Perspectives in Responsible Sourcing

Food Safety in China

Over the last several months, the international community—including the STR family (see “China’s Growing Counterfeit Dilemma” in CSCC blog article from July 13th)—has been keeping a close watch on the quality and food safety scandals emerging from China. Ranging from contamination of toothpaste to pet food to counterfeit drugs, it is becoming increasingly apparent that some of the bargains from China come with a price that can no longer be ignored.

The Response from China
In response to the scandals and increasing lack of confidence in the safety of products “Made in China”, there have been a number of varied responses from Chinese officials. Perhaps the most dramatic was the execution of Zheng Xiaoyu, the head of the State Food and Drug Administration, for receiving bribes to accept counterfeit drugs during his tenure. But the problems ran much deeper than the mistakes of one person at the top and as cases of tainted food continued to make headlines, it was evident that the problems were much more pervasive throughout the food and drug manufacturing industry. Further investigations revealed the systematic disregard that some manufacturing facilities in China had for the laws, regulations, and industry standards of importing countries (Xinhua News Service).

Consequently, the Chinese government finally had to acknowledge the extent of the problem and has since taken steps to improve the foundation of the food and drug quality and safety mechanisms in place throughout China. One such improvement will be by the National Standardization Management Commission that intends to update and speed up revisions to national and industry standards on farm produce and processed food products, many of which are 12 years old (China Daily). Another step will be undertaken by the Chinese State Council that plans to place new controls on food and drug imports and exports, including inspections of 90% of all food products by 2010 (NY times). It was unclear how the controls would be implemented and enforced as well as how the inspection process would work. Finally, as announced last week by Vice Premier Wu Yi, there will also be a four-month nation-wide campaign to address quality and food safety issues (Xinhua News Service). This campaign is expected to result in the establishment of an integrated quality monitoring network for the production of goods and products and will primarily target products with a close link to human safety and health, such as farm produce and processed food. Again, specific details and methods of implementation have not been revealed.

Although these steps show progress in the right direction, the Chinese government continues to exclude other stakeholders such as the suppliers, buyers and even service providers, which are all critical to the success of quality and food safety assurance. Combined with patchy implementation of rules and regulations, it will be difficult to transform the political culture to one of compliance and transparency (NY Times). What can these other stakeholders do to contribute?

The Role of Domestic Regulatory Agencies
The responsibility for ensuring food safety in the country of consumption tends to fall on regulatory agents such as the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with the latter responsible for actual food inspections. With 650 inspectors to cover 60, 000 domestic producers and 418 ports of entry, the FDA inspectors are only able to check less than 1 percent of regulated imports (NPR). This means that at the ports of entry where the Chinese exports enter the system, very few shipments actually get inspected. If the shipment is selected for inspection, the inspector will determine whether it complies with the required domestic standards. If the container meets the standards, it passes through into the US and contents are then distributed to retail outlets for purchase. If it fails inspection, the container is shipped back to the country of origin.

Even though such a low percentage of shipments are actually inspected, the rate of refusal for Chinese Shipments is relatively high. In April of 2007, for example, 257 shipments from China were refused and shipped back (NPR). With 99% of shipments passing through the border without inspection, the only surprise is that there haven’t been a lot more cases of tainted food and counterfeit drugs than already reported. What is more, the FDA plans on closing nearly half of its 13 food-testing labs which means that even fewer samples will now be tested (NPR). Basically, the FDA is reducing their role in food safety assurance, effectively transferring accountability to importing food companies. In a letter written by the agency and sent to food manufacturers earlier this month, manufacturers were told not to depend on FDA testing to assure safety but rather to assume legal responsibility and make sure all the ingredients used in their products were safe for consumers (NPR).

With the FDA at limited capacity and assurance practices still questionable in China, products unfit for human consumption will continue to enter the US, placing the burden on consumers and forcing them to determine who to depend on and trust that their food is safe to eat?

The Role of Suppliers and Buyers
The risks in food sourcing have always been there but the severity of the problem indicates that business-as-usual can no longer continue and that consumers need to be assured by all members of the supply chain that they are performing their due diligence and complying with laws and regulations at their point of production. In the past, buyers would have used a number of strategies to compel suppliers to comply with their standards, including the cancellation of contracts and returning of shipments at the supplier’s expense. In many commodity supply chains today, however, Chinese goods and products dominate supply to such an extent that importers have little choice but to buy from them. In fact, some supply chains are now almost completely dependant on China and would be crippled if Chinese suppliers sold their products elsewhere. For instance, China has become the leading supplier of many food ingredients, such as apple juice, a primary sweetener in many foods; garlic and garlic powder; sausage casings and cocoa butter (NPR). In addition, China now also dominates and controls China controls 80 percent of the world's production of ascorbic acid, a valuable preservative that is ubiquitous in processed and other foods (Washington Post).

Despite the shift in power from buyer to manufacturer, the fact remains that suppliers must meet some of the requirements established by the buyers as well as those required under various trade agreements such as the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures established by the World Trade Organization (WTO). To accomplish this, government and private industry (suppliers and buyers) need to work together to establish compliance programs and meet the necessary standards. For suppliers, this means improved transparency and accountability for quality and safety; these values need to be instilled throughout the corporate culture if improvements in the system are to be made. For buyers, this means better communication of expectations as well as a variety of methods of support to help implement the necessary system.

The Role of Service Providers
As representatives of buyers and retailers, our most fundamental role in ensuring the compliance of manufacturing facilities with laws and regulations is that of an independent third party monitor. Monitoring is standard practice in many industries and helps to verify supplier compliance. However, as compliance programs mature, many buyers are now realizing that monitoring is not sufficient in and of itself to bring about compliance and that additional methods such as educational seminars and focused consultations may be more useful than continued monitoring.

