Search results

Past Presentation | We want our food fast, convenient and cheap, but at what cost? As farms have become supersized, our environment suffers and so does the quality of our food. Food for Thought, Food for Life, a new documentary from director Susan Rockefeller (HBO’s Christopher Award­-winning documentary Making The Crooked Straight, Cinema Verde 2016 / Film Descriptions Page 3 Planet Green’s A Sea Change) explains the downsides of current agribusiness practices, and also introduces us to farmers, chefs, researchers, educators, and advocates who are providing solutions. The film is both poetic and practical; its powerful examination of the connections between our planet and our well­being is accompanied by specific strategies that protect both. With an eye towards a sustainable and abundant future, it offers inspiration for communities that are ready to make a difference.

Past Presentation | This exposé traces the efforts to defeat the $4 trillion global supermarket industry by an intrepid group of Florida farm workers who create an ingenious Fair Food program, which partners with growers and retailers to improve working conditions for farm laborers in the United States.

You are what you eat?

Artificial intelligence is peering into restaurant garbage pails and crunching grocery-store data to try to figure out how to send less uneaten food into dumpsters.

Past Presentation | This episode looks at a range of sustainable practices young Edmontonians are engaged in to bring local, healthy and delicious food to local tables. Host Paula Humby plants an apple tree.

Past Presentation | Author and cook David Groß travels through five European countries and cooks exclusively what others throw in the garbage bin. With great thirst for knowledge, he tracks food waste and presents unexpected solutions. In an unusual and humorous self attempt David Groß questions our daily consumer lifestyle.

Cookbook author Carrie Solomon breaks down "Boheme cooking" and common misconceptions about French cuisine

Mergers and acquisitions have created food oligopolies that are inefficient, barely regulated, unfair, and even dangerous.

Carleigh Bodrug's new cookbook explains just how simple a zero-waste, plant-based diet can actually be

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) are two major global agencies in charge of food chemical safety. It is common to hear that food chemical regulations in the EU are more protective of human health than in the U.S. The latest example is the recent ban of four food additives in California. The state’s Governor, Gavin Newsom, noted that the chemicals were already banned in the EU, implying that the lack of action by the FDA was putting the health of Californians at risk. We examined the FDA and EFSA’s responsibilities on food chemical safety to better understand why EFSA decisions are in general more protective of health. We specifically looked at the agencies’ approach to the safety of bisphenol-A (BPA) as an example of disparate decision-making.We found that in the EU the risk assessment and risk management of food chemicals are made by different entities: EFSA focuses on science and the European Commission decides on how the risk is managed. EFSA is independent to follow the science on BPA, for example, which resulted in three risk assessments with the last one showing greater harm to human health. In contrast, the FDA conducts both risk assessment and management and it is unclear how decisions are made. Over the years, the FDA has reviewed BPA studies but continued to maintain that its uses are safe.As the FDA undergoes a reorganization, the agency has a prime opportunity to increase transparency, collaborations and update its approach to evaluating food chemical safety. Separation of risk assessment and management Both in the EU and the U.S., the safety of chemicals allowed in food is based on the chemical’s inherent hazard and the level of exposure. If the risk is such that public health must be protected, a risk management decision is made, often via regulation. These decisions could range from banning chemicals to establishing a consumption level that would not increase health risks. "EFSA focuses on science and the European Commission decides on how the risk is managed ... In contrast, the FDA conducts both risk assessment and management and it is unclear how decisions are made."In the EU, the risk assessment and the risk management decisions are made by different entities. EFSA conducts risk assessments and the European Commission then makes the risk management decision based on EFSA’s findings. This separation allows the risk assessment to be grounded in science and the risk management to consider not only the science but also social, political, technological and economic factors, as well as the precautionary principle.In the U.S., the FDA conducts both risk assessment and management.Striking differences in assessing and managing riskThe EFSA relies on scientific panels composed of independent experts with high standards to limit conflicts of interest and bias. There are ten permanent panels and a scientific committee that supports their work. The scientific opinions are often unanimous, but when they’re not, minority reports are published in the EFSA Journal and also inform the European Commission’s risk management decisions.Unlike the EFSA, FDA staff review safety assessment and information provided by manufacturers. In a safety assessment there usually are four sections: toxicology, chemistry, environmental impact and policy; but it is unclear whether there is an epidemiologist among the reviewers. One FDA staff member from each section writes a memo with a summary of information and the conclusions. These memos inform the risk management decision about the use of a substance. The scientific evaluation is not always publicly available. It is also unclear how and by whom risk management decisions are made and whether the risk assessors are also involved in risk management. Prioritization of chemicals for reassessmentThe EFSA is mandated by law to re-evaluate all food additives authorized for use before 2009. The EFSA also identifies emerging risks and collects data about things like consumption, exposure and biological risk and responds to similar requests from member states.In the U.S., there is no legal mandate for the FDA to re-evaluate the use of the approximately 10,000 chemicals allowed in food, many of them authorized decades ago with little or no safety data. It is unclear if there is a process to identify emerging risks. The first reevaluation of chemicals was in response to President Nixon’s 1969 directive to reassess hundreds of substances the FDA determined to be generally recognized as safe. Only recently, the FDA took the initiative to re-evaluate the safety of partially-hydrogenated oil, Irgafos 168 and brominated vegetable oil. Other reevaluations have been in response to petitions from public interest organizations. BPA: A tale of two agenciesThe risk assessment of BPA — which has been linked to myriad health problems including cancer, diabetes, obesity, reproductive, immune system and nervous and behavioral problems — in food-contact materials is a good example of how two science-based agencies have made very different risk management decisions.EFSA conducted risk assessments of BPA in 2006, 2015 and 2023, each time at the request of the European Commission in response to new science. The second and third re-evaluations resulted in reductions in the daily allowed exposure of BPA due to new evidence showing greater harm to human health. To complete the process, the Commission recently published its proposed regulation of BPA, which includes a ban of most common uses in polycarbonate plastic and metal can coating.The FDA assessment of BPA has been riddled with missteps and lack of transparency. The FDA approved BPA for use in food contact applications in the early 1960s. It didn’t a draft safety assessment until 2008, at the request of its commissioner in light of findings by the National Toxicology Program and ongoing evaluations in Europe. FDA then asked its Science Board to review the draft and establish a subcommittee; there was also a public meeting and a report. The subcommittee, which included some members of the board and external experts, had several concerns about FDA’s assessment. In 2014, the FDA published a memo summarizing an updated safety assessment of BPA. The five-page memo cites the toxicology evaluation conducted in previous years and exposure assessment using an unpublished model. The agency concluded that the estimated consumption amount of BPA was safe to protect children and adults. This was the FDA's last safety assessment. Unlike the EFSA, the FDA process is less structured and open. At the FDA "it is also unclear how and by whom risk management decisions are made and whether the risk assessors are also involved in risk management."The FDA has conducted its own studies on BPA at different life stages and in different species. The agency was a member of the Consortium Linking Academic and Regulatory Insights on BPA Toxicity (CLARITY-BPA). Launched in 2012 by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the National Toxicology Program and the FDA, the aim of CLARITY was to combine a traditional regulatory toxicology study from the government and investigational studies from academics who wield more modern techniques. As part of CLARITY, the FDA also conducted a two-year guideline compliant study on BPA toxicity. In 2018, FDA concluded that “currently authorized uses of BPA continue to be safe for consumers.” This statement was based on the results of only the first year of the CLARITY two-year study conducted by FDA according to its toxicity guideline and did not include analysis of data produced by the multiple academic laboratories involved in the project. Furthermore, it was not based on an assessment of risk which also necessitates exposure data. Meanwhile, the results of CLARITY, including the academic studies largely ignored by the FDA, played an important role in EFSA’s latest BPA risk assessment. Unlike EFSA, the FDA has not made public the criteria applied to select the data, to evaluate and appraise the studies included in the hazard assessment, or the weight of evidence methodology used in its current reassessment of BPA. The lack of transparency was a concern previously expressed by FDA’s Science Board subcommittee in 2008.A “deep misunderstanding” of the risk assessment and management distinctionEFSA’s independence from risk management decisions and recruitment of independent experts to conduct risk assessments gives the agency the freedom to follow the science. By comparison, the FDA has stagnated.One explanation for such a difference would be FDA’s strong adherence to its historical decisions, rather than considering more recent science. This bias toward their own work is not conducive to change. Another explanation would be FDA scientists conflating risk assessment and risk management. In 2013, the FDA conducted a review of its chemical safety program and an external consultant noted that there appeared to be a “deep misunderstanding of the risk assessment – risk management distinction” among the staff. This observation is apparent in a commentary in Nature in 2010, where FDA toxicologists said that dismissing “out of hand” risk management factors such as economics, benefits of existing technologies, cost of replacing banned technologies and the toxic risk of any replacement “is, to say the least, insular, and surely imprudent in a regulatory setting.” The consultant added that FDA staff suggested that the agency “should not be too quick to adopt new scientific approaches.” Such an approach has likely deterred its scientists from acting on new evidence.FDA is undergoing a reorganization, including the creation of a new Human Food Program. Almost a year ago, the agency announced it was “embarking on a more modernized, systematic reassessment of chemicals with a focus on post-market review.” For this to be successful, the FDA should adopt updated processes and methods, include outside experts when it encounters challenging scientific or technical issues, increase collaboration with other agencies, and engage with stakeholders including consumers, academic institutions, public interest organizations and industry. But above all, the FDA must restore the public’s trust in the agency with a strong commitment to transparency in decision-making and clear separation between risk assessment and risk management.For more information check these summary tables.

