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.

Do We Really Want a Food Cartel?

News Feed
Tuesday, April 9, 2024

The Federal Trade Commission has just released its long-anticipated report on the major disruptions to America’s grocery-supply chain during the coronavirus pandemic—and it confirmed the worst. According to the report, large grocery companies saw the pandemic as an opportunity. They deliberately wielded their market power amid food shortages, entrenching their dominance and keeping their shelves stocked even as smaller companies had to scramble for goods or simply close up shop. For the big players in the grocery industry—companies such as Walmart—the pandemic was a boon. And profits have continued to climb, along with food prices, even as supply-chain disruptions have vanished.Why did all of this happen? The FTC report implied an answer but did not state it outright: A handful of companies now control the food system of the United States, stifling competition in ways not seen since the great trusts and monopolies of the late 1890s. The mergers and acquisitions of the past four decades have greatly reduced the number of companies—a fact hidden by the multiplicity of brands. Kroger, the nation’s largest supermarket chain, runs grocery stores under more than two dozen names. That number would nearly double if its announced merger with Albertsons is allowed to proceed.     Almost a quarter of a century ago, my book Fast Food Nation called attention to an accelerating phenomenon: corporate, quasi-monopolistic control of America’s food system with harmful consequences for workers, consumers, livestock, and the land. The forces identified then are even more powerful today.According to a 2021 study by the public-interest group Food & Water Watch, four companies now control about 52 percent of the American market for rice, about 61 percent of the market for fresh bread, and about 79 percent of the market for pasta. Four companies are responsible for processing about 70 percent of the nation’s hogs and 85 percent of its cattle. The widespread adoption of factory farming has extended monopoly power even to commercial-livestock genetics. Three companies now provide the breeding stock for about 47 percent of the world’s hogs. Two companies provide the breeding stock for about 94 percent of the world’s egg-laying hens. The same two companies, EW Group and Hendrix Genetics, provide the breeding stock for 99 percent of the world’s turkeys. EW and Hendrix are also two of the world’s largest providers of breeding stock for farmed trout, salmon, and tilapia.[Amanda Mull: We’ve never been good at feeding babies]Economists have a metric known as the “four-firm concentration ratio,” sometimes deployed in shorthand as “CR4.” It is a measure of competitiveness in a market for goods or services. When four companies gain a combined market share that is greater than 40 percent, an oligopoly has formed. The prices offered to suppliers, the prices charged to consumers, and the wages paid to workers are no longer determined mainly by market forces. Further, the power these corporations exert within their industries and the economy as a whole leads to a well-documented dynamic: Effective government regulation becomes difficult, whether because state and federal agencies are “captive” or because they are outmatched in terms of resources and personnel.For the oligopoly, this is a welcome state of affairs. On occasion, a single event illuminates the consequences for the rest of us.Cronobacter sakazakii is an emerging pathogen that can be dangerous to infants who are younger than two months, born prematurely, or immunocompromised. After infection with the pathogen, the estimated death rate among such babies ranges from 40 to 60 percent. Many of those who survive have lifelong intestinal and brain damage and seizure disorders. The incidence of Cronobacter infections in the United States is unknown—until January of this year, only two states, Michigan and Minnesota, made a point of recording the number of cases. The overwhelming majority of infections go undetected. Since the late 1980s, powdered infant formula has been recognized as an important route of xi transmission to infants. Unlike liquid formula, powdered formula is not sterilized before being sold. Cronobacter may survive in powdered formula for at least a year. Once liquid is added to the powder, Cronobacter becomes bioactive and potentially deadly.     In September 2021, a case of Cronobacter was diagnosed in Minnesota. The baby was hospitalized for three weeks but survived. The Minnesota Department of Health promptly shared information about the case—and the brand and the lot number of the powdered formula linked to it—with the FDA and the CDC. During the next several months, three more infants were diagnosed with Cronobacter in other states. Two of them died. All of the illnesses were linked to formula produced at the same plant: the nation’s largest infant-formula factory, occupying almost 1 million square feet, covering more land than a dozen football fields. It was located in Sturgis, Michigan, and owned by Abbott Nutrition.     Poorly managed and notoriously reluctant to confront major food companies, the FDA was slow to react. In the fall of 2021, a former employee at the Sturgis plant had contacted the FDA to warn that safety records there were routinely being falsified, essential cleaning steps were being skipped, and baby formula was being packaged and shipped without being tested for lethal bacteria. The whistleblower sent the FDA a 34-page document describing a lack of concern about food safety in Sturgis, inexperienced and poorly trained workers, an emphasis on simply getting product out the door, and a corporate culture at Abbott Nutrition that encouraged retaliation against employees who raised uncomfortable questions.  Four months elapsed before the FDA, in early 2022, showed up in Sturgis to conduct a thorough inspection of the Abbott plant. Multiple strains of Cronobacter were discovered in the facility. FDA officials later described conditions at the plant as “shocking” and “unacceptably unsanitary.”     In February, Abbott voluntarily shut down its Sturgis factory and recalled three brands of powdered formula made there: EleCare, Alimentum, and Similac. The plant did not fully reopen for more than six months.     Abbott Nutrition has insisted that neither the FDA nor the CDC could “find any definitive link between the company’s products and illnesses in children.” But Frank Yiannas, a former vice president of food safety at Walmart who served as a deputy commissioner of the FDA during the formula recall, found Abbott’s denials misleading. Multiple factors suggested that Abbott was indeed responsible for those four cases of Cronobacter, Yiannas testified before Congress: “Abbott’s Sturgis plant lacked adequate controls to prevent the contamination of powdered infant formula … sporadic contamination of finished product actually did occur, and it is likely that other lots of [infant formula] produced in this plant were contaminated with C. sakazakii strains over time, which evaded end-product testing, were released into commerce, and consumed by infants.”     