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.

Exploring the potential of azolla as a future food source

News Feed
Wednesday, March 13, 2024

A versatile fern called azolla could revolutionize food production by offering a sustainable source of nutrition and aiding in carbon capture, according to recent research. Matt Simon reports for Wired.In short:Azolla, a rapidly growing fern, holds potential as food, fertilizer, and biofuel, but requires further research to ensure it's safe and nutritious.Carolina azolla, a specific species, has lower levels of polyphenols, making it a better candidate for human consumption after processing.Beyond nutrition, azolla's ability to fix nitrogen and capture carbon could significantly benefit agriculture and the environment.Key quote: "I’m not out here saying everybody should go eat this stuff right away, but boy, it’s got so much potential." — Daniel Winstead, research technologist at Penn State.Why this matters: Azolla's rapid growth and environmental benefits could provide a crucial alternative in times of food scarcity and play a role in sustainable agriculture. In this 2017 essay, Robyn Alders and Richard Kock argue that it’s time to rethink our food system and acknowledge our responsibilities to renewal of resources and the rights of existence for all life forms on Earth.

A versatile fern called azolla could revolutionize food production by offering a sustainable source of nutrition and aiding in carbon capture, according to recent research. Matt Simon reports for Wired.In short:Azolla, a rapidly growing fern, holds potential as food, fertilizer, and biofuel, but requires further research to ensure it's safe and nutritious.Carolina azolla, a specific species, has lower levels of polyphenols, making it a better candidate for human consumption after processing.Beyond nutrition, azolla's ability to fix nitrogen and capture carbon could significantly benefit agriculture and the environment.Key quote: "I’m not out here saying everybody should go eat this stuff right away, but boy, it’s got so much potential." — Daniel Winstead, research technologist at Penn State.Why this matters: Azolla's rapid growth and environmental benefits could provide a crucial alternative in times of food scarcity and play a role in sustainable agriculture. In this 2017 essay, Robyn Alders and Richard Kock argue that it’s time to rethink our food system and acknowledge our responsibilities to renewal of resources and the rights of existence for all life forms on Earth.



A versatile fern called azolla could revolutionize food production by offering a sustainable source of nutrition and aiding in carbon capture, according to recent research.

Matt Simon reports for Wired.


In short:

  • Azolla, a rapidly growing fern, holds potential as food, fertilizer, and biofuel, but requires further research to ensure it's safe and nutritious.
  • Carolina azolla, a specific species, has lower levels of polyphenols, making it a better candidate for human consumption after processing.
  • Beyond nutrition, azolla's ability to fix nitrogen and capture carbon could significantly benefit agriculture and the environment.

Key quote:

"I’m not out here saying everybody should go eat this stuff right away, but boy, it’s got so much potential."

— Daniel Winstead, research technologist at Penn State.

Why this matters:

Azolla's rapid growth and environmental benefits could provide a crucial alternative in times of food scarcity and play a role in sustainable agriculture. In this 2017 essay, Robyn Alders and Richard Kock argue that it’s time to rethink our food system and acknowledge our responsibilities to renewal of resources and the rights of existence for all life forms on Earth.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Sugar in baby food: Why Nestlé needs to be held to account in Africa

"In Africa, the number of overweight children under five has increased by nearly 23% since 2000"

