Posted on

Labor Concerns Drive New Tech

Labor issues continue to worry the farming community, with more than half of farmers (56 percent) in a recent FTI Consulting survey saying they have experienced labor shortages.

Not only are people apparently less eager to take on the often physically demanding tasks and long hours that go into farming, but the men and women who do that important work are growing older. And to top it all off, serious questions about the future of undocumented aliens are a major concern for an economic sector that depends upon immigrant labor for 42 percent of farm and food-related jobs.

The food and agriculture sector has responded by raising farm wages and carrying out ambitious programs to educate and attract the next generation of farmers and food workers. Add new technology to those efforts, and we have a pretty powerful response to the farm labor challenge.

Catching up with Industrial Practices

Farmers, ranchers, and all the others along our complex food chain are among the most innovative and adaptive sectors of our entire economy. The food chain sees what’s happening in the technology world, and it is responding.

Think about automation. Once it seemed the sole province of the industrial sector. What arguably began in warehouses, shipping facilities, and work lines doing repetitive tasks proved valuable to our food system, too.

Smart technology only added to the power of simple robotics. Robots and automated equipment could not just perform those tasks but learn as well – and adapt to not just maintain but also enhance efficiency and productivity.

Robots come in all sizes and types, tailored for specific purposes. Industrial robots have been around for quite some time, but service robots, medical robots, and other specialized types are growing in number and use.

Increasingly, the word “robot” triggers a mental picture going far beyond the automotive assembly line.

Picture robots tasked with the dangerous job of fighting fires. Think of the various tools already in use to help with such tasks as home cleaning and laundry sorting, or the medical robots used in routine and delicate surgeries.

According to the International Federation of Robotics (IFR), an estimated 4.8 million robots are at work in industrial uses. One robot is at work in industry for every 71 human workers.

Asia – notably China – has been the fastest to embrace robotics, accounting for about 70 percent of all new robotic installations last year.

Robots have proven valuable in automotive production, electronics, metal, and machinery operations, and more. Service robots are increasingly common in medical facilities worldwide, with the medical sector alone accounting for about one-quarter (27 percent) of the global robotics market in 2025. On the food front, IFR estimates that just under 15,000 robots were installed in food-related activities in 2023 alone.

Use of robotics across all segments of the global economy has shown significant growth, especially as the cost of humanoid robots has declined. Humanoid robots can cost as little as $16,000 for basic units to more than a quarter-million dollars for very advanced models.

Most commercial humanoid robots sell in a range from $20,000 to $120,000. China’s Unitree Robotics captured wide attention this year when the company announced the cost of its humanoid robots had dropped to $25,000 in 2025, down 70 percent from the 2023 average price.

Photos courtesy of Unitree

Global robotics has grown to become a $48 billion market in 2024 – and is still growing. By 2034, the market is projected to be over $211 billion.

Robotics in Action on the Farm

Agriculture stands to contribute significantly to this growth, from the farm field across the entire food chain.

Robots already can play a valuable role in such activities as crop planting, weeding, input application, harvesting, crop sorting, greenhouse management, irrigation management and more. They not only perform mechanical tasks but also can gather and transmit data that helps farmers make better decisions.

With AI, they also can learn and act independently to adapt and adjust for greater efficiency and effectiveness. Robots no longer are dumb mechanical devices but rather smart, efficient actors in producing the food we all consume.

Smart technology helps relieve farmers of many of the multiple tasks that go into farming and allows them to concentrate on other demanding aspects of running a profitable operation.

Off the farm, robots can be just as valuable. They can take on many of the strenuous labors involved in shipping and warehousing, for example, or be used to speed packaging.

Labor-intensive activities such as meat and poultry processing may be able to use faster line speed by using technology, while reducing risks of harm to human workers.

Cost – Or Investment?

As with all aspects of farming and the entire food chain, the key to growth in use of modern technology is in its financial returns – for both those who produce the technology and those who use it.

If technology doesn’t deliver a demonstrable and acceptable contribution to the bottom line, it’s not likely to grow very quickly – if at all. That process of economic evaluation is still playing out. But the early signs are encouraging.

For example, India-based Niqo Robotics produces automated spray equipment capable of reducing chemical spraying by up to 60 percent. The company also has been producing intelligent weeding robots for farms, focused on specialty crop producers. Its automated spraying equipment already is in operation, too.

Using AI, their products use sensors and visual tools to identify individual weeds and direct their removal – all with an accuracy measured in millimeters. That level of automated precision not only helps farmers be more efficient, it also provides an enormous opportunity to avoid actions harmful to the environment.

As Niqo Robotics Founder and CEO Jaisimha Rao explained in a media interview, “In the U.S. specialty crops segment, growers face intense pressure from rising labor costs, shrinking workforces, and narrow operational windows. Robotics directly addresses all three. By automating repetitive and time-sensitive tasks such as weeding or spraying, farmers can focus human labor on skilled, high-value activities.”

Perhaps just as encouraging, Nico Robotics has announced that it is “on track for profitability” in its first full commercial year.

“Every innovation must create real value for farmers, not just demonstrate what is technologically possible.” 

 – Jaisimha Rao, Niqo Robotics CEO & Founder

The Price Tag

The costs of integrating more technology into farming and other segments of the food chain can be high. Even as the price of robotics moderates, machinery that harnesses all the potential of better technology and AI can come with a sobering price tag.

Consider the numbers associated with some of the best of the best in this equipment world.

John Deere has reinvented itself into a technology company with all the software installed in their farm, forestry, and lawn care tractors.

John Deere’s 9RX tractor – which the company touts as “the smartest John Deere tractor you can buy” can be yours new for about $1 million – or maybe a touch more. The 9RX is indeed a marvel – no manual steering, data sharing and streaming-ready, satellite-connected, capable of syncing with other machines… and fully engineered to use up to 140 different software packages that help make farming faster, better and more responsible than ever before.

With this kind of technology-rich equipment, farmers can direct farm operations wherever they happen to be – at their desk, in their car or truck, walking the fields, or maybe even at that special family event.

Equipment marketplaces make it possible to buy one of the three 9RX models at lower prices, based on the age and model type.  Recently, sites such as tractorhouse.com offered used units for as little as $519,000, with the price of displayed units averaging about $583,000.  Higher-end 2025 models appeared available in the range of $939,900 to $947,400.  Prices through other sales channels, of course, will vary.  But these numbers make one thing clear: embracing technology at the high end can come with a real hefty price tag.

“John Deere has shifted the narrative from machinery to autonomy-as-a-service. While its rollout may appear incremental, the strategic signal is loud and clear: in the automation race for agriculture, passive adoption is no longer an option.

Those unprepared to integrate machine-led intelligence into core operations risk being outpaced—quietly but definitively.”

– The Silicon Review; April 8, 2025

At this time, farmers must find the balance – a sober assessment of the payback created by new technology.  Does it deliver value?  Does it improve my bottom line – and if so, when?  How long will it take for my investment to pay off?   Can an equipment-sharing arrangement work for me?  What about leasing options?

If history is any guide, farmers (and others along the food chain) will find innovative ways to make technology work for them. Most will realize they have no real option but to embrace technology as best they can. Farmers always look beyond the day to the future, and they know that the future is tech-driven.

What about the Food Consumer?

Improvements in operating efficiency in both farming and processing in the long run will help stabilize and potentially lower food costs for consumers, according to most technology proponents.

As technology improves and it use expands, the potential for benefit to consumers increases. But a precise calculation of the effect on prices remains elusive, as the process of integrating more and better technology across the entire food chain progresses.

As Sustainability Directory recently concluded, “Technology is now the primary tool for farmers to cut costs and stabilize food prices against climate and supply chain volatility.”

Transformation through Technology

Automation, robotics, drones, artificial intelligence – all are coming together to transform the modern farming system. Technology is already on the farm, and in our entire food chain, too.

People along that chain are working every day to think of new ways to make technology work even harder to do more. We’re finding more ways to assure the efficient, profitable production of the foods we depend upon every day.

We’re building in improved ways of protecting and making optimal, sustainable use of our soil and water.  We’re making food processing faster, more efficient, and safer than ever before.

We’re creating even more career opportunities within our food and agricultural system for engineers and experts in technology development, operation, and maintenance.

There’s a lot of work yet to do. As Richard Stup of Cornell University said, “Farm automation and technology will be a significant part of the farm future in the United States. But it is not a quick and easy solution to the labor challenges the industry will face in the near future.”

Posted on

Why Is Beef So Expensive?

My eye doctor made an offhand comment the other day that stuck with me. His sons were coming home to visit with their families, and he was reluctant to spring for steaks. Even hamburgers were daunting.

If a doctor is watching the meat aisle, you can be sure that many Americans are, too. When even high-income households hesitate at the meat counter, it’s not just sticker shock, it’s a structural shift in the food system.

So what’s really going on? The short answer is supply and demand — but the long answer is far more interesting, and it starts on the open range and ends with Chinese policies.

The cattle herd today is at a 65-year low, and the demand for beef is stronger than ever.

Unchanged Cattle Inventory

It was surprising to me to find out that the U.S. cattle population ready for beef production, stands at roughly 27 million head – the same as in 1961. While curious, that alone doesn’t sound alarming, but a lot has changed since then.

In 1960, the U.S. population was 179 million people, each eating about 63 pounds of beef per year. Today, 343 million Americans eat about 59 pounds annually.

The per-person consumption is a little lower, but the total demand has nearly doubled, from 1.1 billion pounds of beef to over 2 billion pounds. We are feeding 92% more people from essentially the same-sized herd.

Even if you look at the total cattle herd of 86.2 million,  which includes calves and heifers held for breeding, it is down 300,000 from 2025.

Think about it: we have the same number of cattle on the range and in feedlots as in 1961, but our population has increased by 92%.

That is the crux of the problem — we have the same number of cows but almost twice the number of people to feed.

The GLP-1 prescription narrative has been misunderstood. In fact, weight-loss medications like Ozempic and Wegovy, have nudged protein consumption up, not down. Despite popular speculation that appetite suppressants would dampen the beef market, Americans are eating roughly 6.3 more pounds of red meat and poultry per capita than in 2020, before GLP-1s were used for obesity treatment. Those on GLP-1s realize the importance of maintaining muscle mass.

Protein quality is becoming a bigger part of the consumer conversation.

Instead of ‘how much?’, people are asking ‘what kind?’ Animal proteins are high-quality because they contain all nine essential amino acids. According to Mintel, 36% of U.S. consumers would like to see complete proteins in food and drink products.

The world has the same growth pattern of more meat per capita. In 1960, people ate about 50 pounds per person; by 2025, the amount grew a whopping 45% to 92 pounds. Think how much more meat is needed to feed a global population that has gone from 3 billion to 8.1 billion. And of course, the cattle and cow population has grown from 857 million to 1,580 billion. That is a lot of meat needed to feed the world!

Today’s beef prices aren’t a short-term spike; they are the predictable result of long-term supply constraints colliding with a stronger demand for protein.

So Why Aren’t Ranchers Just Breeding More Cattle?

That’s the logical question — and ranchers are hearing it plenty. The honest answer is that raising cattle has a long growth cycle and the economics are brutally uncertain.

Beef as a Commodity

Corn farmers can respond to market signals within a single growing season. A hog farmer can take a piglet to market weight in about six months. A chicken? Forty-seven days from hatch to your plate.

However, cattle are a completely different story.

A cow-calf rancher who decides today to expand their herd is looking at nine months of pregnancy, followed by another two to three years of grazing and growing before those calves are anywhere near market weight and ready for processing.

Consumers don’t see this natural advantage over beef, but they do see the price discrepancy of higher beef costs resulting from the longer beef cycle.

Factoring in Uncertainty

Consider what a rancher faces today: high land costs, rising interest rates, urban sprawl eating into ranch acreage, and an aging farm labor force that’s increasingly hard to replace.

Add to that the basic math of the cattle business — sell a calf now and have income today, or hold off for a year and a half and hope the market cooperates when you finally bring them to market.

Weather makes it even harder. The droughts of recent years, especially in Texas and the Southern Plains, burned up grazing pasture which forced many ranchers to cull their herds. Many are reluctant to rebuild until they’re sure another drought isn’t lurking around the corner. That caution is rational, but it adds up to a market with no quick fixes.

Plant closures haven’t helped either. Tyson Foods closed its Nebraska beef processing facility last November. It also converted its Texas facility to a single shift. When a major processor reduces capacity, the whole supply chain tightens.

Finally, imported cattle from Mexico, which account for 3.4% of the total U.S. calf crop, have come to a halt due to the screwworm disease. It doesn’t sound like a big percentage, but that is 1.1 million cattle not coming to the U.S. for processing. Since July 2025, the USDA has banned live cattle to prevent the screwworm from infecting US cattle. Just another squeeze on an already tight supply.

U.S. Government Support

With all these obstacles in the way of our ranchers, how can the U.S. government provide the support necessary for increased production?

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins is committed to ensuring the American people have an affordable source of protein and that America’s ranchers have a strong economic environment.”

The Department of the Interior is restoring grazing access on public lands. The USDA will expedite deregulatory reforms and fix outdated grazing restrictions. They will also try to increase processing capacity and promote locally grown beef into schools.

In short, ranchers aren’t holding back, they’re responding rationally to risk.

China’s Effect on U.S. Beef

Beef is no longer just a domestic story; it’s a global chessboard.

With 31% of its beef supply imported, China has its own protein challenges. Brazil provides half of its beef imports, with Argentina and Uruguay supplying most of the balance.

Because of their high imports, there was too much supply of beef in China, which then depressed beef prices for the Chinese rancher. To combat the surplus, effective January 1, 2026, Beijing established a 55% tariff on all imported beef. Why? To protect their own beef market – and to some extent, their pork farmers.

These new beef import restrictions have created excess Australian and Brazilian beef in the global market. As this ‘homeless’ beef floods the U.S. market, it creates a large supply of lean beef for hamburgers and fast-food burgers.

However, the U.S. consumer has yet to see this manifest in a drop in beef prices. What looks like a distant policy decision in Beijing can ripple directly into the price of a hamburger in the U.S.

According to Mintel, high beef prices are prompting ‘trade-down’ behaviors as consumers choose less expensive animal proteins, cheaper beef cuts and rely more on ground beef. They are also relying on sales and discounting at their grocery store to manage their beef costs.

Posted on

Scaling Regenerative Ag with Big Food

Click Play to listen to our generated podcast. Access our full podcast library here. 

 

PepsiCo recently announced a partnership with the National Geographic Society that supports scientists, agronomists, and farmers to work on soil health measurement, biodiversity tracking, and data-driven farming tools, including the use of satellite monitoring and artificial intelligence to translate soil science into field-level decisions. The significance isn’t just the funding. It’s the shift in posture.

Rather than waiting for consumers to reward niche regenerative brands at the checkout line, one of the largest food companies in the world is investing upstream, directly in how corn, oats, potatoes, and other foundational crops are grown.

For years, regenerative agriculture has lived in two places: academic soil science and marketing language. It has been praised as the future of farming and criticized as too loosely defined to scale. Now corporate dollars are being tied to measurement frameworks and farmer transition models. The question is not whether regenerative agriculture sounds promising. The question is whether this moment represents structural change in how American farmland is managed?

How We Got Here

Modern American agriculture did not emerge accidentally. After World War II, farm policy prioritized yield, efficiency, mechanization, and shelf stability. Commodity crops such as corn, soybeans, wheat, and cotton became the backbone of a system designed to feed a growing population affordably and reliably. Technological innovation accelerated productivity. Food became cheaper relative to income. Caloric abundance was no longer the national crisis it once had been.

But efficiency brought tradeoffs. Decades of intensive production in some regions reduced soil organic matter and simplified crop rotations. Erosion and nutrient runoff became persistent environmental concerns. (Think of the Dust Bowl). Farmers grew extraordinarily good at producing high yields, but questions began to surface about what was happening with the integrity of the soil and the watersheds beneath the farmland.

Regenerative agriculture emerged as a response to those concerns. Rather than focusing solely on sustaining current productivity levels, regenerative advocates argued for rebuilding soil health. Practices typically associated with regenerative systems include minimizing soil disturbance, keeping the ground covered with living roots, diversifying crop rotations, spraying bacteria healthy for soils, and in some cases integrating livestock. The promise is compelling: healthier soils can hold more water, resist erosion, improve biodiversity, and store carbon.

For years, however, regenerative agriculture remained aspirational. It was discussed at conferences, featured in documentaries, and highlighted in brand campaigns.

But scaling and measuring it across millions of acres of commodity farmland proved more complicated.

The Definition Problem

One of the biggest obstacles has been definition. Unlike organic agriculture, which is governed by federally regulated standards and certification protocols, regenerative agriculture has no single nationally accepted framework. One company may define it as reducing tillage. Another may require cover crops. A third may include carbon measurement, livestock integration, or biodiversity targets.

This variability has drawn legitimate criticism.

To make it more complicated, each farm has its own unique weather pattern, soil diversity, and water quantity. Growing potatoes in Idaho requires a different level of regenerative agriculture than growing potatoes in Pennsylvania.

Scientists have questioned how soil carbon gains are measured and whether they persist over decades. Economists have debated whether regenerative systems can maintain yields at scale. Policy analysts have noted that practices successful in one climate zone may not translate seamlessly to another. Without common metrics, regenerative agriculture risked becoming a flexible marketing term, another ‘sustainable’ phrase, appealing but difficult to evaluate. That is where the current shift becomes important!

When Procurement Drives Change

Large consumer packaged goods companies like Pepsi, occupy a powerful position in the food system. They purchase enormous quantities of agricultural commodities each year, from corn and oats to potatoes and sugar. Their procurement decisions influence planting choices across vast regions.

Historically, those procurement contracts rewarded uniformity, yield, and efficiency. They shape monoculture systems and optimize supply chains for cost and predictability. If those same contracts begin rewarding soil health outcomes, the incentives across millions of acres begin to change. A change that consumers have been demanding.

It is difficult to alter the behavior of millions of individual consumers.

It is comparatively straightforward to alter procurement standards among a handful of multinational buyers whose contracts reach deep into rural America.

When corporate purchasing criteria shift, farming practices often follow. This is why corporate involvement in regenerative agriculture matters. It moves the conversation from niche brands and boutique labels, direct from the farm, and majority consumer-influenced, to instead massive mainstream supply chains.

Measurement Changes the Equation

Perhaps the most consequential shift in this new phase of regenerative agriculture is not the rhetoric surrounding it, but the infrastructure developing beneath it. For years, regenerative commitments were largely descriptive. Companies spoke about improving soil health or supporting farmers without clearly defining how progress would be verified. That is beginning to change.

PepsiCo is not alone in moving toward measurable systems.

  • General Mills has committed to advancing regenerative agriculture across one million acres by 2030, working with academic researchers and retail partners such as Walmart to quantify soil carbon, biodiversity, and farmer outcomes within its wheat and dairy supply chains.
  • Nestlé has launched pilot programs across key sourcing regions that tie financial incentives and agronomic support to documented soil improvements.
  • Unilever has embedded regenerative agriculture into its climate transition planning, emphasizing traceability and supplier-level verification across tea, soy, and vegetable oil systems.
  • Cargill, one of the world’s largest agricultural commodity traders, has expanded its RegenConnect program to reward farmers for measurable outcomes, linking soil-health practices to carbon markets and corporate buyers seeking verified supply chain improvements.

Retailers, too, are recognizing that long-term supply chain resilience depends on what happens at the field level. What distinguishes this wave of investment from earlier sustainability pledges is the insistence on verification. Regenerative agriculture is increasingly being pulled into systems that demand proof.

Advances in satellite imagery now allow companies to confirm whether cover crops are planted and crop rotations diversified. Soil sampling protocols are becoming more standardized, enabling year-over-year tracking of organic matter. Digital agronomic platforms use artificial intelligence to model nutrient flows and water retention patterns.

At the same time, sustainability reporting frameworks require companies to account for Scope 3 emissions, the indirect emissions embedded in agricultural supply chains, drawing soil practices directly into formal climate disclosures.

In other words, regenerative agriculture is (finally) being translated into data.

When soil organic matter is tracked over time, when water infiltration rates are measured, and when carbon metrics are tied to financial filings, regenerative practices shift from philosophy to performance indicator. Data opens the door to sustainability-linked loans, carbon markets, and supply contracts tied to environmental outcomes. It also invites scrutiny, which may ultimately strengthen credibility.

Measurement does not eliminate uncertainty. Soil systems remain complex, shaped by weather variability, crop type, and regional conditions. But measurement narrows subjectivity. It reduces the distance between marketing claim and field-level reality, and that narrowing may be what allows regenerative agriculture to scale beyond aspiration.

The Farmer Perspective

For farmers, transitioning practices is not simply an environmental decision; it is an economic one. Margins in commodity agriculture are often tight, and even modest yield variability can have financial consequences. Cover crops require seed costs and management time. Reduced tillage may require new equipment or altered weed management strategies. Integrating livestock into crop systems demands infrastructure many grain farmers no longer have.

Without financial support, experimentation carries risk. “Historically, when we’ve transitioned farms, we’ve just eaten those losses annually,” says Matt Fitzgerald of Fitzgerald Organics in Minnesota, describing the financial strain of cover crop and regenerative transition before securing multi-year financing support. “Getting funding to transition to regenerative practices can be a challenge for farms of all sizes, but it’s a necessity if we want to have abundant harvests for generations to come.”

Corporate regenerative programs often attempt to address this through multi-year contracts, cost-sharing arrangements, or technical assistance partnerships. By offsetting early transition expenses and offering longer-term purchasing stability, companies reduce the financial uncertainty farmers face.

Still, adoption will not look identical across all farm sizes or regions. Large operations may integrate practices differently than smaller diversified farms. Climate variability adds another layer of complexity. The transition to regenerative systems is gradual and context-dependent, not instantaneous.

What This Means for American Farmland

If regenerative practices scale meaningfully, the long-term implications for farmland could be substantial. Soils with higher organic matter content typically retain water more effectively, which can reduce vulnerability during drought conditions. Improved soil structure may decrease erosion and runoff. Reduced reliance on certain inputs could alter cost structures over time.

However, regenerative adoption does not guarantee uniform outcomes. Yield impacts vary by crop and region. Carbon sequestration rates depend on climate, soil type, and management consistency. Policymakers and researchers continue to debate how best to quantify long-term soil carbon permanence.

What appears increasingly clear is that farmland management is entering a data-intensive era. Soil is no longer merely a substrate for crop production; it is becoming an asset class evaluated for resilience and climate performance.

The Consumer Role Going Forward

For you, as our reader, the implications may be subtle but meaningful. Instead of relying solely on niche regenerative brands, mainstream packaged foods could increasingly incorporate ingredients sourced from farms using soil-health-focused practices. Sustainability becomes embedded upstream rather than displayed exclusively on boutique labels.

This shift may not dramatically change grocery store aesthetics overnight. But it suggests a movement from consumer-driven pressure toward supply-chain-driven reform.

Consumers will still influence demand. Yet the mass of change may expand beyond the checkout line to the contract negotiation table.

For years, regenerative agriculture hovered between idealism and ambiguity. It promised healthier soils and more resilient ecosystems but struggled with definitional clarity and scalable infrastructure. If major food companies continue tying financial incentives to measurable soil outcomes, regenerative agriculture may move from aspiration to operational standard. Data, not just narrative, will determine its credibility.

Whether this moment represents genuine transformation or an incremental evolution remains to be seen. Agriculture has always adapted slowly, shaped by weather, economics, and policy. But when procurement contracts begin valuing soil health alongside yield, the system’s incentives shift.

Regenerative agriculture may not be a silver bullet. It may not reverse decades of soil degradation overnight. Yet the convergence of corporate capital, scientific measurement, and farmer partnership suggests that something more structural than a marketing trend is unfolding.

Posted on

Fun with Corn! The Shocking Scale of Global Crops

To My Dirt to Dinner readers:

Combine a dank, cold winter with an aging, housebound man, and you most likely will see some odd behavior. Some very odd behavior.

In my case, that behavior is a reversion to an old, old habit, ingrained in me over many long years of following agriculture. God help me, but I actually read some of the reports and studies produced by our government about different aspects of our food system.

Well, somebody has to do it.  Otherwise, we’re wasting an awful lot of tax dollars.

Our marvelous Department of Agriculture produces some amazing reports, based upon reams and reams of data its minions collect regularly.  People like me actually look forward to seeing many of them. They keep nerds comme moi occupied and up to date on how much food we produce, how much we sell, how much we store, and so on. They help us see how we’re doing in providing the food security that we all want.

Mostly, the reports and data tell us we’re doing a pretty darn good job of producing enough food to feed the 8.3 billion people walking the earth today. Maybe that’s all the average person really needs to know from the USDA reports. Maybe that, and a subtle reminder about the incredible productivity and commitment of farmers and ranchers here in the United States – and around the world, for that matter.

I won’t bore you, my loyal readers, with another of my dry, dusty deep dives into planted acreage, base acres, yield trends, reserve stocks and on and on and on. But when USDA’s Global Production Report hit the streets a few days back, it struck me that we might sit back as Average Joes and Janes and just marvel at the reality behind those incredible numbers.

Serious students of agriculture today talk at length about the abundance of grains and oilseeds, here in the United States and on a global scale. And well they should.  We’re reaping the benefits – and the costs – that come from farmers and ranchers doing their jobs all too well.

The latest USDA report, for example, puts 2025-26 projected global corn production at an astounding 1,295 million metric tons. The United States alone accounts for 432 million metric tons. USDA’s report confirms that we continue to see record crop after record crop in recent years.

Why do we grow so much?  Because we need it.

Sounds like great news, right?  After all, corn is a cornerstone commodity – a crop absolutely essential to our modern food system. Corn also contributes to our energy needs as a key stock in ethanol production. It even winds up in things made of plastic and the cosmetics that keep me looking good even into my 70s.

But by far and away, corn is vital to feeding humans and animals. These veritable mountains of grain and oilseeds mostly go into feeding the 227 pounds of red meat and poultry each American eats every single year. Just in the U.S. alone, we process approximately 32 million cattle, 9 billion chickens, and 140 million hogs. And around the world, 40% of both U.S. corn and soybeans get exported to feed the 1.5 billion pigs, 332 million cattle, and 74 billion chickens. These figures don’t even account for the additional amounts required to feed the chicks, calves, and piglets until they are fully grown.

Ditto for soybeans. As our nation’s most valuable agricultural crop, soybeans provide the foundation for countless animal feeds and a host of human food products. Soybean meal is highly sought after around the world to feed expanding animal herds and flocks. Soybean oil is a cooking staple. Soy milk and tofu depend upon the humble soybean to even exist. And like their corn brothers and sisters, soybean farmers help provide key stocks for biodiesel, plastics and a multitude of other purposes.

It’s little wonder, then, that we see a global soybean crop for 2025-25 of nearly 427 million metric tons. Brazil will contribute about 180 million metric tons of that total.  The United States will kick in another 116 million metric tons. Yes, that also is another record year of global production. The world needs the humble soybean, and farmers almost everywhere are anxious to provide them.

But when does too much of a good thing become a problem?  Ask any corn farmer today for an answer.

When supplies exceed demand, economic trouble follows close behind. USDA makes one point abundantly clear – we are awash in some of our most important cornerstone commodities, like corn and soybeans.

Because of oversupply, farmers have to fight ever harder for foreign markets, often against intense and growing competition from other farmers around the world.  Energy policies become ever more important. Government assistance in any and all forms begins to play a role in market dynamics. For many, off-farm income becomes an increasingly important part of economic survival.

In farming circles, there’s an old, old saying: the cure for low prices is low prices.

That is, if the price available in the marketplace falls too far, farmers turn to other crops, helping restore a closer balance in supply and demand over time. The same government and private market outlook reports talk optimistically of a tightening in corn markets, as hungry countries such as China and prosperous Asian nations step up imports of corn and other key commodities.

But the follow-up question remains critical within the farming community, too: When? How long before that balance is restored, and how do I survive economically in the meanwhile? After all, Brazil and other highly productive nations are competing aggressively to capture any growth in demand. My banker apparently doesn’t speak Spanish. Manana doesn’t seem to satisfy him when he asks for my operating loan payment.

That’s enough half-way serious thinking in agro-economics. The point is, the over-supply issue is one big, big reason why so many in the agricultural community continue to pay such close attention to the USDA reports. We’re all looking for signs that some kind of balance in supply and demand is emerging…that there’s real and timely hope somewhere down the road for the stronger prices farmers need to remain profitable.  Profits are essential if farmers are to stay in the business of providing us with the food (and energy and other consumer products) we need every day.

Agricultural data in gee-whiz terms

To appreciate just how serious all this is, let’s stick with corn as an example of just how big the numbers really are. The numbers all strike me as what I call “gee whiz” facts – simple information, expressed in genuine, everyday language, that gets my attention and makes me stop and think, even for just a moment, about what those numbers really are trying to tell me.

What does 1.3 billion metric tons of corn actually look like?  How do I begin to grasp the enormity of the number?

Fans of Mike Myers and the Austin Powers movies probably would be more inclined to look at those numbers for “S & G” purposes.  If you get that, enough said.  If you don’t, just move on anyway to what follows.  Let’s call it: Fun With Corn.

Just how much corn is 1.295 billion metric tons?

Okay, buckle up for the answer to that question. It will boggle anyone’s mind. After all, feeding and supplying essential products to a world of humans and animals is big, big job.

Imagine the largest structure you can. I immediately thought of the old Louisiana Superdome (now Caesar’s Superdome) – at 3.3 million cubic feet, the largest domed structure in the world.  It boasts a diameter of 680 feet – or more that two football fields.

Now the math, simplified.  A metric ton of corn is about 40 cubic feet. (Okay, 39.37 for you pedantics.) That means it would take 83,820 metric tons of corn to fill the Superdome.  So, we would need about 5,000 Superdomes (okay, 5,183) just to store U.S. corn production…and 15,460 Superdomes to store the world’s annual corn production.

Now let’s take it down to the agriculture world.

A typical on-farm storage silo can hold up to 4,000 tons, although most probably would be a good bit smaller.  Mason City, Iowa, boasts a behemoth grain bin 156 feet high and 165 across, holding 2.2 million bushels, or 55,800 metric tons of corn.  Its builders call it the largest grain bin in the world.

Again, do the math.  We would need about 7,750 of these giant facilities to hold the U.S. corn crop – and over 23,000 to hold the global corn crop.

Or think about the ships needed to handle just the amount of the corn crop that the United States exports.

We’re on track to export a record 83.5 million metric tons of U.S. corn in the coming marketing year, or about 20 percent of total production.

Panamax class ocean-going vessels carry 60,000 to 80,000 deadweight tons. Even assuming we use the top end figure, we would need over 1,000 such vessels to handle U.S. corn exports alone. The average Panamax class vessel will be a touch under 1,000 feet long (965 feet), so the nose-to-tail line of the vessels needed to handle all U.S. corn exports would stretch almost 190 miles – the distance from Los Angeles to Las Vegas.

Gee whiz.

How much corn is that per person?

Now let’s get personal. Imagine you suddenly had all your share of the corn crop delivered to your front door.  The math says every American man, woman and child would have an equal share of the U.S corn crop of 1.242 metric tons, or roughly 40 bushels, equal to 2,240 pounds in weight.

Imagine Grandma dragging her ton of corn off the front porch and into the house.

What could you do with it? You could use it for food, or maybe some other household purpose. But you can eat only so much corn on the cob or creamed corn before growing very, very tired of it.  And besides, the vast majority of our corn is feed corn, not food corn.

So the better option might be to sell it and save the money, or use it to buy something you really want.

USDA places the farm-gate price for corn at $4.10 per bushel. So what do you want to do with your $164, if you sell?  Maybe 56 gallons of regular gas? Or 25 pounds of hamburger?  How about three weighted hula hoops for exercise, and a low-fat latte to go with them?  It’s your call.

How many different ways is corn used?

Other than food and feed, how do I use corn every day? Or do I simply leave well enough alone and allow corn to work its wonders for my life on its own?

God bless the fine people at the Nebraska Corn Board.  They have compiled an amazing list of various ways corn is used today.  Marvel at just some of them:

  • Toilet paper
  • Drywall
  • Toothpaste
  • Crayons
  • Diapers
  • Spark plugs *
  • Hand soap & sanitizer
  • Aspirin
  • Rubber tires
  • Fireworks
* Corn has a high melting point, making it possible to fashion it into a ceramic-like material  that insulates spark plugs from intense heat. Who knew?

Corn is money – really.

References to corn as a form of currency or barter date far, far back – even to The Bible.

“Corn money” has been a common term used to describe the use of corn as a unit of currency – a mechanism for buying and selling goods. Why? Because in early, largely agrarian-based societies, corn was common and universally used and valued. Modern commodity exchanges essentially continue the association – providing an updated value for corn and other commodities important to society.

But in today’s modern world, cash and credit cards have proven to be easier to carry around than sacks of corn.

Why do we call things “corny”?

Merriam Webster defines “corny” first as “mawkishly old-fashioned; tiresome, simple and sentimental.  The word in connection with actual corn is a secondary meaning.

The etymology of corny is described as follows:

  • It’s been a term of derision only since the 1930s, when something that was “corny” or “cornfed” or “on the cob” was rustic, countrified, old-fashioned, or behind the times – and hence trite or hackneyed.
  • It first was used by jazz musicians, who called a style of playing “corny” if it was outmoded or worn out.

See if that doesn’t make you also wonder about how and why we use the word “cheesy.” Maybe if it stays cold and rainy, I’ll make that the subject of my next letter.

By the way, feel free to send me your favorite corny joke. I use ‘em all the time and always look for new ones.

Posted on

Processed Foods: Healthy or Harmful?

Click Play to listen to our generated podcast. Access our full podcast library here. 

