Posted on

Ozempic & Protein Intake Concerns

If you’ve tuned into The Joe Rogan Experience with FoundMyFitness’ Dr. Rhonda Patrick, or the Eat Move Think podcast with Dr. Stuart Phillips, a professor of kinesiology at McMaster University, you’ve likely heard experts discussing the muscle-preserving power of protein and the appetite-suppressing effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists.

While GLP-1 medications, like Ozempic and Wegovy, are revolutionizing weight loss, their ability to curb hunger raises an important question: Are you eating enough protein to maintain muscle and metabolic health? With leading researchers like Dr. Phillips and Dr. Patrick highlighting the risks of protein deficiency—especially as we age—understanding how to balance GLP-1 therapy with proper nutrition is more crucial than ever.

In this article, we’ll break down what the headlines aren’t telling you about GLP-1 and protein intake, how to avoid muscle loss while using these medications, and science-backed strategies for maintaining your strength and long-term health.

The Role of GLP-1 Medications in Chronic Illness & Obesity

GLP-1 receptor medications, previously just a drug for diabetes, have now emerged as effective treatments for obesity. They function by enhancing insulin secretion, inhibiting glucagon release, and slowing gastric emptying, thereby stabilizing blood glucose levels and promoting weight loss, thus resulting in reduced appetite, decreased food cravings, and lower energy intake.

Clinical trials have shown that liraglutide, the primary compound in GLP-1 medications, resulted in a 3.4% to 6.1% greater mean weight loss compared to placebo, with 50% to 73% of subjects achieving at least a 5% reduction in baseline body weight. As weight drops, the good news is – so does fat. The bad news is – so does muscle.

However, the appetite-suppressing properties of GLP-1s leads to caloric reduction, including less protein consumption. This can have significant health implications if not properly managed.

Why Protein is Essential for the Body

Protein plays a crucial role in various physiological functions:

  • Muscle maintenance and growth: Protein provides the amino acids necessary for muscle repair and preservation, especially vital during weight loss or aging.
  • Immune system function: Proteins are fundamental components of antibodies, which defend the body against infections.
  • Metabolic regulation: Enzymes and hormones, many of which are proteins, regulate critical bodily functions, including metabolism.
  • Tissue repair and healing: Protein is essential for the regeneration of tissues, aiding in wound healing and skin health.
  • Weight management: consuming adequate protein can reduce appetite, curb cravings, and promote feelings of fullness, leading to a natural decrease in calorie intake. ​
  • Preserving lean muscle mass: muscle tissue burns more calories than fat, even at rest. A study highlighted that individuals who increased their protein intake to 30% of their daily calories consumed 441 fewer calories per day and experienced significant weight loss over 12 weeks.​

The Impact of GLP-1 on Caloric and Protein Intake

When protein intake is too low, muscle loss becomes a serious concern. Since muscle tissue requires continuous protein intake for maintenance, a deficit in dietary protein can cause muscle atrophy, leading to reduced strength, endurance, and metabolic rate. This can make it harder to sustain long-term weight loss.

Brands like Nestle, Medifast’s Optavia Ascend, Biocare’s high-protein snacks, Herbalife’s GLP-1 Nutrition Companion Protein powders, Smoothie King’s GLP-1 Support Menu, and more have carved out an entirely new food sector to address this issue—protein deficiencies from GLP-1s.

Inadequate protein intake also weakens the immune system, as the body struggles to produce enough antibodies to fight infections.

Low protein levels can also contribute to chronic fatigue and sluggishness, as protein is essential for blood sugar regulation and energy production.

Those with insufficient protein may experience delayed wound healing, slow muscle and tendon repair, and poor skin health. Protein is a crucial component of collagen production, which aids in skin repair and tissue regeneration.

Given these risks, individuals on medications like Ozempic must take proactive steps to prioritize their protein intake. But how to go about it, and how much do you need?

How Much Protein Do You Need?

The Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) suggests 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight for sedentary adults. This translates to approximately 56 grams daily for men and 46 grams for women. ​

However, listening to the podcasts outlined above, this baseline is sufficient for everyone. For instance, active individuals or those aiming to build muscle mass often require more protein. Recommendations for such populations range from 1.2 to 2.0 grams per kilogram of body weight.

To illustrate, a 165-pound (75-kg) active male might need between 90 to 150 grams of protein daily.​  To make it simple, think of eating at least 75% of your body weight in grams. 

If you weigh 150 lbs, then eat at least 112 grams of protein.

