A new study involving more than 100,000 participants and published in the European Hearth Journal (May 2026) has concluded that certain food preservatives could harm cardiovascular health.
The researchers identified eight preservatives that are linked to hypertension (high blood pressure). They also concluded that one additive was specifically associated with cardiovascular disease. These results published in the European Heart Journal suggest that certain common preservatives in food may increase hypertension and cardiovascular risk. (Hasenböhler et al., 2026)
The authors point out that the study design (an observational study) means that the results cannot conclusively prove causation and hence they are calling for further research. They also call for a re-evaluation of the risks by the relevant bodies, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). (Hasenböhler et al., 2026; Newman, May 28, 2026).
“With ultra-processed foods (UPFs) making headlines on a weekly basis, the scientific community and public at large are more focused on the potential health effects of food additives than ever before.
A vibrant image of colorful cereal loops in a glass bowl with a wooden spoon. The cereal loops are scattered around the bowl, creating a playful and appetizing scene. The bright colors of the cereal make it visually appealing and perfect for breakfast themes.
Preservatives, as the name suggests, prevent food from spoiling and pathogen invasion. They both improve food safety while increasing profits by extending shelf life. In 2019, roughly one-third of products purchased in the United States contained at least one preservative.
To be used in a product in the U.S., the United Kingdom, Europe, and many other regions, these additives are tested for safety. However, some believe that this testing is not thorough enough.
Interestingly, certain preservatives naturally occur in foods, such as ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and alpha-tocopherol (vitamin E). Consumption of these compounds within whole foods is associated with better cardiovascular health.
However, some early research suggests that their impact may be harmful when consumed outside of whole foods, at least for some populations.
According to the authors of the new study, little research has been conducted on the cardiovascular effects of preservatives, so this study provides fresh insights.” (Newman, May 28, 2026; Hasenböhler et al., 2026)
Some preservatives linked to type 2 diabetes, cancer
“The current study uses data from the largest nutrition study of its kind, called NutriNet-Santé.”
“The project began in France in 2009 and now involves more than 100,000 participants who regularly submit dietary data. The researchers also have access to blood samples and stool samples to assess participants’ gut microbiome.
In recent years, the group has focused on the impact of ultra-processed foods and additives on health. Earlier this year, for instance, they published research looking at the links between preservatives, type 2 diabetes, and cancer.
“They concluded that preservative intake was associated with an increased incidence of type 2 diabetes and some cancers. Now, they are focusing on the association between these additives, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease.” (Hasenböhler et al., 2026; Newman, May 28, 2026).
Quick note: In this study, the statistical term “incidence” measures the number of new cases of hypertension or cardiovascular disease that occurred during the study’s follow-up.”
“In total, the analysis included data from 112,395 people, more than two-thirds of whom were female, with an average age of 42.8. These individuals were followed for an average of 7.9 years.
The scientists identified 58 different preservatives that were consumed by participants. Of these, 17 were consumed by at least 10% of participants, so the researchers focused on these compounds and their associations with cardiovascular disease and hypertension.” (Newman, May 28, 2026; Hasenböhler et al., 2026)
The most common 10 preservatives reported were:
Citric acid: Consumed by 91.3% consumers (largely from processed fruit and vegetables).
Lecithins: 86.4%.
Total sulphites: 83.5% (mostly from alcoholic drinks).
Ascorbic acid: 83.0% (largely from processed fruit and vegetables).
Sodium nitrite: 73.3% (largely from processed meat products).
Potassium sorbate: 65.3%.
Sodium erythorbate: 52.5% (largely from processed meat products).
Sodium ascorbate: 49.7%.
Potassium metabisulfite: 44.2%.
Potassium nitrate: 32.3% (largely from processed meat products).
“As part of their analysis, the scientists accounted for a range of variables, including age, sex, height, body mass index (BMI), physical activity, smoking status, educational level, and family history of cardiometabolic disorder and hypertension.
Their analysis also controlled for macronutrient consumption, how much fruit and vegetables they ate, and their intake of alcohol, salt, meat products, and dairy.
Even after adjusting for these factors, they found that higher intakes of total non-antioxidant preservatives were associated with a higher incidence of cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease.
Similarly, higher intakes of these preservative types were associated with a higher incidence of hypertension:
total preservatives: 24% higher
total non-antioxidant preservatives: 29% higher
total antioxidant preservatives: 22% higher
Antioxidant preservatives prevent chemical spoiling, whereas non-antioxidant preservatives work by killing microbes.
When the scientists drilled down into specific compounds, greater intakes of these preservatives were associated with a higher incidence of hypertension:
total sorbates: 39% higher
potassium sorbate: 39% higher
citric acid: 25% higher
potassium metabisulfite: 16% higher
total nitrites: 16% higher
sodium nitrite: 16% higher
ascorbic acid: 14% higher
sodium erythorbate: 14% higher
total ascorbates: 13% higher
total erythorbates: 13% higher
sodium ascorbate: 12% higher
total sulphites: 11% higher
extracts of rosemary: 10% higher
When assessing which individual preservatives were associated with a higher incidence of cardiovascular disease, only one remained significant:
ascorbic acid: 15% higher
Importantly, the researchers found no statistical interaction between diet quality or intake of UPFs. This means the effect is not solely because people who consumed more preservatives had an overall poorer diet.” (Newman, May 28, 2026; Hasenböhler et al., 2026)
“The current study has limitations. Because it is an observational study, it cannot prove causation. It is still possible that some other factor is responsible for the relationship between preservatives and heart health.
However, the authors end their paper with a call to arms: “This study provides new insights for revisiting the evaluation of the safety of these food additives, which should consider the benefit/risk balance between food preservation with these additives and their potential impact on cardiovascular health.”” (Newman, May 28, 2026; Hasenböhler et al., 2026)
Should I be worried about preservatives in food?
As evidence shows that food additives may cause harm, many are looking to reduce their intake.
“Medical News Today contacted Dr. Federica Amati, a research fellow at Imperial College London in the United Kingdom. Amati also works clinically as a registered nutritionist.
We asked how people could reduce their intake of preservatives. “In the U.S., [around 57%] of foods are ultraprocessed, and the majority of these products contain preservatives. It’s virtually impossible to reduce your preservative intake to zero, but cutting down on UPFs is a great place to start.”
When possible, she suggested we should prioritize whole foods, which will naturally have fewer cosmetic commercial additives. “As a double benefit,” she explained, “these foods, which include fruit, whole grains, veg, nuts, seeds, herbs, and spices, are rich in fiber.” (Newman, May 28, 2026, Hasenböhler et al., 2026)
This is particularly important in this case, she explained, as “we know that fiber is an essential nutrient that supports good gut health, immune function, and heart health.”
“If you want to start small, focus on reducing some of the worst offenders first,” she suggested. “Processed meat products, which often contain nitrate and nitrite preservatives, are also associated with poorer health if eaten regularly, so try to replace these with unprocessed white meats when possible.”
Sodas also often contain preservatives, and like processed meat products, are associated with poorer health when consumed regularly. So, “Try to replace these with water, unsweetened tea and coffee, or fermented products like kombucha or kefir,” she told us.
“However, remember to read the labels and check for products that include live cultures and a short ingredient list — not all fermented beverages are created equal.”” (Newman, May 28, 2026; Hasenböhler et al., 2026)
Hasenböhler A, Javaux G, Payen de la Garanderie, M, et al. Preservative food additives, hypertension, and cardiovascular diseases: the NutriNet-Santé study, European Heart Journal. 2026; ehag308, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehag308
A new scientific review on organic agriculture and climate change has been published in Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. This review is an update to a previous scientific review published in the year 2010. The authors of this newly published review (2026) confirm that,
“Today’s scientific evidence confirms that the principles of organic agriculture can facilitate a transition to climate-neutral food systems. Compliance with only mandatory requirements of organic certification is not sufficient for climate neutrality but can significantly offset agricultural emissions by avoiding mineral fertilizers and increasing soil carbon sequestration.”