 

If you’ve read nutrition headlines lately, you’ve probably seen “ultra-processed foods” thrown around with increasing urgency, most likely framed as the dietary villain of our era.

And it’s easy to point a finger at it: the CDC recently reported that more than 50% of calories consumed by Americans come from ultra-processed foods (UPFs). And making matters worse? Kids aged 18 and under consume even more, with almost 70% of their daily calories from UPFs.

But what does “UPF” really mean? How does it differ from regular or minimally processed foods? And more importantly, how do these varying levels of processed foods fit in a modern food system where convenience, safety, shelf life, and affordability matter so much to all of us?

Defining Food Processing

Let’s start with a quick reality check: almost all food is processed in some way.

Processing simply means altering a food from its original state. This includes freezing, drying, pasteurizing, fermenting, milling, cooking…even washing.

Whether it’s organic bagged spinach, canned tomatoes, or frozen blueberries from a supermarket or farmers’ market, these products are all indeed processed.

Before the advent of convenience foods, like potato chips and candy bars, food was processed to ensure safety and stability.

Specifically, processing helps reduce pathogens, extend shelf life, and enhance digestibility and nutrient absorption, making these practices a critical milestone for public health.

For instance, processing milk via pasteurization dramatically reduced milk-borne illness in the early 20th century and remains one of the most important food safety advances in public health. And canning expanded food access and strengthened global food security, especially during World War I.

And food processing isn’t a recent innovation…it’s been around for thousands of years.

We’ve ground grains into flour, fermented milk into cheese and yogurt, dried meats, pickled vegetables, and pressed olives into oil to provide a safe food supply, all without refrigeration or modern sanitation.

The Food Processing Continuum

Where the conversation becomes more nuanced is in the distinction between the various degrees of food processing. To dig into this further, we’re going to use the NOVA classification system, a research framework that groups foods based on how much industrial processing they undergo.

Developed by Brazilian nutrition scientist Carlos Monteiro and his colleagues at the University of São Paulo, the NOVA system sorts foods into four tiers: minimally processed, processed ingredients, processed foods, and ultra-processed products. It’s now widely used in public-health studies examining how heavily processed diets relate to chronic disease risk.

So, let’s go into each tier a little more:

  • Unprocessed and minimally processed foods are closest to their natural form: whole meats, washed produce, frozen vegetables, eggs, plain yogurt, and raw nuts. Processing here mainly preserves freshness and safety.
  • Processed culinary ingredients are used in combination with other foods to improve flavor, shelf life or nutrient absorption: oils, butter, lard, sugar, and salt. When used carefully, these ingredients create nutritionally balanced meals.
  • Processed foods move further along the spectrum but still look like the original food source: cheeses, freshly baked breads, tinned seafood, plain oatmeal, and unsweetened plant milks. These foods are combined with additional ingredients, additives, or refining steps for taste and convenience.
  • Ultra-processed foods (UPFs), also known as highly processed foods, are foods created from a distinct formulation of ingredients, in which the end product does not naturally resemble its original food sources. UPFs include soda, shelf-stable treats, instant noodles, sweetened oatmeal,  potato chips, and ready-to-eat meals. These products are typically made from refined substances extracted from foods (oils, starches and flours, protein isolates) plus additives like emulsifiers, stabilizers, colorings, and flavor enhancers and sweeteners (ingredients not commonly found in culinary settings) to make them more appealing.

Findings on UPFs & Dietary Habits

Though the bad-for-you food target seems to blur across all processed foods, the focal point of recent research is set on ultra-processed foods. These UPF products are optimized combinations of sugar, fat, salt, and texture that have been shown to drive overconsumption.

A growing body of epidemiological research links high intake of ultra-processed foods with chronic disease risk. A major review summarized by Stanford Medicine found convincing evidence that diets high in UPFs are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular mortality, obesity, Type 2 diabetes, anxiety, and depression.

Furthermore, the American Heart Association, the National Institute of Health, and other researchers have recently linked overconsumption of UPFs to cardiometabolic disease and all-cause mortality.

But can we pin these illnesses solely on UPFs? Or can we find a place for these products in our diets, if we choose?

Diets anchored in whole or minimally processed foods, complemented by strategically used processed items, consistently correlate with better long-term health outcomes.

Rather than framing the issue as ultra-processed vs. minimally processed, nutrition scientists have found that our overall dietary patterns drive long-term outcomes, not a single type of food. Even Stanford researchers stress that occasional consumption of ultra-processed foods isn’t what drives risk…chronic overreliance is.

Processing Food for Purpose

It’s easy to focus on the risks in today’s food headlines, but processing has also played a powerful role in protecting public health and expanding access to nutrition. In fact, many processed and highly processed foods provide real benefits, as emphasized by the FAO:

  • Food safety: Pasteurization and sterilization prevent microbial illness.
  • Food access: Shelf-stable foods improve food security and disaster readiness.
  • Nutrition delivery: Fortified cereals and enriched grains address nutrient gaps.
  • Medical nutrition: Meal replacements and protein formulas support patients and aging populations.

There are practical considerations, too. Beyond the science, there’s real life. Most of us are juggling work, school schedules, budgets, and limited time…these realities shape what ends up on the dinner table. And using processed food products to manage all these competing needs can be an effective way to create nutrient-dense meals for your family. For instance:

  • Frozen vegetables can be more nutritious than fresh produce that spoils.
  • Rinsed canned beans can make high-fiber and high-protein diets more accessible.
  • Nutrient-dense packaged foods, like whole-grain pasta and tomato sauce, can reduce preparation barriers that might otherwise lead to skipped meals or reliance on fast food.

The Bigger Reset

The larger takeaway from the processed foods research is less about eliminating UPFs and more about recalibrating your current food choices. So rather than eliminating processed foods altogether, most experts recommend being aware of your consumption and making meaningful swaps over time, so your new dietary habits stick.

Like the new dietary food pyramid that encourages us to consume whole foods, experts advise us to choose veggies and fruits; processed whole grains; nuts, seeds, and legumes; and minimally processed proteins as the foundation for a healthy diet. UPFs like sugary drinks, packaged snacks and sweets, and processed meats should be reduced over time.

So, if UPFs currently comprise half of your caloric intake, strive to split those calories with lesser processed items. For instance, if you drink two sodas a day, consider substituting one of those sodas with seltzer and a splash of fresh fruit juice.

So instead of asking, “Is this ultra-processed?”

A more useful question might be, “What ingredients and nutrients are in this product? And how often is it on my plate?”

Processing itself is not the villain – it is a tool. Processing can preserve nutrients…or dilute them. It can improve safety…or introduce excess sugar, sodium, and additives. Its impact depends on how it’s used within our broader food system and our daily eating habits.

Posted on

From Florida Fields to Custom Cuts

At just 17, Gabe Mitchell is building a vertically integrated beef business, raising cattle from birth to butcher, and selling safe, USDA-inspected custom beef directly to families in his community.

His story is a masterclass in resilience, stewardship, and agricultural grit.

“I was lucky to be born into the agriculture industry,” Gabe tells us. Raised on his family’s Trenton, Florida cattle farm, agriculture wasn’t just a job—it was a way of life.

His earliest memories are of feeding hay, checking water troughs, and helping with fence repairs alongside his parents, both multigenerational farmers themselves.

But his interest didn’t stop at tradition. Over time, Gabe found his own rhythm in the industry. “I can’t imagine not having cattle,” he says. “It’s just part of who I am.”

From County Fair to Custom Beef Sales

Gabe’s FFA supervised agricultural experience (SAE) began in 2017 with daily chores and gradually evolved into a full-fledged business.

What started as a local show steer project at the county fair has since morphed into a custom beef enterprise—offering USDA-inspected, traceable beef directly to Florida families who want to know where their food comes from.

“The turning point came when I realized buyers at the fair couldn’t actually take home the meat from the steers they supported,” Gabe recalls. “Once the fair allowed us to buy back our own animals, I saw a real opportunity. I started feeding out steers from my herd specifically for custom beef.”

As a young entrepreneur, one of Gabe’s biggest challenges was earning credibility.

“I had to prove to experienced ranchers that my bulls and heifers had solid genetics and longevity,” he explains. “At first, I was nervous talking to buyers. But after a few years and some strong production records, I gained their trust.”

He also faced the usual hurdles of weather, feed costs, and market unpredictability—but leaned on what he calls his “SAE mindset” to adapt and stay focused.

Once Gabe found his footing, word of mouth spread fast. Within a year, he no longer struggled to find buyers. Today, Gabe manages every step—from breeding and artificial insemination to feed, health, and final USDA harvest.

Safe, Wholesome Beef, from Start to Finish

One of Gabe’s greatest assets? His meticulous attention to detail.

“I’ve learned how critical recordkeeping is in evaluating animals for breeding readiness,” he explains. “You have to track ages, maturity rates, and structural soundness—especially if you want bulls to last in the field and keep your calving window tight.”

He’s also adopted cutting-edge tools like Expected Progeny Differences to track and improve herd genetics. He regularly uses artificial insemination with sexed semen to strategically increase the number of bull calves he can raise for beef sales.

In a market saturated with labels and claims, Gabe knows trust is everything.

“I make sure my customers are confident in the beef I raise,” he says. Gabe is Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) certified and has renewed the training multiple times to stay current. “It covers everything from administering vaccines correctly to biosecurity protocols.”

When asked what a typical day looks like, Gabe laughs: “There isn’t one.”

His calendar revolves around the rhythm of the seasons:

  • Fall: Calving season begins; newborns are tagged and tracked.
  • Winter: Hay and molasses supplement feed; cows are prepped for breeding.
  • Spring: Vaccinations, fly control, and weaning; some calves begin creep-feeding.
  • Summer: Hay baling, equipment maintenance, and prepping the next herd for market.

But no matter the season, his steers are fed twice daily and closely monitored for health, feed efficiency, and weight gain. All steers are finished on-farm and processed under full USDA inspection, ensuring both safety and traceability.

Family, Mentorship, and the Next Generation

Behind Gabe’s success stands a strong network of mentors—starting with his parents.

“They gave me land, equipment, and access to transportation before I could even drive,” he says. “I worked for it, but I never would’ve had the opportunity without them.”

Gabe also credits his FFA advisors. His middle school advisor, Mrs. Rucker, “made FFA fun,” while his high school advisor—his mom—encouraged him to pursue awards, team competitions, and officer roles that built his confidence and sharpened his business skills.

“Do something you love or are interested in. Don’t be afraid to make mistakes, to ask for help, or to change your SAE. You’ll grow along the way—but the support of your family or ag teacher is key.”

A Welded Future: From Cattle to Custom Fabrication

Gabe’s hands-on experience has sparked another entrepreneurial passion: welding and fabrication. He’s currently working full-time with Lee Mechanical to hone his craft and plans to enroll in a technical college this spring to earn welding certifications and a CDL license.

“My goal is to open my own welding and fabrication business,” he says, “especially focused on designing livestock equipment for local farms.”

But his ties to beef production aren’t going anywhere. “I’ll always keep a small herd and continue raising custom beef.”

Gabe Mitchell is more than a rancher—he’s a rising force in American agriculture. By blending old-school work ethic with modern business savvy, Gabe is proving that the future of food is local, transparent, and proudly youth-led. Whether he’s raising a steer or welding a custom cattle chute, he’s helping build a food system rooted in trust, skill, and stewardship.

And for Florida families who want beef with a story behind it—he’s got them covered.

Posted on

Trade Deals Threaten U.S. Ag Gains

Click Play to listen to our generated podcast. Access our full podcast library here.

 

As the old saying goes, one hand washes the other.

That familiar bromide might be the best starting point in trying to understand what’s going on with the trade talks between the United States and the European Union. Trade between two of the largest and most significant economic entities in the world added up to 1.5 trillion euros in 2024. That is one-third of all global trade, worth about 43 percent of global domestic product.

Trade Deal Brings Everyone to the Table

This dynamic represents the largest bilateral trade and investment relationship on the planet – and a critical pillar of both entities overall economic health. The United States is the EU’s top export market and trails only China as its largest import source.

The trade and investment relationship is far from some kind of abstract, egg-head issue. Virtually every segment of our economy has a stake in that bilateral trade – including the full spectrum of American food and agricultural system.

Whether we recognize it or not, consumers depend on healthy trade as a cornerstone of our abundance and diversity of food.

Trade also provides the markets that keep the American farmer and rancher alive, thriving and capable of meeting ever-expanding consumer food needs.  In simple terms, healthy trade equals greater overall food security.

Trade Imbalance Sources

The EU is the third-largest agricultural exporter to the U.S., averaging $32.9 billion in sales annually over the past five years. Meanwhile, the U.S. exported about $13 billion in agricultural products to the EU in 2024.

The crux of the trade negotiations: the U.S imports nearly three times more agricultural products from Europe than Europe imports from the U.S.

The EU boasts a trade surplus of about $185 billion in goods but posts a trade deficit of $129 billion in services. The European Commission cites its own figures that place the EU’s advantage in the trade relationship at $57 billion in 2023, or roughly 3 percent of the overall value of bilateral trade.

From the U.S. perspective, as expressed by President Donald Trump, the “big idea” behind the trade initiative is to bring better balance to the overall trade relationship.  The U.S. deficit in agricultural trade was among the most commonly cited targets for U.S. negotiators.

The top five U.S. agricultural exports to the EU by value are soybeans, almonds, pistachios, whiskies, and food preparation products, totalling $521 million. The U.S. imports European wine, cheese, olive oil, pasta, chocolate, and spirits at a much larger clip.

Think of it this way: the wine aisle at your local grocery store tells much of the story. Those bottles of French Bordeaux, Italian Chianti, and Spanish Rioja flow freely into the U.S. market, while American pork, beef, and dairy face significant barriers getting into Europe.

U.S.-EU TRADE FACTS & FIGURES

  • Trade in agricultural and ag-related products between the U.S. and the EU reached $44 billion in 2023, making the EU the fourth largest export market for U.S. agriculture.
  • Soybeans top the list of U.S. products exported to the EU, worth roughly $2.6 billion.  The American Soybean Association notes that the EU is our second largest soybean export market, taking about 11 percent of our shipments abroad. (China remains the runaway top market, taking 54 percent.)
  • Other top exports to the EU include nuts, whiskies and food preparations.
  • Overall, the United States runs an agricultural trade deficit with the EU. The International Trade Administration placed the 2022 deficit at $17.6 billion — and notes that it has been in deficit for “more than 20 years.”

For greater insights into the numbers for U.S.-EU trade and the details of the trade agreement framework, click on these links from the European American Chamber of Commerce, U.S. International Trade Administration, European Council, USDA’s Economic Research Service, and U.S. Congress Tariffs & Trade Framework Agreement

So when the United States and the European Union last summer announced significant progress on a major trade agreement designed to spur future growth in the relationship, people paid attention. The proposed pact is a massive piece of negotiating achievement, with huge potential gains for both sides in the deal – but especially for the United States.

Defining Framework Components

The “framework” for The Cooperation Agreement on Reciprocal, Fair and Balanced Trade announced on July 27, 2025, promises to expand market access in the EU for U.S. goods and services.

Here is where they ended up:

  1. 15% tariff ceiling on EU goods entering the U.S.
  2. Industries exempt include airplane and airplane parts; pharmaceuticals and ingredients; semiconductors; and critical natural resources
  3. Steel and aluminum have a 50% tariff, but still being negotiated
  4. EU auto exports to the US will be 15%
  5. EU will eliminate or reduce tariffs on many US industrial goods; it will also suspend retaliatory tariffs for six months
  6. EU will purchase $600b in American energy and defense products; aircraft and aircraft parts

While many EU political leaders have voiced concerns about an increased cost of doing business with the United States, the majority have preferred to view the potential agreement as a sign of increasing stability and predictability in overall bilateral relations.

The framework announcement clearly represents a first step in a much larger process of trade liberalization. Lofty ambitions and imprecise goals don’t make up hard agreements. But optimists on both sides of the Atlantic rushed to sing the praises of an historic first step in achieving a more normal relationship between the U.S. and the EU.

What The U.S. Farmer Stands to Gain

Predictably, political figures weren’t the only ones using optimistic language. U.S agricultural interests have been at the forefront of that expression of hope.

Meat and meat packaging exports from the United States to Europe peaked in 2008 at about $2.8 billion.

But increasing restrictions on use of antibiotics and growth hormones, coupled with increasingly stringent animal welfare standards across Europe have fueled a steady decline in U.S. meat sales into the EU.

U.S. Meat Export Federation’s president and CEO Dan Halstrom explained what’s at stake for his members.

Existing EU barriers have made the United States a net importer of EU meat, he noted.  U.S. beef exports reached about $245 million in 2024, with imports of EU red meat (notably pork) came in at just under $700 million. “Addressing the EU’s tariff and nontariff barriers is essential to enabling U.S. export growth.”

Halstrom’s comments underplay the potential for gain in the U.S. share of EU imported beef. 

New EU regulations set strict standards and limits on imports from countries that  practice deforestation. Brazil provides about one-quarter of EU beef imports. Combined with other South American providers such as Argentina and Uruguay, the EU imports over half its beef from this area.

EU purchases of U.S. energy – including ethanol – would total $750 billion by 2028, with an additional $600 billion of EU investment in the United States. Such talk helped create optimism for a further expansion of demand for corn and other source material for the renewable fuel industry.  The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) points out that the EU has been a major market in recent years, ranking third with 197 million gallons imported last year and up 54% over 2023.

The National Corn Growers Association echoed the importance of any sign of an increase in corn demand.  With a record corn crop just announced and surplus stocks of corn growing, corn farmers have a huge stake in any agreement that could boost corn demand.

“Corn growers are already marketing their corn for extremely low corn prices, and this massive projected corn supply without market-based solutions to increasing corn demand is already causing corn prices to fall further.”

– Kenneth Hartman Jr., NCGA President and Illinois farmer

Where Does the Agreement Stand Today? (But before we cut the cake…)

The initial EU reaction could be best described as “cautiously optimistic,” as national leaders from the 27 EU member countries weighed in the differing degrees of enthusiasm and support for the deal.

Comments such as “positive” and “good, if not perfect” were typical.  “The best we could get under very difficult circumstances,” said EU Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic.

Both the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union must give approval, and the U.S. Congress is expected to weigh in as the deal moves closer to actual implementation.

Unfortunately, the promise of sunny skies in the U.S.-EU trade relationship have darkened in recent weeks.

No one is yet willing to say the deal is dead. But the recent tension between the United States and the EU over President Trump’s plans to acquire Greenland has slowed the march to movement beyond a trade ”framework.”

Suspicion turned to outright anger in some European quarters when President Trump ramped up his claims to Greenland as a critical element of U.S national security.  Combined with threats from Washington of higher tariffs, the issue exploded on the global political stage.

European Parliament members immediately reacted by cancelling any further consideration of the trade deal, effectively putting the agreement in limbo.  But after President Trump met with European leaders representing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and announced a framework for resolving the Greenland dispute, cooler heads began to resurface – even if this latest “framework” was decidedly lacking in detail.

Few European politicians are inclined to predict what comes next, or when deliberations on the deal may resume.  However, Bloomberg has reported comments from European Parliament President Roberta Metsola indicating that Trump’s reversal in Greenland was sufficient to justify resuming the ratification process.

Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic recognize the enormous value of a balanced, healthy trade relationship. The United States and the EU need each other, as both providers and customers for some of the staples of our modern diets. One hand does indeed wash the other – even if we occasionally forget just how important clean hands are.

Posted on

Transcript: Raw Milk – Science vs. Wellness Culture

Read the original post here and access our full podcast library here. 

 

Today we are wading into some very milky waters. And I mean that quite literally.

If you’ve been scrolling through Instagram reels or listening to certain wellness podcasts, you’ve probably noticed it: milk is having a moment, but not the plastic gallon jug of 2% you buy at the store. We are talking about raw milk.

It really is everywhere. It’s having this incredibly powerful almost cultural comeback. It’s gone from this, you know, niche farm product to a full-blown wellness status symbol.

Exactly. It’s being framed as this like ancestral superfood. People call it clean, immune boosting. Liquid gold. There’s this whole narrative that it’s more real or alive than what we grew up with. But then you flip the coin and you have public health officials waving these massive red flags talking about bacteria, kidney failure, hospitalizations.

It’s a total polarization of the dairy aisle. And just to ground this in some reality, we’re not talking about a tiny fringe group anymore. The numbers are actually pretty surprising. About 4.4% of US adults report drinking raw milk at least once a year.

That sounds small until you think about the size of the country. Right? You do the math and that is roughly 11 million people.

That’s 11 million people stepping outside the conventional food safety system for something the FDA and CDC have warned against for decades.

So that’s our mission for this deep dive. We’re not here to shame anyone’s grocery list. We are going to look at what the science actually says. We’ve pulled CDC data, nutritional studies, consumer surveys. We want to answer the big question. Is raw milk a wellness shortcut or is it a legitimate health risk.

And to do that, we have to peel back the layers. We need to look at the nutritional myths, you know, what’s actually in the glass, right? We need to look at the reality of even the cleanest farms, the microbiology of the barn, and we also need to clear up the confusion around homogenization because that gets lumped in here, too.

Okay, let’s unpack this. I want to start with the why because trends like this don’t just happen in a vacuum. Why now?

Well, psychologically, it makes perfect sense. We are living in an era with a profound and frankly earned distrust of overprocessing.

People look at the industrial food system and they feel skeptical. They want transparency. They want to know the farmer’s name. It’s a nostalgia for simpler systems.

I get that. I totally get the appeal of holding a heavy glass bottle with the cream on top and feeling like it came from a cow, not a factory. It feels more honest.

Precisely. It taps into that desire for autonomy. But the problem starts when that emotional connection overrides the uh biological reality. And the argument usually starts with nutrition. The claim is that pasteurization creates dead food.

I hear this all the time. The idea is that heating the milk just destroys all the good stuff, the vitamins, the enzymes, and you’re just left with white water.

It sounds convincing, I know. But when researchers actually look at raw versus pasteurized milk side by side, the differences are, well, they’re minimal.

Really? So, the heat doesn’t just nuke all the nutrients..not the ones you’re drinking milk for.

Let’s talk protein and calcium. The main reasons we consume dairy. Both are incredibly heat stable. Pasteurization does not dene the proteins in a way that affects their value and it certainly doesn’t destroy calcium.

Okay, so the building blocks are safe. What about the more delicate stuff like vitamins?

So there is a tiny grain of truth here which is how these myths survive. Pasteurization does cause a small loss in heat sensitive vitamins, specifically vitamin C.

Vitamin C. But wait, do we even drink milk for vitamin C? Definitely do not. I mean, milk is not a major source of it at all. You’d have to drink gallons of raw milk to get the vitamin C in one orange.

Ah, it’s a great way to put it. So, the nutritional upside is tiny and I guess uncertain.

Exactly. The nutritional profile is nearly the same. You are not missing out on a treasure trove of nutrients.

But what about enzymes? That’s the other big buzzword. Raw milk has enzymes like lactase to help you digest it.

Ah, yes. This is a classic piece of pseudocience. It sounds logical. But it fails the biology test. Cows produce enzymes for calves, not for humans. And specifically on lactase, the enzyme you need for lactose cows do not secrete lactase into their milk.

Wait, really? So there’s no lactase in raw milk to begin with.

None to speak of. It’s produced in the gut of the mammal drinking the milk.

So if you’re lactose intolerant, raw milk does not magically fix the problem. The lactose is still there.

So if I’m drinking raw milk for extra protein or calcium or these magic enzymes, I’m not really getting a leg up.

The nutrition is nearly identical, but the risk profile that is entirely different. And this is where we have to shift from wellness preferences to, you know, biological hazards.

Let’s transition to that risk because this is where the debate gets heated. But first, a quick refresher. What exactly is pasteurization?

Well, it was introduced in the 1860s, and it’s important to remember why. Back then, milk was a leading cause of illness and death, especially in children.

It was called white poison, right?

In some cities, yes. It was a vector for tuberculosis, typhoid, diphtheria…a huge public health crisis. Pasteurization was a survival mechanism.

So what is it?

It is simply heating milk briefly to a specific temperature to kill the bad bacteria. That’s it. No chemicals, no additives, just heat.

Okay. So if it’s just heat, what’s the push back? I hear the clean farm argument a lot. You know, my farmer is careful, their cows are grass-fed and happy. There’s no risk.

This is probably the most dangerous myth because it assumes that because something looks beautiful and ethical, it must be sterile.

But it’s not.

Biologically, it can’t be. Even the healthiest, happiest cow on the planet can shed harmful bacteria in its manure.

And I guess milking happens right near, well, the back end of the cow.

Exactly. We’re talking salmonella, listeria. Contamination can happen despite the absolute best practices. You cannot sanitize a barn into an operating room.

So, a cow can look totally healthy.

Absolutely. Many of these pathogens live in the cow’s gut. But when they get into a human, it’s a very different story.

So, the clean farm might lower the risk, but it doesn’t get rid of it.

It’s like playing Russian roulette with fewer bullets. The consequence is still the same if you lose.

Let’s hit the numbers. What does the CDC data actually say?

Okay, so from 1998 through 2021, there were 228 confirmed outbreaks from raw milk. That’s almost 3,000 illnesses, 287 hospitalizations, and five deaths.

Okay, devil’s advocate here. Someone might hear 3,000 illnesses over 20 years and think that sounds rare.

And that’s a common thought, but you have to look at the risk ratio. Remember, raw milk is consumed by a very small part of the population, maybe 4 or 5%. Yet unpasteurized products cause about 95% of all milk related illnesses.

Whoa, 95% of the illnesses come from the 4% of the milk that’s raw?

Correct. That’s the stat that matters. Per serving, raw dairy products pose an over 800-fold greater risk of illness than pasteurized dairy.

And this is happening right now. In 2025, there was a big outbreak in Florida. At least 21 people got sick with E.coli and Campilobacter.

And I remember reading about that. It wasn’t just a stomach ache.

No, several people were hospitalized. And heartbreakingly, six of them were children. When a child gets E.coli, it can lead to a syndrome that causes kidney failure, which can be fatal.

This is why the American Academy of Pediatrics is so strict on this. It’s scary because so many people just don’t know this. They see the aesthetic farm videos and assume natural means harmless.

There’s a massive knowledge gap. A 2025 University of Pennsylvania survey showed only 47% of U.S. adults know that unpasteurized milk is less safe.

So over half the country is either unsure or thinks it’s totally safe.

We’ve covered nutrition and safety, but we have to talk about the gut. The claim is that raw milk is a probiotic, that it’s full of good bacteria. This is another instance of a kernel of truth getting distorted. Yes, raw milk has bacteria.

But are they probiotics?

Not in a controlled sense. Probiotics like in yogurt or kefir are specific standardized cultures chosen for their benefits. Raw milk is a wild ecosystem. It’s uncontrolled.

Bacterial roulette. You might get some harmless bacteria, sure, but you are just as likely to get the pathogens we talked about. It is not a reliable probiotic delivery system. What about the farm effect? The idea that farm kids have fewer allergies and people link it to raw milk.

This is a fascinating area of science, but it’s a classic case of correlation versus causation. Studies show farm kids often have fewer allergies. But is it the milk or is it the whole lifestyle? These kids are rolling in the dirt, breathing in barn dust. They’re exposed to a huge diversity of microbes.

So, it’s the environment, not just what they’re drinking.

Most researchers believe that’s the case. In fact, when they’ve tried to just give raw milk to kids in cities, they haven’t been able to duplicate the results. The milk alone doesn’t seem to be the magic bullet.

You can’t just bottle the farm lifestyle. Okay, one more term we have to tackle. Homogenization. It gets whispered in the same breath as pasteurization. And it sounds kind of intense.

It does sound a bit scary, homogenized. But it’s purely a mechanical process. It’s not a safety step like pasteurization.

So, what’s actually happening to the milk? Well, milk is fat floating in water. Left alone, the cream rises to the top. Homogenization is just pushing the milk through tiny holes at high speed to break down the fat droplets so they stay suspended.

So, it’s about texture. You don’t have to shake the bottle.

Exactly. It’s about consistency. So, the first glass tastes the same as the last.

Are there health implications? I’ve heard rumors linking it to heart disease.

Those are myths. They’re based on some very old theories from the ’70s. When we look at the high-quality evidence, the verdict is clear. Homogenization does not cause heart disease, diabetes, or allergies.

So, it’s not a health benefit to drink non-homogenized milk. It’s just a different mouth feel.

Correct. It’s purely sensory. Some people love that cream top, and that’s a perfectly valid culinary preference, but is not a health intervention.

Okay, so let’s bring this all together. We have listeners who might be at a farm stand feeling torn. They want that natural experience, maybe the cream top, but they don’t want to end up in the hospital. What’s the middle ground?

The good news is there is a perfect solution. You can look for pasteurized, non-homogenized milk. It’s been heated enough to kill the dangerous pathogens. It’s safe, but it has been homogenized. So, you still get that cream layer on top, that rich traditional texture.

It’s the best of both worlds, the taste and the aesthetic, but with the safety cap on. You get the sensory experience without gambling with your health.

And gambling seems to be the key word. The benefit of raw milk seem speculative or minimal, but the risks are very real and documented.

That’s the bottom line. Treating raw milk as a wellness shortcut ignores over a century of public health data. The risk/reward ratio just doesn’t make sense.

It seems like we can respect the desire for food that’s closer to its source while also respecting the science that keeps it safe.

Absolutely. We don’t have to choose between natural and safe. We just have to be smart about what those words actually mean.

Well, this has definitely cleared things up for me. And if I could leave the listener with one final thought: pasteurization is a public health success. It works so well that we’ve forgotten why we needed it. We don’t see children dying of milk tuberculosis anymore, right?

And because that danger has faded from our memory, we have the luxury of debating if raw is better. So the question is, are we confusing natural with safe just because we’ve forgotten what the risks used to look like?

That is a powerful question. Thank you for walking us through the science. And thank you for diving deep with us today. We hope this helps you make the most informed choice. Until next time, stay curious and stay safe.

Posted on

Raw Milk: Wellness Culture vs. Food Safety

Click Play to listen to our generated podcast. Access our full podcast library here. 

 

Once again, raw milk is everywhere: in Instagram reels, wellness podcasts, farmer-to-consumer marketplaces, and even policy debates. It’s being framed as ancestral, clean, immune-boosting, and somehow more “real” than the milk most of us grew up drinking. With about 4.4% of U.S. adults, or about 11 million people, have reported drinking raw milk at least once a year, despite repeated safety warnings; that’s why we’re revisiting this topic now.

Quick Take: Myth vs. Science 

Myth #1: Raw milk is more nutritious than pasteurized

Claim: Pasteurization destroys vitamins, enzymes, and nutrients.
Science: Pasteurization causes minimal nutrient loss. Protein, calcium, and most vitamins remain intact, and there is no evidence raw milk provides meaningful nutritional benefits over pasteurized milk.
Bottom line: Nutrition is nearly the same, the risk is not.

Myth #2: Raw milk supports gut health and immunity way more than pasteurized milk

Claim: Raw milk contains beneficial bacteria that improve digestion and immunity.
Science: Raw milk bacteria are uncontrolled and unpredictable and may include harmful pathogens. No clinical trials show safe, consistent gut or immune benefits from raw milk.
Bottom line: Benefits are speculative; risks are proven.

Myth #3: Raw milk from clean, local farms is safe

Claim: Careful farming eliminates any risk.
Science: Even healthy cows can shed harmful bacteria, and contamination can occur despite best practices. Raw milk causes the vast majority of dairy-related foodborne illnesses.
Bottom line: Clean farms reduce risk, they don’t eliminate it.

Picture this…

You’re visiting a local farm. A cow is milked by hand. A rag wipes down the udder; not sterile, just “clean enough.” The ground beneath is dirt, manure, and straw. The farmer pours the milk into what you hope is a sanitized glass jar. Hands touch the rim. The lid goes on.

In the process, something microscopic, bacteria from manure, soil, or the cow’s hide, slips in. You don’t see it. You can’t smell it. You taste the milk anyway.

That’s not a horror story, it’s basic microbiology. Cows don’t produce sterile milk, and pathogens like E. coli, Salmonella, and Listeria don’t announce themselves. Pasteurization exists because even careful, well-intentioned farms cannot control what the human eye can’t see. When people assume raw milk is “safe because it’s local,” they’re confusing trust with protection.

I understand why raw milk is appealing. It taps into something real: a distrust of over-processing, a desire for food transparency, and nostalgia for simpler systems. But the science is unambiguous on one point: The nutritional upside of raw milk is small and uncertain. The safety downside is large and well-documented. Treating raw milk as a wellness shortcut, or worse, as a health intervention, ignores decades of public-health data.

But when a food trend resurfaces with this much confidence and this much misinformation, it deserves a fresh look grounded in current science, not nostalgia or fear. Especially when the stakes include hospitalization, pregnancy complications, and children’s health.

So, let’s review what pasteurization actually does, the health risks of ingesting raw milk, and how people who want more “natural” dairy can make safer, evidence-based choices.

Why Pasteurization Exists

Pasteurization was introduced in the 1860s because milk was one of the leading causes of foodborne illness and death, especially in children.

Pasteurization works by briefly heating milk to kill disease-causing bacteria. That’s it. No chemicals. No additives. Just heat and time. And the nutritional tradeoff? Extremely small.

Multiple reviews show that pasteurization:

  • Does not meaningfully alter protein, calcium, or fat
  • Causes minimal losses of a few heat-sensitive vitamins (like vitamin C, which milk isn’t a major source of anyway)
  • Preserves the nutrients most people drink milk for in the first place

Raw milk poses a legitimate health risk

Public health authorities universally emphasize that pasteurization is a critical safety step for milk because raw milk can carry dangerous disease-causing microbes such as Salmonella, E. coli, Campylobacter, Listeria, and Brucella. These pathogens can cause serious foodborne illness in anyone, but especially in young children, pregnant people, older adults, and immunocompromised individuals.

