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.

Do We Really Want a Food Cartel?

News Feed
Tuesday, April 9, 2024

The Federal Trade Commission has just released its long-anticipated report on the major disruptions to America’s grocery-supply chain during the coronavirus pandemic—and it confirmed the worst. According to the report, large grocery companies saw the pandemic as an opportunity. They deliberately wielded their market power amid food shortages, entrenching their dominance and keeping their shelves stocked even as smaller companies had to scramble for goods or simply close up shop. For the big players in the grocery industry—companies such as Walmart—the pandemic was a boon. And profits have continued to climb, along with food prices, even as supply-chain disruptions have vanished.Why did all of this happen? The FTC report implied an answer but did not state it outright: A handful of companies now control the food system of the United States, stifling competition in ways not seen since the great trusts and monopolies of the late 1890s. The mergers and acquisitions of the past four decades have greatly reduced the number of companies—a fact hidden by the multiplicity of brands. Kroger, the nation’s largest supermarket chain, runs grocery stores under more than two dozen names. That number would nearly double if its announced merger with Albertsons is allowed to proceed.     Almost a quarter of a century ago, my book Fast Food Nation called attention to an accelerating phenomenon: corporate, quasi-monopolistic control of America’s food system with harmful consequences for workers, consumers, livestock, and the land. The forces identified then are even more powerful today.According to a 2021 study by the public-interest group Food & Water Watch, four companies now control about 52 percent of the American market for rice, about 61 percent of the market for fresh bread, and about 79 percent of the market for pasta. Four companies are responsible for processing about 70 percent of the nation’s hogs and 85 percent of its cattle. The widespread adoption of factory farming has extended monopoly power even to commercial-livestock genetics. Three companies now provide the breeding stock for about 47 percent of the world’s hogs. Two companies provide the breeding stock for about 94 percent of the world’s egg-laying hens. The same two companies, EW Group and Hendrix Genetics, provide the breeding stock for 99 percent of the world’s turkeys. EW and Hendrix are also two of the world’s largest providers of breeding stock for farmed trout, salmon, and tilapia.[Amanda Mull: We’ve never been good at feeding babies]Economists have a metric known as the “four-firm concentration ratio,” sometimes deployed in shorthand as “CR4.” It is a measure of competitiveness in a market for goods or services. When four companies gain a combined market share that is greater than 40 percent, an oligopoly has formed. The prices offered to suppliers, the prices charged to consumers, and the wages paid to workers are no longer determined mainly by market forces. Further, the power these corporations exert within their industries and the economy as a whole leads to a well-documented dynamic: Effective government regulation becomes difficult, whether because state and federal agencies are “captive” or because they are outmatched in terms of resources and personnel.For the oligopoly, this is a welcome state of affairs. On occasion, a single event illuminates the consequences for the rest of us.Cronobacter sakazakii is an emerging pathogen that can be dangerous to infants who are younger than two months, born prematurely, or immunocompromised. After infection with the pathogen, the estimated death rate among such babies ranges from 40 to 60 percent. Many of those who survive have lifelong intestinal and brain damage and seizure disorders. The incidence of Cronobacter infections in the United States is unknown—until January of this year, only two states, Michigan and Minnesota, made a point of recording the number of cases. The overwhelming majority of infections go undetected. Since the late 1980s, powdered infant formula has been recognized as an important route of xi transmission to infants. Unlike liquid formula, powdered formula is not sterilized before being sold. Cronobacter may survive in powdered formula for at least a year. Once liquid is added to the powder, Cronobacter becomes bioactive and potentially deadly.     In September 2021, a case of Cronobacter was diagnosed in Minnesota. The baby was hospitalized for three weeks but survived. The Minnesota Department of Health promptly shared information about the case—and the brand and the lot number of the powdered formula linked to it—with the FDA and the CDC. During the next several months, three more infants were diagnosed with Cronobacter in other states. Two of them died. All of the illnesses were linked to formula produced at the same plant: the nation’s largest infant-formula factory, occupying almost 1 million square feet, covering more land than a dozen football fields. It was located in Sturgis, Michigan, and owned by Abbott Nutrition.     Poorly managed and notoriously reluctant to confront major food companies, the FDA was slow to react. In the fall of 2021, a former employee at the Sturgis plant had contacted the FDA to warn that safety records there were routinely being falsified, essential cleaning steps were being skipped, and baby formula was being packaged and shipped without being tested for lethal bacteria. The whistleblower sent the FDA a 34-page document describing a lack of concern about food safety in Sturgis, inexperienced and poorly trained workers, an emphasis on simply getting product out the door, and a corporate culture at Abbott Nutrition that encouraged retaliation against employees who raised uncomfortable questions.  Four months elapsed before the FDA, in early 2022, showed up in Sturgis to conduct a thorough inspection of the Abbott plant. Multiple strains of Cronobacter were discovered in the facility. FDA officials later described conditions at the plant as “shocking” and “unacceptably unsanitary.”     In February, Abbott voluntarily shut down its Sturgis factory and recalled three brands of powdered formula made there: EleCare, Alimentum, and Similac. The plant did not fully reopen for more than six months.     Abbott Nutrition has insisted that neither the FDA nor the CDC could “find any definitive link between the company’s products and illnesses in children.” But Frank Yiannas, a former vice president of food safety at Walmart who served as a deputy commissioner of the FDA during the formula recall, found Abbott’s denials misleading. Multiple factors suggested that Abbott was indeed responsible for those four cases of Cronobacter, Yiannas testified before Congress: “Abbott’s Sturgis plant lacked adequate controls to prevent the contamination of powdered infant formula … sporadic contamination of finished product actually did occur, and it is likely that other lots of [infant formula] produced in this plant were contaminated with C. sakazakii strains over time, which evaded end-product testing, were released into commerce, and consumed by infants.”     