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

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

News Feed
Wednesday, September 4, 2024

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.

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.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

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

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

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

Food
Sustainable
Animals

11 Foods Experts Say Can Boost Your Brain Health And Help Ward Off Dementia

“Proper nutrition is the foundation upon which our mental acuity and vitality rest."

Chris Stein via Getty ImagesBroccoli contains sulforaphane, which has been linked to reduced inflammation and improved brain health.Most people know which foods to avoid for a healthy heart. Yet, do you often think about the foods you eat and how they affect the brain? It’s been scientifically proven that diet can influence brain health. “The brain represents about 2% of our body weight, but it consumes about 20% of all of our calories,” said Dr. Robert Melillo, a brain researcher, clinician, autism expert, and founder of The Melillo Center in Long Island, New York. “The brain uses more calories than any other organ in our body; what we eat can have a big impact on our brain.”Diet and nutrition are essential to keep the brain healthy. “Proper nutrition is the foundation upon which our mental acuity and vitality rest,” said Dr. Brett Osborn, a board-certified neurosurgeon and the chief of neurosurgery at St. Mary’s Medical Center in Jupiter, Florida. “Just as we care for our bodies through exercise and a balanced diet, nurturing our brains through the right foods is essential for a vibrant and youthful mind.”Although scientists still don’t know what causes Alzheimer’s disease, a type of dementia, many think diet and environmental factors play a role. One study in the journal Neurology, published in November 2022, showed that increasing foods high in flavonoids showed it lowered the chances of developing dementia. “The two major groups of factors driving Alzheimer’s are reduced energetics —blood flow, oxygen saturation, mitochondrial function and ketones — and increased inflammation from various pathogens, toxins and metabolic disease,” explained Dr. Dale Bredesen, a neuroscience researcher and neurodegenerative disease expert. “Diet and environmental factors impact both energetics and inflammation, by multiple mechanisms, and therefore play key roles in both Alzheimer’s and treating cognitive decline.”According to Dr. Philip Gold, the chief of neuroendocrine research and senior investigator at the National Institute of Mental Health, “The key positive environmental influences include exercise, which is extremely important, level of education, and cognitive ‘exercise’ throughout life.” Getting sufficient sleep is also key. “Adequate sleep is also critical because, in part, it is during sleep that the brain repairs itself,” he said. Regularly eating foods that are not good for you can have negative consequences on both the body and the brain. “An unhealthy diet may negatively impact gut microbiota, leading to inflammation and potentially influencing the brain,” Osborn said. “Obese people ― most of whom have an unhealthy gut microbiome ― are at a marked risk for the development of Alzheimer’s dementia,” he added.So which foods are the most beneficial for brain health? The experts break it down below.Claudia Totir via Getty ImagesGood news for fans of avocado toast (and eggs!).AvocadoLove eating guacamole, mashing avocado on toast or dicing it into a salad or rice bowl? Avocados have healthy monounsaturated fats, and according to Bredesen, “These help to reduce vascular disease, and provide excellent energy for the brain, without the problems associated with simple carbs or saturated fats.”BroccoliWhether you like broccoli steamed with melted cheese on top, in stir-fries or as a veggie you sneak into your smoothie, you may want to find more ways to enjoy this crunchy vegetable. “Broccoli is a cruciferous vegetable that contains compounds like sulforaphane, which have been linked to reduced inflammation and improved brain health,” Osborn said. A 2019 study published in the journal Brain Circulation shows sulforaphane is an important antioxidant, and has anti-inflammatory properties that shows potential to protect the nervous system and reduce the burden of pervasive diseases on the body. BlueberriesIf you like to add blueberries to your morning bowl of yogurt, your brain will thank you. “Blueberries contain flavonoids, which