Posted on

Why are biofuels important?

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

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

What are biofuels?

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

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

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

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

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

What are the types of biofuels?

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

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

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

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

How are biofuels used today?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Growing Market

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Global Perspective

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

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

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

Posted on

Avian Flu Drives Soaring Egg Prices

Let’s set the stage with a scene from a modern marriage:

Me:  Honey, your birthday is next week, and it’s a big one.  Let’s do something really, really special to celebrate.

My wife:  Sounds great!  What do you have in mind?

Me:  Well, I was thinking of taking you out and buying you the biggest omelet in the city. Three, four, maybe even five eggs.

My wife:  Really?  Are you sure we can afford it?

Me:  We’ll find the money.  And besides, I’ve been putting a few bucks aside every week for the past three months just for this.

My wife [eyes filling with tears]:  Oh, my dear, dear husband.  Do you love me that much?

Me:  Yes.  Yes, I do. 

That scene isn’t as far-fetched as it sounds.  Eggs are one of the protein staples of the modern diet, with Americans eating about 23 dozen eggs each year. They have soared in price as a nasty strain of avian flu has led to the death of millions of hen layers and other birds across the United States and the rest of the world.

The most pernicious form of avian flu, known as H5N1, is devastating to affected birds.  Mortality rates can be as high as 90-100 percent. Even milder forms of the flu can lead to significantly reduced egg production. And with lower yields come reduced supplies and higher prices – per-dozen egg prices now at an average of $4.95…and anticipated to climb 20 percent higher as we move further into 2025.

As noted by www.moneynotmoney.com:

“The absolute price of eggs has increased by $1.54 (80.63%) in the last decade, and $2.61 (310.71%) since 1980.

Even when adjusting prices for inflation, egg prices are still higher than they were in 1980. And not just a bit more expensive, we are talking about a significant increase no matter how you look at it!”

How widespread is avian flu?

A form of avian flu, called highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), was noted by USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) as far back as February 2022.  This particular H5N1 strain was first noted on March 25, 2024, and has been growing ever since.

Last December, USDA said that since 2022 the bird flu had been detected in more than 125 million birds across 569 counties in all 50 U.S. states, in both commercial and private facilities.

On January 23 of this year, USDA further noted that an additional 98 flocks had been infected in the past month alone, with another 15 million birds affected.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) also point to the enormous effect of the disease – citing 1,572 reported outbreaks across 641 counties, with 159,307,978 affected in poultry flocks and aquatic birds.

The United Nations says the bird flu has caused the deaths of more than 300 million birds worldwide – involving not just laying chickens but ducks, geese and other kinds of birds as well.

Why are egg layers more at risk than broiler chickens?

The avian flu virus can afflict both egg layers (hens that lay eggs) and broilers (chicken produced for your dinner plate) produced for meat.  But so far, the disease has been most damaging to layers, since they live for much longer: a healthy laying hen will start to produce eggs at around 18 weeks old and, on average, five-to-six more years following.

USDA reported in January that avian flu HPAI has been detected in commercial broiler flocks in three states – Georgia, Maryland and Virginia.

Broilers also face rigorous testing by APHIS before they leave any farm and additional testing when processed.

The damage to broiler flocks so far has been small enough that supplies closely match demand – meaning minimal price effects. Broiler meat prices are up only about 1 percent from a year ago.

Avian flu’s migration beyond birds

To add to the complicated picture, the virus also can affect other animals.

Infection among 929 dairy cattle has been reported across 16 states, with more than three-quarters in California. Isolated and small numbers of infections have also been reported in cats, pigs and even an alpaca.

By any measure, it’s a devastating disease, with resulting concerns about not just the cost of eggs but also the risk to humans and other mammalian species.

Scientific American notes that CDC reports that 67 human cases of H5N1 have been confirmed, most involving mild symptoms. (One case involving the death of a patient with underlying health issues has been recorded in Louisiana.)

CDC notes that such cases involve direct contact between the human and an infected animal, including cows. Cows pass large amounts of the virus in their milk, but pasteurization has been shown to kill the virus.

Is it safe for us to consume eggs right now? Fear not.

As Good Housekeeping reported: “The risk of getting the H5N1 bird flu virus from eggs is minimal to none, and safe storage and cooking of eggs reduces any potential risk,” says Geeta Sood, M.D., ScM, assistant professor of medicine in the Johns Hopkins Medicine Division of Infectious Diseases at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, DC.

What does all this mean for egg prices?

We eat a lot of eggs. USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) notes that per-capita egg consumption in the United States averaged 284 eggs in 2024.  Before the pandemic, the numbers were even higher – in the range of 294.

Swings in egg prices are nothing new.  But the most recent increases have been abnormally high, at a time when high food inflation has been a hot topic among consumers and politicians.

Both Joe Biden and now Donald Trump have made control of food price inflation a major goal. The devastating loss of layers – and the significant costs of decontamination, implementing stringent new safety precautions against disease and rebuilding flocks – are adding to the economic pressures facing producers across our food chain.

That’s a Lot of Eggs…

U.S. table egg production totaled 92.6 billion in 2022, a 3 percent decrease from 2021.  The U.S. had 308 million commercial laying hens at the end of 2022, down 4.5 percent from 2021. The daily rate of lay averaged 82 eggs per 100 layers in 2022. On average, each laying hen produces 300 eggs per year.

Meanwhile at the grocery store…

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that average egg prices in January increased a whopping 19.5 percent from December, rising to an average of $4.95. “This was the largest increase in the eggs index since June 2015 and it accounted for about two thirds of the total monthly food at home increase (in food inflation),” according to BLS.

A local supermarket worker described the retail situation in simple terms: “Eggs come in on Friday’s truck.  By Monday, they are pretty much gone.”

But buying that dozen eggs at the supermarket is only one way the avian flu is contributing to higher food costs.

Eggs are a key ingredient in many prepared foods and an extremely popular food eaten in restaurants, diners and other out-of-the-home dining. Higher egg prices inevitably are passed along in all these venues, adding to the poor consumer’s economic woes.

What’s being done about it?

Avian flu has generated extensive interest from farm to consumer, with a variety of responses.

Layer producers deal with the threat of avian flu with a carefully tiered series of steps worked out with federal and state authorities.  When the avian flu is detected, the first step is to quarantine the flock and any equipment that may be around the birds. The flock is then humanely euthanized.

The farm where diseased birds were found is thoroughly disinfected, and the entire farm tested for 21 days to confirm that it is free of the disease. The surrounding area also is monitored and tested for the disease.

The farm community has aggressively sought to get ahead of the disease with extensive prophylactic actions, careful monitoring and testing, and even the personally painful and economically difficult decision to eradicate entire flocks.

Media and industry communications also have sought to raise public understanding of the complex issue and the steps being taken to assure a safe food, in order to avoid over-reaction.

Scientists in various government agencies and the private sector continue to work on understanding the disease and effective methods to combat it. Some of the most aggressive efforts have been focused on development of an effective vaccine against avian flu. That’s not a new idea. But it’s proven to be less straight-forward than it might seem on the surface.

Various avian flu vaccines have been developed since the first avian flu outbreaks in Southeast Asia in 2001-02 and have been used in countries around the world, with mixed success.  For example, China and Egypt have used vaccines against the disease, although recurrent outbreaks still happen.

Research in the United States also has produced encouraging results, with one HPAI vaccine produced by Zoetis in February received conditional approval from USDA’s Center for Veterinary Biologics (CVB).

H5N1 & trade implications

But the widespread use of vaccines against the avian flu remains a highly contentious issue. The major reason: use of vaccines could trigger import restrictions for poultry among foreign customers.

Existing and long-standing trade agreements contain stringent requirements for what can and cannot be present in imported foods. Such requirements have been actively used around the world both as a food-safety precaution – and frankly, as a means of protecting national industries.

U.S. agriculture knows this phenomenon all too well.  Poultry industry leaders and politicians have been wary of rushing to vaccines, preferring to emphasize prophylactic measures instead.

Poultry is the most-consumed livestock product in the world.

The United States is the world’s largest producer and second-largest exporter of poultry meat. According to USDA data, U.S. broiler exports over the past decade have averaged 7.1 billion pounds per year. USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) estimates the three-year average of poultry meat and products at $5.66 billion.

Egg exports, including both shell eggs and egg products, last year exceeded 234 million dozen. The three-year average of egg and egg-product exports from the United States is $741 million.  Farmers today need the income that comes from poultry and egg trade.

Statista notes that the United States imports about 15 million dozen eggs each year, compared to exports of almost 16 times that amount – and more compared to some other market analysis. Part of the disparity can be traced to simple matters of handling and consumer reaction. In the United States, eggs are carefully cleaned and refrigerated, while most of the rest of the world prefers to leave eggs unrefrigerated.

How long will this go on?

One of the oldest adages in economics (and especially the agricultural world) reads: “the cure for high prices is high prices.”

Egg prices are most likely to moderate when the layer industry has had time to adapt to an extraordinary set of challenges. New facilities must be built and existing ones cleaned, sanitized and modernized with the latest and best sanitary equipment.

Aggressive and where possible better disease control practices must be implemented.  High egg prices perversely provide the economic incentives to prompt all those actions.

There also is the issue of the time needed to rebuild flocks.  Replacing lost layers will proceed when the remedial protective actions have been completed.  It makes no sense to invest in more animals if the proper precautions have not been taken. And once they are replaced, it will take months for the new birds to begin producing eggs.

Posted on

Red food dye: Toxic or tame?

Click Play to listen to our generated podcast. Click on links for transcript and our full podcast library. 

 

Announced on January 15, 2025, this ruling comes after decades of debate and advocacy, highlighting the complex interplay between scientific evidence, regulatory processes, and public opinion on health concerns.

Red Dye No.3, your days are numbered ...This decision is based on the Delaney Clause, a portion of the law from in the 1950s, which requires the FDA to ban any additive found to cause cancer in animals and humans. This is regardless of the relevance to human health at typical exposure levels.

However, some experts say the laws must evolve with current studies on the subject matter, which are more accurate than those conducted in the ’50s, when the law served mostly as a “catchall” for food safety.

But how much is really too much when it comes to human health?

Studies on Red Dye Toxicity

While we know too much of any one thing is bad for us, this development has sparked discussions about the scientific thresholds for determining food additive safety, the timeline for implementing such bans, and the broader implications for food manufacturers and consumers alike.

Several studies have shown the potential toxicity of red dyes, particularly Red Dye No. 3. Here’s an overview of the key findings and regulatory actions:

  • Cancer in Lab Animals: Studies conducted over 30 years ago found that Red Dye No. 3 caused cancer in male rats when administered at high doses. This was the primary basis for regulatory action.
  • DNA Damage: A 2001 study published in Toxicological Sciences showed that Red Dye No. 40 (Allura Red) induced DNA damage in mice, particularly in their colon epithelium cells.
  • Recent Research: A 2023 study in mice indicated that Red Dye No. 40 might cause DNA damage and affect the microbiome, potentially contributing to colonic inflammation.

As you can see from the above-noted studies, research on red dye toxicity has primarily focused on animal models, with thresholds for damage in humans remaining unknown.

Scientific Thresholds and Human Cancer Risk

In 1969, Red Dye No. 3 was approved for use in food and ingested drugs. FDA declined to permit Red Dye No. 3 for use in cosmetics and topical drugs in 1990 based on the aforementioned studies showing cancer development in male rats exposed to high levels of the dye. The FDA’s 1990 decision did not revoke the approval for food and ingested drugs.

However, there is no evidence that  Red Dye No. 3 causes cancer in humans. 

According to Market Watch and their interview with Scott Keatley, a registered dietitian and co-owner of Keatley Medical Nutrition Therapy, a practice in New York City:

Keatley found that for a 50-pound child, that would equate to 12 red gummy bears, or 6 pieces of red licorice, or half a cup of red gelatin dessert EVERY day. 

For a 150-pound adult, the math would work out to triple those amounts — or about 36 red gummy bears per day…that’s a lot of candy. 

Furthermore, the FDA has stated in their press release on the ban that the mechanism by which Red Dye No. 3 causes cancer in male rats “does not occur in humans…studies in other animals and in humans did not show these effects”.

The FDA also maintains that “claims that the use of FD&C Red No. 3 in food and in ingested drugs puts people at risk are not supported by the available scientific information”.

While we know the evidence for human cancer risk is inconclusive, the Delaney Clause meant that the FDA was required to take action against Red Dye No. 3.

Research on other synthetic food dyes, particularly Red Dye No. 40, is ongoing, with some studies suggesting potential health concerns that warrant further investigation.

Will this be a domino effect?

While no immediate bans have been announced, there are indications that other additives might face similar scrutiny in the near future. Watchdog groups are already calling attention to other potentially harmful additives. A health watchdog has warned about three other food additives linked to cancer following the Red Dye No. 3 ban.

The FDA’s decision to act on Red Dye No. 3 after decades of inaction may signal a shift towards more proactive regulation of food additives.

Consumer advocacy groups, emboldened by the success with Red Dye No. 3, may increase pressure on the FDA to review other controversial additives. For example, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which petitioned for the Red Dye No. 3 ban, may target other additives.

This ban aligns the U.S. more closely with regulations in the European Union, which previously banned Red Dye No. 8, except for cocktail cherries, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and toothpaste. Additional regulations exist in Australia and New Zealand, where many additives are already restricted. This international context may influence future FDA decisions on other additives.

While it’s uncertain which specific additives might be banned next (e.g., Red Dye No. 40), the Red Dye No. 3 decision has likely opened the door for increased scrutiny of food additives with longstanding safety concerns or those already restricted in other countries.

The food industry and consumers should be prepared for potential changes in the coming years as the FDA and advocacy groups continue to evaluate the safety of various food additives.

How will this ban impact food manufacturers?

Many food manufacturers are already exploring alternative natural color additives without impacting the flavor.

There are many substitutes for Red Dye No. 3, such as beet juice, purple sweet potato extract, red cabbage extract, carmine, and pomegranate juice. These natural substitutes align with growing consumer preferences for clean-label ingredients. After all, many of us would rather consume pomegranate juice in Jell-o than red dye.

The state of California has already passed its own ban of Red Dye No. 3 that goes into effective January 1, 2027, so many companies are already preparing for this transition. But we are contending with a lot of items: approximately 3,000 items sold in the United States include Red Dye No. 3, such as baked good, candies, and strawberry meal replacement shakes.

Food manufacturers have until January 15, 2027, to reformulate their products, while drugmakers have until January 2028. Some manufacturers may wait closer to the deadline to implement these new ingredients into their production lines due to higher short-term costs.

Why is this issue the FDA’s focal point right now?

Here’s the deal: we know red dye is simply a color additive in food, is not a preservative or flavor mechanism and is not necessary for food products. We also know that we are not going to give our children 12 red gummy bears every day.

The real nutritional concern should be excess sugar, insufficient protein, and a diet high in sodium. Are children getting their daily requirement of fruits, vegetables, and fiber? A more relevant question for the FDA is: How can we help our nutritionally-deficient children have healthy diets?

Ultimately, the current push to ban red dye is as much about legal regulations as it is about nutrition. While there is no evidence to suggest that red dye causes cancer in humans, the FDA is required to follow the Delaney Clause.

Posted on

How Will Tariffs Affect Overseas Trade?

Click Play to listen to our generated podcast. Click on links for transcript and our full podcast library. 

 

As we dive into the complex world of ocean freight’s role in U.S. food imports and exports, it’s clear that the agricultural trade and transport landscape is facing some pretty choppy waters ahead.

The Current State of U.S. Agricultural Trade

Before we delve into the potential impacts of new tariffs on ocean transport, let’s take a snapshot of where U.S. agricultural trade stands today.

According to the latest data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service (USDA ERS), U.S. agricultural exports for fiscal year 2025 are forecasted at a whopping $170 billion.

That’s a lot of soybeans, corn, and beef making their way to dinner tables around the world.

On the flip side, we’re also bringing in quite a feast from abroad. U.S. agricultural imports for the same period are projected to reach $212 billion.

From avocados to wine, our taste for international flavors continues to grow, leading to the largest trade deficit seen in over 65 years.

As an FYI, Garland’s recent post, Tariffs: Economic Boost or Negotiating Tool? does a great job exploring tariffs and their economic and political implications — we highly recommend the read.

The Ocean Freight Connection

Now, you might be wondering, how do all these agricultural products travel around the globe? The answer is primarily by sea. Ocean freight plays a crucial role in the movement of agricultural goods, both in and out of the United States.

Exports

If you’re surprised by this, you have good reason: while container shipments only account for a quarter of U.S. agricultural exports by volume, they represent over half of the value of our total exports. That’s a lot of high-value goods sailing the seven seas. The destinations receiving the bulk of these goods are China, Canada, and Mexico.

The busiest port in the U.S., the New Orleans Port Region, moves almost 40% of all U.S. waterborne ag exports alone.

Most of these exports were bulk grains and products, like corn, soybeans, animal feed, and rice. Other significant exports from this port include soybean and corn oils and frozen poultry.

But Gulf ports like New Orleans don’t just export ag products.

In fact, the value of ag exports is a small portion of the total value of all goods. Because of the relative proximity of products to Mississippi River, these Gulf ports constantly crank out enormous amounts of oil and gas, chemicals, and ores, providing a cost-efficient transport corridor. Houston and New Orleans alone account for about 65% of total U.S. oil and petroleum exports.

Imports

The European Union and Mexico are the second and third largest countries in terms of agricultural imports into the U.S. Products received from these partners are mostly comprised of tropical fruits, sugar, soybeans, and packaged grocery and beverage items.

New York and Philadelphia rank highest on the receiving end for 2023, accounting for 17% and 7% of imported goods, respectively.

Trump’s Tariff Proposal: A New Trade Storm Brewing?

Now, here’s where things get interesting.

President Trump plans to impose 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada set to take effect in March 2025, postponed from February 1. This ongoing negotiation has the attention of food producers, as Mexico has become one of our largest trading partners and increasingly important export markets for U.S. farmers in recent years, with most goods traveling overseas.

Trump has also directed federal agencies to review trade pacts with China. This has many farmers recalling Trump’s first term in office. As a result of retaliatory tariffs from the onset in summer 2018 through the end of 2019, the USDA ERS reported that U.S. agricultural export losses exceeded $27 billion, with soy and pork producers hit particularly hard.

China’s swift retaliation accounted for about 95% of the value lost, but our losses were significantly mitigated by an outstanding trade agreement with China to purchase U.S. soybeans, leaving many questioning how losses might affect us next time around.

Potential Outcomes on U.S. Ag Trade

In what ways could these tariffs affect U.S. farmers and exporters? A number of things could happen that disrupt our current flow of goods, both incoming and outgoing. And these factors affect one another, leading to thorny diplomatic situations with various scenarios to navigate.

Let’s break down these potential situations:

  • Reduced Competitiveness: New tariffs could make U.S. exports less competitive on the global stage. This could open the door for competitors like Brazil to gain more market share, particularly in soybean exports.
  • Retaliation Risks: If history is any guide, we might see retaliatory tariffs from affected countries. During the 2018-2020 U.S.-China trade war, U.S. soybean exports to China plummeted from $14 billion in 2016 to just $3 billion in 2018 – a staggering 78% decrease.
  • Market Disruptions: The tariffs could disrupt established trade flows. For instance, Mexico is a major supplier of fresh fruits and vegetables to the U.S.
  • Price Fluctuations: Tariffs could lead to price increases for a wide variety of food and beverage products, affecting both consumers and the food industry.
  • Potential Export Losses: During the previous trade war, U.S. agricultural producers faced approximately $27 billion in lost exports between 2018 and 2019, with soy and pork producers hit particularly hard.

For more information on these scenarios, refer to our article, Tariffs: Economic Boost or Negotiating Tool?

Freight Impacts from Trade Tensions

Now, let’s consider how these potential tariffs might affect ocean freight costs. It’s a bit like predicting the weather – there are many factors at play, but we can make some educated guesses based on past experiences and current trends.

  • Demand Fluctuations: If tariffs lead to reduced trade volumes, we might see a decrease in demand for shipping services. This could potentially lead to lower freight rates in the short term.
  • Route Changes: Tariffs might cause shifts in trade routes as countries seek new markets or suppliers. This could impact shipping patterns and potentially affect freight rates on certain routes.
  • Uncertainty Premium: The uncertainty created by trade tensions and changing policies could lead to volatility in freight rates as shipping companies try to navigate the new landscape.
  • Capacity Adjustments: If trade volumes decrease significantly, shipping companies might reduce capacity by idling ships or slowing vessel speeds. This could eventually lead to higher freight rates as supply adjusts to demand.

The Bigger Picture: Beyond Tariffs

While tariffs are grabbing headlines, it’s important to remember that they’re just one piece of the complex puzzle that is international trade.

Several factors beyond tariffs can significantly influence U.S. agricultural exports and ocean freight costs.

Of course, there are the immediate costs of maintaining these ships and its transport across the world. Operators of these vessels must contend with the ever-changing costs of fuel, accounting for about 40% of total costs. Insurance and labor also factor in, but the fees associated with port and custom fees also command a significant chunk of its operations.

External factors out of the operator’s control make the industry far murkier. The overall health of the global economy plays a crucial role in determining the demand for U.S. agricultural products. And this is largely driven by the supply and demand cycle of the industry —  a constant balancing act between volume of goods and ocean freight capacity. Add in the effects of unpredictable weather patterns and crop yields, and you’ve got the perfect conditions for volatile capacity constraints.

Additionally, fluctuations in the value of the U.S. dollar can impact the competitiveness of U.S. exports in international markets. And the ever-changing landscape of environmental standards for shipping can also have implications for freight costs in the coming years, as the industry adapts to more sustainable practices and technological innovations.

But timing is everything when it comes to the ocean freight market. Because of these variables, operators will often book freight far in advance as an economic hedge for rising costs. This means the shorter-term factors cited above are a bit secondary to the market’s perception of overall economic drivers.

Looking Ahead: Navigating Choppy Waters

As we look to the future, it’s clear that U.S. farmers and exporters may need to brace for some chop ahead. The potential implementation of new tariffs could reshape the landscape of agricultural trade, impacting everything from commodity prices to shipping routes.

However, it’s not all doom and gloom. The resilience and adaptability of the U.S. agricultural sector have been tested before, and farmers have shown remarkable ability to weather economic storms. Moreover, the increasing global demand for food provides a strong foundation for U.S. agricultural exports in the long term.

And it’s important to note that tariffs can be used as a negotiation tool, as well as instigating action from our trading partners. Should Canada and Mexico curtail illegal immigrants coming across the U.S. border, tariffs would be expected to dissipate. We would also expect a similar change to tariffs with China, should fentanyl and other dangerous substances cease to enter the U.S.

As consumers, we might see some changes in the prices and availability of certain products, particularly those that rely heavily on imports or exports affected by the tariffs. However, the diverse and robust nature of the U.S. food system should help mitigate major disruptions.

Posted on

Can a Small Food Label be a Big Deal?

Click Play to listen to our generated podcast. Click on links for transcript and our full podcast library. 

 

Imagine strolling down the supermarket aisle, your eyes drawn to a small, simple, black-and-white box on the front of food packages. This isn’t just another marketing gimmick – it’s the FDA’s latest weapon in the battle against chronic diseases.

The proposed “Nutrition Info box” is set to transform how Americans shop for food, offering a quick “Low,” “Med,” or “High” snapshot of saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars content. And it has been a long time coming.

A nutritional revolution on your grocery shelves

Slated for potential implementation between 2029-2030, front-of-package (FOP) label regulations will fundamentally transform how consumers interact with food packaging, potentially impacting food manufacturers’ reformulation strategies and market positioning.

