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.

Op-ed: ‘Blue Foods’ May Not Save the World

News Feed
Thursday, October 31, 2024

When it comes to food, the world faces a tangle of seemingly impossible choices: Increase agricultural land-use to address food insecurity and you drive deforestation and risk biodiversity collapse.  Industrialize meat production to bring prices down and you set the stage for new pandemics and imperil the welfare of billions of farmed animals. Feeding the world’s growing population without worsening parallel catastrophes has become the defining challenge of the 21st century. One could be forgiven for attempting to conjure a portal to a future that would avoid tradeoffs entirely.   And some, it seems, have attempted to cast just such a spell: “Blue foods” is the way to save the world.  Blue foods—food like fish, shellfish, and seaweeds obtained from bodies of water—and farmed blue foods in particular have been promoted by researchers, industry, NGOs, and the World Economic Forum alike as the way to feed the world; as a solution to hidden hunger and malnutrition; as the path to achieving global food system transformation; and as the fix for multiple global challenges. A common refrain in these circles: “The future of food is not just green—it’s blue.”  But as researchers studying aquatic organisms, their ecosystems, and their welfare, we are compelled to say: not so fast. And not like this.  Blue foods do have benefits, and they certainly have a role to play. For example, as a source of protein, farmed shellfish have a smaller carbon footprint compared to beef. And seaweed farming may increase carbon sequestration, ameliorate ocean acidification, and lead to socioeconomic gains. But the details matter, and so does the scale.  Mariculture dewilding can impact the environment, wildlife, captive animals, and humans’ view of each. (Credit: Emma Bautista) For most of human history, the world’s oceans have been largely free of intensive farming. There have been myriad overfishing crises, but cultivation of the oceans has been limited. That may soon change.  Marine and coastal aquaculture production has soared since 1990, reaching a record 78.4 million tons in 2022. This expansion includes the growth of resource-intensive industries like salmon farming. It also includes attempts to rapidly domesticate hundreds of species. Such attempts have accelerated in recent decades, subjecting countless wild animals to captive conditions that are incompatible with their welfare. And yet, production is projected to increase for all major farmed species in the next decade.   In short, the rise of “mariculture”—farming in the ocean—is poised to dramatically alter our marine footprint. But, as we write in a new paper published last week in the journal Science Advances, the full suite of risks from mariculture are incompletely mapped.  To date, some potential impacts of ocean farming have been well studied. For example, mariculture’s potential to pass bioaccumulated pollutants to consumers and facilitate antibiotic resistance have been well documented and received media attention. But, as we found, the potential for grave and irreversible harms to animals and marine ecosystems have either been studied in isolation or remain unacknowledged.  The risks are broad and varied, but add up to an alarming concept we call “dewilding,” the process of privileging human interests, perspectives, and sovereignty at the expense of other interests and considerations. Maricultural dewilding impacts our oceans and marine life in four major ways.  First, marine farming poses environmental risks, threatening to permanently change seascapes. In addition to fish waste and refuse pollution, for example, mariculture generates antibiotic and plastic pollution. Expanding maricultural infrastructure would also contribute to “ocean sprawl,” which degrades ecological systems and wildlife habitats. For most of human history, the world’s oceans have been largely free of intensive farming. That may soon change. Second, mariculture endangers wildlife species and the welfare of individual wild animals. By disrupting marine habitats and increasing demand for wild fish used as feed, mariculture can contribute to wildlife population decline. Critically, it can also compromise the wellbeing of individual wild animals: for example, mariculture equipment and infrastructure can entangle and even kill seabirds, seals, dolphins, and whales.   Third, and very poorly understood, are mariculture’s captivity effects. These can include high rates of deformities, parasite infection, and disease. Moreover, slaughter methods can be inhumane, failing to stun fish prior to slaughter and using painful and stressful methods like asphyxiation. Captivity also drives physical and behavioral changes in farmed species. These changes become more pronounced and potentially harmful when animals are selectively bred or otherwise altered for desired production traits—for instance, fish who are modified to be sterile can suffer from higher rates of deformities.  And lastly, the rush to farm our oceans is changing the very nature of how humans view the marine world. Scanning the ocean for new areas to cultivate or new species to domesticate represents a shift in how we see the ocean, reducing a once wild and powerful place to yet another resource to be tapped, another set of production units to be quantified. And just as land-based farming has contributed to human-wildlife conflict—ranchers killing wolves for threatening cattle, for example—ocean farms have already generated similar conflicts, including between humans and seals attracted to the easy meal of a farmed fish. Given all of this, one of our most surprising findings was the inevitability with which the scientific literature has discussed this massive expansion into the oceans. The assumption of expansion is just that: an assumption. Evidence-based reasoning requires looking at all available options, including the possibility of not expanding or of expanding in some areas but not others. Our findings don’t discount the promise of blue foods as part of the solution to global food and environmental challenges, but they do suggest myriad reasons to slow down, get specific, and proceed with caution.  Backed by nearly 800 scientific papers documenting the harms we call dewilding, we urge an evidence-based approach to mariculture, particularly as it relates to impacts on animals, environments, and our relationships with both. We need a different path forward—one that assesses the effects of farming in the ocean and questions the logic of expansion until we know more about what is at stake. Blue foods may yet prove to be part of the solution—but not like this.  The post Op-ed: ‘Blue Foods’ May Not Save the World appeared first on Civil Eats.

