Sustainable RDN

Healthier foods are better for the planet: new study

An analysis of 57,000 foods published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) “reveals which [foods] have the best and worst environmental impacts. A team of researchers used an algorithm to estimate how much of each ingredient was in thousands of products sold in major UK supermarket chains. The scientists then gave food items an environmental-impact score out of 100 — with 100 being the worst — by combining the impacts of the ingredients in 100 grams of each product. They considered several factors, including greenhouse-gas emissions and land use.

Healthier foods tended to have low environmental impacts, the team found. Products containing lamb and beef — such as ready-made meat pies — had the most serious environmental impact. The lowest-impact foods tended to be made with plants and included bread products, fruits, vegetables, grains and sugar-rich drinks.” See ‘Food For Thought’ (Figure 1) below. “There were some notable exceptions: both nuts and seafood had a good nutrition score but relatively high environmental impacts.”

Figure 1. Food for Thought

Keep in mind that previously published analyses have shown there are varying environmental impacts of nuts and seafood, depending on the type of nut and seafood. In an article published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2022), Rose and colleagues found that substituting peanuts for almonds in self-selected diets in the U.S. reduced the water scarcity footprint by 30 percent. In the same study, replacing a serving of shrimp with cod reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 34 percent. However, while whitefish – such as cod – have a low climate impact, they are among the least nutrient-dense seafood. In contrast, wild-caught pink salmon and sockeye salmon, along with wild-caught, small pelagic fish (e.g., anchovies, mackerel, herring) and farmed bivalves (e.g., mussels, clams, oysters), are the best choices for nutrient-dense, low-emissions protein sources (Bianchi et al., 2022). Furthermore, a study by Dr. Jessica Gephart and colleagues published in Nature (2021) reported substantial differences in the amount (pounds) of CO₂ equivalents by type of seafood (per serving) (See Figure 2 below). To learn more, see: https://www.cspinet.org/article/which-seafood-causes-least-damage-planet-its-complicated

Figure 2. Fishing for greener seafood

Aim for seafood with low greenhouse gas emissions. Farmed fish have other costs such as nitrogen and phosphorus runoff, but they’re typically lower than that of chicken.

Photo: Source: Nature 597: 360, 2021.

References:

Clark M, Springmann M, Rayner M, et al. Estimating the environmental impacts of 57,000 food products. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 119, e2120584119 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2120584119

Kreir F. Healthier foods are better for the planet, mammoth study finds. Nature. August 10, 2022. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02160-6#:~:text=Comparing%20the%20environmental%2Dimpact%20score,but%20relatively%20high%20environmental%20impacts.

Bianchi, M., Hallström, E., Parker, R.W.R. et al. Assessing seafood nutritional diversity together with climate impacts informs more comprehensive dietary advice. Commun Earth Environ 3, 188 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00516-4

Gephart JA., Henriksson PJG, Parker RWR. et al. Environmental performance of blue foods. Nature 597,360–365 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03889-2.

Liebman B. Which seafood causes the least damage to the planet? It’s complicated. Center For Science in The Public Interest. March 28, 2022. Available at: https://www.cspinet.org/article/which-seafood-causes-least-damage-planet-its-complicated

Rose D, Willits-Smith AM, Heller MC. Single-item substitutions can substantially reduce the carbon and water scarcity footprints of US diets. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 115(2), 378-387 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqab338

Scientists offer blueprint for sustainable redesign of food systems

A new perspective article published in the journal Nature Sustainability describes food systems designed not by the logic of growth such as efficiency and extraction, but by principles of sufficiency, regeneration, distribution, commons, and care. It argues that food systems can instead be the foundation of healthy communities, ecologies, and economies. “For this agenda-setting article, we’ve reviewed the vast experience of diverse farmers, food cooperatives, home gardeners, alternative retailers, and other endeavors to re-claim what sustainability for food systems means in high and low-income nations,” the authors state.

The authors call for policymakers, researchers and community groups worldwide to rethink their approach to developing new solutions beyond the current “growth paradigm.” They compare the current growth paradigm, which they argue is exploitative of humans and animals, ecologically harmful, dependent on fossil fuels, and controlled by a small number of multi-national corporations, with an alternative paradigm that is based on a post-growth agrifood system.

