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.

Remembering Joan Gussow

News Feed
Wednesday, March 12, 2025

Joan Dye Gussow, who died last Friday at age 96, was a fiercely independent thinker and food-system visionary whose ideas caught on and rippled outward. Starting in the 1970s, through her groundbreaking nutritional ecology class at Teachers College within Columbia University, and through books like The Feeding Web: Issues in Nutritional Ecology, she transformed our view of food from something enjoyed at the end of a fork to the entire system that created the mouthful. Photo credit: Randy Harris, courtesy of Chelsea Green Publishing Gussow helped us understand that buying locally grown, seasonal food (and raising it ourselves, if possible) connected us to the health of the land, and to our own health, too. And because of her, we began to understand the deleterious impacts of the industrialized food system—among them depleted soil, poisoned water, and metabolic disease.  She railed at politicians for setting back progress and, as she told us in an interview, “You have to keep hope alive, you have to keep moving along the way you believe in and keep telling the truth and trying to get the word out there.” In person, Gussow was formidable and funny, speaking her brilliant mind with candor, urging us to see what was going on and to never stop asking hard questions. Luckily, many of us have heeded her call, and in our work and our lives, we continue the conversation she began.  We asked some of Gussow’s many fans to celebrate and remember her with us. For those who would like to share memories or photos through this link, created by her friend Pam Koch, please do so.  Dan Barber, chef and co-owner of Family Meal at Blue Hill in Manhattan and Blue Hill at Stone Barns To Joan, the professor: You changed the way we view a single strawberry and  taught us to trust cows more than chemists. For this and many other things, Joan, we salute you. To Joan, the writer: Political or personal, your prose was always beautiful and unflinching. For this and many other things, Joan, we salute you. To Joan, the nutritionist: You proved that it is not merely safe, but sensible (and not merely sensible, but imperative) to keep slathering butter on all those potatoes. For this and many other things, Joan, we salute you. To Joan, the activist: On health food zealots, always a baffling irritation for you, you delivered a consistent message: Ignore them. Your vitality was daily proof of that simple wisdom. For this and many other things, Joan, we salute you. To Joan, the botanist: We valued your pawpaws as much as your raspberries. Your green thumb lifted our blue moods. For this and many other things, Joan, we salute you. To Joan, the cook and critic: You cooked up what you dug. For agribusiness adversaries, you cooked up trouble. For this and many other things, Joan, we salute you. To Joan, the mother: You have raised all these issues and along the way you’ve raised us, too. Here’s hoping we will do you proud. For this and many other things, Joan, we salute you. And to Joan, the hedonist: Food was your medium, but your message was a philosophy of life. You taught us something more than nutrition and agriculture—you taught us how to eat, to indulge in pleasure by way of responsibility. Thank you. Ann Cooper, chef and founder of the Chef Ann Foundation  “Joan Gussow was truly an OG of the sustainable/ organic food movement, and an amazing thinker and educator.” Joan Gussow was truly an OG of the sustainable/organic food movement, and an amazing thinker and educator. She spoke at the 1996 Chefs Collaborative Retreat and told the group that some “food” should just not be organic. “An organic gummy bear or an organic Twinkie, organic Eggo Toaster Waffles . . . they just shouldn’t be organic.”  I was so inspired by her idea that we shouldn’t have organic junk food that it shaped many of my thoughts on sustainability. Joan was instrumental in some of my thinking for my book Bitter Harvest, and when I went to the Ross School to build a healthy, nutritious, delicious school food program, Joan graciously gave of her time and energy to teach and educate our team. I will be forever grateful for all she did for food systems and sustainability.  Leslie Hatfield with Joan Gussow. Photo courtesy of Hatfield. Leslie Hatfield, Senior Partnership and Outreach Advisor at GRACE Communications Foundation Joan was brilliant, no question, but what drew me to her was her fierce honesty. Whether writing about unchecked corporate power’s impacts on diets, or her marriage and subsequent widowhood, she asked hard questions and didn’t flinch in laying out the answers. She inspired me, on both personal and professional levels, to live a more honest and authentic life.  Elizabeth Henderson, farmer and co-chair, Interstate Council policy committee of the Northeast Organic Farming Association  I came to know Joan through my work as an organic farmer and as one of the first to organize a CSA [community supported agriculture system]. I was thrilled when she agreed to write the foreword to my 2000 book Sharing the Harvest. The first edition came out in 1998, when we estimated that there were about 1,000 CSAs in the U.S. By the second edition, in 2007, that number had more than doubled, and there may be as many as 7,000 today.  As a pioneering advocate of buying from local organic farms, Joan instantly grasped the significance of CSAs. In her foreword, Joan wrote: “Across this country, a movement is spreading that acknowledges a long-ignored reality: Most of what we pay for our food goes to companies that transport, process, and market what comes off the farms, not to farmers themselves. The people who actually grow food don’t get paid enough to keep on doing it. If we hope to keep on eating, however, we need to keep farmers in business; and if we want to keep farmers in business, it’s time for all of us, ordinary citizens and policy makers alike, to begin learning how that might be done. Sharing the Harvest is a great place to start.” Joan’s words are as urgent today as when she wrote them 28 years ago. Family-scale farms continue to go out of business, and the United States Department of Agriculture just cancelled the grant that would have enabled the CSA Innovation Network, a network of CSA networks all over the country, to support more diverse farms in creating CSAs. I will be eternally grateful to Joan for her encouragement to me as a farmer and as a writer, and for transforming the discipline of nutrition from the reductionist academic analysis of the food on our plates into a training program for active participants in the international movement to wrest power over food from corporate industrial domination and return it to the people who eat, and do the hard and joyous work of growing healthy, nutritious food. Photo credit: Susan Frieman, courtesy of Chelsea Green Publishing Pamela Koch, Mary Swarz Rose associate professor of nutrition and education, Teachers College, Columbia University Joan taught her transformative course, Nutritional Ecology, in the Program in Nutrition at Teachers College, Columbia University, from 1970 to 2021. I taught with her from 2012 to 2021. Each week students received a 50–60 page packet of readings on a topic such as the “true cost (i.e., the environmental, health, and social cost) of food.” Students wrote a one-page reflection paper on the readings, which could be written as a letter to a friend. My comments are a reflection letter to you, Joan.  Dear Joan, I miss your wit, your wisdom, and how we could reflect on an old reading, such as your 1980 piece “What corporations have done to our food,” and see something totally new in today’s context. You described our industrial food system as “insane” and “absurd.” You have taught me to always speak the truth and think critically.  Case in point: The fertilizers and pesticides used on farms have to pollute our rivers, oceans, and drinking water. How could they not? The ability to ask the tough questions is what we can all do to carry your torch. This gives me hope that we can heal our ecosystem, support public health, reduce food-related chronic diseases, and treat everyone who works all along the food chain fairly and justly. Because of you, Joan, I believe we will have a better food future. We need your hope, Joan, now, more than ever. Ellie Krieger, MS RDN, Food Network and PBS show host and James Beard award-winning cookbook author I remember the feeling of having my mind blown open by Joan Dye Gussow’s teaching. It was like suddenly seeing in three dimensions when I had only been seeing in two before. Understanding that nutrition is much more than just nutrients–that [it] is agriculture, politics, the environment, and more–shaped my thinking about food and the work I do to this day. Thank you, Joan, for your brilliance, bravery, persistence, and for leading by example. I consider myself a product of the big, robust garden you cultivated. Anna Lappé, author and executive director of the Global Alliance for the Future of Food Joan was a singular, uncompromising voice for organic and local food. I’ll always appreciate her generosity of spirit as a teacher, training countless students through her courses at Columbia Teachers College and opening her door to me personally as she took the time to help me understand food systems and the power of organic practices.  I’ll never forget interviewing her at her home in upstate New York for Grub: Ideas for an Urban Organic Kitchen. While we looked out at her overflowing vegetable garden that stretched to the waters of the Hudson River, Joan shared her food philosophy, including turning me onto her seminal essay about a hypothetical organic Twinkie.  While serving on the National Organic Standards Board, she had penned, “Can an Organic Twinkie Be Certified?” Her answer was yes. One day, a Twinkie could very well be certified organic if 95 percent of its ingredients were. But, she was quick to note, it would not be healthy—nor would it reflect her vision of a food system defined by local, healthy, whole foods and not highly processed ones.  I loved the last words of her New York Times obituary, which sounded every bit like the Joan I had been inspired by for years: “The day I die, I want to have a black thumb from where I hit it with a hammer and scratches on my hands from pruning the roses.” Kate MacKenzie, Executive Director of New York City’s Mayor’s Office of Food Policy  Joan Gussow has influenced my professional life more than any other. Twenty-five years ago, I started in the public health nutrition program at Teachers College, with a BS degree in Nutritional Sciences from Cornell. I often say that at Cornell, I learned everything about food after you swallow it, and everything about food before you eat it at TC, from Joan. “Perhaps now more than ever, we have the responsibility of carrying her legacy forward, to meaningfully connect to real food for the health of our people and our environment.” It was in her classes that I was introduced to topics like the corporate consolidation of the food system (or to even consider the words “food system”), the limits to population growth, how to feed the world, agricultural inputs like pesticides and organic practices, and the concepts of sustainability and local food.  