Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

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

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Op-ed: An open letter to the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner

News Feed
Tuesday, May 28, 2024

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is going through a major reorganization to improve efficiency and protect public health. A recent hearing in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability concluded that the agency stumbles from crisis to crisis, including drug shortages, tainted food and illicit tobacco scandals in recent years.Although crises such as the contamination of baby food with heavy metals like lead and mercury gain public attention, the scientific approach used by FDA to regulate chemical additives in food is much more opaque. While it largely flies under the public radar, the agency’s neglect to update its testing to reflect modern science and modern food chemical hazards is a decades-long crisis that impacts all of our health. The agency has fallen behind other nations’ testing and regulations and is not even following laws put in place nearly 70 years ago to keep us safe. We are calling on FDA Commissioner, Dr. Robert M Califf, to use the agency reorganization as an opportunity to overhaul its approach to chemicals in our food and put public health at the center of its work. How does the FDA evaluate the safety of food additives and contaminants?Recently, the FDA published a consumer update entitled, “Is food safe if it has chemicals?” In it, the agency says that it’s the amount of a chemical in food that determines its risk to our health. They use sodium as an example. While it largely flies under the public radar, the agency’s neglect to update its testing to reflect modern science and modern food chemical hazards is a decades-long crisis that impacts all of our health.We need sodium to live, but too much sodium can be bad, so they publish guidance on the safe level of sodium to be consumed each day. But many of the chemicals that wind up in our food are not required for us to live, such as bisphenols like BPA, phthalates or the group of chemicals known as PFAS or “forever chemicals”. In fact, many of these are not required for food production, but leach into food from packaging and equipment. FDA noncompliance The FDA discusses how they intentionally determine an “acceptable daily intake” for a chemical that includes a safety margin. The idea is that this safety margin is so conservative that it will always protect public health.However, we know chemicals in the diet can come from a variety of food sources and that different chemicals can have the same adverse effect. This is so well-known that the 1958 amendment to the Food, Drugs and Cosmetic Act of 1938 required that FDA evaluate the “cumulative effect of the substance in the diet, taking into account any chemically or pharmacologically related substance or substances in such diet.”Sixty-six years later and the FDA has never complied with this part of the law. A good example: its guidance for lead in baby food, in which they set the suggested (not required) limit to be 20 parts per billion. However, there is no safe blood level of lead, which hurts children’s brains, resulting in lower IQ and behavioral problems among other harmful effects.It’s not just lead: recently, the Dutch risk assessment agency reported that the combined exposure to lead, methyl-mercury, arsenic, polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs, polybrominated diphenyl ethers or PBDEs and fluoride were much more potent at reducing children’s IQ than any one of these chemicals alone.Similarly, the FDA continues to defend its ruling that current levels of BPA in food are safe despite the decision by the European Food Safety Authority, the EFSA, to reduce the “safe level” of BPA by 20,000 fold. The FDA defends its position by focusing on BPA as if it is the only chemical in foods that act like the female hormone estrogen. In contrast, it is well known that plastic food packaging contains a number of estrogen-like chemicals, like other bisphenols and phthalates, that can leach into foods.The failure of the FDA to comply with the 1958 amendment to food safety law is not just a violation of the law but presents a significant risk to American consumers. A citizen’s petition was filed with the agency in 2020 to attempt to cajole it into compliance. The FDA has never responded.Considering this, we wrote to Commissioner Califf to address this serious shortcoming of FDA’s Human Food Program. The Commissioner has not responded. The letter is re-printed below.March 11, 2024Robert M Califf, M.D., CommissionerUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationCc: James Jones, Ph.D., Deputy CommissionerFDA Human Foods Program Dear Commissioner Califf, We read with great interest your OpEd with Dr. Warraigh entitled, “Four steps toward meeting the challenge of chronic disease” (The Hill, 02/15/24). This is a particularly important issue considering that the United States is below average compared to peer economies in 9 health domains, including adverse birth outcomes, obesity and diabetes, heart disease and chronic lung disease. And this, as you point out, is despite US taxpayers spending nearly 18% of our GDP on healthcare.However, we are concerned that there was no mention of food-borne chemicals that are either added to food intentionally or that migrate into food from packaging or processing. The recent analysis by the New York Times of the failure of the food safety system that resulted in hundreds of children being poisoned by lead in applesauce illustrates in part how our system of food safety needs to be improved.More important to the issue of chronic disease is that of chemicals in the food supply that are being evaluated for safety in a one-by-one approach, rather than considering the “cumulative effect of the substance in the diet, taking into account any chemically or pharmacologically related substance or substances in such diet” as required by the 1958 amendment to the Food, Drugs, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. Recent studies demonstrate that the cumulative effect of Americans’ exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the food supply contributes to harmful health impacts including chronic disease, increasing healthcare costs in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually, as well as affecting quality of life. Importantly, the scientific evidence is sufficient to conclude that the cumulative effects of biologically related substances in the food supply contributes to chronic diseases such as obesity or diabetes. We urge you to consider it as a critical “fifth step” in meeting the challenge of chronic disease in the United States, one that the agency is already mandated to conduct.For example, a recent study contributed by the Dutch risk assessment agency (RIVM) in collaboration with Professor Andreas Kortenkamp, a world-leader in the analysis of cumulative risk, demonstrated that in 9 countries in the EU, their populations exceeded combined tolerable levels of exposure to a mixture of chemicals at median exposure levels. Thus, the traditional way of identifying a “Tolerable Daily Intake” using a chemical-by-chemical basis is clearly underestimating the cumulative risk of chemicals with similar structure or observable effects.Despite the 1958 amendment requiring the FDA to evaluate cumulative effects of chemically related and biologically related substances in the diet, the agency has never performed this analysis for any chemical additives. Moreover, the FDA has not responded to citizen petitions or Congressional queries asking for the FDA to comply with the spirit and letter of this law. It simply is past time that the Agency stop ignoring the law and incorporate cumulative risk assessments in their regulatory approaches.We ask that FDA form a committee of its Science Board including external experts to guide the agency as it addresses this shortcoming in its current safety assessment methods. When it passed the 1958 law, Congress recognized that chemicals, even ones that are not chemically related, may impact organs such as the thyroid and systems such as the cardiovascular with different mechanisms of action but cumulatively have a greater negative effect on the health of the American people.Finally, we are happy to meet with you to provide further information and insight or to contribute to the changes that need to be made in any way that we can.Sincerely,Linda S. Birnbaum, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., A.T.S.Scientist Emeritus and Former DirectorNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology ProgramScholar in Residence, Nicholas School of Environment, Duke UniversityR. Thomas