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.

The Field Report: The Future of Organic Food Is Taking Shape at the USDA—and Beyond

News Feed
Wednesday, January 25, 2023

Over the past few years, as the U.S. organic market has surpassed $60 billion in sales, organic farmers, businesses, and advocates have been engaged in a heated debate about the strength and integrity of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Organic standards. Now, the agency has finally started taking action to address some of the loopholes long pointed to by advocates. But it may be too little, too late for the growing number of groups pushing ahead with plans to expand the reach of a range of “add-on” labels that include stricter standards. We have long seen reports of fraudulent organic grain flooding the market from overseas and driving down prices for U.S.-based producers. But last week, the USDA finalized a highly anticipated rule designed to address imports that increases unannounced inspections, increases record-keeping requirements, and requires supply chain audits for some operations. “NOC applauds the USDA for their sustained work to bring this rule to completion,” Abby Youngblood, Executive Director at the National Organic Coalition (NOC), said in a press release. “Organic producers’ livelihoods depend on strong and consistent enforcement of organic regulations. For more than a decade, operations have been undercut by fraudulent products that have no business carrying the organic seal. NOC strongly supports provisions in this rule that will give USDA and certification agencies more authority to crack down on bad actors.” The Organic Farmers Association and Organic Trade Association also celebrated the announcement. But Real Organic Project (ROP) co-director and Vermont farmer Dave Chapman was less enthusiastic. While he acknowledged the rule does “address one threat to organic integrity,” he and other ROP farmers believe bigger problems persist. Namely, they see the organic certification of hydroponic farms that don’t grow plants in soil and of large industrial meat operations that keep thousands of animals primarily confined as anathema to what organic stands for. “A lot of people want real organic bananas and real organic coffee and real organic chocolate. We’re trying to figure out how to keep the U.S. market real.” To that end, at last week’s Eco-Farm conference in Monterey, California, Chapman and his fellow farmers announced an expansion. Over the last several years, ROP inspectors have certified more than 1,000 “real organic” farms across the country. Now, they’re expanding their influence outside the U.S. through a partnership with Naturland, an add-on organic label started by farmers in Germany in 1982 that has certified more than 140,000 farms around the world. “They’re basically us, but they’re 40 years old,” Chapman said. Naturland and ROP are establishing an equivalency, whereby products that qualify for one of the certifications will automatically qualify for the other. What that means in practical terms is that while ROP will maintain its focus on certifying U.S. farms, Naturland will certify international products that will then carry the ROP seal in the U.S. “A lot of people want real organic bananas and real organic coffee and real organic chocolate,” Chapman said. “We’re trying to figure out how to keep the U.S. market real, and if we can succeed at that, that would be great.” As opportunities arise, Naturland will also help ROP certify processors of products that use ingredients from multiple farms, which is an endeavor the label hasn’t yet engaged in. Interestingly, the Regenerative Organic Certified (ROC) label, another organic add-on certification that launched in step with ROP, has grown in the opposite direction. It started with more certifications of international operations and is now beginning to establish itself more on U.S. farms. The USDA is also working to strengthen support for small-scale organic dairy producers. In August 2020, Danone ended contracts with nearly 90 of its Horizon Organic farms in the region, compounding an already devastating situation in which many farms were struggling to survive pandemic-related disruptions and sky-high feed and supply costs. On Monday, the USDA announced it will allocate $100 million to a new Organic Dairy Marketing Assistance Program. Through the program, the Farm Service Agency will provide payments to “smaller organic dairy farms” to cover a portion of their marketing costs. Details on qualifications and timing are still TBD. In the last year, ROP worked with a coalition of other organizations to mobilize support for those farms, calling on its farmers to sign petitions and talk to their representatives, while accusing Danone of moving away from organic ideals. Chapman said that while payments might help the farmers in the short-term, cracking down on the new generation of large organic dairies that keep thousands of cows confined indoors would do much more. After all, those farms have helped drive prices down, making it impossible for smaller farms raising their cows on pasture to compete. “They don’t need to [give out money]. They just need to enforce the rules and the market will transition people into organic farming . . . and suddenly all the small dairy farmers can make a living,” he said. But with quite a few other opinions circling about what organic is and should be, many interests involved, and a federal agency that tends to move slowly, the future looks like it will be much more complicated. Read More: What is the Future of Organic? USDA Moves Forward With Sweeping Plans to Prevent Fraud in Organic What Does the New Regenerative Organic Standard Mean for the Future of Good Food? Runoff Review. According to a plan released Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will soon begin a detailed study to measure water pollution from large, industrial animal farms to ultimately determine whether new regulations are necessary under the Clean Water Act. The action comes in response to a 2021 Food & Water Watch lawsuit, and environmental groups have long pushed for more regulation of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), which are currently exempt from most Clean Water Act rules that apply to other industrial sites. Last March, researchers at the Environmental Integrity Project released a report that pointed the finger at agricultural runoff—from CAFOs and crop fields—as the biggest reason half of the country’s waterways remain impaired 50 years after the law was passed. Food & Water Watch Legal Director Tarah Heinzen called the EPA’s plan “a critical opportunity” to understand and regulate water pollution from CAFOs. However, it’s bound to take a long time: In the plan, the agency noted that the last time it looked at whether CAFOs should be subject to new water pollution regulations the process took 11 years. They’ll need to determine the extent of the pollution before even considering new regulations, and the EPA’s “data about discharges of pollutants from CAFOs is sparse; indeed, its preliminary analysis was only able to analyze monitoring data from sixteen reporting CAFOs,” according to the agency’s plan. Not to mention that the agency is under-staffed and already facing more work than it can handle, according to a recent New York Times report. Finally, the agricultural industry is bound to push back. For example, the American Farm Bureau Federation, has been—and still is—actively fighting against an expanded definition of what constitutes a waterway in the context of agricultural pollution for nearly a decade. Read More:  The Field Report: The Clean Water Act Has Failed to Curb Agricultural Pollution EPA to Revise Outdated Water Pollution Standards for Slaughterhouses Anger (and Hunger) in Anchorage. According to a lawsuit filed last week, food-insecure families who have applied for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits in Alaska have had to wait up to four months for the assistance to come through. Ten Alaskans are suing Alaska Health Commissioner Heidi Hedberg, alleging that the Health Department is in violation of federal laws that require SNAP benefits to be administered within 30 days. “We’ve got people who are eating less so they can feed their kids, trying to juggle their bills and decide whether they’re going to pay for their heat or their groceries,” Saima Akhtar, an attorney representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit told the Alaska Beacon. The lawsuit comes at a time when emergency boosts in benefits approved early in the pandemic are expiring in states across the country, while high food prices continue to make food unaffordable for many low-income families. Read More: “It’s Not Enough.” SNAP Recipients Struggle With High Food Prices  Op-Ed: The Increase in SNAP is Welcome. Now Let’s Reform the Entire Benefits System Tackling Heavy Metal Exposure. Yesterday, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed new limits on lead in processed baby foods, including fruits and vegetables, yogurts, and dry cereals. If finalized, the agency would then be able to recall foods found to contain lead at higher levels. The agency’s actions come after multiple reports from as far back as 2019 that found lead present in up to 95 percent of store-bought baby foods. “Today’s announcement to set tougher standards for toxic metals in baby foods is important progress by the FDA,” said Scott Faber, the Environmental Working Group’s senior vice president of government affairs. But some scientists and lawmakers said that the limits didn’t go far enough, and expressed concerns about the agency’s ability to enforce them. Read More: What Portland’s Soil Crisis Can Teach Us About Heavy Metals in the Garden Will the U.S. Ban PFAS in Food Packaging? The post The Field Report: The Future of Organic Food Is Taking Shape at the USDA—and Beyond appeared first on Civil Eats.

