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.

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

News Feed
Thursday, April 18, 2024

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.”

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.’”

Time 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 Guardian

It’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.

The 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/Getty

After 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/Alamy

Even 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 promotion

after newsletter promotion

“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/Getty

Thilsted, 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.”

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 Guardian

Clarke, 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.

It 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: BlueNalu

In 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.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Revealed: Tyson Foods dumps millions of pounds of toxic pollutants into US rivers and lakes

Nitrogen, phosphorus, chloride, oil and cyanide among the 371m lb of pollutants released by just 41 plants in five yearsTyson Foods dumped millions of pounds of toxic pollutants directly into American rivers and lakes over the last five years, threatening critical ecosystems, endangering wildlife and human health, a new investigation reveals.Nitrogen, phosphorus, chloride, oil and cyanide were among the 371m lb of pollutants released into waterways by just 41 Tyson slaughterhouses and mega processing plants between 2018 and 2022. Continue reading...

Tyson Foods dumped millions of pounds of toxic pollutants directly into American rivers and lakes over the last five years, threatening critical ecosystems, endangering wildlife and human health, a new investigation reveals.Nitrogen, phosphorus, chloride, oil and cyanide were among the 371m lb of pollutants released into waterways by just 41 Tyson slaughterhouses and mega processing plants between 2018 and 2022.According to research by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), the contaminants were dispersed in 87bn gallons of wastewater – which also contains blood, bacteria and animal feces – and released directly into streams, rivers, lakes and wetlands relied on for drinking water, fishing and recreation. The UCS analysis, shared exclusively with the Guardian, is based on the most recent publicly available water pollution data Tyson is required to report under current regulations.The wastewater was enough to fill about 132,000 Olympic-size pools, according to a Guardian analysis.The water pollution from Tyson, a Fortune 100 company and the world’s second largest meat producer, was spread across 17 states but about half the contaminants were dumped into streams, rivers, lakes and wetlands in Nebraska, Illinois and Missouri.The midwest is already saturated with nitrogen and phosphorus from industrial agriculture – factory farms and synthetics fertilizers – contributing to algal blooms that clog critical water infrastructure, exacerbate respiratory conditions like asthma, and deplete oxygen levels in the sea causing marine life to suffocate and die.Yet the UCS research is only the tip of iceberg, including water pollution from only one in three of the corporation’s slaughterhouses and processing plants, and only 2% of the total nationwide.The current federal regulations set no limit for phosphorus, and the vast majority of meat processing plants in the US are exempt from existing water regulations – with no way of tracking how many toxins are being dumped into waterways.“There are over 5,000 meat and poultry processing plants in the United States, but only a fraction are required to report pollution and abide by limits. As one of the largest processors in the game, with a near-monopoly in some states, Tyson is in a unique position to treat even hefty fines and penalties for polluting as simply the cost of doing business. This has to change,” said the UCS co-author Omanjana Goswami.The findings come as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must decide between robust new regulations that experts say would better protect waterways, critical habitat and downstream communities from polluting plants – or opt for weaker standards preferred by the powerful meat-processing industry.The EPA should listen to communities whose wells, lakes, rivers and streams have been contaminated and put people over corporate profitsA 2017 lawsuit by environmental groups has forced the EPA to update its two-decade-old pollution standards for slaughterhouses and animal rendering facilities, and the new rule is expected by September 2025. The agency has said that it is leaning towards the weakest option on the table, which critics say will enable huge amounts of nitrates, phosphorus and other contaminants to keep pouring into waterways.“The current rule is out of date, inadequate and catastrophic for American waterways, and highlights the way American lawmaking is subject to industry capture,” said Dani Replogle, an attorney at Food and Water Watch. “The nutrient problem in the US is at catastrophic levels … it would be such a shame if the EPA caves in to industry influence.”The meat-processing industry spent $4.3m on lobbying in Washington in 2023, of which Tyson accounted for almost half ($2.1m), according to political finance watchdog Open Secrets. The industry has made $6.6m in campaign donations since 2020, mostly to Republicans, with Tyson the biggest corporate spender.“We can be sure Tyson and other big ag players will object to efforts to update pollution regulations, but the EPA should listen to communities whose wells, lakes, rivers and streams have been contaminated and put people over corporate profits,” said Goswami.