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 tech billionaires’ utopia in Solano County aims to house as many as 400,000 people

News Feed
Monday, March 18, 2024

The details of a group of Silicon Valley titans’ secretive land grab in Solano County, California are starting to come into focus, even as residents say a lot is still up in the air. VC giant Marc Andreessen, LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman, and Laurene Powell Jobs are among the tech giants who banded together to purchase over 60,000 acres of land about 60 miles northeast of San Francisco. California Forever, as the group calls itself, revealed last year that it hopes to create a whole new city in the middle of the county. But in order to do that, the group must get voter approval; Solano residents approved rules in 1980 that dictate development must be in the area’s existing seven cities and not in agricultural areas. California Forever has now submitted lengthy ballot language to get the land use changed, and in late February it was given the go ahead by the county to start collecting signatures to put the measure on November’s ballot. The group has 180 days to collect a minimum of 13,062 signatures. The county’s official, nonpartisan summary of the ballot initiative reveals a number of new details around the project, including that if voters pass the measure, California Forever would change the land use of about 25,200 acres, 17,500 of which would be for the city and about 7,000 acres of buffer between it and the nearby Travis Air Force Base and the existing city of Rio Vista. The new city would have capacity for 100,000 to 400,000 residents. Still, even with so much more information spelled out, residents say there are still many important questions left unanswered. Not much is known about how the city would be built. The summary notes that “the exact phasing, standards, and criteria by which development would proceed” are not part of the ballot measure, nor are the ten “voter guarantees” that California Forever has promised to Solano County residents. The guarantees, which are outlined in the group’s proposed ballot, include $400 million in down payment assistance to help residents purchase the homes created, $200 million in commercial investments in the county’s existing cities, the creation of at least 15,000 “good paying” local jobs, $70 million in scholarship funds for residents to go to college or training programs, $30 million for protecting open space and habitats, a “sustainable” water supply, unspecified investment in the region’s highways and schools, and no new taxes on residents or businesses. The county summary makes clear that, by California law, these promises would only become enforceable once an agreement is negotiated and entered into between California Forever’s developers and local government, long after the ballot measure goes before voters. “It’s very misleading to voters to call the ten guarantees ‘promises’ when right now there is no way to enforce them,” says Sadie Wilson, director of planning and research at local nonprofit the Greenbelt Alliance, which is part of the Solano Together coalition opposed to the development plans. And even if all of the promises were secured in such an agreement, they could disappear if the city were to incorporate. Currently any unincorporated area in Solano, which includes the land that California Forever wants to develop, is governed by the county. Wilson thinks it’s likely that, if the city were to hits its 400,000-resident ceiling, they would want to create their own government with its own officers and laws. Although California Forever’s ballot language says it would give the county power to enforce a development agreement after incorporation, the county’s summary states that enforceability “would be limited by state law if the New Community incorporates.” The summary also notes, “The environmental impacts and financial feasibility of the New Community have not yet been fully analyzed and would not be known until after the Measure has been approved by the voters.” It states that “the full impacts to TAFB [Travis Air Force Base] are not yet known.” Passing the measure, Wilson argued, would amount to “just giving them a blank check for development.” The process has also had its bumps. California Forever had to resubmit its initiative language twice. The first time was to address a concern raised by the county that it wasn’t clear at first that the voter guarantees are not enforceable until after the measure passes and a development agreement is in place. The second time was to respond to concerns raised by Travis about the impact of the new city on its flight programs, which Travis said afterward addressed the problems it had raised. But that shows, Wilson says, that California Forever didn’t include Travis as much as the group had touted as it developed its plans. “Ballot initiatives are frequently updated in response to community feedback, and we are delighted that we were able to address the community’s concerns,” says Julia Blystone, a spokesperson for California Forever. Blystone says the group conducted town hall meetings, focus groups, individual meetings, phone calls, and more to communicate with “tens of thousands” of residents. It also convened a community advisory committee made up of 21 residents. “The community’s feedback is evident in all aspects of the initiative,” she says, “including its size, location relative to Travis and Rio Vista, and the 10 Guarantees.” But opponents argue California Forever’s community engagement has mostly been for show.  As Duane Kromm, a resident and former member of the Solano County board of supervisors, told Fast Company in September, the group had to have already been at work crafting such a lengthy ballot measure in the fall at the same time it said it was listening to residents. “What hypocrisy,” he says. When Wilson spoke to California Forever early on, before it started holding town halls and doing polling, “What we heard about the plan was exactly what we saw come out in the initiative.” Then there’s the group’s tactics. Last May, California Forever, then going under the name Flannery Associates, filed a federal lawsuit against local ranchers and residents in the area, many of whom refused to sell their land, accusing them of violating antitrust laws and seeking $510 million in damages. After Margaret and Ian Anderson, who have owned a farm in the area for generations, refused to sell their land, California Forever terminated a lease they held on additional land—one they say they needed to operate their business. As a result of the termination, the Anderson’s operations were reduced by 60%. “Our farm is kind of falling apart because of what’s going on,” Ian told Fast Company. Wilson points out that the Greenbelt Alliance has advocated for building more housing and sees many positives in the California Forever proposal. “We love dense, walkable development. That’s fabulous,” she says. “But you can’t just locate that development in a location that is not connected to jobs, to communities, to transit, and call it sustainable development.” As it is, 67 percent of Solano County residents commute out of the area for work. It’s remote, and the sole transit in the area is an Amtrak stop in Fairfield that only goes to Sacramento or Oakland; it doesn’t go to San Francisco. Blystone says the group plans to create “one of the largest transit operations in the Bay Area,” including a network of rapid bus lines within the new city and a “rapid shuttle program” to connect it to other cities in the area and Bay Area Rapid Transit. There are also many concerns about the environmental impact of paving over this land and bringing so many people to live on it. California Forever is still claiming the land it bought is “rated among the worst for agriculture in all of Solano County,” where “for years and years, nothing much has been able to grow.” Yet the map it has used to justify this point labels it only as “grazing land” that is “suited to the grazing of livestock,” with no qualification as to its quality. To be rated higher the land would have to be irrigated, and Blystone claimed that the reason it isn’t is “because the soils are so poor that it makes no economic sense to do so.” But the farmers who have owned land in the area for generations vehemently disagree. They use a unique dryland farming technique that helps maintain the area’s scare water resources and absorb rainfall to mitigate flooding while producing livestock, grains, nuts, and produce worth more than $350 million annually in gross sales. They have also protected wetlands that are home to endangered animals. “This is productive, valued land,” Wilson says, “that is, right now, doing exactly what it’s supposed to do.”