And some, it seems, have attempted to cast just such a spell: “Blue foods” is the way to save the world.  Blue foods—food like fish, shellfish, and seaweeds obtained from bodies of water—and farmed blue foods in particular have been promoted by researchers, industry, NGOs, and the World Economic Forum alike as the way to […] The post Op-ed: ‘Blue Foods’ May Not Save the World appeared first on Civil Eats.

When it comes to food, the world faces a tangle of seemingly impossible choices: Increase agricultural land-use to address food insecurity and you drive deforestation and risk biodiversity collapse.  Industrialize meat production to bring prices down and you set the stage for new pandemics and imperil the welfare of billions of farmed animals. Feeding the world’s growing population without worsening parallel catastrophes has become the defining challenge of the 21st century. One could be forgiven for attempting to conjure a portal to a future that would avoid tradeoffs entirely.  

And some, it seems, have attempted to cast just such a spell: “Blue foods” is the way to save the world. 

Blue foods—food like fish, shellfish, and seaweeds obtained from bodies of water—and farmed blue foods in particular have been promoted by researchers, industry, NGOs, and the World Economic Forum alike as the way to feed the world; as a solution to hidden hunger and malnutrition; as the path to achieving global food system transformation; and as the fix for multiple global challenges. A common refrain in these circles: “The future of food is not just green—it’s blue.” 

But as researchers studying aquatic organisms, their ecosystems, and their welfare, we are compelled to say: not so fast. And not like this. 

Blue foods do have benefits, and they certainly have a role to play. For example, as a source of protein, farmed shellfish have a smaller carbon footprint compared to beef. And seaweed farming may increase carbon sequestration, ameliorate ocean acidification, and lead to socioeconomic gains. But the details matter, and so does the scale. 

a drawing of the ocean where farming leads to

Mariculture dewilding can impact the environment, wildlife, captive animals, and humans’ view of each. (Credit: Emma Bautista)

For most of human history, the world’s oceans have been largely free of intensive farming. There have been myriad overfishing crises, but cultivation of the oceans has been limited. That may soon change. 

Marine and coastal aquaculture production has soared since 1990, reaching a record 78.4 million tons in 2022. This expansion includes the growth of resource-intensive industries like salmon farming. It also includes attempts to rapidly domesticate hundreds of species. Such attempts have accelerated in recent decades, subjecting countless wild animals to captive conditions that are incompatible with their welfare. And yet, production is projected to increase for all major farmed species in the next decade.  

In short, the rise of “mariculture”—farming in the ocean—is poised to dramatically alter our marine footprint. But, as we write in a new paper published last week in the journal Science Advances, the full suite of risks from mariculture are incompletely mapped. 

To date, some potential impacts of ocean farming have been well studied. For example, mariculture’s potential to pass bioaccumulated pollutants to consumers and facilitate antibiotic resistance have been well documented and received media attention. But, as we found, the potential for grave and irreversible harms to animals and marine ecosystems have either been studied in isolation or remain unacknowledged. 

The risks are broad and varied, but add up to an alarming concept we call “dewilding,” the process of privileging human interests, perspectives, and sovereignty at the expense of other interests and considerations. Maricultural dewilding impacts our oceans and marine life in four major ways. 

