Showing posts with label social justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social justice. Show all posts

Monday, October 31, 2011

Tuna: Big Fish, Big Problem

It's Hallowe'en tonight, so I thought it appropriate to tell you a horror story of sorts. For many years, I've been unhappy about how much damage is being done by the fishing industry; this is an often overlooked topic because when we think of food production we think of farms first. The problems with fishing bother me so much that I wrote about them within a few days of starting this blog! A few months ago I also explored the issue of mercury contamination in big fish. Needless to say, these days I'm quite picky when it comes to my consumption of fish and seafood, and I'm always on the lookout for more information and news. So today I give you four sad truths about the canned tuna industry (originally published by Grist) in hopes that we will all make smarter choices on our next trip to the supermarket.

1. Fish Aggregating Devices

These contraptions are appropriately named because they manage to attract a lot of fish to one area, making their capture almost insultingly easy. It turns out that fish aggregating devices, or FADs, are almost like ecosystem creators: a fishing vessel will drop a big floating object onto the surface of the ocean, leave it behind with a radio beacon for later retrieval, and soon enough small plants root themselves onto the object, which attract small fish seeking a hiding place, which attract larger fish seeking a food source. Tuna in particular love to hang around beneath this floating world of activity. And so it comes to pass that fishing vessels net entire schools of skipjack tuna... but the FAD also gives them sharks, dolphins, other fish, and juvenile yellowfin and bigeye tuna. In other words, two types of tuna that are already disappearing at an alarming rate now face an even greater challenge because we're killing their young before they've had a chance to breed. Just so that we can spend no more than a couple of bucks on a can of skipjack tuna. What a teensy price to help bring animals closer to extinction!

2. Longlines

What matters about longlines aren't that the lines sometimes stretch as far as a few miles between buoys, but rather that the leads dangling from the main line have baited hooks attached at the end. As with FADs, longlines catch more than they should. Instead of reeling in only albacore tuna, the typical variety found in cans marked "white tuna", fishing vessels will find a bycatch of turtles, albatross, sharks, and numerous sea birds attracted to the shiny metal of the hooks and the food dangling from them. Shockingly, the non-targeted animals killed by longlines account for about 30% of the catch! I can't think of any other industry in which such a large margin for error is tolerated. And it's not just error, it's unnecessary death. I guess the albacore fishing industry makes so much money that it just doesn't matter.

3. The Wild West on the High Seas

Every island nation in the Pacific is entitled to an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the sea, in which limits are set on how much fish may be caught. In order to manage tuna stocks sustainably, countries must be able to impose and enforce strict quotas, otherwise all ocean wildlife will be fished until there is nothing left. What is a greedy company to do to make more money? Set sail for the high seas pockets outside of the the 200-mile boundaries of neighbouring island states' EEZs. These pockets are unregulated and unpatrolled, allowing fishing vessels to net as many fish as they'd like without having to stay within a maximum limit and without having to pay any fees to the nearby countries. The companies multiply their profit margin, the fish stocks get decimated, the Pacific nations are stuck with less healthy and robust tuna stocks that they must manage with less money. The fishing companies win, and everybody else loses.

4. Social Injustice

To add insult to injury, the Pacific island states that can't afford to defend their waters fall victim to bullies: large, wealthy nations like Taiwan, Spain, and the United States in conjunction with tuna corporations that lack an ethical code. Their fishing vessels literally take what isn't theirs inside of these nations' EEZs with no regard whatsoever for the desperate need of islanders to make a living off of tuna, as it is their only resource. In response to this bullying, some of the Pacific island states have decided to join forces to better defend themselves and maintain their tuna stocks. This new collaborative is called the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA), and it involves Micronesia, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu. 25-30% of global tuna stocks are managed within the EEZs of these eight states, so there is a lot to lose if the Nauru Agreement isn't better supported by fishing companies.

What Can You Do?
  • If you're looking for light tuna, make sure it's labelled as pole-and-line or FAD-free skipjack.
  • If white tuna is on your grocery list, what you'll want is the pole-and-line albacore variety.
  • Support companies that make it a point to avoid fishing in the high seas pockets.
  • Buy only from companies that publicly support the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA).

Image of yellowfin tuna used under Creative Commons from Roro Fernandez (flickr).
Image of albatross used under Creative Commons from marj k (flickr).
Image of fishing vessel/coast guard used under Creative Commons from Coast Guard News (flickr).
Image of pirate flag used under Creative Commons from Chris Evans (drumminhands/flickr).

