Posted on

Farm Shortages Continue as Job Numbers Drop

What’s one of the most important farm inputs? Not just seeds and fertilizer, or herbicides and pesticides.

It’s good old labor – the availability of help to do the seemingly endless list of chores that come with farming.

In recent years, farmers have spoken at length of their growing worry over a lack of willing and available workers to make sure all those pesky tasks are done…and done well.

That worry is still there, and justifiably, as the numbers clearly show. But as is ever the case, the farming community is responding to the challenge. How? By making modern technology work even harder to help alleviate the labor headache.

What was initially thought to be the province of industrial factories, warehousing, and shipping has quietly moved outdoors – to the farm field and other points along the food chain from dirt to dinner.

Technology – whether referred to as automation, drones, robotics, and artificial intelligence (AI) – is stepping in to take on more of the routine and not-so-routine aspects of farming and food production.

Technology can do more and more of the rote tasks associated with planting, tending to crops, harvesting, sorting, and many, many other farm jobs.

But it also is a new approach to farming that makes farm fields more than dirt.

It transforms them into living databases – full of potential insights leading to better decision-making. Greater efficiency and productivity. Enhanced income opportunity. Better protection of resources for a sustainable farming future.

The Farm Labor Conundrum

The farm labor problem has many facets. It involves not just a shortage of available workers to do the countless physical tasks of growing and delivering our food. It also reflects worries about shifting demographics and political considerations.

Fewer people seem to want to work as farm laborers. Those who do are aging, with many electing to exit that work force. To add to the complications, our food system is highly dependent upon immigrants – legal and illegal – to do much of this important work. Additionally, growing use of technology has helped serve some of the demand for many jobs, or eliminated them altogether.

There were an estimated 2.4 million open agricultural jobs in the United States in 2024, with 56% of farmers reporting labor shortages, according to FTI Consulting’s June 2025 report.

And the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a decline in overall agricultural employment of 155,000 jobs in 2025.

It’s an important concern. Overall, farm labor represents about 14 percent of farming costs. It’s lower in less labor-intensive operations, such as row crop farming. But for specialty crops that require individualized engagement in tending, harvesting, and sorting, labor costs can be much higher – up to 30 percent or more.

Many fruit and vegetable farmers are going out of business, or turning to less labor intensive crops due to the worker shortage. Those fruits and veggies we all enjoy come with a substantial labor component in their prices.

In the current market environment facing farmers, saving pennies wherever possible is a major consideration. The cost of crop inputs, energy and labor are key factors in profitability – and survival. As costs for fertilizer and other inputs rise, energy costs soar and overall inflation eats away at household financial security, farmers simply can’t afford to ignore the labor challenge. The face of farming is changing. It simply has to in order to survive.

To understand what’s driving this evolution in farming, let’s start with some of the facts about the importance of labor on the farm.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics places the number of agricultural workers at 812,600 in 2024. About 90 percent of those jobs are on the farm or ranch, or in nurseries, greenhouses, or aquacultural operations.

By 2034, the BLS projects that the overall number will decline to 790,200. The farm and ranch worker group will suffer the biggest decline, losing about 28,000 jobs. Agricultural equipment operators, in contrast, are expected to see an 8 percent increase in jobs in that timeframe.

Aging Workforce on Farms

Compounding labor matters is the fact that our farm workforce is growing older.

The Department of Agriculture places the average age of a U.S. farmer at 58 years, making it the oldest workforce in our national economy. Two of every five acres of U.S. farms are owned by people 65 or older. About 40 percent of all farmers are 65 or older.

Much of the farm labor force also shows signs of aging – especially the immigrant workers on which our system depends. The average age of an immigrant worker in U.S. agriculture is roughly 42 years, and has been rising steadily as fewer younger immigrants enter the agricultural labor force.

The aging phenomenon extends into other parts of the food chain, too.

According to FTI Consulting, “The food processing industry has seen a significant increase in the percentage of workers aged 60 to 69. One-third of the food manufacturing workforce is over 55, as younger generations are less inclined to pursue careers in food manufacturing, which they perceive as labor-intensive, low-paying, and/or lacking opportunities for advancement.”

In simple terms, our ag system is aging as fewer people seem willing to take on the intensive labor jobs we traditionally associate with farming and food processing.

As AgAmerica recently commented, “There are four times the number of producers who are 65 years or older than those younger than 35. As more operators reach retirement age, there are fewer young farmers coming in to fill their shoes.

‘It only makes sense that the decline in farm labor would follow a similar trend.” 

The Brutal Effects of a Demanding Job

To add to the various significant challenges, farmers also suffer from higher rates of suicide than other professions and were also disproportionately affected by the opioid crisis.

In a 2025 study by Rosalie Eisenreich and Carolyn Pollari, the National Rural Health Association notes that rural populations have a significantly higher suicide rate than urban areas, with the suicide rate among farmers over three times higher than the general population.

In particular, male farmers, ranchers and other agricultural managers have a significantly higher rate of suicide deaths at 43 per 100,000, versus the average of 27 across all other occupations.

As for the opioid epidemic, much of it can be attributed to injuries incurred from such demanding labor. Every day in this nation, approximately 100 agricultural workers suffer an injury leading to lost work time. In recent years, the highest number of injuries was among aging farmers age 50-59 years.

In the 2000s, the tides turned with the assistance of an effective and readily available painkiller. Suddenly those injuries felt less severe, allowing workers to once again resume a steady paycheck. But at the devastating cost of addition and death for many.

The Pennsylvania Office of Rural Health cited the following from Lancaster Farming in 2022:

“The scope of the crisis in rural America was staggering, with 74% of farmers and farmworkers reporting they had been directly impacted by opioids, three in four farmers saying it was easy to access large amounts of opioids without a prescription, and one in three adults saying addiction treatment was readily available.”

Michigan State University reports a more specific detail, citing from the Centers for Disease Control that 26% of farmers and farm workers have abused, been addicted or have taken an opioid without a prescription.

The Immigrant Issue

As the government’s statistics indicate, alien and immigrant workers play a major role in farming.

Fruit and vegetable production is notably labor-intensive, and often seasonal. But other sectors – such as dairy and poultry – also demand lots of plain old hard labor. Further down the food chain, processing operations (notably meat and poultry) depend heavily upon immigrant labor.

Government efforts to identify and deal with illegal immigrants have added to the pressures facing farmers and others across the food chain.

Estimates of the proportion of illegal immigrants in the agricultural workforce vary, often by significant amounts, possibly reflecting different political perspectives. But whatever the numbers cited, the number of illegal immigrants working in our food system is sizable.

As noted by farmonaut.com, the percentage of undocumented immigrants in agriculture is, by every credible estimate, extraordinarily high compared to any other major U.S. industry.

As of 2025:

  • Undocumented immigrants constitute approximately 50% to 70% of the national agricultural workforce.
  • Out of an estimated 2.4 million farmworkers nationwide, about 1.2 to 1.7 million are undocumented.
  • Key crops and sectors—including fruits, vegetables, nuts, and perishables—are especially reliant on undocumented labor.

Other organizations report similar reliance on immigrant – often undocumented – workers. As reported by the American Immigration Council in 2021:

As recently as 2019, almost half of all agricultural workers were foreign-born and more than one-fourth (27.3 percent) were undocumented.

Among workers in crop production, the share of foreign-born workers is even higher. In 2019, almost 57 percent of crop production workers were immigrants, including 36.4 percent who were undocumented.

More recent data from AgAmerica place the share of immigrants in the farm labor force at 42 percent, down from 55 percent in 2001.

H-2A to the Rescue?

One major tool for combating the farm labor shortage has been the H-2A visa program. Called the Temporary Agricultural Program, H-2A allows foreign-born workers to enter the United States for up to 10 months.

H-2A has been extremely valuable to crop producers for help with their seasonal – often labor-intensive – tasks. Most livestock producers, such as ranches, hog and poultry operations, and dairies, cannot use the program, however.

In fiscal 2025, the government issued almost 400,000 H-2A visas, up from roughly 48,000 in 2005. Almost half of those visas went to five states.

The American Farm Bureau reports that “only 182 positions out of over 415,000 advertised (jobs) received a domestic applicant in fiscal year 2025.”

In other words, H-2A visas go for jobs that domestic workers simply don‘t want.

The Response – Economic and Otherwise

Traditional approaches to attracting and training farm workers continue unabated.

Wages paid to farm laborers have increased steadily in recent years in an attempt to attract workers, adding to costs and further dampening farmers’ bottom lines.

Schools, extension programs, and private commercial interests collectively seek to raise awareness of the nobility of being at the front lines of feeding a hungry world.

They help people see the wide career opportunities available across the food chain. They provide the training and encouragement that brings new and young people into the business and lifestyle of farming.

The Future Farmers of America (FFA), as one of the most recognized agents in this effort, remains a powerful engine for assuring farming’s future. This kind of effort helps explain why the 2022 Census of Agriculture showed the largest jump in farmer numbers came from people under the age of 25.

But one additional response to the labor challenge looms over all the others. Its name is technology.

Next week, we will continue to examine the role of labor in our food system – and the remarkable ways technology is reshaping the face of farming and food production.

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

Ditching the Daily Diet Scorecard

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

 

It starts the same way for almost everyone. You wake up with good intentions. Today is going to be different. More protein. More vegetables. Don’t forget the fiber. Less sugar. By mid-morning, you’ve already adjusted. Lunch is rushed. Dinner is late. Someone suggests takeout. The kids want pasta. You didn’t hit your protein goal. You forgot vegetables at lunch. You had dessert.

Again. And just like that, the quiet thought creeps in: I failed today. But what if you didn’t? What if the problem isn’t your discipline, or even your food choices, but the fact that you’re trying to measure health in 24-hour increments? The newest Dietary Guidelines and the broader Make America Healthy Again movement are pushing an important shift: Health is built in patterns and consistency. And yet, most of us are still grading ourselves like every meal is a final exam.

The Shift: Stop Trying to Win the Day

The human body doesn’t operate on a daily scorecard. Variability in our daily eating habits isn’t failure, it’s normal. What matters is what happens across a week, not a single day.

As Dr. Andrew Huberman often emphasizes in his work on behavior and neurobiology, it’s the patterns you repeat, not the occasional deviation, that shape long-term outcomes. A single “off” day doesn’t define your health, but consistently misaligned habits can.

So instead of asking: Did I eat perfectly today? A better question is: Did I have a solid week?  Did I achieve my goals for the month?

A New Food Pyramid

The modern “food pyramid” isn’t a daily checklist anymore. It’s a rhythm.

Your daily foods are the ones that quietly shape your metabolism, your energy, and your long-term health. They don’t need to be complicated, but they do need to be consistent.

Protein

At the center of this foundation is protein.

Modern research increasingly shows that most adults benefit from roughly 1.2 to 1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight per day, which translates to about 0.55 to 0.73 grams per pound. This is higher than older minimum recommendations, but aligns with newer findings on muscle preservation, metabolic health, and satiety.

To make this more practical, protein needs are often best based on ideal body weight, rather than current weight—especially for those trying to lose fat or improve body composition. Ideal body weight is typically defined as the weight associated with a healthy BMI range (roughly 18.5–24.9) or a weight where you feel strong, energized, and metabolically healthy.

For example, someone with an ideal body weight of 150 pounds would aim for approximately 80 to 110 grams of protein per day, spread across meals.

Studies over the past decade consistently show that higher protein intake helps regulate appetite, maintain lean mass as we age, and stabilize blood sugar levels throughout the day. Protein sources like red meat, chicken, fish, and pork not only provide variety, but make it easier to consistently meet these targets.

Just as important is how that protein is distributed. Rather than loading it all into dinner, spreading protein across meals appears to better support muscle protein synthesis and energy levels.

In practice, that might look like starting the day with eggs and berries, or Greek yogurt with nuts and fruit, simple combinations that deliver both protein and micronutrients.
Lunch could be a grilled chicken salad with olive oil and a variety of vegetables, or a grain bowl with salmon, quinoa, and roasted vegetables.
Dinner might center around a piece of fish or meat, paired with vegetables and a whole grain like rice or farro.

Fruits and Vegetables

Alongside protein, fruits and vegetables remain the most under-consumed, and most impactful, part of the modern diet. A simple, achievable target is about five servings per day: roughly three servings of vegetables and two of fruit. Large-scale prospective studies have consistently linked this level of intake to lower risk of cardiovascular disease, improved gut health, and reduced overall mortality.

Fiber

Fiber plays a central role here. Most Americans fall well short of the recommended 25–35 grams per day, yet fiber intake is strongly associated with better metabolic health, improved cholesterol levels, and a more diverse gut microbiome. Practically, this looks like adding spinach or peppers to eggs in the morning, including vegetables at lunch, and building dinner around a vegetable-forward plate rather than treating them as an afterthought.

Healthy Fats

Healthy fats, once broadly feared, are now recognized as essential. Foods like olive oil, avocados, nuts, eggs, and fatty fish provide not only energy, but also support hormone production, brain function, and the absorption of key nutrients. Research over the past two decades has shifted away from blanket fat restriction toward a more nuanced understanding: the type of fat matters far more than the total amount.

Whole Grains

Whole grains round out this foundation, offering sustained energy and additional fiber when consumed in their minimally processed forms. Oats at breakfast, quinoa in a lunch bowl, or a side of brown rice at dinner all contribute to more stable blood sugar and longer-lasting satiety compared to refined carbohydrates.

Taken together, these daily foods don’t require perfection or precision. A breakfast might be as simple as eggs and fruit, lunch a protein-forward salad or bowl, and dinner a straightforward combination of protein, vegetables, and grains.

The goal isn’t to optimize every bite, it’s to make sure these foods show up, again and again, most of the time.

What to Eat Each Week: The Balance Layer

Not everything needs to happen every day. One of the biggest shifts in modern nutrition science is moving away from labeling foods as simply “good” or “bad,” and toward thinking about them in terms of frequency. There’s a middle category of foods that are enjoyable and compatible with good health, but don’t need to be part of your daily baseline. They fit better into a weekly rhythm.

Take processed meats. Bacon, sausage, deli meats, and jerky can contribute protein, but they also come with added sodium, preservatives, and processing methods like curing or smoking. The goal isn’t elimination, it’s moderation. In real life, that might look like bacon on a Saturday morning or jerky as an occasional snack.

The same applies to richer, more calorie-dense meals. Pasta, creamy dishes, cheese-heavy meals, and restaurant dining are not “off-plan” they’re part of how people actually live. But when they become routine, they start to crowd out simpler, more nutrient-dense meals built around protein and vegetables. A bowl of pasta on a Friday night, pizza with friends, or dinner out can absolutely fit into a healthy pattern. What matters is that these meals are part of the week, not the structure of every day.

Alcohol fits here as well. While the science continues to evolve, the trend is toward more caution at any level of intake. When alcohol becomes a deliberate, occasional choice rather than a daily habit, both frequency and quantity tend to regulate naturally. The goal isn’t to remove foods that are enjoyable or culturally meaningful—it’s to right-size their role. Give them a place, just not the entire stage. That’s what makes this approach sustainable.

What to Save for Monthly: The Reality Check

At the top of the pyramid are foods that are hardest to manage—not because they’re inherently harmful, but because they’re designed to be easy to overconsume. Ultra-processed foods like chips, packaged snacks, sugary drinks, fast food, and desserts are engineered for taste, convenience, and shelf life. Combinations of refined carbs, added fats, salt, and flavor enhancers make them highly palatable, and hard to stop eating.

This is by design. And today, these foods have shifted from occasional treats to daily staples, making up more than half of calorie intake for many Americans. Research consistently links high consumption to increased risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and mood disorders. The takeaway isn’t elimination, it’s frequency. When these foods are occasional, cake at a birthday, ice cream on a summer night, chips at a party, they stay what they’re meant to be: enjoyable and social.

But when those same foods become automatic, an afternoon snack every day, dessert every night, processed options at most meals, they stop being treats and start becoming the baseline. And in doing so, they gradually displace the foods that support long-term health.

This is where the distinction becomes important: the difference between a treat and a habit is not the food itself, it’s how often it shows up.

A healthy diet doesn’t look rigid, it looks rhythmic. During the week, meals are simple and repeatable. Protein shows up at every meal. Vegetables are included when possible. Snacks are built from real food. On the weekend, there’s flexibility. A dinner out. A shared dessert. A break from routine.

What to Eat in a Day: A Practical Breakdown

For an average adult, a realistic daily intake might look like this:

A day built around this might include eggs and berries in the morning, a protein-forward lunch with vegetables, and a simple dinner of fish, grains, and greens.

Not perfect. Just consistent.

The new Dietary Guidelines have a message that nutrition science has been moving toward for years:

  • Eat whole foods
  • Prioritize protein
  • Reduce ultra-processed foods
  • Limit added sugars

What’s different now is not the message, but the recognition that it must be livable. Because the best diet isn’t the most optimized one. It’s the one you can sustain. Psychologically, rigid rules often lead to burnout, while structured flexibility leads to consistency.

What this looks like in practice for me, a strong week usually starts with a few days of consistency. Monday through Wednesday tend to feel structured, our meals are simple, protein shows up at each one, and I’m making a conscious effort to include vegetables. Nothing elaborate, just a rhythm that works. By Thursday, things often start to shift. Schedules get busier, groceries are running low, and the idea of another round of leftovers feels less appealing. That’s usually when I might open a bottle of wine, or we pivot to something easier, takeout between activities, a quicker dinner, something less planned.

And then the weekend looks different altogether.  Breakfast and lunch are wholesome but we might go out to dinner, have a more indulgent meal, or share dessert, something we don’t do every night, but something we actually enjoy when we do. These aren’t failures. They’re part of a full life. The difference is that they don’t define the entire week.

Posted on

Pesticides vs. Microplastics

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

 

Glyphosate is back in the headlines…again. This time, it is resurfacing amid political crosscurrents, with figures inside the MAHA movement shifting tone and reigniting debate over what to fear in our food system. Lawsuits are recycled. Old studies are recirculated. Social media frames it as a clear villain hiding in plain sight. But as the volume rises, a harder question lingers beneath it: are we aiming our fear in the right direction? What actually happens inside the body when we’re exposed to glyphosate at the regulated levels found in food?

Unlike pesticides, which are intensely studied, regulated, and measured down to microscopic thresholds, microplastics exist inside a system we rarely question because it delivers what we value most: convenience. Lightweight packaging. Shelf stability. Portability. All at an affordable price. So the real question may not be whether concern is warranted. It is whether our concern is proportionate and whether convenience is quietly shaping which risks we amplify and which we tolerate.

What is Glyphosate? And Why Does It Exist?

Glyphosate, also known as RoundUp, is a broad-spectrum herbicide. It works by inhibiting an enzyme pathway critical to plants and certain microbes, a pathway humans do not have.

That biological distinction is part of why regulators historically viewed glyphosate differently than older classes of pesticides. It is used to control weeds in crops like corn, soybeans, wheat, and cotton. In many systems, it allows farmers to reduce tillage, which means fewer tractor passes, less soil disruption, and lower erosion. Modern no-till farming systems expanded in part because effective herbicides made weed control possible without repeatedly turning over the soil.

That’s not a minor detail. Soil erosion strips nutrients, releases stored carbon, and reduces long-term productivity. Weed pressure also reduces crop yields dramatically by competing for light, water, and nutrients. In unmanaged systems, yield losses from weeds can reach 30–50%, and in some regions, far higher. Before modern weed control, farmers relied on intensive cultivation, manual labor, and rotational timing to suppress weeds. That approach limited yield stability and required more land to produce the same food.

Today, herbicides like glyphosate are land-use efficiency tools. They are part of the infrastructure that allows eight billion people to eat from a finite acreage. From a toxicological standpoint, glyphosate also stands out: its acute oral lethal dose in rats is approximately 5,000 mg/kg, placing it in one of the lowest toxicity categories for herbicides. By comparison, common pesticide alternatives such as 2,4-D (~700 mg/kg) and dicamba (~1,700 mg/kg) are significantly more acutely toxic, and even some organic-approved herbicides like copper sulfate (~300 mg/kg) are far more toxic on the same scale.

The Cancer Question and What Regulators Actually Say

Few topics in modern food and agriculture generate as much confusion, and concern, as the question of whether glyphosate causes cancer. At the center of this debate are two very different scientific conclusions, often presented without the context needed to understand why they differ.

In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

This designation was based on hazard identification, meaning the agency asked whether glyphosate could cause cancer under certain conditions—not whether it does so at levels people are typically exposed to in everyday life. IARC’s classification places glyphosate in the same category as substances like red meat and working night shifts, which may come as a surprise to many readers.

In contrast, regulatory bodies tasked with assessing real-world risk have reached different conclusions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, after reviewing decades of toxicological data and large-scale epidemiological studies, has concluded that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” at doses relevant to human exposure. Similarly, agencies in Europe, Canada, and Australia have arrived at comparable determinations, emphasizing that dose and exposure context matter when evaluating risk.

Much of the divergence comes down to methodology.

IARC evaluates whether a substance has the potential to cause harm under any circumstance, while regulatory agencies evaluate whether that harm is likely to occur under actual conditions of use.

These are not contradictory approaches, but they answer fundamentally different questions.

Adding further nuance, large prospective cohort studies, including research following agricultural workers with relatively higher exposure levels, have not found a consistent association between glyphosate use and cancer incidence. While no single study is definitive, the weight of evidence continues to shape how regulators assess safety thresholds and acceptable exposure limits.

For consumers, this creates a challenging landscape: one where a single headline, “probably carcinogenic,” can overshadow the broader scientific consensus on real-world risk. Understanding the distinction between hazard and exposure is essential. It does not mean glyphosate is beyond scrutiny, but it does mean that how, and how much, we are exposed plays a critical role in determining actual health outcomes.

What Happens Inside the Body

One of the most persistent fears surrounding pesticides is that they “build up” over time, with small daily exposures stacking silently in tissues until they reach a tipping point. That mental model makes intuitive sense. It just doesn’t match how glyphosate behaves in humans. Controlled biomonitoring studies measuring urinary excretion show that glyphosate is absorbed and then largely eliminated within hours. Estimates of its elimination half-life in humans are generally in the range of approximately 5 to 10 hours.

Most detectable glyphosate is cleared within a day or two after exposure. It does not bioaccumulate in fat tissue. It does not linger for months or years. This is not a “forever chemical.” That doesn’t mean exposure is irrelevant. Occupational handlers, applicators, and those in high-contact environments deserve rigorous safety oversight such as protective clothing. But for typical dietary exposure, the body treats glyphosate as something to process and remove, not something to store. The image of trace residues stacking indefinitely inside organs is not supported by any evidence. And this matters, because the persistence of a compound in the body is often more relevant to long-term risk than its mere detectability.

The Food System Without It

It is worth pausing to imagine modern agriculture without synthetic herbicides, not as a thought experiment, but as an economic shockwave.

Weed pressure would surge immediately. Farmers would be forced back to intensive mechanical tillage, increasing soil erosion, fuel use, labor costs, and carbon release. Yields in major commodity crops could fall sharply in many regions. That is not a cosmetic shift — that is a supply contraction. And when supply contracts, prices climb. Food inflation would not be marginal; it would ripple through grain markets, livestock feed, exports, and ultimately grocery shelves. More land would need to be brought into production, pushing into marginal acres and environmentally sensitive areas just to maintain baseline output.

Source: Colorado Virtual Library. The April 14, 1935 “Black Sunday” dust storm as seen near Springfield, Baca County. Photo by the Farm Security Administration (FSA).

This would not simply mean fewer perfect apples. It would mean tighter global grain stocks, higher input costs, and volatility in export markets that many developing nations rely on for staple foods. A 10–20% yield decline in crops like corn, soy, or wheat is not theoretical — it translates into billions of bushels lost. Agricultural productivity underpins food affordability, trade balances, and political stability. History shows that food price spikes destabilize governments far faster than most policy debates.

Pesticides are not flawless tools. But they are foundational ones. Removing them without scalable, economically viable alternatives would not usher in a pastoral renaissance of backyard abundance. It would mean lower yields, higher prices, greater land use, and amplified inequality in food access. Modern food security, imperfect as it is, rests on crop protection. That is not ideology. It is structural reality.

Meanwhile, Something Else Is Showing Up

While glyphosate dominates cultural attention, a different exposure has quietly moved from environmental issue to human issue.

Microplastics, plastic fragments smaller than 5 millimeters, and even smaller nanoplastics are now being detected in our organs.

Microplastics have been shown to cause inflammation, oxidative stress, tissue damage and further increase chronic diseases. In 2024, a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine reported microplastics and nano plastics embedded within carotid artery plaque. Individuals with detectable plastics in their plaque were significantly more likely to experience heart attack, stroke, or death over the following three years compared to those without detectable particles.

Other research has identified microplastics in lung tissue, placenta, blood, and even brain samples. Experimental work suggests potential mechanisms, including inflammation, oxidative stress, and cellular disruption.  Plastic particles have even shown to change your DNA and prevent basic functions such as DNA repair systems.

Unlike glyphosate, microplastics are not a single molecule. They are particles. Their size, shape, polymer type, and chemical additives vary widely. Some may pass through the digestive tract. Others, particularly smaller particles, may cross biological barriers. There is no single established human “half-life” for microplastics. Because we do not yet fully understand how long they remain, or what their long-term biological consequences may be. And that uncertainty deserves attention.

The study did not prove causation. But it did something important: it demonstrated presence and association.

The Psychology of Fear

So why does one exposure dominate public panic while the other moves quietly through emerging literature?

Convenience.

Plastic makes life easy. It keeps strawberries from bruising in transport. It makes takeout possible. Milk in glass bottles has gone the way of the local dairy man. It reduces food waste by extending shelf life. It allows sterile medical packaging. It makes bottled water portable. It makes lightweight clothing affordable. Plastic underpins modern logistics.

To meaningfully reduce microplastic exposure would require enormous behavioral shifts. Using glass instead of plastic for heating food. Reducing single-use packaging. Filtering water. Rethinking synthetic textiles. That’s inconvenient. Pesticides, by contrast, feel distant and industrial.

Pesticides belong to “big agriculture.” They have brand names and lawsuits. They are easy to externalize, something done by someone else. Microplastics are personal. They come from the packaging in our fridge, the bottle in our car, the fibers from our clothes. We accept what makes our lives easier. We criticize what feels industrial and abstract. But the body does not respond to narratives. It responds to chemistry and particles.

The Real Risk Conversation

None of this means pesticides deserve a free pass. Continued research, transparent regulatory review, and improved agricultural practices are essential. Safer formulations and precision application matter. So does innovation.

It also does not mean microplastics are definitively causing disease at scale. It does mean our risk conversation should evolve.

We should ask:

  • Which exposures bioaccumulate?
  • Which persist in tissues?
  • Which are present at biologically meaningful concentrations?
  • Which trade-offs are structural to feeding the world, and which are conveniences we could redesign?

The modern food system is not simple. It is a balancing act between yield, sustainability, affordability, and safety. 

Pesticides are tools that emerged to solve biological competition in crops. Plastics emerged to solve durability and transport problems in consumer goods. Both carry trade-offs.

But when it comes to biological persistence, they are not equivalent.

It’s also worth saying clearly: concern about pesticides and concern about microplastics are not mutually exclusive. We can, and should, scrutinize agricultural chemicals while also demanding better research and policy around plastic exposure. The point is not to minimize one risk in favor of another. It’s to think carefully about persistence, exposure levels, biological plausibility, and long-term effects, and to let science, not volume, guide our priorities.

Microplastics, meanwhile, have been found inside human arteries and organs. Early evidence links their presence to inflammatory pathways and cardiovascular outcomes. Their long-term biological behavior remains uncertain, and that uncertainty deserves careful study. One system underpins global food security. The other underpins global convenience. Finally, there is no simple solution to detox a human body from microplastics.

We should examine both.

Posted on

War Inflation at the Dinner Table

This is one of those moments where geopolitics quietly reshapes what we pay at the grocery store.

The conflict in Iran has many facets beyond a simple military battle. What is happening in the Middle East has economic consequences that stand to have an immediate and perhaps lasting effect on all of us, around the world. We’re facing higher prices for our energy and thus our food, as well as a substantial disruption to normal trade patterns.

The Immediate Problem – Trade Flows from Oil to Food

The location, the Strait of Hormuz, has become part of our daily lives of late. A narrow, 33-kilometer-wide waterway connecting the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea is the backbone of Middle East trade. Wheat, corn, rice, soybeans, sugar, and animal feed all flow into the Middle East through the Strait, and oil and fertilizer flow out to support global farming.

If the Strait slows, the world doesn’t just lose oil; it loses the inputs that make modern food production possible. The Strait is a critical waterway to the world for a variety of nations – Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, and notably. Shipping has halted because of attacks, mines, and soaring insurance costs. This slows or blocks food and oil imports and exports while raising global transport costs.

All Roads Lead to Oil

However, energy dominates the trade flows.

Approximately 27% of global oil, 20% of liquified natural gas, and about 25% of global fertilizer is exported through this channel. The natural gas from Saudi Arabia is used to make fertilizer, which in turn is used for corn and wheat in the U.S. and then exported back to the Middle East. It is a circular situation.

It’s a substantive reminder of just how critical this passageway is to anyone who likes to stay warm in winter or have food on the table. The entire world has a stake in assuring the free flow of goods through these waters.

Food Insecurity

But for the United States and our food system, the value chain doesn’t stop there.

The importance of the Strait of Hormuz to the U.S. extends beyond the traditional concept of petroleum.

Arabian Gulf nations rely on imports of grains and oilseeds for their food needs.

Saudi Arabia, for example, imported roughly 14 million metric tons of grain each year, from 2016 to 2022.

Ukraine exported about 17 million metric tons of corn and wheat through the Black Sea corridor in 2022 to 2023.

Fertilizer for Farming

Fertilizer is not optional, it underpins roughly half of global food production. When it tightens, food supply follows. The Strait is a major pathway for imports of products critical to our fertilizer needs – not just the natural gas needed to produce nitrogen fertilizers but also phosphates and sulfur, and half of all global urea exports.

Fertilizer production is also energy intensive, so higher natural gas and oil prices further reduce supply.

About half of global food production depends on fertilizer, meaning shortages today can translate into smaller harvests months later.

The larger spoken worry so far in agricultural circles centers on the flow of essential nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur to make phosphorus. The Middle East supplies over one-third of all global nitrogen fertilizer, according to the American Farm Bureau.

As supplies are choked off, farmers face substantially higher prices for this essential input in modern farming. Another key fertilizer ingredient is phosphorus, where the Gulf countries produce about 20% of the global supply.

A critical question will be how much of the U.S. farmer fertilizer was priced before the conflict and how much product is available as the conflict continues over time.

The Implications for the U.S. Food System

U.S. food prices are likely to rise modestly but persistently, not because America lacks food, but because energy, fertilizer, and transportation costs have jumped due to the conflict. The impact shows up first in gas and freight, then in meat, grains, and processed foods, and later in produce and dairy if fertilizer shortages persist.

For farmers alone, when the cost of their diesel fuel goes up by 20% right before spring planting, that eats into their already slim margins. The relationship between diesel prices and farm profitability shows the vulnerability of farmer income, especially today, with a 20% increase in diesel prices. A farmer attempting to maintain profitability must either absorb these costs or attempt to pass them along to buyers. Which depends on the crop, and the buyers, might not be feasible.

Higher energy costs obviously will spread through almost every segment of our food value chain. Modern food systems rely heavily on fuel—for tractors, irrigation, refrigeration, processing, packaging, and transport. As oil prices surge above $95 per barrel following the conflict, these costs began feeding directly into food prices.

Fertilizer prices will spike, but it might take a season of farming for the impact to be felt at the grocery store. Corn, wheat, soybeans, and animal feed are fertilizer intensive. Higher farm input costs reduce profit margins. Finally, farmers eventually raise prices or reduce output.

This effect takes months, meaning grocery prices may continue rising even if fighting slows.

Meat, dairy, and eggs are especially vulnerable because livestock producers are hit with higher fuel costs and higher corn and soybean prices to feed their animals and birds. Animal feed accounts for 50–70% of meat production costs, so increases there ripple quickly into beef, poultry, dairy, and egg prices.

The U.S. can expect that chickens and eggs will have faster price increases because it doesn’t take as long to grow them. Beef and dairy will have a slower but longer-lasting price increase.

Escalation Around the Strait of Hormuz

The situation has recently escalated further, with the Strait of Hormuz effectively restricted and at the center of a high-stakes standoff. President Trump has threatened to strike Iranian power infrastructure if the waterway is not reopened, while Iran has responded by warning it would fully close the strait and target energy infrastructure across the region if attacked.

The result is a rapidly intensifying cycle of threats and retaliation, with commercial shipping already disrupted and energy markets reacting immediately. Oil flows through the strait—responsible for roughly 20% of global supply—have been significantly constrained, pushing prices higher and increasing volatility across global markets.

In other words, this is no longer a hypothetical risk—the disruption to energy and trade is already underway, and the downstream effects on fertilizer, transportation, and ultimately food prices are now in motion.

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

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

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

Engineering Nutrition: The Crops Changing Public Health

Hidden hunger, a diet full of calories but short on nutrients, remains one of the world’s most persistent health crises, affecting at least 20% of the global population.

Recent biomarker-based analyses estimate that hundreds of millions of children and over a billion adults are deficient in at least one essential micronutrient. The irony? We’re swimming in an abundance of calories.

Even if you eat five to seven fruits and vegetables per day, you still may have a hidden hunger for nutrients. Crops today are bred for higher yields and pest resistance, which can lead to less nutritional density. In addition, if they are overcooked, they can also lose their value – and their taste.

NIH published a report indicating the decline in the nutritional quality of foods:

“Important commercial high-yielding fruits such as apples, oranges, mango, guava, banana, and vegetables such as tomato and potato have lost their nutritional density by up to 25–50% or more during the last 50 to 70 years due to environmental, genetic, and field soil dilution factors.”

Despite the decline, eating your fruits and vegetables still has benefits!  “Food as Medicine” programs, where doctors prescribe produce the way they once prescribed pills, have shown measurable benefits in blood pressure, blood sugar, and food security.

The lesson is clear: what grows in the soil can directly affect what circulates in our blood.

Now, biotechnology is putting that on steroids. In 2025, gene editing technologies, like CRISPR and bioengineered foods, moved from promise to practice. Lettuce engineered to act like a multivitamin. A vitamin-D tomato soup being tested in humans. Bananas that don’t brown before you eat them.

Innovation in Our Fields

Across labs, fields, and supermarkets, the boundary between agriculture and health care is dissolving. Take a look at these advances in some of the daily staples in our diet today:

When a Salad Becomes a Supplement

This March, researchers at Hebrew University published a Plant Biotechnology Journal on CRISPR-edited lettuce enriched with 2.7 times the beta-carotene, almost 7 times the vitamin C, and carotenoids, which provide eye protection, antioxidants, and cognitive function — without reducing yield.

Lead author Yarin Livneh and mentor Alexander Vainstein describe it as “stacking nutrition inside a plant that millions already eat.”

Why it matters: Lettuce is one of the most consumed vegetables in the world yet contributes little nutritionally. If this fortified lettuce scales commercially, it could help chip away at “hidden hunger,” improving micronutrient intake without changing behavior.

“Gene editing gives us an unprecedented ability to improve the nutritional quality of crops without affecting their productivity.”

— Prof. Alexander Vainstein, Hebrew University

Tomatoes Proving Food Is Medicine?

In September 2025, the John Innes Centre and Quadram Institute, in England, launched the ViTaL-D trial, the first human study of a gene-edited food designed specifically to improve nutrition.

76 adults with low vitamin D consume tomato soup daily for three weeks, each serving made from tomatoes edited to accumulate provitamin D3, which converts in the body to vitamin D3.

If blood levels of D rise, it’s the first direct evidence that a crop can change a human biomarker.

Why it matters: this is the “soil-to-serum” moment, a test of whether biofortified foods can function as nutrition therapy. If successful, these tomatoes could integrate seamlessly into produce-prescription and Food-as-Medicine programs already shown to improve clinical outcomes.

“Food is health care. It’s exciting to see science enrich something as ordinary as tomato soup with the potential to improve health.”

— Prof. Cathie Martin FRS, John Innes Centre

Bananas Fighting Food Waste

Bananas are the world’s most popular fruit, and one of the most wasted. In 2025, UK biotech Tropic unveiled a gene-edited, non-browning banana that resists bruising and stays yellow hours longer after peeling, named one of TIME’s Best Inventions of 2025.

Food waste isn’t trivial: roughly one-third of food grown globally is lost or discarded, along with the nutrients it contains. When a banana stays edible longer, vitamins and calories reach people instead of landfills, while reducing greenhouse gases from decomposition.

Why it matters: waste reduction is nutrition policy in disguise. Every untossed banana delivers more potassium, fiber, and vitamin B6 to the human diet, and fewer emissions into the atmosphere.

When Innovation Meets the Consumer

More than their parents, today’s younger consumers are willing to try vegetables and fruit that are developed to be more nutritious and tastier. Yet, history has shown that the path from soil to the consumer is not as simple.

Florida’s citrus industry offers a cautionary tale. Since 2005, citrus greening has destroyed over 80% of state production, making orange juice a luxury item. Gene-edited and transgenic trees resistant to the bacterium exist, but regulatory hurdles and consumer resistance have slowed adoption.

As one biotechnology advisor put it, “When people see biotech as saving a fruit, they hesitate; when they see it as saving their health, they listen.”

We’ve seen this before: the Hawaiian papaya only survived when virus-resistant GM varieties were planted. However, while GMOs scare the consumer, CRISPR is altering the genes in the existing fruit or vegetable.  It doesn’t seem as fearful.

At least 50% of the consumers would try CRISPR foods that are more nutritious and taste better than their original cousins. Yet for those who want to stay clear of any sophisticated gene editing, there is a company called Row 7 that is on the market today.

Row 7 works with plant breeders, farmers, seed growers, and chefs to enhance the quality and taste of vegetables as well as healthier soil. Grown organically, they are sold in some Whole Foods, Freshdirect, Misfits Market, Sprouts Farmers Market, and SweetGreen as well as specialty grocers throughout the country.

If 2024 was the year of promise, 2025 is the year of practice. Peer-reviewed, nutrient-enhanced crops; a human feeding trial proving food can change blood chemistry; microbial fertilizers that could curb emissions; and policy frameworks that finally clear a path from lab to plate.

The question isn’t if “food as health tech” will scale — it’s how fast and who will lead. Because the next generation of superfoods won’t come from supplement aisles, but from the soil itself.

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

Can We ‘Make America’s Children Healthy Again’?

The Trump Administration’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) report came out on September 9th to address the plight of America’s children’s health.

The report was specifically tasked with investigating the root causes of childhood chronic diseases and providing a blueprint for a healthier future. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. led a collaborative undertaking to guide this initiative to solve the severe health crisis in America.

MAHA points out the alarming numbers:

  • 60% of Americans have at least one chronic disease,
  • 25% of children suffer from allergies,
  • 20% of children over 5 years are obese, and
  • 40% of the entire population is either diabetic or prediabetic.

In 2023, U.S. health spending grew 4.4%, significantly outpacing a 2.5% growth in GDP. The surprising twist is that Americans still live shorter lives than people in other wealthy countries, despite pouring more money into the healthcare system.

What are the causes?

The MAHA report indicated four significant drivers for these diseases:

The food American children are eating. 

While the food is safe, it could be healthier by avoiding ultra-processed foods high in added sugars, chemical additives and saturated fats. Moreover, the food doesn’t contain essential micronutrients and dietary fibers.

The report takes a closer look at 70% of branded food products that are ultra-processed. The result of eating too much is a lack of nutrients, increases type 2 diabetes, increased obesity, and potential for inflammation.

American children’s exposure to environmental chemicals. 

