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.

How Rapa Nui Lost a Tree, Only to Have It Sprout Up Elsewhere

News Feed
Tuesday, March 26, 2024

The tree that goes by toromiro has been a fragile expat for more than a half-century. Little Sophora toromiro, is far from home, no longer present on Rapa Nui, the Pacific island where it evolved. Also known as Easter Island, or Isla de Pascua in Spanish, Rapa Nui is a speck of land in the Pacific, 2,200 miles from the west coast of Chile. The tiny island encompasses just 63 square miles, and it is quite flat, with a maximum elevation of less than 1,700 feet. The last date of the toromiro’s tenure on Rapa Nui is uncertain. Some accounts say it went extinct in the wild in 1960. Others say that it was gone by 1962, when Karl Schanz, a German meteorologist, clambered down to see the tree in the crater where it had last been spotted, and it was gone. Was it removed? Did it die, tip over and return to the earth? We will never know. Although the toromiro is gone from Rapa Nui, it survives elsewhere through luck—and pluck. Over the past century, the intermittent collecting of the toromiro’s seeds and their replanting in mainland locations have given the species purchase elsewhere. Each tree is a member of a small diaspora, with only a handful surviving in about a dozen different public and private botanical gardens around the world. This is a story of survival, persistence and, perhaps in some ways, dumb luck—a tree in decline that was rescued and whose seeds were sent to other places. Mention Easter Island to almost anyone, and if they’ve heard of it, they’ve likely heard of its statues. Imprinted in the popular imagination are its enigmatic, massive stone sculptures, or moai. Curious investigators have speculated for more than two centuries about how more than 900 of these mysterious statues—the largest being more than 30 feet tall and weighing over 80 tons—might have been moved to locations around the island, traveling miles from the site where they were quarried. The toromiro, though, is an invisible tree on the island, its story known to very few, and its existence marked more by its absence than its presence. The tree does have many close relatives. The Sophora genus is speciose, as biologists say—a crowded taxon consisting of some 60 different species, including a dozen closely related oceanic ones scattered across the Pacific. The toromiro is more of a shrub than a tree, and none of its close relatives is large—at least from descriptions recorded over the past century. The northernmost outpost for the Sophora genus is in Hawaiʻi, where Sophora chrysophylla is the primary food source for the palila, a critically endangered honeycreeper. Without S. chrysophylla, known as mamane in Hawaiian, the palila would not have survived the last century as its range dwindled. The subterranean pollen record reveals that the toromiro was abundant across much of Rapa Nui, where many other now-extinct plants also thrived. Paleobotanical evidence shows that the tree’s presence on the island dates back at least 35,000 years. Its seeds are both buoyant and salt-resistant, and they probably first arrived by water, floating onto the island, probably from another Pacific island, and then it did what species do: continued its evolutionary journey in a new place to become the tree we know today. But even before the toromiro disappeared from the island, it had been without a lot of endemic companions. Fewer than 30 indigenous seed-bearing plant species have survived on Rapa Nui to the present day, and weeds, along with naturalized, cultivated shrubs, are now the main plants growing there. The toromiro did not disappear precipitously but experienced a protracted decline. Humans arrived in Rapa Nui around the 12th century, probably not long after Polynesians reached the Hawaiian archipelago. Some hundreds of years after humans’ arrival, the island experienced a painful drop in biodiversity, and its carrying capacity plummeted as the native palm forests disappeared, replaced by grasslands. Food grew scarce, and occupants fled, thinning down to around 100 Rapa Nui at one point in the 19th century. In his deterministic 2005 book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Jared Diamond claimed the occupants were lousy land managers. His analysis of why Rapa Nui became denuded of its plant life is now out of date, as later studies have revealed the island’s complexities. To sketch the story of the weakening grip of native plant life on Rapa Nui as a predictable story of human arrogance intersecting with a small, remote and evolutionarily vulnerable spit of land is tempting, but the tale is more nuanced than that. Natives there recorded centuries-old histories of careful but intermittent conservation strategies. Some scholars have asserted that the Little Ice Age stressed resources on the island between the 16th and 19th centuries, leading to the disappearance of palms and other important contributors to the islanders’ activities and well-being. Others have pointed to prolonged droughts, while still others have continued to argue that humans were highly complicit in the island’s declining biodiversity. Were groves of palm trees decimated to create systems for rolling the giant stone carvings from quarry to coastline, where most of them have sat for many hundreds of years? Perhaps. However the palms disappeared, their loss seems to have been a factor in the tumbling downturn of the island’s other trees, including the toromiro. The palms had made up the great majority of Rapa Nui’s tree cover, some 16 million trees that blanketed about 70 percent of the island. Some controversy remains about what particular species of palm flourished, but many believe it was Paschalococos disperta, the Rapa Nui palm. Jaime Espejo, a Chilean botanist who’s written extensively about the toromiro, noted that it probably lived in the undergrowth of the palm, lodged in an ancient ecosystem that no longer exists. Paleobotanists and archaeologists studying the island spotted the widespread loss of the palms in their investigations. At the same time, they found that the number of fish bones found in waste middens around the island dropped as fishing boats could no longer be constructed in large numbers from trees. The loss of access to fish must have been a devastating turn, because the human residents’ main proteins came from the sea. Soil erosion, likely exacerbated by deforestation and agriculture, led to further losses of the tree. Hooved animals, arriving with European explorers in the 18th century, were also certain culprits in the toromiro’s decline and disappearance. In Hawaiʻi, sheep