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

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

News Feed
Wednesday, October 8, 2025

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

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

If you look at a package of M&Ms, one of the most popular candies in the US, you’ll see some familiar ingredients: sugar, skimmed milk powder, cocoa butter. But you’ll see many more that aren’t so recognizable: gum arabic, dextrin, carnauba wax, soya lecithin and E100.

There are 34 ingredients in M&Ms, and, according to Mars, the company that produces the candy, at least 30 countries – from Ivory Coast to New Zealand – are involved in supplying them. Each has its own supply chain that transforms the raw materials into ingredients – cocoa into cocoa liquor, cane into sugar, petroleum into blue food dye.

These ingredients then travel across the world to a central processing facility where they are combined and transformed into tiny blue, red, yellow and green chocolate gems.

It’s becoming better understood that food systems are a major driver of the climate crisis. Scientists can examine deforestation for agriculture, or the methane emissions from livestock. But the environmental impact of ultra-processed foods – like M&Ms – is less clear and is only now starting to come into focus. One reason they have been so difficult to assess is the very nature of UPFs: these industrially made foods include a huge number of ingredients and processes to put them together, making it nearly impossible to track.

But it doesn’t mean it’s not important. As UPFs take over US grocery store shelves and diets– they now comprise 70% of food sold in grocery stores, and more than half of calories consumed – experts say that understanding their environmental toll is critical to build a more climate-friendly food system.

What we know

While scientists are only starting to examine the environmental impact of UPFs, what’s already known about them is worrisome.

“The more processed foods are, the more deleterious they are to human health and the environment,” said Anthony Fardet, a senior researcher at the French National Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment. The main reason, he explains, is that the ingredients are so energy intensive. When combined, the toll balloons.

Take M&Ms. The first step in creating the candies is farming for cocoa, sugar, dairy and palm.

It has been well-documented that agriculture for ingredients like cocoa drives ever increasing rates of deforestation across the globe. Since 1850, agricultural expansion has driven almost 90% of global deforestation, which has been responsible for 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Mars corporation has been called out in the past for the cocoa farming practices in their supply chain, and have since created sustainability plans, but these fail to address that large-scale agricultural practices like cocoa farming are, at their core, unsustainable.

Then there’s sugar, milk solids and palm fat – also major greenhouse gas emitters.

On top of that are the industrially made ingredients like food dyes – perhaps the signature of ultra-processing – which M&Ms contain 13 different types of. Blue M&Ms are colored with dyes E132 and E133; these dyes are mostly made in food dye manufacturing hotspots India and China, via a chemical reaction of aromatic hydrocarbons (which are petroleum products) with diazonium salt, catalyzed by the metals copper and chromium.

M&Ms for sale in Orlando, Florida, in 2019. Photograph: Jeff Greenberg/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Creating soya lecithin, an additive made from soybean oil that’s used to change the consistency of chocolate, requires steps like degumming in a hot reactor, chemically isolating phospholipids, decolorization using hydrogen peroxide and drying under vacuum pressure. And dextrose, a sweetener, starts off as corn that gets steeped in acid before being milled, separated and dried. From there, it’s broken down into smaller molecules using enzymes and acids, and then recrystallized.

Mars declined to comment for this story.

While ultra-processed chocolate products are some of the worst offenders, other kinds of UPFs are taxing on the environment as well. Take for instance Doritos, which have 39 ingredients. Corn is the main ingredient, and for every acre grown, 1,000kg of carbon dioxide is emitted to the atmosphere. Like Mars, Pepsico, which makes Doritos, has developed its own sustainability promises, but many of these promises are underpinned by practices that are considered greenwashing, like “regenerative agriculture”. In reality, these sustainability promises undercut the dire need to better understand how UPFs affect our global climate.

As a result, some experts have started to calculate the environmental toll of UPFs.

CarbonCloud, a Sweden-based software company that calculates the emissions of food products, analyzed carbon disclosures from Mars, and estimated that M&Ms generate at least 13.2kg of carbon equivalents per kilogram of M&Ms produced. Mars produces more than 664m kg of M&Ms in the US each year, which would mean that if CarbonCloud’s calculations are accurate, the candies emit at least 3.8m tons of carbon dioxide – making up 0.1% of annual emissions in the US. (Mars does not report emissions by product, but according to their 2024 emissions report, they emitted 29m tons of carbon dioxide across the company.)

But this is only an estimate based on publicly available data; the true cost is probably much higher, experts say. There’s a “black box” when it comes to carbon accounting in the processed food industry, says Patrick Callery, a professor at the University of Vermont who researches how corporations engage with the climate crisis. “There is so much uncertainty as supply chains get complex.”

What we don’t know

Getting an exact measure of the environmental toll of UPFs is nearly impossible, given that, definitionally, UPFs consist of many ingredients and a high volume of opaque processes. Ingredients aren’t just mixed together like one would do to make a stew at home. Instead, these ingredients are chemically modified, some parts stripped away, and flavors, dyes or textures added in – and it’s unclear what the cost of these processes are because so many suppliers and components are involved.

Another reason is that all UPFs (again, definitionally) are the creations of food companies that have little incentive to disclose their environmental footprint and may not fully understand it to begin with.

For instance, Mars itself doesn’t farm cocoa, but instead relies on hundreds of farms that don’t always have accurate carbon accounting measures in place. This means that emissions from big food corporations may be underreported. David Bryngelsson, co-founder of CarbonCloud, said that corporations “don’t have actual data, so they use emissions factors, which are guesses”.

Callery says that corporations provide reports on simple things like transportation, which are easier to calculate, and often omit or convolute the agricultural emissions of their product. After all, reporting high emissions goes against the interests of large food corporations, so the complex calculations needed to determine the carbon footprint of large-scale agriculture and multi-step industrial chemical processes used to make UPF ingredients remain un-researched.

“The main point of ultra-processed foods is money,” said Fardet, pointing out that they’re designed to be attractive, easy and pleasurable to eat.