are neuroprotective and have been shown to increase neuroplasticity and cerebral blood flow,” said Lynn A. Schaefer, Ph.D, a board-certified clinical neuropsychologist in Long Island. A randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study published in Nutritional Neuroscience in 2022 showed older adults who consumed wild blueberries had an increase in processing speed, suggesting blueberries may slow down cognitive decline.And these small berries are full of antioxidants, including anthocyanins. Osborn says anthocyanins can “help protect the brain from oxidative stress and inflammation.” He eats blueberries daily, either in a smoothie or on top of a salad.EggsEggs are known for being a good protein option, especially for those who are vegetarian or follow a plant-based diet. And there’s another reason to celebrate eggs: the yolk contains choline. Choline is an essential nutrient and important to produce acetylcholine. “Acetylcholine is a neurotransmitter that is very important for the parasympathetic nervous system, and important for memory,” Melillo explained. Choline is found in different foods, but the highest concentration is in egg yolks. According to Gold, “Critical to normal cognition, acetylcholine neurotransmission is pronouncedly decreased in Alzheimer’s disease.”Claudia Totir via Getty ImagesSalmon is a fatty fish that's high in omega-3 fatty acids.Fatty fishSalmon, sardines and mackerel are examples of fatty fish that contain omega-3 fatty acid. “These essential fats are crucial for maintaining brain health and have been linked to improved memory, mood regulation, and reduced risk of cognitive decline,” Osborn said. Omega-3 fatty acids are also important for creating new nerve cells and protecting brain cells from damage, according to Gold. Leafy greensDoctors and nutritionists encourage patients to eat more leafy greens because they are packed with nutrients. “Leafy greens such as spinach and kale are packed with vitamins, minerals and antioxidants,” Osborn said. “They promote healthy brain function by reducing inflammation and improving cognitive performance.” Magnesium is an important mineral in leafy greens — Melillo says it helps relax the body, lowering blood pressure and the effects of stress. TunaTuna is a low-fat fish and contains the amino acid tyrosine, an important component for producing neurotransmitters in the brain. “Tyrosine is used for making dopamine and norepinephrine, two of the main neurotransmitters in the brain,” Melillo explained. “Dopamine is more of a left brain neurotransmitter and norepinephrine is more of a right brain neurotransmitter.” Tuna also contains high concentrations of creatine. “Creatine facilitates the entry of water into brain and muscle cells to prevent their dehydration,” Gold said. TurmericSpices provide plenty of flavor and as a bonus can have important compounds that the body needs. Turmeric is a common ingredient that is grated or chopped fresh, or used as a powder in curries. “Turmeric, which contains curcumin, is remarkable in that it has anti-inflammatory effects, and also binds to both the amyloid and tau associated with Alzheimer’s disease, so it has multiple mechanisms to support brain health,” Bredesen said.A study published in the journal Molecules in February 2023 showed curcumin to be antimicrobial and neuroprotective in a variety of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease. GingerAnother spice used in both fresh and powdered form is ginger. “Ginger is a potent anti-inflammatory agent that has been shown to enhance cognitive function,” Osborn said. “The antioxidant effects are also thought to protect neurons against oxidative stress that underpin neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease.”Ginkgo bilobaGinkgo biloba is known to enhance memory and cognitive function. “It is believed to improve blood flow to the brain and protect brain cells from oxidative damage,” Dr. Osborn. “Some research supports its potential benefits in age-related cognitive decline.”Fermented foodsFermented foods, such as kimchi, kefir, kombucha, sauerkraut and yogurt may also be beneficial for the brain. “Research has established that the brain and gut communicate through the nervous system as well as through the immune system,” Schaefer said. “Therefore, changing the bacteria in the gut with probiotics and prebiotics, and not overdoing antibiotics, may play a role in improving brain functioning.”According to Osborn, “Foods that cultivate a healthy microbiome will likely serve as ‘medicines’ to remedy or slow the onset of all age-related diseases, including those affecting the brain.”

