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.

California banned polystyrene. So why is it still on store shelves?

News Feed
Saturday, March 22, 2025

Styrofoam coffee cups, plates, clamshell takeout containers and other food service items made with expanded polystyrene plastic can still be found in restaurants and on store shelves, despite a ban that went into effect on Jan. 1.A Smart and Final in Redwood City was brimming with foam plates, bowls and cups for sale on Thursday. Want to buy these goods online? It was no problem to log on to Amazon.com to find a variety of foam food ware products — Dart insulated hot/cold foam cups, or Hefty Everyday 10.25” plates — that could be shipped to an address in California. Polystyrene foam is still being sold in the state of California despite a ban that went into effect on Jan. 1, 2025. (Susanne Rust/Susanne Rust/Los Angeles Times) Same with the restaurant supply shop KaTom, which is based in Kodak, Tenn.Smart and Final and KaTom didn’t respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Amazon said the company would look into the matter. The expanded polystyrene ban is part of a single-use plastic law, Senate Bill 54, that Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law in 2022 but bailed on earlier this month. And while the full law now sits in limbo, one part remains in effect: A de facto ban on so-called expanded polystyrene, the soft, white, foamy material commonly used for takeout food service items. Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for Californians Against Waste — one of the many stakeholder organizations that worked with lawmakers to craft SB 54 — said the law had been written in a way that insured the polystyrene ban would go into effect even if the rest of the package failed. “So, it’s still in effect whether or not there are regulations for the rest of the bill,” he said.CalRecycle, the state’s waste agency, is tasked with overseeing and enforcing the law.Asked why styrofoam food service products are still widely available, CalRecycle spokesperson Melanie Turner said in an email that her agency is in the process of identifying businesses producing, selling and distributing the products in the state and considering “ways to help them comply with the law.”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.In December, representatives from the plastic, packaging and chemical recycling industry urged the governor to abandon the regulations, suggesting they were unachievable as written and could cost Californians roughly $300 per year to implement — a number that has been hotly contested by environmental groups and lawmakers, who say it doesn’t factor in the money saved by reducing plastic waste in towns, cities and the environment.Their pressure campaign — joined by Rachel Wagoner, the former director of CalRecycle and now the director of the Circular Action Alliance, a coalition for the plastic and packaging industry — worked. Newsom let the deadline for the bill’s finalized rules and regulations pass without implementation and ordered CalRecycle to start the process over. Polystyrene foam is still being sold in the state of California despite a ban that went into effect on Jan. 1, 2025. (Susanne Rust/Los Angeles Times) However, the bill’s stand-alone styrofoam proviso — which doesn’t require the finalization of rules and regulation — makes clear that producers of expanded polystyrene food service ware “shall not sell, offer for sale, distribute, or import into the state” these plastic products unless the producer can demonstrate recycling rates of no less than 25% on Jan. 1, 2025, 30% by Jan. 1, 2028, 50% by Jan. 1, 2030 and 65% by 2032.And on Jan. 1, that recycling target hadn’t been met and is therefore banned. (Recycling rates for expanded polystyrene range around 1% nationally).Neither CalRecycle or Newsom’s office has issued an acknowledgment of the ban — leaving plastic distributors, sellers, environmental groups, waste haulers and lawmakers uncertain about the state government’s willingness to enforce the law.“I don’t understand why the administration can’t put out a statement saying that,” said Lapis. “At this point, silence from the administration only creates additional legal liability for companies that don’t realize they are breaking the law.”At a state Senate budget hearing on Thursday, lawmakers questioned the directors of CalEPA and CalRecycle about its lack of action regarding the polystyrene ban. CalRecycle is a department within CalEPA.“Why hasn’t Cal Recycle taken steps to implement the provisions of SB 54 that deal with the sale of expanded polystyrene?” Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), the sponsor and author of the bill, asked Yana Garcia, the secretary of CalEPA. “You know, the product has not met the strict requirements under SB 54, so there’s now steps that need to be taken to prohibited sale.”Garcia responded that in terms of the messaging around polystyrene, her agency and CalRecycle “possibly need to lean in more there as well, particularly at this moment.”Jan Dell, the founder and president of the Laguna Beach-based environmental group Last Beach Cleanup, said the continued presence of expanded polystyrene on store shelves throughout the state underscores one of the major problems with the law: CalRecycle cannot easily enforce it.This “proves that CalRecycle is incapable of implementing and enforcing the massive scope of SB 54 on all packaging,” she said in an email, suggesting the whole law should be repealed “to save taxpayer money and enable strict bans on the worst plastic pollution items to pass and be implemented.”Turner said via email that the agency could provide “compliance assistance,” initiate investigations and issue notices of violation. 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, sickened marine life and threatened human health.On March 7, Newsom stopped the landmark plastic waste law from moving forward — rejecting rules and regulations his own staff had written — despite more than two years of effort, negotiation and input from the plastic and packaging industry, as well as environmental organizations, waste haulers and other lawmakers.

Expanded polystyrene foam, the white fluffy plastic in styrofoam, was banned in food service ware on Jan. 1. But shoppers in CA say its still on the shelves.

Styrofoam coffee cups, plates, clamshell takeout containers and other food service items made with expanded polystyrene plastic can still be found in restaurants and on store shelves, despite a ban that went into effect on Jan. 1.

A Smart and Final in Redwood City was brimming with foam plates, bowls and cups for sale on Thursday. Want to buy these goods online? It was no problem to log on to Amazon.com to find a variety of foam food ware products — Dart insulated hot/cold foam cups, or Hefty Everyday 10.25” plates — that could be shipped to an address in California.

Polystyrene foam is still being sold in the state of California despite a ban that went into effect on Jan. 1, 2025. (Susanne Rust/Susanne Rust/Los Angeles Times)

Same with the restaurant supply shop KaTom, which is based in Kodak, Tenn.

Smart and Final and KaTom didn’t respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Amazon said the company would look into the matter.

The expanded polystyrene ban is part of a single-use plastic law, Senate Bill 54, that Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law in 2022 but bailed on earlier this month.

And while the full law now sits in limbo, one part remains in effect: A de facto ban on so-called expanded polystyrene, the soft, white, foamy material commonly used for takeout food service items.

Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for Californians Against Waste — one of the many stakeholder organizations that worked with lawmakers to craft SB 54 — said the law had been written in a way that insured the polystyrene ban would go into effect even if the rest of the package failed.

“So, it’s still in effect whether or not there are regulations for the rest of the bill,” he said.

CalRecycle, the state’s waste agency, is tasked with overseeing and enforcing the law.

Asked why styrofoam food service products are still widely available, CalRecycle spokesperson Melanie Turner said in an email that her agency is in the process of identifying businesses producing, selling and distributing the products in the state and considering “ways to help them comply with the law.”