“Most of the people in the [food industry’s] value chain don’t care about climate change from an ideological point of view, but they do care about money,” said Bryngelsson. He explains that to shift those incentives, the value of foods and ingredients would need to incorporate their impact on our shared climate. But that would require government regulations and financial penalties based on the true environmental cost of UPFs, says Bryngelsson.

Why it matters

At just under $2, the price of M&Ms at the grocery store hardly reflects their true cost on the environment. But to address these problems with ultra-processed foods, more than just a few tweaks to the ingredient list are needed.

“Reducing the salt, or sugar of just one product is just greenwashing,” said Fardet. “We need to change the whole picture.” To do that, he suggested consuming more locally sourced, whole foods, which often take much less energy and transit to produce, and therefore have a much smaller carbon footprint.

Specialty goods that can’t be sourced locally, like chocolate, should make up a small fraction of our diet and come from traceable and ethical supply chains.

That’s not easy for all Americans, given the rising cost of food and the prevalence of food deserts and mediocre food retailers across the US.

That’s why it can’t just be up to individuals to make environmentally (and health) conscious choices, experts say. Instead, large food corporations need to be held responsible for the burden they place on society – particularly as it pertains to climate change. Sustainability practices, like the “Cocoa for Generations” plan outlined by Mars, or Pepsico’s “Pep+” initiatives are Band-Aids on broken bones. Large food corporations need to be phased out to make global food systems sustainable.

But perhaps more important is to change our understanding of the hidden costs of ultra-processed foods, says Fardet, whether it’s at home, in schools or through the banning the marketing of UPFs to children. Our food systems, Fardet said, “are absolutely not normal. The whole industry should pay the hidden costs.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Democratic Food and Ag Candidates Enter the Political Fray

Some of the candidates are leveraging their direct experiences of Trump administration policies and are hoping to shake up the traditional Democratic platform. “The party hasn’t needed to twist arms that hard to get people with non-traditional backgrounds to run,” David Wasserman, senior editor and elections analyst for The Cook Political Report, told Civil Eats. […] The post Democratic Food and Ag Candidates Enter the Political Fray appeared first on Civil Eats.