The details of a group of Silicon Valley titans’ secretive land grab in Solano County, California are starting to come into focus, even as residents say a lot is still up in the air. VC giant Marc Andreessen, LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman, and Laurene Powell Jobs are among the tech giants who banded together to purchase over 60,000 acres of land about 60 miles northeast of San Francisco. California Forever, as the group calls itself, revealed last year that it hopes to create a whole new city in the middle of the county. But in order to do that, the group must get voter approval; Solano residents approved rules in 1980 that dictate development must be in the area’s existing seven cities and not in agricultural areas. California Forever has now submitted lengthy ballot language to get the land use changed, and in late February it was given the go ahead by the county to start collecting signatures to put the measure on November’s ballot. The group has 180 days to collect a minimum of 13,062 signatures. The county’s official, nonpartisan summary of the ballot initiative reveals a number of new details around the project, including that if voters pass the measure, California Forever would change the land use of about 25,200 acres, 17,500 of which would be for the city and about 7,000 acres of buffer between it and the nearby Travis Air Force Base and the existing city of Rio Vista. The new city would have capacity for 100,000 to 400,000 residents. Still, even with so much more information spelled out, residents say there are still many important questions left unanswered. Not much is known about how the city would be built. The summary notes that “the exact phasing, standards, and criteria by which development would proceed” are not part of the ballot measure, nor are the ten “voter guarantees” that California Forever has promised to Solano County residents. The guarantees, which are outlined in the group’s proposed ballot, include $400 million in down payment assistance to help residents purchase the homes created, $200 million in commercial investments in the county’s existing cities, the creation of at least 15,000 “good paying” local jobs, $70 million in scholarship funds for residents to go to college or training programs, $30 million for protecting open space and habitats, a “sustainable” water supply, unspecified investment in the region’s highways and schools, and no new taxes on residents or businesses. The county summary makes clear that, by California law, these promises would only become enforceable once an agreement is negotiated and entered into between California Forever’s developers and local government, long after the ballot measure goes before voters. “It’s very misleading to voters to call the ten guarantees ‘promises’ when right now there is no way to enforce them,” says Sadie Wilson, director of planning and research at local nonprofit the Greenbelt Alliance, which is part of the Solano Together coalition opposed to the development plans. And even if all of the promises were secured in such an agreement, they could disappear if the city were to incorporate. Currently any unincorporated area in Solano, which includes the land that California Forever wants to develop, is governed by the county. Wilson thinks it’s likely that, if the city were to hits its 400,000-resident ceiling, they would want to create their own government with its own officers and laws. Although California Forever’s ballot language says it would give the county power to enforce a development agreement after incorporation, the county’s summary states that enforceability “would be limited by state law if the New Community incorporates.” The summary also notes, “The environmental impacts and financial feasibility of the New Community have not yet been fully analyzed and would not be known until after the Measure has been approved by the voters.” It states that “the full impacts to TAFB [Travis Air Force Base] are not yet known.” Passing the measure, Wilson argued, would amount to “just giving them a blank check for development.” The process has also had its bumps. California Forever had to resubmit its initiative language twice. The first time was to address a concern raised by the county that it wasn’t clear at first that the voter guarantees are not enforceable until after the measure passes and a development agreement is in place. The second time was to respond to concerns raised by Travis about the impact of the new city on its flight programs, which Travis said afterward addressed the problems it had raised. But that shows, Wilson says, that California Forever didn’t include Travis as much as the group had touted as it developed its plans. “Ballot initiatives are frequently updated in response to community feedback, and we are delighted that we were able to address the community’s concerns,” says Julia Blystone, a spokesperson for California Forever. Blystone says the group conducted town hall meetings, focus groups, individual meetings, phone calls, and more to communicate with “tens of thousands” of residents. It also convened a community advisory committee made up of 21 residents. “The community’s feedback is evident in all aspects of the initiative,” she says, “including its size, location relative to Travis and Rio Vista, and the 10 Guarantees.” But opponents argue California Forever’s community engagement has mostly been for show.  As Duane Kromm, a resident and former member of the Solano County board of supervisors, told Fast Company in September, the group had to have already been at work crafting such a lengthy ballot measure in the fall at the same time it said it was listening to residents. “What hypocrisy,” he says. When Wilson spoke to California Forever early on, before it started holding town halls and doing polling, “What we heard about the plan was exactly what we saw come out in the initiative.” Then there’s the group’s tactics. Last May, California Forever, then going under the name Flannery Associates, filed a federal lawsuit against local ranchers and residents in the area, many of whom refused to sell their land, accusing them of violating antitrust laws and seeking $510 million in damages. After Margaret and Ian Anderson, who have owned a farm in the area for generations, refused to sell their land, California Forever terminated a lease they held on additional land—one they say they needed to operate their business. As a result of the termination, the Anderson’s operations were reduced by 60%. “Our farm is kind of falling apart because of what’s going on,” Ian told Fast Company. Wilson points out that the Greenbelt Alliance has advocated for building more housing and sees many positives in the California Forever proposal. “We love dense, walkable development. That’s fabulous,” she says. “But you can’t just locate that development in a location that is not connected to jobs, to communities, to transit, and call it sustainable development.” As it is, 67 percent of Solano County residents commute out of the area for work. It’s remote, and the sole transit in the area is an Amtrak stop in Fairfield that only goes to Sacramento or Oakland; it doesn’t go to San Francisco. Blystone says the group plans to create “one of the largest transit operations in the Bay Area,” including a network of rapid bus lines within the new city and a “rapid shuttle program” to connect it to other cities in the area and Bay Area Rapid Transit. There are also many concerns about the environmental impact of paving over this land and bringing so many people to live on it. California Forever is still claiming the land it bought is “rated among the worst for agriculture in all of Solano County,” where “for years and years, nothing much has been able to grow.” Yet the map it has used to justify this point labels it only as “grazing land” that is “suited to the grazing of livestock,” with no qualification as to its quality. To be rated higher the land would have to be irrigated, and Blystone claimed that the reason it isn’t is “because the soils are so poor that it makes no economic sense to do so.” But the farmers who have owned land in the area for generations vehemently disagree. They use a unique dryland farming technique that helps maintain the area’s scare water resources and absorb rainfall to mitigate flooding while producing livestock, grains, nuts, and produce worth more than $350 million annually in gross sales. They have also protected wetlands that are home to endangered animals. “This is productive, valued land,” Wilson says, “that is, right now, doing exactly what it’s supposed to do.”

The details of a group of Silicon Valley titans’ secretive land grab in Solano County, California are starting to come into focus, even as residents say a lot is still up in the air.

VC giant Marc Andreessen, LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman, and Laurene Powell Jobs are among the tech giants who banded together to purchase over 60,000 acres of land about 60 miles northeast of San Francisco. California Forever, as the group calls itself, revealed last year that it hopes to create a whole new city in the middle of the county.

But in order to do that, the group must get voter approval; Solano residents approved rules in 1980 that dictate development must be in the area’s existing seven cities and not in agricultural areas. California Forever has now submitted lengthy ballot language to get the land use changed, and in late February it was given the go ahead by the county to start collecting signatures to put the measure on November’s ballot. The group has 180 days to collect a minimum of 13,062 signatures.

The county’s official, nonpartisan summary of the ballot initiative reveals a number of new details around the project, including that if voters pass the measure, California Forever would change the land use of about 25,200 acres, 17,500 of which would be for the city and about 7,000 acres of buffer between it and the nearby Travis Air Force Base and the existing city of Rio Vista. The new city would have capacity for 100,000 to 400,000 residents.

Still, even with so much more information spelled out, residents say there are still many important questions left unanswered.

Not much is known about how the city would be built. The summary notes that “the exact phasing, standards, and criteria by which development would proceed” are not part of the ballot measure, nor are the ten “voter guarantees” that California Forever has promised to Solano County residents. The guarantees, which are outlined in the group’s proposed ballot, include $400 million in down payment assistance to help residents purchase the homes created, $200 million in commercial investments in the county’s existing cities, the creation of at least 15,000 “good paying” local jobs, $70 million in scholarship funds for residents to go to college or training programs, $30 million for protecting open space and habitats, a “sustainable” water supply, unspecified investment in the region’s highways and schools, and no new taxes on residents or businesses.

The county summary makes clear that, by California law, these promises would only become enforceable once an agreement is negotiated and entered into between California Forever’s developers and local government, long after the ballot measure goes before voters. “It’s very misleading to voters to call the ten guarantees ‘promises’ when right now there is no way to enforce them,” says Sadie Wilson, director of planning and research at local nonprofit the Greenbelt Alliance, which is part of the Solano Together coalition opposed to the development plans.