Zoeller, Ph.D.Professor EmeritusUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is going through a major reorganization to improve efficiency and protect public health. A recent hearing in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability concluded that the agency stumbles from crisis to crisis, including drug shortages, tainted food and illicit tobacco scandals in recent years.Although crises such as the contamination of baby food with heavy metals like lead and mercury gain public attention, the scientific approach used by FDA to regulate chemical additives in food is much more opaque. While it largely flies under the public radar, the agency’s neglect to update its testing to reflect modern science and modern food chemical hazards is a decades-long crisis that impacts all of our health. The agency has fallen behind other nations’ testing and regulations and is not even following laws put in place nearly 70 years ago to keep us safe. We are calling on FDA Commissioner, Dr. Robert M Califf, to use the agency reorganization as an opportunity to overhaul its approach to chemicals in our food and put public health at the center of its work. How does the FDA evaluate the safety of food additives and contaminants?Recently, the FDA published a consumer update entitled, “Is food safe if it has chemicals?” In it, the agency says that it’s the amount of a chemical in food that determines its risk to our health. They use sodium as an example. While it largely flies under the public radar, the agency’s neglect to update its testing to reflect modern science and modern food chemical hazards is a decades-long crisis that impacts all of our health.We need sodium to live, but too much sodium can be bad, so they publish guidance on the safe level of sodium to be consumed each day. But many of the chemicals that wind up in our food are not required for us to live, such as bisphenols like BPA, phthalates or the group of chemicals known as PFAS or “forever chemicals”. In fact, many of these are not required for food production, but leach into food from packaging and equipment. FDA noncompliance The FDA discusses how they intentionally determine an “acceptable daily intake” for a chemical that includes a safety margin. The idea is that this safety margin is so conservative that it will always protect public health.However, we know chemicals in the diet can come from a variety of food sources and that different chemicals can have the same adverse effect. This is so well-known that the 1958 amendment to the Food, Drugs and Cosmetic Act of 1938 required that FDA evaluate the “cumulative effect of the substance in the diet, taking into account any chemically or pharmacologically related substance or substances in such diet.”Sixty-six years later and the FDA has never complied with this part of the law. A good example: its guidance for lead in baby food, in which they set the suggested (not required) limit to be 20 parts per billion. However, there is no safe blood level of lead, which hurts children’s brains, resulting in lower IQ and behavioral problems among other harmful effects.It’s not just lead: recently, the Dutch risk assessment agency reported that the combined exposure to lead, methyl-mercury, arsenic, polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs, polybrominated diphenyl ethers or PBDEs and fluoride were much more potent at reducing children’s IQ than any one of these chemicals alone.Similarly, the FDA continues to defend its ruling that current levels of BPA in food are safe despite the decision by the European Food Safety Authority, the EFSA, to reduce the “safe level” of BPA by 20,000 fold. The FDA defends its position by focusing on BPA as if it is the only chemical in foods that act like the female hormone estrogen. In contrast, it is well known that plastic food packaging contains a number of estrogen-like chemicals, like other bisphenols and phthalates, that can leach into foods.The failure of the FDA to comply with the 1958 amendment to food safety law is not just a violation of the law but presents a significant risk to American consumers. A citizen’s petition was filed with the agency in 2020 to attempt to cajole it into compliance. The FDA has never responded.Considering this, we wrote to Commissioner Califf to address this serious shortcoming of FDA’s Human Food Program. The Commissioner has not responded. The letter is re-printed below.March 11, 2024Robert M Califf, M.D., CommissionerUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationCc: James Jones, Ph.D., Deputy CommissionerFDA Human Foods Program Dear Commissioner Califf, We read with great interest your OpEd with Dr. Warraigh entitled, “Four steps toward meeting the challenge of chronic disease” (The Hill, 02/15/24). This is a particularly important issue considering that the United States is below average compared to peer economies in 9 health domains, including adverse birth outcomes, obesity and diabetes, heart disease and chronic lung disease. And this, as you point out, is despite US taxpayers spending nearly 18% of our GDP on healthcare.However, we are concerned that there was no mention of food-borne chemicals that are either added to food intentionally or that migrate into food from packaging or processing. The recent analysis by the New York Times of the failure of the food safety system that resulted in hundreds of children being poisoned by lead in applesauce illustrates in part how our system of food safety needs to be improved.More important to the issue of chronic disease is that of chemicals in the food supply that are being evaluated for safety in a one-by-one approach, rather than considering the “cumulative effect of the substance in the diet, taking into account any chemically or pharmacologically related substance or substances in such diet” as required by the 1958 amendment to the Food, Drugs, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. Recent studies demonstrate that the cumulative effect of Americans’ exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the food supply contributes to harmful health impacts including chronic disease, increasing healthcare costs in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually, as well as affecting quality of life. Importantly, the scientific evidence is sufficient to conclude that the cumulative effects of biologically related substances in the food supply contributes to chronic diseases such as obesity or diabetes. We urge you to consider it as a critical “fifth step” in meeting the challenge of chronic disease in the United States, one that the agency is already mandated to conduct.For example, a recent study contributed by the Dutch risk assessment agency (RIVM) in collaboration with Professor Andreas Kortenkamp, a world-leader in the analysis of cumulative risk, demonstrated that in 9 countries in the EU, their populations exceeded combined tolerable levels of exposure to a mixture of chemicals at median exposure levels. Thus, the traditional way of identifying a “Tolerable Daily Intake” using a chemical-by-chemical basis is clearly underestimating the cumulative risk of chemicals with similar structure or observable effects.Despite the 1958 amendment requiring the FDA to evaluate cumulative effects of chemically related and biologically related substances in the diet, the agency has never performed this analysis for any chemical additives. Moreover, the FDA has not responded to citizen petitions or Congressional queries asking for the FDA to comply with the spirit and letter of this law. It simply is past time that the Agency stop ignoring the law and incorporate cumulative risk assessments in their regulatory approaches.We ask that FDA form a committee of its Science Board including external experts to guide the agency as it addresses this shortcoming in its current safety assessment methods. When it passed the 1958 law, Congress recognized that chemicals, even ones that are not chemically related, may impact organs such as the thyroid and systems such as the cardiovascular with different mechanisms of action but cumulatively have a greater negative effect on the health of the American people.Finally, we are happy to meet with you to provide further information and insight or to contribute to the changes that need to be made in any way that we can.Sincerely,Linda S. Birnbaum, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., A.T.S.Scientist Emeritus and Former DirectorNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology ProgramScholar in Residence, Nicholas School of Environment, Duke UniversityR. Thomas Zoeller, Ph.D.Professor EmeritusUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst



The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is going through a major reorganization to improve efficiency and protect public health.