consume that archipelago’s species of Sophora. Another creature implicated in the destruction of much of both Rapa Nui’s and Hawaiʻi’s plant life was the Polynesian rat (Rattus exulans), as well as the bigger ship rat (Rattus rattus) and Norwegian rat (Rattus norvegicus). These rats, landing on new island homes and able to reproduce quickly, found abundant food in the form of native seeds, plants and invertebrates—and no predators. They laid waste to plant life with shocking speed. An aerial view of a toromiro in Barcelona, Spain Daderot via Wikimedia CC0 Early European accounts and pollen records tell us that by about 1600, forests in the island’s craters had disappeared, and, with that, the toromiro declined into long-term scarcity and then extirpation. The New Zealand anthropologist Steven Fischer has noted that the last forest was probably cut for firewood around 1640, making wood the most valuable commodity on the island. Driftwood became precious. So scarce was wood, Fischer observes, that the pan-Polynesian word rakau, meaning “tree,” “timber” or “wood,” came to mean “riches” or “wealth” in the old Rapa Nui language—a meaning not present in any other use of the word elsewhere in Polynesia, including in Tahiti, Tonga, Hawaiʻi and New Zealand. It’s ironic that after the deforestation of the island’s trees, new linguistic meanings sprouted out of the island’s impending botanical doom. Amid these centuries-long difficulties, but long before the toromiro disappeared, a wood-based culture thrived. The Rapa Nui had a particular passion for carving; beyond their giant stone statues, they favored the toromiro for its durable and fine-grained wood and reddish hue. Although primarily used for ritual objects, the toromiro was also serviceable for building material in houses, household utensils, statuettes and paddles. These artifacts survive in museums around the world. Some of them are hundreds of years old, and they might provide unexpected addenda to our understandings of the tree’s deeper history, offered up through dendrochronological analysis. Studying the annual growth rings in the wood could provide details we lack: the pace of growth of the wood, environmental pressures acting on the tree, its ultimate size and many of the other clues revealed through laboratory work with wood specimens. Part of our lack of knowledge about the tree’s wood is because it has always been uncommon on the island, at least since Western contact. Rapa Nui came with inherent geographic disadvantages for plant survival, including few sheltered habitats with steep hillsides or deep ravines in which toromiro could remain hidden away from humans. The three volcanic craters on the island are the only such hiding places. In 1911, the Chilean botanist Francisco Fuentes noted that the toromiro was rare, only to be found in Rano Kau, the largest of the craters. The Swedish botanist Carl Skottsberg, who also worked on Hawaiian flora, visited Rano Kau in 1917 and found only a single specimen. A compelling global exploration of nature and survival as seen through a dozen species of trees. The final contact with the tree on its native soil occurred when the Norwegian explorer Thor Heyerdahl collected seeds from the last surviving example. This was likely the same tree that Skottsberg had found in the shelter of Rano Kau. The egg-shaped crater is about a mile across and has its own microclimate, largely out of the winds and weather, and protected from grazing ungulates by a rock formation. Foot traffic remained down in the last century, as little else lives in the crater that can be harvested or cut down. Innumerable swampy pockets of water make the area difficult to traverse. A beautiful, multicolored, shallow lake of open water and floating mats of peat cover much of the bottom of the crater. There, the tiny toromiro held on. Heyerdahl, who had already been traveling around the Pacific Ocean in the 1940s, became famous, or infamous, for floating a radical new theory: that the islands in the Pacific had been populated initially by American Indians from the mainland of South America, rather than by people from Asia or from other Polynesian islands. In 1947, he launched an expedition with a primitive raft named Kon-Tiki and made a 5,000-mile journey, heading west from Peru. What’s often lost in the voluminous writings about Heyerdahl and his oceanfaring obsessions was his interest in Rapa Nui. Björn Aldén, a Swedish botanist with the Gothenburg Botanical Garden, became friends with Heyerdahl and has worked to return the toromiro to its native land. In a letter to Björn, Heyerdahl decried the “tankelöse treskjaerere,” or “thoughtless woodcutters.” He noted how good it felt to have helped to save the species by collecting a handful of seeds that hung from the tree’s sole remaining branch. Heyerdahl couldn’t recount the exact date, or even the year, but thought it was sometime in late 1955 or early 1956. Heyerdahl handed the seeds off to paleobotanist Olaf Selling in Stockholm. They went to Gothenburg from there. Locals have a strain of national pride in Gothenburg for their role in the tree’s cultivation and survival. But recently, researchers in Chile discovered that another botanist preceded Heyerdahl in getting seeds off the island. Efraín Volosky Yadlin, an Argentinian-born immigrant, participated in the first agronomic studies on Rapa Nui. Sent there by the Chilean Ministry of Agriculture in the early 1950s, Volosky Yadlin collected seeds, apparently from the same tree that Heyerdahl would come upon a few years later, and proceeded to carry out his own propagation tests on the toromiro. Now the tree remains far afield, surviving in about a dozen locations around the world, mostly in botanical gardens including in Chile, in London and in southern France. Ultimately, researchers want to return the toromiro to Rapa Nui. But the tree still confronts challenges to surviving on its native ground, including a lack of genetic diversity and degraded soil on Rapa Nui. Past efforts to reestablish the tree have failed, but botanists are doing their best to overcome these hurdles. More studies will help researchers understand just what it will take to help the tree take root back on Rapa Nui and successfully end a long and difficult voyage. Excerpted from Twelve Trees: The Deep Roots of Our Future by Daniel Lewis. Published by Avid Reader Press / Simon & Schuster. Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved. Get the latest Science stories in your inbox. A Note to our Readers Smithsonian magazine participates in affiliate link advertising programs. If you purchase an item through these links, we receive a commission.

