Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Some dark chocolates contain heavy metals. Should you be concerned?

News Feed
Wednesday, July 31, 2024

An eight-year study conducted by researchers at George Washington University and ConsumerLab, a company that tests and evaluates health foods and supplements, found certain dark chocolates and cocoa products contain amounts of lead and cadmium that are above California’s strict regulations on the heavy metals.“The amount of lead that was found, in general, was not alarming,” said Leigh Frame, the co-lead author of the study and the executive director of the office of integrative medicine and health at George Washington University. “But most people probably don’t have a great handle on what their heavy metal exposure is.”The study’s findings are not a reason to stop eating dark chocolate, Frame said. Some studies suggest flavonoids found in dark chocolate may lower the risk of heart disease and high blood pressure.But these small exposures to heavy metals, plus other exposures in an individual’s diet, could amount to higher blood lead levels over time. “And that is something that we all need to be aware of,” Frame said.“I would not want someone to be afraid of chocolate. That would be the worst thing that could come out of the study to me,” she said. “Frankly, it’s a small contributor to our diet.”The factsConsumerLabs selected cocoa products to test largely using a ranked survey completed by thousands of respondents on the company’s website every year, the researchers write in the study.ConsumerLabs purchased the products and paid for them to be tested at two independent labs, Frame said. Researchers at George Washington University analyzed the results, without knowing the names and brands of the products that were tested.Forty-three percent of the 72 cocoa-containing products had amounts of lead that exceed California’s maximum allowable dose level for the heavy metal, which is 0.5 micrograms per day. Thirty-five percent of the products had amounts of cadmium that exceed California’s rules.Seventy of the 72 products tested contained amounts of lead lower than the Food and Drug Administration’s benchmark of 2.2 micrograms per day for children. The benchmark is set nearly 10 times lower than the amount of lead from food required to meet the marker the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention uses to identify high blood lead levels.Some samples had “much higher” levels of lead and other heavy metals detected; there was “a bit of variability” in dark chocolate and other cocoa products, Frame said. One sample tested had 3.13 micrograms of lead per serving, the highest detected in the study.The researchers say the heavy metals detected “may not pose any appreciable risk for the average person when consumed as a single-serving.”Jacob Hands, the co-lead author of the study and a medical student at George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, said the researchers chose California’s regulation for the analysis because it is a conservative estimate. Frame also said the state’s regulation is what is generally used in other studies.The study was published in the journal Frontiers in Nutrition on Wednesday.Hands is a contract researcher for Consumer Labs.BackgroundThe George Washington University study follows the findings of a 2022 investigation by Consumer Reports that detected cadmium and lead in all of the 28 dark chocolate bars tested, as well as follow-up testing of 48 cocoa-containing products in 2023.In response to questions about the GWU study, an FDA spokesperson said, “while the presence of cadmium and lead in chocolate has been the subject of considerable media attention, experts from around the world have found that chocolate is a minor source of exposure to these contaminants internationally.”Chocolate, or cocoa, has been historically used as a medicine to treat fatigue and improve digestion. And studies suggest flavonoids found in cocoa can lower the risk of heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes. But the type of chocolate matters; darker chocolate often contains higher amounts of cocoa and more flavonoids.Chronic exposure to lead and cadmium is associated with kidney dysfunction and other health problems. Infants, young children and pregnant people can be particularly vulnerable because prolonged lead exposure in early development has been associated with a higher risk of learning disabilities or lower IQ levels.Young children in the United States are eating and drinking far less lead than they did decades ago — from 43 micrograms per day in 1980, to around 1 microgram per day in 2016 — according to the FDA.However, lead contamination in food products remains a concern. In the fall, the FDA warned of “extremely high” levels of lead detected in three brand names of cinnamon applesauce puree pouches. And the agency continues to send public health alerts recommending that consumers stop using and dispose of certain ground cinnamon products contaminated with lead.Frame said the good news is kids generally don’t like eating dark chocolate. The darker the chocolate, the more the cocoa powder and the potential for higher amounts of lead, cadmium or other metals.“I don’t think we need to worry as much about kids,” Frame said.And cocoa powders — such as mixes used for hot chocolate — are often more akin to milk chocolate with less raw cocoa than dark chocolate, she said.What the industry saysChristopher Gindlesperger, the senior vice president of public affairs and communications for the National Confectioners Association, the trade organization for the candy industry in the United States, said chocolate and cocoa are safe to eat, and food safety and product quality “remain our highest priorities.”“Consumers understand that chocolate and candy are occasional treats and not center-of-the-plate foods,” Gindlesperger wrote in an email.Why are heavy metals in dark chocolate?Cadmium in the soil can transfer into a cacoa tree growing there, leading to a “natural contamination,” said Tewodros Godebo, an assistant professor of environmental health sciences at Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine.Lead, though, appears to be introduced during the production of cocoa products, not from the soil, but potentially during drying, processing or packaging, Godebo said.What other experts are sayingKatarzyna Kordas, an associate professor of epidemiology and environmental health at University of Buffalo, said in an email that the study’s findings demonstrate “not all chocolate or cocoa products are created equal.” Some contain more metal than others.The amount of a metal someone is exposed to is a function of how much of the contaminant is in the food, how much the person consumes and whether they’re eating on an empty or full stomach, Kordas said. “We tend to absorb proportionally more metals on an empty stomach,” she said.But the amount of lead or cadmium detected in the study is often below stringent reference values and that suggests “the level of concern may be low,” Kordas said.Godebo said California’s regulations on heavy metals are “very conservative,” making it difficult to translate what the amounts of cadmium or lead mean for the general population. People are exposed to metals every day, and other types of foods, vegetables and fruits can be more significant sources of heavy metals, he said.“Of course, we want a negligible amount of exposure,” Godebo said. “But, literally, it’s impossible.”In a study published in June, Godebo and other researchers at Tulane University tested 155 dark and milk chocolates for lead and other heavy metals and concluded eating one ounce of dark chocolate a day “poses no health concerns for adults.” The researchers also determined four of the chocolate bars tested had cadmium levels that could pose a risk to young children.“What we’ve found is that it’s quite safe to consume dark and milk chocolates,” Godebo said in a statement in June about the study.Should I eat dark chocolate?Frame said she continues to eat chocolate.People can eat a diverse diet of different foods to reduce any potential exposure to lead, or other heavy metals, from a part of their diet, Frame said.Anyone concerned about their exposure to lead, cadmium or other metals should ask their physician for a blood test, Frame said. “Then you’ll have a ground truth,” to determine whether relatively small exposures in your diet could be adding up to higher blood lead levels.“I think it’s pretty clear, actually, that having one ounce of chocolate a day is not detrimental,” Frame said. But people can be cognizant of how much they’re having and how often, she said.Frame said she eats chocolate every other day.“It makes it feel more like a treat,” she said.

