Pesticides are part of a much larger conversation about sustainability. Should we be using them? What are the tradeoffs when it comes to our environment and food safety?

Sustainability is the principle of meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. For food, sustainability includes a wide range of factors such as water use, animal well-being, worker care and soil conservation. Learn more about Optimizing Sustainability.

In this series about sustainability, we’ve been looking at the tradeoffs with various food production practices. We reached out to experts to learn about the sustainability tradeoffs related to pesticides.

“Pesticide” is a general term that covers three broad areas of crop production, explains Jeff Graybill, an Extension Educator in Agronomy at Penn State University. “Insecticides control worms, bugs and other insects that can easily consume crops in the field or grains and food in storage. Herbicides will control and prevent weeds from overcoming the crop and lowering the harvest. And fungicides prevent and control diseases which attack our crops,” he said.

Tim Durham teaches agronomy and agricultural sciences at Ferrum College. He’s also part of his family’s fifth-generation vegetable farm on Long Island, New York.

“Since cropping is our livelihood, we’re motivated to protect our investment … we’re constantly evaluating new markets, crops and production systems. We pride ourselves on staying nimble when it comes to pest management,” Dr. Durham said.

What are the different types of crop protection and why are they used?

Chemical sprays are one method used to manage weeds and insects, but there are several approaches.

“Many farmers in the U.S. practice integrated pest management (IPM). This means that farmers use a variety of methods to grow and protect the crop and will only choose chemical control when it is the better option. Other IPM tools include things like crop rotation, better plant genetics (disease and insect resistance) and natural predators,” Graybill said.

Most farms use a combination of practices to protect crops from weeds and insects, Dr. Durham said.

“We use knowledge about pests to exploit their vulnerabilities. This can include a spray – an informed one – but it also draws from a versatile toolbox of alternative approaches, any of which can be mixed and matched to optimize the effect,” he said.

Some additional, non-chemical options include:

• Biological: The use of “good” bug and microbe mercenaries to hunt pests.
• Cultural: Make the environment less hospitable for pests.
• Physical/Mechanical: Exclude troublemakers when possible, or grind them up with a disk or plow when they’re in a vulnerable life stage in the soil.
• Genetic: Use plant varieties that just aren’t appealing to pests.
• Regulatory: Coordinate with trade partners to make sure only clean produce (no pest stowaways) cone in, also quarantine when necessary.

What would happen if farmers didn’t use crop protection? 

Pests – weeds, insects and fungus – are the greatest threat to growing any crop. Without pesticides, some crops could not be grown on a large scale, so our diets would not be as diverse. According to Dr. Durham, without pesticides, fruits and vegetables would be stunted, riddled with injuries and contaminated with microbes, contributing to food waste.

Without crop protection, food would also be more expensive as more of it would be lost to pests. According to Crop Life International, even with the use of modern crop protection products, 20 to 40 percent of potential food production is lost every year to pests.

“Pesticides provide some measure of predictability in the otherwise unpredictable world of farming, helping to stabilize commodity prices and keeping prices low in the grocery aisle. It’s one reason we spend a tiny fraction of our disposable income on food,” Dr. Durham said.

How do pesticides affect the environment?

 There are tradeoffs to using pesticides, to using organic methods or to using nothing at all. Proper pesticide use can help protect part of the environment.

“They allow us to maximize production on the smallest footprint of land. This is called ‘land sparing.’ If we decided to forego pesticides, we’d need to appropriate a much larger chunk of land to do the same job and land that happens to be the most biodiverse and at-risk,” Dr. Durham said.

Efficiently using farmland – growing more food on less land – also protects forests and wildlife habitats from being cultivated. For instance, farmers who do not use herbicides to manage weeds in their crops can instead use tillage, which increases soil erosion and contaminates water sources.

“Fungicides and bactericides can make food safer to eat by reducing toxin levels,” Dr. Durham said. “How? Microbes occupy wounds made by pests. In the process, they produce dangerous toxins. It’s their biology – and also potentially. double jeopardy for consumers.”

“Chemical weed, disease and insect products often require much less time, equipment and energy than traditional production practices; thereby generating a lower carbon footprint and environmental benefits,” Graybill said.

But using chemical pesticides does involve some risk. The compounds are designed to kill a living organism such as a microbe, weed or insect, so they need to be used responsibly, Graybill said.

Some crop protection chemicals have a negative impact on beneficial insects, such as bees and butterflies. The agricultural industry is researching ways to reduce the negative impact. Some of the older, more toxic compounds have been banned and replaced by newer ones that are more targeted to specific species.

Learn more about pesticides and the environment.

As we evaluate tradeoffs in this series, we see that pesticides can have environmental risks because they kill certain plants and insects. Crop protectants also benefit the environment by reducing the amount of land, water and fertilizer needed to grow crops, which protects wildlife areas and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

Is my food safe from pesticide residues? 

 Pesticides are regulated in the United States to be sure that they are as safe as possible for people and the environment.