Even though general elections are over a year away, non-traditional, first-time candidates are throwing their hat in the ring for U.S. House and Senate races. Several of them come from food, farming, or federal government backgrounds and were moved to run for public office because of federal funding freezes at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), tariffs, or cuts to food assistance in the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB). As Democrats look to reassert control in Congress, analysts say these voices could be vital in reaching the rural voters that have previously steered clear of the party. Some of the candidates are leveraging their direct experiences of Trump administration policies and are hoping to shake up the traditional Democratic platform. “The party hasn’t needed to twist arms that hard to get people with non-traditional backgrounds to run,” David Wasserman, senior editor and elections analyst for The Cook Political Report, told Civil Eats. “Democrats know they need to reconnect with rural voters.” Former Vice President Kamala Harris attempted to do this in her 2024 bid by pulling in Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and by making a bigger push in rural communities. But in the end she failed to pull in those voters. In the 2024 election, 69 percent of rural voters backed Trump while 29 percent voted for Harris, according to the Pew Research Center. This widened the rural voter divide from 2020, when Trump won 65 percent of the rural vote while former President Joe Biden earned 34 percent. Despite their standing as Republican strongholds, rural areas may now represent new opportunity for Democratic candidates as Trump administration policies continue to hit the heartland. Here are some of the new rural Democrats whose campaigns highlight how food and agriculture could play a part in the November 2026 midterms. Although Midwest farmers were expecting strong yields from this year’s soybean crops after a favorable growing season, tariffs have shifted global markets, toward cheaper crops in Brazil. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images) Jamie Ager, House (North Carolina) Jamie Ager is a fourth-generation farmer in Western North Carolina, where over the last 25 years he’s raised grass-fed beef and pasture-raised pork. Now that his children are grown, he’s stepping into the political arena. “I think that food and agriculture and rural America has been left behind in a lot of ways,” Ager said during a recent New York City Climate Week event. Ager’s campaign for the 11th Congressional District focuses on breaking traditional partisan lines. While he’s running as a Democrat, he argues the party needs to get back to its roots and represent working people. His campaign also highlights the cost of health care, housing affordability, and the recovery from Hurricane Helene, which last year devastated farm country in the state. Western North Carolina suffered major losses from the storm, and many small towns there are still waiting for hundreds of thousands of dollars of relief promised by the federal government. “We’ve got enough stacked against us right now with all the economic challenges of the region, to then not get any support from the federal government that was promised,” Ager said. “That money has been spent knowing that promise was coming.” While agriculture in his region is less steeped in commodity row crops, Ager said he’s empathetic toward corn and soybean farmers dealing with the impact of tariffs. Tariffs make it hard for them to make a living, he said, and are pushing rural voters to seek better leadership. “We’ve got enough stacked against us right now with all the economic challenges of the region.” In addition to tackling these issues in Congress, Ager said he sees space for bipartisan work on regenerative agriculture and conservation. “Our quest over the last 80 years towards cheap food has resulted in the efficient system we have now,” Ager said. “But the efficient system we have now doesn’t mean it actually nourishes the people.” Republicans like Sen. Roger Marshall (Kansas) and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have also started to embrace this idea, highlighting soil health and regenerative agriculture. This is an encouraging sign, Ager said, and a space where he could contribute in Congress as a regenerative farmer himself. “Having worked with my hands and having to solve problems with my hands is almost the best experience you can bring to Congress,” Ager said. “Because you know what it’s like to do that and to make a living doing that, and there’s some familiarity with what everyday people go through.” Megan O’Rourke, House (New Jersey) Megan O’Rourke began working at the USDA in 2010 and became the first climate-change advisor for the Foreign Agricultural Service. Over the course of her tenure in the federal government, she also worked with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) as a climate-change advisor. She eventually returned to the USDA in 2020 to work with the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. In July, she left her agency role as the national science liaison for climate change because of executive orders and funding freezes by the Trump administration. As someone who worked under the first Trump administration and the Biden administration, she said this term felt different. O’Rourke said she saw red flags in Trump’s first wave of executive orders, making it clear from the beginning that climate change and science would not be taken seriously. But the final straw was the day that all of her work, along with several other references to climate change, was scrubbed from federal government websites, she said. This included the congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment, which she contributed to. Under then-President Joe Biden, climate researchers worked on the Fifth National Climate Assessment, which was scrubbed from government websites under the second Trump administration. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images) O’Rourke is running in a crowded Democratic field in one of the state’s most competitive midterm districts, the 7th Congressional. Overall affordability (and especially high housing and electricity costs), political division, and the government’s unpredictability are key themes in O’Rourke’s campaign. O’Rourke grew up in a food-insecure home, and she said the recent cuts to food assistance and health programs in the OBBB feel personal. “I want to be somebody in Congress who actually knows and understands these programs, instead of silver-spoon politicians,” O’Rourke told Civil Eats. In conversations with farmers and others in her community, O’Rourke said she’s also heard a lot of concern about the uncertainty surrounding the farm bill and USDA support systems. In the agricultural research space, she said nearly every person she’s connected with during her campaign has had grants rescinded. This means labs or research offices are having to lay off staff or can’t afford to hire students, she said. “The farm community, just like a lot of people, are sick of the uncertainty and divisiveness and want people in Congress to get to work.” With the USDA’s upcoming reorganization, farmers are unsure whether they’ll have adequate access to experts to help them navigate programs and grant applications. “The farm community, just like a lot of people, are sick of the uncertainty and divisiveness and want people in Congress to get to