Can food packaging & global health coexist?


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Look around you – how many plastic products do you see? For someone who’s trying to limit plastic use, I already count 12 products in my living room… and I haven’t even gotten to the kids’ toys yet.

But we can’t help it. Plastic makes our lives super convenient and our products cheaper, safer, and longer-lasting. Sadly, this material is also clogging up our waterways and shorelines, killing off species, and devastating our planet. With its approximate 400-year lifespan, most plastics have nowhere to go but up, whether heaped onto a towering pile or incinerated into greenhouse gases.

And almost half of the plastics we go through are from packaging, with food packaging being the largest contributor. This isn’t hard to believe, especially among those of us who order our groceries online.

The last time I received a grocery delivery, I opened up a box lined with a thin plastic film to find my produce individually wrapped in plastic bags. And my more delicate produce was even in a Styrofoam-like sheet within a plastic clamshell within the bag. Talk about Pandora’s box of mismanagement.

And yet, there is a reason for it. In fact, there are several.

A case for plastics

When growing up in a functional food system, it’s easy to overlook the many benefits we take for granted. Take, for instance, food safety. Contaminants like allergens, foodborne pathogens and safety hazards abound as food travels across the globe, so we must mitigate exposure when and where necessary.

With plastic, our global system has made food far less of a threat to our health than before its advent, with practices and procedures that keep our products safer and storing its nutritional content for longer. These coordinated efforts have made food distribution possible during even the worst of times (like during a pandemic).

Packaging also increases the shelf-life of perishable foods, giving us a chance to enjoy fresh raspberries in February and cook fresh Chilean and Norwegian salmon around the world. Without plastic, the raspberries would quickly grow mold and the salmon would harbor a dangerous amount of pathogens. See the chart to the right for more demonstrated benefits of food packaging advancements.

Plastic packaging also lowers transportation costs and fuel needs. Plastic containers can be impossibly thin and infinitely stackable. They’re also more supportive and water-resistant than cardboard, less rigid than tin, and far lighter and more durable than glass.

But isn’t plastic inherently bad? And made from things it supposedly offsets, like fuel and gas? This is where it gets hard to balance plastic’s omnipresence in global commerce.

Oh, it’s definitely bad…

In 2018, food containers and packaging generated more than 82 million tons of waste in the U.S. alone. With 122 million households in the U.S. at that time, that comes to 1,350 pounds of plastic waste per household in a single year.

And unfortunately, it’s only gotten worse. While supermarkets and manufacturers began implementing rigorous greenhouse gas-reducing strategies in the 2010s, the pandemic hit. This event alone reversed the course of seeing sizeable gains in slowing single-use plastic production.

During Covid, plastic production increased by 30% to meet CDC requirements for heightened hygiene efforts and consumer demand for online orders from supermarkets and retailers. Even more concerning, online grocery shopping spend isn’t slowing down anytime soon (see the projection through 2025 below).

To offset this increase in plastics production, Americans are recycling more than ever. Unfortunately, the issue extends beyond our immediate control — it’s in the hands of our municipal recycling programs. And some of these programs are more diligent about recycling than others.

The U.S. has historically sent approximately one-third of its recyclable waste abroad. Since 2018, when China stopped accepting shipments of our plastic waste, the U.S. redirected most of its recyclables to other countries, including Canada, Mexico, and Malaysia.

But as more countries refuse shipments, we are forced to use our own domestic recycling facilities more often. With sudden overuse and little to no budget allocated, these municipal plants grow in disrepair, resulting in only 9% of total recyclables currently getting recycled.

Recycling: breaking down a complicated process

Though the majority of plastic waste isn’t recycled because of lack of proper facilities, it’s also because recycling requires a very precise sorting process. For instance, even the smallest bit of food “contaminates” a potentially recyclable container.

Materials we assume are easily recyclable turn out to be the opposite. Take polymer films, like plastic wraps, grocery bags, and sandwich bags. Throw those into regular recycling bins and they can ruin the whole load. Low-quality, non-recyclable plastic film (often labeled as #4 LDPE plastics) contaminates higher-quality polymers and, due to sorting costs, the entire bin will likely be routed to the landfill or incinerator. So we must pay attention to those recyclable numbers on the bottom of a package.

On the other end of the packaging spectrum is highly complex, multi-layered packaging. Think that organic applesauce pouch or shelf-stable oat milk is recyclable?

The revolutionary yet complex design is anything but, as this illustration shows. Just recycle the plastic top (not included in this diagram, by the way), and throw the pouch or carton out. Even if it were recyclable, the residue inside can render it “contaminated”.

Some companies freely use the ubiquitous green triangle on their packaging, or tout their products as “organic” or “natural” without any further information or instruction (we’re looking at you, plastic bags and yogurt pouches).

This misleads many of us so we assume that these kinds of containers are universally recyclable. Until companies correct misleading recycling labels, this kind of packaging, plus the load of recyclables they’re combined with, are less likely to get recycled.

“You look at an organic, gluten-free kale chip package and it’s wrapped in seven plastics with undefined inks and metallized polymers. It doesn’t have a recycling symbol on it because you could never recycle it.

Isn’t it astonishing that we would have that much focus on what’s inside the package and so little focus on what’s outside?”

– William McDonough, sustainability designer & entrepreneur

What can all of us do?

While the market is growing for green packaging materials to replace many common plastics, we are still a ways off till we see widespread implementation, especially among common consumer goods. So what can we do to move this process along faster?

As regular grocery store customers, we have an impact and can reroute demand to improve channels and packaging. Even just implementing one or two of these tips can have a meaningful impact on your local recycling system, as well as the greater good of the environment:

  • Limit use of thin plastic films (#4 LDPE in above image), like plastic wrap and single-use resealable bags. And instead of recycling these at home, bring these products to grocery stores that recycle the menacing films.
  • Refrain from buying products with multiple materials, especially pouches and lined paper products. This includes milk and juice cartons with the screw-top and to-go containers and cups.
  • Just because a product is “organic” or “all natural” doesn’t mean it’s recyclable, so be sure to check the recycling label.
  • Avoid products with “pointless packaging”, like baby spinach that’s in a clear bag within a plastic clamshell. Packaging like this hurts the whole system.
  • Thoroughly wash out all recyclables. Even a small piece of food can render it “contaminated.”
  • Buy products with packaging that clearly states that it’s made from recycled materials.
  • When ordering food for takeout or delivery, ask the restaurant to exclude cutlery, packets, etc.
  • Consider composting, but don’t recycle compostable plastics – that will contaminate the whole load of plastic. Want to compost but afraid of pests or don’t have the space? Some Whole Foods stores have composting available.
  • Opt for glass food containers that you’ll use forever, instead of plastic ones.

The best thing we can do for global health?

Only buy what we know we’re going to consume. It’s a holistic solution that decreases food waste and packaging, lessens transport, reduces energy use and greenhouse gases, and improves our health and well-being while being mindful of the next generation.

Remember: everything comes at a cost. It’s tough to put into practice but here are some helpful grocery-store shopping tips.

Plastic food packaging: opportunity or lost cause?


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Plastic is ever-present, as seemingly ubiquitous as wood or metal. It’s hard to believe that it wasn’t a consumer product until after World War II when we had a significant surplus on our hands that was reserved for creating vehicle and munition parts (should the war have continued). That excess plastic was quickly and cleverly woven into our lives, making countless products cheaper, lighter, and longer-lasting. In fact, clocking in with a half-life of 400 years, many would argue that it’s too long-lasting.

A plastic love story

But plastic has its proven applications. Whether your primary concern is a meaningful reduction in food waste or freight costs, or improved sanitation practices during Covid, its benefits to our food system are substantial.

Let’s take Western Europe as an example. These countries have instituted food packaging practices across their supply chains, providing shoppers more time to consume every perishable item they purchase, thus increasing food safety measures while lowering food waste…and all at a reasonable price.

As insane as it sounds, perhaps the Earth benefits from plastic to some degree, too. Less food waste, more and varied food delivered directly to the consumer from around the world, and even fewer trucks on the road with lighter loads to carry equates to fewer greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.

The elephant-sized container in the room

With its myriad benefits, plastics certainly have their place in our food system. But it becomes more complicated when only 9% of U.S. plastics are recycled, with the overwhelming majority being tossed out as trash to end up on shores, in watersheds, on roadsides, and landfills. And from there, it sits and degrades for hundreds of years, if it’s not incinerated into greenhouse gases first.

Like many things, a lack of foresight and preparation is to blame. Prior to 2018, China accepted the world’s plastic waste, so the U.S. and other countries sent it packing, literally, across the globe. But once China stopped taking foreign refuse, countries exporting their waste had to rely on their domestic facilities for processing. For the U.S., the infrastructure was ill-prepared for this sudden demand.

This is why the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports a lack of recycling facilities as the main contributor to unrecycled plastics. So even though many of us dutifully separate out our glass, plastic, and cardboard products each week, there’s little guarantee those items will be repurposed.

People don’t know what’s happening to their trash.

They think they’re saving the world…There have been no global regulations – just a long, dirty market that allows some companies to take advantage of a world without rules.”

– Andrew Spicer, Social Responsibility professor, University of South Carolina

There’s still a chance for these unrecycled recyclables to be repurposed…just most likely not here. About 1.2 billion pounds of plastic waste from the U.S. gets exported to Canada, as well as to developing nations like Mexico, Malaysia, India, and Vietnam.

Global garbage relocation

But this solution is counterproductive, as it requires transport and fuel costs to ship these plastics to countries that may not even have a waste management system for their own citizens. It is this gross inefficiency that made 189 countries agree to limit the amount of plastic waste shipped overseas as part of the 2019 Basel Convention, and more developing nations to refuse our plastic garbage.

And now it’s not even feasible to export the plastics we can’t handle. Towns like Stamford, Connecticut experienced the massive financial burden of exporting plastic waste in just one year, going from $95,000 in revenues by selling its recyclables, to paying $700,000 to haul it all away.

And so goes the continuing decline of U.S. recycling infrastructure. More and more municipalities, each one with its unique recycling guidelines, have determined that it was far more economical to just simply toss recycling in the garbage, resulting in incinerating more than half of recyclable plastics.

And, in the past, alternative options haven’t looked much better. Back in 2016, Trucost, S&P Global’s climate research division, published a study that found replacing plastic with a mix of alternative materials (e.g., recycled paper products, organic matter) may have four times the negative environmental impact than current plastic production.

But thanks to the research and actions of companies, universities, and countless others over the last few years, there is reason to believe the course of alternative packaging materials has pivoted. These efforts, when combined, are capable of disrupting the packaging industry. And we all stand to benefit from their progress.

Supermarket supply-chain sweep

Food retailers have a unique power to shape demand for single-use plastics. ReFED, a national nonprofit working to eliminate food waste, noted that grocers connect all points along the supply chain, from manufacturers to consumers. Though they cannot address single-use plastic waste alone, food retailers can exert that level and breadth of influence to drive change.

Regional grocers have restarted their reduction initiatives that were paused during the pandemic. Giant announced they will be free of single-use plastic by 2025. Aldi is committed to reducing and removing unnecessary plastic and packaging from their products. Kroger wants your trash. They encourage customers to mail in their used food packing made from TerraCycle.

Loop, a zero-waste grocer, collaborates with companies to stock products from national brands like Nature’s Path, Tropicana, Crest, and Clorox, in reusable containers. When the containers are empty, its customers return the packaging in a postage-paid reusable tote. And Loop is currently roping in several retail partners, like Kroger and Walgreens, to gain much-needed traction.

These companies clearly communicate their intention to reduce single-use plastics with specific dates. Their stores are also applying pressure across their supply chain to support their efforts, from demanding new packaging from suppliers to providing customers with on-site plastic film and composting management.

The green packaging frontier

The “green packaging” space is growing as more players enter the $290B international market with proprietary ‘green’ materials that can compete with plastic. Led by the food & beverage industry, this growth is fueled by stringent regulations on single-use plastics and consumer demand for sustainable packaging.

Amcor, a Swiss packaging company, created metal-free “AmLite Ultra”, an applied solution that makes those pesky multi-layer baby & toddler food pouches more recyclable. And, despite the increased demand for single-use plastics due to Covid, the company still pledges to develop all recyclable or reusable packaging by 2025.

Also based in Switzerland, Tetra Pak is using its position as a leader in packaging production to create new lines of plant-based polymers ethically sourced from Brazil-based petrochemical company, Braskem.

Imagine having all paper and plastic plates, cups, and straws compostable. NatureWorks uses carbohydrates from plants for more sustainable plastics and fibers used for 3D printing, injection molding, films, and foam.

A company I’ve seen multiple times at restaurants and grocery stores is VegWare, a leader in compostable foodservice packaging. Based in the U.K., the company prides itself on its award-winning products that are durable, lightweight and well-designed. My personal experience concurred: the straw didn’t disintegrate into my smoothie, even when I left it in the car for a while. That’s a win in my book.

Institutional expertise

And it’s not just companies jumping on the bandwagon. Researchers at Penn State developed an inexpensive, compostable “biofilm” that could replace plastic barrier coatings in food packaging.

And not to be outdone, researchers from Harvard’s School of Engineering & Applied Sciences and School of Public Health have teamed up to create a potentially disruptive technology called rotary jet-spinning (“RJS”) that has applications from healthcare to food packaging.

RJS product technology quickly wraps an object in a liquid polymer solution that solidifies to create a durable anti-microbial layer. Since the polymer is a naturally occurring polysaccharide, the wrap is biodegradable. Another benefit? The polymer has been proven to substantially increase produce shelf life.

With other green packaging players champing at the bit, there’s good reason to feel optimistic about plastic’s future in our food system. Much of its success will rely on creating a closed-loop system that’s prepared for recycling waste back into viable products.

Newtrient’s Carbon Quest


D2D’s Digging In talks with Mark Stoermann and Jamie Vander Molen about the approach to answering that question taken by Newtrient – a midwestern team of experts focused on helping producers find innovative solutions to challenges posed by climate change.

  • Listen to Mark and Jamie explain why technology and markets go hand-in-hand in advancing creative farming practices that sequester more of the carbon we need for healthy, regenerative soil.
  • Let them explain how cooperation and collaboration lead to effective new approaches to such things as waste management, tillage and cropping patterns – real-world answers to climate change that deliver both the environmental results we need and the farm profitability that makes improvement possible.
  • Learn how this positive approach to climate change can help agriculture deliver a disproportionate share of our overall carbon sequestration goals.
  • Hear the barriers to real progress that emerge when over-regulation stifles initiative and chokes off the curiosity that fuels entrepreneurship.

It’s a lively conversation with talented and passionate people – experts with deep roots in the dairy world and other farming sectors who recognize the power and potential of the agricultural sector in building a sustainable, market-based response to climate change. Together, they provide an upbeat overview of the ag world’s efforts to combat climate change – while providing an uninterrupted supply of the food we all need.

Give it a listen.  It’s time well spent.

Anybody Want a Job in Ag?


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

A Perfect Storm of Labor Issues?

Labor issues have become one of the most significant challenges facing our efforts to move past the trauma to our food system caused by Covid. What’s just as bad, they complicate our efforts to combat the extraordinary inflationary pressures facing food consumers everywhere.

Labor issues are a complex mix of events and circumstances coming together in a perfect storm of real – and potentially expanding – challenges to our entire food system. In response, labor advocates and supportive politicians advance policies to attract and entice reluctant workers, with scant attention to the resulting higher labor costs, or the inflationary pressures they create for food consumers. The storm is becoming increasingly visible across the country.

California Governor Gavin Newsom recently generated headlines by changing his stance and initial policies by signing a controversial bill to expand the ability of farm unions to organize. Supporters of the measure say it will help workers build the strong unions needed to obtain the wages and work conditions they want and deserve. Detractors point to the potential for additional labor costs and the continuation of food price inflation – and workers to face pressure from union organizers to join – and risk retaliation of some form because their ballots will no longer be secret.

More than a Political Dispute

California’s 69,000 farms and ranches support about 1.2 million jobs, growing grapes, almonds, dairy products, lettuce, berries, oranges, rice, and other crops. The health of the agricultural sector is vital to the state’s economy – and our nation’s food supply.

In New York, officials have approved a change in regulations that reduce the threshold for overtime from 60 hours to 40 hours for farm workers, phased in over a 10-year period. Progressive organizations champion the move. But farmers say the change may work against worker interests. They note the price pressures that limit their margins and inability to pass higher costs on to a reluctant buyer. New York taxpayers noted that the bill contains a reimbursement clause that will shift at least some of the costs to the state taxpayer.

The Golden State also is pondering an increase in the California minimum wage, from $15.00 an hour to $22.50. Minimum hourly wages vary from state to state, generally between $7.25 to $15.00. But whatever the mandated minimum, higher wages mean higher costs to somebody – and most often, the consumer winds up at the end of the chain. Your Big Mac just got more expensive.

The fundamental argument seems to come down to a simple question…

Who pays?

Will consumers accept higher food costs that may be generated in addressing these complex labor issues? Will taxpayers support the use of tax monies to fund mandated labor conditions? Or have consumers built up a resistance to further price rises? As one California grower pointed out to the media, when the labor cost exceeds what I can get from the market for my crop, I have no choice but to leave it in the field.

Who are ‘Agricultural Workers?’

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) describes farm workers as those who maintain crops and tend livestock, performing physical labor and operating machinery under the supervision of farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers.

BLS estimates the total number of agricultural workers across the country at 876,900 in 2021, roughly 90 percent categorized as crop and animal workers. The remainder is essentially equipment operators, breeding specialists, and various technical experts.

BLS also records another 210,000 workers in the various industries supporting farmers, including truckers, equipment maintenance and repair specialists, supply delivery personnel, and related farm service organizations.

It’s All About People, Not Just Numbers

The cold labor data fails to capture a critical element of the current labor issue. People, not tables and charts and technological innovations, make the modern agricultural system function. Someone has to turn on the switch, after all. And maybe more relevant to the current situation, someone must do the hard, hard physical labor that farming and ranching still entails.

Source for image: AgAmerica.com.

Much of the agricultural world still depends upon people willing to pick and harvest crops, especially the fruit and vegetables essential to a healthy diet. Farmers need help operating the complex equipment that goes into planting, protecting, and nurturing crops, herds, and flocks. They sometimes need special knowledge and skills to operate dairy farms, maintain healthy birds and cattle, or manage complex regenerative cropping systems.

Above all, they need help that is not just available but reliably available. The Covid era ushered in a new attitude among many workforce segments – a simple unwillingness to commit to doing much of the essential farm work that makes the whole system sustainable. Farmers and ranchers increasingly complain not just of the difficulty of recruiting help, but in finding help actually willing to show up, day after day.

Labor interests ask for more – but not just more money, but more control over workplace conditions, family support, job flexibility, time off, and other deeply personal considerations. The recent threat of a major railroad strike brought this new reality home when workers made work-life balance a significant issue in negotiations, far more than the agreed-upon 24% wage increase.

The importance of farm labor has been magnified by another simple change – a smaller and aging cadre of on-farm work.

The average age of a U.S. farmer today is 57.5 years, up more than a full year in the past decade. (Other estimates place the average age of principal farm operators at 59.4.) The large majority of U.S. farms may still be family owned. But fewer of those family members seem interested in staying on the farm and even less inclined to take on sole responsibility for the steady and unrelenting hard labor that farming still demands.

Doesn’t Immigrant Labor Offset This?

Immigrant labor – legal and illegal — has been the primary source of relief for the labor pains felt on the farm and ranch. AgAmerica’s analysis of the labor situation estimated that as much as 73 percent of the U.S. agricultural labor force comprises immigrants, compared with just 13 percent of immigrants in the overall U.S. population.

Covid ushered in a sharp change in international travel, and the normal flow of immigration was not immune to its chilling effects.

Students of the labor issue also note that rising education levels and expanding employment options are diminishing the willingness of immigrants to take on often back-breaking fieldwork.

Government agencies also are anxiously awaiting November’s fiscal-year-end labor report from BLS, both to assess trends in agricultural employment and to examine what, if any, effect the recent wave of immigration at the southern U.S. border may be having on the situation. Border authorities report more than 2 million encounters with people trying to enter the country in the first 11 months of fiscal 2022.

Immigration reform advocates contend that in addition to the 1.3 million immigrants released into the United States, up to another 1 million may have slipped past border authorities. While the exact figures are subject to debate, the influx is significant enough to prompt animated discussion on the need for immigration reform to bring greater order to the integration of a potentially sizeable addition to the agricultural labor force.

Dirt to Dinner will monitor the BLS report due in late November and continue to report on significant insights it may contain.

Is the Produce Industry in a Pickle?

The problem affects almost all segments of modern agriculture. But none seems to face a larger immediate challenge than the world of produce. Physical labor remains absolutely essential to economic survival for fruit and vegetable producers. As recently as 2012, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) estimated that as much as 20 percent of U.S. produce never left the field due to labor shortages. A 2019 study by Santa Clara University pegged the waste figure at a whopping 33.7 percent, with labor shortages cited as a major factor.

The problem is critical in the western United States, where the produce industry is a massive element of state and national economies. Growers warn that shortages in field labor might mean spot shortages or disruptions to the normal flow of goods to market. In other words, lingering labor issues could contribute to a repeat of some of the supply disruptions seen during the Covid pandemic. Dealing with such labor-driven disruptions is the driving force behind creating the H-2A ‘guest worker” program.

The U.S. Labor Department’s H-2A program began in 1986 to allow producers to bring in temporary workers when domestic workers are unavailable. The program has been a big help to producers – with the total number of these agricultural visas quadrupling since 2007.

NRDC also notes that up to half of all farm workers are undocumented immigrants. State Department data cited by USA Facts notes that while requests for visas into the United States for tourism, schooling, and work declined sharply during Covid, agricultural visa requests actually rose.

As impressive as those numbers may be, farmers and ranchers quickly say the labor problem continues to be a big challenge. The H-2A program comes in for particular criticism for its complex filing processes, long time frames, and general bureaucratic hassles – all anathema to harried farm operators. Few, if any, observers expect progress on the underlying problem of immigration reform at the federal level. Likewise, farm managers and others across the food chain question how the changing attitudes toward work that have emerged in a Covid and post-Covid world will play out among the overall U.S. workforce.

So What are We Doing about the Problem?

In the interim, efforts to deal with the labor issue have taken several directions.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports media pay for farm labor at $14.27 per hour in 2021, or just under $30,000 per year. Equipment operators, breeders, and other specialized skill positions pay a bit more, averaging $36,000-40,000. Analysis by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service shows an 8 percent increase in overall farm labor wages. It’s simple economics: more money stimulates supply, and labor is no different.

  • Further reform of the H-2A program

Legislation to streamline the process and reduce at least some of the most frustrating aspects of its administration are pending in Congress, with broad bipartisan support. But the political thicket remains in full force, with lingering differences of opinion still to be resolved.

  • Accelerated adoption of technology where economically feasible

Innovation in farm-related automation and robotics offers help if not an outright solution. Artificial intelligence, drone technology, and other emerging tools for the farmer and rancher no longer seem so far away or economically out of reach. But ag economists also caution that such investments will be made only if they show a return.

Farmers must feel confident that the additional spending will help the bottom line, not hurt it. Many also point to the risks of becoming too dependent on technology, as called to mind by the recent global shortage of computer chips and growing cyber-security threats from an aggressive international hacker community.

  • Changed farming focus

Perhaps in exasperation or necessity, some farmers report moving away from labor-intensive crops and farming. A few cite the frustrations of modern agriculture – especially on the labor front – as a growing reason to retire early or cease farming altogether. Credible data on the extent of this change remains elusive. But the subject comes up too frequently to be ignored.

The Ins & Outs of Climate-Conscious Eating

For instance, I enjoy eating meat, and I also care about the environment. Are the two mutually exclusive? Can only those who follow a plant-based, vegan, or vegetarian diet truly be living an environmentally-friendly life?

The idea of a climate-conscious diet and vilifying animal protein got a boost from The Lancet, a scientific and health journal. Their EAT-Lancet diet vilified protein as both unhealthy for consumption and for the planet. However, well-known Registered Dietitian and author of Sacred Cow, Diana Rodgers rebuts some of the arguments against meat in Eat-Lancet. She states a few critical thoughts to those planning to remove meat from their diets:

  • Ridding the world of animals for nutrition would not simply free up arable land for crop harvest—agricultural and animal land is not interchangeable.
  • You need grazing animals for a healthy grassland ecosystem, as their movement stimulates growth, and diversifies the soil microbiome which helps it to serve as a water and CO2 sink. In fact, 85% of grazing cattle land is land that cannot be cropped.
  • 90% of what cattle eat for feed is forage and plant leftovers that humans cannot eat, serving as upcycled food.
  • 50% of meat byproducts, such as the carcass, is used for other products like insulin, leather, footballs, and medical applications.

Overlooked Complexities

A climate-conscious diet is nuanced and complex as you can see from just looking at red meat. Even those with the best intentions may not understand its intricacies.

Let’s imagine a man hypothetically named “John” for a moment. John lives in California and loves the outdoors. He is passionate about the environment and is greatly concerned about his own carbon footprint. Because of this, he has opted for a vegetarian diet, often shaming his meat-eating friends for their “destructive” protein choices.

A few of John’s favorite locally-grown foods include avocados, peaches, almonds, and plums. Well-intentioned John may not know that these vegetarian options have their fair share of impact on the environment and that meat production is actually a massive opportunity for greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction.

Let’s take avocados:

Delicious and nutrient-dense, avocados are a staggeringly popular fruit among vegetarian and vegan dieters. However, did you know that avocados are considered monoculture plants, meaning that they are typically grown on a single parcel of land each year?  

Monoculture crops are known to deplete soil because of a lack of biodiversity. Planting in the same place yearly strips nutrients from the earth, forcing farmers to use excess fertilizers to re-invigorate and restore soils for future plantings. While we know moderate fertilizer use can be sustainable, monoculture crops are generally worst for land degradation than polyculture crops.

Okay, well what about peaches?

Peaches are not the most environmentally destructive but John certainly did not realize just how large their water footprint is: it takes 109 gallons of water to make 1 pound of peaches. Peaches grown in areas with low-water reserves exacerbate water-shortage problems.

Almonds are a great treat!

They’re abundant in nutrients and energy-dense. But did you know it takes around 3.56 CO2e (Carbon dioxide equivalent) to produce 2.2 pounds of dry almonds? This is equal to a car driving about 8 and a half miles. Not to mention, it takes 1 to 3 gallons of water to just grow one almond, not including shelling and hulling.  

While the water footprint is high, almonds can have a very small carbon footprint if responsibly farmed. To offset almond’s overall impact, be sure to mix up your nut choices—cashews, peanuts and walnuts have significantly smaller water footprints.

Please don’t take this as advice to eliminate avocadoes, peaches, and almonds from your diet; our bodies need nutrient-dense produce and nuts like these every day!

These examples are to shed some light on the the understated complexities of the foods we eat. We simply do not have the technology to properly provide transparency at every step of the supply chain with every food product to determine its water use, land degradation deforestation, and soil health, and so on.

But we can use trends to direct us to a diet that considers these factors in addition to others, like nutrient density.

Well-Intentioned Dieters

Like John, many of us quickly determine foods to be “good” or “bad,” when the truth is we often don’t know the environmental impact of how a grower farms or a processor packages. We may trust a brand, a label, or a certification, but be cognizant that each food carries with it its own unique footprint.

The only way to stop any environmental impact would be to stop…eating.

But we would be remiss if we did not circle back on our meat discussion. John vilifies his carnivore counterparts for their “destructive” meat consumption. While we know beef a significant contributor GHGs solutions, cattle operations are actually a massive part of a large-scale solution for the reduction of GHGs.

Utilizing livestock for land management and cattle grazing to increase soil microbiome ultimately helps with carbon sequestration. Regenerative ranching can have vast positive effects on our land long term.

If meat is part of your regular and varied diet, be sure to include turkey or chicken as they often require less water, less feed, and less land.

And look into sustainable cattle operations and brands that are transparent with their growing methods and ones use third parties to certify their regenerative practices or partners—you can often find this information on a brand’s website.

For the reasons you just read, some vegans who seek fruits, nuts, and dairy as a primary source of protein and nutrients can actually have a higher carbon or water footprint than a flexitarian dieter who eats one serving of meat per day, and likely struggles to get in their full daily nutrient compliment without protein powder.

Let’s help John find some alternate climate-conscious food choices, shall we?

Climate-conscious foods

Here are a few foods that fall within this category. Of course, we are not suggesting we eat only the following foods. We recommend a varied diet both for your health as well as the health of the environment.

  • Grains like quinoa, farro, and oats are much less resource-intensive to produce. They require less water and land than other foods, and can generally withstand various weather conditions, helping to reduce food waste. They are easily transported and can be stored for long periods.
  • Beans, Pulses, and Lentils are debatably the most easily accessible, affordable, and sustainable foods. These require little water to produce and are natural nitrogen stores, meaning they store nitrogen in the soil for other plants to use—even after their life cycle. They also tend to be a fair source of protein.
  • Nuts & Seeds are great sources of protein. While some nuts have a high-water footprint, cashews, peanuts, and walnuts are less water-intensive and are also a great source of protein and healthy fats.
  • Mushrooms are incredibly versatile and have a very low environmental impact. Mushrooms are excellent at utilizing byproducts of other plants for nutrients to grow—upcycling crop byproducts to support their own growth by using them as natural fertilizers. Mushrooms use as little as 2 gallons per pound and contribute nominal CO2 emissions. Additionally, they are not land-intensive crops and can be grown close together in dark areas.
  • Seaweed is a very cool plant that is full of beneficial nutritional value. It does not require any fertilizers to grow, and it can retain and store high amounts of phosphorus and nitrogen which can help to improve soil run-off. Bonus: it grows faster than plants on land, thus helping decrease CO2.

Regenerative ag practices

We have written at length about regenerative agriculture and its expansive role in combatting climate change. Because it is protective of existing lands AND focuses on regeneration it is debatably the most important variable in climate-conscious eating.

Many growers and farmers are now dedicating their production strategies to focusing on regeneration and sustainability. FoodInsights reports that 19% of US farmers are farming regeneratively, with Rabobank reporting that 70% of US farmers have taken steps towards implementing sustainable agricultural practices.

Because regenerative agriculture works to pull carbon from the air into stores in the soil, it quite literally has the potential to help reverse climate change. Regenerative ag is also not reserved for just organic or conventional farming.

Its strategies can be applied across the board. Brands like General Mills, Danone, Kellogg, Cargill, and Nestle, among others, are investing in regenerative technologies to rebuild biodiversity and eliminate deforestation.

Only buy what you’re going to eat

Food waste is the most important consideration when thinking about climate-conscious eating. The USDA’s Economic Research Service estimates food waste is between 30 to 40% of the food supply nationally. They also state that 31% of food loss is at the retail and consumer level, equaling 133 billion pounds and $161 billion worth of food.

Food waste occurs due to many reasons—spoilage, issues during drying, milling, or transporting, processing that exposes food to damage and equipment malfunction.

In some cases, it is actually due to consumers not properly understanding the differences between the “best by,” “use by,” “sell by,” and “best before” labels. Some well-meaning consumers will toss perfectly good foods in an effort to avoid food-borne illnesses when they are actually tossing out something that is perfectly edible.

43% of our total food waste in the U.S. comes from homes, so it is our responsibility to help combat this. Some common sources of food waste include coffee, milk, apples, greens, bread, potatoes, and cooked pasta.

So be sure to make deliberate shopping lists to avoid overbuying and cooking too much. Freeze foods or share with others if they can keep for future consumption, and know how to read your labels so you avoid throwing out perfectly good food!

Genetically-modified and engineered foods

While genetically-modified technologies have existed for some time now, the last five years have shown us the reality of what feeding a growing population will look like…and it is hitting consumers in the face.

A consumer report from Mintel detailed that the acceptance of GM technologies is rising, and consumers are now leaning into biotech as a major solution for both climate change combatant strategies and feeding the world.

Consumer acceptance of GM technologies is critical in developed countries for purchasing choices, but even more vital, and quite frankly, life-saving for underdeveloped countries that rely on higher yields and pest-control technologies to produce enough food to feed their populations.

 

Between higher crop yields, higher farm profits, and in some cases, lower pesticide use, GM technologies contribute to economic, environmental, and health benefits.

Studies have also shown that GM crops help reduce GHG emissions by supporting carbon sequestration in the soil. This is done by facilitating reduced tillage, lowering the need to put more land under plow, and, in turn, prevents excess CO2 emissions from land use.

Now when you see a GMO label on foods, remind yourself that you are choosing a food that is helping the world, not hurting it.

Omega 3 & 6: What’s the difference?


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Covid has prompted many of us to be more cognizant of our health. Yet statistics show that the average American has increased fat intake in the last decade. This extra fat can be stored in the body, causing weight gain, inflammation, and increased white fat stores, all precursors to health issues.

So, how much fat are we supposed to eat? Is too much omega-6 fats the issue? And if so, how can we alter our diet to obtain the correct ratio? Let’s find out.

The Fats of Today

Most Americans consume a “Western diet,” where we’re not eating nearly enough fruits and vegetables, but too much sodium, sugar, and fat – specifically omega-6 fats.

But this way of eating is relatively new to us. At each meal in the 1900s, most Americans ate a large portion of carbs with their meat and vegetables; processed, high-fat foods were not readily available. But today’s diet reflects the irresistible convenience of fast foods and processed foods, putting that ratio to an astounding 15:1. The recommended amount by health officials is 4:1 Omega 6 to Omega 3.

Many of the foods we eat every day have plenty of omega-6 fats. This includes healthy nuts, seeds, and seed oils. However, fast food, fried foods, and too much oil used in food manufacturing are the biggest culprit of unhealthy omega 6 overconsumption, leading to a reduced intake of omega 3s found primarily in fatty fish, like salmon, avocadoes, and olive oil.

The disparity between omega 6 and omega 3 consumption over the last few decades could be why there has been a deluge of diseases with inflammation markers, such as cardiovascular disease, obesity, autoimmune diseases, and cancer. As we like to say, everything is in moderation, too much of any one thing can cause a problem, and omega 6s are no exception.

For instance, eating fast food, fried food, processed food, and skipping on healthy fish, fruits, and vegetables obviously will give you diseases you would rather avoid. Excess amounts of omega 6s, over 17 grams for men and 12 for women, especially as we age, can cause low-grade inflammation and a lower fat burn rate.

Yet various health organizations, including Mount Sinai and Harvard Health, still say this is not the case, and we should not be worried about our omega 6-to-omega 3 ratio as long as we’re eating the right foods in the right amounts. Harvard Health defends Omega 6s when responsibly consumed. Citing studies from the American Heart Association show they are safe and beneficial for the heart and circulation when appropriately consumed.

What do other experts have to say about this? Are we damaging our health with our Western diet?

We spoke with Dr. Lilly D’Angelo, President of Global Food and Beverage Technology Associates, LLC, to uncover the truth about omega-6 fatty acids and their potential adverse health effects. Dr. D’Angelo is an expert in the field. During her career working in the food and beverage industry, she studied omega-6 and 3 fats and their effects on the body. 

“One commonality of these groups of fatty acids is that, they cannot be produced in our bodies by ourselves– we have to take them from our food. We have to rely on external sources”

– Dr. Lilly D’Angelo

Expert Take on Omega 3 & Omega 6 Relationship

There are pros and cons to both Omega-3 and Omega-6 fatty acids. Omega 3s contain eicosatetraenoic acid (EPA), and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), along with alpha-linolenic acid (ALA). EPA and DHA both have beneficial anti-inflammatory components and provide various benefits. Omega 6, on the other hand, contains linolenic acid (LA), and this converts to arachidonic acid and gamma-linoleic acid, which is what’s primarily found in seed oils.

These fatty acids can aid in the repair and growth of skeletal muscle tissue. Both omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids are essential in our diets because our bodies can’t make these components themselves. We need to get them from food!

The differences between these two can also be seen on a molecular level. Dr. D’Angelo explains that omega-3 fatty acids have a double bond at the #3 carbon counting from the end of the “tail” of a long chain fatty acid, whereas Omega-6 fatty acids have a double bond at the #6 carbon counting from the end of the “tail” of a long chain fatty acid. In the hydrogenated oil, a type of processed oil, the double bonds are removed by adding hydrogens and therefore prolong the shelf life of these oils, hence removed antioxidant benefits of these oils.

It’s like this – the more double bonds a fatty acid has, the more benefits it contains since these double bonds work like an antioxidant in the body, protecting our cells from damaging free radicals.

Many say that linoleic acid, which we know comes from Omega-6 fatty acids and has few double bonds, can cause inflammation in our arteries, blood clots, and blood vessel constriction. Research shows that EPA and DHA from Omega 3s are both anti-inflammatory, with DHA being even more beneficial than EPA. These acids cause the opposite reaction of LA improving cognitive function, lowering blood pressure, and improving eye health. This is why we need to eat MORE omega 3s than 6s.

In Defense of Omega 6…

They’re not all bad, and Dr. D’Angelo says we should not cut out all omega-6 fats from our diet. We need them, just not as much as we’re currently consuming. Omega-6 fats help us maintain bone health and metabolism and contribute to a healthy diet. But the amount and type of foods we eat determine a healthy omega 6 intake.

If we eat a healthy diet, with five or more servings of fruits and vegetables, at least 50 grams of lean protein, and 28 grams of nuts and seeds each day, then we’ll get plenty of omega 6s. Limiting the consumption of fast-food, fried foods, and too much oil will help keep us on the right track regarding the current Western diet ratio.

Initially, the recommended ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 was 10:1, but studies show that this ratio was even too much omega-6, and Dr. D’Angelo agrees. The new guidance recommends an omega-6 to omega-3 ratio of at least 5:1, if not even 4:1, or 2.5:1. These ratios have been shown to have numerous health benefits, including prevention of cardiovascular disease.

So what about seed oils? Dr. D’Angelo points out that eating seed oils is perfectly fine, and they should be used instead of olive oil in some cases, like making stir-fry or deep-fried foods, because olive oil has a lower smoke point, that makes the food less tasty. Seed oils can fry your foods for a shorter period, saving nutrients. However, as with anything, moderation is key. She states:

Too much of anything isn’t a good thing.

Fruit is healthy, and we need it and should eat it daily, but too much fruit could have too much sugar for some. The same goes for omega 6. We need it for a healthy diet, but the negative effects can happen when we overdo it. When we fry, we cook with too much vegetable oil. Though it’s a good source of omega 6, it’s just too much.”

Let’s talk Omega 3s… 

As stated above, omega-3s contain both DHA and EPA. DHA is what’s found in fatty fish like salmon. It’s also in omega-3 supplements, like fish oil vitamins. We should focus on our DHA intake because it has the best protective benefits against cardiovascular disease.

When it comes to eating omega 3s and specifically DHA, the more we can consume, the better. The American Heart Association recommends eating seafood twice a week for this reason. But other foods include DHA, as well.

If you look at the labels on some of your foods, DHA may be added. Dr. D’Angelo talked about when she worked for Coca-Cola, and they added DHA into the Minute Maid Orange Juice. It was a huge seller and helped consumers get their DHA.

Adding DHA is especially common in dairy products. Dr. D’Angelo says almost every brand has some DHA: yogurts, milks, and even kids’ drinks like chocolate milk. Some snacks can have omega 3s added, but may also use high amounts of oil, so it’s essential to read the entire label before consuming.

DHA is also added to infant formula. This is because mothers naturally have DHA in their milk, and Dr. D’Angelo says pregnant women and new mothers should take DHA supplements to increase the amount of DHA they give to their babies.

A few takeaways

Focusing on our 5:1 ratio of omega 6 to omega 3s is crucial to maintaining good health. So too, is increasing our consumption of omega 3s any way we can. Here are some ways you can do that:

  1. Eat more fish – Fatty fish, like salmon and tuna, are the best source of DHA. Eating fatty fish twice a week is a great starting point. The list also includes trout, sardines, swordfish, mackerel, and mussels.
  2. Take a fish oil supplement – Although we recommend getting our nutrients from whole foods, Dr. D’Angelo says she even takes a DHA supplement from fish oil or another source to ensure she gets as much DHA as possible. These supplements can be found in the vitamin section at any grocery store. But always talk to your doctor before starting any new supplements.
  3. Consider the Mediterranean diet – We’ve discussed the Mediterranean diet before on D2D because it’s full of whole foods, fish, olive oil, and more that we need to lead a healthy lifestyle. D’Angelo says that those who follow a Mediterranean diet are the exception and have the correct ratio because the diet is full of whole foods with many omega 3s.
  4. Include foods with both Omega 3 and Omega 6 properties – Although most foods have one or the other, some foods have a good ratio of both, like flax seeds, spinach, and mangoes.

Digging In with Dr. Michael Swanson


Listen to our “Digging In” podcast to hear Dr. Michael Swanson, Wells Fargo Chief Agricultural Economist tell us why he believes there’s more to the food inflation story than just the scary numbers we see in headlines, or the bigger bill at the checkout counter. Learn more about where the real drivers of higher food costs are across our modern food chain. Listen to his comments on the mistakes we could make in the battle to combat climate change – mistakes that could do more harm than good to our environment. And pay special attention to his advice for consumers on dealing with rising food costs at the supermarket. 

High food price inflation isn’t here to stay. And even with recent price increases, we’re still getting an exceptional deal on the food we buy today – and a much better deal than we did in the past. While some surprising factors will continue to place upward price pressure on certain parts of our food system, consumers still have the power to manage their food costs to avoid the worst effects of higher food costs.

It’s all on Dirt to Dinner’s podcast, Digging In, where we dig into subjects that help you better understand our modern food system and make informed choices with the food you eat.

Fertilizer Restrictions’ Unintended Consequences


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Want to fight climate change right now? Need to meet short-term targets for reductions in greenhouse gases? Then restrict applications of certain fertilizers. That should work…right?

Maybe. Maybe not. The jury is still out. Why? Because of the gap between theory and practice… the ideal and the reality… the noble aspiration and the unintended consequences. It could be that we are pushing ideas too soon and too fast. For instance, if we were to eliminate or drastically reduce fossil fuels before wind and solar are ready for prime time, we would be riding our bicycles to the grocery store to buy only locally-produced food, a particularly hard feat in the dead of winter.

Matching idealism with practical reality

Idealism is a powerful driver of a better world. But it works best only if married to worldly reality. The solutions we all seek for our ag system’s sustainability and responsible role in managing climate issues will take time and cooperation, not a rush to ill-considered magic-bullet thinking and win-lose confrontation.

We’re seeing evidence of that all around us. The Netherlands is the world’s second-largest agricultural exporter, with annual sales of roughly $100 billion. But government officials are implementing controversial plans to mandate changes to farming practices to meet targeted reductions in nitrogen emissions and buy-out programs for lands that can’t meet specified targets.  Producers have been outspoken in their concerns about the implications of such controls on the future of the farming sector.

Better still, ask farmers in Sri Lanka about the 2021 flash-cut to organic farming. Without available practical options to replace commercial fertilizers, farmers faced draconian reductions in farm output – and farm income. Reduced production threatened food shortages and dramatic price increases.

The resulting unrest saw an estimated 300,000 protestors take to the streets, prompting violence and forcing a government literally to flee for its life.

A proposed reduction in some fertilizer use by the Canadian government brought a flurry of opposition from farming and trade interests across the middle of the country, where wheat and other crop production is the economic lifeblood of more than one province.

But an interesting fact is that the countries using the most fertilizer are not yet in the political crosshairs.

The driving idea is to embrace new ag production techniques that overcome the problems identified with traditional commercial fertilization. Too much fertilizer, haphazardly applied, more frequently and copiously than needed, can actually harm the soil, deplete it of essential nutritive properties, lead to the release of too much carbon from the soil into the air, and harm the watersheds. Everybody seems to know that – including the farm community, and the fertilizer and input industry that serves them.

Superficially, it sounds oh-so-reasonable. After all, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), ag is supposed to account for about 11 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. That’s substantially less than other sources, such as transportation (27%), electricity (25%), and industry (24%). The fertilizer industry alone is about 1.5%, mainly through using natural gas.

Finding the best balance point

Proper delivery of commercial fertilizers, such as precision farming, helps reduce these risks. It finds the optimal balance point between the use of costly inputs and the crop productivity that makes the difference between profit and loss for producers. The practical reality of farming is the existential need to operate profitably.

Many farmers already embrace sensible regulatory guidelines on fertilizer applications, such as those in Minnesota that spell out when and under what conditions nitrogen may be applied in fields. More broadly, producers are embracing soil-replenishing regenerative agricultural practices. It includes things such as expensive high-precision application equipment, sophisticated analysis of soil nutrient needs, and use of crops and cropping patterns that feed organic biomass back onto the soil to enrich it and make it healthier, among other practices. It means more minimum-till and no-till, and greater use of cover crops.

The roster of innovations and practical, real-world experimentation and data-based decisions expands every day – and not in a committee room or a lecture hall, but in the actual fields where the desire to do good and noble and rewarding things meets cold hard reality.

Also in reality, the key consideration is balance. Farmers aren’t indifferent to environmental issues. It’s more than a do-gooder syndrome. It’s recognition of their status as stewards of the land – people at the front lines of protecting and preserving the natural resources base that makes their lives and livelihoods possible. They want to do the right thing and are working like hell to find the optimal balance point in how to maximize productivity and protect the soil, water, and air that keep us all alive.

It’s simple: the world needs fertilizers to have a prayer of meeting the food needs of a growing world. It needs those fertilizers most in the parts of the world that can least afford them, and places where the alternatives to commercial fertilizers are most lacking.

The desired level of efficiency and productivity remains elusive in many parts of our world. It’s especially challenging in areas without the extensive investment needed to improve the availability of equipment and infrastructure essential to creating more biomass, or advancing education and support critical to higher productivity.

Is regenerative ag the same as organic farming?

Much of the support for mandated reductions in fertilizer applications is based on faith in alternative methods of delivering important plant nutrients. Proponents sometimes simplistically refer to this as greater reliance on ‘organic’ farming. After all, organic farming is predicated on avoiding the use of harmful chemicals.

Casual use of the term “organic’ may be a convenient shorthand for the idea of an environmentally friendly approach to food production. But is technically incorrect in this instance. ‘Organic’ farming is simply compliance with regulatory guidelines on the avoidance of a select group of chemicals in farming. It has nothing to do with the ecological effects of such practices.

In short, ‘organic’ farming is focused on how our food is produced, not the consequences of those practices on our environment – and most importantly, our soil. For instance, the yield per acre for organic corn, soybeans, and wheat is at least 40% less than its conventionally-grown counterpart. Which means, more land under plow to feed the world today. And all organic fertilizers are not manure-based. Organic farming is based on natural nutrients but many of them can be made synthetically.

The more recent thinking about innovative approaches to better fertilization practices is to focus on “regenerative” practices – the complex mix of crops, crop rotations, tillage practices, water use and other conservation practices that rehabilitate and renew topsoil. It focuses on making the soil work harder to provide its own necessary nutrients.

Regenerative agriculture encompasses a more holistic approach to the ultimate goal behind the fertilizer debate – which is building a sustainable food production system capable of meeting the rising demand for food – and especially plant proteins.

The world recognizes the need to take a new, bigger view of how fertilizers fit into the need for a kind of new Green Revolution. We’re moving to understand how to use fertilizers more wisely, and how to deliver critical soil nutrients more effectively and more sustainably. But the solution isn’t an either-or choice. It’s an “and” answer.

Commercial fertilizers, organic farming and the regenerative soil movement are partners in getting the absolute best from our existing natural resources, while actually enriching them in the process. They are partners not just in better management of carbon sequestration and reduced greenhouse gas emissions and best management of climate change. They are partners in feeding the world today and for future generations.

Even with aggressive implementation of soil-enriching practices and superior crop management practices, the responsible use of commercial fertilizers as a component of overall plant-nutrient management still promises to be the difference between failure and survival for many, many growers.

Digging in with Dr. Ray Goldberg


What strikes us about Dr. Goldberg’s passion is his desire to unite the food system, as evidenced in his most recent book, Food Citizenship. It highlights a series of interviews asking pertinent questions to those who think about health, nutrition, sustainability, food safety, and governance. He doesn’t believe there has to be a ‘winner’ or a ‘loser.’ He believes in capitalism which proves that companies can still work together to create value for the consumer and value for themselves. 

Dr. Goldberg understands that most corporations, farmers, scientists, and those who make our food believe in protecting the environment and making the high-quality, cheap food we have come to expect. His comments captured that idea repeatedly – the power of personal contact, real dialogue, and human interaction as the foundation of dispelling mistrust and suspicion and allowing those ‘win-win’ opportunities to proliferate. That, he observed, is a key to dealing with all the demands placed on the ag system – in adapting and evolving to deal with food security, environment, nutrition, better food products, etc. on top of feeding 9-10 billion mouths.

Dr. Goldberg is very proud of his latest accomplishment in creating the PAPSAC organization (Private and Public, Scientific, and Consumer Food policy symposium) which brings suppliers, producers, processors, distributors, consumers, scientists, and government leaders together to discuss how to utilize technology constructively and create a socially, environmentally, and economically-sound food system.

Together with John H. Davis, Dr. Goldberg developed the Agribusiness Program at Harvard Business School in 1955. From 1970 to 1997 he was the Moffett Professor of Agriculture and Business and head of the Agribusiness Program. Since 1997, he has chaired the Agribusiness Senior Management Seminars at Harvard Business School as Emeritus Professor and currently teaches a course on Food Policy and Agribusiness at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is also the author, co-author and/or editor of 23 books and over 110 articles on the global food system.

We hope you enjoy listening to our discussion with Dr. Goldberg.

Milk: Should you go ‘alternative’?


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Take a stroll down the dairy aisle in just about any grocery store, or pop into your favorite coffee shop, and you are sure to see a variety of alternative milks and non-dairy competitors piquing your interest. Whether you are vegan, lactose intolerant, looking for more protein, a fan of a thicker, denser flavor, or seeking something lower in calories, there is certainly a corner of the cooler for you.

Milk Alternatives

The key word here is alternatives. Much like plant-based meats and other protein alternatives are not the same as traditional meats in many ways, milk alternatives are not the same as cow’s milk. And furthermore, there are vast nutritional differences between all these ‘milks’.

It seems that as our options increase, so does our confusion. Is plant milk better than animal milk? Should I avoid dairy if I’m not lactose intolerant? Is soy good or bad?  Does oat milk have too much sugar?

This milk option confusion confronted me most recently at a visit to a Vermont farmer’s market. I grabbed my canvas bag and started my stroll through the tables of fresh produce, cheese spreads, and artisan goods. I came to a booth selling freshly brewed hot and iced coffees. As I stood in line, the patron in front of me ordered her large black coffee.

As the barista was pouring her cup, the patron began to stare, noticeably confused by the milk carafes in front of her: oat milk, whole milk, and almond milk. Her expression must have read “help me!” as the woman behind the counter set her coffee down and began to explain the differences in the selections in front of her:

“Okay, so you are familiar with whole milk, right? The primary difference between dairy milk and oat milk is that oat milk provides fewer nutrients, and most of the nutrients in it are fortified, meaning that they are added during processing rather than naturally occurring.

Whole milk also has about double the protein and half the carbs compared to oat milk. That said, lots of our customers love the sweet, creamy taste of oat milk, and it’s a nice option for those who are lactose intolerant.

I typically use almond milk for cooking, as it is a good one-to-one substitute for cow’s milk. And in my coffee, almond milk is the lowest in calories of the three options here but also the lowest in protein content.”

The woman smiled and cheerfully said, “I need all the nutrients and protein I can get! Whole milk it is!” I was so enthralled by the conversation. Over the course of a few sentences, the barista concisely provided a 411 on the milk options, of which I certainly would not have been consciously aware. When she handed me my medium iced latte I smiled and poured some almond milk since I had a protein-packed breakfast.

Nutritional Comparison of Milk Alternatives

According to Statista, milk-substitute consumption worldwide has more than doubled since 2013, and the same can be said for the U.S. But what are we actually drinking when we consume more and more of these alternatives? And which nutrients are we missing?

  • Cow’s Milk comes in many forms, including whole milk, 2%, 1% and skim. Whole milk is, in fact 3.5% fat, which has a 1.5% higher fat content than its 2% “reduced fat” counterpart.. Our bodies need fat to absorb fat-soluble vitamins like D, A, E, and K. Additionally, it is a significant source of protein, at about 9g per cup for whole and 8g for 2%. Cows milk is also considered a “complete protein” as it contains 9 of the essential amino acids.
  • Goat Milk is the closest nutritionally to cow’s milk. Some consumers may find that they have fewer digestive issues with goat milk when compared to other non-dairy milks. This may be because goat’s milk contains shorter chain fat molecules, and higher MCTs, making it easier to digest. However, goat’s milk contains lactose, so be wary of this if you have a lactose sensitivity.
  • Soy Milk took the non-dairy scene by storm starting in the ’90s, offering a tasty alternative to cow’s milk but without any digestive drawbacks. However, since then, anti-GMO activists have vilified this milk alternative, since 90% of soy produced in the U.S. is genetically modified (as we know, GMOs are safe and are the most studied seed science. Read more here).
  • Oat Milk is known for its creamy taste, high iron content, and lower cholesterol. It also contains about 3 grams of protein per eight-ounce serving and does not contain all essential amino acids. It is a nice option for those who are lactose intolerant or have a nut allergy but be mindful of your carbohydrate intake, as oat milk can contain up to 24 grams per eight-ounce serving.
  • Rice Milk may seem ideal if you are lactose intolerant or have a nut allergy, as it’s made from boiled rice, brown rice syrup, and starch. As you can imagine, those ingredients don’t exactly make for a creamy or nutrient-dense beverage, so to sweeten the taste, manufacturers typically add thickening agents, flavorings, and sweeteners like guar gum and carrageenan.
  • Almond Milk is mostly water with a blend of almonds. It is most similar to rice and soy milk in that it is less nutrient dense, containing less fat and protein than cow’s milk. Many brands promote the high nutrient levels of vitamins E, D, and calcium in almonds, but fail to address the amount of water and almonds used in manufacturing (some brands’ almond volume in its milk is as low as 2%). Instead, large amounts of water are needed.
  • Coconut Milk is one of the only alternative milks that will likely come in a can or box and can be found in full fat and reduced fat versions. Reduced fat contains more water, whereas the full fat is mainly saturated, making it suitable for cooking. A benefit of coconut milk is that it contains primarily medium-chain triglycerides (MCTs), which can be used as quick and lasting energy!
  • Hemp Milk, made from hemp seeds and water, packs a nutritional punch that even those suffering from nut allergies can enjoy. One eight-ounce glass contains upwards of 900 milligrams of anti-inflammatory omega 3s, all nine essential amino acids, 4 grams of protein, and 8 grams of fat. It also contains a fair amount of vitamins and minerals, including A, E, B12, D, potassium, zinc, and iron.

The list of milk alternatives does not end there; there is peanut, hazelnut, flax, quinoa, pistachio, cashew, and even camel milk… yes, camel. Newest on the scene? Potato milk.

As you can see from the nutritional profiles and other considerations, no milk is created equal. Depending on your dietary needs, taste preferences, or values, be sure to also consider the recommended daily values of vitamins and minerals when making your milk selection.

Beyond Nutrients: Sustainability

We would be remiss if we did not address the environmental impacts of the various milk alternatives. There has been criticism over the impact of the dairy industry on climate change, specifically by way of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions produced by dairy cows and cattle, but it is a complicated web.

The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) describes sustainable eating as “diets with low environmental impacts which contribute to food and nutrition security and healthy life for present and future generations. Sustainable diets are protective and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable, accessible, economically fair and affordable; nutritionally adequate, safe and healthy; while optimizing natural and human resources.”

The FAO’s definition extends beyond just greenhouse gas emissions to include land and water use, labor, nutritional value, soil health, among others.

For example, when comparing cow’s milk with soy milk, soy produces significantly fewer GHGs and uses less land and water. However, almond milk uses roughly 17 times more water than cow’s milk per liter. In fact, it can take over a gallon of water to grow one single almond, depending on the producer.

Although dairy’s average GHGs across the globe are 2.5%, U.S. dairy farmers have already cut their carbon footprint by 63% from 1944 to 2006 by utilizing regenerative practices. Repurposing manure, using anaerobic digesters for energy, recycling wastewater, and utilizing genetic breeding practices to decrease the cow population by 65% are just some of the ways these farmers have done more with fewer inputs and outputs. And all the while, they’ve continued to satisfy global demand and meet the FAO’s guidelines for sustainable development.

This, that AND the other thing

I sat down to dinner after my visit to the farmers market with a big glass of 2% milk. Yes, I had almond milk with my coffee that morning AND I had milk with my dinner. In a world that seems constantly polarizing – always having to decide between this or that – remember there is room for AND, too. With a growing population and more mouths to feed for generations to come, everyone can choose how they enjoy their alternative and traditional milk products.

Meet D2D’s Lucy Stitzer


Lucy’s passion for ensuring people everywhere have access to healthy, safe, and sustainable food began when her first child of three was born. Lucy and two of her sons have a unique blood disorder which encouraged them to ‘eat well’ and live a healthy lifestyle. She began researching which foods are the most nutritious. What the young, working mom discovered was a vast and complex food system.

There was (and still is) a wealth of misinformation, fads, and outright lies about the global food system. Lucy’s journey with her sons inspired her to research and understand the science around food and food production. Lucy strives for a world where global food is grown sustainably, nutritiously, and affordably and will often ask food producers and industry experts, “what needs to change to achieve this objective?”

This is not easy as each country has its unique culture, income levels, political environment, and arable land. And most countries are not self-sufficient with their food supply, as many participate in global food trade. Yet still, the consumer can ask whether their food was grown sustainably using innovation, technology, and sound science.

Lucy loves excitement and fun activities with her three boys and husband. She runs, skis, golfs, gardens, rides motorcycles, and flies airplanes.

Meet D2D’s Hillary Kaufman


Hillary believes in the power of research to substantiate sound decision-making, especially when it comes to learning about our food system. Hillary’s earlier career centered on forecasting consumer trends and researching potential investment ideas in the healthcare and consumer goods spaces. But as her family grew, Hillary’s priorities shifted. So, in 2017, she enthusiastically joined D2D.

Given her love of cooking, she’ll write about the issues affecting our decision-making at the grocery store. This often includes all those gimmicky labels we see on our foods that make us falsely assume one product is superior. The worst offender to date? “Non-GMO” salt.

Meet D2D’s Hayley Philip


As the granddaughter of a farmer and growing up in California’s Central Valley, one of the nation’s most productive agricultural regions, Hayley applies her industry knowledge and natural curiosity to unearth the food myths traveling around today, including debunking popular fad diets, fast-nutrition, and myths about ‘quick’ dietary fixes. Hayley also researches and writes about the intersectionality of regeneration and sustainable growing methods that will safely produce enough food for future generations.

Hayley is a graduate of the University of California Santa Barbara with degrees in Sociology and Marketing.  She moved to New York shortly after graduation, where she worked in sales and marketing for almost a decade before joining D2D.

Meet D2D’s Garland West


Over his career, Garland has applied his academic training in journalism to coverage of agricultural, environmental, and trade policy in Washington and Europe for clients that include major corporate leaders and prominent global consulting firms. His resume includes postings in Washington, Minneapolis, London, New York, Chicago, and Detroit, both as a corporate executive and president of his own communications company. He is a published author and public speaker on agriculture, trade, and public policy matters, as well as a consultant to various organizations on organizational leadership.

He and his wife Nancy reside deep within the Blue Ridge Mountains, where they maintain an animal sanctuary and savor a more contemplative and relaxed pace of life.

Introducing D2D’s “Digging in” podcast!


We will be talking with everyone in the food system, from farmers to scientists and nutritionists, to discuss important issues in their field. And we’ll connect the dots along the way by asking how these experts see the food industry working together to provide safe, nutritious food for all.

Please enjoy visiting our site to listen, and send us your thoughts as we embark on this new platform. Happy reading and listening!

– The Dirt to Dinner Team

Science or Suspicion: Which Dictates Gene Editing’s Future?


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Rule Britannia

This summer, the United Kingdom took the issue of biotechnology and genomics out of the shadows and back into the public limelight. The Tory government introduced legislation that would effectively exempt certain crops and animals from the stringent regulatory constraints currently in force regarding CRISPR.

The U.K.’s action is made possible by its exit from the European Union, where what many consider the draconian regulations severely inhibit the development of new plant and animal genetic advancements. In the E.U., the Genetically Modified Organism Directive issued in 2001 still applies, allowing any of the more than two dozen member states to completely ban the growth of GMO crops or imports of GMO organisms. The University of Dusseldorf’s Sarah Schmidt recently told Science magazine that getting a crop through the E.U.’s regulatory maze “would take years and about $35 million.”

But even outside the E.U. regulatory framework, the proposed U.K. changes to genetic regulation have renewed the same intense opposition. Opponents of the U.K. legislation cite familiar fears of unintended environmental consequences, economic harm to farmers and rural communities, too much market power by commercial interests, lack of transparency to consumers in product labeling, and more.

Genetic optimists hold that despite the clamor, the public opinion pendulum is swinging in what they consider the right direction. Opposition to GMOs remains strongest in Europe, while America and many other countries seem to be moving – at a snail’s pace to many – to recognize and gently embrace the potential within gene editing, CRISPR in particular.

They also point to the willingness of some countries in Africa and other areas most in need of increases in agricultural productivity to consider broader use of GMOs. The threat of imminent food insecurity seems to be a powerful pro-science motivator.

“The advent of new breeding innovations has presented Africa with…innovations [that] will improve the ease, speed, precision, cost and generation time of higher-yielding, superior varieties and breeds with durable resistance to pests, diseases, efficient use of water and nutrients, and adaptable to climate change.”

– Margaret Karembu & Godfrey Ngure, Breaking Barriers with Breeding, ISAAA 2021 Report

GMOs and CRISPR      

While GMOs and CRISPR are both gene editing tools, they differ in their technique. GMOs take a gene from one organism and insert it into another organism. CRISPR edits the gene within an organism. CRISPR offers a way to cut and paste genes within a plant or animal to correct flaws or mistakes or improve how the organism functions. It promises to be simpler, cheaper, and faster than other, more radical approaches to wholesale genetic manipulation and monumentally faster and less haphazard than natural selection. It also requires less cumbersome regulation when compared to GMOs.

Perhaps most appealing to many scientists, it seemed to undercut the hyperbolic fears of “Frankenfood” along with social and environmental degradation and general predictions of universal doom and midnight gloom advanced by anti-science critics.

The technique could help speed the development of more and better plants and animals, with specific benefits to the environment and better nutritional offerings. Imagine new and effective treatments for cancer and other devastating illnesses, altering the breeding patterns of disease-spreading mosquitoes, or the use of animals as much-needed organ donors.

To the curious scientific mind, the possibilities seem almost unending. 

And all the while, farmers could boost productivity and profitability, while hungry consumers everywhere could reap the benefits of more plentiful and nutritious food. Crops could be developed with characteristics that advance the growth of eco-friendly biofuels and plant-based proteins. Animals could be bred to be more productive, more resistant to disease, and less needy of antibiotics. Farmers could expand production into specific crops and animals important to all sorts of additional uses, including answers to climate change challenges. The highly efficient, productive, responsive, sustainable, resilient global food system everyone from Albania to Zimbabwe most wanted seemed tantalizingly close.

Source: bio.org

Promises, Promises

But a decade on, the promise within gene editing still seems more elusive than many would like, especially in global agriculture.

The Philippines last year gained attention when the country approved Golden Rice – a genetically modified rice variety bred to provide additional nutrition, including vitamin A to combat childhood blindness. (Bangladesh also is closely examining the value of allowing Golden Rice to be planted.) At the same time, the Philippine government also approved the use of Bt eggplant for food, feed and processing.

Previous efforts to introduce something this simple prompted violent street protests and burned crops. The intensity of the resistance puzzled many scientists and politicians alike, especially in the Asia region, where rice makes up as much as two-thirds of the daily diet of the average person (and even more among the poor).

The slow pace of adaptation isn’t unique to The Philippines. Gene editing – whether it is GMO or CRISPR – remains the source of animated and often extreme opposition from dedicated cadres of those adamantly opposed to genetically modified organisms in any form. Many environmental groups are at the forefront of opposition, citing fears of unforeseen environmental damages, economic threats to producers, and as yet unrecognized health issues, among other matters.

Many scientists and politicians see rays of sunshine peeking through the gray clouds of doubt and cynicism spun by anti-science factions. Global food and health organizations cite the slow but steady expansion of the roster of nations growing GMO crops.  

GMO crops are grown by about 17 million farmers worldwide, mostly in developed countries. Roughly 70 countries import or grow GMOs, and 29 biotech plant crops.

Top GMO crop-producing nations, in descending order, are the United States, Brazil, Argentina, Canada, and India. These five industrial countries produce the largest volume of GMO crops.

The remaining are in the developing world. 19 developing nations – where food needs are arguably greatest – now account for 53 percent of the world’s GMO crops.

Find more details on GMO crops around the world here.

The Data Tell the Tale

Advocates also point to the recently updated genetically engineered regulatory standards from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. After a multi-year review process, the USDA in 2020 issued a new rule called SECURE – the Sustainable, Ecological, Consistent, Uniform, Responsible, Efficient rule – that relaxes some of the more onerous requirements of previous regulations, but far from all of them. (There is no indication which took longer – the review of the genetic science, or the creation of the tortured acronym.)

The new regs sought to give greater developmental leeway for organisms with low-risk levels – those where conventional breeding techniques have demonstrated an acceptable level of safety.

While far from perfect for many in the scientific community, the new rule nevertheless reflects a slow movement toward recognition of the potential value of application of responsible genetic science to an evolving global food system.

GMO proponents also cite a recent letter from 110 Nobel laureates and over 3,500 scientists worldwide calling on GMO opponent Ice International to “re-examine the experience of farmers and consumers worldwide with crops and food improved through biotechnology; recognize the findings of authoritative scientific bodies and regulatory agencies; and abandon their campaign against GMOs in general and Golden Rice in particular.”

Adapt…Or Else

Britain is…doing something good for the world. It all adds up to a cause for optimism to most people. Our food system is in the midst of an important era of continuing adaptation to meet a more complex and demanding set of expectations.

It’s a lot to ask. But science – as CRISPR and GMOs in general indicate – can help us create the optimal food system. We want our food system to do far more than simply feed us. We want it to sustain and regenerate our environment. We want it to provide food that continues to become safer, more nutritious, and delivered in ever-greater choices that match our changing lifestyle.

We want the food system to be fair to all involved, and transparent for all to see how what they eat is produced, processed, and delivered. We want our food system to fight climate change, not contribute to it.

Digging in: Jim Wiesemeyer, Ag Policy Analyst


There’s probably no one in a better position to help us understand this incredibly convoluted – and important – situation. Jim Wiesemeyer has spent decades in Washington watching the ag scene, reporting every day on the ins-and-outs of developments on Capitol Hill, at the White House, at the Department of Agriculture, and all the places where decisions are made about food and ag.

Jim is well known for his commentary and especially his own podcasts on behalf of ProFarmer and Farm Journal. After you’ve listened to this episode of Digging In, check out his podcast at profarmer.com.

We’re only as healthy as our soil


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Did you know the nutrients you put in your body come directly from your food’s soil?  The healthier the soil, the more nutrients and greater density of vitamins and minerals in your food. You really are only as healthy as your soil—what crops “eat” can influence the nutrients on our own plates.

Dirt to Dinner believes that both conventional and organic farming have a place in our modern-day farming efforts to increase yields on existing land in order to feed a growing global population. That said, regenerative ag practices span all farming methods on both conventional and organic farms and may just be the key to healthy soils and even more nutritious foods.

If you’d like more information on what “regenerative” means, here is more detail.

It’s summertime, so let’s take a look at blueberries. Wild and freshly picked off the bush, these blueberries taste sweet and explode with flavor. In the wintertime, purchased in the grocery store, you run the risk of eating something that might taste like cardboard.

And the differences don’t stop with seasonality and taste: wild blueberries have higher minerals such as calcium, magnesium, manganese, zinc, and polyphenols, while their cultivated counterpart has higher iron and cadmium contents. Why the difference between the two types? The soil!

As we have previously written, soil is not just dirt. The world within the soil is more diverse than all the species in the Amazon rainforest. It is full of nutrients, minerals, microbiota, and fungi, just to name a few ingredients. All of these microorganisms work together to produce the nutrients that plants need to grow and that we need to stay healthy.

Studies have shown that regenerative agriculture is the best type of farming to enhance the nutrients in the soil. Regenerative farming practices reduce disturbances to the soil while nurturing its biology. These techniques include practices like no-till farming, the use of biodiverse cover crops, crop rotation methods, utilizing sustainable manure, and integrating livestock to support the life of the soil. What is especially great about regenerative agriculture is that farmers can tailor their practices to a specific crop, location and type of land, and water availability.

These farming practices have been shown to increase organic matter in the soil, reduce water evaporation, and improve water-holding capacity. Those benefits, in turn, help support carbon sequestration, reduce erosion, and, as we now know from a study published in Peer Journal, improve the nutritional profiles of crops and livestock grown on regenerative land.

Ultimately, healthy soil = nutrient-dense foods!

Conversely, unhealthy soil can produce foods lacking in nutrients, vitamins, and minerals.

The Study

By examining eight pairs of regenerative and conventional farms across the US, researchers compared the nutritional content of food crops grown using the two different farming practices. The findings detailed that food produced on regenerative farms contained more magnesium, calcium, potassium, and zinc, as well as more phytochemicals and vitamins B1, B12, C, E, and K. This study supports the theory that what crops “eat” directly impacts its nutrition.

Participating farmers in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, Tennessee, Kansas, North Dakota, and Montana agreed to regeneratively grow one acre of peas, sorghum, corn, or soybeans. On a neighboring acre, the same crop was grown using conventional methods. Furthermore, one meat producer participated.

“Most notably, soil health appears to influence phytochemical levels in crops,” the authors write, “indicating that regenerative farming systems can enhance dietary levels of compounds known to reduce risk of various chronic diseases.”

The primary variable in this study was the farming technique—one that had been conventionally farmed for years, with the other applying regenerative practices. The study controlled for key variables given the adjacent plots of land, providing consistency with regard to weather, equipment, and soil type.

David Montgomery, professor of Earth and Space Science at the University of Washington, noted that regenerative practices yielded crops with more anti-inflammatory compounds and antioxidants across the board. He and Anne Bikle are co-authors of the newly released book, What Your Food Ate. Their book goes into great depth to show the correlation between soil health and human health, referencing many foundational studies that set the tone for this new research.

This research is compounded by many other studies, including nutrient density studies, density evaluation tools studies, research on where we get our nutrients, assessments of our current land and soil, soil health in various agricultural systems, and global soil resources.

Linking your health to soil

The links between soil, crop, and human health cannot be stressed enough. Consumers often don’t think of the source of their foods. For instance, when eating a spinach salad, most of us just think as far as the local grocer. But what about the storage facility that kept it refrigerated while waiting to be stocked at retail or the trucking company that transported it from the farm to the wholesaler? Or how about the farm that provided land and labor, the seed that gave the crop life, or all the way back to its life in the ground, the dirt…. the soil?  And while all the links in the supply chain play critical roles in keeping our expansive and complex food system functioning, it all starts with the soil.

We have written at length about the importance of your gut microbiome, a critical component of human health and debatably as crucial as your brain in keeping your body functioning. Let’s think of soil’s microbiome in the same way—a critical yet overlooked component in determining the nutrient density of our food. Healthy soil comprises millions of diverse microbes, including fungi, bacteria, and other compounds. As the newest Peer Journal study states, our school of thought should really be:

“It may be that one of our biggest levers for trying to combat the modern public health epidemic of chronic diseases is to rethink our diet, and not just what we eat, but how we grow it.”

It is easier to see the correlation between the soil and plants, but the study also revealed that the soil impacted the beef producer. The study found that the beef from the regenerative farm versus the conventional farm had three times more omega-3 fats, specifically, more than six times the amount of alpha-linolenic acid (an essential omega-3). The cattle grazing on the land had meat samples taken from both the regenerative and conventional farms. A comparison was made, showing the direct impact that the soil had on the cattle and, ultimately, the beef we will eat.

A solution for carbon sequestration

This research also revealed some environmental implications. With the threat of climate change growing with each passing year, there is a broad consensus that regenerative agriculture could be a scalable solution. Montgomery’s study noted that soil samples from the regenerative plots had twice as much carbon in the topsoil as well as a “soil health score” three times higher based on the USDA’s Haney test for soil health. Other studies also explored the overall soil health of regenerative ag vs. conventional and similarly concluded regenerative ag’s benefits to soil.

The figure above shows the distributions of soil health metrics for regenerative ag (in blue) and conventional ag (in red). SOM is the percentage of soil organic matter, followed by the Haney test scores, as well as the ratios of paired regenerative and conventional farms value for % soil organic matter and Haney test scores.

In the future, when you go to the grocery store, you will soon be able to see the nutrient density and environmental impact of your food. This will be a primary factor in consumer purchasing habits. According to New Nutrition Business, a food and nutrition consultancy, the concept of ‘nutrient-dense’ foods is being mentioned more in the US Dietary Guidelines than ever before.

Companies are also taking note, using farming practices as a marketing tool in selling their products. The appeal to consumers is growing, and thus, so is the prevalence of the value of healthy soil. We are sure to see this reflected in labeling down the road.

Getting consumers on board

It is not just the small operations applying regenerative ag practices on their farms; a few prominent companies are committing to regenerative farming partners for their supply, including PepsiCo, Walmart, General Mills, Unilever, Danone, Land O’Lakes, and Hormel, among others.

According to Mintel’s recent report, The Future of Food Sourcing & the Supply Chain, consumers will pay extra for farmers implementing environmental impact solutions, even in the current inflationary environment. When we did our survey on trusted sources, farmers were trusted along with scientists, healthcare professionals, and educators.

The challenge with soil is that it is hard to get the everyday consumer to think about it, let alone care about it. The hope is that with more prominent research like this, soil health, farming practices, and the nutrient density of your food choices will be top of mind the next time you are picking out your fruits, veggies, proteins or any unprocessed foods, for that matter.

Just remember, all your nutrients come from dirt, so the next time you reach for your blueberries, think: were these wild blueberries, picked off the vine, grown in nutrient-dense soil? Seek food grown regeneratively when possible, to get the most nutrients from your foods. After all, what you can consume each day is limited, so why not make the most of it.

The Rise of Alternative Proteins


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Imagination is a wonderful thing. It is even more incredible when you can realize your dreams. Did you ever think you would eat meat and get your protein from air…yeast…peas…and even mushrooms? These are new sources of protein that replicate the livestock, fish and poultry many of us eat every day…and they taste like the real thing, too.

Which would you choose?

Most consumers don’t yet realize that there are three different types of alternative proteins that achieve the desired amino acid profile.

Plant-based Proteins

Most people are familiar with plant-based burgers such as Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat.  Impossible is sold everywhere from Target to Starbucks to Walmart to your local grocery store. The perception is that it is healthier than regular meat because it is made from plants. In truth, it depends on the burger, how it was made, the nutritional profile introduced, and the number of ingredients.

Despite all the marketing, the consumer places alternative burgers slightly behind your traditional black bean and veggie burger which may be why Morningstar Farms has the largest unit sales in the frozen section. Chicken alternatives like Daring and Abbot’s Butcher come in third. Interestingly enough, of those surveyed, 66% of consumers prefer to get their alternative meat when they buy their groceries.

Cultivated Proteins 

Egg whites without chickens, fish without the fins, and meat without the animal are all examples of cultivated protein. Instead of being raised on a farm or in the sea, scientists take cells directly from an animal, or bird, or fish, and grow the cells in a lab bioreactor. It is a complicated and safe technology that puts together the animal cells, mixes it with the right speed, and then adds in aeration and various nutrients. These added nutrients are expensive and there are many: glucose, 20 essential and non-essential amino acids, fatty acids, phosphate, trace minerals, and various vitamins, hormones, and other growth factors.

Some of the benefits touted for these proteins are that there are no pesticides, antibiotics, or any ingredients associated with feeding animals. The knowledge and technology are prolific at various companies and university labs all around the world.  Although it could take quite a few years to scale up enough cells to feed 10 billion people eight ounces of protein each day for the same cost as animal-based meat.

Despite its challenges, Singapore’s FDA equivalent was the first regulatory agency to approve cultured meat grown by Esco Aster in partnership with Eat Just.

Fermented Proteins

In this case, it is milk without the cow, or fermenting mushrooms to make dairy, meat, protein powder, and food ingredients, or turning sugars from grain into burgers, chicken, noodles, and snacks. Fermented protein technology is difficult, but the concept is as old as the the creation of beer, wine, sauerkraut, and yogurt.

In ancient times, fermentation used microbes in food, and still uses that same method today. And to make protein alternatives it ferments a variety of live microorganisms to make anything that can be made from an animal, plant, bird, or fish.

What does the future hold?

Each year the technology gets stranger and more real. According to Pitchbook, since 2010, alternative protein start-ups have raised $11 billion, with $8 billion of that raised in just the past two years.

By 2035, Boston Consulting, and other firms, predict that there will be $290 billion invested. That is more, as of this writing, of the market cap of two large protein companies: Tyson and JBS combined. However, these proteins make up less than 1% of the total protein we consume. According to Statista Consumer Market Outlook, the average U.S. per capita consumption was about 0.6 pounds a year, projected to go to 1.7 pounds a year by 2035.