First, marine farming poses environmental risks, threatening to permanently change seascapes. In addition to fish waste and refuse pollution, for example, mariculture generates antibiotic and plastic pollution. Expanding maricultural infrastructure would also contribute to “ocean sprawl,” which degrades ecological systems and wildlife habitats.

For most of human history, the world’s oceans have been largely free of intensive farming. That may soon change.

Second, mariculture endangers wildlife species and the welfare of individual wild animals. By disrupting marine habitats and increasing demand for wild fish used as feed, mariculture can contribute to wildlife population decline. Critically, it can also compromise the wellbeing of individual wild animals: for example, mariculture equipment and infrastructure can entangle and even kill seabirds, seals, dolphins, and whales.  

Third, and very poorly understood, are mariculture’s captivity effects. These can include high rates of deformities, parasite infection, and disease. Moreover, slaughter methods can be inhumane, failing to stun fish prior to slaughter and using painful and stressful methods like asphyxiation. Captivity also drives physical and behavioral changes in farmed species. These changes become more pronounced and potentially harmful when animals are selectively bred or otherwise altered for desired production traits—for instance, fish who are modified to be sterile can suffer from higher rates of deformities. 

And lastly, the rush to farm our oceans is changing the very nature of how humans view the marine world. Scanning the ocean for new areas to cultivate or new species to domesticate represents a shift in how we see the ocean, reducing a once wild and powerful place to yet another resource to be tapped, another set of production units to be quantified. And just as land-based farming has contributed to human-wildlife conflict—ranchers killing wolves for threatening cattle, for example—ocean farms have already generated similar conflicts, including between humans and seals attracted to the easy meal of a farmed fish.

Given all of this, one of our most surprising findings was the inevitability with which the scientific literature has discussed this massive expansion into the oceans. The assumption of expansion is just that: an assumption. Evidence-based reasoning requires looking at all available options, including the possibility of not expanding or of expanding in some areas but not others. Our findings don’t discount the promise of blue foods as part of the solution to global food and environmental challenges, but they do suggest myriad reasons to slow down, get specific, and proceed with caution. 

Backed by nearly 800 scientific papers documenting the harms we call dewilding, we urge an evidence-based approach to mariculture, particularly as it relates to impacts on animals, environments, and our relationships with both. We need a different path forward—one that assesses the effects of farming in the ocean and questions the logic of expansion until we know more about what is at stake. Blue foods may yet prove to be part of the solution—but not like this. 

The post Op-ed: ‘Blue Foods’ May Not Save the World appeared first on Civil Eats.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

NZ’s food manufacturers are embracing the idea of a circular economy but are slow to implement it

New Zealand food manufacturers are beginning to embrace the circular economy but are up against a lack of government support, customer awareness and low-emission freight options.

