The U.S. Government Accountability Office, an independent, nonpartisan agency that reports directly to Congress, has published a report that is highly critical of the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture which monitor pesticides in food. The report states:

• monitoring and enforcing pesticide residue tolerances associated with thousands of pesticides currently in use is a formidable task.
• FDA tests for the majority of pesticides that have established tolerances, but the agency does not disclose the pesticides for which it does not test or the potential effect that not testing could have on its detection of violations.
• FDA does not test for several commonly used pesticides, including glyphosate, or disclose the potential effects of not testing for these pesticides.
• though USDA has recently increased the scope of its testing, the agency does not disclose that it does not test for specific pesticides that have tolerances for animal products or their feed or the potential effect of not testing for these pesticides.
• users of the agencies’ annual reports may not have accurate information and may misinterpret the results of the programs.
• the annual pesticide monitoring reports do not reliably reflect the rate at which pesticide violations occur in the U.S. food supply.

The GAO recommends:

• design and implementation of a statistically valid sampling methodology that would gather nationally representative pesticide residue incidence and level data for both domestically produced and imported foods.
• identification of any types of domestic and imported foods that are at high risk for pesticide residue tolerance violations.
• disclosure of all pesticides with EPA-established tolerances which the agency did not test for in its National Residue Program and the potential effect of not testing for those pesticides.
• providing more complete information on the sampling methodology used, such as how the agency identifies and selects states, food distribution centers, and commodities for pesticide residue testing.
• reporting on the extent to which the survey covers commodities in the U.S. food supply and any limitations associated with its survey.

FDA and USDA have agreed with many but not all of the recommendations of the GAO.

A summary and the full report are available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-38

According to a US public opinion poll published this summer by Consumer Reports® National Research Center:

• two-thirds of Americans are checking to see if their food is locally produced.
• the majority of consumers (59%) are also checking to see if their food is natural, though this term is not regulated and may mislead many consumers into thinking it means GMO free.
• the majority of consumers think that the natural or organic label on packaged and processed foods means that no pesticides, artificial ingredients or chemicals, or genetically modified ingredients were used; an even greater amount of consumers feel that this labeling should indicate this.
• US consumers want workers that produced their food to be treated fairly and most are willing to put their money where their mouth is.
• while only half of consumers think a humanely raised claim currently means that the animals were raised without cages, a clear majority of consumers (75%) think these claims should mean this.
• 92% of consumers demand that the government require that genetically engineered salmon be labeled as such.
• for the overwhelming majority of consumers very important or important objectives include supporting local farmers (92% of consumers), protecting the environment from chemicals (89%), fair conditions for workers (86%), reducing exposure to pesticides (87%), good living conditions for animals (80%), and reducing antibiotic use in food (78%). Avoiding GMOs (72% of consumers) and artificial ingredients (69%) are also crucial objectives for many consumers.

The study should make clear to industry that there are lots of votes for politicians to be had in mandating food labelling. The non-profit Consumer Reports has launched campaigns to have the US government ban use of the word ‘natural’ on foods and to require labelling of foods containing genetically modified organisms.

The full public opinion research report, containing much more data about US attitudes towards food, can be found at http://www.greenerchoices.org/pdf/ConsumerReportsFoodLabelingSurveyJune2014.pdf

GallonDaily is not aware of any similar recent Canadian opinion research that is currently publicly available.

A very interesting recent report studies the emerging field of conservation impact investments. Defined by the authors as investments designed to return capital or earn a profit while also driving a measurable positive impact on natural resources and ecosystems, such private sector investments totalled more than $1.9 billion from 2009 through 2013, growing at an average rate of 26% during the period. Survey research found that private investors expect to deploy $1.5 billion of already-raised capital and to raise and invest an additional $4.1 billion from 2014 to 2018.

Conservation impact investments cover such areas as sustainable food and fibre production projects, habitat conservation, and water quantity and quality conservation. The research found the most rapid growth in sustainable agriculture which grew globally from grew more than 600% from 2004-2008 to 2009-2013, increasing from $67 million to $472 million. Sustainable forestry and timber grew much less rapidly, from $504 million to $710 million across the same period.

Among other findings of the research:

• The large majority of the private investments reported were made in projects located in the United States and Canada ($1.6 billion, 82%).
• Although conservation objectives appear to be the leading reason for investing in this sector,
  most investors are also satisfied with financial performance.
• Private equity conservation impact investments have an average target of 10-14.9% internal rate of return.
• The biggest challenge most survey respondents identified was the shortage of deals with the appropriate risk/return profiles. Most investors stated that there is no shortage of capital for good conservation deals.
• Another key challenge is the shortage of management teams with experience in the sector.

