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.

How can we cut food waste in half by 2030?

News Feed
Monday, September 9, 2024

In 2015, food and agriculture sustainability advocates succeeded in pressing the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency to commit to a goal of cutting national food waste in half by 2030. This would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from methane released by organic waste in landfills and help bridge the gap between food surplus and the national hunger crisis, in which 44 million people in the U.S. face hunger. Without any specific strategy for how to meet this goal, however, the problem has grown. The amount of surplus food produced in the U.S. in 2021 was 4.8 percent higher than it was in 2016. Now, nearly a decade after the commitment, there is finally a national road map. In June, a coalition of government agencies unveiled the National Strategy for Reducing Food Loss and Waste and Recycling Organics, that aims to concretize and make actionable the goal set in 2015. Advocates say these centralized, clear objectives for meeting food waste goals are long overdue. “In 2015 the USDA and EPA committed to that national goal but we hadn’t seen any sort of plan written out as to how the agencies were going to help achieve that goal,” said Nina Sevilla, Program Advocate for Food Waste & Food Systems at Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “We’ve been asking for a while to have some sort of road map, and this is the result of that.” This initiative is structured around four main objectives: preventing food loss, preventing food waste, increasing the recycling rate for organic waste and supporting policies that incentivize these practices. This strategy is the first of its kind as far as a federal, systems-level approach to tackling the country’s food waste crisis, in which 30-40 percent of food in the supply chain is wasted. So how exactly does the Biden Administration’s strategy propose to reach its lofty goal in the next six years? Let’s take a walk through each section of the strategy.   Preventing Food Loss The first pillar of the strategy focuses on preventing food loss at the production and distribution stages, namely the farm and transit between the farm and the final destination where it will be sold. It aims to enhance economic returns for producers, manufacturers, and distributors while ensuring more food reaches consumers. Food loss is a type of food waste, which refers to any edible food that goes uneaten at any stage of the process, like in a home, market, or a crop that never leaves the field. It refers to a decrease in the quantity or quality of food that comes from inefficiencies in the supply chain, and can happen if a crop is damaged during harvest, if food is rejected due to quality standards, or if food is stored improperly. By fostering more collaboration across the food supply chain, harvest and collection can be optimized, with less food wasted. The strategy encourages whole crop purchases by retailers, which means including imperfect produce, and accepting partial orders to reduce the volume of rejected crops. It also aims to support biotechnological advances to slow decomposition, like edible coatings for produce, and mechanisms that detect and quantify gases like oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and ethylene to ensure optimal storage conditions, prevent spoilage and extend the shelf life of perishable foods. The USDA’s Farm Storage Facility Loan Program and microloan programs will be tasked with improving storage and extending the shelf life of produce. There will also be investment in innovations like genetically engineered crops with longer shelf life. The strategy seeks to improve demand forecasting technologies, tools used by businesses to predict how much of a product people will want in the future, which allows for more accurate ordering and therefore less waste. It also emphasizes the importance of improving data collection to measure progress, yet Sevilla spoke to her disappointment in the scope and specificity of this aspect of the strategy. “We had hoped to see a specific food loss and waste report that would happen more periodically so the field can all learn from what the agencies are doing in a more centralized and clear space.”   Preventing Food Waste Preventing food waste at the retail, food service and household levels is the next key focus. This type of waste is produced once food reaches the consumer, and can come in the form of uneaten leftovers, unsold produce that is still fit for consumption, or food that’s past expiration but still safe to eat. This approach is based on the idea that a lot of waste happens because people don’t know how to do better or why it is important to do so. Consumer education and behavioral change campaigns will be launched nationally to spur actionable change among businesses and consumers. “Because households are the number one generator of wasted food, this kind of thing will hopefully have a huge impact,” said Sevilla. “We’re hoping to see it cover things like food date labeling, which is one of the leading causes of food waste in the home.” Better understanding of food date labeling helps reduce waste by enabling people to distinguish between “best before” and “use by” dates, allowing them to confidently use food that is still safe, make informed shopping decisions, and minimize unnecessary disposal. This has enormous potential for impact, especially as households account for 40-50% of all food wasted in the US. Engaging youth through targeted education and leadership programs is also a priority under the broader educational umbrella, and the USDA is investing $10 million in educational grants and initiatives that would go to schools or educational organizations.   Increasing food recycling rate It’s not only minimizing loss and waste that will help meet food chain sustainability goals – investing in infrastructure and establishing protocols for food to be rescued or recycled will help achieve a more circular system altogether and address the reality that some food loss is unavoidable. Food rescue is considered a form of recycling because it involves diverting surplus food from waste streams and redirecting it to those in need, thereby giving it a new, valuable purpose. The EPA will improve and gather more detailed data on existing food donation and recovery systems to make food distribution more efficient. Through this, the EPA will be better able to identify areas where current infrastructure is lacking or where inefficiencies exist. For example, they might find regions with surplus food but insufficient donation networks or areas where donated food isn’t reaching those in need efficiently and target these areas with funding for infrastructure improvements The strategy also highlights the importance of developing markets for non-edible recycled products like compost, which can cut methane emissions compared to landfilled food waste while providing a high-quality soil amendment for sale to farmers and gardeners.   Policy support  Support for local policies related to food waste and loss management both domestically and internationally is the fourth objective , and a critical one for actually getting effective food waste prevention strategies implemented. The USDA will continue to provide financial and technical assistance for composting facilities, emphasizing community-scale organics recycling infrastructure to reduce pollution, create jobs and support green infrastructure. The EPA will continue to lead and expand two key networks — the National Compost and Anaerobic Digestion Peer Network and the Food: Too Good to Waste Peer Network — bringing together state and local government staff to share strategies, research, and solutions for organics recycling and reducing household food waste. Some experts emphasize that these local and state efforts might be key in meeting reduction goals, and have an even greater direct impact than national ones. “Implementing a national strategy is a tricky strategy for a couple of reasons,” said Dana Gunders, Executive Director of ReFED, a national nonprofit dedicated to ending food loss and waste by advancing data-driven solutions. “One is that a lot of waste jurisdictions are at the state level so there’s only so much that can be codified at a national level.” Different states may have their own laws regarding food waste, such as New York’s Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law or California’s requirements for organic waste recycling. So while a national strategy might encourage similar laws nationwide, it can’t mandate them in states that choose not to adopt them. Also, waste management infrastructure like recycling facilities or composting programs, is often managed at the local level. So actual implementation would depend on local governments’ resources and priorities. But what the national strategy can excel in is bringing widespread awareness and priority to the issue, one which has been receiving increased public attention in recent years. In 2021, 25 states introduced food waste legislation. New York enacted a Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law which requires large food generators like supermarkets, universities, and hotels to donate excess edible food and recycle food scraps. Massachusetts expanded its existing ban on commercial food waste disposal to require more businesses and institutions to comply, thereby reducing the quantity of food sent to landfill or incinerator. Overall, the experts we spoke with are optimistic that this strategy can achieve its goals, even though some details about funding and accountability are still unclear. The ambiguity in the strategy is mostly as it relates to the funding and accountability for the aforementioned objectives. “It’s wonderful to have it all there and in one place but there’s so much more need, and having more identifications of specific funds would have been wonderful,” said Neff. “There’s a lot of places [in the strategy] where, if we can get that [initiative] into the farm bill, we’ll be able to fund it.”

