Dear Friend,
I just signed a petition asking Congress to keep the ban on imported chicken from China. In addition to ongoing problems with China's food safety standards and inspection system, U.S. inspectors have found filthy and unsanitary conditions in Chinese poultry processing facilities. Can you sign the petition to keep the ban on Chinese chicken?
Take action by going to:
http://action.foodandwaterwatch.org/t/741/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=1373
Thanks,
Sofia V.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Tell Obama to say NO to Chinese chicken
June 2, 2009
I have recently learned that the ban of Chinese chicken may soon to be removed by the Obama administration. I recommend people to take action to express our concerns.
This action is introduced by Food and Water Watch; here is the website of the food section:
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food
I have recently learned that the ban of Chinese chicken may soon to be removed by the Obama administration. I recommend people to take action to express our concerns.
This action is introduced by Food and Water Watch; here is the website of the food section:
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Need transparency for food/drug safety
February 3, 2009
In the past several weeks, we have read a lot of news and development on Salmonella from tainted peanut butter (see the articles on the right side of this blog). Even President Obama said that “we (the administration) are going to be doing a complete review of FDA operations”.
It is clear that federal agencies, such as FDA, are often at the mercy of available federal funding and deregulation of each administration. If the FDA were consumers’ first line of defense (on food and drug safety), then what’s our second line of defense when federal funding is insufficient and/or the administration thought complete deregulation was better (like last eight years)?
The sourcing and outsourcing network among the food industry works very efficient. Salmonella virus from the tainted peanut butter in a Georgia processing plant traveled to uninformed consumers so fast that even the FDA could not act quickly enough to prevent some sickness and deaths. If the food/drug safety law requires certain transparency on the sourcing and outsourcing of food/drug industries, say through an updated website publication, then concerned consumers for their purchases would have a source of information to base on.
Of course, increasing the funds and manpower for FDA is important and welcomed because this is our first line of defense. Furthermore, we in this blog would like to see a law requiring food and drug companies to disclose the source of their ingredients (at least when inquired). A law like COOL (Country of Origin on meats and seafood) would be a great start. From there, consumers’ second line of defense on food/drug safety can begin to take shape.
In this downturn economy, such law on processed food and drugs will not increase the government’s fiscal budgets. And with more transparency to our food and drugs, it would in the long run help improving our general health and reducing the burden of our health care system.
In the past several weeks, we have read a lot of news and development on Salmonella from tainted peanut butter (see the articles on the right side of this blog). Even President Obama said that “we (the administration) are going to be doing a complete review of FDA operations”.
It is clear that federal agencies, such as FDA, are often at the mercy of available federal funding and deregulation of each administration. If the FDA were consumers’ first line of defense (on food and drug safety), then what’s our second line of defense when federal funding is insufficient and/or the administration thought complete deregulation was better (like last eight years)?
The sourcing and outsourcing network among the food industry works very efficient. Salmonella virus from the tainted peanut butter in a Georgia processing plant traveled to uninformed consumers so fast that even the FDA could not act quickly enough to prevent some sickness and deaths. If the food/drug safety law requires certain transparency on the sourcing and outsourcing of food/drug industries, say through an updated website publication, then concerned consumers for their purchases would have a source of information to base on.
Of course, increasing the funds and manpower for FDA is important and welcomed because this is our first line of defense. Furthermore, we in this blog would like to see a law requiring food and drug companies to disclose the source of their ingredients (at least when inquired). A law like COOL (Country of Origin on meats and seafood) would be a great start. From there, consumers’ second line of defense on food/drug safety can begin to take shape.
In this downturn economy, such law on processed food and drugs will not increase the government’s fiscal budgets. And with more transparency to our food and drugs, it would in the long run help improving our general health and reducing the burden of our health care system.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Let's hope for a better 2009 on food safety...
Happy New Year!
The economic situation has worsened and people’s available spending is getting less. I first thought, maybe this recession could make consumers spend less by reducing purchase of non-essential items. But, Claire’s taking of the current situation was the opposite. She thought people would buy the same amount of stuff, but much cheaper stuff and care even less of product safety.
Long after the stampedes to Wal-Mart, I slowly came to the sad reality that the majority of people seemed oblivious to the ingredients of food. I believe that is why most of the food manufacturers do not check the sources of their product ingredients.
When we look at the sales ranking among the retailers in the last quarter of 2008, the top one is still Wal-Mart which had in their bottled water, see the news link on the right, the highest concentration of chlorine byproducts, known as trihalomethanes.
As we start the new year, we would like to remind consumers to make wise choice on their purchase. Because, in many ways, consumers’ purchase money could be our last voting power over corporations.
The economic situation has worsened and people’s available spending is getting less. I first thought, maybe this recession could make consumers spend less by reducing purchase of non-essential items. But, Claire’s taking of the current situation was the opposite. She thought people would buy the same amount of stuff, but much cheaper stuff and care even less of product safety.
Long after the stampedes to Wal-Mart, I slowly came to the sad reality that the majority of people seemed oblivious to the ingredients of food. I believe that is why most of the food manufacturers do not check the sources of their product ingredients.
When we look at the sales ranking among the retailers in the last quarter of 2008, the top one is still Wal-Mart which had in their bottled water, see the news link on the right, the highest concentration of chlorine byproducts, known as trihalomethanes.
