September, 08 2009, 05:21pm EDT

Commercial and Recreational Fishermen and Renowned Scientist Join With Food & Water Watch For Hill Briefing on Ocean Fish Farming and Alternate Approaches
Today, at 11:30 a.m. in Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2103, Food
& Water Watch joined with other fish experts for a briefing on the
socioeconomic and ecological effects of open-ocean fish farming and
alternate, more sustainable approaches to domestic seafood production.
The briefing was in preparation for the House Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife's "Oversight
Hearing on Offshore Aquaculture" tomorrow at 10 a.m.
WASHINGTON
Today, at 11:30 a.m. in Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2103, Food
& Water Watch joined with other fish experts for a briefing on the
socioeconomic and ecological effects of open-ocean fish farming and
alternate, more sustainable approaches to domestic seafood production.
The briefing was in preparation for the House Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife's "Oversight
Hearing on Offshore Aquaculture" tomorrow at 10 a.m.
The
panelists included Tad Burke, a recreational fishermen from the Florida
Keys; Paula Terrel, a commercial fisherman and representative of Alaska
Marine Conservation Council; Martin Schreibman, PhD, distinguished
professor emeritus, founder and director emeritus of the Aquatic
Research & Environmental Assessment Center at Brooklyn College; and
Marianne Cufone, Esq., director of the Food & Water Watch Fish
Program. The panelists discussed risks associated with open ocean
aquaculture and emphasized that the federal government should not
facilitate the operation of ocean fish farms in U.S waters, given the
many ecological and economic problems related to the practice
worldwide. Rather, the panelist encouraged the U.S. to focus on an
already developed and continuously improving technology to grow fish in
re-circulating closed loop systems on land.
Ocean fish farming,
or "offshore aquaculture," is the mass production of fish in
flow-through net pens or cages in ocean waters three to 200 miles
offshore. It can cause damage to surrounding marine environments,
produce lower-quality fish for consumers, and undercut the earnings of
U.S. fishermen. It also does not solve problems with overfishing, as
wild fish are usually required to produce the feed for ocean-farmed
fish.
"There is no reason to push development of a potentially
harmful new industry in U.S. federal waters." said Marianne Cufone,
Food & Water Watch's Fish Program director. "National Marine
Fisheries Service and other agencies should promote innovative
approaches to increased domestic seafood production with fewer negative
impacts, such as land-based, recirculating aquaculture systems."
Re-circulating
aquaculture systems (often called "RAS") are closed-loop facilities
that retain and treat the water within the system. They can reduce
discharge of waste, the need for antibiotics or chemicals used to
combat disease and fish and parasite escapes. RAS are not connected to
open waters. Because it is highly unlikely that fish can escape the
closed system, RAS can be used to grow a wide range of plants and fish
without threatening the environment or competing with fishermen who
make their living selling popular local fish.
"If there is a need to
increase domestic seafood supply and supplement wild caught fish, then
closed containment systems should be considered along with other
possible approaches. This has not been addressed in any legislation or
discussions of offshore aquaculture as an alternative to open ocean
facilities," said Paula Terrel, an Alaska commercial fisherman.
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500LATEST NEWS
Industry Knew—and Hid—Dangers of Gas Stoves Over 50 Years Ago
"What? They knew? Next you're going to tell me that ExxonMobil knew about climate change and that the tobacco companies knew cigarettes caused cancer," one Democratic senator sarcastically said.
Mar 07, 2023
Newly uncovered documents published last week by DeSmog reveal that the leading gas industry trade group knew over 50 years ago that cooking with gas stoves could harm human health and tried to cover up the evidence.
The DeSmogrevelations regarding the American Gas Associationn (AGA) came as the gas industry is pushing back against climate and public health advocates' efforts to ban new gas stoves amid mounting scientific evidence that the appliances threaten the warming planet and people's health.
Rrcent studies—which, among other things, showed that nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and ultrafine particles produced by gas stoves cause a range of health problems, including 1 in 8 U.S. cases of childhood asthma—sparked fast and furious backlash from the gas industry and its congressional boosters.
"It's less widely known that the gas industry has long sponsored its own research into the problem of indoor air pollution from gas stoves," wrote DeSmog's Rebecca John. "Now, newly discovered documents reveal that the American Gas Association was studying the health and indoor pollution risks from gas stoves as far back as the early 1970s—that they knew much more, at a far earlier date, than has been previously documented."
\u201cThe peer-reviewed research by the environmental think tank @RockyMtnInst, @Sydney_Uni , and @EinsteinMed estimated that \u201cnearly 13 percent of childhood asthma cases in the United States can be linked to having a gas stove in the home.\u201d https://t.co/jASvlSKYC5\u201d— DeSmog (@DeSmog) 1678105860
According to John:
More than 50 years ago, in 1972, AGA authored a draft report highlighting indoor air pollution concerns similar to those being raised by health experts and regulators today. In particular, this draft report examined what to do about problems related to the emission of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides (collectively referred to as NOx) from domestic gas appliances. This draft, recently discovered in the U.S. National Archives, would eventually become an official report published by the National Industrial Pollution Control Council (NIPCC), a long-forgotten government advisory council composed of the nation's most powerful industrialists.