“The United States has an extensive regulatory system, and whether it’s household chemicals or agricultural herbicides and insecticides, all chemicals go through extensive toxicology testing to look at the benefits and the risks of the product. This is especially true of pesticides used on food crops,” Graybill said “Since these chemicals are designed to kill a specific weed or pest, they must be respected, so when looking at human and animal health implications, regulatory agencies have very stringent standards.”

All foods, whether they are grown with conventional farming or organic methods, are regulated and safe. Even those on the Dirty Dozen are well below the acceptable threshold for residues. This Food Safety Calculator shows how much food a person can consume without experiencing adverse effects of pesticides.

“Any pesticide that comes to market must be approved and certified by the EPA, USDA and FDA. Toxicology data is peer-reviewed and is combed over very intensely. The government agencies then make a determination if there are any negative impacts and whether those negative impacts are outweighed by the good that the chemical will do,” Graybill said in a previous post on Best Food Facts.

Learn more about pesticides and food safety.

What are alternative methods of crop protection? 

Organic methods are often considered more natural. USDA certified organic foods are produced in compliance with National Organic Program (NOP) standards

Organic does not mean that foods are pesticide free.

“It means only that the product was produced according to the standards of the NOP. While organic growers are commonly committed to using limited to no pesticides, they can—and often do—use pesticides allowed under the NOP standards,” said Dr. Paul Vincelli, Extension Professor and Provost’s Distinguished Service Professor, University of Kentucky.

Often conventional – or non-organic – farming involves using natural practices, Dr. Durham said.

“Organics suggests that old standbys like crop rotation and fallowing (field resting) are somehow organic exclusives, when they’re clearly not. Some practices never go out of style. Conventional growers use them regularly, melding the old with the new,” he said.

Following all regulations, using pesticides according to the label and also using integrated pest management can reduce the risks of pesticide use.

“Farmers proudly eat what we grow. We have full confidence in our practices and food safety,” Dr. Durham said.

Various types of pesticides are used to protect crops from weeds, insects and microbes. The decision to use chemicals, non-chemical methods or a combination of both approaches results in tradeoffs that can affect food affordability, food waste, land use and carbon footprint.

Learn more about Optimizing Sustainability.

The post Sustainability: What If Farmers Did Not Use Pesticides? appeared first on Best Food Facts.

In this series, we’ll look at the science-based pros and cons of different food choices and farming methods, and their impacts on sustainability – not only on the environment, but on animal well-being, our health and our pocketbooks.

What is Sustainability?

It’s not just about being “green.”

For farmers and those involved in food production, the principle is known as the land ethic – to leave things better than we found them, according to Marty Matlock, executive director of the University of Arkansas Resiliency Center and professor of ecological engineering.

“Sustainability is a general term that describes the ability to keep doing what we’re doing. It’s not just an environmental term,” he said. “Farmers want to sustain the quality of life for their children, community health, environmental health and soil health. Conservation organizations want to sustain critical habitats and biodiversity around the world.” As farmers around the world work to grow more food to feed an exploding population, conservationists and farmers champion sustainable production so “we do not eat the remaining wild places on earth.”

Learn more about Optimizing Sustainability.

Dimensions of Sustainability

Dr. Matlock describes the key dimensions of sustainability for agriculture this way.

• Environmental: Intensification of production to feed a growing population while preserving critical habitats for other life. Water resources are shifting rapidly, increasing variability in rainfall and risks from floods and droughts.
• Social: Global challenges including access to skilled labor, adequate infrastructure in rural communities (schools, medical facilities, technical support), successional planning for next-generation farmers and access to tools that lessen the risks of farming (weather extremes, pest pressures, prices for crops, etc.)
• Climate Change: Sustainable production from the land and sea requires increasing resiliency of production systems under increased climate, economic, social and political uncertainty.

Sustainability also includes factors as diverse as health and wellness, animal welfare, treatment of workers, food waste, packaging, impact on local and indigenous communities and more. In fact, The Center for Food Integrity Optimizing Sustainability Framework, an approach to help food companies weigh the tradeoffs of sustainability decisions, lists more than 250 attributes of sustainability and corporate social responsibility.

Dr. Janice Swanson, an expert in animal behavior and welfare and a professor of animal science and large animal clinical sciences at Michigan State University, said sustainability is often viewed through three perspectives – social, economic and environmental. Interactions between these three dimensions are complex.

“We are working to balance a dynamic ecosystem that engages human beings and animals in a relationship. And even if you decide to substitute ‘plant’ for ‘animal’ you still have a complex system where two living things are engaged in balancing social, environmental and economic impacts to be sustainable,” Dr. Swanson said.

She noted there are no easy answers when it comes to producing food for consumers, whose preferences continue to diversify when it comes to how their food is produced.

