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.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

How AI can help detect pests early and reduce pesticide use in cotton fields

News Feed
Friday, September 26, 2025

Precision agriculture uses tools and technologies such as GPS and sensors to monitor, measure, and respond to changes within a farm field in real time. This includes using artificial intelligence technologies for tasks such as helping farmers apply pesticides only where and when they are needed. However, precision agriculture has not been widely implemented in many rural areas of the United States. We study smart communities, environmental health sciences, and health policy and community health, and we participated in a research project on AI and pesticide use in a rural Georgia agricultural community. Our team, led by Georgia Southern University and the City of Millen, with support from University of Georgia Cooperative Extension, local high schools and agriculture technology company FarmSense, is piloting AI-powered sensors to help cotton farmers optimize pesticide use. Georgia is one of the top cotton-producing states in the U.S., with cotton contributing nearly US$1 billion to the state’s economy in 2024. But only 13% of Georgia farmers use precision agriculture practices. Public-private-academic partnership Innovation drives economic growth, but access to it often stops at major city limits. Smaller and rural communities are frequently left out, lacking the funding, partnerships and technical resources that fuel progress elsewhere. At the same time, 75% of generative AI’s projected economic impact is concentrated in customer operations, marketing, software engineering and research and development, according to a 2023 McKinsey report. In contrast, applications of AI that improve infrastructure, food systems, safety and health remain underexplored. Yet smaller and rural communities are rich in potential—home to anchor institutions like small businesses, civic groups and schools that are deeply invested in their communities. And that potential could be tapped to develop AI applications that fall outside of traditional corporate domains. The Partnership for Innovation, a coalition of people and organizations from academia, government and industry, helps bridge that gap. Since its launch almost five years ago, the Partnership for Innovation has supported 220 projects across Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, Texas and Alabama, partnering with more than 300 communities on challenges from energy poverty to river safety. One Partnership for Innovation program provides seed funding and technical support for community research teams. This support enables local problem-solving that strengthens both research scholarship and community outcomes. The program has recently focused on the role of civic artificial intelligence – AI that supports communities and local governments. Our project on cotton field pesticide use is part of this program. Cotton pests and pesticides Our project in Jenkins County, Georgia, is testing that potential. Jenkins County, with a population of around 8,700, is among the top 25 cotton-growing counties in the state. In 2024, approximately 1.1 million acres of land in Georgia were planted with cotton, and based on the 2022 agricultural county profiles census, Jenkins County ranked 173rd out of the 765 counties producing cotton in the United States. The state benefits from fertile soils, a subtropical-to-temperate climate, and abundant natural resources, all of which support a thriving agricultural industry. But these same conditions also foster pests and diseases. Farmers in Jenkins County, like many farmers, face numerous insect infestations, including stink bugs, cotton bollworms, corn earworms, tarnished plant bugs and aphids. Farmers make heavy use of pesticides. Without precise data on the bugs, farmers end up using more pesticides than they likely need, risking residents’ health and adding costs. While there are some existing tools for integrated pest management, such as the Georgia Cotton Insect Advisor app, they are not widely adopted and are limited to certain bugs. Other methods, such as traditional manual scouting and using sticky traps, are labor-intensive and time-consuming, particularly in the hot summer climate. Our research team set out to combine AI-based early pest detection methods with existing integrated pest management practices and the insect advisor app. The goal was to significantly improve pest detection, decrease pesticide exposure levels and reduce insecticide use on cotton farms in Jenkins County. The work compares different insect monitoring methods and assesses pesticide levels in both the fields and nearby semi-urban areas. We selected eight large cotton fields operated by local farmers in Millen, four active and four control sites, to collect environmental samples before farmers began planting cotton and applying pesticides. The team was aided by a new AI-based insect monitoring system called the FlightSensor by FarmSense. The system uses a machine learning algorithm that was trained to recognize the unique wingbeats of each pest insect species. The specialized trap is equipped with infrared optical sensors that project an invisible infrared light beam – called a light curtain – across the entrance of a triangular tunnel. A sensor monitors the light curtain and uses the machine learning algorithm to identify each pest species as insects fly into the trap. FlightSensor provides information on the prevalence of targeted insects, giving farmers an alternative to traditional manual insect scouting. The information enables the farmers to adjust their pesticide-spraying frequency to match the need. What we’ve learned Here are three things we have learned so far: 1. Predictive pest control potential – AI tools can help farmers pinpoint exactly where pest outbreaks are likely—before they happen. That means they can treat only the areas that need it, saving time, labor and pesticide costs. It’s a shift from blanket spraying to precision farming – and it’s a skill farmers can use season after season. 2. Stronger decision-making for farmers – The preliminary results indicate that the proposed sensors can effectively monitor insect populations specific to cotton farms. Even after the sensors are gone, farmers who used them get better at spotting pests. That’s because the AI dashboards and mobile apps help them see how pest populations grow over time and respond to different field conditions. Researchers also have the ability to access this data remotely through satellite-based monitoring platforms on their computers, further enhancing the collaboration and learning. 3. Building local agtech talent – Training students and farmers on AI pest detection is doing more than protecting cotton crops. It’s building digital literacy, opening doors to agtech careers and preparing communities for future innovation. The same tools could help local governments manage mosquitoes and ticks and open up more agtech innovations. Blueprint for rural innovation By using AI to detect pests early and reduce pesticide use, the project aims to lower harmful residues in local soil and air while supporting more sustainable farming. This pilot project could be a blueprint for how rural communities use AI generally to boost agriculture, reduce public health risks, and build local expertise. Just as important, this work encourages more civic AI applications – grounded in real community needs – that others can adopt and adapt elsewhere. AI and innovation do not need to be urban or corporate to have a significant effect, nor do you need advanced technology degrees to be innovative. With the right partnerships, small towns, too, can harness innovations for economic and community growth. Debra Lam is a founding director of the Partnership for Inclusive Innovation and the Enterprise Innovation Institute at Georgia Institute of Technology. Atin Adhikari is a professor of biostatistics, epidemiology & environmental health sciences at Georgia Southern University. James E. Thomas is a senior lecturer in health policy & community health at Georgia Southern University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Precision agriculture uses tools and