Most relevant to achieving climate neutrality of the food system is a shift toward more plant-based diets. “Although behavioral change is more challenging to achieve, the principles of organic agriculture can positively trigger a climate-sensitive mind-shift of consumption and production patterns. Organic farming methods can also significantly contribute to climate adaptation in terms of better resilience under climatic variability and stress conditions. The all-encompassing systemic approach of organic agriculture indicates a viable path to food system resilience to climate change.” (Mueller-Lindenlauf and El-Hage, 2026)
Contribution of organic agriculture to climate-neutral farming
“To achieve climate neutrality, CH4 and N2O emissions must therefore be reduced to the extent that annual emissions do not exceed their annual decay rate. IPCC/AR6 indicates that anthropogenic CO2 emissions must reach net zero by 2070 to limit global warming to 2°C, while global methane emissions must be limited only to about 50 percent of the 2015 emissions (IPCC, Reference Lee and Romero2023, p. 22). The IPCC special report ‘Global warming of 1.5°C’ states that all N2O emissions should be reduced by about 25 percent until 2050, compared to 2020 levels (IPCC, 2018, p. 13), though most recent information indicates that such emissions should be cut by over 40 percent to remain below the 1.5oC pathway (UNEP and FAO, 2024).”
“The differentiation in emission reduction targets for CH4 and N2O was not considered in our 2010 paper, though agriculture is responsible for 53 percent of CH4 and 78 percent of N2O emissions (FAO, 2021). Despite a large increase in efforts for reducing GHG emissions, there are only slight changes in the annual GHG emissions from agrifood systems since 2010 (FAO, 2024). Compared to the year 2000, emissions from land use change decreased by 30 percent, while pre- and post-production grew by 52 percent due to activities along the supply chain (FAO, 2024). Thus, activities beyond the farm gate must also be considered.” (Mueller-Lindenlauf and El-Hage, 2026)
Direct effects of a shift to organic agriculture
Fossil CO2
“Organic standards do not prohibit the use of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are not ‘synthetic’ and were not considered harmful by the founders of organic farming of the 20th century. We did not mention this obvious fact in 2010, but the current perspectives focus on phasing-out fossil fuels. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels depend on both the energy demand and the energy mix. A review evaluating around 50 individual studies on the energy requirements of conventional and organic farms confirmed our finding that organic systems have a lower energy demand, namely because higher energy demands for tillage and mechanical weed control are offset by a lower energy demand due to the avoidance of mineral fertilizers (Smith, Williams and Peace, Reference Smith, Williams and Pearce2013); the synthetic N fertilizer supply chain is responsible for 2.1% of global GHG emissions (Menegat, Ledo and Tirado, Reference Menegat, Ledo and Tirado2022). Overall, organic farms perform better than conventional for nearly all crops when energy use is expressed per production area, but results are variable per unit of product, due to lower yields in developed countries (Smith, Williams and Pearce, Reference Smith, Williams and Pearce2013).”
“A climate-neutral agriculture requires the transition from fossil to renewable energy sources, but this transition might increase energy costs and reduce total energy availability. Organic farming supports the transition by foregoing mineral fertilizers and other external inputs, by harnessing ecosystem services, and by recommending the use of renewable energy sources for greenhouses (e.g., IFOAM, 2014).”
“Renewable energy policies (REN, 2024) favor the integration onto farms of solar panels for electricity generation and of biomass digesters to convert organic waste into biofuel. However, the energy transition in agriculture—and of agrivoltaics in particular—entails trade-offs and synergies regarding land and resource use (Goldberg, Reference Goldberg2023), as farmers often prefer guaranteed income from land lease for solar energy to volatile cultivations. We could not find scientific evidence regarding fossil fuel substitution with renewable energy by organic farms, as compared to their conventional counterparts. Further research is needed to assess to what extent the higher awareness of organic farmers for a healthy environment promotes the energy transition.” (Mueller-Lindenlauf and El-Hage, 2026)
Land use change and biomass carbon stocks
“Land use change leading to biomass carbon stock changes accounts for 11 percent of the global GHG emissions (IPCC, 2023, p. 7). Most relevant sources are drained organic soils, deforestation, and forest fires (FAOTSTAT, 2025), with slowing deforestation rates (FAO, 2025) and increased forest fires (Global Forest Watch, 2025). Between 2001 and 2024, forest fires are emerging as top drivers of global forest loss (29%), namely due to more extreme heat and drought that compound human-degraded landscapes (WRI, 2024). Organic standards still do not contain any legally binding regulations for the management of drained soils, and only some of them regulate biomass burning (e.g., Pacific Community, 2008). In this respect, organic farms are subject only to the same national laws as conventional farms. Organic rules have not significantly changed since 2010, although we mentioned that a further development of organic standards is needed to explicitly ban organic farming on previously deforested areas. Unfortunately, this did not happen, as was also criticized by Tayleur and Phalan (Reference Tayleur and Phalan2016) in a response to Reganold and Wachter (Reference Reganold and Wachter2016).”
“Climate change is expected to reduce average agricultural yields in many regions, particularly in lower latitudes (Rezaei et al., Reference Rezaei, Webber, Asseng, Boote, Durand, Ewert, Martre and MacCarthy2023), leading to a narrowing of the yield gap between organic and conventional systems, currently estimated between 8 and 25 percent lower in organic systems (Muller et al., Reference Muller, Schader, El-Hage Scialabba, Brüggemann, Isensee, Erb, Smith, Klocke, Leiber, Stolze and Niggli2017). For tropical and sub-tropical cropping systems, Te Pas & Rees (Reference Te Pas and Rees2014) found 26 percent higher organic yields and 53 percent higher soil organic carbon stocks (SOC) in organic systems, with least developed countries receiving least precipitations profiting most. A review of 74 studies showed that organic farming increases SOC in top soils, with an average sequestration rate of 0.45 Mg C/ha/y above conventional sequestration rates (all studies) and 0.1 Mg C/ha/y for the highest quality studies (Gattinger et al., Reference Gattinger, Muller, Haeni, Skinner, Fliessbach, Buchmann, Mäder, Stolze, Smith, Scialabba and Niggli2012). If we extrapolate these numbers for global croplands, it would sum up to 9–44 percent of the agricultural sector emissions. A more recent meta-analysis found that organic best practices, in sum, improve SOC by 18 percent on average (Crystal-Ornelas, Thapa and Tully, Reference Crystal-Ornelas, Thapa and Tully2021). These results confirm our assessment in 2010.” (Mueller-Lindenlauf and El-Hage, 2026)
“Incorporating forages and ruminants into regeneratively managed cropping systems is reported to elevate SOC and improve soil ecological functions (Teague and Kreuter, Reference Teague and Kreuter2020). Land restoration that reverses desertification through holistic planned grazing—currently applied over some 29 million hectares in 30 countries (Savory Institute, 2024)—offers great opportunities to augment land allocation to organic-like practices that increase soil carbon sequestration and protect from desertification and megafires.
Considering that organic carbon stocks are not permanent, a shift in management practices (e.g., tillage) or natural leakage effects (e.g., drainage) can reverse sequestration and re-emit stored carbon. Thus, the difficulty to guarantee permanence of SOC sequestration makes it challenging to include soil carbon sequestration in a climate change mitigation strategy or certification system (Paul et al., Reference Paul, Bartkowski, Dönmez, Don, Mayer, Steffens, Weigl, Wiesmeier, Wolf and Helming2023).” (Mueller-Lindenlauf and El-Hage, 2026)
“A controversial methane source in agriculture is animal husbandry, as methane is emitted via enteric fermentation in ruminants and manure management (slurry systems). Manure composting is often used in organic farming, and particularly biodynamic agriculture (Biodynamic Federation, 2024), thereby reducing emissions from manure management. As in 2010, we assume pasturing in organic farms significantly lowers methane emissions from manure because it lowers the share of anaerobic liquid manure. Slurry fermentation in biogas plants could further lower manure-based emissions close to zero, but this is not mandatory for organic farms.”
“Organic livestock management in extensive and grassland-based systems is reported to negatively affect climate change. To take advantage of grasslands, organic expansion may lead to a shift from monogastric to ruminants; scholars calculated that this would lead to potentially higher CH4 emissions (Barbieri et al., Reference Barbieri, Pellerin, Seufert, Smith, Ramankutty and Nesme2021; Smith et al., Reference Smith, Jones, Kirk, Pearce and Williams2018). Albeit methane emissions per unit of produce (e.g., CH4 per kg of organic milk) are higher in organic systems, the total GHG emissions are generally lower due to soil carbon sequestration and lower energy demand (mostly because of differences in feeding an fertilization) (Frank, Schmid and Hülsbergen, Reference Frank, Schmid and Hülsbergen2019; Lambotte et al., Reference Lambotte, De Cara, Brocas and Bellassen2023), while delivering a range of other benefits, such as utilizing grasslands that cannot be otherwise used for food production, thus sparing on concentrate feed and related arable land use.”