As the Public Eye investigation revealed, one example of this is Nestlé's biscuit-flavored cereals for babies aged six months and older: in Senegal and South Africa they contain 6g of added sugar. In Switzerland, where Nestlé is based, the same product has none. In South Africa, Nestlé promotes its wheat cereal Cerelac as a source of 12 essential vitamins and minerals under the theme "little bodies need big support". Yet all Cerelac products sold in this country contain high levels of added sugar. Obesity is increasingly a problem in low- and middle-income countries. In Africa, the number of overweight children under five has increased by nearly 23% since 2000. The World Health Organization has called for a ban on added sugar in products for babies and young children under three years of age.     Why is extra sugar particularly unhealthy for babies? Adding sugar make the foods delicious and, some argue, addictive. The same goes for adding salt and fat to products.   Children shouldn't eat any added sugar before they turn two. Studies show that adding sugar to any food for babies or small children predisposes them to having a sweet tooth. They start preferring sweet things, which is harmful in their diets throughout their lives. Unnecessary sugar contributes to obesity, which has major health effects such as diabetes, high blood pressure and other cardiovascular diseases, cancer and joint problems among others. The rate of overweight children in South Africa is 13%, twice the global average of 6.1%. These extra sugars, fats and salt are harmful to our health throughout our lifetime, but especially to babies as they are still building their bodies. Children eat relatively small amounts of food at this stage. To ensure healthy nutrition, the food they eat must be high in nutrients.   How do multinationals influence health policies? Companies commonly influence public health through lobbying and party donations. This gives politicians and political parties an incentive to align decisions with commercial agendas. Low- and middle-income countries often have to address potential trade-offs:  potential economic growth from an expanding commercial base and potential harms from the same commercial forces.   Research into how South African food companies, particularly large transnationals, go about shaping public health policy in their favour found 107 examples of food industry practices designed to influence public health policy. In many cases companies promise financial support in areas such as funding research. In 2023 a South African food security research centre attached to a university signed a memorandum of understanding with Nestlé signaling their intent to "forge a transformative partnership" to shape "the future of food and nutrition research and education" and transform "Africa's food systems".   What happens in high-income countries? Most high-income countries have clear guidelines about baby foods. One example is the EU directive on processed cereal-based foods and baby foods for infants and young children. Another is the  Swiss Nutrition Policy, which sets out clear guidelines on healthy eating and advertising aimed at children. The global food system is coming under scrutiny not just for health reasons but for the humane treatment of animals, genetically engineered foods, and social and environmental justice.   What should governments in developing countries be doing? South Africa already has limits on salt content  but we need limits on added sugar and oil.   Taxing baby foods as we do sugary beverages is another way of discouraging these harmful additions. We need to make sure that consumers are aware of what's in their food by having large front-of-package warning labels. Take yogurt: many people assume it is healthy, but there is lots of added sugar in many brands. Consumers should be calling for front-of-pack labels that the Department of Health has proposed so that parents can easily identify unhealthy foods.   Susan Goldstein, Associate Professor in the SAMRC Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science - PRICELESS SA (Priority Cost Effective Lessons in Systems Strengthening South Africa), University of the Witwatersrand   This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Kale, watermelon and even some organic foods pose high pesticide risk, analysis finds

A new analysis by Consumer Reports shows that pesticides have contaminated the US fruit and vegetable supply – even some organicsWhat’s safe to eat? Here is the pesticide risk level for each fruit and vegetableWatermelon, green beans and bell peppers are among the many common fruits and vegetables found in US supermarkets that contain potentially unsafe levels of pesticides, according to an analysis published today by Consumer Reports.The new report – which analyzed seven years of US Department of Agriculture data on commonly eaten fruits and vegetables – offers one of the most comprehensive evaluations to date of pesticides found in US produce. The data was based on nearly 30,000 fruit and vegetable samples, including fresh, frozen, canned and organic, collected from supermarkets by the USDA as part of routine pesticide testing. Consumer Reports built a massive database to analyze the data – and scored different foods to provide actionable recommendations to help consumers shop and eat with less risk. Continue reading...