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

Heavy rain likely to cause low yields in Britain and other parts of Europe, with drought in Morocco hitting importsWhich UK foods are at risk?The UK faces food shortages and price rises as extreme weather linked to climate breakdown causes low yields on farms locally and abroad.Record rainfall has meant farmers in many parts of the UK have been unable to plant crops such as potatoes, wheat and vegetables, during the key spring season. Crops which have been planted are of poor quality, with some rotting in the ground. Continue reading...

A new machine learning tool developed at U.C. Santa Barbara aims to guide policymakers in reducing plastic waste through a variety of interventions.Lisa Held reports for Civil Eats.In short:Representatives from more than 150 countries are negotiating a treaty to address the plastic crisis, with final details expected later this year.The Global Plastics AI Policy Tool assesses the impact of 11 policy interventions on reducing plastic waste through 2050, predicting significant reductions with measures like minimum recycled content mandates and capping virgin plastic production.Expert Nivedita Biyani emphasizes the need for systemic changes in waste management, comparing current practices to outdated methods from the 1950s.Key quote: "Negotiators need to recognize that plastic pollution is an accelerating global crisis that cannot be solved with fragmented national approaches." — Eirik Lindebjerg, WWF International’s global plastics policy leadWhy this matters: Plastic pollution is a growing global crisis affecting both environmental and human health. Effective policies, informed by AI tools, are important for achieving significant reductions in plastic waste, especially in sectors like food packaging. Read more: Investigation: PFAS on our shelves and in our bodies.

