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.

L.A. fire contaminant levels could sicken the marine food chain, new tests show

News Feed
Friday, March 28, 2025

Levels of lead and other heavy metals spiked in the coastal waters off Los Angeles after January’s fires, raising serious concerns for the long-term health of fish, marine mammals and the marine food chain, according to test results released Thursday by the nonprofit environmental group Heal the Bay.For human surfers and swimmers, the results were somewhat encouraging. Contaminant levels from sampled water weren’t high enough to pose likely health risks to recreational beachgoers. But tests of seawater collected before and after the heavy rains that came in late January, after the fires abated, identified five heavy metals — beryllium, copper, chromium, nickel and lead — at levels significantly above established safety thresholds for marine life.Even at relatively low concentrations, these metals can damage cells and disrupt reproduction and other biological processes in sea animals.The metals also accumulate in the tissues of animals exposed to them, and then make their way up the food chain as those organisms are eaten by larger ones.“Most of these metals are easy to transfer through the food web and impact humans directly or indirectly, via food or drinking water,” said Dimitri Deheyn, a marine biologist at UC San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography. All are found in dust and rocks, and aren’t harmful in the context of those minute, naturally-occurring exposures. “That is why these elements are dangerous,” Deheyn said. “Our body is designed to take them up, but we are usually exposed to only a small amount of it.”On Jan. 24 and Jan. 25 — before the rain that came the following week — Heal the Bay staff collected seawater samples from eight locations along the coastline in or near the Palisades burn scar, in addition to control samples well outside the burn zone at Paradise Cove in Malibu and Malaga Cove in Palos Verdes Estates.They took additional samples on Jan. 28, after the first major storm in months dropped half an inch of rain on the L.A. basin and flushed debris into the sea.They tested for 116 pollutants. The vast majority were either not present or detected in only minuscule amounts in almost all the samples collected.But levels of beryllium, copper, chromium, nickel and lead were two to four times higher than the maximum allowed under California state law at Big Rock Beach in Malibu, where the wreckage of several destroyed houses still lie on the sand. “That’s not surprising as that’s where we have burned debris within the high tide line, [where] every minute of every day the ocean is lapping more and more contaminants into the sea,” said Heal the Bay Chief Executive Tracy Quinn.At the Santa Monica Pier and Dockweiler Beach, both of which are south of the burn scar, levels of both lead and chromium were roughly triple California’s safety threshold for marine life. At the Santa Monica test location after the rains, the level of beryllium — a metal that is toxic to fish and corals and causes respiratory distress in humans — was more than 10 times the maximum limit allowed.Further study is needed to determine whether fire-related contaminants are pooling in those areas or if the high levels are coming from another source of pollution, Quinn said. “We don’t recommend that people consume fish that are caught in the Santa Monica Bay right now,” Quinn said.The levels in these first results suggest that more testing is warranted, said Susanne Brander, an associate professor and ecotoxicologist at Oregon State University. “Anytime there’s a large residential wildfire, this is the kind of contamination you’re going to see,” she said. “I would look at these results and say, OK, we need to test soils, we need to test drinking water,.”Quinn noted several limitations in Heal the Bay’s data. The samples were collected in late January, and may not be representative of current ocean conditions. There are also no baseline data showing prefire conditions in the same area to which they could compare their samples, because there are no regular testing programs for these contaminants, she said.The organization also sampled 25 different polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, organic compounds that form when oil, wood or garbage burns. The organization expects results in the coming weeks, Quinn said. January’s fires and the heavy rains that followed sent unprecedented amounts of ash, debris and chemical residue coursing into the sea via the L.A. region’s massive network of storm drains and concrete-lined rivers.The Palisades and Eaton fires burned more than 40,000 acres and destroyed at least 12,000 buildings. In the months since they erupted, the remnants of cars, plastics, batteries, household chemicals and other potentially toxic material have continued to wash into the sea and up onto beaches.“I don’t think there’s a precedent for this kind of input into the ocean ecosystem,” marine biologist Noelle Bowlin said in January.In addition to fire contamination, California’s sea life is also under threat from an outbreak of domoic acid, a neurotoxin released by some marine algae species.Hundreds of animals have washed up sick or dead along California’s southern and central coasts in recent weeks, in the fourth domoic acid event in as many years.While nutrients such as sulfate and phosphorous that feed harmful algae were among the substances the fires released into the sea, Heal the Bay said it has not found a correlation between fire-related pollution and the outbreak now sickening marine animals.Understanding all of the effects that heavy metals, chemicals, bacteria and other pollutants released by the fire will have on the marine ecosystem “will take a huge, collaborative effort,” said Jenn Cossaboon, a fourth-year student at the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine who recently finished a doctorate on endocrine disruption in fish.“Species at each level of the food chain, from invertebrates to fish, birds, marine mammals and humans, can be affected differently based on their physiology and feeding strategies,” she said. “It will be very important to connect each of these pieces of the puzzle to really understand the impacts on the food web.”

