Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Are Americans more obese than ever?

News Feed
Monday, November 18, 2024

Fast food occupies a unique spot in the proverbial gut of America. It’s irresistibly convenient when the fridge is empty —and even when it’s full — it seduces us with consistency, incredible flavors and decent prices.While it all comes with a generous serving of guilt since we kinda know it’s bad for us, Americans can’t help themselves. Americans spent a record $490 billion on fast food in 2023, up from post-pandemic levels. Despite this, surveys consistently show that many harbor deep concerns about its nutritional value, environmental impact and the ethics of its production.This love-hate tension is all part of fast food’s complex place in our lives. A report published Thursday in the journal The Lancet revealed that 75% of Americans are now overweight or obese. While fast food is not solely to blame for that, it does raise questions about the wide availability and nutritional value of ultra-processed foods.But solving an obesity crisis is not as simple as telling people to avoid it. Not everyone who consumes fast food does it because they want to. Many Americans face challenges accessing fresh fruits and vegetables, while an increase in sedentary lifestyles due to modern working practices is not yet fully understood, according to the report. Then there are social factors that limit food choices, like food insecurity, transportation, income, employment, race, educational level and whether you’re a single parent.Attempts to address the issue are not working, noted the report’s authors.“Existing policies have failed to address overweight and obesity,” they wrote. “Without major reform, the forecasted trends will be devastating at the individual and population level, and the associated disease burden and economic costs will continue to escalate.”Obesity will result in up to $9.1 trillion in excess medical expenditures over the next 10 years, according to a June 2024 report by Republicans on the Joint Economic Committee.It’s unclear if this crisis is a priority for the Trump administration, given the incoming president’s well-known love of, and brief employment at, McDonald’s. He’s also a fan of deregulation.While that chaos shakes out, let’s look at some of the leading fast-food ingredients and who let them be there.Sodium overloadThe average fast-food meal contains an alarming amount of sodium. For example, a single serving of McDonald’s fries has 230 milligrams, while a Burger King Whopper packs 911 milligrams, nearly half the recommended daily intake for adults. Consuming this much salt not only raises blood pressure but also puts us at higher risk for heart disease and stroke.Sugar and high fructose corn syrupSugary drinks and desserts dominate fast food menus. A small Wendy’s Frosty cup contains 46 grams of sugar, well above the 25-37 grams per day suggested by the American Heart Association. High-fructose corn syrup, a cheaper alternative to cane sugar, appears in sodas, sauces, and even burger buns. This ingredient has been linked to obesity and metabolic disorders.Questionable meatsWhen fast food chains claim their burgers are made with 100% beef, they’re technically correct. But that label often masks the use of unsellable cuts of meat—trimmings, connective tissue, and fat—ground together into patties. Chicken nuggets, another fast food staple, often contain a mixture of mechanically separated meat, starches, sugar, preservatives, hydrogenated oils and artificial flavorings.Artificial colorings and additivesEver wondered why fast food looks so vibrant? That’s often thanks to chemical colorings like Red 40 and Yellow 5, which have been linked to behavioral issues in children. Even “natural” options like Subway’s multigrain bread once included preservatives like azodicarbonamide—a chemical also used in yoga mats. Subway removed it after public pressure.Who Let This Happen?The fast food industry didn’t become a dietary minefield by accident. Decades of lobbying have shaped policy and regulations that some groups say prioritize corporate profits over public health.The corn lobby and high-fructose corn syrupHigh-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) owes its success to U.S. government subsidies for corn production. The Farm Bill, influenced heavily by agribusiness lobbyists, has ensured corn remains one of the most heavily subsidized crops. Between 1995 and 2020, corn subsidies amounted to over $116 billion in the U.S.This surplus of cheap corn made HFCS a low-cost alternative to sugar, leading to its widespread use in sodas, snacks, and fast food sauces. Despite links to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic disorders, HFCS remains, thanks in part to powerful lobbying by groups like the Corn Refiners Association.Meat industry lobbyistsThe meat industry has consistently pushed back against stricter regulations on safety and labeling. One infamous example is pink slime, a finely textured beef filler treated with ammonia to kill bacteria. This filler, made from low-quality trimmings squished together, sparked public outrage when first exposed in 2012.After lobbying efforts by meat processors like Cargill and Beef Products Inc., pink slime was reclassified by the USDA as ground beef, meaning it could be more widespread than before.But “pink slime” is fattier and more likely to contain pathogens than ground beef from quality cuts.FDA and additivesFood manufacturers have fought to keep artificial preservatives and additives legal despite evidence of potential health risks. For instance, Butylated Hydroxyanisole (BHA) and Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT) are preservatives used in fast food and processed goods to prevent fat from spoiling.Both are listed as “reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens” by the National Toxicology Program, yet lobbying by food industry groups has ensured they remain approved by the FDA.