Engaging youth through targeted education and leadership programs is also a priority. . ."

In 2015, food and agriculture sustainability advocates succeeded in pressing the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency to commit to a goal of cutting national food waste in half by 2030. This would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from methane released by organic waste in landfills and help bridge the gap between food surplus and the national hunger crisis, in which 44 million people in the U.S. face hunger.

Without any specific strategy for how to meet this goal, however, the problem has grown. The amount of surplus food produced in the U.S. in 2021 was 4.8 percent higher than it was in 2016. Now, nearly a decade after the commitment, there is finally a national road map. In June, a coalition of government agencies unveiled the National Strategy for Reducing Food Loss and Waste and Recycling Organics, that aims to concretize and make actionable the goal set in 2015.

Advocates say these centralized, clear objectives for meeting food waste goals are long overdue.

“In 2015 the USDA and EPA committed to that national goal but we hadn’t seen any sort of plan written out as to how the agencies were going to help achieve that goal,” said Nina Sevilla, Program Advocate for Food Waste & Food Systems at Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “We’ve been asking for a while to have some sort of road map, and this is the result of that.”

This initiative is structured around four main objectives: preventing food loss, preventing food waste, increasing the recycling rate for organic waste and supporting policies that incentivize these practices. This strategy is the first of its kind as far as a federal, systems-level approach to tackling the country’s food waste crisis, in which 30-40 percent of food in the supply chain is wasted.

So how exactly does the Biden Administration’s strategy propose to reach its lofty goal in the next six years? Let’s take a walk through each section of the strategy.

 

Preventing Food Loss

The first pillar of the strategy focuses on preventing food loss at the production and distribution stages, namely the farm and transit between the farm and the final destination where it will be sold. It aims to enhance economic returns for producers, manufacturers, and distributors while ensuring more food reaches consumers.

Food loss is a type of food waste, which refers to any edible food that goes uneaten at any stage of the process, like in a home, market, or a crop that never leaves the field.

It refers to a decrease in the quantity or quality of food that comes from inefficiencies in the supply chain, and can happen if a crop is damaged during harvest, if food is rejected due to quality standards, or if food is stored improperly.

By fostering more collaboration across the food supply chain, harvest and collection can be optimized, with less food wasted.

The strategy encourages whole crop purchases by retailers, which means including imperfect produce, and accepting partial orders to reduce the volume of rejected crops. It also aims to support biotechnological advances to slow decomposition, like edible coatings for produce, and mechanisms that detect and quantify gases like oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and ethylene to ensure optimal storage conditions, prevent spoilage and extend the shelf life of perishable foods.

The USDA’s Farm Storage Facility Loan Program and microloan programs will be tasked with improving storage and extending the shelf life of produce. There will also be investment in innovations like genetically engineered crops with longer shelf life.

The strategy seeks to improve demand forecasting technologies, tools used by businesses to predict how much of a product people will want in the future, which allows for more accurate ordering and therefore less waste.

It also emphasizes the importance of improving data collection to measure progress, yet Sevilla spoke to her disappointment in the scope and specificity of this aspect of the strategy. “We had hoped to see a specific food loss and waste report that would happen more periodically so the field can all learn from what the agencies are doing in a more centralized and clear space.”

 

Preventing Food Waste

Preventing food waste at the retail, food service and household levels is the next key focus. This type of waste is produced once food reaches the consumer, and can come in the form of uneaten leftovers, unsold produce that is still fit for consumption, or food that’s past expiration but still safe to eat.

This approach is based on the idea that a lot of waste happens because people don’t know how to do better or why it is important to do so. Consumer education and behavioral change campaigns will be launched nationally to spur actionable change among businesses and consumers.

“Because households are the number one generator of wasted food, this kind of thing will hopefully have a huge impact,” said Sevilla. “We’re hoping to see it cover things like food date labeling, which is one of the leading causes of food waste in the home.”

