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.

Maggie Baird, Mother of Billie Eilish, Receives Environmental Award at Gala Event

News Feed
Saturday, March 15, 2025

ATLANTA (AP) — Maggie Baird, mother of chart-topping musicians Billie Eilish and Finneas, received the Superhero for Earth award Saturday from the Captain Planet Foundation at a gala event.Baird is the founder of the nonprofit Support + Feed, which works on food insecurity and environmental issues. Her group has an anchor presence in 11 U.S. cities and expanded partnerships in Europe, the United Kingdom and Australia.Baird told The Associated Press that she has been working on these issues for years, though her message is now amplified with the additional voices of her Grammy-winning children. “People need food. People need food every day and our climate is really in trouble and we've got to address our food systems,” Baird said. “As we work on our larger goals, we have these beautiful daily wins where we get to support people in just their struggle to just survive.”The Atlanta-based nonprofit Captain Planet Foundation works with young people on environmental issues around the world, supporting school gardens and other initiatives. More than 1.7 million children have participated in programs. The foundation was formed in 1991 and co-founded by media mogul Ted Turner.“I really admire this organization, Captain Planet, and I really appreciate their shining a light on what we do at Support + Feed — and to me that's really what matters,” Baird said. Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Maggie Baird, mother of musicians Billie Eilish and Finneas, and founder of the food insecurity-focused nonprofit Support+Feed, has received the Superhero for Earth award from the Captain Planet Foundation

ATLANTA (AP) — Maggie Baird, mother of chart-topping musicians Billie Eilish and Finneas, received the Superhero for Earth award Saturday from the Captain Planet Foundation at a gala event.

Baird is the founder of the nonprofit Support + Feed, which works on food insecurity and environmental issues. Her group has an anchor presence in 11 U.S. cities and expanded partnerships in Europe, the United Kingdom and Australia.

Baird told The Associated Press that she has been working on these issues for years, though her message is now amplified with the additional voices of her Grammy-winning children.

“People need food. People need food every day and our climate is really in trouble and we've got to address our food systems,” Baird said. “As we work on our larger goals, we have these beautiful daily wins where we get to support people in just their struggle to just survive.”

The Atlanta-based nonprofit Captain Planet Foundation works with young people on environmental issues around the world, supporting school gardens and other initiatives. More than 1.7 million children have participated in programs. The foundation was formed in 1991 and co-founded by media mogul Ted Turner.

“I really admire this organization, Captain Planet, and I really appreciate their shining a light on what we do at Support + Feed — and to me that's really what matters,” Baird said.

Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Mission to boldly grow food in space labs blasts off

The mission will explore new ways of reducing the cost of feeding an astronaut.