Researchers discovered lead and cadmium in tested cocoa products, but the levels are not alarming, they said.

An eight-year study conducted by researchers at George Washington University and ConsumerLab, a company that tests and evaluates health foods and supplements, found certain dark chocolates and cocoa products contain amounts of lead and cadmium that are above California’s strict regulations on the heavy metals.

“The amount of lead that was found, in general, was not alarming,” said Leigh Frame, the co-lead author of the study and the executive director of the office of integrative medicine and health at George Washington University. “But most people probably don’t have a great handle on what their heavy metal exposure is.”

The study’s findings are not a reason to stop eating dark chocolate, Frame said. Some studies suggest flavonoids found in dark chocolate may lower the risk of heart disease and high blood pressure.

But these small exposures to heavy metals, plus other exposures in an individual’s diet, could amount to higher blood lead levels over time. “And that is something that we all need to be aware of,” Frame said.

“I would not want someone to be afraid of chocolate. That would be the worst thing that could come out of the study to me,” she said. “Frankly, it’s a small contributor to our diet.”

The facts

  • ConsumerLabs selected cocoa products to test largely using a ranked survey completed by thousands of respondents on the company’s website every year, the researchers write in the study.
  • ConsumerLabs purchased the products and paid for them to be tested at two independent labs, Frame said. Researchers at George Washington University analyzed the results, without knowing the names and brands of the products that were tested.
  • Forty-three percent of the 72 cocoa-containing products had amounts of lead that exceed California’s maximum allowable dose level for the heavy metal, which is 0.5 micrograms per day. Thirty-five percent of the products had amounts of cadmium that exceed California’s rules.
  • Seventy of the 72 products tested contained amounts of lead lower than the Food and Drug Administration’s benchmark of 2.2 micrograms per day for children. The benchmark is set nearly 10 times lower than the amount of lead from food required to meet the marker the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention uses to identify high blood lead levels.
  • Some samples had “much higher” levels of lead and other heavy metals detected; there was “a bit of variability” in dark chocolate and other cocoa products, Frame said. One sample tested had 3.13 micrograms of lead per serving, the highest detected in the study.
  • The researchers say the heavy metals detected “may not pose any appreciable risk for the average person when consumed as a single-serving.”
  • Jacob Hands, the co-lead author of the study and a medical student at George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, said the researchers chose California’s regulation for the analysis because it is a conservative estimate. Frame also said the state’s regulation is what is generally used in other studies.