“We have seen what food systems designed to achieve relentless economic growth and profit maximization do to the environment, farming communities, and our health, and it’s not good,” says Dr. Steven McGreevy, an assistant professor of institutional urban sustainability studies at the University of Twente.

Post-growth food system

“Fortunately, there are countless examples from around the world of post-growth agrifood system elements in action. We need to support these models where they exist, and rediscover, transfer, or further develop them where appropriate,” says McGreevy.

The authors identify post-growth agrifood system endeavors already in action around the world including:

Food production: How the adoption of agroecological farming and gardening into the current food systems can enhance biodiversity, maintain fertile soils, and improve system resilience to social and ecological shocks. For more information on the benefits of agroecology, view the new book by Dr. Stephen Gliessman and colleagues titled, Agroecology: Leading The Transformation To a Just and Sustainable Food System, 4^th ed. (CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2022) (see book cover below).
Food business and trade: Community-based business models such as cooperatives and benefit corporations can anchor sustainability in businesses and prioritize the health and well-being of the environment and the public.
Food culture: Closer relationships with food and the processes which it goes through to reach people can create a culture of appreciation in which we value food as a “commons” and the people working in the agrifood system.
Food system governance: Food is connected to multiple siloes/sectors of governance—agriculture, public health, land-use planning, education, tourism, etc.—that are often working independently, rather than working together in an integrative way. “Food policy councils (FPCs) are one example of new governance structures that are inclusive and representative of diverse public and private stakeholders and cut across multiple sectors of policy expertise related to food.”

New research agenda

According to the authors of this study, “the conventional wisdom of mainstream sustainability science–including its underlying logic of economic growth—is fixated on narrow solution space: increasing production efficiency, high-tech innovation and individual behavior change.”

To break free of these intellectual constraints, thee authors argue that “the redesign of the global agrifood system should be supported by a coordinated education and a new research agenda that challenges conventional wisdom and focuses on understanding and developing diverse solutions outside of the growth paradigm.”

Similarly, an article by McCullum and colleagues (2005) published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association provides dietetics professionals with a three-stage continuum of evidence-based strategies and activities that applies a food systems approach to building food security within communities.

“Stage 1 creates small but significant changes to existing food systems through such strategies as identifying food quality and pricing inequities in low-income neighborhoods and educating consumers regarding both the need and the possibilities for alternative food systems. Stage 2 stabilizes and augments change for food systems in transition by developing social infrastructure through multisector partnerships and networks and fostering participatory decision-making and initial policy development [e.g., serving on food policy councils]. Based on these changes, stage 3 involves advocacy and integrated policy instruments to redesign food systems for sustainability. Data collection, monitoring, and evaluation are key components of all stages of the community food security continuum.”

Source: University of Twente. Scientists offer blueprint for sustainable redesign of food systems. Phys.org. August 9^th, 2022. Available at: https://phys.org/news/2022-08-scientists-blueprint-sustainable-redesign-food.html

McGreevy, S.R., Rupprecht, C.D.D., Niles, D. et al. Sustainable agrifood systems for a post-growth world. Nat Sustain (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00933-5

McCullum C, Desjardins E, Kraak V, et al. Evidence-based strategies to build community food security. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005;105(2):278-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2004.12.015 https://www.jandonline.org/article/S0002-8223(04)01973-X/fulltext

The effectiveness and consequences of carbon taxes on U.S. food purchases: new research

New research published in the journal Food Policy examined the effectiveness and consequences of using carbon taxes on food purchases to contribute to the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (GHGEs) reduction target for 2025. The researchers found that “carbon taxes on food purchases decrease GHGEs from the agricultural and food sectors by 1.9 to 4.8 percent and generate up to $839 billion 2012 dollars social welfare gain per year due to avoided GHGEs-related external costs.” However, the authors also reported that “tradeoffs exist among climate, nutritional and distributional goals. Food instance, the most effective policy in reducing GHGs is regressive. Moreover, the quantity of health-promoting nutrients falls significantly in almost all scenarios.”

Based on these results, the authors concluded that, “the use of carbon taxes alone may not be the most effective way to reduce GHGEs from U.S. food purchases.” “[A]dditional policies, such as subsidies on less carbon intensive foods, may be needed to encourage consumers of all income level[s] to adopt more sustainable diets without increasing health and social inequalities.”