Obesity affects more Americans than ever. Fast food is one of the main culprits.

Fast food occupies a unique spot in the proverbial gut of America. It’s irresistibly convenient when the fridge is empty —and even when it’s full — it seduces us with consistency, incredible flavors and decent prices.

While it all comes with a generous serving of guilt since we kinda know it’s bad for us, Americans can’t help themselves. Americans spent a record $490 billion on fast food in 2023, up from post-pandemic levels. Despite this, surveys consistently show that many harbor deep concerns about its nutritional value, environmental impact and the ethics of its production.

This love-hate tension is all part of fast food’s complex place in our lives.

A report published Thursday in the journal The Lancet revealed that 75% of Americans are now overweight or obese. While fast food is not solely to blame for that, it does raise questions about the wide availability and nutritional value of ultra-processed foods.

But solving an obesity crisis is not as simple as telling people to avoid it. Not everyone who consumes fast food does it because they want to. Many Americans face challenges accessing fresh fruits and vegetables, while an increase in sedentary lifestyles due to modern working practices is not yet fully understood, according to the report. Then there are social factors that limit food choices, like food insecurity, transportation, income, employment, race, educational level and whether you’re a single parent.

Attempts to address the issue are not working, noted the report’s authors.

“Existing policies have failed to address overweight and obesity,” they wrote. “Without major reform, the forecasted trends will be devastating at the individual and population level, and the associated disease burden and economic costs will continue to escalate.”

Obesity will result in up to $9.1 trillion in excess medical expenditures over the next 10 years, according to a June 2024 report by Republicans on the Joint Economic Committee.

It’s unclear if this crisis is a priority for the Trump administration, given the incoming president’s well-known love of, and brief employment at, McDonald’s. He’s also a fan of deregulation.

While that chaos shakes out, let’s look at some of the leading fast-food ingredients and who let them be there.

Sodium overload

The average fast-food meal contains an alarming amount of sodium. For example, a single serving of McDonald’s fries has 230 milligrams, while a Burger King Whopper packs 911 milligrams, nearly half the recommended daily intake for adults. Consuming this much salt not only raises blood pressure but also puts us at higher risk for heart disease and stroke.

Sugar and high fructose corn syrup

Sugary drinks and desserts dominate fast food menus. A small Wendy’s Frosty cup contains 46 grams of sugar, well above the 25-37 grams per day suggested by the American Heart Association. High-fructose corn syrup, a cheaper alternative to cane sugar, appears in sodas, sauces, and even burger buns. This ingredient has been linked to obesity and metabolic disorders.

Questionable meats

When fast food chains claim their burgers are made with 100% beef, they’re technically correct. But that label often masks the use of unsellable cuts of meat—trimmings, connective tissue, and fat—ground together into patties. Chicken nuggets, another fast food staple, often contain a mixture of mechanically separated meat, starches, sugar, preservatives, hydrogenated oils and artificial flavorings.

Artificial colorings and additives

Ever wondered why fast food looks so vibrant? That’s often thanks to chemical colorings like Red 40 and Yellow 5, which have been linked to behavioral issues in children. Even “natural” options like Subway’s multigrain bread once included preservatives like azodicarbonamide—a chemical also used in yoga mats. Subway removed it after public pressure.

Who Let This Happen?

The fast food industry didn’t become a dietary minefield by accident. Decades of lobbying have shaped policy and regulations that some groups say prioritize corporate profits over public health.

The corn lobby and high-fructose corn syrup

High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) owes its success to U.S. government subsidies for corn production. The Farm Bill, influenced heavily by agribusiness lobbyists, has ensured corn remains one of the most heavily subsidized crops. Between 1995 and 2020, corn subsidies amounted to over $116 billion in the U.S.

This surplus of cheap corn made HFCS a low-cost alternative to sugar, leading to its widespread use in sodas, snacks, and fast food sauces. Despite links to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic disorders, HFCS remains, thanks in part to powerful lobbying by groups like the Corn Refiners Association.

Meat industry lobbyists

The meat industry has consistently pushed back against stricter regulations on safety and labeling. One infamous example is pink slime, a finely textured beef filler treated with ammonia to kill bacteria. This filler, made from low-quality trimmings squished together, sparked public outrage when first exposed in 2012.

After lobbying efforts by meat processors like Cargill and Beef Products Inc., pink slime was reclassified by the USDA as ground beef, meaning it could be more widespread than before.

But “pink slime” is fattier and more likely to contain pathogens than ground beef from quality cuts.

FDA and additives

Food manufacturers have fought to keep artificial preservatives and additives legal despite evidence of potential health risks. For instance, Butylated Hydroxyanisole (BHA) and Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT) are preservatives used in fast food and processed goods to prevent fat from spoiling.