I remember one class when she was lecturing about the number of food products on grocery store shelves, and how over time, people were made to think there was just no more time to cook. Her simple response: that we have always had 24 hours in the day, and it’s the power of marketing and industry to convince us otherwise. These issues made me deeply curious and desirous to effectuate changing the food system.   I’ve been doing that ever since graduating and I have met extraordinary leaders and visionaries throughout the U.S. and beyond. Many of those people have also been students of Joan’s. Perhaps now more than ever, we have the responsibility of carrying her legacy forward, to meaningfully connect to real food for the health of our people and our environment. Marion Nestle, Paulette Goddard professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health emerita, New York University I first met Joan in the late 1970s when I heard her give a talk in the Bay Area when I was teaching at the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine. I had never heard anyone talk about the need to link agricultural production to nutrition and health—food systems, we now call that—and it felt revelatory. I am not alone in being inspired by her work. I have followed it with great admiration. Ahead of her time? Absolutely. You have discovered that the food industry influences food choices? Try Joan’s “Who Pays the Piper,” from 1980. You think food systems should be sustainable? See Joan’s “Dietary Guidelines for Sustainability,” written with Kate Clancy in 1986. Her students at Columbia were so lucky to be in her orbit. I am beyond sad at her loss.  Raj Patel, ​​author, activist, and research professor in the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, Austin Joan was so ahead of her time, I often wondered whether she thought the food movement revival a decade or two ago was just the history of the 1970s repeating, this time as farce. But she was always gracious, ready to celebrate the wins—and hurl imprecations at those who deserved them: the food industry, their shills, and the deer who ate from her garden. Recently, I re-read her classic lecture, “Women, Food, and the Survival of the Species,” plucked from the archives by Daniel Bowman Simon, and it reminded me of the abundance of her spirit, and the depth of our debt to her.  Michael Pollan, author, journalist Joan was one of my first and most influential teachers when it came to understanding food and agriculture as a system. (The other is Marion Nestle.) Joan saw the politics in all sorts of places people had trouble spotting it, such as the field of nutrition. We first met in the 1990s at the Culinary Institute of America, at a conference about genetically modified crops. She was formidable, and though I don’t recall what she said, it galvanized the room with its penetrating clarity.  She was a master at connecting the dots, and the fact that most of us understand food and agriculture as a single system, linking policy, soil, nutrition, public health, and technology, owes in large part to the work Joan did.  But she was much more than a theorist; indeed, she walked the talk, growing much of her own food on an oft-flooded piece of land right on the Hudson–a beautiful but perilous spot I had the privilege of visiting a couple of times.  The phrase, “Eat food, not too much, mostly plants,” owes at least two words to Joan. When I was researching In Defense of Food, I asked her to sum up what she had learned about how best to eat, and she didn’t miss a beat: “Eat food.” As in, real food, whole foods, unprocessed foods. I embroidered her message a bit, with “mostly plants” and “not too much” but the basic message—which is that we don’t and shouldn’t eat nutrients–was Joan’s. She was an inspiration. Tom Philpott, senior research associate at the Center for a Livable Future, Johns Hopkins University Joan Dye Gussow has passed on, but her legacy and influence will live as long as we have ecosystems and natural resources worth defending. Like all of our best and brightest food-system intellectuals, Joan understood that humanity doesn’t exist separately from nature or ecology, but lives deeply embedded within them. We are as much a part of nature as the lion skulking the savanna, or the warbler winging it from the Adirondacks to the Caribbean islands for winter; it’s just that we exert much more influence over the ecosystems we touch.  Joan elegantly summed up this concept in the title of her 1978 book, The Feeding Web: Issues In Nutritional Ecology. “Nutritional ecology”: The idea neatly connects our sustenance with the landscapes that feed us and provide sinks for our waste. Professionally, academically, she was a nutritionist, a field that evolved over decades in tight collaboration with corporate food giants, and too often reduced nutrition to a list of essential vitamins and minerals—commodities that, once injected into highly processed food, the idea went, make a health-giving diet.  “Perhaps what I will remember most about Joan is the laughter, the caring, and the closeness we shared, sometimes verging on tears.” Today, this ideology is finally unravelling under the weight of undeniable evidence. Joan rejected it more than a half century ago, and used her perch at Columbia University to launch broadsides against it. By the time I met her in the late 2000s, Joan was a doyenne of the anti-industrial food movement, renowned for her advocacy in support of local and regional food systems, and for her legendary garden on the banks of the Hudson, not far from New York City. It meant a lot to hear her say she had read and appreciated my journalism work, and it was delightful to be able to tell her how much I had learned from her. She was a happy and inspiring warrior against the forces of industrial agriculture.  And damn it, she was right. Her vision of robust local and regional food networks, bolstered by flourishing small- and mid-scale farms and justly compensated farm labor, represents a beacon for a livable future in an increasingly dystopian age. In a 2011 Civil Eats interview, she allowed that “compared to the reception my ideas got 30 years ago, it’s quite astonishing the reception they’re getting now,” citing the extraordinary artisanal food scenes emerging in places like Brooklyn. But, she added, “whether or not there’s going to be sea change in the whole system is so hard to judge.” Hard to judge, and harder still to achieve. It’s up to us, the generations she inspired, to make it so. I never managed to take her up on the invitation to visit her Hudson Valley garden. May it flourish in her memory forever. I still hope to see it someday. Joan Dye Gussow with Urvashi Rangan. Photo courtesy of Rangan. Urvashi Rangan, founding co-chair, Funders for Regenerative Agriculture (FORA) and chief science advisor, GRACE Communications Foundation  I had the immense pleasure of sharing in Joan’s professional and personal life. As a young scientist, I remember presenting to a nutrition conference and Joan was in the front row and asked many great questions. From then, I always knew to seek her professional opinion on the harms of industrial ag practices and the benefits of organic production. She then invited me to lecture in her classes and always wanted to know the latest goings-on in food politics.    Perhaps what I will remember most about Joan is the laughter, the caring, and the closeness we shared, sometimes verging on tears. I remember one conversation about gut microbiomes and people reseeding with poop from other people. We decided that Joan’s poop would be worth more than gold since her biome had only eaten organic food forever.   Despite the 40 years between us, I found Joan to be one of my closest and dear friends and one of the youngest people I have known. I remember leaving a conference in NYC together where she gave the keynote, and while we were driving home, she looked at me and said, “My God, Urvashi, there were some really old people there.” Joan wasn’t talking about age, but mindset (and she was so right).   And while she may have been the oldest person in the room, her mind and heart were youthful, yet wise. I used to tell her that when I grew up, I wanted to be just like her. She was a teacher until the end, in the classroom and out. I will miss her immensely and will cherish all of the times we had together.  Michael Sligh, founding chair, National Organic Standards Board Joan was that rare breed of academic, activist, and farmer. She helped us bridge movements and she was always on the right side of the fight. Tough as nails and a heart of gold. She will be missed. Kerry Trueman, sustainability advocate Joan was a dear friend and mentor to me, as she was to so many people. I became a die-hard devotee of her work after reading her first memoir, This Organic Life. We became friends several decades ago when she gave a talk at The New School. After she spoke, she mingled with the attendees, and I was so excited at the prospect of meeting her that I transcended my shyness to tell her how she had inspired me to plant pawpaws in my yard. Joan, in her inimitable acerbic-yet-affectionate way, liked to say that I had “stalked” her. She once called me her “favorite beneficial pest,” which, coming from her, was a thrilling compliment. What an honor it was to collaborate with her, to be a guest at so many memorable meals in her lovely home, to work side by side with her to restore her legendary garden after the Hudson River flooded it. The second time the river rose up to swallow her garden, she rose even higher, literally, by raising the soil level to accommodate the consequences of climate change. Her refusal to throw in the trowel in the wake of such destruction was quintessential Joan.  Her perseverance was just one of Joan’s many admirable traits, another being that she was not a purist. For her, eating locally meant being a regular at her local diner, regardless of how they sourced their eggs and bacon. How grateful I am to have known her. Karen Washington with Joan Gassow. Photo courtesy of Washington. Karen Washington, farmer, activist, and co-founder of Black Urban Growers Joan was such a kind and loving person. Her first act of kindness was to invite me and my gardeners from the Bronx to come visit and have lunch. Many of them did not speak English, but were able to enjoy her company, her garden, and the food. She loved people and was willing to share her home with strangers.  We became close as board members of Just Food. Her knowledge and wisdom of the food system was incredible. She taught me to be courageous and not sit by and allow things to happen, but to challenge things that were hard. I loved her so much and will miss her, but I will carry a piece of her in my work to fight against injustice. Alice Waters, chef, author, food activist, founder of Chez Panisse and The Edible Schoolyard Joan had a HUGE influence on my life and my thinking. “Eat locally, think globally” became my motto for Chez Panisse, and now for school food purchasing everywhere. The post Remembering Joan Gussow appeared first on Civil Eats.