Over 40,000 chemicals are registered for use which include pesticides, microplastics, and dioxins are found in the blood and urine of children and pregnant women.

American children’s pervasive technology use. 

Children have gone from active play-based childhood to a sedentary, technology driven lifestyle. The result of inactivity and social media is sadness and hopelessness, little friendships, and depression.

American children are highly medicated. 

It is not working. This is often driven by conflicts of interest in medical research, regulation, and practice.

What’s the solution to Make American Children Healthy Again?

The solution to these issues is to advance critical research, realign incentives and systems to drive health outcomes, including policy reforms, deregulation, and agency restructuring.  It also stresses an increase of public awareness through education campaigns and public-private sector collaboration.

This initiative was not just led by RFK, Jr. It has the footprint of four others in the Trump Administration:

Brooke L. Rollins, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture

  • Champions voluntary industry commitments; provides technical assistance for SNAP reform; focuses on strengthening the American food supply.

Lee Zeldin, EPA Administrator

  • Leads efforts to address environmental exposures like banned pesticides; frames the commission’s work as a family-focused initiative.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, NIH Director

  • Views the MAHA Report as a government-wide blueprint; advocates for new, gold-standard scientific research to address chronic disease.

Dr. Marty Makary, FDA Commissioner

  • Believes health care has been “reactive” to chronic disease; provides a nuanced perspective on ultra-processed foods and specific ingredients.

The attention and awareness of the relationship between diet, sleep, exercise, and health is the key to longevity, not to mention going from a healthy childhood to a healthy adulthood.

Stay tuned as Dirt to Dinner releases more information on the key concerns highlighted in this report. We’ll also provide information and insights to improve our health and wellness in these key areas.

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

Do Magic Mushrooms Prevent Aging?

A groundbreaking study in Nature’s npj Aging Journal (July 2025), just made waves by showing that psilocybin, the psychedelic compound in “magic mushrooms,” might extend our lifespan, as shown in its mice subjects. The findings are bold enough to have some calling psilocybin a potential “geroprotective agent”—a compound that could slow aging at the cellular level.

Mushrooms are gaining traction everywhere.

But before you swap your salmon and spinach for psychedelic microdoses, here are four things that research on the benefits of psilocybin reveals—and why, for now, your best anti-aging prescription may still be on your plate.

1. Psilocybin’s Big Anti-Aging Breakthrough

The July 2025 study marks the first time psilocybin’s anti-aging effects were tested at both the cellular and organism level.

The Results That Stunned Researchers:

  • In human cells: Fibroblasts, cells that connect other tissues or organs in the body, treated with psilocin (the active metabolite of psilocybin) lived up to 57% longer. Furthermore, markers of cellular aging dropped significantly, including the preservation of telomeres—the DNA “shoelace caps” that protect chromosomes.
  • In aged mice (~60 human years): Monthly 5-15mg/kg doses of psilocybin boosted 10‑month survival rates to 80% compared to 50% in untreated controls. The mice lived 30% longer, had less oxidative stress, improved DNA repair, and experienced longer telomeres (protection of chromosomes from deterioration). Even physical signs of aging—graying fur, hair loss, slowed mobility—improved.

These results can be explained by psilocybin’s several mechanisms of action.

In particular, this compound appears to activate serotonin receptors found on nearly all cell types—not just in the brain. It may also switch on SIRT1, often referred to as the “longevity gene,” reduce oxidative stress by boosting the antioxidant pathway Nrf2 while dialing down Nox4, a major source of damaging free radicals, and support DNA repair by reducing GADD45a expression.

Expert Take

As the below researchers can attest, the excitement surrounding psilocybin’s effect on longevity is palpable. However, human trials are still years away. Additionally, these effects were observed at high, intermittent doses, not at microdosing levels.

But its potential for long-term human health cannot be underestimated:

“Psilocybin appears to slow the ‘wear and tear’ that accompanies aging. Mice and cells are healthier and live significantly longer…

‘Most cells in the body express serotonin receptors, and this study opens a new frontier for how psilocybin could influence systemic aging processes, particularly when administered later in life.”

– Dr. Louise Hecker, senior study author, Emory University

2. Microdosing: More Mirage than Miracle

Psilocybin microdosing is the practice of taking trace amounts of the chemical compound, as opposed to larger doses taken for the anti-aging study.

Microdosing, a trend that really took hold during the lock-down days of Covid, is one of Silicon Valley’s favorite “biohacks” for creativity and focus. However, the evidence for mental clarity remains underwhelming.

What the Studies Show

  • A 2022 double-blind trial at Maastricht University found no measurable cognitive or creativity gains despite participants reporting improved mood and focus.
  • A 2024 systematic review concluded that most reported benefits are expectation-driven, not biological.

Expert Take

“It may only work in some people and not in other people, so it makes it hard for us to measure it under laboratory conditions” states Dr. Harriet de Wit of University of Chicago.

3. Functional Mushrooms: Helpful, but Not Revolutionary

Non-psychedelic mushrooms like lion’s mane get plenty of attention for brain health. A 2023 placebo-controlled study showed that 1.8 grams per day improved cognitive response time and reduced stress after four weeks.

But experts caution these effects are modest and unlikely to dramatically alter aging or brain health. Think of lion’s mane as a “supporting actor,” not the star.

4. Food: The Evergreen Anti-Aging MVP

While psilocybin research is exciting, decades of nutrition science still make diet your most proven mental and metabolic upgrade.

The MIND Diet Advantage

A cohort of nearly 93,000 adults found that:

  • Strict adherence to the MIND diet (Mediterranean + DASH) lowered dementia risk by 9%.
  • Improving adherence over time dropped risk by up to 25%.

Unlike isolated supplements, whole foods deliver nutrients in combinations your body evolved to use.

To paraphrase the findings of Dr. Russell Sawyer in the REGARDS cognitive study:

Your salad is still beating psilocybin by decades. The most powerful anti-aging tools are still on your plate. 

The Science of Food-Driven Cognitive Support

Psilocybin’s early research is thrilling, but decades of nutrition science already show that certain whole foods can influence many of the same biological pathways linked to brain health, mental clarity, and even slower cognitive aging.

Here’s the science behind key foods—and why they work:

Fatty Fish (Salmon, Mackerel, Sardines)

Key Compounds: EPA and DHA omega‑3 fatty acids

Leafy Greens (Spinach, Kale, Swiss Chard)

Key Compounds: Folate, vitamin K1, lutein, and nitrates

  • How They Work:
    • Folate and B vitamins reduce homocysteine, an amino acid linked to neurodegeneration when elevated.
    • Vitamin K1 supports sphingolipid synthesis, a key component of neuronal membranes.
    • Lutein accumulates in brain tissue, where it acts as an antioxidant, protecting neurons from oxidative stress.
    • Dietary nitrates enhance cerebral blood flow by boosting nitric oxide production, improving oxygen and nutrient delivery to brain tissue. In the Rush University MIND diet study, 1–2 servings of greens per day made participants cognitively 11 years “younger” than those who rarely ate them.

Berries (Blueberries, Blackberries, Strawberries)

Key Compounds: Anthocyanins and other polyphenols

  • How They Work:
    • Polyphenols activate the Nrf2 antioxidant pathway (the same one psilocybin influenced in the aging study), reducing oxidative stress and inflammation.
    • They modulate gut microbiota, increasing short-chain fatty acids that cross the blood-brain barrier and regulate neuroinflammation.
    • Some anthocyanins can cross into brain tissue directly, improving neuronal signaling and memory formation in the hippocampus. Clinical trials show 12 weeks of daily blueberry supplementation improves delayed recall and executive function in older adults.

Nuts & Seeds (Walnuts, Flaxseed, Pumpkin Seeds)

Key Compounds: Alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), magnesium, and polyphenols

  • How They Work:
    • ALA (a plant omega‑3) converts in small amounts to EPA/DHA, providing mild anti-inflammatory benefits.
    • Magnesium regulates NMDA receptor activity, crucial for synaptic plasticity and learning.
    • Walnuts, in particular, contain polyphenols that suppress oxidative stress in brain tissue. High nut consumption (5+ servings/week) in the PREDIMED trial correlated with better memory and slower cognitive decline.

Fermented & Fiber-rich Foods (Kefir, Yogurt, Lentils, Whole Grains)

Key Compounds: Prebiotic fibers and probiotic bacteria

  • How They Work:
    • Fibers feed beneficial gut bacteria, increasing production of short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) like butyrate, which have anti-inflammatory effects in the brain. Clinical studies link higher SCFA levels with better cognitive flexibility and lower risk of age-related cognitive impairment.
    • Gut microbes influence serotonin synthesis—90% of serotonin is produced in the gut—and modulate the gut-brain axis.

Dark Chocolate & Green Tea

Key Compounds: Flavanols and L-theanine

  • How They Work:
    • Flavanols enhance cerebral blood flow and support BDNF expression.
    • L-theanine modulates alpha brain waves, promoting a calm yet alert mental state—similar to meditation. [HP2]

Why This Matters

Many of these mechanisms—lowering oxidative stress, supporting BDNF, preserving membrane integrity, and even activating Nrf2—mirror the pathways psilocybin is now being investigated for. But unlike psilocybin, which is still experimental, these foods have decades of human data supporting their safety and effectiveness.

Until we have a better picture of psilocybin’s benefits, here are some things you can do now and what to watch for as the research progresses:

Do Now

Watch for Later
Eat a plant-diverse, whole-food MIND-style diet Follow human clinical trials on psilocybin geroprotection
Include oily fish, nuts, colorful fruits & vegetables Look for studies testing safe dosing & timing protocols
Manage sleep, stress & exercise—diet works best with lifestyle habits Avoid microdosing as an “anti-aging” strategy

As Dr. Hecker herself stressed, “Translating these results to human therapies will take years of careful research. For now, lifestyle still matters more than any single compound.”

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

Can We Save the Seas by Farming Fish?

At a recent grocery store visit, I overheard a woman ask the fishmonger if the salmon was “real” or “fake.” He paused. “It’s… farm-raised,” he said, uncertainly. In that one moment, the confusion and fear around seafood came into sharp focus. And it’s not just her—navigating the seafood aisle today feels like wading through murky waters.

That everyday confusion is a small reflection of a much bigger story. Sir David Attenborough’s new documentary, Oceans, pulls the camera back—way back—to show what’s really at stake.

Through sweeping visuals and urgent narration, Attenborough reminds us that the ocean is Earth’s life-support system, regulating climate, producing half of the planet’s oxygen, and providing a primary source of protein for over 3 billion people.

Why are we talking about this now?

The National Geographic documentary also exposes the mounting threats we’ve imposed: industrial trawling that scars the seafloor, coral bleaching from rising temperatures, fish populations collapsing under global demand, and plastic pollution infiltrating even the most remote ecosystems.

The numbers are staggering…

Nearly 90% of the world’s fish stocks are now fully exploited or overfished, and half of all coral reefs could disappear by 2050 if warming trends continue.

And every piece of seafood we buy—wild or farmed—ripples back into this crisis, for better or worse.

The film underscores the urgency of changing how we harvest food from the sea—but it also points to hopeful pathways. Marine protected areas (MPAs), responsible aquaculture, innovative technologies that reduce bycatch and improve sustainability, and global cooperation emerge as necessary solutions.

Attenborough’s message is clear: our choices as consumers matter. By choosing retailers and brands that prioritize sustainable sourcing, we help tip the balance toward recovery. The oceans can rebound—but the window for action is closing fast.

Sources for chart: Seafoodwatch.org, World Bank

Why the oceans matter

Imagine draining your fridge every night and expecting it to restock itself by morning. That’s how we’ve been treating the ocean. We’re no longer living off the ocean’s interest—we’re draining its life.

The oceans regulates our climate, feeds billions, and hosts over 80% of life on Earth. But pollution, and overfishing are pushing it to the brink. A 2022 FAO report confirms that over 35% of global fish stocks are overfished, compared to just 10% in the 1970s (FAO SOFIA 2022).

As Chris McReynolds, Managing Director at Oceanworks Group—who has worked across both wild catch and aquaculture for over four decades—puts it:

“The world’s oceans have been at full or over-exploitation since the early 1990s. And the only thing that’s changed since then is that the population has doubled.”

Wild & farmed working together

The debate over wild vs. farmed fish often gets emotional, but the reality is clear: the future of seafood depends on both wild-caught and aquaculture production.

The global seafood industry—both farmed and wild-caught—is highly fragmented, with wildly inconsistent standards. In some regions, poor working conditions, environmental contamination, and lax oversight persist. In others, strict rules govern human welfare, fish health, and environmental impact.

Take wild-capture fisheries: in some parts of the world, massive trawl nets scoop up everything in their path—targeted fish, turtles, sharks, and countless other creatures. The unwanted catch, known as bycatch, usually dies before being tossed back into the sea.

That shrimp cocktail you ordered? If it’s from the Gulf, it may come with a staggering 300% bycatch rate.

But not all wild fisheries are the same. Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)-certified operations must meet strict bycatch and habitat standards. In Alaska, for instance, pollock fisheries now use trawl nets with escape hatches for non-target species, cutting bycatch rates to under 2%.

Innovations in modern aquaculture

Aquaculture already supplies more than half the world’s seafood—and it will need to grow. The FAO estimates we’ll require 30 to 40% more aquatic protein by 2050 to feed the planet. While aquaculture has long been stigmatized, modern operations in Norway, Chile, and the U.S. are among the most tightly regulated in the world.

Today’s innovations are changing the game:

“In Japan and Europe, farmed fish is just fish,” says McReynolds. “They eat it daily, and they’re not dying. The fear is largely an American creation.“

When done responsibly, aquaculture provides year-round, stable protein with far less volatility than seasonal wild catches. It relieves pressure on overfished stocks, strengthens supply chains, and feeds growing populations. Wild fisheries, meanwhile, remain essential for biodiversity, cultural traditions, and ecological balance.

“It’s not about one or the other,” McReynolds adds. “They have to co-exist. We don’t need to pit wild against farmed—we just need to eat good fish and protect the systems that make that possible.”

Think of it this way: wild fish are like wildflowers—diverse, ecologically vital, and worth protecting in their natural habitats. Farmed fish are more like cultivated crops—carefully managed, scalable, and increasingly sustainable when grown the right way. We need both for a healthy, resilient future.

Tech on deck: The future of fishing

Technology is revolutionizing seafood production—and not just in theory. Today, it’s making real-time sustainability a reality on both farms and boats. Today’s smart fish farms are like underwater smart homes—outfitted with AI, sensors, and eco-engineering to keep every parameter in check.

Artificial Intelligence

In aquaculture, AI is now used to monitor fish health, regulate feeding, and track water quality. Smart cameras and machine learning tools help detect issues like disease, parasites (such as sea lice), or oxygen depletion before they become crises. In Chile, farms equipped with AI sensors have reported feed conversion ratio (FCR) improvements of 15–20%—meaning less waste and lower environmental impact.

Smart tip: Shellfish like mussels are filter feeders—they actually clean the ocean as they grow.

Electronic Monitoring Systems

On the wild catch side, fisheries are increasingly adopting electronic monitoring systems (EMS). These include onboard cameras, acoustic sensors, and geolocation tags that allow vessels to track every net, every haul, and every species caught. Data is uploaded in near real-time to ensure compliance with quotas and protected areas. According to Global Fishing Watch, these technologies are being used to track over 65,000 vessels worldwide.

Satellite Systems

Satellite systems also play a crucial role in combating illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing. With high-resolution imaging and automatic identification systems (AIS), authorities can detect vessels operating in no-fishing zones or under false flags. Governments and NGOs now use these tools to enforce marine protected areas and respond faster to violations.

Did you know? AI is being used to track sea lice, detect fish with injuries, and reduce overfeeding in aquaculture.

These technologies don’t just reduce environmental harm—they also improve operational efficiency.

More precise tracking means less fuel burned, less wasted effort, and more sustainable margins for producers.

When combined with better data sharing, predictive modeling, and blockchain for traceability, tech-enabled seafood becomes not just better for the planet—but better for business.

“AI can process things the human eye can’t,” McReynolds says. “It’s changing the game.”

Who to trust: Leading seafood retailers

Not all seafood counters are created equal. Where you shop can be just as important as what you buy.

Some retailers have made sustainability a core part of their sourcing strategy—vetting suppliers, auditing traceability, and prioritizing eco-labels so that you don’t have to decode everything yourself.

Costco, Walmart, Whole Foods, and Sainsbury’s have made significant investments in sustainable seafood.

These companies work with third-party certifiers like the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC), and Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP) to ensure their seafood meets rigorous environmental and ethical standards.

Behind the scenes, trusted retailers are asking tough questions on your behalf:

  • Where and how was this fish caught or farmed?
  • What’s the feed made of?
  • Are workers in the supply chain treated fairly?
  • Is the product traceable to its origin?

Don’t overlook store brands. Kirkland Signature at Costco, for instance, is often certified and traceable, thanks to the company’s strict supplier standards. Walmart has committed to sourcing 100% of its fresh and frozen seafood from sustainable sources, adapting its strategy across global markets to meet local challenges.

In short: when you choose a retailer that takes sustainability seriously, you’re casting a vote for better oceans—every time you shop.

Posted on

Should fluoride be added to our water?

Debates are hitting headlines as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. voices new concerns about fluoride in public water systems. But what does the science actually say? And how should we as consumers evaluate the risks and benefits?

If your water supply is sourced from a municipal reservoir, you’re consuming more than just water with every glass you drink from your tap — you’re also getting a carefully regulated dose of fluoride in addition, depending on the water source, calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium It is fluoride that has quietly helped prevent millions of cavities over the past 80 years.

But some now claim that fluoride may be harming children’s brains. So, what exactly are we drinking — and is it safe?

What Is Fluoride and How Does It Get into Our Water?

Fluoride is the naturally occurring anion of the element fluorine, found in rock, soil, plants, and ultimately in your water sources. It is known for reversing demineralization, strengthening tooth enamel, and repairing tooth decay.

Therefore, for tooth care, particularly for children, across the population, water systems carefully add fluoride to reach a safe and effective concentration of 0.7 mg/L — the level recommended by both the CDC and U.S. Public Health Service.

Municipal systems use one of three fluoride compounds:

  • Fluorosilicic acid (most common)
  • Sodium fluorosilicate
  • Sodium fluoride

As one water-treatment engineer explains: “We monitor fluoride levels constantly to hit that sweet spot—enough to protect teeth, but far below levels that could discolor or harm them.”

Consider this:

Fluoridating a standard barrel of drinking water requires just a few drops of fluoride — enough to protect your teeth with every sip. For those homes on well water, pediatricians often give fluoride as a small daily tablet to protect teeth.

The Proven Benefits of Water Fluoridation

Since Grand Rapids, Michigan became the first U.S. city to fluoridate its water in 1945, fluoride has led to a dramatic 25%–35% reduction in cavities across children and adults. The CDC calls community water fluoridation one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century.

The economic impact is equally significant: for every dollar spent on fluoridation, communities save about $20 in avoided dental treatment costs — preventing painful procedures, school absences, and financial burdens, particularly for lower-income families.

RFK Jr.’s Challenge: The Risks, Studies, and the Stakes

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now leading the Department of Health and Human Services, has emerged as one of fluoride’s most vocal critics, calling it “industrial waste” and suggesting links to lowered IQ, thyroid dysfunction, bone cancer, and neurological harm.

At the center of his argument are two studies:

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) 2024 Review: This cautiously reported that fluoride levels at or above 1.5 mg/L may be associated with slight IQ declines in children.
Additionally, a 2025 Meta-Analysis by Philippe Grandjean (Annual Review of Public Health) suggested potential neurodevelopmental risks from fluoride exposure during pregnancy — again, at exposure levels higher than U.S. public drinking water standards.

What the Science Says: Context and Dosage Matter

Here’s the catch: the levels referenced in these studies far exceed the fluoride levels used in U.S. water systems.

  • Standard U.S. fluoridation level: 0.7 mg/L
  • Levels where potential risks appear (in studies): 1.5–2.0 mg/L
  • Average adult daily water consumption: ~2.5 liters/day
  • Fluoride intake at U.S. standards: ~1.75 mg/day

To approach the fluoride intake levels associated with possible neurotoxicity, an adult would need to consume over 11 liters or about 3 gallons of fluoridated water per day, every day, for years.

For comparison, an adult African elephant drinks 50 to 100 liters of water daily. To reach concerning fluoride levels, you’d need to drink more like an elephant than a typical person at your kitchen sink, without a filter, daily, for years. You’re more likely suffer from fluoride-induced nephrotoxicity before finishing up those 21 gallons a week.

Even at these higher exposure levels, these studies RFK references only observe correlations — not causation — and often rely on data from countries where fluoride levels in untreated, unregulated, groundwater naturally reach 5–10 mg/L, which is many times higher than U.S. water systems allow.

As the American Academy of Pediatrics summarizes, fluoridation is safe. Studies that suggest harm use higher doses than what’s found in U.S. water supplies, and the risks are far outweighed by the benefits for children’s oral health.

Headlines vs. The Truth: What Experts Say

What the Headlines Say:

What the Experts Say:

  • Dr. Steven Levy, University of Iowa: “Having a very low level of fluoride in the water was substantially protecting against cavities.”
  • FactCheck.org: “The mineral fluoride, at the right dose, has been shown to reduce the risk of tooth decay… The CDC and multiple expert groups endorse water fluoridation as a safe way to reduce tooth decay.”
  • Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, U.S. Surgeon General: “Fluoridation is the single most effective public health measure to prevent dental decay and improve oral health for everyone, regardless of income or access to dental care.”
  • Dr. Myron Allukian, American Public Health Association: “Fluoride at the level used in community water systems has repeatedly been shown to be safe and effective.”

The Importance of Verification: A Reminder for All of Us

Fluoridation works. At properly regulated levels, it is safe, effective, and supported by over 80 years of real-world evidence. While RFK Jr.’s concerns raise legitimate questions for ongoing study, they focus on fluoride exposures far above what U.S. communities use.

We all deserve clean, safe water — but skepticism alone is not enough.

As consumers, parents, and voters, we must:

  • Verify claims by reading studies directly, not just headlines
  • Understand the dose: what levels are truly harmful versus helpful
  • Look at real-world data: 80 years without unexplained neurotoxic effects
  • Trust but confirm: science evolves, but so do misleading narratives

Beyond Fluoride: Why Food and Science Literacy Matter

At Dirt to Dinner, we believe deeply in understanding not only what we eat and drink, but also how public science is communicated. Fluoride is one of many public health debates clouded by partial information. So are:

  • GMOs — proven safe across 300+ studies, yet still widely misunderstood
  • Pesticide Residues — often far below safety thresholds but poorly explained
  • Hormones in Meat and Dairy — regulated and minimal, but still widely feared
  • Seed Oils — debated endlessly online but rarely with full scientific nuance
  • Food Labeling — buzzwords like “natural” or “non-GMO” often cause confusion
Posted on

SNAP Faces Government Diet

SNAP has recently been in the spotlight due to the Make America Healthy Again movement. RFK, Jr. has stated that using taxpayer money to subsidize junk food, such as sodas and cookies, makes no sense, as “there is no nutrition in these products.”

Health advocates also strongly criticize the amount of money spent by recipients on sweets, sugar-laden beverages, salty snacks, over-processed foods and other items well known to be inconsistent with a heathy diet, especially when overconsumed.  They point out that SNAP imposes no nutritional standards for purchased foods.

The Trump Administration’s focus on improving the nation’s healthful food supply has added an important new element to the debate over SNAP and its future. Not to mention the health care support needed for those who are obese, have diabetes, cancer, or heart disease due to a poor diet.

What is SNAP?

SNAP, or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, is a federal program designed to supplement food budgets among lower-income households to assure the nutritious food essential to the health of all family members. It is part of the broader Farm Bill and accounts for 1.5% of total federal spending.

As reported by Harvard’s Kennedy School from USDA’s February 2025 data, $100 billion was spent on SNAP in 2024 for approximately 41 million people. This equates to about $2,439 per person each year, or $203 a month. The average recipient receives $188 in monthly benefits. The remaining $15 difference most likely goes towards funds administration.

Who uses SNAP?

In 2024, 12.3% of the U.S. population was on the SNAP program.

Eligibility and the amount of assistance from SNAP are based on gross and net monthly income. In most cases, eligible households must have a gross monthly income of less than 130 percent of the federally determined poverty level, or a net income of 100 percent of the poverty level.

For a single-person household, the poverty level is $15,650 a year, for a family of four, it is $32,150.

Certain exceptions exist for special categories, such as the disabled or seriously ill. But 92 percent of all SNAP benefits go to individuals and households meeting the basic income criteria.

The states determine their own guidelines laid out in the program criteria. Benefits are based on USDA’s calculation of the cost of low-cost nutritious meals in the Food & Nutrition Service’s Thrifty Food Plan.

SNAP also requires recipients to comply with various work requirements, including registering for work, maintaining existing employment, accepting offered jobs and participating in job training or education.

Certain non-citizen groups are also eligible, including those designated as refugees, asylum-seekers, and victims of trafficking.  SNAP generally is not available for tourists or students and is prohibited for undocumented residents.

What can and do SNAP recipients purchase?

Here are some items you can and cannot purchase using SNAP funds, according to USDA regulations:

For an expanded list of items covered by SNAP, click here.

Most studies indicate that SNAP recipients tend to mirror the food buying habits of non-SNAP households.

The most comprehensive analysis of buying habits by USDA dates back almost a decade, to 2016.  Its finding and analysis must be evaluated in the context of a pre-Covid, pre-economic slowdown. However, those results seem to match the various ad hoc reports currently found in cyberspace.

Key findings in the USDA report:

  • About 40 cents of every SNAP dollar goes for what are called “basic” foods: meats, fruits, vegetables, milk, eggs and bread.
  • Another 20 percent is spent on sweetened beverages, desserts, salty snacks, candy and sugar.
  • The remaining 40 percent is spent across a wide variety of items, including cereals, prepared foods, dairy products, rice and beans.

Citing USDA data, the Economic Policy Innovation Center in May 2024 reported the top items purchased through SNAP as:

Why is SNAP so much in the news?

Two major issues have helped propel the SNAP program into the public – and political – spotlight.  One is its sharply increasing use and cost.  The other is the use of SNAP benefits to support purchase and consumption of foods and beverages that are inconsistent with its stated objective of advancing “healthy” diets.

Government efforts to help disadvantaged food consumers afford better, healthier food aren’t something new. In fact, they date back to 1939, when the first “food stamp” program over its initial four years provided economic support for an estimated 20 million households at one point or another. Consumers in almost half the counties in the United States participated, at a cost of $262 million at the time. In other words, substantial government spending on food help is 86 years old.

SNAP as we know it today can be traced to 1964, when President Lyndon Johnson helped make the food stamp program permanent.

Initial estimates at that time projected participation at 4 million, at a cost of $360 million per year. Those estimates proved what may charitably called optimistic.

If anything, the program might be argued to be too successful.  Participation has remained high over the years – with commensurate growth in its cost.

SNAP expenditures have increased by about 40 percent since the passage of the last Farm Bill in 2018 – from about $81 billion in 2018 to $113 billion in 2023.

What program changes can we expect?

Congressional budget officials project SNAP spending to continue to increase without changes to the program. To budget-minded policy makers, the past and future cost increases have become a major political target, with all sorts of proposals to tighten eligibility requirements, push more program costs (and controls) to the states, and other reforms.

Not all lawmakers agree, pointing to the potential adverse effects of reduced participation on not just the most needy members of our society but also the communities in which they live. The argument has been a major issue in the on-going battles to craft a comprehensive budget bill and finally approval a long-overdue Farm Bill.

2018 Farm Bill: Funding Allocation

Many political observers caution that efforts to divorce the SNAP program from its usual place in the comprehensive Farm Bill could substantially weaken political support for farm and rural policies, especially among largely urban politicians and others in a Congress who are new and unsophisticated in their understanding of farm policies.

In this hyper-politicized environment, hyberbole and political sniping have become prominent elements of the discussion, making the outcome of the debate very uncertain.

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

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

Farm Bill for Dummies

What is the Farm Bill?

The Farm Bill is the comprehensive federal legislation that lays out our food and agricultural policies.  Think of it as a blueprint, or rules of the road, for guiding the production of the food consumers here and around the world depend upon.

The Farm Bill dates back to 1933, when in an effort to help farmers devastated during the Great Depression, Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act, providing basic commodity supports. Farm legislation traditionally has been renewed every five to six years, expanding with each bill to cover an ever-wide range of national policy objectives.

What’s in it?

Think of the Farm Bill as a great big bus – with enough seats from everyone from the farm field to the dinner plate, from the American heartland to the most distant export market.

From its initial focus as an economic support plan for farmers, the Farm Bill has grown, pardon the expression, like a weed. The last farm bill, Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018, included 12 separate titles and ran over 800 pages.

From its humble origins, the Farm Bill now lays out a basic blueprint for commodity supports, crop insurance, farm credit, conservation programs, rural development, bioenergy, commodity market regulation, research and extension services, trade promotion, forestry, horticulture, food safety and nutrition – and more.  The table of contents for the last Farm Bill ran 16 pages – longer than the average piece of legislation placed before Congress.

The sheer scope of the legislation makes it one of the most complex and daunting tasks facing Congress.

The number of voices that must be heard in drafting the legislation has grown in lockstep with the bill’s span of goals and objectives. And with each Farm Bill, the task of finding consensus grows more and more demanding. Differences on policies and especially spending priorities have led to simple year-long extensions of the 2018 law.

How much does it cost?

As the Farm Bill has grown in size, so has the price tag. The total five-year tab for the 2018 Farm Bill is estimated at about $428 billion dollars, according to the Congressional Budget Office during the last round of Farm Bill deliberations. That’s about $1,300 for every American over those 5 years, or roughly $260 per person per year.

That number again?

$428,000,000,000

As high as the numbers are, the five-year cost of the Farm Bill remains only 9 percent of the 2025 federal budget – and less than 2 percent of the federal budget on an annual basis.

In fact, it’s a pittance compared to federal spending.  Social Security spending ran about $1.354 trillion in 2023. Healthcare clocked in at $889 billion, Medicare another $848 billion in that year. Our national defense budget hit $820 billion, with another $302 billion for veterans benefits. Even interest on the national debt ($658 Billion) topped the cost of the five-year Farm Bill. Still, nearly a half-trillion taxpayers dollars should garner some attention – and it has.

Where does the money go?

Now before anyone goes all ballistic over how rich this makes the American farmer, let’s take a look behind those numbers.

The latest data from the Economic Research Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture notes that the overwhelming majority of spending comes through four specific areas (or titles) the bill.

Three are mainstream farmer-oriented program areas – commodity price supports, crop insurance and conservation. These three make up about 23 percent of the total Farm Bill tab.

Where does the rest go? All those other areas cited above – research, regulatory oversight, trade promotion and the like – make up about 1 percent of the bill.

The remaining 76 percent of spending goes to nutrition programs.

Yes, three-quarters of our Farm Bill spending is devoted to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program), and programs such as the National School Lunch Program, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), and others.

Programs authorized through what’s known as mandatory funding aren’t subject to the annual appropriations process in Congress. They are funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation and respond to market conditions and other economic considerations.

Discretionary funding covers programs with a price lid and require specific congressional action to exceed them through additional appropriations. The SNAP program is mandatory funding. As as more people sign on to the program, the costs automatically go up as well.

In other words, it’s very difficult – and maybe politically impossible — to shut off the spigot of taxpayer dollars.

What’s the math for consumers and taxpayers?

As we noted, the average American pays about $260 each year to cover the costs of the 2018 Farm Bill, according to figures from USDA, the CBO and other government sources.  For a family of four, that is just over $1,000 per year.

 If SNAP costs were eliminated from the calculation, those figures drop by almost $200, to roughly $60 per person per year.  For the family of four, the cost would decrease to $210 per year, a reduction of $790. 

If SNAP costs are kept in the Farm Bill, and the projected increases in costs prove true, the average per-person and family of four costs of the farm bill will increase beyond the $260 and $1,000 estimates.

So what’s the holdup on a new Farm Bill?

Congress has made a serious run at a new Farm Bill for more than two years, but with not quite getting over the finish line. The last Farm Bill technically expired during the national tumult surrounding the Covid outbreak, and the transition from a Democrat to Republican administration made agreement among legislators even more difficult. An extension and use of continuing resolutions added to congressional appropriations helped extend the bill.

But plain old politics also contributes to the impasse.

For some time, the rising costs of SNAP flew under the radar as federal spending on health care soared, and overall federal spending expanded at what many consider an alarming rate due to Covid and other factors. But a major debate is nonetheless present over the rising price tag for the Farm Bill, with the SNAP program the primary target for budget-conscious legislators. Questions about the likely need for some form of direct financial assistance for farmers due to the continuing global furor over tariffs and trade also are very much a part of the farm policy debate.

Critics of the SNAP program have floated the idea of separating the program from any new Farm Bill. Such a step would dramatically lower the price tag. But more experienced legislations say the nutrition and food assistance programs are in the bill for a very important reason.

Proponents of keeping SNAP within the bill point to the need to appeal to House and Senate legislators with largely urban and suburban constituents.  Absent the link to SNAP, they warn, there is a risk of push-back from those inexperienced in the importance of solid food and farm policies.

Or to put it more bluntly, there is a risk of Democrats from blue states looking for leverage against Republicans from red states in the Midwest and south. It’s a high-stake game of poker, with the Farm Bill sitting in the center or the table.

In simple terms: don’t be entirely surprised if a new and better Farm Bill remains elusive in 2025.

What will the Farm Bill cost in the future?

The future price tag can’t be accurately estimated at this time, obviously.  There simply are too many uncertainties about the decision to be made by a Congress made up of a high percentage of Farm Bill virgins – that is, legislators who have never before been through the process of crafting omnibus farm legislation. More than one-third of the U.S. Senate is made up of senators elected since the last Farm Bill was passed. In the House, the percentage is almost double – 67 percent.

After two years of frustrating delays in addressing the need for new farm and food legislation, Congressional and Administration leaders pledge their best efforts to see the Farm Bill through to completion in 2025.

The stakes are high.

Farmers need to know the rules of the road, and the policy directions that will shape their planting and marketing plans in an era of economic stress throughout the farm economy.

Consumers need to know that their food is available, safe, nutritious and affordable, which means some clarity in the way plans to reduce staff and funding in various food-related programs and agencies will play out.

Put the taxpayer on that list, too. Simply locking in the existing Farm Bill policies means the price tag for the Farm Bill will continue to escalate.

The world needs to know how reliable the United States can be as a supplier.

The cost of SNAP and comparable food-assistance programs administered by USDA already is estimated to rise to $110 billion in 2025 by the Congressional Budget Office.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimated a 10-year continuation of existing law would cost $1.4 trillion, with the SNAP share of the tab rising to 81 percent. CRS pointed out that such spending would be an increase of about $600 million.

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

How Toxic is Glyphosate?

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

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

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

What is Glyphosate?

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

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

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

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

Advantages of Glyphosate

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

Disadvantages of Glyphosate

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

What do Governmental Organizations Say?

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

Here are a few examples:

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

What Do Scientists Say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Dr. Ila Cote

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

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

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

– Dan Wysocki

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

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

– Ken Roseboro

What is next?

There is no doubt about controversy surrounding glyphosate.

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

In any case, the poison is in the dose.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Posted on

What Are Consumers Doing about Food Costs?

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

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

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

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

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

What about us?

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

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

USDA projects another 3.3 percent in 2025.

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

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

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

Real, everyday people.

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

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

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

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

Q1: How often do you shop for food?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What did people say?

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

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

Why are biofuels important?

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

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

What are biofuels?

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

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

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

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

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

What are the types of biofuels?

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

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

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

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

How are biofuels used today?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Growing Market

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Global Perspective

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

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

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

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

What Does it Mean to be Healthy?

In the U.S., we spend almost $5 trillion on healthcare, 17.6% of our GDP — that’s $14,750 per person. And we are not healthy: 40% of Americans are obese, 39% will develop cancer in their lifetime, and 12% are diagnosed with diabetes. This sounds dismal.

What is Health?

The answer might seem obvious, but each of us is unique.

For me, a healthy body means doing activities with my children and not getting left behind. It also means keeping in shape so when my grandchildren are old enough, so I won’t be left behind then, either.  For Hayley, it means cultivating energy, stamina, nutrition, joy, and emotional well-being to care for her family and being a great friend. For Hillary, a mom in her forties, her focus is now on longer-term goals, such as increasing muscle mass and bone density.

And for Garland, health is defined as having the physical stamina and mental energy to continue interacting positively with his wife, family and friends, and with as many of the the people around me as he can; and still being able to give strength, experience and capabilities to make small but meaningful contribution to the well-being of the world.

As Garland eloquently puts it,

“Without our health, we simply take from the world around us when simple humanity demands that we give more than we take.”

But at the end of the day, how do we know we are healthy?  Achieving health is a lifestyle.  It is not just taking multiple supplements or running a marathon.  It is not just avoiding red dye and eating only plants.  There are people who eat no processed foods, compete in triathlons, eat all the ‘right’ supplements and still die of heart disease or cancer.

We certainly cannot predict disease, but what we can do understand is that a healthy life is a mindset for living each day to our full potential.

Three Measurements of Health

To simplify things, we began with the most basic ways to find out your current health status. We found just three items you can tick off to help determine whether you are on the right track to achieving longevity.

While these seemingly have nothing to do with specific foods, these exercises have everything to do with what you eat.

If you are obese, weak, and not flexible, these measurements will be hard to achieve.  If you eat a balanced healthy diet of fresh vegetables, fruits, healthy fats and protein, exercise regularly, and get enough sleep, you will most likely complete these exercises. From there, you can determine that you can toward reaching your healthy goals for your age.

What is your VO2 Max?

Peter Attia, MD, who wrote Outlive: The Science and Art of Longevity, points to VO2 max as the best predictor of longevity.

It is not just a measurement for athletes, but a cardiovascular indicator for everyone.

VO2 Max is the maximum amount of oxygen your body can absorb and use during exercise. When you breathe, your lungs take in oxygen and deposit it into the bloodstream. Your heart and blood vessels take the oxygen-rich blood and send it to your muscles, which use it to work hard and contract.

Oxygen is also necessary for your cells to create ATP, your cell’s energy engine. This molecule found in our cells provides energy for cellular functions, nerve impulse transmission, and protein synthesis.  Basically, the more efficiently you use oxygen, the more ATP your muscles produce.

In a study of over 100,000 individuals, there was a clear trend between VO2 max levels and mortality risk.

The results showed that higher VO2 max levels were associated with lower all-cause mortality risk, with the most significant difference observed between the lowest fitness group and the other groups.

The most precise way to measure your VO2 max is to go to a lab where you run or bike with a Darth Vader-looking mask.  You can search Fitnescity for a location or ask your doctor. Fitness trackers also measure it, but they are not as accurate.

Improving Your VO2 Max

While VO2 max naturally declines with age, you can improve or maintain it with regular exercise, particularly high intensity interval training, which is also good for your brain.

Can you hang?

Hanging from a bar measures your grip strength, which measures your overall muscle ratio – a good indicator of overall fitness.

We use our hands for virtually everything: weight training, gardening, opening jars, vacuuming, cooking, pulling suitcases through long airports…the list is endless.

If your grip is strong, it means that your arm and shoulders are strong and that you have been exercising. If you are exercising, you probably have an appropriate BMI and body fat percentage.

Interestingly, according to a meta-analysis published in NIH, a decline in grip strength can lead to heart disease, arthritis, osteoporosis, Type 2 diabetes, and certain cancers.

“Not enough can be said about the importance of grip strength as you age. It’s one of the strongest physical associations with longer life”. 

– Peter Attia, MD

Attia says that a 40-year-old woman should be able to hang for 1 minute 30 seconds and a man for 2 minutes.

