conditions that put food safety, human health, animal welfare, and the environment in jeopardy.

3. The horrors of intensive industrial animal production

In her quest to save Okja, Mija witnesses the horrific conditions and torture the superpigs experience from creation to slaughter at the hand of Mirando. Animals in CAFOs live similarly inhumane lives, confined to overcrowded, filthy feedlots or pens and subject to severe abuse. Often, they have limited space to move around and cannot avoid their own waste or the carcasses of other animals. Studies have found that overcrowding can result in increased aggression, injuries, and stress reactions in pregnant pigs.² It also promotes the spread of virulent diseases, such as increased risk of respiratory disease in cows due to airborne dust particles, humidity, and poor ventilation.³ Breeding animals for industrial conditions has severe health consequences, such as increased leg weakness and tail-biting in pigs selected for rapid growth.⁴

While not featured specifically in the film, animal factory operators rely heavily on a variety of animal drugs to force animals to gain weight faster and keep diseases at bay in such disgusting conditions. Several of these drugs have not been sufficiently proven to be safe for use, and recent science suggests they may have serious impacts on human health, animal welfare, or the environment. CFS has achieved some recent victories, primarily in encouraging the phaseout of certain medically important antibiotics given the public health crisis of antibiotic-resistant bacteria causing infections in humans. Yet, there still remain larger regulatory gaps regarding antibiotics, and rampant use of non-antibiotic drugs that prop up unsanitary and unhealthy conditions in CAFOs.

What can you do?

For now, Okja is science fiction. But it’s not an unreasonable stretch of the imagination. In the U.S. today, we over-consume animal proteins. This incentivizes the expansion of CAFO style production and the development of GE animals. Many people in the U.S. are recognizing the power of their dietary choices in shaping the future of our food system. In January 2016, the scientific advisory board that develops the Dietary Guidelines for Americans received backlash from industry on their decision to promote reduced consumption of animal-based foods in the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines, and encourage eating plant-based foods. The new guidelines generated an unprecedented 29,000 public comments, 75% of which “favored including the recommendations around less meat and supported the message of environmental health and sustainability benefits of reducing meat consumption.”

To reduce the major consequences on human health, animal welfare, and the environment associated with CAFOs and industrial animal production, we should all make more mindful choices and incorporate more plant-based foods. When meat does make it on the menu, look for organic, reliable certified humane, and 100% grassfed labels.

¹ S. Gottlieb & M.B. Wheeler (2011). Genetically Engineered Animals and Public Health, published by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), revised June 2011.
² Fraser, et al. (2013). “General Principles for the welfare of animals in production systems: The underlying science and its application,” The Veterinary Journal.
³ 2012 NASS Census of Ag.
⁴ Fraser, et al. (2013). “General Principles for the welfare of animals in production systems: The underlying science and its application,” The Veterinary Journal.

We're taking the Trump Administration to court to protect Washington's environment

Thu, 17 Aug 2017 00:00:00 -0700

Would you want to walk on this beach? Geoduck tubes, Totten Inlet 2008
(Credit: Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat)

Modern industrial shellfish operations are essentially oyster and clam CAFOs

The same Trump U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that approved the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline has now approved a new commercial shellfish aquaculture permit for Washington State. This irresponsible permit approval would allow a massive expansion of this already large industry, with no protections for wildlife, water quality, ecosystems, or people. So CFS is taking the Trump Administration to federal court to stop this dangerous permit.

Pacific oysters have long been produced in the cool waters of Washington State through aquaculture, once the wild harvest ran dry. However, modern industrial shellfish aquaculture in Washington is not your grandfather’s oyster farm. The industry, worth well over $100 million a year, has blown up in recent years, covering more and more acres of Washington’s shoreline. Under the watch of the Corps of Engineers, shellfish aquaculture now covers nearly a quarter of all Washington tide lands.

Modern industrial shellfish operations are essentially oyster and clam CAFOs, or “confined animal feeding operations.” Like their land-based cousins (housing thousands of pigs, chickens, or cows), industrial shellfish operations have substantial environmental impacts, including degradation of wildlife habitat and reductions to biodiversity. These operations introduce pollutants like pesticides and plastics into the marine environment, which already suffers from various forms of pollution (including from industrial dairy CAFOs) and a scourge of plastic waste.

1. CAFO Conditions

CAFOs are known for cramming too many animals into one space, to the detriment of those animals’ health, the environment, and people unlucky enough to live near a CAFO. One of the most notable problems with CAFOS is their concentration of a massive amount of waste on too little land. Industrial shellfish aquaculture operations employ a similar system, but do so in public waters and critical habitat for many species. A shellfish “CAFO” also concentrates waste in one place (as well as the pollutants discussed below), but because they exist in marine waters they pose unique problems beyond those we see with land-based CAFOs. These operations take up vast parcels of beach and house many thousands of farmed bivalves, which compete with wild species for food, leading to a reduction in biodiversity. In addition to waste deposition and food competition, these operations are often bad neighbors: Many Washingtonians forced to live near an industrial shellfish operation suffer from light and noise pollution and gear littered on the beach (either in place or strewn about after storms), which can make it impossible to walk on or enjoy a once picturesque beach. They ask: should our public waters and shorelines be entirely coopted for the profit of a few to the detriment of wild species and residents?

2. Pollutants

Plastics

Imagine walking out onto the once-picturesque beach and finding 42,000 PVC pipes jammed into the sand, covered in plastic anti-predator netting. This is a typical geoduck operation, the geoduck being a clam produced almost exclusively for the Asian luxury foods market.

Anti-predator netting is frequently used in clam production; however, studies show while it does not work very well to keep predators out, it does result in trapping of wildlife (like crabs, fish, and birds like juvenile bald eagles) and other negative changes to the beach structure. These nets often cover the entire area authorized for shellfish production, and pose a particular threat to forage fish, like Pacific herring, that spawn in these areas and are an important prey resource for many species, including Chinook salmon, steelhead, bull trout, and marbled murrelet. Not only that, these plastic pipes, nets, bags, racks, and other gear often become dislodged during storms, spreading the plastic pollution and causing hazards to people. These plastics can also break down into microplastics, which act like a poison pill to the creatures that ingest them, including the very oysters being cultivated.

Anti-predator nets cover beach in South Puget Sound (Credit: CPPSH)

Pesticides

If you follow Center for Food Safety’s work, you are familiar with the disturbing decline in pollinators, like honey bees, and increasing scientific confirmation that neonicotinoid insecticides (or neonics) are at least partly to blame. Well, bees are not the only organisms hurt by these neurotoxins; they are also highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates, like crabs. While there may not be many bees on the tidal flats where shellfish aquaculture takes place, there are many invertebrates that live on the ocean floor, including commercially important species like Dungeness crab. Only Washington State allows shellfish growers to use pesticides on their shellfish beds, and right now growers are seeking to use imidacloprid (one of the oldest neonics) to kill burrowing shrimp, which are native to Washington and a food source for many species, like endangered green sturgeon and salmon. The problem is that imidacloprid will kill off all invertebrates on the beds where it is sprayed, including important food sources for wildlife and people, and spread easily in water.

Currently, shellfish growers in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor (in southwestern Washington) have a permit to spray herbicide on eelgrass, a highly valued habitat for numerous species (including for food, shelter, and spawning), which absorbs carbon dioxide and produces oxygen, providing mitigation against ocean acidification due to climate change. Unfortunately, eelgrass is declining around the world, and Puget Sound Partnership, the Washington state agency leading the region’s collective effort to restore and protect Puget Sound, has identified eelgrass as a prime indicator of estuarine ecosystem health and has established a goal of increasing eelgrass area in Puget Sound by 20% by the year 2020. Intentionally killing off eelgrass flies in the face of this goal to protect the health of Washington’s marine ecosystems.

The Corps’ Unlawful 2017 Approval

Despite shellfish aquaculture’s negative impacts on wildlife and Washington’s shorelines, the Army Corps approved its expansion. The permit will allow an expansion to over a third of all Washington tidelines, from around 40,000 acres to 72,300 acres. The Corps attached no conditions to this permit to mitigate the impacts of shellfish aquaculture, or to prohibit some of the more damaging practices. CFS and other groups, tribes, and agencies all have grave concerns about the cumulative impact of this industrial activity on that many acres. Moreover, under an arbitrary definition of “new” operation, the Army Corps would consider almost all of that new acreage to be “existing,” meaning it can avoid any protections for eelgrass, forage fish, and other wildlife required for “new” aquaculture. Under the 2017 approval, an operation would be considered “existing” so long as some commercial shellfish activity took place in the area within the last 100 years. This means that an industrial-sized operation in 2018 would be “existing” if there was, say, a small oyster operation in the area in 1919, even with no aquaculture in-between. This will mean lots more aquaculture, and far fewer protections for essential aquatic habitat and wildlife.

This blatant disregard for the environment in favor of corporate profit has become typical of the Trump Administration. But the government’s duty is to safeguard the public interest, not corporate dollars. We must continue to demand and force urgent action, to protect people and the planet. That’s why CFS is standing up to the Trump administration in court to stop this approval and protect Washington’s wildlife, shorelines, and people.

Enemies of GE Labeling and Animal Welfare Aim Their Sights at Organic Integrity

Wed, 19 Jul 2017 00:00:00 -0700

By an overwhelming margin, Americans want their organic dairy and meat production to be subject to strong, mandatory humane practices. After years of pressure by consumer and animal welfare groups, the USDA has finally agreed to put improved measures in place. But Agriculture Committee Chairman Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS) wants no relief for these animals. In fact, he called the new animal welfare rules “absolutely ridiculous” and has been vocally opposed to implementing these long-awaited changes.

Six out of 10 U.S. consumers, regardless of whether they purchase organic foods, believe that it is very or extremely important that organic animals come from farms with strong animal welfare practices. For consumers that buy organic regularly, nearly 9 out of 10 feel this way. Apparently, Roberts is not into democratic decision-making and clearly doesn’t care about consumers’ expectations about organic, but he definitely does care about the $850,000 in donations he’s received from agribusiness over the last 5 years. Meanwhile, those critical animal welfare rules are on hold at the USDA, no doubt in part as a result of Roberts’ opposition.

Roberts not only wants to nullify the animal welfare rules, now he is out to undermine the integrity of the entire organic process itself. At a recent hearing Roberts proclaimed:

“Uncertainty and dysfunction have overtaken the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) and the regulations associated with the National Organic Program,” and this regulatory environment “prevent[s] farmers that choose organics from utilizing advancements in technology and operating their businesses in an efficient and effective manner.”

His statement is categorically untrue, but also deeply concerning. He has been successful in the past in assaulting food labeling and transparency. Roberts was the primary sponsor of the Senate version of the DARK Act—a bill that would have prevented states from labeling genetically engineered foods and left only voluntary labeling via electronic “smart labels” at the federal level.

To understand Roberts’ threat to the food system it’s important to do a brief review of how organic works. When they passed the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) during the 1990 Farm Bill reauthorization, Congress intentionally designed the organic program in a way that cultivates input from diverse stakeholders. OFPA created the NOSB specifically to ensure that the U.S. organic standards originated from the organic community and not from USDA.

Congress intended the NOSB to be the guardian and referee for organic standards by being a critical conduit by which the diverse perspectives in the organic community and the most current scientific research can be considered in developing and improving the standards. Congressman Peter DeFazio, one of the primary drafters of OFPA, testified during a USDA hearing that, “Public input was a major factor contributing to the success of the organic industry…A national organic label was meant to be developed as a public/private partnership with minimal influence by the Secretary. It is not much of a partnership if the Secretary can undo all of the input of citizens.”

What Senator Roberts calls an “antiquated government process” is actually an example of how transparency, public participation, and accountability can improve regulations. Any actions that undermine the authority of NOSB undermine the entire organic industry. The U.S. organic program was built and continues to improve based on input from our country’s organic producers, who routinely weigh in through rigorous NOSB and NOP processes to create the organic regulations that exist today. By threatening its function and authority, Senator Roberts stands to silence our nation’s organic growers.

The 2018 Farm Bill must support organic food and farming in the U.S. and protect our organic farmers and the integrity of the organic standards. Contrary to Senator Roberts’ misleading statements, targeting NOSB will undermine an industry that has grown to $43 billion annually. Rather, the Farm Bill initiative must focus on investing in organic research, which is central to increasing domestic organic production and innovation in this rapidly growing sector.

Now Is Our Chance to Get USDA to Label GMOs on the Package

Thu, 13 Jul 2017 00:00:00 -0700

We’ve fought for years for labeling of genetically engineered (GE or GMO) food. Now is our chance to finally get it.

As you may remember, a “compromise” bill on GMO labeling was passed last year, but a lot of the decisions about what foods would be labeled, and how they would be labeled, were left up to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The law includes labeling options other than on-package labeling, such as QR codes and websites, which would only serve to hide the information this law was passed to provide.

Big Ag and food companies have made it clear which option they support for labeling: QR codes. They know consumers don’t use these codes and that “labeling” via QR codes is really no labeling all. The USDA is now accepting comments on how GMOs should be labeled. Tell the agency to label GMOs, not hide them behind high-tech codes!

REQUIRE ON-PACKAGE LABELING

Only 64% of Americans own a smartphone. That means that more than a third of all Americans will not be able to access GMO information if products are labeled with QR codes. Moreover, those left out are disproportionately low income and those living in rural areas. According to Pew Research Center, only 50% of low income people in the U.S. own a smartphone; only 52% of rural Americans own a smartphone; and only 27% of seniors own a smartphone. Even those who do own smartphones are not guaranteed consistent access to the internet. At the end of the day, a substantial number of Americans would be deprived of their right to know if GMO labeling were implemented through QR codes.

In addition, electronic labeling disclosures put an undue burden on the shopper. It is completely unrealistic for a shopper to scan all of the many items s/he is shopping for on any given shopping trip (which for a family of 4 could easily amount to more than 50 items). This would be an undue burden on the consumer and not provide the easy access to information that is currently required for all other forms of food labeling. On-package labeling is simple, quick, and effective. QR codes, websites, and 1-800 numbers are not.

REQUIRE THE LABELING OF ALL GE FOODS

The USDA is also deciding which GMOs will get labeled.

The “bioengineered” definition and scope of the labeling law should ensure that all foods produced through genetic engineering are labeled; including those with ingredients derived from genetically engineered sources, such as highly refined sugars and oils and processed corn and soy ingredients. This should be the case even if the GE ingredients are present only at undetectable levels in the final product: they are still GE foods. The labeling law should ensure that ALL foods produced through genetic engineering are labeled, not cave in to big ag’s pressure to avoid labeling their products through a deceptive, narrow definition of GMOs.

If the USDA is to set a threshold, it should also be consistent with international standards, where the most common standard is mandatory disclosure of 0.9%, by individual GE ingredient. Similarly, the regulations should also ensure that any GE foods made with newer forms of genetic engineering, such as CRISPR and RNA interference (RNAi), are covered, also consistent with international standards and U.S. standards in other regulation.

Polls consistently show that nearly 90% of Americans want to know whether the foods they purchase are produced using genetic engineering, through clear, on-package labeling disclosures. Congress recognized the public’s right to know in passing the GE labeling law. Now, it is critical that the USDA regulations and implementation of the GE labeling law accurately reflect the intent of Congress when they passed the law, provide consistency with international standards, and provide easy access to this information to all Americans.

Finally, USDA should require labeling with terms that are familiar to consumers, such as “genetically engineered” and “produced with genetic engineering” but not vague statements like “may be produced with genetic engineering.” Labeling should be required for processed foods and bulk goods alike. If a symbol is used it should be “GE” or “GMO,” again terms that most consumers are already familiar with.

REQUIRE LABELING IN A TIMELY FASHION

Americans have already waited long enough for GE food labeling. USDA must meet the Congressional deadline and issue it has proposed and then final rules by July 29, 2018. Manufacturers have already had years’ worth of notice and preparation to provide this information, at the state and federal level. Indeed, many major food companies are already labeling and have been for some time. It would be unfair to Americans, and unnecessary given the recent history of GE labeling, to give more than a short effective date.

TAKE ACTION

The USDA has heard from big corporations – now they need to hear from you! Tell the agency to label ALL GMOs on the package. Get it done!

5 Things You Need to Know About the Big Island [MEGA] Dairy

Wed, 28 Jun 2017 00:00:00 -0700

Photo Credit: Kupale Ookala

Today the Center for Food Safety, along with community group Kupale Ookala, sued Big Island Dairy, LLC for violating the federal Clean Water Act. Who is Big Island Dairy, and why has CFS filed a lawsuit against it?

Big Island Dairy’s website features a picture of barns beneath a clear blue sky, surrounded by lush, green pasture, and the phrase, “LOCAL. FRESH. MILK.” The pictures on the Dairy’s Facebook page similarly show dairy cows out in rolling hills of green pasture. Unfortunately, this image of pastoral bliss could not be any further from the abhorrent conditions facing the Dairy’s neighboring community of Ookala. Read on to find out the truth about Big Island Dairy.

1. Big Island Dairy is not your typical local family dairy.

Big Island Dairy is an industrial megadairy operated by the Idaho-based Steven and Derek Whitesides—who reside full"‘time in Idaho—where they also own and operate another large-scale industrial dairy. The Whitesides purchased the facilities from a pre-existing dairy back in 2012 and since then, have rapidly expanded its operations in order to maximize profit. As of April 2017, Big Island Dairy had more than 2,600 cows onsite. Despite pictures of cows in pasture on its Facebook page, the Dairy actually confines all of its active mature milking cows—the vast majority of the Dairy’s herd—indoors full-time.

The federal Clean Water Act defines “concentrated animal feeding operation,” more commonly known by the acronym CAFO, based on the number of animals in confinement.¹With more than 700 mature dairy cows, Big Island Dairy is regulated as a large CAFO under the Clean Water Act, and the discharge of animal waste from the Dairy’s hundreds of dairy cows is subject to the Act’s permitting requirements.² But the Dairy has never obtained a permit for its CAFO operations.

2. Big Island Dairy produces local pollution. Lots and lots of it.

The cows at Big Island Dairy produce a lot more than milk. As a large CAFO, the Dairy also generates millions of gallons of animal urine and feces that, if not properly handled and treated, becomes a significant public health and environmental risk.

No one knows those risks better than the community of Ookala, whose residents reside just downhill from the Dairy’s operations. The Dairy is supposed to collect and use all of the animal feces and urine generated by its cows onsite, by composting manure, applying it to the croplands, and storing liquid manure in at least two onsite storage lagoons. Instead, residents of Ookala have witnessed brown murky water smelling of animal feces—and which testing confirmed to contain high levels of dangerous bacteria—flowing from the dairy into the community’s waterways, and ultimately into the Pacific Ocean. They have also observed the dairy spraying liquid manure on its crops during high-wind days, or immediately before or during rainfall, leading to increased runoff and drift. Animal waste from large CAFOs such as Big Island Dairy contains a myriad of pathogens and dangerous fecal coliform and E. coli bacteria.

3. Big Island Dairy has a documented history of jeopardizing the local environment.

In 2014, after receiving a complaint of smelly brown water flowing into a local stream, the Hawaii Department of Health inspected the Dairy and ultimately confirmed that cow manure from the dairy had contaminated local streams. In a December 2016 inspection report, the Department noted that the dairy’s lagoon systems were so poorly maintained that there was “a high potential” of discharge.³ The Department also noted other troubling operational practices, including burying dead cows directly into an open pit in an existing gulch on its property that ultimately flows into local waterways, and unsafe storage and handling of toxic chemicals. Public records obtained from the State of Hawai‘i also show that the Dairy stores composted manure solids on an uncovered, concrete-padded loading area in close proximity to local streams.

4. Big Island Dairy continues to endanger the local community and the environment.

The local community’s repeated efforts to get the industrial dairy to stop contaminating local waterways have fallen on deaf ears. Even after CFS and the local group formally sent Big Island Dairy a notice of intent to sue on April 28, 2017, local residents continued to observe animal urine and feces flowing into local streams from the Dairy, prompting the groups to file a supplemental notice detailing the additional incidents of contamination. At a community meeting in May 2017, when asked if he would promise not to spray liquid manure over the crop fields under adverse weather conditions to reduce runoff and drift, Steven Whitesides, one of the owners of Big Island Dairy, refused to make that promise.

5. The State of Hawaii has not taken adequate action to stop Big Island Dairy from polluting local waterways.

The Department of Health has, on numerous occasions, found that the Dairy’s operations put the community and the local environment at risk. But it was only after the community groups sent the first formal notice of intent to sue that the Department of Health finally issued the Dairy a notice of violation. However, the Department’s eleventh hour notice only concerned one specific incident of discharge from one area of the Dairy’s operations. It does not address the multiple problems with the Dairy’s mismanagement, and has not stopped the Dairy from continuing dumping animal feces and urine into the waters of Hawaii.

These are some of the reasons why CFS has decided to stand with the community of Ookala and take on the megadairy. Click here to find out more about how you can join us in that fight.

¹See 40 C.F.R. § 122.23(a).
²See 40 C.F.R. § 122.23(b)(4).
³Clean Water Branch, Hawai‘i Dep’t of Health, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations NPDES Inspection Report 9-10 (Dec. 14, 2016).

"Food Evolution" Film: Propaganda and Pandering

Fri, 23 Jun 2017 00:00:00 -0700

I’ve written about pro-GMO propaganda before – about the “Big Lie.” It’s a term that refers to a propaganda or advertising technique by which first you say the opposite of an obvious truth about an event or product, and then keep repeating and repeating that lie until it becomes an unquestioned mantra for the public. So no matter how much the lie defies common sense it over time becomes commonplace.

We’ve seen this tactic used time and time again with powerful agrochemical industries looking to promote GMOs as the beneficial foods of the future: feeding a growing population, increasing yields, and reducing pesticide use (claims that bear no relation to reality). Most recently, these pro-GMO lies are being pushed in a new film called “Food Evolution.”

Though I am featured in the film—and am even included in the filmmakers’ description of the film as an expert they “enlisted”--it should be made abundantly clear that I did not agree to be interviewed or included in this film. I was contacted numerous times by filmmakers to be interviewed for the film and said “no” to each request. The footage they do include of me was taken from a GMO debate event that I attended where I made comments from the audience, not knowing that I was being filmed.

From its inception, the film was planned as chemical-industry propaganda. According to U.S. Right to Know, "Food Evolution" was planned in 2014 and funded by the Institute for Food Technologists (IFT), a trade group partly funded by big food and chemical corporations. The group's president at the time was Janet Collins, a former DuPont and Monsanto executive who now works for CropLife America, the pesticide trade association. IFT's current president-elect Cindy Stewart works for DuPont.

More importantly, I want to make it clear that in addition to my refusal to be interviewed for this film, I wholeheartedly disagree with the messages this film attempts to convey. For more than two decades, the promotion of GMOs in the United States and worldwide has been based in the Big Lie.

But the reality is that these pro-GMO lies are just that – they’re false, and there’s strong evidence confirming this. Over the years, we’ve seen that GMOs have not significantly increased crop yields, nor have they led to more effective drought resistance crops. And as for the claim of less pesticide use, it couldn’t be further from the truth: the rapid spike in uses of GMOs has actually added hundreds of millions of pounds of toxic pesticides that are probable carcinogens to our fields and crops, and created greater agrochemical residues on our food. Why? Because the vast majority of GMOs are meant to be used hand-in-hand with pesticides.

It’s unfortunate that “Food Evolution” perpetuates the “Big Lie”. Instead of the fair and balanced approach the filmmakers tout, they instead simply extoll the virtues of GMOs and do their best to make anyone who disagrees with them look foolish, and they ignored any science or scientists who didn’t fit their agenda. As Marion Nestle says of the film: “If you want a thoughtful discussion of the real issues raised by food biotechnology, you will need to look elsewhere.”

Out to Pasture? USDA May Scrap Key Protections for Organic Animals and Consumers

Thu, 08 Jun 2017 00:00:00 -0700

People choose organic foods because they believe that they were produced with integrity by farmers committed to strong standards of care for the planet and all its inhabitants. They trust that the organic seal has meaning, and that it guarantees consistency across all products and brands. However, USDA has delayed, and may possibly scrap hard-fought organic animal welfare gains.

For certified organic meat and dairy, consumers believe that the animals spend a significant amount of time outside and are treated humanely. According to a recent survey by Consumers Union, 6 out of 10 U.S. consumers, regardless of whether they purchase organic foods, believe that it is very or extremely important that organic animals come from farms with high welfare practices. For consumers that buy organic regularly, nearly 9 out of 10 feel this way.

That is why CFS and thousands of farmers, consumers, scientists, advocates, and environmentalists, have spent more than a decade creating new rules that improve upon the current standards for organic animal production. After a rigorous, participatory process, the rule finally crossed the finish line in January 2017. The much-needed update addresses certain ambiguities in the existing regulations to ensure that animals on all organic farms in the U.S. are provided the same basic level of welfare. But now, USDA Secretary Perdue and President Trump are impeding this progress and threatening to completely pull the rule.

What does the rule do?

The majority of the rule is non-controversial. It establishes greater clarity regarding the practices, conditions, and treatment that are required or prohibited for livestock producers to qualify for organic status. The rule clarifies that animal husbandry is about more than simply providing 100% organic feed and eliminating the use of growth promoting drugs or other unapproved synthetics.

Several inhumane physical alterations, like tail docking, tooth clipping, and beak trimming, are prohibited or severely restricted. New language requires that animals have access to suitable outdoor space and an appropriate indoor environment. The rule also maintains a great deal of flexibility, allowing farmers to tailor their operations based on site-specific conditions.

In the case of poultry, the rule sets out specific minimum space requirements for indoor and outdoor areas. USDA has clearly stated that all organic chicken meat producers comply with the new rule already and “most organic egg producers could comply with the proposed indoor [space requirements] with minor or no changes to their current operation.”¹² Similarly, “many organic poultry producers currently provide [the recommended] outdoor”³ space per bird.⁴ A 2014 survey by Organic Egg Farmers of America confirmed that the majority of organic egg producers representing the majority of organic egg production already adhere to the practices and standards set forth in the new rule.⁵

Why is it being stalled?

A few members of Congress started targeting the rule last year, under pressure from a small group of very large egg producers. Unlike the majority of producers, this small group of large producers does not provide appropriate outdoor space for their hens and will not meet the new standards. This handful of large producers has considerable lobbying power that has pushed members of Congress in their states to oppose the rule, and unfortunately, USDA has listened.

What can we do?

Although the rule was finalized in January 2017, USDA has twice delayed its effective date. The rule is now set to go into effect November 14, but its fate is uncertain. On the same day that USDA delayed the rule for a second time, the Agency issued another proposed rule inviting public comment on how they should move forward. The Agency is now considering suspending the rule indefinitely or even withdrawing it entirely. We cannot let this happen.

It is critical to have our voices heard and to continue showing USDA that the majority of consumers and farmers support the rule. Comments can be submitted until 11:59pm EST on Friday, June 9th.

Organic meat and dairy production is good for business, good for local communities, good for the environment, and mostly, good for our health. Organic must continue to grow and be a strong label that consumers can trust. To further delay, suspend, or withdraw the new regulations puts the entire organic industry in jeopardy.

¹Federal Register Vol. 81 No. 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016), 21956-22009. National Organic Program; Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices, at 21989.
²Federal Register Vol. 81 No. 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016), 21956-22009. National Organic Program; Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices, at 21991.
³Federal Register Vol. 81 No. 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016), 21956-22009. National Organic Program; Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices, at 21990.
⁴Federal Register Vol. 81 No. 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016), 21956-22009. National Organic Program; Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices, at 21991.
⁵OEFA survey.

Generally Recognized as Safe (Because Industry Says So)

Mon, 22 May 2017 00:00:00 -0700

Epigallocatechin"‘3-gallate. Gamma"‘amino butyric acid. Theobromine. Nano-scale titanium dioxide.

Most consumers expect the foods they purchase and feed their families to be free of chemicals like these—chemicals that they can barely pronounce and the effects of which may be completely unknown and untested. Yet over the past decade, ingredients like these and an estimated 3000 others have been added to our food supply without U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) review, approval, or even knowledge.[1]

We know that consumers expect more from FDA, and the law does too. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act sets the standards for the safety of our food supply. It requires FDA to ensure that potential food additives are safe—including lab-created chemical substances that have never been used before. FDA is required to take into account consumers’ entire diet and all exposures to a chemical and similar chemicals before allowing a new chemical to be used in food. The only exception is for substances that are “generally recognized as safe” or “GRAS.” Substances such as oils and vinegar that are considered “GRAS” can be used in food without going through the pre"‘market review and approval process that is required for food additives.

And yet, despite what the law requires, it has been just over twenty years to the day since FDA handed over its legal authority to ensure food is safe to the very industry it is required to regulate. This has caused many potentially harmful food additives and chemical substances to enter the food supply, unchecked.

In May 1997, FDA proposed a practice of allowing food and chemical manufacturers to decide for themselves that their own chemicals are safe, and to simply keep FDA and the public in the dark about those decisions. Under the proposal, FDA would not independently determine whether food additives or purported GRAS substances were safe. Instead, it would take industry’s word. And—because the proposal made it completely optional for manufacturers to even ask FDA for permission to market a chemical—if FDA raised any concerns about a chemical, the manufacturer would still have the option of simply marketing the ingredient without telling FDA.

FDA operated under this proposal for 17 years, until in 2014 CFS took FDA to court to challenge it—and won. As a result of our lawsuit FDA was forced to finalize the proposal, and in so doing, was forced to explain its rationale for adopting such a misguided and disastrous approach. Now that FDA has adopted the practice into law, CFS is back in court to challenge it.

By now, we may come to expect the president and his administration to easily sacrifice the public good for private industry interests. Yet when the federal government is required by law to regulate an industry, it is unconstitutional for it to turn its power over to that industry.

The secrecy of the GRAS system deprives the public from vital information about what is in their food and how it is produced. It also makes it impossible for manufacturers to ensure their chemicals are safe for consumers who may already be consuming other similar chemicals. The fact that GRAS determinations can be kept secret from FDA—so neither FDA nor manufacturers can assess the cumulative impact of chemicals being added to food—means that neither FDA nor manufacturers can truly determine if new uses of these ingredients are safe. Because FDA does not require manufacturers to keep records of their self-determinations, FDA cannot even enforce this law against manufacturers who have, in fact, never assessed whether their products are safe.

The GRAS loophole is unconstitutional, illegal, and not what Congress intended. And the public is suffering as a result.

Today, on the twenty-year anniversary of this absurd scheme, CFS has decided that enough is enough. The government may be willing to put consumers at risk by handing over its power to chemical manufacturers, but CFS is not. That’s why we and the environmental law firm Earthjustice are representing CFS, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Environmental Defense Fund and Environmental Working Group in a lawsuit against FDA for unconstitutionally and illegally delegating its legal authority to self-interested food and chemical manufacturers.

We will continue to fight on behalf of food safety for all Americans. Click here to find out more about how you can join us in that fight.

[1] Pew Charitable Trusts, “Fixing the Oversight of Chemicals Added to Our Food” (2013), http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2013/11/07/fixing-the-oversight-of-chemicals-added-to-our-food.

This Mother's Day, Celebrate Your Mother and Mother Earth with Pollinator-Friendly Plants

Fri, 12 May 2017 00:00:00 -0700

Every May, adults and children alike are tasked with a daunting mission—to somehow thank our mothers for everything they’ve done for us over the years. Classic Mother’s Day traditions include a sentimental card, breakfast in bed, and of course, flowers. This Mother’s Day, take the opportunity to celebrate not only your mother, but also the mother we all share – Mother Earth – by purchasing and/or planting pollinator-friendly flowers.

Mother's Day comes at a great time of year for planting in much of the country. We strongly encourage planting native flower species, which are already adapted to the soil and climate of the area, and provide a perfect habitat for local pollinators. If purchasing plants from a nursery store, make sure to check that they haven’t been treated with bee-toxic pesticides. More on that here. After planting the flowers, do not use chemical pesticides or fertilizers on them.