The health threat posed by the Abbott formula was bad enough. But there were other ramifications, because Abbott Nutrition was the largest firm in an infant-formula oligopoly. About 99 percent of the nation’s supply of infant formula was controlled by just four companies: Abbott, Mead Johnson, Nestlé/Gerber, and Perrigo. The Abbott factory in Sturgis produced about 20 percent of the infant formula consumed in the United States. It also manufactured the majority of the specialty formulas needed by infants, children, and even adults with certain gastrointestinal ailments.The shutdown of that one plant led to nationwide shortages of infant formula that lasted throughout 2022. The other three companies stepped in to make up for the shortfall, earning large profits in the process. Nevertheless, formula shortages, hoarding, and panic buying created anxiety among countless American parents that their babies might not be able to eat.     Two years later, a number of steps have been taken to improve the safety of powdered infant formula. Cases of Cronobacter in every state must now be reported to the CDC. Spurred by food-safety advocates, the FDA last year formed a unified Human Foods Program that promises a streamlined bureaucracy with a strong dedication to preventing the sale of contaminated food. We will see. In terms of resources, the FDA is outmatched. The FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Nutrition, which is responsible for the oversight of about 80 percent of the food consumed in the United States, has 1,071 employees—about the same number of employees it had in 1978. The nation’s population has increased by more than 100 million since then.  The dominance of the four companies that control the market for powdered infant formula is even more pronounced within individual states, where one company typically controls more than 90 percent of the formula market. That’s the result of the single-supplier contracts demanded by the federal Women, Infants, and Children program. The concentrated power of the four companies has made infant formula more expensive in the United States than it is in the European Union, despite the EU’s more stringent rules on organic ingredients and food additives in formula.Acting with common purpose and singular focus, oligopolies are influential. The infant-formula oligopoly benefits from government restrictions on EU and Canadian imports. It has thwarted innovation, avoided criminal penalties for sickening infants, and maintained factories with obsolete equipment. It has left the United States with a production capacity that lacks resilience.This is the state of affairs in a single industry. But it extends to the entire economy.America’s Founders despised monopolies. James Madison called them “sacrifices of the many to the few.” Thomas Jefferson suggested that the Constitution ought to include what would now be regarded as an antitrust provision. Writing to a friend in 1788, Jefferson listed the essential freedoms that a Bill of Rights should defend. The first three on his list were “freedom of religion,” “freedom of the press,” and “freedom of commerce against monopolies.” In some quarters, none of these three would make the cut today.The trustbusters of the early 20th century were remarkably successful at creating and preserving competitive markets in the American economy. But the relaxation of antitrust enforcement during the 1980s soon led to greatly reduced competition not only in the food industry but also in banking, publishing, aerospace, and many other industries.     Forty years ago, the United States had three large manufacturers of passenger aircraft. Today it has only one: Boeing, whose arrogance and incompetence can be attributed to the lack of domestic competition. Thirty years ago, the United States had more than 50 prime defense contractors. Today it has only five. Production delays, cost overruns, and vulnerable supply chains now threaten national security. The hollowing out of rural America—the loss of about half of the nation’s cattle ranchers, about 90 percent of its hog farmers, and more than 90 percent of its dairy farmers since the Reagan era—has fueled political extremism and a sense of desperation in the heartland.[Annie Lowery: Radical vegans are trying to change your diet]    Mergers, acquisitions, and the creation of corporations of massive size and scope are typically justified on the basis of greater “efficiency.” But they are efficient only at centralizing profits and fostering inequality. During the past three decades, adjusted for inflation, the hourly pay of American workers has increased by about 18 percent—and the annual compensation of CEOs at the largest American corporations has increased by about 1,300 percent. In California, where business groups have strongly opposed minimum-wage increases, fast-food cooks and clerks had a median annual income of about $15,000 in 2020. The following year, the CEO of McDonald’s was paid almost $20 million. Throughout the economy, concentrated power keeps wages low. Despite all the business-school rationalizations and jargon, corporations usually buy their competitors for one simple reason: They don’t want to compete with them.And ordinary people foot the bill, even if they’re not aware of the actual cost. Market power and the capture of government regulatory agencies enable food corporations to “externalize” many of their business costs—that is, to make other people pay for them. Americans annually spend more than $1 trillion on food. But that doesn’t count the cost of foodborne illnesses, diet-related health problems, poverty wages, and the environmental degradation caused by our industrial food system. According to a study by the Rockefeller Foundation, the true cost of the food we consume is three times higher than what we think it is.     The FTC and the Justice Department during the Biden administration have renewed the battle against monopoly power, reviving antitrust enforcement with support from some Republican members of Congress. On February 26, the FTC sued to block the merger of Kroger and Albertsons, arguing that it would raise the cost of groceries and lower the wages of grocery workers. But the fight against oligopolies and monopolies won’t be easy. A small number of corporations have tremendous political influence, expensive attorneys, and great skill at rigging markets in ways the public just can’t see.