Driven by the alarming prevalence of chronic diseases and escalating healthcare costs, the FDA’s initiative goes beyond mere labeling—it’s a strategic intervention aimed at empowering consumers to make more informed dietary choices.

While the EU and Chile have been using a colorful traffic light system, the FDA is taking a more subtle approach. The proposed design aims to provide clear information without the potential alarm of red warning signs. It’s like comparing a minimalist art piece to a vibrant street mural – both eye-catching, but with different emotional impacts.

Why now? The chronic disease crisis

With 60% of Americans battling at least one chronic disease and healthcare costs soaring to $4.5 trillion annually, the FDA is pulling out all the stops. This label isn’t just about information – it’s a public health intervention disguised as packaging design. As FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf puts it, “It is time we make it easier for consumers to glance, grab and go”.

This labeling revolution could spark a domino effect in the food industry. Manufacturers might scramble to reformulate products, turning the supermarket into a battlefield of nutritional one-upmanship. It’s like giving consumers X-ray vision for nutrition, potentially transforming the food landscape one package at a time.

In the end, this small label could be the catalyst for a healthier America, proving that sometimes, the biggest changes come in the smallest packages.

When will we see these in effect?

The FDA’s proposed rule on FOP nutrition labeling is currently open for public comments until May 16, 2025. After this period, the FDA will review the comments and potentially make revisions before issuing a final rule, which can take several years. Once finalized, large companies with $10MM+ in food sales have 3 years to implement; small companies have 4 years.

The FOP labeling requirement will impact most food manufacturers producing packaged foods that currently bear a Nutrition Facts label.

However, there are some exemptions, including:

  • Foods in packages with a total surface area of less than 12 square inches
  • Packages marketed as gifts containing a variety or assortment of foods
  • Unit containers in multiunit retail food packages

Assuming the rule is finalized without significant delays, consumers might start seeing the new FOP labels on shelves as early as 2029 for products from large manufacturers, and 2030 for products from smaller companies. However, this timeline could vary depending on the duration of the FDA’s review process and any potential challenges to the rule.

What are the economic impacts to the food industry?

Here are some of the potential economic impacts on the food industry:

  • Reformulation Costs: Many food manufacturers are likely to reformulate their products to meet new “healthy” criteria. This could lead to substantial upfront research and development expenses until economies of scale are achieved
  • Price Changes: There’s evidence of a 5.5% increase in prices of unlabeled products relative to labeled ones due to regulations. This suggests that companies may adjust pricing strategies to offset costs or capitalize on perceived healthier options.
  • Demand Shifts: Products receiving labels, especially those previously perceived as healthy, could experience up to a 40% decrease in demand. This may lead to revenue losses for some manufacturers and gains for others producing healthier alternatives.
  • Compliance Costs: The industry will face expenses related to implementing new labeling requirements, including design changes and printing costs.
  • Potential Cost Savings for U.S.: Despite initial costs, the regulations could lead to long-term healthcare and societal cost savings. The US calorie menu labeling law alone is estimated to result in net lifetime savings of $10.42 billion from a healthcare perspective and $12.71 billion from a societal perspective.
  • Market Differentiation: Some companies may benefit from increased product differentiation, potentially allowing for premium pricing of healthier options.
  • Industry-wide Impact: Experts estimate that food fraud, which stricter labeling aims to combat, affects 1% of the global food industry at a cost of about $10-$15 billion annually. New regulations could help reduce these losses.

Overall, while there are significant upfront costs for the food industry, the long-term economic impacts could be positive, especially when considering broader societal benefits and potential market opportunities for healthier products.

How does this new label compare to other countries?

The new FOP labeling regulations differ from those implemented in other countries in several key aspects:

Comparison with European Union (EU)

  • Approach: The US proposes a black-and-white design, while the EU uses a colorful traffic light system.
  • Additive labeling: The EU assigns E-numbers to additives, while the US requires full names on labels.
  • Nutrient disclosure: US labels tend to provide more detailed nutrient information compared to EU labels.

Comparison with Chile and Americas

  • Stringency: The proposed US regulations are less stringent compared to Chile’s and the Pan American Health Organization’s (PAHO) criteria.
  • Coverage: Under current proposals, 54.4% of packaged products in the US would require FOP labels, compared to 68.4% in Chile and 81.3% under PAHO criteria.
  • Ultra-processed products (UPPs): The US criteria would allow 33.4% of UPPs to avoid FOP labeling, compared to 18.4% in Chile and only 2.3% under PAHO standards.

Global Trends

  • Adoption: Over 40 countries have implemented easy-to-understand FOP nutrition labeling systems. This has led to reduced consumer dietary intake of selected labelled nutrients.
  • Variety: Different countries use various systems, such as “excess sugar” stop signs in Mexico, the Nutri-Score system in France, and Health Star Ratings in New Zealand.

While the US is moving towards more transparent FOP labeling, its proposed regulations appear to be less stringent than those in some other countries, particularly in identifying ultra-processed products. The approach differs from the EU’s color-coded system and the more comprehensive labeling requirements seen in countries like Chile.

Posted on

Tariffs: Economic Boost…or Negotiating Tool?

What is Trump doing with tariffs?

Trump is using tariffs to bring jobs back to America, keeping illegal immigrants from crossing the Canadian and Mexican border, and preventing cheap Chinese exports from flooding the market.

During Trump’s first term, he imposed import tariffs on $380 billion worth of products. In recent remarks, he described a range of proposed tariffs being phased in at 2 to 5 percent per month during 2025. In his 2024 campaign, the Presidential candidate spoke of imposing a 10 to 20 percent tariff on all U.S. imports. Mexico and Canada – two of the United States’ largest trade partners, would face additional 25 percent tariffs, and China an additional 10 percent. This follows yet another threat to impose a 60 percent tariffs on goods from China.

Just recently, Colombia would not accept two planes full of deportees from the United States. President Trump threatened the Colombian government with tariffs on exports to the U.S.; Colombia then backed down and a trade war was averted.

What is a tariff and why do nations impose them?

A tariff is simply a tax that is imposed on goods entering or leaving a country. Tariffs may be imposed on exported and imported goods, although import tariffs are by far the more common practice.

They have been used throughout history for a variety of reasons – to raise revenues, or to protect a domestic industry or group from external competition or unfair trade practices.

In our modern world, tariffs have become a powerful lever in international diplomacy – an economic tool for winning concessions from other nations and achieving a greater “balance” in international relations.   

President Trump appears to be motivated by all these considerations.

When used properly, they can level a global playing field by creating jobs at home, thus increasing the GDP per capita.  For instance, in his first administration, President Trump threated Europe with tariffs if they implemented carbon and digital services taxes to U.S. industries.

As of January 22, 2025, President Trump said he would add new tariffs and sanctions against Russia if Putin refused to negotiate an end to the war with Ukraine.  President Trump has also threatened tariffs against China to stop the fentanyl flow into the U.S.

Tariffs can be a valuable tool in driving U.S. economic growth. More expensive imports help domestic industry to rebound and grow, they argue, through expanded market opportunities.  And when those industries grow, they generate more tax revenue.

When goods are taxed without a ‘higher purpose’ then they can be destructive and reduce economic value. If goods are taxed without better access to markets and security, then the consumer pays more without the benefits.

Regardless of the final scale of tariffs, it’s clear that they stand to become a factor in the U.S. and global economy.

What effects do tariffs have on buyers and on sellers?

Tariffs on imported goods are paid by the importer.  The added costs of the imported goods are usually passed along to the consumer.  For example, an analysis by the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) during the first Trump tariffs in 2018-2020 estimated the cost of the tariffs amounted to about $800 per household.  The Federal Reserve and Congressional Budget Office placed the tab a bit higher – between $500 and $1,700 per household in 2020. 

The latest proposed tariffs are estimated to have comparable, if not larger, effects on consumers. A study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics estimated President Trump’s tariffs would cost the average U.S. household about $2,600.

Let’s use the 25% tariff for Mexico and Canada as examples. They are the United States’ first and third largest suppliers of agricultural products. The EU is number two. To stem the tide of immigration, President Trump has announced that if the Mexican and Canadian governments don’t curtail illegal immigrants coming across the border, their exports to the U.S. will be that much more expensive. Mexico depends on the U.S. for trade. In 2022, 77% of their $549 billion in products were sold to the U.S.

For U.S. food consumers, the most immediate effect of higher tariffs would fall on foods we source from Canada and Mexico – notably fresh produce, fruits and vegetables, alcohol, grains, and some meats.

The U.S. has increasingly relied on imports for our fruits and vegetables. In 2023, the U.S. imported 55% of fruits and vegetables, up from 37% in 2000. The United States imports 34% and 73% of fresh fruits and vegetables, respectively in 2022. 

But others in the food chain also stand to be affected. Food manufacturers (and retailers) who rely on foreign supplies of key ingredients face the tough choice of absorbing the higher cost – or passing some or all the higher costs on to consumers. 

With the talk of tariffs still more speculation than fact, it is impossible to create any credible estimate of how much the proposed tariffs actually will raise food costs. 

But what is known is that the Department of Agriculture already estimates food price increases of just under 2 percent for 2025 — lower than the historical average of 3 percent — with the largest cost increase coming for food consumed away from home. 

That is before any tariffs are imposed.

Why should farmers and consumers care about new tariffs?

But consumers aren’t the only segment of the economy that stand to be affected. Just ask anyone on an American farm, or anyone else along our complex food chain from dirt to dinner.

U.S. agricultural exports to China in 2018-2019 fell by 76 percent, or roughly $25.7 billion, according to Statista, by most accounts due to a de facto tariff war.  The US tariffs to China were put in place to protect US companies, but China retaliated by placing tariffs on US soybeans, sorghum and pork.

The effect could have been even worse were it not for a U.S.-China trade agreement that obligated China to purchase a $80 billion of U.S. agricultural goods. China only partly fulfilled its obligations (77%), it turned mainly to Brazil to supply their soybeans and corn. This shifted historical global trade patterns and sent a bearish ripple through the U.S. and global markets on which producers rely.

The American farmers – notably producers of the highly sought corn and soybeans that form the backbone of our global food and feed industries – faced enormous economic pressures.  The Trump Administration responded to the clamor with compensatory payments of $28 billion in 2018-19, and two more tranches of $19 billion in April and $14 billion in September.

The proposed new tariffs come at a time when the farm economy is already facing tough going.  As the Department of Agriculture noted in January 2025: “In inflation-adjusted 2024 dollars, net farm income is forecast to decrease by $9.5 billion (6.3 percent) from 2023 to 2024. Net cash farm income is forecast to decrease by $5.7 billion (3.5 percent) from 2023 to 2024.”

The poor economic conditions facing farmers as low commodity prices and continuing cost increases squeeze their profitability prompted Congress in December to add $31 billion in emergency funds in the last-minute extension of the farm bill. The prospect of a contentious trade war is pouring gas on the smoldering embers of economic concern.

Why are tariffs back on the national agenda?

Supporters of the new and higher tariffs argue the action is justified for several reasons.

First, the United States needs the income. Washington is a voracious master, demanding more and more money every year.

And in fact, we need more than we currently have.

The federal deficit in 2024 is estimated at $1.83 trillion, surpassed in our national history only by the pandemic years of 2020 and 2021. This leaves our current debt to GDP ratio at 129%, to be outdone by Japan, Venezuela and Sudan.

With more middle school math, that means every American would owe $5,273.78 to make good on 2024’s shortfall.  For a family of four: $21,095.10. And that’s just for the year’s deficit. The accumulated U.S. debt is much, much larger – clocking in at $93,500 per person.

What else can be accomplished with tariffs?

For anyone who has followed President Trump, it comes as no surprise that he has made greater fiscal discipline a priority for his administration.

To President Trump, tariffs also offer a powerful incentive to other countries to act more aggressively on matters within their national boundaries that have pernicious effects on the United States. As a businessman, President Trump seems to value the power of simple economics over media-focused diplomacy.

By creating significant economic costs to these nations, he seems to reason, the United States can incentivize foreign governments to be far more active. This includes dealings with such things as out-of-control cartels flooding the United States with drugs and danger for U.S. residents — and fomenting their own domestic unrest, violence, fear and desperation that drive rampant illegal immigration to the United States.

President Trump just used this tactic this week when negotiating with Colombia to accept deported migrants to avoid the U.S. imposing punitive tariffs and other penalties.

Who stands to be most affected by tariffs?  This is not a simple subject.  But if Canada and Mexico stem the tide, then the 25% tariff will be removed. And maybe the threat of more tariffs with Russia will help end the war.

Posted on

How Not to “Buy Now!”

The documentary BUY NOW! has ignited important conversations about the impact of consumerism on waste and environmental degradation.

The Scale of Food Waste

The documentary highlights startling statistics, such as the fact that nearly one-third of all food produced goes uneaten each year, amounting to approximately 1.3 billion tons annually.

It also illustrates the systemic inefficiencies in food supply chains, from overproduction and spoilage during transport, to the rejection of perfectly good produce due to cosmetic imperfections.

BUY NOW! also draws attention to the environmental toll, emphasizing the greenhouse gas emissions associated with wasted food decomposing in landfills and the squandering of water, energy, and labor invested in food production.

Food waste is a staggering global issue. This represents not only a waste of resources but also a significant contribution to greenhouse gas emissions when food ends up in landfills. Addressing this issue requires systemic change as well as individual action.

What Can Consumers Do?

Reducing food waste starts at home.

The documentary does a good job of equipping consumers with practical tips at the end of the film, showing how individual efforts can complement systemic change.

Here are actionable and specific steps individuals can take:

Plan Meals and Shop Smart:

  • Use apps like Mealime, Paprika, Yummly, and Plan to Eat to organize meal plans and ensure groceries are used efficiently.
  • Make a detailed shopping list and stick to it, avoiding impulse buys.
  • Consider batch cooking and freezing portions to reduce the chance of food going bad before it’s used.
  • Schedule a “fridge clean-out meal” each week to use up items that are close to expiring.
  • Store your food properly to reduce spoilage and lengthen shelf life.

Embrace Imperfections:

  • Purchase “ugly” produce from companies like Misfits Market or Imperfect Foods.
  • Learn to read labels correctly: “best by” indicates peak quality, not safety, and “use by” typically refers to safety for perishable items. Many foods are safe to eat beyond their printed dates if stored properly.

Use Leftovers Creatively:

  • Reimagine leftovers with recipe inspiration from websites like Love Food Hate Waste, or the Supercook app, which suggests recipes based on ingredients you already have.
  • Use vegetable scraps to make stock or soups, and freeze excess stock in ice cube trays for easy use.

Compost:

  • Use composting services like CompostNow, Lomi, or ShareWaste.
  • To start composting at home:
    • Get a bin or designate an outdoor pile.
    • Layer “greens” (fruit and vegetable scraps) with “browns” (dry leaves or cardboard) for balance.
    • Avoid composting meat, dairy, or oils unless you have a specialized system.
    • Turn the pile occasionally to aerate it, speeding up decomposition.

Donate Excess:

  • National organizations like Feeding America and Food Rescue US accept donations of surplus food.
  • Support local food banks and initiatives like community fridges.
  • Apps like OLIO connect neighbors to share surplus food within their communities.

By adopting these strategies, consumers can play a critical role in reducing food waste and supporting a more sustainable food system.

How CPG Companies Are Making a Difference

BUY NOW! doesn’t shy away from critiquing the role that major corporations, including those in the CPG sector, have played in contributing to waste and environmental harm. However, it also acknowledges that some of these companies are learning from past mistakes and stepping up to the challenge.

While their efforts are not without shortcomings, there has been a notable shift in recent years toward adopting more sustainable practices. It’s important to highlight these positive changes, as they show how companies can leverage their influence and resources to drive meaningful impact.

Many CPG companies are stepping up to address food waste and sustainability issues. Here are some of their noteworthy initiatives:

Reducing Food Waste in Supply Chains

  • Unilever: The company uses AI-powered systems to optimize inventory and reduce waste in manufacturing and distribution.
  • Nestlé: Partners with food rescue organizations like Feeding America to redirect surplus food to communities in need.

Minimizing Carbon Footprints

  • General Mills: Committed to net-zero emissions by 2050, they’ve invested in renewable energy sources like wind farms and optimized their logistics to cut transportation emissions.
  • Kellogg’s: Introduced carbon footprint labeling on packaging to encourage sustainable consumer choices.

Promoting Regenerative Farming

  • Cargill: Partnering with farmers to implement regenerative agriculture practices, such as cover cropping and reduced tillage, to improve soil health and sequester carbon. Cargill has also committed to advancing sustainable water management and supporting local farming communities.
  • Danone: Actively supports regenerative agriculture practices, including no-till farming and cover cropping, through its farmer partnerships.
  • PepsiCo: Announced a $216 million commitment to expand regenerative farming practices across 7 million acres by 2030.

Sourcing Locally and Responsibly

  • Ben & Jerry’s: Sources dairy from local farms that adhere to sustainable and ethical practices.
  • Clif Bar: Prioritizes organic and locally sourced ingredients to minimize its environmental impact.

Innovating with Upcycled Ingredients

  • ReGrained: Upcycles spent grain from brewing beer into snack bars and baking flour.
  • Rubies in the Rubble: Creates condiments using surplus produce that would otherwise go to waste.

Collaborative Efforts for Greater Impact

BUY NOW! primarily focuses on corporate responsibility and does not delve deeply into the role of consumer decision-making in addressing food waste.

While CPG companies undoubtedly have a significant influence and bear responsibility for their practices, it is equally crucial to acknowledge that governmental policies that incentivize sustainable practices and consumer behavior are also paramount in driving demand and reducing waste. The choices individuals make—from buying only what they need to support brands that prioritize sustainability—can amplify or diminish the impact of corporate efforts.

For readers interested in delving deeper into the topic of food waste, here are some recommended reads from Dirt to Dinner that highlight the complexities of food waste and offer some other actionable steps to address the issue:

Posted on

Here’s How to Combat Winter Illnesses

Winter illnesses are making their presence known with a vengeance this year.

But fear not! There are simple steps we can take to protect ourselves and our loved ones from these seasonal maladies. Let’s dive into why this winter has been particularly rough on our health and explore how we can boost our defenses through better eating habits and proper hygiene.

The Winter Illness Surge of 2025

This winter has seen a significant uptick in various illnesses.

Flu season is in full swing, with 40 states reporting high or very high levels of flu-like illness. The “stomach bug” is also making its rounds, with the CDC reporting that norovirus outbreaks in early December reached their highest levels since 2012. Add to this the ongoing concerns about COVID-19 and other respiratory viruses, like RSV, and we’ve got ourselves a perfect storm of winter illnesses.

So, why the sudden surge? Experts point to several factors:

  • Increased indoor gatherings during the holiday season
  • More travel, allowing viruses to spread across regions
  • Colder temperatures driving people indoors where germs can spread more easily
  • Weakened immune systems from inflammation due to poor eating habits and drinking; also, potentially reduced exposure to germs since Covid lockdowns
  • Stress from the holiday rush

The Power of Prevention: Handwashing and Healthy Eating

Now that we know what we’re up against, let’s talk about our best line of defense: prevention.

Two of the most effective ways to ward off these winter bugs are proper handwashing and maintaining a healthy diet. Let’s break these down:

Handwashing: Your First Line of Defense

Similar to food prep, cleanliness and hygiene best practices are key to mitigating illness – and not just for yourself.

It might seem simple, but washing your hands properly is one of the most powerful tools we have against the spread of illness and spreading it to others in your community. In fact, a good, old fashioned scrub with soap and water is even more effective than using hand sanitizers.

The CDC recommends handwashing as one of the best ways to avoid getting sick and spreading illness, with studies showing it can reduce the number of people who get colds and respiratory illnesses by 21%.

Remember to wash your hands with soap and water frequently, especially before eating or preparing food, after using the bathroom, and after coughing, sneezing, or blowing your nose.

Eating Better: Fueling Your Immune System

While handwashing helps keep germs at bay, eating a healthy, balanced diet gives your body the nutrients it needs to fight off infections. A well-nourished body is better equipped to handle the onslaught of winter viruses.

10 Immune-Boosting Foods for Winter Wellness

Check out these ten superstar foods that can help keep your immune system in top shape this winter:

  • Salmon: This fatty fish is an excellent source of omega-3 fatty acids, which can help reduce inflammation in the body. It’s also rich in vitamin D, which plays a crucial role in immune function.
  • Citrus fruits: Oranges, grapefruits, and lemons are packed with vitamin C, a powerful antioxidant that can help boost your immune system. Vitamin C may help increase the production of white blood cells, which are key to fighting infections.
  • Yogurt: Probiotic-rich foods like yogurt can help maintain a healthy gut microbiome, which plays a crucial role in immune function. Look for yogurts with live and active cultures for maximum benefit.
  • Spinach: This leafy green is rich in vitamins C and E, as well as antioxidants and beta carotene. These nutrients can help boost your immune system’s ability to fight off infections.
  • Almonds: Packed with vitamin E, almonds can help support immune system function. They’re also a good source of healthy fats and protein, which can help keep you feeling full and satisfied.
  • Sweet potatoes: The rich orange color of sweet potatoes comes from beta carotene, which your body converts to vitamin A. This vitamin is crucial for maintaining the health of your skin, which is your body’s first line of defense against pathogens.
  • Green tea: Rich in antioxidants called polyphenols, green tea may enhance immune function. It also contains L-theanine, an amino acid that may aid in the production of germ-fighting compounds in your T-cells.
  • Garlic: This pungent bulb contains compounds that may help stimulate the immune system. Some studies suggest that garlic can help reduce the severity of cold and flu symptoms.
  • Ginger: This spicy root has been used for centuries to treat various ailments. It may help decrease inflammation and can help soothe a sore throat or upset stomach.
  • Turmeric: This bright yellow spice contains curcumin, a compound with powerful anti-inflammatory properties. Some studies suggest it may help boost immune function.

Incorporating these foods into your diet can provide your body with a wide range of nutrients that support immune function.

Remember, variety is key – aim to eat lean proteins with a rainbow of fruits and vegetables to ensure you’re getting a diverse array of nutrients.

Need inspiration?

Check out our seared salmon with broccolini and spaghetti squash recipe here.

Beyond Diet and Handwashing: Additional Tips for Staying Healthy

While proper nutrition and hand hygiene are crucial, there are several other steps you can take to protect yourself from winter illnesses:

  • Keep common surfaces clean: Just like we do when preparing food, be sure to regularly disinfect frequently touched surfaces in your home, like doorknobs, light switches, and countertops.
  • Avoid touching your face: Try to keep your hands away from your eyes, nose, and mouth to prevent the spread of germs.
  • Dress appropriately: Wear warm clothing when going outside to protect yourself from the cold, which can weaken your immune system.
  • Stay active: Regular exercise can help boost your immune system. Aim for at least 30 minutes of physical activity each day.
  • Get enough sleep: Adequate sleep is crucial for maintaining a strong immune system. Adults should aim for 7-9 hours per night.
  • Stay hydrated: Drinking plenty of water helps your body function optimally, including your immune system.
  • Manage stress: Chronic stress can weaken your immune system. Find healthy ways to manage stress, such as meditation, yoga, or deep breathing exercises. And boost your serotonin levels to fight seasonal woes with these foods.
  • Get vaccinated: Despite us entering the winter months, it’s not too late to protect yourself for the rest of the season. Make sure you’re up to date on your seasonal vaccines.

