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

Some dark chocolates contain heavy metals. Should you be concerned?

News Feed
Wednesday, July 31, 2024

An eight-year study conducted by researchers at George Washington University and ConsumerLab, a company that tests and evaluates health foods and supplements, found certain dark chocolates and cocoa products contain amounts of lead and cadmium that are above California’s strict regulations on the heavy metals.“The amount of lead that was found, in general, was not alarming,” said Leigh Frame, the co-lead author of the study and the executive director of the office of integrative medicine and health at George Washington University. “But most people probably don’t have a great handle on what their heavy metal exposure is.”The study’s findings are not a reason to stop eating dark chocolate, Frame said. Some studies suggest flavonoids found in dark chocolate may lower the risk of heart disease and high blood pressure.But these small exposures to heavy metals, plus other exposures in an individual’s diet, could amount to higher blood lead levels over time. “And that is something that we all need to be aware of,” Frame said.“I would not want someone to be afraid of chocolate. That would be the worst thing that could come out of the study to me,” she said. “Frankly, it’s a small contributor to our diet.”The factsConsumerLabs selected cocoa products to test largely using a ranked survey completed by thousands of respondents on the company’s website every year, the researchers write in the study.ConsumerLabs purchased the products and paid for them to be tested at two independent labs, Frame said. Researchers at George Washington University analyzed the results, without knowing the names and brands of the products that were tested.Forty-three percent of the 72 cocoa-containing products had amounts of lead that exceed California’s maximum allowable dose level for the heavy metal, which is 0.5 micrograms per day. Thirty-five percent of the products had amounts of cadmium that exceed California’s rules.Seventy of the 72 products tested contained amounts of lead lower than the Food and Drug Administration’s benchmark of 2.2 micrograms per day for children. The benchmark is set nearly 10 times lower than the amount of lead from food required to meet the marker the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention uses to identify high blood lead levels.Some samples had “much higher” levels of lead and other heavy metals detected; there was “a bit of variability” in dark chocolate and other cocoa products, Frame said. One sample tested had 3.13 micrograms of lead per serving, the highest detected in the study.The researchers say the heavy metals detected “may not pose any appreciable risk for the average person when consumed as a single-serving.”Jacob Hands, the co-lead author of the study and a medical student at George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, said the researchers chose California’s regulation for the analysis because it is a conservative estimate. Frame also said the state’s regulation is what is generally used in other studies.The study was published in the journal Frontiers in Nutrition on Wednesday.Hands is a contract researcher for Consumer Labs.BackgroundThe George Washington University study follows the findings of a 2022 investigation by Consumer Reports that detected cadmium and lead in all of the 28 dark chocolate bars tested, as well as follow-up testing of 48 cocoa-containing products in 2023.In response to questions about the GWU study, an FDA spokesperson said, “while the presence of cadmium and lead in chocolate has been the subject of considerable media attention, experts from around the world have found that chocolate is a minor source of exposure to these contaminants internationally.”Chocolate, or cocoa, has been historically used as a medicine to treat fatigue and improve digestion. And studies suggest flavonoids found in cocoa can lower the risk of heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes. But the type of chocolate matters; darker chocolate often contains higher amounts of cocoa and more flavonoids.Chronic exposure to lead and cadmium is associated with kidney dysfunction and other health problems. Infants, young children and pregnant people can be particularly vulnerable because prolonged lead exposure in early