November, 09 2010, 01:45pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Email:,info(at)fwwatch(dot)org,Seth Gladstone -,sgladstone@fwwatch.org
Activists Mobilize to Ban Arsenic in Maryland Poultry Production
New Food & Water Watch Report Warns of Public Health and Environmental Risks of Chemical
WASHINGTON
As part of a movement to ban the use of arsenic in poultry production
in Maryland, the consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch today
partnered with community leaders throughout the state to educate the
public about the environmental and public health problems associated
with the chemical.
A known poison, arsenic is often added to chicken feed in the form of
the compound roxarsone to control the common intestinal disease
coccidiosis, to promote growth and as a cosmetic additive. Chronic
exposure to arsenic has also been shown to increase the risk of cancer,
cardiovascular disease, diabetes, neurological deficits and other health
problems.
"The FDA approved this drug in 1944 when FDR was president. Since
then, science has shown it's a dangerous, unnecessary contaminant in our
food supply," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food &
Water Watch. "Maryland has an opportunity to demonstrate true leadership
on this issue by banning the use of arsenic in its poultry facilities."
The seventh largest broiler-producing state in the U.S., according
the 2007 U.S. Census of Agriculture, Maryland sold nearly 300 million
broiler chickens that year. On the Delmarva Peninsula alone, 1,700
chicken operations raise 11 million chickens per week. Researchers
estimate that between 20 and 50 metric tons of roxarsone are applied to
crops there every year via poultry waste. Groundwater tests on both
sides of the Chesapeake Bay's Coastal Plains found arsenic in some
household wells reaching up to 13 times the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) tolerance limit. Arsenic in chicken litter can convert to
more dangerous forms of arsenic than those originally used in feed.
This is why a bill to ban arsenic in chicken feed was introduced earlier
this year in the Maryland House of Delegates.
"A week ago today, Maryland's conservation-minded voters turned out
in force to send a message that protecting the health of our air, land,
water, and residents is an important priority," said Jen
Brock-Cancellieri, deputy director of the Maryland League of
Conservation Voters. "We hope that after reading this report, Maryland's
legislators will continue to speak up for their constituents and
support legislation to ban the unnecessary use of arsenic by the poultry
industry."
These concerns are reinforced by a new report on the poultry
industry's use of arsenic also released today by Food & Water Watch.
Poison-Free Poultry: Why Arsenic Doesn't Belong in Chicken Feed
exposes the dangerous, widespread use of arsenic in the poultry
industry and calls on Congress and the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) to take action to update antiquated rules and protect consumers.
"We should be able to eat chicken without consuming harmful
additives, but Marylanders are inadvertently exposing themselves and
their loved ones to a known carcinogen hidden in a seemingly nutritious
meal," said Jenny Levin, an advocate for Maryland PIRG. "As a proud
poultry production state, Maryland should ban the use of arsenic in
chicken feed immediately, thereby protecting a valuable industry and the
health and trust of its citizens."
Dr. Keeve Nachman, director of farming for the Future Program at the
Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future notes that "approval of
roxarsone for use in poultry and swine production is based on sorely
outdated science that ignores both our present-day understanding of
arsenic's toxicity and the potential for arsenic to contaminate soils,
water and crops where animal waste is spread."
Although approved for use in the chicken industry by the FDA over six
decades ago, the average American's annual chicken consumption has
since tripled from less than 20 pounds in the 1940s to nearly 60 pounds
in 2008. Yet the FDA hasn't revised its allowed levels for arsenic
residues in poultry since 1951.
Additionally, new studies show that arsenic residues may be higher in
chicken meat than previously known. USDA data suggests that the typical
American is eating between 2.13 and 8.07 micrograms of total arsenic
per day through consumption of chicken meat.
"The science shows the use of arsenic in chicken feed is dangerous
and that viable alternatives to arsenic exist," said Hauter. "The FDA
needs to stand up to the big chicken companies and make public health
its priority."