Gussow helped us understand that buying locally grown, seasonal food (and raising it ourselves, if possible) connected us to the health of the land, and to our own health, too. And because of her, we began to understand the deleterious impacts of the industrialized food system—among them depleted soil, poisoned water, and metabolic disease.  She […] The post Remembering Joan Gussow appeared first on Civil Eats.

Joan Dye Gussow, who died last Friday at age 96, was a fiercely independent thinker and food-system visionary whose ideas caught on and rippled outward. Starting in the 1970s, through her groundbreaking nutritional ecology class at Teachers College within Columbia University, and through books like The Feeding Web: Issues in Nutritional Ecology, she transformed our view of food from something enjoyed at the end of a fork to the entire system that created the mouthful.

Joan Gussow's Garden. Joan Gussow

Photo credit: Randy Harris, courtesy of Chelsea Green Publishing

Gussow helped us understand that buying locally grown, seasonal food (and raising it ourselves, if possible) connected us to the health of the land, and to our own health, too. And because of her, we began to understand the deleterious impacts of the industrialized food system—among them depleted soil, poisoned water, and metabolic disease. 

She railed at politicians for setting back progress and, as she told us in an interview, “You have to keep hope alive, you have to keep moving along the way you believe in and keep telling the truth and trying to get the word out there.”

In person, Gussow was formidable and funny, speaking her brilliant mind with candor, urging us to see what was going on and to never stop asking hard questions. Luckily, many of us have heeded her call, and in our work and our lives, we continue the conversation she began. 

We asked some of Gussow’s many fans to celebrate and remember her with us. For those who would like to share memories or photos through this link, created by her friend Pam Koch, please do so. 

Dan Barber, chef and co-owner of Family Meal at Blue Hill in Manhattan and Blue Hill at Stone Barns

To Joan, the professor: You changed the way we view a single strawberry and  taught us to trust cows more than chemists.
For this and many other things, Joan, we salute you.

To Joan, the writer: Political or personal, your prose was always beautiful and unflinching.
For this and many other things, Joan, we salute you.

To Joan, the nutritionist: You proved that it is not merely safe, but sensible (and not merely sensible, but imperative) to keep slathering butter on all those potatoes.
For this and many other things, Joan, we salute you.

To Joan, the activist: On health food zealots, always a baffling irritation for you, you delivered a consistent message: Ignore them. Your vitality was daily proof of that simple wisdom.
For this and many other things, Joan, we salute you.

To Joan, the botanist: We valued your pawpaws as much as your raspberries. Your green thumb lifted our blue moods.
For this and many other things, Joan, we salute you.

To Joan, the cook and critic: You cooked up what you dug. For agribusiness adversaries, you cooked up trouble.
For this and many other things, Joan, we salute you.

To Joan, the mother: You have raised all these issues and along the way you’ve raised us, too. Here’s hoping we will do you proud.
For this and many other things, Joan, we salute you.

And to Joan, the hedonist: Food was your medium, but your message was a philosophy of life. You taught us something more than nutrition and agriculture—you taught us how to eat, to indulge in pleasure by way of responsibility. Thank you.

Ann Cooper, chef and founder of the Chef Ann Foundation 

“Joan Gussow was truly an OG of the sustainable/
organic food movement, and an amazing thinker and educator.”

Joan Gussow was truly an OG of the sustainable/organic food movement, and an amazing thinker and educator. She spoke at the 1996 Chefs Collaborative Retreat and told the group that some “food” should just not be organic. “An organic gummy bear or an organic Twinkie, organic Eggo Toaster Waffles . . . they just shouldn’t be organic.” 

I was so inspired by her idea that we shouldn’t have organic junk food that it shaped many of my thoughts on sustainability. Joan was instrumental in some of my thinking for my book Bitter Harvest, and when I went to the Ross School to build a healthy, nutritious, delicious school food program, Joan graciously gave of her time and energy to teach and educate our team. I will be forever grateful for all she did for food systems and sustainability. 

two women sit next to each other; one is older

Leslie Hatfield with Joan Gussow. Photo courtesy of Hatfield.

Leslie Hatfield, Senior Partnership and Outreach Advisor at GRACE Communications Foundation

Joan was brilliant, no question, but what drew me to her was her fierce honesty. Whether writing about unchecked corporate power’s impacts on diets, or her marriage and subsequent widowhood, she asked hard questions and didn’t flinch in laying out the answers. She inspired me, on both personal and professional levels, to live a more honest and authentic life. 

Elizabeth Henderson, farmer and co-chair, Interstate Council policy committee of the Northeast Organic Farming Association 

I came to know Joan through my work as an organic farmer and as one of the first to organize a CSA [community supported agriculture system]. I was thrilled when she agreed to write the foreword to my 2000 book Sharing the Harvest. The first edition came out in 1998, when we estimated that there were about 1,000 CSAs in the U.S. By the second edition, in 2007, that number had more than doubled, and there may be as many as 7,000 today.  As a pioneering advocate of buying from local organic farms, Joan instantly grasped the significance of CSAs.

In her foreword, Joan wrote:

“Across this country, a movement is spreading that acknowledges a long-ignored reality: Most of what we pay for our food goes to companies that transport, process, and market what comes off the farms, not to farmers themselves. The people who actually grow food don’t get paid enough to keep on doing it. If we hope to keep on eating, however, we need to keep farmers in business; and if we want to keep farmers in business, it’s time for all of us, ordinary citizens and policy makers alike, to begin learning how that might be done. Sharing the Harvest is a great place to start.”

Joan’s words are as urgent today as when she wrote them 28 years ago. Family-scale farms continue to go out of business, and the United States Department of Agriculture just cancelled the grant that would have enabled the CSA Innovation Network, a network of CSA networks all over the country, to support more diverse farms in creating CSAs.

I will be eternally grateful to Joan for her encouragement to me as a farmer and as a writer, and for transforming the discipline of nutrition from the reductionist academic analysis of the food on our plates into a training program for active participants in the international movement to wrest power over food from corporate industrial domination and return it to the people who eat, and do the hard and joyous work of growing healthy, nutritious food.