The health threat posed by the Abbott formula was bad enough. But there were other ramifications, because Abbott Nutrition was the largest firm in an infant-formula oligopoly. About 99 percent of the nation’s supply of infant formula was controlled by just four companies: Abbott, Mead Johnson, Nestlé/Gerber, and Perrigo. The Abbott factory in Sturgis produced about 20 percent of the infant formula consumed in the United States. It also manufactured the majority of the specialty formulas needed by infants, children, and even adults with certain gastrointestinal ailments.The shutdown of that one plant led to nationwide shortages of infant formula that lasted throughout 2022. The other three companies stepped in to make up for the shortfall, earning large profits in the process. Nevertheless, formula shortages, hoarding, and panic buying created anxiety among countless American parents that their babies might not be able to eat.     Two years later, a number of steps have been taken to improve the safety of powdered infant formula. Cases of Cronobacter in every state must now be reported to the CDC. Spurred by food-safety advocates, the FDA last year formed a unified Human Foods Program that promises a streamlined bureaucracy with a strong dedication to preventing the sale of contaminated food. We will see. In terms of resources, the FDA is outmatched. The FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Nutrition, which is responsible for the oversight of about 80 percent of the food consumed in the United States, has 1,071 employees—about the same number of employees it had in 1978. The nation’s population has increased by more than 100 million since then.  The dominance of the four companies that control the market for powdered infant formula is even more pronounced within individual states, where one company typically controls more than 90 percent of the formula market. That’s the result of the single-supplier contracts demanded by the federal Women, Infants, and Children program. The concentrated power of the four companies has made infant formula more expensive in the United States than it is in the European Union, despite the EU’s more stringent rules on organic ingredients and food additives in formula.Acting with common purpose and singular focus, oligopolies are influential. The infant-formula oligopoly benefits from government restrictions on EU and Canadian imports. It has thwarted innovation, avoided criminal penalties for sickening infants, and maintained factories with obsolete equipment. It has left the United States with a production capacity that lacks resilience.This is the state of affairs in a single industry. But it extends to the entire economy.America’s Founders despised monopolies. James Madison called them “sacrifices of the many to the few.” Thomas Jefferson suggested that the Constitution ought to include what would now be regarded as an antitrust provision. Writing to a friend in 1788, Jefferson listed the essential freedoms that a Bill of Rights should defend. The first three on his list were “freedom of religion,” “freedom of the press,” and “freedom of commerce against monopolies.” In some quarters, none of these three would make the cut today.The trustbusters of the early 20th century were remarkably successful at creating and preserving competitive markets in the American economy. But the relaxation of antitrust enforcement during the 1980s soon led to greatly reduced competition not only in the food industry but also in banking, publishing, aerospace, and many other industries.     Forty years ago, the United States had three large manufacturers of passenger aircraft. Today it has only one: Boeing, whose arrogance and incompetence can be attributed to the lack of domestic competition. Thirty years ago, the United States had more than 50 prime defense contractors. Today it has only five. Production delays, cost overruns, and vulnerable supply chains now threaten national security. The hollowing out of rural America—the loss of about half of the nation’s cattle ranchers, about 90 percent of its hog farmers, and more than 90 percent of its dairy farmers since the Reagan era—has fueled political extremism and a sense of desperation in the heartland.[Annie Lowery: Radical vegans are trying to change your diet]    Mergers, acquisitions, and the creation of corporations of massive size and scope are typically justified on the basis of greater “efficiency.” But they are efficient only at centralizing profits and fostering inequality. During the past three decades, adjusted for inflation, the hourly pay of American workers has increased by about 18 percent—and the annual compensation of CEOs at the largest American corporations has increased by about 1,300 percent. In California, where business groups have strongly opposed minimum-wage increases, fast-food cooks and clerks had a median annual income of about $15,000 in 2020. The following year, the CEO of McDonald’s was paid almost $20 million. Throughout the economy, concentrated power keeps wages low. Despite all the business-school rationalizations and jargon, corporations usually buy their competitors for one simple reason: They don’t want to compete with them.And ordinary people foot the bill, even if they’re not aware of the actual cost. Market power and the capture of government regulatory agencies enable food corporations to “externalize” many of their business costs—that is, to make other people pay for them. Americans annually spend more than $1 trillion on food. But that doesn’t count the cost of foodborne illnesses, diet-related health problems, poverty wages, and the environmental degradation caused by our industrial food system. According to a study by the Rockefeller Foundation, the true cost of the food we consume is three times higher than what we think it is.     The FTC and the Justice Department during the Biden administration have renewed the battle against monopoly power, reviving antitrust enforcement with support from some Republican members of Congress. On February 26, the FTC sued to block the merger of Kroger and Albertsons, arguing that it would raise the cost of groceries and lower the wages of grocery workers. But the fight against oligopolies and monopolies won’t be easy. A small number of corporations have tremendous political influence, expensive attorneys, and great skill at rigging markets in ways the public just can’t see.