And even if all of the promises were secured in such an agreement, they could disappear if the city were to incorporate. Currently any unincorporated area in Solano, which includes the land that California Forever wants to develop, is governed by the county. Wilson thinks it’s likely that, if the city were to hits its 400,000-resident ceiling, they would want to create their own government with its own officers and laws. Although California Forever’s ballot language says it would give the county power to enforce a development agreement after incorporation, the county’s summary states that enforceability “would be limited by state law if the New Community incorporates.”

The summary also notes, “The environmental impacts and financial feasibility of the New Community have not yet been fully analyzed and would not be known until after the Measure has been approved by the voters.” It states that “the full impacts to TAFB [Travis Air Force Base] are not yet known.”

Passing the measure, Wilson argued, would amount to “just giving them a blank check for development.”

The process has also had its bumps. California Forever had to resubmit its initiative language twice. The first time was to address a concern raised by the county that it wasn’t clear at first that the voter guarantees are not enforceable until after the measure passes and a development agreement is in place. The second time was to respond to concerns raised by Travis about the impact of the new city on its flight programs, which Travis said afterward addressed the problems it had raised. But that shows, Wilson says, that California Forever didn’t include Travis as much as the group had touted as it developed its plans.

“Ballot initiatives are frequently updated in response to community feedback, and we are delighted that we were able to address the community’s concerns,” says Julia Blystone, a spokesperson for California Forever.

Blystone says the group conducted town hall meetings, focus groups, individual meetings, phone calls, and more to communicate with “tens of thousands” of residents. It also convened a community advisory committee made up of 21 residents. “The community’s feedback is evident in all aspects of the initiative,” she says, “including its size, location relative to Travis and Rio Vista, and the 10 Guarantees.”

But opponents argue California Forever’s community engagement has mostly been for show.  As Duane Kromm, a resident and former member of the Solano County board of supervisors, told Fast Company in September, the group had to have already been at work crafting such a lengthy ballot measure in the fall at the same time it said it was listening to residents. “What hypocrisy,” he says. When Wilson spoke to California Forever early on, before it started holding town halls and doing polling, “What we heard about the plan was exactly what we saw come out in the initiative.”

Then there’s the group’s tactics. Last May, California Forever, then going under the name Flannery Associates, filed a federal lawsuit against local ranchers and residents in the area, many of whom refused to sell their land, accusing them of violating antitrust laws and seeking $510 million in damages. After Margaret and Ian Anderson, who have owned a farm in the area for generations, refused to sell their land, California Forever terminated a lease they held on additional land—one they say they needed to operate their business. As a result of the termination, the Anderson’s operations were reduced by 60%. “Our farm is kind of falling apart because of what’s going on,” Ian told Fast Company.

Wilson points out that the Greenbelt Alliance has advocated for building more housing and sees many positives in the California Forever proposal. “We love dense, walkable development. That’s fabulous,” she says. “But you can’t just locate that development in a location that is not connected to jobs, to communities, to transit, and call it sustainable development.” As it is, 67 percent of Solano County residents commute out of the area for work. It’s remote, and the sole transit in the area is an Amtrak stop in Fairfield that only goes to Sacramento or Oakland; it doesn’t go to San Francisco. Blystone says the group plans to create “one of the largest transit operations in the Bay Area,” including a network of rapid bus lines within the new city and a “rapid shuttle program” to connect it to other cities in the area and Bay Area Rapid Transit.

There are also many concerns about the environmental impact of paving over this land and bringing so many people to live on it. California Forever is still claiming the land it bought is “rated among the worst for agriculture in all of Solano County,” where “for years and years, nothing much has been able to grow.” Yet the map it has used to justify this point labels it only as “grazing land” that is “suited to the grazing of livestock,” with no qualification as to its quality. To be rated higher the land would have to be irrigated, and Blystone claimed that the reason it isn’t is “because the soils are so poor that it makes no economic sense to do so.”

But the farmers who have owned land in the area for generations vehemently disagree. They use a unique dryland farming technique that helps maintain the area’s scare water resources and absorb rainfall to mitigate flooding while producing livestock, grains, nuts, and produce worth more than $350 million annually in gross sales. They have also protected wetlands that are home to endangered animals. “This is productive, valued land,” Wilson says, “that is, right now, doing exactly what it’s supposed to do.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Making agriculture more resilient to climate change

Researchers across MIT are working on ways to boost food production and help crops survive drought.