Nitrous oxide emissions
“Recent research confirms our findings from 2010, namely that N2O emissions per unit area are lower in organic agriculture. Skinner et al. (Reference Skinner, Gattinger, Muller, Mäder, Flieβbach, Stolze, Ruser and Niggli2014) found about 14 percent lower-area-scaled N2O fluxes from organically managed soils (but higher-yield-scaled emissions). Organic systems are mostly low external-input systems compared to conventional systems, leading to lower yields but higher nitrogen use efficiency (Kubota et al., Reference Kubota, Iqbal, Quideau, Dyck and Spaner2018). Barbieri et al. (Reference Barbieri, Pellerin, Seufert, Smith, Ramankutty and Nesme2021) showed a shift to organic agriculture would drastically limit nitrogen fluxes and hence N2O emission potential, because of not using mineral nitrogen fertilizers and because of a 20 percent reduction in livestock populations.” (Mueller-Lindenlauf and El-Hage, 2026)
Organic agriculture as an adaptation strategy
Short overview on climate change impacts
“Climate change will increase abiotic stress for agricultural crops and animals by increasing heat waves, droughts, heavy precipitation, and floods as well as tropical cyclones (IPCC, 2023). Cereal losses by droughts and heat waves already increased and are most likely to further increase, as will losses due to floods (Anderson, Bayer and Edwards, Reference Anderson, Bayer and Edwards2020). Climate change will further increase the variability in crop yields (Verma et al., Reference Verma, Song, Kumari, Jagadesh, Singh, Bhatt, Singh, Seth and Li2025), as well as crop and animal susceptibility to new pests and diseases (Anderson, Bayer and Edwards, Reference Anderson, Bayer and Edwards2020).” (Mueller-Lindenlauf and El-Hage, 2026)
“A review on agroecology practices such as diversification, organic nutrients, and legume cultivation—all common methods for organic farmers—showed that the integration of these practices into smallholder systems positively affected climate change adaptation and increased yields (Dittmer et al., Reference Dittmer, Rose, Snapp, Kebede, Brickman, Shelton, Egler, Stier and Wollenberg2023). Ecological infrastructures are required by biodynamic standards for at least 10 percent of a farm’s total area (Biodynamic Federation, 2024) but are less explicit in organic standards. These models inspired the EU commitments for 2030 which include, among others, to bring at least 25 percent of agricultural land under organic management, and to dedicate at least 10 percent of agricultural area to high-diversity landscape features to fulfil climate and environmental objectives (European Union, 2020).” (Mueller-Lindenlauf and El-Hage, 2026)
In recent years, crop breeding programs using genetically diverse, evolving population mixtures have emerged as a decentralized and efficient way to ensure continuous natural adaptation of crops to climate change. These ‘evolutionary mixtures’ outperform by far gene editing and any other biotechnologies through on-farm evolution, participatory selection, adaptation to specific agroecological conditions, and resilience to climate change at relatively minimal costs (Ceccarelli and Grando, Reference Ceccarelli and Grando2020).” (Mueller-Lindenlauf and El-Hage, 2026)
Integrated crop-livestock systems
“Although organic agriculture aims to close, to the extent possible, the farm nutrient cycle by integrating crop production and animal husbandry, many commercial organic farms still segregate crops and animals due to management complexity. However, biodynamic agriculture standards mandate animals on farms (Biodynamic Federation, 2024). Research shows that integrated plant–animal systems increase climate change adaptation, while providing a buffer against unpredictable climate events (Delandmeter et al., Reference Delandmeter, De Faccio Carvalho, Bremm, Dos Santos Cargnelutti, Bindelle and Dumont2024).” (Mueller-Lindenlauf and El-Hage, 2026)
Effects of organic lifestyles on climate change adaptation and mitigation
Dietary shifts
“Policies increasingly aim to reduce ruminant-related emissions and animal protein demand (OECD and FAO, 2019). The frequently cited ‘planetary health diet’ study proved a shift to a more plant-based human diet in combination with food waste reduction and improved production practices is needed to feed the 2050 world population healthy and within the planetary boundaries (Willet et al., Reference Willett, Rockström, Loken, Springmann, Lang, Vermeulen, Garnett, Tilman, DeClerck, Wood, Jonell, Clark, Gordon, Fanzo, Hawkes, Zurayk, Rivera, De Vries and Majele Sibanda2019). Schader et al. (Reference Schader, Muller, Scialabba, Hecht, Isensee, Erb, Smith, Makkar, Klocke, Leiber, Schwegler, Stolze and Niggli2015) estimated that animal production that avoids using food-competing feedstuffs—with ruminants fed on grasslands and monogastrics fed on recycled biomass and by-products—can globally reduce GHG by 18 percent and arable land occupation by 26 percent, while providing enough calories and proteins for the 2050 population. However, such a scenario entails global dietary changes that reduce animal food consumption from 38 to 11 percent of animal protein in the total energy supply, which remains slightly above the minimum level of 10 percent recommended for healthy diets.”
“Different worldviews, values, and perceptions influence behavioral changes in agricultural transformation processes (Gosnell, Gill and Voyer, Reference Gosnell, Gill and Voyer2019). Even though organic standards often lack explicit GHG guidance, the principles of organic agriculture as expressed by IFOAM (IFOAM, 2014) positively trigger climate-sensitive mind shifts. For example, the Pacific Organic Learning Fam Network, launched in 2020, actively promotes climate adaptation. Most organic farmers are organized in associations or cooperatives (e.g., Lee, 2021; BÖLW, 2025) and case studies from different world regions confirm the importance of cooperatives for providing professional networks, training, and extension services on ecological transition and climate change adaptation (Asai and Langer, Reference Asai and Langer2014; Jacobi et al., Reference Jacobi, Schneider, Bottazzi, Pillco, Calizaya and Rist2015; Bianco et al., Reference Bianco, Arfa, Ghali, Turpin and Daniel2019; Fachrista, Reference Fachrista2019; Wei, Kong and Wang, Reference Wei, Kong and Wang2022). More research is needed to further analyze the impact of the organic community in this transition.”
“Organic consumers have pioneered local supply chains that reduce GHG emissions from long-distance transport, packaging, processing, and food waste. Several box scheme models exist worldwide, and different forms of Community-Supported Agriculture (CSA) are being established, with over 13,000 farms in the USA (USDA, 2017) and 1 million consumers involved in Europe (Urgenci, 2016). A recent review confirms lower GHG emissions in CSA farms compared to reference systems (Egli, Rüschhoff and Priess, Reference Egly, Rüschhoff and Priess2023).” (Mueller-Lindenlauf and El-Hage, 2026)
Conclusions
“Today’s scientific evidence shows that the principles of organic agriculture could significantly contribute to a transition to climate neutral food systems. This does not apply to many certified organic lands which limit practices to mandatory requirements. However, even the latter significantly offsets agricultural emissions by avoiding mineral fertilizers and increasing soil carbon sequestration.”
“Organic farming methods can also significantly contribute to climate adaptation in terms of better resilience under climatic variability and stress conditions. Most relevant to achieve climate neutrality of the food system is a shift toward more plant-based diets and reduced food wastage. Although behavioral change is more challenging to achieve, the principles of organic agriculture can positively trigger a climate-sensitive mind-shift of consumption and production patterns. The all-encompassing systemic approach of organic agriculture indicates a viable path to food system resilience to climate change.” (Mueller-Lindenlauf and El-Hage, 2026)
Reference
Mueller-Lindenlauf M, El-Hage N. Organic agriculture and climate change—update after 15 years. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. 2026; 41:e13, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170526100301
Stop Food Waste Day is the largest single day of action in the fight against global food waste. Join us on Wednesday, 29 April 2026.
As we mark our 10th Stop Food Waste Day in 2026, we celebrate our progress and reaffirm our commitment to reducing food waste across all areas of our business, with Stop Food Waste Day continuing to serve as a powerful catalyst for change.
Stop Food Waste Day is a global awareness day dedicated to reducing food waste.
Started in 2017 by Compass Group USA, Stop Food Waste Day is now recognized globally in every corner of the world as we unite to educate, inspire, and ignite change. Our mission is to ignite change regarding the global food waste problem. We do this by drawing attention to the issues, at the same time educating through engaging with society at all levels and sharing practical, creative, and impactful ways we can all change our behavior to reduce food waste.
Since starting out, millions of people have taken the pledge to end food waste, shared tips and hints about how to reduce waste at home and been involved in the global conversation around how we can all do more to reduce our impact.
Let’s make every day a Stop Food Waste Day!