The CDC reports that from 1998 through 2021, there were 228 outbreaks linked to raw milk or raw milk products, resulting in 2,946 illnesses, about 287 hospitalizations, and 5 deaths in the United States.

A 2017 analysis of milk-associated foodborne disease estimated that unpasteurized dairy products, though consumed by a small portion of U.S. dairy consumers, are responsible for about 95% of milk-related illnesses, with raw products posing an >800-fold greater risk of illness than pasteurized dairy.

Recent disease clusters continue this pattern: in 2025, at least 21 people in Florida, including six children, were ill with E. coli and Campylobacter infections after consuming raw milk, and several were hospitalized.

National health agencies like the CDC, FDA, and the American Academy of Pediatrics all strongly advise against drinking raw milk because good safety practices can’t eliminate the risk completely. Healthy  animals harbor these pathogens, and harmful bacteria can still get into milk through environmental contamination, even among routinely-cleaned processing facilities.

But it appears there is a knowledge gap, as a 2025 survey from researchers at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center found that only 47 % of U.S. adults recognize that unpasteurized milk is less safe than pasteurized milk, indicating persistent confusion about safety.

Conflicting information can further complicate our beliefs surrounding raw milk. For instance, several observational studies have suggested children raised on farms who consume “farm milk” may have lower rates of allergies or asthma.

However, these studies don’t prove causation of raw milk as the protective factor. Furthermore, researchers were unable to duplicate results among children raised outside of farm environments. Most researchers acknowledge these outcomes are likely tied to broader farm exposures (microbial diversity, animal contact, outdoor environments), not raw milk alone.

Another health-related misconception is that raw milk has beneficial probiotics. Raw milk does not function like a probiotic food because any bacteria present in the unpasteurized milk are not the standardized, beneficial cultures found in yogurt or kefir.

Homogenized Milk: What the Science Really Says

Now let’s clear up another bit of confusion: homogenization.

Homogenization is not a safety process like pasteurization. It’s a mechanical process that forces milk through tiny gaps under pressure so the fat droplets are broken down into much smaller sizes and stay evenly distributed. That’s why homogenized milk looks and tastes creamier and doesn’t separate with a layer of cream on top. But does that make it healthier or better for your body?

Here’s what peer-reviewed research shows:

  • No evidence that homogenized milk is healthier — most scientific reviews conclude that homogenization does not change the nutritional value or safety of milk. It doesn’t improve or diminish the fat, protein, calcium, or micronutrient content in any clinically significant way.
  • Does not affect allergies or intolerance, a study by Michalski in 2007 and related work indicate that homogenized milk does not influence milk allergy or lactose intolerance in children or adults compared with non-homogenized milk.
  • Digestibility differences are minimal or unclear some in vitro/animal research suggests that breaking milk fat into smaller globules might make it slightly easier for digestive enzymes to access fats, but human clinical evidence is limited and does not show meaningful health outcomes.
  • No strong links to major diseases, research on long-held theories that homogenization could increase risk for heart disease, diabetes, or allergy has not found consistent evidence supporting those claims. Reviews from the USDA’s raw milk debate literature show that available studies do not support meaningful effects of homogenization on these outcomes.

There are no high-quality, peer-reviewed studies showing that homogenized milk is healthier for you than non-homogenized milk. Any differences appear to be about texture and sensory experience, not nutrient quality or health impact.

That means if someone tells you homogenized milk is nutritionally superior, that’s not supported by current science. And if you hear claims that homogenization causes disease, such as promoting heart disease or atherosclerosis, those were early hypotheses from decades ago that later research hasn’t substantiated.

What That Means for You

If you’re looking for a more “natural” milk experience without the heightened risks that come with raw milk, a good option is to try pasteurized, non-homogenized milk. While it is not nutritionally superior, it retains the cream layer and texture some people prefer while still providing the safety protection of pasteurization.

As a parent to two littles, I am always in search of the healthiest, most nutrient-dense options for my own children, but I prioritize safety first. That balance is what makes pasteurized, non-homogenized milk appealing: you get a sensory experience closer to traditional milk without sacrificing safety or relying on unsupported health claims about homogenization itself.

Posted on

Transcript: The ‘Real Food’ Reset

Click Play to listen to our generated podcast.
You can also access the original post here and our full podcast library here. 

 

We are diving into the newly released 2025 2030 dietary guidelines from the USDA and HHS. They just dropped on January 7, 2026. And normally I think people hear government guidelines and they just tune out.

Oh yeah. Normally I would say prepare to be bored because it’s usually just endless PDFs about percentages and obscure micronutrients.

Exactly. I just picture the food pyramid that weird triangle from the ‘9s that told us to eat an entire loaf of bread at the bottom.

Right. With a tiny piece of steak at the very top.

Yeah. But this this is different. The sources we’re analyzing are calling this a historic reset.

It’s a huge move away from what you would call nutrition by math. You know, counting calories and percentages and a real pivot toward nutrition by common sense, which sounds fantastic on paper, but as I was reading through this, I realized this isn’t just a friendly suggestion. The government seems, well, panicked.

That is the right word. Urgency is all over this text.

So, our mission today is to figure out why the script has flipped. We need to unpack why the government is suddenly treating your dinner plate like a national security issue.

What the heck happened to lowfat? Because that was a shocker to me and crucially what you are actually supposed to buy when you go to the grocery store now.

Well, we need to talk about the economics too because when the US government changes the menu, it sends these huge shock waves through the entire farming economy.

Okay, so let’s start with that panic. Why the reset? Why now? Was the old advice just not working?

Not working is a very polite way to put it. The source material frames this as a direct response to a catastrophic failure in public health.

So, we’re not just a little unhealthy. We are in a metabolic crisis.

The numbers in here, I had to reread them. I actually thought it was a typo.

They’re staggering. The report notes that nearly 90% of US health care spending now goes toward treating chronic disease.

So, nearly every dollar we spend on doctors and hospitals is just managing ongoing sickness.
90 cents on every dollar. We are effectively bankrupting the system, treating diseases that are for the most part preventable. It’s just unsustainable.

And the weight statistics, more than 70% of American adults are overweight or obese. But the stat that I think really terrified the policy makers, the one that likely forced this reboot, is about the kids. The pre-diabetes stat.

Yes. Nearly one in three adolescents has pre-diabetes.

So that means their bodies are already struggling to handle sugar before they even hit their 20s. That’s terrifying.

It is and the guidelines explicitly state that 60% of these chronic issues are attributed to inflammatory diets.

Okay, can we define that? Inflammation is such a buzzword; everyone uses it. But what does it actually mean in this context?

Think of it like a low-grade fire inside your body. When you eat foods that your body struggles to process, you know, highly-processed stuff, constant sugar spikes, your immune system stays on high alert. So, it never rests.

It’s constantly fighting what it inks is an invader. That chronic irritation damages blood vessels, organs, tissues, everything over time. It’s the engine heat that eventually blows the gasket.

So the government looks at this map of inflammation and says this isn’t just about fitting into your genes anymore.

No, they are framing diet related disease as a national readiness issue.

That sounds like military language.

It is. If your population is too sick to work, too sick to serve in the military, or just too expensive to insure, you don’t have a health problem. You have a national security problem.

So that explains the why. The house is on fire. Now let’s look at the what because they are changing the visuals. I mentioned the food pyramid earlier. That big slab of carbs at the bottom.

For 40 years, the advice was anchor your meal with starch and be very, very careful with fat. And the new guidelines, they completely flipped the script. The new visual anchor is protein, healthy fats, and whole produce.

Okay, let’s tackle protein first because looking at the notes here, they prioritize protein at every meal. That feels aggressive.

It is a dominant strategy and the target numbers are specific: 1.2 to 1.6 g of protein per kilogram of body weight, or roughly 0.5 grams per pound of body weight.

Okay, so if I weigh 160 lbs, I need about 80 grams of protein per day, right? Which doesn’t sound crazy until you actually try to do it, right?

That’s not just an egg for breakfast. That’s like three eggs or a substantial piece of chicken at lunch and dinner. It requires intent.

Why the push for so much? Is everyone supposed to be a bodybuilder now?

Well, there are three reasons the source really highlights. First is muscle maintenance. We are an aging population. If you want to be walking, carrying groceries, and living independently in your 80s, you need muscle mass. You can’t build or keep muscle without adequate protein. It’s basically an anti-frailty prescription.

That makes sense. But what about weight?

That’s the second reason, and it’s the most interesting one for weight loss, satiety, the feeling of being full.

But it’s more than just feeling full. There’s a theory, and the guidelines really lean into this, that your body essentially keeps you hungry until it gets enough protein.

So, it’s like a nutrient hunt.

Exactly. If you eat a bag of chips, you can eat the whole bag because there’s almost no protein. Your body is saying, keep eating. I haven’t found the building blocks yet. But if you eat a steak or a large serving of lentils, your body signals, okay, we got the goods. You can stop.

That that explains so much about my late night snacking. So, if I prioritize protein, I’m kind of hacking my own hunger signals.

Precisely. It crowds out the junk. If you fill up on the protein, you just naturally eat fewer calories overall without having to count them.

And the third reason, it’s cultural. It’s hard to teach people about complex versus simple carbs. But everyone knows what a piece of chicken is. It’s a clear message.

But I have to play devil’s advocate here. I feel like I see headlines every other week saying too much protein kills your kidneys or Americans eat too much meat. Is this universally accepted?

No. And the source acknowledges that tension. There is a counterview. Some nutritionists argue that most Americans already get plenty of protein and we don’t need to push it higher. But the guidelines committee made a choice. They decided that the risk of obesity, diabetes, and frailty was much higher and much more urgent than the hypothetical risks of eating too many pork chops. They’re betting on protein to fix the metabolic crisis.

Okay, so we’re eating the pork chop now. What do we cook it in? Because this is the part that actually shocked me. I grew up in the skim milk era. I thought fat was the enemy.

This is the aha moment of the whole document. The guidelines have done a complete 180 degree turn on dairy. They’re actually endorsing full fat dairy explicitly. Whole milk, full fat yogurt, cheese…as long as —  and this is the key — it has no added sugar.

I feel like I need a moment of silence for all the watery skim milk I drank in the ’90s. It was bluish. It was so sad.

It was a sad time for cereal. Yes.

But seriously, how did we get this so wrong? For decades, doctors told us saturated fat in milk would give us heart attacks.
Well, you have to look at the history. In the 1950s, there was this hypothesis that dietary fat equaled body fat and heart disease. It was simple. It seemed logical. But it was wrong.

And we know this for sure now.

The source notes that research since at least 2002 has shown that the fat and dairy is just not the villain we thought it was.

So why is full fat better? Is it just because it’s less processed?

It’s about something called the food matrix. Nature packages things together for a reason. Vitamins A, D, E, and K are fat soluble. You literally cannot absorb them without fat.

So if you drink skim milk, then you’re just flushing those vitamins away. You need a ‘fat taxi’ to get them into your system.

And I’m guessing the satiety factor comes back into play here.

It’s a huge factor. Fat signals to your brain that you are fed. It slows down digestion. But there’s a sneakier reason the government is pushing this. Think about what happens when you take the fat out of yogurt. What does it taste like?

Chalk. Sour chalk.

Exactly. So, what did the food companies do to make us eat it?

They dumped sugar in it, fruit on the bottom, which was basically just jam.

Right. So, The low-fat craze actually fueled the sugar craze. By embracing full fat, the guidelines are trying to break that cycle. If the food tastes good naturally, because fat carries flavor, you don’t need to sweeten it.

And this isn’t just advice, right? This is actually changing laws.

It is. The source mentions the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, which was signed just after the guidelines on January 14th, 2026.

So whole milk is actually back in schools.

Correct. The era of mandatory skim milk in the cafeteria is is over.

That is a massive shift. It really signals that we aren’t scared of healthy fats anymore.

We aren’t. And it extends beyond dairy. The guidelines are pushing for avocados, nuts, olive oil, eggs. The whole idea is to replace the calories we used to get from refined carbs with calories from healthy fats.

Which brings us to the common enemy. If we are eating steak and drinking whole milk, what are we cutting? Because we can’t just add calories on top of everything.

We are cutting the refined carbohydrates: the white bread, the crackers, the pastries, the white rice,
the stuff that makes life worth living.

Unfortunately, yes, but also the stuff that spikes your blood sugar the fastest.

The advice here is eat the rainbow, which I’ve heard since kindergarten, but there’s a nuance in the new text about whole forms.

Yes, the goal is five to seven servings of fruits and veggies a day, but they are really cracking down on juice.

Juice is well, it’s been demoted.

Metabolically, drinking a glass of orange juice is very similar to drinking a soda. You get all the sugar instantly with none of the fiber to slow it down. The guidelines want you to eat the orange. The fiber acts like a break on the sugar absorption.

So fiber is the buffer.

Exactly. It changes the hormonal response completely.

Okay. So we have the good list: protein, healthy fat, whole plants. We have the bad list: refined carbs. But what about the buzzword of the decade? Ultra-processed foods, UPFs. Is the government finally banning the Dorito?

This is where it gets politically tricky. The source notes that the term UPF isn’t splashed across the document in big red letters. They don’t want to get sued by every food company in America. But they’re being subtle about it.

They’re being descriptive. Instead of saying don’t eat UPFs, they say limit foods with artificial additives, stabilizers, and high added sugar. They’re describing the wrapper without naming the brand.

It’s the if it has ingredients you can’t pronounce, don’t eat it rule.

Precisely. They’re targeting the hyper-palatability. It’s when a food is engineered to be so delicious, the perfect crunch, perfect salt, perfect sweet that your brain’s stop signal just gets overwritten.

You can’t eat just one, right? The guidelines are trying to steer us back to, you know, boring food that our bodies actually know how to regulate.

This all sounds great. It really does. I love the idea of real food, but I have to bring up the implementation problem. The source brings this up, too. Real food is expensive, it spoils, it takes time to cook…

This is the real-world reality check. It is incredibly easy for a podcast host to say just roast a chicken,
right? It’s very hard for a single parent working two jobs to find the time or money to do that.

So, does the government have an answer for that or are they just shaming people who rely on boxed mac and cheese?

Well, HHS is trying to be practical. They’ve explicitly expanded the definition of healthy to include canned, frozen, and dried options.

So, frozen broccoli is okay. Not just okay, encouraged. Canned beans, frozen spinach, tinned tuna. These are shelf stable. They’re affordable and they’re nutritious. They are trying to break the myth that healthy requires a boutique grocery store and a private chef.

That’s a crucial distinction. You don’t need the organic kale massaged by monks. You just need the frozen peas. Exactly. It’s about access, not perfection.

I want to pivot to the invisible machinery behind this. You mentioned farmers earlier. If everyone in America actually followed this advice tomorrow…if we all started eating 80 grams of protein and drinking whole milk, what happens to the economy?

The guidelines act as a demand signal. Farmers plant what they think people are going to buy.

So, this is good news for cattle ranchers and dairy farmers.

Massive news for the dairy industry. This is a reputational resurrection. After being the bad guy for 40 years, they just got a federal seal of approval. That changes marketing. It changes subsidies. It changes everything.

But what about the companies making the frankenfood, the processed stuff? Are they just going to fold?

Oh, they’re smart. They’ll adapt. The source predicts a boom in minimally processed, value-added foods.

That sounds like business jargon. Translate.

Think of a rotisserie chicken. It’s convenient. It’s prepared, but it’s just a chicken. Or a bag of chopped salad kit with a simple dressing. Food that is easy but real. The money is going to shift from making new fake foods to making real foods easier to eat.

So, less science experiment and more convenience.

That’s the hope. The market follows the money, and if the money is chasing protein and real ingredients, the companies will provide it.

It really feels like we’re closing a chapter. We spent 50 years doing nutrition by the numbers, fearing fat, swapping butter for margarine, and we just got sicker and fatter. This feels like a return to grandmother wisdom.

It’s a simplified northstar. It’s admitting that we can’t outsmart millions of years of biology with a calculator. We tried to engineer a better diet and we failed. Now we’re going going back to basics.

So, if you’re standing in the grocery store right now feeling overwhelmed by all the labels, what’s the cheat sheet? How do we recap this reset?

Ideally, you remember four things. One, prioritize protein. Aim for that 0.5 gram per pound. It’s the anchor. It builds the muscle and kills the hunger. Two, don’t fear the fat. If it’s natural, like from dairy, nuts, or avocados, eat it. It keeps you full and helps you absorb vitamins. Three, eat the rainbow. Don’t drink juice; fiber is your friend. And four, ignore the marketing on the front of the box; turn it over. If the ingredient list looks like a chemistry textbook, put it back.

Simple, effective, and hopefully delicious. But before we let you go, I have one final thought I want to leave everyone with. Can a policy document actually change what is on the shelves, or is that entirely up to us, the consumers, to demand it with our wallets?

History shows the consumer moves first, the market follows. If we stop buying the junk, they will eventually stop making it.

Something to chew on, preferably over a high protein dinner. Thanks for listening to this deep dive. Go eat some real food and we’ll catch you next time.

Posted on

Guidelines to Groceries: A U.S. Food Reset

Click Play to listen to our generated podcast. Access our full podcast library here. 

 

This nutrition reset might sound simple, but the implications aren’t. Because federal dietary guidance doesn’t just shape dinner-table choices. It influences nutrition education, procurement standards, labeling conversations, school meals, and the broader public narrative around what counts as “healthy.”

And in the U.S., that narrative inevitably touches agriculture: what we grow, how we raise it, how we process it, and what ends up being affordable and accessible for families.

So what actually changed in these guidelines — and what should consumers and food-system stakeholders expect to come next?

What the New Guidelines Emphasize

The January 7, 2026 rollout frames the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines (DGA) as a “reset” toward real food and away from dietary advice that feels abstract, overly clinical, or too easy to game with marketing.

The easiest way to understand this “reset” is as a shift in what anchors a meal.

Previously, carbs were the base, with fat used cautiously. Now, meals are framed around protein, healthy fats, and whole produce. For dairy, guidance previously directed consumers to low-fat options, but now full-fat dairy is explicitly endorsed, as long as the food items don’t have added sugar. With a new focus on whole grains as part of a diet, guidance on consuming refined carbohydrates has now lowered, as well as limiting highly processed foods, added sugars, and artificial additives.

This isn’t just a new list of “eat more, eat less.” It’s a new public framing: less nutrition-by-math, more nutrition-by-common-sense.

Key Guideline Changes

‘You are what you eat’ has never been more evident. 60% of chronic diseases can be attributed to inflammatory diets. The press release argues the shift is necessary because of these rampant chronic disease trends, pointing to:

  • Nearly 90% of U.S. health care spending going toward treating chronic disease
  • More than 70% of American adults being overweight or obese
  • Nearly 1 in 3 adolescents having prediabetes

Whether you agree with every policy implication or not, the framing is unmistakable: diet-related disease is positioned as a national readiness and economic issue, not just a personal-health issue.

Protein: Eat More at Every Meal

The guidelines urge Americans to “prioritize protein at every meal,” and the new document includes protein targets in the range of 1.2-1.6 g/kg/day, or about 0.5 grams of protein per pound of body weight per day.

Why this is being emphasized:

  • Muscle maintenance: There’s growing attention to preserving lean mass across adulthood and aging, and protein plays a critical role in that.
  • Satiety + weight management: Higher-protein patterns can help with fullness and sometimes weight-loss adherence (people naturally eat fewer calories when they feel satisfied by a food).
  • A cultural reality: Protein has become the “macro Americans can understand,” which makes it an easy public message to repeat.

Was this driven by “new research”?

  • Not in the simple way headlines suggest. There is a body of research looking at higher-protein approaches in certain contexts, but many experts argue most Americans already get adequate protein and that these higher targets may not be warranted for the general population. That critique is showing up immediately in mainstream reporting about the new guidelines.

Full-fat Dairy: Part of Healthy Diet

The guidelines explicitly recommend full-fat dairy with no added sugars.

Why this is being emphasized:

  • Nutrient density + satiety: Dairy delivers protein, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, and vitamins A,D,E, and K.  The full-fat options tend to be more satisfying for many people. This also slows down the digestion of any milk sugars.
  • A pushback against “low-fat but more sugar”: For years, many “low-fat” flavored dairy products compensated with sugar. The new framing tries to make “unsweetened” the non-negotiable.

Was this driven by “new research”?

  • The evidence around dairy fat and health outcomes has been clear at least since 2002, but the ‘low fat’ diet from the 1950s prevailed.  The saturated fat in whole dairy was blamed for cardiovascular disease and weight gain, but research shows this is not the case.
  • Saturated fat guidance has been a consistent feature of prior DGAs and remains a major topic in the DGA report.

Produce: Eat Whole Fruits & Veggies All Day

The guidelines stress eating vegetables and fruit throughout the day, focusing on whole forms.

Why this is being emphasized:

  • This is the least controversial part of the reset. The U.S. has long-standing shortfalls in fruit/vegetable intake, and whole forms generally deliver fiber and better satiety than juice or heavily sweetened “fruit products.”

Was this driven by new research?

  • Not “new,” so much as overwhelming continuity: long-term evidence consistently supports produce-rich dietary patterns for cardiometabolic health.
  • Eat the rainbow is an easy way to remember to get your 5-7 servings of fruit and vegetable in a day.

Healthy Fats: Consume from Whole Foods & Meats

The guidelines state to incorporate healthy fats from whole foods such as meats, seafood, eggs, nuts, seeds, olives, and avocados.

Why this is being emphasized:

  • The growing body of research, supporting the importance of the omega 3’s and 6’s for brain health and anti-inflammatory benefits
  • Lower-carb messaging needs a replacement calorie source: If you reduce refined carbs and added sugar, you inevitably talk about what replaces them. “Healthy fats” fills that gap.
  • Less fear-based fat messaging: It reflects a broader public shift away from blanket “fat is bad” thinking.

Was this driven by new research?

  • This is more of an interpretive evolution than a single new study.
  • The strongest consensus has long been around types of fat and overall dietary patterns, rather than fat avoidance at all costs, but where specific foods land is still debated.

Whole Grains: Ok to Eat, Reduce Refined Carbs

The guidelines suggest that we focus on whole grains while sharply reducing refined carbohydrates.

Why this is being emphasized:

  • Refined carbs are an easy “common enemy” because they’re overconsumed, highly palatable, and often bundled with added sugars and sodium in packaged foods.
  • Shifting people toward whole grains typically increases fiber and micronutrients without demanding perfection.

Was this driven by new research?

  • It’s consistent with decades of diet-quality research and the reality of current U.S. intake patterns (too many refined grains, too few whole grains).

Limit Highly Processed Foods

The new guidelines urge us to limit ultra-processed foods, added sugars, and artificial additives.

Why this is being emphasized:

  • This reflects a major cultural and scientific focus over the last decade: ultra-processed dietary patterns are associated with poorer health outcomes in many observational studies, and controlled feeding studies are exploring mechanisms and causality.

Was this driven by new research?

  • There has been a surge in research of ultra-processed foods (UPF) that these products may negatively affect our health.
  • While there is no use of the term “UPF” in the guidelines, they do note that older adults may need “fortified foods or supplements” under medical supervision if their “dietary intake or absorption is insufficient.”

Can We Reset in The Real World?

And this is the tension consumers live in every day.

The foods most people recognize as healthy are often the foods that feel hardest to execute consistently because of cost, time, cooking skills, kitchen access, and family preferences.

The Dietary Guidelines can call for a “real food” reset, but the how matters just as much as the what. To their credit, HHS messaging tries to preempt the practicality critique by emphasizing flexibility—fresh, frozen, dried, or canned all count.

But if federal guidance is going to land with everyday households, it has to translate into real-world realities like:

  • What “protein at every meal” looks like in school cafeterias, quick-service restaurants, and tight grocery budgets
  • How “limit ultra-processed foods” intersects with the fact that processed foods are often the most shelf-stable, accessible options
  • How emerging research (like the more nuanced conversation around full-fat dairy) actually makes its way into schools, doctor’s offices, and public health messaging—especially while debates around saturated fat and population-level guidance remain unresolved in global forums

Even if you never read the full document, the consumer takeaways are familiar—and workable when you frame them as practical defaults, not perfection:

  • Build meals around a protein anchor (eggs, yogurt, beans, fish, poultry, lean beef, tofu)
  • Add produce in the form you’ll actually use (fresh or frozen)
  • Choose whole grains more often and cut back on refined carbs and added sugars
  • Be skeptical of health halos; prioritize foods that are straightforward, filling, and nutritionally complete
  • The 2025–2030 Guidelines are being positioned as a major reset with a clear theme: real food, more protein, whole fruits and vegetables, healthy fats, whole grains, and fewer ultra-processed foods and added sugars. But implementation—what people can afford, access, and realistically repeat—is where this “reset” will either succeed or stay stuck on paper.

What This Mean for Ag & Food Producers

This is where D2D readers should pay close attention: when federal guidance elevates specific categories (protein, dairy, produce, whole grains), it tends to reinforce demand signals across supply chains.

Potential downstream effects to watch:

  • Protein demand stays front-and-center
    The guidelines explicitly spotlight protein “at every meal,” which supports ongoing momentum for animal and plant protein production, and innovation in how protein is packaged, priced, and distributed.
  • Dairy — especially full-fat — gets a reputational lift
    The recommendation for “full-fat dairy with no added sugars” is a direct reversal of the cultural push many consumers grew up with. And it aligns with the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, signed January 14, 2026, bringing whole milk back into school meals, a concrete example of how guidance can translate into policy and purchasing.
  • A renewed premium on minimally processed “value-added” foods
    The line between “processed,” “ultra-processed,” and “convenient but still nutritious” is where brands will compete. The winners may be foods that do the hard work for consumers, while keeping ingredient lists simple and benefits clear.
Posted on

Food Trends ’26: Higher Standards

I love writing this piece every year, partly to see what’s coming, and partly to sanity-check what I’m already noticing in real life: smaller meals, tighter budgets, and way less patience for complicated food advice.

As Statista summarizes in its Consumer Trends 2026 reporting, consumers are more than ever, “increasingly deliberate about spending, prioritizing value and practicality over abundance.” Mintel echoes this framing, noting that food choices are becoming less aspirational and more rooted in everyday function. FoodNavigator’s 2026 outlook reinforces the same point, stating that the coming year is defined by “integration rather than disruption” across food and beverage categories.

When read together, these three trusted sources for consumer insights and market outlook, all point to the same conclusion: consumers are simplifying how they eat while also raising expectations for what their food delivers. The result is a move away from rigid food rules and toward food choices that combine multiple nutritional benefits and practical value.

This is not a rejection of recent food trends. It is an evolution shaped by economic constraints, new medical realities, and a more mature understanding of nutrition. In other words: the era of ‘food as identity’ is cooling off. ‘Food as a set of tools in a toolbox’ is heating up.

1. The Context: Constraint, Caution, and Choice Fatigue

Eating well gets harder when life is expensive and decision-fatigue is real. Statista’s Consumer Trends 2026 finds households across major global markets remain financially cautious: inflation, tariffs, and cost-of-living pressures are still shaping spending, even alongside cautious optimism.

Food sits in a unique place in this landscape. Consumers may cut back on discretionary categories, but food trade-offs feel personal. Statista suggests 60%+ of consumers are actively looking for better value in food purchases, not simply buying less. That shows up as fewer impulse buys, closer scrutiny of ingredient lists and health claims, and higher expectations that foods deliver more than one benefit—especially as people consolidate eating occasions (hello, GLP-1 era) and think more about longevity.

Mintel frames this as a shift away from “aspirational eating” and toward functional, reality-based eating that supports long-term health. FoodNavigator similarly notes growing intolerance for complexity and exaggerated claims—particularly when products promise transformational outcomes that don’t match everyday use.

As FoodNavigator puts it:

“The longevity trend is relevant to almost everyone. Consumers wanting to ensure they live a longer, better quality life, are being encouraged to start paying attention to their health at a much younger age.”

Examples of this growing skepticism are increasingly evident across the food landscape. Consumers are questioning products marketed as “detoxifying,” “hormone-balancing,” or “metabolism-resetting” when those claims aren’t backed by clear, substantiated benefits. There’s also rising frustration with foods positioned as meal replacements that still require add-ins, supplements, or prep to be “complete.”

Ingredient lists and front-of-packaging claims filled with buzzwords, natural, grass-fed, adaptogens, nootropics, superfoods, are losing credibility when brands can’t explain what they do or why they matter. Highly restrictive “perfect” diet frameworks are facing similar pushback when they assume ideal schedules, unlimited budgets, or unrealistic cooking habits. (And honestly? It’s about time.)

In contrast, foods that clearly communicate what they do—delivering satiety, convenience, or basic nutrition—are gaining trust as consumers prioritize simplicity and practicality. Think: high-protein staples like Greek yogurt, cottage cheese, eggs, and rotisserie chicken; no-prep snacks like nuts, jerky, hummus, and cheese sticks; and predictable convenience foods like bagged salad kits, microwaveable grains, and frozen meals that plainly list calories and protein.

These are the “no drama” foods—the ones that actually get eaten on busy weekdays. Even functional categories earn more credibility when the purpose is straightforward, like electrolytes for hydration or fiber-forward basics like oats and beans, rather than dressed up as a transformation.

This shift away from aspirational eating and toward functional, everyday nutrition is now being echoed beyond the marketplace. In January 2026, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced a significant reset in U.S. nutrition policy, explicitly emphasizing a return to real food, protein, fruits and vegetables on the TOP of the food pyramid as the foundation of health.

The message reflects growing recognition that increasingly complex guidance, layered claims, and rigid dietary frameworks have not translated into better health outcomes such as reduced cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s.

“American households must prioritize whole, nutrient-dense foods—protein, dairy, vegetables, fruits, healthy fats, and whole grains—and dramatically reduce highly processed foods. This is how we Make America Healthy Again.”

-U.S. Food & Drug Administration

Together, consumer behavior and policy direction point to the same conclusion: nutrition strategies that resonate in 2026 are those that emphasize efficiency, nutrient density, and practicality, not optimization for its own sake.

2. From “Maxxing” to Nutrient Density

For much of the past decade, food trends have had a strong emphasis on singular nutritional goals: high protein, low carb, plant-only. While these approaches brought attention to important nutrients, they also encouraged narrow thinking, something we know can cause nutrient imbalances and generally poor nutrition.

Statista data shows that the rapid adoption of GLP-1 medications is accelerating a shift away from eating for quantity alone. GLP-1 users consume about 30% fewer calories on average, are choosing smaller portions, and increasingly look for foods that deliver satisfaction and nutrition without excess. As Statista analysts note, consumers impacted by appetite-suppressing medications are “reframing health around efficiency rather than quantity,” i.e.- what gives you the most nutrients in the least amount of calories.

As a result, protein is no longer disappearing, but it is changing form.

What consumers are moving away from:

  • Protein bars and shakes engineered almost entirely around protein grams
  • Products positioned as nutritionally sufficient based on a single claim.

What is gaining relevance:

  • Naturally protein-rich foods with added nutritional benefits, such as skyr-style yogurts from brands like Siggi’s or Icelandic Provisions, which deliver high protein alongside calcium and live cultures, or lentil-based pastas like Barilla Red Lentil, which provide protein, fiber, and iron in a familiar format.
  • Strained and fermented dairy formats, including Two Good Greek Yogurt or Chobani Complete, which pair protein density with probiotic support and bone-health nutrients such as calcium and vitamin D.
  • Balanced, mixed meals built around whole ingredients—such as Amy’s Kitchen lentil bowls, Daily Harvest grain-and-legume blends, or Sweetgreen warm bowls—that deliver protein as part of a broader matrix of fiber, complex carbohydrates, and micronutrients rather than as an isolated add-on.

Mintel characterizes this transition as a move away from “nutrient maxxing” toward what it calls “nutritional efficiency,” where foods are expected to deliver multiple benefits within smaller portions. FoodNavigator similarly notes growing skepticism toward one-note nutritional messaging, observing that “consumers are no longer impressed by single claims divorced from real eating habits.”

3. Fiber Becomes Foundational

Fiber has long been recommended but rarely prioritized. In 2026, it is predicted to become critical rather than supplemental.

Statista highlights that younger consumers, particularly Gen Z, are increasingly motivated by long-term health and prevention, while still constrained by cost, time, and overwhelm. Fiber uniquely addresses these pressures by supporting gut health, blood sugar regulation, and satiety without requiring radical dietary change. As Statista notes, preventative health is increasingly pursued through “everyday food choices rather than specialized interventions.”

Rather than adding fiber as a standalone supplement, many brands are embedding it directly into familiar, everyday foods. This is showing up in fermented plant-based yogurts such as Cocojune, which pair live cultures with naturally fiber-containing ingredients, as well as in breads made with whole grains and seeds that deliver four to six grams of fiber per slice, including Dave’s Killer Bread varieties. Fiber-forward snacks are also gaining traction, with products like Biena roasted chickpeas and Nature Valley oat-based bars offering naturally occurring fiber in formats consumers already recognize and trust.

FoodNavigator reports that fiber is increasingly positioned as a partner to protein, stating that brands are using fiber to help foods feel “more complete and more satisfying in a lower-calorie context.”

4. Traditional and Shelf-Stable Foods Are Reframed

Economic pressure is reshaping how consumers define quality and value. Statista notes that while consumers still allow small indulgences in food, those indulgences must feel reliable and worth the cost. As one Statista insight summarizes, consumers are “trading down selectively but trading up emotionally.” Prioritizing familiarity over complexity.