With Dr. Rhonda Patrick emphasizing the importance of adequate protein intake, especially as individuals age. She notes that the current RDA for protein is insufficient for maintaining muscle mass. Both Dr. Patrick and Dr. Phillips concur that consuming 1.2 to 1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight is likely optimal for muscle protein synthesis, particularly in older adults.

Differences in Protein Needs for Various Age Groups

Protein requirements evolve across the lifespan, much like the changing needs of a growing plant. In children and adolescents, protein supports rapid growth and development.

As individuals enter adulthood, maintaining muscle mass and supporting bodily functions remain priorities. However, in older adults, protein becomes even more critical. Aging is associated with sarcopenia, the gradual loss of muscle mass and strength.

A recent study from Stanford’s Longevity Center emphasizes that adults over 50 should consume at least 1.2 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight daily—higher than previously recommended—to preserve muscle mass and prevent frailty.

For instance, Mr. Thompson, a 70-year-old retiree, noticed a decline in his strength and mobility.

By increasing his protein intake and engaging in resistance training, he improved his muscle mass and overall quality of life.​

Identifying and Overcoming Protein Deficiency on Ozempic

Recognizing protein deficiency signals underlying issues that require attention.

Common symptoms include swelling (edema), particularly in the abdomen, legs, feet, and hands, as well as muscle weakness, fatigue, hair loss, and brittle nails.

So what are some ideas for those cutting calories to lose weight to ensure they are getting enough protein?

Especially for those on GLP-1s who have a higher risk of inadequate protein intake?

For example, Emily, a patient managing her type 2 diabetes with GLP-1 therapy, noticed decreased hunger levels.

By consciously adding foods like Greek yogurt, lean meats, and legumes to her diet, she maintained her protein levels and overall health.​

Strategies to Ensure Adequate Protein Intake

Ensuring sufficient protein intake while on GLP-1 therapy or otherwise requires deliberate planning. Here are some strategies:

  • Prioritize protein at each meal: Start meals with protein-rich foods to ensure consumption before reaching satiety.​
  • Incorporate protein-rich snacks: Keep convenient options like nuts, cheese sticks, or protein bars accessible for between-meal nourishment.​
  • Utilize protein supplements: Consider adding protein powders to smoothies or recipes to boost intake without increasing volume.​
  • Plan balanced meals: Combine proteins with fiber-rich vegetables and whole grains to enhance nutrient intake and promote fullness.​
  • Monitor intake: Keep a food diary to track protein consumption and identify areas for improvement.​

To mitigate the risks mentioned in this article, individuals on Ozempic and similar therapies should actively prioritize protein consumption by structuring meals around high-quality protein sources, utilizing high-protein snacks and supplements, and spreading intake evenly throughout the day.

Special attention should also be given to age-specific protein requirements, as older adults are at greater risk for muscle loss and frailty if protein intake is insufficient. Furthermore, ensuring adequate protein intake post-weight loss can play a key role in maintaining fat-free mass and preventing weight regain.

While we have emphasized eating enough protein, muscles will not build on their own. It is important to do resistance training at least 2-3 hours a week to ensure your muscles don’t decline.  As we mentioned in an earlier post, grip strength is an indicator of longevity. It means that you are strong and have muscles to manage your daily activities, plus more.

Ultimately, sustainable weight loss and optimal metabolic health require more than calorie restriction alone—they demand a well-balanced approach to nutrition.

Posted on

How Toxic is Glyphosate?

Glyphosate is the most controversial pesticide in the world, even though it is the most studied and generally deemed as safe by many governmental bodies across the globe. Once again, it is currently in the spotlight because U.S. Secretary of Health & Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has opposed herbicides, particularly glyphosate.

However, the science is not confirmed and there is no consensus among the scientific community that, if used properly, will cause human health issues.

Research has also shown that if your skin is exposed to it, only 2% is absorbed.  And if, by chance you drink it, eat it, or inhale it, only 30% will be absorbed and you will eliminate it within 48 hours and 100% of any remaining residue will be gone within seven days. Is this absorption enough to be detrimental to human health?

What is Glyphosate?

Glyphosate, commonly known as Roundup, is one of the most popular and widely used herbicides on the farm and at home.

It doesn’t just kill weeds; it kills anything green, including farm crops such as corn, soybeans, cotton, canola, sugar beets, and alfalfa. These crops have all been genetically modified so that the farmer can spray glyphosate after the crop emerges from the ground and kill the weeds, but not the crop.

Glyphosate works by disrupting the shikimic acid pathway. This process allows plants to make certain proteins that they need for their growth. Humans and mammals get their amino acids by eating protein, while plants make them on their own.