Both are listed as “reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens” by the National Toxicology Program, yet lobbying by food industry groups has ensured they remain approved by the FDA.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

At least a dozen US states rush to ban common food dyes, citing health risks

RFK Jr’s ‘Maha’ giving fresh momentum to longtime efforts to outlaw additives, which is now a bipartisan movementAt least a dozen US states – from traditionally conservative Oklahoma to liberal-leaning New York – are rushing to pass laws outlawing commonly used dyes and other chemical additives in foods, citing a need to protect public health.In one of the most far-reaching efforts, West Virginia last week advanced a sweeping ban on a range of common food dyes that have been linked to health problems, particularly for children, with overwhelming support from both Republicans and Democrats. Continue reading...

At least a dozen US states – from traditionally conservative Oklahoma to liberal-leaning New York – are rushing to pass laws outlawing commonly used dyes and other chemical additives in foods, citing a need to protect public health.In one of the most far-reaching efforts, West Virginia last week advanced a sweeping ban on a range of common food dyes that have been linked to health problems, particularly for children, with overwhelming support from both Republicans and Democrats.The new law prohibits the sale of any food product containing certain yellow, blue, green and red dyes often found in candies, snacks and other foods and drinks, and goes much further than any other state in moving to eliminate the chemicals from store shelves.The West Virginia measure has passed both legislative chambers and is expected to receive final clearance within the next week to move to the governor’s desk for signing.Public health advocates have been lobbying for state and federal action for years, pointing to research that links food dyes and other chemical additives to health risks, including neurobehavioral problems in children and animal research linking certain additives to cancers.Food industry advocates have protested efforts to ban the additives, citing what they say is a lack of proof that the chemicals are harmful to people, and arguing such laws will raise food prices.The National Confectioners Association (NCA) said that the measures “will make food significantly more expensive for, and significantly less accessible to, people in the states that pass them.” The association also said the federal government – in the form of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – should be the final arbiter for food additives.“While there is a role for state legislators and public health officials to play in the ongoing conversation about food additives, decision-making should be left to FDA,” the NCA said.But supporters of the measures say the “Make America Healthy Again” (Maha) movement associated with newly appointed health and human services secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, is giving fresh momentum to the efforts. Kennedy has long warned about chemical additives in food and vowed in his confirmation hearing before Congress to “scrutinize the chemical additives in our food supply”.“There is a lot of support for these measures now for a few reasons. The most obvious one is the Maha movement,” said Laura Wakim Chapman, chair of the West Virginia senate health and human resources committee. “Viral videos and social media content is informing the public about the dangers of unnecessary food additives. I am a mother of two and care deeply about their health. I think most parents do.”In January, the FDA banned one food dye – Red 3 Dye – but did so begrudgingly, saying the agency was forced as “a matter of law” to take the step, but does not believe the dye poses an actual health risk to people. The agency acted only after advocates petitioned for the ban, citing industry studies that linked Red 3 Dye to cancer in rodents more than 30 years ago.“I think many see FDA’s belated ban on Red 3 as further evidence that FDA is not very effective at safeguarding the food supply,” said Lisa Lefferts, an environmental health consultant who served on a 2011 FDA advisory board. “Republicans are taking a more active role in this issue than ever before.”In Virginia, lawmakers recently passed a bill that bans seven food dyes from public schools. With strong bipartisan support, the law now awaits the governor’s signature.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Detox Your KitchenA seven-week expert course to help you avoid chemicals in your food and groceries.Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“Consumers are demanding better food choices and questioning why other countries restrict harmful dyes while America continues to allow them,” said Hillary Pugh Kent, a Republican in the Virginia legislature who led the bill’s passage.And Oklahoma on 3 March advanced its own similar measure, which would ban 21 synthetic dyes and other additives from food distributed in the state. The proposed law would give manufacturers until January 2027 to reformulate their products, but would immediately require them to display a warning label if their products contain any of the 21 additives.New York lawmakers similarly have launched an effort to force food companies to eliminate synthetic dyes and chemical additives from their products. The proposed law there would ban seven dyes from food sold or served in public schools and would ban statewide sales of foods with Red 3 Dye and two other food additives. The law would also require food companies to disclose “secret” food ingredients to the public that have been allowed into the marketplace under a federal standard known as “generally recognized as safe”, or GRAS.The New York law takes specific aim at the FDA and concerns about lax federal oversight, stating that food companies may not use the agency’s view of the safety of the chemicals “as a defense”.California is largely seen as a leading state in the movement, banning six food dyes from foods served to children in public schools in September, as well as banning Red 3 Dye and three other chemical additives from foods sold statewide in 2023.“I think RFK [Kennedy] is bringing to light concerns that we all hold,” said Jennifer Pomeranz, associate professor of public health policy and management at New York University. “I think a lot of legislators saw the inaction by the FDA so more people are coming to the table … tired of waiting for the federal government to do something.”This story is co-published with the New Lede, a journalism project of the Environmental Working Group

Food
Health

Op-ed: The Food System Cannot Become Another Fossil-Fuel Industry Escape Hatch

While the current administration may blame “woke” DEI environmentalists for the blazes, science shows that the climate crisis contributed to the severity of the damage. Meanwhile, the administration is decimating the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the country’s premier climate research institution. Most of us didn’t need another reminder that the climate crisis is […] The post Op-ed: The Food System Cannot Become Another Fossil-Fuel Industry Escape Hatch appeared first on Civil Eats.