Including several case studies, this 81 page report provides some excellent analysis for everyone interested in private sector investment in conservation. It can be found through a link on The Nature Conservancy’s web page at http://www.naturevesttnc.org/Reports/info.html. Authors of the report are from EKO Asset Management Partners and The Nature Conservancy, a US charitable environmental organization, with assistance from a team of advisors.

The 2014 edition of Pack Expo is running in Chicago until Wednesday. Billed as the world’s largest packaging show, and very credibly qualifying for that label based on GallonDaily’s experience, the show is hosted by PMMI The Association for Packaging and Processing Technologies and attracts an estimated 65,000 people over four days. The show is absolutely huge, featuring everything from packaging concepts and machinery to materials and labels (no, Toronto, your beloved Deco Labels, owned by the Ford family, is not here!).

It is challenging but not impossible to find environmental concepts at PackExpo. Among those which have caught GallonDaily’s attention:

• energy and water use efficiency as a feature of packaging equipment.
• even more robotics than at previous packaging shows we have attended, with robots for everything from forming, filling, boxing, and palletizing packages.
• packaging robots capable of using different size containers depending on the size of goods being shipped, for example for consumer internet or mail orders, with the robot efficiently organizing the different size packages on the pallet.
• considerable expansion in promotion of polypropylene for packages, including a new clear polypropylene material that visually closely resembles clear polystyrene or PET and can be used for all applications appropriate for those resins.
• wax-free water resistant cartons.
• bag in box systems
• self-supporting lightweight plastic film containers
• ever increasing types of multimaterial films, some with as many as 9 layers, adaptable to every conceivable application and set of properties including microwaveable, oven safe, hot liquid uses, shelf stability, freezer stable, and control of gas permeability.
• increased lightweighting of packaging through better design and new material use, often without regard ton the recyclability of the end of life package.
• packaging transportation efficiency, for example through use of square rather than round bottles.
• metering dispensers incorporated into plastic packages so as to control the amount of product dispensed.
• more reusable containers for food and industrial applications.
• increasing availability of third party environmental, safety, and performance certifications.

A common thread throughout much of the packaging innovation on show is the multitude of problems likely to be caused to recycling system operators, especially in Canada where high-tech optical sorting systems for recyclable material handling are rare.

A GallonDaily special report directly from the floor of PackExpo 2014.

A study released this week by the ocean conservation organization Oceana indicates that what you get when you buy shrimp in the US may not be what you think you are getting. In addition, if ocean conservation and human rights abuses are concerns, there is little or nothing in the labelling of shrimp and shrimp products that can help you make a responsible purchase decision.

Among the many findings:

• Shrimp is the most commonly consumed seafood in the U.S., and the most highly traded seafood in the world, its high demand has led to conservation concerns as well as a bait and switch on consumers.
• Shrimp aquaculture practices have destroyed or polluted important mangrove and coastal habitats in many places around the world, and overcrowded shrimp stocking densities have led to a succession of shrimp diseases, the latest of which is Early Mortality Syndrome (EMS). The disease threat has led to the use and abuse of aquaculture chemicals on foreign shrimp farms, some of which are banned in the U.S. and other nations due to health concerns. While pollution-minimizing closed recirculating shrimp aquaculture facilities are ideal, the information that consumers are given makes it nearly impossible to find these more responsibly farmed shrimp products.
• 30 percent of the 143 shrimp products tested from 111 vendors visited across the US were misrepresented, while 35 percent of those 111 vendors sold misrepresented shrimp. Of the 70 restaurants visited, 31 percent sold misrepresented products, while 41 percent of the 41 grocery stores and markets visited sold misrepresented products.
• The most common species substitution was farmed whiteleg shrimp sold as “wild” shrimp and “Gulf” shrimp
• This study found no shrimp products on menus or in grocery stores which described the type of gear used to catch wild shrimp, whereas most menus even lack information on where the shrimp was caught or farmed.
• One of the health risks of selling farmed shrimp as wild is that seafood processors are required to screen for veterinary drug residue levels in farmed products but obviously not for wild species. This level of oversight and protection cannot happen if the shrimp does not carry with it information to trace back where it was caught or farmed. Little oversight of drug residues exists in properly labeled imported farmed products as it is, so mislabeling only aggravates this situation.
• Consumers unconcerned with environmental abuses in shrimp fishing or farming might be troubled to know the product they purchase supports human trafficking or other human rights abuses.