Sustainability Tradeoffs

Regardless of the dimension of sustainability, there are consequences. Newton’s Third Law of Motion says it best: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

In other words, while changing one factor can improve sustainability, the change can have negative impacts, too. So decisions by food companies should not be taken lightly.

“Changes in production practices made because of pressure from advocacy organizations that are not science-based can result in reduced choices at the grocery store and can increase the negative impacts of some food products,” Dr. Matlock said.

One example is cage-free eggs – eggs from hens who live in barns where they can exhibit more natural behaviors like foraging and taking short flights, said Dr. Swanson. In conventional systems, hens are housed in cages within barns.

Driven by animal welfare concerns, some advocacy groups and customers are demanding that eggs are produced only in cage-free barns. A handful of states now require that only cage-free eggs be sold, and others have legislation on the table to do the same. But are cage-free eggs sustainable?

(Read more: What’s the Difference Between Cage-Free and Regular Eggs?)

There are tradeoffs, Dr. Swanson said, including more injuries to hens from flying and hen-pecking, reduced air quality from increased dust and ammonia (which can impact employee and hen health). In addition, more hens are required to produce the same amount of cage-free eggs, so more feed, water and land are required. It costs farmers more to produce cage-free eggs, and that results in higher prices for consumers.

Just the Facts

Farmers and companies in the agriculture and food supply chain are working to improve sustainability and being diligent about measuring, monitoring and communicating improvements, Dr. Matlock said.

That’s good news.

As the world turns its focus to protecting our earth, our health, our animals – Best Food Facts is bringing you the scoop on sustainability. We’ll equip you with the science from experts so you can weigh the pros and cons and make the best choices in the grocery aisle for you and your family. Learn more about Optimizing Sustainability.

The post Sustainability: What are the True Impacts of Your Food Choices? appeared first on Best Food Facts.

As the world looks for solutions to address climate change, cows have been identified as a source of greenhouse gasses. A report prepared by the EAT-Lancet Commission proposed changes in diet to benefit the climate. The recommendations include eating less red meat and more vegetables. Cattle also received attention in the proposed Green New Deal, which included a description of “farting cows.”

Just how bad are cows? We asked Dr. Jude Capper, a recognized expert in livestock sustainability based in the United Kingdom, to provide some insight.

She told us it is important to keep in mind that all foods have an environmental impact, whether you choose an omnivorous, vegetarian or vegan diet.

“Although all foods vary in greenhouse gas emissions, it’s also important to look at the bigger picture – we need to account for the nutritional value of foods as well as the greenhouse gas emissions,” Dr. Capper said. “For example, lettuce may have a lower carbon footprint per pound than beef, but beef provides far more nutrients per unit of mass. Furthermore, we need to look at the bigger environmental picture – biodiversity, water use, land use and many other factors need to be considered, not just greenhouse gases.”

Agriculture accounts for about 9 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The primary source of greenhouse gas is from burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation. A government study released in March 2019 found that beef cattle production accounts for 3.5 percent of all U.S.  greenhouse gases.

Cows produce about 20 percent of the methane gas generated per year, according to Penn State University. This occurs because cattle have four stomachs; the largest is the rumen, which can hold 40 to 60 gallons of material and has millions of microbes. The microbes digest grass and hay that cows eat to convert it to energy. This process creates methane gas, which the animal belches and releases into the atmosphere.  

 Does this mean that eating beef and milk that comes from cows is bad for the planet? Dr. Capper said there are several factors to consider.

“We are all lucky to have a huge number of food choices available to us and should make informed choices based on science rather than supposition,” she said. “It’s important that we consider both environmental impact and nutritional value. Ironically, the foods with the lowest greenhouse gas emissions are often syrups and sugars, which are less desirable food choices, health-wise.”

Farmers and ranchers are looking at ways they can reduce the environmental footprint of producing food.

“Farmers and ranchers worldwide have made incredible gains in improving productivity over the years, both in terms of livestock growth and crop production. This allows them to produce more food to feed the growing population, using fewer resources, which is one of the major definitions of sustainability,” Dr. Capper said.

Research has found that changing the foods that cattle eat, such as feeding them seaweed, can reduce the amount of methane gas produced.

If you want to choose beef that is raised in the most sustainable manner, Dr. Capper shared some things to look for.

“Personally, I choose beef that has been raised in efficient systems that take measures to protect the environment, implement responsible use of medicines and have high animal welfare standards. In most cases that means feedlot beef, though it’s worth remembering that all beef systems vary and that there are examples of sustainability excellence across all types of operation. It’s often worth finding a local supplier if you’re able to, though the various assurance schemes also give a good measure of food production information,” she said.

All food that is grown has an impact on the environment. Cows produce methane, which is a greenhouse gas. When weighing food choices and the environmental impact, consider more than greenhouse gases, such as nutrition, biodiversity, land use and other factors.

The post Are Cows Bad for the Environment? appeared first on Best Food Facts.

How do pesticides affect the environment where they are used? If they can harm things such as insects or weeds, could pesticides affect other things?