As I started thinking about this piece in January, wildfires had begun ravaging Los Angeles. By the time I had written it, entire neighborhoods had been wiped off the map, from fires that were among the most destructive in California’s history. While the current administration may blame “woke” DEI environmentalists for the blazes, science shows that the climate crisis contributed to the severity of the damage. Meanwhile, the administration is decimating the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the country’s premier climate research institution. “Fossil fuel producers continue to shapeshift to shirk responsibility and find new avenues for oil and gas. They’ve got their eyes on one: the food system.” Most of us didn’t need another reminder that the climate crisis is not a future to fear, but a reality on our doorstep. We are heartbroken for those who have lost everything, and angry and frustrated that our political leaders have failed to confront the driving force behind the crisis: the fossil fuel industry. The political headwinds we’re facing make it all the more challenging, enabling fossil fuel producers to continue to shapeshift to shirk responsibility and find new avenues for oil and gas. They’ve got their eyes on one: the food system. The food system is responsible for an estimated one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions driving this crisis. One key reason: the industrial food chain and its ultra-processed foods are deeply dependent on fossil fuels. Consider, if you will, a simple bag of potato chips with a not-so-simple origin story. At nearly every step of this ultra-processed food’s path from the field to the grocery store, fossil fuels are key. Growing vast monocultures of potatoes requires synthetic fertilizers whose production requires massive amounts of energy. It also necessitates petroleum-based pesticides, from fungicides to herbicides, to ward off weeds and stop sprouting. Irrigation and farm equipment also depend on fossil fuels. Most processing facilities still rely on non-renewable energy to power the machinery for sorting, washing, trimming, slicing, blanching, frying, and seasoning. Fossil fuels provide the raw materials for the plastics in packaging, and, typically, the power to transport those chips to distribution centers and supermarkets, corner stores, vending machines—wherever you find them. And that’s just potato chips. Fossil fuels are used throughout our food system—across much of the foods produced by the industrial food chain. By one estimate commissioned by my organization, Global Alliance for the Future of Food, food systems account for at least 15 percent of annual global fossil fuel consumption. (Though, we stress, this is a rough estimate, since assessing usage around the world is exceedingly challenging; we need more and better data.) “Where Are the Fossil Fuels?” infographic from the Fuel to Fork podcast. The analysis found that 42 percent of that total fossil fuel consumption comes from processing and packaging stages, largely driven by the global rise of ultra-processed food. Another 38 percent comes from retail consumption and waste; and the rest is from industrial inputs (like pesticides and fertilizer) and agriculture production. To paraphrase grocery industry expert Errol Schweizer in the podcast Fuel to Fork, which my organization helps produce, fossil fuels are the lifeblood of the food system. Fossil fuels are on track to be an even bigger presence in our food system. The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), a nonprofit environmental organization, warns that as sectors like transport are decarbonizing, the fossil fuel industry has its sights on food, particularly through petrochemicals. CIEL notes that an estimated 74 percent of all petrochemicals are already used for agricultural fertilizer and plastic. The International Energy Agency projects that by 2050 half of all oil and gas will be used for petrochemicals. Based on current levels, 40 percent of that will be going into our food system in the form of plastics and fertilizers. In another report, CIEL notes how chemical companies are introducing microplastic-coated pesticides and fertilizers as a ‘climate solution’. Industry boosters state that microplastic-coated pesticides and fertilizers reduce nitrous oxide emissions by slowing the release of pesticides and fertilizers, so the farmer has to apply less frequently and use less. But, as CIEL adds in the report, the industry has acknowledged that assessing use reduction is challenging. CIEL also points out that using these plastic-coated agrochemicals “directly introduces microplastic into the environment and potentially into the food supply. It also compounds the health and environmental hazards posed by agrochemicals themselves.” Also, as CIEL and others call out, these products not only don’t significantly reduce usage, they cause other problems. Along with increasing the presence of plastics in food production and threatening public health, microplastics used this way dissolve in the