Citation: Tiboldo G, Boehm R, Shah F, et al. Taking the heat out of the U.S. food system. Food Policy (2022). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306919222000471

Bacon burger with beef patty on red wooden table

The Arcadis Sustainable Cities Index 2022

How sustainable is the city where you live? The 5^th edition of the Arcadis Sustainable Cities Index “provides a comprehensive and in-depth analysis of urban sustainability and how it is the key to unlocking prosperity in cities and improving quality of life.” More specifically, the Arcadis Sustainable Cities Index provides an overall ranking of 100 global cities based on 51 metrics across 26 indicators themes, arrayed under the 3 different pillars of sustainability: planet (environmental), people (social), and profit (economic).

Overall, the following cities ranked the highest: 1) Oslo, 2) Stockholm, 3) Tokyo, 4) Copenhagen, and 5) Berlin. On the planet pillar, the highest ranked cities are: 1) Oslo, 2) Paris, 3) Stockholm, 4) Copenhagen, and 5) Berlin. On the people pillar, the highest ranked cities are: 1) Glasgow, 2) Zurich, 3) Copenhagen, 4) Seoul, and 5) Singapore. And on the profit pillar, the highest ranked cities are: 1) Seattle, 2) Atlanta, 3) Boston, 4) San Francisco, and 5) Pittsburgh. See the link below to access the full report and learn more about the factors that contribute to a sustainable city.

The Arcadis Sustainable Cities Index 2022

Click to access %7Be08e5cda-768d-46a3-91ce-4efe16cbfc05%7D_The_Arcadis_Sustainable_Cities_Index_2022_Report.pdf

Why beans? For people and the planet

“The possibilities for positive change in our food systems are endless! With focused and coordinated action we have the potential to create a more sustainable, resilient planet that provides good food for all.” See: Good Food for All – https://www.goodfood4all.org/

“Unfortunately, as cost, conflict, COVID, and climate continue to negatively impact the rates of hunger and malnutrition, alongside obesity rates and other diet-related illnesses, the disruption to the global food supply chains has been widespread.

To build a safer, healthier food future, agricultural scientists, nutritionists [registered dietitian nutritionists or RDNs], and key leaders are in agreement that beans are an optimal food choice for both people and the planet, and can assist in driving transformative change. Eating beans is an affordable, accessible solution to the world’s growing health and climate challenges.”

Beans are an excellent source of fiber, iron, folate, calcium, protein, and more… When paired with carbohydrates they can provide all the essential amino acids. Whether canned, fresh, or dried, beans can help us meet our daily nutritional needs and move way from high fat, sugar, and salt consumption that is common in many diets. With regards to their environmental impact, beans are known to produce nitrogen on their own which reduces the need for fertilizers and means they can be grown in nutrient-poor soils…

Farmers will need to consider infrastructure such as storage and drying, which is often a key hurdle, as well as financing for new kinds of machinery. They will grow what has a market but there are still many barriers to entry that may slow or prohibit them from growing beans at scale. A better understanding of current production patterns and supply chains is necessary before promoting changes. For example, ensuring that local and Indigenous varieties are freely available for farmers is crucial to ensuring biodiversity and soil health maintenance.

To protect farmers, stakeholders have come together to support a new consensus that highlights the policy priorities of small-scale food producers. This consensus was created with farmers and details 8 calls to action items that will promote better livelihoods and environmental resilience.” You can read the consensus statement titled, “New Consensus with Small-Scale Food Producers: Prioritizing smallholders’ nutrition and livelihoods,” here:

https://sdg2advocacyhub.org/actions/new-consensus-small-scale-food-producers-how-we

“Around the world, beans play an important cultural and nutritional role in many people’s lives. Now is the time to rally around these incredible ingredients which possess the power to address multiple challenges and propel us into a healthier future.” To learn how to grow, store, and cook a variety of beans, see the book by Susan Young titled, “Growing Beans: A Diet for Healthy People and The Planet” (2022) (see book cover below). For more information on this book, go to: https://shop.permaculture.co.uk/growing-beans.html

Finally, see the URL below for an easy recipe for Spicy Black Bean Soup from Eating Well:

https://www.eatingwell.com/recipe/256520/spicy-black-bean-soup/

Source: The Chefs’ Manifesto. Beans is how. July 20, 2022. Available at: https://sdg2advocacyhub.org/news/beans-how

Glyphosate may be harming bumblebee hives: new research

“As bees continue to decline, scientists have found many contributors, including climate change and landscape transformation. Now they’ve added another one: glyphosate” – a broad-spectrum herbicide that is used primarily for weed control in agriculture.