Did you know, 33% of all food produced globally is lost or wasted every single year? And just a quarter of the food wasted globally could be used to feed the 795 million undernourished people in the world.
16 December 2021, Rome, Italy – Food waste at the market of Casal de’ Pazzi.
Food waste and climate change
But food waste is not only a moral issue, it’s a key contributor to climate change too. Wasting food is a waste of the energy to grow, harvest, process and cook and food waste in landfill can cause methane emissions, a potent greenhouse gas.
Taking action to Stop Food Waste
The Stop Food Waste campaign assets include posters, social media cards and supporting images for you to use on digital channels, websites, at home or in the office. To help us maximize our reach, please do encourage others in your network to get involved, and follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn.
SHOW YOUR SUPPORT:
Take the Stop Food Waste Day pledge and share it across your personal and professional social media platforms
Download the social media cards on this page and use them across your social media platforms, adding your own message and always using the hashtag: #StopFoodWasteDay and remembering to tag our accounts: Twitter:@_stopfoodwasteday_ LinkedIn:@Stop Food Waste Day Instagram:@stop_food_waste_day Facebook:@stopfoodwasteday
Download the digital and/or print posters and use them in your communications campaigns, or as materials to support your very own Stop Food Waste Day activities.
It all starts at home. At Stop Food Waste Day, we want to make it easy for everyone to reduce food waste by creating meals which give a second life to ingredients that commonly go to waste. So, whether you’re a complete novice or an experienced chef, we’ve scoured every corner of the world to bring you some of the very best recipes and inspiration from leading chefs. Here, at this link, you can find no-waste recipes, a digital cookbook and chef tips.
The theme of this year’s Earth Day (2026) is “Our Power, Our Planet.” (1) Earth Day organizers across the globe are mobilizing to take action to protect our planet. As an individual in your community, you have power to make a difference on Earth Day (April 22nd) – and every day of the year (1,2).
Here are some proven solutions you can take to promote environmental protection in your community:
🌱Protect what works — scale proven solutions like renewable energy, efficiency, and ecosystem restoration already delivering results
📍Act locally — drive change in our own communities, where policy and impact are most immediate
🗳️Stay the course — ensure that environmental progress continues regardless of political shifts
🏃♀️Safeguard health — reduce pollution and climate risks that directly affect families and communities
👩🌾Strengthen livelihoods — support workers and industries that depend on a healthy environment
🫂Uphold shared values — advance stewardship as a moral, cultural, and intergenerational responsibility
🌍Connect global to local — recognize that environmental outcomes are interconnected across borders
📈Invest in the future — protect land, air, and water as long-term economic and social assets
🤝Collaborate across sectors — unite communities, educators, businesses, and policymakers for practical solutions
💪Exercise collective power — take responsibility as individuals and communities to drive meaningful change (2)
Organizing an Earth Day event? Register HERE to join EARTHDAY.ORG’s global community. (2)
At the community level, you can participate in “Community cleanups, teach-ins, peaceful demonstrations, tree planting, voter registration, town halls, community organizing — every action strengthens the movement.” (1).
You can find different toolkits for acting locally at this link:
Here, you can download a variety of ready-to-use Earth Day 2026 promotional materials
Earth Day 2026 Communications and Social Media
There are many examples of effective phrases to use when communicating on social media about Earth Day 2026. You can use these slogans across your various channels, signage, and communications. (1,2) For example:
Our Power, Our Planet
One Planet. Billions of Actions.
Earth Day Every Day
Love Your Mother
Hope Is Renewable
Ecosystems Not Power Systems
Earth > Ego
Climate Action = Survival Instinct
Earth Isn’t a Backup Planet. This IS Plan B.
Make Science Cool Again
In your Earth Day 2026 social media communications, be sure to use the following hashtags:
#OurPowerOurPlanet #EarthDay2026
And you can also tag Earth Day 2026 organizers in your social media communications:
For collaborations: Please add – @earthdaynetwork as a collaborator to any content as we may want to cross-promote your content. We will review each piece of content individually.
“To ensure food security while minimizing agriculture’s adverse impacts, it’s essential to produce enough food using as little land as possible. A new study in Environmental Research: Food Systems from Project Drawdown and the University of Minnesota shows substantial opportunity for improvement in this regard, finding that just half of the calories produced on croplands globally are directly available for human consumption.” (West et al., 2026; Project Drawdown, 2026) See Figure 1.
Figure 1. Only half of the calories produced on cropland go directly to human consumption, with the bulk of the remainder used for fuel or feed.
Credit: Project Drawdown
“Of all human activities, few have as big an impact on the planet as agriculture. Globally, the agri-food system – everything that’s produced and consumed, from farm to fork to landfill – is the largest consumer of water, the largest user of land area, and one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases.” (West et al., 2026; Project Drawdown, 2026).
“To determine the global efficiency of the agri-food system, researchers analyzed the fate of the top 50 crops by calorie production between 2010 and 2020, amounting to nearly 98% of all calories produced. They found that, in 2020, only half of all calories produced on croplands were available for people to eat, while the other half were “lost” as livestock feed, biofuels, or other non-food uses.”
“Concerningly, even though total calorie production increased from 2010 to 2020 by roughly 24%, calories for human consumption increased only 17%, reflecting a decrease in how efficiently croplands are being used to directly feed people.” (West et al., 2026; Project Drawdown, 2026)
“We don’t have a food scarcity problem – we have a cropland use problem,” says study author and Project Drawdown Senior Scientist Paul West, Ph.D. “Nearly 40% of all calories produced were used as feed for livestock, which yield far fewer calories for human consumption.”
“Beef cattle in particular are inefficient in converting feed to human food, consuming one-third of feed calories but only providing 9% of the food calories we get from livestock. Shifting cropland now used to grow feed to produce food for people instead could dramatically reduce the harmful impacts of agriculture on climate, water resources and wildlife habitat.” (West et al., 2026; Project Drawdown, 2026)
“Nearly 5% of calories produced were used for biofuels. Although these are less polluting than fossil fuels, they still are responsible for significant greenhouse gas emissions, particularly when land use is taken into account.” (West et al., 2026; Project Drawdown, 2026).
“According to the study, such inefficiencies were particularly pronounced in a small set of countries. For instance, around 23% and 29% of total calorie production in the United States and Brazil, respectively, were used to feed people. In contrast, 84% of India’s calorie production feeds people.” (West et al., 2026; Project Drawdown, 2026). See Figure 2.
Screenshot
Figure 2. The percent of calories produced on cropland that are available for direct human consumption varies greatly across the globe.
Credit: Project Drawdown
“In particular, the researchers found that if people in higher-income countries consumed chicken in place of beef – except for the 14 grams of beef per person per day allowed for optimal human and planetary health (roughly a hamburger per week) – the “lost calories” avoided would be enough to meet the caloric needs of 850 million people. More than half of the added benefit would come from the substitution taking place in the United States and Brazil, alone.” (West et al., 2026; Project Drawdown, 2026)
“Today’s global food system is staggeringly unsustainable,” says study author and Project Drawdown researcher Emily Cassidy. “Shifting to lower levels of beef consumption and reducing biofuel production could free up an immense amount of land.”
“Ironically, the increasing inefficiency of cropland use not only increasingly exacerbates climate change, but it also may be exacerbated by it.”
“If we don’t change what we’re growing and consuming, this could contribute to a vicious cycle,” says study author and Project Drawdown Senior Scientist James Gerber, Ph.D. “These inefficiencies could drive continued cropland expansion, leading to higher agricultural emissions and more global warming, which in turn could decrease crop yields, resulting in even more cropland expansion, and on and on.” (Project Drawdown, 2026)
“Ultimately, the researchers hope these findings will help guide strategic interventions that can feed the planet without destroying it.”
“All of the solutions to close this efficiency gap already exist,” Cassidy says. “By targeting actions and policies for the commodities and countries that are the worst offenders, we can have an outsized impact on improving food security, health, and the environment.” (Project Drawdown, 2026)
References
West PC, et al. Only half of the calories produced on croplands are available as food for human consumption.Environ. Res. Food Syst. 2026; In Press. https://doi.org/10.1088/2976-601X/ae4f6b
Only half of calories produced on croplands are available for human consumption, study finds. Press Release. Project Drawdown. March 24, 2026. Available at:
New research published in Human Reproduction (March 24, 2026) has found that “eating large amounts of ultra-processed food (UPF) is linked not only to reduced fertility in men, but also to slower growth in early embryos, and smaller yolk sacs, which are essential for early embryonic development, according to new research.” (Lin et al., 2026; Focus on Reproduction, March 24, 2026).