Before the toromiro disappeared from the island, at least two men grabbed seeds from the last remaining plant and brought them home

The tree that goes by toromiro has been a fragile expat for more than a half-century. Little Sophora toromiro, is far from home, no longer present on Rapa Nui, the Pacific island where it evolved. Also known as Easter Island, or Isla de Pascua in Spanish, Rapa Nui is a speck of land in the Pacific, 2,200 miles from the west coast of Chile. The tiny island encompasses just 63 square miles, and it is quite flat, with a maximum elevation of less than 1,700 feet.

The last date of the toromiro’s tenure on Rapa Nui is uncertain. Some accounts say it went extinct in the wild in 1960. Others say that it was gone by 1962, when Karl Schanz, a German meteorologist, clambered down to see the tree in the crater where it had last been spotted, and it was gone. Was it removed? Did it die, tip over and return to the earth? We will never know. Although the toromiro is gone from Rapa Nui, it survives elsewhere through luck—and pluck. Over the past century, the intermittent collecting of the toromiro’s seeds and their replanting in mainland locations have given the species purchase elsewhere. Each tree is a member of a small diaspora, with only a handful surviving in about a dozen different public and private botanical gardens around the world. This is a story of survival, persistence and, perhaps in some ways, dumb luck—a tree in decline that was rescued and whose seeds were sent to other places.


Mention Easter Island to almost anyone, and if they’ve heard of it, they’ve likely heard of its statues. Imprinted in the popular imagination are its enigmatic, massive stone sculptures, or moai. Curious investigators have speculated for more than two centuries about how more than 900 of these mysterious statues—the largest being more than 30 feet tall and weighing over 80 tons—might have been moved to locations around the island, traveling miles from the site where they were quarried. The toromiro, though, is an invisible tree on the island, its story known to very few, and its existence marked more by its absence than its presence.

The tree does have many close relatives. The Sophora genus is speciose, as biologists say—a crowded taxon consisting of some 60 different species, including a dozen closely related oceanic ones scattered across the Pacific. The toromiro is more of a shrub than a tree, and none of its close relatives is large—at least from descriptions recorded over the past century. The northernmost outpost for the Sophora genus is in Hawaiʻi, where Sophora chrysophylla is the primary food source for the palila, a critically endangered honeycreeper. Without S. chrysophylla, known as mamane in Hawaiian, the palila would not have survived the last century as its range dwindled.

The subterranean pollen record reveals that the toromiro was abundant across much of Rapa Nui, where many other now-extinct plants also thrived. Paleobotanical evidence shows that the tree’s presence on the island dates back at least 35,000 years. Its seeds are both buoyant and salt-resistant, and they probably first arrived by water, floating onto the island, probably from another Pacific island, and then it did what species do: continued its evolutionary journey in a new place to become the tree we know today. But even before the toromiro disappeared from the island, it had been without a lot of endemic companions. Fewer than 30 indigenous seed-bearing plant species have survived on Rapa Nui to the present day, and weeds, along with naturalized, cultivated shrubs, are now the main plants growing there.

The toromiro did not disappear precipitously but experienced a protracted decline. Humans arrived in Rapa Nui around the 12th century, probably not long after Polynesians reached the Hawaiian archipelago. Some hundreds of years after humans’ arrival, the island experienced a painful drop in biodiversity, and its carrying capacity plummeted as the native palm forests disappeared, replaced by grasslands. Food grew scarce, and occupants fled, thinning down to around 100 Rapa Nui at one point in the 19th century. In his deterministic 2005 book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Jared Diamond claimed the occupants were lousy land managers. His analysis of why Rapa Nui became denuded of its plant life is now out of date, as later studies have revealed the island’s complexities. To sketch the story of the weakening grip of native plant life on Rapa Nui as a predictable story of human arrogance intersecting with a small, remote and evolutionarily vulnerable spit of land is tempting, but the tale is more nuanced than that. Natives there recorded centuries-old histories of careful but intermittent conservation strategies. Some scholars have asserted that the Little Ice Age stressed resources on the island between the 16th and 19th centuries, leading to the disappearance of palms and other important contributors to the islanders’ activities and well-being. Others have pointed to prolonged droughts, while still others have continued to argue that humans were highly complicit in the island’s declining biodiversity. Were groves of palm trees decimated to create systems for rolling the giant stone carvings from quarry to coastline, where most of them have sat for many hundreds of years? Perhaps.

However the palms disappeared, their loss seems to have been a factor in the tumbling downturn of the island’s other trees, including the toromiro. The palms had made up the great majority of Rapa Nui’s tree cover, some 16 million trees that blanketed about 70 percent of the island. Some controversy remains about what particular species of palm flourished, but many believe it was Paschalococos disperta, the Rapa Nui palm. Jaime Espejo, a Chilean botanist who’s written extensively about the toromiro, noted that it probably lived in the undergrowth of the palm, lodged in an ancient ecosystem that no longer exists. Paleobotanists and archaeologists studying the island spotted the widespread loss of the palms in their investigations. At the same time, they found that the number of fish bones found in waste middens around the island dropped as fishing boats could no longer be constructed in large numbers from trees. The loss of access to fish must have been a devastating turn, because the human residents’ main proteins came from the sea.