soil, impacting soil health, reducing how much water soils can retain, and destroying healthy microorganisms essential for nutrient cycling. But raising the alarm about the growing connections between food systems and fossil fuels is a challenge, because these emissions are often made invisible. Back to that bag of potato chips: The petrochemicals used in fertilizer’s manufacture are responsible for some 34 percent  of energy used in potato crop production, yet they aren’t counted in the total emissions for the food sector according to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or in national emission inventories governments share with the United Nations. “Despite being crucial elements of our food’s journey from field to fork, and carbon-intensive ones at that, neither fertilizer, pesticide, or plastic production are made visible as food-related emissions.” Instead, they are accounted for in different sectors altogether: manufacturing and industry. The same is true for plastic used in food packaging. Despite being crucial elements of our food’s journey from field to fork, and carbon-intensive ones at that, neither fertilizer, pesticide, or plastic production are made visible as food-related emissions. What is also hard to see are the subsidies the fossil fuel industry enjoys. By one estimate, the industry benefits from $7 trillion in subsidies annually, making inputs like synthetic fertilizer and pesticides artificially cheap and therefore possible to use on a vast scale. As Raj Patel, author and a Civil Eats advisor, points out on Fuel to Fork, fossil fuels “enable certain kinds of large-scale industrial agriculture to be profitable.” Meanwhile, we collectively pay the true cost. Fossil fuels make it possible to grow crops in vast monocultures using pesticides instead of biodiversity to deter insects and employing energy-intensive synthetic fertilizers that actually deplete natural soil health and fertility. Fossil fuels also help make ultra-processed foods often the cheapest and most profitable to produce and sell, contributing to a global epidemic of diet-related ill-health. They allow our food to be grown in far-flung places and wrapped in plastic to sit on shelves for months on end, adding further to the carbon emissions bill as well as disrupting local foodways. This method of production also enables us to raise livestock on an industrial scale: Artificially cheap fossil fuel makes it economically feasible to grow vast monocultures of feed, primarily corn and soybeans, needed for Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). The CAFO system, with its dependence on vast amounts of feed crops, has many knock-off climate effects. Soybean production in Brazil, one of the world’s largest exporters of soybeans for animal feed, has contributed to massive deforestation and land use change there, releasing locked-in carbon into the atmosphere. Mismanaged farm waste on CAFOs has a climate toll as well, responsible for as much as 7 percent of global farming emissions. And methane emissions from ruminants, like cattle, are another significant source of climate impacts. Fossil fuels have enabled us to soar past our ecological limits. A man watches the flames from the Palisades Fire burning homes on the Pacific Coast Highway amid a powerful windstorm on January 8, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo credit: Apu Gomes/Getty Images) I’m not naive about the challenges of reducing the use of fossil fuel in the food chain or loosening industry’s stranglehold on policymaking. I do believe, however, that by exposing the links between this industry and our food, we can mobilize the political will for action on food systems transformation to reduce dependency on fossil fuels. And, as more people see the links between fossil fuels and food, we can start to trace a path out of this dependency and find solutions—not just big, thorny, political ones, but everyday ones, too. For those who have the access, and the means, we can make changes ourselves: increase our consumption of whole foods from local, small-scale organic farmers, reduce our consumption of ultra-processed foods, avoid plastic when possible, eat less meat from factory farms, and reduce food waste—to name just a few examples. Alongside these choices, we must collectively work to prevent the industry from using the food system as an escape hatch, a new market for oil and gas as the public demands decarbonization in other parts of the economy. We can support practices like agroecology and regenerative approaches that reduce dependency on synthetic fertilizer and pesticides while catalyzing a cascade of benefits, from better health outcomes to biodiversity protection. And we can also make clear that climate action requires food system action. If we needed any further reminder about why this is so urgent, the thousands of acres of blackened, charred Los Angeles neighborhoods should be more than enough. The post Op-ed: The Food System Cannot Become Another Fossil-Fuel Industry Escape Hatch appeared first on Civil Eats.

Food
Climate
Science

Israel's Halt to Food and Aid Deliveries Worsens Gaza Conditions

By Nidal al-MughrabiCAIRO (Reuters) - Israel's suspension of goods entering Gaza has begun to take a toll on the Palestinian enclave, with some...

CAIRO (Reuters) - Israel's suspension of goods entering Gaza has begun to take a toll on the Palestinian enclave, with some bakeries closing and officials warning of growing risks to the environment including possible discharges of raw sewage into the sea.The suspension, intended to pressure militant group Hamas in ceasefire talks, applies to food, medicine and fuel imports. Hamas describes the measure as "collective punishment" and insists it will not be pushed into making concessions at the discussions.The U.N. Palestinian refugees agency UNRWA said the decision to halt humanitarian aid threatens the lives of civilians exhausted by 17 months of "brutal" war, adding that most of Gaza's 2.3 million people were dependent on aid. Nasser Al-Ajrami, head of the Gaza bakers' union, told Reuters that six out of the 22 bakeries still able to operate in the enclave had already shut after they ran out of cooking gas."The remaining bakeries may close down in a week or so should they run out of diesel or flour, unless the crossing is reopened to allow the goods to flow," he said."The 22 bakeries were not enough to meet the needs of the people, with six of them shutting down now, that would increase the demand for bread and worsen the condition," he added.Israel last week blocked the entry of goods into the territory in a worsening standoff over a truce that has halted fighting for the past seven weeks.The move has led to a hike in prices of essential foods as well as of fuel, forcing many to ration their meals.Displaced from her destroyed house and living in a tent in Khan Younis, 40-year-old Ghada al-Rakab said she is struggling to secure basic needs. The mother of six bakes some goods for her family and neighbours, sometimes renting out a clay makeshift oven for a symbolic price."What kind of life are we living? No electricity, no water, no life, we don't even live a proper life. What else is left there in life? May God take us and give us rest," al-Rakab said.'ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH RISKS'In Israel's latest punitive measure, Energy Minister Eli Cohen said on Sunday he had instructed the Israel Electric Corporation not to sell electricity to Gaza, in what he described as a means of pressure on Hamas to free hostages. The measure would have little immediate impact, as Israel already cut power supply to Gaza at the war's start. It would, however, affect a wastewater treatment plant presently supplied with power, according to the Israeli electricity company.The Palestinian Water Authority said the decision suspended operations at a water desalination plant that produced 18,000 cubic meters of water per day for the population in central and southern areas of Gaza Strip.Mohammad Thabet, the spokesperson of the Gaza power distribution plant, told Reuters the decision will deprive people in those areas of clean and healthy water, leaving them subject to "environmental and health risks.""The decision is catastrophic, municipalities now will be obliged to let sewage water stream into the sea, which may result in environmental and health risks that go beyond the boundaries of Gaza," said Thabet.He said there was not enough fuel to operate stand-by generators in desalination and sewage plants, adding that the existing generators were outdated and hardly functional.MEDIATORS TRY TO SALVAGE TRUCE Fighting in Gaza has been halted since January 19 under a truce, and Hamas has exchanged 33 Israeli hostages and five Thais for some 2,000 Palestinian prisoners and detainees.But the truce's initial 42-day stage has expired and Hamas and Israel remain far apart on broader issues including the postwar governance of Gaza and the future of Hamas itself.Arab mediators, Egypt and Qatar, and the U.S. are trying to salvage the ceasefire deal. They held talks with Hamas leaders and are set to receive Israeli negotiators in Doha on Monday.Hamas spokesperson Abdel-Latif Al-Qanoua told Reuters on Monday the group was committed to the original phased agreement and expected mediators to "compel" Israel to begin talks on implementing the second phase of the deal. Phase two is intended to focus on agreements on the release of remaining hostages and withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza.Israel demands Hamas free the remaining hostages without beginning phase two negotiations.Qanoua said humanitarian sanctions would also affect hostages in the group's custody as well as Gazans."It (Israel) will not free them (hostages) except through negotiation," said Qanoua.(Reporting and writing by Nidal al-Mughrabi. Additional reporting by Hatem Khaled in Gaza and Ali Sawafta in Ramallah, Editing by William Maclean)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

Food
Energy
Waste

Newsom stymies implementation of landmark California plastic law, orders more talks

Gov. Gavin Newsom this week stymied implementation of landmark state environmental legislation that would have limited the amount of single-use plastics sold and distributed in California.

