May, 05 2011, 02:35pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Eve Mitchell, +44 (0) 7962 437 128, emitchell@fweurope.org
Gabriella Zanzanaini, +32 488 409 662, gzanzanaini@fweurope.org
"Sustainable" Seafood? Maybe Not
New Consumer Guide to Eco-labels Examines What Certifications Do—and Do Not—Tell You About the Fish You’re Eating
BRUSSELS
A new report and seafood-buying guide released today by Food & Water Europe shows that consumers can't always rely on labels if they want to buy sustainably. In fact, determining which seafood products are best for you and our planet can be a difficult job. A number of private fish certification programs boast reliable standards and labels to evaluate and market seafood as "environmentally friendly" or "sustainably produced", but what they don't tell you is at least as important as what they do, and that's where things get tricky for conscientious shoppers.
The new report De-Coding Seafood Eco-Labels: Why We Need Public Standards compares and contrasts existing private certifications including those of The Marine Stewardship Council, Global Aquaculture Alliance, and Friends of the Sea. It finds that a lack of meaningful official labelling standards has allowed private eco-labels to capture large portions of the market, but that these are not adequate indicators of sustainable seafood choices for consumers, restaurants or retailers, and in fact can contradict one another.
"People often think that if they buy seafood with an eco-label, it's automatically a good choice," said Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Europe. "Unfortunately, these certifications don't assure that the product consumers are getting is actually eco-friendly, or that companies are improving their behaviour."
An analysis of many eco-labels found inadequacies with regard to environmental standards, social responsibility and community relations, labour regulations, international law, and transparency. Some of the findings include:
Flawed fisheries are often certified. Some programs use their eco-label as incentive for a fishery or farm to make improvements. However, consumers have no way of knowing if the fish they are eating comes from a fishery that has merely pledged improvements or one that meets all the criteria for an eco-label. Some critics have claimed that in many cases, few improvements are made after certification.
Conflicts result from labels used for marketing purposes. Eco-labels are often predominantly used as a marketing tool. Certifiers are reliant upon increasing the number of fisheries certified in order to continue building their name and market share--an inherent conflict that can result in objectionable certifications.
Carbon footprints are often not considered. Most eco-labels fail to include "food miles" in their standards. New Zealand hoki, therefore, can be eco-labelled for sale in San Francisco.
They don't meet FAO guidelines. The Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO) has standards for eco-labelling and certification programs, but an analysis shows them lacking in regard to FAO's standards on transparency, damage mitigation from pollution, and contribution to rural development and food security.
"Consumers aren't told that these labels often have a 'pay to play' aspect," said Eve Mitchell of Food & Water Europe. "A well-managed fishery that can't finance certification may not have an eco-label and still be the best choice, while one that is less sustainable could be certified because someone paid for it. As a result of this, labels can actually encourage consumers to buy less sustainable products, and it can be challenging for consumers to decipher whether labels are very meaningful. To us this is getting very close to actually misleading consumers, which must be dealt with officially."
The report concludes that the European Commission should 1) expand the information required on seafood labels to close current loopholes, and 2) fulfil their intention to ensure labels adhere to FAO guidelines by developing specific and clear interpretations of those guidelines, requiring all certifiers to adhere to them and enforcing those regulations.
In the meantime, consumers can use the questions in the guide to help them assess the quality and sustainability of seafood they buy.
"While some high-profile areas get attention, reforming the Common Fisheries Policy to end discards or put new labels on tinned tuna is simply not enough to protect our oceans, which are under increasing pressure from the industrial fishing and unchecked corporate harvesting that erroneously leads to products sold as 'sustainable,'" said Mitchell. "Consumers want to do the right thing, and we think many will be hopping mad to learn the eco-labels they trusted have only told part of the story. We don't believe you have to 'work with' multinational companies because they are there already. It only lets them hide behind pretty labels, and if what they are doing is wrong, we'll say so."
Food & Water Europe is a program of Food & Water Watch, Inc., a non-profit consumer NGO based in Washington, D.C., working to ensure clean water and safe food in Europe and around the world. We challenge the corporate control and abuse of our food and water resources by empowering people to take action and transforming the public consciousness about what we eat and drink.
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
Rights Group Condemns Texas National Guard for Firing Pepper Balls at Migrants
"In separate incidents this summer, witnesses saw Texas National Guard members firing pepper-spray projectiles at migrants who posed no risk to National Guard members or anyone else."