Better understanding of food date labeling helps reduce waste by enabling people to distinguish between “best before” and “use by” dates, allowing them to confidently use food that is still safe, make informed shopping decisions, and minimize unnecessary disposal.

This has enormous potential for impact, especially as households account for 40-50% of all food wasted in the US.

Engaging youth through targeted education and leadership programs is also a priority under the broader educational umbrella, and the USDA is investing $10 million in educational grants and initiatives that would go to schools or educational organizations.

 

Increasing food recycling rate

It’s not only minimizing loss and waste that will help meet food chain sustainability goals – investing in infrastructure and establishing protocols for food to be rescued or recycled will help achieve a more circular system altogether and address the reality that some food loss is unavoidable. Food rescue is considered a form of recycling because it involves diverting surplus food from waste streams and redirecting it to those in need, thereby giving it a new, valuable purpose.

The EPA will improve and gather more detailed data on existing food donation and recovery systems to make food distribution more efficient. Through this, the EPA will be better able to identify areas where current infrastructure is lacking or where inefficiencies exist. For example, they might find regions with surplus food but insufficient donation networks or areas where donated food isn’t reaching those in need efficiently and target these areas with funding for infrastructure improvements

The strategy also highlights the importance of developing markets for non-edible recycled products like compost, which can cut methane emissions compared to landfilled food waste while providing a high-quality soil amendment for sale to farmers and gardeners.

 

Policy support 

Support for local policies related to food waste and loss management both domestically and internationally is the fourth objective , and a critical one for actually getting effective food waste prevention strategies implemented.

The USDA will continue to provide financial and technical assistance for composting facilities, emphasizing community-scale organics recycling infrastructure to reduce pollution, create jobs and support green infrastructure.

The EPA will continue to lead and expand two key networks — the National Compost and Anaerobic Digestion Peer Network and the Food: Too Good to Waste Peer Network — bringing together state and local government staff to share strategies, research, and solutions for organics recycling and reducing household food waste.

Some experts emphasize that these local and state efforts might be key in meeting reduction goals, and have an even greater direct impact than national ones.

“Implementing a national strategy is a tricky strategy for a couple of reasons,” said Dana Gunders, Executive Director of ReFED, a national nonprofit dedicated to ending food loss and waste by advancing data-driven solutions. “One is that a lot of waste jurisdictions are at the state level so there’s only so much that can be codified at a national level.”

Different states may have their own laws regarding food waste, such as New York’s Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law or California’s requirements for organic waste recycling. So while a national strategy might encourage similar laws nationwide, it can’t mandate them in states that choose not to adopt them. Also, waste management infrastructure like recycling facilities or composting programs, is often managed at the local level. So actual implementation would depend on local governments’ resources and priorities.

But what the national strategy can excel in is bringing widespread awareness and priority to the issue, one which has been receiving increased public attention in recent years. In 2021, 25 states introduced food waste legislation. New York enacted a Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law which requires large food generators like supermarkets, universities, and hotels to donate excess edible food and recycle food scraps. Massachusetts expanded its existing ban on commercial food waste disposal to require more businesses and institutions to comply, thereby reducing the quantity of food sent to landfill or incinerator.

Overall, the experts we spoke with are optimistic that this strategy can achieve its goals, even though some details about funding and accountability are still unclear.

The ambiguity in the strategy is mostly as it relates to the funding and accountability for the aforementioned objectives.

“It’s wonderful to have it all there and in one place but there’s so much more need, and having more identifications of specific funds would have been wonderful,” said Neff. “There’s a lot of places [in the strategy] where, if we can get that [initiative] into the farm bill, we’ll be able to fund it.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Conservatives on the Cy-Fair ISD school board escalate fight over textbooks

The decision to strip chapters from books that had already won the approval of the state’s Republican-controlled board of education represents an escalation in how local school boards run by ideological conservatives influence what children learn.