A recent hearing in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability concluded that the agency stumbles from crisis to crisis, including drug shortages, tainted food and illicit tobacco scandals in recent years.

Although crises such as the contamination of baby food with heavy metals like lead and mercury gain public attention, the scientific approach used by FDA to regulate chemical additives in food is much more opaque.

While it largely flies under the public radar, the agency’s neglect to update its testing to reflect modern science and modern food chemical hazards is a decades-long crisis that impacts all of our health. The agency has fallen behind other nations’ testing and regulations and is not even following laws put in place nearly 70 years ago to keep us safe.

We are calling on FDA Commissioner, Dr. Robert M Califf, to use the agency reorganization as an opportunity to overhaul its approach to chemicals in our food and put public health at the center of its work.

How does the FDA evaluate the safety of food additives and contaminants?


Recently, the FDA published a consumer update entitled, “Is food safe if it has chemicals?” In it, the agency says that it’s the amount of a chemical in food that determines its risk to our health. They use sodium as an example.

While it largely flies under the public radar, the agency’s neglect to update its testing to reflect modern science and modern food chemical hazards is a decades-long crisis that impacts all of our health.

We need sodium to live, but too much sodium can be bad, so they publish guidance on the safe level of sodium to be consumed each day.

But many of the chemicals that wind up in our food are not required for us to live, such as bisphenols like BPA, phthalates or the group of chemicals known as PFAS or “forever chemicals”. In fact, many of these are not required for food production, but leach into food from packaging and equipment.

FDA noncompliance 


The FDA discusses how they intentionally determine an “acceptable daily intake” for a chemical that includes a safety margin. The idea is that this safety margin is so conservative that it will always protect public health.

However, we know chemicals in the diet can come from a variety of food sources and that different chemicals can have the same adverse effect. This is so well-known that the 1958 amendment to the Food, Drugs and Cosmetic Act of 1938 required that FDA evaluate the “cumulative effect of the substance in the diet, taking into account any chemically or pharmacologically related substance or substances in such diet.”

Sixty-six years later and the FDA has never complied with this part of the law. A good example: its guidance for lead in baby food, in which they set the suggested (not required) limit to be 20 parts per billion.

However, there is no safe blood level of lead, which hurts children’s brains, resulting in lower IQ and behavioral problems among other harmful effects.

It’s not just lead: recently, the Dutch risk assessment agency reported that the combined exposure to lead, methyl-mercury, arsenic, polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs, polybrominated diphenyl ethers or PBDEs and fluoride were much more potent at reducing children’s IQ than any one of these chemicals alone.

Similarly, the FDA continues to defend its ruling that current levels of BPA in food are safe despite the decision by the European Food Safety Authority, the EFSA, to reduce the “safe level” of BPA by 20,000 fold. The FDA defends its position by focusing on BPA as if it is the only chemical in foods that act like the female hormone estrogen. In contrast, it is well known that plastic food packaging contains a number of estrogen-like chemicals, like other bisphenols and phthalates, that can leach into foods.

The failure of the FDA to comply with the 1958 amendment to food safety law is not just a violation of the law but presents a significant risk to American consumers. A citizen’s petition was filed with the agency in 2020 to attempt to cajole it into compliance. The FDA has never responded.

Considering this, we wrote to Commissioner Califf to address this serious shortcoming of FDA’s Human Food Program. The Commissioner has not responded. The letter is re-printed below.


March 11, 2024
Robert M Califf, M.D., Commissioner
United States Food and Drug Administration
Cc: James Jones, Ph.D., Deputy Commissioner
FDA Human Foods Program

Dear Commissioner Califf,

We read with great interest your OpEd with Dr. Warraigh entitled, “Four steps toward meeting the challenge of chronic disease” (The Hill, 02/15/24). This is a particularly important issue considering that the United States is below average compared to peer economies in 9 health domains, including adverse birth outcomes, obesity and diabetes, heart disease and chronic lung disease. And this, as you point out, is despite US taxpayers spending nearly 18% of our GDP on healthcare.

However, we are concerned that there was no mention of food-borne chemicals that are either added to food intentionally or that migrate into food from packaging or processing. The recent analysis by the New York Times of the failure of the food safety system that resulted in hundreds of children being poisoned by lead in applesauce illustrates in part how our system of food safety needs to be improved.

More important to the issue of chronic disease is that of chemicals in the food supply that are being evaluated for safety in a one-by-one approach, rather than considering the “cumulative effect of the substance in the diet, taking into account any chemically or pharmacologically related substance or substances in such diet” as required by the 1958 amendment to the Food, Drugs, and Cosmetic Act of 1938.

Recent studies demonstrate that the cumulative effect of Americans’ exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the food supply contributes to harmful health impacts including chronic disease, increasing healthcare costs in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually, as well as affecting quality of life.

Importantly, the scientific evidence is sufficient to conclude that the cumulative effects of biologically related substances in the food supply contributes to chronic diseases such as obesity or diabetes. We urge you to consider it as a critical “fifth step” in meeting the challenge of chronic disease in the United States, one that the agency is already mandated to conduct.

For example, a recent study contributed by the Dutch risk assessment agency (RIVM) in collaboration with Professor Andreas Kortenkamp, a world-leader in the analysis of cumulative risk, demonstrated that in 9 countries in the EU, their populations exceeded combined tolerable levels of exposure to a mixture of chemicals at median exposure levels. Thus, the traditional way of identifying a “Tolerable Daily Intake” using a chemical-by-chemical basis is clearly underestimating the cumulative risk of chemicals with similar structure or observable effects.