Upcoming food safety seminars
In recognition of the need to elevate general awareness about building safety assurance programs, training professionals from Shuster—CSCC’s sister company—will be hosting general seminars on Food Safety in Shanghai (9/17/2007) and Shenzhen (9/20/2007). These seminars are intended for a range of participants from suppliers to exporters of food products and nutritional supplements with an aim to help provide the tools and strategies required to develop a comprehensive and safe-sourcing program. Please see our website for more information.

Information in article obtained from:
- Xinhua News Service. “China takes measures to enhance product quality, food safety”. August 27, 2007. Accessed Sept 4, 2007.
- China Daily. “China to dust off food safety standards”. June 20, 2007. Accessed Sept 4, 2007.
- NPR. “As Imports Increase, a Tense Dependence on China” By Richard Knox, May 25, 2007. Accessed Sept.5, 2007.
- NY times. “China to Revise Rules on Food and Drug Safety”. By David Barboza, June 7, 2007. Accessed Sept.4, 2007.
- The Economist. “Stoking protectionism”. August 16th, 2007. Economist Intelligence Unit ViewsWire. Accessed Sept.5, 2007.
- Washington Post. “Tainted Chinese Imports Common In Four Months, FDA Refused 298 Shipments”. By Rick Weiss Washington Post Staff Writer, May 20 2007 (A01). Accessed Sept.5, 2007.

Sustainable Sourcing of Fish and Seafood

The collapse of the cod fishery off of the eastern coast of Canada in the early 90s set off an alarm that global fisheries were in serious trouble. If an area that once teemed with fish and sustained generations upon generations of people could collapse, was it possible that the rest of the world’s fish and seafood supply may also be in jeopardy?

According to information from the OECD, UN and many other international organizations, the collapse of the cod fishery was not an anomaly. At present, approximately two-thirds of the world’s major fish stocks, from tuna to salmon to mackerel, have been pushed to the verge of collapse. Fishing practices are pushing harvest rates over the productive capacity of fish stocks, thereby driving down total stock levels to the detriment of fishing communities (OECD). In fact, a study by the Food and Agriculture Organization (2005) revealed that out of 600 fish stocks being monitored, only a quarter of the world’s fish are less than fully exploited, with only 3% of the stock considered underdeveloped. From the remainder, another quarter are overexploited and depleted, with the rest (52%) considered to be fully exploited, indicating the catch of these stocks is at or close to optimum level yield.

The rapid decline of marine life is largely a result of increased seafood consumption and the use of high-impact fishing technology, which raises yields and requires about 12.5 times more energy to catch the fish as is provided to those who eat them (WorldWatch Institute). The world’s largest seafood consumers—United States, Europe, and Japan—receive most of their seafood through large distributors, restaurants, and supermarkets, so changes in buying habits in these channels could have a profound impact on the health of today’s fish stocks.

The importance of fisheries - Why should we care?

Fisheries are an important contributor to food security and general economic activity, including employment and trade. At present, the diets of 2.6 billion people depend on fish as a source of animal protein, with consumption expected to grow at 1.5 percent per year through 2020, and approximately 200 million people earn their livelihoods from the industry.

To satisfy these needs, it is evident that our marine resources need to be better managed and harvested in a more sustainable manner. Such a fishery protects the fish and the environment, helping to ensure that there is a future for the industry and all those who depend on it (Marine Stewardship Council). According to the Monterey Bay Aquarium, an authority on sustainable seafood, “sustainability” can be evaluated using a number of key criteria:

1. Inherent vulnerability of the species to fishing pressure
2. Status of the species population
3. Nature and extent of bycatch
4. Effect of fishing practices on habitats and ecosystems
5. Effectiveness of the fishery management

Sustainable fish and seafood can either be fresh or farmed, as long as the fishery satisfies the requirements of sustainability. However, with the depletion and collapse of a number of “natural” stocks, the industry has responded by developing and expanding farms to keep up with demand for certain species of fish. The sustainability of these fish farms can also be evaluated using another set of criteria (Monterey Bay Aquarium):

1. Use of marine resources in fish feed
2. Risk and impacts of escaped farmed fish to wild fish
3. Risk and impacts of disease and parasite transfer to wild fish
4. Risk and impacts of pollution and other impacts on habitats and ecosystems
5. Effectiveness of the fishery management

Are fish farms the solution?

For the last few decades, aquaculture has been the fastest-growing supplier of fish worldwide, particularly for Britain, Canada, the U.S. and Chile (David Suzuki Foundation). About 85 percent of aquaculture is for raising non-carnivorous species like tilapia and catfish, while the remainder is for carnivorous species like salmon. Most of these ponds are ecologically integrated, with wastes being used as fertilizers and distributed to surrounding agricultural lands. However, it is the latter production of the carnivorous species that tends to be the controversial practice, with critics citing the use of open net cages as particularly damaging to the environment.

According to DSF, there are several problems associated with open-netcage farming such as: - the pollution of surrounding waters with waste and drugs (used to keep the fish healthy), - escapes of farmed fish (alien species) that can pose a threat to native wild fish, and - net loss of fish since feed for farms is with pellets made from other fish. Instead of net cages, the fish farming industry must be transformed to use safe, fully enclosed systems that trap wastes in order to protect fish stocks and minimize environmental damage. To achieve this transformation, governments need to pass legislation to prevent such harmful farming practices and protect aquatic environments and wildlife. In this way, fish farming can be an important component of sustainable fisheries.

What can you do?