technologies such as GPS and sensors to monitor, measure, and respond to changes within a farm field in real time. This includes using artificial intelligence technologies for tasks such as helping farmers apply pesticides only where and when they are needed. However, precision agriculture has not been widely implemented in many rural areas of the United States. We study smart communities, environmental health sciences, and health policy and community health, and we participated in a research project on AI and pesticide use in a rural Georgia agricultural community. Our team, led by Georgia Southern University and the City of Millen, with support from University of Georgia Cooperative Extension, local high schools and agriculture technology company FarmSense, is piloting AI-powered sensors to help cotton farmers optimize pesticide use. Georgia is one of the top cotton-producing states in the U.S., with cotton contributing nearly US$1 billion to the state’s economy in 2024. But only 13% of Georgia farmers use precision agriculture practices. Public-private-academic partnership Innovation drives economic growth, but access to it often stops at major city limits. Smaller and rural communities are frequently left out, lacking the funding, partnerships and technical resources that fuel progress elsewhere. At the same time, 75% of generative AI’s projected economic impact is concentrated in customer operations, marketing, software engineering and research and development, according to a 2023 McKinsey report. In contrast, applications of AI that improve infrastructure, food systems, safety and health remain underexplored. Yet smaller and rural communities are rich in potential—home to anchor institutions like small businesses, civic groups and schools that are deeply invested in their communities. And that potential could be tapped to develop AI applications that fall outside of traditional corporate domains. The Partnership for Innovation, a coalition of people and organizations from academia, government and industry, helps bridge that gap. Since its launch almost five years ago, the Partnership for Innovation has supported 220 projects across Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, Texas and Alabama, partnering with more than 300 communities on challenges from energy poverty to river safety. One Partnership for Innovation program provides seed funding and technical support for community research teams. This support enables local problem-solving that strengthens both research scholarship and community outcomes. The program has recently focused on the role of civic artificial intelligence – AI that supports communities and local governments. Our project on cotton field pesticide use is part of this program. Cotton pests and pesticides Our project in Jenkins County, Georgia, is testing that potential. Jenkins County, with a population of around 8,700, is among the top 25 cotton-growing counties in the state. In 2024, approximately 1.1 million acres of land in Georgia were planted with cotton, and based on the 2022 agricultural county profiles census, Jenkins County ranked 173rd out of the 765 counties producing cotton in the United States. The state benefits from fertile soils, a subtropical-to-temperate climate, and abundant natural resources, all of which support a thriving agricultural industry. But these same conditions also foster pests and diseases. Farmers in Jenkins County, like many farmers, face numerous insect infestations, including stink bugs, cotton bollworms, corn earworms, tarnished plant bugs and aphids. Farmers make heavy use of pesticides. Without precise data on the bugs, farmers end up using more pesticides than they likely need, risking residents’ health and adding costs. While there are some existing tools for integrated pest management, such as the Georgia Cotton Insect Advisor app, they are not widely adopted and are limited to certain bugs. Other methods, such as traditional manual scouting and using sticky traps, are labor-intensive and time-consuming, particularly in the hot summer climate. Our research team set out to combine AI-based early pest detection methods with existing integrated pest management practices and the insect advisor app. The goal was to significantly improve pest detection, decrease pesticide exposure levels and reduce insecticide use on cotton farms in Jenkins County. The work compares different insect monitoring methods and assesses pesticide levels in both the fields and nearby semi-urban areas. We selected eight large cotton fields operated by local farmers in Millen, four active and four control sites, to collect environmental samples before farmers began planting cotton and applying pesticides. The team was aided by a new AI-based insect monitoring system called the FlightSensor by FarmSense. The system uses a machine learning algorithm that was trained to recognize the unique wingbeats of each pest insect species. The specialized trap is equipped with infrared optical sensors that project an invisible infrared light beam – called a light curtain – across the entrance of a triangular tunnel. A sensor monitors the light curtain and uses the machine learning algorithm to identify each pest species as insects fly into the trap. FlightSensor provides information on the prevalence of targeted insects, giving farmers an alternative to traditional manual insect scouting. The information enables the farmers to adjust their pesticide-spraying frequency to match the need. What we’ve learned Here are three things we have learned so far: 1. Predictive pest control potential – AI tools can help farmers pinpoint exactly where pest outbreaks are likely—before they happen. That means they can treat only the areas that need it, saving time, labor and pesticide costs. It’s a shift from blanket spraying to precision farming – and it’s a skill farmers can use season after season. 2. Stronger decision-making for farmers – The preliminary results indicate that the proposed sensors can effectively monitor insect populations specific to cotton farms. Even after the sensors are gone, farmers who used them get better at spotting pests. That’s because the AI dashboards and mobile apps help them see how pest populations grow over time and respond to different field conditions. Researchers also have the ability to access this data remotely through satellite-based monitoring platforms on their computers, further enhancing the collaboration and learning. 3. Building local agtech talent – Training students and farmers on AI pest detection is doing more than protecting cotton crops. It’s building digital literacy, opening doors to agtech careers and preparing communities for future innovation. The same tools could help local governments manage mosquitoes and ticks and open up more agtech innovations. Blueprint for rural innovation By using AI to detect pests early and reduce pesticide use, the project aims to lower harmful residues in local soil and air while supporting more sustainable farming. This pilot project could be a blueprint for how rural communities use AI generally to boost agriculture, reduce public health risks, and build local expertise. Just as important, this work encourages more civic AI applications – grounded in real community needs – that others can adopt and adapt elsewhere. AI and innovation do not need to be urban or corporate to have a significant effect, nor do you need advanced technology degrees to be innovative. With the right partnerships, small towns, too, can harness innovations for economic and community growth. Debra Lam is a founding director of the Partnership for Inclusive Innovation and the Enterprise Innovation Institute at Georgia Institute of Technology. Atin Adhikari is a professor of biostatistics, epidemiology & environmental health sciences at Georgia Southern University. James E. Thomas is a senior lecturer in health policy & community health at Georgia Southern University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Precision agriculture uses tools and technologies such as GPS and sensors to monitor, measure, and respond to changes within a farm field in real time. This includes using artificial intelligence technologies for tasks such as helping farmers apply pesticides only where and when they are needed.