Levels of lead and other heavy metals spiked in L.A.'s coastal waters after the January fires, raising serious concerns for the long-term health of the marine food chain.

Levels of lead and other heavy metals spiked in the coastal waters off Los Angeles after January’s fires, raising serious concerns for the long-term health of fish, marine mammals and the marine food chain, according to test results released Thursday by the nonprofit environmental group Heal the Bay.

For human surfers and swimmers, the results were somewhat encouraging. Contaminant levels from sampled water weren’t high enough to pose likely health risks to recreational beachgoers.

But tests of seawater collected before and after the heavy rains that came in late January, after the fires abated, identified five heavy metals — beryllium, copper, chromium, nickel and lead — at levels significantly above established safety thresholds for marine life.

Even at relatively low concentrations, these metals can damage cells and disrupt reproduction and other biological processes in sea animals.

The metals also accumulate in the tissues of animals exposed to them, and then make their way up the food chain as those organisms are eaten by larger ones.

“Most of these metals are easy to transfer through the food web and impact humans directly or indirectly, via food or drinking water,” said Dimitri Deheyn, a marine biologist at UC San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

All are found in dust and rocks, and aren’t harmful in the context of those minute, naturally-occurring exposures.

“That is why these elements are dangerous,” Deheyn said. “Our body is designed to take them up, but we are usually exposed to only a small amount of it.”

On Jan. 24 and Jan. 25 — before the rain that came the following week — Heal the Bay staff collected seawater samples from eight locations along the coastline in or near the Palisades burn scar, in addition to control samples well outside the burn zone at Paradise Cove in Malibu and Malaga Cove in Palos Verdes Estates.

They took additional samples on Jan. 28, after the first major storm in months dropped half an inch of rain on the L.A. basin and flushed debris into the sea.

They tested for 116 pollutants. The vast majority were either not present or detected in only minuscule amounts in almost all the samples collected.

But levels of beryllium, copper, chromium, nickel and lead were two to four times higher than the maximum allowed under California state law at Big Rock Beach in Malibu, where the wreckage of several destroyed houses still lie on the sand.

“That’s not surprising as that’s where we have burned debris within the high tide line, [where] every minute of every day the ocean is lapping more and more contaminants into the sea,” said Heal the Bay Chief Executive Tracy Quinn.

At the Santa Monica Pier and Dockweiler Beach, both of which are south of the burn scar, levels of both lead and chromium were roughly triple California’s safety threshold for marine life. At the Santa Monica test location after the rains, the level of beryllium — a metal that is toxic to fish and corals and causes respiratory distress in humans — was more than 10 times the maximum limit allowed.

Further study is needed to determine whether fire-related contaminants are pooling in those areas or if the high levels are coming from another source of pollution, Quinn said.

“We don’t recommend that people consume fish that are caught in the Santa Monica Bay right now,” Quinn said.

The levels in these first results suggest that more testing is warranted, said Susanne Brander, an associate professor and ecotoxicologist at Oregon State University.

“Anytime there’s a large residential wildfire, this is the kind of contamination you’re going to see,” she said. “I would look at these results and say, OK, we need to test soils, we need to test drinking water,.”

Quinn noted several limitations in Heal the Bay’s data. The samples were collected in late January, and may not be representative of current ocean conditions. There are also no baseline data showing prefire conditions in the same area to which they could compare their samples, because there are no regular testing programs for these contaminants, she said.

The organization also sampled 25 different polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, organic compounds that form when oil, wood or garbage burns. The organization expects results in the coming weeks, Quinn said.

January’s fires and the heavy rains that followed sent unprecedented amounts of ash, debris and chemical residue coursing into the sea via the L.A. region’s massive network of storm drains and concrete-lined rivers.

The Palisades and Eaton fires burned more than 40,000 acres and destroyed at least 12,000 buildings. In the months since they erupted, the remnants of cars, plastics, batteries, household chemicals and other potentially toxic material have continued to wash into the sea and up onto beaches.