We asked a farmer for perspective and interviewed three university scientists to find out how pesticides impact the environment. Dr. William Vencill is a Professor of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia; Jeff Graybill is an Extension Educator in Agronomy, Penn State University; and Dr. Stephen Baenziger is a Professor of Plant Sciences, University of Nebraska. In addition, we talked to a farmer.

These experts emphasized that all pesticides sold in the United States are thoroughly tested to determine if they could cause harm.

“The compounds that become pesticides by law must be safe for the environment using rigorous tests and their review,” Dr. Baenzinger said. “If they were determined to be unsafe, they could not meet the regulatory requirements for their release. Also remember that after a pesticide is approved for release, it is still periodically reviewed to ensure no new information has been developed that may affect at how the compounds can be used.”

All systems of raising food cause some disruption to the natural environment, Dr. Vencill noted. In some cases, using pesticides is the best option.

“If we do not use herbicides, growers will use tillage for weed control that increases soil erosion, losing precious soil in the field, and also contaminating water supplies. Maximizing agricultural production so that each unit of land produces as much as possible allows society to set aside natural areas such as wildlife habitat,” he said.

Janna Splitter explained that protecting the soil is part of the reason why they use pesticides on their farm.

“My husband and I own and operate our fifth-generation family farm in central Kansas. Along with our two young daughters, we grow wheat, corn, soybeans and grain sorghum on drylands and irrigated acres,” she said. “We are a no-till farm. We choose the use of pesticides to control weeds and harmful insects vs conventional tillage (working the ground and turning the soil).”

Splitter said they take steps to use only the amount of pesticide that is needed.

“The ultimate goal each year is to raise the highest quality product in the most sustainable fashion. Having a safe and sustainable product requires intervention throughout the growing season. If there is a weed or a bug that would be detrimental to the quality of the crops we are raising, we have the obligation to control it,” she said. “It is common for us, when needed, to use an insecticide that would only target a specific insect rather than all insects. For instance, when trying to kill headworms in grain sorghum, you use a product that specifically kills headworms without damaging other beneficial insects such as ladybugs, bees, etc.”

We asked the experts for more detailed information about pesticides and the environment.

Are pesticides safe for the environment?

Vencill: “It depends on how one defines ‘safe.’ For 10,000 years, humans have been disrupting the environment to grow crops. Except for hunter-gatherers, most food production systems cause some harm to the environment. Nothing is risk free. What we must ask is, does this pesticide when used as labelled have the potential to harm ecological systems? Pesticides must undergo years of rigorous testing in a wide range of environments to show that these risks are minimal.”

Graybill: “All pesticides are thoroughly tested. It generally takes a new product 10 years or more before they are approved for market. During this time, they are tested for water quality, environmental safety and food safety.”

Baenziger: “The compounds that become pesticides by law must be safe for the environment using rigorous tests and their review. If they were determined to be unsafe, they could not meet the regulatory requirements for their release.  Also remember that after a pesticide is approved for release, it is still periodically reviewed to ensure no new information has been developed that may affect at how the compounds can be used.”

What safeguards are in place to ensure unsafe levels of pesticides are not degrading our air and water?

Vencill: “Any pesticide shown to have adverse environmental effects will be pulled from the market or its use will be severely restricted. I have seen the use of several products be severely restricted over the years for environmental reasons. Regulatory agencies use developing science to adjust pesticide labels to try to protect the environment. Product labels provide critical information about how to handle and safely use the pesticide product and avoid harm to human health and the environment. But, even when label requirements are closely followed, we can’t say there is zero risk for environmental harm. Nothing is risk free.

“However, not applying pesticides for pest control also has potential to harm the environment. If we do not use herbicides, growers will use tillage for weed control that increases soil erosion, losing precious soil in the field, and also contaminating water supplies. Maximizing agricultural production so that each unit of land produces as much as possible allows society to set aside natural areas such as wildlife habitat.”

Graybill: “All pesticides go under a review process every 10 or 15 years by the EPA. Companies are required to provide data about the use of the product. Residue levels must be checked and reported, new toxicology testing is done and any university and governmental reports of contamination must be studied and evaluated. Only then will a sales license be renewed. Most products also have a MCL (maximum contaminant level) at which they are safe to use. These are typically in parts per million (PPM). If residue is found in the environment or on the food item in excess of this limit, the EPA will take action to correct the problem or ban the chemical.”

What are some common misconceptions about how pesticides effect the environment?

Vencill: “Some people seem to feel that some pesticides are not regulated, and many do not know how tightly they are regulated. Another is that the mere presence of a compound equals harm.”

Graybill: “Pesticides are only one class of chemicals with potential toxicity. When misused they can potentially contaminate the environment and harm humans. This, however, is no different than any industrial product. Gasoline is highly explosive and can easily contaminate water supplies, etc.  Yet, would we consider not using it as an energy source? When used appropriately, agricultural chemicals have given us a safe, reliable food supply. The benefits far outweigh the risks.”