Here are some helpful suggestions for pollinator-friendly flowers that are native to your region:

Mid-Atlantic
• Lanceleaf coreopsis
• Wild indigio
• Purple coneflower
• Bottle gentian
• New England aster

Maritime Northwest
• Bigleaf and riverbank lupine
• Common camas
• Douglas meadowfoam
• Meadow checkermallow
• Slender clarkia
• Large flowered collomia

Great Lakes
• Lanceleaf coreopsis
• Wild lupine
• Purple coneflower
• Bottle gentian
• Calico aster
• Great blue lobelia

California
• Baby blue eyes
• Common tidytips
• California poppy
• Elegant clarkia
• Common sunflower
• California fuschia

Midwest
• Cream wild indigo
• Wild geranium
• Smooth penstemon
• Wingstem
• Bottle gentian
• Calico aster

Northeast
• Wild geranium
• Spiderwort
• Wild golden glow
• New England aster
• Cardinal flower

Southeast
• White wild indigo
• Clasping coneflower
• Eastern smooth penstemon
• Lanceleaf coreopsis
• Black-eyed susan
• Eastern rosemallow

Southern Plains
• Cream wild indigo
• Prairie penstemon
• Scarlet globemallow
• Blanketflower
• Purple poppy mallow

Happy Mother’s Day, and happy planting from all of us at CFS!

Wielding our Political Power for Progress in the Food Movement

Thu, 11 May 2017 00:00:00 -0700

Five years ago today, I closed out my first legislative session as a grassroots lobbyist. At that time, I was an active member of the all-volunteer Hawaii Food Policy Council, a project I helped co-create in the context of my doctoral research on food activism in the United States. For those who wonder why I got into the game of policy, as opposed to other forms of activism in and around food, you can read more about the awakenings of my political consciousness in this blog post.

I was starting to understand then, as I understand fully now, that although we have great power living in a democratic political system, we do not always know how to effectively wield that power. And, unfortunately, in the absence of an informed and engaged and citizenry, our institutions are being co-opted by great corporate and ideological powers that are destroying our planet. As Van Jones so cogently emphasized in his interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!, we need people power in the streets and people power in government. Both are necessary for effective progressive action to happen.

That’s why I am proud to be a lobbyist. I know that the word is often spat out of the mouths of those who hate “the system,” however I see the skills I have acquired in the past five years of working at the legislature as part of a critical stopgap from total corporate take-over. We need these skills as we simultaneously build lives and communities that are independent from corporate/colonial power. (We also need better election skills – which is why I am so endlessly grateful for the Kuleana Academy and the visionaries its equipping to run for office).

I remember how lonely it felt at the legislature in my early days working as a young progressive on food issues. Today, it absolutely does not feel that way. Through this session we worked hand-in-hand with allies from organizations like Sierra Club of HawaiÊ»i, HawaiÊ»i Alliance for Progressive Action (HAPA), Surfrider Foundation of OÊ»ahu, AiKea Movement, HawaiÊ»i SEED, Young Progressives Demanding Action (YPDA), Aloha ‘Ä€ina Project, Babes Against Biotech, and Pesticide Action Network North America. Most importantly, this session we worked with YOU:

Online Campaigns: Through membership outreach and online campaigns, we facilitated over 3,000 actions, including testimony submissions, emails urging legislators to hear bills, and phone calls to key legislators.

Citizen Lobbying: We built out a broader base of volunteer lobbyists from across the islands, hosting four community lobby days with over 20 volunteers.

Partnership Building: We re-launched the Protect Our Keiki Coalition, deepening partnerships and building new ones with organizations like Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action, the AiKea Movement and the Young Progressives Demanding Action.

Watchdogging: We were a resource on any pesticide-related legislation and action opportunities, actively tracking over 60 bills.

Independent Journalism: We produced powerful independent media highlighting community voices and our legislative heroes, while holding our opponents accountable with a reach of over 200,000.

Press Coverage: We received major coverage in the Star Advertiser, Civil Beat, and The Garden Isle, along with 65 national publications covering the public demand for pesticide regulation.

Our Wins

Our Carbon Farming Task Force Bill (HB 1578) is on its way to the Governor! The bill creates a task force that enables the state to offer local farms and ranches carbon credits for their efforts to improve soil health and sequester carbon. Soil health initiatives are sprouting up around the country, and Hawai‘i will now become a leader in this hopeful movement. Our bill was supported by the Surfrider Foundation OÊ»ahu and the Sierra Club of HawaiÊ»i and was written in partnership with Center for Food Safety’s Soil Solutions program.

We successfully stopped multiple industry bills aimed at attacking small farmers (HB452), repealing the organic farming tax credit (HB961) and setting unreasonable standards that mandate all applicators of any pesticide be forced to report their usage (HB1302). We deepened relationships with our core allies at the legislature while cultivating new relationships with key legislators, educating them on the critical importance of this issue.

This session we continued to lobby a suite of legislation aimed at reforming the regulatory framework for pesticide use in the state of HawaiÊ»i. Unfortunately, HB 790, SB 804, and half a dozen other bills didn’t make it through, but we did make it further than ever before. The bottom line is that we had more hearings, more public engagement, and more well-informed legislators speaking out publically in favor of our issues. The rhetoric is shifting. The public is watching and holding their legislators accountable.

The fight for a more sustainable food future for HawaiÊ»i is far from over. It’s up to us as citizens to step up and get involved.

Our Policy Priorities Moving Forward

With legislative session now closed, our focus at HCFS has shifted back to Governor Ige, as he has the authority to advance these regulations. We will be extending our legislative program year-round to continue to educate, build relationships and draft meaningful policy for the 2018 legislative session. HCFS will continue its campaign to pass legislation that would strengthen the state’s regulation and oversight of pesticides and push to advance regenerative farming and sustainable food policies.

We only win this battle if we fight together.

'A'ohe hana nui ke alu 'ia. There is no task too great when we come together.

Pupukahi i holomua. Join as one to advance forward.

EPA Should Look North For Guidance on Neonicotinoids

Fri, 05 May 2017 00:00:00 -0700

You’ve heard it before: bees are dying at alarming rates and research continues to point to a toxic class of insecticides (neonicotinoids) as a leading contributor to pollinator declines. Unfortunately, bees aren’t the only species jeopardized by the widespread use of neonicotinoids. Known for their water solubility and persistence, neonicotinoids are contaminating American waterways across the country and causing severe threats to aquatic ecosystems and, by extension, the country’s long-term environmental health and economic prosperity.

So where’s the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)? Ignoring the clear risks highlighted in the growing body of peer-reviewed research, the EPA has yet to take concrete actions to reduce current contamination of water bodies and prevent future harms to these aquatic ecosystems. In fact, in their December 2016 aquatic risk assessment, the EPA finally acknowledged the alarming levels of contamination from one neonicotinoid chemical, imidacloprid, in waterways. However, while the agency proposed more conservative toxicity benchmarks for aquatic life (which are essentially unenforceable guidelines), they did nothing in the way of creating stronger protective regulations, restricting uses, or implementing comprehensive water quality monitoring.

Why is this so outrageous? For starters, in its own risk assessment, EPA scientists concluded, “It is evident, […] that concentrations of imidacloprid detected in streams, rivers, lakes, and drainage canals routinely exceed acute and chronic toxicity endpoints derived for freshwater invertebrates.”

In other words, the EPA recognizes that these chemicals are harming the foundation of aquatic ecosystems—the very species that are the primary food source for birds, fish, and amphibians, and are responsible for critical ecosystems functions. Still, despite a clear acknowledgment of risk, EPA has taken no action and instead has extended its own timeline for completing the neonicotinoid registration reviews until the winter of 2018/2019.

So where do we go from here? Perhaps EPA should follow the lead of our northern neighbors. In November 2016, Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) released a re-evaluation of imidacloprid. Their review includes comprehensive data regarding the fate and transport of imidacloprid, as well as research and monitoring studies showing the vast contamination from this chemical across Canadian waterways. PMRA’s re-evaluation report concludes, “imidacloprid is being measured at levels that are harmful to aquatic insects” and “the continued high volume use of imidacloprid in agricultural areas is not sustainable.” In response to their findings, PMRA proposed a phase-out of all agricultural uses and a majority of outdoor uses of imidacloprid.

The actions of Canada’s PMRA are precisely the type of strong, effective actions desperately needed in the United States. CFS submitted comments in support of PMRA’s proposed phase-out, and we will continue to call on EPA to take quick, decisive actions to prevent against further contamination of our country’s water bodies.

In an effort to increase awareness about these issues and direct EPA’s attention to critical new science that’s emerging, CFS released a new report, Water Hazard 2.0: Continued Aquatic Contamination from Neonicotinoid Insecticides. The report again calls on EPA to take stronger actions to protect aquatic ecosystems from the continued, largely unnecessary, use of these toxic chemicals. The report cites an array of monitoring data including a 2016 United States Geological Survey (USGS) review of pesticide detections in streams across the Midwest, where imidacloprid was found in 98% of sites sampled at concentrations known to be harmful to aquatic invertebrates, as well as a 2017 USGS report that found neonicotinoids in 100 percent of samples taken from the University of Iowa tap water. The report also highlights key points from new research on the long term toxicity and unique threats to vulnerable species.

The science is clear—bee-killing neonicotinoid insecticides are causing more harm than good, and need to be restricted to prevent further contamination of our waterways. For more than five years, CFS has been at the forefront of fighting for pollinators and will continue to stand with beekeepers, farmers, scientists and consumers in advocating for a major shift away from our pesticide-intensive agricultural system. If you’d like to learn more about our pollinator protection efforts, visit our website.

Trump's First 100 Days of Cozying Up to Big Ag

Mon, 01 May 2017 00:00:00 -0700

As of April 29th, Donald Trump has held the office of president for 100 days. It is ironically fitting that his 100th day in office coincided with the People’s Climate March in Washington, D.C. and sister marches around the world. Many of the Trump administration’s actions so far indicate that the next four years are going to be a long row to hoe for those of us at the frontlines of protecting our food, farms, and environment from the devastating impacts of manmade climate change. Here are just a few (of the many) ways the new administration has managed to undermine the safety and security of our food system, in its first 100 days alone:

Placing Foxes in the Henhouse: Trump appointed as head of USDA the Big Ag ally Sonny Perdue, who the ag biotech industry once awarded their “governor of the year”. Perdue is someone with a poor track record of being able to ensure food safety, and for discriminating against farm workers. In part because of ethics concerns, farmers and consumers had to wait a record 95(!) days before the new agency head started the job.

Slashing Budgets for Needed Protections: Trump cut the USDA budget by 21 percent, threatening food safety and public health in likely innumerable ways, such as eliminating review of endocrine disruptor screening under the Food Quality Protection Act and important updates to the Food Safety Modernization Act.

Harming Rural Communities and Families: Put the livelihoods of farm workers and farming communities across the country at risk by threatening to deport immigrant workers and approving new toxic pesticides, while refusing to ban others.

Rolling Back Urgently Needed Progress on Climate Change: Signed an Executive Order to roll back progress on climate change action and greenhouse gases, with special intention to unravel the Clean Power Plan. Farmers and our food system will bear the brunt here: Unseasonable temperatures, floods, drought, and disruptions in pollination are all effects of endorsing a pollution-producing economy that contributes to climate change.

Starting a War on Transparency: As part of a larger agenda of new limits on government transparency, directed the FDA to use the courtroom to keep documents under wraps that could prove the agency approved AquaBounty’s GE salmon through backroom deals.

Reneging on a Pesticide Ban: EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt put communities, farmers and the environment at risk by directing EPA to renege on a proposed ban of the brain-damaging pesticide, chlorpyrifos. Chlorpyrifos is heavily used on many staple foods, and has been found to harm kids’ development.

Approving Novel Pesticides and GE Crops: Speaking of toxic pesticides, Trump’s EPA approved a novel pesticide combo manufactured by – you guessed it – Big Ag’s Dow Chemical. In addition to health risks, significant crop damage from pesticide drift, and increases in both weed resistance and pesticide use, spraying Enlist Duo on millions of acres will harm pollinators and contaminate waterways and important wildlife habitat. CFS filed a lawsuit against the approval.

Attempting to Rule by Executive Order Fiat: Most recently, and perhaps most egregiously, Trump signed (yet another) Executive Order that creates a new task force to recommend eliminating food and agriculture legislation, policies, and regulations that might hinder the profit-making of “agribusiness”. Regulations regarding the oversight, production, and export of genetically engineered crops are high on the list. The Executive Order also seems to push for faster and/or easier approvals for pesticides and biotech crops, pushing biotech crops abroad to ease export market access, easing the privatization of scarce public water resources for corporate gain, and opening public lands up to mining, farming, ranching and other activities that don’t belong on our public lands.

If the first 100 days of the Trump Administration are any indicator, we’ve clearly got our work cut out for us as we continue to fight for a safe, sustainable, and secure food future. We’re ready to do it, and we hope you’ll join us.

Connecting the Dots on Ag and Climate Change

Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:00:00 -0700

This weekend, hundreds of thousands of citizens will march in Washington, D.C., and around the world, raising their voices to demand action on climate change, one of the most critical issues of our day.

Energy and fossil fuel will be at the center of the dialogue, of course, but it’s also critical to address the reality that our industrial agriculture system—drenched in fossil fuels and sucking up energy, water, and other critical resources—is a leading climate change culprit. In fact, agriculture systems contribute at least 30 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). Even more stunning, use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers on agriculture crops accounts for approximately 60 percent of global nitrous oxide emissions, a compound around 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2).

It doesn’t have to be this way: A global shift to sustainable farming will not only help create a stable climate, it will also improve food and water security and safety, sustainable rural livelihoods, and environmental health. But industrial agriculture requires the production and use of toxic chemicals; converts forests, marshes, and other lands to agricultural uses; and encourages excessive tillage, unhealthy livestock-rearing conditions, and long-distance food transport—all climate-changing practices responsible for inefficiencies, inequities, and conflict the world over.

Massive use of agricultural chemicals has degraded the health of our soils so significantly that crop yields have plateaued or collapsed in some regions. Scientists estimate that 50 to 70 percent of carbon has been lost in industrially farmed soils. That carbon escapes into the atmosphere, causing increased levels of CO2. It also dissolves into our oceans, causing raised acidity levels that threaten marine life and critical food systems. Additionally, after decades of intensive over-use, pest and plant diseases are becoming resistant to fossil fuel-based chemicals.

On the inequity front, despite the supposed merits of our global industrial agriculture system, at least 2 billion people around the globe are chronically undernourished. And climate change further exacerbates food insecurity. Global agencies agree that crop productivity will markedly decline over the next few decades in Central America, South and Southeast Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa—regions already hard-hit by unstable food supply.

Catastrophic weather related to global warming not only spikes food insecurity, but leads to national and international conflicts over resources, migration and refugees. Take for example the current crisis in Syria. Very few would utter the words “climate change” in the same sentence as “the war in Syria,” but the truth is global warming in the region played a significant role in the present tragedy.

Between 2006 and 2011, more than 60 percent of Syrian territory experienced the worst long-term drought in recorded history. Water resources were cut in half. The primary wheat-growing region lost 75 percent of its crops and 85 percent of its livestock. This climate and food crisis triggered extreme poverty for millions of Syrians and massive migration from rural communities to overcrowded cities, exposing the government’s inability or refusal to help and stressing ethnic and religious tensions.

Hope for Farming, Hope for the Planet

However, on the climate and agriculture front, there is reason to hope. While agriculture is currently a big part of the climate change problem, it has the potential to be a big part of the solution. We can reduce or eliminate our food system’s chemical dependency—which will lower GHG emissions, rebuild healthy soils and fertility, and restore watersheds, among other benefits.

We must ditch our massive monoculture approach and build resilience to extreme, unpredictable weather by bringing back crop diversity. We need to smartly reintegrate livestock into farming systems, rather than into animal factories. We need to provide economic assistance to farmers and rural communities to generate viable incomes from ecological agricultural practices.

One of the most promising aspects of truly climate-friendly agriculture is found in emerging soil science that shows ecological farming can draw down carbon from the atmosphere and put it back into the soil where it can contribute to healthy, functioning ecosystems. This science is especially consequential given that scientists agree that we are beyond simply cutting back on GHGs; we must pursue “net negative emission” strategies to avoid utter catastrophe.

Yes, there are challenges to transitioning away from a global warming intensive, industrial food and farm system, but it is clear that it will be at our peril if we continue on our present path. For most of this century, governments have invested billions of dollars in our fossil-fuel driven, chemically dependent agricultural model. Governments must instead invest in practices and people that promote a resilient and healthy climate, food, and water future.

So let’s march. But if we’re going to get serious about curbing climate change, then we need to get serious about addressing agriculture as both a profound problem and a hopeful solution.

This piece was originally posted in Civil Eats.

Creating a People's Seed Movement

Tue, 25 Apr 2017 00:00:00 -0700

CFS Launches Global Seed Network to Preserve, Protect, and Grow Seed Sovereignty and Food Security

The U.S. has lost 93 percent of its fruit and vegetable seed diversity in the last 80 years and, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), more than three-quarters of global agricultural crop diversity has been lost due to seed consolidation and industrial agriculture practices. This corporate control of seed has not only decreased diversity, it has also led to worldwide seed price increases, driving millions of farmers out of business.

That’s why Center for Food Safety is celebrating International Seeds Day with the launch of our free, peer-to-peer online network for people to share rare and heirloom seeds. The Global Seed Network (GSN) will empower farmers and home gardeners alike to sustain diverse seed and plant varieties in the face of corporate control of the food supply and a changing climate.

The GSN allows users to create a profile and search for seeds based on climate region, plant variety, location, or specific crop traits. The site also includes a range of resources like detailed instructions on how to save seeds, announcements about local seed sharing events, a school curriculum, and an online community forum for users to exchange ideas.

Seed diversity is indispensable to food security, food sovereignty, adapting to a changing climate, and preserving cultural and ancestral knowledge. However, right now the vast majority of seeds in the U.S. are controlled by a handful of chemical corporations – including Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, DuPont, and Syngenta – who now own more than 60 percent of the world’s seed supply. These corporations have turned seeds into a corporate commodity. They are rapidly engineering, patenting, and controlling seeds, often to the detriment of farmers’ economic security, food safety, and environmental sustainability. What’s worse is that these same companies also manufacture pesticides and herbicides such as RoundUp, and in turn genetically engineer seeds to withstand high doses of these same chemicals. This has led to an increase in toxic pesticide use, threatened the livelihoods of family farmers, caused the widespread killing of wildlife and pollinators, and endangered the global supply of seeds that can withstand changing weather conditions and climates.

Even more concerning, these same companies are now planning corporate mergers, creating an even greater monopoly in the seed and agrichemical industry.

Saving, growing, and sharing seeds is critical to ensuring food security for future generations. That’s why we created the Global Seed Network – to connect and unite seed savers and breeders to protect seed sovereignty and biodiversity.

Now we need your help. Celebrate International Seeds Day with CFS by joining and helping us grow the Global Seed Network to take back control of the world’s seed diversity and our food supply. The time is now to reclaim our seeds and create a people’s seed movement!

Moooo-ve Over Big Ag: Fresh Farm Bill Ideas for 2018

Fri, 21 Apr 2017 00:00:00 -0700

During my tenure as an intern with CFS, I’ve had the opportunity to research a wide variety of issues pertaining to our food system, such as pollinator health, animal production, and genetic engineering. Recently, I got to attend Farm Bill 2018: Policy, Politics and Potential Symposium, and wanted to share some of what I learned. The American University School of International Service and the Berkeley Food Institute co-hosted this important gathering of activists, academics, scientists and policymakers. Experts from all disciplines and agricultural arenas came together to lay out what issues the next Farm Bill should tackle.

The great news was that overall, various speakers seemed to agree that the next Farm Bill should make efforts to be more inclusive, push back Big Agriculture consolidation, and incentivize environmentally friendly practices.

What does inclusivity have to do with farming?

Our food system depends on many whose sacrifices often go unacknowledged, but a fresh Farm Bill is a chance to change that. Ideally, funds will shift from supporting industrial agriculture towards investing in the wellbeing of rural Americans, minorities, farm workers, and new farmers.

While cities are quickly growing, the rural America that supports our food system is dwindling. Not just in numbers, but in resources as well. Many rural communities lack technical resources, such as internet access and multiple U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) offices, but also more essential resources, such as clean water and hospital access. This constricts growth in these areas and encourages communities to disperse. To revitalize these communities, Congress should consider investing in rural county infrastructure development.

Minorities and farm workers are two other groups that, while integral to our food system, are frequently left out of the conversation. The Hopi Indian tribe was one example highlighted at the symposium. Their intrinsic connection with the land inspires communal stewardship with environmentally friendly practices that have been used for generations. Unfortunately, this vision is not always compatible with governmental assistance programs. A key to solving this discrepancy is increasing communication between USDA, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), and Indian tribes to explore the successes in Indian country and how to better incorporate their valuable relationship to the land into our food system.

In order to ensure a resilient food system, it’s imperative we educate and invest in the next generation of farmers. Currently, the average age of farmers in America is 60 years-old, so it’s crucial to look at the most effective ways to grow the next generation of farmers who will be stewards of the land and supported by the communities they feed. Some suggestions for how to do this include: forgiving student loans for those studying agricultural sciences, funding new farmer programs that teach sustainable agricultural and business management practices, or moving some assets from financial assistance programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) or the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) away from industrial producers and toward new farmers.

Are our farmers getting what they deserve?

How can American farmers, who work strenuous twelve to fourteen hour work days while in season, be projected to see a nine percent decrease in their farm income from 2016 to 2017? If this forecast is correct, this would reflect a 50% drop from net farm incomes in 2013. Experts suggest this is primarily linked to an increase in commodity crop supply which drives down prices farmers receive. Big agribusiness consolidation has also impeded farmer returns. By buying up smaller producers, larger companies control the production methods all along the supply chain and pressure the smaller producers to “get big or get out.” The result: production values fall and contracted producers become price takers. Solutions proposed at the symposium include: managing crop supply to control prices, investing in independent producers, and dismantling monopolies.

How can we encourage farmers to use environmentally friendly practices?

Industrial agriculture practices are often associated with soil, air and water contamination. Experts are looking for practical ways to incentivize farmers and businesses to incorporate environmentally-friendly practices without burdening them. For one, land-grant university research is supported by government and corporate funding. Corporate funding, not surprisingly, is awarded to projects that can further their agendas and government funding for agriculture research is in peril. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) and Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) are both on the chopping block for the next Farm Bill. Without these grant programs, researchers will have to halt their projects and innovations from the field of sustainable agriculture will be at a standstill.

This is why some experts are looking for partnerships between private corporations and the government to financially support sustainable agriculture research and practices. If corporations join the cause, they have the power to inspire positive changes all along their supply chain while still supporting their farmer base.

In addition to increasing funding for research and education, some experts suggest incentivizing farmers by altering subsidy and crop insurance programs. Crop insurance is essential, but current programs don’t always support sustainable practices such as cover cropping. Many experts have therefore proposed linking subsidies and insurance returns to farmers with conservation plans that increase biodiversity, support pollinators, or prevent pollution, etc.

As you can see, there is a lot to consider before an October 1st deadline for a new Farm Bill. Experts and advocates are looking for ways to increase the resiliency of the food system in the next Farm Bill. Ultimately, it seems the first step is to improve communication with advocacy organizations, government groups, corporate interests, and most importantly – farmers.

Homeland Food Security

Fri, 07 Apr 2017 00:00:00 -0700

In the United States today, hunger impacts more than 42 million Americans. This is a national disgrace caused by poverty and income inequality. In the not-too-distant future, hunger could also be the result of climate change. The warming climate is causing a host of alarming changes—unseasonable temperatures, disruptions in pollination, biblical floods and epic droughts —all of which threaten the long-term viability of our food supply. Yet despite these well-established risks to agriculture, the president has signed an Executive Order rolling back progress in the fight against the climate crisis.

Here’s the hard truth: Nothing will undermine food security for all Americans more than an unstable climate. We are already seeing the following effects:

Lower Productivity

Extreme weather events harm crops and reduce yields, and they are becoming more frequent and intense all the time. We’ve seen this across the country and with many different crops, from cherries in spring (Michigan’s unduly warm winter in 2012 resulted in $220 million of losses) to pumpkins in the fall (in 2011 Hurricane Irene caused a pumpkin shortage in the Northeast) to staple crops year-round. Without serious reductions in greenhouse gases, by 2100 half the country’s corn harvest could be wiped out, wheat production could fall by 20 percent, soybean production by 40 percent.

Compromised Nutrition

A decline in the nutritional value of crops is another consequence of a warming climate. Soaring levels of CO2 lead to a reduction in both the mineral and protein content of crops, including trace minerals such as selenium, zinc, and iron that are essential to human health.

Loss of Diversity

Plants are stationary. When the going gets rough they can’t move to a more hospitable location. Climates are changing faster than plants can adapt; as a result, one out of every five plant species is at risk of extinction. And food isn’t the only thing we rely on plants for—about half the drugs prescribed in the U.S. are plant-based.

The solution? Rebuilding our nation’s soil health. We can begin by transitioning immediately to farming and ranching practices that respect soil as the living carbon-rich ecosystem that it is, rather than as merely a growing medium. These practices are regenerative, agro-ecological and organic, and include minimal tillage, cover cropping and increasing crop diversity to support soil microorganisms and beneficial insects. They create more resilient systems for farmers and free agricultural production from dependency on fossil fuels. Most important, regenerative agriculture has vast untapped potential to rebalance Earth’s woozy climate system by drawing down excess carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and storing it in the ground as life-giving soil carbon.

As individuals, we can play an important role in building food security and resilience in our communities. So while Trump is busy ripping up the Clean Power Plan for the short-term benefit of a few corporations, engage however you can. Rip up the lawn. Plant some fruit trees. Start composting. Volunteer at a community garden. Create a garden school. Grow your own food-secure community.

Start locally, and affect change nationally by putting pressure on elected officials. Now more than ever, we have to work urgently at the state, local, and community levels to implement policies that protect and support our food supply. A number of states (including California, Hawaii, Vermont, Maryland and New York) are planning ahead by focusing on regenerating degraded landscapes and incentivizing carbon-farming methods that increase soil health, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and improve resilience to a changing climate.

On the ground action is the way to achieve food security for everyone.

2017 Hawaii State Legislative Session Update

Wed, 05 Apr 2017 00:00:00 -0700

LAST CHANCE TO TAKE ACTION!

Call your Representative now and urge them to schedule a hearing for SB 804 HD 1 in the House Committee of Finance ASAP! FIND YOUR REPRESENTATIVE HERE!

The 2017 legislative session is closing this month. Between January and April, HCFS has been lobbying and testifying at the Capitol on a weekly basis. We won, and we lost. But most importantly, we witnessed a radical shift in the conversation surrounding pesticides and genetically engineered crops at the legislature.

Our pesticide disclosure and notification bills (HB 790 & SB 804) were part of a suite of legislation aimed at reforming the regulatory framework for pesticide use in the state of Hawai'i. As we've said time and time again, voluntary disclosure programs (such as the existing "Kaua'i Agricultural Good Neighbor Program") don't work. Voluntary programs may start with good intentions, but without someone holding large corporations accountable, they fail at protecting our health and environment.

The public agrees. Citizens' testimony was unequivocal and clear – the people of Hawai'i wanted to see the state take action, and they understood the best ways to do so. The chemical companies were showing up in force at every hearing, but their talking points were increasingly falling on deaf ears. One of our favorite moments during the session was when Representative Matt LoPresti questioned both the chemical companies and Department of Agriculture Chair Scott Enright on being selective and incomplete with their facts. At this point, SB 804 HD 1 is our last chance to get the critical data we need to protect our keiki and 'Aina from toxic pesticide exposure. The bill would require commercial agricultural operations that use large volumes of restricted-use pesticides in any year to submit annual reports detailing their applications of all pesticides. It would also allocate funds to the University of Hawai'i's medical school to study the exposure of pregnant women to dangerous pesticides (such as chlorpyrifos).

Our other bills included those mandating buffer zones (HB 842, SB 29, HB 1571), banning of glyphosate on public lands (HB 1282), and a ban on the neurotoxin chlorpyrifos (HB 253). The polemic around chlorpyrifos in Hawai'i illustrates the larger issue of federal vs state policy in the age of Trump and Pruitt's EPA. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence against the use of this dangerous insecticide, the EPA reneged on a proposed federal ban in March. Once again, the state must now take action to protect its citizens.

On the positive food front, our "carbon farming" bill (HB 1578) is headed to conference! The bill would create a Carbon Farming Task Force that enables the State to offer local farms and ranches carbon credits for their efforts to improve soil health and sequester carbon. Soil health initiatives are sprouting up around the country, and Hawai'i will now become a leader in this hopeful movement. Our bill was written in partnership with Center for Food Safety's Soil Solutions program.

The bottom line is that we've had more hearings, more public engagement, and more well-informed legislators speaking out publically in favor of our issues. The rhetoric is shifting. The public is watching and holding their legislators accountable. The fight for a more sustainable food future for Hawai'i is far from over.

Celebrating Cesar Chavez, Celebrating Farm Workers

Fri, 31 Mar 2017 00:00:00 -0700

Photo: WWE, NBC Universo

As we wrap up National Farmworker Awareness Week, many of us around the country are taking today as opportunity to celebrate one of the most important voices in the farmworker rights movement – Cesar Chavez. In 2008 President Barack Obama named March 31 (Chavez’s birthday) an official holiday to honor the labor leader and civil rights activist who, along with Dolores Huerta, co-founded the National Farm Workers Association (now the United Farm Workers) in 1962.

Farmworkers and food industry workers across America are the backbone of our food system, and in truth, our society – but too often their voices go unheard, their faces unrecognized. A Mexican-American Arizona native, Chavez himself worked in farm fields as a full-time migrant worker for more than a decade, before turning to full-time activism. He dedicated the rest of his life to leading the fight for the rights of food laborers including lobbying for higher wages and better working conditions.

One of the most important issues here at CFS is working to mitigate the impacts of toxic pesticides on our food, our farms, our rural communities, and the environment. Cesar Chavez recognized that farm workers were among those put most at-risk by the industrial agricultural system that promotes the use of pesticides when he said, “We farm workers are closest to food production. We were the first to recognize the serious health hazards of agriculture pesticides to both consumers and ourselves.”

Building on the incredible work that Cesar Chavez did for laborers and for the food movement, CFS will continue to uphold his legacy as we fight for safety, security and sustainability in our food system.

Oppose the Unsafe Food Act

Tue, 04 Apr 2017 00:00:00 -0700

The so-called Regulatory Accountability Act jeopardizes critical food safety rules

Food safety rules are the kinds of government regulations that offer vital protections for public health. They are in place to protect the public from the foodborne illness epidemic caused by industrial agriculture, along with other serious issues.

Unfortunately, such protective regulations are severely threatened by a current piece of legislation known formally as the Regulatory Accountability Act (H.R. 5), though more aptly termed the “Unsafe Food Act.” The U.S. House of Representatives has already passed the Unsafe Food Act, which compromises food safety by intentionally creating a roadblock of time-consuming, unnecessary, and unprecedented obstacles to the long-established agency rulemaking process through which public protections are implemented.

Foodborne illness is an epidemic in our country. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), every year one in six Americans (around 50 million people) is sickened by foodborne illness from contamination and pathogens in our food supply. Listeria in imported cheese and cantaloupe. Salmonella in peanut butter, imported papayas, dog food, and mangoes. E. coli in lettuce and spinach. The list goes on and on.

More than 125,000 are hospitalized and, tragically, 3,000 will die annually. Among all age groups, children under five are most likely to become ill, most likely to be hospitalized, and most likely to die. Those that recover often suffer severe long"‘term effects, such as kidney failure, chronic arthritis, and brain and nerve damage.

And foodborne illness is also a blow to our national economy. The annual costs to the U.S. economy in medical bills and productivity losses alone are over $77 billion. When consumers can’t trust food companies, sales go down and business plummets. Ensuring food safety through regulatory efforts protects consumers and business owners. It is simply smart business to operate under food safety rules to avoid costly foodborne illnesses and ensure consumer trust remains intact.

The foodborne illness crisis is an avoidable and foreseeable symptom of our broken industrial food system and it is clear that until necessary changes happen within that system, food safety rules are imperative to protect consumers. To address the foodborne illness epidemic, Congress passed the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) with bipartisan support in 2011, giving the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) substantially improved protective authority. It transformed the FDA’s approach – instead of merely responding to outbreaks, the agency could prevent them.