“I don’t think there’s a precedent for this kind of input into the ocean ecosystem,” marine biologist Noelle Bowlin said in January.

In addition to fire contamination, California’s sea life is also under threat from an outbreak of domoic acid, a neurotoxin released by some marine algae species.

Hundreds of animals have washed up sick or dead along California’s southern and central coasts in recent weeks, in the fourth domoic acid event in as many years.

While nutrients such as sulfate and phosphorous that feed harmful algae were among the substances the fires released into the sea, Heal the Bay said it has not found a correlation between fire-related pollution and the outbreak now sickening marine animals.

Understanding all of the effects that heavy metals, chemicals, bacteria and other pollutants released by the fire will have on the marine ecosystem “will take a huge, collaborative effort,” said Jenn Cossaboon, a fourth-year student at the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine who recently finished a doctorate on endocrine disruption in fish.

“Species at each level of the food chain, from invertebrates to fish, birds, marine mammals and humans, can be affected differently based on their physiology and feeding strategies,” she said. “It will be very important to connect each of these pieces of the puzzle to really understand the impacts on the food web.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Mothers' Milk Might Be Key To Avoiding Childhood Food Allergies

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterMONDAY, Dec. 15, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Farm kids tend to have far fewer allergies than urban children, and a...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterMONDAY, Dec. 15, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Farm kids tend to have far fewer allergies than urban children, and a new study offers one possible explanation: The milk provided by breastfeeding moms.Children who grow up in farming communities have immune systems that mature faster, with higher levels of protective antibodies during their first year of life, researchers reported Dec. 10 in Science Translational Medicine.They’re getting these antibodies — and the immune cells that produce them — from their mothers’ milk, researchers say.Researchers came to this conclusion studying infants from Old Order Mennonite farming families in New York’s Finger Lakes region.“We’ve known that Old Order Mennonite children are remarkably protected from allergies,” said senior researcher Dr. Kirsi Järvinen-Seppo, chief of pediatric allergy and immunology at the University of Rochester Medicine’s Golisano Children’s Hospital.“What this study shows is that their B cell and antibody responses are essentially ahead of schedule compared to urban infants,” she continued in a news release. “Their immune systems seem better equipped, earlier in life, to handle foods and other exposures without overreacting.”For the new study, researchers compared 78 mother/child pairs from the Old Order Mennonite community with 79 moms and kids from urban and suburban Rochester. They followed the mothers and children through the first year of life, collecting blood, stool, saliva and human milk samples.Results showed that farm-exposed babies had higher levels of immune cells, suggesting that their immune systems were more mature than those of city kids.The researchers also found higher levels of antibodies in the human milk samples provided by their moms.The research team then took a closer look at egg allergies, one of the most common food allergies in young children.Farm children had higher levels of egg-specific antibodies in their blood, and mothers had higher levels of egg-specific antibodies in their breast milk, the study found.Meanwhile, Rochester babies had varying levels of egg-specific antibodies in their blood, and this was linked to their risk for egg allergy. The more antibodies, the lower their risk of egg allergy.“We saw a continuum: the more egg-specific antibodies in breast milk, the less likely babies were to develop egg allergy,” Järvinen-Seppo said. “We cannot prove causality from this study, but the association is compelling.”Why did Mennonite moms have more of these egg-specific antibodies? Probably diet, researchers said.Old Order Mennonite families typically raise their own chickens and eat a lot of eggs. That repeated exposure seems to boost mothers’ antibody levels against egg proteins, and they pass that protection on to their children through breast milk.“Just as an infection or a vaccine can boost your antibody levels, regularly eating certain foods could do the same,” Järvinen-Seppo said. “Mennonite mothers eat more eggs, and that may help them pass more egg-specific antibodies to their babies through breast milk.”Mennonite infants were also born with higher cord blood levels of antibodies to dust mites and horses, reflecting the environmental allergens to which their moms are regularly exposed, researchers said.But Rochester babies had higher levels of antibodies to peanuts and cats, reflecting the more common allergen exposures of suburban and urban moms.These results show why breastfeeding has not been consistently linked to a lower risk of food allergies, Järvinen-Seppo said, because it all depends on what a mom has been eating.“Our data suggest there may be particular benefit when mothers have high levels of food-specific antibodies in their milk,” she said. “Not every mother does, and that could help explain why results have been mixed on the association between breast feeding and food allergy.”However, mothers’ milk likely isn’t the only reason why farm kids have fewer allergies, Järvinen-Seppo said.Daily exposure to farm animals and germs, drinking well water, less use of antibiotics and distinctly different patterns of gut bacteria all have been previously shown to also help shape the allergy resistance of rural children, researchers said.They’re now conducting a clinical trial involving expecting mothers who will be assigned to either eat or avoid egg and peanut during late pregnancy and early breastfeeding. The team then will compare mothers’ antibody levels and their kids’ development of food allergies.“We already know that introducing peanut and egg directly to babies early in life can lower allergy risk,” Järvinen-Seppo said. “Now we’re asking whether mothers’ diets during pregnancy and breastfeeding can add another layer of protection through the antibodies they pass to their babies. Ultimately, our goal is to translate what we learn from these communities into safe, practical strategies for all families.”The American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology has more on food allergies.SOURCES: University of Rochester, news release, Dec. 9, 2025; Science Translational Medicine, Dec. 10, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