As we start the new year, we would like to remind consumers to make wise choice on their purchase. Because, in many ways, consumers’ purchase money could be our last voting power over corporations.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
It's up to the consumers after disclosures...
I had an interesting conversation with a friend who said, what if some people still choose to purchase and eat the food that was reported to have tainted ingredient? I told her, not to worry for those people. As long as the information is available to us, what the consumers will do with the information is up to the individuals. We can not tell people what to do with their lives.
In real estate transactions in California, the law requires the sellers to fill out a two to three pages of disclosure form about the houses. What the buyers want to do with the information is up to the buyers. Same defects of the house may bother one buyer, while others would not mind at all.
How about our food and drugs? These are about our long term health and well-being, why can we not demand at least same kind of disclosures?
It is important to learn the truth, especially when it comes to what we feed our family.
In real estate transactions in California, the law requires the sellers to fill out a two to three pages of disclosure form about the houses. What the buyers want to do with the information is up to the buyers. Same defects of the house may bother one buyer, while others would not mind at all.
How about our food and drugs? These are about our long term health and well-being, why can we not demand at least same kind of disclosures?
It is important to learn the truth, especially when it comes to what we feed our family.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Securing our food sources
There are two articles in the Insight of SF Chronicle on November 30, 2008 that caught my eyes: 1) Cheap Food Doesn’t Factor in Health Risk by Aleda Roth and 2) Better Oversight of Food Imports Needed by Mark Schlosberg and Elanor Starmer. The links to their articles are on the right side of this blog.
Dr. Aleda Roth is an international recognized scholar in global strategic sourcing and operational risk and a member of the Supply Chain Thought Leader Roundtable. In her article, we could get a glimpse of the dark secrecy of globalization by the food conglomerates in the Western food today. Even with the COOL (Country of Origin Labeling in meat and seafood effective in September), labeling is not required with any processing. Distributors don’t want us to know where they got our food!!!
In addition to recommending the establishment of cabinet-level agency for food safety (by the president-elect Obama), Dr. Roth suggests that food companies should make their ingredient sourcing information available when asked. I welcome this approach, but how would the food companies be willing to do so? Should there be a law requiring them to do so when asked?
When FDA has not enough funds and manpower to do inspections on the imported food, the consumers should have a second line of defense by gaining easy access to the information. We do not have such mechanism in our food supply system. We should at least demand that.
The second article about food security is by Mark Schlosberg and Elanor Starmer, the California director and a research analyst with Food and Water Watch, illustrates further the global food supply chain’s operations. The important statistics are here and remember that these numbers are growing with more people buying cheap food: “More than 4 billion pounds of food and food ingredients enter the U.S. every year. An unknown amount of additional food is imported from other countries that use Chinese ingredients but do not disclose them.” It goes further to talk about FDA’s inability to stand up (for the American consumers) to corrupt trading partners by accepting a limited level of Melamine (which should be zero tolerance).
Again, Schlosberg and Starmer stress the need of strong governmental oversight on food safety and requiring food companies to label country of origin on processed food and food ingredients.
I would like to echo the authors’ concerns and urge consumers’ action to ask for laws and regulations for country of origin labeling on processed food and food ingredients. Though such a law may be rudimentary and is not enough to close the loopholes of unsafe ingredients entering the U.S. by route of third countries. However, that would be a starter of protecting our food sources. We need to start somewhere.
By Sofia V.
Dr. Aleda Roth is an international recognized scholar in global strategic sourcing and operational risk and a member of the Supply Chain Thought Leader Roundtable. In her article, we could get a glimpse of the dark secrecy of globalization by the food conglomerates in the Western food today. Even with the COOL (Country of Origin Labeling in meat and seafood effective in September), labeling is not required with any processing. Distributors don’t want us to know where they got our food!!!
In addition to recommending the establishment of cabinet-level agency for food safety (by the president-elect Obama), Dr. Roth suggests that food companies should make their ingredient sourcing information available when asked. I welcome this approach, but how would the food companies be willing to do so? Should there be a law requiring them to do so when asked?
When FDA has not enough funds and manpower to do inspections on the imported food, the consumers should have a second line of defense by gaining easy access to the information. We do not have such mechanism in our food supply system. We should at least demand that.
The second article about food security is by Mark Schlosberg and Elanor Starmer, the California director and a research analyst with Food and Water Watch, illustrates further the global food supply chain’s operations. The important statistics are here and remember that these numbers are growing with more people buying cheap food: “More than 4 billion pounds of food and food ingredients enter the U.S. every year. An unknown amount of additional food is imported from other countries that use Chinese ingredients but do not disclose them.” It goes further to talk about FDA’s inability to stand up (for the American consumers) to corrupt trading partners by accepting a limited level of Melamine (which should be zero tolerance).
Again, Schlosberg and Starmer stress the need of strong governmental oversight on food safety and requiring food companies to label country of origin on processed food and food ingredients.
I would like to echo the authors’ concerns and urge consumers’ action to ask for laws and regulations for country of origin labeling on processed food and food ingredients. Though such a law may be rudimentary and is not enough to close the loopholes of unsafe ingredients entering the U.S. by route of third countries. However, that would be a starter of protecting our food sources. We need to start somewhere.
By Sofia V.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