However, precision agriculture has not been widely implemented in many rural areas of the United States.

We study smart communities, environmental health sciences, and health policy and community health, and we participated in a research project on AI and pesticide use in a rural Georgia agricultural community.

Our team, led by Georgia Southern University and the City of Millen, with support from University of Georgia Cooperative Extension, local high schools and agriculture technology company FarmSense, is piloting AI-powered sensors to help cotton farmers optimize pesticide use. Georgia is one of the top cotton-producing states in the U.S., with cotton contributing nearly US$1 billion to the state’s economy in 2024. But only 13% of Georgia farmers use precision agriculture practices.

Public-private-academic partnership

Innovation drives economic growth, but access to it often stops at major city limits. Smaller and rural communities are frequently left out, lacking the funding, partnerships and technical resources that fuel progress elsewhere.

At the same time, 75% of generative AI’s projected economic impact is concentrated in customer operations, marketing, software engineering and research and development, according to a 2023 McKinsey report. In contrast, applications of AI that improve infrastructure, food systems, safety and health remain underexplored.

Yet smaller and rural communities are rich in potential—home to anchor institutions like small businesses, civic groups and schools that are deeply invested in their communities. And that potential could be tapped to develop AI applications that fall outside of traditional corporate domains.

The Partnership for Innovation, a coalition of people and organizations from academia, government and industry, helps bridge that gap. Since its launch almost five years ago, the Partnership for Innovation has supported 220 projects across Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, Texas and Alabama, partnering with more than 300 communities on challenges from energy poverty to river safety.

One Partnership for Innovation program provides seed funding and technical support for community research teams. This support enables local problem-solving that strengthens both research scholarship and community outcomes. The program has recently focused on the role of civic artificial intelligence – AI that supports communities and local governments. Our project on cotton field pesticide use is part of this program.

Cotton pests and pesticides

Our project in Jenkins County, Georgia, is testing that potential. Jenkins County, with a population of around 8,700, is among the top 25 cotton-growing counties in the state. In 2024, approximately 1.1 million acres of land in Georgia were planted with cotton, and based on the 2022 agricultural county profiles census, Jenkins County ranked 173rd out of the 765 counties producing cotton in the United States.

The state benefits from fertile soils, a subtropical-to-temperate climate, and abundant natural resources, all of which support a thriving agricultural industry. But these same conditions also foster pests and diseases.

Farmers in Jenkins County, like many farmers, face numerous insect infestations, including stink bugs, cotton bollworms, corn earworms, tarnished plant bugs and aphids. Farmers make heavy use of pesticides. Without precise data on the bugs, farmers end up using more pesticides than they likely need, risking residents’ health and adding costs.

While there are some existing tools for integrated pest management, such as the Georgia Cotton Insect Advisor app, they are not widely adopted and are limited to certain bugs. Other methods, such as traditional manual scouting and using sticky traps, are labor-intensive and time-consuming, particularly in the hot summer climate.

Our research team set out to combine AI-based early pest detection methods with existing integrated pest management practices and the insect advisor app. The goal was to significantly improve pest detection, decrease pesticide exposure levels and reduce insecticide use on cotton farms in Jenkins County. The work compares different insect monitoring methods and assesses pesticide levels in both the fields and nearby semi-urban areas.

We selected eight large cotton fields operated by local farmers in Millen, four active and four control sites, to collect environmental samples before farmers began planting cotton and applying pesticides.

The team was aided by a new AI-based insect monitoring system called the FlightSensor by FarmSense. The system uses a machine learning algorithm that was trained to recognize the unique wingbeats of each pest insect species. The specialized trap is equipped with infrared optical sensors that project an invisible infrared light beam – called a light curtain – across the entrance of a triangular tunnel. A sensor monitors the light curtain and uses the machine learning algorithm to identify each pest species as insects fly into the trap.

FlightSensor provides information on the prevalence of targeted insects, giving farmers an alternative to traditional manual insect scouting. The information enables the farmers to adjust their pesticide-spraying frequency to match the need.

What we’ve learned

Here are three things we have learned so far:

1. Predictive pest control potential – AI tools can help farmers pinpoint exactly where pest outbreaks are likely—before they happen. That means they can treat only the areas that need it, saving time, labor and pesticide costs. It’s a shift from blanket spraying to precision farming – and it’s a skill farmers can use season after season.

2. Stronger decision-making for farmers – The preliminary results indicate that the proposed sensors can effectively monitor insect populations specific to cotton farms. Even after the sensors are gone, farmers who used them get better at spotting pests. That’s because the AI dashboards and mobile apps help them see how pest populations grow over time and respond to different field conditions. Researchers also have the ability to access this data remotely through satellite-based monitoring platforms on their computers, further enhancing the collaboration and learning.

3. Building local agtech talent – Training students and farmers on AI pest detection is doing more than protecting cotton crops. It’s building digital literacy, opening doors to agtech careers and preparing communities for future innovation. The same tools could help local governments manage mosquitoes and ticks and open up more agtech innovations.

Blueprint for rural innovation

By using AI to detect pests early and reduce pesticide use, the project aims to lower harmful residues in local soil and air while supporting more sustainable farming. This pilot project could be a blueprint for how rural communities use AI generally to boost agriculture, reduce public health risks, and build local expertise.

Just as important, this work encourages more civic AI applications – grounded in real community needs – that others can adopt and adapt elsewhere. AI and innovation do not need to be urban or corporate to have a significant effect, nor do you need advanced technology degrees to be innovative. With the right partnerships, small towns, too, can harness innovations for economic and community growth.

Debra Lam is a founding director of the Partnership for Inclusive Innovation and the Enterprise Innovation Institute at Georgia Institute of Technology.

Atin Adhikari is a professor of biostatistics, epidemiology & environmental health sciences at Georgia Southern University.