Can you stand up and sit down without your hands?

Kelly and Juliet Starrett wrote the book, Built to Move, outlining ten essential habits to help you move freely and live fully.  One of their mobility tests is your ability to get up and down off the floor without assistance.

In a joint study published in a 2014 European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, researchers observed and scored 2,002 men and women ages 51-80 on how well they performed the sit and rise test. The more the subjects had to use their hands, the lower the score. The bottom 8% of performers had a lower survival rate.

“It is well known that aerobic fitness is strongly related to survival, but our study also shows that maintaining high levels of body flexibility, muscle strength, power-to-body weight ratio and co-ordination are not only good for performing daily activities but have a favorable influence on life expectancy.”

– 2014 European Journal of Preventive Cardiology

What do these tests have to do with food?

A healthy lifestyle can sound complicated but basically it boils down to two things: move a lot and eat well.

We have all heard that ‘sitting is the new smoking’.  If you are sedentary, your body is not strong, flexible, and can efficiently burn calories. Your risk of cardiometabolic disorders just goes up. Many of us who must sit at our desks a lot of the day try to stand up every 45 minutes and move around.

Fat doesn’t make you fat — sugar makes you fat. Eating well really means eating fruits and vegetables, healthy fats, protein, and staying away from sugar. Excess sugar is what gets stored as fat, not necessarily excess healthy fats.

The Lancet documented 5,800 deaths and 4,800 cardiovascular disease events.  They found that higher saturated and unsaturated fat intake was associated with lower risk of stroke and not associated with cardiovascular disease mortality.  Whereas high carbohydrate intake (sugars) was associated with a higher risk of mortality.

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

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

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

How bad is alcohol for us?

Sitting down for cocktails and dinner with friends and family is so enjoyable on a Friday or Saturday evening after a long week. But after tuning into an episode of Dr. Huberman’s podcast on drinking’s effects on our health, we took a closer look into how our body processes alcohol.

As it turns out, Dr. Huberman was onto something. New research has shown that the nice little drink in your hand can have more detrimental effects on our brain and body than we originally knew. In fact, emerging studies reveal that even low levels of alcohol consumption can have significant negative impacts on health.

So we gathered information from recent studies to answer some important questions:

Maybe those weekend cocktails are not such a good idea after all…

Alcohol metabolism, toxicity & cancer risk

When ingested, alcohol – also known as ethanol – is metabolized by the liver. This process involves converting ethanol to acetaldehyde, a toxic compound that damages cells and tissues. The liver uses the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase to break down ethanol into acetaldehyde, which is then converted to acetate.

While acetate can be utilized as an energy source, the intermediate production of acetaldehyde is harmful and contributes to the toxic effects of alcohol​.

The liver, being the primary site of alcohol metabolism, suffers significant damage from prolonged alcohol exposure. Acetaldehyde can induce oxidative stress, leading to liver inflammation, fatty liver disease, and cirrhosis over time​.

But the damage doesn’t stop there. Acetaldehyde can circulate through the bloodstream, impacting various organs and systems. And ethanol and its metabolites can damage DNA and promote carcinogenesis through several mechanisms, including oxidative stress and interference with DNA repair processes.

The effects of metabolizing ethanol also influence hormone levels, increasing estrogen levels, a risk factor for breast cancer. This is why alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk of various cancers.

Alcohol’s effects on the brain

Alcohol’s influence on the brain is multifaceted, affecting both structure and function:

Neurodegeneration:

Chronic alcohol consumption, even at low to moderate levels (7 to 14 drinks per week), can lead to brain atrophy, particularly thinning of the neocortex and other critical brain regions. In fact, Huberman suggests that anything beyond two drinks a week has negative consequences. This structural degeneration can impair cognitive functions, including memory and executive functions.

Neurotransmitter disruption:

Alcohol acts as a central nervous system depressant, influencing neurotransmitter systems. It increases the activity of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), an inhibitory neurotransmitter, while simultaneously inhibiting glutamate, an excitatory neurotransmitter. This dual action leads to the characteristic sedative effects of alcohol and impairs cognitive functions and memory formation.

Behavioral changes:

Alcohol reduces the activity of the prefrontal cortex, the brain region responsible for decision-making, impulse control, and social behavior. This suppression can lead to increased impulsivity, risk-taking behaviors, and reduced inhibition, contributing to alcohol-related accidents and injuries.

Mood and mental health:

Alcohol disrupts the balance of serotonin and other neurotransmitters involved in mood regulation. This disruption can exacerbate conditions such as depression and anxiety. Regular alcohol use can lead to a cycle of dependence and withdrawal, further complicating mental health issues.

Impact on the microbiome

Alcohol has a significant impact on the gut microbiome, the community of microorganisms living in our intestines.

Alcohol kills both beneficial and harmful bacteria, leading to dysbiosis (microbial imbalance). This disruption can cause “leaky gut syndrome”, where the intestinal lining becomes permeable, allowing toxins and bacteria to enter the bloodstream. This condition is linked to systemic inflammation and a host of health problems, including liver disease and increased susceptibility to infections.

Maintaining a healthy gut microbiome is crucial for mitigating some of alcohol’s negative effects. Consuming probiotics and fermented foods, such as yogurt and kimchi, can help restore microbial balance and reduce inflammation.

Strategies to mitigate the effects of alcohol

The scientific evidence outlined here underscores alcohol’s potential risks.

From neurodegeneration to mental health issues, leaky gut, and increased cancer risk, its deleterious effects seem frightening, and rightfully so.

But this can feel contradictory to the social norms that encourage moderate alcohol consumption, making it a real challenge to curb this habit. And for those who enjoy the taste, like a fine wine or specialty bourbon, implementing personal behaviors that support this research can feel stifling.

However, we can exercise a few healthy habits that can help our body recover from the effects of long-term alcohol consumption while instilling new, healthier behaviors now.

Hydration is key

Proper hydration and a balanced diet are essential for mitigating the acute effects of alcohol, such as hangovers. Alcohol is a diuretic, causing increased urine production and leading to dehydration. To counter this:

  • Drink plenty of water before, during, and after consuming alcohol
  • Electrolyte solutions can help replenish lost minerals and maintain physiological balance

Dietary choices

Certain foods and supplements can help mitigate alcohol-induced oxidative stress and support liver function:

  • Antioxidants: Foods rich in antioxidants, such as berries, nuts, and dark leafy greens, can help neutralize free radicals produced during alcohol metabolism
  • B vitamins: Alcohol consumption depletes B vitamins, which are essential for energy production and brain health. Supplementing with B vitamins, especially B1 (thiamine), B6, and B12, can help reduce some negative effects
  • Milk thistle: This herbal supplement has been shown to support liver health and protect against alcohol-induced liver damage​

Improve gut health

Maintaining gut health is crucial for mitigating the negative effects of alcohol on the microbiome. Strategies include:

  • Probiotics and fermented foods: Consuming probiotics and fermented foods, such as yogurt, kimchi, sauerkraut, and kefir, can help restore the balance of gut bacteria and reduce inflammation
  • Prebiotics: These are non-digestible fibers that feed beneficial gut bacteria. Foods rich in prebiotics include garlic, onions, bananas, and asparagus
  • Zbiotics is a genetically-engineered probiotic drink that mitigates the effects of alcohol by breaking down the acetaldehyde.

Limit alcohol consumption

Reducing alcohol intake is the most effective way to avoid its negative health impacts. Strategies to limit consumption include:

  • Setting limits: Establish personal drinking limits and stick to them. For example, limit consumption to a certain number of drinks per week
  • Choosing healthy, non-alcoholic alternatives: The popularity of non-alcoholic beverages is growing, offering many options that provide the social experience of drinking without the negative health impacts. Non-alcoholic beers, wines, and mocktails can be enjoyable substitutes

 

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

Supplements: Natural or Synthetic?

small glass bowl of supplements with herbs

There’s no doubt that vitamins and minerals are important to maintain both short- and long-term health. But does the source of the nutrients matter? You’ll find a lot of criticism about synthetic vitamins from various nutritionists and natural vitamin companies arguing that our bodies do not know how to digest these supplements.

But is this true? Or is this another marketing ploy to make you buy the more expensive, lesser processed vitamins?

What is a natural vitamin? 

Similar to ‘natural’ foods, the natural vitamin label is not clearly defined and can be very misleading. A natural vitamin can be made from a component directly from the earth or it can be ‘naturally made’ in your body through digestion. It can also be a product, like vitamin B, that begins with natural fermentation but is additionally processed.

All-natural vitamins are created directly from plant material. However, since supplements obviously don’t grow on trees, the only completely natural vitamin is something that comes directly from your food or made within our bodies.

To remove any vitamin from its natural source is a tricky and expensive process that also reduces the potency of the particular nutrient. So you have to ‘synthesize’ the vitamin anyway to reach full potency.

In our exploration of synthetic vitamins, we came across some great research from Willner Chemists, a nutritional pharmacy located in New York City. These pharmaceutical researchers explain the purpose of synthetic vitamins very clearly.

According to Dr. Donald Goldberg, R.Ph and Dr. Arnold Gitomer, R.Ph.:

“Yes, vitamins and minerals occur naturally in food. But the quantities are very small…

To get 500 milligrams of vitamin C and 10 milligrams of the various B vitamins from natural sources would require a tablet the size of a football.

With a few exceptions—such as vitamin E, natural beta-carotene, and vitamin B12—all of the vitamins used in dietary supplements are synthetic…these synthetic vitamins are identical to their natural counterparts. To get high potencies of vitamins and minerals in a dietary supplement, synthetic or highly processed vitamins, and minerals must be used. You cannot have it both ways.”

What is a synthetic vitamin?

Synthetic nutrients are replicated in the lab to support their specific cellular structure and function. Because the vitamin is specifically isolated, the lab can easily control the purity and quality.

The only exception is vitamin E, a crucial antioxidant. Vitamin C combined with vitamin E may increase the photoprotection of your skin more than vitamin E by itself.

Naturally-occurring vitamin E found in spinach, nuts, and oils, contains eight molecules called tocopherols and tocotrienols. A synthetic vitamin can only capture one tocopherol.

So here’s a helpful hint: Look for a ‘d’ label before the word alpha-tocopherol rather than a ‘dl’ label which means it is synthetic. This “dl” tip also works for determining the source for other vitamins, as well.

Aside from Vitamin E, there is no difference between natural and synthetic vitamins. In fact, 95% of vitamins on the market are synthetic, because it’s actually very difficult to put natural vitamins into most supplements.

Are natural vitamins healthier for our body?

“All-natural” vitamin companies often tout their process of creating “natural” vitamins as being better for your health. But one thing is true: natural supplements are typically far more taxing on your budget than synthetic supplements.

Natural vitamin companies often claim that your body will not know how to process vitamins that have been created synthetically. The main criticism is that synthetic vitamins are ‘isolated’ and since they are not working in conjunction with other vitamins, enzymes and minerals the human body does not recognize the isolated ones.

Contrary to this argument, reputable labs will actually create a ‘human stomach’ to test how the vitamins break down and release the nutrients. They copy the temperature, average acidity, and how the stomach churns during digestion. Of course, there are individual variants such as your gut microbiota, age, and overall health profile that will affect how your own body digests and absorbs the vitamin.

Are synthetic vitamins filled with unhealthy additives?

Companies producing all-natural vitamins indicate their products are free of artificial flavorings and colorings, chemical preservatives and other synthetic ingredients. Natural companies use only natural flavoring agents such as herbal extracts, lemon, and vanilla with no chemical dyes.

Synthetic supplements are criticized for using binders to hold tablets together, or fillers such as cellulose or magnesium stearate for encapsulation. However, not all of these processing ingredients are bad.

For instance, cellulose is a carbohydrate found in plants; if you eat lettuce or spinach, you are also eating cellulose.

Magnesium stearate is used to make sure the ingredients blend together proportionally and easily slides through the manufacturing process. It is basically a combination of stearic acid (a saturated fat found in beef, cocoa butter, and coconut oil) and magnesium salt. Both of these additives are generally regarded as safe by the FDA.

Regulation of vitamin products

The FDA and WHO do not distinguish between all natural and synthetic vitamins. In fact, dietary supplements are not regulated by the FDA the same way drugs are. This is due to the fact that you can make therapeutic claims for drugs, which you cannot do for dietary supplements.

In terms of vitamins, FDA regulations are responsible for the purity, potency, and safety of dietary supplements being created. They concur that the molecular structures of nutrients are well known and the body cannot tell if a nutrient came from a lab or a plant.

The question is not whether a vitamin is synthetic or natural, but was it made by a reputable manufacturer that uses FDA Good Manufacturing processes and uses a third-party company for their testing.

Be sure your vitamin supplements are tested for toxicity and contaminants, are properly labeled, and will break down in your body in the appropriate amount of time.

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

Climate Debate Shaped by Tractor Power

There is an important factor is at play in this year’s Farm Bill process – one not often mentioned but nonetheless being closely watched by Farm Bill observers. It’s the growing international debate over the pace and extent of ambitious green policies and programs – and the prominent role played by the farming community in that debate.

Climate Change Concerns Across the Pond

Farm protests first gained attention in the European Union, where farmers concerned about their precarious financial situation prompted marches, tractorcades, street protests and incidents of civil disobedience.

Ports have been blocked, the European Parliament pelted with eggs. Protests erupted in France, Germany, Spain, Poland, the Netherlands, Portugal – and more recently have spread across the globe.

Protestors decried the effects of increasing regulation, costly bureaucracy and especially restrictions on land use and inputs they argued cut into their financial security.  The argument seems to have gained some political traction.

In Europe, the farmer protests and opposition from several member states already had led to a long delay in implementation of an ambitious Nature Restoration Plan. The Plan finally won overall approval after the June elections for the European Parliament.

However, critics in the farm community continue to argue that the plan lacks the clear and consistent funding it needs to be implemented.  They also note that the environmentally focused Green Party suffered the loss of one-third of its seats in those same elections.

“A stunning defeat of the Green Party, which had performed so well in the 2019 elections, also shows European voters’ declining enthusiasm for the Green Deal and other climate policies.”

– Center for Strategic and International Studies, June 25, 2024

Discontent Down Under

Australian Pollster Kristy McSweeney echoed the European farmers’ economic worries by reporting that citizens down under make immediate economic and healthcare concerns their top priorities, well ahead of climate change issues.

McSweeney reports that only two in five citizens believe Australia will meet its emission-reduction targets for 2030 and 2050.

Many of those involved in the protests emphasize that their actions reflect practical concerns more than political ambitions. They continue to value the preservation and protection of the natural resources on which their livelihoods depend.

But they want to see climate policies tempered by economic reality, too. Green advocates remain suspicious, however.

Green Member of European Parliament (MEP) Jutta Paulus recently reported to Energy Intelligence that “it is likely that we will have more parties [in the European Parliament] that deny human-induced climate change and thus will very likely not only not prioritize climate and energy measures, but actively work toward dissolving things that have been reached.

Paulus continues, “the other side of the argument is that EU citizens and member states should have more choice in what green technologies they support so long as the overall 2050 net-zero target is met.”

“Whereas 2019 elections rode a wave of environmental support and awareness, 2024 results demonstrate voters are interested in a far more pragmatic stance on climate change issues.

Industry is reinforcing this trend, lobbying for policy approaches that maintain international competitiveness.”
– Energy Intelligence, June 12, 2024

Back in the USA

European politics and Australian public opinion may seem an unimportant sideshow in the Farm Bill debate. After all, another legislative extension will be largely invisible to consumers. Fundamental policies and programs will remain in place, with the most significant issue likely to center on how to appropriate and allocate the federal funds they require.

The existing policies and programs that farmers rely upon to make basic immediate production decisions will continue under an extension. But the indecision will make longer-term decisions more problematic.

However, the different perspectives offered in the Farm Bill debate so far indicate a parallel to the sentiments behind the widening circle of farmer-led protests – and the election results they helped generate.

The global picture takes on new importance when added to the political waters surrounding the forthcoming November U.S. elections.

U.S. policymakers will watch the political trends in the EU and elsewhere for signs of what may be coming in their political backyard. They can see the power of the farm community to influence voters – and the larger concerns that may be emerging about the balance of ambitious climate-change action and fundamental pocketbook issues for farmers and consumers alike.

What is happening in Europe may be a political object lesson for those who must vote on a Farm Bill with a 10-year price tag of $1.4 trillion.

Posted on

Farm Bill Remains on Life Support

As former Yankee catcher Yogi Berra is supposed to have said,

“It’s like déjà vu all over again.”

 

Inside the Farm Bill

What is the Farm Bill anyway? It’s a massive piece of legislation – 942 pages in one version before Congress, compared with about 1,200 pages in the average Bible. To many, it’s not blasphemy to think of the Farm Bill as the Bible for American agriculture.

The 2018 Farm bill contained 12 separate titles, including commodity support programs, crop insurance, conservation, trade, bioenergy, research, forestry, rural development, credit, nutrition and more. It provides the basic “rules of the road” for our entire food system.

The Farm Bill provides everyone, from farmers to consumers, with the guidance they need to make intelligent decisions about how we produce and consume our food and maintain a vibrant farming sector and thriving rural communities.

Historically, Congress has approved 18 separate farm bills since the 1930s, usually one every five years or so.

That’s no small feat legislatively.

But by combining farm support measures with nutrition programs – notably the old “Food Stamp” program, now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”) – rural and urban legislators have been able to come together to produce a much too complex and far-reaching piece of legislation.

The process consistently has produced farm policies and programs that have fed the nation.

And much of the rest of the world.

Political Pushback 

Three of the past four Farm Bills have required one-year extensions, including the extension passed last November. Despite ambitious efforts by both House and Senate legislators, a fresh Farm Bill still hasn’t passed Congress. In fact, it’s so far from the final passage that many worry that yet another one-year extension is almost inevitable.

With a crowded legislative agenda on Capitol Hill, a looming presidential election, and continuing political divisions still in play, hope for passage seems to be waning with each passing week. The ostensible reasons for the delay are familiar.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle point to a long list of philosophic and practical differences, most seeming to boil down to matters of how to divide the funds in a bill estimated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to cost an estimated $1.4 trillion over the coming decade.

Some of the key issues under debate include:

Allocating funds provided by the Inflation Reduction Act

President Biden’s Act of 2022 added $19.5 billion to existing conservation programs for “climate-smart mitigation practices” that contribute to carbon sequestration and reduction of greenhouse gases.

  • Some legislators favor moving those funds into the Farm Bill spending and expanding eligibility for producers.
  • GOP senators point out that about half of ‘traditional’ farm conservation activities currently are excluded from the IRA and want to use more of the IRA monies to support those activities.
  • Environmental groups and their political supporters want to make sure any funding shift does not weaken the federal commitment to addressing climate issues or in any way contribute to a shift in overall funding away from these environmental goals.

Increases in reference prices

Basically, a means of raising support payments to food producers in the face of inflation-driven costs increases and historically weak commodity prices.

  • Critics of the increases worry that the money for such added Farm Bill expenses would come from savings achieved by reductions in SNAP costs.
  • SNAP supporters question why farmers’ economic needs are more important than feeding hungry people.

Changes in SNAP payments and program eligibility

The CBO estimates that revised calculations and refinements to its eligibility standards would save as much as $30 billion over ten years.

  • Nutritional program costs represent nearly 82 percent of all Farm Bill spending – a share that has been steadily increasing over recent years.
  • Critics wonder what the SNAP program has to do with producing food. They think this should be a separate bill instead of hidden in payment to producers.
  • Budget hawks seek ways of controlling the costs – or at least temper the rate of growth in nutrition spending.

The central issue is how to spend the available money. In highly simplified terms:

One camp argues for using the available pot of money on a wider range of traditional farm and rural community support policies and programs; and

the other wants to preserve the Biden focus on policies and programs aimed at facilitating the movement of the farm and food community to more “green” practices – and equally important, protection of the people served by the SNAP program.

The Path to Passage

Part of the delay is procedural. Passing a Farm Bill is a complicated series of actions: developing and approving a bill by committees, passage by the House and Senate, reconciling differences through a House-Senate conference, and submission to the President for signature. It may not sound all that difficult, but it is.

Note that the House and Senate Agriculture Committees have spent almost an entire year listening to and engaging farmers, farm and commodity groups, consumers, health and nutrition experts, academics, local authorities and many others in discussions about farm policies and programs. Legislation of nearly 1,000 pages reflecting all these interests takes time to develop.

Maybe more importantly, the calendar is not the Farm Bill’s friend. The legislative time available for action is limited, and competition for floor time is intense. The House of Representatives averages about 151 days in session each year, and the Senate 168 days. Election years—especially presidential election years—usually provide members with extended time to campaign. This year is no different.

In the final six months of 2024, the U.S. Senate is tentatively scheduled to be in session for 53 days. In the House, it’s 42 days. “Tentative” schedules are just that, and they may be subject to change. Lame-duck sessions also are possible. But whatever decisions might be made for keeping Congress at work, the calendar – and history – don’t suggest a rosy outlook for Farm Bill resolution in 2024.

Opposing Points of View

Beyond the realities of the calendar, simple politics is part of the delay in resolving the fundamental issues.

First, the farm bill process has succeeded for almost a century because of the willingness of all parties involved to come to agreement, if not total consensus. Compromise on any issue has proved elusive to this Congress, obviously. But old Farm Bill hands also point out that this time around, as much as 70 percent of Congress has never been through a Farm Bill process.

One in four U.S. senators has been in office for six or fewer years.  In the House, it’s 45 percent – almost half. There’s less experience with – or appreciation for – the importance of finding agreement on something as essential as the food security of the populace. Some members simply don’t have the background to see the Farm Bill as anything but yet another football to be kicked around the political playing field.

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

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

Will Consumers Pay to Go Green?

After years of serious debate about the reality or extent of actual climate change, governments around the world have responded to rising public support for “green” policies and programs.

For the United States, it’s a 2021 pledge by President Biden in the Paris Climate Accord to cut GHG emissions in half by 2030. Biden’s ambitions continue for the United States by stating that we will reach 100% carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035 and net-zero emissions economy by 2050, just 26 years from now.

International leaders also speak of commitments to massive greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions by mid-century, and businesses around the world have jumped on the prevalent environmental bandwagon with ambitious GHG reductions of their own. But things have changed since the glory days of the Paris Accord.

The subject of climate change has had sufficient time to percolate in the public mind. The issue has moved on from an initial era of awareness-building – years of helping define the issue in the public mind and marshaling political support for ambitious targets and extensive policies and programs.  We now appear to be entering the next stage of public discussion and debate, focusing on the practical realities of moving the issue from an abstraction to reality.

As more and more of the policies and programs initiated in the undoubted enthusiasm for a better environment begin to gain traction, people are beginning to ask questions – sometimes difficult questions.

The Evil of Fossil Fuels

The largest area of concern centers on the extent of our dependence on fossil fuels. We’ve successfully created the picture of a self-destructive reliance on an energy source that is deemed to be harmful to the environment and to people.  It’s so bad, critics argue, that we have no choice but to embrace draconian actions that effectively cut our use of fossil fuels – and cut it now rather than later.

Reduced use of petroleum products in the transportation industry and generation of electricity is a key objective, as is the development and use of other non-fossil fuel energy sources, including such renewable sources as solar, tidal, biofuels and wind. In short, transforming it fundamentally transforms our entire energy system.

According to 2022 government data, nearly 80% of U.S. energy consumption comes from fossil fuels, with the country consuming almost 20.3 million barrels of petroleum, about a fifth of the global total, every day.

The best-intentioned efforts, however, have proven to have some sobering realities.  The largest of those realities is the sheer scale of the challenge. We have built an enormous economy on the basis of fossil fuels. Our gross domestic product is now roughly $25.5 trillion. Retooling such an economic engine away from dependence on fossil fuels will take money – a lot of money – not to mention the time needed to make such a transition without sending the economy into a tailspin.

Proponents of aggressive change believe that the huge costs of transformation will indeed lead to short-term run-up in consumer costs, as the price for new technologies and equipment and support systems come into play.

However, over time, they argue that these price-run-ups will be offset by improved efficiencies and lower costs that come from moving to a low-carbon energy model.

Analysis by leading consulting organizations echo this argument. But those same consultants also acknowledge that the cost of transitioning to net-zero emissions of GHG by 2050 will cost an extra $3.5 trillion per year.  Cynics pointedly ask for an example of cost reductions actually being passed back to consumers, once the increases have been implemented.

Who Pays?

The question of “who pays” has become an increasingly troublesome matter to more than energy consumers.  The food and agriculture sector is not immune to the economic questions posed by the wide range of green policies and regulations imposed in the name of protecting people and the planet.

The most immediate issue raised by people across the food chain is the enormous role played by energy costs in producing commodities and food products. Farming and ranching have massive energy needs and agriculture contributes approximately 11% of global green house gas emissions.

Nitrogen fertilizers are derived primarily from natural gas and make up one of the most critical crop inputs and remain a key to productivity. Field equipment such as tractors, combines, and trucks demand fuel, as well as power for moving, storing, drying, and maintaining crops. Basic processing of commodities into the food ingredients used by food manufacturers also demands significant energy. Warehousing and distribution of food to retailers and restaurants is inherently transportation-dependent.

Moving to vehicles not dependent on fossil fuels is a noble objective.  But once again, the reality is that such a transformation in a system as large as the U.S. food system will be an expensive proposition. The more rapid the required conversion, the higher the risk of short-term adverse effects on the producer bottom-line.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that our national food system accounts for 12.5 percent of U.S. energy use (2012). Between 1998 and 2002, more than half of the increase in U.S. energy use came from the food system, USDA noted.

If you want the gee-whiz numbers this represents, consider an estimate from USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) that found the U.S. food system consumed about 12 quadrillion British Thermal Units (BTUs) in 2012. Each of those 12 quads works out to the energy in about 8 billion gallons of gasoline, or 293 billion kilowatt hours of electricity., or 36 million tons of coal. No matter how detailed or debatable the conversion arithmetic, that’s a lot of wind turbines and solar panels.

Food inflation has averaged roughly 3.2 percent each year for most of the past century. A host of factors during the Covid pandemic converged to drive food inflation to 6.3 percent in 2021 and a whopping 10.4 percent in 2022.  (Inflation rates in other parts of the world remain elevated as well. In the European Union, for example, food inflation peaked in mid-2023 at 19 percent before dropping to “only” 5.9 percent by year’s end.)

Cutting through all the numbers leaves one clear message: consumer food costs remain under considerable inflationary pressures for multiple reasons.  Energy costs – and the immediate transitional costs imposed by a growing roster of green requirements – will help maintain these pressures.

Post Covid, the inflation rate has dropped back to more traditional rates. But the rising concern with further disruptions to global energy markets – and the unrelenting cost pressures on producers and others across the food chain from green policies and other cost sectors – once again have people looking a bit nervously over their shoulders about future food costs.

Green Politics

The worry over continuing food inflation – and the possible role of green policies in fueling that pressure – have taken root across many of the countries at the heart of the Paris Climate Accord and their ambitious targets for moving to a more carbon-neutral global energy system.

The issue has prompted vocal protests and confrontational demonstrations from European and UK farmers – and generated rising concern among the elected officials who must reconcile those protests with existing and planned green commitments.

EU and UK farmers argue they are being squeezed on a number of economic fronts.  Shifting marketing flows in the wake of the Ukraine conflict have increased supplies, with resultant price pressure on commodities.  The Middle East is fraught with conflict and the future is uncertain in regard to oil prices. Cuts in diesel subsidies and other energy-related supports have added to costs and hurt producer bottom lines, German farmers contend. Restrictions on nitrogen-based fertilizers and sequestration of some farmlands have hurt productivity and profitability, others argue.

Complying with a growing roster of green requirements involves ever-more bureaucracy and takes more and more time and expense.  Protests have spread across France, Germany, Spain, Romania, Poland, Greece, Portugal, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom.

As one farmer summed up the litany of complaints to CNN, “We are no longer making a living from our profession.”

 

Eurostat findings tends to support the complaint: data shows a nearly 9 percent drop in the prices paid to EU farmers from 2022 to 2023.

 

Put that in perspective by imagining what you would do with that drop in your own household income – especially in an inflationary period.

The protests have reached sufficient size to prompt elected officials – many facing autumn elections – to rethink the extent and, perhaps more importantly, the timing of the ambitious green agenda. Some changes and restrictions have been rolled back or delayed. At this time, the discussion seems to focus on getting farmers more involved in the planning and development of green policies and programs and looking at time frames that provide greater opportunity for transition and adaptation.

European Commission President U chief Ursula von der Leyen has given up on an ambitious bill to reduce the use of chemical pesticides and softened the European Commission’s next raft of recommendations on cutting agricultural pollution. “We want to make sure that in this process, the farmers remain in the driving seat,” she said at the European Parliament. “Only if we achieve our climate and environmental goals together will farmers be able to continue to make a living.”

Evolutionary reality seems to be gaining traction over economically revolutionary good intentions.

Back in the U.S.

U.S. policy-makers still debating a massive long-term Farm Bill aren’t ignoring what is going on in the EU on the farm front. Many of the concerns and complaints heard across Europe and the UK sound all too similar to what U.S. producers may be thinking and saying.

Consumer attitudes also come into political play.  Current estimates place the U.S. inflation rate at 3.5 percent, down significantly from the 7 percent and 6.5 percent seen in 2021 and 2022 but up slightly from last year’s 3.4 percent.  Energy and food inflation, however, remain well above this level and represent two of the most powerful drivers of the cost increases facing consumers in the United States and elsewhere around the globe. Inflation hits hard. The other day in the grocery store, we overheard a child asking for a watermelon and his mother said no, at $7 it is too expensive. Sensitivity to those points of view grows especially strong as November looms.

How other countries handle the economic and political realities of ‘going green’ may offer some important advice on how to make that transition acceptable to everyone – none the least the American farmers and ranchers worried about their financial security, or the average food consumer tired of unrelenting increases in the costs of feeding their families.

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

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

Transcript: What Does it Mean to be Healthy?

This podcast is based on this post. 

All right, welcome back everyone. Ready for another deep dive?

Definitely always up for a good deep dive.

Awesome. So, today we’re tackling something that feels, I don’t know, super basic, but also kind of mysterious.

Oh, like why?

Health. I mean, we all want it obviously. But what does it actually mean to be healthy? It’s a big question.

It really is. And it gets even more complicated when you think about this. Uh the US spends something like $5 trillion every year on healthcare.

Crazy, right? But are we really the healthiest nation out there? I’m not so sure.

Right. You’d think with all that spending, we’d be like the gold standard of health, which is exactly why this article, uh, what is health totally caught my eye. That one too is pretty interesting.

Goes way beyond just eating your veggies and hitting the gym. You know, it even suggests there are some like unexpected ways to measure how healthy we are.

Yeah. And that’s important because even people who seem to be doing all the right things can still have health issues. So, what’s this article say? Is it like whole lifestyle thing?

That’s exactly it. It’s like health as a way of life, a mindset almost.

And get this, it uses these three kind of unusual measurements to get a more complete picture.

Oh, okay. I’m intrigued. What are they? Laid on me.

All right, get ready. V2 max, grip strength, and the sit and rise test.

Hm, interesting. Some of those ring a bell, but honestly, can those really tell us how healthy we are? Like really?

That’s what I was wondering, too. So, let’s break them down one by one. Maybe we’ll be surprised. Starting with V2 max. Any idea what that even is?

V2 max. Well, basically, it measures how much oxygen your body can use when you’re exercising. Like really pushing yourself.

So, like how efficiently your lungs and heart are working together.

Exactly. The more oxygen you can use, the better shape your heart and lungs are in. And studies have shown that a higher V2 max is actually linked to, well, living longer. The article mentioned this one study that followed over a 100,000 people. And guess what? Those with higher V2 max scores had a lower risk of dying.

Wow. Okay, now you’ve got my attention.

So, how do you even measure this V2 max thing? Do you have to like go to a lab and run on a treadmill with tubes and stuff?

Well, yeah, that is the most accurate way. You’re right. But some fitness trackers are getting pretty good at estimating it these days, too. And the really cool part, you can actually work on improving your V2 max.

Oh, for real? I’m all ears. How do you do that?

High intensity interval training or HIIT is one of the best ways. You know those workouts where you’re going all out for short bursts and then you get a little break.

Oh, yeah. I’ve heard about those. They sound intense. But what makes them so good for V2 max specifically?

Well, because they push your cardiovascular system to the max. Literally. Like boot camp for your heart and lungs. makes them stronger and more efficient. And get this, there’s research that suggests HIIT can even help your brain function, too.

Seriously, that’s wild. Okay, I am definitely intrigued by this whole V2 max thing now. All right, let’s move on to the next one. This uh grip strength measurement. This one honestly has me a little stumped. How how strong your grip is tell you anything about your overall health? It just seems so random.

I know it does seem a bit out there at first glance, right? But grip strength can actually tell you a lot about your muscle mass and strength, particularly in your upper body.

And think about it, we use our grip for so many things. Like carrying groceries, opening jars, you know, even just shaking someone’s hand.

Yeah. We totally take it for granted.

Exactly. And this is where it gets really interesting. Some studies have actually linked a decline in grip strength to an increased risk of health problems as we age.

Like what kind of problems?

Things like heart disease and even some types of cancer, believe it or not.

Whoa. Okay. Okay. I did not see that coming. I guess weaker grip strength could be a sign that someone’s maybe not as active or they’re losing muscle mass which could lead to all sorts of other issues. Right. Exactly. It really shows how different aspects of our health are all connected in ways we might not even realize. Oh, and the article even gives some like target numbers for grip strength based on your age. For example, they say a 40-year-old woman should be able to hang from a bar for like a minute and a half.

A minute and a half. I don’t even know if I could do that. All right. This deep dive is making me want to hit the gym like right now. Okay, so you’ve got one more measurement to cover, right? The sit and rise test. What is that exactly and how does that relate to health?

Okay, so it’s actually a pretty simple test. You just sit down on the floor and then stand back up. The catch is you can’t use your hands or arms to help you.

I feel like that would be easy for some people and really tough for others. What makes it so important?

Well, it’s a really good way to assess your mobility and flexibility, which are super important for, you know, staying independent and pre ending falls as we get older. And there was this study, it’s mentioned in the article, that found something pretty amazing. People who had trouble with the sit and rise test actually had lower survival rates over time.

So, being able to move around easily is actually linked to a longer life.

That really makes you think about all the time we spend like sitting at desks and looking at screens.

Does, doesn’t it? This test is kind of like a sneak peek into your overall uh what’s the word? Muscular skeletal health. It shows how well you’ll be able to get around as you get older. And speaking of aging, the article brings up this really big question. How do we age well and stay healthy for as long as possible?

That is the million dollar question, isn’t it? And I’m guessing this article suggests that these measurements can help us do just that.

You got it. It’s all about getting a more complete picture of our health beyond just like weight or blood pressure. But it also points out that health isn’t just about the physical stuff. Our mental and emotional well-being play a huge role too.

That’s true. I mean, you can be physically fit but still struggle with things like stress or anxiety. So, how does the article address that side of things?

Well, it really emphasizes, you know, having a positive mindset, managing stress,

and having those good social connections. It even suggests those things can help boost your immune system, you know, protect you from chronic diseases and all that.

Wow. Really? So, it’s not just what you eat and how much you exercise. It’s about how you think and how you connect with other people too.

Exactly. It’s all connected, right? Physical, mental, emotional. You can’t really separate them.

It’s like a holistic view of health, taking care of the whole person.

Exactly. And that kind of brings us back to those three measurements we were talking about. They’re a good way to like check in with your physical health and maybe see where you can improve, you know.

Okay. I like that. So, let’s get practical for a minute. If someone wants to, you know, boost their scores on those measurements, where should they start?

Well, with V2 max, remember that’s all about how well your body uses oxygen during exercise. And like we said earlier, high intensity interval training, that HIIT stuff can be a real gamechanger.

But for someone who’s never done HIIT before, it seem a little daunting. Any tips for easing into it?

Absolutely. You don’t have to go all out right away. Start with like a shorter workout, maybe 10 or 15 minutes, and slowly increase the intensity and how long you do it as you get more fit. And you can always modify the exercises too.

Like instead of sprinting, maybe you do a fast walk or a light jog.

Right. Right. So, it’s all about finding that starting point that’s challenging but not like impossible and then just pushing yourself a little further each time.

Exactly. And listen to your body. Don’t be afraid to take rest days when you need them.

Good advice. Now, what about grip strength? How can we, you know, pump up those numbers?

There are a few easy exercises that can really make a difference like the dead hang. You just find a bar or something you can grip comfortably and hang there as long as you can. Oh,

Okay. Sounds simple enough.

It is, but trust me, it’s a great workout for your forearms and grip.

How long should someone aim to hang for?

Start with what you can do. Maybe like 10 or 15 seconds and then gradually increase the time. And you can also try different grips like overhand, underhand. Just mix it up a little.

Yeah, variety is the spice of life even when you’re hanging from a bar. Any other exercises?

Farmers carries are another Another great one, farmer’s carries.

What’s that?

It’s just like it sounds. Pick up a weight in each hand and walk with it. You can use dumbbells, kettle bells, even heavy grocery bags if you want. And it works your grip, but also your core, shoulders, back, even helps with your posture.

I’m definitely adding farmers carries to my workout routine. All right, last but not least, the sit and rise test. That one seems like it’s all about flexibility and mobility, right? Any tips for improving in those areas.

Yoga and Pilates are both great for that. Lots of movements that challenge your balance and flexibility and all that.

Yeah, I’ve tried yoga before and I always feel so much better afterward, but it can be intimidating for beginners. What would you say to someone who wants to try it but doesn’t know where to start?

Oh, there are so many beginner friendly classes these days. You can even find videos online that are specifically for the sit and rise test.

And you don’t have to be a yoga master to benefit either. Just taking a few minutes each day to stretch can make a huge difference.

So, it’s all about finding what works for you and making it a regular part of your routine.

Exactly. And that actually brings up a really important point from all of this. You don’t have to make these big crazy changes to live a healthier life, right?

It’s about those small sustainable changes. You know, the little things you can actually stick with and building those habits over time.

Yeah, that’s really encouraging. So, we’ve covered the physical side of things pretty well, but the article also talked about mental and emotional well being. any practical tips for you know taking care of those aspects of health?

One of the simplest things but also one of the most powerful is mindfulness like meditation, deep breathing, even just taking a few minutes to appreciate the little things that can help reduce stress so much and it’s good for your overall well-being.

Oh yeah. Just slowing down and being present in the moment.

Exactly. And another big thing for mental and emotional health is nurturing your social connections, spending time with people you care about. Having meaningful conversations, being part of a supportive community, that can make a huge difference in how happy and resilient you are.

That makes sense, but it’s easy to let those connections slip, especially when life gets busy. Any tips for strengthening those social ties?

Just make an effort to reach out to people, even if it’s just a quick call or text. Join a club or group that interests you. Volunteer. There are tons of ways to connect with others.

Those are great ideas. So, we’ve covered a lot in this deep dive. We’ve talked about those surp rising measurements of health. We’ve discussed practical strategies for improving our physical and mental well-being and we’ve highlighted that, you know, holistic approach. What’s the main takeaway you want listeners to walk away with?

It’s about realizing that health isn’t like, you know, it’s not a finish line you cross. It’s a journey. It’s something you keep working on.

It really is. And it’s different for everyone. There’s no one right way to be healthy.

Exactly. It’s not about being perfect. It’s about finding what works for you. Making choices that make you feel feel good, you know, in every way.

Totally. It’s about pushing yourself, but also being kind to yourself along the way.

Yeah, for sure. And remembering that health is about so much more than how you look. It’s about how you feel physically, mentally, emotionally. It’s about having the energy to do the things you love.