As a result, shelf-stable and traditional foods are being re-evaluated, not as lower-quality compromises, but as strategic, practical choices in a constrained food environment. Consumers are rediscovering formats that balance nutrition, affordability, and reliability. Canned beans and lentils, which provide affordable sources of protein and fiber with long shelf lives and minimal preparation are gaining in popularity. Frozen vegetables, which retain nutritional value while reducing food waste and saving time in everyday cooking are becoming more desirable.

FoodNavigator’s 2026 trend analysis highlights renewed interest in traditional formats across dairy and pantry categories, as consumers gravitate back toward foods that feel practical in uncertain times. This includes staples such as milk, yogurt, cheese, canned beans, lentils, soups, and frozen vegetables, formats that are familiar, versatile, and easy to store or prepare. The emphasis is not nostalgia, but reliability: foods that consistently deliver nutrition, value, and ease without requiring consumers to adopt new habits.

5. Technology as a Tool for Continuity

The long-standing natural-versus-processed debate is giving way to pragmatism. Statista’s consumer research shows openness to food technology when benefits are clear, transparent, and tied to real-world challenges such as cost, waste, or environmental pressure.

Mintel notes that consumers are increasingly comfortable with food technology when it is framed as supporting existing food systems rather than reinventing them. Acceptance is highest when innovation preserves familiar taste, texture, and usage, while quietly improving environmental or nutritional performance behind the scenes.

In practice, this is showing up through technologies that enhance foods people already recognize:

Precision fermentation, for example, is being used to produce dairy-identical proteins that perform just like traditional whey and casein in familiar products. Companies such as Perfect Day supply fermentation-derived dairy proteins that are used in ice creams, yogurts, and beverages that look, taste, and behave like their conventional counterparts, but with significantly reduced land and water use. This allows brands like Straus Family Creamery and plant-forward innovators to create products with the sensory qualities consumers expect while lowering environmental impact.

Upcycling dairy byproducts is another area gaining traction. Brands like Wheyhey! repurpose whey proteins into high-quality nutrition bars and protein snacks, turning what was once a low-value stream into a consumer-ready ingredient. Similarly, companies such as Renewal Mill incorporate upcycled whey into baking mixes and snack products, reducing waste while enhancing protein content and delivering the texture and flavor that customers recognize from traditional bakery items.

FoodNavigator reinforces this framing, observing that innovation is most successful when it is “used to protect familiar foods, not ask consumers to abandon them.”

“Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.” 

– Hippocrates

What This Means for 2026

Taken together, the data tells a coherent story: consumers are seeking foods that fit their lives, financially, nutritionally, and emotionally.

This is not a vilification of 2025 trends. It is an evolution driven by greater knowledge and tighter constraints. As appetites shrink and expectations rise, food choices become more integrated and more realistic.

Posted on

Venezuela: A Study in Economic Mismanagement

Click Play to listen to our generated podcast. Access our full podcast library here. 

The situation in Venezuela is indeed a royal mess. Decades of failed government socialist policies have had dire economic consequences for its citizens, including food consumers.

To really begin to understand what’s going on in Venezuela today, we need a little background — just a brief update so we can focus on what’s going on today.

What is behind the crisis in Venezuela?

After more than two centuries of Spanish rule, Venezuela declared independence in 1810 and embarked on the development of its infrastructure and basic economic sectors.  Education, along with farming and agriculture, blossomed in the mid and latter 1800s.

By the beginning of the twentieth century, the country had emerged as one of the world’s largest oil exporters, drawing upon proven reserves larger than any others in the entire world.

With all that oil, it is no surprise that military leadership figured prominently in the political picture, despite the presence of democratically elected governments. The enormous value of oil became both an economic blessing – and a political curse.

Still today, Venezuela has one-fifth of the world’s oil reserves.

In the 1990s, military strongman Hugo Chavez twice attempted government coups before finally succeeding in being elected president in 1998.

Chavez capitalized on widespread public economic frustrations, much of it generated by years of corruption, and lack of economic development benefiting anybody but the elite. In response, he began an aggressive program of greater government control and management of key economic sectors, including food. A small ruling elite – not the marketplace, or sound economics – became the ruling master of the national economy.

Price controls on basic goods – such as food – disrupted markets and led to supply shortages. Land reform in the name of equality took a serious toll on long-standing, successful private farms and ranches. Nationalization of private enterprise spread across not just the food sector but also banking, communications, and especially the oil industry.

Double- and triple-digit inflation spiraled ever-upward. Market forces were non-existent and government control squeezed capitalism into nothing.

More and more oil dollars were used to fund numerous social programs designed to appease an unhappy public. Sadly, investment in new and better infrastructure wasn’t high on the list of government priorities.

That decision had long-term economic consequences – none of them good.  Old, outdated, and inefficient infrastructure across major sectors of the economy would require huge expenditures over a protracted period of time to modernize.

Decades of economic mismanagement and political agendas have created a nightmare environment of inflation and massive price increases, shortages of food and other staples, and significant decline into widespread poverty and despair.

In the early Chavez years, price controls on chicken, beef, pork, grains, sugar, coffee, sugar and other commodities ignored the actual costs of production and fell well below actual market prices.  Subsidies from oil income were intended to negate this economic unreality and appease frustrated and angry citizens. Important trade was restricted, shut off, or rendered economically impossible.

Chavez intended his aggressive land-distribution scheme to encourage greater production among smaller landholders. However, his plan failed to appreciate the counter-productive effects of limited access to credit, essential farm inputs and supporting infrastructure. Once again, good intentions (and perhaps a touch of political expediency) ran into the brick wall of economic reality.

When Chavez at last went to his eternal reward in 2013, Nicolas Maduro stepped into power to continue a decidedly socialist approach to economic management.  International relations continued to flounder.  Election fraud and intimidation ran rampant.  Economic sanctions increasingly complicate foreign trade.

And then came perhaps the worst blow of all – a global collapse in oil prices from 2014-2016, falling from $108 a barrel to $57 a barrel.  The economic spigot didn’t run completely dry – but a once-torrential flow of petrodollars slowed to a comparative trickle. Barter of oil for services and goods expanded, notably with Cuba.

The money simply was no longer there to try to appease discontented – and often hungry – citizens.

Now with our history mini-lesson complete, let’s deal with the real-world issues the different missteps in political leadership have created for everyday Venezuelans – and all the people who play a role in contributing to their food security.

Surprise! The American farmer and rancher are very high on that list.

What does this mean for Venezuelans?

To appreciate just how dire life had become for the average Venezuelan, consider this simple statement from the Human Rights Watch:

Over 20 million Venezuelans live in multidimensional poverty with inadequate access to rights – essential goods and services, including food and essential medicines.

Many are forced to adopt extreme survival strategies, including fleeing the country.

Today’s population is about 30 million but there has been significant exodus over the past 10 years.

Almost one-quarter of Venezuelans have chosen simply to leave the country since 2014.  The United Nations estimates the exodus at 7.9 million people, with an average of 2,000 individuals leaving every day.

Think of it this way… imagine the street you live on. Now think of it with every fourth house suddenly vacant. Imagine the entire population of my small hometown gone – disappeared into thin air – in just eight days.

The availability of food – or more accurately, its unavailability or inflated price – has been one of the most significant adverse manifestations of misguided economic policy.

YoY Inflation Rates: Venezuela

Inflation makes it impossible to purchase goods and save money.  Inflation today is around 225%.  Terrible, but not as bad as it was in 2018.

Shortages run rampant, and prices soar beyond the capacity of average citizens to pay. And to add icing to the cake, the drug trade flourishes, with all the corruption, violence, and social unrest that it brings with it.

Why can’t they just feed themselves?

Historically, Venezuela is not self-sufficient in food. The country has been highly productive and largely self-sufficient in tropical commodities such as coffee, fruits, vegetables, and rice. But vast areas of the country remain undeveloped for modern farming, with only about 3 percent of its total land area used for farming.

Agriculture accounts for only 5 percent of the country’s entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP). About 70 percent of its cereals and 98 percent of its needed oilseeds are imported.  In September 2025, the top exports from the U.S. to Venezuela were soybean meal, wheat, and cars.

Price manipulations by the government have been a strong disincentive to many producers. Economic instability has scared off serious investment in developing productive capacity. The government’s blatant seizure of private enterprise only exacerbated the fears. In such an environment, imports have played an important role – arguably a critical role — in helping feed the population of almost 30 million.

What about the poor Venezuelan food consumer?

Failed government policies created shortages and hugely inflated food prices, which have only begun to moderate slightly and begin the tough task of rebuilding food production and consumption.

The economic mess in Venezuela has hit food consumers hard. The United Nations estimates that 82 percent of its citizens live in poverty and 40 percent experience moderate to severe food insecurity.

The main culprit in this sad situation is not the Venezuelan farmer as much as the bad decision-makers dominating the Venezuelan political and economic scene for almost four decades. The country’s animal protein sector provides a good example of how well-intentioned but economically disastrous governmental policies and actions filter down to create an average empty dinner table.

Globally, pork and poultry traditionally provide the most popular sources of animal protein, at roughly one-third each of personal meat consumption. The National Institute of Health Library of Medicine reports that animal protein makes up 70 percent of total daily protein intake for Venezuelans (similar to the percentage for Argentina, and above the roughly 60 percent levels in Peru and Chile).

In the period roughly 2017 to 2019, the full negative effects of attempts to control the food system had become readily apparent. Production and consumption levels for proteins reached a nadir, from which the country is trying to slowly claw its way back to normalcy by allowing the animal protein sector to operate with comparatively fewer governmental controls and dictates.

Reductions in price controls have been a major factor in the rosier sector outlook. The ability of poultry producers to adapt, innovate and invest amid price and control gyrations also has been very important.

Misguided economic policies have severely compromised their ability to fully develop their productive capacity.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates total Venezuelan per-capita meat consumption at 45 kilos (roughly 100 pounds ), up significantly from its 2018 record low.  Pork production is projected to rise by about 12 percent, and poultry meat consumption is growing even more quickly — by 40 percent.  In contrast, beef consumption is projected to continue its slow decline.

Venezuela boasts a modern, efficient poultry industry, with the potential to meet the needs of the country’s citizens, if allowed to do so.

Poultry meat production in 2014 – the year of Maduro’s ascension to power – reached almost 1.5 million metric tons.

By 2018, that figure had declined to 211,000 tons. Poultry meat imports fell from the mid-2000’s levels (318,000 tons at its peak) to virtually zero.

Imports this year are forecast to reach only 14,000 tons. (Historically, most poultry imports come in as processed chicken from Turkey and various forms of poultry from Brazil, Colombia and the European Union.)  Industry investment suffered, and more and more people went hungry.

Mark Twain popularized the common quote on the existence of “lies, damn lies, and statistics.” 

Venezuelan protein consumption data may well reflect the truth behind the comment.

On a global basis, Venezuela ranks near the bottom quartile in global per-capita consumption of chicken — with at least 111 countries boasting a higher per-capita consumption figure. While we in the U.S. consume almost 120 pounds a year of chicken, Venezuelans are lucky to eat 35 pounds a year.

As positive as the most recent market outlook for animal protein in Venezuela may seem to some, the country faces a long, tough road to joining the front ranks of countries providing consumers with this critical element of a healthful diet.

Where does the U.S. farmer figure into this?

Venezuela relies on the United States for many of its important food and commodity needs. USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service notes that U.S. farmers and ranchers in 2024 had a 39 percent share of the country’s market, worth $800 million.

Venezuela remains an important market for U.S. agriculture, most notably providing many of the grains and oilseeds on which the Venezuelan animal protein sector depends.

Thanks to special exemptions from key trade sanctions, soybean meal, corn, wheat, and rice are top imports – and major factors in the ability of the animal protein industry to recover and expand protein availability for a hungry populace. U.S. trade officials and farm interest all express optimism that the elimination of the Maduro regime will open the door for further growth in Venezuelan market opportunities.

It could well be yet another example of the happy marriage of improved food security (for Venezuelans, in this case) and greater financial opportunity for U.S. farmers.

For more detail on Venezuela, its history and culture check out these sources of information:

BBC Country Profile: Venezuela

World Factbook, CIA

Nations Encyclopedia: Agriculture in Venezuela 

WSJ video: Venezuela Explainer excerpt from Jack Ryan

Posted on

Why Isn’t Cultivated Meat on Our Plates?

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

 

In 2016, we wrote about the excitement consumers and investors had for a new type of protein. By 2013, investors enthusiastically poured $3 billion into this new technology hoping for traction with consumers and lower production costs. This led many of us to assume we would be eating burgers, fish and chicken grown in bioreactors by 2025. But that has not materialized.

While some companies are making slow progress, the technology is not leaping forward as planned due to consumer perception, state regulatory blockades, and cost of production compared to regular meat.

A large impediment is the regulatory dichotomy between the U.S. government and individual states. While the FDA and the USDA have approved cultivated meat from UPSIDE Foods, some states have banned cultured meat for human consumption.

First, let’s ask: “Is it safe to eat?”

Learning how cultivated meat is made is the first step in understanding this process.

A biopsy is taken from an animal or bird. These cells are put in bioreactors, along with nutrients to help them grow. The ‘vitamins’ used to proliferate the cells consist of amino acids, glucose, vitamins, inorganic salts, along with protein growth factors. This recipe is very similar to what is produced by an animal’s metabolism to make them grow.

The objective is to have the same, or better, nutritional value as cattle, chickens, pork or fish. After the cells have grown into muscle fibers, they are considered meat…  just like the kind from a cow or chicken.

The FDA and the USDA worked closely with various cultivated meat companies to ensure that the processes used to produce meat are safe and lawful under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.  They have also held public meetings to ‘better understand the science of animal cell culture technology, discuss potential hazards and labeling considerations, and to listen to consumer concerns.”

Upside Foods was the first for federal approval with their chicken products. Focusing on cultivated chicken, they are one of the most well-funded and recognizable companies in the sector. They built one of the first U.S. large-scale cultivated meat facilities and are focused on regulatory pathways and premium chicken products, as well as beef and duck.

“We make the chicken chickens dream about! Our cultivated meat is grown in a controlled environment with no need to raise and slaughter billions of animals.”

– Upside Foods

Some advocates argue that cultivated meat may be considered safer and more sustainable — a selling point for health and environmentally-conscious consumers concerned about hormones, antibiotics, and effects on the earth.

But social media can cloud the landscape among consumers, too, with claims like “cultivated meat causes ‘Turbo Cancer’ because the cells are immortal.” Statements like this are false. To make cultivated meat without constantly running biopsies on animals, scientists use cells that can divide indefinitely. While cancer cells also do this, that’s where the similarity ends.

Furthermore, by the time the meat hits your plate, those cells are dead. And even if they weren’t, your stomach acid destroys them instantly. You cannot catch cancer from eating a cell.

Get ready for your pop quiz! Would you eat cultivated meat?

Continue reading and then answer a few questions at the end.

States banning Cultured Meat

Despite its safety, seven states are banning cultured meat, it seems, to protect their farmers and ranchers who are growing traditional meat.

Today, Florida is fighting back against the global elite’s plan to force the world to eat meat grown in a petri dish or bugs to achieve their authoritarian goals,” said Governor Ron DeSantis. “Our administration will continue to focus on investing in our local farmers and ranchers, and we will save our beef.”

The result is a patchwork of contradictory rules.  It is currently legal to serve cultivated chicken in a high-end restaurant in San Francisco but selling that same chicken in Miami could land you with significant fines.

Here is the current breakdown of the “meat map”:

Given that cultured meat is such a small player in the overall protein market today, it seems unlikely that it is about to put cattle ranchers and poultry producers out of business.  In discussing this with Uma Valeti, CEO of Upside Foods, he equates this technology to similarities to the energy sector.

 “The world needs to meet its energy needs both reliably and sustainably. That is why wind and solar power have been introduced into the energy markets.

This concept is like cultivated meat as part of the global protein market. The difference is that not one state is shutting down wind and solar to protect the energy companies.”

– Uma Valeti, CEO of Upside Foods

He has a point. Well-known energy companies like Chevron, Shell, and BP have embraced wind and solar as part of their energy strategy.

The same applies to the meat industry.

In fact, these companies are some of its biggest supporters and investors.

More people mean more protein. By 2034, the global population will grow an extra 600 million people to 8.8 billion, with protein needs projected to grow to 406 million metric tons from 351 million in 2024.

Who are the players?

As of today, there are at least 10 companies that believe the future innovation of meat belongs in the lab.

Whether it is chicken, beef, shrimp, or bluefin tuna, they all look at cultivated meat with an eye toward the planet.  The science is proven—we can grow meat in a lab, sustainably.

“Rather than raising whole chickens, pigs, or cows, we grow only the meat we want to eat—directly from real animal cells.

At scale, it will be a more humane and future-friendly way to grow high-quality food for meat lovers everywhere.”

– Upside Foods

Good Meat also focuses on plant, human, and animal well-being, stating that “any choice we make affects families across the globe. Our health and our planet’s health are deeply connected.”

But it is not just the solely-focused companies that are interested in alternative protein.  The large beef and chicken companies are, as well.

  • Believer Meats, an Israeli cultivated meat company back by Tyson Foods, recently filed for bankruptcy due to funding and operational issues, despite having been close to success with a safety confirmation from the FDA.
  • JBS, the world’s largest meat processor, bought a majority stake in a Spanish company, Biotech Foods
  • Cargill invested in UPSIDE and is backing Aleph Farms, which is focused on growing complex beef steaks.

Granted, this market is small.

Cultivated meat is only 0.002% of the global protein market cap. And if we were to look at sales, it is 0.000003%.

However, research firms find the market ripe for significant growth.

McKinsey projects a positive 2030 forecast for cultivated meat demand, while Barclays, Euromonitor, and A.T. Kearney see a much larger market for these products by 2040.

What does the consumer say?

Here is where it gets interesting.

Statista carried out a global survey in 2023 asking consumers whether they were willing to try cultured meat. 62% said yes, 38% said no.

The 62% who were willing to try it have various environmental and animal welfare reasons.

However, Mintel’s report was a little less optimistic.

They noted that consumers were concerned about how cultivated meat fit into their country’s culture, especially in Europe.  About 45% of French and Spanish participants were concerned about traditions and culture. The rest were undecided.

The UK was a little more in line with the global survey of Statista where 63% of the younger generations were willing to try it.

Posted on

Transcript: Why Isn’t Cultivated Meat on Our Dinner Plates?

Click Play to listen to our generated podcast. 
Click here to read the original post and click on this link to visit our full podcast library. 

 

Okay, so imagine this for a second. You’ve got a revolutionary technology, right? And something like $3 billion gets poured into it. And not only that, but the federal government gives it the absolute highest safety deal of approval, the whole green light.

So, you’d logically assume that product, whatever it is, would be on store shelves everywhere.

You absolutely would. We are talking, of course, about cultivated meat.

And back around what 2016, the excitement for this lab grown protein was, I mean, it was explosive.
Everyone was talking. And investors just put massive capital into it. All based on the idea that by 2025, we’d all be, you know, picking up chicken breasts or ground beef grown in a bioreactor. Here we are. It’s past that deadline.

And if you go look in your local grocery store, that cultivated chicken is nowhere to be found.  Conspicuously absent. It’s barely even present in the U.S. market…at all. 

And that absence is exactly why we’re doing this deep dive.

It’s just so fascinating. The journey from the lab bench to your dinner plate is just well, it’s stalled in this perplexing limbo.

And it’s not just a technology problem.

Not at all. It’s a collision of intense political blockades, surprisingly tricky financial hurdles, and yeah, that everpresent challenge of what consumers actually think.

Okay, let’s unpack this. Our mission today is to figure out what is stopping a technology that scientifically and federally has been given the go-ahead. We’re looking past the hype, way past it.

We want to analyze this bizarre contradiction between the political talk and the cold, hard investment facts we pulled from the sources.

And before we get into the politics, we really have to be crystal clear on what this stuff even is. Because that term lab grown, it’s been, let’s just say…it’s been weaponized on social media.

That’s a great place to start. And just to be clear for everyone, we are not talking about a plant-based substitute. That’s a whole different thing you can already buy.

Totally different. Cultivated meat is actual animal protein. It comes from animal cells. It has the exact same biological structure as the meat you’d buy from a butcher. And that’s the key point.

The process is kind of elegant in its simplicity. But it’s really complex to execute. It starts with a completely harmless biopsy from a high-quality animal or bird. So you’re just taking a few cells, just a few building blocks, and those cells are then put into these big vessels called bioreactors.

And I think for a lot of people, that’s where the image gets a little weird. Big steel tanks, right? But you should think of them more like the fermentation tanks used to make beer or yogurt. Just super clean, high-tech versions optimized for muscle cells.

So that leads to the question. What are you feeding these cells inside the tanks? What’s the ingredient list for my dinner?

Well, they need a very specific growth medium. It’s basically a nutrient-rich broth.

A cocktail of sorts.

Exactly. It has essential nutrients like amino acids, glucose for energy, vitamins, inorganic salts, and some specific protein growth factors. The whole goal is to get the cells to multiply and then turn into actual muscle fibers.

So, you’re basically mimicking what happens inside an animal’s body.

The recipe is designed to copy the metabolic processes that happen naturally.

So the goal, the end product is something that’s nutritionally identical or maybe even better than traditional meat because you can control every single input.

And that control is exactly why the federal government got on board.

Both the FDA and the USDA, right? The FDA handles safety. The USDA does labeling and inspection and they have both approved cultivated meat. Companies like Upside foods, they were the first to get that full federal green light for their chicken.

Legally, it’s meat. And its advocates will point to some huge benefits. They say it’s safer, more sustainable, less need for antibiotics, no e. coli scares, a much smaller environmental footprint.

But we can’t talk about safety without hitting on the biggest piece of misinformation the sources point out. The whole “turbo cancer” claim because the cells are supposedly immortal.

I’m glad you brought that up. That sounds absolutely terrifying. If you’re just scrolling on social media,
it does. So, let’s unpack that phrase, immortal cells. What does that actually mean scientifically?

So, this is a really crucial distinction. To start the process, scientists need cells that can divide over and over again. So they don’t have to keep doing biopsies on animals.

To do that, they use what are called immortalized cell lines. And yes, that functional ability dividing endlessly is something cancer cells also do.

So, that’s the connection people are making. What’s the difference then?

This is the aha moment. The difference is control and environment. Cancer cells divide uncontrollably inside a living body, ignoring all the signals to stop. These cells are dividing outside a body in a sterile, precisely controlled bioreactor to build a specific product. And more importantly, by the time that meat is harvested and cooked, the cells are dead.

Completely dead. And even if by some miracle one survived the cooking process, the sources are definitive: stomach acid would destroy it instantly. You cannot get cancer from eating a cell. Federally, from a science perspective, the safety question is settled.

Okay, here’s where it gets really interesting. Because despite that clear green light from the FDA and the USDA, the political ground is just well, it’s completely shifting. We’re seeing this wild regulatory split across the country.

We’ve gone from a science hurdle to a political one. Right now, you have several states moving to outright ban uncultured meat for human consumption.

And this isn’t a debate about safety anymore.

No, not at all. It’s explicitly about protecting local economies and you could say cultural identity. The stated motivation is to protect local farmers and ranchers. And the sources have some really pointed quotes on this.

Oh, the rhetoric is very high profile. We saw that quote from Florida Governor, Ron DeSantis. He framed his state’s ban as fighting back against, and I’m quoting here, the global elites’ plan to force the world to eat meat grown in a petri dish. He made it really clear the focus was on protecting traditional agriculture, specifically to save our beef.

So that language, it really elevates this whole thing. It’s not about cell division anymore. It’s about a culture war. It frames this innovation as a threat to like a way of life.

And when the rhetoric is that charged, the science just doesn’t seem to matter as much to the voters or lawmakers in those states. The focus is on cultural resistance, not safety data, which leads to this immediate and frankly absurd result that the sources highlight.

It’s a logistical and legal nightmare for anyone trying to scale this. It really is the core barrier right now.

Okay, let’s make this concrete for everyone. Give us an example of this logistical nightmare.

All right, think about it from a supply chain perspective. Right now, it is perfectly legal to serve that FDA and USDA approved cultivated chicken in a fancy restaurant in San Francisco.

Okay, it’s passed every federal test. But now imagine a distribution company tries to ship a pallet of that exact same approved chicken across state lines and they try to deliver it to a restaurant in say Miami, Florida. A state where a ban has been enacted, that distributor or the restaurant that serves it could face huge fines or other penalties in Miami.

Even though the product itself is federally legal and recognized as safe, that’s the contradiction. The barrier isn’t a lack of bioreactors. It’s the regulatory risk of just moving your product across an internal market that’s just riddled with these legal holes.

So, how do you plan for anything? Labeling, storage, financing, and distribution network when half your potential market is legally closed off?

You can’t, or not easily. It adds incredible complexity, cost, and legal exposure. This friction alone is a massive anchor holding back commercialization, way more than the science or even the cost. Which leads us right into the market paradox, because you have this intense political fight to ban it. But when you look at the actual numbers, the traditional meat industry isn’t exactly shaking in its boots right now.

Cultivated meat is an infinitesimal player. I mean, we’re talking 0.002% of the global protein market cap. And if you look at actual sales, it’s even smaller.00003%. It’s a rounding error.

So given that, why is so much political capital being spent on these bands? What are they really afraid of? What’s the future they’re looking at?

They’re looking at the global horizon and that’s all about demographics. The demand for protein is not going to stay flat. It’s only going up.

By 2034, the global population is projected to grow by another 600 million people. That pushes the world total past 8.8 billion. And that kind of growth guarantees a massive increase in the demand for food.

Global protein needs are projected to climb from about 351 million metric tons this year to over 406 million by 2034. And traditional methods are already under pressure. Land use, water, climate change.

Exactly. They might struggle to bridge that gap sustainably.

And this brings us to what I think is the most shocking part of this whole deep dive.

The surprising alliances.

Yes. You’d think the world’s biggest meat companies would be funding the opposition, but the sources show they are heavily invested in the very technology their political allies are trying to kill. It’s like the big energy giants, like Chevron, Shell, and BP, who are now pouring money into wind and solar.

JBS, the world’s largest meat processor. They didn’t just invest. They bought a majority stake in a Spanish cultivated meat company called Biotech Foods.

That’s basically vertical integration for the future.

And Cargill is too. They’re invested in Aleph Farms, which is focused on making complex things like actual beef steaks. They’re trying to integrate this into their massive existing supply chains. But it’s not a guaranteed financial win just yet.

There are still major technical hurdles, right? We saw that with Believer Meats recently.

That’s right. A really high-profile cautionary tale. Believer Meats, an Israeli company backed by Tyson Foods, recently had to file for bankruptcy and they were close to getting full FDA approval.

And their setback really highlights that immense cost challenge. The money isn’t just for building the labs. It’s for optimizing that growth medium, the nutrient broth. That’s the really expensive part.

So the biggest financial hurdle, it’s the sheer operational cost of feeding billions of cells efficiently and at scale.

Precisely. that capital required for massive bioreactor operations is still a huge limiting factor. It just shows there’s still inherent financial risk even with a big name like Tyson backing you.

So in the end, the final decision isn’t with the investors or the state legislators. It comes down to the person holding the fork. What does the consumer actually think about all this?

Well, a 2023 Statista survey on global willingness looks pretty positive actually. 62% of people said they were willing to try cultivated meat, mostly driven by environmental and animal welfare concerns.
But the sources also show this deep cultural fault line, especially in Europe. I mean, how do you even begin to penetrate markets where food is basically sacred?

That is a real challenge. Mintel found that about 45% of French and Spanish participants were seriously concerned about how this would fit into their country’s food traditions. Food history is a powerful thing.
It’s a much harder barrier to overcome than just a high price.

It is, though it’s not a uniform feeling. The UK showed much higher willingness especially among younger people. About 63% there said they’d try it. So you see this generational and cultural split happening. So what does this all mean?

It means cultivated meat is just stuck. It’s caught in this extraordinary political and economic tension. The science is proven. The major global food companies are investing in it because they know we need to scale protein production for the future. But that technological momentum is getting kneecapped completely. It’s getting stopped by state level political fights that are all about protecting the agricultural status quo and by some really powerful cultural rhetoric is forcing companies to spend money on lawyers instead of production.

I think the key takeaway here is just how strange the whole situation is. But the immediate pushback isn’t coming from the market. It’s coming from a political desire to maintain this traditional power structure in agriculture. It’s a battle being fought in state houses, not in labs.

It leads to a pretty interesting final thought that the sources bring up. If the biggest players like JBS and Cargill are betting on this, maybe the biggest disruption won’t be to agriculture, but within it.

What do you mean?

Well, who knows? Maybe someday traditional ranchers will just have a bioreactor facility right there on their ranch.

So, they’d be controlling multiple protein streams themselves.

Why not? So, will cultivated meat be on your grill by next summer? Maybe. But the path to get there is going to be way more about navigating laws and culture than it is about dividing cells.

We want to know what you think. Does the federal safety approval sway you or do the cultural concerns give you pause? Scroll down to the bottom of this post and let us know your thoughts.

Posted on

FFA Spotlight: Closing Loop on Local Meat

From livestock pens to the cutting room, from grain fields to shrink-wrapped steaks, Blake Schmitmeyer is helping build a more local, more transparent, and more resilient food system.

His dedication to humane handling, food safety, and full-circle agricultural practices exemplifies the kind of leadership the future of farming depends on.

With one foot in the barn and the other in the butcher shop, Blake represents the next generation of producers who understand that feeding communities requires skill, respect, and heart at every step.

Growing Up in the Heart of Ohio Agriculture

Blake Schmitmeyer’s agricultural story begins in Versailles, Ohio, a small town woven into the fabric of American livestock and row-crop farming.

His family raised pigs, steers, and managed a Holstein dairy herd—giving Blake a firsthand understanding of livestock care and agricultural business from the time he could walk.

In 2021, his parents took a decisive leap: they purchased a local processing facility along with the surrounding farmland. That acquisition became the foundation for Blake’s future.

“Today I’m assisting in day-to-day operations where we custom butcher 25 steers and 25 hogs weekly,” he says. Sheep, goats, and bison round out the rotation.

What began as a family investment soon became Blake’s passion—and his entrepreneurial pathway.

Finding Purpose Through FFA

Blake joined FFA because agriculture was already part of his DNA. But he wanted to build his knowledge, sharpen his skills, and gain broader exposure to the industry.

During his junior and senior years, he launched his Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) through an early-release program at school, allowing him to work hands-on at The Butcher Block and Smokehouse.

Now, while working around 30 hours a week, he is simultaneously earning an online business degree—preparing for future leadership in the family enterprise.

Inside the Butcher Block: A Day in the Life

Blake’s responsibilities span every corner of the processing facility. His versatility is one of his greatest assets.

“I find myself filling gaps most days,” he says. “I can label, help customers, answer the phone, vacuum seal, make hamburger and sausage, fabricate cuts, and work on the harvesting side.”

That harvesting work includes:

  • Moving animals safely into the facility
  • Rendering them unconscious in an ethical, humane manner
  • Removing innards
  • Dehiding
  • Ensuring carcass sanitation

He also performs maintenance and repairs on essential equipment—skills vital to keeping a high-throughput operation running smoothly.

A Growing Skillset

Every day at the processing plant deepens Blake’s expertise. What started as learning individual tasks has evolved into a broad, interconnected understanding of what it takes to move an animal from farm to finished product safely, ethically, and efficiently.

Quality Assurance & Product Consistency

Trimming, scraping, packaging, and labeling have sharpened Blake’s eye for precision—one of the most essential skills in meat processing. He now understands how even the smallest variation in knife angle, fat trimming, or packaging can affect yield, display quality, and customer satisfaction.

“It has taught me efficiency,” he says, “and also the various cuts attainable from carcasses.”

He’s learned to visualize the carcass from the inside out, recognizing how muscle groups, bone structure, and fat cover translate into marketable cuts. Consistency is key: each package must look clean, uniform, and appealing, reflecting both skill and pride in craftsmanship.

Humane Handling Under USDA Oversight

Working under USDA inspection has strengthened Blake’s understanding of professional responsibility. Humane handling protocols are non-negotiable—every movement, every decision made with the animal’s well-being in mind.

“It taught me how to be precise and handle animals in the most humane way,” he explains. USDA inspectors provide real-time guidance and expect strict adherence to federal humane slaughter regulations. Blake sees these interactions as opportunities to learn best practices, refine technique, and uphold the ethical standards that define reputable processing facilities.

Food Safety & Bacterial Control

Food safety is at the heart of agricultural processing, and Blake has developed a deep respect for the science behind it. He and his team conduct temperature checks, monitor critical control points, and follow sanitation procedures that protect consumers from pathogens like Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria.

He now understands how cross-contamination occurs, how to prevent bacterial growth, and why documentation is essential for traceability. “We perform various temp and quality checks daily to ensure standards are met,” he says—standards that directly influence consumer trust and public health.

Processing Across Species

As Blake’s experience has grown, so has his ability to adapt to the anatomy and processing needs of different species. While cattle are the largest and most complex, the foundational skills transfer across animals.

“Once you understand the basics of cattle processing, it helps you understand bison structure,” he explains. Similarly, goats and sheep share comparable muscling and carcass breakdown patterns. Learning these similarities—and the nuanced differences—has made Blake a more versatile and efficient processor, capable of contributing anywhere he’s needed on the floor.

Full-Circle Agriculture: From Grain to Steak

Ask Blake what excites him most, and he lights up. For him, agricultural processing is not just a job—it’s the bridge between the farm he grew up on and the food that lands on his community’s dinner tables.

“I am passionate about locally sourced farm-to-fork beef,” he says. “Being able to grow our own corn and beans, feed them to our livestock, and then harvest those finished animals is really a full-circle moment.”