A Different Kind of Materialism

Tamar Adler’s food writing doubles as a philosophy of kitchen scraps.

Broccoli stems don’t tend to rouse strong emotions. Most home cooks toss them in the trash or compost without a second thought. But when I threw out some broccoli stalks—tough and woody ones, let it be known—while cooking dinner recently, guilt overcame me. I could have pickled those stalks; I could have boiled them and turned them into pesto. Instead, I had turned them into landfill.Waste is endemic to American cooking and eating. The Department of Agriculture estimates that the country loses or throws away 30 to 40 percent of its food supply. But my stem shame didn’t come solely from this staggering fact, or from environmental consciousness. Though I was alone in my kitchen, I said quietly, “Sorry, Tamar.”Tamar is Tamar Adler, a former chef who has made a career of writing about humble ingredients, especially leftovers and scraps. Her 2011 book, An Everlasting Meal, an elegant manifesto urging readers to use every single thing that enters their kitchens, is the only reason pickling a stem has ever crossed my mind. Adler’s goal isn’t to guilt her audience: She wants to get cooks excited about kitchen refuse, to help them see cast-offs as ingredients in their own right. She wrote An Everlasting Meal, she told me recently, to convince people that when you throw usable food scraps away, “you’re just creating an extra problem for yourself—a dual problem.” Not only do you have more garbage to deal with, you also have to go buy more food.Beneath that pragmatic language lies a fundamentally spiritual approach to the problem of waste. Adler is concerned with both the environmental toll of trash and the prevalence of food insecurity in the United States—“We’re talking about aesthetics for the rich people and hunger for the poor,” she said angrily—but, as befits somebody who describes herself as “pretty woo-woo,” she also empathizes with the scraps. In her latest book, a kitchen diary called Feast on Your Life, Adler describes an audience member at an event who asked why Adler cared so deeply about leftovers. She writes, “I answered that it was because I love things so much. Because I am, most of the time, seized by a love for everything, awash in the tireless function of creation, the relentlessness of the world’s making. When you feel that, it is hard to throw anything away.”In general, Adler approaches her work more like a philosopher poet than a food writer. Her prose is distinctive and beautiful, with a slight but discernible theological bent. At the start of An Everlasting Meal, she notes that cooking with leftovers mirrors the behavior of nature, and she urges readers to “imagine if the world had to begin from scratch each dawn: a tree would never grow, nor would we ever get to see the etchings of gentle rings on a clamshell.” Shortly after, she interrupts her instructions on boiling—start potatoes and eggs in cold water, but drop leafy vegetables “at the last second into a bubble as big as your fist”—to remind her audience that “ecclesiastical writers on the subject point out that in the beginning there was water, all life proceeded from water, there was water in Eden.”[Read: Foodie culture as we know it is over]This is not the sort of writing that accompanies most recipes. It’s odd and earnest, impractical in that it doesn’t contain clear instructions and is not designed to awaken readers’ appetites for a specific dish. Rather, the book is meant to make its audience want to cook something, anything, everything. Adler’s existential intensity is such that An Everlasting Meal reminds me less of culinarily similar cookbooks such as Salt, Fat, Acid, Heat, by her fellow Chez Panisse alum, Samin Nosrat, than of more sweeping pronouncements such as Rainer Maria Rilke’s Letters to a Young Poet and Wendell Berry’s The Unsettling of America, which offer grand philosophical approaches to poetry and farming, respectively. Berry, in fact, is an inspiration to Adler; she said that reading his work helped her articulate and embrace her sense that there’s an “innate holiness to all things.” This belief is the ethos of her books. It’s the reason she can make a waste-avoidance strategy like core-and-stem pesto sound delicious, even luxurious. I’ve learned that it can be, despite the effort, which sometimes overwhelms me.I asked Adler whether she, too, grows overwhelmed by her philosophy, or struggles to live by it every day. Surely she tosses out the occasional scrap—composts it, at least—when no readers are looking. But no, she said: She saves everything, no matter how tired she is. She was cleaning mushrooms the night before we spoke, and “there were all these little bits that I couldn’t really put into the pan because they were going to get burned, and they had a lot of dirt and pine needles stuck on them,” she said. “I really tried to force myself to just throw them out, and I couldn’t do it. I put them in a plastic bag. They’re in the freezer.” Someday, I’d wager, they will emerge to flavor beans or soup.To Adler, this practice is neither a compulsion nor a burden. (“Only for my husband,” she cracked when I asked about the latter.) Yet she understands—sort of—that not all readers will want to follow every bit of