It’s about feeling alive, right? Having that spark. And I think those three measurements, the V2 max, grip strength, sit and rise test, they can really help us see where we’re at on that journey.

Totally. They give us something concrete to track. But it’s not about obsessing over the number. numbers. It’s about using them as a guide to help us live better lives, healthier, and happier.

That makes a lot of sense. Until next time, everyone, stay curious.

Posted on

Expert Insights on Water Security


Water, water everywhere. But is there enough to drink? 

With oceans and aquifers and ice caps, you would think we have plenty, but just a fraction of that is considered freshwater. Add to that the need for water for household use, for crop production and food processing and a myriad of other uses and situations, and there’s ample reason to worry.

Dr. Fleming sits down with Dirt to Dinner’s Digging In to explain why we need to be concerned, and what’s being done to make sure we have the water security we need. 

Dr. Hubert Fleming is a Senior Advisor at Worley, an American-Australian energy engineering company. Hu has been Sr. Advisor to Morgan Stanley, Loeb Partners, and the World Bank, as well as other investment organizations and the U.S. Department of Energy. He’s formerly Global Head, Water, Anglo American and Global Director at Hatch. Hu holds a Ph.D. in chemical engineering from Cornell and an MBA from Harvard Business School.

We’ll also talk with Fleming about how a more thoughtful and coordinated approach to tackling the subject can work for everyone’s benefit. Take a listen and quench your thirst for knowing more about this important issue facing all of us.

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.

Posted on

Digging into GMOs: Mintel’s Megan Stanton


Listen in as Megan shares her expert insights about the meaningful benefits of genetic modification that so often become misunderstood in popular culture. She discusses how bioengineered crops and foods have the potential to feed a growing population, the truth behind their sustainable and regenerative benefits, considerations for developing nations, and what should really come to mind when you see “GMO” or “bioengineered” on a label.

Based in Sydney, Megan joined Mintel in 2018 with over 26 years experience in the food and drink industry. As Associate Director of Mintel’s Food & Drink division, Megan’s expertise gives her unique insight into consumer demands, industry trends and key market developments across the protein sector. She also specializes in the Mintel Purchase Intelligence tool helping clients understand what drives consumers to purchase new product innovations.

Immediately prior to joining Mintel, Megan worked for the global flavor and fragrance company Givaudan where she managed the Oceania flavor portfolio team and connected industry-leading flavor technology with global macro trends. Megan holds a Bachelor of Applied Science degree in Food Technology from The University of Western Sydney Hawkesbury, and a Graduate Certificate in Marketing from The Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.

Posted on

Bobo’s Global Balancing Act at TNC


Prior to TNC, Jack Bobo served as CEO of Futurity, a food foresight company and is the author of the 2021 book, “Why Smart People Make Bad Food Choices“. Recognized by Scientific American in 2015 as one of the 100 most influential people in biotechnology, Jack is a global thought leader who has delivered more than 500 speeches in 50 countries on the future of food.

He previously served as the Chief Communications Officer and Senior Vice President for Global Policy and Government Affairs at Intrexon Corporation. Prior to joining Intrexon, Jack worked at the U.S. Department of State for thirteen years as a senior advisor for global food policy.

An attorney with a scientific background, Jack received a J.D., M.S. in Environmental Science, B.S. in biology and B.A. in psychology and chemistry, all from Indiana University.

Posted on

Can food packaging & global health coexist?


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

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

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

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

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

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

A case for plastics

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, it’s definitely bad…

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recycling: breaking down a complicated process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– William McDonough, sustainability designer & entrepreneur

What can all of us do?

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

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

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

The best thing we can do for global health?

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

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

Posted on

Fertilizer Restrictions’ Unintended Consequences


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

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

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

Matching idealism with practical reality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finding the best balance point

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is regenerative ag the same as organic farming?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

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


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

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

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

Tenuous relations with China

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trade imbalance and tariffs on Chinese imports

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timing is everything

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

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

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

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

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

– Kenneth Rapoza, Forbes, April 24, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Will more ethanol fight inflation…or fuel it? 


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

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

Where does ethanol come from?

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

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

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

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

What is behind high food prices?

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

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

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

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

Inflation’s global grasp

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

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

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

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

What’s behind the move to expand ethanol use?

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

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

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

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

But would this really work?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethanol’s ‘byproduct’ effects

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

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

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

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

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

Will farmers see an upside?

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

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

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

Thinking bigger

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

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

Posted on

Goodbye “GMO”, Hello “Bioengineered”

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

The ‘Non-GMO’ Label

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

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

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

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

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

How the new bioengineered label works

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

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

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

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

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

Why this label may just cause more problems  

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

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

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

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

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

Is there a potential upside to the change in labeling?

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Keeping Score on Biden’s Ag Initiatives

It’s been a hectic half-year for Congress and the new Biden Administration, with enormous amounts of time and energy devoted to dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic, the largest economic stimulus bill ever passed, the infamous January 6 attack on the Capitol, comprehensive infrastructure legislation, and more.

But behind the scenes of these high-profile issues, what has been done related to our food and agricultural system? What does the scorecard show for efforts to fulfill the promises and pledges made during the 2020 campaign for farmers and ranchers and everyone else along the chain from dirt to dinner?

Want to jump ahead to a particular issue? Click on one of the following initiatives:

Climate Change  •  Rural Economic Revitalization  •  Equity & Social Justice  •  Trade  •  Labor  •  Consolidation & Competition

Crop Programs and Disaster Assistance

The campaign theme:

A greater role for government in helping all farmers and ranchers, especially during difficult times and circumstances

Both the Biden Administration and Congress have focused on providing disaster relief for farmers and ranchers plagued by drought and severe weather events. Updates to long-standing crop programs in the 2018 Farm Bill allowed legislators and administrators to focus on expanding many of the economic protections available to producers.

The Department of Agriculture has relaxed some bureaucratic requirements, eased some terms and conditions, and expanded funding where possible for a variety of disaster programs, including crop insurance.

Before leaving town for the August recess, the House Agriculture Committee voted to add $8.5 billion in disaster aid for 2020 and 2021 disasters through the Wildfire Hurricane Indemnity Program (WHIP). In the Senate, bipartisan legislation has been introduced to allow early haying under the Conservation Reserve Program. Another bill before the Senate Agriculture Committee would offer loan forgiveness and other economic aid for producers.

Compared to the trillions of dollars and weeks of negotiation represented in Covid and infrastructure initiatives, it may not sound like all that much. But to rural America, it’s a significant potential for help.

Overall: ???? ???? ????

Both Congress and the Administration have made help for producers amid exceptional weather circumstances a top priority – perhaps consuming a portion of the political energy needed to fulfill other campaign pledges and priorities. Much more remains to be done to finalize some legislative initiatives, but the often-slow wheels of the legislative process are in motion.

Back to top

Climate Change

The campaign theme:

U.S. agriculture has a major role to play in dealing with global climate change, and it’s time for our food and agricultural policies and programs to take on a more aggressive role in tackling the problem

With many U.S. farmers and ranchers facing extreme conditions right now, climate change policies seem to have taken a bit of a back seat to emergency relief efforts. But the broad issue of climate change – and in particular the farm sector’s role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions – remains an active interest in the Biden Administration and on Capitol Hill.

Perhaps most significantly, the Senate voted 92-8 to pass the Growing Climate Solutions Act, authorizing the Department of Agriculture to establish a Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Technical Assistance Provider and Third-Party Verifier Certification Program. That’s a long-winded name for a critical first step: to create a marketplace for environmental credits for farmers and others willing to engage in sustainable land-use practices that advance climate-change goals. Similar legislation is pending in the House of Representatives, with 50 bipartisan co-sponsors.

Overall: ???? ????

Talk is cheap, especially in the heat of a political campaign, but passage of the Senate bill represents a concrete first step in transforming talk into action. Attention now shifts to the House for completion of the job.

The White House, meanwhile, continues to focus on non-ag accomplishments through executive orders and presidential memoranda, such as rejoining the Paris Climate Accords and canceling the Keystone XL pipeline, as well as the appointment of a Presidential Envoy for Climate and creation of an Office of Climate Change Support within the State Department.

Back to top

Rural Economic Revitalization

The campaign theme:

Make the federal government a more active partner in a comprehensive effort to revitalize the rural economy

The promise to help rural communities is nothing new to American politics. But the sheer breadth of the Biden Administration’s proposed actions is noteworthy nonetheless and includes a vast array of initiatives, such as:

  • Added funding for credit in promoting new and growing businesses in rural areas, delivered equitably
  • Extended broadband and wireless access
  • More primary health providers and money for health centers
  • Additional emphasis on renewable energy and green energy jobs
  • Improvements to infrastructure and transportation
  • Expanded conservation programs
  • Better access to healthy foods

It all sounds great. But how is it all delivered? It begins with more funding for existing programs and a different mindset among those charged with administering them.

But the real accomplishment since Inauguration Day in this area undoubtedly is the development of a massive bipartisan infrastructure deal – a 2,702-page piece of legislation spending roughly one trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000.00…that’s a lot of zeroes). The massive bill still requires extensive additional Congressional attention before going to President Biden for signature. But the bipartisan agreement is a huge political achievement.

The White House calls it “a generational investment in rural America.” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack notes the far-reaching effects of the bill on rural areas, including roads, bridges, wastewater systems, broadband expansion, telemedicine and tele-education, power system improvements, environmental clean-up, rail expansion, and many of the other areas touched upon during the 2020 campaign.

Overall: ???? ???? ???? ????

Politics aside, this agreement represents an enormous commitment to improvements across America, and nowhere more so than rural America. The details of how this massive piece of legislation is enacted remain to be seen. But its intent is clear: invest in America, nowhere more so than our rural areas.

Back to top

Equity and Social Justice

The campaign theme:

Past farm policies and programs too often have been skewed to the disadvantage of certain groups, notably minority farmers and smaller operators. Social justice demands a new, more equitable approach – and remediation of past injustices.

Both the Biden Administration and the Congressional agriculture committees have made this subject a centerpiece of hearings and public outreach efforts. But the flagship initiative in fulfilling this promise has been an element of the American Rescue Plan enacted in March in response to the Covid pandemic.

The $1.9-trillion Plan includes a $4 billion fund for debt-relief payments for “socially disadvantaged” farmers. This includes Black, Hispanic, American Indian and Asian American farmers who are deemed to have been discriminated against in past farm programs and policies, representing roughly 3.3 percent of U.S. food producers, according to the 2017 Census. Additionally, another $1 billion would go for education, training, outreach programs, grants and loans helping improve land access for disadvantaged farmers.

Initial payments for roughly 13,000 qualifying farmers were scheduled to go out this summer. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack notes the payments will cover the entirety of outstanding loans, plus an additional 20 percent of the loan as a cash payment to deal with the tax consequences of the loan forgiveness. Legal challenges in federal court alleging discrimination are pending, and several banks have expressed concern over the damages they might face as a result of early loan pay-offs.

Overall: ???? ???? ????

If spending is any measure of success in fulfilling a campaign pledge, this subject earns several thumbs up. What remains to be seen is the effectiveness of the effort in expanding the number of minority farmers from the present levels.

Back to top

Trade

The campaign theme:

Trade is critical to the economic interests of U.S. farmers, ranchers, and consumers. It’s time to stop the combative, go-it-alone approach we’ve used in recent years and get back to a more collaborative, less confrontational approach that will expand our trade opportunities.

The elephant in the room for this campaign promise obviously was trade relations with China, our largest foreign customer for U.S. food and agricultural products, and the most important player in international trade. A new Administration and a new Congressional leadership favored a strong focus on rebuilding relations with China; not through overt confrontation, but traditional diplomacy.

But a strange thing happened on the way to the promised bright future. Relations with China have remained frosty. Tensions over human rights, cyberpiracy, intellectual property rights, military aggressiveness, and a host of other issues made it difficult to define what a ‘traditional diplomatic approach’ actually means. After six months, we’re still waiting to see the comprehensive strategy for U.S.-China relations promised by the Biden Administration.

Instead, we see aggressive actions to re-introduce the United States as an active participant in various international organizations and initiatives. The United States rejoined the Paris Climate Accord and has promoted extensive engagement in international Covid relief and vaccination efforts. Reduced or ended military commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq also have been major areas of international focus.

Not by accident, the Biden Administration launched efforts to work with Capitol Hill in promoting expanded trade with Africa, where China has become the continent’s leading trade partner and leading lending source.

Overall: ????

Fulfilling this campaign pledge remains very much incomplete. Until the promised review of the long-term U.S. strategy for relations with China is completed, let’s hope the pragmatic approach taken by both sides on agricultural trade continues. China needs the food we produce, and our farmers and ranchers deserve the economic returns that the Chinese market offers.

Back to top

Labor

The campaign theme:

Farmers and ranchers increasingly have problems finding enough workers. We need a comprehensive approach to the problem that promotes a bigger pool of qualified labor and clarifies the role of migrant laborers.

Purdue University’s AGBarometer captures the problem very effectively. Roughly two-thirds of farmers responding to their survey said they face “some” or “a lot of difficulty” in hiring adequate labor. That’s up from less than a third of respondents the previous year. To add to the problem, the inability to find enough help extends beyond the farm gate all the way to restaurants, food retailers, farm equipment mechanics, truck drivers – and more.

The reasons behind the difficulty run the gamut. Historically low wages and government pandemic assistance that sometimes pays more to stay at home than to work. Uncertainty over changing approaches to immigration policies and practices, and requirements for the green cards needed by non-US citizens.

More attractive off-farm job opportunities, especially as the post-Covid economy recovers. Even simple fear of the Covid virus.

So far in 2021, most attention has focused on the controversial situation at America’s southern border and the Biden Administration’s proposed immigration legislation, which would allow large numbers of those living illegally in the United States to have green-card status and subsequently gain citizenship. However, that legislation does not deal with the issue of “guest workers” and permission to stay for extended periods.

Overall: ????

Given the focus on Covid relief and infrastructure, both Congress and the Biden Administration may be extended some forgiveness for apparently making this a back-burner issue. But it remains an important problem not just for farmers and ranchers but also for the entire food chain – and arguably our entire economy.

Back to top

Consolidation and Competition

The campaign theme:

More needs to be done to protect the little guy in our economic system, and that means a more aggressive approach to dealing with food industry consolidation and competition

The more liberal elements of the Biden Administration make no secret of their suspicion of organizations that grow to become what they consider “too big and too powerful.” That attitude prompted a promise to take a much tougher line on bigger mergers and acquisitions, as well as levels of competition.

So it came as no surprise President Biden in June issued a far-reaching executive order with 72 initiatives by more than a dozen federal agencies to take on “pressing competition problems across our economy.” Enforcement efforts should focus on the labor markets, agricultural markets, healthcare markets, and the tech sector, he instructed.

One of the primary anticipated targets of this order is expected to be the U.S. meat industry, notably the meat processing industry. Legislators on Capitol Hill joined the fray by calling for a special investigator at the Department of Agriculture to look into antitrust issues in the industry.

Overall: ???? ????

Once again in politics, if the objective is to generate headlines and gain attention, 2021 has been a good year in fulfilling this particular campaign pledge. But it remains far less certain where the effort will actually lead.

Consolidation and growth have been hallmarks of the food and agriculture sector for decades, and the meat industry has been a prime target for critics alleging a lack of producer power in the buyer-seller relationship. Until we see some concrete actions, this must remain a promise in progress.

Posted on

5 Things ‘Seaspiracy’ taught me about Seafood


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

As native Bostonians, my husband and I instinctively demand seafood in our diet. When planning a visit with our family in coastal New England, the first two things on the to-do list are placing an uncomfortably large order with the local lobster pound and buying up all the unsalted butter at the grocery store. It gets intense, to say the least: the array of surgical-looking utensils, wet naps strewn all over the table, and those silly-but-necessary lobster bibs. But we feel comfortable in our consumption, knowing it’s all locally sourced and sustainably caught. And that our cholesterol levels are reasonably low.

So when our marketing director, Hayley, asked if I had seen the Netflix documentary, Seaspiracy, I guffawed and got a sudden pang for a buttered lobster roll. But then I started recalling my previous blindspots in our global food system and the deeply unsettling opacity of the seafood industry.

For instance, only 10-20% of the seafood we consume in the U.S. is sourced from here, leading to cases in which purveyors don’t even know the source, let alone the type of fish sold to us. So with that fundamental knowledge (and echoes of recent headlines questioning the main ingredient in  Subway’s tuna salad), I sat down and prepared myself for the incoming deluge of information.

Illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing practices contribute to the mislabeling of seafood, as well as many other prohibited activities that Seaspiracy identifies throughout the film.

Seaspiracy Journey

The producers of Seaspiracy know how to create a compelling journey; after all, Kip Andersen and Jim Greenbaum also produced the very dramatic, very anti-meat documentaries, Cowspiracy and What the Health.

Knowing this, I assumed my reasonably rational thinking and iron-clad stomach would pull me through. But, disappointingly, I definitely grew queasy during some of the really brutal scenes, which then triggered my anger at human nature to pollute with such wild abandon. These filmmakers know what they’re doing, that’s for sure.

I then tried to see the larger picture of the story. Despite the obfuscated facts and pro-vegan sentiment that concludes each of their films, it still brings a lot of frightening but necessary issues to light.

“Even if it’s chocked full of lies and half-truths, maybe [Seaspiracy] is still good overall if it introduces people to ocean issues and inspires a desire to make a difference.”

– Liz Allen, marine sustainability writer at Forbes

But does that mean we must throw the delicious, soft-shell chick lobsters out with the bathwater? I would still like to eat seafood, after all. Just maybe not yet.

Diving back in

To help me get back on the seafood track, I merged some of the broader points made in the film and some of the concepts we practice here at Dirt to Dinner to find a simple yet strategic way to improve my selection of sustainably sourced and responsibly managed seafood. Below are five key rules.

Rule #1: Farmed fish can be the most sustainable seafood

Despite common misconceptions (including my own), farmed fish that’s sustainably managed is the most cost-effective and planet-conscious choice. How else can you be 100% certain that the fish you’re paying for is actually what you think it is. For wild-caught, it could be flounder bottom-trawled off the coast of Southern Asia and not the $30/lb halibut from Norway.

Since farms facilitate the entire lifecycle development, filtration systems, and production management, farmed seafood offers an unparalleled level of transparency compared to wild-caught seafood, making consumer research much more accessible.

Are you still feeling meh about aquaculture? When you zoom out on the fish-farming landscape, aquaculture is the same practice as livestock management for cattle, sheep, chickens, etc. Don’t forget that modern ag practices have guaranteed incredibly safe, fresh, and affordable food on our tables for decades.

Rule #2: Where your seafood is raised or caught matters

Just like buying your beef, lamb, and chicken, it matters which regulatory food system is involved. But trying to find a nice, tidy little crib sheet of countries with the most stringent sustainability and safety guidelines is like seeking out the elusive Mid-Atlantic blue lobster.

Though the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has done an incredible job defining various codes of conduct for sustainable fisheries all over the world and is highly regarded by many countries, I had a hard time finding any detailed data that I could play around with on their site.

My data source target then turned to Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch project.

This resource is impressive – it offers highly specific recommendations for sustainable seafood and is very transparent. I used their search function to see the most consumed seafood in the U.S., like shrimp, salmon, albacore tuna, and tilapia. The regions most often cited as offering the “best choice” in terms of sustainability among these kinds of seafood are the U.S. & Canada, Europe, New Zealand, and Japan.

But it’s important to note that more countries are following suit, like Australia, Chile, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Mexico, Namibia, and Palau. These countries will end harmful subsidies contributing to overfishing by 2025 as part of their sustainability initiative.

Rule #3: Labels can be an easy way to dress up a questionable product

I expect the producers of Seaspiracy and the Dirt to Dinner team to agree on this rule wholeheartedly: non-government-issued third-party verification package labels displaying a qualified, certified, or recommended product are generally garbage.

Unless you see a government department on the label from reputable countries with sustainable seafood practices and accompanied with some sort of grade or indication (think USDA “Choice” or “Prime” beef; USDA “Organic” products), focus on rules 1 and 2.

At best, labels allow non-government organizations (NGOs) to “certify” products to the degree they feel necessary. The organization then gets paid royalties by a food producer to apply the NGO’s label on their products. But at their worst, they can prey on our most basic survival instincts of fear and mistrust to manipulate us toward their often-obscured agenda. And I believe some organizations with these highly visible labels, like the Non-GMO Project and MSC, lie somewhere deep within that spectrum.

Rule #4: When in a rush, buy your seafood from highly reputable stores with not-too-cheap prices

First things first: I genuinely believe any decent grocer with U.S.-farmed seafood will have sustainably-produced fish that’s fresh and safe.

The trouble is, it’s not always easy to find. Our demand is low for U.S.-specific farmed fish, and it’s often a little more expensive than its potentially questionably-sourced counterpart, which really stinks because the U.S. is a global leader in sustainable and responsibly managed fisheries.

So I was disheartened to read the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA)’s assessment that U.S. production only accounts for $1 billion in a $100-billion global aquaculture market. Hungry for more market data? Please check out their site – it’s surprisingly easy-to-read and fact-heavy.

But as far as retailers are concerned, it appears that Whole Foods, Hy-Vee, Aldi, and Target are all great picks. These stores have seafood procurement departments that only purchase from sustainably caught or raised fisheries that are also responsibly managed.

There are some great home-delivery seafood options, too, like Crowd Cow. We really like the information they provide on where and how their fish are caught, and your selections arrive at your doorstep within a couple of days. Give online retailers like this a try by checking out how transparent they are with their sourcing and supply chain.

Rule #5: For wild-caught, dive deeper into your research…and wallet

Still want to stick with wild-caught fish? That’s ok! But you’re gonna have to check out a few more things and pony up a little more dough if sustainability is important to you.

Basically, nothing compares to wild-caught Alaskan seafood. Period. Producers feel incredibly responsible for maintaining their unique and pristine marine life, so everything is carefully managed to limit overfishing and bycatch. But this will affect your food budget, so prepare accordingly. And, again, if you stick with those aforementioned countries, you’re on the right path.

Another consideration is how the fish is caught, which you can better understand with the Seafood Watch site. It lists a bunch of reasons why it’s essential to be equally aware of seafood capture practices as country of origin. So try to stick with fish caught with handlines, pole-and-lines, midwater trawls, and trolling lines. And don’t buy seafloor captures, like trawls, seines, and dredges. Gillnets can be dangerous to local marine life, too.

Some quick dining and takeout rules

Need some time for research but craving shrimp pad thai tonight? Consider these tips:

  • Do your research about the meat & seafood philosophy of the restaurant and its holding company before you leave the house. This may help reduce awkward staredowns with your waitperson.
  • Feel free to ask questions that are important to you, like if they sell sustainable seafood, if it’s farmed or wild-caught, and which country it’s from. If the waitperson doesn’t know, ask them to check with the chef. If the chef doesn’t know, order the burger.
  • Are you a sushi lover who’s curious about sustainable yellowfin tuna? Or only interested in fish locally caught in the South? Seafood Watch has a guide for you. Seriously, this site has almost everything you need to make informed decisions about what you eat.

How we can create demand for responsibly managed fisheries

Yes, government and academic sources are great for a particular industry. But if you’re eager to find a company you feel you can stand behind, ask your local fish market where they buy their seafood from. And then check out the producer’s site. The more information the site has, the better.

And if you really like a tilapia that’s caught in a country not listed here, that’s fine! Fisheries aren’t inherently “good” or “bad” based on overgeneralized criteria – those are for finding our way initially. As with most things ag-related, it depends on the producer and their practices, so more reason for research.

And, if you’re open to it and it’s available, please give U.S. aquaculture a shot. We need to drive demand for responsible seafood by standing behind products that do just that. It’ll help drive down food waste, transportation costs, carbon emissions, and unfair labor practices while supporting supply chain transparency, marine biodiversity, and future generations to fully reap the benefits of our waters.

Posted on

Why are my groceries so expensive right now?


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Dirt to Dinner decided to take a deeper look behind the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) recent projection of a 2.2 percent increase in food costs in May, on top of a 3.5 percent increase the year before.

Just how much more expensive is our food?

The most immediate thing we learned was how complex the answer to those questions really are. No one or two simple causes are out there. Instead, it’s a complex mix of factors – some matters of macroeconomics, some of unique circumstances and situations, some of the changing demands placed on our food system both here in the United States and around the world. What’s more, it seems likely at least some of them will continue for a while to come. Let’s dig into the details behind the numbers, and see what we can learn and what we can do about it.

Inflation is all around us. The latest Consumer Price Index from BLS tells us prices have climbed by 5 percent year over year, the largest jump since 2008. Sharp rises in energy costs (29 percent) are a major factor behind that number, as anyone who filled a car with gas recently can readily attest.

The prices we pay for our food are right at the top of the list of greater expenses. On a global scale, the BLS numbers sound downright reasonable. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) recently estimated that the global Food Price Index has jumped 30.8 percent above last year’s figure, to its highest level since 2014. Higher costs for oils, meats, dairy, and cereal products all contributed to the rise – and the increasing worries about food insecurity that come with them.

That sobering picture makes the 2.2 percent number from BLS sound almost reasonable. But for anyone who does the daily shopping, the reality behind that innocent-sounding figure quickly gives way to an immediate and personal recognition of just how significant 2.2 percent can be – especially as part of a steady stream of superficially innocuous annual increases.

What’s making it more expensive?

Let’s look at some reasons for food price increases, from the big-picture perspective.

  • The cornerstone commodities that provide the raw materials for our food are more expensive. Remember what you paid to fill your tank with gas a year ago? Wheat that sold for just one $5 per bushel one year ago today is near $7. Corn that sold for roughly $3 per bushel in August 2020 today is $6.85. Soybeans that were $8.33 in May of last year are almost $16 today.
  • Demand for food and commodities is growing, and our supply of reserves is tighter than before. No one today needs to be reminded of the increases in global population and economic growth that fuel steady growth in food demand. What’s less well recognized is the narrowing gap between global food production and global consumption. The simple fact is, in the current environment we are drawing down our reserve stocks. And when strong demand meets shrinking supply, prices go up.
  • Weather problems in key parts of the world add to the supply and demand imbalance, pushing prices up and increasing price volatility. Whether it’s climate change or normal weather cyclicality, some important growing regions around the world are experiencing record dry conditions in key production areas in South America, Russia, Australia, and the American West and Upper Midwest. Worries about crop sizes fuel a steady upward pressure on commodity prices.
  • The cost of producing commodities is rising. The rapid run-up in energy costs has a profound effect on-farm costs. Diesel fuel for farm equipment, gas for vehicles, propane and natural gas to dry wet crops, even fertilizers – all contribute to higher production costs, which inevitably factor into the final prices paid by food consumers.
  • Labor shortages complicate both farming and food manufacturing. Farmers and food manufacturers alike complain that they simply can’t find all the workers they need to cope with the current situation. And when they do, they often find they must pay more, if only to contend with the disincentives created by COVID relief payments. Department of Agriculture labor statistics indicates the number of workers hired by farmers and ranchers was down 11 percent from year-ago levels as recently as April, to about 613,000. The drop occurred despite an April increase of 6 percent over the previous April’s labor rates, to an average of $15.97 per hour.
  • Supply chain disruptions add to costs. As if labor shortages and higher fuel costs for hauling commodities and delivering food products weren’t enough, our finely tuned food distribution system is still adjusting to yet another cycle of changes and interruptions in delivery channels.  On a global scale, we’ve had to wrestle with complications in the location and availability of the ocean freight used to carry commodities around the world – not just what the United States exports, but also what we import to satisfy our food demands. Events such as the recent shutdown of the Suez Canal and the cyberattack that paralyzed JBS, the world’s largest meat producer, provide evidence of just how quickly and pervasively these disruptions can ripple across the entire food system.
  • More out-of-home dining. The Covid pandemic led to a dramatic decline in the amount of food eaten out of the home, requiring our food system to adjust to moving a greater share of the food supply to retail channels. With the pandemic now appearing to ease, the system must once again adjust to a more traditional pattern. That means change to packaging, more complicated transportation logistics and a raft of other costly changes. BLS points out that the overwhelming proportion of the increase in food costs came from a run-up on prices for food eaten away from home – a whopping 4 percent, compared with 0.7 percent for food eaten at home. We’re going out to eat once again – and paying more for the privilege.
  • Food waste remains an issue. We waste as much as a third of our food every day and every year. One online firm specializing in market data analysis estimates that about 1.6 billion tons of raw food products are never turned into consumable food to feed the hungry. Such waste only adds to the inflationary pressures of the big supply-demand picture.

We also need to remember that we may have been lulled into a touch of complacency about our food prices over the last decade. Food price inflation has been largely muted in recent years. Between 2013 and last year, for example, annual food price inflation averaged roughly 1.4 percent, with 2016 and 2017 both coming in with less than a single percentage-point rise.

Economists say the current inflationary prices eventually will ease. But few are willing to say when, or by how much. As our look at the causes of food price inflation showed, many of the factors driving up food costs are likely to be with us to one degree or another for some time to come.

But what does it all mean for me?

For most of us, the dizzying array of things that influence our food prices are less important than their immediate effect on our pocketbooks.

Dirt-to-Dinner decided to take a look at the real-world – or at least an admittedly unscientific glimpse of what the CPI data actually means to U.S. food consumers.

A sincere thank you to the D2D Network of Unofficial Field Reporters: Gary Tomasello of San Jose, CA; Jake Cuaron of Denver, CO; Dick & Tanyia Williams of Jacksonville, FL; and Frank & Kathe St. Lawrence of Fairhope, AL.

We asked our network of friends across the country to help us with an exercise that builds on some insightful and valuable work done by the Toledo Blade. That highly respected newspaper created a market basket of 15 common food items and tracked its cost in 2003, 2008 and 2011.

We elected to continue that work by seeking current price information for the same 15-item food basket, but with data from the Northeast, mid-Atlantic, deep South, upper Midwest, Gulf Coast, Mountain region, and West Coast.

Our results are intended to provide a simple snapshot of what food price inflation really means at the consumer level – not a rigorous, statistically reliable economic analysis. Our results show the cumulative effect of what may seem like small annual cost increases.

We invite our readers to use the item checklist to take a closer look at what food inflation means for each of you.

The exercise taught us as consumers one very important lesson: shop smart.

We were surprised and pleased to see that the retail food industry seems to be doing its part to help consumers deal with rising food costs.  We found numerous examples of sales and discounts for various items on the list, as well as some potential savings from house brands and locally sourced food items. In some cases, those savings helped reduce the overall basket costs significantly.

Posted on

Are Farmer Protests in India a Cautionary Tale for Americans?


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

What’s behind the protests?

How can you keep food prices low for consumers but expect farmers to pay more to grow that same food? The brouhaha between farmers and the government of India began in 2018 with the passage of three farm laws altering long-standing farm policies. In simplest terms, the laws sought to change the way most farmers sold their products into the market, largely by deregulating wholesale markets. Rather than rely on the traditional middle-man system of wholesalers as purchasers, farmers would be allowed to sell to other commercial entities, and to use electronic and other new mechanisms for finding buyers.

On the surface, it all sounds very reasonable. The idea: give farmers more freedom to seek the best deal for what they produce. They no longer would have to rely only on the middlemen to provide the minimum guaranteed prices dictated by the government.

But change is rarely warmly embraced. And for India, the idea of reform affects not just the interests of farmers and overall food security, but the national economy and social structure, as well.

Over time, opposition to the laws has steadily escalated. News reports around the world tell of tens of thousands of protestors, many living in tent cities indefinitely, and many using tractors and other farm equipment to block and disrupt traffic to call attention to their cause. Video footage of angry men and women has become commonplace, seen by consumers around the world.

What prompts such intense debate – and protest?

To understand the impasse between the government and farmers, it’s essential to recognize the unique nature of Indian agriculture.

Farming and agriculture represent by far the largest component of the country’s employment. In India, just over half of its 1.3 billion people rely on agriculture for their livelihoods. Some credible estimates say as much as 70 percent. That means any changes to fundamental agricultural policies stand to affect between 600 and 800 million people in very meaningful ways.

In the United States, by comparison, farmers represent only 2 percent of the total population. The food and ag sector accounts for about 22 million jobs – or roughly 11 percent of our national workforce.

Despite the presence of a robust commercial farming sector in the United States, the overall agricultural picture in India is dominated by small land-holdings. America and India have comparable arable land areas. But the average farmer in India works roughly two and a half acres of ground, compared to the average U.S. farm of 444 acres. The prevailing small size of India’s average farm limits income opportunities and discourages investment in equipment, infrastructure, and other productivity enhancements.

Many farmers simply eke out a year-to-year existence. In many cases, their families have to live on less than $1,000 a year. They look to state support as the principal means not of growth, but of basic economic survival. This struggle to survive on very low, if any, profits, has manifested in over 300,000 farmer suicides since 1995. In 2018, there have been an average of 10 suicides a day.

So Indian agriculture isn’t simply a food-producing sector. It is a cornerstone of the entire society. Since the 1960s, national policies have attempted to accommodate both needs.

Government subsidies assist producers and rural residents in a number of ways: financial assistance for fertilizer, free electricity for water pumping, loan forgiveness, and direct financial aid all help hundreds of millions of producers stay afloat.

Protestors are deeply concerned about what happens to the government-guaranteed minimum prices for commodities such as rice, wheat, sugar, and other staples, which drive annual production on even the most un-economic farms. These supports have assured ample supplies for the domestic marketplace – and economic survival for millions.

In some instances, this policy has made exports possible. Today, for example, India is one of the world’s leading producers of wheat, cotton, groundnuts, fruits and vegetables, and even livestock — and among the largest global producers and exporters of rice, sugar, and wheat.

To protect consumers, the government has provided additional subsidies to keep prices low for basic foods, including rice. On one hand, food prices have to remain low to alleviate hunger and poverty and on the other hand, the low food prices are making life extremely difficult for over half the Indian population. This financial double-whammy of supporting two sometimes opposing sides of production and consumption can lead to unbelievable price distortions.

For example, the price of rice on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CMA) was actually lower than the fixed government price of rice in India, the largest rice-producing country in the world. A metric ton of rice costs $233 on the CME yet it costs $254 a ton for consumers in India. “A kilo of rice, which has an economic cost of 37 rupees to the taxpayer, is sold to two-thirds of the global population for 3 rupees.” as reported by Bloomberg’s David Fickling and Andy Mukherjee. Wheat support prices in India were 25 percent above the prevailing Chicago wheat futures price, the report also noted. To shield consumers, subsidies make the cost disparity magically disappear.

Changing market prices may have altered the arithmetic since that day, but the larger point remains valid.  Subsidies can distort markets – and create unintended but difficult consequences.

Arguments for reform:

  • Existing policies are economically unsustainable
  • Policies perpetuate poverty/dependence on state support
  • Policies create environmental concerns (fertilizer overuse, water depletion)
  • Reform promotes productivity improvements, long-term competitiveness for global market opportunities
  • Best for long-term interests of nation, economy, farmers, consumers

Arguments against reform:

  • Smaller producers (which are the majority of farmers) would lack the market clout to bargain with larger, more powerful commercial entities – and thus would wind up at their mercy
  • Increases the power of the larger commercial farming interests across India and invites greater involvement by multinational agricultural companies
  • Leaves far too many people economically vulnerable
  • Potential displacement of a huge number of people
  • Accelerates migration to urban centers

Is there a future for small and independent Indian farmers?

Proponents of reform say existing policies are simply financially unsustainable. Opponents of change say the risks are simply too large for too many people – and the threat to social order too great.

Both sides in the dispute say they won’t budge. All three farming laws have been passed but suspended by the Indian courts as discussions among farmers, farm groups and government officials continue.

But the clock is ticking for India. As the debate drags on, India’s population continues to expand. As it does, the twin responsibilities again emerge. Population growth means more mouths to feed – and more people dependent upon agriculture for their livelihood.

Various international agencies and institutions project that India will become the world’s most populous country within this decade. The total population is projected to climb from 1.3 billion to 1.7 billion by 2050 – within what amounts to a single generation.

That means another 400 million consumers and job seekers will enter the fray – well above the entire current population of the United States, and only slightly less than the number of people in the 27 nations making up the European Union.

The situation in India may add a perverse new economic dimension to the notion of agricultural “sustainability.” Can the country continue to afford the enormous expense of the current approach? Or must it seek some form of greater engagement with an open, competitive marketplace? What approach will best allow Indian agriculture to survive? What’s best for both producers and consumers?

What does any of this mean to Americans?

For the average person watching the video of men and women protesting the new laws, the situation may seem a world away. The truth is that decisions made in the coming months will have an impact on food prices, availability, the stock market, and more. And the same goes for here in the U.S.

Most obviously, the simple humanitarian aspects of the situation should matter to everyone. We are all food consumers.

Food is something we share. It unites us and ties us all together in a shared common basic human need. It is a cornerstone of the philosophy behind Dirt-to-Dinner. When any person’s food security is at risk, we all should pay attention.

For students of the global food system, the outcome will have important ramifications for how food moves around the world.  India already is a major factor in many global markets – rice, cotton, sugar, and wheat, to name just a few. Future policy decisions will help determine whether that involvement in global markets expands – or not. If India’s producers elect to apply their productive capacity to capturing more foreign market opportunities, the world will see an even larger player in the international food marketplace.  Consumers everywhere could have more choice, and also enjoy the discipline imposed on food prices when nations truly compete to supply the world’s food needs.

On another level, the situation in India should provide a cautionary tale for food consumers everywhere. It demonstrates the importance of making balanced decisions about the agricultural policies and programs that create our modern food system. It shows what happens when our best intentions — to provide food and incomes for all — veer too far from economic reality. The tragic decline of Venezuela’s economy and rampant food insecurity already have provided one important object lesson in fundamental food economics. It’s a lesson we all need to remember, from Delhi to DC, and everywhere in between.

Posted on

What is the Biden Era Agricultural Agenda?


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

The Changing Cast of Players

The new Congress and Administration will feature some new names in key roles for shaping our nation’s food and agriculture system. And while some familiar from the Obama Administration, experienced old hands in ag matters also will show up on the leadership roster, they will have an agenda that differs significantly from the past four years – and just as likely, a different approach to the role of government.

On Capitol Hill, long-time House Agriculture Committee Chair Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) is being replaced by Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.).

On the Senate side, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) is expected to return to her previously-held role during the Obama Administration as chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

Another familiar name from the Obama Administration – Tom Vilsack — also has been tapped to return as Secretary of Agriculture. Some elements of the left-wing of the Democrat Party have been critical of his nomination due to his familiarity with traditional farm and food organizations, as well as his past comments on climate change and minority relations. But Vilsack brings extensive experience and knowledge of all aspects of the food system. He has enjoyed the support of a wide spectrum of the agricultural community throughout his extensive career in public service.

New Players, New Agenda

The new leadership group undoubtedly brings a lot of experience in food and agriculture to the table. But the challenges confronting the American food system are very different from just a few short years ago. The change in administration brought a new and updated set of priorities – and a very different view of the role of government in dealing with those challenges.

Expect to see Congress and the Biden Administration focus on:

  • Covid-19. Stemming the spread of the virus will be the most visible immediate priority not just for the agriculture committees but the entire government. Access to vaccines in rural areas will be high on the agenda, as will continuing economic support for those most damaged by the lockdown.
  • Climate change. Don’t look for omnibus “climate change” legislation from either ag committee as much as efforts to promote conservation and other regenerative environmental practices by farmers and ranchers through expansion of existing programs and additional incentives for responsible, environmentally beneficial farming practices, all carefully couched and presented as ‘climate change’ initiatives. Many immediate actions are likely to involve a flurry of executive orders rather than time-consuming and contentious legislation. The creation of a ‘carbon market’ for agriculture will be a popular item for debate.