The authors of the study, which is published in Human Reproduction (2026), one of the world’s leading reproductive medicine journals, say their findings suggest that reducing the consumption of UPFs, especially around the time of conception and pregnancy, is better for both parents and embryos. (Lin et al., 2026)
“Although maternal and paternal health are known to influence reproductive success and the development and health of offspring, until now no study has investigated the combined impact of mothers’ and fathers’ UPF consumption on the length of time it takes to conceive and early embryonic development.”
“Consumption of [ultra-processed foods] UPFs has been growing rapidly. They are highly processed foods, typically high in added sugars, salt, saturated and trans fats, and additives, and low in fiber, whole foods and other essential nutrients; they are usually designed for convenience and mass production rather than nutritional value. In some high-income countries, UPF now account for up to 50-60% of food eaten each day.” (Lin et al., 2026; Focus on Reproduction, March 24, 2026).
“Even though UPFs are so common in our diets, very little is known about their potential relationship with fertility outcomes, and early human development,” said Dr. Romy Gaillard, a pediatrician and associate professor of developmental epidemiology at Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, who led the study.”
“Dr. Gaillard and colleagues analyzed findings from 831 women and 651 male partners enrolled in a population-based, prospective study that has been following parents from before conception onwards and into their offspring’s childhood – the Generation R Study Next Programme. Couples were included during the pre-conception period or during pregnancy between 2017 and 2021.” (Lin et al., 2026; Focus on Reproduction, March 24, 2026).
“The researchers assessed the parents’ diet with a questionnaire during early pregnancy around 12 weeks. The different foods were classified as either non-UPFs or UPFs, and UPF intake was expressed as a percentage of total food intake in grams per day. All the women were pregnant at the time of this questionnaire. The average (median) consumption of UPF was 22% and 25%, respectively, of women’s and men’s total food intake.”
“A questionnaire also provided information on time to pregnancy, fecundability (the probability of conceiving within one month) and subfertility (a time to pregnancy of 12 months or more, or the use of assisted reproductive technology).”
“The distance between the embryo’s head and its buttocks (crown rump length or CRL), which is an indication of its size and development, and the volume of the yolk sac were measured by transvaginal ultrasound at seven, nine and 11 weeks of gestation.” (Lin et al., 2026; Focus on Reproduction, March 24, 2026).
“The first author of the study, Celine Lin, a PhD student at Erasmus University Medical Center, said: “We observed that UPFs consumption in women was not consistently related to the risk of subfertility and time to pregnancy, but was associated with slightly smaller embryonic growth and yolk sac size by the seventh week of pregnancy. These differences in early human development were small but are important from a research perspective and at population level, as we showed for the first time that UPF consumption is not only important for health of the mother, but may also be related to development of the offspring.”
“In men, we observed that higher UPF consumption was related to a higher risk of subfertility and a longer duration until pregnancy was achieved, but not with early embryo development. This association may be explained by the sensitivity of sperm to dietary composition, whereas maternal UPF consumption may directly influence the environment in the womb in which the embryo develops from the start of life onwards.” (Lin et al., 2026; Focus on Reproduction, March 24, 2026).
Dr. Gaillard said: “Our findings suggest that a diet low in UPFs would be best for both partners, not only for their own health, but also for their chances of pregnancy and the health of their unborn child.”
“Other studies have shown that slower embryonic growth in the first trimester is associated with an increased risk of adverse birth outcomes, including premature birth (birth before 37 weeks), low birth weight, and an increased risk of heart and blood vessel problems in childhood. Impaired yolk sac development is associated with an increased risk of miscarriage and premature birth.” (Focus on Reproduction, March 24, 2026)
Dr Gaillard continued: “Our study shows for the first time that UPF consumption in men and women is associated with fertility outcomes and early human development, but also has limitations. Importantly, as this is an observational study, our study shows associations, but cannot prove direct causal effects of UPF consumption on these early life outcomes.”
“More research is needed to replicate our findings, in diverse populations, and to study the potential biological mechanisms underlying this effect. For instance, are these differences driven by the low nutritional value of UPFs or by the increased exposure to additives or microplastics? We also want to study whether these early differences have consequences for birth outcomes, growth and development of offspring throughout childhood.”
“Finally, our research shows that we should think more broadly about fertility and early pregnancy. We should move away from the idea that only the health and lifestyle of mothers-to-be is important for pregnancy and offspring outcomes, and recognize that the health and lifestyle of both the mother- and father-to-be play an important role. Our results highlight the need to pay more attention to male health in the preconception period, which has traditionally been overlooked.” (Lin et al., 2026; Focus on Reproduction, March 24, 2026).
Lin CHX, Gaillard R, Mulders AGMGJ, Jaddoe VWV, Schipper MC. Periconceptional ultra-processed food consumption in women and men, fertility, and early embryonic development. Human Reproduction. 2026. deag023. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deag023
The toxicity of pesticides increased worldwide between 2013 to 2019, with Brazil among the countries leading the way. This conclusion was made in a study published in the journal Science (Wolfram et al., 2026) and contradicts the goal of reducing pesticide risks by 2030, established at the 15th United Nations Conference on Biodiversity (COP15).
In their analysis, “German scientists from the University of Kaiserslautern-Landau examined 625 pesticides across 201 nations. They used the total applied toxicity (TAT) indicator, which considers the volume used and the toxicity level of each substance.”
The authors reported in their published results that, “Six out of eight species groups are most vulnerable to increasing levels of toxicity – terrestrial arthropods (such as insects, arachnids, and centipedes), whose toxicity has surged by 6.4 percent per year; soil organisms (4.6%), fish (4.4%), aquatic invertebrates (2.9%), pollinators (2.3%), and terrestrial plants (1.9%).”
“Global TAT sank only for aquatic plants (−1.7%) and terrestrial vertebrates (−0.5% per year). Humans are part of the latter.”
“The increasing global TAT trends pose a challenge to achieving the UN pesticide risk reduction target and demonstrate the presence of threats to biodiversity globally,” the study reads.” (Cardoso, 2026; Wolfram et al., 2026)
Brazil in the spotlight
“Brazil appears as one of the main actors in this scenario. The study identifies the country as having one of the highest levels of toxicity per agricultural area on the planet – alongside China, Argentina, the US, and Ukraine.” (Cardoso, 2026)
“Furthermore, Brazil, China, the US, and India together account for 53 to 68 percent of the total applied toxicity worldwide.”
“Brazil’s relevance is directly linked to the weight of its agribusiness, especially extensive crops. Even though traditional cereals and fruits occupy large areas, the toxicity associated with crops such as soybeans, cotton, and corn has a significantly greater impact if one bears in mind their cultivated area.” (Cardoso, 2026; Wolfram et al., 2026)
Types of pesticides
“One of the most relevant findings of the study indicates that the problem is highly concentrated – on average, only 20 pesticides per country account for more than 90 percent of the total applied toxicity.”
“The study points out that different chemical classes dominate the impacts. Classes of insecticides – such as pyrethroids and organophosphates – contributed over 80 percent of the TAT of aquatic invertebrates, fish, and terrestrial arthropods. Neonicotinoids, organophosphates, and lactones accounted for more than 80 percent of the TAT of pollinators.” (Cardoso, 2026; Wolfram et al., 2026)
“Organophosphates, along with other classes of insecticides, contributed most to the TATs of terrestrial vertebrates. Acetamide and bipyridyl herbicides contributed more than 80 percent to the TAT of aquatic plants, while a broader mix of herbicides (including acetamide, sulfonylurea, and others) determined the TAT of terrestrial plants. High-volume herbicides such as acetochlor, paraquat, and glyphosate belong to these classes and have been associated with environmental and human health risks.”
“Conazole and benzimidazole fungicides, along with neonicotinoid insecticides applied to seed coatings, contributed mainly to the TAT of soil organisms.” (Cardoso, 2026; Wolfram et al., 2026)
Distant global target
“The study also assessed the progress of 65 nations. The diagnosis is that, without structural changes, only one country will achieve the UN target of reducing pesticide toxicity by 50 percent by 2030 – Chile.”
“According to the researchers, China, Japan, and Venezuela are on track to achieve the target and show downward trends across all indicators. However, they need to speed up changes in pesticide use.”
“Thailand, Denmark, Ecuador, and Guatemala are moving away from the target, with at least one indicator doubling in the last 15 years. They need to reverse the rapid increase trends and return to their previous trajectory.” (Cardoso, 2026; Wolfram et al., 2026)
“All other countries in the study, including Brazil, need to bring pesticide risks back to levels seen more than 15 years ago. This means reversing decades-old patterns of use in both volume and toxicity of mixtures.”