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.

In December, representatives from the plastic, packaging and chemical recycling industry urged the governor to abandon the regulations, suggesting they were unachievable as written and could cost Californians roughly $300 per year to implement — a number that has been hotly contested by environmental groups and lawmakers, who say it doesn’t factor in the money saved by reducing plastic waste in towns, cities and the environment.

Their pressure campaign — joined by Rachel Wagoner, the former director of CalRecycle and now the director of the Circular Action Alliance, a coalition for the plastic and packaging industry — worked. Newsom let the deadline for the bill’s finalized rules and regulations pass without implementation and ordered CalRecycle to start the process over.

Redwood City, California-March 20, 2025-Polystyrene foam is still being sold in the

Polystyrene foam is still being sold in the state of California despite a ban that went into effect on Jan. 1, 2025.

(Susanne Rust/Los Angeles Times)

However, the bill’s stand-alone styrofoam proviso — which doesn’t require the finalization of rules and regulation — makes clear that producers of expanded polystyrene food service ware “shall not sell, offer for sale, distribute, or import into the state” these plastic products unless the producer can demonstrate recycling rates of no less than 25% on Jan. 1, 2025, 30% by Jan. 1, 2028, 50% by Jan. 1, 2030 and 65% by 2032.

And on Jan. 1, that recycling target hadn’t been met and is therefore banned. (Recycling rates for expanded polystyrene range around 1% nationally).

Neither CalRecycle or Newsom’s office has issued an acknowledgment of the ban — leaving plastic distributors, sellers, environmental groups, waste haulers and lawmakers uncertain about the state government’s willingness to enforce the law.

“I don’t understand why the administration can’t put out a statement saying that,” said Lapis. “At this point, silence from the administration only creates additional legal liability for companies that don’t realize they are breaking the law.”

At a state Senate budget hearing on Thursday, lawmakers questioned the directors of CalEPA and CalRecycle about its lack of action regarding the polystyrene ban. CalRecycle is a department within CalEPA.

“Why hasn’t Cal Recycle taken steps to implement the provisions of SB 54 that deal with the sale of expanded polystyrene?” Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), the sponsor and author of the bill, asked Yana Garcia, the secretary of CalEPA. “You know, the product has not met the strict requirements under SB 54, so there’s now steps that need to be taken to prohibited sale.”

Garcia responded that in terms of the messaging around polystyrene, her agency and CalRecycle “possibly need to lean in more there as well, particularly at this moment.”

Jan Dell, the founder and president of the Laguna Beach-based environmental group Last Beach Cleanup, said the continued presence of expanded polystyrene on store shelves throughout the state underscores one of the major problems with the law: CalRecycle cannot easily enforce it.

This “proves that CalRecycle is incapable of implementing and enforcing the massive scope of SB 54 on all packaging,” she said in an email, suggesting the whole law should be repealed “to save taxpayer money and enable strict bans on the worst plastic pollution items to pass and be implemented.”

Turner said via email that the agency could provide “compliance assistance,” initiate investigations and issue notices of violation.

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, sickened marine life and threatened human health.

On March 7, Newsom stopped the landmark plastic waste law from moving forward — rejecting rules and regulations his own staff had written — despite more than two years of effort, negotiation and input from the plastic and packaging industry, as well as environmental organizations, waste haulers and other lawmakers.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Microplastics Make It into Your Food through Plant Leaves

New evidence shows plant leaves absorb airborne microplastics, a previously overlooked route for the particles to enter crops that has implications for ecology and human health

Plant Leaves Absorb Microplastics—And They End Up in Our FoodNew evidence shows plant leaves absorb airborne microplastics, a previously overlooked route for the particles to enter crops that has implications for ecology and human healthBy Willie Peijnenburg & Nature magazine Plants can absorb plastic particles directly from the air. Ruben Bonilla Gonzalo/Getty ImagesPlastic production is increasing sharply. This has raised concerns about the effects of microplastics (typically defined as plastic particles smaller than 5 millimetres in diameter) and nanoplastics (smaller plastic particles that are less than 1,000 nanometres in diameter) on human health. These concerns are partly influenced by alarming findings of the presence of microplastics in various human tissues, including the brain and placenta. Continuing research is examining pathways of human exposure to microplastics, including through food sources. Most attention is focused on soil and water as common sources of plastics that enter the food chain. However, writing in Nature, Li et al. provide strong evidence supporting the air as being a major route for plastics to enter plants.Plants can absorb plastic particles directly from the air. Particles in the air can enter leaves through various pathways, such as through structures on the leaf surface called the stomata and through the cuticle. Stomata are small openings made of cells, and the cuticle is a membrane, covered in insoluble wax, that is well suited for absorbing microplastics.Once inside the leaf (Fig. 1), microplastics move through spaces between plant cells and can also accumulate inside tiny hair-like structures, called trichomes, on the surface of leaves. Microplastics can also travel to and enter the plant’s water- and nutrient-transporting system (called the vascular bundle) and from there reach other tissues. Trichomes are ‘sinks’ for external particles and they therefore reduce the efficiency of microplastic transport from leaves to roots. Given that leaves are a key part of the food chain, microplastic particles that accumulate here can easily pass to herbivores and crop leaves, both of which can be directly consumed by humans.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Microplastics can also travel to and enter the plant’s water- and nutrient-transporting system (called the vascular bundle). From there, microplastics can reach other tissues.Li and colleagues’ study demonstrates that the absorption and accumulation of atmospheric microplastics by plant leaves occurs widely in the environment, with the concentrations of these particles in plants being consistent with their concentrations in air at the sampling sites. The authors report that the concentrations of the microplastics polyethylene terephthalate and polystyrene were 10–100 times higher in open-air planted vegetables than in greenhouse-grown vegetables. Leaves with a longer growth duration and the outer leaves of vegetables contained higher microplastic concentrations than did younger leaves and inner leaves. Microplastic concentration in plants increased with the duration of exposure to these particles.Although the efficiency of leaf uptake of microplastics is extremely low (around 0.05%), Li and colleagues’ findings provide evidence from fieldwork of accumulation of atmospheric microplastics in leaves. The relative importance of this airborne exposure to microplastics in plants compared with that of other uptake routes is difficult to assess, because information available on microplastic uptake through soil and water is sparse. Li et al. report concentrations of polystyrene nanoplastics of about 7–10 nanograms per gram of the dry plant weight for lettuce leaves after outdoor exposure in Tianjin, China.In the case of exposure to microplastics in the water, plastic concentrations similar to those found in plants by Li and colleagues after airborne deposition could only be obtained previously by exposing lettuce roots to polystyrene nanoplastics in water, at exposure levels as high as 5 milligrams of plastic per litre of water. Another study examining plant exposure to microplastics in water reported that there was no plant uptake of these plastics from water entering a wastewater treatment site. In soil cultivation experiments reported by Li and colleagues, the root absorption of polystyrene nanoparticles that ended up in the shoot was less efficient than the absorption of airborne nanoplastics. Li and colleagues found that the level of the plastics that reached leaves from roots were well below the 7–10 nanograms per gram of dry plant weight that is associated with airborne deposition of nanoplastics. Li et al. report that levels of microplastics in air-exposed plants at highly microplastic-contaminated sites increased mostly tenfold compared with levels at non-contaminated sites.Researchers have found that microplastics in the air can enter plants, including crops, through the outer layer of cuticle and epidermal cells. They can then move through spaces between plant cells to enter tiny hair-like structures on the leaf surface called trichomes. Alternatively, after entering the leaf, microplastics can move to cells in a system called the vascular bundle that transports water and nutrients to tissues elsewhere in the plant.These findings illustrate the potential implications of airborne microplastics and nanoplastics accumulating in leaves and being transferred to herbivores and humans. This highlights a possible yet understudied pathway of plastic exposure that might have ecological and health implications. However, key gaps remain in scientists’ understanding of the various factors that influence the uptake, accumulation and biological effects of microplastics in humans. These knowledge gaps include: the composition of the average human diet and its role in determining exposure levels; the efficiency with which plastics accumulate in the gut; and the extent to which these particles reach key organs. Furthermore, there is a major lack of data on the threshold levels at which microplastics and nanoplastics might begin to exert harmful effects on human health.The combination of these uncertainties severely hinders efforts to accurately quantify the potential risks posed by airborne microplastics. Without a comprehensive and systematic approach to studying plastic fate and toxicity, our understanding remains incomplete. The current body of knowledge about the environmental and physiological effects of plastics is full of gaps, with no consistent data available on plastics of well-defined compositions, sizes, shapes or densities.A conclusion to draw from Li and co-authors’ work is that, although there is no widely supported consensus on the risks to humans from exposure to plastics, the deposition of these substances from the air into human food is an exposure pathway not to ignore. Combining these concerns with considerations of direct exposure of humans to airborne plastics might suffice to prompt the adoption of precautionary measures. Although research on the long-term health effects of plastics is still continuing, preliminary research suggests possible links to problems with breathing, inflammation and other adverse health outcomes. Given these uncertainties, integrating precautionary approaches — such as reducing plastic use and increasing public awareness — might help to lessen potential risks. Proactive measures might also encourage further scientific investigation into the extent of microplastic exposure and its health implications, ensuring better protection for individuals and for the environment.This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on April 9, 2025.