her advice. Anything that’s “stressing you out and feeling like a chore,” she said, you just shouldn’t do, even if that means the only practice you take from her books is using cheese rinds, which can sit ignored for months without danger, to later season a slow-cooking meal. She denies having ever been a purist, but when she wrote An Everlasting Meal, she was certainly more of an evangelist than she is now. She was coming straight from Chez Panisse, a restaurant famous for doing things by hand as an expression of reverence for its ingredients; she also hadn’t yet had a child. Only such a person could write, as she does in that book, “Unless you are an aspiring laser beam, your microwave won’t teach you anything. Use yours as a bookshelf, or to store gadgets you don’t use.” Now she sees that as “a little bit preachy.” She’s less interested in converting her audience to cooking her precise way than in sharing the habits and tendencies that allow her to cook good food easily, which to her means cooking without using hard-to-get ingredients or fussy techniques. (Also, she’s got a microwave in her new apartment, and she loves how quickly it lets her thaw food.)Ease seems to have become central to Adler’s thinking in the years between An Everlasting Meal and Feast on Your Life, though she understands it quite differently than many home cooks. In 2023, exhausted from writing that year’s scrap-use encyclopedia An Everlasting Meal Cookbook, she “went through a glorious period of just throwing things out.” She recalled a jar of chili crisp that “was empty; all the chili crisp was out of it. But instead of keeping it, and then cracking an egg into it to then put in fried rice, I rinsed out the jar and recycled it.” She’s remembered that jar for two years—which is to say she’s spent two years remembering the egg she could’ve made. It would have been a good egg.This reveals Adler’s true understanding of ease. For her, scrap saving is the single easiest way to produce flavorful food: The more bits of mushroom you can toss in your broth, the better that broth will be. This will certainly be true once you’re in the habit of freezing those mushroom bits—and yet it works only for a person with time to make broth at home. While An Everlasting Meal seemed not to remember the other sorts of people, Feast on Your Life shows glimmers of idiosyncratic anger on their behalf. An insulated mug that she borrows from her brother throws Adler into “internal disarray at a good invention—double-wall insulation—pressed into the service of constant productivity.” This, she told me, came from an entirely different place than her earlier reaction to the microwave: not a lack of comprehension of rushing, but a fury at “the structures that make us have to rush.”[Read: The culture war comes to the kitchen]Feast on Your Life also reveals a deep exasperation with fussy cooking, which Adler sees as both a cause of waste and an enemy of home-cooking ease. All she does, to borrow a phrase she uses in her newsletter, is turn things “from raw to cooked”; early in the book, she describes a simple farro soup that “tasted like water, beans, grains, vegetables. Why do we make eating complicated? Here, says Creation: Eat this! What should we say but, Thank you!” In reading this line, with its explicitly spiritual appreciation of simplicity, I registered the resemblance between Adler’s work and the prayers that observant Jews say to thank God for creating the ingredients of every meal they eat. Adler was raised Jewish, but she spent many years feeling distant from the religion because, pre-meal blessings aside, it tends to be grounded far more in interpreting scripture than in the physical world. Food and cooking, she said, “provided me an alternative, a material path.” It delivered her to something close to kitchen animism: a world in which ingredients come to life. When she tells readers of An Everlasting Meal about prepping their greens, she suggests that they just “wash everyone together.”This spirituality can sometimes verge on preciousness. I asked Adler whether she worries about this, and she said yes—or almost yes. Her dedication to saving every scrap “sounds ridiculous when I say it,” she conceded. But she sees that issue as a “style problem”: a failure of her writing, not a sign that her approach goes too far. My impression is that she’s far more interested in respecting resources—which to her always means maximizing them—than she is in sounding grounded or accessible. This conviction is the steel core of her books. It makes her writing, beneath its flights of verbal and metaphysical fancy, insistent and unembarrassed, willing to go too far (as with the microwave) in the service of what are, really, not so much habits as ideals. It also enables her to evolve (again, the microwave).Adler seems to believe more deeply in enjoying her meals than I think I believe in anything. Far more than any culinary trick or skill I’ve gathered from reading her over the years, this dedication is what brings me back to her work. Its frank strangeness, whether or not it converts you to stem saving, is a prime example of what I consider her books’ greatest pleasure: They let you visit lives and minds—and, in this case, kitchens—that may be nothing like your own.