While the focus on climate change comes as no surprise, the farm community anxiously awaits some sign of the approach to be taken. Farm leaders urge policymakers to think in terms of carrots rather than sticks. That is, they note that the farm community by and large is supportive of the broad effort to act responsibly on matters that affect the climate, and the environment.

Policies that incentivize and reward positive actions will work better than threats of punishment for failure to comply. That approach is best in unleashing the creative and entrepreneurial capabilities of the farm sector, far more than an imposition of rules and regulations devised solely or largely by bureaucrats.

  • Rural economic development and revitalization. After years of declining net farm income and massive direct government payments, both legislators and administration officials will be looking at bigger, more comprehensive packages to stimulate rural economic vitality. Look for initiatives to promote growth in ‘green’ jobs, expand health care services and improve broadband access.
  • Social equity. Congressional leaders, in particular, have been outspoken in the need to address perceived economic inequities, notably for smaller farm operators and minority farmers and ranchers. Prominent Democrats also have called for immediate attention to farm labor issues, to address matters of wages, work conditions, organizing rights, and other concerns.
  • Relations with China. No market remains more important to the economic interests of farmers and ranchers. Efforts to promote improved relations and fulfillment of ambitious purchase commitments by the Chinese will remain top priorities. But expect a more studied effort to assess overall U.S. China relations, of which agricultural interests are just one part of the bigger picture of future relations between the two countries. Also, look for greater movement toward a multilateral team approach – especially with the EU – from the Biden Administration…it will be a movement away from the bilateral approach of recent years to more emphasis on building coalitions capable of exerting influence on the Chinese.

  • Improved trade opportunities. The ‘America first’ approach of recent years is likely to evolve into a more traditional model of negotiation, built around ‘constructive engagement.’ Bilateral trade negotiations to open new market opportunities will no doubt continue. But also look for much more energy behind attempts to revive and rejoin broader trade initiatives and agreements, notably in the Pacific and among long-standing U.S. allies.
  • Don’t rock the boat. Basic farm programs and policies have worked well for years, providing Americans (and others around the world) with a steady supply of affordable, nutritious, safe, and expanding food choices. No one in government wants to change the basic direction of our farm and food policies or to risk radical changes that harm the hard-won framework of rules, protections, and incentives that makes such a system possible. But there is a strong new commitment to making the system work better for all those involved in the system, and to address the legitimate environmental issues and questions arising from the climate change debate.

Beyond the Agriculture Committees

The agriculture committees undeniably make up the center of gravity in crafting food and agricultural policy. But other parts of Congress also come into play.

  • Taxes. Any farmer will quickly point out that farming is a capital-intensive business. Finance and money management are critical skills – and a major area of interest, especially when candidates and elected officials in a new political era have made the issue of “revenue” a major target area for attention.

Continuing economic challenges from the pandemic, coupled with a generally more ambitious agenda of government initiatives, mean an almost certain review and revision of tax laws. It will likely involve examining a range of tax policies, including capital gains, gift taxes, inheritance taxes, accounting rules, and more.

For an economic sector largely based on family ownership and reliant on land values as a key element of their financial strength, these are highly important subjects. Expect the food and agriculture community to keep a close eye on the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, and the new Biden Administration’s role in shaping any changes to tax laws.

  • Technology. Advances in technology are sweeping across the global agricultural system. Congress is trying to keep pace. The current focus on communication technology is expanding to cover other areas, with the gradual emergence of a variety of science and technology groups advocating a re-think of how Congress deals with the need to better understand and constructively guide the sector’s expanding role in all aspects of life, from the farm to the dinner table. Keep an eye on this wild-card in the emerging new era of government.
  • Health care. The pandemic helped focus attention on the need to improve health-care delivery across the country, in particular in the rural areas underserved by the existing system. The Biden Administration has made economic revitalization of rural America a priority, and expansion of health care services and facilities should be a substantial component of that effort. Look for additional collaboration between the Department of Agriculture and Health and Human Services, as well as a greater collaborative effort among all health-related departments and agencies.

  • Infrastructure. Like health care, the broad issue of improving the nation’s crumbling infrastructure also will have implications for the agricultural community and all of rural America. Maintenance of roads and bridges is a key component of the modern food chain, and most local authorities will agree that more needs to be done to maintain and improve what already exists. The big question will be not so much where such efforts should be focused, but how to pay for them.
  • Research. The Department of Agriculture and congressional committees traditionally made science and research a key element of their policy agenda. The new administration has made “science-based” decision-making a fundamental plank of their campaign. The agricultural community is waiting anxiously to see exactly what that means, in terms of the decisions to be made regarding the role of genetics in expanding food production, and the willingness of the government to continue sharing the financial burden of aggressive research on food and environmental matters.
Posted on

Digging into the Biden Era Agricultural Agenda

The Changing Cast of Players

The new Congress and Administration will feature some new names in key roles for shaping our nation’s food and agriculture system. And while some familiar from the Obama Administration, experienced old hands in ag matters also will show up on the leadership roster, they will have an agenda that differs significantly from the past four years – and just as likely, a different approach to the role of government.

On Capitol Hill, long-time House Agriculture Committee Chair Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) is being replaced by Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.).

On the Senate side, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) is expected to return to her previously-held role during the Obama Administration as chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

Another familiar name from the Obama Administration – Tom Vilsack — also has been tapped to return as Secretary of Agriculture. Some elements of the left-wing of the Democrat Party have been critical of his nomination due to his familiarity with traditional farm and food organizations, as well as his past comments on climate change and minority relations. But Vilsack brings extensive experience and knowledge of all aspects of the food system. He has enjoyed the support of a wide spectrum of the agricultural community throughout his extensive career in public service.

A Rare Glimpse of Bipartisanship

Food and agricultural policy has been one of the few examples of functional bipartisanship, crafting farm bills running hundreds of pages. This daunting task demands cooperation and a willingness to listen and compromise, among dozens of committee members representing rural, suburban, and urban interests. They cover everything from production agriculture to nutrition to rural development to commodity markets to SNAP to bioenergy – and a long list of all the policy matters that make our food system function. Between farm bills, the committees wrestle with the same dynamics in dealing with individual legislative proposals that emerge in every Congress.

The unique world of food and agriculture has helped foster a spirit of bipartisanship not often found elsewhere on Capitol Hill. That’s not to say there aren’t sharp differences in ideology or priorities or approaches. And as the committee membership continues to become more inclusive and diverse – with expanding representation from outside the rural sector – the potential for sharp differences certainly increases.

These committees share and are united by a recognition of the critical importance of providing not just Americans but others around the world with the safe, nutritious and affordable food they need, produced responsibly and sustainably.

Together, they have built the framework of the rules of the road that make such a remarkable food system possible.

In such an environment, the leaders from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue become especially important to continuing the bipartisan process. They must be solid leaders – knowledgeable of both the broad issues and specific details of farm policy, and highly skilled in building bridges with committee members and the rest of the Congress. They have no choice in the matter. Farm legislation simply can’t pass without the support of a diverse congressional membership that increasingly is urban and suburban, not uniquely rural.

Both outgoing House Agriculture Committee Chair Rep. Collin Peterson and Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Sen. Pat Roberts are widely regarded as consummate diplomats and political bridge-builders. It’s now up to Rep. Scott and Sen. Stabenow to maintain that spirit in an era of the continuing partisan divide. With both committees divided into almost equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans, that means their relationships with the ranking minority members of each committee will be very important.

In the House, that role goes to Rep. Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania. As another long-standing member of the panel, Thompson also has extensive first-hand experience in farm-related legislation. He also brings a particularly strong focus on education, including support for wider educational opportunities at land-grant colleges and universities, as well as strong advocacy for expanded access to better health care, especially in rural areas.

On the Senate side, the role of ranking minority member will go to Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas. He also brings an extensive record of service on the committee, as well as the highly important Senate Appropriations Committee. He has served on various subcommittees deal with a spectrum of key food and agricultural issues, from production agriculture, conservation, nutrition, and research. His background as a small business owner and an expert in health care matters also are noteworthy.

New Players, New Agenda

The new leadership group undoubtedly brings a lot of experience in food and agriculture to the table. But the challenges confronting the American food system are very different from just a few short years ago. The change in administration brought a new and updated set of priorities – and a very different view of the role of government in dealing with those challenges.

Expect to see Congress and the Biden Administration focus on:

  • Covid-19. Stemming the spread of the virus will be the most visible immediate priority not just for the agriculture committees but the entire government. Access to vaccines in rural areas will be high on the agenda, as will continuing economic support for those most damaged by the lockdown.
  • Climate change. Don’t look for omnibus “climate change’ legislation from either ag committee as much as efforts to promote conservation and other regenerative environmental practices by farmers and ranchers through expansion of existing programs and additional incentives for responsible, environmentally beneficial farming practices, all carefully couched and presented as ‘climate change’ initiatives. Many immediate actions are likely to involve a flurry of executive orders rather than time-consuming and contentious legislation. The creation of a ‘carbon market’ for agriculture will be a popular item for debate. (D2D will look at climate-related issues in more depth in future posts.

While the focus on climate change comes as no surprise, the farm community anxiously awaits some sign of the approach to be taken. Farm leaders urge policymakers to think in terms of carrots rather than sticks. That is, they note that the farm community by and large is supportive of the broad effort to act responsibly on matters that affect the climate, and the environment.

Policies that incentivize and reward positive actions will work better than threats of punishment for failure to comply. That approach is best in unleashing the creative and entrepreneurial capabilities of the farm sector, far more than an imposition of rules and regulations devised solely or largely by bureaucrats.

  • Rural economic development and revitalization. After years of declining net farm income and massive direct government payments, both legislators and administration officials will be looking at bigger, more comprehensive packages to stimulate rural economic vitality. Look for initiatives to promote growth in ‘green’ jobs, expand health care services and improve broadband access.
  • Social equity. Congressional leaders, in particular, have been outspoken in the need to address perceived economic inequities, notably for smaller farm operators and minority farmers and ranchers. Prominent Democrats also have called for immediate attention to farm labor issues, to address matters of wages, work conditions, organizing rights, and other concerns.
  • Relations with China. No market remains more important to the economic interests of farmers and ranchers. Efforts to promote improved relations and fulfillment of ambitious purchase commitments by the Chinese will remain top priorities. But expect a more studied effort to assess overall U.S. China relations, of which agricultural interests are just one part of the bigger picture of future relations between the two countries. Also, look for greater movement toward a multilateral team approach – especially with the EU – from the Biden Administration – It will be a movement away from the bilateral approach of recent years to more emphasis on building coalitions capable of exerting influence on the Chinese.

  • Improved trade opportunities. The ‘America first’ approach of recent years is likely to evolve into a more traditional model of negotiation, built around ‘constructive engagement.’ Bilateral trade negotiations to open new market opportunities will no doubt continue. But also look for much more energy behind attempts to revive and rejoin broader trade initiatives and agreements, notably in the Pacific and among long-standing U.S. allies.
  • Don’t rock the boat. Basic farm programs and policies have worked well for years, providing Americans (and others around the world) with a steady supply of affordable, nutritious, safe, and expanding food choices. No one in government wants to change the basic direction of our farm and food policies or to risk radical changes that harm the hard-won framework of rules, protections, and incentives that makes such a system possible. But there is a strong new commitment to making the system work better for all those involved in the system, and to address the legitimate environmental issues and questions arising from the climate change debate.

Beyond the Agriculture Committees

The agriculture committees undeniably make up the center of gravity in crafting food and agricultural policy. But other parts of Congress also come into play.

  • Taxes. Any farmer will quickly point out that farming is a capital-intensive business. Finance and money management are critical skills – and a major area of interest, especially when candidates and elected officials in a new political era have made the issue of “revenue” a major target area for attention.

Continuing economic challenges from the pandemic, coupled with a generally more ambitious agenda of government initiatives, mean an almost certain review and revision of tax laws. It will likely involve examining a range of tax policies, including capital gains, gift taxes, inheritance taxes, accounting rules, and more.

For an economic sector largely based on family ownership and reliant on land values as a key element of their financial strength, these are highly important subjects. Expect the food and agriculture community to keep a close eye on the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, and the new Biden Administration’s role in shaping any changes to tax laws.

  • Technology. Advances in technology are sweeping across the global agricultural system. Congress is trying to keep pace. The current focus on communication technology is expanding to cover other areas, with the gradual emergence of a variety of science and technology groups advocating a re-think of how Congress deals with the need to better understand and constructively guide the sector’s expanding role in all aspects of life, from the farm to the dinner table. Keep an eye on this wild-card in the emerging new era of government.
  • Health care. The pandemic helped focus attention on the need to improve health-care delivery across the country, in particular in the rural areas underserved by the existing system. The Biden Administration has made economic revitalization of rural America a priority, and expansion of health care services and facilities should be a substantial component of that effort. Look for additional collaboration between the Department of Agriculture and Health and Human Services, as well as a greater collaborative effort among all health-related departments and agencies.

  • Infrastructure. Like health care, the broad issue of improving the nation’s crumbling infrastructure also will have implications for the agricultural community and all of rural America. Maintenance of roads and bridges is a key component of the modern food chain, and most local authorities will agree that more needs to be done to maintain and improve what already exists. The big question will be not so much where such efforts should be focused, but how to pay for them.
  • Research. The Department of Agriculture and congressional committees traditionally made science and research a key element of their policy agenda. The new administration has made “science-based” decision-making a fundamental plank of their campaign. The agricultural community is waiting anxiously to see exactly what that means – in terms of the decisions to be made regarding the role of genetics in expanding food production, and the willingness of the government to continue sharing the financial burden of aggressive research on food and environmental matters.
Posted on

Blue Zones: Long & Healthy Living


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Why are so many of us overweight, over-stressed, and prone to so many diseases? It’s easy to blame genetics or factors beyond our control. But as more and more studies pile up on the subject, we’re finding that the decisions we make every day affect our health much more so than our genetic makeup.

Living better and longer

Scientists and academics who have examined human longevity in-depth have identified locations called “Blue Zones.” These are geographic areas and cultural enclaves around the world with many citizens aged 90 and older. Here in the U.S., we have an average lifespan of only 78 years, so what’s the secret?

“Individuals get lucky, populations don’t,”  – Dr. Dan Buettner, longevity expert

Genetics indeed plays a role in making longer lives possible. But these studies suggest genetics is only about 20% of the equation. The remaining 80% is from epigenetics, where your lifestyle determines how your genes express themselves.

It comes down to a few simple yet powerful guidelines:

  • Eat a balanced and nutritious diet
  • Get plenty of physical exercise, and find ways to reduce stress
  • Stay mentally vibrant and intellectually engaged in life, and with others

Internationally recognized researcher, explorer, founder of Earthtreks, Inc., Emmy Award winner for co-producing PBS’s Scientific American, and most recently an author and American National Geographic Fellow, Dr. Dan Buettner, worked with the National Institute on Aging, pioneering incisive new research in the ways people everywhere pursue longer, healthier lives.

Dr. Buettner shared his discoveries in his book, Blue Zones: Lessons From the World’s Longest Lived where he interviewed 263 individuals from Okinawa, Japan; Sardinia, Italy; Ikaria, Greece; and Loma Linda, California.

The “Power 9”

The nine common denominators discovered through this decade-long study were a series of lifestyle choices, not quick solutions, that are believed to slow our aging process.

  1. Moving naturally refers to our daily activities. Rather than setting aside an hour of the day to exercise, these populations are natural movers. They garden, they walk, they do housework both inside and outside, the commute on foot, their jobs are physical. Their everyday routines are much less sedentary than the typical American work-life cycle.
  2. The purpose of the Okinawans, called ikigai, is an understanding that they can make a difference in others’ lives every day. This motivation to live each day is fueled directly by a sense of purpose, a reason to get out there and live with meaning.
  3. Downshifting is a major takeaway from each culture, which often use a part of their day or week to seek rest. This “downshift” is the practice of managing their stress by ensuring rest. We know that stress can lead to chronic inflammation, which is associated with a variety of age-related diseases. The Okinawans take time each day to remember their ancestors, while the Ikarians commonly nap. Sardinians downshift by having daily happy hour, while Adventists rest on Sundays.
  4. The 80% Rule is a 2,500-year-old rule from Okinawa’s Confucian ancestors. They say the mantra before each meal to remind them to only eat to 80% capacity. That 20% gap is the difference between losing or gaining weight. People in the Blue Zones generally tend to eat their smallest meal in the late afternoon or early evening and then fast for the remainder of the day.

  1. Wine @ 5 refers to all Blue Zones, save for California, whose Adventist population does not drink alcohol. The trick is to keep drinks to 1 or 2 glasses per day, often with food and friends.
  2. Belonging is a critical part of the findings. All but five of the 263 centenarians who were interviewed belonged to some type of faith-based community. The denomination did not seem to matter. The research showed that attending a faith-based gathering four times per month added four to 14 years of life expectancy.
  3. Loved ones first is widely practiced in these communities by having their grandparents and great-grandparents live very close. Furthermore, these communities were known for committing to one partner for life, allowing them more time to invest in their children and to share love.
  4. The right tribe goes hand in hand with social circles. The world’s longest-living people were either born into or chose social groups that support healthy lifestyles. For example, the Okinawans created moais, which is a group of five friends that committed to each other for life. These groups proved to combat loneliness and decrease negative lifestyle factors.
  5. Eating practices for these locations included a diet rich in vegetables, legumes, whole grains, and nuts. Additionally, they also often practiced fasting, as well as decreased calorie intake. The Blue Zones also eat diets that are fish heavy, as a preferred protein. For example, in Icaria and Sardinia, fish is a staple and high in omega 3s.

Does location determine longevity?

National Geographic and Dr. Buettner did not originally set out to uncover these Blue Zones. In fact, they were embarking on what was originally designed to be an expedition to explore uniquely different areas of the world, only to find out that these 9 factors were major contributors to their longevity.

We know that there is no actual fountain of youth and that moving to these exotic places is not going to add years to your life. According to Buettner, these populations were not ‘trying’ to be healthy- they had not set out on a health quest to cleanse themselves, or create new ways of life. No, it was innate. The environment in which they lived was primarily natural, they worked near loved ones and knew their purpose. They broke bread with family and took the time to recharge.

Blue Zones, in partnership with Healthways, created what is called the Blue Zones Project which has set out to bring the Power 9 longevity principles to entire communities. To focus on changing environments, and creating long-term sustainable change for future generations.

This task is no small feat. Changing the way communities move, and share and eat and grow requires a lot of effort, as Buettner details:

“We work with restaurants, grocery stores, schools, and large employers to make healthier foods more accessible and less expensive. We also work with local community groups and religious institutions to create walking groups and other opportunities for residents to meet new people, create new connections, and improve their lives with volunteer work or new hobbies…we make it easier for people to move naturally, make new friends, and eat healthy.”

So far, the results have been dramatic. The first community work for this project was in Alberta Lea, MN. In a single year, the citizens added 2.9 years to their lifespans, with healthcare claims decreasing by 49%. There are now 42 Blue Zone project cities in the U.S. We look forward to seeing what changes these communities will actualize. According to Dr. Buettner:

“…through policy and environmental changes, the Blue Zones Project Communities have been able to increase life expectancy, reduce obesity, and make the healthy choice the easy choice for millions of Americans.”

Hope for the rest of us

And while we know this is one study, the initial results support other research for living longer. We know about some similar lifestyle suggestions such as meditation, the Mediterranean Diet, the importance of exercise, the need to have a purpose in life, and the critical component of love with family and friends.

We must, for the health of ourselves, and our children, focus on the whole body. From decreasing our stress to prioritizing our loved ones, to giving ourselves the time to relax and recharge, to not overeating and focusing more on the foods we eat than being full.

Posted on

Meeting Demand: A New Type of Salmon


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Innovation and creative thinking in the protein industry is ever-evolving. You may have read some of our posts on the perils of overfishing our oceans and rivers. So when I heard about the genetically-modified AquAdvantage salmon that addresses sustainability issues as well as the potential to bring income to rural America, I was immediately curious. Of course, I wondered whether it was regulated and what the testing looked like. So I dug deeper and learned a lot about how this fish is grown.

AquAdvantage – What is it?

AquAdvantage Salmon is the first genetically-modified salmon approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada. AquaBounty, the company behind AquAdvantage, has its unlikely farm in Indiana. Yes – the Midwest can grow salmon!

This fish is more sustainable and unique because it can grow to maturity in just 18 months, compared to 36 months for a traditionally farmed salmon. Both take significantly less time than their wild cousins, which can take 7 years.

Farmed and wild Atlantic salmon stop growing during the winter and when they are environmentally stressed. Wild salmon take so long to reach maturity because they are foraging for food, avoiding predators, and dealing with tough environmental conditions. Farmed salmon also have a tough time growing because, even though they are swimming in enclosed sea nets, they are still exposed to diseases, parasites, and sometimes water that is too warm.

30 years ago, the AquaBounty salmon was genetically modified to help survive their early, most vulnerable stages of growth. Just like a labradoodle dog — a cross between a Labrador Retriever and a Poodle — an AquAdvantage salmon is a combination of the Atlantic salmon, the Chinook salmon’s growth gene, and a gene promoter from an ocean pout. Not the most attractive fish in the ocean, the major benefit of the ocean pout is that their ‘promoters’ turn on the Chinook growth gene to make the fish grow all the time, as opposed to seasonal growth with the Atlantic salmon’s promoters. And if an ocean pout was on the menu, I would certainly try one, growth promoter and all.

What does the FDA say?

The FDA approved the AquAdvantage salmon as “safe and effective” under the new animal drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in November 2015.

The FDA studied this fish for over 25 years. The first 10 years were setting up the prenotification process before filing for approval. For the next 15 years, they wanted to prove three things: Is it safe for the fish? Is it safe for humans? Is it safe for the environment? The answer to all three was yes.

Finally, after all these years of research development and regulatory evaluation, the first fish is expected to be harvested in December 2020 at AquaBounty’s farm in Indiana.

There is no mystery involved here. You will know when you are eating an AquaBounty fish when you buy your fish at a market or grocery store. The USDA National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Act requires ‘mandatory standards for disclosing foods that are or may be bioengineered’. However, restaurants are not under an obligation to highlight genetically modified salmon on their menu.

Less Feed – Better Conversion Rate

One of the most remarkable attributes of this breed is that, despite its continual growth, it requires less daily food. The on-farm results with AquAdvantage salmon have confirmed the scientific studies and demonstrated that it is possible to produce one pound of fish with less than one pound of feed. This is compared to most farmed Atlantic salmon which take one pound of fish feed to grow one pound of fish.

Grown without antibiotics in Indoor Farms

All of these fish are – and will be – grown in highly-regulated fish farms. If you ever had a fish tank, this is not the same thing. Biofiltration units keep the water clean, fresh, and provide great conditions where this salmon can thrive. Because of the clean environment, the fish do not get sick or acquire sea lice, so they are always grown without antibiotics.

The tanks are completely contained without the possibility of a fish escaping into the wild. Yet they are big enough for the fish to jump and swim in schools – allowing them to be their natural selves.  They do not have to forage for food as they are fed just enough for them to grow and not too much to stimulate excessive waste.

AquaBounty’s indoor grow-out tanks prevent escapement and eliminate parasites that lead to disease.

Stimulating Economic Growth in Rural America

So much of rural America has lost the benefits of agriculture. Bringing fish farms to parts of America is a way to boost economic growth, especially in the mountainous areas such as West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania. It is an opportunity to bring jobs and income to areas that have lost their income in part due to bankruptcies in the farming sector, many in the dairy industry.

Riding my motorcycle around some of the beautiful Pennsylvania northern counties, all I see are fallow farms and beautiful, stately barns – falling apart.

AquaBounty has found that Indiana, where the company has its current U.S. farm, and other mid-west locations, are great examples of states committed to AgriTech.

AquaBounty actively works with local and state governments and agencies that are committed to AgriTech. They believe this is the future of agriculture as well as their state’s economic and employment growth.

AquaBounty also closely monitors the USDA Rural Economic Development Program as part of the site selection process.

Why do we need AquAdvantage?

In 2018, Atlantic salmon, second to shrimp, was the most valued farmed fish in the world. The upward projections continue and is expected to grow to 4 million tons by just 2023, from about 3.5 million tons in 2019. The U.S. imports about 400,000 tons of salmon every year. About 70% come from farms – mostly in Norway, Chile, Scotland, and Canada.

Salmon is particularly healthy — it is rich in minerals, micronutrients, omega-3 fatty acids, protein, and many vitamins. Not only is salmon good for you, but it is easy to cook for dinner, throw together in a salad, or even have as sushi. More and more consumers are enjoying the health, taste, and ease of cooking it at home.

However, we cannot catch them all with a fishing pole or a fishing boat or we will not have any left.

Remember the Atlantic Cod off the coast of Maine? As a D2D reader, you may have read about the sustainable importance of farmed fish versus wild-caught.

As the oceans become over-fished, there are many benefits to eating fish grown from responsibly managed fish farms and ocean fisheries.

With diligent oversight, these operations help meet demand while natural aquatic habitats improve from current overfished conditions.

What do consumers say about GMO fish?

Concerned about whether consumers would embrace a genetically engineered fish, the AquaBounty management team conducted extensive research to determine their reaction. Here are key points from Quantitative Research Executive Summary:

  • 53% of consumers’ initial impressions of the term GMO/GE are neutral to positive – many are conflicted
  • Respondents are neutral about purchasing products they regularly buy if labeled GMO/GE.
  • Almost three-quarters rank level of trust for government agencies to provide oversight/guidelines as Neutral to Trust Very Much
  • Top-ranked attributes for AquAdvantage Salmon: Chemical free, Nutritious, Antibiotic Free Consistent Access to Fresh Fish, Affordability, FDA Approved

What do NGOs and Political Figures say about a GMO Fish?

When the news came out, even our local fish market had loud ‘NO GMO SALMON HERE’ signs posted everywhere. Of course, it was not sold ‘here’ because the salmon was a couple of years away from being available….

Concern: Anti-GMO, NGOs, and other groups filed a legal challenge in March 2016 in the San Francisco federal court. The first challenge was whether the FDA’s animal drug authority could oversee genetically-engineered animals and fish. The second claim said that the FDA violated core environmental laws in the event these fish escaped into the wild.

Response: Judge Vince Chhabria of San Francisco affirmed that the FDA had the authority to oversee genetically-engineered animals and fish. For the second claim, while he understood that the FDA had thoroughly analyzed the exceptionally low probability of escape, they did not address the consequences if this breed of salmon were to establish a persistent population in the wild. Judge Chhabria ruled that AquaBounty can continue its operations in Prince Edward Island, Canada and Indiana. Nor did the Judge prevent AquaBounty from harvesting in December 2020.

AquAdvantage salmon cannot make the leap from a land-based indoor tank to the wild. All these facilities have tightly-closed septic and water systems to prevent eggs or fish from escaping.

In addition, all the fish will be sterile females and, unlike the protogynous sea bass, a female salmon cannot turn into a productive male, thus procreating with wild salmon – or any other fish for that matter. Once a salmon is sterile – it is sterile.

Other concerns such as those from The Consumer’s Union are worth mentioning as their issues are similar to GMOs overall.

Concern: More and more children are getting allergic reactions to different types of foods, like nuts and eggs. Since these salmon are GMOs, they must contribute to children’s allergies.  They are also an advocate of labeling.

Response: As we have mentioned in previous posts regarding GMOs, all GMOs are tested for allergies…in fact, every single allergy known to humans. AquAdvantage fish are no exception. It is also worth noting that the gene brought into the salmon is a growth promoter. There are no known allergies to naturally occurring growth hormones.

Response:  These GMOs are required to be labeled if they are sold at the fish market or grocery store. However, not at a restaurant.

Concern: GM Watch says that these hormones can cause cancer and the fish could have different protein levels. The concern is that the additional hormones create a hormone called IGF-1 that increases insulin and causes cancer.

Response: When you eat an AquAdvantage salmon, the growth gene from the Chinook salmon and the growth promoter from the ocean pout could not affect you or change your genes.  It is the same as eating any type of seafood. They all have growth hormones – otherwise, they would not grow!

The IGF-1 hormone is necessary for all vertebrae and mammals to mature. While the ocean pout hormone is different than the salmon hormone, this hormone does not produce more insulin in the human body. In truth, the IGF-1 hormone is present in humans already and a too low level might cause diabetes and other health issues.

Concern: This fish has a higher ratio of omega-6 fats to omega-3 fats, compared to other salmon that have more omega 3s.

Response: A different growth hormone does not affect the nutritional quality of this salmon. Also, most farmed fish are fed with by-catch. In this case, they are working with an algae product that produces the same fatty acid profile as fish.

Posted on

5 Top Issues Important to Farmers

We asked hundreds of farmers and ranchers across the United States to tell us their thoughts on the 2020 presidential election and the issues that matter most to them going forward to help us better tell their stories. Here are the 5 issues they said were most important as a farmer in America.

5. Farmer Subsidies

“Farmer subsidies” refers to the financial assistance they receive from the government, and over half of our respondents said farm income is one of their top concerns. This also includes economic support programs during an especially weak and unsettled farm economy.

Over a quarter of respondents included farmer subsidies in the top 3 most important issues to them. However, many said that they don’t want to live on government subsidies and that agriculture needs an open market and fair trade instead.

4. Educate a Disconnected Consumer

28% of our respondents put this category into the top 3 most important issues to them and it is an issue we are seeing become more prevalent among farmers and consumers alike.

Transparency is a reoccurring topic and, in terms of farming, it refers to consumers being aware of where their food came from, along with every step of the production process until it is on their table. Education also includes pesticide application, GMO crops, organic farming, and farming practices in general.

When asked about common misperceptions regarding farmers, some responses were:

“They (think we) play in the dirt all day.”

“That we are not astute business people. They do not recognize that we are managing multi-million-dollar business enterprises… and that we are better educated than the majority of the US population.”

3. Input Costs

35% of our total respondents included input costs in their top 3 issues American farmers face today. Many feel as though politicians underestimate the costs it takes to run a farm and they think farmers are much more profitable and wealthy than they actually are.

Farmers made it clear they don’t want to live on government subsidies. Lower input costs would help them achieve this and become profitable.

2. Global Free Trade

Global free trade was a common issue among many farmers and 37% of our respondents put it in their top three.

When asked to address further what either political party could do to help, many responded to support free trade. They also want less government intervention across all aspects of agriculture. Some wrote that they want to see an improvement in economic policy and stability in regard to both global trade and all of ag.

1. Trade with China

Trade with China was the most common issue we saw among farmers. 40% of our respondents included it in their top three.

Farmers are especially concerned about the unsettled state of relations with China. When asked about the most important thing either party could do to help farmers and ranchers in America, many responded to resolve the trade war with China.

COVID had a large effect on global trade, however, China still remains a vital participant. In 2018, China led the country with the highest amount of combined imports and exports at $5 trillion. We need trade with China and they need trade with us, and farmers recognize this.

To see the full Farmer and Rancher Election Survey results, click here.

Posted on

Farmer & Rancher Election Survey Results

Our thanks to the hundreds of farmers and ranchers who took time during a busy season to tell us what they think about how the two major political parties are addressing their interests and concerns in the 2020 election campaign. These responses will help D2D do even more to tell your story.

Given this heated political environment and neither presidential platform addressing highly-specific plans for agriculture and food production, we set out with a goal to better understand the issues affecting American farmers – their concerns, hopes, and thoughts about the next four years.

A look at our respondents

Our survey launched in late September and amassed 300 completions from U.S. farmers and ranchers. Respondents provided a good cross-section of the farm and ranch population. They tended to be:

  • 45 years of age or older, and overwhelmingly politically aware and engaged
  • Diverse, across all types of farms sizes and crops/livestock
  • Dispersed geographically with a heavy concentration in the Midwest, reflecting the overall national character of farming and ranching

Cutting to the chase

Overall, respondents believe the Republican party is stronger on general farm economics and trade, and earned consistently higher marks than the Democratic party across all areas of interest addressed in the survey. 

Furthermore, respondents believe Republicans better understand their professional challenges and that the party will better support them by promoting their sound farming practices.

Democrats fared relatively better on questions related to environmental protection, food safety, diet, and nutrition – but still trailed the GOP in each category.

Putting issues in order

Farmers and ranchers have a lot to say about the obstacles they face daily to sustain their way of life for their staff, families, livestock, and customers.

When presented with a specific laundry list of potential issues, three out of four respondents cited a trade-related matter as one of their three biggest worries today, especially the unsettled state of relations with China. Just over half said farm income was one of their top concerns, as reflected in both the cost of inputs and availability of subsidies and economic support programs during an especially weak and unsettled farm economy.

But which issue is most important?

When asked to write in detail about what either administration could do right now to help them, most respondents addressed anticipated needs, such as free trade and less government regulation. But a surprising number of respondents looked beyond particular policies and roadblocks and instead, demanded some diplomatic aplomb for the parties to work together and get these issues remedied.

Politicians’ biggest misperceptions

Despite many farmers and ranchers preferring the Republican take on key issues affecting their operations, respondents won’t be giving either political party a free pass on their approach to food and agriculture. They weren’t shy about offering advice to both candidates on how to better connect both politicians and the larger public with the people who produce the nation’s food.

In summary, they believe they are a very misunderstood group. Respondents felt that politicians think they don’t care about the environment, don’t understand the physical and financial demands to run a multi-faceted operation, and that they are just ‘dumb hicks wearing overalls’.

When asked what particular misperceptions about farming and ranching need to be addressed, respondents offered some often colorful comments:

“They [think we] play in the dirt all day.”

“That we are not astute business people. They do not recognize that we are managing multi-million-dollar business enterprises. They do not recognize that we know a balance sheet and that we are better educated than the majority of the US population.”

“We don’t want to have to live on government subsidies.”

Many respondents felt the average politician doesn’t see farming and ranching as a demanding profession that requires shrewd business and operational knowledge. Additionally, respondents believe they also fail to grasp the economic stakes of modern farming and the risks that come with it from so many directions.

Delivering a message to candidates

Farmers and ranchers also had some equally blunt advice to politicians when asked about what they’d tell the presidential candidates if they had the opportunity:

“We provide the best, safest, and cheapest supply of agricultural products in the world, but have to go through expensive risk to do so.”

“Production ag needs markets and fair trade, not subsidies, to succeed long-term.”

“You are both full of manure.” 

The overriding sentiment expressed in this open-ended question was that respondents felt as though the food system they operate every day for every American and countless others around the globe goes unnoticed by politicians and consumers alike. Farmers and ranchers remind us that “we in the middle of the country matter, too”, feeling forgotten or only catered to around election years.

And many expect better treatment for others, too — even presidential candidate to candidate. One piece of sage advice: “Get along with each other’s party…do what is best for America”.

Farmers remain resilient

Despite the litany of misperceptions that need to be addressed, the farmers and ranchers who responded to the D2D survey remain surprisingly optimistic about their future.

After almost seven years of declining income and sustained economic stress, seven in 10 respondents say they are optimistic about the future of their operations.

Making changes on the farm

When asked unaided about the biggest changes they’re currently facing in ag, most individual respondents described several ways they’ve continued their operations amid such instability. They’ve done everything, from cutting costs to utilizing marketing and technological strategies to adding new product lines and income sources.

Get ready…

So who do farmers foresee as president in 2021? Two-thirds of our respondents predict a victory for Donald Trump on Nov. 3.

In Closing

This feedback garnered from farmers and ranchers – our readers and friends—are not the end of the discussion, but just the beginning. Please stay tuned for further efforts to engage and empower our farmers and ranchers who sustain us and our families every day.

To review all quantitative responses in this survey, please click here. 

Posted on

Trump vs. Biden: Comparing Ag Platforms

Everyone agrees it will be an important event for all Americans – a momentary pause, if not an end, to the endless argument about the future direction of the country. On November 3rd, we will select our President, our entire House of Representatives, and a third of our Senate.

When it comes to food and agriculture, what makes one presidential candidate different from the other? The significant farm issues are the economy, international trade relationships, China as a strong component but other countries as well; the Renewable Fuel Standard; rural broadband access; the regulatory environment, and COVID. What will be the key goals and objectives they set? What big ideas will drive their actions over the next four years? What is likely to change and what will stay the same?

Don’t expect any great epiphanies from reading party platforms. Such documents are great at grand philosophical statements, but light on the specifics that might risk offending some potential voter. But there are insights in there anyway, especially when combined with the public statements and media coverage that have emerged in this campaign.

Candidates’ Philosophies

We took a look at comparing the policies that would most affect food and agriculture from each of the candidates. We focused on trade, the economy, climate change, and immigration.

Biden/Harris:

America is in trouble, due largely to the missteps of the current administration. America must return to many of the approaches of the previous Democratic administrations, including:

  • a stronger focus on building consensus, stepping up government support and engagement in things that build a fairer society

  • governmental programs to protect individual rights, reduce anti-competitive practices among agricultural businesses, reform our criminal justice system, and expand access to health care, broadband, and other social services

  • more aggressive governmental regulations to climate change, and in the process spur a broad effort to generate new jobs, protect our environment and revive the economy with innovative environmental products and technologies

  • revive a spirit of international cooperation to boost trade

Trump/Pence:

America is on the right track, so let’s stick with what we have started:

 

  • take the tough steps needed to compete in a global marketplace, while shielding U.S. citizens, with subsidies, from the immediate adverse effects of such actions

  • keep current policies and programs and continue to reduce the governmental barriers that hold back enterprise and initiative

  • support worthwhile government programs but still rely on private enterprise and voluntary effort as the primary engines of progress in protecting the environment and managing financial risk

  • stand up for American interests first in the international arena, especially on matters of trade

Both platforms share some commonalities around the ideas of conservation. Their differing philosophies are on the role of the government as it pertains to conservation, trade, taxes, regulations, and immigration.

Plans for Trade

Biden/Harris:

  • seek international consensus: multilateral and bilateral before negotiating trade agreements

  • restore more traditional negotiating style and posturing with trade partners

  • revitalize focus on boosting ag exports; concerned about Brazil and Argentina taking place of U.S.

  • expand focus on workers’ rights and interests in trade negotiations

Trump/Pence:

  • take the tough steps needed to compete in a global marketplace, while shielding U.S. citizens, with subsidies, from the immediate adverse effects of such actions

  • maintain efforts to implement improved trade deals with China, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Britain, and E.U.

  • enforce tougher negotiating philosophy with focus on exports and long-term opportunities

  • continue direct aid to farmers while negotiating trade deals, currently at $32 billion

 Trump favors the aggressive use of higher tariffs as a tool for negotiating better trade deals. Biden prefers a more traditional approach of focusing on progressive tariff reductions.

Addressing Farm & Rural Economies

Biden/Harris:

  • raise taxes: income, capital gains, corporate tax rate; end stepped-up basis

  • provide more financial support for rural economy via initiatives and infrastructure modernization, including direct farm support, rural health care, broadband

  • support local trade between farmers and schools and hospitals

  • preserve and protect smaller operators from unfair, anti-competitive forces with a higher focus on FTC antitrust regulations such as the Clayton Act, Dodd-Frank, etc., trickling down to farm economy

  • enhance labor rights and protections; support union workers

  • provide more financial support for younger, beginning farmers/ranchers, and smaller farms

  • support Farm Bill and SNAP

Trump/Pence:

  • continue 2017’s tax plan that enables farmers to pass their farms to their next-generation farmers

  • preserve lower-tax environment

  • continue efforts to identify and remove regulatory and other barriers to support private initiative and innovation

  • support broadband throughout rural America

  • continue financial relief through direct payments to affected producers, as needed

  • maintain financial discipline in existing government programs

  • support Farm Bill and SNAP, but close loopholes that allow ‘able-bodied working-age adults’ collecting food stamps to move into a work environment to create a sense of fiscal independence

Trump offers a strategy to continue the ‘America First’ initiative, providing increased business opportunities by limiting regulatory barriers, while providing relief to those in need. Biden proposes tax increases to overhaul current systems in rural America, such as broadband access and healthcare. He also plans to strengthen antitrust enforcement.