FSMA requires food facilities to evaluate hazards, implement and monitor effective measures to prevent contamination, and have a plan to take corrective actions. It also requires FDA to establish science-based standards for safe food production to minimize the risk of serious illnesses or death. And, it provides FDA with new enforcement and inspection powers, the authority to suspend facilities from distributing food, to mandate recalls, and to require that imported foods comply with U.S. inspection and preventive safety standards.

Yet without FDA implementing the act, FSMA could not take effect; and the agency missed all of the deadlines Congress had set for the urgently needed rules. Because CFS’s fundamental mission is to empower people, support farmers, and protect the planet by addressing the health and environmental harms of industrial food production and promoting and protecting more sustainable alternatives, it was CFS litigation that eventually forced the agency to complete the rules by court-ordered deadlines. The last FSMA rule was completed on time, just last year.

But the new FSMA regulations are not the end of the story; they are just the beginning. In order to save lives and protect our food, our food safety rules must continue to be able to be adjusted to address new threats to the food supply – be it new pathogens, bio-terrorism, contaminated foreign imports, or disease-resistant superbugs.

If the Unsafe Food Act passes, those agencies entrusted with protecting the American public’s health will be hamstrung, unable to do so. The bill would cause needless delays and expenses to the rulemaking process. It would create new, unwieldy, and time-consuming processes, and new burdens of proof for agencies. It would make agencies consider factors that go beyond protecting the public health, safety, or the environment, with business interests trumping all other considerations.

It would take authority away from the expert scientific agencies and give it to the politicized White House. Essentially, the bill would empower those who oppose any regulation to effectively stop any efforts to adopt important new health and safety standards.

And worse, foodborne illness prevention is but one example of how public health would be impacted. The bill would likely stop new rules from requiring food labeling, regulating pesticides, cleaning up chemicals contaminating our water supply, addressing climate change, protecting children from toxic toys, you name it – any and all government actions in the public interest will be significantly hampered in the same way.

All of us who eat, who care about our children, our public health, and our long-term economic well-being and agricultural economy, should strongly oppose the so-called Regulatory Accountability Act. This bill would take America in the wrong direction and put children, families, and businesses at risk. We strongly oppose H.R. 5, the Unsafe Food Act, and you should, too!

Originally posted on Alternet.

Antioch loves their bees! Tracking a successful year for the BEE Protective Campaign

Tue, 21 Mar 2017 00:00:00 -0700

Colleges are abuzz with pollinator-friendly practices

We are very excited that over the past year, numerous higher education institutions – including Antioch College, Villanova University, and Macalester College – have committed to being pollinator-friendly campuses by joining our BEE Protective Campaign. And with spring just having sprung, we checked in to see how they’re doing. There have been some busy bees on these campuses, especially at Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio. Here’s a peek at some of the progress Antioch has made to help protect bees and other important pollinators, and their habitats…

Tending to bees on the Antioch campus. Photo by Beth Bridgeman.

Since joining BEE Protective, the Antioch community has done an incredible job engaging students in the issues surrounding pollinator health through classroom activities and off-campus partnerships. The importance of healthy pollinators and their habitats is discussed in Antioch’s Ecology, Botany, and Ecological Agriculture courses. An environmental science class has taken the initiative to establish a pollinator pathway through their lively campus farm, and the students look forward to expanding the pathways as part of their Food, Farming and Resilience course this spring. Antioch’s farm also hosts multiple honey bee hives!

Off campus, Antioch has partnered with Urbana University and the Propolis Project to host a 1-day intensive Bee School. Additionally, Professor Emily Steinmetz’ class established a pollinator garden with inmates at the Dayton Women’s Correctional Institute. These events have been wonderful opportunities for Antioch to expand and share their bee knowledge with the broader Ohio community.

A food forest path at Antioch welcomes bees with herbs like oregano. Photo by Beth Bridgeman.

Since eliminating the use of neonicotinoids around their campus last year, the Antioch grounds crew has made tremendous strides planting and maintaining pollinator and native plant gardens throughout the main campus. They also report no significant issues with pests or diminished plant health since banning neonicotinoids from their grounds care procedures.

We applaud Antioch College and their tremendous community of dedicated pollinator stewards for their efforts thus far. We’d like to offer special thanks to faculty members Beth Bridgeman, Dr. Kim Landsbergen and Dr. Emily Steinmetz; staff members Reggie Stratton (now retired), Kyle Lewis and Kat Christen; Antioch Sustainability Committee; Antioch students; and the community members of Yellow Springs who have led Antioch towards modeling bee-friendly practices and becoming a visionary in the sustainable food movement. We look forward to hearing more about their success throughout 2017!

WHY it’s important for campuses and communities to BEE Protective

Pollinator-friendly plants welcome bees on Antioch's campus. Photo by Dr. Kim Landsbergen

In the United States, pollinators contribute $20-30 billion annually in pollination services to the agricultural sector. Indeed, about ninety percent of flowering plants depend on pollinators. Yet, over the past decade, we have witnessed an alarming decline in honey bee and other pollinator populations around the world. Although there are many contributing factors to this crisis, scientists increasingly attribute poor pollinator health and bee die-offs to the indiscriminate use of systemic pesticides, most notably a class of insecticides known as neonicotinoids (neonics), used widely both in agriculture and in landscaping.

This problem spurred Center for Food Safety and our partners at Beyond Pesticides to launch the BEE Protective Campaign—an initiative to encourage universities, institutions, and local municipalities to resolve to eliminate the use of bee-toxic pesticides on their grounds and to foster healthier habitat by planting pollinator friendly plants.

Spring is the perfect time to increase community involvement around these issues! By joining our campaign and committing to ban the use of neonics, your community will:

Be recognized for your commitment to pollinator protection in your community and within our 800,000+ member network;
Be awarded an aluminum yard sign to commemorate that your community or institution is a BEE Protective area;
Receive informational resources about expanding pollinator protection efforts and gain tools for hosting pollinator events;
Be valuable participants in helping conserve the pollinators that are an essential part of our food system.

If you’d like to participate in our campaign or have any further questions, please contact the CFS Pollinator Program at pollinators@centerforfoodsafety.org. What are you waiting for? Let’s get buzz-y!

Women: The Backbone of the Food Movement and Global Agricultural System

Wed, 08 Mar 2017 00:00:00 -0800

CFS Celebrates Women Around the World

Look around you. How many of the people in your life are strong, capable women whose resilience and compassion have changed your perspective or influenced your life experiences? Today, March 8th, is International Women’s Day, a day to celebrate women all around the world. And people all around the world will be doing that in different ways. Some, who are fortunate and able, will be participating in A Day Without A Woman. But days like these are most important because the truth is most women do not have the luxury to “take the day off”.

We here at Center for Food Safety are glad to take today as an opportunity to highlight the incredible dedication and fortitude of the many women who are the backbone of the food movement and our global agricultural system. The women in our lives and in our world provide sustenance of all kinds – they feed our families and they feed our souls. Read on and check out the links below for just a few of the ways how, and to hear the stories of some incredible women.

Did you know??

1. Women represent 43% of the agricultural workforce in the developing world.

2. Women in agriculture produce more than 50% of the world’s food, and are responsible for some 60% to 80% of food production in developing countries.

3. Globally, 1.6 billion women rely on farming for their livelihoods, which means that women’s land ownership is vital.

Read on for 15 more reasons to celebrate women in agriculture.

Women promoting food equity in their local communities

Larissa Walker and Madeleine Carnemark of the CFS Pollinator team meet at K Street Farm to talk to Kate Lee, Farm Director DC Greens.

Rachel Carson, compassionate leader of the modern environmental movement

Decades ago in her seminal book, Silent Spring, Carson was among the first to warn about the acute human health and ecological dangers of the pesticides that were becoming more and more ubiquitous through the country. In her last years while fighting breast cancer, Carson not only finished her bestseller but also she dedicated herself to promoting awareness of the connections between poisoning our planet and poisoning ourselves.

PBS recently aired a documentary that provides an intimate portrait of Carson.

Rural women farmers are critical to our food system

Rural women farmers, in particular, have the opportunity to shape a global food system in response to the needs of a growing population and a changing planet, but they need support. For example, it has been proven that women tend to farm more on smaller plots of land utilizing fewer resources, creating more sustainable farms. At the same time, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that global agricultural yields would increase between 2.5 and four percent if female farmers had the same opportunities and resources as their male counterparts. When thinking in terms of food security, that is a significant change in the amount of food produced... Read More.

And here are some great groups that promote women in ag.

Check out some of our favorite amazing women protecting and improving our food, agriculture, and environment and share these images on Facebook! Just click on any image to share it on your Facebook page.

"‹

Does Sonny Perdue Know Peanuts About Food Safety?

Mon, 06 Mar 2017 00:00:00 -0800

Sonny Perdue won't offer much promise for the future of our food system

The two largest recalls of contaminated peanuts in U.S. history occurred in Georgia under Sonny Perdue’s watch, and are linked to at least nine deaths. Perdue’s delayed response to the food-borne catastrophes in his home state calls into question his qualifications to oversee the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

After becoming governor of Georgia in 2003 Perdue kept his promise to cut the state budget drastically – including the budget of the food safety and inspection unit of the Georgia Department of Agriculture.

Three years into Perdue’s term, in November 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Georgia state health officials began investigating an outbreak of salmonella infections ultimately blamed for sickening at least 628 people in 41 states.

Investigators traced the salmonella to jars of ConAgra’s Peter Pan and Great Value brand peanut butters, produced in Sylvester, Georgia. ConAgra officials blamed moisture from a leaky roof and a malfunctioning sprinkler system at the Georgia plant for helping salmonella bacteria grow on raw peanuts, and launched a recall of all peanut butter produced from those peanuts between 2004 and 2007.

State food safety inspections should have flagged the conditions that led to the contamination, but Deputy Commissioner Oscar Garrison admitted that Georgia’s Department of Agriculture did not have adequate funding to do all the inspections they were required to do. And unfortunately, the lesson that peanuts could cause major problems was not quickly learned by Sonny Perdue.

In late 2008 and early 2009, as a result of salmonella contamination events at Peanut Corporation of America (PCA)’s Georgia plant, nine people died and at least 714 people (half of them children) fell ill. This contamination triggered the most extensive food recall in U.S. history up to that time, involving 46 states, more than 360 companies, and more than 3,900 different products.

It was only after this second major recall – and consumer deaths – that then-Governor Perdue agreed to more funding for a $24 million facility to test for pathogens in Georgia plants, according to Garrison’s testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee.

It took Perdue four years and two scandals to implement better food safety rules for produce in Georgia. If confirmed as Secretary of Agriculture, Perdue’s USDA won’t be responsible for inspecting peanuts, but for inspecting almost all of the meat and poultry consumed in the United States. Americans will depend on him to act quickly to stop contaminated meat getting to market. His failure to protect consumers was unacceptable in Georgia, and will be at the USDA.

And it isn’t solely Perdue’s slow reaction time to peanuts that is concerning. After California voters approved Proposition 2 in 2008 to require more humane production of chicken, he signed H.B. 529 that prohibits local governments from adopting any regulation of factory farms, including poultry operations. As head of the USDA, will he support improved animal welfare regulations? Or will more states need to pass their own regulations to make animal agriculture safer and more humane?

As Secretary of Agriculture, Perdue will oversee USDA’s role in helping to limit the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture — a major source of the public health threat of antibiotic-resistant infections. While President Trump has said that regulations are “undermining our incredible farmers”, it is not clear whether, Perdue, as a veterinarian, he thinks that extends to antibiotic use.

As governor, Perdue had problems with the Federation of Southern Cooperatives and cut funding they received from the state of Georgia that would have helped black and Latino farmers. As the head of the USDA, he will be responsible for implementing a federal court decision related to the USDA’s past discrimination against black farmers in lending programs.

Finally, now more than ever family farmers and small-scale producers need government support. Most poultry farmers are contracted to grow for a very few large poultry processing plants. Hog and cattle production is moving toward the contract model too. Given his history in Georgia — the state with the highest large-scale poultry production in the U.S. — will Perdue promote fairness in contracts for all small producers? And especially for minority farmers and farm workers?

If Perdue becomes our next Secretary of Agriculture, the lives and livelihoods of Americans will depend on him acting fast and making the right decisions about our food and farms. Sadly, his peanuts-performance as governor of Georgia does not offer much promise for the future of our food system.

Jaydee Hanson is a senior policy analyst at the nonprofit Center for Food Safety.

This article was originally posted in The Hill on 2/12/17.

Is the end of routine antibiotics in chicken on the horizon? If so, whatâ€™s beyond?

Fri, 24 Feb 2017 00:00:00 -0800

When advocates began pressuring the food animal industry to stop routinely dosing entire herds and flocks with antibiotics to promote growth and prevent disease, the industry balked. They said it couldn’t be done, that animals would suffer, and that the price of meat would skyrocket. After years of work and, sadly, the increasing severity of antibiotic-resistant infections, much of the chicken industry has finally committed to eliminating routine uses of medically important antibiotics.

Most recently, Tyson Foods announced its intention to raise its entire line of Tyson-branded chicken products without any antibiotics. This goes beyond its previous commitment to end routine use of medically important antibiotics by September 2017. The policy still allows antibiotics for treating sick birds when prescribed by a veterinarian.

This announcement matters. Tyson is the largest chicken producer in the United States and the second in the world. Action focused solely on medically important antibiotics addresses a critical public health crisis, but may not force other improvements in livestock production needed to protect human health, animal welfare, and the environment. But, we also must determine whether Tyson is making an honest commitment to public and animal health, or is simply capitalizing on an escalating trend to capture a lucrative market.

So, why does Tyson’s announcement matter?

It recognizes the need to address non-human antibiotics. Antibiotics that are important to human medicine are not the only antimicrobial agents commonly given to livestock for production and efficiency, rather than for animal health. In fact, recent research shows that misuse of animal-only antibiotics drives resistance in bacteria that make animals sick, like those that cause pneumonia in cows. In addition, research has demonstrated that routine use of any antibiotics has the potential cause human pathogens to develop resistance to crucial medicines.
It will demonstrate to other large chicken producers that it can be done. While research has shown the necessity and feasibility of eliminating routine uses of all antibiotics in food animals, the proof is in the pudding. It takes key actors willing to step up and find solutions to signal to the rest of the industry that it’s possible. If this is an honest commitment from Tyson, the company can pave the way for more sweeping change.
It covers billions of birds. Tyson’s facilities process 39 million chickens per week, over 2 billion per year. By relying on better management practices to protect the health and safety of birds rather than routine antibiotics, that represents a significant amount of antibiotics removed from food animal production. Perdue, the 4th largest U.S. producer, made a similar commitment last year covering its roughly 675,000 birds per year.

But, what don’t we know from this announcement?

If they will do it. Commitments are great. Verifiable action is critical. An independent body must regularly inspect the company’s producers and certify that they are following the standards. To announce a plan without a verification system is not a guarantee that it will be carried out or implemented effectively. Tyson has stated that it has successfully eliminated almost all use of medically important antibiotics since committing to doing so in 2011. But, data from FDA indicate that annual sales of antibiotics have continued to increase.
Exactly how they plan to do it. Eliminating routine use of antibiotics must be done in a manner that protects food safety and animal welfare. Sufficient space, a clean environment, adequate lighting, nutritious diets, and natural growth can all contribute to animal health and immunity. It is unclear at this time what additional changes Tyson plans to undertake, but removing antibiotics without implementing these other practices puts chickens and humans at risk.
If they will keep moving forward. Tyson owns a number of small subsidiaries that produce chicken, but this commitment applies only to Tyson-specific brands. If this is truly an act of concern for public health, animal welfare, and food safety, rather than a marketing ploy, all chickens under the company’s purview must be raised according to the same standards. And, Tyson must not stop at chicken. Antibiotics are routinely used in beef, pork, and turkey, which have longer lifespans and require larger doses.

Where do we go from here?

Potentially, Tyson is taking a next step in the fight to eliminate unnecessary, non-therapeutic uses of drugs in animals raised for food. If they make good on this commitment, we hope they don’t stop there.

We need progress for other species. Though the chicken industry has made significant movement to address routine use of antibiotics, the other major food animal industries lag behind. Each species presents unique challenges in implementing better management practices, but producers must begin identifying solutions immediately. Tyson and a few others have taken tentative steps on pork by creating small antibiotic-free brands separate from their main conventional production, but these industries have a long way to go.
We need action on other drugs. A number of non-antibiotic drugs, like hormones, beta-agonists, and even insecticides, are allowed in food animals to promote growth or prevent disease. These drugs raise significant concerns regarding the human, environmental, and animal health impacts from their use and their use should be prohibited.
We need sufficient, reliable data. Information on the amounts and purposes of drugs currently given to food animals is not available. Producers are required to keep records on the drugs they administer, but the government does not collect or publish that data. Without it, we have no way of knowing if company commitments are actually leading to reductions in use.
We need strong federal regulation. Without federal policies effectively prohibiting non-therapeutic use of animal drugs, we have to rely on piecemeal action from the industry. This not only means that some producers can get away with routinely using antibiotics and other drugs, but the best actors can also fall back on old practices if they no longer see the benefits of good animal husbandry.

Eliminating non-therapeutic uses of antibiotics and other drugs is critical to protecting food safety and animal welfare. But, we also need broader reforms in food animal production. Most food animals in the U.S. are raised in industrial confinement systems, like Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). These systems not only put animal health at risk from overcrowding, poor sanitation, and intense growth demands, they also pollute nearby soil and water, contribute to climate change, and endanger public health. They have operated at such massive scales due largely to quick fixes like antibiotics and lax regulation. Humane, organic, or pasture-based producers, on the other hand, generate less waste, do not rely on non-therapeutic drugs, and yield healthier animal products.

Recess of Resistance: Town Hall Toolkit & Trump Watch

Tue, 21 Feb 2017 00:00:00 -0800

This week is the first congressional recess of Donald Trump’s presidency, and for many, it will be the first opportunity to speak directly with your members of Congress. During the recess, members of Congress will be working in their home districts, and many of them are holding town hall meetings, events, and open office hours.

Center for Food Safety strongly believes in active participation at all levels of government because we the people are who they serve. These town hall meetings are especially valuable in our current political climate, as many people have had a hard time getting through to their representatives’ offices – phone lines have often been busy and voice mail boxes full. We encourage you to take the opportunity to interact with your elected official, voice your very valuable concerns, and get answers to your questions.

We know it can sometimes be intimidating to attend these meetings, let alone speak up and ask a question, so to make it easier for you we have created a simple toolkit to help you look up your representatives, find a town hall meeting near you, and target your questions on issue areas that are of importance to you.

Get Your Town Hall Guide

Public pressure works! Just a few days ago, Andy Puzder, fast food titan and Trump's pick for Labor Secretary, withdrew his nomination under growing pressure from constituents.

Now more than ever it is imperative to be engaged and informed on the various issues facing our food system and the environment. That’s why CFS has also just launched a new “Trump Watch” page to help watchdog the administration’s actions on food, agriculture, and the environment. This is your hub for all the latest news, actions and blogs on the cabinet members, executive orders, and regulatory policies that affect the food movement. Please check it out and be sure to share it with your friends!

The Town Hall Project is keeping an up-to-date list of town hall meetings and open office hours across the country. Find one near you and get active!

Department of Justice: Just Say No To Monsanto and Dangerous Corporate Megamergers

Tue, 14 Feb 2017 00:00:00 -0800

As we have already seen, it’s not likely that we can depend on President Trump to promote the public interest over corporate interests when the two do not align. This is particularly disturbing when it when it comes to the fight to sustain a just, equitable and accessible food system. Already just five companies – Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Dow and Bayer – account for 62% of world seed sales. This puts the control of the world’s seed supply, and in turn, food supply, in the hands of a few agrichemical giants whose only bottom line is another dollar sign.

And now, the potential mergers between Dow and DuPont, Bayer and Monsanto, and Syngenta and ChemChina would put people all over the world at even higher risk of food insecurity and exposure to toxic pesticides. As our director Andrew Kimbrell said recently, "The continuing consolidation of seed and pesticide companies essentially creates a monopoly of toxicity in control of the world’s seed market and food supply. These agrichemical giants threaten the availability and genetic diversity of seeds that are critical to a sustainable food system and to our ability to respond to the impacts of climate change.”

That’s why Center for Food Safety joined more than 300 farming, beekeeping, farmworker, religious, food safety, and conservation advocacy groups in a letter urging the U.S. Department of Justice to conduct a thorough investigation and, on behalf of the public interest and the protection of our food, health and environment, to oppose the proposed mergers between Dow and DuPont, Bayer and Monsanto, and Syngenta and ChemChina. We will not stand by quietly if Attorney General Jeff Sessions allows politics to interfere with the U.S. DOJ's antitrust review of these mergers – farmer and consumer interests must be put above corporations. These mergers would be nothing more than a poisonous combination of greed and corruption.

You, too, can take action to tell the government to say no to these dangerous megamergers!

From the Frontlines: Celebrating Victories in Hawai'i

Wed, 08 Feb 2017 00:00:00 -0800

I’m writing you this from the front lines of the state legislature here in Hawai‘i: another committee, another hearing, another conversation about the toxicity of pesticides and the role the state can/should/is/is not playing to protect our communities, especially our keiki, workers, and kupuna from industrial pesticide use.

Although there are many, many bills on the topic being heard (a sure sign of our success), this is what the conversation boils down to:

Are we adequately protected from toxic pesticide drift, and if not, what changes should the state make to better protect us?

The answer is short: Right now we are not adequately protected, but we can, and hopefully soon, will be. Yesterday we won big, as the Hawai‘i House Committees on Agriculture and Energy and the Environment passed six incredible bills that, if signed into law, will result in increased protection for our keiki. This follows our victory in the Senate last week, on many of the same measures.

Over the course of the six years that I have served as a grassroots community lobbyist at the state legislature, the incredible strength of the community food movement has done nothing but grow – we are powerful, diverse, and effective advocates for a just food system in Hawai‘i.

One of the most difficult parts about being a lobbyist and effecting change through the policy process is honoring the amount of time takes to do it. That is why we always pursue policy in tandem with other direct action strategies like growing our own food; buying locally grown organic and non-gmo products; creating community-based, pesticide free zones; and educating ourselves and our community through films, lectures, and workshops.

But yesterday’s victories are the culmination of two and half years of reeducating our elected officials on the dangerous links between GE crops and pesticides, introducing legislation that makes sense, and being able to soundly and effectively counter the talking points of the industry during these committee hearings. I can’t say for sure whether or not we will see these bills get to the governor’s desk this year, but I will say that I am ever more confident that it is a matter of when, not if, our state will see buffer zones and pesticide disclosure laws in the near future.

The stand-out moments during this week’s hearings were when our strong community voices were heard: impacted community members, doctors, nurses, and long-time advocates for aloha aina stood up on behalf of their families and neighbors. I was also blown away by the power of our elected officials – Representative Chris Lee, Representative Cynthia Theilen, and Representative Matt LoPresti – who refused the industry’s glossy rhetoric and “alternative facts” about the dangers of pesticides.

Please go to our Facebook page, watch the videos from the hearing, see where your elected officials stand on these issues. Together we can honor their courage in the face of corporate cash and hold others accountable for towing the industry line.

Over the next few months, our amazing team of volunteers and staff will be working hard to give you access to the ins and outs of this incredibly fast-paced and complicated lawmaking process. Everyday we will be pouring over hundreds of bills; watch-dogging for misleading or bad industry legislation; identifying bills to champion; crafting talking points for community members who want to advocate; meeting with legislators and helping connect them with community members who have stories to tell; collaborating with other environmental, conservation, and medical advocates; training community organizers in lobbying; and sending out daily action alerts via our Facebook page so that you know when to act.

I know that many are frustrated that after years and years of fighting these pesticide regulations are not in already in statute. WE FEEL YOU, but we cannot give up now, when our victories are finally rolling in. We cannot give up now.

The people, united, can never be defeated. Let’s finish what we started. I think this year could be the year if you stand up, speak out, testify, and demand that the state take action now.

For the Farmers: Women's March on Washington

Thu, 19 Jan 2017 00:00:00 -0800

On January 21, 2017 millions of people will come together in solidarity across the globe as a new administration begins. With 616 sister marches worldwide, the Women’s March on Washington is sure to be an historic event. Here at Center for Food Safety we want to recognize and bring attention to the women farmers we will be marching for on January 21st.

Women account for 60 to 80 percent of small-holder farmers globally, and produce about half of the food on our plates. It has been proven that women farmers worldwide farm on smaller plots of land utilizing more sustainable methods, and the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Program estimates that global agricultural yields would increase between 2.5 and four percent if female farmers had the same opportunities and resources as their male counterparts. Additionally, women farmers are disproportionately impacted by climate change and the resulting effects. It would make sense, then, to provide support and resources to women farmers, but unfortunately women are often left out the dialogue surrounding food security for a growing population.

That is exactly why we want to support the women farmers around the world who are the foundation of our food system. We will be marching for them, but support must also extend beyond marching. We’d like to highlight some organizations, who will be joining us in the streets, and who are advocating and working on behalf of these women farmers every single day.

Women's Earth & Climate Action Network (WECAN): “WECAN engages women grassroots activists, Indigenous and business leaders, scientists, policy makers, farmers, academics and culture-shapers in collaboration with the goal of stopping the escalation of climate change and environmental and community degradation, while accelerating the implementation of just climate solutions through women’s empowerment, advocacy at international policy forums, trainings, on-the-ground projects, advocacy campaigns, and political, economic, social and environmental action.”
Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO): “To contribute toward its vision for the world, WEDO’s mission is to ensure that women’s rights; social, economic and environmental justice; and sustainable development principles-as well as the linkages between them-are at the heart of global and national policies, programs and practices.”
Navdanya: “Diverse Women for Diversity is the gender programme of Navdanya which works with local, national and global level. It was founded as a global campaign of women on biodiversity, cultural diversity and food security by Dr. Jean Grossholtz and Ms. Beth Burrows, USA, Dr. Christine von Weizsacker, Germany, and Dr. Vandana Shiva, India. The Diverse Women's Statement of Concern resists monoculture and monopolies and celebrates diversity. Diverse Women for Diversity echoes women's voices from the local and grassroots level to global fora and international negotiations. Its focus is biodiversity, food and water. It seeks to strengthen women's grassroots movements and provide women with a common international platform.”
Heifer International: “Heifer International works with communities to strengthen local economies. Our values-based, holistic and community development approach focuses on: increase income and assets, food security and nutrition, and environment, with women’s empowerment and social capital as the two key foundational elements for change.”
Landesa Rural Development Institute: “Our land tenure experts venture into the fields to speak directly with poor farmers, especially those who are women. We work with government officials at all levels to develop new laws and programs after we’ve invested time researching existing laws and customs and their impact. Our work often starts with an invitation from a country struggling with the task of creating opportunity and a better future for its poorest citizens. There are typically four steps to our engagement: research, design, advocate, and implement.”
Women Organizing for Change in Agriculture & Natural Resource Management (WOCAN): “Women Organizing for Change in Agriculture and Natural Resource Management (WOCAN) is a women-led international membership network of women and men professionals and women's associations. WOCAN was established in 2004 with the objective to address three major gaps that emerge from the knowledge and experiences of sustainable and rural development processes. These are:
- policies regarding gender within the agriculture and natural resource management sectors,
- roles of professional women in implementing policy objectives for rural women’s empowerment and gender equality within these sectors, and
- organizational barriers that obstruct women from realizing positions of leadership and influence to take on such roles.”
Women Food & Ag Network (WFAN): “Women make up more than half the US population, and own an increasing number of farms. Surveys show that women own or co-own nearly half the farmland in the Midwest. But we are under-represented on the boards of policy-making bodies, and often encounter communications barriers when accessing information from agencies and institutions. WFAN exists so that women can give each other the information, connections, and encouragement they need to be effective practitioners and supporters of sustainable agriculture and healthy localized food systems.”
World Farmers’ Organization: “Women are shaping the rural economy in developing countries- they contribute as farmers, laborers, and entrepreneurs. Recent studies report that the majority of the world’s farmers are women and they cover a wide variety of roles. Yet, what is striking is that women face greater difficulties and constraints than their male counterparts with regards to land ownership, access to credit, markets, technology, seeds, water, information and education and other services. These disparities must be corrected as it is estimated that women produce up to 80 percent of the world’s food. WFO aims to promote the formation and strengthening of women producer organizations and ensure that women have a voice within mixed organizations.”
Farming First: “Women are the backbone of the rural economy, especially in the developing world. Yet they receive only a fraction of the land, credit, inputs (such as improved seeds and fertilizers), agricultural training and information compared to men. Empowering and investing in rural women has been shown to significantly increase productivity, reduce hunger and malnutrition and improve rural livelihoods. And not only for women, but for everyone.”

As you gear up to march on January 21st, and to battle injustices that may be exacerbated over the next four years, think about who you want to walk in solidarity for. We are encouraging everyone to show up at the march, and every other day, for the women farmers who are the backbone of our society. Women need to have a place at the table finding solutions for the global food economy. Without their inclusion, we will continue to see the same issues plague our food system and environment. Supporting these groups and ultimately supporting these hardworking women is imperative to solving our shared struggles.

As Trump Takes Office, the Public Interest Is in Danger of Being Exiled

Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:00:00 -0800

The U.S. Constitution protects the public interest, but we all need to play a role.

One of government’s primary jobs, perhaps its highest mission, is to protect and to serve the public interest. While public interest is a legal term of art, most broadly it refers public welfare at large, rather than that of a private company or individual. It encompasses public goods, commodities or services that are provided without profit to all members of a society. Think things like public schools (education), fire and police departments (safety), and military (security). In the environmental context, public goods include clean air and water, national parks and forests, and beaches/coastlines. Such natural resources are conserved in the public trust for all and for future generations; any use of them must be in the public interest.

The U.S. Constitution’s first sentence refers to the public interest principle, proclaiming that our government was formed to “promote the general welfare”. The general welfare includes everyday things we take for granted, like fixing potholes to avoid accidents, and keeping streets free of filth to avoid disease. It also means basic things like keeping our water and homes free of lead contamination that can cause brain damage. It means more structural things like protecting farm workers and their children from the impacts of toxic pesticides, and more long-term, programmatic missions, like feeding the children of families living in poverty through school lunches, so they can get the most from their education. And it means taking conservation actions, like working to save dwindling species like the monarch butterfly – not because of a profit motive, but because of the awesome natural beauty of their migration, and the incalculable intrinsic worth of all species.

The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment’s so-called “takings” clause also illustrates how the public interest “trumps” other private interests. It really should be called the “giving” clause, because it grants the government the ability to give a landowner full compensation for their private land, if the government decides the community needs it for a public purpose instead. So for example, if the government wanted to take a Trump golf course and turn it into a school for immigrant children, the Constitution permits that, elevating public purpose over private profit. Beyond the Constitution itself, not surprisingly given its fundamental underlying role, there are thousands of places in U.S. law requiring the government to account for the public interest, in various contexts, ranging from the Freedom of Information Act, to the Toxic Substances Control Act, to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Heck, even something as arcane as the Coast Guard’s management of drawbridges must include weighing the public interest. These are just a few examples.

The Trump Administration says it wants to run the country like a business. And Trump’s Cabinet picks show they are eager to tear down any separation between private industry interests and government’s traditional role. The CEO of Exxon Mobil, an oil and gas giant fighting to control the last of our planet’s dwindling petroleum resources, now as our country’s highest foreign affairs diplomat. The owner of Hardees and Carl’s Junior, fast food chains that epitomize what is horribly wrong with our industrial food system and how we treat working people, as the Secretary of Labor. A climate denier lawyer who sued EPA at the bidding of fossil fuel industry (literally copying their wishes word for word) to lead EPA. Rick Perry, another enthusiastic supporter of the oil and gas industry, to run the Energy Department – an agency which, as a 2012 anti-government presidential candidate, he said he would abolish. And this is just the start. This is regulatory capture on steroids: that is, governmental failure that occurs when governmental agencies, created to act in the public interest, instead advance the economic goals of the industry they are charged with regulating. A classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse.