Get Ready for Expensive Tomatoes and Lots of Food Contamination

You could soon be hearing a lot of news about tomatoes. That’s because the Commerce Department announced this week that Mexican tomatoes will be subject to 21 percent tariffs starting July 14. If this goes through, expect tomato prices to rise precipitously: The United States relies heavily on greenhouse-grown tomatoes, of which the Agriculture Department estimates 88 percent are imported, with most coming from Mexico.Of course, the Trump administration’s tariff policy so far has not exactly been consistent or predictable. The president could drop this tomato tariff tomorrow and announce that he and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum have reached an understanding, brokered by Laura Loomer, that henceforth tomatoes imported from Mexico will be exempt from import duties and be known as “prosperity apples.” (Any publication daring to call them “tomatoes” will be kicked out of the White House press corps.)But again, if this tariff goes through, then taxing the bejeezus out of the second-most-consumed vegetable in the country will obviously have a noticeable impact on a lot of people’s grocery bills. Yet amazingly, this may be the least of American consumers’ worries right now when it comes to food disruption.The Guardian reported Tuesday that recent torrential rains have caused “millions of dollars of crop losses” in Texas and the Midwest. When added to the Trump administration’s cuts to farming infrastructure, climate-smart farming initiatives, and various food assistance programs that provided a market for some farmers, plus the trade war jeopardizing export markets in Mexico and China, this means that many U.S. farms are in trouble. “Without a bailout, we can only imagine how bad this will be for farmers,” Food and Water Watch’s Ben Murray told reporter Nina Lakhani. But other experts noted that even with a bailout, delivering the money fast enough might be an issue, and trade relations in particular could take time to rebuild. All this is in addition to, as this newsletter previously noted, substantial cuts both to the climate adaptation and mitigation efforts vital to long-term food production and to USDA’s operating budget. This week, Government Executive reported that planning documents reveal further cuts. They include firing “thousands” more USDA employees, “consolidat[ing] … local, county-based offices around the country into state committees,” and a 22 percent cut to salaries and expense accounts at the Farm Service Agency (which directly supports farms with loans and disaster assistance programs). Food safety will also take a hit. The Food and Drug Administration’s Human Foods Program, which works on food safety, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Environmental Health and Science Practice, which headed the response to the applesauce lead-poisoning fiasco in 2023, have both been gutted, Time recently reported. This comes after last month’s news that the Trump administration had axed two USDA committees advising on food safety: the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods and the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection, the former of which was busy reviewing last year’s fatal listeriosis outbreak and figuring out how to prevent repeats of the 2022 infant formula contamination that killed babies.The USDA also announced that it would be increasing line speeds at meatpacking plants and nixing “redundant” worker safety reports. This is deeply troubling on a humanitarian level, given that worker safety at meatpacking plants is already a nightmare, with gruesome injuries affecting a highly vulnerable workforce. (For more on this, read Melody Schreiber’s recent report in The Guardian or Ted Genoways’s award-winning 2023 piece for TNR about the shooting of a worker in an Oklahoma pork-processing plant.) As the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union vice president Mark Lauritsen said recently to the Times: “If the work force is under more pressure for speed, with less safety oversight, that can lead to a miscut on a carcass, bile that could leak out of the intestine, that contaminates the equipment, and then the next carcass and the next and the next.”Numerous outlets in recent years have reported the growing concerns about insufficient safeguards in the U.S. food system. Just two days after Trump’s inauguration, the Government Accountability Office delivered a report that rebuked USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service for its delays in finalizing rules to reduce pathogens in meat, and issued several recommendations for closing gaps in the agency’s approach to limiting salmonella and campylobacter outbreaks. It’s hard to imagine, given the chaos that has now befallen the entirety of the American food system and regulatory apparatus, that those recommendations are going to be speedily enacted.Stat of the Week470That’s how many wildfires the state of Wisconsin has seen this year, as of Monday this week—”double the average for this time of year,” Wisconsin Public Radio’s Danielle Kaeding reports.What I’m ReadingRevealed: Meat Industry Behind Attacks on Flagship Climate-Friendly Diet ReportIn 2019, a major, long-researched study known as the EAT-Lancet report, which compiles top recommendations for sustainable diets, sparked major backlash over one single recommendation: to cut global red meat consumption in half. Now “new evidence” indicates the backlash “was stoked by a PR firm that represents the meat and dairy sector,” investigative outlet DeSmog reports:A document seen by DeSmog appears to show the results of a campaign by the consultancy Red Flag, which catalogues the scale of the backlash to the report. The document indicates that Red Flag briefed journalists, think tanks, and social media influencers to frame the peer-reviewed research as “radical”, “out of touch” and “hypocritical”...Based on DeSmog’s review of the document, Red Flag’s attack campaign appears to have been conducted on behalf of the Animal Agriculture Alliance (AAA), a meat and dairy industry coalition that was set up to protect the sector against “emerging threats”. The AAA counts representatives from Cargill and Smithfield Foods—two of the world’s five largest meat companies—on its board. Red Flag is known to have previously worked for members of the AAA.Red Flag’s campaign overview evaluates the success of social media posts from the AAA attacking the EAT-Lancet report, including a paid advertising campaign launched on behalf of the alliance that reached 780,000 people.The surge of criticism had adverse consequences for the report’s authors.… In some cases, the backlash led them to withdraw from promoting the research in the media, and undermined their academic careers. Read Clare Carlile’s full report at DeSmog.This article first appeared in Life in a Warming World, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Heather Souvaine Horn. Sign up here.