Soil erosion, likely exacerbated by deforestation and agriculture, led to further losses of the tree. Hooved animals, arriving with European explorers in the 18th century, were also certain culprits in the toromiro’s decline and disappearance. In Hawaiʻi, sheep consume that archipelago’s species of Sophora. Another creature implicated in the destruction of much of both Rapa Nui’s and Hawaiʻi’s plant life was the Polynesian rat (Rattus exulans), as well as the bigger ship rat (Rattus rattus) and Norwegian rat (Rattus norvegicus). These rats, landing on new island homes and able to reproduce quickly, found abundant food in the form of native seeds, plants and invertebrates—and no predators. They laid waste to plant life with shocking speed.

Aerial of Sophora Toromiro
An aerial view of a toromiro in Barcelona, Spain Daderot via Wikimedia CC0

Early European accounts and pollen records tell us that by about 1600, forests in the island’s craters had disappeared, and, with that, the toromiro declined into long-term scarcity and then extirpation. The New Zealand anthropologist Steven Fischer has noted that the last forest was probably cut for firewood around 1640, making wood the most valuable commodity on the island. Driftwood became precious. So scarce was wood, Fischer observes, that the pan-Polynesian word rakau, meaning “tree,” “timber” or “wood,” came to mean “riches” or “wealth” in the old Rapa Nui language—a meaning not present in any other use of the word elsewhere in Polynesia, including in Tahiti, Tonga, Hawaiʻi and New Zealand. It’s ironic that after the deforestation of the island’s trees, new linguistic meanings sprouted out of the island’s impending botanical doom.

Amid these centuries-long difficulties, but long before the toromiro disappeared, a wood-based culture thrived. The Rapa Nui had a particular passion for carving; beyond their giant stone statues, they favored the toromiro for its durable and fine-grained wood and reddish hue. Although primarily used for ritual objects, the toromiro was also serviceable for building material in houses, household utensils, statuettes and paddles. These artifacts survive in museums around the world. Some of them are hundreds of years old, and they might provide unexpected addenda to our understandings of the tree’s deeper history, offered up through dendrochronological analysis. Studying the annual growth rings in the wood could provide details we lack: the pace of growth of the wood, environmental pressures acting on the tree, its ultimate size and many of the other clues revealed through laboratory work with wood specimens.

Part of our lack of knowledge about the tree’s wood is because it has always been uncommon on the island, at least since Western contact. Rapa Nui came with inherent geographic disadvantages for plant survival, including few sheltered habitats with steep hillsides or deep ravines in which toromiro could remain hidden away from humans. The three volcanic craters on the island are the only such hiding places. In 1911, the Chilean botanist Francisco Fuentes noted that the toromiro was rare, only to be found in Rano Kau, the largest of the craters. The Swedish botanist Carl Skottsberg, who also worked on Hawaiian flora, visited Rano Kau in 1917 and found only a single specimen.

A compelling global exploration of nature and survival as seen through a dozen species of trees.

The final contact with the tree on its native soil occurred when the Norwegian explorer Thor Heyerdahl collected seeds from the last surviving example. This was likely the same tree that Skottsberg had found in the shelter of Rano Kau. The egg-shaped crater is about a mile across and has its own microclimate, largely out of the winds and weather, and protected from grazing ungulates by a rock formation. Foot traffic remained down in the last century, as little else lives in the crater that can be harvested or cut down. Innumerable swampy pockets of water make the area difficult to traverse. A beautiful, multicolored, shallow lake of open water and floating mats of peat cover much of the bottom of the crater. There, the tiny toromiro held on.

Heyerdahl, who had already been traveling around the Pacific Ocean in the 1940s, became famous, or infamous, for floating a radical new theory: that the islands in the Pacific had been populated initially by American Indians from the mainland of South America, rather than by people from Asia or from other Polynesian islands. In 1947, he launched an expedition with a primitive raft named Kon-Tiki and made a 5,000-mile journey, heading west from Peru.

What’s often lost in the voluminous writings about Heyerdahl and his oceanfaring obsessions was his interest in Rapa Nui. Björn Aldén, a Swedish botanist with the Gothenburg Botanical Garden, became friends with Heyerdahl and has worked to return the toromiro to its native land. In a letter to Björn, Heyerdahl decried the “tankelöse treskjaerere,” or “thoughtless woodcutters.” He noted how good it felt to have helped to save the species by collecting a handful of seeds that hung from the tree’s sole remaining branch. Heyerdahl couldn’t recount the exact date, or even the year, but thought it was sometime in late 1955 or early 1956. Heyerdahl handed the seeds off to paleobotanist Olaf Selling in Stockholm. They went to Gothenburg from there.

Locals have a strain of national pride in Gothenburg for their role in the tree’s cultivation and survival. But recently, researchers in Chile discovered that another botanist preceded Heyerdahl in getting seeds off the island. Efraín Volosky Yadlin, an Argentinian-born immigrant, participated in the first agronomic studies on Rapa Nui. Sent there by the Chilean Ministry of Agriculture in the early 1950s, Volosky Yadlin collected seeds, apparently from the same tree that Heyerdahl would come upon a few years later, and proceeded to carry out his own propagation tests on the toromiro.