This closed-loop system—crop production, livestock feeding, final processing—allows his family to control quality at every stage. It also reflects a growing consumer demand: people want to know where their food comes from, how the animals were raised, and who stands behind the product. Blake’s vertically integrated model checks every box: local grain, local livestock, local processing, and local families benefiting from safe, transparent, premium-quality meat.

The Support Behind the Success

Blake credits both his parents and FFA advisors for shaping the agricultural leader he is becoming.

“My advisors have always supported my decisions,” he says. They encouraged him to step into leadership roles, pursue new challenges, and connect classroom learning to real-world application.

At home, his parents gave him opportunities that many students only dream of—access to farmland, livestock, and a processing facility—while still allowing him to decide independently what direction he wanted to take.

That balance of autonomy and mentorship fostered confidence, resilience, and a clear sense of responsibility. It has empowered Blake to carve out a strong pathway forward in an industry that rewards commitment and adaptability.

A Future in Farming and Processing

Blake is currently pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Business from Wright State University Lake Campus—a strategic move that will position him to handle the financial, managerial, and operational decisions required to keep the family enterprise thriving.

His vision for the future is focused and intentional: “I hope to continue row crop farming and raising livestock along with processing at The Butcher Block.”

He hopes to integrate the farm and processing facility even more seamlessly, explore niche markets, and expand value-added offerings that meet customer demand. Whether it’s direct-to-consumer beef boxes, specialty cuts, or custom processing services, Blake sees endless opportunities to strengthen the connection between farmers and families.

His long-term goal is not only to sustain the family’s legacy, but to elevate it—creating a resilient, modern, community-centered agricultural operation built on quality, transparency, and pride.

Advice for Students Considering a Processing SAE

Blake’s encouragement is straightforward: “I would highly recommend it to anyone. It has taught me numerous things—not only relevant to processing but also to life and success.”

Agricultural processing may happen behind the scenes, but it is one of the most essential links in the food chain. Students who pursue it gain skills that translate across the industry—and across life.

Posted on

Foreign Ownership of U.S. Farms

Between trade wars, geopolitical drama, and good old-fashioned “who owns what” anxiety, foreign farmland ownership has become a hot topic. Politicians are fired up. Farmers are curious. And everyone seems to have an opinion.

In which parts of the country do foreign investors own farmland? What’s behind their continuing investment in acquiring more and more of it? And is this a cause for legitimate concern over our national security? Let’s dig in…

How much land are we working with?

America is big. Like, 2.3 billion acres big—and that’s not even counting our lakes and rivers.

Here’s the breakdown:

  • 29% is pasture and rangeland (hello, happy cows)
  • 29% is forests (trees for days)
  • 17% is actual cropland (smaller than you’d think, right?)
  • 14% is parks and special uses
  • 3% is urban (yes, really—just 3%)

Point being: we’ve got land. Lots of it.

How much do foreign investors actually own?

Ready for this? About 45 million acres—which sounds massive until you do the math. That’s roughly 3.5% of all privately owned agricultural land.

To put it another way: if U.S. farmland were a 100-slice pizza, all foreign owners would have about three and a half slices. Of that meager share, Canada, Europe and the UK combined get two slices all to themselves. The rest? Still very much American-owned.

That said, foreign ownership has been growing—about 2.6 million new acres per year since 2017, and it doubled between 2009 and 2019. So it’s worth paying attention to.

Plot twist: Canada is the biggest foreign landowner

Wait, what? Yep—our polite northern neighbors own roughly 13 million acres of U.S. farmland, worth about $12.5 billion. That’s 29% of all foreign-owned agricultural land.

Add in the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, and the UK, and you’ve got another 33%. The remaining third is spread across nearly 100 countries.

But what about China?

Ah yes, the elephant in the room. Despite all the headlines, China owns about 275,000 acres…less than 1% of foreign-held farmland. They’re in 30 states, with investments worth just over $1 billion.

 

That’s not nothing, but it’s also not the agricultural takeover some folks imagine. And interestingly, with U.S.-China tensions rising, reports suggest China is increasingly looking elsewhere for farmland investments—and pivoting toward ag-tech instead.

(Though yes, the Smithfield Foods acquisitions—128,000+ acres in the Dakotas, North Carolina, Virginia, and Texas—did raise some eyebrows.)

Location, location, location

Here’s where things get spicy. It’s not just how much land foreign investors own—it’s where.

U.S. officials have flagged concerns about foreign-owned land near military bases and critical infrastructure. FBI Director Christopher Wray has called China a “grave threat,” warning that hackers have positioned themselves in U.S. systems, ready to “deal a devastating blow.”

That’s why proposals like Senator Josh Hawley’s “Protecting Our Farms and Homes from China Act” keep popping up—and why the Trump administration floated the idea of actually clawing back some existing Chinese land holdings.

What’s being done about it?

The government’s been tracking this since 1978 through the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act, which created an obligation for investors to provide certain information about their investments to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Although no federal law prohibits foreign ownership of private U.S. farmland, legislators at both the federal and state levels have proposed laws to monitor, restrict or prohibit such purchases if deemed to be counter to the best interest of their constituents.

At present, such laws and regulations are in effect in 29 states.

Meanwhile, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States reviews foreign investments for national security risks. Last year, they expanded their jurisdiction to include 59 additional military installations.

Translation: Washington is watching.

Why do foreign investors want U.S. farmland anyway?

Simple: it’s a phenomenal investment.

The U.S. has one of the most productive, innovative agricultural systems on the planet. For countries thinking about food security, owning a piece of American farmland is like buying blue-chip stock. Even if they’re not shipping crops home, the land generates income through production, leasing, or resale.

Plus, it’s a living laboratory for agricultural innovation—techniques and technologies that can be exported worldwide.

There’s also growing interest in land for renewable energy—solar farms, wind installations, you name it.

And let’s be honest: the U.S. economy is stable, our financial systems are reliable, and our land isn’t going anywhere. For long-term investors, that’s pretty hard to beat.

 

Posted on

FFA Spotlight: Cultivating Demand for Specialty Crops

What began as a way to help fund a swine and poultry project has evolved into a full specialty-crop enterprise—and a future career in agricultural education.

From Wolfforth Roots to Fungal Futures

Gunner grew up surrounded by agriculture, but his path into specialty crops wasn’t planned.

Gunner joined FFA in part because it was a family tradition. “My grandfather was in FFA,” he says. But the supervised agriculture experience, or SAE, became something more: a way to support his other agriculture projects.

One of Gunner’s SAEs took place at E3 Farms, a mushroom operation near his home. This experience opened his eyes to an entirely different segment of the farm-to-table world.

“I became interested in specialty crops when I started my placement SAE at E3 Farms,” Gunner explains. “That’s where it all started.”

The work was unlike anything he’d done before. And unlike traditional row crops or livestock production, mushroom cultivation requires precision, sanitation, and a deep understanding of biology—skills that immediately clicked for him.

“My mushroom SAE helped me pay for my poultry and swine SAEs,” he explains. It was a smart business move—one that ultimately revealed a new passion.

A Day in the Life

Specialty mushroom production is demanding, and Gunner quickly became an essential hand at the farm. His daily tasks include:

  • Harvesting fully matured mushrooms
  • Creating substrate blocks
  • Inoculating blocks with mushroom cultures
  • Maintaining environmental controls like humidity and airflow

What surprised him most? How different fungi are from plants. “I learned that fungi grow completely differently,” Gunner says. “Humidity is the only watering they require.”

This attention to microclimates—temperature, airflow, and sanitation—taught him how delicate and responsive specialty crops can be.

Because he already worked farmers’ markets for his poultry SAE, he combined forces with E3 Farms. Soon, he became the face of the mushroom operation on weekends.

What Consumers Really Want

The collaboration with E3 Farms allowed Gunner to build a new skillset—one many young agriculturists don’t learn until years later. “I’ve gained so many personal and communication skills,” he says. “Being at the booth taught me how to help customers find the right product.”

Talking with shoppers also gave him insights into consumer behavior —perhaps one of the most valuable agribusiness lessons of all.

After hundreds of customer conversations, one trend became clear: Lion’s Mane is the star of the show. “It’s the most commercially sold mushroom we produce,” Gunner says. “Most people ask for it first.”

But something interesting happens after the first purchase.

“Once they repeat their order, they start wanting to try new varieties,” he explains. That curiosity opens the door to oyster mushrooms, chestnut, pioppino, and other specialty types that benefit small farms like E3.

In other words: specialty crops don’t just serve niche consumers—they create them.

Looking Ahead: Teaching the Next Generation

Gunner credits much of his success to the people around him.

“My advisors and family have always been truly supportive,” he says. His FFA advisors even toured the mushroom farm to understand his SAE firsthand—an extra step that empowered them to guide him more effectively.

Gunner’s future plans speak volumes about the impact agricultural education can have. “I plan on attending Texas Tech University to earn a degree in Ag Education,” he says. His goal? To become an agriculture teacher.

And his long-term mission is equally grounded, stating “I hope to use my experience to guide and help others.”

Whether his future classroom includes livestock, crops, specialty agriculture, or entrepreneurship, he’ll bring firsthand experience that inspires.

And if there’s one thing Gunner wants new FFA members to know, it’s that “you have to jump all in and be committed.”

Specialty crops require precision, consistency, and a willingness to learn constantly—but for those who love the work, the rewards run deep.

Posted on

Redrawing the Global Soybean Map

The other day, I performed my morning news check in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and on social media with X. Soybeans are now featured almost daily in support of our farmers coupled with tariffs and China.

Soybeans are not just another crop, they are a pillar of our food supply, fueling people, animals, and vehicles worldwide. They are a cornerstone of the entire food system.

Soybeans on Center Stage

Now, soybeans have become a weapon — a weapon China is using against the United States in retaliation for technology tariffs and stealing intellectual property. The American farmer is caught in the whirlpool of lower soybean prices, oversupply of unsold inventory, and tariff implications on their input costs.

To better understand the implications of the global soybean trade, we spoke to Gordon Denny, a prominent member of the United Soybean Board.

While speaking with Denny, he stated:

“Nowadays, politicians use food, agriculture and commodities as political levers without realizing the long-term implications of creating new trade relationships away from the U.S….killing trade balances and trade reliability, forcing huge investments by China in other countries, and ten other bad things.” 

Last year, soybeans accounted for nearly $47 billion – almost a fifth – of all U.S. farm cash receipts.  That’s more than wheat, cotton, vegetables or all other crops, and second only to corn as the financial lifeblood of farming.

Despite the size of this market, growing soybeans is not for the faint of heart. Over the past 20 years, prices of soybeans fluctuated from $5.59 per bushel in 2006 to $17.04 in 2023.

Increased demand from China, combined with higher yields per acre resulting from technological advancements such as GMO seeds, precision agriculture, and better use of fertilizers, pesticides, and water has led to a significant increase in acreage planted.

Global production has grown from 36 million metric tons in 1980 to 424 million metric tons in 2025. Brazil is the largest producer at 40% and the U.S. is next at 28%.

Ten years ago, the U.S. used to grow 70% of China’s imported soybeans. But it wasn’t just the trade war that shifted beans to Brazil.

In 2013, Brazil surpassed the U.S. as the largest soybean producer because their cost of production per acre is $54 lower. While their input costs such as fertilizers, fuel, machinery are higher, they can grow both corn and soybeans in the same season. Furthermore, they have more available acreage and at a significantly lower price: an acre in Brazil costs about $44, whereas the U.S. costs $182.

Who Eats the Most Soybeans?

Soybeans are a critical component of our diets. One cup of soybeans has about 28 grams of protein, 15g of healthy fats, and 17g of carbohydrates. But they are also full of fiber, calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, zinc and other minerals and vitamins.

Because they are so nutritious and digestible for animal growth and development, about 70% of the U.S. crop is crushed into feed for beef, pork, chickens, and turkeys. About 15% is for human consumption, like salad and cooking oils, and one of many ingredients in packaged foods. The rest of the oil is used for bio-diesel and other industrial products.

Surprisingly, the largest consumers of global soybeans are hogs in China. And that is what the conversation is all about.

China has over 427 million pigs versus the United States’ 76 million. All those hogs need to be fed and soybean meal is a high-quality protein for muscle growth. It also has the important digestible mineral phosphorus for growth and development.

China: The Big Dog in Global Soybean Trade

China is the undisputed top dog in global soybean trade – and much more akin to a Tibetan mastiff than a pug.  China accounts for 61% of all soybean trade, with imports ranging from 88 to 100 million tons annually in recent years, according to Statista. That’s a huge increase from 10.4 million tons in 2000.

Prior to trade issues, U.S. growers had 61% of the China soybean market, now valued at $60 billion. Now it’s 22%, according to the American Soybean Association. China’s retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports, value-added tax and most-favored nation duties place U.S growers at a serious disadvantage.

In fact, as of today, China has made no purchases of U.S. soybeans in the past two months and has no orders of U.S. beans in this harvest season.

While U.S. soybean growers have had to deal with the adverse effects of the on-going trade dispute with China, Brazilian growers have stepped into the fill that gap.

The value of Brazilian soybean exports to China has gone from $15.8 billion in 2015 to just under $39 billion in 2023.

Argentina also has expanded soybean acreage and now produces almost 18 percent of the world’s total soybean crop, becoming a growing factor in global soybean trade.

A History of Trade and Tariffs

In 2018, President Trump announced that Chinese technology transfer, intellectual property theft, and joint venture requirements were detrimental to U.S. trade, and ultimately the consumer. He placed a 25% tariff on China exports to the U.S.

China hit the U.S. farmer hard with retaliatory tariffs on agriculture products, specifically soybeans. Chinese imports of U.S. soybeans dropped to 16mm tons from 33mm tons in 2017. The price dropped by $2.00 a bushel.

A truce was reached with an understanding that no more tariffs would be imposed, and China would purchase U.S. exports — including soybeans. However, China did not live up to its commitment. President Trump gave the U.S. farmers up to $28 billion in subsidies to make up the difference.

Fast forward to 2025: another trade war. A 125% tariff on Chinese imports and an 84% tariff on U.S. exports to China. As of today, China has refused to purchase even one soybean from the U.S.  Instead, they are turning to Brazil and Argentina to feed their pork population.

Farmers Watching as History Repeats

All this has led to a negative soybean margin for the farmer. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) cost of production estimates in June pegged soybean production costs at $639 per acre in 2025, rising to a projected $650 next year.  The USDA numbers reflect operating costs (e.g., seed, fertilizer, chemicals, fuel, repairs) and fixed costs (e.g., labor, taxes, insurance, machinery).

At an average yield of 53.3 bushels per acre, USDA data indicates that the overall cost of production for soybeans works out to $11.99 per bushel. For next year, according to the arithmetic, the total rises to $12.20.

The news is not good. Soybean futures contracts for this autumn currently are trading at about $9.98. USDA places average soybean prices for 2025/26 at $10.00 — a negative $2.20 per bushel of soybeans.

Understanding that a strong part of his support base are farmers, President Trump has announced another $10 billion aid package for farmers – the funds coming from current tariff revenue.

Agricultural Secretary Brooke Rollins plans to visit Vietnam, Japan, India, Peru, Brazil, and the United Kingdom in hopes to create new soybean export markets. Finally, there is also $285 million allocated to farmers as part of the Big Beautiful Bill.

“A trade disruption bailout does help farmers through a very tough spot that they had no part in starting. It does help the overall farm economy and helps politicians maintain votes.”

– Gordon Denny, United Soybean Board

Farmers Want Markets…Not Subsidies

But farmers want more than an aid package. As Denny stated, “farmers do not want government handouts, they want markets. Right now, the world has too many soybeans. There needs to be demand to pull the price of soybeans to farmer profitability.”

The ag industry isn’t the only one requiring government assistance…in fact, no industry is immune.

The U.S. government steps in with subsidies and bailouts when key industries face economic hardship, market instability, or strategic threats that could harm jobs, national security, or essential goods.

These interventions can include financial institution and airline bailouts after crises, or energy incentives to stabilize supply and protect the broader economy.

But how about the Renewable Fuel Standards? Will that help the ag industry? In July 2025, the Trump Administration announced a slight increase in overall fuels.

On behalf of U.S. soybean farmers, American Soybean Association expressed support for the rule, noting that it raises volume requirements for biomass-based diesel by 67%.

According to Denny, that is just another subsidy. “We need animal mouths. The more protein people eat, the more animals that are grown, and the more soybeans are crushed into feed. But right now, there are not enough animals to pull the U.S. farmer out of the doldrums.”

Again, the demand is not strong enough to completely solve the soybean oversupply and all renewable fuels require subsidies, tax credits, mandates, and tariff protection.

Posted on

Beer prices: How will consumers react?

Tariffs are creating an enormously complex and challenging market scenario for foreign companies, importers and domestic consumers alike – with an anticipated bottom line of higher costs.

To illustrate the complexity of today’s tariff scenario, we’re turning to one of our favorite beverages as an example of how a seemingly simple product can pose global pricing challenges. It’s important to note that until each country completes its negotiation with the Trump Administration, we can’t be sure of its effects on pricing and trade. But here’s where negotiations stand as of today.

U.S. Demand for Imported Beer 

Pity the poor American beer drinker.  At least, pity anyone who likes beer from countries outside the United States. Tariffs are an economically significant development for everyone from the barley grower in the American heartland to cookout enthusiasts at the backyard barbeque.

Beer imports have been a fast-growing segment of the beverage industry, with the U.S. market reaching as much as $11 billion in 2024. This was driven by robust U.S demand for popular brands from Mexico (Modelo, Dos Equis and Corona) and the European Union (Heineken, Stella Artois and Guinness). Canada also joins the list with robust sales of such beers as Labatt’s and Molson.

Since June 2023, Mexico’s Modelo Especial has surpassed Bud Light as the best-selling beer in the United States.

Corona Extra, Negra Modelo, Dos Equis and Corona Light all had a place in the top 20 list.

Modelo’s share of the imported beer market now exceeds 30 percent, with Corona at roughly 17 percent, Heineken at 15 percent and Guinness at roughly 12 percent. The roster of best-selling beers in the United States shows the dominance of Mexican beer brands:

Brewing Tariff Concerns

But anticipated growth for this segment is in flux.

The imported beer industry has been caught in the middle of global trade disputes. New tariffs are hitting Mexico, Canada, and the EU, and the impact depends on which way the beer is flowing.

Here are some of the ways countries are currently getting hit with beer tariffs:

United States Tariffs

  • 50% tariff on aluminum cans (applies to all imported canned beer, including from Canada and Mexico)

  • Additional country-specific tariffs apply to beer itself

  • 10% tariff on most alcoholic beverages from countries not covered by other executive actions

Mexico’s Tariffs

For U.S. imports:

  • Delayed response at first to U.S. tariffs

  • As of August 2025, 25% tariff on many Mexican goods entering the U.S.

  • Ongoing U.S.-Mexico trade talks, with a potential deal by November 2025

For EU imports:

  • EU-Mexico Global Agreement eliminates tariffs on food and drinks, including beer

  • 25% U.S. tariff applies to Mexican goods going to the U.S., but not to beer sent to the EU

Canada’s Tariffs

For U.S. imports:

  • Canada imposed 25% retaliatory tariffs on U.S. beer, wine, and spirits in early 2025

  • Retaliation followed U.S. 25% tariffs on Canadian goods outside of USMCA coverage

For EU imports:

  • U.S.-EU trade deal (July 2025) set a 15% import tax on most EU goods, affecting Canadian beer exports to the EU

  • EU counter-tariffs on some U.S. goods, but alcoholic beverages excluded

Europe’s Tariffs

For U.S. imports:

  • EU imposed 15% tariffs on most U.S. goods in response to U.S. trade actions

  • Announced additional retaliatory tariffs in March 2025 on U.S. beer, bourbon, and other products

Production Costs & Tariffs

Recent tariff increases have muddied the picture for beer imports, however. The Trump Administration in April announced an overall tariff of 25 percent on beer imports, followed on the July 4 “Liberation Day” with an additional 10 percent tariff.

Perhaps of surprise to many consumers, tariffs on imports of aluminum play an important role in the potential price run-up for beer drinkers and other consumers.

The beverage industry paid $1.7 billion for 8 million metric tons of aluminum between March 23, 2018 and August 31, 2022, according to a study by the Beer Institute, an industry trade group. Industry experts contend the aluminum tariffs add as much as 5 cents per can to the price of beer.

The barley sector also has a stake in the imposition of tariffs. While Canada grows its own barley, it is still the largest importer of U.S. barley, with Mexico being the third largest. (The EU relies largely on its own production of barley for brewing and animal feeds, importing roughly a half-billion dollars of barley per year).

Reciprocal tariffs imposed by countries that do import substantial amounts of U.S. barley could further compromise valuable export markets at a time of serious financial difficulties facing American farmers. In March, Canada imposed a 25 percent tariff on barley and other products, but has announced plans to scrap the counter-tariffs except for autos, steel and aluminum.

Revisiting the USMCA Agreement

Trump’s Administration seems intent on unwinding some of the trade tension by going back to the tariff schedules agreed in the 2020 United States-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement. But the shifting tariff terms create uncertainty and worry across many economic sectors, including the U.S. farm community. The U.S. brewing industry shares these concerns.

Most larger brewers rely upon supply contracts, and the USMCA offers protection and hope for preservation of both Mexico and Canada barley markets. But smaller brewers face a tougher situation.

According to Bart Watson, president and CEO of the Brewers Association, as quoted by MSN:

“We have a fairly integrated North American barley and malt system. Because most U.S. barley is contracted by large brewers or for export to Mexico, a lot of craft brewers end up getting malt from Canada.

…Overnight, tariffs could add $60 million, give or take a little bit, to the cost structure of small brewers in the U.S.”

– Bart Watson, President & CEO of Brewers Association

This has led some brewers to start looking at other avenues for malt or to increase some European orders, which could also be impacted, based on threats from the administration.

The full effects of the complex tariff picture have yet to become fully apparent, as brewers, importers and retailers wrangle with how much of the added costs can be passed along to consumers already frustrated by rising food and beverage prices.

Higher transportation costs, energy prices and other costs of doing business add to the squeeze. Most industry figures agree the still-robust beer sector faces an uncertain consumer response to inevitably higher costs for imported beer.

Shift to Domestic Demand

The tariffs, along with rising health concerns and consumer budget pressures, have led to demand trends that worry beverage industry leaders.

Two of the most significant suppliers of imported beer – Canada, and even more so Mexico – enjoy a special exemption from the brunt of the tariff costs because of pre-existing trade agreements with the United States.

As valuable as this exemption may be, it doesn’t completely free them from price pressures.

Analysts cited by birrup.com forecast that “the traditionally affordable imported beers may become luxury items, forcing consumers in price-sensitive segments to reconsider their preferences.

In response, there is anticipation of shelf space redistribution favoring either domestic beers or tariff-exempt contract-brewed alternatives, potentially altering the competitive landscape in the near term.”

Domestic beer producers would seem to have a potential advantage in the existing market picture. However, industry observers point to a tough market ahead with consumers shifting to non-alcoholic drinks and other ‘lighter’ alcohol choices. Even the popular craft beer industry has seen a drop in sales.

As summarized by toasttab.com, a restaurant point-of-sale service:

Beer prices are shaped by a combination of supply-side pressures—like rising ingredient, packaging, and transportation costs—and shifting consumer demand.

According to the NBWA Beer Purchasers’ Index (BPI), nearly every major beer category is experiencing a decline in demand, signaling a more cautious and competitive environment for bars and distributors.

Premium domestic beers are expected to fare comparatively well, especially as consumers compare prices for these brands against the most popular foreign brands.  Light beers and ‘premium’ domestic beer brands (such as Michelob Ultra), however, potentially face increasingly price-sensitive consumers as well.

The picture for imported beer demand also is pessimistic. According to Toasttab.com:

Imported beers experienced the sharpest drop across all segments in 2025. The BPI for this category fell from 67 in March 2024 to 46 in March 2025, marking its first time in contraction territory since April 2020. That’s a 21-point decline—reflecting a significant pullback in distributor purchasing.

Despite falling demand, prices for imports like Heineken and Modelo are likely to remain elevated. International shipping costs, tariffs, and fluctuating currency rates continue to drive up the base cost, limiting how much retailers and bars can discount without eroding margins.

Prices in the Cooler

A completely unscientific survey of beer prices at a range of beverage retailers tells the story in stark dollars and cents. While the price for each beer may vary from area to area, the price disparity between domestic and imported beers seems clear.

In this sample, the disparity between domestic and imported averaged roughly $3 per 12-pack at $2.96.

The gap between imported beers and premium brand domestic beers was much smaller, but the disparity with the most popular standard domestic brands (Budweiser, e.g.) was closer to $4.50.

As birrup.com noted above, beer brewers and marketers are carefully watching the beer market to see how the shifting economics and prices affect consumer behaviors.

Will they pay the higher costs for premium brands – imported or domestic – or shift their buying habits toward lower price non-premium brands?

Posted on

Sodium vs. Salt: What’s the Difference?

The CDC estimates that nearly 90% of U.S. adults consume too much sodium, and excess intake is directly linked to elevated blood pressure—the single largest preventable risk factor for heart disease and stroke.

What’s tricky about sodium is that consuming too much at once doesn’t make you feel bad right away. Unlike sugar, which can cause an energy crash, or caffeine, which you feel within minutes, sodium’s effects build silently over time. That’s why it’s often called a “stealth health risk.”

Sodium ≠ Salt…and why that matters

Sodium is a single element – a mineral, to be exact. Salt is a compound of two elements: 40% sodium and 60% chloride, and is commonly consumed as “table salt”.

We need sodium – just not too much. Sodium, along with chloride, is an electrolyte that carries an electric charge when dissolved in our blood. They regulate the water in and around our cells.

Along with other electrolytes, sodium and chloride create the electrical signals that allow our muscles and nerves to communicate. Salt is also critical for making stomach acid, which we need for digestion. Ultimately, it facilitates the transport of nutrients and waste across cell membranes.

But too much sodium can lead to high blood pressure, water retention, higher blood volume, and then higher blood pressure. So how much is too much, and how much is just right?

U.S. Dietary Guidelines state that the recommendation is <2,300 mg/day of sodium for adults and teens. This is roughly the amount of sodium in a teaspoon of table salt.

The American Heart Association’s goal is 1,500 mg/day, especially for people with high blood pressure. This amount is just enough salt to cover the face of a quarter. And here’s a motivating nudge: for most people, cutting back by just 1,000 mg can improve blood pressure and heart health by 10%, according to the American Heart Association.

Even with these recommendations, the average intake remains too high at 3,300–3,400 mg/day.

So what can we do—what should we avoid, or look for?

Where sodium really comes from

Most of the sodium Americans eat doesn’t come from the salt shaker—it’s hiding in everyday foods.

More than 70% of our sodium comes from packaged and restaurant foods.

Top contributors include breads and tortillas, sandwiches and deli meats, soups, sauces, pizza, grain dishes, cheeses, and savory snacks.

Myth vs. Fact: Salt Edition

Myth: Sea salt is healthier than table salt.

  • Fact: Both contain ~40% sodium by weight. The only difference is texture and trace minerals.

Myth: If I don’t add salt, my diet is low in sodium.

  • Fact: Over 70% of sodium comes from packaged and restaurant foods—not the salt shaker.

Myth: I’ll feel it if I’m getting too much sodium.

  • Fact: High sodium has no immediate “symptoms,” which is why it’s called a silent risk factor.

Research on sodium and health

Across dozens of studies, lowering sodium reduces blood pressure, regardless of your starting point.

A large meta-analysis found consistent, dose-responsive reductions in systolic blood pressure (BP) when people reduced sodium. In controlled feeding studies (DASH-Sodium), pairing a produce-rich pattern with lower sodium led to stepwise BP drops, with the largest reductions at the lowest sodium level. Lower blood pressure translates to fewer cardiovascular events across populations.

Foods rich in potassium—beans, potatoes, leafy greens, dairy, seafood, and fruits—help the body excrete sodium and relax blood vessels. The World Health Organization recommends ≥3,510 mg/day of potassium for adults, and trials show higher potassium intake reduces BP (especially when sodium is high!).

A powerful combo in the real world, in the SSaSS trial (600 villages, ~21,000 people), replacing regular salt with a potassium-enriched salt lowered stroke, major cardiovascular events, and death. By lowering sodium consumption while adding potassium-rich foods into your everyday meals, you can meaningfully reduce its ill effects.

“This study provides clear evidence about an intervention that could be taken up very quickly at very low cost.”

— Dr. Bruce Neal, MD, SSaSS trial

The World Health Organization has identified sodium reduction as one of the most cost-effective public health interventions worldwide. Excess sodium contributes to an estimated 1.9 million deaths annually from cardiovascular disease.

Some countries, such as the UK, have successfully reduced sodium intake at a population level through reformulation targets and public awareness, demonstrating that collective shifts in the food supply can drive significant health benefits.

However, there’s a word of caution to reducing sodium intake among rigorously-training athletes. Endurance efforts in the heat can result in significant salt losses through sweat. Sports-medicine guidance favors personalized fluid and electrolyte plans based on sweat rate, duration, and conditions. For long, hot sessions, include sodium (sports drinks or salty foods); avoid both dehydration and over-hydration with plain water.

Sodium-reduction tactics that work

Cutting back on sodium doesn’t have to mean bland food. The trick is to build layers of flavor so you naturally reach for less salt. Start by leaning on umami—that deep, savory taste found in mushrooms, tomatoes, Parmesan, soy sauce, and other fermented foods.

One lesser-known tool in the umami toolbox is monosodium glutamate (MSG). Despite its controversial reputation, the FDA classifies MSG as Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS), and controlled studies haven’t consistently shown harmful effects. When mild reactions do occur, they’re linked to very large doses eaten without food. MSG is also far lower in sodium: about 12% sodium compared with table salt’s ~39%. That means swapping some salt for MSG in soups, stews, or stir-fries can trim total sodium by 30–40% while keeping food satisfying.

Flavor boosters don’t stop there. Add acids and aromatics—citrus, vinegars, fresh herbs, garlic, spices, and chiles—to brighten and deepen flavor. Use techniques like toasting spices or browning meat and vegetables to create natural complexity.

Pantry strategies help, too. Draining and rinsing canned beans removes up to 36–41% of their sodium. Choosing “no-salt-added” versions gives you even more control, letting you season back with herbs, acids, and just a light sprinkle of salt.

And don’t be fooled by fancy salts—sea, Himalayan, or flaky crystals. They don’t provide health advantages over iodized table salt. By weight, sodium is sodium; coarse crystals just look like less because fewer fit in a teaspoon.

If your household avoids dairy or seafood, or typically uses non-iodized salts, keep iodized salt in rotation. Iodine is essential for thyroid health, and many specialty salts don’t supply it.

As for outside of the household, the FDA’s voluntary sodium reduction goals for food makers aim to bring down sodium across popular categories like soups, breads and sauces, nudging the whole food supply in a healthier direction while keeping taste. That helps you succeed without micromanaging every meal.

For your next meal or grocery run, focus on where sodium really hides (packaged and restaurant foods), use label-reading as your secret weapon, and lean on flavor-building techniques like herbs, acids, and umami-rich foods. Pair sodium reduction with more potassium-rich foods, and you’ll tackle blood pressure from both sides of the equation. Small, steady changes can protect your heart for decades to come.

Posted on

Why are Artificial Food Dyes Fading Out?

Imagine your kid’s favorite snack—maybe neon-orange Cheetos or rainbow Froot Loops—suddenly looking a little…muted. Why the sudden change? Were we unknowingly feeding our kids toxic dyes all along?

This sudden shift isn’t about fear, nor has science definitively proven these dyes are dangerous. It’s because consumers are asking for more transparency, regulators are tightening up approvals, and manufacturers now have better natural options that work just as well—without changing taste, shelf life, or stability.

What’s Triggering the Change?

As we previously reported with regard to red food dyes, the “Make America Healthy Again” initiative, led by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, is driving a nationwide phase-out of petroleum-based synthetic food dyes by 2026. Red No. 3 will be banned by January 15, 2027.

“Every day, children are exposed to synthetic chemicals in food that serve no purpose and threaten their health,” Kennedy said in a July press release. “The FDA’s approval of gardenia blue shows we’re finally putting kids first… cutting through industry influence and taking decisive action.”

Science does not completely support this fact, but nonetheless, about 40% of U.S. food manufacturers have pledged to eliminate synthetic dyes—a shift akin to repainting a neon sports car with eco-friendly matte paint.

Flashy is out, cleaner conscience is now in.

Food companies were not deliberately trying to poison various foods but there was a clear set of practical reasons to use synthetic dyes:

  1. Cost and Scalability. Synthetic dyes can be scaled much more efficiently than natural dyes at a lower cost.
  2. Vibrancy and Consistency. Synthetics give the intense vibrant and highly consistent colors where as natural colors are less vivid and can vary from batch to batch.
  3. Stability. This might be the key reason for synthetics. They are resilient to light, heat, and PH degradation.

The Regulatory Environment

The FDA requires that the color additive must be ‘safe’ for their intended use. In other words, a reasonable certainty of no harm based on scientific evidence.

The European Union allows regulators to take protective measures in the face of scientific uncertainty. They prioritize ‘potential harm’ even though the scientific evidence is not conclusive.

Many other countries such as Australia and Japan also take the stringent view of artificial dyes.

Major Brands Leading the Charge: Who’s Changing & How

The phase-out isn’t just a policy push—it’s transforming some of America’s most iconic brands.

Nestlé USA has already made 90% of its U.S. product line dye-free and aims for full removal by mid-2026. Products like Nesquik now use beet juice and turmeric, while Toll House morsels are transitioning to paprika-based colors. Nestlé had already made these changes in Europe, and the U.S. shift reflects a growing push for global consistency.

