Free Flight New Media

ABC 7 I-Team Investigates: Organic Foods At Whole Foods From CHINA!?!

This story is a bit over 2 1/2 years old and time for a detailed, unbiased, follow-up!

WJLA SCRIPT-

ANCHOR:
TONIGHT - AN I-TEAM INVESTIGATION. WHAT DO YOU KNOW KNOW ABOUT ORGANIC FOODS? IT'S PESTICIDE FREE AND MORE EXPENSIVE...BUT IT'S WORTH IT... RIGHT? NOT NECESSARILY. WOULD YOU BELIEVE *ORGANICALLY GROWN* IN CHINA? HOW ORGANIC CAN THAT BE? THE I-Team's ROBERTA BASKIN HAS BEEN INVESTIGATING AND HAS QUESTIONS FOR ONE MAJOR FOOD CHAIN. 

ROBERTA IN STUDIO:
WHOLE FOODS… IT'S THE LEADING FOOD RETAILER SELLING THE IMAGE THAT LOCAL AND ORGANIC IS BETTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND BETTER FOR YOU. BUT IS THAT …IN FACT…WHAT THE CUSTOMER IS GETTING? 

STORY:
WITH 175 STORES… WHOLE FOODS IS THE UNDISPUTED LEADER IN ORGANIC FOODS AND PROMOTES "LOCALLY GROWN." BUT THE I-TEAM HAS FOUND THAT MUCH OF WHOLE FOODS ORGANICS… ARE IMPORTED FROM CHINA. 

  

ABC 7 Talkback:
Click Here to Comment on this Story

Shopper: “Honestly I never would have flipped it over to see that it was from China.” 

SPINACH…. SUGAR SNAP PEAS… AND WOULD YOU BELIEVE CALIFORNIA BLEND VEGETABLES? ALL LISTED UNDER THE WHOLE FOODS BRAND "365 ORGANIC." AND ON THE BACK IN SMALL PRINT… PRODUCT OF CHINA. 

ORGANIC ENSURES NO CHEMICAL PESTICIDES AND ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY CONDITIONS. BUT HOW DO WE EVEN KNOW THE FOOD IS ORGANIC? FOODS SOLD IN THIS COUNTRY MUST BE APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BEFORE THEY CAN DISPLAY THE ORGANIC LABEL. 

"The oversight that they have in China is not the same kind of supervision that we have in the United States."

BUT THE USDA DOESN'T INSPECT IMPORTED FOODS. IT CERTIFIES PRIVATE INSPECTORS TO DO THE JOB. WHOLE FOODS EMPLOYS A COMPANY CALLED QUALITY ASSURANCE INTERNATIONAL. BUT THE COMPANY CONFIRMS "QAI HAS NOT CERTIFIED ANY PRODUCTS IN CHINA." THEY RELY ON ANOTHER CERTIFIER ON THE FARM. YET THERE'S THE QAI CERTIFICATION SEAL… THE USDA SEAL…. AND PRODUCT OF CHINA…ALL ON THE SAME WHOLE FOODS PACKAGE. 

Linda Greer: "So you have to ask yourself the question, how would they ever know if the organic rules are being followed?"

LINDA GREER IS A SENIOR SCIENTIST AT THE NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, AN ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCACY GROUP. SHE'S BEEN TO FARMS IN CHINA. 

Linda Greer: "I wouldn’t buy something organic from China with the idea that it’s truly organic." 
BASKIN: "Why not?" 
LG: "The reason is we’ve had such a difficult time tracking things."

THERE'S GROWING CONCERN ABOUT THE QUALITY OF FOOD FROM CHINA. ALREADY THIS YEAR THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION WHICH CHECKS FOR FOOD SAFETY STOPPED 260 SHIPMENTS OF FOODS LIKE STRAWBERRIES CONTAMINATED WITH BAD PESTICIDES, BACTERIA OR FILTH. 

Linda Greer: "I think it’s probably not an accident that product of China is in such small type."

THE I-TEAM OBTAINED THIS INTERNAL COMPANY DOCUMENT FROM WHOLE FOODS LISTING THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN FOR HUNDREDS OF ITS PRODUCTS…DOZENS OF ORGANICS….MANY FROM CHINA…EVERYTHING FROM ASPARAGUS SPEARS TO PINE NUTS TO CREAMY PEANUT BUTTER. WHOLE FOODS WOULDN'T ALLOW OUR CAMERAS IN ITS STORE, SO WE BOUGHT THE PRODUCTS AND STEPPED OUTSIDE TO SHOW SHOPPERS. 

Mom: "It's definitely misleading. If they were proud of it being from China, they would be, it would be prominently displayed on the front. I’m sure." 

SHOPPERS WE TALKED TO WERE MOST SURPRISED BY WHOLE FOODS ORGANIC CALIFORNIA BLEND OF CAULIFLOWER, CARROTS, AND BROCCOLI. 

"If they're going to put into bold "California" on the label, they shouldn't put China in fine print on the back."