Can smart greenhouses bring back food production in cities?

Hidden in city car parks or warehouses, smart greenhouses promise to bring farming back to the city. But can these technology boost resilience?

Sydney, like many other Australian cities, has a long history of urban farming. Market gardens, oyster fisheries and wineries on urban fringe once supplied fresh food to city markets. As suburbs expanded, many farms in and around cities were converted to houses, roads and parks. The process is continuing. But this isn’t the whole story. Urban farming is making a comeback in a different guise. Underneath the Barangaroo towers in Sydney’s CBD, a basement carpark has been transformed into a farm. Trays of more than 40 different varieties of sprouts and microgreens grow under LED lights, often maturing within two weeks. Within hours of harvest, they’re in the kitchens of nearby restaurants. The urban farmers use sensors, ventilation systems and smartphone apps to ensure growing conditions are ideal. From around 150 square metres, farmers produce about 5,000 punnets a week. Farms such as this one at Urban Green Sydney are part of a broader shift towards high-tech urban farming. In my research, we asked what these new forms of urban farming mean for cities. Do they make cities and their far-flung food supply chains more resilient to climate change – or do they consume energy without enough to show for it? Urban smart greenhouses work well for microgreens, herbs and several other crops. Vera Xia, CC BY-NC-ND Greenhouse – or laboratory? Greenhouses are a way of controlling the growing conditions for plants. The technology has deep historical roots, from early greenhouse experiments during the Roman Empire to progress in 15th century Korea and advances during the Victorian era such as the Wardian Case, which allowed live plants to survive long sea voyages. Traditional greenhouses act as climate-controlled enclosures for plants. These days, smart greenhouses use sensors and digital monitoring to optimise, and often automate, plant growth. Large-scale rural farms such as South Australia’s Sundrop Farms already demonstrate how smart greenhouses, renewable energy and desalination can power food production in harsh climates. Overseas, countries including Spain and China have rolled out smart greenhouses at scale in rural areas. But these technologies are being urbanised, appearing in commercial buildings, rooftops and even domestic kitchens. One of the best places to see what smart greenhouses look like is the Agritech Precinct at Western Sydney University. Here, researchers experiment with the “unprecedented control” of temperature, humidity and light the technologies permit on crops such as eggplants and lettuce. The greenhouses use drones to water crops, robotic arms to harvest them and smart lighting systems to manage growth. Visiting these facilities doesn’t give you the sense you’re in a farm. It feels more like a laboratory. Technologies like these are promoted in official plans for Greater Sydney, which call for “new opportunities for growing fresh food close to a growing population and freight export infrastructure associated with the Western Sydney Airport”, particularly in Sydney’s peri-urban areas. Australia is funding research on improving these technologies as a way to future-proof food production. Researchers are conducting similar experiments with smart greenhouses around the world, from the United States to the Netherlands. Which crops work best in cities? Smart greenhouses can’t do everything. Grain crops need much more space. Fruit trees don’t work well with space constraints. Some vegetable crops don’t lend themselves well to intense high-tech production. The cost of running LED lights and smart systems mean farmers have to focus on what’s profitable. Many hyped urban farming ventures have failed. These challenges don’t mean the approach is worthless. But it does mean farmers have to be selective about what they grow. To date, crops such as tomatoes, leafy greens, and herbs have proven the best performers. These crops can be grown relatively quickly in space-restricted, repurposed urban areas mostly hidden from public view and sold to restaurants or individual buyers. Smart greenhouses producing these type of crops have emerged in Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide. Urban farmers often draw on the promise of sustainability and low food miles in their branding. But the technologies raise questions around equity. Do these farms share environmental and social benefits fairly across the city or are they concentrated in a few rich areas? Smart greenhouses can optimise plant growing conditions – but come at an energy cost. Ann H/Pexels, CC BY-NC-ND Smart greenhouse technology – at home? The humble veggie patch is an Australian staple. But the shift to apartment living and larger building sizes risks crowding it out. At household scale, smart greenhouses and apps are making it possible for some people to begin producing larger volumes of food in kitchens, balconies and backyards as a DIY method of boosting food security and self-sufficiency. Compact growing appliances promise to automate production of fresh herbs and baby vegetables. Hydroponic grow tents can grow almost anything indoors (though they are commonly used for illicit crops). Maker communities are using open-source tools such as Hackster to automate watering, lighting and data collection. Using these technologies at home seems positive, acting to boost home-grown food supplies and increase resilience in the face of food supply chain issues. In fact, it’s perhaps the most uneven frontier. Rather than working to spread smart agriculture across a cityscape, these approaches resemble prepping – efforts to boost individual household resilience. Making best use of smart greenhouses in cities At their best, smart greenhouses dotted around cities work to create controlled environments where food can be produced close to where it is eaten. These high-tech, climate controlled environments are often hidden from view. They promise resilience against the disruption climate change is bringing to agriculture and shorter supply chains. But these food production technologies also risk deepening inequality if they’re mainly taken up by wealthy consumers. Whether these technologies ultimately benefit cities will depend on how they are integrated and positioned within our urban systems. For urban authorities, the challenge is to ensure these emerging methods of producing food in the heart of cities boosts resilience collectively rather than fragment it. It will take policy guidance to ensure the benefits of these smart farms are shared equally. Vera Xia does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