Watermelon, green beans and bell peppers are among the many common fruits and vegetables found in US supermarkets that contain potentially unsafe levels of pesticides, according to an analysis published today by Consumer Reports.The new report – which analyzed seven years of US Department of Agriculture data on commonly eaten fruits and vegetables – offers one of the most comprehensive evaluations to date of pesticides found in US produce. The data was based on nearly 30,000 fruit and vegetable samples, including fresh, frozen, canned and organic, collected from supermarkets by the USDA as part of routine pesticide testing. Consumer Reports built a massive database to analyze the data – and scored different foods to provide actionable recommendations to help consumers shop and eat with less risk.Consumer Reports found that pesticide residue posed a significant risk in roughly 20% of the 59 common foods examined in its research. The foods deemed high risk included conventionally grown (ie non-organic) kale, blueberries, potatoes and bell peppers. Apples, grapes, peaches, tomatoes, spinach and celery were among the items considered moderate risk.Organic fruits and vegetables generally had far less pesticide residue than conventionally grown foods, according to the research. But even a few organic foods posed some risk. For example, imported green beans carried a high risk and domestic potatoes a moderate one – raising questions about how these organic crops were contaminated with high-risk pesticides that are not approved for organic farming.Imported, conventionally grown produce also posed higher risks than US-grown foods in the study. Foods grown in Mexico such as strawberries and green beans were especially worrisome. Mexican strawberries contained oxydemeton-methyl, part of a group of pesticides called organophosphates that are neurotoxins. This category of insecticides can overstimulate the nervous system at high exposure levels and disrupt the developing nervous system in infants and children.A lot of these EPA tolerances aren’t consistent with the best scienceMichael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumer ReportsFor Consumer Reports to deem a fruit or vegetable high risk, only a relatively small proportion of samples had to be contaminated. The testing involved hundreds of samples for each food collected from US supermarkets over seven years. Only 4% of green bean samples tested had high-risk levels of pesticides. But some of the levels found on contaminated beans were alarming: one green bean sample from 2022 had levels of methamidophos that were 100 times the level Consumer Reports’ scientists consider safe. Methamidophos has been banned in the US and on green bean imports for over a decade, raising questions about why it’s still showing up in supermarket produce.It’s important to note that Consumer Reports scientists have stricter standards for what they consider safe than those of the Environmental Protection Agency – the US government body that sets the levels, known as tolerances. The Alliance for Food and Farming, a farming industry organization, notes that 99% of vegetables tested by the USDA meet government safety standards for pesticide residue. But many scientists – including those behind the Consumer Reports study – believe the EPA tolerances are often set far too high, putting consumers at risk.“A lot of these EPA tolerances aren’t consistent with the best science,” says Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at Consumer Reports. “They were set a number of years ago – and they don’t take into account situations where there are multiple pesticide residues on a single sample. The data are now available – and the computing power is now there – to more accurately assess the actual risk.”The strongest evidence of the dangers posed by pesticides comes from farm workers and pesticide applicators, who are exposed to much higher levels of the chemicals when they are applied to crops. On-the-job exposure to pesticides has been linked to higher risk of Parkinson’s disease, several forms of cancer, diabetes and other health problems.When it comes to consumers, the risks from eating foods contaminated by pesticides grow over time. For most of the population, a single serving of a contaminated fruit is unlikely to cause harm – but routine consumption of a contaminated fruit or vegetable over months or years magnifies the risk. Children and pregnant women are particularly vulnerable because some pesticides can be endocrine disruptors, which may interfere with hormones responsible for the development of key bodily systems, especially the reproductive system.Over the next year, the Guardian will be partnering with Consumer Reports to dig more deeply into the findings of this study, seeking answers as to how the US food supply became contaminated by pesticides and what we can do about it.Read more from this pesticide investigation:

Goodbye cod, hello herring: why putting a different fish on your dish will help the planet

In the first of a new series, we look at why people reject so much of the bountiful catches from our seas in favour of the same few species, mostly imported – and how to change thatPerched on a quay in the Cornish port of Falmouth is Pysk fishmongers, where Giles and Sarah Gilbert started out with a dream to supply locally caught seafood to the town. Their catch comes mainly from small boats that deliver a glittering array of local fish: gleaming red mullets, iridescent mackerels, spotted dabs and bright white scallops, still snapping in their shells.Occasionally, they will get a treasured haul of local common prawns – stripy, smaller and sweeter than the frozen, imported varieties in UK supermarkets. So, when customers come into the shop asking for prawns, Giles Gilbert presents “these bouncing jack-in-a-boxes” with a flourish, hoping to tempt buyers with the fresh, live shellfish. Continue reading...