Getty ImagesAround the world, the growth of industry and consumption has escalated environmental damage through increased emissions, waste and pollution from landfills. The current linear economic model, characterised by a “take-make-dispose” approach to limited resources, is increasingly shown to be unsustainable. New Zealand’s food manufacturing industry is a major contributor to these issues. However, an alternative, more sustainable, approach exists in the circular economic model. We have explored six large food manufacturing companies in Aotearoa New Zealand committed to circular-economy practices. We wanted to understand if and how they prioritise the four circular elements of reducing, reusing, recycling and recovering. We identified a variety of drivers and barriers to implementing circularity. This includes consumer knowledge, government regulation, supply-chain issues and financial commitment. Overall, we found New Zealand food manufacturers are slow to take positive steps in all areas. They lack a working knowledge of circular processes and the old linear model still holds sway. New Zealand context We found New Zealand food manufacturers are beginning to embrace the circular economy but there is still a long way to go for them to close the loop. The current focus is mainly on three elements (reducing, reusing and recycling), but they pay less attention to recovering materials. Food manufacturers are moving towards a more circular model of resource use but face barriers and lack of awareness among customers. CC BY-SA In practice, reduction involves minimising the use of resources and avoiding unnecessary waste. Here the focus is on reducing the quantity of raw materials without compromising on quality. Reusing extends the life of products and materials by finding new purposes such as refurbishing or repairing items to prevent them from becoming waste. This is especially the case with packaging materials which can be reused, recycled or composted. Recycling refers to the process of collecting, sorting and processing materials to manufacture new products. This reduces the demand for new raw materials. For example, fruits past their use-by dates can be turned into pickles and perfumes. Recovery extracts energy or other useful resources from waste materials that cannot be recycled. For example, withered flowers and spoiled fruits are turned into biomethane for energy production. This is New Zealand’s weakest link in the adoption of the circular economy. Thousands of single-use cups are still used and thrown out. Getty Images Barriers to circularity Food manufacturers told us they face multiple barriers imposed by local and offshore factors, including a lack of awareness of circular-economy principles among consumers and industry. Research participants noted that local consumers are concerned more with price than circularity. People prefer cheaper products despite their negative environmental impact. All companies we studied expressed this perspective. One participant said: A major and continuing challenge for us, and our industry, is that of the single-use takeaway cup. Despite our best efforts to encourage and support our customers to sit in and enjoy their coffee, or bring their cups, we still distribute thousands of cups every year. Changing their mindset around it is still difficult. Offshore, major trading partners in China and Japan prefer plastic packaging for their products. The food manufacturers we studied found these trading partners valued appearance and presentation first, before environmental impacts. All companies reported being confronted with regulatory barriers. This includes lack of government support such as rebates and subsidies or robust circular-economy policies. There is no comprehensive framework on how businesses make decisions and investments. This calls for policy revisions to help companies implement robust circular-economy practices. Drivers for change The COVID pandemic had a significant economic impact in slowing down the implementation of circular practices due to supply-chain disruptions. This comes on the back of transportation challenges, a lack of low-emission freight options and increases in living costs. Based on our findings, we offer suggestions to support managers and policymakers to achieve sustainability in the food manufacturing sector. First, policymakers can play an important role through laws, regulations, fiscal incentives, public funding and a flexible legislative framework that supports circular-economy strategies. Such measures are crucial for reducing uncertainty and encouraging investment in circular practices. Second, we advise companies to concentrate on education and raising awareness among consumers about the long-term benefits of the circular economy. This is a much more urgent agenda than focusing on regulatory, technological or supply-chain issues. Policy and regulation change will happen in response to changing consumer preferences and patterns. Third, because educating the public at home and abroad is not an easy fix, companies need to collaborate with each other across all parts of the food manufacturing industry, including retailers and manufacturers. Mindsets and practices among New Zealand businesses need to shift from a linear model towards receiving training in circular-economy practices and education in sustainability and to be able to make changes for future generations. Sitong Michelle Chen works for AUT Business School, Department of Marketing and International Business. She receives funding from North Asia CAPE.

In a record-breaking drought, bush birds from around Perth flocked to the city

Months of hot and dry weather, with only 23mm of rain recorded over seven months, drove some species to seek food and water in the city.