The fundamental, glaring flaw in Trump’s approach is that governments are not businesses and cannot be run like them, with primary goals of market efficiency and economic profit. Rather, governments must account for and make decisions based on values and principles that cannot be monetized, those that the market system does not account for: the public interest, public goods, and the public trust, among them. Yet these values are now to be exiled.

And so in the year to come and beyond, it falls more than ever to the public, the states, and nonprofit, non-governmental organizations to step into this breach of duty, and protect the public interest, in exile. This happens through public pressure and protest; public and policymaker education; legislation, particularly at the state and local level; and litigation, challenging Trump administration decisions that discard the public interest. Our nonprofit organization, along with many others, will be front and center in this battle. The stakes, for the health of our children and our planet, for the future of our food, could not be higher. The good news is that we stand tall and march forward knowing that the foundational principles of our Constitution, of our laws, and of good government, are on our side. Please stand with us. See you all at the breach, and thanks for your important work.

Originally published on Alternet, Jan. 11, 2017.

Stronger FDA Action Needed Now on Antibiotics

Wed, 11 Jan 2017 00:00:00 -0800

Rules Restricting Antibiotics Meant for Food Animals Are Now in Effect. They Won’t Be Enough.

For most animals raised for food in the United States, life is characterized by confinement in crowded, filthy conditions. This environment puts their health and immunity at extreme risk. In order to help them survive, they are given a slew of drugs to fight off disease and spur rapid weight gain. For decades, antibiotics have been used for both purposes, through daily feed and water rations or even by injection for groups of young animals as a protective boost before entering intensive facilities.

As of January 1, though, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) voluntary plan to reduce unnecessary use of antibiotics in animals raised for food is in effect. But what exactly does this government strategy accomplish? And how far will it go towards eliminating routine use of antibiotics and improving the lives of animals? The answer to both is: not enough. And here are four reasons why:

1. The label changes on antibiotics are not mandatory.

Guidance 213 is meant to reduce the growing threat of antibiotic resistant bacteria by changing the labeling requirements for antibiotic drugs that are considered medically important and used in food animals. The guidance set out a plan for drug companies to voluntarily remove growth promotion uses from their labels within a three-year timeline, which ended as of January 1. Producers are not allowed to use a drug in a manner that is not indicated on the label. But, because these new label requirements were issued through guidance, they are not binding federal law. Drug companies, therefore, ultimately decide whether or not to remove all "growth promotion" indications from their product labels. While most have complied so far, growth indications for virginiamycin, for example, are still on the label.

2. The rule only impacts growth-promotion doses.

Using antibiotics to promote weight gain is only one of the major uses that boost productivity rather than treat sick animals. The other is called disease prevention—routinely giving healthy animals drugs to keep them from getting sick. This sounds positive, but in reality it is often used as a cheap and easy substitute for actually improving the heinous living conditions that harbor infections. Disease prevention doses are allowed to continue under the rule. Further, the growth promotion dose level for some drugs, like the combination of tylosin and sulfamethazine in feed, has been removed, but replaced with a similar dose that has been renamed as “reduction in severity of specific diseases”. These claims allow producers to continue giving drugs and growth promotion levels under the guise of reducing disease. The lines between growth promotion and disease prevention are not clearly defined. As they are both focused on productivity rather than animal wellbeing, both must be eliminated.

3. The rule is specific to medically important antibiotics.

This is significant for two main reasons. First, there are a number of antibiotics that are used in animals and are not currently considered medically important. These will continue to be allowed for routine use to promote rapid weight gain, and the impacts of their routine use are not fully understood. Second, FDA's list of medically important antibiotics is less extensive than the international community's. Two antibiotics considered medically important by the World Health Organization, bacitracin and tiamulin, are not impacted by this rule and FDA will continue to allow them for growth promotion uses.

4. Sales of medically important antibiotics continue to increase.

Despite the industry claiming for years that it was taking steps to eliminate growth promotion uses of medically important antibiotics in anticipation of the voluntary rules, sales of antibiotics meant for food animals continue to rise. New data released by FDA show that sales of medically important antibiotics increased by two percent from 2014-2015, adding slightly to an overall trend in which sales increased 26 percent from 2009-2015. In fact, sales of medically important antibiotics had greater increases than all antibiotics. This trend stands in contrast to promises that the industry has been working to address routine, unnecessary use of medically important antibiotics.

It will take time to fully see and understand the impacts of the new rule, particularly whether the removal of growth promotion indications will lead to measurable reductions in antibiotic use in food animals. One problem, though, is that we only have sales data available, and we lack necessary information to see the full picture of on-farm usage of antibiotics. In addition, producers that are no longer able to use most antibiotics to promote growth may turn to other animal drugs to boost weight gain, such as ractopamine, that may pose substantial health, environmental, or animal welfare concerns.

To protect public health, the environment and our food system, we need extensive, mandatory restrictions on the use and abuse of antibiotics in the agricultural sector.

Burger King's Weak Antibiotics Announcement Highlights the Need for Stronger Resolutions from Companies in the New Year

Thu, 05 Jan 2017 00:00:00 -0800

More than 125,000 people have called out 16 top restaurant chains in the U.S. for failing to act on antibiotics. In just three months since the companies received an “F” grade for lacking strong policies on antibiotics in the Chain Reaction II scorecard, Center for Food Safety, Consumers Union, and U.S.PIRG have gathered signatures of people demanding that the companies do better to protect human and animal health. Considering that consumers are increasingly demanding meat and poultry raised without routine antibiotics, it would be good business for these chains to resolve to address antibiotics in 2017.

KFC, Olive Garden and Starbucks are among the failing companies in 2016, out of 25 surveyed, which have taken no public steps to end routine uses of medically important antibiotics by their meat and poultry suppliers. These companies are truly lagging behind in action that is not just an industry trend, but instead a critical component of preserving the efficacy of antibiotics for treating infections in humans. Two failing companies, Burger King and Jack in the Box, recently made statements that show some effort but still leave the door open for unnecessary use of important drugs. Jack in the Box’s policy is a commendable effort, prohibiting growth promotion uses of all medically important antibiotics and committing to eliminate disease prevention uses by 2020. But, some vague language regarding cases of “a heightened risk of disease” leaves too much wiggle room if it is not clarified further. Burger King’s narrow focus on only “critically important” antibiotics, in contrast, will do little to address routine use or mitigate the spread of resistant bacteria.

The public health crisis of antibiotic resistance demands strong action from all sectors, especially those in which antibiotics have been routinely misused. Large restaurant chains have the power to effect significant change by requiring their meat and poultry suppliers to eliminate the routine use of antibiotics for growth promotion and disease prevention.

This collective consumer pressure is the latest in a number of campaigns in recent years urging the restaurant and animal production industries to eliminate unnecessary antibiotics use and improve the living conditions for animals raised for food in the U.S. While Chipotle and Panera have set a significant precedent for intentionally sourcing the vast majority of their meat and poultry, other top chains must take action in order to truly move the bar towards better animal husbandry. The signatures were sent today to the CEOs of the 16 “F” companies that continue to be silent on antibiotics.

In the U.S., the routine use of antibiotics in animals raised for food for purposes other than bringing sick animals back to health has contributed to the dramatic rise in bacteria resistant to important antibiotic medicines. Producers that raise animals in confinement have relied heavily on regular doses of antibiotics added to the animals’ food and water, to promote faster growth rates and prevent animals from succumbing to diseases in the crowded, unsanitary conditions. The U.S. government has taken minor, mostly voluntary steps, to end the use of certain antibiotics for promoting growth. But, it does not cover all antibiotics used for this purpose, and there has yet to be any action to prevent antibiotic use for disease prevention.

CFS has continuously advocated for stronger animal drug policies at the federal level, while engaging with producers and retailers to implement more sustainable practices. By providing clean living conditions with sufficient space and reliable access to the outdoors; choosing breeds selected for health and immunity rather than fast growth rates; and feeding animals a healthy, appropriate diet, are not only practices that consumers expect, but reduce the need for veterinary medicines to prevent disease. Burger King and other companies can act now, in lieu of government action, to implement the changes we need to protect human health, animals raised for food, and the environment.

So, the race is on. Which restaurant will be the first in 2017 to resolve to take firm action and eliminate routine antibiotics use in their meat and poultry supply?

The Big Lie: Monsanto and the New York Times

Thu, 15 Dec 2016 00:00:00 -0800

Originally published in The Huffington Post.

Most of us have told a lie a time or two and probably a variety of them. For example, there is the excuse lie as in the timeless “my dog ate my homework,” and the proverbial “white lie” as in “No you really do look great in those jeans.” But the “The Big Lie” is different. The term refers to a propaganda or advertising technique by which first you say the opposite of an obvious truth about an event or product, and then keep repeating and repeating that lie until it becomes an unquestioned mantra for the public. So no matter how much the lie defies common sense it over time becomes commonplace.

Take the iconic marketing campaign promoting Coca Cola. You’ll easily recall the endlessly repeated mantra: “Coke, it’s the real thing.” Well, whatever you may think of Coke, not much in my estimation, it is anything but the real thing. It’s highly processed, is laden with high fructose corn syrup derived from GMO corn, contains caramel coloring and it goes downhill from there. So the ad is obviously the exact opposite of the truth. But repeated countless times the slogan becomes accepted without thought. Here’s another favorite example, the AT&T telephone ad campaign, “Reach out and touch someone.” Certainly phones can be great but as anyone separated from a loved one knows, to their great frustration, the one thing you can’t do with them is actually reach out and touch that important someone. You are actually just touching the dial pad and handset. Again, a mantra that is obviously false but was repeated so often it almost made sense.

Similarly, for more than two decades the promotion of genetically engineered (GE) crops in the United States and worldwide has been based in the Big Lie. Led by Monsanto’s aggressive international marketing campaign the mantra has been, and still is, that GE crops “reduce pesticide use, increase yield and are key to feeding the world.” I have been working on this issue for decades and during that time have seen that virtually every major media story on GE crops began with this “Big Lie” claim, and using almost identical language. These claims, as with those in the Coke and AT&T commercials, defy common sense. Monsanto and the other leaders in promoting GE crops—Dow, Dupont, Syngenta and Bayer—are all chemical companies that make tens of billions of dollars in profits by selling ever more pesticides, especially herbicides. Why would they spend hundreds of millions of research dollars and then billions in advertising and lobbying to promote crops that actually “reduce pesticides” and thereby destroy their bottom line? Are these companies committing economic suicide in an altruistic attempt to feed the world? Obviously not. You can accuse Monsanto of many things, including myriad corporate crimes over many decades, but altruism is not one of them. As my organization and many others have scientifically demonstrated many times to a deaf media, the vast majority of GMOs are not designed to decrease herbicide use but to massively increase it. More than 90% of US corn, soy, cotton, and sugar beets have been genetically engineered to withstand massive doses of the toxic herbicides these companies make, and profit from. Normally care has to be taken using herbicides because they kill not just weeds but anything green, including the crops they come into contact with. But with these herbicide tolerant crops large scale operations can even conduct aerial spraying of their fields with these herbicides and the weeds die but the crops survive.

Because of GE crops each year more than 100 million more pounds of Roundup are used on America’s croplands each year. These toxic chemicals pollute our water and air, kill wildlife and native plants and threaten the very survival of the monarch butterfly and other species. In 2015 the World Health Organization’s research arm found that the active ingredient in Roundup is a “probable carcinogen.” So for Monsanto and the other chemical companies, genetically engineering crops is just another way to significantly increase profits. They sell the seeds and the poisons sprayed on those seeds. Great for their bottom line, terrible for the rest of us and the planet.

What about the Big Lie about increased yield and feeding the world? Well in 2009 the Union of Concerned Scientists published a definitive report called “Failure to Yield” which made it clear that there was no significant yield increase with GE crops. Despite the clear title and message the media entranced with the Big Lie barely noticed.

But as Martin Luther King, Jr. liked to say, “No lie can live forever.” And in the waning weeks of the recent contentious and dispiriting election campaign a surprising ray of light illuminated the longstanding GE crops debate. Remarkably, the source was the New York Times, which for so many years had ignored the science about genetic engineering and bought the Big Lie. But in a front page story the Times became among the first mainstream media sources to debunk the Big Lie about GMOs. The newspaper story was based on research comparing pesticide use and yield between the United States, where genetic engineering has dominated major crops, and Western Europe, which did not embrace the technology. They found that overall the use of herbicides such as Monsanto’s Roundup had increased by more than 20% in the United States since the introduction of GE crops, while during the same time period herbicide use in France, Europe’s biggest crop producer, had not only not increased but actually decreased by 36 percent. Moreover, the analysis by the Times, which utilized United Nations data, showed that the United States and Canada “have gained no discernible advantage in yields—food per acre—when measured against Western Europe.” So the truth was out in the Times for all to see. GE crops significantly increase the use of toxic herbicides while not increasing yield, so they help poison the world’s food supply but do not increase it. So much for Monsanto’s claim of feeding the world.

In all probability one story, albeit a major one, is probably not enough to finally debunk Monsanto and friends’ Big Lie about GE crop technology. You will probably continue to see the common sense-defying claims for a while yet. But if as the Ancients said the truth is “like a lion — just let it loose”, then maybe we can finally go past the already failed but still dangerous GE experiment and move to an ecological agriculture that really will reduce and eventually eliminate pesticides and provide a secure sustainable food future for us all.

EPA Should Stop Sugarcoating the Catastrophic Effects of Neonic Seed Coatings

Tue, 06 Dec 2016 00:00:00 -0800

Bee-toxic seeds are planted on nearly half of all U.S. cropland. These neonicotinoid-coated crop seeds are the largest single use of insecticides in the country and they are not regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Would you be surprised to learn that these same insecticides often provide no benefit to farmers – that their use can actually do more harm than any potential good? It’s true, and the data is outlined in Center for Food Safety’s new report, Net Loss. But as shocking as both of these facts may be, the most upsetting reality is that the EPA has the ability to fix both of these issues, but won’t. In fact, it is their job to address these problems through proper regulation – one that they’ve been failing miserably at.

Neonicotinoids (or, “neonics”, for short) are the most widely used insecticides in the world and they are highly toxic to bees and other pollinators. While neonics can be applied as sprays, soil drenches, trunk injections, and in other forms, the primary use of these chemicals is as a seed coating for annual field crops (like corn, soybeans, and cotton), planted on at least 150 million acres across the U.S. More alarming than the vast acreage that we’re using these products on is the fact that when used as a seed coating, much of the chemical doesn’t actually enter the crop itself. Depending on the crop, only about five percent [!] of the active chemical in the seed coating enters the plant – even this small amount delivers enough of a dose to make the plant highly toxic to bees. The remaining 95 percent of the chemical is left to pollute the environment through seed dust or soil contamination and water runoff – imagine the damage that does!

This widespread contamination allows myriad ways for bees and other pollinators to come into contact with these toxic chemicals. At the same time, hundreds of millions of acres of land and water have now become polluted with neonics—everything from wildflowers near crop fields, to countless species’ soil and ground habitats, to nearby surface and groundwater, and even freshwater and marine ecosystems. To top it all off, because neonic-coated seeds are planted year after year (despite their lack of efficacy) and the active ingredients have long half-lives in most soils, the chemicals swiftly build up in our lands and waters, often accumulating well-past safe thresholds.

Scientists have been documenting these issues extensively for years, and yet the EPA still refuses to properly regulate these toxic chemicals. Not only is the agency refusing to regulate the planting of coated seeds as a pesticide application, but it is failing to adequately assess the harms associated with neonic uses, and instead, only focusing on purported benefits. This is a huge problem, especially as evidence continues to pile up showing that uses of neonic seed coatings are often completely unnecessary.

As CFS’s new report, Net Loss, highlights, numerous studies show that the yields for common crops do not increase with the use of neonic seed coatings. Thanks to new data out of the European Union, this is confirmed by comparing crop production in the EU, which suspended most of the neonic seed coatings in 2013. The production of those crops did not suffer and, for most of the years since the 2013 moratorium, crop production has actually been higher than it was before. In addition to this data, agricultural scientists and other experts in the United States and the United Kingdom have issued extensive new studies and reviews on the lack of overall effectiveness of neonic seed coatings.

So what is the significance of this new data and what is EPA’s role to play? Pesticide seed coatings are regulated by EPA under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which directs the agency to evaluate whether the use of any pesticide proposed for registration presents “any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits”. As CFS has pointed out to the agency time and time again, the cases of documented harms from uses of seed coatings continue to increase, while the benefits remain to be seen. These harms include:

Continuing chronic effects on honey bee hives — which are made significantly worse when other pesticides are also used and when bees have weakened immune systems as a result of diseases and parasites
Increases in harmful effects on bumblebees and other wild bees
Alarming correlations between amplified coated seed use and reduced butterfly populations
Significant adverse impacts on beneficial insects and consequential increases in certain pest populations
Exceedances of chemical exposure levels for freshwater-dependent wildlife.

It is clear from mounting evidence that neonic seed coatings often provide little to no benefits to farmers, yet their use comes with serious consequences to the environment and food system. This leaves us with one final question: why is EPA failing to act on these chemicals? EPA should suspend all neonicotinoid seed coating product registrations as required under FIFRA until the costs and benefits are adequately reviewed. Our pollinators, farmers, food system and environment deserve better from the agency charged with protecting them.

---

Join us in demanding that EPA immediately suspend uses of bee-toxic neonic seed coatings!

4 Things We're Thinking about This Thanksgiving

Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:00:00 -0800

It’s that time of year when we gather together with friends and family to share in the bounty of the season, reflect on the past year and think about how grateful we are for each other and for the gifts of the harvest. We here at CFS are certainly grateful for the support of hundreds of thousands of members who help us in our mission to create a more just and sustainable food system. We will be thinking about that as we sit down at our Thanksgiving tables, but we’ll also be thinking about a few other things…

Bee-ing thankful for pollinators!

While you may be familiar with how much preparation it takes to ready a holiday meal, you may not be aware of all the behind-the-scenes work that bees have done before fruits, vegetables and other foodstuffs even make it to your kitchen. Apples, cranberries, squash, sweet potatoes, beans—these are just a few Thanksgiving table favorites, all of which rely on bees for pollination. Unfortunately, honey bees and other native bees and pollinators are being negatively impacted by the widespread use of toxic insecticides—so much so that we are seeing historic colony loss and population declines. So this Thanksgiving, learn how you can bee-thankful and help protect pollinators!

Drug-free Turkeys

Many traditional holiday feasts feature large fowl, notably turkeys and roast chickens. But many large-scale livestock producers over-use and abuse antibiotics and other drugs as growth-promoters and to make up for unsanitary poultry rearing conditions. In fact, you may be getting an extra side dish with your turkey that you didn’t bargain for: a risky drug called ractopamine. Ractopamine is a growth enhancing drug that’s added to turkey feed—as well as the feed of pigs and cattle—to increase their muscle mass. But bigger doesn’t necessarily mean better. Ractopamine raises significant food safety and animal welfare concerns. It is connected to “downed” animals, muscular tremors, cardiovascular dysfunction and increased aggressive behavior in animals. The FDA has allowed its use without comprehensive scientific studies that document the risks of the drug to human and animal health. To ensure your turkey is drug-free, look for organic, free-range fowl.

Cutting food waste

Celebrating the plenty of the season is a beautiful thing, but what we sometimes fail to consider is that enough is plenty. “Leftovers” are especially cherished during the holidays—when else is digging into stuffing and pumpkin pie for breakfast appropriate—but buying, cooking and eating to excess isn’t good for your health or for the environment. According to Food Tank, between Thanksgiving and the New Year, the United States will waste about five million tons of food. And where does all of that food waste go? Not to the needy. Food is the single largest component of municipal solid waste reaching America’s landfills and incinerators. This holiday, keep climate change in mind as you prepare your meals, and think about creative, nutritious ways to re-use what is left over!

How to support communities in need

People in many communities around the country and around the world won’t be worrying about food waste this time of year; instead, their worry will be where they might find their next meal. Food insecurity impacts millions of people each year. According to Feeding America, 13 percent of American households were food insecure in 2015. And that only accounts for those that are reported. Food insecurity is complicated by the rise of the industrial agricultural system and the monopoly control of seed by just a handful of large corporations. This holiday season, offer a helping hand if you can. Food Pantries.org and Feeding America have great resources on where and how to donate to local food banks and kitchens.

Have a happy and healthy Thanksgiving!

The Food Safety Trade-Off: Why it is So Important a Progressive Victory Stopped the TPP

Wed, 16 Nov 2016 00:00:00 -0800

New Report from CFS shows how trade agreements like TPP serve up an “unsavory dinner”

Most discussion about trade agreements, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, focuses on jobs and economic indicators, but there is little discussion about the impacts on our dinner plate. Although it appears that the U.S. Congress will not ratify the TPP, current trade agreements pose a threat to food safety and public health. And future trade rules under a Trump Administration could also likely include trade rules modeled on agreements like the TPP.

TPP and other trade agreements contain expedited and relaxed trade rules that make it easier for goods to be traded among partner countries, despite the risks – food safety and otherwise – that may be involved. Thanks to years of opposition and protest from progressive organizations and coalitions, including Center for Food Safety (CFS), TPP will not go into effect.

Given some of the grave implications for farmers, food safety and public health, this is a huge victory for the food movement. But it is not the end. We must continue to oppose deals like the TPP that have the potential to wreak real havoc on farmers, farm workers, and our food system; continue implementing the Food Modernization Act; and advocate for rigorous Food and Drug Administration (FDA) border inspections. A new report from CFS, TPP Serves Up an Unsavory Dinner, illustrates how trade agreements such as the TPP and our current lax food safety regulations impact what’s on your plate:

1) Toxins and drugs and hairs, oh my: Food imports already coming from TPP countries have been found to contain residues from drugs that are illegal in the U.S., toxic contaminants, salmonella and other pathogens, and additional unsavory substances such as rodent hairs.
2) Inspector, who? Expedited trade rules in the TPP will increase food imports, yet provide no resources to expand food inspection at the border. Currently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspects less than two percent of foods coming into the U.S.!
3) Follow the $$... Producers in several TPP countries are able to sell products more cheaply than in the U.S., in part because of lax or non-existent safety, quality, and inspection standards and practices. This puts U.S. farmers and producers out of business.
4) Oh the (in)humanity! Labor trafficking is a well-documented practice in some TPP countries, particularly in the seafood industry, where labor conditions are brutal, dangerous, and inhumane.[1]
5) See the forest through the trees: Unsustainable agricultural and food production practices in some TPP countries gravely impact the environment. For example, some TPP countries are destroying mangrove regions to make way for fish and shrimp farms. Mangroves are central to protecting coastal zones from dramatic storms and weather, and also play a vital role in water filtration and carbon sequestration.

How can we avoid having our food supply, health, environment, and food and farm workers impacted by TPP and similar trade deals?

Start by getting educated! Take a deeper dive into our new report, TPP Serves Up An Unsavory Dinner, where you can read some disturbing case studies involving toxic honey, tainted meat and produce, unsafe seafood, sullied spices, and rice ridden with pesticides. Even though the TPP will not be enacted, this report outlines how current food imports pose threats to food safety and public health.

TPP was not the model of a trade agreement for our food, farmers and future. Center for Food Safety remains dedicated to ensuring that trade rules are rooted in respect for farmers and farmworkers, and the health of our planet and people.

[1] http://uscatfish.com/asian-seafood-producers-use-slaves-coerced-labor-supply-u-s/

For Antibiotics Awareness Week, Misuse in Farm Animals Cannot be Overlooked

Mon, 14 Nov 2016 00:00:00 -0800

By now it’s widely acknowledged that the world is facing a crisis when it comes to the rise of antibiotic-resistant infections. That is, after all, why the World Health Organization (WHO) and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have created annual antibiotics awareness weeks during the same week of November. In fact, the World Health Organization (WHO) reports that “antibiotic resistance is one of the biggest threats to global health, food security, and development today.”

It is critical that as a global community we take steps now to curb this terrifying trend and to make every effort to preserve the integrity of life-saving medicines.

We must continue to address over-prescription of antibiotics in the human health industry, which has been the primary focus of national and global efforts to combat resistant infections. But, we must give the same attention and sense of urgency to routine use in animal agriculture in order to preserve the efficacy of current and future antibiotics.

We cannot solve the antibiotic resistance crisis without addressing how we raise animals for food. Here are a few reasons why:

Seventy percent of medically important antibiotics and 80 percent of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. each year are marketed to food animal producers.

Sixty to 80 percent of the antibiotics eaten by food animals are present in their waste. This means antibiotic residues and resistant bacteria in the waste can enter waterways from lagoon leaks and soil runoff, drift off farm in dust and air, or be carried off farm by workers and wildlife.

Even medicines of last resort are under threat. Bacteria resistant to colistin, a last line of defense for treating resistant infections, have spread globally in the last year, likely due to overuse of colistin in the pork industry.

What must be done to effect change when it comes to antibiotics and raising food animals?

Protecting antibiotics requires treating food animals better. Providing clean, comfortable housing, more nutritious and naturally-suited diets, and sufficient space can keep animals healthy and reduce reliance on routine antibiotics. Strong animal welfare benefits not just animals, but also public health and the environment. Eliminating the industrial emphasis on rapid, unnatural growth rates—a common purpose of on-farm antibiotics use historically—is imperative to ending the industry’s reliance on many animal drugs. While the U.S. has taken some, mostly voluntary steps to address the use of medically important antibiotics for growth promotion, it continues to allow the use of non-human antibiotics for this purpose.

WHO tells farmers, “only give antibiotics to animals to control or treat infectious diseases,” and calls for the phase-out of routine disease prevention uses. To preserve antibiotics, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Agriculture, and U.S. farmers need to get on board. In addition to requiring producers to create humane, healthy living conditions that would limit antibiotic abuse to medical necessity, we must prohibit growth promotion and disease prevention uses of important antibiotics in animals, and use only with veterinary oversight.

What is CFS doing to help avert the antibiotic crisis?

CFS and allies are calling on large meat buyers, like restaurants, to source from producers that do not allow routine antibiotic use, demonstrating to companies that consumers are demanding better policies and practices.

We are keeping the pressure on the FDA to enact strict government regulations against using antibiotics for disease prevention, for improved animal living conditions, and to review the environmental impacts of antibiotic use.

CFS is raising awareness on antibiotic resistance and encouraging the public to seek out meat and animal products that are certified organic and humanely-raised without unnecessary antibiotics and other drugs.

We all have a part to play in protecting public health, animals and our food system. Learn more about why producers use antibiotics and other animal drugs; which drugs they're using; how government (fails to) regulate animal drugs; how these drugs impact the environment, public health and animal welfare; and how we can get these drugs out of our meat supply.

Creating and Celebrating Farming Opportunities for Veterans

Fri, 11 Nov 2016 00:00:00 -0800

The U.S. faces a slow moving crisis in agriculture.

Over the next 20 years, we will lose 700,000 farmers. The average age of the American farmer today is 58.

To close the coming farmer deficit -- 700,000 -- we need to make about 25,000 new farmers a year. As a nation, we have produced just 1,200 new farmers in the last two years. That is not a replacement rate.

Right now American farmers produce enough calories to sustain every man woman and child in our country. In 20 years, unless we do something bold, that will not be the case.

Farming is tough. Farming is physical. It is financially risky, with low margins and much outside of a farmers control. It is emotionally challenging. It requires the ability to make long term plans, adapt them on the fly, to do something different everyday, to respond to crises, to hold faith that the seed planted now will bear fruit in three months. Farming requires the heart of an entrepreneur, the brain of an accountant, the strength of a weightlifter (most farm jobs hold as a requirement that you can lift 50 lbs above your head, regularly.)

At the same time, the nation produces 200,000 new veterans every year. You see where I'm going with this.

These vets -- some with just four years under their belts and others with whole careers behind them -- are among the few Americans with the grit to be farmers. They know how to plan and adapt those plans. They are mission-oriented and don't quit until a job is done -- be it taking a hill or harvesting an entire field. They can work as a team or independently, and they absorb training like sponges.

I know this personally because the Arcadia Center for Sustainable Food & Agriculture is training 12 military veterans to be farmers now, on land that George Washington cultivated after he retired his military commission 200 years ago.

The 12 members of our USDA-backed program come to us from all four services. Their interests and plans for agriculture vary wildly -- a Navy intelligence officer owns land in the Bahamas and wants to make an eco-resort and grow food for his guests. An Army vet wants a subsistence farm to feed her family and sell a little bit roadside. A Marine veteran, wounded in combat, wants a vegetable farm and on-site meadery from the honey he will raise. A special forces veteran just bought six acres and is planting now. A Navy veteran is raising five pigs and planting vegetables. An Army veteran is in culinary school and wants a farm-to-table cafe where he will teach underserved children about growing and cooking healthy food.

They are united by their discipline and work ethic; their desire to create something real, lasting, and healthy for their families. And all of them want meaningful work, work that continues their lives in public service.

These people, men and women, all stepped up to serve once, and now they are offering to serve again. Some have land, some have experience. But others are called to the work, and need land, training, and support as they commence their second acts in agriculture.

Arcadia offers two training tracks -- the Veteran Reserve Program and the Veteran Farm Fellowship. The Reserve is one weekend a month of intensive cultivation and farm-appropriate business training, along with visits to successful area farms to understand the full range of what is possible. The Veteran Farm Fellowship is a paid, year-long fellowship on our farm working with our professional farmers. Approved by the VA as an on-the-job training program, our Fellows can draw on GI Bill benefits for additional financial support during their paid training. Both the Fellows and the Reservists work shoulder to shoulder with pros on our farm, learning soil science, pest control, planting and irrigation in real time. Our intention is that these new farmers will experience everything -- bountiful harvests, hail and drought, flooding and crop failure -- with us the first time rather than when they are on their own acres. The military calls it left-seat, right seat training.

By far the most rewarding outcome of our program is the esprit d'corps these veterans have found with each other. They are funny and profane and gentle when they need to be with each other. They support each other. They help plant crops on each others farms. They know what it is to be a unit, and I think they missed it.

Arcadia is now seeking 15 more veterans who want to become farmers to join the Arcadia Veteran Farmer Reserve. No experience necessary -- just your grit, your discipline, and your commitment to continue your life in public service.

Pamela Hess is the Executive Director of the Arcadia Center for Sustainable Food and Agriculture. She came to Arcadia from journalism. A career national security journalist, Pam covered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the Pentagon and CIA with the Associated Press and United Press International. After a brief foray into national politics as a communications director on Capitol Hill, Pam returned to her first love: food and sustainable farms. In 2011, she took the helm of a local food and wine magazine that celebrated sustainable food and farming in the Capitol Foodshed, and in the course of it, met and fell in love with Arcadia. She brings to Arcadia a deep commitment to its mission, a large and expanding network of farmers and food advocates, and a great reputation within the sustainable food community.

Say No To Nano Tricks In Our Treats, Please!

Thu, 27 Oct 2016 00:00:00 -0700

Halloween is right around the corner, and that means it’s time for goblins and ghouls and trick-or-treating fun! What it shouldn’t mean is worrying over whether or not we’re being tricked by candy producers into buying and eating potentially toxic treats…

Nanotechnology is a powerful new tool for taking apart and reconstructing nature at the molecular level – and it has some scary repercussions when used in food products. Nano-scale materials are really small, highly reactive particles that can pass through the body’s blood-brain barrier to places in the human body that other materials can’t, and cause more damage when they do. Scientists agree that nanomaterials create novel food safety risks that require toxicity testing, yet very little testing and regulation of these new products exists, and consumers have almost no information.

So what does that mean for you or your little ghoul on Halloween? Well, for example, titanium dioxide, one of the most common engineered nanomaterials, is often found in candy (it’s used as a whitener, an anti-caking agent, a “shine” agent, and for texture) – and studies show it can cause pathological lesions of the liver, spleen, kidneys, and brain; lung tumors; and inflammation, cell necrosis, and dysfunction in the kidney.

We at CFS are working to get the government to adopt stronger regulations for nanotechnology, especially when it comes to applications in our food supply. And we recently received word that MARS Corp. (the top-selling candy company in the world) has committed to removing titanium dioxide from its products over the next five years – which is great news. But in the meantime, we want you to enjoy a Halloween without any nano tricks in your treats! That’s why we created this simple guide to help you say no to nano ingredients in candy this Halloween.