Despite the 1958 amendment requiring the FDA to evaluate cumulative effects of chemically related and biologically related substances in the diet, the agency has never performed this analysis for any chemical additives. Moreover, the FDA has not responded to citizen petitions or Congressional queries asking for the FDA to comply with the spirit and letter of this law. It simply is past time that the Agency stop ignoring the law and incorporate cumulative risk assessments in their regulatory approaches.

We ask that FDA form a committee of its Science Board including external experts to guide the agency as it addresses this shortcoming in its current safety assessment methods. When it passed the 1958 law, Congress recognized that chemicals, even ones that are not chemically related, may impact organs such as the thyroid and systems such as the cardiovascular with different mechanisms of action but cumulatively have a greater negative effect on the health of the American people.

Finally, we are happy to meet with you to provide further information and insight or to contribute to the changes that need to be made in any way that we can.

Sincerely,

Linda S. Birnbaum, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., A.T.S.
Scientist Emeritus and Former Director
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program
Scholar in Residence, Nicholas School of Environment, Duke University

R. Thomas Zoeller, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
University of Massachusetts Amherst

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Our Best Food Justice Reporting of 2024

In 2024, for example, we wrote about the often-overlooked food angle in the Land Back Movement, which aims to return land to tribal communities. We also brought you stories about farmworkers pushing for wage, heat, and labor protections, and showcased the efforts of people like Gail Taylor and Jim Embry, who have spent years working […] The post Our Best Food Justice Reporting of 2024 appeared first on Civil Eats.

Civil Eats has focused on food justice since our inception in 2009. Rare for the media landscape, we regularly report on the food system’s disproportionate impact on people of color and immigrant communities, and we are one the few outlets dedicated to covering the unique food-related issues facing Indigenous communities. We also strive to cultivate perspectives from people of color, as reporters, op-ed contributors, and sources in our reporting. In 2024, for example, we wrote about the often-overlooked food angle in the Land Back Movement, which aims to return land to tribal communities. We also brought you stories about farmworkers pushing for wage, heat, and labor protections, and showcased the efforts of people like Gail Taylor and Jim Embry, who have spent years working to change the food system and provide greater access for all. Here are our best food justice stories of 2024. The Land Back Movement Is Also About Foodways When Native peoples’ land was stolen, they lost important hunting and fishing grounds and myriad places to gather and prepare food. Now, the Land Back movement is helping communities regain access to both food and land. From Civil Rights to Food Justice, Jim Embry Reflects on a Life of Creative Resistance The veteran food-systems organizer says, “within agriculture [is] where we have the most profound need for change, and the most powerful fulcrum point for social transformation of all other human institutions.” Florida Banned Farmworker Heat Protections. A Groundbreaking Partnership Offers a Solution. The Fair Food Program offers the strongest, legally binding protocols to keep people safe when politicians fall short. Yupik subsistence whalers from the Alaska town of Gambell, parting the ice as they tow a bowhead whale to shore. (Photo credit: Jim Wickens) For This Alaska Town, Whaling Is a Way of Life The PBS documentary ‘One with the Whale’ explores the importance of subsistence hunting and gathering in a Yupik village—and what happens when mainlanders misunderstand it. The Shrimp on Your Plate Has a Dark History Shining a light on India’s exploited shrimp workers, the spread of avian flu, and the big banks undermining climate goals. Strawberry Farmworkers Fight for a Living Wage Picking strawberries is one of the lowest-paid, most brutal jobs in agriculture. A new report argues for a better path forward that benefits everyone, including the growers.  Ira Wallace (left) and Sariyah Benoit sit together in Spelman College’s Victory Garden. (Photo credit: Heirloom Gardens Project) Oral History Project Preserves Black and Indigenous Food Traditions The Heirloom Gardens Project records the stories of elders and honors both long-held expertise and culturally meaningful foods. A US Court Found Chiquita Guilty of Murder in Colombia. What Does the Ruling Mean for Other U.S. Food Corporations Abroad? The case marks the first time a U.S. court held a corporation liable for human rights abuses committed in another country. In Brazil, a Powerful Law Protects Biodiversity and Blocks Corporate Piracy The country’s genetic heritage law aims to compensate Indigenous peoples for their knowledge of the plants and seeds that many US food and agribusiness companies use to develop profitable products. Farmworkers Push Kroger’s Shareholders for Heat and Labor Protections The Coalition of Immokalee Workers, a Florida worker rights organization, has repeatedly asked Kroger to join its Fair Food Program, which has the strongest heat protections in the nation. On Cape Cod, the Wampanoag Assert Their Legal Right to Harvest the Waters Not everyone respects that right. But the Wampanoag are determined to continue, saying their work is an essential expression of 12,000 years of heritage, sovereignty, and lifeways. Labor Protections for Immigrant Food Workers Are at Stake in the 2024 Election A Biden administration policy shields immigrants who report on workplace abuses. It could face an uncertain future—and so could visa policies. Op-ed: Food Security Is Urgently Needed in Black Rural Appalachia A food justice advocate who grew up near this mountainous region explains how Black communities here struggle to access healthy food, and lays out ways to build local food systems that reach everyone. Luz Gallegos, executive director of TODEC, an immigrant advocacy organization, during a heat awareness education outreach in 2023. Hemet, CA. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images) Farmworker Challenges, Solidarity Emphasized as Threat of Mass Deportations Looms Results of a historic farmworker tribunal, an anti-monopoly roadmap for Trump 2.0, and more. A Black-Led Agricultural Community Takes Shape in Maryland An urban farm trailblazer begins building a Black agrarian corridor in rural Maryland, fostering community and climate resilience. Land access was the first step. Black Earth: A Family’s Journey from Enslavement to Reclamation In North Carolina, a Black farmer purchased the plantation where his ancestors were enslaved—and is taking back his family’s story, his community’s health, and the soil beneath his feet. The Mashpee Wampanoag Work With a Cape Cod Town to Restore Their Fishing Grounds If the plan succeeds, it will help rebuild wetlands and food sources for the tribe, once largely excluded from environmental decision-making. The post Our Best Food Justice Reporting of 2024 appeared first on Civil Eats.