As Earth’s temperature rises, agricultural practices will need to adapt. Droughts will likely become more frequent, and some land may no longer be arable. On top of that is the challenge of feeding an ever-growing population without expanding the production of fertilizer and other agrochemicals, which have a large carbon footprint that is contributing to the overall warming of the planet.Researchers across MIT are taking on these agricultural challenges from a variety of angles, from engineering plants that sound an alarm when they’re under stress to making seeds more resilient to drought. These types of technologies, and more yet to be devised, will be essential to feed the world’s population as the climate changes.“After water, the first thing we need is food. In terms of priority, there is water, food, and then everything else. As we are trying to find new strategies to support a world of 10 billion people, it will require us to invent new ways of making food,” says Benedetto Marelli, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at MIT.Marelli is the director of one of the six missions of the recently launched Climate Project at MIT, which focus on research areas such as decarbonizing industry and building resilient cities. Marelli directs the Wild Cards mission, which aims to identify unconventional solutions that are high-risk and high-reward.Drawing on expertise from a breadth of fields, MIT is well-positioned to tackle the challenges posed by climate change, Marelli says. “Bringing together our strengths across disciplines, including engineering, processing at scale, biological engineering, and infrastructure engineering, along with humanities, science, and economics, presents a great opportunity.”Protecting seeds from droughtMarelli, who began his career as a biomedical engineer working on regenerative medicine, is now developing ways to boost crop yields by helping seeds to survive and germinate during drought conditions, or in soil that has been depleted of nutrients. To achieve that, he has devised seed coatings, based on silk and other polymers, that can envelop and nourish seeds during the critical germination process.In healthy soil, plants have access to nitrogen, phosphates, and other nutrients that they need, many of which are supplied by microbes that live in the soil. However, in soil that has suffered from drought or overfarming, these nutrients are lacking. Marelli’s idea was to coat the seeds with a polymer that can be embedded with plant-growth-promoting bacteria that “fix” nitrogen by absorbing it from the air and making it available to plants. The microbes can also make other necessary nutrients available to plants.For the first generation of the seed coatings, he embedded these microbes in coatings made of silk — a material that he had previously shown can extend the shelf life of produce, meat, and other foods. In his lab at MIT, Marelli has shown that the seed coatings can help germinating plants survive drought, ultraviolet light exposure, and high salinity.Now, working with researchers at the Mohammed VI Polytechnic University in Morocco, he is adapting the approach to crops native to Morocco, a country that has experienced six consecutive years of drought due a drop in rainfall linked to climate change.For these studies, the researchers are using a biopolymer coating derived from food waste that can be easily obtained in Morocco, instead of silk.“We’re working with local communities to extract the biopolymers, to try to have a process that works at scale so that we make materials that work in that specific environment.” Marelli says. “We may come up with an idea here at MIT within a high-resource environment, but then to work there, we need to talk with the local communities, with local stakeholders, and use their own ingenuity and try to match our solution with something that could actually be applied in the local environment.”Microbes as fertilizersWhether they are experiencing drought or not, crops grow much better when synthetic fertilizers are applied. Although it’s essential to most farms, applying fertilizer is expensive and has environmental consequences. Most of the world’s fertilizer is produced using the Haber-Bosch process, which converts nitrogen and hydrogen to ammonia at high temperatures and pressures. This energy intensive process accounts for about 1.5 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, and the transportation required to deliver it to farms around the world adds even more emissions.Ariel Furst, the Paul M. Cook Career Development Assistant Professor of Chemical Engineering at MIT, is developing a microbial alternative to the Haber-Bosch process. Some farms have experimented with applying nitrogen-fixing bacteria directly to the roots of their crops, which has shown some success. However, the microbes are too delicate to be stored long-term or shipped anywhere, so they must be produced in a bioreactor on the farm.To overcome those challenges, Furst has developed a way to coat the microbes with a protective shell that prevents them from being destroyed by heat or other stresses. The coating also protects microbes from damage caused by freeze-drying — a process that would make them easier to transport.The coatings can vary in composition, but they all consist of two components. One is a metal such as iron, manganese, or zinc, and the other is a polyphenol — a type of plant-derived organic compound that includes tannins and other antioxidants. These two components self-assemble into a protective shell that encapsulates bacteria.“These microbes would be delivered with the seeds, so it would remove the need for fertilizing mid-growing. It also reduces the cost and provides more autonomy to the farmers and decreases carbon emissions associated with agriculture,” Furst says. “We think it’ll be a way to make agriculture completely regenerative, so to bring back soil health while also boosting crop yields and the nutrient density of the crops.”Furst has founded a company called Seia Bio, which is working on commercializing the coated microbes and has begun testing them on farms in Brazil. In her lab, Furst is also working on adapting the approach to coat microbes that can capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and turn it into limestone, which helps to raise the soil pH.“It can help change the pH of soil to stabilize it, while also being a way to effectively perform direct air capture of CO2,” she says. “Right now, farmers may truck in limestone to change the pH of soil, and so you’re creating a lot of emissions to bring something in that microbes can do on their own.”Distress sensors for plantsSeveral years ago, Michael Strano, the Carbon P. Dubbs Professor of Chemical Engineering at MIT, began to explore the idea of using plants themselves as sensors that could reveal when they’re in distress. When plants experience drought, attack by pests, or other kinds of stress, they produce hormones and other signaling molecules to defend themselves.Strano, whose lab specializes in developing tiny sensors for a variety of molecules, wondered if such sensors could be deployed inside plants to pick up those distress signals. To create their sensors, Strano’s lab takes advantage of the special properties of single-walled carbon nanotubes, which emit fluorescent light. By wrapping the tubes with different types of polymers, the sensors can be tuned to detect specific targets, giving off a fluorescent signal when the target is present.For use in plants, Strano and his colleagues created sensors that could detect signaling molecules such as salicylic acid and hydrogen peroxide. They then showed that these sensors could be inserted into the underside of plant leaves, without harming the plants. Once embedded in the mesophyll of the leaves, the sensors can pick up a variety of signals, which can be read with an infrared camera.These sensors can reveal, in real-time, whether a plant is experiencing a variety of stresses. Until now, there hasn’t been a way to get that information fast enough for farmers to act on it.“What we’re trying to do is make tools that get information into the hands of farmers very quickly, fast enough for them to make adaptive decisions that can increase yield,” Strano says. “We’re in the middle of a revolution of really understanding the way in which plants internally communicate and communicate with other plants.”This kind of sensing could be deployed in fields, where it could help farmers respond more quickly to drought and other stresses, or in greenhouses, vertical farms, and other types of indoor farms that use technology to grow crops in a controlled environment.Much of Strano’s work in this area has been conducted with the support of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and as part of the Disruptive and Sustainable Technologies for Agricultural Precision (DiSTAP) program at the Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology (SMART), and sensors have been deployed in tests in crops at a controlled environment farm in Singapore called Growy.“The same basic kinds of tools can help detect problems in open field agriculture or in controlled environment agriculture,” Strano says. “They both suffer from the same problem, which is that the farmers get information too late to prevent yield loss.”Reducing pesticide usePesticides represent another huge financial expense for farmers: Worldwide, farmers spend about $60 billion per year on pesticides. Much of this pesticide ends up accumulating in water and soil, where it can harm many species, including humans. But, without using pesticides, farmers may lose more than half of their crops.Kripa Varanasi, an MIT professor of mechanical engineering, is working on tools that can help farmers measure how much pesticide is reaching their plants, as well as technologies that can help pesticides adhere to plants more efficiently, reducing the amount that runs off into soil and water.Varanasi, whose research focuses on interactions between liquid droplets and surfaces, began to think about applying his work to agriculture more than a decade ago, after attending a conference at the USDA. There, he was inspired to begin developing ways to improve the efficiency of pesticide application by optimizing the interactions that occur at leaf surfaces.“Billions of drops of pesticide are being sprayed on every acre of crop, and only a small fraction is ultimately reaching and staying on target. This seemed to me like a problem that we could help to solve,” he says.Varanasi and his students began exploring strategies to make drops of pesticide stick to leaves better, instead of bouncing off. They found that if they added polymers with positive and negative charges, the oppositely charged droplets would form a hydrophilic (water-attracting) coating on the leaf surface, which helps the next droplets applied to stick to the leaf.Later, they developed an easier-to-use technology in which a surfactant is added to the pesticide before spraying. When this mixture is sprayed through a special nozzle, it forms tiny droplets that are “cloaked” in surfactant. The surfactant helps the droplets to stick to the leaves within a few milliseconds, without bouncing off.In 2020, Varanasi and Vishnu Jayaprakash SM ’19, PhD ’22 founded a company called AgZen to commercialize their technologies and get them into the hands of farmers. They incorporated their ideas for improving pesticide adhesion into a product called EnhanceCoverage.During the testing for this product, they realized that there weren’t any good ways to measure how many of the droplets were staying on the plant. That led them to develop a product known as RealCoverage, which is based on machine vision. It can be attached to any pesticide sprayer and offer real-time feedback on what percentage of the pesticide droplets are sticking to and staying on every leaf.RealCoverage was used on 65,000 acres of farmland across the United States in 2024, from soybeans in Iowa to cotton in Georgia. Farmers who used the product were able to reduce their pesticide use by 30 to 50 percent, by using the data to optimize delivery and, in some cases, even change what chemicals were sprayed.He hopes that the EnhanceCoverage product, which is expected to become available in 2025, will help farmers further reduce their pesticide use.“Our mission here is to help farmers with savings while helping them achieve better yields. We have found a way to do all this while also reducing waste and the amount of chemicals that we put into our atmosphere and into our soils and into our water,” Varanasi says. “This is the MIT approach: to figure out what are the real issues and how to come up with solutions. Now we have a tool and I hope that it’s deployed everywhere and everyone gets the benefit from it.”