A recent study published in the journal Science found that “exposure to glyphosate can impair a bumblebee’s ability to maintain hive temperature, which is critical for bees’ ability to forage and reproduce to increase colony size.”

“Anja Weidenmüller, who led the study, has been researching bumblebee thermoregulation behavior for more than a decade. For this study, Weidenmüller prioritized the long-term effects that glyphosate has on bumblebee behavior rather than looking at the immediate 24-48 hour time frame, normally used to determine if glyphosate is immediately lethal for bumblebees.

Contrary to many lab studies, the bumblebees were studied in environments of resource limitation and environmental stressors as most organisms would experience in the natural world. In fact, as bumblebees have declined, scientists have found there are multiple factors that play into this decline including climate change, landscape transformation, and harmful chemicals used on agriculture, such as pesticides. As a result, bumble bees have experienced a severe decline in recent decades: a 2021 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report found that over the past 20 years populations have disappeared or become rare in 16 states, and observations of the bees have declined by about 90%….”

“To imitate this complex environment, the researchers placed a brood of bees in the lab and exposed the bees to stressors such as glyphosate, and limited their sugar water to reproduce the resource limitations that they would be exposed to in agricultural landscapes.

This study found that when exposed to glyphosate for just four hours, a bumblebee’s ability to maintain brood temperature decreased by 25% when resources were limited, which could affect the health of bees and impair their ability to reproduce, leading to a decline in population.”

“[The study] highlights the importance of these multiple stressors for bees, and for their health; those risk periods of resource limitation are often not accounted for in laboratory settings,” said Emily May, Pollinator Conservation Specialist and Agricultural Lead at Xerces Society.

Extensive research has found that the conservation of bumblebees, and bees in general, is crucial for the survival of crops and wild ecosystems. Bees are effective pollinators and have been found to pollinate 80% of the world’s flowering plants, including food crops.

“We really need them to be able to have these thriving systems, both for our food production and for wild ecosystems as well,” stated May.

Food systems are largely pollinator dependent and the conservation of biodiversity can be more beneficial long term for human health and agriculture production than chemicals used in modern agriculture for food yield and pest control, researchers have found.

“Agrichemicals might not actually be all that important for increasing yields,” said James Crall, professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, [who] researches bees and plant-pollinator interactions. Crop pollination has been found to improve produce yield more than increased fertilization.

Although glyphosate is currently approved for use in the U.S., at least 43 countries have banned or restricted the use of products containing glyphosate. Although there is research focused on the effects of glyphosate on humans and other organisms, such as the U.S. Department of Health’s Agency for Toxic Substances acknowledgement of links between glyphosate and cancer, there are still potential long-term effects of which we may not yet be aware.”

For information on how to support pollinators, including bumblebees, see: Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation: https://www.xerces.org/

For additional information on promoting pollinator health, the Pollinator Partnership has numerous useful resources available at: http://www.pollinator.org. For foodies, there is a pollinator-friendly cookbook that can be downloaded free of charge at: http://www.pollinator.org/pollinated-food

Source: Yessennia Cruz M. Glyphosate may be harming bumblebee hives. Environmental Health News. July 11, 2022. Available at: https://www.ehn.org/bee-population-decline-2657613362/brood-of-bees

Citation: Weidenmüller A, Neupert S, Schwarz A, Kleineidam C. Glyphosate impairs collective thermoregulation in bumblebees. Science 2022;376:1122-1126.

UN Report: Global hunger numbers rose to as many as 828 million in 2021

The latest State of Food Security and Nutrition report (2022) shows the world is moving backwards in efforts to eliminate hunger and malnutrition.

“The number of people affected by hunger globally rose to as many as 828 million in 2021, an increase of about 46 million since 2020 and 150 million since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a United Nations report that provides fresh evidence that the world is moving further away from its goal of ending hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition in all its forms by 2030.

The 2022 edition of The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI) report presents updates on the food security and nutrition situation around the world, including the latest estimates of the cost and affordability of a healthy diet. The report also looks at ways in which governments can repurpose their current support to agriculture to reduce the cost of healthy diets, mindful of the limited public resources available in many parts of the world.