Danielle Villasana for ProPublica and The Texas TribuneThe Cypress-Fairbanks school board has attracted community protests, including at this meeting in February, for its decisions regarding gender identity, its push for a biblical curriculum and the removal of chapters from state-approved textbooks. Credit: Danielle Villasana for ProPublica and The Texas Tribune“A Texas school leader says material about diversity in state-approved textbooks violated the law.” was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues. This article is co-published with ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for ProPublica's Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published. Also, sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news. In 2022, conservative groups celebrated a "great victory" over "wokeified" curriculum when the Texas State Board of Education squashed proposed social studies requirements for schools that included teaching kindergartners how Rosa Parks and Cesar Chavez "advocated for positive change." Another win came a year later as the state board rejected several textbooks that some Republicans argued could promote a "radical environmental agenda" because they linked climate change to human behavior or presented what conservatives perceived to be a negative portrayal of fossil fuels. By the time the state board approved science and career-focused textbooks for use in Texas classrooms at the end of 2023, it appeared to be comfortably in sync with conservatives who had won control of local school boards across the state in recent years. But the Republican-led state education board had not gone far enough for the conservative majority on the school board for Texas' third-largest school district. At the tail end of a school board meeting in May of last year, Natalie Blasingame, a board member in suburban Houston's Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District, proposed stripping more than a dozen chapters from five textbooks that had been approved by the state board and were recommended by a district committee of teachers and staffers. The chapters, Blasingame said, were inappropriate for students because they discussed "vaccines and polio," touched on "topics of depopulation," had "an agenda out of the United Nations" and included "a perspective that humans are bad." RELATED: Cy-Fair ISD’s libraries are frequently closed after trustees cut librarian positions in half In a less-publicized move, Blasingame, a former bilingual educator, proposed omitting several chapters from a textbook for aspiring educators titled "Teaching." One of those chapters focuses on how to understand and educate diverse learners and states that it "is up to schools and teachers to help every student feel comfortable, accepted and valued," and that "when schools view diversity as a positive force, it can enhance learning and prepare students to work effectively in a diverse society." Blasingame did not offer additional details about her opposition to the chapters during the meeting. She didn't have to. The school board voted 6-1 to delete them. Credit: Danielle Villasana for ProPublica and The Texas TribuneNatalie Blasingame, a member of the Cypress-Fairbanks School Board, proposed cutting chapters from five textbooks. Credit: Danielle Villasana for ProPublica and The Texas TribuneThe decision to strip chapters from books that had already won the approval of the state's conservative board of education represents an escalation in local school boards' efforts to influence what children in public schools are taught. Through the years, battles over textbooks have played out at the state level, where Republicans hold the majority. But local school boards that are supposed to be nonpartisan had largely avoided such fights — they weighed in on whether some books should be in libraries but rarely intervened so directly into classroom instruction. Cypress-Fairbanks now provides a model for supercharging these efforts at more fine-grained control, said Christopher Kulesza, a scholar at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy. "One of the things that would concern me is that it's ideology pushing the educational standards rather than what's fact," he said. RELATED: Cy-Fair ISD’s focus on libraries followed flood of book challenges by two trustees’ inner circles The board's actions send a troubling message to students of color, Alissa Sundrani, a junior at Cy-Fair High School, said. "At the point that you're saying that diversity, or making people feel safe and included, is not in the guidelines or not in the scope of what Texas wants us to be learning, then I think that's an issue." With about 120,000 students, nearly 80% of whom are of Hispanic, Black and Asian descent, Cy-Fair is the largest school district in Texas to be taken over by ideologically driven conservative candidates. Blasingame was among a slate of candidates who were elected through the at-large voting system that ProPublica and The Texas Tribune found has been leveraged by conservative groups seeking to influence what children are taught about race and gender. Supporters say the system, in which voters cast ballots for all candidates districtwide instead of ones who live within specific geographic boundaries, results in broader representation for students, but voting rights advocates argue that it dilutes the power of voters of color. First image: Cy-Fair's administration building. Second image: People gather before a school board meeting. Credit: Danielle Villasana for ProPublica and The Texas TribuneBlasingame and others campaigned against the teaching of critical race theory, an advanced academic concept that discusses systemic racism. Most of the winning candidates had financial backing from Texans for Educational Freedom, a statewide PAC that sought to build a "stronghold" of school board trustees "committed to fighting Critical Race Theory and other anti-American agendas and curriculums." The PAC helped elect at least 30 school board candidates across the state between 2021 and 2023, in part because it focused on anti-CRT sentiment, said its founder, Christopher Zook Jr. "You could literally go out and say, CRT, you know, ‘Stop critical race theory in schools,' and everyone knew what that means, right?" he said. "The polling showed that that messaging works." Shortly before Blasingame and two fellow conservatives won election in 2021, Texas lawmakers passed a landmark law that sought to shape how teachers approach instruction on race and racism. The law, which aimed to ban critical race theory, prohibits the "inculcation" of the notion that someone's race makes them "inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously." Blasingame made no mention of the law when she pushed to remove chapters about teaching a diverse student body, but pointed to it as the reason for her objection in text messages and an interview with ProPublica and the Tribune. Though Blasingame acknowledged that one of the chapters had "very good presentation on learning styles," she said removing the whole chapter was the only option because administrators said individual lines could not be stricken from the book. The textbook referred to "cultural humility" and called for aspiring teachers to examine their "unintentional and subtle biases," concepts that she said "go against" the law. The school board needed to act because the book "slipped through" before the state's education agency implemented a plan to make sure materials complied with the law, Blasingame said. Blasingame recommended removing several chapters from a textbook called "Teaching." The chapters included references to "cultural humility" and "unintentional and subtle biases," which she believes are not permitted under state law, which specifies how topics concerning race can be taught. Credit: Document obtained and sentences enlarged by ProPublica and The Texas TribuneState Board Chair Aaron Kinsey, who is staunchly anti-CRT, declined to say if he thought the body had allowed textbooks to slip through as Blasingame suggested. Kinsey, however, said in a statement that contracts with approved publishers include requirements that their textbooks comply with all applicable laws. He did not comment on Cy-Fair removing chapters. Cy-Fair appears to have taken one of the state's most aggressive approaches to enforcing the law, which does not address what is in textbooks but rather how educators approach teaching, said Paige Duggins-Clay, the chief legal analyst for the Intercultural Development Research Agency, a San Antonio-based nonprofit that advocates for equal educational opportunity. "It definitely feels like Cy-Fair is seeking to test the boundaries of the law," Duggins-Clay said. "And I think in a district like Cy-Fair, because it is so diverse, that is actively hurting a lot of young people who are ultimately paying the cost and bearing the burden of these really bad policies." The law's vagueness has drawn criticism from conservative groups who say it allows school districts to skirt its prohibitions. Last month, Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against the Coppell school district in North Texas and accused administrators of illegally teaching "woke and hateful" CRT curriculum. The suit points to a secret recording of an administrator saying that the district will do what's right for students "despite what our state standards say." The lawsuit does not provide examples of curriculum that it alleges violates state law on how to teach race. In a letter to parents, Superintendent Brad Hunt said that the district was following state standards and would "continue to fully comply with applicable state and federal laws." Teachers and progressive groups have also argued that the law leaves too much open to interpretation, which causes educators to self-censor and could be used to target anything that mentions race. Blasingame disputes the critique. A longtime administrator and teacher whose family emigrated from South Africa when she was 9 years old, she said she embraces diversity in schools. "Diversity is people and I love people," she said. "That's what I'm called to do, first as a Christian and then as an educator." But she said she opposes teaching about systemic racism and state-sanctioned efforts to promote diversity, equity and inclusion, saying that they overemphasize the importance of skin color. "They seed hate and teach students that they are starting off behind and have unconquerable disadvantages that they will suffer all their lives," Blasingame said. "Not only does this teach hate among people, but how could you love a country where this is true?" The assertion that teaching diversity turns students of color into victims is simply wrong, educators and students told the news organizations. Instead, they said, such discussions make them feel safe and accepted. One educator who uses the "Teaching" textbook said the board members' decision to remove chapters related to diversity has been painful for students. "I don't know what their true intentions are, but to my students, what they are seeing is that unless you fit into the mold and you are like them, you are not valued," said the teacher, who did not want to be named because she feared losing her job. "There were several who said it made them not want to teach anymore because they felt so unsupported." The board's interpretation of the state's law on the teaching of race has stifled important classroom discussions, said Sundrani, the student in the district. Her AP English class, a seminar about the novel "Huckleberry Finn," steered clear of what she thinks are badly needed conversations about race, slavery and how that history impacts people today. "There were topics that we just couldn't discuss," she said. Disclosure: Rice University and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here. This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2025/04/02/texas-cypress-fairbanks-removed-textbook-chapters/. The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