When glyphosate is sprayed onto a plant, it is absorbed through the leaves, drops down into the roots and disrupts the plant’s ability to absorb nutrients from the soil. Thus, the plant cannot make its own proteins and dies.

Advantages of Glyphosate

  • Inexpensive and less toxic: The farmer only needs a small amount, about the size of a can of soda, per acre. Because so little is used, glyphosate is inexpensive compared to other herbicides. Also, glyphosate is less toxic than alternatives such as dicamba and atrazine.
  • Increased Yield: Weeds compete with crops for sunlight and soil nutrients. By killing the weeds, the crops can thrive, thus increasing farmers’ yields while reducing crop losses. Without glyphosate, there would not be as much food produced as there is today. The farmer can also farm more acreage, thus producing a larger harvest and increased profits.
  • Regenerative Agriculture: No-till farming means that the farmer doesn’t have to turn over the soil to kill the weeds. This also helps with climate change adaptability. No till farming gives farmers a great advantage as it preserves soil moisture, prevents erosion, reduces fuel consumption, reduces GHGs by ‘less iron on the ground’ and benefits insect diversity. No till farming also preserves the beneficial soil microbiota that provide nutrients for plants. Before glyphosate, no till was not very successful as the weeds took over the field.

Disadvantages of Glyphosate

  • Glyphosate kills all plants: If it is sprayed near a non-GMO plant or crop, it will kill the plant or crop along with the weeds.
  • Run-off: Glyphosate binds tightly to the soil, making it unlikely to reach deeper groundwater. However, since it lasts in the soil for 8 days, it can still run-off to a nearby watershed, along with the soil.
  • Weed Resistance: Approximately 20+ weeds have developed resistance to glyphosate. Users must go to other, potentially more toxic, herbicides to mix with it to eliminate weeds.
  • Trace amounts in food: Trace amounts have been found in various foods, which raises concerns for human health. To dry out wheat and oats before harvest, about 30% of farmers spray it to speed up the drying process. Trace amounts get into the processing facilities that make cookies, breads, etc. However, since we do not have a shikimic pathway, our bodies flush these trace amounts through via our urine. And we would have to eat about 1,000 loaves of bread a day to have a negative health effect.
  • Health concerns while using: Even though the EPA and other organizations generally consider glyphosate safe when used as directed, some studies have linked it to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Workers in the fields often don’t use masks or protective equipment. After long periods of spraying, they could have health issues.

What do Governmental Organizations Say?

Most governing bodies across the globe do not find conclusive evidence showing negative effects. However, some have based on animal studies.

Here are a few examples:

  • The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) summarized the impact of glyphosate on human health. They found no risks to concern, no indication that children are more sensitive to glyphosate, no indication that it is an endocrine disruptor, and no evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans.
  • The European Union, European Chemicals Agency and the European Food Safety Authority showed that there is currently no scientific or legal justification for a ban. This was last reviewed in 2023 and will be reviewed again in 2033.
  • The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) states that glyphosate is ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’ based on limited evidence of cancer in humans but sufficient evidence in experimental animals or strong evidence of a carcinogenic mechanism.
  • Health Canada found that, ‘when used according to the label instructions, products containing glyphosate are not expected to pose risks of concern to human health or the environment.’ They also monitor the compliance rate of food residues to their residue standards. They found a 4% compliance rate.

What Do Scientists Say?

We spoke to three scientists to hear their views on Glyphosate.

While there were different views on its effect on soil health, all agreed that it is the least toxic of the herbicides on the market.

They also all agreed that if you use it at home with safety glasses, rubber gloves, boots, you will have little risk or exposure; it is the farm workers in the fields spraying all day long without protective wear who are most at risk for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Dr. Ila Cote is a toxicologist with expertise in environmental risk assessment and the interface of science and public policy. Her research focuses on causes of cancer and respiratory diseases and development of risk assessment approaches.

I first asked her if she uses it in her yard to kill weeds. She said yes. “It is not a very toxic chemical.” She went on to say that “unprotected farm workers will experience the highest risk.”

Dr. Cote agrees with the IARC when it comes to concerns about cancer:

“I am not as convinced that glyphosate does not pose a substantial risk to public health. Part of the problem is something can be of relatively low risk but if that risk is applied to everyone the increased numbers of cancers attributable to that risk can be substantial.”

– Dr. Ila Cote

Dan Wysocki is an Extension Soil Scientists at Oregon State University and past Regional Director at Soil and Water Conservation Society. He stated studies that showed it was safe for humans and the environment.