Climate Change & Sustainability Affecting Ag

Biden/Harris:

  • Green New Deal is ‘a crucial framework’ for climate challenges

  • make American ag first in the world to achieve net-zero carbon emissions

  • increase research funding focused on zero-carbon and productivity-increase goals

  • support renewable fuels and ethanol mandates

  • expand financial incentives for programs that reduce greenhouse gases – conservation reserves, reduced tillage, ‘blue sink’ programs, regenerative ag

  • expand USDA’s Conservation Stewardship Program

  • promote development of new, innovative products and technologies related to environmental protection, reduced carbon footprint

Trump/Pence:

  • against Green New Deal due to added costs and reduced income for farmers and added regulations

  • maintain existing conservation programs, including Conservation Stewardship Program, based on voluntary participation

  • encourage regenerative ag, soil and farm technology, and clean water

  • continue to support Renewable Fuel Standard program, including ethanol

Both parties maintain conservation efforts as a priority and state that ’sound science’ is highly important in addressing food and ag issues, but neither is anxious to define exactly what ’sound science’ is, other than a broad philosophic concept.

While Biden looks to increase funding on its zero-carbon emission goal, Trump focuses its funding on renewable energy sources and fuel alternatives.

Immigration

Biden/Harris:

  • take immediate action to undo policies regarding wall construction on U.S. and Mexico border

  • reassert a commitment to asylum-seekers and refugees and investigate the root cause of irregular immigration

  • reexamine relationships in Central American nations as part of plan to deter violence causing influx of refugees

  • create doorway for seasonal farm labor and migrant workers

  • address path to citizenship for undocumented workers

Trump/Pence:

  • continue funding for construction of a wall to differentiate nation’s border with Mexico

  • close legal loopholes that enable illegal immigration

  • end chain migration and eliminate visa lottery program

  • continue work on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and move to a more merit-based immigration plan

Biden would work to reverse the Trump administration’s U.S.-Mexico wall construction and instead focus on refugees and irregular migration from the southern border. Trump would maintain a strong process for legalizing immigrants, including the continuation of his work on DACA. In a continued effort to deter illegal immigration, construction would resume on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Summing it all up…

Biden & Harris’ platform proposes a larger and more aggressive role for the federal government in guiding the system through wide-ranging policies and programs that overlap with wider social, environmental, and other policy objectives.

Trump & Pence maintain a more traditional role for the government in creating an environment that rewards individual initiative and competitiveness in pursuing many of the same ultimate goals — economic growth, environmental protection and sustainability, adaptation to changing societal needs, and expectations of our modern food system.

Was this information helpful to you? We want to know!

Contact us on Facebook, Twitter, or via connect@dirt-to-dinner.com!

Posted on

Chlorinated Chicken: Public Health or Politics?


On the run? Listen to our post!

The United Kingdom says no to chlorinated chicken. But is their opposition based on science – or something else?

As I took my chicken breasts out of the package and put them in the baking dish, some of the chicken juice splashed into the sink. I dutifully scrubbed the sink and threw away the packaging, hoping no pathogens survived or dripped on the floor on the way to the garbage. I know I’m not the only one concerned about contamination in a food prep area. No one wants to get food poisoning.

To counter this concern, a small share of U.S. poultry processors use a mild sanitizing spray as the chicken pieces are getting washed which includes chlorine as part of their rigorous food safety procedures. Most scientists – as well as U.S. and even European food safety agencies — agree the practice poses no substantial health threat to people who consume the chicken.

But UK trade negotiators say ‘no’ to such a practice anyway, and use this reason to deny U.S. imports of lower-cost poultry into Great Britain. They argue such practices are inconsistent with the more stringent food standards they prefer. Better to focus on how poultry is grown, processed, and handled, they say. Focus on preventing a potential food safety problem more than on correcting it. to prevents E. Coli in cattle. U.S. trade officials say it’s just an excuse to close off an important export market for U.S. agriculture and to protect the UK industry.

As Mild as a Swimming Pool

On hearing some of the rhetoric in this debate, you would think U.S. chicken is coated in chlorine. That’s not the case.

We’ve all gone swimming in chlorinated pools.  It gets on our skin, goes in our mouth, and even up our noses. We certainly don’t mind that much because we know it’s cleaning the pool and for our overall benefit. Chlorinated water for sprays or rinses in chicken processing – much like the water in swimming pools and in many municipal water supplies – is used in only about 5 percent of processing plants, according to the National Chicken Council. Most of the chlorine used by the industry goes into cleaning and sanitizing equipment, not on chickens.

The industry makes much greater use of antimicrobial products to kill or inhibit the growth of bacteria and pathogens like salmonella. Used repeatedly and sequentially across the processing chain, these agents help minimize contamination and create a safety-first philosophy of seemingly redundant levels of sanitization.

It’s an important part of providing consumers with a safe supply of poultry.  If you eat undercooked chicken or other foods or beverages contaminated by raw chicken or its juices, you can get a foodborne illness, which is also called food poisoning.

To help consumers avoid microbes, chickens go through a ‘car wash’ where the industry routinely uses various FDA approved acidic washes in multiple stages of processing and chilling poultry, many with imposing and clinical names like paracetic acid (PAA), cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), and acidified sodium chlorite (ASC).

Food safety experts, however, warn against a natural tendency to look at such imposing names as somehow dangerous substances. PAA, for example, is nothing more than an organic compound of vinegar and hydrogen peroxide, used by the poultry industry in concentrations that make it less acidic than lemon juice. CPC is an antiseptic commonly found in toothpaste, mouthwash, and nasal sprays. In addition, bromine and diverse organic acids are sometimes used. The industry simply does not rely on one ‘magic bullet’ antimicrobial agent – or some terrifying chemical cocktail out of a teenage sci-fi horror movie.

In most cases, the antimicrobials are used in very minute quantities – generally parts per million.  The amount can be visualized as “an inch out of nearly 16 miles,” or as “one minute in almost two years.”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and the international Codex Alimentarius Commission all have found no serious threat from safe levels of chlorinated water or chlorine washes. Various university studies have drawn similar conclusions.

Reasons for UK and EU opposition

These approaches the U.S. uses to potentially reduce harmful food contamination seem to have worked well. But even with these science-based arguments behind the U.S. poultry industry, the European Union and the United Kingdom have banned imports of chlorinated poultry for almost 25 years. Politicians there dismiss the science – even from their food-safety related agencies and scientists. Their reasoning follows largely political lines.

The UK and the EU generally prefer to argue for a food safety system focused very strongly on avoidance of contamination, much more so than dealing with actual contamination. Food safety policy focuses on all aspects of how animals are raised, handled, processed, and delivered, even if that might make the production process less efficient than the U.S. model. Indeed, many opponents of chlorinated chicken are in fact fundamentally opposed to what they see as the “industrialized farming” of the United States.

The UK imports large volumes of poultry products – worth close to a half-billion dollars – each year, almost half from the Netherlands and much of the remainder from other EU-based nations. While UK poultry production continues to grow each year, demand has recently outstripped the industry’s ability to meet it. The importance of trade is clearly recognized in the UK, and apparently increasing – prompting hopes for progress in the continuing trade debate with the United States.

The argument against U.S. chicken imports reflects a desire to preserve and protect the rural nature of much of the UK and EU countryside, with maintenance of long-standing food-based segments of the economy. 

Poultry is just one front in an on-going war to guard against the demise of a valued way of life. 

Likewise, these opponents also often cite the humane aspects of their preferred approach as a strong reason for an adamant trade position. Critics sometimes allege the defense of science-based sanitary practices is in reality advocacy for “U.S.-style industrialized farming” practices that compromise not just a valued way of life but the safety of workers in these labor-intensive facilities as well.

Science or Protectionism?

Those favoring a more liberalized approach to poultry trade often call such arguments a “weak defense of outright trade protectionism” – the use of non-science-based reasoning to insulate a special interest from the global competition that drives higher productivity across the food system – greater savings for consumers, and better access to the food consumers want.

But with the UK facing an uncertain future with its largest historic trading partner – the European Union – there’s hope for some kind of breakthrough. One option talked about quietly behind the scenes would allow some imports of U.S. chicken, but with a hefty tariff attached. That would buy some time to gauge public reaction to the new food option – and its effect on the existing UK poultry industry – and the larger agricultural system.

Consumer Considerations

The United States exported about $4.5 billion in poultry and eggs in 2017, and is the second-largest provider of broiler meat for the international market, with exports exceeding $4 billion annually. Growing global demand for animal protein, rising dietary and health concerns, and relatively rapid production cycles make the industry ripe for further growth – and additional economic opportunity for those capable of serving the demand.

U.S. producers want access to every possible market. And in one important respect, so should American poultry consumers. The economic vitality that exports help make possible for poultry producers help provide the money for further investment in producing more of the animal protein the world increasingly demands – and in making that process yield the safe, wholesome, and affordable product that makes food contamination a much lower risk for everyone.  

What happens next? It’s up to us…

Our highly-regulated food system in the U.S. is designed to provide us with food we want, at a price we can afford, and to safely consume it without fear of contamination. But’s it’s our job at home to prepare our foods in a way that maintains those rigorous practices.

Nearly one in six Americans suffer from some form of food poisoning each year. And while most cases are generally mild, following a few sound safety steps can help make sure you and your family members don’t become victims. Want to read more on the safe handling of poultry? Read this.

Posted on

How COVID Affects Global GM Crops

Dirt to Dinner is pleased to introduce accomplished Ghanian agriculture journalist, Joseph Opoku Gakpo, to Dirt to Dinner. A 2016 Cornell Alliance for Science Global Leadership Fellow, Joseph contributes to the Multimedia Group Limited in Ghana, working with Joy FM, Joy News TV, and MyJoyOnline. He has a master’s degree in communications studies from the University of Ghana and is a member of the Ghana Journalists Association, where he was awarded the 2015 prize for Best Journalist in Poverty Alleviation Reporting for “Poor Millionaires,” his story about cocoa farmers. His main interest is telling the story of how farmers and rural residents struggle to survive, with the objective of bringing development to their communities.

The Dirt

The demand rising from COVID-19 has ramped up vaccines using various genetic modification technologies, but when it comes to agriculture, the inverse has been true. Covid significantly slowed down the global process to commercialize genetically modified (GM) crops, and no one feels it more than farmers in developing countries, like Kenya, Ghana, and Bangladesh, where significant progress quickly came to a screeching halt.

Although many countries have approved the fast track use of genetic modification in the production of COVID-19 vaccines, the contrary is the case when it comes to approvals for GM crops. Kenya, Ghana, and Bangladesh are some of the countries where efforts to get GM crops into the hands of farmers have either stalled, or timelines for approval been rescheduled because of COVID-19. Genetically engineered crops bring more food to a continent that struggles with food security. And these crops can grow with fewer pesticides, thus keeping us healthier while working in the fields.

“In Kenya, we have had regulatory delays in the continuation of the national performance trials on [insect-resistant] Bt maize,” Kenyan plant breeder Dr. Murenga Mwimali told Dirt to Dinner in an interview. “There were planned national performance trials in six sites in Kenya. However, with the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated lockdowns, the activities by all stakeholders were all stopped.”

Bt maize has been genetically modified to produce a protein -safe for humans and other animals-but can kill the destructive stemborer insects that destroy maize crops. Bt crops have been shown to reduce pesticide use. Bt maize also often contains traits for drought tolerance, which can help increase productivity on farms by at least 10%.

It is Essential to Continue Moving Forward

Dr. Mwimali is worried the situation with COVID-19 will push back the expected time frame for commercializing GM maize for use by Kenya’s farmers. It is already being grown in South Africa, as well as the United States, Brazil, and Argentina, among other countries.

“It takes about 100-150 days to gain [government] approval but now it is taking longer and longer given the many requirements for a team of regulatory institutions to sit and approve the processes,” Dr. Mwimali explained. “This [approval] period may now double and the food and nutrition security of more than 80 percent of smallscale farmers will continue to suffer.”

Stakeholders, however, remain confident things will change in the months ahead as COVID-19-related lockdowns ease. Recently, Kenya’s Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock and Fisheries, National Biosafety Authority, National Environment Management Authority, Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services, and other regulatory stakeholders have been meeting to brainstorm ways to proceed with the national performance trials on Bt maize.

“Despite the current COVID-19 situation, there is hope that the national performance trial activities on Bt maize will proceed with the teams observing the safety requirements by the Ministry of Health,” Dr. Mwimali said.

Dr. Rose Gidado, assistant director of the National Biotechnology Development Authority in Nigeria, said the situation there is no different. For some years now, the government has fast-tracked the adoption of GM crops and has approved Bt cotton and cowpea for commercialization.

Since last year, the multiplication of seeds has been ongoing to allow for the mass sale of GM seeds to farmers. But COVID-19 has slowed down activities so the farmer does not have access to the seeds. “The process is only affected by COVID-19 in terms of restricted movements, limited travels, and social distancing,” she told Dirt to Dinner. “You cannot do so much at this time. Things are moving at a slow pace.”

Dr. Gidado argues, however, that Nigeria needs GM crops now more than ever in the COVID-19 era.

“There is the need to step up production in order to measure up as well as prepare for the high demand for food in the country in the post-COVID-19 era,” Dr. Gidado said. “The potential for economic growth arising from the cultivation of genetically engineered crops in Nigeria is high with increased access to food, good health, and productivity. It will also attract foreign investments and earnings, leading to wealth creation.”

As the Nigerian government eases COVID-19 restrictions, work has begun to revive the GM crop commercialization processes. “We are still on track to produce GE cowpea,” she said. Insect-resistant cowpea is the country’s first GM food crop.

Complicated GMO regulations

The regulation of GM crops in much of the world is guided by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, an international agreement currently ratified by about 170 countries to ensure the safe use of living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology. The protocol requires that products arising out of technologies like genetic modification be regulated based on the precautionary principle, which requires that countries pause and review new technologies extensively before they are adopted.

A lot of countries have thus passed new legislation that lays out extensive, in-depth and complicated processes that need to be exhausted before GM crops are approved for use. When plant researchers finish breeding a new GM seed, it has to be taken through trials in confined areas, then contained trials on a fairly large scale. If it passes both of those reviews, then governments authorize an environmental release, which allows it to be grown by farmers in several areas of a country.

The next step is applying for commercialization so farmers can legally access and cultivate the seeds. It can take more than a decade, and tens of millions of dollars, to bring a GM crop to market.

In Ghana, efforts to allow for the commercialization of GM crops started more than 10 years ago but crystalized in 2011 with the passage of the National Biosafety Act to guide the process. In 2018, Ghanaian scientists completed field trials on the insect-resistant Bt cowpea, the country’s first GM crop variety. This GM crop is expected to help farmers dramatically reduce their use of pesticides, while also enjoying better yields of this important staple food. “When you look at the conventional seeds, you can spray as much as eight times (a season). But with the Bt, you spray only two times.

“Just the two sprays can confer resistance in Bt crops like the eight sprays in the conventional,” Dr. Mumuni Abdulai, principal investigator in charge of the Bt cowpea project, explained.

After years of additional background work following completion of tests on the varieties, scientists were hoping to zoom into the final approval processes by applying to the National Biosafety Authority for environmental release of the variety in the first half of 2020. But the process stalled as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. “The document is ready for submission. Everything is ready…if not because of COVID-19, we would have done it by now.”

Burkina Faso is the third West African country, apart from Ghana and Nigeria, that is working to get the Bt cowpea variety into the hands of farmers. Burkina Faso is hoping to use the GM cowpea project to re-establish itself as a nation that puts science first after its government halted the cultivation of Bt cotton in 2015. But the Bt cowpea approval process has slowed down there, just as in Ghana and Nigeria.

Farmers in Burkina Faso are calling on the government to fast-track the approvals for Bt cowpea in response to COVID-19. Burkina Faso farmer Wiledio Naboho said COVID-19 has negatively impacted production this year and farmers are counting on GM crops to help them increase productivity.

“Really, COVID-19 has impacted us as farmers negatively,” Naboho said. “First, it’s limited our access to quality seeds. And also, the few [seeds] we have are sold at a high price. Secondly, access to food is limited because of lockdown… So, COVID-19 came to add more sorrow to my people. I can tell a lot of families don’t have food to feed themselves.”

Of the 53 countries in Africa, only South Africa, Eswatini, and South Sudan farmers are currently growing GM crops commercially. More than 20 nations are currently undertaking trials on about eight GM crops, including banana, cassava, and maize, in preparation for their introduction into the food supply. The research and approval processes have slowed down in virtually all these countries as a result of COVID-19.

Situations elsewhere

The challenge in Africa is being experienced in Asia, as well. In the Philippines, the COVID-19 pandemic has added energy and vigor to the activities of anti-science groups campaigning against Golden Rice, a GM rice variety rich in vitamin A, a nutrient to prevent blindness and other serious health challenges in millions of children. In December 2019, the Philippines Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Plant Industry issued an official notice of permit approving Golden Rice for direct use in food, feed or processing.

In early August, the Stop Golden Rice Network launched its annual week-long line up of activities to protest plans to commercialize Golden Rice. “There are enough reasons to safely conclude that non-governmental organizations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth are exploiting the dire situation of our food system during COVID-19”, Mr. Cris Panerio, one of the coordinators of the campaign claimed, even though Golden Rice is a philanthropic endeavor.  Such re-invigorated campaigns linking COVID-19 and GM crops will make it more difficult for the authorities to introduce the lifesaving varieties.

In Bangladesh, following the success of genetically modified Bt brinjal (eggplant), the country is also researching Golden Rice, potatoes resistant to the devasting late blight disease and pest-resistant Bt cotton. Bt brinjal, which is the first GM crop developed by public sector scientists for farmers in South Asia, increased farmer income by $658 per hectare over the four years between 2014 and 2018. GM rice, potato, and cotton are expected to make an even higher and better impact on the population, but COVID-19 is now serving as a distraction against its approval.

“COVID-19 is having a grave impact in Bangladesh and soon we might have more positive cases than Italy. It has slowed down the whole system and our economy. So, the government has many burning priorities other than speeding up the process of research and development of Golden Rice and other biotech crops,” Arif Hossain, executive director of Farming Future Bangladesh, told Dirt to Dinner. “We hope that our research system will resume all its activities in full swing after this pandemic. But right at this moment, the government is giving priorities to production, mechanization, and market value chain, along with large scale subsidy programs for farmers and others engaged in agriculture.”

The opposite appears to be the case in some South American countries. Over the last few months, reports indicate that the transitional government in Bolivia has approved 5 GM crops, including sugar cane and cotton, as part of its efforts to boost agriculture during the pandemic. A pilot project for GM wheat is also being planned.

Since the outbreak of the pandemic in Mexico, a group of researchers at the Autonomous University of Nuevo León have begun work on using bioinformatics and computational genetic engineering to possibly produce a tomato that can deliver an edible COVID-19 vaccine. In the US, very little movement has been seen on the GM crop front since the pandemic broke. Europe continues to resist the technology, though the United Kingdom is considering its adoption as part of its break from the European Union.

Posted on

Learning to live with – or without – Ethanol *Click for poll results!*

For several decades, we have watched a sometimes animated debate about ethanol – the alcohol made from plants such as corn and sugarcane that the government has mandated we add to gasoline used by the cars and other vehicles we drive every day. We built a big processing industry to produce ethanol, mostly from the corn that the United States produces so well and so abundantly.

On the surface, it seemed to make a lot of sense. It used a renewable resource. It helped us reduce dependence on foreign oil imports. It was supposed to be good for the air and our environment. It helped prop up corn prices and injected a lot of money into the rural economy.

But over the years, I couldn’t help but have this not-so-vague sense that something might not be quite right. More and more scientists popped up to debate the so-called environmental benefits. Engineers warned of the effects of ethanol on machinery. Lower-cost petroleum costs made ethanol increasingly non-economic. Experts argued the whole system might have net energy costs more than net energy gains. In addition, producing ethanol costs more to the environment than saving it.

To add to my unease, it simply bothered me enormously that we were devoting four of every 10 acres of the corn we produce to feeding machines, not people or animals. I kept asking myself a lot of questions. Is ethanol still the right thing to do? Have changes in the world around us made ethanol less appealing and less practical? Am I being told the complete story, or only a story cranked out by a well-funded, aggressive PR machine?

What’s the real story behind ethanol today?

What is ethanol, anyway?

In simple terms, ethanol is a form of alcohol – a volatile liquid produced from the natural fermentation of sugars. It’s been around for literally thousands of years, often used as a recreational beverage – also known as moonshine. It’s made from a very wide variety of plants – anything containing the starch and cellulose that provide sugars for fermentation.

Sugarcane is a common source material in production of ethanol in South America and other locations.

But in America, by far the most common source is good old corn.

Several decades ago, with growing concern everywhere about both our dependence on foreign energy sources and the protection of our environment, lawmakers found a way to make corn a part of the public-policy response. Lawmakers rushed to bring a vibrant ethanol industry to life. Tax breaks, subsidies, grants, loan guarantees – all these and more emerged to stimulate ethanol production. Farmers responded by making investments in a productive capacity. Investors poured massive amounts of money into new processing plants, handling equipment, and other necessary production tools.

Today, the ethanol industry appears to be on shaky ground. Competing commodity prices made the raw material for ethanol processes that much less competitive, tightening their operating margins. Lower gas prices have cut demand for ethanol substantially. Production plants, key economic cornerstones of rural communities, are seeking new markets or new products to produce. Some are closing down, and many are up for sale.

At the same time, the United States has stepped up its energy independence with fracking and other energy-development initiatives. Pandemic stay-at-home orders added to the problem by drastically reducing gasoline demand. By April 2020, production had dropped by almost half from its peak earlier in the year. Almost a third of ethanol plants had shut down, and another third were operating on reduced schedules.

What’s the right future for ethanol?

Ethanol critics argue for radical change – or an end to the program. To critics, ethanol’s day has passed and we should be glad.

  • Ethanol is non-economic and a drain on taxpayers. Even in the heyday of our fight to reduce dependence on foreign oil imports, we still had to pay ethanol producers (not the farmers) tens of billions in all sorts of subsidies and incentives to keep them afloat.
  • With oil prices below the cost of ethanol, ethanol no longer lowers gas prices. Our domestic energy production picture and global markets tell us we don’t need to mandate the addition of a more expensive component to gasoline.
  • A 10-percent ethanol blend in our gasoline may actually hinder rather than help fuel economy. The biofuels industry has long claimed that the ethanol blend can boost mileage by 1-3 percent. But some reports – including figures from the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy – contend the 10-percent ethanol blend can reduce fuel economy by 3-4 percent, and a 15 percent blend by as much as 4-5 percent. We could be adding as much as $10 billion to the fuel bill for American consumers, according to the Institute for Energy Research.
  • The energy gains from ethanol are illusory. Some studies contend that it takes as much as 29 percent more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than to produce a gallon of gasoline. The energy needed to refine ethanol may be greater than the energy it delivers.
  • Ethanol artificially raises commodity prices, and the prices consumers pay for food. Analysts at the Congressional Budget Office estimate that consumers may pay an additional $3.5 billion for food as a result of the program and its effect on commodity prices.
  • It’s more about politics than anything else. The ethanol program had at its core a desire to provide an appealing economic opportunity for a group very important to politicians seeking rural votes, especially in key primary election states.

But there’s another side to the debate. Ethanol supporters challenge many of the criticisms and point to other critical considerations. Supporters of ethanol say the rural economy needs ethanol more than ever – and so do food consumers, even if they don’t realize it.

  • We’re in too deep to quit now. Our country has made massive commitments to the ethanol industry, in good faith. We have invested literally billions of dollars in plants and equipment, and in the production tools and systems we need to serve a huge market for a crop critical to farmers and our economy. Farmers have built ethanol into their production and marketing plans and their budgeting. We just can’t let that investment go down the tubes.
  • Farmers need a vibrant ethanol industry for their economic security. Rural communities need the money generated by the industry up and down Main Street America. Investors need to know they can continue to place their money – and faith – in building a multifaceted agricultural system.
  • The ethanol industry is about a lot more than energy. By-products from its production have multiple other uses – such as livestock feed additives, other forms of alcohol, and other potential fuels, not to mention things like hand sanitizer and disinfectants. There is more at stake here for consumers than just fuel for our cars and other vehicles.
  • Economic risks to farmers and rural America from Covid make ethanol more important than ever. We need to make the investment – government and taxpayer dollars – necessary to preserving this critical element of our farm economy. We need to do that just as much as we need to keep Main Street restaurants and other businesses alive during a pandemic, using the same government tools and resources. In comparison to what we are spending to deal with Covid-19, the ethanol program is small change.
  • The energy picture can change quickly. The global and national energy picture isn’t carved in stone. The fracking industry is on edge because of low prices. Oil markets are in turmoil. The global economy eventually will open up and begin growing again – and energy demand will grow with it.
  • We must protect our environment in every way we can. Cutting greenhouse emissions should be a priority, and ethanol can help us do exactly that. Ethanol has real, important advantages over petroleum, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 39 percent compared to those of traditional gasoline. That alone makes the industry worth special effort to preserve it.
  • We should exploit our natural advantages. Producing ethanol from corn is another way to exploit the natural advantage the United States has in producing corn. U.S. farmers are the most productive corn farmers in the world. Maintaining an ethanol industry just helps us use that capability to our advantage.
  • Consumers need the healthy farm sector ethanol helps provide. Ethanol provides the economic support needed to keep many of the 400,000 farmers who grow corn in business. It helps them make the necessary investments in producing crops critical to our food system, and in the technology and equipment needed to drive continuing improvements in operational efficiency – and the lower food costs that come with them.

So which way forward?

We asked what you thought is the best solution: maintain the current ethanol program…or disassemble it? Below are your responses, and some of you even offered some alternative solutions worthy of serious consideration. Stay tuned to see your ideas implemented into our next ethanol post…it’s already in the works.

Posted on

Coronavirus and Our Food: Should We Be Scared?

From its emergence in the food market of Wuhan, China in early 2020, the deadly COVID-19 continues to infect individuals around the world. While we all nervously monitor its spread, the global medical community is working frantically to find both a treatment and a vaccine.

As medical professionals find the answers they seek, Dirt-to-Dinner takes a look at what we already know about the coronavirus. What risks do Americans face? And what does the consumer need to know about the potential risks of going about daily life? Is our food safe? The answers we’ve found tell us to be careful – but not to panic when it comes to our food supply.

Is my food safe?

Health authorities note that it is possible to transmit the virus from a contaminated surface, such as a package or other object, if that object had been contaminated through direct contact with an infected person who had sneezed on or otherwise deposited droplets on the surface.

Current findings from the National Institutes of Health and CDC show that the virus causing COVID-19 can be stable on surfaces for up to four hours on copper, one day on cardboard, and up to three days on plastics and steel. For aerosols, the virus can be stable for up to three hours. However, bear in mind this is assessed from controlled lab conditions, making the aerosolized virus an unlikely cause for transmission, as reported by the CDC.

The most likely form of COVID-19 transmission is in droplet form, when the virus is airborne for a few seconds after someone sneezes or coughs. In this form, it can only travel a short distance before it lands on something (hence why we’re staying 6 feet away from people right now). So be mindful when you go grocery shopping and maintain a safe distance in those aisles as best you can.

As for surfaces, it’s good practice to thoroughly wash your hands after handling any items in or from public places, such as shopping carts, your mail, packages delivered to your doorstop, and – to be extra cautious – your food.

“We are not aware of any reports at this time of human illnesses that suggest COVID-19 can be transmitted by food or food packaging. However, it is always important to follow good hygiene practices…when handling or preparing foods.”

– U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

What can we do?

While coronavirus is not known to spread through our food, especially food that is cooked, it is wise to take grocery store precautions and while cooking. Here are some simple tips to keep your kitchen clean and your family healthy.

Wash your hands. Before the grocery store, when you get home, and after you have unpacked your groceries. You have heard this everywhere, but it can’t be said enough. If your hands are clean and you touch your face, you can’t contract COVID-19.

Wash your produce. You don’t know who has handled it before you brought it home. You don’t need to use soap – any virus or dirt will come off with just plain water. Don’t wait to wash your produce – wash it before you put it in your refrigerator or on your counter.

After you unpack your bags, wash your counter with soap and water.  You should probably do this anyway – but this keeps you extra vigilant. It is also wise to rinse off any containers that you are about to put in your refrigerator such as milk, yogurt, and ketchup with soap and water. If you forgot this step and are thinking about the food in your refrigerator, then wash your hands after using what was in the carton. Keep your shelves washed every once in a while, as well.

Cook your food to the appropriate temperature. Use a meat thermometer. Heat is going to quickly kill the virus.

How does coronavirus spread?

Health officials admit they have much to learn about how coronavirus COVID-19 spreads. But based upon experience with other viruses, some basic facts are known.

First and foremost, this virus is spread through direct contact with an infected person, and most often through the respiratory system. Much like the flu or a bad cold, people are contaminated by “respiratory droplets” – a polite term for being sneezed or coughed on, or being in close enough proximity to inhale the virus. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) warns that the virus is spread by “close contact” with an infected person – meaning “about six feet.”

Some health officials also warn against touching your eyes, nose or other mucous surfaces if your hands have been contaminated by droplets.

While the transmission mechanism may seem straightforward enough, it’s not always easy to spot who may be carrying the virus – and who may simply have a cold or flu. While medical experts dive deeper into transmission factors and other aspects of COVID-19, the safest course would seem to be to avoid close contact with anyone showing signs of a respiratory condition or problem. And definitely don’t shake the hand of an infected person and then touch any of your own mucous surfaces.

What happens next?

While the dangers of COVID-19 are undoubtedly real and significant to people everywhere, health experts point to a number of reasons to avoid panic.

First, there is widespread agreement among the global community for a collaborative effort to contain spread of the virus, primarily through careful control of travel from where the virus is known to exist.

Also, information about the virus is being aggressively shared across the world. One of the best tools to combat the virus is a better understanding of what to look for to spot the disease, and how to avoid risk of contamination.

And just as important, there is a concerted effort among the scientific, academic, governmental and health communities to pool knowledge and resources to combat the problem. While there is much to learn about COVID-19, painful experience with pernicious coronaviruses has helped us learn a great deal to execute an effective response. As much work as remains to be done in developing comprehensive treatment regimens and potential vaccines, we’re not starting from ground zero.

What should I do?

Practice simple but effective basic health routines.

And don’t be afraid of your food.

  • Continue to eat the foods you enjoy – and enjoy the foods you eat!
  • Thoroughly wash and cook your foods 
  • Maintain a healthy diet to keep your immune system strong

And remember, there is little to no evidence that you can get COVID-19 by eating food. It is a respiratory illness and contagion spreads through mucous droplets. 

Posted on

2 Trade Deals and Plant Food in a Pear Tree: Top News in 2019

This year’s reporting sets the stage for some tough discussions for the ag industry to what no doubt will be a series of challenges in 2020 – and beyond. Though it seems out of our hands, we as consumers have serious pull here based on our purchase decisions. And for the future of food and agriculture at large.

Overview

“Gee, that’s a tough one. So much happened it’s almost impossible to pick just a few!”

2019 has been jam-packed with news headlines affecting our choices in food, the well-being of our farmers, and how new technologies will disrupt the industry. Every day, we’ve heard and read about…

  • Throughout the year, farmers remained highly focused and surprisingly hopeful on trade issues, especially involving China and our North American trading partners
  • African swine fever is reshaping entire markets, with the virus resulting in 40% of the global pig population to be culled
  • The ongoing RoundUp trial regarding glyphosate has enormous implications for farm production, Bayer’s balance sheet, and legal stakes with human health
  • Investment in ag technology has exploded in areas such as big data, precision farming, and food supply transparency, with all sorts of new doors opening for all parts of the food system
  • And the rapid developments in genetic engineering, such as GMOs, CRISPR, and synthetic biology, have created an ongoing debate over their regulation worldwide
  • A focus on soil health and other dimensions of ‘regenerative agriculture’ has become more critical for the health of future harvests
  • Claims and counter-claims have been made about finding the right balance between a healthy diet and best use of natural resources for our global health
  • Food labeling requirements have gathered steam as consumers drive greater demand for transparency along the entire supply chain
  • Food insecurity once again is on the rise around the world, as the United Nations reports

So, how do you pick from that hefty list? Here’s my attempt to weed out the most critical issues as we come into 2020. Take a look at my countdown and let me know your thoughts on Facebook or Twitter!

#4. Food Safety.

The African Swine Flu swept through Asia and decimated the pig population. There are 770 million domestic pigs on various farms worldwide – at least 300 million have died. That is a lot of pigs to bury. China was hit the hardest as they have 440 million pigs – almost half of which have been affected. This does not only have implications for the hog farmers, but it shows how quickly a virus can spread around the world.

Food safety and animal welfare are critical components here:

  • How can we improve the quarantine process for animals and poultry?
  • Will the African Swine Flu virus spread? What are the implications?
  • Will the reduced pork supply change our buying habits? If so, what other forms of protein are we likely to eat?

This is an incredible amount to think about as we head into the new year, and we are only on the first point!

 #3. Weather alert.

When a 95-year-old corn and beans farmer in Central Illinois, who is still farming the 1,500 acres he owned since the 1920s, says he can’t remember a worse spring for planting in seven decades of farming, we all should pay attention. Add lingering wet conditions to the mix, and you have the prescription for significant harvest delays and losses – we’re talking up to half of last year’s corn and soybean crop levels in parts of the upper Midwest.

Bad weather is nothing new for farmers, of course. But the extent and severity of this year’s bad conditions caused huge damage, disrupted lives and entire communities, and only complicated the production picture for farmers already reeling from steady income declines.

Maybe more significantly, these reports may prove to be harbingers of the bigger questions yet to come for agriculture about climate change:

  • Will consumers accept seed technology and gene editing to help crops grow in wetter, cooler, drier, and/or drought conditions?
  • Can the four-row crops, canola, soybeans, cotton, and corn, be modified to grow in new climate regions?
  • Are there specialized crops that are more adaptable to varied climates?
  • What technologies and farming practices will be implemented to keep our soil secure? No-till farming and cover cropping quickly come to mind here.

And focusing on farmers is just a piece to a much larger puzzle. The right response to climate change involves all industries: from the municipalities, to the golf course, to the housing developer and homeowner, and beyond.

#2. It’s all about the trade.

I wish I had a dime for every time the word “China” appeared in a farm-related story this year. By now, we’ve all figured out just how important China is to U.S. agricultural interests – not just soybean producers, but a lot of other growers, suppliers, and people along the supply chain, too.

That political football has been kicked around all year, with a fair amount of optimism with China’s agreement to buy $50 billion in agricultural goods, up from $23.8 billion in 2017 (52% of which was comprised of soybeans). We hope to get this all sorted out so we can get back to normal in a huge and growing trade relationship.

Finalized on December 10th, the USMCA (U.S.- Mexico-Canada Agreement), formerly NAFTA, was a win for American agriculture. Canada and Mexico are integral to our trade health, as these countries are the U.S.’s first and third largest export markets for food and ag, respectively. Together, this equals about 28% of total food and ag exports in 2017. The USMCA is anticipated to increase US ag exports by $2 billion. Even though NAFTA was a free trade zone, there were still some tariffs and quotas.

The new USMCA will be a win for U.S. dairy farmers, as this agreement will open up opportunities for milk products such as cheese, cream, and yogurt. It will also expand U.S. poultry and egg market access to Canada. Mexico and the U.S. will have the same grading standards for ag products. Finally, the three countries will have the same sanitary standards, based on science as well as agricultural biotechnology and gene editing.

As Trump pushes forward with success on these fronts, it still brings forward new questions for the future:

  • What will China buy to reach $50 billion? More soybeans?
  • Will trade always be used as a leverage point between the U.S. and other countries?
  • How can we protect the U.S. while still ensuring we have global fair trade?
  • Will we have other multilateral agreements such as USMCA?
  • Will China’s theft of intellectual property continue to occur?

#1. Plant-based protein.

I used to call it “alternative meat,” but the story is a lot bigger than that now. Plant-based meats, eggs, fish, milk, leather, and even collagen for your skin, are here to stay. The speed with which companies like Beyond Meat and Memphis Meats gathered steam (and investor dollars) absolutely amazed me in 2019.

According to AgFunder, ‘The alternative meat market sales growth is expected to grow from $4.6 billion in 2018 to $140 billion ten years from now, growing to 10% of the total meat market.’

But let’s put this in perspective: the total animal products industry in 2018 was close to $2.23 trillion and is expected to grow to $3 trillion by 2025. There is plenty of opportunity for all types of protein producers. But I never would have expected to be deluged with fast-food ads on television pushing exciting new vegetable-based burgers, or to see so many people willing to give it a try.

To me, that’s surprising, but in a very good way: consumers should have a choice. They should be able to choose products that meet their tastes and align with their values.

If someone wants to eat a veggie burger or a meat product produced in a lab, for health reasons, for environmental concerns, for moral values, so be it. Just don’t tell me that I have to eat one or the other. Let me choose. But let me choose facts, not marketing. Let the markets work.

As more and more consumers indicate their preference for plant-based foods, what implications does this have?

  • Are consumers getting the facts about meat and dairy, or is it marketing?
  • As consumers move away from meat, how are they getting their daily recommended protein requirements?
  • Demand for plants and meat will rise as our population grows. How do global producers sustainably meet demand?
  • What kind of labeling information does the consumer require to make an educated choice?

This is a profoundly important story about how responsive our food system is proving to be. Consumer tastes and preferences are changing as society changes around us. That should surprise no one. But the story of how fast and how well the food system can recognize that change and accommodate it is indeed newsworthy and earns my number one spot for the Top Food and Ag story of 2019. It will be fascinating to see where the story goes from here.

Posted on

5 Surprising Facts about Our Organic Foods

Did you know that vitamin C doesn’t cure the common cold? And that Twinkies don’t last forever – they’re only fresh for around 25 days? And that gum doesn’t stay in your gut for 7 years – it passes through just like everything else? These myths have been proven false by credible institutions.

So, in this age of transparency and information, how can we still believe so many falsehoods?

There’s another big misconception in the food industry. And with two kids and a goal to prepare nutritious foods for us this holiday season, I decided to closely examine what it means when a food is labeled “organic”. Is it really worth splurging for that organic heritage turkey and finding herbs and vegetables locally grown on organic farms to prepare and season our dishes?

What I’ve found when asking what “organic” means to people is that it’s a very contentious term with very strong opinions. It means many different things to different people: pesticide-free, GMO-free, small local farms, nutrient-dense, richer soil…the list goes on.

For many, choosing organic foods is an emotional decision. Mintel reports that most of us purchasing “natural” or “organic” products don’t fully understand the nuances of these claims, but just feel better about buying them, for one reason or another. This leads to most of us purchasing these products for our family while not knowing precisely why, besides a broad feeling of moral obligation.

So, despite its perceived flexibility in definition, what makes a food officially “organic” in the U.S. is not as wholly-encompassing as many of us think it is.

So what does “organic” really mean, then?

In its simplest terms, organic foods must be produced while protecting natural resources, conserving biodiversity, and cultivated with no genetic engineering or ionizing radiation and with mostly natural pesticides and fertilizers.

For a food to be considered “organic”, it requires the approval of the United States Department of Agriculture’s Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS). The overarching purpose of the AMS is to create worldwide marketing opportunities for U.S. producers of food, fiber, and specialty crops while also ensuring the quality and availability of applicable food products.

In addition to the National Organic Program, the AMS oversees a variety of other programs affecting our food and ag system, including food quality protection, hemp production and country of origin labeling. With the U.S. organic industry under the scrutiny of the AMS, all such foods must be produced using their approved methods, whether it is grown in the U.S. or another country.