Staying healthy isn’t just about avoiding sickness – it’s about giving our body the tools it needs to thrive.

So the next time you’re tempted to skip handwashing or reach for that sugary snack, think about how these small choices can impact your overall health.

Taking care of each other

Let’s make this winter a season of wellness for ourselves and our community. After all, every person who stays healthy is one less person spreading illness to others. So wash those hands, enjoy a colorful, nutrient-rich meal, and here’s to a healthier, happier winter for all of us!

Posted on

The Year Ahead in Food & Health

Drawing from various consumer insights and data outlook reports on food and nutrition trends, this article outlines the key themes shaping the industry for 2025.

Personalized Nutrition Through Data-Driven Approaches

There is no ‘one size fits all’. Intuitively, we know this, but do we approach our food – and thus our health – with an individualistic view? For instance, your blood sugar responds very differently to the same food that your spouse or friend are eating. Today, advancements in technology and access to biometric data are enabling highly personalized nutrition solutions.

Google ‘personalized nutrition’ and a host of options pop up.  There are multiple choices to test one’s blood, food allergies, and genomics to see what foods are best for you. Many people have also started to wear a glucose monitor just to see how foods affect their blood sugars.

Biofach, as well as other trend reports, highlights that wearable devices and apps will increasingly guide dietary choices tailored to individual metabolic responses, activity levels, and genetic predispositions. This aligns with a broader shift toward precision health, where food and nutrition play central roles in preventative care.

The need for interdisciplinary collaboration—combining nutrition science, genomics, and data analytics—is increasingly evident. Digital health literacy is becoming crucial to navigate this evolving landscape.

The Rise of Regenerative Ag & Climate-Positive Foods

Sustainability is no longer a buzzword but a mandate. Regenerative agriculture practices—which restore soil health, enhance biodiversity, and sequester carbon—are gaining momentum. This is mirrored in The Packer’s report on produce trends, which predicts a growing demand for foods that not only reduce environmental impact but actively contribute to climate solutions.

Here are several companies that have committed to purchasing food from regenerative agriculture sources:

  • Cargill has invested in regenerative agriculture initiatives to promote sustainable farming practices.
  • Kellogg Company has made commitments to support sustainable agriculture and promote regenerative practices in its supply chain.
  • Nestlé has announced initiatives to source ingredients from regenerative agriculture systems to improve sustainability.
  • Danone has committed to regenerative agriculture practices and aims to partner with farmers to enhance biodiversity and sustainability.
  • General Mills is actively investing in regenerative agriculture practices, particularly in its supply chain for grains.
  • Unilever has pledged to promote regenerative agriculture in sourcing ingredients for its products.
  • PepsiCo has initiatives focused on regenerative agriculture to improve soil health and sustainability in its agriculture supply chain.
  • McDonald’s has been exploring regenerative agriculture practices to enhance sustainability in its sourcing efforts.

These companies are increasingly looking to support agricultural practices that benefit the environment and communities while enhancing the resilience of food systems.

Key insights also highlight increasing concern about climate change’s impact on food production. For example, 57% of US fruit consumers worry about its effects on fruit availability. These concerns are pushing brands to educate about regenerative practices and explore innovative methods like agrivoltaic farming, which combines solar energy production with crop cultivation.

Expanding studies on the nutritional quality of produce grown through regenerative practices and transparent labeling can further communicate these benefits.

Integrating topics like soil health and carbon farming into broader discussions can foster greater awareness and adoption.

Plant-Forward Diets with Global Inspirations

The plant-based movement is evolving into plant-forward eating, emphasizing the diversity of plant ingredients over strict vegetarianism.

PepsiCo’s trends highlight an increasing appetite for culturally inspired plant-based options, such as jackfruit tacos and lentil curries. The Packer’s research similarly emphasizes exotic produce like yuzu and dragon fruit, which are finding their way into mainstream markets.

Mintel’s concept of “Rule Rebellion” explores the dualities of indulgence and health. Increasingly, unconventional food combinations—like pairing fries with salad—strike a balance between health-conscious choices and indulgent cravings.

This trend opens opportunities to explore the health benefits and applications of diverse plant foods.

Incorporating global perspectives in discussions about nutrition and culinary uses is key to leveraging this shift.

Functional Foods and Beverages: Beyond Basic Nutrition

The demand for foods and beverages that offer specific health benefits beyond basic nutrition is rising. According to PepsiCo, functional ingredients such as adaptogens, probiotics, and nootropics will dominate shelves in 2025. These products promise to support mental clarity, gut health, and stress management, reflecting a post-pandemic focus on holistic well-being.

It’s equally important to avoid foods that are high in empty calories, such as sugary drinks and processed snacks, which can crowd out nutrient-dense options. Meal prepping and mindful eating can help balance protein intake across the day, ensuring that each meal includes a good source of this vital nutrient.

The trend reflects a broader shift toward functional eating, where meals are not just a source of energy but are tailored to support specific health outcomes.

This trend falls in line with Mintel’s findings that suggest a shift in the definition of “food as medicine.” With the rise of weight-loss medications like Ozempic, there is an emphasis on foods that meet essential nutritional needs, focusing on simplified claims about protein, fiber, and vitamin content.

Validating these claims through rigorous studies and understanding their proper use will be critical for navigating this trend.

Food Tech: Lab-Grown & AI-Powered Solutions

Consumer reports also emphasizes the potential of lab-grown meat and dairy to reduce the environmental footprint of traditional agriculture. Meanwhile, AI is revolutionizing food production, optimizing everything from crop yields to personalized meal recommendations. These innovations address the twin challenges of feeding a growing global population and mitigating climate change.

Mintel’s “Hybrid Harvests” highlights the need to bridge tradition and technology in agriculture. Combining advancements like gene editing with time-honored farming practices can create efficient, sustainable food systems.

The Rise of High-Protein Meals

High-protein diets are emerging as a dominant trend for 2025, driven by increased awareness of protein’s role in supporting overall health. And today, high-protein products are becoming more diverse and accessible, catering to a range of dietary preferences and lifestyles.

Achieving adequate protein intake can be simple with some planning. Incorporating lean protein sources like chicken, fish, eggs, and plant-based options such as tofu, lentils, and quinoa can make meals nutrient-dense without excessive calories. Protein-rich snacks like Greek yogurt or nuts also contribute to daily totals.

Shifts Away from Certain Practices in 2025

As new research emerges, some practices and trends are being left behind. The focus on sustainability, transparency, and functionality means there is less emphasis on overly processed foods that lack clear nutritional benefits. Artificial ingredients and heavily refined sugars are being scrutinized more closely, with many products reformulated to meet cleaner-label standards.

The popularity of low-fat diets is also declining as the understanding of healthy fats improves. Nutritional research now supports balanced fat intake, including sources like avocados, nuts, and olive oil, for their role in heart health and satiety. People are beginning to understand that healthy fats don’t make you fat. It is excess sugar that ends up on your waistline. Additionally, the reliance on calorie-counting as a primary tool for weight management is being replaced by approaches that emphasize nutrient density and overall dietary quality.

Single-use plastics in food packaging are another area seeing a major shift. As environmental concerns take center stage, brands are increasingly adopting biodegradable or reusable packaging solutions. An increasing awareness of nanoplastics that end up inside your cells – even your brain – are moving people away from plastic water bottles if not other food packaging. These changes reflect a broader move toward practices that prioritize long-term health—both for individuals and the planet.

Posted on

Fighting Fear of Our Food System

SPOILER ALERT: Your food is safe. We have one of the safest food systems in the world. In fact, we’re here updating and reposting this from several years ago with the continued, glowing outlook of our system.

Unfortunately, the news cycle hasn’t changed much either…some might say it’s gotten worse.  Just turn on any screen and get ready for a barrage of fear.  It’s nearly impossible to escape the constant avalanche of reports targeting a threat or cause for worry.

And if I don’t already fear the food, some people want me to feel guilty for not just what I eat, but almost for even eating at all.  

My So-Called Wrongdoings

Think I’m crazy?  Sit down in your local diner and order a meal.  Let’s go for comfort food: meatloaf, mac and cheese, and a side salad with Thousand Island dressing.  Oh, and some apple pie with ice cream for dessert.  A glass of ice water with lemon, and maybe a nice cup of really good coffee to cap things off.

So what have I just done here?  How does this food get me into a maze of controversies about human, animal and environmental welfare? 

Let’s look at it piece by piece, or bite by bite, if you prefer.

Let’s start with the meatloaf…

It’s hamburger, plus some breadcrumbs, some spices and maybe a few chunks of peppers or mushrooms.  Maybe I sprinkle some salt and pepper on it, and a touch of ketchup, just for flavor.

  • Should I be eating beef at all? It takes lots of water and feed grains to bring an animal to market.  It gave off a lot of greenhouse gas while it fattened up, too.  It may have been finished off for market confined in a feedlot, and maybe injected with antibiotics at some point.  It certainly didn’t enjoy the trip to the processing plant.  Dietitians tell me too much red meat will clog my arteries, or at least contribute to those extra pounds I seem to carry these days. And if I eat it more than five days a week, I might get Alzheimer’s.
  • I probably didn’t need all that salt, either. It could kick up my blood pressure.
  • And what was in those breadcrumbs? Were they from stale old bread they had lying around?  Was it made from GMO crops?  If so, should I worry?
  • What about those peppers and mushrooms? How do I know they were grown responsibly, without taking up too much water, or using too much fertilizer and pesticides?  And were the people who picked them paid fairly and treated well?
  • Did they add an egg to the meatloaf? My mom used to do that. But if they did, was that egg from a happy, free-range chicken? Was it fed antibiotics? How much cholesterol does the egg add?
  • Ketchup…organic tomatoes, or mass-produced in a hothouse or grown hydroponically in an indoor farm somewhere?  Picked by whom?  Were they paid fairly?  And using how much added sugar? What is ascorbic acid, or citric acid anyway, and why in the world is it in there?

Now I’m afraid to even think about the mac & cheese…

  • What grain did they use to make the macaroni? Is it also a GMO crop?
  • Is the cheese really cheese? What kinds of preservatives, colorings, flavorings and anti-coagulants are squirming around in there, just waiting for me to eat them up?

As for the salad…

  • Where in the heck did this Romaine lettuce come from? Should I worry about food poisoning?
  • And what about the tomato, and the cucumber, and that reddish stuff that looks like an onion…is it local? How did it get here?  How many hands have actually touched the food I’m about to eat?  Who checked to make sure it’s clean, fresh and safe?
  • As for the dressing, did it come out of a bottle or a 20-gallon vat somewhere?

You know, I used to love my apple pie…

Now I’m feeling a little squeamish about it!

  • Who is this mysterious Mrs. Smith, and just where is this bucolic Pepperidge Farm, anyway? How do I know it wasn’t some team of minimum-wage newbies on an assembly line churning out my mass-produced pie?
  • Just where did these apples come from?  How much sugar is in there?  Or is it high fructose corn syrup?  Or maybe some alternative sweetener made from the leaves of a plant the Aztecs once used to smoke to get high?  Is the crust an actual food, or maybe some form of biodegradable, flavor-enhanced cellulose?
  • The ice cream isn’t really helping, either. Did the cows who supplied the milk have drugs used on them to stimulate more milk production?  Were they treated humanely?  How was the milk handled?  How much sugar went into the mix in making this?  How much artificial flavor?

Maybe a sip of water will help calm me down…

But wait a minute.

  • Did this come out of the tap, or from a bottle? What kind of pipes are in the city’s water system?  Who checks the water for contamination, and for what kind, and when? And are there microplastics?  Will I get cancer from drinking this water?
  • And what about that slice of lemon? Did anybody wash that lemon before they cut it up?  How long has it been lying around waiting to be plunked into somebody’s water, or iced tea, or finger bowl?  Where did it come from, anyway?

Let’s just forget about the coffee…and the sugar or artificial sweetener I put in it, or the milk.  I no longer care where the coffee beans came from, or who picked them, or much of anything else.  I certainly don’t care if the milk came from a cow or an almond.  I don’t even want to think about how much energy was needed to cook all this, or to heat the hot water they will use to wash up.

Wasteful Worries

Now my appetite is pretty much gone, thanks to all this thinking I’ve been doing.  So what do I do with all this left-over food on the plate?

  • If I don’t do something with it, they will just scrape it off into the garbage and send it to the local landfill. It will decompose slowly, I suppose.  But while it does, it will generate still more greenhouse gas.  Food waste in landfills already accounts for 7 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.  My contribution here could pollute the water table, if the landfill isn’t up to spec.  Am I more responsible for global warming if I eat this food, or if I throw it out?
  • Maybe the diner will call the local food bank and make sure the left-overs go to good use – you know, for a needy person, or a soup kitchen, or something like that.

Or maybe I just stop eating.

Phew….I just woke up from my nightmare.

But this sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it?

However, this is just a superficial look at some of the issues that surround the food we eat these days.

Actually, there are a great many more than these to consider….real, serious issues that people in the food sector wrestle with every day in trying to satisfy the public demand for safe, sustainable food.

OK, Now Here’s the Good News…

Educating worried consumers on our food system is one of the big reasons why we created this blog, so you’re in luck.

People want to know more about our food system: where their food comes from, how it is produced, how it is delivered, how we keep it safe and make it as wholesome as possible, and more.  We all need to know, and, frankly, we should know.  And thankfully, farmers have a great story to tell.

There is no way to adequately describe the commitment, the resilience, the innovative and entrepreneurial spirit of the men and women who produce, farm, ranch, and those who manufacture the food products, and those who prepare the food we need and want.

We look forward to continued innovation and advancement in our established food system. And what we hear is loud, clear and unequivocal faith in the future of food.

“This growing fear has the potential to sideline, deter, critical technologies that we already use, and derail technologies in the pipeline, that we already know how to achieve.”

– Former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue

Never underestimate our farmers & food producers

When commitment, capability and capital converge combine with their oversight, look out. All things are possible — including food that people don’t fear, and a food system that doesn’t induce guilt.

If you want to learn more about how our food is grown, food safety, and food waste, take a look at these posts for more information. We hope this collection of posts puts your mind at ease so you can rightfully enjoy your food produced by some of the hardest-working people in the world:

Farming and production:

Food safety:

Food waste:

Government resources:

Maybe our food system isn’t perfect yet. We need all the intelligence and technologies possible to feed a growing population while regenerating the land.

We’re doing a better job today than we did yesterday, and we’ll do a better job tomorrow than we do today.

Indeed, it’s a great big world of possibilities — except maybe for a decent-tasting diet cola.

Posted on

New Ag Leadership Faces Tough Agenda

The shock waves from Donald Trump’s surprisingly big victory in the presidential election were still rippling across Washington when speculation began about what the change in administrations will mean for agriculture.

Change is in the Air

No matter how many of the rumors prove to be true, it’s certain the changes at the White House — and on Capitol Hill — will usher in a new and somewhat different approach to policies and programs for farmers and everyone else along the food chain from dirt to dinner.

The most immediate effect when the 119th Congress now set to convene January 2, 2025, will be a shift in committee chairs from Democrat to Republican in the U.S. Senate. The Agriculture Committee, now with Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) as chair, will see the top spot likely pass to the current ranking Republican committee member, Sen. John Boozman (R-Arkansas).

“It is clear voters have demanded new leadership in the Senate and a return to the agenda President Trump has fiercely championed,” Boozman said after the election results were announced.

Boozman continues, “I look forward to helping the president-elect and this incoming Republican Senate majority restore prosperity, border security and public safety. The Senate Agriculture Committee will refocus on strengthening our rural communities and we will provide farmers and ranchers the policies and support they desperately need to remain viable.”

Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Pennsylvania) is expected to retain the chair. Thompson’s long family history in the dairy industry has been highly valuable in his more than a decade as an agriculture committee member, and as ranking minority member.

Nonetheless, efforts to enact the long-overdue Farm Bill in the lame-duck session planned for the final weeks of 2024 aren’t expected to produce legislation. Key legislative issues with higher political priorities – such as continuing government funding and hurricane relief – will make strong demands on the limited time remaining this year.

Just as important, the two parties remain divided on several key Farm Bill issues, mostly on where and how to spend the enormous amounts of money involved in the omnibus legislation, including funding for the increasingly expensive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, now at about $113 billion per year) and ambitious green-oriented programs.

Who Will Be Secretary of Agriculture?

Several well-known names have been floated as possible replacements for current Secretary of Agriculture. But few if any observers are ready to place a big bet on any individual as the Trump team evaluates and begins to fill all cabinet positions — including State, Treasury, Defense, Attorney General, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Energy, Education, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security.

At the top of the Ag Secretary speculation list is Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky). Massie has commented publicly that he is “open” to taking the top USDA spot in the next Trump Administration. Massie’s growing close relationship with Trump supporter Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., also has been carefully noted by observers of the Washington political jungle.

Ag at the top of your agenda? Subscribe for insider insights, trends, and more.

“President Trump’s resounding victory secured a mandate for big ideas like reversing chronic disease, conserving our land and empowering farmers,” Massie said in post-election comments cited by the Lexington Herald-Leader. He went on to note that no offer had been made from the Trump team as yet, despite suggestions of his leading candidacy from another prominent name in agricultural circles – Joel Salatin.

“I’ve been contacted by the Trump transition team to hold some sort of position within the USDA and have accepted one of the six Advisor to the Secretary spots,” Salatin wrote in his blog.  “My favorite congressman, Thomas Massie from Kentucky, has agreed to go in as Secretary of Agriculture.”

Salatin has gained fame – some say notoriety – for his maverick approach to farming and farm policy in general.  He is a prolific author on food issues, an active farmer and self-professed “Christian libertarian environmentalist capitalist lunatic farmer.”

Consider just a few of the titles of Salatin’s list of publications:

  • Folks, This Ain’t Normal: A Farmer’s Advice for Happier Hens, Healthier People, and a Better World  – sustainability and food production, local food systems
  • The Sheer Ecstasy of Being a Lunatic Farmer – farming in real life, and the benefits of sustainable farming
  • Everything I want To Do Is Illegal: War Stories from the Local Food Front – the different ways food policy shapes our food-choice freedom
  • The Marvelous Pigness of Pigs: Respecting and Caring for All God’s Creations – the link between pig raising and closeness to God
  • You Can Farm: The Entrepreneurs Guide to Start & Succeed in a Farming Enterprise – farming opportunities for true entrepreneurs

His family cleared land and set up successful diversified farming operations in Venezuela before coming to America, where they began farming in 1961 in Virginia. As a high school student, Salatin began his own business enterprise, selling a variety of farm products in local markets.

Salatin today operates Polyface Farm in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, raising livestock and selling meat, and generally promoting a “totally free market… without government regulations.”  His works champion policies designed to give farmers more control, allowing individual leadership in conservation and responsible environmental stewardship. His outspoken views and energy seem to resonate strongly with the Trump camp, regardless of his future official or unofficial role within the new administration.

But Massie remains far from the only name mentioned for the USDA top spot

Another contender may be former Rep. Mike Conaway, the former chair and ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee, who left Congress in 2021. His supporters cite two important advantages for the former West Texas legislator.  One is his robust experience in dealing with the last Farm Bill and all its political machinations.

Perhaps equally important, Conaway served as chair of the House Ethics Committee and the House Intelligence Committee during its investigation of Russian interference in Trump’s 2016 campaign. His leadership in presenting a finding of no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign was noted then – and no doubt remembered by a President who values and rewards loyalty.Southerners note that in his last Administration,
Trump tapped former Governor George “Sonny” Perdue as USDA Secretary. Perdue served just as loyally through the tumultuous period of trade relations between the United States and China, even as the rising tensions cut deeply into exports of U.S commodities to China. USDA estimated that the tariff wars accounted for 95 percent of the $27 billion decline in farm exports between mid-2018 and late 2019. USDA also noted that soybeans made up 71 percent of the lost trade.
Perdue moved on to become chancellor of the University System of his home state of Georgia. But another Georgia name also has surfaced in the leadership discussions – Vincent Mearl Duvall – know far and wide in national agricultural circles as “Zippy” Duvall. (The noteworthy nickname allegedly is linked to his Caesarian birth.)
Duval is a third-generation farmer, beginning in dairy and expanding into production of beef cows, broilers, hay and other commodities. In his spare time, he also is President of the American Farm Bureau Federation – the largest general farm organization in the United States. He comes from a major agricultural state producing 40 different commodities and has traveled extensively across all parts of the U.S. farming system.
His supporters also note that his professed strong religious faith is very much in line with the values espoused by the President-elect. “I’m going to get up every day and do that, for you. We are the strength and the hope for this country and all around the world because we will provide the nourishment. There’s no human right more precious than the right to eat,” he told Farm Progress. “I believe we’re here as farmers to be stewards to God’s great works.”

What Challenges Will the New Ag Leadership Face?

Whoever wins the leadership derby will face a daunting list of challenges.

Farmers worry about soft commodity prices and tough competition for foreign sales. Most also point to the uncertainties created by the failure to pass the omnibus Farm Bill, and the continuing deadlock on spending priorities and decision-making authorities for remaining unspent “green” dollars authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

But the elephant in the barnyard in a new Trump Administration is clearly trade.

The President-elect repeatedly stated his intention to impose tariffs on imported goods — including a possible blanket 60 percent tariff on imports from China.

As of Oct. 31, U.S. soybean sales for export to China in 2024-25 were a 16-year, non-trade-war low.

Further, China accounts for only 44% of total U.S. soybean sales, an 18-year low when once again excluding the trade-war years of 2018 and 2019.

– Reuters, November 8, 2024

In 2022, China was sending $536 billion in exports to the United States; last year it had dropped to $427 billion. U.S. exports to China totaled about $150 billion.

Lower-level tariffs for other imports also have been reported, but regardless of the final level of any such new tariffs, the farm community fears resumption of another disruptive and costly trade war with the world, and in particular China. The lingering effects of trade conflicts with China in the first Trump Administration are still with farmers, particularly soybean farmers. With higher tariffs on sales to the United States, China simply turned to other suppliers.

Brazil has emerged rapidly as a major competitor for the United States in international markets, including the important China market. Brazil in 2022 passed the United States as the world’s largest soybean producer, with 120.7 million tons of bean production, compared with 116.4 million for the United States. Brazil’s soybean acreage is projected to grow to 117 million acres in the coming year. The United States is projected to harvest 86.1 million acres, according to USDA.

The United States and Brazil supply over 80 percent of soybean global exports, while China accounts for about 60 percent of total soybean imports. Soybeans are the largest agricultural commodity exported to China by both the United States and Brazil. Over the last five years, Brazil has come to depend on the China market, with almost 75 percent of their exported soybeans headed to China.  For the United States, that figure is more like 50 percent.

Trump’s first administration kept farmers onside with generous subsidies to offset lost U.S. sales to China from the trade war. Soybean farmers received $5.4 billion more in aid than they lost in price impact, a University of California-Davis study found.

 Another trade war could cost soy farmers $3.6 billion to $5.9 billion in annual production value, depending on how the dispute plays out, according to an October study from the National Corn Growers Association and American Soybean Association.

For corn, Brazil overtook the U.S. as China’s top supplier in 2023, just one year after Beijing approved purchases from the South American agricultural powerhouse.

 – Reuters, November 7, 2024

Biofuels: The other elephant in the room

The nomination of former New York Rep. Lee Zelden as head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adds to the evidence of a much stronger focus on strengthening U.S. energy production through expanded oil and gas production. Zelden has publicly noted President-elect Trump’s desire for EPA to play a significant role in re-establishing what he called “energy dominance.”