Mergers and acquisitions have created food oligopolies that are inefficient, barely regulated, unfair, and even dangerous.

The Federal Trade Commission has just released its long-anticipated report on the major disruptions to America’s grocery-supply chain during the coronavirus pandemic—and it confirmed the worst. According to the report, large grocery companies saw the pandemic as an opportunity. They deliberately wielded their market power amid food shortages, entrenching their dominance and keeping their shelves stocked even as smaller companies had to scramble for goods or simply close up shop. For the big players in the grocery industry—companies such as Walmart—the pandemic was a boon. And profits have continued to climb, along with food prices, even as supply-chain disruptions have vanished.

Why did all of this happen? The FTC report implied an answer but did not state it outright: A handful of companies now control the food system of the United States, stifling competition in ways not seen since the great trusts and monopolies of the late 1890s. The mergers and acquisitions of the past four decades have greatly reduced the number of companies—a fact hidden by the multiplicity of brands. Kroger, the nation’s largest supermarket chain, runs grocery stores under more than two dozen names. That number would nearly double if its announced merger with Albertsons is allowed to proceed.

     Almost a quarter of a century ago, my book Fast Food Nation called attention to an accelerating phenomenon: corporate, quasi-monopolistic control of America’s food system with harmful consequences for workers, consumers, livestock, and the land. The forces identified then are even more powerful today.

According to a 2021 study by the public-interest group Food & Water Watch, four companies now control about 52 percent of the American market for rice, about 61 percent of the market for fresh bread, and about 79 percent of the market for pasta. Four companies are responsible for processing about 70 percent of the nation’s hogs and 85 percent of its cattle. The widespread adoption of factory farming has extended monopoly power even to commercial-livestock genetics. Three companies now provide the breeding stock for about 47 percent of the world’s hogs. Two companies provide the breeding stock for about 94 percent of the world’s egg-laying hens. The same two companies, EW Group and Hendrix Genetics, provide the breeding stock for 99 percent of the world’s turkeys. EW and Hendrix are also two of the world’s largest providers of breeding stock for farmed trout, salmon, and tilapia.

[Amanda Mull: We’ve never been good at feeding babies]

Economists have a metric known as the “four-firm concentration ratio,” sometimes deployed in shorthand as “CR4.” It is a measure of competitiveness in a market for goods or services. When four companies gain a combined market share that is greater than 40 percent, an oligopoly has formed. The prices offered to suppliers, the prices charged to consumers, and the wages paid to workers are no longer determined mainly by market forces. Further, the power these corporations exert within their industries and the economy as a whole leads to a well-documented dynamic: Effective government regulation becomes difficult, whether because state and federal agencies are “captive” or because they are outmatched in terms of resources and personnel.

For the oligopoly, this is a welcome state of affairs. On occasion, a single event illuminates the consequences for the rest of us.

Cronobacter sakazakii is an emerging pathogen that can be dangerous to infants who are younger than two months, born prematurely, or immunocompromised. After infection with the pathogen, the estimated death rate among such babies ranges from 40 to 60 percent. Many of those who survive have lifelong intestinal and brain damage and seizure disorders. The incidence of Cronobacter infections in the United States is unknown—until January of this year, only two states, Michigan and Minnesota, made a point of recording the number of cases. The overwhelming majority of infections go undetected. Since the late 1980s, powdered infant formula has been recognized as an important route of xi transmission to infants. Unlike liquid formula, powdered formula is not sterilized before being sold. Cronobacter may survive in powdered formula for at least a year. Once liquid is added to the powder, Cronobacter becomes bioactive and potentially deadly.

     In September 2021, a case of Cronobacter was diagnosed in Minnesota. The baby was hospitalized for three weeks but survived. The Minnesota Department of Health promptly shared information about the case—and the brand and the lot number of the powdered formula linked to it—with the FDA and the CDC. During the next several months, three more infants were diagnosed with Cronobacter in other states. Two of them died. All of the illnesses were linked to formula produced at the same plant: the nation’s largest infant-formula factory, occupying almost 1 million square feet, covering more land than a dozen football fields. It was located in Sturgis, Michigan, and owned by Abbott Nutrition.

     Poorly managed and notoriously reluctant to confront major food companies, the FDA was slow to react. In the fall of 2021, a former employee at the Sturgis plant had contacted the FDA to warn that safety records there were routinely being falsified, essential cleaning steps were being skipped, and baby formula was being packaged and shipped without being tested for lethal bacteria. The whistleblower sent the FDA a 34-page document describing a lack of concern about food safety in Sturgis, inexperienced and poorly trained workers, an emphasis on simply getting product out the door, and a corporate culture at Abbott Nutrition that encouraged retaliation against employees who raised uncomfortable questions.  

Four months elapsed before the FDA, in early 2022, showed up in Sturgis to conduct a thorough inspection of the Abbott plant. Multiple strains of Cronobacter were discovered in the facility. FDA officials later described conditions at the plant as “shocking” and “unacceptably unsanitary.”

     In February, Abbott voluntarily shut down its Sturgis factory and recalled three brands of powdered formula made there: EleCare, Alimentum, and Similac. The plant did not fully reopen for more than six months.

     Abbott Nutrition has insisted that neither the FDA nor the CDC could “find any definitive link between the company’s products and illnesses in children.” But Frank Yiannas, a former vice president of food safety at Walmart who served as a deputy commissioner of the FDA during the formula recall, found Abbott’s denials misleading. Multiple factors suggested that Abbott was indeed responsible for those four cases of Cronobacter, Yiannas testified before Congress: “Abbott’s Sturgis plant lacked adequate controls to prevent the contamination of powdered infant formula … sporadic contamination of finished product actually did occur, and it is likely that other lots of [infant formula] produced in this plant were contaminated with C. sakazakii strains over time, which evaded end-product testing, were released into commerce, and consumed by infants.”

     The health threat posed by the Abbott formula was bad enough. But there were other ramifications, because Abbott Nutrition was the largest firm in an infant-formula oligopoly. About 99 percent of the nation’s supply of infant formula was controlled by just four companies: Abbott, Mead Johnson, Nestlé/Gerber, and Perrigo. The Abbott factory in Sturgis produced about 20 percent of the infant formula consumed in the United States. It also manufactured the majority of the specialty formulas needed by infants, children, and even adults with certain gastrointestinal ailments.

The shutdown of that one plant led to nationwide shortages of infant formula that lasted throughout 2022. The other three companies stepped in to make up for the shortfall, earning large profits in the process. Nevertheless, formula shortages, hoarding, and panic buying created anxiety among countless American parents that their babies might not be able to eat.

     Two years later, a number of steps have been taken to improve the safety of powdered infant formula. Cases of Cronobacter in every state must now be reported to the CDC. Spurred by food-safety advocates, the FDA last year formed a unified Human Foods Program that promises a streamlined bureaucracy with a strong dedication to preventing the sale of contaminated food. We will see. In terms of resources, the FDA is outmatched. The FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Nutrition, which is responsible for the oversight of about 80 percent of the food consumed in the United States, has 1,071 employees—about the same number of employees it had in 1978. The nation’s population has increased by more than 100 million since then.  