Governments and NGOs are embracing it with investments. The Good Food Institute, a nonprofit is ‘reimagining meat production which is building a world where alternative proteins are the default choice.” In addition, the USDA gave $10 million to Tufts University to develop cultivated meat. The USDA has also given $2.7 million for five alternative protein projects. The National Science Foundation gave $3.5 million to UCLA for their cultivated meat program. The Netherlands announced $65 million for cultivated meat and precision fermentation. Given that Mark Post, one of the originators of cell-based meat is in the Netherlands, this is no surprise.

Another hairy audacious goal

Getting rid of animals entirely? It is one thing to have the technology, it is another thing to change consumer behavior. It will be challenging to ask billions of people to fundamentally change their dietary patterns and habits that consumers know and enjoy. Will alternative protein burgers and steaks still sizzle on the grill for the summer barbeques?

Alternative meat companies – and the financial supporters – are enthusiastically promoting new meat technologies. Patrick Brown of Impossible Foods has said that their mission is to replace the use of animals as food by 2035. ReThink, a think tank, also predicts the demise of the farm animal. Their premise is that by 2030, precision fermentation and production called ‘food as software’ will supersede the animal production system of today.

Max Rye, co-founder of cell-based protein company TurtleTree, told McKinsey that cell based meat can save 78 to 96 percent of GHG compared to traditional agriculture.

Andre Menezes, co-founder of Singapore-based, Next Gen Foods, added: “we don’t have time to wait; we are in a late-stage extinction crisis.”

So what does the consumer say?

We turned to Mintel, a consumer research company for the answer. In Europe, the U.K. and the U.S., many have incorporated plant-based meat into their diet but they still eat animal and bird based protein. For those who choose alternative proteins, they eat according to their values.

“The next five years is a pivotal time for the category. In the shifting socioeconomic environment, the challenge is to meet consumers’ multifaceted value expectations.”

– Dasha Shor, Global Food Analyst at Mintel

The environmental and personal health concerns bring consumers closer to the lab. According to YouGov surveys, 48% of consumers eat meatless meat about once a month and do so because they think it is healthier for them and better for the environment.

According to Mintel, consumers are worried about sustainability and 70% of US consumers agree that food/drink companies/brands can be leaders in protecting the environment.

In addition, Mintel continues to stress that consumers need to feel that they get value for their protein. As inflation rises, alternative protein has to beat animal protein on the price. For instance, Alpha Foods is promoting their plant based Chik’n Nuggets as less expensive than regular chicken to draw people to their category.

But having said all that, 52% of Americans have never tried it.

How does this scale?

This won’t be a simple light switch change as technologies, infrastructure, and supplies must match current production. To create proteins from air, or chickens that don’t live in a hen house, or meat made in a fermentation tank will take years to scale.

Mintel analysts went on to stress the importance of innovation: “meat alternatives will be challenged to deliver not only on health, taste, and price but also attract consumers with hyper-convenient offerings beyond burgers and sausages.” Fermentation technology, and eventually cellular agriculture, will be important solutions to addressing meat alternatives’ taste and texture challenges and meeting the protein needs of the growing global population.

The size of the global protein business is massive. In 2018, the world ate 69 billion chickens and turkeys, and 304 million cattle and pigs. As consumers around the world increase their income they naturally eat more protein. In 2020, that was about 467 million metric tons of animal protein. That would be about 93 pounds per human on earth. In the United States, we have held steady for the past three years eating about 225 pounds of protein per person, per year. That is a lot of protein!

What does the future hold? Both!

Today’s consumers, regardless of their age, are not ‘either/or’ on their protein. Consumers are still excited to eat animal protein as well as look forward to including plant or alternative proteins in their diets. Initial innovation and acceptance will mostly be in Asia-Pacific. This is no surprise due to their high population growth and need for food security.

Will the animals that feed us today become obsolete in eight to 13 years? Probably not. But will technology keep improving and the ability to scale become easier? It is in the human DNA to keep improving and striving forward. We have come a long way from cooking brontosaurus burgers over the fire.

Should MCT Oil be in your diet?


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

MCT oil was brought to the forefront when Dave Asprey, an American entrepreneur and author, gave “Bulletproof coffee” the popular bullseye. Years ago, hiking in Tibet, he found himself consistently exhausted until a local energized him with a creamy cup of yak butter tea.

Fast forward to much research, Bulletproof Coffee was created in its likeness with MCT oil to help provide immediate energy to give a steady source of energy throughout the day. Those following the ketogenic diet are likely familiar with MCT oil. With its rapid gain in popularity comes a jump in research — here’s what you need to know!

Claims and myths: What does the science say?

—-

Claim #1: MCTs provide steady energy and mental clarity

As people age, brain glucose metabolism deteriorates. Since ketones can serve as an alternative fuel to glucose in brain tissues, a small subset of studies have shown that MCTs may raise plasma ketone levels, which benefit cognitive function.

While studies are still preliminary, there is early proof that ketones, or the byproduct of MCTs, can make up for a lack of glucose uptake, which naturally occurs in the brain during the aging process. This makes MCTs an area of interest surrounding treatment for Alzheimer’s disease.

—-

Claim #2: MCTs increase performance and weight loss

When exercising, lactate levels can rise. This lactate buildup can increase the acidity of muscle cells, disrupting metabolites. Metabolites facilitate the breakdown of glucose into energy, which can affect performance. Studies have found that MCTs can help to lower lactate levels. According to one clinical trial out of Oxford Brookes University:

“These results indicate that the ingestion of MCT-containing food may suppress the utilization of carbohydrates for energy production because of increased utilization of fatty acids for generating energy…

In conclusion, our data suggest that short-term ingestion of food containing a small amount of MCT suppresses the increase in blood lactate concentration…and extends the duration of subsequent high-intensity exercise at levels higher than those achieved by ingestion of LCT-containing food.”

MCTs can help regulate our bodies’ harmful type of fat, called “white fat” or adipose fat tissue. This oil naturally has about 10% fewer calories than other common oils like olive, avocado, and nut. Also, because of its shorter fatty acid chain makeup, MCT helps increase fat oxidation, which is associated with loss of adipose fat tissue and a decrease in inflammatory markers. Lastly, MCTs have also been shown to satiate hunger which has ultimately reduced food intake, contributing to weight loss.

—-

Claim #3: MCTs fight infections

One of many impressive facts about MCT oils is that they act as natural antibiotics. Due to their chemical structure, MCTs are drawn and easily absorbed into most bacteria and viruses. When they enter the virus through the lipid membrane, they weaken it, eventually breaking it open to cause cell death. That is when the white blood cells quickly dispose of the remains.

Furthermore, capric and caprylic acid are two of the most active antimicrobial fatty acids. They are naturally the most potent yeast-fighting substances, and as research shows, they are one of the most beneficial antimicrobials you can take without a doctor’s prescription. Supplementary MCT oil is best taken in doses of 15 to 20 mL per meal, up to 100 mL per day.

—-

Claim #4: MCTs improve gut health and digestion

The ingestion of easily digestible fatty acids like MCT oils leads to increased movement in your digestive tract, thus promoting regular bowel movements. Additionally, MCTs help to improve the gut lining, a critical component of your gut’s microbiome.  It aids in increasing the permeability of the lining, which can facilitate an increase in metabolic functions.

—-

Claim #5: MCTs can help with hormone balance

MCTs work to provide a balance of adipose fat tissue. The dreaded “white fat” negatively affects hormone regulation, as can adipose fat levels when they’re too low. (Normal levels for women are between 3 and 8 percent, while for men, it is between 8 and 12 percent). To better understand our white fat stores, speak with your doctor, who will calculate your body mass index (BMI) and other markers and tests to estimate your levels. 

MCT oil can help with this! Because it can provide necessary fats to produce a balanced amount of fatty tissue, it also has been shown to increase the release of both peptide YY and leptin specifically—this contributes to a feeling of fullness and satisfaction, aiding people in avoiding overeating, and helping to limit too much fat tissue accumulation.

Busting MCT Myths

While the above five claims have scientific legitimacy, here are some notable myths.

—-

Myth: MCT oil only comes from virgin coconut oil.

Truth: Nearly all MCT oil comes from refined coconut oil and sometimes palm oil. The process of retrieving the MCTs requires refinement, bleaching, and deodorizing. All of which are safe processes and fine for ingestion.

—-

Myth: MCT oil is sustainable.

Truth: Yes and No. MCT oil only uses about 15% of the coconut’s oil, and not all of the residual 85% is used in other products. And while most MCT oils are derived from coconut oil, about 34% of MCT comes from palm, which has deforestation implications. However, sustainable ways to harvest palm exist, and not all palm harvesting contributes to deforestation.

—-

Myth: MCT oil does not need to be counted as part of your fat intake due to its benefits.

Truth: MCT oil can increase the amount of fat in your liver if not accounted for as part of your daily fat intake. Be sure to keep your total fat consumption per day between 44 and 77 grams of fat (which respect for a 2,000-calorie diet).

How is MCT made?

MCT, or Medium-chain triglycerides, is a compound made of fatty acids and fat molecules with between six and 12 carbon molecules. Alternatively, fats derived from animals and plants primarily comprise long-chain fatty acids (LCTs), which contain more than twelve carbon molecules.

But what do the molecules have to do with it? The health claims surrounding MCT oils are that they can help burn fat, boost metabolism, promote weight loss, and provide increased energy. These claims have everything to do with how MCT oils are processed in the body.

Medium-chain triglycerides behave differently in the body compared to LCTs. They are more easily absorbed in the body, as they do not require pancreatic enzymes or bile to be digested, unlike LCT. Instead, they are transported directly to the liver, which can immediately be used as energy.

MCT oil is typically derived from coconut and palm oils. It is then refined in a lab using a process called fractionation. This process extracts the medium-chain triglycerides and other fats. Once isolated, a chemical process called lipase esterification uses lipase enzymes to produce the final product.

While coconut is the primary source of commercially-produced MCT oil, MCTs are also naturally found in some full-fat dairy products, like cheese (7.3% MCT by volume), butter (6.8%), and milk (6.9%) and yogurt (6.6%).

MCT Oil Types

There are four identified types of MCT with various purposes and efficacy:

  • Caproic Acid (C6): Commonly referred to as C6 due to its 6-atom carbon backbone, is the shortest medium-chain triglyceride. This type of MCT is the rarest form of fatty acid, making up just a mere 1% of MCTs in coconut oil. That said, it is also the quickest to be converted into ketones. (Ketones are an acid released from the liver to your bloodstream that is used as fuel to drive the body’s metabolism and support muscle function.) Typically, you won’t find this fatty acid in MCT oils for direct consumer use as it has an unpleasant taste. However it is often used in cosmetics.
  • Caprylic Acid (C8): This fatty acid accounts for about 12% of MCTs in coconut oil and is the primary supplement component, as it has a neutral taste and is very efficiently metabolized.  This is a highly beneficial fatty acid, so much so that it is present in the breast milk of most mammals like humans and goats. Fun fact: the Latin word for goat is ‘capra’, the root of caprylic acid.

  • Capric Acid (C10): Making up around 9% of the MCTs derived from coconut, capric acid is also easily absorbed during the digestion process, though not as efficient as C6 or C8. It has been shown to boost immune system function and support healthy and efficient digestion. Bulletproof coffee uses this type of MCT in its keto products.
  • Lauric Acid (C12): This is the primary MCT found in coconut. While it is the slowest to metabolize, it contains the most potent antimicrobial properties—making it suitable for use in natural health products. With its higher smoke point, this MCT can be the most easily substituted for oils in cooking from being the longest of the MCT oils at 12 atoms.

How can I use MCT oil?

MCT oil comes in many forms, including oil, supplements, and powders.

You can use it for baking or frying, in smoothies or soups, or just as a topping to your favorite veggies.

I have tried Bulletproof Coffee and Sports Research MCT oil in my smoothies and have enjoyed both.

There are currently many varieties on the market, including organic versions, cold-pressed, flavored, flavorless…the list goes on.

There is a type out there for every preference.

 

Does alcohol stop us from burning fat?


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Whether scientists and researchers like it or not, TikTok has become a hub for diet and health-related information. Nutrition tips and fitness recommendations are shared every day, reaching millions of people in mere hours. The problem is that misinformation is disseminated hourly in catchy, bite-sized clips, causing mass consumer confusion and, at times, dietary hysteria. There is even a term, ‘TikTok Brain,’ where our attention span wanes after 90 seconds, leaving little to no time to cite sources of information…if any.

The latest viral claim — that alcohol stops the fat-burning process for up to 36 hours after drinking — has everyone worried about their “summer bodies” and health goals. Will this drink make me gain weight? Will the food I eat today be digested if I drink? While we are not saying—drink drink drink—we are saying, be careful what you read on the internet!

The good news? D2D is here to debunk these claims. Scientific studies are pointing in a different direction from this misleading headline. The bad news is that our bodies do see alcohol as a toxin, so we do want to be mindful of how much and how frequently we drink. Think of the questions your doctor asks you when you pay them your annual visit—“And how many drinks on average do you consume a week?”

Let’s start with how alcohol is broken down in the body to get a better understanding of this.

How does our body break down alcohol?

Fitness and nutrition influencers and the like consider alcohol the “fourth macronutrient” because it has no carbs, protein, or fat, but it contains ethanol, which our bodies can use for energy. This is why some of us may feel more social or energetic after a drink or two.

Alcohol is metabolized in the liver in two stages. During the first stage, the liver turns the ethanol, which we get directly from the alcohol, into acetaldehyde. What is acetaldehyde? Think of it as the bad part of alcohol that gives us all the negative side effects we experience during the dreaded hangover, like headaches, nausea, and an increased heart rate. This is because acetaldehyde is relatively toxic to the body.

Acetaldehyde is also carcinogenic because it can damage our DNA and stop the body from repairing itself. When DNA is damaged and can’t be repaired, a rogue cell can start growing too much and could eventually create a cancerous tumor. However, we don’t have to worry too much about this because stage two of metabolization lessens this risk.

This second step occurs in the liver enzyme of our mitochondria. During stage two of alcohol metabolization, the body works to get rid of the toxin acetaldehyde. It does this by turning it into acetic acid, otherwise known as acetate. Acetate is a less active byproduct that turns into carbon dioxide and water, which is when the body can easily get rid of it.

Since our body recognizes alcohol as a toxin, it’s going to do everything it can to get rid or metabolize the alcohol first. This means that any other calories consumed, sugar in the drinks, food eaten, etc., is put on hold to be metabolized until after the alcohol is gone.

While this isn’t an issue because we need calories, it’s when our hunger cues diminish during drinking and too many extra calories are consumed that fat build-up can occur. But try not to worry too much; one night of this won’t cause any long-term change. Making it into a habit, however, may lead to some weight gain.

Is the 36-hour claim true?

Now that we know how alcohol is broken down in the body, do we stop burning fat for up to 36 hours after drinking alcohol of any kind and any amount? Nope! Though your body works hard to metabolize and diminish the toxin that the body identified in alcohol, it doesn’t mean that all other bodily processes are stopped.

Currently, there are no peer-reviewed studies to back the claim that the body doesn’t burn any fat for up to 36 hours after drinking alcohol.

In fact, many studies show no positive correlation between normal alcohol consumption and weight gain.

A study by two Canadian researchers in 2015 specifically looked to see if there was any association between alcohol consumption and weight gain. They found that both light and moderate drinking do not lead to weight gain. They found that people who drink moderately frequently may even lead a healthier lifestyle than those who don’t. However, frequent heavy drinking can lead to some weight gain but mostly mitigates weight loss.

So, what counts as light or moderate drinking, and what counts as heavy drinking? The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, or NIAAA, defines heavy drinking in men as more than four drinks in a day or more than 14 drinks in a week. For women, heavy drinking is more than three drinks in a day or more than seven drinks per week. Moderate drinking is defined as no more than four drinks a day for men and three for women, and a maximum of 14 drinks a week for men and 7 for women. Light drinking is anything less than this.

Alcohol in Men vs Women

Other studies from the National Library of Medicine from 2018 and 2020 looked at how alcohol affects weight loss in both men and women. Both found that heavy drinking may mitigate weight loss but did not lead to weight gain and that this is especially true for people with diabetes or who are obese. Weight gain only occurred when hunger cues diminished and people engaged in overeating while drinking. Since the body is focused on getting rid of the toxin, these extra calories from overeating sit in the body and may become fat if they are not used for energy.

It’s important to remember that it’s not what you sometimes do that matters; it’s what you do most of the time. Everything is in moderation. If you have one night of more than your typical amount of drinking and maybe indulge in too much pizza, you may feel bloated and inflamed the next day, but you won’t gain permanent weight. If you make a habit of this and do it every weekend or several nights a week, then you will experience some effects.

Is there anything we can do to speed up the process?

If the toxin acetaldehyde is what’s causing the negative effects of alcohol (headaches, nausea, etc.), is there anything we can do to speed up the metabolization process so we don’t feel the effects? In fact, there are multiple products on the market right now that do just that.

Though most acetaldehyde turns into acetate, some acetaldehyde doesn’t make it to the liver and sits in the gut instead. The gut isn’t able to process all of it into acetate, so it builds up in the gut giving us those dreaded hangover symptoms the following day.

Zbiotics is a supplement that you take before you start drinking. It’s a genetically-engineered probiotic bacteria that produces the same type of enzyme in the liver that’s used to process alcohol, but in the gut. This way, it can help break down more of the acetaldehyde so that you don’t experience the dreaded hangover in the morning.

The technique Zbiotics uses is called homologous recombination. The team at Zbiotics designed a piece of DNA that has the enzyme to break down the acetaldehyde encoded in it, but it also has stretches of DNA that are identical to what’s on the bacteria’s chromosome. This makes the bacteria do a kind of “find and swap” in the body — finding identical chromosomes in our bodies and swapping the enzyme that are needed in our gut.

Other companies with similar products include Cheers Health, NAC, and Over EZ. All of these products can be purchased online and range between $35-100 for a 12-dose pack. However, there are other ways you can avoid the negative effects of alcohol naturally.

As an aside, at Dirt to Dinner, we believe in responsibly drinking so you don’t need to use these products. And, of course talk to your Dr. if you do decide to take them.

How to Avoid the Effects of Overdrinking

The best things overall that you can do to mitigate the negative effects of alcohol and keep your body healthy are:

  • Opt for drinks that have fewer calories and less sugar, like hard seltzers, light beer, and red wine. This way, you can enjoy the alcohol without having the worry about all of the extra calories. For example, a Corona Premier has 90 calories and only 2 grams of sugar, while a margarita has 274 calories and 36 grams of sugar in an 8-ounce serving. Now, we all love the occasional margarita but try to consume them in moderation.
  • Drink lots of water! This one seems obvious, but some people forget that staying hydrated is the most efficient way to flush out any alcohol in your system. If you plan on drinking, be sure to drink lots of water before so you are hydrated going in, drink water between each alcoholic beverage, and drink water before going to bed.
  • Get 7-9 hours of sleep. Sleep is also one of the best resets for the body. By getting proper sleep, your body will wake up refreshed and with less chance of a hangover.
  • Exercise! Exercise is also a great natural detox for your body that keeps your metabolism moving at a steady pace.

Your Views on Food Information Credibility

—-

Thanks to all of you who responded to our recent survey on credibility and trustworthiness regarding our food and the food system that produces it. You spoke up loud and clear, with firm points of view and some insightful comments.

Since we began Dirt to Dinner years ago, you have made it very clear how important it is to have timely, accurate, and believable information about food. But to be of value to you, our information must be credible. You want us to meet your standards and expectations. We must work constantly to make sure we understand what enables our posts and other information to do that. That’s what our survey wanted to explore.

The findings

Here is a recap of the top-line findings from our survey – and some of the comments you made about this important subject.

Our survey focused on a few simple questions:

  1. What are your major sources of information about food and our food system?
  2. How do you rank those sources for credibility and trustworthiness?
  3. What are the major factors you use in assessing credibility and trustworthiness?

We will take a look at your responses below. But first, let’s take a step back and set the stage with a few general observations about the big messages within all the numbers.

First, who you know counts most.

You told us that your greatest sense of credibility and trust comes from people you know best or people and organizations that you already know.

People matter more than institutions, like businesses or big or distant organizations. The closer the personal relationship to the source of information, the greater the trust and credibility. First-hand information from actual people is valued far more than indirect, impersonal pronouncements from faceless institutions.

Second, credentials matter. 

When it comes to understanding our food – especially things like health and nutrition – professional standing means a great deal. You trust scientists, educators, doctors, and healthcare professionals. Close behind, you once again value the opinion of people close to you, notably family and friends.

None of that is a big surprise…but the gap between the credibility and trustworthiness of those groups compared with other sources of information was significant. We’ll look into that below.

Next, the facts…

Science and objectivity that so often come with credentials are paramount.

Credentialed people are seen to be driven by reason rather than emotion. Facts count, and impartial analysis of those facts is critical to presenting informed judgments. Fairness and impartiality are cornerstones of trust. And once again, people close to you – friends and family again – are known well enough to provide a greater degree of trust than strangers.

…and the farmers.

You trust the people who actually produce the food far more than most others along the chain from dirt to dinner.

When it comes to food, farmers are in elite company. You indicated an innate willingness to trust people at the front lines of providing us with the food we need.  Farmers and ranchers rank competitively with scientists, healthcare professionals, and educators as preferred sources of information.  People who have actually lived within the world of agriculture matter more to you than those who haven’t.

And some things that just jumped out at us:

  • The more distant and impersonal the source of information, the lower the level of credibility and trustworthiness. Businesses and business leaders, advertisers, industry and special interest groups, and to a certain extent government institutions, fared relatively poorly in your assessment of their credibility and trustworthiness as an information source.
  • Search engines, social media and podcasts seem to be important, but not yet as important as other valued sources of information. Most source categories in our survey generated strong opinion one way or another about their importance in shaping credibility and trust. But search engines and social media showed a remarkable balance between being “extremely important” or “not at all important.”
  • For all the criticism heaped upon our modern media, you indicated that national and local media remain an important source of information for you. Cable television sources, however, fared very poorly in our survey for credibility and trustworthiness.  Once again, it appears that sources who do the best job of establishing some form of quasi-personal or ‘family-like’ connection with viewers fare better than loud, argumentative, and clearly opinionated talking heads.

The ‘Uh-ohs’

We tested the same issues with a slightly different focus to assess the consistency of opinion.

  • Some of the lowest rankings for trustworthiness on food-related matters include ads, media personalities, social media influencers, and government officials:

  • Some of the lowest rankings for credibility on food-related matters include celebrities and influencers, corporations, and environmental groups.

Compare the low-ranked sources of information with those ranking highest in trust in the above chart: scientists/researchers (77% trust), friends & family (71%), and doctors/healthcare professionals (68%).

…and credibility in the information reported from educational institutions (73% credible) and farm/trade organizations (74%).

Respondent comments

Many of you also had your own personal comments to make about the survey and what’s important to you about your information sources when it comes to food. Here is just a sampling of what you had to say:

Bringing it back to D2D

Thank you once again for helping us with our continuous efforts to make Dirt-to-Dinner better and better. Your opinions are some of the most helpful guides we have to identify the kinds of posts you value, the sources we rely upon and the standards we set for the content we produce. With your help, we’ll make our site the most credible and trusted source of information about food and our food system available anywhere. To view charts derived from the survey data, please click here.

Have a wonderful 4th of July!

– The Dirt to Dinner Team

Flying the friendly skies on green fuel

You put your household garbage in the trash. Just imagine that within a few years, that garbage will no longer just sit in a landfill; instead, it will be used to power the jet to take you on a business trip to London or on vacation to Tahiti. Or consider that the used cooking oil to make your french fries from McDonald’s will be collected, refined, and turned into Jet A fuel, the fuel all jet and turbine airplanes use.

And as you drive through America’s heartland, you see farmers in tractors planting soybean seeds, some of which will be used to fuel the airline industry.

Why is SAF so important in the drive for sustainability?

Commercial and transportation aircraft today use a lot of fossil fuels. A lot of fossil fuels.

Every single day, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration deals with more than 45,000 flights involving 5,400 aircraft and 2.9 million people. That’s more than 16 million flights annually, 10 million of them on scheduled airline flights. The airlines handle 12 million pounds of our supply chain each day as well. On a global scale, the numbers are even more impressive – 500 million passengers, riding in aircraft that can consume as much as a gallon of fuel every second. It sounds inefficient, but really because of the passenger load, a large plane like a 747 gets 100 miles per gallon per person.

In 2022, there were 28 million flights, most likely the amount will increase back to the pre-covid number of 40 million flights. A seat on a flight between New York and London emits about 1/10th of one’s annual emissions, around 1.65 tonnes of carbon dioxide. According to The Nature Conservancy, the average person in the U.S. emits about 16 tons.

“The average level of consumption for a new car is approximately 35 miles to the gallon, which means that in order to burn 18,000 gallons of fuel, which would be used in a single flight between New York and Europe, a car would have to travel more than a half-million miles.”

Simple Flying Editorial Team, May 9, 2021

Now, can you imagine flying through the sky and not adding any CO2 to the atmosphere? That could happen. Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), also known as synthetic fuel or synfuel, is touted as the solution to the aviation industry’s contribution to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and ultimately holding back climate change.

A Big, Hairy Audacious Goal: The SAF Challenge

The Sustainable Aviation Grand Challenge led by The Department of Energy, The United States Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture is encouraging enough production of SAF to:

  • Achieve a minimum of 50% reduction of GHG compared to aviation fuel
  • Supply at least 3 billion gallons of SAF by 2030
  • Replace all petroleum-based jet fuel, about 60 billion gallons a year, by 2050.

By using alternative feedstocks, SAF can reduce emissions between 40% to 80%.

The purpose is not only to reduce environmental impact but also to support energy independence, create jobs in agriculture, forestry, infrastructure, research and development and other areas where America already exceeds at production’

The global airline and transport aviation industry uses about 60 billion gallons of fuel per year. Pre-covid, 98 billion gallons were burned a year while transporting people and products around the globe. To replace just 10% at today’s usage would mean we need 6 billion gallons of SAF, globally. Where are we now?

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) is a trade association for 290 transportation and passenger carriers across 120 countries and represents 82% of total air traffic. In 2021, IATA estimated that the SAF industry made about 26 million gallons. This equates to…less than 1% of total global volume.

Even so, the industry seems optimistic and IATA states that airlines have about 3 billion in forward purchase agreements and at least 45 airlines now have experience with SAF. Markets and Markets projects SAF revenue to go from $219 million in 2021 to $15,716 million by 2030, at a very aggressive growth rate of 60.8% during the forecast period. But not every country can afford, or desires (think OPEC countries), to fill their planes with SAF. As shown in the chart, Europe, followed by the U.S., lead in creating the SAF demand.

Ideals and reality don’t always align – at least, not at first. As laudable as the purpose behind the SAF Challenge may be, several practical matters still require further attention.

For example, matters of reliability – and safety – need to be clarified, if only to reassure the flying public that the shift to SAF won’t endanger anyone. Consider the special composition of today’s jet fuel – Jet A — and remember that it didn’t come into being without a reason.

What is Jet A?

Jet A is the fuel that all airplanes use. All jet fuel must have good performance and be able to operate in all conditions. It is a particular mixture of gasoline and kerosene derived from the classic barrel of oil. It also contains a complicated combination of over two thousand chemicals and additives.

Of course, when you are flying at 25,000+ feet over the ground, or even 1,000 feet, you want to make sure the aviation fuel has just the perfect combination to fuel the flight. Jet and turbine engines are delicate machines that have been refined for eight decades. They won’t run on just any fuel formula. It must be clean enough so it won’t clog the engines, have a low freezing point for cold temperatures such as -65 F up in the Earth’s troposphere, contain an anti-icing additive, and high octane for fuel-efficiency.

What is the source of SAF’s Wonder Fuel?

It is called feedstock. And it can come from almost anywhere. There are three different generations of feedstocks available. The first generation is ready to go and the second and third will need better technology both to create SAF as well as to scale.

Some of these sources are incredibly hard to believe they could be burned as Jet A. A garbage bag full of old clothes? Yes, jet fuel and diesel can be made from household garbage. This amazing technology combines a gasification process and is converted into synthetic gas. This ‘syngas’ is then upgraded to a transportation fuel using a well-known technology developed in the 1920s called Fischer-Tropsch. Besides municipal waste, this technology is what converts agricultural residues and small woody crops.

But we have a long way to go before the technology can scale up to all the material in landfills. Right now, the focus is on dry biomass. The USDA  and the U.S. Department of Energy created a Billion-Ton Report that states that one billion tons of biomass can be collected sustainably each year to produce 50-60 billion gallons of low-carbon biofuels. Some of which will be used for the aviation industry. An added benefit to using dry biomass is the added revenue for farmers. It can increase income in rural America and support farming communities.

 

But The Sustainable Aviation Grand Challenge reignites the long-term debate about how we use our agricultural products. Should our enormous productive capacity be channeled to feeding people…or machines? Do our environmental concerns trump our obligation to feed a hungry world?

Can we do both?

Sustainability also applies to food security, not just environmental protection. Will crops used as a feedstock interfere with feeding animals and people? Because there is such a variety of feedstocks, the reliance will not be on just one. Having said that, right now, the technology available to scale is mostly in favor of oils from soybeans, canola, palm, as well as other agricultural residues.

Turbulence ahead: Sustainability Requirements

The glidepath to the SAF Challenge won’t be without headwinds and turbulence, either. It’s all about the life cycle analysis, meaning that the fuel must be sustainable over its entire lifecycle. Reducing emissions is the sustainability option that receives the most attention, but other considerations are legal, social, environmental, and managed planning.

For instance, especially in the developing world, is the feedstock made with paid labor? Does it interfere with their food? What about the environmental considerations?

Regarding plant feedstock, it is not enough just to say that the plant takes CO2 out of the atmosphere and the airplane puts it back while burning the fuel. That alone would be carbon neutral. But there is the fuel made to plant and harvest the crop, as well as transport and refine it into SAF. And, while plastic feedstock from landfills sounds very exciting, the fossil fuels to make the plastic contributes to more GHGs in the lifecycle than biomass’s carbon-neutral lifecycle.

Even so, compared to drilling, refining, and transporting oil, depending on the feedstock, SAF can save between 40% to 80% in emissions.

Right now, SAF is called a ‘drop-in’ fuel that is blended with Jet A to create up to a 50/50 ratio. It is called a ‘drop-in’ because at this maximum ratio no modifications need to be made to the engine or other components. However, most airlines and engines are currently approved to a 10% SAF mixture.

Who decides if SAF is safe to fly?

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International makes products safer and improves international standards to make goods easier to trade around the world. As one of the largest standards-development organizations in the world, it has established the criteria for the use of SAF and is relied on by the FAA for their testing requirements.

If the SAF is deemed equivalent to conventional jet fuel, then it is certified to drop in without any regulatory approvals.  If you are curious about the technical aspects of SAF, click here for the U.S. government review of the technical pathways.

It is expensive!

And then there’s the small issue of economics. Is SAF a realistic alternative in terms of cost – or just another greater expense waiting to contribute to ever-increasing inflation?

Expect more for your airline ticket. SAF can cost up to eight times more to produce than petroleum. But it can depend on the type of ‘fuel’ being converted. As of this writing, in the United States, the average retail cost of Jet A is $7.20 a gallon and the average SAF is $8.30. An extra $1.15 or $3.15 a gallon doesn’t seem like much, but if you are filling a Boeing 737 with 6,800 gallons of fuel, it will certainly force passengers to pay more.

On the KLM website, they state that SAF is two to three times more expensive. As a result, they are advising their passengers that they are adding a few euros to their ticket prices based on the distance. The benefit is that each passenger will reduce the CO2 emissions of their flight and contribute to SAF.

Like any new technology, government incentives help reduce the cost. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard in California is incentivizing fats, oils, and grease technology. In addition, the Department of Energy has a $250 million budget allocated to technologies associated with SAF. If incentives are not enough, governments might start taxing the ‘dirtier’ fuel.

Who is ready to fly and meet The Challenge?

Everyone. The FAA, USDA, EPA, trade associations, airlines, food processors, governments and airlines around the world, and the petroleum industry. Just to highlight a few:

  • The IATA is committed to net zero emissions by 2050. The association plans on achieving Fly Net Zero with 65% SAF, 13% new electric and hydrogen technology, 3% infrastructure and operation efficiencies, and 19% offsets and carbon capture.
  • Right now, Airlines for America, another trade association for U.S. airlines, has also approved SAF, but only up to 10% of a blend with Jet A.
  • Started in 2006, the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) is a coalition of 450 U.S. and international aviation trade representatives, energy companies, universities, and NGOs. CAAFI encourages the use of alternative jet fuels to promote ‘energy security and environmental sustainability for aviation’.
  • As stated on its site, “Clean Skies for Tomorrow” is an initiative from the World Economic Forum that provides a crucial global mechanism for top executives and public leaders to align on a transition to sustainable aviation fuels as part of a meaningful and proactive pathway for the industry to achieve carbon-neutral flying.
  • The European Landscape is participating, as well.

What is next on the flight plan?

New technologies to make SAF work well are under development, but not yet ready for prime time. For example, hydrogen is a very promising replacement for electric batteries. Airbus plans to burn hydrogen in their engines for fuel within the next 15 years. The only byproduct here is water! Here is a chart by McKinsey of new fuels and propulsion technologies.

Before there are clear skies….

This ‘audacious goal’ still must answer a few questions before taking off:

  1. Can this fuel scale to the level of millions of gallons delivered throughout the world with a new supply infrastructure to the refiners?
  2. Is there a long-term food versus fuel debate?
  3. How long before production costs are in line or cheaper than petroleum?
  4. Will SAF always need government incentives?
  5. Right now, this is a ‘drop in’ fuel of up to 50%. What happens to engines after the 50% mark? Do they have to be rebuilt? What if you have an old engine and go to fill up with more than 50% SAF? Will airports need two different fueling systems?

Can genetically engineered salmon save the world?


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Disclaimer: Dirt to Dinner has no commercial interests or links to the organizations or enterprises we write about – only a desire to call attention to innovative approaches to dealing with challenges facing our food system.

We last spoke with AquaBounty President and CEO Sylvia Wulf and CCO David Melbourne in December 2020, just before Covid’s global eruption. Much has happened since then, including the announcement of the opening of a new facility in Ohio and the first distribution of their genetically engineered (“GE”) salmon into the market. We sat down with Sylvia and David again recently to talk about all that’s happened in the last two years.

The formation of genetically engineered salmon

Founded by Elliot Entis in the early 1990s, AquaBounty has been committed to manufacturing the first commercially produced GE salmon. However, the first salmon AquaBounty harvested in 2020 was conventional salmon, which was done to commercialize the Indiana farm before GE salmon eggs were stocked.

Their main facility is in Albany, Indiana – a 122,000-square-foot property that raises 1,200 metric tons of salmon each year. They’re currently sending head-on, gutted fish direct to customers and working with several processing partners who produce fillets required to fill customer orders.  But this will change when AquaBounty opens its new, first large-scale commercial salmon farm in Pioneer, Ohio in 2023.

Pioneer, Ohio groundbreaking event: Jason Robertson, CRB; Tim Derickson, JobsOhio; Lu Cooke, Governor’s office; Megan Hausch, WEDCO; David Kelly, Innovasea; Leonard Hubert, Senator Portman’s office; Sylvia Wulf, AquaBounty President and CEO; Sam White, CRB; and Ed Kidston, Pioneer Mayor. 

With this new facility, AquaBounty will fully manage the filleting process for the salmon. When they do, they’ll start looking for uses for the unused part of the fish, including composting. Pioneer will not only have RAS, or Recirculating Aquaculture System, technology but will also be close to AquaBounty’s major markets, continuing to allow it to generate  a lower carbon footprint than what we see in salmon produced overseas and flown in.

During the Covid shutdown, AquaBounty continued to grow their conventional fish, but the drop in demand created by closed restaurants helped drive up AquaBounty’s inventory. In response, Sylvia and David elected to donate the entire conventional harvest – about 52,000 pounds of fish – to food banks. The decision helped feed people during difficult times. It also provided time to test, learn, and refine their salmon harvesting techniques. These lessons paid off with the very first harvest of GE salmon that followed.

Exterior plans for Pioneer, Ohio facility. 

Sustainability and Technology

AquaBounty’s production method is also more sustainable and better for the environment than catching salmon from the ocean. Land-based harvesting has shown to be more sustainable long-term than harvests that rely on sea cages. AquaBounty salmon also has a lower carbon footprint since they’re not using air freight for distribution, and they use fewer natural resources since production is in a controlled environment.

The technology that AquaBounty uses allows for a more sustainable fish, as well. They use a recirculating aquaculture system (“RAS”), which means that the water is constantly recirculated, cleaned, and filtered, and then goes back out cleaner than when it came in. This not only allows for cleaner water but also uses less water since it’s recycled. The new farm in Pioneer, Ohio, will draw on the latest technology in RAS and will also give the company opportunities for green and renewable energy down the road.

RAS fish are different from other farmed fish because the clean, recycled water removes some unwanted matter from inside the fish. This helps give it the clean, mild flavor. The technology AquaBounty uses has also allowed them to better understand the fish’s microbiome and how it can be changed in the feeding regimen. The consumer can be assured a clean, nutritious fish that’s sustainably produced and will help meet the growing demand for seafood.

Who’s buying GE salmon?

Personally, I haven’t seen a “GE” label or “bioengineered” disclosure on any of the salmon in grocery stores, so where is this GE salmon going? AquaBounty says that its primary focus for distribution is currently on the foodservice channel, seafood distributors, and wholesalers. They’re currently selling all  of their GE salmon to distributors and wholesalers, and being the only company in their specific market, they’re selling out weekly.

So, are we unknowingly eating GE salmon at a restaurant? Maybe. Restaurants don’t have to disclose the source of their seafood offerings (Yes, it could be from a fish farm in China or any other lesser-traced supplier.) Nor do restaurants have to tell you that you’re eating AquaBounty salmon.  It is important to note, however, that the salmon AquaBounty sells to its customers is labeled as GE and contains the Bioengineered disclosure. Taste alone won’t help, either – GE salmon may even taste better than some of the salmon being served to us today.

What do consumers think?

AquaBounty conducted a survey in 2019 to find out what consumers think about GE salmon. The results: most consumers don’t even know what a GMO really is or what it means to be “genetically engineered.” Many consumers also said that they know they’re not supposed to like foods that have been genetically engineered, but they’re not sure why. Seventy percent of consumers said they had the intention to purchase this salmon.

The concern is not the ingredient profile but the environment. Some consumers worry that the GE salmon will escape from their indoor tanks and end up in the oceans and genetically mix with wild salmon. But AquaBounty is land-based, not ocean-based. Their fish swim in tanks with seven layers of containment, meaning the chances of the fish escaping are nearly impossible.

Environmental benefits aside, will consumers taste a difference? It’s not widely discussed, but land-based fish can often have a ‘muddy’ flavor that some consumers contend doesn’t taste ‘clean.’ AquaBounty doesn’t have this issue.

At harvest time, AquaBounty fish are removed from the grow-out tank (where they are fed and, well, grow), then placed in a clean-tank conditioning unit with fresh water.

For the next 12 to 14 days, the fish swim around in waste-free water. The result: a clean flavor: “Seafood that has a strong seafood flavor can be a turn-off to consumers, so people enjoy the mild flavor,” says Melbourne.

From a nutritional standpoint, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference either. AquaBounty GE salmon essentially has the same nutritional profile as other farmed salmon from Norway or the Atlantic Ocean. The only slight difference you may see is in the fat content. Farmed salmon, in general, is fattier than wild salmon, meaning it has a higher omega-3 concentration. And we want this omega 3 fatty acid in our diet for its myriad benefits.

However, it still is a very slight difference. In fact, when the FDA did their review of AquaBounty’s GE salmon, they found that it’s not any different at all than regular farmed salmon.

Why do we need companies like AquaBounty?

Our global population is growing at an alarming rate. By 2050, we’re expected to have a world population of up to 10 billion people; that’s a lot of mouths to feed. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that it’ll take 60% more food to feed these extra two billion people.

The American Heart Association recommends that everyone eat seafood twice a week to lower the chances of developing diet-related illnesses, especially heart disease. Salmon is not only one of the most highly recommended kinds of seafood to consume, but it’s also already second in per capita consumption in the U.S., with shrimp being number one.

So, let’s do a little math here. If there are 10 billion people on the planet, and they all eat the recommended two servings of seafood per week, which would be 104 servings in a year, that’s over one trillion total servings per year. That’s a LOT of fish.

If people start eating the amount of seafood they need every week, where will we get it from? The oceans, rivers, and lakes are already overfished. We need innovations and new solutions; otherwise, there won’t be enough. This is the reason why AquaBounty does what it does.

We can’t shun or turn a blind eye to innovations and ways to grow or produce our food. Companies like AquaBounty will be the reason we have enough food to feed the world. We need new technologies and innovations to constantly keep up with growing demand through a myriad of solutions, without vilifying one another.

Forbidding genetically-engineered foods will not make the world healthier; it’ll just make it a less fed, more hungry, and food-insecure place.

What does the future hold for AquaBounty?

First, AquaBounty embraces e-commerce and wants to sell its fish directly to consumers. Through a sales channel like this, they will be able to sell more fish to the consumer, allowing them to build a relationship and learn how to engage the consumer with the product they’re providing. This includes educating the consumer on their product and the process.

An elevated look inside the planned Pioneer, Ohio facility. 

Sylvia and David also noted that the two things that the world sees as a negative actually helped AquaBounty – Covid-19 and climate change. They found that Covid allowed people to understand the benefits of biotechnology and its targeted way of solving challenges while also being safe and effective.

In terms of climate change, they found that people finally began to understand if we don’t think about our food and supply chain differently, we not only won’t be able to feed the world, but we definitely won’t be able to do it in a way that’s sustainable.

“We can’t eliminate the tools that will allow us to feed the world sustainably.”

– David Melbourne

There’s also a large opportunity for growth for AquaBounty. They’re looking at opening four to five more salmon farms in North America and possibly expanding to the Middle East and South America, as well. Will this allow the United States to hit pause on China, where we get the majority of our seafood?

AquaBounty also says there’s an opportunity for other species to be raised using this kind of technology — not genetically engineered per se, but with similar land-based RAS technology.

Two of these species include shrimp and tilapia. For shrimp, AquaBounty says it can apply its expertise in land-based farming and the understanding they have of biology and water technology to produce more sustainable shrimp.

If AquaBounty can farm tilapia like their land-based salmon, they can produce a more economical fish that’s produced locally and is safer than what we import from China.

As AquaBounty continues to grow and build more salmon farms, their technology will continue to improve. The capital costs will come down, making their GE salmon more attainable for consumer consumption and possibly less expensive than other fish we find in the grocery store. We can’t wait to see where the future takes AquaBounty.

Heavy metal exposure: what to know


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Heavy metals are virtually unavoidable—they are present in things we come into contact with every day— cookware, old paint, aluminum cans, foil, batteries, and many foods in our regular American diet. Some sources seem less obvious, like pesticides and organic foods. And noisy leaf blowers, too – they push heavy metals into the air we breathe.

It would be a fool’s errand to try avoiding each and every source of heavy metal around us. That said, there are ways we can help our bodies flush out excess heavy metals and protect us against free radical formation.

Heavy Metals in the News

In May, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released an action plan called Closer to Zero. This plan details the agency’s actions to reduce exposure to arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury from foods eaten by babies and young children, the population most vulnerable to its harmful effects. In the FDA’s words, the new acceptable levels will be “as low as possible” for this age group as they better formulate their recommended limitations that will include the rest of us, as well…

The FDA’s four-stage plan approaches the improvements from a research and regulatory perspective. Their first step is to continue evaluating existing data from routine testing of the food supply and leveraging other agencies and stakeholders to determine how to decrease these levels. The FDA will publicly provide information about monitoring, research and enforcement action.

In Phase 1 of the FDA’s Action Plan, we provided action levels for lead in juice…. In Phase 2, we will adjust the action levels, as appropriate, to finalize guidance to industry on the lead action levels. After a period of monitoring that may also include enforcement, we will reassess as part of Phase 3 whether those levels should be adjusted downward.”

– The Food and Drug Administration

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notes that metals are occurring in all ecosystems from both natural concentrations and from human activities that redistribute these metals into water sources, air, and soil. The trouble for consumers and food producers alike is that heavy metals show no visible evidence, unlike sediments or nutrient build-up. They’re hard to spot and even harder to avoid.

Sources of Heavy Metals

Many heavy metals naturally occur in the Earth’s crust from the weathering of metal rocks, volcanic eruptions, deposits from the atmosphere, and leaching into soil and groundwater. But fertilizers, irrigation, emissions from industrial work, combustion of fossil fuels, mining, smelting, and other human activities also contribute to contamination.

No standards currently exist for agricultural sources in water or soil for heavy metal levels. Setting and monitoring those limitations is part of the Closer to Zero plan. But particular considerations, like metals naturally occurring in the soil – and then our food –  will complicate the determination of specific levels.

Common food sources tested and proven to have toxic heavy metal presence include processed fruit juices, which can have high levels of arsenic. Baby food is another very surprising source: up to 95% of the baby food samples tested showed positive for arsenic, lead, or cadmium.

Some consumers wonder if organic baby food is a better choice to avoid heavy metals—not necessarily. Consumer Reports reported that “organic foods were as likely to contain heavy metals as conventional foods.” Many baby foods contain brown rice, an arsenic source. Whether it’s organic or conventional, the ‘bran’ or outer shell of the rice can retain high levels of arsenic from the soil. Because of this, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the FDA have recommended limiting rice intake for infants.

Probably the most common source we hear about for heavy metals in everyday foods is mercury in larger fish, like swordfish, shark, and the ever-popular tuna.

Heavy metals also exist in our drinking water. Research has shown that over 2,000 water systems have high levels of lead. Many of these water systems serve as irrigation for our crops, which impacts the levels of heavy metals in soil.

In turn, this affects the levels of heavy metals in the food grown in that soil, and ultimately determines the amount of heavy metals we ingest when we eat the foods grown in that soil.

Most foods that we eat have at least some trace amounts of heavy metals because of this process. And while trace amounts have not been found to have serious short-term health effects, the accumulation of these compounds over time may cause health issues.

Health Issues and Answers

Health issues caused by heavy metal buildup in the body have been heavily studied. Called “chronic toxic effects” or “heavy metal toxicity,” research has found that these metals can negatively impact a variety of organs. These include gastrointestinal and kidney dysfunction, autoimmune issues, thyroid problems, mitochondrial function, nervous system disorders, vascular damage, immune system dysfunction, certain types of cancers, and skin lesions.

Heavy metals can also lead to oxidative stress induced by the formation of free radicals,  which contribute to many chronic health issues and inflammatory issues that impact the above noted disorders.

Those with excess fat are more likely to have toxic buildup due to the “sticky” nature of white fat tissue. Epidemiological studies have shown a relationship between heavy metal exposure and the incidence of obesity and metabolic syndrome.

Foods that Fight

To protect yourself from toxic heavy metal buildup, be sure to focus on exercise, getting between six and eight hours of sleep per night, and eating these foods to increase your brown fat.

Thankfully, there is a subset of foods that, when ingested, latch on to these heavy metals in the digestive process and remove them. These include:

  • Antioxidants: As nature’s most dense antioxidant, blueberries are a powerhouse for eliminating free radicals from our bodies. Other foods high in antioxidants include dark chocolate, pecans, strawberries, artichokes, kale, raspberries, beans, beets, spinach, and red cabbage.
  • Chlorella: a single-celled green alga found in leafy greens. It contains proteins, fats, carbs, fiber, chlorophyll, and various vitamins. Studies have found that chlorella can weaken the heavy metal toxicity of the liver, brain, and kidneys.
  • Probiotics: Good gut health all starts with pre- and probiotics. Probiotics (specifically lactobacillus strains) can bind to heavy metals and help flush them from the body during the digestion process. Add foods like kombucha, cottage cheese, kefir, miso, and sauerkraut into your diet.
  • Selenium: An important mineral in neurotoxin elimination. Excellent sources of selenium include Brazil nuts, spinach, pork, beef, chicken and turkey, eggs, mushrooms, and yogurt. Cilantro is also a good source of selenium but beware, however, of the social media trend saying that it specifically removes heavy metals from the brain. This is unfounded, and academics state that while a 2014 study showed that cilantro extract can alleviate lead-induced oxidative stress in certain tissues of rat brains, the study is not robust enough for conclusions on human brain tissues.

While it may seem more straightforward to take your antioxidants, chlorella, probiotics, and selenium in supplement form, opting for the whole food versions of these vitamins and minerals is always the best course of action. The FDA does not monitor the purity or quality of supplements, and the bioavailability in whole foods is greater.

Heavy Metal Concentrations

Wondering how you can get your heavy metals tested? Acute levels of heavy metals can be measured by a simple blood, urine, or hair sample test. However, to capture the accumulation of heavy metals in your system, a “provoked” urine test or “chelation challenge test” is best.

Some of us who live in areas of higher accumulations than others may want to consider getting our blood work done for heavy metal accumulations. The below maps show accumulations of arsenic and lead in the soil and cadmium in the air in different parts of the United States.

Some researchers recommend getting tested or having your heavy metal levels read if you live in these concentrated areas, if you live in an older home that may have aging water pipes, work in an industrial plant, or live in a region where emissions are highly likely.

Other recommendations outside of our food choice are simple tips like limiting the dust in our home, removing our shoes that may collect metals, being aware of any local fish advisories regarding mercury, and being mindful of any surrounding lead exposure in your environment (paint, workplace hazards, home remedies, and cosmetics, jewelry, etc.), and being sure to read the labels on products coming into your home to see if they contain heavy metals.

Ultimately, the goal is to equip yourself with knowledge. So instead of living in fear, you can feel prepared knowing that you are taking measures to proactively fortify your system and limit heavy metal exposures in environments that you can control, like your home.

Plant-based chicken: should you switch?


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

We’ve all seen and probably tried the Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat beef burgers. Plant-based options are popping up in almost every fast-food restaurant: plant-based chorizo at Chipotle, Impossible Whoppers at Burger King, and most recently, plant-based chicken at KFC.

Let’s start with the basics – protein

Food is tasty, and we all love to eat (I know I do), but in the end, we want the nutrients in the food just as much as we want the flavor.

When I consider the benefits of chicken, the first thing that comes to mind is it’s a great source of protein. This means it has the nine amino acids profile that can fill in for the ones our body can’t make on its own.

Our bodies need 20 amino acids to break down foods, grow and repair body tissue, build muscle, boost your immune system, make hormones and brain chemicals, and give us healthy skin, hair, and nails. 

We can make 11 of these essential amino acids on our own, but we need to eat the other nine. What type of protein we eat determines if we are getting an incomplete or complete profile.

Complete proteins such as beef, poultry and eggs have all nine essential amino acids. Incomplete proteins such as nuts, seeds, beans, and grains have some amino acids but are missing some of the essential ones.

Is it worth it, then?

So, does this mean we shouldn’t eat plant-based proteins? Absolutely not. We need nuts, seeds, vegetables, and various other plant-based protein sources as part of a balanced diet.

Interestingly, soy is the primary source of protein in plant-based chicken. This is different from many plant-based beefs using pea isolates as the main source of protein. Soybeans are one of the very few plant proteins that contain all nine amino acids and are considered a complete protein. Others include brewer’s yeast, cottonseed, and the germ of grains. All of the plant-based chicken brands we listed below have the full complement of amino acids.

Let’s take a look at the nutrient profile of traditional chicken in comparison to some of the more popular plant-based chicken companies: Daring, Tofurky, No Evil, and Sweet Earth. These companies sell plant-based chicken that is not fried. There are other plant-based chicken companies, like Impossible and Beyond, but they focus on fried nuggets and patties that contain extra fat and calories.

Sources: USDA, VeganEssentials.com, Tofurky.com, NoEvilFoods.com, Goodnes.com.

What’s really in plant-based chicken?

When looking at the nutritional components above, one thing is clear: conventional chicken has the most protein out of all the options. It also has the least amount of sodium.

When buying processed food products such as these plant-based options, it’s essential to look at the product as a whole as well as each macronutrient. High sodium is often hidden in these processed foods because it makes the product more shelf-stable and taste better. The FDA recommends we limit our sodium intake to below 2,300 mg a day to decrease our chance of getting diet-related illnesses, such as diabetes and heart disease.

Let’s take a look at the differences in ingredients:

It’s obvious that there’s only one ingredient in chicken, but take a look at all of the ingredients in the plant-based alternatives. The protein source in alternative chicken is soy. But notice how seed oil appears in almost every other product.

Seed oils, like canola oil and sunflower oil, contain many omega-6 fatty acids. While not harmful to our health when consumed in the proper ratio to omega-3s, we want to limit our intake of omega 6s to between 11-22 grams a day.

It’s important to consume more omega-3 fatty acids from foods like salmon and spinach as they lower inflammation and increase blood flow. Conversely, too much omega 6 in our diet can lead to increased blood pressure, blood clots, and an increased risk of heart attack or stroke.

Plant-based meat misconceptions abound, from nutrient profile…

So now you’re probably asking yourself, “Should I begin eating plant-based chicken?” Of course! But it’s important to call out some misconceptions regarding plant-based meat before making your decision.

The phrase “plant-based” leads consumers to assume that these products are veggie-filled, or that vegetables are the primary ingredient, similar to a veggie burger.

However, being “plant-based” does not mean full of veggies, so you’re not getting the same nutrient profile. Plant-based just refers to the protein source, whether that’s from peas or soybeans.

Other consumers switch to plant-based meat, including chicken, as part of a “clean eating” diet. The phrase refers to only consuming unprocessed foods, like fruits and vegetables. However, when you look at plant-based chicken or any other alternative meat, for that matter, it’s pretty hard to argue that these foods are not processed.

As a marketing strategy, many of these plant-based companies also emphasize that they are non-GMO and organic because consumers associate both these terms with a healthier food product. However, neither of those components speaks to the nutrient profile or overall health of the product. Instead, be sure to look at the nutrition label for a real determination of health — especially its sodium and fat content. And, by the way, there’s no such thing as a GMO chicken.

…To its environmental effects

Like the Impossible burger, plant-based beef caught on quickly for a few reasons, but probably the biggest one was that people believed cattle were responsible for climate change. This fad caught on quickly, giving companies like Impossible and Beyond the push they needed to really start selling. To learn more on cattle’s effect on climate change, click here.

Chicken is less criticized for contributing to climate change. Some consumers make the switch to the plant-based alternative because of animal advocacy and concern for animal rights. There are misconceptions that chickens raised on factory farms are treated inhumanely and not as living, breathing animals. It’s also believed, erroneously, that chickens are pumped with antibiotics and not allowed outside.

Which to choose? Any and all.

With all of this in mind, will plant-based chicken ever catch on? Maybe. At the end of the day, it depends on the taste! Plant-based chicken is a good alternative for those who are vegetarian or vegan, but it doesn’t pack the same punch concerning other important aspects like plant-based beef did.

Either way, there’s room for all protein sources to give all 7.9 billion people in the world their complete amino acid profile, we need all types of proteins. Personally, I tried plant-based chicken and prefer the taste and texture of the real deal.

FFA’s Kayla Rossi: Responsibly Managing Livestock

Kayla Rossi of the Soroco Future Farmers of America (“FFA”) Chapter in Colorado lives on her family’s cow/calf operation and developed an interest in the experience at an early age. She runs her livestock operation on roughly 100 acres of irrigated pastureland, raising cattle, sheep and goats. Kayla irrigates, fixes fences, drags meadows, monitors the livestock, and harvests hay. 

In 2021, she was the Future Farmers of America’s Entrepreneurship Winner for Diversified Livestock Production. To hear more about her operations and role at FFA, click here.

My life on the family farm

I am a fifth-generation rancher. My family began ranching in the early 1900s by owning a small herd of Hereford Cows and growing potatoes.

Progressing into the mid-1970s my grandpa and uncle worked in the local coal mine and managed summer yearlings, which eventually led to the building of our cow herd that we have today.

A cow/calf operation allows us to have a permanent herd while producing calves to sell later in the year.

Having a cow/calf operation allows us to make breeding decisions that are best for our location, learn the importance of delivering the calf, keep accurate records on the cows, calves, and bulls, and know when to wean our calves to prepare for selling them.

What’s the process of running such a large operation?

I run my sheep, goat, and cattle enterprises on 100 acres of irrigated pastureland from my dad. I can lease these 100 acres through a labor exchange agreement, as it’s part of the family-owned ranch.

At the beginning of my SAE [FFA’s supervised agricultural experience], my dad taught me proper management and husbandry skills.

This enabled me to become independent over the last two years to ensure my operation ran smoothly.

What kind of work goes into maintaining the farm?

To be successful in my SAE, it is my responsibility to uphold my labor exchange contract. This includes irrigating, which I do from mid-May to early September. I learned about water rights from my dad and grandpa and the local water commissioner. This gave me an understanding of how much water I must use and where I need to get it in the pasture.

My family begins harvesting hay in late July. It is my duty to run the racking tractor because I am the youngest and that is how everyone starts on the ranch.

I do know how to run other equipment, but my sole responsibility is raking hay.

Farming challenges & opportunities

What is the most challenging part of your job on the farm?

The most challenging part of my job is time management. Every day I have to focus on all enterprises, which can be troubling. The best way that I can overcome this problem is through recordkeeping.

Solid time management skills allow me to understand what is going on in my operation, what enterprise needs the most hours of work out of my day, and what animals need attention.

I have to ensure I am giving enough time to each of my different enterprises while maintaining the responsibilities of my labor exchange.

What is your favorite part of your job?

I love breeding and kidding, lambing, and calving all my livestock. I take pride in knowing that I can breed my livestock with the animals that I have, and I get to see the end result.

Lambing season is the first major event of my year in late January. This requires me to check my ewes every few hours, and I get the ewes to the lambing jugs in the barn if there are babies.

I lamb until late February. Then, I calve in mid-March.

I love calving because it has been my life since I was a little girl. I have learned a lot from living on our family-owned/operated cow/calf operation. Later, I kid in early June to give me some time from when calving season ends in late April.

Goats are hard to raise in the cold, so I try to do it in the beginning of summer. This is to ensure they live to the time I sell them.

What is the most rewarding part of your job on the farm?

The most rewarding part of my job is seeing all my hard work pay off. The biggest example was with my proficiency application. I applied for the Diversified Livestock Proficiency award at my state-level last February 2021.

This application allowed me to explain my operation through prompts. When announced as the Colorado state winner, I revised it to be sent to the National level. Little did I know that I would be announced as a National Finalist in this area in August of 2021. I prepared for the interview that would allow me to show my knowledge of my operation.

At the 94th National FFA Convention and Expo, my Diversified Livestock Proficiency was announced as the National Winner. I was filled with excitement.

This taught me that while the work may be challenging, I know I am finding success at a job well done.

Creating the path for growth

What is an example of a regenerative practice that you’ve instituted at your operation? 

A particular regenerative practice that I have implemented in the livestock operation involves integrating livestock and crops.

In the spring, garrison grass begins to grow. I put cows out to graze the grass prior to irrigation. Grazing before irrigation reduces the amount of garrison grass that matures.

What is your best piece of advice for young people looking to focus their careers in farming?

The best piece of advice that I can give young people looking to focus their careers in farming is to not give up during the hard times. There are many days that agriculturists face where life seems to not be going their way, especially during droughts. However, the FFA has taught me to not give up because the rising sun symbol introduces a new day in agriculture.

Is Ag the Key to Future U.S.-China Relations?


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

We can’t live with them, and we can’t live without them.

We are sure you have heard this expression before – but not related to an important country with a $17 trillion GDP trying to close in on the U.S. $23 trillion GDP.

Tenuous relations with China

The issues between our two countries are vast: trade imbalance, Covid shutdown, supply chain shortages, intellectual property theft, tariff agreements, Xi-Putin relationship, human rights abuses, Chinese military buildup in South China sea, and worry regarding the Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

“As we face a complex and severe situation in agricultural development and food security worldwide, I firmly believe that China and the U.S., as major agricultural producers, consumers and traders, should meet challenges together, maintain stable development of agriculture, enhance the resilience of agricultural supply chains, ensure food security domestically, and promote cooperation for international food security. This will certainly be helpful for maintaining world peace, promoting global economic development and social stability, and delivering sustainable development.

Let’s bear in mind: no food, no stability, no peace.”

– Qin Gang, Ambassador to the United States, People’s Republic of China

Can our agricultural trade relations put the U.S. on a more equal footing?

The simple facts of mutual self-interest in food are obvious.

China needs a reliable supply of the food and feeds needed to offer improved diets for a burgeoning, increasingly affluent populace.

American farmers need markets for the incredible bounty produced by the most advanced, efficient food system on earth.

And in 2020, China was the largest market for U.S. agricultural exports. For instance, soybeans are 11% of U.S. total exports to China.

The history of U.S.-China trade in commodities and food products reflects those realities.

Phase One of Trump’s Trade Agreement called for China to purchase and import an average of $40 billion annually in food, agricultural, and seafood products for two years (2020 and 2021).

Chinese officials claim the actual 2020 purchases of $26.5 billion reflected the special circumstances facing the world as Covid took hold. In that environment, food and agricultural imports of that amount are noteworthy and still constitute the largest single export market for U.S. agriculture. The U.S. also happened to be China’s largest import market.

Can agriculture help bring our two countries together?  It seems that we are at a standoff. Both countries have initiatives in place to be dominant global leaders. China has the Made in China 2025 plan where they have selected key technologies that they strive to dominate globally.

The U.S. Congress has a bill outstanding called the America Competes Act of 2022 which is aimed at reducing long-term dependence on China. The bill includes everything from providing massive subsidies supporting U.S. semiconductor manufacturing to prohibiting federal funding for the Wuhan Lab.

Trade imbalance and tariffs on Chinese imports

The trade imbalance puts the U.S. at risk. U.S.-China trade has increased in value since China joined the World Trade Organization in December 2001. Today, trade between the two countries is $650 billion, give or take a boatload or two of soybeans, compared to $120 billion just two decades ago.

But the U.S. trade deficit has grown quickly, too, along with worries that the imbalance is costing the United States jobs and economic growth. In 2021, the total trade imbalance was $355 billion. The U.S. exported $151 billion to China versus imports totaling $506 billion.

The Economic Policy Institute estimates the trade deficit accounts for as many as 3.7 million lost American jobs between 2001 and 2018. Already in January and February of 2022, the trade deficit was 67 billion, up from 501 billion during the same period in 2021. That alone helps explain Washington’s growing interest in tariffs.

Now let’s combine inflation, a trade deficit, and tariffs. With prices at their highest level in four decades, politicians are grasping for any and all options for reducing the price pain felt by voters in an election year. As more than one public figure has opined, tariffs may be a good negotiating tool, but they serve no strategic purpose and are essentially a tax on consumers.

The most recent Covid shutdown has only exacerbated high prices and inflation. Once again China is in the spotlight for holding up the global supply chain. In their quest for zero Covid tolerance, 26 cities are in lockdown including Shanghai and soon to be Beijing. Citizens are quarantined, factories are partially shut down with employees living on floor mattresses, and global supply chains are suffering.

The United States imports 18 percent of all products from China and 33 percent of electronics. Looks like that new car you might have ordered might not be here by summer.

Timing is everything

But is this the right time to increase tariffs? Psaki and other officials emphasized that the entire question of tariffs remains under discussion within the Biden Administration. They also emphasize that the tariff-reduction and tariff-elimination talks involve “non-strategic goods.”

U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen helped bring the issue out into the open last month in testimony before Congress. Reductions in tariffs on U.S imports from China were “worth considering,” she told lawmakers and the assembled media. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki later added that the Biden Administration indeed is evaluating the inflationary effects of the tariffs on imports from China imposed by the Trump Administration.

The idea has considerable bipartisan support on Capitol Hill. But efforts to link the issue with further reductions or elimination of tariffs – especially for popular “non-strategic” consumer goods – have proved more contentious.

The political picture has grown more complicated by the much-publicized public polling that shows many Americans still favor the use of tariffs as a lever in building better relations with China. As Forbes reported on a survey from Morning Consult:

“61 percent of voters believe that increased imports have caused the U.S. to become dependent on China for goods that are critical to the U.S. economy and U.S. national security…73 percent of survey respondents said they support the U.S. government using trade remedies on China to protect U.S. industries and American workers with a similar high number – 71 percent – supporting the trade war tariffs imposed on $250 billion worth of China imports during the Trump Administration.  

– Kenneth Rapoza, Forbes, April 24, 2022

Take for instance the excitement around emission-reducing electric cars. The world is expected to drive about 400 million of these in the next 20 years. Which country is responsible for extracting rare earth minerals and processing lithium-ion batteries? You guessed it: China. While the cobalt, nickel, and manganese might come from Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile – Chinese state-run companies have a hold on extraction and dominate the processing.

Many politicians agree with those sentiments and argue for the continuation of aggressive tactics to deal with the perceived problems arising from a “one-sided” trade relationship. Some argue against further tariff reductions or exemptions and instead favor ramping up pressure on China to do more to correct the trade imbalance.

One solution would be to bring back manufacturing to the U.S. and reduce our reliance on Chinese imports. This would also address U.S. concerns over intellectual property rights, human rights issues, investment policy, and a host of other matters.

The debate over tariffs fits nicely into the simmering question of how best to revamp U.S. policy toward China. The continuing questions about the direction of U.S. strategy toward relations with China promises to be animated and protracted.

Amid all the arguments, two important points in that debate should be considered…

China is far more inclined to embrace trade in goods essential to citizens’ well-being than in non-essential products. Chinese leaders will look for suppliers who can reliably deliver essentials such as food. With arguably the most efficient and productive agricultural and food system in the world, the United States has the potential to be an important agent in shaping a more constructive relationship between the two countries.

Recognizing and accommodating China’s expanding food needs and objectives – and encouraging a competitive farm and food system to serve those needs and objectives – seems like a more productive approach than mandated quotas and fixed sales commitments.

Would a ‘traffic light’ label help prioritize your nutrition?


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Today, perhaps more than ever before, we all want two important things in our lives:  accountability and transparency. Market-research firm Mintel reported this year that consumers are looking for more natural and lesser processed foods rather than those with high fats, high sugar, and high sodium. The key phrase here is “looking for.”

With so little time available for extensive research, we rely on labels — those simple, easily grasped indicators of what we’re getting in the food products offered to us by suppliers who may be more interested in moving product than the useful information we want.

With mass confusion over labeling still widespread, how do we avoid the confusion about how to decipher what these labels really mean?

“About 11 million deaths worldwide in 2017 were attributed to diseases related to unhealthy diets.

Helping consumers make healthier food choices, i.e., with lower intakes of sugars, saturated fats, salt, and energy, and higher intakes of dietary fibres and fruits and vegetables, remains an important challenge in public health.”

IARC

Nutri-Score’s history

Developed in France in 2017, the Nutri-Score label was established based on a modified version of the United Kingdom’s Food Standards Agency nutrient profile model (FSA-NPS).  The UK model has been heavily studied, as it spotlights health outcomes at the national level in cohorts of France and Spain. These studies have revealed that foods with lower FSN-NPS scores were shown to have more favorable health outcomes with respect to many ailments, including asthma, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.

While the label is currently voluntary, many national health authorities have adopted it, including France, Belgium, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and most recently, Luxembourg.

The Nutri-Score label was designed to summarize the overall nutritional quality of a product. The algorithm (which we will dive into later) considers both the negative and positive elements of any given food to determine its “traffic light-like” rating.  (Green is good, red is bad, yellow is in between.)

In developing and implementing this label, French nutritionists also considered the consumer’s ease of use and understanding. Many labels currently exist.

However, as the latest research published in September of 2020 by Food Control details, 82% of consumers smell the food or look at the food, not the label, to influence their purchase decisions. This is due to label confusion.

But will consumers use it?

The stoplight-type label, as shown below, makes interpreting the label quick and easy—which is ultimately what we all want when we are making our purchase decisions. Who has hours to spend at the grocery store inspecting labels?  A study out of Switzerland in 2020, sampling over a thousand consumers, concluded that the Nutri-Score system was the most efficient front-of-package labeling and that consumers exceedingly trust it to make better, more informed dietary decisions.

As this labeling continues to spread in the EU, it begs food manufacturers to stop and think about the products they are creating. The general movement toward better labeling poses some fundamental questions for food manufacturers and consumer product companies.

How can they provide information that reflects the growing demand from consumers for accurate, trustworthy nutritional guidance? How do they help the consumer evaluate complex, incomplete and confusing information? Ultimately, should we place more focus on what’s good for our customers, not just what’s good for our bottom line?

Understanding the algorithm

How can we understand the rating and allow it to drive our decision-making without understanding how it is calculated?  If you have a salad for lunch packed with spinach, lean protein, mushrooms, beets, cucumber, and tomatoes, but then proceed to eat an entire sleeve of girl scout cookies, well, you have to take into consideration both the positive (salad) elements and the negative (cookies) elements.

Whether consciously or not, we all seek a balance in life. We try to be smart in our decision-making about what we eat. But we also like to splurge and indulge from time to time. 

Smart labels can help us make deliberate decisions that help bring about common-sense balance in our food choices.

Based on a points system, foods are scored by their positive and negative attributes. These points are then aggregated to determine an overall Nutri-Score. The algorithm gives positive points and negative points for various elements of nutrition. In the example below, you can see the categories of negative attributes — energy (or more commonly referred to as calories in the US), sugars, saturated fatty acids, and sodium — versus the positive attributes of fruits, vegetables, fibers, and proteins.

For instance, the veggie bowl being scored below received seven negative points and ten positive points, for an overall score of -3 (think of adding points as adding “bad” elements), giving the veggie bowl an A rating.

The development of the points system is based on a series of scientific research by the French High Council for Public Health. The calculations are rooted in complex-peer reviewed science-based nutritional calculations.

In fact, there is so much trust in this research and labeling systems calculations that retail giants Nestle, PepsiCo, Kellogg, and Danone, to name a few, have adopted it in various locations in the EU. They have recognized that science-based, peer-reviewed nutritional information can have a meaningful role to play in modern food retailing and more importantly, help the consumer make healthy choices.

Retail giants take transparency to a new level

In mid-2019, Nestle announced its support for the Nutri-Score label in recognition of its accuracy and easy-to-understand nutritional information at a glance and its commitment to transparency. Since then, Nestle has implemented this labeling scheme in Spain, Portugal, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, and Switzerland.

Nestle CEO for Zone Europe stated that he was proud to extend the implementation of Nutri-Score, now located on over 7,500 products. Since 2017, the sugar in these Nestle products has almost been cut in half, driven in part by the desire to achieve a higher Nutri-Score on their packages and for general health reasons.

While Nestle, in addition to Fleury Michon, Albert Hejin, Carrefour Belgium, and other European retail majors, support the labeling scheme, the European Commission is not yet convinced. Their latest “farm-to-fork” strategy, which details the future of food in Europe, stated that they would propose a “harmonized mandatory front-of-packaging label” by the fourth quarter of this year.

“Along with other public health nutrition measures, the Nutri-Score interpretive nutrition label aims to influence consumers at the point of purchase to choose food products with a better nutritional profile and to incentivize food manufacturers to improve the nutritional quality of products, thereby contributing to a healthier food environment.”

IARC

Could EU rulings impact U.S.-governed food labels?

Pressure to make healthier products, especially in a post-Covid world, has challenged U.S. food manufacturers to reduce sugars, fat, and sodium. The EU’s Nutri-Score initiative is a great start, but there’s a lot more needed to achieve meaningful results across a global food system. Non-EU nations — including the U.S. — continue to be in an evaluative mode.

History suggests the United States and other countries prefer to build on what others may have done and fine-tune the approach to reflect our own thinking and situation. The success of the EU efforts will help maintain the political (consumer) pressure needed to move that process along.

And in that process, it may help the entire labeling issue to take important next steps, such as applying the same scientific rigor and objective assessment of nutritional issues for popular, often ‘indulgent’ products, such as chocolate, sugary confections, and carbonated soft drinks. That said, it is no surprise that Nutri-Scores are harder to find in these less healthy categories. Check out how your favorite food rates using this link.

Adoption of this system throughout Europe demonstrates manufacturers’ increased commitment to prioritize consumer health by standing behind their formulations. While it is unlikely this decision in their farm-to-fork strategy will translate to the U.S., the key here is that we can see retail giants and industry leaders allowing consumers to lead the way to change. The Nestle’s of the world can be an invaluable force in driving this type of transparency and commitment to consumer health.

The key here is food-industry-led voluntary adoption as a result of demand for better labeling by the consumer. This change will come from widespread and continued consumer pressure.

Skeptics of the Nutri-Score

With the decision by the EU pending a mandatory labeling scheme in their end-of-year farm-to-fork strategy, it is rumored that the Nutri-Score label is a leading contender. But skeptics claim that the label only supports Big Food, stating that it is founded in self-interest by France, neglecting the “artisan” producers. However, rebuttals say that the research behind the score was by independent researchers and was designed to protect consumers’ health, not brands.

Furthermore, all products — including cheese, sweets, salty, and fatty foods — are all scored the same way. The beauty of an algorithm is that it is the same across the board, from the “big food” producers to the small artisan businesses.

Academics weighing in stress that the labeling scheme is protected at a European level, not just by France, and that it is a public health tool based on rigorous scientific research and developed in the interest of consumers.

Will more ethanol fight inflation…or fuel it? 


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

The effects of inflation and turbulent energy prices have shocked many of us – and our wallets – to the point of exhaustion. The U.S. government wants to ease this cycle, but when crop supplies are tight and inflation is running high, we must find the delicate balance with America’s agricultural abundance for food and fuel.

Where does ethanol come from?

Ethanol is a byproduct that comes mostly from fermentable carbohydrates in corn, but can also be derived from sorghum, wheat, and other starchy crops. What makes corn so attractive is that most of the kernel goes to use in the production of ethanol.

Corn is a cornerstone commodity of the modern food system. Along with high-value meals from soybeans, it is a critical and abundant protein source for maintaining flocks and herds around the world. As the world’s leading producer of corn, the United States is at the virtual center of the animal-protein system.

Last year’s U.S. crop totaled 15.1 billion bushels.

That’s enough to give every person on Earth two bushels of corn.

What is behind high food prices?

The causes of current food price inflation are many and varied, with higher energy costs as the most prominent factor.

Consider this: the world uses about 100 million barrels of oil a day. During Covid, demand dropped to around 92 million. That excess capacity maxed out global oil storage, and with nowhere to store the oil, prices dropped to below $0 at one point, essentially paying companies to buy their oil. As a result, drilling and capital investment in new wells stopped.

Then, the world came back to life. And with that, energy demand picked back up to previous levels.

So now we have high demand again due to economic growth. And when we put a war on top of that, it creates the perfect conditions for a high inflationary environment. But it all started before the Russia-Ukraine conflict. And even Covid, for that matter.

Inflation’s global grasp

Our current environment is the result of compounding events. For instance, do you remember when China lost most of its pigs to African Swine Fever back in 2018? Their hog population has recovered which only increased their demand for animal feed – coming from corn and soybeans. Yet supplies for animal feed were tight. Droughts in North and South America – where China imports its crops – decreased supply and of course increased crop prices.

And then a serious global disruption hit and with it, unpredictable consumer behavior and perpetually mutating supply chains. Now, add in a global recovery, leading to increased oil and natural gas demand – and prices. High energy prices make everything more expensive – including farming the global crop supply as fertilizer prices and transportation costs increase.

Next up: volatility and uncertainty with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The invasion alone has devastated local economies and rocked supply chains, but with China, Russia, Canada, and Belarus as major exporters of fertilizer needed for crops around the world, our global food system is pushed further into price uncertainty.

Because of these factors, farmers now have even more pressure than ever before to plant more crops using less fertilizer while consuming less energy. Many farmers are already maximizing their yield with technology improvements such as precision farming and regenerative agriculture. In fact, corn yields last year were 177 bushels an acre, a robust 4 percent increase from 2020.

What’s behind the move to expand ethanol use?

President Biden wants to reduce gas prices by adding more ethanol into the gas pumps to make sure gas prices don’t float over $5 a gallon for the summer.

Raising the current standard of allowing a 10-percent blend of ethanol (“E10”) into the gas used in our cars to 15 percent (“E15”) seems like a good idea, with prices at the pump now averaging just over $4 per gallon.

At such levels, the ethanol component of a gas mix seems to be less costly than the gasoline it displaces. And with a simmering voter revolt against the highest inflation rate in 40 years or more, the idea obviously has its political allure. Wrapping the decision in the guise of evolving energy policy and economic aid to consumers makes it an easy, flag-waving exercise. Especially before the mid-term elections.

This move may also help farmers. Purdue University studied renewable fuels and found that biofuel income has also shown to increase annual farm income by $10.6 billion between 2004 and 2016 since the Renewable Fuel Act was introduced.

But would this really work?

The story is much more complex than an academic study – and full of additional realities that also need to be considered. Expanding ethanol use for energy may not ease farmer production pressure. In fact, it may have adverse effects as it could maintain the upward price pressures that currently are sweeping through commodity markets – especially for corn and other cornerstone commodities.

Administration officials and media reports say an increase to a 15-percent ethanol mix will reduce prices at the pump by about 10 cents per gallon. At a national average per-gallon gas cost of $4.03, that equates to a 2.4 percent drop, at best.

What’s more, that small savings may have limited availability. Our nation has roughly 150,000 gas stations, serving an estimated 270 million cars. But only 3 percent of all stations offer the E15 blend. Additionally, these E15 stations are largely concentrated in the Midwest and South.

Though we can hope for a quick nationwide expansion of E15 stations, it will take time, as these stations require compliance with additional regulations, unless the Administration releases a temporary waiver. And then we have taxpayer dollars to consider for these improvements.