Western spinebill Martin Pelanek/ShutterstockPerth is no stranger to hot and dry summers, but the period from October 2023 to April 2024 was exceptional. The city’s rainfall for these seven months was only 23 millimetres, the lowest since records began in the 1870s. It was also one of the warmest summers on record, with temperatures 1.7°C higher than the long-term average. The “canary in the coalmine” is a metaphor for an early warning that something is wrong. In this case, though, it wasn’t the birds that first alerted us. Rather, we saw the drought’s impacts on our iconic and unique vegetation. Jarrah, marri, karri and banksia trees, some as old as 100 years, began to die. The die-offs created a mosaic of brown patches across 1,000 kilometres of south-west Australia’s otherwise green forest. The region’s ecosystems are diverse and complex. As the drought took hold, there were more subtle changes beyond the visible tree deaths. Perth has a community of avid birdwatchers who began noticing bird species rarely seen in the city, or known to be infrequent visitors. We analysed bird observation data from the global citizen science platform, eBird, to determine which species had increased in the Perth metropolitan area at this time. We found a dramatic spike in reporting rates for four species – the black-shouldered kite, black-tailed nativehen, tawny-crowned honeyeater and western spinebill. Some species were reported up to nine times more than usual. Birds sought refuge in the city These shifts hint at how extreme weather can push wildlife into new and unexpected spaces. The black-shouldered kite, a nomadic bird of prey, is often found in heath and woodlands in south-western Australia, as well as in rural landscapes. The black-tailed nativehen is more commonly associated with inland wetlands but is known to appear suddenly in large numbers in new habitats and then disappear just as quickly. Honeyeaters, such as the tawny-crowned honeyeater and the western spinebill, tend to favour coastal heathlands and forests. So why were they turning up in Perth city? We suggest it’s likely because the drought stripped their usual habitats of vital resources, particularly food and water. The city, on the other hand, although also hot and dry at this time, had water in remnant wetlands, the Swan River, artificial lakes and ponds, and people’s gardens. These areas may also have nectar-rich plants for the honeyeaters, insect populations perhaps eaten by the black-tailed nativehen, and rodents or rabbits for the black-shouldered-kite. We think these urban environments became temporary refuges, providing a different water and food source for these birds. A long history of bird immigration This isn’t the first time birds have flocked to Perth during challenging environmental conditions. Galahs, for example, were confined historically to inland areas. Early explorers such as John Gould and John Forrest noted their absence around the Swan River colony. They weren’t common in this area until after the second world war, following a series of dry years. In many cities in Australia, cockatoos are known to take advantage of watered lawns, sports fields, parks and artificial lakes in cities. These resources have created a novel urban habitat for these birds. This also happens in rural towns. Parrots, birds of prey and our beloved “bin chickens” (white ibis) have increased in these towns as inland rainfall declines. The short-term movement of species such as the black-shouldered kite, western spinebill and tawny-crowned honeyeater into cities represents a new chapter in this urban immigration story. Perhaps we should expect more drought migrants as the climate crisis continues to impact their natural habitats. On the front-line of climate change South-west Western Australia is a global biodiversity hotspot. It is also considered one of the most climate-vulnerable regions in the world. In Perth, annual rainfall has decreased by around 130mm (15%). That’s a drop from about 860mm to 730mm over the past 30 years (1993–2023) compared to the previous 30 years (1959–1988). This long-term drying trend, combined with rising temperatures, puts immense pressure on the ecosystems local wildlife depends on. The drought event of 2023–24 may be a precursor of what’s to come. More research is needed to understand the movements of birds and other wildlife in response to these events. To the relief of those watching the landscape turn brown, it started raining in May 2024. We bought ourselves a rain gauge to celebrate, and waited to see what the next months of eBird data would reveal. The data showed all four drought immigrants retreated from the city almost as quickly as they had arrived. This movement supported the theory that these birds were using the city only as a temporary refuge during the harshest drought months. Observations of unusual bird behaviour highlight the complex relationship between wildlife and urban environments under climate stress. While cities may offer some refuge, they are not a long-term solution for wildlife facing habitat loss. Indeed, the spread of urban areas poses its own major threats to bird communities. As the climate crisis intensifies, integrating urban areas into conservation plans could be crucial for supporting species during extreme events. Individuals, councils and urban planners may be able to increase the quality of the refuges in cities in relatively simple ways. Planting more native vegetation and providing safe water sources for visiting wildlife would be a good start. Harry Moore receives funding from the Western Australian Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions. Anna Cresswell 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.

PepsiCo Beats New York State's 'Predatory' Lawsuit Over Plastics Pollution

By Jonathan StempelNEW YORK (Reuters) - PepsiCo won the dismissal of New York's lawsuit accusing the beverage and snack-food company of polluting...