As usual, GallonDaily is not aware of any similar study regarding shrimp offered for sale in Canada.

The Oceana press release and link to the 38 page shrimp study (click on the graphic), which includes a detailed table on socially responsible shrimp from SEAFOOD WATCH 2014 Recommendations for Shrimp, can be found at http://oceana.org/en/news-media/publications/reports/shrimpfraud 

Companies claiming social responsibility might wish to consider how their ocean shipping needs are being met. According to a new report from the respected New York City based Natural Resources Defense Council,  an estimated 1.2 million premature deaths in China in 2010 were caused by ambient air pollution, and shipping is a significant source of these air pollution and health problems.

Although the focus of the report is China, it also addresses international and developing country problems associated with emissions from ocean going ships. According to the report:

• China is home to seven of the world’s ten busiest container ports. About 26 percent of the world’s containers pass through the top ten Chinese ports every year.
• a medium- to large-size container ship running at 70% maximum power for one day using bunker fuel with 35,000 ppm (3.5%) sulfur emits as much soot (PM2.5) as the average of half a million new trucks in China during that same day.
• shipping emissions are essentially unregulated in China and in many other developing countries.
• soot from diesel or bunker fuel combustion contains black carbon, a short-lived pollutant that is accelerating glacial and polar ice melting, exacerbating climate change. NOx and SOx emissions from diesel engines also cause acidification, eutrophication, and nutrient enrichment of ecosystems, contributing to ocean acidification.
• the soot in diesel exhaust has been designated as a known carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s cancer research institute. Diesel PM is especially toxic due to the very small size of the soot particles, and because these particles contain roughly 40 different toxic air contaminants, 15 of which are recognized carcinogens. One particularly toxic class of chemicals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), can be adsorbed onto fine PM and travel for long distances (as far as 10,000 km).
• one of the most common measures to reduce air pollution from vessel exhaust is to switch from bunker fuel to a
  fuel that contains a much lower percentage of sulfur. Both California and the EU have imposed the strictest at-berth
  fuel switch requirements, mandating that ocean going vessels use fuel with maximum sulfur content of 1,000 ppm (0.1%) while at dock. The fuel switching regulation in California is even more stringent, extending to 24 nautical miles from the California shore. Within the four existing Emission Control Areas, all ocean going vessels now have to use fuel with a maximum 10,000 ppm (1%) sulfur content; the limit will be lowered to 1,000 ppm (0.1%) in January 2015. In 2011 the Port of Singapore, the world’s busiest container port, introduced a voluntary Green Port Programme offering a 25% reduction in port dues for OGVs that used approved abatement/scrubber technology or burned clean fuels (with no more than 1,000 ppm sulfur) both at berth and within Singapore waters.

It seems to GallonDaily that companies that contract for ocean transportation of large quantities of goods might have a very positive influence on this problem if they were to specify more environmentally responsible behaviour by the ocean shippers which carry their goods.

Much more detail on the problem can be found at http://www.nrdc.org/international/china-controlling-port-air-emissions.asp, where there is also a link to the full 43 page report with an analysis of technical and regulatory measures which can dramatically reduce pollution from ships. Our sister publication, Gallon Environment Letter, covered the topic of pollution from ships in volume 9, number 2 dated January 22nd 2004.

A very recent Nanos poll, conducted October 18th to 21st, 2014, indicates that protecting the environment is more important to Canadians than the price of energy and that Canadians would prefer that the burden of any new carbon tax be placed on those businesses that emit GHGs. Among the findings:

• 94% of Canadians reported that they are familiar or somewhat familiar with the discussion concerning climate change and the use of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal as an energy source?
• 62% reported that protecting the environment is more important than the price of energy to them personally.
• 62% reported that they had heard of reducing CO2 emissions from coal plants by capturing CO2 and storing it underground.
• 38% reported that they had a positive or somewhat positive impression of storing carbon emissions from coal electricity plants underground to reduce green house gases; 44% had a somewhat negative or negative impression, while 18% were unsure.
• 76% stated that if the carbon capture and storage process reduced green house gases and was considered environmentally responsible, they would support or somewhat support governments encouraging these types of projects.
• 53% agreed that the government should put a new tax on businesses based on the volume of green house gases they
  emit, the proceeds of which would be used to fund projects which help reduce Canada’s green house gas emissions. 29% supported that there be no new taxes on fossil fuels such as gasoline, natural gas and heating oil or on businesses that emit green house gases. 11% supported a new five percent tax on energy items such as electricity and gasoline, natural gas and heating oil, the proceeds of which would be used to fund projects which help reduce Canada’s green house gas emissions.