You could soon be hearing a lot of news about tomatoes. That’s because the Commerce Department announced this week that Mexican tomatoes will be subject to 21 percent tariffs starting July 14. If this goes through, expect tomato prices to rise precipitously: The United States relies heavily on greenhouse-grown tomatoes, of which the Agriculture Department estimates 88 percent are imported, with most coming from Mexico.Of course, the Trump administration’s tariff policy so far has not exactly been consistent or predictable. The president could drop this tomato tariff tomorrow and announce that he and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum have reached an understanding, brokered by Laura Loomer, that henceforth tomatoes imported from Mexico will be exempt from import duties and be known as “prosperity apples.” (Any publication daring to call them “tomatoes” will be kicked out of the White House press corps.)But again, if this tariff goes through, then taxing the bejeezus out of the second-most-consumed vegetable in the country will obviously have a noticeable impact on a lot of people’s grocery bills. Yet amazingly, this may be the least of American consumers’ worries right now when it comes to food disruption.The Guardian reported Tuesday that recent torrential rains have caused “millions of dollars of crop losses” in Texas and the Midwest. When added to the Trump administration’s cuts to farming infrastructure, climate-smart farming initiatives, and various food assistance programs that provided a market for some farmers, plus the trade war jeopardizing export markets in Mexico and China, this means that many U.S. farms are in trouble. “Without a bailout, we can only imagine how bad this will be for farmers,” Food and Water Watch’s Ben Murray told reporter Nina Lakhani. But other experts noted that even with a bailout, delivering the money fast enough might be an issue, and trade relations in particular could take time to rebuild. All this is in addition to, as this newsletter previously noted, substantial cuts both to the climate adaptation and mitigation efforts vital to long-term food production and to USDA’s operating budget. This week, Government Executive reported that planning documents reveal further cuts. They include firing “thousands” more USDA employees, “consolidat[ing] … local, county-based offices around the country into state committees,” and a 22 percent cut to salaries and expense accounts at the Farm Service Agency (which directly supports farms with loans and disaster assistance programs). Food safety will also take a hit. The Food and Drug Administration’s Human Foods Program, which works on food safety, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Environmental Health and Science Practice, which headed the response to the applesauce lead-poisoning fiasco in 2023, have both been gutted, Time recently reported. This comes after last month’s news that the Trump administration had axed two USDA committees advising on food safety: the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods and the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection, the former of which was busy reviewing last year’s fatal listeriosis outbreak and figuring out how to prevent repeats of the 2022 infant formula contamination that killed babies.The USDA also announced that it would be increasing line speeds at meatpacking plants and nixing “redundant” worker safety reports. This is deeply troubling on a humanitarian level, given that worker safety at meatpacking plants is already a nightmare, with gruesome injuries affecting a highly vulnerable workforce. (For more on this, read Melody Schreiber’s recent report in The Guardian or Ted Genoways’s award-winning 2023 piece for TNR about the shooting of a worker in an Oklahoma pork-processing plant.) As the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union vice president Mark Lauritsen said recently to the Times: “If the work force is under more pressure for speed, with less safety oversight, that can lead to a miscut on a carcass, bile that could leak out of the intestine, that contaminates the equipment, and then the next carcass and the next and the next.”Numerous outlets in recent years have reported the growing concerns about insufficient safeguards in the U.S. food system. Just two days after Trump’s inauguration, the Government Accountability Office delivered a report that rebuked USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service for its delays in finalizing rules to reduce pathogens in meat, and issued several recommendations for closing gaps in the agency’s approach to limiting salmonella and campylobacter outbreaks. It’s hard to imagine, given the chaos that has now befallen the entirety of the American food system and regulatory apparatus, that those recommendations are going to be speedily enacted.Stat of the Week470That’s how many wildfires the state of Wisconsin has seen this year, as of Monday this week—”double the average for this time of year,” Wisconsin Public Radio’s Danielle Kaeding reports.What I’m ReadingRevealed: Meat Industry Behind Attacks on Flagship Climate-Friendly Diet ReportIn 2019, a major, long-researched study known as the EAT-Lancet report, which compiles top recommendations for sustainable diets, sparked major backlash over one single recommendation: to cut global red meat consumption in half. Now “new evidence” indicates the backlash “was stoked by a PR firm that represents the meat and dairy sector,” investigative outlet DeSmog reports:A document seen by DeSmog appears to show the results of a campaign by the consultancy Red Flag, which catalogues the scale of the backlash to the report. The document indicates that Red Flag briefed journalists, think tanks, and social media influencers to frame the peer-reviewed research as “radical”, “out of touch” and “hypocritical”...Based on DeSmog’s review of the document, Red Flag’s attack campaign appears to have been conducted on behalf of the Animal Agriculture Alliance (AAA), a meat and dairy industry coalition that was set up to protect the sector against “emerging threats”. The AAA counts representatives from Cargill and Smithfield Foods—two of the world’s five largest meat companies—on its board. Red Flag is known to have previously worked for members of the AAA.Red Flag’s campaign overview evaluates the success of social media posts from the AAA attacking the EAT-Lancet report, including a paid advertising campaign launched on behalf of the alliance that reached 780,000 people.The surge of criticism had adverse consequences for the report’s authors.… In some cases, the backlash led them to withdraw from promoting the research in the media, and undermined their academic careers. Read Clare Carlile’s full report at DeSmog.This article first appeared in Life in a Warming World, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Heather Souvaine Horn. Sign up here.