Mergers and acquisitions have created food oligopolies that are inefficient, barely regulated, unfair, and even dangerous.

The Federal Trade Commission has just released its long-anticipated report on the major disruptions to America’s grocery-supply chain during the coronavirus pandemic—and it confirmed the worst. According to the report, large grocery companies saw the pandemic as an opportunity. They deliberately wielded their market power amid food shortages, entrenching their dominance and keeping their shelves stocked even as smaller companies had to scramble for goods or simply close up shop. For the big players in the grocery industry—companies such as Walmart—the pandemic was a boon. And profits have continued to climb, along with food prices, even as supply-chain disruptions have vanished.

Why did all of this happen? The FTC report implied an answer but did not state it outright: A handful of companies now control the food system of the United States, stifling competition in ways not seen since the great trusts and monopolies of the late 1890s. The mergers and acquisitions of the past four decades have greatly reduced the number of companies—a fact hidden by the multiplicity of brands. Kroger, the nation’s largest supermarket chain, runs grocery stores under more than two dozen names. That number would nearly double if its announced merger with Albertsons is allowed to proceed.

     Almost a quarter of a century ago, my book Fast Food Nation called attention to an accelerating phenomenon: corporate, quasi-monopolistic control of America’s food system with harmful consequences for workers, consumers, livestock, and the land. The forces identified then are even more powerful today.

According to a 2021 study by the public-interest group Food & Water Watch, four companies now control about 52 percent of the American market for rice, about 61 percent of the market for fresh bread, and about 79 percent of the market for pasta. Four companies are responsible for processing about 70 percent of the nation’s hogs and 85 percent of its cattle. The widespread adoption of factory farming has extended monopoly power even to commercial-livestock genetics. Three companies now provide the breeding stock for about 47 percent of the world’s hogs. Two companies provide the breeding stock for about 94 percent of the world’s egg-laying hens. The same two companies, EW Group and Hendrix Genetics, provide the breeding stock for 99 percent of the world’s turkeys. EW and Hendrix are also two of the world’s largest providers of breeding stock for farmed trout, salmon, and tilapia.

[Amanda Mull: We’ve never been good at feeding babies]

Economists have a metric known as the “four-firm concentration ratio,” sometimes deployed in shorthand as “CR4.” It is a measure of competitiveness in a market for goods or services. When four companies gain a combined market share that is greater than 40 percent, an oligopoly has formed. The prices offered to suppliers, the prices charged to consumers, and the wages paid to workers are no longer determined mainly by market forces. Further, the power these corporations exert within their industries and the economy as a whole leads to a well-documented dynamic: Effective government regulation becomes difficult, whether because state and federal agencies are “captive” or because they are outmatched in terms of resources and personnel.

For the oligopoly, this is a welcome state of affairs. On occasion, a single event illuminates the consequences for the rest of us.

Cronobacter sakazakii is an emerging pathogen that can be dangerous to infants who are younger than two months, born prematurely, or immunocompromised. After infection with the pathogen, the estimated death rate among such babies ranges from 40 to 60 percent. Many of those who survive have lifelong intestinal and brain damage and seizure disorders. The incidence of Cronobacter infections in the United States is unknown—until January of this year, only two states, Michigan and Minnesota, made a point of recording the number of cases. The overwhelming majority of infections go undetected. Since the late 1980s, powdered infant formula has been recognized as an important route of xi transmission to infants. Unlike liquid formula, powdered formula is not sterilized before being sold. Cronobacter may survive in powdered formula for at least a year. Once liquid is added to the powder, Cronobacter becomes bioactive and potentially deadly.