Perched on a quay in the Cornish port of Falmouth is Pysk fishmongers, where Giles and Sarah Gilbert started out with a dream to supply locally caught seafood to the town. Their catch comes mainly from small boats that deliver a glittering array of local fish: gleaming red mullets, iridescent mackerels, spotted dabs and bright white scallops, still snapping in their shells.Occasionally, they will get a treasured haul of local common prawns – stripy, smaller and sweeter than the frozen, imported varieties in UK supermarkets. So, when customers come into the shop asking for prawns, Giles Gilbert presents “these bouncing jack-in-a-boxes” with a flourish, hoping to tempt buyers with the fresh, live shellfish.“I think most people are absolutely fascinated,” he says. “But they’ll say, ‘Have you got anything a bit bigger than that?’ or, ‘I wanted something that was already cooked.’”People are looking for cod or salmon when there’s this immaculate fish that’s been caught maybe an hour agoGiles Gilbert, fishmongerTime and again, Gilbert finds himself rummaging around in the freezer to retrieve an emergency bag of imported shellfish, lest he lose a loyal customer.It’s not just prawns. “We have access to some incredible fish, but it stays on the counter because what people are looking for is cod or salmon, when there’s this immaculate fish that’s been caught maybe an hour ago,” he says.“It’s frustrating when we’ve developed relationships with fishermen and we can’t take their entire catch.”The UK is perhaps unfairly stereotyped as a nation with an unadventurous palate. But where seafood is concerned, that’s backed up by the data. There are more than 300 species in the UK’s coastal waters, and British people eat strikingly little of it.According to Seafish, the UK public body supporting the industry, the UK’s “big five” – cod, pollack, salmon, tuna and prawns – comprise 62% of seafood consumed in Britain (though the Marine Stewardship Council names the big five as cod, haddock, salmon, tuna and prawns, and reckons they make up 80% of fish and seafood eaten in the UK when consumption outside the home, in restaurants and in fish ‘n’ chip shops is included).Most of what is eaten in the UK is imported, while the majority of what is fished in British waters is sent elsewhere.Giles and Sarah Gilbert at Pysk. ‘We seem to have more and more interest in what we’re doing here,’ he says. Photograph: Emli Bendixen/The GuardianIt’s not just the UK. In the European Union, cod, pollack, salmon, tuna and prawns account for 44% of consumption. In the US, as well as these five, the 10 most popular species include tilapia, clams and catfish, accounting for 76% of seafood.Our global eating patterns increasingly tend towards fewer and larger species, consumed further from where they are caught.Those dietary choices fuel problems such as overfishing, resource-intensive fish farms, higher greenhouse-gas emissions, and tonnes of fish waste. The percentage of populations fished at biologically unsustainable levels is increasing worldwide, according to a recent UN report, while our appetite for seafood is also likely to grow.We import a lot of the seafood we consume, including those ‘big five’ species, and we export most of what we landThe picture appears bleak – and yet, if selected and consumed carefully, seafood provides a powerful opportunity to improve the environmental impact of our diets overall.“Seafood can be, and in some situations is being, produced very sustainably, especially when compared to other terrestrial animal-source foods,” says Jessica Gephart, an expert in the globalisation of aquatic food at the University of Washington.What’s on our plates – and why?So, can we shift our diehard eating habits towards new fish? And why do we prefer cod over cockles, and salmon rather than sole? It’s a complex global picture, starting with the UK, where people once ate a wider variety of seafood, including an abundance of sprats, herring and whelks. Essex University led research published last year that offered clues about why these patterns have changed.From the early 1900s, industrialised fishing fuelled the expansion of British boats beyond inshore waters into plentiful northern seas, where they began scooping up several hundreds of thousands tonnes of haddock and cod. Cue the spread of fish ’n’ chip shops, which found a convenient vehicle for their batter in these large, filleted and less bony fish.Yarmouth harbour in 1933. Although it has never been easier to eat a wide range of fish in the UK, the variety in our diet has shrunk since fishing became industrialised. Photograph: Fox/GettyAfter 1973, when the UK joined the European Economic Community, British boats lost access to more distant fishing grounds and became confined to inshore waters, where those big white fish were less abundant. But by this point, the national preference for haddock and cod was entrenched, and the UK began importing these species to fill the deficit.“So the situation we’re in today is that we import a lot of the seafood that we consume, including those ‘big five’ species, and we export most of what we land,” says Luke Harrison, who led the Essex University study. In fact, between 1975 and 2019, the share of British fish consumed by the UK public dropped from 89% to 40%, his research showed.Our palates have also been dulled by how we shop. Jack Clarke, seafood engagement manager at the Marine Conservation Society (MCS), says: “The homogenisation of our diet, especially around seafood, is probably due to our over-reliance on supermarkets.”Big chains need to secure large and consistent supplies of easily processable seafood, which usually creates a bias towards a smaller number of fish from bigger species that are caught by larger fisheries, he says. This could increase pressure on wild stocks or push retailers towards species raised in fish farms.The simplifying effect of our globalised food system is most obvious in wealthy countries. Anna Sturrock, an aquatic ecologist at Essex University, and a co-author of the study, says: “We can afford these imports. That’s probably the main reason it hasn’t changed: we’ve got a taste for it, and it’s always been available to us.”That is echoed in the US, where prawns make up more than 30% of Americans’ annual consumption of seafood. About 90% are imported from countries such as Indonesia and India, where the farming of prawns has been implicated in labour abuses and the destruction of mangroves. Yet US-caught prawns met half of the national demand in the 1980s.A prawn farm in Bali, Indonesia. Most seafood consumed in the UK is imported as the country appears to have lost its taste for local products, such as kippers. Photograph: Cavan Images/AlamyEven as one of the top six seafood producers worldwide, the US imports about 65% of what it consumes. “US seafood consumption is dominated by a few species,” says Gephart. “A significant share of that also comes from canned and processed forms, like frozen breaded patties.”Research by Seafish shows that convenience is a key driver of consumer choices in Britain, and our impoverished palates as a result may help explain why we have lost our taste for kippers and turn up our noses at the mussels that are abundant off UK shores.David Willer, at Cambridge University, has researched underexploited seafood, such as mussels. “We’ve done lots of research on that, and it’s mostly down to convenience and ease of preparation, and a kind of ‘yuck’ factor,” he says.In India, another top global producer of fish, tropical waters support a great diversity of species, but in lower quantities. As Divya Karnad, a marine geographer and conservationist at Ashoka University, near Delhi, explains, that means a fisher who catches 100 local fish is likely to have several dozen species in his net.skip past newsletter promotionRecipes from all our star cooks, seasonal eating ideas and restaurant reviews. Get our best food writing every weekPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion It’s mostly down to convenience, ease of preparation, and a kind of ‘yuck’ factorDavid Willer, Cambridge researcher“Historically, coastal India had ways of dealing with this, either by having recipes specifically for different fish, or having a generic recipe in which they could add many species,” she says.But with an increasingly urbanised population in India, she adds: “People don’t have enough time to handle their food. So instead of cleaning hundreds of small fish, if you can get a fillet then you will choose that.”Karnad’s research has drawn a link between this more selective diet and overfishing. Picture that fisherman hauling in his catch of 100 diverse fish, she says. “But now, he’s able to sell only 15. So he has to go out that many more times to actually make up the cost.”She also believes there is an aspirational quality attached to some fish species, such as Norwegian salmon, which is now in demand among wealthy people. This fish is now ubiquitous globally, says Shakuntala Haraksingh Thilsted, global lead for nutrition and public health at WorldFish, which aims to reduce hunger, malnutrition and poverty across Africa, Asia and the Pacific through sustainable aquaculture.Before the 1980s salmon was not used in sushi in Japan but, as the fish has come to be seen as more desirable, tastes have changed and the fish is now ubiquitous. Photograph: OceanProd/GettyThilsted, the 2021 recipient of the World Food Prize, found salmon on sale even in the diverse seafood markets of Thailand. Japan did not use salmon in sushi a few decades ago but now it’s everywhere, she says, swaddled in blankets of sticky rice.“That has something to do with the power of the private market – that foods that are considered desirable, aspirational, have moved across borders,” Thilsted says.What should be on our plates?How do we begin to disentangle these patterns to eat more sustainably? There is no magic bullet for something as complicated as seafood, says Sturrock at Essex University, adding: “When we think about sustainability, it’s not just about overfishing, it’s also about how far we bring it from different places, and the impact of that fishery, or the aquaculture type, on the local environment.”If we make room for diverse foods on the plate, then we will be getting closer to the goals we aspire to There is also the issue of fish waste as well as social factors – labour rights, fishers’ livelihoods – embedded in our choice of fish.And there are trade-offs. A local, small-scale fishery may still be putting pressure on a delicate population, while a more distant fishery might have higher carbon emissions but be exploiting a more stable population.Even farmed salmon, with all its problems, is not so clearcut when emissions from its production are lower than those associated with chicken, and improvements in breeding and feed are bringing those emissions down further, says Gephart, at the University of Washington. This can make sustainable eating feel like a game of Whac-A-Mole. “It is really hard and unreasonable to put that on consumers,” she says.Governments do need to make better decisions about where and what is fished, and how to support fishers to work more sustainably in a difficult industry. However, “that doesn’t mean that we should throw up our hands and say that ‘seafood is bad, it’s all too complicated’,” Gephart says.“It’s about how we signal our values for sustainable production, so that we can lean on industry and governments.”A dish of chargrilled ling with carrot puree, smoked garlic and prawn butter from The Shed, Falmouth, an acclaimed restaurant next door to Pysk. Photograph: Emli Bendixen/The GuardianClarke, at the MCS, suggests getting guidance on what populations are green-rated, or to find alternatives, from sources such as its own Good Fish Guide or Seafood Watch, produced by the US not-for-profit organisation Monterey Bay Aquarium.For instance, for those wanting a change from salmon, which makes up almost a third of all fish eaten in the UK, farmed trout has fewer pollution issues and also uses less fish in the feed, Clarke says. “And they’re really tasty, with a similar flavour profile to salmon, and just as simple to cook.”If you live close to a fishmonger, tap into their knowledge too, he adds. They will also have a more diverse array of fish than most supermarkets.“If we make room for diverse foods on the plate, then we will be getting closer to the goals we aspire to,” says Thilsted. Eating a wider variety of fish takes pressure off certain populations, and shift our diets towards smaller species that are green-rated, such as herrings and sardines, which can be eaten whole, thereby helping tackle fish waste.In culinary institutes in India, chefs were not being trained with indigenous ingredients – they were learning about French cuisineIt also shifts the spotlight on to shellfish and bivalves such as mussels. If there is one seafood with almost universal environmental credibility, this is it, says Gephart, whose research shows that of all aquatic foods, farmed mussels and seaweeds have the lowest environmental impact. Together, they can create refuges for ocean species, while mussels also have protein levels similar to beef.The challenge now is increasing consumer demand, says Willer, at Cambridge University. He is working with the food industry on innovative projects to make mussels, for instance, more palatable to the British public.Others are taking the more futuristic leap into lab-grown seafood to relieve pressure on overfished populations. Meanwhile, others are working to build sustainability across the wider industry. In India, Karnad set up InSeason Fish, which works with restaurants to raise awareness of fish to avoid and to promote alternatives, depending on the region and month.“We realised that in culinary institutes in India, chefs were not being trained with indigenous ingredients. They were instead learning about French cuisine,” says Karnad, whose organisation trains chefs in how to prepare India’s diverse fish. It has also brought in local fishers directly to advise chefs on the incoming catch and procure what they need.Some companies are looking at laboratory-grown seafood, made from fish cells, as a way of addressing sustainability issues. Photograph: BlueNaluIn another attempt to diversify menus, a British company called CH&Co, which caters for venues including schools, hospitals, and offices, is focused on reducing the use of the big five. They provide their clients with data about the proportion of big five species that they are buying, and then take steps to educate and challenge their culinary teams to reduce the use of these fish.As a result, “chefs are putting more diverse species at the centre of menus and working to change customer attitudes to what fish species should appear on a plate”, says Clare Clark, the head of sustainability at CH&Co.The changing face of sustainable seafood has provided new ways to “vote with your wallet”, says Jack Clarke, adding: “It really does have an effect.”In Cornwall, Gilbert is seeing people doing exactly that. In a recent experiment, he displayed three types of scallops on his fish counter, each with the catch method and sustainability information supplied alongside the price. To his surprise, he found customers preferred the most expensive but sustainable hand-dived scallops.He may not have won them over on the local prawns yet. But he senses that the tide is turning: “We just seem to have more and more interest in what we’re doing here.”

