Tyson Foods, the nation’s largest producer of chicken, announced last month that it has begun to produce all of its fresh chicken free of antibiotics and is selling the chicken in grocery stores under a "Raised Without Antibiotics" label. An estimated 70 percent of all antibiotics used in the United States are regularly added to the feed of livestock and poultry that are not sick—a practice with serious consequences for our health. Bacteria that are constantly exposed to antibiotics develop antibiotic resistance. This means that when humans get sick from resistant bacteria, the antibiotics prescribed by doctors don’t work.
Category: Archive
Archived material from historical editions of The Generator
-
US chicken giant drops antibiotics
-
Ireland commits to a genetically normal future
Ireland’s new coalition government recently revealed plans to make the island free of genetically engineered (GE) plants and animals. The announcement delighted many Irish farmers and food producers who have been campaigning for years to reach this goal. As a geographically isolated island with very low levels of existing GE contamination, Ireland has the best chance among European Union (EU) member states of maintaining a credible GE-free status. The government hopes to make Ireland off-limits to GE seeds, crops, insects, and animals, and to phase out the use of GE ingredients in animal feed. The association of organizations and citizens behind this initiative would like to see Ireland become a GE-free biosafety reserve to protect the food security of all EU countries.
From the USA Union of Concerned Scientists
-
Myths of Agro-fuels exposed in US report
Dr. Holt-Gimenez debunks commonly accepted myths propagated by agro-fuel supporters in attempting to address the growing concern over the agro-fuels boom. Arguing against the perception that agro-fuels are environmentally beneficial, the report notes that when the full life cycle of agro-fuels is considered, the moderate emission savings are undone by far greater emissions from deforestation, burning, peat, drainage and soil carbon losses. Similarly, the increased demand for agro-fuels is likely to cause widespread deforestation in the Global South, particularly in Brazil and Indonesia.
Moreover, due to ever increasing consolidation of oil companies, genetic engineering companies and agri-business, the agro-fuels boom is unlikely to benefit farmers. Instead, small holders are likely to be forced off their land. When it comes to food security, agro-fuels are also likely to wreak disaster. The report notes that “the world’s poorest spend 50-80% of their total household income on food. They suffer when high fuel prices push up food prices. Now, when food and fuel crops are competing for land and resources, high food prices may actually push up fuel prices.” The report also addresses the concerns surrounding second generation agro-fuels. Touted by agro-fuel supporters as environmentally friendly crops such as grasses and fast growing trees, these crops may not prove the silver bullet to agro-fuel’s environmental dilemma. The report notes that cellulosic ethanol is unlikely to replace agro-fuel within five to eight years – in time to avoid the worst impacts of global warming.
The current agro-fuels honeymoon will only serve to line the pockets of large agro-industrial corporations. Encouragingly, the report asserts that the agro-fuels transition is not evitable. There are many successful, locally-focused, energy efficient and people centered alternatives that do not threaten the existing food system, the environment or hurt farmer interests. As an alternative, Dr. Holt-Gimenez argues that “putting people and environment–instead of corporate mega-profits–at the center of rural development requires food sovereignty: the right of people to determine their own food systems.”
To read the report, please visit:
HTML: http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1712
-
Melbourne drinks thirsty town’s water
Ignores rural plight: "The government’s announcement has totally ignored the plight of country communities on level 4 restrictions. In fact on the very day that the government announced it would build a pipeline to pipe Goulburn water to Melbourne the government’s own water authority, Goulburn Valley Water, wrote to 33 towns to inform them that they were to go on to level 4 restrictions from 1 July."
Towns affected: The towns named in that letter were Alexandra, Avenel, Barmah, Bonnie Doon, Cobram, Colbinabbin, Congupna, Corop, Dookie, Eildon, Girgarre, Goulburn Weir at Baxters Road, Katamatite, Katandra West, Kirwans Bridge, Kyabram, Mangalore, Merrigum, Molesworth, Mooroopna, Murchison, Nagambie, Rushworth, Seymour, Shepparton, Stanhope, Strathmerton, Tallarook, Tatura, Tongala, Toolamba, Tallygaroopna and Yarroweyah.
What an insult: "What an insult to those communities to receive such a letter dated 19 June from the government’s own water authority, Goulburn Valley Water, on the very day this government said, ‘We are going to pipe water to Melbourne from the Goulburn system’."
