Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

A deadline looms: Will New York invest in better food for public institutions?

News Feed
Wednesday, December 18, 2024

As the holiday season fast approaches, a different kind of deadline looms large in New York State: The future of the Good Food NY Bill. Advocates, farmers and policymakers are calling on Governor Kathy Hochul to sign the legislation into law before a Dec. 24 deadline, a move they argue could reshape the state’s food systems and public institutions for good, while also bolstering rural economies.  The Good Food NY Bill proposes sweeping changes to how public institutions — like schools, correctional facilities, hospitals and senior centers — procure food. Currently, the state’s procurement law requires these institutions to award contracts to the “lowest bidder,” or the supplier offering the lowest price, as long as they meet minimum qualifications. This is meant to ensure efficient use of funds and prevent favoritism, however, the approach often sidelines critical factors like food quality, ethical labor practices and local economic benefits. It also means that small-scale and local producers are often undercut by large out-of-state industrial suppliers.  The bill would allow municipalities to pay up to 10% more for New York-produced food, making it easier for small and mid-sized farms to compete with out-of-state suppliers.  Farmers, who were integral to drafting the legislation, see this as a game-changer. "Knowing where our food comes from, nutritional content and how it was produced helps us make informed decisions about what we choose to eat," said Katie Baildon, Policy Manager at Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York, in a statement.  Baildon continued: “NOFA-NY has strongly supported the Good Food NY bill, underscoring that its passage would enable public institutions more flexibility in exercising their buying power, for example, by buying produce from local farms. As an organization of NY-based organic and regenerative farmers and gardeners, we believe that how our food is produced matters for our health and wellbeing, our environment and our local economies and that public institutions should be allowed to account for these impacts when making procurement decisions." This is a point echoed by Jessica Gilbert-Overland, the co-founder of the Good Food Buffalo Coalition.  “Our public institutions should be able to prioritize spending tax dollars on food aligned with public values, rather than propping up companies that sell cheap food and are responsible for perpetuating unjust, unsustainable, and inhumane food systems,” she said.  Supporters say the Good Food NY bill aligns with existing state initiatives, including Nourish NY and the 30% New York State Initiative, which incentivize schools to source a portion of their food locally. The bill also supports broader goals in the NY Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act by encouraging climate-smart agricultural practices such as improving soil health and reducing pesticide use. State legislators, including Senator Michelle Hinchey and Assembly Majority Leader Crystal Peoples-Stokes, highlight the bill’s potential to make New York a national leader.  “Our Good Food NY bill will make New York the first state in the country to lead the way with a blueprint for values-based food procurement that prioritizes healthy, locally-sourced food to feed community members across our schools, hospitals and all public institutions,” Hinchey said in a written statement. “By signing this bill into law, Governor Hochul can help us create new market opportunities for New York farmers and set the stage for a more sustainable food system that exemplifies how the decisions we make about where our food comes from can strengthen our state economy and create healthier communities.”  Peoples-Stokes says the Good Food NY Bill succeeds in “moderniz[ing] antiquated public food procurement processes.”  “This bill provides economic opportunities to struggling New York farms, especially those operated by historically under-represented individuals in farming,” she continued. “Access to healthy and nutritious food is critical to our communities' collective health and I call on Governor Hochul to sign this bill into law.”  Critics of the current system argue that it prioritizes cost over everything else, often excluding smaller producers who cannot compete on price alone. The Good Food NY Bill seeks to level the playing field by introducing a values-based procurement model that factors in local economies, environmental sustainability and workforce fairness. Farmers already participating in programs like the Good Food Purchasing Program, which centers values such as equity and accountability, are well-positioned to meet the bill’s benchmarks. Francis Yu, co-director of the Catskills Agrarian Alliance, noted that the legislation would be particularly impactful for Black, Indigenous, and other farmers of color who have historically been excluded from institutional markets. "We cannot realize more positive health outcomes if our food system remains broken and lacks an embedded value system." “Local producers accessing institutional markets are a vital component of a vibrant food system and regional economy,” Yu said. Beyond economic and environmental benefits, the bill’s supporters argue that it could have far-reaching effects on public health. “The quality of our food continues to change and not always in ways that are favorable to the public and certainly not for those who struggle with food insecurity and who reside in under-invested communities,” said Allison Dehonney, a Buffalo-based farmer and executive director of Buffalo Go Green. “Adding a value system that is more equitable, inclusive, and has a focus on nutrition is the first step in connecting the dots between the food system and health outcomes. We cannot realize more positive health outcomes if our food system remains broken and lacks an embedded value system.” Labor advocates also see the bill as a crucial tool for ensuring fair treatment of workers throughout the food supply chain. Christina Spach, food campaigns director at the Food Chain Workers Alliance, stressed the importance of passing the legislation without diluting its provisions. “Lifting barriers to prioritize good food providers in public food contracts provides valuable tools for municipalities, workers and community partners,” she said. With just days left before the deadline, the pressure is mounting on Governor Hochul to act. Advocates are rallying in Albany and across the state, emphasizing that the legislation represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to align public food purchasing with New York’s values. For now, the fate of the bill — and the vision for a better food system in New York — rests in the governor’s hands. Read more about this topic