“The scientists point to three main ways to curb the escalating risks – replacing highly toxic pesticides, expanding organic farming, and adopting non-chemical alternatives. Biological control technologies, agricultural diversification, and more precise management are named as strategies capable of cutting down impacts without hurting productivity.” (Cardoso, 2026; Wolfram et al., 2026)
Organic Farming to Promote the Achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs).
The United Nations (UN) introduced the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a comprehensive framework for poverty eradication, environmental conservation and sustainable agriculture, with the vision of ensuring prosperity for all by 2030. Organic farming can facilitate the achievement of the UN SDGs in numerous ways. (Kioumarsi et al., 2025)
First, “Organic agriculture improves ecosystem and soil fertility. Organic agriculture relies on natural processes, biodiversity, and local ecosystem functions [SDG #15] without the use of synthetic chemicals or genetically modified organisms. Organic agriculture also employs environmentally friendly practices such as crop rotation, organic manures (compost and manure), and biological control for minimal human-related damage to the environment.” (Kioumarsi et al., 2025)
Second, for the eradication of poverty [SDG #1], organic farming generates labor employment in agriculture and rural jobs. “For zero hunger and food security [SDG #2], organic agriculture approaches ensure sustainable agroecosystems that ensure long-term food supply. Organic agriculture ensures healthy and safe food by non-use of agrochemicals.” (Kioumarsi et al., 2025)
Third, “Organic farming enhances economic security and promotes education [SDG #4] in sustainable agriculture, environmental management, and rural development for quality education.”
Fourth, regarding gender equity [SDG #5], organic farming creates employment for women in rural areas and empowers them economically through fair remuneration and improved family welfare. (Kioumarsi et al., 2025)
Fifth, “Organic farming aids in clean water and sanitation [SDG #6] by preventing nutrient runoffs and reducing releases of pollutants, thereby improving drinking water and aquatic ecosystem quality. It also improves the effectiveness of water use through improved retention of soil water.” (Kioumarsi et al., 2025)
And sixth, “In the area of clean and affordable energy [SDG #7], organic farming utilizes renewable energy sources and biomass recycling to generate energy, minimizing fossil fuel usage and improving energy sustainability.”
Seventh, “Organic agriculture contributes to decent work and economic growth [SDG #8] through improved labor standards and connecting small-scale farmers to fair supply chains and niche markets.
Eighth, in the area of industry, innovation, and infrastructure [SDG #9], organic farming enhances competitiveness, post-harvest handling, and infrastructural development.” (Kioumarsi et al., 2025)
Ninth, “Organic farming reduces inequalities [SDG #10] by enabling poor and small-scale farmers to access global markets, leading to a more equitable distribution of income.
Tenth, organic farming promotes sustainable cities and communities [SDG #11] as well as responsible consumption and production [SDG #12] through ethically oriented consumption that drives socially and environmentally conscious demand, underpinning local food systems that reduce waste and enhance resilience.
Eleventh, “Organic farming is at the center of climate action [SDG #13] through the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and building ecosystem resilience through methods like cover cropping and agroforestry.”
Twelfth, “For aquatic life [SDG # 14], organic farming discourages chemical pollution.” (Kioumarsi et al., 2025)
Thirteenth, organic farming is also a cause of peace, justice, and good institutions [SDG #16] through the encouragement of partnership and community-based programs. The benefits are achieved in partnerships [SDG #17] for objectives, such as collaborative efforts between governments, NGOs, private enterprises, and farmer groups.
“Lastly, organic agriculture provides an integrated solution for sustainable agriculture [SDG #2] to address poverty, hunger, health, gender equity, environmentally friendly agriculture, and climate change simultaneously. If enacted as a universal strategy, it has the potential to strengthen the SDGs’ transformative agenda and contribute to making a healthier and more equitable world.” (Kioumarsi et al., 2025)
Although organic farming has benefits, it is also faced with many challenges. To make proper use of its potential in driving the UN SDGs, increased investment in research, extension, farmer training, policy influence, and consumer promotion through labeling and education is important.” (Kioumarsi et al., 2025)
References
Wolfram J, Bussen D, Bub S, Petschick LL, Herrmann LZ, Schulz R. Increasing applied pesticide toxicity trends counteract the global reduction target to safeguard biodiversity. Science. 2026;391(6785):616-621. doi: 10.1126/science.aea8602.
If you want to eat chocolate and do better for the planet, dark chocolate is by far your best bet. This is the conclusion and takeaway message of a new study published in Science of the Total Environment (2026) that compared different types of chocolate for their environmental impacts. The study authors found that, “the major environmental burden of this sweet treat lies within the ingredients used to make it—the main culprits being palm oil, and milk.” (Bryce, 2026; Konar et al., 2026).
Focusing on the emerging chocolate market in Turkey, the researchers compared four types of chocolate — “dark, milk, white, and compound chocolate (where some cocoa butter is substituted by fats like palm oil.)” “For each type, the researchers carried out a life cycle analysis, capturing everything from the field impacts where ingredients were grown, through to packaging and retail. They calculated impact across 18 categories, including global warming potential, land, water, and energy use.” (Bryce, 2026; Konar et al., 2026).
“Out of this comparison, dark chocolate emerged as the clear sustainability victor, with a smaller footprint than all other chocolate types across several impact categories.”
“Dark chocolate had a global warming potential of 2.32 kilograms of CO2-equivalent, which was almost half that of white chocolate, at 4.06 kilos per CO2-eq. It also excelled on land use, requiring only half of what white chocolate did, and used less water than white, milk, and compound chocolate. It also had the lowest freshwater and terrestrial pollution impact of all.”
“By comparison, compound chocolate used large amounts of freshwater and had a high marine pollution impact. White chocolate, meanwhile, had the highest global warming impact of all four, as well as the biggest water and pollution footprint overall.” See Figure 1.
Figure 1. Global Warming Potential and Water Use for Different Types of Chocolate
When the researchers looked through the lifecycle data, the researchers discovered that chocolate ingredients accounted for these differences, driving the bulk of the environmental burden in every case. “The milk powder used to make milk and white chocolate relies on the land-, water-, and emissions-intensive dairy farming. The palm oil that replaces cocoa fats in compound chocolate comes from vast palm plantations that give this chocolate type a hefty water and pollution impact.” (Bryce, 2026; Konar et al., 2026)
“Other lifecycle factors like chocolate production method, energy use, and transport methods did contribute to the overall footprint of each chocolate, but they were overshadowed by the ingredient impacts. In fact, raw materials contributed 60% of chocolate’s environmental burden overall, and most of that was driven by milk and palm oil production.”
“The lack of both these ingredients in dark chocolate explains why it had a higher sustainability score. But it’s still not a perfect sweet treat. Despite using little or no milk, the biggest impacts from dark chocolate came from the terrestrial, freshwater and marine pollution caused by the larger share of cocoa cultivation needed to make this product.” (Bryce, 2026; Konar et al., 2026)
“Ultimately, this was the study’s point: different ingredients create trade-offs and also harbor the biggest opportunities for change along the production chain of each chocolate type, including dark.” (Byrce, 2026; Konar et al., 2026)
Tweaking chocolate recipes to avoid or reduce those key impact hotspots is therefore the most powerful way to reduce their environmental burden, the researchers suggest. In the meantime, there’s an important step that every chocolate-lover can take – eat a little more chocolate and a little less milk chocolate. And that’s hardly a struggle from both a taste and environmental standpoint. (Bryce, 2026; Konar et al., 2026)
Dark Chocolate in Quito, Ecuador
Ecuador is considered the birthplace of cacao/chocolate. I visited a local artisanal chocolate shop in Quito, Ecuador in late June 2025 where I learned firsthand about the chocolate-making process as well as the different varieties of cacao that are produced around the world. The local chocolate expert I spoke with at KITU Artesanal Chocolate in Quito, Ecuador explained to me the different varieties of cacao that are used in the chocolate-making process, and which ones are considered superior from a quality standpoint (see the photos below).
For more information on KITU Artesanal Chocolate (Quito, Ecuador), visit their Facebook page:
Distinto Cacao and Coffee does chocolate and coffee tastings, which I highly recommend if you are ever traveling to Bogotá, Colombia. You can learn more at the link included below:
Cacao Tasting at Distinto Cacao and Coffee – Bogotá, Colombia
Experience the world of coffee and cacao in Colombia. Guided and personalized tastings, sensory workshops, and exclusive workshops to discover the best of coffee and cacao in Colombia.