The report was jointly published today by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the UN World Food Programme (WFP) and the World Health Organization (WHO).

The numbers paint a grim picture:

As many as 828 million people were affected by hunger in 2021 – 46 million people more from a year earlier and 150 million more from 2019.
After remaining relatively unchanged since 2015, the proportion of people affected by hunger jumped in 2020 and continued to rise in 2021, to 9.8 percent of the world population. This compares with 8 percent in 2019 and 9.3 percent in 2020.
Around 2.3 billion people in the world (29.3 percent) were moderately or severely food insecure in 2021 – 350 million more compared to before the outbreak of the COVID‑19 pandemic. Nearly 924 million people (11.7 percent of the global population) faced food insecurity at severe levels, an increase of 207 million in two years.
The gender gap in food insecurity continued to rise in 2021 – 31.9 percent of women in the world were moderately or severely food insecure, compared to 27.6 percent of men – a gap of more than 4 percentage points, compared with 3 percentage points in 2020.
Almost 3.1 billion people could not afford a healthy diet in 2020, up 112 million from 2019, reflecting the effects of inflation in consumer food prices stemming from the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the measures put in place to contain it.
An estimated 45 million children under the age of five were suffering from wasting, the deadliest form of malnutrition, which increases children’s risk of death by up to 12 times. Furthermore, 149 million children under the age of five had stunted growth and development due to a chronic lack of essential nutrients in their diets, while 39 million were overweight.
Progress is being made on exclusive breastfeeding, with nearly 44 percent of infants under six months of age being exclusively breastfed worldwide in 2020. This is still short of the 50 percent target by 2030. Of great concern, two in three children are not fed the minimum diverse diet they need to grow and develop to their full potential.

Looking forward, projections are that nearly 670 million people (8 percent of the world population) will still be facing hunger in 2030 – even if a global economic recovery is taken into consideration. This is a similar number to 2015, when the goal of ending hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition by the end of this decade was launched under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

As this report is being published, the ongoing war in Ukraine, involving two of the biggest global producers of staple cereals, oilseeds and fertilizer, is disrupting international supply chains and pushing up the prices of grain, fertilizer, energy, as well as ready-to-use therapeutic food for children with severe malnutrition. This comes as supply chains are already being adversely affected by increasingly frequent extreme climate events, especially in low-income countries, and has potentially sobering implications for global food security and nutrition.

“This report repeatedly highlights the intensification of these major drivers of food insecurity and malnutrition: conflict, climate extremes and economic shocks, combined with growing inequalities,” the heads of the five UN agencies wrote in this year’s Foreword. “The issue at stake is not whether adversities will continue to occur or not, but how we must take bolder action to build resilience against future shocks.”

Repurposing agricultural policies

The report notes as striking that worldwide support for the food and agricultural sector averaged almost USD 630 billion a year between 2013 and 2018. The lion share of it goes to individual farmers, through trade and market policies and fiscal subsidies. However, not only is much of this support market-distorting, but it is not reaching many farmers, hurts the environment and does not promote the production of nutritious foods that make up a healthy diet. That’s in part because subsidies often target the production of staple foods, dairy and other animal source foods, especially in high- and upper-middle-income countries. Rice, sugar and meats of various types are the most incentivized food items worldwide, while fruits and vegetables are relatively less supported, particularly in some low-income countries.

With the threats of a global recession looming, and the implications this has on public revenues and expenditures, a way to support economic recovery involves the repurposing of food and agricultural support to target nutritious foods where per capita consumption does not yet match the recommended levels for healthy diets.

The evidence suggests that if governments repurpose the resources they are using to incentivize the production, supply and consumption of nutritious foods, they will contribute to making healthy diets less costly, more affordable and equitably for all.

Finally, the report also points out that governments could do more to reduce trade barriers for nutritious foods, such as fruits, vegetables and pulses.”