     In September 2021, a case of Cronobacter was diagnosed in Minnesota. The baby was hospitalized for three weeks but survived. The Minnesota Department of Health promptly shared information about the case—and the brand and the lot number of the powdered formula linked to it—with the FDA and the CDC. During the next several months, three more infants were diagnosed with Cronobacter in other states. Two of them died. All of the illnesses were linked to formula produced at the same plant: the nation’s largest infant-formula factory, occupying almost 1 million square feet, covering more land than a dozen football fields. It was located in Sturgis, Michigan, and owned by Abbott Nutrition.

     Poorly managed and notoriously reluctant to confront major food companies, the FDA was slow to react. In the fall of 2021, a former employee at the Sturgis plant had contacted the FDA to warn that safety records there were routinely being falsified, essential cleaning steps were being skipped, and baby formula was being packaged and shipped without being tested for lethal bacteria. The whistleblower sent the FDA a 34-page document describing a lack of concern about food safety in Sturgis, inexperienced and poorly trained workers, an emphasis on simply getting product out the door, and a corporate culture at Abbott Nutrition that encouraged retaliation against employees who raised uncomfortable questions.  

Four months elapsed before the FDA, in early 2022, showed up in Sturgis to conduct a thorough inspection of the Abbott plant. Multiple strains of Cronobacter were discovered in the facility. FDA officials later described conditions at the plant as “shocking” and “unacceptably unsanitary.”

     In February, Abbott voluntarily shut down its Sturgis factory and recalled three brands of powdered formula made there: EleCare, Alimentum, and Similac. The plant did not fully reopen for more than six months.

     Abbott Nutrition has insisted that neither the FDA nor the CDC could “find any definitive link between the company’s products and illnesses in children.” But Frank Yiannas, a former vice president of food safety at Walmart who served as a deputy commissioner of the FDA during the formula recall, found Abbott’s denials misleading. Multiple factors suggested that Abbott was indeed responsible for those four cases of Cronobacter, Yiannas testified before Congress: “Abbott’s Sturgis plant lacked adequate controls to prevent the contamination of powdered infant formula … sporadic contamination of finished product actually did occur, and it is likely that other lots of [infant formula] produced in this plant were contaminated with C. sakazakii strains over time, which evaded end-product testing, were released into commerce, and consumed by infants.”

     The health threat posed by the Abbott formula was bad enough. But there were other ramifications, because Abbott Nutrition was the largest firm in an infant-formula oligopoly. About 99 percent of the nation’s supply of infant formula was controlled by just four companies: Abbott, Mead Johnson, Nestlé/Gerber, and Perrigo. The Abbott factory in Sturgis produced about 20 percent of the infant formula consumed in the United States. It also manufactured the majority of the specialty formulas needed by infants, children, and even adults with certain gastrointestinal ailments.

The shutdown of that one plant led to nationwide shortages of infant formula that lasted throughout 2022. The other three companies stepped in to make up for the shortfall, earning large profits in the process. Nevertheless, formula shortages, hoarding, and panic buying created anxiety among countless American parents that their babies might not be able to eat.

     Two years later, a number of steps have been taken to improve the safety of powdered infant formula. Cases of Cronobacter in every state must now be reported to the CDC. Spurred by food-safety advocates, the FDA last year formed a unified Human Foods Program that promises a streamlined bureaucracy with a strong dedication to preventing the sale of contaminated food. We will see. In terms of resources, the FDA is outmatched. The FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Nutrition, which is responsible for the oversight of about 80 percent of the food consumed in the United States, has 1,071 employees—about the same number of employees it had in 1978. The nation’s population has increased by more than 100 million since then.  

The dominance of the four companies that control the market for powdered infant formula is even more pronounced within individual states, where one company typically controls more than 90 percent of the formula market. That’s the result of the single-supplier contracts demanded by the federal Women, Infants, and Children program. The concentrated power of the four companies has made infant formula more expensive in the United States than it is in the European Union, despite the EU’s more stringent rules on organic ingredients and food additives in formula.

Acting with common purpose and singular focus, oligopolies are influential. The infant-formula oligopoly benefits from government restrictions on EU and Canadian imports. It has thwarted innovation, avoided criminal penalties for sickening infants, and maintained factories with obsolete equipment. It has left the United States with a production capacity that lacks resilience.

This is the state of affairs in a single industry. But it extends to the entire economy.

America’s Founders despised monopolies. James Madison called them “sacrifices of the many to the few.” Thomas Jefferson suggested that the Constitution ought to include what would now be regarded as an antitrust provision. Writing to a friend in 1788, Jefferson listed the essential freedoms that a Bill of Rights should defend. The first three on his list were “freedom of religion,” “freedom of the press,” and “freedom of commerce against monopolies.” In some quarters, none of these three would make the cut today.

The trustbusters of the early 20th century were remarkably successful at creating and preserving competitive markets in the American economy. But the relaxation of antitrust enforcement during the 1980s soon led to greatly reduced competition not only in the food industry but also in banking, publishing, aerospace, and many other industries.