1. Avoid products that do or could contain nano: CFS has an interactive database that shows common food products containing nanomaterials, including popular gums and candies. While there are many brands of candy believed to contain nano ingredients, these brands have been tested1,2 and confirmed to contain them: M&Ms, Skittles, Eclipse gum, Allen's Kool Mints, Dentyne gum, Trident gum, Mentos, and Good and Plenty.

2. Look for delicious, healthy, environmentally and socially conscious alternatives: While fruit and healthy options won’t always make you the most popular house on the block for trick-or-treaters, they are a good place to start. Other options like, fair trade chocolates or other organic candies will make your house the place to stop, and won’t have any nanomaterials. Organic foods are not allowed to contain nano ingredients, so your best bet to avoid nano ingredients is to look for organic candies like Endangered Species Chocolate Bug Bites; YummyEarth Organic Lollipops; Surf Sweets Spooky Spiders, Sour Worms, and organic jelly beans; Equal Exchange Chocolates; Go Organic Hard Candies; Justin’s Organic Dark Chocolate Peanut Butter Cups; Amy’s Organic Candy Bites; Mini Ocho Organic Candy Bars; and Theo’s Kids’ Crunch organic candy bars.

3. Take action: Sign our petition to MARS, the top selling candy company in the world, urging them to commit to speed up the removal of titanium dioxide and to remove all other nano ingredients in their candies!

Happy (and healthy) haunting!!

1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3288463/#SD1
2. http://emergingtech.foe.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/FoE-Aus-Report-Final-web.pdf

Not So Wonderful

Wed, 19 Oct 2016 00:00:00 -0700

Wonderful Company and Bee Sweet Citrus respond to CFS member emails with misleading information

This month, we’ve joined forces with Breast Cancer Action in their “Think Before You Pink” campaign. It’s been two days since we launched our campaign against Bee Sweet Citrus and Wonderful Company and they are already feeling the pressure. Since Monday, more than 10,000 of you have sent letters to Wonderful Company (the makers of Halos©) and Bee Sweet Citrus demanding that they stop watering our food with oil wastewater.

Right away, Bee Sweet Citrus and Wonderful Company started replying to our members. Both companies admit that they use oil wastewater to irrigate their citrus - and then try to defend it. Bee Sweet even told our members that they received “disinformation.” But the only disinformation is what Bee Sweet and Wonderful Company are putting out.

Wonderful Company says that “this water is treated extensively to remove as much oil as possible. It is then filtered and tested at multiple locations for the presence of contaminants. This rigorous treatment process brings the water’s hydrocarbon levels back to drinking water standards. It is a safe, reliable supply that is carefully monitored and regulated.” But the truth is the use of oil wastewater to irrigate crops has not been proven safe for the public or for the farm workers who are exposed firsthand to these chemicals.

Oil extraction processes rely on toxic chemicals to drill, maintain, and clean wells. And these chemical additives can be found in wastewater. A new report released last month examined the chemical additives used in oil operations that supply wastewater for crop irrigation. They found that “a total of 173 different chemical additives were used in these oil and gas fields, of which more than one-third (38 percent) were not able to be sufficiently identified for preliminary hazard evaluation, largely due to the withholding of information under proprietary claims.” Of the chemicals researchers were able to analyze, they found that 43 percent of them can be classified as “potential chemicals of concern from human health and/or environmental perspectives and require more thorough investigation.”

There is also no adequate state oversight of this type of irrigation to ensure the process is safe. Wonderful Company points to their limited tests on the wastewater and crops, but they don’t even test for all of the chemicals used in the oil extraction process. Why? Because you can’t test for something you don’t know exists. As the new report released this week states, “It is difficult or impossible to estimate risks to consumers, farmworkers, or the environment, when identification of chemical additives remains in trade secret form and/or lacks toxicity and environmental profile information.”

Regardless of their misleading responses, we have their attention. Keep up the pressure! Tell Bee Sweet Citrus and Wonderful Company to stop watering our food with oil wastewater. If you’ve already taken action, share this action with your friends!

Healthy Soils, Healthy Ranching in Hawai'i

Wed, 19 Oct 2016 00:00:00 -0700

Originally posted on Soil Solutions

Earlier this month, Center for Food Safety brought together its Soil Solutions program and its Hawai‘i office to host “Healthy Soils, Healthy Ranching” – a conference for ranchers from across the state of Hawaii at PuÊ»u O Hoku Ranch on the island of Molokai.

This conference brought together forward-looking ranchers with a variety of experts to share best practices, review emergent science on the role of soil health in climate change mitigation, and create a rancher-to-rancher network for future data monitoring and collaboration. Participants were welcomed to the beautiful ranch by Ashley Lukens, director of Hawai’i CFS. Soil Solutions program director, Diana Donlon brought attendees up to speed on the climate angle by outlining the direct connection between soil degradation and excess atmospheric carbon.

Johann Zietsman, a pioneer in holistic planned grazing from Zimbabwe who now consults with land managers around the world, made the long journey to meet with the ranchers. Although Zietsman doesn’t ranch on a tropical island, the group found his advice on animal health relevant to any ecosystem. David Johnson, a molecular biologist specializing in soil microbiology at New Mexico State University, spoke about the importance of maintaining thriving soil microbial communities. Johnson has developed a system he calls “biologically enhanced agriculture management” or “BEAM.” Johnson’s experiments using BEAM show a new direct correlation between improving fungal–bacterial ratios in soils and increasing the ability to capture, store and retain atmospheric C02 as new soil carbon.

Mark Thorne, a State Range Extension Specialist and Rebecca Ryals, a professor in the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management at University of Hawai‘i at Manoa contributed a wealth of knowledge about management practices both in Hawai‘i and on the mainland. Hawai’i’s ranchers face different challenges from their mainland peers. Ranching on an island comes with a special set of constraints that impact such things as stocking and destocking, storing forage (hay gets moldy!) and transportation (no interstate highway system). Additionally, the state controls considerable amounts of land that is leased for livestock production, most in the form of month-to-month revocable permits. Several of the ranchers mentioned this issue as one that needs to be addressed to incentivize the adoption of better grazing management practices.

By the end of the productive weekend, the ranchers had agreed on the importance of baseline carbon monitoring and plan to work with Ryals to set that in motion. They also agreed that the ecological and social benefits of well-managed ranching are an under-recognized story that bears telling:

Well-managed ranching landscapes help filter and store fresh-water resources; mitigate erosion that threatens sensitive reef habitat; are a tool for keeping invasive plant species in check while providing habitat for song birds; and contribute to food security and sovereignty, all the while preserving Hawai’i’s rich traditions and identity.

5 Actions You Can Take To Celebrate World Food Day

Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:00:00 -0700

Wendell Berry once said “the Earth is what we all have in common.” It is one of my favorite quotes to return to when I’m getting down and out about the unrest in the world, and particularly, as of late, the extreme socio-political divisions here in the U.S. that have put many of us at odds with our neighbors. I often think about the many ways in which we all depend on the pale blue dot. During this time of year, the harvest, I am especially reminded of just how much the earth sustains us, and think that Berry’s idea could be applied to a connected concept – food is what we all have in common. Today, on World Food Day, I can think of a million ways we could celebrate that commonality, empower each other, and support food security and sustainability for everyone. Here are a few that top the list:

1. Challenge politicians to address food issues:

So much is at stake this November for the future of our movement. There is one presidential debate left and we can still offer input on which food policy questions we want the candidates to address. Will we enact policies to stop the routine use of antibiotics in meat and poultry to protect their effectiveness in treating human illnesses? Will we allow a massive Monsanto merger and unprecedented corporate agricultural consolidation? Will we act to reverse the decimation of our critical pollinators? Will we give Americans the right to know about the food we buy and fee our families? Let’s challenge the candidates to tell us how they’re going to improve our food system. This election, debate moderators are reviewing the top questions on Open Debates, a platform where voters can submit and vote on the questions they’d most like to hear the candidates answer. Vote for your favorite food and agriculture question!

2. Speak out against seed company mergers:

Food availability and accessibility begin with equitable and fair access to land and vital natural resources, including seeds. However, over the last few decades, a handful of agrichemical giants have acquired much of the world’s seed supply. Just five companies – Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Dow and Bayer – account for 62% of world seed sales. The continuing consolidation of seed and pesticide companies will only increase incentives to make agriculture more pesticide-intensive and pesticide-dependent – through development of more pesticide-promoting GMO crops and through application of pesticidal coatings on seeds of all crops. This wreaks havoc on public health, small and family farmers, and the environment, and threatens our ability to adapt our food supply in a changing climate. Recently, over 700,000 people urged the government to block the mergers of seed companies. Add your voice!

3. Encourage food producers to take responsibility:

One in three bites of food depends on bees for pollination. But since the mid-2000's, bees have been dying at alarming rates and beekeepers continue to struggle to keep their hives healthy enough to pollinate many of our food crops. One of the biggest threats to bees right now is pesticide-coated seeds. Scientific studies have continued to point to a group of insecticides called neonicotinoids (“neonics”) as a leading culprit in bee population losses and poor colony health. While corn dominates the neonic seed coating market, popcorn also has a big stake in the game, as a large percentage of popcorn seeds are coated with neonics. That’s why we’re asking popcorn producers to phase out the use of neonics in their supply chains. You can help by signing the petition to tell Orville Redenbacher to stop killing bees!

4. Keep it clean:

There is no reason that wastewater from oil drilling should be used to irrigate crops. Yet in California, where over half of the fruits, nuts and vegetables that feed our country are grown, that is the reality. Oil companies use toxic, cancer-causing chemicals in their operations and then supply their wastewater to irrigate crops at a discounted price. But using oil wastewater to irrigate our food has not been proven safe—neither for the health of the public nor for the health of farm workers, who are exposed firsthand to these chemicals. Californians have reached out to their state government, presenting a petition with over 350,000 signatures urging the governor to stop the practice of oil wastewater irrigation. But this issue doesn’t just impact Californians – it impacts Americans all across the country who eat food grown in the state. Add your name to the petition to keep oil wastewater off of crops!

5. Start a chain reaction:

There is growing awareness among the public about the overuse of antibiotics in animals raised for food. This awareness is leading many to seek meat and poultry raised in more sustainable systems that do not rely on routine use of antibiotics. Most meat served by America's chain restaurants comes from animals raised in factory farms. These animals are often fed antibiotics daily in order to prevent diseases that occur in crowded, unsanitary living conditions, and to promote faster growth. Regularly dosing animals with antibiotics for purposes other than treating illnesses has contributed to rising cases of antibiotic-resistant infections in humans that are resistant to important medicines. The spread of resistant pathogens means that infections are harder to treat, require longer hospitalizations, and pose greater risk of death. Choosing meats raised without routine antibiotics is a way for consumers to help curb the spread of resistant pathogens and protect the efficacy of critical human medicines. CFS and our partners recently released the 2016 report ranking America’s top 25 restaurant chains on their antibiotic use. Many improved from last year, but several others still have a ways to go. Keep the chain reaction going by putting pressure on those restaurants that scored an ‘F’!

As you can see, there are a lot of challenges in our current food system that we need to overcome. But working together, we have the power to shape a food future that is healthy and sustainable for people, animals, and the earth – this special place that we all have in common. Happy World Food Day!

Celebrating Rural Women Around the World

Fri, 14 Oct 2016 00:00:00 -0700

Rural Women Farmers in Malawi Participate in a Focus Group Discussion

(Photo: Claire Jordan)

International Day of Rural Women is an opportunity to bring awareness to the profound ways women living in rural communities around the world contribute to society, as well as the ways they are underrepresented and hindered. Rural women farmers, in particular, have the opportunity to shape a global food system in response to the needs of a growing population and a changing planet, but they need support. For example, it has been proven that women tend to farm more on smaller plots of land utilizing fewer resources, creating more sustainable farms. At the same time, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that global agricultural yields would increase between 2.5 and four percent if female farmers had the same opportunities and resources as their male counterparts. When thinking in terms of food security, that is a significant change in the amount of food produced.

With women accounting for 60 to 80 percent of small-holder farmers internationally, and with 70 percent of the rural poor being women whose livelihoods depend on agriculture, it is crucial that not only today, but every day, rural women farmers are recognized and included in future food security planning.

While they face myriad challenges, four major issues impact rural women farmers across the continents, including climate change, water insecurity, soil infertility, and gender disparities – and often each compounds the other. Let’s look at some examples from Bolivia, Malawi, India, Greece, Australia and the United States:

Climate Change

People all around our planet are seeing the impacts of a changing climate and rural women farmers are especially at-risk. In Bolivia, for example, climate change causes myriad environmental problems—such as reduced rainfall, drought, temperature fluctuations, soil degradation, water pollution, and deforestation—that are specifically detrimental to farmers. Due to the cultural and economic positions Bolivian women are in, they have fewer options for finding alternative livelihoods when climate change destroys their crop yields.

In India, over four-fifths of the women in rural areas work in agriculture. According to a study done by the Australian Center for International Agricultural Research, the biggest problems women farmers in India face are climate related, like increased heat and a change in rainfall patterns; an increase in pests and insects; and lower seed quality.[1] Because women are the seed keepers in India, the lack of variety and diversity in the seed market places a heavy toll on these farmers. The same study stated that women farmers and women-headed households in India were more susceptible to shocks from the environmental damages caused by climate change— which is compounded by cultural gender norms that inhibit women from holding land titles, and result in limited control over assets, and displacement.

Likewise, Malawi is one of the countries most affected by climate change. It has been noted that subsistence farmers in rural parts of Malawi are at the forefront of fighting climate change. With 70 percent of the agricultural labor force in Malawi being women, women farmers in rural areas of the country deal the most with the effects of climate change, similar to those faced by their peers in South America and Asia.

Women harvesting rice in the Himalaya Mountains in Dharmasala

(Photo: Kaiulani Kimbrell)

Water Crisis

Too much or too little rainfall, and unpredictable and extreme flooding and drought patterns can have drastic effects on rural farmworkers in any community. As with the effects of climate change on agriculture, rural women farmers often feel the brunt of these impacts. Reduced water security in Bolivia is particularly apparent to women. Because women in Bolivia are the ones who tend to manage the farm and ensure that food and water are on the table while men move to urban areas for different jobs, it is women who become most susceptible to changes in quality and quantity of water.

Similarly, erratic rainfall patterns in other parts of the world make once-dependable planting and growing seasons difficult to rely on. Malawi has experienced severe droughts and shorter rainy seasons as a result of climate change, and according to The International Food Policy Research Institute, Malawi loses an average of 1.7 percent of its GDP yearly with small scale farmers most affected. Women there have to walk longer distances regularly to retrieve water. This limits their time on the farm and hinders their ability to adapt to drought.

(In)Fertile Lands

Soil health and quality are essential to successful farming. In the United States, rural communities are plagued by environmental impact issues resulting from the reduction in small farms and the rapid expansion of industrial agriculture. Producers on rural farms in the U.S. experience soil fertility depletion from monocrop planting; soil erosion; lost biodiversity and ecosystem services; and increased costs of irrigation from barren soils and inability to combat drought. Most farms in the U.S. operated by women are small farms with annual sales of less than $10,000. This clearly puts these women farmers at a disadvantage when having to deal with the negative ramifications of industrial agriculture.

Climate change and erratic rainfall have also resulted in reduced soil fertility and soil erosion in Malawi. Flooding followed by drought couples with deforestation to cause increased erosion and sedimentation rates. Women’s inability to seek work elsewhere, and their resulting lower yields, makes them more vulnerable to these environmental problems and further hurts their livelihoods.

Gender Disparities

The environmental barriers to securing successful livelihoods that rural women already face are too-often compounded by cultural gender inequalities.

In Greece, for example, there is a significant gender pay gap that results in women farmers earning less, often having to seek out other sources of income.[2] Additionally, a gender division of labor exists, forcing women farmers to tend to the land, as well as household duties and tasks.[3] This decreases their chances of seeking further off-farm employment due to less available time, making it more difficult for them to finance the strategies needed to combat the environmental problems in rural Greece.

In Australia, women comprise half of the rural workforce, yet are severely underrepresented in the decision-making processes of agricultural politics. So while environmental problems like land degradation, water quality issues, and climate change[4] continue to burden rural women farmers, their insight is not valued. Rural Australian women face the added challenge of overcoming cultural barriers, like gender discrimination, in order to adapt and deal with these environmental problems and the effects of climate change.[5]

Likewise, gender disparities realted to limited access to agricultural resources, limited market access, and time allocation, have contributed to the disempowerment of women farmers in Malawi.

In the Andes Mountains of rural Bolivia, soil erosion is most-limiting to communities and furthers the cycle of poverty. With Bolivian women taking on the burden of ensuring food security, they experience this specific problem more than their male counterparts.[6]

***

It is clear to see that not only are rural women farmers incredibly resilient and hardworking, but without their input on environmental issues and increased equality, food security and the global food system will continue to be at risk. So today while you’re eating a meal, think of the rural women farmers around the world who continue to persevere through the most difficult times to put food on your table and their own.

[1] Dutt, K. L. (2014). Experiencing and coping with change: Women-headed farming households in the Eastern Gangetic Plains. ACIAR Technical Reports, 83, 1-66.
[2] Gidarakou, I. (1999). Young Women’s Attitudes Towards Agriculture and Women’s New Roles in the Greek Countryside: A First Approach. Journal of Rural Studies, 15(2), 145-158.
[3] Stratigaki, M. (1988). Agricultural Modernization And Gender Division Of Labour: The case of Heraklion, Greece. Sociologia Ruralis, 28(4), 248-262.
[4] Hughes, L., Rickards, L., Steffen, W., Stock, P., & Rice, M. (2016). On The Frontline: Climate Change & Rural Communities.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Zimmerer, K. S. (1993). Soil Erosion and Labor Shortages in the Andes With Special Reference to Bolivia, 1953-1991: Implications for “Conservation-With-Development”. World Development, 21(10), 1659-1675.

Victory! Preferred Popcorn Nixes Bee-Toxic Neonics

Mon, 03 Oct 2016 00:00:00 -0700

This farmer-owned company’s commitment to protect pollinators is POPPIN’!

There’s more good news in the pollinators and popcorn world, and it’s just in time for National Popcorn Poppin’ Month. We’re excited to share that a third company, Preferred Popcorn, a fully farmer-owned company that provides popcorn to popular popcorn brands and movie theatre concessions, has taken bold steps toward removing bee-toxic insecticides from their popcorn supply chain. As many consumers are aware, the most widely-used class of insecticides, neonicotinoids (neonics for short), are harmful to both bees and the broader environment.

That’s why exactly one year ago CFS launched a new market campaign, and with the help of our members, we’ve been encouraging popcorn companies to phase out the use of neonicotinoid seed coatings. Only a couple of months after launching this campaign, we were thrilled that two of the leading companies saw value in the idea – Pop Weaver and Pop Secret both committed to phase out their use of neonics in order to help protect bees, other pollinators, and the environment. The momentum has continued to grow over the past year, and we’re now happy to applaud Preferred for not only agreeing to completely remove neonics from their supply chain by 2017, but also for their leadership in launching the addition of a certified organic popcorn line to their inventory.

Today’s news about Preferred Popcorn’s commitment is significant for a couple of reasons – for starters, it’s an indication that companies are listening to consumers and building a strong sense of corporate social responsibility. Beyond that, Preferred’s leadership is unique because the company is fully farmer-owned, and these farmers have agreed to nix neonics out of concern for bees and the environment. An unfortunate trend that I’ve noticed in the years that I’ve been working on pollinator issues is that farmers are often unfairly blamed for problems with pesticides and bees. I think that Preferred’s commitment is a strong counter to that narrative and is an important reminder of the critical role farmers can play in efforts to protect pollinators and the environment.

Along those lines, it’s important to point out that in many cases, especially with corn seed, the monopolistic agrochemical and seed companies leave farmers with no choice but to use pesticide-coated seeds. This extreme lack of farmer choice is a direct result of the fact that the four largest agrochemical and seed companies control nearly 60 percent of the global patented seed market, and as such, they have a vested interest in coupling seed sales with chemical sales. Unfortunately, the market is set up to promote the use of the chemicals, regardless of need or consequence…and sadly, in the case of bees, there are certainly consequences.

Seed coatings are a common but relatively new method of applying pesticides to crops. The seed is covered with the pesticide or pesticide mixture (fungicide and insecticide combinations are common), allowing the chemicals to be taken up into the plant as it grows – ultimately rendering the whole plant toxic. Yet, depending on the crop, only five percent of the active chemical applied to the seed actually enters the plant, leaving the remaining 95 percent to enter the environment through seed dust off, soil contamination, or water runoff.

Bees are exposed to the chemicals in flight and via the toxic dust that is released during seed planting. The dust can settle on nearby wildflowers and pose additional threats to bees when collecting pollen and nectar. A significant amount of the chemical on the seed is also absorbed into the surrounding soil and groundwater, allowing wildflowers and trees near crop fields to absorb the chemicals from the soil and present yet another route of toxic exposure for bees. The chemicals that persist in the soil also pose a significant threat to native bees, as 70 percent of native bees build their nests in the soil.

Needless to say, these chemicals are having harmful impacts, which is why we should both celebrate when companies like Preferred step up to the plate, and continue to fight for much-needed changes to the system. To date, the largest popcorn company, Orville Redenbacher’s, has refused to take action for bees and phase out uses of neonic seed coatings. Want to take action and help save bees? Here are a few options to get you started:

Join us in keeping the pressure on Orville Redenbacher’s to do the right thing for bees by signing the petition here.
Vote with your dollar when shopping by supporting popcorn companies that are bee-friendly and don’t use neonics in their growing practices. You can check out some of these popcorn brands in our popcorn guide here.
Visit our popcorn campaign website to learn more about the issues and help us raise awareness.
Share the popcorn guide with your family and friends.
Learn about other simple steps you can take to help pollinators, starting in your homes and backyards.

A Win for Locals: California Counties Given Back the Right to Regulate GMOs

Thu, 22 Sep 2016 00:00:00 -0700

California farmers and gardeners have reason to celebrate – a statute that prohibited counties from passing laws regulating seeds, including bans on the growing of genetically engineered (GE or GMO) crops, was overturned last week. This means that if a county votes locally to pass a seed-related law, such as the Sonoma initiative to ban GMO crops that will be on the ballot there in November, it will not be preempted by state law. This is important because it secures the livelihoods of farmers growing non-GMO crops, and gives the right back to farmers and growers to use their knowledge to do what is best for their soil and unique local environments.

That security and that right had been threatened because of a 2014 bill by Assemblymember Rudy Salas (D-32nd District) regulating seed sold in California. Assembly Bill 2470 authorized the Secretary of Food and Agriculture to adopt a list of plants and crops that are or may be grown in the state, including a list of noxious weeds. Part of the bill’s intent was to ensure that seed is properly identified and that crops and plants that may be detrimental to agriculture (i.e. noxious or invasive) are classified as “weed seed.”

However, this otherwise benign intent turned ugly when AB 2470 was amended later in the session to include a provision barring a city, county, or district (including charter cities and counties) from adopting or enforcing an ordinance that would regulate all plants, crops, or seeds. Most troubling was that the provision specifically prohibited any county from adopting or enforcing a law banning or regulating the planting of GMO crops after January 1, 2015, unless approved by the Secretary of Agriculture.

Looking back, it comes as no surprise that the bill’s sole supporter at its inception and throughout most of the legislative process was the California Seed Association, an agricultural trade association that represents the seed industry. California Seed Association’s membership includes the major GMO and pesticide companies Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer CropScience, and BASF, and its lobbyist also represents Monsanto in the halls of the legislature in Sacramento.

The amendment to prohibit counties from passing GMO bans was dangerous in two huge ways. For one, it infringed on the democratic rights of counties. Counties should be allowed to pass laws, either through county supervisors or by voters via the ballot initiative process – laws that are intended to address the particular needs and interests of citizens and the environment of that county.

The amendment was also troubling in its specific application to GMO crop bans. As more and more GMO crops are introduced, they pose greater and greater risks to farmers who choose not to grow those crops. Pollen from GMO crops is easily carried by the wind, bees and wildlife, and has the potential to contaminate neighboring farms, gardens, and pastures. Many farmers depend on contracts they have to provide food manufacturers with organic and/or non-GMO crops, such as corn for use in organic and products labeled by the Non-GMO Project. If those products are tested and found to contain GMOs, those farmers lose their contracts. It’s simply a matter of protecting the financial interests of farmers who choose not to grow GMO crops. And since there is no effective way to prevent pollen transfer, farmers must be allowed to prevent potential contamination.

Fortunately, Senator Mark Leno, chair of the budget committee, saw the need to overturn the undemocratic law. Working with other legislators and Governor Brown’s administration, language was inserted into one of the budget trailer bills, Senate Bill 839, repealing this pernicious section of AB 2470. Governor Brown signed SB 839 on September 13, 2016 and thankfully, it is legal once again for a county to adopt or enforce an ordinance that regulates plants, crops, or seeds without the consent of the secretary.

The victory of repealing AB 2470 is particularly bittersweet following on the heels of the passage of the federal DARK Act, which took away states and counties’ rights to require labeling of genetically engineered foods. Although the DARK Act also preempts states and counties from enacting any regulation relating to the labeling of genetically engineered seeds in interstate commerce, it does not prohibit states and counties from regulating the cultivation or planting of GMO seeds within their jurisdictions.

Counties such as Sonoma that are running or considering ballot initiatives to ban the planting of GMO crops can now legally join the five other counties in California, and numerous counties in other states like Oregon and Hawaii, to protect their farmers, gardeners and local environment from the impacts of GMOs.

Fast Food Companies Make Progress in Addressing Antibiotic Resistance Crisis

Tue, 20 Sep 2016 00:00:00 -0700

Five Key Findings on Where the Industry Stands Today

Today, groups including Center for Food Safety released Chain Reaction II, the 2nd annual report ranking the top 25 U.S. restaurant chains on their antibiotics policies. Antibiotic resistance is a global health crisis, driven largely by overuse and misuse of antibiotics. In fact, the United Nations will meet tomorrow to discuss the issue and commit to specific actions. But political conversations too often focus on identifying ways to reduce overuse of antibiotics in human healthcare settings. There is significantly less willingness to tackle overuse of the drugs in animals raised for food, despite the fact that roughly 80 percent of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. are marketed to animals. That is why activists and consumers have rallied together to engage the restaurant industry and encourage companies to reduce the use of antibiotics in their supply chains.

Companies are responding. Since last year, Subway, Wendy’s, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and Papa John’s have all announced some commitment to address routine use of antibiotics. A few have even begun putting their new policies into action. McDonald’s announced plans in 2015 to eliminate routine use of medically-important antibiotics in their chicken. This year the company converted 100% of their chicken supply to comply with their new policy. All in all, nine companies received passing grades this year, compared to four in last year’s report. That still leaves 16 companies that have taken no public action to date to address antibiotics use by their meat and poultry suppliers. Clearly, there is much work to be done to continue moving the industry and eliminating the routine use of antibiotics in food animals.

Sign our petition telling the 16 “F” companies to adopt strong polices that prohibit the regular use of antibiotics in their meat and poultry.

But the scores are only part of the story, and there are a number of big-picture messages to take away from the report and where the industry stands today:

1. Company engagement more than doubled

Sixteen companies responded to the survey this year, more than doubling last year’s response rate. Looking at it another way, more companies participated in this project than opted out. This is a fantastic trend. Consumers are demanding change, and the industry is paying attention. The Chain Reaction II scorecard is not only a tool to help consumers choose where to eat, it also serves to augment their voices by publicly putting the companies on notice: business as usual is not good for business. With increased attention on the issue and our scorecard each year, we hope to see 100% participation in the near future.

2. Fast food companies lead the pack

With more companies participating in the survey and taking actual steps to address routine antibiotics use in their meat and poultry supplies, an interesting result has emerged. The passing grades are almost entirely earned by fast food chains. The array of fast-casual establishments in the top 25, like Olive Garden, Applebee’s, and Buffalo Wild Wings, lag far behind. Many of these companies did not even return the survey. We won’t speculate here as to the reasons for this trend, but there is a clear division in the industry. However, this also represents a significant opportunity to exert targeted pressure. Consumers who frequent these dine-in chains should let them know their quick-service counterparts are leading the pack. You can also add your voice to current public campaigns against some of the laggards within the top 25, including Olive Garden and KFC.

3. Chicken is where the action is; movement on turkey, beef, and pork is lacking

With the exception of the two pioneers, Panera and Chipotle, the few companies that have acted to date have made commitments or taken steps that apply only to their chicken supply. Similar widespread initiatives have yet to be taken regarding beef, pork, or turkey. The positive movement on chicken could be due to a number of factors. For instance, the birds’ short lifespans in the U.S. (about six to seven weeks) lowers the cost impact for companies of improving living conditions (and thus reducing antibiotic overuse). Also, the chicken industry is significantly integrated. A handful of major companies control most of the large-scale chicken production in the country, many of which have already committed to policies aimed at reducing antibiotics use. But progress on the other species is necessary to achieve critical reductions in on-farm antibiotics use. Companies cannot keep dragging their feet. This is reflected in the company rankings, as only companies that have made commitments and/or progress on multiple species received higher than a C (with the exception of Chick-Fil-A, which only serves chicken and a small percentage of pork).

4. Big players aren’t the only ones who can make big change

The Chain Reaction II project surveys the top 25 fast and fast-casual restaurant chains in the U.S. These companies have national presence and a ton of buying power. But eliminating the routine use of antibiotics in animals will take a collective effort from all actors, large and small. Smaller and regionally-specific restaurants can have significant impact by addressing their suppliers’ use of antibiotics. Many already have, and received “Honorable Mentions” in the report. Others continue to drag their feet – like In N Out, the iconic burger chain in the southwestern U.S.. In N Out has built a reputation in its region for providing high quality, quick-service burgers. In response to public pressure from CFS and others in January, the chain agreed to address antibiotics use in its beef. Since that time, however, it has yet to move beyond its general statement and establish a timeline for action. Its failure to move beyond a vague commitment goes against the company’s own emphasis on quality and integrity.

5. We need to look ahead beyond antibiotics

Immediate action to reduce the use of antibiotics in agriculture and preserve the efficacy of human medicines is critical. But the misuse of antibiotics is a symptom of a much broader problem with the food animal industry – the drive to raise animals as quickly and as cheaply as possible, regardless of consequences. This bigger-picture issue has also encouraged approval of many non-antibiotic drugs for use in food animals, which may pose significant risks to human health, animals and the environment. Of particular concern are groups of drugs used specifically to promote rapid, unnatural growth rates, such as hormones and beta-agonists. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for ensuring that drugs are safe before approving their use. Yet the limited scientific research publicly available strongly suggests using these drugs may cause significant harm to food animals, wildlife, and potentially people. Despite known risks, large pharmaceutical companies encourage this drug use to turn a profit. Not only has the FDA sanctioned the use of antibiotics for decades, it has previously approved other drugs that it was later forced to withdraw. CFS and numerous other organizations spent years convincing the agency that the use of arsenic drugs in animal feed was hazardous to human health. We cannot afford for the FDA to drag its feet on antibiotics, hormones, beta-agonists or any other drugs of concern.

While there is much more work to be done, the fact is clear: restaurant chains are listening to consumers, public health professionals, and activists. Even those that received F’s are certainly paying attention and watching their passing-grade competitors closely. Sign our petition telling the 16 “F” companies to adopt strong polices that prohibit the regular use of antibiotics in their meat and poultry.

Until the U.S. government takes strong action to mandate stricter regulations, collect quantitative data on current use practices, and set benchmarks for reductions in use, movement by the restaurant industry is critical for eliminating routine uses of antibiotics in food animals. Right now, the companies are in the driver’s seat, determining when to announce a strong policy and setting their own deadlines for implementation. Effective government regulation will help guarantee that the meat and poultry served at all restaurants is produced without routine, non-therapeutic uses of antibiotics. This is imperative if we are to effectively address the looming public health crisis of antibiotic-resistant infections.

Four Ways Organic is Winning

Wed, 21 Sep 2016 00:00:00 -0700

Recent victories help keep organic the gold standard in agriculture

Organic is a label that consumers can trust. They know that buying food with the organic seal means they are using their buying power to support agriculture that is beneficial to all: the people, the planet, and the animals. With support from our members, Center for Food Safety has been at the forefront of the organic movement, working tirelessly to make organic more accessible and hold it to the strictest standards. As we strive to continuously improve organic agriculture, we can also look back and celebrate some key victories that have helped make the organic label the gold standard for food and farming.