The report outlines the shared responsibility by the FDA, USDA and
EPA for fixing a fragmented, antiquated system to regulate arsenic. It
concludes with recommendations to these agencies to mitigate the damage
already caused by arsenic in livestock feed and calls for a ban on
future use of arsenic for livestock production.
"One of the main reasons why we have found such strong demand for the
chickens grown on our pasture is that we don't use arsenic to raise
them," said Ted Wycall, owner of Greenbranch Farm, located on the
Eastern Shore. "Consumers are smart; they don't want to eat food
containing arsenic. Pasture-raised poultry is in big demand locally and
nationally. Farmers should consider this a tremendous business
opportunity; we need more of us doing this."
The full report can be downloaded here.
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
Under Pressure From Anti-Oligarchy Protests, Bezos Moves Venice Wedding Party Venue
"We're just citizens who started organizing and we managed to move one of the most powerful people in the world," said one protest organizer.
Jun 25, 2025
Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez on Tuesday relocated their upcoming lavish Venice wedding celebration, a move cheered as an "enormous victory" by protesters whose recent demonstrations in the northeastern Italian city have highlighted the socioeconomic and climate damage caused by billionaires.
Bezos—who is currently the world's fourth-richest person, according to lists published by Bloomberg and Forbes—is set to marry Sánchez, a journalist, later this week, and the couple is planning to celebrate the occasion with a three-day extravaganza costing an estimated $46-56 million, according toReuters.
Around 90 private jets are scheduled to land in area airports and local yacht harbors are fully booked, underscoring the climate and environmental impact on a city struggling to survive on one of myriad frontlines of the planetary emergency.
"We are very proud of this! We are nobodies, we have no money, nothing!"
The nuptial celebration has been relocated from the Scuola Grande della Misericordia to the Arsenale di Venezia, a historic fortified palace about 3 kilometers (1.8 miles) away from the original location. Officials cited concerns for the security of guests including several members of U.S. President Donald Trump's family.
Members of groups including No Space for Bezos, Greenpeace Italy, and Everyone Hates Elon—which targets Elon Musk, the world's richest person—have staged a series of demonstrations, including one on Monday at which protesters laid out a massive banner with Bezos' face and the message "If You Can Rent Venice for Your Wedding You Can Pay More Tax" in Piazza San Marco.
Responding to the celebration's relocation, Tommaso Cacciari of No Space for Bezos told the BBC Wednesday: "We are very proud of this! We are nobodies, we have no money, nothing!"
"We're just citizens who started organizing and we managed to move one of the most powerful people in the world," Cacciari added.
Wedding-related festivities are set to kick off Thursday evening, and city officials have blocked off parts of central Venice. While some residents have welcomed the money and fanfare the event will bring to a city with a long and storied history of oligarchs and opulence, others bristle at what they see as the transformation of their home into a playground for the superrich.
"There's only one thing that rules now: money, money, money, so we are the losers," Venice resident Nadia Rigo toldReuters. "We who were born here have to either move to the mainland or we have to ask them for permission to board a ferry. They've become the masters."
In the United States, critics contrasted the stratospheric cost of Bezos' celebration with the multicentibillionaire's history of personal and corporate tax dodging—and the hyper-capitalist system that enables it.
"Jeff Bezos is worth $230 billion and is reportedly spending $20 million on a three-day wedding in Venice while sailing around on his $500 million yacht," former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich said Wednesday on the social media site X. "If he can afford to do that, he can afford a wealth tax and to pay Amazon workers a living wage. Hello?"
This is oligarchy. This is obscene.While 60% live paycheck to paycheck & kids go hungry, Jeff Bezos, worth $230 billion, goes to Venice on his $500 million yacht for a $20 million wedding & spends $5 million on a ring while his real tax rate is just 1.1%.End this oligarchy.
— Senator Bernie Sanders (@sanders.senate.gov) June 24, 2025 at 9:04 AM
While No Space for Bezos organizers are celebrating their victory and have canceled plans to fill Venice's canals with inflatable crocodiles in a bid to block celebrity guests from accessing the Scuola Grande della Misericordia, they said they still plan on protesting the festivities by holding a "No Bezos, No War" rally and march.