Baenziger: “Many people seem to think pesticides do not break down and are with us forever. There is also a misconception that pesticides are not well regulated. A prominent notion is that we know very little about how pesticides impact the environment, but there’s actually a great depth of knowledge.”

How are pesticides impacting pollinators like bees and butterflies?

Graybill: “Certain insecticides can harm insects such as bees and butterflies. The agricultural industry is aware of this and most insecticide labels have instructions on how to reduce and minimize the risk to these insects. Also, many of the more toxic compounds have now been banned and replaced by newer ones which are more targeted to specific pests.”

Some say widespread use of herbicides is resulting in weeds becoming resistant to pesticides. What’s your view of this issue?

Vencill: “It is true that herbicides select for weeds that have a resistance trait in a given field. Without herbicide use, no one would notice if these resistant weeds were present. A common misconception is that the herbicide causes a mutation leading to resistance.

“There was an interesting study in France a couple of years ago where they looked at dried samples of blackgrass (a serious weed in Europe) from the 1700s through the 1900s. They found herbicide-resistant blackgrass from 1875 – 100 years before this particular herbicide was commercialized! If growers use a diverse set of weed control tactics, then herbicide resistance can be delayed and managed. It is when growers rely on a single herbicide for weed control and use it year after year, we see more rapid herbicide resistance develop.”

Graybill: “As weeds grow and continually adapt to their environment, they will develop resistance to herbicide. It’s a natural process. This is to be expected and there are ways which farmers are working to minimize this. One practice is to no longer use just a single product, but partner two products together. Glyphosate (Roundup) is one herbicide for which some weeds have become resistant. This was due to it being over used. It was also often used as the only product. Today, when farmers are spraying herbicides they will use multiple products which slows or even prevents the development of resistant weeds.”

Baenziger: “This is a biological concern. All herbicide -resistance genes separate a resistant crop from a susceptible weed. Through mutations, weeds eventually become resistant to the herbicide (similar to the crop). That’s the way nature works. Weeds becoming resistant to a chemical is a very common process. But remember that you started with a susceptible weed, which became resistant to a herbicide, thus the pesticide is no longer useful to control that weed. Farmers were able to grow very good crops for the years the herbicide worked well. When the pesticide fails, you’re back to where you started in that the weed and the crop cannot be separated through the use of the herbicide (the herbicide has become ineffective to control that weed). However, before the weed became resistant, the producer had good choices on how to control weeds.”

Summary

Pesticides help farmers raise crops so that people have food to eat. Pesticides can have an impact on the environment and that is why they are closely tested and regulated. Guidelines help to make sure the products are used in the proper way so that they do not cause harm to the environment.

Other articles in this series:

Are Pesticides Needed to Grow Food?

Are Pesticides Safe for Food Consumption?

What’s the Difference Between Pesticide Free and Organic?

The post Are Pesticides Safe for the Environment? appeared first on Best Food Facts.

The report notes that nearly 1 billion people in the world are going hungry and that about 2 billion people are consuming more calories than they need. In light of climate change and a growing world population, the report recommends some people change their diets.

The “planetary health diet” offers five strategies to encourage people to change their eating habits. These include governments giving incentives to eat healthier and intensifying agriculture sustainability. One of the recommendations is for those in North America and Europe to reduce meat and sugar consumption and to eat more fruits, vegetables and nuts.

When considering changes to your diet, Best Food Facts experts advise eating a balanced diet that includes fruits, vegetables, whole grains and high-quality proteins.

“Protein has several functions in the body including serving as structural components of muscle,” said Dr. Ruth MacDonald, chair of the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition at Iowa State University,  in an article for Best Food Facts. “High-quality protein sources are identified by nutrition scientists as those that contain all the essential amino acids in the amounts needed by humans. The highest quality proteins come from animal sources – eggs, meat and milk.”

Choose a variety of protein sources and consider the additional nutrients a food provides, suggested Dr. Liz Applegate, director of Sports Nutrition at the University of California-Davis.

“For meats like chicken, turkey, beef and pork, you’re getting a high-quality protein with the essential amino acids your body needs, but you also get the good absorbable trace minerals like iron and zinc, which some people don’t get enough of in their diet. Dairy sources are excellent because, along with protein, you get calcium, riboflavin and vitamin D,” she said. “Vegetarian sources of protein like tofu provide some really heart-healthy fats and some cancer-fighting compounds called isoflavones. Eggs top the list as the best source of protein because they have the profile of amino acids that exactly match our needs.”

While it is possible to meet nutrition needs without eating animal protein, it does require paying close attention to food labels and making sure you get all necessary nutrients, said Dr. Dennis Savaiano, professor in the Department of Nutrition Science at Purdue University.

When choosing foods that are sustainable for the planet, consider how the food is grown. Dr. Jude Capper is a Best Food Facts expert and independent livestock consultant who studies sustainability. She notes that livestock farmers have become more efficient and use fewer natural resources to raise animals.