Food
Agriculture
Climate

Workers in Saudi Arabia say Amazon failed to compensate them for labor abuses: ‘They played a game against me’

Thirty-three of 44 current and former contract workers who paid large recruiting fees say they didn’t receive refunds after working within the company’s Saudi operations In February, one of the world’s richest employers, Amazon, announced it had refunded nearly $2m to more than 700 overseas workers who had been forced to pay big recruiting fees to get work at the company’s warehouses in Saudi Arabia.It was a rare win for migrant laborers, a class of vulnerable workers who are often targeted for deceptive recruiting tactics and other abuses. One Nepali laborer said he was so shocked when a refund from Amazon appeared in his bank account that he stayed up much of the night, rechecking his account balance on his phone. Continue reading...

In February, one of the world’s richest employers, Amazon, announced it had refunded nearly $2m to more than 700 overseas workers who had been forced to pay big recruiting fees to get work at the company’s warehouses in Saudi Arabia.It was a rare win for migrant laborers, a class of vulnerable workers who are often targeted for deceptive recruiting tactics and other abuses. One Nepali laborer said he was so shocked when a refund from Amazon appeared in his bank account that he stayed up much of the night, rechecking his account balance on his phone.But not all of the migrants who had worked for Amazon in Saudi Arabia are happy with the online retailer’s efforts to make things right. Many say they never got any reimbursement from the company.Thirty-three of the 44 current and former Amazon contract workers interviewed for this story said they haven’t received reimbursement from the company – even though they had worked within the company’s Saudi operations and had paid large recruiting fees.Several workers from Nepal who didn’t receive refunds said they feel doubly mistreated by being exploited as part of their work at Amazon warehouses and then by not getting the restitution the company promised.“In Saudi, many people asked questions about our recruitment fees. Amazon and other organizations also asked questions. But they haven’t reimbursed money yet,” said Hari Prasad Mudbari, a Nepali laborer who paid roughly $1,500 in recruiting fees and other costs to land a job as a contract worker at an Amazon warehouse in Saudi Arabia. “Now I feel like they played a game against me.”In a statement in response to questions for this story, Amazon said it has arranged reimbursement for another 151 workers since its announcement in February and that it is continuing to work to identify and pay workers who qualify for compensation.“These are complex processes that take time, and we’re doing our best to expedite reimbursement,” Amazon spokesperson Margaret Callahan said in the written statement. “We’re also grateful to the workers who have participated throughout this process and shared their experiences. Our priority remains the safety and well-being of workers.”Santosh Biswakarma, a worker from Nepal who hasn’t been reimbursed for the roughly $1,700 in recruiting costs he paid to get work at an Amazon warehouse in Saudi Arabia, said the delays in compensating workers are unacceptable.“If Amazon wanted to give us the money back, they could have done it right away,” he said. “It’s a big, rich company. They could do it immediately.”‘Your name is not on the list’Amazon employs 1.5 million people around the globe. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos – the second richest person in the world – has said he wants to make Amazon the “Earth’s best employer”. The company says it strives to “ensure that the products and services we provide are produced in a way that respects human rights”.The complaints from migrant workers from Nepal and other Asian countries come as US Amazon workers represented by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters have launched a national strike – and weeks after Black Friday worker actions in more than 20 countries protested the company’s labor and environmental practices.The complaints about Amazon’s Saudi operations first came to light more than a year ago.In October 2023 a joint reporting partnership – including the Guardian US, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, NBC News and Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism – revealed the stories of more than 50 migrant laborers who said they were tricked by recruiting agencies in Nepal and then suffered under unfair conditions at warehouses operated by Amazon in Saudi Arabia.The Guardian US and its partners reported at the time that independent recruiters in Nepal had required them to pay recruiting fees – ranging from roughly $830 to $2,300 – that far exceeded what’s allowed by Nepal’s government and run afoul of American and United Nations standards.Most of the workers said the recruiters in Nepal falsely promised they would work directly for Amazon. Instead, these workers said, they ended up working for Saudi labor supply firms that placed them in short-term contract jobs at Amazon warehouses, then siphoned away much of their wages.“Amazon is successful, but what about its workers?” Mudbari said. “There is a dark side behind its success. They could have hired us directly. We were interviewed, passed the exams to join the job. They should have increased our salary. They didn’t give a fair salary.”In response to the media partners’ investigation and a separate investigation by the human rights group Amnesty International, Amazon said it was “deeply concerned” that some of its contract workers in Saudi Arabia were not treated with “the dignity and respect they deserve”.Amazon worked with a human rights consulting group based in London, Impactt, to contract workers and ask them about their recruiting fees. In February, Amazon revealed that it had paid out $1.9m to workers from Nepal, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and other countries.Amazon is successful, but what about its workers? There is a dark side behind its successUS law and UN standards say that workers should not be required to pay recruiting fees – it should be up to the employer to pay the recruiting firms. Amazon’s own standards – which apply not only to the company itself but also to contractors, recruiters and others involved in its supply chains – say “workers may not be charged fees at any point in the recruitment process”.Several workers from Nepal said Amazon staffers and others asked them about their recruiting fees and related expenses, giving them hope they might get refunds. But after arriving home to Nepal with no further information and a long wait, they have been left with frustration and lost hopes.Prakash Raya, a Nepali who worked for Amazon in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, spent more than $1,600 to cover recruiting fees and other costs. He has no idea why some workers have received money and why others – including him – haven’t.“How did they determine eligibility? I don’t know,” Raya said. “Amazon should return my fees.”When Raya heard that some of his co-workers had received reimbursements, he reached out to Impactt, the consulting firm that helped Amazon arrange the refunds. In a voice message sent to Raya, an Impactt staffer told him: “Your name was not in the list, so we couldn’t send money to you. We can ask Amazon, but it’s up to them to make a decision … If Amazon approves, you may get money. But we cannot guarantee that.”Months later, Raya still hasn’t received any reimbursement.Callahan, the Amazon spokesperson, said the process of getting payments to workers still owed reimbursements has been complicated by the fact that many workers have gone back to Nepal and other countries and in some cases have changed their phone numbers or their home addresses.The media partners tracked down scores of workers for this story and previous stories by finding them on Facebook or getting referrals from their co-workers.High interestAmazon said in February that it calculated the reimbursements by taking into account a variety of factors, including the fees workers reported paying, inflation and changes in exchange rates.But current and former workers who did receive reimbursements for their recruiting fees said the company’s reimbursement formula left out an important factor: nearly all of the workers had to borrow money at high rates to cover the recruitment fees they had been required to pay.They said their poverty was so severe – and the recruiting fees were so exorbitant – that the only way for most of them to pay the fees was to borrow from village lenders that charge sky-high rates.Most of the workers interviewed for this story said they paid between 24% and 48% annual interest for their loans. Three said they paid between 10% and 18% and two said their interest rates were over 55%.One of the workers who received a refund, Binod Ghimire, said he had taken out a loan of nearly $1,700 to pay his recruitment costs. Because of the loan’s 36% interest rate, he said, he had to shell out $2,570 to pay off his loan.But Amazon reimbursed him just over $1,600, according to a document from Impactt that Ghimire shared with the Guardian US.“It’s not full compensation,” he said.Shree Niwash Kumar Ram, who worked for Amazon in Saudi Arabia from 2021 to early 2023, said he paid 48% interest on the loan he took out to pay his recruiting costs, but that additional burden wasn’t included in the $2,450 reimbursement Amazon sent him.Amazon’s Callahan said that in determining workers’ reimbursements, the company did take into account the interest costs they incurred on their loans.Ram, Ghimire and two other workers said Amazon representatives who asked them about their recruitment fees never asked them about the interest rates they paid on their loans. Ghimire said he volunteered details about his loan charges without being asked, but the reimbursement he ultimately received from Amazon clearly didn’t reflect those costs.Other issuesBeyond recruiting fees and loan costs, workers interviewed for this story also said they were disappointed Amazon failed to acknowledge and compensate them for other kinds of unjust treatment that they said they suffered.Many workers describe, for example, arriving in Saudi Arabia with little money in their pockets and then having to wait days or even weeks with no work and no pay.Twenty-four workers interviewed for this story said that they waited between three days to four weeks to begin work. To buy food, they said, they had to get loans from the labor supply companies that acted as a middleman between them and Amazon. After they started work, the food loan payments were deducted from their wages.Things were even worse, workers said, when Amazon laid off large numbers of the migrant workers when customer orders slowed – or fired them individually for lapses such as pulling the wrong products off shelves or using a personal cell phone in the warehouse. After these terminations, they said, they received no wages or food allowance. Some were stuck for weeks or months waiting for their labor supply company to place them back with Amazon or find some other employer for them in Saudi Arabia.Callahan, the spokesperson, said the reimbursements took into account periods when the workers were not working or being paid.She added that Amazon has worked to improve practices going forward, doing more than 30 audits of its labor vendors in Saudi Arabia, with plans for more in the future. She said the company also worked with the firms to improve housing and food quality for contract workers.‘Pain is same for all’Two of the workers who were featured in the media partners’ articles – Momtaj Mansur and Surendra Kumar Lama – received large reimbursements from Amazon.Both are now back home in Nepal. Both said they were pleased to get the reimbursements from Amazon, but said they suffered greatly before they got the payments.Lama returned home from Saudi Arabia sick and was unable to work. With no way to repay the loan and support his family, he sent his wife to work in the United Arab Emirates.“Had Amazon paid this money some months earlier, I wouldn’t have sent my wife to the UAE,” he said. “But I didn’t have any other way.”Mansur said money lenders pressured his family to repay the loans that he took out to cover the stiff fees he had to pay to get to – and leave – Saudi Arabia. His brother couldn’t participate in school exams due to the lack of money. His grandfather’s hernia surgery was postponed. Having no other options to ward off the moneylenders, he said, he sold a patch of land.Mansur said Amazon should “give the money back to all other workers. Wherever they work, whichever country they’re from, whatever work they do, if they’ve paid unnecessary fees to get a job, repay their money. Whatever nationality they are, the pain is the same for all.”