The study was published in the journal Frontiers in Nutrition on Wednesday.

Hands is a contract researcher for Consumer Labs.

Background

The George Washington University study follows the findings of a 2022 investigation by Consumer Reports that detected cadmium and lead in all of the 28 dark chocolate bars tested, as well as follow-up testing of 48 cocoa-containing products in 2023.

In response to questions about the GWU study, an FDA spokesperson said, “while the presence of cadmium and lead in chocolate has been the subject of considerable media attention, experts from around the world have found that chocolate is a minor source of exposure to these contaminants internationally.”

Chocolate, or cocoa, has been historically used as a medicine to treat fatigue and improve digestion. And studies suggest flavonoids found in cocoa can lower the risk of heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes. But the type of chocolate matters; darker chocolate often contains higher amounts of cocoa and more flavonoids.

Chronic exposure to lead and cadmium is associated with kidney dysfunction and other health problems. Infants, young children and pregnant people can be particularly vulnerable because prolonged lead exposure in early development has been associated with a higher risk of learning disabilities or lower IQ levels.

Young children in the United States are eating and drinking far less lead than they did decades ago — from 43 micrograms per day in 1980, to around 1 microgram per day in 2016 — according to the FDA.

However, lead contamination in food products remains a concern. In the fall, the FDA warned of “extremely high” levels of lead detected in three brand names of cinnamon applesauce puree pouches. And the agency continues to send public health alerts recommending that consumers stop using and dispose of certain ground cinnamon products contaminated with lead.

Frame said the good news is kids generally don’t like eating dark chocolate. The darker the chocolate, the more the cocoa powder and the potential for higher amounts of lead, cadmium or other metals.

“I don’t think we need to worry as much about kids,” Frame said.

And cocoa powders — such as mixes used for hot chocolate — are often more akin to milk chocolate with less raw cocoa than dark chocolate, she said.

What the industry says

Christopher Gindlesperger, the senior vice president of public affairs and communications for the National Confectioners Association, the trade organization for the candy industry in the United States, said chocolate and cocoa are safe to eat, and food safety and product quality “remain our highest priorities.”

“Consumers understand that chocolate and candy are occasional treats and not center-of-the-plate foods,” Gindlesperger wrote in an email.

Why are heavy metals in dark chocolate?

Cadmium in the soil can transfer into a cacoa tree growing there, leading to a “natural contamination,” said Tewodros Godebo, an assistant professor of environmental health sciences at Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine.

Lead, though, appears to be introduced during the production of cocoa products, not from the soil, but potentially during drying, processing or packaging, Godebo said.

What other experts are saying

Katarzyna Kordas, an associate professor of epidemiology and environmental health at University of Buffalo, said in an email that the study’s findings demonstrate “not all chocolate or cocoa products are created equal.” Some contain more metal than others.

The amount of a metal someone is exposed to is a function of how much of the contaminant is in the food, how much the person consumes and whether they’re eating on an empty or full stomach, Kordas said. “We tend to absorb proportionally more metals on an empty stomach,” she said.

But the amount of lead or cadmium detected in the study is often below stringent reference values and that suggests “the level of concern may be low,” Kordas said.

Godebo said California’s regulations on heavy metals are “very conservative,” making it difficult to translate what the amounts of cadmium or lead mean for the general population. People are exposed to metals every day, and other types of foods, vegetables and fruits can be more significant sources of heavy metals, he said.

“Of course, we want a negligible amount of exposure,” Godebo said. “But, literally, it’s impossible.”

In a study published in June, Godebo and other researchers at Tulane University tested 155 dark and milk chocolates for lead and other heavy metals and concluded eating one ounce of dark chocolate a day “poses no health concerns for adults.” The researchers also determined four of the chocolate bars tested had cadmium levels that could pose a risk to young children.

“What we’ve found is that it’s quite safe to consume dark and milk chocolates,” Godebo said in a statement in June about the study.

Should I eat dark chocolate?

Frame said she continues to eat chocolate.

People can eat a diverse diet of different foods to reduce any potential exposure to lead, or other heavy metals, from a part of their diet, Frame said.

Anyone concerned about their exposure to lead, cadmium or other metals should ask their physician for a blood test, Frame said. “Then you’ll have a ground truth,” to determine whether relatively small exposures in your diet could be adding up to higher blood lead levels.