Paleontologists Discover Dinosaur Fossils in Hong Kong for the First Time

The metropolis is an important center for paleontological research, but until now, fossils of plants and fish were the only remains of dinosaur-era life found there

The first dinosaur fossils discovered in Hong Kong went on display last week. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Paleontologists have made the first discovery of dinosaur fossils in Hong Kong, found within red sedimentary rocks on the tiny, uninhabited Port Island (also called Chek Chau, meaning “red island”) northeast of the metropolis. The historic finding, which was made in Hong Kong’s UNESCO Global Geopark, was announced in a statement from the Hong Kong government last week. “The discovery is of great significance and provides new evidence for research on paleoecology in Hong Kong,” Bernadette Linn, Hong Kong’s Secretary for Development, says in the statement. Based on a preliminary analysis, experts identified the fossils as bone remains of a “large, aged dinosaur” dating to the Cretaceous Period, about 145 million to 66 million years ago. They don’t know yet what species it belonged to, but they hypothesize its remains were buried in sand and gravel, resurfaced due to a flood and were reburied, per the Guardian’s Helen Davidson. “This extremely exciting discovery now adds local dinosaur fossils to Hong Kong’s strong existing track record of dinosaur research,” Michael Pittman, a dinosaur paleobiologist at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, tells Reuters. “I hope it inspires greater interest in science and nature in our community and will lead to notable scientific outcomes.” An expert with the Chinese Academy of Sciences collects fossil specimens on Port Island in the Hong Kong UNESCO Global Geopark. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region China—along with Argentina, Canada and the United States—is one of the main geographical regions for identifying and studying dinosaur fossils. And Hong Kong is an important center for paleontological research, per Artnet’s Tim Brinkhof. So, it might come as a surprise that this latest dinosaur discovery is Hong Kong’s first—but such remains are rare, because the region’s environmental conditions were not optimal for fossilization. “Hong Kong is famous for being a built-up landscape, but half of it is country park. In the countryside areas, most of what you see are dinosaur-era rocks, but it’s volcanic rocks—and they are bad places to find fossils, because fossils just melt,” Pittman tells the Guardian. “But Port Island is one of the islands that has dinosaur-age rocks of the right type and right environment.” Dinosaur fossils, outlined in red, discovered on Port Island in the Hong Kong UNESCO Global Geopark. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region In March of this year, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department in Hong Kong alerted authorities that Port Island might contain dinosaur fossils. When experts were dispatched to the island to investigate the claim, they confirmed what researchers had been hoping for, unearthing the historic bones. Up until now, the only “dinosaur-era things” identified in Hong Kong were plants and fish, Pittman tells CNN’s Karina Tsui. He adds that skeletal remains as a whole are rare across southern China, a region that is instead known for discoveries of dinosaur eggs. An expert from the Chinese Academy of Sciences prepares a rock containing dinosaur fossils. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region “It’s shocking, because I never thought there would be dinosaur fossils in Hong Kong,” Chong Got, who was one of the first to see the fossils at Hong Kong’s Heritage Discovery Center, tells Reuters. The new finds have been on display at the museum since Friday. The Hong Kong government has now closed Port Island indefinitely to allow for further excavations, per the statement, with the hopes of making more discoveries. “If they end up finding a whole skeleton of a big dinosaur or two dinosaurs, they might have to go back next summer, and the summer after that,” Pittman says to CNN. Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

EPA dismissed data on the neurotoxicity of common insecticides

A recent paper in Frontiers in Toxicology examined research submitted by industry to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the neurotoxicity of neonicotinoids - the most widely used class of insecticides in the U.S. and worldwide - and found that the data was evaluated improperly by the agency.In short:Five different neonicotinoids caused significant brain tissue reduction and nervous system defects in rats exposed during development.Some of these impacts are similar to those seen in people diagnosed with ADHD, and in children of mothers who smoked during pregnancy. EPA had numerous deficiencies in their analysis of the data: dismissing statistically significant adverse effects; accepting the results of substandard studies; ignoring scientists who pointed out flaws in the submitted data; setting safety levels without obtaining adequate data; and allowing industry to influence their decision making. Key quote: “The exposure limits set by EPA for human exposure [to neonicotinoids] are either not protective or not supported by available neurotoxicity data.” Why this matters: Neonicotinoids are widely used not only for commercial agriculture but also for more personal uses like home gardens and in some flea and tick treatments for pets. Humans are regularly exposed to neonicotinoids – which are structurally similar to nicotine – through the environment, food and water. Neonicotinoids’ popularity partly comes from the belief that their harmful effects are mostly limited to insects, but studies like this one demonstrate that mammals may also be harmed by the chemicals, and highlight the urgent need for stronger regulations around their use. Related EHN coverage: Common insecticide may be toxic to mammals’ ovariesLISTEN: Bruce Lanphear on how we’re failing to protect people from pesticidesMore resources: Watch: Neonics: The Toxic Truth (featuring NRDC)Explainer: Neonicotinoids 101: The Effects on Humans and Bees (NRDC)Sass, Jennifer et al. for Frontiers in Toxicology vol 6. Oct. 1, 2024

A recent paper in Frontiers in Toxicology examined research submitted by industry to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the neurotoxicity of neonicotinoids - the most widely used class of insecticides in the U.S. and worldwide - and found that the data was evaluated improperly by the agency.In short:Five different neonicotinoids caused significant brain tissue reduction and nervous system defects in rats exposed during development.Some of these impacts are similar to those seen in people diagnosed with ADHD, and in children of mothers who smoked during pregnancy. EPA had numerous deficiencies in their analysis of the data: dismissing statistically significant adverse effects; accepting the results of substandard studies; ignoring scientists who pointed out flaws in the submitted data; setting safety levels without obtaining adequate data; and allowing industry to influence their decision making. Key quote: “The exposure limits set by EPA for human exposure [to neonicotinoids] are either not protective or not supported by available neurotoxicity data.” Why this matters: Neonicotinoids are widely used not only for commercial agriculture but also for more personal uses like home gardens and in some flea and tick treatments for pets. Humans are regularly exposed to neonicotinoids – which are structurally similar to nicotine – through the environment, food and water. Neonicotinoids’ popularity partly comes from the belief that their harmful effects are mostly limited to insects, but studies like this one demonstrate that mammals may also be harmed by the chemicals, and highlight the urgent need for stronger regulations around their use. Related EHN coverage: Common insecticide may be toxic to mammals’ ovariesLISTEN: Bruce Lanphear on how we’re failing to protect people from pesticidesMore resources: Watch: Neonics: The Toxic Truth (featuring NRDC)Explainer: Neonicotinoids 101: The Effects on Humans and Bees (NRDC)Sass, Jennifer et al. for Frontiers in Toxicology vol 6. Oct. 1, 2024

Why Farmers Use Harmful Insecticides They May Not Need

As he learned the ropes, he began engaging with Practical Farmers of Iowa (PFI), a unique organization that attracts out-of-the-box thinkers and tinkerers across a wide spectrum of sustainable agriculture in the Midwest. Soon, he was reading about neonicotinoids—“neonics” for short—now the most common chemicals used to kill bugs in American agriculture. Farmers can spray […] The post Why Farmers Use Harmful Insecticides They May Not Need appeared first on Civil Eats.