1. Stopped the Use of Antibiotics in Organic Apples and Pears

In April 2013 and May 2014, the National Organic Standards Board, the body of organic experts that advises the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on the organic standards, voted to end the temporary allowances of antibiotics in organic apple and pear production. Oxytetracycline and streptomycin were used as a tool to combat fire blight. But the organic community recognizes that antibiotics are not compatible with organic ideology, and are thus prohibited in all other areas of organic production. Continued use of antibiotics was also a cause for public health concern over rising antibiotic resistance. Stakeholders rallied to ban their use and encourage research into viable, organic alternatives to controlling fire blight. It was a huge victory for the organic community and another step towards improving the standard.

2. Protected Organic Compost from Pesticide Contamination

Another victory that further upholds organic integrity took place this summer in June. A federal court ruled that compost contaminated with synthetic pesticides could not be used in organic agriculture. While this was originally the law and practice, the USDA created a loophole for pesticides and changed the law without any public input or an adequate decision-making process. CFS, Center for Environmental Health, and Beyond Pesticides filed a joint case challenging this new law and the process that allowed the USDA to slip it in. This victory puts USDA and other federal agencies on notice that consumers, nonprofits, and others are paying attention and won’t allow for this backroom dealing to go unnoticed. Consumers can continue to put their trust in this label and ensure that their food is not grown with pesticide-laden compost.

3. Created the First State Organic Tax Credit in Hawaii

Additionally in June we saw another monumental triumph and paradigm shift: the creation of an organic tax credit in the state of Hawai’i. This tax credit will help small-scale organic farmers offset the financial commitment of organic farming and certification through a state-funded tax credit for organic food production. This tax credit will work with other existing federal programs that help organic farmers to increase organic food production and make organic farming more accessible. With this law, the state of Hawai’i is showing its citizens that it values sustainable food production and enhancing the local food system. As the demand within Hawai’i for local and organic food grows, this new law will help the supply grow. This tax credit encourages the growth of domestic organic production and is a model for other states in the future that may be looking to pass similar measures.

4. Pushed for Stronger Regulations for Organic Animal Welfare

Consumers expect that when they are buying organic meat, they are getting a product with the highest animal welfare standards. Unfortunately, there is little in the current regulations providing clear standards for organic animal welfare, leading to a wide variety of practices and conditions. That is why it is so encouraging that after nearly 14 years, the USDA proposed a rule to improve animal welfare in organic agriculture that would establish strong, baseline principles for animal health and treatment. Aspects of the proposed rule focus on creating opportunities that encourage natural behavior of animals, increasing the indoor space for poultry, and eliminating concrete porches as outdoor access – all steps in the right direction to further improve and evolve the organic standard. With this new rule, consumers will be able to purchase organic meat and animal products without having to wonder what type of conditions the animals were raised in.

Even though we know there is so much work still to be done, it feels good to reflect on the moments that move the dial forward. We’re so grateful to have the support of our members who have helped us play a part in these victories. Learn more here about how you can help us continue the work to preserve the organic standard…and don’t forget to thank your organic farmers, shop for local, organic food, and applaud yourself for making change happen!

Buzzing Back to School (Gardens)

Tue, 13 Sep 2016 00:00:00 -0700

Long Horned Bee, photo credit Celeste Ets Hokin

When September rolls around, students and teachers are busy settling into the classroom and swapping vacation stories. But for many students, back to school doesn’t just mean back to homework, school lunches, and extracurricular activities, it also means back to the school garden – where pollinators have been hard at work all summer pollinating crops and preparing for a plentiful harvest.

Initiatives at the local, state, and federal levels to promote pollinator habitat health, nutritious food education, and hands-on curricula are making school gardens an increasingly integral part of the learning environment. School gardens are not only a great way for students to get outside, get excited about healthy eating, and receive practical gardening skills, but they also foster an appreciation for the hard work that goes into growing delicious fruits and vegetables—both as a gardener and as an observer of the pollinator species we depend on so greatly.

Although non-native honey bees are typically credited with a majority of our pollination needs, the beauty of school gardens is that they show students the vast array of pollinators that all play critical roles in helping the garden thrive. Native bees in particular are an excellent example for students learning about the interconnections of the food web and the unique relationships between specific plants and pollinator species.

Unlike honey bees, which were brought over from Europe in the 1600s, native bee species have always called North America home and have special traits that make them particularly good at pollinating certain plants. The squash bee for example is a terrific pollinator of, you guessed it—squash (and all other members of the cucurbit family). In fact, its entire lifecycle is in tune with the opening and closing of squash flowers. Similarly, bumble bees have big fuzzy bodies and the ability to vibrate their muscles at high speeds (creating the iconic buzz sounds), which enables them to shake pollen loose on the small flowers of berry and tomato plants (something that other bee species aren’t capable of). Native bees come in all shapes, colors, and sizes and each have unique characteristics and behaviors that make them easy to identify. Spending time in the garden observing native bees is not only educational, but can be tons of fun!

From the 4,000 species of native bees, to the numerous butterfly species—including the majestic monarch butterfly—the school garden can be a perfect stage for observing the direct correlation between providing healthy habitat for pollinators—by eliminating the use of toxic pesticides and planting pollinator friendly plants—and having a bountiful garden. So as the long days of summer fade away and students settle into the school year and return to the school garden, we hope they remember to bee-thankful for bees and other pollinators by keeping the garden a bee-safe environment!

Interested in Learning More About Native Bees?

A great resource for spotting and identifying native bees in the garden is the Wild Bee Gardens App. The app provides stunning photos and comprehensive information about dozens of native bee species and pollinator friendly plants, as well as in-depth identification guides.

Senator Leno is the Bee's Knees!

Fri, 09 Sep 2016 00:00:00 -0700

Californians are grateful for a representative who fights for what’s right.

These days it seems more often than not we are frustrated by the lack of attention our elected officials pay to what the public truly wants and needs. Our representatives in Congress and in our state legislatures are supposed to be just that – representatives who champion the rights and fight for the wellbeing of the citizens in their respective districts. Fortunately for Californians, Senator Mark Leno (D-District 11) has continuously gone to bat on behalf of his constituents and has driven real change on issues that matter.

Over the past year alone, Senator Leno has fought for California’s people and their health, small-scale farmers, and the wildlife and natural resources that make the state such a beautiful, unique place to live. Senator Leno co-authored a bill known as the Pollinator Protection Act (SB 1282) that would help protect bees from the toxic pesticides (neonicotinoids) that are a major culprit in their dramatic decline. Though SB 1282 was blocked by Big Ag interests, Senator Leno moved the dial in a major way for pollinators and beekeepers. Among other things, as Chair of the Senate Budget Committee he pushed for funding for a groundbreaking study on backyard use of neonic pesticides, expedited California’s review of and action on bee-killing neonic pesticides, and provided on-the-ground support for beekeepers threatened by nearby pesticide use.

And while Senator Leno is clearly the “bee’s knees” when it comes to protecting pollinators and taking a stand against toxic pesticide use, he also stood up for the health of people and animals raised for food, and for the sustainability of food sovereignty. Senator Leno championed the reversal of an undemocratic law that would limit local control of GMO seeds and crops – putting the growing power back in the hands of local and small-scale producers and residents.

The senator took action to crack down on the overuse of antibiotics in livestock production, a growing public health concern. In addition to promoting unethical and unsanitary conditions for raising food animals, international health agencies agree that the over-use of antibiotics in agriculture has major implications for the spread of antibiotic-resistant diseases and “super bugs” that pose risks to human health. Senator Leno ensured California allocated more than $1.3 million to implement first-in-the-nation restrictions to curb the overuse of antibiotics in livestock production.

While we regret that his time in the legislature is drawing to a close, since Senator Leno is term-limited, we are so grateful to have had him on our side.

The Root of the Rootworm Problem: What a Tiny Beetle Can Tell Us About Our Broken Agricultural System

Thu, 25 Aug 2016 00:00:00 -0700

The re-emergence of the corn rootworm due to pesticide resistance reflects a broken cycle of pests and pesticides, and a broken agricultural system.

A recent article in The Progressive Farmer sounded an alarm about the re-emergence of the corn rootworm, a beetle was once called the “billion dollar pest” due to the big impact it has had on valuable corn crops and the costs farmers have racked up trying to control it.

In recent months, the rootworm has caused damage in fields planted with Bt corn, which is engineered to kill the pest, and, as the Progressive Farmer article points out, has “long been a stronghold against rootworm damage for Corn Belt farmers.” These Bt seeds are just the latest in a long list of engineered seeds that have failed to stand up against the rootworm, “which has now officially shown some level of resistance to every rootworm Bt protein on the market.”

While this is clearly an immediate problem for commodity farmers, it also points to a much larger, systemic failure of genetic engineering technology to change farming—and control pests—in ways that are fundamentally more sustainable. In fact, it can be argued that genetic engineering has actually exacerbated the huge failures of industrial monoculture farming.

Promising Beginnings Followed by Mounting Failures

Given the challenges involved with controlling rootworm, conventional farmers have welcomed the advent of engineered Bt genes designed to control the insect, beginning with a Monsanto version in 2003. Since the Bt gene was built into the plant’s genetic material, it saved farmers the time they would have devoted to spraying insecticide. And that might have reduced their exposure to those chemicals as well.

Unfortunately, reports of rootworm damage in Bt corn started surfacing within a few years, suggesting rootworm resistance to Monsanto’s Bt, although the company denied it. Stonewalling by Monsanto delayed what might have been an effective action to slow the spread of resistance, but would have likely come at the cost of reduced sales of Monsanto’s expensive seed. Then resistance was formally confirmed in 2011.

Meanwhile, other companies had introduced several other types of Bt genes to control rootworm. This gave farmers a reprieve from the pest, but it was short-lived. Soon it was discovered that some of the rootworms that were resistant to Monsanto’s trait were also cross-resistant, and the billion dollar pest reared its head again. That left a single Bt, from Syngenta, that remained universally effective—until now. New research strongly suggests that rootworms are now developing resistance to this last bulwark of engineered protection.

Failing Technology or Failing Agriculture?

Why did Monsanto drag its feet in the identification of resistance, delaying action, when it might have helped the company preserve the efficacy of its products? Certainly it didn’t want to see the gratuitous loss of these traits, which were costly to develop.

On the other hand, the company likely understood that it would soon lose market share, as other companies would develop similar products. And acknowledging resistance would likely have involved reduced use (read: sales) in affected regions. So Monsanto prioritized its desire to increase short-term sales to maximize profit before competition or regulatory restrictions encroached—at the expense of sustainability.

In another example, in 2003, a majority of expert scientists convened by EPA, advised the agency to require that 50 percent of corn be set aside as a “refuge” without the GE rootworm Bt, to help prevent or delay resistance. A minority of scientists and the seeds industry argued that only a 20 percent refuge was needed (the larger refuge would have reduced short-term sales for Monsanto). Against the more protective majority recommendation, EPA sided with the industry. The result has very likely been a more rapid development of rootworm resistance against Monsanto’s product, and the other Bts that are now falling like dominoes.

To illustrate that this is not an isolated phenomenon, we can look at crops engineered to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate (i.e., roundup). Monsanto argued vigorously that unlike with other herbicides, resistance to glyphosate was unlikely, and—contrary to good practice—encouraged farmers to spray it to their hearts’ content. The company even placed advertisements in the farm press to this effect. All this was severely criticized and opposed by academic weed scientists, who, needless to say, were spot on in their criticism.

As a result, we are now facing an epidemic of glyphosate resistant weeds that have led to increased herbicide use and a new generation of crops engineered to be immune to older herbicides like dicamba. Use of dicamba on these new GE crops is extensively damaging nearby crops that are not engineered to be resistant to it. It will also lead to increased industry sales of seed, drastically more herbicide use, and will foster more resistant weeds.

All of this is reminiscent of the long-recognized “pesticide treadmill” wherein farmers have to keep adopting new insecticides often, just to keep pace with the evolving pests. When scientist and author Robert Van den Bosch, the author of The Pesticide Conspiracy, wrote about this phenomenon in 1978, he was mercilessly hounded by the pesticide industry, much as was Rachel Carson before him.

And while the industry touts a reduction in insecticide use in the U.S. and elsewhere, the numbers don’t include some of the most widely used insecticides in the world—seeds coated with neonicotinoids. All this is despite the fact that there is strong and mounting evidence that neonicotinoids kill the pollinators needed to produce a third of our food. And while the volume of insecticides may be lower, the area treated with insecticides has gone up. Whereas about 30 percent of the corn grown was treated with insecticides before genetic engineering, that number now stands at about 90 percent.

Genetic engineering was supposed to solve these problems. So what has gone wrong?

The Inconvenient Truths of Industrial Agriculture

The larger context here is the role of industrial agriculture in exacerbating dependence on insecticides and fostering higher levels of resistant insects. Growing large acreage of the same or just a few crops—as is often the case with corn, soybeans, and wheat—is widely understood to encourage high rates of pest infestations. Pests that are well-adapted to a crop will often multiply if that crop is grown year after year without a break. This actually results in lower yields than would occur otherwise when crops are rotated (alternated each year).

The rarely-discussed truth of the corn rootworm problem is that, in most places, simply growing other crops in rotation with corn largely eliminates the need for either chemical insecticides or Bt, and provides higher yields (except in places where industrial corn-soy crop rotations have led to rootworms resistant to crop rotation itself).

Instead, the main GE crops have been associated with increasing industrial monoculture agriculture, where single crops are grown repeatedly. This system also supports larger farms that are more dependent on monocultures. And it results in higher dependency on pesticides, locking farmers into buying these and other harmful products.

At the core of this broken cycle of pests and pesticides is a broken agriculture system, supported by companies that lobby heavily for farm policies against the interest of the public and the environment. Until we confront these issues—and begin to see them as our collective problem and not just a problem for farmers—and work to change the policies and other structures that prop this system up, we may never get at the root of the rootworm problem or others like it.

This article was originally published on Civil Eats.

A Better Burger Is About More Than Counting Calories

Tue, 23 Aug 2016 00:00:00 -0700

Earlier this month, Business Insider published a review pitting burgers from west coast chain In N Out Burger against east coast chain Shake Shack in a “battle for the healthiest fast casual burger shop in America.” For those counting calories and craving burgers, In N Out appears to be the go-to option.

By focusing narrowly on calories, the review missed the most important qualities to consider when comparing the relative healthfulness of the two restaurants’ burgers. Today’s conscious consumer knows that health is about far more than just calories. More and more, consumers are looking for foods of high nutritional value that are produced in ways that protect the environment, animals, and public health. To help consumers make the healthiest choice, a more comprehensive scoring system is needed that considers how the meat was produced, as well as the availability of alternative protein options.

Round 1: Sourcing grass-fed, pasture-raised, or organic beef is healthier for consumers

Consumers are increasingly seeking pasture-raised and grass-fed beef as healthier alternatives to intensive feedlot beef. Meat from grazing animals has been shown to have higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids and lower omega-6 levels than grain-fed animals. Grass-fed beef is also lower in detrimental fats, and higher in vitamin E and vitamin A than grain-fed beef.

Shake Shack purchases the vast majority of its beef from one supplier, a New York City butcher named Pat LaFrieda, who buys beef almost exclusively from Creekstone Farms. Creekstone ensures that its cows spend the majority of their lives grazing on pasture in the Midwest and are only finished on grain rations. In N Out is far more evasive with identifying its suppliers, and has no public commitment to sourcing beef from animals that are grass-fed or grazed on pasture.

WINNER: Shake Shack

Round 2: Prohibiting routine antibiotic use protects public health

There is growing awareness among the public about the overuse of antibiotics in animals raised for food. This awareness is leading many to seek meat and poultry raised in more sustainable systems that do not rely on routine use of antibiotics. Regularly dosing animals with antibiotics for purposes other than treating illnesses has contributed to rising cases of infections in humans that are resistant to important medicines. The spread of resistant pathogens means that infections are harder to treat, require longer hospitalizations, and pose greater risk of death. Choosing meats raised without routine antibiotics is a way for consumers to help curb the spread of resistant pathogens and protect the efficacy of critical human medicines.

Consumer demand led a coalition of advocacy groups, including Center for Food Safety and Friends of the Earth, to develop an annual survey of the top 25 U.S. restaurant chains and score them on their polices and practices that reduce overuse of antibiotics in their meat and poultry supply. In the 2015 report, Shake Shack received an honorable mention. While not large enough to be in the top 25 nationally, the restaurant sources only beef from cattle that have never received antibiotics. Many of the groups that publish the survey report launched a campaign at the beginning of 2016 asking In-N-Out to eliminate routine use of antibiotics by their beef suppliers. To date, the company has announced an intention to take action on antibiotics but has failed to take substantive steps, such as setting a phase-out timeline. So unfortunately, burger lovers seeking meat raised without antibiotics wont find that yet at In N Out Burger

WINNER: Shake Shack

Round 3: Including meatless options promotes healthy people and a healthy planet

Many scientists, including those who served on the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, affirm that reducing consumption of animal products and shifting to a more plant-based diet is critical for both personal and planetary health. Many in the U.S. are already making this shift. Replacing a portion of the animal products in your diet with plant-based foods will reduce the high demand for meat that drives the intensive, polluting, emissions-heavy, industrial feedlot system.

Like a number of other fast-casual restaurant chains, Shake Shack has recognized the increasing demand for vegetarian and plant-based options. Its ‘Shroom Burger offers customers an alternative, inviting vegetarians to the restaurant as well as providing omnivores with the occasional meatless meal option. In-N-Out’s “alternative” burger option, the Protein Style Burger, is the restaurant’s regular cheeseburger with lettuce in place of the traditional bun. Rather than providing a plant-based swap for the beef in one of its menu items, it simply paired the beef with more lettuce.

WINNER: Shake Shack

Overall Healthier Burger Chain—Shake Shack!

There is more to the story of healthy fast food than a simple calorie count. As you can see, a more comprehensive review of the burgers offered at the two chains reveals Shake Shack to be miles ahead when it comes to what matters most. If In-N-Out wants to continue to be competitive, and provide west coast consumers with healthy options, it can start by setting a timetable and making tangible progress on its announcement to address routine antibiotics use by its suppliers. It can offer a meatless burger for the growing number of people seeking to reduce their meat consumption. And, as it works with its conventional suppliers to make the switch, one of the fastest ways to stop sourcing meat raised with routine antibiotics is to offer an organic, healthier, pasture raised burger option. Organic meat is never raised with antibiotics, growth hormones, or toxic pesticides.

On National Honey Bee Day, Helping Pollinators Can Be As Easy As Choosing the Right Popcorn

Fri, 19 Aug 2016 00:00:00 -0700

It’s no secret that bees and other pollinators are facing a crisis – the ‘bee-pocalypse’ and ‘the plight of the honey bee’ headlines are hard to miss these days. This awareness is a good thing, because pollinator declines are a real problem. What is less talked about is the fact that one of the biggest threats to bees right now is pesticide coated seeds. Yes, you read that right – it’s now common practice for chemical companies to coat seeds of all kinds (especially those of big commodity crops like corn and soybeans) with pesticides. And a major misconception when it comes to bees and pesticides is the thought that if bees don’t pollinate certain crops (such as corn), they won’t be affected by the toxic pesticides applied to those crops. Unfortunately, thanks to the rapid rise in uses of pesticide seed coatings, this couldn’t be further from the truth.

Let’s back up. It’s true that since the mid-2000's, bees have been dying at alarming rates and beekeepers continue to struggle to keep their hives healthy enough to pollinate many of our food crops. It is also true that over the past several years, scientific studies have continued to point to a group of insecticides called neonicotinoids (“neonics”) as a leading culprit in bee population losses and poor colony health. Neonics are highly poisonous neurotoxic chemicals and their use has particularly harmful impacts on bees and other pollinators. Neonics are systemic chemicals which make the entire plant toxic to any insect that visits it—including bees. Neonics can and do kill species outright, or alternatively, the negative impacts of exposure to the chemicals build, causing debilitating chronic effects.

The largest single use of neonics is as pesticide seed coatings (picture the pesticides being poured onto the seeds) for field crops, like corn. In fact, over 100 million acres of cropland—an area the size of California—are directly exposed to neonics from corn, soybean, and cotton seed coatings alone. The scale and rate at which we’re using these chemical seed coatings is unprecedented – virtually all of the corn grown in the United States comes from seeds coated with neonic chemicals, and the total acreage of corn treated with insecticides is now three times higher than it was prior to seed coatings being used.

But bees don’t pollinate corn, so why does this matter? A huge problem with neonic seed coatings is that only a small fraction of the neonic chemical that is coated onto the seed is actually absorbed into the plant. Depending on the crop, only about five percent of the active chemical in the seed coating enters the plant, delivering enough of a dose to still make the plant highly toxic to bees, while leaving the remaining 95 percent to enter the environment through seed dust or soil contamination and water runoff.

Not only are bees exposed to the chemicals in flight (if they fly through the dust clouds in or near the fields caused by the planting of coated seeds), but the toxic dust that’s released during seed planting can settle on nearby wildflowers and once again pose a threat to bees when collecting pollen. A significant amount of the chemical on the seed is also absorbed into the surrounding soil and groundwater once planted. This means that any wildflowers or trees near crop fields are able to absorb the chemicals from the soil and present yet another toxic route of exposure to bees. The chemicals that persist in the soil also pose a significant threat to native bees, as 70 percent of native bees (such as bumblebees and mining bees) build their nests in the soil.

However, it’s also important to point out that just because corn doesn’t need bees for pollination, it doesn’t mean that bees won’t still collect pollen from corn. This is especially true if there are limited pollen sources around, and sadly, in huge monoculture fields, this is typically the case.

All of these threats to bees are compounded by that fact that neonic-coated seeds are planted year after year and the chemicals have long half-lives. They quickly build up in our lands and waters, frequently accumulating past safe thresholds. And here’s the kicker – studies have shown that in many cases, neonic seed coatings are not even providing any benefit to farmers or consumers – they’re not increasing crop yields, and often, their use is doing more harm than good.

While corn dominates the neonic seed coating market, popcorn also has a big stake in the game, as a large percentage of popcorn seeds are coated with neonics. And where as it may be very difficult for the concerned consumer to avoid products with corn grown from neonic-coated seeds, popcorn is a more manageable target. That’s why CFS launched a new campaign last year urging popcorn companies to stand up for bees and stop sourcing their popcorn from seeds that are coated in harmful neonic chemicals. Several of the leading companies saw value in the idea—within just a couple of months, two of the largest popcorn companies, Pop Weaver and Pop Secret, agreed to phase out their use of neonics as a commitment to helping conserve bees, other pollinators, and the environment.

But there was one company – the biggest in the popcorn industry – that up until earlier this year had not even replied to our numerous letters, calls, or emails: Orville Redenbacher’s, owned by ConAgra Foods. Unfortunately, since then and after months of correspondence, Orville Redenbacher’s is still refusing to take action for pollinators like other leading companies have done – they have not committed to phasing out the use of neonic seed coatings.

The good news is that CFS will continue to fight even harder. With your help, and the help of our partner organizations, we will increase pressure on ConAgra to do the right thing for bees and truly be a leader for positive change in the popcorn industry.

Thankfully, there are plenty of healthy, bee-friendly popcorn choices to enjoy while we wait for Orville Redenbacher’s to step up and protect bees and other pollinators. You can check out some of these popcorn brands doing the right thing for bees in our popcorn guide:

Still want to do more for bees? Visit our popcorn campaign website to learn more about the issues, and sign the petition urging Orville Redenbacher’s to do the right thing for bees. There are also numerous other ways to help pollinators, starting in your homes and backyards – here are a few easy options to consider.

A version of this blog appeared on AlterNet on Aug. 18.

Why We Fight, Why We Vote, Why We Win

Wed, 10 Aug 2016 00:00:00 -0700

On the eve of the Primary Election this Saturday in Hawai‘i, I want to share my thoughts on voting. As someone inspired by anti-colonial work, anarchist activism, and direct action, I understand the need to work outside the system and on the system. As someone frustrated by two-party politics (or, in Hawai‘i’s case, one big fake party), I too want to express my disdain by opting out.

I have read the polls and have voted for long enough to feel a sense of powerlessness, especially when you’re voting for president from a non-swing state. Given that I’m not planning a move to Florida anytime soon (and I’m assuming neither are you), I’d like to offer the following reasons we should add voting to our political repertoire:

We vote because when our children ask us what we're doing today, we can say we're helping pick our president, our representative, our senator, our mayor.

We vote so that our employees, our friends, our family, our students, our communities know that we voted - and that together we create a culture that votes and participates.

We vote because as leaders we must lead by example.

We don't just vote to win. We vote because when we don't, we maintain a world where a few with money and power run our government and our economy.

We vote because local politicians, the one’s we often cannot name and do not know, make choices every day that have a profound impact on our daily lives. They shape the rules that govern large corporations, and how these entities can impact our bodies and our environment. Corporations spend big in local politics because it matters. They know that if they have representatives in government at the state and local level, then the game they play will have rules that work for them.

Though it may feel like the odds are stacked against us, the writing is NEVER totally on the wall. I remember the final days before the vote on Maui County’s GE Moratorium in 2014, when everyone thought Monsanto had it in the bag. I remember those signs that community leaders Lauryn Rego and Alika Atay made that read “$8 million to tell the truth?” I remember losing on the first print out (I was actually on live TV). I remember losing on the second print out.

And I also remember when we won.

Please, everyone - vote. Vote as if our planet depended on it. Vote as if the lives of our friends depended on it. Vote as if our educational system depended on it. If everyone had that attitude, then we wouldn't be fighting the battles we're fighting today.

And then, when you're done voting, realize it’s not enough and organize, advocate, resist, and create.

2016 Primary Election Information:

Voter Registration & Early Walk-in Voting Locations Open until Thursday August 11 at 4 PM

Primary Election Day – Saturday August 13 from 7 AM to 6 PM

Find voter registration and early walk-in locations here.

Celebrating Local and Sustainable Food Systems During National Farmers Market Week

Tue, 09 Aug 2016 00:00:00 -0700

CFS attorney Amy van Saun shared these photos from her local farmers market in Portland, OR. The Woodstock market started in 2010. Amy's market strives to be accessible by accepting food stamps and offering a wooden coin system for vendors that are cash-only.

As soon as the snows stop falling in early spring until they begin again in late fall, on any given day here in our nation’s capital, I can find a bustling farmers market to visit. Farmers and growers from throughout our region bring the bounty of the season into the city and spread produce, milk, cheeses, flowers, homemade jams and pickled vegetables, eggs and meats on tables beneath tents. Nearly every neighborhood here in D.C. has its own farmers market, and each one features different, unique vendors. And while it may seem commonplace these days to find accessible farmers markets not just in cities, but all over the country – on campuses, in churches, small communities and elsewhere – I often forget that this is wonderful phenomenon is a relatively new normal. In fact, according to the Farmers Market Coalition, by the start of 2016, there were more than 8,500 farmers markets in the U.S., 50 percent more than just five years ago!

The “growing” popularity of farmers markets around America is a hopeful indicator that individuals and communities are assuming a more active role in reigniting a food system that operates under the premise of sustaining human, environmental and animal health and well-being. During the past half century America’s farming economy and culture has seen a dramatic shift toward an industrialized agricultural system. That system has decreased livestock and land health, given rise to disease, increased the widespread use of toxic pesticides, and put family farmers out of business – between 2007 and 2012 alone America lost more than 95,000 mostly mid-sized family farms.

The most important functions farmers markets can and do play in our country are to help bring us back to an agricultural system that promotes soil health, rather than degrade it; focus on sustainable and organic farming practices; and put control back into the hands of family farms instead of corporations. Farmers markets support local producers, vendors, and economies; bring diverse members of the community together; and encourage eating with the season – which in turn reduces the social and environmental costs of shipping fruits and vegetables around the world. They also help to preserve small and mid-sized farms that have difficulty competing with large agribusiness, and increase access to fresh, nutritious food sources – especially in urban areas where disadvantaged communities might otherwise be stuck in food deserts.

The benefits of farmers markets are numerous and varied. But even knowing this, perusing your favorite market (or a new one) can be overwhelming. I myself have been guilty of wandering from table to table ogling the offerings and going home emptied-handed. So, I thought it might be useful to share a few tips on how to get the most out of your farmers market experience.

Look for organic!

Not all vendors offer organic, but nearly half of markets sell organically labeled products, and many others sell chemical and/or pesticide-free. While it can always be improved, organic is still the best system for human, animal and environmental health. Here at CFS we are constantly engaged in the fight to maintain and increase the integrity of the organic label, from commenting on organic animal welfare standards to helping organic producers get state and federal funding.

Talk to your farmers

Don’t just walk by the stalls with your head down, pick your peas, pay and leave! Making a personal connection with the people providing your food helps you to understand your role in the food system, so engage with your farmers and the people working with them; ask them questions; learn about their lives and how you’re impacting them. You can also get great tips for your own growing. Many farmers are employing the science-based, agroecological practices that CFS promotes (like the 81% of vendors who incorporate cover crops, reduced tillage, on-site composting and other soil health initiatives), and would be happy to show you how to do so on a smaller scale in your own gardens.

Take the next step

While farmers markets are most popular during the summer months, don’t forget that there are options to remain involved in and benefit from markets all throughout the year. Many farmers and producers participate in and offer co-op and CSA options. Find out what your local options are and you can eat locally and in-season even during the colder months. Another option is to volunteer. Most vendors are happy to have an extra hand, and/or can connect you with an initiative that could use help. And if you’re interested in educating and mentoring, urban agriculture projects especially often engage with youth groups to bring back healthy and sustainable eating and growing practices to the next generation.

So what are you waiting for? Get out there and get your market on… and share your experiences with us! We always love seeing and hearing from our community. Tweet us @CFSTrueFood to show and tell us about your favorite farmers market! Learn more at www.centerforfoodsafety.org.

(Infographic source: Farmers Market Coalition)

Senate Misses the Mark on the Organic Animal Welfare Rule

Fri, 05 Aug 2016 00:00:00 -0700

How a small group of senators kowtow to corporate egg interests

Consumers of organic animal products expect livestock farmers to provide living conditions that promote the welfare of their animals. They expect that animals have access to the outdoors, space to move around and lie down comfortably, and the freedom to exhibit their natural behaviors. For most organic producers, this has always been the case. However, the absence of a formal standard for organic animal welfare has allowed some in the industry to get away with subpar conditions.

This is set to change. In April, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) finally proposed a rule that has been 14 years in the making. While not perfect, it is a step towards ensuring that all certified organic animal products reflect a consistent level of animal welfare. CFS and many other consumer, environmental and farmer organizations provided substantial comments on how to improve the rule in its final version. Ultimately, when finalized, the rule will establish the baseline practices and principles for the health, living conditions and treatment of animals in certified organic operations.

This is great news, but sadly, a small group of senators are trying to stall the rule. In fact, last week, 13 senators sent a letter requesting that USDA provide additional analysis of the rule’s impacts before moving forward. Some of the same senators had attempted another stalling tactic in May.

The letter claims the agency has left too many unanswered questions about the rule’s impacts on organic producers, consumers, animal health and food safety. But, the key points mainly parrot the concerns of a few very large, Big-Food-friendly organic operators, who hope to keep their organic certification without complying with stronger welfare requirements.

1. Impacts on Producers

Senate concern: USDA failed to estimate costs of modifying or building structures to comply with new space requirements, and only factored in costs of purchasing additional land.

Actual situation: In its cost analysis, USDA did assume that “affected producers will make operational changes to comply with the proposed rule and continue organic egg and poultry production.”[i] USDA also stated clearly that “most organic egg producers could comply with the proposed indoor stocking rates with minor or no changes to their current operation”[ii] and that 100% of organic broiler operations surveyed already comply with the recommended indoor spacing requirements.[iii] The only significant change certain producers would need to undertake would be to accommodate new outdoor spacing requirements. Thus, purchasing additional land to provide sufficient space per bird outdoors would be the cost of compliance or, secondarily, reducing flock size. Even still, “many organic poultry producers currently provide [the recommended] outdoor stocking density of 2.25 pounds/ft2 for layers.”[iv]

Senate concern: USDA did not evaluate secondary impacts on organic grain producers should some organic poultry producers leave the organic market and no longer need organic grain for feed.