“I think it’s pretty clear, actually, that having one ounce of chocolate a day is not detrimental,” Frame said. But people can be cognizant of how much they’re having and how often, she said.

Frame said she eats chocolate every other day.

“It makes it feel more like a treat,” she said.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

National Trust members to vote on making cafe food 50% plant-based

Jacob Rees-Mogg criticises plans for 2.6m members to decide on increasing share of vegan and vegetarian optionsNational Trust members are being invited to vote on a plan to make 50% of the food in its cafes vegan and vegetarian as part of the charity’s commitment to reach net zero by 2030.Cafe menus at the trust’s 280 historic sites are already 40% plant-based. Now, the trust’s 2.6 million members will get to vote on whether the charity should gradually increase this figure to 50% over the next two years. Continue reading...

National Trust members are being invited to vote on a plan to make 50% of the food in its cafes vegan and vegetarian as part of the charity’s commitment to reach net zero by 2030.Cafe menus at the trust’s 280 historic sites are already 40% plant-based. Now, the trust’s 2.6 million members will get to vote on whether the charity should gradually increase this figure to 50% over the next two years.The resolution, which was brought by a member and is being supported by the charity, will be voted on at the trust’s annual general meeting on 2 November, with online votes due in by 25 October.However, the plan has drawn criticism, , with the former Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg calling the resolution “a silly, attention-seeking proposal that won’t have any effect unless the National Trust decides to ration meat” while the TV farmer Gareth Wyn Jones described the charity’s aspiration to provide more plant-based food choices as “absolutely ridiculous from a massive landowner with so many livestock farming families living off these farms”.The National Farmers’ Union president Tom Bradshaw suggested National Trust visitors should not have culinary decisions “imposed” on them and that there were benefits to eating meat and dairy: “What we eat is a personal choice and not something which is imposed. Decisions should be made in an informed way taking into consideration the nutritional, environmental and biodiversity benefits that eating a balanced diet including meat and dairy provide.”Earlier this year, the charity was forced to defend its vegan scone recipe after it was accused of “wokery”.The Mail on Sunday suggested the trust had “secretly” made all its scones vegan, with critics condemning the decision to use vegetable spread over butter.However, the charity said its fruit and plain scones in its cafes had actually been dairy free for years, to accommodate the different dietary needs and allergies of its customers, but they could still be enjoyed with lashings of butter, cream and jam.In response to the growing furore around its latest proposal to offer more plant-based food, a National Trust spokesperson emphasised that the charity was “keeping dairy, eggs and meat on the menu, and continuing to work closely with farmers”.She added: “We want our cafes to be more sustainable and we want to keep serving a great variety of food while meeting the changing preferences of our visitors. We estimate two-fifths of our menu is currently plant-based and we can move to half being so in the next two years.”In its AGM booklet, the trust cited David Attenborough when explaining its reasons for the proposal: “The planet can’t sustain billions of meat-eaters.skip past newsletter promotionOur morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it mattersPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“Moving towards a majority plant-based food system would allow more than 70% of farmland to be freed for nature restoration, a change that would capture massive amounts of carbon and increase biodiversity while still providing enough nutritious food for our growing population.”Scientists say avoiding meat and dairy products is the single biggest way to reduce your environmental impact on the planet, and a recent survey of 7,500 people in 10 European countries found that nearly half of British adults (48%) were cutting down on the amount of meat they eat.Last year students at Cambridge University voted to support a transition to a 100% vegan menu across the institution’s catering services, while students at Warwick and Newcastle have voted for their universities to provide 50% plant-based catering.Earlier this year, the founder of the world’s largest vegan charity, Viva!, said all restaurants should offer at least 50% plant-based menus by the end of next year.

Food
Nature
Sustainable

California extends its food additives ban with new bill targeting foods served in local schools

The newly passed bill will ban artificial dyes, which are linked to various behavioral issues in children

California is continuing its ban on various food additives, this time with a new bill that targets specific chemicals served in school lunches throughout the state. The California School Food Safety Act (Assembly Bill 2316) will ban artificial dyes, which California lawmakers believe are linked to behavioral issues in children.  The bill prohibits state school districts and charter schools from serving foods or drinks that contain red dye No. 40, yellow dyes Nos. 5 and 6, blue dyes Nos. 1 and 2, and green dye No. 3 to children in kindergarten through 12th grade. These dyes are commonly found in ice creams, fruit snacks, drinks (like Gatorade and SunnyD), cereals, candy and flavored chips. Although research into the neurological effects of artificial food dyes is still ongoing, such dyes have been shown to have negative impacts on children’s attention span. California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) research into the link between food dyes and child behavior found that the levels (or doses) of dyes deemed “safe” by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “do not adequately take neurobehavioral effects into account.” That’s because the animal studies that the FDA conducted to determine an acceptable exposure level “are many decades old and were not capable of detecting the types of neurobehavioral outcomes measured in later studies, or for which there is concern in children consuming synthetic dyes,” per OEHHA.   The recent School Food Safety Act comes after Governor Gavin Newsom signed the California Food Safety Act, which prohibits the sale of foods containing brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben, or red dye 3 in the state.