“I ask the thousands of farmers I speak with: ‘what would happen if you didn’t use glyphosate?’ There would be more tillage and more tractors emitting GHGs and disturbing the soil. Prior to biotechnology for glyphosate resistant crops, there were suites of chemicals used on these crops, and they were generally more toxic and applied more frequently and in greater amounts than glyphosate.

I am more worried about soil run-off into the watersheds than I am about glyphosate in the environment. If soil leaves the farm, so do the nutrients and the soil health. Eroding soil creates more risk than glyphosate does in the watershed.”

– Dan Wysocki

Ken Roseboro, Editor of The Organic & Non-GMO Report, has covered the controversy over glyphosate herbicide for 15 years as a journalist, noting research and various studies on its negative environmental and human health impacts, especially on farm workers and groundskeepers.

“Regenerative agriculture is the long-term solution. A lot of farmers who are doing great work on this and have found that their synthetic inputs have significantly decreased. Their yield drops initially, but as soil health increases, yields have been just as competitive as conventional agriculture.”

– Ken Roseboro

What is next?

There is no doubt about controversy surrounding glyphosate.

This is only exasperated by the class action lawsuit toward Monsanto, now Bayer. Approximately 10,000 plaintiffs have sued Monsanto for their physical and emotional injury after using glyphosate either on the field or as Roundup for several years. We would like to remind the reader that when a company reaches a settlement, often it is not because they are guilty but to reduce millions in legal fees.

In any case, the poison is in the dose.

Trace amounts found in food or water probably won’t harm you and your body will flush it out. If you use it in your yard, wear a mask and gloves. If you are a farm worker spraying it all day long, wear a mask, gloves, eye protection, and maybe even protective clothes. Those of us who do not use it and randomly ingest trace amounts are not at risk.

Regenerative agriculture sounds like an easy solution, but it has varying degrees of effectiveness depending on the crop, the farm, the location, the weather patterns, and the soil.  It includes cover crops. For example, where oats were used as a cover crop, farmers were able to reduce their synthetic inputs by 50%.

Technology is now playing a role in helping farmers control their weeds.

Consider these examples a demonstration of ways that farmers and companies are implementing technology to merge precision agriculture with regenerative agriculture:

John Deere has a new See & Spray technology where their tractors can identify and spray a particular weed and not the entire crop. This brings precision ag to a whole new level.

One farmer invented Greenfield Robotics, an AI powered robot that identifies weeds and picks them, thus reducing herbicides in the field.

Seeing significant opportunity in this regenerative ag-focused technology, Chipotle, the fast casual restaurant, has backed and invested in this company.

 

Posted on

Vitamin D & Sun Exposure

Vitamin D plays a critical role in our immune function, bone strength, and cardiovascular health. Studies continue to link vitamin D deficiency to increased risks for various health conditions, including weakened immune response, osteoporosis, and even certain chronic diseases.

A 2024 study from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) reinforces the connection between low vitamin D levels and respiratory health, showing that adequate vitamin D supports immune resilience against seasonal illnesses. Additionally, Harvard Medical School research suggests that vitamin D plays a key role in reducing inflammation and supporting brain health.

A previous study out of Northwestern University found a strong correlation between vitamin D deficiency and COVID-19 mortality, showing that patients from countries with high COVID-19 mortality rates had lower vitamin D levels compared to those in less-affected regions.

Why is Vitamin D So Important?

  • Sunlight Exposure: Up to 90% of our daily vitamin D can be synthesized through skin exposure to sunlight. However, factors like skin tone, geographic location, season, and sunscreen use affect how much vitamin D is produced.
  • Food Sources: Dietary sources serve as an essential vitamin D supplement. Fatty fish (salmon, mackerel, sardines), fortified dairy products, egg yolks, and mushrooms are some of the few food sources that provide dietary vitamin D.
  • Supplements: Many health professionals recommend vitamin D supplementation, especially during winter months or for those with limited sun exposure.

Source: www.globalhealingcenter.com

The Sunscreen Debate: Blocking Harm or Blocking Health?

While sunscreen is essential for preventing skin cancer and premature aging, concerns have arisen about whether it reduces the body’s ability to synthesize vitamin D. Some research suggests that most people still produce adequate vitamin D even with sunscreen use, while others indicate that high SPF formulas could reduce vitamin D synthesis significantly.

A 2024 review by the American Academy of Dermatology concluded that moderate sun exposure (10-30 minutes a few times a week, depending on skin tone) is generally sufficient to maintain vitamin D levels.

However, dermatologists stress that prolonged exposure without protection increases skin cancer risk.

Sunscreen Ingredients: What to Watch For

Recent studies have raised concerns about the systemic absorption of certain chemical sunscreen ingredients. The FDA’s updated 2024 sunscreen regulations focus on ingredient safety, requiring further studies on commonly used UV filters.