"We cannot realize more positive health outcomes if our food system remains broken"

As the holiday season fast approaches, a different kind of deadline looms large in New York State: The future of the Good Food NY Bill. Advocates, farmers and policymakers are calling on Governor Kathy Hochul to sign the legislation into law before a Dec. 24 deadline, a move they argue could reshape the state’s food systems and public institutions for good, while also bolstering rural economies

The Good Food NY Bill proposes sweeping changes to how public institutions — like schools, correctional facilities, hospitals and senior centers — procure food. Currently, the state’s procurement law requires these institutions to award contracts to the “lowest bidder,” or the supplier offering the lowest price, as long as they meet minimum qualifications. This is meant to ensure efficient use of funds and prevent favoritism, however, the approach often sidelines critical factors like food quality, ethical labor practices and local economic benefits. It also means that small-scale and local producers are often undercut by large out-of-state industrial suppliers. 

The bill would allow municipalities to pay up to 10% more for New York-produced food, making it easier for small and mid-sized farms to compete with out-of-state suppliers. 

Farmers, who were integral to drafting the legislation, see this as a game-changer.

"Knowing where our food comes from, nutritional content and how it was produced helps us make informed decisions about what we choose to eat," said Katie Baildon, Policy Manager at Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York, in a statement. 

Baildon continued: “NOFA-NY has strongly supported the Good Food NY bill, underscoring that its passage would enable public institutions more flexibility in exercising their buying power, for example, by buying produce from local farms. As an organization of NY-based organic and regenerative farmers and gardeners, we believe that how our food is produced matters for our health and wellbeing, our environment and our local economies and that public institutions should be allowed to account for these impacts when making procurement decisions."

This is a point echoed by Jessica Gilbert-Overland, the co-founder of the Good Food Buffalo Coalition

“Our public institutions should be able to prioritize spending tax dollars on food aligned with public values, rather than propping up companies that sell cheap food and are responsible for perpetuating unjust, unsustainable, and inhumane food systems,” she said. 

Supporters say the Good Food NY bill aligns with existing state initiatives, including Nourish NY and the 30% New York State Initiative, which incentivize schools to source a portion of their food locally. The bill also supports broader goals in the NY Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act by encouraging climate-smart agricultural practices such as improving soil health and reducing pesticide use.

State legislators, including Senator Michelle Hinchey and Assembly Majority Leader Crystal Peoples-Stokes, highlight the bill’s potential to make New York a national leader. 

“Our Good Food NY bill will make New York the first state in the country to lead the way with a blueprint for values-based food procurement that prioritizes healthy, locally-sourced food to feed community members across our schools, hospitals and all public institutions,” Hinchey said in a written statement. “By signing this bill into law, Governor Hochul can help us create new market opportunities for New York farmers and set the stage for a more sustainable food system that exemplifies how the decisions we make about where our food comes from can strengthen our state economy and create healthier communities.” 

Peoples-Stokes says the Good Food NY Bill succeeds in “moderniz[ing] antiquated public food procurement processes.” 

“This bill provides economic opportunities to struggling New York farms, especially those operated by historically under-represented individuals in farming,” she continued. “Access to healthy and nutritious food is critical to our communities' collective health and I call on Governor Hochul to sign this bill into law.” 