Food
Health
Energy

EPA urged to ban spraying of antibiotics on US food crops amid resistance fears

Use of 8m pounds of antibiotics and antifungals a year leads to superbugs and damages human health, lawsuit claimsA new legal petition filed by a dozen public health and farm worker groups demands the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stop allowing farms to spray antibiotics on food crops in the US because they are probably causing superbugs to flourish and sickening farm workers.The agricultural industry sprays about 8m pounds of antibiotic and antifungal pesticides on US food crops annually, many of which are banned in other countries. Continue reading...

A new legal petition filed by a dozen public health and farm worker groups demands the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stop allowing farms to spray antibiotics on food crops in the US because they are probably causing superbugs to flourish and sickening farm workers.The agricultural industry sprays about 8m pounds of antibiotic and antifungal pesticides on US food crops annually, many of which are banned in other countries.The overuse of antibiotics, which are essential to treating human disease, as pesticides on fruits and vegetables threatens public health because it can lead to superbug bacteria that are antibiotic-resistant. Similarly, overuse of antifungal pesticides can lead to fungal infections that are less treatable with medical currently available drugs, the groups say.“Each year Americans are at greater risk from dangerous bacteria and diseases because human medicines are sprayed on crops,” said Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “This kind of recklessness and preventable suffering is what happens when the industry has a stranglehold on the EPA’s pesticide-approval process.”Antibiotic-resistant infections sicken about 2.8 million people and cause about 35,000 deaths, annually, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, estimates. The CDC has linked “medically important antibiotics” that the EPA has approved for pesticide use on crops to antibiotic resistance in bacteria, increased risk of staph infections and increased risk of MRSA.Documents that the Center for Biological Diversity obtained via Freedom of Information Act request show a 2017 CDC study raised concerns about the risks in expanding the use of antibiotics on citrus crops.“The use of antibiotics as pesticides has the potential to select for antimicrobial resistant bacteria present in the environment,” the agency wrote.Meanwhile, consuming antibiotic residues on food can also disrupt the human gut microbiome and increase the risk of chronic diseases. The substances also pollute drinking water supplies, and are thought to harm pollinators. Often low-income and Latino farm workers are most at risk.Farms spray the antibiotics because they kill bacteria that can damage or kill crops.Among the most common antibiotic pesticides is streptomycin, which is commonly used in medical care. The US Geological Survey estimates up to 125,000 pounds have been sprayed on US crops in one year.The petition comes as the EPA faces pressure to expand the use of human antibiotics, Donley said. The bacterial citrus greening disease, transmitted by the Asian citrus psyllid, is devastating citrus orchards in Florida.Donley acknowledged that the citrus industry faces an “incredibly scary” situation, but said pumping more medically important antibiotics on to crops would be a greater disaster in the long run.“I understand their desperation because they’re in dire strays, but from a societal point of view this is absolutely a no-brainer – it cannot happen,” Donley said. “The bottom line is the massive problems created by spraying human medicine on food crops far outweighs the agricultural problems.”Donley said there are simple crop management steps that should be tried first, like planting crops further apart, breeding more disease-resistant varieties of crops and identifying diseased trees and quickly removing them to prevent the diseases from spreading.The petition gives the EPA about five years to respond. Several years ago, the agency banned chloropyrifos in response to a similar legal petition, but a judge overturned the EPA’s ban.The agency can enact a ban, or must give a reason why it won’t. The EPA under the Trump administration was unlikely to act, Donley said. If it, or a future administration, does not act, then the groups can sue. The process could take more than a decade.“We’re playing the long game,” Donley said.

Food
Health
Water

These very hungry microbes devour a powerful pollutant

Microscopic organisms are being deployed to capture methane from sources such as farms and landfills, with the potential for reuse as fertilizer and fish food.