Why healthy eating may be the best way to reduce food waste

A survey shows people with healthy eating habits tend to waste less food than those who focus on choosing ethical and environmentally friendly products.

Stokkete, ShutterstockAustralians waste around 7.68 million tonnes of food a year. This costs the economy an estimated A$36.6 billion and households up to $2,500 annually. Much of this food is wasted at home. So while consumers are increasingly aware of sustainability issues, awareness does not always translate into better food management in practice. Our previous research revealed people differ in the ways they generate and dispose of food waste. Our latest study takes a closer look at two groups who care deeply about food, for different reasons. It exposes a paradox: people who prioritise healthy eating waste less food, while those focused on sustainability do not necessarily follow through with waste reduction. This suggests encouraging healthier eating habits might be a better way to cut household food waste than sustainability messaging alone. Sustainability awareness doesn’t always mean less waste To understand how food values influence waste, we surveyed 1,030 Australian consumers living in Adelaide between April and May 2021. We set quotas for age, sex and household income to match national demographics. We wanted to find out who wasted more food: nutrition-conscious or sustainability-conscious consumers? We asked each person how they plan meals and shop, what they value when buying food, and how much food they throw away each week. Our results show nutrition-conscious consumers tend to plan meals in advance, use shopping lists and avoid over-purchasing. These behaviours contribute to both a healthier diet and less food waste. We found consumers who make more nutrition-conscious food choices tended to waste less edible food. A one-point increase on our nutrition scale corresponded to a 17.6% reduction in food waste, compared to people with lower scores on the nutrition scale. On the other hand, those who prioritise sustainability over nutrition did not show any significant reduction in edible food waste. These consumers tend to choose environmentally friendly products. They typically prefer to shop locally, buy organic produce and avoid excessive food packaging. But that does not necessarily translate into waste-reducing behaviours. Those concerned with sustainability tend to buy more food than they need. They have good intentions, but lack strategies to manage and consume the food efficiently. Unfortunately this means sustainably sourced food often ends up in landfill. Teaching children to prepare healthy food for themselves can help reduce waste. Oksana Kuzmina, Shutterstock Integrating nutrition and food waste messaging Our research reveals a disconnect between purchasing choices and what actually happens to the food at home. This highlights an opportunity for policymakers and campaigns aimed at reducing food waste. Rather than focusing solely on sustainability, including messages about improving nutrition can boost health and reduce food waste at the same time. Some successful interventions already demonstrate the potential of this approach. For example, an Australian school-based program found children involved in preparing their own meals wasted less food than they did before the program began. These students learned about food waste and healthy eating, participated in workshops on meal preparation and composting, and helped pack their own lunches – with less food waste as a result. 5 ways to reduce food waste So, what can households do to reduce food waste while maintaining a healthy diet? Our research suggests the following key strategies: plan ahead – creating a weekly meal plan and shopping list helps prevent impulse purchases and ensures food is consumed before it spoils buy only what you need – over-purchasing, even of sustainable products, can lead to unnecessary waste store food properly – understanding how to store fresh produce, dairy, and leftovers can significantly extend their shelf life prioritise nutrition – choosing foods that fit into a balanced diet naturally leads to better portion control and mindful consumption, reducing waste use what you have – before shopping, check your fridge and pantry to incorporate existing ingredients into meals. The Great Unwaste is a nationwide movement to end food waste. Reducing waste is a bonus People are often more motivated by personal health benefits than abstract environmental concerns. Our research suggests this is the key to reducing household food waste. Encouraging meal planning for a balanced diet, careful shopping to avoid over-purchasing, and proper food storage, can make a big difference to the amount of food being wasted. This will not only help households save thousands of dollars each year, but also promote healthy eating habits. Ultimately, developing a more sustainable food system is not just about buying the right products. It’s about how we manage, prepare and consume them. Trang Nguyen receives funding from the End Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre and the Australian Government.Jack Hetherington receives funding from the End Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre and the Australian Government and is a member of the Landcare Association of South Australia volunteer Management Committee. Patrick O'Connor receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Agrifutures and the Commonwealth and State Governments

Baby Food Makers Are Failing California’s Lead Standards, Reuters Review Shows

By Jessica DiNapoli, M.B. PellNEW YORK (Reuters) -Some baby food manufacturers are failing to meet California's standards for lead, which are the...