Contact Information:
Distinto Cacao & Coffee
Calle 84 A # 13-53 Bogotá D.C / Colombia
Email: distintocolombia@gmail.com
References
Konar N, Fidan M, Atalar I, et al. Life cycle hotspots in chocolate production: Ingredient formulation, processing technologies, and pathways toward sustainable confectionery systems. Science of the Total Environment. 2026;108:18150.
New Research published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials: Plastics (2026) reveals that heat is a primary driver of microplastic release and the material of your coffee cup matters more than you think.
“To most of us, that cup feels harmless – just a convenient tool for caffeine delivery. However, if that cup is made of plastic or has a thin plastic lining, there is a high chance it’s shedding thousands of tiny plastic fragments directly into your drink.” (Liu, 2026)
“In new research published in Journal of Hazardous Materials: Plastics, researchers looked at how coffee cups behave when they get hot.” (Liu et al., 2026; Liu, 2026)
“The message is clear: heat is a primary driver of microplastic release, and the material of your cup matters more than you might think.” (Liu, 2026)
What are microplastics?
“Microplastics are fragments of plastic ranging from about 1 micrometre to 5 millimetres in size – roughly from a speck of dust to the size of a sesame seed.
They can be created when larger plastic items break down, or they can be released directly from products during normal use. These particles end up in our environment, our food, and eventually, our bodies.
Currently, we don’t have conclusive evidence on just how much of that microplastic remains in our bodies. Studies on this subject are highly prone to contamination, and it’s really difficult to accurately measure the levels of such tiny particles in human tissue.
Furthermore, scientists are still piecing together what microplastics might mean for human health in the long term. More research is urgently needed, but in the meantime, it’s good to be aware of potential microplastic sources in our daily lives.” (Liu, 2026)
Temperature matters
“First, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis – a statistical synthesis of existing research – analyzing data from 30 peer-reviewed studies. (Liu et al., 2026)
They looked at how common plastics such as polyethylene and polypropylene behave under different conditions. One factor stood out above all others: temperature.
As the temperature of the liquid inside a container increases, the release of microplastics generally increases too. In the studies we reviewed, reported releases ranged from a few hundred particles to more than 8 million particles per litre, depending on the material and study design.
Interestingly, “soaking time” – how long the drink sits in the cup – was not a consistent driver. This suggests that leaving our drink in a plastic cup for a long time isn’t as important as the initial temperature of the liquid when it first hits the plastic.” (Liu, 2026)
How to Reduce Your Exposure to Microplastics in Your Daily Diet
1. Chewing gum
“When you chew gum, you are essentially chewing a lump of plastic. Most chewing gum is made from a gum base (plastics and rubber), to which sweeteners and flavourings are added. As you chew, the gum base releases microplastics. A single gram of chewing gum can release up to 637 microplastic particles. (Rolph, 2026)
Natural gums made with plant polymers are not much better. They release a similar number of microplastics as the synthetic gum. This suggests that microplastics aren’t just coming from the gum base but could be due to the introduction of microplastics during the production or packaging process.
Most microplastics were released within the first eight minutes of chewing, so to reduce your exposure, chew one piece of gum for longer, rather than constantly popping in fresh pieces.” (Rolph, 2026)
Common table salt can be a source of microplastics in your diet. (DegImages/Canva)
“Contamination has been found to be higher in terrestrial salts, such as Himalayan salt, rather than marine salts. New technologies are being investigated to help clean up sea salt; however, it is likely that much of the contamination comes from production and packaging.
Your salt grinder might also be making things worse. Disposable plastic spice grinders can release up to 7,628 particles when grinding just 0.1g of salt using a plastic grinder. To minimise your exposure, switch to a grinder with a ceramic or metal grinding mechanism and store salt in non-plastic containers.” (Rolph, 2026)
3. Apples and carrots
“Microplastic contamination of fruit and vegetables has been identified in several studies. Nanoplastics, which are plastic particles smaller than 1,000 nanometres, can enter plants through the roots. Microplastics have also been found on the surface of a variety of fruit and vegetables.
While we don’t yet know what the effects of the microplastics are, we do know that antioxidants in fruit and vegetables, such as anthocyanins, which give fruits and vegetables their red, blue, and purple colours, keep people healthy, so keep eating them.” (Rolph, 2026)
4. Tea and coffee
“Teabags are not the only source of microplastics in your hot beverage. Tea leaves, coffee, and milk can all be contaminated with microplastics. The use of disposable plastic-lined takeaway cups is one of the biggest sources of microplastic contamination in hot drinks. High temperatures can cause the release of microplastics from the container into the beverage.” (Rolph, 2026)
“Hot drinks contain more microplastics than the iced equivalents, so switching to a cold beverage can reduce your exposure. Buying milk in glass bottles has also been shown to result in a lower microplastic load.”
“This doesn’t extend to all drinks, though. A study of bottled drinks demonstrated that soft drinks and beer stored in glass bottles had higher microplastic contamination than plastic bottles, possibly due to contamination from the painted metal bottle caps.”
“There are a few truly plastic-free teabags available – they use cotton rather than biodegradable plastics to seal their bags. Identifying these brands, however, can be tricky as there is no standard approach to labelling and not all companies are transparent about the composition of their product.”
“Overall, switching to loose leaf tea and using metal or glass reusable cups are good strategies for reducing microplastic contamination.” (Rolph, 2026)
“Storing food in plastic containers and eating highly processed foods (ultra-processed foods) are both associated with high concentrations of microplastics in stool samples, so you could try to avoid these. Microwaving food in glass containers rather than plastic is also a good idea to prevent microplastics from leaching into your food.” (Rolph, 2026)
“Finally, the single biggest source of microplastics in food and drink is likely to be bottled water, with up to 240,000 particles per litre. Switching to tap water can help to significantly reduce your exposure.”
“While eliminating plastics entirely from our diets may be impossible, making these swaps should help to reduce your exposure.” (Rolph, 2026)
References
Liu X, Li D, Li Z, et al. Release of microplastics from commonly used plastic containers: Combined meta-analysis and case study. Journal of Hazardous Materials: Plastics. 2026;2: 100028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazmp.2025.100028.
As described in a new review by Tiombayeva et al. (2025), “Amaranth (Amaranthus spp.) is frequently regarded as a promising alternative to traditional cereal crops [1]. Unlike most traditional cereal crops, amaranth is characterized by a balanced amino acid composition, including all essential amino acids, the absence of gluten in its grain and high levels of dietary fiber, antioxidants (polyphenols, squalene, α-tocopherol), macro- and microelements (iron, calcium, magnesium, zinc), phytochemical compounds, and bioactive peptides [2,3,4,5,6,7].” (Toimbayeva et al., 2025)
“In the mid-1970s, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences [8] identified three species of amaranth—A. Caudatus, A. cruentus, and A. hypochondriacus—traditionally cultivated in Central America and Mexico which are essential food sources with substantial potential for further breeding. The likely wild relatives or ancestors of these species are A. powellii and A. hybridus, both of which are widely distributed across Mexico [9].” (Toimbayeva et al., 2025)
Currently, the amaranth species used for food applications include A. cruentus, A. caudatus, and A. hypochondriacus [10]. These species are actively cultivated in North America (the US and Canada), Central and South America (Guatemala, Peru, Ecuador and Argentina), Europe (Germany and France), Asia (India and China), and Africa (Ethiopia). “This pseudocereal crop is highly tolerant to adverse environmental conditions: it can thrive in saline and alkaline soils, withstand high temperatures, grow at high altitudes, and endure periods of water scarcity [11,12]. This makes it a promising crop for widespread cultivation, especially in the content of climate change. Furthermore, amaranth is considered an environmentally sustainable crop, as its natural resistance to pests allows it to be grown without the need for chemical treatments or fertilizers.” (Toimbayeva et al., 2025)
Nutritional content of amaranth
“In terms of nutritional content, amaranth seeds, whether in their wild or cultivated forms, have a notably high protein content compared to other cereal crops [13]. Unlike traditional cereals such as maize and rice, which predominantly concentrate protein in the endosperm, amaranth stores the majority of its protein (up to 65%) in the germ and seed coat [14].”
