DOCSLIB.ORG

Download Report (PDF)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download Report (PDF) Corporate Agribusiness and the Fouling of America’s Waterways The Role of Large Agribusiness Companies in Polluting our Rivers, Lakes and Coastal Waters RESEARCH & POLICY CENTER Corporate Agribusiness and the Fouling of America’s Waterways The Role of Large Agribusiness Companies in Polluting our Rivers, Lakes and Coastal Waters RESEARCH & POLICY CENTER Written by: John Rumpler Environment America Research & Policy Center June 2016 Acknowledgements Environment Texas Research & Policy Center thanks Danielle Diamond, Executive Director of Socially Responsible Agriculture Project (SRAP), Mary Beth Gallagher, acting director of Tri-State Coalition for Responsible Investment, Tom Pelton, Communications Director of Environmental Integrity Project, and Leslie Samuelrich, Executive Direc- tor of Green Century Funds, for their review of this report. Thanks also to Patrick Woodall of Food & Water Watch and Elizabeth Ridlington of Frontier Group for their assistance on research methodology. Environment Texas Research & Policy Center thanks the Sharpe Family Foundation for helping to make this report possible. The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations are those of Environment Texas Re- search & Policy Center. The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided review. © 2016 Environment Texas Research & Policy Center Environment Texas Research & Policy Center is a 501(c)(3) organization. We are dedicated to protecting our air, water and open spaces. We investigate problems, craft solutions, educate the public and decision-makers, and help the public make their voices heard in local, state and national debates over the quality of our environment and our lives. For more information about Environment Texas Research & Policy Center or for additional copies of this report, please visit www.environmenttexascenter.org. Design: Alec Meltzer, meltzerdesign.net Cover photo: Waterkeeper Alliance, CC BY-SA 2.0 Table of Contents Executive Summary..................................................................1 Introduction...........................................................................5 Big Agribusiness: A Big Polluter of America’s Waterways....................7 Agribusiness Is Polluting America’s Waterways ...........................................7 Industrialized Practices Drive the Pollution Problem . .10 Corporate Profiles: The Water Pollution Footprints of Five Major Agribusiness Companies . .14 TYSON FOODS, INC. .14 SMITHFIELD FOODS . .17 CARGILL . .19 JBS . .20 PERDUE................................................................................21 Water Pollution By Other Major Agribusiness Companies . .22 The Role Of Retailers . .23 Policy Recommendations ..........................................................24 Methodology .........................................................................26 Appendix: Detailed Data on Direct Toxic Discharges from Agribusiness Facilities.......................................................28 Notes ...................................................................................41 Executive Summary ollution from agribusiness is responsible for for 500,000 people around Toledo with cyanotox- some of America’s most intractable water ins in 2014. In Iowa, nitrate pollution from agribusi- quality problems – including the “dead zones” ness operations have so badly polluted the Raccoon Pin the Chesapeake Bay, the Gulf of Mexico and Lake River that Des Moines is now suing three counties Erie, and the pollution of countless streams and lakes for failing to stop contamination of its main drinking with nutrients, bacteria, sediment and pesticides. water source. And factory farms have contaminated drinking water wells from Washington to Wisconsin. Today’s agribusiness practices – from the concentration of thousands of animals and their waste in small feed- Top companies are producing staggering vol- lots to the massive planting of chemical-intensive crops umes of pollution. In this report, we assess the such as corn – make water pollution from agribusiness water pollution footprint of five major agribusinesses: both much more likely and much more dangerous. Tyson, Smithfield, Cargill, JBS, and Perdue. With each of these corporations, pollution in their supply chains The shift to such industrial practices is no accident. It is includes manure from livestock, runoff from vast largely the result of decisions made in the boardrooms of acres of grain, and direct dumping from processing some of the world’s largest corporations. Major agribusi- facilities into our rivers and streams. ness firms are responsible for the degradation of many American waterways, and they must change practices First, as the livestock industry concentrates its throughout their supply chains to clean up the mess. operations, more and more factory farms gener- ate massive volumes of manure with no place to Big agribusiness is a major polluter of America’s put it. All too often, excess manure winds up in our waterways. rivers and streams. We calculate the “manure foot- According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agen- print” of these five agribusiness companies as follows: cy (EPA), agriculture is the probable cause for mak- ing more than 145,000 miles of rivers and streams, 1 Table ES-1. Manure Footprint million acres of lakes and reservoirs, and 3,000 square miles of bays and estuaries too polluted for swimming, Company Tons of Manure fishing, drinking, and/or maintaining healthy wildlife. Tyson 55,289,069 This agribusiness pollution is a leading cause of the JBS 45,797,269 dead zones that plague waters from the Chesapeake Cargill 39,200,000 Bay to the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, this pollution is so Smithfield 18,935,217 severe that it is beginning to threaten our drinking water as well. In Toledo, Ohio, runoff from agribusi- Perdue 3,715,140 ness operations contributed to a toxic algae bloom in TOTAL 162,936,695 Lake Erie which contaminated the drinking water 1 Corporate Agribusiness and the Fouling of America’s Waterways Second, runoff from vast acres of commodity Table ES-3. Direct Dumping of Toxic crops is a major pollution problem for our water- Pollutants by Major Companies in 2014 ways. A huge volume of corn and soybean produc- Pounds Released Parent Company Rank tion is driven by the need to feed livestock for these to Water five companies and other agribusiness giants. Mas- AK STEEL HOLDING CORP 22,623,451 1 sive production of chemical-intensive corn – driven TYSON FOODS INC 20,859,034 2 by public policies that subsidize corn production – is wreaking havoc on waterways, including the Gulf of US DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 10,825,508 3 Mexico. CARGILL INC 8,131,465 4 Finally, these same five companies also directly BASF CORP 7,736,805 5 dump huge volumes of pollution into our rivers SMITHFIELD (incl. United 7,439,411 6 from their slaughterhouses and processing plants. Global Foods U.S. Holdings) Four of them were among the top ten parent compa- US STEEL CORP 7,213,877 7 nies – from all industries - with the highest volumes KOCH INDUSTRIES INC 7,115,649 8 of direct toxic discharges to our waterways in 2014, JBS USA (including Pilgrim’s 6,901,540 9 according to U.S. EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Pride) The fifth profiled company, Perdue Farms, ranked th11 MCCAIN FOODS USA INC 5,900,202 10 for direct dumping in the same year. These compa- nies had the same basic pattern of pollution from PERDUE FARMS INC 4,898,159 11 over 2010-2014 as well – all ranking among the top 15 DSM HOLDING CO USA INC 4,879,298 12 parent companies in America for direct dumping of PHILLIPS 66 CO 4,809,714 13 toxic substances into our waterways. E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO 4,353,681 14 Needless to say, agribusiness pollution is hardly lim- INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO 4,150,198 15 ited to these five companies. In 2014, more than 200 PBF ENERGY agribusiness facilities in more than 30 states reported 3,393,738 16 dumping toxic pollution into our rivers. EXXON MOBIL CORP 3,050,190 17 VALERO ENERGY CORP 3,008,002 18 Table ES-2. Direct Dumping of Toxic CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS INC 2,658,126 19 Pollutants 2010-2014 (from U.S. EPA’s EASTMAN CHEMICAL CO 2,497,831 20 Toxics Release Inventory) OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS USA LLC 2,401,752 21 Company Pounds Released to Waterways KOCH FOODS 2,025,777 22 Tyson 104,468,732 CHEVRON CORP 1,941,444 24 Cargill 50,405,770 CONTINENTAL GRAIN CO 1,877,768 25 JBS* 37,625,829 Smithfield TRI discharge figures are from all Smithfield discharg- Perdue 31,002,822 ing facilities – including those reported under the parent company United Global Foods US Holdings. Similarly, Pilgrim’s Pride is Smithfield** 27,301,782 owned by JBS and so TRI discharge volumes for these two sepa- rately reporting companies are combined herein. TOTAL 250,804,935 *includes Pilgrim’s Pride **includes United Global Foods US Holdings Executive Summary 2 Figure ES-1: Facilities of Five Agribusiness Companies that Dumped Toxic Pollution into Waterways in 2014 (from EPA's Toxics Release Inventory) Tyson Smithfi eld JBS (incl. Pilgrim’s Pride) Cargill Perdue The solutions to curb agribusiness pollution are fea- investors, major restaurant chains – and some of their sible and well-known to the industry. It is well-doc- agribusiness suppliers - have recently committed to umented that halting excess application of manure and end routine use of antibiotics on livestock. Yet as two other fertilizer is the most effective means to preventing top retailers
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cargill Premix & Nutrition: Transforming Talent Management
    Cargill Premix & Nutrition: Transforming Talent Management Michael Gunderson Associate Professor and Associate Director of Research Center for Food and Agricultural Business, Purdue University Wes Davis Graduate Assistant Center for Food and Agricultural Business, Purdue University This case was prepared by Michael Gunderson, associate professor and associate director of research, and Wes Davis, graduate assistant, Center for Food and Agricultural Business, Purdue University. The authors would like to thank Cargill Premix & Nutrition, particularly Heather Imel, vice president of human capital, Cargill Premix & Nutrition North America. The case is a basis for class discussion and represents the views of the authors, not Purdue University. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form without written permission from Purdue University. 2 | Cargill Premix & Nutrition: Transforming Talent Management © 2017 Purdue Univerisity In early 2016 Charles Shininger, managing director for Cargill Premix & Nutrition North America, takes part in a leadership meeting with other business unit managers and platform leaders at Cargill’s global headquarters in Minneapolis. Having just completed a successful quarter, he looks forward to reviewing the global enterprise’s performance and discussing business plans for the year. As the meeting begins, the global executive team of nine corporate officers discusses overall performance. Cargill has experienced declining annual operating earnings since 2011 (Exhibit 1). Some business units have performed well; however, changing customer preferences, political and regulatory uncertainty, macroeconomic challenges, and reinvented customer business models have eroded overall enterprise earnings and led the global executive team to consider what changes are necessary to reclaim performance. Exhibit 1: Over the last six years, operating earnings have been suppressed compared to FY 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • Cargill Non-GMO Solutions
    Cargill Non-GMO Solutions Cargill helps customers grow and protect their brands, and reduce time-to-market Non-GMO* is one of the Food category growth rates fastest growing claims in % growth of $ sales over prior year the U.S. food industry.1 12% 11% 11% A recent Cargill study showed that GMO is top 10% of mind when consumers are asked what they avoid when purchasing food. For over 15 years Cargill has helped customers navigate supply-chain challenges, source non-GMO ingredients, and grow their 2% non-GMO business. 1% 1% 1% 2012 2013 2014 2015 From dedicated producer programs to the industry’s broadest ingredient Total (+1% CAGR) portfolio, Cargill is the right Non-GMO Organic Natural (+11% CAGR) partner to help food and beverage manufacturers grow and protect Source: White Wave at 2016 CAGNY Conference their brands by delivering non-GMO products to consumers. 1 Source: Mintel, March 2016 Cargill.com/food-beverage Cargill markets the industry’s broadest portfolio of non-GMO ingredients. From sweeteners, starches and texturizers to oils, cocoa and chocolate, Cargill delivers the scale that food manufacturers need to get to market quickly and meet growing consumer demand. We offer a growing number of Non-GMO Project Verified ingredients so customers can feature America’s most recognizable non-GMO claim on their labels. Well-established producer programs for corn, soybeans and high oleic canola means unsurpassed supply chain assurance for our customers. Limited supply of non-GMO corn, soybeans and high oleic canola creates challenges for food and beverage companies seeking to scale production and meet growing consumer demand.
    [Show full text]
  • Cargill and Technoserve Partnering to Support Rural Development Around the World
    Cargill and TechnoServe Partnering to support rural development around the world Cargill has been working with TechnoServe since 2000, providing $6.6 million to build farmer capacity and improve the livelihoods of agricultural communities. In addition to funding, Cargill provides technical expertise to the programs, which have supported farmers and enterprises across Latin America, Africa and Asia. Our work together includes: Helping farmers improve their agricultural practices and increase access to inputs and markets Developing management skills among leaders of farmer cooperatives Providing technical and business expertise to small and medium food processors and enterprises Building a strong partnership for farmers In 2014, Cargill and TechnoServe in Nicaragua joined up to project has exceeded the targeted number of farmers develop IMPULSOR (Spanish for “driver or booster”), a four-year participating in the training and average costs for the farmers initiative to provide improved inputs, technical assistance and have reduced by 10 percent, despite recent drought conditions market access to 440 farmers that produce around half of the and instability in the country. Cargill and TechnoServe are in country’s sorghum harvest. A cereal grain, sorghum is widely discussions to determine the best way to sustain this impact. used in Central America as an alternative to maize; it responds better to drought and is used for feeding poultry and, in some cases, as an ingredient in tortillas and other staples. To date the Improving livelihoods and International Finance Corporation, is an industry-first cooperative empowering communities management program. Endorsed by the government, it combines 28 days of intensive classroom training with a year of Cargill and TechnoServe partner on a four-year program in India’s personalized on-the-ground coaching.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Annual Meat Conference Attendee List As of 2.7.2018
    2018 Annual Meat Conference Attendee List as of 2.7.2018 First Name Last Name Title Company Anne-Marie Roerink Principal 210 Analytics Marc DiPersio Vice President and Director, Fresh Foods A.J. Letizio Sales & Marketing, Inc. Nick Letizio Business Manager A.J. Letizio Sales & Marketing, Inc. Altneik Nesbit Purchasing Agent Abaco Groceries Marsh Harbour Jeffery Berlin Vice President, Fresh Foods Acosta Patrick Beyer Vice President, Fresh Acosta Dennis Blackmon Vice President, Food Service Acosta David Dobronski Associate Acosta Chad Judd Senior Business Manager Acosta Chris Korsak Director Acosta Christopher Love Vice President Acosta Rusty Mcdaniel Vice President, Fresh Foods Acosta Karen Olson Vice President, Fresh Foods Acosta Rick Pike Manager, Key Accounts Acosta Cliff Richardson Associate Acosta Ernie Vespole Senior Vice President, Fresh Foods Grocery Sales East Region Acosta Preston Harrell Sales Executive Action Food Sales, Inc. Mike Hughes Account Executive Action Food Sales, Inc. Mike Mickie Account Executive Action Food Sales, Inc. John Nilsson Vice President of Sales & Operations Action Food Sales, Inc. John Nilsson President Action Food Sales, Inc. Jim Baird Sales Manager Advantage Solutions Victor Bontomasi Director, Sales Advantage Solutions Bill Brader Area Vice President Advantage Solutions Mark Clausen Area Vice President Advantage Solutions Jim Dellicolli Director Advantage Solutions Joe Dellicolli Director Advantage Solutions Craig Gervers Sales Manager Advantage Solutions Eugene Giddens President, Sales, Southern
    [Show full text]
  • Hugh Cargill Farm Management Plan
    LAND USE and MANAGEMENT PLAN for the Hugh Cargill Farm Walden Street and Thoreau Street Assessors' Map H10; Parcels 0217, 0220, 0221, 0222 28+/- acres Goals and objectives The goals of this Management Plan are to provide guidance for the management of the remaining land of the Hugh Cargill Farm for its traditional uses, and recommend an integrated plan for management of previously developed parcels (excluding residentially developed areas) together with the remaining Hugh Cargill Farm. Traditional uses include: Drinking water protection and production, agriculture, benefit of the poor in Concord, wildlife protection, maintenance of a scenic gateway into Concord, and the general enjoyment of Concord’s citizens and school children. Open landscapes are declining regionally and in Concord, and this Plan is intended to ensure that the Hugh Cargill Farm land remain open by regular mowing or agricultural haying. The Cargill land provides a rural landscape on an important gateway into town, as well as a connection with the Hapgood Wright Town Forest. Invasive plant species should be selectively removed over time in order to restore the biodiversity of this site. These activities will be conducted in a way that maximizes the wildlife habitat provided by grasslands for butterflies, small mammals, and grassland nesting birds. Informal playing fields are also an accepted use under this plan. No activity may be conducted that will adversely impact the water quality of the Hugh Cargill well. Although some of the original land has been carved off for other uses (and acquisition funds placed in the trust to be disbursed to needy residents of Concord), this Plan seeks to integrate management of all lands, regardless of ownership, within the original bounds to be managed for the goals and objectives stated above.
    [Show full text]
  • In Re Pilgrim's Pride Corporation
    IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE PILGRIM’S PRIDE CORPORATION ) Consol. C.A. No. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION ) 2018-0058-JTL MEMORANDUM OPINION Date Submitted: December 21, 2018 Date Decided: March 15, 2019 Kurt M. Heyman, Melissa N. Donimirski, HEYMAN ENERIO GATTUSO & HIRZEL LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Jason M. Leviton, Joel A. Fleming, BLOCK & LEVITON LLP, Boston, Massachusetts; Mark Lebovitch, Edward G. Timlin, David MacIsaac, BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP, New York, New York; Counsel for Plaintiffs. Kevin G. Abrams, Michael A. Barlow, Andrew J. Peach, ABRAMS & BAYLISS LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Michael B. Carlinsky, Adam M. Abensohn, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, New York, New York; Counsel for Defendants JBS, S.A., JBS USA Holding Lux S.à r.l., William Lovette, Andre Nogueira De Souza, Gilberto Tomazoni, Tarek Farahat, and Denilson Molina. Kevin R. Shannon, Christopher N. Kelly, Jaclyn C. Levy, POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Counsel for Nominal Defendant Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation. LASTER, V.C. The plaintiffs are minority stockholders in nominal defendant Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation (the “Company”), which is a Delaware corporation. They sued the Company’s controlling stockholder, JBS S.A. (“Parent”), which is an entity organized under Brazilian law.1 They also sued five individuals whom Parent elected to the Company’s board of directors (respectively, the “Director Defendants” and the “Board”). All five Director Defendants are executive officers of Parent or serve as executive officers of its controlled subsidiaries. One of the Director Defendants serves as the Company’s CEO. The plaintiffs challenge a transaction in which the Company paid $1.3 billion to buy one of Parent’s other subsidiaries: Moy Park, Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • US Resumes Imports of Fresh & Frozen Beef From
    Cattle Prices Crash While Consumers Continue Paying Record Beef Prices $180 All Fresh Beef Prices — $ Per Pound (Consumers’ Costs) Note: Consumer beef prices go off Consumers’ All Fresh Beef Prices 1 the top of historic chart in 2020. $170 1100-1300 Ib. Steer Price $5.75 $160 Source: USDA Economic Research Services Graph produced by: R-CALF USA $150 Numbered paragraphs produced by The Milkweed $5.25 $140 2 $130 4 5 6 $120 $4.75 $110 7 $100 3 $4.25 8 $90 9 10 Dollars Per Hundredweight (Livestock Producers’ Prices Received) $80 $3.75 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19 Jan-20 Jan-12 Sep-11 Sep-12 Sep-13 Sep-14 Sep-15 Sep-16 Sep-17 Sep-19 Sep-20 Sep-12 May-11 May 12 May 13 May 14 May 15 May 16 May 17 May 18 May 19 May 20 May 12 Sep-18I This graph was created by the staff at R-CALF USA, the progressive prices received by producers’ slaughter cattle, as well as costs paid by con- U.S. cattle producers’ group. R-CALF USA combats the political agenda of sumers at retail for all cuts of fresh beef. The (numbered) points were created “Big Beef.” The graph above depicts the past eight years of data for both by The Milkweed. The spread between the data lines is criminal. 1) Late summer 2014:. Precisely at the time when cattle producers’ prices to some shut-downs and slow-downs. Supermarkets’ supplies of fresh meat (beef, were at their peak, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack announces that the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • JBS: Outsized Deforestation in Supply Chain, COVID-19 Pose Fundamental Business Risks
    JBS: Outsized Deforestation in Supply Chain, COVID-19 Pose Fundamental Business Risks Chain Reaction Research is a coalition August 2020 of Aidenvironment, Profundo and The Brazilian company JBS SA is the largest meat processor in the world based Climate Advisers. on sales. The company operates five main business units: JBS Brazil, Seara, JBS USA Beef, JBS USA Pork, and Pilgrim’s Pride. This paper assesses the Contact: deforestation exposure and the physical and transition risks from JBS’ www.chainreactionresearch.com; operations in Brazil. CRR has located and monitored 983 direct suppliers and [email protected] 1,874 indirect suppliers to JBS in six Amazon states. In addition, CRR calculates the revenue and EBITDA impact of deforestation, Chinese demand, and COVID- Authors: 19 in three forward-looking scenarios. Tim Steinweg, Aidenvironment, Gerard Rijk, Profundo Key Findings: Matt Piotrowski, Climate Advisers JBS has a growing presence in the Chinese market. China accounted for With contributions from: 26.1 percent of JBS’ global exports in 1Q20 and 33.4 percent in 2Q20. The Jack Cunningham, Aidenvironment company has benefited from the growing Chinese reliance on meat imports Barbara Kuepper, Profundo after the African Swine Fever reduced the country’s pig herd. Since 2016, JBS has expressed intentions to list its international assets in the United States. The U.S. listing would consist of a spin-off of JBS’ international operations into a separate company with the same shareholders. Simultaneous to the U.S. listing plans, JBS’ second-largest shareholder BNDESPar announced its intention to sell half its shares. JBS’ beef operations in Brazil have an outsized deforestation risk exposure.
    [Show full text]
  • Nebraska's Cattle Feeding Industry
    Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources EC847 Nebraska’s Cattle Feeding Industry: Size, Structure and Related Industries Thomas L. Holman, Extension Educator Kathleen Brooks, Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist Matt Luebbe, Extension Feedlot Nutrition Specialist Galen Erickson, Extension Feedlot Nutrition Specialist With 6.7 million head of cattle and calves in 2007, Ne- port also examines the relationship of the feeding industry braska has the second largest beef cattle herd in the nation. with the cow-calf production sector, beef processing indus- Cash receipts from sales of these cattle and calves totaled try, feedstuff production industry and export market. $6.6 billion in 2006. Nebraska’s 2.7 million head of cattle on feed in January 2007 also makes the state the second Overview of Nebraska’s Beef Cow Industry largest in the number of cattle on feed and commercial cat- tle slaughtered. A number of unique factors and resources The availability of high quality feeder cattle and calves contribute to the large and thriving cattle feeding industry in Nebraska supports the state’s feeding industry. In 2012, in Nebraska. More than half of the state’s land area is com- Nebraska had approximately 6.3 percent of the nearly 30.3 prised of pasture and rangeland, which supports a large million beef cows that calved in the U.S. that year. These 6.4 cow-calf sector and provides a large calf crop to Nebraska million head of beef cows and calves are on 23,280 beef cow feeders. Not only are cattle feeders near an ample supply operations throughout Nebraska for a state average herd of feeder cattle, but they also are close to key feed input size of 275 cows per operation.
    [Show full text]
  • Cocoa and Chocolate Contents Language Table of Contents
    Language Sustainability Progress Report 2018 - 2019 Cocoa and Chocolate Contents Language Table of Contents Published May 2020 Introduction Community Consumer Responsible 3 President’s welcome Wellbeing Confidence Business 4 Our approach 12 Progress at a glance 18 Progress at a glance 24 Operating in a safe, responsible and 13 Spotlight: A localized 19 Spotlight: Connecting 5 Taking cocoa to sustainable way the cloud approach to tackle child data to measure and labor in Indonesia report on supply chain 7 Impact at a glance sustainability Farmer Protect Transformation, About Livelihoods our Planet together 26 Cargill 9 Progress at a glance 15 Progress at a glance 21 Progress at a glance 28 Cocoa and Chocolate 10 Spotlight: Beyond 16 Spotlight: From 22 Spotlight: Coop 29 This report cocoa: taking a holistic satellites to farmers: a Academy 2.0: look at farmer resilience multi-layered approach Strengthening more against deforestation cooperatives with management tools Cargill | Cocoa and Chocolate | 2018-2019 Sustainability Progress Report 2 Introduction Language Dear stakeholders The world is faced with extraordinary chal- Digital technology enables us to provide our customers Transparency is imperative and we are committed to con- lenges. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is with fast and transparent sustainability data, helping them tinuously improve and refine how we show the progress measure and report the impact they achieve through the we make. This report focuses on progress both towards testing our resilience as a global community. Cargill Cocoa Promise. As of this year, half of the cocoa our goals and against the data of the previous year; it high- This reminds us how interconnected our world in our global direct supply chain is traceable from farm to lights many great accomplishments.
    [Show full text]
  • PASSOVER April, 1991
    \ ins min LINCOLN SQUARE SYNAGOGUE BULLETIN Nisan 5751 - Volume 26, No. 5 PASSOVER April, 1991 A GUIDE TO THE LAWS OF PESACH I. ABOUT CHAMETZ A. The Prohibition The prohibition against Chametz on Pesach is found in the Torah. It commands every Jew: a. not to eat or drink it, b. not to own it, c. not to possess it. The prohibition applies to even the slightest amount of such Chametz because of the harshness of the penalty prescribed by the Torah — excision, or because of the fact that Chametz is permissible after Pesach — there can be no nullification during Pesach. The Rabbinic prohibition extends to the use even after Pesach of Chametz which belonged to a Jew during Pesach. For this reason, Jewish bakeries and other food stores which do not sell their Chametz before Pesach should not be patronized for approximately a month after the holiday so that no Chametz product which belonged to them during Pesach would be consumed even afterwards. However, this prohibition applies only to products which are in the category of Chametz B'ein (see below). B. The Forms of Chametz 1. Chametz B'ein — Pure Chametz — The combination of any of the five grains mentioned in the Torah (wheat, barley, rye, oats and spelt), or any of their derivatives (such as flour) with water or moisture for a period of eighteen minutes during which the mixture is not stirred, results in Chametz. (This process, described in the Talmud in terms of its appearance, is not identical with the process of fermentation. Chametz appears to be an arbitrarily defined state, not a scientifically definable condition.) Thus, included in this category are bread, cakes and pastries, beer, grain alcohol, and even matzah which was not specially prepared for Passover use.
    [Show full text]
  • JBS GLOBAL FOOD INNOVATION CENTER in HONOR of GARY & KAY SMITH the JBS Global Food Innovation Center KEY in Honor of Gary & Kay Smith Will: 1
    JBS GLOBAL FOOD INNOVATION CENTER IN HONOR OF GARY & KAY SMITH The JBS Global Food Innovation Center KEY in Honor of Gary & Kay Smith will: 1. Animal Systems Education Area • Be a pilot plant and include a • Provide spaces to further student • Serve as a key resource for industry 2. Meat Harvest complete livestock and meat- and industry learning and through continuing education and 3. Carcass Chilling processing center, spanning the interaction. training and equipment development 4. Meat Fabrication meat-animal harvesting process, and testing, and a place to engage in 5. Meat Processing fully equipped with a Temple • Add state-of-the-art laboratories meaningful dialogue to advance the 6. Meat Demonstration Classroom Grandin-designed animal systems and facilities to create and animal agriculture industry. 7. Poultry Processing education area, a research offer innovative and modern DR. GARY SMITH is a renowned and respected professor emeritus in the and development center and approaches to education and 8. Ready-to-Eat Packaging Department of Animal Sciences at sensory analysis room, a meat research in meat science. 9. Thermal Processing Colorado State University, where he demonstration classroom, and a 10. Culinary Kitchen held the Monfort Endowed Chair in Meat retail meat and dairy store and café. 11. Culinary Demonstration Science from 1990 until his retirement Located within 60 miles of every sector of the 12. Atrium/Lobby in 2010. Smith is an internationally livestock and meatpacking industries, Colorado 13. Retail Meat and Dairy Store and Café established meat scientist, accomplished researcher, gifted teacher, and legendary State University is constructing a food innovation SECOND FLOOR UP UP mentor.
    [Show full text]