The dominance of the four companies that control the market for powdered infant formula is even more pronounced within individual states, where one company typically controls more than 90 percent of the formula market. That’s the result of the single-supplier contracts demanded by the federal Women, Infants, and Children program. The concentrated power of the four companies has made infant formula more expensive in the United States than it is in the European Union, despite the EU’s more stringent rules on organic ingredients and food additives in formula.

Acting with common purpose and singular focus, oligopolies are influential. The infant-formula oligopoly benefits from government restrictions on EU and Canadian imports. It has thwarted innovation, avoided criminal penalties for sickening infants, and maintained factories with obsolete equipment. It has left the United States with a production capacity that lacks resilience.

This is the state of affairs in a single industry. But it extends to the entire economy.

America’s Founders despised monopolies. James Madison called them “sacrifices of the many to the few.” Thomas Jefferson suggested that the Constitution ought to include what would now be regarded as an antitrust provision. Writing to a friend in 1788, Jefferson listed the essential freedoms that a Bill of Rights should defend. The first three on his list were “freedom of religion,” “freedom of the press,” and “freedom of commerce against monopolies.” In some quarters, none of these three would make the cut today.

The trustbusters of the early 20th century were remarkably successful at creating and preserving competitive markets in the American economy. But the relaxation of antitrust enforcement during the 1980s soon led to greatly reduced competition not only in the food industry but also in banking, publishing, aerospace, and many other industries.

     Forty years ago, the United States had three large manufacturers of passenger aircraft. Today it has only one: Boeing, whose arrogance and incompetence can be attributed to the lack of domestic competition. Thirty years ago, the United States had more than 50 prime defense contractors. Today it has only five. Production delays, cost overruns, and vulnerable supply chains now threaten national security. The hollowing out of rural America—the loss of about half of the nation’s cattle ranchers, about 90 percent of its hog farmers, and more than 90 percent of its dairy farmers since the Reagan era—has fueled political extremism and a sense of desperation in the heartland.

[Annie Lowery: Radical vegans are trying to change your diet]

    Mergers, acquisitions, and the creation of corporations of massive size and scope are typically justified on the basis of greater “efficiency.” But they are efficient only at centralizing profits and fostering inequality. During the past three decades, adjusted for inflation, the hourly pay of American workers has increased by about 18 percent—and the annual compensation of CEOs at the largest American corporations has increased by about 1,300 percent. In California, where business groups have strongly opposed minimum-wage increases, fast-food cooks and clerks had a median annual income of about $15,000 in 2020. The following year, the CEO of McDonald’s was paid almost $20 million. Throughout the economy, concentrated power keeps wages low. Despite all the business-school rationalizations and jargon, corporations usually buy their competitors for one simple reason: They don’t want to compete with them.

And ordinary people foot the bill, even if they’re not aware of the actual cost. Market power and the capture of government regulatory agencies enable food corporations to “externalize” many of their business costs—that is, to make other people pay for them. Americans annually spend more than $1 trillion on food. But that doesn’t count the cost of foodborne illnesses, diet-related health problems, poverty wages, and the environmental degradation caused by our industrial food system. According to a study by the Rockefeller Foundation, the true cost of the food we consume is three times higher than what we think it is.

     The FTC and the Justice Department during the Biden administration have renewed the battle against monopoly power, reviving antitrust enforcement with support from some Republican members of Congress. On February 26, the FTC sued to block the merger of Kroger and Albertsons, arguing that it would raise the cost of groceries and lower the wages of grocery workers. But the fight against oligopolies and monopolies won’t be easy. A small number of corporations have tremendous political influence, expensive attorneys, and great skill at rigging markets in ways the public just can’t see.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Cargo ship captain arrested after North Sea collision raises environmental concerns

Authorities arrested the captain of the cargo ship Solong after a fatal North Sea collision led to a jet fuel spill, raising alarms about marine pollution.Robyn Vinter, Josh Halliday, and Karen McVeigh report for The Guardian.In short:The Solong collided with the Stena Immaculate, which was carrying 220,000 barrels of jet fuel for the U.S. Air Force; at least one tank is leaking into the North Sea.Authorities arrested the Solong’s captain on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter after a crew member went missing.Experts warn that jet fuel is highly toxic to marine life, with potential long-term ecological consequences.Key quote:“The health and environmental effects will be short- and long-term, local and regional.”— Dr. Jennifer Allan, Cardiff UniversityWhy this matters:Jet fuel spills can have severe consequences for marine ecosystems, harming fish, birds, and coastal habitats. Unlike crude oil, jet fuel evaporates quickly but is more acutely toxic, potentially disrupting food chains and contaminating fisheries. The North Sea supports diverse marine life and a significant fishing industry, making this spill particularly concerning. Investigations will determine the full extent of the damage, but containment efforts are already underway.Related: Oil pollution in UK seas underreported by nearly half, warns Oceana

Authorities arrested the captain of the cargo ship Solong after a fatal North Sea collision led to a jet fuel spill, raising alarms about marine pollution.Robyn Vinter, Josh Halliday, and Karen McVeigh report for The Guardian.In short:The Solong collided with the Stena Immaculate, which was carrying 220,000 barrels of jet fuel for the U.S. Air Force; at least one tank is leaking into the North Sea.Authorities arrested the Solong’s captain on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter after a crew member went missing.Experts warn that jet fuel is highly toxic to marine life, with potential long-term ecological consequences.Key quote:“The health and environmental effects will be short- and long-term, local and regional.”— Dr. Jennifer Allan, Cardiff UniversityWhy this matters:Jet fuel spills can have severe consequences for marine ecosystems, harming fish, birds, and coastal habitats. Unlike crude oil, jet fuel evaporates quickly but is more acutely toxic, potentially disrupting food chains and contaminating fisheries. The North Sea supports diverse marine life and a significant fishing industry, making this spill particularly concerning. Investigations will determine the full extent of the damage, but containment efforts are already underway.Related: Oil pollution in UK seas underreported by nearly half, warns Oceana

How to heal your home — and your heart — after a breakup

Six ways to take back your space after a breakup.