A Texas school leader says material about diversity in state-approved textbooks violated the law.

The decision to strip chapters from books that had already won the approval of the state’s Republican-controlled board of education represents an escalation in how local school boards run by ideological conservatives influence what children learn.

This article is co-published with ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for ProPublica’s Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published. Also, sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news. In 2022, conservative groups celebrated a “great victory” over “wokeified” curriculum when the Texas State Board of Education squashed proposed social studies requirements for schools that included teaching kindergartners how Rosa Parks and Cesar Chavez “advocated for positive change.” Another win came a year later as the state board rejected several textbooks that some Republicans argued could promote a “radical environmental agenda” because they linked climate change to human behavior or presented what conservatives perceived to be a negative portrayal of fossil fuels. By the time the state board approved science and career-focused textbooks for use in Texas classrooms at the end of 2023, it appeared to be comfortably in sync with conservatives who had won control of local school boards across the state in recent years. But the Republican-led state education board had not gone far enough for the conservative majority on the school board for Texas’ third-largest school district. At the tail end of a school board meeting in May of last year, Natalie Blasingame, a board member in suburban Houston’s Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District, proposed stripping more than a dozen chapters from five textbooks that had been approved by the state board and were recommended by a district committee of teachers and staffers. The chapters, Blasingame said, were inappropriate for students because they discussed “vaccines and polio,” touched on “topics of depopulation,” had “an agenda out of the United Nations” and included “a perspective that humans are bad.” In a less-publicized move, Blasingame, a former bilingual educator, proposed omitting several chapters from a textbook for aspiring educators titled “Teaching.” One of those chapters focuses on how to understand and educate diverse learners and states that it “is up to schools and teachers to help every student feel comfortable, accepted and valued,” and that “when schools view diversity as a positive force, it can enhance learning and prepare students to work effectively in a diverse society.” Blasingame did not offer additional details about her opposition to the chapters during the meeting. She didn’t have to. The school board voted 6-1 to delete them. Natalie Blasingame, a member of the Cypress-Fairbanks School Board, proposed cutting chapters from five textbooks. Credit: Danielle Villasana for ProPublica and The Texas Tribune The decision to strip chapters from books that had already won the approval of the state’s conservative board of education represents an escalation in local school boards’ efforts to influence what children in public schools are taught. Through the years, battles over textbooks have played out at the state level, where Republicans hold the majority. But local school boards that are supposed to be nonpartisan had largely avoided such fights — they weighed in on whether some books should be in libraries but rarely intervened so directly into classroom instruction. Cypress-Fairbanks now provides a model for supercharging these efforts at more fine-grained control, said Christopher Kulesza, a scholar at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. “One of the things that would concern me is that it’s ideology pushing the educational standards rather than what’s fact,” he said. The board’s actions send a troubling message to students of color, Alissa Sundrani, a junior at Cy-Fair High School, said. “At the point that you’re saying that diversity, or making people feel safe and included, is not in the guidelines or not in the scope of what Texas wants us to be learning, then I think that’s an issue.” With about 120,000 students, nearly 80% of whom are of Hispanic, Black and Asian descent, Cy-Fair is the largest school district in Texas to be taken over by ideologically driven conservative candidates. Blasingame was among a slate of candidates who were elected through the at-large voting system that ProPublica and The Texas Tribune found has been leveraged by conservative groups seeking to influence what children are taught about race and gender. Supporters say the system, in which voters cast ballots for all candidates districtwide instead of ones who live within specific geographic boundaries, results in broader representation for students, but voting rights advocates argue that it dilutes the power of voters of color. First image: Cy-Fair’s administration building. Second image: People gather before a school board meeting. Credit: Danielle Villasana for ProPublica and The Texas Tribune Blasingame and others campaigned against the teaching of critical race theory, an advanced academic concept that discusses systemic racism. Most of the winning candidates had financial backing from Texans for Educational Freedom, a statewide PAC that sought to build a “stronghold” of school board trustees “committed to fighting Critical Race Theory and other anti-American agendas and curriculums.” The PAC helped elect at least 30 school board candidates across the state between 2021 and 2023, in part because it focused on anti-CRT sentiment, said its founder, Christopher Zook Jr. “You could literally go out and say, CRT, you know, ‘Stop critical race theory in schools,’ and everyone knew what that means, right?” he said. “The polling showed that that messaging works.” Shortly before Blasingame and two fellow conservatives won election in 2021, Texas lawmakers passed a landmark law that sought to shape how teachers approach instruction on race and racism. The law, which aimed to ban critical race theory, prohibits the “inculcation” of the notion that someone’s race makes them “inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.” Blasingame made no mention of the law when she pushed to remove chapters about teaching a diverse student body, but pointed to it as the reason for her objection in text messages and an interview with ProPublica and the Tribune. Though Blasingame acknowledged that one of the chapters had “very good presentation on learning styles,” she said removing the whole chapter was the only option because administrators said individual lines could not be stricken from the book. The textbook referred