James E. Thomas is a senior lecturer in health policy & community health at Georgia Southern University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

How Much Protein Do You Need? Experts Explain

Fitness influencers promote superhigh-protein diets, but studies show there’s only so much the body can use

Snack bars, yogurts, ice cream, even bottled water: it seems like food makers have worked out ways to slip extra protein into just about anything as they seek to capitalize on a growing consumer trend.Today, protein-fortified foods and protein supplements form a market worth tens of billions of US dollars, with fitness influencers, as well as some researchers and physicians, promoting high-protein diets as the secret to strength and longevity. Protein is undeniably essential, but how much people really need is still a topic of debate.On the one hand, most official guidelines recommend a minimum of close to one gram of protein per kilogram of body weight per day, or the equivalent of about 250 grams of cooked chicken (which contains around 68 g of protein) for an adult weighing 70 kilograms. On the other hand, a growing narrative in wellness circles encourages people to eat more than double that amount. Many scientists fall somewhere in the middle and take issue with some of the advice circulating online.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.“It’s really frustrating because there isn’t evidence to support the claims that they’re making,” says Katherine Black, an exercise nutritionist at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, referring to the super-high protein recommendations often shared on social media. What research does show is that protein needs can vary from person to person and can change throughout a lifetime. And people should think carefully about what they eat to meet those needs. “On social media, it’s like everyone’s worried about protein, putting protein powder into everything,” she says.Health authorities can help to guide people’s dietary choices on the basis of the latest research. The next Dietary Guidelines for Americans, a document that advises on what to eat for maintaining a healthy lifestyle, is due to come out by the end of this year. But its recommendations, which have tended to be broadly influential, might be changing.Calculating protein needsResearchers have been trying to estimate how much protein people need for more than a century. In 1840, chemist Justus von Liebig estimated that the average adult required 120 grams of protein a day, on the basis of a group of German workers’ diets. Later, scientists started to use nitrogen to calculate protein requirements. Protein is the only major dietary component that contains nitrogen. So, by measuring how much of it people consume and the amount they excrete, researchers could estimate how much the body uses.Since the 1940s, this nitrogen-balance method has been used to determine the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA), a set of nutrient recommendations developed by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.The latest such recommendation for protein, from 2005, establishes the RDA for both men and women at 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight per day, which it states should be enough to meet the needs of 97–98% of healthy people. European and global-health authorities recommend similar or slightly higher levels.Although scientists recognize that RDAs are a useful reference point, many say that people could benefit from a higher amount. “The RDA is not a target; it’s simply the minimum that appears to prevent any detectable deficiency,” says Donald Layman, a researcher focusing on protein requirements at the University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign. Evidence suggests that the optimal range is between 1.2 and 1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day, he says.That is especially true for older adults, who often experience muscle loss as they age, as well as for certain athletes and people trying to gain muscle.For example, in an observational study of 2,066 adults aged 70–79, those who reported eating the most protein — about 1.1 gram per kilogram of bodyweight — lost 40% less lean mass during the three years of follow-up than did those who ate the least — around 0.7 grams per kilogram.“For older adults, 1.2 grams per kilogram is just giving them a little extra protection,” says Nicholas Burd, a nutrition and exercise researcher also at the University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign. Furthermore, older people might experience a decline in appetite, which makes it particularly important for them to pay attention to their protein intake. It doesn’t mean that they need to take protein supplements, he says. “It’s all things we can do with just normal incorporation of high-protein foods in our lives.”For healthy adults, increasing protein can boost the effects of resistance exercise, such as weightlifting. A 2017 systematic review found that, among people engaged in this type of training, taking protein supplements enhanced muscle gain and strength. But increasing protein beyond 1.6 grams per kilogram per day provided no further benefit.Meanwhile, some fitness influencers swear by eating 2.2 grams per kilogram of body weight. For most people, that’s simply overkill, says Burd. There’s little harm, other than for people with kidney disease, but Burd adds: “You just create an inefficient system where your body gets very good at wasting food protein.”Some practitioners might recommend higher protein targets to ensure that people get enough, Burd says. But the protein craze has been driven mostly by aggressive marketing of high-protein foods and supplements, he says.“The myth of increased protein needs has seeped into popular imagination, including among health professionals, and has been conveniently reinforced by the food industry,” says Fernanda Marrocos, a researcher specializing in nutrition and food policy at the University of São Paulo in Brazil.Amino-acid goalsNot all proteins are the same, and some researchers argue for a more nuanced recommendation that takes into account the amino acids — the building blocks of proteins — that foods contain. The human body requires 20 amino acids to function properly, including 9 that are considered ‘essential’ because they can be obtained only through food.The balance of those nine in animal-based foods is exactly what other animals need, says Layman. “In plants, the essential amino acids are generally there, but they’re in proportions for the plants.” That means that some plants might be rich in certain amino acids but not in others, so meeting the amino-acid requirements with plant-based products might require a greater variety of foods.He is critical of the way that official dietary guidelines calculate the recommendations for proteins from different sources. For example, according to the US Department of Agriculture, 14 grams of almonds can substitute 28 grams of chicken breast. Research by Layman and his colleagues, which considers the amino-acid balance, suggests that it would actually take more than 115 grams of almonds to substitute 28 grams of chicken.Robert Wolfe, a researcher focusing on muscle metabolism at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, says that dietary guidelines should incorporate the analysis of the quality of the protein, including the amino-acid balance and the degree to which the human body can digest them.One area for future research, Wolfe says, is understanding exactly how food processing affects protein content. Factors such as cooking temperature, for example, can influence how well the body digests protein. This can have implications for certain protein supplements and high-protein bars, which are generally highly processed.Obtaining that information requires going beyond nitrogen-balance studies. Wolfe’s team has used isotope tracers to determine the rate at which food protein is incorporated into new proteins in the body. One study of 56 young adults, for example, concluded that eating animal-based proteins resulted in a greater gain in body protein than did eating the equivalent amount of plant-based protein. But studies in this area are still small and shouldn’t be taken to mean that people must get all their protein from animal sources.The American Heart Association recommends prioritizing plant proteins, given that the saturated fat found in red meats can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. There’s also a high environmental cost associated with meat production, which is a major source of greenhouse-gas emissions.Burd says that if a diet includes at least a portion of animal-based protein, it will probably provide all the essential amino acids for maintaining good health. And it is possible to achieve the same benefits solely from plant-based proteins. “This is where supplements could be beneficial because it’s more challenging to reach that balance from plants only,” Burd says.Specialists advising the formulation of the upcoming Dietary Guidelines for Americans say that most Americans already eat more than enough proteins. They suggest reducing protein consumption from red meat, chicken and eggs and increasing the consumption of certain vegetables. But it’s unclear what exactly will be in the guidelines: US health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr has stated in recent months that they will emphasize the need to eat saturated fats from sources including meat and dairy, which goes against recommendations from many medical associations.Protein consumption is adequate in most parts of the world, says Marrocos. A study her team led in Brazil found that, in general, people consume well above the World Health Organization’s protein recommendation, even those with the lowest income. So there’s no need to obsess about hitting an exact protein number.“For most people, as long as they’re eating enough calories and a reasonably varied diet, they’ll get all the protein they need,” says Marrocos.This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on November 12, 2025.