Critics of the current system argue that it prioritizes cost over everything else, often excluding smaller producers who cannot compete on price alone. The Good Food NY Bill seeks to level the playing field by introducing a values-based procurement model that factors in local economies, environmental sustainability and workforce fairness.

Farmers already participating in programs like the Good Food Purchasing Program, which centers values such as equity and accountability, are well-positioned to meet the bill’s benchmarks. Francis Yu, co-director of the Catskills Agrarian Alliance, noted that the legislation would be particularly impactful for Black, Indigenous, and other farmers of color who have historically been excluded from institutional markets.

"We cannot realize more positive health outcomes if our food system remains broken and lacks an embedded value system."

“Local producers accessing institutional markets are a vital component of a vibrant food system and regional economy,” Yu said.

Beyond economic and environmental benefits, the bill’s supporters argue that it could have far-reaching effects on public health.

“The quality of our food continues to change and not always in ways that are favorable to the public and certainly not for those who struggle with food insecurity and who reside in under-invested communities,” said Allison Dehonney, a Buffalo-based farmer and executive director of Buffalo Go Green. “Adding a value system that is more equitable, inclusive, and has a focus on nutrition is the first step in connecting the dots between the food system and health outcomes. We cannot realize more positive health outcomes if our food system remains broken and lacks an embedded value system.”

Labor advocates also see the bill as a crucial tool for ensuring fair treatment of workers throughout the food supply chain. Christina Spach, food campaigns director at the Food Chain Workers Alliance, stressed the importance of passing the legislation without diluting its provisions. “Lifting barriers to prioritize good food providers in public food contracts provides valuable tools for municipalities, workers and community partners,” she said.

With just days left before the deadline, the pressure is mounting on Governor Hochul to act. Advocates are rallying in Albany and across the state, emphasizing that the legislation represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to align public food purchasing with New York’s values. For now, the fate of the bill — and the vision for a better food system in New York — rests in the governor’s hands.

Read more

about this topic

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Can smart greenhouses bring back food production in cities?

Hidden in city car parks or warehouses, smart greenhouses promise to bring farming back to the city. But can these technology boost resilience?