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

"In Africa, the number of overweight children under five has increased by nearly 23% since 2000"

Takeout containers from restaurants on the side of the road. Discarded coffee cups floating in rivers. Packing peanuts shipped off to landfills. Plastic foam products are ubiquitous. Now, a proposed congressional bill seeks to reduce this waste.In December 2023, Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen and Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett jointly introduced the Farewell to Foam Act in both the Senate and House of Representatives. The bill would ban single-use expanded polystyrene food packaging products, coolers and loose-fill packaging products like packing peanuts by January 2026. The legislators cited plastic foam’s environmental and health harms as driving the bill. Though it’s uncertain whether it will move forward, experts and advocates say its introduction is a significant step toward establishing national single-use plastic bans, none of which currently exist in the U.S.Expanded polystyrene, or EPS—erroneously referred to as Styrofoam, a trademarked material used in construction—is a fossil-fuel-derived plastic comprised of approximately 98% air and 2% plastic beads. This airiness makes EPS desirable for packaging: it insulates food, cushions products and costs little.However, Van Hollen and Doggett claim the consequences of plastic foam pollution outweigh its convenience. “As trash clutters our waterways, roadsides, and greenspaces, foam doesn’t fully disintegrate. Instead, it ever so slowly degrades into microplastics that pollute our bodies and our planet,” the Texas Rep. said in a statement.Plastic foam takes hundreds of years to break down. Within that lifespan, it can make a mess.“Foam is particularly challenging because it’s lightweight and easily breaks up into tiny, tiny pieces, like micro- and nanoplastics,” Christy Leavitt, the plastics director at the ocean advocacy group Oceana, told EHN. These pieces spread across terrestrial and aquatic habitats, leading to massive deposits that animals can mistake for food.Currently, 11 states, Washington D.C. and hundreds of cities across the U.S. have passed similar plastic foam bans. The Farewell to Foam Act, though, is the first national motion to prohibit EPS foams across the country.“It is a great time to build off of what the cities and states have been doing and to have federal action on reducing foams,” Leavitt said. Recycling challenges Some of the bill’s critics argue that bans are not the best way to keep plastic foams out of the environment. In a statement to EHN, Matt Seaholm, the president and CEO of the Plastics Industry Association, acknowledged plastic pollution as an issue but said the proposed bill was “misguided” and that time would be better spent on policies that prioritize “improving our recycling infrastructure, increasing the market for post-consumer recycled content and creating well-constructed extended producer responsibility programs.” However, while more than 10 million tons of plastic foam are produced globally each year, in the U.S., less than 10% is recycled. Most recycling stations do not accept it because it breaks into beads and cannot be processed using standard machinery. Since the material is mostly air, it’s also more expensive to recycle than to produce new materials. “I really hunger for an effective way to recycle polystyrene and upcycle polystyrene,” Guoliang “Greg” Liu, a polymer chemist and chemical engineer at Virginia Tech, told EHN. Scientists like Liu have found ways to recycle plastic foam into products with applications in manufacturing and medicine. However, the economic incentives aren’t yet widespread enough to make these processes commonplace. “We can’t just consider very cool chemistry and science. We must consider if we can do this in a realistic and scalable manner,” he said. Though recycling could help divert EPS from the polluting water and land, it wouldn’t solve the problem of its potential health risks. Microplastics, styrene exposure concerns In a press release, the legislators referenced expanded polystyrene’s tendency to leach microplastics into their contents as a human health concern. There’s also concern over the presence of styrene in it. Styrene, its resinous building block, is categorized as possibly carcinogenic by the International Research Agency on Cancer. People typically come into close contact with styrene in manufacturing workplaces, where exposure can irritate their eyes, lungs, skin and nervous systems.The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has upheld plastic foam as a safe packaging material because the trace amounts of styrene leached into food tend to stay under the recommended daily limit and don’t necessarily exceed the amounts of styrene found naturally in foods like strawberries and nuts. However, some researchers and advocates worry about the effects of repeated exposure to styrene in EPS-packaged food. Processing styrene into expanded polystyrene tends to minimize exposure, but the amount of leached styrene can increase if the material is damaged or improperly manufactured or if the edible contents are very hot and oily. It’s unclear whether styrene leached into foods impacts human health, since most research focuses on workplace exposure. Regarding microplastics, current research suggests potential links between microplastics and increased inflammation. An important step on plastic waste Michelle Nowlin, co-director of Duke’s Environmental Law and Policy Clinic, told EHN she believes a national plastic foam ban is sound. “You think about all the other risks and threats that it poses and the difficulties with recycling it, and it just doesn't make sense to continue using the product, particularly for food ware,” she said.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would have the power to enforce this ban and would give warnings and fines to violators. The ban would apply to food distributors who use plastic foam packaging, while manufacturers, retailers and distributors would be held responsible for loose fill and coolers. Single-use medical supplies would not be affected. As of March 2023, the bill has been referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in the Senate and the Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce in the House. The committees have yet to review the bill, but 86 congresspeople (all Democrats except for 2 independents) across both chambers have signed on as co-sponsors. However, it appears unlikely that the bill will pass by January 2025, when the current Congress ends, as it has been one of the least productive legislative bodies in American history. Nowlin added that the political polarization of the 118th Congress has stymied many bills from passing. However, Nowlin still believes that this bill’s proposal is an important step. “Introducing these types of provisions is really important to elevate the national consciousness, to get these conversations started,” she said. “We’ll get there eventually.”