Zelden was among many Republicans voting against the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act and previous green-focused Biden legislative initiatives. Environmental advocacy groups have given him very low approval ratings – unlike President-elect Trump’s high opinion of him.

Agriculture’s greatest stake in Zelden’s role as EPA head may be his approach to the standing focus on biofuels as a key element of Biden’s green agenda.  Currently, roughly 40 percent of U.S. corn goes into production of ethanol and other biofuels, and as much as 46% of the U.S. soybean crop.

Any shift toward greater reliance on traditional fossil fuels as a cornerstone of U.S. energy policy has the potential to create significant bearish pressure on commodity prices – at a time farmers already cite the adverse effects of soft commodity prices on their economic vitality.

Added to the possibility of economic fallout from renewed trade tensions with China under a new Trump administration, the farm community is closely watching the growing roster of policy leaders sharing Trump’s views and priorities – and perhaps holding its collective breath.

Posted on

Witnessing Helene’s Wrath

To all my Dirt-to-Dinner friends,

Thanks to everyone for the many, many expressions of concern and support following the devastating effects of Hurricane Helene.

My part of North Carolina was hit especially hard, with epic flooding and devastation that simply wiped away many of the small towns here and left cities like Asheville reeling from destruction almost beyond description. The photo on the right shows Helene’s impact on my hometown.

Remember just how widespread and damaging this storm has been for us.

Helene brought a 500-mile path of death and destruction from Florida to the southern Appalachian Mountains. Our state Department of Health and Human Services placed the death toll from Helene at 95 across 21 of our 100 counties – with another 200 still missing.

Almost three million people lost power across the affected states, including me, for eight days.  A gaunt work crew from far-off Ohio sent to restore our power politely declined our offer of some camp-stove instant coffee. Too many people still need our help for us to spend time drinking coffee, one of them said without a hint of pretension.

As if farming wasn’t bad enough this year…

Like most southern states, Georgia has a robust and diversified agricultural production system. But Helene brought four months’ worth of rain in barely two days to some areas of the state. Winds estimated at 79-111 miles per hour helped devaste a huge swatch of the Peach State’s prime production areas.

Georgia Agriculture Commissioner Tyler Harper commented on the hurricane’s effect on Georgia’s farms and farm families:

“Every commodity in our agriculture industry has been impacted by this storm. You got poultry houses that are leveled, pecan trees that are down.

“That means we’ve lost that crop, not only for this year but we’ve lost that crop for years to come.”

Preliminary estimates by the state’s Agriculture Department, the Forestry Commission and University of Georgia placed the total economic damage to the state’s agriculture at $6.5 billion.  Harper estimated that about 30 percent of the overall economic output from Georgia’s farming industry was lost and with nothing to sell, the families and workers that make the state’s agriculture what it is are in need of help.

Atlanta television station WBS reported that the American Farm Bureau estimated Georgia had suffered a 75 percent loss in the pecan crop, and 80 percent in the poultry industry. Other reports said as many as 100 poultry houses no longer exist. That’s a huge hit for a sector that accounts for about one-third of the state’s agricultural economy.

Corn is the most widely grown crop in the state, notably in the southern half of the state. Autumn crops of produce also are critical, with one farmer estimating his losses alone at $7 million – with most of those crops not covered by crop insurance. Peach farmers also report extensive damage to their trees.

The storm brought notable immediate and lasting damage to at least two of the state’s most important crops: cotton and pecans. Cotton helps clothe us. Pecans are a mainstay of confections and notably holiday cooking. Cotton accounts for $1 billion of the state’s farm economy, pecans another $400 million. Both crops provide examples of the potential consequences of extreme weather events to producers almost anywhere.

Helene devasted as much as a quarter of the state’s entire pecan acreage. Pecan trees can take as long as 25 years to reach full maturity – meaning it will take years for the lost trees to be replaced.

According to Lenny Wells, the University of Georgia’s extension pecan specialist:

“”What we are hearing from most growers is that large trees (40-50 years and up) have suffered about a 70 percent loss and younger trees have suffered somewhere around a 40 percent loss. When I say loss, I am referring to trees blown completely down.

“These numbers are yet to be confirmed but from what I have seen myself and gauging by what we saw from Hurricane Michael a few years ago, I don’t believe these numbers are an exaggeration. I have heard from people in the damage area who have five or six trees left standing, and several who have no trees left standing.”

Cam Hand, the school’s extension cotton specialist, painted an equally somber picture:

“It seems like across the state, we lost somewhere between 35 percent to 40 percent of our (cotton) crop. … And there are fields worse than that and some that aren’t that bad, but that’s what the number looks like. And we’ve still got a long way to go on getting data and seeing the reductions in fiber quality associated with this storm.”

Let’s not forget another of the state’s key crops, supporting an industry worth an estimated $2 billion: peanuts. Georgia plants about 770,000 acres of the 1.8 million acres of peanuts grown in the United States and accounts for 53 percent of total consumption, according to industry figures. Officials are still calculating the extent of Helene’s damage to Georgia’s peanut crop. They also somberly note that Helene’s path cut through not just the state’s peanut-growing areas but the heart of the prime peanut-growing acres across the southeast.

And here in North Carolina, corn is one of our most important crops. The latest government reports show that we’ve completed 72 percent of our corn harvest, compared with 84 percent complete at this point in the last harvest season. But weather has taken its toll throughout the year, from dry conditions in the summer to torrential rains this autumn.

Only 12 percent of North Carolina’s corn crop is rated as “good,” another 11 percent “fair” – and a whopping 77 percent either “poor” or “very poor.”

I can’t think of a better barometer of the critical role of weather in our food system – here or anywhere else.

I’m pleased to report that we are recovering

In fact, perhaps the biggest ray of sunshine in all of this – if there is one – is the remarkable way people have pulled together to deal with the situation. No one has simply given up, and I’ve encountered precious few individuals prepared simply to wait for help from some government agency or an anonymous distant benefactor.

Neighbors are banding together to clear debris, and the sound of chain saws throughout the day from all directions tells me we’re out there thinking about the future, far more than about the past.

Thanks, everyone, but we are well on our way for getting through this.

As I watched all this unfold around me over almost an entire month, I’ve also noticed that the agricultural community is doing its part in the relief effort. I suppose farmers are more used to dealing with the vicissitudes of weather than we complacent consumers. Excessive rain, extreme heat, drought and the pests that come with them are part and parcel of the farming way of life. Finding ways to cope with them is the flip side of the farming coin.

The good news about agriculture, if there is any, is in the spectacular efforts of farmers to get ahead of the storm.

Thanks to the accurate heads-up provided by weather experts in the days before Helene came ashore, many farmers were able to get into the fields to speed the normal pace of the traditional farm harvest season that is underway at this time of the year. Key southern crops have been hit – some hard – but by and large an alert farming community helped cut the extent of devastation in real and meaningful ways.

But there’s still much to do

Even so, Helene’s effects on agriculture in the Southeastern United States are almost beyond comprehension.

Broken buildings, mud and silt are everywhere, still.

Roads are still closed. Downed trees, snapped power poles and drooping electrical cables line what roads are open. Obviously, some level of disruption to normal flow of crops and animals to market of course can be expected, creating spot shortages and sometimes lack of available supplies.

A visit two days ago to a prominent Asheville supermarket showed the effects in real time.

Weeks after the storm, the items on the previously robust aisles are sparse and picked over, and huge swatches of store shelves remain empty. Eggs and dairy products are in limited supply, and good luck finding any 2% milk.

Frozen food cases are bare, after extended periods without the power that makes them possible. 

“Bear with us,” the harried store manager told me. “We’ll be back. Count on it.”

That’s the voice of resilience and optimism.

The logistics system that delivers supplies and takes crops and animals to market has been severely disrupted in many areas, where roadways and bridges no longer exist. The famous Blue Ridge Parkway and other scenic attractions in this part of our state are completely shut down and will be for some time.

Local roadways are just gone in many places. The vital east-west Interstate 40 corridor remains closed in long stretches from Asheville to the Tennessee border, with eastbound lanes swept away by rains and mudslides. For those who don’t know our local geography, that’s roughly 50 miles.

It’s still possible to see farm equipment bogged down in fields that weren’t simply muddy. They were quagmires if lucky, and submerged if not. Thank the heavens above for the past week of sunny, dry conditions.

Advance weather notices helped many farmers avoid calamity.  But the sheer speed of the rising waters and the extraordinary levels of water on historically safe fields and city streets took all of us by surprise, nonetheless. This was a near Biblical event for people in this area, none more so than our local farming community.

The floods, tragically, have left hundreds of my fellow state residents dead or missing.

Finding a new path amidst the devastation

On top of that, uncounted animals also are dead or missing. Some of the luckier animals were stranded around this area, and supplies of hay and feed completely lost or rendered inaccessible. I’m told by my local farming friends that dairy farmers have faced enormous challenges dealing with their herds, without reliable delivery of feed, supplies and the ability to move product…or the power they need for milking and other management duties. Truckloads of hay from Pennsylvania and other somewhat drier distant areas have helped fill the gap for animal feed.

The peculiar thump of helicopters in the skies above delivering food, water and emergency supplies for desperate people and animals has become a normal sound of the day – and music to our ears.

Pastureland was flooded and remains wet, weeks after the storm. Some poultry houses no longer exist. Many barns, out-buildings and other elements of the farming infrastructure are left damaged, in rubble, or simply vanished down the turbulent river flows. I sense that we’re transitioning from a period of emergency response to a slower, more deliberate process of rebuilding and recovery. It will take months, perhaps years, to repair and recreate all the resources needed to move food from dirt to dinner. But we’re going to do it.

This may be the best example of “regenerative agriculture” that I’ve found so far.

As I’ve watched all this unfold around me, I also tried to take a look at how other areas hit by Helene have fared. The picture is much the same, across large portions of Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Tennessee, not to mention the Florida Panhandle and parts of Kentucky, Virginia and West Virginia.  (Florida has its own story to tell about hurricanes, which probably deserves special attention.) But as a loyal Carolinian with a well-documented southern bias, I’m sensitive to what all this means for southeastern farming and ranching, and the key crops that form the foundation of our farm economy.

How we can help

And maybe more of concern to the average consumer, the effects of Helene on the poultry industry are significant. For example, the National Chicken Council (yes, there is a national chicken council) notes that Georgia, North Carolina, Arkansas, Alabama, and Texas were the top five states for liveweight broiler production in 2023, accounting for 55.5 percent of total U.S. federally inspected production. Replacing the productive capacity for broilers, layers, eggs, turkeys and other poultry lost because of Helene won’t happen overnight.

If anyone wants to offer help to the people ravaged by Hurricane Helene, please visit CharityNavigator’s Hurricane Helene Support page for an overview of various charitable organizations helping in the relief effort.

Thanks again for all your support and concern. We all appreciate it more than we hope you will ever know.

– Garland

 

Posted on

Understanding food labels

Here I am at Costco, getting far too many things for my family of four. As I try to navigate my unwieldy cart, I see a new product – avocado oil spray. Apparently, it has a higher smoke point for cooking AND healthy fats!

But, wait…look at all these labels: organic, non-GMO, all natural, glyphosate residue-free, gluten free…what? Avocados have gluten!?

It happens to all of us: we’re hit with a barrage of food labels every time we go grocery shopping.

Many of us assume the more labels, the higher quality the product…but you’d be mistaken.

Food companies are in a constant battle to prove superiority of their products, even at the expense of the truth. But how are we to know if a label is informative or just a marketing ploy?

Below, we’ve compiled summaries on each popular food label so you can decide which is most meaningful to you…and which ones are gimmicks.

ORGANIC

What it means:

  • USDA organic products have strict production and labeling requirements.

    • These requirements demand that approved food items are produced using no genetic engineering or ionizing radiation and with natural pesticides and fertilizers. Organic products are overseen by authorized personnel of the USDA National Organic Program.

Don’t be fooled:

  • Several USDA-certified organic labels exist, so just because you see “organic” in the label, don’t assume the entire product is organic

    • “100% Organic” indicates it’s a fully organic product
    • The “Organic” label indicates at least 95% if the product is organic
    • “Made with Organic Ingredients” indicates at least 70% of the product is organic

CERTIFIED HUMANE

What it means:

Don’t be fooled:

  • Producers don’t need to do anything after receiving USDA permission, so if this is really important to you, stick with a third-party humane verifier.

GRASS-FED

What it means:

  • “Grass-fed” is a term used for cow, sheep and goat products to indicate the animals’ diet is primarily comprised of pasture grass, hay, and forage.

    • To claim “grass-fed”, the USDA’s Food Safety & Inspection Service requires documentation stating that animals have access to a pasture during most of its life. Feedlots are allowed during weaning and in the months before harvesting.

  • However, products with the American Grassfed label indicate that the ruminating animals had continuous access to pasture and a diet of 100% forage. Cage confinement, hormones and all antibiotics are expressly prohibited by the organization.

Don’t be fooled:

NON-GMO

There are only 11 GMO crops currently approved for consumption in the U.S.: alfalfa, Arctic apples, canola, corn, cotton, papaya, Pinkglow pineapples, potatoes (select varieties), soybeans, squash (select varieties), and sugar beets

That’s it. No GMO wheat, strawberries, tomatoes, rice, chickens, etc. 

GMO crops are proven completely safe for consumption and have the same nutritional profile as their non-GMO counterparts.

What it means:

  • When you see food products with a “non-GMO” label at the grocery store, it either means:

    • The food product is made from a crop with a GMO counterpart and the producer chose to use the non-GMO version. For instance, tortilla corn chips made from non-GMO corn.

    • You’re paying extra for a label on a product with no GMO alternative: think avocados, strawberry jam, and hummus

Don’t be fooled:

The Non-GMO Project approves companies to use their “non-GMO verified” logo, even on non-GMO alternative products. 

With no FDA or USDA regulation for the term, “non-GMO”, organizations like this can take advantage of consumers who don’t know which crops have GMO counterparts. Think avocado oil, or even products with no genes in the first place, like salt and bottled water.

  • If avoiding GMOs is important to you, look for the logo on products with a GMO counterpart (see above list)

  • Organic products will always be non-GMO products; however, non-GMO products are not necessarily organic

CAGE FREE & FREE RANGE

What it means:

Don’t be fooled:

NO ADDED HORMONES

What it means:

  • Beef and sheep producers sometimes administer hormones to help their livestock enter the meat market more quickly. And the same goes for dairy cow producers, though fewer farms practice this now.

  • Labels showing “no hormones added” or “no hormones administered” are allowed if these producers can prove that no hormones were used during the animal’s life.

Don’t be fooled:

NO ANTIBIOTICS ADDED

What it means:

  • The USDA approves the labels, “No antibiotics administered,” “no antibiotics added” and “raised without antibiotics”, if producers can prove that antibiotics were not administered at any point.

Don’t be fooled:

GLUTEN FREE

What it means:

  • Gluten is a general name for the proteins found in cereal grains, like wheat, barley and rye and informs those with a gluten allergy or celiac disease that the product is safe for their consumption.

Don’t be fooled:

  • This label is being used on products that don’t normally include cereal grains (think sugar, rice and corn products), thus becoming another marketing gimmick.

  • Also, know that gluten-free products are not healthier, as gluten-free substitutes may contain other additives. In fact, many gluten-free products are higher in saturated fat and sugar.

 

NATURAL

What it means:

  • The terms, “100% Natural”, “Made with natural ingredients”, and “All natural”, are not closely monitored by any government agency. Because of this, food companies apply these claims and fancy logos to make us believe their product is superior.

Don’t be fooled:

  • The labels don’t really mean anything at all. These products can still contain hormones, antibiotics, pesticides…really anything

  • And there’s not much relief in sight: since 2016, the FDA has been discussing how to regulate this term, but with no standard set

So eat your veggies and fruits with abandon!

No matter the labels or lack thereof, fresh produce will only promote a healthier you.

And here’s a quick reference chart for your next grocery run:

Click here to download chart

Posted on

Do price controls work?

The Harris/Waltz campaign promises to bring down American’s grocery costs. One of their strategies is to pass the ‘first-ever federal ban on price gouging.’

Price gouging is, in times of short supply or inflation, companies, or individuals, raise the price of their goods above and beyond what is fair and economical. For instance, during Covid, some people bought personal hand sanitizer dispensers for $1.00 and resold them for over $7.00. Or, during an inflationary period when prices are rising, companies charge more than their basic profit margin.

Many states already have ‘price gouging’ laws that prohibit ‘excessive’ or ‘unconscionable’ prices in the wake of a declared emergency, such as a hurricane or other natural disaster. These laws purport to protect consumers against companies’ exploiting a surge in demand for necessities, including food and energy, caused by an emergency.

Whatever the merits of those laws, they appear to be quite different than the generalized price controls proposed by the Harris/Waltz campaign.

Price Controls in a Global Food System

Price controls are not a simple solution. If uncontrollable costs increase the price of food, then food producers and consumer product companies will suffer because their goods sold have to remain competitively priced.

Because countries are interdependent on each other for food prices, what happens around the globe reverberates to the grocery aisle…

  • a drought in Argentina can affect corn prices in the U.S. because there is less global corn available,
  • the price of your chocolate dessert has increased because the Ivory Coast and Ghana governments raised the farmgate price for cocoa buyers, or
  • the potential longshoreman strike could affect the price of your bananas or tomatoes coming in from Mexico or Holland.

The list of potential situations affecting the price of food in our grocery aisles is endless.

Price Controls in Your Neighborhood

Let’s take a simple example of a lemonade stand to demonstrate pricing controls.  Your children want a new iPhone, and you tell them that they need to earn it themselves. One hot sunny summer day, your son and daughter decide to create a lemonade stand to keep your neighbors cool and hydrated. “Our lemonade will be unique”, they said. “It is sugar free and has electrolytes.”

You help fund a big table, two chairs, lemons, electrolyte powder, stevia for sweetness, plastic cups, and a blender for mixing.  You calculate that if they sold 100 cups of lemonade, they could charge their customers $1.25 per drink.  That way, they would cover their costs of $0.75 a cup and make a 50-cent profit on each cup. If they sold all 100, that would be $50 for the day. In a little over two weeks throughout the summer, they would have the new iPhone in time for school.

You walk around the neighborhood and see that other neighbors also have lemonade stands, each with unique features, such as cinnamon, hot chilies, or even icy slushy blueberries and strawberries in their drinks. But you notice that the lines are longer around some and see that many prices are only $1.00 a cup.

You wonder: are your children charging too much?  So you go back and encourage them to drop their price to $1.00, knowing that at least they should make $25.00 for the day. This will take most of the summer, but an iPhone is still in their future. Life is good.

And here come the price controls: the town government decided that the lemonade around the neighborhood is too expensive.  Thinking it is helping those who cannot afford to pay $1.00 a cup, the town puts a ceiling of $0.70 a cup.  This creates a loss for everyone whose cost is about the same at $0.75 a cup. The lemonade vendors, your children included, fold up their chairs and that is the end of neighborhood lemonade.

The government goes back to reconsider their price ceiling and decides to help the lemonade vendors.  They increase the ceiling to $0.90. They also put in a price floor of $0.80. With a small profit margin realized, a few optimistic lemonade vendors are back in business. Your children are hanging in there.

Suddenly there is frost in Florida and the price for lemons have doubled. The price floor doesn’t help as the lemonade vendors have a higher cost of goods than they can sell on the market. Their cost to produce lemonade is now $1.25.  This is way over the price floor of $0.80 and over the price ceiling of $0.90.

Lemonade is now a nostalgic memory. There will have to be plan B for an iPhone.

Price Controls Gone Awry

On a much more serious scale, here is what happened when governments tried price controls in Venezuela, Russia, and even in the United States.

Hint: It didn’t work then, either.

Price controls are often associated with Communist countries, as it involves more government intervention than Western Democracy often practices. Despite the best intentions to maintain cheap prices, history has shown that price controls tend to backfire with severe shortages of consumer necessities across a nation.

Venezuela

Venezuela struggled during the 2008 commodity and financial crisis and due to price controls and overall poor governance, they have still not recovered.  In 2008, due to weather, crop shortages, and oil prices, global prices for rice and wheat escalated by over 200% and 100%, respectively.

President Chavez announced, “there is a food crisis in the world, but Venezuela is not going to fall into that crisis”.   He passed the Law for Fair Costs and Prices which put price ceilings, floors, and audits on companies.

Like the lemonade stands, many of these companies went out of business due to negative margins.  As a result, production dropped, food availability on the grocery shelves suffered, and there was a significant food crisis.

The number of undernourished people escalated to 6.5 million in 2020 from .7 million in 2013. Venezuela has still not recovered As of June 2024; it is estimated that there are 550,000 Venezuelan’s who have migrated to the U.S.

It is no wonder. Their Global Food Security Index score is 106th out of 113th in the world, and is ranked 18th out of 19 South American countries.  Only Haiti is below them.

Soviet Union

In the 1980s, President Mikael Gorbachev, had good intentions to keep food and consumer goods prices low to ensure they were affordable for the public. Gorbachev implemented price controls as a staple economic policy aimed at stabilizing prices and preventing inflation. However, these controls often led to significant issues, notably shortages of goods and a decline in product quality.

One of the main reasons these controls failed was that the fixed prices didn’t reflect the actual costs of production. Companies and producers of food lost their incentive to supply the grocery store when they had a loss.  This led to empty store shelves. The black market flourished because people had to eat and went to the black market which set its prices based on basic economic supply and demand. It ended up undermining the state price controls.

Gorbachev caved and he removed controls and settled for a basic market economy. Then, when price controls were lifted, there was hyperinflation, and prices rose by over 2,000%! There is nothing quite as predictable as basic supply and demand for market efficiencies.

United States

If you were born in the 1960s, you will remember the 1970s gas shortage while trying to fill your car with gas. Once again price controls imposed by President Nixon didn’t work. There was a 1973 OPEC oil embargo and in response the U.S. government-imposed price controls to keep gas affordable for the customer.

However, these price caps led to unintended consequences. Gas prices were $0.36 a gallon. When going to parties, I remember contributing $1.00 for three gallons of gas. Of course, this was way below the cost of production, so the oil companies stopped producing oil because they lost money for each gallon of gas. This also prevented them from investing in new drilling or additional resources.

This also led to VERY long lines at gas stations and at-home stocking of gasoline.

Would History Repeat Itself?

“We economists don’t know much, but we do know how to create a shortage.

If you want to create a shortage of tomatoes, for example, just pass a law that retailers can’t sell tomatoes for more than two cents per pound. Instantly you’ll have a tomato shortage. It’s the same with oil or gas.”

― Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize-winning economist and statistician

While governments can be tempted to control the price, the complex relationship between government policies, producer incentives, and consumer needs shows that market dynamics reign and cannot be ignored.

Posted on

Farmers Rise to Climate Challenges

Dire warnings of the terrible effects of changes in our global climate seem to be all around us these days.

No part of our lives has more at stake in this discussion than our global agriculture and food system. Weather extremes and changes in weather patterns certainly have the potential to disrupt our modern, efficient food delivery system.

There is more at stake than short-term supply disruptions, or spikes in what we have to pay for the food we put on our family tables. Climate issues raise important questions about long-term food security for literally billions of people.

But as we enter the northern hemisphere harvest season, data from private and public sources suggest we’re more than holding our own in the quest to deliver food security for everyone, everywhere.

Despite significant weather-related disruptions to agricultural production in some parts of our world, our global network of agricultural production and trade once again has provided an abundant supply of the cornerstone commodities that form the foundation of our worldwide food system.

Climate Change – or Climate Peril?