work and especially pass a farm bill,” O’Rourke said. Her campaign also focuses on environmental safety issues, including water contamination and Superfund sites in her district. O’Rourke said the administration has cut back on science that is fundamental to addressing these problems, which has a direct impact on her community. “That touches on . . . . what people care about in their day-to-day life: your house, your food, your family, and your health.” Graham Platner, Senate (Maine) Graham Platner, an oyster farmer and military veteran, is one of several candidates vying for the Democratic nomination to face off against Republican Sen. Susan Collins. Platner has raised $3.2 million in the first quarter since announcing his campaign, according to Axios. He also has the backing of progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and is appealing to working-class Mainers, since he is one himself. “I’m a working person in Maine who [was] living, until recently, a very very normal life that is impacted by the outcomes of policy,” Platner said recently on MSNBC. “I can see that in my community, I can see it in my own life.” While Platner is running as a Democrat, he’s pushed back against the “liberal” label. Even while advocating for progressive policies like universal health care, instead of focusing on party affiliation, he’s emphasized representing everyday people. “I’m a working person in Maine who [was] living, until recently, a very very normal life that is impacted by the outcomes of policy.” “I find it highly amusing that having a problem with hospitals closing in Maine and trying to figure out how to use the vast wealth of this nation to keep that from happening, the fact that somebody thinks that’s some kind of lefty, progressive ideal seems absurd to me,” Platner said. “That mostly seems like I’m just trying to give a damn about my community.” Platner faces a sea of other Democratic primary challengers, including Dan Kleban, founder of the Maine Beer Company. Both face an uphill battle if Maine Gov. Janet Mills also announces her bid. Salaam Bhatti, House (Virginia) Salaam Bhatti’s background in food policy dates to his childhood, when his family benefitted from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). The experience pushed him to become a public-interest lawyer, which he later did at the Virginia Poverty Law Center. He also worked as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) director for the Food Research and Action Center. The passage of the OBBB, combined with rising healthcare, housing, and grocery costs were key drivers behind Bhatti’s decision to run. He’s one of several Democrats attempting to unseat GOP Rep. Rob Wittman. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has listed his 1st Congressional District as one of the more viable to flip in 2026. “People will die as a result of these cuts to their health care.” Bhatti said Wittman caused harm in his community by backing the OBBB, which is expected to cut millions of eligible individuals from SNAP and Medicaid. Wittman has argued the bill will have a positive impact on Virginians by extending Trump administration tax cuts and through no tax on tips and no tax on overtime. Virginians could lose healthcare access or could see increases to their care costs, Bhatti said. Additionally, the bill could raise already high energy, housing, and grocery costs. “People will die as a result of these cuts to their health care,” he said. “We really need to be mindful of how we can act quickly to make sure we can save as many folks as possible because of what these Republicans have done.” Throughout his campaign, Bhatti said he’s been educating voters about the long-term effects of the OBBB. This includes explaining how SNAP cuts impact the entire local economy, rather than just SNAP recipients. Without revenue from SNAP, grocery stores could increase costs or consider shutting down, which Bhatti said will increase food insecurity overall. Nikki Gronli, House (South Dakota) Nikki Gronli served as the state director for USDA’s Rural Development under the Biden administration from March 2022 to the end of the term. There she oversaw the renovation of a rural behavioral health facility, grants for tribes to develop a regional food hub, and more. Over that time, she also grew closer with the farming community in the state. In recent conversations with farmers, Gronli said, she’s heard concerns about a lack of staff at local rural development and USDA Farm Service Agency offices. Nearly 150,000 federal employees have left the government since Trump was inaugurated. At the USDA alone, 15,000 have departed due to deferred resignation offers. Those cuts have slowed down application reviews and approvals for farmers in her state, Gronli said. This is one of the main reasons she decided to launch her campaign to fill North Dakota’s lone House seat, currently occupied by Republican Rep. Dusty Johnson. Johnson, who chairs the House Agriculture subcommittee on Commodity Markets, Digital Assets, and Rural Development, announced his bid for governor earlier this year. Nikki Gronli announced her candidacy for South Dakota’s lone U.S. House seat in September, after touring the state earlier this year. (Getty Images) Before announcing, Gronli held town halls across the state, where she listened to farmers about their experiences and concerns. She also heard about the impacts of funding freezes across different USDA initiatives, like the Regional Food Business Center Program, she said. One local egg producer, for example, had planned to use a grant from that program to expand her operation with additional staff and packaging equipment, but the grant was eliminated. Farmers also raised alarm about the impact of tariffs, which Gronli said could have more wide-reaching impacts on the state. “Every time we lose a farmer, that impacts the local small towns, that hurts other businesses,” she said. “That may mean school consolidations, that may mean a clinic or a senior care center shuts down. It’s not good. It’s not sustainable.” South Dakota’s House seat has been held by a Republican since 2011, with the current secretary for Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, holding the role before Johnson. “Every time we lose a farmer, that impacts the local small towns, that hurts other businesses.” But Gronli said she’s received positive responses from traditionally Independent and Republican voters who want a representative to break the status quo and vote in favor of the state’s best interests. “I think that’s the big frustration,” she said. “We see our members of Congress out there voting because they were told by the administration to vote a certain way, and those policies are hurting South Dakota right now.” Christy Davis, Senate (Kansas) Christy Davis is a former Biden administration USDA state rural development director. If she advances from the primary, she likely faces Republican incumbent Sen. Roger Marshall. Davis said in an interview with the Kansas Reflector that Marshall has focused more on highlighting actions by the White House instead of issues all Kansans are facing, like trouble affording basic needs. She added that Marshall stood behind Trump during the OBBB signing and has supported what she calls the administration’s “broken ag policies,” like reorganizing the USDA and immigration actions that have hurt the agriculture workforce. The post Democratic Food and Ag Candidates Enter the Political Fray appeared first on Civil Eats.