“Meat and poultry companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars to comply with EPA’s effluent limitations guidelines,” said Sarah Little from the North American Meat Institute, a trade association representing large processors like Tyson. “EPA’s new proposed guidelines will cost over $1bn and will eliminate 100,000 jobs in rural communities.”Tyson did not respond to repeated requests for comment.The American Association of Meat Processors said the EPA’s one-size-fits-all approach could put its small, family-owned members out of business.Nebraska is a sparsely populated rural state dominated by agriculture – an increasingly consolidated corporate industry which wields substantial control over the economy and politics, as well as land and water use.Millions of acres in Nebraska are dedicated to factory farming, with massive methane-emitting concentrated animal feeding operations (Cafos) scattered among fields of monocropped soybean, corn and wheat – grown predominantly for animal feed and ethanol. Only a tiny fraction of arable land is dedicated to sustainable agriculture or used to grow vegetables or fruits.Tyson’s five largest plants in Nebraska dumped more than 111m lb of pollutants into waterways between 2018 and 2022, accounting for a third of the nationwide total. This included 4m lb of nitrates – a chemical that can contaminate drinking water, cause blood disorders and neurological defects in infants, as well as cancers and thyroid disease in adults.Tyson’s largest plant is located in Dakota City on the Missouri river – America’s longest waterway which stretches 2,300 miles across eight states before joining the Mississippi. It’s a sprawling beef facility, which generates a nauseating stench that wafts over neighboring South Sioux city, known locally as sewer city, where many plant workers live. (Another beef processing plant is located next to Tyson.)Earlier this month, the Guardian saw multiple trucks waiting to offload cattle for slaughter – after which the carcasses are rendered, processed and packaged in different parts of the facility. The plant produces vast quantities of wastewater which is stored (and treated) in lagoons on the riverbank, before being released into the Missouri river which provides drinking water for millions of people.The Dakota City plant is a major local employer and Tyson’s single largest polluter, dumping 60m lb of contaminants into waterways between 2018 and 2022, according to UCS analysis.Every year in November around 30,000 Sandhill Cranes begin their annual migration from the North Platte River in Nebraska to Southern Arizona. Photograph: Christopher Brown/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock“This Tyson plant helped put me through college and supports a lot of migrant workers, but there’s a dark side like the water and air pollution that most people don’t pay attention to because they’re just trying to survive,” said Rogelio Rodriguez, a grassroots organizer with Conservation Nebraska, which is part of a coalition pushing for stronger state protections for meat processing plant workers.“If regulations are lax, corporations have a tendency to push limits to maximize profits, we learnt that during Covid,” said Rodriguez, whose family works at the plant. A deadly Covid outbreak at the Dakota City plant in April 2020 sickened 15% of the workforce and led to substantial community spread.A few miles south of the Dakota City Tyson plant, the Winnebago tribe is slowly recuperating and reforesting their land, as well as transitioning to organic farming.“We’re investing a lot of money to look after the water and soil on our lands because it’s the right thing to do, yet a few miles north the Tyson plant lets all this pollution go into the river. Water is our most important resource, and the Missouri river is very important to our culture and people,” said Aaron LaPointe, a Winnebago tribe member who runs Ho-Chunk Farms.The water problem – and lack of accountability – goes beyond Tyson.Last year Governor Jim Pillen, whose family owns one of America’s largest pork companies, was widely criticized for calling a Chinese-born journalist at Flatwater Free Press a “communist” after she exposed serious water quality violations at his hog farms. Earlier this month, the Nebraska supreme court ruled that the state environmental agency could charge the same investigative news outlet tens of thousands of dollars for a public records request about nitrates.Big ag’s influence on state politics is “endemic”, according to Gavin Geis from Common Cause Nebraska, a non-partisan elections watchdog.“The big money spent on lobbying and campaigns by corporate agriculture has played a major role in resisting stronger regulation – despite clear signals such as high levels of nitrates in our groundwater and cancers in rural communities that we need more oversight for farmers across the board,” said Geis.“We’ve created a system with no accountability that doesn’t protect our ecosystem – which includes the land, water and people of Nebraska,” said Graham Christensen, a regenerative farmer and founder of GC Resolve, a communication and consulting firm. “The political capture is harming our rural communities, we’re in the belly of the beast and need help from federal regulators.”Indigenous Americans lived and farmed sustainably along the Missouri River until white colonial settlers forcibly displaced tribes, and eventually dammed the entire river system – mostly for energy and industrial agriculture. Today, major river systems like the Missouri River – and its communities – face multiple, overlapping threats from dams, the climate crisis, overuse and pollution.Oxygen depleting contaminants like nitrogen and phosphorus from Tyson plants in the midwest have been shown to travel along river-to-river pathways, causing fish kills and contributing to dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico. When the river is drier due to drought or high temperatures, pollutants become more concentrated and can form sediments – which are then dislodged during floods and taken miles downstream.Global heating is making extreme weather increasingly common, and as droughts dry up underground aquifers, tribes will probably need to turn to the Missouri for drinking water, according to Tim Grant, director of environmental protection for the Omaha tribe. “We’re very concerned about what’s in the river, it’s an important part of our culture and traditions,” said Grant, who has started testing the fish for toxins.The UCS research also found Tyson plants located close to critical habitats for endangered or threatened species – including the whooping crane, the tallest and among the rarest birds in North America.There are currently only 500 or so wild whooping cranes – up from 20 birds in the 1940s – which stop to feed and rest along a shallow stretch of the Platte River, a tributary of the Missouri in central Nebraska, as they migrate between the Texas Gulf coast and Canada. The majestic white birds feed in the cornfields that surround the Platte River, outnumbered by the slate gray sandhill cranes that also migrate through Nebraska each spring.Tyson’s sprawling Lexington slaughterhouse and beef processing plant is situated less than two miles from the Platte River – among four federally designated critical habitats considered essential to conservation of the whooping crane.“The cumulative effects of exposure to these industrial toxins could pose a long-term threat to the cranes’ food sources, reproductive success and resilience as a species,” said George Cunningham, a retired aquatic ecologist and Missouri River expert at Sierra Club Nebraska.“Poor environmental regulation is down to the stranglehold industrial agriculture has on politics – at every level. It’s about political capture.”