So now we understand that organic foods can’t be genetically engineered nor cultivated with popular synthetic pesticides, like Roundup. But what about other claims, like “pesticide-free”, “clean”, “locally-farmed”, “grass-fed”, and all those other terms that are tossed about when thinking of organic food? Let’s take a closer look.

Organic food can have pesticides?

Contrary to popular belief, organic foods have pesticides, whether used directly on the crops or not. Organic foods can be treated with pesticides from the USDA’s approved substances list, which includes products like copper sulfate and hydrogen peroxide. Though organic farmers mostly use natural pesticides on their crops, there are synthetic pesticides approved for use on organic crops, as well. Also, the USDA reports that pesticide residues are found on both organic and conventional crops alike in its Pesticide Data Program, but all crops are held to regulations governing safe consumption levels.

Aren’t organic foods locally farmed?

Just as conventional farms have larger and smaller operations throughout the country, so do organic farms. In fact, many larger farms have both organic and conventional operations. Because of this flexibility, it is awesome that we can find both conventional AND organic raspberries on our grocery shelves in the dead of winter. An amazing feat!

Organic foods are also imported into the U.S. every day from countries all over the world. All farms exporting their organic products to the U.S. must also be organically certified according to the USDA organic regulations. Though not all organic products indicate their country of origin, the products must still comply with the U.S. National Organic program.

How about only grassfed and no drugs?

Contrary to popular belief, organic livestock can indeed be raised in a feedlot; purchasing organic meat does not guarantee grass-fed or grass-finished animals. However, the USDA organic seal on meats does mean a few other things that may be important to you.

For instance, organic livestock must be raised and must have year-round access to the outdoors. They must also be fed an all-organic diet (which can include organic grains), and may not be given antibiotics or hormones. However, they can receive vaccines for disease prevention and a handful of approved drugs, like pain and deworming medications.

It’s important to note that, for the U.S., hormones are prohibited for use on all chickens, turkeys, and pigs – whether organic or not. So if you’re buying your family organic chicken tenders only to avoid added hormones, save your money and buy conventional chicken! Furthermore, almost all dairy cows, both organic and conventional, don’t receive additional hormones, like rBST.

But at the least, aren’t organic foods better for us and the environment?

Many of us assume that organic foods are better for our bodies than their conventional counterparts. However, a consensus has not been formed by the scientific community on this hypothesis, as many studies have had inconsistent research parameters, such as too small of sample size to apply to a larger population.

Of particular note, several studies have shown that those eating organic foods more frequently are less likely to be overweight and have heart disease, but it turns out they were more likely to practice healthier diet and exercise choices, in general.

But you know what’s definitely better for all of us? Eating a fresh salad instead of a bowl of Annie’s organic and grass–fed mac & cheese! No offense to Annie’s – my kids are obsessed with their shells with white cheddar 😉 But the answer is to just eat lots of veggies, no matter how they’re grown!

There’s another big issue here that’s not as black and white as “organic” or “conventional”. If nutrient-rich soil is of utmost importance for you, then you’ll need to do some research and look into the farms growing your produce. As stewards of the land, good farmers – whether of organic or conventional crops – take great care of their soil, crops and livestock, which is the most integral part in creating healthy, wholesome foods.

Thinking about it a different way, let’s say you lease a modestly-priced, mid-range SUV for your family, while your neighbors, the Joneses, purchase a top-of-the-line, luxury SUV. Darn those Joneses! Three years later, when the lease is up, you’re eager to trade in your car because you’ve taken such good care of it. However, your neighbors have significantly damaged their once-sweet ride and must suffer the consequences. It’s not the model of the car, or the type of farm, that matters…it’s the owner – the farmer.

I hope this has been enlightening for you as doing this research was for me. It’s definitely opened my eyes to how easily we make decisions based on marketing and misperceptions without thinking about what’s really important – our ongoing health and wellness that can only be achieved by making sound dietary choices.

For my family and me, that means paying less attention to gimmicky food labels and simply just eating tons more fresh fruits and veggies, organic or not.

Posted on

How Blockchain is Disrupting the Ag Supply Chain

Consider the lone chicken.

The modern poultry farm is a vast and complex place, a maze of houses, yards and transportation centers that can easily support more than 14,000 animals at a time. All part of an industry that raises more than 50 billion chickens annually.

But, even in such a large space, there are reasons to pay attention to each individual chicken. Maybe we want to keep track of what that bird was fed over the course of its lifetime. Maybe we need to maintain a record of the antibiotics it was given (or not given) and its associated disease history. Maybe we simply want to prove to the end consumer exactly where that chicken came from and how it was raised.

Because the path from farm to plate today is far from a straight line.

The poultry supply chain starts in the coop: when that chicken is hatched it begins its life on the farm. Then, over the course of the next three to five months, it grows into a mature bird, packing on several pounds of new weight and prepares for harvesting.

At that point, its time on the farm is over and it enters the production chain. Depending on what it will eventually be used for – maybe it will be sold as a whole broiler, or maybe it will be broken up into individual parts, or maybe it will be turned into something entirely different – the chicken is sent to a production facility, processed and sent on its way to the retailer. That retailer, also known as your local grocer, is the last step in the chain, finally delivering that chicken to the end consumer.

That’s a very high-level overview, and even at that level, there are a lot of moving pieces in the process that can cause problems.

Maybe that chicken was not raised in an organic manner but ends up on the wrong truck to be sold as an organic broiler.

Maybe it was fed a high-quality, low-grain diet that cost the poultry farmer extra, but that fact didn’t earn them anything extra at the sale because they couldn’t prove it to the wholesaler.

Or maybe that chicken contracted a disease somewhere along the way that went unnoticed, and it ended up being combined with healthy chickens from elsewhere and contaminating them as well.

Whatever the case, the industry has a problem. It needs a way to accurately and securely track and monitor the entire supply chain, and it needs to be scalable to handle the needs of one of the largest logistical operations in the world. After all, agriculture, on the whole, is a massive industry worth $1 trillion and accounting for 5.4% of U.S. GDP in 2017.

The solution is waiting in a somewhat unlikely place.

A new frontier for technology

The last few years might as well be renamed “the age of blockchain.”

What was, until fairly recently, a subject only well known among tech enthusiasts and cryptocurrency buffs burst into the mainstream in the fall of 2017, during Bitcoin’s epic run-up to $19,000 and beyond.

Seemingly overnight, everyone suddenly had an opinion on cryptocurrencies and the obscure technology underpinning them. Because that’s how blockchain technology got its start in 2009: as the fundamental technology on which the cryptocurrency market is built. Blockchain is defined as: “a digital database containing information (such as records of financial transactions) that can be simultaneously used and shared within a large decentralized, publicly accessible network.”

Essentially, it’s a way to digitally prove who you are and what you have that’s permanent and cannot be altered or forged. The information is recorded on a public ledger to ensure transparency.

When applied to cryptocurrencies, this functionality is very straightforward. Blockchain is a way for me to prove to you that I have the coins I say I do and, when I send them to you, is a verifiable way for you to prove that value has been transferred to you.

But blockchain has other applications across industries that are just starting to come to the surface.

For example, banks are using the technology to better facilitate cross-border financial transfers and speed up digital transactions. Western Union, for instance, has been using blockchain to power its money transfers for more than a year.

IBM is using it to create iron-clad “digital identities” and prevent identify theft.

And governments are even using it to improve public services and crackdown on crime.

But it’s in agriculture that the true power of blockchain technology might fully come to life, enabling all of the tracking and security measures that the industry has been working on for years while simultaneously stepping up to meet today’s consumer demands.

Adapting to a more engaged consumer

“The industry has been moving toward traceability for years, with the advent of natural and organic and so on and so forth,” explains Steve Sands, VP of Protein at Performance Food Group (PFG), one of the largest food distributors in the U.S. “But most of those systems were affidavit based, so they were only as good as the guy who signed the piece of paper saying, ‘I raised my animal this way.’”

That worked for a while, but in the face of new customer expectations and tastes, it just wasn’t enough.

“For us as a food distributor, we want to make sure that the brands that we own are infallible in those claims,” Sands says, “and that led us to introduce an extra layer of infallibility, or auditability, to ensure that we weren’t making claims that we couldn’t back up. In a $20-billion company like PFG, you better be doing what you say you’re doing.”

– Steve Sands, VP of Protein at Performance Food Group

Over the years, PFG has developed a number of processes to help make this a reality, establishing verifiable standards for the farmers it worked with, auditing the records, tracking the DNA of the animals it was purchasing and more. Blockchain is a natural evolution of these efforts.

“I think [blockchain] has different applications for different food products,” he explains, “so it might be better suited to things like produce that travel through the supply chain largely intact but may go through many different hands before ending up at a restaurant.”

That’s opposed to something like a 550-pound animal carcass that will be cut up into hundreds of different products and then combined with hundreds of other products before being shipped out. In those cases, DNA might be a better tool, but blockchain still addresses a need.

“Where blockchain would come in handy is on the live side, because that live animal may trade several times before it gets to the point of slaughter,” Sands says. “Typically, a cow-calf operation is going to try to sell that animal once it’s weaned, and off to a rancher who will put it on grass and let it grow for a year before selling it off to a feedlot. Every time that animal changes hands, blockchain would be very useful because it would be a way to maintain that chain of custody without having to go to the expense of DNA at every step, which you really can’t do.”

And PFG is far from alone in this.

IBM has teamed up with companies including Dole, Driscoll’s, Kroger, Nestle, Tyson, and Unilever on the so-called IBM Food Trust, which is leveraging IBM’s computing platform to improve data traceability and speed up results for all involved. According to reports, the time it takes to trace an individual item from a grocer’s shelf to the field where it was produced has been trimmed from seven days to as little as 2.2 seconds, enabling companies to quickly identify and isolate contaminated supply chains and issue recalls in real-time.

Starbucks is working on a new “bean to cup” program that’s built on the blockchain to promote ethical sourcing in the coffee industry.

French retail chain Carrefour in 2018 launched what it called Europe’s first food blockchain in order to track the one million-plus free-range chickens it sells in its stores every year, with plans to extend the technology to 8 more animal and vegetable product lines in the coming year.

And last Thanksgiving, Cargill expanded its popular “blockchain for turkeys” program to 30 states, offering consumers direct access to information about 200,000 turkeys from 70 farms under its Honeysuckle White brand.

What’s next?

If that is any indication, the potential applications of blockchain technology are broad and the industry is just beginning to scratch the surface. From traceability to verification, to sourcing, quality and more, blockchain stands to revolutionize not only the agriculture supply chain, but what consumers can expect from it going forward.

But questions remain, according to Christophe Uzureau, a blockchain and token analyst with Gartner and the co-author, along with Gartner colleague David Furlonger, of the book “The Real Business of Blockchain: How Leaders Can Create Value in a New Digital Age,” which discusses the pitfalls and possibilities of the technology for businesses.

“Today we’re at the stage of adoption where we’re reaching critical mass,” he says, “so now we need to complete the blockchain in order for it to reach its full potential. We’re moving in that direction, but we’re still only likely to see maturity post-2020, or more likely 2023.”

– Christophe Uzureau, Gartner analyst

In Uzureau’s view, there are five elements that need to be in place before blockchain can truly revolutionize the ag supply chain: trust, distribution, encryption, tokenization, and specialization, all of which the industry has up and running in at least their early stages. The next step, then, is what he calls the “enhanced blockchain,” which is when the technology gets fully integrated with existing ag system, including Internet of Thing (IoT) sensors, artificial intelligence and more.

“That’s the fundamental next step,” he says, “and it’s clearly a challenge, but the potential for what it could mean for the supply chain could be very big. Farmers today have many different sensors and capture lots of data. By bringing all of that information today and using it to make better decisions about the supply chain, even the smallest players in the market could contribute directly to the whole system. It would revolutionize what the supply chain can do.”

Now imagine reconnecting with that lone chicken in your grocery store. On its packaging label, you see a QR code. With your phone, you scan the code and immediately see the chicken’s farm, feed and medical information – the power of blockchain demonstrated for consumers and processors alike.

Posted on

Back to Business: D2D News Recap

Glyphosate Wars Continue to Rage

The battle over the potential health risks of glyphosate – the key ingredient of the popular weed killer, Roundup – saw new developments that seemed helpful to both sides in the debate. The number of U.S. civil lawsuits against Roundup’s parent company (Monsanto, later acquired by Bayer AG) has grown to 18,400 – a number prompting courts in California to consolidate various actions into class-action suits and multi-court district litigation. Initial jury awards in the hundreds of millions of dollars have been lowered afterward by judges reviewing the cases. But Bayer reportedly has offered to pay as much as $8 billion to settle the outstanding claims. The company also welcomed the Environmental Protection Agency’s following announcement:

“It is irresponsible to require labels on products that are inaccurate when the EPA knows the product does not pose a cancer risk,” said EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler. “It is critical that federal regulatory agencies like EPA relay to consumers accurate, scientific-based information about risks that pesticides may pose to them.”

However, California officials said they will maintain their labeling requirement.

FAO Food Security Report Offers Grim News

The Food and Agriculture Organization at the United Nations released its annual assessment of global food security, highlighted by the grim news that the number of people facing food insecurity rose again for the third straight year. For more than a decade, the number had been declining amid a collective effort to deal with the problem by member nations. But the 2019 FAO report estimates the number of people without enough nutrition rose to 822 million – over 10% of the planet.

Poor economic conditions attracted much of the blame, but continuing episodes of natural disaster and disruption to local food production, political instability, outright conflict, and displaced populations also drew attention. In contrast, the report also noted the still-significant role played by obesity in contributing to global malnutrition.

Further Evidence of Weather Woes

The lingering effects of wet weather in key U.S. agricultural areas resulted in almost 20 million acres of cropland going unplanted this spring, according to reports from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). That’s the largest “prevented planting” area since the USDA began collecting such data back in 2007. Despite this, other USDA crop production estimates point to robust crops this year for most major commodities. Soybean farmers, beset by the ongoing trade dispute between the United States and China, are expected to cut production by a whopping 19% as they shift to planting more of other crops, notably corn. USDA continues to predict modest overall food price increases for the year.

FDA Cautions Against Certain Pet Foods

As Dirt to Dinner previously reported, growing concerns with the adverse health effects of certain pet foods have attracted the attention of the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA has now issued a consumer advisory on the issue, naming several specific dry dog food products and launching a recall of products found to have toxic levels of vitamin D. To see the complete list of products covered by the alert, please visit this site.

Like We Also Said….

Following our recent post on the emergence of aquatic dead zones in the U.S. Gulf and other locations, the Trump Administration has spoken out about plans to use $100 million already authorized by Congress to fight “red tide” – the toxic algae bloom blamed for damage to fishing, recreational activities, and aquatic wildlife, notably in many Florida waters. Local authorities and water-related interests welcomed the attention called to the issue, despite the political overtones of the discussion. Red tide has played havoc with commercial and recreational fishing in some areas and made swimming in contaminated areas a very risky proposition.

Brexit Prompts Another Salvo in Debate over Genetic Engineering

British and European officials continue to trade barbs as the Oct. 31 deadline approaches for the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union. New UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson added to the fun by distancing his government from last summer’s gene-editing ruling by the European Court of Justice imposing stringent regulatory requirements. Many believe this “CRISPR” approach to genetics holds the key to the rapid development of better plant varieties that will increase food production and enhance food security.

Johnson recently promised “…to liberate the UK’s extraordinary bio-science sector from anti-genetic modification rules and…develop the blight-resistant crops that will feed the world.”

UN Climate Report Urges Attention to Ag Production

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has jumped on the growing effort to curtail the role of modern eating habits and the global agricultural production system in contributing to what it warned could be “climate change-induced environmental catastrophe.”

In a report issued this summer, the panel of international scientists observed that “Earth’s climate is entering a qualitatively different stage.” Adding insult to injury, the IPCC claims that current ag practices misuse resources and actually make global warming worse, creating a “vicious cycle” that makes food more expensive, scarcer and less nutritious. So far leaders of major farm and food organizations have avoided substantive public comment on the report.

So what solutions does the report offer? One big idea: consuming less meat (especially red meats) and more plant-based foods. Other suggestions include more environmentally-friendly tillage techniques and more targeted use of fertilizers, coupled with serious efforts to reduce food waste. Such efforts would cut greenhouse gas emissions and make better use of precious natural resources, the experts concluded.

A Tax on Traditional Meats?

The broad subject of meat alternatives – both plant-based and cultured cell products – doesn’t seem to be losing any steam across the news media. Stories abound of efforts by fast-food chains and independent restaurants to add meat alternatives to their menus, including novel new offerings such as an “Impossible Burger” and a “Beyond Meatball Marinara.” Who would have thought these products would push us toward meat taxation?

A sign of the economic steam behind this emerging food product category might be in comments from government officials about the need to add taxes to the competitive mix. A study lead by Dr. Marco Springmann of the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food estimated there will be 2.4 million deaths due to red and processed meat consumption by 2020.

Governments with socialized medicine might also be licking their chops to recoup the estimated $285 billion in health care costs. German politicians have suggested an increase in taxes on traditional meats, from today’s 7% to upwards of 19%, with Sweden, The Netherlands and Denmark considering similar taxation practices.

And to Wash It Down…

The Natural Hemp Company has announced launch of a CBD-infused sparkling water for people with an active lifestyle, creatively positioned as “the Gatorade of CBD beverages.” The product is called Day One CBD Sparkling Water and claims to have no sugars, calories or carbohydrates. The company didn’t elaborate on what constitutes an appropriate “active lifestyle.”

Posted on

Packing Social Concerns in the Lunchbox

Dirt to Dinner is excited to feature Dr. Sarah Evanega’s post on our site. Dr. Evanega earned her PhD in plant biology and science communications from Cornell University, where she now directs the Alliance for Science and serves as Senior Associate Director of International Programs in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. She resides in Ithaca with her husband and three young children.

The Cornell Alliance for Science works to ensure global access to life-improving agricultural innovations that can shrink farming’s footprint, deliver food security, reduce the drudgery of field work that often falls on women and children, provide rural families with sufficient income to educate their children, and inspire young people to pursue a career in agriculture and science.

As a child, I highly anticipated the return to school, the thrilling day when my siblings and I headed over to campus to pay our fee and look on the bulletin board to see which teacher we were assigned to and which of our friends would join us in class. The hallways had a distinct smell that we barely noticed during the school year and nearly forgot over the summer break, which meant the odor of paper and gymnasium hit us hard as we walked in the front door after months away. Back to school meant buying supplies, the hope of getting a Trapper Keeper with a cool design, and maybe even a new pair of jeans or shoes.

Today, as a mom of three young kids, back to school means shifting from the laid-back rhythm of summer to a tightly tuned schedule of early-to-bed, early-to-rise, the regularity of dinner, bath and bedtime books, and early mornings. After the coffee is on, I pull out three lunch boxes and face the challenge of packing lunches that will both appeal to my kids and my sense of what’s healthy and socially just.

As I pull together sandwich fixings, carrot sticks and fruit, I’m aware that our well-stocked refrigerator and cupboards are a luxury that many families throughout the world do not share: that my choice of what to pack, and what to leave out, is not available to the millions who struggle with the hunger and poverty that accompanies failed crops. I know my children won’t have to skip school to hand-weed the family’s fields or miss class entirely because a miserable harvest left no extra money to pay tuition.

As a plant scientist who works in international programs at Cornell University, I’m fully aware that fussing over the ever-growing list of food items restricted in schools is very much a “first-world” problem, as are the half-eaten apples and the sandwich crusts my kids bring back home at the end of the day. Hunger, the frequent companion of far too many children in developing nations, always trumps the pickiness that leads to food waste.

I know that many other American parents share my concern about hungry children, others and our own, and that they want to see a world that’s just. But because of my job, I know something they may not—that technology exists to solve some of the problems that face us all…

I’m talking about using genetic engineering to improve crops, boost the livelihoods of smallholder farm families, enhance nutrition, reduce climate change impacts, even remove the pesky protein that makes the classic PB&J sandwich an unwelcome allergenic addition to lunch boxes across the country.

Yes, the same technology that can reduce the use of pesticides in crops can also render peanuts hypoallergenic. The same technology that can eliminate the need for nitrogen fertilizers that generate greenhouse gases can keep cut apples from browning. The same technology that can add essential nutrients like vitamin A to staple foods like bananas and rice can silence the gluten proteins that make life miserable for those with celiac disease.

Sadly, this technology has been pushed to the sidelines, dismissed as a dirty three-letter word: GMO. Never has a plant breeding technique been so reviled, so falsely accused of everything from solidifying corporate control over the food supply to making people sick. The demonization of this technology funds numerous NGOs and has even become a cottage industry of sorts. American supermarkets are filled with products that bear the badge of misinformation—the trademark butterfly of the “non-GMO verified” label. This marketing ploy tricks consumers into believing GMOs are somehow bad, and so they should pay more for products without them — even products like salt and water, for which there is no GM equivalent. Sorry—those tricks don’t work on scientist moms like me. And they shouldn’t work on you.

As Americans, our ideologies and shopping habits reverberate around the world. And when we say no to GMO, we’re simultaneously depriving smallholder farmers and consumers in developing nations from exercising choice about what to grow, what to eat. Or in too many cases, about whether they will eat.

Would you say no to GMO if you knew it could save orange trees from the devastation of citrus greening disease, bananas from the scourge of wilt, crops from succumbing to drought or cattle to heat? Would you push it away if you knew this technology could help keep cacao, the primary ingredient in chocolate, from going extinct?  Would you get on board if you knew it meant that kids could safely munch a bag of peanuts without risking anaphylactic shock, be spared the blindness of vitamin A deficiency? Would you have a change of heart if you knew that biotechnology could increase the income of a smallholder farmer in Bangladesh six-fold — enough to send his children to school, buy a propane stove so his wife didn’t have to prepare food over a cow dung or charcoal fire?

Or to bring it back home, would you embrace this technology if you knew it meant the daily challenge of packing a school lunch could be immensely simplified with hypoallergenic peanut butter spread on gluten-free wheat bread and accompanied by an apple that retained its fresh, white flesh, even hours after slicing?

Some of these products, like the Arctic Apple, are already available. Others are moving forward and many more are in the works, ready and able to do their part to end hunger, shrink agriculture’s outsized environmental footprint, increase crop yields, reduce pesticide use, withstand the temperamental and often extreme growing conditions that characterize climate change, and curb food waste. Even more products are likely now that the science has advanced through the precise, predictable use of gene editing tools like CRISPR.

But these new plant varieties, created by scientists working in public institutions like me, won’t advance without our support, our recognition that they have a role, just like organics and conventional and natural, in keeping our planet healthy and our kids fed. They aren’t backed by the multinational corporations that can pay $100 million to move a genetically-engineered crop through an unreasonably onerous regulatory process. They need consumers, people like you and me, to say that we want scientific evidence, not ideology, to determine what enters the food supply.

These are the thoughts that enter my mind as I sip coffee, pack lunches, prepare my children for another day in the school environment that I loved. I want them to have the same opportunities that I enjoyed, and I want those opportunities extended to kids across the globe. And from where I sit, access to the healthy, affordable food that genetic engineering can provide is a huge part of that.

As we bid farewell to the unstructured days of summer and re-enter the school year routine, let’s remember that the decisions we make each day in the grocery store reverberate not only in our children’s lunch boxes, but all around the world.  

Posted on

My Nightmare Meal: A Personal Reflection of Our Food System

food fear

SPOILER ALERT: Your food is safe. We have one of the safest food systems in the world. But upon reflection, I can see why he made such a comment.  Indeed, there seems to be a 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 feed lot, 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?  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?

food fear

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 bio-degradable, 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 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.

Secretary Perdue is correct: “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.”

Never underestimate our farmers and producers. When commitment, capability and capital converge – 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:

Farming and production: Where do our fruits & veggies come from? | What is the Farm Bill | America’s salad bowl | GMOs: a recipe for understanding

Food safety: There is no such thing as a dirty vegetable | CDC foodborne illness detection | Food safety at farmers’ markets

Food waste: Waste not, want not | Eat beer and drink sandwiches

Government resources: FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act | USDA’s Food & Nutrition page | EPA & Pesticides | FAO’s State of Food Security & Nutrition | WHO & Food Safety

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

What’s Happening in Ag?

aerial view of grain harvest

There’s no such thing as a completely quiet time in farming, and the job of bringing food from the field to the dinner table never takes a day off.  Something constantly needs to be done, at every step of the dirt-to-dinner journey.  But spring always seems to be a particularly busy time of year, and 2019 is proving to be no different.

Like any good farmer, let’s start with a look at the weather.

Enough Already

More rains in key agricultural producing regions of the central United States continue to delay spring planting.  As fields slowly dry out and recovery efforts continue for areas devastated by floods, the Department of Agriculture reports the corn crop is behind its normal planting progress, with 23 percent planted, trailing the five-year average of 46 percent. The soybean crop is behind by even more, now at 6 percent complete and behind the average of 14 percent.  Spring wheat planting stands at about 22 percent, also below last year. Generally, with low spring plantings, markets might expect higher prices come harvest. But the outlook for U.S. Agricultural trade exports expected to remain the same from 2018, as a result, no one is so far predicting a major run-up in prices that would lead to higher consumer prices.

US agricultural trade and trade balanceSource: USDA Economic Research Service

New Soybean Reality

And, to add to the rainy day, China will continue to affect the global soybean market. Not just because of U.S. tariffs but also because of African Swine Fever. The Chinese pig herd has dropped by 20% in the past 20 months.  The USDA is predicting a global 42 million ton decline for China’s import demand. The sliver of a silver lining is that this will help U.S. pork exports to Singapore.

US-soybeans-total-committment-as-of-may-2019

Source: USDA Foreign Agricultural Service

New Hope for Dairy Farmers

The plight facing U.S. dairy farmers has been well documented. Due to a global oversupply of milk and increasing consumption of almond and soy milk, dairy farmers are in their fifth year of low milk prices. Many are operating on a negative margin. The USDA is planning on helping the farmer by rolling out the Dairy Margin Coverage program which will send out $600 million in payments to milk producers.

dairy-cows

Survey Finds Glum Farm Investments

The economic uncertainty in the agricultural sector is doing more than reducing farm income. It’s also affecting farmers’ willingness to invest. The Ag Economy Barometer produced regularly by Purdue University and the CME Group this spring found that 78 percent of farmers surveyed felt it’s a “bad time” to make major investments in farm operations. Continuing tensions over trade with China and continuing weather problems in key producing areas are concerns for investing in technologies and equipment to increase productivity and profitability for farmers.

This also impacts food security for the people who depend upon them.  The Barometer measures a monthly economic sentiment with 400 agricultural producers and a quarterly survey of 100 agriculture and agribusiness thought leaders. The latest survey showed the fourth largest one-month drop since data collection began in October 2015.

Ag-economy-barometer

Source: https://ag.purdue.edu/commercialag/ageconomybarometer/

US-China Trade Dispute Escalates — Again

 The continuing trade dispute between the United States and China has taken a new and ugly turn, with U.S. farm interests firmly in the cross-hairs.  The latest round of economic tit-for-tat saw the United States impose further tariffs on a wide range of imports from China, followed by China’s announcement of new tariffs on imports of U.S. farm products, including wheat, poultry, sugar, and peanuts.  The escalation of trade tensions sent financial markets into a sharp decline – and raised concerns among a farm community already beset by another year of declining farm income.

image showing usa-china-rivarly

 

EU Acts to Spur Food Waste Reduction

The fight against food waste continues everywhere.  The European Commission has adopted a common methodology for uniform measurement of food waste across all 28 member countries.  This unified measurement system will allow improved reporting of efforts to cut food waste across the food chain.  It also is expected to promote greater cooperation with food processors by food manufacturers and retailers, notably in promoting greater diversion of waste to bioenergy.

The total amount of food waste the EU 27 is estimated at 89 Mt. , i.e 179 kg/per capita/year. Households produce the largest fraction of EU food waste at 38 Mt or 76 kg per capita.

Some African Countries Think Again on GMOs

Kenya, Uganda, and Nigeria have recognized the benefit of GMO crops to help feed their people. Prolonged drought and widespread hunger have the Kenyan government looking more closely at food security and re-thinking its ban on genetically modified corn.  With an estimated 1 million Kenyans facing hunger and malnutrition, government officials say they will make a decision in the next two months.  Their decision could help open the door to wider use of the GMO seeds important to improving Kenyan food security. Uganda has moved ahead and pulled together a legal framework to approve GMO cassava, potatoes, cotton, and corn all of which are now resistant to insects requiring less insecticide and better yield. Their research has also developed a biofortified banana. Nigeria has commercialized Bt cotton and also approved the GMO pest resistant cowpea.

young-corn-in-field

Danes Turn up the GMO Heat on EU

Denmark’s Ethics Council has added to the pressure on the European Union to rethink its opposition to GMOs.  Much has changed since the 1990s, the Council observed, and policymakers must now think about how genetic technologies can help advance the development of the crops needed to contend with climate change, with greater resistance to pests and disease and more efficient use of water and nutrients. Until now, the Danes have been among the most vocal critics of GMOs, so the Council’s call for a new debate can’t be easily ignored by lawmakers and regulators.

Beyond Meat Goes Beyond Expectations

When Beyond Meat, who wants to separate meat from animals, began operations in 2009, no one saw the amazing response to the alternative meat producer that was to come from the investing public.  Beyond Meat’s initial public offering (IPO)had set its opening price at $25 per share, only to see the trading price immediately jump to $46 and rise to a high of $85- the best performing first day for an IPO in 20 years.  As of Tuesday, May 14th, the price is $79.68 with a market cap of $4.58 billion.

beyond meat

Presidential Hopefuls Look to Change Ag policies

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) are looking to get attention by making agricultural policy a key element of their campaigns.  Warren and Sanders, for example, would attack economic concentration in agriculture, looking to break up large vertically integrated operations. Klobuchar, who helped write the farm bill would boost all aspects of farming from dairy to animal disease outbreaks, to conservation. She also suggested a fee for mergers that would be used to investigate anti-competitive practices.  As more and more attention shifts to the difficult economic environment facing farmers and rural America, expect the list of candidates with other provocative policy ideas for our farm and food system to expand still more.

american-flag-near-state-house

 

 

Posted on

Rallying for our Flooded Farmers

nebraska-flooding-Farm-Near-Fremont

At Dirt-to-Dinner, we love working with farmers and telling their story. We want to take a moment to not only inform others of the flooding’s magnitude but also to consider a few ways to help those in need.

Floods sweep away livestock and buildings

Farmers and ranchers in Nebraska and Iowa have been suffering through a natural catastrophe that has yielded unprecedented damage. The flooding that began in March was so strong that it literally swept away cattle and other livestock, never to be seen again. But the devastation doesn’t end there. As flood waters continue to roll in, farmers’ losses are compounded as time eats away at what would otherwise have been used to plant crops for the upcoming harvest.

“The extensive flooding we’ve seen…will continue through May and may be exacerbated in the coming weeks as the water flows downstream.”
– Ed Clark, Director of NOAA’s National Water Center

The timing of these floods couldn’t be worse for farmers and ranchers, many of whom currently struggle to keep their farms in operation. Farmers have been working on very slim profit margins with historically low commodity prices and punitive export taxes in ongoing trade wars. When this flood rushed in, it hit our farm belt like a tsunami.

The flooding also wiped out farmers’ reserves. Many farmers strategically store last season’s crops to protect against a downturn, like a rough trading climate or a bad storm. In fact, because of tensions with China, farmers stored more of their harvest last year than in previous years for such protection. Sadly, all those efforts – and lost income – went to waste.

Damage is in the billions

Nebraska and Iowa were hit the hardest by the flooding, with initial damage estimated at $1.4 billion and $2.0 billion, respectively, and these estimates exclude long-term damage, which can multiply the loss, especially when you consider all the unplanted and unharvested crops this year. Furthermore, other affected factors like feed, soil quality, and water supply, will have a profound ripple effect throughout the system that lingers far beyond the current flood.

“This flood isn’t just bigger; the effects will last longer. Long after waters recede, the sand and debris left behind must be cleaned up before planting. But the equipment to remove that debris is not always available quickly and fields may not be ready in time for farmers to get a crop in at all this year.”
– Sam Funk, Iowa Farm Bureau’s Senior Economist

More than 500,000 acres of land were flooded in total, mostly comprised of corn and soybean crops. That’s the equivalent of the area of 35 Manhattans! While floodwaters are now receding in eastern Nebraska and western Iowa, river levels are increasing across the northern Plains, with more flooding likely. In Nebraska alone, $400 million worth of livestock have been killed or displaced. This affects not only the ranchers’ operations and livelihoods, but also our dinner plates as the market seeks to find a new balance, leading to beef price fluctuations.

Additionally, with 81 of the 93 counties in Nebraska in a state of emergency as of March-end, many of the roads, bridges, and tunnels are in disrepair, leaving farmers unable to get their goods to the market or transportation hub. For instance, what normally took one Nebraskan farmer around 15 minutes now takes more than three hours to bring his food to market, increasing costs during an already extremely challenging economic time.

A farmer’s limited protection

Our nation provides protection in such disasters at both a federal and state level that farmers can utilize. Of particular aid to farmers in need is the Farm Bill, which significantly extended disaster assistance as of 2014 to include livestock loss from weather events, livestock emergency assistance, and other relevant programs. Also, farmers and ranchers not previously signed up for protection prior to these catastrophic events now have access to coverage.

Despite the breadth of programs offered to those in need, they can still leave the farmer vulnerable to massive loss, as many of these programs only cover a fraction of the damage, if even at all. For instance, with the stored crops we mentioned earlier, neither insurance nor the Farm Bill will cover the loss. In more typical weather events, farmers would have enough time to relocate their grains and seeds in the event of flooding. However, the recent flooding filled the fields too quickly, leaving farmers with no time to relocate their millions of dollars’ worth of stored crops. Any farmer depending on selling those crops for necessary operations and taxes will likely go out of business.

Given the magnitude of loss and the lack of farmer protection in particular issues like stored crops, we expect that new legislation may be proposed in the near future to cover such devastation. But, for many hurting families and communities in the Midwest, those funds can’t come soon enough.

Humanity at its finest

For those who have lost so much, not all hope is lost. Thanks to the compassion of many individuals, companies, and organizations, these farmers and ranchers can find more relief from the storm. Addy Tritt, a recent college graduate, found a remarkable way to help: she purchased a stores’ worth of shoes to donate. Now some may think she must have pretty deep pockets to donate over 200 pairs of shoes, but she used her ingenuity to provide relief. Knowing that Payless was going out of business, she called the corporate office and negotiated over $6,000 worth of inventory down to $100. Talk about a good deal!!

Ralco, an ag tech company, has donated over $15,000 of their animal feed and wellness products to farmers in need. With products that help cattle overcome high-stress situations, Ralco’s donation will go far with livestock that may have temporarily suffered from malnutrition and trauma.

And organizations like Farm Rescue are continually seeking ways to help farmers and ranchers by providing the necessary equipment and manpower to plant or harvest their crops. They also provide livestock feeding assistance and other services.

What can we all do to help?

For one, know that it’s never too late to give. And two, every little bit helps. Even providing a can of beans, donating $5, or just sending a hand-written note of support and warmth will go far. You can donate money or other services at Farm Rescue which has locations throughout the farm belt.

Nebraska Farm Bureau established a Disaster Relief Fund, where 100% of the donations will be distributed to Nebraska farmers, ranchers, and rural communities affected by the disasters. And if you are a farmer in the area and have hay, feedstuffs, fencing materials or equipment to spare, please consider donating to the Nebraska Department of Agriculture, where they will provide supplies to those in need.

Should your spring cleaning leave you with extra gently-used clothes, the United Way of the Midlands’ Omaha office at 2201 Farnam Street in Omaha, NE 68102 is set up for donations. They have established the Nebraska & Iowa Flood Relief Fund to help people who lost homes or suffered other setbacks in the flooding. 100% of every donation will be given to nonprofit programs that provide shelter, food and other services in the area.

Posted on

The Green New Deal: Where’s the Beef?

cow walking down road

As you’ve probably heard in the news, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) presented a proposal to Congress called the Green New Deal that addresses how the U.S. can achieve net-zero greenhouse emissions in ten years, in addition to tackling inequality and wage reform. This deal, brashly named after Roosevelt’s New Deal to help the U.S. economy recover from the Great Depression, puts forth a lot of idealistic proposals but without much specificity, strategic planning and research. Since we’re a blog about food and agriculture, let’s focus on the initiatives affecting farmers and our food supply.

Ag Initiatives

The bulk of this resolution concentrates on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, a concept not new to the ag industry. And while ag contributes the smallest amount of total U.S. emissions among the EPA’s designated sectors, the resolution focuses on three initiatives for agriculture to become more environmentally friendly:

  1. Supporting family farming
  2. Investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health
  3. Building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food

source: EPA

Though these initiatives may sound original, those in ag have been implementing these goals for years now and without government intervention! Farmers regularly collaborate with cross sections of both corporations and organizations to formalize efforts on sustainability and productivity. Not one successful farmer or rancher acts independently – they know the best way to take care of their land while feeding a hungry nation is to work interdependently across sectors to achieve these goals.

Farmers collaborate to better their land and products. PepsiCo’s Sustainable Farming Program teaches farmers practices they otherwise wouldn’t have access to. The Global Salmon Initiative helps salmon farmers all over the world create the standard for sustainably farmed salmon.

Supporting Family Farming

The USDA states that 96% of the 2.2 million U.S. farms are family-owned, and this number is on the rise. Furthermore, these family-operated farms account for 78% of total farm production in the U.S. We are already a nation of family farms!

Additionally, consumers are shifting towards a preference for locally-grown produce and meat. While being a small farmer today brings little financial security, those who are innovative and creative continue to add value to our food system, as well as make profits to stay in business.

Investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health

Contrary to how they are depicted in most media outlets, farmers and ranchers are the most vested stewards of the land.

Take, for example, the now-viral response to The Green New Deal from Kansas rancher, Brandi Buzzard Frobose:

“As a rancher, I can tell you that we take the quality of the great outdoors very seriously – air, soil and water quality are all of utmost importance to us here because, well we are the ones living here in the sticks. Which is why our segment of agriculture actively works to reduce our impact on the environment every. single. day.”

To help food producers and the millions of other concerned American citizens make more informed decisions on issues like climate change, The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) released a Cost/Benefit Principles for Climate-Change Policy.

Colin Woodall, NCBA Senior Vice-President, Government Affairs told Northern Ag Network:

“These are very straightforward questions that any concerned citizen or reporter should be asking anyone who proposes new climate-change policy. What specifically are you proposing, how much will it cost, how much will it affect global temperatures down the road, and how did you arrive at those numbers? Seems like anyone who is proposing billions or trillions of dollars’ worth of policy changes should be happy to answer those questions. Yet for some reason, few currently are.”

According to Woodall, U.S. beef producers have already made a great deal of progress on environmental issues like climate change, such as producing the same amount of beef with 33% fewer cattle, compared to 1977.

Woodall also pointed out that beef producers in the U.S. now have one of the lowest carbon footprints compared to many of their worldwide counterparts, now producing only 2% of all carbon emissions in the U.S.

As for the quality of soil, many farmers employ best practices to increase soil health, as they know first-hand how essential healthy soil is for producing the best fruits, vegetables, and livestock. These farmers, much like the McMenamins at Versailles Farms, utilize precision technologies like soil moisture sensors, irrigation sensors, and, when necessary, synthetic inputs based on detailed soil analyses. Farmers and ranchers consider all these factors to operate the most productive farms possible while being stewards of the land.

Building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food

Not much argument here about a right to food – we completely agree. However, this system has been in place for quite some time now. In fact, it is because of the U.S. food supply system and the SNAP (food stamp) program that everyone currently has access to clean, healthy, affordable food.