Gov. Gavin Newsom this week stymied implementation of landmark state environmental legislation that would have limited the amount of single-use plastics sold and distributed in California — drawing outrage from environmentalists.The law, known as SB 54, was signed by Newsom in 2022. Since then, dozens of regulators, lawmakers, environmentalists and industry groups have worked together to write the rules and regulations that would guide its implementation. On Friday — the deadline to finalize those rules — Newsom told the negotiators to start over.“The Governor is directing CalRecycle to restart these regulations to ensure California’s bold recycling law can achieve its goal of cutting plastic pollution and is implemented fairly,” Daniel Villaseñor, Newsom’s deputy director of communications, said in a statement. But some environmentalists and lawmakers were incensed at the move. In a statement, representatives of the Monterey Bay Aquarium, the Ocean Conservancy and Oceana said Newsom’s decision “puts the interests of the plastics and fossil fuel industry above the wallets and welfare of Californians and the environment.” They cited his prior enthusiasm for the law, which his office once referred to as “the most significant overhaul of California’s plastics and packaging recycling policy in history.”“The only thing that has changed since these regulations were finalized six months ago is that Gavin Newsom is now running for president,” said one disgruntled environmentalist who had been working on the regulations since 2022, and who asked to remain anonymous because they continue to negotiate with the governor’s office on several legislative and regulatory items. SB 54 called for plastic and packaging companies to reduce single-use plastic packaging by 25% and ensure that 65% of that material is recyclable and 100% either recyclable or compostable — all by 2032. The law also required packaging producers to bear the costs of their products’ end-life (whether via recycling, composting, landfill or export) and figure out how to make it happen — removing that costly burden from consumers and state and local governments.According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale, or distributed during 2023 in California.Single-use plastics and plastic waste more broadly are considered a growing environmental and health problem. In recent decades, the accumulation of plastic waste has overwhelmed waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.Villaseñor, Newsom’s spokesman, cited the program’s cost as a deterrent. A state analysis showed the law, once enacted, would have cost the state $36 billion and each Californian households about $300. However, the analysis then noted those costs were “likely to be mitigated by an estimated increase in personal income amounting to $19.2 billion, coupled with additional health and environmental benefits totaling $40.3 billion.”Indeed, the analysis suggested most Californians were likely to see an increase in personal income as a result of the law, ranging from a $3 per person bump during the first year and $131 by 2032.“The law has always been about affordability,” said state Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), the architect of SB 54. “It’s been increasingly difficult for our cities and counties to handle the endless influx of plastics into our waste stream and they have been forced to increase rates on regular folks over and over again.”But others, including Nick Lapis, director of advocacy at Californians Against Waste, wondered if maybe it is time to bring the issue back to the voters.In 2022, a ballot measure that would have put an end to most single-use packaging and foodware in the state was pulled after industry representatives and lawmakers promised to write legislation that would essentially do the same thing, via SB 54. The only difference was that the law would allow the industry a major role in its oversight, development and management.Dropping the ballot measure was considered a mistake at the time by several environmentalists, who foresaw the industry delaying, derailing or killing it.“Suffice it to say that we just don’t have confidence that an industry so prone to deceiving the public for so long about the impacts of its products on our communities and our planet will now take the starring role in its own demise voluntarily,” wrote a coalition of environmentalists in a 2022 letter condemning the removal of the ballot initiative in favor of the law. Concerns about the governor’s commitment to the law began in December, when members of the Circular Action Alliance — a coalition that was formed to represent the plastic and packaging industry — began to complain about the regulations to Newsom.Rachel Wagoner, an executive director of the industry coalition was, until March 2024, the director of the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, or CalRecycle. Newsom appointed Wagoner to the CalRecycle position in 2020, and it was under her leadership that the majority of the law’s regulations were written and agreed upon. Larine Urbina, a spokeswoman for the Circular Action Alliance, said in a statement that her organization appreciated Newsom’s “commitment to the effective and efficient implementation of SB 54,” and that the alliance’s goal “is to ensure the legislation meets its significant ambitions and to help create a circular economy.”As lawmakers and environmentalists now scramble to pick up the pieces of the SB 54, they noted the bill was signed into law — and therefore the law of the land. “The Governor and legislators ... must continue to insist that the law’s goals and timelines are met,” wrote the representatives of Oceana, Ocean Conservancy and Monterey Bay Aquarium. Allen, the state senator, agreed with that sentiment.“We’re hopeful the administration and agency can move swiftly this go-around ... and come out with revised regulation that get us on track toward swift implementation of the law,” he said. “When that happens, it’ll be a win for both our environment and ratepayers.”

Food
Government
Health

The concern over GMOs isn’t about what you may think

There’s nothing inherently unsafe about genetically modified foods. It’s the potential herbicide exposure that should give you pause.