to “cultural humility” and called for aspiring teachers to examine their “unintentional and subtle biases,” concepts that she said “go against” the law. The school board needed to act because the book “slipped through” before the state’s education agency implemented a plan to make sure materials complied with the law, Blasingame said. Blasingame recommended removing several chapters from a textbook called “Teaching.” The chapters included references to “cultural humility” and “unintentional and subtle biases,” which she believes are not permitted under state law, which specifies how topics concerning race can be taught. Credit: Document obtained and sentences enlarged by ProPublica and The Texas Tribune State Board Chair Aaron Kinsey, who is staunchly anti-CRT, declined to say if he thought the body had allowed textbooks to slip through as Blasingame suggested. Kinsey, however, said in a statement that contracts with approved publishers include requirements that their textbooks comply with all applicable laws. He did not comment on Cy-Fair removing chapters. Cy-Fair appears to have taken one of the state’s most aggressive approaches to enforcing the law, which does not address what is in textbooks but rather how educators approach teaching, said Paige Duggins-Clay, the chief legal analyst for the Intercultural Development Research Agency, a San Antonio-based nonprofit that advocates for equal educational opportunity. “It definitely feels like Cy-Fair is seeking to test the boundaries of the law,” Duggins-Clay said. “And I think in a district like Cy-Fair, because it is so diverse, that is actively hurting a lot of young people who are ultimately paying the cost and bearing the burden of these really bad policies.” The law’s vagueness has drawn criticism from conservative groups who say it allows school districts to skirt its prohibitions. Last month, Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against the Coppell school district in North Texas and accused administrators of illegally teaching “woke and hateful” CRT curriculum. The suit points to a secret recording of an administrator saying that the district will do what’s right for students “despite what our state standards say.” The lawsuit does not provide examples of curriculum that it alleges violates state law on how to teach race. In a letter to parents, Superintendent Brad Hunt said that the district was following state standards and would “continue to fully comply with applicable state and federal laws.” Teachers and progressive groups have also argued that the law leaves too much open to interpretation, which causes educators to self-censor and could be used to target anything that mentions race. Blasingame disputes the critique. A longtime administrator and teacher whose family emigrated from South Africa when she was 9 years old, she said she embraces diversity in schools. “Diversity is people and I love people,” she said. “That’s what I’m called to do, first as a Christian and then as an educator.” But she said she opposes teaching about systemic racism and state-sanctioned efforts to promote diversity, equity and inclusion, saying that they overemphasize the importance of skin color. “They seed hate and teach students that they are starting off behind and have unconquerable disadvantages that they will suffer all their lives,” Blasingame said. “Not only does this teach hate among people, but how could you love a country where this is true?” The assertion that teaching diversity turns students of color into victims is simply wrong, educators and students told the news organizations. Instead, they said, such discussions make them feel safe and accepted. One educator who uses the “Teaching” textbook said the board members’ decision to remove chapters related to diversity has been painful for students. “I don’t know what their true intentions are, but to my students, what they are seeing is that unless you fit into the mold and you are like them, you are not valued,” said the teacher, who did not want to be named because she feared losing her job. “There were several who said it made them not want to teach anymore because they felt so unsupported.” The board’s interpretation of the state’s law on the teaching of race has stifled important classroom discussions, said Sundrani, the student in the district. Her AP English class, a seminar about the novel “Huckleberry Finn,” steered clear of what she thinks are badly needed conversations about race, slavery and how that history impacts people today. “There were topics that we just couldn’t discuss.” Disclosure: Rice University and Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. Tickets are on sale now for the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas’ breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Get tickets before May 1 and save big! TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

"A fighter and a champion": Democratic Rep. Grijalva dies after cancer battle

The former chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus shared a lung cancer diagnosis last year

Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., died on Thursday morning at age 77, his office announced. Arizona’s longest-tenured member of Congress was diagnosed with lung cancer last spring, undergoing nearly a year of treatment. During his 22-year stint on Capitol Hill, Grijalva championed environmental protection, public education and reproductive freedom. The Tucson-born representative previously co-chaired the Congressional Progressive Caucus and House Committee on Natural Resources, and sat on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. He was a vocal opponent of attacks on Arizona's immigrant community. Democratic elected officials in Grijalva’s home state reacted to the news on Thursday with shock and sadness. “Congressman Grijalva was not just my colleague, but my friend. As another Latino working in public service, I can say from experience that he served as a role model to many young people across the Grand Canyon State,” Senator Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., said in a post to social media. “I am praying for his family during this time of grief, and I hope that that they find comfort knowing his legacy is one that will stand tall for generations.” “I’m devastated to hear of the passing of my colleague Raul Grijalva. He was a fighter for Arizonans and a champion for Indigenous communities and our planet. We will all miss him dearly. My thoughts are with his family, friends, loved ones, and constituents,” Rep. Yassamin Ansari, D-Ariz., said in a statement. Grijalva’s seat will remain vacant for at least six months under Arizona state law until a primary and special election can be held.