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Eric Schlosser explains why being a foodie isn't "elitist"

I'm out of town for part of this week, so instead of writing I thought I might share a great article from the Washington Post with you. It's long compared to my usual posts but well worth the read. It touches on so many issues within our broken food system that have caused me to put food and agricultural issues at the top of my list of environmental concerns.

Why being a foodie isn't 'elitist'

 

By Eric Schlosser, Friday, April 29, 3:59 PM


At the American Farm Bureau Federation's annual meeting this year, Bob Stallman, the group's president, lashed out at "self-appointed food elitists" who are "hell-bent on misleading consumers." His target was the growing movement that calls for sustainable farming practices and questions the basic tenets of large-scale industrial agriculture in America.

The "elitist" epithet is a familiar line of attack. In the decade since my book "Fast Food Nation" was published, I've been called not only an elitist, but also a socialist, a communist and un-American. In 2009, the documentary "Food, Inc.," directed by Robby Kenner, was described as "elitist foodie propaganda" by a prominent corporate lobbyist. Nutritionist Marion Nestle has been called a "food fascist," while an attempt was recently made to cancel a university appearance by Michael Pollan, author of "The Omnivore's Dilemma," who was accused of being an "anti-agricultural" elitist by a wealthy donor.

This name-calling is a form of misdirection, an attempt to evade a serious debate about U.S. agricultural policies. And it gets the elitism charge precisely backward. America's current system of food production - overly centralized and industrialized, overly controlled by a handful of companies, overly reliant on monocultures, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, chemical additives, genetically modified organisms, factory farms, government subsidies and fossil fuels - is profoundly undemocratic. It is one more sign of how the few now rule the many. And it's inflicting tremendous harm on American farmers, workers and consumers.

During the past 40 years, our food system has changed more than in the previous 40,000 years. Genetically modified corn and soybeans, cloned animals, McNuggets - none of these technological marvels existed in 1970. The concentrated economic power now prevalent in U.S. agriculture didn't exist, either. For example, in 1970 the four largest meatpacking companies slaughtered about 21 percent of America's cattle; today the four largest companies slaughter about 85 percent. The beef industry is more concentrated now than it was in 1906, when Upton Sinclair published "The Jungle" and criticized the unchecked power of the "Beef Trust." The markets for pork, poultry, grain, farm chemicals and seeds have also become highly concentrated.

America's ranchers and farmers are suffering from this lack of competition for their goods. In 1970, farmers received about 32 cents for every consumer dollar spent on food; today they get about 16 cents. The average farm household now earns about 87 percent of its income from non-farm sources.

While small farmers and their families have been forced to take second jobs just to stay on their land, wealthy farmers have received substantial help from the federal government. Between 1995 and 2009, about $250 billion in federal subsidies was given directly to American farmers - and about three-quarters of that money was given to the wealthiest 10 percent. Those are the farmers whom the Farm Bureau represents, the ones attacking "big government" and calling the sustainability movement elitist.

Food industry workers are also bearing the brunt of the system's recent changes. During the 1970s, meatpackers were among America's highest-paid industrial workers; today they are among the lowest paid. Thanks to the growth of fast-food chains, the wages of restaurant workers have fallen, too. The restaurant industry has long been the largest employer of minimum-wage workers. Since 1968, thanks in part to the industry's lobbying efforts, the real value of the minimum wage has dropped by 29 percent.

Migrant farmworkers have been hit especially hard. They pick the fresh fruits and vegetables considered the foundation of a healthy diet, but they are hardly well-rewarded for their back-breaking labor. The wages of some migrants, adjusted for inflation, have dropped by more than 50 percent since the late 1970s. Many grape-pickers in California now earn less than their counterparts did a generation ago, when misery in the fields inspired Cesar Chavez to start the United Farm Workers Union.

While workers are earning less, consumers are paying for this industrial food system with their health. Young children, the poor and people of color are being harmed the most. During the past 40 years, the obesity rate among American preschoolers has doubled. Among children ages 6 to 11, it has tripled. Obesity has been linked to asthma, cancer, heart disease and diabetes, among other ailments. Two-thirds of American adults are obese or overweight, and economists from Cornell and Lehigh universities have estimated that obesity is now responsible for 17 percent of the nation's annual medical costs, or roughly $168 billion.