A second sighting of this invasive species has Oregon wildlife officials concerned

Wildlife officials worry people may illegally import these creatures for food, then release them into Oregon waters.

A Chinese mitten crab was discovered in the Willamette River near the Sellwood Bridge in late November, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife said. It’s at least the second sighting of the invasive species in Oregon this year. State officials are working with the federal government, Portland State University and other agencies to investigate whether more of the 3-inch crabs are living in the Willamette.Chinese mitten crabs, which live in freshwater, could impact Oregon’s fish and crayfish populations by eating local species or fish eggs and competing for food, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife says. Oregon’s native crabs live along the coast. The Chinese mitten crab lives its adult life in freshwater, while Oregon's native crabs live along the coast. Oregon Department of Fish and WildlifeThe agency previously warned that the crabs “caused significant infrastructure and ecological damage in and around San Francisco Bay when the population was at its height in the late 1990s.”They are illegal to have or to sell in Oregon. Latest environmental newsMitten crabs can be identified by several distinctive features: a notch between the eyes, four spines on each side of the carapace and hairy mitten-like claws. The crabs’ color varies from greenish-brown to brownish-orange, according to an agency news release.Anyone who catches a Chinese mitten crab is asked to report it with the location to 1-866-INVADER or through an online invasive species hotline. - Kjerstin Gabrielson contributed to this report.

The way Australia produces food is unique. Our updated dietary guidelines have to recognise this

Australia’s dietary guidelines will soon consider environmental impacts. We need locally relevant indicators to support more sustainable food production.