Now the tree remains far afield, surviving in about a dozen locations around the world, mostly in botanical gardens including in Chile, in London and in southern France. Ultimately, researchers want to return the toromiro to Rapa Nui. But the tree still confronts challenges to surviving on its native ground, including a lack of genetic diversity and degraded soil on Rapa Nui. Past efforts to reestablish the tree have failed, but botanists are doing their best to overcome these hurdles. More studies will help researchers understand just what it will take to help the tree take root back on Rapa Nui and successfully end a long and difficult voyage.

Excerpted from Twelve Trees: The Deep Roots of Our Future by Daniel Lewis. Published by Avid Reader Press / Simon & Schuster. Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved.

Get the latest Science stories in your inbox.

A Note to our Readers
Smithsonian magazine participates in affiliate link advertising programs. If you purchase an item through these links, we receive a commission.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

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

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.”

Red Tractor ad banned for misleading environmental claims

The Advertising Standards Authority upheld a complaint by environment charity River Action.

Red Tractor ad banned for misleading environmental claimsRed TractorThe Red Tractor advert was last shown in 2023 but will now be banned for future use unless it is updatedA TV advert by Red Tractor, the UK's biggest certifier of farm products on supermarket shelves, has been banned for exaggerating the scheme's environmental benefits and misleading the public.The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled the organisation had provided "insufficient evidence" that its farms complied with basic environmental laws to substantiate the claims in its ad.Environmental group River Action, which brought the complaint in 2023, said the ruling showed the scheme was "greenwashing" and urged supermarkets to stop using it.But Red Tractor called the watchdog's decision "fundamentally flawed" and argued that the scheme's focus was animal welfare not environmental standards.In 2021, Red Tractor aired an advert in which it said: "From field to store all our standards are met. When the Red Tractor's there, your food's farmed with care."You can watch it below.Watch: the ad banned by the Advertising Standards AuthorityThe environmental charity River Action took issue with the ad, which ran for a further two years, and complained to the watchdog that it suggested to consumers that Red Tractor farms will "ensure a high degree of environmental protection".The charity pointed to a report by the Environment Agency, released in 2020, which looked at how many breaches of environmental law there were on Red Tractor farms in the previous five years. The report concluded that these farms were "not currently an indicator of good environmental performance".After more than two years of investigation - one of the longest running - the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld the complaint.It said that Red Tractor had failed to provide "sufficient evidence" that its farms met "basic" environmental laws and had a good environmental outcome to substantiate the claims in the ad.It also ruled that as a result the advert was "misleading" and "exaggerated" the benefits of the scheme.River Action welcomed the decision by the ASA and called on supermarkets to act."What this shows is that for their environmental credentials Red Tractor has been misleading the public and their supplies," said Amy Fairman, head of campaigns at River Action. "So, we're looking for suppliers like supermarkets to really examine and take stock of what is on their shelves."She added that challenging such adverts was important because of the pollution risk to the environment from agricultural pollution.In 2022, the Environment Audit Committee concluded that agriculture was one of the most common factors preventing rivers from being in good health - affecting 40% of them. The risks to the environment include from slurry and pesticide runoff.BBC News/Tony JolliffeAmy Fairman represents environmental charity River Action which campaigns for clean and healthy riversBut Red Tractor, which assures 45,000 farms in the UK, have pushed back strongly, calling the finding by the ASA "fundamentally flawed".Jim Mosley, CEO of Red Tractor, told the BBC: "They believe that we have implied an environmental claim. Nowhere in the voiceover or the imagery is any environmental claim actually made."He argued that the ASA only found a minority of people would think the advert meant Red Tractor farms had good environmental standards, and in fact the scheme is focused on other issues."Red Tractor's core purpose is food safety, animal welfare, and traceability. Whilst we have some environmental standards, they are a small part. And as a consequence, we leave that entirely to the Environment Agency to enforce environmental legislation," said Mr Moseley.When asked if that meant Red Tractor does not know if its farms are complying with environmental law, he said: "Correct".But many supermarkets do refer to the environmental benefits of Red Tractor farms.Natalie Smith, Tesco's head of agriculture said last month, on the 25-year anniversary of Red Tractor: "Certification schemes play a key role in providing reassurance for customers, and over the past 25 years, Red Tractor has established itself as a mark of quality, standing for… environmental protection."On Morrisons' website it states: "100% of the fresh pork, beef, lamb, poultry, milk and cheddar cheese we sell in our stores comes from farms certified by Red Tractor, or an approved equivalent scheme, giving customers assurance… environmental protection."Both supermarkets were asked if they stood by the Red Tractor logo.Morrisons did not respond to comment and Tesco referred the BBC to their industry body the British Retail Consortium.The consortium said that "retailers remain committed to working with Red Tractor", but that the organisation themselves are owners of the scheme.