Joan gardening (Susan Frieman)

Photo credit: Susan Frieman, courtesy of Chelsea Green Publishing

Pamela Koch, Mary Swarz Rose associate professor of nutrition and education, Teachers College, Columbia University

Joan taught her transformative course, Nutritional Ecology, in the Program in Nutrition at Teachers College, Columbia University, from 1970 to 2021. I taught with her from 2012 to 2021. Each week students received a 50–60 page packet of readings on a topic such as the “true cost (i.e., the environmental, health, and social cost) of food.” Students wrote a one-page reflection paper on the readings, which could be written as a letter to a friend. My comments are a reflection letter to you, Joan. 

Dear Joan, I miss your wit, your wisdom, and how we could reflect on an old reading, such as your 1980 piece “What corporations have done to our food,” and see something totally new in today’s context. You described our industrial food system as “insane” and “absurd.” You have taught me to always speak the truth and think critically. 

Case in point: The fertilizers and pesticides used on farms have to pollute our rivers, oceans, and drinking water. How could they not? The ability to ask the tough questions is what we can all do to carry your torch. This gives me hope that we can heal our ecosystem, support public health, reduce food-related chronic diseases, and treat everyone who works all along the food chain fairly and justly. Because of you, Joan, I believe we will have a better food future. We need your hope, Joan, now, more than ever.

Ellie Krieger, MS RDN, Food Network and PBS show host and James Beard award-winning cookbook author

I remember the feeling of having my mind blown open by Joan Dye Gussow’s teaching. It was like suddenly seeing in three dimensions when I had only been seeing in two before. Understanding that nutrition is much more than just nutrients–that [it] is agriculture, politics, the environment, and more–shaped my thinking about food and the work I do to this day. Thank you, Joan, for your brilliance, bravery, persistence, and for leading by example. I consider myself a product of the big, robust garden you cultivated.

Anna Lappé, author and executive director of the Global Alliance for the Future of Food

Joan was a singular, uncompromising voice for organic and local food. I’ll always appreciate her generosity of spirit as a teacher, training countless students through her courses at Columbia Teachers College and opening her door to me personally as she took the time to help me understand food systems and the power of organic practices. 

I’ll never forget interviewing her at her home in upstate New York for Grub: Ideas for an Urban Organic Kitchen. While we looked out at her overflowing vegetable garden that stretched to the waters of the Hudson River, Joan shared her food philosophy, including turning me onto her seminal essay about a hypothetical organic Twinkie. 

While serving on the National Organic Standards Board, she had penned, “Can an Organic Twinkie Be Certified?” Her answer was yes. One day, a Twinkie could very well be certified organic if 95 percent of its ingredients were. But, she was quick to note, it would not be healthy—nor would it reflect her vision of a food system defined by local, healthy, whole foods and not highly processed ones. 

I loved the last words of her New York Times obituary, which sounded every bit like the Joan I had been inspired by for years: “The day I die, I want to have a black thumb from where I hit it with a hammer and scratches on my hands from pruning the roses.”

Kate MacKenzie, Executive Director of New York City’s Mayor’s Office of Food Policy 

Joan Gussow has influenced my professional life more than any other. Twenty-five years ago, I started in the public health nutrition program at Teachers College, with a BS degree in Nutritional Sciences from Cornell. I often say that at Cornell, I learned everything about food after you swallow it, and everything about food before you eat it at TC, from Joan.

“Perhaps now more than ever, we have the responsibility of carrying her legacy forward, to meaningfully connect to real food for the health of our people and our environment.”

It was in her classes that I was introduced to topics like the corporate consolidation of the food system (or to even consider the words “food system”), the limits to population growth, how to feed the world, agricultural inputs like pesticides and organic practices, and the concepts of sustainability and local food. 

I remember one class when she was lecturing about the number of food products on grocery store shelves, and how over time, people were made to think there was just no more time to cook. Her simple response: that we have always had 24 hours in the day, and it’s the power of marketing and industry to convince us otherwise. These issues made me deeply curious and desirous to effectuate changing the food system.  

I’ve been doing that ever since graduating and I have met extraordinary leaders and visionaries throughout the U.S. and beyond. Many of those people have also been students of Joan’s. Perhaps now more than ever, we have the responsibility of carrying her legacy forward, to meaningfully connect to real food for the health of our people and our environment.

Marion Nestle, Paulette Goddard professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health emerita, New York University

I first met Joan in the late 1970s when I heard her give a talk in the Bay Area when I was teaching at the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine. I had never heard anyone talk about the need to link agricultural production to nutrition and health—food systems, we now call that—and it felt revelatory.

I am not alone in being inspired by her work. I have followed it with great admiration. Ahead of her time? Absolutely.

You have discovered that the food industry influences food choices? Try Joan’s “Who Pays the Piper,” from 1980.

You think food systems should be sustainable? See Joan’s “Dietary Guidelines for Sustainability,” written with Kate Clancy in 1986.

Her students at Columbia were so lucky to be in her orbit. I am beyond sad at her loss. 

Raj Patel, ​​author, activist, and research professor in the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, Austin

Joan was so ahead of her time, I often wondered whether she thought the food movement revival a decade or two ago was just the history of the 1970s repeating, this time as farce. But she was always gracious, ready to celebrate the wins—and hurl imprecations at those who deserved them: the food industry, their shills, and the deer who ate from her garden. Recently, I re-read her classic lecture, “Women, Food, and the Survival of the Species,” plucked from the archives by Daniel Bowman Simon, and it reminded me of the abundance of her spirit, and the depth of our debt to her. 

Michael Pollan, author, journalist

Joan was one of my first and most influential teachers when it came to understanding food and agriculture as a system. (The other is Marion Nestle.) Joan saw the politics in all sorts of places people had trouble spotting it, such as the field of nutrition. We first met in the 1990s at the Culinary Institute of America, at a conference about genetically modified crops. She was formidable, and though I don’t recall what she said, it galvanized the room with its penetrating clarity. 

She was a master at connecting the dots, and the fact that most of us understand food and agriculture as a single system, linking policy, soil, nutrition, public health, and technology, owes in large part to the work Joan did. 

But she was much more than a theorist; indeed, she walked the talk, growing much of her own food on an oft-flooded piece of land right on the Hudson–a beautiful but perilous spot I had the privilege of visiting a couple of times. 

The phrase, “Eat food, not too much, mostly plants,” owes at least two words to Joan. When I was researching In Defense of Food, I asked her to sum up what she had learned about how best to eat, and she didn’t miss a beat: “Eat food.” As in, real food, whole foods, unprocessed foods. I embroidered her message a bit, with “mostly plants” and “not too much” but the basic message—which is that we don’t and shouldn’t eat nutrients–was Joan’s. She was an inspiration.

Tom Philpott, senior research associate at the Center for a Livable Future, Johns Hopkins University

Joan Dye Gussow has passed on, but her legacy and influence will live as long as we have ecosystems and natural resources worth defending. Like all of our best and brightest food-system intellectuals, Joan understood that humanity doesn’t exist separately from nature or ecology, but lives deeply embedded within them. We are as much a part of nature as the lion skulking the savanna, or the warbler winging it from the Adirondacks to the Caribbean islands for winter; it’s just that we exert much more influence over the ecosystems we touch. 

Joan elegantly summed up this concept in the title of her 1978 book, The Feeding Web: Issues In Nutritional Ecology. “Nutritional ecology”: The idea neatly connects our sustenance with the landscapes that feed us and provide sinks for our waste. Professionally, academically, she was a nutritionist, a field that evolved over decades in tight collaboration with corporate food giants, and too often reduced nutrition to a list of essential vitamins and minerals—commodities that, once injected into highly processed food, the idea went, make a health-giving diet. 

“Perhaps what I will remember most about Joan is the laughter, the caring, and the closeness we shared, sometimes verging on tears.”

Today, this ideology is finally unravelling under the weight of undeniable evidence. Joan rejected it more than a half century ago, and used her perch at Columbia University to launch broadsides against it.

By the time I met her in the late 2000s, Joan was a doyenne of the anti-industrial food movement, renowned for her advocacy in support of local and regional food systems, and for her legendary garden on the banks of the Hudson, not far from New York City. It meant a lot to hear her say she had read and appreciated my journalism work, and it was delightful to be able to tell her how much I had learned from her. She was a happy and inspiring warrior against the forces of industrial agriculture. 