Food
Agriculture
Climate

Want to Eat More Plant-Based Meals? Maggie Baird, Billie Eilish and Finneas's Mom, Has Some Ideas

Have you heard replacing meat with plant-based foods is better for the planet and can be better for your health too, but you don’t know where to start

Maggie Baird says her vegan cinnamon rolls are a family favorite — including to her children, who happen to be the world-famous musicians Billie Eilish and Finneas.Growing up, Baird stopped eating meat in part because she felt connected to animals. Her commitment grew as she learned about the environmental impact of animal agriculture. And her mother died of a heart attack at 57 — one of many in her family to die of heart disease.“I always say I have the trifecta of reasons" for foregoing meat, said Baird, who in 2020 founded Support + Feed, a nonprofit that advocates for a more climate-friendly food system and provides plant-based meals to people in need.That connection between what's healthy for people and the planet dominates the latest EAT-Lancet Commission report, an updated version of the 2019 analysis produced by leading food researchers from around the world. Besides detailing the food system's contribution to climate change, it outlines the most current version of a “planetary health diet,” which emphasizes fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes and nuts and encourages people, particularly in high-income countries, to reduce their intake of animal products, especially red meat.“Nothing else on a pound for pound basis, except maybe refrigerants, comes close to the polluting power of beef,” said Jonathan Foley, executive director of independent climate solutions nonprofit Project Drawdown, at a Climate Week presentation in New York City. That "doesn’t mean everyone has to be vegan tomorrow,” but the goal should be to trim back high-polluting parts of one’s diet, he added.Are you worried your home-cooked asparagus won't taste as good as your signature steak? That probably just means you haven't had as much practice with the right techniques, said Miguel Guerra, chef and owner of Washington, D.C.-based, vegetable-forward Latin American restaurant MITA, which received a Michelin star in 2024.Guerra suggested working on the basics: learn how to blanch asparagus, steam broccoli so it doesn't get mushy or roast sweet potatoes so they get crispy on the outside. Even knife skills make a difference; Guerra said an onion chopped the right way tastes better.“When I was a kid, I did not eat vegetables,” he said. Then culinary school, and a particularly delicious broccoli-cheddar soup, changed his mind. He realized selecting and preparing fresh ingredients with care and effort does make them better. Reach for what's in season, but keep a stock pantry with sauces, proteins and spices When you're out shopping, it's easier to pivot to whatever vegetables look freshest or are in season if you keep a stock pantry with canned and shelf-stable ingredients like sauces, said Joshua McFadden, a chef, restaurateur, farmer and cookbook author who has written about the “six seasons” approach to cooking.There are also plenty of plant-based protein sources that keep for a long time in the pantry or freezer, like canned beans, tofu, nuts and lentils — all of which are highlighted in the EAT-Lancet report as ingredients that deserve a more central place in diets healthy for people and the planet.Even just simple seasonings like salt, pepper and olive oil can help plant ingredients shine, said McFadden, speaking on a panel at a New York Climate Week event.But Baird also suggested experimenting with ingredients that you might not normally keep in your kitchen, from pomegranate molasses to capers. If something you need for a new recipe isn't available at your grocery store, you can make substitutions while still aiming to be “a little bit daring," she said. Use plants that are accessible in culturally relevant ways The comfort of familiar food, how much it costs and knowledge of how to cook it are top concerns for many of the people in the South Bronx who come to community gardens, said Sheryll Durrant, an urban farmer and educator who works with refugee communities, speaking on another panel at the same event as McFadden. “One of our roles is to grow diverse food, to grow culturally relevant foods, and to show you that you can utilize these foods in an affordable way,” she said.Local, traditional foods tend to have a higher chance of being healthy for people and the planet than modern ones that have sprung from the industrial food system, said Johan Rockstrom, one of the authors of the EAT-Lancet Commission report.Durrant pointed out that different cultures use ingredients differently, and that talking to people from other places in the world is a great way to learn new recipes even for plants you already think you know how to use.Guerra, of MITA, grew up deeply rooted in Venezuelan cooking, and that still informs his work. He said he doesn’t like using the vegan label and he isn’t vegan himself — he just wants to cook with vegetables and make sure “they’re the star of the show.”He described using mushrooms and other plant-based ingredients to recreate a sweet and tangy sauce traditionally made in the process of cooking meat, a dish “really close to our hearts and our country, and in a special way,” he said. Don't expect an exact replica of your favorite dish “I really think it’s important with plant-based food that you don’t just try to replicate. Just try to think of what is good,” Baird said.For example, leaning into fully plant-based combinations that already make sense from a flavor perspective — for instance, a creme brulee with mango and coconut milk — “that’s going to be delicious,” she said.Guerra follows the same principle. “We’re not like, ‘oh, how do we substitute the steak? Or how do we make something that looks like a steak on the plate?’” he said. “It’s just more like, we are true to the ingredients we use, and then the cuisine and the flavors that we want to showcase.”The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

Food
Health
Animals

Op-ed: Let’s Preserve Our Communities Through Canning Food

“Anything you want cooked, I can cook. I can cook dirt,” jokes David, who has operated this community cannery for the last 30 years, guiding his neighbors through the steps of preserving their own food—from cooking the raw ingredients to sealing them into jars. Known as the “Moonshine Capital of the World” for its distilled […] The post Op-ed: Let’s Preserve Our Communities Through Canning Food appeared first on Civil Eats.