WE ALSO WENT TO THE FRESHFARM MARKETS AT DUPONT CIRCLE… WHERE PEOPLE TAKE THEIR ORGANIC FOOD VERY SERIOUSLY. 

Zachariah "Oh, but it’s from China, what a travesty." 

"Product of China! Whoa, look at that!"

BREAKING: California’s small businesses barely affected by AB 32 Report: Year's worth of tortillas to cost mere pennies more!

Study after study shows that AB 32, California’s landmark climate change law, will benefit the economy and help business.  A new report from The Brattle Group shows that AB 32 and a Renewable Energy Standard will have a minimal effect on most businesses while fostering innovation and investment in clean tech industries that will ultimately create more jobs.

PRNewswire has the story:.

The message of the report is clear: “we find that even making extreme assumptions about the range of possible energy price increases that might result from AB 32 the impact on a typical California small business remains negligible.” In fact, the potential cost impact of AB 32 was found to be well within the range of year-to-year variation in historic energy costs.  Inflation will cause far more significant price increases than meeting emissions targets and implementing a statewide Renewable Energy Standard or carbon trading system.

The Brattle study calculated the potential implications of emission reduction targets and an RES on energy prices on revenue streams and profit margins of small businesses.  This is an updated version of a report completed in 2009 that uses newly released energy price data to provide the most accurate projections under different scenarios.

AB 32’s Potential Effect on Energy Prices

On average, California’s 700,000+ small businesses (those generating maximum annual revenue of $7 million) are currently spending 1.4% of their revenues on energy. If AB 32 were suspended with the passage of Proposition 23 in November, the price of electricity, transportation fuel and natural gas are still expected to increase significantly between 2010 and 2020 due to inflation, scarcity and other factors.

Average electricity rates are expected to increase from 13.3 cents per kWh in 2008 to between 20.6 cents and 21.8 cents by 2020 (in nominal terms assuming 2.5% annual inflation), representing an increase of 55% to 64% without implementation of an RES.  By contrast, enforcement of the a 33% RES is predicted to result in an additional average rate increase of only 1.21 cents per kWh, or a 9% increase relative to 2008 rates. The effect of inflation and other “normal” market forces generate price increases that are five to six times as severe as the imposition of an RES.

Mercado International 2010: A Case Study

Brattle chose to examine Mercado International as a case study example precisely because its higher-than-average energy intensity to illustrate the negligible effects of AB 32 on small grocers and food vendors, a very competitive business sector with razor thin profit margins.  The case study showed that, “Even using pessimistic assumptions about energy price increases, the entire impact of AB 32 on the grocery store can be completely offset by retail price increases of, at most, 0.1 percent—so small as to be virtually unnoticeable to customers.”

Mercado International, located in Chula Vista, is a Mexican food and beverage store that sells meat, produce, and other products in addition to preparing specialty menu items. Average energy intensity for the food and beverage sector in California is 2.1% of revenue, slightly higher than the state average of 1.5%. Based on the study’s projections, Mercado’s energy costs will increase from 1.9% of revenues in 2009 to 2.7% in 2020, reflecting higher inflation in energy costs, in particular of gasoline and electricity, in the absence of AB 32. Implementation of AB 32 is projected to add an additional 0.08% to 2.67% according to the conservative case; and an additional 0.55% to 3.14% in the extreme case.

The store can easily recover these minor cost increases without alienating customers or sacrificing competitiveness because rival grocers will be equally affected by increasing energy prices. For example, Mercado currently sells a pound of tortillas for 59 cents; customers who buy a pound each week will spend roughly $30 per year. Mercado can recover the additional energy costs created by AB 32 by charging customers an additional 3 cents per year. This tiny price increase pales in comparison to the effect of inflation. A typical increase in inflation of 2 percent per year would add $6.57 to the customer’s annual $30 tortilla expenses between 2010 and 2020.

The Bottom Line

Contrary to the gloom and doom forecasts touted by the oil companies that support Proposition 23, The Brattle Group finds that AB 32 will increase electricity rates by a mere 2.46 cents per kWh (11.9%) by 2020. Price increases resulting from these policies will only be between 1 to 5 cents in a given year, an increase that will go unnoticed to consumers. Even under the extreme scenario, the potential cost impact of AB 32 is well within the range of year-to-year variation in historic energy costs.

Opponents of AB 32 (mostly state oil companies) claim that AB 32 will cause irreparable economic damage that will plunge California into a deeper recession with skyrocketing unemployment.  Proposition 23, dubbed by its creators as the California Jobs Initiative, will effectively kill AB 32 by preventing its’ mandates from taking effect until statewide unemployment rates drop to 5.5% for four consecutive quarters.  This has only happened four times in the past 30+ years and current unemployment rates are hovering around 12 percent.

Economists and business leaders agree that clean tech investments will power economic growth in the 21^st century.  California’s landmark climate legislation serves as a guiding light for the rest of the nation (unless you are a wealthy oil tycoon trying to protect your market share). AB 32 will lay the framework for the creation of vibrant new industries that will solidify California’s place as a leader in the global economy.