development has been associated with a higher risk of learning disabilities or lower IQ levels.Young children in the United States are eating and drinking far less lead than they did decades ago — from 43 micrograms per day in 1980, to around 1 microgram per day in 2016 — according to the FDA.However, lead contamination in food products remains a concern. In the fall, the FDA warned of “extremely high” levels of lead detected in three brand names of cinnamon applesauce puree pouches. And the agency continues to send public health alerts recommending that consumers stop using and dispose of certain ground cinnamon products contaminated with lead.Frame said the good news is kids generally don’t like eating dark chocolate. The darker the chocolate, the more the cocoa powder and the potential for higher amounts of lead, cadmium or other metals.“I don’t think we need to worry as much about kids,” Frame said.And cocoa powders — such as mixes used for hot chocolate — are often more akin to milk chocolate with less raw cocoa than dark chocolate, she said.What the industry saysChristopher Gindlesperger, the senior vice president of public affairs and communications for the National Confectioners Association, the trade organization for the candy industry in the United States, said chocolate and cocoa are safe to eat, and food safety and product quality “remain our highest priorities.”“Consumers understand that chocolate and candy are occasional treats and not center-of-the-plate foods,” Gindlesperger wrote in an email.Why are heavy metals in dark chocolate?Cadmium in the soil can transfer into a cacoa tree growing there, leading to a “natural contamination,” said Tewodros Godebo, an assistant professor of environmental health sciences at Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine.Lead, though, appears to be introduced during the production of cocoa products, not from the soil, but potentially during drying, processing or packaging, Godebo said.What other experts are sayingKatarzyna Kordas, an associate professor of epidemiology and environmental health at University of Buffalo, said in an email that the study’s findings demonstrate “not all chocolate or cocoa products are created equal.” Some contain more metal than others.The amount of a metal someone is exposed to is a function of how much of the contaminant is in the food, how much the person consumes and whether they’re eating on an empty or full stomach, Kordas said. “We tend to absorb proportionally more metals on an empty stomach,” she said.But the amount of lead or cadmium detected in the study is often below stringent reference values and that suggests “the level of concern may be low,” Kordas said.Godebo said California’s regulations on heavy metals are “very conservative,” making it difficult to translate what the amounts of cadmium or lead mean for the general population. People are exposed to metals every day, and other types of foods, vegetables and fruits can be more significant sources of heavy metals, he said.“Of course, we want a negligible amount of exposure,” Godebo said. “But, literally, it’s impossible.”In a study published in June, Godebo and other researchers at Tulane University tested 155 dark and milk chocolates for lead and other heavy metals and concluded eating one ounce of dark chocolate a day “poses no health concerns for adults.” The researchers also determined four of the chocolate bars tested had cadmium levels that could pose a risk to young children.“What we’ve found is that it’s quite safe to consume dark and milk chocolates,” Godebo said in a statement in June about the study.Should I eat dark chocolate?Frame said she continues to eat chocolate.People can eat a diverse diet of different foods to reduce any potential exposure to lead, or other heavy metals, from a part of their diet, Frame said.Anyone concerned about their exposure to lead, cadmium or other metals should ask their physician for a blood test, Frame said. “Then you’ll have a ground truth,” to determine whether relatively small exposures in your diet could be adding up to higher blood lead levels.“I think it’s pretty clear, actually, that having one ounce of chocolate a day is not detrimental,” Frame said. But people can be cognizant of how much they’re having and how often, she said.Frame said she eats chocolate every other day.“It makes it feel more like a treat,” she said.