Set in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia, surrounded by rolling farmlands and hardwood forests, Glade Hill Cannery often opens before the sun has risen. On one such early morning, expert canner Ronald David supervises the pots of apple butter that bubble on the stoves, fogging the windows with steam. “Anything you want cooked, I can cook. I can cook dirt,” jokes David, who has operated this community cannery for the last 30 years, guiding his neighbors through the steps of preserving their own food—from cooking the raw ingredients to sealing them into jars. Known as the “Moonshine Capital of the World” for its distilled alcohol production during Prohibition, Franklin County, Virginia, has a robust agriculture economy as well. Glade Hill stands as one of the oldest surviving canneries in the country, with more than 80 years of preserving, jarring, and steaming under its belt. The cannery operates in a 1940s-era masonry building behind Glade Hill Elementary School, and allows locals to can just about anything they want—though so far no one has taken David up on his dirt offer. Master canner Ronald David has worked at Glade Hill Cannery since the 1990s. (Photo credit: Rinne Allen)
 A community cannery is essentially a shared, public-access kitchen with commercial-grade equipment where anyone can process raw produce into shelf-stable goods. Commonly canned items include tomatoes, green beans, peaches, jams, pickles, and sauces. Across the U.S., the scale of community canneries ranges widely, from those operating out of small school kitchens to those that are industrial-size, like Glade Hill. Growing up in California’s Napa Valley, I was surrounded by examples of people enjoying fresh, homegrown food. One of my earliest memories is of learning to weed my dad’s backyard garden and helping him relocate snails. (I recall being more interested in befriending the creatures than moving them.) In addition to having a green thumb, my dad is an avid canner, meaning I have a year-round supply of jams, sauces, and stocks labeled with names like “Summer Lovin” and “Magic Mineral Broth” in his blocky uppercase handwriting. In an era when we often purchase food grown halfway across the world, community canneries are hanging on, allowing people to eat from sources closer to home. Canneries reduce reliance on industrial agriculture, help mitigate climate change, support small-scale farmers, build food sovereignty, and foster a sense of community where knowledge, recipes, and harvests can be shared. We need more of them. How Community Canneries Work Community canneries emerged alongside World War II victory gardens as a way for amateur gardeners to grow and preserve their own produce. A nationwide campaign sponsored by the U.S. government, the canneries were part of an effort to prevent food shortages and send more food overseas to American soldiers stationed there. The response was overwhelmingly positive: Canning peaked in 1943, with individuals producing over 4.1 billion jars of food in their homes and at community canning centers. As food processing industrialized, however, the number of community canneries dwindled from more than 3,800 facilities across the United States to fewer than a couple hundred. Steamed spinach, ready for canning at Glade Hill. (Photo credit: Rinne Allen)
 Canning centers have always been vital spaces for strengthening social bonds, reducing food waste, and increasing food security for rural farmers. David recalls whole church congregations coming together to make apple butter and neighbors canning food to raise money for buildings or first responders—an inseparable blend of love, community, and food. Every cannery functions differently, but at Glade Hill, work sometimes starts at 5 a.m. Hustling between pressure canners, 50-gallon kettles, and tin cans stacked on worktables, David says he helps up to 30 people each day cook down produce and seal jars, doling out advice along the way—and always leaving time for neighborly conversation. At any given time, the room may smell like sweet apples and cinnamon or savory, smoky slow-cooked pork with paprika. Putting Excess Produce to Good Use Skeptics may argue that community canneries don’t address the most pressing issues associated with local food movements, particularly access to fresh produce in low-income communities. But even so, canning has a number of environmental and social benefits that make it well worth the effort. First, it enables people to more easily preserve food from their own gardens and the farmers in their communities, making them less reliant on industrial agriculture—a major contributor to environmental destruction, responsible for approximately 80 percent of global deforestation and over 70 percent of terrestrial biodiversity loss. Additionally, preserving food offers a practical way to reduce the 30 to 40 percent of the U.S. food supply that is wasted each year, according to estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Beyond the carbon dioxide released during its production, transport, and processing, food is the single largest category of material found in most landfills, where it breaks down and releases methane, another potent greenhouse gas. Diverting food from the landfill through canning helps mitigate this. Canneries can help improve food access in their communities as well. They can partner with local farms, community gardens, food banks, and other organizations to preserve excess produce and distribute it. The Baxter Community Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan, for example, provides fresh produce, garden space, and canning workshops to community members at no cost to promote both local food production and preservation. At Glade Hill Cannery, cans of beans with chunks of hog jowl await their turn in the water bath. (Photo credit: Rinne Allen) Canneries can also play a role in increasing self-reliance for small farmers. They can help farmers convert unsold produce into value-added products such as jams, sauces, or pickles, reducing waste and generating alternate streams of income. Some community canneries, like Glade Hill, allow farmers to drop off produce for processing and pick it up later. By enabling individuals and communities to assume greater control over what they eat, community canning also weakens relationships of dependency and helps increase food sovereignty, a concept that Monica M. White, an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, explores in her research on D-Town Farm in Detroit. This can be especially important for marginalized communities. The Oneida Community Cannery in Oneida County, Wisconsin, for example, was established in the ’70s to help tribal and local community members reconnect with and learn to preserve traditional foods. The cannery’s success eventually led to the creation of a program to encourage self-reliance within the community, demonstrating that canning can be a tool for cultural preservation and community resilience. Lastly, canning builds community. Some of my fondest childhood memories are of being in the kitchen with my dad, learning to create his famous meatballs. Those moments weren’t just about the meal; they were about love, patience, and care. Community canneries provide the same opportunity: spaces to share recipes, preserve culinary traditions, and learn from other generations. Be a Community Canneries Advocate Community canning creates all kinds of benefits. It builds relationships, encourages people to grow and preserve their own food, and gives us healthy options to the processed foods so prevalent today. So how can you support it? Most community canneries operate as nonprofit organizations or are funded by local governments, supporting themselves through a combination of usage fees or public funding. Each one is unique, but they typically charge small fees based on hourly use of equipment, per batch or pounds processed, or through annual memberships. Prepping late-season tomatoes for canning at Glade Hill Cannery. (Photo credit: Rinne Allen) If possible, support a cannery near you. Virginia, Florida, and Georgia remain strongholds for community canneries, offering myriad models. Virginia alone has up to 11 seasonally operating community canneries, including Glade Hill. The Carroll County Cannery, for example, is open June through December, offering equipment and an on-site cannery specialist to help select recipes, acquire ingredients, and guide day-of canning. If you don’t have a cannery nearby, advocate for one. Most canneries are funded by local governments. Public investment increases their accessibility, keeping usage fees low. If you are interested in getting a cannery established in your area, attend city council meetings and make the case for these establishments. You might also consider working to establish a cannery within your local school district, to educate children on the importance of local food. The Eastanollee Cannery in Eastanollee, Georgia, for example, is owned by the Stephens County school system and focuses on both how to safely can food and increase engagement with local farmers. There’s something truly powerful about preparing food together. David tells me he’s formed friendships with many of the people who visit Glade Hill, often receiving a jar of apple butter as a thank-you gift. He and his regulars take care of each other. And that’s the essence of community canneries. Regardless of whether you have two cans to fill or 100, David says, “Come on in. I’ll make room for ya.” Jillian Fischer wrote this opinion as an undergraduate student in Liz Carlisle’s course, “Food, Agriculture, and the Environment,” offered this spring at the University of California Santa Barbara. Civil Eats partnered with Carlisle on writing and editing guidance for this story. The post Op-ed: Let’s Preserve Our Communities Through Canning Food appeared first on Civil Eats.