The weather facts today are clear:

Catastrophic weather events continue to plague the planet, either as an element of global warming or part of a much longer-term cyclical pattern of cooling and warming. The debate doesn’t alter the fact that parts of our world have seen weather conditions that compromise farm productivity.

“Air temperatures on Earth have been rising since the Industrial Revolution. While natural variability, (e.g., solar flares, El Nino, La Nina) plays some part, the preponderance of evidence indicates that human activities—particularly emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases—are mostly responsible for making our planet warmer.

“According to an ongoing temperature analysis led by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by at least 1.1° Celsius (1.9° Fahrenheit) since 1880. The majority of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15 to 0.20°C per decade.”

The image below shows global temperature anomalies in 2022, which tied for the fifth warmest year on record. The past nine years have been the warmest years since modern recordkeeping began in 1880.

Climate and Productivity

Parts of the European Union, for example, have seen dry conditions and heat that cut production of major crops such as corn and wheat. EU corn production, for example is down 8 percent from its five-year average of production. Wheat is down 8 percent this year, driven largely by soil moisture conditions and heat.

But the picture is very different in other parts of the global farming system. The data can become almost mind-numbing.

But the conclusion is clear. The recent USDA World Agricultural Production report demonstrates that farmers worldwide continue to find ways to boost their output, no matter the climate changes.

For instance:

  • In the United States, corn production is up 10 percent above last year, driven to a remarkable average of 183 bushels per acre – more than 6 bushels above last year. Though  size of the crop this year is likely to be a touch smaller than last year, production growth continues to be impressive.
  • In Canada, despite its challenging geographic location north of the corn belt, corn yields have increased to an estimate 163-167 bushels per acre. Soybean production is up 12 percent from last year.
  • The southern hemisphere is doing its part, too.
    • In Brazil, soybean acreage has grown from roughly 10 million acres to more than 14 million, helping catapult that country ahead of the United States in production. Despite economic turmoil,
    • Argentina has seen soybean production rise by 92 percent over last year, driven by more acreage and yields that are 70 percent above last year’s number.
  • Malaysian palm oil production also is up – increasing by 6 percent from last year.
  • In India, rice production is up a full percentage point for last year, despite very slight decreases in per-acre productivity.

This year, we’re seeing farmers exploiting favorable weather and moisture conditions to drive steady increases in our farm productivity.

Some parts of our world are in fact seeing record production, based on smart use of science, technology and farm management practices. Yield increases continue to meet global demand – and in fact, produce carryover supplies that hold down prices to farmers and contribute to a highly competitive international marketplace for feed grains, food grains and oilseeds.

The U.S Department of Agriculture explains the situation in clear language:

Productivity Has Replaced Resource Intensification as the Primary Source of Growth in World Agriculture

“Since the 1960s, global agricultural output has increased at an average annual rate of between 2 and 3 percent (in volume terms, holding prices constant)…. Output growth was high in the 1960s (think Norman Borlaug’s ‘Green Revolution’), slowed in the 1970s (due to severely cold weather) and 1980s, accelerated in the 1990s and 2000s, but slowed again in the most recent period …. In this latest period (2011–21), global output of total crop, animal, and aquaculture commodities grew by an average rate of 1.94 percent per year.”

– USDA Economic Research Service

Productivity and Food Security

The remarkable ability of our global food system to meet the supply challenge has help create a food security picture very different from the worst fears of hyperbolic headlines. The below chart graphically demonstrates this by plotting historical post-harvest wheat, corn and soybean stocks (commodities for sale by the farmers and others; also referred to as ‘reserves’).

In reality, we continue to have not just sufficient but abundant stocks of the basic commodities we rely upon.

There’s no immediate evidence of traumatic shock to our food supplies, from climate conditions, conflict-driven market disruptions or other of the many factors that cause concern about immediate food security.

As serious as the long-term questions posed by climatic change may be, there’s no cause for panic at this time.

USDA also summarizes the overall picture for basic food commodities in stark terms:

  • Abundant supplies, growing carry-out stocks
  • Continuing downward price pressures, especially for farmers
  • Continued strong demand and highly competitive international markets

Trade and Food Security

This year’s harvest data also contains a helpful reminder of the importance of trade in a truly global food system.  The community of nations relies on an efficient system of moving commodities and food products from areas of abundance to areas of need.  Trade helps balance the disruptions caused by climate events and conditions with a steady supply of the foods essential to food security – and, for many, to human survival.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that global agricultural exports rose in value by almost three times between 2005 and 2022 – to almost $1.9 trillion.  For U.S. farmers, exports of agricultural products represented a market worth $195 billion, serving customers on more than 35 countries, according to USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service.  Trade remains a critical component of our food security.

A Cautionary Note

To the layperson, growth of 1.94 percent may not sound all that impressive. But when applied to crops measured in the hundreds of millions and billions of bushels, it remains an impressive accomplishment.

Even so, many in the food security discussion caution that the overall growth in productivity – while laudable – may mask another element of concern. They worry that in some important parts of the world, notably some of the poorest areas most in need of greater farm productivity – may lag in the effort to boost yields. Lack of investment, political instability, vulnerability to weather extremes and drought and many other factors continue to pose serious challenges to improvement. However, that’s where the value of trade shines: when we move commodities from countries of surplus to countries most in need.

Posted on

Here’s why we must vote…

This promises to be a very close race for President and many other state and local offices, so every vote counts. And our food and agriculture system has a lot at stake in this election…

We’re still without our long-overdue Farm Bill – the massive legislation that sets the ground rules for how our entire system for providing ample, affordable, safe and nutritious food operates.

This election could help clear the political air in Washington enough to allow this important piece of legislation to move forward – finally.

Food and agriculture have not been a prominent element of either presidential camp, apart from the expected vote-for-me rhetoric delivered in campaign swings through key farming states.

That’s probably because our food system continues to deliver a diverse, safe and nutritious supply of all the things our families want and need when they sit down at the dinner table.

The lack of prominent attention to farm and food in the national campaigns is a reflection of the success the amazing food system we have established over the years.

Other issues just seem to be more compelling than “tweaks” to a system that overall works very, very well. 

Overall Campaign Differences for Food & Ag 

This election may help clarify the future direction of the many, many policies and programs that help keep the system functioning. However, keep in mind that presidents have limited authority when it comes to agriculture regulation and policies. Congress determines most of these policies through the Farm Bill, which has been in a stalemate since 2023.

Both parties have issued platforms full of promises and noble intentions for food and agriculture, with ample pledges to all elements of the food chain, from the farm field to consumer plate. But exactly how many of those promises – and what kind of promises – actually will be pursued depends on the victorious presidential camp.

Harris/Walz

To many, the election of Kamala Harris signals a continuation of the basic direction of existing Biden-Harris Administration policies.

Accelerating a transition to a “greener” food system via environmental and climate goals would likely remain key elements of her administration’s agenda.

For farmers and food producers, efforts to help new, limited resource and/or socially disadvantaged producers would continue, as would the $42 billion spend on an underserved rural internet program.

Protecting consumer rights via the price of food also is expected to be a target, through a more aggressive approach by way of government attention to alleged price gouging.

Trump/Vance

Former President Donald Trump, in contrast, can be expected to take a more business-like approach, with less focus on the environmental and climate regulations, or for efforts to ‘manage’ the marketplace to control or bring down food prices.

A more aggressive approach to trade also might be anticipated, reflected in his campaign rhetoric of ‘getting tough’ with U.S. trading partners. That is an important issue for U.S. agriculture, which exported commodities and products worth $196 billion in 2022 and $178 billion in 2023. Improvements must be made to Reference Prices, Crop Insurance, Dairy Margin Coverage and Specialty Crop Insurance.

Trump will also invest in Starlink as the internet provider for farmers and rural America. This is cheaper than the $42 billion in infrastructure currently proposed with the Biden-Harris Administration.

A Deeper Dive into the Campaigns

To provide more context into the key differences of each campaign, we’ve compiled a summary from the recently-released Farm Bureau Presidential Candidate Questionnaire. We hope this helps you as we approach Election Day:

TRADE

Trump: Wants to end reliance on China for critical goods and strengthen American policies

During his presidency, he sent $28 billion to protect farmers from Chinese abuses. During his presidency he negotiated over 50 trade agreements to boost farm exports, create jobs, and support farmers. He replaced NAFTA with USMCA. Trump will not let states dictate or place barriers on their borders which makes it difficult for farmers to sell their products around the country.

Harris: Has stood up to unfair China trade practices as Vice President

She will not tolerate unfair trade from China or any competitor that undermines American farmers and ranchers. Regarding interstate trade, Harris will fight to reduce barriers and make it easier for farmers, ranchers, and other small business owners to earn a living and support a family off their hard work. She will modernize regulatory review/analysis and enhance public participation.

TAXES

Trump: Will protect the pro-farmer tax cuts from 2017

This includes the elimination of estate taxes, death taxes and family farm estate taxes. He will permanently keep in place the Trump Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Harris: Will end recently established tax cuts, thus raising taxes

This creates the foundation to form new tax codes that benefits the middle class and smaller farms and ranches.

LABOR

Trump: Will prioritize merit-based immigration

This means that those who are admitted to America contribute and strengthen the economy and the country.

Harris: Supports an earned pathway to legalization and eventual citizenship for agricultural workers

She will strengthen the H-2A visa program. The Biden-Harris administration invested $50 million to address agriculture labor challenges and protect farm workers by improving the immigration system.

CLIMATE & ENVIRONMENT

Trump: Believes that it is critical to ensure America has the cleanest air and cleanest water

He states that the American farmers are the Climate Champions of the world because they sequester more GHGs than what they emit during production.  He will also end the Green New Deal, dismantle the ‘net zero’ energy policy, and restore America’s energy independence.

Harris: Believes in a collaboration between farmers and government

The Inflation Reduction Act put $20b to help the agricultural community adopt and expand conservation strategies – all while saving money, and ensuring the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes and increasing productivity.

ENERGY

Trump: Committed to having the lowest cost of energy and electricity in the world – which will help American Agriculture

Part of this is ending market distorting restrictions on Oil, Natural Gas, and Coal. He believes in ethanol and exporting it around the world.

Harris: Sees a future of American energy security, independence, and clean energy economy creating jobs

She voted in favor for the $10b Inflation Reduction Act for rural renewable energy, rural electrification, loans to producers, renewable energy and domestic biofuels.

REGULATORY REFORM

Trump: Transparency and common sense are key guidelines

During presidency, he cut 7 regulations for every 1 new regulation, saving American households $11,000

Harris: Will fight to reduce barriers and make it easier for farmers, ranchers, and other small business owners to earn a living and support a family

The Biden-Harris Administration has pushed to improve and modernize the process of regulatory reviews, enhance public participation and improve regulatory analysis.

BIOTECHNOLOGY

Trump: Supports access to agriculture biotechnology and quick review so farmers can have faster access to innovation

The U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement allowed farmers and ranchers expanded access to biotechnology and eliminated non-scientific barriers.

Harris: Has fought to expand biotech education and job training programs

Their administration will reinvest in agriculture research at land-grant universities for innovation and progress to farmers.

But no matter your political views…

Please get to the polls and be part of a nation-wide effort to bring some clarity and direction to the national and local policies that shape our daily lives – and sustain the most productive, responsive and efficient food system in human history.

Posted on

Inflation’s Effect on Family Budgets

In Mintel’s latest comprehensive report, Michele Scott, Associate Director of US Research for Food and Drink at Mintel, explores the evolving landscape of family meal planning and the challenges of inflation, budgets, and getting what consumers want.

This summary highlights the key findings and insights from the report, along with some takeaways and future outlook for consumers.

Key Findings and Insights

The primary focus of this report is on the balance between nutrition, convenience, and the associated stressors faced by families in the U.S. Here’s what today’s consumers prioritize:

Nutrition and Convenience

Nutrition is the most important attribute for families when it comes to feeding their children, with 84% of consumers agreeing on its significance. However, while nutrition is essential, families are not willing to pay extra for it.

Instead, ease and speed of meal preparation and cleanup are the attributes families are most willing to pay a premium for. This indicates a significant opportunity for brands to simplify the family meal experience.

Source for chart: Mintel

Economic Pressures and Inflation

The report highlights the ongoing impact of economic pressures on families, particularly inflation and the cost of living. Inflation has remained sticky, especially concerning food, making feeding the family a persistent challenge.

Despite improvements in the broader economy, food prices have stayed high, causing stress for families. With food being a non-negotiable purchase, grocery shopping has become particularly stressful, emphasizing the need for affordable convenience solutions.

Smaller Family Sizes and Budget Constraints

Families today are getting smaller, and budgets are tighter. This trend complicates the concept of “family size,” as bulk or multi-serving products need to be reframed in terms of value and convenience. Products that assist with meal planning and preparation resonate broadly, as they help manage both time and financial constraints.

Smaller family sizes create a need for products that offer flexible portion sizes or can be easily repurposed as leftovers, reducing food waste and maximizing value.

Frozen Food Popularity

The increasing popularity of frozen foods is a key trend identified in the report. Frozen meals reduce the pressure of expiration dates, making them a practical choice for families looking to balance convenience and budget. These products provide a solution that is both cost-effective and reduces food waste.

Struggling families, often working long hours to make ends meet, particularly benefit from the convenience and affordability of frozen foods. This trend indicates a shift towards products that can offer both ease of use and economic value.

Innovations in Family Meal Solutions

Bulk and Flexible Portion Products

Brands are introducing bulk proteins and flexible portion products to cater to families of all sizes. These products allow consumers to use exactly what they need, reducing waste and making meal planning more efficient. For example, pre-cooked bulk proteins can be used as needed, providing a quick solution for both small and large families.

Ready-to-Eat and Frozen Meals

Ready-to-eat (RTE) and frozen meals are increasingly popular, offering total meal solutions that mimic foodservice quality without the high price. Brands are focusing on quality and convenience, ensuring these meals are nutritious, quick to prepare, and cater to diverse tastes.

Private Label Innovations

Private labels are stepping up with innovative side dishes and snacks, often at lower prices than national brands. These products range from casual family dinners to special occasions, providing consumers with high-quality, convenient options. Examples include Target’s savory sides and Aldi’s grain and gluten-free snacks, which cater to dietary restrictions and preferences.

Kid-Friendly Meal Solutions

Products designed for easy preparation by children are gaining traction. Brands are creating tiered approaches, from simple heat-and-eat options to meals with minimal ingredients and safe cooking instructions. These solutions empower kids to help in the kitchen, reducing the burden on parents.

Single-Serve and Portion-Controlled Meals

Brands are breaking stereotypes of TV dinners with single-serve meals that offer high-quality, nutritious options. These meals cater to individual needs, whether due to scheduling conflicts or varying family member preferences.

Enhanced Meal Planning Tools

Brands and retailers are collaborating to offer comprehensive meal planning tools. These tools include pre-made shopping lists, meal plans, and product suggestions that simplify the planning process and ensure balanced, nutritious meals.

Takeaways from Savvy Consumers

Simplify Meal Planning

  • Look for products that offer meal planning assistance, such as pre-made shopping lists or meal kits, to save time and reduce stress

Embrace Convenience

  • For busy families, ready-to-eat and frozen meals provide quick, nutritious solutions without the prep

Value in Versatility

  • Smaller families benefit from products offering flexible portion sizes or repurposed as leftovers to reduce food waste and maximize value

Nutritional Balance

  • Families seek products balancing nutrition and ease of preparation to ensure healthy meals without added stress

Smart Shopping

  • Seeking out products that clearly communicate nutritional benefits and prep time make meal choices easier and faster

Looking Ahead

The future of family meal planning will likely see a continued emphasis on convenience as economic pressures and time constraints persist. Brands that can offer products that reduce meal-time stress will be in high demand. Smaller family sizes will drive the need for more flexible portion sizes and innovative solutions that cater to diverse family structures.

Are consumers willing to pay for sustainability?

As sustainability becomes an increasingly important issue, families are showing a bit more willingness to pay more for sustainable products.

However, the report highlights that convenience and nutrition are top priorities, with a significant portion of consumers also valuing sustainability in their purchasing decisions, it is not the top need in these economic times. This willingness is often balanced against budget constraints and the overall value perceived in the product.

As economic conditions fluctuate, the attributes families prioritize may shift. In times of economic prosperity, convenience products may become even more valuable. Conversely, during economic downturns, families may prioritize cost-saving measures, making affordable convenience solutions critical.

Posted on

Too much protein or not enough?

Today’s high-protein diet takes many forms. From the Atkins diet to the paleo diet and even some versions of the keto diet, protein is often touted as the miracle macronutrient. You’ve probably seen countless protein shakes, bars, and protein-fortified foods lining the shelves of your local grocery store.

How much protein do we need?

But first, let’s clear the air…protein is a critical component of our diet. It’s involved in virtually every biochemical function in our body, from building and repairing tissues to producing enzymes and hormones.

So, how much protein do our bodies need to conduct these essential tasks? To get a better idea, we spoke with Registered Dietitian, Jamie Kesmodel, MS, RDN, who works at Culina Health, a nationwide nutrition care provider.

The current recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for protein is 0.36 grams per pound (or 0.8 grams per kilogram) of body weight per day for adults. For example, a 175-pound person with an average physical activity level should aim to consume about 70 grams of protein per day. Or looking at it from a caloric standpoint, you should consume about 10%-35% of your calories as protein, which equates to 50 to 175 grams a day on a 2,000 calorie diet.

However, Kesmodel points out there’s no assigned gram amount per day for everyone, as our body’s protein needs are highly individualized, based on our body weight, muscle mass, activity level and duration, among other factors. Because of this, protein needs could increase to 1-1.5 grams per kilogram of body weight per day for those with rigorous physical activity or building muscle mass.

And others in the medical community push that recommendation even higher. Dr. Peter Attia, author of New York Times Bestseller, Outlive: The Science & Art of Longevity, stated in his podcast that most people are not getting enough protein. He continued, saying that the current RDA of 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight is a “pathetic” amount and should be revised to 1 gram per pound of body weight.

But estimating this higher level of protein consumption is where things get murky because, as it turns out, several larger-scale, peer-reviewed studies reveal that consuming too much protein can have some pretty significant downsides.

Protein’s effect on the body

Despite protein’s necessity in our diet, myriad health risks may occur when consuming too much. Kesmodel highlighted some of the ways consuming too much protein may affect various organs and functions of our body.

Kidney & liver function

Our kidneys play a crucial role in processing or filtering the waste products from protein metabolism. When you consume excessive amounts of protein, we’re essentially making our kidneys work overtime. For those with existing kidney issues, this can quickly become a dire situation.

Separately, long-term protein supplementation has been associated with elevated levels of liver toxicity, apoptotic signals, and inflammation in some studies. But not all medical experts agree with this level of concern. Dr. Attia thinks that most people will never reach these concerning levels of protein, requiring most individuals to consume 3 to 4 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight.

Heart health

While protein itself isn’t necessarily bad for your cardiovascular system, the problem often lies in the source of protein. High-protein diets that rely heavily on saturated fats, like red meat, cheeses, and processed meats, may increase your intake of saturated fats, which are known risk factors for heart disease.

Cancer risk

Some studies have suggested that high consumption of red and processed meats may increase the risk of certain types of cancer, particularly colorectal cancer. Colorectal cancer, previously considered a threat to those over the age of 60, is now the leading cause of cancer death among adults under 50.

Weight gain

Surprisingly, excessive protein intake can hinder weight loss efforts.

While protein can help you feel full and satisfied, consuming more protein than your body needs doesn’t magically become muscle…some of the excess protein is stored as fat, if it’s not excreted as waste or broken down for energy.

Furthermore, be mindful of how you’re consuming protein. If you opt for highly-processed, shelf-stable protein bars and shakes, you’ll have less room in your diet for the fresh foods critical for long-term health: veggies and fruits.

Toxin exposure

Registered dietitian Kathy McManus, director of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital, stated that many protein powders contain heavy metals, like lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury. A study reported in the journal Toxicology Reports found similar results, as well as additional contaminants linked to cancer and health conditions.

Type 2 diabetes risk

Excessive intake of whey protein may influence the onset of Type 2 diabetes through several physiological mechanisms, including insulin resistance due to high levels of branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs), including leucine.

Other findings

Recent research from the University of Missouri School of Medicine and the University of Pittsburgh found that consuming too much protein (e.g., 100 grams in a 2,000-calorie diet) may trigger cardiovascular and metabolic health issues.

Though these findings may be concerning, the study only had 23 human participants, and the results incorporated mice and cell studies. It should be further replicated with a higher sample size before reconsidering limitations, especially when revising nutritional guidelines.

What can we do to eat healthier?

So, what’s the takeaway here? Protein is still an essential nutrient, and getting enough is crucial for our health. As with most things in nutrition, the key is balance.

So we asked Jamie for some insightful tips to help us strike that protein sweet spot:

Focus on quality, not quantity

Choose whole foods when you can. Lean meats, fish, eggs, legumes, low-fat dairy, and plant-based proteins like nuts and seeds not only provide protein but also pack other beneficial nutrients.

Spread your protein intake throughout the day

Instead of loading up on protein at one meal, try to include a moderate amount at each meal. This can help with better absorption and utilization of the protein.

Don’t forget about other nutrients

A balanced diet includes carbohydrates and healthy fats, which provide an abundance of essential vitamins, minerals, and other micronutrients. Don’t let your protein obsession crowd out nutrient-dense foods, like avocadoes, leafy greens, berries, and olive oil.

Listen to your body

If you’re experiencing digestive issues, feeling overly full, or noticing other unusual symptoms after increasing your protein intake, it might be time to dial it back a bit.

Consider your individual needs

The human body is incredibly complex, and factors like overall diet, exercise habits, genetics, and individual health status all affect how we process nutrients.

Athletes, pregnant women, and older adults need more protein than the average person. Conversely, people with certain health conditions might need to limit their protein intake.

Be wary of protein supplements

There’s no doubt about it: protein powders are convenient.

However, these protein powders, bars and other products are highly processed.

And most contain added sugars, artificial ingredients, and other less savory additives that may conflict with your overall health goals.

At D2D, we like single-ingredient protein supplements, like pea or whey protein.

Keep an eye on your overall calorie intake

Remember, excess protein doesn’t magically turn into muscle—it can contribute to weight gain if you consume more calories than you burn.

Do your research

Nutrition science is complex and constantly evolving. What we know today might be different from what we’ll discover tomorrow. That’s why it’s always a good idea to stay informed, but also verify dramatic diet claims. And always speak with your doctor to ensure that you are on the right protein track.

Posted on

Why should we eat fermented foods?

Imagine you’re at a baseball game and decide to add some sauerkraut to your hotdog. Or perhaps you’re rushing between meetings and grab a yogurt to tide you over until lunch. Maybe you’re unwinding after a long week with a little wine and cheese. Each of these tangy products, like sauerkraut and kombucha, is made using fermentation and contains live bacteria that can enhance your health.

Fermented foods like sauerkraut, yogurt, and other dairy products are rich in probiotics—beneficial bacteria that support gut health. These live bacteria can improve digestion, boost the immune system, and even contribute to better mental health. By incorporating fermented foods into your diet, you can enjoy delicious flavors while promoting overall well-being.

Fermented foods and your health

Your gut is teeming with healthy bacteria, creating a unique microbiome that some researchers refer to as our body’s “second brain”. Our other brain is the enteric nervous system which controls our entire gastrointestinal system.

Weighing only 2.2 pounds, it’s a bacterial ecosystem swirling around our intestines, brimming with flora, bacteria, archaea, and yes, even viruses. Our hardworking microbiome helps us digest our food, boost our immune system, and allow our bodies to absorb much-needed vitamins from food.