By Jessica DiNapoli, M.B. PellNEW YORK (Reuters) -Some baby food manufacturers are failing to meet California's standards for lead, which are the most stringent in the nation, according to a Reuters analysis of new test results released for the first time.The results are being made public due to a new California law that on January 1 started requiring all companies making or selling baby food in the state to test their products for heavy metals including lead and publish them. Of the 1,757 test results from nine different baby food manufacturers analyzed by Reuters, 102 were above California’s maximum limit of 0.5 micrograms of lead per day. Companies reporting lead results higher than the California limit included Plum Organics, Beech-Nut, Nestle's Gerber, Square Baby, Pumpkin Tree and Happy Family’s Happy Baby, owned by Danone.Products with elevated levels included organic sweet potatoes from Beech-Nut, Just Prunes from Plum Organics, and 2nd foods carrots from Gerber.None of the tests obtained by Reuters exceed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s lead limit specifically for packaged baby food, or the agency’s maximum amount of 2.2 micrograms of lead children can consume in a day. “Those exposures add up. They create health risks in childhood and throughout a lifetime,” said Jane Houlihan, the research director at Healthy Babies Bright Futures, a kids’ health non-profit. “Every time a child eats a meal contaminated with lead, it’s a problem.”Norbert Kaminski, director of the Center for Research on Ingredient Safety at Michigan State University, countered that eating a single meal with elevated levels of lead is unlikely to harm a child.“The goal is to minimize exposure to these heavy metals, but to completely eliminate exposure is not realistic,” Kaminski said. “What’s the alternative, stop eating?”The companies reported their data for four heavy metals in parts per billion for each batch. Reuters determined the amount of lead in each product by multiplying the serving size of each item by the level of heavy metals from the test result, and then compared the figures to the California limit.Leigh Frame, who studies lead in food at the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, said the methodology used to determine the amount in each product was sound, and five other experts interviewed by Reuters concurred. The Office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta declined to comment on the news agency’s findings but issued a statement saying his office is committed to upholding the law to "protect the safety and well-being of Californians." An FDA spokesperson said the agency routinely monitors lead in food consumed by babies and young children and takes action if needed, and that one of its goals is to reduce dietary exposure to contaminants to as low as possible. The FDA did not comment directly on Reuters findings. Happy Family and Pumpkin Tree said they comply with federal and state regulations.Plum Organics, Beech-Nut and other baby food companies said that California’s lead limit law permits them to average the amount of the contaminant across different batches. Gerber says they’re within the legal limit by averaging a child’s consumption over time, assuming they do not eat the same product every day.The regulations do not explicitly allow for such averaging, said Lauren Handel, a food industry attorney in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Courts have allowed food makers to do so after they have faced lawsuits claiming they violated California's law because nothing in the regulations prohibits it, she said. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, which implements the law on lead limits, reviewed the elevated testing data compiled by Reuters and said they exceed the California limit assuming the child eats one meal per day.The presence of lead isn't a surprise since it is found in chocolate, infant formula, spices and across the produce aisle in vegetables like sweet potatoes, spinach and carrots, four experts told Reuters. Even so, the results are likely to further inflame debate about the contaminant, its effect on health and development and how much lead is acceptable for babies and children to consume. A U.S. judge in April allowed a nationwide case against baby food manufacturers including Gerber, Plum Organics and Beech-Nut to move forward, a win for parents suing on behalf of their children. The lawsuit covers thousands of parents, and alleges that the presence of heavy metals including lead in baby food makers’ products causes autism spectrum disorder and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children. A similar earlier case in California state court against the baby food makers was dismissed in 2023 because the judge did not accept testimony from experts on the dose of heavy metals in each brand’s products, a victory for the companies.Most baby food makers deny the allegations, taking the position that there is no science supporting the claim that their products cause autism or ADHD. “This case is really going to hinge on how good the science is and whether or not the lead levels in the products are sufficient enough to cause harm - and what is that harm,” said Bill Marler, an attorney who represents victims in cases against the food industry.Proving in court that lead in baby food harms children is "going to be very difficult because there are other sources of lead - environmental sources and other foods” that kids are exposed to, said food industry lawyer David Graham.Other state legislatures are also taking action on the issue, aiming to protect children’s health. Like California, Maryland passed a law requiring companies to test their products and disclose the results, and Illinois is weighing a similar measure.Lead in baby food comes in part from the soil, which can have naturally occurring lead, but also from pollutants such as vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions, mining, fertilizer, lead paint, pipes and pesticides. Healthy Babies Bright Futures, which focuses on lowering children’s exposure to toxic chemicals, analyzed 288 store-bought baby food and homemade purees and found that both were tainted by heavy metals like lead.Baby food makers can lower their lead levels by buying from farms with cleaner soil, encouraging certain agricultural practices, and cleaning and processing the vegetables to remove soil and skin, which can have higher levels, five experts told Reuters.Los Gatos, California-based baby food maker Cerebelly, which has settled two lead cases without admission of guilt, found a new farmer in a region known for soil with lower heavy metals, said Susan Logue, vice president for research and development and quality at the company. Baby food companies can also overhaul their recipes or stop using certain ingredients, like spinach, known to absorb more heavy metals. Baby food maker Square Baby told Reuters they were reformulating recipes after test results showed amounts of lead higher than the California limit. (Reporting by Jessica DiNapoli and M.B. Pell in New York, Editing by Vanessa O'Connell and Michael Learmonth)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

MIT students advance solutions for water and food with the help of J-WAFS

J-WAFS marks 10 years of supporting student engagement through grants, fellowships, events, mentorship, and funding for clubs.