     Forty years ago, the United States had three large manufacturers of passenger aircraft. Today it has only one: Boeing, whose arrogance and incompetence can be attributed to the lack of domestic competition. Thirty years ago, the United States had more than 50 prime defense contractors. Today it has only five. Production delays, cost overruns, and vulnerable supply chains now threaten national security. The hollowing out of rural America—the loss of about half of the nation’s cattle ranchers, about 90 percent of its hog farmers, and more than 90 percent of its dairy farmers since the Reagan era—has fueled political extremism and a sense of desperation in the heartland.

[Annie Lowery: Radical vegans are trying to change your diet]

    Mergers, acquisitions, and the creation of corporations of massive size and scope are typically justified on the basis of greater “efficiency.” But they are efficient only at centralizing profits and fostering inequality. During the past three decades, adjusted for inflation, the hourly pay of American workers has increased by about 18 percent—and the annual compensation of CEOs at the largest American corporations has increased by about 1,300 percent. In California, where business groups have strongly opposed minimum-wage increases, fast-food cooks and clerks had a median annual income of about $15,000 in 2020. The following year, the CEO of McDonald’s was paid almost $20 million. Throughout the economy, concentrated power keeps wages low. Despite all the business-school rationalizations and jargon, corporations usually buy their competitors for one simple reason: They don’t want to compete with them.

And ordinary people foot the bill, even if they’re not aware of the actual cost. Market power and the capture of government regulatory agencies enable food corporations to “externalize” many of their business costs—that is, to make other people pay for them. Americans annually spend more than $1 trillion on food. But that doesn’t count the cost of foodborne illnesses, diet-related health problems, poverty wages, and the environmental degradation caused by our industrial food system. According to a study by the Rockefeller Foundation, the true cost of the food we consume is three times higher than what we think it is.

     The FTC and the Justice Department during the Biden administration have renewed the battle against monopoly power, reviving antitrust enforcement with support from some Republican members of Congress. On February 26, the FTC sued to block the merger of Kroger and Albertsons, arguing that it would raise the cost of groceries and lower the wages of grocery workers. But the fight against oligopolies and monopolies won’t be easy. A small number of corporations have tremendous political influence, expensive attorneys, and great skill at rigging markets in ways the public just can’t see.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Dear Doctor: Sun exposure is the primary cause of thinning skin

"Could I take vitamin K or increase my platelets to limit this happening?"

DEAR DR. ROACH: I thought you could help with a stubborn problem. I am a healthy and active 78-year-old woman who, I admit, likes to look younger than my age. The problem is my skin, especially on my hands and arms; I get these bruises that look unsightly and take a while to resolve. I hear it is from age-related thin skin. My friends of this generation also complain about these red spots or bruises. They don’t hurt.Could I take vitamin K or increase my platelets so as to limit their happening? I’ve read not to take aspirin or any pain reliever. Is there any medicine to take to help my blood coagulate better or make my skin thicker? -- S.M.ANSWER: This common problem is called solar purpura, and it is largely the sun causing the damage to the skin, thinning it with age. Avoiding the sun and moisturizing your skin diligently can reduce the risk of this happening. Once it’s happened, these measures are still important for preventing it from getting worse.You should still avoid the sun and moisturize to prevent the condition from worsening. One study showed that bioflavinoid supplements helped reduce new bruises. These aren’t particularly expensive, but you can also get them through food, specifically citrus and other fruits.Vitamin K deficiency causes clotting problems, but taking more vitamin K doesn’t help. Aspirin does reduce the effectiveness of platelets, but if you are prescribed it (for blockages in the heart, for example), you should definitely keep taking it. Occasional ibuprofen has little effect on platelets, and acetaminophen (Tylenol) has none.DEAR DR. ROACH: For years, I have been plagued by a chronic nasal drip. It’s usually most present in the mornings, though it seems to be intermittent during the day. I frequently have to wipe or blow my nose. I thought it might be due to allergies, so I have been taking a Zyrtec tablet every morning. But it doesn’t seem to have any effect.I talked with my primary care physician about this, but he didn’t have any recommendations. I don’t know what is going on or how to stop this. Do you have any recommendations? -- R.M.ANSWER: An antihistamine like Zyrtec is a reasonable thing to try as allergic rhinitis often responds to antihistamines. (We just love our Latin and Greek names, and “rhinitis” comes from the Greek roots for “inflammation of the nose.”) Since an antihistamine didn’t work, it seems likely that you might have nonallergic rhinitis, and a nasal spray like ipratropium is usually effective for this.I also recommend azelastine nasal spray, which is now available over the counter as “Astepro.” There are some steps you can do to help your environmental risk, such as reducing dust and avoiding excess dryness.I warn people against the habitual use of nasal decongestants like Afrin, which should only be used for a day or two -- never more than three. Once the body gets used to it, nasal congestion will worsen every time a person tries to go without it.If the nasal spray doesn’t do the job, I’d recommend an evaluation by an expert, such as an otorhinolaryngologist, who may need to look for nasal polyps, laryngopharyngeal reflux, and other less-common causes.Dr. Roach regrets that he is unable to answer individual letters, but will incorporate them in the column whenever possible. Readers may email questions to ToYourGoodHealth@med.cornell.edu or send mail to 628 Virginia Dr., Orlando, FL 32803.(c) 2022 North America Syndicate Inc.All Rights Reserved