New School Meal Standards Could Put More Local Food on Students’ Lunch Trays

But another small tweak has big implications for the increasing number of schools working to get more fresh fruits, vegetables, and meats produced by nearby farmers onto students’ trays. Starting July 1, when districts put out a call for an unprocessed or minimally processed food—whether it’s tomatoes, taco meat, or tuna—they’ll be able to specify […] The post New School Meal Standards Could Put More Local Food on Students’ Lunch Trays appeared first on Civil Eats.

Last week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) finalized long-anticipated changes to the nutrition standards that regulate school meals. Among the changes that attracted the most attention were the first-ever limits on added sugar and a scaled-down plan to reduce salt. But another small tweak has big implications for the increasing number of schools working to get more fresh fruits, vegetables, and meats produced by nearby farmers onto students’ trays. Starting July 1, when districts put out a call for an unprocessed or minimally processed food—whether it’s tomatoes, taco meat, or tuna—they’ll be able to specify that they’d like it to be “locally grown, locally raised, or locally caught.” “We’re . . . freeing up schools to continue to look for ways in which they can partner with producers and with local and regional food systems,” agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack said during a press conference last week, “so that we create additional market opportunities for farmers and ranchers in the area, but also create a better connection between those who produce the food and those who consume it.” Two days later, Vilsack landed in Michigan, where his travel schedule attempted to trace that connection, with a first stop at a Detroit middle school followed by a visit to Williamston to talk about helping farmers access “new and better markets.” Karen Spangler, the policy director for the National Farm to School Network, said the change has long been a priority for the group because it often hears how the shift will simplify the process for school nutrition directors while also making it possible for more farmers to get involved in the first place. In addition to funding institutes and expanding farm-to-school efforts to early childcare centers, she sees as one piece of the USDA’s current focus on “integrating farm-to-school and local purchasing to a degree that hasn’t been seen before,” she said. From the start of the Biden administration, Vilsack announced a priority on nutrition security and building regional markets for farmers, and farm-to-school efforts happened to sit right at the nexus. Since the release of the latest Agricultural Census in February showed small- and mid-size farms continue to disappear as consolidation in agriculture accelerates, Vilsack has been beating the drum of saving smaller farms by supporting markets they can sell into even more intensely. In addition to the shift to local purchasing, the nutrition standards also strengthen the “Buy America” provision already in place for school meals. But forging a stronger connection between fields and cafeterias goes back to 2010, when Congress passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act championed by Michelle Obama. It was the first Child Nutrition Reauthorization to push nutrition to the forefront of school meal programs, and it included the first federal farm-to-school grants. Since then, the federal government has supported the efforts in additional ways, alongside numerous state incentives and grant programs as well as work done by nonprofit organizations. During the 2018–19 school year, about 77 percent of school food authorities (districts or individual schools) reported serving some local food, spending a total of $1.26 billion. However, that number is still a small sliver of total school meal spending, and buying local can be more complicated for districts and schools than just making up a funding gap. In addition to delivery, packaging, and labor challenges, school food procurement involves a complicated bid process with many rules attached. That’s where this change comes in. Spangler explained that right now, schools can list a “geographic preference” as one factor to be evaluated alongside others such as price, volume, and other criteria. For example, if a New York district wants to buy apples grown in-state today, they would have to evaluate bids from in-state orchards alongside bids from out-of-state distributors, many of which are likely to come in with a much lower price. “It discourages local producers from participating in the process because they can be drastically undercut,” Spangler said. With this change, if the district is confident that plenty of in-state orchards have enough Macintosh and Granny Smiths to satisfy their students’ appetites, it could specify up-front that it only wants bids from in-state orchards. Alongside the National Farm to School Network, groups including the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, National Farmers Union, and FoodCorps have been pushing for the change for years. In its summary of the new standards, USDA officials said the agency received close to 400 comments on the proposed change. “Commentors noted that expanding the geographic preference option to allow local as a specification will broaden opportunities for CNP [Child Nutrition Program] operators to purchase directly from local farmers, reinforce local food systems, and ease procurement challenges for operators interested in sourcing food from local producers,” they wrote. Previously, Representative Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) attempted