When we don’t have the right balance of gut microbes that meet our body’s specific needs, then we are more prone to chronic disease, from gastrointestinal issues to neurological, cardiovascular, and respiratory illnesses.

The Journal of Experimental Medicine reports increasing gut probiotics can help improve gastrointestinal conditions like diarrhea, inflammatory bowel disease (IBS), leaky gut syndrome, and liver disease. Scientists also point to the increase in probiotics that can help other conditions, such as neurological, cardiovascular, and respiratory illnesses; and even boost mental health and prevent obesity.

 

Fermented foods with live cultures are like a multiplier for microbiomes. They have been shown to help us increase the amount of “good bacteria” and probiotic material (12 strains of bacteria grown together) in our gut. When a fermented food with live cultures hits your belly, it releases healthy bacteria and enzymes that make the flora in your digestive system more efficient at synthesizing nutrients. We want those probiotics to stay healthy!

Eating fermented foods is like sending a superhero to your gut. She lands in your intestinal tract and starts busting through other digested food’s cell walls, releasing the nutrients. Without our fermented superheroes – those nutrients remain trapped in the cells, unused by our bodies.

Are all probiotics the same?

If we follow the definition laid out by an international panel of experts at the Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit in 2001 and 2014, all probiotics are the same.

A probiotic is a live bacterium that provides health benefits when consumed correctly (though the “right amount” is still under debate). A bacterium is only considered a probiotic if it can offer a health benefit to humans when ingested.

Robert Hutkins, a professor of Food Science at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, has dedicated his career to studying bacteria in fermented foods and their ability to survive in our gastrointestinal tract.

Hutkins emphasizes the importance of understanding what indeed constitutes a probiotic, especially in the context of fermented foods. Not every fermented food contains probiotics, as is the case with wine, beer, and canned sauerkraut.

According to Hutkins, foods such as yogurt, most cheeses, kimchi, and non-heated sauerkraut contain probiotics that can positively impact your health.

What can be confusing is that you’ve probably also seen other types of digestive-related ‘biotics’.  In conjunction with probiotics, they are important for a healthy life.

Prebiotics feed your beneficial gut bacteria. When you eat fiber in a variety of fruits and vegetables, your body turns that into food to feed the beneficial bacteria. But before the prebiotics can turn into food for the much-needed bacteria, a fermentation process turns them into probiotics.

There are also postbiotics, the byproducts resulting from prebiotics feeding  on probiotics.

What to remember is to eat your fruits, vegetables, healthy fiber, and fermented foods to gain the best balance of these bacteria to reduce inflammation and strengthen your immune system and overall well-bring. Your ‘second brain’ in the gut will take care of the rest.

How much fermented food is enough?

The experts behind Harvard Health say there is no guidance or data on how many probiotics to consume in a day, but some experts argue that fermented foods shouldn’t be singled out but included in an overall healthy diet.

Lori Zanini, a spokeswoman for the American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, says about two to three servings a day of fermented foods should suffice. But, like anything, too much of a good thing isn’t always so good. Experts warn too many fermented foods in your diet could cause gas, bloating, and other gastrointestinal issues.

Sharon Flynn is the author of “Ferment for Good: Ancient Foods for the Modern Gut” and is considered one of Australia’s leading experts on fermented food. She says, like anything, it is possible to overdo it on fermented foods. But, Flynn notes, “You’re more in danger of having poor health from not including these things in your diet than you are from including them.”

The fermentation process

Food growers and producers have long recognized the benefits and popularity of fermented foods in live cultures.

They’re found in almost every culture and cuisine. Historians have even found signs of the fermentation process in food dating back to 7000 BC – making it likely this process has been around as long as humans.

Before refrigeration, fermentation would be one of the only ways to preserve food. If you lived in ancient or medieval times, fermented foods were less likely to make you sick. It’s why most people drank beverages like beer or malted water rather than water up until the 1900s.

Fermentation is a metabolic process that takes sugars and converts them into alcohol or acid. It removes energy from carbohydrates without oxygen.

Fermentation is also known as “culturing” – you can watch this 3-minute video to learn more about this process.

Looking beyond yogurt

Today, there is an increasing variety of fermented foods landing an increasing variety of fermented foods land on our grocery shelves every day.

Here’s a list of some uncommon, fermented foods starting to pop up in our local supermarket to support our nutritional goals. And here’s a website exploring the vast array of fermented foods across the globe.

Kombucha

The increasingly popular beverage can now be found on more grocery store shelves. It begins with a base of green and black tea. Sugar is added to the brewed tea and white vinegar or previously made kombucha for an acidic base.

Brewing kombucha also requires a SCOBY, short for “symbiotic colony of bacteria and yeast.” And don’t worry too much about the sugar used for the fermentation process; most of it is burned off by the time the product gets to the shelf, but check the labels to make sure extra sugar wasn’t added at the end process.

Check out how to make kombucha tea at home.

Kefir

Another item now regularly found on grocery stores shelves in America. Kefir is teeming with probiotics and good bacteria that can make your gut sing. It’s a drinkable yogurt but tangier and higher in probiotics than what’s traditionally found in supermarkets.

It’s fermented by taking kefir cultures ,adding them to a milk product, and letting it ferment for a day. Watch for the sugar content in some brands, though.

Try to make homemade Kefir with this recipe.

Tempeh

Tempeh is a soy-based product that tends to be popular with vegans and vegetarians because it has vitamin B12. It is also a complete protein with all nine essential amino acids needed for healthy bones and bodies.

Check out this marinated peanut tempeh recipe.

Miso

Miso is another culinary delight from Japan but more common in the United States than natto. Like natto, it’s made with boiled soybeans, but instead of being fermented using rice straw, it’s combined with molded rice and salt.

Here’s a recipe for Easy Miso Salmon.

Kimchi

Korean cooks use kimchi in almost every meal. Kimchi, unlike other fermented foods, can be made in different ways. It usually contains a comb of some vegetable (often cabbage), garlic, ginger, chilies, and fish sauce.

The most famous dish is known as Kimchi Jjigae (or Spicy Kimchi Stew); you can find the recipe here.

Posted on

Bird Flu: Another Pandemic?

As of this writing, in 2024 only three dairy farm workers have caught this virus. However, the concern is that it has been transmitted to humans from dairy cows and could potentially be transmitted from human to human. As of today, there is no evidence that it has transferred from person to person.

We spoke to Dr. Kenneth Odde, veterinarian, beef cattle operator, and former Professor at Kansas State University. who stated:

“The risk of a pandemic is very low. It will never be zero, but with everything I understand, it is low”. 

Let’s start at the beginning…

In 1996, H5N1 was first detected in domestic waterfowl in southern China. It then spread to farmed poultry. A small number of people caught the virus who worked in very close proximity to their birds: touching, feeding, and cleaning their cages.

Over time, 860 people were identified with the virus and there was a 50% death rate.  Governments and companies around the world began preparing for a pandemic.

However, the virus stayed mainly in Asia and was fairly dormant until 2003 when it affected widespread poultry.

Wild birds then spread H5N1 to Africa, the Middle East, and Europe. The H5N1 virus continues to evolve and has become well-adapted to spread efficiently among wild birds and poultry. In 2021, new variants of the H5N1 virus were spread by wild birds in the U.S. and Canada.

Because wild birds easily spread it, commercial poultry flocks have been affected across the country.  H5N1 is highly pathogenic (deadly) to birds, and when one bird gets it, the entire flock is at risk and is culled. While not as prevalent, this has affected backyard poultry operations as well.

In March of 2023, we wrote about how H5N1 has affected mammals all over the country: sea lions, minks, otters, foxes, and even bears.  At the time, the CDC said that these bird flu viruses didn’t have the ability to bind to the human respiratory system.

H5N1 in the news today

The concern today is that the virus has spread from wild birds to dairy cows.

Unlike birds, dairy cows are only mildly sick for about 7 – 10 days. Once a bird infects one cow, the virus spreads from cow to cow by contact with either through their respiratory system and/or unpasteurized milk droplets. For instance, workers could unknowingly spread the unpasteurized milk among cows.  Or the milking equipment and transport vehicles could carry droplets of infected milk.

So far, in 2024, there have been three human cases with dairy farm workers. As a result, two individuals just had a minor eye infection which was easily resolved with antiviral medicine. The third did get flu-like symptoms and recovered with Tamiflu.

Because this is not widely tested among people, it is hard to know if more farm workers have had flu-like symptoms that would be attributed to H5N1. Symptoms can appear to be a mild cold or flu. Neither of these would make one think to go to a Dr. for an Avian Influenza test.

But there are a lot of unanswered questions. Why do some birds and animals react differently to the same virus?  For instance, why do mammals such as sea lions, otters, and bears die from H5N1, and dairy cows can recover?

Dr. Odde explained that there is a difference in how a species receives the virus. Recent research shows that the receptor influences influenza symptoms within poultry or mammals. Receptors are proteins within the body that let a virus enter the cell.  He also emphasized that many studies are being conducted right now to understand how the virus passes between and among species.

As you know, the best way to stay healthy is to wash your hands before touching your nose, eyes, and mouth. This is because humans have receptors in our respiratory system and you can get sick when a virus touches our respiratory system. The same principle applies to H5N1. Dr. Odde also reminded us that we have had much exposure to the flu over the decades so that humans will have some resistance to H5N1.

Chickens seem to be more susceptible as they receive the virus through their trachea in their respiratory system. Ducks do not have the same mortality rate and early studies show that the virus enters the cells through a different receptor.

Dairy cows receive the virus in their mammary glands as well as their respiratory system. This is not common and is a cause for concern for the replication of H5N1. As of this writing, H5N1 has been detected in 12 states and 92 herds.

Sources for USDA data: Commercial flock detections by state; HPAI in domestic livestock

Is our food safe?

Yes!

There is no need to be worried about the milk from the grocery store. The pasteurization process kills all bacteria and viruses.  99% of all dairy farmers who sell milk for public consumption follow the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance and participate in the Grade “A” milk program.

To be sure this applied with H5N1, the FDA took milk samples from retail locations in 17 states representing 132 milk processing locations in 38 states. H5N1 was not present in any of the samples.

Raw milk poses the danger. Some people think that raw milk has more amino acids, vitamins, and minerals and is a better choice for your immune system. That is not necessarily true as homogenization and pasteurization doesn’t kill the benefits of milk, it only kills the pathogens. Drinking raw milk, can lead to food-borne illnesses, including H5N1 if it is present.

Eggs are safe to eat. Because Avian Influenza rapidly affects a poultry flock, the eggs are not sold on the market. However, like milk, if you cook your eggs properly and do not eat a raw egg, the chance of getting H5N1 is reduced even further.

The USDA is confident that the meat supply is safe. Ground beef samples were collected in states where dairy herds have tested positive for H5N1 and no virus particles were present. Cooking burgers to 120, 145, and 160 degrees Fahrenheit ensures further safety.

The USDA also reminds us that safe poultry follows the same guidelines as all meats. If handled and cooked properly, poultry is safe. As a reminder, CLEAN, SEPARATE, COOK, and CHILL are good guidelines for safe food in your kitchen.

Backyard poultry can also be affected by wild birds. If one of your chickens dies unexpectedly, you should get it tested by your veterinarian. Also, wash your hands after handling your chickens and the eggs. And of course, cook your eggs properly.

How is the government maintaining food safety with H5N1?

Three government agencies are focused on solving Avian Influenza:

  • The FDA is testing milk, poultry, and beef to ensure it is safe
  • The CDC  protects public health, actively monitors the situation, and provides updates
  • The USDA is overseeing dairy producers and proper herd management

In particular, the USDA has added $824 million, to the $1.3 million designed for poultry, to give dairy producers the ability to monitor the health of their herds with continual testing to understand the scope of H5N1.

Once a farm has been disease-free for three weeks, they can then move their animals to different farms.  This will also give the USDA an understanding of how producers with affected herds can show elimination of the virus.

Going beyond just the USDA, we spoke to Dr. Lisa Koonin, Founder and Principal at Health Preparedness Partners which helps businesses, nonprofits and governments plan for future health emergencies. She is also an Adjunct Professor at Indiana University. During her 30+ year career at the CDC, she worked as a Director and Deputy Director of the agency’s Influenza Coordination Unit.

“For every human infection that occurs, we are that much closer to a pandemic because the virus adapts to a human and can spread to other people or to animals and then to people.”

– Dr. Lisa Koonin

Dr. Koonin identified six suggestions for these agencies to prevent H5N1 from a widespread dairy pandemic.

  • Increase virus surveillance. Test dairy workers and cows in both affected and non-affected areas
  • Increase wastewater testing. Sewers that test positive for viruses and bacteria can give us an early warning if it is in the community.
  • Promote worker safety. Make sure that farm workers have protective equipment available.
  • Communicate with farmers and producers. It is important that those who operate dairy production and poultry farms know how to test, prevent and detect outbreaks.
  • Stay away from raw milk. Raw milk can contain a number of disease-causing viruses and bacteria, including H5N1.
  • Communicate with the public. It is important that current information about what is known about the outbreak is provided to the public in a timely way. People should avoid close, long, or unprotected exposures to sick or dead animals, including wild birds, poultry, other domesticated birds, and other wild or domesticated animals (including cows).
  • Prepare vaccines. It is not known if this virus will spread and become a widespread outbreak. However, several countries are developing and procuring vaccines just in case they are needed.
Posted on

Digging Deeper: Pasteurization

milk being poured into a glass

In the past, some of us drank fresh, raw milk every day. But these days, several factors make raw milk an untenable option, including dairy industry consolidation, food safety concerns, and longer transportation times.

Since milk needs to be packaged and delivered to a grocery store or corner market, it may take several days before it hits your glass. For milk to safely survive the journey from cow to carton, it gets pasteurized, a process that keeps milk safe and lasting longer in your refrigerator.

Pasteurization is the process of heating a substance to kill pathogens, such as listeria, E. coli, salmonella, and the highly-pathogenic avian flu.

Dairy producers pasteurize milk to make it safe for consumers, as well as maintaining its safety during transport and extended storage times. If you drink raw milk straight from a cow, without treating it, you put yourself at great risk.

Some believe this process makes milk harder to digest and is an unnecessary procedure that denies our bodies of nutrients destroyed in the processing. Let’s take a look at this first.

Does Pasteurization Make Milk Harder to Digest?

Many proponents of raw milk products believe that pasteurized milk causes gut inflammation from not properly breaking down these denatured protein compounds.

Scientifically, the heat treatment disrupts the hydrogen bonds in a protein molecule and causes the bonds to be “disrupted.” For reference, when you cook an egg, the proteins also denature.

So, while heating raw milk can cause denaturation of protein, this has only proven to potentially affect immunocompromised patients.

Additionally, how your body digests denatured protein depends entirely on the amount of heat exposure the proteins have had. Typical pasteurization methods generate very few denatured proteins.

Let’s take a closer look at the most common ways to pasteurize milk and milk products.

Pasteurization Methods

Ultra-pasteurization

Also known as flash pasteurization, this method heats up the milk to 280 degrees for 4-5 seconds. Because the temperature of the milk exceeds 150 degrees, it is possible for the proteins to “denature,” or change from their original structure. Essentially, the heat can cause the protein compounds to break down. It is also argued that this process kills off some of the good bacteria present in raw milk.

High-temperature pasteurization

This is the most commonly used pasteurization technique. This process heats up milk to 161 degrees for 15 seconds.

Like flash pasteurization, some of the micro-life present in raw milk will be killed off through HT pasteurization. Additionally, the proteins in HT-treated milk may experience some denaturation. Heat treatment aside, milk remains a nutrient dense food.

Low-temperature pasteurization

LT heats raw milk to 145 degrees for 30 minutes before chilling it rapidly. Like HT and ultra pasteurization, this process can also kill off some of the probiotics present in raw milk. But, it is argued that LT pasteurization helps maintain milk’s protein quality.

While this process does not “denature” proteins, it can cause protein aggregation, whereby the compounds accumulate and clump together, making the proteins harder to digest. These proteins are harder to digest than its denatured counterpart, making consumption especially challenging for immune compromised or extremely allergic individuals.

Raw or unpasteurized

These products have not been heat-treated and are at much greater risk of carrying harmful pathogens. They also have a significantly shorter shelf life, which contributes to food waste if not consumed within a few days of its production.

Even more options

While heat-treating raw milk will destroy some of its beneficial properties, it’s a high price to pay if it’s contaminated with dangerous pathogens. If you still want to enjoy raw milk for its nutrients, consider purchasing products from dairy companies that add active cultures and probiotics that were affected during heat processing.

One such company taking proactive steps to protect your digestive system is Fairlife. Fairlife milk is flash pasteurized and then ultra-filtered to concentrate the protein content, sterilize the milk, and remove lactose – or milk sugars –  from the final product.

This way, those who suffer from lactose intolerance and/or have a hard time digesting denatured milk proteins can enjoy this dairy product with minimal to no effects.

What about cheeses?

Cheese is another important food when it comes to pasteurization. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration mandates that any cheese produced from raw milk must be held or aged for 60 days and kept consistently at 35-degrees Fahrenheit before it can be sold commercially. This helps ensure that foodborne pathogens are no longer present in the food, as they cannot survive in an environment after 60 days.

Additionally, treating the cheese with salt and curing the rind can also protect from potentially dangerous bacteria, viruses and molds. Like milk, pasteurized cheese can be treated at either a high temperature (174 degrees for roughly 20 seconds) or low temperature (149 degrees for 30-40 seconds).

When you think of pasteurization, you undoubtedly think of milk! However, many other foods that are heat treated, as well. Almonds, sauerkraut, and some kinds of vinegar are pasteurized to sanitize the food and kill harmful bacteria. The pasteurization process keeps consumers safe, so before you dismiss a pasteurized product, also consider what it may be protecting you from.

Posted on

Can we “hack” our gut health?

Hack Your Health: The Secrets of Your Gut, a documentary featured on Netflix, highlights the microbiome, the community of bacteria living inside our bodies, as a crucial player in gut health.

Each person’s microbiome is unique, much like fingerprints. The microbiome consists of approximately 100 trillion microbes, including bacteria, viruses, and fungi, that reside primarily in the intestines. These microbes help break down food, support the immune system, and communicate via the vagus nerve that connects our gut to our brain.

Hack Your Health follows the journey of four individuals, each with distinct gut health challenges. The variability in characters shows the complex nature of the gut and all that it impacts:

Michelin-starred pastry chef Maya learns that her anorexia and restrictive diet have severely impacted her gut health, necessitating a more balanced dietary approach to improve her well-being.

 

Daniell, the psychology student, discovers that her severe digestive issues and restrictive diet are linked to her gut microbiome, highlighting the need for personalized dietary adjustments.

 

Kimmie, labeled morbidly obese, finds that her lack of gut bacteria diversity affects her ability to feel full and lose weight, leading to tailored dietary recommendations to enhance her microbial diversity.

 

Competitive hot dog-eater Kobayashi realizes that his extreme eating habits have disrupted his hunger signals and gut health, prompting concerns about long-term damage and the need for a healthier lifestyle.

What the Documentary Gets Right and Wrong

The documentary is commendable for its scientific accuracy and approachable presentation of complex topics. It avoids the trap of pseudoscience by not offering overly simplistic solutions to complex problems. Instead, it emphasizes that gut health solutions are highly individualized, depending on one’s unique microbiome composition.

The documentary also accurately portrays the emerging science of the gut-brain axis, illustrating how the gut communicates with the brain and influences various bodily functions.

While the documentary is informative, it sometimes glosses over the intricate details of scientific studies, opting for a more infotainment approach. This style might leave viewers wanting a deeper dive into the science behind the microbiome and its broader implications.

Additionally, the documentary faced criticism for promoting untested claims about autism and gut health, which led to backlash from autism advocacy groups.

Scientific Insights & Treatments

To address their gut issues, Maya, Daniell, Kimmie, and Kobayashi send fecal samples for analysis. The results help tailor diets that could improve their microbiome diversity and overall health. One innovative treatment discussed is the “fecal microbiome transplant,” where healthy bacteria from a donor’s stool are transferred to the recipient’s gut.

This procedure has shown promise in treating conditions like Clostridium difficile infections and is being explored for other applications. But more underscore the new ways of diagnostics, such as as fecal sampling for additional information outside of just bloodwork.

What Does the Science Say About Our Gut?

Gut-Brain Axis

The gut-brain axis refers to the bidirectional communication between the gut and the brain. This connection influences various bodily functions, including mood, stress responses, and even cognitive functions.

For instance, the gut produces neurotransmitters such as serotonin, which is crucial for mood regulation. Dysbiosis, an imbalance in gut bacteria, has been linked to mental health conditions like depression and anxiety.

Immune System

Approximately 70% of the immune system is located in the gut. The gut microbiome plays a pivotal role in training the immune system to differentiate between harmful pathogens and harmless antigens. A healthy microbiome can prevent autoimmune diseases by maintaining a balanced immune response.

Metabolism & Weight Management

Gut bacteria are involved in the metabolism of food and the extraction of nutrients. They influence how we store fat, regulate glucose levels, and feel hunger or satiety. Dysbiosis can lead to metabolic disorders such as obesity and type 2 diabetes. Studies have shown that individuals with a diverse microbiome are more likely to maintain a healthy weight.

Inflammation & Chronic Diseases

A balanced microbiome helps control inflammation by producing anti-inflammatory compounds. Chronic inflammation is a risk factor for several diseases, including heart disease, cancer, and inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). Dysbiosis is linked to increased intestinal permeability (leaky gut), which allows toxins to enter the bloodstream and trigger inflammation.

Digestive Health

The microbiome aids in digesting complex carbohydrates and fibers that the body cannot break down on its own. This process produces short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), which nourish the gut lining, reduce inflammation, and support overall digestive health. Conditions like irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and Crohn’s disease are associated with imbalances in the gut microbiome.

Key Takeaways for Consumers

While this documentary is not pseudoscience, it still lacks a bit of scientific depth. But here are some sound takeaways rooted in science from key points in the documentary:

Gut Diversity is Key

A diverse microbiome is crucial for good health. Each person’s microbiome is unique, and having a variety of bacteria can enhance resilience against diseases. Consuming a wide range of foods, especially plant-based ones, can help foster this diversity.

Plants provide different types of fibers, polyphenols, and other bioactive compounds that serve as substrates for various microbial species in the gut, promoting microbial diversity. A diverse diet boosts the production of short-chain fatty acids, such as butyrate, which play a crucial role in maintaining gut barrier integrity, reducing inflammation, and supporting immune function.

Individualized Solutions

There is no one-size-fits-all answer to gut health. Personalized approaches based on microbiome analysis can provide better health outcomes. For instance, Kimmie’s gut analysis revealed a lack of bacteria that help her feel full, leading to personalized dietary recommendations to increase her microbial diversity.

Similarly, Daniell’s restrictive diet was tailored to her specific gut needs. Understanding the unique composition of your microbiome can help in identifying the specific foods and treatments that are most beneficial for you.

Innovative Treatments

Treatments like fecal microbiome transplants (FMT) show promise but should be approached with caution and professional guidance. FMT involves transferring bacteria from a healthy donor’s stool to the recipient’s gut, aiming to restore a balanced microbiome.

This procedure has been effective in treating recurrent Clostridium difficile infections and is being investigated for other conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease. However, it carries risks, including the potential transfer of harmful pathogens, and should only be done under medical supervision.

Fiber is Essential

Eating more plants and fibers is universally recommended for maintaining a healthy gut. Fiber acts as a prebiotic, feeding the beneficial bacteria in the gut and promoting their growth. High-fiber foods such as fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains can help maintain a healthy gut microbiome.