Sep 25, 2024
Human Rights Watch on Wednesday condemned the Texas National Guard for firing pepper-spray projectiles at migrants, including women and children, who've presented no danger, citing multiple recent incidents.
"In separate incidents this summer, witnesses saw Texas National Guard members firing pepper-spray projectiles at migrants who posed no risk to National Guard members or anyone else," Bob Libal, an HRW consultant, said in a statement.
New from @HRW and me: The TX Nat'l Guard has repeatedly fired pepper spray projectiles at arriving asylum-seekers, including women & children.
#TXLege should increase oversight of TX Military Dept & deny funding requests until this practice ends. 🧵https://t.co/AuXyAGcFbO
— Bob Libal (@blibal) September 25, 2024
Pepper-spray projectiles, which are often shaped like balls, contain chemical irritants similar to pepper spray. HRW documented several instances of their use by the Texas National Guard, which polices the border as part of Operation Lone Star, a right-wing state project that has already cost more than $11 billion and drawn opposition from rights advocates.
On September 7, a Texas National Guard member in a boat fired several projectiles at a migrant who had crossed onto the U.S. side of the Rio Grande, at Eagle Pass, Texas, according to three witnesses who watched from a park in Mexico. The migrant fell down, did not get up, and didn't receive aid, they told HRW.
"I saw a National Guardsman in the boat train his gun on the man and then he pepper balled him," said Josie Rodrigues, one of the witnesses, who is a resident of Eagle Pass. "He shot him four or five times. I saw the puffs of smoke and the man went down, and he didn't get up again. It looked to me like they were aiming at the person, not around him or at his feet. It was disturbing."
On August 5, a group of migrants, including children, alleged that projectiles were fired at them, causing their eyes to burn; U.S. Border Patrol said that the Texas National Guard was in control of the area where the incident occurred, according to HRW.
The Texas National Guard also fired pepper balls at a Venezuelan couple and their 1-year-old daughter in May, Newsweekreported, based on video from Border Report.
International human rights law has strict rules on the use of force—even sublethal force, as the projectiles are designed to be—by law enforcement.
"Chemical irritants should only be deployed where a law enforcement official has reason to believe there is an imminent threat of injury," according to United Nations' guidance.
HRW is calling for the state Legislature to deny additional funding to the Texas Military Department, which oversees the state's National Guard, until the use of projectiles against migrants ends. The funding was on the agenda at a budget meeting on Wednesday.
"The Texas Legislature should respond by increasing its oversight over the Texas Military Department and denying funding increases to the department until these abuses stop," Lidal said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Working-Class Independent Dan Osborn Giving GOP Senator Run for Her Money in Nebraska
New polling suggests that "a willingness to take on millionaires, billionaires, and the politicians who serve them plays well everywhere," said one columnist.
Sep 25, 2024
Dan Osborn, a mechanic and union leader running to unseat Republican U.S. Sen. Deb Fischer in Nebraska, told an Omaha news station on Tuesday that recent polling showing a highly competitive race didn't come as a surprise to him.
"It's what I'm seeing on the ground," he toldKETV of a Survey USA poll showing 45% of respondents supporting him, compared with 44% backing Fischer. "People, I think, are ready for a change."
Osborn describes himself as a "lifelong Independent," and has not sought or accepted endorsements from either major political party.
He does have the backing of the United Auto Workers, which said in June, "It's time for labor to get behind candidates who look like us, talk like us, and know the issues facing working-class people."
Osborn began working as an industrial mechanic for a Kellogg's plant in 2004, and eventually rose to the presidency of his union local, Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers, and Grain Millers (BCTGM) Local 50G.
In that role in 2021, he led 500 of his co-workers at the cereal plant in a work stoppage that lasted 77 days, with workers protesting a two-tier hiring system that left new employees with lower pay and no pensions and demanding fair working schedules and pay.
The strike forced the company to agree to cost-of-living raises, no plant closures through 2026, and no permanent two-tier system.
"I've gone up against a major American corporation," Osborn toldThe New York Times in February. "I stood up for what I thought was right, and I won."
The Fischer campaign and its supporters have taken notice of the senator's opponent as multiple polls have shown the two candidates neck-and-neck. Last month, Fischer was up by just one point, with 23% undecided.
Conservative super political action committee Heartland Resurgence has spent $479,000 in a new ad campaign opposing Osborn, repeating the same false claims about his support for abortion care as those Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump made at his debate against Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris earlier this month: that Osborn "supports abortion until the moment of birth."