Tunnel Farming Helps South Dakota Farmers Extend Growing Season by up to 4 Months

Some farmers in South Dakota are using farm tunnels to extend their growing season

When snow covers the frozen ground, and most South Dakota farmers have sold or stored their products for the season, the operators of Cedar Creek Gardens are still able to grow vegetables and harvest a lucrative crop.Located in a remote area southwest of Murdo, about 12 miles south of Interstate 90, the sprawling farm is one of dozens in the state that utilize what are called farm tunnels to extend the planting and growing seasons.The tunnels are fortified above-ground hoop buildings covered in plastic that capture heat from the sun, creating a greenhouse effect. Many of the tunnels at Cedar Creek are covered with two separated layers of plastic and have fans that circulate warm air between the layers, creating even warmer growing conditions.The tunnels differ from greenhouses in that crops are grown directly into the soil rather than in raised boxes or beds, and they are watered from the ground up instead of from above.Cedar Creek is run by Peggy Martin and Bud Manke, who are business partners and good friends. Martin and Manke were some of the first South Dakota farmers to install tunnels after reading about them online in the early 2000s.“At first, we were just going to grow food for our families,” Martin said. “But it’s become a passion, and they (the tunnels) have helped us grow to what we are now.”Beyond extending the growing season by up to four months each year, the controlled weather conditions and targeted water use also allow them to produce top-quality, organically grown vegetables.One-pound tomatoes that are firm, filled with nutrients and free of blemishes. Banana peppers as long as bananas and so crisp they snap. Sweet onions the size of softballs. Kale plants that top 5 feet in height. Tunnels part of a diversified operation On their farm, they grow crops on 14 acres, have about 1,400 free-range laying chickens, and Manke raises cattle. The farm is dotted with about a dozen tunnel buildings, the largest of which are up to 14 feet tall, 30 feet wide and 200 feet long.Martin said the tunnels have enabled them to expand their farm and its output over the past 25 years and help them grow into the largest South Dakota specialty farming operation west of the Missouri River.Martin, Manke and the farmhands they hire grow a wide variety of seasonal produce, including tomatoes (the primary cash crop) as well as pumpkins, melons, sweet and green onions, red and green peppers, kale, cabbage, broccoli, sugar-snap peas, radishes, lettuce and zucchini.The foods they grow and raise are sold at area farm stands and farmer’s markets but also through a weekly wholesale business that serves West River grocery stores, restaurants and a buyer’s group.The tunnels have allowed them to plant vegetables as early as March and maintain growth of some hearty varieties for picking as late as mid-December. The first frost date in their region is typically around Sept. 15, Manke said.“There can be snow out here in the wintertime and it’s 20 degrees when the sun comes up, but it can be 100 degrees inside the tunnels,” Manke said. “It can actually get too hot sometimes, so we have to be careful and open things up.” Higher productivity, higher profits Martin did the math to show how the tunnels can increase productivity and profits.In a 200-foot tunnel, they can place three rows of 100 tomato plants, each of which can produce 40 pounds of fruit, more than double a typical household tomato plant, she said. At an average of $2.25 per pound, and even with 20% waste, that single tunnel can produce $21,600 of tomatoes in a single grow-out.Rachel Lawton, the South Dakota urban conservationist for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, runs the federal program that provides financial assistance to qualified individuals and operations that want to install tunnel farms.Lawton, based in Sioux Falls, said the tunnels aren’t suitable for high-production farms that raise thousands of bushels of corn, soybeans or wheat. But they work well for specialty crop farmers or backyard gardeners who want to produce a stable, almost year-round crop of vegetables, she said.“The season extension with high tunnels is beneficial, but it’s even more beneficial when you look at the quality of produce they’re producing while also getting protection from wind, hail, frost, chemical drift and pests,” she said.NRCS accepts applications for financial assistance in development of tunnel gardens each fall, with recipients receiving up to 75% of the cost of a project, Lawton said. In addition, successful applicants receive NRCS help in developing a wider-ranging conservation plan for their commercial farms or home gardening projects, she said. Interest in tunnels growing in South Dakota Lawton said she has seen increased interest in tunnel farming in South Dakota in recent years.In recent years, the agency has provided funding for about 10 to 15 tunnels projects a year with money from the USDA Environmental Quality Incentive Program, or EQIP.The largest tunnels, up to about 3,000 square feet, can cost more than $20,000, though smaller tunnels with fewer amenities cost far less, Lawton said. Tunnels cannot be used for equipment storage or livestock handling, and NRCS applicants must own or rent land, be U.S. citizens and make less than $900,000 a year, she said.Lawton cautioned that people who consider construction of a tunnel should be aware that they require frequent maintenance and are susceptible to damage from the elements.“As wonderful and as cool as they are, I wouldn’t say they are the solution to everything,” she said. “There can be a lot of pitfalls and a lot of work if you aren’t an experienced grower.” Martin now a ‘resident expert’ on tunnels The tunnels come in three basic sizes, from “high tunnels” that are the tallest and widest to “caterpillar tunnels” that are shorter and more narrow to “low tunnels” which are light enough to lift and change positions quickly.Lawton refers to Martin as South Dakota’s “high tunnel resident expert” because she has more high tunnels than most South Dakota farmers and because she has more than two decades of operating them.Martin likens the tunnels to “problematic 2-year-old kids” that require patience and wisdom to manage properly. “You can’t just plant them and then leave home,” she said. “If there’s bad weather coming, you have to roll down the sides and get them buttoned up.”But for those who accept the hard work and risk, the payoff in extended growing time, improved quality of products and protection of natural resources can far outweigh those drawbacks, Lawton said. Conservation benefits include soil conservation and reduced water, pesticide and electricity use, she said.“You can do multiple successions of crops, and you have a better growing environment, which essentially translates into dollars because you can grow more and sell more or grow more food for your own family,” Lawton said. “It all starts with conservation, but the end product is something that is more efficient, more productive and more financially beneficial all at the same time.”This story was originally published by South Dakota News Watch and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