Although we should continue to eat fish and seafood, we need to eat less of the big fish and more of the smaller species lower on the marine food chain. For a comprehensive guide to ocean friendly seafood, refer to the Blue Ocean Institute which also provides a convenient wallet size scorecard to take with you when shopping or at a restaurant.

Ratings detail information on the species, origin, fishing/farming methods, relative abundance, and impact on habitat and other wildlife. According to the guide, some key species and products to avoid include: Orange Roughy, Chilean Seabass, Atlanta Bluefin Tuna, Shark, imported Shrimp, farmed Atlantic Salmon, and Caviar. Instead, choose alternatives such as: squid; farmed Clams, Mussels, Oysters and Scallops; U.S. farmed Tilapia, Catfish, and Shrimp; Alaskan Salmon, and wild and farmed Striped Bass. By choosing responsibly and asking for fish and seafood rated favorably on this list (and other equivalent lists), consumers can play a significant role in the fostering of a more sustainable, lower impact fishing industry.

Supporting sustainable fisheries driving force in helping governments pass legislation to ban destructive fishing, mandate fishing labels that indicate how fish were caught, and create marine preserves off-limits to fishing where fish can spawn.

Resources:

Blue Ocean Institute. Guide to Ocean Friendly Seafood. Accessed May 2007 http://www.blueocean.org/seafood.

David Suzuki Foundation (DSF). Conserving Our Oceans: Aquaculture. Accessed May 2007 http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Oceans/Aquaculture/.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). “Review of the State of the World Marine Fisheries Resources.” 2005. Accessed May 2007 http://www.fao.org/newsroom/common/ecg/1000505/en/stocks.pdf.

Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). Accessed May 2007 http://www.msc.org. Monterey Bay Aquarium.

Seafood WATCH. Accessed May 2007 http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/seafoodwatch.asp.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). "Towards Sustainable Fisheries - Economic Aspects of the Management of Living Marine Resources". 1996. Accessed May 2007 https://www.oecd.org/document/62/0,2340,en_2649_37425_2508478_1_1_1_37425,00.html.

WorldWatch Institute. “Conscientious Seafood Buyers May Be Greatest Hope to Reverse Widespread Destruction of Fisheries.” 2006-11-08. Accessed May 2007 http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4708.

Valentine's Day: Flowers, Chocolate and Diamonds

For those of us with a significant other or someone who is important to us, Valentine’s Day is a day when gifts are commonly exchanged. Three of the most popular gifts are flowers, chocolate and diamonds but did you ever think of who made these gifts possible and under what conditions?

1. Flowers

Approximately 190 million stems of roses were purchased in the USA for Valentine’s Day last year along with millions of other specialty cut flowers and foliages such as lilies, irises, gerbera, and tulips. With prices averaging about $44 USD per arrangement, the USDA estimates that the entire floriculture industry in the US alone is worth an estimated $16 billion and growing, with peak sales before Valentine’s Day and Mother’s Day.

Where do these flowers come from?
Holland remains the world's largest supplier with Colombia close behind, the latter now providing one out of every two flowers that are sold in the U.S. As the industry continues to grow, more and more countries are entering the market and increasing competition, businesses are driven to cut costs in order to remain competitive. Generally this results in the payment of lower wages on shorter contracts, which functions as a mechanism to deny job security, pensions, maternity leave, health and injury insurance, and the right to organize—issues that are easier to get away by moving operations closer to the equator in developing countries. In Colombia, the largest developing country exporter, these cost cutting measures affect a large number of people employed in the area and women in particular because about 70% of the 130 000 workers involved in the growing, packaging and transportation are women

Floriculture: Danger of pesticide exposure
Problems with the floriculture industry do not stop at lower pay and short contracts but instead extend into the following: long hours of unpaid overtime (especially preceding peak sales periods like Valentine’s day), child labor, dismissal for pregnancy, sexual harassment, high risk of exposure to pesticides and additional environmental risks including intensive water consumption, lowering of the water table and contamination of drinking water with pesticides. Perhaps the biggest criticism of the floriculture industry relates to the issue of pesticides and the risk of exposure to the workforce.

What are some of the risks associated with exposure to pesticides?
Symptoms of pesticide poisoning include headaches, dizziness, nausea, diarrhea, and blurred vision as well as longer-term concerns such as cancer, birth defects, reproductive and nervous system damage. Risk of exposure is perhaps the highest for those working in the greenhouses where up to 127 different chemicals (fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides, nematicides and plant growth regulators) are sprayed during the growing phase within the enclosed greenhouse space. Once ready for harvest, the flowers are then cut, selected, classified, and treated for shipment before they are packed. This means that additional pesticides are again sprayed on the flowers to keep them pest-free in order to comply with US border regulations. One of the most frequently used chemicals at this stage is the fumigant methyl bromide; a highly toxic and ozone-depleting fumigant that is restricted for use but allowed on cut flowers since they are not edible. While the presence of these chemicals affects us as the end consumer, the concentration is minimal compared to the exposure level of workers who spray these chemicals and work in the greenhouses and packing facilities.