Here are the proposed regulations outside of just ingredient-testing for sunscreens — this includes SPF levels, label requirements and dosage recommendations.

What’s Safe?

✅ Zinc Oxide & Titanium Dioxide – Approved as safe and effective (GRASE). These mineral sunscreens sit on the skin’s surface and reflect UV rays without significant absorption.

What’s Under Review?

⚠️ Oxybenzone, Octinoxate, Homosalate, and Octisalate – These chemical filters are absorbed into the bloodstream. While no definitive evidence shows harm, the FDA continues to evaluate their long-term effects.

What to Avoid?

❌ PABA & Trolamine Salicylate – Deemed unsafe for use by the FDA.

Balancing Sun Protection & Vitamin D: Expert Tips

  1. Get Smart Sun Exposure – Spend 10-30 minutes in the sun before applying sunscreen, depending on your skin type and sensitivity.
  2. Use Broad-Spectrum Sunscreen – Choose zinc oxide or titanium dioxide-based sunscreens to protect against both UVA & UVB rays.
  3. Supplement, if needed – Consider a vitamin D supplement if you have limited sun exposure or live in a northern climate.
  4. Eat Vitamin D-Rich Foods – Incorporate salmon, fortified dairy, eggs, and mushrooms into your diet.
  5. Reapply Sunscreen Often – If spending extended time outdoors, reapply every two hours and after swimming or sweating.
Posted on

What Are Consumers Doing about Food Costs?

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service (ERS) in late February announced an expected increase in at-home food costs of 3.3 percent for this year. That’s well below the roughly 11 percent hike we saw during the Covid peak.

But 3.3 percent is still well above the less than 2 percent increase in 2024 and the comparable 20-year average of food price increases.

The simple message behind all the numbers: consumers can expect the cost of their food to continue rising. It is in the news everywhere: “Food Prices are Rising Again” at the Wall Street Journal, “Why are food prices still high, five years after COVID?” on Axios, “US Inflation Seen Elevated in February, with higher Food Prices,” at Bloomberg, and “Foods to stock up on before tariffs raise prices again” at the New York Post…everywhere we look, there’s a headline about it.

The message didn’t surprise me as much as start me thinking.

I’ve read report after report from various government agencies and scholarly tomes on why costs have gone up, and even a few marketing reports about altered consumer behaviors.

What about us?

But what about the ordinary everyday food shopper?  What do he and she really think, and how have they responded to the food price inflation and spot shortages and other disruptions along our food chain?

Overall food prices rose 23.6 percent from 2020 to 2024 – almost one quarter.

USDA projects another 3.3 percent in 2025.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS) using U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index data; and forecast from the ERS Food Price Outlook data product.

We’ve been fighting this battle since Covid. So the real people I live with have had time to adapt.

How have they changed the way they think about the food they buy, and what they actually do when it comes to selecting the food they serve their families?  Not the cold, sterile language of some government bureaucrat with acres of spreadsheets and mountains of data, or someone in an ivory tower focused on economic theories, or some VP of Marketing in Manhattan with grand plans for profitably accommodating the food-buying masses.

Real, everyday people.

So I started asking my own questions of a random collection of people I encountered in my own food forays. I asked simple questions and then just listened to what an incredible array of different neighbors and strangers had to say – men and (mostly) women, young and old, affluent and the paycheck-to-paycheck set. What I heard was illuminating.

I offer my observations from this effort for whatever you choose to make of it. I don’t pretend it is a comprehensive, serious academic exercise, or to boast a sample size that can be defended as statistically valid.

It’s what real people of all stripes had to say about how they go about buying the food their families need, from one miniscule slice of the Great American Public here in the mid-South.

But maybe you can see something of yourself or your community in what these folks had to say. And maybe Dirt to Dinner will ask people in other places what they have to say, too.

Q1: How often do you shop for food?

Responses varied widely. Shoppers for families generally said weekly, single consumers said several times per week but not daily.

  • I don’t just drop in the store as often as I used to. I go when I need to.
  • I go every two weeks. It’s a lot to spend, but that way I can discipline myself more to manage how much I spend. I have a list either written down or in my head and I stick to it.

“I’ll make a big buy every week or so, and just drop in if I need something specific, like milk or a loaf of bread. But not for a big buy.

And I don’t get side-tracked… in and out.“

Q2: How much do you spend on average – each trip, over a week, or a month?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2023 estimated the average consumer spends $6,053 per year on food – or $116.40 per week.