Actual situation: As USDA notes, the exit of some producers would create “unmet consumer demand for organic eggs [that] would be an incentive for operations to enter organic egg production and for existing organic operations to expand.”[v] These newly certified and expanding operations would continue to be a market for organic grain producers. Further, organic grain is in high demand and other industries rely on organic grain inputs as well. A producer’s ability to market his or her grain is not dependent on the organic chicken industry.

2. Impacts on Consumers

Senate concern: USDA said it is possible that “90 percent of [organic egg] producers leave the market” as a result of the rule, but did not discuss the impact on organic egg prices.

Actual situation: USDA did not state that 90% of egg producers could leave the organic market. Rather, USDA intentionally overestimated an extreme scenario in which 90% of aviary egg producers switched to cage-free. This actually represents less than half (45%) of all organic egg producers and a similar percentage (43%) of total organic laying hens.[vi] Not only is this fear of extreme price impacts based on an exaggeration of an already extreme scenario, but it ignores a point already mentioned: other small and mid-size poultry producers that can comply with the welfare requirements will become certified or expand their organic operations to meet the demand left by the exit of larger producers. As such, this rule actually serves to incentivize an organic poultry industry made up of a diverse range of production scales.

Senate concern: USDA did not effectively assess the impact of price changes on consumer behavior.

Actual situation: USDA reviewed substantial research on consumer “willingness to pay,” an often used tool in economic analyses, demonstrating that consumers are willing to pay more for eggs from high welfare systems. The price of free range eggs is 87.5% higher than conventional eggs, yet consumers continue to demand these products because they value animal welfare. Research has also shown that, in the U.S., egg consumption is actually relatively unresponsive to price changes. An increase in the price of eggs generally by 40%, for example, results in only minor reductions in consumption.[vii]

3. Impact on Animal Health and Food Safety

Senate concern: Allowing birds outside exposes them to disease, particularly avian flu. Keeping birds indoors during a disease outbreak is “reactive” and does not protect bird safety.

Actual situation: Avian flu is a significant concern that all poultry producers should take seriously. However, research shows that the flu viruses generally carried by wild birds are mostly harmless to poultry, referred to as low pathogenicity avian influence (LPAI).[viii] LPAI strains may mutate to the deadly highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), but that occurs almost exclusively in crowded indoor conditions.[ix] Further, the virus transmits through feces and does not easily survive when exposed to sunlight or drying.[x] Lower stocking densities and providing outdoor access are a part of the solution.

Senate concern: Why does USDA want to implement a rule that “will result in increased mortality?” How can standards that increase mortality be “preferable from an animal welfare standpoint?”

Actual situation: USDA acknowledges that minor increases in animal mortality are possible due to new outdoor access requirements, but explicitly states that, “Many organic producers already provide outdoor access that would comply with this proposed rule and would not see changes in mortality.”[xi] Further, the proposed rule is based on substantial public input, including from producers, on the practices “that would improve the overall quality of life for birds.”[xii] Regular access to sufficient, enriching outdoor space is one part of a holistic system designed to promote animal welfare. USDA also states that “organic producers will be required to use practices to effectively minimize mortality and correct excessive and preventable loss” in outdoor production environments, such as “predator deterrents (electrified fencing, overhead netting), rotation of land, well-drained soil and selection of breeds that are suited to free range conditions.”[xiii]

The Senate letter is a stalling tactic meant to protect the bottom line of a few large producers at the risk of further delaying a necessary, long-overdue rule that would increase animal welfare. It ignores the analysis already completed by USDA, which as we have previously demonstrated, showed that most organic egg and broiler producers would have no impact or be only marginally impacted. Only extremely large organic egg producers would be impacted, which only 0.5% of organic egg operations are considered large producers by USDA, and they account for roughly 25% of organic production.[xiv]

It is difficult to predict whether the few large egg companies will leave organic production and accept the lower price for cage-free eggs, or accept the costs of providing strong animal welfare conditions to continue selling in the organic market. What we do know, however, is that the majority of the industry already complies, or would require only minor changes to comply, with the higher welfare standards. In the end, it is about ensuring that organic consumers nationwide who see the USDA organic label on eggs and chicken are confident they are buying a consistent product they can trust. The few very large companies must get on board or they can’t market as organic. It’s as simple as that.

References:

[i] Federal Register Vol. 81 No. 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016), 21956-22009. National Organic Program; Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices, at 21992.
[ii] Federal Register Vol. 81 No. 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016), 21956-22009. National Organic Program; Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices, at 21989.
[iii] Federal Register Vol. 81 No. 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016), 21956-22009. National Organic Program; Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices, at 21991.
[iv] Federal Register Vol. 81 No. 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016), 21956-22009. National Organic Program; Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices, at 21990.
[v] Federal Register Vol. 81 No. 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016), 21956-22009. National Organic Program; Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices, at 21997.
[vi] Federal Register Vol. 81 No. 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016), 21956-22009. National Organic Program; Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices, at 21997.
[vii] Federal Register Vol. 81 No. 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016), 21956-22009. National Organic Program; Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices, at 21988.
[viii] Suarez, D. et al. (2004). Recombination resulting in virulence shift in avian influenza outbreak, Chile. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 10(4): 693-699.
[ix] Schrijver, R.S. & G. Koch (eds.) Avian Influenza: Prevention and Control. Workshop 1: introduction and spread of avian influenza, page 4, available at: http://library.wur.nl/ojs/index.php/frontis/article/view/1033/604; Greger, M. (2006). Bird flu: a virus of our own hatching. Lantern Books, page 214; Peris, J.S., de Jong, M.D. & Y. Guan. (2007). Avian influenza Virus (H5N1): a threat to human health. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 20(2): 243-267.
[x] Sutton, D. et al. (2013). Inactivation of the infectivity of two highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses and a virulent Newcastle disease virus by ultraviolet radiation. Avian Pathology, 42(6): 566-568; Zou, S. et al. (2013). Inactivation of the novel avian influenza A (H7N9) virus under physical conditions or chemical agents treatment. Virology Journal, 10: 289; Shortridge, K.F. et al. (1998). Characterization of avian H5N1 influenza viruses from poultry in Hong Kong. Virology, 252: 331-342.
[xi] Federal Register Vol. 81 No. 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016), 21956-22009. National Organic Program; Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices, at 21991.
[xii] Federal Register Vol. 81 No. 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016), 21956-22009. National Organic Program; Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices, at 21991, emphasis added.
[xiii] Federal Register Vol. 81 No. 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016), 21956-22009. National Organic Program; Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices, at 21991.
[xiv] Federal Register Vol. 81 No. 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016), 21956-22009. National Organic Program; Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices, at 22000.

Why the GMO 'Labeling' Bill That Obama Just Signed Into Law Is a Sham and a National Embarrassment

Thu, 04 Aug 2016 00:00:00 -0700

It is known as the DARK Act. D-A-R-K standing for Denying Americans the Right to Know. It was signed by President Obama last Friday in the afterglow of the Democratic National Convention, without fanfare or major media coverage. The bill’s moniker is apt. With a few strokes of his pen Obama scratched out the laws of Vermont, Connecticut and Maine that required the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods.

He also nullified the GE seed labeling laws in Vermont and Virginia which allowed farmers to choose what seeds they wanted to buy and plant. And for good measure he preempted Alaska’s law requiring the labeling of any GE fish or fish product, a law passed to protect the state’s vital fisheries from contamination by recently approved genetically engineered salmon.

The White House justified the Dark Act’s massive onslaught on local democracy on the grounds that the bill would create national standards for labeling of GE foods. It does nothing of the sort. In fact, according to Obama’s own Food and Drug Administration (FDA), if enacted, the bill would exempt most current GMO foods from being labeled at all. The FDA further commented that it “may be difficult” for any GMO food to qualify for labeling under the bill. And even for any GE foods that might be covered, the bill allows for food to be “labeled” through a digital system of QR codes that can only be accessed if the consumer has a smart phone and reliable internet connectivity.

Unfortunately for one-third of Americans, it seems President Obama does not know that the digital divide is real. More than 50 percent of America’s low-income and rural populations—a disproportionate number of which are minority communities—and more than 65 percent of the elderly don’t even own smartphones—and for those that do, many cannot afford monthly payments, or live in areas lacking internet access. All in all a minimum of 100 million Americans will not have access to food information because of this labeling system.

Reverend Jesse Jackson understood this. He wrote a letter to the President urging a veto and saying that the bill raised “serious questions of discrimination” and left “unresolved matters of equal protection of the law.” Do all Americans have rights in an increasingly digital society? Or, will they be discriminated against because they have limited means?

Adding insult to discriminatory injury, the bill also allows for labeling through 800 numbers and websites. The idea that Americans can spend hours in the supermarket calling or searching websites to find out if each and every product they buy is genetically engineered is absurd. It's just another way to masquerade non-labeling.

The president refused to listen to his own FDA, a majority the Democratic members of the Senate, hundreds of thousands of comments from the public and the pleas of civil rights leaders, and either out of ignorance or arrogance, signed a discriminatory “fake” labeling bill aptly dubbed by Senator Barbara Boxer “a sham and an embarrassment.”

Obama’s action is deplorable. But how did this train wreck of a bill even reach the president’s desk in the first place? The answer is a sad commentary on the corruption seen far too often in our federal legislature. The DARK Act was not subject to any hearings. No expert testimony was taken. Rather, it was the result of backroom dealing between a few senators and industrial food and biotech companies. The DARK Act was actually defeated in March in the Senate as the food movement in America poured in millions of outraged comments to their senators.

But Monsanto and the company’s friends in the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) were not going to take this loss easily. Republicans in the pocketbooks of Big Ag were easy to sway; they actively pushed for the bill that they knew would be the next best thing to no GMO labeling. Unfortunately, a handful of Democrats, up for election again in 2018, were also able to be bought by Monsanto and the other corporations pushing the DARK Act. Senators Stabenow (D-MI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Heitkamp (D-ND) and Donnelly (D-IN) began private negotiations with the GMA and Senator Roberts (R-KS) to see if they could find a way to get the DARK Act across the finish line.

But would bringing in those senators looking for campaign dollars even be enough to get the 60 votes needed to bring the bill to a final vote? Probably not. So the bill’s proponents made a deal with the Organic Trade Association (OTA), the trade association that represents organic food companies, but is increasingly influenced by big food companies like Smuckers, General Mills and Kraft—food giants that have only a small percentage of their business in organic brands. While virtually all of the legitimate organic farmer organizations were opposed to the DARK Act, the OTA had “big organic” industry interests in mind and simply “sold out” for some organic “pork.”

The last provision in the bill, added at the 11th hour, allows all organic food to be labeled as “non-GMO” without any testing to see whether it contains any GMO contamination, as can happen with some organic products. So while non-organic companies that want to label “Non-GMO” will have to undergo testing and verification by third-party verifiers like the Non-GMO Project to ensure that they do not have any significant GMO content, that is now not so for organic; they get a “get out of jail free card.” The OTA endorsement did the trick and the bill was rushed through the Senate, then the House.

So through campaign corruption and an organic industry “sellout” the DARK Act wins? Not so fast. Numerous groups (including the author’s) have committed to fighting this bill in federal court. No bill that is this blatantly discriminatory and unconstitutional should be allowed to stand. So the fight against the DARK Act, and for local democracy and the right to know for all Americans, continues.

This piece was originally posted on Alternet on Aug. 4, 2016.

The Tour is Over But the Fight to Keep the Hives Alive Continues

Mon, 27 Jun 2016 00:00:00 -0700

Keep the Hives Alive Tour from Jason Davidson on Vimeo.

The Keep the Hives Alive tour may have ended, but the national movement to secure stronger protections for bees has never been more robust. The conversation between beekeepers, scientists, farmers and activists that began last September took form this past week as a national tour to raise awareness about pollinator declines, celebrate the pollinator protection initiatives happening across the country, counter the misleading PR tactics of the agrichemical industry and demand action from government agencies to regulate bee-toxic pesticides and promote sustainable farming practices. Keep the Hives Alive met all of these objectives, but the tour’s true victory was the inspiration that spread across the nation. From state to state, the tour provided a critical platform for sharing stories from of people impacted by the chemically intensive agricultural system, and those working to make our food system safer and more sustainable.

We were lucky to join the tour for several of its stops across the country. For those of you who weren’t able to, here are some of the highlights.

Keep the Hives Alive kicked off in Sacramento, California where beekeepers, consumers and concerned citizens gathered outside of the state legislature to support the Pollinator Protection Act and call for restrictions on uses of bee-toxic pesticides.

From California, the tour drove to Estelline, South Dakota for an event at Blue Dasher Farm, a regenerative agricultural research farm founded by former USDA scientist Jonathan Lundgren.

Lundgren and his family welcomed over 100 people to the farm, including beekeepers, farmers, scientists and concerned consumers all eager to learn about the possibilities of shifting our agricultural system. Blue Dasher is truly inspirational. Its purpose is to lead by example – to launch research projects evaluating the benefits of regenerative and agroecological farming practices and to promote a vision of what the future of farming could (and should) look like. There is both irony and poetic beauty in Lundgren’s farm; it is a safe haven for pollinators and many other species amongst miles of conventionally grown corn and soybeans where the presence of corporate agrichemical companies can be felt between every row of tilled farm land.

The guests of the event toured the farm and learned about the research Dr. Lundgren is conducting, along with the research of numerous USD graduate students. Later in the evening, all of the tour attendees gathered in the barn to partake in a panel discussion and Q&A featuring local farmers and beekeepers that are going against the grain by avoiding harmful agricultural practices and chemicals. It was incredible to listen to the stories of these passionate and hardworking community members – but perhaps even more incredible was the level of engagement from the audience and the collaborative dialogue concerning how we can work together to promote a more sustainable food future.

The Keep the Hives Alive truck, driven by beekeeper James Cook and filled with boxes of over 2.6 million dead bees (unfortunately only a small representation of the over 40% of hives that die off every year), left Blue Dasher the next morning heading for events in Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Washington, D.C. With each stop the truck grew heavier with stories of beekeepers’ heartbreak over continued hive losses, and consumers’ concerns for the health of their families, but continued on with the momentum from people all across the nation desiring real change and willing to work for and demand it.

The next stop on the tour was at the beautiful Moonstone Farm in Montevideo, Minnesota. Minnesotans care deeply about pollinator health – 22 cities, counties and campuses statewide have passed strong resolutions for pollinator protection and numerous efforts to support both state and federal plans. The enthusiasm of this community was exemplified when nearly 70 people arrived at Moonstone Farm, despite Tornado warnings, to support Keep the Hives Alive. The speakers at the Minnesota event stressed that in a fight for change, we all must wear many hats. It is this willingness to approach the issues from so many different angles that strengthens Minnesota’s movement and results in the state’s great success.

Onward from Minnesota, the ‘bee truck” continued to Michigan, another state that has been a champion of pollinator protection. The first of two Michigan stops was Ypsilanti, home of the first Bee City USA designation and Bee Safe Neighborhood in the state. The event featured children’s activities, a costume contest and live entertainment, in addition to a list of notable speakers. The day was a celebration of the hardworking citizens and city leaders that led by example, pushed for strong pollinator protection initiatives and continue to set nationwide standards for creating and maintaining pollinator safe habitats.

The dead bee truck next rolled into Detroit to visit D-Town farm, a seven-acre community, self determination farm that uses organic methods and is a project of The Detroit Black Community Food Security Network. The stop at D-Town highlighted the interconnectedness of environmental, agricultural and social justice issues in this country.

Of course, no tour aimed at raising awareness of the severity of pollinator declines would be complete without a stop at Hackenberg Apiaries in Lewisburg, PA. Dave Hackenberg is a commercial beekeeper who first brought attention to honeybee disappearance after losing 80% of his 3000 bee colonies. With 10 years of experience advocating for the bees, Hackenberg’s resilience in the fight to protect pollinators is proof that enough is enough and we need strong action now! At the event, attendees were given the opportunity to tour his incredible apiaries and see firsthand that beekeeping is a serious business, and a necessary component to the agricultural system that we cannot afford to lose.

After a long week on the road, the Keep the Hives Alive truck brought the message to the doorsteps of industry at the Bayer Crop Science headquarters in Research Triangle Park, NC. To fully understand the power and influence behind this grassroots movement, one must consider why, when activists, farmers, beekeepers and community members gathered on the front lawn of the Bayer facility to tell their stories and to address Bayer, company representatives only yards away were unwilling to attend. Bayer, a company that has poured millions of dollars into portraying itself as a bee-friendly corporation – despite being the manufacturer of many of the leading bee-toxic chemicals on the market – did not accept the invitation to attend this peaceful but powerful event, and was thus unable to hear first-hand the concerns regarding their bee-toxic products and the desire for change in the North Carolina community and beyond.

Bayer’s noted absence did not deter the spirit of this movement, but fueled it further and the crowd continued to build upon the inspiring words of the speakers. The crowd cheered, chanted and mourned for the loss of honeybees. It was an event like no other, as attendees demanded action right on the doorstep of a company largely responsible for the problem.

This energy carried the tour all the way to its final stop on the front lawn of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D.C during Pollinator Week on Wednesday, June 22nd. With over a hundred people congregated around the speakers, “No Bees, No Food” chants roared over the microphone and hopefully into the hearts of those responsible for regulating bee-toxic chemicals. Various environmental organizations, reporters, speakers that represented all aspects of the pollinator spectrum, beekeepers from across the country, restaurant and business owners, and concerned citizens gathered for a monumental day for the bees and for our food system. It was an electric and energized crowd, fueled by the tour stops before it. After some of the most inspiring and passionate speakers took the podium, leaders from the Keep The Hives Alive tour marched into the office of the EPA to deliver nearly five million signatures demanding stronger regulations of bee-toxic pesticides. These five million signatures represent the movement that is building and are a testament that Americans are fed up with the inactions of government agencies that need to do their jobs and regulate chemicals proven to be dangerous to pollinators, ecosystems, our food supply and potentially ourselves.

This tour did so much more than simply call attention to the serious issues affecting pollinator populations. After 10 years of fighting for better protection of pollinator species we are no longer wondering what the causes are of continued decline. This tour showed that a spark has been ignited and we are now demanding that action is taken to protect these species, demanding that agrichemical companies are held accountable, demanding that government agencies regulate these harmful products and demanding that the voices of those working towards a brighter future be heard. This movement is not just one of or for environmentalists, or beekeepers, or farmers, or scientists; it is a movement of people from all different backgrounds working together to pool resources and take on the Goliath-like industry. Hearing speakers demanding a “food system paradigm shift” shows truly the strength of organization. While the tour reached its final stop, its purpose and the momentum it built has just begun. We will not let up until necessary actions are taken and until the safety of bees is secured.

See more images and highlights from the tour here.

Tell the EPA to act on bee-killing pesticides, now!

History in the Making: A Fight for a Food Sovereign Hawaiâ€˜i

Thu, 16 Jun 2016 00:00:00 -0700

I’ve been at a loss for words to describe the experience of yesterday's court proceedings - all of the work that went into that day - from community organizing, to political prowess, to tireless legal research and writing, culminating in that foreign-language theater we all trudged through (a.k.a. oral arguments in legalese).

As I looked across the courtroom, I was also reminded of how much has come before me, before us, before yesterday.

I was not around during those early years when Uncle Walter Ritte, Andy Kimbrell, Bill Freese, Auntie Jeri Di Pietro, Mary Lacques, Lynn Howe, Nancy Redfeather, and other visionaries met on a annual basis to discuss the threat that genetically engineered (GE) crops posed not just to Hawai‘i, but to the seed sovereignty of the entire world…their work brought us into that court room.

I was not there when Uncle Walter and a coalition of KÄnakas and settlers forced the University of Hawai‘i to give up a patent on kalo, making Hawai‘i one of the first places in the world to successfully prevent the privatization and patenting of indigenous knowledge. Their victory laid the groundwork for our battles against agrochemical companies and the technologies that they’ve tested and deployed in Hawai‘i to increase their pesticide sales.

I was not there when Klayton Kubo decided he was no longer going to accept the practices of his “good neighbors” in Waimea on Kaua‘i, being one of the original warriors to organize impacted communities against the industry. This grit and perseverance in the face of real suffering is why we made it to court yesterday.

I was not around on that fateful day when Sol Kahn and Fern Rosenstiel met with Gary Hooser on KauaÊ»i to discuss their concerns about the expanding agrochemical industry, concerns that culminated in the historical Bill 2491/Ordinance 960. I was not there when Dustin Barca leveraged his fame as an athlete to bring this message to the world. The ingenuity and tenacity of all of the tireless warriors, too many to name, who slept outside of the County Council building, fought to pass the bill, and override a veto, brought us into that court room.

I was not there when Blake Watson, Chandell Asuncion, Merle Hayward, and others organized with Councilwoman Margaret Wille to miraculously pass Bill 113. It was this grassroots community organizing that united the entire island of Hawai‘i and put in place protections that would prevent the entrance of the agrochemical industry into that county, keeping their soils, their water, and their people healthy and safe. Their work brought us into that courtroom.

I was not there when Bruce Douglass and Joe Marshalla dreamed up a citizen's initiative that would demand the industry prove it was not impacting public health or the environment, enlisting Maui leaders like Beth Savitt, Dr. Lorrin Pang, Bonnie Marsh, Lei‘ohu Rider, and Mark Sheehan in their campaign. This work brought us to that courtroom.

I was there during the ground battle for Maui County and will never forget the tireless work of Lauryn Rego, Nomi Carmona, Deb Mader, Autumn Ness, and all the other volunteer grassroots canvassers who cut turf and walked to thousands of homes to educate voters. I was there when Uncle Alika Atay did the math right and saw our path to victory. I was there when Wade Holmes printed all of the bumper stickers and magnets, paying for them out of pocket, helping to make it clear just how many people across Maui supported the cause. I was there when Piia Aarma and Amanda Corby fought to get us our fair share of prime time media coverage - fighting back the $9 million spin campaign. This work brought us to that courtroom.

I have been privileged to watch and work along side the attorneys at Center for Food Safety, Earth Justice, and Bays Lung as they fight to defend our hard work. I was there as countless mana wÄhine from all the islands shared their stories with the court through their declarations, including Hoala Davis, Mercy Ritte, and Malia Kahale‘ina Chun, helping to communicate the human face of environmental injustice.

We laid all of this work, all of this history, all of our blood, sweat, and tears at the altar of the American judicial system yesterday... and many of us turned around and got right back to work. Win or lose in court, the future of our islands hangs in the balance.

I’ve learned what real political organizing and struggle looks like from the work of our movement, and I know that we will continue fighting for basic protections from chemical agriculture. I am inspired by all of you who are building a healthy food system that feeds our people. We are a movement that beats the odds, a movement that makes history. Together, for our keiki, for our kÅ«puna, for our ‘Äina, we fight on.

Bayer + Monsanto: A Poisonous Combination

Thu, 09 Jun 2016 00:00:00 -0700

When we think about seeds, the images we most often conjure are simple, comforting and tangible – planting vegetable and flower gardens in the spring, spitting watermelon seeds on a hot summer day, toasting pumpkin seeds after carving jack-o-lanterns in the fall, feeding bright cardinals in the winter. Seeds are for all seasons. What most of us don’t think about are unsettling things like toxic pesticides, pollinator decline and the illegalization of seed-saving. Unfortunately, these are all prominent features of agriculture in America today. And this has a lot to do with the enormous global corporations that have gained control of the world’s seeds, the source of our food supply and the indispensable basis of all agriculture.

Farmers have been breeding, saving, re-planting, and freely exchanging seeds for millennia. In the 20th century, public sector breeders developed countless new crop varieties for farmers in the U.S. and around the world. The result of all this biological innovation was a rich diversity of seed varieties in every crop: plants adapted to various cuisines, geographical regions, soil types and weather conditions, as well as pest and disease threats.

Over the last few decades, however, a handful of agrichemical giants have acquired much of the world’s seed supply. Just five companies – Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Dow and Bayer – account for 62% of world seed sales. This buying spree was driven by two key developments: the new technology of genetic engineering and the issuance of the first patents on seeds in the 1980s. As discussed below, genetic engineering is used primarily to develop seeds that dramatically increase use of pesticides the companies also sell; while patents ensure higher profits from seeds, in part by allowing the agrichemical giants to outlaw farmer seed-saving.

This new order has already resulted in higher seed prices and declining choice of seed varieties, thousands of farmers sued for seed-saving, and sharply increased dependence on toxic pesticides – both weed-killing herbicides and insecticides.

Now, two of the world’s largest pesticide-seed companies may merge into a still bigger entity. German pharmaceutical and chemical giant Bayer AG recently offered $62 billion to acquire Monsanto Company, the biotech, chemical and seed behemoth. While Monsanto rejected this offer, it remains open to a better one. Two other mega-deals are also in the works. If all go through, the result would be an unprecedented oligopoly of just four mega-corporations that control an astounding 73% of the world’s combined market in seeds and pesticides: Bayer-Monsanto, Dow-DuPont, Syngenta-ChemChina and BASF (see graph). What would this mean for the future of farming? It doesn’t look good.

1. Seeds + Herbicides: Resistance is Profitable… Monsanto and Bayer both use genetic engineering to generate crops that survive direct application of the herbicides they also sell. Weed-killers that once had to be applied sparingly (to avoid injuring the crop) can now be sprayed throughout the growing season. Monsanto’s genetically engineered (GE) glyphosate-resistant corn, soybeans, and cotton rule today. But the huge increase in glyphosate (aka Roundup) use triggered by these crops has generated an epidemic of glyphosate-resistant weeds that mighty Roundup no longer kills. The agrichemical industry’s response? Engineer crops immune to additional herbicides, so they too can be sprayed with abandon. The union of Monsanto’s seeds and Bayer’s herbicides would perfectly position the merged giant to fully exploit this toxic but highly profitable “transgenic treadmill” of increasing herbicide use and weed resistance.

Why should we care? Well, herbicides are bad news for people and nature. For instance, the World Health Organization’s cancer experts recently determined that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans,” pointing to studies of cancer in lab rodents as well as glyphosate-spraying farmers. On the environmental side, glyphosate has virtually wiped out milkweed in Midwest corn and soybean fields, a major factor in the dramatic 20-year decline of monarch butterflies that depend on milkweed for food and reproduction. And these are just harbingers of worse to come, as new GE crops intensify the use of many other toxic weed-killers, like 2,4-D and dicamba.

2. Seeds + Insecticides: Till Death Do Them Part…. Bayer is the world’s leading producer of a class of highly toxic insecticides known as neonicotinoids. You’ve probably heard about them, “neonics” for short. They’re coated on the seeds of most major field crops – corn, soybeans, cotton and canola – and diffuse throughout the tissues of the growing seedling. This marriage of seeds and insecticides is big trouble, because neonics are incredibly toxic to bees and implicated as one factor in the decline of pollinators around the world. And they kill other beneficial insects as well. Slugs that have been made toxic by consuming neonic-treated seedlings actually poison ground beetles that try to eat them. To make matters worse, objective research shows that neonics provide little or no benefit in terms of crop yield, so it’s not clear what they’re doing on the seed at all. Just as momentum is building to restrict these toxic insecticides to protect pollinators, or at least give farmers the choice of untreated seed, a merged Monsanto-Bayer would have every incentive to expand their use to all of Monsanto’s seeds.

The Department of Justice has ample reason to block this merger of giants on traditional anti-trust grounds. The combination of Bayer and Monsanto would diminish competition in the increasingly intertwined markets for seeds and pesticides, reduce socially beneficial innovation, increase seed prices, and reduce seed choices for farmers (particularly non-GE and untreated seed options). All of these impacts would be exacerbated if the two other proposed mergers – Dow-DuPont and Syngenta-ChemChina – also go through. Thus, it’s no surprise that anti-trust and farmer organizations are also opposing the proposed combinations.

Here, we’ve shown that the merger’s adverse effects would extend well beyond the traditional anti-trust arenas of competition, prices and choice. The merger would also go a long way towards reinforcing the poisonous linkages between pesticides and seeds that are already having such harmful consequences for people and the natural world. If Bayer + Monsanto is an unwise marriage of pesticides and seeds, then now is certainly not the time to hold your peace. Keep posted and we’ll help you speak out as opportunities arise.

Concentration in the seed and pesticide markets if three potential mergers go through. Assumes no divestitures. Based on: Breaking Bad: Big Ag Mega-Mergers in Play, ETC Group Communique 115, December 2015. http://www.etcgroup.org/content/breaking-bad-big-ag-mega-mergers-play.

On World Oceans Day, CFS is Swimming Against the Current to Keep Salmon and our Waters Safe

Wed, 08 Jun 2016 00:00:00 -0700

Today, June 8th, is international World Oceans Day – a day set aside to celebrate the essential beauty and grave importance of the salty waters that bring life to our planet. Our survival, and that of the entire global ecosystem, depends on our oceans. That is why it is critical that we work to keep our oceans healthy and thriving. This includes paying special attention to the species that still live there – because if they aren’t healthy, that’s a bad sign for all of us.

In the ocean, salmon are among the most unique and resilient fish. Salmon lay and hatch their eggs in freshwater streams. Young salmon then spend the first several months of their life in these freshwaters before migrating to the saltwater oceans where they spend the majority of their adult lives. When it is time, the adult salmon swim back upstream against the current – sometimes thousands of miles – to their own natal streams to lay their eggs for the next generation to begin.

In addition to their incredible fortitude and adaptability, salmon are and have historically been a significant food animal. Generations of humans have relied on salmon as important and dependable sources of protein in their diets, and salmon play a major role in industry – California’s salmon industry alone has a $1.4 billion economic value. Unfortunately, while we have been reaping the benefits of salmon – like many of the oceans’ offerings – we have also done damage to the long-term sustainability of the wild populations of these important fish.

While many are working hard to recognize and address some of the threats that endanger salmon (like overfishing and impacts from climate change), one stands out for us here at Center for Food Safety – the significant environmental, human health, and economic costs of salmon farmed industrially in open net pens, risks that are exacerbated by the approval of genetically engineered (GE) salmon. Several native salmon populations are already struggling to survive and/or make a comeback in the wild. At the same time, farmed fish producers are turning major profits. The problem is that GE fish add additional and novel threats to wild populations that are already at risk.

Each year, millions of farmed fish escape from open-water net pens, outcompeting wild populations for resources, reducing genetic diversity through interbreeding, and straining ecosystems. Not only that, industrial aquaculture introduces wastes, nutrient runoff, drugs, chemicals and hormones into our oceans and aquatic environments, threatening not just salmon, but the entire ecosystem. Now, if farmed salmon are genetically engineered, these industrial aquaculture problems are made far worse: GE fish with altered DNA could breed with and potentially permanently alter the genetic makeup of stressed wild salmon stocks in ways we do not yet fully understand and have not begun to study.

Nonetheless, this past fall astounding news came when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first-ever genetically engineered (GE) food animal for consumption, an Atlantic salmon engineered to grow quickly. The FDA’s decision marked the first time any government in the world has approved a GE animal for commercial sale and consumption.

In response, CFS, along with a diverse coalition of public health, community, environmental and conservation groups, filed a lawsuit to challenge the approval in court to protect our wild salmon populations and the oceans they thrive in.

Among other claims, our lawsuit challenges FDA’s contention that it has authority to approve and regulate GE animals as “animal drugs” under the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. However, those provisions were meant to ensure the safety of veterinary drugs administered to treat disease in livestock, such as antibiotics used by farmers in pigs or chickens. The law was enacted 50 years before genetic engineering, and obviously was never intended to oversee GE animals that can pass along their altered genes to the next generation, or sufficiently analyze their risks. The lawsuit has a plethora of other claims as well, including that FDA violated numerous core U.S. environmental laws, like the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act, by refusing to analyze the impacts to ocean environments if and when the GE salmon escape.

We are working hard to conserve salmon, and in turn, the waters that they, and we, depend on. Today, on World Oceans Day, take a minute to think about what the ocean means to you, and what you can do to help ensure our marine environments and fish populations are healthy, safe and sustainable. You can start by supporting our ongoing litigation against the FDA’s approval of GE salmon. We all need our oceans, and right now, our oceans and their inhabitants need us more than ever.