Now, the agency has finally started taking action to address some of the loopholes long pointed to by advocates. But it may be too little, too late for the growing number of groups pushing ahead with plans to expand the reach of a range of “add-on” labels that include stricter standards. We have long seen […] The post The Field Report: The Future of Organic Food Is Taking Shape at the USDA—and Beyond appeared first on Civil Eats.

Over the past few years, as the U.S. organic market has surpassed $60 billion in sales, organic farmers, businesses, and advocates have been engaged in a heated debate about the strength and integrity of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Organic standards.

Now, the agency has finally started taking action to address some of the loopholes long pointed to by advocates. But it may be too little, too late for the growing number of groups pushing ahead with plans to expand the reach of a range of “add-on” labels that include stricter standards.

We have long seen reports of fraudulent organic grain flooding the market from overseas and driving down prices for U.S.-based producers. But last week, the USDA finalized a highly anticipated rule designed to address imports that increases unannounced inspections, increases record-keeping requirements, and requires supply chain audits for some operations.

“NOC applauds the USDA for their sustained work to bring this rule to completion,” Abby Youngblood, Executive Director at the National Organic Coalition (NOC), said in a press release. “Organic producers’ livelihoods depend on strong and consistent enforcement of organic regulations. For more than a decade, operations have been undercut by fraudulent products that have no business carrying the organic seal. NOC strongly supports provisions in this rule that will give USDA and certification agencies more authority to crack down on bad actors.” The Organic Farmers Association and Organic Trade Association also celebrated the announcement.

But Real Organic Project (ROP) co-director and Vermont farmer Dave Chapman was less enthusiastic. While he acknowledged the rule does “address one threat to organic integrity,” he and other ROP farmers believe bigger problems persist. Namely, they see the organic certification of hydroponic farms that don’t grow plants in soil and of large industrial meat operations that keep thousands of animals primarily confined as anathema to what organic stands for.

“A lot of people want real organic bananas and real organic coffee and real organic chocolate. We’re trying to figure out how to keep the U.S. market real.”

To that end, at last week’s Eco-Farm conference in Monterey, California, Chapman and his fellow farmers announced an expansion. Over the last several years, ROP inspectors have certified more than 1,000 “real organic” farms across the country. Now, they’re expanding their influence outside the U.S. through a partnership with Naturland, an add-on organic label started by farmers in Germany in 1982 that has certified more than 140,000 farms around the world. “They’re basically us, but they’re 40 years old,” Chapman said.

Naturland and ROP are establishing an equivalency, whereby products that qualify for one of the certifications will automatically qualify for the other. What that means in practical terms is that while ROP will maintain its focus on certifying U.S. farms, Naturland will certify international products that will then carry the ROP seal in the U.S.

“A lot of people want real organic bananas and real organic coffee and real organic chocolate,” Chapman said. “We’re trying to figure out how to keep the U.S. market real, and if we can succeed at that, that would be great.” As opportunities arise, Naturland will also help ROP certify processors of products that use ingredients from multiple farms, which is an endeavor the label hasn’t yet engaged in.

Interestingly, the Regenerative Organic Certified (ROC) label, another organic add-on certification that launched in step with ROP, has grown in the opposite direction. It started with more certifications of international operations and is now beginning to establish itself more on U.S. farms.

The USDA is also working to strengthen support for small-scale organic dairy producers. In August 2020, Danone ended contracts with nearly 90 of its Horizon Organic farms in the region, compounding an already devastating situation in which many farms were struggling to survive pandemic-related disruptions and sky-high feed and supply costs. On Monday, the USDA announced it will allocate $100 million to a new Organic Dairy Marketing Assistance Program. Through the program, the Farm Service Agency will provide payments to “smaller organic dairy farms” to cover a portion of their marketing costs. Details on qualifications and timing are still TBD.

In the last year, ROP worked with a coalition of other organizations to mobilize support for those farms, calling on its farmers to sign petitions and talk to their representatives, while accusing Danone of moving away from organic ideals. Chapman said that while payments might help the farmers in the short-term, cracking down on the new generation of large organic dairies that keep thousands of cows confined indoors would do much more. After all, those farms have helped drive prices down, making it impossible for smaller farms raising their cows on pasture to compete. “They don’t need to [give out money]. They just need to enforce the rules and the market will transition people into organic farming . . . and suddenly all the small dairy farmers can make a living,” he said.

But with quite a few other opinions circling about what organic is and should be, many interests involved, and a federal agency that tends to move slowly, the future looks like it will be much more complicated.

Read More:
What is the Future of Organic?
USDA Moves Forward With Sweeping Plans to Prevent Fraud in Organic
What Does the New Regenerative Organic Standard Mean for the Future of Good Food?

Runoff Review. According to a plan released Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will soon begin a detailed study to measure water pollution from large, industrial animal farms to ultimately determine whether new regulations are necessary under the Clean Water Act.

The action comes in response to a 2021 Food & Water Watch lawsuit, and environmental groups have long pushed for more regulation of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), which are currently exempt from most Clean Water Act rules that apply to other industrial sites. Last March, researchers at the Environmental Integrity Project released a report that pointed the finger at agricultural runoff—from CAFOs and crop fields—as the biggest reason half of the country’s waterways remain impaired 50 years after the law was passed.

Food & Water Watch Legal Director Tarah Heinzen called the EPA’s plan “a critical opportunity” to understand and regulate water pollution from CAFOs. However, it’s bound to take a long time: In the plan, the agency noted that the last time it looked at whether CAFOs should be subject to new water pollution regulations the process took 11 years.