Navigating a romantic breakup is never easy, but it’s particularly challenging if you’ve been living together. After your ex moves out, that vibrant home you built together may feel devoid of stuff — and full of upsetting reminders of your relationship.Reclaiming the space as your own is an important step in the healing process, says Michele Patterson Ford, a licensed psychologist and a senior lecturer at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania. “You might say, ‘I’m doing things my way now,’ or it can happen organically as you clean things out,” she adds.The goal: to create a space that reflects who you are and feels comforting. “Home is where we start from — it’s where we wake up and spend most of our time — so it has to feel good,” says Carla Marie Manly, a clinical psychologist in Sonoma County, California, and author of “The Joy of Imperfect Love.”Here, psychologists, interior designers, and people who’ve been through this experience share their favorite strategies for taking back your home.Return to menu“You can reuse the same furniture, but when you put it in a different room, it takes on a different use and a fresh feeling,” says Lee Waters, owner and creative director at Lee Waters Design in Midlothian, Virginia. “Or you can decide to do different activities in existing spaces.” Consider turning your living room into an office or study, for example. Or dedicate a corner to a new hobby, such as painting or doing yoga, or a favorite pastime, such as reading.Give your rooms a new lookReturn to menu“When you move furniture, it can remove some of the relationship reminders and help you feel more in control of your environment,” Ford says. If space permits, find a new spot for the couch or place your bed against a different wall.If you can’t rearrange furniture, try refreshing your couch with a slipcover and some decorative pillows, or painting the room a fresh color. “This can give you a new visual experience with the same furniture,” Waters says.If you’re good with plants, you might bring in a couple for a dose of greenery and nature, says Sally Augustin, an environmental and design psychologist with Design With Science in Chicago. If you’re not, she says, consider buying a couple of good-quality fake plants — the kind you need to touch to see if they’re real.Return to menu“You should always use your space to communicate to yourself and others what’s important to you, what you value about yourself,” Augustin says. Choose paintings, prints, photography or posters that do just that. It doesn’t have to cost a fortune; thrift stores and flea markets can be excellent sources for art. Or frame photos of you and your friends doing favorite activities.“This is an opportunity to express more of yourself than perhaps you did in the relationship,” says Megan Fleming, a clinical psychologist and relationship expert in New York City.Return to menuA shared bedroom is the most intimate of spaces, and perhaps the most likely to trigger memories and emotions, so it should be a priority when you’re revamping your home. New bedding is a great place to start, says Habiba Jessica Zaman, a licensed professional counselor in Tucker, Georgia.After his ex moved out of their home in Sheridan, Wyoming, in 2022, Max Shak, founder and CEO of Zapiy.com, “bought new sheets in a bold color — orange — that my ex would have hated,” he says. “It instantly made the space feel like mine again.”Jillian Sanders also overhauled her bedroom — specifically the stark white walls — after her ex moved out of their apartment. “I wanted something that felt fresh, so I chose a warm blush tone that instantly made the space feel lighter and more welcoming,” says Sanders, founder of Jillian Sanders Public Relations in Denver. She also splurged on soft pink bedding with delicate embroidery — “feminine but not overly frilly,” she says — and some velvet throw pillows in deep berry tones. “Waking up in a room that reflected my style instead of our past compromises was a simple, powerful shift,” she adds.Return to menuThere’s more to making a place homey than paint and textiles. “Think about what the place smells like — smell is the most immediate route to our conscious brain,” Augustin says. “Think about a place you loved from the past and what it smelled like.” If it’s jasmine or lilacs from your mother’s garden, for example, consider using candles or fresh flowers to bring those scents to your home. After her breakup, Sanders bought candles with vanilla, fig and amber notes that she rotates depending on her mood.The kitchen can also be a key source of smells (and tastes). “My ex wasn’t a fan of spicy food, but I love it, so I stocked up on hot sauces and started cooking dishes I had avoided before,” Shak says. “The smell of fresh sriracha and garlic in the air felt like a reset, a reminder that I was creating new experiences for myself.”Remove reminders of the relationshipReturn to menuPut anything your ex left behind in a box for storage, or consider giving away or donating the items (assuming they don’t want them back). And while you don’t need to toss out all of your photos of the two of you, it’s wise to store them until you heal, Zaman says. Otherwise, “every time you see visual reminders, that reopens the wound. It’s like picking at a scab.”But if there are things from your relationship that you still like, keep them and rebrand them by focusing on what you like about them, independent of the relationship, Augustin says. And if you’re on the fence about an item, “put it away for a while to see if you want to keep it,” Manly says.Ultimately, taking these steps is about more than redecorating. It’s about taking care of yourself, reinforcing your sense of who you are outside the relationship and empowering yourself to move forward in your life in ways that feel good to you. “It’s about being grounded in your own sense of self,” Fleming says. “By creating an environment that supports you and makes you feel safe, you’ll promote your own wellness.”

Remembering Joan Gussow

Gussow helped us understand that buying locally grown, seasonal food (and raising it ourselves, if possible) connected us to the health of the land, and to our own health, too. And because of her, we began to understand the deleterious impacts of the industrialized food system—among them depleted soil, poisoned water, and metabolic disease.  She […] The post Remembering Joan Gussow appeared first on Civil Eats.