Sydney, like many other Australian cities, has a long history of urban farming. Market gardens, oyster fisheries and wineries on urban fringe once supplied fresh food to city markets. As suburbs expanded, many farms in and around cities were converted to houses, roads and parks. The process is continuing. But this isn’t the whole story. Urban farming is making a comeback in a different guise. Underneath the Barangaroo towers in Sydney’s CBD, a basement carpark has been transformed into a farm. Trays of more than 40 different varieties of sprouts and microgreens grow under LED lights, often maturing within two weeks. Within hours of harvest, they’re in the kitchens of nearby restaurants. The urban farmers use sensors, ventilation systems and smartphone apps to ensure growing conditions are ideal. From around 150 square metres, farmers produce about 5,000 punnets a week. Farms such as this one at Urban Green Sydney are part of a broader shift towards high-tech urban farming. In my research, we asked what these new forms of urban farming mean for cities. Do they make cities and their far-flung food supply chains more resilient to climate change – or do they consume energy without enough to show for it? Urban smart greenhouses work well for microgreens, herbs and several other crops. Vera Xia, CC BY-NC-ND Greenhouse – or laboratory? Greenhouses are a way of controlling the growing conditions for plants. The technology has deep historical roots, from early greenhouse experiments during the Roman Empire to progress in 15th century Korea and advances during the Victorian era such as the Wardian Case, which allowed live plants to survive long sea voyages. Traditional greenhouses act as climate-controlled enclosures for plants. These days, smart greenhouses use sensors and digital monitoring to optimise, and often automate, plant growth. Large-scale rural farms such as South Australia’s Sundrop Farms already demonstrate how smart greenhouses, renewable energy and desalination can power food production in harsh climates. Overseas, countries including Spain and China have rolled out smart greenhouses at scale in rural areas. But these technologies are being urbanised, appearing in commercial buildings, rooftops and even domestic kitchens. One of the best places to see what smart greenhouses look like is the Agritech Precinct at Western Sydney University. Here, researchers experiment with the “unprecedented control” of temperature, humidity and light the technologies permit on crops such as eggplants and lettuce. The greenhouses use drones to water crops, robotic arms to harvest them and smart lighting systems to manage growth. Visiting these facilities doesn’t give you the sense you’re in a farm. It feels more like a laboratory. Technologies like these are promoted in official plans for Greater Sydney, which call for “new opportunities for growing fresh food close to a growing population and freight export infrastructure associated with the Western Sydney Airport”, particularly in Sydney’s peri-urban areas. Australia is funding research on improving these technologies as a way to future-proof food production. Researchers are conducting similar experiments with smart greenhouses around the world, from the United States to the Netherlands. Which crops work best in cities? Smart greenhouses can’t do everything. Grain crops need much more space. Fruit trees don’t work well with space constraints. Some vegetable crops don’t lend themselves well to intense high-tech production. The cost of running LED lights and smart systems mean farmers have to focus on what’s profitable. Many hyped urban farming ventures have failed. These challenges don’t mean the approach is worthless. But it does mean farmers have to be selective about what they grow. To date, crops such as tomatoes, leafy greens, and herbs have proven the best performers. These crops can be grown relatively quickly in space-restricted, repurposed urban areas mostly hidden from public view and sold to restaurants or individual buyers. Smart greenhouses producing these type of crops have emerged in Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide. Urban farmers often draw on the promise of sustainability and low food miles in their branding. But the technologies raise questions around equity. Do these farms share environmental and social benefits fairly across the city or are they concentrated in a few rich areas? Smart greenhouses can optimise plant growing conditions – but come at an energy cost. Ann H/Pexels, CC BY-NC-ND Smart greenhouse technology – at home? The humble veggie patch is an Australian staple. But the shift to apartment living and larger building sizes risks crowding it out. At household scale, smart greenhouses and apps are making it possible for some people to begin producing larger volumes of food in kitchens, balconies and backyards as a DIY method of boosting food security and self-sufficiency. Compact growing appliances promise to automate production of fresh herbs and baby vegetables. Hydroponic grow tents can grow almost anything indoors (though they are commonly used for illicit crops). Maker communities are using open-source tools such as Hackster to automate watering, lighting and data collection. Using these technologies at home seems positive, acting to boost home-grown food supplies and increase resilience in the face of food supply chain issues. In fact, it’s perhaps the most uneven frontier. Rather than working to spread smart agriculture across a cityscape, these approaches resemble prepping – efforts to boost individual household resilience. Making best use of smart greenhouses in cities At their best, smart greenhouses dotted around cities work to create controlled environments where food can be produced close to where it is eaten. These high-tech, climate controlled environments are often hidden from view. They promise resilience against the disruption climate change is bringing to agriculture and shorter supply chains. But these food production technologies also risk deepening inequality if they’re mainly taken up by wealthy consumers. Whether these technologies ultimately benefit cities will depend on how they are integrated and positioned within our urban systems. For urban authorities, the challenge is to ensure these emerging methods of producing food in the heart of cities boosts resilience collectively rather than fragment it. It will take policy guidance to ensure the benefits of these smart farms are shared equally. Vera Xia does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

A second sighting of this invasive species has Oregon wildlife officials concerned

Wildlife officials worry people may illegally import these creatures for food, then release them into Oregon waters.

A Chinese mitten crab was discovered in the Willamette River near the Sellwood Bridge in late November, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife said. It’s at least the second sighting of the invasive species in Oregon this year. State officials are working with the federal government, Portland State University and other agencies to investigate whether more of the 3-inch crabs are living in the Willamette.Chinese mitten crabs, which live in freshwater, could impact Oregon’s fish and crayfish populations by eating local species or fish eggs and competing for food, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife says. Oregon’s native crabs live along the coast. The Chinese mitten crab lives its adult life in freshwater, while Oregon's native crabs live along the coast. Oregon Department of Fish and WildlifeThe agency previously warned that the crabs “caused significant infrastructure and ecological damage in and around San Francisco Bay when the population was at its height in the late 1990s.”They are illegal to have or to sell in Oregon. Latest environmental newsMitten crabs can be identified by several distinctive features: a notch between the eyes, four spines on each side of the carapace and hairy mitten-like claws. The crabs’ color varies from greenish-brown to brownish-orange, according to an agency news release.Anyone who catches a Chinese mitten crab is asked to report it with the location to 1-866-INVADER or through an online invasive species hotline. - Kjerstin Gabrielson contributed to this report.