The fiber in these foods is fermented by gut bacteria, producing short-chain fatty acids that support gut health and overall well-being. Increasing fiber intake can also improve digestion, reduce inflammation, and enhance immune function.

Hack Your Health: The Secrets of Your Gut is a compelling watch for anyone interested in the emerging science of gut health. While it may not delve as deeply into hard science as some might prefer, it offers valuable insights and practical advice in an engaging and accessible manner.

Posted on

Does my produce have pesticide residues?

In the realm of healthy eating, fruits and vegetables reign supreme. However, alongside their abundant vitamins, minerals, and other micronutrients, we’re bombarded with a reminder of a less savory and potentially harmful aspect: the presence of pesticide residues on our produce.

A Brief History of Pesticides & the EPA

But first, let’s get one thing straight: pesticides have a very necessary place in our global food system. Without products like insecticides, fungicides and other pesticide types, all crops would be prone to rot, leading to famine, disease, global hunger…just to name a few. If we suddenly nixed all pesticides, our current situation with egregious food waste in this country would seem inconsequential.

However, too much of a seemingly good thing always has unintended consequences. In the 1940s, the advent of powerful broad-spectrum pesticides, like DDT, gave farmers an effective, long-lasting tool to protect their animals and crops from insects. Furthermore, these powerful tools also helped combat malaria, typhus, and other insect-born human diseases.

But then its surge in application came at a cost.

By the ‘60s, word got out that excessive use of DDT posed unacceptable acute and long-term health risks to humans, including seizures, birth defects, and cancer, as well as damaging wildlife and the environment. In response to the outcry, the U.S. government took swift action and created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to protect human health and the environment from toxic chemicals, including now-prohibited pesticides like DDT, aldrin, and hexachlorobenzene (HCB).

Pesticide Reporting

Now, in conjunction with the USDA, various crops are monitored annually for pesticide residues with the annual Pesticide Data Program (PDP).

capion here

This year’s report is based on data from the 2022/23 season and includes multiple samples from over 20 fresh crops, like green beans, potatoes, and blueberries. Popular crops not tested this particular season, like apples, oranges, and avocadoes, will be included in the next rotation of tested crops.

The USDA then reports its findings in a comprehensive summary released on the PDP website. Once released to the public, consumer information agencies like Consumer Reports and the Environmental Working Group reinterpret the USDA’s findings to create these derivative reports, like the notorious “Dirty Dozen” list.

When you use the massive PDP database to start weaving information together across various crops over a multitude of years, you often find a conflicting story. Suddenly, these reports stating that you’re ingesting endocrine-disrupting and cancer-causing nerve agents feel sensational, at best, against the opposing PDP data that show a downward trend year-over-year in highly toxic pesticides.

Non-governmental or non-academic, consumer-centric reports can generate fear and deceive us into believing that ingesting any fresh fruit or vegetable is detrimental to our overall health, or that organic produce is free from all pesticides.

Despite the many claims in these consumer reports, available evidence suggests that the low levels of pesticide residues typically found on produce are unlikely to make most people sick or cause cancer.

Focusing on Facts

With that stated, we can’t ignore some of the pesticide residue data these reports found. Specifically, reports from the PDP and Consumer Reports shared the below facts based on information from the PDP database when the USDA’s initiative began in 1994:

The good news:

  • 99% of the samples tested in this year’s report had residues below the EPA’s legal limits (or “tolerances”)
  • 28% didn’t have any detectible pesticide residues

  • Despite growing fears about the long-term effects of Roundup, or glyphosate, the controversial herbicide was only detected on crops largely intended for animal feed – soybean grain and corn grain
  • The World Health Organization (WHO), and its Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) committee, have found that pesticide residues in food are unlikely to cause cancer in people through dietary exposure:

“JMPR’s risk assessment found that based on the weight-of-evidence approach, these compounds are unlikely to cause cancer in people via dietary exposure. This means it is possible to establish safe exposure levels – acceptable daily intakes (ADI) – for consumers.”

The bad news:

  • Green beans had numerous residues exceeding current tolerance levels
    • The USDA found 16 unique pesticides on these samples, some of which the EPA canceled use or banned over a decade ago, like methamidophos
  • Of all produce exceeding EPA tolerances, 66% were from imported crops
    • Crop samples from Mexico reported the highest residue levels, including green bean samples with multiple residues exceeding EPA tolerances
    • Largely imported crops include blueberries, grapes, tomatoes and watermelon (rind removed).

An Optimistic Outlook

Though some of these findings sound concerning, we found plenty of information that shows the needle moving in the right direction.

Here are some of the highlights we found in these reports over the last few years, plus some information gathered from conducting our own research in the PDP database and other farming resources:

Lower toxicity

  • D2D analysis shows top residues found across most fresh produce crops are less toxic than previously reported years, as indicated by WHO‘s pesticide toxicity classifications
    • Lesser toxic fungicides include boscalid, azoxystrobin, and fluopyram; insecticides bifenthrin and imidacloprid

Increased localization

  • The USDA’s most considerable residue risks stem from just a few pesticides concentrated in specific foods grown on a small fraction of U.S. farmland
    • CR’s food safety expert, James E. Rogers, emphasizes that this concentrated risk makes it easier to identify problems and develop targeted solutions.

Better technology

  • Farmers and food producers continue to implement improved pest management practices, including advanced technologies
    • Precision ag systems in the field
      • AgZen’s patented pesticide droplet optimizer
      • FruitScout’s crop load manager platform
      • John Deere’s comprehensive machinery and production management tools
    • Scientific applications for crop management

What can we do right now?

It’s more like what you can’t do.

It feels counterintuitive, but don’t eat fewer fruits and vegetables because of pesticide concerns. The health benefits of eating lots of produce far outweigh the potential risks from these residues.

There’s no doubt about it: produce is loaded with vitamins, minerals, and micronutrients necessary for a healthy body and well-functioning brain.

If anything, we all should eat more produce.

And yes, while some pesticides can negatively affect health and the environment, the levels found on most produce are extremely low and not linked to adverse health effects.

If we follow the food-prep tips below, the surface residues will be largely eliminated, allowing us to enjoy our fresh foods without fear.

  • Wash fruits and veggies under running water for 15 to 20 seconds.
    • For those especially concerned about residues, consider one of the following methods:
      • Soak your fresh produce in a bath for a few minutes with 5 parts water and 1 part vinegar, then rinse; or
      • Soak your produce in a solution of one teaspoon of baking soda per two cups of cold water for 10-15 minutes, then rinse
  • Peel and trim produce when possible
  • Eat a variety of produce from different sources to reduce exposure to a single pesticide or environmental contaminant
    • If you can only tolerate certain produce items, consider purchasing the following alternatives:
      • Selecting the organic counterpart, which the PDP reports to have fewer residues despite having the same nutrient density as conventional
      • Frozen produce has already been through rigorous cleaning and processing, further reducing residues than its fresh counterparts
  • Try to stick with produce farmed in the U.S.

The key is moderation and making informed choices, not eliminating nutrient-rich produce from your diet due to pesticide fears.

Posted on

Getting Over the Fear of Food

 

My wife and I sat down at our favorite local eatery and stared at the mushroom pizza in front of us for what seemed like an unusually long time. Over the many years of our marriage, we’ve usually grabbed a slice before the pie actually hit the table. So, what’s going on here tonight?

That’s a lot of mushrooms, I kept thinking over and over again. An awful lot. How do I know where they came from? Which country were they grown in? Who knows what’s been sprayed on them, or by whom, or when?

How do I know they were stored and handled safely back in the kitchen or on the way here from who knows where?

This place isn’t exactly famous for its Michelin star.

And what about the flour? The cheese? The tomato sauce? Oh my gosh, I can see the headline now. Local Man Murders Wife with Mushroom Pizza.

Could it be I am afraid of my food?

Food like this has sustained me over seven decades. I’ve eaten more pizza, hot dogs, burritos, sushi, in-law’s casseroles, school lunches, roadside diner blue-plate specials, barbeque, and even more fruit and vegetables than Godzilla. Why should I even consider the threats posed by food, let alone allow this enormously satisfying staple of my life to get cold?

Maybe it’s because I’ve been exposed to a steady drumbeat of dire cautionary tales and outright warnings about all sorts of things that would make my food suspect. It’s full of carcinogens and other nasty things that will kill me or turn me and my progeny into vile, godless mutants. It’s full of empty calories and tons of sugar that will deprive me of the actual nutrition I need to be healthy.

I am warned by some social media platforms that it’s produced by greedy, uncaring, and faceless entities who rape and pillage the consumer landscape to secure outrageous profits. It’s being genetically manipulated to replace its nutritional value with longer shelf-life and other marketing-driven priorities.

It’s handled and prepared by indifferent people in unsanitary conditions. It’s driving climate change that dooms all of us to a bleak and very hot circle of Dante’s underworld. And on and on and on…

An avalanche of agendas

Come to think of it, that’s not so much a drumbeat as an avalanche. How much of that is pure hyperbole and ideological agendas, I can’t say. And that’s what gives me the greatest pause right now, staring at this pizza.

Why should I be afraid when most of that fear comes from sources I don’t know – or trust – to tell me the straight of the matter?

How can the very stuff that sustains me…that gives me (and my family and companions) so much pleasure…that keeps over 8 billion people alive and energetic enough to pursue a better life and a better world…be such a cause of fear?

As a reasonably well-educated and life-experienced individual, I know the first response should be to qualify my sources of information. Who do I trust to tell me the truth – or to at least be fair in telling the different sides of any food-related story? Who has an agenda?

Ideologues and well-intentioned do-gooders who might be telling me this to advance a point of view they consider more moral, more rational, more something. Or maybe it’s people with an economic stake in creating an environment favorable to one interest at the expense of another. Or could it just be bat-shit crazies who get their instructions on what to say from Elvis and The Alien Consortium of Tin-Foil Hats?

I want a combination of Walter Cronkite and Mr. Rogers to help me figure this out.

Is all food dangerous?

That kind of truth-seeking can be a daunting task. We’re surrounded every day by waves of opinion about our food and the system that produces it. Google ‘dangers of food’ and pick from the 7,310,000 responses to see the latest and gravest threats.

Let me help speed you on your way with just a few examples of what lies ahead for you in that quest:

  • Unsafe food containing harmful bacteria, viruses, parasites, or chemical substances causes more than 200 diseases, ranging from diarrhea to cancers. (World Health Organization).

  • “Around the world, there are certain dangerous foods that can cause everything from mild food poisoning to, in extreme cases, death.” World’s Most Dangerous Foods, MSN.com

  • “It’s important to keep food safety in mind when selecting a shopping cart rather than just avoiding that undesirable squeaky wheel… The first point of contact for most food is the shopping cart, and it’s important to wipe down the handle to remove germs” (The Poultry Site).

  • Foods That Kill Testosterone: Dairy Foods. Soy Foods. Trans Fats. Peppermint. Alcohol.

  • Twelve Foods Bad for the Planet: Rice. Genetically Modified Foods. Sugar. Meat. Fast Food. Foods Containing Palm Oil. Packaged and Processed Food. Many Non-Organic foods. Some Seafood. White Bread. High Fructose Corn Syrup. Much Non-Local Food.

That last one invites the question: Is there any food that doesn’t harm the planet?

Demanding common sense

None of this horror list is designed to suggest that thinking about food safety is unimportant. I’m not about to eat anything that I truly believe will harm me, let alone anything that might kill me. I know enough to respect my food and take prudent steps to eat safely and wisely. But fear my food? I don’t think so. Come on, people.

One of my favorite John Wayne quotes summarizes the situation succinctly:

“Life is hard. It’s harder when you are stupid.”

The point is, we can’t be stupid when it comes to evaluating the safety – and nutritional value – of the food we eat. Let’s not let this avalanche of fear-mongering kill our ability to make informed, rational decisions about our food.

There’s an avalanche of real and potential misinformation, all right. But there is another avalanche coming down the mountainside – one based on science and fact, driven by growing recognition of the need for accurate information essential to making good food choices.

The climate of fear seems to me to be changing. Like most others, I have no peer-reviewed, data-driven to back that up. But I have my own common sense and a lot of reasons to respect my food – but not to fear it.

  • Few, if any, would deny that Americans seem to be increasingly aware of the need for safe and nutritious food. That’s true not just of consumers but among producers, the scientific community, policymakers, food manufacturers, and voters

Whether it comes from the outreach efforts of agricultural extensions services, commercial marketing with an increasing educational content, media attention or any other communications channel, consumers inarguably have benefitted from a rising public focus on food and food safety.

We’re growing smarter every day, too.

  • Maybe just as important, as we learn more about our food and the system that produces it, confidence in our food seems to grow in parallel. A study by Food Insight found that 70 percent of Americans say they are “very” or “somewhat” confident about the safety of the U.S. food supply. That’s an impressive number – and a slight increase from a year ago.

  • I believe in the power of scientific advancements and continuing research to achieve better, greater things. The available data on food-related research shows an aggressive partnership between the public and private sector in exploring various improvements to the foods we eat and how we produce them. U.S. private sector spending has increased, even as public sector spending has declined. The total is well into the billions of dollars each year.

However we measure it, there’s a potful of money going to produce steps forward in our food system. It’s harnessing the collective expertise and passion resident in a blue-chip roster of universities, land-grant colleges, and private and commercial organizations.

  • I’m not alone in my attention to food safety. There are a lot of allies and watchdog organizations after the same goal. USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) employs 9,000 people to enforce the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act, as well as humane animal handling through the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act.

  • Beyond that, FSIS works with other USDA entities such as Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (FSIS) and the Food and Nutrition Service and other federal and state organizations focused on consumer health and safety. The FAO established, CODEX, located in Rome, that monitors international food safety. The combined effort means there are literally tens of thousands of people out there actively working to keep my food safe.

  • That doesn’t include state regulatory and safety entities or the scrutiny provided by an aggressive media and various food-safety activists. The restaurant industry notes that there are about 750,000 restaurants in the United States, providing food for 72 percent of Americans at least twice each week. FDA’s Food Code provides a detailed model for sanitary inspection by local and state authorities. In simple terms, there are a lot of eyes on how our food is handled, prepared and served. Mine are just two of them.

  • The roster of NGOs, charitable organizations and private citizens working to reduce waste, expand food availability, reach those most in need and educate the public on food and food safety is steadily expanding. FoodTank.com has recognized 122 such organizations, all committed to some aspect of improvement in the global food system.

  • And none the least, there may be cause for some small degree of optimism in the statistics related to food-borne illnesses. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that 128,000 Americans are hospitalized each year from food-related illnesses, and about 3,000 actually die. But experts caution that assessment of the safety of the food system is a daunting task, complicated by the complexity of factors involved. Increased attention to and reporting of food related problems and issues further complicate the evaluation.

But as the National Institute of Health has noted:

“FoodNet provides annual data from designated sentinel surveillance sites on numbers of laboratory-diagnosed cases of 10 predominantly foodborne bacterial and parasitic pathogens; it reports actual case totals, not estimates.

Despite year-to-year variability…the overall trends show an initial drop in incidence of infection with the major bacterial foodborne pathogens after implementation of the 1995 USDA regulations, followed by a leveling off of incidence in subsequent years..”

Consider these questions…

The reality is that we’re making great strides in the right direction in providing the world with the safest, most nutritious food in all of human history. The system is far from perfect, certainly. There is still important work to do.

We all bear individual responsibility for having some basic understanding of what the best foods are, how to handle and store them, and how to prepare them for the family table.

But come on, there’s ample cause to believe there’s no need to fear our food – at least not in the way some of these people want us to fear it.

When it comes to my food, I’m proudly wearing my John Wayne tee shirt that tells the world, “DON’T BE STUPID.”

But even so, I’m going to continue to do my best to sort out the credible snowflakes from the misleading and outright wrong ones. I don’t pretend to have a complete and perfect solution for dealing with the avalanche of misinformation, half-truths, subjective opinion, conjecture, and outright lies out there. A perfect solution will take more time than I have, and I suspect you have neither.

So I’ll have to rely on a few simple guidelines for deciding just how much I should fear my food. I share them with you, loyal reader, for what they may be worth to you.

What do the experts I know and trust have to say?

It may start with my doctor, or respected health and nutrition specialists associated with credible science and peer-reviewed studies. Good things happen—like smart food decisions—when I narrow my search to trustworthy sources rather than a wild-wild west of opinion and allegation.

What credible sources exist through the media?

What publications or websites or other channels of communication exist to address food issues in a fair, responsible, and objective way? Where does my doctor turn to stay on top of these kinds of issues – beyond the scientific journals too dense for me to absorb? What do reputable health and nutrition experts read and view and listen to?

What do my friends have to say?

What can I learn about our food from the simple yet powerful tool of actual human observation? What do the healthy families I know eat? What are their dietary habits? It may not provide a complete answer to my questions. But it’s a starting point – and one that I can see and learn from first-hand.

 

 

Posted on

Navigating Nutrition, Health & Wellness Trends

Healthy Aging: Embracing Quality Life Years

The quest for healthy aging transcends the mere desire to extend life; it’s about enriching those additional years with vibrant health. The report underscores the significance of nurturing heart health, managing weight effectively, and maintaining hormonal balance.

For heart health, it champions the consumption of omega-3 fatty acid-rich foods like salmon, flaxseeds, and walnuts. The report also recommends whole grains and leafy greens to regulate blood pressure.

Weight management strategies include a balanced diet of lean proteins, complex carbohydrates, and healthy fats, highlighting foods such as quinoa, lean chicken, avocados, and legumes to preserve muscle mass and metabolism.

To support hormone health, incorporating phytoestrogen-rich foods like soy products, along with antioxidants from berries and nuts, is advised for hormonal balance and endocrine system support.

The Evolution of Clean Labels: Seeking Simplicity & Transparency

Today’s consumers crave simplicity and transparency in their food choices, a shift evident in the rise of minimally processed foods. This trend towards clean labels reflects a growing skepticism towards overly processed foods and complex ingredients. The advice here is clear: seek out products with short lists of whole, recognizable ingredients (click here for what we mean by this!), and exercise caution around items with  artificial preservatives, colors, and flavors.

It is not that those ingredients are bad for you, but you want to look for foods that have more healthy nutritious ingredients that add value to your body. The report also points to a burgeoning interest in traditional and artisanal food-making processes, which promise less processed and more nutrient-dense food options. Our tip: Shop the perimeter of the store and avoid added sugars in processed food choices! As Mintel reports:

“Go back to the basics to help consumers age and live well by keeping hearts healthy, supporting weight management and improving muscle mass.”

Purposeful Processing: Marrying Innovation with Nutrition

Purposeful processing emerges as a strategic approach for brands to align products with health and wellness objectives without compromising on flavor or quality.

Techniques like fermentation, which boosts gut health, and cold-pressing, preserving nutritional integrity, are highlighted.

Consumers are encouraged to explore products leveraging these innovations, as they tend to offer superior nutritional profiles.

Adding in more plants to your diet,  (but don’t forget the benefits of dairy and meat in moderation), the report advises looking for products that highlight the natural benefits and flavors of plantsover those laden with additives to mimic animal products.

When looking for animal products, seek quality fish, meat and poultry.

Aging Populations: Forward-Thinking Nutrition

An aging population necessitates a proactive stance on nutrition. For the aging demographic, it calls for nutritious, accessible, and easy-to-prepare food options to meet older adults’ unique needs. Suggestions include focusing on foods that support cognitive health, bone density, and hydration, such as fatty fish, calcium and vitamin D-fortified dairy, and easily consumable fruits like berries and melons.

“According to the United Nations, one in six people (1.4 billion people) will be aged 60 or older by 2030.

While seniors are a diverse group with diverse needs, protein and hydration are two important areas to focus innovation on.”

Key Takeaways for Consumers: Navigating the Nutrition and Wellness Landscape

  • Prioritize Holistic Health: Embrace a diverse diet that bolsters heart, weight, and hormone health with a focus on nutrient-dense foods. Moderation and variation is key!
  • Embrace Transparency: Opt for products with straightforward labelling (see our label guide here!) and appreciate the value of traditional food processing methods.
  • Explore Innovation: Remain open to trying products that incorporate purposeful processing technologies to boost nutritional value without sacrificing taste. Embrace new technologies in the food space, they may just benefit you from a nutrition standpoint and a sustainability standpoint!

This analysis of the Mintel report provides an educational guide for consumers aiming to make informed decisions about their health and nutrition amidst changing global food trends. The key is to remain curious, adaptable, and informed, paving the way for a healthier, more sustainable lifestyle. But how do we know where to get our nutrition research?

Other Considerations

In addition to the insights provided, Mintel mentions that it’s crucial to consider the impact of digital technology and social media on consumer health choices and perceptions.

The rise of health and wellness apps, online communities, and influencer-led health trends significantly influence dietary decisions, often blurring the lines between scientifically backed advice and anecdotal evidence. Understanding how to critically evaluate these sources of information and discern credible advice from mere fads is essential for consumers aiming to make informed health decisions. [HP1]

Furthermore, the role of mental health in overall wellness, emphasizing the importance of a balanced approach that nurtures both the mind and body, remains a critical area for exploration. The Mintel report focuses on the physical aspects of health, but the psychological impacts of diet, including how food choices can affect our mood and stress levels, are equally crucial. Incorporating foods known to support mental health, such as those rich in omega-3 fatty acids, magnesium, and probiotics, can be another actionable step for consumers.

To avoid falling for societal misconceptions about health and nutrition, consumers can take several proactive steps:

  • Critical Evaluation: Learn to critically evaluate health and nutrition information, checking the credibility of sources and the evidence behind claims. Are studies peer reviewed? Is the website selling their product which supports their analysis? Who is funding the study? Does it come from a reputable university or research engine? Is it an EDU or ORG website? This skepticism can help navigate through marketing hype and focus on scientifically backed advice.
  • Personalization: Recognize that dietary needs are highly individual. What works for one person may not work for another due to differences in metabolism, lifestyle, and health conditions. Consulting with healthcare providers or dietitians can help tailor dietary choices to individual needs.
  • Long-term Perspective: Adopt a long-term perspective on health and nutrition, focusing on sustainable changes rather than quick fixes (aka no fad dieting!). Slow and steady often wins the race when it comes to lasting health improvements.

By adopting these practices, consumers can navigate the forest of nutrition and wellness with confidence, making informed decisions that support their health and well-being in a balanced and sustainable way.

Posted on

Could Ozempic Ignite Food’s Healthier Future?

Today, the weight loss drugs highlight a consumer movement against processed and ultra-processed foods. These foods have added ingredients such as sugar, salt, unhealthy fats, and artificial colors that provide no nutritional value…except great taste.

Eaten as an indulgence, they are not terrible. But, unfortunately, many people indulge in these treats as a dietary staple.

The Search for Nutrition

Consumers today are looking for nutritious foods. Foods that not only treat existing diseases but prevent ones from appearing. Foods that help you manage your health and help you age gracefully, with ‘food as medicine’  the sought-after goal.

Innova Market Insights identified nutritional value and balanced nutrition, along with naturalness are important for consumers.

Ingredients containing protein, Omega-3, fiber, vitamins, prebiotics, probiotics, and even esoteric mushrooms such as ashwagandha and lion’s mane are high in demand. Mintel also identified a changing attitude toward extending life in good health.

How GLP-1 Drugs Affect Our Diet

Further fueling demand for a healthier, more nutritious diet are among those taking a new class of prescription drugs: GLP-1 agonists. These medications, like Ozempic and Wegovy, help lower blood sugar levels and promote weight loss.

