Tag Archives: minister

American meat labeling laws bolstered; Canadians indignant

American meat labeling laws bolstered; Canadians indignant

Shutterstock

Would you eat the bacon from this pig if you knew it was Canadian?

Wee life stories documenting the globetrotting lives of pigs, cows, and chickens raised for slaughter will soon be posted on packages of meat sold in the U.S.

But the new miniature memoirs — such as “Born in Canada, raised and slaughtered in the United States” — have outraged Canadian agricultural officials. They’re mulling a trade war, because the labels will help American grocery shoppers “discriminate” against Canadian-born poultry, swine, and cattle.

Large retailers are also oinking in angry disapproval, saying the labeling rule will be an expensive hassle for them.

In 2009, the U.S. Department of Agriculture directed retailers to put country of origin labels on many types of food, including meat, fruit, and vegetables. That additional information triggered a decline in meat imports from Canada and Mexico, as shoppers opted to buy more American-reared protein. Canada and Mexico complained about the rule to the World Trade Organization, saying the labels were discriminatory, and the WTO ruled in their favor, giving the U.S. until Thursday to update its labeling regulations.

On Thursday, the USDA issued its new rules. To the dismay of the Canadians, the new rules require more detailed labels to be put on meat. They also put an end to the sale of packages containing meat from animals that were born or raised in different countries. The rules take effect immediately, but the USDA is offering retailers a six-month grace period before enforcement begins.

From Reuters:

Canadian Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said the changes are disappointing, and don’t comply with WTO rules.

Ritz said one of Canada’s options under consideration is asking the WTO to approve retaliation against U.S. products, but he would not say which products Canada would most likely target. In the past, he has said Canada would likely aim at more goods than just U.S. meat.

“We have no intention of backing off or backing down, if the Americans think this is a game of chicken,” Ritz said. “We will do everything within our power to make sure they understand that both Canadian industry as well as American industry (are) totally rejecting what they came forward with today.”

COOL [country of origin labeling rules] was backed by U.S. consumer groups and some U.S. farm groups. It was opposed by trade groups representing U.S. cattle and hog producers and foodmakers.

“People have the right to know where the food they feed their families comes from,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food and Water Watch.

Yo, Canadian officials and WTO peeps: “Discrimination” is a lousy word and you know it. It’s not that Americans are hating on your swine. It’s just that the international livestock trade and the long-distance hauling of meat are both unnecessary and bad for the climate.

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Food

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Source – 

American meat labeling laws bolstered; Canadians indignant

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on American meat labeling laws bolstered; Canadians indignant

Gas fracked in America will help keep the British warm

Gas fracked in America will help keep the British warm

Shutterstock

/ Evgeny MurtolaFracked American gas will soon warm quaint British homes.

America’s fracking boom is producing so much natural gas that the energy industry plans to start exporting enough of it to heat nearly 2 million British homes.

A $15 billion deal to export vast volumes of natural gas from the United States by tanker ship to the U.K. was struck between energy companies Cheniere and Centrica. It will help keep the British warm, but it adds a new layer of controversy to disputes over fracking in the U.S.

From The Guardian:

Under the deal, Centrica will pay £10bn over 20 years for 89bn cubic feet of gas annually — enough to heat 1.8m homes — from Cheniere, one of the first US companies to receive clearance from the federal government to export shale gas in the form of LNG (liquefied natural gas). The first deliveries, by tanker, are expected in 2018.

The announcement of the deal comes at a crucial time, as Britain’s gas reserves have been severely depleted by the unseasonable cold snap, which has increased demand. Last week, it emerged that there were only two days’ worth of gas left in storage.

British Prime Minister David Cameron is jolly pleased to join in on wanton plunder and pollution of American land. ”I warmly welcome this commercial agreement,” he said.

Americans living near fracked lands and forced to buy their water in bottles certainly hope that your people enjoy that warmth, Mr. Prime Minister.

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Continue at source:

Gas fracked in America will help keep the British warm

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, Brita, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Gas fracked in America will help keep the British warm

Explosion at headquarters of Mexico’s state-owned oil company kills 32 [UPDATED]

Explosion at headquarters of Mexico’s state-owned oil company kills 32 [UPDATED]

It’s not clear why the lower floors at the headquarters of Pemex, Mexico’s state-owned oil company, exploded. Things that have been blamed so far: a gas leak, a malfunctioning boiler, the electricity supply. Mexico’s Interior Minister, Miguel Angel Osorio, outlined the known facts for the press last night (translated via Google):

[Yesterday], around 15:40 pm in the North Annex B-2 Pemex Administrative Center, there was an explosion which seriously affected the ground floor, basement and mezzanine of the building and caused severe damage to three floors. …

The death of 25 people, 17 women, eight men, same SEMEFO have been transferred to the Attorney General of the Republic, 101 wounded, of whom 46 remain in care and the rest were discharged.

What is clear is that Pemex has a track record of mistakes and accidents — and that the explosion comes at a tricky political moment for the company.

From The New York Times:

The blast — in a highly protected but decaying office complex — comes in the middle of a heated debate over the future of Pemex, a national institution and a corporate behemoth that has been plagued by declining production, theft and an abysmal safety record that includes a major pipeline explosion almost every year, like the one in September that killed 30 workers.