They’ll need to determine the extent of the pollution before even considering new regulations, and the EPA’s “data about discharges of pollutants from CAFOs is sparse; indeed, its preliminary analysis was only able to analyze monitoring data from sixteen reporting CAFOs,” according to the agency’s plan. Not to mention that the agency is under-staffed and already facing more work than it can handle, according to a recent New York Times report. Finally, the agricultural industry is bound to push back. For example, the American Farm Bureau Federation, has been—and still is—actively fighting against an expanded definition of what constitutes a waterway in the context of agricultural pollution for nearly a decade.

Read More: 
The Field Report: The Clean Water Act Has Failed to Curb Agricultural Pollution
EPA to Revise Outdated Water Pollution Standards for Slaughterhouses

Anger (and Hunger) in Anchorage. According to a lawsuit filed last week, food-insecure families who have applied for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits in Alaska have had to wait up to four months for the assistance to come through. Ten Alaskans are suing Alaska Health Commissioner Heidi Hedberg, alleging that the Health Department is in violation of federal laws that require SNAP benefits to be administered within 30 days.

“We’ve got people who are eating less so they can feed their kids, trying to juggle their bills and decide whether they’re going to pay for their heat or their groceries,” Saima Akhtar, an attorney representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit told the Alaska Beacon. The lawsuit comes at a time when emergency boosts in benefits approved early in the pandemic are expiring in states across the country, while high food prices continue to make food unaffordable for many low-income families.

Read More:
“It’s Not Enough.” SNAP Recipients Struggle With High Food Prices 
Op-Ed: The Increase in SNAP is Welcome. Now Let’s Reform the Entire Benefits System

Tackling Heavy Metal Exposure. Yesterday, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed new limits on lead in processed baby foods, including fruits and vegetables, yogurts, and dry cereals. If finalized, the agency would then be able to recall foods found to contain lead at higher levels. The agency’s actions come after multiple reports from as far back as 2019 that found lead present in up to 95 percent of store-bought baby foods. “Today’s announcement to set tougher standards for toxic metals in baby foods is important progress by the FDA,” said Scott Faber, the Environmental Working Group’s senior vice president of government affairs. But some scientists and lawmakers said that the limits didn’t go far enough, and expressed concerns about the agency’s ability to enforce them.

Read More:
What Portland’s Soil Crisis Can Teach Us About Heavy Metals in the Garden
Will the U.S. Ban PFAS in Food Packaging?

The post The Field Report: The Future of Organic Food Is Taking Shape at the USDA—and Beyond appeared first on Civil Eats.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

DNA test says it can predict opioid addiction risk. Skeptics aren’t so sure.

The Food and Drug Administration approved the test despite an agency committee of experts voting overwhelmingly against recommending approval.