How can the risk of pesticide exposure be reduced?
Floriculture operations need to comply with the following to improve worker welfare:

• Use only chemicals approved by the EPA or a European entity
• Record pesticide use data and make available to workers and surrounding communities
• Provide workers with protective gear free of charge
• Train all workers on proper use of chemicals and risk prevention
• Evacuate all greenhouse workers from the greenhouse prior to fumigation
• Establish a workplace committees on industrial safety and hygiene

As a result of some of the social and environmental concerns mentioned above, there are a number of ethical programs that have been implemented over the last decade. For more information, check out these websites to see what is going on today:

• Flower Label Program (Germany)
• Florverde (Colombia)
• Fair Flowers and Plants (Europe)
• Kenyan Flower Council (Kenya)
• La Flor de Ecuador http://www.expoflores.com

References
California Cut Flower Commission
USDA ERS
Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA)
International Labor Organization

2. Chocolate

Along with flowers, another common gift to receive (or give) on Valentine’s Day is chocolate. The Netherlands is the world’s largest roaster of cocoa (followed by the US) but the Ivory Coast is actually the largest primary producer of the actual cocoa bean that is roasted. In effect, the Ivory Coast supplies almost 50% of the world’s cocoa beans followed by Ghana (25%) and then Indonesia, Nigeria, Brazil, Cambodia and Ecuador that add up to make up most of the rest. Although the market for cocoa topped three million tonnes last year, the actual profitability of the crop is highly dependent on world prices and on natural conditions affecting yield such as droughts. In terms of the world market, cocoa is actually considered one of the most unstable commodities due to fluctuating market prices but these prices have been on a steady decline for the last decade. Due to the lower profit margin, farmers then look to cut costs by using cheap labor, with some even resorting to using child labor.

What is cocoa?
Chocolate is made from cocoa seeds (usually referred to as beans), which are contained within leathery pods the size of footballs that hang from the branches and trunk of the cacao tree. When ripe, these pods are harvested by the worker with the use of a knife on a pole and then split with a machete to reveal upwards of 50 seeds surrounded by pulp. Both the pulp and cocoa are removed from the pod and left out to “sweat”, leaving the fermented dried beans behind to be collected and eventually roasted and processed to make cocoa. However, what we refer to as “cocoa” is actually a bitter powder made further along in the supply chain by grinding the seeds and removing the cocoa butter from the solids.

The crop supplies an important source of income to many families growing it on their small farms but the conditions under which the commodity is grown is plagued by documented evidence of persistent human rights abuses, primarily child labor and forced labor.

Child slave labor and trafficking
Although there are numerous problems associated with working conditions on many of the farms, the worst cases are from farms in West Africa where there is documented evidence of young boys from the ages of the ages of 12 to 16 being trafficked from their home countries and sold into slave labor on cocoa farms. The primary receiving country of child workers is the Ivory Coast, the leading supplier and exporter of cocoa beans to the world market, accounting for more than 40% of global production. The primary supplier of child workers to these farms is Mali. With approximately 600,000 farms in the Ivory Coast, the US Department of State estimates that approximately 110,000 children are working on the farms, with as many as 10,000-15,000 working as slaves. Here the children are subject to long, punishing hours of work with knives and machetes, suffering from frequent beatings and abuse. The slaves are paid nothing and fed inadequately, and are often locked in their housing units at night to prevent escape.

The Cocoa Industry Protocol
In 2001, the use of child slave labor to produce chocolate caught the attention of the media and the government. In response, the chocolate industry agreed (via the Harken-Engel Protocol) to voluntarily take steps to end child slavery by July of 2005 and to achieve compliance with ILO Convention 182 (Worst Forms of Child Labor), thereby ending child slavery and exploitation. The mechanism to do this was via a certification system that would verify chocolate as being “child-labor free”. However, the final deadline came and went with little appreciable development regarding the eradication of child slavery.

Part of the failure was due to the nature of the industry itself (tens of thousands of small farms, dispersed in remote locations) and the difficulty in monitoring such a large sample size. Additional problems regarding the ability to trace the beans back to individual farms were also hampered because the beans are commonly consolidated into one stock; all without supporting chain of custody documentation. Without the necessary records and documentation required in conventional monitoring methods, it is unlikely that the beans can be traced back to the farms where child labor violations occurred.

What can you do?

• Spend a little more on Valentine’s Day chocolate and buy Fair Trade chocolate. Fair Trade guarantees producers the income they need to send their children to school and pay their workers fair wages, and ensures that no forced or abusive child labor was used in the making of their products.
• Ask your grocer to stock Fair Trade chocolate (or other chocolate brands produced under ethical conditions) and buy it year round
• Ask the chocolate manufactures to buy directly from verified child-labor free farms to create more pressure on the farms
• Ask the chocolate manufacturers to pay more for cocoa beans

References:
Global Exchange
Labor Rights Organization

Industry information on responsible cocoa:
Chocolate Manufacturers Association
World Cocoa Foundation

3. Diamonds

The third, and most expensive, commonly exchanged gift on Valentine's Day are diamonds. Referred to as conflict or blood diamonds, these precious gems can be mined and sold in order to fund armed conflict and civil war. They are also responsible for countless human rights abuses and the deaths and the displacement of millions and millions of people living in Africa. According to Amnesty International, profits from the illegal diamond trade are worth billions of dollars and used by rebels to buy arms in countries such as Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Sierra Leone. While the wars in Angola and Sierra Leone are now over, and the fighting in DRC decreased, the toll in human life is still extreme, amounting to the loss of an estimated 3.7 million lives. Furthermore, new conflicts are continually on the rise and diamonds continue to fund armed warfare in other volatile areas of Africa such as in the Ivory Coast and Liberia.

The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS)
In 2003, efforts were made to stop the illegal trade when a government-run initiative known as the Kimberley Process and Clean Diamond Trade Act was introduced to stem the flow of conflict diamonds. The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) is a voluntary system of self-regulation that covers the entire diamond supply chain (not just the rough diamonds) from the mine to point of sale, requiring the diamond industry to implement a code of conduct to prevent the buying and selling of conflict diamonds. Verification is conducted by independent auditors and monitored by appropriate government agencies but can only be considered effective if all sectors of the diamond industry work together to implement the system of warranties. While the supply of conflict diamonds has been reduced, some from the Ivory Coast are still finding their way through Ghana into the legitimate diamond market and entering the United States.