And damn it, she was right. Her vision of robust local and regional food networks, bolstered by flourishing small- and mid-scale farms and justly compensated farm labor, represents a beacon for a livable future in an increasingly dystopian age. In a 2011 Civil Eats interview, she allowed that “compared to the reception my ideas got 30 years ago, it’s quite astonishing the reception they’re getting now,” citing the extraordinary artisanal food scenes emerging in places like Brooklyn. But, she added, “whether or not there’s going to be sea change in the whole system is so hard to judge.”

Hard to judge, and harder still to achieve. It’s up to us, the generations she inspired, to make it so. I never managed to take her up on the invitation to visit her Hudson Valley garden. May it flourish in her memory forever. I still hope to see it someday.

Two woman stand in a field of tall grass with a body of water behind them, with arms around each of their shoulders and smiling in the sun

Joan Dye Gussow with Urvashi Rangan. Photo courtesy of Rangan.

Urvashi Rangan, founding co-chair, Funders for Regenerative Agriculture (FORA) and chief science advisor, GRACE Communications Foundation 

I had the immense pleasure of sharing in Joan’s professional and personal life. As a young scientist, I remember presenting to a nutrition conference and Joan was in the front row and asked many great questions. From then, I always knew to seek her professional opinion on the harms of industrial ag practices and the benefits of organic production. She then invited me to lecture in her classes and always wanted to know the latest goings-on in food politics.   

Perhaps what I will remember most about Joan is the laughter, the caring, and the closeness we shared, sometimes verging on tears. I remember one conversation about gut microbiomes and people reseeding with poop from other people. We decided that Joan’s poop would be worth more than gold since her biome had only eaten organic food forever.  

Despite the 40 years between us, I found Joan to be one of my closest and dear friends and one of the youngest people I have known. I remember leaving a conference in NYC together where she gave the keynote, and while we were driving home, she looked at me and said, “My God, Urvashi, there were some really old people there.” Joan wasn’t talking about age, but mindset (and she was so right).  

And while she may have been the oldest person in the room, her mind and heart were youthful, yet wise. I used to tell her that when I grew up, I wanted to be just like her. She was a teacher until the end, in the classroom and out. I will miss her immensely and will cherish all of the times we had together. 

Michael Sligh, founding chair, National Organic Standards Board

Joan was that rare breed of academic, activist, and farmer. She helped us bridge movements and she was always on the right side of the fight. Tough as nails and a heart of gold. She will be missed.

Kerry Trueman, sustainability advocate

Joan was a dear friend and mentor to me, as she was to so many people. I became a die-hard devotee of her work after reading her first memoir, This Organic Life. We became friends several decades ago when she gave a talk at The New School. After she spoke, she mingled with the attendees, and I was so excited at the prospect of meeting her that I transcended my shyness to tell her how she had inspired me to plant pawpaws in my yard. Joan, in her inimitable acerbic-yet-affectionate way, liked to say that I had “stalked” her. She once called me her “favorite beneficial pest,” which, coming from her, was a thrilling compliment.

What an honor it was to collaborate with her, to be a guest at so many memorable meals in her lovely home, to work side by side with her to restore her legendary garden after the Hudson River flooded it. The second time the river rose up to swallow her garden, she rose even higher, literally, by raising the soil level to accommodate the consequences of climate change. Her refusal to throw in the trowel in the wake of such destruction was quintessential Joan. 

Her perseverance was just one of Joan’s many admirable traits, another being that she was not a purist. For her, eating locally meant being a regular at her local diner, regardless of how they sourced their eggs and bacon. How grateful I am to have known her.

An African American woman farmer is hugged by an elder farmer

Karen Washington with Joan Gassow. Photo courtesy of Washington.

Karen Washington, farmer, activist, and co-founder of Black Urban Growers

Joan was such a kind and loving person. Her first act of kindness was to invite me and my gardeners from the Bronx to come visit and have lunch. Many of them did not speak English, but were able to enjoy her company, her garden, and the food. She loved people and was willing to share her home with strangers. 

We became close as board members of Just Food. Her knowledge and wisdom of the food system was incredible. She taught me to be courageous and not sit by and allow things to happen, but to challenge things that were hard. I loved her so much and will miss her, but I will carry a piece of her in my work to fight against injustice.

Alice Waters, chef, author, food activist, founder of Chez Panisse and The Edible Schoolyard

Joan had a HUGE influence on my life and my thinking. “Eat locally, think globally” became my motto for Chez Panisse, and now for school food purchasing everywhere.

The post Remembering Joan Gussow appeared first on Civil Eats.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Watchdog rules Red Tractor exaggerated its environmental standards

The Advertising Standards Authority agrees with River Action that the food safety body’s 2023 advert misled the publicThe UK’s advertising watchdog has upheld a complaint that Britain’s biggest farm assurance scheme misled the public in a TV ad about its environmental standards.The Red Tractor scheme, used by leading supermarkets including Tesco, Asda and Morrisons to assure customers their food meets high standards for welfare, environment, traceability and safety, is the biggest and perhaps best known assurance system in Britain. Continue reading...

The UK’s advertising watchdog has upheld a complaint that Britain’s biggest farm assurance scheme misled the public in a TV ad about its environmental standards.The Red Tractor scheme, used by leading supermarkets including Tesco, Asda and Morrisons to assure customers their food meets high standards for welfare, environment, traceability and safety, is the biggest and perhaps best known assurance system in Britain.About 45,000 of the UK’s farms are members of the scheme, and the advert promised that food carrying the logo had been “farmed with care”.But the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld a complaint from the clean water campaign group River Action that the scheme’s environmental standards were exaggerated in the advert, last aired in 2023.In its judgment, the ASA said the ad must not be shown again in its current form. It said in future Red Tractor should make clear exactly what standards it is referring to when it uses the phrases “farmed with care” and “all our standards are met”.River Action said it made the complaint because it was concerned environmental standards relating to pollution were not being met on Red Tractor farms, including the claim “When the Red Tractor’s there, your food’s farmed with care … from field to store all our standards are met.”The ASA considered evidence from an Environment Agency report into Red Tractor farms, which found that 62% of the most critical pollution incidents occurred on Red Tractor farms between 2014 and 2019.Charles Watson, chair and founder of River Action, said large food retailers such as Tesco and Asda should lay out credible plans as to how they would move away from what he termed a “busted flush” of a certification scheme and instead support farmers whose working practices were genuinely sustainable.“Red Tractor farms are polluting the UK’s rivers, and consumers trying to make environmentally responsible choices have been misled,” said Watson.“This ASA ruling confirms what we’ve long argued: Red Tractor’s claims aren’t just misleading – they provide cover for farms breaking the law.”Red Tractor said its standards did not cover all environmental legislation. Therefore, data on compliance with environmental regulation should not be confused with farms’ compliance with Red Tractor’s requirements.Jim Moseley, CEO of Red Tractor, said: “We believe the ASA’s final decision is fundamentally flawed and misinterprets the content of our advert.“If the advert was clearly misleading, it wouldn’t have taken so long to reach this conclusion. Accordingly, the ASA’s actions are minimal. They’ve confirmed that we can continue to use ‘farmed with care’ but simply need to provide more information on the specific standards being referred to.“The advert … made no environmental claim, and we completely disagree with the assumption that it would have been misinterpreted by consumers.”