Morgan Stanley’s research survey of 300 patients taking a GLP-1 agonist found that these drugs reduced their daily appetite by 20-30 percent. They lost their appetite for candy, sugary drinks, and baked goods, creating room for adding healthy foods to their diet.

Especially as those on the GLP-1 drugs are not that hungry and might not meet the full 2,000-calorie minimal daily requirement, it is essential that what they do eat in a day provides their full complement of minerals and vitamins.

As the obesity epidemic continues to rise, so will the associated health issues such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, certain cancers, and fatty liver disease.

Today, about 69 percent, or 178 million adults, are either overweight or obese. Adult obesity is at 42.4 percent and is expected to climb to 50 percent in just six years.

GLP-1 drugs seem to hold the answer to obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Morgan Stanley estimated that 7 percent of the U.S. population will be take GLP-1 medications by 2035. This equates to a potential $44 billion market by 2030.

Will Food Sales Decline? 

Grocers and consumer products companies worry about the future if more and more people are cutting 20-30% of their calories out of their diet.

In the fall of 2023, Walmart announced that it had seen a slight drop in food demand due to appetite-suppressing medications. It might be too soon to tell given that there is such a small percentage of the population on these weight loss programs, but as the numbers increase, how will CPG companies prepare?

However, CPG companies and grocers can benefit from this trend; consumers don’t have to be hurt by purchasing less food. Of course, if everyone ate more fruits and vegetables and fewer cookies, then obesity would not be an issue.

At D2D, we have written about changing one’s diet, but it is hard. What you eat is what you crave. Can anything be done to meet our nutritional needs while sating our  tastebuds?

How about a Healthy Oreo?

There are over 14 unique Oreos to choose from, with ‘Double Stuff’ being our favorite, mostly because it is reminiscent of our childhood.

But sadly, there is no benefit to eating these every day. Despite their great taste, they have no nutritional value, 12 grams of sugar, and 150 calories for just two cookies. They would be considered an indulgence and not a ‘food’.

What if the Oreo had the same basic ingredients but with added health benefits?

What if the creamy filling included Omega 3s for heart health, and fiber in the cookie for lowering cholesterol, aiding gut health, and reducing the risk of heart disease? Some vitamins like D3 could be added as an extra immune benefit. Instead of sugar, there could be stevia to keep the taste.

The mouthfeel and taste that any saturated fat provides could be replaced by an alternative fat from a plant oil called Epogee.

To be fair, in 2021, Mondelez did try to launch the Oreo Zero in China. Instead of sugar, they used sucrose and glucose, which gave a different taste from the original Oreo. They chose China because those consumers like less sugar in their snacks. Needless to say, it was not a success. Some of you readers might remember the backlash against the ‘New Coke’ in 1985. A change in the 99-year formula was a complete flop because Coca-Cola lovers liked the ‘Real Thing’.

How can CPG Companies Benefit? 

But are CPG companies ready to make such big changes? Already, many are starting to address their concerns about the potential for declining food consumption.

According to Food Dive, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have introduced small cans in response to consumers cutting back on sugar. Also, snack companies have created 100-calorie small snacks. Some have reduced salt and others have reformulated their products for added nutrition. But is it the right answer?

CPG companies have a range of opportunities to create healthier products. These changes can have meaningful impacts on consumer health.

How can the pharmaceutical industry influence the snack industry?

Healthier Product Formulations:

  • CPG companies can reformulate existing snacks to align with healthier profiles. For instance, reducing added sugars, saturated fats, and sodium content.
  • Whole grains, fiber, and protein can be added in to create more satisfying and nutritious snacks.
  • CPG companies can focus on nutrient-dense options that provide sustained energy.

Functional Ingredients:

  • Incorporating functional ingredients like prebiotics, probiotics, Omega-3, turmeric, and additional antioxidants can enhance the nutritional value of snacks.
  • GLP-1 users may want to seek snacks that support gut health and overall well-being.

Portion Control and Mindful Snacking:

  • Ozempic’s appetite-suppressing effects may encourage consumers to eat smaller portions.
  • CPG companies can develop snack packs with smaller, healthier portions, promoting mindful eating.
  • GLP-1’s impact on cravings could lead to decreased consumption of empty-calorie snacks (e.g., sugary treats).

Marketing Strategies:

  • Highlighting diabetes-friendly, weight-conscious, or blood sugar-friendly snacks can resonate with GLP-1 users.
  • Transparent labeling and clear health benefits can attract health-conscious consumers.

Collaboration with Healthcare Professionals:

  • CPG companies can collaborate with healthcare providers to educate consumers about healthier snack choices.
  • Ozempic users may appreciate guidance on suitable snacks to complement their treatment.
Posted on

Uncovering Illegal Fishing Boats

Growing up in northern New England, we were spoiled with abundant fresh, local seafood. It wasn’t until I moved away that I realized how good I had it eating freshly caught fish. The United States imports 70-80% of its seafood, mostly from China, Thailand, Canada, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Ecuador.   

My new reality was pulling out my phone at the seafood counter in my grocery store to find out where the catch originated. But with confusing adjectives, like “line caught,” “wild,” “farmed,” “no antibiotic-free,” “pole caught,” and “sustainable,”… I ended up just sticking with salmon farmed in Norway, where I knew the standard was high.

Turns out, I had every reason to be overly cautious. A study released in the January 2024 issue of Nature reports that 75% of global fishing vessels are untraceable. Research jointly conducted by Global Fishing Watch, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Duke University, UC Santa Barbara, and SkyTruth, gave concrete insights into this murky world of “dark vessels”. These stealthy ships roam the seas, plundering marine resources without a trace.

Understanding Dark Vessel Fishing

Dark vessel fishing ships operate well beyond the reach of regulation and oversight, hence the name ‘dark’.  Their impropriety threatens the delicate balance of marine ecosystems across the globe, not to mention posing a significant concern to global food security, economic stability, and the livelihoods of millions of people who depend on the ocean for sustenance.

The fishing industry has experienced a slowdown in recent years. Prolonged COVID shutdowns and overfishing in previous decades, as well as an increase in on-land and shore-based aquaculture operations, have contributed to decreased demand. Despite this, seafood remains a $250 billion market, with an estimated loss due to illegal fishing as high as $23.5 billion.

Illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) activity continues to proliferate, prompted by an increasing demand for fish. As long as there are fish to capture, these stealthy ships will attempt to reap profits by exploiting fishing grounds beyond the reach of authorities.

IUU fishing vessels use a variety of tactics to evade detection, from turning off or manipulating their automatic identification system (AIS) transponders to operating in remote and poorly monitored ocean regions. The result is a cat-and-mouse game between authorities and illicit operators, with significant implications for marine biodiversity and the sustainability of global fisheries.

“A new industrial revolution has been emerging in our seas undetected—until now. On land, we have detailed maps of almost every road and building on the planet.

In contrast, growth in our ocean has been largely hidden from public view.”

–          David Kroodsma, study author, Global Fishing Watch

Identifying Dark Vessels

The study, conducted by an international team of researchers, analyzed satellite data and harnessed the power of artificial intelligence to track the movements of dark vessel fishing boats to identify hotspots of illegal fishing activity and gain a deeper understanding of the factors driving these activities.

The study’s findings paint a troubling picture of the prevalence of dark vessel fishing across various regions of the world, even in marine protected areas like the Galapagos Marine Reserve. Their study also found more than 25 percent of transport and energy vessels are considered “dark.”

“Historically, vessel activity has been poorly documented, limiting our understanding of how the world’s largest public resource—the ocean—is being used.

By combining space technology with state-of-the-art machine learning, we mapped undisclosed industrial activity at sea on a scale never done before.”

–          Fernando Paolo, study author, Global Fishing Watch

Collecting and analyzing the incomprehensible amount of data (2 thousand terabytes worth) needed to find this specific information was no small feat. Thankfully, these brilliant researchers mined disparate sets of public data to pinpoint exact locations of fishing vessels, both traceable and non-traceable.

They started with amassing satellite images of coastal waters worldwide from the European Space Agency from 2017 to 2021. They then created proprietary automated technology to identify which of those vessels were fishing boats. Next, the researchers compared images of the ships with public records disclosing their AIS location to determine which vessels did not broadcast their whereabouts.

Armed with this information, they create a “heat map” to show legal and illegal fishing activity across the globe:

Targeting Dark Vessel Locations

One of the key insights revealed by the research is the concentration of dark vessel fishing activity in some geographic regions.

Despite public AIS records indicating a somewhat distributed sprawl across most continents, these researchers prove that most illegal activity occurs in Asia.

The study identified several regions in Asia as the primary hotspots of IUU activity, notably Southeast and East Asia.

These regions are characterized by complex maritime disputes, porous borders, a vast array of fish species, and limited law enforcement presence to oversee farmed aquaculture practices, environmental protections, water toxicity, and many other factors.

“Publicly available data wrongly suggests that Asia and Europe have similar amounts of fishing within their borders, but our mapping reveals that Asia dominates — for every 10 fishing vessels we found on the water, seven were in Asia while only one was in Europe.

By revealing dark vessels, we have created the most comprehensive public picture of global industrial fishing available.”

–Jennifer Raynor, study author, University of Wisconsin-Madison

This lethal combination creates fertile ground for dark vessel operators to carry out an unconscionable number of illicit activities, especially in specific hotbeds of IUU activity:

Korean Peninsula

In East Asia, the waters off the Korean Peninsula have become premier battlegrounds in the fight against IUU fishing, with crustaceans, shellfish, and finfish populating the waters.

Also of note, South Korea is the largest global consumer of seafood. Surprisingly, 65% of their seafood is imported, despite their seemingly abundant waters.

Bay of Bengal

Similarly, the Bay of Bengal off the coast of South Asia’s Bangladesh and Myanmar, has emerged as a hotspot of illegal fishing activity, where 100% of all fishing activity is not tracked.

And to make matters worse, some fishers off of these shores use poison to catch the area’s abundance of finfish and shrimp. This not only damages the health of those who consume the poisoned products, but it also endangers the largest mangrove forest ecosystem in the world.

Strengthening Global Cooperation & Enforcement Efforts

This study can serve as a loud and clear warning sign for all of us. Addressing the scourge of dark vessel fishing requires international cooperation, significant investment in monitoring and onsite enforcement, and promoting sustainable fishing practices are all essential components of a comprehensive strategy to combat IUU fishing.

Though daunting, this undertaking would help recover an estimated global economic loss due to illegal fishing as high as $23.5 billion annually. Not to mention the restoration of vulnerable coastal communities and local economies suffering from devastating poverty and food insecurity.

Furthermore, this methodology can be easily adapted to tackle other global issues, like climate change. Mapping all vessels can improve estimates of oceanic carbon emissions and track marine degradation.

“Previously, this type of satellite monitoring was only available to those who could pay for it. Now it is freely available to all nations.

This study marks the beginning of a new era in ocean management and transparency.”

–          David Kroodsma, study author, Global Fishing Watch

Much can be learned from this team of researchers in terms of determination to source discreet data sets around the globe, innovative implementation of artificial intelligence, and cross-organization cooperation. If we follow suit, we can find new ways to shine a light on these activities and hold those responsible for their crimes.

What We Can Do Today

We can empower ourselves right away by realizing the trickle-down effect of our everyday purchase decisions. If we don’t buy fish products sourced from countries like Bangladesh, Myanmar, and other areas of the world with rampant dark vessels, fewer IUU ships will bother fishing in less lucrative territories.

As for discrete locations, if you prefer wild-caught, stick with fish caught in the northern shores of Europe. For farmed, consider fish from reputable countries like Norway, Scotland, Canada, and Chile.

Organizations focused on sustainable seafood can provide practical, research-based recommendations, too. Seafood Watch creates helpful guides to better navigate our grocery aisles and stick to more sustainable species and acceptable countries of origin (here’s the Watch’s guide for shrimp). You can also keep an eye out for the Marine Stewardship Council’s blue “MSC” label to stick with sustainable fish species.

Still can’t find the country of origin for the fish you want? Ask someone, whether it’s the associate behind the seafood counter, customer service at the grocery store, or the waiter who must ask the chef. If many of us ask this question wherever we purchase seafood, more industry players will be compelled to start readily providing these details.

Posted on

Can We Eat to Improve the Climate?

Growing, harvesting, processing, and transporting our food takes about 17% of all the fossil fuel used in the United States. With the ambitious goal of reaching net zero emissions by 2050, consumers are searching for foods that require fewer fossil fuels. Is this realistic?

Quantifying Energy Used for Food

We recently read How the World Really Works, the most recent book by Vaclav Smil, a distinguished Professor Emeritus at the University of Manitoba. Smil has published 47 books and more than 500 papers on the research in energy environmental and population change, food production, history of technical innovation, risk assessment, and public policy. Bill Gates considers him one of his favorite authors.

In his latest book, Professor Smil explored the improvements the world has made since the early 1800s. He explains “In two centuries the human labor to produce a kilogram of American wheat was reduced from 10 minutes to less than two seconds.” He also talks about the importance of fossil fuels and the world could not provide enough food to feed all of us without them.

Smil also delves into food production and its associated energy use. In fact, he had the patience to calculate how much energy it takes to make a loaf of sourdough bread, raise a chicken, grow a tomato, and eat seafood. He averaged out an itemized estimate using production numbers around the globe.

This sounds like a painstakingly long and detailed effort, with considerations for crop and livestock cultivation; facilities management; processing, production and packaging; and all distribution required along the way. But the results were interesting and surprising!

Bread’s Energy Journey 

Sourdough bread is a staple around the world.

The energy it takes to plant, grow, and harvest wheat is crucial in its production. After the wheat is harvested, it is trucked or goes by rail to the mill to be made into flour.

The initial stages of sourdough preparation require the activation and maintenance of the starter culture, which demands consistent temperature control.

Additionally, mixing, kneading, baking and the use of ovens and other kitchen appliances all contribute to energy consumption.

The energy required throughout this journey for a 2.2 pound loaf of sourdough bread is just about 8 ounces of diesel fuel.

Crude for Chickens

Raising chickens involves a fascinating blend of traditional agricultural practices and modern energy considerations.

To maximize production, it is critical to maintain a suitable environment for the birds. They must be fed the right mixture of grains, minerals, and vitamins.

The utilization of electricity for consistent temperature control, ventilation, and lighting, especially in large-scale operations, underscores the intrinsic relationship between energy usage and the well-being of the birds.

Once the chicken is fully grown the birds are transported to the processing facility which turns them into breasts, thighs, and other cuts for the grocery store.

The entire energy for 2.2 pounds of processed chicken is about 11 ounces of diesel.

Holy Tomato!

Tomatoes can require many factors and sources of energy, depending on whether they are grown indoors or out.

Photosynthesis uses the sun’s energy to grow tomatoes outdoors for over eight months. Yet for the 35% of global tomatoes grown indoors, the energy inputs are significantly more because of the substantial energy required to provide heat, light, and nutrients, not to mention the energy needed to make the greenhouse itself.

But even tomatoes grown outdoors require crude oil to make the plastic clips, wedges, sheets, and gutter arrangements for successfully growing a tomato crop.

The energy utilized in production encompasses diverse inputs, from solar energy and traditional machinery to electricity and embodied energy, making its energy calculation highly complex.

The answer for this beloved fruit is not simple, but Smil calculated that, growing 2.2 pounds of tomatoes uses about 21.9 fluid ounces of diesel fuel, on average.

Fuel for Farmed Salmon 

On average, the energy consumption for seafood production is relatively high.

It takes approximately 23.6 ounces of diesel per 2.2 pound serving, just slightly more than the energy needed for tomatoes.

For example, salmon, a popular seafood choice, is predominantly farmed, which involves significant energy expenditure for fish feed production, transportation to farms, and ultimately to consumers.

Unless sourced locally from specific regions like Chile, Norway, Scotland, or Western Canada, considerable energy is expended in the entire process from farm to table.

Of course, one can imagine the amount of fuel used to catch, freeze, and transport wild-caught fish. Professor Smil suggests that opting for sardines, which are rich in omega-3s and have lower environmental impacts, can be a more sustainable choice.

Is Energy Estimation Possible?

We were shocked when we found out that raising 2.2 pounds of chicken required just a third of the energy needed to cultivate the same weight of tomatoes. This proves that our food system is much more complicated than it appears.

We wrote about climate conscious eating and pointed out that it is not just about the energy used, we have to also consider water.  To grow just one ounce of nuts takes anywhere from 3.2 gallons to a whopping 28.7 gallons for almonds.

Farming takes multiple kinds of energy. Human energy – plain old hard work and effort.  Solar energy – sunlight for photosynthesis.  Wind – for pollination.  And just as important, fossil fuel energy, including diesel and gasoline for farm machinery, plant equipment, and transportation.

Used appropriately, energy increases productivity and distribution across our food system, therefore increasing profitability for farmers. Without that energy, the whole system collapses.

End of story, turn out the lights, dinner is over.

“Our food is partly made not just of oil, but also of coal that was used to produce the coke required for smelting the iron needed for field, transportation, and food processing machinery; of natural gas that serves as both feedstock and fuel for the synthesis of nitrogenous fertilizers; and of the electricity generated by the combustion of fossil fuels that is indispensable for crop processing, taking care of animals, and food and feed storage and preparation.”

– Prof. Vaclav Smil

The complexities of our food system are vast. As we push our cart through the grocery aisle, how do we really know whether the food we eat is farmed sustainably and uses energy and water responsibly? Are you curious?

  1. Would you pay more to know exactly how much energy and water was used to make the food you are eating?
  2. Would you like to see it on a label?
  3. Would it affect your food choice?
Posted on

Digging In: Regenerative Ranching


Little Belt Cattle Company is a family-owned and operated working cattle ranch and premium beef company founded by two former special operations veterans, Greg Putnam and Tim Sheehy. Together, they have built a local sustainable supply chain of the highest quality grass-fed and grain-finished premium beef that is raised, finished, and processed in Montana.

Greg talks to us about the challenges and excitement of taking care of approximately 8,000 head of cattle. He speaks to the hard work and dedication of multi-generation ranches, as well as similarities between the military and cattle ranching.

Posted on

Food Safety at Farmers’ Markets

farmers market sign in front of vegetables

Who doesn’t enjoy visiting a farmers’ market and buying recently harvested fruits, veggies, jams, honey, and meats from local farms? Many times you can shake the farmer’s hand, ask questions about how they grow their food, and discuss what crops to expect this summer. This sentiment is enjoyed by many and as a result, U.S. farmers’ markets have become increasingly popular.

Popularity of U.S. farmers’ markets

Consumers love these seasonal markets – and so do our farmers. By selling at farmers’ markets, farmers can get a better profit margin on their goods as they bypass their traditional vendor to sell their freshly harvested produce and other products directly to consumers.

An additional benefit of these direct-to-consumer venues is when consumers gain a better understanding of where their food comes from, and farmers can meet the people purchasing and enjoying the fruits of their labor.

But what about food safety? As consumers, how do you know these farmers have followed best food safety practices in the growing, harvesting, and processing of their harvests?

How safe are products from farmers’ markets?

The primary food safety concerns are foodborne pathogens, such as Listeria, Salmonella, pathogenic E. coli as well as norovirus that, at the least, cause gastrointestinal symptoms but, in some cases, can also cause other more serious health effects.

A farmer’s level of food safety awareness certainly affects the steps taken to prevent contamination from occurring i.e., implementing food safety practices and procedures to reduce the contamination risk. In some cases, such as with wildlife or birds infected with avian flu moving through or over a field, it is impossible to prevent potential contamination sources from contacting crops.

So, in these cases, farmers monitor these potential sources to minimize the possibility of pathogens being transferred to their crops.

For example, one method they may use is to look for feces on produce or the surrounding soil and not harvest product within a specified radius of the fecal material.

In researching this topic, we found several studies that tested specific produce from both farmers’ markets and grocery stores for bacteria that can serve as indicators of pathogens that could cause illness.

The study results indicated that produce from farmers’ markets typically had significantly more bacterial counts in general than produce from grocery stores.

 

But this is not necessarily bad since many bacteria are not harmful to humans and may even be beneficial for maintaining product quality and human health when consumed.

How is food safety monitored for smaller producers?

Most farmers selling their products at farmers’ markets qualify for some exemptions to the level of food safety regulations practiced by larger producers, as per the Food Safety Modernization Act.

This Act requires farms grossing more than $500,000 annually to follow all applicable regulations and to undergo food safety inspections. But for farms with lower annual revenues, food safety policies are more lax.

Industry leaders also have a say in the prevention of pathogenic material on produce. Those in favor of small farm exemptions and reduced requirements emphasize the cost of complying with this Act’s rules, as it could put many small farms out of business. However, both sides agree that food safety at the small farm level needs to be a priority for the health and safety of our communities throughout the United States.

At the end of the day, we want our food to be safe regardless of where it comes from, because

pathogens do not discriminate between small and large farms and local does not mean microbiologically safer.

Farmer’s markets make their own policies

State and local governments oversee farmers’ markets. For the most part, research indicates that states rely on county health departments to regulate food safety at farmers’ markets and the health departments rely on market managers to enforce food safety practices at the market.

Many state and local governments do not have adequate staffing to visit each local farmers’ market leaving food safety rule development and enforcement to the market manager.

In her job as liaison between the King County/Seattle (WA) Public Health Department and farmers’ markets, Jill Trohimovich, an environmental health specialist, told Food Safety News her department does “a quick walk-by” when inspecting farmers’ markets.

Public health officials from other states have made similar statements about their inspections of farmers’ markets. Dave Stockdale, a past executive director of the nonprofit Center for Urban Education about Sustainable Agriculture, describes market managers as having “a general understanding” of agriculture and food safety guidelines, but no specific training.

Stacy Miller, a former executive director of the Farmers Market Coalition, explained how the process of vetting potential farmers’ market vendors differs from one market to the next. One market may require potential vendors to fill out an application, present proof of insurance, and have an onsite inspection while others may only require proof of insurance.

An example of a more rigorous set of requirements is the Ferry Plaza Farmers’ Market in San Francisco, California. Due to limited space and enormous popularity with shoppers, this San Franciscan market requires farmers who want to sell their products to complete a 17-page application and pass an on-farm food safety and sustainability inspection by market managers.

What are farmers’ markets doing to improve food safety?

Small farmers realize that food safety is crucial for business and protecting consumers. Amy Annable, manager of sprout operations at Edrich Farms in Randallstown, MD, knows that if anyone gets sick from her sprouts it would ruin her livelihood. A foodborne illness outbreak is her “worst nightmare”—sprouts are known for being susceptible to microorganisms that cause food-borne illnesses.

So, Edrich Farms established its own food safety plan, and Amy spends extra time during the week on paperwork and testing to ensure their sprouts are safe. Many other small farmers are also starting their own food safety programs and implementing practices to keep produce safe.

Many food safety specialists in the USDA’s cooperative extension system work closely with their state’s farmers’ markets to provide food safety information to their market vendors. These programs provide workshops and online materials for both farmers and market managers.

How to be a proactive food safety shopper

When shopping at your local farmers’ market, it is valuable to proactively ask the right questions and follow certain practices to reduce your risk of getting sick from foodborne pathogens.

One researcher who investigated the correlation between foodborne illness and farmers’ markets suggested that the data may indicate that people “erroneously believe that food bought at farmers’ markets needn’t be washed because it is ‘natural’.”

It is always a good idea to follow certain food safety practice when preparing and consuming food in your home. Here are some recommendations provided by SafeFruitsandVeggies.com and Eat Right, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.