Our responses varied, according to the individual circumstance, but answers of $100 to $200 per week per person were typical.

  • It’s just me. But I still seem to spend $100-200 a week.
  • I’ve got a hard-working husband and a teen-age boy and girl. Spending $800 or $900 is nothing, and that’s being very, very careful in what I buy.
  • I can’t come in here without spending at least $80. and that’s just for a little.
  • Depends on how many of my son’s friends he brings home at supper time.
  • Oh, I don’t know a specific number. I just know it’s the biggest part of what I have to spend.
  • $116? Please tell me where those people live.  

Q3: How much have your food costs changed, especially since COVID? A little, a lot, how would you describe the increase?

Consumers thought less in terms of specific numbers than one big idea: they’ve gone up a lot.  When pressed for a number, most said 20-30 percent, and some as much as 40.

  • At least 20-30 percent.
  • Forty percent? Maybe more.
  • Seems like it’s up at least half since Covid.
  • How much? I don’t know. But it’s a lot, I know that.  I see it at the check-out every time I come in here.

Q4: How much has it affected your household budget? Is food taking up a bigger share of what money you have available, or have you cut back on how much you spend on food?

Food has become a larger share of household budgets – sometimes substantially so. Feeding the family remains a priority.

  • I’m spending more and more of my budget on food. It’s at least a quarter of it.
  • It’s not an option. My boys have to be fed, and they eat a lot.
  • We used to buy what we want. Now we buy what we need.
  • I try not to think about it. But I know it’s more all the time.

“I pay more now for food than I do on my mortgage.

It costs me more to feed my family than to put a roof over their heads.“

Q5: Has it changed the way you shop – the foods you select, the brands you choose, how if at all?

Rising food costs have prompted a major shift away from spontaneous, impulse buying toward a much more planned and thoughtful approach to shopping.

  • Mostly I look for sales. If it’s a good deal, that’s what we eat.
  • I look for cheaper or other kinds of meat… a lot more chicken, and maybe hamburger instead of better cuts of beef.
  • Meat-free meals? Not with two teen-age boys.
  • I go with a lot more of the store brands than I used to.
  • If you don’t plan it out, you’re going to spend a lot more. If you don’t plan it out, it’s going to be difficult to stick to any budget.
  • If you don’t have a list and stick to it, you’re in trouble.

Q6: What are you doing to stretch your food dollar?

“Shopping smarter” was a universal response, but far from the only one. Cheaper cuts of meat and protein was another.

  • I pay attention to the ads. I’ll go to more places to take advantage of sale prices, not just one store.
  • I use coupons a lot more than I used to.
  • I’ve cut back on things that really aren’t all that important to feeding my family – you know, impulse items like all that stuff at the check-out, and things that I normally don’t buy.
  • I’ll still buy the brand names. But they better be on sale.
  • I’m buying a lot more in bulk – potatoes, rice, beans, that sort of thing – and doing my own cooking. I’m going back to the Granny way of doing things.
“My home garden gets bigger every year.“
  • We eat the left-overs, even if it’s just a little. We waste a lot less food than we used to.
  • We always talked about using left-overs. Most often, we would push it in the back of the refrigerator and take it out when it turned green or blue and throw it away. Now we talk a lot less about our good intentions and actually try to do it.
  • I’ve got family in Iowa who farm. I have them send me meat. Even with shipping it I come out way ahead… just cut out that guy in the middle.

Q7: Do you expect prices to hold relatively steady, go up or go down in the coming weeks and months?

These consumers are cynical – or conditioned by almost five years of food cost increases.

They seem resigned to costs that will continue to rise – and rise substantially.

  • What do you think? Of course they are going to keep going up. Nothing I can do about that.
  • All depends on inflation.
  • How much more? I bet in three years they are up 30 percent from today.
  • Why will they keep going up? I don’t know. They just will. It’s not just food. It’s everything.
  • Depends on what Donald Trump does. He said he would bring food prices down. When are we going to see that?

Q8: Who is responsible for the run-up in food prices?

Responses were varied, with “the middleman” earning the most common response.  Farmers got a universal free pass.

  • I don’t know any one thing. It’s probably a lot of things.
  • Probably the big food manufacturers.
  • I know it’s not the farmer. I know farmers, and they aren’t getting rich right now.
  • Seems to me like the spirit of greed is alive in the land.
  • Anybody who thinks it’s the farmer is just wrong.

Q9: How often do you go out to eat? How much do you spend on food away from home? 

Eating out is still popular, but a lot more thought and planning goes into it.

Rising dining-out costs make it a bigger event than before, and if the cost is too great, people cut back or stay home. 