The way Australia produces food is unique. Our updated dietary guidelines have to recognise this

Australia’s dietary guidelines will soon consider environmental impacts. We need locally relevant indicators to support more sustainable food production.

Mandy McKeesick/GettyYou might know Australia’s dietary guidelines from the famous infographics showing the types and quantities of foods we should eat to have a healthy diet. Last updated 12 years ago, the National Health and Medical Research Council is now revising them to consider not only how food affects our health but also how sustainable our foods are. At least 37 other countries have already added sustainability to their dietary guidelines. Many countries use global load indicators to assess the environmental impact of specific foods, based on the planetary boundaries within which humanity can safely operate. While useful to compare between countries, these indicators don’t match Australia’s environmental risks and priorities. Unlike many other countries, locally produced food represents around 90% of what Australians eat. The environmental footprint of these foods is shaped almost entirely by the country’s unique landscapes, climates and farming systems. Our recent research suggests forthcoming guidelines need to take local conditions into account. If global load indicators are the sole way to measure impact, the guidelines won’t capture Australia’s specific environmental challenges in producing food. Local indicators matter Global load indicators include greenhouse gas emissions, how much land is used per kilo of food, water use, land and water pollution and biodiversity loss. This is how we get common figures such as the statistic that it takes 1,670 litres of water to produce 1 kilogram of rice. While global measures are useful in comparing between countries and products, they don’t always match local environmental risks and priorities. For example, using 1,670L of water to produce a kilo of rice in the contested and controlled Murray Darling Basin will have a different impact compared to using the same volume in Western Australia’s Kununurra irrigation system, where water is more abundant and has fewer alternative uses. Growing a kilo of rice in Italy will differ again. If we want dietary guidelines to encourage real improvements on farm and in rural landscapes, environmental indicators must reflect the challenges rural stakeholders actually face. Consumer preferences have already shifted several food production systems. Rising demand for free-range eggs and grass-fed beef has changed how farmers operate. It’s important to get this right. One size does not fit all Australia’s agricultural lands are diverse. By area, more than 80% of our farmland falls in the rangelands. Here, cattle and sheep graze with minimal human intervention on vast tropical savannas, woodlands, shrublands and grasslands. Low rainfall and poor soils mean livestock are kept at low densities. Other food production options haven’t proved viable. If we used global load indicators, food from rangelands would be assessed as having a high environmental impact due to large land use, lots of potentially polluting nutrients (dung and urine) and use of rainfall to grow forage vegetation. But the main environmental issues for Australia’s rangelands are different, including methane emissions from livestock, land degradation, invasive weeds such as buffel grass and biodiversity loss. Australian food production systems are diverse. Rangelands and natural pasture account for the largest area, followed by mixed crop-livestock zones (in light blue and yellow). Author provided, CC BY-NC-ND Australia’s next largest area of agriculture is mixed crop and livestock, found in regions such as the Mallee in Victoria and Western Australia’s Wheatbelt. Most crops and 40% of livestock are produced in these areas, characterised by reliable rainfall patterns and low to medium rainfall of around 250–450 millimetres a year. Farming here can make soils more acid due to high levels of nitrogen from fertilisers, alongside issues such as dryland salinity, erosion, biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions. These issues have degraded some land so much it can’t sustain farming. For these two types of agriculture, local indicators work better. By contrast, the intensive and productive irrigated farms of the Murray–Darling Basin have environmental impacts more aligned to global indicators. Environmental issues here include greenhouse gases, competition for land and water use, nutrient pollution (primarily fertilisers) and biodiversity loss. Good for your health – and the environment? While previous Australian studies have assessed the environmental footprint of different foods or focused on a narrow description of environmental impact derived from overseas studies, these haven’t accounted for local environmental priorities or trade-offs. Trade-offs are common. For instance, plant-based diets may result in lower greenhouse gas emissions but can increase pressure on soil health and biodiversity, as crops are commonly grown as monocultures with high fertiliser and pesticide use. Common Australian diets mixing plant and animal foods can have a lower impact on biodiversity and soil health but higher greenhouse gas emissions, as mixed diets entail a more diverse range of cultivated plants and animals but rely more on methane-producing livestock. Recognising and balancing these trade-offs will be essential if Australia’s updated dietary guidelines are to support healthy people and a healthy environment. What’s next? Ideally, Australia’s updated dietary guidelines will capture the unique pressures and challenges of producing food locally. This won’t be easy, given impacts will vary across different foods, regions and production systems. But the tools are already available. Farm software can track every aspect of the production in a local environmental context, making it possible to predict impacts on the natural capital of individual farms – if agreements to share and aggregate data can be negotiated. Gathering these data will allow local environmental indicators to be embedded in dietary guidelines. If this is done, it will become possible to link recommended diets to sustainability reporting. Farms, retailers and banks are increasingly required to report sustainability metrics, which can be linked to foods. That means Australians could see the environmental credentials of their food on the labels, based not on global averages – but on how the specific farm is doing. David Masters has previously received research funding from research and development corporations including Meat and Livestock Australia. He is a member of the National Health and Medical Research Council's Sustainability Working Group. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors alone and do not represent the views of NHMRC or the working group. David Lemon receives funding from the National Farmers' Federation. Dianne Mayberry has received funding from research and development corporations including Meat and Livestock Australia and the Grains Research and Development Corporation.Sonja Dominik works for CSIRO Agriculture and Food. She has previously received funding from the National Farmers' Federation and research and development corporations.