Should I worry about GMOs? Are they bad for my health?GMOs, or genetically-modified organisms, have been swept into the larger conversation about chemicals, antibiotics and additives in our food supply. But there’s nothing inherently unsafe about genetically modified crops. What should give you pause, instead, is the potential risk of herbicide exposure — which can be an indirect result of modern GMO farming.The most commonly grown GMO crops in the United States are soy and corn that are resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, which the International Agency for Research on Cancer has labeled a probable human carcinogen.Several studies have shown that consuming GMOs is not associated with elevated health risks, including cancer. But glyphosate use has risen dramatically in the United States since the 1990s, and we lack long-term epidemiological data about what this may — or may not — mean for our health. There is also some emerging data regarding glyphosate exposure, especially among younger children, worth considering.As we take into account what we do know, here’s my advice: GMOs are likely fine for adults to consume, especially if you minimize ultra-processed foods, which are generally linked to adverse health outcomes and are a common source of GMO corn and soy. For pregnant women and young children, it would be very reasonable to minimize consuming GMOs and ultra-processed foods whenever possible.What are GMOs?A GMO is an organism, such as a crop, whose genes have been selected for a superior trait. A GMO is not a modern concept. Farmers have been selectively breeding plants chosen for desired traits for thousands of years. The entire field of Mendelian genetics was born from experiments crossbreeding peas to learn about gene inheritance.For instance, have you ever found it odd that an eggplant, that large deep-purple blob, was named for an egg? It was selectively bred this way. The common eggplants of centuries ago were actually more like small white ovals.Of course, our modern techniques are very different: GMOs may undergo an accelerated process of gene engineering in a laboratory to insert a new gene from another organism into the DNA. Today, the most common traits that have been widely selected in GMOs are tolerance to herbicides and insect resistance.With these GMOs, rather than having to rely heavily on mechanical weeding, farmers have used increasingly larger amounts of herbicides that don’t harm their crops. As a result, measurable quantities of herbicides like glyphosate have been detected in GMO grains intended for our food, animal feeds and in some areas’ drinking water.What are the health risks with GMOs?Human studies that have linked glyphosate to cancers like Hodgkin’s lymphoma predominantly evaluated farmers with high levels of occupational exposure, not people exposed via GMO consumption in daily life.The National Academies of Medicine reviewed over 900 studies in 2016 on GMOs and did not find any evidence of elevated health risks, including cancer. But to be clear, that report (which is now almost 10 years old) acknowledged that we lack long-term epidemiological data about the indirect exposure to herbicides possibly associated with GMOs.Reassuringly, in 2021, the USDA conducted a study of over 10,000 randomly sampled foods across the country and found that more than 99 percent contained pesticide levels well below the safety thresholds set by the Environmental Protection Agency.Why are children more at risk?The evidence gets more complex for children, who are more developmentally vulnerable to toxins and stress. A large retrospective study published this January in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) looked at U.S. rural birth records between 1990 and 2013. Researchers from the University of Oregon found that babies with higher glyphosate exposure, particularly in the rural South and Midwest, were more likely to be born with lower birth weights — a change that they found occurred around the rollout of GMOs after accounting for confounders like use of other pesticides, local income, employment rates and demographics.The prospective studies are small and limited, but the findings still warrant pause: A 2021 study of 250 pregnant women in Puerto Rico — the largest study of its kind — found that prenatal exposure to glyphosate (measured objectively in urine samples) was associated with a 35 percent increased odds of preterm birth.What crops are allowed to be GMO?GMOs are not as ubiquitous as many think. There are only 11 approved GMO crops grown in the United States, including apples, potatoes and papaya. The list does not include crops like tomatoes, wheat and strawberries, for example. You can check out the full list here.Rarely, and under tight regulations, a new GMO enters the market: Last year for the first time a genetically engineered banana was approved in Australia and New Zealand to combat fungal disease.How do I know if a food has GMOs?To easily identify whether foods are GMOs, look for a non-GMO or organic label. Organic foods are defined, according to the USDA, by avoidance of synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, antibiotics and other farming practices like genetic modification.It bears noting that for the most part in the United States, there are no inherent nutritional differences between GMOs and their organic counterparts. Most people cannot distinguish GMOs in taste, and there have been a paucity of studies that have ever demonstrated a meaningful personal health benefit of organic foods among adults.What I want my patients to knowThe 2021 study from the USDA washed much of its fresh produce as part of standard procedures before testing. If you wash any fresh GMO produce before consumption, which many people do anyway, you’ll minimize (though perhaps not entirely eliminate), the risk of exposure to pesticides.

Food
Animals
Health

Suggested Viewing

Together We Grow

Together We Grow is a 40-minute documentary telling the story of Common Unity, in Aotearoa New Zealand. Introducing a thriving hub helping to build resilience into its local community by growing, sewing, repairing, sharing – you name it, Common Unity is doing it! Too many of our communities, here and around the world, are facing housing crises, food insecurity, social isolation, and more. In addition, the multiple impacts of the Covid pandemic and climate change are current and ongoing. How can we most effectively confront these challenges, and help our communities thrive in an economic system that leaves many feeling trapped in poverty? Founder Julia Milne and her team have created a completely replicable model for developing strong, connected, resilient communities – a model that could be put in place across thousands of communities in Aotearoa and millions of communities across the world. They’ve proven it can be done, this film was made to help them share the story!

Social Justice
Food
Agriculture

Better Bites with Bugs

The practice of eating bugs -- entomophagy -- has a lot to commend it. You may disagree. But try to put your preconceptions aside!

Agriculture
Food

Beyond the Soil

Beyond the Soil is a short, poetic documentary which explores the emotional impact of climate change on farmers and ranchers who are on the frontlines of the megadrought in the Rocky Mountain West, and their innovation and resilience in the face of ecological crisis.

Climate
Food

The Divers

Talitha, who works in the non-profit sector, finds ways to make her dollar stretch by dumpster diving* to rescue and reclaim unused food. Director How is a graduate of the prestigious MFA Directing program at the UCLA School of Theatre, Film and Television. *Miriam-Webster: The practice of searching through public trash receptacles for edible food or discarded items that retain some use or value.

Food
Waste
Culture

Sockeye Salmon. Red Fish

Sockeye, a species of wild salmon, is born in Kamchatkan waters and spends its entire life in the Pacific Ocean. Only once does it return to fresh waters - to give offspring, start the circle of life, and die. It is an inexhaustible resource that feeds billions of people on the planet, restored every year! But soon, we may find ourselves facing the unimaginable: humans will exhaust the inexhaustible!

Animals
Food
Extinction

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.