African Americans and Hispanics are more likely to be obese than non-Hispanic whites, and more likely to be poor. As upper-middle-class consumers increasingly seek out healthier foods, fast-food chains are targeting low-income minority communities - much like tobacco companies did when wealthy and well-educated people began to quit smoking.

Some aspects of today's food movement do smack of elitism, and if left unchecked they could sideline the movement or make it irrelevant. Consider the expensive meals and obscure ingredients favored by a number of celebrity chefs, the snobbery that often oozes from restaurant connoisseurs, and the obsessive interest in exotic cooking techniques among a certain type of gourmand.

Those things may be irritating. But they generally don't sicken or kill people. And our current industrial food system does.

Just last month, a study published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that nearly half of the beef, chicken, pork and turkey at supermarkets nationwide may be contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. About 80 percent of the antibiotics in the United States are currently given to livestock, simply to make the animals grow faster or to prevent them from becoming sick amid the terribly overcrowded conditions at factory farms. In addition to antibiotic-resistant germs, a wide variety of other pathogens are being spread by this centralized and industrialized system for producing meat.

Children under age 4 are the most vulnerable to food-borne pathogens and to pesticide residues in food. According to a report by Georgetown University and the Pew Charitable Trusts, the annual cost of food-borne illness in the United States is about $152 billion. That figure does not include the cost of the roughly 20,000 annual deaths from antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

One of the goals of the Farm Bureau Federation is to influence public opinion. In addition to denying the threat of global warming and attacking the legitimacy of federal environmental laws, the Farm Bureau recently created an entity called the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance to "enhance public trust in our food supply." Backed by a long list of powerful trade groups, the alliance also plans to "serve as a resource to food companies" seeking to defend current agricultural practices.

But despite their talk of openness and trust, the giants of the food industry rarely engage in public debate with their critics. Instead they rely on well-paid surrogates - or they file lawsuits. In 1990, McDonald's sued a small group called London Greenpeace for criticizing the chain's food, starting a legal battle that lasted 15 years. In 1996, Texas cattlemen sued Oprah Winfrey for her assertion that mad cow disease might have come to the United States, and kept her in court for six years. Thirteen states passed "veggie libel laws" during the 1990s to facilitate similar lawsuits. Although the laws are unconstitutional, they remain on the books and serve their real purpose: to intimidate critics of industrial food.

In the same spirit of limiting public awareness, companies such as Monsanto and Dow Chemical have blocked the labeling of genetically modified foods, while the meatpacking industry has prevented the labeling of milk and meat from cloned animals. If genetic modification and cloning are such wonderful things, why aren't companies eager to advertise the use of these revolutionary techniques?

The answer is that they don't want people to think about what they're eating. The survival of the current food system depends upon widespread ignorance of how it really operates. A Florida state senator recently introduced a bill making it a first-degree felony to take a photograph of any farm or processing plant - even from a public road - without the owner's permission. Similar bills have been introduced in Minnesota and Iowa, with support from Monsanto.

The cheapness of today's industrial food is an illusion, and the real cost is too high to pay. While the Farm Bureau Federation clings to an outdated mind-set, companies such as Wal-Mart, Danone, Kellogg's, General Mills and Compass have invested in organic, sustainable production. Insurance companies such as Kaiser Permanente are opening farmers markets in low-income communities. Whole Foods is demanding fair labor practices, while Chipotle promotes the humane treatment of farm animals. Urban farms are being planted by visionaries such as Milwaukee's Will Allen; the Coalition of Immokalee Workers is defending the rights of poor migrants; Restaurant Opportunities Centers United is fighting to improve the lives of food-service workers; and Alice Waters, Jamie Oliver and first lady Michelle Obama are pushing for healthier food in schools.

Calling these efforts elitist renders the word meaningless. The wealthy will always eat well. It is the poor and working people who need a new, sustainable food system more than anyone else. They live in the most polluted neighborhoods. They are exposed to the worst toxic chemicals on the job. They are sold the unhealthiest foods and can least afford the medical problems that result.

A food system based on poverty and exploitation will never be sustainable.

Eric Schlosser is the author of "Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal" and a co-producer of the Oscar-nominated documentary "Food, Inc."


© 2011 The Washington Post Company



--------------------


Thoughts? Reactions? Do you feel passionate or apathetic about this?

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Will You Eat Real On No Fast Food Day?