Researchers discovered lead and cadmium in tested cocoa products, but the levels are not alarming, they said.

An eight-year study conducted by researchers at George Washington University and ConsumerLab, a company that tests and evaluates health foods and supplements, found certain dark chocolates and cocoa products contain amounts of lead and cadmium that are above California’s strict regulations on the heavy metals.

“The amount of lead that was found, in general, was not alarming,” said Leigh Frame, the co-lead author of the study and the executive director of the office of integrative medicine and health at George Washington University. “But most people probably don’t have a great handle on what their heavy metal exposure is.”

The study’s findings are not a reason to stop eating dark chocolate, Frame said. Some studies suggest flavonoids found in dark chocolate may lower the risk of heart disease and high blood pressure.

But these small exposures to heavy metals, plus other exposures in an individual’s diet, could amount to higher blood lead levels over time. “And that is something that we all need to be aware of,” Frame said.

“I would not want someone to be afraid of chocolate. That would be the worst thing that could come out of the study to me,” she said. “Frankly, it’s a small contributor to our diet.”

The facts

  • ConsumerLabs selected cocoa products to test largely using a ranked survey completed by thousands of respondents on the company’s website every year, the researchers write in the study.
  • ConsumerLabs purchased the products and paid for them to be tested at two independent labs, Frame said. Researchers at George Washington University analyzed the results, without knowing the names and brands of the products that were tested.
  • Forty-three percent of the 72 cocoa-containing products had amounts of lead that exceed California’s maximum allowable dose level for the heavy metal, which is 0.5 micrograms per day. Thirty-five percent of the products had amounts of cadmium that exceed California’s rules.
  • Seventy of the 72 products tested contained amounts of lead lower than the Food and Drug Administration’s benchmark of 2.2 micrograms per day for children. The benchmark is set nearly 10 times lower than the amount of lead from food required to meet the marker the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention uses to identify high blood lead levels.
  • Some samples had “much higher” levels of lead and other heavy metals detected; there was “a bit of variability” in dark chocolate and other cocoa products, Frame said. One sample tested had 3.13 micrograms of lead per serving, the highest detected in the study.
  • The researchers say the heavy metals detected “may not pose any appreciable risk for the average person when consumed as a single-serving.”
  • Jacob Hands, the co-lead author of the study and a medical student at George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, said the researchers chose California’s regulation for the analysis because it is a conservative estimate. Frame also said the state’s regulation is what is generally used in other studies.

The study was published in the journal Frontiers in Nutrition on Wednesday.

Hands is a contract researcher for Consumer Labs.

Background

The George Washington University study follows the findings of a 2022 investigation by Consumer Reports that detected cadmium and lead in all of the 28 dark chocolate bars tested, as well as follow-up testing of 48 cocoa-containing products in 2023.

In response to questions about the GWU study, an FDA spokesperson said, “while the presence of cadmium and lead in chocolate has been the subject of considerable media attention, experts from around the world have found that chocolate is a minor source of exposure to these contaminants internationally.”

Chocolate, or cocoa, has been historically used as a medicine to treat fatigue and improve digestion. And studies suggest flavonoids found in cocoa can lower the risk of heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes. But the type of chocolate matters; darker chocolate often contains higher amounts of cocoa and more flavonoids.

Chronic exposure to lead and cadmium is associated with kidney dysfunction and other health problems. Infants, young children and pregnant people can be particularly vulnerable because prolonged lead exposure in early development has been associated with a higher risk of learning disabilities or lower IQ levels.

Young children in the United States are eating and drinking far less lead than they did decades ago — from 43 micrograms per day in 1980, to around 1 microgram per day in 2016 — according to the FDA.

However, lead contamination in food products remains a concern. In the fall, the FDA warned of “extremely high” levels of lead detected in three brand names of cinnamon applesauce puree pouches. And the agency continues to send public health alerts recommending that consumers stop using and dispose of certain ground cinnamon products contaminated with lead.

Frame said the good news is kids generally don’t like eating dark chocolate. The darker the chocolate, the more the cocoa powder and the potential for higher amounts of lead, cadmium or other metals.

“I don’t think we need to worry as much about kids,” Frame said.

And cocoa powders — such as mixes used for hot chocolate — are often more akin to milk chocolate with less raw cocoa than dark chocolate, she said.

What the industry says

Christopher Gindlesperger, the senior vice president of public affairs and communications for the National Confectioners Association, the trade organization for the candy industry in the United States, said chocolate and cocoa are safe to eat, and food safety and product quality “remain our highest priorities.”

“Consumers understand that chocolate and candy are occasional treats and not center-of-the-plate foods,” Gindlesperger wrote in an email.

Why are heavy metals in dark chocolate?

Cadmium in the soil can transfer into a cacoa tree growing there, leading to a “natural contamination,” said Tewodros Godebo, an assistant professor of environmental health sciences at Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine.

Lead, though, appears to be introduced during the production of cocoa products, not from the soil, but potentially during drying, processing or packaging, Godebo said.

What other experts are saying

Katarzyna Kordas, an associate professor of epidemiology and environmental health at University of Buffalo, said in an email that the study’s findings demonstrate “not all chocolate or cocoa products are created equal.” Some contain more metal than others.