“As the population grows and competes with agriculture for land, energy and water resources, the need to improve efficiency and productivity becomes ever more crucial. This can only be achieved by continuing specialization and intensification,” she said. For instance, chickens have been bred to reach market rate in a shorter amount of time. That means the chickens use fewer resources to grow.

Our experts have also shared tips for reducing food waste, which can benefit the environment.

The foods you choose can have an impact on the environment. Consider a number of factors that affect sustainability of food production and keep nutritional needs in mind.

The post Can Your Diet Affect the Planet? appeared first on Best Food Facts.

We reached out to Dr. Kate Parizeau, associate professor and food waste expert at the University of Guelph, and Dr. Michelle Coyne, former research fellow with the Food Systems Lab at the University of Toronto and advocate for food waste reduction, to tell us about the economic impacts of food loss and waste and the impact on our environment.

How much food loss and waste is there in Canada? Around the globe?

Parizeau: “Reports from the Commission for Environmental Cooperation demonstrate that Canadians generate 85 kg of food waste per person annually, and that this amount is increasing over time. Globally, the Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that we waste about one-third of all food produced each year, amounting to 1.3 billion tons.”

Coyne: “In 2014, Value Chain Management International (an organization associated with the University of Guelph) estimated that Canadian food waste was valued at $31 billion per year. Globally, about one-third or 1.3 billion tonnes of food is wasted every year. Consumer waste takes a slightly higher share of the food at 47% of total food waste in Canada. The remaining 53% is wasted across the value chain from farm to consumer. However, any plan to reduce food waste requires a coordinated effort from producers, distributors and consumers. Ongoing research from around the world is helping give us a better picture of where, why, and how much food is being wasted.”

Is reducing food waste good for the environment?

Parizeau: “Yes, reducing food waste is definitely good for the environment. Rotting food can produce methane, a greenhouse gas that is 32 times more potent than carbon dioxide. When we waste food, we also waste the resources that went into producing and transporting that food (e.g. land, water, fertilizers, pesticides, and fuel).”

Coyne: “Absolutely. When thinking of food waste, it is important to think about the entire food chain. For all the food that is wasted from farm to fork, the non-renewable resources necessary for its production and distribution are also wasted. By reducing the food we waste, we can also have an impact on reducing our carbon footprint. In 2013, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations released a report that found food waste to be the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases on the planet, second only to the United States and China.”

Doesn’t food waste just break down in the landfill anyway?

Parizeau: “It takes a very long time for food to break down in a landfill, and this type of food breakdown creates methane because landfills are low-oxygen environments. When we trap food waste in a sanitary landfill, we also lose access to all of the nutrients that could be recovered from that organic matter. Composting is a good way to recover nutrients, but there are also environmental impacts associated with this type of treatment, especially when municipalities use big trucks to collect organics. It is worth the effort to compost, but we should aim to only compost inedible organics (e.g. pits, peels, leaves), and try to eat all of the edible food that comes through our kitchens.”

Coyne: “Wouldn’t that be nice! While food is biodegradable, landfills don’t allow for natural breakdown processes to occur. The breakdown of food requires airflow and landfills are stacked and compacted in such a way that air can’t get through the layers. If you’ve ever been to a landfill or looked at a photograph, you’ll see how high they can be. Underneath all the top layers are compacted layers of all matter of waste. Once products are compacted into a landfill, they become indistinguishable from each other. There has been a strong move towards organic separation of waste, with green bin programs, for example, diverting organic waste away from landfill. This has become of primary interest to a number of city councils across Canada, as well as the National Zero Waste Council.”

And how much money could I save if I were to reduce the amount of food I throw out?

Parizeau: “An average consumer could save up to $1,100 per year by reducing the food that is wasted at home.”

Coyne: “On average, Canadian consumers waste about 25% of the food they purchase. Researchers have made the analogy that this is like buying four bags of groceries and throwing one away as soon as you walk out of the store. Therefore, reducing food waste at home could have impressive food budget savings. It will also save time and effort in cleaning out forgotten leftovers and food from the back of our fridges.”

About one-third of all food goes to waste each year. Reducing food waste benefits the environment by reducing methane and greenhouse gas emission and saving energy and non-renewable resources. Reducing food waste also helps consumers save about $1,100 per year.

The post How Does Food Waste Impact The Environment? appeared first on Best Food Facts.

What makes it different? Kernza is a perennial that lives for several years. Wheat, in comparison, is an annual crop that farmers typically plant in the fall. It is harvested in the summer when the grain is ripe and the plants die. Each year, new seed is planted.

Kernza is not a strain or species of wheat, but a registered trade name owned by The Land Institute for a type of intermediate wheatgrass, a wild relative of annual wheat. The seed is planted and farmers harvest the grain, but the plant continues to live in the soil and produce a crop every year.