Whatever minimal gains that come at the gas pump could be offset by the losses at the supermarket generated by food price inflation and additional taxes

Perhaps cognizant of the practical problems created by having so few facilities available to deliver in the expanded ethanol formulation, Administration officials and many economists said President Biden’s decision will have no significant effect on corn prices. They also probably said that because E15 has already been sold through the fall, winter, and spring from 2019 to 2021, making E15’s availability in the summer months the only meaningful addition.

Ethanol’s ‘byproduct’ effects

Even so, the announcement will have an important psychological effect in the marketplace. Any steps to expand demand must have some effect on price if basic laws of supply and demand still apply. Even if the ethanol action had a completely neutral influence on the market, it does nothing to reduce the upward pressures driving food price inflation, especially in the animal protein industries.

An increase in the price of corn increases the price of the steak or chicken at your table.

President Biden’s announcement only helped maintain the currently strong corn price, which now stands at around $8 per bushel.

Most market analysis also cites the importance of China as a growing market for U.S. corn and other commodities – and with ethanol, a major factor in the historically high commodity prices seen this year by farmers and consumers alike. Corn prices have risen by more than one-third since the beginning of this year, adding more than $2 per bushel in less than four months.

The simple truth is that demand for corn for domestic use, for exports and for current ethanol production remains robust, with real and immediate bullish effects on the price of a cornerstone commodity in our modern food system.

Will farmers see an upside?

Some large farmers already warn they simply don’t have the production elasticity needed to increase corn production to offset growing demand, including higher ethanol mandates and targets. These forward-looking producers say they already are coping with increases in input costs, rising land values and other practical day-to-day issues that make large boosts in crop production difficult – if not impossible for many. And, let’s not forget about the weather. Spring is slow to come to the Midwest this year, with planting season already delayed.

In such an environment, don’t expect inflationary pressures on commodity prices and food costs to go away. If anything, the latest ethanol action only adds to worries from consumers and farmers alike about the future price picture for all sorts of food.

This is a double-edged sword: Higher demand for corn – and the support for corn prices it provides – is good for farmers and their bottom line amid dramatically rising production costs. But anyone who goes to the grocery store will see the inflationary prices eating into their wallet.

Thinking bigger

What would really help gas prices would be to have a solid energy plan that realizes the world is not ready for all renewable energy at this point.

Green energy sounds good but it is not ready for prime time in 2022. We are all very dependent on fossil fuels. Let oil companies drill responsibly, increase the natural gas pipelines, expand nuclear, and keep technology improving for renewable energy. There is not just one answer for energy – it is multi-faceted.

Goodbye “GMO”, Hello “Bioengineered”

Food labels create confusion over what’s considered “safe” and “healthy” food. They all represent different things, and some are just a clever way to increase the product’s price or reputation. So, what makes this “bioengineered” label special, and why is this change happening now? Let’s start by taking a look at the GMO label of the past.

The ‘Non-GMO’ Label

The Non-GMO Project, a nonprofit based in Bellingham, Washington, was created in 2007 and is responsible for the “non-GMO” butterfly label that we see on many of our foods. The premise is that consumers should know how their food was grown. However, in many cases, the non-GMO label has been used to influence the consumer’s thinking that GMOs are unhealthy and non-GMO is better for them.

Fear is a great motivator and in this case, people were scared of harming their health by eating GMOs. This is similar to how many consumers associate organic as the only food choice for long-term health and sustainability.

But those correlations are not always accurate. Non-GMO does not mean you are getting a healthier, safer, or more sustainably-produced food item. It is just grown with new technology that allows for fewer pesticides, resists disease, and handles drought, which in turn increases yield on existing land. GMOs are the most widely-tested food in the world and have been deemed safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). In addition, 59 countries have granted a total of 2,497 approvals for different GMO products.

The non-GMO label may look official, but the FDA or other government organizations do not regulate it. Furthermore, the label was placed on products where no GMO counterpart existed, creating more confusion among consumers. There is no such thing as GMO salt, yet we still see the non-GMO label suggesting that there is, and we’re being charged more for the one with the “non-GMO” label. We have even seen non-GMO water!

Let’s also not forget that there are only ten genetically-modified crops currently approved in the United States.

How the new bioengineered label works

All U.S. food manufacturers, including those exporting food to the U.S., must label GMO products, or any products that contain GMO ingredients, as “bioengineered” or “derived from bioengineering.” This guideline was first announced by the USDA in 2018, but companies had until 2022 to add the labels to their packaging. This law aims to keep consumers better educated on their food. Also, some states required the labels and some did not, which caused even more confusion.

So what’s considered ”bioengineered” under this law? There is a threshold for how much genetically-modified materials need to be present in order to use the label. The USDA states that foods with 5% or more of their product derived from GMOs must have the new label. This is different from the threshold in the European Union, where it’s only 0.9%. Furthermore, the non-GMO Project also uses the threshold of 0.9%.

But why 5% if everyone else seems to use 0.9%? This is because trace amounts of genetic modifications, or parts of GMOs, can be found on equipment for processing those products. Genetic modifications can even be carried on pollen. With 5%, it leaves room for any trace amounts of “GMO residue” found on food products. There’s also less opportunity for food brands to capitalize on the label as a marketing tactic.

Producers can use this label in three ways. They can label their product using simple text, apply one of two graphics that the USDA has already approved, or use a QR code. Consumers can scan the code on the packaging to learn more about that product.

One loophole is if meat, poultry, or eggs are listed as the first ingredient on a food product, the label is not required. Even if one of these ingredients is listed second after water, stock, or broth, the label is not required. So, some prepared food items that may contain GMOs still won’t have this disclosed.

Why this label may just cause more problems  

This label may just leave consumers even more confused than they already were. Consumers are already confused about which products are and aren’t GMOs and what the term even means. The non-GMO label didn’t help with this, especially when it was placed on goods with no GMO counterpart.

There are other concerns, as well. Could this lead people to consume more processed foods if they find that their favorite fruits and veggies are now ”bioengineered”? As with organic, they may believe that processed foods without the label are the healthier and safer option. For instance, a non-GMO pizza with all the toppings versus a GMO arctic apple?

Lastly, some manufacturers may face economic loss due to these new standards. Although most GMO crops are used for animal feed, ingredients like corn, canola, soybeans, and sugar beets all have GMO counterparts used in routine products made for humans.

D2D did an Instagram poll in which followers were asked: “Are you more or less likely to purchase a product labeled ‘bioengineered’?”

100% stated they were less likely. Companies that use GMO products and the new corresponding label may see a decline in sales and/or customer loyalty.

Is there a potential upside to the change in labeling?

Despite the confusion, there are a couple of positives here. Consumers are already demanding transparency in their food system, a trend we see growing in 2022. People want to know nuts to bolts: where their food came from, how it was grown or raised, down to the farmer’s name. Using this new USDA-vetted label, we’re increasing more scientifically rigorous transparency in the food system.

The other positive effect this label could have is increased education among consumers. The QR code alone has the power to help educate others on GMOs – the truth. This code can help change the narrative that’s been present for way too long and finally help consumers understand why we need GMOs in our food system – for our planet’s health, food security, and much more.

We see this as an opportunity for the USDA and food manufacturers alike to take advantage of this label or QR code to educate consumers on the safety and benefits of GMOs rather than use it as a scare tactic.

And, if you’re still confused about what a GMO is or the benefits that it has for humans and the environment, check out these related articles:

Global Trade Can’t Happen without Ocean Freight


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Economists like to remind us that trade makes the world go ‘round.  If that’s true, the world must be spinning very fast indeed.

Recognizing a water-borne world economy

International commerce continues to grow – despite the conflict, pandemics, climate change and other challenges that make our global economic growth rates gyrate. The global Covid pandemic created a sharp but short-lived drop in commerce. But robust demand for all types of goods and aggressive exports by select Asian countries helped boost overall trade in 2021, to more than $28 trillion, according to estimates from the United Nations.

Yes…$28,000,000,000,000.00.

The cornerstone of commerce is transportation – the ability to move goods from where they are produced to where they are consumed, from where they are available to where they are needed.  And when it comes to international commerce, no mode of transportation is more important than ocean shipping.

Estimates from the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) show as much as 80 percent of the volume of global trade (and 70 percent by value) moves via ocean shipping.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development even pushes this estimate further to 90 percent.

Satisfying that demand is a big job – and not without its challenges and controversies.

The most immediate challenge is simply keeping up the supply of ships with the growth in commerce.  Today’s ocean-going merchant fleet numbers about 55,000 vessels, from smaller, specialized carriers carrying as little as 10,000 deadweight tons (DWT) to the giant multipurpose vessels capable of transporting 200,000 DWT or more.

The largest container ships can carry almost 24,000 TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent) containers – and the top 10 container vessels alone could accommodate an amazing 220,000 TEUs.  The Japanese vessel Ever Given, which memorably blocked the Suez Canal last year, is among that class of vessel, with a container carrying capacity of over 20,000 TEUs.

Perhaps the greatest public attention to ocean shipping has come from extensive video images of these large container ships awaiting unloading at various ports during the pandemic.  While these vessels are a critical component of the global trade in goods, they are by no means the only component, or even the most numerous.  They carry a wide range of high-value components and finished consumer products.  But they are significantly outnumbered by the smaller general cargo vessels and dry/wet bulk cargo carriers.

Transporting dry bulk

Dry bulk carriers make up the backbone of global commerce in the grains, oilseeds, coal, minerals and other high-volume commodities that form the foundation of our modern, interconnected global food, energy and manufacturing systems.

This portion of the fleet provides the steady flow of commodities from the American heartland to customers around the world.

Grain and oilseeds flow down the Mississippi River and to other critical exports points on the East and West Coasts.  The Great Lakes corridor also provides the physical connection to China and other Asian markets, Europe and destinations literally spanning the globe.

The dry bulk fleet is made up of over 12,300 vessels of more than a dozen different classes, based on capacity. These workhorse carriers can transport 912 million tons, according to estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

One historically important class of dry bulk carriers is the Panamax vessel, which was designed specifically to traverse the original small locks of the Panama Canal, speeding delivery from the U.S. Gulf and East Coast to the rapidly expanding markets in the Asia-Pacific region. Expansion of the locks has increased the size of vessels that can use the Canal today for the same purpose.

The supply of all categories of vessels changes, as boats age and are retired from service, and as the demand for larger, more efficient, more environmentally friendly ships emerges.

Estimates of the construction costs for ocean vessels vary widely, due to the myriad potential specifications for the multiple classes of vessels.  But a 2015 shipping industry study put the average cost of a container ship at $64 million, with a general if predictable observation that the larger the vessel, the larger the cost. Apart from the significant costs involved, the time required to construct these mammoth vessels can be three years from time of order to delivery.  Even so, as many as 700 vessels are on order at the beginning of 2022, which seems to reflect a broad faith in the continuing demand for ocean freight.

How does climate change come into the picture?

The critical role played by ocean shipping in maintaining international commerce and a vibrant global economy isn’t up for debate.  But that doesn’t mean the industry is immune from other, bigger concerns – including the contentious debate over how to deal with greenhouse gases and climate change.

Compared with other transportation modes – air, rail, truck and others – ocean shipping offers the lowest cost per ton of freight moved. 

It also creates the smallest environmental footprint. 

Environmentalists by and large acknowledge the point. Airplanes generate the largest carbon footprint, with an estimated 500 grams of carbon dioxide per metric ton of freight. For example, according to Freight That Just Works, 2 tonnes shipped for 5,000 kilometers by ocean freight will lead to 150 kg of CO2 emissions, compared to 6,605 kg of CO2 emissions by air freight. Trucks produce about 50-150 grams, trains 30-60 grams per ton of freight. Ships emit only 10 to 40 grams. (That translates into at the worst one pound of carbon for every 11 tons of ocean-borne cargo, and one pound of carbon per 45 tons at the worst.) In other words, the worst-performing transportation sector contributes at least 20-30 times the carbon dioxide of the ocean shipping industry.

The World Economic Forum recently estimated that ocean freight contributes roughly 3 percent of the carbon dioxide at the center of the global climate debate.  It sounds like a very small – almost secondary, if not insignificant – point in the climate action plan.  But far from it.

The 2021 Glasgow Climate Summit saw 19 nations endorse an aggressive plan to tax the ocean freight industry as a means of encouraging still more efforts by the industry to curtail its contributions to global warming.

The additional costs would be imposed on traffic moving in the most popular sea lanes known as “green corridors,” especially those where traffic is expected to continue growing significantly.

Using the wind to propel large vessels is enthusiastically embraced by some charter companies to help offset engine power. The objective is to spur construction of carbon-neutral vessels and spur a 40 percent per-vessel reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2040. The ocean freight industry has responded positively to the idea of being an active participant in the global climate initiative.

The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), which actively participated in the Glasgow meeting, has announced plans for a special summit of industry figures, shipowners, infrastructure and other leaders to produce “a tangible path to decarbonize the sector.” 

A sea of controversy

Despite the largely upbeat tone of the post-Glasgow discussions, the ocean freight sector nonetheless faces another contentious issue – the enormous escalation in shipping costs.

Freight rates for all forms of water-borne transportation have been on a roller-coaster for some time.  But the supply-chain disruptions created by the global pandemic exacerbated upward prices pressures – and with the higher rates, loud and aggressive charges of unfair pricing if not outright price gouging.

Freight rates have indeed been under upward pressure, even before the emergence of Covid.  Economists point to the mid-2000s as a critical point in the pricing dynamic, as China began to expand its global economic reach through a steady increase in import demand.  The Beijing Olympics were one important driving force in the overall price increase, as was the rising trade focus across the Asia Pacific region.

The pandemic piled on this growing challenge to the global supply chain, with immediate and highly visible increases in shipping costs.  Rates for a bulk grain shipment from the U.S. Gulf to Japan in February 2016 stood at $22.56 per ton.  By May 2020, as the pandemic began to gain steam, the same rates had increased to $34.31.  By October of last year, as the U.S. harvest gained momentum, the rate had climbed to $87.38 – roughly four times the rate less than six years before.  Rates for shipment from ports in the Pacific Northwest showed similar increases.

Behind the rising demand for ocean freight

The challenges to international commerce have been offset in substantial ways by the emergence of China and other Asia Pacific nations as major players in international trade, as both exporters and importers of all sorts of commodities, components and finished consumer products.

Global trade volume via ocean exceeds 80 percent, and 60 percent of that passes through Asia. The South China Sea alone carries as much as one-third of global shipping. An estimated $5.3 trillion worth of goods travel the South China Sea each year – as much as $1.2 trillion of that amount being trade with the United States.

Source: China Power.

China, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and other Asian nations often have shown more rapid economic growth and better trade balances than the United States and most other western nations.

Legislation to reform federal shipping regulations has passed in both houses of Congress.  The bill’s consumer-oriented proponents emphasize the need to invest more money in clearing up port bottlenecks.  The largest bottlenecks are off the coast of California where 40% percent of U.S. imports arrive. Long Beach and Los Angeles ports are listed as the worst of all global ports, at less than 8 percent.

Agriculture interests agree with the need to improve port performance, with American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duval citing shipment delays affecting more than one-fifth of all agricultural foreign sales, costing U.S. farmers as much as $4 billion.  A conference between the two houses is needed before a final bill can go to the White House for signature.

Ukraine Conflict Clouds Outlook for Global Food System


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Life is full of unintended consequences. And unfortunately, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has provided classic proof of the old adage.

In this environment, daily events — military and political — have an increased influence over daily commodity supply, causing gyrations in prices that obscure buying decisions. Further complicating matters is filling the 7 million metric-ton gap created by the dramatic decreases in Russian-Ukraine wheat export levels. In short, prices are not only higher than historic levels, but also subject to wider swings.

Far beyond the carnage facing citizens of Ukraine, the world faces some very real and substantial costs from the war. We risk facing a hefty tuition bill for once again learning the unforeseen dangers too late.

The immediate threat to our global food system

The threat posed to our global food system by Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has been well documented. At the core of the threat is one simple truth: the world depends upon an interconnected network of agricultural trade. No country can credibly claim complete food self-sufficiency.

We’re committed to a system based on comparative advantage, in which all nations seek to exploit their natural advantages to supply the world with the commodities and food products they produce most efficiently.

If economics alone didn’t create such an integrated marketplace, our tastes would. Consumers everywhere simply want to have a wide variety of foods all the time, regardless of local growing seasons.

That fundamental reality of modern life has made Russia and Ukraine critical elements of the global food system.

The rich productive capacity of each nation has firmly established them as critical providers of a range of commodities, notably wheat, sunflower oil (see below chart), barley and corn.

The charts and graphs that accompany this post paint a sobering picture of just how significant Russia and Ukraine are to our modern food system – and suggest why both economic experts and political leaders are so concerned with more than just the carnage of battle.

The war’s rippling effects

When the flow of those commodities is interrupted – by war or any other factor – the effects ripple across the entire global food system. As just one example, the conflict has promoted a dramatic increase in insurance costs for shipping commodities in the region, effectively altering if not limiting trade flows. And the longer the interruption continues, the greater the uncertainty that fuels steady and often sharp increases in commodity prices.

How long prices will remain at current historically high levels is almost impossible to predict. Normally, high prices trigger increased production. But these aren’t normal times. Open conflict obviously will affect how much land in the embattled region is planted for next year’s crop.

Equally important, the corollary effects of rising energy prices also will complicate decision-making by producers everywhere who face dramatic increases in the cost of fuel for field equipment and especially the fertilizers needed to produce the best possible production levels.

Other producers of food grains, feed grains, and oilseeds around the world may not farm under the sounds of guns, but they can’t escape these high costs.

Production uncertainties – and price volatility – measured in months if not years will be among the most significant unintended consequences of the conflict. In the modern, interconnected food system, uncertainty translates into risk – and higher costs and higher prices for everyone.

The Threat of Immediate Hunger

But another, more pernicious effect of the conflict remains to be addressed: the very real threat of immediate hunger to millions – or more – of the world’s hungriest and neediest people.

Remember, wheat is the food of the here and now.

Most often, it’s the daily bread sustaining a majority of our world’s population, especially in the less economically developed areas of Africa, the Middle East, and other areas currently dependent on wheat from Russia and Ukraine.

And feed grains and meal from oilseeds are tomorrow’s food staples.

Oilseeds go into the feed rations that produce animal protein – a kind of investment in the protein-rich foods making up a greater share in more economically advanced markets.

But whether you live in an economically advanced country or lesser developed, disruptions of these commodities that threaten hunger become very real and very immediate for all.

Just how important are Russia and Ukraine to world agriculture?

Probably more than you think:

The two nations account for a combined 80 percent of global sunflower seed oil and meal…

  • Sunflowers account for about 9 percent of the vegetable oils consumed worldwide, mostly for cooking and processed foods
  • Linoleic acid from sunflower oil is in skincare products to lock in moisture, reduce inflammation and promote healing
  • Competing suppliers face price pressures of their own, with lower acreages in Brazil and Canada and export restrictions in Indonesia

…30 percent of global wheat production…

  • Russia is the world’s largest exporter of wheat, accounting for over 19 percent of global wheat trade, worth roughly $8 billion
  • Ukraine accounts for about 9 percent of the market, with sales of roughly $3.6 billion. Almost 41 percent of Ukraine’s wheat exports go to African countries.
  • In comparison, the U.S. and Canada each provide 14 percent of world wheat exports, worth about $13 billion in total

…30 percent of world barley trade and 16 percent of global corn exports. 

 Sources: FAS/USDA; S&P Global Market Intelligence GTAS Forecasting

How does fasting prevent disease?


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Fasting has been in practice since the dawn of humankind and in all cultures and religions. We don’t hear about it as often now, but perhaps our ancestors were on to something…

In addition to its spiritual benefits, implementing a fasting program into an already-healthy diet has been shown to have a significant effect on our long-term health.

For someone who loves to eat, I wanted to fast for the minimum amount of time and get the most benefits. My parents both died of cancer, so my focus is preventing this awful disease, in particular.

A little starvation can do more for the average sick man than can the best medicines and the best doctors” 

– Mark Twain

What are the benefits of fasting?

Forcing your body to cope with the stress of no food, can help our bodies enhance DNA repair, eliminate toxins, increase brain cells, lose fat, reduce inflammation, and combat diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, obesity, cancer, and cognitive impairment.

The benefits, also listed in the image below, have been studied by some of the most trusted researchers today. Of course, many of the fasting studies have been done on mice and other animals – even Labrador retrievers (who lived longer) – but the results have been confirmed on human studies as well. Testing diets is always more difficult to do on humans, but I have learned that putting your body under stress, as in fasting, is something that most of us should do consistently – but with a solid plan.

What is a ‘fast’?

At D2D, we have written about intermittent fasting.  This is where you don’t eat for a period of time each day or week to ‘reset’ your body. For instance, you can fast for 14, 16, or 18 hours each day and then only eat during a 10-, 8-, or 6-hour window.  Or, once a week, you can fast for 24 hours, for example from dinner to dinner.  Maybe you want to do the 5:2 fast, which is fasting for two days each week.

What I wanted to know more specifically is: what happens to my body during the different phases of fasting? And what is the optimal timing to achieve the maximum benefits? Is it 16 or 24 hours?  Is it really five days? And…could I do it for five days?

Our 5-day experience

Our son and his fiancé inspired us to try the 5-day fast-mimicking program they do from time to time called Prolon. This specific one was developed by Dr. Valter Longo, professor at USC Davis School of Gerontology, Department of Biological Sciences, and Director of the USC Longevity Institute. For my husband and me, it sounded challenging but appealing because Dr. Longo has carefully researched and constructed a nutritious diet to follow for each of the five days. Dr. Longo was one of the select few awarded a grant from the National Institute on Aging, part of the National Institute of Health, to research fasting, cell regeneration, and disease protection.

Prolon sent us a box of plant-based food so we could dutifully follow the protocol which ‘tricks’ our bodies into thinking we were fasting. This means we ate a modest 1100 calories the first day and then between 700-800 calories on days two to five.

The food consisted of caffeine-free teas, an energy drink, fasting bars, crackers, and soups. For instance, one day we would have a bar for breakfast, watery soup for lunch and watery soup and a bar for dinner. All day, the Prolon directions encouraged us to hydrate and keep our energy up by drinking their glycerin ‘L-Drink’ mixed with the tasty teas.

We did it!

We decided to go from Sunday to Thursday. Honestly, I was nervous as we approached the date. I already do the 15-16 hour fasting and that is pretty easy because I know a good meal is coming that very day. I was curious about how I would do on such limited calories for five days without a real meal in sight. I wanted to make sure I kept my muscles, so I planned on continuing my workouts. Would I have enough energy?

Plus, I was worried about losing too much weight. So I did what most people don’t do — I bulked up beforehand and happily gained three pounds. My sister said that I should be more thoughtful and approach this with peace and mindfulness.  She was probably right…my husband just plowed right into this experience without any hesitation or trepidation.

What happened? After seriously overthinking this, basically, we were…fine. We had plenty of energy to work out, we were not tired and while we were hungry, we weren’t “hangry”, so the entire five-day period was only modestly unpleasant. Although, I was very excited to eat a ‘real meal’ on day six!

But the benefits from Prolon are only studied and proven if one does this once a month for three consecutive months. Really?  Do I have to do this again?  I am wondering if there is a shorter version to gain the same benefits.

Your body’s response to fasting

While there are multiple benefits to intermittent fasting, they can be categorized in three areas: burning fat, increasing brain activity, and preventing disease. How long you fast determines the benefits.

Burning Fat:

Each cell in your body needs fuel to function. That fuel comes from carbohydrates ranging from fruit to vegetables to grains. After a meal, the glucose from your meal is used for energy and the fat is stored as triglycerides. When you fast, your liver converts fatty acids to ketones, a major source of energy for many of your body’s organs.

According to a study by Mark Mattson, a neuroscientist from Johns Hopkins, who has studied intermittent fasting for 25 years, “more than just burning fat, ketones regulate the expression and activity of many proteins and molecules that are known to influence health and aging.’

Brain Activity:

Your brain loves ketones. Ketones help generate a hormone called BDNF which strengthen neural connections and promote new nerve cells in the brain for learning and memory. In turn, this may help prevent Alzheimer’s and other neurodegenerative disorders. Clinical trials have shown that caloric restriction improves verbal memory, executive function (memory, flexible thinking, and self-control), and global cognition.

Preventing Disease:

After a period of fasting, your cells go through autophagy. This is a cleanup of waste and damaged components in the cells. During autophagy, your cells repurpose some of the proteins and other cell parts and then direct them to where they are needed. This is where your body begins to flush out cells exhibiting early-stage diseases such as cancers and Alzheimer’s. Exercise also enhances autophagy, and even more so while fasting.

Inspired by Nimsdai Purja, who climbed 14 peaks in an incredible 7 months, we agree that ‘Nothing is Impossible’.

What kind of fast is right for you?

What type you choose depends on your lifestyle, your microbiome, your goals, and your ability to manage hunger. And don’t forget to check with your doctor – mine was a little curious about the five days.

For me, fasting will now become a way of life – and hopefully for my husband. As a result, I have decided to do an 16-18 hour fast each day with a three or four day fast about four times a year.  If I am extremely motivated maybe I will do Prolon again. Overall, I think this approach is balanced if my diet remains healthy during my eating periods.  I am also pleased to know that while traveling if there are not good food options, I can skip a meal and my brain and body might even thank me.

The key to success is to make sure you eat healthy meals during your non-fasting time. I have heard of some people diving happily and overeating with cheeseburgers, ice cream and beer. Maybe not the best choice on an empty stomach and a ‘refreshed’ body. Instead, lots of vegetables, fruits, healthy fats, whole grains, and proteins are a better bet. And stay away from sugary foods and drinks.

For more detailed information on this here are some credible and helpful resources:

  • My brother in law gave us the book “Lifespan” by David Sinclair, Professor of Genetics and co-director of the Paul F. Glenn Center for Biology of Aging Research at Harvard Medical School, which gave us a great understanding of “what happens to our cells when we age and why we don’t have to”.
  • Mark Mattson, professor of Neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
  • Andrew Huberman, neuroscientist and tenured Professor in the Department of Neurobiology at Stanford University School of Medicine, has some great podcasts on the effects of fasting and time-restricted eating on fat loss and health.
  • Satchidananda Panda, PhD, a professor at the Salk Institute, La Jolla, California, has researched time-restricted eating in a narrow eating window.
  • Chris Kresser, M.S., L.Ac., is an expert, clinician, and educator in the fields of functional medicine and ancestral health explains intermittent fasting with studies as references. He also wrote “The Paleo Cure”.
  • Eric Berg, chiropractor, is an educator and has some helpful videos.

What’s healthier: protein bar or burger?


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

I was talking with a colleague one day about all of the different types of protein bars on the market. As someone who enjoys weightlifting, I am always looking for ways to add more protein into my diet, so we talked about which brands we liked and didn’t like. My colleague finally said, “I guess I was just looking for a reason to have a candy bar.” And, just like that, it clicked.

I quickly remembered my other friend telling me her favorite part of the day is when she gets to have a protein bar because it’s like a treat. I thought to myself, “Hold on, are these bars healthy or dessert?” I thought they’re supposed to be giving our bodies the nutrients it needs at that given time. Yet, so many Americans are unknowingly doing the opposite, pumping their bodies full of unnecessary sugar and fat when all they’re really looking for is a bump in protein to keep them fuller longer, get through the afternoon, or aid in muscle growth and recovery.

When snacks like some types of protein bars, granola bars, trail mix, and other similar foods are advertised as “healthy” choices with “real ingredients,” it’s no surprise the consumer is more confused than ever.

A Turn To “Healthy” Snacks

In response to the never-ending desire of many Americans to lose weight, companies met the demand by creating snack options that are filling and boast a higher protein content. With nutrition and health becoming more of a priority among younger generations, especially among those incorporating weight lifting into their regime, snacks with nuts, nut butters, added protein, and other seemingly healthy components seem like the perfect solution.

For this reason, we’ve recently begun regarding snacks like granola, granola bars, and protein bars as “healthy”, even in statistical reports. For example, in 2019, data collected from the U.S. Census and National Center for Health Statistics suggested that over 165 million American consumers said they consumed “healthy” snacks in the last year. However, the main “healthy” snack of choice was granola.

Who said granola was healthy and why do we believe them? According to Insider’s interview with Kim Larson, a registered dietician and nutritionist and media spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, granola, granola bars, and energy bars are rated as the second most unhealthy snack group you can eat. They come in right behind potato chips, crackers, and corn puffs — and are even regarded as more unhealthy than pastries and baked goods. If you venture further down the list, trail mix even made the list at #7.

How Are They Unhealthy?

It all comes down to sugar and saturated fat content. The Palinski-Wade Rule of 5, created by registered dietician Erin Palinski-Wade, states that for a granola bar to be good for us, it should contain at least 5 grams each of fiber, protein, and unsaturated fat. And, of course, they shouldn’t have the same sugar amount as a candy bar which, unfortunately, many do.

We know nuts are good for us (good sources of healthy fats such as monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats, and low in unhealthy, saturated fats), and since trail mix and granola bars contain nuts, wouldn’t those be good for us, too? We considered these questions as we dove deeper into this subject. But when you think about it, is a nutbar covered in milk chocolate really good for you?

A PowerBar Lemon Cheesecake protein bar contains 341 calories, 6 grams of fat, 32 grams of protein, and a whopping 25 grams of sugar. A Snickers bar is 245 calories and contains only 22 grams of sugar! Granted, the amount of protein contributes to the calories of the PowerBar, but so does the high sugar component. Just go all in and have a Snicker’s candy bar instead.

Another example of a candy bar-like energy bar is a chocolate chip Clif bar. I used to eat these all the time in college, especially when I didn’t have time to eat a meal between classes. If I’d known what I was putting in my body then, I would have been appalled! A chocolate chip Clif bar contains 21 grams of sugar, a higher sugar content than two glazed Krispy Kreme donuts! And, the ingredients in Clif bars are also something to watch out for, like brown rice syrup, which is basically pure glucose and can cause major spikes in blood sugar.

And It’s Not Just Protein Bars…

Even other healthy snacks, such as flavored yogurt, are not that good for us. A plain vanilla Yoplait yogurt contains 17 grams of added sugar – 65% of our recommended daily maximum sugar of 26 grams (for women, 36 for men) right there! Even Greek yogurt, known to be the healthiest, has up to 24 grams of sugar in its flavored yogurts.

When looking at the macronutrients of a McDonald’s cheeseburger, and comparing it to a packaged protein snack, you may be very surprised. A McDonald’s cheeseburger has 300 calories, 13 grams of fat, 32 grams of total carbs and 7 grams of sugar. Let’s compare this to a Lenny and Larry’s Chocolate Chip Complete Protein cookie, which has 420 calories, 12 grams of fat, 60 grams of total carbs, and 24 grams of sugar. With a similar protein and fat profile, but considerably lower sugar and carbs, the McDonald’s cheeseburger is the clear winner for us.

How Are We Being Fooled?

Somehow, the snacks we’re told are good for us may be as unhealthy as eating a donut or candy bar. How did it get to this? Well, it’s all about advertising and marketing strategies.

Companies know that consumers want to be healthy. Millennials and Gen Zers, myself included, pride ourselves on being “the best version of us,” drinking our oat milk lattes (19 grams of sugar), and eating our protein bars after a good workout in the gym (5-12 grams of sugar). We really like protein so we gravitate toward these bars.

Some of us really like following what celebrities and social media influencers tell us. What we usually forget is that most influencers and celebrities are being paid to advertise these products on their channels and don’t actually eat those 12 grams of sugar in their sponsored bar.

My social feeds contain tons of ads for “health foods,” like detox teas, protein bars, giant salads, smoothies, the list goes on and on. What they’re not telling me is that the detox tea is just regular tea and has no real health components. The salad has more calories and fat than a simple sandwich or wrap. And, the fruit in the smoothie has been stripped of almost all its nutrients and fiber when it was juiced. Yet, we still trust them. Why?

Is it because the only information we’re getting on healthy eating is from social media? Possibly. Or maybe it’s because we align with certain company’s views? I’m a huge Starbucks fan because of their sustainability goals with respect to water conservation and reforestation practices, so I don’t mind buying one of their breakfast sandwiches with 11 grams of saturated fat and over 400 calories. Starbucks would never sell me something bad, that’s just not them. Think again!

Marketing is Strategic…Here’s What We Can Do

As consumers, we should know it is not our fault we are falling for these calculated marketing strategies. That’s what these companies are paying for…of course, it’s going to work! But we don’t have to be a victim. There are so many things we can do to make sure what we’re putting in our bodies is the BEST thing for us.

Try eating a banana with nut butter instead of a protein bar. Incorporating whole foods such as these into your diet will give you better results than the processed bar, and keep you fuller longer. And always ask questions! We have Google and smartphones for a reason, use them!

If you truly want to eat “healthier,” limit your intake of processed bars. For example, if you want a quick, tasty, nutrient-dense snack, choose a high-quality 85% dark chocolate bar instead of a sugary milk chocolate one. We like Lily’s as it uses stevia instead of sugar.

If you’re accustomed to eating protein bars as your post-workout snack, substitute that with a protein shake, nuts or even a canned fish or grilled chicken salad for a non-processed, high-protein snack that’s healthier than any bar you could grab.

A Few Good Options…

If you’re still unsure which bar to eat, here are a few options that have at least 5 grams each of fiber, protein, and unsaturated fats, as well as very little added sugar. If you want to try your hand at a DIY bar, check out this recipe.

And the list doesn’t stop here…for instance, some Kind bar varieties have lower added sugar. Just be sure to check out the nutrition label.

And, as we always say…when you’re in doubt, you can make your own!

Happy & healthy snacking!

Railroads Drive Lower Costs, Fewer Emissions


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

As we shop in the grocery store, it is hard to imagine how all the food we see and put in our cart arrives on the shelves. It’s a carefully coordinated, highly complex ballet with the railroads, trucks, river barges, ocean carriers and other transportation elements of the food chain. This is the second of a three-part transportation series on how our food moves around our country. Our previous post in this series explored the complexities within the trucking industry and the next one will examine river and ocean transportation.

It’s A Matter of Scale

We all know the story of railroads – or think we do. From childhood, we are immersed in images of the Mighty Iron Horse, in history books or western movies, or even in everyday travel along the more than 140,000 miles of railroad track in the United States. Who among us hasn’t found amusement in a boring road trip by counting the rail cars in the trains we see almost everywhere?

Yes, railroads helped build our nation, opening vast new areas to settlement and commerce. And they still make the wheels of commerce turn today, perhaps more than ever.

Source: Association of American Railroads

Look at the clothes you have on, or think about the dinner you ate last night, the cement used to pour the concrete for your house, the car you drive, and the appliances to keep your dishes and clothes clean. These are just a few items in your home that came by rail.

Freight railroads carry the high-volume commodities that fuel our power plants, our manufacturing industries, our food system and more. More than half of all rail shipments (by tonnage) involve coal, chemicals, minerals and crops like corn, soybeans, wheat and other staples of life. The remainder covers almost everything anyone can imagine, from major appliances and other consumer goods to individual parcels and consignments. Railroads, like other segments of the transportation industry, make both commerce and everyday life possible.

Farmers especially depend upon railroads to move huge volumes of crops to key export points all around the country — on the East Coast, West Coast, the Gulf of Mexico and the Great Lakes. Corn and soybeans often top the list of farm crops carried by major rail carriers to major export facilities, while short-haul rail lines are key links to the food processing and manufacturing customers closer to the actual farm or local grain elevator.

That’s A Lot of Bread

Think of it in terms the average shopper can grasp a lot more easily.

The average hopper car carrying crops such as corn, soybeans and wheat may contain as much as 286,000 pounds – up to five times the weight of a truckload of the same commodity. But to appreciate just how much that really is, consider a single hopper car of wheat – and what it translates into for the typical food consumer.

But Wait, There’s More

As impressive as the scale of operations may be, there’s far more to the story of railroads.

Railroads offer a degree of energy efficiency that often may be overlooked. According to the Association of American Railroads (AAR), railroads contribute only 0.5 percent – yes, less than a single percentage point – of all U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As a percentage of GHG emissions from the entire transportation sector, railroads account for 1.9 – 4.0 percent. (Automobiles contribute roughly 40 percent, trucks 34 percent and airlines and ocean transportation 11 percent each, according to transportgeography.org.)

Higher efficiency means less fuel – and fewer GHG emissions. Since the year 2000, advancements in technology and other improvements have helped increase fuel efficiency by an estimated 675 million gallons – or roughly 7.6 million fewer tons of carbon dioxide (CO2).

Sources: The Journal of Commerce; CSX Railroads 

Rolling into the Future

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has found that railroads use up to 12 times less energy than vehicles or airplanes and emit 7-11 times less GHG per passenger mile. Globally, railroads haul about 7 percent of the world’s freight yet account for only 3 percent of total energy use, according to IEA. AAR adds to the good news by noting that moving the same goods by rail rather than truck can reduce GHG emissions by up to 75 percent.

The railroad industry takes pride in those numbers, especially when considering the enormous power required to pilot trains weighing literally hundreds of tons at speeds of up to 75 miles per hour – and considerably more on some high-speed passenger rail lines.

The rail industry is built around powerful locomotives, with a typical four-axle locomotive weighing as much as 125 tons. Freight trains largely rely on a combination of diesel engines and electric motors, although the passenger rail system is much more advanced in its reliance on electric-powered units. This shift to equipment with greater fuel efficiency – and lower emissions of greenhouse gases – is a major industry focus.

To fulfill this goal, developmental efforts by the rail industry, suppliers and shippers continue to integrate computer technology into the rail system. For example, automatic idling is being used to reduce fuel consumption during stops, and automated controls much like those in cars and trucks help guard against driver error from fatigue or distraction. Innovative control systems also help find the best possible balance of speed, power, fuel consumption and emissions on a continuous basis during train operation.

Wabtec, a Pittsburgh-based rail technology specialist firm with over 150 years of international rail experience, has pioneered battery-powered locomotives as an environmental aid and has already conducted pilot testing with several major railroads.

Wabtec offers a 100-percent battery-powered heavy-haul locomotive with an estimated 10 percent reduction in fuel needs and emissions. This 4,400 horsepower behemoth boasts 20,000 lithium-ion battery cells, charged both by the same methods used by electric vehicles on the road today and by harnessing some of the enormous energy created by braking a moving freight train weighing 430,000 pounds or more.

Pilot testing of the Wabtec creation by major railroads already has begun on routes matching the lifespan of the battery charge, which is roughly 40 minutes at full power. Work on the system continues, with what Wabtec contends is as much as $500 million in potential fuel savings for the rail industry – and the reduced GHG emissions that come with it.

Beyond technology improvements, the railroad industry also is placing emphasis on expansion of the basic infrastructure needed to accommodate anticipated increases in freight demand. Better coordination and cooperation with other modes of transportation (“intermodal transportation”) and with other members of the supply chain also are a priority after years of disruption due to the pandemic.

Agriculture’s Contribution to Added Efficiency

The agricultural sector has been a driving force in the rail industry’s efforts to improve efficiency. Agricultural shippers were among the first to recognize the power of the “unit train” – multiple cars all carrying a single commodity to a single destination. The practice reduces the time and expense of repeatedly switching and arranging rail cars.

Today, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and rail industry groups note that corn and soybean crops typically move in 75-car unit trains, and wheat in trains of 6-49. Utilizing railroads for these high-volume cornerstone commodities in domestic and export markets helps keep prices low for consumers and export customers.

Keeping the Wheels Turning

Demand for rail freight is expected to grow by about 2.7 percent annually – and perhaps a bit more as the post-pandemic recovery gains steam. An increase of 30 percent over the coming decade will require a great deal from the railroad industry.

Even during the worst of the Covid downturn (2020-21), AAR estimates as many as 300,000 containers and trailers continued to move via rail each week.

Consumer demand for food, power and other essentials of daily life will remain strong, no matter what.

Railroads advocates argue persuasively that increasing reliance on railroads to meet consumer demand just makes good sense. Railroads move with minimal labor needs. They are more climate-friendly. They can help reduce the simple wear and tear on roads, bridges and other infrastructure created by trucks and cars – and lessen the need for so much taxpayer spending on infrastructure in the process.

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) notes that the rail freight industry invests one of the highest percentages of revenues of all modes to maintain and add capacity – 19 percent, or nearly $25 billion annually. The results of that investment: “…(T)he U.S. freight rail network is widely considered the largest, safest, and most cost-efficient freight system in the world,” according to the FRA.

Energy, Food Costs: The Unexpected Pain of Ukraine Invasion


On the run? LISTEN to our post!
For more information on Ukraine’s ag system, check out our recent post, Ukraine: Quiet Pawn in Quest for Food Security

Putin and Russia are being canceled, to say the least. The most immediate and visible effect of the Russian invasion of Ukraine – beyond the awful carnage inflicted on the Ukrainian people – is a massive shift in global international relations. The world is watching Putin try to transform an independent nation into a satellite state loyal to Moscow — a transparent effort to re-establish the model of the old Soviet Union. And the world, except China, is stepping up to defend Ukraine.

The West has been fairly swift in launching a widespread and coordinated effort to inflict economic costs on Russia for its actions. Russia’s exports totaled $39b in November 2021. If every country cancels the bulk of their imports, it would be financially difficult for Russia to survive.

  • Restrictions on Russian banking have made doing business more difficult and costly for them, with likely further declines in the Russian ruble.
  • Further economic sanctions against the Putin regime and his oligarch cronies will add targeted economic penalties. The EU and the U.S. are even chasing these supporters out of countries where they have their yachts, as well as freezing some of their assets.
  • Germany is cutting its dependence on Russia’s natural gas and coal and rethinking the timing of its green carbon-neutral strategy.
  • Turkey is limiting Russian ships through the Bosporus from the Mediterranean to the Black Sea.
  • A long list of European countries and the U.S. have banned Russian aircraft from their airspace.
  • The U.S. banned exports of high-tech goods, such as semiconductor microchips, to curtail Russian defense production.
  • Daimler Truck Holding, Volvo Car, General Motors and Harley-Davidson are all reconsidering their business dealings with Russia.
  • Apple, Google and Nike, and energy companies such as BP, Shell, Equinor, and TotalEnergies, are starting to pull out of Russia.
  • Norway’s sovereign wealth fund is freezing and eventually exiting from its $2.8 billion in Russian assets.

The list grows every day, and the overall effect is to make Putin and his oligarch pariahs in the larger community of nations, and to highlight what many see as a growing international polarization that pits democratic, market-oriented Western economies against the controlled societies built around socialist and communist principles.

As the conflict continues and the world’s attention remains focused on the day-to-day events, average citizens in the United States are likely to see the beginning stages of the consequences of conflict. The most apparent signal will likely come in higher energy costs, notably at the gas pump. 

Russia’s top export category is fuel and energy, representing just over half of its total export value of $335 billion in 2020. Imports in May 2021 reached a record 26.2 million barrels, second only to Canadian shipments (over 125 million barrels in May 2021) and ahead of Mexico (22.6 million barrels in May 2021).

By February 2022, Forbes reported that Russia had eclipsed Canada as the largest supplier of imported gasoline for all of 2021. Russia’s Federal Customs Service also noted the United States purchased almost one-fifth of the country’s heavy-oil products, making it Russia’s largest single buyer.

In advance of the invasion, petroleum prices already had peaked above $100 per barrel. As of March 2, the AAA National regular gas price was $3.66 a gallon, up from $2.71 last year. California is now over $5.00 in some spots. Energy experts can’t agree on just how high prices will go – but agree that further increases are on the way.

Source: Forbes, US Gasoline/Energy Imports, 2-24-22.

U.S. efforts to expand domestic energy production could help bring more balance to the supply-demand picture. But expanding domestic energy production will take some time to ramp up and already faces numerous concerns from the green energy group.

Ag in the Energy Crosshairs

Higher energy costs will have a ripple effect across the entire U.S. (and global) economy, and agriculture promises to be among the hardest hit. Energy costs represent as much as 15 percent of total production costs for farmers, according to the Department of Agriculture.

Much of the energy is consumed as fuel for all the various machinery and equipment that drive the efficient production of crops and animals. But another factor becomes especially important for the ag sector: the enormous energy component of the fertilizers farmers around the world depend upon. Rising costs of diesel and gasoline will have an immediate effect on the economics of farming and ranching. But the longer-term implications for fertilizer costs may prove even more serious.

Russia’s major role in global fertilizer markets often goes unnoticed by the average consumer. The country produces and exports petroleum, natural gas and other energy products.

In fact, its leading export category is mineral fuels, worth more than $143 billion each year, or just over 42 percent of all exports.

Russian natural gas is a key source of ammonia that serves as a building block for many nitrogen fertilizers. To add to its prominent role in global fertilizer markets, Russian exports of potash represent 21 percent of the entire global market for the product. (Neighboring Belarus accounts for another 21 percent of potash market.)

The prospect of losing access to these important energy sources concerns the entire ag sector – especially after a year of extraordinary increases in fertilizer costs, even before the threat of invasion fully emerged. Farmers already had seen anhydrous ammonia prices rise by 300 percent, urea by 214 percent and liquid nitrogen by 250 percent over the year before. Potash prices had increased by 213 percent, as well.

Such dramatic increases in energy-related prices – and the prospect of still higher costs to come – can’t be ignored. They threaten significant increases in the cost of production for cornerstone crops such as corn and soybeans, indicating that the food price inflation consumers have seen for the past year is likely to continue. The extent of those inflationary pressures – and the speed at which they spread through the food system – remain the subject of intense debate among economists around the world.

The significance of energy in determining the fallout from the Russian invasion on the average person reflects a bigger truth in modern international relations. We are seeing first-hand just how interconnected all nations have become in a global economy built around a global trading system.

It’s increasingly difficult – and perhaps practically impossible – to function in a vacuum, in which the economic links we have built can be ignored.

A military threat can easily make a normally invisible economic relationship highly visible – and highly important to consumers everywhere.  This economic interdependence may offer a powerful tool to resolve the conflict.

It’s all about the trade

The outlook for U.S. farmers and consumers isn’t totally bleak, however. The response to the Russian invasion is built around the significant economic advantages enjoyed by the United States and its allies – and the leverage these advantages can apply to resolving the conflict and restoring more-normal international relations.

The value of Russian exports dipped in 2020, falling from $423 billion the previous year to $335 billion, according to Russian customs data.  Statistics also show a mutual trading dependence between the United States and Russia. U.S. imports of Russian energy and minerals create a significant trade deficit in goods. But Russian demand for U.S. services creates a trade surplus that helps offset the deficit.

Overall, Russia remains only the 20th largest trade partner for the United States – and only 40th in terms of the total goods imported into this country. 

In contrast, the United States is the sixth-largest trading partner of Russia.

Because we have lost our energy independence, the United States – and the EU – needs Russia’s energy offerings notwithstanding this invasion. But Russia needs U.S. machinery, automotive, aircraft, sophisticated electronics and medical equipment – over $9 billion in 2019, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC). Total imports from the United States reached $13.4 billion in that same year, according to the World Bank. Russia needs and wants what the United States has for sale.

Other statistics suggest the Russian economy needs the West – including the United States – far more than Putin would like to acknowledge.  On average, the United States generally imports more from its trading partners than it exports to them – roughly 62 percent imports, to 38 percent exports, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. However, the U.S. exports far more to Russia than it imports – roughly 82 percent exports, only 12 percent imports.

In other words, Russia needs the United States – and other western markets. The potential loss of trade promises to hit hard on a broad spectrum of Russian interests. (The notable exception is China, which remains Russia’s largest single trading partner.)

How Does U.S. Agriculture Fit into the Picture?

U.S. farmers also stand to benefit from the disruption to key global agricultural markets created by the invasion. Markets for wheat, barley and certain oilseeds may be among the commodities most affected by the invasion and its after-effects.

Russia is the third-largest producer of wheat in the world, with Ukraine rising rapidly in the mix. Together, the two countries also account for more than one-quarter of all global wheat trade and about 70 percent of the world’s total trade in sunflower oil. Ukraine also supplies 13 percent of the world’s corn exports, much of it bound for China, according to USDA. Agricultural export sales from Ukraine have been rising in recent years, climbing to $22.2 billion in 2020. Russian wheat exports mainly go to Egypt and Turkey but the rest of the countries such as Ethiopia, Cameroon, and Kazakhstan will be hard-pressed to afford rising wheat prices.

Trade at-a-glance – 2019 Russia/Ukraine Percent of Global Export Market Share:

  • Sunflower Oil: 70%
  • Wheat: 25%
  • Coal: 14%
  • Corn: 13%
  • Crude Petroleum: 13%
  • Mineral Fuels (coal, petroleum, natural gas): 11%
  • Liquified Natural Gas: 6%

Disruptions to Ukraine’s exports of these and other farm commodities could open the door for U.S. growers, especially if restrictions on Russian trade emerge. Rising world prices would help offset the continuing rise in energy and input costs facing the U.S. and other producers. U.S. wheat production and exports have declined slowly in recent years, in part due to significant growth in wheat production around the Black Sea area. The conflict could be the trigger to reverse that trend.

Today, U.S. farmers account for about 6 percent of total world production and 12 percent of export markets. But with wheat prices currently at their highest levels since 2008 and the invasion promising to add fuel to the upward trend, the economic incentive to capture more of the world demand is very strong. Should the conflict expand beyond Ukraine, the risks become even higher.

Increased reliance on the United States as a major source of supply for wheat, corn, oilseeds and other farm commodities also could have another ancillary benefit to the global food system. As the conflict further complicates the regional and global export picture and the associated logistics, the relative stability and continuity of the U.S. food chain might help mitigate further disruptions to the global supply chain.

The U.S. farmer may well prove to be the global food consumer’s best ally in holding the line on further food price inflation.

How Smart People Change Their Minds

We are pleased to have Jack Bobo, author of “Why Smart People Make Bad Food Choices, write for Dirt to Dinner. Jack was CEO of Futurity Food, a company working with organizations to understand governmental policy decisions around agriculture and how consumers make decisions on their food. Jack was Senior Advisor for the State Department’s Global Food Policy and then worked for Intrexon Corporation (now Precigen) as Chief Communications Officer. 

Everyone Is Above Average

Ask yourself this question: Are you an above-average driver? If you are like most people, you answered in the affirmative.

In a famous study, researchers asked people to compare their driving ability to others, requiring them to rate themselves as above average, average or below average. I don’t think anyone was surprised to learn that more than 80 percent of respondents said they were above average. (For what it’s worth, I think of myself as an above-average driver too.) While that outcome may be mathematically impossible, it is also pretty consistent with what we know of human behavior.

If you think it’s hard to find someone who thinks they are an average driver, imagine how hard it would be to find someone who believes they are a below-average driver.

I’m not sure such a person exists. Such self-awareness would be crushing to the soul for most of us.

Findings like these are easy to laugh at, mostly because it is hard for most of us to imagine that we might be one of those misguided individuals who are wrong about their driving skills.

But remember,one in three drivers who think they are above-average is wrong. Their brains just don’t want to admit it.

Our hubris is not limited to our automotive skills…

Most people think they are above-average at most things. Studies show that people rate themselves as above-average in creativity, intelligence, dependability, athleticism, honesty, friendliness, and so on.

Provide people with a survey about almost any positive trait, and the vast majority will rate themselves above average. Social psychologists call it the better-than-average effect.

Intellectual Humility

What does this have to do with food, you might be wondering? As it turns out, quite a lot.

The more confident we are in the decisions we make, the less likely we are to stop and question those decisions. Even if we do take the occasional break to contemplate the possibility that we are suffering from bias, we assume that we are less likely than others to be biased.

So what are we to do?

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos sat atop one of the most successful companies of our time as well as a personal fortune of some $200 billion. I think we can all agree that by most definitions the guy is pretty smart. But you don’t run one of the largest companies in the world by yourself, no matter how smart you are. You have to surround yourself with other smart people who can help make your vision a reality.

Bezos doesn’t just look for intelligent people or people who are right most of the time. For him, that is only half of the equation. He also looks for people who can admit they are wrong and who change their opinions when the situation demands. He finds that the smartest people are constantly revising their understanding and reconsidering problems they thought they had already solved. Unlike many of us who are fixed in our views, the smartest people, according to Bezos, are open to new points of view, new information, new ideas, contradictions, and challenges to their own way of thinking.

That willingness to consider new information goes hand in hand with a willingness to admit that your old way of thinking was flawed. In other words—and this is the interesting part—to be super smart, you have to change your mind a lot. Bezos apparently agrees with essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson, who famously declared, “Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” Consistency is overrated. Bezos believes it is perfectly healthy  to have a new idea tomorrow that contradicts the idea you hold today.

The Strength of Humility

Modern science agrees with both Bezos and Emerson. Psychologists refer to this flexibility of mind as “intellectual humility.” Studies of decision-making show that people who are more willing to entertain the idea that they might be wrong made markedly better choices.

Rather than thinking of being wrong as a sign of stupidity or ignorance, we should see it as a sign of curiosity, openness to new information, and, ultimately, intelligence. In an increasingly complicated world, the willingness to revise our views is more critical than ever.

In the food sphere, we are inundated with information from every direction promising cures for all manner of ills, from superfoods that protect us from disease to diets that help us live long and happy lives.

The latest scientific discoveries are amplified by the news and social media and then twisted and distorted until they bear little resemblance to the actual findings of the scientists who conducted the research.

In this way, nutrition studies showing vague associations between some food, ingredient, or supplement and heart health in mice are promoted on the news and on social media as critical findings for public health or even miracle cures.

Good science travels quickly, but inflated or dubious information travels at the speed of light. Technology makes it easier to amplify and spread questionable information incredibly fast.

To guard against false and misleading information, we need to be both curious and intellectually humble.

Open Minds

I imagine many readers nodding along with the advice that we should be intellectually humble and that we should change our minds when we learn new facts.

If I posed the question, “Do you consider yourself open-minded,” what would you say? I imagine that nearly 100 percent of readers would agree that they are open-minded. That’s the kind of person who reads an article like this, after all.

Now ask yourself: When was the last time you changed your mind? Was it last week, last month, or maybe last year? Could it be that you can’t actually remember the last time you changed your mind about something important?

Mark Lynas, a British environmentalist and author changed his mind about GMOs. Formerly, he was a Greenpeace activist against GMOs. Once he started reviewing peer-reviewed scientific papers and learned about the facts around GMOs, he changed his mind. He wrote about his journey in his book, ‘Seeds of Science, How we got it wrong on GMOs’.

In a 2018 interview with Massive Science, he stated, Well, I’m pretty much alone in terms of anyone changing their minds about anything significant! It’s quite a rare thing to happen.

All of this begs the question, “Is it possible to be open-minded if you never change your mind?”

When we were children, we were exposed to new ideas and experiences all the time, and we frequently changed our minds as a result. We were encouraged to do so. In high school and college, we were taught to challenge our assumptions and to ask questions of ourselves and others. Instead of being given the answers, we learned how to seek out knowledge. Changing our minds was a sign of growth and development.

But eventually, we grow up and find a career. Our circle of friends becomes fixed. Perhaps we get married, have children and settle down. Whether it happens in our twenties, thirties or forties, at some point the rate at which we change our minds begins to slow and, for some, to practically stop. Rather than spend time searching for knowledge that challenges our beliefs, we look for facts that support or defend them.

Confirmation bias allows us to convince ourselves that we have carefully considered or fully vetted new ideas before we reject them.

As Bishop Oldham wrote in 1906, “A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.

The above quotation is often attributed to philosopher and psychologist William James, but just because the internet says he said it, doesn’t make it so.

As we get older, it becomes less comfortable to change our minds because we have become so invested in our old beliefs. We have surrounded ourselves with people who believe the same things that we believe. Our jobs may even depend on, or be a reflection of, our beliefs. This means there would be a cost associated with changing our minds. Better to hang on to a silly belief than to give up on an important friendship. Too often, we choose habit and comfort over growth and knowledge.

Strong Opinions, Weakly Held

There are a lot of strongly held beliefs in the food world. It only takes a few minutes on social media to find people with views on pretty much everything. Some people swear by the Keto Diet, others are followers of Atkins. Clean eating is still the rage among many, while believers in cleanses and intermittent fasting are only too eager to share the latest research supporting their dietary choices.

Following a diet or way of eating that works for you is not the problem. There are many ways of eating a healthy and nutritious diet, though we need to keep in mind that for a diet to work it must work not only for days, weeks and months, but for a lifetime. For many, diets are like fashion—they change with the seasons.

So how do we open ourselves to new information without getting swept up in the latest fad?

Rather than throw up our hands and give up on finding real solutions, the answer may be to have “strong opinions, which are weakly held.” This is the advice of futurist Bob Johansen from the Institute for the Future. Strongly held opinions give us the confidence to be decisive and make important decisions. Weakly held opinions are equally important because that means you are not too attached to what you believe. Being too attached to ideas undermines our ability to see and hear evidence that conflicts with our opinions.

While Jeff Bezos may think of flexibility of the mind as a trait of the smartest people, it reminds me of the difference between smart people and wise people. Smart people are those who know a lot, but nonetheless they sometimes make bad choices, because all people sometimes make bad choices. Wise people are those who learn from their mistakes and make better choices going forward. You don’t have to be a genius to be wise.

In the struggle to make better choices, our brains are sometimes working against us. Our biases often lead us in the wrong direction, particularly when it comes to food. Fortunately, we can do something about that. My book, Why smart people make bad food choices? lays out many of the ways our brains trick and mislead us. Awareness of these biases and cognitive errors will greatly reduce the mischief that they cause in your life.

Jupiter Ridge: Regenerative Stewards of the Land


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Nestled on a bluff atop a 1,200-foot-high ridge in Iowa, surrounded by dense forest, Jupiter Ridge Farm is an ideal landscape for growing all types of mushrooms, vegetables, and perennial flowers.

The Importance of Regenerative Agriculture

Will and Adrian farm on land leased to them by the Sustainable Iowa Land Trust (SILT). The land was donated to SILT by Steve Beaumont (on far right in above photo). To farm here, Jupiter Ridge – and all SILT farmers and ranchers – are required to have third-party certification to affirm that their agricultural practices are regeneratively grown.

For Jupiter Ridge, this means applying environmentally-responsible growing methods, like healthy soil building, cover cropping, crop rotation, compost amending, using all-natural fertilizers, and minimizing chemical use for pesticides.

These measures ensure that their farming practices give back to the land in some way. As Will explains, they are only temporary stewards for this land, and they will eventually pass it along to another farmer. It is critical that their operation continues to improve the soil, making sure it is full of nutrients and microbes.

It’s important to note that the term, “regenerative agriculture”, does not have any globally definitive guidelines that state whether one operation is effectively regenerative or not.

But operations like Jupiter Ridge use these farming practices to make real and lasting changes.

When we asked Will and Adrian why regenerative ag was important to them, they did not hesitate in their response:

“We are honored to be able to grow whole, healthful food for our community while ensuring the sustenance of those who eat it, but also the health of the land it came from.

We have always felt a ‘beyond organic’ spirit when it comes to farming, taking it a step further and always making sure we’re putting life and health back into the soil after every crop.”

– Will Lorentzen, Adrian White

By cover cropping and crop rotation, Jupiter Ridge re-injects micronutrients back into the soil. Rather than ripping up the root system after every harvest, rotational planting allows them to nourish the soil with a variety of new nutrients. Furthermore, cover cropping provides protection against soil erosion, maintains healthy topsoil, suppresses weeds, and deter pests.

This promotes biodiversity and ultimately reduces soil compaction, allowing for better CO2 sequestration in the root system.

Regenerative Ag Practices

At Jupiter Ridge, Will and Adrian don’t just farm mushrooms, they also grow a variety of vegetables and perennial flowers. They believe this not only promotes soil health but encourages large pollinator habitats on the native prairie lands to thrive and expand.  Will explains that by applying regenerative farming practices like planting perennials, it can increase biodiversity, and ultimately serves as a tool on the farm.

“If there is wildlife flourishing around our farm every year — monarch butterflies, beneficial pollinators, pest predators — then we feel we’ve done a good job, too.”

– Adrian White

 “If you look at studies and research, the health of the soil is directly tied to the actual health of the plant foods that grow in it. Abundant soil life is critical for adequate nutrient uptake into fruits, vegetables, etc.”

Will continued, adding that with soil health comes flexibility, explaining that resilient soil allows them to keep their products and production methods varied. Healthy soil increases water absorption to protect against droughts.  This flexibility, he says, is imperative in an ever-changing world.

One of the coolest things to see on the farm are the tangible results of these efforts: when farmers help the land, the land then helps farmers.

“We had a pest problem take care of itself this year with no needed actions taken from us because of the flourishing perennial environment. Soldier beetles that thrive in the surrounding prairies fed on the pest and took care of the job! If we didn’t grow sustainably or regeneratively, this wouldn’t have happened,” Adrian White commented.

Measuring the Success of their Hard Work

While the most formal method of measuring success in regenerative ag is to measure carbon sequestration, Jupiter Ridge has identified other ways to realize the effects of its regenerative practices. With carbon sequestration measurements not yet scalable and mainstream, Jupiter Ridge measures their increased yields, decreased inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides, as well as increased resiliency of the crop — like in the example of the soldier beetles.

“The subjective feedback we get is from our customers. Returning customers, chefs, and CSA members say it all—they want more of the quality food we grow, which keeps them coming back. If people are pleased with the quality, beauty, and flavor of the food we grow, then we feel we’ve grown regenerative food very effectively.”

“We also use responsible forestry techniques to source the logs for our shiitake and other mushroom production. We also use things from off the waste stream as much as possible.

We’re also planting more and more perennial crops each year that require less maintenance and tillage. Some of our practices are sustainability requirements in our one-of-a-kind land lease with SILT and encourage good soil erosion prevention techniques.”

 Challenges and Misperceptions to the Operation

Farming regeneratively does not come without its challenges. Will and Adrian both note that the timing and terminating of their cover crops is difficult. Furthermore, perennial crops are expensive when they are not sold. He points out that growing regeneratively demands labor, time, and investment.

“Even if people can charge more for regenerative to compensate for their labor and time, the process of making a considerable profit margin is far more challenging than most other businesses.”

While Will and Adrian don’t think that any misperceptions exist at this early stage in regenerative ag, they want people to know that it is more than a buzzword. It is a way of connecting eco-friendly farming practices to climate change and soil health.  This, they believe, is another incredible and impactful step in the sustainable movement to better our world.

But so much of what goes on at a farm is invisible to the consumer, leaving many of us out of touch. That’s why Jupiter Ridge supports ongoing traceability efforts and believes the best way to know where your food comes from is to shop local. An added benefit? Regenerative operations are often started without immediate financial rewards, so shopping directly from the farm helps to offset these financial burdens.

Why Are Shelves Empty? Ask A Trucker


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Transportation is the common thread tying together every step of our modern supply chain, from dirt to dinner. It provides the mechanism for a smooth flow from one link in the chain to the next, speeding the astounding process of converting commodities into the finished food products we consume each day. Trucks, river barges, massive ocean vessels, railroads, even airplanes all play a vital role in the uninterrupted flow of our food.

Trucking is a $732 billion industry that employs almost six percent of the U.S. workforce, with an estimated 3.6 million professional drivers, 2 million over-the-road drivers, 1.5 million in local delivery and transport, and support staff of 8 million.

An invisible thread

But as essential as all modes of transportation are to our food security, it’s far too easy for each transportation element, like trucking, to remain largely invisible, taken for granted because of its historic quiet competence and compliance in fulfilling its food-chain role.

At least, it was until Covid came on the scene and changed everything. Suddenly, the supply chain simply didn’t operate with its usual ballet-like choreography. The trucking system is front and center in any effort to understand how our supply chain operates, especially for the food we need for our families.

Just consider the sheer size of these numbers:

  • The U.S. transportation system moved about 51 million tons of goods valued at $51.8 billion every day prior to the pandemic, almost 57 tons for every U.S. resident per year.
  • Trucks move the majority of all freight, with estimates from 40 to as high as 72 percent of the total, according to the American Trucking Association.
  • Agricultural freight – from raw commodities to finished food products – measured 4.5 billion tons, worth $3.1 trillion dollars, in 2018. 80 percent of all agricultural freight is shipped on trucks.

Behind the dizzying assortment of facts and figures, the trucking industry faces a whole host of challenges – many dating far beyond the pandemic. If anything, Covid merely poured gasoline – or maybe diesel fuel – on a fire that already was burning within the industry. The source of the fire: problems with attracting people willing and able to do the demanding job of piloting the sometimes massive and specialized machinery – and living the lifestyle that it demands.

“It’s always the truck”

My local grocery store manager responded to a customer unhappy with the lack of a particular product with a very simple explanation: “I’m sorry. But the truck never came in… It’s always the truck.”

The problem wasn’t a lack of a truck. Equipment isn’t the issue at all, according to most industry observers. Store shelves go empty and ocean vessels clog major ports often for the same reason: because there’s no truck – or more accurately, no truck driver — to move the cargoes along. It’s a shortage of the people trained for what can be a very tough job – and a rapidly aging set of current driving professionals.

Long before Covid, the trucking industry struggled to match the rising demand for freight movement with enough drivers. The average age for professional drivers is about 55, according to The American Trucking Association (ATA) and other industry and government estimates. That’s about a decade older than the average age for other comparable industries. And many of those are giving up on the job early, tired of the demands of the job and the constant fight for compensation and benefits.

In addition to being older, truck drivers are most likely to be male (93 percent) and white (77 percent, compared to 23 percent Hispanic/Latin, 17 percent African American, 4 percent Asian).

Before Covid, the shortage of drivers was widely estimated at 60,000 jobs. With Covid, the gap widened to 80,000, and industry experts like ATA’s Chief Economist Bob Costello project the shortage could double to 160,000 in a decade.

Many sacrifices to consider

There’s no one reason for the shortage, but rather many. It begins with the realities of over-the-road trucking. The job demands long hours – up to 14 hours, with maybe 11 behind the wheel and the remainder doing paperwork, basic maintenance, minor repairs and other chores. In most situations, as an Over-The-Road (“OTR”) driver, you are capped at 60 hours total in seven days, 70 hours in eight days, then required to take 34 hours off. Expanding regulatory requirements grow more complex almost every year, from both federal and state agencies, with extensive record-keeping and strict compliance with substance-abuse protections.

Long hours with little movement and stress contribute to serious health issues, too.

OTR drivers suffer from higher-than-average rates of obesity and diabetes.

Smoking rates also are higher, and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has warned that drivers face a higher-than-average risk of Covid infection.

Beyond these health concerns, trucking remains a dangerous profession – the seventh most fatal profession in the United States, with about 1,000 deaths annually, or roughly one-fifth of all workplace fatalities.

Government figures from before the pandemic show truckers are 6.5 times more likely to be killed in job-related accidents than the average worker.

Long hauls also mean long, lonely periods away from home and family, unpredictable food and the stress that comes from knowing you are piloting a vehicle weighing up to 80,000 pounds at speeds of 60 mph on roadways where not all drivers are professional, or all weather conditions perfect.

Drivers have the second-highest divorce rate of any industry – better than 40 percent. Like other high-stress professions, OTR drivers are not immune from the dangers of alcoholism and substance abuse, and the industry and regulators combat the risk aggressively.

Which road to choose

Drivers also must choose what kind of driving to do. A commercial driver’s license – or “CDL” – is mandatory, and special license classes may be needed to haul specific cargoes. Local delivery services often demand less investment of time and money in training, and short-haul jobs help improve time at home but generally pay less. Specialized certificates – for hauling food-grade and environment-controlled cargoes or hazardous materials, for example, demand special training, often well beyond the basic training of up to six or seven weeks.

You likely begin your career making something on the order of $43,000 – maybe more in select areas like the northeast, even less in some others like the mid-south. Over time, the median salary will rise if you are patient and stay at the job with an established freight or trucking company, rising to $70,000 or more. Much higher compensation packages are possible, notably for specialized and highly-trained drivers.

Drivers who own and operate their own vehicle also can make more money – but must accept the higher risks that come with it, including higher costs for fuel, insurance, equipment maintenance, benefits, and other costs of doing business. It’s not surprising to see an extraordinarily high turnover rate for drivers – estimated by the industry at 90 percent per year – as drivers constantly seek out better, more rewarding opportunities with other trucking firms, strike out on their own, shift to less demanding careers, or simply go home and hope for more Covid relief funds.

So what’s to be done?

Despite the many reasons to be pessimistic, the trucking industry seems to remain surprisingly optimistic about the future – often for some surprising reasons.

One is the simple allure of the job to many. Few other professions offer comparable opportunities to fulfill a common sense of rugged individualism and independence or to satisfy the allure of the open road. More important, drivers repeatedly cite the importance of the role they play in serving important needs. They, perhaps, recognize the value of the supply chain in modern life, even if they don’t express it in abstract terms.

The American public seems to appreciate the role they play, too.  A survey by an organization known as “Trucking Moves America Forward” found that two-thirds of respondents have a “high regard” for truckers and the industry. Trucking professionals take pride in being widely known as “the Knights of the Open Road.”

Adding to that spirit, the fading effects of Covid may prove highly beneficial.

The economy is beginning to revive, with more jobs and robust consumer demand once again on the table. People seem ready to get back to work, especially as relief payments from the federal government fade into memory.

The industry seems eager to tap into this spirit to recruit new and younger drivers, with aggressive training and education programs and career promotion.

Also, simple economics have to be considered. To get more of something, economic theory goes, offer more. The industry must deal with the need to generate a compensation system more in line with the demands and expectations for pay, benefits and other forms of compensation of a workforce of the size and quality it knows it needs now and will need in the future. For consumers, this means a willingness to accept another element of the inflationary pressures that drive up prices for all goods – including food.

The industry also is working with the government to address concerns about the effect of well-intentioned but extensive regulatory requirements (such as more detailed, electronic record-keeping, and increased substance testing) that deter many prospects. Efforts to promote driving as an attractive career for women also are gaining traction, with the proportion of female drivers among some of the more established freight and trucking enterprises rising sharply, to as much as 20 percent in some instances. Driving teams also appear to be growing in number, including husband-wife combos.

The autonomous future

Automation also has emerged as a major area for attention by industry and government alike. Amazing technological progress has led to pioneering examples of self-directed transportation mechanisms, including some successful truck piloting systems.

Improvements in automation would create meaningful efficiencies with some of our largest trade partners.

Trucks ferry the overwhelming majority of our exports to Canada (68 percent) and Mexico (83 percent). Likewise, the majority of our imports also arrive via trucks from Canada (59 percent) and Mexico (72 percent).

Those technology-based solutions won’t provide an immediate answer to the question of what to do about today’s driver and overall labor shortage. Pew Research in 2017 found that fully half of all Americans have some degree of worry about driverless vehicles. Serious questions about safety and reliability remain to be resolved to the satisfaction of demanding legislatures and oversight agencies. But that work is underway, with developmental work for passenger cars and trucks moving along twin tracks.

Much of the attention centers on the degree of automation to build into vehicles. Prototypes generally have five different levels of automation, from simple driver assistance with tasks such as parking, all the way to complete control of the vehicle – a true driverless car or truck. Various automated features already at work in equipment in warehouses and other relatively low-risk environments, and companies such as Volvo and Tesla have made significant progress in turning the idea of vehicle driving automation into reality.

Automated driving features have expanded rapidly, with more than 31 million vehicles (out of roughly 289 million vehicles on the road) in 2019 having some level of automation.  It’s already a $32 billion industry, with projected growth rates of 15 percent or more.

Innovative applications of artificial intelligence and automation promise to play a significant role in finding a long-term solution to the labor issue confronting the trucking industry.

And none the least, supply chain specialists and the trucking industry ask for a little understanding and accommodation. Each segment of the food chain should look for ways to help the trucking industry – and every part of the transportation system – deal with the shortage of people and the resulting complications. Let’s find ways to smooth out the twists in the chain as best we can, as we work through the bigger, thornier issues.

Supplements: Health solution or illusion?


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Lucy adds a powder to her water each afternoon. Hayley and Khala put a scoop in their daily smoothie. Garland swallows his whole. I shake and chug.

Supplements in their many forms – packets, powders, pills, and drinks – crowd our medicine and kitchen cabinets. In fact, in 2021, 87% of us took at least one supplement – an almost 25% increase from 2013, according to Mintel‘s Vitamins, Minerals and Supplements Trends report.

Furthermore, almost a third of us stock up on specialty supplements, like probiotics and powdered veggie blends, many of which come recommended by nutritionists, friends, and our social media feed. But how can we tell if they’re actually doing something?

Does a quick nutrient fix even exist?

And, if so, which type is most bioavailable – or ready for our bodies to absorb and put those nutrients to immediate use? And – here’s the million-dollar question – can they really be as effective as their claims boast, like eating six servings of veggies a day in just three capsules?

I spoke with Dr. Dennis Savaiano, Professor of Nutrition Science and Director of the Purdue Clinical Research Center at Perdue University to get some answers. His knowledge is steeped in nutrition research, including the digestion and absorption of nutrients, and includes conducting numerous trials and peer-reviewed studies in this field.

The interview with Dr. Savaiano brought my brain back down to sea level after succumbing to over-optimism in a quick and easy health solution.

Simply put: there’s no magic elixir for long-term health.

All of these nutrients – vitamins, minerals, and specialty ingredients, like probiotics – require different modes of absorption in our system. As an example, the below chart demonstrates some key differences in vitamin absorption.

More broadly, some nutrients need water, others require fat. Some can only be absorbed when ingested with another nutrient, others may not get absorbed at all and just exit our bodies. Some need to be ingested multiple times a day to be effective, others require very careful dosing.

And, to make matters even more complicated, each one of us has a vastly different digestive system; what is easily absorbed for you may require a different diet or mode of ingestion for me. So when it comes to evaluating effectiveness, it’s pretty hard to make claims like having the best bioavailability on the market when test subject results vary so greatly.

Still hoping for a half-potent elixir? I get it. I have those days when I’m running around like a multi-tasking triathlete and eating anything I happen to stumble into between errands. And I, too, have drank my green drinks, hoping for some corrective measure to magically happen. But here’s the thing: supplements need a balanced diet to be properly absorbed in your body.

“Supplements are meant to be supplementary — meaning they enhance benefits already provided by eating a well-rounded diet.”

– Dr. Jeffrey Millstein, M.D., Internal Medicine at Penn Medicine

Food & fiber as medicine

What’s easier about going straight to the source is that whole foods naturally have the complement of nutrients to maximize nutrient absorption. For instance, many meats have the essential proteins that transport and absorb heme iron, the source of 95% of our body’s functional iron, making the direct source far more effective than taking a pill. And avocadoes, a source of heart-healthy omega-3 fats, naturally have fat-soluble vitamins E and K – it’s hard to find a better nutritive complement than that.

And another critical differentiator between supplements and food? Fiber.

Fresh produce naturally has fiber that aids in absorbing many key nutrients and is frequently a missing component in supplements. And when you eat a variety of fiber derived from fruits and veggies, your body absorbs nutrients even more efficiently.

More specifically, soluble fiber is particularly effective at slowing down digestion so your intestines have time to absorb more of the nutrients you previously ingested. As opposed to insoluble fiber, soluble fiber dissolves in water and is found in whole grains, nuts, seeds, beans, and some fruits and veggies.

So if you want your body to get all the vitamins and minerals out of your food, like the ones shown below, be sure to couple them with high-soluble-fiber foods, like oats, black beans, spinach, and pears.

An added benefit of eating more fiber? A boost in the production of T-cells, a key part of our immune system health, including our system’s response to a Covid infection. You can read more about that here.

Bigger picture on health

What can we do right now to make our body ready to absorb more nutrients? Try out Dr. Savaiano’s simple recommendation: start filling half of your plate each meal with whole fruits & veggies (fresh, frozen, and canned are all great options).

When we eat whole foods, especially veggies and fruits, we feel fuller because of its high fiber and water content. We are more likely to reap the benefits of any supplements we take, are less likely to overeat, and, over time, make better dietary decisions.

On the other end of the nutrient-density scale is processed food, which leaves us hungry while nutritionally starving our body. This includes products touted as healthy or wholesome, like yogurt with added sugars, energy or protein bars, granola and granola bars, and really any kind of crunchy snack. When you eat products like these, supplements don’t stay in our body long enough to be properly absorbed. Instead, reach for a handful of nuts, an apple, or sprouted-grain toast topped with some almond butter.

So with a balanced diet, is there still a need for supplements?

High-quality supplements generally can’t hurt when, of course, taken with an already balanced diet.

Supplements can help fill any nutritional gaps that you’re not getting, like vitamin C or magnesium. And if you select your supplements based on the FDA’s nutritional guidelines, keep in mind that many of those daily value recommendations, like the ones seen on nutrition labels, come from dated studies that exclude more recent findings.

For instance, a meta-analysis of over a million Covid patients showed that those who had low vitamin D levels were statistically more likely to end up in the ICU for Covid or have respiratory distress. An increased intake of vitamin C and zinc have also demonstrated decreases in Covid severity, but findings like these have yet to be reflected on our nutrition labels.

If you go the supplement route, try sticking with a no-added-sugar veggie powder-based supplement to accompany your fiber-rich meal so you’re able to ingest both water- and fat-soluble nutrients for better absorption. We like Greens First and Athletic Greens, as products like these have a higher concentration of antioxidant-boosting polyphenols and have third-party verification of their efficacy. If protein powder is your go-to product, go for it…but if it’s plant-based, make sure to check its heavy metal toxicity.

And always check with your doctor before taking anything new – some of these can have harmful interactions with certain medicines and health conditions.

But most importantly, fill that plate up with greens. Need some help? Try some of our veggie-heavy recipes!