Using a swab inside the cheek and a sophisticated computer algorithm, a DNA test recently approved by federal regulators promises to assess genetic risk of opioid addiction. The test’s maker says results give doctors and patients a crucial tool when considering use of the very pain pills that ignited the nation’s opioid crisis.But as the company, SOLVD Health, prepares to roll out AvertD in coming months, skeptics remain unconvinced. They worry that patients shown to have a low risk of addiction may feel emboldened to pop pain pills — then get hooked. Or that doctors will deny painkillers to patients errantly deemed at elevated risk.Above all, some geneticists and public health experts say AvertD relies on unsound science. The Food and Drug Administration approved the AvertD cheek-swab test in December, despite an agency committee of experts voting overwhelmingly, 11-2, against recommending approval.Andrew Kolodny, an opioid researcher at Brandeis University, blasted the test as a “sham.”“You’ve got an alignment: profiteering by industry and federal agencies that feel they’re under the gun to do something about the problem, even if that something is counterproductive,” said Kolodny, president of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing, which aims to educate prescribers and patients.The FDA says it approved the test because the severity of the opioid crisis “calls for innovative measures” to prevent addiction and save lives. The agency said it worked with SOLVD Health to address concerns raised by the advisory committee.The company and the FDA stress that AvertD does not predict whether a person will develop opioid use disorder. They say doctors should use the test — which is available by prescription — only as part of an in-depth evaluation of adults who may experience pain or will undergo surgery and have no history of using opioids, not those already grappling with addiction. Patients identified by AvertD as having an elevated risk are 18 times more likely to develop an addiction after taking an opioid compared with people who take the test and are shown not to have an elevated risk, according to research cited by the company.“We are extremely focused on informing and empowering a patient to understand their risk prior to taking that medication,” said Keri Donaldson, CEO of SOLVD Health, based in Carlsbad, Calif.To use the test, a doctor swabs the inside of a patient’s cheek, then sends the sample overnight to the company. Its lab analyzes DNA for 15 genetic markers it says are associated with opioid use disorders. The data is run through an algorithm trained on genetic data from more than 7,000 people, some of whom were diagnosed with opioid use disorder. The computer generates a score of between zero and one. Someone who scores 0.33 or higher is considered at elevated genetic risk of getting hooked on an opioid medication.“We felt that was important information that providers and patients should have access to,” William Maisel, director of the office of product evaluation and quality at the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in an interview.“You could argue that it’s unethical to withhold that type of product and that type of information from people. … We recognize the potential shortcomings of the test. But there are also great benefits,” Maisel said.The FDA has long been criticized for approving certain drugs despite concerns about their safety or effectiveness. The agency has also come under scrutiny for not doing enough to regulate increasingly popular lab tests.AvertD was developed by SOLVD subsidiary AutoGenomics. The company has yet to set prices for the test, which could be covered by Medicare and Medicaid.The FDA advisory committee that reviewed AvertD was composed of independent experts who raised questions about the validity of the test during an Oct. 20, 2022, meeting. While their vote was not binding, committee members cited worries about algorithm bias, uncertainty about how much of a role the genetic variations play in addiction and the design of the clinical trial.The committee and speakers such as Kolodny and patient representative Elizabeth Joniak-Grant were troubled by how AvertD might be used in the real world — and how results will be understood by consumers.Patient advocates wonder if time-strapped doctors, despite FDA-mandated labeling, will lean too heavily on results instead of asking probing questions of patients. Will doctors prescribe the test off-label? Could a test indicating a risk for addiction be memorialized in medical records and used against a patient years later — in a custody dispute in court, or by an employer? Will someone with an elevated test come to believe they are prone to addictions of all sorts?Joniak-Grant, a North Carolina sociologist, worries about all of those questions — and whether pain patients might be treated unfairly if they decline to use AvertD. “Refusing the test could be interpreted by clinicians as a patient being drug-seeking,” she said.FDA officials approved the test with conditions. The agency added a “black-box” label warning patients about the test’s limitations. Such warnings are rare for products newly approved by the FDA, said Michael Abrams, a senior researcher at Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group.