Food
Agriculture
CO2

Revealed: Europe losing 600 football pitches of nature and crop land a day

Investigation shows extent of green land lost across UK and mainland Europe to development from 2018 to 2023The Santa Claus effect: how expanding tourism ate into Lapland’s green spaceEurope is losing green space that once harboured wildlife, captured carbon and supplied food at the rate of 600 football pitches a day, an investigation by the Guardian and partners has revealed.Analysis of satellite imagery across the UK and mainland Europe over a five-year period shows the speed and scale with which green land is turning grey, consumed by tarmac for roads, bricks and mortar for luxury golf courses and housing developments. Continue reading...

Europe is losing green space that once harboured wildlife, captured carbon and supplied food at the rate of 600 football pitches a day, an investigation by the Guardian and partners has revealed.Analysis of satellite imagery across the UK and mainland Europe over a five-year period shows the speed and scale with which green land is turning grey, consumed by tarmac for roads, bricks and mortar for luxury golf courses and housing developments.The loss of the Amazon rainforest has been measured for years using satellite imagery and on-the-ground monitoring, but until now the scale of green land lost in Europe had never been captured in the same way.In the first investigation of its kind across Europe, the Green to Grey project, working with scientists from the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (Nina) to measure nature loss, reveals the scale of nature and farmland engulfed by human interventions.The cross-border project by the Guardian, Arena for Journalism in Europe (Arena), Nina, the Norwegian broadcaster NRK and other news outlets in 11 countries found that Europe loses about 1,500 sq km (580 sq miles) a year to construction. About 9,000 sq km of land – an area the size of Cyprus – was turned green to grey between 2018 and 2023, according to the data. That is the equivalent of almost 30 sq km a week, or 600 football pitches a day.Nature accounts for the majority of the losses, at about 900 sq km a year, but the research shows we are also building on agricultural land at a rate of about 600 sq km a year, with grave consequences for the continent’s food security and health.Steve Carver, a professor of wilderness at the University of Leeds, said: “Land lost to development is one of the primary drivers of wilderness loss and biodiversity decline. But we are also losing cropland and productive land as our cities expand into the green belt and on to agricultural land.”The most common developments, accounting for a quarter of all cases, were for housing and roads. But nature and farmland is also being destroyed to accommodate luxuries for the rich, tourism, consumerism and industry.Arena reveals that in Portugal, almost 300 hectares (740 acres) of the protected sand dunes at Galé Beach near Melides, an hour south of Lisbon, have been lost to create a new golf course at the CostaTerra Golf and Ocean Club, where properties will sell for about £5.6mThe resort, which is still under construction, is a second home to Princess Eugenie and her husband, Jack Brooksbank, who works for the development. It is being built on Natura 2000 land, which is supposed to be protected under EU regulations.Satellite imagery shows the areas of protected dune land lost to the CostaTerra Golf and Ocean Club in southern PortugalThe resort promises “the simple luxury of European living” on “the last untouched Atlantic coast in southern Europe”. Its 75-hectare golf course is estimated to consume as much as 800,000 litres of water a day to maintain the greens.Exceptions to development on Natura 2000 land can be granted if there is overriding public interest. The Portuguese authorities approved the resort, which is owned by the US property firm Discovery Land Company, on the grounds of economic benefit.Ioannis Agapakis, a lawyer for ClientEarth, an environmental law NGO, said a golf course did not fulfil these requirements. “It is obviously not overriding public interest,” he said. “The mere fact that you find economic benefits or some type of economic development from a project does not make it overriding public interest.”Discovery Land Company said in a statement: “We are developing CostaTerra to be a model for environmental stewardship and sustainability in the region.“Every aspect of the property – from the design of the golf course, to rainwater and waste management practices, to the development and preservation of wildlife habitat and corridors – was designed to meet or exceed EU standards, including the Natura 2000 framework.“We’ll continue to innovate and find solutions to make CostaTerra the most responsible property of its kind.”Brooksbank was approached by the Guardian but did not comment.In Turkey, the Çaltılıdere wetland in the İzmir province on the Aegean coast has been buried beneath more than a square kilometre of concrete foundations for a marina to repair and build luxury yachts, the investigation shows.Officially designated as a wetland by Turkey, Çaltılıdere was home to flamingos, pelicans, cormorants, sea bream and sea bass. It also served as a vital carbon store and natural flood defence.But local authorities overturned its protected status in 2017 after a tense and controversial local commission meeting. Satellite images show how the vital stopping point for migratory birds has been consumed by concrete foundations.Satellite imagery shows the wetland lost to the marina development at Çaltılıdere in TurkeyYatek, the industry cooperative developing the marina project, says it will bring huge economic growth and thousands of jobs to the area. “The richest people in Turkey and in the world will bring their big yachts here and repair them or have them built,” Yatek’s former director said in an interview in 2021. The cooperative foresees manufacturing as many as 132 luxury yachts a year.Yatek said in a statement that its project was “a fully compliant initiative that strictly follows all legal procedures, including the acquisition of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) report”, a document detailing a project’s effects for permission to be granted under EU law.“The environmental impacts and other ecological aspects of the project have been thoroughly assessed by the competent authorities of our country, which have granted a positive EIA decision. Accordingly, the entire project process continues lawfully and in line with the relevant legislation,” the statement said.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionTurkey, the largest country in the analysis, ranked highest for the amount of green land lost between 2018 and 2023. It built on 1,860 sq km of nature and crop land, accounting for more than a fifth of the total loss in Europe.But the developments are across Europe. In the Vermio mountains in northern Greece, defined as a roadless area of wilderness in Greek law, a large windfarm is being developed across the western and central Macedonia regions.According to the Dublin-based Aer Soléir, the ultimate owner of the Vermio windfarms, the plans are fully aligned with applicable Greek and EU regulatory frameworks. It said the development had “secured, during a lengthy demanding design and licensing process, all required permits and approvals”, and added: “The project was reviewed twice by the supreme administrative court. In both cases, the relevant annulment actions were rejected, and the court confirmed full compliance of the project with the environmental and regulatory framework.”The company also said a series of reforestation works were being undertaken in parallel with construction.In Germany, half a million trees were felled near Berlin to build a Tesla gigafactory after the government approved a plan to expand the plant to double production to 1m cars a year. Tesla has been approached for comment.Satellite images show the woodland cleared to make way for the Tesla factory.The methodology used in the Green to Grey investigation is different from the official method used by the European Environment Agency (EEA), which excludes areas smaller than 50,000 sq metres, the equivalent of about five football pitches. The investigation identified small, piecemeal nature losses as well as construction in urban green spaces, resulting in estimates 1.5 times larger than the EEA’s calculations and showing the total impact of cumulative small-scale losses.“It’s a slow-burning issue,” said Jan-Erik Petersen of the EEA. “It just accumulates over time.”The Green MEP Lena Schilling said: “For years, the EU has promised to lead on climate and nature protection, but what this investigation shows is that we are literally cementing over our own future.“Every forest, fertile field and biodiversity hotspot destroyed for short-term profit is a betrayal of the promises we made to young people.”The construction site for Tesla’s gigafactory near Berlin pictured in September 2020. Photograph: Odd Andersen/AFP/Getty ImagesShe said that if nature continued to be treated as expendable, Europe would lose not only its climate goals, but also its food security, its health and the very places that made the continent worth living in.The analysis covered 30 countries, covering 96% of the EEA’s 39-country area. Every country examined is losing natural and agricultural areas, but some fare worse than others. The five countries with the highest green losses were Turkey, with more than 1800 sq km of nature and crop land lost between 2018 and 2023, Poland (more than 1,000 sq km), France (950 sq km), Germany (720 sq km) and the UK (604 sq km).Zander Venter of Nina is planning to scale up the project to establish a global vision of the impact humans have had on the planet. For anyone interested in helping, he will be launching a citizen science web app to try crowdsource the verifications.Additional reporting by Rachel Keenan, Raphael Boyd, Olivia Lee, Yassin El-Moudden, Gracie Daw, Matthew Holmes, Mariam Amini, Gabriel Smith, Dominic Kendrick and Emma RussellFor more, visit greentogrey.euThe next phase of this project will be planet-wide: join a crowdsourced citizen science initiative to measure global nature loss here

Food
Nature
Forests

Changing Course, Honolulu Is Now Planting Food in Public Spaces

Honolulu Skyline passengers may notice something different on their morning rail commute: more than half-a-dozen planter boxes full of growing tomatoes, eggplants, scallions and sweet potatoes