Here are five things you can do to win this fight:

1. Visit the “No on 23″ website, learn the facts & sign up:  www.StopDirtyEnergyProp.com.
2. Educate yourself on how California’s climate & energy laws have created companies & jobs:  www.CABrightSpot.com.
3. Tell your friends by email, on Facebook, at work, & everywhere else.
4. Participate in the debate. Write letters to the editor and post comments on blogs & websites.
5. Contribute (click here). The other side’s leader, right-wing California Assemblyman Dan Logue, has publicly said he expects the oil companies to spend $50 million.

Read more…

A big hat tip to the folks at Climate Progress

Nevada County, CA - Dan Logue (R), The Face of BIG OIL, Represented County ***** STAinNC.org Fights Dan AND Tom McClintock's Sponsored Proposition 23 -- With Facts

Save The Air in Nevada County (STAinNC.org) was formed in 2006 by residents concerned about high levels of airborne ozone and its deleterious effects, particularly on our children.

For several years now, both the federal EPA and the American Lung Association have ranked Nevada County among the dozen most ozone-polluted counties in the United States.

Ozone is toxic to humans. It irritates the eyes, air passages and lungs. It causes and exacerbates bronchitis and asthma. By 2004, more than one-sixth of Nevada County’s children from infancy to seventeen years suffered from asthma, an incidence significantly higher than the state’s average.

According to public air quality agencies, only a small fraction of our ozone is generated locally. Most of it is transported here through prevailing air currents from the Sacramento Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area.

STAinNC’s mission is to protect our children and ourselves by collecting reliable ozone data, educating the public, and advocating for air pollution control measures. Toward those ends, we obtained non-profit tax status and coverage from the local media, convinced the city councils of Grass Valley and Nevada City to pass supportive resolutions, and convened a regional air pollution summit. We monitor ozone levels in several sites and maintain productive communication with local, state and federal agencies.

As writer of this story and a resident of Nevada County I see this local organization mission -- PROTECTING OUR QUALITY OF LIFE -- the short version of the purpose of STAinNC.org. emphasis on OUR. Mickey Harrington, (D), seeking the Assembly Seat currently held by Dan Logue, (R), can use your vote and the vote of your friends and family and your church members and, well everyone you know. It should be noted that Congressperson Tom McClintock, (R), is partner with Dan Logue in pushing this horrible initiative. SO. It doesn't get any clearer than this....our need for change (of representatives) in our little corner of the world. Now why this organization recommends a no vote on Proposition 23. Comments concerning elected officials or candidates for local office are NOT positions of STAinNC.org.

 

NO ON PROP 23

On November 2 California will vote on Proposition 23, the initiative which, if passed, would stall implementation of a clean air law we badly need, called AB32. Both the American Lung Association and the EPA rank Nevada County in the top dozen counties in the nation for ozone pollution. Ground-level ozone is toxic: one of every six of our children — well above the state incidence — has asthma.

Most of the ozone we breathe results from burning petroleum products. AB32 will decrease our current oil dependence, reduce greenhouse gases and other air pollutants, and result in cleaner air. When this bill was originally passed, it received bipartisan support and was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger.

Proposition 23 proponents, desperate to shift focus away from the toxic effects of air pollutants, claim that AB32 will result in decreased employment, even calling the measure the “California Jobs Initiative.” However, the Clean Economy Network — a coalition of businesses, investors, and other clean energy advocates — recently published a report concluding that Proposition 23 would undermine California’s clean energy industry, jeopardizing a half-million jobs, twelve thousand companies, and billions of dollars in private investment. The uncertainty around Prop 23 has already made investors hesitant to invest in California’s clean energy projects because they sense that the policies that support these new industries may disappear.

Proposition 23 is not a grassroots measure. It’s financed by large oil companies, mainly from out of state, concerned that AB32 will affect their sales. Its biggest boosters are legislators who happen also to be funded by Valero Energy, Occidental Oil, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron.

“California Jobs Initiative?” It ought to be named “Sell Our Children’s Health to Big Oil.” Don’t be misled. Check out the California Air Resources Board’s AB32 information sheet at:

www.climatechange.ca.gov/publications/factsheets/2010-03-01_AB32_Myths.pdf

Proudly supporting the implementation of AB32, STAinNC strongly recommends a “NO” vote on Proposition 23.

 

WHEN YOU ARE IN THE VERY TIP TOP OF HORRIBLE AIR QUALITY (READINGS IN THE TOP 12 OF THE NATION) YOU DON'T NEED YOUR OWN ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES SELLING YOU OUT TO BIG, OUT OF STATE OIL, OR TO ANYONE ELSE, FOR THAT MATTER.

FOR MORE INFORMATION - A PRESENTATION - ON NEVADA COUNTY AIR – click here.

LINK: http://vimeo.com/6918034

More Facts Here: via www.stainnc.org