Food
Government
Technology

Opinion: Weight-loss drugs are great, but real food still matters

We ultimately also must address the root cause of the global obesity crisis: our broken food system.

Groundbreaking weight-loss drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy have understandably generated a lot of excitement, bringing hope to the hundreds of millions of people grappling with obesity. When combined with a healthier diet and exercise, these drugs, which suppress appetite, deliver an average 10% reduction in body weight that can be sustained for years.With more than two-thirds of adults in the United Kingdom and nearly three-quarters in the United States classified as overweight or obese — a health crisis that costs national economies billions of dollars annually — physicians and policymakers could be forgiven for embracing these drugs as a panacea. President Biden’s administration, for example, recently proposed requiring Medicare and Medicaid to cover the costs of weight-loss drugs, which would expand access for millions of Americans. But addressing obesity requires much more than a technological fix.We ultimately also must address the root cause of the global obesity crisis: our broken food system.The alarming rise in obesity over the past 30 years is not simply a byproduct of higher living standards or more sedentary lifestyles. The primary factor appears to be the transformation of our food environment, which has fundamentally altered both the types of food we consume and our eating habits.In recent years, scientists and health experts have increasingly focused on foods high in fat, sugar and/or salt, which drive unhealthy dietary habits. Companies have reshaped the food system to produce ultraprocessed, hyperpalatable and highly profitable foods, leading people to snack more, eat larger portions and prepare fewer meals themselves. In the U.K., for example, the snack market has boomed while the time spent preparing meals has sharply declined.These changes haven’t just fueled the rapid increase in consumption of salty, fatty, sweet foods. They have also led to a surge in meat consumption, especially in Europe and North America, where meat-heavy diets have become common.Beyond the heightened risk of heart disease and related health conditions, excessive meat consumption has had devastating effects on the climate and biodiversity. Research shows that animal-based foods generate twice the greenhouse gas emissions of plant-based alternatives. Just as health experts urge us to reduce our intake of salt, fat and sugar, climate scientists consistently emphasize the importance of curbing meat and dairy consumption to keep global warming within safe limits.In an effort to prevent a lasting change in people’s eating habits, the meat industry is seeking technological fixes to cut greenhouse emissions. For example, funding for research on cutting farm emissions — such as feed additives designed to reduce methane levels in cows’ burps — has increased markedly.Such solutions are particularly attractive to governments reluctant to introduce measures that influence consumer behavior. Fearful of opposition from the Big Food lobby and wary of accusations of overreach, policies like sugar taxes or meat taxes are deemed political hot potatoes to be avoided at all costs.But the overlapping crises our broken food system is fueling — from the billions of dollars spent each year on diet-related health problems to the environmental degradation pushing our planet to its limits — cannot be wished away or fixed with technological tweaks. Instead, what is needed is a major shift in dietary habits toward foods that nourish both people and the environment.To this end, the Eat-Lancet Commission — comprising the world’s leading nutrition and sustainability experts — advocates consuming a diet rich in fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains and plant-based proteins while reducing consumption of animal proteins, dairy and sugars. Taken together, these recommendations offer a clear blueprint for ensuring health and sustainability.It is unrealistic to expect consumers — conditioned by food environments designed for profit rather than human or environmental health — to drive this transition on their own. With unhealthy foods widely available and aggressively marketed, many consumers struggle to moderate their food intake, and in some cases they even develop addictive behaviors.Governments and food manufacturers must take proactive measures to reshape these environments, such as expanding the agendas of campaigns planned to take aim at reducing the consumption of salt, fat and sugar to also take aim at meat, thereby encouraging people to eat more plant-based whole foods and meat alternatives.Another potential solution would be to extend some nations’ bans on promotions for unhealthy foods to cover meat products. Requiring food companies to report on the types of food they sell, including salty, fatty and sweet foods and the ratio of plant-based to animal proteins, would also help. These measures would encourage businesses to prioritize healthier, more sustainable options over less nutritious ones.None of this is to suggest that the new generation of weight-loss drugs cannot benefit individuals living with obesity. For those trapped in a cycle of poor health, treatments such as Ozempic and Wegovy could even save lives, and efforts to make these treatments widely available are a welcome step.But it is essential that we recognize that this approach merely interrupts one mechanism of obesity rather than eliminating the underlying pathology. Defusing the time bombs of ill health and environmental catastrophe requires fast, decisive action to remake our dysfunctional food system.Emily Armistead is interim executive director of Madre Brava, a research and advocacy group.

