opposite: VIVEK PRAKASH/Reuters/Corbis; right: Ron Sanford/Science Source; top right: Thomas alleman
Gunders, a staff scientist with NRDC’s food and agriculture program, who contributed to the report. “The biggest problem is that consumers think the labels are about food safety, when in fact they’re not.” Food waste, Gunders points out, has immense environmental impact. Agriculture, which accounts for more than half of the nation’s land use and 80 percent of its water use, is the country’s largest emitter of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas with 300 times the warming effect of CO2. And once food is discarded in landfills, its decomposition contributes 15 percent of U.S. emissions of methane, another major source of greenhouse gas pollution. To reduce food waste and its environmental consequences, Gunders calls for consumer education, such as explanatory store signage; industry action; and increased federal regulation. In the wake of the two NRDC reports, she adds, there has been new congressional interest in legislation to improve food labeling. The NRDC/Harvard study offers a range of recommendations for a clearer, more uniform labeling system: for example, replacing “sell by” dates with “best by” dates for consumers, packaging certain foods with “freeze by” dates, and adding safe-handling instructions to food packages. (For practical tips on reducing food waste in the home, visit nrdc. org/food/expiration-dates.asp.) Discarding less food, notes Gunders, would have a global impact. Consider the world in 2050: we will need to feed several billion more people at a time when agricultural production may be compromised by changing climate conditions, diminished water supplies, and a decrease in arable land. “If we consume more of the food that we produce,” she says, “we could offset the need for more agricultural land and resources.” —Brianna Elliott
Safer fishing Do you enjoy a plate of fish
sticks or a salmon burger from time to time? Well, there’s a good chance they were made from fish that entered the country illegally. The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) mandates that all imported fish be accompanied by proof that it was caught using methods no more harmful to marine mammals such as dolphins and whales than those used by U.S. fishers. Unfortunately, the National Marine Fisheries Service has never enforced the law, so local fishers who comply with the MMPA, investing in technology
that helps protect marine mammals and collecting data to submit to the Fisheries Service, are at a disadvantage when competing with foreign fisheries for the lucrative U.S. market. In NRDC’s upcoming report Net Loss: The Killing of Marine Mammals in Foreign Fisheries, staff attorney Zak Smith explains that in many parts of the world fisheries are regulated and monitored poorly, if at all. Many countries can’t provide data on the number of marine mammals harmed during fishing, leaving the service unable to assess if foreign fishers are violating the law. “We need to enforce the law,” Smith says, “protect threatened populations, and level the playing field for U.S. fishers.” Foreign fisheries would then have to provide data about fishing methods, or find their products banned from the U.S. market. —N.S.
Water Blight
Los Angeles River runoff fouls beaches.
Clean up your Water, L.A.!
H
ere’s what you don’t know about all those
shimmering, glamorous beaches in Los Angeles: after a major rainfall, residents of the county are often warned to stay away from these sun-kissed, sandy paradises, sometimes for up to three days. Why? Because when rainwater hits roads and pavements, it washes away dirt, debris, and nasty toxins, carrying them for miles through the county’s storm drain system. By the time all of it is dumped into the sea, the rainwater contains a toxic stew of pollutants that may include mercury, arsenic, lead, and fecal bacteria. For years this pollution has gone largely unchecked. So in 2008, NRDC and the Los Angeles Waterkeeper sued Los Angeles County for violations of the federal Clean Water Act. Earlier this year the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with NRDC and held the county liable for pollution of the San Gabriel and Los Angeles rivers. “Stormwater is the number one cause of beach-water pollution in Southern California, and L.A. County is the largest polluter,” says Steve Fleischli, a senior attorney who directs NRDC’s water program. Indeed, an NRDC report found that 28 percent of beach closings in the nation were due to stormwater runoff pollution. When the case first went to the Ninth Circuit in 2011, the county argued that it could not be held responsible for polluted runoff in the rivers because some of it may have been generated by cities and industry. After losing its case, the county appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where NRDC senior attorney Aaron Colangelo presented oral arguments before the justices. The nation’s highest court decided to send the case back down to the Ninth Circuit, which then ruled in favor of NRDC a second time. While these court decisions are encouraging, Fleischli says the legal battle is not over. The details of how the county will address runoff pollution must still be decided back in district court. Moreover, additional county appeals could further delay implementation of what Fleischli notes are fairly simple solutions: for instance, installing green infrastructure that can capture, filter, or treat runoff before it is released into the sea. Despite the legal tangles ahead, Fleischli says, “the Ninth Circuit reached the right result both times. We don’t think it warrants another review.” If he’s correct, L.A. County must finally get to work improving water quality and public health. That would be —Naveena Sadasivam a real victory for everyone.
winter 2013/2014
onearth 6 1