Food
Animals
Health

Tackling food insecurity needs more than charity — governments must also act

What it means to move "beyond charity" when it comes to battling food insecurity

Researchers and food-centered organizations have had long-standing concerns that food charity alone cannot effectively respond to this growing demand. Community food groups across Canada have been advocating for a more systemic, structural approach to addressing food insecurity, rather than relying on reactive, short-term solutions like food banks. For example, Food First NL and Community Food Centres Canada are pushing for income-based solutions; the Regroupement des cuisines collectives du Québec is working on a framework bill legislating the right to food; and the Maskwacîs Education Schools Commission in Alberta has developed and implemented a Universal School Food Strategy called Nanâtohk Mîciwin. These groups draw on decades of research on food insecurity, as well as their on-the-ground observations, to develop solutions that address food insecurity more fairly and effectively. Along with colleagues, we recently organized the event Food insecurity: Let's move beyond charity!, focused on how efforts to address food insecurity can move beyond charity. Academic research and the collective efforts of non-profit organizations highlight the urgent need to move beyond short-term fixes and adopt long-term, equitable strategies that address the root causes of food insecurity.   The limits of charity Decades of research, exemplified by PROOF, the food insecurity research group at the University of Toronto, make it clear that food insecurity cannot be solved by relying on charity alone. Charity is important for helping vulnerable people. However, the root causes of food insecurity are systemic issues like inadequate income, social inequalities and insufficient social support; food donations alone fail to tackle these underlying problems. Not everyone is equally at risk of food insecurity. The latest data from Statistics Canada confirms that, as of 2022, Indigenous and Black households, lone-parent families (women-headed families, in particular) and people living with disabilities are disproportionately affected by food insecurity. Researchers argue that food charity may even reinforce the problem by giving the impression that food insecurity is being addressed, and dulling the political imperative to seek lasting solutions. Indeed, since the 1980s, governments have persistently favoured the charity model to address hunger over developing adequate social policies and welfare programs. Only a fraction of those who experience food insecurity use food banks, often due to stigma associated with poverty, the insufficient quality, quantity or appropriateness of donated food, or the absence of food banks in their communities. Meanwhile, community food programs struggle to meet the increasing demand from those who do use them. A recent Food First NL report documents the community food programs' many challenges, including limited resources (funding, food, volunteers). The report highlights the inherent limitations of a model dependent on donations and scarce resources; it is unable to effectively and sustainably meet people's specific and household needs, such as dietary restrictions.   What are the proposed alternatives? Food First NL and Community Food Centres Canada are two non-profit organizations pushing for income-based solutions. In Newfoundland and Labrador, Food First NL advocates for a basic income program to provide unconditional financial support. This is a proposed solution that has garnered significant attention in the province. At the national level, Community Food Centres Canada advocates for federal income and social policy changes, including targeted income programs with revised benefit thresholds, to ensure adequate financial assistance for those most at risk. These income-based solutions resonate with the income- and policy-based approach favoured by PROOF. Research has identified inadequate income as the key cause leading to food insecurity. The Maskwacîs Education Schools Commission showcases an inspiring model that the federal government, having recently announced a new national school food program, should pay attention to. Nanâtohk Mîciwin, the commission's Indigenous-led Universal School Food Strategy, goes beyond offering free, nutritious and culturally appropriate breakfast, lunch and snacks for all students and staff in 10 schools. The commission has created a collection and distribution system to supply traditional foods to schools, built partnerships with producers and harvesters strengthening the local food system, and enhanced connections to traditional foods and practices. Students learn about food in their Cree classes and participate in land-based food activities and harvests. The program is an approach to food provisioning that considers cultural and environmental dimensions of food security. Based on Cree values and a commitment to Indigenous food sovereignty, it provides a rich example of a systemic and structural solution to addressing food insecurity at a more local level. For its part, the Regroupement des cuisines collectives du Québec's is proposing a provincial framework bill on the right to food, based on the work of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Such efforts are vital. They drive home the point that addressing food insecurity is the government's responsibility, and food security as a fundamental human right. They also approach food insecurity as a food-systems issue as much as a social inequality one, taking into account the sustainability of food production, processing and distribution. This is all the more relevant in light of the detrimental impacts of climate change on food production and access, which predominantly affect marginalized communities.   Moving forward Systemic approaches to food insecurity must be focused on giving back agency and dignity to individuals and communities. Such initiatives develop long-term solutions informed by both research and the lived experiences of people struggling with food insecurity. Food charity may still play some role in those solutions, but it must not be the main response to the challenge of food insecurity. It's time for all levels of government to move beyond food charity, heed the advice of those working on the front lines of this crisis, and respond with fair and sustainable social policies and programs. This piece benefited from the support of UBC assistant professor Tabitha Robin, co-lead of the Food insecurity: Let's move beyond charity! research initiative, and Alannah Exelby, a research assistant on the project and health science undergraduate student at Carleton University. Myriam Durocher, Postdoctoral Researcher in Food, Health and Inequities, Carleton University; Annika Walsh, Master's Student, Research Assistant, University of British Columbia; Irena Knezevic, Associate Professor in Communication, Culture, and Health, Carleton University, and Madison Hynes, Program Assistant, Food First NL; PhD candidate in social psychology, Memorial University of Newfoundland   This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Food
Government
Culture