The Pandemic’s Biggest Missed Opportunity

Treating clean indoor air as a public good would have protected Americans against all sorts of airborne diseases.

In the early evening of March 7, 2020, I was on my cellphone in an airport terminal, telling a friend that I was afraid to write an article that risked ruining my journalistic reputation. I had been speaking with the small but close-knit aerobiologist community about the possibility that the new coronavirus could travel easily from person to person through the air—not just through large droplets that reach only a short distance from an infected person or through handshakes. The scientists had stressed that the idea of airborne transmission of the new virus was still mostly theoretical, but they’d seemed pretty concerned.When my story came out the following week, it was, to my knowledge, the first article by a journalist to make the case that the virus causing COVID-19 might travel efficiently through the air, and could potentially cover many meters in a gaseous cloud emitted with a cough or a sneeze. To avoid stoking undue worry, I had argued against calling the virus “airborne” in the headline, which ran as “They Say Coronavirus Isn’t Airborne—But It’s Definitely Borne by Air.” That idea was not immediately accepted: Two weeks later, the World Health Organization tweeted, “FACT: #COVID19 is NOT airborne.” As the pandemic unfolded, though, it became clear that the coronavirus did indeed spread through airborne transmission—even if the WHO took more than a year and a half to officially describe the coronavirus as a long-range airborne pathogen.By then, amid the loud debate over mask mandates, vaccine boosters, and individuals’ responsibility for the health of others, a parallel debate had emerged over ventilation. Wearing an N95 or receiving a third COVID shot were ultimately individual choices, but breathing safer air in indoor spaces required buy-in from bigger players such as education departments and transit agencies. Some advocates held up clean air as a kind of public good—one worth investing in for shared safety. If it had succeeded, this way of thinking would have represented one of the most lasting paths for governments to decrease people’s risks from COVID and from airborne diseases more generally.In the United States, the federal government regulates the quality of air outdoors, but it has relatively little oversight of indoor air. State and local jurisdictions pick up some of the slack, but this creates a patchwork of rules about indoor air. Local investment in better air-quality infrastructure varies widely too. For example, a 2022 survey of COVID-ventilation measures in U.S. public-school districts found that only about a quarter of them used or planned to use HEPA filters, which have a dense mesh for trapping particles, for indoor air. An even smaller fraction—about 8 percent—had installed air-cleansing systems that incorporated ultraviolet light, which can kill germs.For decades, experts have pushed the idea that the government should pay more attention to the quality of indoor air. In his new book, Air-Borne: The Hidden History of the Life We Breathe, the journalist Carl Zimmer shows the long arc of this argument. He notes that Richard Riley, a giant in the field of aerobiology who helped show that tuberculosis can be airborne, believed that individuals shouldn’t have to ensure that the air they breathe is clean. Just as the government regulates the safety of the water that flows into indoor pipes, it should oversee the safety of air in indoor public spaces.More than half a century before the coronavirus pandemic, Riley positioned this idea as an alternative to requirements for widespread masking, which, he said, call for “a kind of benevolent despotism,” Zimmer reports. If cleaner air was the one of the best ways to reduce the societal burden of disease, then the two best ways to achieve it were to push people to wear masks in any public space or to install better ventilation. The latter approach—purifying the air—would mean that “the individual would be relieved of direct responsibility,” Riley reasoned in a 1961 book he co-authored: “This is preventive medicine at its best, but it can only be bought at the price of civic responsibility and vigilance.”Medical breakthroughs in the years that followed may have deflated enthusiasm for this idea. Zimmer writes that the huge advances in vaccines during the 1960s made the world less interested in the details of airborne-disease transmission. Thanks to new vaccines, doctors had a way to prevent measles, the WHO launched a campaign to eradicate smallpox, and polio seemed on its way out. On top of that, researchers had come up with an arsenal of lifesaving antibiotics and antivirals. How viruses reached us mattered less when our defenses against them were so strong.In the first year or so of the coronavirus pandemic, though, one of the only defenses against COVID was avoiding it. And as a debate raged over how well the virus spread in air, the science of aerobiology was thrust into the spotlight. Some members of the public started fighting for good ventilation. A grassroots effort emerged to put homemade air purifiers and portable HEPA filters in public places. Teachers opened classroom windows when they learned that their schools lacked proper ventilation, travelers started carrying carbon-monoxide monitors to gauge the air quality aboard planes, and restaurants began offering outdoor dining after diagrams were published showing how easily one person eating inside can expose those seated nearby to the virus.The federal government did take some small steps toward encouraging better ventilation. In mid-2023, the CDC put out new recommendations urging five air changes an hour (essentially replacing all of the air within a room) in all buildings. But it was a recommendation, not a requirement, and local governments and owners of public buildings have been slow to take on the burden of installing or overhauling their ventilation systems. Part of this was surely because of the daunting price tag: In 2020, the Government Accountability Office estimated that approximately 36,000 school buildings had substandard systems for heating, ventilation, and cooling; the estimated cost for upgrading the systems and ensuring safe air quality in all of the country’s schools, some experts calculated, would be about $72 billion. Portable HEPA filters, meanwhile, can be noisy and require space, making them less-than-ideal long-term solutions.For the most part, momentum for better indoor air quality has dissipated, just as interest in it faded in the 1960s. Five years after COVID-19 precipitated lockdowns in the U.S., the rate of hospitalizations and mortality from the disease are a fraction of what they once were, and public discussion about ventilation has waned. Truly improving indoor air quality on a societal scale would be a long-term investment (and one that the Trump administration seems very unlikely to take on, given that it is slashing other environmental-safety protections). But better ventilation would also limit the cost of diseases other than COVID. Tuberculosis is airborne, and measles is frighteningly good at spreading this way. There is also evidence for airborne dissemination of a range of common pathogens such as influenza, which in the U.S. led to an estimated 28,000 deaths in the 2023–24 flu season. The same holds true for RSV, or respiratory syncytial virus, which each year causes 58,000 to 80,000 hospitalizations of children under age 5 in the United States, and kills as many as 300 of them. Virologists are also now asking whether bird flu could evolve to efficiently transmit through air, too.For those of us still concerned about airborne diseases, it feels as though little has changed. We’re right where we were at the start of the pandemic. I remember that moment in the airport and how I’d later worried about stoking panic in part because, during my flight, I was the only person wearing an N95—one that I had purchased months ago to wear in the dusty crawl space beneath my home. On the plane, I felt like a weirdo. These days, I am, once again, almost always the lone masker when I take public transportation. Sometimes I feel ridiculous. But just the other week, while I was seated on the metro, a woman coughed on my head. At that moment, I was glad to have a mask on. But I would have been even more relieved if the enclosed space of the metro car had been designed to cleanse the air of whatever she might have released and keep it from reaching me.