Food
Crisis
Business

A deadline looms: Will New York invest in better food for public institutions?

"We cannot realize more positive health outcomes if our food system remains broken"

As the holiday season fast approaches, a different kind of deadline looms large in New York State: The future of the Good Food NY Bill. Advocates, farmers and policymakers are calling on Governor Kathy Hochul to sign the legislation into law before a Dec. 24 deadline, a move they argue could reshape the state’s food systems and public institutions for good, while also bolstering rural economies.  The Good Food NY Bill proposes sweeping changes to how public institutions — like schools, correctional facilities, hospitals and senior centers — procure food. Currently, the state’s procurement law requires these institutions to award contracts to the “lowest bidder,” or the supplier offering the lowest price, as long as they meet minimum qualifications. This is meant to ensure efficient use of funds and prevent favoritism, however, the approach often sidelines critical factors like food quality, ethical labor practices and local economic benefits. It also means that small-scale and local producers are often undercut by large out-of-state industrial suppliers.  The bill would allow municipalities to pay up to 10% more for New York-produced food, making it easier for small and mid-sized farms to compete with out-of-state suppliers.  Farmers, who were integral to drafting the legislation, see this as a game-changer. "Knowing where our food comes from, nutritional content and how it was produced helps us make informed decisions about what we choose to eat," said Katie Baildon, Policy Manager at Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York, in a statement.  Baildon continued: “NOFA-NY has strongly supported the Good Food NY bill, underscoring that its passage would enable public institutions more flexibility in exercising their buying power, for example, by buying produce from local farms. As an organization of NY-based organic and regenerative farmers and gardeners, we believe that how our food is produced matters for our health and wellbeing, our environment and our local economies and that public institutions should be allowed to account for these impacts when making procurement decisions." This is a point echoed by Jessica Gilbert-Overland, the co-founder of the Good Food Buffalo Coalition.  “Our public institutions should be able to prioritize spending tax dollars on food aligned with public values, rather than propping up companies that sell cheap food and are responsible for perpetuating unjust, unsustainable, and inhumane food systems,” she said.  Supporters say the Good Food NY bill aligns with existing state initiatives, including Nourish NY and the 30% New York State Initiative, which incentivize schools to source a portion of their food locally. The bill also supports broader goals in the NY Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act by encouraging climate-smart agricultural practices such as improving soil health and reducing pesticide use. State legislators, including Senator Michelle Hinchey and Assembly Majority Leader Crystal Peoples-Stokes, highlight the bill’s potential to make New York a national leader.  “Our Good Food NY bill will make New York the first state in the country to lead the way with a blueprint for values-based food procurement that prioritizes healthy, locally-sourced food to feed community members across our schools, hospitals and all public institutions,” Hinchey said in a written statement. “By signing this bill into law, Governor Hochul can help us create new market opportunities for New York farmers and set the stage for a more sustainable food system that exemplifies how the decisions we make about where our food comes from can strengthen our state economy and create healthier communities.”  Peoples-Stokes says the Good Food NY Bill succeeds in “moderniz[ing] antiquated public food procurement processes.”  “This bill provides economic opportunities to struggling New York farms, especially those operated by historically under-represented individuals in farming,” she continued. “Access to healthy and nutritious food is critical to our communities' collective health and I call on Governor Hochul to sign this bill into law.”  Critics of the current system argue that it prioritizes cost over everything else, often excluding smaller producers who cannot compete on price alone. The Good Food NY Bill seeks to level the playing field by introducing a values-based procurement model that factors in local economies, environmental sustainability and workforce fairness. Farmers already participating in programs like the Good Food Purchasing Program, which centers values such as equity and accountability, are well-positioned to meet the bill’s benchmarks. Francis Yu, co-director of the Catskills Agrarian Alliance, noted that the legislation would be particularly impactful for Black, Indigenous, and other farmers of color who have historically been excluded from institutional markets. "We cannot realize more positive health outcomes if our food system remains broken and lacks an embedded value system." “Local producers accessing institutional markets are a vital component of a vibrant food system and regional economy,” Yu said. Beyond economic and environmental benefits, the bill’s supporters argue that it could have far-reaching effects on public health. “The quality of our food continues to change and not always in ways that are favorable to the public and certainly not for those who struggle with food insecurity and who reside in under-invested communities,” said Allison Dehonney, a Buffalo-based farmer and executive director of Buffalo Go Green. “Adding a value system that is more equitable, inclusive, and has a focus on nutrition is the first step in connecting the dots between the food system and health outcomes. We cannot realize more positive health outcomes if our food system remains broken and lacks an embedded value system.” Labor advocates also see the bill as a crucial tool for ensuring fair treatment of workers throughout the food supply chain. Christina Spach, food campaigns director at the Food Chain Workers Alliance, stressed the importance of passing the legislation without diluting its provisions. “Lifting barriers to prioritize good food providers in public food contracts provides valuable tools for municipalities, workers and community partners,” she said. With just days left before the deadline, the pressure is mounting on Governor Hochul to act. Advocates are rallying in Albany and across the state, emphasizing that the legislation represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to align public food purchasing with New York’s values. For now, the fate of the bill — and the vision for a better food system in New York — rests in the governor’s hands. Read more about this topic