However, an entire section detailing those concerns, entitled "Indoor Air Quality Control," vanished from the final report. With it went all the important evidence that the gas industry was not only conducting research into what the NIPCC called the "NOx problem" but also that it was actively testing technological solutions "for the purposes of limiting the levels of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides in household air."
"Instead," John wrote, "the final report argued gas' sole drawback was its limited availability, 'not its environmental impact.' It also lobbied for a massive expansion of U.S. domestic gas reserves and the rapid rollout of gas-based infrastructure, under the banner of replacing coal with gas to stem air pollution."
Reacting to the DeSmog report, U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) sardonically tweeted: "What? They knew? Next you're going to tell me that ExxonMobil knew about climate change and that the tobacco companies knew cigarettes caused cancer."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Under Subpoena Threat, Starbucks CEO Finally Agrees to Testify Before Sanders' Committee
"Workers have the constitutional right to organize unions and engage in collective bargaining," said the Vermont senator. "Unfortunately Starbucks, under Mr. Schultz's leadership, has done everything possible to prevent that from happening."
Mar 07, 2023
This is a developing news story... Check back for possible updates...
Sen. Bernie Sanders announced Thursday that Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has relented to pressure and agreed to testify before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, news that came just 24 hours before the panel was set to vote on whether to subpoena the billionaire executive.
"I'm happy to announce that Howard Schultz, the CEO and founder of Starbucks, has finally agreed to testify before the Senate HELP Committee," Sanders (I-Vt.), the chair of the panel, said in a statement. "The HELP Committee was scheduled to vote tomorrow to subpoena him and I want to thank the members of the committee who, in a bipartisan way, were prepared to do just that."
"Let's be clear. In America, workers have the constitutional right to organize unions and engage in collective bargaining to improve their wages and working conditions," the senator continued. "Unfortunately Starbucks, under Mr. Schultz's leadership, has done everything possible to prevent that from happening."
\u201cI\u2019m happy to announce that Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has finally agreed to testify before the Senate HELP Committee. I look forward to hearing from him as to when he intends to end his illegal anti-union activities and begin signing fair first contracts with the unions.\u201d— Bernie Sanders(@Bernie Sanders) 1678208358
Schultz decision to appear before the committee comes after weeks of back-and-forth between the HELP Committee and Starbucks, which Sanders has accused of stonewalling the panel's efforts to obtain documents and testimony regarding the company's aggressive and ongoing fight against employee unionization efforts.
Workers at more than 280 Starbucks locations across the U.S. have voted to unionize since December 2021, but Starbucks has been accused of dragging its feet and unlawfully obstructing contract talks.
"The National Labor Relations Board has issued over 80 complaints against Starbucks for violating federal labor law and an Administrative Law Judge in New York recently ruled that Starbucks has engaged in 'egregious and widespread misconduct' in a union organizing campaign that started in 2019," Sanders said Tuesday. "Despite the fact that over 280 Starbucks coffee shops have successfully voted to form a union over the past year, Starbucks has refused to negotiate in good faith to sign a single first contract with their employees."
Last week, Sanders publicly dismissed Starbucks' offer to send subordinates to testify in the place of Schultz, who is set to leave the CEO post at the end of March.
"We look forward to Howard Schultz testifying in front of the U.S. Senate," tweeted Starbucks Workers United, which represents thousands of Starbucks employees. "As the architect of Starbucks' unprecedented anti-union campaign, it is high time for him to be held accountable for his actions. Howard Schultz needs to learn that even billionaires aren't above the law."
Asked during a press conference what he hopes to hear from Schultz at the March 29 hearing, Sanders said he wants the Starbucks CEO to "tell us that at long last he is going to stop his illegal activity, that he is going to sit down with the union and negotiate a contract."
"That's what I want, nothing more than that," Sanders added. "To obey the law. I don't think that's asking too much."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In First-of-Its Kind Legal Challenge, Texas Women Say State Abortion Ban Endangered Their Lives
The state ban that took effect last year ostensibly allows pregnant people to obtain care if their life or that of their fetus is at risk, but one critic said the suit shows that "there is no such thing as an abortion exception."
Mar 07, 2023
Five Texas women are scheduled to speak on the steps of the state Capitol on Tuesday about the life-threatening risks posed by the state's abortion ban and their struggles to obtain necessary healthcare since it went into effect, a day after filing an unprecedented lawsuit challenging the law.
While a number of abortion rights groups, religious organizations, and healthcare providers have filed legal challenges to state abortion bans, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), which is representing the plaintiffs, called the lawsuit "groundbreaking" because it has been filed by people who claim an abortion ban put them at risk.