For the past decade, the Abdul Latif Jameel Water and Food Systems Lab (J-WAFS) has been instrumental in promoting student engagement across the Institute to help solve the world’s most pressing water and food system challenges. As part of J-WAFS’ central mission of securing the world’s water and food supply, J-WAFS aims to cultivate the next generation of leaders in the water and food sectors by encouraging MIT student involvement through a variety of programs and mechanisms that provide research funding, mentorship, and other types of support.J-WAFS offers a range of opportunities for both undergraduate and graduate students to engage in the advancement of water and food systems research. These include graduate student fellowships, travel grants for participation in conferences, funding for research projects in India, video competitions highlighting students’ water and food research, and support for student-led organizations and initiatives focused on critical areas in water and food.As J-WAFS enters its second decade, it continues to expose students across the Institute to experiential hands-on water and food research, career and other networking opportunities, and a platform to develop their innovative and collaborative solutions.Graduate student fellowshipsIn 2017, J-WAFS inaugurated two graduate student fellowships: the Rasikbhai L. Meswani Fellowship for Water Solutions and the J-WAFS Graduate Student Fellowship Program. The Rasikbhai L. Meswani Fellowship for Water Solutions is a doctoral fellowship for students pursuing research related to water for human need at MIT. The fellowship is made possible by Elina and Nikhil Meswani and family. Each year, up to two outstanding students are selected to receive fellowship support for one academic semester. Through it, J-WAFS seeks to support distinguished MIT students who are pursuing solutions to the pressing global water supply challenges of our time. The J-WAFS Fellowship for Water and Food Solutions is funded by the J-WAFS Research Affiliate Program, which offers companies the opportunity to collaborate with MIT on water and food research. A portion of each research affiliate’s fees supports this fellowship.Aditya Avinash Ghodgaonkar, a PhD student in the Department of Mechanical Engineering (MechE), reflects on how receiving a J-WAFS graduate student fellowship positively impacted his research on the design of low-cost emitters for affordable, resilient drip irrigation for farmers: “My J-WAFS fellowship gave me the flexibility and financial support needed to explore new directions in the area of clog-resistant drip irrigation that had a higher risk element that might not have been feasible to manage on an industrially sponsored project,” Ghodgaonkar explains. Emitters, which control the volume and flow rate of water used during irrigation, often clog due to small particles like sand. Ghodgaonkar worked with Professor Amos Winter, and with farmers in resource-constrained communities in countries like Jordan and Morocco, to develop an emitter that is mechanically more resistant to clogging. Ghodgaonkar reports that their energy-efficient, compact, clog-resistant drip emitters are being commercialized by Toro and may be available for retail in the next few years. The opportunities and funding support Ghodgaonkar has received from J-WAFS contributed greatly to his entrepreneurial success and the advancement of the water and agricultural sectors.Linzixuan (Rhoda) Zhang, a PhD student advised by Professor Robert Langer and Principal Research Scientist Ana Jaklenec of the Department of Chemical Engineering, was a 2022 J-WAFS Graduate Student Fellow. With the fellowship, Zhang was able to focus on her innovative research on a novel micronutrient delivery platform that fortifies food with essential vitamins and nutrients. “We intake micronutrients from basically all the healthy food that we eat; however, around the world there are about 2 billion people currently suffering from micronutrient deficiency because they do not have access to very healthy, very fresh food,” Zhang says. Her research involves the development of biodegradable polymers that can deliver these micronutrients in harsh environments in underserved regions of the world. “Vitamin A is not very stable, for example; we have vitamin A in different vegetables but when we cook them, the vitamin can easily degrade,” Zhang explains. However, when vitamin A is encapsulated in the microparticle platform, simulation of boiling and of the stomach environment shows that vitamin A was stabilized. “The meaningful factors behind this experiment are real,” says Zhang. The J-WAFS Fellowship helped position Zhang to win the 2024 Collegiate Inventors Competition for this work.J-WAFS grant for water and food projects in IndiaJ-WAFS India Grants are intended to further the work being pursued by MIT individuals as a part of their research, innovation, entrepreneurship, coursework, or related activities. Faculty, research staff, and undergraduate and graduate students are eligible to apply. The program aims to support projects that will benefit low-income communities in India, and facilitates travel and other expenses related to directly engaging with those communities.Gokul Sampath, a PhD student in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning, and Jonathan Bessette, a PhD student in MechE, initially met through J-WAFS-sponsored conference travel, and discovered their mutual interest in the problem of arsenic in water in India. Together, they developed a cross-disciplinary proposal that received a J-WAFS India Grant. Their project is studying how women in rural India make decisions about where they fetch water for their families, and how these decisions impact exposure to groundwater contaminants like naturally-occurring arsenic. Specifically, they are developing low-cost remote sensors to better understand water-fetching practices. The grant is enabling Sampath and Bessette to equip Indian households with sensor-enabled water collection devices (“smart buckets”) that will provide them data about fetching practices in arsenic-affected villages. By demonstrating the efficacy of a sensor-based approach, the team hopes to address a major data gap in international development. “It is due to programs like the Jameel Water and Food Systems Lab that I was able to obtain the support for interdisciplinary work on connecting water security, public health, and regional planning in India,” says Sampath.J-WAFS travel grants for water conferencesIn addition to funding graduate student research, J-WAFS also provides grants for graduate students to attend water conferences worldwide. Typically, students will only receive travel funding to attend conferences where they are presenting their research. However, the J-WAFS travel grants support learning, networking, and career exploration opportunities for exceptional MIT graduate students who are interested in a career in the water sector, whether in academia, nonprofits, government, or industry.Catherine Lu ’23, MNG ’24 was awarded a 2023 Travel Grant to attend the UNC Water and Health Conference in North Carolina. The conference serves as a curated space for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers to convene and assess data, scrutinize scientific findings, and enhance new and existing strategies for expanding access to and provision of services for water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH). Lu, who studied civil and environmental engineering, worked with Professor Dara Entekhabi on modeling and predicting droughts in Africa using satellite Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) data. As she evaluated her research trajectory and career options in the water sector, Lu found the conference to be informative and enlightening. “I was able to expand my knowledge on all the sectors and issues that are related to water and the implications they have on my research topic.” Furthermore, she notes: “I was really impressed by the diverse range of people that were able to attend the conference. The global perspective offered at the conference provided a valuable context for understanding the challenges and successes of different regions around the world — from WASH education in schools in Zimbabwe and India to rural water access disparities in the United States … Being able to engage with such passionate and dedicated people has motivated me to continue progress in this sector.” Following graduation, Lu secured a position as a water resources engineer at CDM Smith, an engineering and construction firm.Daniela Morales, a master’s student in city planning in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning, was a 2024 J-WAFS Travel Grant recipient who attended World Water Week in Stockholm, Sweden. The annual global conference is organized by the Stockholm International Water Institute and convenes leading experts, decision-makers, and professionals in the water sector to actively engage in discussions and developments addressing critical water-related challenges. Morales’ research interests involve drinking water quality and access in rural and peri-urban areas affected by climate change impacts, the effects of municipal water shutoffs on marginalized communities, and the relationship between regional water management and public health outcomes. When reflecting on her experience at the conference, Morales writes: “Being part of this event has given me so much motivation to continue my professional and academic journey in water management as it relates to public health and city planning … There was so much energy that was collectively generated in the conference, and so many new ideas that I was able to process around my own career interests and my role as a future planner in water management, that the last day of the conference felt less like an ending and more of the beginning of a new chapter. I am excited to take all the information I learned to work towards my own research, and continue to build relationships with all the new contacts I made.” Morales also notes that without the support of the J-WAFS grant, “I would not have had the opportunity to make it to Stockholm and participate in such a unique week of water wisdom.”Seed grants and Solutions grantsJ-WAFS offers seed grants for early-stage research and Solutions Grants for later-stage research that is ready to move from the lab to the commercial world. Proposals for both types of grants must be submitted and led by an MIT principal investigator, but graduate students, and sometimes undergraduates, are often supported