This Friday (December 17th) is No Fast Food Day, also known as Eat Real Day. I hope you will join me in eating healthy food, either prepared at home with ingredients from your local market or grocer, or while dining out at a neighbourhood restaurant. The goal that Food Forward had in mind when creating this day was to stimulate discussion around some of the problems with fast food: environmental destruction, social inequities, health problems, and factory farm conditions.

So take some time on Thursday to plan your day. I promise it's easier than you think: wake up early enough to eat breakfast at home instead of on the go to start the day off right; bring leftovers to work and skip the cafeteria at lunch; grab that afternoon tea/coffee and snack at a local, independent café that makes their baked goods in-house every morning (or better yet, replace the cookie with an apple); and invite your friends over for a home-cooked meal in the evening!

Sign up to count your participation here, and encourage your friends to participate in the challenge, too! Join the discussion by sharing your healthy food ideas and fast food issues by tweeting with the hashtag #eatreal, and sharing on Food Forward's Facebook event page.

Bon appetit!

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

One Small Step Forward for the Environment, One Giant Step Backward for Human Health

I was saddened to read last week that the state of California has decided to in favour of replacing one ozone-depleting pesticide (methyl bromide) with another (methyl iodide) on the basis that the latter is much less destructive to that invisible shield above us that keeps most UV radiation away from our delicate skin. This is an improvement, but only in terms of halting ozone depletion (which, thankfully, has been occurring to a very small degree). If you take a step back and look at the bigger picture, this is what you see: methyl iodide, commonly used to sterilize the soil ahead of planting on industrial strawberry farms, is so carcinogenic that it is used to induce cancer in lab testing.


Since this pesticide does not linger on the berries themselves, it poses no apparent threat to consumers, but what of the farm workers and those living in nearby communities? Are we pausing long enough to think about the people who grow our food and live close to farms? Are we stopping to examine the package of strawberries available in supermarkets in December to find out where they come from? Is it necessary for us to eat fresh fruit out of season in light of our proximity to locally-grown berries in the summer and the existence of freezers in almost every home? Most importantly, where is the social justice in letting others face such enormous health risks when we would never do the same, just to be able to access any food, no matter how exotic, at any time of year?

For more, read Tom Laskawy's and Tom Philpott's articles in Grist.

Photo credit.

Monday, November 15, 2010

Put Food in the Budget Campaign

Let's make a quick switch from environmental to social justice today.


One of my favourite blogs, 52 Projects, recently educated me on the Put Food in the Budget provincial campaign, sponsored in part by one of my favourite local food organizations, The Stop Community Food Centre. The campaign demands that the Ontario Government immediately increase by $100 per month the social assistance received by adults in this province. Why? Because currently, the government believes $585/mth is enough. In a city like Toronto with expensive rent, I don't see how that's fair. The second campaign demand is about creating a fair and transparent way of setting social assistance rates so that people can meet their basic needs.



How can you get involved?

1. Complete the Do the Math Survey, which asks you to calculate the minimum that a single person needs to afford housing, food, and everything else.

2. Attend the Put Food in the Budget Rally tonight at Wychwood Barns.



3. Take part in a public act of solidarity with people on social assistance by accept the Do the Math Challenge, which asks you to rely on a diet that a person on social assistance might receive from a food bank from three days to a week. Elizabeth (from 52 Projects) is participating and has listed on her blog what a single person's food bank hamper typically consists of:

  • 2 boxes Kraft Dinner (or substitute extra rice if gluten-intolerant)
  • 3 juice boxes
  • 3 single-serving-size scoops dry rice
  • 2 small cans soup
  • box of dry cereal or 3 packages instant oatmeal
  • any 2 of: 175 g can of tuna, chicken, or turkey; small jar peanut butter; 3 eggs
  • 2 small cans of tinned vegetables; or 1 tin vegetables and 1 fruit
  • 1 potato
  • 1 onion
  • 1 can plain beans or chickpeas; or 1 can pork and beans
  • 3 granola bars or 3 fruit chews
  • 1 quart milk
  • 1 loaf bread (or substitute extra rice)

Would that fill you for three days? One week?

If you'd like to find out how Elizabeth is doing, check out her blog and follow Put Food in the Budget on Twitter. In fact, she just tweeted about starting off the day with instant oatmeal and instant coffee on Day 1 of the challenge.


Images from Put Food in the Budget