Can you really be addicted to food? Researchers uncover convincing similarities to drug addiction

Hundreds of studies have confirmed that certain foods affect the brain similarly to other addictive substances

People often joke that their favorite snack is “like crack” or call themselves “chocoholics” in jest. But can someone really be addicted to food in the same way they could be hooked on substances such as alcohol or nicotine? As an addiction psychiatrist and researcher with experience in treating eating disorders and obesity, I have been following the research in this field for the past few decades. I have written a textbook on food addiction, obesity and overeating disorders, and, more recently, a self-help book for people who have intense cravings and obsessions for some foods. While there is still some debate among psychologists and scientists, a consensus is emerging that food addiction is a real phenomenon. Hundreds of studies have confirmed that certain foods – often those that are high in sugar and ultraprocessed – affect the brains and behavior of certain people similarly to other addictive substances such as nicotine. Still, many questions remain about which foods are addictive, which people are most susceptible to this addiction and why. There are also questions as to how this condition compares to other substance addictions and whether the same treatments could work for patients struggling with any kind of addiction. How does addiction work? The neurobiological mechanisms of addiction have been mapped out through decades of laboratory-based research using neuroimaging and cognitive neuroscience approaches. Studies show that preexisting genetic and environmental factors set the stage for developing an addiction. Regularly consuming an addictive substance then causes a rewiring of several important brain systems, leading the person to crave more and more of it. This rewiring takes place in three key brain networks that correspond to key functional domains, often referred to as the reward system, the stress response system and the system in charge of executive control. First, using an addictive substance causes the release of a chemical messenger called dopamine in the reward network, which makes the user feel good. Dopamine release also facilitates a neurobiological process called conditioning, which is basically a neural learning process that gives rise to habit formation. As a result of the conditioning process, sensory cues associated with the substance start to have increasing influence over decision-making and behavior, often leading to a craving. For instance, because of conditioning, the sight of a needle can drive a person to set aside their commitment to quit using an injectable drug and return to it. Second, continued use of an addictive substance over time affects the brain’s emotional or stress response network. The user’s body and mind build up a tolerance, meaning they need increasing amounts of the substance to feel its effect. The neurochemicals involved in this process are different than those mediating habit formation and include a chemical messenger called noradrenaline and internally produced opioids such as endorphins. If they quit using the substance, they experience symptoms of withdrawal, which can range from irritability and nausea to paranoia and seizures. At that point, negative reinforcement kicks in. This is the process by which a person keeps going back to a substance because they’ve learned that using the substance doesn’t just feel good, but it also relieves negative emotions. During withdrawal from a substance, people feel profound emotional discomfort, including sadness and irritability. Negative reinforcement is why someone who is trying to quit smoking, for instance, will be at highest risk of relapse in the week just after stopping and during times of stress, because in the past they’d normally turn to cigarettes for relief. Third, overuse of most addictive substances progressively damages the brain’s executive control network, the prefrontal cortex, and other key parts of the brain involved in impulse control and self-regulation. Over time, the damage to these areas makes it more and more difficult for the user to control their behavior around these substances. This is why it is so hard for long-term users of many addictive substances to quit. Scientists have learned more about what’s happening in a person’s brain when they become addicted to a substance. What evidence is there that food is addictive? Many studies over the past 25 years have shown that high-sugar and other highly pleasurable foods – often foods that are ultraprocessed – act on these brain networks in ways that are similar to other addictive substances. The resulting changes in the brain fuel further craving for and overuse of the substance – in this case, highly rewarding food. Clinical studies have demonstrated that people with an addictive relationship to food demonstrate the hallmark signs of a substance use disorder. Studies also indicate that for some people, cravings for highly palatable foods go well beyond just a normal hankering for a snack and are, in fact, signs of addictive behavior. One study found that cues associated with highly pleasurable foods activate the reward centers in the brain, and the degree of activation predicts weight gain. In other words, the more power the food cue has to capture a person’s attention, the more likely they are to succumb to cravings for it. Multiple studies have also found that suddenly ending a diet that’s high in sugar can cause withdrawal, similar to when people quit opioids or nicotine. Excessive exposure to high-sugar foods has also been found to reduce cognitive function and cause damage to the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus, the parts of the brain that mediate executive control and memory. In another study, when obese people were exposed to food and told to resist their craving for it by ignoring it or thinking about something else, their prefrontal cortexes were more active compared with nonobese individuals. This indicates that it was more difficult for the obese group to fight their cravings. Researchers are still working out the best methods to help patients with food addictions develop a healthy relationship with food. Viktar Sarkisian/iStock via Getty Images Plus Finding safe treatments for patients struggling with food Addiction recovery is often centered on the idea that the fastest way to get well is to abstain from the problem substance. But unlike nicotine or narcotics, food is something that all people need to survive, so quitting cold turkey isn’t an option. In addition, eating disorders such as bulimia nervosa and binge-eating disorder often occur alongside addictive eating. Most psychologists and psychiatrists believe these illnesses have their root cause in excessive dietary restriction. For this reason, many eating disorder treatment professionals balk at the idea of labeling some foods as addictive. They are concerned that encouraging abstinence from particular foods could trigger binge eating and extreme dieting to compensate. A way forward But others argue that, with care, integrating food addiction approaches into eating disorders treatment is feasible and could be lifesaving for some. The emerging consensus around this link is moving researchers and those who treat eating disorders to consider food addiction in their treatment models. One such approach might look like the one described to me by addiction psychiatrist and eating disorders specialist Dr. Kim Dennis. In line with traditional eating disorder treatment, nutritionists at her residential clinic strongly discourage their patients from restricting calories. At the same time, in line with traditional addiction treatment, they help their patients to consider significantly reducing or completely abstaining from particular foods to which they have developed an addictive relationship. Additional clinical studies are already being carried out. But going forward, more studies are needed to help clinicians find the most effective treatments for people with an addictive relationship with food. Efforts are underway by groups of psychologists, psychiatrists, neuroscientists and mental health providers to get “ultraprocessed food use disorder,” also known as food addiction, into future editions of diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases. Beyond acknowledging what those treating food addiction are already seeing in the field, this would help researchers get funding for additional studies of treating food addiction. With more information about what treatments will work best for whom, those who have these problems will no longer have to suffer in silence, and providers will be better equipped to help them.   Claire Wilcox, Adjunct Faculty in Psychiatry, University of New Mexico This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The post Can you really be addicted to food? Researchers uncover convincing similarities to drug addiction appeared first on Salon.com.

Newsom signs first-in-nation law to ban ultraprocessed food in school lunches 

California health officials will now decide which ingredients, additives, dyes, and other forms of processing don’t belong in school meals and K-12 cafeterias.

In summary California health officials will now decide which ingredients, additives, dyes, and other forms of processing don’t belong in school meals and K-12 cafeterias. California is the first state in the country to ban ultraprocessed foods from school meals, aiming to transform how children eat on campus by 2035.  In the cafeteria of Belvedere Middle School in the Los Angeles neighborhood of Boyle Heights, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a measure that requires K-12 schools to phase out foods with potentially harmful ultraprocessed ingredients over the next 10 years. The requirements go above and beyond existing state and federal school nutrition standards for things like fat and calorie content in school meals. California public schools serve nearly 1 billion meals to kids each year. “Our first priority is to protect kids in California schools, but we also came to realize that there is huge market power here,” said Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, an Encino Democrat. “This bill could have impacts far beyond the classroom and far beyond the borders of our state.” The legislation builds on recent laws passed in California to eliminate synthetic food dyes from school meals and certain additives from all food sold in the state when they are associated with cancer, reproductive harm and behavioral problems in children. Dozens of other states have since replicated those laws.  The bipartisan measure also comes at a time when U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” movement has shone a spotlight on issues including chronic disease, childhood obesity and poor diet.  The term “ultra-processed food” appears more than three dozen times in the MAHA report on children’s health released in May. A subsequent MAHA strategy report tasks the federal government with defining ultraprocessed food. California’s new law beats them to the punch, outlining the first statutory definition of what makes a food ultraprocessed. It identifies ingredients that characterize ultraprocessed foods, including artificial flavors and colors, thickeners and emulsifiers, non-nutritive sweeteners, and high levels of saturated fat, sodium or sugar. Often fast food, candy and premade meals include these ingredients. Researchers say ultraprocessed foods tend to be high in calories and low in nutritional value. Studies have linked consumption of ultraprocessed foods with obesity. Today, one in five children is obese.  Ultraprocessed foods are also linked to increased cancer risk, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Studies have found sweetened beverages and processed meats to be particularly harmful, said Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist at the Environmental Work Group, which sponsored the legislation. Kids are particularly susceptible to the effects of ultraprocessed foods, she said. “Ultraprocessed foods are also marketed heavily to kids with bright colors, artificial flavors, hyperpalatability,” Stoiber said. “The hallmarks of ultraprocessed foods are a way to sell and market more product.” Gabriel said lawmakers and parents have become “much more aware of how what we feed our kids impacts their physical health, emotional health and overall well-being.” That has helped generate strong bipartisan support for the law, which all but one Republican in the state Legislature supported.  A coalition of business interests representing farmers, grocers, and food and beverage manufacturers opposed it. They argued the definition of ultraprocessed food was still too broad and ran the risk of stigmatizing harmless processed foods like canned fruits and vegetables that include preservatives. Vegetarian meat substitutes also generally contain things like processed soy protein and binders that may run afoul of the definition. Gabriel contends that the law bans not foods but rather harmful ingredients. The California Department of Public Health now must identify ultraprocessed ingredients that may be associated with poor health outcomes. Schools will no longer allow those ingredients in meals, and vendors could replace them with healthier options, Gabriel said. Supported by the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF), which works to ensure that people have access to the care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford. Visit www.chcf.org to learn more.