Trump’s Tariffs Should Force a Reckoning With America’s Soy Industry

Usually, the best thing about being in the American soy business is the predictability. Buy seeds from the same companies, sow them, water them, harvest the crop, and sell to the same buyers who have been buying it for decades. The last few years have been particularly profitable, with historically high prices and a consistent client in China, the world’s biggest buyer of soy. The United States is the world’s second-biggest producer of soy, after Brazil, growing over 80 million acres of the oily bean across vast swathes of the country’s farmland. About a quarter of all that crop goes straight to China, bringing in $13.2 billion last year alone.Now that market is gone, as is any predictability. After the U.S. levied heavy tariffs on Chinese imports in April, China responded by refusing to buy American soy. That was in May. Now, with the American soy harvest nearing the end of its season, American farmers are panicking. As the global soy value chain rearranges in real time, Brazil has become China’s biggest supplier while Americans go hat in hand to small markets like Nigeria and Vietnam hoping to cut some deals. The Trump administration has hinted at a bailout. And, to add insult to injury, Argentina, which the administration just promised a $20 billion currency swap to rescue its flailing economy, is now selling shiploads of soy to China.This agricultural drama has been getting a lot of media attention over the past few weeks, in part because it is exemplary of the helter-skelter policymaking of the Trump administration and its unpredictable global implications. The bigger story about soy, though, isn’t the current trade war, but the fact we’re producing far too much of the crop—not so humans can eat it, but so animals can.In 1962, China’s per capita GDP was $71 and the average Chinese person ate about 9 pounds of meat per year. But as the country industrialized and urbanized in the wake of Deng Xiaoping’s economic reforms, increased consumer spending power fed a growing appetite for meat, especially pork. That, in turn, drove the country to pursue agricultural modernization, replacing smallholder farms with industrialized ones and embracing an “industrial meat regime” rooted in factory farming pork and poultry. In remaking its economy, China also remade its diet. Today, China’s per capita meat consumption is 154 pounds. The country has grown into the world’s biggest pork producer and pioneered massive pig production facilities like a 26-story mega-farm in Hubei province. Factory farming entails taking animals out of fields and growing them for the entirety of their lives in enclosed warehouses where their diets can be optimized to maximize quick growth for slaughter. But to feed all those animals, the fields need to be used to grow feed like corn and soy in massive quantities. China embraced soy production, but soon its demand for meat far outstripped its supply of available land. Today it imports 85 percent of the soy it uses, representing 60 percent of all global soy imports.While China’s embrace of a meat-heavy diet is remarkable in its speed and scale, it is only catching up to Europe, which has long practiced factory farming, and still lags the United States, which pioneered industrial animal farming and where per capita meat consumption is 220 pounds per year (and more if you count fish). The geographer Tony Weis calls the remaking of food systems to serve factory farming “meatification,” which entails diverting grain and oilseed production from human food toward animal feed. In the U.S., 35 percent of all corn and over 90 percent of soy becomes animal feed. In fact, 67 percent of all crops go to animal feed while 27 percent go directly to humans (the rest goes to biofuels). (Globally, 77 percent of all soy goes to animal feed; only 7 percent goes to human food like soy milk and tofu.) While this is inefficient and environmentally dubious, at least the U.S. can handle its domestic demand. The EU and China can’t. Hence the huge market for American soy abroad and Brazil’s and Argentina’s massive soy economies.As China’s demand for foreign soy grew, American farmers grew more of it: U.S. soy production and exports have double over the past 30 years, roughly tracking increases in Chinese meat consumption and soy demand for feed. The same was the case in Brazil. Importing soy amounts to offshoring demand for land. And that means offshoring deforestation. Most deforestation to create new soy farms takes place in South America. And with the U.S. cut off by China, Brazil is ending a moratorium on deforestation to cash in. This is just one of the many harms caused by a global appetite for meat. The recently-released “EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy, sustainable, and just food systems”—a collaboration between the Swedish food NGO EAT and the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet—shows that the global food system is outstripping planetary boundaries, driving unsustainable climate change, land use change, and eutrophication of water. The single biggest culprit by far is meat. China may have offshored deforestation, but its glut of factory farms have caused a series of crises at home as well, such as widespread pollution and animal disease outbreaks, including a swine fever epidemic in 2019 that killed tens of millions of animals.The irony here is that soy itself is an incredible crop and food. It’s hardy, adaptable, cheap to grow, and it fixes nitrogen in the soil, minimizing the need for fertilizer. The soybean is highly nutritious, packed with 35 percent protein and easy to cook or process into a variety of products, from oil and soy milk through to edamame, tofu, tempeh, and plant-based meats like Impossible burgers. This polyvalence and ease of use is precisely why it’s so widely used in animal feed. It’s just that feeding it to animals, beyond the environmental downsides, is inefficient. Any animal will consume far more calories and protein over its lifetime than it will yield as meat; the average pig will only yield about 9 percent the protein that it consumes. Eating soy directly requires far less soy (and land) than feeding it to animals. It’s not that soy is inherently harmful. It’s how we use it that’s harmful.Yes, American soy farmers are suffering. But we should take this moment to reflect on why we use so much American farmland to feed pigs both at home and in China, giving fuel to an environmentally destructive industry. How much soy we produce shouldn’t be a barometer for how well our agriculture sector is doing, but for how unsustainable it is.