UK facing food shortages and price rises after extreme weather

Heavy rain likely to cause low yields in Britain and other parts of Europe, with drought in Morocco hitting importsWhich UK foods are at risk?The UK faces food shortages and price rises as extreme weather linked to climate breakdown causes low yields on farms locally and abroad.Record rainfall has meant farmers in many parts of the UK have been unable to plant crops such as potatoes, wheat and vegetables, during the key spring season. Crops which have been planted are of poor quality, with some rotting in the ground. Continue reading...

The UK faces food shortages and price rises as extreme weather linked to climate breakdown causes low yields on farms locally and abroad.Record rainfall has meant farmers in many parts of the UK have been unable to plant crops such as potatoes, wheat and vegetables, during the key spring season. Crops which have been planted are of poor quality, with some rotting in the ground.The persistent wet weather has also meant a high mortality rate for lambs on the UK’s hills, while some dairy cows have been unable to be turned out on to grass, meaning they will produce less milk.Agricultural groups have the UK will be more reliant on imports, but similarly wet conditions in European countries such as France and Germany, as well as drought in Morocco, could mean there is less food to import. Economists have warned this could cause food inflation to rise, meaning higher prices at supermarkets.Tom Bradshaw, the president of the National Farmers’ Union, said markets had “collapsed” as farmers fail to produce food in the punishing conditions. He said: “We’re going to be importing a lot more product this year.”One major retailer said the wholesale price of potatoes was up 60% year-on-year as much of the crop had rotted in the ground.Supplies of potatoes have also been affected by a 10% reduction in the area planted last year as farmers switched to less weather dependent and more financially secure crops. Industry insiders said they expected a further 5% fall in planting this year.Jack Ward of the British Growers Association said: “There is a concern that we won’t ever have the volumes [of potatoes] we had in the past in the future.”He said wholesale prices were too low for farmers to generate enough income to cope with high fuel, labour and machinery costs as well as the effects of climate change. “We are not in a good position and it is 100% not sustainable.”Supplies of carrots and parsnips, which are left in the ground and so also affected by sodden soils, are also much lower than usual, pushing up prices.Martin Lines, the chief executive of Nature Friendly Farming Network, said: “The impact in the UK this year will significantly affect potatoes and the salad crop. Farmers are already facing delays in planting, with many fields in poor condition. If planting occurs at all, it will likely be late, potentially leading to a shortage of root vegetables and potatoes this coming winter.“Some farmers have ceased planning for planting altogether, opting instead to put fields into fallow or switch to alternative crops. This could also result in shortages of wheat, barley, and pulses as it’s currently unprofitable to grow these due to the lateness of the season and low forecasted prices.”Guy Singh-Watson, the founder of organic vegetable box company Riverford, said he had so far planted “virtually no veg”. “Some overgrown plants cannot wait any longer to go in the ground, and will have to be ditched.”While retailers often turn to imports to fill gaps on shelves, farmers across Europe are enduring a similarly difficult start to the year, with difficulties developing winter crops and sowing spring crops.France is experiencing the poorest start to its wheat-growing season since 2020 amid cold wet weather, while production of fruit and vegetables in Morocco is being affected by drought. Morocco’s second-largest reservoir has dried up, meaning irrigating crops will be difficult.Amber Sawyer, analyst at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, said last year almost a third of the UK’s tomatoes, and more than two-thirds ofits raspberries and brussels sprouts, came from Morocco.“As climate change worsens, the threat to our food supply chains – both at home and overseas – will grow,” Sawyer said.Scientists have said this is just the beginning of shocks to the food supply chain caused by climate breakdown and that without rapid action to drive down emissions by ceasing to burn fossil fuels, the current system is unsustainable.Dr Paul Behrens, associate professor of environmental change at Leiden University in the Netherlands, said: “We should all be extremely concerned. We need to be doing everything to reduce emissions while transforming our food systems.”He added: “If we don’t … I expect huge turmoil and escalating prices in the next 10-20 years. When food prices spiral we always expect political instability. I wish people understood the urgent climate threat to our near-term food security.“Fortunately, we know many ways we can make the food system more resilient while reducing food emissions. The biggest opportunity in high-income nations is a reduction in meat consumption and exploration of more plants in our diets.”

Dartmouth Research Uncovers Hidden Dangers in Popular Seafoods

Research emphasizes establishing safety guidelines for “forever” chemicals in seafood A study led by Dartmouth indicates that regular consumption of seafood may increase the risk...