The margin of error for a random survey of 1,000 Canadians is ±3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

The 18 page poll report, including much more regional analysis and more data, is available at http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-S14-T624.pdf

An article in Ensia, the magazine of the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota, reports that more than 50% of food contact materials in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration database of such substances lack accompanying toxicology information about the amount people can safely eat. The review article makes many interesting points about food packaging safety:

• Upwards of 6,000 different manufactured substances are now listed by various government agencies as approved for use in food contact materials in the U.S. and Europe.
• Recent analyses have revealed substantial gaps in what is known about the health and environmental effects of many of these materials and raised questions about the safety of others.
• 175 chemicals used in food contact materials are also recognized by scientists and government agencies as chemicals of concern.
• Some chemicals used in food packaging have been found to be biologically active.
• Individual chemical assessments that determine food contact material approvals may not capture all the ways in which a single substance may interact with food, human bodies or the environment.
• The Food Packaging Forum, a Zurich-based charitable foundation, is studying the problem of printing inks that can become mixed into recycled papers used in food packaging.
• In its 2013 assessment of food additive chemicals — including those used in food packaging — the Pew Charitable Trusts found that the FDA’s method of assessing the safety of these materials is “fraught with systemic problems,” largely because it lacks adequate information.

The complete article, containing much more information about packaging materials in contact with food, can be found at http://ensia.com/features/when-it-comes-to-food-packaging-what-we-dont-know-could-hurt-us/

A new report from Ceres, formerly the Coalition for Environmentally responsible economies, ranks large US insurance companies on their response to climate change.

Findings include:

• most of the company responses show a profound lack of preparedness in addressing climate-related risks and opportunities.
• insurers are using climate-informed catastrophe models to better quantify climate-related risks from more frequent and intense weather catastrophes.
• barely 10 percent of the insurers overall have issued public climate risk management statements articulating the company’s understanding of climate science and its implications for core underwriting and their vast investment portfolios.
• many insurers are seeking to reduce their exposure to climate change risks by not providing insurance in higher risk markets.
• very few insurers are working with their clients to reduce risks through such measures as more durable construction techniques.
• some insurance companies are going to court to fight claims that arise from climate change related events, and sometimes they win.

While GallonDaily is not aware of any similar research on Canadian insurer practices we suspect that similar findings may apply in this country. We invite comments from those with direct knowledge of such matters to comment.

A summary and a link to the 54 page plus appendices report [free registration required] can be found at http://www.ceres.org/press/press-releases/first-of-its-kind-report-ranks-u.s.-insurance-companies-on-climate-change-responses

A recent article published online by the journal Nature suggests that natural gas may not be of significant benefit in addressing climate change. The researchers suggest that gas from unconventional sources such as fracking could even add to the climate change problem. Many organizations, including some environmental groups in Canada, have advocated increased use of natural gas as an environmentally preferable substitute for higher carbon fuels such as coal.

The paper, by scientists from the Joint Global Change Research Institute of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the University of Maryland as well as others from around the world, states that increases in global supplies of unconventional natural gas do not discernibly reduce the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions. The findings are based on five different models but the fundamental reason for this situation is that natural gas provides a substitute not only for high GHG emitting coal but also for existing low emitting energy technologies such as renewables and nuclear. Use of abundant natural gas is shown to change carbon dioxide emissions by an amount in the range of a 2% decrease to an 11% increase. The authors state that “results show that although market penetration of globally abundant gas may substantially change the future energy system, it is not necessarily an effective substitute for climate change mitigation policy”.

Apart from the obvious impacts of this report on a natural gas industry that has been touting its benefits as a transitional fuel to a low carbon economy the findings of this report may also have impact in the long-term on users of natural gas. If carbon pricing eventually comes to Canada, as it appears likely it will, the pricing of natural gas as a fuel with little climate change benefit instead of as a transitional fuel could lessen the economic benefit which it provides.

An abstract and a link to the full paper (fee or subscription required) is available at  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13837.html#access