  • We’ll go out on weekends now and then, but not during the week. And we try to leave the kids home when we do. That saves us a lot of money.
  • We think about it before we do, and we look at how much it’s likely to cost. If it’s too much, then I just fix food at home.
  • Going out is more of a special event for us now. But we still do it. We don’t just get in the car and head out anymore without planning a bit.
  • Sometimes you just have to go out. You’re tired or busy or whatever. But you don’t go off the deep end with it, unless it’s a special occasion. And I mean special.
  • We still go out once a week or so. But we think about it more. We go to places we know we can bring food home if we don’t eat it all… not the fast-food places anymore. And it’s probably better for us, too.

“I like going out to eat. But I make sure my boyfriend pays.“

What did people say?

So what are my headlines from this non-scientific exercise?

  • My friend and neighbors think more about what to purchase and plan ahead to make smarter decisions about what to buy. They make food shopping even more thoughtful than before, and they look to avoid impulse buying.
  • They adopt a remarkable array of ways to save money and shop smart. Some use coupons aggressively. Shopping the sales at multiple retailers was a frequent practice. Cheaper alternative cuts of meat is a common responses. Buying more food in bulk and more in-home food preparation came up again and again. Growing more food in the home garden also is popular in this part of the world.
  • They still go out to eat. It’s a fact of modern life. But they increasingly think about it more, plan ahead and look for good deals. They think about the total cost before hand.
  • They focus a lot more on reducing the amount of food they waste. Eating more of their left-overs was an almost universal comment.
  • They continue to worry. Maybe it’s the explosion in egg prices that have rocked my area, but the people I spoke with seem resigned to continuing food price increases. Food cost inflation, to them, is the new norm, not an episode.
  • They don’t know who to blame. But they definitely don’t blame the farmer or rancher.
Posted on

Why are biofuels important?

Biofuels have become an increasingly important component of both U.S. agricultural and energy policies, with reaches in farming, sustainable energy production, and food security.

Building on our biofuel podcast with Colin Murphy of UC Davis and our sustainable aviation fuels article, Dirt to Dinner will look at the complex biofuels story with a new series of articles on the subject. Let’s start with the basics…

What are biofuels?

When driving your car, you might picture your engine consuming ancient crushed plants and sea creatures as the fuel bringing you to your destination. But do you also picture your engine burning liquid corn?

Biofuels are a sustainable fuel that affects all aspects of transportation.

Biofuels are a petroleum-alternative fuel that gives you the ability to drive, fly, or receive your Amazon delivery while using corn, soybeans, algae, beef tallow, or even used cooking oil as fuel in the gas tank.

Biofuels capture the solar energy that drives photosynthesis in plants and ultimately, animals, and converts it into energy. Emitting fewer carbon emissions than petroleum, the stock materials for biofuels are referred to as “biomass.”

Corn and soybean oil are major sources for the raw material needed to produce biofuels. But myriad other materials can also be sources of biomass, including wheat, sugarcane, canola and other naturally grown renewable crops and products.

What are the types of biofuels?

Biofuels are made into two products: ethanol and jet fuel.  Ethanol is made through fermentation, mainly from the sugar in corn and some plants. Diesel is made from fats in cooking oils, animal fats, and oilseeds.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) notes these primary types of biofuels:

  • Ethanol: an alcohol fuel blended up to 20% with petroleum gasoline for vehicles.
  • Biodiesel: a biofuel usually blended with petroleum diesel for consumption. Biodiesel can be made from a variety of oily materials, animal fats, vegetable oils, recycled cooking oils, even algae. Regular diesel engines can handle up to 20% of biodiesel. This category represents the second-largest share of U.S. biofuel production and consumption at 9 percent in 2022.
  • Renewable diesel: a fuel chemically like petroleum diesel fuel used as a drop-in fuel or a petroleum diesel blend. This means that it can replace 100% of petroleum diesel without damaging the engine – and it doesn’t freeze. A bonus in long, cold winters. It accounts for about 8 percent of total U.S. biofuel production and 9 percent of consumption (2022).
  • Biogas: a fuel that can supply the power grid. This process breaks down material such as agricultural waste, manure, municipal waste, sewage, and food waste with an anaerobic digestor to create methane. This is like natural gas and is used as such.
  • SAF: a sustainable aviation fuel that comes from corn, oilseeds, algea, fats, oils, and in the future, garbage. These ‘feedstocks’ are used to replace Jet A engine fuel. Today’s jet engines can only take on 50% of their fuel as SAF without changing their configuration. Right now, the market is not even 10%.
  • “Other” biofuels: a catch-all grouping that covers such things as renewable heating oil, renewable naphtha, renewable gasoline, and other biofuels that are in various stages of development and commercialization. Biomass is rich in the complex hydrocarbons that characterize jet fuel and other products.