Massive study of adolescent brains puts “gateway drug" theory into question

New research offers clues into the neurological reasons kids start using drugs

Those who grew up when Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) pamphlets were common in the school counselor's office are probably familiar with the “gateway drug” theory, which suggests the use of one substance like cannabis or alcohol will send a person down the path to try “harder” drugs like cocaine or meth later in life. The gateway drug theory and many other ideas about drug use have been put into question in recent years as more resources are dedicated to understanding substance use, which has been highly stigmatized for decades. After initially labeling cannabis as a gateway drug in 2010, President Joe Biden even later walked back his stance, saying in 2019: “I don’t think it is a gateway drug. There’s no evidence I’ve seen to suggest that.” The roots of substance use disorder are complex and not fully understood, but one of the hallmarks of addiction is understood to be caused by repeated drug use that neurologically changes the brain. Because the use of one substance like alcohol or nicotine is associated with the use of other drugs like cannabis, many have drawn causal links between the use of various drugs in theories like the gateway drug hypothesis. However, this idea has been highly debated, and as the understanding of substance use has improved, scientists began to understand that people may have a “common liability” to substances in general and that drug use is influenced by a host of factors. "Our behavior is determined basically by our brain and our experience, and our experience can affect our brain as well." A new study published late December analyzed brain scans of adolescents before and after they first tried alcohol, nicotine or cannabis, shedding light on one factor that could be influencing whether people decide to start using drugs. Writing in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Alex Miller, the study’s lead author and an assistant professor of psychiatry at Indiana University School of Medicine, and his team found that adolescents who initiated substance use had differences in certain brain structures compared to kids who didn’t use drugs. Importantly, most differences existed before they started using alcohol, nicotine or cannabis. “The study sort of helps us highlight which regions may be important to further explore, with respect to their association as pre-existing risk factors for substance use initiation,” Miller told Salon in a phone interview.  Structural brain differences have been previously found in people who use drugs and were assumed to be effects of drug use, said Dr. Jonathan Foulds, a professor of public health sciences at Penn State College of Medicine who was not involved in the study. This study shows certain differences were there among adolescents who used substances prior to use, meaning they could not have been caused by the substance use, he said. Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes. “Our behavior is determined basically by our brain and our experience, and our experience can affect our brain as well,” Foulds told Salon in a phone interview. This study "casts doubt on some of the prior gateway theories because it seems like many of the same brain differences that are a risk factor for nicotine use are also a risk factor for alcohol and cannabis use.” The differences observed in the study were small but statistically significant within a large sample size close to 10,000 participants, Miller said. Specifically, those who initiated these substances before age 15 had larger overall brains and a thinner prefrontal cortex in certain regions compared to kids who didn’t initiate drug use. The prefrontal cortex is responsible for things like decision making and information processing, and some research has found that a thinner prefrontal cortex is associated with more impulsive behavior and risky decision making, which could be linked to kids initiating substance use, Miller said.  On the other hand, some of the measures observed in this study went in the opposite direction to what is observed in brain scans of people who have substance use disorder. For example, heavy drug use has been linked to smaller overall brain sizes, and heavy cannabis consumption has been linked to smaller hippocampal volumes. In this study, substance use was linked to larger overall brain sizes and larger hippocampal volumes. Importantly, this doesn’t mean that children with these differences in anatomy will inevitably go on to try drugs, said Dr. Bertha Madras, a psychobiology professor at Harvard Medical School, who was not involved with the study either. There are dozens of risk factors that influence whether kids use drugs, including genetics, accessibility to substances, and the prenatal environment.  It may be that some other factor is influencing the anatomical differences and drug use, like a predisposition to risky behaviors or teens’ perception of how harmful substance use is, Madras. “Integrating the whole picture would give us a much better view of what the risk factors for using drugs are and what the risk factors that are consequent to drug use are,” Madras told Salon in a phone interview. This analysis uses data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study, which was designed to follow a large group of children over many years to help determine the neurological origins and consequences of substance use. Miller said he plans to use the data to try and tease out what is behind these brain differences and whether they are due to genetics or potential environmental risk factors.  In October, another study using the ABCD dataset found that certain brain activity in childhood could predict substance use initiation and that this was associated with children’s exposure to pollution. “Understanding the complex interplay between the factors that contribute and that protect against drug use is crucial for informing effective prevention interventions and providing support for those who may be most vulnerable,” said Dr. Nora Volkow, the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse in a press release. Read more about drug policy

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.