How food banks prevented 1.8 million metric tons of carbon emissions last year

Redistributing food before it’s tossed or wasted doesn’t just fight hunger — it also fights climate change.

The latest annual impact report from the Global Foodbanking Network — a nonprofit that works with regional food banks in more than 50 countries to fight hunger — found that its member organizations provided 1.7 billion meals to more than 40 million people in 2023. According to the nonprofit, this redistribution of food, much of which was recovered from farms or wholesale produce markets, mitigated an estimated 1.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. These numbers reflect an ongoing, high demand for food banks. Last year, the Global Foodbanking Network, or GFN, served almost as many people as it did in 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic sent food insecurity soaring. In order to respond to this pressing need in their communities, many of GFN’s member organizations have invested in agricultural recovery, working to rescue food from farmers before it gets thrown out.  Their efforts show how food banks can serve the dual purpose of addressing hunger and protecting the environment. By intercepting perfectly good, edible food before it winds up in the landfill, food banks help mitigate harmful greenhouse gas emissions created by food loss and waste. “There is always food that is unnecessarily wasted,” said Emily Broad Leib, the founding director of the Food Law and Policy Clinic at Harvard Law School, who has worked with GFN before but was not involved in the recent study. All that unnecessary waste means “there is ongoing need for scaling up food banks and food recovery operations,” Broad Leib added. Read Next One in 11 people went hungry last year. Climate change is a big reason why. Ayurella Horn-Muller A recent analysis from the United Nations Environment Programme estimated that 13 percent of food was lost while it was making its way from producers to retailers in 2022. Subsequently, 19 percent was wasted by retailers, restaurants, and households. The world’s households alone let 1 billion meals go to waste each day. The scope of food wasted around the world has been shockingly high for years: In 2011, the Food and Agricultural Organization, or FAO, of the United Nations released a study that suggested roughly one-third of food produced globally is never eaten.  Food waste at this scale comes with massive planetary impacts. When food goes uneaten, all of the emissions associated with growing, transporting, and processing it are rendered unnecessary. Furthermore, when food rots in landfills, it emits methane, a greenhouse gas that is roughly 80 times more potent than CO2 over a 20-year period. Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency reported that 58 percent of methane emissions from U.S. landfills come from food waste. Globally, food loss and waste have been estimated to be responsible for 8 to 10 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, and reducing them is essential for achieving climate targets.  Food banks can play a special role in that reduction by rescuing more food before it’s lost and redirecting it to people in need.  10 February 2024, Berlin: Vegetables at the Berliner Tafel food bank on the Berlin wholesale market site, which were collected at the Fruit Logistica trade fair. The food bank distributes the food to people affected by poverty. Photo: Christoph Soeder/dpa (Photo by Christoph Soeder/picture alliance via Getty Images) Christoph Soeder / picture alliance via Getty Images “Our members have been building out their redistribution capacity,” said Lisa Moon, the president and CEO of GFN. “I think that was our first challenge in the face of this rising need: How do we as an organization capture more supply?” In order to do this, food banks within GFN member organizations have been coordinating more closely with farmers to redirect surplus food from landfills. GFN defines surplus food as food from commercial streams that was grown for human consumption but that, for some reason or another, cannot be sold. So-called “ugly” produce — misshapen food that never makes it to the grocery store because of its looks — falls into this category. Some of this redirection actually looks like cutting out food banks as the middleman. Moon gives the example of a food bank that receives a call from a farmer with excess green beans. Instead of traveling to the farm to pick them up, traveling back to the food bank’s distribution hub, storing the green beans, and having folks wait for the next distribution day to collect them, the food bank in question might simply reach out to beneficiaries in the area (think: soup kitchens) to inform them of how many green beans are available and where so they can pick them up. GFN refers to this as “virtual food banking” because of how members are using tech platforms to match farmers with beneficiaries, rather than physically moving the produce themselves. Read Next The people who feed America are going hungry Ayurella Horn-Muller The result of this emphasis on agricultural recovery is that fruit and vegetables now make up the largest portion — 40 percent — of food redistributed by GFN members by volume. Moon says the organization is “just only scratching the surface” of possibilities for recovering fresh produce.  In order to calculate that 1.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent was mitigated by these efforts, GFN utilized the Food Loss and Waste Protocol developed by the World Resources Institute. This framework takes a number of things into account, including where recovered food would have ended up had it not been intercepted from the waste stream. These waste destinations can be landfills but also include animal feed, compost, and anaerobic digesters (a waste management technology that converts organic waste into biogas — but that can come with its own emissions problems). Moon acknowledged that GFN does not know in every case what would happen to the surplus food if it were not rescued by a food bank — but pointed out that most of the places where the network operates do not have a robust circular economy for food. Broad Leib, the Harvard Law food policy expert, described GFN’s estimate of carbon dioxide equivalent mitigated as “a good proxy for impact.” While other waste destinations are possible, “we also know that the large majority of wasted food globally goes to landfill,” she said. “I think their estimate is likely not far off from actual emissions avoided.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How food banks prevented 1.8 million metric tons of carbon emissions last year on Aug 14, 2024.