What Our Investigation Revealed Nearly all commodity corn farmers receive seed coated with neonics each season. Many cannot identify the chemical coating on their seeds and only opt for it because a seed salesperson recommends it. Companies have made it nearly impossible for farmers to find corn seed that isn’t coated with neonics. Farmers often feel peer pressure not to ask questions or change their practices in the face of concerns about neonics’ safety. Like so many people whose lives were upended during the pandemic, Sean Dengler returned to his roots. In 2020, he went back to northern Iowa and joined his father in farming 500 acres of corn and soybeans. As he learned the ropes, he began engaging with Practical Farmers of Iowa (PFI), a unique organization that attracts out-of-the-box thinkers and tinkerers across a wide spectrum of sustainable agriculture in the Midwest. Soon, he was reading about neonicotinoids—“neonics” for short—now the most common chemicals used to kill bugs in American agriculture. Why It Matters Neonic-treated seeds are planted on approximately 90 million acres of corn fields and more than 40 million acres of soybean fields each year. Research shows neonics threaten pollinators, birds, aquatic organisms, and mammals, and may pose risks to humans. Evidence shows there are no significant yield losses from planting seeds without neonic coatings. Farmers are paying extra for insecticide seed coatings they may not need. Farmers can spray them on fields, but these insecticides are also attached to seeds as an outer coating, called a seed treatment. As the seeds germinate and grow, the plant’s tissues become toxic to certain pests. However, neonics impact beneficial insects, too, like bees and other pollinators. Newer research also shows neonics threaten birds and some mammals, suggesting potential human health impacts. In 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that the three most common neonics were each likely to harm more than 1,000 endangered species. Also, neonics move through soil into groundwater, contaminating rivers and streams in the Midwest and beyond. Data from 2015 to 2016 showed about half of Americans over three years old were recently exposed to a neonic. Dengler suspected he had been planting neonic-treated seed, but he wasn’t sure exactly which chemicals the colorful coating was meant to warn him of. He also had no idea if it would be possible for him to order seeds without the treatment. “The corn is usually either red or purple when it comes,” he said. “That’s how it’s always been. You just get it that way.” In numerous interviews over the past year, other farmers, researchers, and industry insiders described the same scenario to Civil Eats. While the agrichemical industry claims farmers “carefully select the right pesticide for each pest and crop at issue” and “only use pesticides as a last resort,” when it comes to neonics, that is false in most cases. Nearly all commodity corn farmers receive seed coated with neonics at the start of each season; many cannot identify the chemical that’s in the coating and don’t even know if another option exists. These findings are significant for a few key reasons. First, the pesticide industry often calls seed treatment environmentally beneficial because it reduces the amount of insecticide applied per acre compared to spraying. This is true. But research shows that the preemptive coating of seed with neonics has resulted in farmers using insecticides, overall, on significantly more total acres than they were a few decades ago. A 2015 study published by researchers Maggie Douglas and John Tooker at Penn State University found that neonic seed treatments are now used on almost triple the area that had once been sprayed with insecticides, indicating their negative impacts could be more widely distributed. Chart showing the rise in the use of neonicotinoid pesticides between 1995 and 2011. The majority of neonics are used in corn and soybeans. (Source: Douglas and Tooker, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 8, 5088–5097) Second, a significant portion of that use may be for nothing. In corn and soy fields, new research and evidence accumulated over the last few years suggest that widespread use of neonic-treated seeds provide minimal benefit to farmers. One study from Quebec helped convince the Canadian province to change its laws to restrict the use of neonic seed treatments. After five years and a 95 percent drop in the use of neonic-coated seeds, there have been no reported impacts on crop yields. But based on conversations with farmers and other industry insiders, agrichemical companies that sell seeds and pesticides continue to steer farmers toward using neonics on their seeds—and sometimes, there are no other options available. “They scare the farmers and say that you’re going to lose your yield, that you’re going to have crop failure, and the whole grain sector will just collapse,” said Louis Robert, a Canadian agronomist who previously worked for the Quebec government, where he revealed pesticide-industry meddling in research on neonics’ environmental harms. “They go very far in terms of misleading people.” Chemical Capture: The Power and Impact of the Pesticide IndustryRead all the stories in our series: Overview: Chemical Capture: The Power and Impact of the Pesticide Industry How the agrichemical industry is shaping public information about the toxicity of pesticides, how they’re being used, and the policies that impact the health of all Americans. Inside Bayer’s State-by-State Efforts to Stop Pesticide Lawsuits As the agrichemical giant lays groundwork to fend off Roundup litigation, its use of a playbook for building influence in farm state legislatures has the potential to benefit pesticide companies nationwide. Are Companies Using Carbon Markets to Sell More Pesticides? Many programs meant to help farmers address climate change are now owned by companies that sell chemicals, which could boost practices that depend on pesticides rather than those that reduce their use. Why Farmers Use Harmful Insecticides They May Not Need Neonicotinoids coat nearly all the corn and soybean seeds available for planting. Agrichemical companies have designed it that way. At the same time, the industry has engaged in a broad, sophisticated lobbying and public relations effort to block regulation in the U.S., muddy the research waters, and even influence Google search results for neonics, all of which has been documented in depth by The Intercept. So, while Europe and Canada have been moving away from the widespread use of neonics, the U.S. has barely budged in its approach. Neonic-treated seeds are planted on nearly 90 million acres of corn fields and more than 40 million acres of soybean fields each year. Only New York has passed a ban that includes eliminating them as coatings on corn and soy seeds—and that law does not go into effect until 2029. (Neonic treatments are common on many other seeds, including wheat, cotton, and vegetables, and farmers’ reliance on them varies across different crops. This investigation focused only on corn and soy, by far the two most widely planted crops in the country.) Over the course of three weeks in October, Civil Eats sent at least four interview requests and detailed questions to CropLife America, which represents the pesticide industry, but did not receive a response. We also sent emails to press contacts at the companies that make or sell pesticide and seed products mentioned in this story: Corteva (which owns Pioneer) and Winfield United (owned by Land O’Lakes) did not respond. A spokesperson for Syngenta directed Civil Eats to “Growing Matters,” an initiative of the American Seed Trade Association, and sent a statement that reads, “Planting seeds treated with crop-protection products is a more precise way for farmers to protect their crops from early season pests and diseases. As you can see from our global Seedcare Institute website, Syngenta is a leader in providing treated seeds of the highest quality and committed to helping farmers achieve their yield goals sustainably.” No Knowledge, No Choice For many years, Kynetec, a global data company, asked farmers to share which insecticides were on their seeds and then provided the federal government with estimates of how many acres were being planted with the chemicals included. But because farmers were so often unable to name the specific chemicals, it was impossible to warrant a reliable data set. They stopped in 2014. A few years later, in a 2020 paper, researchers reported in the journal Bioscience that only 65 percent of corn growers and 62 percent of soybean growers could name the seed treatment product they were using. Even if they did know the product, that didn’t mean they knew what was in it. In fact, in 15 to 35 percent of cases, corn growers incorrectly identified the pesticides included in the treatment. It speaks to why Damon Smith’s colleagues at the University of Wisconsin’s Nutrient and Pest Management Program dreamed up a resource dubbed “What’s on your seed?” When Smith, a biologist who studies field crop diseases, started working on it around 2010, the document was a page or two long, and they updated it every few years. Today, it’s a six-page PDF that the team updates at least once a year to keep up with new seed treatments hitting the market. Very few of those are new chemicals entirely. Most are new combinations of a neonic (or another insecticide) paired with anywhere from one to four fungicides, and maybe a nematicide, a chemical that targets pests called nematodes. Illustration by Civil Eats (click for a larger version) “There’s quite a few products out there, and it’s gotten increasingly complicated,” Smith said. Sales agronomists who work for seed companies, farmers said, sell product packages based mainly on their marketed “yield potential” and are unlikely to talk up the names of pesticides included in the coating. And they emphasize the need for seed coatings as insurance against crop loss. “The way it often gets marketed to [farmers] is, they get one chance a year to get it right,” explained Mac Erhardt, co-owner of Albert Lea Seed, a small, family-owned seed company based in Minnesota and Iowa. “The big chemical companies have been pretty successful at distributing counter-information where they show, ‘Well, if you plant naked seed, you’re giving up five bushels an acre.’” Six or seven years ago, before his company made a full switch to selling non-GMO and organic seeds, Erhardt said his contracts with big seed companies required him to treat corn seed with neonics before selling it. With soybeans, the system works a little differently, and farmers are able to select seed treatments at the time of sale. One Iowa farmer compared soybean seed selection to a car wash. Instead of exterior, interior, and a wax, it’s neonicotinoid, fungicide, and a nematicide. One Iowa farmer, who asked not to be named, compared the process to a car wash. “You can pick what you want on the screen, and then it formulates it and puts it through,” she said. Instead of exterior, interior, and a wax, it’s neonicotinoid, fungicide, and a nematicide. Still, farmers said they almost always defer to the seed dealers and are often unaware of what the treatments they’re selecting consist of. “From a farmer’s perspective, we want a seed to be protected, so we just trust that whatever potion they put on the seed, it’s going to be okay. They’re not in the business of selling seed that will yield less, so we just put our trust in them,” she said. “If we had real choices, those that know insecticides like neonics are harmful, we’re not going to push that button.” Fears About Speaking Out Against Treated Seeds Pesticide companies are so entrenched in the culture of agricultural communities, asking questions about insecticides and their merits or detriments also can feel taboo. One reason this farmer did not want to be named was because she thought, with all of the seed contracts she’d signed over the years, that it was possible she had signed a non-disclosure agreement without realizing it. For others, it’s much more personal. After Frank Rademacher, who has been farming corn and soybeans with his dad in east-central Illinois since 2018, talked about neonics to a reporter at a farming publication, another farmer yelled at him in public and accused him of hurting agriculture. Estimated agricultural use of the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam, by year and crop, between 1992 and 2019. 