Why is it important? Researchers developed Kernza to capture the environmental benefits of perennials. The roots of a Kernza plant grow 10 feet into the soil, much deeper than annual wheat. Those deeper roots allow the plant to store nutrients, resist drought and reduce soil erosion. Kernza can both protect the soil while producing food for people to eat.

How does it taste? The grain has a sweet, nutty flavor making it a good fit for cereals and snacks. The kernel is smaller than wheat and has more bran and fiber, but fewer carbohydrates.

When will it be available? General Mills announced that it will be using Kernza in some of its Cascadia Farms organic brand cereals and snacks. The products will be on store shelves next year.

The Land Institute has been conducting research on perennial grains since the 1980s and continues to work with the goal of developing varieties of Kernza that are economical for farmers to grow on a large scale. They expect the first Kernza variety will be widely available by 2019.

Where can you buy it? Kernza is available in a few specialty products now. Patagonia Provisions produces a beer called Long Root Ale which is sold on the West Coast. Chefs in the Minneapolis area, where Kernza is grown in test plots, have made pasta, tortillas and muffins. The Perennial restaurant in San Francisco serves Kernza bread and crackers.

Kernza is a new grain that has the potential to change how farmers grow crops. “Kernza is among the first of a range of new perennial crops in development that together are expected to build soil, improve wildlife habitat, protect water and provide abundant nutritious food. Over a few more decades of research and development, dedicated global partnerships will make this vision a tangible reality. Already the first fields now yielding Kernza perennial grain and the food and farming innovators working with the grain promise great things to come,” the Land Institute told us.

_{Photo Credit: The Land Institute}

The post Food Facts: What is Kernza? appeared first on Best Food Facts.

Manure from farm animals when used as fertilizer improves soil and increases crop yields. It can become a pollutant if it reaches water supplies.

Farm animal production in the United States has clearly shifted away from many small farms to an increasing number of larger farms. It takes several small farms to equal the manure production of a single large farm. On the large farm, the manure management responsibility lies with only one management system instead of several.

Research shows larger farms use more comprehensive manure management practices than smaller farms. Larger farms must comply with stricter regulations than smaller farms and are often more able to employ people or hire consultants who specialize in manure management issues.

Research also suggests that large farms as a group may practice better manure management than smaller farms as a whole.

_{“1DM39229” by werktuigendagen is licensed under CC BY SA 2.0.}

The post “Large farms are bad for the environment.” appeared first on Best Food Facts.

_{True or Not? “Small farms and increased consumer purchases of locally-produced food products are better for the future of American agriculture and the environment.”}

_{Image: “DSC01426 – Ross Farm” by Dennis Jarvisis licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.}

The post “Small farms and increased consumer purchases of locally-produced food products are better for the future of American agriculture and the environment.” appeared first on Best Food Facts.

This video focuses on the impacts GM crops have on the environment. A west-coast mom, Karri Hammerstrom, asks tough questions of environmental scientist Dr. Cecilia Chi-Ham from the Public Intellectual Property Resource for Agriculture at the University of California-Davis.

We’re interested in understanding what additional questions you have for Dr. Cecilia. Feel free to submit questions below.

What did other experts have to say about environmental impacts of genetically modified crops?

Don’t GMO crops use a lot of pesticides and other chemicals?

Dr. Martina Newell-McGloughlin:

This is a good question. An economists’ study analyzing GMO crops a couple years ago determined that pesticides’ footprint is down by about 35% for corn and 25% for cotton. In addition, there is a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 286 million kilograms. This is because herbicide-tolerant seeds (which create herbicide-tolerant plants) allow farmers to practice no-till agriculture – that is, they don’t have to plow the land (which causes carbon dioxide to be released). This also means the soil integrity is retained so the organic matter is much healthier, there is less soil compaction because you’re not driving over the land, and water usage is better because it is being retained in the soil. As well, because you’re not driving over the land, fuel usage is lower. In fact, fuel usage is estimated to be about 20 gallons less per acre.

Dr. Wayne Parrott:

No farmer likes to buy and use pesticides just for the sake of it – every chemical bought reduces the farmer’s profit. Because of insecticide-resistant corn and cotton, we’re not using as many insecticides in the environment as we were before, nor are we losing as much pre-harvest yield as we were before. Lower insecticide use and less yield loss translate into additional profits. The reduction in the amount of herbicides used has not been as dramatic as the decrease in insecticide use, but the type of herbicides being used now are very different from those used in the past. They are much more environmentally friendly, so even if the amount has not changed much, the environmental impact has decreased significantly.

Dr. Peggy Lemaux:

In reality, having crops that can tolerate herbicides and pest attacks increases pest management options and can also reduce the number and strength of pesticide applications. Growth of GM herbicide-tolerant crops also allows topical application of herbicides to crops and weeds, which replaces mechanical removal of weeds, which can damage crops. Reducing mechanical tillage lowers fuel consumption and helps conserve soils prone to erosion and compaction.

How are GMOs regulated?