PETALUMA, Calif. — The cows had to be deterred from messing with the experiment.Researchers from a Bay Area technology company had come to the sprawling dairy farm north of San Francisco to test an emerging solution to planet-warming emissions: microscopic pink organisms that eat methane, a potent greenhouse gas.Kenny Correia, 35, of Correia Family Dairy, watched the team from Windfall Bio working near the lagoons used to store manure from the farm’s several hundred cows. The researchers erected a futuristic system of vats, pipes, tubes and shiny metal supports. Then, when everything was assembled, they poured pink liquid into one of the vats. “They were looking like mad scientists out there,” Correia recounted.He acknowledged initially thinking it was a “crazy idea” to integrate an outdoor laboratory into a working farm. There was the potential for the cows to “be all over it — licking it, pulling out wires and scratching on it,” he said.But livestock farms are a significant source of methane emissions, and Windfall wanted to see how much the microbes could help.Correia Family Dairy hosted a trial of a new way to control methane emissions. (Christie Hemm Klok/For The Washington Post)Methane bubbles on a manure lagoon at the farm. (Christie Hemm Klok/For The Washington Post)Fencing around the research equipment kept the cows out. And in June, Windfall reported that the roughly month-long trial had been a success. The microbes had absorbed more than 85 percent of the methane coming from one of the lagoons.“They know how to eat methane,” said Josh Silverman, the company’s CEO and founder. “We’re not creating something new. We’re not teaching them to do something they don’t normally do. They’ve evolved for a million years to do this.”Other varieties of microbes — including the tiny organisms in the gut of cows — are among the factors implicated in the increase of methane in the atmosphere, which is warming the Earth.The gas spews from livestock farms, landfills, wastewater treatment plants, natural gas operations, oil production, rice paddies, wetlands, thawing permafrost and even termite mounds. Although methane breaks down faster than carbon dioxide, its heat-trapping potential is 80 times as powerful in the first 20 years after it’s released.Methane-eating microbes could help disrupt that process.Bottles of microbes are kept in a refrigerator at Windfall Bio. (Christie Hemm Klok/For The Washington Post)They may be especially useful if deployed at the many scattered sites responsible for small methane emissions, which can collectively add up to a big problem in the atmosphere.Windfall estimates that if its microbe technology were scaled across the energy, waste and agriculture industries in the United States, it could annually slash up to 1.6 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent, an amount produced by driving more than 370 million gas-powered cars for one year.Another research team, at the University of Washington, says its microbes deployed broadly could capture about 420 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, or what could be generated from driving nearly 98 million gas-powered cars for a year.To develop a further benefit — and to help make their enterprises more commercially viable — the researchers are working to turn the methane-eating microbes into products such as fertilizer and animal feed, supporting a more sustainable food chain.“This waste methane is a huge resource,” said Mary Lidstrom, a chemical engineer and microbiologist who is leading the UW project. “Many of the technologies that address the climate really are only addressing climate, but this has a dual outcome.” Master stocks of microbes are stored in a Windfall Bio freezer. (Christie Hemm Klok/For The Washington Post)Finding hungry microbesLidstrom’s favorite microbes come from the bottom of a lake in eastern Siberia. About 20 years ago, a Russian postdoctoral student brought a sample of Methylotuvimicrobium buryatense to the University of Washington, urging her to take a look.Lidstrom had by then been working for three decades with microbes that consume the gas, also known as methanotrophs. She’d never seen anything like this strain: The rod-shaped microbes could quickly grow in varying conditions and had an especially healthy appetite for methane — demonstrating an ability to process and use the gas for energy to reproduce even when there were only low levels in the air.It became the “workhorse” of the lab’s experiments. “It’s just better than all these other methanotrophs,” she said.The pink color is a sign of healthy microbes. (Christie Hemm Klok/For The Washington Post)Windfall Bio CEO Josh Silverman. (Christie Hemm Klok/For The Washington Post)Silverman stayed local in his search for methane-eating microbes, affectionately dubbed “mems.” From compost piles and dirt near where he lives in Palo Alto, California, he collected samples of microbes and other microorganisms that coexist with them and enable the consumption of methane in nature. “Friends and helpers,” he calls them. The samples were then incubated inside his backyard gas grill, fed by methane coming from the natural gas line.The contents of a jar labeled No. 6 emerged victorious. The “Jar 6” strain is the basis for about a dozen newer cultivations that Windfall has been experimenting with.At the company’s lab in San Mateo, California, a large refrigerator holds an assortment of jars, bottles and plastic petri dishes containing mems.“The pinker they are, usually the happier and healthier they are,” Silverman said, grabbing a small bottle about three-quarters full with a wet pink jelly.Lidstrom, who said she considers her microbes her babies, can also tell just from looking how the organisms are faring. The cells should be growing in a thick film that has the consistency of mucus, she said, and have a salmon pink hue.A hotdog roller is used to heat and mix samples in the lab. (Christie Hemm Klok/For The Washington Post)Putting microbes to the testAs researchers continue to refine and breed strains of microbes, they are trying to figure out which combinations and methods work best to eliminate methane emissions in different contexts. Manure lagoons at dairy farms, for instance, may need a different approach than landfills.The goal is to remove as much of the polluting gas as possible. Silverman said Windfall’s microbes can — in theory — eat more than 99 percent of the methane that’s released. But conditions such as outside temperature can lower that number.