2014 was the last year that Kynetec provided USGS with data that included seed treatment, so the 2015 drop-off shows how much use is in seed coatings. (Source: U.S. Geological Survey data) Rademacher said that many farmers he encounters have a vague, visceral sense that there may be risks associated with the colorful dust that blows into the air as the high-powered vacuum system shoots seeds into the ground and the tractor shakes and bumps around. But pesticides are so commonplace that at a forum he attended, farmers laughed about which ones cause rashes and which lead to headaches. With neonics, he said, they’re grateful to have insecticides that are not as acutely toxic as the ones their parents handled. If they try not to touch the seeds with their bare hands or breathe too much of the dust in, it feels like enough. “The products that they were using growing up, they were just horrible,” he said of farmers in their 50s and older like his dad, who might have been exposed to insecticides like DDT, malathion, and chlorpyrifos that have now been banned or phased out. “This is kind of an invisible issue. It takes away a lot of the acute exposure, and what you trade is the long-term personal and environmental low-level exposure.” Illustration by Civil Eats Sean Dengler worried that even asking questions about neonics when buying his seed would upset others in his small farming community, some of whom he had known since childhood and considered friends. “My dad’s very conventional, and I don’t wanna make him feel uncomfortable in that way. It’s kind of like a peer pressure type of thing,” he said. But Dengler  recognized the power that gave the industry. “It’s a good thing for big business. You get everyone on one side, and you can’t have people think differently.” With the name of Dengler’s product in hand, Civil Eats tried to find out for him if the soybean treatment he had used contained a neonic. Because it was a newer product and wasn’t yet listed in Damon Smith’s resource, it took significant searching and emailing to track down the chemicals included. The insecticide was thiamethoxam—one of the most common neonics. Later, Dengler got his chance to ask about what was included in his corn seed treatments. Attending a plot tour hosted by Pioneer, one of the major seed companies, he learned that the corn seed had “seven fungicide treatments and two insecticide treatments on it. That’s the first time during my farming career I heard anything about it,” he explained by email to Civil Eats. Leaving Neonic-Coated Seeds Behind For those who do decide to swim upstream, the current encouraging them to stay the usual course is strong. “Even though there’s data showing that, ‘Hey, with a few tweaks, you can change your farming practices and you don’t need to use insecticides on your seed,’ [farmers] still want that protection. They don’t want that one-out-of-every-10-years problem,” said Erhardt, from Albert Lea Seed. That rare issue is the sticking point: Neonics are very good at killing some pests that can cause serious damage to crops, and companies are quick to point to that. One industry document created by CropLife to promote neonics on seeds highlights a study that found the number of plants that survived the season increased 18 percent, and crop yield increased by 12 percent, “when neonicotinoid-treated corn seed was planted into corn fields with high wireworm populations.” “Even though there’s data showing that, ‘Hey, with a few tweaks, you can change your farming practices and you don’t need to use insecticides on your seed,’ [farmers] still want that protection.” In other words, if you use neonics in a field infested with wireworm, it really helps. But using it on every field preventatively is like taking an antibiotic every day in case an infection pops up at some point. “Most of the pests that neonics really work well on are highly sporadic,” said Maggie Douglas, who is now an assistant professor of environmental studies at Dickinson College. “The question is: How many farmers are having a seedcorn maggot infestation in their field in a given year?” Seedcorn maggots are dreaded for their ability to burrow into seeds and kill a crop off the bat. But in New York, at least, there’s a clear answer. As the campaign to pass a law banning the use of neonicotinoid coatings on corn and soybean seeds heated up, farm groups were concerned, specifically, about how they’d control the pest. So, researchers at Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences set out to quantify how big the problem was. They set up ten one-year trials in four different locations across the state, comparing neonic-treated fields to fields planted with alternative seed treatments. After they pooled and analyzed the data, their preliminary conclusions were that there were no significant differences and that overall, “seedcorn maggots were not a factor in establishing corn” in any of their trials. (They expect to release final results from three years of trials this winter.) In Quebec, researchers did find seedcorn maggot infestations that caused damage to young corn plants, but at the end of the day, the infestations still didn’t result in yield losses. Another big hurdle facing farmers who want to move away from neonics is that they would also likely have to switch to non-genetically modified seed, said Rademacher. “I’m not aware of any seed company that that offers untreated seed in a GMO variety,” he said. If it was available, he would likely know. Not only does Rademacher have a degree in crop science with a focus on pest management, he also has an off-farm job as a conservation agronomist for The Nature Conservancy. In his own fields, he began implementing all kinds of conservation practices and, to ditch neonic coatings on his corn, was able to navigate the accompanying switch to planting non-GMO seed. But even a neonic-skeptical farmer would likely balk at giving up the protection against other pests that genetic modification enables. For example, if corn seed is not genetically modified to withstand glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, farmers would have to stop spraying the widely used weedkiller to avoid killing their corn. “You’re asking people to make not just one big shift but potentially two or more big shifts,” he said. “It’s all or nothing.” One compelling reason to make the switch is cost savings. In Quebec, a group of farmers convened by the University of Vermont last spring all said their seed costs $10–$20 less per bag now that they’re not paying for the neonicotinoid coating. In Iowa, the farmer who paid to have her soybeans coated said she was charged $2/acre—or $1,000 extra for a 500-acre field. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates, seed treatment “may account for around 15 percent of the seed price.” That got Dengler’s attention. With a degree in finance, he was particularly interested in opportunities to cut costs on the farm, and he was intrigued by a PFI farmer who conducted his own field trials on neonics. The results showed that the treatment applied to his soybean seeds might not be necessary: The farmer planted beans without the coating, the plants stayed healthy, and crop yields didn’t drop. “When you tie in the environmental impact of the seed treatment on the soybeans, I was like, ‘I’ll even take a bushel or two less, just because I believe that I’m doing the right thing,’” he said. While he couldn’t see how to do it with corn, he started opting out of neonic treatments on his soybean seeds. After harvest ended, he reported that all but one of his soybean fields yielded better than last year. But a clear takeaway on whether his choice to forgo neonics had an impact would be tough, he said. For one, growing conditions were better this season. Both years were dry, and wet conditions are often what precipitate early-season insect issues. So far, based on the lack of a clear difference, he said adding the neonic treatments “doesn’t seem worth the pay or environmental impacts.” Meanwhile, Rademacher is a few years in. Since planting seeds without neonic coatings, he said his yields might vary a few bushels here or there, but it’s nothing significant. However, he didn’t just change his seeds and continue farming the same way. Instead, he’s investing in an entirely different method of pest control. “As counterintuitive as it seems, our system is to promote insects. We have no tillage, so we don’t destroy their houses every year, and we provide year-round habitat via cover crops,” he said. Each small change adds up, and now, he and his dad are seeing significant numbers of beneficial insects returning, which keeps the bad guys in check. “Today, as we speak in 2024 in Quebec, over half of the corn and soy acreage doesn’t carry any insecticide, and we’re going to have a fantastic year in terms of yield.” In fact, the research that first spurred Douglas’ interest in neonics was on this very topic: In her lab, she accidently discovered that neonics were killing the beneficial beetles that prey on the slugs destroying Pennsylvania farmers’ yields—but not the slugs themselves. The discovery led her to a research trial that ultimately found that in their specific region, neonic treatments could actually reduce yields. Further north, Quebeçois farmers have the biggest head start. During the University of Vermont panel, one said he had learned a simple trick since ditching neonic seed treatments: He waits to see when his neighbor—an organic farmer—is ready to plant, and he follows his lead. That simple adjustment allows him to sidestep early season pest risks. For agronomist Louis Robert, the success of the Quebec government’s decision to move away from neonics on corn and soy seeds is apparent not in what’s being said, but in the silence. After five years, farmers aren’t talking about crop failure at their local meeting places, he said, and he hasn’t seen any media coverage of the neonic ban. Farmers can apply to use neonic-treated seed if they document a need, but almost no one’s doing so, he added. “The most reliable proof is that it’s not even a matter of discussion anymore,” Robert said. “Today, as we speak in 2024 in Quebec, over half of the corn and soy acreage doesn’t carry any insecticide, and we’re going to have a fantastic year in terms of yield. So, the demonstration is right there in front of you.” The post Why Farmers Use Harmful Insecticides They May Not Need appeared first on Civil Eats.