PepsiCo is rolling out dye-free versions of Lay’s and Tostitos in schools this fall, with broader retail updates planned by 2026. Brightly colored beverages like Mountain Dew and Gatorade are now testing algae- and turmeric-based hues in select markets. The company is leaning into a “clean label” rebrand aimed squarely at health-conscious parents.

Welch’s Fruit Snacks will be fully reformulated by early 2026, replacing Red 40 with strawberry concentrate and purple carrot juice. A naturally derived blue is in testing for mixed berry packs, and the reformulation has already boosted sales in Europe.

Blue Bell, along with major ice cream producers like Breyers and Turkey Hill, plans to transition between 2027–28. Their popular Rainbow Sherbet will incorporate spirulina, turmeric, and beet extracts, while the birthday cake flavor will swirl in gardenia blue.

Other major players are making moves, too:

  • Kraft Heinz is already using annatto in classic Mac & Cheese and will eliminate synthetic dyes in its flavored lines.
  • General Mills is shifting Lucky Charms marshmallows to spirulina-based blues and carrot-derived oranges.
  • Tyson Foods will remove Yellow 5 and Yellow 6 from its kids’ chicken nuggets, opting for turmeric and annatto instead.

Meanwhile, Mars remains a holdout—despite removing dyes in Europe, the U.S. versions of Skittles and M&M’s still contain synthetics. The Texas Attorney General is currently investigating whether the company misled consumers about potential health risks.

Since these dyes seem to be a good replacement, we ask ourselves, ‘why not?’

What the Science Really Says

Right now, the science on synthetic food dyes is far from conclusive.

Most of the concerns we hear—hyperactivity, behavioral issues, cancer—are based on limited, largely animal-based, or correlational studies. That doesn’t mean they should be dismissed outright. But it does mean we need more high-quality, human-based research before we sound the alarm.

Behavior & ADHD: Is There a Real Link?

For decades, researchers have asked whether artificial dyes affect children’s behavior. Some studies suggest a possible link—especially in a small subset of genetically susceptible children—but findings are mixed and inconsistent.

  • A 2007 UK study found that certain dye blends (including Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6) may worsen hyperactivity in some kids, leading the EU to mandate warning labels.
  • A 2022 review in Nutrients echoed this: while most children show no reaction, some “sensitive subgroups” may experience behavioral shifts. Still, evidence of a broad population-level risk remains weak.
  • The FDA reviewed these studies and concluded that there’s insufficient proof of causation.

DNA Damage & Cancer Risk: What’s the Real Risk?

Animal research has raised red flags around some synthetic dyes—but translation to human risk is complicated.

  • Red No. 3 has been linked to thyroid tumors in rats, leading to its phase-out in drugs and now foods under the FDA’s Delaney Clause.
  • Red 40 and Allura Red AC have caused DNA damage and gut inflammation in rodent studies. One 2022 study in Nature Communications found Allura Red altered gut bacteria in mice in ways that might contribute to inflammatory diseases.

But again, human data is inconclusive:

  • Large-scale studies (like the French NutriNet-Santé cohort) have associated high dye intake with certain cancers—but correlation doesn’t mean causation, especially in diets filled with other ultra-processed ingredients.

“It’s not that synthetic dyes cause cancer in people—we don’t have that evidence,” explains Dr. Lisa Lefferts of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “But why accept any possible risk when safer, natural options now exist?”

Will People Eat a Duller Rainbow?

One of the biggest unknowns in this natural dye transition isn’t just science or safety—it’s consumer psychology.

Eating is a full sensory experience. We don’t just taste our food—we see it first. For decades, consumers have been trained to associate vivid blues, glowing oranges, and electric pinks with flavor, fun, and freshness. That’s about to change.

Natural colors—while safer—tend to be softer, earthier, and more muted. Beets don’t scream red like Red 40. Turmeric is yellow, yes, but not neon. And gardenia blue? Closer to denim than electric. And natural colors in ice creams can fade or bleed more easily.

“We’re entering a new era of food aesthetics,” says Dr. Charles Spence, a sensory psychologist at Oxford University. “Color creates expectation. A bright blue drink is perceived as sweeter—even if it’s not. Shifting those cues will take time and re-education.”

“Color affects how we think something will taste—even before we put it in our mouths,’ adds Rachel Herz, Ph.D., author of Why You Eat What You Eat.

‘If something looks less vivid, consumers may perceive it as less flavorful, even if the formula hasn’t changed at all.”

Brands are aware. That’s why many are phasing changes slowly, running test markets, and pairing reformulations with new packaging and marketing strategies to “retrain” visual expectations.

We expect to see:

  • “Natural look” campaigns showcasing muted, earth-toned versions of classic snacks
  • Label claims like “colored with turmeric & beet juice” replacing synthetic dye codes
  • More transparency about ingredients and sourcing

But the big question is: Will kids—and parents—accept that their snacks look a little less bright if it means a cleaner label?

“In blind taste tests, most people can’t tell the difference,” says a product developer for a leading snack brand. “But put that same product in front of them with a faded color? Suddenly, it feels different. That’s the challenge.”

The evidence against synthetic dyes isn’t ironclad—but neither is it irrelevant. Most studies are preliminary, animal-based, or show only weak correlations in humans.

Still, the fact remains: these dyes don’t improve taste, nutrition, or shelf life. They are purely cosmetic. Given our knowledge today, most people would choose a healthier beet juice dye than Red dye No. 40 for their children.

Posted on

One Big Beautiful Bill for Dummies

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act that was signed into law July 4 is indeed big, but just how beautiful it may be depends largely on where you sit.

What stood out to us is that farmers and ranchers gained some valuable economic support from the bill.

In normal times, the headlines from this very big bill would still be reverberating throughout the media world. But they aren’t, by and large.

Part of the relative silence may be recognition that debate is over. The bill is law. Now we must deal with its effects, not argue about them any longer. Political reality is political reality.

Maybe a bigger reason is the relatively small place of farm programs and health and nutrition elements in a piece of legislation that cuts across virtually every segment of our economy.

Digging into the Dirt

The “OBBB Act” contains 10 separate titles and 296 separate sections, representing the collective effort of congressional committees to reconcile spending requirements with a stated desire to reduce deficit spending. Specific finance provisions regarding collective program spending and individual tax considerations make up almost half the total number of sections, many reflecting last-ditch efforts to secure the votes needed to pass the massive bill in compliance with President Trump’s July 4 deadline. Little wonder the introductory table of contents spans a full 13 pages.

Without getting lost in the tall, tall weeds of legislative language, let’s look at some of the top-line elements of the OBBB.

However, before, it is worth mentioning that supporting America’s farmers is critical for food security:

To keep the farmer and rancher in business and providing enough food for both American’s and the world, the OBBB provides an economic safety net and tax relief.

What does the farming and ranching community get out of it?

  • An improved economic safety net. OBBB increases basic commodity support rates through higher “reference prices” and commodity loan rates. This means that the government pays the farm when crop prices fall below a certain level. Reference prices for each agricultural commodity are key to determining the federal dollars needed for farm payments under such critical economic protection programs as Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC).
    • These increases were justified by their supporters as a necessary step to protect economically battered farmers – and the rural communities they support – from the harmful effects of rises in production costs during an extended period of weak commodity prices. It is also there to help the farming community to offset export losses due to tariffs.
  • Expanded income protection access. OBBB also allows farmers to purchase additional coverage in the ARC program. This offers payments when a farmer’s actual revenue falls below a guaranteed level.
  • Changes to farm-related taxes. By altering the capital gains tax regulations, farmers will now be able to sell farmland and make capital gains tax payments across four years – if farming operations are maintained for 10 years. This provision seeks to balance federal tax-income goals with a long-standing desire to avoid loss of active – and family-owned – farmland.
  • Other business-focused tax changes. As business people, farmers and ranchers also stand to gain from the preservation and expansion of various tax regulations related to investments, such as estate tax exemptions and certain business income deductions. Certain depreciation deductions for various research and development activities also are continued.
  • In a similar vein, OBBB proponents point to the possible economic gains available to farmers and others from permanent increases in the standard deduction to $15,750 and $2,200 in the child tax credit, both effective after 2025. Increases in the deduction for state and local taxes are expected to put money in pocketbooks.
  • Preservation of clean fuel production credits. OBBB extends these credits through 2029 for fuel derived from crops.
  • Miscellaneous program changes. Buried within the OBBB are various changes to funding for a wide range of agriculture-related federal activities.

The price tag?

An estimated $65 billion in additional spending over the next decade.

How do we pay for all this?

To help pay for these economic protections, OBBB tightens a number of requirements and rules for health programs, as well as nutrition and health programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), designed to slow the pace of growth in federal program spending. And DOGE aims to eliminate waste and fraud.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated the changes in OBBB to health insurance could reduce federal spending by roughly $1 trillion – that’s $1,000,000,000,000 – over 10 years.

Over the next decade, however, OBBB would increase the federal deficit by $3.4 trillion and cause 10 million people to lose health insurance, CBO estimates.

The effects of OBBB on our national health care can’t be overstated. Major changes to Medicaid and Medicare tighten the criteria for program eligibility, with more effort by states to police abuses of the programs and higher co-pays. More program costs are shifted to the states. Provisions also affect eligibility under the Affordable Care Act. Roughly 130 million Americans rely on Medicare and Medicaid for health insurance.

For example:

  • Expanded work requirements. To be eligible for Medicaid, recipients must work 80 hours per month.
  • Funding mechanism changes. Financial devices used by states to cover these program expenses are limited, to avoid use of provider taxes, special payment provisions and other tools. The effect is to shift significant program costs to the states.
  • States are required to step up the frequency of eligibility checks to assure benefits go only to those who meet the program standards.
  • ‘Provisional eligibility’ is curtailed, meaning individuals must wait for completion of the eligibility and registration process before being covered.

The other major area of targeted reductions in federal spending is SNAP. Like health-related federal programs, SNAP now faces and number of changes designed to reduce federal costs by stricter eligibility requirements and funding changes. Beginning in 2028, notably, states will pick up a greater share of the cost.

Key changes include:

  • Reduced work waivers. OBBB expands the age brackets for those required to work and clamps down on the number of exemptions from work categories.
  • Fewer deductions for the income thresholds defining eligibility.
  • Decreased benefit updates in future SNAP payments.
  • Higher state funding. States with higher program error rates would be required to pick up a greater share of SNAP costs. States with error rates over 6 percent would be required to pay 5-15 percent of costs. The Department of Agriculture estimates the average state error rate at 10.9 percent last year.

OBBB proponents say the tighter rules will help cut deferral SNAP spending by as much as $267 billion over the coming decade. CBO notes that even with the added federal funds for farmer economic assistance, overall federal budget savings from the comprehensive revisions to all farm programs (including SNAP) could be as high as $120 billion over the coming decade.

OBBB critics focus on a different kind of numbers.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that SNAP currently provides basic food assistance to more than 40 million people, including children, seniors and nonelderly adults with disabilities. The Urban Institute estimates changes to SNAP could mean 22.3 million families lose some or all SNAP benefits – 5.3 million losing at least $25 per month in benefits and an average loss fort families of $146 per month.

What about the consumer?

Supporters of OBBB focus on the numerous tax breaks in the bill as major benefits to a consumer society. While experts differ on the size and extent of the additional cash in consumer pockets, critics focus on the potential damage to consumer interests that might result if the economic growth promised from the OBBB doesn’t materialize, or falls short of the ambitious growth targets touted by the Administration.

Few economists or other food gurus seem to expect the Act to have any material effect on food prices, certainly not in the short term. If inflation resurges over time, food won’t be exempt from it, of course. But no one seems to think the OBBB will precipitate a dramatic surge in food costs on its own.

OBBB supporters also point out the positive effects for great swaths of middle America of shoring up the food producers economic protections and incentives for continued investment in food and agriculture. Maintaining a healthy and vibrant farm sector will help rural and urban consumers alike, they point out. Critics, in turn, caution that rising health care and food costs for the economically disadvantaged displaced by OBBB’s regulatory changes are anything but good news for those consumers.

What happens now?

One more detail from the OBBB stands to be of great importance to the farming community, rural America and food consumers everywhere. While OBBB helps shore up the economic safety net for farmers and ranchers, it didn’t provide the clear goals and objectives for our complex food system. OBBB addressed budgetary issues, not the basic policy parameters that will determine just how efficient and effective our modern food system remains in the face of expanding public expectations for a reliable, safe, wholesome and affordable food supply.

Our food policies are the stuff of the Farm Bill – the comprehensive package of policies and programs that guide and govern our modern food and agricultural system. OBBB provided a patch. But we’re still more than two years overdue for farm legislation, with a lengthy agenda of subjects to address – conservation programs, biofuels, environmental protection, trade, market regulation oversight, and much, much more.

Supporters of OBBB point to the gains made through the Act for farmers, rural communities and taxpaying consumers and speak optimistically of the future of a “skinny farm bill” that can at long last be enacted. Others more soberly comment that if what lies ahead is ‘skinny,’ no wonder we tend to overlook the epidemic of obesity that surrounds us.

Posted on

Tech’s Essential Role in Food Safety

Each year, the CDC estimates that 48 million Americans are affected by foodborne illness, resulting in over 128,000 hospitalizations and 3,000 deaths. Behind those numbers are real people—a child at lunch, a grandparent at dinner, a parent preparing a family meal—who simply expected their food to be safe.

Who’s Watching Our Food?

Meanwhile, the infrastructure designed to protect that safety is facing mounting pressure. Recent cuts from the new administration to the FDA’s food safety programs are compounding challenges for inspection teams already stretched thin. State public health labs are grappling with outdated technology and staffing shortages. The result: slower investigations, fewer routine checks, and an increasing reliance on food producers to self-monitor.

It only takes one outbreak to expose the vulnerabilities in our food system.

These outbreaks happen on a fairly regular basis:

In May 2025, there was a salmonella outbreak with cucumbers affecting consumers in Florida. In 2024, the U.S. faced a string of serious foodborne illness events: a Listeria outbreak linked to deli meats claimed 10 lives across 19 states; Salmonella-contaminated cucumbers sickened more than 500 people in two separate incidents; and a nationwide recall of Yu Shang Food products followed another deadly Listeria case.

Why Tech Is Essential in an Era of Shrinking Oversight

Yes, the scale of foodborne illness is alarming—but it’s also important to consider the context. Every day, hundreds of millions of Americans eat multiple meals, resulting in billions of opportunities for something to go wrong. That the vast majority of those meals are safe is a credit to the resilience of our food system. But that resilience is not guaranteed.

As the system grows in scale and complexity, so must our approach to protecting it. Total elimination of risk is statistically impossible, but we can drive that risk down to the lowest level possible through smarter practices, stronger technology, and more coordinated oversight. That means moving beyond manual spot-checks and embracing proven tools already at our disposal, from rapid DNA sequencing to AI-based monitoring and smart traceability platforms.

Food safety isn’t the responsibility of regulators alone. It’s a shared commitment between government agencies, industry leaders, technology developers, and, yes, consumers themselves. In a system this vast, progress from constant, deliberate improvement.

The Tools That Can—and Should—Protect Us

Today’s food system is more complex, globalized, and fast-moving than ever before.

Fresh berries from Chile, seafood from Vietnam, baby spinach grown in California—all of it might travel thousands of miles, change hands a dozen times, and still land safely on your plate within days. That’s an incredible feat of logistics and science, but also a reminder that our food chain is vast, intricate, and increasingly difficult to monitor with traditional tools alone.

Behind the scenes, a suite of cutting-edge technologies is quietly revolutionizing the way we protect our food—from AI algorithms that scan for contamination risks before a human could spot them, to biosensors embedded in packaging that alert us when a product has spoiled, to blockchain systems that trace a head of lettuce back to its exact harvest date and field location in seconds.

These tools aren’t speculative or futuristic—they’re here now. They’ve been validated by the world’s leading health agencies and are backed by rigorous, peer-reviewed science. In many ways, they represent the next logical leap in food safety: faster, smarter, more precise, and scalable for the global food economy.

Yet despite this incredible promise, several of these technologies remain underused—not because they’re flawed, but because they sound unfamiliar. Terms like “irradiation,” “high-pressure processing,” or “digital traceability” can be off-putting to consumers unfamiliar with the science behind them. That’s not a reason to slow down. It’s a call to educate, demystify, and embrace the tools that can dramatically reduce illness and improve trust in the system.

Technologies Advancing our Food System

When you pull back the curtain on today’s food safety landscape, the story isn’t one of doom or decline. It’s one of innovation—of brilliant minds developing tools that keep millions of people safe every single day. And the sooner we embrace that story, the stronger our food system will be. Let’s take a look at some of the technologies that will create a more efficient and safer food system:

Food Irradiation: A Quiet Powerhouse

Let’s start with one of the most proven—but most misunderstood—food safety interventions. Food irradiation uses ionizing radiation to kill pathogens like E. coli, Listeria, and Salmonella in meat, produce, and spices.

It doesn’t make food radioactive or nutritionally inferior. In fact, both the World Health Organization and the U.S. FDA have endorsed it as safe and effective for decades. A 2022 review in Frontiers in Nutrition confirmed that irradiation reduces pathogen levels by over 99.9% in some foods.

Yet fewer than 0.01% of U.S. grocery items are irradiated, in part due to labeling fears (products must carry a “treated with radiation” statement) and limited consumer understanding.

“We know it works. It’s time to normalize it,” says Dr. Christine Bruhn, a food safety expert at UC Davis. “Like pasteurization, irradiation should be seen as a modern tool, not a threat.”

High-Pressure Processing (HPP): Cold, Clean, Effective

HPP is a non-thermal method that uses cold water under extreme pressure to kill bacteria in ready-to-eat foods—no heat or chemicals required. Brands like Suja Juice, Wholly Guacamole, and Boar’s Head already use it to extend shelf life and reduce risk without preservatives.

A 2023 study in Food Control found that HPP extended the shelf life of deli meats up to three times longer, while maintaining safety standards and quality.

Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS): Tracking Outbreaks at the DNA Level

This powerful tool maps the genetic code of pathogens found in food, allowing scientists to trace outbreaks with precision.

During the 2022 E. coli outbreak in leafy greens, WGS helped CDC investigators pinpoint a contaminated water source on a specific farm—days faster than traditional methods.

WGS is now standard in many public health labs, but its continued use depends on consistent funding and cross-agency collaboration.

“It’s the future of outbreak detection,” says Dr. Marc Allard, a senior microbiologist at the FDA. “But it’s not plug-and-play. It requires infrastructure, training, and support.”

Blockchain & Digital Traceability: Speed Matters

When a food recall hits, every minute counts. Traditional traceback methods can take days or even weeks to determine the source of contamination. But in a 2023 pilot by IBM and Walmart, blockchain technology reduced that time to just 2.2 seconds for leafy greens.

Digital traceability systems can also help identify which specific lots are affected—avoiding costly over-recalls and consumer panic.

Smart Packaging & Biosensors: Early Warnings Built In

Imagine packaging that changes color when food spoils, or embedded sensors that detect pathogens before the product leaves the facility. These technologies already exist—and they’re evolving quickly.

A 2021 study in Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical demonstrated a biosensor that could detect Salmonella in under two hours—a major improvement over conventional lab tests.

Antimicrobial Interventions in Meat Processing

Foodborne pathogens often originate in raw meat and poultry.

That’s why USDA-approved interventions, like lactic acid rinses and peracetic acid sprays, are used to reduce microbial loads during processing.

A 2023 review in Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety found that these methods can reduce E. coli O157:H7 by up to 90%, especially when used in combination with HPP or chilling systems.

Despite their efficacy, these practices are sometimes misrepresented as “bleach baths.” In reality, they’re a cornerstone of safe meat processing—and far safer than the alternative.

Artificial Intelligence: Smarter, Risk-Based Monitoring

AI is being used to analyze inspection reports, monitor real-time production data, and flag anomalies that human inspectors might miss.

This allows agencies to prioritize inspections based on actual risk, not just routine schedules.

While still developing, machine learning systems have already shown promise in improving predictive analytics for food recalls and contaminant detection.

“AI isn’t about replacing inspectors,” says Dr. Ben Chapman, a food safety researcher at NC State. “It’s about helping them focus where it matters most.”

The Cost of Inaction

Food safety isn’t just about public health—it’s about economic resilience. According to the USDA, foodborne illness costs the U.S. economy more than $17.6 billion annually, factoring in healthcare, lost productivity, and recalls.

One major outbreak can crater consumer confidence and devastate an entire industry. The 2018 romaine lettuce E. coli outbreak, for example, led to a multi-month sales plunge and changes in how leafy greens are grown and labeled.

We can’t afford to fall behind.

Moving Forward: Science, Not Sentiment

We once feared pasteurization. Now it’s non-negotiable. We once worried about refrigeration. Now we trust it implicitly.

Skepticism toward industrial-sounding technology is understandable. But it shouldn’t block solutions that are backed by decades of data and global consensus. These tools  aren’t silver bullets, but they are essential allies in an increasingly vulnerable system.

Regulators matter. But so does innovation. If funding realities limit the reach of federal oversight, we must fill the gaps with the best tools available—and that means trusting science over fear.

Posted on

Functional Snacks: Turning Junk into Wellness

Just last week, I found myself in front of the protein bar aisle—usually a quick grab-and-go moment—but this time, I paused. The shelves were bursting with options promising everything from sharper focus to gut support to better mood. Words like “nootropics,” “adaptogens,” “probiotic-rich,” and “mood boosting” weren’t just marketing fluff—they felt like an invitation. Suddenly, I wasn’t just picking out a snack—I was choosing how I wanted to feel.

The line between snack and supplement has officially blurred, and honestly? It’s thrilling. For the first time, grabbing a mid-day bite feels less like a compromise and more like a small act of self-care.

The Bigger Shift: Snacks with a Mission

For decades, some of the biggest players in food have faced criticism for fueling America’s addiction to ultra-processed, sugar-laden, sodium-packed snacks. But here’s what’s quietly happening behind the scenes: many of these same companies are reimagining what snack time could look like—and using their scale, research power, and global reach to do it.

From customizable hydration pods to gut-boosting popcorn, the new face of “junk food” isn’t about guilt—it’s about function. And for millions of people looking to make small but meaningful changes to their health, this is exactly the kind of shift we’ve been waiting for.

Consumers are no longer eating just to curb cravings—they’re seeking foods that contribute to better sleep, clearer focus, reduced stress, and long-term wellness. According to Mintel, 43% of Americans want food that supports both mental and physical health.  And now, GLP-1 users crave healthy foods more than before they were on the weight loss drug.

This demand is changing everything:

  • Product Design: Expect more products engineered for mood, immunity, energy, protein, and sleep.
  • Personalization: Smart bottles, wearable-connected apps, and AI-driven snack suggestions are just the beginning.
  • Mainstream Accessibility: Functional food isn’t just for health food stores—it’s in big box chains, vending machines, and drive-throughs.

From Candy to Clean: Hershey’s Strategic Shift

Once a symbol of sweet indulgence, The Hershey Company is now leading a transformation.

Its partnership with nutrient delivery startup VitaKey marks a turning point—not just making snacks taste good, but making them do good, too. Think probiotics, vitamins, and minerals that actually survive processing and deliver benefits where it counts.

Hershey’s acquisition of LesserEvil, the better-for-you popcorn brand made with organic ingredients and healthy fats, sends a clear message: consumers want more from their snacks—and Big Food is listening.

“We are responding to the fact that health and wellness has distinct consumer needs. You can see that with our portfolio, with areas that have protein, areas that are zero sugar, etc.”

— Michele Buck, CEO of Hershey

PepsiCo’s Personalized Playbook

PepsiCo, long associated with soda and chips, is pivoting in bold new ways. Its Gatorade Gx system, which personalizes hydration pods to fit your workout needs, taps into the growing trend of functional personalization—meeting people where they are in their wellness journey.

“At PepsiCo, innovation is a driver for everything we do,” said CEO Ramon Laguarta. “That’s why I’m excited about the launch of new Gatorade innovations—the improved Gx app, Smart Gx Bottle and Gatorade Gummies.”

From prebiotic chips to nootropic drinks, PepsiCo is designing snacks and beverages that support hydration, cognition, recovery, and more. It’s a reflection of what consumers have been asking for: not less food, but better food.

Functional Food Movement Powered by Scale

These are not isolated moves. Major brands across the food landscape are channeling resources into rethinking convenience foods—not just for profit, but because consumer demand is clear. People want snacks that support physical and mental health, without sacrificing taste or convenience.

  • General Mills has teamed up with GoodBelly to infuse cereals and yogurts with probiotics—bringing gut health to breakfast tables everywhere.
  • Kraft Heinz launched NotMac&Cheese, a plant-based twist on its iconic comfort food.
  • Nestlé’s nesQino lets users blend personalized smoothies and teas packed with freeze-dried functional ingredients.
  • Unilever’s Hellmann’s Vegan offers a plant-based mayo that’s earned praise even from longtime traditionalists.

These companies are not just following a trend—they’re helping shape it.

With the ability to reach millions of homes, school cafeterias, vending machines, and gas station shelves, Big Food’s role is not just influential—it’s essential.

How to Tell If a Functional Snack Is Legit

With all these new products claiming to support brain function, immunity, or mood, it’s fair to wonder: how do we know what’s real?

Fortunately, the science behind many of these ingredients is catching up fast. Some of these added ingredients include:

  • Adaptogens like ashwagandha have been shown in studies to reduce stress
  • Probiotics play a clear role in digestive and immune health
  • Nootropics like L-theanine can enhance focus and calm

But not all claims are created equal.

Before you toss that “brain-boosting” bar or “immunity-enhancing” soda into your cart, take a moment to turn over the package to carefully examine its nutrition facts and ingredients.

Here’s what to look for:

  • Look for named, science-backed ingredients: Adaptogens, nootropics, probiotics like Lactobacillus or Bifidobacterium, and nutrients like magnesium or vitamin D are common—but should be clearly listed, not hidden behind terms like “natural blend” or “proprietary mix.”
  • Check for real amounts: Functional ingredients should list their quantity, such as “250mg L-theanine” or “1 billion CFUs of probiotics.” Vague claims without dosages may be more about marketing than actual benefit.
  • Watch ingredient order: If the active ingredient is at the end of a long list—especially after things like flavorings or preservatives—it’s likely included in tiny amounts. Also, look for the sugar, saturated fat and sodium content.  Just because it has nutrients, if there is sugar it will contradict the benefits.
  • Seek transparency and third-party certifications: Look for labels like NSF Certified or Informed Choice. These signal quality and accountability.
  • Ignore the hype on the front: Turn the package over. The nutrition facts and ingredient list tell you far more than flashy slogans ever will.
  • And most importantly, trust, but verify: Big Food may be changing, but consumers are more educated than ever—and these companies know it. The more informed you are, the more you reward brands that are doing this right.

Big Food, Big Impact: A Path Toward Public Health

Let’s be honest: small wellness startups have done a lot to push the health food movement forward. But when it comes to reaching scale—especially in places where chronic illness and obesity are rampant—it takes the distribution power of the biggest companies in the world.

In the U.S., over 42% of adults live with obesity, and chronic illnesses tied to poor diet cost the economy $1.1 trillion annually, according to the CDC.

When companies like Kraft, Nestlé, or PepsiCo commit to reformulating their products to reduce sodium, sugar, and processed fats—while adding functional benefits—they’re not just chasing trends. They’re addressing real, systemic health problems at scale.

Final Bite: Big Food’s Wellness Rebrand Is Just Beginning

A few years ago, the idea of healthy, functional snacks from soda giants or candy companies might’ve seemed laughable. But now? It’s not only happening—it’s reshaping what wellness looks like for everyday consumers.

Lu Ann Williams, Global Insights Director at Innova Market Insights, puts it best:

“Consumers expect more from their food.

They want it to taste great but also work for them—whether that means more energy, better sleep, or improved digestion.”

And who better to answer that call than the companies that already feed the world?

Posted on

Transcript: The Curious Comeback of Beef Tallow

 

Click here to read the original post.

You know, it’s kind of wild how things cycle back around, isn’t it?

It really is. What’s on your mind?

Well, beef tallow, for instance. I mean, I remember it being completely uh demonized, right? I mean, because of all the saturated fat stuff.

Oh, absolutely. Persona non grata in the kitchen for decades.

And now suddenly it feels like it’s popping up everywhere again. People are cooking with it, using it on their skin. I’ve even seen like biohackers talking it up.

Yeah, it’s a fascinating resurgence. And the materials you sent over exploring this trend. They really pose a good question which is is this comeback based on you know new science. Or is it more about maybe nostalgia like an ancestral wisdom kind of thing without looking hard at the evidence.

Right. It feels like part of that bigger trend maybe questioning the usual advice looking back to tradition.

Exactly. There seems to be this undercurrent of skepticism towards established health guidelines and the sources you shared really map that out. Tallow wasn’t always the bad guy. It used to be a kitchen staple. Right.

Totally. Think pie crusts frying. McDonald’s used it for their fries.

No way. Really?

Yeah. Up until 1990 gave them that distinctive flavor.

Wow. So what happened?

Well, starting around the 60s, research began linking saturated fats to higher cholesterol levels and you know heart disease risk.

Ah the beginning of the lowfat push.

Precisely. And there was pressure from health advocates campaigns. By 1990 companies like McDonald’s had switched over to vegetable oils.

Oh, okay. But that switch wasn’t exactly straightforward either, was it?

No, not at all. And this is where the story gets well kind of complicated. Some of those early vegetable oil replacements, the partially hydrogenated ones, they turned out to be packed with trans fats, which we later found out were even worse.

Arguably, yes, even more harmful for heart health. So, the initial solution created a whole new problem and honestly, a lot of confusion about fats that we’re still sort of dealing with.

Okay, so trans fats are mostly gone now, thankfully. But what replaced tallow then after the trans fat scare?

Mostly other vegetable oils. Canola, soybean, sunflower, corn oil, that kind of thing.

The ones often marketed as healthier. Cholesterol-free, high in polyunsaturated fats or PUFAs.

Exactly. But now you’ve got this whole counter movement, haven’t you? The anti-seed oil crowd.

Yeah, that’s definitely loud online. What’s their main argument?

Well, they often claim these oils are like ultrarocessed, unstable when you heat them, and potentially inflammatory in the body. It’s a lot to keep track of. So what does the mainstream science say about that debate? Seed oils versus saturated fats like tallow.

Okay, so the general scientific consensus based on, you know, large studies and trials is still that replacing saturated fats with polyunsaturated fats, the kind found in many vegetable oils tends to lower LDL cholesterol, the bad cholesterol, right? And lowering that is linked to a reduced risk of heart disease. So major health bodies generally consider oils like olive oil, canola, soybean oil as safe. even beneficial in moderation.

But what about the inflammation and instability claims?

There’s ongoing research into how these oils behave, especially when heated repeatedly. That’s the oxidation part, but the widespread claims you see online about seed oils being toxic, they don’t really have strong backing from clinical trials in humans.

So, the bottom line for most people is still that these vegetable oils are likely a safer bet than loading up on saturated fats

in the context of a typical Western diet. Yes. That’s generally the conclusion. They remain a safer alternative to routinely using highly saturated fats like tallow or butter for most of your cooking and fat intake.

Okay. So, if the science hasn’t drastically flipped, why is tallow making such a comeback now?

Ah, well, that’s more about culture and marketing. I think you’ve got wellness influencers promoting it as ancestral or natural and the skin care angle. Biocompatible they call it, right? Plus, chefs do genuinely like it for flavor and it’s high smoke point. It doesn’t burn. easily.

So, it cooks well at high temperatures.

Exactly. And social media just amplifies all of this, framing tallow as somehow cleaner or more real than processed seed oils.

It really taps into that desire for simpler stuff. Maybe a rejection of big food industries.

Definitely, there’s a nostalgia factor, a feeling of getting back to basics, but you know, just because something’s old or natural doesn’t automatically make it healthier. We stop doing lots of old things for good reasons.

And crucially, the fundamental science on saturated fat.

Yeah.

It hasn’t really budged, has it?

Not in its core message. The sources you looked at mentioned several big reviews of 2021, 2021, 2023.

Yeah. In major cardiology and medical journals, and they all continue to link high intakes of saturated fat with increased risk of heart disease and related mortality.

But what about that one study, I think it was 2014, that made headlines questioning the link?

Ah, yes, the Annals of Internal Medicine review. It did cause a stir. her, but it also faced significant criticism regarding its methods and conclusions. And importantly, major health organizations didn’t change the recommendations based on it.

So, the advice to limit saturated fat generally below 10% of daily calories still stands.

That’s the standard public health guideline. Yes. And those other claims you sometimes hear, tallow, fixing hormones, clearing skin, boosting mood, there’s just no rigorous scientific evidence backing those specific benefits up.

They’re most mostly anecdotal.

It does make you wonder though, why does it feel like people are more willing now to maybe disregard that scientific consensus?

That’s a huge question. It seems like health decisions are increasingly tied up with identity, maybe ideology, what fits a certain narrative and what algorithms push on social media.

Absolutely. Anecdotes from influencers spread like wildfire much faster than dense peer-reviewed studies. It feels like sometimes the story, the feeling around food becomes more powerful than the research data.

It’s like a preference for narrative over numbers.

You put it that way. And we see similar things happening elsewhere, right?

Like what?

Well, look at the resurgence of raw milk.

Oh, right. Similar arguments there. It’s more natural. Pasteurization destroys nutrients.

Exactly. Despite the very real documented risks of contamination, EC coli, lististeria, salmonella, things pasteurization was designed to prevent.

And now there’s even the worry about H5N1, the bird flu showing up in dairy herds, the FDA and CDC are warning against raw milk because of it.

Yet sales are apparently increasing in some areas driven by that same natural is better anti-establishment ethos.