Joan Dye Gussow, who died last Friday at age 96, was a fiercely independent thinker and food-system visionary whose ideas caught on and rippled outward. Starting in the 1970s, through her groundbreaking nutritional ecology class at Teachers College within Columbia University, and through books like The Feeding Web: Issues in Nutritional Ecology, she transformed our view of food from something enjoyed at the end of a fork to the entire system that created the mouthful. Photo credit: Randy Harris, courtesy of Chelsea Green Publishing Gussow helped us understand that buying locally grown, seasonal food (and raising it ourselves, if possible) connected us to the health of the land, and to our own health, too. And because of her, we began to understand the deleterious impacts of the industrialized food system—among them depleted soil, poisoned water, and metabolic disease.  She railed at politicians for setting back progress and, as she told us in an interview, “You have to keep hope alive, you have to keep moving along the way you believe in and keep telling the truth and trying to get the word out there.” In person, Gussow was formidable and funny, speaking her brilliant mind with candor, urging us to see what was going on and to never stop asking hard questions. Luckily, many of us have heeded her call, and in our work and our lives, we continue the conversation she began.  We asked some of Gussow’s many fans to celebrate and remember her with us. For those who would like to share memories or photos through this link, created by her friend Pam Koch, please do so.  Dan Barber, chef and co-owner of Family Meal at Blue Hill in Manhattan and Blue Hill at Stone Barns To Joan, the professor: You changed the way we view a single strawberry and  taught us to trust cows more than chemists. For this and many other things, Joan, we salute you. To Joan, the writer: Political or personal, your prose was always beautiful and unflinching. For this and many other things, Joan, we salute you. To Joan, the nutritionist: You proved that it is not merely safe, but sensible (and not merely sensible, but imperative) to keep slathering butter on all those potatoes. For this and many other things, Joan, we salute you. To Joan, the activist: On health food zealots, always a baffling irritation for you, you delivered a consistent message: Ignore them. Your vitality was daily proof of that simple wisdom. For this and many other things, Joan, we salute you. To Joan, the botanist: We valued your pawpaws as much as your raspberries. Your green thumb lifted our blue moods. For this and many other things, Joan, we salute you. To Joan, the cook and critic: You cooked up what you dug. For agribusiness adversaries, you cooked up trouble. For this and many other things, Joan, we salute you. To Joan, the mother: You have raised all these issues and along the way you’ve raised us, too. Here’s hoping we will do you proud. For this and many other things, Joan, we salute you. And to Joan, the hedonist: Food was your medium, but your message was a philosophy of life. You taught us something more than nutrition and agriculture—you taught us how to eat, to indulge in pleasure by way of responsibility. Thank you. Ann Cooper, chef and founder of the Chef Ann Foundation  “Joan Gussow was truly an OG of the sustainable/ organic food movement, and an amazing thinker and educator.” Joan Gussow was truly an OG of the sustainable/organic food movement, and an amazing thinker and educator. She spoke at the 1996 Chefs Collaborative Retreat and told the group that some “food” should just not be organic. “An organic gummy bear or an organic Twinkie, organic Eggo Toaster Waffles . . . they just shouldn’t be organic.”  I was so inspired by her idea that we shouldn’t have organic junk food that it shaped many of my thoughts on sustainability. Joan was instrumental in some of my thinking for my book Bitter Harvest, and when I went to the Ross School to build a healthy, nutritious, delicious school food program, Joan graciously gave of her time and energy to teach and educate our team. I will be forever grateful for all she did for food systems and sustainability.  Leslie Hatfield with Joan Gussow. Photo courtesy of Hatfield. Leslie Hatfield, Senior Partnership and Outreach Advisor at GRACE Communications Foundation Joan was brilliant, no question, but what drew me to her was her fierce honesty. Whether writing about unchecked corporate power’s impacts on diets, or her marriage and subsequent widowhood, she asked hard questions and didn’t flinch in laying out the answers. She inspired me, on both personal and professional levels, to live a more honest and authentic life.  Elizabeth Henderson, farmer and co-chair, Interstate Council policy committee of the Northeast Organic Farming Association  I came to know Joan through my work as an organic farmer and as one of the first to organize a CSA [community supported agriculture system]. I was thrilled when she agreed to write the foreword to my 2000 book Sharing the Harvest. The first edition came out in 1998, when we estimated that there were about 1,000 CSAs in the U.S. By the second edition, in 2007, that number had more than doubled, and there may be as many as 7,000 today.  As a pioneering advocate of buying from local organic farms, Joan instantly grasped the significance of CSAs. In her foreword, Joan wrote: “Across this country, a movement is spreading that acknowledges a long-ignored reality: Most of what we pay for our food goes to companies that transport, process, and market what comes off the farms, not to farmers themselves. The people who actually grow food don’t get paid enough to keep on doing it. If we hope to keep on eating, however, we need to keep farmers in business; and if we want to keep farmers in business, it’s time for all of us, ordinary citizens and policy makers alike, to begin learning how that might be done. Sharing the Harvest is a great place to start.” Joan’s words are as urgent today as when she wrote them 28 years ago. Family-scale farms continue to go out of business, and the United States Department of Agriculture just cancelled the grant that would have enabled the CSA Innovation Network, a network of CSA networks all over the country, to support more diverse farms in creating CSAs. I will be eternally grateful to Joan for her encouragement to me as a farmer and as a writer, and for transforming the discipline of nutrition from the reductionist academic analysis of the food on our plates into a training program for active participants in the international movement to wrest power over food from corporate industrial domination and return it to the people who eat, and do the hard and joyous work of growing healthy, nutritious food. Photo credit: Susan Frieman, courtesy of Chelsea Green Publishing Pamela Koch, Mary Swarz Rose associate professor of nutrition and education, Teachers College, Columbia University Joan taught her transformative course, Nutritional Ecology, in the Program in Nutrition at Teachers College, Columbia University, from 1970 to 2021. I taught with her from 2012 to 2021. Each week students received a 50–60 page packet of readings on a topic such as the “true cost (i.e., the environmental, health, and social cost) of food.” Students wrote a one-page reflection paper on the readings, which could be written as a letter to a friend. My comments are a reflection letter to you, Joan.  