Steak & Veggie Soup  |  Spicy Sausage with Veggie Orzo  |  Healthy Breakfast Wrap  |  Pan-seared Salmon with Broccolini and Spaghetti Squash  |  Keto Mahi Mahi with Cauliflower Rice and Brussels Sprouts  |  Turkey Sausage Lentil Pasta with Veggies  |  Clean-out-the-kitchen Quiche  |  Strawberry Salad  |  Roasted Broccoli

The Caveman Diet: Should Our Diets Really Evolve?


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

I’m the first to admit that I’m not all that hip. Or whatever the term is for someone who is on top of all the current trends, fads or latest really cool things in our modern world. Fetch?

After a lot of practice, I can turn on my home computer, and my in-the-know wife shows me interesting things she finds on Facebook, the Metaverse, and other gateways into the cyber age. But for me, the TV remote control is far more important in my life. Friends tell me this ‘streaming’ thing will allow me to watch Gilligan’s Island, or even the Flintstones, non-stop, if I want.

In short, I’m far from being Joe Cool. And a lot of what goes on around me in this modern age leaves me with a lot of questions.

Foraging for answers

That includes questions about the foods I eat. Most of the ideas about food that I see are driven by some enthusiastic advocate for a healthier diet or a better environment and a sustainable food system, or simply a new taste experience involving strange and exotic ingredients available at very special prices—the labels and messaging are quite frankly overwhelming.

But I have to admit, however, I was truly perplexed when my wife told me we should try the caveman diet. “Now what,” I remember thinking when she first raised my consciousness with this new gastronomic opportunity.

Maybe you already know about the caveman diet.

As I understand it, it basically says you should eat nothing that wasn’t available to our caveman ancestors — and by inference, I suppose, our cavewoman ancestors, too.

Remember, the caveman was a hunter-gatherer who ate what was readily available. And since there were no Walmarts or Krogers on the landscape, that meant a variety of non-processed foods.

Cavemen seemed to rely on what could be hunted or scavenged – a pre-historic reliance on the same organic, free-range, grass-fed food sources so many people today find so appealing.  (I might add “GMO free,” but technically that wouldn’t be correct, since genetic adaptation has been occurring across time, including the caveman era. But that’s another soliloquy for another day.)

In simple terms, it’s a diet rich in protein and low in carbohydrates. Meat and seafood, certainly, but also a lot of nuts, fruits, vegetables, and even eggs, I suppose.

Plan to rely upon a variety of different types of food, and probably smaller portions rather than a single big entrée, like Beef Wellington or Roast Rack of Brachiosaurus, say.

OFF the caveman table: sugar, grains, trans fats and hydrogenated oils, and obviously such modern contrivances as artificial sweeteners, refined oils, and – shudder – alcohol. Another rule of stubby, hairy caveman thumb: never eat anything you can’t pronounce.

The theory seems to be that if it was good enough to drive evolution – and thus to create the marvelous world we have today – it must be a diet of some merit. After all, it served to create robust, dynamic creatures capable of spawning the modern food consumer.

Okay, I’ll give it a shot, I told my wife. She sent me to the local grocery store with a caveman shopping list, which I dutifully filled. But on the way, I stopped at Burger King (and elected to pass on the Impossible Burger, despite the plant-based blessings it promises to deliver) and pondered the implications of all this on how I make my food decisions moving forward. Several thoughts crossed my mind as I ate my double bacon cheeseburger and absent-mindedly munched on my large fries and soothed the sensation of hot food with a cool chocolate frosty shake.

Healthy – and ‘ethical’?

Every day, I seem to hear more advice from self-appointed “experts” and social warriors about what is not just healthy for me but healthy for our planet and our society. I should follow this diet or that diet because it is not just good for my body, but somehow more ‘ethical’ because it supposedly aligns with some societal value judgment. To some, feeding me with the foods I need – and want – isn’t the right way to think about diet. If I don’t agree with someone’s definition of ‘ethical,’ I’m not eating ‘right’ and I must be a bad person?

The enthusiasm I heard for the caveman diet makes me ponder that moral issue yet again. Advocates seem to imply that a caveman diet – with its focus on ‘natural’ foods – is somehow a more ethical food decision. It’s more in line with what our body naturally tells us about what we should eat – what is right, on multiple levels.

If I follow the caveman diet because it is natural and responsive to my body’s essential needs, how do I know what else might be in my best dietary interests? If caveman theory is correct, am I supposed to listen to what my body tells me and eat accordingly? If so, what part of my body do I listen to? And is it okay to consider the other lessons I might learn from my body that might be nutritionally and ethically ‘right’ for me?

What Does My Body Tell Me?

Let’s begin with the obvious starting point: my mouth.

Yes, I have a mouthful of molars that obviously tell me to eat lots of food I can grind up – exactly the fruits, vegetables, and other things that call out to me to be chewed and chewed and chewed some more.

But I also have incisors that do more than make me look like an adolescent or excessively-aged Dracula. They are there to tear and rip things like meat.

Once it might have been an animal carcass. Today it could be a nice filet.

Just a few inches north, my head contains just enough gray matter to let me know how important it is to satisfy my basic nutritional needs and to avoid over-eating – especially those things like chocolate cheesecake and deep-fried Oreos and melt-in-your-mouth sugary donuts and chili-cheese dogs and all the other foods that sustained me in high school and college.

But I also have these taste buds just below that say “oh go ahead…you know you want it, and you’ve earned it. I’m not going to shut up until you do what I say, and you know it, so get on with it. And do you want your golf buddies to think you are some kind of food wuss?

After all, I have this marvelous thing called a stomach, full of the digestive juices and enzymes capable of breaking down almost anything I can shove down there, in remarkable quantities. There are all sorts of other organs that seem to serve mainly to help that process along, transforming the raw materials into nutrients and speeding the removal of what might be left over. If it isn’t needed or might otherwise be bad for me, there are all sorts of other parts down there to deal with that, too.

So why not listen to the taste buds? Or why not at least keep an open dialogue going between the brain and the mouth?

And don’t forget something else my body tells me. Diet and exercise go hand in hand. It’s remarkable how much better I feel when I’m physically active, and especially so when I have the discipline to combine intellect and physicality with appetite in reasonable balance. I bet our culinary caveman also spent a good deal of time running – either chasing down food or trying not to become food. There’s a valuable lesson there, I suspect.

Modernizing the Caveman Menu

While I ponder that lesson, a lot of other people have been hard at work with their own evaluations of the caveman diet.

Vegans jumped in with the idea of a “Pegan “diet – an approach that builds on the basic principles of the caveman diet to focus on whole foods and cut out as many high-sodium, high-sugar foods as possible. Peganism blends the paleolithic diet with veganism to suggest a diet of three-quarters fruits and veggies and a quarter meat and eggs. The goal seems to be a diet that reduces the total calories we consume, with all the attendant benefits commonly associated with weight loss.

The anthropological set has weighed in with its own assessment of what the paleolithic-era diet actually entailed. According to these experts, the caveman diet was far more plant-based than originally thought. Apparently, my ancestors shared my athletic shortcomings and profound inability to run down mastodons and gazelles or almost any other life form. Presumably by scavenging, they managed both to consume only 3 percent or so of their daily diet as meat – and to avoid stomachs that hung over their fur belts.

As usual, the academic community quibbles over the exact percentage with the fervor of a religious zealot. But I’m prepared to accept the general principle that a caveman diet entails a good deal less meat than my insatiable youthful cravings for bacon cheeseburgers, wings, and corn dogs.

I’m far more interested in other studies from the academic and medical worlds that compare the caveman diet with other popular dietary regimes, such as the Mediterranean diet.

As best I can interpret the results, these studies seem to say that any diet that promotes a nutritionally-balanced diet for attaining and maintaining a healthy weight is a good thing.

Maybe something equally important to me also jumped out from the studies: any diet that creates a nutritional imbalance may not be such a good thing. So if I embrace the caveman approach, I can probably give up my afternoon Dr. Pepper habit. But if I avoid milk and dairy products, I also have to ask myself where I’m going to get the calcium and Vitamin D I need for good bones. If I cut out legumes, am I losing many of the minerals and fibers and plant-based proteins I need to help manage my cholesterol?

In other words, the most important element of the caveman diet might be my brain…far more than my stomach or other digestive organs. Look at all the evidence.

Think.

That’s what being an intelligent non-caveman is all about – using our hard-won intellect to ask the right questions and make informed choices.

When in Doubt, Moderation

If my brain and the rest of my body all work together on this thing we call diet and health, we might just be on to something important here. In the absence of absolute truth, perhaps a reasonable approach might rest in simple moderation. If you can find the science or authority figure you need to give you complete certainty in any single dietary approach, then by all means go for it (and share it with us for that matter!). But until you find that certainty, balance what all parts of your body are telling you with simple moderation.

For me, bring on the occasional chili dog. But just not too many of them. I’ll eat the plant-based protein, too. I just won’t proselytize that it is the only food or even the only right food. As our body seems to suggest, there may not be any one perfect diet or any one solution to the quest for dietary health we all share. As the old adage goes, let’s not let our quest for perfection become the enemy of the good. 

Trading Carbon and Talking Plants


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Over the holiday break, my family was lucky enough to escape Omicron and go to the Virgin Islands. Some of us went diving a few times. On our various dives, we saw a wreck from 1867, colorful coral fish, barracuda, a shark, and even an octopus.

Afterward, as we sat on the beach with cold drinks, we enjoyed looking at the crystal blue water and the sailboats bobbing up and down. I thought to myself, if you didn’t spend time underwater, you would never understand what was beneath the seemingly benign surface.

The same can be said for soil.

As you drive or fly over the countryside, you’ll see picturesque farms and beautiful landscapes. And underneath, there is a dynamic, ever-changing microbial environment that affects our health and the Earth’s environment. The world of soil that supports everything green – including 95% of our food– is just as hidden as the abandoned ships and fish beneath the waves.

And just like ocean life, soil is critical to our future. Healthy soil has a tremendous benefit besides growing our food: it efficiently stores carbon, cleans our water, and give us the nutrients we need in our food.

Saving the soil for future generations

As a civilization, we have degraded our soils up to 10 times the rate of rebuilding. Since we have been farming the prairies, the Nature Conservatory reports that the U.S. has lost about 60% of its original organic carbon content in the soil. In the days of the buffalo, the United States had 18 inches in topsoil; today, on average, there is around eight inches. Future generations are facing climate change, nutrition security, and soil degradation.

Yet all is not lost. It is ironic that as we search for a climate change solution, we also urgently need to save our soil. The challenge today is to produce more food for more people with less land under plow with degraded soils, using less water and fewer energy resources. Soil carbon sequestration seems to be an answer for both.

In a previous D2D post, we addressed trading carbon credits between those who emit carbon and those who sequester carbon. According to Carbon Credit Capital, a company that matches carbon emissions with carbon capture programs, the average American emits about 20 tons of carbon each year, equivalent to driving 48,000 miles in a car. To find your carbon emissions, the EPA has a household carbon footprint calculator.

As a solution to climate change, farmers and ranchers are encouraged to measure the carbon they are pulling out of the air and storing in the ground as they grow their crops. They can sell this carbon in the form of a carbon credit.

In a quick search online, I found a couple of examples, one being Truterra, a farmer-driven sustainability platform. They work with farmers to evaluate carbon sequestering practices and match those who believe in the power of ‘farm-to-form’ and are looking to buy carbon credits. Indigo Ag contracts carbon agreements with farmers and identifies buyers to sell credits.

We wondered: What does all this additional carbon do to the soil?

Carbon’s critical role with soil

Carbon is present in every living thing – and it has helped the Earth thrive for the past 3.5 billion years. Plants and trees need CO2.

Someone once told me that our food system is just the commercialization of photosynthesis. Plants absorb sunlight, carbon dioxide (CO2), and water (H2O) to create their own energy.

Plants release the oxygen back into the air (luckily for us, as we need it to breathe). The water absorbed by leaves acts as a transport system to bring carbon down through the leaves to the roots and then into the soil.

Looking underneath the surface, you need a microscope to see the diversity of life. There are more organisms in a single teaspoon of healthy soil than people on our planet!

Soil is full of minerals, organic material, living organisms, gas, and water. One could call it the Earth’s brain, teeming with algae, fungi, nematodes, and bacteria that all merge together to give the plants nutrients.

CO2 is the nutrient that gets pulled down through the roots – a liquid carbon pathway. Plants convert this to sugars which feed the microbiome. The more food the plant provides to the microbiome, the more prolific the root system.

Plants and their microbiome have a symbiotic partnership that enables both to thrive. The plants feed the microbes in the soil. In return, the microbes in the soil feed the plants, much as our gut hosts the individual variety of microbiomes that give us antibodies to fight illness.

Each plant hosts their unique microbial community that surrounds its roots. This is called the rhizosphere – an area looking much like an old-fashioned hairnet, holding 100 times more microbes than in the surrounding soil. It is one of the most biodiverse and dynamic habitats on earth!

Part of the rhizosphere’s community is the mycorrhizal fungi. They increase the amount of space in the soil where the plant can take up nutrients and water.

Carbon as plant food

The more carbon a plant has, the more carbon it pulls out of the air. Carbon helps feed the microbes that keep plants healthy. Basically, the plants ‘pour’ carbon in the form of carbohydrate-rich exudates into the rhizosphere and the surrounding community of mycorrhizal fungi.

Plants and mycorrhizal fungi have had a relationship for 475 million years, working together to influence the Earth’s biosphere.

This partnership can reduce CO2 levels by 90%.

The higher the chlorophyll content in the leaf, the higher the rate of photosynthesis, the more carbon pulled out of the air, and the more mycorrhizal fungi. And so the cycle continues.

The plants then feed the beneficial microbes. The exude is a blend of amino acids, vitamins, and phytochemicals. The microbes hungrily consume this cocktail of nutrients. In return, these microbes protect and defend the plant from pathogens wanting to take them down.

As David Montgomery and Anne Bikle so eloquently explain in their book, The Hidden Half of Nature:

“Plants can’t run or hide but they have defensive strategies such as botanical swords (thorns) and shields (waxy leaf cuticles). Microbial recruits do the job below ground, taking on the role of palace guards to protect their botanical ally. Imagine a plant’s root system as a castle in an underground landscape harboring microbial bandits and invaders.

In this way, plants use carbohydrates (and other compounds) that only they can make to attract and build a community of microbial bodyguards that displace, deter, or take our microbial enemies.

Did you know the carbon in soil enables plants and trees to communicate with each other? As we learned, carbon increases the microbial community. The mycorrhizal fungi can move through the soil and deliver phosphorus to areas of scarcity, letting fungi receive carbon.

This allows plants to have their own secret language through 100 different chemical signals among the microbes in the rhizosphere. They warn each other about pests and fungi so they can put up a protective defense.

What type of farming best suits carbon sequestration?

In part, sequestering carbon is why regenerative agriculture has shown such success to both the plants and the soil. Certainly, pulling carbon out of the air and into the soil is the most efficient way to sequester carbon.

But another entry point for carbon to make its way into the soil is through no-till agriculture. By not turning over the soil with a plow, the organic material remains on the surface, protects the soil from blowing away, and helps it to absorb water. As it decays into the ground, it produces carbon as a nutrient for the soil.

Regenerative agriculture also includes planting cover crops to keep the soil safely covered from erosion and to maintain a living root system in the soil to provide adequate carbon nutrition levels for the hungry microbial communities. Farmers also rotate their crops each year which increases plant and microbial diversity in the soil.

Gabe Brown, a prominent regenerative farmer from North Dakota has increased the carbon and the yield on his farm. You can see the carbon increase as he layered in cover crops, diverse crops, and livestock.

This brings to mind what Dave Albert, from Misty Mountain Farms, said when he drives by his neighbor’s farms, “You can tell a farm has unhealthy soil when there is a lot of mud on the road after a rain — a sign that the soil quality has deteriorated so much that it simply just washes away.”

The agricultural system is a marvel – and the future of our society.

Solving the riddle of climate change – and defining the role of healthy soil in that solution – won’t come about by the efforts of any single government agency, global company, or the efforts of just one person. All have a role to play, certainly. But a solution will come about through a collaborative and cooperative effort across every part of our modern food chain.

How can we help?

The farmer is the foundation for that work. The people who are farming today are on the front lines in combating climate and nutritional deficiencies in the soil. What is done on the farm or ranch to enrich soil (and to protect our air and water) make up the building blocks of the solution. Farming and the ag community are both a positive influence to improve global warming, as well as ensure nutrition for our plants and us.

Your part in helping farmers capitalize on their carbon sequestration is to look at carbon credits to help offset your carbon emissions. McKinsey estimates that in 2020, buyers retired carbon credits for about 95 million tons of CO2. By 2030, they predict the annual demand could go up to 1.5 to 2.0 gigatons of carbon. Or, put another way, the market could be between $20-50 billion.

This is one more situation where we can unite around food. Governments, businesses, and consumers can encourage the efforts made by farmers by rewarding responsible soil-health practices. It is both individual efforts and collaborative achievement that gives us the most modern and efficient food system in history. We got there as a united country.

Ukraine: Quiet Pawn in Quest for Food Security


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

What is at issue here? Why is Ukraine valuable?

The current tensions can be traced to a complex combination of geography, history, and geopolitics.

Ukraine is more than just the second-largest country in Europe, with a total area only slightly smaller than the entire state of Texas. It exists at a critical juncture between Europe and Asia – a geographic gateway between two cultures opening all the social, commercial and other opportunities created by trade and political interaction.

To begin, Ukraine offers an abundance of natural resources, including agricultural products such as corn and oilseeds, minerals and other staples of living. Its central location between European and Asian markets makes it a natural source of supply in both directions. Its river system and access to warm-water ports promise steady and reliable delivery.

And as any student of history will attest, such conditions attract a lot of outside interest. The roster of countries seeking to control or occupy Ukraine is a who’s-who of history: Scythians, Samaritans, Romans and many others figure into the country’s long national story.

In the 9th century, different Baltic cultures formed what came to be known as “Kievan Rus” – the first eastern Slavic state, centered in what is now the modern city of Kiev, and in the 11th and 12th centuries one of the most dominant states in all of Europe.

The name became the root word of the modern state of Russia, and by the 18th century, Ukraine was absorbed into the Russian empire. When the Soviet Union dissolved, Ukraine gained its official independence. In 2004, Ukrainians took to the streets in an “Orange Revolution” to demand western-style changes to national government, and in 2014 launched the Maidan Revolution to oust a pro-Soviet government.

But Russia and Ukraine have remained intertwined nonetheless, as progressive, independence-minded Ukrainians clash with a significant portion of the country’s population that retains lingering affinity for their Russian heritage and the old Soviet ways of doing things.

Official estimates say as much as 17% of Ukrainians still speak Russian as their first language, especially in the eastern and southern areas proximate to the Russian border. Unofficial observers contend as much as one-third of the Ukrainian population retain a sense of Russian identity. Regardless of the actual numbers, the Russian presence in Ukraine in both body and spirit remains very much alive.

That reality has played out in the continuing uprisings regarding election results and the unchallenged re-annexation of Crimea by Russia in early 2014, immediately following the ouster of the pro-Soviet government. Crimea was part of the Russian Empire since 1783, and Kremlin officials used many familiar arguments of history and residual identity to justify the militarily unchallenged occupation.

What’s behind Russia’s aggressive posture?

Modern diplomacy would hold that the rest of the world should leave it to the Ukrainians to determine their own future. But as current events and the Crimean example indicate, larger forces are at play.

From the Russian perspective, much of Ukraine remains Russian and should be reunited with their natural and preferred choice in identity. Perhaps more important to Kremlin leaders, Russia simply can’t allow a further drift of neighboring, and former Russian, countries toward the West.

Soviet (and now Russian) geopolitical strategy long emphasized the need and value of a ring of buffer states between the “Mother Country and the decadent West.” The fall of the Berlin Wall ushered in an age of independence, notably still vibrant in the Baltic states. The idea of Ukraine remaining neutral or uncommitted to the West might be tolerable to Russian leaders. But a clear shift to the West by a massive and economically vital neighboring country in such a critical geographic position – through stronger economic ties, or worse, through membership in NATO – is simply unacceptable.

The fear of losing control of a country so rich in industry, agriculture and energy is a foundational geopolitical interest – and would prevent Russia’s status as a true superpower, not just in Asia but all of Eastern Europe as well.

So where does agriculture fit into the picture?

In many respects, Russia’s geopolitical ambitions mask a less visible but important issue in the Ukrainian conflict. It’s food security.

The world needs more food every day. Countries worldwide are hard at work thinking about how to assure access to enough food for their citizens. Many are actually hard at work doing something about it. And many of those see the enormous potential role Ukraine could play in that food security paradigm.

Ukraine’s most productive agricultural regions claim as much as a quarter of the earth’s “black soil.”

Often referred to as “chernozem,” this soil is built up over centuries of the growth and decomposition of grasslands, leaving a deep layer (10 inches or more) of soil rich in organic carbon. By comparison, the U.S. Midwest is down to about 3 inches. Beyond its highly fertile qualities, the unique nature of the soil often minimizes the need for extensive plowing or tilling.

As a result, the soil has maintained its fertility, making Ukraine one of the breadbaskets of the world growing corn, oilseeds, wheat, and barley.

This important agricultural production advantage has made Ukraine a significant factor in the global agricultural system – despite some lingering problems with how the production system is managed.

A Snapshot of Ukrainian Agriculture

  • 33% of total population engaged in agriculture (17.5 million)
  • 80 million acres arable land (#10 globally, #3 as % of all available land)
  • Average topsoil carbon content: 2.3% of weight (US 1.5%, Argentina 1.5%, Brazil 1.2%, Australia 0.6%)
  • Crops 72%, animals 28% of all ag output
  • 45,000 ag enterprises (55% gross output), 4 million farming households
  • $22.2 billion in ag esports 2020 (45% of all exports)
  • #1 exporter of sunflower oil, #4 in corn and barley, #6 in wheat, #7 soybeans (2017)
  • Major export partners: #1 Russia, #2 China, #3 Poland
  • Imports fish, fruit & nuts, tobacco and various other food ingredients, roughly half from EU, one-quarter from Asia
  • Major import partners: #1 China, #2 Russia, #3 Germany, #4 Poland (energy)
  • 10-12% of GDP (3rd largest economic sector); estimated 9.3% Covid year 2020
  • Largest export category (2x larger than next category, metals)

– Sources for data: National Investment Council of Ukraine; International Trade Administration; www.trade.gov

The transition from the state-managed approach of the old Soviet Union days has been a difficult and often frustratingly slow process. Despite ambitious plans to modernize the system to capitalize on the country’s enormous natural advantages, political resistance to change remains firmly in place in select areas, notably among some officials still rooted in the philosophy of the old Soviet-controlled system.

Civil unrest and outright street battles between independence-minded progressives and traditionalists still clinging to a Russian heritage haven’t helped attract investment or accelerate comprehensive change.

But the protracted political back-and-forth can’t mask Ukraine’s enormous productive potential – and the role the country could play in meeting the food security goals of major international players, such as Russia and China. In addition to the geopolitical ambitions of so many countries, the attractiveness of Ukraine as a major source of food needs can’t be overstated.

Studies by academicians and various international organizations vary in their estimates of just how much untapped potential resides with Ukraine’s agricultural sector. One analysis reported by the International Trade Association placed just the country’s total grain output potential at 140 million tons – more than 60% above current levels. Improvements in production of food and feed grains could pave the way to similar explosions in productivity in the production of oilseeds, animal proteins, vegetable crops – and more.

In other words, despite all the problems created by its political and sociological history, Ukraine is a significant factor in the global agricultural picture.

The productive potential still present in the country has attracted the active interest of any number of people, commercial organizations and governments concerned with long-term food security.

Remember, nations can exert control through many means, not just the use of military force. Economic ties also can bind nations together, and both Russia and China have been actively seeking to use economics as well as troops as a key part of their foreign policy agenda. Note that over the past three years, Russia has quietly assumed the role of Ukraine’s number-one trading partner and largest export market. China is number two.

How does this affect me?

Political disputes and threats of conflict are nothing new, and it’s easy to dismiss something unfolding halfway around the world from our dinner tables. But we all have a stake in how this is resolved. Make no mistake, Russia and China are searching to expand their borders and food security cannot be taken lightly. If Russia succeeds in dominating Ukraine, when and where does it stop?

From Russia’s perspective:

  • National security
  • International standing
  • Practical economics: access to energy, food, minerals
  • Food security

From the West’s perspective:

  • National sovereignty
  • Human rights and self-determination
  • East-West balance
  • Investment/economic opportunity

And for the food consumer…

The immediate risks to the average food consumer are small. Our global food system continues to function well overall. As important as Ukraine is on the global food system, any significant disruptions to the global food picture are unlikely.

The bigger risk is long-term consequences of outright conflict and punitive economic sanctions. Conflict in any part of the Middle East could easily lead to further complications in unraveling the supply chain issues still lingering post-Covid. Higher energy costs in particular would work through the food system (and the entire economy), raising the prices we pay every day.

There’s also the risk of unintended consequences. Past international disputes have led to punitive actions that proved counterproductive in the long term. For instance, Germany halting the Nor Stream 2 pipeline, which brings natural gas from Russia to Europe, could influence natural gas prices around the world.

Restrictions on the flow of money and goods are double-edged swords. Ask any farmer how well past trade embargoes and trade restrictions have worked for producers and rural communities – and how those costs rippled back through the food system. Food consumers need to call for cool heads to prevail in international disputes, for everyone’s sake.

We’ve got questions for you, 2022…

Dear D2D Readers,

We have rounded the corner of the New Year. While we don’t have a crystal ball, we are curious about what the future will hold for food and agriculture as it continues to innovate with new technologies, advances in scientific discoveries, and better information along the value chain from the farmer to the consumer.

Governments and companies are changing the way we address food security, the environment, and consumer health. At D2D, we have covered some of these subjects previously but are now looking harder at how the future will be shaped by those who grow, trade, process, and consume food.

Here are the key questions we see shaping agriculture and our food system in 2022. We’ve included a few links to our previous posts to provide some background information on these topics, but only by exploring ideas can we find meaningful solutions to these challenging questions.

Geopolitical: Trade

What are the trade implications of Xi and Putin, leaders who are looking for homogamy, to expand their borders through military presence as well as social and economic pressure? What does that mean for tariffs, trade, and agribusiness overall? What food and agriculture imports and exports with the United States prevent them from going too far?

As countries expand their reach to acquire cornerstone commodities such as energy, food, and rare minerals, what will be the U.S. and European response? Are sanctions enough?

What does food security mean for China and the rest of the world?

What does agriculture look like in a communist, socialist, and democratic country? What works and what doesn’t? What lessons can we learn from Venezuela?

What does the United States trade? What are the interesting storylines with imports and exports?  What happens in those different markets?

What role does the FDA and USDA play? What does the consumer need from government regulators?

Climate & Agriculture

How can we sustainably feed the world without expanding agriculture’s footprint?

The cattle industry is under attack for emitting methane. What innovations will continue to improve feed digestibility and methane digesters for cattle and dairy?  What is the role of cattle for grasslands and soil?

Will carbon become a new currency? Will the consumer be trading carbon credits? Will the farmer benefit from sequestering carbon in their fields? What are the economic implications along the entire food value chain – from dirt to dinner?

Will regenerative agriculture scale to make a meaningful difference in creating and building up our soil? Can large-scale farming truly sequester carbon?

How will our understanding of the soil and human gut microbiome give us better farming practices as well as nutritional health?

How are the Environmental, Social, and Governance goals of companies changing how food is grown? What are the implications to both the farmer and the consumer?

How soon will rural America have access to stronger internet, such as broadband?

Consumers: Health & Nutrition

Which companies reward their employees to make the connection between the food they eat and health care costs? By focusing on employee and family food plans, which companies have alleviated short-term sick days and long-term illnesses such as heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and cancer?

What advances in genetics will help scientists and doctors tailor nutrition for individual needs?

Will food continue to unite us culturally and individually or simply become another means of highlighting our different agendas and interests?

What does the future hold for the alternative protein industry? Will they continue to be adopted by the consumer?  Will they significantly displace dairy, poultry, beef, and pork? Will the consumer adopt them wholeheartedly or will people eat a mix of proteins? Which countries have the most innovation and acceptance?

What will the aquaculture industry look like? Will the consumer demand more transparency on imported, wild-caught, or farmed fish?

Consumers want to know where their food comes from. What advancements will be made regarding food traceability? Blockchain, DNA testing, and sensors for animal traceability are just a few of the technologies that will bring full disclosure to the consumer.

How can the food system shape and create a healthy narrative for the consumer? Which companies are taking the lead in creating healthy and ‘good for you’ foods that can be found in the center of the grocery aisle?

Home delivery is not just the milkman or your favorite Instacart shopper. What are creative and innovative delivery solutions for both groceries and take-out meals?

What are you particularly concerned about as we move into 2022? Write to us at info@dirt-to-dinner.com to add in your own ideas!

Supply Chain, Inflation & Climate Change


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

2021 is, in many respects, a continuation of 2020’s dominant story – the global Covid pandemic. But much of what occupied our attention this year on matters of food and agriculture involves the effects of the pandemic rather than the disease itself.

Jump ahead to:  Inflation    Climate Change    Trade    Supply   Tech    …and, um, these stories

The Supply Chain Mess – No Easy or Quick Answers

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, according to the old adage. 2021 helped reveal what happens when several links in the supply chain from dirt to dinner show a weakness.

Most immediately visible to consumers, perhaps, was the sporadic lack of select food products. A shortage of as many as 80,000 truck drivers helped leave store shelves thinly stocked or even empty from time to time.

Trucks handle more than 70% of our domestic freight, and “nearly every good consumed in the U.S. is put on a truck at some point,” according to the American Trucking Associations.

Our food supply is no exception.

Images of ocean vessels waiting to unload at ports showed how the transportation problems extended far beyond the local store to the entire global marketplace. Costs for ocean shipping, domestic barge cargoes, and trucking rates soared across the board, reflecting the imbalance in transportation supply and demand. Demand for food remained robust, despite the system disruptions.

The big problem wasn’t a shortage of products as much as the inability to maintain the smooth, reliable delivery system that makes our food system normally so efficient. In recognition of that reality, the Federal Trade Commission has demanded information from nine major food retailers as part of a planned investigation into the reasons behind the disruption.

A persistent shortage of workers in meat plants, dairies, and row-crop farms also played a role in disrupting the system, as the effects of Covid-19 pandemic restrictions and extensive government supports played out over the year.

Frustrated farmers, plant managers, and others across the food chain reported difficulty in finding the willing workers needed to harvest crops, maintain herds and flocks, service machinery and equipment, and all the other seemingly countless chores that go into growing, harvesting, storing, processing, manufacturing and distributing the $1.8 trillion dollars spent on food in the United States each year.

Just to put that number in context, note that the much-ballyhooed infrastructure bill passed by Congress this year costs about $1 trillion. So, when America’s food supply chain has problems, everyone sees the effect in the food choices available day to day – the prices paid for that food.

Back to top

Inflation – Up, Up and Away

No one needs to be told the cost of food has been going up. We see it every day, in the prices paid at the local grocery store and the bill as the local diner, and everywhere else, for that matter.

The latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) pegs the annual inflation rate for food running at 6.8%.

Soaring energy costs account for a significant portion of the increase. But the cost of disruption to the supply chain, higher commodity prices, and other factors also have been playing a role in a steady rise in food costs in the second half of the year, and economists across the public and private sector caution that inflationary pressures will continue across the economy well into 2022.

What’s so significant about 6.8%Consider this fact…

At 6.8% annual inflation, your food bill would double in less than 11 years. At the “normal” annual rate of food inflation over the past 20 years – roughly 2% – it would take 35 years to reach this level.

Back to top

Climate Change – For the Better

Concern with global warming accelerated during 2021, from the halls of international organizations and national governments all the way to the farm gate.

Efforts to assess the role played by agriculture in dealing with greenhouse gases, and other climate-related issues dominated the public-policy arena and the minds of farmers everywhere.

The 26th United Nations Climate Summit in Glasgow attracted as many as 30,000 supporters and political leaders from 197 countries, where delegates reaffirmed an international commitment to reducing gas emissions and limiting the projected increase in global temperature. The meeting produced lofty words, but many observers noted that much of the actual work being done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is being done at the local level.

Farmers, often working with various environmental groups and businesses, expanded their adoption of no-till, expanded grassland and crop rotation, and various other regenerative production techniques that help keep carbon in the soil rather than the atmosphere.

Government support for the development of carbon markets also helped drive farm-sector support for these “carbon smart” practices, as an investment in improved technology and environmentally-friendly equipment expanded sharply. The Department of Agriculture’s commitment of $633 million for “climate-smart” infrastructure investment in rural America only added to the momentum.

2021 may well be remembered as the year the ag sector’s role in climate change shifted in public perception from being a cause of global warming to emerging as a critical part of the solution to climate change.

Back to top

Trade – An Unquestioned Bright Spot

Despite the gyrations of the domestic market, U.S. agricultural exports are projected to reach record levels in 2021.

Department of Agriculture projections for FY2021 indicate total exports could reach a record $164 billion – up almost $28 billion (21%) from last year.

The United States also continues to rely on numerous food imports, turning to foreign suppliers for about 15% of our food, including about one-third of our fresh vegetables, half our fresh fruit, and more than 90% of our seafood. The fruit and vegetable market in 2021 is estimated at about $5.2 billion, and the seafood market at $3 billion.

Perhaps unlike 2020, the politically contentious issue of U.S.-China agricultural trade seemed to recede from the daily headlines. U.S. officials continue to press China to live up to the purchase commitments made in the 2019 trade agreement, and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack recently expressed concern with the declining U.S. share of total Chinese imports.

But out of the media spotlight, China remains our largest customer, buying almost 18 percent of total U.S. agricultural exports, valued at $28.8 billion.

The trade data makes an important point for producers and consumers alike. Demand for U.S.-grown commodities and food products continues to grow. The world needs food, and the United States exports more food than any other country in the world.

Even when conditions complicate the task of bringing food from dirt to dinner, rising populations and robust economies continue to drive demand – and the U.S. food and agricultural sector consistently comes through in helping to meet it.

Back to top

Supply – Enough to Go Around

The supply news from 2021 is good. Despite production challenges created by drought, floods, pandemics, continuing urbanization, political unrest, and so many other factors, we continue to produce enough food to satisfy the caloric needs of a growing world.

Total global production of wheat is up slightly from last year (at 773 million metric tons). Feed grain production is projected to rise to a record 780 million metric tons. Palm oil crops are projected at about 75 million metric tons and soybeans as roughly 60 million.

With the U.S. corn and soybean harvest virtually complete, the Department of Agriculture reports “excellent” national results. Final figures won’t be available until the new year, but initial results indicate a very slight decline in soybean and corn yields from last year, due largely to drought conditions in select growing areas.

The take-away on supply: We continue to produce enough to satisfy a growing world demand for food.

Back to top

Technology – No Flashy Headlines, But Important Nonetheless

It rarely gathered headlines in the popular media. But it sure attracted investment dollars in 2021 – and investment drives improvement, according to economists.

2021 helped drive home an important truth: farming is a technology-dependent activity. Better technology can offset labor issues and enable the better productivity and operational efficiency critical to solid bottom lines.

Investment dollars continue to flow into a constantly expanding array of digital and material technological development. Consider just a small sampling:

  • Enterprise software
  • Drones
  • Water management tools
  • Remote sensing
  • Data collection, management & analysis
  • Robotics and automation for crop production, food processing, storage, and transportation
  • Genetics and CRISPR
  • Resource recovery & waste reduction
  • Food sampling and safety

Even before the onset of the Covid pandemic, the global agricultural artificial intelligence market alone was estimated at just over $600 million – with projected annual growth rates of 25 percent in 2019-2025.

It’s not often shouted from the rooftops, but technology may be the single most important factor in the dramatic productivity increases of the past decade.

Back to top

And now for something completely different…

From time to time, we also noticed items that didn’t quite grab headlines in the mainstream media or elsewhere. To celebrate the end of 2021 and welcome the new year, we share some of our favorite news items that few seemed to notice.

Joey Chestnut routinely grabs headlines when he wins the annual July 4th Nathan’s Hot Dog Eating Contest. This year was no different when the 37-year-old American scarfed down 76 hot dogs (and buns) in 10 minutes to win for the 14th time in his career. Less noted: Women’s champion Michelle Lasco managed to down 30 and ¾ hot dogs in the same time span. Yup, together that’s nearly 100 hot dogs in 10 minutes. It’s also close to 29,000 calories – or over 10 times the daily caloric intake of the typical person. Is this a great country, or what?

A Brazilian cow, unhappy with its prospects as a future delicious dinner, escaped and sought safety in a nearby water park, where it managed to take one last fling at fun by sliding down the park’s lengthy waterslide into the cool and refreshing pool below. Officials reportedly denied the fun-seekers request to “do it again, do it again…” but the happy animal was given a consolation prize of spending the remainder of what we all hope will be a long and happy life courtesy of a kind-hearted rancher 500 miles west of Rio de Janeiro. And BTW, the cow’s new name: Toboga, Portuguese for “waterslide.”

The fine folks in Austin, Minnesota, for years, have enthusiastically observed the glories of the pork delicacy SPAM, with parades, cookouts, and sundry celebratory events. Dirt to Dinner actually has attended this august event and can honestly report it to be one of the finest examples of true Americana anywhere. But we also must note that word has spread about another “Spam Jam” – this version found on Waikiki in Hawaii, where 7 million cans of Spam are consumed each year as a self-proclaimed “cultural tradition.” Cans of the pork delicacy are donated to local food banks if that helps explain the event’s real allure. Let’s ALL go…

And from our friends across the pond, we have this item from the village of Wonersh in Surrey, England. Police report a serial baked-bean bandit, who has a penchant for pouring the product everywhere, from doorsteps to mail slots to cars. Neighborhood watch groups apparently are on stand-by, but the bandit remains as elusive as the wind. There is no word on what snacks may be on hand or if toast also is involved. Sounds like a waste of good protein to us.

Back to top

FFA’s Nicholas Mello: The Importance of Seed Science

Nicholas Mello of California’s Hanford Future Farmers of America (FFA) Chapter is a finalist in the Agriscience Research–Plant Systems Proficiency field. Plant systems proficiency…what does this mean, exactly? Nick conducted research at Zonneveld Dairies, comparing the yield per acre of three different hybrid corn seed varieties planted on 95 acres each to determine the highest yielding variety.

Nick learned that nearby Zonneveld Dairies was interested in investing in higher yield producing corn seed variety to feed their dairy cattle. Mello developed and designed this experiment to ensure that each seed had the same acreage and grew under the same conditions. Dirt to Dinner had the opportunity to communicate with Nick about his experiment’s findings and his FFA experience.

Want to learn more about Nick’s research? Check out his video here.

Defining Research Objectives

Describe your Agriscience research experiment in detail for our readers—how did you develop the idea, what problem were you trying to solve, and how did you go about achieving results?

My agriscience research experiment compared three hybrid corn seed varieties based upon the yield they produce. These hybrid corn seeds are being used for silage for Zonneveld Dairies. I compared 3 branded hybrid seeds: Dekalb 67-44, Masters Choice 6522, and Croplan Genetics S5700. These seeds were selected based upon their similar and outstanding characteristics to grow in the Central Valley conditions, such as high heat and drought.

The goal of my experiment was to find which hybrid corn seed variety would produce the greatest yield to help the farmer generate more revenues and help Zonneveld save money in feed and make more money by providing the cows starch to produce more milk for dairy cow feed.

I hypothesized that out of the hybrid seeds, the Dekalb 67-44 seed would produce the most yield per acre due to its size and coating. I separated each seed into three 95-acre fields, totaling 285 acres of experimental land. I collaborated with DeKalb agronomists and 3D’s Family Farming about crop management, irrigation scheduling, and fertilizer management.

I then prepared the ground of each 95-acre field by ripping the soil in the fields, two passes of disking to break down the soil to be soft, then furrowing the ground into rows, and pre-irrigating the land so the soil has moisture for planting. I then planted the seeds at 34-35 thousand per acre.

We waited till the corn sprouted to begin soil compaction and injection of UN-32 fertilizer. After this, I irrigated the corn with 3D’s Family Farming and maintained the corn with fertilizer. Our goal was to reach 300 units of UN-32. I maintained the corn till it was a hard dent and was at peak starch. Starch is the nutrient that will allow the dairy cow to produce more milk.

Danell Custom Chopping came to harvest the corn, where I recorded the weight of the trucks and silage to find the total amount of yield. Masters Choice 6522 produced the most yield at just over 32 tons per acre, Croplan Genetics produced just under 31 tons per acre, and Dekalb 67-44 produced 28 tons per acre, going against my hypothesis.

Why this experiment? Have you always been interested in seed technology?

What got me into this experiment and interested in hybrid corn seed varieties is from working at 3D’s Family Farming. I work in the summer there as a tractor mechanic and operator. When I ran this experiment, my father, who normally furrows and does groundwork, had to take time off because he had surgery on his thyroid to remove cancer. Another worker also had to take time off. This opened the opportunity to step up and gain responsibility in the business and gain knowledge in farming.

When I found out that Zonneveld wanted to plant different hybrid corn seeds for silage, that sparked my interest in hybrid corn seed varieties. I collaborated with Dekalb Agronomists Barbra Kutzner, Pete Lain, Robert Fahey, and Jacob Lehar, who provided expertise on both hybrid corn seeds and crop management.

Crop Tech’s Future in Soil…and Beyond

This is such an exciting field that seems to be constantly evolving and innovating. How do you see seed technology advancing in the future?

I see technology evolving to make better crops that will hopefully help continue to fix the problems we face in agriculture. Agriculture has made a lot of advancements in technology and machinery. I can see technology evolving further in that field, as well as with hybrid crops and GMOs.

I believe technology in hybrids and GMOs will allow agriculture to produce more crops with fewer resources such as water, fertilizer, or other crop inputs such as potassium and phosphorus. This is especially true in California where water is scarce and creates more yield with less ground to feed a growing population.

Looking ahead to 2050, where there will be more mouths to feed, what do you think is the key to feeding this growing population? And why?

Advancements in modified crops and machinery will be vital in providing for this ever-increasing population. Maybe crops can be modified to require fewer resources such as water and nutrients from the solid but still produce more yield or crop.

This modification would allow for more production and may even allow our ground to last longer because the crops will take fewer nutrients from the ground. This modification in the crop can also enable more resources to be used elsewhere around the world or in agriculture.

Machinery advancements are needed to make agriculture more efficient in the production aspect of groundwork such as disking, ripping, furrowing, crop maintenance such as injection rigs and spray rigs and harvesting such as choppers, and also the repair and maintenance part of agriculture as well. Parts need to become more accessible for repair and maintenance.

These advancements will allow agriculture production to be faster, possibly allowing farmers to double-crop their land to produce more. This will also minimize the downtime lost when a tractor or implementation breaks.

These advancements with crops requiring fewer resources while producing greater yield and improving crop efficiency via machinery will allow agriculture to keep up with the growing population.

A Vast Array of Careers in Ag

We love to share about the diversity of career opportunities in the ag space. We know farmers and ranchers are just one piece of an enormous ag puzzle. Where do you see yourself in the ag field in the future? And why?

I can see myself in the agronomy field of agriculture as a Certified Crop Adviser (CCA) or research agronomist to continue experimentation and also try to find new ways to help agriculture.

I am currently pursuing a biology degree at UC Merced, focusing on ecology to use in the agriculture field. My dream job would be either a research agronomist or CCA because a research agronomist does similar actions such as my experimentation and also tries to find new ways to help agriculture.

I want to make a change in agriculture and try and solve one of the many problems agriculture is facing. I would also enjoy being a CCA as it helps farmers with their crops and production.

I would enjoy both of those careers because they are both involved in science which is my favorite subject, and understanding plant science and the interaction of plants with the soil and the environment is crucial for agriculture.

If you could advise other young people interested in seed science or agriculture in general, what would it be?

My advice to other young people interested in seed science is that it’s complex but exciting. Don’t let the complexity of genetics steer you away because this is a field of research that will be needed in agriculture to help solve the problems that agriculture is facing.
My advice for young people interested in agriculture is that it isn’t just farming and animals. There are so many aspects to it, and I’m sure one may have your interest for a career.

Also, don’t believe all the stereotypes and bad things in the media about agriculture because a lot of it isn’t true, and it just gets generalized over all of agriculture. The best thing to do is to actually get involved in agriculture through classes, FFA, or even working in an agricultural job.

By being involved, you learn the true experience and knowledge of what agriculture is all about. I would like to also say that although agriculture seems to be frowned upon by many, please remember that we eat, have shelter, clothing, other jobs, and actually survive because of agriculture because everything depends on it.

Gratitude and Community Building with Farming

Many of our regular readers are farmers. Is there anything you would like to leave them with – a piece of advice? Something to consider? A call to action?

I would like to tell farmers please don’t give up even if times are rough because everyone depends on you to feed them and provide resources. Although I understand you don’t always get thanks or appreciation, I know that I appreciate agriculture. I know I’m not the only one and know that a whole community is out there supporting you.

I would also like to say to farmers that many kids are willing to go into agriculture in this future generation, but not enough for the future of agriculture.

I would like to ask that farmers and any agriculturalist who listen please try to draw in the younger generation’s attention to agriculture and don’t try to push them away from it.

My family tried to warn me of the hardships of agriculture as if trying to push me away, but I found my roots there and am happy I did. Agriculturalists can reach the younger generations through FFA, agricultural advisors, and a big one is social media. Use social media to try and draw their attention to truly understand the different aspects of agriculture, which may help them find their passion by holding events or tours of agricultural business and destroy these stereotypes of agriculture.

Let’s try to get the younger generation into agriculture for the world’s future, but also have them understand that agriculture isn’t just farming, dairies, and cattle, but so much more and a great big community that is more than happy to teach anyone that decides to explore agriculture.

Study shows dairy’s effect on heart health


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Published in the George Institute for Global Health, an international team of scientists studied the fat consumption of a considerable cohort of 60-year-olds in Sweden — one of the world’s largest dairy-producing and consuming countries. They did so by measuring blood levels of fatty acids found primarily in dairy foods. Researchers followed the group for almost two decades, observing circulatory events, strokes, and heart attacks.

The Findings

Researchers discovered that those with high levels of dairy-derived fatty acids had the lowest risk of cardiovascular disease. This data, combined with 17 other studies out of the U.K. and Denmark, aggregated 43,000 participant results to amass these significant new findings.

Participants with the highest intake of dairy fat showed the lowest risk of cardiovascular disease.

They were sure to note in their findings that it was difficult to isolate all variables, such as lifestyle, dietary habits, and other diseases. Furthermore, results certainly have influences of factors other than dairy, so further study is needed to better understand the full impact. But the lead author and researcher out of George Institute for Global Health, Kathy Trieu, detailed that dairy foods, especially fermented products, are beneficial for heart health.

A lecturer at the Department of Health and Nutritional Sciences at Ireland’s Institute of Technology Sligo, Brian Power, made a thought-provoking statement that should make us all question sweeping health recommendations: “[this study should prompt us to] rethink what we think we know about food and disease.”

Dairy Fat and Heart Health

Dairy fat contains over 400 different types of fatty acids. Two crucial fatty acids are C15 and C17. These both contain Milk Fat Globule Membranes, or MFGMs, which have been proven to lower type 2 diabetes risks.

With cardiovascular disease killing upwards of 350,000 people every year in the U.S. alone, it is no wonder scientists and researchers continue to study the various roles that food, and specifically fats, can play on heart health. A notable study out of Sweden looked closely at the relationship between fatty acid biomarkers in blood samples and cardiovascular disease.

Ultimately, in conjunction with numerous other studies, they discovered that the higher the dairy fat intake, the lower the risk of cardiovascular disease. Now, this doesn’t mean run out and eat cheese for three meals a day. But what it does mean is that previous recommendations to transition to vegan, non-dairy or dairy-alternative diets are antiquated.

Fermented dairy produces gut benefits, too

Fermented dairy products contain safe-to-eat bacteria that can produce what are called short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs). The benefits of SCFAs cannot be overstated—they can reduce inflammation by decreasing the risk of heart disease and blocking cholesterol production.

SCFAs’ intestinal barrier supports healthy mucus production and colon health and provides an energy source for microbiota to conduct essential signaling functions for efficient digestion.

Dairy and its role in cancer prevention

While not part of this notable study’s findings, dairy has also been shown to play a role in the reduction of cancer onset. As we know, cancer risks are strongly impacted by our diet. It is important to note that the studies performed on the relationship between cancer and any food group are correlational studies, meaning that they use statistics to estimate the relationship.

Colorectal cancer, one of the most common types of cancer worldwide, has been studied numerous times, with most studies indicating that eating dairy may reduce the risk due to its makeup of calcium, vitamin D and lactic acid bacteria (a fermented food!).

The casein and lactose contained in milk may increase the calcium bioavailability to the body, making its range of protective benefits more easily accessed. Furthermore, the short-chain fatty acid, butyrate found in milk, may also serve as a protective mechanism against colorectal cancer.

While there has been talk over the past year about dairy having a relationship to the onset of breast cancer, no studies have been substantiated to support this claim. In fact, after aggregating 20 of the more prominent studies, the Susan G. Komen Institute conducted a pooled analysis and confirmed that there is, in fact, no link between dairy and breast cancer risk.

What to eat to increase dairy fat in a healthy way

Continue reading about the benefits of Fermented Foods here.

How Is Ag Helping Battle Climate Change?

On the run? LISTEN to our post!

When President Joe Biden announced his goal of making the United States carbon neutral by 2050, a lot of eyes immediately turned to the agricultural sector.

After all, farming and ranching accounts for about 38 percent of land usage worldwide – more than 12.4 billion acres – with the land in the United States alone using about 44% in some form of agriculture and food production. Farming and ranching have big carbon footprints, certainly.

But the good news is that crops produced every day on this land also draw carbon from the air and store it in the earth, helping offset greenhouse gas emissions and regenerating healthy soil. The cattle on the range help enrich the soil, which grow the grasses that sequester carbon. In fact, we need carbon for our plants and trees to grow, giving ag a promising opportunity to help battle climate change through practices that will reduce costs, improve yields and boost profits on the farm.

A Solution – Carbon Trading

Here is how it works. Those businesses that emit carbon will buy carbon credits from those who sequester carbon, avoid carbon, or capture emissions. In the case of agriculture, a farmer naturally pulls carbon out of the air just by growing crops or raising cattle on the range.

Let’s say a corn farmer with 1,000 acres wants to participate in this program. The conversion is approximately 0.5 tonnes of carbon per acre, but it depends on whether the farmer utilized no-till, reduced fertilizer, restores wetlands, plants, trees, etc. They would sell their carbon credits to a broker who would then sell it to a company, such as Microsoft, or an individual who emitted carbon and wants to offset it.

What’s the story behind carbon sequestration?

The overall effort is referred to as “carbon sequestration” – a systematic approach to expanding on-farm efforts to lock carbon in the soil through better farming practices. No-till and low-till farming, use of cover crops, smart crop rotation, expanded plantings of perennials, rotation of cropping, and animal grazing all contribute to keeping or pulling carbon into the ground and out of the atmosphere. The result: less of the carbon dioxide (CO2) that many scientists say too much promotes rising global temperatures.

Today, more and more farmers and ranchers are embracing the idea of carbon sequestration, both as a responsible environmental practice and a means of improving their own economic sustainability. The government, various academic institutions, and some important private enterprises are establishing practical methods of measuring the results of on-farm carbon sequestration efforts and building an effective marketplace to establish a value for their results.

The challenge here will be to ensure a verification process that works for each farm in each state with different types of farming practices and soil health.

But the benefits to farmers and society don’t end with reduced CO2. Science also shows that these practices are important to the entire “regenerative agriculture” movement, which seeks to promote an improved and sustainable approach to generating and maintaining the healthy, vital soil needed to feed this and future generations.

It all remains very much a work in progress, but the initial efforts have proven highly appealing to the farm community and all others with an interest in a better environmental future.

A recent study by the University of Missouri’s Division of Applied Science found very encouraging results of efforts to date. Rising food production levels over recent decades have indeed raised the overall greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, the study found. But expanded use of cover crops, no-till, and other carbon-capturing techniques have helped fuel a decline in the per-unit emissions for both crops and beef. In plain English, “we are producing more units of food at less greenhouse-gas emission per unit of food than before,” according to authors Ray Massey and Cammy Willett.

Analysis done at the 2015 Paris climate conference contended that even a small increase in the levels of carbon in soil would have a major environmental benefit.  Called the “4 per 1000” initiative, scientists argued that increasing soil carbon by just 0.4 percent annually would offset an entire year’s increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel emissions.

What’s the Value of Sequestered Carbon?

Carbon sequestration in agriculture is in many respects an extension of a well-established environmental principle encompassing energy, industrial and other sectors. As far back as 1990, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sought to reduce the emission of sulfur gas – and resulting “acid rain” — from coal-fired power plants.

Credits for reduced emissions helped spur the needed transition to more environmentally friendly practices – and helped usher in the idea of a marketplace for these “carbon credits.” The industry could use these credits to offset actual emissions, in effect buying time to make costly changes while still advancing the larger goal of lowering harmful emissions.

A “carbon credit” typically represents one metric ton of CO2. The prices paid for carbon credits vary widely, based upon the industry or sector involved and changing market factors. A carbon credit within agriculture currently is in the range of $30 per metric ton and remains fluid as more and more organizations enter the marketplace.

There is a question as to what the price has to be in order for the farmer to make a profit after incorporating some sequestering practices. It could be as high as $35 per ton. Studies on the subject provide varying estimates of just how much carbon can be sequestered per acre, depending upon the production techniques employed, soil types, water conditions, and numerous other factors. One study found no-till alone could sequester an average of 0.3 metric tons per acre per year – or roughly an extra $10 for every acre of cropland.

Sounds great. So what’s the problem?

Part of the challenge facing the carbon sequestration efforts rests in the sheer complexity of the task.

The first challenge is to collect enough data to deliver precise result metrics. The effectiveness of carbon sequestration in farming varies by several factors — soil types, soil health, climate conditions, water presence, to name a few. Fine-tuning the analytical process demands extensive data collection and careful analysis by agronomic experts. That work will be critical to developing a better understanding of the most effective practices in each production area or individual farming situation.

But an aggressive effort on that front is already underway across many leading universities and private institutions. Coupled with advances in data analysis services available to farmers, this work promises to help refine the assessment process and lower the costs of current expensive analysis.

Another big task is the development and refinement of carbon credit markets.  How will farmers and ranchers be rewarded for their success in locking away more and more of the carbon blamed for climate change?

As with any new economic phenomenon, the emergence of carbon markets has produced what may seem to be a complex and fragmented marketplace.

The government, private enterprise, and opportunistic market players all seem to be working to create markets attractive to producers, while Congress and the Biden Administration continue to wrangle over the development of comprehensive and cohesive policies and regulations for a major agricultural economic frontier. Amid all the discussion and debate, Economist J. David Aiken of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln calls the current environment “the wild, wild west.”

One major market has emerged for industries subject to stringent environmental regulations. The coal-fired energy plants that once dominated energy production helped pave the way for the development of the markets needed to buy carbon credits.

Today, energy, chemical production, waste management, forestry and lumbering, industrial manufacturing interests, and other non-agricultural enterprises actively seek to purchase carbon credits, most often through private agreements.

Efforts by the Obama Administration in the wake of the Kyoto climate accord to develop the Chicago Climate Exchange showed the difficulties that come with such an ambitious undertaking. The exchange sought to create a market for greenhouse gas credits but died amid congressional opposition to the Obama approach to GHG regulation.

Legislation to create a carbon bank through the U.S. Department of Agriculture remains before Congress, with bipartisan support from farm-state and other legislators with a genuine concern about climate change and the positive role to be played by the agricultural sector in dealing with it. Progress in advancing the bill, however, remains complicated by the larger political logjam regarding legislation deemed by political leaders as having higher national priority.

Many private and commercial entities have entered the market space, seeking to develop networks of producers willing to help build the needed data banks in exchange for financial payments based on acceptable measurement standards and techniques.

The challenge will be for companies to add up all their carbon emissions and figure out how much they need to offset with a carbon credit. This will be a time-consuming and arduous process. Economists like Aiken predict dramatic growth in these “voluntary carbon markets,” citing the work of Stephen Donofrio at Forest Trends, who projects growth of 1,500 percent by 2030 for them.  McKinsey predicts a $50 billion market by 2030.

What comes next?

The role of carbon sequestration within U.S. agriculture is increasing – but the road ahead will be long and winding.

A large part of the frustratingly slow pace can be traced directly to Washington, D.C., and more specifically, Capitol Hill. Clear direction in the form of agreed policies, standards, and regulatory guidelines would do much to advance the adoption of the environmentally friendly practices important to dealing with the climate change challenge.

But there’s good news, despite the frustration with Washington. The agricultural sector isn’t waiting for D.C. legislators and bureaucrats to find the answers needed for a climate solution.

Farmers and ranchers recognize the value of exactly the practices at the core of carbon sequestration – and the broader set of practices that contribute to soil health and comprehensive regenerative agriculture. Environmentally smart practices already are part of the production and land stewardship approach taken by farmers today. Creation of carbon markets will serve to speed and expand adoption of such practices. Not to mention offer another income source for farmers.

The farming and ranching community already is one of the most environmentally aware and committed sectors of our society.  Its members know that responsible environmental practices aren’t just the right thing to do but the smart thing to do as well. They know we all have a role to play in dealing with the climate change that threatens all of us. And they know that these practices can have a major positive effect on their own economic survival, beyond an additional income stream.

Soil sequestration practices cut costs. Over time, they enhance yields. And maybe most important in an era of rising costs and smaller margins, they mean a stronger bottom line — and their own operational sustainability.  

How safe is our food from cyberattacks?   

The United States arrests two foreign nationals months after largest cyberattack on American infrastructure.…

The U.S. Department of Justice announced this week it arrested two men, one a 22-year-old Ukrainian national, the other a 28-year-old Russian national, for their role in the cyberattacks in June that disrupted businesses and government entities in the United States. The DOJ says it also seized more than $6 million in ransom traced back to the hackers.

The arrests come on the heels of two new cyberattacks on agriculture. In September, the cyberhackers hit farm cooperatives in the Midwest, Iowa-based NEW Cooperative and Crystal Valley in Minnesota. Both entities were attacked by what experts believe is the same group that launched the ransomware attack against JBS SA, the nation’s largest meat processor, in June. This comes less than six months after President Biden said he told Russian President Vladimir Putin 16 categories of business, industry, and critical infrastructure in the United States are  “off-limits” to Russian hackers.

Food & Ag in the Crosshairs

At the summit with Putin, President Biden did not reveal what the 16 categories were, but experts believe they are likely the same ones designated as “critical” by the Department of Homeland Security, as shown below.

That’s why alarm bells went off when, after Biden’s warning, the hacker group, known as “BlackMatter”, hit NEW Cooperative for $5.9 million and Crystal Valley for an undisclosed amount? American news outlets report the Russian group posted that they didn’t think NEW Cooperative had enough volume to be a critical company.

New Cooperative disagreed about their volume, telling Modern Farmer the company “provides software to 40 percent of American grain production, as well as feed scheduling for millions of livestock animals.”

The arrests could signal to cyberhackers that future attacks won’t be tolerated.A hit on any part of the food and agricultural sector can not only harm our ability to feed ourselves but to our economy as a whole. The American food and agricultural system accounts for approximately 20% of our nation’s economy. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) reports food and ag consist of over 2 million farms, almost 1 million restaurants, and more than 200,000 “registered food manufacturing, processing, and storage facilities.”

Many people first heard of cyberattacks, ransomware, and anonymous Russian hackers hitting America’s critical infrastructure when the hackers’ work generated major headlines this past June. But this type of technology terrorism has been around for a while. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has been keeping a detailed timeline of cyberattacks. CSIS says crimes of this nature have been happening since 2006. They only track cyber hacks that hit world governments, defense, high-tech companies, or other economic crimes that cause loss of more than 1 million dollars. That certainly includes the recent attacks on the co-ops as well as the attack this June on JBS SA, the world’s largest seller of meat.

Targeting the Big Players

The Wall Street Journal reports JBS SA paid the hackers $11 million dollars in bitcoin to stop the attack and prevent further damage not only to their company, but to their clients as well. “It was very painful to pay the criminals, but we did the right thing for our customers,” JBS CEO Andre Nogueira told the Journal. In a statement the company released to the press, Nogueira added, “we felt this decision had to be made to prevent any potential risk for our customers.”

Security experts estimate that JBS SA was one of 800-1,500 businesses to be hit by cyberattacks this summer. The hackers also targeted the Keystone pipeline and other government infrastructures. CNBC reports in 2020 that these attacks cost companies $350 million in cryptocurrency, a more than 300% jump from the year prior.

Breakdown of a Cyberattack

Here’s how the cyberattacks work: hackers, mostly from Russia, break into a company’s technological infrastructure using sophisticated software and take their data hostage. The hackers then threaten to cause disruptions, release private information, or delete it unless a ransom is paid (hence the name “ransomware”). These attacks are different from physical attacks on infrastructure in that it is the threat of damage, not the damage itself, that gets companies and governments to react.

Few Americans had ever heard of JBS SA, NEW Cooperative, or Crystal Valley before this year or likely understood how high-tech and sophisticated farming has become. In America, there can be a nostalgic view of farming. Farming has come a long way from the horse and plow. Farmers have tractors working off of GPS, sophisticated technology that enables them to manage their crop inputs, and access to markets to assess the futures market at harvest time. That means our ability to keep grocery store shelves filled with affordable food could be more impacted by technological disruptions than extreme weather events.

Bringing in the Experts

Cybersecurity experts, such as Susan Duncan (right), predict this is just the beginning of ransomware attacks on our nation’s critical infrastructure, with food and agriculture being a high-value target for hackers.

Susan Duncan is the Associate Director for the Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station and Director of the Center for Advanced Innovation in Agriculture at Virginia Tech. Her work is focused on technology and innovations developed and used in agriculture, food, and nutrition.

D2D interviewed Duncan to understand how the food supply chain is recovering from this summer’s ransomware attacks, how vulnerable agricultural technology is, and what’s being done to limit disruptions from hackers.

D2D: Did the ransomware attack carried out in June against JBS surprise you?

Susan: I wouldn’t say [the ransomware attacks] surprised me in the sense that all of us are vulnerable. Also, it wasn’t the first one that happened. Over the past several years, other agriculture and food companies have had ransomware attacks. They just didn’t receive as much publicity, and the general public was less aware of them.

D2D: Now that the average consumer is more aware of the threat, how should we understand the role technology plays in the food we find in the grocery store?

Susan: You are asking about the connection of technology with our food supply, grocery stores, and the restaurants where we typically find our food. Of course, we all recognize that apples come from orchards, bread from wheat, and the meat cuts in the refrigerated unit at the supermarket came from an animal, but what you might not recognize is that we have the technology behind all of that. Those products likely had some form of technology used on the farm, such as drones, robots, sensors, computers on tractors, computer-controlled irrigation systems, and guided technology for managing animal feeding.

These technologies on the farm level generate data, which can be analyzed and translated into information to alert farmers or help them make decisions about how to manage their farm, protect the environment, and protect their crops and animals from extreme weather events like frost or drought. [It can also tell farmers] when to harvest and sell their crops or animals, so the quality and productivity is the highest. They are using technology to watch for weeds and pests growing in their field crops.

D2D: How vulnerable are these technologies? How secure are the systems?

Susan: Great question. We think incorporating agricultural technologies is safe and needed, but some changes are happening that introduce risks that we haven’t previously thought about or focused on. The connectivity of technology, the increased opportunistic and malicious players that seek access to data and computer-controlled equipment, the lack of awareness for protecting the equipment, computers, and software [all] increase vulnerabilities.

The agriculture and food system is huge, complex, and very diverse. As we saw, major companies, like the meat producer and processor JBS, have vulnerabilities. If you operate a small farm with one computer used to manage your business, store your drone data, analyze your crop data, you may not have sufficient financial resources, personal capacity, and experience to secure your computer. But at the same time, you most likely will not be a target. Cyber thieves are looking for targets with a lot of assets. Farmers should continue to use data and technology – the benefits still far outweigh the risks.

D2D: What questions should the farmer be asking upfront when they purchase technology then?

Susan: If [a farmer] purchased an inexpensive drone, what do you know about the security of the data? If there is backdoor access for control where the data from the drone may be used by a company in other way? How could a cyberattack affect your capacity to manage your business operation? Can you trust the drone data? Is the data corrupted or modified, and how might that influence your decisions for the appropriate management of your crops or animals?

These are all hypothetical questions. We don’t see this happening in the marketplace right now. However, I ask these questions so farmers know to read the fine print on all their technology and make sure they know how their data is being used. Overall, we want farmers to continue to use technology and we believe the benefits outweigh the risk by a significant amount.

Farmers using their technology resources and how to use them is just a smart protection measure. I compare it to wearing a seatbelt while driving. Overall, our risk of a car accident is very low, but we still wear a seatbelt. Well, that’s what we advise farmers to do. Read the fine print, understand how your data is collected, used, and secured. It’s precautionary and wise.

As agriculture is increasingly influenced by computers and becomes more reliant on digital data, we want to address the gaps in awareness and skills that are created. These are the most significant sources of vulnerability.

D2D: There is a need then for more education and awareness for farmers?

Susan: Awareness is important. Knowing the technology vendor and what the small print of the contract says is essential. The data you generate from the tractor, drone, sensor, or other technology may actually be owned by the company, and you don’t own your own farm data. Older systems probably need software upgrades to improve security. You know we all went through that experience with our computers. Haven’t we all experienced the situation when our old computer or smartphone couldn’t use the new software or apps? Old software, with its outdated security and coding systems, may not work on our new computer. It’s best to check on the security and get updated software and security systems on computers.

D2D: What else do farmers and processors need to think about as they deliver their products to market?

Susan: We have to think about how the organization or farm transfers information and knowledge to other entities within the food supply chain. There’s that gap between what you did in your company or what your farm might need versus what the upstream or downstream companies might be introducing.

Are you prepared to accept the risks imposed by the company that you work with if they are not attentive to the security of their technologies and computers? The security of our technology is really dependent on the age of the system. It’s also dependent on the amount of expertise within the company, how much they focus on security, and whether or not they’re willing then to take steps so that they have at least that fundamental baseline security process in place. Because most of the agricultural network comprises small and medium-sized farms and companies, they don’t necessarily have all those resources.

D2D: As farmers become more aware and ask the right questions about their technology, what is being done in the agricultural industry to prevent and protect from cyberattacks?

Susan: Several years ago, a colleague who had worked for years in national security talked with us about cyber biosecurity, which is a developing domain at the intersection of cybersecurity, biosecurity, and cyber-physical systems with applications in the life sciences such as agriculture. That introductory conversation has led to a pretty intensive and expansive engagement for us and at a significant time for our country. This is relevant to securing our production agriculture, biotechnology, and food supply chain and making certain that U.S. consumers and people worldwide do not suffer from a lack of food due to malicious cyber-attacks. Academia, the private sector, and government agencies at the state and federal levels are all working together to ensure our farmers and food can remain safe. It is a continuing effort and not one that has a specific beginning and endpoint. There is also not one solution but a myriad of options from better data management to security to preventing the attacks altogether.

D2D: How safe then is our food supply system?

Susan: Our agricultural food system is extremely safe. It’s not just safer from food borne illnesses, but we are building the technology and public/private infrastructure to address these cyberattacks. Sure, these attacks are scary. But the agricultural community has been through worse, and we’ve always come up with solutions. While bad actors will always be in the world, American farmers are responsive and adaptive, and we are tackling this problem head-on. Farmers and consumers should know there is large community of private and government entities working together to address the vulnerabilities in our food system.

A Stick or a Carrot to Help Us Eat Healthy?


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

It’s no secret that poor dietary habits have real – and unpleasant – consequences. But what can be done? What’s the best approach to helping people everywhere make better food choices?pr

What’s going on in the U.K.?

U.K. restauranter, Henry Dimbleby, was commissioned by the U.K. government to independently review their entire food system. While it began as an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses from farm to fork, they particularly focused on issues of hunger and ill-health brought about by Covid. Their National Food Strategy was written as an extensive analysis of the various food issues facing consumers, along with a set of specific policy recommendations designed to deal with them.

The “Dimbleby Report” has brought to light the already heated debate on the “right” food policy for a modern world. One of their recommendations was to put a sugar tax on foods since too much sugar can contribute to obesity and poor health. As the report notes, junk food contributes to 64,000 deaths each year in the U.K. In the United States, medical expenses to combat obesity total over $150 billion, sometimes reaching $210 billion a yearThe report suggests simple economics as a possible solution, in the form of new taxes on the sugar and salt common to unhealthy food.

The U.K. also recognized that the answer to decreasing obesity doesn’t lie in one simple approach to food policy. It demands a comprehensive set of tools for leading citizens to a better, healthier future – one that accommodates the nutritional and economical needs of people and the maintenance of a sustainable food system.

U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson immediately announced his opposition to the tax proposals. And in the United States, critics of the “tax the sin” approach pointed to the controversial results of similar attempts to tax sugary drinks. So that leaves us with one question: What works best to create consumer behaviors leading to healthy people: a punishment or a reward for better decision-making?

The National Food Strategy Report – The Evidence, July 2021.

What is a sugar tax?

A sugar tax is a surcharge that’s levied on sugary foods and beverages, including soda, candy bars, cereal, etc. The Dimbleby Report is also considering a salt tax, designed to reduce the consumption of chips and other salty snacks and junk food.

There are different ways to impose this tax, including taxing per ounce or adding a percentage of the cost. Ireland imposed a soda tax in 2018 with 30 cents per liter added to any sugary drinks with more than eight grams of sugar per 100ml.

The Dimbleby Report proposes a tax of about $4 US per 2.2 pounds of sugary and salty foods. This kind of tax would raise over $4 billion US. But where will the money go? It said that some will provide fruit and veggies to low-income communities, but how realistic is this?

And who is this tax targeting, realistically? It’s no secret that sugary, salty, processed junk foods are cheaper than fresh fruits and vegetables, making them staples for low-income consumers. For example, a Mediterranean meal for two of salmon, quinoa, and broccoli could cost up to $20 or more. While a box of mac and cheese for two only costs as little as 98 cents.

18% of the U.K. population is considered low-income and 20% of working-age adults are considered living in poverty, plus 30.7% of children. This is much more than the 10.5% poverty rate in the U.S.

In fact, the Food and Drink Federation predicts that poor families will face an 11% annual increase in their grocery costs. This is equal to the total amount they spend per year on fresh vegetables.

Could it actually work?

Simply put, maybe. It could work in the short term if the tax was high enough, but no one wants that. Philadelphia imposed a tax on sugary drinks that increased their prices by almost 2 cents per ounce. Researchers found that the purchasing of these taxed drinks went down 39%. They also found that there was even more of a drop in neighborhoods with higher rates of chronic diseases.

However, only two months after the tax was put into effect, both grocery stores and distributors announced that they had to start cutting jobs and laying off employees because of the drop in sugary drink purchases. Pepsi laid off almost 100 employees and blamed the tax for it. It was also unclear if people were traveling outside the city to avoid the tax.

The city of Philadelphia faced even more trouble in 2016 when the American Beverage Association, several business owners in Philadelphia, and others filed a lawsuit against the tax because it went against the “Tax Uniformity Clause.” The case was dismissed in the end. New York even attempted to put a similar law in place to tax sugary drinks, but lost in court.

A study published in the British Medical Journal in 2013 estimated that a 20% tax would lead to a reduction in the prevalence of obesity in the U.K. of 1.3%, or around 180,000 people, with the greatest effects occurring in young people. They also reported that there would be no significant differences between income groups. But I wonder…how?

A tax of 20% is no small feat, especially for the economically disadvantaged, which we already know takes up a large portion of the U.K. population. This proves the point that for any real change to occur, a much higher tax is needed…

…a tax that no one wants and the economically disadvantaged can’t afford.

There is also a parallel here to tobacco taxes. Currently, the federal cigarette tax in the U.S. is $1.01 per pack. Despite this sizeable added cost to the consumer, there are still over 34 million adults and 1 million teenagers who smoke in the U.S. If people are still buying cigarettes now, even with this astronomical tax, do we think they won’t pay a little more for a candy bar, a bag of chips, or a bottle of soda?

Also, using a tax to persuade people to quit smoking is much different than using it to take food away from those who may not be able to afford anything else. The study above states taxes will work especially with low-income communities, but is our goal really to punish people for making food choices that sometimes are the only ones that can make?

What’s ‘the carrot’, then?

In lieu of a tax, a strategy proposed in 2020 by the U.K.’s Department of Health and Social Care was designed to decrease obesity and help the population fight Covid-19. This is similar to Chile’s successful campaign to combat obesity. With Chile’s stop-sign method, consumption of sugary drinks decreased by about 25% in the first 18 months.

This all-channel strategy included:

  • A ban on advertisements for junk food before 9pm online and on television
  • Ending “BOGO” sales in grocery stores on unhealthy foods
  • Displaying calories on menus
  • Showing calories for alcoholic drinks
  • Expanding weight management services through platforms, like self-care apps
  • Putting nutritional information on the front of food packages with a ‘traffic light’ system to encourage consumers to make healthier choices

Would a stop sign stop you? The Chilean Food & Advertising Law in effect, as shown within red circles above.

What are some other solutions?

There are solutions that don’t involve punishment or telling people what to eat. Here are some possible solutions to decreasing the obesity rate:

  1. Using an app to incentivize consumers to choose healthy foods. Boris Johnson proposed an alternative to Dimbleby’s report that includes creating an app consumers can use. When consumers make healthy food purchases, like fruits and veggies, they’ll accumulate points on the app. The points can then be used for discounts, free tickets, and more rewards. The app will also track calorie consumption and physical activity.
  2. Labeling policies have been shown to lead to greater impact than federal policies in Latin America. For example, Chile imposed a “stop-sign” method, where unhealthy foods had a black stop sign on them to decrease purchasing. In just two years, it led to a 24% decrease in the consumption of sugary drinks.
  3. Making fruits and vegetables cheaper and easier to prepare. Along with the sheer cost of fresh fruits and vegetables, some families also don’t have the time to cut, peel, and prepare. Cheaper and more accessible frozen and pre-chopped produce could allow consumers to purchase them.
  4. Early Education. Of course, the best way for consumers to eat healthier is through education. Knowing that we need to eat to be healthy and live a long life is incredibly important and should be taught at a young age. This is why we’ve partnered with the Farm Journal Foundation on an education initiative to teach students about nutrition, global food, and agriculture.
  5. Ending BOGO sales. We don’t really see many ‘buy one, get one’ sales on produce, but a lot on chips, candy bars, and other snacks. By ending sales of unhealthy foods in grocery stores, consumers may be less likely to purchase them or purchase as much.
  6. Advertising Policies. Creating stricter guidelines for junk food and sugary drink advertisements may also decrease consumer purchasing. It is the old, ‘out of sight, out of mind’ trick. If we don’t see junk food, we’ll be less likely to think about it and crave it, therefore we won’t purchase it as often.

Investing in Food for Health @ Crusonia Forum

Dirt to Dinner is pleased to have Carter Williams contribute his knowledge and expertise to our site. Carter Williams is CEO and Managing Partner of iSelect Funds, an early-stage venture firm investing in companies addressing critical global issues. Carter has spent his entire career working on innovation as an engineer at McDonnell Douglas, then at Boeing managing R&D and starting Boeing Ventures. After Boeing, he was President of Gridlogix, which was later bought by Johnson Controls.

Prior to leading iSelect, Carter served as Senior Managing Director at Progress Partners, an energy and technology investment banking firm, and was a Managing Partner at Open Innovation Ventures and a Director at Clayton Capital Partners. Carter is the past President and Founder of the MIT Corporate Venturing Consortium and Co-founder of the MIT Entrepreneurship Society. He has an M.B.A. from the MIT Sloan School and a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

Crusonia Forum Brings Together the Changemakers Driving the Future of Food

“We are here to showcase a new wave of companies that are effectively applying technology to improve, disrupt, and transform agriculture, food and health for the better. We have no idea if a future Amazon is in our midst today, but looking back on it we really had no idea that Amazon would be what it has become.

“In 1996, we just stuck to our belief that the effective, focused and thoughtful application of technology was going to lead to something very big, something very important, and most importantly something better. And we were right.”

With those words, Crusonia executive producer Paul Noglows kicked off Crusonia Forum BKLYN 2021, which brought together the investors, entrepreneurs and thought leaders transforming the global food system.

From the roof of Brooklyn Grange, one of the largest rooftop farming companies in the U.S. with 135,000 square feet of cultivated rooftop space across New York City, Noglows and the iSelect team spent the day discussing food innovations, changing consumer demands, new agtech products and more, with presentations from 15 companies working on solutions in each of these areas and more.

This is all happening because, in the U.S., the cost of treating food-related diseases has begun to exceed the cost of the food itself. We spend about $1.6 trillion a year in the United States on food. We spend between $500 billion and $1 trillion on nutrition-related health care. We’re eating ourselves to death and then trying to medicate ourselves out of it, and it’s not working. Diet-related diseases like diabetes, obesity, heart disease and more are among the leading causes of death every year with no signs of slowing down.

The challenge for innovators is solving these two problems — unhealthy eating and expensive healthcare — at once.

The good news is that consumers are clearly ready for change: 39% are actively trying to incorporate more plant-based food into their diet and 67% are open to changing their eating habits that adversely impact the environment. But transforming the global food system for the better can only be accomplished through increased innovation, education and investment.