Author and science journalist Deborah Blum describes how an Indiana chemist kicked off the first major food regulation in the U.S.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is going through a major reorganization to improve efficiency and protect public health. A recent hearing in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability concluded that the agency stumbles from crisis to crisis, including drug shortages, tainted food and illicit tobacco scandals in recent years.Although crises such as the contamination of baby food with heavy metals like lead and mercury gain public attention, the scientific approach used by FDA to regulate chemical additives in food is much more opaque. While it largely flies under the public radar, the agency’s neglect to update its testing to reflect modern science and modern food chemical hazards is a decades-long crisis that impacts all of our health. The agency has fallen behind other nations’ testing and regulations and is not even following laws put in place nearly 70 years ago to keep us safe. We are calling on FDA Commissioner, Dr. Robert M Califf, to use the agency reorganization as an opportunity to overhaul its approach to chemicals in our food and put public health at the center of its work. How does the FDA evaluate the safety of food additives and contaminants?Recently, the FDA published a consumer update entitled, “Is food safe if it has chemicals?” In it, the agency says that it’s the amount of a chemical in food that determines its risk to our health. They use sodium as an example. While it largely flies under the public radar, the agency’s neglect to update its testing to reflect modern science and modern food chemical hazards is a decades-long crisis that impacts all of our health.We need sodium to live, but too much sodium can be bad, so they publish guidance on the safe level of sodium to be consumed each day. But many of the chemicals that wind up in our food are not required for us to live, such as bisphenols like BPA, phthalates or the group of chemicals known as PFAS or “forever chemicals”. In fact, many of these are not required for food production, but leach into food from packaging and equipment. FDA noncompliance The FDA discusses how they intentionally determine an “acceptable daily intake” for a chemical that includes a safety margin. The idea is that this safety margin is so conservative that it will always protect public health.However, we know chemicals in the diet can come from a variety of food sources and that different chemicals can have the same adverse effect. This is so well-known that the 1958 amendment to the Food, Drugs and Cosmetic Act of 1938 required that FDA evaluate the “cumulative effect of the substance in the diet, taking into account any chemically or pharmacologically related substance or substances in such diet.”Sixty-six years later and the FDA has never complied with this part of the law. A good example: its guidance for lead in baby food, in which they set the suggested (not required) limit to be 20 parts per billion. However, there is no safe blood level of lead, which hurts children’s brains, resulting in lower IQ and behavioral problems among other harmful effects.It’s not just lead: recently, the Dutch risk assessment agency reported that the combined exposure to lead, methyl-mercury, arsenic, polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs, polybrominated diphenyl ethers or PBDEs and fluoride were much more potent at reducing children’s IQ than any one of these chemicals alone.Similarly, the FDA continues to defend its ruling that current levels of BPA in food are safe despite the decision by the European Food Safety Authority, the EFSA, to reduce the “safe level” of BPA by 20,000 fold. The FDA defends its position by focusing on BPA as if it is the only chemical in foods that act like the female hormone estrogen. In contrast, it is well known that plastic food packaging contains a number of estrogen-like chemicals, like other bisphenols and phthalates, that can leach into foods.The failure of the FDA to comply with the 1958 amendment to food safety law is not just a violation of the law but presents a significant risk to American consumers. A citizen’s petition was filed with the agency in 2020 to attempt to cajole it into compliance. The FDA has never responded.Considering this, we wrote to Commissioner Califf to address this serious shortcoming of FDA’s Human Food Program. The Commissioner has not responded. The letter is re-printed below.March 11, 2024Robert M Califf, M.D., CommissionerUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationCc: James Jones, Ph.D., Deputy CommissionerFDA Human Foods Program Dear Commissioner Califf, We read with great interest your OpEd with Dr. Warraigh entitled, “Four steps toward meeting the challenge of chronic disease” (The Hill, 02/15/24). This is a particularly important issue considering that the United States is below average compared to peer economies in 9 health domains, including adverse birth outcomes, obesity and diabetes, heart disease and chronic lung disease. And this, as you point out, is despite US taxpayers spending nearly 18% of our GDP on healthcare.However, we are concerned that there was no mention of food-borne chemicals that are either added to food intentionally or that migrate into food from packaging or processing. The recent analysis by the New York Times of the failure of the food safety system that resulted in hundreds of children being poisoned by lead in applesauce illustrates in part how our system of food safety needs to be improved.More important to the issue of chronic disease is that of chemicals in the food supply that are being evaluated for safety in a one-by-one approach, rather than considering the “cumulative effect of the substance in the diet, taking into account any chemically or pharmacologically related substance or substances in such diet” as required by the 1958 amendment to the Food, Drugs, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. Recent studies demonstrate that the cumulative effect of Americans’ exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the food supply contributes to harmful health impacts including chronic disease, increasing healthcare costs in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually, as well as affecting quality of life. Importantly, the scientific evidence is sufficient to conclude that the cumulative effects of biologically related substances in the food supply contributes to chronic diseases such as obesity or diabetes. We urge you to consider it as a critical “fifth step” in meeting the challenge of chronic disease in the United States, one that the agency is already mandated to conduct.For example, a recent study contributed by the Dutch risk assessment agency (RIVM) in collaboration with Professor Andreas Kortenkamp, a world-leader in the analysis of cumulative risk, demonstrated that in 9 countries in the EU, their populations exceeded combined tolerable levels of exposure to a mixture of chemicals at median exposure levels. Thus, the traditional way of identifying a “Tolerable Daily Intake” using a chemical-by-chemical basis is clearly underestimating the cumulative risk of chemicals with similar structure or observable effects.Despite the 1958 amendment requiring the FDA to evaluate cumulative effects of chemically related and biologically related substances in the diet, the agency has never performed this analysis for any chemical additives. Moreover, the FDA has not responded to citizen petitions or Congressional queries asking for the FDA to comply with the spirit and letter of this law. It simply is past time that the Agency stop ignoring the law and incorporate cumulative risk assessments in their regulatory approaches.We ask that FDA form a committee of its Science Board including external experts to guide the agency as it addresses this shortcoming in its current safety assessment methods. When it passed the 1958 law, Congress recognized that chemicals, even ones that are not chemically related, may impact organs such as the thyroid and systems such as the cardiovascular with different mechanisms of action but cumulatively have a greater negative effect on the health of the American people.Finally, we are happy to meet with you to provide further information and insight or to contribute to the changes that need to be made in any way that we can.Sincerely,Linda S. Birnbaum, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., A.T.S.Scientist Emeritus and Former DirectorNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology ProgramScholar in Residence, Nicholas School of Environment, Duke UniversityR. Thomas Zoeller, Ph.D.Professor EmeritusUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst

“For us, getting to work with all these communities — it felt like, ‘Oh, this is what we should have been doing all along,'" says one Portland Fruit Tree Project member.

By Leah Douglas(Reuters) - Climate advocacy groups are pressuring world governments gathered at this year’s United Nation’s COP28 climate...