“Somehow, they justified approval based on putting on these warnings,” Abrams said. He said he fears that despite the warnings, the test could provide “very high cover for irresponsible opioid prescribing.”In response to concerns raised by the advisory committee, the company also changed the wording of test results — patients now have an elevated, not “high,” risk of developing an opioid use disorder. Patients and doctors will need to undergo education programs such as videos, online classes or reading materials. The FDA is requiring the company to study how patients and doctors use the test. Donaldson, the company’s CEO, said SOLVD is committed to educating clinicians and patients about how the test results should be viewed responsibly.“This type of information should be empowering, not fear inducing, and it should not be misinterpreted,” Donaldson said.Products such as AvertD reflect hope that cutting-edge science can ease a drug epidemic killing more than 100,000 people in the United States each year, mostly from opioids. The crisis was kick-started by the proliferation of legal — and highly addictive — prescription pain pills in the late 1990s. Regulators and law enforcement cracked down on unscrupulous prescribers. Doctors began writing fewer prescriptions. Users switched to cheaper street heroin, now largely replaced by dangerous illicit fentanyl. Opioid use disorder affects at least 6 million Americans.Genetic testing is playing an increasing role in identifying health risks. Tests for general wellness and low-risk medical purposes do not require FDA approval. In 2017, the FDA authorized 23andMe to market the first agency-approved direct-to-consumer genetics test that examines predisposition to diseases such as Parkinson’s and blood clotting disorders; the agency has approved several others since.AvertD is the first FDA-authorized polygenic risk test. Such genetic tests analyze small variations in an array of genes to predict risk for chronic diseases or other traits. While insignificant on their own, these genetic variations combined may influence susceptibility to certain diseases.Such testing isn’t supposed to be a definitive prediction of heart disease, diabetes or hypertension. Rather, the tests provide a risk score that can guide patients into changing their lifestyles, implementing preventive care and testing for diseases earlier. In most cases, genetics alone doesn’t determine likelihood of illness. Environmental and social factors such as poverty, clean air and access to healthy food play a significant role.Well-known companies such as Ancestry and 23andMe offer direct-to-consumer reports that rely on polygenic risk scores and predict the probability of inheriting or passing down a certain disease, developing insomnia or even having an aversion to cilantro.AvertD is intended for use in a medical setting, but critics fear that the imprimatur of the doctor’s office may lead patients and clinicians to assign too much weight to test results.They note that substance use disorders are complex to ascertain through such testing because tiny genetic variations — say, ones affecting the reward center in the brain — may overlap with ones affecting other behavioral health disorders. Several researchers said they are concerned that AvertD’s analysis of 15 genetic mutations and the sample size of 7,000 people used to develop the test aren’t large enough to deliver meaningful information about risk for addiction to opioids.“There should be hundreds or thousands of genetic variants going in that risk score, not 15,” said Danielle M. Dick, director of the Rutgers Addiction Research Center, who is part of a team developing a genetics test that would examine the broader risk of addiction by analyzing genetic data from more than 1.5 million people compiled by researchers during many years.White people of European ancestry are overrepresented in most genetic data. Even algorithms using smaller, more diverse data sets primed to predict for opioid use disorders may be confounded by ancestry, potentially skewing results for African Americans and people of mixed heritage from different parts of the world, researchers say.In a 2021 study, algorithms attempting to predict opioid addiction using 16 genetic markers performed “no better than a coin flip” after correcting for geographic ancestry, said lead author Alexander S. Hatoum, a researcher at Washington University in St. Louis. Hatoum said genetic testing remains less effective than a clinician asking simple questions about family history of drug use.“It’s just an underdeveloped technology at this point,” Hatoum said.Donaldson, of SOLVD Health, said about 30 percent of the people whose information shapes the algorithm identified as Black or African American, and that most volunteers hailed from the United States. He said the data was “purposely very diverse” and pointed to a clinical trial he asserts backs up the test’s validity.Initially, AvertD won’t be available nationwide. Instead, the company will partner with institutions in five to 10 locations.The test has drawn attention from families touched by the opioid crisis.Ken Daniels, a play-by-play announcer for the Detroit Red Wings, lent his support to the test at the advisory committee meeting. His 23-year-old son, Jamie Daniels, died of an overdose in 2016 after a long struggle with addiction that started with prescription pills. In an interview, Ken Daniels said his son might have avoided taking that medication had he been able to access a test such as AvertD.“If there is anything out there than can be done to give people more knowledge, I’m all for it,” said Daniels, who started an advocacy foundation in his son’s name.