"It will be a strong, decisive protest, but peaceful," Federica Toninello of the Social Housing Assembly network toldEuronews Wednesday. "We want it to be like a party, with music, to make clear what we want our Venice to look like."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Iran Suspends Cooperation with IAEA, Accusing Nuclear Watchdog of 'Complicity' in Trump Strikes
"The IAEA, which did not even formally condemn the attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, has put its international credibility up for sale," said Iran's parliament speaker, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf.
Jun 25, 2025
The Iranian parliament approved a bill Wednesday suspending its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The resolution states that weapons inspectors with the United Nations nuclear watchdog organization will not be allowed to enter the country unless it guarantees the security of Iran's nuclear facilities and their ability to pursue peaceful nuclear activities.
Ahead of the vote, lawmakers denounced the IAEA, accusing it of enabling U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities Saturday—strikes Iran, as well as other observers of international law, have denounced as a clear violation of its sovereignty.
"The IAEA, which did not even formally condemn the attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, has put its international credibility up for sale," said Iran's parliament speaker, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf. "For this reason, the [Atomic Energy Organization of Iran] will suspend its cooperation with the Agency until the security of its nuclear facilities is guaranteed, and Iran's peaceful nuclear program will proceed at an even faster pace."
In response to the resolution, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi said that "the return of inspectors to Iran's nuclear facilities is a top priority."
Independent inspectors have not yet been able to inspect the damage to the three nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan—hit by the U.S.
Following the strikes, U.S. President Donald Trump claimed that Iran's nuclear sites were "completely and fully obliterated."
However, reporting by CNN and The New York Times on Tuesday, based on unnamed sources familiar with an internal assessment by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, undercut that claim, stating that the strikes only set back Iran's nuclear program by a matter of months.
Grossi said Monday that the airstrikes likely inflicted "very significant damage" at Fordo, but that no conclusions could be reached until independent inspectors are allowed to examine the site and account for Iran's uranium stockpile.
The latest IAEA report issued on May 31 found "no credible indications of an ongoing, undeclared structured nuclear program" being pursued by Iran—a finding echoed by U.S. intelligence agencies.
However, the IAEA did find that Iran had significantly increased its uranium stockpile enriched to 60%, near weapons-grade, which it said was a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Despite no "imminent threat," according to the most recent intelligence assessments, the Trump administration cited those IAEA findings to justify its attacks.
As a result, Iran's nuclear organization has questioned the IAEA's credibility as a neutral broker, accusing them of "deliberate inaction," following American and Israeli strikes. It said in a statement Sunday that these strikes were carried out "with the IAEA's silence, if not complicity."
Some critics have argued that the IAEA's decision to declare Iran in violation of the NPT was the result of significant U.S. arm-twisting and that the IAEA has not applied similar scrutiny to Israel's nuclear weapons program.
Iran maintains that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful and that strikes upon its nuclear facilities violate the NPT, which grants countries an "inalienable right" to develop nuclear energy for nonmilitary purposes.
Nuclear experts warn that the U.S. strikes on Iran have undermined the credibility of the NPT, prompting some factions in Iran to call for the nation's exit altogether.
Kelsey Davenport, the director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association, suggested Monday that U.S. attacks may only embolden Iran and other nations to violate the treaty and pursue nuclear weapons, perceiving them as necessary for their protection.
"From a nonproliferation perspective, Trump's decision to strike Iran was a reckless, irresponsible escalation that is likely to push Iran closer to nuclear weapons in the long term," Davenport said. "Politically, there's greater impetus now to weaponize."
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Mamdani Victory, Progressives Call for Primary Challenges to Democratic Establishment
"The establishment has never been more weak than they are now," one advocate told potential progressive candidates. "You need to run."
Jun 25, 2025
New York state Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani's victory over disgraced former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary was quickly dismissed by some commentators as one that likely wouldn't be replicated in federal elections and that said little about the views of Democratic voters at large.