Dr. Newell-McGloughlin:

In the U.S., GMOs are more highly regulated than any other methods to introduce traits into crops today. Three principal agencies that regulate are:

1. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
2. USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS)
3. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

The primary body that regulates the commercialization of GMOs is USDA-APHIS. This is a lengthy and expensive process. For most regulation, it takes several years to determine the status. This process has actually inhibited development of many crops that could replace older, less safe, less environmentally friendly techniques.

Dr. Lemaux:

The FDA is responsible for the safety and labeling of foods and animal feeds from all crops, including those that are genetically modified. The EPA evaluates food safety and environmental issues associated with new pesticides. The EPA also oversees GMO plants, for example, in cases where a small part of a pest is used to develop the GMO crop. And USDA-APHIS oversees environmental consequences and safety of planting and field-testing of GMO plants. Their role is to ensure that field tests of GMO crops are conducted under specified conditions and that any unusual occurrences are reported. Not every GMO crop will be overseen by all three agencies; however, all three agencies have the legal power to ask for immediate removal from the market of any product, if valid scientific data show a safety concern for consumers or the environment.

Dr. Alison Van Eenennaam:

The FDA is responsible for the regulatory oversight of genetically engineered animals. For all human and animal drug applications, the FDA requires that the company interested in selling a product provide them with the food and safety data to support their contention that the product is safe. They consult with the company as to the types of studies that will be required to show that it’s safe. The company then carries out those studies, and the FDA independently reviews the data and comes to a conclusion as to whether or not the product is safe. Some people think the FDA should not use company data to prove safety, but requiring the FDA to produce that data would shift the cost of drug development from the private to the public sector.

Are GMOs considered sustainable?

Dr. Van Eenennaam:

To me, sustainability is a three-legged stool that needs to balance economic, environmental and social goals. There are some GM applications that have the potential to satisfy all three of these sustainability goals concurrently. For example, GM animals that are disease-resistant are less expensive to raise, have improved animal welfare, and have decreased need for the use of therapeutic antibiotics. Improving production efficiency through improved animal health would also have the added environmental benefit of decreasing the carbon footprint per pound of product that is produced.

Dr. Parrott:

The 3 pillars of sustainability are people, profit and planet. From that perspective, they meet the profit criterion, or farmers would not be using them to the extent they are. They meet the planet criterion, as GMOs are lowering the agricultural footprint- there is less chemical damage, less erosion, less greenhouse gasses and less fossil fuel use. Finally, they improve the quality of life for people. My grandfather was a farmer, and he would much rather have spent his Sunday afternoons watching football with the grand kids; instead, he had to spend it on the tractor plowing and spraying. The fact that GMO agriculture requires a lot less labor has also contributed to its popularity among farmers.

Do GM crops create superweeds and pesticide resistant bugs? If so, does this mean farmers have to apply more toxic chemicals to the crops?

Dr. Bruce Chassy: 

I’ll address this in two parts – first: superweeds. It is inaccurate to call emergence of a single herbicide resistance a “superweed.” A superweed (by definition) would actually be resistant to all or at least many herbicides. Resistance has occurred with many herbicides used on non-GE crops. Fortunately, that has not yet occurred with GM crops; multiple herbicide-resistant weeds have emerged in conventional crops through poor stewardship of herbicides. Where we have seen resistance to herbicides used in GE crops, (less than 1 percent of land planted with GM herbicide-tolerant crops), alternative herbicides are still effective. The key requirement to minimize the emergence of resistance to the herbicides used on crops is careful management.

Second: toxic chemicals. Comprehensive data from all over the world demonstrates that planting GE crops has significantly reduced the amount of pesticides used on crops (Brookes and Barfoot, 2010). In addition, it has allowed a shift to far less toxic herbicides that are not persistent in the environment. The claim that more toxic chemicals are used because of GE crops is not supported by the evidence. One of the major reasons that farmers choose to pay more for GE seeds is that they end up paying less for chemicals, fuel, and labor. They also suffer less soil compaction in their fields, less soil erosion and water loss, and there are far less greenhouse gas emissions from their fields. If no-till methods that are facilitated by planting GE crops are used, it also improves soil organic carbon content.

Dr. Parrott:

There is evidence that rootworms are becoming resistant, but they are not there yet, and they may never get there. The other pests are not showing such signs. Also, ‘superweeds’ is a term coined to purposely exaggerate a problem, and it refers to a weed that has become resistant to an herbicide. By that definition, herbicides have been creating “superweeds” since they came into use after WWII. Any given herbicide has a lifespan of some 10 years before the weeds catch up. The worst case scenario is we go back to the chemicals we have used before. The claim that we will go to a more toxic agriculture than we had before is not valid.

Still have questions? Submit them below!

_{“The thunderstorm” by Tez Gooyer is licensed under CC BY ND.}

The post VIDEO: Are GM Crops Harming Our Environment? appeared first on Best Food Facts.