Mission to boldly grow food in space labs blasts offBBC NewsArtwork: The experiment will orbit the Earth for three hours before returning to Earth and splashing down off the coast of PortugalSteak, mashed potatoes and deserts for astronauts could soon be grown from individual cells in space if an experiment launched into orbit today is successful.A European Space Agency (ESA) project is assessing the viability of growing so-called lab-grown food in the low gravity and higher radiation in orbit and on other worlds.ESA is funding the research to explore new ways of reducing the cost of feeding an astronaut, which can cost up to £20,000 per day.The team involved say the experiment is a first step to developing a small pilot food production plant on the International Space Station in two years' time.Lab-grown food will be essential if Nasa's objective of making humanity a multi-planetary species were to be realised, claims Dr Aqeel Shamsul, CEO and founder of Bedford-based Frontier Space, which is developing the concept with researchers at Imperial College, London."Our dream is to have factories in orbit and on the Moon," he told BBC News."We need to build manufacturing facilities off world if we are to provide the infrastructure to enable humans to live and work in space".NASAAstronauts enjoy eating in zero gravity, but the freeze-dried food itself is not much fun to eatLab-grown food involves growing food ingredients, such as protein, fat and carbohydrates in test tubes and vats and then processing them to make them look and taste like normal food.Lab-grown chicken is already on sale in the US and Singapore and lab grown steak is awaiting approval in the UK and Israel. On Earth, there are claimed environmental benefits for the technology over traditional agricultural food production methods, such as less land use and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. But in space the primary driver of is to reduce costs.The researchers are doing the experiment because it costs so much to send astronauts food on the ISS - up to £20,000 per astronaut per day, they estimate. Nasa, other space agencies and private sector firms plan to have a long-term presence on the Moon, in orbiting space stations and maybe one day on Mars. That will mean sending up food for tens and eventually hundreds of astronauts living and working in space – something that would be prohibitively expensive if it were sent up by rockets, according to Dr Shamsul.Growing food in space would make much more sense, he suggests."We could start off simply with protein-enhanced mashed potatoes on to more complex foods which we could put together in space," he tells me."But in the longer term we could put the lab-grown ingredients into a 3D printer and print off whatever you want on the space station, such as a steak!"Lab-grown steak can be produced on Earth, but can it be created in space?This sounds like the replicator machines on Star Trek, which are able to produce food and drink from pure energy. But it is no longer the stuff of science fiction, says Dr Shamsul.He showed me a set-up, called a bioreactor, at Imperial College's Bezos Centre for Sustainable Proteins in west London. It comprised a brick-coloured concoction bubbling away in a test tube. The process is known as precision fermentation, which is like the fermentation used to make beer, but different: "precision" is a rebranding word for genetically engineered.In this case a gene has been added to yeast to produce extra vitamins, but all sorts of ingredients can be produced in this way, according to Dr Rodrigo Ledesma-Amaro, Director of the Bezos Centre."We can make all the elements to make food," says Dr Ledesma-Amaro proudly."We can make proteins, fats, carbohydrates, fibres and they can be combined to make different dishes."The brick-coloured "food" is grown in a small biorector, a mini-version of which has been sent into space A much smaller, simpler version of the biorector has been sent into space on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket as part of the ESA mission. There is plenty of evidence that that foods can be successfully grown from cells on Earth, but can the process be repeated in the weightlessness and higher radiation of space?Drs Ledesma-Amaro and Shamsul have sent small amounts of the yeast concoction to orbit the Earth in a small cube satellite on board Europe's first commercial returnable spacecraft, Phoenix. If all goes to plan, it will orbit the Earth for around three hours before falling back to Earth off the coast of Portugal. The experiment will be retrieved by a recovery vessel and sent back to the lab in London to be examined.The data they gather will inform the construction of a larger, better bioreactor which the scientists will send into space next year, according to Dr Ledesma-Amaro.The problem, though, is that the brick-coloured goo, which is dried into a powder, looks distinctly unappetising – even less appetising than the freeze-dried fare that astronauts currently have to put up with.That is where Imperial College's master chef comes in. Jakub Radzikowski is the culinary education designer tasked with turning chemistry into cuisine.Kevin ChurchImperial College's master chef has the job of making lab-grown chemicals into delicious dishesHe isn't allowed to use lab grown ingredients to make dishes for people just yet, because regulatory approval is still pending. But he's getting a head start. For now, instead of lab-grown ingredients, Jakub is using starches and proteins from naturally occurring fungi to develop his recipes. He tells me all sorts of dishes will be possible, once he gets the go-ahead to use lab-grown ingredients."We want to create food that is familiar to astronauts who are from different parts of the world so that it can provide comfort."We can create anything from French, Chinese, Indian. It will be possible to replicate any kind of cuisine in space."Today, Jakub is trying out a new recipe of spicy dumplings and dipping sauce. He tells me that I am allowed to try it them out, but taster-in-chief is someone far more qualified: Helen Sharman, the UK's first astronaut, who also has a PhD in chemistry.Kevin Church/BBC NewsBritain's first astronaut, Helen Sharman and I taste test what might be the space food of the futureWe tasted the steaming dumplings together. My view: "They are absolutely gorgeous!"Dr Sharman's expert view, not dissimilar: "You get a really strong blast from the flavour. It is really delicious and very moreish," she beamed."I would love to have had something like this. When I was in space, I had really long-life stuff: tins, freeze dried packets, tubes of stuff. It was fine, but not tasty."Dr Sharman's more important observation was about the science. Lab-grown food, she said, could potentially be better for astronauts, as well as reduce costs to the levels required to make long-term off-world habitation viable.Research on the ISS has shown that the biochemistry of astronauts' bodies changes during long duration space missions: their hormone balance and iron levels alter, and they we lose calcium from their bones. Astronauts take supplements to compensate, but lab-grown food could in principle be tweaked with the extra ingredients already built in, says Dr Sharman."Astronauts tend to lose weight because they are not eating as much because they don't have the variety and interest in their diet," she told me."So, astronauts might be more open to having something that has been cooked from scratch and a feeling that you are really eating wholesome food."

Microplastics Make It into Your Food through Plant Leaves

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

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

Get Ready for Expensive Tomatoes and Lots of Food Contamination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.