Ashland Earth Day celebrants find ways to help the planet, say ‘hang in there’

Ashland is a year-round Earth Day with "people who are creating organic, local, sustainable food, drink and music," said A Street Block Party participant Emily Simon.

Joe Bianculli participated in the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970, and 55 years later, he was handing out environmental-action information to throngs of people attending Ashland’s first Earth Day A Street Block Party. Biancelli, who lives in Ashland and volunteers for Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands (“KS Wild”), said on Tuesday, “We had high hopes for saving the planet and we still have high hopes. It’s getting tougher and tougher every year, but we all have to hang in there.”The ecologically focused event in the historic Railroad District stretched for blocks along A Street, past the Ashland Food Co-op and Masala Bistro to the KS Wild open house, where Biancelli handed out stickers that read “Love where you live, defend what you love” in the front yard as the bluegrass band Eight Dollar Mountain performed in the backyard.About 1,000 people attended the free outdoor event organized by Karolina Lavagnino of Wild Thyme Productions.People chatted in line to order from the Tacos Libertad food truck in the parking lot used year round by customers of Get ‘N Gear second-hand outdoor equipment and clothing stores. Near an outdoor display of used kayaks and bikes for sale, volunteers of Ashland Devo explained the group’s mission: to cultivate grit, resilience and camaraderie in youth through the sport of mountain biking. Board member Moneeka Settles said Earth Day is simple: It’s a chance to “gather together and celebrate Earth.”Across A Street, in a lot next to the Ashland Yoga Center, Suzee Grilley was leading Elbow Room Taiko drummers, who captivated a large crowd with their rhythmic sound and dramatic movements around barrel-shaped drums.“We always celebrate Earth Day,” said Grilley. “We feel a lot of our music expresses a communing with nature, and the sprits that animate nature, from the trees, to the sky, to the water, to the earth itself, to human beings and animals.”She said the drums the group play reflect nature. “Every one of our drums is made of wood, skin and metal, and crafted with love and prayer by an artisan,” she said.Vince DiFrancesco of the Siskiyou Mountain Club, which works to maintain more than 400 miles of backcountry trails, welcomed people to his booth set up between the Grange Co-op and Ace Hardware.DiFrancesco sees Earth Day as a time for public service. “It’s about getting out and doing work on public lands to keep them open for recreation for everybody,” he said. Nearby, musician Gatore Mukarhinda drummed a heartbeat and sang a love song to Mother Earth. “She says, ‘take care of me,’” he said.Aubrey Laughlin of Talent, who had recently volunteered for Siskiyou Mountain Club trail work, said the idea for Earth Day was about “looking out for the next generation and connecting with each other, the place we live and our community.” Marie DeGregorio of Medford, who also attended the street party, said the day reminds people that “the planet needs help and we are stewards.”Party goer Susan Cox of Ashland agreed. To her, the day means “taking care of the planet, and each one of us doing our part as best we can and keeping it happy.” Yu Kuwabara of Ashland, who rode his bike to the event, said “Earth Day is a celebration of getting outside and enjoying the community.” Plenty of people rolled into the event on bikes, and Piccadilly Cycles provided free bike valet parking in front of its store.People gathered around booths displaying handmade jewelry and vendors selling treats like vegan- and gluten-free Plant Baked cookies, donuts, blueberry limoncello squares and cinnamon swirl loaves.Bloomsbury Books, a landmark independent bookstore on Ashland’s East Main Street, had a pop-up shop with nature-focused books. Earth Day is a day to learn about the environment, said bookstore co-owner Megan Isser. “Come read,” she said, gesturing to a table with copies of books, including “Garden Guide for the Rogue Valley,” published by the Jackson County Master Gardener Association with support from the Oregon State University Extension Service. Adults tasted small-batch wines from Circadian Cellars at the Ashland Recycled Furniture store, and mocktails by Hummingbird Heart Co. in a lot near Fourth Street.Creekside Strings fiddlers kicked off the event around 4 p.m. with traditional tunes in front of La Baguette Music Cafe, well known for its weekly jazz sessions. The event ended there too at 7:30 p.m. after a performance by folk duo Jenika Smith and Simon Chrisman.To block party participant Emily Simon, the best place to be on Earth Day was in Ashland, where she lives and supports sustainable businesses year round. “It’s such a wonderful event to be out here with our neighbors,” she said, “and celebrating the Earth with people who are creating organic, local, sustainable food, drink and music.”Upcoming Earth Day events:ScienceWorks Hands-on Museum hosts its annual Earth Day celebration 3:30-7 p.m. Friday, April 25, with activities highlighting the science of sustainability at 1500 E. Main St. in Ashland (541-482-6767). Parking is limited and people are encouraged to walk, bike, carpool or use public transit.Pollinator Project Rogue Valley holds its spring native plant sale 10 a.m.-2 p.m. Sunday, April 27, with five growers offering a large selection of plants (listed here) native to the southern Oregon bioregion in the parking lot behind The Pollination Place at 312 N. Main St., Phoenix.See more events statewide at oregonlive.com.Here is Oregon: Southern Oregon— Janet Eastman covers design and trends. Reach her at 503-294-4072, jeastman@oregonian.com and follow her on X @janeteastman.