11 Foods Experts Say Can Boost Your Brain Health And Help Ward Off Dementia

“Proper nutrition is the foundation upon which our mental acuity and vitality rest."

Chris Stein via Getty ImagesBroccoli contains sulforaphane, which has been linked to reduced inflammation and improved brain health.Most people know which foods to avoid for a healthy heart. Yet, do you often think about the foods you eat and how they affect the brain? It’s been scientifically proven that diet can influence brain health. “The brain represents about 2% of our body weight, but it consumes about 20% of all of our calories,” said Dr. Robert Melillo, a brain researcher, clinician, autism expert, and founder of The Melillo Center in Long Island, New York. “The brain uses more calories than any other organ in our body; what we eat can have a big impact on our brain.”Diet and nutrition are essential to keep the brain healthy. “Proper nutrition is the foundation upon which our mental acuity and vitality rest,” said Dr. Brett Osborn, a board-certified neurosurgeon and the chief of neurosurgery at St. Mary’s Medical Center in Jupiter, Florida. “Just as we care for our bodies through exercise and a balanced diet, nurturing our brains through the right foods is essential for a vibrant and youthful mind.”Although scientists still don’t know what causes Alzheimer’s disease, a type of dementia, many think diet and environmental factors play a role. One study in the journal Neurology, published in November 2022, showed that increasing foods high in flavonoids showed it lowered the chances of developing dementia. “The two major groups of factors driving Alzheimer’s are reduced energetics —blood flow, oxygen saturation, mitochondrial function and ketones — and increased inflammation from various pathogens, toxins and metabolic disease,” explained Dr. Dale Bredesen, a neuroscience researcher and neurodegenerative disease expert. “Diet and environmental factors impact both energetics and inflammation, by multiple mechanisms, and therefore play key roles in both Alzheimer’s and treating cognitive decline.”According to Dr. Philip Gold, the chief of neuroendocrine research and senior investigator at the National Institute of Mental Health, “The key positive environmental influences include exercise, which is extremely important, level of education, and cognitive ‘exercise’ throughout life.” Getting sufficient sleep is also key. “Adequate sleep is also critical because, in part, it is during sleep that the brain repairs itself,” he said. Regularly eating foods that are not good for you can have negative consequences on both the body and the brain. “An unhealthy diet may negatively impact gut microbiota, leading to inflammation and potentially influencing the brain,” Osborn said. “Obese people ― most of whom have an unhealthy gut microbiome ― are at a marked risk for the development of Alzheimer’s dementia,” he added.So which foods are the most beneficial for brain health? The experts break it down below.Claudia Totir via Getty ImagesGood news for fans of avocado toast (and eggs!).AvocadoLove eating guacamole, mashing avocado on toast or dicing it into a salad or rice bowl? Avocados have healthy monounsaturated fats, and according to Bredesen, “These help to reduce vascular disease, and provide excellent energy for the brain, without the problems associated with simple carbs or saturated fats.”BroccoliWhether you like broccoli steamed with melted cheese on top, in stir-fries or as a veggie you sneak into your smoothie, you may want to find more ways to enjoy this crunchy vegetable. “Broccoli is a cruciferous vegetable that contains compounds like sulforaphane, which have been linked to reduced inflammation and improved brain health,” Osborn said. A 2019 study published in the journal Brain Circulation shows sulforaphane is an important antioxidant, and has anti-inflammatory properties that shows potential to protect the nervous system and reduce the burden of pervasive diseases on the body. BlueberriesIf you like to add blueberries to your morning bowl of yogurt, your brain will thank you. “Blueberries contain flavonoids, which are neuroprotective and have been shown to increase neuroplasticity and cerebral blood flow,” said Lynn A. Schaefer, Ph.D, a board-certified clinical neuropsychologist in Long Island. A randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study