A Dartmouth-led study indicates that regular seafood consumers may be at increased risk of PFAS exposure, highlighting the need for specific consumption guidelines. The research, focusing on seafood intake in New Hampshire, found high levels of PFAS in commonly eaten marine species like shrimp and lobster. The study calls for a careful assessment of the benefits and risks of seafood, particularly for sensitive populations.Research emphasizes establishing safety guidelines for “forever” chemicals in seafoodA study led by Dartmouth indicates that regular consumption of seafood may increase the risk of exposure to PFAS, a group of pervasive and persistent man-made toxins also referred to as “forever chemicals.”The findings stress the need for more stringent public health guidelines that establish the amount of seafood people can safely consume to limit their exposure to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, the researchers report in the journal Exposure and Health. This need is especially urgent for coastal regions such as New England where a legacy of industry and PFAS pollution bumps up against a cultural predilection for fish, the authors write.Seafood Benefits vs. Risks“Our recommendation isn’t to not eat seafood—seafood is a great source of lean protein and omega fatty acids. But it also is a potentially underestimated source of PFAS exposure in humans,” said Megan Romano, the study’s corresponding author and an associate professor of epidemiology at Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine. “Understanding this risk-benefit trade-off for seafood consumption is important for people making decisions about diet, especially for vulnerable populations such as pregnant people and children,” Romano said.The study paired an analysis of PFAS concentrations in fresh seafood with a statewide survey of eating habits in New Hampshire. National data indicate that New Hampshire—along with all of New England— is among the country’s top consumers of seafood, which made the state ideal for understanding the extent of people’s exposure to PFAS through fish and shellfish.“Most existing research focuses on PFAS levels in freshwater species, which are not what people primarily eat,” said Romano, who studies the effects of PFAS and other endocrine-disrupting chemicals in drinking water on New England communities. “We saw that as a knowledge gap in the literature, especially for a New England state where we know people love their seafood.”The study also drew on New Hampshire’s extensive data on the sources and effects of PFAS, which are a staple of consumer products such as plastics and nonstick coatings. The molecular stability that makes PFAS versatile also makes them nearly indestructible, leading them to be called forever chemicals.In humans, PFAS are associated with cancer, fetal abnormalities, high cholesterol, and thyroid, liver, and reproductive disorders. The chemicals have accumulated in soil, water, and wildlife, and studies have shown that nearly all Americans have measurable amounts in their blood.State-Specific Insights and Global Challenge“PFAS are not limited to manufacturing, fire-fighting foams, or municipal waste streams—they are a decades-long global challenge,” said study co-author Jonathan Petali, a toxicologist with the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. “New Hampshire was among the first states to identify PFAS in drinking water. We’re a data-rich state due to years spent investigating the impacts of PFAS and trying to mitigate exposure.”The researchers measured the levels of 26 varieties of PFAS in samples of the most consumed marine species: cod, haddock, lobster, salmon, scallop, shrimp, and tuna. The seafood studied was purchased fresh from a market in coastal New Hampshire and originated from various regions.Shrimp and lobster clocked the highest concentrations with averages ranging as high as 1.74 and 3.30 nanograms per gram of flesh, respectively, for certain PFAS compounds, the researchers report. Concentrations of individual PFAS in other fish and seafood measured generally less than one nanogram per gram.The prevalence of PFAS in the environment makes it difficult to know exactly where and how the chemicals enter the marine food chain, the researchers report. Some shellfish may be especially vulnerable to the buildup of PFAS in their flesh due to feeding and living on the seafloor, as well as their proximity to sources of PFAS that are near the coast. Larger marine species may ingest PFAS by eating smaller species that, like shellfish, are prone to having the compounds accumulate in their systems.Seafood Consumption in New HampshireButtressing the study is a survey of 1,829 New Hampshire residents the researchers conducted to gauge how much seafood Granite Staters eat—and it’s a lot.The survey found that men in New Hampshire eat just over one ounce of seafood per day and women eat just under one ounce. Both are higher than what the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found for men and women in the Northeast, and more than 1.5 times the national average for both. Daily intake for New Hampshire children aged 2 to 11 years old was about 0.2 ounces, the highest end of the range for children nationwide.About 95% of adults the researchers surveyed reported they ate seafood within the past year, and 94% of that group consumed fish or shellfish within the previous month. More than two-thirds of those respondents ate seafood within the past week.But people in New Hampshire do not eat seafood uniformly. More than half of the people who ate seafood in the week before the survey lived on the state’s coast or near the border with Massachusetts. More than 60% of people with a household income below $45,000 per year reported consuming seafood at least once per week, whereas people with higher household incomes reported eating seafood less often.Of the species, the researchers tested for PFAS, shrimp, haddock, and salmon were consumed by more than 70% of the adults who ate seafood once a month or more. Lobster was eaten by just over 54% of these adults. Salmon, canned tuna, shrimp, and haddock were the most commonly consumed species among children.Federal guidelines for safe seafood consumption exist for mercury and other contaminants, but there are none for PFAS, said Celia Chen, a co-author of the study and a research professor in the Department of Biological Sciences at Dartmouth.“Top predator species such as tuna and sharks are known to contain high concentrations of mercury, so we can use that knowledge to limit exposure. But it’s less clear for PFAS, especially if you start looking at how the different compounds behave in the environment,” said Chen, who leads several federally funded projects examining how and where PFAS accumulate in aquatic food webs in New Hampshire and Vermont.The establishment of safety guidelines would help protect people who are especially susceptible to pollutants, said Kathryn Crawford, the study’s first author and an assistant professor of environmental studies at Middlebury College.“Seafood consumption advisories often provide advice for those individuals that is more conservative than for the rest of the population,” said Crawford, who began the project as a postdoctoral researcher in the Romano Lab at Dartmouth. “People who eat a balanced diet with more typical, moderate amounts of seafood should be able to enjoy the health benefits of seafood without excessive risk of PFAS exposure.”Reference: “Patterns of Seafood Consumption Among New Hampshire Residents Suggest Potential Exposure to Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances” by Kathryn A. Crawford, Lisa G. Gallagher, Nathan G. Giffard, Christine L. Gardiner, Tracy Keirns, Sujan Fernando, Thomas M. Holsen, Jonathan M. Petali, Celia Y. Chen and Megan E. Romano, 12 April 2024, Exposure and Health.DOI: 10.1007/s12403-024-00640-wThe study was funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences.

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.