Dear Joan, I miss your wit, your wisdom, and how we could reflect on an old reading, such as your 1980 piece “What corporations have done to our food,” and see something totally new in today’s context. You described our industrial food system as “insane” and “absurd.” You have taught me to always speak the truth and think critically.  Case in point: The fertilizers and pesticides used on farms have to pollute our rivers, oceans, and drinking water. How could they not? The ability to ask the tough questions is what we can all do to carry your torch. This gives me hope that we can heal our ecosystem, support public health, reduce food-related chronic diseases, and treat everyone who works all along the food chain fairly and justly. Because of you, Joan, I believe we will have a better food future. We need your hope, Joan, now, more than ever. Ellie Krieger, MS RDN, Food Network and PBS show host and James Beard award-winning cookbook author I remember the feeling of having my mind blown open by Joan Dye Gussow’s teaching. It was like suddenly seeing in three dimensions when I had only been seeing in two before. Understanding that nutrition is much more than just nutrients–that [it] is agriculture, politics, the environment, and more–shaped my thinking about food and the work I do to this day. Thank you, Joan, for your brilliance, bravery, persistence, and for leading by example. I consider myself a product of the big, robust garden you cultivated. Anna Lappé, author and executive director of the Global Alliance for the Future of Food Joan was a singular, uncompromising voice for organic and local food. I’ll always appreciate her generosity of spirit as a teacher, training countless students through her courses at Columbia Teachers College and opening her door to me personally as she took the time to help me understand food systems and the power of organic practices.  I’ll never forget interviewing her at her home in upstate New York for Grub: Ideas for an Urban Organic Kitchen. While we looked out at her overflowing vegetable garden that stretched to the waters of the Hudson River, Joan shared her food philosophy, including turning me onto her seminal essay about a hypothetical organic Twinkie.  While serving on the National Organic Standards Board, she had penned, “Can an Organic Twinkie Be Certified?” Her answer was yes. One day, a Twinkie could very well be certified organic if 95 percent of its ingredients were. But, she was quick to note, it would not be healthy—nor would it reflect her vision of a food system defined by local, healthy, whole foods and not highly processed ones.  I loved the last words of her New York Times obituary, which sounded every bit like the Joan I had been inspired by for years: “The day I die, I want to have a black thumb from where I hit it with a hammer and scratches on my hands from pruning the roses.” Kate MacKenzie, Executive Director of New York City’s Mayor’s Office of Food Policy  Joan Gussow has influenced my professional life more than any other. Twenty-five years ago, I started in the public health nutrition program at Teachers College, with a BS degree in Nutritional Sciences from Cornell. I often say that at Cornell, I learned everything about food after you swallow it, and everything about food before you eat it at TC, from Joan. “Perhaps now more than ever, we have the responsibility of carrying her legacy forward, to meaningfully connect to real food for the health of our people and our environment.” It was in her classes that I was introduced to topics like the corporate consolidation of the food system (or to even consider the words “food system”), the limits to population growth, how to feed the world, agricultural inputs like pesticides and organic practices, and the concepts of sustainability and local food.  I remember one class when she was lecturing about the number of food products on grocery store shelves, and how over time, people were made to think there was just no more time to cook. Her simple response: that we have always had 24 hours in the day, and it’s the power of marketing and industry to convince us otherwise. These issues made me deeply curious and desirous to effectuate changing the food system.   I’ve been doing that ever since graduating and I have met extraordinary leaders and visionaries throughout the U.S. and beyond. Many of those people have also been students of Joan’s. Perhaps now more than ever, we have the responsibility of carrying her legacy forward, to meaningfully connect to real food for the health of our people and our environment. Marion Nestle, Paulette Goddard professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health emerita, New York University I first met Joan in the late 1970s when I heard her give a talk in the Bay Area when I was teaching at the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine. I had never heard anyone talk about the need to link agricultural production to nutrition and health—food systems, we now call that—and it felt revelatory. I am not alone in being inspired by her work. I have followed it with great admiration. Ahead of her time? Absolutely. You have discovered that the food industry influences food choices? Try Joan’s “Who Pays the Piper,” from 1980. You think food systems should be sustainable? See Joan’s “Dietary Guidelines for Sustainability,” written with Kate Clancy in 1986. Her students at Columbia were so lucky to be in her orbit. I am beyond sad at her loss.  Raj Patel, ​​author, activist, and research professor in the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, Austin Joan was so ahead of her time, I often wondered whether she thought the food movement revival a decade or two ago was just the history of the 1970s repeating, this time as farce. But she was always gracious, ready to celebrate the wins—and hurl imprecations at those who deserved them: the food industry, their shills, and the deer who ate from her garden. Recently, I re-read her classic lecture, “Women, Food, and the Survival of the Species,” plucked from the archives by Daniel Bowman Simon, and it reminded me of the abundance of her spirit, and the depth of our debt to her.  Michael Pollan, author, journalist Joan was one of my first and most influential teachers when it came to understanding food and agriculture as a system. (The other is Marion Nestle.) Joan saw the politics in all sorts of places people had trouble spotting it, such as the field of nutrition. We first met in the 1990s at the Culinary Institute of America, at a conference about genetically modified crops. She was formidable, and though I don’t recall what she said, it galvanized the room with its penetrating clarity.  She was a master at connecting the dots, and the fact that most of us understand food and agriculture as a single system, linking policy, soil, nutrition, public health, and technology, owes in large part to the work Joan did.  But she was much more than a theorist; indeed, she walked the talk, growing much of her own food on an oft-flooded piece of land right on the Hudson–a beautiful but perilous spot I had the privilege of visiting a couple of times.  