What can you do?

• Buy certified diamonds and let your jeweler know that you are interested in socially responsible purchasing. Even though the system is not yet perfect, your purchase will indicate to the market you want conflict-free diamonds and improvements to certification will follow if there is enough consumer demand.
• Buy fake diamonds (which can be better than the real thing!)

References:
Global Witness and the Combating Conflict Diamond Campaign
Kimberley Process: An Amnesty International Position Paper; Recommendations to the Kimberley Process (KP) participants in order to effectively strengthen the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS), June 2006
Global Policy:

For all three of these Valentine's Day gifts--flowers, chocolate and diamonds--there are more socially and environmentally responsible alternatives that can be purchased instead of the conventionally produced items. It is the responsibility of the consumer to make informed decisions, which means we must all try to become more educated and aware of what we are purchasing and the impact our purchase could make on the workers and the environment that produced it. If you can't find what you are looking for, kindly ask your grocer or retailer to provide it and let them know you are interested in being an ethical consumer!

Food Choices for the Holidays

In many parts of the world, the upcoming holidays are an important time of celebration, one which is usually accompanied by festive meals shared among family and friends. Part of the traditional menu for these meals generally includes ham and/or turkey but did you ever think about where these meat products came from, what the animals ate and how they ended up on your table? There are a variety of interest groups and non governmental organizations who are concerned about such issues and who have recently been particularly concerned about the use of antibiotics in feed.

Antimicrobial resistant bacteria
Antibiotics are generally given to food animals in order to promote faster growth and to combat diseases caused by overcrowding and unsanitary conditions in the factory farms where they are raised. In regions like North America, for instance, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) estimates that 25 million pounds of antibiotics and related drugs are being fed to these animals every year for non-therapeutic purposes (http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/antibiotics_and_food/). This means that drugs are fed to animals as preventative measures, not just when they are sick. Overall, the use of antibiotics on farms amounts to almost eight times the amount given to humans to treat disease! Critics of this practice contend that these antibiotics are being grossly overused and are resulting in the increased production of antimicrobial resistant bacteria such as Salmonella and Campylobacter.

One such consequence for humans is that if you get sick and require antibiotics to treat your illness, the medicine may not work if the bacteria causing the illness are resistant. This means that you may need to try a number of additional antibiotic treatments until one prescribed actually works. Due to the increased emergence of resistant bacteria and the impact on the effectiveness of medicine for humans, both the Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/narms/get_smart.htm) and the World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs194/en/) have recommended that the antibiotics on which we depend for human medicine should no longer be used as growth promoters in agriculture.

Food labels: what do they mean?
Read the labels on the meat or poultry that you buy for the holidays or ask your grocer what they mean so that you can make an informed choice. Below are some common labels that you may see. Be sure that the claims are verified by a third party; otherwise claims may not be true and/or accurate to the meaning of the label or certification.

Organic: Meats and dairy products that are that are “certified organic” may use therapeutic doses of antibiotics under certain conditions like when the animal is ill (as opposed to indiscriminate non-therapeutic use). Most certified organic products are certified by an external agency that has either been accredited by the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM) or enforced and regulated by a national program such as USDA National Organic Program (NOP).

Raised without antibiotics: Although this label means that animals were raised without the use of low-level or therapeutic doses of antibiotics, the label is not actually regulated and therefore cannot be verified. The best you can do is buy from your local farmer and to establish a relationship with him/her or the local supplier, making your interest in restricted use of antibiotics well known.

Natural: Unfortunately for consumers, the term "natural" is presently quite loosely defined by USDA such that virtually all fresh cuts of meat and poultry qualify as "natural." In general, however, producers tend to use the term to indicate that there are no artificial flavors/colors, chemical preservatives, artificial or synthetic ingredients and that it is only minimally processed. While claims about antibiotics or hormones are not part of the USDA definition of natural, producers are still able to legally market their meat as "natural" under this definition.

Do the best you can to support farmers, especially those operating locally, who are farming in a sustainable manner. To do so, look for labels of certification companies and let your grocer/butcher know that you want these products to be available.

Other sources:
http://www.lifechoicesfoods.com/why_organic.htm
http://www.yumyumsnacks.com/Food_Snack_Labels.html

Food Safety in the Fruit and Vegetable Sector

At the end of August, 2006, spinach tainted with Escherichia coliform bacteria (E.coli) was shipped from California to locations across the US and Canada. Before the product was removed from the shelves, however, nearly 200 people became sick and three people died as a result of the contamination. Less than two weeks later, green leaf lettuce from the same growing area as the spinach was recalled when it was discovered that water used to irrigate the lettuce may have been contaminated with E.coli. Analysis afterwards indicated that no such contamination occurred. Nevertheless, these recent outbreaks and the rapidity in which the (potentially) infected produce spread throughout the supply chain suggest there are some major problems in our food system.

What is E.coli?
The suspected culprit in both situations was E.coli, a highly contagious bacterium that live in the intestines of warm blooded animals such as humans, cows and pigs. In the case of the spinach outbreak, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suspect that it originated from grazing dear or from irrigation water contaminated with cattle feces. The bacterium can also be transmitted via other vectors, including agricultural workers. This is perhaps the most easily prevented mode of transmission, remedied by improving field sanitation practices and providing restrooms and adequate hand washing facilities. In general, however, the majority of widespread outbreaks of E.coli tend to be associated with the consumption of contaminated drinking water and animal products such as ground beef.