Mandy McKeesick/GettyYou might know Australia’s dietary guidelines from the famous infographics showing the types and quantities of foods we should eat to have a healthy diet. Last updated 12 years ago, the National Health and Medical Research Council is now revising them to consider not only how food affects our health but also how sustainable our foods are. At least 37 other countries have already added sustainability to their dietary guidelines. Many countries use global load indicators to assess the environmental impact of specific foods, based on the planetary boundaries within which humanity can safely operate. While useful to compare between countries, these indicators don’t match Australia’s environmental risks and priorities. Unlike many other countries, locally produced food represents around 90% of what Australians eat. The environmental footprint of these foods is shaped almost entirely by the country’s unique landscapes, climates and farming systems. Our recent research suggests forthcoming guidelines need to take local conditions into account. If global load indicators are the sole way to measure impact, the guidelines won’t capture Australia’s specific environmental challenges in producing food. Local indicators matter Global load indicators include greenhouse gas emissions, how much land is used per kilo of food, water use, land and water pollution and biodiversity loss. This is how we get common figures such as the statistic that it takes 1,670 litres of water to produce 1 kilogram of rice. While global measures are useful in comparing between countries and products, they don’t always match local environmental risks and priorities. For example, using 1,670L of water to produce a kilo of rice in the contested and controlled Murray Darling Basin will have a different impact compared to using the same volume in Western Australia’s Kununurra irrigation system, where water is more abundant and has fewer alternative uses. Growing a kilo of rice in Italy will differ again. If we want dietary guidelines to encourage real improvements on farm and in rural landscapes, environmental indicators must reflect the challenges rural stakeholders actually face. Consumer preferences have already shifted several food production systems. Rising demand for free-range eggs and grass-fed beef has changed how farmers operate. It’s important to get this right. One size does not fit all Australia’s agricultural lands are diverse. By area, more than 80% of our farmland falls in the rangelands. Here, cattle and sheep graze with minimal human intervention on vast tropical savannas, woodlands, shrublands and grasslands. Low rainfall and poor soils mean livestock are kept at low densities. Other food production options haven’t proved viable. If we used global load indicators, food from rangelands would be assessed as having a high environmental impact due to large land use, lots of potentially polluting nutrients (dung and urine) and use of rainfall to grow forage vegetation. But the main environmental issues for Australia’s rangelands are different, including methane emissions from livestock, land degradation, invasive weeds such as buffel grass and biodiversity loss. Australian food production systems are diverse. Rangelands and natural pasture account for the largest area, followed by mixed crop-livestock zones (in light blue and yellow). Author provided, CC BY-NC-ND Australia’s next largest area of agriculture is mixed crop and livestock, found in regions such as the Mallee in Victoria and Western Australia’s Wheatbelt. Most crops and 40% of livestock are produced in these areas, characterised by reliable rainfall patterns and low to medium rainfall of around 250–450 millimetres a year. Farming here can make soils more acid due to high levels of nitrogen from fertilisers, alongside issues such as dryland salinity, erosion, biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions. These issues have degraded some land so much it can’t sustain farming. For these two types of agriculture, local indicators work better. By contrast, the intensive and productive irrigated farms of the Murray–Darling Basin have environmental impacts more aligned to global indicators. Environmental issues here include greenhouse gases, competition for land and water use, nutrient pollution (primarily fertilisers) and biodiversity loss. Good for your health – and the environment? While previous Australian studies have assessed the environmental footprint of different foods or focused on a narrow description of environmental impact derived from overseas studies, these haven’t accounted for local environmental priorities or trade-offs. Trade-offs are common. For instance, plant-based diets may result in lower greenhouse gas emissions but can increase pressure on soil health and biodiversity, as crops are commonly grown as monocultures with high fertiliser and pesticide use. Common Australian diets mixing plant and animal foods can have a lower impact on biodiversity and soil health but higher greenhouse gas emissions, as mixed diets entail a more diverse range of cultivated plants and animals but rely more on methane-producing livestock. Recognising and balancing these trade-offs will be essential if Australia’s updated dietary guidelines are to support healthy people and a healthy environment. What’s next? Ideally, Australia’s updated dietary guidelines will capture the unique pressures and challenges of producing food locally. This won’t be easy, given impacts will vary across different foods, regions and production systems. But the tools are already available. Farm software can track every aspect of the production in a local environmental context, making it possible to predict impacts on the natural capital of individual farms – if agreements to share and aggregate data can be negotiated. Gathering these data will allow local environmental indicators to be embedded in dietary guidelines. If this is done, it will become possible to link recommended diets to sustainability reporting. Farms, retailers and banks are increasingly required to report sustainability metrics, which can be linked to foods. That means Australians could see the environmental credentials of their food on the labels, based not on global averages – but on how the specific farm is doing. David Masters has previously received research funding from research and development corporations including Meat and Livestock Australia. He is a member of the National Health and Medical Research Council's Sustainability Working Group. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors alone and do not represent the views of NHMRC or the working group. David Lemon receives funding from the National Farmers' Federation. Dianne Mayberry has received funding from research and development corporations including Meat and Livestock Australia and the Grains Research and Development Corporation.Sonja Dominik works for CSIRO Agriculture and Food. She has previously received funding from the National Farmers' Federation and research and development corporations.

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.