Experts, while cautioning that it was too early to tell what had gone wrong, said the company would inevitably face more severe scrutiny as Mexico’s Congress returned to work in the coming weeks. The country’s new president, Enrique Peña Nieto, has pledged to submit a plan for overhauling Pemex, opening it to more private investment and perhaps greater consolidation. But with the blast, deliberations about the company could become more elemental.

“You pull all of this together and you say, well, if they can’t even guarantee safety in their own building, their own headquarters, what does that tell us about the company?” said Duncan Wood, director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

It doesn’t tell us much new about the company. Last September, an explosion at a gas plant killed 26. In 2005, workers cut into a pipeline, killing six. In 2008, poor training resulted in an accident that killed 22 workers on an offshore platform. And those are only the first three results on a quick Google search. In a normal circumstance, blaming gross incompetence for an explosion like yesterday’s would seem naive or suspicious. Here, it does not.

George Baker of Houston’s Energia energy research institute suggested that the government would use the explosion as a pretext for change, according to the Times.

In 1992, he said, a major explosion in a residential Guadalajara neighborhood — caused by gas leaking into the sewers — was followed by calls for change, and a plan to break Pemex into smaller pieces.

“The provocation, the pretext was that we had this terrible thing happen and now we are going to have a response from Pemex,” Mr. Baker said, adding that the explosion on Thursday would also now become part of the political calculations over what to do about the company.

“This may be used, may be manipulated, used as a pretext to do something,” he said. “Who knows what that something is, but they may exploit it to do something they were going to do anyway.”

If this is the massive, deadly explosion that finally fixes a dysfunctional and dangerous company, so be it. Exploit away.

clinker

The Pemex headquarters towers over Mexico City on a smoggy day in 2004.

Update: Reports now suggest that 32 have died.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Cities

,

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

More here: 

Explosion at headquarters of Mexico’s state-owned oil company kills 32 [UPDATED]

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Explosion at headquarters of Mexico’s state-owned oil company kills 32 [UPDATED]

Tar-sands operations dump carcinogenic pollution in Canadian lakes

Tar-sands operations dump carcinogenic pollution in Canadian lakes

Poisonous as well as ugly.

Here’s yet another way that tar-sands oil extraction sucks. From The New York Times:

The development of Alberta’s oil sands has increased levels of cancer-causing compounds in surrounding lakes well beyond natural levels, Canadian researchers reported in a study [PDF] released on Monday. And they said the contamination covered a wider area than had previously been believed.

For the study, financed by the Canadian government, the researchers set out to develop a historical record of the contamination, analyzing sediment dating back about 50 years from six small and shallow lakes north of Fort McMurray, Alberta, the center of the oil sands industry. Layers of the sediment were tested for deposits of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PDF], or PAHs, groups of chemicals associated with oil that in many cases have been found to cause cancer in humans after long-term exposure.

“One of the biggest challenges is that we lacked long-term data,” said John P. Smol, the paper’s lead author and a professor of biology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. “So some in industry have been saying that the pollution in the tar sands is natural, it’s always been there.”

The researchers found that to the contrary, the levels of those deposits have been steadily rising since large-scale oil sands production began in 1978.

As scientist David Schindler told British Columbia news site The Tyee, the study’s findings should “deep-six once and for all the bullshit that all pollution from the tar sands is natural.”

Schindler wasn’t involved in this study, but he’s done previous research on tar-sands pollution and is now feeling vindicated. More from The Tyee:

The [new] study, published by the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, also confirms the conclusions of two independently funded papers by water ecologist David Schindler and Erin Kelly. These now highly cited studies roused the ire of industry and embarrassed the Alberta government by proving widespread water contamination near the mining project.

The first 2009 study found that oil sands air pollution from mines and upgraders blackened the snow with thousands of tonnes of bitumen particulates and PAHS during the winter within a 50 kilometre radius of the project. When the snow melted in the spring, the contaminants washed into the Athabasca River. The pollution amounted to an undisclosed annual oil spill between 5,000 to 13,000 barrels.

A follow-up 2010 study concluded that air pollution and watershed destruction by the oil sands industry annually added a rich brew of heavy metals including arsenic, thallium and mercury into the Athabasca river and at levels up to 30 times greater than permitted by pollution guidelines. Many heavy metals can increase the toxicity of PAHs too.

Both studies found that industry-funded monitoring was too haphazard to find evidence of contamination by toxic organic pollutants such as PAHs.

Though the new study was sponsored and paid for by the Canadian government, don’t expect the government to do anything to rein in tar-sands exploitation. On the contrary, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s administration has “muzzled government climate change scientists, reduced other environmental monitoring, [and] gutted key environmental laws (most fish habitat is no longer protected),” as The Tyee reports. Maybe it’s lucky this study even got done.

Lisa Hymas is senior editor at Grist. You can follow her on

Twitter

and

Google+

.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Read the article: 

Tar-sands operations dump carcinogenic pollution in Canadian lakes

Posted in GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Tar-sands operations dump carcinogenic pollution in Canadian lakes