Global heating could cause an extra 1.2m lamb deaths in Australia each year, study finds

University of Adelaide study finds potential lamb deaths from heat stress could increase from 2.1m to 3.3m per year under a 3C riseSign up for the Rural Network email newsletterJoin the Rural Network group on Facebook to be part of the communityRising temperatures due to global heating will decrease lamb survival and fertility rates in Australia’s sheep flock resulting in industry-wide losses of up to $166m annually, new analysis predicts.A University of Adelaide study, published in the journal Nature Food, modelled the impact an average temperature increase of 1C and 3C would have on Australia’s $4.3bn sheep industry.Sign up to receive Guardian Australia’s fortnightly Rural Network email newsletter Continue reading...

Rising temperatures due to global heating will decrease lamb survival and fertility rates in Australia’s sheep flock resulting in industry-wide losses of up to $166m annually, new analysis predicts.A University of Adelaide study, published in the journal Nature Food, modelled the impact an average temperature increase of 1C and 3C would have on Australia’s $4.3bn sheep industry.An estimated 2.1 million potential lambs are currently lost annually due to heat stress, the study said. If temperatures were to rise by 3C, that number would rise to 3.3 million.The report’s lead author, Associate Professor Will van Wettere, said heat stress was a “huge problem that’s only going to get worse”.“The areas where sheep can be effectively raised in Australia are likely to reduce in the future,” Van Wettere said. “We’re going to have a smaller footprint for agriculture production if things keep going as predicted.“And it looks like we’ve hit one degree already – it’s a worry, a big worry.”Van Wettere said sheep in Queensland and arid environments are the most vulnerable to heat stress from rising temperatures, but flocks in cooler climates would still likely experience “significant impacts”.In two previous Australian studies referenced in the report, heat stress reduced the lambing rate (the number of lambs born per one hundred ewes mated) by 3.5% for each additional day over 32.2C. Extreme heat also decreased a ram’s sperm quality and impaired foetal development.“When it’s hotter ewes have fewer lambs,” Van Wettere said. “Then there is the effect of heat during pregnancy that results in smaller lambs which are less likely to survive.”Notably, the report did not model a decrease in the availability and quality of livestock feed and water due to global heating, which would likely exacerbate adverse effects of heat stress.Australia has the second-highest sheep population in the world, with a national flock of 72 million in 2024, according to estimates by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. However, like the size of the country’s cattle herd, these figures are based on survey data which some experts say is inaccurate.The director of the South Australian Drought Hub, Stephen Lee, said feed supplements, selective breeding and more shade cover would allow sheep to adapt to a warming climate.“Heat stress on sheep production is very significant and predicted to increase,” he said. “But it’s also something we have the agency to address.”The chief executive of Farmers for Climate Action, Natalie Collard, said the report was a “powerful example” of how global heating is impacting Australian agriculture.“All of us in the farming sector need to reduce our carbon footprint so we can protect our food supply and the viability of our businesses in the long term,” Collard said.She said a “serious injection” of research funding was needed to develop more technologies that farmers can use to mitigate extreme weather.South Australian sheep producer Jane Kellock has increased lambing rates by 30% by feeding her ewes a melatonin-based feed supplement as part of a South Australian Drought Hub trial.“Research means producers can make an informed decision about how to best adapt to climate change,” she said.Meat and Livestock Australia said predicting how the livestock industry will be impacted by global heating in the long term is difficult, but models were a useful tool to prepare for more extreme weather.“[This study] allows industry to consider what management practices can be implemented to manage such scenarios should they eventuate,” a spokesperson said.“Given the size of the country and diverse environmental landscapes, Australia is in a very strong position to maintain a thriving livestock industry.”