Global sourcing and associated food safety risks
Far from being an anomaly, problems relating to food safety and foodborne illness are fairly common. In fact, the CDC estimates that 76 million Americans get sick, more than 300,000 are hospitalized, and 5,000 people die from foodborne illnesses each year. What is also emerging from these cases is that the centralized system of production and distribution is helping to spread potential contaminates throughout the chain rather quickly. This is because lettuce picked in California on Monday can be bagged and on the retail shelves as early as Tuesday and Wednesday throughout North America. Unlike the meat and poultry industry, there is no FDA or regulatory program in place to verify the safety of fruits and vegetables. Without the necessary safety checks and precautions, there is therefore no guarantee that this food is actually safe to eat or free from harmful materials or pathogens. Such risks are further compounded when considering the fact that the average food supply chain now includes product from a wide variety of farms and locations. If food safety cannot be guaranteed for domestically produced fruits and vegetables, what sort of claims can be made about imported produce?

To reduce the number of foodborne illnesses, as well as the severity of future outbreaks from fruits and vegetables, more systematic precautions need to be taken. These include improving field conditions, sampling and monitoring programs throughout the supply chain—not just for the biggest producers or those producing on domestic soil, but for international suppliers as well. Precautions must also consist of enhanced security measures at the field and packing level, which is particularly critical given the susceptibility of food supply chains to possible acts of bioterrorism and product tampering. Unless the appropriate regulatory these steps are taken, the health and safety of consumers continues to be at great risk.

SOURCES:
National Center for Infectious Diseases: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC. United States Department of Health. Retrieved October 20, 2006 from http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/food/index.htm.

Pollan, M. (2006. October 15). The Way We Live Now: The Vegetable Industrial Complex. The New York Times. Retrieved October 20, 2006 from http://www.nytimes.com/

E. coli exposes weakness in the food chain. (2006, October 10). CTV News. Retrieved October 20, 2006 from http://www.ctv.ca

Corporate Responsibility in the Food Industry

As part of the growing debate surrounding social and environmental responsibility in the food industry, Agra Informa—a leading information specialist on agriculture and food policy, markets and trade—hosted a conference entitled “Corporate Responsibility in the Food Industry” on September 21 and 22. Present at the London event were representatives from major European retailers along with various research organizations, non governmental organizations and private sector service providers. Although a wide range of topics were presented and discussed, a few key concerns emerged as areas for immediate engagement.

The first was primarily related to improving public awareness and perception of industry efforts in social and environmental responsibility. To help do this, greater transparency and more effective benchmarking and reporting mechanisms were identified as critical elements. It was also suggested that credibility and trust among external stakeholders could be further enhanced by reporting not only successful initiatives, but also those that did not work out or that had negative results. However, such reporting may be too premature for a number of companies in the food industry, especially those that have only just begun to investigate responsible sourcing issues in their supply chain.

The second theme of interest that evolved from the conference was the call for food retailers and manufacturers to work together and to coordinate efforts with regard to responsible sourcing. Although this is already happening to some extent, it is not on the scale that is required. As a result, monitoring costs continue to be high (due to replication of audits) and progress hindered by the array of buyer requirements and programs. As a speaker in one of the panel discussions entitled “Applying the Standards”, I was able to draw on our experience as a monitor in the food industry over the last few years to highlight common failings and best practices within the food industry thus far.

Common failings in the food industry include:
- Supplier/farmer resentment due to high cost and number of audits required (largely the consequence of varying buyer requirements)
- Inadequate supply chain information and difficulties with logistics and securing/mitigating risk from all suppliers
- Poor communication and support from the top to bottom of the supply chain regarding standards, program expectations, monitoring process etc.
- Lack of consistency among/within audit companies

Best practices in the food industry include:
- A multi-program approach, with greater emphasis on training and education for program implementation and remediation of violations
- Better support and development of internal management systems on farms
- Increased transparency by sharing supplier status and farm audit results between retailers and buyers and by disclosing supply chain partners to help with identification of sourcing risks and program logistics
- Improved communication between buyers and suppliers, with the goal of establishing long-term relationships

If we are to learn anything from social responsibility initiatives of the past, developed by pioneers in the field from textiles and garments and the oil and gas industries, greater cooperation early on can help minimize sourcing risk and improve compliance in the future. This means that multiple stakeholders, including competitors, need to meet at the table and develop more cost-effective solutions in order to improve social and/or environmental standards throughout our food supply chains.

The Use of Pesticides in Agriculture

Many of the improvements made in modern food production over the years are due to the development of techniques such as: improved (and sometimes genetically modified) plant varieties, fertilizers, pesticides and mechanization. While the use of these methods has benefited humans with a global surplus of cheap food, at least for those with the access and the means to purchase it, industrialized production has also resulted in a number of social and environmental costs. The frequent use of pesticides, for instance, is among the more commonly cited problems of conventional production.

Pesticides
A pesticide is any substance or mixture of substances used to prevent, destroy, repel or mitigate pests. The type of pesticide required, be it an insecticide, fungicide, herbicide, nematicide etc. will depend on the type of pest to be destroyed, such as insects, plant diseases, fungi, weeds, or nematodes etc. Different pesticides also have different means of being effective; some need only touch the pest to be deadly while others must be swallowed to be effective. The intention is to produce high quality, pest and disease free products. In doing so, however, pesticides can unwittingly end up causing harm to organisms like humans and wildlife, as well as to the surrounding environment.