Agriculture
Animals
Food

This pig’s bacon was delicious. But she’s alive and well

A company called Mission Barns is cultivating pork fat in bioreactors and turning it into meatballs and other products. Honestly, they're pretty darn good.

I’m eating Dawn the Yorkshire pig and she’s quite tasty. But don’t worry. She’s doing perfectly fine, traipsing around a sanctuary in upstate New York. (Word is that she appreciates belly rubs and sunshine.) I’m in San Francisco, at an Italian joint just south of Golden Gate Park, enjoying meatballs and bacon not made of meat in the traditional sense, but of plants mixed with “cultivated” pork fat. Dawn, you see, donated a small sample of fat, which a company called Mission Barns got to proliferate in devices called bioreactors by providing nutrients like carbohydrates, amino acids, and vitamins — essentially replicating the conditions in her body. Because so much of the flavor of pork and other meats comes from the animal’s fat, Mission Barns can create products like sausages and salami with plants, but make them taste darn near like sausages and salami. I’ve been struggling to describe the experience, because cultivated meat short-circuits my brain — my mouth thinks I’m eating a real pork meatball, but my brain knows that it’s fundamentally different, and that Dawn (that’s her above) didn’t have to die for it. This is the best I’ve come up with: It’s Diet Meat. Just as Diet Coke is an approximation of the real thing, so too are cultivated meatballs. They simply taste a bit less meaty, at least to my tongue. Which is understandable, as the only animal product in this food is the bioreactor-grown fat.Cultivated pork is the newest entrant in the effort to rethink meat. For years, plant-based offerings have been mimicking burgers, chicken, and fish with ever-more convincing blends of proteins and fats. Mission Barns is one of a handful of startups taking the next step: growing real animal fat outside the animal, then marrying it with plants to create hybrids that look, cook, and taste more like what consumers have always eaten, easing the environmental and ethical costs of industrial livestock. The company says it’s starting with pork because it’s a large market and products like bacon are fat-rich, but its technology is “cell-agnostic,” meaning it could create beef and chicken, too. Matt Simon Honestly, Mission Barns’ creations taste great, in part because they’re “unstructured,” in the parlance of the industry. A pork loin is a complicated tangle of fat, muscle cells, and connective tissues that is very difficult — and expensive — to replicate, but a meatball, salami, or sausage incorporates other ingredients. That allows Mission Barns to experiment with what plant to use as a base, to which they add spices to accentuate the flavors. It’s a technology that they can iterate, basically, crafting ever-better meats by toying with ingredients in different ratios. So the bacon I ate, for instance, had a nice applewood smoke to it. The meatballs had the springiness you’d expect. During a later visit to Mission Barns’ headquarters across town, I got to try two prototypes of its salami as well — both were spiced like you’d expect, but less elastic, so they chewed a bit more easily than what you’d find on a charcuterie board. (The sensation of food in the mouth is known in the industry as “mouthfeel,” and nailing it is essential to the success of alt-meats.) The salami slices even left grease stains on the paper they were served on — Dawn’s own little mark on the world. Matt Simon I was one of the first people to purchase a cultivated pork product. While Mission Barns has so far only sold its products at that Italian restaurant and, for a limited time, at a grocery store in Berkeley — $13.99 for a pack of eight meatballs, similar to higher-end products from organic and regenerative farms — it is fixing to scale up production and sell the technology to other companies to produce more cultivated foods. (It is assessing how big the bioreactors will have to be to reach price parity with traditional meat products.) The idea is to provide an alternative to animal agriculture, which uses a whole lot of land, water, and energy to raise creatures and ship their flesh around the world. Livestock are responsible for between 10 and 20 percent of humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions — depending on who’s estimating it — and that’s to say nothing of the cruelty involved in keeping pigs and chickens and cows in unsavory, occasionally inhumane, conditions.Getting animal cells to grow outside of an animal, though, ain’t easy. For one, if cells don’t have anything to attach to, they die. So Mission Barns’ cultivator uses a sponge-like structure, full of nooks and crannies that provides lots of surface area for the cells to grow. “We have our media, which is just the nutrient solution that we give to these cells,” said Saam Shahrokhi, chief technology officer at Mission Barns. “We’re essentially recapitulating all of the environmental cues that make cells inside the body grow fat, [but] outside the body.” While Dawn’s fat is that of a Yorkshire pig, Shahrokhi said they could easily produce fat from other breeds like the Mangalitsa, known as the Kobe beef of pork. (In June, the company won approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to bring its cultivated fat to market.)Fat in hand, Mission Barns can mix it with plant proteins. If you’re familiar with Impossible Foods, it uses soy to replicate the feel and look of ground beef and adds soy leghemoglobin, which is similar to the heme that gives meat its meaty flavor. Depending on the flavor and texture it’s trying to copy, Mission Bay uses pea protein for the meatballs and sausages, wheat for the bacon, and fava beans for the salami. “The plant-based meat industry has done pretty well with texture,” said Bianca Le, head of special projects at Mission Barns. “I think what they’re really missing is flavor and juiciness, which obviously is where the fat comes in.” Matt Simon But the fat is just the beginning. Mission Barn’s offerings not only have to taste good, but also can’t have an offputting smell when they’re coming out of the package and when they’re cooking. The designers have to dial in the pH, which could degrade the proteins if not balanced. How the products behave on the stove or in the oven has to be familiar, too. “If someone has to relearn how to cook a piece of bacon or a meatball, then it’s never going to work,” said Zach Tyndall, the product development and culinary manager at Mission Barns.When I pick up that piece of salami, it has to feel like the real thing, in more ways than one. Indeed, it’s greasy in the hand and has that tang of cured meat. It’s even been through a dry-aging process to reduce its moisture. “We treat this like we would a conventional piece of salami,” Tyndall said. Cultivated meat companies may also go more unconventional. “I also love the idea of taking their pork fat and putting it in a beef burger — what would happen if you did that?” said Barb Stuckey, chief new product strategy officer at Mattson, a food developer that has worked with many cultivated meat companies. “Mixing species, it’s not something we typically do. But with this technology, we can.” Of course, in this new frontier of food, the big question is: Who exactly is this for? Would a vegetarian or vegan eat cultured pork fat if it’s divorced from the cruelty of factory farming? Would meat-eaters be willing to give up the real thing for a facsimile? Mission Barns’ market research, Le said, found that its early adopters are actually flexitarians — people who eat mostly plant-based but partake in the occasional animal product. But Le adds that their first limited sale to the public in Berkeley included some people who called themselves vegetarians and vegans.  Mission Barns There’s also the matter of quantifying how much of an environmental improvement cultivated fat might offer over industrial pork production. If scaled up, one benefit of cultivated food might be that companies can produce the stuff in more places — that is, instead of sprawling pig farms and slaughterhouses being relegated to rural areas, bioreactors could be run in cities, cutting down on the costs and emissions associated with shipping. Still, those factories would need energy to grow fat cells, though they could be run on renewable electricity. “We modeled our process at the large commercial scale, and then compared it to U.S. bacon production,” Le said. (The company would not offer specific details, saying it is in the process of patenting its technique.) “And we found that with renewable energy, we do significantly better in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.”Whether or not consumers bite, though, remains to be seen. The market for meat alternatives in the U.S. has majorly softened of late: Beyond Meat, which makes plant-based products like burgers and sausages, has seen revenues drop significantly, in part because of consumers’ turn away from processed foods. But by licensing its technology elsewhere, Mission Barns’ strategy is to break into new markets beyond the U.S.The challenges of cultivated meat go beyond the engineering once you get to the messaging and branding — telegraphing to consumers that they’re buying something that may in fact be partially meat. “When you buy chicken, you get 100 percent chicken,” Stuckey said. “I think a lot of people go into cultivated meat thinking what’s going to come onto the market is 100 percent cultivated chicken, and it’s not going to be that. It’s going to be something else.” Regardless of the trajectory of cultivated fat products, Dawn will continue mingling with llamas, soaking up the sunshine, and getting belly rubs in upstate New York — even as she makes plants taste more like pork.  This story was originally published by Grist with the headline This pig’s bacon was delicious. But she’s alive and well on Nov 20, 2025.

Agriculture
Animals
Culture

Agriculture Linked To Melanoma Cluster In Pennsylvania

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTUESDAY, Nov. 18, 2025 (HealthDay News) — A melanoma cluster found in the heart of Pennsylvania farm country...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTUESDAY, Nov. 18, 2025 (HealthDay News) — A melanoma cluster found in the heart of Pennsylvania farm country has highlighted potential links between agriculture and skin cancer.Adults 50 and older living in a 15-county stretch of south-central Pennsylvania were 57% more likely to develop melanoma than people living elsewhere in the state, researchers reported Nov. 14 in the journal JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics.The risk wasn’t limited to farm workers who spend their days toiling in the sun, either. Risk was higher in both rural and metropolitan areas located near active farmland, and the risk remained even after researchers accounted for residents’ exposure to ultraviolet radiation.“Melanoma is often associated with beaches and sunbathing, but our findings suggest that agricultural environments may also play a role,” researcher Dr. Charlene Lam, an associate professor of dermatology at Penn State Health across several locations in central Pennsylvania, said in a news release.“And this isn’t just about farmers. Entire communities living near agriculture, people who never set foot in a field, may still be at risk,” Lam said.For the study, researchers analyzed five years of cancer registry data from 2017 through 2021 in Pennsylvania.They found that counties in the melanoma clusters had more cultivated farmland — an average of 20% versus 7% for non-cluster counties.For every 10% in the amount of cultivated land in a region, melanoma cases rose by 14%, results show.Melanoma also coincided with more use of herbicides, researchers said, with an average 17% of herbicide-treated land in cluster counties versus less than 7% in non-cluster counties.Every 9% increase in herbicide use corresponded to a 14% increase in melanoma cases, researchers said."Pesticides and herbicides are designed to alter biological systems,” senior researcher Eugene Lengerich, a professor of public health sciences at Penn State in State College, Pennsylvania said in a news release. “Some of those same mechanisms, like increasing photosensitivity or causing oxidative stress, could theoretically contribute to melanoma development.”Previous studies have found that pesticides and herbicides heighten sensitivity to sunlight, disrupt immune function and damage DNA in animals and plants — all of which might increase melanoma risk in humans, researchers noted.The researchers noted that the risk isn’t limited to farm workers applying herbicides to a field. These chemicals can drift through the air, settle in household dust and seep into water supplies.“Our findings suggest that melanoma risk could extend beyond occupational settings to entire communities,” Lam said. “This is relevant for people living near farmland. You don’t have to be a farmer to face environmental exposure.”Similar patterns have been found in agricultural regions in Utah, Poland and Italy, researchers noted.However, researchers noted that the new study doesn’t prove a cause-and-effect link between agriculture and melanoma, but only shows an association."Think of this as a signal, not a verdict,” lead researcher Benjamin Marks, a medical student at the Penn State College of Medicine in Pittsburgh, said in a news release.“The data suggest that areas with more cultivated land and herbicide use tend to have higher melanoma rates, but many other factors could be at play like genetics, behavior or access to health care,” Marks said. “Understanding these patterns helps us protect not just farmers, but entire communities living near farmland.”In the meantime, people who live near agricultural areas should protect themselves from melanoma by performing regular skin checks, slopping on sunscreen, and slipping on hats and clothing to protect against sun exposure, Lengerich said.SOURCES: Penn State, news release, Nov. 14, 2025; JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics, Nov. 14, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Agriculture
Health
Chemicals

With neonicotinoid pesticide ban, France’s birds make a tentative recovery - study

Analysis shows small hike in populations of insect-eating species after 2018 ruling, but full recovery may take decadesInsect-eating bird populations in France appear to be making a tentative recovery after a ban on bee-harming pesticides, according to the first study to examine how wildlife is returning in Europe.Neonicotinoids are the world’s most common class of insecticides, widely used in agriculture and for flea control in pets. By 2022, four years after the European Union banned neonicotinoid use in fields, researchers observed that France’s population of insect-eating birds had increased by 2%-3%. These included blackbirds, blackcaps and chaffinches, which feed on insects as adults and as chicks. Continue reading...