Osborn told the independent rural news outlet Barn Raiser in March that he believes "a woman's decision on whether or not to have an abortion is between her and her doctor, it's not the federal government's place to dictate those things to people. Deb Fischer believes in a complete abortion ban. I strongly disagree with that position."
In an ad released this week, Osborn is seen next to a stand-in for Fischer, who wears a blazer decorated with the logos of some of her major corporate donors: Northrop Grumman, which has given her $64,827 over her career; Union Pacific Corp., which has donated $141,651; and Goldman Sachs, which has donated $18,200 this election cycle.
Osborn says in the ad that the Senate is made up of "millionaires controlled by billionaires."
"Deb Fischer is part of the problem," he says. "She's taken so much corporate cash she should wear patches."
Columnist John Nichols said the latest poll numbers in Nebraska suggest "that a willingness to take on millionaires, billionaires, and the politicians who serve them plays well everywhere."
Pro-worker media organization More Perfect Unionpointed to earlier polling in July that showed Osborn and Fischer tied 42-42.
"Fifty-seven percent of the state's GOP voters say they're open to voting for an Independent," the outlet reported. "Osborn, a long-time union worker, could kick a Republican out of the Senate."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Deadly Flooding in Central Europe Made Twice as Likely By Climate Change: Study
"This is definitely what we will see much more of in the future."
Sep 25, 2024
The record-setting rainfall that hit Central Europe in mid September was made roughly twice as likely and 7% more severe by climate change, according to an analysis released Wednesday.
The 36-page study, conducted by scientists affiliated with World Weather Attribution (WWA), looked at the causes of the extreme rain that peaked from September 12 until September 15. Called Storm Boris, it hit many countries including Poland, Austria, and the Czech Republic, and set off flooding that killed at least 24 people.
The authors, whose work wasn't peer reviewed, warned that Storm Boris was a sign of what's to come.
"This is definitely what we will see much more of in the future," Friederike Otto, a climate scientist at Imperial College London and co-author of the study, told the BBC.
"[It] is the absolute fingerprint signature of climate change... that records are broken by such a large margin."
The floods that killed 24 people in Central Europe were caused by rainfall made twice as likely and at least 7% heavier by climate change 📈🌧️
Floods will become more destructive and costly with further fossil fuel warming.
Our analysis was published this morning 🧵 https://t.co/0rJjYuYnUt
— World Weather Attribution (@WWAttribution) September 25, 2024
The heavy rainfall was caused by a Vb (pronounced "five-b") depression that "forms when cold polar air flows from the north over the Alps, meeting very warm air in Southern Europe," according to a WWA statement that accompanied the study.
The damage came partly from the fact that the storm lingered for many days, with rain falling on saturated ground and overflowing bodies of water. The WWA scientists didn't determine if the duration was affected by climate change; however, in general, the affect of climate change on the jet stream, which normally helps push weather patterns through the continent quickly, could play a role in causing storms to linger, experts say.
"These types of blocking situations and meandering jet stream-induced situations are increasing in frequency," Hayley Fowler, a climate scientist at Newcastle University who wasn't involved in the study, toldNPR.
Other factors in the Stom Boris disaster were more clearly influenced by a warmer planet. The most basic and straightforward factor is that hotter air can hold more water—for each degree celsius that the Earth heats up, the atmosphere can hold about 7% more water, so there's more that can turn into rain.
The WWA study's key findings—a roughly twofold increase in the likelihood of Storm Boris and a 7% increase in intensity caused by climate change—may in fact be underestimates. The findings are "too conservative," the study says.
The analysis does contain good news: European authorities were more prepared for this storm than they had been in the past, likely saving dozens of lives.
Far more people died during extreme flooding episodes in the region in 1997 and 2002—more than 100, in each case—even though the rainfall in those events was less severe and didn't cover such a large area. Governments have since invested in forecasting, early warning systems, and flood defenses like levees. The city of Vienna has been particularly strong on flood preparations, and its investments paid off when Storm Boris did little damage there.
Otto, the co-author, said on social media that early warning systems worked well but flood defenses are, in general, still being put up "way too slowly." She said addressing the climate crisis would pay off in many ways for people on the continent.
"All Europeans need to know that tackling it will make their lives so much better—ending fossil fuels creates jobs, lowers energy bills, makes cities healthier places to live, and reduces the risk of killer floods," she said.
Many observers had assumed that climate change played a role in the flooding before the WWA analysis was released. On September 16, Greenpeace called for fossil fuel companies to pay for the damage caused by extreme weather events. The type of attribution science conducted by WWA helps strengthen the case for accountability, advocates say.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular