<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>건강과 대안 &#187; 맥도날드</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.chsc.or.kr/tag/%EB%A7%A5%EB%8F%84%EB%82%A0%EB%93%9C/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.chsc.or.kr</link>
	<description>연구공동체</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2026 01:34:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>ko-KR</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>[식품안전] 자본주의체제가 굶주림과 비만을 생성해내는 방식</title>
		<link>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=2064</link>
		<comments>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=2064#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:05:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>건강과대안</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[기업감시]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[식품 · 의약품]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[junk food]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[굶주림]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[노동착취]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[로버트 앨브리튼(Robert Albritton)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[맥도날드]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[비만]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[설탕]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[식품안전]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[자본주의]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[정크푸드]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[카길]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[코카콜라]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=2064</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[캐나다 토론토에 소재한 요크대학교에서 정치경제학을 강의하다가 현재는 정년 퇴임을&#160;한 맑스주의 정치경제학자 로버트 앨브리튼(Robert Albritton) 교수가 2009년에 펴낸 [Let Them Eat Junk : How Capitalism Creates Hunger and Obesity] [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><P>캐나다 토론토에 소재한 요크대학교에서 정치경제학을 강의하다가 현재는 정년 퇴임을&nbsp;한 맑스주의 정치경제학자 로버트 앨브리튼(Robert Albritton) 교수가 2009년에 펴낸 [Let Them Eat Junk : How Capitalism Creates Hunger and Obesity] 목차와 인터뷰입니다.<BR><BR>로버트 앨브리튼 교수는 자신의 아내가 토론토에 소재한 라이슨대학교(Ryerson University)에서 식품영양학 교수로 강의하고 있기 때문에 자본주의 체제의 식품산업에 관심을 가지게 되었다고 합니다. <BR><BR>그는&nbsp;최근 [Socialist Register](Vol 46)에 &#8220;비만과 굶주림 사이에서 : 자본주의 식품 산업(Between obesity and hunger: the capitalist food industry)&#8221;이라는 아래와 같은 글을 기고하기도 했습니다.<BR><BR>=======================<BR><BR>Socialist Register, Vol 46<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <BR>Between obesity and hunger: the capitalist food industry<BR>Robert Albritton<BR>&nbsp;<BR><A href="http://socialistregister.com/index.php/srv/article/view/6770">http://socialistregister.com/index.php/srv/article/view/6770</A></P><br />
<P>Abstract</P><br />
<P>We live in a world capable, in principle, of providing a diverse and healthy diet for all, and yet one quarter of its people suffer from frequent hunger and ill health generated by a diet that is poor in quantity or quality or both. Another quarter of the world’s population eats too much food, food that is often heavy with calories and low on nutrients (colloquially called ‘junk food’). This quarter of the world’s population risks diabetes and all of the other chronic illnesses generated by obesity. Study after study in recent years has come to the conclusion that the single most important factor in human health is diet, and diet is something we can shape. <BR>Cheap food is important to capitalism because it allows wages to be lower (and thus profits to be higher) and yet leave workers with more disposable income available to buy other commodities. In this short essay most of my examples come from the US, because, as the most hegemonic capitalist power in the world, it has done the most to shape the global food system. But I don’t want to give the impression that there is one tightly integrated capitalist world food system. Even in the US, capitalism has not entirely subsumed the whole food system, and while there are few places in the world untouched by capitalism, its degree of hegemony may vary a great deal. Still, up to the present, capitalism has been the single strongest force shaping the global food system, and much of that shaping power has flowed outward from the US.<BR><BR>=======================<BR><BR><STRONG><FONT size=3>Let Them Eat Junk : How Capitalism Creates Hunger and Obesity</FONT></STRONG><BR>Robert Albritton / Pluto Press / 2009</P><br />
<P>A thorough explanation of how the capitalist system creates simultaneous hunger and obesity<BR>&nbsp;<BR>This is the first book to analyse the food industry from a Marxist perspective.Respected economist Robert Albritton argues that the capitalist system, far from delivering on the promise of cheap, nutritious food for all, has created a world where 25% of the world population are over-fed and 25% are hungry. This malnourishment of 50% of the world&#8217;s population is explained systematically, a refreshing change from accounts that focus on cultural factors and individual greed. Albritton details the economic relations and connections that have put us in a situation of simultaneous oversupply and undersupply of food.This explosive book provides yet more evidence that the human cost of capitalism is much bigger than those in power will admit.</P><br />
<P>&nbsp;<BR><STRONG>Table of Contents<BR></STRONG><BR>Preface<BR>1 Introduction<BR>2 Capital&#8217;s Deep Structures, Agriculture, and Food<BR>3 The Phase of Consumerism and the Roots of the Current Agriculture and Food Regimes<BR>4 The Food System and Consumer&#8217;s Health<BR>5 The Health of Agriculture and Food Workers<BR>6 Agriculture, Food, and the Environment<BR>7 Food, Marketing and Choice<BR>8 Food, Power, and Liberal Democracy<BR>9 Possible Changes That May Become Feasible Changes <BR>Notes<BR>Index<BR><BR>=========================<BR><BR><STRONG><FONT size=3>Capitalism and food: Let them eat junk</FONT></STRONG></P><br />
<P>An interview with Rob Albritton<BR><BR>출처 : <A href="http://links.org.au/node/1616">http://links.org.au/node/1616<BR></A><BR>March 2010 &#8212; Rob Albritton’s Let Them Eat Junk: How Capitalism Creates Hunger and Obesity (2009), published by Arbeiter Ring Press in Canada and Pluto Press in the UK, offers a welcome and urgently needed analysis of “how the profit fixation of capital has led us deeply into a dangerously unsustainable system of food provision, a system that totally fails when it comes to distributive justice and to human and environmental health” (p. 201). His analysis takes us inside capitalism and shows how its “deep structures” manage our agricultural and food systems in irrational ways. </P><br />
<P>Socialist Project’s Relay magazine recently asked John Simoulidis to interview Robert Albritton about his book and current global struggles to address the failures of our agriculture/food system. Posted at Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal with permission.</P><br />
<P>* * *<BR>You have written a number of books on Marxist theory and political economy: why a book on food?</P><br />
<P>When I retired from York University’s political science department after teaching political theory and political economy for 36 years, I had more time to do research and writing. Previously most of my work was very theoretical, and I decided it was time to direct my attention to something more down to earth.</P><br />
<P>I had many influences directing my attention toward food, not the least of which was my wife’s career teaching food and nutrition at Ryerson University in Toronto. Now that I was retired, I could devote most of my waking hours to researching and writing this book on the food system – a topic that turned out to be far more extensive than my initial expectations. Indeed, the more I researched the topic, the more I discovered the numerous interconnections among our ecological crises, our social and physical health crises, our economic crisis and our global food system.</P><br />
<P>The focus on the impact that capitalism has on food and agriculture is a particularly rich source if we want to make connections between the struggles for socialism and the struggles for ecological sustainability. I hope my book can contribute to a growing wake-up call that will bring about a refocus of human intelligence and material wealth toward reshaping the food system and the capitalist economy that it is embedded in. </P><br />
<P>There are various and recently published books and articles offering critiques of the corporate control of the food system. What can readers expect to find in your book that is lacking in other critiques?</P><br />
<P>After 40 years of studying capitalism, I believe that no single work makes more headway in grasping its inner logic and inner dynamic than Marx’s Capital. It was this work more than any other that guided me in my central aim, which was to understand how capitalism has shaped our food system.</P><br />
<P>It follows that the first difference between this book and others written on the topic of food is that I am not aware of any other food book that explicitly bases its theoretical framework (many do not have theoretical frameworks) on Marx’s Capital. Second, no other food book has as broad a scope as this one. Third, no other food book has as much factual information. Fourth and finally, the above three points are combined in a way that makes this book the most radical critique of the capitalist food system yet written. This is because it seeks out connections between the food crisis and the other crises of advanced capitalism, and it illustrates that capital’s indifference to use-value is particularly destructive when capitalism subsumes and commodifies the food system.</P><br />
<P>What were some of the most interesting and/or surprising discoveries you made while researching and writing this book?</P><br />
<P>I was shocked by many things. I’ll mention a few.</P><br />
<P>First, I was impressed by the immense power of the sugar industry. Sugar is one of the cheapest, the most addictive and most profitable of food inputs. As a result more and more of it goes into much of our processed foods, even though it is the prime suspect in the current global diabetes epidemic. Efforts to place constraints on its use have mostly failed, despite a fledgling international “dump soft drinks” campaign led by the Center for Science in the Public Interest.</P><br />
<P>Second, while I knew in a general way that the global distribution of food leaves many people struggling with hunger and malnutrition, I was not aware that globally nearly half the population makes $2 or less a day, and that approximately 1 billion people are mentally impaired due to malnutrition.</P><br />
<P>Finally, our food system spreads toxins in the environment; has played the major role in deforestation, the running down of water supplies and the degradation of land; is a huge contributor to global warming; and is rapidly depleting the remaining reserves of fossil fuels. In short, it not only undermines human health, but also is leading us toward ecological disaster.</P><br />
<P>What are some of the major themes that you address? What are some of the major failures associated with an agricultural/food system controlled by capital’s “deep structures”?</P><br />
<P>The title could be misleading without an understanding of the reference to Marie Antoinette’s “Let them eat cake.” In my interpretation “junk food” epitomises capitalist food in this phase of history, and junk food is high in sugars, fats and salts, while being low in other nutrients. My book does not focus narrowly on junk food, but on a food system whose cutting edge has been junk food and whose largest corporations tend to be centred in the US, expanding outward to the rest of the world. The main themes of the book are the food system’s failure to advance human health, environmental health or social justice; and the connections between the food crisis and the myriad of other crises characteristic of late capitalism.<BR>Rational behaviour under capitalism requires that capitalists continually shift production from goods and services that are unprofitable (and will, in due course plunge them into bankruptcy) to goods and services that are profitable. Since competition forces them to maximise short-term profits, it is this quantitative focus and not the quality of use values that becomes the overriding goal.</P><br />
<P>For example, if a capitalist learns that by adding more sugar to baby food, profits will increase both because sugar is a very cheap input and because babies will eat more baby food and later adults will eat more sugar, then a rational capitalist would do this, despite many studies that show a craving for sugar that borders on addiction can be established very early in children through a diet of sugar dense foods.</P><br />
<P>The capitalist cannot afford to be concerned with the lifetime of obesity and connected illnesses that such a diet might generate. In short, in order to be rational, a capitalist needs to focus on profits (quantity) and not the quality of life of humans (or use values) unless that quality can be easily converted into profits. Similarly, if the market for palm oil is profitable, and the easiest way to expand its production is to cut down the remaining rainforests of South East Asia, then a rational capitalist would not hesitate to do this.</P><br />
<P>Finally, if capitalist farmers profit from paying low wages to undocumented field workers, then any capitalist farmer who does not do this is likely to lose out to the competition. Unfortunately these and many other destructive trends are all too current.</P><br />
<P>How does the crisis in the food system relate to the broader economic and ecological crises of the current phase of neoliberal capitalism? How will its impacts be felt and distributed globally?</P><br />
<P>The food crisis feeds the other crises which in turn feed it. The North American food system is so dependent upon fossil fuels that it has been estimated that all known fossil fuel reserves would be exhausted in seven years were the whole world to adopt the US system. Indeed, at approximately one-third of the total, the food system contributes more to global warming than any other sector of the economy. At the same time global warming will reduce crop yields due to extreme weather and higher temperatures.</P><br />
<P>Further, to mention only two of the many causes of pollution: the massive petrochemical inputs of agriculture coupled with the pollution of bodies of fresh water by confined animal feeding operations make the capitalist food system a major contributor to the toxification of the environment, which is now reaching alarming levels.</P><br />
<P>Finally, given the petroleum dependency of the food system, the price of food will go up with the price of petroleum, and the use of food crop land for ethanol production will only push food prices yet higher. Declining yields due to global warming and extreme weather will also increase food prices. Without action now these price increases will soon be disastrous for the 40 per cent of global population that lives on $2 or less a day.</P><br />
<P>Your reply addresses how capitalism creates hunger. Can you explain how it at the same time produces obesity?</P><br />
<P>The producers of junk food that profit from the ease with which people become quasi-addicted to sugar, fat and salt provide consumers with lots of calories but few nutrients. Hooked on junk food and lacking the income to afford more nutritious food, people consume too many calories and not enough nutrients. This is a recipe for obesity, a weakened immune system, and ultimately illness and death. A report published by the American Medical Association claims that if current practices continue, one-third of US children born in the year 2000 will get diabetes.</P><br />
<P>Even more serious than what some have called the “pandemic of obesity” is the hunger and malnutrition suffered by over a billion people in the world. It has been estimated that during each half hour an average of 360 children under the age of five die of starvation or hunger-related illnesses.</P><br />
<P>Perhaps the most challenging part of your book for readers not familiar with Marx’s Capital or the Unoist approach that informs your theoretical work concerns the two chapters in part 2 of your book where you provide an outline of “capitalism in the abstract and general” and “consumerism” as a phase of capitalism. Can you elaborate briefly on why this kind of theoretical work is necessary in order to understand the global and local failures of the agriculture/food system?<BR>The more abstract level of analysis clarifies the basic features of fully developed capitalism: showing how it subsumes social relations while deepening and expanding itself.</P><br />
<P>Capital’s abstract dynamic is present in history to the extent that capitalism is. At the same time capital is constrained and/or supported by historically specific structures and agencies that shape it and are shaped by it. The abstract level of analysis brings out the reasons why even when capitalism is functioning at its competitive best, its management of a fully capitalist agricultural/food system is likely to manifest significant contradictions and irrationalities. My mid-range level of analysis illustrates the form that these irrationalities take in the phase of consumerism after World War II. Finally, these two higher levels of analysis help us to understand the evolving food system over the past 20 years or so.</P><br />
<P>One can easily list large numbers of alarming facts about current tendencies associated with the capitalist food system, but theory helps us to weigh the importance of the facts, to understand their interconnections, and hence to understand the most important forces shaping and being shaped by the food system. The better we understand how the current system operates, the more effective our strategies of transformation.</P><br />
<P>You describe the current phase of capitalism in terms of a “capitalist command economy”. Can you briefly explain what this means and how it frames the issues you raise in the concluding chapter of your book on “the fight for democracy, social justice, health and sustainability”?</P><br />
<P>The food industry always emphasises the enormous choice it offers the modern consumer, but this is an illusion.</P><br />
<P>First of all because most people in the world are too poor to buy any but the cheapest of foods. Second, those that have the money are confronted with a huge array of processed foods that are largely re-arrangements of soy, corn, fat, sugar and salt. If you are allergic to GM soy, you will have to avoid the majority of processed foods since so many of them contain soy and soy by-products, and there is no labelling requirement for GMOs. Third, food indoctrination is so widespread and powerful that most food choices are already heavily conditioned by the toxic food environment and its powerful marketing techniques. Fourth, nearly all foods in the typical supermarket are the products of a few huge corporations (for example, Nestlé and Kraft).</P><br />
<P>During the “Cold War”, Western economists often sharply contrasted “totalitarian command economies”, characteristic of the communist bloc, with “free market economies”, characteristic of the capitalist bloc. Today, the world capitalist economy ought to be labelled a “corporate command economy” because large corporations run by small elites have way too much unaccountable power to command the future of humanity.</P><br />
<P>Markets are now largely planning instruments utilised by corporations for creating both supply and demand. Large profits are made even when much larger social costs (externalities not included in market prices) will need to be paid by taxpayers and future generations.</P><br />
<P>While in reality most markets have never worked as pictured by the ideal of optimality that many economists have presupposed, now this ideal is so deeply ingrained that it can still be used to justify “free markets” when in reality we more and more see the corporate use of markets as planning mechanisms to maximise their short-term profits while creating huge long-range costs to society. These social costs can be viewed as debts that future generations will have to pay whether they are economic debts, ecological debts or health debts.</P><br />
<P>We need to turn this around, and we need to do it fast. This will require clearing our minds of the free market myth, so that we can begin to consciously use markets as democratic planning mechanisms to advance human and environmental wellbeing. Besides democratising markets, we also need to democratise corporations and governments. Democratising corporations means making their decision making transparent so that they can be held accountable by the public. The first step in democratising governments is to find ways of preventing them being held for ransom by giant corporations. </P><br />
<P>In the current circumstances, it is particularly important to democratise the labour market. There will always be unmet social needs, and therefore there should always be jobs to meet those needs. Existing labour markets are extremely ineffective ways of mobilising human energies to meet human needs. Computer technology could be utilised to find new ways of prioritising social needs and of mobilising the human intelligence and material wealth to meet them. Anyone who wants to work and is able to work should never be unemployed unless it is to gain skills needed to meet particular needs, and such education should be subsidised.</P><br />
<P>Finally, and this will perhaps be the most difficult, we need to find ways to redistribute wealth globally in order to advance the equality that is necessary for democracy to be effective, and for freedom to have any meaning. Democratising markets, corporations and governments is, in my opinion, not a “middle way” that compromises its soul to neoliberalism, it is the best way forward that I can think of – a way that offers a just and humane way out of the myriad of crises that confront us.</P><br />
<P>[Rob Albritton is professor emeritus at York University, Toronto, and the author of Economics Transformed: Discovering the Brilliance of Marx (2007) and contributed an article to the recent issue of Socialist Register (2010), “Morbid symptoms: Health under capitalism”. This article first appeared in the January-March 2010 edition of Relay, Socialist Project’s magazine. It is posted at Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal with permission. To download a PDF of the latest edition Relay click HERE.]</P></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=2064/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>[기업감시] 맥도날드 치킨에 대한 입맛 떨어지는 진실</title>
		<link>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=2010</link>
		<comments>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=2010#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 May 2010 13:59:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>건강과대안</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[기업감시]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[식품 · 의약품]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[공장식 축산업]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[광고]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[맥도날드]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[밀집사육]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[브라질]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[소비자의 무지]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[질병]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[태국]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=2010</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[맥도날드 치킨에 대한 입맛떨어지는 진실이라는 폭로기사가 영국의 데일리 메일에 실렸습니다.(맥도날드 외에도 KFC나 다른 패스트푸드 체인점도 비슷한 상황입니다.)A4 용지 한 장 만한 조그마한 크기의 사육공간에서 공장식으로 사육되어 40일만에 도축되는 [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>맥도날드 치킨에 대한 입맛떨어지는 진실이라는 폭로기사가 영국의 데일리 메일에 실렸습니다.<BR>(맥도날드 외에도 KFC나 다른 패스트푸드 체인점도 비슷한 상황입니다.)<BR><BR>A4 용지 한 장 만한 조그마한 크기의 사육공간에서 공장식으로 사육되어 40일만에 도축되는 닭들&#8230; 그 중에서 5%는 스트레스로 사망하고&#8230; 살아남은 닭들도 공장식 도축방법에 의해서 털이 뽑히고 가공되는데&#8230; 소비자들은 결코 이러한 현실을 알아채지 못하고 있지요.<BR><BR>식품업계는 마치 닭들이 자연스러운 환경에서 건강하게 사육되는 것처럼 광고를 하지만&#8230; 진실은 이와 정반대라는 주장입니다. 식품업계는 소비자들의 무지를 이용해서 막대한 돈을 벌어들이고 있다는 말이지요.<BR><BR>영국의 패스트푸드 음식점에서 사용되는 닭은 연간 3천만 마리 정도인데 그 중&nbsp;60%는 브라질에서 냉동육 형태로 수입되고, 30%는 네덜란드에서 수입되고, 9%는 태국에서 수입된다고 합니다.<BR><BR><BR><BR><br />
<H1>Revealed: The very unappetising truth about McDonald&#8217;s chicken meals (Jamie Oliver, look away now)<BR></H1><br />
<DIV class="float-r hidden" id=digg-button><br />
<SCRIPT src="http://scripts.dailymail.co.uk/js/diggthis.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT><br />
</DIV><br />
<P>By <A class=author href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=y&#038;authornamef=Tom+Rawstorne" rel=nofollow><FONT color=#003580>Tom Rawstorne</FONT></A><BR><BR>출처 : [데일리메일(영국)] Last updated at 2:02 PM on 15th May 2010<BR><A href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1278495/The-unappetising-truth-McDonalds-chicken-meals.html?ITO=1490">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1278495/The-unappetising-truth-McDonalds-chicken-meals.html?ITO=1490</A><BR></P><br />
<P></P><br />
<DIV class=article-icon-links-container></DIV><BR><br />
<P></P><br />
<P>A chicken squats in a shed the size of a football pitch somewhere in the outback of Brazil. And it&#8217;s not alone. <BR></P><br />
<P>One of tens of thousands, each bird is allowed the floor space equivalent to a sheet of A4 paper and will live for just 40 days before it hits its genetically-engineered slaughter weight. That&#8217;s if it doesn&#8217;t perish along the way.</P><br />
<P>Five per cent or so will be unable to cope with the conditions and die even before then. </P><br />
<P>Those that survive will be plucked and butchered in an industrial process the like of which this planet has never before seen. </P><br />
<P>Every year billions of chickens will live and die in this way. Of course, South America is a long way away. But your local McDonald&#8217;s is not. And that is where a significant proportion of this intensively reared meat will eventually end up. <BR></P><br />
<DIV class=clear></DIV><br />
<DIV class=thinCenter><IMG class=blkBorder height=315 alt="McDonalds McChicken Sandwich" src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/05/14/article-1278495-09956340000005DC-503_468x315.jpg" width=468><br />
<P class=imageCaption>McChicken Sandwich: Much of McDonalds&#8217; poultry comes from Brazil, where the animals live in cramped conditions</P></DIV><br />
<P>Of all the chicken churned out by the fast-food chain &#8211; the equivalent of 30 million birds a year &#8211; 60 per cent is imported frozen from Brazil. A further nine per cent comes from Thailand and 30 per cent from Holland </P><br />
<P>A quick bit of arithmetic reveals just how much of the chicken sold in the fast-food giant&#8217;s British restaurants is reared in this country: that&#8217;s right, just one per cent. </P><br />
<P>It&#8217;s a figure that&#8217;s never before been published, and it will surprise and disturb many. After all, in recent years McDonald&#8217;s has effectively relaunched itself as a chain that cares about the provenance of its food and its relationship with the nation&#8217;s farmers. </P><br />
<P>There have been television adverts featuring bucolic rural scenes, paper tray mats that introduce the customer to the chain&#8217;s suppliers and a website that boasts of lovingly nurtured, homegrown spuds. </P><br />
<P>The beef they use is sourced entirely from British and Irish farms, the eggs free-range, the milk organic and the coffee beans Rainforest Alliance-certified. </P><br />
<P>And, clearly, it is something that chimes with the public. During the past four years, McDonald&#8217;s UK had added £465million to its sales, while in 2009 there was a double-digit increase in like-for-like sales as customer visits rose year on year. In terms of growth, Britain is leading the way across McDonald&#8217;s international empire. </P><br />
<DIV class=thinFloatRHS style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold"><br />
<P><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 1.6em" size=3>The chain&#8217;s ads boast of lovingly nurtured produce</FONT></P></DIV><br />
<P>Impressive stuff, and it&#8217;s not just the public who are reacting well. This month, the celebrity chef Jamie Oliver publicly gave his backing to the chain. </P><br />
<P>&#8216;The quality of the beef, they only sell free-range eggs, they only sell organic milk, their ethics and recycling is being improved and improved,&#8217; he said in an interview. &#8216;And I can&#8217;t even believe I&#8217;m telling you that McDonald&#8217;s UK has come a long way, but actually, it probably puts quite a lot of gastro-pubs to shame, the amount of work they&#8217;re doing in the back end. </P><br />
<P>&#8216;Also, they&#8217;ve just had their best commercial year in four years, so they&#8217;re proving that being commercial and caring can work. Actually, it&#8217;s the future.&#8217; </P><br />
<P>But what &#8211; and it is a very big &#8216;what&#8217; &#8211; about the chicken, the dish which one suspects many customers seeking a healthier option would generally go for? What aspect of these birds&#8217; life cycle, of the impact their production has on the planet, could possibly be described as &#8216;caring&#8217;? </P><br />
<P>More to the point, is it something about which Jamie Oliver or the millions of customers who eat in McDonald&#8217;s every week are even aware? </P><br />
<P>A decade or two ago, people went to McDonald&#8217;s for one thing and one thing alone: a beefburger. </P><br />
<P>Today, a glance at the menu shows just how much the fast-food chain &#8211; and the nation&#8217;s tastes &#8211; has changed. Forget the Big Mac, it is chicken that is now equally big business. </P><br />
<P>On the menu there is the Chicken Legend burger, £2.99, the McChicken sandwich, £2.19, Chicken McNuggets, £2.19 for six, or £2.49 for nine, and Mayo Chicken, 99p. The toasted deli sandwiches include chicken and bacon, £2.99, chicken salad, £2.99, and sweet chilli chicken, £2.99. Then there are the salad options: crispy chicken and bacon, £3.29, and grilled chicken and bacon, £3.59. </P><br />
<DIV class=thinFloatRHS><IMG class=blkBorder height=370 alt="Jamie Oliver " src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/05/14/article-1278495-06A0F328000005DC-77_233x370.jpg" width=233><br />
<P class=imageCaption>Supportive: The TV chef Jamie Oliver has publicly given his backing to McDonalds</P></DIV><br />
<P>Finally, on the recently introduced Little Tasters menu, there is the chicken caesar snack wrap, £1.49, and the salsa snack wrap, £1.49. </P><br />
<P>The growth of this side of the McDonald&#8217;s menu is in no way accidental. The British perceive chicken as a healthy alternative to red meat and are eating ever-increasing amounts of it. Upping its presence on the McDonald&#8217;s menu was a &#8216;no-brainer&#8217; that has been integral to the company&#8217;s success. </P><br />
<P>&#8216;I suspect we are taking business from some of the chicken restaurants because we keep extending the number of chicken-based items on our menus,&#8217; admitted Steve Easterbrook, chief executive of McDonald&#8217;s UK, as he explained the company&#8217;s success in the midst of a recession. </P><br />
<P>British-born Mr Easterbook has been praised for turning around the chain&#8217;s prospects in this country. </P><br />
<P>The company reached its nadir in 2002 when McDonald&#8217;s globally reported the first losses in its history. Here, things were especially bad. </P><br />
<P>Having been hit in the late 1990s by the outbreak of mad cow disease, public sentiment in Britain had also been turned against the chain by the long-running &#8216;McLibel&#8217; trial, in which the firm spent £10million suing the activists Dave Morris and Helen Steel for what it said were defamatory claims made in leaflets the couple produced about McDonald&#8217;s. </P><br />
<P>Negativity among British consumers was further enhanced by Super Size Me, Morgan Spurlock&#8217;s 2004 film that documented the drastic effect an exclusively McDonald&#8217;s diet had on his physical and psychological well-being. </P><br />
<P>To counter this, Mr Easterbook set about introducing a more &#8216;local&#8217; approach to the business, listening to what British customers wanted rather than imposing an Americanised formula. </P><br />
<P>This localist approach in part centred on responding to consumers&#8217; concerns about the quality and the origins of the food sold. Ever since, McDonald&#8217;s marketing strategy has focused heavily on the restaurant&#8217;s use of home-reared beef, free-range eggs and organic milk. </P><br />
<P>Undeniably these have all been changes for the good, and Jamie Oliver&#8217;s comments have to be seen in that context. </P><br />
<DIV class=thinFloatRHS style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold"><br />
<P><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 1.6em" size=3>Food firms capitalise on our ignorance</FONT></P></DIV><br />
<P>But having assumed the moral high ground, its customers will no doubt be all the more surprised to learn that when it comes to its ever-growing range of chicken products there has been no such transformation. </P><br />
<P>Perhaps unsurprisingly, it is something McDonald&#8217;s largely glosses over. </P><br />
<P>While its promotional literature makes great play of the fact that its beef is &#8216;sourced from over 16,000 British and Irish farms&#8217;, when it comes to chicken, the meat&#8217;s origin is left deliberately vague. </P><br />
<P>There is no mention on the company&#8217;s main website, nor in its restaurants, as to where it comes from &#8211; let alone the fact that so much of it is imported, frozen, from thousands of miles away. </P><br />
<P>&#8216;The only meat we use across our entire chicken range is succulent chicken breast meat,&#8217; its website states. </P><br />
<P>As for its suppliers, it says that they raise the chicken to high standards and that the meat can be traced back to the farm from which it originates. Wherever that may be. </P><br />
<P>Of course, McDonald&#8217;s is not alone in importing chicken from Brazil and Thailand, nor in using intensively reared chicken. Ninety-five per cent of the 850 million chickens bred for meat in this country are intensively reared, while similar quantities are imported from abroad. High Street chains that buy in frozen chicken from around the world include Pret A Manger, Subway and KFC. </P><br />
<P>But it&#8217;s the way in which McDonald&#8217;s has re-branded itself that opens it up to questions about the sourcing of its chicken. </P><br />
<P>Patrick Holden is director of the Soil Association, the body that certifies organic food in the UK. </P><br />
<P>&#8216;I think people associate McDonald&#8217;s with having made an effort to make the beef better, and I think they assume that the chicken also mainly comes from UK farms and that it is probably free-range,&#8217; he says. &#8216;We, the public, are ignorant, and it is our ignorance that the food companies are capitalising on. Until the public ask difficult questions, they can get away with it. <BR></P><br />
<DIV class=clear></DIV><br />
<DIV class=thinCenter><IMG class=blkBorder height=435 alt=McDonalds src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/05/14/article-1278495-0330E49D000005DC-600_468x435.jpg" width=468><br />
<P class=imageCaption>Golden Arches: McDonalds has relaunched itself as a chain that cares about the provenance of its food &#8211; but what about its chicken? (File picture)</P></DIV><br />
<P>&#8216;It would be better for McDonald&#8217;s to source their chicken from the UK rather than Brazil and elsewhere. Then, after that, they have to go one step further and to source it free-range. </P><br />
<P>&#8216;The inconvenient truth about chicken is that we have become addicted to cheap white meat and, in the long term, the addiction is completely unsustainable economically and in terms of land use.&#8217; </P><br />
<P>It is a point echoed by Kirtana Chandrasekaran, food campaigner for Friends of the Earth. </P><br />
<P>&#8216;If you are selling a chicken burger for £1 or however much it is, then you have to understand that someone is paying for it either in environmental terms or farming terms; it is a case of buy cheap now, pay later.&#8217; </P><br />
<P>And McDonald&#8217;s makes no bones about the fact that the reason it buys chicken from abroad is because it is cheaper. &#8216;British consumers prefer to eat chicken breast meat, which is why now the only meat we use in our chicken menu items is chicken breast,&#8217; said a spokeswoman. <BR></P><br />
<P>&#8216;This consumer demand means that chicken breast meat commands a premium price in the UK compared to some European countries and other parts of the world. </P><br />
<P>&#8216;As far as we are aware, current UK demand for chicken breast meat outstrips domestic supply. Therefore, in order for us to meet our customer demands for quality and price, we now source the vast majority of our chicken from abroad.&#8217; </P><br />
<P>But McDonald&#8217;s insists that even though the meat is imported, the chickens are raised in a way that equals or exceeds the welfare standards required for intensively reared chickens in the UK. </P><br />
<P>In practical terms, this means that the maximum stocking density cannot exceed 38kg per square metre &#8211; the equivalent of somewhere between 15 and 18 chickens. They also insist that the flocks are physically inspected several times a day and that sick or dead birds are immediately removed. </P><br />
<P>Of course, such strictures will be seen as mere window- dressing by those who believe that chickens should be bred in a less intensive way. </P><br />
<DIV class=thinFloatRHS style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold"><br />
<P><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 1.6em" size=3>It is a case of buy cheap now, pay later</FONT></P></DIV><br />
<P>Beyond those arguments, there are other issues specific to the importation of chicken meat from abroad, particularly Brazil. </P><br />
<P>One of the world&#8217;s agricultural super-powers, the South American nation became the largest exporter of chicken meat in 2004. By 2020, industry officials hope Brazilian exports will represent around 50 per cent of the total world market. </P><br />
<P>According to the Brazilian Chicken Producers and Exporters Association (ABEF) 3.63 million tons of chicken meat from some five billion chickens were exported in 2009. </P><br />
<P>Sourcing chicken from there is cheaper for British companies than using UK meat because production costs are lower. Wages for workers are typically 700 reais a month &#8211; that is about £250 a month or £3,000 a year. </P><br />
<P>Human rights activists and union leaders complain of poor working conditions within the industry, claiming that thousands of workers are made to perform repetitive tasks such as stripping chickens while in temperatures of around 10C (50F). </P><br />
<P>Equally important in keeping costs down is the availability and price of the soy and corn on which the chickens are raised. Environmentalists warn that food that could be used to feed people is instead being diverted into the production of chicken destined for restaurant plates in richer, developed countries. </P><br />
<P>It has also been alleged that the deforestation of the Amazon has intensified because of the need to grow more crops to feed more chickens. </P><br />
<P>Last night, asked by the Mail to explain the differences between its sourcing policies for beef and chicken, a McDonald&#8217;s spokeswoman insisted that the decision to buy the vast majority of its chicken from overseas &#8216;was so that we could keep offering our customers great value without compromising on quality&#8217;. </P><br />
<P>Ironically enough, Jamie Oliver has been a vocal critic of the intensive rearing of chickens. </P><br />
<P>Two years ago, in his Channel 4 show Jamie&#8217;s Fowl Dinners, he branded the practice as &#8216;morally wrong&#8217; and called for the public to switch to birds that enjoy a better standard of life. </P><br />
<P>All of which makes you wonder whether &#8211; when he discovers the truth about where McDonald&#8217;s chicken comes from &#8211; he will be quite so effusive in his praise for the company&#8217;s &#8216;healthy&#8217; new image. </P><BR><BR></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=2010/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>[미국산 쇠고기] 암모니아 섞인 분쇄육에 더 큰 위험 있어</title>
		<link>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=1657</link>
		<comments>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=1657#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:11:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>건강과대안</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[광우병]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[식품 · 의약품]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ground beef]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[O157(E. Coli 0157:H7)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[맥도날드]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[미국산 쇠고기 수입]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[버거킹]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[병원성 대장균]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[분쇄육]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[비프 프로덕트]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[살모넬라균]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[암모니아]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[학교급식]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=1657</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[암모니아 섞인 분쇄육에 더 큰 위험 있어 뉴욕타임즈는 지난 2009년 10월 4일 미국에서 해마다 수 만명의 사람들이 병원성 대장균 O157(E. Coli 0157:H7)에 오염된 분쇄육(갈아 만든 쇠고기, 간 쇠고기, [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><P>암모니아 섞인 분쇄육에 더 큰 위험 있어</P><br />
<P>뉴욕타임즈는 지난 2009년 10월 4일 미국에서 해마다 수 만명의 사람들이 병원성 대장균 O157(E. Coli 0157:H7)에 오염된 분쇄육(갈아 만든 쇠고기, 간 쇠고기, ground beef)을 먹고 위험에 처한다고 보도했습니다.</P><br />
<P>뉴욕타임즈는 지난 2007년 가을 카길사의 냉동 햄버거육(패티)을 먹은 스테파니 스미스(22)가 식중독 때문에 허리 아래가 마비됐다고 전하면서 분쇄육 위생점검 체계의 문제점을 고발한 바 있습니다. </P><br />
<P>문제는 연방정부의 규제와 기준에 분쇄육의 성분에 대해 병원균 검사를 요구하는 내용이 없다는 점이었습니다.</P><br />
<P>2010년 1월 9일자 뉴욕타임즈는 분쇄육에 세척제로 사용되는 암모니아가 주입되어 있다는 사실을 지적했습니다.</P><br />
<P>8년 전쯤 비프 프로덕트사(Beef Products Inc)는 살인적인 대장균과 살모넬라균을 사멸시킬 수 있는 암모니아를 분쇄육(ground beef)에 주입하는 새로운 아이디어를 내놓았습니다. 미 농무부는 이 아이디어가 효과적이라고 선언하고, &#8216;비프 프로덕트사&#8217;를 일상적인 검사를 제외시켜주었습니다. 이에 따라 비프 프로덕트사의 분쇄육은 식료품점, 패스트푸드 음식점, 그리고 학교급식 프로그램 정기적으로 납품되기 시작했습니다. </P><br />
<P>그러나&nbsp; 비프 프로덕트사의 분쇄육은 안전하지 않은 것으로 드러났습니다. </P><br />
<P>이 회사에서 제조한 분쇄육에서는 암모니아를 주입했음에도 불구하고 사멸하지 않은 병원성 대장균이나 살로넬라균이 검출되었습니다.&nbsp; 암모니아를 주입하지 않은 타 회사의 분쇄육보다도 더 많은 세균이 검출된 것은 더 심하게 미생물에 오염된 불량 원재료를 사용했기 때문으로 추정됩니다. </P><br />
<P>심지어 이 회사는 병원성 대장균 O157(E. Coli 0157:H7)에 오염된 분쇄육이 적발되어 2차례에 걸쳐 2만7천파운드의 쇠고기에 대해 자발적 리콜을 실시한 적도 있습니다.</P><br />
<P>&nbsp;&#8217;비프 프로덕트사&#8217;에서 제조한 분쇄육은 맥도널드, 버거킹을 비롯한 패스트 푸드 체인점, 학교급식 프로그램, 그리고 각종 식품점에서 판매되었습니다.</P><br />
<P>미국에서도 특히 문제가 되는 점은 학교급식에 이러한 미생물에 오염된 쇠고기가 판매됐다는 사실입니다. 분쇄육은 안전성에 문제가 있으나 가격 자체가 헐값이다보니 학교급식 재료로 사용되고 있는 것입니다.</P><br />
<P>미 농무부는 뒤늦게&nbsp; &#8216;비프 프로덕트사&#8217;의 분쇄육에 대한 검사 면제조치를 취소했습니다. 미 농무부 고위 관료는 뉴욕타임즈가 학교급식 쇠고기 검사의 문제점에 대해서 경고하기 전까지 이러한 검사 면제조치의 문제점을 모르고 있었다고 인정했다고 합니다.(과연 모르고 있었는지, 알면서도 모른채 하고 있었는지 궁금합니다.)</P><br />
<P>지난 2008년 4월 한미쇠고기 수입위생조건 졸속협상이 타결됨에 따라 현재 미국산 분쇄육은 한국에 수입이 가능한 품목으로 지정되어 있습니다. </P><br />
<P>최근 대만에서 여야 합의로 미국산 소의 내장, 분쇄육 등 6개 부위에 대한 수입금지를 명시하는 법률개정안이 통과됨에 따라 국내에서도 가축전염병예방법을 개정하고 미국산 쇠고기 수입위생조건 재협상을 실시해야 할 필요성이 제기되고 있습니다.</P><br />
<P>아래 뉴스는 &#8216;분쇄육 더 위험해&#8217;라는 제목의 뉴욕타임즈 기사 원문입니다.</P><br />
<P>===============================================<BR>&nbsp;<BR>More Perils of Ground Meat </P><br />
<P>&nbsp;출처 : The New York Tomes, Published: January 9, 2010 <BR><A href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/opinion/10sun2.html?em">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/opinion/10sun2.html?em</A></P><br />
<P>About eight years ago, a company called Beef Products Inc. had the novel idea of injecting its ground beef with ammonia to kill deadly E. coli and salmonella. The Agriculture Department pronounced the idea effective and exempted Beef Products Inc. from routine tests. The company’s beef began appearing regularly in grocery stores, fast food restaurants and school lunch programs. It turned out the beef was not safe.</P><br />
<P>The slaughterhouse trimmings the company used to grind its beef — known as processed beef — have a much higher microbial presence than other cuts, including E. coli and salmonella, and the ability of the ammonia to kill the germs appears to have been greatly oversold. </P><br />
<P>Investigators working for a division of the Agriculture Department that oversees school lunch programs found higher rates of salmonella in meat from Beef Products than from other vendors. Two 27,000-pound batches of beef were recalled for E. coli contamination. </P><br />
<P>The Agriculture Department has now belatedly withdrawn its exemption. Top officials admitted that they had been unaware of the problem until The New York Times alerted them to the school lunch test results. </P><br />
<P>This whole scary mess suggests several problems that need fixing, starting with better coordination. School lunch officials and managers at the Agriculture Department’s meat safety division are obviously not sharing information effectively. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has since directed them to do so. And mindsets must change. School lunch programs were initially attracted to processed beef (despite its alkaline taste and offensive smell) because it was so much cheaper. Safety and quality must be higher priorities than price. </P><br />
<P>With its exemption has been withdrawn, Beef Products Inc. deserves the closest possible scrutiny: its beef is widely used, not just in schools. And the Agriculture Department’s meat safety division clearly must be more vigilant. Consumers should not have to wait until somebody in the school lunch program blows the whistle.</P><br />
<P>&nbsp;</P></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=1657/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>[식품안전] Filet-O-Fish sandwich, From Deep Pacific, Ugly and Tasty, With a Catch</title>
		<link>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=1003</link>
		<comments>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=1003#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:17:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>건강과대안</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[식품 · 의약품]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Filet-O-Fish sandwich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hoki]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[McDonald]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[whiptail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[맥도날드]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[식품안전]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[패스트푸드]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[환경]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=1003</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From Deep Pacific, Ugly and Tasty, With a CatchBy WILLIAM J. BROAD 출처 : 뉴욕타임즈(NYT) Published: September 9, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/science/10fish.html?no_interstitialThe answer to the eternal mystery of what makes [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><DIV class=byline>From Deep Pacific, Ugly and Tasty, With a Catch<BR><BR>By <A title="More Articles by William J. Broad" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/william_j_broad/index.html?inline=nyt-per"><FONT color=#004276>WILLIAM J. BROAD</FONT></A></DIV></NYT_BYLINE><br />
<DIV class=timestamp><BR>출처 : 뉴욕타임즈(NYT) Published: September 9, 2009 <BR><A href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/science/10fish.html?no_interstitial">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/science/10fish.html?no_interstitial</A><BR><BR>The answer to the eternal mystery of what makes up a Filet-O-Fish sandwich turns out to involve an ugly creature from the sunless depths of the Pacific, whose bounty, it seems, is not limitless. <BR><BR><br />
<P>The world’s insatiable appetite for fish, with its disastrous effects on populations of favorites like red snapper, monkfish and tuna, has driven commercial fleets to deeper waters in search of creatures unlikely to star on the Food Network.</P><br />
<P>One of the most popular is the <A title="Description from New Zealand Seafood Industry Council Web site." href="http://seafoodindustry.co.nz/Default.aspx?id=1112&#038;area=202"><FONT color=#004276>hoki</FONT></A>, or whiptail, a bug-eyed specimen found far down in the waters around <A title="More news and information about New Zealand." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/newzealand/index.html?inline=nyt-geo"><FONT color=#004276>New Zealand</FONT></A> and transformed into a major export. McDonald’s alone at one time used roughly 15 million pounds of it each year.</P><br />
<P>The hoki may be exceedingly unattractive, but when its flesh reaches the consumer it’s just fish — cut into filets and sticks or rolled into sushi — moist, slightly sweet and very tasty. Better yet, the hoki fishery was thought to be sustainable, providing New Zealand with a reliable major export for years to come. </P><br />