Trump Administration Plans Ban on More Synthetic Food Dyes

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterTUESDAY, April 22, 2025 (HealthDay News) — The Trump administration is expected to take new steps to remove...

TUESDAY, April 22, 2025 (HealthDay News) — The Trump administration is expected to take new steps to remove artificial food dyes from the U.S. food supply, officials say.This follows a major move by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in January, under former President Joe Biden, to ban red dye No. 3 in food, drinks and some drugs. That action came more than 30 years after research linked the dye to cancer in animals.Now, federal officials appear ready to go even farther. Kennedy has been an outspoken critic of petroleum-based synthetic dyes, which are used to make foods and drinks look more appealing to consumers.In March, Kennedy supported a new West Virginia law banning some of these dyes. It made West Virginia the first state to take such broad action. Studies have linked some food dyes to behavior and learning issues in children, CNN reported.More than half of U.S. states, including both Republican- and Democrat-led ones, are pushing to restrict these ingredients, according to the Environmental Working Group (EWG).In a March email to CNN, the National Confectioners Association said while states have a role to play in the nation's food system, "the FDA is the rightful national regulatory decision maker and leader in food safety." Some of the association's members sell products that contain artificial dyes.John Hewitt of the Consumer Brands Association also urged the FDA to take the lead, saying the agency should “aggressively acknowledge its responsibility as the nation’s food safety regulator.”Artificial dyes such as red No. 3, red No. 40, green No. 3 and blue No. 2 have been linked to cancer or tumors in animals. Others, like yellow No. 5 and yellow No. 6, may contain cancer-causing chemicals. Even tiny amounts of yellow No. 5 can cause restlessness or sleep problems in sensitive children, CNN reported.Marion Nestle, a well-known food policy expert, welcomed the plan.“Non-petroleum substitute dyes are available and used widely in other countries by the same companies that sell products here," she said. "Companies have been promising to get rid of the petroleum dyes for years. The time has come.”In public health terms, “this is low-hanging fruit," Nestle added. "I want to see RFK Jr. take on ultra-processed foods, a much tougher problem and a far more important one.”Most of these dyes are used in low-nutrition foods like candy and soda, but they may also appear in less colorful products, the Center for Science in the Public Interest says.People who want to avoid these dyes can check ingredient labels on food and drink packaging, CNN said.SOURCE: CNN, April 22, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Mission to boldly grow food in space labs blasts off

The mission will explore new ways of reducing the cost of feeding an astronaut.