NEW YORK (Reuters) - PepsiCo won the dismissal of New York's lawsuit accusing the beverage and snack-food company of polluting the environment with single-use plastic packaging, as the judge criticized the state's attorney general, Letitia James, for bringing the case.Justice Emilio Colaiacovo of the state Supreme Court in Buffalo said on Thursday that James failed to show PepsiCo created a public nuisance and should have warned consumers about the health and environmental risks of plastics in more than 100 of its brands.James sued PepsiCo and its Frito-Lay unit last November, seeking to hold them liable for endangering Buffalo's water supply by generating 17% of the plastic waste found in and near the Buffalo River. She also said the defendants deceived the public about their efforts to fight plastics pollution.But the judge ruled it would run "contrary to every norm of established jurisprudence" to punish PepsiCo, because it was people, not the company, who ignored laws prohibiting littering.He also said James, a Democrat, ignored a 2003 appeals court's refusal to hold Sturm Ruger liable when criminals use its handguns and risk opening the floodgates to public nuisance lawsuits. James' predecessor, Eliot Spitzer, brought that case."While I can think of no reasonable person who does not believe in the imperatives of recycling and being better stewards of our environment, this does not give rise to phantom assertions of liability that do nothing to solve the problem that exists," wrote Colaiacovo, a Republican."The judicial system should not be burdened with predatory lawsuits that seek to impose punishment while searching for a crime," he added.James' office did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Friday.PepsiCo, based in Purchase, New York, said it was pleased with the decision, and "serious" about plastics reduction and effective recycling."Our time, attention and resources -- and those of other key stakeholders -- are best directed toward collaborative solutions," it added.James' lawsuit is one of many by state and local governments and environmental groups against companies that use plastics.Colaiacovo ruled one day after Los Angeles County filed a similar lawsuit against PepsiCo and Coca-Cola over their single-use plastic packaging.PepsiCo's brands include Cheetos, Cracker Jack, Doritos, Fritos, Gatorade, Lay's, Lipton, Mountain Dew, Ocean Spray, Pepsi, Quaker, Ruffles and Tostitos.The case is New York v. PepsiCo Inc et al, New York State Supreme Court, Erie County, No. 814682/2023.  (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York, Editing by Franklin Paul)Copyright 2024 Thomson Reuters.

A century later, salmon again spawning in Klamath River after dams removed

The Klamath River used to be the West Coast’s third most productive salmon fishery, until four hydroelectric dams built in the early 20th Century blocked salmon spawning.

Sixty years ago, I was a reporter for the Klamath Falls (Oregon) Herald and News and with my family lived in a small house on the Link River, which flows out of Upper Klamath Lake, draining a large portion of the Cascade mountain range. Link River, just 1.5 miles long, is the beginning of the Klamath River, which meanders through 257 miles of sparsely populated, mountainous land in Southern Oregon and Northern California before flowing into the Pacific Ocean. Although situated on the edge of downtown Klamath Falls, the Link River was, and probably still is, a little patch of semi-wilderness, teeming with wildlife such as huge pelicans which patrol its waters in search of food. At the time, Upper Klamath Lake and the Klamath River were primarily seen locally as sources of water for expansion of the Klamath Basin’s agricultural industry, particularly alfalfa and potatoes. One of my assignments was to cover the expansion of the basin’s irrigation system that Oregon’s two U.S. senators, Democrats Wayne Morse and Maurine Neuberger, were sponsoring in Washington. Although Upper Klamath Lake was known for unusually huge rainbow trout, some two feet long, that attracted anglers in droves, little thought was given to the Chinook salmon that had once thrived in the Klamath River but were no longer seen so far upstream. In the early 20th Century, the California Oregon Power Company, a locally owned utility that provided electricity to Southern Oregon and a slice of Northern California, had erected four hydropower dams on the Klamath that blocked upstream salmon spawning. COPCO, as the utility was known, and its dams were eventually absorbed into Pacific Power and Light Co., which even later became Pacificorp and was acquired by billionaire Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway holding company. As the dams aged, their federal operating licenses expired and environmental groups and American Indian tribes living along the Klamath’s banks served notice that they would oppose re-licensing and demand that the dams be demolished to restore salmon runs. Their cause drew political support in California and Oregon, and when Buffet’s pal, actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, became California’s governor two decades ago, he placed $250 million in a state water bond issue to finance about half the cost of removing the dams. Why should California’s taxpayers help Buffet get rid of dams that probably could not be relicensed anyway? The unofficial rationale advanced by Schwarzenegger aides was that restoring the Klamath’s salmon runs would make it easier, politically speaking, for California to divert water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta via canal or tunnel, which would probably reduce Sacramento River salmon runs. Read Next Water A third straight year with no California salmon fishing?  Early fish counts suggest it could happen by Alastair Bland Whatever underlying motives there might have been, California’s $250 million commitment made a two-state, public-private deal on dam removal possible in 2020, and after four years of deconstruction the removal project was completed a few weeks ago. Meanwhile, however, there’s a running battle between water officials and farmers and ranchers in the Klamath Basin and along the river in California over diversions for irrigation that remains unresolved. Although an initial planting of young salmon to restore the Klamath runs failed, two weeks ago officials announced that one salmon was observed swimming upriver past the dam sites and into Oregon’s Spencer Creek and later others in a California creek. The Klamath River was once the West Coast’s third most productive salmon fishery, and if the runs are restored after a century, as the sightings indicate, it’s very good news, notwithstanding reservations about California’s financial role. I wonder whether salmon will once again traverse Link River and wriggle their way over the rapids that gave Klamath Falls its name and into Upper Klamath Lake. Read More Environment ‘Things have to change’: State limits water for Klamath Basin farmers to protect salmon December 18, 2023December 19, 2023 Environment The Klamath River salmon die-off was tragic. Was it predictable? March 6, 2024March 5, 2024