The biofuels industry often refers to the evolving mix of types in terms of “generations”.  First generation biofuels are made from edible biomass. Second generation biofuels are derived from non-edible biomass, including rice husks, straw and even sawdust. Third generation refers to algae biomass, and the fourth algae that is genetically engineered specifically for biofuel production.

How are biofuels used today?

Biofuels are used as energy sources, most commonly but not exclusively in transportation-related fuels.

The ethanol blended into gasoline probably is most visible and recognized biofuel for the average person. Some form of biofuel has been around almost from beginning of civilization, but the modern biofuel world has been built around the development of the internal combustion engine.

Ethanol was first used as far back as 1826 to power an engine, and its production actually taxed by the federal government to help fund the Civil War. It also proved to be an attractive fuel source during the 1920s and 1930s, and especially during World War II to help contend with gasoline shortages. (For additional detail on the history of ethanol, visit the Energy Information Administration at https://www.eia.gov.)

Beginning in the 1970s, anyone remember those long gas lines during the OPEC oil crisis?) and through to today, rising petroleum costs and ambitious environmental objectives have helped fuel legislative efforts to expand biofuels and in particular ethanol. Because of air pollution, and today’s global warming, numerous scientific and environmental groups made reduction in the use of fossil fuels a top priority.

For example, comments made in Science Direct seemed to summarize the case for finding alternative sources of energy – and the reasoning behind public policy that supported development of a viable ethanol industry:

Over 80 percent of the world’s energy requirement was met by coal and natural gas in 2014. The 2014 United Nations Environment Emission Gap Report estimated that the road transportation sector produced 54 gigatons of greenhouse gases that year and is expected to produce 87 gigatons of greenhouse gases by 2050, posing a threat to public health, transportation, and the environment.

Government-mandated use of ethanol has driven a steady expansion in ethanol demand. At this time, as much as 82 percent of the biofuel produced in the United States is in the form of ethanol, with 72 percent added gasoline for vehicle use. The remaining uses of ethanol are random categories such as solvents, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, antifreeze, plastics…the list is endless.

Further growing biofuel’s demand is its utility in the energy space. Bioenergy helps generate heat and electricity, with sources generating an estimated 150 gigawatts of power in 2023, according to Statista. That’s the same amount of wind-power generated in the United States in 2023. Or to use a transportation analogy, the same power generated by 620,000 base-model Ford Mustangs!

A Growing Market

Crude oil daily production averaged 13,228 barrels a day in 2024 with biofuels accounting for 1,375 barrels, an uptick from 2023’s 1,299 and 2022’s 1,203 barrels.

In 2023, over 98 percent of U.S. gasoline contains at least 10 percent ethanol, representing about one-tenth of the fuel used in all U.S. vehicles.

Analysis by the consulting firm McKinsey predicts demand for sustainable fuels will quadruple by 2050, with the sustainable fuel making up as much as 37 percent of all energy used in the transportation sector.

The USDA estimates the value of exports of U.S. biofuels in 2024 reached $5.1 billion, with a three-year average of biofuel exports at $5.2 billion, with most going to Canada and Europe.

Fuel ethanol accounted for the largest share of gross and net exports of biofuels. But the value of biodiesel and blends enjoyed a noteworthy three-year average of $1.3 billion.

The University of Michigan’s Center for Sustainable Systems projects annual increases in biofuel demand in the range of 10 to 11 percent. 

Grandview Research analysis placed the size of the global biofuel market at $99.5 billion in 2023, with an expected compound annual growth rate of 11.3 percent from 2024 to 2030.  Grandview estimated the U.S. biofuel market at $31.93 billion in 2023, with a CAGR of 11.8 percent between 2024 and 2030. 

In plain terms, the biofuel market is huge – and growing.

The Global Perspective

The rising global concern over climate change also helped spark an increase in use of biofuels around the world. The biggest biofuel-using countries all around the world are the United States, Brazil, Canada, and most European countries, Australia, China and Thailand.

The enormous productive capacity of the U.S. agricultural system has become a major factor in meeting the rising global demand for biofuels. Brazil also is a major player in global biofuel production and trade, capitalizing on its enormous growth in production of crops, notably soybeans.  (Soybean oil is an especially important source of biomass.)

In our next look at biofuels, Dirt to Dinner will dive into the importance of biofuels for American farmers – the increasing proportion and variety of crops going for biofuel production, and the economic implications of that market growth.