published in Nutritional Neuroscience in 2022 showed older adults who consumed wild blueberries had an increase in processing speed, suggesting blueberries may slow down cognitive decline.And these small berries are full of antioxidants, including anthocyanins. Osborn says anthocyanins can “help protect the brain from oxidative stress and inflammation.” He eats blueberries daily, either in a smoothie or on top of a salad.EggsEggs are known for being a good protein option, especially for those who are vegetarian or follow a plant-based diet. And there’s another reason to celebrate eggs: the yolk contains choline. Choline is an essential nutrient and important to produce acetylcholine. “Acetylcholine is a neurotransmitter that is very important for the parasympathetic nervous system, and important for memory,” Melillo explained. Choline is found in different foods, but the highest concentration is in egg yolks. According to Gold, “Critical to normal cognition, acetylcholine neurotransmission is pronouncedly decreased in Alzheimer’s disease.”Claudia Totir via Getty ImagesSalmon is a fatty fish that's high in omega-3 fatty acids.Fatty fishSalmon, sardines and mackerel are examples of fatty fish that contain omega-3 fatty acid. “These essential fats are crucial for maintaining brain health and have been linked to improved memory, mood regulation, and reduced risk of cognitive decline,” Osborn said. Omega-3 fatty acids are also important for creating new nerve cells and protecting brain cells from damage, according to Gold. Leafy greensDoctors and nutritionists encourage patients to eat more leafy greens because they are packed with nutrients. “Leafy greens such as spinach and kale are packed with vitamins, minerals and antioxidants,” Osborn said. “They promote healthy brain function by reducing inflammation and improving cognitive performance.” Magnesium is an important mineral in leafy greens — Melillo says it helps relax the body, lowering blood pressure and the effects of stress. TunaTuna is a low-fat fish and contains the amino acid tyrosine, an important component for producing neurotransmitters in the brain. “Tyrosine is used for making dopamine and norepinephrine, two of the main neurotransmitters in the brain,” Melillo explained. “Dopamine is more of a left brain neurotransmitter and norepinephrine is more of a right brain neurotransmitter.” Tuna also contains high concentrations of creatine. “Creatine facilitates the entry of water into brain and muscle cells to prevent their dehydration,” Gold said. TurmericSpices provide plenty of flavor and as a bonus can have important compounds that the body needs. Turmeric is a common ingredient that is grated or chopped fresh, or used as a powder in curries. “Turmeric, which contains curcumin, is remarkable in that it has anti-inflammatory effects, and also binds to both the amyloid and tau associated with Alzheimer’s disease, so it has multiple mechanisms to support brain health,” Bredesen said.A study published in the journal Molecules in February 2023 showed curcumin to be antimicrobial and neuroprotective in a variety of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease. GingerAnother spice used in both fresh and powdered form is ginger. “Ginger is a potent anti-inflammatory agent that has been shown to enhance cognitive function,” Osborn said. “The antioxidant effects are also thought to protect neurons against oxidative stress that underpin neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease.”Ginkgo bilobaGinkgo biloba is known to enhance memory and cognitive function. “It is believed to improve blood flow to the brain and protect brain cells from oxidative damage,” Dr. Osborn. “Some research supports its potential benefits in age-related cognitive decline.”Fermented foodsFermented foods, such as kimchi, kefir, kombucha, sauerkraut and yogurt may also be beneficial for the brain. “Research has established that the brain and gut communicate through the nervous system as well as through the immune system,” Schaefer said. “Therefore, changing the bacteria in the gut with probiotics and prebiotics, and not overdoing antibiotics, may play a role in improving brain functioning.”According to Osborn, “Foods that cultivate a healthy microbiome will likely serve as ‘medicines’ to remedy or slow the onset of all age-related diseases, including those affecting the brain.”