The amount of a metal someone is exposed to is a function of how much of the contaminant is in the food, how much the person consumes and whether they’re eating on an empty or full stomach, Kordas said. “We tend to absorb proportionally more metals on an empty stomach,” she said.

But the amount of lead or cadmium detected in the study is often below stringent reference values and that suggests “the level of concern may be low,” Kordas said.

Godebo said California’s regulations on heavy metals are “very conservative,” making it difficult to translate what the amounts of cadmium or lead mean for the general population. People are exposed to metals every day, and other types of foods, vegetables and fruits can be more significant sources of heavy metals, he said.

“Of course, we want a negligible amount of exposure,” Godebo said. “But, literally, it’s impossible.”

In a study published in June, Godebo and other researchers at Tulane University tested 155 dark and milk chocolates for lead and other heavy metals and concluded eating one ounce of dark chocolate a day “poses no health concerns for adults.” The researchers also determined four of the chocolate bars tested had cadmium levels that could pose a risk to young children.

“What we’ve found is that it’s quite safe to consume dark and milk chocolates,” Godebo said in a statement in June about the study.

Should I eat dark chocolate?

Frame said she continues to eat chocolate.

People can eat a diverse diet of different foods to reduce any potential exposure to lead, or other heavy metals, from a part of their diet, Frame said.

Anyone concerned about their exposure to lead, cadmium or other metals should ask their physician for a blood test, Frame said. “Then you’ll have a ground truth,” to determine whether relatively small exposures in your diet could be adding up to higher blood lead levels.

“I think it’s pretty clear, actually, that having one ounce of chocolate a day is not detrimental,” Frame said. But people can be cognizant of how much they’re having and how often, she said.

Frame said she eats chocolate every other day.

“It makes it feel more like a treat,” she said.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

The concern over GMOs isn’t about what you may think

There’s nothing inherently unsafe about genetically modified foods. It’s the potential herbicide exposure that should give you pause.