"I don't think we've ever seen anything like this in the nation, having people with pregnancy complications having to sue the state," Nancy Northup, president of CRR, toldThe New York Times. "It puts a face on the reality of what it means when you criminalize abortion care. It shows that abortion care is healthcare."
"These five brave women are fighting for their right to live and get the care and treatment they need from doctors."
The five women—Amanda Zurawski, Lauren Miller, Lauren Hall, Anna Zargarian, and Ashley Brandt—are suing officials including state Attorney General Ken Paxton and state medical board executive director Stephen Brint Carlton, and are calling on a state court in Travis County to confirm that the state's abortion ban allows medical professionals to provide abortion care in cases where the pregnant person has a "physical emergent medical condition" or "where the pregnancy is unlikely to result in the birth of a living child with sustained life."
The near-total ban on abortion care that went into effect in Texas after Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022 ostensibly includes "exceptions," allowing abortion care to prevent a pregnant patient's death or "substantial impairment of major bodily function."
The women represented by CRR say they were denied care despite being pregnant with fetuses that had significant abnormalities, and in some cases developing life-threatening medical conditions.
As Common Dreams reported last October, Zurawski discovered that her cervical membranes has begun to prolapse in her 17th week of pregnancy—a condition that her fetus would not survive. Despite this, doctors told her they could only perform an abortion if she became acutely ill or if the fetal heartbeat stopped. Her water broke soon after learning the news, but she was still told to remain at home, where she developed a fever. Her husband called their local hospital and pleaded for a doctor to provide the care Zurawski needed, only to be told the hospital's ethics board would have to approve the procedure.
When Zurawski was finally admitted to the hospital, doctors discovered she had developed a blood infection. She later needed a blood transfusion after developing a secondary infection and was ultimately left with scar tissue completely blocking one fallopian tube, likely making it difficult to become pregnant again.
With Texas doctors desperate to avoid a potential prison sentence, a $100,000 fine, and the loss of their medical license that would result from providing an abortion illegally, journalist Jessica Valenti said the stories of Zurawski and her co-plaintiffs "don't just demonstrate how dangerous abortion bans are—but that abortion 'exceptions' ARE NOT REAL."
\u201cThese women's stories don't just demonstrate how dangerous abortion bans are - but that abortion 'exceptions' ARE NOT REAL. \n\nWe need to be hammering on this every single day. There is no such thing as an abortion exception - they're a Republican PR stunt\u201d— Jessica Valenti (@Jessica Valenti) 1678160214
"If fatally ill women can't get abortions, do you really believe rape victims will be able to?" said Valenti. "It's not going to happen. Ever. And any time we allow Republicans to say they're 'compromising' by adding exceptions to a ban, we're allowing that (very dangerous) lie [to] flourish."
Other plaintiffs were forced to travel to other states to get care after learning their fetuses had serious complications. Hall, who found out at 18 weeks pregnant that her fetus had no skull and an undeveloped brain, was warned by a doctor not to tell anyone where she was going or why, for fear of being reported to an anti-abortion hotline.
"Just because Roe v. Wade is no longer the law of the land does not mean that women and pregnant people are without constitutional and basic human rights," Molly Duane, senior staff attorney at CRR, toldNPR. "We're talking about people who are in medical emergencies, who need urgent medical care, and whose physicians are too scared to provide that care because of the state's laws and because of the state's failure to provide any clarification around what its law means."
Brandt found out when she was 12 weeks pregnant with twins that one twin was not developing properly, and received abortion care in Colorado to save the life of the healthy fetus. She began bleeding after returning home and had to go to the emergency room.
"She was terrified that she would lose both babies and that she would somehow be in trouble for going out of state for the fetal reduction procedure," reads the lawsuit. "In the emergency room, Ashley felt a distinct uneasiness and confusion. It appeared that the medical staff thought they were not supposed to know about Ashley’s abortion or discuss it with her."
Brandt's medical records showed that her doctor omitted discussions they had had about fetal reduction to save the life of her healthy baby, and claimed one twin had been lost to "vanishing twin syndrome," likely to protect both Brandt and the doctor from prosecution.
"These five brave women are fighting for their right to live and get the care and treatment they need from doctors," said Maya Wiley, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.
\u201cThese 5 brave women are fighting for their right 2 live & get the care & treatment they need from doctors. They\u2019re fight is for all of us! #Texas threat to imprison doctors & nurses is gov\u2019t getting betw patients & medical professionals. That\u2019s not liberty https://t.co/zvqi5oauQp\u201d— Maya Wiley (@Maya Wiley) 1678203180
According to the Times, outcry over the impact of abortion bans on women whose lives were threatened "helped build momentum for legalized abortion in heavily Catholic Ireland and in South America."
The women in the Texas lawsuit are scheduled to speak about their experiences at the state Capitol at 1:30 pm ET on Tuesday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.