Usually, the best thing about being in the American soy business is the predictability. Buy seeds from the same companies, sow them, water them, harvest the crop, and sell to the same buyers who have been buying it for decades. The last few years have been particularly profitable, with historically high prices and a consistent client in China, the world’s biggest buyer of soy. The United States is the world’s second-biggest producer of soy, after Brazil, growing over 80 million acres of the oily bean across vast swathes of the country’s farmland. About a quarter of all that crop goes straight to China, bringing in $13.2 billion last year alone.Now that market is gone, as is any predictability. After the U.S. levied heavy tariffs on Chinese imports in April, China responded by refusing to buy American soy. That was in May. Now, with the American soy harvest nearing the end of its season, American farmers are panicking. As the global soy value chain rearranges in real time, Brazil has become China’s biggest supplier while Americans go hat in hand to small markets like Nigeria and Vietnam hoping to cut some deals. The Trump administration has hinted at a bailout. And, to add insult to injury, Argentina, which the administration just promised a $20 billion currency swap to rescue its flailing economy, is now selling shiploads of soy to China.This agricultural drama has been getting a lot of media attention over the past few weeks, in part because it is exemplary of the helter-skelter policymaking of the Trump administration and its unpredictable global implications. The bigger story about soy, though, isn’t the current trade war, but the fact we’re producing far too much of the crop—not so humans can eat it, but so animals can.In 1962, China’s per capita GDP was $71 and the average Chinese person ate about 9 pounds of meat per year. But as the country industrialized and urbanized in the wake of Deng Xiaoping’s economic reforms, increased consumer spending power fed a growing appetite for meat, especially pork. That, in turn, drove the country to pursue agricultural modernization, replacing smallholder farms with industrialized ones and embracing an “industrial meat regime” rooted in factory farming pork and poultry. In remaking its economy, China also remade its diet. Today, China’s per capita meat consumption is 154 pounds. The country has grown into the world’s biggest pork producer and pioneered massive pig production facilities like a 26-story mega-farm in Hubei province. Factory farming entails taking animals out of fields and growing them for the entirety of their lives in enclosed warehouses where their diets can be optimized to maximize quick growth for slaughter. But to feed all those animals, the fields need to be used to grow feed like corn and soy in massive quantities. China embraced soy production, but soon its demand for meat far outstripped its supply of available land. Today it imports 85 percent of the soy it uses, representing 60 percent of all global soy imports.While China’s embrace of a meat-heavy diet is remarkable in its speed and scale, it is only catching up to Europe, which has long practiced factory farming, and still lags the United States, which pioneered industrial animal farming and where per capita meat consumption is 220 pounds per year (and more if you count fish). The geographer Tony Weis calls the remaking of food systems to serve factory farming “meatification,” which entails diverting grain and oilseed production from human food toward animal feed. In the U.S., 35 percent of all corn and over 90 percent of soy becomes animal feed. In fact, 67 percent of all crops go to animal feed while 27 percent go directly to humans (the rest goes to biofuels). (Globally, 77 percent of all soy goes to animal feed; only 7 percent goes to human food like soy milk and tofu.) While this is inefficient and environmentally dubious, at least the U.S. can handle its domestic demand. The EU and China can’t. Hence the huge market for American soy abroad and Brazil’s and Argentina’s massive soy economies.As China’s demand for foreign soy grew, American farmers grew more of it: U.S. soy production and exports have double over the past 30 years, roughly tracking increases in Chinese meat consumption and soy demand for feed. The same was the case in Brazil. Importing soy amounts to offshoring demand for land. And that means offshoring deforestation. Most deforestation to create new soy farms takes place in South America. And with the U.S. cut off by China, Brazil is ending a moratorium on deforestation to cash in. This is just one of the many harms caused by a global appetite for meat. The recently-released “EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy, sustainable, and just food systems”—a collaboration between the Swedish food NGO EAT and the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet—shows that the global food system is outstripping planetary boundaries, driving unsustainable climate change, land use change, and eutrophication of water. The single biggest culprit by far is meat. China may have offshored deforestation, but its glut of factory farms have caused a series of crises at home as well, such as widespread pollution and animal disease outbreaks, including a swine fever epidemic in 2019 that killed tens of millions of animals.The irony here is that soy itself is an incredible crop and food. It’s hardy, adaptable, cheap to grow, and it fixes nitrogen in the soil, minimizing the need for fertilizer. The soybean is highly nutritious, packed with 35 percent protein and easy to cook or process into a variety of products, from oil and soy milk through to edamame, tofu, tempeh, and plant-based meats like Impossible burgers. This polyvalence and ease of use is precisely why it’s so widely used in animal feed. It’s just that feeding it to animals, beyond the environmental downsides, is inefficient. Any animal will consume far more calories and protein over its lifetime than it will yield as meat; the average pig will only yield about 9 percent the protein that it consumes. Eating soy directly requires far less soy (and land) than feeding it to animals. It’s not that soy is inherently harmful. It’s how we use it that’s harmful.Yes, American soy farmers are suffering. But we should take this moment to reflect on why we use so much American farmland to feed pigs both at home and in China, giving fuel to an environmentally destructive industry. How much soy we produce shouldn’t be a barometer for how well our agriculture sector is doing, but for how unsustainable it is.

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.