by these grants.Arjav Shah, a PhD-MBA student in MIT’s Department of Chemical Engineering and the MIT Sloan School of Management, is currently pursuing the commercialization of a water treatment technology that was first supported through a 2019 J-WAFS seed grant and then a 2022 J-WAFS Solutions Grant with Professor Patrick Doyle. The technology uses hydrogels to remove a broad range of micropollutants from water. The Solutions funding enables entrepreneurial students and postdocs to lay the groundwork to commercialize a technology by assessing use scenarios and exploring business needs with actual potential customers. “With J-WAFS’ support, we were not only able to scale up the technology, but also gain a deeper understanding of market needs and develop a strong business case,” says Shah. Shah and the Solutions team have discovered that the hydrogels could be used in several real-world contexts, ranging from large-scale industrial use to small-scale, portable, off-grid applications. “We are incredibly grateful to J-WAFS for their support, particularly in fostering industry connections and facilitating introductions to investors, potential customers, and experts,” Shah adds.Shah was also a 2023 J-WAFS Travel Grant awardee who attended Stockholm World Water Week that year. He says, “J-WAFS has played a pivotal role in both my academic journey at MIT and my entrepreneurial pursuits. J-WAFS support has helped me grow both as a scientist and an aspiring entrepreneur. The exposure and opportunities provided have allowed me to develop critical skills such as customer discovery, financial modeling, business development, fundraising, and storytelling — all essential for translating technology into real-world impact. These experiences provided invaluable insights into what it takes to bring a technology from the lab to market.”Shah is currently leading efforts to spin out a company to commercialize the hydrogel research. Since receiving J-WAFS support, the team has made major strides toward launching a startup company, including winning the Pillar VC Moonshot Prize, Cleantech Open National Grand Prize, MassCEC Catalyst Award, and participation in the NSF I-Corps National Program.J-WAFS student video competitionsJ-WAFS has hosted two video competitions: MIT Research for a Water Secure Future and MIT Research for a Food Secure Future, in honor of World Water Day and Word Food Day, respectively. In these competitions, students are tasked with creating original videos showcasing their innovative water and food research conducted at MIT. The opportunity is open to MIT students, postdocs, and recent alumni.Following a review by a distinguished panel of judges, Vishnu Jayaprakash SM ’19, PhD ’22 won first place in the 2022 J-WAFS World Food Day Student Video Competition for his video focused on eliminating pesticide pollution and waste. Jayaprakash delved into the science behind AgZen-Cloak, a new generation of agricultural sprays that prevents pesticides from bouncing off of plants and seeping into the ground, thus causing harmful runoff. The J-WAFS competition provided Jayaprakash with a platform to highlight the universal, low-cost, and environmentally sustainable benefits of AgZen-Cloak. Jayaprakash worked on similar technology as a funded student on a J-WAFS Solutions grant with Professor Kripa Varanasi. The Solutions grant, in fact, helped Jayaprakash and Varanasi to launch AgZen, a company that deploys AgZen-Cloak and other products and technologies to control the interactions of droplets and sprays with crop surfaces. AgZen is currently helping farmers sustainably tend to their agricultural plots while also protecting the environment.  In 2021, Hilary Johnson SM ’18, PhD ’22, won first place in the J-WAFS World Water Day video competition. Her video highlighted her work on a novel pump that uses adaptive hydraulics for improved pump efficiency. The pump was part of a sponsored research project with Xylem Inc., a J-WAFS Research Affiliate company, and Professor Alex Slocum of MechE. At the time, Johnson was a PhD student in Slocum’s lab. She was instrumental in the development of the pump by engineering the volute to expand and contract to meet changing system flow rates. Johnson went on to later become a 2021-22 J-WAFS Fellow, and is now a full-time mechanical engineer at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.J-WAFS-supported student clubsJ-WAFS-supported student clubs provide members of the MIT student community the opportunity for networking and professional advancement through events focused on water and food systems topics.J-WAFS is a sponsor of the MIT Water Club, a student-led group that supports and promotes the engagement of the MIT community in water-sector-related activism, dissemination of information, and research innovation. The club allows students to spearhead the organization of conferences, lectures, outreach events, research showcases, and entrepreneurship competitions including the former MIT Water Innovation Prize and MIT Water Summit. J-WAFS not only sponsors the MIT Water Club financially, but offers mentorship and guidance to the leadership team.The MIT Food and Agriculture Club is also supported by J-WAFS. The club’s mission is to promote the engagement of the MIT community in food and agriculture-related topics. In doing so, the students lead initiatives to share the innovative technology and business solutions researchers are developing in food and agriculture systems. J-WAFS assists in the connection of passionate MIT students with those who are actively working in the food and agriculture industry beyond the Institute. From 2015 to 2022, J-WAFS also helped the club co-produce the Rabobank-MIT Food and Agribusiness Innovation Prize — a student business plan competition for food and agricultural startups.From 2023 onward, the MIT Water Club and the MIT Food and Ag Club have been joining forces to organize a combined prize competition: The MIT Water, Food and Agriculture (WFA) Innovation Prize. The WFA Innovation Prize is a business plan competition for student-led startups focused on any region or market. The teams present business plans involving a technology, product, service, or process that is aimed at solving a problem related to water, food, or agriculture. The competition encourages all approaches to innovation, from engineering and product design to policy and data analytics. The goal of the competition is to help emerging entrepreneurs translate research and ideas into businesses, access mentors and resources, and build networks in the water, food, and agriculture industries. J-WAFS offers financial and in-kind support, working with student leaders to plan, organize, and implement the stages of the competition through to the final pitch event. This year, J-WAFS is continuing to support the WFA team, which is led by Ali Decker, an MBA student at MIT Sloan, and Sam Jakshtis, a master’s student in MIT’s science in real estate development program. The final pitch event will take place on April 30 in the MIT Media Lab.“I’ve had the opportunity to work with Renee Robins, executive director of J-WAFS, on MIT’s Water, Food and Agriculture Innovation Prize for the past two years, and it has been both immensely valuable and a delight to have her support,” says Decker. “Renee has helped us in all areas of prize planning: brainstorming new ideas, thinking through startup finalist selection, connecting to potential sponsors and partners, and more. Above all, she supports us with passion and joy; each time we meet, I look forward to our discussion,” Decker adds.J-WAFS eventsThroughout the year, J-WAFS aims to offer events that will engage any in the MIT student community who are working in water or food systems. For example, on April 19, 2023, J-WAFS teamed up with the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI) and the Environmental Solutions Initiative (ESI) to co-host an MIT student poster session for Earth Month. The theme of the poster session was “MIT research for a changing planet,” and it featured work from 11 MIT students with projects in water, food, energy, and the environment. The students, who represented a range of MIT departments, labs, and centers, were on hand to discuss their projects and engage with those attending the event. Attendees could vote for their favorite poster after being asked to consider which poster most clearly communicated the research problem and the potential solution. At the end of the night, votes were tallied and the winner of the “People’s Choice Award” for best poster was Elaine Liu ’24, an undergraduate in mathematics at the time of the event. Liu’s poster featured her work on managing failure cascades in systems with wind power.J-WAFS also hosts less-structured student networking events. For instance, during MIT’s Independent Activities Period (IAP) in January 2024, J-WAFS hosted an ice cream social for student networking. The informal event was an opportunity for graduate and undergraduate students from across the Institute to meet and mingle with like-minded peers working in, or interested in, water and food systems. Students were able to explain their current and future research, interests, and projects and ask questions while exchanging ideas, engaging with one another, and potentially forming collaborations, or at the very least sharing insights.Looking ahead to 10 more years of student impactOver the past decade, J-WAFS has demonstrated a strong commitment to empowering students in the water and food sectors, fostering an environment where they can confidently drive meaningful change and innovation. PhD student Jonathan Bessette sums up the J-WAFS community as a “one-of-a-kind community that enables essential research in water and food that otherwise would not be pursued. It’s this type of research that is not often the focus of major funding, yet has such a strong impact in sustainable development.”J-WAFS aims to provide students with the support and tools they need to conduct authentic and meaningful water and food-related research that will benefit communities around the world. This support, coupled with an MIT education, enables students to become leaders in sustainable water and food systems. As the second decade of J-WAFS programming begins, the J-WAFS team remains committed to fostering student collaboration across the Institute, driving innovative solutions to revitalize the world’s water and food systems while empowering the next generation of pioneers in these critical fields. 

Suggested Viewing

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.