As iSelect CEO Carter Williams explained: “The world’s population is going to reach 9.8 billion by 2050, and that’s happening because people are living longer. We’re also seeing billions more people moving into the global middle class, and when that happens they want to eat differently. They want to be healthier. They don’t want to eat carbohydrates all the time any longer, they want protein. But protein production is not terribly efficient — two and a half pounds of protein needs to go into the pig to give you a pound of pig to eat.”

That’s just the beginning of the inefficiencies of today’s food system. Based on healthcare spending for diet-related diseases, buying a hamburger today for $1.70 could turn into a lifetime cost of $1.90 for the impacts of that burger over time. The disconnect there shows up in the debate around “fixing” healthcare.

Rather than simply changing how we pay for healthcare or how much those services cost, the way to fix healthcare is to fix the food we eat.

That will reduce the need for expensive healthcare down the road and create a $3.6 trillion market that is going to be transformed over the next 20 years, as today’s small startups grow into the leaders of a new food system.

Here are some highlights from the forum, as well as the presenting companies offering solutions in the space: 

The Next Investment Arbitrage: Food Is Health

Carter Williams: “We have two food systems in the United States today. The first was the very practical system established after World War II. The goal in those days was global stability and feeding a growing population by producing vast amounts of food cheaply, largely based on corn and soy. The second system is more focused on fresh, nutritious foods but access is limited because it costs so much to produce those products today.

“The notion of the future food system is one that is high yield, tasty and nutritious — so that people will want to eat it — but it has to be able to scale. So the question is: how do you get the price down? Innovation is a fundamental, deflationary force that will drive down those costs and create a system that is better and cheaper, more protein-dense with fewer carbohydrates.”

        

How Did We Get Here? Food System Evolution

Nancy Roman, President and CEO, Partnership for a Healthier America: “We are in the midst of a dynamic, societal revolution in food that will no doubt bring changes to American life as big as the cotton gin and the steam engine. But, as with every transformation in human history, along with new possibilities come consequences, some intended and some unintended.

“We are aware of the incredible power of food to build or destroy our health. I know that those of you who are together today are coming at this from different angles. Some of you lead food companies, others are investors, but all of us are thinking about the future. I challenge you, wherever you sit, to not go into this next decade of change without asking what you can do to keep the connection between food and health front and center.”

“As we innovate in and around agriculture, as we learned painfully the last time around, it is also very difficult to come back and correct the unintended consequences later.

So let’s be intentional now, and don’t hesitate to reach out if you have an idea of how we can drive food equity in this country further faster.”

   

Food is Health: What’s Your Fix?

Robert H. Lustig, M.D., M.S.L., Professor emeritus of Pediatrics, Division of Endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco: “You probably know that Dannon and Unilever underwent a sugar reduction exercise in the last year and they both touted their success at removing 14% of the added sugar from their portfolio. Well, I’m working with an international food conglomerate called KDD, Kuwaiti Danish Dairy, and they sell sugar in various forms. They sell it in yogurt. They sell it in ice cream. They sell it in juice. They sell it in tomato sauce. As part of my work with them, we have convened a scientific panel and we have determined that we are going to be able to get 78% of the added sugar out of their products by next year. 

“And the reason we can do that is because KDD is not on any stock exchange. It’s privately held. That’s the reason. We’re going to serve as a model for the rest of the food industry. Any food company can do this, but you need data science to analyze every single item in the catalog in order to figure out what’s actually in the food. What do we have to fix? Do we have to get rid of cadmium out of the cocoa? Do we have to get rid of rBST? Do we have to get rid of mercury glyphosate? What sugars need to come out?”

                      

“We’ll be able to actually put data science to work to completely not just to re-engineer, but re-imagine entire food companies. You cannot solve a problem if you don’t know what the problem is.”

Investing in Food Is Health: The View from Wall Street

Brian Holland, Managing Director & Senior Analyst, Cowen: “I think education is the biggest key. An example that comes to mind as far as a segment that has differentiated itself is plant-based beverages because there’s a need state there. Upwards of 80% of consumers in Asia, for instance, are lactose intolerant. So there’s a need state that exists. There’s a value proposition. And that’s ahead of plant-based meat from a merchandising and quality standpoint. Certainly, the plant-based meat space has made tremendous strides to improve the quality in the past decade, but plant-based beverages have been a little bit ahead of that.

“And then again, it goes back to size and scale. Until we get to a point of mainstreaming we can’t think about the consumer treating these products differently or consuming them differently.

“Right now we can define the baskets of alternative products around which everyone’s competing, but ultimately we need to see how the consumers behave once they are better educated about these products.

“Right now I know these products are cleaner. I know they’re more sustainable. I’m making a decision based off of that myself. When we start to see that happen more broadly is when consumers will start to look at these products as being different from the incumbents.”

Panel on investment opportunities and challenges in Food is Health. Left to right: Carter Williams, CEO, iSelect; Sanjeev Krishnan, Chief Investment Officer, S2G Ventures; Matt Crisp, CEO & Co-founder, Benson Hill; David Lee, President, AppHarvest.

Learn more about Crusonia Forum and register for future events at CrusoniaForum.com.

Toigo’s Transition from Tomatoes to Cannabis


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

If you wanted to visit Toigo Orchards a few years ago, you could have driven out to Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and pulled down the long drive of the 106-acre farm. You’d see workers freely coming in and out of the unlocked doors of five acres of greenhouses surrounded by organic peach trees. No one would stop you, or mind you were there.

Today, the friendly nature of Toigo Orchards remains, but there’s also a massive security presence. Unlocked doors are replaced by security guards and checkpoints. High fences, controlled access gates, and 24/7 video surveillance greet you upon arrival. Entry to the farm now requires everyone entering to go through rigorous protocols. Badge access is required for all workers. Visitors must leave their driver’s license with friendly security guards for the duration of the visit.

Why such a dramatic change in so short a time? Proprietor Mark Toigo says the high-tech security is all part of a business decision he was forced to make when low-cost foreign tomatoes flooded the organic market in the mid-Atlantic states – nearly bankrupting his decades-long greenhouse tomato business. To save his struggling farm from the glut, Toigo converted his tomato crops to cannabis.

The move not only helped save his generational family farm but may also save lives. Mark not only grows cannabis for use in medical marijuana but has also partnered with major Philadelphia hospitals to research pain management and opioid reduction.

The boy who grew up amongst the organic fruit trees covering the majority of his acreage (his cannabis operation is surrounded by a peach orchard) didn’t expect to find himself the entrepreneur of a small cannabis empire. But, the markets, Mexico, and a few knowledgeable Canadians helped him realize it was time to forge a new high-tech and highly entrepreneurial path in farming.

From Farmers’ Market to Farm-to-Table

Mark began farm-life young when he would work in his parents’ orchard. The Toigos were successfully selling a variety of conventionally grown apples, peaches, strawberries, and other seasonal tree fruit at local farmers’ markets. Thanks to their farm’s proximity to Washington, D.C., the Toigos were one of the first farmers to tap into the burgeoning local food movement in the city. The family’s success helped them expand business north to farmers’ markets in New York City.

When Mark became an adult and started running the farm, he expanded his selling season beyond summer fruit. He began cultivating greenhouse tomatoes “just to give us something to sell earlier in the season.”

“We started with hydroponics,” Toigo said. “It extended our ability to sell and keep more people around. We could do a fall crop, and we had them in the wintertime too, so that was a big, big change for us in how we worked.”

Soon, Mark found himself at the forefront of the farm-to-table movement just as it was taking off in the late 1990s and early 2000s. “We started to really cultivate relationships with customers over a long time, and we really got much, much better at growing diverse food items, Mark said. “We were specialty growing just for farmers markets and restaurants.”

That’s when the local retailers started to sit up and take notice. That’s when Mark decided to switch from conventionally grown tomatoes to organic. At the same time, he raced to build a farm infrastructure that could provide his locally grown organic tomatoes to grocery chains in the mid-Atlantic states.

A Glut In the Market

Mark says it took a lot of time, money, and effort to get certified organic.

His operation was the only greenhouse producer on the East Coast, giving him a competitive edge. But then, there was a shift in supply.

According to Mark, producers from Mexico began exporting organic tomatoes to the mid-Atlantic retailers and created a glut in the marketplace. Suddenly, Toigo says he was losing profit.

“Now we’re forced to sign larger supply agreements, but we’re not holding water,” Toigo explains. “You know what retailers we had a supply contract with said they were going to pay what we were promised, and then what we were getting paid was not the reality.”

The retailers that Tiogo had contracts with shifted their supply strategy to include
Mexican tomatoes. “They want you when the price is right. Not necessarily when there’s a harvest and you have to move your product.  So it does become a contentious kind of thing that takes place between buyers and growers; as much as retailers want to promote their steadfast dedication to the local, you can get banged up in the process a lot.

When Mexican producers flooded the organic heirloom market, Mark says he tried to stay afloat by growing different variations. But foreign producers quickly caught on and he couldn’t grow enough tomatoes to sell for commercial volume at a profitable price point.

“And so we started getting a lot of pressure from our buyers telling us, “I’ll buy more organic from you if you can beat Mexico’s price.” Toigo said this was about more than profit. “What the heck’s that have to do with local?” Mark wondered about the retailers’ request for Toigo Organics to match foreign prices.

“I mean everything you’re selling to the consumer is the concept that you’re supporting the local growers, the food system as a whole. But the reality is, you know, you’re buying some of our product, but most other producers are not even growing in America.”

Toigo calls it a form of greenwashing.

“Farming is historically a cultural event, it’s not an occupation to speak, you have to grow into it, and you have to have a really good relationship between you and your partners, because not every season is going to be a good one. And they have to be able to pull you through when you’re having a bad time, and you got to take care of them when you’re having a good year too.”

Helpful Canadians

Toigo says he finally saw the writing on the wall after working with “world-class horticulturalists” from Canada. They recommend Toigo switch his greenhouse operations from tomatoes to cannabis. The Canadian government had legalized marijuana for medical use in 2001.

Since then, Canadian farmers had been perfecting cannabis-growing techniques for nearly twenty years. They saw in Mark’s tomato greenhouses the perfect equivalencies to growing cannabis and encouraged him to convert. Canadian horticulturalists encouraged Toigo to make the switch and helped him convert his greenhouses.

“So, in the cannabis space you’re either an indoor grow, or you’re a greenhouse grow, you could be hybrid too, but we are truly a greenhouse grower,” Mark explained.

“Some of my friends up in Canada started getting into cannabis cultivation. They just started switching from tomatoes, cucumbers, and peppers or whatever they happen to grow, and they migrated into cannabis.”

Mark followed suit. Cannabis, Toigo found, had many similar attributes to the tomatoes business.

As with his tomato business, Toigo was able to use cannabis and grow his own product, market it, and build a transportation business around it.

“We felt like we are really well aligned to be able to do it because we already had the right people,” Mark told D2D. “We were already doing a lot of this work; now we’re just doing it with cannabis. The parallels are really profound. Now we’re just doing it with a different commodity.”

The one thing that didn’t translate from tomato to cannabis was how it reaches the end-user. Cannabis, even for medical use, has some of the most stringent regulations in all of agriculture. With tomatoes, Toigo was selling directly into retail grocery chains, restaurants, or farmer’s markets. With cannabis, Toigo decided to open his own dispensaries and use his transportation business to send his product to other dispensaries in Pennsylvania. Toigo is proud of how he has vertically integrated his business and intends to grow it in the coming years.

Environmental Impact

Toigo says he’s committed to ensuring his facility has not only the healthiest growing environment possible for his farm but for the entire community. His first step was to ensure the CO2 produced during cannabis production at the backside of their burners is captured. That captured carbon is then fed back into the cannabis for improved plant health.

Most importantly, Toigo is committed to the high-quality watershed district his facility operates in, free from any harmful agricultural runoff. Toigo says his cannabis is “pesticide-free.” And, while he uses private wells for watering, he ensures it’s all captured in a close looped system that reuses water and prevents any runoff into nearby waterways.

We knew any runoff from our backyard would go straight into the Chesapeake Bay,” Toigo told D2D. “That’s why we have no runoff at this facility.

A Lasting Legacy

Toigo said profits continue to rise for cannabis producers, but, like all other crops, it is a commodity and subject to price fluctuation. And as states continue to legalize both medical and adult (i.e., recreational) marijuana, Toigo thinks prices will like decrease in the long run.

But Toigo says his sole reason isn’t profit. When asked what his proudest accomplishment has been thus far, he points to his partnership with the Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine (PCOM). Toigo and PCOM are currently running five studies to conduct research into pain management and opioid addiction. That, Toigo says, despite the many struggles he and his family have faced over the years as farmers, makes everything worth the price.

“And really, it’s the best part of the whole process, to know that we’re helping to contribute to non-anecdotal evidence about medicinal marijuana. That’s the flip side of all this that we’re here for the right reason.”

The truth about calorie-deficit diets


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Even my fiancé got on the bandwagon. I think of him as smart, educated on food — thanks to D2D 😉 — and cares about his health. Yet, even he fell victim to this crazy diet. Observing his one-month ordeal on this special diet was not pleasant, to say the least.

But what exactly does it mean to eat in a calorie deficit? Being on a calorie-deficit diet means that you eat fewer calories than what you burn in a day as opposed to a calorie surplus, which is consuming more calories than what we burn. It seems simple, but it’s actually more complex than I initially thought. I learned this from watching my fiancé, let’s call him “Chad”, attempt to adhere to the core principles to achieve his fitness goals.

This guidance came from a fitness trainer who recommended this diet to burn fat and build muscle. But, before we get into that, let’s take a deeper dive into what it means to eat in a deficit.  It is a little more complicated than just ‘calories in – calories out’.

How to identify your deficit numbers  

First, you want to calculate your maintenance calories, which your body needs to support your energy and activity. This is no easy feat as it takes a considerable amount of time. For example, you need more calories if you work out than if you lead a sedentary lifestyle. To find your maintenance calories, you’ll want to track your calories for ten days. You can do this fairly easily with apps on your phone, including the MyFitnessPal app.

During these ten days, you’ll also need to track your weight. The easiest way to do this is to weigh yourself every morning when you wake up. If your weight stays about the same during those ten days, then you’ve found your maintenance calories. It’s always normal to experience a little fluctuation day-to-day, but your weight should stay within a few pounds.

Next, you’ll want to find the average amount of calories you consumed. This can be done by averaging your daily calorie intake over those ten days. Then subtract 500. You’ve just found your calorie deficit.

Why 500? Studies show that decreasing your daily caloric intake by 500 does not change your hunger or energy levels. This means that by eating 500 fewer calories a day, you’ll still be able to perform your daily activities without an energy loss or feeling starved. Or so we thought…

I watched Chad track every single bite.

I’ve never tracked my calories. I feel as though there are so many other things we must think about when it comes to being healthy that tracking all these specific numbers is where I draw the line. But when Chad told me he would log his calories, protein, fat, and carbs to remain in a deficit and build muscle, I was supportive — yet skeptical.

Now, he’s already a thin, built person. He works out all the time, eats very healthy, and honestly barely has any fat on him, which is why I was a bit confused by this decision, especially since he tried it once before and hated it.

I watched him do this for a couple of weeks, and I was exhausted. Every time he ate, he’d take out his phone, go to an app, and start typing in everything he was consuming and in what portions. This means he had to use a scale to measure what he was eating to ensure it was within the appropriate range. So, when I was sitting at the dinner table after cooking a delicious meal, I had to watch Chad put everything on a scale, scoop by scoop until he achieved his portions. I’m tired just thinking about it!

I waited for what felt like an eternity, staring down at my steaming hot plate of Caprese pasta with chicken, thinking, “Why can’t we just eat healthily since we know how to? I wish it could be that simple.

And how can we find the balance between health, food, and fun?

Here come the hangries”

The other thing I noticed was Chad developed a severe case of being “hangry,” or hungry-angry (it’s a real thing, I swear). He could only eat a specific amount of calories and would often remain hungry after eating. This often left him not very pleasant to be around, which I understood entirely since I’m the same way.

I heard a quote once that said, “If I say I’m hungry, we have about 30 minutes before I turn into a different person”…

I definitely felt this on a personal level.

He also experienced a complete lack of energy, especially in the afternoon since his lunch-time calories were cut. He had to up his caffeine intake just to get through the workday. Above, I mentioned that 500 calories shouldn’t impact energy or hunger levels, but my fiancé experienced an energy loss.

My activities change day-to-day. Shouldn’t my caloric intake?

As I wrote in my intuitive eating article, I practice listening to my body when it’s hungry and full. If I’m not full, I continue to eat or at least allow myself to have a healthy snack. With a calorie deficit, you have to make sure everything stays within your caloric intake for the day.

I also find myself eating more if I have a longer workout. And since I burn more calories with a longer workout, wouldn’t I need to eat more? There’s a lot to factor in on a day-to-day basis.

Every day is different. How can we only eat a specific number of calories when our daily exercise, activity level, and food choices change? And, what matters more: the amount of calories we eat or where those calories come from? For example, a 400-calorie fast-food sandwich is very different than a 400-calorie salad filled with lean protein, grains, and veggies. Yet, for many practicing a calorie deficit diet on social media, they only think about the calories, not so much where they came from. This seems wrong to me, since we know we need to eat a well-balanced diet for good long-term health.

The date-night guilt

The last thing I noticed was that Chad would beat himself up if he went over his caloric intake for the day. For example, if we wanted to have a spontaneous date night and order a couple of drinks, he’d get stressed if he didn’t have enough room in his daily intake to accommodate. While I sat back, happily sipping on my Pomegranate Martini, I watched him calculate in his mind how he would make up for this the next day. It made our date night less than romantic…

The one thing I didn’t want to see, that I sadly did, was that my fiancé became so consumed by his diet program that he stopped enjoying life like he used to.

This demonstrates that, although this diet may work for some people, it definitely does not work for all.

What’s the science?

Chad organized his calorie deficit in a particular way based on his personal goals and what his trainer told him to do. For other people, it can be very different. And for many, it’s been a successful way to lose weight.

One study from 2007 examined the different ways that overweight individuals can shed pounds to determine which method of weight loss was best. This included a diet-only method and a diet-plus-exercise method. The researchers found that it did not matter which group the individuals were part of, but that a negative energy balance, or a calorie deficit, consistently leads to weight loss.

A second study from 2018, also researched various weight loss practices, including low-fat, low-carbohydrate, and calorie deficit. The research found that a calorie deficit is successful for weight loss, especially in the first few months, but it can be dangerous if the individual consumes too few calories. Eating too few calories can put your body into fat-storing mode instead of fat-burning because it doesn’t think it’ll get more food. The study also said that eating in a calorie deficit long-term is difficult to do, which makes sense for my fiancé because he stopped his strict diet deficit after a month. Now we just make sure to eat all of our fruits, vegetables, and proteins.

Want to Save the Planet? ‘Break Boundaries’ at Home


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

I watched Breaking Boundaries on a clear, crisp day in September. The temperature was in the high sixties, so the windows in the den were open where I could hear the birds playing in the trees. Before sitting down for the film, I grabbed a handful of trail mix that I had just meticulously picked out from Whole Foods and a Smartwater—the big one, as I am trying to work on my hydration – and I found a comfortable spot in my favorite chair.

Before the film, these small preparations for my movie-watching comfort did not hit me as meaningful or impactful in any way. As the documentary came to an end, my thoughts wandered back. The windows open where the birds played, the decision to grab nuts as my snack of choice, and choosing to use a plastic water bottle — these unconscious actions, both good and bad, had made me wondering: what if my efforts became conscious? Could I somehow modify my previously unbeknownst ‘good’ and ‘bad’ behaviors? And could these small actions make a difference?

Let’s take a closer look. Or as Attenborough might say, an “Earth’s Conscience” perspective.

Breaking Down my Impact

As I discovered from watching the film, all my seemingly inconsequential actions made an impact on our planet.

  • The Trees outside my window are a critical element in promoting biodiversity and carbon offsets.
  • My Trail Mix is made of nut-based plants that provide healthy protein and nutrients and directly affect land and water use.
  • My Water Bottle is made of plastic, making it part of a linear economy that creates trash that cannot be upcycled or eliminated from our waste stream.

While fear must not paralyze us, this film showed some opportunities for us to make our changes to help the environment.

“Thinking and acting with one unified purpose — to ensure that our planet forever remains healthy and resilient.”

– David Attenborough

Thoughts about the Film

No matter where you stand on climate change, critics and proponents alike state that the documentary details some alarming statistics and fast-approaching global eventualities should we remain on our current trajectory.

The film is well-intentioned. It covers core global issues we currently face across nine defined boundaries. It highlights the importance of individual action and response.

But given its lean runtime, I thought it lacked depth about both the complex topics it sought to cover, and, more importantly, the potential solutions to these urgent global issues. I commend the film for calling to action the need for a broader societal shift toward sustainability.

Still, I would have liked if they better explored the closing themes of the film: planting, healthy-eating initiatives, and waste elimination.

While this was a miss for the film, it is an opportunity for Dirt to Dinner to share its thoughts, provide depth to these potential solutions, and bring these solutions to “your den,” if you will.   

Three Conscious Decisions YOU can Make

The scientific evidence in the film shows that we face unacceptable risks to planetary health. However, it also states that we still have time to correct the situation! To cut greenhouse gases and protect our wetlands, soils, forests, and oceans, we can affect change at a household level through these three simple actions:

“We will live in a cleaner, healthier, and more peaceful world.”

1. Plant Trees

Planting trees is one of the most impactful and achievable solutions to reduce stress on our climate, Attenborough says.

It is vital to offset the carbon we will inevitably emit (at least to some level).

One tree doesn’t quite do it, but it will help. Over 40 years, one silver maple will sequester approximately 400 pounds of CO2, yet the average U.S. citizen emits 20 tons per year.

But carbon-capturing is not the only benefit of planting trees. It can also prevent soil erosion and help regenerate land, providing incredible benefits for global biodiversity.

I looked into how easy or hard this would be and found endless resources. Whether you want to plant one yourself in your backyard or community garden, or have a tree planted in your name, the resources both nationally and regionally are plenty!

I used one of our Dirt to Dinner partners, The Nature Conservancy, that has a program called A Billion Begins with One. It seemed fitting, given that I really wanted to know how my actions could make a more significant impact. I learned that my single donation does more than just put a seed in the ground; it provides habitats for future generations and helps turn the tide of deforestation.

Below are other notable organizations combatting deforestation: 

                               

                                       

 

And to read more about the benefits of trees, carbon sequestration, deforestation, and soil health, check out these D2D articles:

           

 

       

2. Diet Choices

The film emphasizes the benefits of the ‘flexitarian diet’ for the environment.

Similar to the Mediterranean diet, the flexitarian diet focuses on veggies and fruits, nuts and seeds, and lesser-processed plant-based proteins with the flexibility to incorporate meat and animal products.

Research shows that eating a balanced diet rich in plant-based and animal proteins while avoiding processed foods and limiting sugars can be environmentally beneficial.

As we know, some low-impact, sustainably-produced meat can help sequester carbon, reduce soil erosion, and add nutrients to the soil, which aids in a diverse soil microbiome that is critical for carbon capture.

In my household, we receive Daily Harvest deliveries; this is one of many options for meal delivery plans. What drew us to this specific service was their Harvest Bowls that we use as sides to our protein. The primary ingredients are vegetable-based and provide dense nutrient profiles that help deliver a good portion of my recommended daily value of dietary fiber, protein, vitamins, and minerals while calories remain low.

There are certainly other ways to make easy flexitarian diet choices. Simple decisions at the grocery store can be immensely impactful:

  • Buy frozen fruits and veggies. These products contribute to 47% less food waste, as they last longer than their fresh counterparts while still maintaining a similar nutrient profile.
  • Shop the perimeter of the store. Not only is this a way to eat healthier by avoiding processed foods typically found in the central isles, but there is typically less packaging, fewer additives, and less greenhouse gas impact.
  • Go heavy on your veggies! As we know, we need 5-7 servings of vegetables per day, but did you know this is also a way to save a buck? Veggies are typically the least expensive items in the grocery store. Focus less on organic vs. conventional and more on freshness so you get the most bang for your buck.
  • Buy LESS! Food waste is a huge problem. Come up with a meal plan before you hit the grocery store, and be sure to read the expiration dates. Here is a good resource on how to choose foods that last the longest!
  • Read your labels! Don’t fall for labels that might be misleading and lead you to believe they are more sustainable than others—make educated decisions! Here is a list of labels that can serve as a guide.
  • And don’t forget to bring your reusable bags to the store with you. Pack some in your trunk, so they are always on hand! But be sure to wash them as they can harbor unwanted bacteria.

Want some great ideas for flexitarian-type meals? Take a look at these delicious dishes:

                

                

3. Waste Reduction

The mass of global production runs on what is considered a linear economy, a system not designed to eliminate waste.

If we can turn linear systems into circular ones to recover raw materials, our use of resources can be what the film calls infinite.

These circular economies are critical to eliminating waste and can be achieved with the decisions we make at the grocery store.

Technologies such as blockchain provide supply chain transparency by informing us where our food comes from and the regenerative practices utilized to grow it.

Other technologies, such as an emerging field of smart-labeling, can show shoppers when our food expires, preventing edible foods from being thrown out! Companies like Mimica and  SmartLabel are in the business of reducing food waste by providing environmentally-conscious information to make smarter decisions when throwing out food.

An elementary step we can make at home is reusing water bottles. It seems obvious, but the cumulative statistics are staggering.

Eighty percent of plastic water bottles end up in landfills already overflowing with more than 2 million discarded bottles in the U.S. To make matters worse, it can take up to 1,000 years for EACH bottle to decompose.

Want to learn more about how you can eliminate waste at home? Check out these articles on fast-food restaurants, buying your seafood, sustainable packaging efficiencies, as well as some myth-busting information on feeding our growing nation.

What Else Can We Do?

Our final recommendation would be to share this article with a friend. The more we empower our community with information that demonstrates how the smallest change at home can make a difference, the more of an impact we can cumulatively make.

Five Reasons Why I Started Using Conservation Practices On My Farm

This article was written by Keith Mears, who farms with his family near Delphi, Indiana, and is a Conservation Steward with America’s Conservation Ag Movement.

Implementing farmland conservation practices is no easy feat, but the results are well worth the efforts. Keith Mears gives us five solid reasons why the time is now…

The most important step to making a change on your farm is determining why you are going to do it. Without a firm understanding of why, it will be too easy to lose motivation and change your mind when challenges arise.

To encourage other farmers to get started, I want to explain five reasons why I started using conservation practices on my 110-acre corn and soybean farm.

  1. Being the best steward I can be. One of my favorite free-time activities is kayaking on the local streams and rivers. It is sad and concerning to me how muddy-brown our streams and rivers are. I want to take responsibility for the farmland I am called to be a steward of and make sure I do my part to keep my soil on my farm. The legacy I want to leave for my community and my children is one of cleaner water and richer soils, allowing them to produce healthy, reliable food and enjoy the environment for generations to come.
  2. Increasing soil organic matter and, in turn, increase water holding capacity. The art of farming can be boiled down to using soil and water to capture energy from the sun to produce food fuel and fiber. Considering the factors I can manage, I realize that the sun is going to come up every day and there is not a lot we can or need to do to manage that. My farm relies on rainfall for all of the water for the crops and while there is absolutely nothing I can do to change the rains, I have come to realize that I can improve the water-holding capacity of the soil by increasing organic matter and improve yields by holding more of the rains we do get on my farm for my crops to produce higher yields. A 1% increase in soil organic matter will increase the water-holding capacity in the top 6 inches of an acre by 27,000 gallons. This is roughly equivalent to the amount of water in a 1-inch rain.
  3. Improving overall farm efficiency. To win in a commodity business a farmer must produce high yields at the lowest cost possible. Reducing tillage and, therefore, reducing trips across the field reduces the costs of growing a crop and improves efficiency. Two to three tillage passes are eliminated, resulting in less time, labor and fuel required to produce crops. Eliminating these tillage passes saves between $35 and $40 per acre.
  4. Reducing the amount of equipment I need to purchase and maintain to operate my farm. I do not own a chisel plow, disk or field cultivator. I also do not need to own a high-horsepower tractor to pull these implements. Further savings are realized by not having to have a larger barn to store these extra pieces of equipment. I am able to farm using only one tractor on the entire operation. Not having to buy a high-horsepower tractor, a chisel plow, disk and field cultivator saves my farm tens of thousands of dollars of capital costs.
  5. The support I receive from the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). When deciding whether to transition to a no-till cover crop system, I reached out to the NRCS for ideas and support. The conservationists at the NRCS shared ideas and practices that had the highest likelihood of success in our area. I applied for and received three years of per-acre payments for no-till and cover crops through the EQIP program. These payments covered the cost of my planter pass and all costs of using a cover crop, including seed and planting. These payments reduced the risk of trying something new and gave me the confidence to get started.

I encourage anyone reading this to consider how to improve stewardship on their own farm in addition to how their management decisions impact the community and the legacy they want to leave for future generations.

I also encourage you to reach out to your NRCS office and/or connect with other farmers in your area to discuss conservation practices.

Getting technical with conservation

We found Keith’s conservation practices fascinating, so our team followed up with him to get some specifics on how he applies these farming techniques. Here’s what he had to say:

In terms of emission reduction, have you seen a decline? If so, how are you measuring that on the farm?

I have been able to replace 3 tillage passes with one cover crop planting pass for a net gain of two fewer passes across the field.

A conventional tillage system would be (1) chisel plow, (2) disk, (3) field cultivate, (4) spray, (5) plant, (6) spray, and (7) harvest; versus a no-till cover crop system of (1) plant cover, (2) spray, (3) plant, (4) spray, and (5) harvest.

This can be measured in diesel fuel savings of about 29%, or about $9 per acre.

Do you use any solar or wind technologies for energy offsets on the farm? If so, what do these systems look like?

No.  My energy requirements are the same on still, cloudy days as they are on sunny, windy days.  However, solar and wind power are essential for the farm.  Each corn seed I plant in the spring turns into approximately 560 seeds in the fall and each soybean seed turns into approximately 300 seeds.

The energy for these returns comes almost exclusively from the sun through the miracle of photosynthesis.  Additionally, the wind is vital to bring in rains, my only source of water, and cool and aerate the plants.

What does your typical rotation look like? If you are rotating, which crops do you grow on a single set of land, what does that look like, and how do you decide?

All of my acres are in a corn cover-soybean cover rotation. Usually, I use cereal rye as the cover crop.

I decide based on crop budget spreadsheets which factor in the market prices of inputs and each grain and calculate expected profit based on historical yields.

I have grown corn after corn and soybean after soybeans to increase expected profits.

photo credit: Brooke Sauter

Have your conservation ag practices helped with pests, diseases, invasive weeds, etc.? And if so, that must also equate to cost savings. But has it? And to what degree?

Not yet. I expect an improvement in soil health to lead to an improvement in pests and diseases long term.  Short term, during a transition to no-till, disease and pest pressures have increased. I am learning how to manage cover crops to reduce invasive weeds and have seen signs of fewer weeds where covers are planted, but after subtracting the cost of cover crop seed; I have not realized any consistent cost savings yet.

What about yield? Has there been a “regrowth period” once some of these practices were put in place as the soil acclimated? 

A transition to no-till caused a 5-10% reduction in yield.  After factoring in the capital and operating expenses of saving tillage passes I did not experience a change in profit per acre.  After implementing no-till and covers for about 4 years the yields come back up and seem to become more consistent.  This drives a long-term increase in farm profitability.

The Labor Shortage: Lack of Workers or Lack of Willing Workers?


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Just how significant is the labor shortage?

Perhaps there is a better way of asking the question. Why do so many job openings go unfilled?

The number of people in the labor pool has increased steadily over recent decades, from 128 million in 1992 to an estimated 163.5 million in 2022. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projects a resurgence in job growth in the next few years – as many as 12 million new jobs by 2030. Job growth is expected to be especially strong in the travel and leisure industry as it recovers from Covid. Health care and personal care services also are expected to expand as the population continues to age. But 11 million jobs go unfilled, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Why are there so many open positions? Part of the explanation involves a change in thinking about work. While the labor pool has grown, the proportion of the labor pool that actively seeks employment has steadily declined from a high of 67 percent to a projected 62 percent in 2022.

Many factors have contributed to the slow decline in participation rates – an aging population, changes in job and career attitudes, economic ups and downs, and of course, the profound chilling effect of the Covid-19 pandemic. Business and organizational shutdowns and reduced workloads helped drive global unemployment to the equivalent of 225 million jobs, according to the U.N. International Labor Organization. In the United States, the figure hit an estimated 20 million in 2020.

Changing workforce demands

By the end of this decade, the entire “baby boomer” generation will be at least 65 years old. This factor, coupled with the pandemic, rapidly accelerated a trend already underway toward a workforce less committed to the old model of job-seeking. Generous government subsidies created incentives to simply stay home. Lingering fears of threats from the Delta strain of Covid fostered a risk-averse stay-at-home mindset. Child-care and other family needs made a return to work difficult, if not impractical for many. Some people simply discovered that the old shoulder-to-the-wheel mentality of finding and keeping a job just wasn’t appealing or even necessary anymore.

Lifestyle becomes just as important – maybe more important to some – as finding a job or building an old-model career. The phrase ‘work-life balance’ has taken on a whole new dimension in the post-pandemic world – more like “life-work balance.”  

The result has been a significant shift in the employer-employee dynamic – a brave new world in which the worker has a more powerful, sometimes dominant position in the process of job seeking. As one California dairy farmer told Dirt To Dinner, “I no longer interview job applicants. They interview me.”

What does a new labor picture mean for our food and agriculture system?

The short answer: almost everything. The lack of willing workers cuts across every segment of our food chain, from the producer at one end to the consumer at the other and every step in between. For many, it’s a serious problem, far more than an annoyance.

The most obvious consequence is a threat to day-to-day operations. The Department of Agriculture tells us we have about 2 million full-time farm workers in the United States. But that’s not the total farm labor picture. Every year, farmers and ranchers hire between 1.4 million and 2.1 million laborers – the field workers, cow milkers, harvesters, and others critical to modern farming or ranching.

The work isn’t a nine-to-five, air-conditioned, free cappuccino, fully automated walk in the office park. It’s hard work, much of it outdoors in the elements, with physical and mental demands few outsiders recognize or appreciate. Dairy cows and other farm animals demand regular attention, often 24/7, without fail. To further complicate the picture, many states are tightening the overtime standards that govern hired labor.

Farmers and ranchers know all too well that work on the farm goes on all day, every day. Limits on the number of overtime hours translate into the need for additional positions, which only magnifies the challenge of finding willing and able people to fill the slots. And today, that’s where the lack of job applicants is hitting agricultural producers most.

“I used to have a mailbox full of a half-dozen job applications every week,” one California dairy farmer noted. “Now I get maybe one or two a month.”

Other farmers across the country paint a remarkably similar picture. “When I do get an applicant, I wind up answering most of the questions”, another observes. Those questions are not just about the job duties but also the benefits and perks and the flexibility they will have when they work.

“More and more, I extend an offer and hold my breath to see if the person shows up,” another comments. “Usually they don’t. They use my offer to negotiate something better down the road…. And if I do make a hire, I worry that they will take a lunch break and just won’t come back.”

So What Is to Be Done?

Dealing with the problem requires both short-term practicality and a long-term perspective. It means working longer hours and often asking family members to pitch in even more than usual. It means using recruitment services to seek out prospective employees – often outside the United States. Automation and robotics show promise as one part of the solution to the labor problem, but technology doesn’t yet address some tasks, and they are often an expense that just seems an awful lot to absorb right now.

But the problem does seem to boil down to greater expense, and a real threat of lost productivity, eating away at already thin profit margins. It means spending more money, not just on labor but other services, like trucking and delivery, that also may be experiencing the same kind of labor problems. It means doing what has to be done and spending what has to be spent to get by day-to-day, even if that means investment capital assets like better equipment and technology have to wait.

The Hispanic Connection

 The largest portion of farm labor involves non-U.S. citizens – notably Hispanic workers.  Roughly 44 percent of all ag occupations are Hispanics of Mexican origin. 57 percent of all farm laborers, graders and sorters are of Mexican origin, and another 8 percent non-Mexican Hispanic.  In the rest of the U.S. economy, Mexican-origin Hispanics make up only 12 percent of the workforce, and non-Mexican Hispanics another 8 percent.

U.S farmers continue to support immigration reform that will speed and simplify the process of obtaining work visas for non-U.S. citizens. Legislation on the matter remains pending in the U.S. Congress.

                                                        – Economic Research Service, USDA 2019

How is the rest of the food chain affected?

The shortage of job applicants extended far beyond the farm gate. The suppliers and service companies that provide feeds, seeds, fertilizers, and other necessary goods also report similar difficulties attracting the needed employees. They also have to bid up wages and benefits – adding to the costs paid by their farm customers, food manufacturers, warehousers, distributors, retailers, and restaurants.

Each of those segments faces the same set of challenges – simply not enough people to do the basic tasks. Meat processors report shortages of line workers that have on occasion forced process slowdowns or actual shutdowns. Distribution centers point to a lack of loading equipment operators. Restaurants don’t have enough cooks, counter staff, wait- and kitchen staff. Every segment of the chain seeks to find new efficiencies and cost-cutting innovations to alleviate the problem. But the problem persists.

Farmers and ranchers report seeing the effects of the lack of workers in a variety of places – but several show up over and over again, beyond the farm gate and the day-labor issue.

  • Transportation. The ability to move goods and services from place to place in a timely manner is the common thread tying all elements of the food chain together. Crop inputs, energy supplies, and other necessities must be delivered. Harvested crops must be moved to storage – especially the fresh fruit and vegetables with short storage lives. Food manufacturers, retailers, and restaurants rely on just-in-time delivery to make best use of storage and display space. Trucks move more than 70 percent of all the freight hauled in the United States (by weight), with as many as 60,000 driver positions unfilled. A shortage of drivers risks a chilling effect on multiple sectors of the economy – none more so than our food system.
  • Warehousing and storage. Farmers rely on a steady flow of supplies, including feeds and crop inputs. When suppliers don’t have enough workers to actually load those supplies, the farmer suffers. Likewise, off-farm storage for crops is essential. Labor problems at grain elevators and cold and climate-controlled storage facilities can risk damage to the quality – or preservation –of grains, oilseeds, fruits, vegetables, and more.
  • Equipment maintenance and repair. Modern farm equipment is a complex, sophisticated mix of engineering and computer technology. It demands skill to keep it in top operating condition or to repair the inevitable problems in even the most reliable equipment. Service may remain available, but the wait times may be longer for some producers. The lack of job applicants plaguing our economy is in some respects much like the weather. Everyone likes to talk about it, but no one quite seems to know what to do about it. But one thing seems clear: the labor problem is likely to continue for some time.

White Fat’s Effect on Chronic Illness

On the run? LISTEN to our post!

I am currently in my seventh month of pregnancy and have been reading allll things baby! I was reading about baby anatomy and came across a section on the makeup of beneficial brown fat they have at birth.

Brown fat? What in the world is brown fat? I thought all fat was a sort of a whiteish/yellow and something you wanted to have as little of as possible? As I dove deeper into my studies, I found that brown fat not only serves a critical purpose for infants, but plays a role in the long-term health of adults. And there are even certain foods we can eat to increase our brown fat.

Brown Fat vs. White Fat

When you were born, your fat stores were made up of primarily brown or beige fat. This type of fat is packed with mitochondria – the cell’s powerhouse – and helps to burn energy. When babies are newly born, they need this fat for protection from hypothermia. This is why you rarely see a full-term baby shiver — they have plenty of brown fat to keep them warm.

As you move into your adult years, your brown fat sheds. However, one study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that thinner adults tend to have more brown fat than heavier people. While brown fat may dissipate with age, Harvard Medical School discovered another type of fat, beige fat (so attractive to think of), more abundant in adults and serves a similar purpose as brown fat. It is typically interspersed with white fat tissue but contains the same protein found in brown fat (UCP1), which helps burn calories and generate heat. Beige fat could be critical in weight control and chronic illness prevention.

Why do we care what color our fat is? White fat, or white adipose tissue (WAT), is associated with serious health conditions like obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. White fat stores energy and comprises one large lipid droplet or one sizeable single fat droplet.

Brown and beige fat (BAT), however, contain many tiny lipid droplets, as well as a high number of iron-rich mitochondria, which gives it its brownish tint. Brown and beige fat can generate heat by burning fuel from the white fat energy stores. Since too much white fat causes health issues like chronic inflammation and metabolic syndrome, brown fat has the potential to use your white fat for energy and reduce inflammation at the same time.

Once I have this baby, I would certainly love a way to boost my levels of brown fat to burn calories and cut down on some white fat stores that I’ve accumulated during pregnancy. But will the baby be the only one with brown fat among the two of us? Not necessarily. There may be ways we can boost our beige fat, which can help decrease our white fat by altering WHAT and HOW MUCH we eat, exercise, and sleep.

Apples and Turmeric: Your new afternoon snack

Curcumin is a major component found in the spice turmeric. According to studies, curcumin, as well as capsaicin, resveratrol, green tea, menthol, and fish-derived Omega-3 fatty acids, all play a role in what scientists call the activation of BAT, or otherwise known as the browning of WAT.

The University of Iowa found that apples can also play a role in WAT browning.  It was determined that the ursolic acid in their peels (what gives it its shine!) could also boost brown fat.

Hungry? Eat! Or Say ‘Hello’ To More White Fat

Hunger is an interesting thing. Every person from birth (yes, still learning a lot about babies!) has hunger-regulating neurons in their brains that we rely on to tell us when we are hungry and when we are full. But these neurons serve another purpose, as detailed in a Yale School Of Medicine mice study. This study illustrated that these neurons also encourage white fat to turn to brown fat.

Alternatively, and in support of this, another study found that eating too few calories prevented white fat from turning into brown fat as the body sought to store the energy in case it needed it for later, as the calorie intake signified that there might be times when food is not available, and energy stores are necessary. Ultimately both studies concluded that eating just enough to satisfy your hunger is critical in promoting the action of these neurons to turn your white fat to brown fat and avoid accumulations of new white fat stores.

Exercise, exercise, exercise!

This may seem like an obvious recommendation, but there is more to the story than just burning calories. One animal research study published in Disease Models and Mechanisms suggests that working out triggers the release of an enzyme called irisin. This compound works similarly to the above-listed compounds by prompting white fat cells to convert to brown fat when released.

Even more recent research from the American Diabetes Association discovered that the irisin released when exercising can prompt the browning of fat in men specifically, with the browning power continuing to increase over the course of 12 weeks.

Get your fat-burning beauty sleep on!

Melatonin is a fascinating hormone. It is responsible for regulating your sleep-wake cycles (another chapter in my baby book!), but it can also help increase the presence of brown and beige fat. As found in the Journal of Pineal Research, stimulating your natural melatonin by maintaining healthy sleep patterns can aid brown fat in its calorie-burning capabilities.

So be sure to get eight hours of sleep per night, avoid screen time before bed, and seek melatonin-rich foods like cherries, almonds, and tomatoes.

Chill Out! No, really…turn the temp down

While it is still a balmy summer now, there may be an opportunity for you to burn some fat when the temperature drops! What do I mean? One study out of the Journal of Clinical Investigation studied twelve men with what they considered to be lower than average amounts of brown fat.

The subjects were asked to sit in a 63-degree room for two hours per day throughout the six-week period. These men burned an extra 108 calories in the cold than they did in average temperatures, and after the six weeks were up, they were burning an extra nearly 300 calories per day in the cold. Researchers concluded that exposure to these lower temperatures increased the activity of a gene that converts white fat to brown fat.

Cold showers and ice baths, made popular by the Dutch athlete, Wim Hof, are believed to help build your body’s store of brown fat and boost immunity. His research has been substantiated by several studies, found here.

New Frontier: Gene Editing

Research has recently found that gene editing can transform the fat we store in our bodies from white to brown. Genes have been identified that can order our fat cells to burn energy rather than store it. We can edit these genes in the future to treat obesity.

The science behind this is pretty cool! Or at least I think so—learning all about how my body and my baby’s body functions has been a very cool research mission. As we know, our body digests protein, fat, and carbohydrates and turns them into amino acids, fatty acids, or glucose. We tend to convert fat into fatty acids, which are either used immediately or directed to be stored. The “storage” process, or accumulation of white fat, occurs when you eat too many calories or too few and make your body think it may starve.

Dr. Yu-Hua Tseng, out of Harvard Medical School, took fat cells from the neck and, using CRISPR-Cas9 technology, inserted a molecular “switch” into the DNA of these white fat cells. The switch turned on a gene called UCP1. In brown fat, this gene functions in the mitochondria to churn out heat and burn energy. When this switch was inserted, it boosted 20 times the amount of protein that the UCP1 gene made. This newly switched-on fat cell (or what they called HUMBLE) was then inserted into mice. At the end of the study, HUMBLE cells communicated with existing brown fat to release chemical signals telling the mice’s tissues to take up more blood sugar and burn more energy.

This is promising for future disease-fighting research in that it may be a treatment for obesity and people with diabetes, given its blood sugar uptake capabilities. Tseng said she could imagine doctors removing patients’ fat cells, editing their DNA, and returning the cells back to the person. She says it’s “almost like waking up your fat cells to boost your glucose metabolism.” For now, however, more research is needed, and side effects need to be studied.

21st Century Fermentation: Disrupting More Than Our Food


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

I just got out of the lake this morning after a long swim. It was lovely…blue skies, a bit of early morning breeze, and a loon calling nearby. Afterward, I am always starving, so I dutifully made my post-workout smoothie. As I blended my easy and quick protein powder mixed with milk, hemp hearts, yogurt, avocado, and fruit, I started to think of the new technology on the block – Synthetic Biology.

Moving beyond the lab…

What if my milk and yogurt didn’t come from a cow, an almond, or an oat, but really from fermented yeast? What if the steak I planned to cook for dinner was made from mushroom roots? The same food we know and love, but just made a different way. But make no mistake about the term ‘synthetic’.

The word ‘synthetic’ can make people fear companies are making ‘fake’ food…but that is not what is happening at all. It is really taking food proteins and putting them through the fermentation process. Similar to Kombucha, or the beer we drink on the weekend, fermentation technology has been around for thousands of years. Today, we have just adapted fermentation to the 21st century. Though there are about four different methods of synthetic biology, for the purposes of food, we are mainly talking about the fermentation process.

So how can these innovations be used in food and agriculture to feed the growing population sustainably and nutritionally? Synthetic biology seems to have some of the answers. So much so, that by 2030, it is predicted that most people will have eaten, worn, or used something created by synthetic biology. McKinsey predicts that the annual direct economic potential ranges between $2-4 billion, with around $1 billion of that attributed to material changes in agriculture, aquaculture, and food. Markets and Markets has an even higher prediction; that by 2026, the market will reach $31 billion.

The SynBioBeta report ranks the food and food ingredients industry as the second-highest in the number of investments, behind therapeutics and before life sciences, agriculture, and energy.

Solutions in agriculture range from fully utilizing the soil microbiome to aid in sustainable and increased agricultural production.

And solutions in food are replacing traditional meat, poultry, and seafood with meat created in a lab either by growing cells in a petri dish or fermenting bacteria or yeast.

Some of the companies that create these unique products state they are more sustainable for the environment and can address animal welfare issues.

…and into your fridge

If any of you have eaten the Impossible Burger, then you have experienced food made with synthetic biology. Remember when you took a bite and it was red and juicy, just like a hamburger? This was accomplished by isolating the leghemoglobin protein in the soybean plant that carries oxygen to the root nodules via the protein heme.

In animals, hemoglobin is essential and carries oxygen from the lungs to the cells. That is the part of the hamburger from a cow that ‘bleeds’. Scientists at Impossible Foods make the heme with the leghemoglobin and fermenting it with genetically engineered yeast.

Let’s say you want to make ice cream or cream cheese, but not use milk from a cow. A company called Perfect Day teamed up with agricultural company ADM to create milk proteins without the milk.

Perfect Day orders the necessary milk proteins, whey, and casein from a company with a genetic database that can send you actual genes in the mail. Scientists at Perfect Day combine these proteins in a fermentation tank with a specific synthetically-engineered microflora that ‘supercharges’ the proteins. Then the substance we think of ‘milk’ is created. They even have a non-fat ‘fat’ called Epogee to make the ice cream taste delicious without the calories.

Who would have thought fermenting fungi could create an edible protein? The company Enough also uses fermentation technology to create a meat-like substance, called ABUNDA, by fermenting fungi with sugar feedstocks from grains. This fermented meat substitute has fiber, all nine essential amino acids, vitamin B12, zinc, and iron.

Partnering with Unilever, Enough’s website states that producing one million tonnes of ABUNDA will replace five million cows, over 1.2 billion chickens and reduce more than five million tonnes of CO2.

Broadening synthetic applications

Of course, cows produce much more than just meat that we eat. At least 47% of the cow is used for leather, garden fertilizer, jet engine lubricants, tallow…the list is endless. Much of these synthetic materials replace the traditional cow hide, alligator skin, or spider silk. In one case, even jet engine lubricants.

The leather coat you wear, or the belt, even the shoes, all come from an animal – most likely cattle. Modern Meadow, however, is replacing animal-based leather with biofabrication using bio-engineered proteins and fermentation. They grow their protein cells with a yeast culture into collagen which, in turn, goes into making various materials (check out their very interesting process here).

A backpack out of mushrooms? Ecovative Design grows material using the familiar button mushrooms. By fermenting the mycelium – the root structure of the mushroom – they can turn proteins such as cellulose, lignin, collagen, or non-spider silk into strong, soft silk, leather, or even whole-cut meats.

The interesting phrase here is ‘whole-cut meats’. Normally, cell-based meats (those made in a lab) or plant-based meats lack the ‘scaffolding’ to hold it all together. That is why most of the alternative meats are made into a ‘hamburger’. But these fermented mushrooms from Evocative Design can grow into a structure that can help create a steak or a specific cut of meat.

Working in conjunction with Bolt Threads, the British fashion designer Stella McCarthy created a ‘leather’ purse out of the mycelium. Bolt Threads has created manmade spider silk ‘stronger than steel and softer than a cloud.’

Synthetic biology can now supercharge your vegetables, too. For instance, we all know that broccoli is good for us. Today, that saying has never had more meaning. Scientists in Singapore used synthetic biology to restructure a common and benign form of E. coli, Nissle, that is found in our gut. They engineered the bacteria into a probiotic that attaches to the cell of a cancerous tumor in the colon. These bacteria then secreted an enzyme – found in broccoli – into the cell. This concoction became an anti-cancer agent killing up to 75% of tumors in mice. In the future, this could be used as colon cancer prevention or a way to ‘mop up’ cancer cells after surgery, something just plain old broccoli can’t do.

Unfolding and reconstructing DNA

We have come a long way from Gregor Mendel when he began experimenting with crossbreeding pea plants in 1865.

DNA is the blueprint for every single organism. Synthetic biology can rearrange DNA to make whatever material or organism we want. This may sound confusing but let’s start with the basics.

We are familiar with computer coding using a combination of 0s and 1s. It always amazes me what you can do with just two numbers. Well, take four chemical building blocks identified primarily as their letters: A, C, T, G.

These chemical building blocks, called DNA, come together to form genes that instruct our cells to function how we want.

Our genes give us the color of our eyes, our height, and all the genetic codes that make us human. Remember Legos? You could build whatever was in your imagination: an airplane, a motorcycle, a spaceship, the list was endless. Think of the four letters in DNA as four different colored and shaped Lego pieces. Synthetic biology allows us to recreate the DNA in our food and other materials, essentially making our own Lego designs with whichever instructions we choose.

Mail-order genes?

What makes this easy – relatively – are companies that specialize in synthesizing and selling genes. They have what is called a genetic library. We used to go to a library to check out books. Now we look online to find the gene we want and get it delivered to our lab or office.  Twist Biosciences “gives you the flexibility to get the DNA you want, the way you want it. Think bigger, expand your design scope, and accelerate discovery”.

Illumina is sequencing the genes of all living organisms.

If someone is designing and building new products, Illumina provides the infrastructure to figure out the genetic pattern of the A, T, C, & Gs. Like the Legos, you need to make a structure so Illumina will tell you which genes you need.

 

A company like Ginko Bioworks will restructure the ‘Legos’, or genes, into what you want. But you can’t make the Lego airplane without knowing which pieces you need.

A company doesn’t need to have the technical skills to be a gene sequencer or a protein builder to make milk or meat – they only need certain starter feedstocks, usually sugars that come from grains. Then it goes through the fermentation process to make the desired proteins. For instance, if a company is an expert in fermentation, then they can order the genes they need from a company like Ginkgo Bioworks to make any kind of meat, milk, fabric, or building material.

The world needs protein!

Synthetic biology can synthesize parts of DNA to make plants more resilient to disease, have greater nutrition, and be resistant to climate change.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the most well-funded companies in the synthetic biology space are all focused on feeding people. A high-protein diet is more than a new eating craze — it’s essential to our health. Protein is essential not just after we run, jump, swim, or left weights.  It is the basic building block of life that “keeps the lights on” in our bodies.

Our growing world needs to fuel itself with protein. As COVID-19 continues to rage, it’s more important than ever that humans produce and consume enough protein to boost their immune system, heal from illness and injury, and move and store nutrients throughout the blood.

That is probably why the amount of protein consumed by the world is such a staggering number. The world eats about 467 million metric tons of protein a year. If you put all that meat in rail cars, how long is that train? It would go around the Earth’s equator almost two times.

And by 2035, those 532 million metric tonnes of protein will go around over two times, which is essentially adding a train of railcars going from coast to coast 2.5 times across the United States. The world needs to grow a lot of protein!

Precision fermentation won’t replace all protein, but it will certainly help fill up the rail cars. While we just focused on protein, the market has significantly more potential via the broader technology of synthetic biology.

There is a race between Europe, China, and the U.S. to have the most competitive technology and capture the most of the potential $31 billion in global revenue. That competition will spur excellence, innovation, and an expediated timeline.

This means sooner, rather than later, we may soon have our broccoli spears fighting cancer and grown in a lab down the road.

The Gabels: From Wall Street to little Grassy Creek


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Farming is more than a business to people like Sandy and Laura Gabel. Sure, the money side of the farm is important. Very important. It takes money to run a 1,000-acre cow-calf operation anywhere, and it’s no different here in central North Carolina.

The cost of farming operations

Currently, little Grassy Creek has about 100 cows and 95 calves split among two herds. Separately, they have 17 replacement heifers (future moms, 3 bulls, and 2 or 3 feeders (cows on feed for harvesting). They all need shade from the summer sun and shelter from the winter winds, and of course careful monitoring for proper nutrition needs and overall health. Then there’s the cost of managing the artificial insemination program that produces healthy animals, as well as animals of the right type for this environment and with the ideal developmental traits.

Vet bills have to be considered, as is the cost of genetic specialists for upgrading the herd over the long term. Probiotic regimens that aid digestion and nutrient absorption also must be thought through. There’s always a need for some new machinery, or an addition to the storage barns, or improvements to the water storage and distribution system. But thinking and planning are just the first part of the job of raising cattle.

Some piece of equipment always seems to need maintenance or repair. The temporary fences that define different grazing areas have to be moved every day, and posts replaced when an ambitious cow decides to expand her horizons.

Fixed fences that define the farm boundaries need mending, and some surrounding scrubland will make good pasture when it’s cleared. Existing grasses and ground covers need to be managed constantly to preserve productivity.

Here, no-till and other soil-protecting practices are the long-held norms, not some new idea or government dictate.

The herds have to be patiently shepherded from one grazing area to the next, and the temporary wire fences (none barbed, ever) relocated. And there always seems to be a few calves that need that little something extra to thrive – special food, special medication, or just plain old special personal attention.

Then there are the other animals that seem to have accumulated since it all started here in the early 2000s. Seven horses, including a couple of rescues. Alpacas Max and Ziggy – another rescue story.

Chickens and guineas, and of course the German shepherd pup Shadow and big sister golden retriever Lynka curled up quietly in front of the iron stove in the corner.

From 5:30 a.m. till well after everyone else has gone to bed, there’s something that needs to be done. Something else that needs to be considered. Some new idea to think about, or some potential problem to head off.

Longing for longer days

“You never get everything done,” Sandy says in passing, with Laura nodding energetically in agreement.

Why would anyone give up a successful three-decade career in the high-flying world of the New York insurance industry for a life like this? What makes the bucolic world of cattle-raising in the rural mid-South more appealing than a life on Wall Street? In Laura’s case, why pass up the prominent career in education she enjoyed? Why trade all that for this?

“No, it’s a lot more than money,” says Sandy, in what soon proves to be his usual measured, quiet and reflective voice. “It’s more about finding something that gives real satisfaction.” He continues,

“Maybe satisfaction isn’t exactly the right word. This is passion.

As sincere as his answer obviously is, it seems a little hard to accept – at first. But spend a day with Sandy and Laura, and you quickly recognize they probably have nailed it exactly right. It’s not just a chance to make a living. It’s a chance to actually live.

Sandy and I ride one of his well-worn ATVs for a quick tour of the farm, and an introduction to the cows and calves that wander slowly and quietly around us, like a rising tide of brownish-red Herefords. “We should have 110 moms, come September,” he observes as we ride among this particular herd. He sounds surprisingly like a proud parent.

“I’m really a grass farmer,” Sandy jokes as we ride. “I spend so much time thinking about what grass to plant, how to get it to grow, how to make sure it will stay productive. Grass is everything for an operation like this.”

We all seem to be so very – content. The sky is bright Carolina blue, the lush grass Sandy manages so carefully is so green that Ireland would be envious. The air is rich with the smell of nature. “You see the beauty of this every day, everywhere,” Sandy says in passing, almost under his breath. “In the animals. In the land. In everything.” On this day at least, God is in His Heaven and all is right with the world.

“How can anyone not be moved by this – at least a little?” Sandy just smiles, the corner of his mouth turned up ever so slightly at the visitor’s revelation of what he discovered long ago. “The word you’re looking for is serenity,” he says. And he is absolutely right.

Creating new roots

The die for this special kind of life probably was cast very early in life. Sandy’s father was another successful businessman who grew up on a farm outside New York – not a play farm but a real working farm, with cows, sheep, pigs, chickens, and more.

Even as Sandy’s father toiled at his career in the Big Apple, he also enjoyed the farm life on his own special North Carolina retreat, not all that far from where we sit today. Farming is in this family’s genes.

Graduating from nearby Duke University also probably played a role in Sandy’s decision-making. The growing Raleigh metropolitan area long ago swallowed up the old family farm that gave the family so much satisfaction. But proceeds from its sale provided the seeds for little Grassy Creek Farm between the state capital and the Virginia border. Initially, the land needed a lot of patient work to restore its productivity, “and to clear out a hundred years of accumulated garbage,” Sandy remembers.

The farm has grown steadily over the years, in size and sophistication, and so has the satisfaction that it provides. So what’s the secret, the magic formula for making the demanding world of cattle raising so satisfying?

“Our goal isn’t to maximize profits,” Sandy says over a cup of hot tea after our farm tour. “We probably could make more money selling specialized beef products to some of the local markets. I might even make more money planting some pastureland to specialty hays for the horse-feed market. But that’s not our big objective.”

The obvious follow-up question: what is?

“To leave something for the future…a sustainable farm for the future… something important… something worthwhile.” Sandy and Laura say the same things, almost in unison.

We’re trying to build up an operation for our kids and future generations, they explain. We want to leave behind a farm that is built around doing the right thing in every aspect of our operation. In how we treat the cows. How we protect the land and the water. In finding better ways to produce beef, and do it in a way that works best for all of us, from the animal to the farmer to the consumer. In making farming an appealing way of doing something important in the world and finding joy in doing it.

“People today simply don’t understand our agricultural system,” Sandy says. “They take it for granted. They need to see how modern farming is important to all of us, and the whole world around us. To our common future.”

Laura agrees completely. “I think it’s fun to have people come out to the farm and just walk around and look at what goes on here,” she says.

“Giving folks a chance to ask questions gives children – and adults, too, for that matter – is the best way I can think of to teach them about what we do.”

On-site visits may be the best way to educate people, but it’s far from the only way.

“I’ve started posting a few short videos on our farm Facebook page that show some of the tasks that go on around here,” she adds. “There’s one with Sandy baling round bales, and there’s one with Sandy feeding the replacement heifers.

You can hear him telling them ‘good morning’ which is something he always does – and that’s one reason why our herd is so settled and docile. Sandy’s out there every day among them, and it makes a difference.”

When Sandy and Laura say things like that, it doesn’t sound idealistic, and certainly not corny. These are people who don’t just say things like “do the right thing” and “leave something lasting for everyone.” They mean it. They live it.

And after a too-short day with them, I see that they are right. And I know I should want to, too.

Serving Up Sustainability at Fast Food Restaurants


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

According to the CDC, 36% of Americans eat fast food daily. That’s almost 90 million people going to a fast-food restaurant every single day. And most have three items: chicken/hamburger/salad, a drink, and fries.

That’s well over 286 million individual wrappings, cups, straws, and clamshells thrown away day after day.

The 325,000 total fast-food locations across the U.S. present a massive opportunity to curb waste and boost sustainability efforts based on the sheer scale of fast-food chains. And the opportunity extends far deeper when you consider the effects these companies have on their supply chains to practice these efforts.

Whether it is Starbucks testing out an entirely plant-based menu, McDonald’s trialing a plastic-free concept store, Subway changing the companies they source their ingredients from, KFC pledging that all consumer-facing plastic packaging will be recoverable by 2025, or Taco Bell committing to make all of its packaging compostable and recyclable, each of these businesses is leading the way in their industry’s sustainability efforts.

These initiatives are honorable and necessary to combat our growing environmental crisis, but we are left with some questions:

  • Will the consumer be willing to pay more for sustainability?
  • What practices actually work to reduce their carbon footprint and decrease waste and pollution?
  • Furthermore, which third-party companies regulate these “green” claims?  Or are they internally regulated? If so, do we trust that internal oversight?

But first…will we pay more for less waste? 

It is a mixed bag. A Nielsen study from October 2015 showed that 66% of global consumers are willing to shell out more money for sustainable goods. Of those global consumers, millennials rank the highest in support of sustainability and willingness to pay with an overwhelming 73% on board.

A 2018 analysis from Statista supports this claim, detailing which age groups are willing to pay more, and even went so far as to break out how much more they are willing to pay.

A recent survey by GreenPrint found that nearly 64% of consumers are willing to pay more for eco-friendly products, but almost 75% of them struggle with how to identify these products.

How do they know what they are getting is more sustainable? A challenge many fast-food companies are looking to solve.

But do these polls convert to actual shopping behaviors? The brand giant, Unilever, found that while about 4 out of 5 people say they are inclined to buy from environmentally-friendly companies, consumers don’t actually follow through with their wallets.

Other studies show a consistent gap between purchase intentions and behaviors. Despite polling about environmental concerns and reported positive attitudes of consumers towards green products, it is estimated still that only about 25% of those attitudes translate into spending. Consumer cognitive dissonance will always be a challenge with data gathering and polling biases.

The question is who bears the cost of innovation in sustainable packaging until enough volume is achieved to be competitive with existing packaging? Is it the producer? The fast-food restaurants? The consumer? What is the inelastic price point where the consumer just won’t pay more for sustainable food? Would consumers pay 10 cents more per burger at McDonald’s to help share the cost of sustainability? For instance, McDonald’s sells 2.36 billion burgers every year. That would bring an additional $236 million in “sustainability” sales.

What methods of “green” packaging really make a difference in the fast-food world?

The Dogwood Alliance recently detailed a best-practices roadmap for “greening” fast-food packaging. It said that environmental stakeholders must make sustainability a corporate priority and this starts from the ground up. Foundational steps include embracing corporate leadership on sustainability, using a full life-cycle supply-chain approach, reducing overall packaging, and increasing efficiency.

As you drill down past the foundational level, the next tier requires that fast-food companies increase their usage of recycled and/or biodegradable fibers, work to eliminate paper originating from controversial forestry practices, increase in-store recycling and recovery, eliminate toxic inks and labels, and change the composition, weight, and size of its packaging.

Fast-food companies have taken note and have mirrored sustainability efforts after these key principles, rather than arbitrarily creating a set of their own green goals.

But here I am, an educated consumer left with one overwhelming question in my head…

How in the world am I going to figure out if the fast-food companies I choose to enjoy actually follow these standards?

Fear not: there’s a website that will do most of the heavy lifting for you.

Green Restaurant Association tracks businesses and measures food companies based on their environmental footprint, ethical workplace practices, animal welfare commitments, product safety, and marketing strategies to children.

Who is regulating these green initiatives?

Many small brands turn to organizations like Climate Neutral, Foundation Myclimate, and Global Ecolabelling Network for their stamp of approval.

However, not all companies operate or seek to be wholly verified by a third party, especially the big guys. McDonald’s and PepsiCo, for example (the latter owns KFC and Taco Bell), have crafted internal policies to address green initiatives and environmental efforts.

These companies have made similar statements, claiming to work towards the conservation of natural resources, recycling, pollution control, and the pursuit of alternative oils that can be repurposed. While these green plans appear robust and thoughtful, is internal governance enough for consumers to trust that these initiatives really are being put in place?

Good governance is critical to managing our impact on the world. Our governance structures help us to prioritize ESG issues effectively and guide our actions and performance across issues. Engagement with our Board of Directors, cross-functional leadership teams and working groups, and Franchisees and suppliers ensures we have robust governance mechanisms in place to manage these issues and can deliver long-term value for stakeholders.

— excerpt from McDonald’s Purpose and Impact statement

While internal governance is critical, it is not the only means of approvals and certifications that big chains use to provide consumer trust and verification. They may not work with regulatory bodies that can put a stamp on an entire organization. But most of them do, in fact, work with a rigorous group of organizations at an ingredient level to ensure they are meeting and/or exceeding the requirements for their sustainability goals.

What about sustainable food ingredients? 

The influence fast-food restaurants have on overall sustainability is tremendous. Holding their suppliers accountable has far-reaching benefits as many of their producers also sell to grocery store chains. Fast food companies are now answering questions. Where does the meat come from? Is it grown humanely? Is chocolate or coffee grown with fair labor practices? How do we know?

We spoke with Christy Johnson, former Vice President at Papa John’s International Inc., who shared some insights as to how they make “better ingredients, better pizza.” Johnson explained that while there is no overarching regulatory body, they partner with organizations such as the Whole Wheat Council to ensure that their crust is 90% whole grain, and with the Clean Label Project for their toppings so they comply with their regulations. Papa John’s even went so far as to remove 14 ingredients back in 2016 that were not up to the standards of these partners.

While this might mean Papa John’s spends more than $100 million each year to ensure that they are implementing and maintaining these clean label changes, it also offers an avenue of trust for the consumer.

“Papa John’s attempts to always be fully transparent—sharing data and information with the consumer about how and where ingredients are sourced, as well as the mechanisms for ensuring the best quality is imperative for consumer trust.”

– Christy Johnson, Former Vice President at Papa John’s

How to present meaningful data that’s impactful for the consumer

Nicolas Brosens, Strategic Sourcing Officer at McDonald’s, turned the idea of internal regulation on its head, explaining that it is less about the consumer-facing regulatory stamps and data than it is about true transparency and traceability initiatives. McDonald’s is currently working to create a network on their website where consumers can eventually type in an ingredient or menu item and see where it came from, how it is treated, what the environmental impact is, and so on, as verified by their farming partners, processors, etc.

McDonald’s has long been a leader in the sustainability space, and it continues to be at the forefront of sourcing, packaging, and general renewables. As it turns out, McDonald’s, and most large fast-food companies, have a slew of data points on various sustainable measures, sourcing information, green analytics, and more. It is not a matter of having the data; it is a matter of figuring out how to present that data in a meaningful and impactful way to the consumer.

As in the case of Papa John’s, many certifications are held at an ingredient level. McDonald’s shares a similar model, with ethical sourcing as a critical part of their overall sustainability strategy. They have partnered with organizations like RSPCA, FARM, Forest Stewardship Council, PEFCTM, Conservation International, RSPO, ProTerra, RTRS, GRSB, AIM-Progress, and others to help them regulate and monitor the traceability of all ingredients, including ingredients in their livestock feed products.

Coffee is another industry where certification comes into play with regulation. Brosens stated that all coffee and coffee beans in the EU are certified by the Rainforest Alliance, while other regional McDonald’s work with the Fair Trade Organization — deforestation being a massive component of their green strategy.

While the efforts being made by many fast-food chains are progressive and impactful, this does not mean that all fast-food chains are as committed to going green. It is also important to note that many of these companies are in the inception stage and have set goals of five, ten, fifteen years from now till the next impact measure.

Here is a list of a few companies and their environmental strategies and/or sustainability reports so you can make an informed decision on where your next drive-thru order will come from!

                        McDonald’s  |  Papa Johns  |  Taco Bell  |  Panera                                                                           Starbucks  |  KFC  |  Chick-fil-A                                                 

What do probiotics have to do with it? Why soil health matters.

Dirt to Dinner is pleased to have Renée Vassilos contribute to our site. Renée is The Nature Conservancy’s Director of Agriculture Innovation where she manages investments in companies practicing regenerative agriculture. Previously, Renée worked at John Deere, including several years in Beijing, building global market product strategies, design and manufacture equipment, and marketing and sales. She also led her consulting firm, Banyan Innovation Group, advising growth-stage agriculture technology start-ups and investors. Renée has a BS and MS in agricultural economics from the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana and University of California, Davis respectively.

Probiotics: For Our Body and Our Soil

As you’re walking through grocery store aisles, I suspect you’ve seen items labeled as ‘prebiotic’ and ‘probiotic’. Much of this push comes from a compelling and growing body of research around the critical role our complex gut microbiome plays in our immune system. Our immune system’s role is to protect our body from outside invaders, such as bacteria, viruses, and fungi. This system is made up of different organs, cells, and proteins all working together. We can either support or hinder our gut health by what we consume.

David Montgomery and Anne Bikle’s book, The Hidden Half of Nature, puts it simply:

“It’s not only how much we eat, but also what we eat and what lives within us that matters.”

In parallel to this growing body of knowledge around the role of our gut microbiome, there is a growing and compelling body of research around the critical role of the soil microbiome.

We are learning a tremendous amount about the role the soil microbiome plays in healthy environmental ecosystems. The soil microbiome is a complex group of microorganisms that can be found in soil, including bacteria, viruses, fungi, and other microbial forms of life. At the farm-level ecosystem, the benefits of improved soil microbiome include higher rates of productivity and profitability over the long term. At the societal level ecosystem, the benefits of boosting the soil microbiome are even more profound, including improved water quality, filtration, and storage; richer biodiversity; and reduced greenhouse gas emissions, mitigating the impacts of climate change.

It is because of these profound ecosystem benefits we at The Nature Conservancy have a critical body of work focused on rebuilding the U.S. soil microbiome. We refer to this as rebuilding soil health, the equivalent of rebuilding gut health. Since 2016,  TNC scientists, economists, and policy experts are focused on executing our roadmap to soil health and getting us closer to our audacious goal: 50% of U.S. cropland under adaptive soil health systems by 2025. The core focus of this brilliant team is to scale four critical practices we know are part of adaptive soil health systems: maintaining a living root in soils, minimizing tillage or disturbance, increasing crop diversity, and optimizing nutrient application.

This critical work towards our goal continues with our team of scientists, economists, and policy experts at the national level and at the tactical, boots-on-the-ground level. In 2019, however, it was acknowledged that we were not moving fast enough towards our goal. We needed to think about other ways to expedite change. How could we tap into innovation to drive farming for soil health?

Taking a Seat at the Venture Investment Table

We believe there is tremendous opportunity to drive progress towards adaptive soil health systems through innovation. We believe that TNC’s investments in those innovations will send a critical signal to other investors around the opportunity to invest for returns and impact. To date, TNC has invested in five companies. Their solutions are wide-ranging:

  • Kula Bio is developing an organic alternative to synthetic nitrogen with the potential for localized production.
  • Swarm Farm is developing an autonomous tractor that will provide farm enterprises a cost-effective way to practice precision application of inputs. This eliminates unnecessary treatments.
  • Growers Edge is a financial technology company that is using warranties to help de-risk the adoption of new technologies on-farm. We are working with them to develop a warranty to de-risk the practices we know build soil health.
  • Stony Creek Colors provides the enabling services for farmers to diversify crop rotations with crops that can be used for plant-derived dye.
  • Pattern Ag provides soil microbiome analysis and recommendations for input optimization on farm.

Our work continues to support the transformation towards large scaling farming of adaptive soil health systems.

What can you do to support the transformation?

Start with your own microbiome. What foods foster your healthy gut microbiome? How do you see these efforts improving the overall health of your immune system? Then you can make that intellectual leap to the microbiome needed in the soil for it to thrive and support plant growth. The better our collective understanding and appreciation for our gut microbiome, the easier it will be for all to make the connection to the soil microbiome and a recognition of how critical it is to move the needle on soil health for our collective planetary ecosystem.

An excellent resource to read, David Montgomery and Anne Biklé, The Hidden Half of Nature: The Microbial Roots of Life and Health. You can also watch them discuss their book.

Can Rural America Lead in AgTech?

Lucy recently spoke at a Boy Scouts of America event hosting community business leaders and politicians in Pennsylvania. She chose to speak about rural America’s potential to pave the way for the future of agricultural innovations.

Below is her speech.

Thank you for the introduction, Jeff Homer, President of Grovedale Winery. And thank you to the Andaste District Scouts for having me here tonight to speak to all of you about my favorite subjects: agriculture, food, and the technologies that lead us.

Even though my experience as a Girl Scout was very brief, the Boy Scouts are near and dear to my heart because my husband is an Eagle Scout and has remained involved with the Scouts for years. In fact, the Scouts are one of the reasons we are married.

When he asked my father to marry me, surprised for sure as we had only been dating a couple of months, he said no. But then, when my parents discovered that Mark was an Eagle Scout, they embraced him warmly.

So, my advice to you is to forget match.com – just become an Eagle Scout and make sure your future wife’s family knows it. You see, being a Scout – especially an Eagle Scout – still means something in this world. It signaled to my parents more than anything that Mark would be a good husband and father.

The Scouts are about character. Your values: trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent –set you apart from many in our country. You cannot be a leader with virtue. What the scouts teach are the virtues needed for children to grow into good citizens.

I love how these values coincide with the American farmer. Every day we can thank a farmer for what is on our plate. America has one of the most affordable, clean, safe, and efficient food systems in the world. This is accomplished by hard-working people who have a strong purpose to bring food to your table.

I think a lot about agriculture, science, and food…

My interest in food really solidified when I had children. Two of them, including myself, have a blood disorder. To keep our immune systems strong, our pediatrician told me to make sure we ate well. What did that mean? I thought that it simply meant organic. But as I investigated further, I began to understand that there are many ways to bring healthy, safe, clean food to the dinner table.

The grocery store was – and still is – telling me that hormones are terrible in milk (all cows have hormones), GMOs are frankenfood , glyphosate – the main chemical in the weed killer Roundup – is poisoning our food, gluten is causing everything from allergies to back pain, and chickens raised indoors, cattle at the feedlot, and dairy cows in the milking parlor are experiencing animal welfare issues.

So other than starve to death – what was I supposed to do?

I started visiting farms, feedlots, dairy farms, and saw that none of this was true. Sure, some farmers and farms are better than others, but this dichotomy made me uncomfortable, and I wanted the truth to be told That’s why I started my blog, Dirt to Dinner. Our mission is to inspire curiosity, knowledge, and action about our food from the farmer’s field to the dinner table, using science as our guide.

I recently had the chance to think about agriculture from a unique perspective…the seat of my motorcycle. My husband, one of our sons, and I love to ride through the beautiful Pennsylvania countryside on our bikes.

As the wind was whipping by me and the rows of corn and dairy farms faded into a blur – I started thinking about how important our farmers are who grow our corn, meat, dairy, soybeans, fruits, and vegetables to feed the 7.71 billion of us on Earth. In less than four years, that number will jump to over 8 billion. This global increase of 400 million more people is more than the population in our entire country – in less than four years.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that we need 60% more food to feed the extra two billion people by 2050. It sounds like a long way away. But for those of you who are teenagers, you’ll be in your 50s. You are the ones that will shape the world you inherit.

How are you going to make sure the world is what you want it to be?

Will the farmer growing the corn I whizzed by have fresh water? Will he, or she, create and maintain healthy soil? Will we be eating meat from animals or foods made in a lab? And if it is grown in a lab, what does that mean for rural America and the farming communities that sustain it? At D2D we talk a lot about technology and how that is shaping our food system. It is the future. And I wonder if we are all prepared?

Logically, you might think that to produce more food, we need more land to farm. The good news? We can do this on existing agricultural land because of innovations in agricultural technology. And, personally, I love companies that solve problems and deliver solutions.

In the ’90s, someone told me that I would have my own personal phone number that would be carried around with me. I thought, ‘What is wrong with our house phone?’ Look at what sticks in our back pocket now. It is not just our phone number: it is movies, games, the internet of things. That is in my adult lifetime. Think of agriculture as making the same leaps.

Examining the challenges of sustainability

Sustainability means that our generation leaves your generation with clean water, healthy soil, no child labor, fair labor practices, animal welfare, enough water, clean air…the list is endless. Basically growing food with Scout values – meaning – Do the right thing.

And the first place to start answering that question is by starting at our feet. The next time you’re outside around dirt – pick up a small handful – and take a good look. Did you know that you would be looking at more microbes than all 7.8 billion people on Earth today? A small handful of soil has more diversity than all the frogs, plants, monkeys, birds, panthers, miniature elephants, and other billions of species in the vast, vast Amazon Rainforest.