<P>But arguments over managing this resource are flaring not only between commercial interests and conservationists, but also among the environmental agencies most directly involved in monitoring and regulating the catch. </P><br />
<P>A lot of money is at stake, as well as questions about the effectiveness of global guidelines meant to limit the effects of industrial fishing. </P><br />
<P>Without formally acknowledging that hoki are being overfished, New Zealand has slashed the allowable catch in steps, from about 275,000 tons in 2000 and 2001 to about 100,000 tons in 2007 and 2008 — a decline of nearly two-thirds.</P><br />
<P>The scientific jury is still out, but critics warn that the hoki fishery is losing its image as a showpiece of oceanic sustainability. </P><br />
<P>“We have major concerns,” said Peter Trott, the fisheries program manager in Australia for the <A title="W.W.F.-Australia Web site." href="http://www.wwf.org.au/"><FONT color=#004276>World Wildlife Fund</FONT></A>, which closely monitors the New Zealand fishery.</P><br />
<P>The problems, he said, include population declines, ecosystem damage and the accidental killing of skates and sharks. He added that New Zealand hoki managers let industry “get as much as it can from the resource without alarm bells ringing.”</P><br />
<P>The hoki lives in inky darkness about a half-mile down and grows to more than four feet long, its body ending in a sinuous tail of great length. Large eyes give the fish a startled look.</P><br />
<P>Scientists say its fate represents a cautionary tale much like that of its heavily harvested forerunner, <A title="Description from New Zealand Seafood Industry Council." href="http://seafoodindustry.co.nz/n1104,204.html"><FONT color=#004276>orange roughy</FONT></A>. That deepwater fish reproduces slowly and <A title="Abstract of study (PDF)." href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/q4878h1m8jh84282/fulltext.pdf?page=1"><FONT color=#004276>lives more than 100 years</FONT></A>. Around New Zealand, catches fell steeply in the early 1990s under the pressures of industrial fishing, in which factory trawlers work around the clock hauling in huge nets with big winches.</P><br />
<P>Hoki rose commercially as orange roughy fell. Its shorter life span (up to 25 years) and quicker pace of reproduction seemed to promise sustainable harvests. And its dense spawning aggregations, from June to September, made colossal hauls relatively easy.</P><br />
<P>As a result, the New Zealand <A title="Ministry Web site." href="http://www.fish.govt.nz/en-nz/default.htm"><FONT color=#004276>Ministry of Fisheries</FONT></A> set very high quotas — roughly 275,000 tons a year from 1996 to 2001. Dozens of factory trawlers plied the deep waters, and dealers shipped frozen blocks and fillets of the fish around the globe.</P><br />
<P>Moreover, the fishery won certification in March 2001 from the <A title="Council’s Web site." href="http://www.msc.org/"><FONT color=#004276>Marine Stewardship Council</FONT></A>, a private fisheries assessment group in London, which called it sustainable and well managed. The group’s blue label became a draw for restaurant fish buyers. </P><br />
<P>“Most Americans have no clue that hoki is often what they’re eating in fried-fish sandwiches,” SeaFood Business, an industry magazine, <A title="SeaFood Business article." href="http://www.seafoodbusiness.com/archives/01april/speciesspot.html"><FONT color=#004276>reported in April 2001</FONT></A>. It said chain restaurants using hoki included McDonald’s, Denny’s and Long John Silver’s.</P><br />
<P>Ominous signs of overfishing — mainly drops in hoki spawns — came soon thereafter. Criticism from ecological groups soared. The stewardship council promotes hoki as sustainable “in spite of falling fish stocks and the annual killing of hundreds of protected seals, albatross and petrels,” the <A title="Society’s Web site." href="http://www.forestandbird.org.nz/"><FONT color=#004276>Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society</FONT></A> of New Zealand said in May 2004.</P><br />
<P>When the stewardship council had to decide whether to recertify the hoki fishery as sustainable and well managed, the World Wildlife Fund, a Washington-based group that helped found the council, was strongly opposed. “The impacts of bottom trawling by the hoki fishery must be reduced,” the fund said. </P><br />
<P>The wildlife fund was overruled, and the council recertified the fishery in October 2007. At the same time, the New Zealand ministry cut the quota still further, reducing the allowable commercial catch from roughly 110,000 tons to about 100,000 tons.</P><br />
<P>Some restaurants cut back on hoki amid the declines and the controversy.</P><br />
<P>Last year, Yum Brands, which owns Long John Silver’s, issued a corporate responsibility report that cited its purchases of New Zealand hoki as praiseworthy because the fishery was “certified as sustainable.”</P><br />
<P>Now, Ben Golden, a Yum Brands spokesman, said hoki was “not on the menu.”</P><br />
<P>Denny’s said it served hoki only in its New Zealand restaurants.</P><br />
<P>Gary Johnson, McDonald’s senior director of global purchasing, said hoki use was down recently to about 11 million pounds annually from roughly 15 million pounds — a drop of about 25 percent. “It could go up if the quota goes up,” he said in an interview. He noted that McDonald’s also used other whitefish for its Filet-O-Fish sandwiches.</P><br />
<P>Mr. Johnson called the diminishing quotas a sign not of strain on fish stocks but of good management. “Everything we’ve seen and heard,” he said, “suggests the fishery is starting to come back.”</P><br />
<P>The Ministry of Fisheries agreed. “If you look at the current state of the fishery, it’s apparent that the string of management actions that we’ve taken, which came at severe economic impact, have been effective,” said Aoife Martin, manager of deepwater fisheries. </P><br />
<P>But the <A title="Group’s Web site." href="http://www.blueocean.org/home"><FONT color=#004276>Blue Ocean Institute</FONT></A>, a conservation group in East Norwich, N.Y., that scores seafood for ecological impact on a scale from green to red, still gives New Zealand hoki an unfavorable orange rating. The fish is less abundant over all, the group says, and the fishery “takes significant quantities of seabirds and fur seals.” </P><br />
<P>Mr. Trott of the wildlife fund was more pointed. He called the fishery’s management “driven by short-term gains at the expense of long-term rewards” — a characterization the ministry strongly rejects.</P><br />
<P>But he, too, held out the prospect of a turnaround that would raise the hoki’s abundance off New Zealand and significantly reduce levels of ecological damage and accidental killing. </P><br />
<P>“We are currently working with both industry and government to rectify all these issues,” he said. “Our hope is that we will see great change and willingness by industry and, importantly, government to improve the situation dramatically.”</P></DIV></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=1003/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