It really highlights that tension, doesn’t it? The appeal of tradition versus the progress of science.

It does. It’s this sort of cultural yearning for simplicity, for a perceived lost purity.

But history isn’t always a reliable guide for health.

Precisely.

We should absolutely question our modern food system, but we also need to critically examine older practice. ices. Were they really better or just what people did before we knew more?

So, wrapping this up, the beef tallow comeback seems well less about a scientific evolution and more about culture.

I think that’s a fair assessment. It’s a cultural phenomenon, tapping into nostalgia and current anxieties about processed food much more than it is a scientifically validated health shift.

The comfort food aspect is strong, but the science on saturated fat and heart health, that story hasn’t fundamentally changed.

That remains the consistent message for major health organizations based on decades of research.

So maybe the final thought for you listening is this. When you’re making choices about food, about your health, what’s really guiding you?

Yeah. Is it the weight of the scientific evidence carefully gathered over time? Or is it more the emotional pull, the story, the allure of something that feels simpler or perhaps rebellious?

Definitely something worth chewing on as these trends continue.

Posted on

The Curious Comeback of Beef Tallow

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

 

In today’s health and wellness landscape, irony abounds: the very ingredients we once moved away from in the name of public health are now being resurrected under the banners of “ancestral wisdom” and “natural living.” One of the most recent examples? Beef tallow—an animal fat once demonized for its saturated fat content—is now enjoying a renaissance in cooking, skincare, and even biohacking.

This isn’t just about cooking with oil. It’s part of a broader philosophical divide. As institutional trust declines, many are turning to tradition and nature for guidance—assuming, sometimes wrongly, that these values offer more than modern science.

This mindset underlies trends ranging from the carnivore diet to raw milk to—you guessed it—deep-frying your potatoes in rendered cow fat.

So how did we get here? And are we forgetting why we left tallow behind in the first place?

What Is Beef Tallow, Really?

Beef tallow is rendered fat from cows, usually taken from suet (the hard fat around the kidneys and loins). Once rendered, it becomes a solid white fat at room temperature with a high smoke point (~400°F) and long shelf life.

Nutritionally, tallow is roughly:

  • 50% saturated fat
  • 42% monounsaturated fat
  • 4% polyunsaturated fat

That saturated fat content is what continues to concern medical experts—and why tallow never really left the “limit or restrict” category of most dietary guidelines. This type of fat is not limited to beef; you can buy cage-free duck fat, goose fat, bison fat, pork lard, and even pasture-raised leaf lard.  Given the health concerns surrounding saturated fats, it’s surprising to see this beef tallow trend gaining popularity.

From Kitchen Staple to Health Scapegoat

For much of the 20th century, beef tallow was a kitchen essential. It was added to many household staples, from pie crusts and French fries to candles and soaps.

Up until 1990, McDonald’s famously used it to fry their iconic golden fries—one of the secrets behind their distinctive flavor.

But beginning in the 1960s, public health campaigns began to target saturated fats. Emerging research linked them to elevated cholesterol and a growing epidemic of heart disease.

By 1990, under pressure from health advocates like Phil Sokolof, McDonald’s and other major food companies swapped tallow for 100% vegetable oil.

Ironically, this shift created new problems.

Many of the replacement oils—particularly those partially hydrogenated—were loaded with trans fats, which turned out to be even more harmful than the saturated fats they replaced.

Though trans fats have since been banned, everywhere, the transition left a legacy of confusion and controversy about fats in general. Tallow disappeared from the mainstream—but questions about what should replace it have lingered ever since.

What Replaced Tallow…and is it Any Better?

After tallow fell out of favor, vegetable oils like canola, soybean, sunflower, safflower, and corn oil became the default fats for cooking. Marketed as cholesterol-free and high in polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs), they were touted as heart-healthy alternatives to animal fats.

But their rise has not been without criticism. A growing anti-seed-oil movement argues that these oils are ultra-processed, unstable at high heat, and potentially inflammatory. These claims have spread rapidly on social media, but what does the science actually show?

  • Replacing saturated fats with polyunsaturated fats has consistently been shown to lower LDL cholesterol and reduce the risk of heart disease in randomized controlled trials.
  • Oils like olive, canola, and soybean are considered safe and beneficial by major health organizations when used in moderation and not overheated.
  • Concerns around processing and inflammation remain under investigation, but widespread claims of seed oil toxicity are not supported by clinical research.

They remain a safer alternative to highly saturated animal fats like tallow in most dietary contexts.

At Dirt to Dinner, we recognize that the conversation around seed oils is far from settled—and often distorted by ideology or social media. That’s why we dove deeper into the production, processing, and health implications of seed oils in our recent article. Our goal: to provide clear, science-backed information that helps you make informed choices in the kitchen and beyond.

Trend or Truth?

Despite its fall from favor due to cardiovascular concerns, beef tallow is making a cultural comeback driven in part by wellness influencers that touting its “ancestral” appeal, skincare brands highlighting its “biocompatibility,” and chefs praising its flavor and high smoke point.

Social media has played a major role in reviving its popularity, often presenting it as a cleaner, more “natural” alternative to seed oils.

This trend is part nostalgia, part rebellion. As more consumers question industrial agriculture and hyper-processed ingredients, old-school fats like tallow feel refreshingly simple and back-to-basics.

But simplicity doesn’t always equal safety.

Have We Stopped Listening to Science?

Despite claims that saturated fat has been wrongly vilified, the broader scientific consensus still points in one direction.

A 2020 meta-analysis in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology reaffirmed that replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat significantly lowers heart disease risk. A 2021 review in Circulation called the evidence “strong and consistent.” And a 2023 study in The Lancet Regional Health – Europe found that high saturated fat intake—like that from tallow—was associated with increased rates of ischemic heart disease and all-cause mortality, even when accounting for lifestyle differences.

Some tallow proponents cite smaller or conflicting studies, including a 2014 review in Annals of Internal Medicine that questioned saturated fat’s role in heart disease. But this paper has been widely criticized for methodological flaws, and major health bodies have not shifted their recommendations: saturated fat intake should remain below 10% of total calories, or less than four teaspoons if you’re on a 2,000 daily calorie diet.

Meanwhile, claims that beef tallow supports hormone health, clears skin, or improves mood remain anecdotal and unsupported by rigorous clinical research. As always, personal testimonials are not scientific evidence—no matter how viral they go.

Why We’re Falling for it Again

What’s changed isn’t the science, but our willingness to listen to it. Today, health decisions are often driven by identity, ideology, and social media algorithms rather than evidence.

When a wellness influencer posts that switching to tallow healed their hormones, the message spreads faster than any peer-reviewed study ever could.

As we’ve explored in previous articles at Dirt to Dinner, this is part of a larger pattern: the replacement of research with narrative, and of science with sentiment. It’s not unique to beef tallow—it’s also happening with raw milk despite CDC recommendations, especially in light of Avian flu’s rapid spread.

The Raw Milk Parallel

Raw milk, like tallow, has been rebranded as a wholesome, traditional staple. Advocates claim it offers enzymes, beneficial bacteria, and nutrients lost in pasteurization.  These benefits can easily be found elsewhere in one’s diet.

The nostalgia might come from some of us who have drank milk immediately from the cow.  That is better because the bacteria hasn’t had a chance to proliferate.

But public health experts remain clear: raw milk carries a significant risk of contamination, including E. coli, Listeria, and Salmonella. And in 2024 and 2025, there’s a new concern—H5N1 bird flu, which has been detected in U.S. dairy herds. The FDA and CDC have strongly warned against consuming raw milk amid the outbreak.

Still, sales are up—driven by the same “natural is better” ethos fueling beef tallow’s rise.

Nostalgia is Not Nutrition

The return of beef tallow—and raw milk—isn’t just a health trend. It reflects a broader cultural yearning for simplicity, self-sufficiency, and “lost wisdom.” But tradition isn’t inherently trustworthy. Many past practices were abandoned not out of ignorance, but because we learned better through rigorous study, hard data, and public health progress.

There’s nothing wrong with questioning the modern food system. But before embracing the old ways, we should ask: were they better—or just familiar?

Posted on

Are seed oils bad for you?

Is the oil in your salad dressing damaging your health? Seed oils…you find them everywhere: in your kitchen cupboard, in restaurants, and in most processed foods. Otherwise known as vegetable oils such as soybeans, sunflower, canola, and peanut, these hapless seeds have been touted as a contributor to all diseases.

“[The industry is] poisoning us with seed oils – these industrial fats are one of the greatest drivers of chronic disease in America today.”

– Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., U.S. Secretary of Health & Human Services

Are Oilseeds to Blame?

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., U.S. Secretary of Health & Human Services, has rightly pointed to American health as an issue. Over 50% of U.S. population has either cancer, heart disease, diabetes, obesity, or Alzheimer’s Disease.

Are seed oils to blame or is it the lack of nutrition in American diets?  RFK would like everyone using beef tallow as their cooking oil of choice because it has less omega-6 fatty acids. However, these types of fats — saturated fats — have concerns of their own. For instance, too many saturated fats can raise both the good (HDL) and bad (LDL) cholesterol, including triglycerides that increase the size and amount of LDL cholesterol. They actually stick to the LDL as it is moving through your blood, leading to plaque in the arteries.

So which fat should we choose? Let’s unpack this a bit by looking at the larger picture…

The global population consumes a lot of fat: 218 million metric tons of vegetable oils each year. If you were to put it all in a train, it would go 83% around the Earth’s circumference. As for Americans, we consume 100 pounds of oil per person…per year.

China, India, and the United States are the top three consumers. The United States and China eat mostly soybean and canola oil while Indian diets are more varied with coconut, safflower, and mustard oil.

If the United States were to replace all seed oils with beef tallow or lard, there is only about 5% of supply to fulfill the oil demand. Used for thousands of years, are we just now finding out that seed oils should be avoided?

The State of Health in the U.S.

RFK is right: so many Americans are unhealthy.

When you look at pictures from the 1950s, there were very few obese people! Today, it’s a very different story.

According to the American Heart Association’s 2025 Statistics Update:

  • Nearly 47% of U.S. adults have high blood pressure.
  • More than 72% of U.S. adults have unhealthy weight (currently defined as body mass index ≥25, with nearly 42% having obesity (currently defined as body mass index ≥30).
  • More than half of U.S. adults (57%) have type 2 diabetes or prediabetes.
  • As many as 40% of U.S. children have an unhealthy weight (currently defined as body mass index ≥85th percentile), with 20% having obesity (currently defined as ≥95th percentile).
  • Nearly 60% of adults globally have an unhealthy weight.

The news is dismal for sure.  But can we really blame cooking oils? What about lifestyle? Healthy habits such as sleep, exercise, and a good diet are critical. How many people really eat five to seven servings of fruits and vegetables a day? Do people eat close to their ideal body weight in grams of protein? Is sugar prevalent?  There are so many factors involved in one’s health.

What do medical organizations say?

Many medical organizations are in complete support of cooking with seed oils. American Heart Association, World Health Organization, Harvard Health, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Institute of Medicine, International Food Information Council all discuss the importance of diets which include both omega-6 and omega-3s. All of these organizations, plus more, cite research including randomized controlled trials, peer reviewed studies, and observational studies supporting seed oils. Why?

Seed oils offer a wide range of nutritional benefits:

Healthy Fats: Seed oils contain healthy unsaturated fats such as omega 3 and omega 6 fatty acids improve HDL (good) cholesterol, reduce inflammation, promote cell growth, and support brain health. Our bodies need these essential fatty acids since we can’t make organically them. Therefore, these fats must be brought in via our diet. Specific healthy fats include:

  • Monounsaturated fats help lower triglycerides in the blood and lower the risk of heart disease.
  • Polyunsaturated fats lower LDL (bad) cholesterol, triglycerides, raise HDL (good) cholesterol and help control blood sugar.

Protein: Seed oils are a source of plant-based protein. Plant protein is associated with anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, anti-diabetic, and antioxidant properties. Though, to be fair, they are incomplete because they are missing one or more of the 22 amino acids which are the building blocks of protein.

Fiber: Oilseeds contribute to dietary fiber intake, which aids in digestion, promotes satiety, and helps regulate blood sugar levels.

Vitamins and Minerals: Many seed oils contain various vitamins and minerals, including vitamin E, an antioxidant that protects cells from damage, and magnesium, which plays a role in many bodily functions.

Bioactive Compounds: Seed oils are a source of bioactive compounds, such as lignans and phenolic compounds, which have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties and may offer protection against chronic diseases as well as arthritis and rheumatism. Depending upon the seed, they contain DHEA, a pre-hormone compound that converts to testosterone and estrogen.

Milk Production: Using soybeans as an animal feed impacts the milk quality by improving the fatty acid compensation and amount in the milk.

On the other hand…

Despite their nutritional benefits and help with cooking, Dr. Mark Hyman, Dr. Casey Means, and Robert F. Kennedy have all taken a stand against seed oils. Their reasons are many:

  • They have a high level of Omega 6s, causing an imbalance in one’s diet
  • Processing includes two chemicals: hexane and deodorizers to pull the oil out of the oil and meal.
  • They’re grown with glyphosate, and it follows the oilseed path from the crop to the oil and ultimately to the food
  • While cooking, the oil’s oxidation process causes free radicals in your body, thus causing cancer.

Let’s take these apart…

Omega 3 & Omega 6 Fatty Acids

The omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acid balance is important as we need both healthy fats. The excess of omega 6s is not the problem; the issue is the balance of omega 3s in one’s diet.  Most Americans just don’t eat enough foods with omega 3s.

Omega 6s provide energy for you to manage your daily activities. They help regulate inflammation, support cognitive health, promote skin and hair health, support white blood cell production, and produce certain hormones such as progesterone and testosterone.

Your body doesn’t make these so you need to find them in eggs, soybean, corn, sunflower oils, almonds, cashews, and walnuts.

Omega 3s are polyunsaturated fats that your body cannot make on its own.  You need it for your heart health, mental health, infant brain development, and to fight inflammation. By not eating enough, you might be more susceptible to chronic diseases.

A diet with oily fish, walnuts, soybeans, chia seeds, eggs, meat, spinach, and brussels sprouts will keep your omega 3s going strong.

You need both omega 3s and 6s.  We spoke to David Dzisiak, COO at Botaneco Inc. He has worked with medical and health opinion leaders on the health impacts of various fatty acid profiles, including omega 3s, omega 6s, omega 9s, saturated fats and trans fats.  He stressed the following:

“There is no medical evidence that eating soybean oil or canola oil is a causative for heart health.  There is no smoking gun anywhere that says our 6:3 ratio is an issue.  So it is important to eat omega 6s and omega 3s as part of a healthy diet.”

– David Dzisiak, COO at Botaneco

Seed Oil Processing Concerns

This is the chemical process that, understandably, makes headlines – and raises eyebrows.

Hexane

Yes, hexane is a solvent derived from petroleum. But no, it’s not hanging around in your cooking oil. Hexane is used to separate the oil from the seed. The hexane evaporates off and there is virtually no residual amount left in the oil. The European Union states that a residual level of 1 mg/kg is safe. However, since the FDA does not regulate hexane residue, there is suspicion that some remains.

We asked Willie Loh, Ph.D., Board Member at Yield10 Bioscience, Inc, what he thought about hexane residue:

“After the processing, there is no hexane left. A soybean seed contains 19-20% oil.  To extract the oil, the seeds are pressed, flooded with hexane, and the oil washes out. Then the temperature is raised to evaporate all hexane.”

Deodorizing

This process sounds scary, as well.  Deodorizing simply uses steam and high pressure to strip away volatile compounds that cause off-smells and reduce shelf life. No bleach. No mystery chemicals. Just water vapor doing a cleanup job, so your oil doesn’t go rancid a week after you open it. This is steam and water.  That is it.

Glyphosate

Glyphosate is used in GMO crops to keep the weeds at bay and not harm the crop. There can be a trace amount of residue because the plant absorbs a scant amount glyphosate after spraying. The EPA has established tolerances for glyphosates in many different commodities, including
oilseeds.

In addition, since humans do not have a shikimic pathway, as plants do, our bodies flush these trace amounts through via our urine.  For more information, we wrote about glyphosate in March 2025.

Dr. Loh explained that, “there is no detectible glyphosate left in a soybean seed, long before you start to process. Glyphosate is a molecule that doesn’t last very long. Some gets to the plant and some to the soil but it degrades rather quickly.”

It’s All About the Smoke Point

Walk down the grocery aisle and you will see multiple cooking oils. Everything from avocado oil to soybean oil to flaxseed oil. But which one to choose for scrambled eggs or a salmon dinner?

Using the wrong oil for the wrong temperature can produce a smoke point which shows the oil is too hot and is approaching dangerous thermal stages. Basically producing free radicals such as carcinogenic compounds like aldehydes and peroxides. This also leads to rancid oil – which certainly does not add to the flavor of your meal.

David Dzisiak explained further, “If you bought a box of cheerios or a bag of chips and it smells rancid, this means the oil has oxidized.  Air causes them to react and so they break down and turn into fatty acid and different molecules.  So when you deep-fry, that oil oxidizes and produces free radicals.  That would happen with any oil.”

In this case, RFK, might be correct.  However, you can control the smoke point by using the correct oil for cooking.  Here is a chart of which oils to use for which temperatures.

A Well-Rounded Perspective on Health

Blaming seed oils for America’s health crisis is an oversimplification. Dr. Loh put this in perspective:

“We are not cave dwellers or hunter & gatherers anymore, walking 15 miles a day with no access to refined sugar and video games. We eat far more oxidized fats than we have for hundreds of years because of convenience foods. Everything in a super aisle has a shelf life of 6 months to a year. It is all about convenience.”

Human health is shaped by countless factors—diet, exercise, sleep, stress, genetics, and access to care, to name a few.  And we need to keep each of these factors in balance to live a long, healthy life.

 

Posted on

What’s in Costco’s Secret Sauce?

Walk into any Costco warehouse, and you’re greeted by towering pallets and the familiar hum of discovery. As you navigate the wide aisles, one name stands out again and again: Kirkland Signature.

From coffee beans to baby wipes, and meats to athletic wear, that red, white, and black logo seems omnipresent. But have you ever stopped to wonder what’s really behind that label? We were fortunate enough to speak with an insider to find out — a former food buyer with a 30-year career with Costco. Let’s peek beyond the towering aisles to see what she has to share.

What is Kirkland Signature?

It’s not your typical generic store brand.

Kirkland Signature is the culmination of a meticulous, quality-obsessed journey that involves dedicated buyers, savvy consumers, and some surprisingly big names in the industry.

And they replicate it among their 890 stores worldwide while still meeting the demands of the local markets it serves all the while maintaining its top trusted brand status.

Kirkland Signature isn’t just successful –  it’s a behemoth, reportedly the “largest consumer packaged brand in the world.”

Not only does this line of products account for about 25% of Costco’s revenues, but its sales outpace giants like Campbell’s, Hershey’s, and Kellogg’s — combined. All the while maintaining smaller margins than your local supermarket.

A Food Buyer’s Journey

So, how does this happen? It starts with Costco’s food buyers, just like the one we spoke with. She started her career overseeing 12 Costco locations, which then grew to managing food purchasing decisions for a whopping 59 locations across California and Hawaii.

Her Costco career path was a culinary adventure, beginning with candy and sundries; moving to pet food; then beer, and wine; the freezer section (where she tasted lasagna every week for six months before finding ‘the one’); and then the refrigerated section before moving back to candy, with the addition of snacks and healthier-for-you items.

Her experience, like other buyers, gave her insights into consumer spending and food trends. She was the first to introduce trending products such as organic juices and Greek yogurts. She saw the potential with Harmless Harvest Coconut Water, Country Archer Jerky, and RXBars. Eventually some of these continued to earn the coveted Kirkland Signature badge.

All buyers are required to be problem solvers. When protein bars weren’t selling well because the pharmacy department selected and managed the products, our buyer — armed with a newly acquired nutrition degree — took over, moved it to the packaged foods section. She then proceeded to revitalize the category to top-seller status, ensuring all Costco warehouses across the country follow suit.

It’s a place where commitments matter, backed by thorough contracts, high standards, and where values and family ties run deep.

In fact, our buyer’s son, daughter-in-law, and even grandkids work there. And guess where the son and daughter-in-law met? During a pizza-making class on their first day at work. And there’s another Costco-initiated family wedding in the works, too.

The Kirkland Gauntlet: Earning the Signature

What happens when a food buyer has a gap to fill, a trend to introduce, or an amazing product to bring in? With Costco’s unparalleled demand for quality, it’s never as simple as just placing an order.

The first step is the easy part: the taste test. Buyers bring in samples, taste them, and then discuss findings in bi-weekly conferences with their fellow regional buyers. If there’s interest, they might split a pallet to test its sales within their stores.

Once a product gets the initial green light for the coveted Kirkland Signature label, it faces a rigorous benchmarking process. It must meet or exceed the quality of the leading national brands. If it can do that and offer better value, it’s in the running.

This commitment to quality resonates deeply with consumers, who pay a premium to access these stores. So why do people trust Kirkland Signature just as much as national brands? It boils down to several factors:

  • Reputation & Consistency: Costco has built trust over time by consistently delivering quality. People know what to expect.
  • Quality & Value: The brand delivers on the promise of high quality at a lower price, a crucial factor, especially when wallets feel tighter.
  • Transparency & Ethics: Consumers appreciate Costco’s straightforward pricing and ethical practices, trusting that they aren’t being unduly gouged or supporting companies with poor labor practices. Increasingly, ethical sourcing and corporate social responsibility matter, especially to younger shoppers.

Big Names Behind the Label

Here’s where things get really interesting. How does Costco achieve that national-brand-beating quality? Often, by partnering with those very same partners. And many of those same brands are right there on the same shelf, buddied up with their Kirkland Signature counterpart.

The idea is simple:

If a Kirkland Signature product is going to sit on the shelf alongside established names, it has to prove its worth in both performance and quality.

Most retailers fear product cannibalization, but Costco leans into it. Every Kirkland Signature product must be better than its name-brand cohort and at a lower price. What makes these partnerships unique versus other store brands is that these aren’t just co-branding exercises. Often, the Kirkland version is a unique formulation, like a specific Starbucks coffee blend developed exclusively for Costco.

With this strategy, Costco gets top-tier manufacturing expertise without the capital expense, and the partner brands gain access to Costco’s massive, loyal membership base and huge volume orders.

Costco’s Kirkland Signature partnerships are a win-win situation that reinforces Costco’s reputation as a provider of premium products at competitive prices.

But do you still prefer Smithfield-branded pork products, even though the “Kirkland Signature” version is made by the same producer? No worries…just look at the branded product right next to it. But buyer beware: get ready to shell out more bacon at checkout.

The Quality Police: Audits, Inspections, and Non-Negotiables

Partnering with big names isn’t enough; maintaining quality requires constant vigilance. Costco’s quality control process is legendary for its rigor, which is why this process can take up to two years before you see a new Kirkland Signature product grace its shelves.

And it doesn’t stop there.

It starts with traceability.

Costco needs to know where everything comes from. Our buyer mentioned sending teams to shrimp farms in Vietnam and coffee plantations in Hawaii and Costa Rica. This extends to pet food, too, where standards are arguably even stricter now, with Costco’s consumer-centric philosophy recognizing pets as family members.

Traceability systems must allow products to be tracked back to their source rapidly, often tested with mock recalls requiring completion within two hours.

Then come the audits.

Costco’s audit team travels directly to manufacturing plants to ensure they meet not only industry regulations but also Costco’s own stringent requirements. Approved certification bodies conduct annual audits. But they don’t stop there; they also perform unannounced inspections to see how things operate daily. They might even send their own people to shadow third-party audits.

Suppliers must meet minimum audit scores for the product’s relevant categories, such as Food Safety or Traceability. Any audit scores falling below a certain threshold necessitate the implementation of a corrective action plan, demonstrating Costco’s commitment to continuous improvement and addressing any identified deficiencies.

Failure to meet standards has real consequences. Our buyer recalled nixing a deal with a bakery found making breadcrumbs in a kiddie swimming pool. Another manufacturer struggled with proper line cleanouts between different flavored granola bars, a critical step to prevent allergen cross-contamination. Issues like inadequate hand-washing areas or unfair wages can also jeopardize a partnership.

Plus regulated food safety inspections.

Beyond physical inspections, suppliers must implement robust food safety systems, like Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) protocols and the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI).

This includes allergen control, regular microbiological testing of the environment and finished products, pest management programs, and often X-ray inspection of finished goods.

Crucially, every ingredient is thoroughly tested before acceptance for nutritional value and potential toxins. This relentless testing ensures safety and contributes to that consistent “signature taste”.

Sealing the deal.

All this is formalized in detailed supplier agreements. These contracts cover everything – product specs, delivery terms, quality standards, ethical sourcing, and pricing. Costco holds the cards; they won’t be bound by supplier terms that deviate from their own, and any changes require a formal written agreement. Suppliers also need to prove they can handle Costco’s massive order volumes.

Costco’s relationship with its suppliers is characterized by a “tough but fair” approach.

The company’s low product offerings and high sales volume give it significant leverage with suppliers.

Sourcing the Globe

Where do the ingredients for Kirkland Signature products come from? Everywhere and anywhere the best quality can be found. While many ingredients are sourced domestically for traceability reasons, Costco goes global when needed.

Organic Lemonade might use lemons from Argentina, Spain, and California, with sugar from South America. Pet food might use potato protein from Germany or chicory root from Belgium. Kirkland Extra Virgin Olive Oil meets international standards and is often sourced from California.

Chocolate involves traceable cocoa beans, often from the Ivory Coast, focusing on sustainability and labor. Tilapia is raised without antibiotics in deep-water reservoirs near the equator by a zero-waste-committed company.

The brand’s philosophy is clear: only the best ingredients will do.

Costco is able to manage these products from all over the globe with its warehouses that play a central role in its distribution network. The company operates centralized warehousing operations to supply its stores, ensuring a smooth flow of goods.

Tackling the Trends

Costco also keeps a close pulse on what its members want. They pay for their annual membership after all, so they should have a say in where their dollars go.

The food buyers assess sales data and gather member feedback to spot trends – organic, gluten-free, keto, pet health, you name it. Their frequent meetings give them the opportunity for idea generation and collaboration to continually be at the forefront of trends, sometimes even before they happen.

For instance, our buyer recalls assessing a particular brand of non-dairy, shelf-stable coffee creamer, one of Costco’s popular office food products. Upon closer examination, she found that this one product was made with dozens of ingredients during a time when consumers started demanding just a few, readily identifiable ingredients listed on a package.

She spent two weeks working directly with the vendor at their plant to reformulate and taste-test what would become their Natural Bliss line. Initially, it didn’t fly off the shelves, but years later, as consumer awareness of ingredients grew, it became a massive hit – a testament to foresight and staying ahead of consumer trends.

Sustainability is also increasingly woven into the fabric of Kirkland Signature. Costco aims for all Kirkland packaging to be recyclable, reusable, or compostable by 2025, reflecting a commitment to environmental responsibility that resonates with modern consumers.

What about tariffs?

The anticipated tariff increases may prove to be a sourcing test for Costco as consumers look for more ways to stretch their shrinking dollars. Though our buyer had never experienced a period akin to what many of us are expecting, she expects pricing to be less volatile than you’d see in grocery stores.

Source: Mintel

She also reminded us that tariffs have been in place for years. Costco has navigated these ongoing issues with the help of its ironclad contracts, bulk ordering, and pricing expectations.

More Than Just a Label

So, the next time you toss that giant bag of Kirkland Signature trail mix or bottle of olive oil into your cart, take a moment. You’re not just buying a product; you’re buying the result of an intricate dance involving sharp-eyed buyers, global sourcing expeditions, partnerships with industry leaders, relentless quality checks, and a deep understanding of what shoppers truly value.

And that, in a Kirkland Signature nutshell, is the secret to its success.

Posted on

Food’s Huge Stake in Global Tariff Battle

President Trump called April 2, 2025, “Liberation Day,” citing a national emergency from the continuing trade imbalance between the United States and 185 countries, out of 195 in the world. The President announced an aggressive program of tariff increases and especially aggressive reciprocal tariffs against those countries deemed to have unacceptably inequitable trade relationships with the United States.

The reasons behind Liberation Day seem obvious enough. The United States had a trade deficit in goods – meaning more in the value of imports than in exports – of an estimated $1.2 trillion in 2024.  The Trump Administration’s objective is to bring jobs back to the U.S. and rebalance those tariffs that are higher in other countries than we have here. The largest deficits were with China ($295 billion), Mexico ($172 billion), and Vietnam ($123 billion). (Estimates of the deficits vary slightly among different sources but generally align with these numbers.)

The other compelling reason was the tariff imbalance.  For instance, the EU remains a major customer for U.S. agricultural exports but responded to the initial U.S. tariff action on steel and aluminum by announcing plans in March for their own aggressive tariffs on imports, affecting an estimated $20 billion in U.S. products, on top of $9 billion in tariffs on aluminum and steel from the United States. Targets include soybeans, beef, sugar, dairy and pork – including a tariff of 25 percent on corn, and as yet undetermined level for soybeans.

Trying to follow the evolving tariff proposals is like watching a jigsaw puzzle being assembled in real time—with new pieces added every day, and no one quite sure what the final picture will be.

Current trade situation 

Over the past year, the EU has purchased roughly 3.4 million tons of U.S. corn, mainly for use in their livestock feeding. Total 2024 sales of U.S. corn to the EU were valued at $359 million. The EU soy market is even larger, with imports of U.S. soybeans, meal and oil worth roughly $3 billion and accounting for over 10 percent of all U.S. soy exports.

U.S. agricultural exports to the EU have long faced significant roadblocks as EU legislators sought to protect their rural and farming sector. Phytosanitary standards and other food-safety claims have been used to prohibit or prescribe the food products allowed to be imported, on top of protective tariff levels from 6 to more than 30 percent.

The red numbers are nothing new.  In the month of February 2025, we had a deficit of $122.7 billion — a stark contrast to the last time we had a trade surplus of $15.9 billion back in 1975.  Coupled with rising federal deficits, the trade imbalance has been a thorny fiscal issue policymakers have been reluctant to tackle, due largely to the enormous implications for the national economy and the global international economic system. Presidential candidate Trump promised to take action, and President-elect Trump lived up to his word.

In the weeks since Liberation Day, the promised tariffs have roiled the international trade system and entire economic order. Critics quickly questioned the value of imposing such tariffs on two of the country’s most important trading partners.  The Administration and tariff supporters promptly noted that the highest agricultural trade deficits are with Mexico ($18.8 billion) and Canada ($12.5 billion).

In 2024, the United States is now on pace to reach a $39 billion agricultural trade deficit, the worst in our history.

This 2024 deficit is larger than any trade surplus year besides 2011.

– Andrew Rechenberg, Coalition for a Prosperous America, January 16, 2025

As might well be expected with such a dramatic step, the tariff announcement quickly produced more questions than clear answers. When would they actually begin? What products might be exempt? What are the chances for bilateral trade agreements to avoid or moderate the actual tariffs? The roster of questions continues to grow, with increasing uncertainty apparent in markets worldwide. 

How will tariffs affect farmers & producers?

Put agriculture at the top of the list of those seeking answers. Farmers still must make plans – on what to plant, what inputs, such as fertilizer coming from Canada, are needed and available (and at what price), how to anticipate market volatility and structure the marketing plans they need to find profitability amid low commodity prices and still-high input costs.

How do farmers weather the possible loss of key export markets, especially for soybeans, right now and potentially well into the future?  The U.S. currently exports approximately 50% of the soybean crop to other countries, China as the primary one.

Food manufacturers, distributors and retailers wonder about the reliability of supplies of all sorts of products, coffee, fish, spices and an extensive list of important items whose foreign origins are normally invisible to the consumer.  How much of a cost increase can I absorb, and how much must I pass along to the next link in the marketing chain?

But we don’t have to panic about our fruits and vegetables as they are USMCA compliant and not subject to the new tariff rates.  For example, the U.S. imports about 59% of fresh fruit and 35% of vegetables from other countries, notably Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica, and Canada.  Well, maybe we can panic about tomatoes — now a casualty of the trade war, a 10% increase in the price of tomatoes is a possibility for the 70% of tomatoes brought in from Mexico.

What do corn, soybeans, and China have to do with tariffs?

Exports around the world are a large portion of demand for US agricultural products. They help balance the trade deficit. The U.S. has spent a lot of time and effort to expand market access.  As a result, just about 65% of US soybean production is exported in the form of seed or finished products like soybean oil, soybean meal, meat, and biofuels.  About 30 percent of corn is exported in the form of grain or finished products like ethanol, meat, and dried distiller’s grains feed.

The top three countries targeted for tariffs to date: Mexico, Canada, and China, are also our top three markets for agricultural exports at $30.3 billion, $28.3 billion, and $24.7 billion, respectively, in 2024.

– Betty Resnick, Economist, American Farm Bureau Federation, March 18, 2025

For agriculture, this is much about China.

Before the US-China trade war began in 2017, 40-50% of all global soy going into China was from the US and Brazil was 50%; now (2024) 20% of China’s soy comes from the US, 70% is Brazilian origin. The US has lost ground in China due to the growth in Brazil.

China’s place atop the list of countries facing the highest reciprocal tariffs has attracted extensive attention. The American Farm Bureau estimates that the cumulative tariffs imposed by China on U.S. agricultural products will climb to 71.5 percent for soybeans. As the New York Times observed, “More than half of U.S. soybean exports went to China last year, but the price just went up 135 percent under the tariffs China installed in response to President Trump’s 145 percent tax on Chinese imports.”

Relief for farmers?