Stop. Think about that for a minute…just in a handful of soil. All these fungi, insects, bacteria, and algae happily coexist in the soil keep us alive by growing our food. They control pathogens, reduce plant disease outbreaks, give plants nutrients, keep them resilient, give them energy to pull carbon out of the air, make land less prone to wind and water erosion, clean and filter water, and finally are a source of human medicine.

Here’s a great example of a very well-educated farmer who makes the most of his soil. Last summer we rode our motorcycles down to Trout Run to see Dave Albert’s farm, Misty Mountain.

Dave is the sixth generation of his family to farm the land. His ancestor and his wife immigrated to Philadelphia from Germany. After they got acclimated to their new country, they walked 200 miles to Trout Run pushing a wheelbarrow with their belongings.

Today Dave has a successful beef operation growing corn, soybeans, oats, barley, and canola to feed their cattle, sheep, and pastured poultry. How?

Dave became a soil expert reading about regenerative ag and is applying that to his farm today. He knows his soil is healthy because he can achieve the same yield per acre as conventional farmers with little to no herbicides and pesticides. He understands the power of the mighty microbes.

There’s more than one way

Big multinational companies, like Bayer and Mosaic, and smaller start-ups, like MyLand and AgBiome, are also changing the way we look and use soil.

Each farm has its own microalgae in the soil – just like we all have our own gut microbiome. Mine is different from yours and yours is different from your siblings. This company looks at which algae is essential to that specific farm. They then grow those algae in small vessels with lights and correct temperature. They make millions of cells – and sprays it back onto the soil using the farm’s irrigation system. in a tractor-trailer housed on the farm. The farm then uses less fertilizer, less water and increases their yield and thus their revenue.

Another company looks at all the soil microbes that kill insects, fungus, and weeds. They sequence the DNA, grow them in a lab, and take them out to spray on the field to have healthy crops – without pesticides and herbicides. Healthy soil, healthy planet.

These companies are leading agriculture to sustainability while making the difference between profitability and bankruptcy for family farms.

Animals can benefit, too…

It is not just soil that has excellent new technologies with sustainability. Animal welfare – taking care of our animals whether they are in a feedlot getting fat for our dinner plates, giving us milk to drink, ice cream, and mozzarella cheese, or chickens giving us eggs or chicken salad sandwiches is the right thing to do.

How do we keep track of all these animals? If one is not feeling well, they might tell you by a droopy head, not eating, not socializing. But when a farmer has hundreds of cattle on the range or in the dairy barn – it is hard to tell how each one is feeling. And often when they are sick, it is too late and you have to call the vet.

Today, it is not going a problem to keep track of them. Anyone wearing an Apple Watch or Fitbit?

Great – so is the cow.

Just like our watches – the cow version of fit bit is a necklace they wear. Where they are (important on the range), whether they are socializing, their body temperature, how much they are eating, and if they are a dairy cow, how much milk they are producing. One company does facial recognition for dairy cows instead of a necklace – because necklaces fall off.

These technologies relay information to sensors on gates and after leaving the milking parlor, if a cow is deemed to have a problem, she is automatically sorted into a ‘sick pen’. The herd manager immediately receives a text on his phone and goes to attend to the cow so she can be taken care of before she gets so sick that she needs antibiotics. Or if it is cattle on the range, the herd manager also receives this information on his phone. He, or she, can even move the cattle from pasture to pasture from sensors on the gates.

This unique technology is not only a more humane approach; it enhances the margin for the farmer by keeping their animals healthy which then makes the farmer more competitive in the market.

Alt meat’s place in the global food system

Of course, no conversation about cows would be complete without including alternative meats.

The world is also full of carnivores. According to Research and Markets, alternative meat consumption, mostly alt-poultry, beef, and pork, is projected to have a compounded annual growth rate of 7.4% through 2025. Did you know Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America will drive 83% of this growth?

As more and more people come out of poverty thanks to the free market, they can afford and consume more meat. Once people begin making more than $5,000 a year – yes, a year – they start incorporating protein in their diets.

Right now, the world eats about 300 million metric tons of meat a year. That doesn’t include sheep and goats. If you put all that meat in a rail-cars, how long is that train? It would go around the Earth’s equator almost two times.

I am so curious as to what will happen with the future of meat. Will this industry be entirely disrupted? It just might. There are four different ways to get meat.

How many of you have had the Impossible Burger or Beyond Burger? These are burgers made out of pea protein, potato protein, water, coconut or canola oil, and several other ingredients. They are not necessarily healthier or cheaper than a lean beef burger but they have created a lot of excitement. It is a great ‘meat’ option for vegans and vegetarians. And both CEOs are committed to improving the technology.

The other non-meat option is grown in a lab. It is called cell-based meat. For instance, Upside Foods, takes cells from a particular part of a cow, duck, and chicken and grows them in a lab to make flank steak, duck breast, or chicken thighs. We went to visit them in San Francisco. It was an impressive lab for sure. But this technology is challenging as you need science technicians to literally babysit the cells, cull out the bad ones, and feed the good ones so they can grow into a meal.

The cell-based meat was initially about $5,000 a hamburger. So, you haven’t seen it on the dollar menu at McDonald’s.

Not yet…

Finally, there is synthetic biology. This is the future. Many of you are familiar with the 0s and 1s used for computer programming. It always amazes me what you can do with just two numbers. Well, take four letters instead: A, C, T, G.

They make up our DNA – and all DNA of every single living organism. Your DNA is the blueprint for your body. Each one of your cells holds this six-foot-long strand tightly wrapped and folded within the nucleus.

Synthetic biology can change the genetic code within an organism and make it do something it might not do otherwise. Or, put another way, we can create food, medicine, lumber, clothing in entirely unconventional and different ways.

Ginkgo Bioworks can make vegan ice cream by programing and fermenting yeast to create the perfect milk protein. Ecovative Design ‘grows materials’ with mycelium – the root structure of a mushroom to grow meat that tastes like crab cakes or bacon.

We need all tools in our toolbelts to thrive

As I said before there are four ways to make meat. Don’t buy into ‘canceling’ out an entire industry. We can’t say, “Oh it’s better for the earth if we just make our food in a lab” and then wipe out traditional ways of raising meat. Because that does more than remove cows and chickens from our diets – it removes much of rural America’s way of life. Also, we will need all ways to feed a growing population who need protein in their diets.

Food can unite people – let’s not let it divide people. My point here is we do not need a protein war like we have a political and culture war between our very own shores.

The technologies I have just discussed are all successful – today. But they were generated on the backs of many, many failures. Rumor has it Edison tried 1000 times for the lightbulb. Everyone who has had success has failed. I certainly have.

Being a leader means stepping out and just get started.

I was worried about starting D2D. Take a risk my uncle said! If it doesn’t work – then shut it down. So far – so good. We are trying to take a leadership role by encouraging and embracing new and safe technologies that can increase our yield and grow our food in the most sustainable and healthy way.

Being a leader means taking the values you cherish as a scout and making a difference in your community – your world.

One of my favorite D2D stories is about Farm Link. During COVID, a college-aged boy was sitting around at his kitchen table – maybe a bit bored. His mother said, go out and do something – make a difference. So he and three of his friends linked the food waste problem in our country with food banks. Food waste is a serious issue: if you were to grow a garden the size of a football field, take all the food from the 40-yard line to the goal post – and throw it away. That is how much food is wasted every day.

The goal of Farm Link is simple: to rescue wasted and surplus food from farms and connect them with food banks around the country in need of food. This was especially poignant during Covid.

The time is now

Here is where you can come in. One of the worries for our country is the decline of income in rural American. I see the problems of rural America when I fly my Super Cub over the countryside. (I also love to fly airplanes). Even from 500 feet over the ground, you can tell that some farms are thriving, and some are struggling or non-existent with junk in the front yard.

Much of our manufacturing has moved to China. A bigger worry is that we have put cheap pharmaceuticals, furniture, clothes, and almost everything we buy ahead of American jobs. But the one thing we have not exported is our food.

We grow enough food to food 350 million people plus many in the rest of the world. But we can’t if we don’t accept technology and try new things. America exports our corn, soybeans, meat, fruits, and vegetables.

How can you link the need for income growth in rural America with our food security? Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina, Texas North Carolina are all states that are attracting businesses. Why not Pennsylvania? Why not change the tax and regulatory code in the county where you live to bring in new types of business thus creating jobs and income?

Why not grow fish in the middle of our state? The oceans are certainly getting overfished. You really don’t know whether you are eating cod or grouper? Is your fish really Chilean sea bass or something grown in China? Honestly, we have no idea. How about home-grown fish in rural America? It is a unique idea for sure, but why not grow salmon, shrimp, tilapia all indoors in a clean safe environment and truck them fresh to the grocery store?

A high percentage of Americans are obese, have diabetes, heart disease, or cancer. Much of that can be changed with our diets. Just eat five to seven servings of fruits and vegetables a day. But access to affordable produce is tough. It is cheaper to eat a box of macaroni and cheese with a hamburger than eating your required fruit and vegetable servings. So how to make it easier, more affordable, and more accessible? What about vertical farming? Nutritious fresh produce delivered that is grown hydroponically right to the market is wonderful – especially in the wintertime. This is a new and expanding industry that grows lettuce and other produce year-round?

We can reinvigorate rural America – places where traditional manufacturing and industry have abandoned our towns and counties – but we can only do this by being open to new and innovative ways of doing old things…— it starts not with governments or industries but us – people just like you…

It will take pioneers – friendly and courteous and educated and helping one another along the way…you can be today’s pioneers. You don’t have to be Elon Musk or Richard Branson.

Millions of Americans have gone before you and done it. They were not all wealthy. Most had no connections and had left behind everything they knew – think of Dave Albert’s ancestors. Scouts, you can create your own legacy of making the world a better place. That is the definition of a good life and what all people of character strive for.

Thank you all for your time tonight.

Getting nutrition info from social media? Think again…


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Food Trends on Social Media

Social media is a space for finding trends: music, videos, life hacks, fashion, food. On Instagram, there are over 3 million posts containing #avocado, 1.7 million with #kale, and over 1 million with #quinoa. Just a few years ago, we had never even heard of some of these, let alone labeled them as healthy, trendy, or superfoods.

Pinterest’s “food and drink” category has long been a hotspot for millions of popular recipes, videos, and photos. Facebook and Twitter, of course, contribute their fair share as well, escalating the White Claw viral craze in 2019 that led to a national shortage, and also the Twitter feud between Popeyes and Chick-fil-A.

More recently, the feta pasta recipe craze on Tik Tok led to empty feta shelves at grocery stores. And these are just a couple of examples that demonstrate the power of social media on our food distribution systems.

Now, if social media can do all this with food, imagine what they can do to our minds. With an overabundance of information on nutrition, health, and food all in one place displayed in fun and memorable ways, it’s no surprise that more people are getting their health information from social media than ever before.

Viral Nutritional (Mis)information

What’s worrisome is that social media can also spread information on nutrition just as fast as it causes disruptions in the food supply chain. I noticed it first-hand when I couldn’t find feta at my local supermarket during the height of the TikTok’s pasta craze.

Since the start of COVID-19, many users have been taking to Tik Tok to share what they eat and why and encourage others to do the same. For example, keto and low-carb are two huge trends on social media right now. Eating in a calorie deficit, meaning eating fewer calories than what you’re burning off in a given day, is another.

Almost every other video I see in my feed pertains to one of these categories (I take partial blame because clearly, the algorithm knows what videos I stay on). And while I know my body needs both carbs and calories, some people don’t understand that, and they could easily take to the wrong diet.

Many registered nutritionists and dietitians also have accounts on these platforms, intending to inform users of what’s true and not. One account, @NutritionalSarah, drives home the research behind a well-balanced diet and even answers questions her followers have on food. She follows more of an intuitive-eating diet, meaning she feeds her body what it wants without counting calories or macro and micro-nutrients.

Is This Filling the Education Gap?

A report released in July 2020 from Tufts University’s Federal Nutrition Research Advisory Group said that one of the reasons we are facing a health crisis in America is because there’s a lack of education on nutrition. There are two reasons for this. First, there are so many diet trends popping up that it’s hard to keep track of what’s right and wrong. Should I start Keto or Paleo? Should I start eating vegan? Should I only eat plant-based? The list goes on and on.  Second, there’s no governing unit at the federal level to oversee what research is being done and how to get the science to consumers.

Experts at Mintel say that health was the top priority of many Americans in 2020. It led to an increase in demand for nutritious food and drinks as many wanted to strengthen their immune systems in the wake of COVID-19. And, Mintel states, the demand for educational food facts is predicted to continue growing over the next couple of years.

Since the beginning of Covid, many of us actively seek out legitimate health information to increase overall health and well-being during this stressful time. But how can we be sure our sources of information and inspiration are valid, and not just fluff or, even worse, flat-out dangerous to our health?

The “Influencer-Turned-Nutritionist”

Many of the people online who influence our diets and the foods we eat are not nutritionists or doctors. Social media platforms, especially Instagram and Tik Tok, are dominated by celebrity influencers or just attractive people who steer others toward specific trends, foods, clothes, and more.

These influencers post more “nutrition” information than ever before, including promoting specific diets, foods, and drinks to their followers without providing fact-based information. Many of them are paid by partners and sponsors to post positively about products. For example, the Kardashians are paid by Fit Tea to say they drink the tea every day to achieve their desired figure.

But sometimes nutrition misinformation is not entirely the influencer’s fault. Their followers crave a role model to follow, especially for what they eat every day. Are you plant-based? Do you consume dairy? And should I follow the same diet?

As we learned from Jack Bobo, our brain has a strong tendency to take in selective evidence to confirm our existing beliefs. This is called confirmation bias. Also, we are bombarded with information that is both confusing and fearful. Jack Bobo also points out that when it comes time to make a decision, our brain is in overload and takes the easiest path possible to decide.

Especially for those who are easily influenced, copying others on social media is the same as mimicking whatever the popular girl did in school. Just as we thought she had it all figured out, we believe the same of influencers. Finally, it’s hard to know the difference between someone who studied the subject and someone who did not.

Examining Influencers in the Nutrition Realm

Here are some of the internet’s most popular influencers-turned-nutritionists:

When perusing your next social media feed that may or may not have one of these influencers, practice good research skills to avoid falling down a hole of social media information. Want some tips to help on your fact-finding journey? Scroll further down…

  1. Janelle Rohner – Janelle is both Instagram and Tik Tok-famous, with over 4 million followers. At first, she was your one-stop shop for all things keto. But now, she is gaining fame through much more. Recently, she’s promoted swapping every carb with bell peppers. And she also eats cucumbers dipped in Stevia instead of watermelon.
  2. The Kardashians – I know we already mentioned them before, but it’s worth doing so again because they’re paid to promote many different “nutrition” remedies. Not only were they paid to sell Fit Tea, promising to make women skinny by just drinking a cup a day, but they also endorsed “diet lollipops” that stopped you from being hungry.
  3. Gwyneth Paltrow – Gwyneth Paltrow has been on everyone’s radars the last few years. As the creator of GOOP and a well-known celebrity, it’s no surprise that she’s come forward as an active nutrition influencer online, as well. She promoted “intuitive fasting”, two diet methods that totally contradict each other. Intuitive eating is about listening to your body when it tells you you’re hungry by promoting mindfulness, while intermittent fasting requires consuming your daily caloric intake within a specified amount of time. For example, consuming your meals within eight hours during the day.
  4. Katie Price – Katie Price gained her fame from both reality TV and modeling. She faced backlash for similar reasons to Kim Kardashian. Price promoted an appetite suppressant on her Instagram page to over 2 million followers. The advertisement was for a weight-loss shot by BoomBod.
  5. Miranda Kerr – Miranda Kerr, Victoria’s Secret model and Founder & CEO of KORA Organics, has over 12 million followers on Instagram. She was one of the biggest promoters of the celery juice cleanse. The cleanse claimed to transform your health in just one week by drinking 16 ounces of raw celery juice every morning on an empty stomach.

Navigating Nutrition Advice for Credible Sources

If something sounds too good to be true (“just buy my product and the weight will melt off!”) or counter-intuitive, it’s time to dig deeper. The first step is to see if any peer-reviewed studies back what you heard. This can be done easily by going to Google Scholar and typing in a topic. The best studies are peer-reviewed and cited multiple times by others.

You can also find credible information on university websites, for example, Harvard Health. You can check to see if the person has any partnerships or sponsors, meaning they may be paid for promoting specific products. For more tips on how to decipher good science from bad, click here.

And finally, to find out what works best for you, please talk to your doctor before making any significant dietary changes.

Keeping Score on Biden’s Ag Initiatives

It’s been a hectic half-year for Congress and the new Biden Administration, with enormous amounts of time and energy devoted to dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic, the largest economic stimulus bill ever passed, the infamous January 6 attack on the Capitol, comprehensive infrastructure legislation, and more.

But behind the scenes of these high-profile issues, what has been done related to our food and agricultural system? What does the scorecard show for efforts to fulfill the promises and pledges made during the 2020 campaign for farmers and ranchers and everyone else along the chain from dirt to dinner?

Want to jump ahead to a particular issue? Click on one of the following initiatives:

Climate Change    Rural Economic Revitalization    Equity & Social Justice    Trade    Labor    Consolidation & Competition

Crop Programs and Disaster Assistance

The campaign theme:

A greater role for government in helping all farmers and ranchers, especially during difficult times and circumstances

Both the Biden Administration and Congress have focused on providing disaster relief for farmers and ranchers plagued by drought and severe weather events. Updates to long-standing crop programs in the 2018 Farm Bill allowed legislators and administrators to focus on expanding many of the economic protections available to producers.

The Department of Agriculture has relaxed some bureaucratic requirements, eased some terms and conditions, and expanded funding where possible for a variety of disaster programs, including crop insurance.

Before leaving town for the August recess, the House Agriculture Committee voted to add $8.5 billion in disaster aid for 2020 and 2021 disasters through the Wildfire Hurricane Indemnity Program (WHIP). In the Senate, bipartisan legislation has been introduced to allow early haying under the Conservation Reserve Program. Another bill before the Senate Agriculture Committee would offer loan forgiveness and other economic aid for producers.

Compared to the trillions of dollars and weeks of negotiation represented in Covid and infrastructure initiatives, it may not sound like all that much. But to rural America, it’s a significant potential for help.

Overall: ???? ???? ????

Both Congress and the Administration have made help for producers amid exceptional weather circumstances a top priority – perhaps consuming a portion of the political energy needed to fulfill other campaign pledges and priorities. Much more remains to be done to finalize some legislative initiatives, but the often-slow wheels of the legislative process are in motion.

Back to top

Climate Change

The campaign theme:

U.S. agriculture has a major role to play in dealing with global climate change, and it’s time for our food and agricultural policies and programs to take on a more aggressive role in tackling the problem

With many U.S. farmers and ranchers facing extreme conditions right now, climate change policies seem to have taken a bit of a back seat to emergency relief efforts. But the broad issue of climate change – and in particular the farm sector’s role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions – remains an active interest in the Biden Administration and on Capitol Hill.

Perhaps most significantly, the Senate voted 92-8 to pass the Growing Climate Solutions Act, authorizing the Department of Agriculture to establish a Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Technical Assistance Provider and Third-Party Verifier Certification Program. That’s a long-winded name for a critical first step: to create a marketplace for environmental credits for farmers and others willing to engage in sustainable land-use practices that advance climate-change goals. Similar legislation is pending in the House of Representatives, with 50 bipartisan co-sponsors.

Overall: ???? ????

Talk is cheap, especially in the heat of a political campaign, but passage of the Senate bill represents a concrete first step in transforming talk into action. Attention now shifts to the House for completion of the job.

The White House, meanwhile, continues to focus on non-ag accomplishments through executive orders and presidential memoranda, such as rejoining the Paris Climate Accords and canceling the Keystone XL pipeline, as well as the appointment of a Presidential Envoy for Climate and creation of an Office of Climate Change Support within the State Department.

Back to top

Rural Economic Revitalization

The campaign theme:

Make the federal government a more active partner in a comprehensive effort to revitalize the rural economy

The promise to help rural communities is nothing new to American politics. But the sheer breadth of the Biden Administration’s proposed actions is noteworthy nonetheless and includes a vast array of initiatives, such as:

  • Added funding for credit in promoting new and growing businesses in rural areas, delivered equitably
  • Extended broadband and wireless access
  • More primary health providers and money for health centers
  • Additional emphasis on renewable energy and green energy jobs
  • Improvements to infrastructure and transportation
  • Expanded conservation programs
  • Better access to healthy foods

It all sounds great. But how is it all delivered? It begins with more funding for existing programs and a different mindset among those charged with administering them.

But the real accomplishment since Inauguration Day in this area undoubtedly is the development of a massive bipartisan infrastructure deal – a 2,702-page piece of legislation spending roughly one trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000.00…that’s a lot of zeroes). The massive bill still requires extensive additional Congressional attention before going to President Biden for signature. But the bipartisan agreement is a huge political achievement.

The White House calls it “a generational investment in rural America.” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack notes the far-reaching effects of the bill on rural areas, including roads, bridges, wastewater systems, broadband expansion, telemedicine and tele-education, power system improvements, environmental clean-up, rail expansion, and many of the other areas touched upon during the 2020 campaign.

Overall: ???? ???? ???? ????

Politics aside, this agreement represents an enormous commitment to improvements across America, and nowhere more so than rural America. The details of how this massive piece of legislation is enacted remain to be seen. But its intent is clear: invest in America, nowhere more so than our rural areas.

Back to top

Equity and Social Justice

The campaign theme:

Past farm policies and programs too often have been skewed to the disadvantage of certain groups, notably minority farmers and smaller operators. Social justice demands a new, more equitable approach – and remediation of past injustices.

Both the Biden Administration and the Congressional agriculture committees have made this subject a centerpiece of hearings and public outreach efforts. But the flagship initiative in fulfilling this promise has been an element of the American Rescue Plan enacted in March in response to the Covid pandemic.

The $1.9-trillion Plan includes a $4 billion fund for debt-relief payments for “socially disadvantaged” farmers. This includes Black, Hispanic, American Indian and Asian American farmers who are deemed to have been discriminated against in past farm programs and policies, representing roughly 3.3 percent of U.S. food producers, according to the 2017 Census. Additionally, another $1 billion would go for education, training, outreach programs, grants and loans helping improve land access for disadvantaged farmers.

Initial payments for roughly 13,000 qualifying farmers were scheduled to go out this summer. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack notes the payments will cover the entirety of outstanding loans, plus an additional 20 percent of the loan as a cash payment to deal with the tax consequences of the loan forgiveness. Legal challenges in federal court alleging discrimination are pending, and several banks have expressed concern over the damages they might face as a result of early loan pay-offs.

Overall: ???? ???? ????

If spending is any measure of success in fulfilling a campaign pledge, this subject earns several thumbs up. What remains to be seen is the effectiveness of the effort in expanding the number of minority farmers from the present levels.

Back to top

Trade

The campaign theme:

Trade is critical to the economic interests of U.S. farmers, ranchers, and consumers. It’s time to stop the combative, go-it-alone approach we’ve used in recent years and get back to a more collaborative, less confrontational approach that will expand our trade opportunities.

The elephant in the room for this campaign promise obviously was trade relations with China, our largest foreign customer for U.S. food and agricultural products, and the most important player in international trade. A new Administration and a new Congressional leadership favored a strong focus on rebuilding relations with China; not through overt confrontation, but traditional diplomacy.

But a strange thing happened on the way to the promised bright future. Relations with China have remained frosty. Tensions over human rights, cyberpiracy, intellectual property rights, military aggressiveness, and a host of other issues made it difficult to define what a ‘traditional diplomatic approach’ actually means. After six months, we’re still waiting to see the comprehensive strategy for U.S.-China relations promised by the Biden Administration.

Instead, we see aggressive actions to re-introduce the United States as an active participant in various international organizations and initiatives. The United States rejoined the Paris Climate Accord and has promoted extensive engagement in international Covid relief and vaccination efforts. Reduced or ended military commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq also have been major areas of international focus.

Not by accident, the Biden Administration launched efforts to work with Capitol Hill in promoting expanded trade with Africa, where China has become the continent’s leading trade partner and leading lending source.

Overall: ????

Fulfilling this campaign pledge remains very much incomplete. Until the promised review of the long-term U.S. strategy for relations with China is completed, let’s hope the pragmatic approach taken by both sides on agricultural trade continues. China needs the food we produce, and our farmers and ranchers deserve the economic returns that the Chinese market offers.

Back to top

Labor

The campaign theme:

Farmers and ranchers increasingly have problems finding enough workers. We need a comprehensive approach to the problem that promotes a bigger pool of qualified labor and clarifies the role of migrant laborers.

Purdue University’s AGBarometer captures the problem very effectively. Roughly two-thirds of farmers responding to their survey said they face “some” or “a lot of difficulty” in hiring adequate labor. That’s up from less than a third of respondents the previous year. To add to the problem, the inability to find enough help extends beyond the farm gate all the way to restaurants, food retailers, farm equipment mechanics, truck drivers – and more.

The reasons behind the difficulty run the gamut. Historically low wages and government pandemic assistance that sometimes pays more to stay at home than to work. Uncertainty over changing approaches to immigration policies and practices, and requirements for the green cards needed by non-US citizens.

More attractive off-farm job opportunities, especially as the post-Covid economy recovers. Even simple fear of the Covid virus.

So far in 2021, most attention has focused on the controversial situation at America’s southern border and the Biden Administration’s proposed immigration legislation, which would allow large numbers of those living illegally in the United States to have green-card status and subsequently gain citizenship. However, that legislation does not deal with the issue of “guest workers” and permission to stay for extended periods.

Overall: ????

Given the focus on Covid relief and infrastructure, both Congress and the Biden Administration may be extended some forgiveness for apparently making this a back-burner issue. But it remains an important problem not just for farmers and ranchers but also for the entire food chain – and arguably our entire economy.

Back to top

Consolidation and Competition

The campaign theme:

More needs to be done to protect the little guy in our economic system, and that means a more aggressive approach to dealing with food industry consolidation and competition

The more liberal elements of the Biden Administration make no secret of their suspicion of organizations that grow to become what they consider “too big and too powerful.” That attitude prompted a promise to take a much tougher line on bigger mergers and acquisitions, as well as levels of competition.

So it came as no surprise President Biden in June issued a far-reaching executive order with 72 initiatives by more than a dozen federal agencies to take on “pressing competition problems across our economy.” Enforcement efforts should focus on the labor markets, agricultural markets, healthcare markets, and the tech sector, he instructed.

One of the primary anticipated targets of this order is expected to be the U.S. meat industry, notably the meat processing industry. Legislators on Capitol Hill joined the fray by calling for a special investigator at the Department of Agriculture to look into antitrust issues in the industry.

Overall: ???? ????

Once again in politics, if the objective is to generate headlines and gain attention, 2021 has been a good year in fulfilling this particular campaign pledge. But it remains far less certain where the effort will actually lead.

Consolidation and growth have been hallmarks of the food and agriculture sector for decades, and the meat industry has been a prime target for critics alleging a lack of producer power in the buyer-seller relationship. Until we see some concrete actions, this must remain a promise in progress.

Is Liquid Chlorophyll Beneficial or Just a TikTok Craze?


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Users of the platform are now adding drops of chlorophyll to their water every day to clear up their skin, reduce bloating, and lose weight.

Are there more benefits? Should we all be hopping on the liquid chlorophyll bandwagon, or is this just another self-improvement lark with no scientific evidence?

We depend on food to get nutrients, and it’s best to get nutrients from whole foods. However, supplements like probiotics, EPA/DHA, and zinc, can help fill the void if we don’t get the right minerals and vitamins from whole foods.

But it’s hard to know when we’re putting too much trust in a green-water supplement that’s not backed by any reputable organization. So let’s start with the basics.

What is Chlorophyll?

Chlorophyll is a natural pigment found in plants that give vegetables, like spinach and other leafy greens, their green color. But more importantly, chlorophyll is essential for plant life. It’s a vital part of photosynthesis because it helps plants absorb energy from the sun and keeps plants healthy as they grow. Almost every growing plant you see in nature has chlorophyll in it.

There are four types of chlorophyll: chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, chlorophyll c, and chlorophyll d. The two that concern us are chlorophyll a and b.

Chlorophyll is a pigment, but the substance humans consume from chlorophyll is called chlorophyllin. Chlorophyllin is a semi-synthetic blend of sodium copper salts that comes from chlorophyll. One difference between the two is that chlorophyll has magnesium, but with chlorophyllin, the magnesium is replaced with copper and the phytol hydrocarbon tail disappears. Another difference is that chlorophyllin is water-soluble, making it easier for the body to absorb the chlorophyll and obtain its benefits.

In supplement form, chlorophyll is sold as a liquid that can be added to water, as a powder, as vitamins, and as Chlorophyll Water, a drink also containing vitamins A, B12, C, and D. It’s sold at most stores that sell supplements and also online.

These are some examples of different chlorophyll supplements online. You can see one supplement is chlorella. Chlorella is a type of single-celled, fresh-water algae that contains chlorophyll along with other antioxidants.

Is There Any Science Behind this Trend?

Unlike most viral diet trends, chlorophyll does have science behind it.

When it comes to skincare, studies have shown that a topical sodium copper chlorophyllin complex can reduce signs of aging and help reduce acne in women. However, some of the studies also had women use retinol, too, which may indicate that the combination of both may lead to better results.

Other studies show that, because of its antioxidant properties, consuming chlorophyll in vegetables may reduce the size of cancer cells and have anticancer effects. This is because the chlorophyll in both versions can “form tight molecular complexes with certain chemicals known or suspected to cause cancer,” according to the Micronutrient Information Center at Oregon State University. This binding can reduce the number of cancerous cells reaching vulnerable tissues.

Some studies even state that chlorophyll can reduce inflammation in the body. In a study on rats, chlorophyll a and pheophytin — a magnesium-free chlorophyll a combined from leaves — were highly effective at reducing inflammation.

Other chlorophyll studies have found antioxidant effects; specifically, it may reduce oxidative damage from carcinogens and radiation, aid in detoxification of carcinogens, and decrease chances of developing aflatoxin-associated liver cancer. Some people use chlorophyll therapeutically as an internal deodorant, especially in wound care, to slow bacteria growth in wound healing. Wheatgrass has even been shown to help in blood transfusions, ulcer healing, liver detoxing, and preventing tooth decay.

So How Much Should I Be Consuming?

Currently, the FDA states that people 12 years and older can take 300 milligrams of chlorophyll a day. To put it in perspective, we are supposed to eat four servings of leafy green vegetables a day. That amounts to about 30 milligrams, depending on the plant. Spinach is especially high in chlorophyll, with about 24 milligrams per one-cup serving. Parsley follows close behind with 19 milligrams per serving. This leaves space for extra chlorophyll from a supplement, if you desire.

Now, this doesn’t mean we should go crazy on the chlorophyll. Too much of anything isn’t good. And while supplements can help us get the nutrients we don’t get from food, taking too much of any particular supplement can harm you, according to Harvard Health. In general, the effects of too much chlorophyll are minor and include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and skin rash or irritation when used as a topical solution.

Which Supplement Should I Buy?

Choosing the right chlorophyll supplement for you should start with a conversation with your doctor. Even though the FDA says we can consume 300 milligrams of chlorophyll a day, it’s good to talk with your doctor to find out if you should be consuming that much. If you eat lots of green veggies, you may not need any. Your doctor will be able to tell you which supplement and dosage are best for your lifestyle.

While liquid chlorophyll and other chlorophyllin supplements can be great for those not getting enough of the nutrient in whole foods, it’s healthier to increase the amount of veggies eaten than to take a supplement.

According to Harvard Health and several studies, all nutrients are most potent and best absorbed when they come from whole foods, not supplements. Also, any foods we eat that contain chlorophyll also have numerous other nutrients that our bodies need. This is why it’s critical to consume a variety of fruits and veggies every day and why most nutritionists recommend eating 5-7 servings. Each vegetable contains different nutrients that our bodies use for different functions and that feed different microbiome in the gut. This will ultimately benefit your immune system and overall health.

So, if you want to up your chlorophyll intake, consider altering your diet to include more veggies before running to the supplement aisle of the grocery store. Here are some chlorophyll-dense foods you can add to your diet:

5 Things ‘Seaspiracy’ taught me about Seafood


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

As native Bostonians, my husband and I instinctively demand seafood in our diet. When planning a visit with our family in coastal New England, the first two things on the to-do list are placing an uncomfortably large order with the local lobster pound and buying up all the unsalted butter at the grocery store. It gets intense, to say the least: the array of surgical-looking utensils, wet naps strewn all over the table, and those silly-but-necessary lobster bibs. But we feel comfortable in our consumption, knowing it’s all locally sourced and sustainably caught. And that our cholesterol levels are reasonably low.

So when our marketing director, Hayley, asked if I had seen the Netflix documentary, Seaspiracy, I guffawed and got a sudden pang for a buttered lobster roll. But then I started recalling my previous blindspots in our global food system and the deeply unsettling opacity of the seafood industry.

For instance, only 10-20% of the seafood we consume in the U.S. is sourced from here, leading to cases in which purveyors don’t even know the source, let alone the type of fish sold to us. So with that fundamental knowledge (and echoes of recent headlines questioning the main ingredient in  Subway’s tuna salad), I sat down and prepared myself for the incoming deluge of information.

Illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing practices contribute to the mislabeling of seafood, as well as many other prohibited activities that Seaspiracy identifies throughout the film.

Seaspiracy Journey

The producers of Seaspiracy know how to create a compelling journey; after all, Kip Andersen and Jim Greenbaum also produced the very dramatic, very anti-meat documentaries, Cowspiracy and What the Health.

Knowing this, I assumed my reasonably rational thinking and iron-clad stomach would pull me through. But, disappointingly, I definitely grew queasy during some of the really brutal scenes, which then triggered my anger at human nature to pollute with such wild abandon. These filmmakers know what they’re doing, that’s for sure.

I then tried to see the larger picture of the story. Despite the obfuscated facts and pro-vegan sentiment that concludes each of their films, it still brings a lot of frightening but necessary issues to light.

“Even if it’s chocked full of lies and half-truths, maybe [Seaspiracy] is still good overall if it introduces people to ocean issues and inspires a desire to make a difference.”

– Liz Allen, marine sustainability writer at Forbes

But does that mean we must throw the delicious, soft-shell chick lobsters out with the bathwater? I would still like to eat seafood, after all. Just maybe not yet.

Diving back in

To help me get back on the seafood track, I merged some of the broader points made in the film and some of the concepts we practice here at Dirt to Dinner to find a simple yet strategic way to improve my selection of sustainably sourced and responsibly managed seafood. Below are five key rules.

Rule #1: Farmed fish can be the most sustainable seafood

Despite common misconceptions (including my own), farmed fish that’s sustainably managed is the most cost-effective and planet-conscious choice. How else can you be 100% certain that the fish you’re paying for is actually what you think it is. For wild-caught, it could be flounder bottom-trawled off the coast of Southern Asia and not the $30/lb halibut from Norway.

Since farms facilitate the entire lifecycle development, filtration systems, and production management, farmed seafood offers an unparalleled level of transparency compared to wild-caught seafood, making consumer research much more accessible.

Are you still feeling meh about aquaculture? When you zoom out on the fish-farming landscape, aquaculture is the same practice as livestock management for cattle, sheep, chickens, etc. Don’t forget that modern ag practices have guaranteed incredibly safe, fresh, and affordable food on our tables for decades.

Rule #2: Where your seafood is raised or caught matters

Just like buying your beef, lamb, and chicken, it matters which regulatory food system is involved. But trying to find a nice, tidy little crib sheet of countries with the most stringent sustainability and safety guidelines is like seeking out the elusive Mid-Atlantic blue lobster.

Though the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has done an incredible job defining various codes of conduct for sustainable fisheries all over the world and is highly regarded by many countries, I had a hard time finding any detailed data that I could play around with on their site.

My data source target then turned to Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch project.

This resource is impressive – it offers highly specific recommendations for sustainable seafood and is very transparent. I used their search function to see the most consumed seafood in the U.S., like shrimp, salmon, albacore tuna, and tilapia. The regions most often cited as offering the “best choice” in terms of sustainability among these kinds of seafood are the U.S. & Canada, Europe, New Zealand, and Japan.

But it’s important to note that more countries are following suit, like Australia, Chile, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Mexico, Namibia, and Palau. These countries will end harmful subsidies contributing to overfishing by 2025 as part of their sustainability initiative.

Rule #3: Labels can be an easy way to dress up a questionable product

I expect the producers of Seaspiracy and the Dirt to Dinner team to agree on this rule wholeheartedly: non-government-issued third-party verification package labels displaying a qualified, certified, or recommended product are generally garbage.

Unless you see a government department on the label from reputable countries with sustainable seafood practices and accompanied with some sort of grade or indication (think USDA “Choice” or “Prime” beef; USDA “Organic” products), focus on rules 1 and 2.

At best, labels allow non-government organizations (NGOs) to “certify” products to the degree they feel necessary. The organization then gets paid royalties by a food producer to apply the NGO’s label on their products. But at their worst, they can prey on our most basic survival instincts of fear and mistrust to manipulate us toward their often-obscured agenda. And I believe some organizations with these highly visible labels, like the Non-GMO Project and MSC, lie somewhere deep within that spectrum.

Rule #4: When in a rush, buy your seafood from highly reputable stores with not-too-cheap prices

First things first: I genuinely believe any decent grocer with U.S.-farmed seafood will have sustainably-produced fish that’s fresh and safe.

The trouble is, it’s not always easy to find. Our demand is low for U.S.-specific farmed fish, and it’s often a little more expensive than its potentially questionably-sourced counterpart, which really stinks because the U.S. is a global leader in sustainable and responsibly managed fisheries.

So I was disheartened to read the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA)’s assessment that U.S. production only accounts for $1 billion in a $100-billion global aquaculture market. Hungry for more market data? Please check out their site – it’s surprisingly easy-to-read and fact-heavy.

But as far as retailers are concerned, it appears that Whole Foods, Hy-Vee, Aldi, and Target are all great picks. These stores have seafood procurement departments that only purchase from sustainably caught or raised fisheries that are also responsibly managed.

There are some great home-delivery seafood options, too, like Crowd Cow. We really like the information they provide on where and how their fish are caught, and your selections arrive at your doorstep within a couple of days. Give online retailers like this a try by checking out how transparent they are with their sourcing and supply chain.

Rule #5: For wild-caught, dive deeper into your research…and wallet

Still want to stick with wild-caught fish? That’s ok! But you’re gonna have to check out a few more things and pony up a little more dough if sustainability is important to you.

Basically, nothing compares to wild-caught Alaskan seafood. Period. Producers feel incredibly responsible for maintaining their unique and pristine marine life, so everything is carefully managed to limit overfishing and bycatch. But this will affect your food budget, so prepare accordingly. And, again, if you stick with those aforementioned countries, you’re on the right path.

Another consideration is how the fish is caught, which you can better understand with the Seafood Watch site. It lists a bunch of reasons why it’s essential to be equally aware of seafood capture practices as country of origin. So try to stick with fish caught with handlines, pole-and-lines, midwater trawls, and trolling lines. And don’t buy seafloor captures, like trawls, seines, and dredges. Gillnets can be dangerous to local marine life, too.

Some quick dining and takeout rules

Need some time for research but craving shrimp pad thai tonight? Consider these tips:

  • Do your research about the meat & seafood philosophy of the restaurant and its holding company before you leave the house. This may help reduce awkward staredowns with your waitperson.
  • Feel free to ask questions that are important to you, like if they sell sustainable seafood, if it’s farmed or wild-caught, and which country it’s from. If the waitperson doesn’t know, ask them to check with the chef. If the chef doesn’t know, order the burger.
  • Are you a sushi lover who’s curious about sustainable yellowfin tuna? Or only interested in fish locally caught in the South? Seafood Watch has a guide for you. Seriously, this site has almost everything you need to make informed decisions about what you eat.

How we can create demand for responsibly managed fisheries

Yes, government and academic sources are great for a particular industry. But if you’re eager to find a company you feel you can stand behind, ask your local fish market where they buy their seafood from. And then check out the producer’s site. The more information the site has, the better.

And if you really like a tilapia that’s caught in a country not listed here, that’s fine! Fisheries aren’t inherently “good” or “bad” based on overgeneralized criteria – those are for finding our way initially. As with most things ag-related, it depends on the producer and their practices, so more reason for research.

And, if you’re open to it and it’s available, please give U.S. aquaculture a shot. We need to drive demand for responsible seafood by standing behind products that do just that. It’ll help drive down food waste, transportation costs, carbon emissions, and unfair labor practices while supporting supply chain transparency, marine biodiversity, and future generations to fully reap the benefits of our waters.

Drought: The “Hidden Global Crisis”


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

How widespread is the drought problem?

Drought conditions have been reported around the world, often involving some of the major agricultural producing nations.

In the United States, drought remains a very serious issue across much of the Western States and large portions of the Northern Plains and Upper Midwest, including important production regions for wheat, feed grains, and oilseeds. California agricultural growing areas—including key centers for production of fruits, vegetables, and dairy — have been experiencing drought conditions described as “extreme” and “exceptional.” Conditions in the North and Southeast also are described as “moderate drought.”

Prolonged drought in these areas can have a significant effect on overall U.S. food supplies. California, for example, provides one-quarter of our total U.S. food supply. The Golden State is the nation’s largest dairy producer and grows as much as 80 percent of all the fruits and vegetables produced in the United States. North Dakota farmers provide more than half of all U.S, durum and spring wheat, key components of pasta and bread.

In contrast, conditions across much of the Midwest, South, and other portions of the country are generally in good shape for moisture.

Seriously dry conditions have steadily expanded across South America since at least 2018, moving from key areas in Brazil to include parts of Paraguay, Bolivia, and Argentina.

Regional and local droughts also have plagued major crop production areas in Australia, Ukraine, and parts of Africa and Asia in recent years.

The mixed bag of conditions has farmers and others across the agricultural sector keeping a close eye on weather patterns. Timely rains during the growing season can help make up for the early lack of moisture to some degree. At present, forecasts call for another good year of overall food production. But as with any “average” assessment, the forecasts mask the severity of potential damage to the most hard-hit areas.

What are the causes of drought?

The debate over climate change has produced some widely divergent points of view about the causes of drought and extreme weather conditions in general. Most experts tend to agree that the reasons most likely involve a combination of natural and man-made causes. But opinions vary on the relative importance of each set of factors.

What influences weather patterns?

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) cites a variety of contributing factors:

  • Uneven heating and atmospheric pressure close to the earth’s surface cause global winds. These winds then push around large air masses, which meet and collide to create storms or clear skies.
  • In the atmosphere, jet streams send weather systems, heat, and moisture around the globe.
  • El Nino and La Nina are significant factors for temperature, rainfall, air pressure, atmospheric and ocean circulation that influence each other
  • Variations in the location and size of the ozone layer

Climate activists, in particular, are quick to note the importance of human behavior in creating water issues. Reducing fossil fuel use, employing more aggressive water conservation and water-use practices, curtailing agricultural practices that require intensive use of water, protecting water supplies from contamination and other practices are major goals. Whether such efforts deal with the causes of climate change and drought or merely its symptoms, continue to be debated.

What effects will drought have on our food system and our families?

Drought affects both crop and livestock production, obviously. Dealing with the problem poses different sets of problems and issues for both.

Livestock producers can reduce herds and flocks or bring in water supplies to deal with temporary needs. Bigger issues emerge for them when drought limits their ability to grow their own feed stocks.

Of equal concern, drought harms crop yields. That means we have less food from the land in production. Just watch the below clips of Western Growers interviewing farmers who had to abandon their crops due to drought conditions.

Joe Del Bosque, farmer, had to sacrifice his asparagus field due to drought conditions. As a result, 70 people lost their jobs. Click here to view an almond farmer and del Bosque’s melon farm. Source: Western Growers via YouTube.

The amount of reduction in food production can vary widely, depending on the severity of the dry conditions.

Academic studies show divergent projections of the effect of climate change on global food production. One study led by Cornell University estimated that global food productivity has been reduced by 21 percent by climate change. Other studies by USDA’s Economic Research Service project yield declines across corn, soybeans, sorghum, rice, oats, cotton, and silage as a result of climate change (and alterations to irrigation patterns that are driven by water concerns). The journal One Earth warns that forecast increases in global temperatures will alter rainfall patterns and shrink the globe’s food-productive areas by as much as a third.

Buried within what is likely a mish-mash of science, hyperbole, ideological bias, and sincere passion is a single obvious truth: the world faces changing climatological conditions that already are affecting our ability to produce the food the world needs. What we do in response will determine how significant the effect of drought and other possible manifestations of climate change will be on our long-term food security.

Are our prime growing areas changing?

Where drought occurs is a critical factor, too. When drought hits major production areas for cornerstone commodities – food grains, feed grains, or oilseeds, for example, the adverse effects are magnified across the entire global food system. Reduced supplies in the face of continuing strong demand result in higher prices, or even spot shortages. Smaller crops of fruits and vegetables can hit consumers harder and more quickly, especially if the normal distribution system that supplies products from distant sources has been disrupted.

Those sorts of traditional concerns regarding the effects of drought have been joined by rising concerns about climate change. Some scientists worry that an increase in the frequency, duration, and severity of drought conditions could signal a fundamental shift in climatic conditions and weather patterns.

If so, that would mean the areas of historically highest productivity – the prime growing areas of many crops – could be shifting, moving generally northwards in the Northern Hemisphere and southerly in the Southern Hemisphere. Imagine the heart of the American corn belt stretching from Ohio to the Dakotas moving north into Canada, or traditional southern crops like cotton and sorghum migrating north. Such new cropping patterns would mean a massive change in the structure and functioning of the current global food system.

What can be done?

The issue of drought – and the larger matter of climate change — won’t be resolved by any single action or practice but rather through a comprehensive long-term approach that touches on virtually every sector of our society. Remember, humans are resilient and innovative. We will adopt new solutions to address our changing climate.

But that doesn’t mean we can’t take immediate steps to deal with the issue of drought that has plagued humankind long before the term “climate change” was coined.

  • More attention to soil health. The use of cover crops reduced tillage, regenerative agriculture, and other practices that help make the soil “spongier” and better suited to the retention of moisture
  • Better conservation of water and water use techniques
  • Better use of technology to monitor and manage soil conditions
  • Continued development and use of drought-resistant seeds
  • Continued reliance on open trade is a critical tool in assuring a steady supply of the foods consumers want and need every day

What about us consumers?

Perhaps the most important role the consumer can play in dealing with drought and other climate-related problems is that of an active participant in our food system.

Consumers can recognize the up-and-down nature of food prices as a result of disruptions to normal food production patterns. Even with severe and pronounced drought in areas around the world, there is no shortage of food. Our food security is not at risk.

But we all have a role to play in assuring that we react positively to the possibility of longer-term changes to our food system, driven by climate issues. The days of profligate and extravagant use of water or other natural resources in our food system are gone – long gone. Farmers and others across the food chain are working hard to adapt to this new reality, and consumers can speed that process by demanding responsibly produced food products.

Look for food products that have been produced sustainably, using the techniques and tools available to us to make the best use of water and other natural resources. Speak up to food suppliers about it. Look for labels and other product information that makes the techniques and standards used in food production, manufacturing, and packaging more transparent. Your voice counts, so make it heard. Email us at connect@dirt-to-dinner.com!

The Protein Blues: Confessions of a Confirmed Carnivore


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

I love a good piece of beef. Maybe a steak on special occasions, or just a hamburger off the grill in the backyard. But I’ve also been known to chow down energetically on Mom’s Sunday pork roast, and I still say her fried chicken is the undisputed Food of the Gods. There are probably a few dried-out, half-gnawed chicken nuggets under the driver’s seat in my car, too.

Yup, I’m a carnivore. 

I’m also intelligent enough to see the merit in all the hoopla about meat and its role in health and the environment. I’m not what most folks would call a ‘woke’ kind of guy, but I’m not exactly ‘sleepy,’ either. I understand the importance of making smart choices about the proteins in my daily diet for my own good and that of the planet. I accept that moving forward, plant-based proteins – and plants in general – are likely to play a much larger role in the choices I make about what I eat. I find myself asking a lot more questions about the proteins I consume and where they should come from. I have choices to make.

Right off, I could choose to stop eating meat altogether. Ain’t gonna happen. 

It’s a personal choice. I like meat. It tastes good and gives me a happy, warm feeling and a sense of after-dinner contentment. It provides essential amino acids, some very difficult to find in plants, and satisfies many other nutritional needs.

It requires the use of environmental resources, sure, and like a lot of other things, has some carbon footprint.

But I’m far more inclined to look at those more as an investment than a cost, especially when I see the growing clamor for protein from meat by hungry and undernourished people around the world, not to mention the efforts being made across the animal production industry to better manage the use of resources.  

What’s more, I still struggle with the idea of where all this will end. The beef industry obviously is in the cross-hairs of a lot of people, and it’s already having an effect when profit-minded retailers and restaurants make marketing hay out of a very public decision to no longer sell or promote beef products. Pigs and chickens require water and feed and create environmental issues, too. Maybe not as much as cows, but there are a helluva lot more of them than there are cows on the planet.

Do we simply accept the logic of the argument and say animal protein’s day on the consumer’s plate is over?

To me, all of life has an environmental cost of some sort, animal and human alike. Our day-to-day lives are not perfectly aligned with the environment. For instance, most of us discard our mattresses after a couple of years – and doing so makes up 450 million pounds of waste a year. Since the beginning of Covid, we are all now addicted to hand-sanitizing gel that degrades slowly and accounts for 60% of all drugs in sewage and wastewater.

The question is the value created, measured against the price we pay. I’m happy to listen to all arguments and sides on the issue. I’ll consider your case. But I reserve the right to make my own choice – to find my own balance point in the debate. But my second option is much tougher…

Do I increase the non-animal portion of my caloric consumption? 

I can make vegetable-based and laboratory-produced protein products part of my personal menu. I’ve tried lab-grown meat products, as well as some produced solely from plants, all in the name of intellectual curiosity and discovery. Some of them were okay. I might eat more of them from time to time. But I just couldn’t shake the sense that I was eating something artificial, something more lab-based than nature-based. 

I know the science that supports the products, but I still have this ingrained sense that I like a real hamburger a lot more than chemically-manipulated grass or a burger fresh not from the grill but the petri dish.

Irrational in some way, probably. But very human.

The smart side of my brain says this is most likely the best course for me moving forward. But I still have a few mental hurdles to get over before I go all-in on this option. Remember, I still have nightmares from time to time about the movie Soylent Green, and whoever came up with the damning label “Frankenfood” is a stone-cold marketing genius for the anti-meat, anti-GMO, and anti-science crowds. Enough said about the psychology of the fear of food.

I didn’t blink at all when I read about the report at the elite World Economic Forum in Davos that cited weeds as a potentially significant source of food for a hungry world. I’d already seen promotions from various back-to-the-earth groups (and maybe a few survivalists) making the same point, some offering actually to sell me weed seeds, presumably, so I could get a head start on the trend and avoid having to scrounge on my own along roadsides, in ditches, and almost everywhere in my neighbor’s lawn.

I couldn’t help but think about all those hours I spent as a kid destroying this invaluable food source when my parents made me pull weeds from our backyard garden for hours on end, either to build my character or punish some filial sin or probably both. 

Maybe I think even bigger and go all European in my approach.

The European Union’s food regulatory agency recently issued approval to the use of mealworms in animal feed – and as a human food. Other parts of the world embraced insects as food long ago. Nothing says “oh, yum!” to me more than a heaping plate of grubs, maybe with a side of worms and a nice side salad of dandelions and other home-grown weeds.

In our childhood – age 14, actually – my younger brother once ate three worms on a dare, and we all know how that turned out. He still can’t do eights and nines in the multiplication tables. 

Going European also would make it easier to leap to the next level of protein management.

Why not just man up and go vegetarian or vegan?

Put aside a Pavlovian liking for meat that goes back to the Eisenhower Administration. What kind of plant-centric diet should I follow?

Start with the basics. Vegetarians consume some animal-derived food products, such as milk and eggs, and vegans don’t. But I’m not exactly au courant on the ins and outs of vegan eating, so let me do a quick search in cyberspace and see if that offers any helpful guidance.

Right out of the Google gate, there’s what’s called the Whole Food Vegan Diet. This diet allows me to eat fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, nuts, and seeds. The Raw Vegan Diet also seems to involve no animal products – I suppose meaning fruits, veggies, nuts, seeds, and so on, only not cooked. Except for some foods that are allowed to be cooked to 104 degrees, for some reason. One set of Raw Vegan devotees apparently follow the diet up till 4 p.m. every day. After that, I suppose, anything goes.

A so-called Gluten-Free Vegan Diet just adds gluten to the list of what not to eat. Next, my search engine gives me the Fruitarian Vegan Diet, in which I’m supposed to avoid plants and eat only fruits, nuts, and seeds. Except some Fruitarians also prohibit the consumption of seeds since they contain future plants. 

The Paleo Vegan Diet restricts me to the pure and unprocessed foods consumed by my Paleolithic ancestors. That would let me eat lots and lots of fresh vegetables, fresh fruit, seeds, and nuts, but no grains or legumes, since they weren’t around as food options for the Stone Age connoisseur. 

And a Freegan Diet permits consumption of processed vegan foods, including mock meats and vegan ice cream, whatever the hell that is.  

Now I don’t mean to disparage people who want to tailor their diets for health, environmental, religious, ethical, or other reasons.

But all I see in this search is a lot of “don’t eat this” and “don’t eat that,” at least at certain times or on specific days, and certainly never when Taurus the Bull is astrologically ascendant or some Kardashian hasn’t opined on the matter.

Try as I might, I suspect my efforts at plant-centric eating would leave me underfed, undernourished, and underwhelmed. 

Maybe I just avoid the whole subject with others…

…my friends, relatives, coworkers, church members, LinkedIn communities, Instagram and Twitter followers, neighbors, extended warranty salespeople, therapists, and anyone else I ever meet. If trapped into some comment on the subject, lapse into the double-talk and non-sequiturs I sometimes use to convey senility, or if absolutely necessary say all the politically correct things needed to get me out of the immediate pickle.  

I then retreat to my basement or my garage or my two-man tent in the backyard or my sofa-cushion fort in the rec room, where I surreptitiously chow down like the hungry dog I am on year-old frozen meatloaf, Slim Jims, Vienna sausages, Spam, BBQ chicken wings, and any other meat product I can hoard.

I join the growing legions of the Meat Underground, secure in my knowledge of the secret handshakes and high fives its members use to connect with like-minded but guilt-ridden meat junkies. There’s no 12-step program for us, so we just have to do the best we can, one day at a time.  

Maybe I just stop eating altogether.

My health plan is pretty good, so maybe I could simply opt for regular intravenous feedings of essential nutrients. That sounds like a pretty efficient, Spockian way to deal with the matter. 

I can’t face the final years of my life as a social pariah because I made the wrong choice about what kind of protein I consume. And it sure seems right now that any choice I make – short of not eating at all – is going to be morally offensive, irresponsible, perhaps sinful, environmentally callous, unscientific, irrational, politically charged, or just flat-out wrong to all the experts so eager to guide me to the truth on questions of food, nutrition, the environment, social responsibility, humanism, science, and morality.  

I just don’t know what to do. Other than, of course, grilling a hamburger while I ponder the matter further. And maybe a nice cold beer would help, too.

Let me get back to you on this one. 

7 Things to Know about Indoor Farming


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

I walk into my local grocery store, grab one of the wet wipes to sanitize my cart, and head to the produce section. I pick up some strawberries and raspberries for my smoothies; celery and carrots for my afternoon snacks; and some butter lettuce…but wait, where is the kale?

It takes me a moment to scan the area, wondering where they could have moved it, and then I see it: a glowing, light-filled series of shelves filled with greenery interspersed with dill and parsley and all kinds of other herbs – and they all appear to have their roots still intact.

As I take a closer look, I read the signs: 

“We believe your herbs should not have to travel more than you have” and “By keeping the roots on, we keep all the flavor and goodness” and “We’re growing herbs in-store using 95% less water.”

I pause for a moment, considering the other items already in my cart…

My carrots, celery, and butter lettuce don’t have the roots on them, and they have had to travel across many states to get in my cart.

Does that make them less nutritious? Or worse for the environment? Or less flavorful?

Infarm, the company behind the installation in the grocery store, combined indoor farming with the “internet of things” technologies — to create a controlled ecosystem with an optimal amount of light, air, and nutrients. While considered a vertical farm, this type of farm falls within the larger umbrella of a group of farming techniques called Controlled Environment Ag (CEA). This includes greenhouses, indoor farms, and vertical farms that apply a combination of engineering, plant science, and computer-managed technologies to optimize growing systems.

As it turns out, there is a lot to know about this field of farming…

1. You can grow almost anything using Controlled Environment Ag

Did you know that 90% of our U.S. retail grocery tomatoes are grown indoors? There are more tomatoes grown indoors than flowers! There’s been a remarkable shift from just 20 years ago when that number was closer to 5-10%. Indoor agriculture employs a series of hydroponic technologies to grow almost anything.

When I spoke with Joe Swartz, Vice President at American Hydroponics, he explained that:

“CEA can grow just about anything, the technology is there. You can grow a banana tree if you’d like, but you must look at it as a matter of economics. Leafy greens and produce like tomatoes are more prominent not because that is the only thing you can grow but because it allows you to maximize space. These are also crops that can be sold at a market premium, that consumers will pay more for, for higher quality — such as tomatoes.”

Leafy greens, however, are the real growth driver here. About 90% of our leafy greens are still grown in fields, but over the next few years, market trends suggest that we will see that number shift to CEA.

More than 21 million pounds of lettuce is consumed in the U.S. every day, and while the amount of lettuce we consume has not changed significantly in recent years, where it’s coming from will. This is said to be the most significant opportunity in the indoor growing space. As of 2020, that translates to about 74 acres of operational vertical farmland in the world. About 41,000 indoor farms exist in the U.S. alone, from large to small operations.

2. The location of greenhouses and indoor growing facilities is critical

Gotham Greens is a well-known greenhouse situated on a rooftop in Brooklyn. I never stopped to consider that the location was anything but an available space with sunlight. The truth is, a ton of strategic planning goes into indoor farming location selection. The key considerations are how best to use waste energy. Heat, wind, air conditioning, electricity — these are all vital components of any indoor farming operation.

Neal Parikh, former VP of Capital Markets and Corporate Development at BrightFarms Inc. and current Managing Member at Lattice Impact Partners, explained that tapping into alternative energies is paramount to cost savings and sustainable efforts.

For example, greenhouse farms like Gotham Greens can harness rainwater from rooftops to reuse for irrigation. CEA locations near landfills can make use of the waste methane – these types of locations are considered co-generation facilities, in other words, facilities nearby that generate an energy source that the indoor farm needs. Locations near factories can take advantage of the waste heat or CO2 that they need to farm. This carbon capture or carbon sequestration from neighboring businesses saves time, money, and energy while reducing labor.

Another consideration, as the Infarm ads I saw in the grocery store suggest, is that farmers want their production location to be as close to their distributors (or grocery stores) as possible, to cut down on complications caused by traveling long distances. As both Neal and Joe pointed out, certain crops must travel long distances to be affordable, but there is an opportunity in indoor farming to bring producers closer to the end customer. To feed a growing population, we must include all kinds of farming as options for consumers.

3. Food safety is a top priority

As we’ve all seen in the news from time to time, leafy greens are the most vulnerable to food safety issues. The latest E. coli outbreaks in romaine lettuce have still left some worry in our minds. This is because leafy greens are produced and processed in such mass quantities that it is often hard to trace an outbreak. In CEA, E. coli, for example, can be traced back to one batch of romaine to isolate the incident quickly and accurately. Additionally, indoor farming allows for variables like animal waste contamination to be controlled and eliminated.

Between Yuma, Arizona and the Salinas Valley in California, these areas produce over 98% of the lettuce grown in the U.S. What greenhouses and indoor farms can provide, and all CEA for that matter, is a detailed tracing and inventory system, which makes pinpointing a specific batch more manageable than any other method of farming.

The CEA industry also upholds a rigorous standard for food safety, regulated by the CEA Food Safety Coalition. One of the first standards they formalized was standards for leafy greens.

4. Helping with climate change and population growth

CEA addresses many of the same environmental impacts that conventional or organic farming is addressing—but takes it one step further. We know the population is growing and estimates say we will reach upwards of 10 billion by 2050. This type of growth causes an imbalance in food demand and supply. Indoor farmers believe (and we agree!) that we need to embrace all kinds of farming methods and technologies to feed our growing world.

Controlling climate variables is much easier indoors than outdoors. With the technology of indoor agriculture, farmers can customize the temperatures, light exposures, CO2 intake, and more, for each plant they grow. As discussed earlier, conserving natural resources and upcycling waste heat is another chief benefit of CEA.

5. There are many challenges associated with CEA

CEA is a double-edged sword. One of the biggest hurdles, and debatably the reason why the indoor ag space is not more prominent, is that the initial investments in space and technology are immense.

Global Indoor Farming Technology Market Trends

As Joe Swartz alluded to earlier, profitability is a concern when it comes to crop selection and what to grow. There must be enough demand for the crop that a consumer will pay a higher price for a plant grown with controlled inputs.

In addition to the steep initial investments, operating costs are also astronomical. Producing sunlight, oxygen, air conditioning, and water filtration systems are no small line items. These challenges not only make it arduous to start a CEA, but hinder profitability in the short term – and if not run efficiently – in the long term.

The consumer-facing debate is that CEA is not considered organic because it is not grown in soil, therefore they cannot label as such. Supporters of indoor organics say that organic food is more about pesticide use (or lack thereof) than being grown from soil. This debate continues, making it difficult to land on an enticing marketing strategy for foods grown indoors. (We say conventional, organic, or CEA – each option is nutritious and should be available for the consumer to choose from!)

6. There is no magic to indoor ag; it takes hard work, just like traditional farming

Just like row cropping, indoor ag requires the same inputs—air, nutrients, sunlight, CO2, water. Furthermore, the technical acumen required for these operations is steep. The difference is that these inputs are produced inside, artificially, rather than naturally.

This requires specialized machinery, multi-faceted hydroponic technologies, and smart picking and packing systems. The development and implementation of hardware and software can be likened to the occupational knowledge of farming equipment in the field. Labor is also needed, as it is with organic or conventional farming.

While the methods are different, the result is the same: safe, good-for-you foods.

7. Vertical farming is not a new concept 

Vertical farming—a thing of the future! Well, not exactly. Automated greenhouses actually started popping up in the 1980s. Millions of dollars were invested in large greenhouses in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. The technology was sold to the consumer as “by the 1990s, all of your food will be grown in a greenhouse mega farm!” Well, that never happened.

Robotic greenhouses and lettuce factories sprouted up thanks to a significant generation of public interest, which led to a fair degree of investment. Unfortunately, the technologies failed miserably. They were not market-ready, affordable products. This lack of demand led to closures. It took over 20 years to regain both consumer trust and substantial enough investments in the industry.

The good news is that technologies now exist to make vertical farming not only possible but economical.

Food Transparency Starts With Farming’s Digital Transition

man controlling drone flying above field

We are pleased to have Drew Slattery publish his article on Dirt to Dinner. Drew is the Human Dimensions of Change Lead for Farm Journal’s Trust In Food, where he applies human dimensions theory to empower agricultural producers in the U.S. to continuously improve their operations’ environmental, financial, and social outcomes. 

A lack of transparency into food production is one of the fastest-rising concerns among U.S. consumers. Plenty of people want to know they are buying food products that were ethically and sustainably produced – and for good reason. General Mills, Walmart, and McDonald’s are just a few of those companies whose sustainability reports are showing transparency in their supply chains.

But building this transparency from grocery store shelf to farmgate isn’t as easy as it sounds.

What you might not realize is that asking farmers for data about how they produce their harvest is akin to asking someone to show you their family’s detailed medical records. Would you be comfortable if your friends and neighbors had access to a detailed report on your health? Even if farmers are willing to open their record books, the supply chain systems that rely on agricultural products are incredibly complex, and that data can be lost along the way.

Enter: Agriculture’s digital transition.

By collecting data each season through digital tools and managing that data through a software platform, farmers are helping make transparency easier for the supply chain to achieve, all while improving the efficiency of the decision-making processes for their operation.

The companies involved are significant. As an example, Project Mineral, formerly Google X, has a robotic buggy that roams the fields capturing data to enhance farm productivity.

And John Deere has a field-sharing data management system to fully integrate equipment used for tilling, planting, and harvest.

And then there is Descartes Labs which has geospacing technology that consolidates information such as crop yields in certain parts of a country. And this is a very short list of companies in an ever-expanding industry.

Balancing Transparency With Privacy

Privacy is a major concern for the American farmer – and really, for the vast majority of all Americans. In Trust In Food’s most recent survey of farmer perspectives on this topic, 73% of respondents said they don’t trust private companies with data on their farm’s production while 58% don’t trust the government with this data.

Those perspectives closely mirror average Americans’ data concerns – in a 2019 study, for example, 79% of Americans expressed concerns over how companies use their data, while 64% expressed concern over government use of data.

In many farmers’ eyes, the details of how they manage the production on their farms is private. Trust In Food’s research has shown that in certain cases, up to half of producers don’t think consumers and supply chain actors have a right to know how their farm products were managed.

For many farmers, this data represents proprietary business plans and trade secrets. In the Midwest where the farmland market is incredibly competitive, there have been reports of farmers who implement regenerative soil health practices yet have their land scooped up by others who want to benefit from their years of work to build soil health. So for many farmers, it feels safer to keep their cards close, especially if they have good things to share.

Challenges Abound With Agriculture’s Digital Transition

More than half of the farmers we surveyed this year (62%) said that they don’t use a digital (software) platform to manage their farm’s production data.

Put another way, only about 38% of those we surveyed are able to consider providing the transparency the food supply chain requires in today’s connected world.

Without digital collection and management of farm-level data, there is no way for the supply chain to provide transparency for the final product consumers purchase.

In addition, many farmers could be missing out on insights available to them through a digital platform. Although this is an incredibly complex environment for farm businesses to operate within, here are three of the key drivers that might explain why farmers aren’t using digital tools more universally, based on our research:

  • The cost associated with setup is too high, especially since there is not always a guarantee of a return on investment for farmers. Oftentimes, these data and insights don’t provide farmers with any benefit, such as a financial premium for providing greater transparency into the food products they grow or raise. Instead, organizations downstream in the supply chain reap the benefit.
  • It is a technically complex process, and many farmers lack the training and understanding to do it alone.-At the same time, the support network of advisers and service providers to help farmers transition to regenerative practices using software systems to capture data illustrating that transition, is limited as well.
  • Trust is a challenge. Farmers don’t want to see their detailed production data fall into the hands of groups they don’t trust.

Patience Is A Virtue

What does all this mean? Consumers are pushing for more detailed transparency into on-farm production, and as a society, we are transitioning by focusing our buying power more and more on sustainable products. Yet the data bridge onto the farm remains hard to cross. In a way, we can’t blame them. Going back to the example of sharing your medical data – how farmers farm is as personal to them as sharing our cardiovascular report would be to our community.

The encouraging news for the public and for farmers is that many producers are embracing digital ag and rushing into the future because they are in agriculture and food for the long term. They see a future in which incentives will shift and farmers will indeed be rewarded for their stewardship and transparency into farming practices, in a responsible, safe and privacy-protected way. Additionally, many organizations are working to support them, ensuring farmers don’t bear all of the costs for outcomes that benefit our environment and society at large.

Why are my groceries so expensive right now?


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Dirt to Dinner decided to take a deeper look behind the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) recent projection of a 2.2 percent increase in food costs in May, on top of a 3.5 percent increase the year before.

Just how much more expensive is our food?

The most immediate thing we learned was how complex the answer to those questions really are. No one or two simple causes are out there. Instead, it’s a complex mix of factors – some matters of macroeconomics, some of unique circumstances and situations, some of the changing demands placed on our food system both here in the United States and around the world. What’s more, it seems likely at least some of them will continue for a while to come. Let’s dig into the details behind the numbers, and see what we can learn and what we can do about it.

Inflation is all around us. The latest Consumer Price Index from BLS tells us prices have climbed by 5 percent year over year, the largest jump since 2008. Sharp rises in energy costs (29 percent) are a major factor behind that number, as anyone who filled a car with gas recently can readily attest.

The prices we pay for our food are right at the top of the list of greater expenses. On a global scale, the BLS numbers sound downright reasonable. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) recently estimated that the global Food Price Index has jumped 30.8 percent above last year’s figure, to its highest level since 2014. Higher costs for oils, meats, dairy, and cereal products all contributed to the rise – and the increasing worries about food insecurity that come with them.

That sobering picture makes the 2.2 percent number from BLS sound almost reasonable. But for anyone who does the daily shopping, the reality behind that innocent-sounding figure quickly gives way to an immediate and personal recognition of just how significant 2.2 percent can be – especially as part of a steady stream of superficially innocuous annual increases.

What’s making it more expensive?

Let’s look at some reasons for food price increases, from the big-picture perspective.

  • The cornerstone commodities that provide the raw materials for our food are more expensive. Remember what you paid to fill your tank with gas a year ago? Wheat that sold for just one $5 per bushel one year ago today is near $7. Corn that sold for roughly $3 per bushel in August 2020 today is $6.85. Soybeans that were $8.33 in May of last year are almost $16 today.
  • Demand for food and commodities is growing, and our supply of reserves is tighter than before. No one today needs to be reminded of the increases in global population and economic growth that fuel steady growth in food demand. What’s less well recognized is the narrowing gap between global food production and global consumption. The simple fact is, in the current environment we are drawing down our reserve stocks. And when strong demand meets shrinking supply, prices go up.
  • Weather problems in key parts of the world add to the supply and demand imbalance, pushing prices up and increasing price volatility. Whether it’s climate change or normal weather cyclicality, some important growing regions around the world are experiencing record dry conditions in key production areas in South America, Russia, Australia, and the American West and Upper Midwest. Worries about crop sizes fuel a steady upward pressure on commodity prices.
  • The cost of producing commodities is rising. The rapid run-up in energy costs has a profound effect on-farm costs. Diesel fuel for farm equipment, gas for vehicles, propane and natural gas to dry wet crops, even fertilizers – all contribute to higher production costs, which inevitably factor into the final prices paid by food consumers.
  • Labor shortages complicate both farming and food manufacturing. Farmers and food manufacturers alike complain that they simply can’t find all the workers they need to cope with the current situation. And when they do, they often find they must pay more, if only to contend with the disincentives created by COVID relief payments. Department of Agriculture labor statistics indicates the number of workers hired by farmers and ranchers was down 11 percent from year-ago levels as recently as April, to about 613,000. The drop occurred despite an April increase of 6 percent over the previous April’s labor rates, to an average of $15.97 per hour.
  • Supply chain disruptions add to costs. As if labor shortages and higher fuel costs for hauling commodities and delivering food products weren’t enough, our finely tuned food distribution system is still adjusting to yet another cycle of changes and interruptions in delivery channels.  On a global scale, we’ve had to wrestle with complications in the location and availability of the ocean freight used to carry commodities around the world – not just what the United States exports, but also what we import to satisfy our food demands. Events such as the recent shutdown of the Suez Canal and the cyberattack that paralyzed JBS, the world’s largest meat producer, provide evidence of just how quickly and pervasively these disruptions can ripple across the entire food system.
  • More out-of-home dining. The Covid pandemic led to a dramatic decline in the amount of food eaten out of the home, requiring our food system to adjust to moving a greater share of the food supply to retail channels. With the pandemic now appearing to ease, the system must once again adjust to a more traditional pattern. That means change to packaging, more complicated transportation logistics and a raft of other costly changes. BLS points out that the overwhelming proportion of the increase in food costs came from a run-up on prices for food eaten away from home – a whopping 4 percent, compared with 0.7 percent for food eaten at home. We’re going out to eat once again – and paying more for the privilege.
  • Food waste remains an issue. We waste as much as a third of our food every day and every year. One online firm specializing in market data analysis estimates that about 1.6 billion tons of raw food products are never turned into consumable food to feed the hungry. Such waste only adds to the inflationary pressures of the big supply-demand picture.

We also need to remember that we may have been lulled into a touch of complacency about our food prices over the last decade. Food price inflation has been largely muted in recent years. Between 2013 and last year, for example, annual food price inflation averaged roughly 1.4 percent, with 2016 and 2017 both coming in with less than a single percentage-point rise.

Economists say the current inflationary prices eventually will ease. But few are willing to say when, or by how much. As our look at the causes of food price inflation showed, many of the factors driving up food costs are likely to be with us to one degree or another for some time to come.

But what does it all mean for me?

For most of us, the dizzying array of things that influence our food prices are less important than their immediate effect on our pocketbooks.

Dirt-to-Dinner decided to take a look at the real-world – or at least an admittedly unscientific glimpse of what the CPI data actually means to U.S. food consumers.

A sincere thank you to the D2D Network of Unofficial Field Reporters: Gary Tomasello of San Jose, CA; Jake Cuaron of Denver, CO; Dick & Tanyia Williams of Jacksonville, FL; and Frank & Kathe St. Lawrence of Fairhope, AL.

We asked our network of friends across the country to help us with an exercise that builds on some insightful and valuable work done by the Toledo Blade. That highly respected newspaper created a market basket of 15 common food items and tracked its cost in 2003, 2008 and 2011.

We elected to continue that work by seeking current price information for the same 15-item food basket, but with data from the Northeast, mid-Atlantic, deep South, upper Midwest, Gulf Coast, Mountain region, and West Coast.

Our results are intended to provide a simple snapshot of what food price inflation really means at the consumer level – not a rigorous, statistically reliable economic analysis. Our results show the cumulative effect of what may seem like small annual cost increases.

We invite our readers to use the item checklist to take a closer look at what food inflation means for each of you.

The exercise taught us as consumers one very important lesson: shop smart.

We were surprised and pleased to see that the retail food industry seems to be doing its part to help consumers deal with rising food costs.  We found numerous examples of sales and discounts for various items on the list, as well as some potential savings from house brands and locally sourced food items. In some cases, those savings helped reduce the overall basket costs significantly.

Cyberattack at JBS: Understanding Meat Technology


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

The best part of the conversation with my friend was her honesty. “Lucy when I think of how we get our meat, I think of Yellowstone, the TV series. It’s Kevin Costner and a bunch of hot cowboys rounding up cattle under a gorgeous setting, herding the cows into a warehouse where they come out the other side as my Bubba burgers. So I’m pretty unaware of how technology plays into this”.

After we got done laughing, I realized that was a fair point. After all, the food supply chain is not visible to most and the technology used in ag is not something people think about on a regular basis.

I assured my friend the cyberattack did not make our food unsafe and that there wouldn’t be any shortages. I told her I would use this week’s blog post to explain the entire cattle-to-meat process, the role technology plays, and what the ransomware attacks did. And, I even promised to sneak in a photo of those hot cowboys from Yellowstone.

What Happened to JBS?

Let’s start with the basics. Brazilian-based JBS, the largest meat supplier in the world experienced a ransomware attack. The FBI believes that REvil, one of the most advanced Russian cybercriminals in the world, hacked into JBS computer systems and either encrypted its files or shut its system down in all U.S. beef plants, as well as its meatpacking facilities around the world.

In return, the hackers wanted money; JBS ended up paying them $11 million in ransom. The payment was in bitcoin.

In the past, criminals kidnapped people in exchange for money. Today, it seems that kidnapping computer systems in return for U.S. dollars or cryptocurrency is a more lucrative business.

What Does Technology have to do with Cattle?

Think of processing cattle like an auto assembly line, but in reverse. When a car is made, 30,000 parts must be assembled before it gets shipped to the auto dealership. Cattle, on the other hand, get taken apart into over 1,000 SKUs. We eat about 63% of the animal and the rest goes into just about every other industry imaginable. Most people don’t think of cattle when imagining the ingredients used in medicine, pharmaceuticals, soaps, fine bone china, leather, and even asphalt.

It’s Very Complicated

In the United States alone, more than 100,000 cattle are processed six days a week. JBS produces between 20%-25% of global volume — further evidence of South America’s rapid growth in livestock production. The technology involved to create the assembly line of 1,000 SKUs is intricate and complicated.

First, the cattle need to be trucked from the grasslands or the feedlot to the processing plant. An inventory management system is needed to purchase the cattle. As they are waiting outside, they are individually tagged and identified. Each animal has its own identification code that follows the various body parts at every stage. For instance, a particular code is associated with the ground beef you buy at Walmart and the steak at Kroger’s. And the tongue that is sent to Japan. And the liver that winds up in Egypt.

After the hide is stripped off the animal, the carcass goes into a washing station. Think of a car wash. It gets cleaned and the goal is to remove and kill all pathogens. Computer settings control the amount of water, spray, and heat. After the wash, USDA employees use computer-driven scanners at each processing plant which inspect for pathogens, grades each carcass and make sure the facility meets strict HACCP requirements.

Technology is critical to managing the 2,000-plus employees in the facility. Each employee in these meat-processing plants stands next to a large, precise, and sophisticated assembly line. The line keeps moving so each worker has to keep pace by cutting their specific parts such as the tenderloin, ribs, and strip loin, etc. The technology tells the plant manager how many workers are present, how productive they are, and if there is any wasted meat.

Quiet on the Set

As in Yellowstone, the typical meat plant is much like a movie studio, with hundreds of people all doing different jobs to create the final product, a polished cinematic gem. Everybody has a part to play and a carefully crafted script to follow, and that script is run by technology.

