By Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter

I almost gagged on my coffee when I finally got around to reading the corporate sponsored pro-fracking propaganda by MIT on natural gas, entitled, “The Future of Natural Gas.” Isn’t this academic institution embarrassed to sell its reputation to corporations?

I guess not, because right on its website, MIT advertises its enormous corporate funding for research and its proud affiliation with the oil and gas industry. Read its philosophy for yourself:

“Since its founding, MIT has actively sought industry partnerships and brought its students into real-world projects with corporations. In FY 2010, MIT’s industry-sponsored research totaled $111 million. More than 800 firms now work with MIT, both in Institute-wide programs such as the Industrial Liaison Program and the MIT Energy Initiative and in smaller collaborations…More than 180 companies partner with the program to improve their access to MIT and advance their research agendas. Launched in 2006 to pursue innovative technologies for sustainable energy, the MIT Energy Initiative fosters collaboration between industry and MIT researchers from across the campus. More than 50 corporate members support multidisciplinary research programs, contribute seed money, and provide support and research opportunities for MIT students.”

Now really, do you trust the objectivity on natural gas of the “founding members” of MIT’s Energy Initiative: BP, Shell and ENI (the Italian energy giant)? All three multinational corporations have an economic interest in expanding the use of fracking to extract hard to reach deposits of natural gas across the country. Here in the United States, BP — not known for their corporate responsibility — is the fourth largest natural gas producer. Shell is the 9th largest U.S. Producer, and activists in South Africa are fighting Shell’s attempt to frack in one of the driest places on earth. ENI is attempting to frack 760 square miles of Poland.

Most of the “sustaining members” of the MIT energy initiative have an economic interest in drilling for natural gas too. ABB is a leader in supplying electrical system solutions for drilling rigs, drilling ships, jack-ups and semi-submersible drilling rigs. A division of Bosch provides equipment for oil and gas fields. Siemens provides systems to treat fracking wastewater. We could go on and on.

“The Future of Natural Gas” proudly acknowledged that the American Clean Skies Foundation was a funder, along with other fossil fuel oriented companies (Hess Corporation, Gas Technology Institute, and Exelon). This foundation was formed by Aubrey McClendon, the billionaire CEO of Chesapeake Energy Corporation, the second largest producer of natural gas in the United States in 2010. He has been a slick promoter of fracked gas, using a combination of tried and true influence pedaling tactics — from campaign contributions to truth-challenged PR campaigns.

Anthony Meggs one of three co-chairs of the study, was formerly the Head of Technology for BP. While there, he worked to rebuild the technical capacity of the company by creating a Technology Advisory Council that included Ernest Moniz, a second co-chair of MIT’s study. It would take pages to disclose the study participant’s ties to the oil and gas industry.

Needless to say, the recommendations of this report appear to bolster the interests of the multinational energy companies who stand to benefit from natural gas drilling over the well being of public health, air and water quality and the future of the planet. It’s time to challenge industry sponsored reports like this and not let them get away with manipulating the truth or pedaling industry PR as sound science.

By Rich Bindell [Originally posted at www.foodandwaterwatch.org]

It’s probably safe to say that a majority of Americans were pretty surprised that President Obama hosted an official press conference to share his birth documentation with the nation. Why did the President feel compelled to dignify Donald Trump and other “birthers” with a response at all? Surely, as President, the relationship of power is such that he does not need to lower himself to respond to such a ridiculous and empty allegation. Many have said that the entire situation is an embarrassment and Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick even said that American politics has hit “a new low.” But Obama’s quick response to quell Trump’s desire for press reminds us of the President’s other recent acts of acquiescence: the deregulation of genetically engineered crops, the pending approval of GE salmon, and the lack of action on fracking including the potential effects on the drinking water of millions.

President Obama may have just delivered to the nation his certificate of birth, but for the past two years, he’s been yielding to the influence of industry, practically offering various lobbying groups a “certificate of berth.” Here are three areas where Obama gives wide berth to the interests of big companies…

Genetically engineered (GE) Crops: The pace that has been driving the GE food industry has been extremely fast. Between 1992 and 2010, at least 13 GE products have been introduced, from tomatoes to alfalfa to sugar beets. Biotechnology in agriculture has been touted as a way of fighting hunger throughout the world, but the claims have mostly been false promises. Industry claims that GE crops can have higher yields for farmers while keeping costs down and reducing the need for agrochemicals. But farmers have had to endure increased costs minus the promised higher yields while chemical use in GE crops have contributed to the development of insect and weed resistance. A few large companies like Monsanto now dominate the GE food industry and control pricing. But Obama has been silent on the topic due to pressures from the biotech and food industries who have spent over half a billion dollars in the last decade on campaign contributions and lobbying Congress.

GE Salmon: The American people don’t want it, and they’ve said so loud and clear. Yet the FDA presses on its mission to approve a transgenic fish for your dinner plate under the guise of an animal drug. President Obama has the authority to call for transparency and thorough research — a definitive and unbiased independent study, unlike the studies that the FDA is currently relying upon, most of which have been provided by AquaBounty, the company behind GE salmon. Obama has not responded to consumer and scientific concerns. Again, he is highly influenced by those with a well-funded lobbying presence.

Fracking: As energy companies have been quickly setting up drilling sites all over the Marcellus Shale states of Pennsylvania and New York, consumers are becoming more informed about the potential dangers of fracking. The President’s energy plan for the future is banking on natural gas as a bridge fuel, but the plan doesn’t seem to include listening to the concerns of the residents in those states. Instead of waiting for a proper assessment of how fracking impacts public health and the environment, Obama is allowing industry to continue to construct new drilling sites. We don’t need to look much farther than how much money the natural gas industry spends on lobbying to influence public policy to understand what’s going on.

We need our President to represent the best interests of the people, not the profits of a few large companies well embedded in the marketplace. It’s difficult to watch Obama quickly respond to the requests of a few misguided people while he continues to maintain political silence on big and controversial issues that remain a concern to most consumers.

By Rich Bindell and Emily Wurth [Originally posted at Food & Water Watch]

Yesterday, the nation saw another example of the cost of doing business with the natural gas industry when a natural gas well operated by Chesapeake Energy blew out in Canton, Pennsylvania.

According to T. Boone Pickens this week, New Yorkers need an enlightened, “intelligent” leader on energy … like T. Boone Pickens.

Please view video here!

On the subject of fracking (about 39 minutes into the video), Pickens said…

READ FULL POST

[Originally posted at Food & Water Watch]

In the classic song Fishin’ Blues, roots and blues legend Taj Mahal romanticizes the simplicity of going down to his favorite fishing hole to partake in one of our oldest traditions. He sings, “Many fish bite if you’ve got good bait. Here’s a little tip that I would like to relate. With my pole and my line, I’m a-goin’ fishin’, yes I’m goin’ fishin’, and my baby’s goin’ fishin’ too.” Apparently, even if you want to bring along a few giant round fish cages and set them up off the coast of Hawaii, soon you can go fishin’ too. According to our federal government – fish farming is the same as fishing.

There are some in the seafood industry who want to expand factory fish farming into open ocean waters, similar to the industrial factory farms we already have on land. Open ocean aquaculture (factory fish farming) has a lot of companies seeing dollar signs, but there are lots of reasons why it’s a bad idea. Unfortunately, this bad idea is taking another step in the wrong direction thanks to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – the agency tasked with conserving and managing our ocean natural resources. READ FULL POST

If you’re following the fracking debate closely, it’s been a rather busy few weeks chock full of media coverage. Today, Pro Publica published an interview with Benjamin Grumbles, former EPA assistant administrator for water during the Bush years, who suggests that Congress should revisit the exemption of fracking from the Clean Water Act. That’s big news considering the EPA initially declared that fracking did not pose a threat to our drinking water. It’s especially big news for those of us who support an outright ban on fracking, which we are calling for this week.

Fracking threatens our water — water we use for drinking, farming and bathing — and the speed with which the industry is developing drilling sites while federal and local governments slowly figure out what to do is disconcerting. The interview with Grumbles reveals much about the rocky road that has brought us to this point.