Should I worry about GMOs? Are they bad for my health?GMOs, or genetically-modified organisms, have been swept into the larger conversation about chemicals, antibiotics and additives in our food supply. But there’s nothing inherently unsafe about genetically modified crops. What should give you pause, instead, is the potential risk of herbicide exposure — which can be an indirect result of modern GMO farming.The most commonly grown GMO crops in the United States are soy and corn that are resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, which the International Agency for Research on Cancer has labeled a probable human carcinogen.Several studies have shown that consuming GMOs is not associated with elevated health risks, including cancer. But glyphosate use has risen dramatically in the United States since the 1990s, and we lack long-term epidemiological data about what this may — or may not — mean for our health. There is also some emerging data regarding glyphosate exposure, especially among younger children, worth considering.As we take into account what we do know, here’s my advice: GMOs are likely fine for adults to consume, especially if you minimize ultra-processed foods, which are generally linked to adverse health outcomes and are a common source of GMO corn and soy. For pregnant women and young children, it would be very reasonable to minimize consuming GMOs and ultra-processed foods whenever possible.What are GMOs?A GMO is an organism, such as a crop, whose genes have been selected for a superior trait. A GMO is not a modern concept. Farmers have been selectively breeding plants chosen for desired traits for thousands of years. The entire field of Mendelian genetics was born from experiments crossbreeding peas to learn about gene inheritance.For instance, have you ever found it odd that an eggplant, that large deep-purple blob, was named for an egg? It was selectively bred this way. The common eggplants of centuries ago were actually more like small white ovals.Of course, our modern techniques are very different: GMOs may undergo an accelerated process of gene engineering in a laboratory to insert a new gene from another organism into the DNA. Today, the most common traits that have been widely selected in GMOs are tolerance to herbicides and insect resistance.With these GMOs, rather than having to rely heavily on mechanical weeding, farmers have used increasingly larger amounts of herbicides that don’t harm their crops. As a result, measurable quantities of herbicides like glyphosate have been detected in GMO grains intended for our food, animal feeds and in some areas’ drinking water.What are the health risks with GMOs?Human studies that have linked glyphosate to cancers like Hodgkin’s lymphoma predominantly evaluated farmers with high levels of occupational exposure, not people exposed via GMO consumption in daily life.The National Academies of Medicine reviewed over 900 studies in 2016 on GMOs and did not find any evidence of elevated health risks, including cancer. But to be clear, that report (which is now almost 10 years old) acknowledged that we lack long-term epidemiological data about the indirect exposure to herbicides possibly associated with GMOs.Reassuringly, in 2021, the USDA conducted a study of over 10,000 randomly sampled foods across the country and found that more than 99 percent contained pesticide levels well below the safety thresholds set by the Environmental Protection Agency.Why are children more at risk?The evidence gets more complex for children, who are more developmentally vulnerable to toxins and stress. A large retrospective study published this January in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) looked at U.S. rural birth records between 1990 and 2013. Researchers from the University of Oregon found that babies with higher glyphosate exposure, particularly in the rural South and Midwest, were more likely to be born with lower birth weights — a change that they found occurred around the rollout of GMOs after accounting for confounders like use of other pesticides, local income, employment rates and demographics.The prospective studies are small and limited, but the findings still warrant pause: A 2021 study of 250 pregnant women in Puerto Rico — the largest study of its kind — found that prenatal exposure to glyphosate (measured objectively in urine samples) was associated with a 35 percent increased odds of preterm birth.What crops are allowed to be GMO?GMOs are not as ubiquitous as many think. There are only 11 approved GMO crops grown in the United States, including apples, potatoes and papaya. The list does not include crops like tomatoes, wheat and strawberries, for example. You can check out the full list here.Rarely, and under tight regulations, a new GMO enters the market: Last year for the first time a genetically engineered banana was approved in Australia and New Zealand to combat fungal disease.How do I know if a food has GMOs?To easily identify whether foods are GMOs, look for a non-GMO or organic label. Organic foods are defined, according to the USDA, by avoidance of synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, antibiotics and other farming practices like genetic modification.It bears noting that for the most part in the United States, there are no inherent nutritional differences between GMOs and their organic counterparts. Most people cannot distinguish GMOs in taste, and there have been a paucity of studies that have ever demonstrated a meaningful personal health benefit of organic foods among adults.What I want my patients to knowThe 2021 study from the USDA washed much of its fresh produce as part of standard procedures before testing. If you wash any fresh GMO produce before consumption, which many people do anyway, you’ll minimize (though perhaps not entirely eliminate), the risk of exposure to pesticides.

Food
Animals
Health

FEMA declines to test soil after California fires despite Newsom administration concerns 

Federal officials have declared they will not order soil sampling after completing debris removal on Los Angeles properties that succumbed to the region’s devastating fires earlier this year, rebuffing concerns raised by state officials about potential contamination.  California Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) administration last week appealed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in a bid...