Immune-informed brain aging research offers new treatment possibilities, speakers say

Speakers at MIT’s Aging Brain Initiative symposium described how immune system factors during aging contribute to Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and other conditions. The field is leveraging that knowledge to develop new therapies.

Understanding how interactions between the central nervous system and the immune system contribute to problems of aging, including Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, arthritis, and more, can generate new leads for therapeutic development, speakers said at MIT’s symposium “The Neuro-Immune Axis and the Aging Brain” on Sept 18.“The past decade has brought rapid progress in our understanding of how adaptive and innate immune systems impact the pathogenesis of neurodegenerative disorders,” said Picower Professor Li-Huei Tsai, director of The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory and MIT’s Aging Brain Initiative (ABI), in her introduction to the event, which more than 450 people registered to attend. “Together, today’s speakers will trace how the neuro-immune axis shapes brain health and disease … Their work converges on the promise of immunology-informed therapies to slow or prevent neurodegeneration and age-related cognitive decline.”For instance, keynote speaker Michal Schwartz of the Weizmann Institute in Israel described her decades of pioneering work to understand the neuro-immune “ecosystem.” Immune cells, she said, help the brain heal, and support many of its functions, including its “plasticity,” the ability it has to adapt to and incorporate new information. But Schwartz’s lab also found that an immune signaling cascade can arise with aging that undermines cognitive function. She has leveraged that insight to investigate and develop corrective immunotherapies that improve the brain’s immune response to Alzheimer’s both by rejuvenating the brain’s microglia immune cells and bringing in the help of peripheral immune cells called macrophages. Schwartz has brought the potential therapy to market as the chief science officer of ImmunoBrain, a company testing it in a clinical trial.In her presentation, Tsai noted recent work from her lab and that of computer science professor and fellow ABI member Manolis Kellis showing that many of the genes associated with Alzheimer’s disease are most strongly expressed in microglia, giving it an expression profile more similar to autoimmune disorders than to many psychiatric ones (where expression of disease-associated genes typically is highest in neurons). The study showed that microglia become “exhausted” over the course of disease progression, losing their cellular identity and becoming harmfully inflammatory.“Genetic risk, epigenomic instability, and microglia exhaustion really play a central role in Alzheimer’s disease,” Tsai said, adding that her lab is now also looking into how immune T cells, recruited by microglia, may also contribute to Alzheimer’s disease progression.The body and the brainThe neuro-immune “axis” connects not only the nervous and immune systems, but also extends between the whole body and the brain, with numerous implications for aging. Several speakers focused on the key conduit: the vagus nerve, which runs from the brain to the body’s major organs.For instance, Sara Prescott, an investigator in the Picower Institute and an MIT assistant professor of biology, presented evidence her lab is amassing that the brain’s communication via vagus nerve terminals in the body’s airways is crucial for managing the body’s defense of respiratory tissues. Given that we inhale about 20,000 times a day, our airways are exposed to many environmental challenges, Prescott noted, and her lab and others are finding that the nervous system interacts directly with immune pathways to mount physiological responses. But vagal reflexes decline in aging, she noted, increasing susceptibility to infection, and so her lab is now working in mouse models to study airway-to-brain neurons throughout the lifespan to better understand how they change with aging.In his talk, Caltech Professor Sarkis Mazmanian focused on work in his lab linking the gut microbiome to Parkinson’s disease (PD), for instance by promoting alpha-synuclein protein pathology and motor problems in mouse models. His lab hypothesizes that the microbiome can nucleate alpha-synuclein in the gut via a bacterial amyloid protein that may subsequently promote pathology in the brain, potentially via the vagus nerve. Based on its studies, the lab has developed two interventions. One is giving alpha-synuclein overexpressing mice a high-fiber diet to increase short-chain fatty acids in their gut, which actually modulates the activity of microglia in the brain. The high-fiber diet helps relieve motor dysfunction, corrects microglia activity, and reduces protein pathology, he showed. Another is a drug to disrupt the bacterial amyloid in the gut. It prevents alpha synuclein formation in the mouse brain and ameliorates PD-like symptoms. These results are pending publication.Meanwhile, Kevin Tracey, professor at Hofstra University and Northwell Health, took listeners on a journey up and down the vagus nerve to the spleen, describing how impulses in the nerve regulate immune system emissions of signaling molecules, or “cytokines.” Too great a surge can become harmful, for instance causing the autoimmune disorder rheumatoid arthritis. Tracey described how a newly U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved pill-sized neck implant to stimulate the vagus nerve helps patients with severe forms of the disease without suppressing their immune system.The brain’s borderOther speakers discussed opportunities for understanding neuro-immune interactions in aging and disease at the “borders” where the brain’s and body’s immune system meet. These areas include the meninges that surround the brain, the choroid plexus (proximate to the ventricles, or open spaces, within the brain), and the interface between brain cells and the circulatory system.For instance, taking a cue from studies showing that circadian disruptions are a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease, Harvard Medical School Professor Beth Stevens of Boston Children’s Hospital described new research in her lab that examined how brain immune cells may function differently around the day-night cycle. The project, led by newly minted PhD Helena Barr, found that “border-associated macrophages” — long-lived immune cells residing in the brain’s borders — exhibited circadian rhythms in gene expression and function. Stevens described how these cells are tuned by the circadian clock to “eat” more during the rest phase, a process that may help remove material draining from the brain, including Alzheimer’s disease-associated peptides such as amyloid-beta. So, Stevens hypothesizes, circadian disruptions, for example due to aging or night-shift work, may contribute to disease onset by disrupting the delicate balance in immune-mediated “clean-up” of the brain and its borders.Following Stevens at the podium, Washington University Professor Marco Colonna traced how various kinds of macrophages, including border macrophages and microglia, develop from the embryonic stage. He described the different gene-expression programs that guide their differentiation into one type or another. One gene he highlighted, for instance, is necessary for border macrophages along the brain’s vasculature to help regulate the waste-clearing cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) flow that Stevens also discussed. Knocking out the gene also impairs blood flow. Importantly, his lab has found that versions of the gene may be somewhat protective against Alzheimer’s, and that regulating expression of the gene could be a therapeutic strategy.Colonna’s WashU colleague Jonathan Kipnis (a former student of Schwartz) also discussed macrophages that are associated with the particular border between brain tissue and the plumbing alongside the vasculature that carries CSF. The macrophages, his lab showed in 2022, actively govern the flow of CSF. He showed that removing the macrophages let Alzheimer’s proteins accumulate in mice. His lab is continuing to investigate ways in which these specific border macrophages may play roles in disease. He’s also looking in separate studies of how the skull’s brain marrow contributes to the population of immune cells in the brain and may play a role in neurodegeneration.For all the talk of distant organs and the brain’s borders, neurons themselves were never far from the discussion. Harvard Medical School Professor Isaac Chiu gave them their direct due in a talk focusing on how they participate in their own immune defense, for instance by directly sensing pathogens and giving off inflammation signals upon cell death. He discussed a key molecule in that latter process, which is expressed among neurons all over the brain.Whether they were looking within the brain, at its border, or throughout the body, speakers showed that age-related nervous system diseases are not only better understood but also possibly better treated by accounting not only for the nerve cells, but their immune system partners. 