Keep the Hives Alive! National Tour Demands Pollinator Protection

Mon, 06 Jun 2016 00:00:00 -0700

Ten years have passed since the term “colony collapse disorder” was first coined for the“mysterious” disappearance of honey bee hives reported by beekeepers all across the country. Ten years of government regulators failing to address severe pollinator declines in the United States, despite major strides in European countries and a U.S. agricultural economy dependent on pollination for one third of the crops it produces. Ten years of agro-chemical companies pouring millions of dollars into PR campaigns to direct the blame of pollinator declines away from pesticides, despite strong independent scientific research implicating these toxic chemicals as a leading culprit in bee deaths. Ten years of beekeepers’ pleas for stronger pollinator protections going largely ignored. And 10 years of the environment and our food supply put at risk by the loss of critical pollinator species.

Bees can’t wait any longer. Beekeepers can’t wait any longer. Our food supply can’t wait any longer. Beekeepers are still reporting annual losses nearing 50% of their hives, with some beekeepers reporting as high as 100% losses. The time for action is now, and that action needs to be taken to curb the use of the toxic pesticides responsible for these devastating declines. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Agriculture, and Congress need to be held accountable for properly regulating the use of bee-toxic pesticides and preventing further pollinator losses.

That is why, after months of planning, THIS WEEK, beekeepers, farmers, consumers, and environmentalists around the country are standing up and demanding action that is 10 years overdue – and are taking to the road on behalf of bees. The Keep the Hives Alive Tour is a joint effort of members of the beekeeping community, along with NGO allies, and individuals concerned by the continued decline of pollinator species including farmers, councilmembers and others. The tour is raising awareness of the plight of pollinators, the role bee-toxic pesticides—such as the ones companies like Bayer produces—play in their decline, and celebrating initiatives to protect these critical species by supporting sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices.

Keep the Hives Alive kicked off at the state legislature in Sacramento, California and it will continue through National Pollinator week (June 20-26), with stops in South Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, and Pennsylvania before ending up in front of the Bayer Bee Care Center outside Raleigh, North Carolina. Here there will be a bee truck carrying thousands of dead bees and the stories of beekeepers and consumers all across the country who are fed up with corporations protecting their profits over protecting pollinators. The bee truck will not stop there. After leaving Raleigh, the tour will finish in Washington, DC for a demonstration outside of the EPA, where we will echo the demands of concerned consumers, farmers, and beekeepers for all the government agencies to hear; demanding that EPA, USDA, and Congress take action on toxic pesticides and support a more sustainable food future.

For years, Center for Food Safety has been on the frontlines of the battle for the protection of pollinators, our farms, and our environment. We are thrilled to be a part of this movement and believe that the time is now to get pollinators the protection they deserve! We hope you will join us this week in celebration of pollinators, beekeepers, and farmers working hard every day for a brighter future for bees and for the safety of our food supply!

Are we coming to a town near you? Join Us!

Keep The Hives Alive Tour Stops:

June 13th—Brookings, South Dakota: https://www.facebook.com/events/245041762529999/

June 14th—Montevideo, Minnesota: https://www.facebook.com/events/471971569676275/

June 16th—Ypsilanti, Michigan: https://www.facebook.com/events/640854909411816/

June 16th—Detroit, Michigan: https://www.facebook.com/events/1551123851850079/

June 18th–Lewisburg, Pennsylvania: https://www.facebook.com/events/2046505992241409/

June 20th—Research Triangle Park, NC: https://www.facebook.com/events/245565942469442/

June 22nd—Washington, DC: https://www.facebook.com/events/694889667320136/

The U.S. needs to get with the program and cut unnecessary use of antibiotics in agriculture

Tue, 31 May 2016 00:00:00 -0700

It’s no secret that the unnecessary over-use of antibiotics in industrial farming is a threat to the health of people, animals and the environment. In addition to promoting unethical and unsanitary conditions for raising food animals, international health agencies agree that the over-use of antibiotics in agriculture has major implications for the spread of antibiotic-resistant disease and “super bugs” that pose risks to human health. For example, the use of colistin, a last-line-of-defense antibiotic for human infections, in pigs in China has been linked to the spread of resistant bacteria to people, and colistin resistant E. coli was recently discovered in a person and a sample from a pig in the U.S. This threat requires strong government action to reduce the use of antibiotics in agriculture. In fact, a new report commissioned by the government of the United Kingdom formally recommends reducing “the extensive and unnecessary use of antibiotics in agriculture” in order to curb the global spread of resistant infections.

According to the U.K. report, Tackling Drug-Resistant Infections Globally: Final Report and Recommendations, an estimated 700,000 people die each year, globally, from resistant infections, and that number is projected to rise to 10 million per year by 2050 if significant action is not taken. The report explicitly calls for reducing the use of antibiotics in agriculture, and outlines proactive measures countries should take to achieve significant reductions. The authors recognize antibiotic resistance from agricultural uses as such a threat that they advocate for a massive global public awareness campaign, “so that patients and farmers do not demand, and clinicians and veterinarians do not prescribe, antibiotics when they are not needed.”[1]

Unfortunately, U.S. policy discussions on combatting antibiotic resistant bacteria lack any such significant statements, and U.S. activities on antibiotic stewardship downplay the importance of reducing antibiotic use in animals raised for food. Instead, measures in the U.S. focus predominantly on the public health sector, where doctors and hospitals are encouraged to resist doling out unnecessary prescriptions to human patients. Very little attention is payed to promoting solutions and alternatives in the agriculture sector. This is unacceptable – especially considering that the livestock industry accounts for the vast majority of antibiotics sold annually in the U.S.

The proper use of antibiotics “can maintain animal health and welfare, as well as food security,” as the report acknowledges. However, antibiotics are largely not used for treating sick animals, but instead to either to prevent infections that often result from poor farming practices, or to artificially promote growth.[2] The authors of the report caution “antibiotic use declared to be prophylactic [for disease prevention] may increase when use for growth promotion is banned, as some users may try to ‘game the system’.”[3]

The report proposes three broad steps for countries to take to successfully reduce use in agriculture, illustrating how far behind the U.S. is in comparison:

1. Ten-year targets to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use in agriculture, with milestones to measure progress

The report recommends that countries establish and achieve clear targets for reducing antibiotic use in agriculture. In the U.S., the minor emphasis on addressing antibiotics in animals has consistently referred to promoting “stewardship” or “judicious use” rather than explicitly calling for reductions. Neither the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) nor the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has publicly indicated plans to set clear targets for reductions.

2. Implement restrictions and/or bans on certain critical antibiotics

In addition to overall reduction, the report recommends that certain antibiotics—particularly those important to human medicine—should not be used in agriculture at all, or only under very strict conditions. In the U.S., action has so far has merely added the requirement that medically important antibiotics may be used in animal feeds only under the express direction of a veterinarian, and requested that makers of animal drugs voluntarily remove growth promotion claims from the labels of medically important antibiotics. There is no action at the federal level to curb continued, routine use to keep animals from getting sick in the confined, crowded, and unsanitary conditions common in intensive facilities like CAFOs. We have seen some positive steps at the state level – in California, legislation was passed in 2015 which prevents the use of a medically important antimicrobial drug solely for purposes of weight gain or improved feed efficiency, and prohibits the use of these drugs in a regular pattern.

3. Improve transparency in the industry

The recent increase in voluntary action by producers and retailers like McDonald’s, Wal-Mart, and Tyson’s to address antibiotic use in their meat and poultry supplies is a strong strategy in the short-term. But we cannot rely on voluntary action alone. The report calls for “mandatory transparency requirements for producers and retailers.”[4] A standardized, audited product labeling system that conveys levels of antibiotic use will help consumers make informed food decisions that align with their values.

But to achieve any of these goals, more data on the types, quantities, and purposes of the antibiotics used in animals is urgently needed. Currently, the only data on antibiotic use in agriculture in the U.S. are figures collected from drug companies on the amount of antibiotics sold for use in animals each year. This provides information specific to one end of the supply chain, and does not tell us how much antibiotics are being used on farms or for what reasons. Center for Food Safety has consistently asked FDA and USDA to outline concrete plans for collecting use data at the farm level.

So, even with minimal data, how can countries achieve actual reductions in use? According to the report, “changes in production practices and animal husbandry systems to improve hygiene, and reorganising the planning of production sites to reduce disease” will in turn reduce reliance on antibiotics.[5] In other words, management practices that promote the health and well-being of the animals, such as allowing for natural growth rates and providing high-quality feeds, access to the outdoors, adequate space, and clean facilities, are critical for reducing the need for preventative antibiotics in agriculture. The U.S. must start making policy decisions that reflect the need for better management and fewer antibiotics for food animals.

[1] Page 4, emphases added.
[2] Page 24.
[3] Page 29.
[4] Page 29.
[5] Page 28.

Organic is Clearly Better When it Comes to Reducing Toxic, Synthetic Pesticides

Fri, 27 May 2016 00:00:00 -0700

Many people today are concerned about how the products they buy have been produced, seeking those that align with their values and considerations of the environment, social justice, or their personal health. When shoppers enter a store they view items against a set of criteria. With clothes, for example, they may look for apparel that is sweatshop free, fair trade, or made from sustainably sourced fibers. When making food choices, ninety percent[1] of consumers consider reducing their pesticide exposure an important factor. Nearly as many feel strongly about choosing food that protects the environment from harmful chemicals.

But even with the best intentions, determining which products align with these goals can be difficult; and the many different claims, labels, and terms found in stores and at markets can be overwhelming. However, the USDA Certified Organic label is clear – when you eat USDA Certified Organic Products, your exposure to toxic, synthetic pesticides is drastically reduced.

Organic produce has fewer pesticide residues

Research shows that an organic diet provides a “dramatic and immediate protective effect” against exposures to pesticides regularly used in agriculture. Organic fruits and vegetables have consistently been shown to have lower presence of pesticide residues—meaning that when you eat them, you dramatically reduce the risks associated with consuming agricultural chemical residues. In fact, a report in the British Journal of Nutrition[2] analyzed 343 studies published in scientific journals and concluded that there is a statistically significant difference between the amount of pesticide residue found on organic and non-organic food – pesticide residues are found in non-organic crops four times as often as in organic crops! For the 90 percent of consumers that want to reduce their pesticide exposure, that’s certainly a reassuring reason to shop organic.

And when it comes to our families, avoiding harmful chemicals is especially important for children. Another study[3] by scientists at Emory University, the University of Washington and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention measured dietary exposure to pesticides in elementary school children through urine testing. After substituting organic food for conventional food in the children’s diets for five consecutive days, they found that two common pesticides identified in their urine prior to the diet change decreased rapidly to below-detectable levels – after just five days! These pesticides remained absent in all of the children’s urine until they resumed consuming conventionally grown food.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) supports these conclusions related to children’s health and safety. Due to particular vulnerability of children to adverse health effects from pesticide exposure, in 2012, AAP recommended[4] dietary changes, including consumption of organic produce, to reduce that exposure. A second AAP report[5] in 2012 concluded that “organic diets have been convincingly demonstrated to expose consumers to fewer pesticides associated with human disease.”

Why do organic fruits and vegetables have significantly lower residues of harmful, synthetic pesticides? Because, very few synthetic pesticides are even allowed to be used in organic production to begin with.

Synthetic chemicals are limited in organics

The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 established the National Organic Program (NOP), which expressly prohibits the use of synthetic chemicals in the production and handling of organic foods.[6] Congress allowed for a limited exception for certain synthetic substances in organic farming and handling, by adding individual substances to a formal list of allowed materials in organic, called the National List. But not just any chemical can be accepted. A synthetic material may only be added if it “would not be harmful to human health or the environment; is necessary to the production or handling of the agricultural product because of the unavailability of wholly natural substitute products; and is consistent with organic farming and handling [emphasis added].”[7]

Additionally, each material must have been formally recommended for addition by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), an independent advisory board of experts. NOSB must review each synthetic material based on impacts to human health, animals, and the environment, its compatibility with sustainable agriculture, its breakdown and fate in the environment, among other aspects, in making its recommendation.[8] And, each substance on the list must be reviewed every five years. In other words, the review process is a very rigorous one. This ensures that only necessary synthetic substances that do not pose significant risks are added to the list.

“Organic” is rooted in the spirit of “continuous improvement”

Though certain substances have been added to the National List discussed above, others have been removed over time as alternatives are found. This is part of the spirit of continuous improvement that is the mainstay of organic agriculture and woven into the fabric of the organic law. Unlike any other system of food production or product label, “improvements” are integral to the continued success of organic. For example, allowing the use of the antibiotics streptomycin and tetracycline on organic apple and pear orchards was phased out, in part in response to public pressure from organizations such as Center for Food Safety. The antibiotics had been added to the list for use to control fire blight, a destructive bacterium that attacks tree blossoms, limbs and shoots. However, due to the risk of generating resistance to antibiotics in harmful bacteria, the organic community pushed for alternative tools. It took longer to remove these antibiotics than we at CFS felt necessary because research on preventatives and alternatives was slow to emerge, but stakeholder pressure and public awareness to eliminate them built gradually over time and the usage was eventually revoked.

Choosing organic means choosing fewer pesticides

If you are among the nearly 90 percent of shoppers concerned about pesticides, choosing organic fruits and vegetables over conventionally grown products is a verified way to reduce exposure to residues. Organic farmers apply synthetic pesticides in limited circumstances, if at all, and instead rely on holistic practices to manage pests and weeds. In fact, applying massive amounts of chemicals would be detrimental to this important biodiversity of insects and native plants that organic farmers rely on. Finally, using fewer pesticides not only contributes to fewer residues on the produce, but ensures the safety of farmworkers and nearby communities as well.

With its minimal reliance on pesticides and strong emphasis on non-synthetic practices, organic is the healthiest system of food production. Organic food is good for both you and the planet, and thanks to the high standards and practices of the NOSB, it keeps getting even better.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] http://www.consumerreports.org/food-safety/peeling-back-the-natural-food-label/
[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24968103
[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1367841/
[4] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/11/21/peds.2012-2758
[5] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/10/15/peds.2012-2579
[6] 7 U.S.C. §6504(1)
[7] 7 U.S.C. §6517(c)(1)(a)
[8] 7 U.S.C. §6518(m)

Remembering Rachel Carson: A Fight Against a New "Silent Spring"

Fri, 27 May 2016 00:00:00 -0700

On her birthday, it is fitting that all of us take a moment to commemorate the work, spirit and passion of Rachel Carson, who is so aptly called “the mother of the environment movement.” Decades ago in her seminal book, "Silent Spring", Carson was among the first to warn about the acute human health and ecological dangers of the pesticides that were becoming more and more ubiquitous through the country. In her last years while fighting breast cancer, Carson not only finished her bestseller but also she dedicated herself to promoting awareness of the connections between poisoning our planet and poisoning ourselves. Her influence was critical in the eventual passing of the environmental legislation that we still rely on today. I have learned many lessons from Ms. Carson and below is a slightly revised piece I posted not too long ago in the Huffington Post about a new “Silent Spring” and how we should once again listen carefully to Carson’s words.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“A single corn kernel coated with a neonicotinoid can kill a song bird.” As a long time environmental lawyer and campaigner, I should not have been stunned by that fact but I was. Shaking my head in dismay, I read on, “Even a tiny grain of wheat or canola treated with the ...neonicotinoid... can fatally poison a bird.”

The report is from the American Bird Conservancy and the neonicotinoids referred to are a class of insecticides that have become the most commonly used in the world, with several hundred products approved for use in the U.S. These “neonics” are neurotoxins that paralyze and eventually kill their victims. My organization, Center for Food Safety, has been working hard to halt the use of these neonics through litigation, legislation, and legal petitions to the Environmental Protection Agency. We are suing to address the scientifically-documented threat that neonics present to the survival of honey bees and wild bees. At the time we launched our legal actions, I did not even know about the song birds.

The anger-stirring realization that a song bird could be felled by a single seed and the prospect of bees being silenced forever brought me back to the words of Rachel Carson, written more than half a century ago in Silent Spring. “These... non selective chemicals have the power to kill every insect, the ‘good’ and the ‘bad,’ to still the songs of the birds and the leaping fish... they should not be called insecticides but biocides.” Through Carson’s crusade, biocides like DDT were eventually banned but new chemicals like neonicotinoids and other similar “systemic” insecticides/biocides have taken their place causing similar ecological havoc. Sadly, our regulatory agencies under the sway of the agrochemical industry have enabled this tragic and continuing environmental destruction.

I think it is long past due that we who work in the food and environmental movement adopt Carson’s nomenclature. Let’s not refer to pesticides, whether they are insecticides, herbicides or fungicides, by anything but their real name: biocides. Words do matter.

The “cide” ending in all these terms comes from the Latin caedare meaning “to kill.” Given that these chemicals are designed to kill that root word is accurate. But using the word pest-icide gives the impression that all these chemicals do is kill “pests,” whether insects, plant, or fungi pests. The neonicotinoids killing bees and song birds puts that delusion to rest. The bee is an insect but not a pest and the song bird is neither an insect nor a pest.

But Carson only referred to insecticides as biocides. Is it fair to put all pesticides, including herbicides and fungicides, in the same pejorative etymological category? Well, let’s look at Monsanto’s Roundup. It is the most widely used herbicide in the world because of the adoption of genetically engineered (GE) crops designed to tolerate the chemical. Is Roundup just a pesticide, a careful killer of just those “bad” plants called weeds that farmers wish to remove? Of course not. Roundup does so much more than kill plant pests. It wipes out beneficial plants of all sorts: food crops, fruits in the orchard, flowers in the garden, in fact anything that is green. Most of these are not pests or weeds. Among the beneficial plants it destroys is milkweed, on which monarch butterflies depend. The massive use of Roundup in the U.S. has destroyed so much milkweed that monarch butterflies are now at risk of extinction. Monarch butterflies are not pests or weeds.

Then there were the University of Pittsburgh researchers who a decade ago tested how Roundup might impact immature and mature frogs in ponds. This is how the researchers summarized their results: “The most striking result from the experiments was that a chemical designed to kill plants killed 98 percent of tad poles within three weeks and 79 percent of all frogs within one day.” That is very effective killing indeed, but of course frogs are not pests or weeds. Argentinian researchers using animal models then linked Roundup and its active ingredient glyphosate to cranial malformations and other birth defects long reported in the children of farm workers who were repeatedly exposed to the chemical. Infants are not pests or weeds. And then in March 2015, the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) cancer authorities — the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) — determined that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on multiple lines of evidence: kidney, pancreatic and other tumors in glyphosate-treated test animals; epidemiology studies showing higher rates of cancer in farmers that used glyphosate; and research showing that glyphosate damages chromosomes, one mechanism by which cancer is induced.

So Roundup is a butterfly killer, a frog killer and potentially an infant and adult human killer. And it has numerous other untold victims, to be sure. None of these are pests or weeds. So let’s not continue to use misleading euphemisms. Roundup is not a pesticide or herbicide; it is a “biocide.”

And now to fungicides. Their use in agriculture in the U.S. has skyrocketed, almost doubling in the last seven years. Unfortunately, research on their ecological and human health impacts has not kept up with the exponential growth in the use of these chemicals. But there is growing evidence that many of these toxics kill beneficial soil life, disrupting essential soil ecosystems. They are also increasingly becoming a water pollution problem, threatening aquatic life. Research has also pointed to concerning synergistic effects when used in tandem with other pesticides - delivering an even more toxic cocktail to bees and other beneficial insects exposed to the chemicals. Past studies indicate that 90 percent of fungicides are carcinogenic in animal models. To add insult to injury, they are also suspected of increasing obesity, especially in children. These health impacts remind us of yet another Carson insight: “Man is a part of nature and his war against nature is inevitably a war against himself.”

Overall, let’s contemplate what these biocides are bringing us: vast areas of this country stripped of all vegetation save for monocultured GE crops, devoid of flowers, bees, butterflies and song birds, with contaminated rivers and streams with little or no insect life, and fish and frogs and other aquatic life dead or deformed. Then there are the birth defects and cancers in our own children. What is the word that Rachel Carson might use to encompass the result of our using nearly a billion pounds of biocides each year? Perhaps “ecocide.”

Photo taken at the Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge in Wells, Maine.

Senator Stabenow's "Smart" Labels Would Hit Her Hometown Residents Hard

Thu, 26 May 2016 00:00:00 -0700

With the worst broadband coverage in the country, Detroit residents would be left in the dark when it comes to product ingredients

A handful of multinational agribusiness and food companies have spent over $100 million over the past three years to fight Americans’ right to know what is in the products they purchase and consume. It appears Senator Stabenow (D-MI) is trying to accommodate Big Ag – a situation that is particularly tragic for residents of her own state. Right now Stabenow is working hard to come up with a “compromise” on labeling genetically engineered (GE) food products. Her idea is that so-called “smart labels” – digital product information accessed via a smartphone with network coverage – are sufficient for getting consumers access about product ingredients.

Unfortunately, Senator Stabenow’s proposal would only compromise Americans’ – and especially her Michigan constituents’ – right to know what is in the products they buy and feed their families. It is well-documented that rural communities throughout Michigan would be a particularly hard-hit target in terms of being denied information by “smart labels”, as more than half of rural Americans do not have a smartphone, let alone the necessary network coverage that would be required to access the information. But as noted in a recent New York Times article, residents in Michigan’s most populous and economically challenged urban areas would not fare any better. According to the Federal Communications Commission, Detroit has the worst rate of Internet access of any major American city – 40% of its residents lack broadband connections.

If Senator Stabenow’s compromise was implemented, a full third of the American public would be left in the dark in terms of accessing information about the products they purchase, as only 64% own smartphones. Worse still, only 50% of low-income consumers have a smartphone and nearly half (48%) of smartphone owners have had service switched off or suspended due to financial hardship. Many of these same consumers are those who are still struggling to rise above the impacts the Great Recession continues to have on Detroit.

With these numbers, it is easy to see how so-called “smart” labels specifically discriminate against demographic groups who deserve equal access to information – and right in Senator Stabenow’s backyard. National polls consistently show that 90 to 95 percent of Americans support labeling. Consumers in Michigan and across the country want to know what is in the food they buy and feed their families. That includes whether or not their food has been genetically engineered. Corporations cannot continue to dictate what information people are allowed access to – especially when it comes to the food we eat – and it is shameful that any elected officials would support keeping their own constituents in the dark.

This article was originally posted on the Huffington Post 5/25/16.

National Academy of Sciences Finds Genetically Engineered Crops Not the Solution to World Hunger

Mon, 23 May 2016 00:00:00 -0700

New Report Downplays Harms of Herbicide-Resistant GE Crops

A new report released this week by The National Academy of Science (NAS) – Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects – provides some useful perspectives on the contentious debate surrounding genetically engineered (GE) crops, and is particularly noteworthy for calling into question the frequent claim that GE crops are key to “feeding the world.” But in other respects it is shallow and disappointing due to the lack of holistic analysis and frequent bias in favor of GE crops and herbicides whose use they promote.

The committee that produced the report devoted considerable space to assessing the yield implications of current genetically engineered crops, which were developed to survive treatment with herbicides and/or provide resistance to certain insect pests. Overall, the NAS committee found a steady increase in U.S. crop yields that spans both the pre-biotech and biotech eras. This strongly implies that other factors, such as advances in conventional breeding methods, have played a critical role in raising crop productivity. By contrast, they found no evidence that GE traits provided measureable increases in overall crop productivity.

Significantly, the report did not find clear benefits from GE crops in developing countries for small, impoverished farms. This finding is consistent with the observation that one billion people remain food insecure, despite massive adoption of GE crops globally on over 400 million acres.

While not part of its charge, the committee went out of its way to emphasize the critical importance of agroecological farming (farming based on the science of ecology and relying on natural processes and biological and cultural diversity) and conventional breeding systems to alleviate hunger and malnutrition. The committee also noted that the public investment in agricultural research needed to promote these non-biotech approaches is stagnating or declining. In fact, agroecological approaches receive only a tiny portion of the U.S. agricultural research budget. The budget instead remains devoted largely to advancing the industrial agriculture that genetic engineering has been part of.

The NAS committee’s assessment of herbicide-resistant GE crops provides some relevant analysis, for instance that these crops have increased overall herbicide use. NAS also refutes the popular myth that herbicide-resistant crops advance soil conservation, showing instead that U.S. federal farm policy introduced in 1985, a decade before GE crops, is largely responsible for promoting farmer adoption of soil-conserving techniques such as no-till. NAS could also have explained that herbicide-resistant weeds generated by cultivation of GE crops are leading to greater use of soil-eroding tillage, and that soil erosion rates have leveled out at alarmingly high, unsustainable levels over the GE crop era.

Otherwise the treatment of herbicide-resistant GE crops is cursory and deficient. This is particularly unfortunate given the predominance of this GE crop type in world agriculture. Amid a confusing plethora of figures on GE crop prevalence in various countries, we found no reference to the simple fact that an astounding 84% of the world’s GE crops (by acreage) express herbicide resistance traits. There is essentially no discussion of how these crops have triggered extremely rapid evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds on over 60 million acres of U.S. cropland alone, as well as overseas. Despite citing a paper on the subject, the committee shows no appreciation of the “transgenic treadmill” phenomenon whereby today’s herbicide-resistant weeds become the pretext for introducing crops immune to multiple weed-killers – a classic “technofix” that will only spur a spiral of increasing weed resistance and herbicide use.

The committee did not explore how the initial labor-saving effect of herbicide-resistant GE crops has contributed to increased farm size, as larger growers expand at the expense of smaller ones, despite citing a USDA report that addresses this very subject. The committee fails to discuss how the seductive convenience of GE crop weed control hinders progress toward sustainable, non-chemical weed management techniques – a fact (once again) that even USDA concedes.

We saw no discussion of how the biotechnology industry’s structure as combined pesticide-seed companies has led these firms to prioritize development of herbicide-resistant crops, which generate additional sales of weed-killing pesticides the companies also sell. Nor does the committee address how this profit-seeking R&D focus on herbicide-resistant crops helps explain the industry’s virtual failure to develop much-touted GE crops with other types of traits (beyond insect-resistance). This failing is particularly relevant to one of the committee’s primary charges – to assess the future prospects of GE technology. These latter points exemplify a systemic failure of the report to address the scientific literature on GE crops in the broader context of the biotechnology industry’s development priorities, as well as its often unethical PR and marketing practices.

NAS’s assessment of the human health and environmental effects of glyphosate herbicide is flawed by outright errors and bias. On the environmental side, there is no serious doubt that the massive, GE crop-driven increase in glyphosate use has been a prime driver of monarch decline by decimating milkweed, the monarch’s host plant, in Midwestern cropland.[1] NAS questions this consensus view of credible monarch scientists and the U.S. government, which is sponsoring efforts to restore milkweed to benefit monarchs. NAS also entirely fails to mention that the monarch’s situation is so dire that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is seriously considering a petition to list the monarch as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

NAS concedes that the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) last year found glyphosate to be “probably carcinogenic to humans,”[2] and also correctly notes that EPA regarded glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic in the 1980s. What the committee fails to explain is that EPA’s about-face on glyphosate came after intervention by the herbicide’s manufacturer, Monsanto. NAS also appears unaware that IARC’s determination that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic represents the majority view of the medical science community, which is opposed mainly by Monsanto and the U.S. and European regulators under its sway.

On the subject of food safety, NAS helpfully recommends greater use of sophisticated “-omics” techniques to improve assessment of GE crops for potential unintended health effects; but fails to draw the obvious conclusion that GE crops approved without use of such techniques (as well as long-term animal feeding trials) have not been reasonably demonstrated to be safe. However, the committee does provide a decent analysis of the food allergy risks posed by GE crops.

Despite acknowledgement of potential health threats, NAS fails to endorse the sensible recommendation of a 2002 NAS committee that all GE crops be subject to regulatory assessment, while providing no workable product-based strategy that would ensure all potentially harmful GE crops are assessed for safety. This regulatory issue is becoming increasingly critical as more and more GE crops escape any regulation at all under the current flawed U.S. system.

Overall, the NAS committee has provided some relevant analysis of GE crops. The report makes clear that alleviating hunger and malnutrition will require reinvigoration of public sector agricultural research and greater deployment of conventional breeding and agroecological techniques guided by the needs of the poor rather than the profit motives of biotechnology companies. But in most other respects the report is flawed by a disappointing failure to provide a holistic analysis of the real world impacts of most currently grown GE crops.

[1] NAS even misinterprets a key study (Hartzler 2010) as showing a 90% (rather than the actual >96%) decline in milkweed prevalence in Iowa cropland from 1999 to 2009.
[2] The committee incorrectly states that IARC formerly classified glyphosate as merely “possibly carcinogenic” (Group 2B) when in fact IARC’s 2015 determination that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A) represents its first assessment of the herbicide.

Demanding Federal Protection for Monarchs on Endangered Species Day

Fri, 20 May 2016 00:00:00 -0700

Today is Endangered Species Day – a day when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and other government agencies “recognize the national conservation effort to protect our nation's endangered species and their habitats.”

This year, we’re calling on the FWS to honor their commitment and recognize the urgent need to protect the monarch butterfly under the Endangered Species Act – something Center for Food Safety has been urging for more than a year. If you haven’t been following the developments with this issue, here’s a quick recap:

Why does the monarch butterfly need protection under the Endangered Species Act? Unfortunately, the threats monarch butterflies face are so large in scale that their population declined by 90 percent in twenty years. Even though monarch numbers were slightly up this past year due to favorable weather conditions, their long-term outlook remains bleak. Analysis of the past 22 years of population data shows a statistically significant trend: Monarchs are declining by 9 percent per year on average, and the four years with the fewest monarchs ever recorded have all come since 2010. Monarchs require a much larger population to be resilient to severe weather events and other threats. A single winter storm in the Mexican overwintering grounds killed an estimated 500 million monarchs in 2002 – more than three times the size of the entire current population. A severe storm in early March of this year has killed millions of monarchs, though its full impacts have not yet been determined.

What has caused such a dramatic decline in monarchs? One of the major threats pushing monarchs toward extinction is the widespread planting of genetically engineered crops in the Midwest, where most monarchs are born. The vast majority of genetically engineered crops are made to be resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, which is a potent killer of milkweed, the monarch caterpillar’s only food source. The dramatic surge in Roundup use and “Roundup Ready” crops has virtually wiped out milkweed plants in Midwestern corn and soybean fields. It is estimated that in the past 20 years these once-common butterflies may have lost more than 165 million acres of habitat — an area about the size of Texas — including nearly a third of their summer breeding grounds. Studies also show that monarchs lay nearly four times more eggs per plant on milkweed growing in cropland than in other areas, making its loss even more harmful to monarchs. Monarchs are also threatened by global climate change, drought and heat waves, other pesticides, disease and predation, urban sprawl and logging on their Mexican wintering grounds.

How will Endangered Species Act protection help monarchs? Listing monarch butterflies under the Endangered Species Act would create mandatory national protections for the butterflies and their habitat. It would create a federal recovery plan involving key government agencies and scientists, restore monarch habitat, and raise awareness about the monarch’s plight. Listing monarchs would also make it illegal to intentionally kill the butterflies or modify their habitat without an incidental take permit.

How can individuals help monarchs? People can help monarchs by planting milkweed species native to the region where they live that haven’t been treated with pesticides. People can also help monarchs by not using pesticides on their lawns and gardens. It also helps monarchs when consumers choose foods, especially those containing corn and soy, which are organic and therefore have not been genetically engineered. Increased use of weed-killing pesticides on genetically engineered corn and soybeans is a primary factor driving monarch decline. You can also encourage the FWS to protect monarchs under the Endangered Species Act here >>

This Endangered Species Day, we’re reminding the FWS that the time to act is now. So far, efforts to increase monarch habitat have restored only a tiny fraction of the milkweeds lost over the past two decades. In order to truly protect the monarch butterfly and its rapidly shrinking habitat, monarchs must be granted protection under the Endangered Species Act.

This Mother's Day, Celebrate Your Mother and Mother Earth with Pollinator-Friendly Plants

Thu, 05 May 2016 00:00:00 -0700