But the news that Cuomo had conceded on Tuesday night left many progressives eager to continue the momentum started by Mamdani's (D-36) campaign—one characterized by a laser-sharp focus on making life more affordable for working people, a rejection of the outsized influence of billionaires and corporations on elections, and a demand for the Democratic Party to end its insistence that popular economic justice proposals are impossible to achieve in the United States.
Instead of viewing Mamdani's victory as an aberration, said journalist and organizer Daniel Denvir, the left should treat it as "an earthquake" that threatens the entire Democratic establishment—and its prioritizing of wealthy donors over the needs of ordinary voters.
"The left everywhere must dedicate itself to an insurgency against Democratic incumbents," said Denvir. "The Democratic establishment has lost credibility with its base in the face of a fascist threat. The base is looking leftward for new leadership. We are the opposition party."
Several progressive observers urged potential primary challengers to look to other upcoming races in New York, with several expressing hope that New York City Comptroller Brad Lander—another mayoral candidate who was widely praised for boosting Mamdani's campaign by cross-endorsing with him—will continue his political career by fighting for a U.S. Senate or House seat.
New York Democratic centrists including U.S. Rep. Dan Goldman and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer were named as lawmakers Lander could challenge in a primary. Goldman is up for reelection in 2026, and Schumer could face a primary in 2028.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), who has angered progressive advocates during President Donald Trump's second term by complaining about their demands for the Democrats to act as an opposition party, and Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), a vehement supporter of Israel who attacked Mamdani and accused him of antisemitism when he spoke out in support of Palestinian rights, were also mentioned as incumbents who should be challenged.
Mamdani won both Jeffries' and Goldman's House district, according to political analyst Armin Thomas.
Organizer Aaron Regunberg pointed to an article published by Politico last week detailing how 40% of Cuomo's endorsements came from lawmakers who had previously called for his resignation when he was accused of sexually harassing more than a dozen women.
"Politico ran this very convenient piece listing out every New York Democrat who needs to get primaried!" said Regunberg.
All the centrists named would likely have vast financial resources at their fingertips should a progressive vie for their seats, with powerful groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) liable to spend heavily on their campaigns—but so did Cuomo, who benefited from a super political action committee that raised $25 million, including from right-wing billionaires.
"But if all of Cuomo's advantages led to a thorough election thrashing, perhaps they weren't advantages," wrote Jeet Heer at The Nation on Wednesday. "Mamdani proved to be a superb campaigner with a message about affordability that resonated with voters... Mamdani's victory is a sign that the Democratic Party establishment is in trouble, and the party is ready for a wider revolt. The next move of progressive Democrats is to start running insurgent candidates in primaries to harness the anger of the moment."
CNN political analyst Harry Enten also acknowledged that "the Democratic establishment" will likely feel threatened by Mamdani's victory, which follows "poll after poll showing Democratic voters fed up with their leaders in Washington."
In his victory speech, Mamdani himself suggested broader lessons should be taken from his campaign, during which he walked the length of Manhattan to talk directly to New Yorkers, spoke to Trump voters in the outer boroughs about their concerns over the cost of living, and advocated for fare-free buses and no-cost universal childcare.
"This is a victory for every New Yorker who has been told they don't have a voice," Mamdani said in his victory speech. "It's proof that organized people can beat organized money."
In a column at Common Dreams Wednesday, writer David Andersson wrote that "Mamdani's win signals a seismic shift in the balance of power between entrenched political institutions and a new generation demanding change. The sheer scale of resources the establishment mobilized—and still fell short—reveals the depth of their fear of losing control over the city's financial and political machinery."
"New York City, and perhaps the nation, is at a turning point," he added.
David Hogg, the anti-gun violence activist who was recently pushed out of his position as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee after he advocated for primary challenges to "asleep-at-the-wheel" Democrats in blue districts, urged young progressives to consider launching their own campaigns.
"It has never been more clear—the establishment has never been more weak than they are now," he said. "You need to run."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular