Last Thursday the Environmental Action Group’s Sustainable Foods Working Group met with Mason Dining Services senior administration to discuss the use of more local, sustainable foods in Mason dining facilities. The group met with Sodexo Resident District Manager Denise Ammaccapane, Executive Campus Chef Peter Schoebel, and Mason Dining’s Dietian Lois Durant. The student lead group consisted of Environmental Action Group members Darius Salimi and Jason Von Kundra, GMU Organic Garden Association member Nya Jackson, and Sustainability Projects Specialist Danielle Wyman. The delegation claimed to be representing over three hundred and fifty members of the Environmental Action Group.
The largest concern of the student lead delegation was the lack of local, organic produce in Mason’s dining services. Executive Campus Chef Peter Schoebel responded to student concerns by stating that he does use local produce, when available, but “we [the students] just don’t know it”. Keany Produce Company, Mason’s produce provider, provides local fruits and vegetables by default when they are available. Due to Schoebel’s time limitations he stated that “I don’t have the time to go through the produce order list and create labels for which food is local”. The Sustainable Food Working Group will be working with two service learners, appointed to work with Dining Services, to assist with creating local food labels to be prominently displayed at Mason Dining facilities to make the Mason community aware of which foods and ingredients are being sourced locally. Denise Ammaccapane, Sodexo Resident District Manager, has also volunteered her marketing student interns, to help with designing labels for locally sourced produce.
Signs for locally sourced produce wasn’t the only labeling issue discussed at the meeting. Environmental Action Group Co-chair, Jason Von Kundra, who is a vegan, expressed his discontent with the prominent labeling of vegan dishes at Southside. Currently, there is a binder with the list of ingredients that are present in dishes but Von Kundra doesn’t think this current system of labeling is convenient. “The list of ingredients should be directly in front of the dishes they correspond to not over in a corner somewhere” said Von Kundra. The Sustainable Foods Working Group also wasn’t satisfied with the current symbols used to identify gluten free dishes, and dishes containing soy, dairy, peanuts, and other ingredients students might possibly be allergic to. The student group will be working with Mason Dining’s Dietian Lois Durant, who is directly employed by Sodexo, to improve the allergy symbols used. Schoebel also claims to be working with Mason’s IT department to fix the labeling glitches.
The conversion of George’s to a vegetarian restaurant was also discussed during the meeting. Ammacaccapane said converting George’s to a vegetarian restaurant had been discussed in the past but there wasn’t enough support for the restaurant. Salimi expressed the need for a vegetarian restaurant on campus. “It’s crazy that I pay $9 to get into Southside to eat without a meal plan and only have one or two vegetarian options available to me. I want the same number of food options as non vegetarians” said Salimi. Ammacaccapane, Schobel, and Durant seemed open to the idea but asked for more information from the student group including where they would like to have a vegetarian restaurant on campus, what the menu and staffing would look like, and what students are willing to pay for a meal. Schoebel volunteered to do a cost analysis of a vegetarian restaurant to see if it is feasible.
Lastly the group discussed the use of garden produce in Southside. Last month the Organic Garden Association donated over 10 pounds of basil to Southside for them to use for their menu that day. The basil wasn’t used in the menu that day. Schobel stated that if the produce from the garden is to be used in Southside he needs advance notice of produce available from the garden that he can use in the next week or two. He also suggested that the Organic Garden Association consider using the garden produce in other dining facilities that have more flexibility in their menus since they are dealing with a lesser volume of customers.
The group will be meeting again in two weeks to discuss their progress and further areas where they can work together. Some members of the Sustainable Foods Working Group seemed optimistic after their meeting. Danielle Wyman, Office of Sustainability Projects Specialist, expressed her excitement after the meeting. “I feel very excited and encouraged that Sodexo seems ready to really move forward with what we all are asking for!” Others have chosen to wait until after some results have been seen to call the meeting a success. Von Kundra of the EAG had this to add. “At the 2010 Longwood Sustainability Conference I was impressed with all the sustainable initiatives Aramark, one of Sodexo’s biggest competitors, is doing at Longwood University. I was even more impressed when I learned that Longwood does not have any environmental group. At GMU, our environmental group has presented the issue and the ball is the hands of Mason Dining and Sodexo to make changes here on campus. I can’t consider [the meeting] a success until we see some changes made.”
If you are interested in learning more about the Sustainable Foods Campaign please contact the Environmental Action Group at gmueag@gmail.com
Showing posts with label GMU. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GMU. Show all posts
Monday, October 18, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Powerful Tool to Regulate Greenhouse Gases Under Attack
By Colin Bennett
In early 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. EPA, ruled that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act, and as such, can be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Two years later the EPA responded by proposing a finding that GHGs "contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare". Then, in September of 2009 the EPA followed up with "a proposal that is focused on large facilities emitting over 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year. These facilities would be required to obtain permits that would demonstrate they are using the best practices and technologies to minimize GHG emissions." This decision was lauded by environmentalists who were excited by the prospect of the federal government finally taking on climate change. (A summary of the EPA's proposed rule can be found here.)
Specifically, the EPA would regulate facilities that emit 25,000 tons per year or more of carbon dioxide equivalents including refineries, power plants, and cement production facilities. The carbon dioxide equivalents include corresponding amounts of methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. According to the EPA, "The proposed thresholds would “tailor” the permit programs to limit which facilities would be required to obtain [NSR and title V] permits and would cover nearly 70 percent of the national GHG emissions that come from stationary sources, including those from the nation’s largest emitters—including power plants, refineries, and cement production facilities."
Now, under an amendment added to an unrelated bill, the EPA is in danger of losing its authority to regulate GHGs. According to a press release from the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the amendment, introduced by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), "would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from spending money on regulating carbon dioxide from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act for a period of one year." According to the Washington Post, "two Washington lobbyists, Jeffrey R. Holmstead and Roger R. Martella, Jr., helped craft the original amendment Murkowski planned to offer on the floor last fall. Both Holmstead, who heads the Environmental Strategies Group and Bracewell & Guiliani, and Martella, a partner at Sidley Austin LLP, held senior posts at EPA under the Bush administration and represents multiple clients with an interest in climate legislation pending before Congress."
Fearing that any delay to federal action, especially a delay motivated by the interests of industry, will severely hamper our ability to curtail the worst effects of climate change, many environmental groups are crying foul. These groups, including the National Wildlife Federation, Earthjustice, Repower America, and the Union of Concerned Scientists are calling on the Senate to reject the amendment. Each of them has set up electronic 'action alerts' to allow citizens to contact their senators to voice their opposition to the amendment.
Although both the Post and the N.Y. Times are reporting that Senator Murkowski may end up delaying offering her amendment, groups opposed to the measure are not giving up the fight to see the amendment disappear for good.
Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Photo Courtesy Wikimedia Commons
In early 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. EPA, ruled that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act, and as such, can be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Two years later the EPA responded by proposing a finding that GHGs "contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare". Then, in September of 2009 the EPA followed up with "a proposal that is focused on large facilities emitting over 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year. These facilities would be required to obtain permits that would demonstrate they are using the best practices and technologies to minimize GHG emissions." This decision was lauded by environmentalists who were excited by the prospect of the federal government finally taking on climate change. (A summary of the EPA's proposed rule can be found here.)
Specifically, the EPA would regulate facilities that emit 25,000 tons per year or more of carbon dioxide equivalents including refineries, power plants, and cement production facilities. The carbon dioxide equivalents include corresponding amounts of methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. According to the EPA, "The proposed thresholds would “tailor” the permit programs to limit which facilities would be required to obtain [NSR and title V] permits and would cover nearly 70 percent of the national GHG emissions that come from stationary sources, including those from the nation’s largest emitters—including power plants, refineries, and cement production facilities."
Now, under an amendment added to an unrelated bill, the EPA is in danger of losing its authority to regulate GHGs. According to a press release from the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the amendment, introduced by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), "would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from spending money on regulating carbon dioxide from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act for a period of one year." According to the Washington Post, "two Washington lobbyists, Jeffrey R. Holmstead and Roger R. Martella, Jr., helped craft the original amendment Murkowski planned to offer on the floor last fall. Both Holmstead, who heads the Environmental Strategies Group and Bracewell & Guiliani, and Martella, a partner at Sidley Austin LLP, held senior posts at EPA under the Bush administration and represents multiple clients with an interest in climate legislation pending before Congress."
Fearing that any delay to federal action, especially a delay motivated by the interests of industry, will severely hamper our ability to curtail the worst effects of climate change, many environmental groups are crying foul. These groups, including the National Wildlife Federation, Earthjustice, Repower America, and the Union of Concerned Scientists are calling on the Senate to reject the amendment. Each of them has set up electronic 'action alerts' to allow citizens to contact their senators to voice their opposition to the amendment.
Although both the Post and the N.Y. Times are reporting that Senator Murkowski may end up delaying offering her amendment, groups opposed to the measure are not giving up the fight to see the amendment disappear for good.
Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Photo Courtesy Wikimedia Commons
Monday, January 11, 2010
Greenpeace calls on Trader Joe's to stop selling 'red-list' fish
By Colin Bennett
Greenpeace, a sometimes controversial and often successful environmental organization, is calling upon the nation-wide food retailer Trader Joe's to stop selling fish species it claims are being harvested or farmed unsustainably.
The organization maintains a list of fish it says to avoid due to unsustainable harvesting or farming practices. Its list, dubbed the 'red-list' consists of 22 entries including Atlantic cod, halibut, and salmon, yellowfin tuna, pollack, red snapper, and all species of sharks. (The full list can be found here).
According to Casson Trenor, Greenpeace's Sustainable Seafood Markets Expert, Trader Joe's is the "worst performing national seafood retailer". The assertion is based on rating system containing four categories: Sustainable Seafood Policy (Trader Joe's doesn't have one); Seafood Sustainability Initiatives (Trader Joe's doesn't have any); Labeling & Transparency (Trader Joe's doesn't label its seafood); Red List Seafood Sales (Trader Joe's sells 15 of the 22 of the co-called red-list seafoods). The full scorecard, published in a report called "Carting Away the Oceans" contains ratings of the nation's 20 largest seafood retailers. Of all the retailers evaluated, Wegman's was rated the highest with a score of 5.9 out of 10.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, "Despite its social and economic importance, attempts to manage fisheries sustainably have been unsuccessful in many parts of the world due to several factors...the underlying crisis is real and an urgent response is required at global level." A study published in the journal Science claims that the world will run out of seafood by the middle of the century if fishing practices aren't changed drastically. "We really see the end of the line now," said the study's lead author Boris Worm, a marine biologist at Canada's Dalhousie University, in an interview with the Washington Post. "It's within our lifetime. Our children will see a world without seafood if we don't change things." Specifically, the study states that "business as usual would foreshadow serious threats to global food security, coastal water quality, and ecosystem stability, affecting current and future generations."
If you choose to eat fish or other seafood, there are several organizations that have guides to help you make informed decisions, including NOAA, the Marine Stewardship Council, and the Monterey Bay Aquarium. If you choose to give up seafood completely, there are dozens of resources that will help you select healthy alternatives to animal protein. Vegan Outreach has a great guide, as does the USDA, and the Mayo Clinic.
If you are interested in contacting Trader Joe's to tell them how you feel about their lack of a sustainable seafood policy you can use Greenpeace's online contact form here. It allows you to write your own comment or submit a suggested comment.
Enjoy this short clip from the mock-website for Traitor Joe's:
See these other articles related to seafood:
World's Fish Supply Running Out, Researchers Warn- Washington Post
Shrimp On Your Plate? Think Twice (Your Liver, Endangered Mangroves, And Poorly Paid Workers Will Thank You)- Planet Green
Last Act for the Bluefin- New York Times
Greenpeace, a sometimes controversial and often successful environmental organization, is calling upon the nation-wide food retailer Trader Joe's to stop selling fish species it claims are being harvested or farmed unsustainably.
The organization maintains a list of fish it says to avoid due to unsustainable harvesting or farming practices. Its list, dubbed the 'red-list' consists of 22 entries including Atlantic cod, halibut, and salmon, yellowfin tuna, pollack, red snapper, and all species of sharks. (The full list can be found here).
According to Casson Trenor, Greenpeace's Sustainable Seafood Markets Expert, Trader Joe's is the "worst performing national seafood retailer". The assertion is based on rating system containing four categories: Sustainable Seafood Policy (Trader Joe's doesn't have one); Seafood Sustainability Initiatives (Trader Joe's doesn't have any); Labeling & Transparency (Trader Joe's doesn't label its seafood); Red List Seafood Sales (Trader Joe's sells 15 of the 22 of the co-called red-list seafoods). The full scorecard, published in a report called "Carting Away the Oceans" contains ratings of the nation's 20 largest seafood retailers. Of all the retailers evaluated, Wegman's was rated the highest with a score of 5.9 out of 10.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, "Despite its social and economic importance, attempts to manage fisheries sustainably have been unsuccessful in many parts of the world due to several factors...the underlying crisis is real and an urgent response is required at global level." A study published in the journal Science claims that the world will run out of seafood by the middle of the century if fishing practices aren't changed drastically. "We really see the end of the line now," said the study's lead author Boris Worm, a marine biologist at Canada's Dalhousie University, in an interview with the Washington Post. "It's within our lifetime. Our children will see a world without seafood if we don't change things." Specifically, the study states that "business as usual would foreshadow serious threats to global food security, coastal water quality, and ecosystem stability, affecting current and future generations."
If you choose to eat fish or other seafood, there are several organizations that have guides to help you make informed decisions, including NOAA, the Marine Stewardship Council, and the Monterey Bay Aquarium. If you choose to give up seafood completely, there are dozens of resources that will help you select healthy alternatives to animal protein. Vegan Outreach has a great guide, as does the USDA, and the Mayo Clinic.
If you are interested in contacting Trader Joe's to tell them how you feel about their lack of a sustainable seafood policy you can use Greenpeace's online contact form here. It allows you to write your own comment or submit a suggested comment.
Enjoy this short clip from the mock-website for Traitor Joe's:
See these other articles related to seafood:
World's Fish Supply Running Out, Researchers Warn- Washington Post
Shrimp On Your Plate? Think Twice (Your Liver, Endangered Mangroves, And Poorly Paid Workers Will Thank You)- Planet Green
Last Act for the Bluefin- New York Times
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Pictures from the first year of the Mason vegetable garden
Although all of our pictures from the garden an be found on Facebook, we are trying to make them a little more accesible. As such, we are in the process of uploading them to Picassa, the Google photo site. Although they are not in order and some have yet to be edited, the photos can be found by clicking on the link following the sample photos below. We'd love to know what you think, both about the pictures and the garden in general; please comment on the pictures or on this blog post. Or, if you are more comfortable submitting your comments privately, please send them to me at cbennet6@gmu.edu.
As more pictures become available we will be posting them as well. In the meantime, if you have any suggestions on how we can improve our outreach, please let us know.
-Colin
See the entire album: http://picasaweb.google.com/colinthegreat/MasonGarden2009#
As more pictures become available we will be posting them as well. In the meantime, if you have any suggestions on how we can improve our outreach, please let us know.
-Colin
See the entire album: http://picasaweb.google.com/colinthegreat/MasonGarden2009#
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)