If the lights are wrong or the sound isn’t perfect, or the sets or costumes aren’t completed or the actor flubs a line, the whole process grinds to a halt. Cattle processing demands the same coordinated ballet.

Plant managers depend on computers for that coordination and control – to pull dozens if not hundreds of actions altogether, effectively, and efficiently.

After this incredible coordination of processing the animal –where does all the beef and the over 1,000 different SKUs go? Managing and sending all those parts is definitely not executed with an Excel spreadsheet and a fax machine. Complex automated inventory management systems send each item boxed and shipped around the country and throughout the world. In the average meat facility, about 5,000 animals go through the system every day.

And each animal produces about eight boxes of beef which must be invoiced and sent to the right locations. While there are giant coolers that hold about 100,000 boxes of beef, the product can’t sit there for more than 24 hours. Every day, about 60 trucks come to the facility to pick up the 40,000 boxes that must be trucked out to their customers.

Every step from the ranch and/or feedlot through the processing plant to the grocery store or restaurant is handled with a complex data management system. When that breaks down as it did in the case of the JBS hacking, it halts the entire beef production – from steaks to animal feed. This time the hackers picked an exceptionally good time to infiltrate JBS’s system.

For the next three months, beginning on Memorial Day, meat consumption is at an all-time high, and the number of cattle that get processed each week increases by about 10%-15% to meet the needs of worldwide grilling, barbecues, and overall summer fun. It is very encouraging to see how quickly JBS was able to respond and get its systems up and running.

Keep Calm and Carry On

According to NPR, REvil has indicated that the agricultural industry will be a target. So far, Mondelez, Molson Coors, Campari, Arizona Beverages, MGP Ingredients, Wendy’s, Huddle House, Caribou Coffee, Dunkin’, and Sonic have all had cybersecurity incidents within the past few years.

It looks like this is just something corporate America has to live with. Given that these were not as well-publicized as the JBS attack, we can assume that this will be an ongoing issue where the company will handle it and keep its business operational. It is a matter of who has the better technology.

Are Farmer Protests in India a Cautionary Tale for Americans?


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

What’s behind the protests?

How can you keep food prices low for consumers but expect farmers to pay more to grow that same food? The brouhaha between farmers and the government of India began in 2018 with the passage of three farm laws altering long-standing farm policies. In simplest terms, the laws sought to change the way most farmers sold their products into the market, largely by deregulating wholesale markets. Rather than rely on the traditional middle-man system of wholesalers as purchasers, farmers would be allowed to sell to other commercial entities, and to use electronic and other new mechanisms for finding buyers.

On the surface, it all sounds very reasonable. The idea: give farmers more freedom to seek the best deal for what they produce. They no longer would have to rely only on the middlemen to provide the minimum guaranteed prices dictated by the government.

But change is rarely warmly embraced. And for India, the idea of reform affects not just the interests of farmers and overall food security, but the national economy and social structure, as well.

Over time, opposition to the laws has steadily escalated. News reports around the world tell of tens of thousands of protestors, many living in tent cities indefinitely, and many using tractors and other farm equipment to block and disrupt traffic to call attention to their cause. Video footage of angry men and women has become commonplace, seen by consumers around the world.

What prompts such intense debate – and protest?

To understand the impasse between the government and farmers, it’s essential to recognize the unique nature of Indian agriculture.

Farming and agriculture represent by far the largest component of the country’s employment. In India, just over half of its 1.3 billion people rely on agriculture for their livelihoods. Some credible estimates say as much as 70 percent. That means any changes to fundamental agricultural policies stand to affect between 600 and 800 million people in very meaningful ways.

In the United States, by comparison, farmers represent only 2 percent of the total population. The food and ag sector accounts for about 22 million jobs – or roughly 11 percent of our national workforce.

Despite the presence of a robust commercial farming sector in the United States, the overall agricultural picture in India is dominated by small land-holdings. America and India have comparable arable land areas. But the average farmer in India works roughly two and a half acres of ground, compared to the average U.S. farm of 444 acres. The prevailing small size of India’s average farm limits income opportunities and discourages investment in equipment, infrastructure, and other productivity enhancements.

Many farmers simply eke out a year-to-year existence. In many cases, their families have to live on less than $1,000 a year. They look to state support as the principal means not of growth, but of basic economic survival. This struggle to survive on very low, if any, profits, has manifested in over 300,000 farmer suicides since 1995. In 2018, there have been an average of 10 suicides a day.

So Indian agriculture isn’t simply a food-producing sector. It is a cornerstone of the entire society. Since the 1960s, national policies have attempted to accommodate both needs.

Government subsidies assist producers and rural residents in a number of ways: financial assistance for fertilizer, free electricity for water pumping, loan forgiveness, and direct financial aid all help hundreds of millions of producers stay afloat.

Protestors are deeply concerned about what happens to the government-guaranteed minimum prices for commodities such as rice, wheat, sugar, and other staples, which drive annual production on even the most un-economic farms. These supports have assured ample supplies for the domestic marketplace – and economic survival for millions.

In some instances, this policy has made exports possible. Today, for example, India is one of the world’s leading producers of wheat, cotton, groundnuts, fruits and vegetables, and even livestock — and among the largest global producers and exporters of rice, sugar, and wheat.

To protect consumers, the government has provided additional subsidies to keep prices low for basic foods, including rice. On one hand, food prices have to remain low to alleviate hunger and poverty and on the other hand, the low food prices are making life extremely difficult for over half the Indian population. This financial double-whammy of supporting two sometimes opposing sides of production and consumption can lead to unbelievable price distortions.

For example, the price of rice on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CMA) was actually lower than the fixed government price of rice in India, the largest rice-producing country in the world. A metric ton of rice costs $233 on the CME yet it costs $254 a ton for consumers in India. “A kilo of rice, which has an economic cost of 37 rupees to the taxpayer, is sold to two-thirds of the global population for 3 rupees.” as reported by Bloomberg’s David Fickling and Andy Mukherjee. Wheat support prices in India were 25 percent above the prevailing Chicago wheat futures price, the report also noted. To shield consumers, subsidies make the cost disparity magically disappear.

Changing market prices may have altered the arithmetic since that day, but the larger point remains valid.  Subsidies can distort markets – and create unintended but difficult consequences.

Arguments for reform:

  • Existing policies are economically unsustainable
  • Policies perpetuate poverty/dependence on state support
  • Policies create environmental concerns (fertilizer overuse, water depletion)
  • Reform promotes productivity improvements, long-term competitiveness for global market opportunities
  • Best for long-term interests of nation, economy, farmers, consumers

Arguments against reform:

  • Smaller producers (which are the majority of farmers) would lack the market clout to bargain with larger, more powerful commercial entities – and thus would wind up at their mercy
  • Increases the power of the larger commercial farming interests across India and invites greater involvement by multinational agricultural companies
  • Leaves far too many people economically vulnerable
  • Potential displacement of a huge number of people
  • Accelerates migration to urban centers

Is there a future for small and independent Indian farmers?

Proponents of reform say existing policies are simply financially unsustainable. Opponents of change say the risks are simply too large for too many people – and the threat to social order too great.

Both sides in the dispute say they won’t budge. All three farming laws have been passed but suspended by the Indian courts as discussions among farmers, farm groups and government officials continue.

But the clock is ticking for India. As the debate drags on, India’s population continues to expand. As it does, the twin responsibilities again emerge. Population growth means more mouths to feed – and more people dependent upon agriculture for their livelihood.

Various international agencies and institutions project that India will become the world’s most populous country within this decade. The total population is projected to climb from 1.3 billion to 1.7 billion by 2050 – within what amounts to a single generation.

That means another 400 million consumers and job seekers will enter the fray – well above the entire current population of the United States, and only slightly less than the number of people in the 27 nations making up the European Union.

The situation in India may add a perverse new economic dimension to the notion of agricultural “sustainability.” Can the country continue to afford the enormous expense of the current approach? Or must it seek some form of greater engagement with an open, competitive marketplace? What approach will best allow Indian agriculture to survive? What’s best for both producers and consumers?

What does any of this mean to Americans?

For the average person watching the video of men and women protesting the new laws, the situation may seem a world away. The truth is that decisions made in the coming months will have an impact on food prices, availability, the stock market, and more. And the same goes for here in the U.S.

Most obviously, the simple humanitarian aspects of the situation should matter to everyone. We are all food consumers.

Food is something we share. It unites us and ties us all together in a shared common basic human need. It is a cornerstone of the philosophy behind Dirt-to-Dinner. When any person’s food security is at risk, we all should pay attention.

For students of the global food system, the outcome will have important ramifications for how food moves around the world.  India already is a major factor in many global markets – rice, cotton, sugar, and wheat, to name just a few. Future policy decisions will help determine whether that involvement in global markets expands – or not. If India’s producers elect to apply their productive capacity to capturing more foreign market opportunities, the world will see an even larger player in the international food marketplace.  Consumers everywhere could have more choice, and also enjoy the discipline imposed on food prices when nations truly compete to supply the world’s food needs.

On another level, the situation in India should provide a cautionary tale for food consumers everywhere. It demonstrates the importance of making balanced decisions about the agricultural policies and programs that create our modern food system. It shows what happens when our best intentions — to provide food and incomes for all — veer too far from economic reality. The tragic decline of Venezuela’s economy and rampant food insecurity already have provided one important object lesson in fundamental food economics. It’s a lesson we all need to remember, from Delhi to DC, and everywhere in between.

Postbiotics: You Are What You Digest


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

We may think of ourselves as ’23 and me’ based on our pair of chromosomes, but really, we are closer to ‘3 million and me’ based on our microbiome. If you add up all of our genes, we are really 90% microbial.

3 million and me?

What do we mean? Throughout our intestines, we have about a mango-sized bag of hungry microbiota – which scientists are now considering an organ just like the liver or heart. This kind of tiny, powerful, and hungry bacteria, archaea, eukaryotes, and viruses determine your mood, immune system, and nutrition absorption. What type of microbiota you have depends on what you eat!

Because of its importance, microbial health has been a topic of significant discussion in the nutrition world for the last few years. By now, we’ve heard of the many gut-health-enhancing suggestions on how to boost pre- and probiotic production, such as fermented foods, daily probiotics, and a range of various fruits and veggies. But have you heard of postbiotics? They are a result of these pre- and pro-biotics you eat every day.

In relation to prebiotics and probiotics, postbiotics are the outcome of these efforts. What do I mean? Let’s do a quick pre- and probiotic 101:

  • Prebiotics are a wide variety of fiber, such as whole fruits, veggies, mushrooms, and even seaweed. Diversity is critical as it helps support a broad range of beneficial bacteria. For instance, some bacteria will thrive when you eat black beans, and some will happily multiply with spinach. If your diet is not varied, then those microbes that like certain foods will not flourish.
  • Probiotics are made up of fermented foods; specifically, 12 strains of bacteria synergistically grown together, shown to positively affect overall gut health. Think kombucha, yogurt, and kimchi.

Now for the new guy…

  • Postbiotics are compounds (or metabolites) created by the probiotic bacteria that help protect, renew, and assist the body’s essential and critical functions.

More on Postbiotics

Postbiotics are a relatively new term in the ‘biotics’ field. That said, there is substantial scientific consensus surrounding pre- and probiotics, but with postbiotics, this is not yet the case.

Here is what we do know: postbiotics are a byproduct of pre-and probiotics. They are metabolites or cell-wall components generated during fermentation in the gut. They are soluble byproducts secreted by live probiotic bacteria that include short-term fatty acids, extracellular polysaccharides, cell fractions, functional protein, and so on. What does this mean, and what do they do for you?

Postbiotics have drawn attention as of late due to recent research indicating they can have direct immune effects.  

Clinical evidence on postbiotics shows that in healthy individuals, they improve overall health and relieve symptoms in a range of diseases, such as infant colic and adult atopic dermatitis, different causes of diarrhea, and many more.

Postbiotics can also help with:

The Journey of a Bean

Let’s take black beans, for example. You prepare a black bean salad for lunch. You chew it all up, enjoy all the rich flavors, but then what happens when it leaves your mouth? Well, digestion is not just a simple food-in, excrement-out process. These beans you just ate are going to encounter a variety of microbial players in the gut along the winding gastrointestinal tract and in the colon.

One cool part about all this is that the foods (like the beans) determine your body’s specific microbial “players”. So, you can actually think of your gut as your own personal fingerprint – it is unique to you, it is unlike anyone else’s, and it is based on what you feed it. The foods we eat make up the bacteria that live and thrive in our gut!

I like to think about it in these two equations:

Variety of Fiber + Prebiotic foods = Healthy Gut Microbiome (Healthy Bacteria makeup)

Healthy Gut Microbiome (Healthy Bacteria makeup) = Multitude of Postbiotics

But, let’s get back to the beans! A bean is a legume packed with protein and fiber. Digestion starts in your mouth with enzymes in your saliva that begin the process of breaking down your food. It travels through your esophagus, where even more enzymes jump in to help them break down the process. These broken-down food particles feed the gut microbiota to produce short-chain fatty acids.

T-cells Taking Action

While they may sound little, these short-chain fatty acids are robust and directly affect T-cell production. What’s a T-cell? Glad you asked! A T-cell is a type of white blood cell that, at its core, tailor’s the body’s immune response to specific pathogens or invaders. You can think of T-cells like soldiers who seek out invaders and destroy them!

Here is the Science: Fiber is digested in your colon by bacteria and turns into short-chain fatty acids. Short-chain fatty acids serve as messengers to tell certain cells to turn on as immune cells, or T cells. These T cells multiply and turn into helper, regulatory, or cytotoxic T cells. They can also become memory T cells. The T cells are sent to peripheral tissues and can circulate in the blood or lymphatic system. Once they detect an antigen, helper T cells send out chemical messengers called cytokines. These cytokines (are good and not to be confused with the cytokine storm) fuel the differentiation of B cells into plasma cells (antibody-producing cells- these are what you need to fight off viruses!). Regulatory T cells act to power immune reactions. Cytotoxic T cells, which are activated by various cytokines, bind to and kill infected cells and cancer cells—helping to protect us against multiple viruses, like Covid. 

Now, what if your body didn’t have enough fiber variety to produce these fatty acids needed for the T-cells? This can happen when we don’t feed our body enough variety of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. It takes a combination of many types of these foods to maintain a healthy gut microbiota, which enables our body to break down and absorb nutrients from our food correctly and ultimately provides for our immune system defenses.

Here is another set of equations for you:

Fruits + Veggies + Whole Grains (Fiber) = Short-chain fatty-acids +Vitamins +Minerals

Short-chain fatty-acids +Vitamins + Minerals = More T-cell Production

More T-Cell Production = Better defense against pathogens & invaders

While beans are a great probiotic, many plant and animal foods can provide the fiber and protein needed to produce the fatty acids that produce T-cells. Think of T-cells as the ultimate result of postbiotics.

Who would have thought that a bean salad could achieve all that? I bet you’ll have a whole new appreciation for your lunch now that you know what an important role your food plays in preventing pathogens from attacking you.

How Can I Maximize Postbiotic Production?

Well, here is the deal: postbiotics are only produced in a body with a diverse microbiome. When you feed your gut a diverse array of dietary fibers and prebiotics, the probiotics are plentiful and varied. This variety of probiotics allows for more diverse postbiotic metabolites to be secreted. Postbiotic compounds play a critical role in regulating your organ system, your immune system, and your brain.

Think of your postbiotics as tools in your tool belt. You acquire those tools through fiber varieties. The broader range of tools you have, the more effective tool kit you have for your overall health.

As gastroenterologist Dr. Will Bulsiewicz, M.D., author of Fiber Fueled, puts it, “when you take a prebiotic or probiotic, people don’t realize that at the end of the day, the hope is to get some postbiotics. The entire point is about postbiotics.”

While part of the issue is many people don’t know this is the end game, it is also that our microbiome is not diverse in most cases. In The Mind-Gut Connection by Dr. Emeran Mayer, M.D., he notes that an alarming 90% of children and adults in the United States do not consume the recommended amount of daily fiber. We should eat at least 30 grams of fiber a day.

How much of each pre- and probiotic food is enough? 2-3 servings of prebiotics and 1-2 servings of probiotics each day – ingested in different ways—will suffice. The idea here is that if you fuel your body with enough pre- and probiotics regularly and in a variety of ways, your body will, in turn, produce myriad postbiotics—adding to that tool belt! And the conjunction of all these components is proven to have a significant impact on our overall health.

Your probiotic bacteria’s ability to make postbiotic metabolites is solely dependent on the amount of and diversity of fiber in your diet.

Maybe we should consider changing the phrase from “You Are What You Eat” to “You Are What You Digest”!

Getting More Dietary Fiber in Our Diet

While taking a daily probiotic can help diversify our microbiome, it is simply not enough. As we know, functional foods are critical to a healthy diet, which goes for fiber consumption as well. We must learn to feed our bodies with probiotic bacteria from whole foods.

Feeding our microbiome with a wide variety of plant foods is the best thing you can do to boost postbiotic production; you will need 5-7 daily servings of a variety of the below foods:

I Tried Intuitive Eating for a Month – Here’s What I Learned


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

There’s a lot of mixed information swirling about on social media regarding the new healthy trend, “intuitive eating”. The nutritionists and dietitians promoting it seem very happy, healthy, and peaceful, as if their body literally tells them what foods it needs. As someone who has studied nutrition to increase health for myself and others, I thought this was a great way to give my body what it wants while eliminating the inevitable guilt that comes with “slipping up.”

What is Intuitive Eating?

Intuitive eating was created by dieticians Evelyn Tribole and Elyse Resch in 1995. They started the trend with their book, “Intuitive Eating: A Revolutionary Program that Works.” However, it wasn’t something completely new. In 1978, Susie Orbach published, “Fat is a Feminist Issue,” which focused on emotional eating—a substantial component of intuitive eating. Intuitive Eating is gaining popularity now because of social media.

Intuitive eating generally focuses on self-care, rather than a strict regimen. It combines instinct, emotion, and rational thought into one practice. According to Evelyn Tribole, “intuitive eating is a personal process to honor our health by listening and responding to the direct messages of the body in order to meet your physical and psychological needs.” But how can this work, when the U.S. suffers from a 42.4% obesity rate and a 12.3% malnutrition rate?

The founding principles to successfully practice intuitive eating are as follows:

My Experience with Intuitive Eating

I’ve seen KFC’s Nashville Hot Tenders all over TikTok. I don’t normally crave fast food (except the occasional Chick-fil-A, of course!), but they looked so good, and I love chicken tenders, so I decided to “listen to my body” and try some.

They tasted delicious, but almost immediately afterward I felt sluggish. I was tired, lethargic and surprisingly, very thirsty. I thought, if only I had listened to the way my body felt after eating the tenders before I ate them, I probably wouldn’t have had any.

As Jack Bobo described in his new book, Why Smart People Make Bad Food Choicesour minds are influenced by outside narratives. In my case, TikTok’s KFC videos. We are confronted with compelling reasons to eat certain things, and our brain retains that and seeks it out despite our better judgment. Why?

The decision was easy. Easy? Yes. Our brain did not have to find another food or research something else to eat – it already knows this food is delicious — so our tired minds make the easy decision.

But per my experience, easy is not always best.

That we are influenced by the media and advertising is a no-brainer. But what is not so simple, is that our brain plays the biggest role in helping us stay healthy and lose weight. Eating intuitively could actually increase your cravings and make you gain weight.

Is There Any Science Behind This? 

The National Institute of Health (NIH) makes it clear preliminary studies show that the more you stop yourself from eating food you are craving, the more that craving diminishes. NIH researchers are bullish on these findings while still noting more research is warranted.

Studies found that intuitive eating practices are associated with better weight stability than those who followed rigid diets. Furthermore, intuitive eating has shown to improve psychological and behavioral health, including reducing binge-eating.

But if you read carefully, it is weight stability and not weight loss or gain. As with every diet, there are challenges associated with intuitive eating. Researchers found that women who participated in intuitive eating experienced many social and environmental barriers that limited success, including their own varied emotions and support from family and friends. Also, many women found that the “unconditional permission to eat” was the most challenging part of the diet.

This demonstrates a need for self-control and self-discipline to find success with intuitive eating. It is no surprise that research shows that resisting those cravings will help you lose weight.  Resisting cravings is easier when you think about how your body feels after eating certain foods more than how they crave the foods before.

Studies also show that our gut microbiome craves what we feed it. So, if your diet consists of chocolate, candy, and junk food, managing your cravings while practicing intuitive eating will be more difficult – if not practically impossible. Remember, your brain lights up when it even thinks about sugar. A diet consisting of sugar will only make you crave more. If your base diet is already healthy, full of fruits and vegetables, then intuitive eating will be much easier because your body will crave healthy food.

From what I learned in both my experience and research, intuitive eating is most helpful for those who suffer from disordered eating or binge-eating.

By welcoming all foods with kindness, you limit the chance of binge eating “restricted” foods, such as chocolate and chips, because you’ve incorporated them into your diet in a limited, healthy way.

I’ve never been one to try out fad diets, so my experience with intuitive eating was very similar to my eating on a normal basis. I still made sure to eat my servings of fruits and veggies every day, but I also did not limit myself. I am under no false impression that every person is cognizant of their intake of fruits and vegetables. Without the foundation of knowing what I needed before I let myself enjoy the occasional food I wanted, I probably would not have fared as well.  Maybe I would have skipped the fruits and vegetables altogether.

So for me, an educated eater, if I felt my sweet tooth coming, I indulge in a piece of dark chocolate. If I really was not feeling the salad I had planned on having for lunch, I make myself something else, like a wrap. One night, we decided to have a bonfire and I made myself a s’more because they’re my favorite. I didn’t allow myself to feel guilty or ashamed after, but I also didn’t allow myself to have three or four. I listened to the need but quickly recalled how sluggish I felt after the KFC experience, so I moderated my snack.

As far as exercise goes, I always listen to my body to avoid injuries. I have my weekly workout schedule that typically remains the same. But, if one day I really don’t feel like running and want to jump rope or lift weights instead, I do that. What I don’t do is let myself go days in a row without moving. Again, it’s all about moderation.  If I’m halfway through my run and my ankles hurt, I stop and walk.

However, exercise is critical for maintaining a healthy lifestyle, which is why it’s one of the main tenets of intuitive eating.

It’s easy to sometimes feel ashamed after eating foods that “aren’t good for us.” I know I have been there. But just remember, one decision does not have to impact your next. If you grant yourself permission to have a piece of dark chocolate after dinner and end up eating the whole bar, don’t let that decision ruin your week. Restart your intentions with your next snack or meal.

My Big Takeaways

Here’s my advice if you want to give “intuitive eating” a try:

  • Be kind to yourself, but have discipline. Remember that your end goal is to be healthier overall.
  • Stay active. Even if you don’t feel like running, do something else. I rotate between running, walking, boxing, HIIT, and strength training.
  • Find fun and creative ways to eat your fruits and vegetables. I love having fruit in the morning and adding veggies to my lunches and dinners. I eat veggies in pasta, rice, salads, and other dishes.
  • Always make sure your food tastes GOOD. If you force yourself to eat something just because it’s healthy but you don’t like the taste, you’re not going to want to eat it again. Even with veggies, make them taste good. Add your favorite seasonings and dressings.
  • Stay focused on your goals. My goal is to be as healthy as I can, while also enjoying life and food. I eat pizza. I eat sushi. I eat burgers. But, I also love broccoli, brussels sprouts, and strawberries. Eat all your food in moderation and always keep moving toward your goals.
  • Be mindful. Intuitive eating requires you to stay mindful of your health, nutrition, and body.

Why Do We Make Bad Food Choices?


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Today, I am reviewing an insightful book about the relationship between consumers and food. Why Smart People Make Bad Food Choices by Jack Bobo, CEO of Futurity, “where food meets future”. Bobo previously served as the Chief Communications Officer and Senior Vice President for Global Policy and Government Affairs at Intrexon Corporation. In 2015, he was named by Scientific American as one of the 100 most influential people in biotechnology. Prior to joining Intrexon, Bobo worked at the US Department of State for thirteen years as a senior advisor on global food policy.

After reading it, I felt like I did not really know myself after all. I am a pretty adventurous and active individual. I eat well, exercise, get sleep, and make good choices to stay healthy. Or do I? Are my brain and my body tricking me? Are marketing efforts on social media and at the grocery store completely confusing even the educated consumer? Apparently so.

Here is the framework that Bobo applies to human behavior and our food system:

  • The Mindscape: How our minds trick us into thinking we are making the right decisions.
  • The Foodscape: How the food landscape (restaurants, TV, radio, social media, grocery) has an invisible hand that guides us toward unhealthy choices.
  • Transforming the Foodscape: What we can do to redesign our food system using behavior science to improve food choices and live to be a healthy 100 years old.

The Mindscape

Our brains can play tricks on us. Bobo discusses the tendency to hold onto confirmation bias when we agree with the information that confirms what we already believe. This can impact our existing knowledge about food.

Rather than spend time searching for knowledge that challenges our beliefs, we look for facts that support or defend them.

This means that it is hard for us to change our minds. When was the last time you changed your mind? Not about what to have for dinner – but your position on a political issue or a food issue. According to Bobo’s research, those who constantly evaluate their beliefs and are willing to change their mind are those who have the sharpest intellectual capability. This is called “intellectual humility” which is a sign of “curiosity, openness to new information, and ultimately, intelligence.” As we read his book, Bobo is asking us to rethink and be curious and intellectually humble when pondering our relationship with food.

To Decide or Not to Decide

I did not know that we can only make so many decisions in one day. Tired brains make poor decisions, according to Deborah Cohen, author of A Big Fat Crisis: The Hidden Influences Behind the Obesity Epidemic – and How We Can End It. “Decision fatigue” happens when our brain – or body – is tired and we just want to make the easiest choice possible.

Think about your decisions at the end of the day. It’s time for dinner and you are rushing to the grocery store between work and home. You have to make choices when browsing the 40,000 items along the aisles. This can be a scary place because we are taught to fear our food.

Tired and hangry, you make the simple decision to have pasta and tomato sauce for dinner. The aisle is full of an overwhelming array of different pasta sauces. Hmm….as you look at the labels that read gluten-free, GMO-free, hormone-free, you forget to look at the more critical label that shows the caloric, fat, and sugar contents. And, when our brains are overworked, we usually want to reward ourselves by buying a special treat like ice cream, cookies, or just one candy bar.

The Health Halo Effect

Have you ever noticed that reading one single word or phrase can influence our choices? This is the “halo effect” in action. For instance, we might see “lowfat” on the label and assume it is low in calories and then eat more than we should. Another example is the label, “natural”, which conjures up beautiful fields, sunny days, and produce coming straight from nature. Truth be told, the USDA has never defined “natural”.

According to Food Insight, the information hub created and curated by nutrition and food safety experts at the International Food Information Council nonprofit organization, 70 percent of consumers perceived that foods with the “natural” label were healthier.

Bobo recommends paying attention to your “halo” foods. “Low in sodium” might mean high in fat or “lowfat” might mean high in sugar. Once you understand what motivates you, then you can carefully select the foods that really are healthy.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” 

– Franklin D. Roosevelt

Bobo also reminds us that food is safer today than at any point in human history. He cites Hans Rosling, who wrote the book Factfulness. Our literacy, democratic government, parkland, and food production are just some of the categories that have gotten better over the years. Yet we still have unnecessary fears that signal our brains to worry. Why is this?

Bobo also talks about the availability bias. Our brains like to judge an event depending on how easily we can retrieve it from memory. Of course, when scary thoughts linger in our brain, they prevent us from changing our mind to something more scientifically based even if it is positive.

Alarming news is the media’s “clickbait” and so we are inundated with it causing us to irrationally fear things and worry. For instance, which is more dangerous: sharks or mosquitos? Mosquitoes spread disease and are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths annually. Shark attacks average about 80 a year. So why do we always think of Jaws when we swim in the ocean? Movies about sharks sell better than killer mosquito movies.

After reading the just first section of Bobo’s book, I know more about myself. I now know why I overbuy at the grocery store – especially when I am hangry. I know why when I am out to dinner with friends on a Saturday night and have had a couple glasses of wine, we dive into chocolate chip cookies for dessert. I also know why I might have a snack before dinner after a long day of traveling. What else do we have to guard against?

The Foodscape

If we cannot entirely trust our brains, can we trust the environmental factors that influence the quality and quantity of food we eat?  According to Bobo, apparently not.  The foodscape is any area that affects our food decisions such as at home, grocery stores, gas stations, shops, and restaurants as well as on social media, the radio, and television. Here are three of the most important factors that Bobo outlined which have adversely influenced our health.

SuperSize Me

It all started at the movie theater. In the 1960s, David Wallerstein wanted his patrons to eat more high-margin products, like popcorn, candy, and sodas. He realized that his customers were not going to get up in the middle of a movie and buy another bag of popcorn. Nor were they going to appear gluttonous and sit down with two bags.

What did Wallerstein do? He made everything bigger. Much to his excitement, sales of popcorn and Coca-Cola shot up. After his movie theater success, Wallerstein went on to work for McDonald’s, where Ray Kroc, McDonald’s CEO, came around to the “supersize” concept in 1972.

We all know what has happened since. But why do we eat so much anyway? As it turns out, our eyes and our stomach are not a good judge of what to eat. Jack Bobo details experiments where participants consumed soup from a tube where they couldn’t see how much they were eating. Because the stomach takes about 20 minutes to tell the brain it is full, they overate.

Our eyes are not much better. People tend to eat what is in front of them. Study after study on meals like macaroni and cheese, sandwich sizes for lunch, even fruits and vegetables, have shown that the bigger the portion, the more people eat.

It Is All About The Label

When I look back at pictures of the 1960s, everyone looks thin and fit. Yet, as a society, we know more about health, wellness, and food than ever. We know that sugar is bad for us. We know to eat healthy fats with omega-3s and limit processed saturated fats, like sausage and bacon. We even have the FDA-mandated Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. The hope with labeling was to encourage healthy food to be created by food companies and eaten by the consumer. So what gives?

Bobo says that it is because we really don’t read the labels! According to eye-tracking research, only 9% of people look at the calorie count. Apparently, we all lie to ourselves and think that we read the label, but we just buy what we know and like. Labeling didn’t work on restaurant menus either. Either it is ignored, or consumers look at the dollar per calorie ‘deal’ on food.

The Power of Socialization

Bobo points out that we eat more when we are with friends and family at a holiday meal (that one is obvious) or just on a casual Saturday night. Of course, this has been studied as well and the findings suggest that – the longer we sit, the more we eat. We also overindulge together to assuage the guilt. No one wants to be the only one ordering dessert.  This doesn’t mean that you should skip these fun events, it just means that you should pay attention to how much you are eating.

Transforming the Foodscape

As I see it, healthy eating is incredibly difficult. After reading his book, I will never go on “food autopilot” again. I now understand that, at times, I cannot be trusted. Especially with chocolate…

Luckily, I can take comfort knowing that I am not alone, and we have to engage our brain and our stomach when we encounter social media, restaurants, or even our local grocery store. But Bobo also points out that a healthy life is not just looking at food in isolation. He cites Blue Zones, specific regions where locals have exceptional longevity, to demonstrate simple elements to a healthy lifestyle.

In his final chapters, Bobo outlines several ways to weed your way through the complexity of food choices. He also encourages the food industry to take part in his movement to create healthy food options.

You can join Bobo and be part of the movement for healthy eating by following his suggested solutions in his book, which are both for you as a consumer and, just as importantly, those in the food industry.

All is not lost when it comes to our health. We hope Why Smart People Make Bad Food Choices readers feel empowered with a new level of awareness and understanding of why we all behave the way we do when it comes to our food choices.

I have outlined just a few of his concepts in this article to give you a flavor of his analysis of our food system. For more detail and clarity on his perspectives, we encourage you to read the book, which you can find on Amazon.

Happy reading!

Saving Our Soil…One Billion Microbes at a Time

“We know more about the movement of celestial bodies than about the soil underfoot.”

– Leonardo da Vinci

The Dirt

Soil microbes are hard to see and understand, yet we know that they have a significant impact on plant health, your health, and the Earth’s health. New microbial research and technologies are beginning to change how we understand and direct the soil microbiome to increase soil fertility and plant health, which then help our understanding of your microbiome.


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Pouring algae on the soil, sequencing soil DNA, and measuring soil diversity are just a few of the new technologies used to keep our soil from becoming just ‘dirt’. And it seems as though diversity is the key. When I hold a teaspoon of healthy soil in my hand I squint and try to see the billions of microbes. Apparently, in this little amount there are more microbes than all 7.8 billion people on earth today. This handful has greater diversity than all the animals and insects in the Amazon Rainforest. This is a powerful group made even more exciting when you think they originated from our celestial bodies.

Since the beginning of time, these soil microorganisms are fungi, insects, bacteria, algae, and more than happily coexist in the soil. They control soil pathogens, reduce disease outbreaks, keep plants nutritious and resilient, give plants the power to pull carbon out of the air, make land less prone to wind and water erosion, clean and filter water, and are a source of human medicines.

As a D2D reader, you have likely read about the projected increase of the global population to 9 billion people in just 30 years. That means more fruits, vegetables, and row crops needed to feed more animals and more humans. To achieve this growth, the traditional thought has been that farmers will need more and more pesticides and fertilizer to eliminate bugs and increase their yields. Or do they?

A Booming Agricultural Microbial Market

New entrants in the biostimulants space. Sources: iSelect Funds, IDTechEx.

Think of the microbiome in the soil like the one in your gut. Similar to your health, plants need diversity in the soil to keep you healthy and strong. Microbial technology is a serious solution that uses bacteria, fungi, viruses, protozoans, and yeasts instead of conventional agrochemicals.

Companies in this niche produce biostimulants. These include biopesticides, which are natural materials like canola or baking soda that eliminate pests, and biofertilizers, natural fertilizer compounds such as manure, algae, or decayed material that increase the availability of nutrients to the plants.

Additionally, since microbial crop protection poses fewer risks using than conventional pesticides, the EPA generally requires less data and has shorter review times before the various solutions can be used in the field. This reduces the timeline to development by years and the cost of product development by millions of dollars.

According to Research and Markets, the global agricultural microbial market is expected to grow at a compounded annual growth rate of 12.5% and reach $11 billion by 2025 from approximately $6 billion in 2020.

Innovations in the microbiome tech space have to address the challenges of soil needs.  The goal is to increase yield and reduce pests, and weeds with less chemical inputs – all while enhancing the soil microbiome. While this is a highly fragmented market, it is dominated by just a few players.

Innovations in soil microbiome technology

Here are four examples of new technologies that make our soil healthier…

AgBiome partners with the microbial world to improve our planet.  Started in 2017, the company is focused on discovering and developing innovative biological and trait products for crop protection. On March 23rd, Mosaic Fertilizer Company and AgBiome announced a collaboration to develop biological alternatives for soil health.

AgBiome is sequencing a library of microbes sourced from environmental samples from across the globe. As of today, the North Carolina company has more than 90,000 sequenced microbes and identified 3,500 insect control genes from that collection. Their technology can discover microorganisms and proteins that kill insect pests, fungal pathogens, and weeds.

For instance, Howler, the first of AgBiome’s biological fungicides, harnesses the power of the plant microbiome to create an efficacious fungicide with multiple modes of action that provide preventative, long-lasting activity on a broad spectrum of soilborne and foliar diseases.

Biome Makers measures the biological quality of soil to deliver agronomic insights to farmers. Based in Sacramento, Biome Makers was created to solve a fundamental problem facing the future of food: How do we recover the microbial diversity in today’s modern agriculture system?

Using an AI system, Biome Makers assesses the health of a field based on a farmer’s current practices as well as the soil functionality for any crop. What is the right soil microbiome community for a specific farm and farmer?

Working with Bayer and about 70 other ag input manufacturers, they will help farmers understand what works well and how it affects their soil’s health. It’s about measuring crop health and functional biodiversity by using DNA sequencing and intelligent computing.

Their team reads more like a Silicon Valley group with experts in genetics, software engineering, microbiology, agronomy, and data science. We are not in Kansas anymore…

Pivot Bio provides a clean alternative to synthetic nitrogen fertilizers. In April 2020, the company raised $100 million co-led by Breakthrough Energy and Temasek. Their technology reduces nitrogen fertilizer and increases crop yields.

Fully half of the world’s food supply is dependent on synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, yet overuse, misuse, and runoff can bring serious environmental impacts such as dead zones and C02 emissions. Our atmosphere is 78% nitrogen – and the only crops that can take it out of the air and convert it into a nutrient are soybeans, alfalfa, and cowpeas.

Wheat, corn, and rice don’t have this ability – therefore they need fertilizer.  As Pivot Bio explains: “Nitrogen is essential to life. It’s a building block of proteins, DNA and amino acids. When plants have the right amount of nitrogen, they grow well and yield abundantly. Pivot Bio makes nitrogen fixation as natural as breathing for the microbe. Microbes inhale nitrogen gas from the atmosphere and release ammonia to plants. Enabling nitrogen-producing microbes as a crop nutrition tool for farmers will transform agriculture.”

MyLand replicates algae in native soil to grow as fertilizer. “Building strength beneath the surface,” explains Board Member, Bill Buckner, in reference to the company’s purpose. MyLand takes live, native microalgae from the farm to improve soil health, increase crop yields, and capture carbon.

Each farm has its own naturally specific algae – just like we have our own gut microbiome. MyLand technicians go out and take samples and isolate which algae are the most suitable for multiplication. They grow the algae in small vessels with lights and correct temperature. They make millions of cells and it is put back in the soil through the farmer’s irrigation system.

As a result, farmers use approximately 25% less fertilizer, 15% less water and reduce tillage by 40%. Voila, yield increases by about 25% and revenue by 40%.

Beyond farming and onto human health

Direct contact with the soil is key. When my oldest son was just a toddler, he was my garden helper. He would happily eat handfuls of dirt and my pediatrician assayed my worries and told me it was good for him. Now I understand why. As humans have evolved over time, we have had a close relationship with the earth first through hunter-gatherers then through farming, and now to our children crawling and running around the garden.

Humans and soil share common bacteria such as lactobacilli which breaks down our food and soil’s organic matter. We can even look to soil to give us new antibiotics that would kill multidrug-resistant pathogens such as MRSA.

But for more than half the global population living in cities and suburbs, this gut connection to the soil is missing. We primarily receive our microbiomes from the food we eat.

The above chart illustrates the difference in human contact with the soil from pre-industrial days to today.

Hot topic: The link between soil health to human health

We eat what we sow, so to speak. The essential nutrients, such as hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, that we need to thrive as humans come from the soil (originally from the stars). In speaking with Dr. Stephen Wood, Sr. Scientist of Agriculture and Food Systems at The Nature Conservancy and Lecturer at Yale, “Very simply, plants receive their micro and macronutrients from the soil.

“In order for humans to thrive, we receive those same nutrients that come from the plants.” Dr. Wood highlighted studies undertaken in parts of Africa that show a correlation between low selenium and zinc in the soil with low levels in the blood of the local population who ate the local rice.

But he is quick to point out that this is not as simple as low levels of nutrients in plants equate to low levels of nutrition in humans. While there is emerging research, the actual evidence where “soil management impacts human health through changes in crop nutrient densities is small.”

In Africa, where nutrition and food scarcity are real issues, studies have been done but the correlation is not always strong. The chart below shows the inconsistencies of zinc in the soil versus in the corn, cowpea, millet, and sorghum.

Even so, we want healthy, not degraded soil, to produce a higher yield of crops to feed a growing population. It is because of the nutrients in the soil that the plants receive their nutrients. While industrial fertilizer gives specific nutrients to help crops grow, increasing the organic matter helps build the microbes in the soil to increase yield.

Regenerative agriculture practices such as cover cropping, no-till farming, and adding livestock from time to time all help increase the diversity and abundance of microorganisms.

How do changes in microbial soil affect the future?

There are benefits to increasing the microbial content of soil – but it is not a perfect science. The added microbes only live in the soil for about three months and can easily be taken over by other microbes. They are hard to apply – which is tough for small holder farmers. Finally, if too much is applied for too long, they can saturate the soil of salts and nutrients.

That said, the technologies keep improving. If we can grow our food with healthier soil and less fertilizer runoff and create better nutrients in our plants and soil we will have a healthier planet and healthier people.

Climate-Smart Farming Paves the Way Toward Carbon Negative


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

The purpose of AgMission, a 2020 partnership with the Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research (FFAR) and the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers in Action (USFRA), is to collect the best research data related to greenhouse gases (GHGs). FFAR funds pioneering scientific research in critical areas of our food and agricultural systems. To support AgMission, FFAR is currently funding over $50 million to support climate change research. USFRA supports sustainable food systems through its broad network of U.S. farmers and ranchers.

To make intelligent decisions about bettering soil health and reducing GHGs in the atmosphere, AgMission will create a massive research platform that provides farmers the intel to farm according to the most effective and applicable carbon sequestration practices. Farmers have long known how various conservation practices protect the natural resources they rely upon for a living and which ones contribute to their long-term financial success.

But making decisions about sustainability and profitability requires more than a collection of ideas; it all begins with good, solid facts.

And that’s what AgMission wants to create.

How is this supposed to work?

Each year, 33.1 billion metric tons of GHGs hit the atmosphere globally, with 5.1 billion coming from the United States. China emits the most – sending up to 10 billion metric tons. Of course, this is not all terrible, as we need carbon to survive.  Without it, our landscape would look more like Mars. Carbon is found everywhere on Earth and is even 18% of our body weight.

According to NOAA, when carbon dioxide (CO2) goes into the atmosphere, about 50% remains there, while 25% is absorbed by plants and trees and 25% by the oceans. If farmers and ranchers could absorb at least 10%, it would certainly help the soil while removing GHGs.

2 million U.S. farmers and ranchers are responsible for growing our food and keeping us fed and healthy. They are environmental stewards for 44% of U.S. land. Globally, it’s more like 38%.

They have proven to be remarkably efficient and productive in delivering an amazing array of foodstuffs the world depends upon.  But rather than bask in the gratitude of a hungry world, farmers and ranchers have faced what seems to be relentless criticism – if not an outright attack by some – for contributing approximately 10% of U.S. carbon emissions and 36% of methane.

As you can see from the chart, crop cultivation, a.k.a. tilling the soil, and deforestation is the most significant contributor to GHGs, with livestock methane emissions as a close second.

Is it possible to bring ag-related GHGs down to a negative 4%? 

AgMission thinks so. If all the farmers in the United States adopted soil-smart farming systems such as no-till, cover crops, rotational grazing, manure management, methane-reducing animal feed, and variable-rate fertilizer application, then the soil would be healthier and more carbon would be pulled from the atmosphere.

Recently, The Nature Conservancy, with participating organizations such as the University of Oregon, Ohio State University, Woods Hole Research Center, the University of Maryland, and the Smithsonian, led a study to determine natural climate solutions for the United States.

They estimated farmers could reduce GHG emissions equivalent to 21% of what the U.S. emits each year. This is 11% more than what is estimated that the agricultural sector emits in the first place!

 

 

 

 

 

“The majority (63%) of this potential comes from increased carbon sequestration in plant biomass, with 29% coming from increased carbon sequestration in soil and 7% coming from avoided emissions of CH4 and N2”

 

 

 

 

For this to succeed, collaboration among all climate-oriented agricultural scientific researchers, as well as support from the global farming and ranching community, is critical. That is why AgMission will spearhead this effort with over $50 million in funding the research. This database for all farmers and ranchers will help them determine which carbon-sequestering methods would best suit their farm, crop, weather, environment, and soil health.

Sequestering carbon benefits the atmosphere, but also the soil. Think of soil like the foundation of a house. Carbon, like the wood frame, provides physical stability for the soil that improves oxygen, water drainage, and retention while reducing the risk of erosion and nutrient leaching.

What do farmers think?

Is it realistic to put this pressure on the farmers? Will they participate in the carbon exuberance? Rather than be offended, farmers and ranchers have responded with their usual ‘can-do’ spirit by supporting efforts to improve their practices to protect the environment and promote sustainability.

AgMission will consider this initiative to be successful if the land farmed and ranched becomes resilient to future climate-related shocks and stresses, food productivity increases, and the food supply chain is secure. This is a huge opportunity – and responsibility for farmers and ranchers across the country.

I spoke with two inspiring farmers, Meredith Ellis, a cattle rancher from Texas, and Anne Meis from Nebraska who grows corn, soybeans, and cattle, as well as serving as Chairwoman of USFRA and board member of the Nebraska Soybean Board. What did they think of AgMission’ s big hairy audacious goal (BHAG)?

Do you think about carbon sequestration when you farm?

Meredith: I ranch for the soil. We are part of a pilot program where our carbon is measured by the Ecosystems Services Market Consortium, a subsidiary of the Soil Health Institute. Our ranch is sequestering 2,500 tons of carbon (after enteric emissions) each year – equivalent to taking 551 cars off the road.

Anne: Every day we think about soil health. Our livelihoods depend on better production and healthy soil. Our goal is to grow crops and to continually try to regenerate that healthy soil.

What do you think about monetizing carbon?

Meredith: I am a progressive farmer and believe in the five principles of soil health, water quality and water quantity downstream, carbon, and biodiversity. When you can commoditize these products, then it will turn the farmer’s eye to more than just beef, rather focusing on additional products such as carbon, water, and biodiversity.

Everyone I have talked to wants to be part of the solution. But I am fearful of policy markets that can miss their goals. For instance, the California cap and trade policies were not incentivizing the conservation of existing grasslands and forests. So it was easy to sell that land, develop it, and release the carbon back into the atmosphere. Another example is the Black Land Prairie in Texas – it used to be 12 million acres. Now it is only five thousand.

Anne: The idea of measuring carbon is highly fragmented. We need an organized system so all this work can really take hold. This is the goal of AgMission.

Do you think farmers would find AgMission’s database as a valuable tool for best soil health practices? 

MeredithData sharing is absolutely critical for collaboration across all disciplines. The more information I have, the more accurate and effective my decision-making process can be moving forward. I urge everyone not to underestimate the enormous amounts of data we ranchers collect that can help greatly in our national and global sustainability goals.

Current data and modeling show my cattle operation is a carbon sink. Now let’s take the next step and answer the question: Why? What is giving me the biggest bang for my carbon buck and how can I improve that number?

Anne: USFRA and FFAR are leading the efforts to gather the science to measure carbon capture. Farmers work in a wide variety of soil types and ecosystems. There are many practices that contribute to healthy soil, efficient water use, and conservation. Farmers have always relied on science to help them make best practices decisions for their unique farms and now others are seeing value in the contributions farmers can make to ecosystem services.

Let’s hope this system evolves as incentive-based and not regulatory. Farmers want to use the best tools for best soil health practices for the best outcomes.

Data-sharing is a critical component of AgMission’ s objectives. How do you and other farmers feel about sharing their data? 

Meredith: I feel like the research community has not put enough effort into understanding the nuances of our operation and the data we collect and why. If anything, I feel a great urgency to share my data with the scientific community, specifically my biodiversity observations as it relates to our dwindling historic grassland and forestland ecosystems which my cattle all home. As willing as I am to share my data freely, I feel the need to remind the scientific community of the decades of knowledge and decision-making skills in a number of areas necessary to become a land steward. Ranchers have to maintain a rich dialogue with scientists and policymakers throughout the decision-making process in how to move forward – or any effort made behind a desk without a producer’s input will likely fail.

Anne: We are constantly analyzing our data and measuring our soil. We know there is a hesitancy among producers that data will be taken from them and then used to restrict and regulate us. That should not be the case. For instance, telling farmers that certain spots on their farm need to be restricted on specific fertilizer or pesticide regulations. We don’t want someone behind a desk telling us how to farm.

Regenerative Ag in Your Own Backyard


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

When Steve Hall bought his 43 acres of farmland in the Appalachian foothills more than a decade ago, he quickly discovered the difference between his dreams and farming reality. The land wasn’t as productive as he had hoped. “More rocks than dirt, really,” he remembers. But he talked with knowledgeable local producers. He sought out experts. He experimented, observed, and learned.

And in the intervening years, a lot has changed – the productivity of his land, and the attitudes of a lot of people who think and act like Steve.

Moving Beyond Gardening

Today, Steve and his two sons operate “Hall’s Regenerative Agriculture”, a consulting company that provides hands-on help for an increasing number of home farmers from the city, suburbs, and elsewhere on how to make their own contribution to the growing focus on sustainability and regenerative practices.

Colin Hall (left) and his father, Steve Hall, work with an expanding roster of clients to apply basic regenerative ag principles to home landscaping and gardening. Photo courtesy of Sonya Mull.

“I’ve worked with bank presidents and average homeowners,” Steve notes. “But they all seem to want the same thing – to use whatever space they have responsibly, not just to look nice or produce a little food. They want to feel like they are doing something worthwhile for the earth we all share.”

Steve has helped clients with as little as one-tenth of an acre, to some with dozens of acres, or more. “I help some folks in rural areas,” he observes, “but more and more it’s people in the suburbs, and even some in the city. It’s about the attitude and awareness people have of our world and our environment, more than how much land they have to work with.”

“The interest in this isn’t really so much a flood as a rising tide,” he notes.

Most of his clients, he says, look for diversity in plants, trees, and other growing things that not just produce some food but maintain the health of the larger ecosystem. “You see some strange combinations sometimes,” he adds. “You want perennials that come back year after year, giving up something edible but also co-existing with each other to replenish the ground and maintain a healthy balance.”

Making the right choices can mean having food from your own land “nine, and maybe even ten, months of the year in this area,” he notes. Maybe just as important, some of these planting configurations will continue to generate environmental benefits that span 50 to 70 years – and maybe more.

On this day, his clients are Ted and Sonya Mull, and their son Connor and daughter Avery. Ted is a medical doctor, his wife a nurse, and his kids two typical suburban high school students. They contacted Steve after realizing their plans to do some landscaping improvements could have a lot more than cosmetic value.

Short-Term Work for Long-Term Results

“It dawned on all of us that what we were doing was more important than just planting a few bushes, or getting our garden plans in order,” Ted reflects. “Maybe it was the effect of being locked away and having so much time to reflect. But we saw a chance to do something more important – something that mattered a lot more than how our place looked.”

Adopting the regenerative approach to home landscaping and gardening led to the addition of a wide variety of plants, all with beneficial environmental qualities.

Making their own small contribution to a healthy and sustainable environment was just the starting point, according to both parents. Ted explains, “Today, it’s so easy for us to forget what it takes to produce the food we eat every day.” He continues:

“We don’t see the effort and the expertise that goes into growing the food we need. Doing this helped remind the kids exactly what it takes to produce food. It teaches them about how connected we all are to the earth and how important it is to make sure we keep that earth healthy and thriving.”

“Covid has been tough on all of us,” Sonya adds. “There’s the isolation and distance from other people, of course. But for kids, there’s also the sense that things are out of control, that the future isn’t what it once seemed to be. Doing this has helped them see a kind of regeneration through nature. We’re doing things that speak to the future – a better future. It sounds kind of like Mary Poppins or something that usually will make teenagers roll their eyes. But they have gotten into this. It’s been great for them. For all of us.

Avery, in fact, soon enlisted friends from school to be part of the regenerative project. Together, they planted trees, shrubs, and other growing things. And as they did so, they talked with Steve, and they learned about the environmental value of the things they planted.

The mix of plants and trees proved to be more diverse than anyone had considered. Beyond the usual suspects of cucumbers, carrots, tomatoes, and other backyard garden staples, Steve advocates lots of berries – currants, goji berries, sunchokes, pawpaws, and more. Black walnut, pecan, maple, apricot trees — “and lots and lots of blueberry plants and apple trees,” Steve adds with a hearty laugh. “People love those, they are good for you, and they are critical to balance in so many situations.”

To the right: Avery Mull, Gabby Sutcliffe and Sarah Katy found that a home landscaping project could be valuable both to a sustainable local environment and their own understanding of regenerative agriculture. Photo courtesy of Sonya Mull.

Every situation is different and demands some thinking and careful planning. “The big thing is to understand how all different types of growing things interact with each other and the world around them,” Steve notes. “It’s a dance…planting the right things in the right places and treating them right. It’s thinking not just about right now but what happens next.”

Steve’s parting advice? “Don’t just go stick some things in the ground and expect to get the results you want. Think about it. Do some research. Ask somebody who knows more than you do. What you are doing is important, so take the time to do it right.” He also provided some great tips to introduce regenerative ag in our backyards, no matter the size…

10 Simple Tips for Home Regenerators:

  1. Plant trees in pairs to promote effective pollination
  2. Always place taller plants to the north so smaller plants get the sunlight, too
  3. Use eco-friendly sun-blockers to control weeds (cardboard, hemp mats, cocoa mulch, burlap)
  4. Don’t skimp on nitrogen fixers (such as beans, clovers, and lupins)
  5. Consider investing in a simple device to monitor nutrient levels in your soil
  6. Diversify what and when you plant to help stagger your harvests
  7. Monitor your water use carefully to avoid overwatering and water waste
  8. Consult your local ag extension agent or gardening expert to find out what is right for your situation. Also, ask about micronutrient accelerators — plants that help gather micronutrients and minerals important to local soil replenishment.
  9. If you use commercial products to nurture or protect your plants, always follow label directions closely
  10. Observe what works well and what doesn’t. Take good notes and learn from them. Share them with your neighbors.

For a more comprehensive look at how to make your home gardening and landscaping more regenerative, check out this “Food Forest” article at Modern Farmer.

Need more help or have a comment for Steve? Contact him at bolohall59@gmail.com.

Covid’s Effect on New Tech in Our Food System


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Grocery delivery has boomed since COVID hit. Gone are the days of waving at the milkman from the kitchen window as he dropped your glass milk containers off for the week. Recent innovations will soon allow online supermarkets to bring food to your door in a sophisticated, temperature-controlled, bacteria-killing environment. How will they maintain perfectly chilled meat, produce, dairy, and other perishables?

The New “Big Box”

Walmart offers an option: together with HomeValet, they are testing temperature-controlled smart boxes that can be stationed outside your home so your groceries are delivered contact-free at any time of day, even without having to be home. According to HomeValet, the UV-C LED disinfection method creates “an inhospitable environment to microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, molds, and other pathogens.”

To the right: the smart box technology uses a UV-C light inside the box, where items are sanitized before removal to ensure cleanliness before you bring them inside.

Like HomeValet, many grocery retailers are experimenting with different ways to meet growing consumer demands, like providing online ordering, mobile apps, and QR (Quick Response) codes that let consumers pick up goods curbside, drive-through, via same or next-day home delivery, or even in secure lockers at convenient locations. While these options are exciting to see and are a welcomed change in efficiency and safety, they have significant implications for the greater supply chain.

Supply Chain Disruption Demands Flexibility

Here’s some context: shifts brought on by COVID-19 have put tremendous pressure on (and new opportunities for) our food supply chains. According to a customer research study, 54% of consumers bought fresh food online this past year, and 70% of shoppers intend to continue online grocery shopping for the foreseeable future.

What’s more, over 100,000 restaurants and bars in the US have closed permanently due to COVID, according to the National Restaurant Association. Fewer restaurants, lower bar-food demand, rising demand at the grocery store, and new delivery options create a market where grocery supply chains must be more flexible than ever.

Flexibility needs to come in many shapes and sizes: personal shoppers must know how to pick out the perfect tomato, shipping and packing technologies should be designed to handle last-minute shifts in distribution networks, and inventory planners need to keep track of what will be stocked in-store and what can ship directly to consumers. It is surmised that this need for elasticity will remain a critical component of a successful supply chain, even long after Covid has gone away.

We’re probably not taking off our masks and heading to concerts anytime soon. These changes may last years, making grocery delivery here to stay for the foreseeable future.

E-grocery businesses can only be effective if automation at the warehouse and distribution centers have the capability to shift from a business-to-business channel to a direct-to-consumer model. With 80% of consumers having grocery-shopped online since the start of Covid, being able to shift from one channel to another is critical. Significant automation is needed for delivery as well. With over 40% of essential items now being ordered online (think toilet paper), the delivery portion of supply chains has to accommodate larger volumes, as well as extra hours for cleaning and sanitizing.

A Look at Several Solutions

Now picture yourself picking up your favorite soup, and it’s the last one on the shelf. Behind you comes a little self-driving robot, scanning labels on shelves, checking stock levels, and alerting employees of low inventory. That is exactly what Simbe Robotics has developed. Schnucks Markets in the Midwest is one of the first to use the technology.

Meantime, Broad Branch Market — in partnership with Starship Technologies — has integrated their automation system with six-wheeled self-driving robots that have sensors aiding delivery to customers.

Almost 2,000 Walmart stores use Brain Corp’s robots to clean and sanitize, opening up employee hours for the workforce to focus on stocking and shipping online grocery orders.

Knock, knock! Who’s there? Robots with your food order!

Some major grocery chains are partnering with inventory management kings to help with grocery shipping and fulfillment. Amazon assists with same-day delivery at Whole Foods and Kroger’s, which are both rapidly expanding their networks to meet rising grocery delivery demands.

Other fulfillment solutions include the expansion of robotic handling. Albertsons Co., for example, has created a series of “micro fulfillment centers” providing a scalable model for rapidly filling thousands of grocery orders daily. These are large warehouses with integrated picking, packing, and shipping robots that provide more efficient work than human workers can offer in-store. The centers store popular items that have historically bottlenecked at a shipping level due to shipping delays. Having this type of inventory in an automated store warehouse has helped to avoid that bottleneck and helped turn the product around to consumers faster.

Thank goodness I can find my two-ply and burger meat in-store anytime now!

Narrowing the Transit Window

For the first time, in 2019, a self-driving truck delivered goods from Cupertino, CA to Quakertown, PA, almost 3,000 miles away. Plus.ai, based in California, has developed this truck to help out when there’s a shortage of drivers and provide a touchless option.

Talk about a change from the neighborhood milkman, now we will be waving to cars with no drivers! I’ll take it if it means increased safety, and increased turnaround time!

Much like the fulfillment challenges, narrowing the time to get products from the processor to the warehouse to the distribution center to the grocery to the consumer has created logistics strains. With next-day air shipping raising expectations for greater speed and “panic buying” necessitating a need for quick processor-to-retailer turnaround to keep shelves stocked, the previously ‘easy’ delivery planning is a thing of the past. Having speed-to-shelf also depends greatly on having inventory in the right locations, and having those locations align with available trucking capacity.

The ground-based transportation industry, which moves goods from processor to retailer to consumer, is under unique stress. They are dealing with staffing challenges due to nationwide emergency drivers needed elsewhere, drivers leaving the industry for higher-paying jobs with better benefits, and drivers making important decisions about pausing their employment to preserve their health amid Covid concerns. Trucking connects all links in the food chain.

Agility with Inventory

The key to addressing each link in the chain is to have end-to-end inventory visibility. This allows the entire supply chain to react quickly to demand without chain-wide disruption. A major component to this is labor flows and resource allocation—or identifying how to be most efficient. This will allow for our food orders to reach us faster and increase our likelihood of reordering. One way grocers are doing this is by cutting their product offerings. Because consumer brand loyalty has all but gone out the window with COVID — with over 75% of consumers having changed brands during the pandemic due to convenience, or availability — consumers are now just taking what they can get as grocers are implementing a more streamlined product offering.

According to a report cited by Food Dive, “the average number of product offerings in grocery stores declined 7.3% during the four weeks ended June 13 … The drop came across a range of product categories, with frozen down 8.5%, deli slipping 7.7%, meat posting a decline of 7.1%, and dairy falling 6.6%.” For example, some grocery stores now offer only four choices of toilet paper, where prior to COVID they carried about 40 varieties.

By trimming away less profitable products that may be more complicated to produce and/or ship, factories and distribution networks can cut down on labor and time. Room on grocery store shelves is then opened up to products and inventory that is more reliable and can quickly meet consumer demand. A good example of this comes from PepsiCo, which decided to stop producing one-fifth of its products during COVID for efficiency reasons and will maintain a 5% reduction in its Frito-Lay snack division.

What Do the Suez Canal and Covid Have in Common?


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

To understand how significant this event is, let’s paint the picture of both the vessel and the Canal.

The massive container-cargo vessel MV Ever Given is 1,300 feet long, about the length of the Empire State Building if it were tipped on its side. Its cargo load is also impressive: the ship can haul 18,300 trailer-size containers that make up an estimated 224,000 tons of all manner of goods. If you were to line those containers end-to-end on land, it would stretch from N.Y.C. down past Washington D.C.

The ship – bound from Malaysia to the Netherlands — encountered 46 mph winds that helped push the huge vessel aground on the Canal’s eastern bank.

In short order, the Ever Given had blocked the entire 984-foot width of the Canal – effectively stopping passage by any of the other 50 vessels that normally move through the Canal each day, Each year, almost 19,000 vessels that travel the Canal. As efforts to free the ship dragged on for a week, the back-up of waiting ships grew well into the hundreds – by some estimates, as many as 350 of these massive ships.

As the incident makes clear, the Suez Canal is one of the most critical global trade points. The Canal, built over a decade beginning in 1859, has become a significant shortcut for oil, gas, and other ocean-borne freight moving in international commerce, especially between Europe and Asia.

Rather than brave the long, tumultuous route around the southern tip of Africa, ships traversing the 120-mile Canal can save as many as 3,500 nautical miles and as much as two weeks in travel time – and cost.

Today, the Canal accounts for about 10-12 percent of international commerce. Lloyd’s List (the recognized Bible of the shipping industry) estimates the cost of the blockage to international trade at $9.6 billion every day – or $400 million every hour or $6.7 million every minute we waited for the Canal to reopen.

If the ship is now freed, what’s the big deal?

The spectacular sight of the motionless Ever Given makes for entertaining video and somber news reports.

But the significance of the event is much bigger than a single cable news cycle.

While the Ever Given has been dredged, and is no longer blocking the Canal, consumers everywhere will be living with the after-effects of this situation for weeks – and possibly months to come.

Why? Because the ripple effects of closing the Canal will spread around the global trading system and once again highlight the delicate balance that exists within our modern supply chain for basic goods – oil, gas, food commodities, manufactured goods, and virtually all the elements of modern daily life.

Modern supply chains are much like carefully choreographed ballets. Each step in the chain depends upon the timely completion of the previous link. Just-in-time delivery is a cornerstone of the system. When deliveries are delayed, stocks may accumulate at production points, and shortages emerge at delivery points. Critical equipment and infrastructure – such as trucks, storage space, and so on – no longer function in the smooth, carefully-timed manner needed to keep the system moving smoothly.

Producers can’t sell, retailers can’t deliver. Consumers became intimately acquainted with these simple realities during the Covid pandemic.

How one ship affects the entire supply chain

As a result of this incident, hundreds of ships will be out of position as they wait at anchor or take on lengthier, costlier travel routes. A global shortage of containers (like those on the Ever Given) will become more pronounced. It will take weeks to sort out the imbalances and restore the system’s normal timetables and schedules. Freight rates are likely to increase, meaning the costs ultimately borne by consumers will rise, too.

Events such as this have a trickle-down effect that spreads across the entire supply chain. Given the importance of the Suez Canal in overall global commerce, the consequences of the shutdown aren’t likely to be confined to only a few, select products. The Canal is an important part of the global energy trade, with almost 10 percent of refined oil and 4 percent of crude flowing through the Suez Canal. Every day, about 600,000 barrels of oil bound from the Middle East to Europe and America travel the Canal.

Video coverage of the event helped everyone see the sheer scale of the problem. 

Most of the products onboard are exported from Asia to Europe and then shipped across the Atlantic to the U.S. For instance, coffee from Vietnam gets processed in Europe and then sent to U.S. grocery stores. But the roster of goods flowing through this trade artery also include furniture, clothing, manufactured goods, even some of the pulpwood that makes up many of the paper products consumers rely upon. (Flashing back to the great toilet paper shortages wrought by Covid.)

Canal traffic regularly includes everyday food staples, notably significant volumes of coffee, as well as livestock. As many as eight of the vessels delayed at the Canal are reported to be carrying animal cargoes. The Canal is a major trade route for many of the 1.6 billion live animals exported by the European Union each year, especially those bound for Asian markets hungry for animal protein. Thus the actual volume or live animal trade affected by this event could be significant. Hopefully, this event won’t prompt another meat shortage like last spring’s declining meat supply.

So what can the consumer expect?

What consumer products will be affected? And how will it all affect the supply and cost of the food we buy every day?

The consumer can expect once again to see some spot disruptions to normal supplies at the retail level. European consumers may bear the brunt of the disruptions, but the ripples will spread to other markets, too. The week-long delay was costly enough on its own.

But as we learned from our Covid experiences, the system will adapt. The Canal is now reopened. The problems we noted will be solved. The only uncertainty is exactly how long that process will take. The more important issue is when the system will return to its normal rhythm, as disruptions and backlogs ease and equipment moves back into normal positions.

This Visual Capitalist chart puts the various shipping choke points in perspective.

We may see some supply disruptions, but they are likely to be more isolated and temporary than systemic and sustained. Prices may spike in certain places for certain products, especially in the energy sector. But supply and demand remain generally in balance for basic commodities and staple goods. There is no need to stockpile.

Avoiding conventional strawberries? Ask these questions first…


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Many regular food shoppers anxiously await the results of the Environmental Working Group’s annual “Dirty Dozen” list. Even if you don’t know what or who EWG is, you’re probably aware that conventional strawberries and other common produce items are supposedly loaded with toxic pesticides. With all the press this list gets, you might assume the research behind it must be scientifically credible, right? Well…

Developing Our ‘Reliability Radar’

Some of our everyday news sources, like social media, flood us with information. And unfortunately, much of it isn’t credible. Many websites try to cloud our objective reasoning by intentionally misrepresenting data to ‘sell’ a perspective, much like the sudden popularity of the celery juice diet that Hayley Philip previously wrote about.

So how can we build our analytical defenses back up? We’ve put together our own unique list — “The Discerning Dozen” — a compilation of tips to help you identify good science from pseudoscience. This way, you can be the judge when catchy news stories like The Dirty Dozen are released.

The Discerning Dozen explores four topics to help determine a site’s credentials: credibility, accuracy/transparency, bias, and quality.

In each, we’ll walk you through a few questions to ask about any article that will help you spot problems in the logic. We’ve even created an infographic to have handy for future readings!

Credibility: 

Though challenging to read, studies from .edu and .gov websites lay the foundation for good research. Try to stick with sources that use respected institutions to verify their practices and reporting. 

  1. Is it written by someone from a credible establishment? Reports and studies from recognizable institutions (academic, governmental, and/or medical) often have the most detail and are peer-reviewed, meaning other institutions have verified the research. Accredited medical journals with .org and .com sites, of course, can be good resources, too. Newbies to exhaustive reports can read the overviews typically found on the first page to understand the big picture. Still need an interpreter? Check out usefulscience.org; it’s a great resource for deciphering studies and has a simple, intuitive interface. Scholar.google.com is easy to navigate, too.
  2. Does it include knowledgeable industry experts and authors? Trustworthy reports and articles come from professionals with credentials in their related industry. These experts usually provide insight garnered from data, rather than opinion and specious claims.
  3. Which references does the report cite? Reliable research that’s not written by a credible establishment and doesn’t come from an industry expert should, at the very least, cite credible sources, like the U.S. Department of Agriculture or Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to substantiate any claims.

That’s a nice little circle of trust there, right? But as we know from life, few things are that easy…yes, there’s more to consider.

Accuracy/Transparency: 

So the site ends in .org or .com and it’s not a medical journal. What’s the next step to check its trustworthiness?

  1. Is it cherry-picking data? This is when an organization only shows data that supports their agenda but fails to address conflicting info or cites data out of context, and/or relies on outdated data since nothing more recent aligns with their purpose.
  2. Do other sites use the same facts? Hopefully, you can find the same information cited by other credible institutions.
  3. How much do they spend on researching their cause – and how much for marketing? All non-profits must publicly disclose financials on their site; you just have to dig for it. For instance, on EWG’s Statement of Activities page, 13% of their expenses went toward marketing and fundraising – not horrible. However, Functional Expenses reveals a much higher figure: in addition to fundraising, each subcategory also has its own marketing expenses. Furthermore, only a paltry 2% of their expenses is going to research and data. That’s not much funding for finding solutions to a problem, is it?

Click here to download infographic.

Bias:

Time to take a peek under the hood when the site’s validity is not easily determined.

  1. Do a domain double-check: Sites ending in .com and .org aren’t as regulated as the .gov and .edu sites of the world, so you’ll need to dig into the “about us” page for some background. Sometimes it’s hard to tell reputable foundations from organizations peddling questionable products or ideas. So be sure to read the bios of the management team and authors to determine reliability.
  2. Is there political pull? Any site can have an agenda, but not all of them explicitly state it. Advocacy websites, like PETA, are quite clear in their intentions. Reading the “About Us” page can tell you which policies, actions, campaigns, and lobbies they promote.
  3. Is it clear who wrote the article? This is a simple one we often overlook. If the author isn’t stated and/or doesn’t cite sources used for its research, then you can quickly determine it was written in-house to promote the organization’s stance.
  4. Is there only one answer? Does the author address alternative viewpoints on the topic? Good writers don’t omit or contest credible data that conflicts with their intent.

Quality: 

If you manufacture a product, you know about quality control – measures and precautions taken to ensure customers that everything is in good working order. This goes for websites, too…

  1. How’s the quality of the writing? Typos? Wrong words used? Time to check the author and his/her data.
  2. Don’t judge a site by its homepage. Does the site look rather simplistic? Or so polished and bursting with content that you feel like you found a goldmine of good material? No matter the design, the site is only as good as its underlying content, so vet it accordingly.

EWG’s “Dirty” Little Secret: There’s No Science Behind It

Our founder speaks up about our right to choose whether to buy organic or conventional produce by empowering us to use facts substantiated by research institutions, not fears caused by a political group misusing data to fit their agenda.

Every year, an organization called the Environmental Working Group (EWG) comes out with its list of a “dirty dozen” fruits and vegetables that are supposedly “contaminated by some pesticide residue”. EWG’s goal is to get people to buy organic (and thus, more expensive) versions of these fruits and veggies rather than their conventional counterparts. They also make very clear on their website that this is also part of a political agenda and that they even spun off a political group, the “EWG Action Fund”, to lobby on their behalf.

If you’re a regular reader of my blog or checked out my bio, you’ll know I’m not opposed to organic food. In fact, I think both consumers and farmers should have a choice on what they want to eat and grow. I believe if you want to buy organic produce, it should be available to you.

However, whether you decide to buy organic or conventional fruits and veggies, I want you to be armed with facts, not fear. For many of us, the lines are really blurred as to what is better. Honestly, they are both allowed to use pesticides – they are simply different types that are allowed by the organic industry and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

So, to tell Americans not to eat produce because they might get sick and poison their families is actually adding to our nation’s health issues.  The majority of Americans either have cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, or are obese.

Of course, there is no magic bullet. But the American Heart Association Journal, concluded the following:

“Higher intakes of fruit and vegetables were associated with lower mortality; the risk reduction plateaued at ≈5 servings of fruit and vegetables per day. These findings support current dietary recommendations to increase intake of fruits and vegetables, but not fruit juices and potatoes.”

It is not just your mother telling you to eat your fruits and vegetables; there continues to be peer-reviewed evidence. In fact, the U.S. National Institute of Health said that eating more fruits and vegetables can reduce cancer, too:

“The epidemiologic experimental and clinical studies conducted…suggest that the risk of colon cancer and possibly other cancers also may be lowered by taking large amount of dietary fibers and other dietary components associated with high intake of grains, vegetables, and fruits. There is an inverse relation between incidence of colon cancer and the amount of fiber consumed.”

Additionally, the Annals of Internal Medicine did a study linking diet to cardiac health:

Diets rich in fruits and vegetables given over 8 weeks were associated with lower levels of markers for subclinical cardiac damage and strain in adults without preexisting CVD [cardoivascular disease].”

The science behind EWG’s “Dirty Dozen” has been called into question. It’s just not true that there are “dirty” or “clean” foods based on whether they were grown conventionally or organically. My biggest concern with what EWG is doing, aside from it being scientifically questionable, is that it can negatively impact our health.

Eating your five daily servings of fruits and veggies can be transformative to your life and health. Don’t let EWG scare you or make it less likely you’ll buy affordable fruits and veggies – regardless of how they were farmed. Rest assured, both organic and conventional methods of farming are safe.

Foster Brothers Farm: Covering Good Ground

We are pleased to have Bob Foster of Foster Brothers Farm write about the farm’s cover crop practices. Based in Middlebury, VT., the dairy farm supplies milk for Cabot cheese products through the Agri-Mark cooperative. The farm also recycles cow manure for their “Moo Doo” compost products sold around the Northeast. Foster is a member of the New England Dairy Association and serves on the Board of Directors for the Soil Health Institute.

When you drive past a farm field this winter, you might be curious about what’s growing there. Yes, growing. At our dairy farm and farms across the state, we’re growing plants on our fields — even in the winter. 

We keep the growing season going 365 days a year with cover crops, like winter rye (shown in the photo at the top of the page). You’ll see fields throughout Addison County and across Vermont green with cover crops still growing as long as the temperatures are around 30 degrees. When temperatures dip even colder or fields are covered in snow, winter rye will go dormant then renew growth in late winter.

Vermont recorded nearly 30% of its available cropland planted to cover crops in 2017 according to the Soil Health Institute, and we’re increasing that number every year. The U.S. average is only 5.6%.  

Covering Ground for Soil Health

Why does this matter? Farmers are covering what were once barren cornfields in the winter because we’ve seen the scientific benefits like carbon sequestration, reduced erosion and nutrient runoff, and flood mitigation. We pair that with reducing tilling or no-tilling in the spring for even greater gains in each of these areas. 

More people are now starting to understand these benefits, too, as documentaries like Kiss the Ground call attention to the fact that without healthy soil our society is in trouble.

Cover crops help us solve the issue of climate change because they are an amazing carbon sink. UVM Extension agronomists estimate that if all 80,000 acres of Vermont’s annual cropland had a cover crop, the carbon sequestration would be equivalent to taking over 51,000 cars off the road. 

To the left: Kirsten Workman, an Agronomy Outreach Specialist at UVM Extension, demonstrates the benefits of rolling cover crops and no-till planting for soil health at a field demonstration at Foster Brothers Farm in Middlebury.

George Foster of Foster Brothers Farm (far left in photo) volunteered to share the farm’s conservation practices as part of a tour of area farms with the Champlain Valley Farmer Coalition.

Another reason we use cover crops is to help the soil hold more water. As extreme weather events like heavy rain and flooding become more common, we need our soil to absorb that water and stay in place.

On an acre-by-acre average basis, developed land can contribute up to four times more phosphorus pollution through runoff than farmland and seven times more than forested or natural areas (Lake Champlain Basin Program). According to Food Solutions New England, 85% of the farmland in New England is managed by dairy farmers and is keeping land from being developed.

Putting it into Practice

At Foster Brothers Farm, we grow 900 acres of hay, 550 acres of corn, plus 300 acres of soybeans and small grains to feed our cows. In the spring, our winter cover crop needs to stop growing so it won’t compete with the corn we need to plant on the same field.

Farmers do this in several ways, depending on their goals and conditions. Some harvest the cover crop for feed for the cows, some flatten it down with machinery, some till it underground, and others will kill it with an herbicide like Round Up®, also known as glyphosate. At Foster Brothers, we’ve experimented with doing all of these methods.

The winter rye cover crop is pushed down by a roller-crimper on the front of the tractor. Corn is planted directly into the flattened winter rye at the same time using a no-till planter pulled behind the tractor.

On our farm, the biggest environmental benefits come when the cover crop is not tilled and is left to decompose into the earth, building organic matter, increasing water infiltration, and protecting the surface of our soil. Either rolling it down or using herbicides means there will be no tillage on the field, which dramatically reduces our carbon footprint and helps maintain healthier soil. We have seen this with our own eyes as we have watched our soil improve dramatically as we adopted this conservation cropping system of no-till and cover crops. 

Our soil is biologically active, and we want to take care of it just like we do our cows and people.

Managing Pesticide Use

We recognize that some people have concerns about the use of glyphosate. We don’t take the use of herbicides lightly. We are raising our families on our farms and we share the same concern for safety. We employ certified experts to ensure we utilize these tools safely and only when needed. The time, amount, and method of application of herbicides is extremely precise, specific to the crop, and regulated by EPA and the State of Vermont.

The U.S. EPA, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), as well as other regulatory authorities in multiple countries, continuously review registered pesticide products and have repeatedly confirmed that glyphosate-based products can be used safely and are not carcinogenic when handled according to their label

Most farmers I know have reduced their use of longer-lasting and more toxic chemicals, instead favoring safer and less persistent chemicals to achieve the same goals. Glyphosate is one example of this. It is applied to a growing plant (the cover crop or target weed). It breaks down quickly and is safer for humans, animals, and the environment compared to other options when handled appropriately.

Looking to the Future of Farming

The latest biotechnology innovations enable farmers to practice more regenerative farming techniques and are just one tool that farmers can choose to use. 

I believe agriculture is at the heart of solving a lot of the issues we face like climate change, flooding, and the water quality in Lake Champlain, and there are many paths farmers can choose to get there. Farmers started on this path to improve soil health because protecting the environment is in our blood.

Most agriculturists aren’t out waving the flag about what they are doing. But, as people become more interested in how our food impacts the environment, it’s time we shared how we’re getting the job done while also providing people with things they can use, whether it’s milk, cheese, compost, or other farm products. 

When talking about sustainability, the media and research often focus solely on greenhouse gas emissions or one component of how we run our farms. Few think about the big picture including the positive impact local food production has on food security, nutrition, and our economy. 