“The protein profile of amaranth is mainly composed of easily digestible albumins and globulins [15,16]. From a nutritional perspective, a key feature of amaranth’s protein composition is the presence of all essential amino acids, which the human body cannot synthesize and must obtain from external sources. The isoleucine, leucine, and lysine are particularly abundant, with the lysine content in amaranth being twice as high as in traditional crops [2]. Bioactive peptides derived from amaranth proteins exhibit diverse physiological effects, including anticholesterolemic, antihypertensive, antioxidant, and antithrombotic activities [17].” (Toimbayeva et al., 2025)
“The carbohydrate composition of amaranth seeds is also actively studied. The starch content of amaranth exceeds 60%, with an amylose fraction ranging from 4.7% to 12.5% [18,19,20]. The total concentration of mono- and oligosaccharides (glucose, fructose, sucrose, and raffinose) in dry matter ranges from 3% to 4%, with sucrose being the predominant component, at a content twice that found in the grains of traditional cereals [21].”
“Amaranth seeds are rich in dietary fiber, which has hypotriglyceridemic effects that aid in regulating the metabolism of both saturated and unsaturated fatty acids [4]. The lipid profile of amaranth is composed of triacylglycerols (TAGs), phospholipids, squalene, and fat-soluble vitamins, primarily tocopherols, which are the main components of the lipophilic fraction of the seeds [22].” (Toimbayeva et al., 2025)
“Despite the mentioned advantages, amaranth is still rarely utilized, particularly as a cereal crop, despite its significant potential in the food industry [5,23,24]. Amaranth and its processed derivatives play a crucial role in the development of innovative food products, broadening their variety [25]. Thermal and biological processing of amaranth enhances its food acceptability and nutritional profile while also increasing the antioxidant activity and bioavailability of bioactive compounds [26,27].” (Toimbayeva et al., 2025)
The nutritional and biological value of Amaranth
“Amaranth (lat. Amaranthus) is a pseudocereal crop with high nutritional and biological value. Amaranth grain is characterized by a high protein content, up to 21.5%, which significantly exceeds the corresponding figure for most traditional cereal crops. The protein profile of amaranth includes all essential amino acids, with particularly high concentrations of lysine, methionine, cysteine, and tryptophan. This makes amaranth a valuable source of complete protein, especially within vegetarian diets and gluten-free diets.” (Toimbayeva et al., 2025)
“The lipid composition of the grain varies from 6 to 9%, and in some species, it can reach up to 19%. The main portion of fats consists of unsaturated fatty acids (up to 83%), including linoleic, oleic, and palmitoleic acids. Notably, the content of the biologically active compound squalene (up to 11% of the total lipid fraction), as well as tocopherols with antioxidant activity, is remarkable.” (Toimbayeva et al., 2025)
“Amaranth grain is a source of dietary fiber, vitamins (B, C, and E), and minerals—potassium, calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, iron, and zinc. The composition also includes various bioactive compounds, including flavonoids (quercetin, kaempferol, rutin, vitexin, isovitexin) and phenolic acids (ferulic, gallic, vanillic, etc.).” (Toimbayeva et al., 2025)
“Figure 1 provides a comprehensive diagram of the chemical composition of amaranth grain, highlighting its primary nutrient groups and bioactive compounds. The illustration clearly depicts the protein, lipid, carbohydrate, vitamin, and mineral components, alongside a diverse array of biologically active substances, such as phenolic compounds, flavonoids, and squalene.” (Toimbayeva et al., 2025)
Figure 1. Chemical composition and bioactive compounds of amaranth grain.
Health Benefits of Amaranth Components
“Modern studies confirm the antioxidant, antihypertensive, antitumor, hypocholesterolemic, immunomodulatory, antidiabetic, and antimicrobial activities of amaranth components. One of the key areas is the positive impact of amaranth on the composition of the intestinal microbiota and the enhancement of short-chain fatty acid production, which contributes to the improvement of the body’s metabolic status and the reduction in systemic inflammation.”
“Clinical and preclinical data indicate the effectiveness of amaranth peptides in inhibiting enzymes involved in the pathogenesis of diabetes, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia. In particular, the ability of amaranth peptides to inhibit DPP-IV, α-glucosidase, pancreatic lipase, cholesterol esterase, and ACE has been established. Moreover, amaranth peptides and other compounds exhibit high selective activity against tumor cells by modulating signaling pathways associated with cell proliferation, apoptosis, and inflammation.” (Toimbayeva et al., 2025)
“Amaranth has also shown immunomodulatory properties, manifested in the ability of its components to reduce the production of pro-inflammatory markers, inhibit inflammatory signaling pathways (NF-κB), and enhance the body’s resistance to infectious and metabolic stresses. It has been proven that amaranth peptides can be used as natural anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial agents, especially in conditions of impaired immune response.” (Toimbayeva et al., 2025)
“Studies demonstrate amaranth as a safe and highly nutritious component for gluten-free diets, and confirm its ability to provide improved qualities in products such as bread, pasta, snacks, and baby food. Moreover, its bioactive compounds, including antioxidants and polyunsaturated fatty acids, open up prospects for the use of amaranth in nutraceuticals and functional beverages. Finally, its low allergenicity, high nutritional value, and good tolerance in patients with celiac disease underscore its significance in specialized diets.” (Toimbayeva et al., 2025)
“Amaranth grain is a pseudocereal crop with exceptional nutritional and biological potential. It is abundant source of high-quality protein, enriched with essential amino acids vital for human nutrition [28,29,30]. Additionally, it has a substantial lipid content, primarily consisting of unsaturated fatty acids, such as linoleic, oleic, and palmitic acids [31,32]. Its carbohydrates are easily digestible [33], and it provides dietary fiber [34], as well as a broad spectrum of vitamins and minerals [5]. Furthermore, amaranth is a valuable source of numerous bioactive compounds, including phenolic acids, flavonoids, squalene, and other antioxidants [35], which exhibit pronounced functional properties.” (Toimbayeva et al., 2025)
Nutritional analysis of amaranth
One cup of cooked amaranth has 9.3 grams of protein.
Other nutrition statistics for 1 cup of cooked amaranth include:
251 calories
46 grams of carbohydrate
5 grams of fiber
5.2 grams of fat
>100% of the RDA for manganese (important for brain health)
40% of the RDA for magnesium
36% of the RDA for phosphorus
29% of the RDA for iron
Amaranth Preparation
Bob’s Red Mill: Basic Preparation Instructions for Organic Whole Grain Amaranth
Accompaniments: Broken or chopped walnuts, pecans, or almonds; honey or pure maple syrup; milk
Preparation
Step 1
In a 3- to 4-quart heavy saucepan combine the amaranth and the water. Cover the pan and bring the mixture to a boil, whisking occasionally. Using a heatproof rubber spatula, push any seeds clinging to the side of the pot into the liquid then reduce the heat to low and continue to simmer, covered, until the liquid is absorbed, 20 to 25 minutes. Stir in salt.
Step 2
Remove the pan from the heat and let it stand, covered, 5 to 10 minutes. Divide amaranth among bowls and top with nuts, honey, and milk.
Prepare an 8-inch square baking pan by lightly rubbing it with olive oil. In a 2-quart saucepan, bring the vegetable stock, polenta, amaranth and salt to a simmer. Reduce heat to low and stir the mixture often until thick, about 20 minutes.
Scrape the cooked grain into the prepared pan and smooth the top. Chill.
Ragout
Prepare the vegetables and reserve. Heat a large sauté pan over medium-high heat and add oil, then add onions, peppers and corn and cook, stirring. When onions are tender, add garlic and stir for 1 minute. Add tomato puree, kidney beans and oregano and simmer until thick. Stir in salt and cilantro. Take off heat and keep warm; adjust seasonings.
Preheat broiler. Oil a baking sheet. Run a paring knife around the polenta in the pan and loosen it, then flip out onto the baking sheet. Slice the polenta into four squares, and then cut each into two triangles. Move the pieces so they are not touching. Lightly oil the tops of the polenta pieces and broil them 6 inches from the heat. Watch them carefully, and turn when the tops are golden and crisp.
When the polenta is hot and crispy on the edges, serve with ragout. Top each serving with crumbled queso fresco or a dollop of cream if desired.
Toimbayeva D, Saduakhasova S, Kamanova S, Kiykbay A, Tazhina S, Temirova I, Muratkhan M, Shaimenova B, Murat L, Khamitova D, et al. Prospects for the use of amaranth grain in the production of functional and specialized food products. Foods. 2025; 14(9):1603. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14091603
Mng’omba SA. Grain amaranth, a potential and resilient food crop amenable to processing for diverse food and other products. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2025;9:1656596. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2025.1656596
Sustainable RDN 