Risk to humans and animals
Pesticide exposure can have acute (or short-term) as well as chronic effects on human health. Acute effects tend to occur immediately after heavy exposure to pesticides. Examples of such cases include farmworkers being sprayed by pesticides applied aerially while working in the field or pesticide application operators being overcome by fumes due to inadequate personal protection equipment. Chronic effects of pesticide exposure include health problems such as cancer, birth defects and neurotoxic effects. However, such direct causal relationships are much more difficult to prove due to the longer time period and mitigating lifestyle factors, and therefore remain controversial in the scientific community. Nevertheless, the increasing volume of research describing the impact of pesticides on wildlife suggests that pesticides affect reproduction, growth, neurological development, behavior and the functioning of the immune and endocrine systems.

Humans could also be impacted by pesticides through consumption of food produced with pesticides. Some chemical residues remain on the food product after washing and preparation and end up being ingested. Although the impact of long-term consumption of these residues is unknown, many governments have established Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) to help safeguard consumer health and to promote good agricultural practices. These limits vary by country, available pesticides, crop, and use. The US government has even created a database accessible to the public called the International Maximum Residue Limits Database (see http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/MRL.htm accessed Sept. 6). Searchable by crop, pesticide active ingredient and pesticide type, there are currently over 300 fruit, vegetable and nut commodities covered in the database, as well as 272 pesticides and MRL data from 70 countries, the European Union and the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex).

How to minimize risk
For food to be sustainable, it should be produced in such a way that it has minimal negative impact on environmental and human health. Ideally, food production should actually contribute to and improve both the environment and human health. To help minimize risk, pesticides should only be of the lowest possible toxicity and be used and applied in the following manner:
- When/where necessary, after sufficient scientific analysis
- Only when able to be stored, transported, and handled according to safe chemical management practices
- When able to be applied correctly, by a trained professional with proper personal protection equipment
- In accordance with all possible health and safety measures and precautions taken
- As part of a broader pest management strategy that may also include biologically based pesticides (pheromones, microbial pesticides) and other integrated pest management strategies

For more information, please consult the following article sources:
Pest Control Canada. http://www.pestcontrolcanada.com/Pesticides/pesticides.htm. Accessed Sept.6

United States Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/index.htm
Union of Concerned Scientists. http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/sustainable_food/costs-and-benefits-of-industrial-agriculture.html. Accessed Sept 7, 2006.

Parliament of Canada. “Pesticides: Making the Right Choice for the Protection of Health and the Environment.” Report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. May 2000. Available http://www.parl.gc.ca/infocomdoc/36/2/ENVI/Studies/Reports/envi01/04-toc-e.html Accessed Sept 9.

Organic Food

Chances are that within the last month, you have purchased at least one organic food item from the grocery store or consumed an organic beverage such as juice, tea or coffee from a café or restaurant. Several years ago, the average person would have been much less likely to purchase organic foods, in part because such items were harder to find and often not as fresh as the conventional produce surrounding it. Largely due to consumer demand, and subsequent buy-in of major corporations such as Kraft, ConAgra, and General Mills, however, the sector has emerged from the margins and expanded into the mainstream, commanding a market share of approximately $12 billion. Of course, in comparison to the value of the entire $500 billion food industry, organics are still considered a niche market. Nevertheless, with an annual growth of nearly 20% over the last few years in an otherwise stagnant industry, organics continue to generate great interest and investment into sector development.

What is an organic food product?
Organic food and agricultural products differ from conventionally produced goods in the way it is grown, handled, and processed. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), organic food cannot be produced with the following products or production techniques if it is to be eligible for certification:
- Antibiotics or chemical growth hormones (used in meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products);
- Most conventional pesticides (a few are still allowed);
- Fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge;
- Bioengineering (or genetic modification); and
- Ionizing radiation.

In addition, farmers producing organic products emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations. To qualify as organic, the product must also be produced on land that has been cultivated according to organic standards for at least three years.

Organic labels
Depending on where you live, your government may or may not be regulating the organic market. In countries like Canada, for instance, the market is not federally regulated and organic products need only comply with voluntary standards. In the US and UK, however, the government both creates the standards and approves the certifying bodies before a product (domestic or foreign) gets labeled with the USDA Organic Seal. In fact, the companies that handle or process organic food before it gets to your local supermarket or restaurant must be certified, too.

But is organic food really healthier and better for the environment?
On one hand, proponents of organic food claim that consumption of food produced without toxic chemicals is obviously a good thing for human health and for the environment. First, there are the field workers that might otherwise be exposed to pesticides and experience negative health effects such as skin and respiratory problems, as well as higher rates of cancer and birth defects. Second, there are the consumers of the products. Even small concentrations of pesticides present on conventionally produced food products may have a number of detrimental effects on health over the course of a lifetime. Furthermore, these synthetic pesticides and herbicides can wash off the fields, entering local water systems and affecting wildlife. By way of contrast, advocates of organic production contend that organic production actually improves the land and results in less energy use and waste production compared to conventional systems.

Critics of organic production, on the other hand, argue that the system of production as controlled by large corporations is not as earth friendly as it appears. The problem is with the heavy consumption of fossil fuels required for transportation of goods within the conventional sourcing and distribution structure of industrial agriculture. Is an organic apple shipped thousands of miles from Chile more environmentally friendly than one conventionally produced from your local farmers market? What is more, these products shipped around the world may not even be pesticide free!

Contrary to popular belief, pesticides can be used in organic production but of the hundreds available, there are only a few approved for organic use. However, this does not mean that the approved pesticides are necessarily environmentally friendly and some are even toxic like ryania, Sabadilla, and rotenone. Other non-toxic chemicals can cause different problems such as those including inorganic copper that cannot biodegrade in the soil or those containing copper salts or sulfur that must be applied at high levels or pyrethrin that must be applied frequently. Finally, critics worry that the standards of organic production are becoming progressively weaker to the extent that organic labels may one day be meaningless.