The saying is ‘there is no such thing as free lunch,’ but dairy farmers are on track to continue to provide affordable, nutritious food with little impact on the environment. The movement we are building is nationwide and the dairy industry has set our sights on being carbon neutral by 2050.

Every farm has something to contribute and I’m proud to do my part.

Lucy Stitzer x Farm Journal: Soil, Plant & Human Health

Thinking about Regenerative Ag with Lucy Stitzer, Dirt to Dinner and Nate Birt, Vice President of Trust In Food, a Farm Journal initiative, was originally published on Farm Journal’s AgWeb on March 2, 2021.

Nate Birt: We hear a lot these days about conservation, or sustainability, or regenerative ag. But soil health is really a fundamental building block underlying every ag system, no matter what terminology we use. It even made it into the Super Bowl this year! What are you observing about soil health in the world of food and ag, and what should farmers be paying attention to?

Lucy Stitzer: Chipotle’s marketing captures the idea of a cleaner, happier, more future facing farming. What does this mean exactly? 

Personally, I think that it all starts with the soil. When I first started learning about soil, I didn’t think it was very glamourous or exciting. But when I realized how alive it is – I started paying more attention.

Did you know that in one teaspoon of healthy soil – there live over 7.8 billion microbes – more than all humans on Earth today. Compare that little teaspoon with the human microbiome – and we have 100,000 billion microbes floating around our entire body – about the size of a mango. 

And these little organisms in the soil are more diversified than all the life – plants and insects – in the Amazon! Because of the Earth’s carbon dance of life, 10% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions are found in the soil. 

Healthy soil means a healthier environment and healthier humans. Regenerative Agriculture makes the soil healthier, have more nutrients, takes carbon out of the air, and retains water. This is different from the concept of sustainability which has broader meaning including animal welfare, human labor, and deforestation. Regenerative agriculture is primarily focusing on the soil itself, however many see it as the panacea to save the world from climate change by pulling carbon out of the air. But we can’t just get there with one type of farming and one answer.

What big-name companies or brands are stepping up their commitments to soil health and regenerative agriculture? What can we learn from these announcements as farmers? 

Walmart is committed to having zero emissions by 2040 – restoring 50 million acres of land will help them achieve their goals. Danone will help achieve their regenerative goals by helping farmers make the shift to regenerative ag by locking in long-term contracts with farmers to guarantee stable profit margins.

And Land O’Lakes, a farmer cooperative, has partnered with Microsoft to help farmers with their rural broadband which, in turn, enables them to have ‘intelligent agriculture solutions’ so farmers can keep their soil healthy by fully utilizing precision agriculture. NRCS is also trying to help farmers invest in conservation practices by providing federal financing, as well as from private capital.

“We seem to be divided on everything…let’s use food to bring people together.”

– Lucy Stitzer

Regenerative agriculture refers to the ability of farmers to strengthen ecosystems through their farming practices – yet you refer to the challenge of balancing regenerative practices as part of an entire food and ag system. What can the larger food and ag ecosystem do to support farmers holistically, including regenerative agriculture adoption?

I think companies, the government, and the entire ag ecosystem can recognize that there is not just one answer to growing our food. There is a tendency in our country to take sides. We seem to be divided on everything from immigration to impeachment to the welfare state to education and religion. Bringing the food to your dinner table doesn’t have to have the same divide. Let’s use food to bring people together – unite the country. There is not just one answer to growing food. Regenerative agriculture is a great answer for the soil – but it is not the only answer.  

Incorporating different agricultural practices into farming will certainly help the soil. But what we have to guard against is putting one type of farming on all farmers. Just as people are unique, so are farms — their soil microbiome, their environment. Every farmer should have a choice on how they grow our food. What works great in Kansas doesn’t work in Missouri. 

Finally, trading carbon credits created at the farm is beginning to be a reality. Farmers would have additional income by selling the carbon they have sequestered in their land. There is still a lot to iron out here – but it is being discussed as a way to reduce carbon dioxide in our atmosphere and provide additional farm income.  

It’s not as simple as every farmer adopting a cookie-cutter set of conservation practices or products. How should farmers be thinking about learning the lay of the land, then customizing sustainability to fit their needs? 

I am not a farmer – so my only thought here is for farmers to tell their story. Let people know how you grow your food, farm the land, use different technologies, take care of your soil and your watersheds.

Agriculture is being thrown under the bus as degrading the environment when the reality is that farmers are generally more environmentally conscious than most of us.

In addition, compared to any other industry, farming is the ONLY one that can be carbon neutral.  

What are you reading/watching/listening to that you’d recommend farmers check out? For example, The Wall Street Journal just published an excerpt from a new book this past weekend highlighting the accomplishments of precision agriculture and many ag sectors, such as livestock, in lowering environmental impact. 

On Saturday, Robert Paarlberg, an agricultural economist wrote an excellent piece in the WSJ reminding us that farming practices over the years has gotten better. Science and technology such as precision agriculture, seed genetics, and irrigation management, have helped reduce pesticides and fertilizers while yields have increased. Growing our meat and producing our milk takes less water, less feed, less land, and fewer animals than it did in the ’70s.  How can we continue this trajectory?  

A great page turner on soil is The Hidden Half of Nature, by David Montgomery and his wife, Anne Bikle. He is a professor of geomorphology at the University of Washington and she is a biologist and environmental planner. They write a fun and fascinating book about the soil microbiome.  I loved it and learned a lot. 

I also watched Kiss the Ground. It was thought provoking. It explained regenerative ag very well and highlighted Gabe Brown, a North Dakota regenerative farmer. However, I wish it had a more balanced view on the different types of farming. 

I would like to end with a couple questions for all of us. How can we use creative thinking, technology, and science to advance our food system? How can we push past political agendas and just ‘do the right thing’ for human and environmental health?

 

Check out Lucy’s full interview here:

 

Don’t Look Now, But They’re Gaining on Us


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

South America – led notably by Brazil and Argentina – has quietly emerged as a major producer of the basic crops and products that form the foundation of our global food system. Their productive capacity extends far beyond the sugar, citrus, cocoa, and other tropical and sub-tropical crops we often associate with any country south of our border. Brazil and Argentina also grow corn, soybeans, wheat, and other cornerstone commodities of the global food system. Four nations – Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay in South America, and the United States – together dominate global soybean trade.

South American producers are feeding expanding populations at home and abroad that want more and better food. And in the process, they have become major global competitors, especially as China begins to fill their soybean and corn deficit both from a growing economy and a rebound of hogs from the African Swine Flu.

Why does it matter? Because it helps meet the growing demand for food, primarily protein, from consumers everywhere. It drives the global markets that determine and maintain the delicate balance of commodity prices. It affects the income and well-being of the U.S. farm community. And ultimately, it influences the prices we all pay for the food on our tables.

Welcome to a Changing World

The headline went almost unnoticed in the major news media. But it attracted a lot of attention in the farming community when it appeared early in 2020 on various news wires…

Brazil to surpass the US as the world’s largest soy producer.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture noted that the 2019-20 Brazilian soybean crop would come in at an estimated 123.5 million metric tons (mmt), far above the weather-troubled U.S. crop of less than 100 mmt. To add to the concern in farm country, USDA also noted that an estimated 75 mmt of the Brazilian crop would find its way into export markets.

Since those reports, the picture hasn’t changed – except to become even more complicated. USDA projects that Brazilian farmers will plant, harvest, and export even larger amounts of soybeans in the 2020-21 marketing year that has just begun. And to make matters more complicated, Trade Market News increasingly speaks of Brazil as not only the world’s largest producer of soybeans, but the world’s largest exporter, as well.

Behind all the numbers, one message was clear: U.S. farmers are facing some tough competition to serve the growing demand for the soybeans and coarse grains needed to feed expanding animal herds around the world — especially the already huge (and still growing) market offered by China.

The Brazilian agricultural sector has grown robustly over the past decade and a half or so – and the Argentinian agricultural system remains a strong competitor in global agricultural markets. Together, these two nations make up an agricultural powerhouse, with rising clout in the world food picture.

A serious analysis of each country’s farming and food production systems would fill books. But just consider a snapshot of each.

Complicating the Picture

What makes South American producers so competitive?

A 2016 study by the U.S Department of Agriculture found that higher land and capital costs in the United States helped give both Brazil and Argentina significant advantages in overall farm-level production costs per acre for both corn and soybeans. Higher U.S. yields for corn helped offset the disadvantage somewhat, but these South American producers were found to have a per-acre price advantage that averaged 11 to 28 percent below U.S. costs.

U.S. corn farmers continue to have the overall price advantage, thanks to their superior per-acre productive capacity. But Argentine corn producers trail the United States by only 3 percent above U.S. costs (25 percent for Brazilian corn growers). Brazilian soybean farmers had a per-bushel cost advantage of 8.5 percent. Those kinds of advantages translate into very attractive prices for foreign buyers – and help explain the emergence of both countries as major factors in global corn and bean markets.

Not everything is rosy for the Brazilian and Argentine farm sectors, however. Nothing is guaranteed when it comes to farming and food, and experts also cite several continuing challenges to growth. Some offer rays of hope for better market opportunities for U.S. producers and exporters.

  • Global supply – and price — issues.

Worldwide stocks (basically soybeans in storage) of soybeans dropped again at the end of 2020, to a seven-year low of 140 million bushels. At the beginning of 2020, that figure was 575 million bushels.

And as economics dictate when supplies decrease and demand increases, prices have enjoyed a resurgence over recent months. Soybean prices that averaged about $9.50 in 2020 now sell for more than $13.50 – levels not seen in almost a decade.

In response, demand for corn as an animal feed also has increased worldwide, allowing U.S producers more opportunity to exploit their edge as the world’s largest and most efficient corn producer.

  • Brazilian supply issues. Brazil faces delivery problems for their soybean export commitments. Brazil is running low in stocks for their domestic customers. As a result, they have temporarily eliminated their 14% tariff for imported soybeans. They could import up to 1 million tons this year.
  • Investment. Not only have Brazilian farmers been willing to re-invest their new profitability in production expansion, but government assistance and foreign investment has helped fuel expansion of the country’s agricultural infrastructure. For example, a modern new road from key production areas around the Amazonian city of Manaus to vital export points has helped the flow of Brazilian crops from field to foreign customer. Soybean producers also have shown a willingness to invest in new, more drought-resistant seeds, and the inputs needed for optimal yields. The commitment to investment will be a key to continuing market competitiveness, as South American producers seek to match – or outperform — their northern counterparts in production efficiency.
  • Currency and economic challenges. The value of the Brazilian real has dropped by almost 30 percent over the past year, lowering the price of Brazilian exports and the cost of production inputs. Much of the continent continues to grapple with how to rebound from a lingering global economic downturn and the very real damage done by a global pandemic. Many have seen a sharp drop in economic vitality, but seem on the rebound now. Those efforts will be critical to attracting the investment that drives growth and modernization.
  • Political instability. Governments continue to struggle with the best means of dealing with political unrest triggered by allegations of government corruption, human rights abuses, economic and social injustice, and other public unrest that triggers fiery campaigns and heated public debate.
  • Environmental pressures, especially within Brazil. Deforestation in key parts of Brazil has accelerated in recent years, outraging the environmental community in an age of climate change. Some politicians and economists counter that more agriculture, logging, and mining are key steps in regenerating the economic health on which progress depends. The debate promises to grow only more intense.
  • American market resurgence. Efforts to resolve lingering trade disputes between the United States and China will be closely watched. USDA’s year-end projections for 2021 point to an expansion in U.S. soybean exports, as trade relations with China settle down and export levels rebound from the depressed levels of the past two years and return to the more traditional levels seen before the contentious trade dispute between the two countries. Soybean exports so far this marketing year are robust, supporting USDA projects that soybean sales to China will grow from the $17-18 billion levels of the past two years to more like $26 billion – above even the high levels reached in 2017.

Flying Down to Rio – and Beyond

Agriculture represents one of the mainstays of the Brazilian economy, despite the global economic downturn of the late 2000s and the more recent COVID pandemic.

Rising population and strong economic growth have created a robust domestic market for a wide and growing roster of food. But the real source of vitality in Brazilian agriculture rests in its enormous success in moving aggressively into global markets.

For decades, the country has developed market-oriented policies and improved farming and food production practices that have made it an international haven for investment.

The government actively supported the agricultural sector with a broad and extensive array of initiatives and policy changes – largely aimed at allowing Brazilian producers to compete for growing world markets food.

Programs helped producers diversify crops, improved their access to the capital needed to mechanize and purchase improved inputs, expanded agricultural research. provided targeted tax reductions and subsidies for select exports – and more.

Where are these exports going? Who are its most important trade partners?

Asian markets represent almost half the market for all Brazilian farm exports. And China is at the top of the list – as both Brazil’s largest export market and its largest supplier of total imports.

Reports from the Brazilian government in the first half of 2020 point to sharp increases in year-over-year sales. In January alone, China bought a record $3.8 billion in Brazilian farm exports, including $750 million in soybeans in that single month, according to their Minister of Foreign Trade. For perspective, that is more than the Pentagon is asking for its defense budget for the entire year.

In plain English, the Brazilian farm economy is growing despite all sorts of challenges, and its exports are going gangbusters, thanks in large part to strong demand from China and the rest of Asia. Brazil – and fellow South American country Argentina – are successfully capturing more and more of the markets important to American farmers and the U.S. agricultural system.

Don’t Cry for Argentina

Argentina shares many of the same characteristics of diverse climate and soil that make Brazilian agriculture so successful. The country produces a wide range of crops and animals, with a robust and growing wine industry.

The rich grasslands of the Pampas region once made Argentina a powerhouse in the production of cereals and cattle. But as the country increasingly urbanizes and other nations improve their competitiveness, Argentina has not seen the same level of dramatic growth and expansion as its South American neighborGreat weather and strong global demand for soybeans, feed grains, and animal protein helped Argentina maintain a strong presence in the global market picture. However, export taxes and other government-directed efforts to manage markets risk further damage to Argentinian competitiveness.

Oilseeds represent the fastest-growing segment of the country’s exports, up 130 percent from 2018 to 2019.

Meat exports rose by half in the same period. Brazil remains Argentina’s most important trading partner overall.

China is Argentina’s second-largest export market, with Viet Nam, India, Malaysia, and Indonesia also buying large amounts of Argentine farm products.

The United States imports around $5 billion each year – mostly metals and minerals, and about $300 million for fruits and vegetables, and another $300 million in wine.

The Argentine government spurred internal controversy in early 2021 by announcing the two-month suspension of licenses for corn exports. The move was intended to conserve corn supplies for local animal feeding, but producers strongly opposed the measure, leading to the imposition of export quotas for corn. Concurrently, Argentina lowered export taxes on a long list of specialty crops, helping improve the price competitiveness of those producers.

What Should I Eat in a Day?


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Food as fuel

Our bodies are amazing engines fueled by the food we eat. What are some amazing functions our engines do to live a healthy life? Our heart pumps about 7,500 liters of blood through 100,000 miles of blood vessels every day – which is why we want to avoid heart disease. In one second, 50,000 new cells have been shed and replaced.

And to keep our body functioning in tip-top shape, we want those cells to be strong and healthy. The more fruits, vegetables, and nutrient-dense foods we eat, the stronger our new cells will be, making our whole body healthier.

Bill Bryson put it eloquently: “Every day, it has been estimated, between one and five of your cells turn cancerous, and your immune system captures and kills them. Think of that. A couple of dozen times a week, well over a thousand times a year, you get the most dreaded disease of our age, and each time your body saves you. Occasionally, cancer develops, but overall most cells in the body replicate billions and billions of times without going wrong.”

You see, it is so much more than maintaining a certain body weight. It’s the difference between cells that can fight diseases and those that cannot.

Research shows that by following the USDA’s recommended nutrition guidelines, we are healthier, have stronger immune systems, and are less likely to develop diet-related illnesses. But why are vegetables healthy and chips not? What makes one food good for us and another bad? It’s all about what’s inside the food: vitamins, minerals, and amino acids.

The food groups

The USDA just updated its daily recommended nutritional allowances. But we start to ask ourselves questions, like “what does 5 to 7 servings of produce look like?”, “if I only eat 3 meals a day, how can I possibly get all of these servings in?” and “can I just do it all at once, like in a smoothie?”

According to the USDA Dietary Guidelines 2020-2025, healthy daily eating consists of a few key categories.

  • Vegetables: 2.5 cups, or 2.5 tennis balls
    • Dark green, red and orange, legumes, starchy – we need them all because each of them contains different vitamins and minerals including fiber, vitamins A, B6, C, and K, potassium, iron, cobalamin, and magnesium.
    • Aim for 2.5 cups per day. But note that not all veggie portions are created equal – double your amount of leafy greens that wilt when cooked, like spinach, and then round up!
  • Fruits: 2 cups, or 2 fists 
    • We mean whole fruits here. Apples, oranges, grapes, berries…you get the idea.
    • Necessary vitamins and minerals found in fruit are fiber, iron, vitamin C, and potassium.
  • Grains: 6 servings, or 1 cup of uncooked oatmeal, 2 slices of bread, and 1 cup of uncooked brown rice
    • Most of this should be whole grains, like brown rice, quinoa, oats, and whole-grain bread.
    • Limit your intake of refined grains – pasta, white rice, white bread. If you do eat them, look for enriched refined grains that put some of the vitamins and minerals back in.
    • Nutrients in whole grains include complex carbs, fiber, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, folate, iron, magnesium, and selenium.
  • Dairy: 2-3 cups, or 1 12-oz. glass of milk and 1 cup of plain yogurt
    • This includes milk, yogurt, cheese, and fortified drinks, like soy milk.
    • Dairy contains fat, but several studies say we should not be limiting our daily intake of fats because they’re a necessary part of our diet. Rather, we should limit our intake of saturated fats.
    • Keep your saturated fat consumption under 10% of your daily calories. If that requires drinking low-fat milk instead of whole, don’t worry…it contains the same amount of vitamins and minerals.
    • If you have a sensitivity to dairy, supplement the vitamins and minerals you’re missing. For example, leafy green vegetables are also high in calcium, making them a viable option.
  • Protein: 50 grams, or 3 decks of cards
    • There are many different proteins to choose from: seafood, lean meats, poultry, eggs, legumes, nuts, seeds, soy — the options are endless!
    • Aim for at least 8 ounces of seafood a week.
    • Note that different proteins have different compounds, so be sure to read the label and opt for leaner proteins with less fat.
    • Keep in mind that nuts and seeds are high in calories due to their fat content.
    • Proteins also contain healthy fats, cobalamin, vitamins A, D, and B6, iron, fiber, and potassium.
    • A good rule of thumb is to eat one gram of protein for every kilogram of body weight (just divide your weight by 2.2 to convert it to kilograms)
  • Oils: 5 teaspoons, or 5 dice
    • Because of their fat and caloric density, a little bit goes a long way here.
    • Focus on heart-healthy oils, like olive oil, avocado oil, and canola oil.
    • Oils, especially olive oil, contain healthy omega-3 fatty acids. These are said to limit inflammation in our bodies and reduce our chances of developing diet-related illnesses, like heart disease and diabetes.
  • Limit saturated and trans fats, added sugars, and sodium
    • Read the nutritional and ingredients label to spot these in your foods.
    • Avoid processed meats as they contain more sodium, saturated fats, added sugars, and calories.
    • Less than 10% of our daily calories should be from added fats and sugars – the lower, the better.
    • The Dietary Guidelines also recommend keeping your sodium intake below 2300 mg.

We know this task is easier said than done, so our printable infographics are here to help!

   

What to eat

Now that we’ve told you the food groups to include in your diet, you’re probably wondering how on earth to accomplish this. Don’t worry! We’re going to give you examples of simple meals for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and even snack time, that will help you reach your daily goals and make grocery shopping and meal preparations a lot easier.

Click on each of these categories to see our D2D-verified meal options that not only squeeze in a variety of nutrients within all food groups, but also adhere to an overall caloric intake of 2,000 a day when consumed with healthy snacks:

         

Healthy snacks can help you reach the rest of your daily caloric needs. A few good snack ideas are a banana with almond butter, an apple with a handful of whole nuts, 1 ounce of dark chocolate, or Greek yogurt with fruit.

Any of these meals can be mixed and matched every day. If you eat a breakfast high in protein, eat veggies with lunch. If you are on a non-dairy, plant-based, vegetarian, or vegan diet, find alternative ways to get protein. Treat your food as fuel for your body, and know what’s going in. Lastly, although getting nutrients from whole foods is best, if you feel deficient in certain nutrients, supplements like vitamins can help.

If you’re still unsure of what to buy, click on the image for a printable shopping guide you can take with you to the grocery store. If you want to take a look at my shopping list this week as a quick example, click here.

Remember to have variety in your fridge. Try to buy a couple of options from each category every week. For fruits and veggies, the more variety, the better!

What about other diets?

The USDA Nutrient DatabaseHarvard Health’s The Nutrition Source, CDC Division of Nutrition, among others,  each have their own perspective on the best way to meet our body’s nutritional needs, so we want to include a few other considerations for nutrition and long-term health.

But these sources agree that eating our recommended daily allowance of fruits and vegetables is crucial for long-term health. Produce has fiber, vitamins, minerals, electrolytes, and phytochemicals. If you eat five to seven servings of produce a day in lieu of processed food it can help you keep chronic diseases at bay. 

One diet method with proven long-term success is intermittent fasting, where you consume all meals within an 8-10 hour window. It can lead to healthier cell production and a reduction in long-term health diseases. Intermittent fasting can also improve endurance, coordination, brain health, balance, and muscle mass. 

There’s also been more attention on diets promoting a diverse microbiome, resulting in a healthier heart, immune system, inflammation, and even mood. The interesting thing about our gut bacteria is that it craves the foods you eat the most. If you eat fruits and vegetables, you want more. If you eat sugar and processed carbs, you want more. This is why many have gravitated toward a whole-plant-based diet.

The EAT-Lancet report is also in agreement with a mostly whole-plant-based diet with very limited amounts of meat. Contrarily, the paleo diet necessitates an increased consumption of meats and other protein-heavy foods to achieve optimal health. However, its effect on long-term health is contentious. And now, we have the added complexity of the paleo-vegan diet, or pegan diet – a mix of meat and vegetables, with less dairy, grains, legumes, sugar, and processed foods.

An Important Note…

The information in this post is to serve as a guideline. Everyone’s body is different and therefore requires different nutrient intakes. For example, someone who wants to increase their muscle mass will need more protein in their diet. And those who rigorously exercise daily will need more calories than someone with a sedentary lifestyle. Get to know your body and understand its needs. And consult a doctor or nutritionist before changing your diet plan.

Building a Sustainable U.S. Beef System

We are pleased to introduce Sasha Gennet, Ph.D. as a guest columnist for Dirt to Dinner.

Sasha heads up The Nature Conservancy’s Sustainable Grazing Lands strategy in North America, where she leads an interdisciplinary team of science, conservation, policy, and communications experts to achieve widespread adoption of conservation management practices on U.S. grazing lands, as well as protection and conservation of working lands. (Above image courtesy of TNC.)


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

I wasn’t one of the lucky kids who got to grow up on a ranch. No one back then would have expected me to work on livestock production and grazing lands. We lived in the suburbs, and I come from a family that had mostly worked in factories, not farming. I was even a vegetarian in my teenage years, on the grounds that I didn’t want to eat an animal if I didn’t know and feel good about how it was raised (which is still true).

My love for the outdoors and need to be near nature led to my early career as a botanist and restoration ecologist. Through my early jobs and in my graduate school research in grasslands and on ranches, I learned two key things about land stewardship:

  • Livestock is one of the best tools available for managing land to benefit soil, water, and biodiversity. Essentially, good grazing management in the right places is good for native plants and wildlife; grazing animals can help manage fire risk, and strong rural economies rooted in ranching help slow urban and agricultural sprawl.
  • Ranchers are deeply committed to protecting the natural resources that make their livelihoods possible. This is true of ranchers in California, the Great Basin, the Dakotas, Florida – all across our country. For example, Meredith Ellis, a second-generation rancher in Texas, uses soil health and sustainable grazing practices to help sequester carbon, withstand extreme weather events, safeguard water quality, and provide consumers with beef they can feel good about buying. You can check out her story here.

Those early years spent studying grasslands and working on ranches instilled a deep appreciation in me for the people who dedicate their lives to producing food and the many—often overlooked—contributions they make to land management.

Now, through my work with The Nature Conservancy (TNC), I’m lucky enough to partner with local ranchers to promote the conservation value of grazing lands and advance sustainability goals across the complex beef supply chain.

By partnering with family-owned cattle operations to test new on-ranch practices and collaborating with food companies to source sustainable beef products, we’re working to mainstream livestock production practices that actively restore and regenerate nature—practices that are good for ranchers and the environment.

To get there, we must first understand the value of what’s at stake, acknowledge the challenges that stand in our way and define a clear path forward.

The Vast Footprint of Working Wildlands

More than 770,000 cattle operations span the United States, and 90% are family-operated. The ranches and grazing lands where beef cattle live most of their lives total about 775 million acres nationwide. That’s the size of Alaska, Texas, California, and Montana combined.

These incredibly diverse lands include native grasslands—the least well protected habitat type on earth— like the iconic prairies of the Great Plains as well as the rangelands of the Great Basin and desert Southwest, savannah of California, and pastures in the Southeast.

This part of the U.S. agriculture system contributes $76 billion to our economy. But these private, public, and tribal grazing lands provide more than economic benefit and food. These “working wildlands” also provide wildlife habitat, secure freshwater, and help mitigate climate change by drawing more carbon into the soil.

Farmers and soil health practices are a big part of the picture, too, since most beef cattle are finished on grain after spending a large part of their lives on grazing lands. In fact, as much as one-third of the 90 million acres of corn grown in the U.S. ends up as feed.

There’s too much common ground between ranchers, farmers, and conservationists to not work together toward mutual goals. The people and families who care for these valuable lands are the backbone of rural economies and essential to a world where nature and people thrive.

Challenges and a Path Forward

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has worked for decades with farming and ranching communities to collaboratively advance conservation. We have supported numerous voluntary conservation easements, partnered with local organizations, supported federal funding for ranch stewardship and protection, and used our own lands to research and demonstrate how livestock can help regenerate nature.

While successful in many ways, those efforts have yet to ensure long-term conservation across these vast and varied lands and communities. In fact, many grasslands and rural communities that depend on these lands are experiencing greater challenges and risks than ever before: land values that outpace profitability from livestock grazing, more droughts and floods, and market shocks like we saw in 2020 due to COVID-19.

In recent years, TNC has expanded our work to engage more deeply with initiatives and companies in the beef supply chain, engaging and advancing robust sustainability programs.

Given its importance economically, and strong influence on natural resources, the beef industry—from farmers and ranchers to restaurants and retailers—is uniquely positioned to help safeguard and steward nature, while benefitting producers, rural communities, and consumers.   

So, what can the beef industry do to ensure a healthy environment, while ensuring ranchers and farmers sustain their livelihoods and deliver quality food products? A seemingly simple but essential first step is for leading companies to recognize that healthy, functioning ecosystems and thriving agriculture operations are the foundation of a secure and equitable food system. That then needs to lead to committing to improving the environmental and socio-economic sustainability of their supply chains, setting robust goals, and investing in implementation, including tackling climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

It also includes working diligently with civil society, producers, and other companies to define and identify a path to environmental and socio-economic sustainability, for example by actively participating in the U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef.

Collaboration Is Key

Several companies are making significant commitments. Last year, Walmart U.S. and Sam’s Club U.S. announced new aspirations to source fresh beef products more sustainably by 2025, with a focus on grazing management and soil health across an additional 12 million acres. This announcement came after TNC worked with Walmart to identify opportunities and actions to improve sustainability in its beef supply chain to help improve soil health and decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

In collaboration with TNC and the University of Minnesota, McDonald’s analyzed their beef and chicken supply chains to identify climate mitigation opportunities. Based on this work, McDonald’s is now building programs with their suppliers to meet their company’s ambitious 31 percent greenhouse gas reduction goal.

Our work with McDonald’s and Walmart led to the development of a Roadmap for a Sustainable Beef System, which is helping more companies identify opportunities and take action to make improvements within their supply chain while tracking progress toward their environmental goals.

In essence, we’ve created a science-based approach that can help companies create solutions that are environmentally beneficial and economically favorable for producers while delivering a product that meets consumers’ expectations.

Sustainability needs to be the business-as-usual approach in the U.S. beef industry in order to ensure long-term food supply, economic security for ranchers and their communities, and a healthy environment for us all. Taking that a bit further, the food production process needs to actively restore and regenerate nature, and there’s no time to waste. Seeing two of the world’s largest purchasers of beef take proactive steps to achieve sustainability within their supply chains signals tremendous momentum in that direction.

But much more needs to be accomplished, quickly, and we can only get there by working together.

Q&A with FFA’s Tyler Gardner

Future Farmers of America (FFA) is the premier youth organization preparing members for leadership and careers in the science, business, and technology of agriculture.

To support FFA’s members and their contribution to ag, Dirt to Dinner is please to introduce Tyler Gardner. Here is a Q&A from Tyler’s point of view.

Tyler Gardner is one hard-working college student. His education in ag started with working various positions at his family’s cranberry marsh. As his experience broadened, his mission evolved to produce healthy and sustainable food for generations to come.

Tyler, tell us a little bit about your background, family, and studies. 

I grew up and currently live on one of my family’s cranberry marshes in Pittsville, Wisconsin, a small town in central Wisconsin.

I am currently attending the University of Wisconsin River Falls and majoring in Agriculture Business. 

I hope to use my degree in Ag Business to obtain a job in the ag industry and eventually come back and work within the family’s business.  

What is your favorite part of working on your family farm?

My favorite part of working on my family’s farm is the feeling of pride and ownership. It is not just a job, but it’s a way of life for my family.

My father taught me from a young age the value of hard work and to never quit until the job gets done. These values have always stuck with me and it reminds me to keep working hard because someday that marsh could be mine.

It is also very rewarding to work throughout the summer months on a crop and then see your hard work pay off in the fall.

“It is just a great feeling of accomplishment to know that all the early mornings and late nights over the summer paid off to grow your cranberry crop. Seeing the final crop at the end of the year is by far the most rewarding feeling and it is one that is truly hard to describe unless you’re a grower.”

Tell us about your cranberry operation…how long has it been in the family? 

My family’s cranberry operation began back in the early 1990s with my uncle, Butch Gardner, and my father, Tom Gardner. The first cranberry bogs that they planted were on the marsh that I grew up on. They proceeded to grow the family business by building and planting more cranberry marshes in the Pittsville area. They then began to buy other marshes around the state. 

We currently operate around 2,000 acres of cranberry bogs. Along with growing cranberries, my family also has built cold storages and cranberry processing plants. This has streamlined the processing for our cranberry juice concentrate and sweetened dried cranberry products.

How is farming cranberries different from other crops? 

Cranberries are a crop that needs to be taken care of all year long, but once springs rolls back around that is when the cranberry vines come out of dormancy and they begin to start growing again. 

What is needed to grow cranberries is sandy soil, a large water source, and the correct climate. The cranberry’s root systems grow best in the sandy soil because cranberries need more acidic soil to grow in. The sandy soil also makes it ideal for drainage.

It sounds like cranberries can’t grow just anywhere…

Cranberries need to stay moist, but cannot be saturated for long periods, because it can create rotten fruit and damage the plant’s roots. We also need a large water source to grow cranberries, because in the summer months we need to irrigate the plants, and then in fall, we need the water to harvest the crop. We also never use any high-pressure wells, rather we reuse water from large bodies of water such as ponds and reservoirs.  Lastly, having the correct climate is the last most important part of growing this fruit.

Cranberries can only be grown in certain parts of the world because of their very specific climate needs. The area where I am from, for example, is a perfect area because cranberries need warm summer months for the growing season, the cool falls months to change their color, and the cold winter months so that they can go into dormancy until the next growing season.

How do you harvest your crop?

Harvest for this crop begins with the flooding of the cranberry beds. Our cranberry beds are in a rectangle shape with dikes and ditches surrounding them, this makes it possible to add and take water off the cranberry beds. Once there is about a foot or two of water in the cranberry bed, we then take a large rake attached to a tractor and drive into the cranberry bed and knock the berries off the vine.

Once they are all knocked off the vines then we added another two feet of water into the bed to completely flood the vines. Cranberries naturally have 4 little air pockets that allow them to float to the top of the water.

Then we take float boom to corral all the cranberries together and then we take a berry pump and pump the cranberries out of the bed and put them into semi-trucks to take the cranberries to market.

Cranberry vines produce a crop every year and usually do not need to be planted twice or every year. There are even some cranberry vines that are over 100 years old and still producing a crop. But the biggest reason why people do replant or renovate cranberry beds is to create a better producing bed with vines that are going to give them a better yield.  So yes, we do use the same vines (bushes) and reuse (plant) exiting vines into new beds. When we plant cranberry vines, we take the cuttings off existing cranberry vines and place them into the ground into a new bed. It takes about three years for these new cranberry vines to develop and start producing well. 

What is processing cranberries like? 

What makes our cranberry operation unique is that we can clean, store, and process our cranberries ourselves. The process for cranberries begins with the “cleaning station”. Cranberries are hauled into the station with semi-trucks and they are stored and cleaned. In the cleaning process, only the best berries are selected to be placed into storage. After the cranberries are cleaned and sorted, they are placed in large wooden boxes and then sent to the freezer where they stay until they are needed for processing. Fresh cranberries can stay in the freezer for up to two years before they are processed.

Cranberries are cleaned and sorted using machines such as shaker tables and specialty cleaning equipment made for cranberries. We don’t use robotics during the cleaning process, but before the cranberries go into further processing, we use robotics to sort out all the light-colored berries or any unusable cranberries that were not taken out during cleaning. 

The cranberries are then taken out of the freezer and transported to the proccing plant, where they are processed into jams, sauces, juices, and my favorite, sweetened dried cranberries. 

Tell us about your pest and weed management practices. 

Because of our abundant acreage across Wisconsin, we have hired and trained our scouting team. This way, we have resources for our growers year-round on all pest, weed, and other growth management practices. This team works hand-in-hand with each property manager to discuss, discover, and decide what is best for that particular property. 

Our scouting season starts in early May and goes until late August where the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) team surveys the marsh and identifies weeds as well as monitors pest pressure.

The team then correlates the information with growing degree days and pheromone traps and will conclude if anything is at an economic threshold—or is at the level where is it damaging your crops enough that you will see a decrease in yield.

If a weed or pest hit an economic threshold, the team and the manager will come together and decide on the best solution promptly. Because we are growing fruit for human consumption, we are extra cautious and sustainable in all our practices here at Gardner Cranberry.

What are some of your sustainable practices?

We take a lot of pride in our sustainable practices as a large cranberry grower in Wisconsin. All the fruit we grow is approved to the highest market standard and can be shipped anywhere in the world. The unique thing about cranberries is the large amount of water we recycle and reuse during all seasons of the year. We have reservoirs that hold our water for all irrigation, frost, and flooding events. These large reservoirs bring with them a diverse ecosystem that includes anything from floating peat bogs to native Tamarack trees and migratory birds.

Because our system is naturally integrated, our top priority is always to use sustainable and regenerative practices.

We understand our system works best when everything is in its natural state and can work together. During the springtime, we have an opportunity to do a spring flood to control our first major pest of the season – the spanworm. If the timing works out, we use our water to flood up the cranberry beds until the vines are fully submerged and we keep it on for 48 hours to kill any live insect activity in our vines.

This is a great regenerative option that we conduct at least once every season. By doing this, we naturally eliminate a large pest concern and we avoid using any alternative options.

We want consumers to understand that our family not only eats these cranberries, but we also live and work on these properties – it is essential for the land to be healthy, safe, and sustainable for generations to come.

~  ֍  ~

Stay tuned for more Future Farmers of America stories like this. If you would like to get involved with FFA, visit www.ffa.org.

If you’re a fellow FFA and want to share your story or tell us about an inspiring member, please email us at info@dirt-to-dinner.com – we’d love to hear your story!

Regenerative Ag: The New ‘Sustainable’


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

At a high level, Regenerative Agriculture is a system of farming practices based on decades of science and applied research that when combined, helps to enrich soils, increases biodiversity, improves watersheds, and ultimately harnesses carbon in the soil.

The premise of Regenerative Ag is to replicate nature instead of conquering it. It promises to increase yields, enhance the health and vitality of farms for generations to come, as well as provide resilience to climate instability. But not all farms apply these principles the same way. Because there is no stringent set of guidelines for what is considered “regenerative farming,” each operation will vary the application of these practices, as well as how they measure the success of their regenerative efforts.

Soil can save our planet? And reverse climate change? Regenerative ag is also a tool to reduce CO2. Even though agriculture, forestry, and land use account for approximately 18% of annual greenhouse gas emissions, these claims about soil are only partially true. Farming practices and soil health are just a piece of the puzzle to carbon emission reduction.

The Trailblazer: Gabe Brown

The face of the regenerative ag movement is North Dakota farmer Gabe Brown. After nearly losing his 1,760-acre family farm outside Bismark due to a series of massive hailstorms, blizzards, and successive crop failures, Brown turned it all around. Having been introduced to the central ideas of regenerative farming over the years, it was not until he aggregated his learnings and applied them simultaneously to his farmland that he was able to boost microbial activity in the soil, retain carbon, and restore ecological balance.

As Brown explains, regenerative ag is a real paradox: the best way to achieve it is to do less, not more. 

Gabe Brown used synthetic fertilizers like many other farmers in his area but decided to try something a little different when he removed them altogether. Brown then experimented with planting several one-acre plots with varying monoculture cover crops and then on one plot, he planted everything together in what he called a “biodiverse polyculture cocktail.” What he witnessed over two very dry and challenging months was that productivity was three times greater on the polyculture cocktail plot.

Since Gabe’s polyculture plot also realized higher yields than his neighbors, he was determined to find out how this was possible. His water filtration rates also skyrocketed, going from a one-half inch of water filtered per hour to one inch in only nine seconds. To further measure his success, he conducted carbon-retention testing using soil samples.

Given these dramatic results, Gabe no longer applies synthetic fertilizer. He practices rotationally grazing his livestock on these plots, leading to increased soil health and yield. Many farmers find they reduce synthetic fertilizers with this method, but few have gotten to the point of eliminating them altogether without negative yield effects.

Compared to the typical 10 to 30 tons of carbon stored in conventionally-farmed soils of the Northern Plains, Gabe has found “where we’ve done in-depth, significant testing, our soils have 96 tons of carbon per acre in the top 48 inches”.  Many agree that measuring carbon sequestration is the best hope for demonstrating the power of regenerative agriculture, though not all operations will have the ability to use this measurement technology.

What Makes Something “Regenerative”?

At the core, regenerative agriculture is the practice of farms finding various ways to draw substantial carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But it is much more than that: it enriches the soil by diversifying its microbiome, preventing erosion, and increasing its water. Regenerative ag can be done with a variety of methods, including no-till farming, crop rotation, and animal grazing, just to name a few. But all methods must adhere to these four key principles:

(1) improving soil, water, and biodiversity

(2) creating unique combinations of these farming practices to suit each operation

(3) ensuring these practices work for the landowner, farmer, producer, and all other stakeholders

(4) continually grow and evolve practices to reach maximum potential

How is the Success of Regenerative Agriculture Measured?

One of the more contentious debates within regenerative ag is how farmers measure the successes of their operations. However, efforts are in the works to make quantifying regenerative ag an affordable, relatively pain-free process.

Currently, the majority of farmers calculate their reductions of inputs and increased crop yieldsto determine the effectiveness of their particular regenerative ag practice. This includes decreased pesticide use which ultimately reduces overhead costs, increases yield, retains water in the soil, and enhances resilience to pests and drought.

Subsequent Investigations

Dirt to Dinner seeks to answer these questions in subsequent Regenerative Ag posts:

  • How does carbon make the soil healthier, and by how much? Who benefits – the farmer? The consumer? The environment?
  • What is in it for the farmer? And will the government mandate specific practices? A deeper dive into carbon credits versus incentives.
  • What does the ramp-up to becoming regenerative look like? How long does it take soil to be regeneratively productive?
  • What is the payback for farmers to compensate for the ramp-up period? Does the yield increase in all cases? Or is it location specific?
  • What are the stories of other farmers successfully practicing Regenerative Ag?

Have questions about Regenerative Agriculture that you would like answered? Let us know here.

What is the Biden Era Agricultural Agenda?


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

The Changing Cast of Players

The new Congress and Administration will feature some new names in key roles for shaping our nation’s food and agriculture system. And while some familiar from the Obama Administration, experienced old hands in ag matters also will show up on the leadership roster, they will have an agenda that differs significantly from the past four years – and just as likely, a different approach to the role of government.

On Capitol Hill, long-time House Agriculture Committee Chair Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) is being replaced by Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.).

On the Senate side, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) is expected to return to her previously-held role during the Obama Administration as chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

Another familiar name from the Obama Administration – Tom Vilsack — also has been tapped to return as Secretary of Agriculture. Some elements of the left-wing of the Democrat Party have been critical of his nomination due to his familiarity with traditional farm and food organizations, as well as his past comments on climate change and minority relations. But Vilsack brings extensive experience and knowledge of all aspects of the food system. He has enjoyed the support of a wide spectrum of the agricultural community throughout his extensive career in public service.

New Players, New Agenda

The new leadership group undoubtedly brings a lot of experience in food and agriculture to the table. But the challenges confronting the American food system are very different from just a few short years ago. The change in administration brought a new and updated set of priorities – and a very different view of the role of government in dealing with those challenges.

Expect to see Congress and the Biden Administration focus on:

  • Covid-19. Stemming the spread of the virus will be the most visible immediate priority not just for the agriculture committees but the entire government. Access to vaccines in rural areas will be high on the agenda, as will continuing economic support for those most damaged by the lockdown.
  • Climate change. Don’t look for omnibus “climate change” legislation from either ag committee as much as efforts to promote conservation and other regenerative environmental practices by farmers and ranchers through expansion of existing programs and additional incentives for responsible, environmentally beneficial farming practices, all carefully couched and presented as ‘climate change’ initiatives. Many immediate actions are likely to involve a flurry of executive orders rather than time-consuming and contentious legislation. The creation of a ‘carbon market’ for agriculture will be a popular item for debate.

While the focus on climate change comes as no surprise, the farm community anxiously awaits some sign of the approach to be taken. Farm leaders urge policymakers to think in terms of carrots rather than sticks. That is, they note that the farm community by and large is supportive of the broad effort to act responsibly on matters that affect the climate, and the environment.

Policies that incentivize and reward positive actions will work better than threats of punishment for failure to comply. That approach is best in unleashing the creative and entrepreneurial capabilities of the farm sector, far more than an imposition of rules and regulations devised solely or largely by bureaucrats.

  • Rural economic development and revitalization. After years of declining net farm income and massive direct government payments, both legislators and administration officials will be looking at bigger, more comprehensive packages to stimulate rural economic vitality. Look for initiatives to promote growth in ‘green’ jobs, expand health care services and improve broadband access.
  • Social equity. Congressional leaders, in particular, have been outspoken in the need to address perceived economic inequities, notably for smaller farm operators and minority farmers and ranchers. Prominent Democrats also have called for immediate attention to farm labor issues, to address matters of wages, work conditions, organizing rights, and other concerns.
  • Relations with China. No market remains more important to the economic interests of farmers and ranchers. Efforts to promote improved relations and fulfillment of ambitious purchase commitments by the Chinese will remain top priorities. But expect a more studied effort to assess overall U.S. China relations, of which agricultural interests are just one part of the bigger picture of future relations between the two countries. Also, look for greater movement toward a multilateral team approach – especially with the EU – from the Biden Administration…it will be a movement away from the bilateral approach of recent years to more emphasis on building coalitions capable of exerting influence on the Chinese.

  • Improved trade opportunities. The ‘America first’ approach of recent years is likely to evolve into a more traditional model of negotiation, built around ‘constructive engagement.’ Bilateral trade negotiations to open new market opportunities will no doubt continue. But also look for much more energy behind attempts to revive and rejoin broader trade initiatives and agreements, notably in the Pacific and among long-standing U.S. allies.
  • Don’t rock the boat. Basic farm programs and policies have worked well for years, providing Americans (and others around the world) with a steady supply of affordable, nutritious, safe, and expanding food choices. No one in government wants to change the basic direction of our farm and food policies or to risk radical changes that harm the hard-won framework of rules, protections, and incentives that makes such a system possible. But there is a strong new commitment to making the system work better for all those involved in the system, and to address the legitimate environmental issues and questions arising from the climate change debate.

Beyond the Agriculture Committees

The agriculture committees undeniably make up the center of gravity in crafting food and agricultural policy. But other parts of Congress also come into play.

  • Taxes. Any farmer will quickly point out that farming is a capital-intensive business. Finance and money management are critical skills – and a major area of interest, especially when candidates and elected officials in a new political era have made the issue of “revenue” a major target area for attention.

Continuing economic challenges from the pandemic, coupled with a generally more ambitious agenda of government initiatives, mean an almost certain review and revision of tax laws. It will likely involve examining a range of tax policies, including capital gains, gift taxes, inheritance taxes, accounting rules, and more.

For an economic sector largely based on family ownership and reliant on land values as a key element of their financial strength, these are highly important subjects. Expect the food and agriculture community to keep a close eye on the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, and the new Biden Administration’s role in shaping any changes to tax laws.

  • Technology. Advances in technology are sweeping across the global agricultural system. Congress is trying to keep pace. The current focus on communication technology is expanding to cover other areas, with the gradual emergence of a variety of science and technology groups advocating a re-think of how Congress deals with the need to better understand and constructively guide the sector’s expanding role in all aspects of life, from the farm to the dinner table. Keep an eye on this wild-card in the emerging new era of government.
  • Health care. The pandemic helped focus attention on the need to improve health-care delivery across the country, in particular in the rural areas underserved by the existing system. The Biden Administration has made economic revitalization of rural America a priority, and expansion of health care services and facilities should be a substantial component of that effort. Look for additional collaboration between the Department of Agriculture and Health and Human Services, as well as a greater collaborative effort among all health-related departments and agencies.

  • Infrastructure. Like health care, the broad issue of improving the nation’s crumbling infrastructure also will have implications for the agricultural community and all of rural America. Maintenance of roads and bridges is a key component of the modern food chain, and most local authorities will agree that more needs to be done to maintain and improve what already exists. The big question will be not so much where such efforts should be focused, but how to pay for them.
  • Research. The Department of Agriculture and congressional committees traditionally made science and research a key element of their policy agenda. The new administration has made “science-based” decision-making a fundamental plank of their campaign. The agricultural community is waiting anxiously to see exactly what that means, in terms of the decisions to be made regarding the role of genetics in expanding food production, and the willingness of the government to continue sharing the financial burden of aggressive research on food and environmental matters.

Digging into the Biden Era Agricultural Agenda

The Changing Cast of Players

The new Congress and Administration will feature some new names in key roles for shaping our nation’s food and agriculture system. And while some familiar from the Obama Administration, experienced old hands in ag matters also will show up on the leadership roster, they will have an agenda that differs significantly from the past four years – and just as likely, a different approach to the role of government.

On Capitol Hill, long-time House Agriculture Committee Chair Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) is being replaced by Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.).

On the Senate side, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) is expected to return to her previously-held role during the Obama Administration as chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

Another familiar name from the Obama Administration – Tom Vilsack — also has been tapped to return as Secretary of Agriculture. Some elements of the left-wing of the Democrat Party have been critical of his nomination due to his familiarity with traditional farm and food organizations, as well as his past comments on climate change and minority relations. But Vilsack brings extensive experience and knowledge of all aspects of the food system. He has enjoyed the support of a wide spectrum of the agricultural community throughout his extensive career in public service.

A Rare Glimpse of Bipartisanship

Food and agricultural policy has been one of the few examples of functional bipartisanship, crafting farm bills running hundreds of pages. This daunting task demands cooperation and a willingness to listen and compromise, among dozens of committee members representing rural, suburban, and urban interests. They cover everything from production agriculture to nutrition to rural development to commodity markets to SNAP to bioenergy – and a long list of all the policy matters that make our food system function. Between farm bills, the committees wrestle with the same dynamics in dealing with individual legislative proposals that emerge in every Congress.

The unique world of food and agriculture has helped foster a spirit of bipartisanship not often found elsewhere on Capitol Hill. That’s not to say there aren’t sharp differences in ideology or priorities or approaches. And as the committee membership continues to become more inclusive and diverse – with expanding representation from outside the rural sector – the potential for sharp differences certainly increases.

These committees share and are united by a recognition of the critical importance of providing not just Americans but others around the world with the safe, nutritious and affordable food they need, produced responsibly and sustainably.

Together, they have built the framework of the rules of the road that make such a remarkable food system possible.

In such an environment, the leaders from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue become especially important to continuing the bipartisan process. They must be solid leaders – knowledgeable of both the broad issues and specific details of farm policy, and highly skilled in building bridges with committee members and the rest of the Congress. They have no choice in the matter. Farm legislation simply can’t pass without the support of a diverse congressional membership that increasingly is urban and suburban, not uniquely rural.

Both outgoing House Agriculture Committee Chair Rep. Collin Peterson and Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Sen. Pat Roberts are widely regarded as consummate diplomats and political bridge-builders. It’s now up to Rep. Scott and Sen. Stabenow to maintain that spirit in an era of the continuing partisan divide. With both committees divided into almost equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans, that means their relationships with the ranking minority members of each committee will be very important.

In the House, that role goes to Rep. Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania. As another long-standing member of the panel, Thompson also has extensive first-hand experience in farm-related legislation. He also brings a particularly strong focus on education, including support for wider educational opportunities at land-grant colleges and universities, as well as strong advocacy for expanded access to better health care, especially in rural areas.

On the Senate side, the role of ranking minority member will go to Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas. He also brings an extensive record of service on the committee, as well as the highly important Senate Appropriations Committee. He has served on various subcommittees deal with a spectrum of key food and agricultural issues, from production agriculture, conservation, nutrition, and research. His background as a small business owner and an expert in health care matters also are noteworthy.

New Players, New Agenda

The new leadership group undoubtedly brings a lot of experience in food and agriculture to the table. But the challenges confronting the American food system are very different from just a few short years ago. The change in administration brought a new and updated set of priorities – and a very different view of the role of government in dealing with those challenges.

Expect to see Congress and the Biden Administration focus on:

  • Covid-19. Stemming the spread of the virus will be the most visible immediate priority not just for the agriculture committees but the entire government. Access to vaccines in rural areas will be high on the agenda, as will continuing economic support for those most damaged by the lockdown.
  • Climate change. Don’t look for omnibus “climate change’ legislation from either ag committee as much as efforts to promote conservation and other regenerative environmental practices by farmers and ranchers through expansion of existing programs and additional incentives for responsible, environmentally beneficial farming practices, all carefully couched and presented as ‘climate change’ initiatives. Many immediate actions are likely to involve a flurry of executive orders rather than time-consuming and contentious legislation. The creation of a ‘carbon market’ for agriculture will be a popular item for debate. (D2D will look at climate-related issues in more depth in future posts.

While the focus on climate change comes as no surprise, the farm community anxiously awaits some sign of the approach to be taken. Farm leaders urge policymakers to think in terms of carrots rather than sticks. That is, they note that the farm community by and large is supportive of the broad effort to act responsibly on matters that affect the climate, and the environment.

Policies that incentivize and reward positive actions will work better than threats of punishment for failure to comply. That approach is best in unleashing the creative and entrepreneurial capabilities of the farm sector, far more than an imposition of rules and regulations devised solely or largely by bureaucrats.

  • Rural economic development and revitalization. After years of declining net farm income and massive direct government payments, both legislators and administration officials will be looking at bigger, more comprehensive packages to stimulate rural economic vitality. Look for initiatives to promote growth in ‘green’ jobs, expand health care services and improve broadband access.
  • Social equity. Congressional leaders, in particular, have been outspoken in the need to address perceived economic inequities, notably for smaller farm operators and minority farmers and ranchers. Prominent Democrats also have called for immediate attention to farm labor issues, to address matters of wages, work conditions, organizing rights, and other concerns.
  • Relations with China. No market remains more important to the economic interests of farmers and ranchers. Efforts to promote improved relations and fulfillment of ambitious purchase commitments by the Chinese will remain top priorities. But expect a more studied effort to assess overall U.S. China relations, of which agricultural interests are just one part of the bigger picture of future relations between the two countries. Also, look for greater movement toward a multilateral team approach – especially with the EU – from the Biden Administration – It will be a movement away from the bilateral approach of recent years to more emphasis on building coalitions capable of exerting influence on the Chinese.

  • Improved trade opportunities. The ‘America first’ approach of recent years is likely to evolve into a more traditional model of negotiation, built around ‘constructive engagement.’ Bilateral trade negotiations to open new market opportunities will no doubt continue. But also look for much more energy behind attempts to revive and rejoin broader trade initiatives and agreements, notably in the Pacific and among long-standing U.S. allies.
  • Don’t rock the boat. Basic farm programs and policies have worked well for years, providing Americans (and others around the world) with a steady supply of affordable, nutritious, safe, and expanding food choices. No one in government wants to change the basic direction of our farm and food policies or to risk radical changes that harm the hard-won framework of rules, protections, and incentives that makes such a system possible. But there is a strong new commitment to making the system work better for all those involved in the system, and to address the legitimate environmental issues and questions arising from the climate change debate.

Beyond the Agriculture Committees

The agriculture committees undeniably make up the center of gravity in crafting food and agricultural policy. But other parts of Congress also come into play.

  • Taxes. Any farmer will quickly point out that farming is a capital-intensive business. Finance and money management are critical skills – and a major area of interest, especially when candidates and elected officials in a new political era have made the issue of “revenue” a major target area for attention.

Continuing economic challenges from the pandemic, coupled with a generally more ambitious agenda of government initiatives, mean an almost certain review and revision of tax laws. It will likely involve examining a range of tax policies, including capital gains, gift taxes, inheritance taxes, accounting rules, and more.

For an economic sector largely based on family ownership and reliant on land values as a key element of their financial strength, these are highly important subjects. Expect the food and agriculture community to keep a close eye on the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, and the new Biden Administration’s role in shaping any changes to tax laws.

  • Technology. Advances in technology are sweeping across the global agricultural system. Congress is trying to keep pace. The current focus on communication technology is expanding to cover other areas, with the gradual emergence of a variety of science and technology groups advocating a re-think of how Congress deals with the need to better understand and constructively guide the sector’s expanding role in all aspects of life, from the farm to the dinner table. Keep an eye on this wild-card in the emerging new era of government.
  • Health care. The pandemic helped focus attention on the need to improve health-care delivery across the country, in particular in the rural areas underserved by the existing system. The Biden Administration has made economic revitalization of rural America a priority, and expansion of health care services and facilities should be a substantial component of that effort. Look for additional collaboration between the Department of Agriculture and Health and Human Services, as well as a greater collaborative effort among all health-related departments and agencies.

  • Infrastructure. Like health care, the broad issue of improving the nation’s crumbling infrastructure also will have implications for the agricultural community and all of rural America. Maintenance of roads and bridges is a key component of the modern food chain, and most local authorities will agree that more needs to be done to maintain and improve what already exists. The big question will be not so much where such efforts should be focused, but how to pay for them.
  • Research. The Department of Agriculture and congressional committees traditionally made science and research a key element of their policy agenda. The new administration has made “science-based” decision-making a fundamental plank of their campaign. The agricultural community is waiting anxiously to see exactly what that means – in terms of the decisions to be made regarding the role of genetics in expanding food production, and the willingness of the government to continue sharing the financial burden of aggressive research on food and environmental matters.

Blue Zones: Long & Healthy Living


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Why are so many of us overweight, over-stressed, and prone to so many diseases? It’s easy to blame genetics or factors beyond our control. But as more and more studies pile up on the subject, we’re finding that the decisions we make every day affect our health much more so than our genetic makeup.

Living better and longer

Scientists and academics who have examined human longevity in-depth have identified locations called “Blue Zones.” These are geographic areas and cultural enclaves around the world with many citizens aged 90 and older. Here in the U.S., we have an average lifespan of only 78 years, so what’s the secret?

“Individuals get lucky, populations don’t,”  – Dr. Dan Buettner, longevity expert

Genetics indeed plays a role in making longer lives possible. But these studies suggest genetics is only about 20% of the equation. The remaining 80% is from epigenetics, where your lifestyle determines how your genes express themselves.

It comes down to a few simple yet powerful guidelines:

  • Eat a balanced and nutritious diet
  • Get plenty of physical exercise, and find ways to reduce stress
  • Stay mentally vibrant and intellectually engaged in life, and with others

Internationally recognized researcher, explorer, founder of Earthtreks, Inc., Emmy Award winner for co-producing PBS’s Scientific American, and most recently an author and American National Geographic Fellow, Dr. Dan Buettner, worked with the National Institute on Aging, pioneering incisive new research in the ways people everywhere pursue longer, healthier lives.

Dr. Buettner shared his discoveries in his book, Blue Zones: Lessons From the World’s Longest Lived where he interviewed 263 individuals from Okinawa, Japan; Sardinia, Italy; Ikaria, Greece; and Loma Linda, California.

The “Power 9”

The nine common denominators discovered through this decade-long study were a series of lifestyle choices, not quick solutions, that are believed to slow our aging process.

  1. Moving naturally refers to our daily activities. Rather than setting aside an hour of the day to exercise, these populations are natural movers. They garden, they walk, they do housework both inside and outside, the commute on foot, their jobs are physical. Their everyday routines are much less sedentary than the typical American work-life cycle.
  2. The purpose of the Okinawans, called ikigai, is an understanding that they can make a difference in others’ lives every day. This motivation to live each day is fueled directly by a sense of purpose, a reason to get out there and live with meaning.
  3. Downshifting is a major takeaway from each culture, which often use a part of their day or week to seek rest. This “downshift” is the practice of managing their stress by ensuring rest. We know that stress can lead to chronic inflammation, which is associated with a variety of age-related diseases. The Okinawans take time each day to remember their ancestors, while the Ikarians commonly nap. Sardinians downshift by having daily happy hour, while Adventists rest on Sundays.
  4. The 80% Rule is a 2,500-year-old rule from Okinawa’s Confucian ancestors. They say the mantra before each meal to remind them to only eat to 80% capacity. That 20% gap is the difference between losing or gaining weight. People in the Blue Zones generally tend to eat their smallest meal in the late afternoon or early evening and then fast for the remainder of the day.

  1. Wine @ 5 refers to all Blue Zones, save for California, whose Adventist population does not drink alcohol. The trick is to keep drinks to 1 or 2 glasses per day, often with food and friends.
  2. Belonging is a critical part of the findings. All but five of the 263 centenarians who were interviewed belonged to some type of faith-based community. The denomination did not seem to matter. The research showed that attending a faith-based gathering four times per month added four to 14 years of life expectancy.
  3. Loved ones first is widely practiced in these communities by having their grandparents and great-grandparents live very close. Furthermore, these communities were known for committing to one partner for life, allowing them more time to invest in their children and to share love.
  4. The right tribe goes hand in hand with social circles. The world’s longest-living people were either born into or chose social groups that support healthy lifestyles. For example, the Okinawans created moais, which is a group of five friends that committed to each other for life. These groups proved to combat loneliness and decrease negative lifestyle factors.
  5. Eating practices for these locations included a diet rich in vegetables, legumes, whole grains, and nuts. Additionally, they also often practiced fasting, as well as decreased calorie intake. The Blue Zones also eat diets that are fish heavy, as a preferred protein. For example, in Icaria and Sardinia, fish is a staple and high in omega 3s.

Does location determine longevity?

National Geographic and Dr. Buettner did not originally set out to uncover these Blue Zones. In fact, they were embarking on what was originally designed to be an expedition to explore uniquely different areas of the world, only to find out that these 9 factors were major contributors to their longevity.

We know that there is no actual fountain of youth and that moving to these exotic places is not going to add years to your life. According to Buettner, these populations were not ‘trying’ to be healthy- they had not set out on a health quest to cleanse themselves, or create new ways of life. No, it was innate. The environment in which they lived was primarily natural, they worked near loved ones and knew their purpose. They broke bread with family and took the time to recharge.

Blue Zones, in partnership with Healthways, created what is called the Blue Zones Project which has set out to bring the Power 9 longevity principles to entire communities. To focus on changing environments, and creating long-term sustainable change for future generations.

This task is no small feat. Changing the way communities move, and share and eat and grow requires a lot of effort, as Buettner details:

“We work with restaurants, grocery stores, schools, and large employers to make healthier foods more accessible and less expensive. We also work with local community groups and religious institutions to create walking groups and other opportunities for residents to meet new people, create new connections, and improve their lives with volunteer work or new hobbies…we make it easier for people to move naturally, make new friends, and eat healthy.”

So far, the results have been dramatic. The first community work for this project was in Alberta Lea, MN. In a single year, the citizens added 2.9 years to their lifespans, with healthcare claims decreasing by 49%. There are now 42 Blue Zone project cities in the U.S. We look forward to seeing what changes these communities will actualize. According to Dr. Buettner:

“…through policy and environmental changes, the Blue Zones Project Communities have been able to increase life expectancy, reduce obesity, and make the healthy choice the easy choice for millions of Americans.”

Hope for the rest of us

And while we know this is one study, the initial results support other research for living longer. We know about some similar lifestyle suggestions such as meditation, the Mediterranean Diet, the importance of exercise, the need to have a purpose in life, and the critical component of love with family and friends.

We must, for the health of ourselves, and our children, focus on the whole body. From decreasing our stress to prioritizing our loved ones, to giving ourselves the time to relax and recharge, to not overeating and focusing more on the foods we eat than being full.

Functional Water: All fun, no function?


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Functional waters are defined as enhanced waters that provide benefits outside of just sheer hydration. A sector that sprung onto the market in June 2016 when All Market Inc. launched Vita Coco, water in a box that touted the benefits of added electrolytes. From there, major players joined the scene—from PepsiCo to Coca-Cola to Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Nestle, and more.

The global market share for water has grown from $10 billion in 2017 and is projected to be upwards of $18 billion by 2025. With nearly half of all Americans drinking less than four cups of water on a daily basis, it seems this sector could be promising for a dehydrated America.

But what can functional water really provide beyond hydration?

These beverage companies are hoping to revolutionize the hydrating experience, making claims like: ensuring better sleep quality, body-detoxing properties, pH balance, and more. But, what’s the real scoop here? I know Gal Gadot wants me to drink Smart Water, Dwayne Johnson wants me to refresh with Voss, Gwyneth Paltrow suggests hydrating with Flow, and Jaden Smith tells me to opt for Just Water. And while I know that my favorite celebs would nevvvverrr lie to me, there may be some smoke and mirrors at play.

Let’s see what the real deal is, where science meets celebrity, and how to base our spending on fact, not fame.

Types of Functional Waters

One size does not fit all.

Functional waters come in many forms, from alkaline to hydrogen-rich, electrolyte-enhanced to superfood infused…each one touting its unique health benefits.

Can these really all be true?

Alkaline Water:

CLAIM: Alkaline water brands claim to help regulate our body’s pH levels. By drinking alkaline water, you can lower your bodies pH, strengthen your immune system, clean your colon, prevent aging, detoxify your system, lose weight, and prevent cancer.

ANSWER: FALSE.

EXPLANATION: Much like our research of the Alkaline diet, the theory that too much acidity in the body is harmful and creates a need to increase our pH level, is itself false. Furthermore, the claim that water can alter a human’s internal pH levels is also untrue.

The reality is that our bodies do a darn good job of maintaining our very tight pH levels. There are many metabolic ways our body rids itself of acids to keep our pH between 7.35 and 7.45. Our lungs control our body’s pH by releasing carbon dioxide each time we breathe out. Our body also rids itself of acid by secreting it through our skin and urine. Furthermore, our stomach acids neutralize the alkaline water we ingest.

POTENTIAL UPSIDE: A 2012 animal study found that alkaline water with a pH of 8.8 neutralized pepsin, a stomach enzyme involved in breaking down food proteins and producing stomach acid. This suggests that alkaline water might help soothe acid reflux—though the issue has not been studied in people yet.

TAKEAWAY: If alkaline water is going to get you to drink more water, go for it! Just don’t think that the money you are spending is going to alter your body’s acidity levels. But if you suffer from acid reflux, give it a try!

Hydrogen-Rich Water:

Hydrogen-rich water is regular water boosted with extra hydrogen molecules. Hydrogen is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas that binds to other elements like nitrogen, carbon, and oxygen and can form a variety of compounds like water.

CLAIM: Adding hydrogen molecules in water can provide extra antioxidants to protect our body against damage caused by free radicals. It can also decrease inflammation, boost athletic performance, and even slow down how our body ages.

ANSWER: Not to the extent of these claims.

EXPLANATION: Water molecules consist of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms. The assertion of benefits from infusing water with additional hydrogen molecules lacks any scientific backing – and in fact may have been disproved by a recent four-week study in which 26 healthy people were asked to drink 20 ounces of hydrogen-rich glasses of water each day. When compared to results from a placebo group, the study found no indication of decreased oxidative stress or inflammation.

It is also important to note that there is currently no industry-wide standard for the amount of hydrogen that can be added to water. Should I worry about too much hydrogen? While a few studies have shown that too much hydrogen could lead to a build-up of hydrogen ions, which could cause muscle fatigue, these results are rare.

TAKEAWAY: If you enjoy drinking it, go for it! Just don’t think that the money you are spending is going to decrease inflammation and rid our body of free radicals.

Electrolyte Water:

Electrolyte Water is enhanced with electrolytes. But did you know that tap water and most other waters also contain trace amounts of electrolytes? Electrolytes themselves are minerals that help to conduct electricity when dissolved in water.

We have all heard of giving Pedialyte to kids who have the flu and need to add back electrolytes to get their energy level up. Well, here is what is happening: when electrolytes are distributed through fluid in our body, their electrical energy helps to control fluid balance, regulate blood pressure, and contract muscles like the heart.

CLAIM: Electrolyte waters can help to replenish electrolytes lost during physical activity, and help to increase energy.

ANSWER: YES in some cases.

EXPLANATION: Electrolyte water is most beneficial for those who are physically active, or those who have lost electrolytes due to sickness. During physical activity, the body loses sweat that contains sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium. Electrolyte enhanced waters can provide a replenishment of those minerals lost through sweat. But unless you are an athlete or under the weather, why pay more? And be careful of sports drinks with electrolytes, like Gatorade, that contain a whopping 30-grams of sugar in a 20-ounce bottle. In addition to the added calories, these sugar-rich drinks can actually make symptoms worse.

TAKEAWAY: If you find that electrolyte-rich water helps you recover faster, try it out! Just don’t think that the money you are spending is going to have much of an effect unless you are an athlete or have been sick and need to replenish lost electrolytes.

Infused Water:

Water added flavors such as fruits, vegetables, or herbs tend to taste great and is a perfect alternative to sodas and other sugary drinks. But what is this gorgeous glass of lemon and cucumber water providing you outside of an Instagram-able moment, and a good smelling, better tasting vessel to get your daily water intake? Well, truth is, not much.

CLAIM: Clear Skin! Weight Loss! Detoxing!

ANSWER: No, no, and no.

EXPLANATION: We have seen claims saying that up to 20 percent of nutrients from added fruits will leech into the water and provide some of the benefits from eating the whole food. Even if that were true, why not just pop the strawberry or cucumber in your mouth and get 100 percent of the nutrients?

But I suppose that is neither here nor there. Take lemon water as an example. Infusing water with lemon raises the amount of Vitamin C and antioxidants – but only produces a very, very small change in its nutritional content.

If that is your goal, simply eat the whole food….but maybe not a lemon.

POTENTIAL UPSIDE: If you are drinking delicious, homemade infused water, you’re staying hydrated without adding sugar. And that right there is a benefit in itself. I have recently been cutting up lemon and rosemary sprigs and putting them in a pitcher of water at the front of my fridge. This serves not only as a reminder to keep hydrated but an easy tasty option to sip my water all day long.

TAKEAWAY: If infused water is going to get you to drink more water, go for it! Just don’t think that the pretty pitcher of pineapple counts as a serving of fruits. It doesn’t. Just eat the darn fruit, and drink a glass of pretty water because it tastes good, looks good, and smells good, not because it is better for you.

Just Plain, Old Tap Water:

The healthiest and most affordable choice. While it may not be the tastiest option, it is, simply put, all we really need. Our bodies are made up of 60 percent water and each and every drop of water helps us digest, eliminate waste, deliver oxygen to our system, lubricate our joints, regulate our temperature, and help our nutrients flow. Basically, every single one of the billions of cells in your body needs water to function. Drinking more water can also help you stay fuller longer, which can decrease the desire to consume unnecessary calories.

According to the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, men should drink about 15.5 cups each day or 3.7 liters, while women should strive for 11.5 cups each day or 2.7 liters.  If you are thirsty – you are a bit dehydrated. Check your urine to see if the color is yellow or dark yellow – then reach for the bottle or glass.

Transparency in the Produce Aisle


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

I have been working in the agriculture industry for a long time. Over 30 years to be exact. But it wasn’t until I entered the highly-perishable fresh produce sector a decade ago that I gathered a true appreciation for how complicated – and how powerful – a transparent supply chain can be.

For many deep-rooted and emotional reasons, consumers have a close relationship with their fresh produce, scanning the produce aisle high and low for just the right piece of fruit to take home. And if at a farmer’s market, they’ll often quiz the farmer on how the product was grown, what crop protection products were used, and when was it picked. Arguably, the consumer’s relationship with fruits and vegetables is the most complicated one in the supermarket.

Those are the old days. Or at least that is the past, and singular, view of how consumers connect with the most perishable of products in their shopping cart.

The promise of technology and its impact on transparency will forever change the produce aisle, just like moving from 3G to 5G technology.

Different Views on Produce

When I speak to consumers about transparency, they reflect with varied responses. Some will say they want to get to know the specific grower that produced the beans or apples. What type of land was the crop raised on? What chemicals were sprayed, if any? What similar products can I purchase from that particular farmer?

When I speak with growers, transparency means building deeper loyalty with retailers and the consumers they serve (with hopes the loyalty is returned). But equally important, it’s a way to keep track of the product in case of food safety inquiries and also ensuring the quality of food arriving at its final destination — a nudge for growers to improve transparency.

A Push for Transparency: Savings & Security

Like with most technologies, there must be a benefit for increased transparency to become more ubiquitous. The most tangible benefit is financial, of course. That could come in the form of cost savings by eliminating a portion of the supply chain, or through increased margin at the checkout stand demanded by a premium label.

At the same time, it could also be an opportunity to protect market share. We’ve all seen the many recalls for romaine lettuce. We’re told of a few brands and bar codes to be aware of, but how do they know? The ability to trace-back a product to a particular warehouse or field is very important for a retailer and the consumer.

In the case of a food safety incident, quick trace-back can mean the difference between a small recall involving one or two growers, or a larger investigation that involves tens of millions of dollars of impacted product. And, if consumers fall ill from the incident, a bruised reputation for the retailer or brand, regardless of the outcome.

A Tool for Telling a Story

According to a 2020 study by the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) and Label Insight, shoppers have higher expectations for transparency when shopping online compared to in-store. Think back to the early days of COVID-19. According to FMI, online grocery purchases soared to 27% of all grocery spending for the March/April period of this year, compared to 14% in February.

This increase in online sales will undoubtedly drive consumers’ interest in a more transparent system. Why? In the store, you can look and feel the product you are about to purchase. Online, you need something more to tell the complete story of a product – how it was grown, when it was picked, size, and other quality attributes. That’s where transparency fills the gaps.

When you go to a grocery store, what do you want to know about your fruits and veggies? Why would you pick a particular brand of berries over another? Or what is it that you like about a particular store’s produce section? We often look for certain benefits when we purchase a product. It starts with the basics of getting a good product at a fair price. But beyond that, transparency helps the consumer make a purchase.

According to IRI Research, “consumers are more concerned than ever about where their food comes from. They are not only making their concerns widely known on social media; they are editing their shopping lists based on those concerns”. Not a surprise to see that the food transparency trend is growing, especially in the younger generations.

A Demand from Millennials

The effect of transparency on purchase decisions is even starker among the Millennial generation. According to a Snacking Trends Report, this demographic is increasingly making purchasing decisions based on “the tenets of self, society, and planet”, which feeds into sustainability.

Millennials have a real connection to the betterment of the planet, and brands need to be careful not to miss this. They must embrace the new level of transparency that Millennials have elevated. Just “talking the talk” will no longer cut it.

Farmers Demanding Price Visibility & Insights

Farmer acceptance of transparency technology is growing for multiple reasons. In the case of fresh produce, transparency allows the grower to look for efficiencies in the supply chain. Not only with their operation, but in the part of the chain above and below them.

Through an open purchasing platform, a grower may learn what the distributor pays the manufacturer for inputs, which puts them in a better negotiating position with the distributor, or even directly with the manufacturer.

Going the other direction in the supply chain, a grower may be able to directly access consumer insights on their products and brand. In the past, that information may have been maintained by retailers or distributors that, in turn, passed it along to the grower. The net result of this shift is quicker and better-informed decisions about what to grow.

And more importantly, they can look for particular attributes to provide the highest return from the marketplace. Similar to the consumer, it often comes down to economics: can I increase my revenue or lower my costs through the use of new technology that pulls up the shades somewhere else in the supply chain?

Promising Technologies in the Works

New technology has a way of telling the story of ‘what’s possible’. Here are two promising examples:

Founded in 2013, a Californian company called safetraces developed DNA “barcodes” that can be added to fruits and vegetables via a liquid spray or wax. What’s so special about that? The company takes a small piece of synthetic DNA from organisms not typically found in the produce section – like seaweed – which they mix with trace amounts of sugar and create a sprayable solution. According to the company, the spray is odorless, tasteless, and poses no food safety risk.

If a problem with the product arises, the DNA on the surface can be swabbed and identified within minutes. Placing the DNA barcode directly on fresh produce significantly reduces the potential for traceback information to be lost. Produce boxes, which traditionally carry the tracking information, are discarded long before anyone catches on to a problem.

In a different twist on innovative traceability technology, software company HarvestMark partnered with iFood Decision Sciences to create a solution that allows consumers to not only view each step along the supply chain, but to provide feedback and reward those brands they feel are doing the best job of transparency.

The product information is collected and shared with the consumer on an item-level basis. The consumer has instant feedback linked to the product’s age, origin, and location. This allows the grower to see how a specific product performs on the grocery store shelf and then make short and long-term production decisions.

In addition to the quality and analytical measurements provided to the grower, like temperature control, inventory monitoring, and supplier notifications, this traceability system also provides a mechanism for product recall in case there is a food safety incident.

The real power of the HarvestMark technology comes through the integration of both the consumer and analytical supply-chain feedback. A highly perishable raspberry variety, for example, might have great flavor and visual appeal according to consumer feedback. Through the analytics of the traceability software across the supply chain, the grower can maximize the shelf-life of the raspberries and reduce perishability at the store level. The result is increased income for both the grower and the retailer…and a happy customer who returns for repeat business.

The promise of this technology will be optimized even further using blockchain applications, which enables the industry to share data up and down the supply chain while maintaining the integrity of the data at each source.

Hillary E. Kaufman

Click to listen as Lucy interviews Hillary.

Hillary believes in the power of research to substantiate sound decision-making, especially when it comes to learning about our food system. Hillary’s earlier career centered on forecasting consumer trends and researching potential investment ideas in the healthcare and consumer goods spaces. But as her family grew, Hillary’s priorities shifted. So, in 2017, she enthusiastically joined D2D.

As a team member, Hillary manages the D2D website and makes sure readers have a great experience navigating all our content across our varied subjects, media experiences, and platforms. Given her love of cooking, she’ll write about the issues affecting our decision-making at the grocery store. This often includes all those gimmicky labels we see on our foods that make us falsely assume one product is superior. The worst offender to date? Non-GMO salt.

Hillary hopes her contribution to the site helps readers make research-driven food decisions for their families, as it has with hers.

Hayley N. Philip

Click to listen as Hillary Kaufman interviews Hayley.

Hayley joined D2D in 2018 as Marketing Director. As the granddaughter of a farmer and growing up in California’s Central Valley, one of the nation’s most productive agricultural regions, Hayley’s interest in food, farming, and agriculture began at a young age. But it wasn’t until a few years ago when she was trying to make healthier meals for her family, that she realized the enormous challenge people faced in getting actual facts about our food and food system.

During that time, Hayley found herself navigating through a jungle of misinformation, misleading labels and “fake” diets and health claims. As her frustration mounted, Hayley wondered if the glut of food misinformation was contributing to millions of Americans now facing obesity and chronic illnesses (like Type 2 diabetes).

Determined to be part of the solution and help people use food to better their own health, Hayley jumped at the chance to be part of the D2D team.

Hayley also leads the team in debunking popular fad diets, fast-nutrition, and myths about ‘quick’ dietary fixes. Hayley also researches and writes about the intersectionality of regeneration and sustainable growing methods that will safely produce enough food for future generations.

Hayley is a graduate of the University of California Santa Barbara with degrees in Sociology and Marketing.  She moved to New York shortly after graduation, where she worked in sales and marketing for almost a decade before joining D2D.

Shop D2D!

Welcome! Want to show some D2D love? Then check out our goods! Our latest pieces will take you from the field to the office and everywhere in between, looking sharp and ready for anything. Want to see all our available items? Click here to view everything in stock.

Clicking on these items directs you to our apparel partner’s site that accepts PayPal and credit card orders. Any questions? Contact us here. Happy shopping!

Shirts for Men & Women

                   

        

~~~~

Outerwear & Sweatshirts  

~~~~

Hats & Bags

               

~~~~