Chef Tom Kerridge calls on UK government to fund surplus food scheme

The Michelin-starred restaurateur has signed an open letter demanding delivery of £15m to divert produce to food banks and soup kitchensChef Tom Kerridge is teaming up with charities to demand delivery of a promised £15m fund to divert fresh but unused food from farms to food banks and soup kitchens across the country.Repeated promises have been made by former ministers to fund the food waste reduction scheme, which effectively compensates farmers for harvesting, storing and packaging the food that would otherwise head into landfill or animal feed. Continue reading...

Chef Tom Kerridge is teaming up with charities to demand delivery of a promised £15m fund to divert fresh but unused food from farms to food banks and soup kitchens across the country.Repeated promises have been made by former ministers to fund the food waste reduction scheme, which effectively compensates farmers for harvesting, storing and packaging the food that would otherwise head into landfill or animal feed.The pledge was first made by Michael Gove as environment secretary in 2018 and later reannounced by Rishi Sunak earlier this year, but the funds have never arrived. Kerridge is now speaking out, along with thousands of local charities who have signed an open letter to chancellor Rachel Reeves, asking for the scheme to be backed in this week’s budget.The Michelin-starred chef, who grew up on a Gloucester council estate, cooking for his brother while his mother, Jackie, did two jobs, said the programme would reduce waste and provide much-needed food for those who are struggling.“These charities are the beating heart of their communities, and they need more food to help support people in need,” he said. “The government needs to intervene and ensure that the staggering levels of good-to-eat surplus food is turned into meals for struggling families, rather than letting this food go to waste.”Farmers are known to be keen to redistribute food where they can, but charities say the fund is needed to help cover their costs, as providing goods for redistribution is more expensive than dumping it or using it as feed or fuel. In the letter to Reeves, the charities say that food redirected by the scheme could provide up to 67m meals and be redistributed to thousands of community groups.FareShare, one of the largest food redistribution organisations, is heavily involved. It provides surplus food to after-school and breakfast clubs, homelessness shelters and older people’s lunch clubs.“The food redistribution sector helps transform surplus food into stronger communities,” said Kris Gibbon-Walsh, chief executive of FareShare. “These local charities turn food that would otherwise go to waste into meals, providing a gateway to other essential services that support people in need. This fund is an incredible opportunity to rescue millions of tonnes of fresh produce from our farms, and help tackle the environmental problem of food waste for social good.”“Despite the announcement in February, the fund is in limbo while we wait for the Treasury to commit to this funding. But the frontline charities we support cannot afford to wait. The prime minister has said he wants to build a ‘society of service’, and Defra wants to prioritise a zero-waste economy – this fund is a great first step. We are ready to work with the government alongside the food redistribution sector to make these ambitions a reality.”Charlotte Hill, who runs The Felix Project multibank in London, said it was “a scandal” that fresh British food was going to waste, despite the large number of families suffering from food insecurity. “The Felix Project recently found that 56% of working London families are having to turn to a food bank to help feed their children.” she said. “These places are struggling with the huge demand for support and urgently need more food. This funding has the potential to unlock huge supplies of healthy and nutritious produce. It could result in millions of meals going to those who need it.”Government sources said that ministers were committed to reducing waste and were working to drive down surplus food. The government wants to halve food waste by 2030. However, it has warned that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) had to play its part in closing a £22bn black hole in the public finances this year and that “difficult decisions” lay ahead.The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs said: “The amount of food we waste is a stain on our country. We are working with business to drive down food waste and make sure food is put on the plates of those in greatest need. This includes supporting surplus food to be redistributed to charities and others that can use it and on programmes to help citizens reduce their food waste. We are grateful to food producers, charities and retailers in the sector for their work in tackling this problem.”

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.