Food
Health
Indigenous

Watchdog warns Defra and Ofwat they could face court over sewage dumping

Environment Agency also served notice after investigation found failures to comply with lawThe government, its water regulator and the Environment Agency could all be taken to court over their failure to tackle sewage dumping in England after a watchdog found failures to comply with the law.An investigation by the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) found Ofwat, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Environment Agency (EA) all failed to stop water companies from discharging sewage into rivers and seas in England when it was not raining heavily. The OEP was set up in 2020 to replace the role the European Union had played in regulating and enforcing environmental law in the UK. Continue reading...

The government, its water regulator and the Environment Agency could all be taken to court over their failure to tackle sewage dumping in England after a watchdog found failures to comply with the law.An investigation by the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) found Ofwat, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Environment Agency (EA) all failed to stop water companies from discharging sewage into rivers and seas in England when it was not raining heavily. The OEP was set up in 2020 to replace the role the European Union had played in regulating and enforcing environmental law in the UK.The law permits water companies to spill sewage only during exceptional circumstances such as extreme weather, but in reality human waste is routinely dumped in waterways even when it is not raining. Sewage is spilled into rivers and seas because in the UK there are combined sewage overflows (CSOs) into which water runoff from roads, sewage from homes and businesses, and “grey water” such as that from baths and washing machines all combine.When this volume becomes too much and risks backing up into people’s homes, it is instead spilled into rivers and the sea. Water companies have failed over the years to update their sewage systems to stop this from happening, and the regulator and government both have legal duties to ensure the companies spill sewage only under extreme circumstances.Helen Venn, the chief regulatory officer at the OEP, said: “The core issue identified in our investigation is the circumstances in which the regulatory system allows untreated sewage discharges to take place. We interpret the law to mean that they should generally be permitted only in exceptional circumstances, such as during unusually heavy rainfall. This is unless an assessment of the CSO concludes that the costs to address the issue would be disproportionate to the benefits gained.“We will decide next steps when we have considered the responses to these decision notices. That could include court action.”The OEP investigation followed the submission of a formal complaint two years ago by the campaign group WildFish.Guy Linley-Adams, the in-house solicitor for WildFish, said: “What the OEP’s announcement has clarified is that much of the storm sewage pollution that is plaguing English rivers would not be occurring had government and regulators done their jobs properly. The Environment Agency must secure compliance with the 1994 regulations, which means it needs urgently to review the unlawful permits it has given to water companies to bring them into line with the law.”Defra, Ofwat and the EA have each been sent a notice by the OEP outlining the findings and saying what steps each needs to take to put matters right. They have two months to respond and confirm whether they will take the steps required; if they do not do so, the watchdog could take them to court.The investigation found Defra failed to comply with the law by drafting guidance for water companies and regulators that did not reflect the true legal extent of their duties not to stop sewage being spilled, and failing to make enforcement orders when waste was being dumped.It also found Ofwat was failing to comply with the law as the regulator was not cracking down hard enough on water companies. The notice served said Ofwat was “failing to take proper account of environmental law with regards to duties on sewerage companies and its duty to make enforcement orders” and “failing to exercise its duty under environmental law to make enforcement orders”.Ofwat is due to announce on Thursday how much water bills can rise by over the five years from next April.The EA failed to comply with environmental law in three different ways, according to the OEP investigation. These include failing to take proper account of environmental law in devising guidance relating to permit conditions, setting permit conditions that were insufficient to comply with environmental laws and failing to exercise permit review functions in relation to discharges from CSOs. This meant the agency was found to be too lax in allowing water companies to spill sewage; they could not do so without a permit issued by the agency and the EA was allowed to review or revoke these if they were being inappropriately used.An EA spokesperson said:“We recognise regulation of the water industry needs to improve, which is why we are transforming our approach with more people, powers and data alongside better training for our staff. This is ensuring we have a water system fit for people and the environment. We’ve also made significant progress in addressing the issues identified by the OEP and are consulting on updates to our permitting approach and regulatory framework for storm overflows.”A spokesperson for Ofwat said: “We are actively taking steps to remedy the issues the OEP has identified. We will continue to prioritise our enforcement investigation into all wastewater companies which started in 2021 to ensure that companies are meeting their environmental obligations.”Defra was also contacted for comment.The government has also announced that water companies will be forced to double compensation for customers who experience tap water outages, sewage floods, boil water notices or low water pressure. Consumers will be automatically paid up to £2,000 under the new scheme.This year, tens of thousands of homes in Brixham were left without clean drinking water after the parasite cryptosporidium was found in the supply. Many were told to boil water before using it for a month. Water companies have been accused of failing to properly compensate those who face these disruptions to their supply and damage from sewage flooding their homes.

Food
Government
Water

Suggested Viewing

Together We Grow

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

Social Justice
Food
Agriculture

Better Bites with Bugs

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

Agriculture
Food

Voice of Vanilla

In the rainforests of Madagascar, vanilla offers hope to farmers hindered by the relentless tide of poverty and cyclones. How will the women responsible for vanilla cultivation weather the storms that threaten their livelihoods? Join us on this journey to uncover the truth behind one of the world’s most beloved spices and to support the women farmers at the heart of the vanilla industry.

Social Justice
Food
Business

Voices of Transition

Voices of Transition is an enthusiastic documentary on farmer- and community-led responses to food insecurity in a scenario of climate change, peak oil, and economic crisis. Concrete examples from Cuba, France, and the United Kingdom tell of a future society where our monoculture deserts will be restored to living soil, where fields will be introduced into our cities, and where independence from oil will help us live a richer, more fulfilling life.

Agriculture
Food
Climate

Sockeye Salmon. Red Fish

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

Animals
Food
Extinction

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

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

CONTACT US

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

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