We also understand that there’s always room for improvement, but creating efficiencies in this intricate web of food producers, suppliers and distributors will take a very detailed plan – something far more specific than the gross generalities outlined in The Green New Deal.

A strategic plan for something of this magnitude requires government, corporate and organizational compliance and oversight.

Technological Feasibility and Consumer Acceptance

We as consumers are eating more than ever, now clocking in over 3,600 calories per day. Farmers and ranchers are being asked to produce more food on less land using less water, fewer pesticide, and less energy.

Farmers are adopting precision farming technologies to help them reduce their water usage, reduce emissions, use less energy, increase crop yield, reduce pesticides, and reduce fertilizers. Genetic engineering, like GMOs and CRISPR, can also help create a more sustainable food system, but consumers and red tape often stall technological innovations.

The resolution calls on achieving net-zero emissions in ten years in whatever means is technologically feasible.  Roadblocks and propaganda create a sentiment that has such advances either stuck in a prolonged approval process or generally distrusted among consumers.

Take the “Non-GMO Project Verified” label, which not only vilifies GMOs, but also encourages companies with food products that don’t even have a GMO counterpart (like wheat, avocadoes, berries, even water!) to buy the rights to use its label, stoking fears among consumers to only purchase non-GMO products.

Counterproductive organizations and lack of government oversight in their practices make technological advances like genetic engineering a very formidable challenge in consumer perception and adoption.

What Does This Mean for Farmers?

Because of the Green New Deal’s lack of clarity, many in the sector have become fearful that further plans will place a cap on livestock, dairy production, and other industry-shaking restrictions.

Others think it may just be a matter of perspective. Popular Science sheds a positive light on the proposal, writing that perhaps it has less to do with reducing fossil fuels (and the farting cow fiasco – which, if we really want to be specific, should be corrected to cow burps) and more to do with the “net-zero carbon” aspect of carbon farming, planting more trees, and revitalizing our soils.

What’s probably the most disheartening about the Green New Deal is that these green initiatives are not considering developments already taking place in our food supply using fewer resources.  We are improving nutrition by advancing supply chains while reducing food waste. We’re also reducing environmental impacts by breeding more productive plants and animals and investing in biotechnology. We hope that as this proposal develops, those behind the Deal take the time to learn more about current initiatives.

 

Posted on

The Year in Food News: What To Know Before 2019

world being pierced by a fork illustration

Within this post we discuss the following topics:

Trade Tensions with China. How does this affect you?

NAFTA is Dead, Long Live USMCA. Well, Sort Of…

What’s the Farm Bill? About a half-trillion dollars— or maybe more.

The 2018 harvest is almost done. What does it mean for food prices?

Keeping CRISPR Alive in Europe

Glyphosate Debate No Closer to Resolution

Trade Tensions with China. How does this affect you?

After the G20 summit in Buenos Aires, the United States and China announced a pause in the on-going trade dispute between the two nations, with President Donald Trump agreeing to postpone a scheduled increase in U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods set to go into effect January 1, 2019.

On December 1st, Trump agreed to a 90-day tariff truce in order to give both sides time to begin a serious discussion of the myriad of trade and intellectual property issues leading to the escalating series of tariffs. News reports indicate that as part of the agreement, the Chinese have agreed to step up purchases from the United States, including agricultural products such as soybeans. Just exactly what other agricultural products, and in what time frame, remain unclear.

As of December 11, the Chinese are believed to have resumed soybean purchases. President Trump was quoted saying the Chinese are “buying tremendous amounts of soybeans.”

So what does this mean for U.S. food consumers?  Not much, immediately.

The food industry continues to have more than enough commodities to satisfy immediate demand, even if the Chinese resume larger purchases of U.S. soybeans and other farm products.

The real issue for consumers is the long-term economic health of the farm sector. Exports are an important aspect of farm revenue, yet net farm income has been declining steadily in recent years, to a level about half its 2013 peak.  Without a clearer picture of future market stability for U.S. exports, that pressure is likely to continue.

With more and more farm operations on margin, look for further growth in farm size as farmers consolidate, and continued pressure for investment in the technological and operational improvements to keep food costs down.

Related Reading:
In the News: China Trade on Soybeans and Pork
Net Farm Income Projected to Drop to 12-year Low
How Consolidation is Changing Rural Agriculture
Examining Consolidation in U.S. Agriculture

NAFTA is Dead, Long Live USMCA. Well, Sort Of…

President Trump raised eyebrows by signing a new trade deal among the three countries known as USMCA (the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement), formerly known as NAFTA.

What’s the big deal?  Quite a bit for certain sectors of the U.S. economy, notably the automotive industry – and agricultural interest in all three countries.  Favorable trade terms under NAFTA helped agricultural trade among the three explode.

U.S. agricultural exports under NAFTA grew from $11 billion in 1993 to over $43 billion in 2016, making Canada and Mexico the second- and third-largest markets in the world for U.S. producers.  Canadian and Mexican ag interests – and consumers – reaped comparable benefits.

USMCA would build on NAFTA’s open trade principles to extend favorable ag trade terms to several sectors previously outside the tri-lateral agreement, including poultry, dairy, and eggs.

Preserving the open trade spirit behind this long-standing trade policy has never been more important to U.S. agriculture. The U.S. farm sector’s reliance on a robust export market as a major source of farm income provides us with the low-cost food we eat today.

Should food consumers care?  As with most major public food policy issues, the immediate effect of all this is virtually undetectable. But its role in preserving the economic health of a vibrant and responsive food system isn’t.  Without policies that help create economic opportunity for U.S. farmers, consumers can’t assume the world’s most productive and efficient food system can stay that way indefinitely.

So, if you like to eat and feed your family with an abundant and affordable supply of wholesome food,you might listen with at least one ear when those talking heads on TV mention trade.

Related Reading:
The USMCA explained: Winners and losers, what’s in and what’s out
United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement
What is NAFTA?

What’s the Farm Bill? About a half-trillion dollars— or maybe more

As the year winds down, a lot of people in and out of Washington are breathing a sigh of relief over the final resolution of the running battle for new farm legislation. The bill passed with an 87-to-13 vote in the Senate on Tuesday, Dec 11thand will now go to the house, where it is expected to pass as well. This new five-year bill lays out the complex web of policies and programs governing the U.S. food system.

The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture

The bill makes no major changes in policy direction, and still covers everything from crop subsidies, crop insurance and conservation programs to urban farming, research and nutrition assistance programs – and a heck of a lot more in between, including new hemp regulations.

The 2014 Farm Bill has been estimated to cost taxpayers about $488 billion, although the final tally may come in a tad lower than that figure. Comparatively, the 2018 Farm Bill is expected to cost taxpayers $827 billion.

The share of that spending going to farmers? This is a bit controversial. Commodity programs, crop insurance, and conservation make up only 19 percent of the tab.  About 80 percent – four of every five dollars in the bill – goes to some form of nutritional assistance for those who are in need. This is commonly referred to as SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), or food stamps.

The 2018 compromise is expected to address various cost-control mechanisms but nonetheless entails 10-year spending of about $687 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

So, what do consumers get for their tax dollar?  Even though a small amount goes to the farming network, the Farm Bill provides the framework of policies and programs — the rules of the road — needed to guide production, processing, research, product innovation, manufacturing, marketing, retailing and all the other elements of a modern food system.

It provides the framework essential to attracting investment and incentivizing the effort that keeps the system responsive to the evolving needs and demands of consumers.

The American public gets a stable, innovative and reliable food system, unlike anything seen in previoushistory. It’s government policy-making that can be argued to actually work, and work well, especially in today’s fractured political system.

Related Reading:
What is the Farm Bill — and why should you care?
Congress just passed an $867 billion farm bill. Here’s what’s in it.
Farm Bill: A Short History and Summary
The Farm Bill (archives from the NYT)

The 2018 harvest is almost done. What does this mean for food prices?

The end of the calendar year normally means corn and soybean farmers are wrapping up harvests of their crops.  Tough weather conditions have slowed the harvest in some production areas.  But overall, more than 90 percent of the corn and soybean harvest is completed. The final numbers will impact future farm production trends and have implications for future food prices.

Corn and Soybean Digest

The Department of Agriculture will release official numbers for the crops in mid-January.  But all signs point to a good harvest for corn and soybean producers, with some early estimates pointing to crops of more than 14.6 billion and 4.6 billion bushels, respectively.

Why should anyone outside the farm community care about such dry and mind-numbing statistics?  Because they point toward the future for supplies of the commodities that fuel the American food system – and the prices consumers are likely to be paying.

Experts are looking to see not just what stocks are on hand, but what farmers’ intentions for the next crop year will be.  Big stockpiles – and an export outlook clouded by trade tensions — can mean tough markets for soybean exports, for example.  Waiting for higher commodity prices, many farmers stockpile their crops rather than sell them thus creating more uncertainties. That may lead to smaller planted acreage for soybeans in the coming year as stocks increase and producers look for alternative crops, such as corn or specialty crops such as hemp.

Government estimates of food expenditures, meanwhile, show modest growth in prices paid for food.  USDA estimates say, prices for food consumed in the home should hold flat, or rise by only 1 percent, while prices for food consumed away from home are projected to be up 2-3 percent.  This is mainly due to higher labor costs.  Projections for 2019 show similar modest increases in food prices.

What keeps food costs so stable in the midst of such ups and downs in the commodity world? Part of the answer lies in the complexity and efficiency of the modern food chain.  Statistics show that the cost of key commodities represents a small fraction of the total food dollar – somewhere between 12 and 15 percent, by most estimates.  (Incidentally, the commodity share of the food dollar has shown a steady decline in recent decades.) The remainder goes to processing, packaging, transportation, retail costs, food service costs and other costs (such as energy, financial expenses, and insurance).

Related Reading:
USDA – Food Dollar Series
National Farmers Union: The Farmer’s Share
USDA Graphs Explain The Breakdown of a U.S. Food Dollar

Keeping CRISPR Alive in Europe

The European Court of Justice earlier this year ruled that held gene-edited crops must be subject to the same onerous regulatory standards as genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Crisprtx

While many anti-GMO groups hailed the Court’s actions, reaction to the ruling ranged from howls of outrage to sighs of despair among the scientific and agricultural communities.  The ruling would effectively make Europe a non-player in the world’s efforts to use gene editing technology – known as CRISPR – to spur the next generations of agricultural innovation and progress in better plant development.

Now 75 leading scientists from a spectrum of European life science research centers have called upon European policymakers to reverse the court’s decision.  How policymakers respond will provide the next big indictor of which direction Europe will move in the global effort to produce the innovative new plants needed to deal with growing world demand for food – plants capable of resisting disease and pests, crops capable of dealing with changing climatic conditions, organisms capable of thriving on less water and fewer added field nutrients.

Related Reading:
In the News: European Court Hinders CRISPR Technology
CRISPR & Co are GMOs, says EU court

Glyphosate Debate No Closer to Resolution

2018 was a big year for glyphosate – the key ingredient in Monsanto’s widely used herbicide, RoundUp.

Glyphosate has been under steady and sometimes heated attack by a range of individuals and organizations concerned that excessive exposure to RoundUp can cause cancer.  When a California jury awarded $289 million to a man claiming the product caused his cancer, the debate entered a new and even more contentious phase. The award was later reduced to “only” $78 million, but new trials involving thousands of claimants remain in the works in various locations.

Expect to see the battle spill from the media and courtroom to the legislative arena.  Bayer AG, who acquired Monsanto for $63 billion in June 2018, has signaled its intent to continue battling to defend what it sees as a proven and important tool for farmers worldwide.  In early December, the company garnered widespread media coverage when it posted more than 300 studies regarding the safety of glyphosate. As part of the company’s “Transparency Initiative,” the release was touted as an important step in establishing trust in the science behind its products.  That material also has been provided to the European Parliament as part of their deliberations on the renewal of authorization for glyphosate production.

The debate in the European Parliament mirrors the political divisions related to GMOs.  Many legislators see a need to embrace science and products that maintain the EU’s competitive position in the global agricultural system.  But others favor a more restrictive approach as they think it is the best way to protect human health and the environment.

Related Reading:
National Pesticide Information Center: Glyphosate
Bayer committed to transparency: Posts more than 300 glyphosate safety study summaries online

Posted on

In the News: Glyphosate (again)

glyphosate-spray-early-crop

For most of us, weeds are a backyard annoyance. Whether they are in a flower or vegetable garden or sprouting up in the lawn, manual eviction is possible. For farmers around the world, however, weeds are a lot more than an annoyance. Weeds in a farm field mean that crop producers must spend valuable time and money getting rid of them before they steal the water and nutrients that crops rely on to grow.

Weeds make a difference in how big the crop is at harvest time, and how much money is left over after all the expenses of production, harvesting, storage, transportation, and marketing are paid.

For close to four decades, the safest and most effective herbicide has been Roundup, made by Monsanto. Its active ingredient is glyphosate – which in geek-speak is “an organophosphorus compound, specifically a phosphonate, which acts by inhibiting the plant enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase.” In perhaps overly simplistic but understandable terms, it’s a salt that dries up and ultimately kills plants.

Why do farmers use glyphosate? Read our post: Is Glyphosate Safe?

Back in 2015, the use of glyphosate took on a strong international political flavor. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a World Health Organization (WHO) agency devoted to cancer research, concluded that glyphosate is a “probable carcinogen.” IARC’s methodology evaluated hazard and not risk (coffee is a hazard too if you drink too much of it), and has been widely disputed by many other scientific organizations, including the European Food Safety Authority and the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)/World Health Organization (WHO) Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR). In addition, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Toxicology Programdoes not list glyphosate as either “known to be a human carcinogen” or “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.”

The difference of opinion on glyphosate has prompted intense battles and lobbying – in academic circles, in the media, in the courtroom and regulatory arena, and beyond.  Despite the fact that its use reduces the amount of herbicide needed, decreases use of more toxic herbicides, and enables farmers to till their fields less thereby improving soil health, environmental groups have made glyphosate almost an evil incarnate, to be either completely banned or at least extremely tightly controlled.  A new claim or new study seems to emerge regularly, alleging some new danger or additional “proof” of real and serious danger to the public health, the environment or some other vulnerable group. Notably, the EU debated further restrictions on the use of glyphosate or an outright ban on its sale or use but ultimately kicked the can down the road until at least 2022.

Closer to home, the Environmental Working Group (EWG), an environmental advocacy group, recently released a report claiming to have found minute levels of glyphosate in 26 of 28 breakfast cereals and snack bars tested.  Such presence should worry consumers, EWG suggested, especially where the health of children is concerned.

Hold on a minute, said others across the scientific, public health and business communities. The levels detected in the study are far, far below the threshold set by even the most stringent regulatory standards. People would need to consume vast quantities of these products over their lifetime before reaching the Allowable Daily Intake.  This is nothing more than a clear effort to cry wolf, using children as a tool to advance an environmental or ideological agenda.

A child weighing 11 pounds would have to eat 29 servings of Quaker® Old Fashioned Oats and 101 servings of Cheerios™ every day over a lifetime.

An older child weighing about 44 pounds would have to eat 115 servings of Quaker® Old Fashioned Oats and 404 servings of Cheerios™ every day over a lifetime.

The FDA began testing for glyphosate levels in harvested crops for the first time in 2016 and released that data in October 2018. According to the agency’s report, no glyphosate was detected in milk and eggs. In corn and soybean samples that did test positive (many tested negative), the amounts were below minimum levels established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

As these EWG headlines renewed the controversy, a judge in California substantially reduced to $78 million the initial $289 million awarded last summer by a San Francisco jury to the groundskeeper who claimed his cancer resulted from exposure to Roundup. The ruling came despite hundreds of reviews and studies, most by government regulatory oversight agencies and independent scientists, that has found the popular weed killer to be safe as used.

The size of the initial award had attracted global media attention and raised eyebrows across the business community and around the world.  The recent reduction enabled Monsanto to claim some sort of victory – if only in the chance to repeat the defense of its product.

“There is an extensive body of research on glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides, including more than 800 rigorous registration studies required by the EPA and European and other regulators that confirm that these products are safe when used as directed.” (Monsanto)

The EPA, as part of a normal chemical review process, is currently engaged in its latest routine review of glyphosate and will publish its decision in 2019.  However, in December 2017, the EPA published the following:

“The draft human health risk assessment concludes that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. The Agency’s assessment found no other meaningful risks to human health when the product is used according to the pesticide label. The Agency’s scientific findings are consistent with the conclusions of science reviews by a number of other countries as well as the 2017 National Institute of Health’s Agricultural Health Survey.”

The release of the EPA’s registration review report is certain to trigger the next animated round of debate.  Meanwhile, expect still more of the steady drip of claims and counterarguments from a broad spectrum of interest groups – public health, environmental, scientific and business, just to name a few.  The headlines aren’t going away any time soon.

Posted on

FAO Reports an Increase in Hungry People Around the World

women mixing grains in large bowl - Africa

In its 2018 report, the State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reports an increase in the number of hungry people around the world. After years of steady improvement in reducing hunger, the number of people facing chronic food deprivation in 2017 is nearly 821 million, up from 804 million the year before.

What is the definition of hunger? According to author Robert Paarlberg, in his book Food Politics, What Everyone Needs to Know, hunger is defined as “those that are living on less than $1 a day, with a daily energy intake below 2,200 calories or a diet lacking in essential diversity. ” A bowl of rice or corn, for example, may be heavy on calories but lacks essential nutrients.

Hunger results in malnutrition which is a deficiency in macro and/or micro ingredients needed to maintain healthy tissues and organ function. Malnutrition results in a weak immune system more susceptible to disease.


Hunger in Sudan. WorldVision.org /Stephanie Glinski

Malnutrition can also be synonymous with obesity, which is the consumption of overeating foods without nutrients. For many people around the world, foods that are high in sugar, salt and fat can be cheaper and more readily available than fresh fruits and vegetables, milk, and other nutrient-dense foods. According to the FAO report, childhood overweight and obesity rates are rising in most regions and adult obesity is increasing in all regions.

Chronic malnourishment is widespread, but there are regions of vulnerability. Sub-Saharan, Eastern, and Middle Africa have more than 20% of undernourished people.  While not as severe, Southern and Central Asia hover around 15%. Even the sunny Caribbean doesn’t escape with 16.5% undernourishment.

What is the cause of hunger?

FAO pointed out that there are three major forces that contribute to chronic hunger:

Weather and climate. Climate-related events have consequences of food safety and availability. In fact, the FAO reports that from 1990-2016, the number of droughts, floods and storms has averaged to 213 per year. Those countries with high exposure to climate extremes have a higher malnourished population. Africa, Central America, and Southeast Asia, for example, not only have been experiencing lower rainfall but also fewer days of rain.

In some cases, hunger can be a direct result of a specific event, like a tsunami or hurricane. As a result, international food aid comes from a collaboration of the FAO, U.S. Agency for International Development, and other NGOs until the crisis is over.

Of the extreme climate-related disasters, drought is the most destructive for crops and livestock.

Global Conflict. Wars and civil upheavals are a double whammy for food security. Political uncertainty and terrorism force mass immigration toward the developed world. The endless stream of images on television from Syria, North Africa, and other global trouble spots tell the story vividly.

Conflict events in Africa, 1997–2015. The final boundary between the Republic of Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan has not yet been determined. SOURCE: Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED) and FAO 2017 Report of Food Security and Nutrition in the World.

Economics. People go hungry when fundamental economic principles are abandoned.  For example, the people of Venezuela have suffered from poor government choices. Socialism-gone-awry has triggered rampant food insecurity, refugees, and a collapsed country.

Venezuelan migrants fleeing economic meltdown at home. Source: The Times, UK

There are more mouths to feed today than yesterday…

As the population increases, so will the number of hungry people. Let’s look at 2035—just 17 years away. We will have 1.1 billion more people to feed. It is no surprise that 51% of the population growth will be in India, China, Europe, Indonesia, and Pakistan. In India alone, 339 million people currently live below the poverty line. That is more than all the population in the United States! If the percentage stays the same at 10.9%, in 2035 there will be 100 million more people facing starvation.

“Access to safe, nutritious and sufficient food must be framed as a human right, with priority given to the most vulnerable. Policies must pay special attention to the food security and nutrition of children under five, school-age children, adolescent girls, and women in order to halt the intergenerational cycle of malnutrition. A shift is needed towards nutrition-sensitive agriculture and food systems that provide safe and high-quality food, promoting healthy diets for all.” (FAO)
Posted on

How will CRISPR impact our food?

non-browning crispr mushrooms - Penn State
The CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing system is revolutionizing food and will be used in the near future to address global hunger, create more nutritious food, and grow more sustainable crops. It has the potential to positively impact all aspects of our global food system.

What is CRISPR?

CRISPR is a gene-editing technology that actually mutates a gene within the plant itself.  Jennifer Doudna, University of California, Berkeley, the co-inventor of CRISPR, likens gene editing to editing a word document using the “find and replace” function. This means that CRISPR locates a specific gene within the plant genome and changes it in order to alter the traditional outcome. (Want more information on CRISPR technology? Read our post here).

You are probably wondering what the difference between GMO and CRISPR technology is? To put it simply, GMOs enhance a crop by taking a gene out of another organism altogether and inserting it in the crop, while CRISPR edits the existing gene within a crop.

This ingenious technology has the ability to expedite our traditional plant crossbreeding process. Remember: the food we eat today is not how it was found in the wild; plants have been cross-bred for millions of years to become the edible fruits and veggies we now know and love. CRISPR allows us to breed these plants sooner by at least three or four years.

From turning gene expression on and off to fluorescently tagging particular sequences, this animation explores some of the exciting possibilities of CRISPR.

“CRISPR is as profound a shift in thinking as genetics was in the 1970s.  Looking back from the future it will seem obvious.  We are just now comprehending the possibilities.” -Carter Williams, CEO, iSelectFund


From turning gene expression on and off to fluorescently tagging particular sequences, this animation explores some of the exciting possibilities of CRISPR

“CRISPR is as profound a shift in thinking as genetics was in the 1970s.  Looking back from the future it will seem obvious.  We are just now comprehending the possibilities.” -Carter Williams, CEO, iSelectFund

CRISPR is just one of the technologies shaping the future of the food supply chain.

The Dirt-to-Dinner team speaks with Craig Herron from iSelectFund at the Davos on the Delta Conference.

The Dirt-to-Dinner team recently attended an iSelectFund sponsored agricultural technology conference, called Davos on the Delta. We learned about what our food and agriculture system might look like in the future as technology advances. We met and heard from a number of innovative companies that are already revolutionizing the way we farm and the food we eat. At the helm of the conference was Carter Williams, CEO of iSelectFund, who hopes to encourage consumers to accept these revolutionary technologies all along the food supply chain.

As we listened to the speakers during the conference, it became clear that three critical innovations: CRISPR, microbiota and big data on the farm will affect the way we grow, process and eat our food. Stay tuned for more on microbes and big data.

What are some of the applications of CRISPR technology?

Scientists from AgroParisTech reviewed 52 peer-reviewed agricultural applications of CRISPR in order to better understand how CRISPR technology has been applied to various crops from 2014 to 2017.

 

It is very interesting that rice is the largest CRISPR application in a crop to date and is primarily being studied in China. The United States comes in second with CRISPR crops from the mustard plant, presumably because these crops can easily be tested and understood as a precursor for other crops.

How CRISPR will affect crop production

CRISPR will enable farmers to grow more dynamic crops, as opposed to the traditional corn, soybeans, cotton, and canola. They can mature faster, require less water, contain more nutrients…or even all three! Today, there are 30,000 different types of crops available, but our overall food system only relies on about 30 and, interestingly enough, 66% of our calories come from only eight crops.

Benson Hill Biosystems is a biotech company that helps farmers differentiate their crops with unique traits as well as predict crop trait outcomes by combining artificial intelligence and big data. They work closely with consumer products companies to make specialty foods; for instance, heat resistant chocolate from the cacao plant. Benson Hill has also patented a way for corn to enhance the photosynthesis process so that it can take more carbon out of the air while growing more quickly.

Using CRISPR to expand the geographical range of important food crops – Dec 2016

Scientists at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York are changing the way we appreciate tomatoes. Using CRISPR, the tomatoes flower and mature two weeks earlier than traditional tomatoes. This means that farmers can grow two crops per season, inevitably becoming more profitable. This also gives consumers more tomatoes and allows farmers to grow the crop in more northerly latitudes. The best part? No more mealy tomatoes in the wintertime!

Corteva Agriscience (a merger of Dow AgroSciences and DuPont Pioneer) is growing the next generation of waxy corn. What is waxy corn, you ask? It has a high amylopectin starch that is used for consumer and industrial use. For instance, when you next enjoy a printed picture on high glossy paper, you can thank waxy corn for that!

Crops grown for industrial use will expand beyond starch, ethanol, and biodiesels. For example, your tires may soon be made from dandelions. Another small biotech company, Kultevat, has identified a Russian Dandelion that can make rubber exactly like the rubber from a tree. It is easier to grow, more sustainable, less expensive, and its byproduct can be used for fuel.

A more familiar name in this space, Monsanto, invested in Pairwise in order to address global food challenges via gene editing technology. They will initially focus on the major crops of corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and canola. They licensed editing technology from Harvard University, but Pairwise will also work with other agriculture and food processing companies.

How CRISPR can solve global hunger

We need about 40 known nutrients to live healthy lives and right now there are 2 billion people globally who don’t have enough nutrition in their bodies when they go to bed, millions of those are children. Nutrient deficiencies prevent brain development, increases the chance of infections, and have serious social and economic repercussions. This doesn’t just apply to those in the developing world. For instance, many of us are literally starving ourselves of essential vitamins and minerals when we choose to eat an abundance of unhealthy foods over healthier options. Now with advancements in CRISPR, farmers will be able to grow crops that are biofortified – making crops more nutritious and shelf-stable.

Biofortification is when scientists breed crops to have more micronutrients and vitamins. You may already be familiar with the GMO-developed golden rice, rice made with Vitamin A to prevent night blindness and even death among those severely deficient in the vitamin. Rather than using transgenic technology, CRISPR is helping the larger agriculture science companies develop staple crops such as sweet potatoes, legumes and maize with iron, zinc, amino acids and proteins by tweaking the genetic code of the plant itself to make it more nutritionally diverse for those who have a monotonous diet.

Additionally, because of the long lead time to develop a crop, the larger agricultural science companies are better suited using CRISPR technology for biofortification.

Some of the companies leading the way with biofortified foods.

CRISPR in your grocery cart.

Some CRISPR edited crops are simply just to keep fruits and vegetables fresh and appealing. The non-browning mushroom from Yinong Yang and his team at Pennsylvania State University was the first to come to market. Harry J. Klee from the Plant Innovation Center at the University of Florida found the 13 important flavor components in a variety of different tomatoes. Editing the tomatoes to meet those components means an even better tasting tomato – especially in the wintertime.

Anti-browning mushroom developed by plant pathologist Yinong Yang using CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology.

Nutraceuticals are also becoming a possibility. This means better health from the daily foods we eat. The Institute for Sustainable Agriculture in Spain has created gluten-free wheat for those with celiac disease that will soon be coming to our own grocery shelves. According to the WSJ, DowDuPont will soon be selling CRISPR corn for healthy salad dressings and Calyxt will sell healthier vegetable oil.

What are the regulations surrounding CRISPR?

Currently, the USDA has chosen not to regulate CRISPR crops because there are no transgenics involved and the CRISPR results could have been done through cross-breeding. They do not see a risk present with CRISPR, not to mention that there is no way to tell the difference between a CRISPR crop or one which has been cross-bred. We hope this leads to a swift adoption of this amazing technology to make our crops more efficient, healthier, and more sustainable.

While the possibilities are exciting, the patent process is also something to keep your eyes on. Jennifer Doudna from University California Berkeley vs. Feng Zhang from The Broad Institute (M.I.T. and Harvard) have gone to court over who receives the patent over CRISPR- Cas9. The disagreement will continue in agriculture as Corteva (DowDuPont) is using the patent from UC Berkeley and Pairwise (Monsanto) signed a deal for their CRISPR/Cpf1 technology with Harvard and M.I.T.

Posted on

The FDA’s Role in Solving a Foodborne Illness Outbreak

baby mixed lettuces
The Mystery is Solved! The FDA announced on June 28th that the E.coli outbreak tied to romaine lettuce is over. New evidence shows bacteria taken from canal water samples, which link Yuma-based farmers and suppliers, matched the E. coli 0157:H7 strain that caused the outbreak. Federal agency work continues to determine how and why this strain entered into the canal.

Summer is officially underway! Now is the time to enjoy fresh salads loaded with fruits and veggies. And, despite the recent outbreak, we now know the romaine available today is safe so there’s no need to be deterred from enjoying your favorite summer salads.

Pinpointing the source of a foodborne illness outbreak

The FDA is charged with determining how, when and why an outbreak occurred. Collaborating with the CDC, state and local regulatory agents, public health officials, and agriculture departments, the investigative process examines documentation from growers, harvesters, processors and distributors.

The collected data is then shared with the FDA’s Coordinated Outbreak Response and Evaluation (CORE) Network. A CORE response team is assigned to find out the exact cause, control the spread, and ultimately stop the outbreak. The CORE team tracks down the source of the contaminated food and its movement through the supply chain. The data is then compared to what is known about the illnesses to ensure the investigation is on the right track.

Electronic labeling helps the process

About a decade ago, produce industry members started the Produce Traceability Initiative (PTI) and invested heavily in PTI technologies so they could trace harvested products back to the field. Currently, about 60% of the produce industry uses labeling through the initiative.

When fruits and vegetables are harvested in the field, cartons holding the fresh produce are typically labeled with an electronic-coded sticker containing detailed information about the harvest date and time, the grower, farm and location, as well as information about the harvesting company and crew members who performed the harvesting.

While PTI is extremely helpful to trace a product back to its farm source, every other entity along the supply chain to the consumer must also maintain the integrity of product tracing information. One example of this is Supplier X that sells food to restaurants: it may buy lettuce from Companies A, B, and C, and then repackage it into different cartons. These newly repackaged cartons, now containing a variety of lettuces, have new labels that only include data about the product as it was handled at Supplier X and not information from Companies A, B, and C.

Another example is the grocery stores. Have you ever walked behind a restaurant or grocery store and seen a pile of empty boxes that once held food? After the produce is removed, the box with the label telling the restaurant or grocery store where the product came from, when it was picked, who picked it, etc. needs to be properly scanned into the store or restaurant’s system.

The FDA detective work begins….

So, what does the FDA do when they come to a dead-end, like a break in the electronic chain of information? They must sift through the company’s paper records and interview company personnel to piece together as much supply chain information as possible. This elusive detective work takes days – sometimes weeks.

As we know, it is so easy to purchase a bag of pre-mixed vegetables or salad straight from the grocery store. Well, as we saw with romaine, many of these items are mixed together from different suppliers. So you can see how the supply chain gets complicated! Here’s an example of a supply chain that the FDA may encounter during an investigation:

Investigating the supply chain gets complicated! There can be many companies and farms involved.

As you can see, the investigation quickly broadens to include multiple potential paths. Because Company B mixes lettuce from three sources, the FDA must assume that the contaminated lettuce came from any one of Companies C, D, and E. In reality, the contaminated product may only have come from Company C, but the FDA has no way of knowing this since the lettuce from all three companies is mixed together.

To further add to the complexity, Companies C, D, and E each have four farms and each farm has 1,500 acres of lettuce which are divided into multiple lots. If Company B retains the information from the lettuces from their three suppliers, then the FDA may be able to narrow the potential farm sources from 12 to 4, but too often this information is lost when the carton is thrown away.

Environmental Assessments

After tracing the contaminated product as close to its origin as possible, the FDA’s CORE team visits the location where contamination is thought to have occurred. If the location is a farm(s), they conduct what is referred to as an “environmental assessment”, noting potential hazards and taking samples of water, soil, and other agricultural inputs. They also assess the surrounding areas and collect samples related to wildlife and domestic animals (e.g., feces, water troughs, bedding) known to carry the pathogen.

If the contamination is believed to have happened at a facility, they visit the facilities involved and swab equipment, walls, floors, drains, etc. In addition to sampling, CORE members interview personnel who work at the farm or facility, asking questions about their practices and observations, as well as anything out of the ordinary that may have happened before the outbreak.

Race against the clock

When investigating foodborne illness outbreaks, the CORE teams are working against the clock, as weather and other environmental conditions may become unfavorable to pathogen survival and the bug may begin to die off. Even in facilities, conditions change (i.e., equipment is cleaned and sanitized), and the responsible pathogen may no longer be found. Because of this, there is a real possibility we may never know what caused the E. coli outbreak in romaine. However, that does not mean the work will not continue. Industry members join forces with government investigators – meeting with FDA officials and CORE members to discuss their practices, growing conditions, and potential risk factors.

You begin to see how much ground investigators need to cover in order to determine where and how the lettuce became contaminated.  But the FDA CORE teams work tirelessly to ensure that Americans are eating safe produce. While it is a tough job with many challenges, the CORE teams have many tools in their toolbox to help them solve outbreak causes

Farmers and growers continually work on food safety protocols

Farmers and growers need to know how the contamination happened so they can do everything possible to keep it from happening again. In the case of the romaine outbreak, the leafy greens industry has formed a task force and members are actively researching and gathering information as well as re-evaluating their food safety practices. In addition, the produce industry trade associations are working on solutions that will enable the industry to address gaps in traceability to more efficiently find the source of problems when they occur.

Special thanks to Dirt-to-Dinner contributors Susan Leaman and Diane Wetherington of iFoods Decision Sciences.

Posted on

How Does the CDC Detect Foodborne Illnesses, like E. coli in Romaine lettuce?

vast field of romaine lettuce

 

As of June 1, 2018, the E. coli O157: H7-contaminated romaine lettuce outbreak has caused 5 deaths, 89 hospitalizations, and 197 known illnesses in 35 states. Even though the contaminated romaine is no longer in our food supply, the impact will undoubtedly be felt for some time as consumers continue to be concerned about eating the lettuce.

If you haven’t seen the headlines, you probably noticed the momentary disappearance of Caesar salads from restaurant menus and romaine lettuce from grocery store shelves when retail and food service companies around the country pulled products containing romaine lettuce from shelves in response to the foodborne illness outbreak linked to the consumption of contaminated romaine lettuce.

How do we determine when foodborne illness outbreaks occur?

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) is the federal government agency responsible for determining when outbreaks occur, identifying the microorganism that caused the outbreak, and identifying the contaminated product. The CDC defines a foodborne illness outbreak as an illness where two or more people get sick from eating the same food in roughly the same timeframe.

Detecting an outbreak is not easy

The CDC collaborates with the FDA and USDA in foodborne illness outbreak investigations, helping to identify what caused the outbreak and alerting the public when a source is identified.

Diagnosing a foodborne illness outbreak is tricky business

Have you ever been sick and wondered if it was a virus or something you ate? Unless your symptoms are very severe and/or have lasted longer than a few days, a visit to your doctor might result in being told to go home, get rest, and stay hydrated. Most often with this circumstance, you will not undergo any tests to determine what is causing your symptoms.

What is not widely known is that the leading cause of foodborne illnesses recorded each year in the U.S. is norovirus. This virus causes more than 5.5 million illnesses and cost more than $2 billion in healthcare and lost productivity costs annually. It accounts for more than 58% of all foodborne illnesses where the agent is known. Norovirus can be transmitted person-to-person or indirectly from contaminated surfaces, food, and water. 

Most foodborne illnesses are detected when many people are eating their meals at the same place and around the same time. Prime examples are school and workplace cafeterias, social gatherings, and foodservice providers on cruise ships or at a resort.

Most foodborne illnesses are detected when many people are eating their meals at the same place and around the same time. Prime examples are school and workplace cafeterias, social gatherings, and foodservice providers on cruise ships or at a resort.

The CDC identified a foodborne illness outbreak — what’s next?

Based on the pathogen detected, state health officials develop a questionnaire for the patients to gather very specific details of what, where, and when they ate the likely contaminated food. Of significant importance is the pathogen’s incubation period — the time from when someone consumes contaminated food until symptoms start. For example, an E. coli O157: H7-caused illness typically takes 3-4 days for symptoms to appear and commonly lasts 5-10 days in healthy adults. An incubation period like this one can be a challenge when patients are asked what they ate up to 10 days before arriving at their doctors’ offices.

After the dietary data is gathered from reporting patients, the information is analyzed to find common foods that were eaten more often than expected based on the typical American diet. This can be a riddle. For example, those infected by the illness may have gotten sick after eating hamburgers at a picnic. But it may be unclear whether the burger, tomato, lettuce, onion, or the mayo was responsible.

Without a clear determination, the CDC lists all potentially responsible ingredients in its PulseNet database as part of the outbreak data collection and investigation process.

Of all the outbreaks studied in 2015, only 40% identified a specific food vehicle or cause. In about half of outbreaks where a food vehicle was identified, multiple food ingredients are typically involved and no particular ingredient has been pinpointed as the vehicle.

The curious case of romaine

In the romaine outbreak, public health officials determined that romaine was what made people sick after interviewing those who had become ill. More than 90% of interviewees reported eating romaine before getting sick. However, identifying exactly where that lettuce came from is a much more complicated process. Before lettuce reaches a restaurant or grocery store, it may pass through several other companies (e.g., distributors, brokers, etc.). When lettuce leaves the field, it is packed into cartons that contain detailed information about how, where, and when it was grown and harvested including the individual harvesting crew members who picked it. But restaurants and grocery stores buying lettuce from the produce industry typically throw the carton away and do not retain all that detailed information tracing product back to the farm and field.

Only in one instance in this outbreak was the FDA able to identify a company that grew some of the contaminated romaine, and that was the prison in Alaska where eight prisoners got sick. But the implicated produce company has several farms in the desert growing region and product information retained by the prison and the distributor from which the prison bought the lettuce was not adequate to identify the field in which the lettuce was grown. In order to solve the mystery of how the lettuce became contaminated, investigators need to know which farm and fields the lettuce came from.

Is it safe to eat romaine lettuce again?

Yes. In the current E. coli O157: H7 outbreak, the CDC stated that the identified food vehicle is romaine lettuce. As of early May, 112 people had been interviewed and of those people, 91% stated they ate romaine lettuce a week before becoming ill. Because romaine lettuce has a shelf-life of approximately 21 days and the last shipment of romaine from the desert-growing region was in mid-April, the CDC, state and local health departments and the industry have all confidently assured the public that romaine lettuce is safe to eat again.

How can we be sure?

The answer lies in the seasonal production in lettuce-growing locations in the west. Arizona and California, the two largest lettuce-producing states in the U.S., grow lettuce in an annual production cycle: as northern California moves into winter around November, lettuce production shifts to the desert in Arizona. And when spring arrives in California, production moves back north in California as the desert becomes too warm to grow – usually in April. The CDC was thus able to isolate the general location of the affected romaine by following the annual production cycle. As we have discussed on Dirt-to-Dinner, seasonality shifts suppliers for U.S. produce. When the seasons change, your produce changes, too— and that also means when a growing season ends in one state it can begin in another.

Despite the tragic consequences of this outbreak, the U.S. has one of the safest food systems in the world. It may be difficult to fathom, but the amount of food circulating in the U.S. on a daily basis is staggering. Our produce is grown by over 200,000 growers, supplemented by millions of other growers around the world. We typically consume this food three or more times a day in our homes or in more than 600,000 restaurants. Public health experts estimate that in our nation of 330 million people, 47.8 million people or 15% get sick, and 3,000 people or 0.0009% die annually in the U.S. from contaminated foods. The goal, of course, is to prevent any illnesses from occurring in the first place.

Special thanks to Dirt-to-Dinner contributors Susan Leaman and Diane Wetherington of iFoods Decision Sciences.