". . . People today have the knowledge and many of the technologies needed to reverse the trend"

Past Presentation | In the Paraguayan Chaco region, the area with the fastest deforestation in the world, aboriginal communities see the source of their foodstuffs, their pharmacopoeia, and their mythological tales disappear before their eyes. An unflinching exposé of the effects of uncontrolled settlement on one of the last virgin territories of the planet.

The snakes may be some of the most resource-efficient animals to farm on the planet, a new study suggests

Past Presentation | As We Grow is a short documentary following the development of Tallahassee Sustainability Group, a young Tallahassee student organization dedicated to educating the public about food and agriculture, increasing accessibility to fresh, healthy, food, and strengthening communities by means of urban farming. Though there are many problems that exist in our current industrialized food system, motivated people can begin our transition to a healthy food system by taking action locally and building a sustainable local food community. The concept of urban farming is paramount to this transition and growing food on unused or underutilized land where people actually live is the first step to food security and empowerment

Past Presentation | New technologies and scientific ingenuity have given rise to genetically modified organisms (GMO) and other novel foods. Some people have raised concerns about the safety of GMOs in our food supply, given their incredible dominance in the majority of our diet. This film looks at our current food system as well as a variety of smaller, organic options available to consumers who want to support sustainable farming methods.

As I report more, I’ve stopped thinking of UPFs as food at all – and I suspect corporations don’t care how their products affect consumersUltra-processed foods are ultra bad for you. Here’s what to knowI’ve been standing in the dairy aisle at my local grocery store, poring over the nutrition labels on the backs of different soy, almond and oat milk containers, for 15 minutes when I decide: maybe not this week. I’ve spent the past four months reporting on ultra-processed foods and wanted to see whether it’d be possible to go even a week without them.The problem is, I can’t find any dairy-free milks that fit the bill. The soy creamer that I’ve fixed my morning cups of tea with for nearly a decade is chock-full of ingredients I now recognize as markers of an ultra-processed product: maltodextrin, soy lecithin and locust bean gum. There are alternatives with fewer ingredients, but I’m not sure any of them fits the rules I’m trying to abide by. So I sheepishly pop my trusty soy creamer in my basket and kick the can down the road another week. Continue reading...

"The detection of avian flu virus fragments in milk is a new challenge for the dairy industry"

Governments need to take action to protect people from potentially toxic additives in tyre rubber, say researchers after finding they can get into food from contaminated soil

“For the first time during a global climate summit, heads of states of many countries are expected to commit to transforming their food and agricultural systems,” said Patty Fong, the program director of climate at the Global Alliance for the Future of Food (GAFF), during a press conference last week. “In addition, actors from across […] The post Will a Food and Ag Focus at COP28 Distract From the Fossil Fuel Economy? appeared first on Civil Eats.

Past Presentation | Filmmakers and food lovers, Jen and Grant, dive into the issue of waste from farms, through retail, all the way to the back of their own fridge. After catching a glimpse of the billions of dollars of good food that is tossed each year in North America, they pledge to quit grocery shopping cold turkey and survive only on foods that would otherwise be thrown away. In a nation where one in 10 people is food insecure, the images they capture of squandered groceries are both shocking and strangely compelling.

Consumer Reports recently conducted its most comprehensive review of pesticides in 59 US fruits and vegetables. Here the organization shares what it foundWhat’s safe to eat? Here is the pesticide risk level for each fruit and vegetableWhen it comes to healthy eating, fruits and vegetables reign supreme. But along with all their vitamins, minerals and other nutrients can come something else: an unhealthy dose of dangerous pesticides.Though using chemicals to control bugs, fungi and weeds helps farmers grow the food we need, it’s been clear since at least the 1960s that some chemicals also carry unacceptable health risks. And although certain notorious pesticides, such as DDT, have been banned in the US, government regulators have been slow to act on others. Even when a dangerous chemical is removed from the market, chemical companies and growers sometimes just start using other options that may be as dangerous. Continue reading...

A significant study reveals that plant-based ultra-processed foods are linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases, suggesting a need for dietary shifts towards less...

The pasteurization process was invented in the 1860s and continues to keep people safe from a range of foodborne illnesses