Food
Climate
Waste

Wild genes in domestic species: how we can supercharge our crops using their distant relatives

For millennia, we’ve selectively bred our crop species to make the plants stronger and better yielding. But we’ll need a different approach to help our food plants weather the changes to come.

International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Author providedFood security is shaping up as one of the biggest challenges we face globally. In some places, access to food has steadily deteriorated in recent years, due to wars, inflation and climate-driven extreme weather. The cost of basic foods such as eggs and vegetables has made news worldwide. Food price inflation is now ahead of overall inflation in over half the world’s nations. The obvious answer is to grow more crops, especially the energy-dense top six – rice, wheat, corn, potatoes, soybeans and sugarcane. Unfortunately, it’s getting harder to produce food due to conflict, more extreme weather such as flash droughts and floods and a surge in plant diseases and pests. For farmers to keep producing in an uncertain future, we need better crops. But much cutting edge agricultural research focuses on improving specific aspects of a plant – better drought resistance, or a better ability to tolerate salt in the soil. This may not be enough to cope with future shocks. Our research suggests a way to accelerate the creation of stronger crops by drawing on the full genetic strength of crop species. Crops that don’t stop Humans have greatly modified the plants which give us the lion’s share of our food, using tools such as selective breeding and genetic manipulation. But much agricultural research is done in isolation. Researchers dive deep into solving specific problems – how to make wheat resilient against a specific fungus, for example. The growing challenges to food security across many fronts means a new approach is needed. The changing climate will throw many different threats at our crops. Parts of the world might endure flash droughts while extreme rain floods others. Some pests and diseases will thrive in a hotter world. That’s why we’re looking to another approach – pangenomics, which attempts to capture every gene a species has access to. You might think a species has a unified set of genes, but this is not true. Yes, all rice plants have a set of shared genetic sequences. But individual plants and strains have distinct genetic differences too. The pangenome covers all of these. The idea of a pangenome only emerged in 2005, when microbiologist Hervé Tettelin and his collaborators were looking for a vaccine against the streptococcus bacteria. As they examined different strains, they realised how much additional genetic information was held in them. It was a breakthrough, and showed how much we missed by focusing closely on a single isolate of a species. Before their discovery, we had assumed an individual of a species carried enough information to accurately represent the genomic content of that species. But this isn’t correct. This realisation has changed how we see our crops. Rather than trying to perfect a single cultivar (cultivated variety) using only its own genetic package, the pangenome offers a way to reinfuse lost vigour from the wider gene pool. In 2019, we took the pangenome approach further by considering the entire gene pool of a crop, including its domestic cultivars – and their wild relatives. Many wild relatives of domesticated crops still exist. These plants have huge genetic diversity, and often harbour superior genes or gene variants (alleles) lost to crop plants through domestication and breeding. We dubbed this approach the “super-pangenome” to recognise the capture of domesticated and wild gene pools. How can this help shore up food supplies? For more than 10,000 years, humans have domesticated and selectively bred crops. But wild relatives have thrived over the same timeframe. There are good reasons these wild relatives have not been domesticated, from poor taste to difficulty of storage to low yields. But what they do have are desirable traits in their genetic code we can identify, isolate and infuse back into the domesticated species. Once we have genetic data from across a species and its wild relatives, we can begin looking for particularly useful genes. What we’re after are the ones responsible for adapting to or surviving environmental stresses likely to get worse in the future, such as drought, saline soils and extreme temperatures. We can