Sources:
USDA Organic Standards. Available http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop
Melanie Warner, “What Is Organic? Powerful Players Want a Say”, New York Times, November 1, 2005.
The Idaho Association of Soil Conservation Districts. 2004. Organic Pest Control: Approved Materials and Practices. 2004. Available http://www.oneplan.org/Crop/OrganicPestCtrl.shtml.

For additional information on organic standards:
Australia: NASAA Organic Standard. Available http://www.nasaa.com.au/steps1.html
Britain: Organic Farmers and Growers Organic Standards. http://www.organicfarmers.uk.com/licensees/controlmanual/index.php
United States: NOP Program Standards. http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/standards.html

The Cost of Food Transportation

In the last fifty years, food production and supply chain systems have changed dramatically on a global scale. As identified in a report released last month by the United Kingdom’s Department for the Environment, Food and Rural affairs (DEFRA), some of the most striking changes have been:
- Increases in global food trade (imports and exports);
- A concentration of the food supply base towards fewer, larger suppliers;
- Changes in food transport and delivery patterns, with an increased trend towards using larger, heavy goods vehicles and rerouting products to regional distribution centers; and
- Changes in consumer behavior from frequent food shopping (on foot) in local stores to weekly shopping (by car) in larger supermarkets.

A direct consequence of these changes in our global food system is the dramatic increase in “food miles” or the distance our food travels from the point of production to the point of consumption. The rise in food miles, which is calculated by measuring transport via air freight, land, and sea as well as the miles driven by consumers, is further associated with a number of social, environmental and economic costs. These include greenhouse gas emissions, congestion, accidents, road maintenance costs, noise and air pollution.

In total, it was estimated in the DEFRA Report that the transportation of food cost UK taxpayers approximately £9bn, with £5bn of this linked to road congestion, £2bn to road accidents, £1bn to pollution and about £1bn to other social and environmental issues. In addition, food transportation also resulted in the release of 18 million metric tons of CO2 emissions, which is almost 6 per cent higher than the previous year. Despite recent efforts of the government and private sector to reduce food miles, however, both costs and emissions appear to be reaching record levels.

Improving food sustainability
As consumers, we can help to reduce food miles and minimize the negative impact on sustainability by increasing our awareness of where our food comes from and how it is produced. One way to do this is to buy more locally produced food and to consume fresh fruits and vegetables that are in season (when possible). The next time you buy an apple, for instance, look for country of origin labels to see where it is produced: Chile? New Zealand? Washington? Chances are that you can find an apple produced in your own country and perhaps even your own state/province. Therefore, if you have a choice, help support the local farmers and buy local. Food produced closer to home is usually more fresh, flavorful and nutrient-rich than food that travels days and even weeks to reach your local supermarket anyway. However, if there are no country of origin labels available in at the local grocer or retailer, ask the store manager to provide such labels in the future. Some food retailers may even have sustainable food procurement policies in place and should be able to provide you with information about their food sourcing practices as well.

In addition to buying local products from the supermarket, you can also try shopping at local farmers’ markets, food stands, and food cooperatives or even try joining a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) program where food boxes are delivered to you door on a regularly scheduled basis. With the variety of options available, it is now easier than ever to exercise your right as a consumer and to make informed decisions about the food you are consuming and the impact you are having on the environment.

Sources:
DEFRA. “The Validity of Food Miles as an Indicator of Sustainable Development: Final Report”. July 2005. Available http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/foodmiles/execsumm.pdf

Food Routes Network. http://www.foodroutes.org/
The Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture. http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/index.htm

How Our Food Choices Can Make a Big Difference to Our World

Beyond the rhetoric of academics and corporate social responsibility reports, words like “sustainable” and “sustainability” can actually have meaning when applied to your daily life. In fact, many of the choices we make during the day—such as what we had for lunch and where we bought our coffee—help to shape the way we live, directly affecting our bodies and the world around us as a result. Essentially, every time we buy food and agriculture products, we are supporting a given type or system of agricultural production and distribution, which in turn, has an impact on the economy, the environment and society; not only in our own backyard but also in parts of the world where our food is produced, processed or transported. Although the impact of our choice is felt throughout, some of those most affected tend to be the workers operating at the beginning of the food supply chain in agriculture production.

The agriculture industry is one of the most dangerous industries in world, where workers may be subject to poor working conditions, pesticide exposure, low wages, few benefits, and long overtime hours. In some cases, the type of food we purchase may lead to socio-economic or environmental improvements but in other cases, the opposite may occur. Factors that can contribute to a positive outcome require that the issues are addressed at the ground level, by providing fair/living wages to workers, fair commodity prices to farmers or price premiums and other such incentives necessary to preserve social and environmental resources. While the outcome is largely dependent on the systems of food production and distribution available to consumers, as well as the price that we are willing to pay for this food, other actors such as manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and government also play a large role in determining whether or not food and agriculture production contributes to sustainability.

To better explore various social and environmental issues surrounding food and agriculture production in my future postings, I will be using a concept of food “sustainability” that is derived from the Farmer’s Link website and included below for convenience.

From the Farmers’ Link Website, “sustainable food” is:

1. Proximate: originating from the closest practicable source
2. Healthy: as part of a balanced diet and not containing harmful biological or chemical contaminants
3. Fairly or co-operatively traded between producers, processors, retailers and consumers. Non-exploitative of employees in the food sector in terms of pay and conditions.
4. Environmentally beneficial or benign in its production
5. Accessible both in terms of geographic access and affordability
6. Maintains high animal welfare standards in both production and transport
7. Encourages knowledge and understanding of food and food culture