EPA urged to ban spraying of antibiotics on US food crops amid resistance fears

Use of 8m pounds of antibiotics and antifungals a year leads to superbugs and damages human health, lawsuit claimsA new legal petition filed by a dozen public health and farm worker groups demands the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stop allowing farms to spray antibiotics on food crops in the US because they are probably causing superbugs to flourish and sickening farm workers.The agricultural industry sprays about 8m pounds of antibiotic and antifungal pesticides on US food crops annually, many of which are banned in other countries. Continue reading...

A new legal petition filed by a dozen public health and farm worker groups demands the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stop allowing farms to spray antibiotics on food crops in the US because they are probably causing superbugs to flourish and sickening farm workers.The agricultural industry sprays about 8m pounds of antibiotic and antifungal pesticides on US food crops annually, many of which are banned in other countries.The overuse of antibiotics, which are essential to treating human disease, as pesticides on fruits and vegetables threatens public health because it can lead to superbug bacteria that are antibiotic-resistant. Similarly, overuse of antifungal pesticides can lead to fungal infections that are less treatable with medical currently available drugs, the groups say.“Each year Americans are at greater risk from dangerous bacteria and diseases because human medicines are sprayed on crops,” said Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “This kind of recklessness and preventable suffering is what happens when the industry has a stranglehold on the EPA’s pesticide-approval process.”Antibiotic-resistant infections sicken about 2.8 million people and cause about 35,000 deaths, annually, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, estimates. The CDC has linked “medically important antibiotics” that the EPA has approved for pesticide use on crops to antibiotic resistance in bacteria, increased risk of staph infections and increased risk of MRSA.Documents that the Center for Biological Diversity obtained via Freedom of Information Act request show a 2017 CDC study raised concerns about the risks in expanding the use of antibiotics on citrus crops.“The use of antibiotics as pesticides has the potential to select for antimicrobial resistant bacteria present in the environment,” the agency wrote.Meanwhile, consuming antibiotic residues on food can also disrupt the human gut microbiome and increase the risk of chronic diseases. The substances also pollute drinking water supplies, and are thought to harm pollinators. Often low-income and Latino farm workers are most at risk.Farms spray the antibiotics because they kill bacteria that can damage or kill crops.Among the most common antibiotic pesticides is streptomycin, which is commonly used in medical care. The US Geological Survey estimates up to 125,000 pounds have been sprayed on US crops in one year.The petition comes as the EPA faces pressure to expand the use of human antibiotics, Donley said. The bacterial citrus greening disease, transmitted by the Asian citrus psyllid, is devastating citrus orchards in Florida.Donley acknowledged that the citrus industry faces an “incredibly scary” situation, but said pumping more medically important antibiotics on to crops would be a greater disaster in the long run.“I understand their desperation because they’re in dire strays, but from a societal point of view this is absolutely a no-brainer – it cannot happen,” Donley said. “The bottom line is the massive problems created by spraying human medicine on food crops far outweighs the agricultural problems.”Donley said there are simple crop management steps that should be tried first, like planting crops further apart, breeding more disease-resistant varieties of crops and identifying diseased trees and quickly removing them to prevent the diseases from spreading.The petition gives the EPA about five years to respond. Several years ago, the agency banned chloropyrifos in response to a similar legal petition, but a judge overturned the EPA’s ban.The agency can enact a ban, or must give a reason why it won’t. The EPA under the Trump administration was unlikely to act, Donley said. If it, or a future administration, does not act, then the groups can sue. The process could take more than a decade.“We’re playing the long game,” Donley said.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.