This story was originally published in The New Lede, a journalism project of the Environmental Working Group, and is republished here with permission.Several types of fruits and vegetables generally considered to be healthy can contain levels of pesticide residues potentially unsafe for consumption, according to an analysis conducted by Consumer Reports (CR) released on Thursday.The report, which is based on seven years of data gathered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) as part of its annual pesticide residue reporting program, concluded that 20% of 59 different fruit and vegetable categories included in the analysis carried residue levels that posed “significant risks” to consumers of those foods.Those high-risk foods included bell peppers, blueberries, green beans, potatoes and strawberries, according to CR. The group found that some green beans even had residues of an insecticide called acephate, which has been banned for use on green beans by U.S. regulators since 2011. In one sample from 2022, levels of methamidophos (a breakdown product of acephate), were morethan 100 times the level CR scientists consider safe. In another sample, acephate levels were 7 times higher than CR considers safe.Overall, out of the nearly 30,000 total fruit and vegetable samples for which CR examined data, about 8% percent were deemed to have residues at “high risk or very high risk”. Imported produce was more likely to carry high levels of pesticide residues than domestically supplied foods, the report said, noting that residue levels can vary widely from sample to sample.The results “raise red flags,” according to CR. The report advises that children and pregnant women should consume less than a serving a day of high-risk fruits and vegetables, and less than half a serving per day of “very high-risk ones.”“People need to be concerned because we see that the more data we gather on pesticides, the more we realize the levels that we previously thought to be safe turn out not to be,” said Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at CR who was recently appointed to a USDA food safety advisory committee.The organization said the “good news” is that the data showed residues in most of the foods sampled, including 16 of 25 fruit categories and 21 of 34 vegetable types, presented “little to worry about.” Nearly all organic samples showed no concerning levels of pesticide residues.The report suggests consumers “try snap peas instead of green beans, cantaloupe in place of watermelon, cabbage or dark green lettuces for kale, and the occasional sweet potato instead of a white one.”Faulty safety assurances  In coming to its findings, CR said it analyzed USDA residue test results for 29,643 individual food samples and then rated the risk of each fruit or vegetable based on how many different pesticides were found in each, how frequently and at what levels the residues were found, and the toxicity for each pesticide detected.For pesticides known to be cancer-causing, neurotoxins or endocrine disruptors – chemicals that can alter the hormonal functions – CR added an extra safety margin requirement to the levels considered safe. “People need to be concerned because we see that the more data we gather on pesticides, the more we realize the levels that we previously thought to be safe turn out not to be." Michael Hansen, Consumer Reports The CR said its safety levels differ from those set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which establishes “maximum residue limits” (MRLs) for each crop use of a pesticide after developing a risk assessment that the agency says considers multiple factors, including aggregate exposure from the pesticides, cumulative effects of related pesticides, and potential increased increased susceptibility to infants and children. Based on the EPA’s MRLs, the USDA said in its most recent pesticide data program report that 99% of foods tested had residues within the safety limits. But the EPA’s limits are too high to be truly protective of public health, and do not adequately account for the risks associated with some pesticides, according to CR.“EPA stands by its comprehensive pesticide assessment and review process to ensure the safety of the U.S. food supply,” the agency said in a statement. “Since the pesticide registration review program started in 2006, EPA has cancelled some or all uses in nearly 25% of the conventional pesticide cases it has completed work on, where new science indicates a need for additional mitigations.” The EPA says it considers “all relevant data” in making human health risk assessments for pesticide use. It is common for many farmers to apply a range of pesticides, including herbicides, insecticides and fungicides, on their fields as a means to fight weeds, bugs and plant diseases. In some cases, they spray the chemicals directly over growing plants. Residues of these chemicals are found not only in food but often in drinking water as well. Both the Food and Drug Administration and the USDA have been tracking levels of pesticide residues in foods for decades, and have repeatedly assured the public that those residues are not a human health risk as long as they do not exceed the EPA’s MRLs. But those assurances have proven wrong in the past. In one example, the government long said the insecticide chlorpyrifos was safe to be used on food if residues were within the EPA’s established limits, despite strong scientific evidence that exposure could harm the brains and nervous systems of developing children.In 2015, after decades of use in agriculture, the EPA changed its stance, saying it could not determine if chlorpyrifos in the diet was actually safe, and proposed banning the pesticide from use in farming. It took until 2021 for the agency to issue a final rule banning the pesticide, and a court challenge to the ban has kept the chemical in use.Further undermining faith in the government’s assurance on pesticide residues is the fact that the EPA consults with the companies selling the chemicals in setting allowable residue levels, and those allowable levels can be increased at the request of the companies. The EPA has approved several increases allowed for residues of the weed killing chemical glyphosate, for instance. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicides, is classified as a probable human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer but the EPA considers it not likely to cause cancer.Industry influenceThe Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) requires the EPA to apply an additional tenfold safety margin to allowable exposure levels to account for the effects on vulnerable infants and children, and allows the agency to skip adding the safety margin “only if it will be safe for infants and children.” The agency has declined to apply that additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children when setting the legal levels for several pesticide residues, however, even when scientists have said it is needed.Pesticide manufacturers have successfully pushed the EPA not to apply the extra safety margin for dozens of pesticides that have “clear potential to damage DNA or disrupt development,” said Chuck Benbrook, a pesticide residue expert and a consultant on the CR report. “EPA has known about the existence of thousands of excessively high tolerances since the 2000s,” said Benbrook. “Despite the powerful new tools and mandate in the FQPA to lower or revoke them, the pesticide industry makes it very difficult for the EPA to lower tolerances and progress has slowed to a crawl. Even worse, some very-high pesticides are finding their way back on the market and into children’s food.”Government and industry assurances about the safety of pesticide residues in the U.S. food supply are based on the fact that most residues in food are below the applicable tolerance levels, Benbrook added.“But we now know, and can specifically identify hundreds of samples of food each year with below-tolerance residues that pose risks far above what the EPA regards as safe,” he said.“Action needs to be taken”The CR report says the dangers lurking on grocery stores shelves could be reduced by the elimination of two chemical classes – organophosphates and carbamates. While organophosphates are used in plastic and solvent manufacturing as well as pesticides, they are also constituents of nerve gas, and exposure – acute and long-term – can have a range of harmful impacts on people and animals. “EPA has known about the existence of thousands of excessively high tolerances since the 2000s." - Charles Benbrook, a pesticide residue expert and Consumer Reports consultant As the Illinois Department of Public Health explains: “Organophosphates kill insects by disrupting their brains and nervous systems. Unfortunately, these chemicals also can harm the brains and nervous systems of animals and humans.”Carbamates bear a chemical similarity to organophosphate pesticides.The CR report comes as many scientists have increasingly been questioning whether or not a steady diet of pesticide residues can actually be safe for people and what long-term consumption of trace amounts of pesticides in food could be doing to human and animal health.“The data is showing more and more that these lower levels are having an impact,” said Hansen. “That is why some action needs to be taken.”

A version of this article originally appeared in The Deep Dish, our members-only newsletter. Become a member today and get the next issue directly in your inbox. “The thing is, home cooking is serious business. It is a conscious decision to turn raw ingredients into a meal to nourish ourselves and the people we love,” she wrote. […] The post Home Cooking Can Be Stress-Free and Part of a Sustainable Food System appeared first on Civil Eats.

But another small tweak has big implications for the increasing number of schools working to get more fresh fruits, vegetables, and meats produced by nearby farmers onto students’ trays. Starting July 1, when districts put out a call for an unprocessed or minimally processed food—whether it’s tomatoes, taco meat, or tuna—they’ll be able to specify […] The post New School Meal Standards Could Put More Local Food on Students’ Lunch Trays appeared first on Civil Eats.