Sources:

UN Report: Global hunger numbers rose to as many as 828 million in 2021. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy. July 6, 2022. Available at: https://www.fao.org/newsroom/detail/un-report-global-hunger-SOFI-2022-FAO/en

FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, WHO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI). FAO: Rome, Italy. July 6, 2022. Available at: https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cc0639en

Climate impact of food miles up to 7 times higher than previously thought: study

Newly published research in the journal Nature Food “suggests transport accounts for one-fifth of total food-system emissions with fruits and vegetables among the most carbon-intensive.” The researchers reported that, “When the entire upstream food supply chain is considered, global food-miles correspond to about 3.0 GtCO₂e (3.5–7.5 times higher than previously estimated), indicating that transport accounts for about 19% of total food-system emissions (stemming from transport, production and land-use change). Global freight transport associated with vegetable and fruit consumption contributes 36% of food-miles emissions—almost twice the amount of greenhouse gases released during their production.” (Southey, 2022).

“Food-miles emissions are driven by the affluent world,” the study says. It finds that while “high income nations” represent only about 12.5% of the world’s population, they are responsible for 52% of international food miles and 46% of the associated emissions.” “The authors also reflect on the pros and cons of buying local food – an often touted solution for reducing food emissions.

The study showed that ending all international food transport would cut food-miles emissions by just 9%, highlighting the relatively greater importance of other dietary choices in tackling the climate impact of the sector. Past studies suggest that transporting food has a small carbon footprint when compared to the rest of the food system. However, many do not account for emissions throughout the entire food supply chain. The new study aims to fill this gap and includes emissions for transporting fertilizers, machinery, and animal feed as well as the more obvious shipping and vehicle emissions from sending food products around the world.” (Tandon, 2022).

The authors concluded that in order, “[t]o mitigate the environmental impact of food, a shift towards plant-based foods must be coupled with more locally produced items, mainly in affluent countries.” (Li et al., 2022).

Look for locally-produced, seasonally-available foods at your farmers’ market. You can also start a home or community garden, and/or purchase a share through a community supported agriculture (CSA) farm. Finally, there are numerous food guides that help consumers locate locally-produced, seasonally-available foods. For example, see the comprehensive guide to purchasing sustainably-produced local foods from the Grace Communications Foundation (www.eatwellguide.org) or download a seasonal food guide, or free App, from the FoodPrint website (see below):

Seasonal Food Guide

Seasonal Food Guide

Sources: Southey F. Climate impact of food-miles up to 7 times higher than previously thought: study. Food Navigator, June 29, 2022. Available at: https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2022/06/29/climate-impact-of-food-miles-up-to-7-times-higher-than-previously-thought-study

Tandon A. ‘Food miles’ have larger climate impact than thought, study suggests. Carbon Brief. June 20, 2022. Available at: carbonbrief.org

Citation: Li, M., Jia, N., Lenzen, M. et al. Global food-miles account for nearly 20% of total food-systems emissions. Nat Food 3, 445–453 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00531-w

Pesticides are spreading toxic ‘forever chemicals,’ according to recent review

Scientists have been raising concerns for decades over the use of toxic ‘forever chemicals,’ [scientifically known as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFASs] “so called because their strong molecular bonds can take hundreds of years to completely break down in the environment. Widely used in consumer products such as cookware and clothing, these substances are turning up everywhere from drinking water to our bloodstream. And now researchers are warning of yet another—and so far underrecognized—source of these troubling toxins: common pesticides. Nearly 70 percent of all pesticides introduced into the global market from 2015 to 2020 contained these chemicals or related compounds, according to a review paper recently published in Environmental Pollution. And the surge in their use has come without a full understanding of their potential impact on the environment and human health…”

“Fluorinated chemicals, including PFASs, have been widely used in consumer products since the 1940s. But in the following decades scientists began realizing that these chemicals persisted in drinking water and human bodies, and in the 1990s the Environmental Protection Agency began investigating PFASs. Nearly every U.S. resident now carries low levels of PFASs in their blood. These chemicals have been linked to testicular and kidney cancers, reproductive disorders, thyroid disease, high cholesterol levels, reduced immune response and even increased susceptibility to COVID-19. Based on these concerns, the U.S. Congress is weighing several bipartisan bills to restrict their use in food containers and cookware and to require the EPA to take comprehensive action to prevent PFAS pollution—including setting national limits on levels in drinking water. Under the Biden administration, the EPA has published a PFAS Strategic Roadmap for addressing the crisis. Eight states have already adopted laws to ban PFASs in certain products, especially food packaging—but not in pesticides.”