identify genes responsible for disease resistance and determine why certain varieties offer other desirable traits such as better taste or higher yields. Around the world, a number of promising research projects use this approach, from American researchers using the genes of wild grapes to boost the yield of domesticated grapes to Chinese researchers doing similar work on tomatoes. How can we make crops more resilient to heat, drought and pests? KPixMining/Shutterstock We and our colleagues are focused on the humble chickpea, a highly nutritious legume of particular importance to India’s 1.4 billion people. Chickpeas, like other legume crops, take nitrogen from the air and fix it in the soil, which improves fertility and helps offset emissions of nitrous oxide, a lesser-known greenhouse gas. But chickpeas lack of genetic diversity due to several evolutionary bottlenecks, domestication and selective breeding. This is already causing problems, because low genetic diversity makes species more vulnerable to pests and disease. Chickpea farmers in Western Australia still remember the outbreak of a fungal blight which almost wiped out production in the late 1990s and left the crop unpopular – even while other states expanded exports. The solution: look to the wild relatives. In the genomes of relatives such as Cicer echinospermum, we found several promising genes which helped resist this fungus. These genes can now be incorporated into domesticated species through modern approaches – such as genomics-assisted breeding and gene editing – to develop disease-resistant and high-yielding chickpea varieties. Once we seek out and capture the full gene stock of our most important crops, both wild and domesticated, it will become easier and faster to supercharge these essential plants – and equip them with the genes they need to survive the uncertainties the future holds. Rajeev Varshney receives funding from the Grains Research & Development Corporation, Australia, for pulses research at Murdoch University. Vanika Garg receives funding from the Grains Research & Development Corporation, Australia for pulses research at Murdoch University.

Food
Climate
Energy

Suggested Viewing

Beyond the Soil

Beyond the Soil is a short, poetic documentary which explores the emotional impact of climate change on farmers and ranchers who are on the frontlines of the megadrought in the Rocky Mountain West, and their innovation and resilience in the face of ecological crisis.

Climate
Food

Kumu Niu

The island of O'ahu is covered with coconut palms, but for fear of liability the vast majority of these sacred trees have been stripped of coconuts. The grassroots movement "Niu Now" is on a mission to restore the "niu," or coconut, as a fundamental food crop in Hawai'i and spread the Indigenous wisdom of "aloha 'āina:" loving land and serving people.

Land Use
Indigenous
Food

Sockeye Salmon. Red Fish

Sockeye, a species of wild salmon, is born in Kamchatkan waters and spends its entire life in the Pacific Ocean. Only once does it return to fresh waters - to give offspring, start the circle of life, and die. It is an inexhaustible resource that feeds billions of people on the planet, restored every year! But soon, we may find ourselves facing the unimaginable: humans will exhaust the inexhaustible!

Animals
Food
Extinction

Modern Nature

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

Food
Agriculture
Business

Together We Grow

Together We Grow is a 40-minute documentary telling the story of Common Unity, in Aotearoa New Zealand. Introducing a thriving hub helping to build resilience into its local community by growing, sewing, repairing, sharing – you name it, Common Unity is doing it! Too many of our communities, here and around the world, are facing housing crises, food insecurity, social isolation, and more. In addition, the multiple impacts of the Covid pandemic and climate change are current and ongoing. How can we most effectively confront these challenges, and help our communities thrive in an economic system that leaves many feeling trapped in poverty? Founder Julia Milne and her team have created a completely replicable model for developing strong, connected, resilient communities – a model that could be put in place across thousands of communities in Aotearoa and millions of communities across the world. They’ve proven it can be done, this film was made to help them share the story!

Social Justice
Food
Agriculture

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.