Food & Water Watch 2012 Annual Report

PHOTO BY SUSAN WOZNY
works to ensure the food, water and fsh we consume is safe,

accessible and sustainably produced. So that we can all en|oy and
trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of where
their food comes from, keep clean, afordable, public tap water
fowing freely to our homes, protect the environmental quality of
oceans, work to ensure that the government does its |ob protecting
citizens and educate about the importance of keeping the global
commons - our shared resources - under public control.
We envision a world where all people have access to enough
afordable, healthy and wholesome food and clean water to meet
their basic needs - a world in which governments are accountable
to their citizens and manage essential resources sustainably.
NATIONAL OFFICE
1616 P St. NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
tel: ,2C2) o82SCC fax: (202) 683-2501
foodandwaterwatch.org
STAFF INTERVIEWS
Why Food & Water Watch7 ................................................................3
Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director
Food & Water Watch Organizing: A Unique Model ....................9
Mark Schlosberg, National Organizing Director
Food: What We Fight For ..................................................................14
Patty Lovera, Assistant Director and Food Program Director
Water, Fracking and Fighting in the Public nterest..................19
Emily Wurth, Water Program Director
Common Resources and Our Future ...........................................24
Mitch Jones, Common Resources Program Director
Legal Advocacy for Our Food and Water ................................... 29
Scott Edwards, Co-Director, Food & Water Justice Project
Bridging Activism Clobally .............................................................. 34
Darcey OCallaghan, International Program Director
FINANCIALS ........................................................................................ 37
2 2012 Annual Report
FOOD & WATER WATCH foodandwaterwatch.org
FOOD & WATER WATCH
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Maude Barlow
CHAR
Wenonah Hauter
EXECUTvE DRECTOR
Rudolf Amenga-Etego
FNANCE COMMTTEE
Elizabeth Peredo Beltrn
FNANCE COMMTTEE
Dennis Keeney
COvERNANCE COMMTTEE
Lisa Schubert
COvERNANCE COMMTTEE
Mary Ricci
TREASURER
Kelsie Sue Kerr
SECRETARY
Wenonah Hauter
EXECUTvE DRECTOR
Lane Brooks
CHEF OPERATNC OFFCER
Scott Edwards
CO-DRECTOR, FOOD & WATER |USTCE PRO|ECT
Mitch |ones
COMMON RESOURCES PROCRAM DRECTOR
Doug Lakey
DEvELOPMENT DRECTOR
Patty Lovera
ASSSTANT DRECTOR
AND FOOD PROCRAM DRECTOR
Michele Merkel
CO-DRECTOR, FOOD & WATER |USTCE PRO|ECT
Darcey O'Callaghan
NTERNATONAL DRECTOR
Darcey Rakestraw
COMMUNCATONS DRECTOR
Mark Schlosberg
ORCANZNC DRECTOR
Emily Wurth
WATER PROCRAM DRECTOR
DIRECTORS
About Food & Water Watch
Food & Water Watch has more than 90
s|a nenbers based |n \ash|n|on,
DC and |n odr 1S e|d oces |n cr|||ca|
s|a|es ron Ma|ne |o Ca||orn|a \e
wor| w||h an on||ne ac||v|s| base o
over SCC,CCC peop|e and a vo|dn|eer
ne|wor| o rea|wor|d ac||v|s|s ||n|ed
|o odr e|d oces Cdr oran|.ers do
the necessary grassroots education
and nob|||.a||on so |ha| red|ar
peop|e |n |he|r |oca| conndn|||es can
|a|e ac||on arodnd spec|c na||ona|,
s|a|e and |oca| |ssdes |n order |o
pro|ec| |he hea||h and sae|y o odr
food and water sources.
Food & \a|er \a|ch sdppor|s and
anp||es |h|s on||ne and rea|wor|d
oran|.|n |hrodh odr research, po||cy
advocacy, ||||a||on and broadbased
conndn|ca||ons capab|||||es \h||e
odr n|ss|on |s ocdsed on |on|ern
sys|en|c chanes |ha| w||| resd|| |n
hea||hy ood and c|ean wa|er or a||,
we deve|op shor|er|ern canpa|ns
|o |a|e on press|n na||ona|, s|a|e and
|oca| |ssdes
2012 Annual Report 3
Why did you start Food & Water Watch?
I founded Food & Water Watch because I think people really care about whats in their food, and theyre very
concerned about the corporate takeover of our most critical resources. Were at a place where we really need to
have political action. In the past, it was important to have organizations that were mostly focused in Washing-
ton, D.C., on policymakers. But we know that because of our system of legalized bribery in this country, where
corporations have so much influence over policy and regulation, we really need an organized voting block to
try to hold our elected oficials accountable. So we formed Food & Water Watch to begin working at the state
and local level organizing and helping individuals have a voice in the most important issues of our time.
Where is Food & Water Watch now,
and where would you like to see it go?
Were really excited that today we have 17 state ofices. I think its critical to work at the state level because
one of the problems we have is that Congress doesnt reflect the values of the citizens in the states they
represent. This is because weve had a small group of people able to take over the state legislatures. Im from
WHY FOOD & WATER WATCH?
WENONAH HAUTER - FXFCU1lVF ulRFC1OR
In December 2012, Wenonah Hauters book Foodopoly: The Battle
Over the Future of Food and Farming in America was released by
The New Press. Publishers Weekly called it a meticulously
researched tour de force, and Kirkus Reviews said it provides
A forceful argument about our dysfunctional food system.
For more information, visit foodopoly.org.
a district thats been gerrymandered by the state legislature to look kind of like a snake,
so they can get the results at the state legislature that they want so they get results in
Congress. I think if were going to do something about this terrible situation, where we
have a Congress thats voting in policies that most Americans dont agree with, then were
going to have to really do a lot of work at the state level. That means connecting the issues
that people care about that impact them in their day-to-day lives to the politics of the
state and then eventually to whats going on in Congress and at the federal level.
How do you feel Food & Water Watch
is making progress toward its mission?
Im really proud that this year we now have half-a-million activists who are working with
us. What were trying to do at Food & Water Watch is really give individuals a way to
interact with the political system,
because I think our opponents
benefit by having people feel as if
theres nothing that can be done.
Apathy is the way to go you
know, sit in front of your television
set and dont worry about politics.
Well, everything is political. I feel
like were giving people who want a voice a way to engage in the political system our
democracy to have safe food, to protect our water resources. Then we need large num-
bers of people to stay engaged. And we need to work with all of the other organizations
that are trying to do this, too.
You published a book this year. Why did you write it?
What do you hope to do with it? And, do you have any
good stories from the road?
I wrote a book this year called Foodopoly: The Batle Over the Future of Food and Farming,
and I do think were in a batle over our food system. I think that if were really going to
fix our food system, we have to have a more vigorous debate over what the problems are.
In Foodopoly, I give a history of how we ended up with such a dysfunctional food system,
because I think we really need to understand where weve been to know where we need to
go. In the 1980s, under the Reagan administration, the laws that are supposed to maintain
competition that are supposed to make companies compete were actually weakened.
So even though we have an economic system thats supposed to be built on the idea of
competition, all of our federal policies have been directed at allowing competitors to merge
What were trying to do at Food & Water
Watch is really give individuals a way to
interact with the political system, because I
t|ink our opponents oeneft oy |aving people
feel as if theres nothing that can be done.
P
H
O
T
O

B
Y

S
U
S
A
N

W
O
Z
N
Y
and acquire one another. And thats had a very chilling efect on our food system and on
every other industry.
When companies get much, much larger, they get much richer. These companies have
become so wealthy that they now have a great deal of power over our political system, and
they basically dictate all federal legislative and regulatory policies related to food from
whether youre exposed to pesticides to labeling of genetically engineered foods. I think if
were going to actually change these things, we need to lay these issues out because no-
bodys talking about them. And the first step is actually knowing what the problems are.
What are the challenges and opportunities
that you see for the near term?
I think the real challenge is that we now live in a political system where theres a very
narrow group of social issues that both major political parties have a handshake about. On
the right, we have the Republican Party that can enrage its base on a few specific issues.
And then on the Democratic side, they can get their base engaged in fighting over these
social issues, and nobody really gets down to the economic issues that are afecting every-
one in their day-to-day lives. So Amer-
icans are becoming poorer and poorer,
we have major stratification, were facing
major environmental problems with cli-
mate chaos and all of the pollution thats
taking place, and the issues that really af-
fect people in their day-to-day lives the
pocket-book issues and the critical environmental issues are just being ignored, because
both political parties are being bought and paid for by this set of corporations that bene-
fits from these policies.
Food & Water Watch is based in Washington, D.C. How is
it different from other public interest groups in the city?
People ofen ask me why were any diferent from any of the other organizations that do
public interest work and are based here in Washington. And I think thats a really import-
ant question. I think the real diference is that a lot of organizations here spend a lot of time
lobbying. But we dont believe that you can really change members of Congress minds
based on the facts. If we were going to win by the facts, we would have already won.
We do reconnaissance on Capitol Hill because its obviously very important that we know
whats going on, what legislation is coming down the pipe and what peoples positions are.
The issues that really affect people in
their day-to-day lives the pocket-book
issues and the critical environmental
issues are just being ignored.
But what makes us really diferent is that were based in states. We have a lot of field ca-
pacity we put more than half of our resources into organizing and working with people
at the state and local level. We believe that if were going to change things, its going to be
because people hold their elected oficials accountable. Our role is to provide the informa-
tion (we have a lot of research capacity) and then to make it possible for people to actually
have their voice heard and to encourage people to get involved. My saying is: Educate,
organize, agitate and mobilize. And thats really how were going to change things in this
country.
Can you talk a little bit about the Citizens United decision
and how it impacts Food & Water Watchs work?
You know, for a long time, weve had the problem of money in politics. It was really be-
ginning in the 1980s, afer corporations were allowed to begin merging and acquiring their
closest competitors and becoming very, very wealthy, that they had the political power to
begin weakening the policies that made our elections more
fair. Since that time, increasingly weve seen corporations
spending money on elections, on both Republicans and Dem-
ocrats. I call it a legalized system of bribery.
Recently, with the Citizens United decision by the Supreme
Court that basically says that corporations are people and
can spend as much money on elections as they desire, things
have goten much, much worse. If you look at the last pres-
idential election, I think about $3 billion was spent on the
election, and a third of that money came from 250 individuals. Now, theres something
wrong with a system like that. So I think that all of the organizing thats going on to have
a constitutional amendment to change Citizens United and the campaign finance laws that
allow corporations to buy public policy I think thats really the direction that we need to
go. And its going to take people coming together in a coalition on food, on healthcare,
on every issue to make sure that we are actually able to pass a constitutional amend-
ment to get money out of politics.
Can you tell us what brought you here and
how your life has evolved to do the work that you do?
I grew up in a time when political activism was both popular and encouraged. In the late
1960s, when I was in high school, I was already geting involved as an organizer. I orga-
nized the girls in my high school to all wear pants we werent allowed to. They couldnt
kick us all out of school, and so we were able to change the dress code. And, you know,
Increasingly weve seen
corporations spending
money on elections, on
both Republicans and
Democrats. I call it a
legalized system of bribery.
you get a litle taste of power from organizing, and you get inspired to get more active!
I went to high school at a time when Virginia had segregated schools, and I was involved
in a sit-in at my high school when the high schools were merged, and they werent going
to allow the African American girls who had been chosen to be cheerleaders in their high
school to be cheerleaders in our new consolidated school. So I was involved in a sit-in, and
my first taste of the power of elites was when I got kicked out of school for two weeks.
And, I grew up on a farm. My parents didnt have a lot of money, but we ended up on this
farm in Virginia and I learned a lot about what it means to grow food, and my father was into
organic gardening so I really learned about the impact of chemicals at an early age. So I think
all of those things working together made an activist out of me. Probably not exactly what
my parents had hoped for, but it made me interested in changing the world at a young age.
Is there anything else that you want
to tell our members and supporters?
Ive had a really fantastic year being able to travel around. Its been such a privilege to
meet so many people, and people are working so hard in their communities to take back
our democracy its been really inspirational. And Ive had so many great experiences,
theres been so much warmth that Ive felt, and just really the recognition that we all have
to work together if were going to change the world and have the kind of social, economic
and environmental justice that we want.
Ive had a lot of fun, too. You know, going into a small Midwestern town where they have
Foodopoly up in the window of the bookstore about a hundred copies because authors
dont go to small American towns and talk about their books. In that town, I walked into
the local bakery and they had a flyer on the
counter with my picture and an announce-
ment about the bookstore event, and the
woman behind the counter said, I was told if
you came in here, to give you whatever you
wanted to eat out of the bakery! Those are
the kind of things that just give you a warm
feeling; Ive had a lot of those experiences. And
not just in the places that you would expect
the west coast, the northeast. Ive been going
to places like Alabama and finding that there
are people who are just as commited to changing the system. They have an uphill batle
in their state because of electoral politics, and thats just given me a lot of hope for the
future.
Ive been going to places like
/laoana and fnding t|at t|ere are
people who are just as committed
to changing the system. They have
an uphill battle in their state because
of electoral politics, and thats just
given me a lot of hope for the future.
When somebody walks into the grocery store, they see
an abundance of choices. Tell us what the problem is
with the food system, and why that choice isnt a reality.
First of all, all the choice that you see in the grocery store is really a false illusion because
we have just a handful of companies that stand between less than a million farmers and
300 million eaters. Today, there are fewer than 20 food processing companies that own
more than 60 percent of the brands in the grocery store. There are a small handful of firms
that control almost everything about the food system, and they have so much political
power that they have been able to dictate federal legislative and regulatory rules about
every aspect of the food system, from whether your child sees just under 5,000 junk food
ads a year, to whether that same child is exposed to a range of pesticides and herbicides.
These companies have too much political power, yet a lot of people are talking about the
problems with the food system as if its actually the farmers who are causing the prob-
lems. The way we see it at Food & Water Watch,
farmers are the victims of the food system. They
have been advertised to and encouraged to use
practices and technologies that arent benefit-
ing them. Also, the way of life in rural areas: the
average midsize farmer today makes $19,300, and
half of that comes from a government payment.
So I think that its really false to blame farmers
for the problems in the food system, this dysfunc-
tional food system thats making people sick and overweight. We should look at the real
economic powers that have been able to manipulate the rules and regulations: the food
corporations.
The way we see it at Food & Water
Watch, farmers are the victims of
the food system. They have been
advertised to and encouraged to
use practices and technologies
t|at aren't oenefting t|en.
Listen to an excerpt of this conversation at http://fwwat.ch/17w1J1B
What makes Food & Water Watch organizing unique?
Food & Water Watch has an organizing philosophy thats based on building power to make real changes in
peoples lives. Were a national organization, but one thats trying to support and grow the grassroots orga-
nizing and organizations across the country. Were trying to build power in key places throughout the country
so that we can make our elected oficials represent the people rather than large corporate interests. Also, we
have a robust campus program: were on over 50 campuses across the
country working to get them to go botled water-free really training
a new generation of organizers.
We have staf organizers in field ofices across the country that
support other grassroots organizations to help them grow; develop
strategy; provide resources; and help develop robust campaigns that
involve a wide range of organizations because were not going to be able to win the tough issues like frack-
ing, or geting genetically engineered food labeled, or beter food safety programs, on our own. Its going to
take a broad movement of concerned citizens along with a lot of strong grassroots state, regional and national
groups across the country.
We believe that we need to invest time into helping develop grassroots organizations; thats why for years,
Food & Water Watch has been in the states helping to support new and existing grassroots organizations by
working with them to develop short-term and longer-term strategies that result in strong campaigns. We also
provide resources, like research reports and fact sheets; materials such as bumper stickers and signs; as well as
the activism of our own robust online activist network and our commited members to support their work.
A great recent example is our campaign in Longmont, Colorado, where we worked very closely with the grass-
roots group Our Longmont to support their eforts to ban fracking in their community. Working together, we
were able to get a fracking ban in Longmont passed via a ballot initiative in November of 2012. This municipal
ban in a state with a long history of extractive mining and drilling has helped change the debate around frack-
ing, and we are now poised to replicate our victory in Longmont throughout Colorado.
FOOD & WATER WATCH
ORGANIZING:
A UNIQUE MODEL
MARK SCHLOSBERG - NA1lONAL ORuANl7lNu ulRFC1OR
Were a national organization, but
one thats trying to support and
grow the grassroots organizing and
organizations across the country.
What are your teams short-term and long-term goals?
The short-term goal of our food organizing is focused largely on passing labeling legislation
in states around the country. We believe people have the right to know whether or not the
foods they are eating are genetically engineered, and there is great popular support for these
initiatives. We want to support the groups working on the ground, multiply our eforts and
win these campaigns. The long-term goal is to harness this movement of people who want
transparency in the food system, and who fight for safe, healthy food so that we can truly
build power to rival Big Ag and fix our broken food system and take back our democracy.
In terms of water issues, most of our energy is focused on expanding the national move-
ment to ban fracking, as well as supporting our campus campaigns to ban botled water
and working with local communities to protect them from eforts to privatize public water.
At Food & Water Watch, we believe we need to fight for the public policies and the corpo-
rate practices that we really need to protect our food and water not just what is polit-
ically easy or expedient. And we cant do this by ourselves. Fracking is a great example
of how we work in coalition. We have helped develop (along with our coalition partners)
Americans Against Fracking, and now have
more than 200 organizations working with us to
stop fracking nationally. Since fracking is ex-
empt from most federal regulations (thank you,
Dick Cheney), most of the real decisions about
fracking are happening at the state level, so we
have helped build state coalitions in New York,
California and Colorado. And were looking to do
that in other places so that we can have a more
powerful, political force really pushing hard on our state and local elected oficials (and
also our national representatives) to push for a ban on fracking.
What was the most important thing
your team accomplished this year?
The biggest thing that Ive seen happen in the last year is just the big shif at the national
level in terms of how people are talking about fracking. And I think a lot of that change
has to do with the coalition work that weve been doing, and really taking a strong stand
for a ban. In New York, that coalition has been incredible and is really changing the dy-
namic in that state, and I think thats sort of reverberating across the country where were
organizing and working with grassroots state and local partners.
Food & Water Watch was one of the first national organizations to call for a ban on
fracking. When we started a couple years ago, most groups were not talking about a ban
At Food & Water Watch, we believe
we need to fg|t for t|e puolic
policies and the corporate practices
that we really need to protect our
food and water not just what is
politically easy or expedient.
on fracking at all people were talking about fracked gas as a bridge to a clean energy
future. But now we have a growing consensus among environmental organizations and
progressive organizations that fracked gas is just another dirty fossil fuel thats going to
exacerbate our climate situation rather
than make it beter. The ban position has
gone from fringe to the mainstream. I
think part of our challenge as an organi-
zation, as an organizing team and really
as a movement, is to translate that really
strong, local opposition to fracking to
power at the federal level and organizing
to hold those oficials accountable.
What was your biggest challenge this year,
and what frustrates you the most?
Our biggest challenge is the scarcity of funding and other resources on our side compared
to the overwhelming resources that our opposition has. When you have a company like
Monsanto that can pour millions of dollars into a ballot campaign at the drop of a hat to
mislead voters (for example, in California on Prop 37), thats an enormous challenge. When
youve got the oil and gas industry that can spend millions of dollars lobbying, contributing
to campaigns, contributing to political organizations, etc., thats a huge hurdle to overcome.
So our challenge is to harness our resources to really engage people in a way that will help
grow the movement, to expand our own membership and the membership of the grass-
roots organizations we work with, so that all of us together can grow stronger and can
really be able to hold our elected oficials accountable. I think the opportunity is that there
is a lot of passion out there about these issues. People are fed up, people understand that
our democracy is really broken, and these issues like fracking, and the power of the oil and
gas industry, are really symptoms of a larger broken political system.
How does Food & Water Watch work with
other organizations to achieve its goals?
At Food & Water Watch, we believe we can never achieve the really big goals that we have
working by ourselves. We must work with other organizations to help support them, to
build them up, as we are building our own organization particularly with grassroots
groups at the state and local level, but also our national partners as well. We put a lot of
resources into forming coalitions at the state and local level. Food & Water Watchs phi-
losophy is that we want to grow our own membership and make sure that were a sustain-
Now we have a growing consensus
among environmental organizations and
progressive organizations that fracked
gas is just another dirty fossil fuel
thats going to exacerbate our climate
situation rather than make it better.
able, strong national organization that can provide resources, strong research, lobbying
in D.C., and on-the-ground organizing skills, but also help develop local groups and other
partners so that we can have a broad-based, strong movement.
What does the support of our members mean to you?
The support of our members is critical. We cannot exist, function and be a powerful or-
ganization without our membership. Members are not only individual donors but also an
active part of our organization. Thou-
sands of our members take action on
our e-mail alerts, make phone calls
and go to local elected oficials and
demand that they take action on
issues. Our members are people in our
communities who are organizing with their friends and family to try and grow the move-
ment in key legislative districts. So, our membership and our volunteers are critical, are
intertwined with us in developing our campaigns and really moving these issues forward.
What is the role of Food & Water Watch volunteers and
local coordinators, and how does Food & Water Watch
work to promote online-to-offline engagement?
At Food & Water Watch, we dont want to just be an organization that sends out e-mail
alerts and does coalition work. We want to do those things because they are critically
important, but we also think its really important to try to engage our members at a higher
level. We want to have people come into our organization, take an action online and then
do something in their community like call their elected oficial, table in front of a super-
market, go to a community group and get them involved in working on these campaigns,
or build their own organization or group with other like-minded activists. Theres a whole
range of things that people can do, and the way were going to actually move people is by
using all of these tactics by sending e-mails, by making phone calls, but also by going to
legislative ofices, by holding rallies, by doing marches, by supporting events and activities
that other people and groups are organizing.
The support of our members is critical. We
cannot exist, function and be a powerful
organization without our membership.
P
H
O
T
O

J
E
S
S
I
C
A

R
I
E
H
L
Whats your background and what
brought you here to Food & Water Watch?
Ive always had a really strong interest in social justice, from an early age. I did organizing
in college around a variety of social justice issues and food issues as well, and Ive been
organizing ever since I was in high school. What really motivates me is concern for the
future of our planet, both for myself and for my children. Ive got eight-year-old twins and
I see the world that theyre being brought up in, and I want them, their friends and every-
body in that generation to be able to have the opportunities that I had, that my parents
had.
I see a democracy that we live in thats broken, where we have corporations that exert
huge amounts of influence in our political system. At the same time, these corporations
are polluting our water, our air, our climate.
We need to have clean water to drink, good
food to eat, air we can breathe and a climate
we can live in. And the direction that were go-
ing as a society is the opposite direction that
we should be going. So, Im highly motivated
to do everything I can and to try to work with
other people to do everything they can to
push back against these very powerful corpo-
rate interests, and to help make sure not just that our food and water are clean and safe,
but that our democracy is also one that is sustainable for the long term.
We need to have clean water to
drink, good food to eat, air we can
breathe and a climate we can live
in. And the direction that were
going as a society is the opposite
direction that we should be going.
Listen to an excerpt of this conversation at http://fwwat.ch/17ypY4z
Corporations have been successful in marketing genetically
engineered crops as a silver bullet for feeding the world.
What does Food & Water Watch say about that?
We hear that all the time, about every idea the food industry has from genetically engineered crops to the
latest plan to cut meat inspection, you name it. Theyre always saying, This is how were going to feed the
world. Sounds good, but its usually not true. What they really mean but dont say, except I suspect in
corporate boardrooms is this is how we are going to make more money. So, specifically for biotechnology,
were now 15, 20 years into this experiment, and it isnt producing beter yields. It isnt producing beter crops,
and its causing so many other problems that they never talked about: the weeds dont die when we treat
them with the chemicals anymore, farmers are paying too much for and have less choices for all of their seeds
because the seed supply is now largely controlled by a few companies like Monsanto the list goes on and
on. So the hype that we get from these companies is not the reality of what were seeing in the food supply.
Can you talk a little bit about the purpose of the Food Program?
Food issues from production, to storage, to processing, to distribution, to retail are enormously com-
plex and inter-related. So we encompass all kinds of issues when we talk about food. We do a lot around
what people would traditionally call food safety: is this something thats safe and wholesome to eat? So we
talk about meat inspection and the rules for that. Do we have the right rules? Are we enforcing those rules?
FOOD: WHAT WE FIGHT FOR
PATTY LOVERA - ASSlS1AN1 ulRFC1OR ANu FOOu PROuRAM ulRFC1OR
Food & Water Watchs food program combines policy research, strategic
communications, lobbying and grassroots organizing to advocate for policies that will
result in sustainable and secure food systems that provide healthy food for consumers
and an economically viable living for family farmers and rural communities.
Are there enough resources for meat inspectors to go out there and enforce the rules? We
do a lot of work to ensure that you can know about your food, that it is appropriately la-
beled with information so that you can figure out how your food was produced and where.
But we also tie those issues back to the larger food system and how your food is produced.
All the labeling in the world will not save you from a broken food system that produc-
es unhealthy food. Thats why we talk about the Farm Bill, about anti-trust issues and
international trade agreements Why are the companies that make our food so big and so
powerful that they have more of a say about the food supply than we do? So, we tie those
issues that are on our plate back to the food system thats bringing them to us and try to
change that policy as well.
What are the Food Programs
short- and long-term goals and objectives?
In any given year, were always talking about the budgets for important things like food
safety. Were always fighting to maintain those resources so we can enforce the rules we
Victories for safe and healthy food in 2012:
Passed a bill in the Maryland state legislature to ban arsenic in poultry feed, which is a sig-
nicant threat to the health of those who eat chicken as well as a major contributor to pollution in the
Chesapeake Bay (the bill went into effect in 2013.)
Convinced the Obama administration to appeal the World Trade Organization decision that
would have removed County of Origin Labeling on our food products.
Implemented a broad campaign against Walmarts plans to sell genetically engineered sweet
corn. During the campaign, we generated more than 118,000 petition signatures against Walmarts
plans and 8,900 phone calls to Walmart headquarters and organized 150 events at local Walmart
stores across the country. The campaign culminated in a national day of action on March 17. The cam-
paign provided a great way to build support for labeling issues and for a fair Farm Bill.
Launched a new advocacy effort aimed at the U.S. Department of Agricultures (USDAs) new
proposal to streamline poultry inspection by allowing for industry self-inspection and speeding
up processing lines. We are connecting this effort to overall food safety and worker safety issues and pre-
vented the USDA from making this change to inspection in 2012.
Organized ongoing and extensive campaigns around the issue of genetically engineered (GE)
food labeling in Colorado, New Mexico, Michigan, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, Florida, New Jersey and Wash-
ington, and helped to support Californias Proposition 37, which was narrowly defeated and would have
mandated labeling of GE food.
Released a new in-depth report in October, The Economic Costs of Food Monopolies, that
takes on one of the myths that props up our broken food system: the idea that the industrialized food
production system is good for the economy. The report generated important discussion and debate
among agricultural groups and in the farming community.
already have. Coming up, were going to be talking a lot more about trade agreements and
how much food we import and the safety risks posed by foods imported from countries
with lax food safety policies. Were also going to continue talking a lot about diferent
technologies like genetically engineered crops that radically change our food supply. The
short-term piece of that is calling for labeling of the foods so we can decide for ourselves,
but in the long term, we really need to look at the safety and talk about whether we
should be growing those crops at all.
What was the biggest challenge of the year
for your work here at Food & Water Watch?
It was a tough year politically in terms of geting things done in either state legislatures or
in Washington, D.C. I dont think thats a shock to people who watch the news, right? There
was a lot of gridlock, a lot of trouble actually
geting elected oficials to do their jobs and
not just blow a lot of hot air but actually move
some of these policies and change some of the
rules. We worked hard to make them aware of
what we expect them to do and what the solu-
tions are. But they had a lot of excuses not to do things this year. There was a lot of fussing
and fighting of legislatures and Congress, and that gave them an excuse not to move the ball.
That is frustrating because food policy afects everyone.
What does the support of our members and volunteers
mean to you and the Food Program and our work overall?
Well, we need people involved. You know, whether youre new or youre a long-time sup-
porter of Food & Water Watch, thats how were going to move these elected oficials. Thats
a first step toward changing these policies if people are educated and hopefully they
come to us to learn more and figure out what the policy problem is with something theyre
concerned about. But then the next step is even more critical, because people have to get
active they have to take the next step and pick up the phone and call their member of
Congress or write to them or e-mail them and get involved in some way. Thats what we
need, and the more people we have helping us do that, thats how were going to change the
food system so that we can get safe and healthy food grown in a sustainable way.
Everybody knows were dealing with really big powerful interests food companies, agri-
business and we go toe-to-toe with them on Capitol Hill or at the regulatory agencies like
the USDA and FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration]. But, they have a lot of money and
an army of lobbyists; we have a litle money and a few lobbyists. What we do have is people.
It is only by building a movement of concerned citizens that we can get the changes we need.
It was a tough year politically in terms
of getting things done in either state
legislatures or in Washington, D.C.
A lot of people feel that they are helping the food system by going and supporting their local
farmers at farmers markets or by joining CSAs [Community Supported Agriculture projects].
So, how does the work that we do here at Food & Water Watch, especially on the Farm Bill,
go beyond how people shop? And what needs to happen beyond consumer choices?
We love local food. I think all of us here look to that, personally, as a beter way to feed
ourselves. We see a lot of advantages to it you get more information the closer you can get
to your farmer, your money stays in your community thats all fantastic stuf, and it shows
we can raise food in a diferent way than what agribusiness is telling us. But, unfortunately,
we dont think we can just shop our way out of these problems. We got into this mess with
many decades of bad policy
for example, no enforcement of
environmental rules or antitrust
policies and were going to have
to change those rules to really fix
this bigger, broken system. Its
very convenient to say: Oh, there
just shouldnt be a Farm Bill. We
dont need a Farm Bill. Why do you have programs where you give subsidies to certain farm-
ers and not others? You should just end it, and that will sort these problems out. Unfortu-
nately, its just not that simple.
We have a system for food thats diferent than any other product because food is diferent
than any other product. So, we have to figure out a smart way to manage those supplies in
a fair marketplace which is going to take the government doing some regulating of that
marketplace to make sure we have a stable food supply that serves the whole country, not
just urban areas or folks who have the resources to access farmers markets or CSAs. Unfor-
tunately, that leaves way too many people out of luck. We have to have a beter food system,
which requires us to look at it in a much more holistic and systematic way. Thats why we
do a lot of research and a lot of talking to farmers, processors and distributors to figure out
whats actually going to work.
Can you talk about some of the major things
that your team accomplished this year?
Yes it was a busy year. Its an unfortunate reality that weve had to spend a lot of time
fighting to keep progress weve already made. For example, there were some really tough at-
tacks on meat inspection, particularly for chicken, in 2012. The government, at the behest of
the chicken industry, is trying to implement a new inspection regime that essentially leaves it
up to the companies to do their own inspections on the processing line, rather than an inde-
pendent government inspector to essentially self-police, which we think is a terrible idea.
We were successful in holding that of for another year, and the old government inspection
We got into this mess with many decades of
bad policy for example, no enforcement of
environmental rules or antitrust policies and
were going to have to change those rules to
really fx t|is oigger, oroken systen.
program for chickens is still in place. We also fought against the approval of genetically engi-
neered salmon. The government didnt approve it in 2012, so we know next year we are going
to keep trying to block it from hiting the market.
This year, Food & Water Watch did a lot of work to
oppose genetically engineered food. In the spring, we did
a corporate campaign to try to get retailers to agree not
to sell GE sweet corn (as opposed to corn that goes into
corn syrup or animal feed) in the wake of a USDA deci-
sion to allow it on the market. So, once we lost on that,
we turned our atention to the big grocery retailers to go
afer big buyers to get them to not sell it. Some compa-
nies stepped up and said they wouldnt like Whole
Foods and Trader Joes but we decided to really go afer
Walmart since they are the largest food retailer. We had really good publicity, and a lot of
folks got involved. They didnt actually commit to not carrying the corn, because they dont
like to show their hand at what theyre doing, but we did have a lot of people get involved and
showed how much power Walmart has in the food supply.
Also, there was a really huge movement in California because they had a ballot initiative, Prop
37, which would have required GE foods to be labeled. That was a big efort that we helped
out in. It came really close, and it sparked a lot of activity all over the country for the coming
year in state legislatures to call for GE labeling. So, it was a good kick-of to a really big na-
tional grassroots campaign that a lot of folks are helping out with to call for that labeling.
On the other coast, in Maryland, we took a lead role in helping pass a bill that bans the use of
a specific drug in raising chickens there. That drug is made out of arsenic, which seems crazy,
but is allowed. So Maryland is the first state in the country to ban this arsenic drug for chick-
en production. This is great news for consumers and the environment in Maryland because
most of the feed containing arsenic came out the back end of the chicken, and that waste
stays in Maryland, even if the chicken is sold somewhere else. So this is going to be a huge
improvement for the states public health and environment, in particular because the Chesa-
peake Bay has been on the receiving side of pollution flowing of of factory farms there.
We also fought against
the approval of genetically
engineered salmon. The
government didnt approve it
in 2012, so we know next year
we are going to keep trying to
block it from hitting the market.
Listen to an excerpt of this conversation at http://fwwat.ch/HXf5Op
The oil and gas industry has framed natural gas
as a solution to climate change, and it also claims
that gas will provide energy security and jobs.
So why does Food & Water Watch want to ban fracking?
Well, the oil and gas industry is spending millions of dollars trying to convince the American people of just
that, because they stand to gain, financially, from extracting every last drop of fossil fuel from the Earth
even at the expense of our essential water resources, our food, our safety and the health of our families
and our communities. And at Food & Water Watch, we are heeding the warnings of the climate scientists
who are saying that the only way to avert catastrophic climate change is to keep fossil fuels in the ground
and to aggressively transition to renewable energy and increase energy eficiency and conservation.
A common theme to all of our work is that we believe we should demand what we need for safe food and
clean water, not just what we think is politically expedient or possible. And thats why were working for a
ban on fracking, across the country and around the world.
WATER, FRACKING
AND ADVOCATING IN
THE PUBLIC INTEREST
EMILY WURTH - WA1FR PROuRAM ulRFC1OR
Food & Water Watchs water program combines policy expertise, research, strategic
communications, litigation and grassroots organizing to advocate for public control
of water resources and services, strong conservation measures and tough regulation
of toxic emissions. The policies we promote will result in safe and affordable drinking
water for everyone and ensure that our water resources are managed in the
public interest as a shared common resource.
Can you talk about the purpose of the
water program at Food & Water Watch?
Water is literally our most essential resource. Life cannot exist without it. Yet we are
increasingly dealing with an economic system that wants to commodify it and treat it as
just another resource, to be governed by the supply-and-demand dictates of the market.
So, we are very concerned about the increasing trend of privatization of our water resourc-
es. This includes multinational corporations, which are increasingly interested in taking
over our public drinking water and sewer systems to generate profit for their sharehold-
ers. Were also concerned about the botled water industry and the oil and gas industry
extracting our essential groundwater and surface water and using it for their profit. Thats
why were working to safeguard our essential water resources through a combination of
research, policy advocacy and grassroots organizing.
Progress in our campaigns for clean water for all:
Increased the number of Take Back the Tap student campaigns to its highest total ever, with
student leaders at 60 campuses. With our new system of regular training workshops for new student
leaders, we expect this number to grow.
Announced the formation of new coalitions to ban fracking: New Yorkers Against Fracking
launched in New York State in March 2012, and Americans Against Fracking, a national coalition to
ban fracking, launched in December 2012.
Organized the Global Frackdown, a massive day of action to ban fracking. On this single day,
September 22, actions took place across the world, with over 200 actions in 20 countries across ve
continents. The day of action was endorsed by 180 organizations.
Helped to get an effective indenite fracking moratorium passed in the Vermont legislature.
Played an important role in the New Jersey Legislatures passing, with overwhelming bi-par-
tisan support, of a ban on fracking waste dumping, treatment and storage in the state, which awaits
the governors signature.
Ofcially launched our statewide ban fracking campaign in California, which very quickly
garnered the support of over 55,000 Californians who signed the petition calling on Governor Jerry
Brown to ban fracking in the state.
Passed a historic ballot measure in the City of Longmont, Colorado, which has fundamentally
changed the conversation around fracking in the state.
Won at least a partial victory when the California legislature voted again to delay the vote on
the $11 billion water bond slated for the November ballot, although our preference would have been
for the bond to be permanently repealed rather than delayed. This will have to be a more complete
victory in 2014.
What are some of the most important things
that your team has accomplished this year?
Over the past year, we expanded our campaign against botled water, Take Back the Tap.
Over the past 30 years, water is increasingly being extracted from local communities,
packaged into plastic botles and then re-sold at an incredible markup. As part of their
marketing, these companies have implicitly and explicitly sold the notion that public wa-
ter is not safe. Through Take Back the Tap, we are educating people about the importance
of investing in and drinking tap water and dispelling the myths that the slick advertising of
the botled water industry has put out there. So, we work on college campuses across the
country, and last year we expanded our Take Back the Tap program to over 60 campuses.
While all of the work to protect our water is important, our biggest campaign has been our
national and state eforts to ban fracking. Fracking is an incredibly important issue, as it
sits at the intersection of our food and water issues. Most importantly, stopping fracking
and the multi-billion (if not trillion) dollar investment in yet more fossil fuels is absolutely
critical for us to combat climate change and begin the real investments we need in clean,
renewable energy and in conservation. Fortunately, we are really beginning to have an
impact in changing the national debate about fracking and our future.
Food & Water Watch was the first national organization to come out for a ban on fracking
in the summer of 2011. We were standing in solidarity with the grassroots groups across
the country that said, We just
dont want this in our commu-
nity. But it was prety lonely.
There were not many groups
who had decided they would join
us in making that strong demand
and asking for really what they
believe in. But by the end of
2012, we formed a national coali-
tion with key allies across the country including 350.org, CREDO, Democracy for America,
as well as over 200 grassroots and state organizations to form Americans Against Fracking,
a national coalition for a ban.
We worked with our allies in New York State, which has really been ground-zero for the
fight against fracking. There has been incredible energy from the grassroots groups in
New York State over the past five years, coming together and making it politically impossi-
ble for Governor Cuomo to move forward with fracking. And forming New Yorkers Against
Fracking last March was definitely a highlight of 2012. We believe that we will ultimately
keep fracking from coming to New York through working with our allies there.
By the end of 2012, we formed a national
coalition with key allies across the country
including 350.org, CREDO, Democracy for
America, as well as over 200 grassroots and
state organizations to form Americans Against
Fracking, a national coalition for a ban.
We are puting the same kind of energy and efort into states around the country, like Col-
orado, California, Ohio, North Carolina, Maryland and others. We are finding that frack-
ing cuts across partisan political lines when it is in peoples backyards, they really dont
want it to happen. Im most encouraged, however, by the fact that more and more people
who dont live in an area that might be fracked are geting involved and working with us
to stop fracking. They understand that fracking for every last drop of fossil fuel is a threat
to everybody.
Can you talk about the Global Frackdown?
In 2012, we held the first-ever international day of action against fracking: the Global
Frackdown. We had more than 200 actions in 20 countries across the world on five difer-
ent continents. And, that was a very powerful day of action to show that this is not just a
national environmental movement this is an international movement, and really one of
the leading environmental movements in the world.
What are some of the challenges that you face in your
work, and what frustrates you most in accomplishing it?
Well, were going up against some of the most powerful industries out there. The oil and
gas industry has all the money at its disposal that it needs for flashy advertising cam-
paigns, as well as to work in every state across the country. And all of these fights are hap-
pening at the state level. So a challenge is keeping up with all of the work. For instance, we
now see that fracking is being used for oil
in California thats a real potential threat
there and something that we expect to
work on intensively in 2013.
Then theres the challenge of going up
against the tremendous amount of money
that the oil and gas industry has at its dis-
posal to work against our eforts. Theres no
beter example of that than in Longmont,
Colorado, where the community decided that it did not want fracking, and local residents
wanted to have a ban, and they took it to the ballot in November 2012. The industry spent
almost half a million dollars, in this one small municipality in Colorado, in an efort to keep
the community from passing an ordinance to zone out industrial oil and gas fracking. And
although fighting the industry was a major challenge, it was also a great victory because, in
the end, the hard work of the community coming together and working and organizing at
the grassroots level, and educating their friends and neighbors, ended up being successful,
Were going up against some of the
most powerful industries out there. The
oil and gas industry has all the money
at its disposal that it needs for flashy
advertising campaigns, as well as to
work in every state across the country.
and Longmont passed the first ban on fracking in Colorado. So we try to turn challenges
into opportunities and victories at Food & Water Watch.
Another issue we face is that many environmental organizations for years have promoted
natural gas as part of their energy plan. Its been a real challenge for us at Food & Water
Watch coming out for a ban, because many
environmental groups are working instead
to get stronger regulations on this industry.
Thats been very dificult for our work in
states where some in the environmental
community have been quick to compromise
rather than to take on the entrenched power
of the oil and gas industry. Our botom line is diferent we are fighting for what we need
over the long term to protect our essential resources and to avert climate change.
Whats your background and what
brought you to Food & Water Watch?
I have a masters degree in public health, and when I was in public health school I was
struck by the fact that some of my classmates were very interested in individual-level
behavior change for instance, to try to get people to quit smoking so that they had
beter health outcomes. I was always interested in how to make higher-level policy change
that would afect more people. So when I found out about Food & Water Watch, I was so
pleased to be able to find work that is trying to reform the policies over the long term that
will improve health outcomes to safeguard our water and to increase food safety and the
healthfulness of the food that we eat. So thats why I work here.
Our bottom line is different we are
fg|ting for w|at we need over t|e
long term to protect our essential
resources and to avert climate change.
Listen to an excerpt of this conversation at http://fwwat.ch/1gCmAGa
Whats the purpose of the Common Resources Program?
What were trying to do is fight the trend that we see in public policy toward privatizing our common re-
sources and essentially auctioning them of to the highest bidder instead of keeping them truly common.
Some organizations, particularly some
environmental organizations, advocate for market-based
solutions to things like pollution and water scarcity.
Why is Food & Water Watch against these approaches?
Although some other green groups support such privatization schemes (these market-based solutions,
or what we call pay-to-pollute solutions for pollution), Food & Water Watch is opposed to them because
they allow pollution to continue. They allow it to go more-or-less unregulated, and they allow the people
who have the ability to pay to continue to pollute. The real problem here is that they do it under the guise
In 2012, Food & Water Watch merged our Fish Program and our work to protect the
oceans into a new Common Resources Program to continue working to protect our
oceans and expand our work to take on new issues, like trade deals and pollution
trading schemes that commodify our most essential shared resources. Through
our Common Resources Program, we combine policy expertise, research, strategic
communications, litigation and grasstops organizing to advocate for managing
our essential common resources in the public interest, not for private gain.
COMMON RESOURCES
AND OUR FUTURE
MITCH JONES - COMMON RFSOURCFS PROuRAM ulRFC1OR
of reducing pollution, but we see no evidence that these programs actually work. In fact,
weve looked across a spectrum of types of pollution (from pollution of our waterways to
pollution of our air), and we havent found a single instance where one of these pay-to-pol-
lute schemes has actually lived up to the marketing by reducing pollution in any meaning-
ful way. However, it has been great for the botom lines of some of the polluters.
So what we advocate instead is, If you want to reduce pollution, reduce pollution. We
tell people that they have to get higher fuel-economy standards, that they have to reduce
pollution from the end of a smokestack on a factory. But what you cant do is simply put
a price on pollution. At the end of the day, large companies have the money to aford to
continue to pollute. And all theyre doing by creating these markets is creating a new place
for financial interests, such as Wall Street firms, to get involved in speculating in these
new markets. We see this already with carbon markets that have been created across the
country, with folks looking to invest in those schemes in a speculative way, hoping that the
prices will rise and theyll be able to make money of of them.
W|at does t|e tern "fnancialization of nature" nean?
Financialization of nature is a rather unfortunate term that was coined outside the Unit-
ed States. A lot of our international allies have been working for a long time against pay-
to-pollute schemes to privatize environmental regulation, which have been used primarily
in the Global South as a means to privatize common resources in the guise of pollution
reduction or forest protection. And what this does is to
put a monetary value, a price, on nature. Whether its a
forest, carbon pollution, clean air or clean water, we put
a price on it. And when we put a price on it, we create a
market for it and then we also privatize it.
So we take a forest that was communal, and, because of
a desire to protect it, we give it a dollar value of say, 50
billion dollars or 50 billion Euros. We then allow private
actors like companies or governments to come in and
begin buying the right to protect part of it, which gives
them a monetary value or stake. And on top of that is
then built a financial infrastructure of speculative deals very similar to the ones that we
saw leading up the financial crisis of 2007/8, where futures contracts, options contracts,
credit default swaps, the whole range of these so-called innovative financial instruments
that collapsed our economy, are being transferred from the housing market to these new
environmental markets for carbon or to protect our forests.
What this does is to put a
monetary value, a price, on
nature. Whether its a forest,
carbon pollution, clean air or
clean water, we put a price on
it. And when we put a price
on it, we create a market for it
and then we also privatize it.
What is the most important thing or
things your team accomplished this year?
Weve been able to bring together other organizations here in Washington and across the
country to talk about how were going to turn back against this market-based pay-to-
pollute system in order to put some energy behind what we know works: If you want to
reduce pollution, reduce pollution and do that by developing new technologies that have
less output of pollution than old technologies.
What issues are you currently focused on,
and what is your team prioritizing now?
We have become alarmed by some new global trade deals that are being negotiated, and
weve added those to our portfolio of issues on our Common Resources team. In particular,
we have deep concerns about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is currently made
up of 12 member nations negotiating a so-called
Free Trade Act for the Pacific Rim. We are con-
cerned about the ability of these nations to have
food safety standards that meet our own. In fact,
we know that even now, without these free trade
agreements, theres a problem with unsafe food
being shipped in from these countries. This is
particularly troubling when it comes to the fish
that we import from these countries, especially the shellfish. We know that they are raised
with drugs such as antibiotics that would be illegal to use here but are legally used there.
Beyond that, we know that the TPP is a corporate power grab. It establishes a new re-
gime under which corporations are given equal status to countries, and corporations can
sue governments both at the national and local level to overturn laws intended to protect
the public and the environment that violate the terms of this trade agreement. And many
people dont know that a trade agreement is essentially a treaty which means that it
trumps any domestic law. A similar agreement is being negotiated with the European
Union. What we would like to do over the next year is work on fighting against these trade
deals, and we are working with a variety of organizations across the U.S. to do that.
How do these trade deals affect our communities?
The TPP and the EU-US free trade agreement are dangerous primarily because they can
undermine our laws that protect us. For example, a lot of localities are passing laws to ban
fracking. Unfortunately, a lot of the companies that are pursuing fracking in the U.S. have
We have become alarmed by some
new global trade deals that are
being negotiated, and weve added
those to our portfolio of issues on
our Common Resources team.
P
H
O
T
O

B
Y

S
U
S
A
N

W
O
Z
N
Y
foreign investors or are foreign owned. Under these trade deals, they would be able to sue
local governments, claiming that they are having their right to exploit this natural resource
undermined by the local bans. And they would either be able to seek to overturn those
local bans or to seek monetary compensation from the localities because theyre not able
to frack for natural gas. We see this has already happened under NAFTA [the North Amer-
ican Free Trade Agreement] in Canada, where a locality is being sued in Qebec for not
allowing fracking. It will mean that our atempts to fight against this inherently dangerous
process will be undermined by trade deals and treaties that trump American law.
A lot of this work that you do on the Common
Resources team seems pretty complicated.
Can you talk about why its so important that our
members and our volunteers get engaged on them?
I think its vital that Food & Water Watch members and supporters get engaged in the
common resources issues, for a number of reasons. One, at the end of the day, when we
talk about these global trade deals, when we talk about the privatization of our common
resources, this afects every citizen
and the way that theyre able to live
and protect their own families. These
deals make it more dificult for a family,
locality or community to establish the
rules and laws they want, to make sure
that their air is clean, that their water is
drinkable, and that their food is safe. So
when our members take action to convince policymakers to not move forward with global
trade deals that undermine our ability to protect ourselves, and to not move forward with
pay-to-pollute systems that just mean that were going to continue to dirty our waterways,
this is important because it actually protects us, where we live, our families, our kids, our
loved ones.
Can you tell us a bit about why the
connodifcation of water is a oad trend?
The commodification of water, such as through botled water, is a bad trend for citizens
because its taking a human right the right to water, which we believe is a common
resource that should be held in the public trust and giving it away to private companies,
whether they be private water botlers or (in the future) financial speculators in the water
market. The chief economist at Citibank has writen recently about his desire to create a
T|ese deals nake it nore diffcult for a
family, locality or community to establish
the rules and laws they want, to make
sure that their air is clean, that their water
is drinkable, and that their food is safe.
worldwide water market, which would be similar to the oil market that we already have,
but would be larger, he says, than the oil, wheat, gold and silver markets combined.
What were talking about is taking our water resources, privatizing them, giving them to
private companies (in this case, banks and hedge funds) and allowing them to trade the
water in an open market. Now, we already know what happens with the volatility of oil
prices: gas prices fall and rise, it becomes more
expensive for people to get to work and to do the
things they need to do. Imagine what happens
when we do that with water: were not talking
about the ability to conveniently get from place A
to B were talking about, next to air, the most
essential thing we need to keep ourselves alive.
And the idea that were going to create a global
market, with a price that will fluctuate wildly
and will be controlled primarily by banks on Wall
Street, is appalling, because what it means is that
your ability to get water for cooking, cleaning
and drinking is going to be determined not by our
local governments or a local rate board, but instead by somebody working on Wall Street
speculating on the future price of water for growing coton in the desert or botling water
in India. And that is a terribly frightening prospect. But again, we know that this is being
thought about because the chief economist at Citibank has said so publicly. This is the
dream: a global water market, like the oil market. We cant allow that to happen.
What it means is that your ability to
get water for cooking, cleaning and
drinking is going to be determined
not by our local governments or
a local rate board, but instead by
somebody working on Wall Street
speculating on the future price of
water for growing cotton in the
desert or bottling water in India.
Listen to an excerpt of this conversation at http://fwwat.ch/1accGcQ
Youve sued the federal government over the pollution-trading
provisions in its plan to clean the Chesapeake Bay. Whats a
better solution to factory farm pollution?
The Clean Water Act has been in place now for over four decades, and throughout that time weve man-
aged to clean up almost every industry paper mills, coal-fired power plants, manufacturers by having
enforcement and permiting and all the things that have shown to be a real benefit to our waterways.
These industries have to comply with laws, they have to comply with inspections, they have to go out and
monitor their waste. They have to operate in completely transparent manners, and in ways that enable
citizens to engage ways that empower the people of the United States to go out and force these indus-
tries to clean up the waterways. The exception has been agriculture. For years now, we have come up with
very creative and inefective ways to try to deal with agricultural pollution. Its no coincidence that agricul-
ture is the largest source of pollution in this country. And it remains the most highly unregulated source of
pollution in the country.
LEGAL ADVOCACY FOR
OUR FOOD AND WATER
SCOTT EDWARDS - CO-ulRFC1OR, FOOu 8 WA1FR )US1lCF PRO)FC1
In late 2011, Food & Water Watch launched a new legal advocacy project,
Food & weter Justce.Food & Water Justice is bringing a new, complementary
approach to our already very successful community organizing, policy and
legislative work. Through Food & Water Justice, we are using the courts
as a vehicle for positive change by designing and implementing litigation
and regulatory strategies to protect our food and water.
Pollution trading was created by folks who want to deregulate not only the ag industry,
but all industries, by creating this market-based approach. It follows on the heels of de-
cades of voluntary approaches for ag pollution. Everything from manure transfer pro-
grams to cost-share programs, all kinds of funding for these voluntary programs that have
done nothing to clean up agriculture. It
continues to plague our waterways with
tremendous amounts of lots of diferent
kinds of pollutants.
At Food & Water Watch, we think that
if you want to clean up agriculture, the
answer is obvious: you do what youve
done with coal-fired power plants, you
do what youve done with paper mills,
with manufacturing systems. You imple-
ment permiting systems, transparency,
all the things that have proven successful. And, in a mater of years, you will start to see
fundamental changes in the way agriculture operates, in the way that it pollutes or hope-
fully doesnt pollute. And you create a much more successful system of pollution control
than you will ever get with something like water pollution trading.
What is the purpose of the
Food & Water Justice Program?
Qite frankly, weve seen in too many cases that the legislative branch of government
seems to be doing whats best for re-election, and not necessarily whats best for the coun-
try (or the state, county or city for that mater). We think that the judiciary branch plays
an important role here too. If you look back to many of our movements, especially the civil
rights movement, some of the Supreme Courts decisions were instrumental in promoting
civil rights. Grassroots movements and legislative change were important too, but the
judiciary branch was an integral part of change. We dont think it operates in a vacuum,
of course. We think that lawsuits are best brought in combination with grassroots activ-
ity and community work. But we think litigation can be a very powerful tool. So Food &
Water Justice looks to implement and to use that tool where we can to promote the work
of Food & Water Watch.
At Food & Water Watch, we think that
if you want to clean up agriculture, the
answer is obvious: you do what youve
done wit| coalfred power plants, you do
what youve done with paper mills, with
manufacturing systems. You implement
permitting systems, transparency, all the
things that have proven successful.
that your team accomplished this year?
When my partner Michele Merkel and I came to Food & Water Watch, we had for years
been looking at this issue of water pollution trading. To us, what seemed to be a hugely
detrimental impact on our waterways surprisingly was supported by most of the envi-
ronmental community. If you look at the Chesapeake Bay, where water pollution trading
has really taken hold through the Bay TMDL (essentially the Chesapeake Bay clean up
plan), we faced a tremendous amount of opposition from groups that otherwise have been
somewhat good on the environment. So I would say that our biggest success to date is the
fact that, despite all that adversity, we were able to get a complaint filed in federal court
challenging trading. Im proud to say that ours was the first challenge to this whole new
approach to water quality and pollution control.
Can you talk about the biggest challenges
youve faced this year and what frustrates you?
There are several challenges in doing this work, as everybody here knows. I think, increas-
ingly, some of the big national groups seem to be in a mode in which political expediency
has overtaken doing whats right. Its becoming harder and harder to stand up for whats
truly right and for what is best for the people, for
communities, for our waterways. Because now,
when you look at the environmental movement,
its about cuting deals. Its about doing whats
more palatable to the ruling parties. Its about
geting what you might be able to get, as opposed
to what you want or what you need.
And its not just in water pollution trading we
see it in the industrial agriculture work we do, we
see it in fracking. We see too many groups that
are always willing to really compromise more
than we should if we really care about the environment and our future. At this point, we
cant aford business as usual we must fight for whats right. I started this work years
and years ago, and we were always up against the polluters or industry or sometimes gov-
ernment, but now you sometimes find yourself up against other environmental groups as
well. That makes the work a lot more challenging and a lot harder to get done.
I think, increasingly, some of the
big national groups seem to be in a
mode in which political expediency
has overtaken doing whats right.
Its becoming harder and harder to
stand up for whats truly right and
for what is best for the people, for
communities, for our waterways.
P
H
O
T
O