The hidden cost of ultra-processed foods on the environment: ‘The whole industry should pay’

Industrially made foods involve several ingredients and processes to put together, making it difficult to examine their true costIf you look at a package of M&Ms, one of the most popular candies in the US, you’ll see some familiar ingredients: sugar, skimmed milk powder, cocoa butter. But you’ll see many more that aren’t so recognizable: gum arabic, dextrin, carnauba wax, soya lecithin and E100.There are 34 ingredients in M&Ms, and, according to Mars, the company that produces the candy, at least 30 countries – from Ivory Coast to New Zealand – are involved in supplying them. Each has its own supply chain that transforms the raw materials into ingredients – cocoa into cocoa liquor, cane into sugar, petroleum into blue food dye. Continue reading...

If you look at a package of M&Ms, one of the most popular candies in the US, you’ll see some familiar ingredients: sugar, skimmed milk powder, cocoa butter. But you’ll see many more that aren’t so recognizable: gum arabic, dextrin, carnauba wax, soya lecithin and E100.There are 34 ingredients in M&Ms, and, according to Mars, the company that produces the candy, at least 30 countries – from Ivory Coast to New Zealand – are involved in supplying them. Each has its own supply chain that transforms the raw materials into ingredients – cocoa into cocoa liquor, cane into sugar, petroleum into blue food dye.These ingredients then travel across the world to a central processing facility where they are combined and transformed into tiny blue, red, yellow and green chocolate gems.It’s becoming better understood that food systems are a major driver of the climate crisis. Scientists can examine deforestation for agriculture, or the methane emissions from livestock. But the environmental impact of ultra-processed foods – like M&Ms – is less clear and is only now starting to come into focus. One reason they have been so difficult to assess is the very nature of UPFs: these industrially made foods include a huge number of ingredients and processes to put them together, making it nearly impossible to track.But it doesn’t mean it’s not important. As UPFs take over US grocery store shelves and diets– they now comprise 70% of food sold in grocery stores, and more than half of calories consumed – experts say that understanding their environmental toll is critical to build a more climate-friendly food system.What we knowWhile scientists are only starting to examine the environmental impact of UPFs, what’s already known about them is worrisome.“The more processed foods are, the more deleterious they are to human health and the environment,” said Anthony Fardet, a senior researcher at the French National Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment. The main reason, he explains, is that the ingredients are so energy intensive. When combined, the toll balloons.Take M&Ms. The first step in creating the candies is farming for cocoa, sugar, dairy and palm.It has been well-documented that agriculture for ingredients like cocoa drives ever increasing rates of deforestation across the globe. Since 1850, agricultural expansion has driven almost 90% of global deforestation, which has been responsible for 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Mars corporation has been called out in the past for the cocoa farming practices in their supply chain, and have since created sustainability plans, but these fail to address that large-scale agricultural practices like cocoa farming are, at their core, unsustainable.Then there’s sugar, milk solids and palm fat – also major greenhouse gas emitters.On top of that are the industrially made ingredients like food dyes – perhaps the signature of ultra-processing – which M&Ms contain 13 different types of. Blue M&Ms are colored with dyes E132 and E133; these dyes are mostly made in food dye manufacturing hotspots India and China, via a chemical reaction of aromatic hydrocarbons (which are petroleum products) with diazonium salt, catalyzed by the metals copper and chromium.M&Ms for sale in Orlando, Florida, in 2019. Photograph: Jeff Greenberg/Universal Images Group via Getty ImagesCreating soya lecithin, an additive made from soybean oil that’s used to change the consistency of chocolate, requires steps like degumming in a hot reactor, chemically isolating phospholipids, decolorization using hydrogen peroxide and drying under vacuum pressure. And dextrose, a sweetener, starts off as corn that gets steeped in acid before being milled, separated and dried. From there, it’s broken down into smaller molecules using enzymes and acids, and then recrystallized.Mars declined to comment for this story.While ultra-processed chocolate products are some of the worst offenders, other kinds of UPFs are taxing on the environment as well. Take for instance Doritos, which have 39 ingredients. Corn is the main ingredient, and for every acre grown, 1,000kg of carbon dioxide is emitted to the atmosphere. Like Mars, Pepsico, which makes Doritos, has developed its own sustainability promises, but many of these promises are underpinned by practices that are considered greenwashing, like “regenerative agriculture”. In reality, these sustainability promises undercut the dire need to better understand how UPFs affect our global climate.As a result, some experts have started to calculate the environmental toll of UPFs.CarbonCloud, a Sweden-based software company that calculates the emissions of food products, analyzed carbon disclosures from Mars, and estimated that M&Ms generate at least 13.2kg of carbon equivalents per kilogram of M&Ms produced. Mars produces more than 664m kg of M&Ms in the US each year, which would mean that if CarbonCloud’s calculations are accurate, the candies emit at least 3.8m tons of carbon dioxide – making up 0.1% of annual emissions in the US. (Mars does not report emissions by product, but according to their 2024 emissions report, they emitted 29m tons of carbon dioxide across the company.)But this is only an estimate based on publicly available data; the true cost is probably much higher, experts say. There’s a “black box” when it comes to carbon accounting in the processed food industry, says Patrick Callery, a professor at the University of Vermont who researches how corporations engage with the climate crisis. “There is so much uncertainty as supply chains get complex.”What we don’t knowGetting an exact measure of the environmental toll of UPFs is nearly impossible, given that, definitionally, UPFs consist of many ingredients and a high volume of opaque processes. Ingredients aren’t just mixed together like one would do to make a stew at home. Instead, these ingredients are chemically modified, some parts stripped away, and flavors, dyes or textures added in – and it’s unclear what the cost of these processes are because so many suppliers and components are involved.Another reason is that all UPFs (again, definitionally) are the creations of food companies that have little incentive to disclose their environmental footprint and may not fully understand it to begin with.For instance, Mars itself doesn’t farm cocoa, but instead relies on hundreds of farms that don’t always have accurate carbon accounting measures in place. This means that emissions from big food corporations may be underreported. David Bryngelsson, co-founder of CarbonCloud, said that corporations “don’t have actual data, so they use emissions factors, which are guesses”.Callery says that corporations provide reports on simple things like transportation, which are easier to calculate, and often omit or convolute the agricultural emissions of their product. After all, reporting high emissions goes against the interests of large food corporations, so the complex calculations needed to determine the carbon footprint of large-scale agriculture and multi-step industrial chemical processes used to make UPF ingredients remain un-researched.“The main point of ultra-processed foods is money,” said Fardet, pointing out that they’re designed to be attractive, easy and pleasurable to eat.“Most of the people in the [food industry’s] value chain don’t care about climate change from an ideological point of view, but they do care about money,” said Bryngelsson. He explains that to shift those incentives, the value of foods and ingredients would need to incorporate their impact on our shared climate. But that would require government regulations and financial penalties based on the true environmental cost of UPFs, says Bryngelsson.Why it mattersAt just under $2, the price of M&Ms at the grocery store hardly reflects their true cost on the environment. But to address these problems with ultra-processed foods, more than just a few tweaks to the ingredient list are needed.“Reducing the salt, or sugar of just one product is just greenwashing,” said Fardet. “We need to change the whole picture.” To do that, he suggested consuming more locally sourced, whole foods, which often take much less energy and transit to produce, and therefore have a much smaller carbon footprint.Specialty goods that can’t be sourced locally, like chocolate, should make up a small fraction of our diet and come from traceable and ethical supply chains.That’s not easy for all Americans, given the rising cost of food and the prevalence of food deserts and mediocre food retailers across the US.That’s why it can’t just be up to individuals to make environmentally (and health) conscious choices, experts say. Instead, large food corporations need to be held responsible for the burden they place on society – particularly as it pertains to climate change. Sustainability practices, like the “Cocoa for Generations” plan outlined by Mars, or Pepsico’s “Pep+” initiatives are Band-Aids on broken bones. Large food corporations need to be phased out to make global food systems sustainable.But perhaps more important is to change our understanding of the hidden costs of ultra-processed foods, says Fardet, whether it’s at home, in schools or through the banning the marketing of UPFs to children. Our food systems, Fardet said, “are absolutely not normal. The whole industry should pay the hidden costs.”

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.