Insect-eating bird populations in France appear to be making a tentative recovery after a ban on bee-harming pesticides, according to the first study to examine how wildlife is returning in Europe.Neonicotinoids are the world’s most common class of insecticides, widely used in agriculture and for flea control in pets. By 2022, four years after the European Union banned neonicotinoid use in fields, researchers observed that France’s population of insect-eating birds had increased by 2%-3%. These included blackbirds, blackcaps and chaffinches, which feed on insects as adults and as chicks.The results could be mirrored across the EU, where the neonicotinoid ban came into effect in late 2018, but research has not yet been done elsewhere. The lead researcher, Thomas Perrot from the Fondation pour la recherche sur la biodiversité in Paris, said: “Even a few percentage [points’] increase is meaningful – it shows the ban made a difference. Our results clearly point to neonicotinoid bans as an effective conservation measure for insectivorous birds.”Like the EU, the UK banned neonicotinoids for outdoor general use in 2018, although they can be used in exceptional circumstances. They are still widely used in the US, which has lost almost 3 billion insectivorous birds since the 1970s.The study, which was published in the journal Environmental Pollution, looked at data from more than 1,900 sites across France collected by skilled volunteer ornithologists for the French Breeding Bird Survey. They divided the data into two groups – the five years before the ban, from 2013 to 2018; and the post-ban period from 2019 to 2022.Perrot’s team analysed data on 57 bird species at these sites, each of which measured 2km by 2km (1.25 miles). They found that the numbers of insectivorous birds at pesticide-treated sites were 12% lower compared with sites where there was no neonicotinoid use.It is likely that other insect-eating animals such as small mammals, bats and even fish could also be seeing the benefits, Perrot said. Generalist birds such as the wood pigeon and house sparrow appeared to be less affected, probably because they have more flexible diets and do not rely on insects.Frans van Alebeek, policy officer for rural areas at BirdLife Netherlands, said: “A lot of pressure was necessary to force governments to make this ban. There was huge pressure on the EU parliament from citizens.“I was surprised you could already see recovery,” said Alebeek, who was not involved in the research. “It’s extremely difficult to study this – which makes this study so special. The positive message is that it helps to ban pesticides and it will result in the recovery of wildlife.”Other researchers were more cautious about the findings. James Pearce-Higgins, director of science at the British Trust for Ornithology, said: “It’s a study that shows there may be early signs of weak population recovery but the results are uncertain and could be down to other correlated factors.”Habitat and climate are other factors that could explain variations in bird numbers, but it is difficult to be definitive. “This study highlights the value of long-term monitoring so we can better understand these trends in the future,” Pearce-Higgins said.Bird numbers have fallen sharply in many countries around the world, and several studies indicate that the loss of insects is driving declines.A farmer spraying insecticides in a field. Photograph: Arterra Picture Library/AlamyNeonicotinoids are systemic insecticides, which are absorbed by plants and become present throughout their tissues, making any part of the plant toxic to insects that feed on it. They were introduced in the 1990s and quickly became widespread across Europe.Mass die-offs of bees were first reported in the early 2000s in France and Germany. Research showed these chemicals – even in tiny doses – could affect bees’ navigation and foraging. By the 2010s their impact on bees had become a big public issue, and by 2018 the EU banned them for almost all outdoor use, despite fierce pushback from agribusiness, especially chemical companies.“The weak recovery after the ban makes sense,” said Perrot. “Neonicotinoids persist in soils for years and can keep affecting insects.“Overall, our results suggest that it will take several decades for insectivorous bird populations to recover. But we think that’s normal, because studies on other pesticides like DDT show that most bird populations take 10 to 25 years to fully recover.”Pesticides are having a significant impact on birds in developing countries, where there are fewer restrictions and the effects remain largely undocumented.Birds are strongly affected by farming, including pesticide use and habitat loss. Perrot said more sustainable farming, which reduced pesticides and restored semi-natural habitats, would help bird populations recover. Some EU policies already encourage this through “green infrastructure” funding. “But if agriculture keeps focusing on maximum yields instead of sustainability, we’ll keep seeing the same declines,” Perrot said.Alebeek said: “Neonicotinoids are part of a trend in which industry is getting better and better at finding chemicals that are extremely effective at low concentrations – you use less but the toxicity is not going down.“To me, it shows that our system of testing pesticides before they are allowed on the market is not good enough. We have done it for 50 years for all kinds of pesticides – we go through the same process every 10 years and learn very little from history.”Find more age of extinction coverage here, and follow the biodiversity reporters Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield in the Guardian app for more nature coverage

Agriculture
Animals
Chemicals

Returning farming to city centers

4.182 (Resilient Urbanism: Green Commons in the City), a new subject funded by the MIT Human Insight Collaborative (MITHIC), teaches students about sustainable agriculture in urban areas.