Reference: Wendy Lovell, Member for Northern Victoria, Legislative Council, Victoria, 18 July 2007.
Erisk Net, 24/7/2007
-
Canberrans reject recycled water
No clear deleterious effects from recycled water: The report found those concerns were not in keeping with international research and experiences. "Despite more than 40 years experience, no clear deleterious health effects from purified recycled water schemes have yet been observed," the report said. But the ANTs director of infectious diseases, Professor Peter Collignon, kept up his opposition to the project.
Weighing up risks: He said the report acknowledged that more research needed to be conducted in the field. "These reports still don’t give us steadfast assurances that health risks will be contained in the future," he said. "So any water-recycling option will inherently carry a risk. If we were in West Africa and there were no other options, then I would say that risk is acceptable.” "But I want to see what other options the Government has before we go ahead with this."
The Canberra Times, 20/7/2007, p. 1
-
Congestion tax moves forward
Many complaints have been leveled against congestion pricing, the most common being that any environmental benefits the program would provide — including improved air quality and reduced carbon dioxide emissions — would not make up for the cost that consumers will be forced to bear. But what critics fail to realize is that congestion pricing, at its core, is an economic issue. The time that drivers spend stuck in traffic is time that could be used making money. According to a December 2006 report by Bruce Schaller of Schaller Consulting, the total value of time wasted by NYC traffic congestion comes to about $8 billion annually. While that number reflects a larger area than that covered by the proposed congestion-pricing plan, the message is still clear. Furthermore, the waste caused by traffic congestion can also be felt in the impact that unpredictable travel times and smog-filled streets have on the price and appeal of doing business in heavily congested areas of the city.
Some critics erroneously view congestion pricing as yet another expensive environmental protection program that would operate at the expense of economic productivity. But the success of the plan reflects the fact that many business and political leaders, like Bloomberg, finally realize that environmental sustainability and economic efficiency go hand in hand.
In the 1960s, the environment was an aesthetic issue: polluted rivers were ugly and smelly and we wanted someone to clean up the mess. In the 1970s and 1980s, the environment became a health issue as we learned that the toxic substances in the ground, air, and water could make us sick or kill us. In the 1990s, the environment became an issue of global survival as we learned that our air conditioners and refrigerators were poking holes in the ozone layer and that the carbon dioxide emitted from our cars and power plants was heating up the planet’s atmosphere. All of that was important enough to capture the attention of many Americans, but it didn’t seem to bother the people who ran America’s businesses and cities.
The success of congestion pricing represents a wide-ranging shift in the way our leaders think about environmental policy. They have finally realized what experts in the field have known for years: environmental protection and economic efficiency are two sides of the same coin. Bloomberg himself is an excellent example of this turnaround. In his first term, he dismantled key elements of the city’s recycling program, opposed hybrid taxicabs, and opposed congestion pricing. In the last year, the data on the economics of going green persuaded him to make environmental sustainability one of his top priorities.
New York City’s congestion-pricing plan is the surest sign to date that sophisticated, data-driven managers are beginning to understand that clean air, clean water, and energy efficiency are not luxuries, but essential attributes of a well-run company or community. Throughout the city, things are beginning to change. More green buildings, like the new Bank of America Tower on Sixth Avenue, are being built. While efficient "green materials" were once thought to be prohibitively expensive, the lower energy costs and higher worker productivity in these buildings are allowing landlords to actually make money off of going green. Bloomberg has also proposed other changes that efficiently blend environmental and economic policy. In New York City’s subway system, fluorescent lamps are replacing incandescent lamps and NYC Transit will soon save $4.8 million per year in the cost of lighting. Recently, Bloomberg announced that NYC’s cab fleet is going hybrid, a move that will save millions in fuel costs.
The success of congestion pricing is a sign that something is beginning to change in the way politicians and businesspeople think about the environment. They are beginning to see that pollution is waste, waste is an indicator of inefficiency, and inefficiency is the enemy of profit. Environmental protection is a way to reduce the cost of energy, water, sewage, waste disposal, and health care, and it’s a tool for attracting highly mobile global businesses. Congestion pricing is hopefully only the first step toward a greater emphasis on environmental and economic sustainability throughout the country, and Bloomberg should be lauded for setting America’s largest city on the path toward a cleaner and more efficient future.