A version of this article originally appeared in The Deep Dish, our members-only newsletter. Become a member today and get the next issue directly in your inbox. The opportunity to absorb Indigenous wisdom and share that knowledge with the community is what attracted 20-year-old Nyomi Oliver (Navajo/Chicana) to the Denver nonprofit, which offers a wide variety of […] The post Native Youth Learn to Heal Their Communities Through Mycelium appeared first on Civil Eats.

In this week’s Field Report, controversial research on growing food in cities, the food and agriculture impacts of the Key Bridge collapse, and more. The post Despite Recent Headlines, Urban Farming Is Not a Climate Villain appeared first on Civil Eats.

Oral immunotherapy is effective at getting people to tolerate peanuts, but the effectiveness is not long-lived.

Past Presentation | Rescuing Abundance is a food sustainability film starring heroes from the Pittsburgh food community. The film tells the story of how business, government, farmers, nonprofits, and college students can work together to reverse the current trend of 31% of the food produced in the United States ending up in landfills, despite millions of people going hungry every day. The ultimate purpose of the film is to develop the foundation for community-focused solutions. Business and the community can work together and drive social innovation in the food space.

Livestock bosses celebrate outcome at online summit, while critics condemn failure to tackle meat and dairy consumptionLobbyists for the world’s biggest meat companies have lauded a better than expected outcome at Cop28, which they say left them “excited” and “enthusiastic” for their industry’s prospects.US livestock bosses reflected on the conference’s implication for their sector on a virtual panel, fresh from “sharing US agriculture’s story” at the climate summit in December.Campaigners and climate scientists had hoped the summit, which was billed as a “Food Cop” because of its focus on farming, would result in governments agreeing to ambitious action to transform food systems in line with the goals of the Paris climate agreement. Continue reading...

Seven popular coconut oils recently tested have detectable levels of phthalates, according to a new report from Mamavation.Partnering with EHN.org, Mamavation — an environmental wellness blog and community — had seven coconut oils tested by a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-certified lab and found levels of phthalates ranging from 134 parts per billion to 1,331 ppb.The testing comes on the heels of similar testing last month from Mamavation that found 13 olive oils tested by the same U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-certified lab had levels of phthalates ranging from 655 parts per billion to 6,092 ppb.While the good news is the coconut oil phthalate levels are lower than what was found in olive oils — four of the seven coconut oil brands had levels lower than 400 ppb — the results are still concerning as phthalates are linked to hormone disruption, fertility impacts, low birth weights, obesity, diabetes, some cancers, brain and behavioral problems, and other health issues.The chemicals are found in plastics, toys, personal care products such as lotions and deodorants, and other products. They’re also increasingly found in foods — Consumer Reports testing earlier this year found phthalates, often in high levels, in sliced peaches, pizza, canned salmon, protein milkshakes, yogurts, fast food burgers, and even organic some foods.While the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission restricts certain phthalates in children’s products, those same phthalates are approved as additives in foods by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In 2022, the FDA rejected two petitions calling for the removal of 28 phthalates from food use and contact.“It is simply deplorable to now learn that Mamavation is finding endocrine-disrupting phthalates in coconut oils. I use coconut oil as a butter substitute, which I purchase thinking that it will be better for health than butter. And I feed it to our pets to improve their skin and coats. It’s so disappointing to learn that my good intentions may be doing more harm than good,” Terrence Collins, Teresa Heinz Professor of Green Chemistry and Director of the Institute for Green Sciences at Carnegie Mellon University, told Mamavation.It is unclear why or how the phthalates are getting into coconut and olive oils, however, it could come from a variety of manufacturing, storage or packaging processes as the chemicals can be found coating food contact materials, in packaging plastic or PVC, lubricants, and other products. Which coconut oils contained phthalates?   Mamavation found evidence of phthalates in popular coconut oil brands including Crisco, Garden of Life and Nutiva.To see the full list of which coconut oils had phthalates, check out the report at Mamavation.And check out the ongoing effort by Mamavation and EHN.org to identify PFAS in common consumer products. Follow our PFAS testing project with Mamavation at the series landing page.

A version of this article originally appeared in The Deep Dish, our members-only newsletter. Become a member today and get the next issue directly in your inbox. In 2020, Common Ground received just under $300,000 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to train entrepreneurs to grow and distribute food in low-income areas. In 2022, […] The post This Farm Bill Really Matters. We Explain Why. appeared first on Civil Eats.