The phrase, “Eat food, not too much, mostly plants,” owes at least two words to Joan. When I was researching In Defense of Food, I asked her to sum up what she had learned about how best to eat, and she didn’t miss a beat: “Eat food.” As in, real food, whole foods, unprocessed foods. I embroidered her message a bit, with “mostly plants” and “not too much” but the basic message—which is that we don’t and shouldn’t eat nutrients–was Joan’s. She was an inspiration. Tom Philpott, senior research associate at the Center for a Livable Future, Johns Hopkins University Joan Dye Gussow has passed on, but her legacy and influence will live as long as we have ecosystems and natural resources worth defending. Like all of our best and brightest food-system intellectuals, Joan understood that humanity doesn’t exist separately from nature or ecology, but lives deeply embedded within them. We are as much a part of nature as the lion skulking the savanna, or the warbler winging it from the Adirondacks to the Caribbean islands for winter; it’s just that we exert much more influence over the ecosystems we touch.  Joan elegantly summed up this concept in the title of her 1978 book, The Feeding Web: Issues In Nutritional Ecology. “Nutritional ecology”: The idea neatly connects our sustenance with the landscapes that feed us and provide sinks for our waste. Professionally, academically, she was a nutritionist, a field that evolved over decades in tight collaboration with corporate food giants, and too often reduced nutrition to a list of essential vitamins and minerals—commodities that, once injected into highly processed food, the idea went, make a health-giving diet.  “Perhaps what I will remember most about Joan is the laughter, the caring, and the closeness we shared, sometimes verging on tears.” Today, this ideology is finally unravelling under the weight of undeniable evidence. Joan rejected it more than a half century ago, and used her perch at Columbia University to launch broadsides against it. By the time I met her in the late 2000s, Joan was a doyenne of the anti-industrial food movement, renowned for her advocacy in support of local and regional food systems, and for her legendary garden on the banks of the Hudson, not far from New York City. It meant a lot to hear her say she had read and appreciated my journalism work, and it was delightful to be able to tell her how much I had learned from her. She was a happy and inspiring warrior against the forces of industrial agriculture.  And damn it, she was right. Her vision of robust local and regional food networks, bolstered by flourishing small- and mid-scale farms and justly compensated farm labor, represents a beacon for a livable future in an increasingly dystopian age. In a 2011 Civil Eats interview, she allowed that “compared to the reception my ideas got 30 years ago, it’s quite astonishing the reception they’re getting now,” citing the extraordinary artisanal food scenes emerging in places like Brooklyn. But, she added, “whether or not there’s going to be sea change in the whole system is so hard to judge.” Hard to judge, and harder still to achieve. It’s up to us, the generations she inspired, to make it so. I never managed to take her up on the invitation to visit her Hudson Valley garden. May it flourish in her memory forever. I still hope to see it someday. Joan Dye Gussow with Urvashi Rangan. Photo courtesy of Rangan. Urvashi Rangan, founding co-chair, Funders for Regenerative Agriculture (FORA) and chief science advisor, GRACE Communications Foundation  I had the immense pleasure of sharing in Joan’s professional and personal life. As a young scientist, I remember presenting to a nutrition conference and Joan was in the front row and asked many great questions. From then, I always knew to seek her professional opinion on the harms of industrial ag practices and the benefits of organic production. She then invited me to lecture in her classes and always wanted to know the latest goings-on in food politics.    Perhaps what I will remember most about Joan is the laughter, the caring, and the closeness we shared, sometimes verging on tears. I remember one conversation about gut microbiomes and people reseeding with poop from other people. We decided that Joan’s poop would be worth more than gold since her biome had only eaten organic food forever.   Despite the 40 years between us, I found Joan to be one of my closest and dear friends and one of the youngest people I have known. I remember leaving a conference in NYC together where she gave the keynote, and while we were driving home, she looked at me and said, “My God, Urvashi, there were some really old people there.” Joan wasn’t talking about age, but mindset (and she was so right).   And while she may have been the oldest person in the room, her mind and heart were youthful, yet wise. I used to tell her that when I grew up, I wanted to be just like her. She was a teacher until the end, in the classroom and out. I will miss her immensely and will cherish all of the times we had together.  Michael Sligh, founding chair, National Organic Standards Board Joan was that rare breed of academic, activist, and farmer. She helped us bridge movements and she was always on the right side of the fight. Tough as nails and a heart of gold. She will be missed. Kerry Trueman, sustainability advocate Joan was a dear friend and mentor to me, as she was to so many people. I became a die-hard devotee of her work after reading her first memoir, This Organic Life. We became friends several decades ago when she gave a talk at The New School. After she spoke, she mingled with the attendees, and I was so excited at the prospect of meeting her that I transcended my shyness to tell her how she had inspired me to plant pawpaws in my yard. Joan, in her inimitable acerbic-yet-affectionate way, liked to say that I had “stalked” her. She once called me her “favorite beneficial pest,” which, coming from her, was a thrilling compliment. What an honor it was to collaborate with her, to be a guest at so many memorable meals in her lovely home, to work side by side with her to restore her legendary garden after the Hudson River flooded it. The second time the river rose up to swallow her garden, she rose even higher, literally, by raising the soil level to accommodate the consequences of climate change. Her refusal to throw in the trowel in the wake of such destruction was quintessential Joan.  Her perseverance was just one of Joan’s many admirable traits, another being that she was not a purist. For her, eating locally meant being a regular at her local diner, regardless of how they sourced their eggs and bacon. How grateful I am to have known her. Karen Washington with Joan Gassow. Photo courtesy of Washington. Karen Washington, farmer, activist, and co-founder of Black Urban Growers Joan was such a kind and loving person. Her first act of kindness was to invite me and my gardeners from the Bronx to come visit and have lunch. Many of them did not speak English, but were able to enjoy her company, her garden, and the food. She loved people and was willing to share her home with strangers.  We became close as board members of Just Food. Her knowledge and wisdom of the food system was incredible. She taught me to be courageous and not sit by and allow things to happen, but to challenge things that were hard. I loved her so much and will miss her, but I will carry a piece of her in my work to fight against injustice. Alice Waters, chef, author, food activist, founder of Chez Panisse and The Edible Schoolyard Joan had a HUGE influence on my life and my thinking. “Eat locally, think globally” became my motto for Chez Panisse, and now for school food purchasing everywhere. The post Remembering Joan Gussow appeared first on Civil Eats.

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

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.

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.