“From a climate perspective, zero percent of the methane is being captured currently, so any reduction at all is still a net benefit,” he said. “The fact that we could achieve such a high conversion with a cheap, small-scale, farm-viable approach fills a niche that has been historically a very tough area to crack.”There are some established ways to capture large methane emissions. Landfills, for instance, typically extract methane using a system of wells and pipes. The gas can then be processed to generate electricity or turned into renewable biogas. Substantial quantities of methane can also be flared, or burned, which turns it into carbon dioxide.But at landfills and elsewhere, some of the gas can still escape into the air. And it’s been harder to find an affordable method to contain smaller releases.The Lidstrom Lab at the University of Washington tests how much methane can be captured by microbes at a decommissioned landfill. (Jovelle Tamayo/For The Washington Post)Mary Lidstrom, a chemical engineer and microbiologist. (Jovelle Tamayo/For The Washington Post)Windfall Bio and Lidstrom’s team are both experimenting with setups that funnel waste methane into a bioreactor — a fancy word for an enclosed system that could be as simple as a plastic container — where the microbes are held. Inside these containers, the minuscule organisms consume the gas and release carbon dioxide into the air.Although it may seem odd for a climate-friendly project to release CO2, scientists say the trade-off is worth it.“I’m in favor of any approach that destroys methane, even if it makes carbon dioxide, because that’s what happens to all the methane in the atmosphere,” said Rob Jackson, a climate scientist at Stanford University’s Woods Institute for the Environment, who is not involved in the microbe projects.Over time, methane naturally breaks down into CO2. By destroying methane, “you skip the most damaging part of the molecule’s lifetime, which is the 10 or 15 years it will spend as methane in the air before it turns into carbon dioxide,” Jackson said.Windfall Bio is also looking at applying microbes directly to the land where methane is seeping from. That sort of strategy could be deployed at landfills, the third-largest source of human-related methane emissions in the U.S., according to the Environmental Protection Agency.Windfall recently ran field tests of its microbes at a major landfill near Los Angeles.“We’re looking at all the different things that we can do to reduce methane and odors from landfills, and microbiology is one of the last frontiers,” said Eugene Tseng, a technical adviser for the local California enforcement agency that oversees environmental compliance at the landfill. “The implications are huge.”The soil room at Windfall Bio, where methane and carbon dioxide is measured by a flux meter. (Christie Hemm Klok/For The Washington Post)On the day The Washington Post visited the landfill, Carla Risso, Windfall Bio’s vice president of research and development, held a large white plastic watering can full of healthy mems. She leaned over and sprinkled the light pink liquid onto a plot of soil, trying to spread the solution evenly, as a light breeze carrying the faintest whiff of trash blew the droplets around.Researchers monitored how much methane was released from various plots treated with different applications of mems. A single application absorbed more than 75 percent of methane emissions, according to a Windfall report, and the microbes consumed at that rate for more than 30 days.Lian He, a researcher at the Lidstrom Lab, after collecting data from the landfill testing site. (Jovelle Tamayo/For The Washington Post)Condensation in a bioreactor with trays of microbe cultures. (Jovelle Tamayo/For The Washington Post)In Seattle, Lidstrom’s team launched its first field test in June, using a prototype bioreactor, made by colleagues at Auburn University, to capture methane emissions seeping from a decommissioned landfill on the UW campus.By the end of several rounds of testing, Lidstrom said the bioreactor was working as well in the field as it does in laboratory settings. Under certain conditions, the system achieved up to 90 percent reduction of methane, according to peer-reviewed results published in October.Although Lidstrom said there are still improvements to be made, her long-term vision is to deploy between 100,000 to 200,000 shipping-container-size treatment units that can be used to capture and process methane. The goal, she said, is to start putting units in the field by 2030.“It’ll take some years to ramp up,” she said.Some of the herd at Correia Family Dairy. (Christie Hemm Klok/For The Washington Post)The value of wasteMethane-eating microbes are natural recyclers. As they derive energy from methane, they grow and multiply, creating biomass, an organic material packed with protein and other nutrients.Researchers are trying to capitalize on this capability — to make their work even more beneficial, attract more customers and be profitable enough to reach scale.Lindstrom wants to repurpose the biomass as a protein-rich supplement for farmed fish. She anticipates that climate change and other factors leading to the decline of wild fish populations could increase the demand for aquaculture.“There’s already a market,” she said, noting that at least one cellular agriculture company is using microbes to produce protein for pet, fish and livestock feed. “It’s already been demonstrated, you don’t have to start from scratch, and it’s of reasonable value.”Windfall has begun producing fertilizer made from mems. The microbes are dried, turned into powder and pressed into chalky brown cylindrical pellets that carry a faint odor of dried meat. The company is also looking into developing a liquid fertilizer, Silverman said.The idea is that farms that use their microbes for containing methane can get fertilizer in return, which the farmers can either use themselves or sell.“If you are asking people to pay more for a climate solution, it doesn’t happen,” he said. “We need these things to be able to pay back for the operator itself.”A young bull calf rests in a barn. (Christie Hemm Klok/For The Washington Post)Making compost out of manure, using a solid waste separator, can help reduce methane emissions. (Christie Hemm Klok/For The Washington Post)Whether there will be large-scale demand for either a protein supplement or fertilizer produced through these methods is still something of an open question.Dairy farms don’t typically need fertilizer, since they use liquid manure, said Joseph Button, vice president of sustainability and strategic impact with Straus Family Creamery. But he said he could see some of the creamery’s suppliers, like Correia, interested in selling it to other agriculture operations.“There’s been a lot of — I’ll call them ‘biological solutions’ that have popped up that have not proven out at all,” Button said. “Part of my role is to safeguard the farmers from bad solutions.”But after reviewing lab data and seeing that Windfall had secured backing from major donors, such as Amazon’s Climate Pledge Fund, Button agreed to pitch farmers in his network on hosting a microbes pilot. (Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Post.)Correia Family Dairy is certified as an organic milk supplier. (Christie Hemm Klok/For The Washington Post)Correia said he would welcome more tests at his dairy farm.The farm already uses other approaches to reduce emissions, including processing solid manure into compost. But as he checked on new calves — each a source of methane — Correia said he hoped that with the right technology and methods, he could one day run a farm that has “no negative impact on the environment.”“It’s 100 percent possible,” he said.