A new class is giving MIT students the opportunity to examine the historical and practical considerations of urban farming while developing a real-world understanding of its value by working alongside a local farm’s community.Course 4.182 (Resilient Urbanism: Green Commons in the City) is taught in two sections by instructors in the Program in Science, Technology, and Society and the School of Architecture and Planning, in collaboration with The Common Good Co-op in Dorchester.The first section was completed in spring 2025 and the second section is scheduled for spring 2026. The course is taught by STS professor Kate Brown, visiting lecturer Justin Brazier MArch ’24, and Kafi Dixon, lead farmer and executive director of The Common Good.“This project is a way for students to investigate the real political, financial, and socio-ecological phenomena that can help or hinder an urban farm’s success,” says Brown, the Thomas M. Siebel Distinguished Professor in History of Science. Brown teaches environmental history, the history of food production, and the history of plants and people. She describes a history of urban farming that centered sustainable practices, financial investment and stability, and lasting connections among participants. Brown says urban farms have sustained cities for decades.“Cities are great places to grow produce,” Brown asserts. “City dwellers produce lots of compostable materials.”Brazier’s research ranges from affordable housing to urban agricultural gardens, exploring topics like sustainable architecture, housing, and food security.“My work designing vacant lots as community gardens offered a link between Kafi’s work with Common Good and my interests in urban design,” Brazier says. “Urban farms offer opportunities to eliminate food deserts in underserved areas while also empowering historically marginalized communities.”Before they agreed to collaborate on the course, Dixon reached out to Brown asking for help with several challenges related to her urban farm including zoning, location, and infrastructure.“As the lead farmer and executive director of Common Good Co-op, I happened upon Kate Brown’s research and work and saw that it aligned with our cooperative model’s intentions,” Dixon says. “I reached out to Kate, and she replied, which humbled and excited me.” “Design itself is a form of communication,” Dixon adds, describing the collaborative nature of farming sustenance and development. “For many under-resourced communities, innovating requires a research-based approach.”The project is among the inaugural cohort of initiatives to receive support from the SHASS Education Innovation Fund, which is administered by the MIT Human Insight Collaborative (MITHIC).Community development, investment, and collaborationThe class’s first section paired students with community members and the City of Boston to change the farm’s zoning status and create a green space for long-term farming and community use. Students spent time at Common Good during the course, including one weekend during which they helped with weeding the garden beds for spring planting.One objective of the class is to help Common Good avoid potential pitfalls associated with gentrification. “A study in Philadelphia showed that gentrification occurs within 1,000 feet of a community garden,” Brown says. “Farms and gardens are a key part of community and public health,” Dixon continues. Students in the second section will design and build infrastructure — including a mobile chicken coop and a pavilion to protect farmers from the elements — for Common Good. The course also aims to secure a green space designation for the farm and ensure it remains an accessible community space. “We want to prevent developers from acquiring the land and displacing the community,” Brown says, avoiding past scenarios in which governments seized inhabitants’ property while offering little or no compensation.Students in the 2025 course also produced a guide on how to navigate the complex rules surrounding zoning and related development. Students in the next STS section will research the history of food sovereignty and Black feminist movements in Dorchester and Roxbury. Using that research, they will construct an exhibit focused on community activism for incorporation into the coop’s facade.Imani Bailey, a second-year master’s student in the Department of Architecture’s MArch program, was among the students in the course’s first section.“By taking this course, I felt empowered to directly engage with the community in a way no other class I have taken so far has afforded me the ability to,” she says.Bailey argues for urban farms’ value as both a financial investment and space for communal interaction, offering opportunities for engagement and the implementation of sustainable practices. “Urban farms are important in the same way a neighbor is,” she adds. “You may not necessarily need them to own your home, but a good one makes your property more valuable, sometimes financially, but most importantly in ways that cannot be assigned a monetary value.”The intersection of agriculture, community, and technologyTechnology, the course’s participants believe, can offer solutions to some of the challenges related to ensuring urban farms’ viability. “Cities like Amsterdam are redesigning themselves to improve walkability, increase the appearance of small gardens in the city, and increase green space,” Brown says. By creating spaces that center community and a collective approach to farming, it’s possible to reduce both greenhouse emissions and impacts related to climate change.Additionally, engineers, scientists, and others can partner with communities to develop solutions to transportation and public health challenges. By redesigning sewer systems, empowering microbiologists to design microbial inoculants that can break down urban food waste at the neighborhood level, and centering agriculture-related transportation in the places being served, it’s possible to sustain community support and related infrastructure.“Community is cultivated, nurtured, and grown from prolonged interaction, sharing ideas, and the creation of place through a shared sense of ownership,” Bailey argues. “Urban farms present the conditions for communities to develop.” Bailey values the course because it leaves the theoretical behind, instead focusing on practical solutions. “We seldom see our design ideas become tangible," she says. “This class offered an opportunity to design and build for a real client in the real world.”Brazier says the course and its projects prove everyone has something to contribute and can have a voice in what happens with their neighborhoods. “Despite these communities’ distrust of some politicians, we partnered to work on solutions related to zoning,” he says, “and supported community members’ advocacy efforts.”

Agriculture
Sustainable
Climate

Suggested Viewing

Xylella Fastidiosa - The Apocalypse of Salento

A look into the devastating effects of a deadly disease on the historic olive trees in Puglia, Italy.

Plants
Agriculture
Documentary

On the Brink

A short movie explaining how sea lice coming from fish farms in British Columbia are harming wild salmon to the brink of extinction.

Animals
Agriculture
Extinction

Eating: the power to save the ocean

What if our food could save the ocean? The ocean is the source of life. It regulates the climate. It covers 70% of the planet's surface. The ocean is vital but it is under threat. And that is mainly because of our food. We don't think about it because we can't see it, but what we eat can have serious consequences for the health of the ocean. Fortunately, solutions do exist. In France, men and women are already laying the foundations for a more sustainable eating. Malaury, a young ocean activist, sets off to hitchhike the roads of France to meet them. She will try to better understand the impacts of our food on the ocean. And above all, she will discover tangible solutions for eating well while preserving the ocean.

Water
Agriculture
Food

Modern Nature

By 2050, 10 billion people may inhabit Earth. Do we need GMOs to Feed the World? Is organic production the answer? Modern Nature takes the viewer on a worldwide odyssey to find answers. Includes perspectives from philosopher Noam Chomsky, physicist Vandana Shiva and street farmer Ron Finley.

Food
Agriculture
Business

Chicken Soup for the Soil

Chicken Soup for the Soil follows the journey of North Carolina farmers Rachel Herrick and Suzanne Nelson Karreman as they work to rehabilitate farm soil ecosystems one pasture at a time. We learn that animals are not commodities and insects are not pests. They are partners in regenerating the soil. These are grassroots farms working with Nature to help Nature bounce back.

Land Use
Agriculture
Climate

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.