To read the full article published in Scientific American, which explains this issue further, see the below link:

Source: Wilcox M. Pesticides are spreading toxic ‘forever chemicals,’ scientists warn. Scientific American, June 15^th 2022. Available at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pesticides-are-spreading-toxic-lsquo-forever-chemicals-rsquo-scientists-warn/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=earth&utm_content=link&utm_term=_featured-this-week&spMailingID=71727351&spUserID=NDQ5MDQwODQwNTE3S0&spJobID=2245521525&spReportId=MjI0NTUyMTUyNQS2

Citation: Alexandrino DAM, Almeida CMR, Mucha AP, Carvalho MF. Revisiting pesticide pollution: The case of fluorinated pesticides. Environ Pollut. 202 2022 Jan 1;292(Pt A):118315. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118315.

Do carbon labels translate into fewer greenhouse gas emissions?

“Carbon labeling shifts consumer behavior. But does that actually translate to fewer emissions?” An article published in Anthropocene Magazine on June 2, 2022 titled, “Get ready for sticker shock carbon therapy” attempts to answer this question. In short, the author notes that, “If labeling is going to help wean us off carbon, it will need to overcome the fearsome complexity of emissions calculations, a lack of regulation, and public confusion over greenwashing. Here’s the latest on how—or even if—labeling can be part of our climate solution.”

Labels Launch A Virtuous Cycle

1. A label we’re willing to pay for. Nearly three quarters of Europeans support the introduction of carbon footprint labeling on food, think it should be mandatory, and are even prepared to pay slightly more for labeled products, according to research from the University of Reading. Demand is especially high among women and those with more money and education; a small group to be sure, but one that drives many retail trends.

2. Demand incentivizes innovation. In a recent paper in Nature Climate Change, University of Cambridge researcher Kristian Nielsen writes: “Labeling may induce some producers to reduce emissions to score well in labeling systems and gain reputational benefits.” He points out that manufacturers reduced unhealthy trans-fats in the run-up to mandatory nutritional labeling.

3. It works even if you don’t believe in it. A fascinating study out of Sweden last year confirmed the existence of “info decliners”—people who actively avoid looking at labels with upsetting or unwanted data, whether related to animal welfare, health choices or climate change. But carbon labeling even worked on them, reducing their emissions by over 10 percent.

• • •

A Painful Process. No Guarantees.

1. Messy science. A calorie is a calorie whoever measures it, but calculating the carbon footprint of a product requires a detailed accounting of its manufacture, distribution, use, and ultimate disposal. Deciding which of those emissions end up on a carbon label is neither easy nor cheap. UK supermarket Tesco abandoned plans to carbon label the entirety of its 70,000 inventory after costs spiraled.

2. Messier politics. Carbon labeling has yet to find favor with many politicians around the world. In the absence of firm regulation, there are at least 31 competing carbon labels. Some are more credible than others, leading to the possibility of greenwashing—and almost certainly to consumer confusion and frustration.

3. Labeling without taxes doesn’t work. A recent survey conducted in the UK and reported in Nature Food suggests that while labeling is helpful, only combining it with a carbon tax will significantly reduce emissions [see Faccioli et al., 2022]. This rings true: a Danish supermarket chain experimenting with sugar labels alone found they did not significantly decrease unhealthy drink sales, whereas a policy in Mexico that combined sugar labeling with a sugar tax reduced the sales of sweetened drinks by over 6 percent.

What To Keep An Eye On

1. France. Last year, the French government announced it would push forward with mandatory carbon labels on a range of high-polluting goods and services. If this effort can move the needle on consumer behavior and shift manufacturers to greener products, it could stimulate labeling efforts elsewhere.

2. Fast food, fast changes? Simple carbon labeling in restaurants has shown promising results in shifting people’s purchases. Can the chains already stepping up help push more countries past “peak meat” to sustainable low-carbon dining?

3. The global response. While carbon labeling is most advanced in developed countries, it is the rest of the world’s growing middle classes that will have the biggest carbon impact in years to come. China is toying with carbon labeling, in the face of concerns that mandatory labeling will further disrupt small businesses and global supply chains.

Citation: Faccioli, M., Law, C., Caine, C.A. et al. Combined carbon and health taxes outperform single-purpose information or fiscal measures in designing sustainable food policies. Nat Food 3, 331–340 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00482-2

Source: Harris M. Get ready for sticker shock carbon therapy. Anthropocene Magazine, June 2, 2022. Available at: https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2022/06/get-ready-for-sticker-shock-carbon-therapy/