Food
Agriculture
Chemicals

New Study Reveals We Are Clueless About Our Food’s Carbon Footprint

People misjudge the environmental footprint of many foods. Better labeling could guide more sustainable consumer decisions. A recent study provides new insight into how people understand the environmental impact of the foods they eat, revealing that many individuals misjudge these impacts. The findings point to a clear need for environmental impact labeling. Researchers in the [...]

People misjudge the environmental footprint of many foods. Better labeling could guide more sustainable consumer decisions. A recent study provides new insight into how people understand the environmental impact of the foods they eat, revealing that many individuals misjudge these impacts. The findings point to a clear need for environmental impact labeling. Researchers in the [...]

Food
Sustainable

Suggested Viewing

Better Bites with Bugs

The practice of eating bugs -- entomophagy -- has a lot to commend it. You may disagree. But try to put your preconceptions aside!

Agriculture
Food

America Recycled

Two brothers ride recycled bicycles through the American South over two years, seeking radical locality amid rampant globalization. As they learn to survive on the road, several modern homesteading communities take them in, guiding them toward the west coast and turning their idea of the American Dream on its head.

Resources
Food
Documentary

From Tide to Table: Two Docks Shellfish

Clams have been called the perfect protein - let's find out why. From harvest through the processing facility, to the delivery to a restaurant, we find out what it takes to get clams on your plate.

Food
Documentary

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

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

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.