Here’s a snapshot of last week’s (Feb 27 – March 4) speed round on fracking: READ FULL POST

OMG, it’s Mark Ruffalo! At a screening of Gasland, the charming Ruffalo takes time out for a photo with Food & Water Watch staff member Lauren Wright. Ruffalo will be wearing a water drop lapel pin at the Oscars to get people talking about protecting our water. Photo contributed by photographer Ian Hall.

We don’t usually think too much about the Academy Awards around here. (Well, I guess that’s not entirely true since Food Inc. was nominated last year.) This year, we again have good reason to look forward to the good ‘ole Oscars: Gasland, a documentary by Josh Fox about the negative impacts of natural gas drilling or fracking, was nominated for Best Documentary Film. Food & Water Watch regularly sponsors screenings of the film and we’d like to offer Josh a hearty congratulations for creating a powerful film and for bringing attention to this critical issue. We are proud to be associated with this project. READ FULL POST

As you all know, it’s budget time in Washington, D.C. As far as the issues that we work on here at Food & Water Watch, the President’s proposed budget for 2012 is nothing short of disappointing and frustrating. The Obama administration has determined that providing the nation with funds for public services that were once considered vital to our population is no longer a priority for the government. Let’s break it down…

Food Safety

The proposed 2012 budget allocates $1.02 billion for USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), $9 million less than 2011. But, according to FSIS’s own report, there will be a need for more inspectors to keep up with increases in food processing in 2012 — the total volume of meat and poultry slaughter will each increase by over 250 million pounds. Even egg production will increase from 4,066 million to 4,074 million pounds. Remember the egg recall last summer? Instead of offering increased funds to FSIS for food safety, the Obama administration decided to offer an increased risk of food contamination by not increasing the number of inspectors in egg processing facilities.

USDA is also responsible for catfish inspections, for which the proposed budget also reduces funding. In 2008, negotiations over the Farm Bill included the creation of a new catfish inspection program, a mandate given to the USDA. The FDA, which only inspects about 2 percent of all imports, was previously responsible for inspection of fish, including catfish. Last year, U.S. catfish farmers united to ask Congress to implement the regulation of catfish at the USDA and demanded tougher inspections. The implementation of this program is now 14 months overdue and, thanks to Obama’s proposed budget, the funding for it has been significantly reduced. READ FULL POST

Recent coverage about hexavalent chromium (also known as chromium 6) in some of our nation’s water supplies vilified the wrong institutions: our municipal water utilities. The real culprits are the industries that dump this and other pollutants into our drinking water sources, and the elected officials who are short-shortsightedly failing to fund our drinking and waste water systems.

I repeat: tap water and the public agencies that provide it are not the enemy.

A vital resource, tap water is sometimes taken for granted until something goes wrong. Unfortunately, this lax attention often starts at the federal level, where not enough money is allocated for modernizing and maintaining public drinking water systems, and a blind eye is often turned to the ways in which industries are allowed to exploit and pollute them. READ FULL POST

Can you imagine having your water billed by Chevron or Exxon? All right, maybe that’s a bit of a stretch. But we often talk about water becoming the new oil in this century and, right now, there are a few big companies jockeying for position to take over public resources like water. Would you tolerate a monopoly takeover of your tap water?

It’s actually been happening for a while now, only it’s not always making headlines. Financial institutions like J.P. Morgan and the Carlyle Group are trying to buy up water companies and the already large water corporations like Aqua America, Inc., and American Water are collaborating to expand their stronghold in key markets. All of these private entities are positioning themselves to heartily profit from the commodification of water. READ FULL POST

Whenever there is a disaster that puts people out on the street, bottled water is there. Be it flood, drought, hurricane, fire or water main break, bottled water is always around to save the day. The camera from news coverage of such events will often pan by several cases of bottled water — conveniently delivered for free from a far away place — as if to depict that safety has arrived. The bottled water industry has certainly done a good job in recent years of associating their product with emergencies. But do we really need bottled water in most emergencies?

Nestlé Waters Canada recently donated 7,800 bottles of water to an elementary school and a middle school that were both experiencing water woes; they had lead in their tap water. Naturally, Nestlé came to the rescue. While I couldn’t locate any symbolic footage from a local news source of children clinging to their safe bottles of water, I’m sure you can picture it. READ FULL POST