Mission to boldly grow food in space labs blasts offBBC NewsArtwork: The experiment will orbit the Earth for three hours before returning to Earth and splashing down off the coast of PortugalSteak, mashed potatoes and deserts for astronauts could soon be grown from individual cells in space if an experiment launched into orbit today is successful.A European Space Agency (ESA) project is assessing the viability of growing so-called lab-grown food in the low gravity and higher radiation in orbit and on other worlds.ESA is funding the research to explore new ways of reducing the cost of feeding an astronaut, which can cost up to £20,000 per day.The team involved say the experiment is a first step to developing a small pilot food production plant on the International Space Station in two years' time.Lab-grown food will be essential if Nasa's objective of making humanity a multi-planetary species were to be realised, claims Dr Aqeel Shamsul, CEO and founder of Bedford-based Frontier Space, which is developing the concept with researchers at Imperial College, London."Our dream is to have factories in orbit and on the Moon," he told BBC News."We need to build manufacturing facilities off world if we are to provide the infrastructure to enable humans to live and work in space".NASAAstronauts enjoy eating in zero gravity, but the freeze-dried food itself is not much fun to eatLab-grown food involves growing food ingredients, such as protein, fat and carbohydrates in test tubes and vats and then processing them to make them look and taste like normal food.Lab-grown chicken is already on sale in the US and Singapore and lab grown steak is awaiting approval in the UK and Israel. On Earth, there are claimed environmental benefits for the technology over traditional agricultural food production methods, such as less land use and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. But in space the primary driver of is to reduce costs.The researchers are doing the experiment because it costs so much to send astronauts food on the ISS - up to £20,000 per astronaut per day, they estimate. Nasa, other space agencies and private sector firms plan to have a long-term presence on the Moon, in orbiting space stations and maybe one day on Mars. That will mean sending up food for tens and eventually hundreds of astronauts living and working in space – something that would be prohibitively expensive if it were sent up by rockets, according to Dr Shamsul.Growing food in space would make much more sense, he suggests."We could start off simply with protein-enhanced mashed potatoes on to more complex foods which we could put together in space," he tells me."But in the longer term we could put the lab-grown ingredients into a 3D printer and print off whatever you want on the space station, such as a steak!"Lab-grown steak can be produced on Earth, but can it be created in space?This sounds like the replicator machines on Star Trek, which are able to produce food and drink from pure energy. But it is no longer the stuff of science fiction, says Dr Shamsul.He showed me a set-up, called a bioreactor, at Imperial College's Bezos Centre for Sustainable Proteins in west London. It comprised a brick-coloured concoction bubbling away in a test tube. The process is known as precision fermentation, which is like the fermentation used to make beer, but different: "precision" is a rebranding word for genetically engineered.In this case a gene has been added to yeast to produce extra vitamins, but all sorts of ingredients can be produced in this way, according to Dr Rodrigo Ledesma-Amaro, Director of the Bezos Centre."We can make all the elements to make food," says Dr Ledesma-Amaro proudly."We can make proteins, fats, carbohydrates, fibres and they can be combined to make different dishes."The brick-coloured "food" is grown in a small biorector, a mini-version of which has been sent into space A much smaller, simpler version of the biorector has been sent into space on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket as part of the ESA mission. There is plenty of evidence that that foods can be successfully grown from cells on Earth, but can the process be repeated in the weightlessness and higher radiation of space?Drs Ledesma-Amaro and Shamsul have sent small amounts of the yeast concoction to orbit the Earth in a small cube satellite on board Europe's first commercial returnable spacecraft, Phoenix. If all goes to plan, it will orbit the Earth for around three hours before falling back to Earth off the coast of Portugal. The experiment will be retrieved by a recovery vessel and sent back to the lab in London to be examined.The data they gather will inform the construction of a larger, better bioreactor which the scientists will send into space next year, according to Dr Ledesma-Amaro.The problem, though, is that the brick-coloured goo, which is dried into a powder, looks distinctly unappetising – even less appetising than the freeze-dried fare that astronauts currently have to put up with.That is where Imperial College's master chef comes in. Jakub Radzikowski is the culinary education designer tasked with turning chemistry into cuisine.Kevin ChurchImperial College's master chef has the job of making lab-grown chemicals into delicious dishesHe isn't allowed to use lab grown ingredients to make dishes for people just yet, because regulatory approval is still pending. But he's getting a head start. For now, instead of lab-grown ingredients, Jakub is using starches and proteins from naturally occurring fungi to develop his recipes. He tells me all sorts of dishes will be possible, once he gets the go-ahead to use lab-grown ingredients."We want to create food that is familiar to astronauts who are from different parts of the world so that it can provide comfort."We can create anything from French, Chinese, Indian. It will be possible to replicate any kind of cuisine in space."Today, Jakub is trying out a new recipe of spicy dumplings and dipping sauce. He tells me that I am allowed to try it them out, but taster-in-chief is someone far more qualified: Helen Sharman, the UK's first astronaut, who also has a PhD in chemistry.Kevin Church/BBC NewsBritain's first astronaut, Helen Sharman and I taste test what might be the space food of the futureWe tasted the steaming dumplings together. My view: "They are absolutely gorgeous!"Dr Sharman's expert view, not dissimilar: "You get a really strong blast from the flavour. It is really delicious and very moreish," she beamed."I would love to have had something like this. When I was in space, I had really long-life stuff: tins, freeze dried packets, tubes of stuff. It was fine, but not tasty."Dr Sharman's more important observation was about the science. Lab-grown food, she said, could potentially be better for astronauts, as well as reduce costs to the levels required to make long-term off-world habitation viable.Research on the ISS has shown that the biochemistry of astronauts' bodies changes during long duration space missions: their hormone balance and iron levels alter, and they we lose calcium from their bones. Astronauts take supplements to compensate, but lab-grown food could in principle be tweaked with the extra ingredients already built in, says Dr Sharman."Astronauts tend to lose weight because they are not eating as much because they don't have the variety and interest in their diet," she told me."So, astronauts might be more open to having something that has been cooked from scratch and a feeling that you are really eating wholesome food."

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.