Feast Your Eyes: How AI Serves Up Yummier Food Imagery Than Reality

A new study shows preference for AI-created food imagery due to its optimized attractiveness, with potential implications for consumer health and environmental sustainability. With the...

Researchers discovered that consumers prefer AI-generated food images over real ones, especially when unaware of their origin, due to enhanced features like symmetry and color, raising concerns about impacts on eating behaviors and sustainability efforts. (AI generated cheeseburger image using Midjourney version 6.0.) Credit: SciTechDaily.comA new study shows preference for AI-created food imagery due to its optimized attractiveness, with potential implications for consumer health and environmental sustainability.With the Global Nutrition and Hydration Week 2024 starting today, researchers have announced an intriguing discovery – consumers generally prefer AI-generated images of food over real food images, especially when they are unaware of their true nature. The new findings have been published in Food Quality and Preference.According to the researchers, the results suggest that AI-generated food visuals excel at enhancing the appeal of depicted foods by leveraging key features such as symmetry, shape, glossiness, and overall lighting and color. All of these are known to contribute significantly to the attractiveness of food imagery. Enhancing Appeal With AIEven subtle tweaks in positioning may enhance the appeal of AI-generated food images. Lead author Giovanbattista Califano (Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II) explained: “As humans, we tend to feel uneasy with objects pointing towards us, interpreting them as threats, even when it’s just food. When tasked with replicating food photos featuring items pointing at the viewer, such as a bunch of carrots or a piece of cake, the AI often positions the food so that it doesn’t directly point at the viewer. This warrants further studies, but it’s plausible that this approach enhances the perceived attractiveness of the depicted food.”In the study, the researchers asked 297 participants to rate real or AI-generated food images on a scale from “Not at all appetizing” to “Extremely appetizing.” The images depicted a range of natural, processed, and ultra-processed foods, from apples and carrots to chocolate milkshakes and potato fries. When participants were told how each image had been created—whether through photography or AI—they tended to rate real and AI-generated versions equally appealing. However, when participants were unaware of the image creation process, the AI-generated version was consistently rated as significantly more appetizing than the real food image.Implications for Consumer Behavior and SustainabilityStudy supervisor and co-author Professor Charles Spence (Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford) said: “While AI-generated visuals may offer cost-saving opportunities for marketers and the industry by reducing the cost of commissioning food photoshoots, these findings highlight potential risks associated with exacerbating ‘visual hunger’ amongst consumers—the phenomenon where viewing images of food triggers appetite and cravings. This could potentially influence unhealthy eating behaviours or foster unrealistic expectations about food among consumers.”Additionally, the researchers also found that AI-generated images tend to depict foods to appear more energy-dense compared to the originals, particularly in the abundance portrayed. For instance, AI may increase the number of fries in the image or add more whipped cream to a dessert. Given that humans have an evolutionary drive to pay more attention to energy-dense foods, this raises concerns that widespread dissemination of such idealized food images could promote cue-induced eating of unhealthy foods.Furthermore, with the global movement towards more sustainable consumption patterns, including the promotion of ‘ugly’ fruits and vegetables, there is a concern that constant production of AI-enhanced food images might nudge consumers towards an unrealistic standard of how natural foods should look, potentially harming sustainability efforts.Reference: “Assessing the visual appeal of real/AI-generated food images” by Giovanbattista Califano and Charles Spence, 28 February 2024, Food Quality and Preference.DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105149