to go the Congressional route to make it happen, introducing the Kids Eat Local Act multiple times with bipartisan support. But the bill never went anywhere because the overall Child Nutrition Reauthorization process is now nine years overdue. Pingree celebrated the USDA for moving forward with the change in the meantime, and she plans to continue to reintroduce the bill so that it will eventually be set in law and therefore be more likely to stick. “Our children deserve healthy, nutritious school meals that are made with locally-sourced ingredients—not highly processed foods,” she said in a press release applauding the agency. At Morgan Hill Unified School District in California, Michael Jochner said he’s ready to make that happen. Jochner has been working to improve meal quality by forging relationships with organic farmers in his area and growing his own lettuces using hydroponic shipping container systems for several years. “As a district going out to bid across all food items for next school year, we’re very excited to have the flexibility to use ‘local’ as a bid specification,” he told Civil Eats. “We feel this will allow us to prioritize our local farmers, ranchers, and fisherman, and in turn help the local economy.” Read More: Inside New York’s Pursuit to Bring Local Food Into More Schools Farm-to-School Programs Are Finally Making Inroads on Capitol Hill California Farm-to-School Efforts Get a Big Influx of Cash Pandemic Disruptions Created an Opportunity for Organic School Meals in California Pesticide Ban Moves Forward. California legislators advanced a state bill proposed to ban the herbicide paraquat, sending it to another committee for consideration. Paraquat has been linked to Parkinson’s disease and is banned in dozens of other countries due to its health risks, including the United Kingdom, throughout the European Union, and in China. Over the past few months, the Environmental Working Group has been supporting the campaign to ban paraquat in California, releasing reports that show it is sprayed disproportionately in counties home to low-income communities of color and that the top users in the state include the Wonderful Company, which sprays it to produce pomegranates, pistachios, and almonds. The legislation comes at a time when the pesticide industry is fighting on several fronts to prevent states from passing laws that regulate farm chemicals. Read More: Paraquat, the Deadliest Chemical in American Agriculture, Goes on Trial Inside Bayer’s State-by-State Efforts to Stop Pesticide Lawsuits Confronting Poultry Problems. As avian influenza continues to spread in dairy cattle herds in nine states, the USDA announced it will now require mandatory reporting of infections in cattle and testing before moving cattle to other states. Some states, meanwhile, had already closed their borders to incoming cattle. And on Thursday, Colombia became the first country to restrict beef imports from the U.S. based on the situation. While beef cattle have not tested positive for the virus to date, retired dairy cows are generally processed into beef at the end of their lives. Prior to the crossover into cattle, the virus had been circulating in poultry since early 2022 and is still is, primarily affecting egg-laying hens and turkeys. One dairy worker, whose only symptoms were conjunctivitis, remains the only reported infection in humans, and while particles of the virus have been found in milk, officials from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) say the milk is still safe to drink, since pasteurization kills the virus. Meanwhile, the FDA also finalized a food safety rule that will allow the agency to enforce limits on Salmonella in some chicken products for the first time. The rule only applies to “frozen, breaded, and stuffed” chicken products, but in those products, if salmonella is found to exceed the limit, the products will be considered adulterated and will not be able to be sold. It’s a major change for the agency and is one piece of a larger plan to reduce illnesses from the common bacteria. Read More: A Deadly Bird Flu Resurfaces Will New Standards for Salmonella in Chicken Cut Down on Food Poisoning? Farmworker Rights. On Friday, the Department of Labor finalized new regulations intended to increase protections for workers employed on farms through the H-2A guestworker program. Under the new rules, workers have more tools to advocate for their rights and obtain legal assistance, foreign recruiters are required to provide new documentation to increase transparency, and new procedures are in place to kick out farms that break the rules. “With these new rules, the power of the federal government has sided with farm workers—both those who are born here and those from other countries—who for too long have been exploited, silenced, displaced, or harmed by the H-2A program,” United Farm Workers (UFW) President Teresa Romero said in a press release. The news came days after the UFW Foundation released a new documentary video series showcasing the impacts of climate change on farmworkers. As the effects of climate change worsen, workers in the field increasingly face and lack adequate protection from hazards including dangerous heat, flooding, and wildfire smoke. Read More: The H-2A Program Has Ballooned in Size; Both Farmers and Workers Want it Fixed As the Climate Emergency Grows, Farmworkers Lack Protection from Deadly Heat Farmworkers Are on the Frontlines of Climate Change. Can New Laws Protect Them? The post New School Meal Standards Could Put More Local Food on Students’ Lunch Trays appeared first on Civil Eats.

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:

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.