Why We All Need a U.N. Study of the Effects of Nuclear War

A new United Nations expert study of the effects of nuclear war would spur informed and inclusive global debate on what nuclear war means for people and the planet today

At the United Nations, an effort is underway in the General Assembly to establish an international panel of scientists to assess, communicate and advance our current knowledge of the effects of nuclear war. The effort would lead to a more fully informed and inclusive global debate on how much and how little everyone—including the nuclear armed states themselves—actually know of the catastrophic large-scale long-term human, environmental, ecological, economic and societal impacts of using nuclear weapons. Ideally, the findings could build a basis for action toward the total elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide and secure a safer future for people and our planet.Everyone, not just scientists and their respective professional societies, in all nations, including the nuclear-armed states and their allies, should speak in support of this effort to build a shared understanding of the risks posed by nuclear war plans and nuclear deterrence threats.In September the U.N.’s member states overwhelmingly agreed on the Pact for the Future, which declares: “A nuclear war would visit devastation upon all humankind.” But it has been over 30 years since the last report by the U.N. on this threat, Published in 1988, that report built on earlier U.N. studies initiated in the 1960s and 1970s, and called for a “co-operative, international scientific effort … to refine present findings and to explore new possibilities” in understanding nuclear war consequences. With the end of the cold war, however, and the waning of nuclear fears, no such effort was undertaken.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.The world is very different today. While the global stockpile of nuclear weapons and some national arsenals today are a fraction of what they were in the late 1980s, there are more nuclear-armed states, and more settings for and scales of possible nuclear war. Some arsenals are increasing, all are being modernized, and nuclear threats are being made more frequently. The global human population is 50 percent larger today than in the 1980s, and the world far more interdependent. Global trade and economic crises, climate change, mass migration and COVID all reveal how humanity and nature are now more tightly bound in world-spanning circuits that push up against planetary boundaries.As I wrote in the October issue of Reaching Critical Will’s First Committee Monitor, the Princeton Program on Science and Global Security along with others has spent years drawing attention to the need for a new round of governmental and internationally mandated high-level scientific assessments of nuclear war consequences.In 2020 the U.S. Congress agreed to mandate a National Academies’ study on the climatic effects of nuclear war, often known as nuclear winter—the first since the 1980s. The charge was to assess potential climatic and environmental nuclear winter effects, but not those caused by radioactive fallout from nuclear explosions, and their socioeconomic consequences, in the weeks-to-decades after small-scale regional nuclear wars and for large-scale nuclear war involving the U.S. and Russia. The impacts to be studied were to include those on human health, agriculture, terrestrial and marine ecosystems. The report, expected this fall, has not yet been published.In 2023 the Scientific Advisory Group of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) recommended a new U.N. General Assembly–mandated study on the climatic, environmental, physical and social consequences of nuclear war. The study would also examine “whether and how the interactions of these different physical, environmental and social effects over various timescales might lead to cascading humanitarian consequences.” A resolution, Nuclear War Effects and Scientific Research, calling for such a study was introduced at the U.N. in October by Ireland and New Zealand, and initially co-sponsored by a diverse group of over 20 states (from Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia), including one NATO member (Norway). More states are expected to add to this number.A separate 2023 report by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences made evident the need for such assessments. Based on classified briefings and “Secret level” reports, the study concluded that the nuclear war consequence models used by the U.S. Defense Department are so poor as to offer no real basis for policy makers to understand the effects of existing plans for using nuclear weapons.In that report, the National Academies committee stated that the assessments of the impacts of nuclear weapons use, made by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency for the Defense Department, are “focused on prompt effects and military objectives,” providing only a partial accounting of the consequences. These models “have a large impact on DoD’s strategic thinking on nuclear war”.It concluded: “There is a need to improve the understanding of the physical effects of nuclear weapons (e.g., fires, damage in modern urban environments, electromagnetic pulse effects, and climatic effects, such as nuclear winter), as well as the assessment and estimation of psychological, societal, and political consequences of nuclear weapons use.” It is hard to imagine a longer list of shortcomings in understanding the effects of using nuclear weapons.More recently, in April, the national science academies of the G7 countries—Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the U.K. and the U.S.—issued their first joint statement on nuclear weapons issues. They have been issuing joint statements on various science-related topics since 2005 to advise G7 Summit meetings. The statement on nuclear weapons drew particular attention to the risks and consequences of nuclear weapon use, observing: “A full-scale nuclear war between the nations with the largest arsenals would result in devastation to those nations and would cause harm worldwide.… Depending on the scale of use of nuclear weapons, there is the potential for the destruction of entire ecosystems and extinction of species. In the worst cases this could be on the scale of a mass extinction.”The statement highlights that the world needs a deeper and more widely shared knowledge of the catastrophic effects of nuclear war on people and planet, and emphasizes that the scientific community has a special role and responsibility both in developing and communicating it.Despite the consensus among the science academies of the G7 countries, their governments (which currently rely on nuclear weapons use and threat of use as part of their military plans) and some of their allies have not yet publicly indicated their support for the new U.N. resolution calling for a new, up-to-date study of nuclear war effects. The scientific communities and the people who live in these countries should ask why. Are these states fearful that their people will not accept nuclear weapons once they understand how their use may kill and harm countless millions, collapse societies and wreck the planet?A new U.N.-mandated expert study assessing and addressing the current knowledge of the effects of nuclear war can spur a better-informed, inclusive and much-needed global debate on what nuclear war means for people and the planet. It would be especially important for people and countries that have not done nuclear war studies of their own, but would be innocent bystanders in any nuclear war. It also would help governments and people in nuclear-armed states better understand the nature, scale and severity of the many catastrophic consequences of nuclear war, not just for adversaries but for everyone, including themselves.This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

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.