Exploring the potential of azolla as a future food source

A versatile fern called azolla could revolutionize food production by offering a sustainable source of nutrition and aiding in carbon capture, according to recent research. Matt Simon reports for Wired.In short:Azolla, a rapidly growing fern, holds potential as food, fertilizer, and biofuel, but requires further research to ensure it's safe and nutritious.Carolina azolla, a specific species, has lower levels of polyphenols, making it a better candidate for human consumption after processing.Beyond nutrition, azolla's ability to fix nitrogen and capture carbon could significantly benefit agriculture and the environment.Key quote: "I’m not out here saying everybody should go eat this stuff right away, but boy, it’s got so much potential." — Daniel Winstead, research technologist at Penn State.Why this matters: Azolla's rapid growth and environmental benefits could provide a crucial alternative in times of food scarcity and play a role in sustainable agriculture. In this 2017 essay, Robyn Alders and Richard Kock argue that it’s time to rethink our food system and acknowledge our responsibilities to renewal of resources and the rights of existence for all life forms on Earth.

A versatile fern called azolla could revolutionize food production by offering a sustainable source of nutrition and aiding in carbon capture, according to recent research. Matt Simon reports for Wired.In short:Azolla, a rapidly growing fern, holds potential as food, fertilizer, and biofuel, but requires further research to ensure it's safe and nutritious.Carolina azolla, a specific species, has lower levels of polyphenols, making it a better candidate for human consumption after processing.Beyond nutrition, azolla's ability to fix nitrogen and capture carbon could significantly benefit agriculture and the environment.Key quote: "I’m not out here saying everybody should go eat this stuff right away, but boy, it’s got so much potential." — Daniel Winstead, research technologist at Penn State.Why this matters: Azolla's rapid growth and environmental benefits could provide a crucial alternative in times of food scarcity and play a role in sustainable agriculture. In this 2017 essay, Robyn Alders and Richard Kock argue that it’s time to rethink our food system and acknowledge our responsibilities to renewal of resources and the rights of existence for all life forms on Earth.

Unseen dangers of microplastic pollution highlighted by researchers

The discovery of microplastics in the atmosphere signals a widening environmental concern, impacting not only marine life but potentially human health, researchers say.Shannon Osaka reports for The Washington Post.In short:Ecotoxicologist Dick Vethaak experienced a revelation when microplastics were discovered in the air of Paris, a significant shift from their known presence in the oceans and seafood.These pervasive pollutants have now been found in human blood and lungs, raising alarm over their potential health impacts.Despite their ubiquity, the actual health consequences of microplastics are still largely unknown, posing a mystery that scientists are urgently trying to solve.Key quote: “The results were quite shocking."— Dick Vethaak, ecotoxicologist and professor emeritus, VU AmsterdamWhy this matters:Microplastics, those tiny fragments of plastic less than 5 millimeters in size, have become a pervasive environmental concern, infiltrating ecosystems worldwide. Recently, scientists have turned their attention skyward, discovering that microplastics are not confined to oceans, rivers, and soil, but are also adrift in the atmosphere, impacting air quality and potentially human health.Are microplastics invading the male reproductive system?

The discovery of microplastics in the atmosphere signals a widening environmental concern, impacting not only marine life but potentially human health, researchers say.Shannon Osaka reports for The Washington Post.In short:Ecotoxicologist Dick Vethaak experienced a revelation when microplastics were discovered in the air of Paris, a significant shift from their known presence in the oceans and seafood.These pervasive pollutants have now been found in human blood and lungs, raising alarm over their potential health impacts.Despite their ubiquity, the actual health consequences of microplastics are still largely unknown, posing a mystery that scientists are urgently trying to solve.Key quote: “The results were quite shocking."— Dick Vethaak, ecotoxicologist and professor emeritus, VU AmsterdamWhy this matters:Microplastics, those tiny fragments of plastic less than 5 millimeters in size, have become a pervasive environmental concern, infiltrating ecosystems worldwide. Recently, scientists have turned their attention skyward, discovering that microplastics are not confined to oceans, rivers, and soil, but are also adrift in the atmosphere, impacting air quality and potentially human health.Are microplastics invading the male reproductive system?

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.