Honolulu Skyline passengers may notice something different on their morning rail commute: more than half-a-dozen planter boxes full of growing tomatoes, eggplants, scallions and sweet potatoes, among other edible plants. Native ku‘uli, ’ākia, ’ohai, ʻākulikuli and kī can be found close by, planted on Thursday by a group of volunteers from the city and nonprofit sector as part of a nascent program aimed at making free food available in public spaces. The planting represents a paradigm shift for Honolulu, and possibly the state. Local authorities have long avoided growing edible plants and trees because of legal fears – mostly liability — over things like falling coconuts, fruit theft or slippery mangoes on the ground.But now Honolulu is vying for a $1 million grant from Bloomberg Philanthropies to flip the script, as one of 50 cities globally identified as finalists of the Mayors Challenge, in which the organization calls on cities to reimagine the services they provide.For Honolulu, that means intermingling food, housing and transit by increasing food access for commuters in public spaces. The model is a prototype, one Honolulu Office of Economic Revitalization Director Amy Asselbaye says has been informed by public demand for more food trees and public gardens throughout Oʻahu.Government-sanctioned urban gardening and food tree planting had been nixed over concerns about who will oversee, tend to and harvest the plants, as well as who might be liable and who will benefit. County departments have welcomed the change, including the parks department, Asselbaye says. Ultimately, she said, the goal is to transform the transit stations into food hubs, where commuters could take an ʻulu or some kī leaves for dinner instead of worrying about the price of groceries. “We want to create that possibility,” Asselbaye said, “and see how residents respond to it.”Earth Innovation ’s Kima Wassel Hardy, a consultant for the city, says the project illustrates that food doesn’t have to be only grown by farmers in far-flung fields, but can be made readily accessible and available in different settings. And the plants have environmental benefits too. At the pilot stations in Kapolei and Waipahu, patches of grass and shrubs have now been replaced with native plants better adapted to West Oʻahu’s drier conditions. There’s going to be “less weed whackers, less leaf blowers, more harvesting and, hopefully, more community engagement,” Wassel Hardy said. “This is still the ʻāina, even if it’s covered in asphalt.” Meanwhile, the county has teamed up with westside feeding initiative ʻElepaio Social Services to run a mobile food pantry and will host a farmers market during peak commute times, to increase access to food among commuters. “People have been talking about this for years,” Asselbaye said. “We’re going to prototype how we do this and we’re not going to try to set too many rules while we figure it out.” Community-driven efforts to grow food in urban spaces are not new to the islands, though most have failed to take root due to concerns they would become unwieldy. The state has arrested people for planting food trees several times in the past, while other efforts on Oʻahu have resulted in community groups overseeing food forests on state lands, such as an ʻulu and coconut grove in Kahaluʻu led by Sen. Brenton Awa. But it has taken more than a decade for Honolulu to warm to the idea of planting food forests or having publicly available food for residents, with years of failed attempts to get official permission. Friends of Kamaliʻi Park in downtown Honolulu were among the first to try, as the Department of Parks and Recreation shut the idea down despite funding and support from then-Councilwoman Tulsi Gabbard. Hawaiʻi food systems planner Hunter Heaivilin, whose 2014 master’s thesis centered on urban agriculture, found in his research that a complex web of ideas and policy hurdles, including liability concerns and zoning restrictions, sat in the way of growing food on up to 10,000 acres of viable land in urban Honolulu. “The concern, in those conversations, was that the food trees would be ‘an attractive nuisance,’” Heaivilin said. The state has recognized the potential of urban agriculture, including in a 2013 bill encouraging state housing developers to include urban gardening programs into affordable housing projects. That law, Act 202, has largely been ignored, Heaivilin says.Since then, even with state and federal support, community-driven urban gardening initiatives have mostly misfired, including in Kakaʻako where a community garden project stalled in 2018.Despite the delay, Heaivilin is applauding the new development, hoping it will pave the way for more projects to increase access to food across urban Oʻahu. Year Of Our Community Forests Community organizations have meanwhile continued to find workarounds to increase access to food as well as cultural and community connection.One such initiative, run by Grow Good Hawaiʻi, has several projects centered on distributing and cultivating food trees statewide, including in people’s backyards, while also troubleshooting for residents across Oʻahu. The process is intended to help food security within communities while mitigating the effects of climate change.Gov. Josh Green in January dubbed 2025 the Year of Our Community Forests, a move intended to increase awareness of the need to promote the conservation and care of forests – both urban and rural – throughout the state.Lawmakers passed a bicameral resolution last session urging the state Department of Land and Natural Resources to work with the community to look after forests on public lands.Part of that, according to state urban forester Heather McMillen, has been workshopping solutions to longstanding concerns about liability and care for the trees and their fruit. A solution hasn’t been found yet, she said, but community buy-in will be central to any resolution.To be sure, state forest reserves already have wild food available for residents to forage after obtaining a free permit, and the state forestry division’s Kaulunani Urban and Community Forestry Program is promoting urban forests and forested areas on the urban-rural borders of Hawaiʻi.McMillen, who leads the program, hopes the resolution will lead to permanent funding moving forward that’s dedicated to urban forestry, perhaps from the state’s new green fee.The Kaulunani program calculated urban trees provided $90 in environmental benefits per tree. For every dollar spent on tree care, the tree provides about $3 in benefits — including pollution removal, rain interception, carbon storage and electricity savings. As of 2023, the program had injected $4.6 million into more than 450 forestry projects.Across the islands, municipal trees store over 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide, remove 3,340 tons of CO2 each year and mitigate 35 million gallons of stormwater runoff each year, while playing an important role in cooling the urban environment.“We know it’s going to get worse. We need more trees, more canopy and even shrubs,” Grow Good founder Paul Arinaga said. “None of this is rocket science.”This story was originally published by Honolulu Civil Beat and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

Food
Agriculture
CO2

Suggested Viewing

El País de la Eterna Primavera (Land of the Eternal Spring)

San Francisco-based photojournalist Jason Henry (New York Times, Vice, Wall Street Journal) treks to Guatemala’s most infamous landfill, Teculután. Against the backdrop of the Sierra de las Minas mountains, Henry tries to maintain his composure as he shoots children digging through the garbage in search of shreds of sustenance in a monstrous heap of human and animal waste and burning ash. Surrounded by swarming flies and accompanied by writer Erik Maza (Baltimore Sun, Town & Country), Henry observes, “This is their playground.”

Waste
Food
Documentary

Modern Nature

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

Food
Agriculture
Business

Together We Grow

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

Social Justice
Food
Agriculture

Kumu Niu

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

Land Use
Indigenous
Food

Eating: the power to save the ocean

What if our food could save the ocean? The ocean is the source of life. It regulates the climate. It covers 70% of the planet's surface. The ocean is vital but it is under threat. And that is mainly because of our food. We don't think about it because we can't see it, but what we eat can have serious consequences for the health of the ocean. Fortunately, solutions do exist. In France, men and women are already laying the foundations for a more sustainable eating. Malaury, a young ocean activist, sets off to hitchhike the roads of France to meet them. She will try to better understand the impacts of our food on the ocean. And above all, she will discover tangible solutions for eating well while preserving the ocean.

Water
Agriculture
Food

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.