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins has been engaged with various leaders across the agricultural sector, discussing how to deal with the potentially adverse economic effects of the tariff action. Officials acknowledge the need to offer assistance, but details on just how much aid to provide, how to deliver it, and most of all how to pay for it still are under discussion.

Producers received an estimated $28 billion in financial support during the 2018 trade disputes. Officials worry that the price tag could be even higher this time around. Commodity prices remain well below estimated costs of production and input prices, while a bit lower this year, nonetheless still represent a substantial expense.

Worries about supplies of fertilizers such as potash from Canada and other suppliers also remain, despite progress in carving out some tariff exemptions.  Moreover, unlike the last time around, when the dispute centered on China, the global extent of the proposed tariffs also will affect the ability to market to other customers around the world, especially many of the key traditional markets facing tariffs above 10 percent.

Some officials continue to argue that income from the tariffs will help provide additional funds, but that income has yet to be realized. Hopes to fund the economic support through USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) are also being discussed. But the actual amount of money available under the CCC’s $30 billion authority is still in question.

The prospect of approaching Congress for additional funds poses big political issues, as both the House and Senate work to resolve an already contentious budget blueprint – not to mention how taxpayers would respond to spending more for farm relief amid the drive for spending cutbacks and fiscal balance.

And the consumer?

The effort to address the long-standing problem of the trade imbalance won’t come without a cost to the American consumer, at least as the negotiations needed for resolution of the problem play out and global markets stabilize.

According to the political website The Hill, the Tax Foundation estimates the tariffs could result in a de facto tax increase of $1,900 for each U.S. household in 2025, unless the issue is resolved quickly.  That figure includes the added cost of everything subject to the tariffs, not just food.

The Atlanta Federal Reserve estimates tariffs of 25 percent for Mexico and Canada on products ranging from beef, pork, grains, potatoes and canola oil (Canada) and vegetables, fruit, beverages and spirits (Mexico) could result in an increase of 1.63 percent in costs.

Threats to impose a 20.9 percent tariff on tomatoes from Mexico when the existing tomato import agreement expires in July could lead to a noticeable jump in prices, according to the Fresh Produce Association of the Americas.

While most economists seem to agree higher tariffs mean higher prices, few agree on exactly how much of an increase to expect. They point to the open question of how much of the higher costs portions of the food chain are willing to absorb and how much they feel compelled to pass along.

The answer may be some time coming, and still subject to further decisions and actions taken by the Trump Administration in refining and finalizing its trade strategy.

Posted on

Transcript – Digging In: The Future of Food

Click here to listen to the podcast episode, and visit our D2D podcast page to check out our other episodes. Happy reading!

For us to successfully and sustainably feed our global population, the farm and agriculture community must have a good working relationship with governments. They also need the consumer to understand where their food comes from and how it is grown and made. Only then, will farmers be profitable and be able to continue to adopt to a changing climate and exciting new technologies.

First, let’s start with the basics:
You are all one of 600 million farmers in the world, and almost 2 million in the United States. The average farm size is 466 acres. Of course, we hear of the demise of the family farm, but if you look at farmland in 1885, when you first began, total acreage was 354 million, the size of Alaska, and today it is 876 million acres. About the size of Alaska, California, Texas, and Nebraska. 95% are family farms. Each year, on average, one U.S. farm feeds 170 people in the world.

We can appreciate Elon Musk with DOGE, SpaceX, and Tesla. Or Jensen Huang with Nvidia – the scaffolding of AI. But without the basics of food, we would go the way of the Mayan Civilization.

Our history is replete with advances in food production. Beginning with the shift from hunters to gatherers to mass cultivation. But going from chasing animals down with a bow and arrow to driving a John Deere tractor took about 13,000 years. Then, our population was 5 million and today we are 8.2 billion. In the next five years we will add the entire population of the United States to the world. In the next 15 years, we will add three more United States’ population to the world for a total of 9.7 billion people.

What makes this exciting is that the changes in agriculture are moving at the speed of light. In the next 15 years, we will make more advancements in agriculture than we have in the past 13,000 years. We have amazing innovative technology, better inputs, and more responsible production and natural resource management tools.

We also have the moral obligation to keep people and animals alive and healthy by increasing our agricultural production by 50%. We must be even more efficient as demand for food will exceed freshwater supply by 40%.

Today, we grow and produce 3,000 calories for each of the 8.2 billion people around the world. As an aside, on average, we eat 2,000 calories and we throw away the remaining 1,000 calories. I am sure you have heard about food waste.

Population and income levels drive food. Once you begin making more than $3,000 a year, you incorporate more protein into your diet.. Protein, mainly from cows, chickens, pork, all need to be fed – primarily corn and soybeans.

The world produces about 9.9 billion metric tons or primary crops each year. If you were to put all the food we grow on a freight train, it would circle the earth about 50 times.

To feed the growing population, and it’s need for protein, we need between 45 – 55 million metric tonnes a year. Just for fun, we go back to the train. For corn, the train goes from Minneapolis to the North Pole. For soybeans, it goes from Minneapolis to Singapore.

Let’s talk about the role of government: today is food security, tariffs, and biofuels.

The first thing I would like you to remember is the importance of global food security. You will do anything when you and your family are hungry. If you think people will get into fist fights over a tank of gas, just imagine what you might do to make sure your family is fed. If you are a Somalian, you could become a pirate. If you live in Venezuela, where over 87% of the population received some sort of food subsidy, you would turn to crime. The number one cause of hunger around the world is not lack of food, it is civil wars, inter-country conflict, and governmental interference.

Take one of our most favorite foods: chocolate. The U.S. supply chain of $4 billion starts in West Africa where governmental interference has stripped farmers of healthy profits and where child labor is an issue. Now, add on four years of underperforming yields due to weather and climate and it is no surprise that the price of cocoa has gone from 2,000 a ton to a high of 12,000/ton earlier this year. I can assure you that the farmer is not getting even $2,000.. Because of government mismanagement, cocoa is picking up its beans and headed elsewhere, mostly likely Brazil. Of course the recent trade announcement has only created more uncertainly as Ivory Coast and Ghana face 21% and 10% tariffs to export their cocoa to the U.S.

This brings us to the importance of trade.
The U.S. agriculture trade is in a deficit of $37b from a trade surplus of $35b as of 2014. We still export about 20% of our agricultural products. Most of that is big ag: corn, soybeans, canola, cotton.. For every $1.00 of ag exports, we have $2.00 of domestic economic activity. What happened to our agriculture?

Part of the story is the stronger dollar making imports cheaper. We still make enough calories to feed every American, but we are importing more products such as tropical fruits, coffee, and cocoa that we don’t produce here. For instance, bananas our our number one import. We like international variety in our imported beer and wine: think Corona Beer and European vineyards. And because our labor costs are higher than other countries, we are importing more vegetables and processed foods that we could profitably make here.

Without fair trade, U.S. farmers are under economic stress. There is a global surplus of soybeans and corn, futures are down, and the uncertainty of Trump’s new tariff policy is foreboding. . Our top trading partners are where the tariffs are going to hurt the most: Canada, Mexico, for imports and China for exports.

Uncertainty is difficult. At what point will the immigration and fentanyl issues be resolved? How long will Trump use tariffs for leverage against Chinese investment in Canada and Mexico?

What impact will retaliatory tariffs have? Particularly with China? US corn and soybeans are export dependent. 51% of our soybeans are exported to China, Argentina, Japan, Mexico and Spain. Think about that, half of our soybean crop is part of the tariff war.

Brazil is our number one competitor and together we supply over 80% of global soybeans for animal feed and cooking oil. Tariff wars cause us to lose market share. After the US-China trade war in 2017, the US market share of soybeans to China went from about 45% to 20% whereas Brazil’s is now 70%.

With Corn, 30% is exported in the form Mexico, Japan, China, Columbia, and Canada.

Besides trade, how did we get to this global surplus? All roads lead to oil.

Since the oil shocks and the environmental awakening of the 1970s, we have seen steady growth and farmer dependence on ethanol and other biofuels. Today about 40% of our corn crop is used for ethanol and 45% of soybean oil is used for biofuels.

Biofuels are one of the reasons of our oversupply. Since the 70s, farmers have added yield and acreage to accommodate the fuel and food needs of our country and the world. Biofuels are critical for farmer profitability. Breakeven for corn is around $5.25 bushel, today’s price is 4.68/bu. For soybean breakeven is about $12.50 bushel, today, we are at $9.97/bu. You can see the immediate effect of tariffs and biofuel uncertainty and record global stocks.

The Trump 2.0 Administration is more favorable, toward biofuels than his first administration. On his first day, he released the American Energy policy that ‘unleashes America’s affordable and reliable energy.” The U.S. leads the world in biofuel production. Back to the train, each year, this train would go half-way around the Earth’s circumference.

As I mentioned earlier, food consumption is expected to increase – and so is global energy. It is anticipated to increase by about 24% over the next 15 years. Demand for AI data centers and electric vehicles are certainly part of it but the bulk will be rising demand in and China (depending on how they handle the tariffs), SE Asia, India, and S.America. Are biofuels part of the conversation?

One positive piece of news is the coalition between big energy and big ag working together to push the EPA to increase the biofuel mandate. The conversation around energy will be interesting in the coming days or months given OPEC might reduce production by 400,000 barrels a day.

The question for farmers, is , Will there be a subsidy? The Inflation Reduction Act, while overall controversial, did have a $1.25 credit for biofuel production. Trump also gave farmers $28 billion to offset the China trade war of 2017. There is talk today of giving farmer’s tariff funds to offset any additional China import issues.

What is the answer for farmers? Tariffs and biofuels policies are a challenge at the moment. But the anticipated global growth can balance this out. Of course, there will always be weather disruptions. No one, with any pride, likes a handout. We are in a unique economic time – and not just for agriculture. It is an interesting situation for sure

As I mentioned, food unites all of us. Growing food sustainably is important.

There is a lot of emphasis on regenerative agriculture. Keeping your soil healthy, enhancing your crop nutrients, not letting water run off your fields and increasing your yield – is no easy feat. It can mean. no-till farming and cover crops which in turn means healthier soil and less synthetic inputs. The beauty of regenerative agriculture is that it can be uniquely applied to each farmer, location, weather pattern, and differentiated crops.

General Mills, Pepsi, Unilever, Walmart, Danone, Nestle are just a few CPG companies that have committed to sourcing ingredients from regenerative ag. Cargill, and, I don’t like to admit, ADM also, and other buyers partner with farmers to help them make the financial commitment for regen ag.

Now comes the exciting technology: Precision Agriculture uses technology to manage farms more efficiently by using real time data to make informed and immediate decisions about where to apply fertilizer, pesticides, water, and seeds on distinct parts of the field.

John Deere is solving both the agricultural labor issue and addressing sustainability. I was speaking with Aaron Wetzel, VP of Production & Precision Ag Production systems at John Deere. They have asked themselves, ‘How do we best help our customers be more successful?” The answer? Technology. They are not just a tractor company anymore. A few years ago, they paid hundreds of millions of dollars to hire just 65 software engineers from Silicon Valley. Their investment has paid off. It is not easy to remake yourself from a plow to a software company after 180 years

They have See and Spray technology on their tractors which enables each spray nozzle to recognize a weed, spray it, all without herbicide drifting to nearby plants. Their farmers have reduced their chemical inputs by 60%. For more on John Deere, I am putting a plug in for a Dirt to Dinner podcast I did with Aaron.

John Deere Isn’t the only one on the field. AGCO, Trimble, CASE, and DJI Agriculture are just a few at the forefront of this revolution, developing integrated solutions that combine advanced software platforms with sophisticated machinery.

I see the future, and it is robotics. The autonomous tractors are the real revolution. Basically, these are just gigantic robots moving down the field. The John Deere tractors can till, plant seeds, and harvest on their own. They have 16 cameras for a 360-degree view, powered by 2 NVidia chips. Farmers can precisely farm from the dinner table, from a conference, reducing labor, inputs, and of course, increasing yield.

These autonomous machines rely on inputs such as cameras, light radar, satellites, density altitude, and other environmental sensors. They learn, make spot decisions, and then move some type of actuator like a wheel, a sprayer, an arm, or any part of a robot. This information goes into the cloud to help train other machines. But not just like machines. A John Deere combine can train a John Deere lawn mower or a construction vehicle.

What used to take days and lots of labor to harvest anything from lettuce to Brussels sprouts, now can take only minutes. Machines are not just more efficient; they have an autonomous life of their own. Greenfield robotics is an AI powered robot pulling weeds all day and all night. No herbicide and no labor needed. Farm-ng has an automated robot that can tailor seeding, weeding, and compost spreading to a specific crop. It can cut down weekly labor by 50-80%. Robotics Plus, purchased by Yamaha Motor, combines data analytics and automation in the field to produce growing insights for farmers.

Who would have thought that agriculture would be the forefront of physical AI.

These machines are not just on the field. I think of the ‘factory of the future’ where labor is needed for dangerous jobs, heavy lifting, or monotonous tasks such as packing fruit. I have seen entire sections of processing plants, that used to have 50 people, are incredibly productive without a human in sight. That is the future of agriculture – and many other industries.

To be honest, no one is ordering a brand new autonomous John Deere tractor if their corn and soy is underwater. I mentioned the importance of government policy. I mentioned that the way we are farming is changing at the speed of light. What is equally important is consumer education.

Misinformed people make bad decisions – about their diets and ultimately the health and well-being of their families. They support quick fixes to complex problems – and risk undoing much of the incredibly productive, efficient food system that we have today. I honestly think people think we should deliver our eggs via bicycles and cook with beef tallow.

I will do a speed finish with just a few examples of misinformation:

  • GMOs let the world meet its food needs, sustainably. There are no health issues to humans, soil, or water with GMOs. Which leads to glyphosate.
  • Roundup Ready, if used correctly, in your backyard or on the farm field is safe for humans, water, and soil. Regenerative agriculture works the best with genetically modified crops to be resistant to glyphosate.
  • Oilseeds, canola, soy, corn, and palm are fine to cook with. It is all about the smoke point, not the oil ingredients
  • Organic still has chemicals. They are just ‘natural’.
  • You must eat a bathtub full of red M&Ms every day in order to be negatively impacted from the red dye.
  • Processed food is not terrible if you eat it as a treat and not depend on it as a food.
  • Eggs are one of the best whole nutritious foods.

As a farmer, or investor in farmland, you are the ones who feed us every day. Successful agricultural profits, like most other businesses, with less regulation, fair trade policies, and educated consumer choices. There is not one country in the world that doesn’t rely on imports or exports for food and agriculture. The U.S. has built the best food system the world has ever seen by embracing change and making it work for us, not against us.

Posted on

Digging In: The Future of Food

In her speech, Lucy highlighted the remarkable growth in agricultural output alongside a surging global population and the imperative for increased production. She also discussed the impact of governmental policies, particularly concerning trade, tariffs and biofuels, on the profitability of American farms.

Lucy also dug into the transformative role of technology, such as precision agriculture and autonomous robotics, in enhancing efficiency and sustainability, and ended with the need for consumer education to understand food production and supporting informed choices.

Click here to access the transcript of this episode, and visit our D2D podcast page to listen in on our other episodes. Happy listening!

Posted on

Are Girl Scout Cookies Safe?

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

Imagine you are “Emily”, a mom of two children in Ohio, who stumbled across a viral post warning that Thin Mints contained glyphosate—a chemical often dubbed a “probable carcinogen”—her heart sank. She had just stocked up on boxes from her daughter’s troop. Was she unknowingly feeding her family something dangerous?

If you’ve felt the same moment of panic scrolling through headlines or mom blogs, you’re not alone. In February 2025, a report citing trace levels of glyphosate, also known as RoundUp, and heavy metals in Girl Scout Cookies exploded across social media. The headlines were dramatic, but the data? Not so much.

How Did Glyphosate Get into Girl Scout Cookies?

First, it’s important to understand that glyphosate isn’t added to cookies. It gets there in ways that are both natural and inevitable in modern agriculture.

“Farmers don’t sprinkle glyphosate into cookie dough,” says an expert we spoke to who is a former USDA National Program Leader for Food Safety and a scientist with a background in pesticide toxicology. “It ends up there through pre-harvest applications, environmental drift, and trace exposure in processing equipment.”

Here’s why glyphosate gets detected on food and ag products:

  • Pre-harvest desiccation: About 30% of farmers apply glyphosate shortly before harvest to dry out wheat and oats evenly. This ensures a uniform, high-quality yield.
  • Environmental spread: Glyphosate can move through wind and water—just like pollen. Even non-treated fields can receive low levels from nearby farms.
  • Cross-contamination: Milling and baking equipment may retain microscopic residues from previous processing cycles.

Still, our expert emphasizes, “Glyphosate is very unstable. It breaks down during processing. By the time it’s made into cookie dough and baked, most of it is likely destroyed.”

The Math behind the Scare: How Much is Too Much?

Let’s talk numbers, because context matters:

  • EPA’s Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI): 1.75 mg/kg body weight/day
  • For a 130-lb child: That’s 103 mg/day of glyphosate
  • Thin Mints tested at: ~0.28 parts per million = 0.00896 mg per 4-cookie serving
  • Glyphosate per cookie: ~0.00224 mg

Therefore, to hit the EPA’s daily limit, you’d need to eat: 103 ÷ 0.00224 = ~46,116 Thin Mints—in one day. How small is that? Our experts states:

“Ten years ago, we were measuring parts per million. Now we’re detecting parts per trillion—or even quadrillion. That’s like finding a single drop of dye in an Olympic-size swimming pool.”

That’s the level of sensitivity that triggered these headlines—not a real health risk.

Why Glyphosate is Still Essential to Farming—and the Planet

The Thin Mint headlines may be new, but glyphosate conversations are years old.

What often gets lost is why glyphosate exists in the first place—and why it’s still used.

  • Reduces tilling: By replacing mechanical weed removal, glyphosate helps preserve topsoil, reduce erosion, and limit greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Increases yield: Without glyphosate, crops are more vulnerable to weeds, pests, and droughts.
  • Helps feed the world: According to a 2022 review published in Frontiers in Agronomy, glyphosate contributes to global food security by improving land efficiency and lowering the environmental footprint of food production.

“There is no scalable alternative right now,” says our expert. “Without glyphosate, prices go up, food waste goes up, and more land gets cleared to compensate for lost yield.”

What about Heavy Metals?

Heavy metals like lead, cadmium, arsenic, and mercury are naturally found in soil and water. Plants absorb them just as they absorb nutrients. This applies to conventional and organic crops alike.

You’ll find trace heavy metals in:

  • Root vegetables like sweet potatoes and carrots (especially the skin)
  • Leafy greens like spinach, kale, and chard
  • Grains, especially brown rice and oats
  • Seafood, like tuna and swordfish, which can be high in mercury

The problem isn’t the presence—it’s repeated, high-level exposure over time, like eating the same thing for lunch every day, or having the same vegetable for dinner 3 nights a week. This is especially true for young children.

How to Minimize Heavy Metal Exposure:

  • Eat a varied diet: Don’t rely on the same foods daily, especially high-risk ones like rice-based snacks, sweet potatoes, or leafy greens from the same source.
  • Peel root vegetables: The skins can concentrate heavy metals—especially important for baby food.
  • Rinse produce: Washing removes soil particles that may carry heavy metal dust. Adding some vinegar to the wash increases efficiency.
  • Limit certain fish: Mercury-heavy fish like swordfish and king mackerel should be eaten sparingly, especially by pregnant women and children.

“Our testing has evolved to detect incredibly small quantities,” our expert explains. “Now we know more about what’s in our food—but we also need to know how to interpret it.”

What are the FDA and EPA Doing?

While headlines often spark fear, it’s important to recognize the behind-the-scenes work being done to keep our food supply safe.

Both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) play critical roles in protecting public health by monitoring, regulating, and reducing exposure to potentially harmful substances like heavy metals and pesticide residues.

Their efforts don’t just stop at setting limits—they’re advancing research, guiding manufacturers, and adjusting policies based on emerging science. Here’s how each agency is working to ensure transparency, safety, and continual improvement in the foods we eat every day.

FDA: Closer to Zero Program

This program targets lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury in foods consumed by infants and children. Their strategy is to:

  • Set action levels (e.g. 10 parts per billion for lead in infant cereals)
  • Guide manufacturers to reformulate and reduce toxic element exposure
  • Continuously monitor, analyze, and revise safety thresholds

The FDA acknowledges that no amount of lead is safe for children—and they’re working across the industry to minimize it.

EPA: Pesticide Residue Oversight

The EPA’s most recent glyphosate review found:

  • No cancer risk at dietary exposure levels
  • Glyphosate is safe when used according to label instructions
  • Ongoing studies are evaluating glyphosate’s metabolites for future review

These programs ensure consumers aren’t left in the dark—they offer transparency, data, and science-backed policy updates.

Here’s What Emily Can Do

Emily is not alone in wanting to keep her kids safe. The good news is, staying informed and proactive doesn’t have to be overwhelming. One of the most effective things you can do is encourage variety in your family’s diet.

“People get into food ruts,” explains our expert. “And that’s where exposure builds. If you eat spinach, carrots, and brown rice every day, you’re not getting balance—you’re increasing your risk.”

Rotating your produce, trying different whole grains, and switching up your protein sources helps minimize the accumulation of any one type of contaminant. In short, dietary diversity is a powerful form of protection.

It’s also important to rinse all fruits and vegetables—yes, even the organic ones.

Pesticide residues and naturally occurring heavy metals can cling to soil dust on the surface of produce. Washing them thoroughly helps reduce that exposure.

And when it comes to processed treats, like cookies or cereal bars, the key is moderation.

They’re meant to be enjoyed as occasional snacks, not everyday staples. They shouldn’t be vilified, but they also shouldn’t crowd out nutrient-dense whole foods.

Navigating the Noise: Trust Science, Not Clickbait

“Don’t get your science from TikTok,” our expert says bluntly.

Instead, rely on reputable, evidence-based sources like FDA and EPA reports, peer-reviewed research in journals such as Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, Frontiers in Agronomy, and Food Chemistry, and organizations like the National Institutes of Health, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO/WHO).

Be skeptical of dramatic headlines or social media posts that lack proper sourcing. Context matters—trace detection does not mean danger. And beware of comparisons between food safety limits and water safety standards, which have entirely different risk profiles and thresholds. Understanding that distinction is key to separating fear from fact.

Remember, here’s what we know:

  • Glyphosate is heavily regulated, essential for sustainable agriculture, and used in ways that significantly reduce environmental harm.
  • The trace amounts found in food—especially in Girl Scout Cookies—are nowhere near harmful.
  • Our testing capabilities are more sensitive than ever, but that doesn’t mean our food is more dangerous—it just means we know more about it.
  • The real focus should be on reducing overall processed food consumption and embracing a diet built on whole, varied, nutrient-dense foods.

Emily’s concern is valid. But panic isn’t the answer—context, science, and variety are.

Posted on

Transcript: Are Girl Scout Cookies Safe?

 

Click here to read the original post.

You know, when you’re scrolling online, maybe late at night, and a headline just grabs you. Well, lately, especially if you look forward to Girl Scout cookie season like I do. You might have seen these posts from February 2025.

The glyphosate claims and heavy metals, too. It definitely makes you pause before grabbing another cookie.

It absolutely does. And look, that’s a normal reaction when you hear pesticides, heavy metals, especially with food.

Yeah. Food for your family, right? Caution flags go up immediately. It’s understandable.

Okay. So, let’s really dig into that because that’s what we’re doing today. This deep dive. We’re looking past the, you know, the social media noise. Trying to get to the science of it.

Yes. What’s actually going on with these cookies? Our mission here is to sort the facts from the fear, understand the science, and figure out if there’s anything we genuinely need to worry about. Exactly. We’re not trying to dismiss anyone’s concerns, but we want to give it some real context, you know, based on the data we have.

Context, right? Science, not just scary headlines.

So, you can make up your own mind without hopefully needless panic.

Okay, first big one. Glyphosate. How on earth does that stuff get into a cookie? The idea someone’s adding it in is well, it’s weird, right? And that’s the first uh really critical point. It’s not an ingredient. Nobody is like one expert said, spring sprinkling glyphosate into cookie dough.

Instead, if it’s there at all, it’s in these tiny tiny trace amounts and it gets there indirectly through the farm ingredients.

Okay, indirectly. How? Break that down.

Well, there are basically three main ways this can happen. First is something called preharvest desiccation.

So maybe about 30% of farmers, give or take, might spray glyphosate on crops like wheat or oats right before harvest.

Why would they do that?

It helps everything dry down evenly. You get a more uniform crop, better yield, makes harvesting more efficient.

Okay. So, it’s used on the ingredients. What’s path number two?

Second is just um environmental spread. Think of it like pollen. Glyphosate can drift on the wind, get into water sources. So, even if one farm doesn’t use it, tiny amounts might just be present in the environment from nearby areas. It’s hard to avoid completely sometimes.

Okay. Like background noise almost. Yep. Makes sense. And the third way,

Cross contamination. Tiny microscopic residues might linger on milling equipment, maybe baking equipment, even after cleaning,
from processing other stuff before.

Exactly. Though, it’s also worth mentioning glyphosate isn’t super stable. It tends to break down, especially with heat, like, you know, baking.

Baking probably helps break it down. So, these are really small indirect routes, not someone dumping it in the mixer.

Correct. That feels a bit better already, doesn’t it?

It does. But then you see the numbers they throw around in those posts, parts per per million.

Yeah, sounds bad. Let’s talk about the actual amounts.

Yeah, the numbers. This is where context is absolutely everything. So, the EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, they set something called an acceptable daily intake or ADI. That’s the amount they estimate you could consume every single day for your whole life and not expect any harm. For glyphosate, that ADI is 1.75 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day.

Okay? 1.75 mg per kilogram. Let’s make that real. Say someone who weighs, I don’t know, 130 lbs. That’s about 70 kilos, right?

Right. 70 kg. So for that person, the daily acceptable intake would be, let’s see, 70* 1.75 about 103.25 milligrams of glyphosate per day.

Over 100 milligrams a day. Okay. Now, what did they find in the thin mints?

The test showed around. 28 parts per million. That sounds like a number, but let’s translate it. In a standard serving, say four cookies,
which is, let’s be honest, the starting point.

Ah, maybe. But in those four cookies, that translates to about 0.00896 milligrams of glyphosate total.

Okay. My brain hurts, but that sounds incredibly tiny compared to the 103 mg daily limit.

Exactly. So, let’s do the fun math. How many of those single cookies would that 70 kilo person need to eat in one day to hit their 103.25 mg limit?

Uh-oh. This is going to be big, isn’t it? works out to something like 46,116 thin mints.

46,000 in one day. Okay. Right. Nobody is eating 46,000 thin mints. I think even I have my limits.

Precisely. It puts the risk into perspective. And there’s another piece to this. Our testing technology is just ridiculously good now.

It’s better than it used to be.

Oh, way better. We used to measure in parts per million. Now we can often detect parts per trillion, even parts per quadrillion. Think of like an Olympic swimming pool being able to detect one single drop of dye in all that water. That’s the kind of sensitivity we’re talking about.

So, the headlines might pop up just because we can find these microscopic traces now, not because there’s suddenly more of it or it’s dangerous.
That’s a huge part of it. The sensitivity drives the detection, which can drive the headlines even if the actual health risk hasn’t changed or is negligible at those levels.

That analogy helps a lot. It’s not necessarily more stuff in the food. We just have sharper eyes scientifically speaking.

You got it. Okay. So, maybe we should switch slightly talk about why farmers use glyphosate in the first place. It’s easy to just focus on the scary headlines.

Good point. They aren’t just spraying it around for fun, presumably. What are the benefits?

Well, it actually plays a pretty big role in modern farming. A key thing is it allows for less tilling of the soil.

Less digging up the fields. Why is that good?

Tilling can lead to soil erosion, loss of top soil, big problems. By using glyphosate to handle weeds, farmers can use no till or reduce tail methods that helps preserve the soil, reduces erosion. And it can even mean lower greenhouse gas emissions from farming operations.

Yeah, that’s a side you don’t hear much about in the scary posts.

Not usually. No. Plus, it helps increase crop yields. Better weed control means more food grown on the same land. That’s vital for, you know, feeding everyone. Global food security.

So, it’s tied into bigger issues, efficiency, sustainability.

Absolutely. There was a review in a journal, Frontiers and Aron. me back in 2022 that really laid out its importance. And frankly, as the expert we looked at said, there isn’t really a scalable alternative right now that does the same job with the same benefits, especially the reduced tilling part.

So, if we just banned it, we’d likely see higher food prices, probably more food waste from lower yields, maybe needing to clear more land for farming. It’s complicated.

Definitely more complex than just weed killer bad.

Okay. What about the other thing mentioned, heavy metals, right? Heavy metals: lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury. This is a bit different. These are naturally occurring elements.

Natural. So, not from pesticides or farming chemicals.

Mostly not. No, they’re just in the soil in the water. Plants absorb them as they grow, just like they absorb nutrients. And this happens whether the crop is grown conventionally or organically.

Oh, interesting. So, organic doesn’t automatically mean no heavy metals.

Correct. You find trace amounts in lots of common foods, root vegetables like carrots, sweet potatoes, especially in the skin, leafy Greens like spinach, grains, brown rice, and oats can sometimes pick up arsenic from the soil.

Wow. Okay. Even seafood, right? Mercury.

Yep. Certain fish like tuna, swordfish can accumulate mercury from the water. It’s pretty widespread in trace amounts.

So, if it’s natural and in lots of foods, when does it become a concern? Is it the amount?

It’s about the amount and the frequency. The real concern is repeated highle exposure over a long time consistently. eating large amounts of foods that happen to be higher in a specific metal. And this is especially important for little kids. Their bodies are still developing. They’re more sensitive.

So again, it’s not about the occasional cookie setting off alarm bells.

Not usually. No, it’s the overall dietary pattern. And there are things you can do to minimize exposure.

Like what what’s practical?

The biggest thing is eating a varied diet. Don’t eat the exact same things every single day. Mix it up. Rotate your foods.

Makes sense. Reduces the chance of getting too much of any one thing.

Exactly. Also, peeling root vegetables, especially if you’re making baby food, can help since metals sometimes concentrate in the skin.

Okay, peeling carrots and potatoes. Easy enough.

Rinsing all your produce while even organic helps wash off any lingering soil which might contain metals. A little vinegar in the water can help too. And then, yeah, limiting those high mercury fish, particularly for pregnant women and young children. Standard advice there.

These are all pretty sensible things. And again, our fancy testing plays a role here, too, right? Right. Finding these natural traces.

Totally like the experts said, we can just see so much more now. We have more information than ever. The trick is interpreting it correctly. Finding a trace amount isn’t the same as finding a dangerous amount.

Context. Again, it always comes back to context. Are the regulators like watching this stuff? FDA, EPA.

Oh yeah, definitely. Both the FDA and EPA are heavily involved. The FDA has this program called Closer to Zero.

Closer to zero for what?

Specifically targeting lead. arsenic, cadmium, and mercury in foods for babies and young kids. They set action levels like for lead in infant cereal, it’s 10 parts per billion. Okay?

They guide manufacturers on how to reduce levels, then monitor foods, and the FDA is clear. There’s really no safe level of lead for kids. So, the goal is always to get it as low as possible, push it closer to zero.

That’s good to know they’re actively working on it for the most vulnerable group. Yeah. What about the EPA side for pesticides like glyphosate?

The EPA regulates pesticides. Their latest big review on glyphosate concluded it doesn’t pose a cancer risk from dietary exposure at the levels we see. They say it’s safe when used correctly following the label and they keep studying it including its breakdown products the metabolites. So these agencies provide oversight data updates. It’s an ongoing process, right? It’s not static. Science evolves.

Okay, so let’s pull this all together for the listener. What are the practical takeaways here? If you’re that person who saw the scary post, what should you do?

I think the biggest practical advice is is focus on variety for the whole family. Avoid getting stuck in a food rut eating the same few things constantly. Mix up the fruits, veggies, grains.

Exactly. Rinse your produce thoroughly. All of it. And yeah, processed treats like cookies. Enjoy them, sure, but in moderation. Part of a balanced diet, not the main course.

And maybe the best advice we heard, that quote.

Ah, yes. Don’t get your science from Tik Tok or, you know, unsourced social media posts in general.

Absolutely. Go to the credible sources, FDA reports, EPA assessments. Look for peer-reviewed studies and journals. The outline mentioned comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety, frontiers in aronomy, food chemistry. Look at established health organizations, NIH, WH, EFSA in Europe.

Be skeptical of stuff without sources or that sounds super dramatic, right? And be careful comparing things like food safety limits to say drinking water standards. They’re set differently for different reasons. Apples and oranges sometimes.

Okay, so let’s try try to summarize the absolute key points.

Okay. One, glyphosate is regulated. It plays a role in modern farming and the trace levels found in foods like these cookies are considered safe by regulatory bodies.

Two, we can test for really tiny amounts. Now, that doesn’t mean food is suddenly dangerous. It means we have more sensitive tools and more data. Context matters.

And three, the best strategy for overall food safety and health isn’t obsessing over trace amounts in one specific food. It’s focusing on a varied balanced diet rich in whole foods and moderating the processed stuff.

So for everyone listening, yeah, those concerns you felt totally valid starting point, but the answer seems to be context, science, and variety, not panic.
Well put. It’s about informed choices, not fear-based ones.

So enjoy a thin mint or several, just maybe not 46,000.

Probably a good guideline. Enjoy them in moderation as part of that bigger picture of a healthy, varied diet.

All right. And maybe a final thought to leave everyone with. Now that you’ve got this deeper understanding of the science and the regulation around this food scare, what other food topics might deserve the same kind of careful look beyond the headlines?

That’s a good question. Staying curious, staying critical. That’s always a healthy approach to what we eat.

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.