J
E
S
S
I
C
A

R
I
E
H
L
What does Food & Water Justice
hope to accomplish in 2013?
We plan on continuing much of the same work were doing now. We will focus on indus-
trial agricultural systems and trying to reform the ag industry to make it more responsible
and more transparent. Water pollution trading is hugely important and will continue to
be important. There is a hugely important case for us out in Colorado on fracking, where
Longmont democratically enacted a ban on fracking and the industry has stepped in to
try to strip away the democratic rights of the people and community to try to overturn the
ban. So we have a number of legal issues that we hope to win on over the next couple of
years.
What does the support of our members
and our volunteers mean to your program,
and to the work of Food & Water Watch?
The work we do is not done in a vacuum. We dont save and fight for cleaner waterways
just for the waters sake. We fight for communities communities are hugely important
to us and to our work. We are fighting in Longmont
because a group of people there stood up and said:
We dont want fracking in our community. Its
important for us to not have fracking, its import-
ant to us that we raise our children without being
poisoned through fracking waste. And here is an
industry that stepped in to try to undo the will of
the people. So when we have these batles, these batles are being fought for communities,
for our members, for our supporters. Thats the basis for all legal actions.
You were previously involved in a lawsuit against
the chicken processor Perdue. That case was lost,
out can you talk aoout t|e signifcance of it?
In that case, the plaintifs were seeking to hold Perdue accountable for the waste and the
pollution that pours of of its contract farms. And Perdue is not the only company that
does this. All of the big poultry farms Tyson, Sanderson, Smithfield, the rest of the fac-
tory farm industry these industries run these farms and benefit greatly from production.
And at the end of the day, they end up walking away from huge amounts of waste that
pour of of these facilities, saying the pollution is the responsibility of the contract farmer.
These battles are being fought for
communities, for our members,
for our supporters. Thats the
basis for all legal actions.
Well, in most cases Perdue is really running the farm in all but name, and certainly taking
the lions share of the profits. We think this is wrong. So this case was brought by Water-
keeper Alliance to try to name Perdue liable for the pollution thats coming of the contract
farms.
It was Perdues position that they could not be held liable for the pollution coming of the
farm. And the court completely rejected that position and said no, under a certain set of
facts, the law allows you to be liable. So that was a
hugely important ruling. Now, the court ultimately
decided that the set of facts in this particular case
wasnt there, but we think that the case sends a
clear message that liability is on the table now to
an industry thats been operating as if it can never
be liable. The Perdue case was the beginning of a
process, and its like many other cases: you rarely
knock it out of the park on the first case. Ultimately,
the court decided against us, but its a beginning,
and its not over yet. And we are still confident that
its only a mater of time before this industry is held accountable for its waste. Its the right
thing to do. Its right under the law, and its the right thing for our waterways and our
communities.
We are still confdent t|at it's
only a matter of time before this
industry is held accountable
for its waste. Its the right thing
to do. Its right under the law,
and its the right thing for our
waterways and our communities.
Listen to an excerpt of this conversation at http://fwwat.ch/1ig1bo4
Why does the work of the International Program matter?
The international work at Food & Water Watch is
so essential because the issues that we are address-
ing are systemic. From too much money in politics
to corporate influence, theyre the same issues at
the local, the state and the federal level that we are
also seeing internationally in global institutions like
the United Nations and the World Bank and also in
other countries. The corporate campaigns that we are
fighting, whether its Chevron and Shell and others
doing fracking in the U.S. and abroad, or Monsanto,
or Suez and Veolia who are privatizing water systems all of their strategies are similar around
the world. So if we can address these issues at a systemic level, then our campaigns are much
stronger.
Whats the purpose of your program?
The purpose of our international program at Food & Water Watch is twofold. On the one hand, we
aim to educate the U.S. audience about whats happening internationally about a variety of food
and water and natural resource issues. And likewise, internationally, we want to raise awareness
about whats happening in the United States. For example, with an issue like fracking, which of
course started here in the U.S., weve had years of experience now in developing campaigns and
counter-talking points against the industry that we can share with our colleagues abroad who are
now facing fracking just arriving to their countries.
BRIDGING
ACTIVISM GLOBALLY
DARCEY OCALLAGHAN - lN1FRNA1lONAL PROuRAM ulRFC1OR
The corporate campaigns that we
are fg|ting, w|et|er it's C|evron and
Shell and others doing fracking in the
U.S. and abroad, or Monsanto, or Suez
and Veolia who are privatizing water
systems all of their strategies are
similar around the world.
your team accomplished this year?
One of our big accomplishments this year has been the release of the Biotech Ambassa-
dors report, which has taken apart the U.S. strategy to promote biotechnology and genet-
ically modified organisms abroad. We spent the past year developing a massive database
showing how this is being pushed systematically. We combed through the WikiLeaks
cablegate database and found 926 cables that specifically were referencing U.S. embassies
eforts to promote biotechnology. Everything from influencing policy decision making
around labeling in places like Hong Kong, to helping to support the development of non-
governmental organizations in countries like Hungary and Peru.
What is your team prioritizing right now?
Right now were looking at a couple of key areas, one being the expansion of fracking
internationally and the other being the issue of the Sustainable Development Goals, which
are the follow-up to the
Millennium Development
Goals in the UN system.
The Sustainable Devel-
opment Goals are really
important because this
is where we are seeing
the merging of economic
development internationally with environmental sustainability. And because theres a lot
of corporate influence in this policy space, its really important that were at the table and
were making sure that communities voices are heard.
Food & Water Watch is one of the few
organizations in the United States educating
people about the human right to water.
Could you tell us why that issue is important?
In 2010, the global water justice movement won a huge victory when the UN General As-
sembly passed a resolution in support of the human right to water. This is something that
we had been working on for over 10 years, and its been a tool that we can use globally to
ensure that people are seeing their human rights met. And water privatization is an issue
not only around the world and in developing countries, but also in the U.S., which a lot
Right now were looking at a couple of key areas,
one being the expansion of fracking internationally
and the other being the issue of the Sustainable
Development Goals, which are the follow-up to the
Millennium Development Goals in the UN system.
of people dont know. We ofen see communities in the South, or poor rural communities,
communities of color, that dont have access to their daily right-to-water needs. And we
are increasingly seeing multinational corporations atempting to buy up water rights and
puting themselves in direct competition with local users.
How do you work with other
organizations to achieve our goals?
Because our international program is
small, we have to base our work on
where there is momentum globally and
where there are strongest eforts on the
ground. So, all of our work is deeply
rooted in coalitions and grassroots work.
For example, we were a core member of
creating the Red Vida, the water jus-
tice network of the Americas. And its now looked at around the world as one of the best
examples of continent-wide coalition work. So weve supported each others campaigns
around the right to water and around keeping water in public hands.
We were a core member of creating the
Red Vida, the water justice network of the
Americas. And its now looked at around
the world as one of the best examples of
continent-wide coalition work.
Listen to an excerpt of this conversation at http://fwwat.ch/177KypZ
n order to maintain our independence, Food & Water Watch
does not accept corporate or government contributions.
We are grateful to our 38,560 members in 2012 who provided generous support without
which our success would not be possible. Our supporters include the following foundations:
11
th
Hour Project
Allstadt Hardin Foundation
Bellwether
Berkshire Taconic Community Foundation
Boston Foundation
Dr. Bronners Family Foundation
The Brightwater Fund
Cloud Mountain Foundation
Columbus Foundation
Compton
Franklin Conklin Foundation
Dale Family Fund of San Francisco Foundation
Bob & Eileen Gilman Family Foundation
Greater Kansas City Foundation
Haberman Foundation
Hahn Family Foundation
Hickory Foundation
Kaufman Family Foundation
Maine Community Foundation
Merrill Family Charitable Foundation
Metabolic Studio
McKnight
New World Foundation
Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation
Park Foundation
Rose Foundation
Sustainable Markets Foundation
Tikvah Fund of Tides
The Walrath Family Foundation
The Westport Fund
EXPENSES
PROGRAM
Food $3,957,967
Water $4,236,958
Common
Resources
$815,419
TOTAL PROGRAM $9,010,344
MANAGEMENT $1,740,091
FUND RAISING $751,105
TOTAL EXPENSES $11,501,540
NCOME
Grants and Contributions $11,830,628
Interest Income $95,826
Program Fees $63,618
Other $14,474
TOTAL INCOME $12,004,546
ENDING
NET ASSETS
as of December 31, 2012
$6,124,068
2012 FNANCAL NFORMATON
FOOD & WATER EUROPE
BRUSSELS, BELGIUM
Rde D Fd|nbodr 2o
Frdsse|s 1CSC Fe||dn
tel: 2 ,C) 28 1C=S fax: +32 894 46 10
NATIONAL OFFICE
1616 P St. NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
|e| ,2C2) o82SCC ax ,2C2) o82SC1
foodandwaterwatch.org
LOS ANGELES, CA
CCC S Rober|son F|vd, Sd||e 2SS
Los /ne|es, C/ CC=
tel: ,2) 8=8=SC fax: (323) 843-8456
OAKLAND, CA
181= Fran|||n S|ree|, Sd||e 11CC
Ca||and, C/ =o12
tel: ,S1C) 22C72C fax: (510) 922-0723
DENVER, CO
1So \yn|oop S|ree|, Sd||e oCC
Denver, CC 8C2C2
tel: ,72C) ==7SCS fax: (720) 449-7509
FT. LAUDERDALE, FL
1C== NF 1S|h /vende
For| Ladderda|e, FL C=
tel: (954) 372-1881
CHICAGO, IL
811 \ Fverreen /vende, Sd||e =C1
Chicago, IL 60642
tel: ,77) 7ooC8o fax: (773) 796-6087
DES MOINES, IA
SCS F||h /vende, Sd||e 818
Des Moines, IA 50309
tel: ,S1S) ===8= fax: (515) 344-4934
PORTLAND, ME
533 Congress Street
Por||and, MF C=1C1
tel: ,2C7) o1S8=S fax: (207) 619-5846
DETROIT, MI
2727 Second /vende, Sd||e 1o
Detroit, MI 48201
tel: ,1) =8o1So fax: (313) 486-1357
NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ
100 Bayard Street, Suite 202
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
tel: ,72) 8C8oC fax: (202) 683-4926
ALBUQUERQUE, NM
7804 Pan American East Freeway NE #2
/|bdqderqde, NM 871C
tel: ,SCS) o7oo fax: (505) 633-7387
NEW YORK, NY
68 Jay Street, Suite 713
Froo||yn, N` 112C1
tel: ,718) =C8S fax: (718) 989-3928
DURHAM, NC
8C1 C||ber| S|ree|, Sd||e 2C=
Durham, NC 27701
tel: ,1) 7=o8C fax: (919) 794-6381
CINCINNATI, OH
1C \||||an H Ta| Road
C|nc|nna||, CH =S21
tel: ,S1) =o2S7 fax: (513) 394-6258
PORTLAND, OR
17 S\ Ca| S|ree|, Sd||e =C=
Por||and, CR 72CS
tel: ,71) 2oo=S28 fax: (971) 266-4532
PHILADELPHIA, PA
232 S. 4th Street, Suite 1F
Ph||ade|ph|a, P/ 11Co
tel: ,2o7) =281C fax: (267) 428-1913
REGIONAL OFFICES

Food & Water Watch 2012 Annual Report

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Food & Water Watch 2012 Annual Report

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

PHOTO BY SUSAN WOZNY

works to ensure the food, water and fsh we consume is safe,

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi

Food &amp; Water Watch 2012 Annual Report

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Food &amp; Water Watch 2012 Annual Report

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

PHOTO BY SUSAN WOZNY

works to ensure the food, water and fsh we consume is safe,

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi

Food & Water Watch 2012 Annual Report

Food & Water Watch 2012 Annual Report