As researchers look for the reasons to explain the global rise in obesity, one thing has become clear — chemicals in our food, packaging, personal care items and other products are playing a key role. Obesity is linked to a variety of preventable health effects, such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and even certain types of cancer. Despite the focus on treating obesity with diet and exercise, drugs and bariatric surgery, obesity is still increasing at alarming rates worldwide, especially in children. Evidence is mounting that certain chemicals called obesogens — which include everything from sugar to known bad actor chemicals like bisphenol-A (BPA), phthalates, flame retardants — can cause the human (and animal) body to produce more fat than it normally would. Many obesogens do this by impacting the proper functioning of our hormones, which means they can alter metabolism and promote increased storage of calories. Because of this, obesogens can increase weight gain even if we don’t eat more. In our new analysis, we examine the different models researchers use in studying obesity. We found that exposure to obesogens can result in changes in metabolism leading to weight gain that is consistent with the other models. We proposed an integrated model that puts exposure to obesogens as a key cause of obesity. A new approach is needed — one focusing on prevention. How scientists study obesity We compared four models that explain obesity development. The first model is the “calories in - calories out” idea: you gain weight if you eat more calories than you expend. It also says that something in the environment has changed over the last 50 or so years, unconsciously altering the brain, leading to increased food consumption and increased weight. The environmental change is not defined but researchers suspect ultra-processed foods are the culprit. The second model states that sugar is the culprit – specifically, high glycemic index carbohydrates that stimulate insulin. The increased insulin stimulates fat storage and increases how much we eat. Since the Western diet is high in sugar and ultra-processed foods, both of these models explain at least some of the current obesity epidemic. The third model — the obesogen model — states that obesogens alter metabolism. Most chemicals disrupt hormonal signaling pathways in various tissues that control energy intake, nutrient handling and body weight. Everyone is born pre-polluted with obesogens and exposure continues throughout life. Exposure to these obesogens at any time can increase weight gain but when it’s early in life (in utero and early childhood), it disrupts the normal development of fatty tissue, liver, gastrointestinal tract, brain and tissues regulating metabolism. These permanent changes can lead to obesity later in life, making it easier to gain weight and more challenging to lose it and to keep the weight off. The fourth model states that tissues have metabolism sensors that detect when there is sufficient fuel and produce small amounts of reactive oxygen species that tell the pancreas to release more insulin and fat tissue to make more fat. Both obesogens and ultra-processed foods stimulate these reactive oxygen species inappropriately in large amounts, which causes overeating. Obesogens are the common thread Obesogens are a unifying and key part of the obesity models, affecting all known key activities associated with both the first and second models.Regarding the “calories in - calories out” model, the changes that cause unconscious altered brain control of appetite can come from ultra-processed foods and obesogens (which also stimulate reactive oxygen species). Concerning the “sugar is the culprit” model, both obesogens and reactive oxygen species stimulate insulin, increasing fat storage. In the future, there should be less focus on individual models and more emphasis on a comprehensive model that includes obesogens and reactive oxygen species as essential contributors to obesity.How we can reduce obesogen exposure The good news is that we know many obesogens by name, chemicals that come from fossil fuels and plastics (BPA, phthalates, PFAS), flame retardants and some food additives, emulsifiers and colorants found in ultra-processed food. We also know where their exposures come from and how many act to increase weight gain. Decreasing human exposure to obesogens, particularly early in life, will prevent obesity. Personal changes can help, like filtering drinking water and using organic household products, cleaners and pesticides, and eliminating plastics, canned food and ultra-processed food.However, it is unrealistic to expect consumers or clinicians to prevent obesity alone. Instead, policymakers and regulators need to develop public health policies that will regulate and remove these harmful chemicals from products.Want to learn more? EHN’s guide to Obesogens: Chemicals that cause weight gain.Publication: Obesogens: a unifying theory for the global rise in obesity. Heindel JJ, Lustig RH, Howard S, Corkey BE. Int J Obes (Lond). 2024 Jan 11. doi: 10.1038/s41366-024-01460-3. Open access.Video: Are we there yet? Unifying model of obesity, by Nicholas Norwitz, about this paper.Webinar March 19, featuring Dr. Heindel: Obesogens: A unifying theory for the global rise in obesity. The webinar will be recorded and available at that link.Dr. Heindel coordinated three major review articles on obesogens published in 2022 in the journal Biomedical Pharmacology.

People eat, drink, and breathe in tiny pieces of plastics — but what they do inside the body is still unknown.

Read more

Edible insects could decarbonize America's food system. But lobbyists, conspiracy theories, and your "ick" factor stand in the way.

It has long been believed that breastfed babies are less likely to suffer from allergic conditions, such as eczema and food allergies, compared to formula-fed...

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

Academic experts also criticise UN Food and Agriculture Organization for dismissing alternative proteinsThe omission of meat-eating reduction from proposals in a UN roadmap to tackle the climate crisis and end hunger is “bewildering”, according to academic experts.The group also criticised the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s report for “dismissing” the potential of alternative proteins, such as plant-based meat, to reduce the impact of livestock on the environment. Continue reading...

Pythons turn their food into meat pretty efficiently, a study finds, making them an intriguing alternative to climate-unfriendly cows

"Every SNAP participant would receive less to buy groceries in future years under this proposal," said one critic

Two House Democrats press Mississippi on the use of water infrastructure funds. Meanwhile, floods’ effect on food insecurity is... complicated, and hurricanes are poised to get wetter and faster. This is Overnight Energy & Environment, your source for the latest news focused on energy, the environment and beyond. For The Hill, we’re Rachel Frazin and...

Leafy greens are valuable for their dietary fiber and nutrients, yet they may also carry dangerous pathogens. Lettuce, in particular, has frequently been linked to...

Past Presentation | Unbroken Grounds explains the critical role food will play in the next frontier of our efforts to solve the environmental crisis. It explores four areas of agriculture that aim to change our relationship to the land and oceans. Most of our food is produced using methods that reduce biodiversity, decimate soil and contribute to climate change. We believe our food can and should be a part of the solution to the environmental crisis -- grown, harvested and produced in ways that restore our land, water and wildlife. The film tells the story of four groups that are pioneers in the fields of regenerative agriculture, regenerative grazing, diversified crop development and restorative fishing.

"Large-scale production of this chocolate could reduce land use and global warming potential"

We love hearing it all! And sometimes we even seek out experts to address a topic we think deserves more analysis or a fresh take. In all cases, we’re delighted to provide a platform for a wide range of ardent, intelligent contributors. Here are some of our favorites from a long list of opinion and […] The post Our Best Op-eds and Commentary of 2022 appeared first on Civil Eats.

A new analysis by Consumer Reports shows that pesticides have contaminated the US fruit and vegetable supply – even some organicsWhat’s safe to eat? Here is the pesticide risk level for each fruit and vegetableWatermelon, green beans and bell peppers are among the many common fruits and vegetables found in US supermarkets that contain potentially unsafe levels of pesticides, according to an analysis published today by Consumer Reports.The new report – which analyzed seven years of US Department of Agriculture data on commonly eaten fruits and vegetables – offers one of the most comprehensive evaluations to date of pesticides found in US produce. The data was based on nearly 30,000 fruit and vegetable samples, including fresh, frozen, canned and organic, collected from supermarkets by the USDA as part of routine pesticide testing. Consumer Reports built a massive database to analyze the data – and scored different foods to provide actionable recommendations to help consumers shop and eat with less risk. Continue reading...