Federal officials have declared they will not order soil sampling after completing debris removal on Los Angeles properties that succumbed to the region’s devastating fires earlier this year, rebuffing concerns raised by state officials about potential contamination.  California Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) administration last week appealed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in a bid to revive the once-routine testing. "As practice on all past major fire recoveries, we urge FEMA to conduct comprehensive soil sampling as part of the debris removal process at affected properties," Nancy Ward, director of the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), wrote in a letter to Curtis Brown, federal coordinating officer for FEMA Region 9. "Without adequate soil testing, contaminants caused by the fire can remain undetected." She warned that failing to implement such sampling could "expose individuals to residual substances during rebuilding efforts and potentially jeopardize groundwater and surface water quality." FEMA, however, has reaffirmed its decision to forgo the sampling and instead task the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) with eliminating waste and clearing the top 6 inches from ravaged properties without conducting follow-up soil tests. "The mission assignment USACE was given does not include soil testing," said Susan Lee, a spokesperson for the Army Corps, in an emailed statement. "The decision regarding soil testing is outside of USACE’s role, as it is not part of our assigned responsibilities for this disaster." Although FEMA has funded and conducted soil sampling at some of California's biggest wildfires over the past two decades, the federal agency changed its approach in 2020, Brandi Richard Thompson, a spokesperson for FEMA Region 9, told The Hill in an emailed statement. Based on lessons learned from past fires and in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), FEMA "stopped funding soil testing as a routine practice and adopted the 6-inch removal standard," Richard Thompson said.   These instructions by no means bar private individuals or state entities from conducting soil testing themselves, and scientists from the University of California and Loyola Marymount University have begun conducting soil sampling efforts themselves. Seth John, an associate professor of earth sciences at the University of Southern California who is working on the sampling, told The Hill in a recent interview that although he believes "it's always better to have more information," the lack of FEMA-funded soil sampling is not necessarily a cause for alarm. But local officials have expressed concern about the lack of federal involvement, as originally reported by the Los Angeles Times.  While FEMA's debris removal instructions align with similar guidelines set by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the stage agency also calls for an additional cleanup phase that involves further soil testing at burn sites. Wildfire cleanup efforts in the Golden State usually begin with a first phase focused largely on household hazardous waste removal, which was declared complete this week by the EPA.  Following a subsequent debris removal stage — cleanup of asbestos, concrete, metals and other waste — CalRecycle’s state guidelines indicate that the top 3 to 6 inches of soil should be cleared.  But those instructions stress, in bold type, that "after a fire, toxins like arsenic, lead, mercury, and chlorine seep into the top soil." The goals of testing are "to leave a property safe for families, children and pets to occupy," as well as "protect groundwater, wildlife and air quality." Echoing these concerns, Ward referred in her letter to FEMA to past incident data indicating "that without thorough testing, these materials can remain at depths exceeding 6 inches." She asked "that FEMA prioritize soil sampling as part of the recovery process," noting "the urgency of this matter" in enabling the safe return of residents to their homes. In response to Ward's requests, Brown wrote back that "FEMA has not funded soil testing on properties impacted by fires" over the past five years. He verified that up until 2018 — after California's historic and catastrophic Camp Fire — FEMA's policy involved clearing 3 inches of soil and sampling it, prior to digging up another 3 inches to test it again. "This practice was tedious, inefficient, and a barrier to timely clean up and recovery," Brown wrote, noting that positive results were typically linked to pollutants present in the soil prior to the fires. "FEMA’s position since 2020 has been to fund the removal of the full 6 inches of soil right away but not fund any further testing," he added. "To err on the side of caution, FEMA implemented the practice of removing the full 6 inches of soil, rather than 3." Any further excavation, Brown explained, would be "related to economic recovery and restoration activities” rather than to “public or environmental health concerns." While noting that soil testing would prolong recovery by months, Brown stressed that FEMA does not prevent others from engaging in such efforts. He added that California covered the costs for soil sampling following blazes in 2020 and 2021 that were declared disasters by the then-presidents. "We encourage the state to conduct soil testing if they wish to do so but are confident that our current practices speed up recovery while protecting and advancing public health and safety," Brown concluded. Richard Thomspon, the FEMA Region 9 spokesperson, explained that soil sampling was never "a universal practice" but that prior to 2020, the agency "conducted soil testing in certain wildfire recoveries." But upon consulting with the EPA and determining that contamination deeper than 6 inches was usually preexisting, the agency ultimately adopted its "streamlined approach beginning with the August 2020 California wildfires," she added.  One exception to this approach that Richard Thompson cited was in 2023 following the Lahaina, Hawaii, wildfires, which "burned through a densely developed urban area, with industrial and commercial zones covering over 20 percent of the burn area." "Because historical wildfire soil contamination data was lacking in the Pacific, FEMA approved targeted soil testing at the request of the Hawaii Department of Public Health," she said. Those tests only further cemented FEMA's approach, Richard Thompson explained, noting that the results confirmed that most pollutants detected at those depths were present before the blazes. John and other USC researchers started measuring lead levels in samples they gathered of roadside dust, playground sand and stormwater runoff near the Eaton Fire burn zone at the end of January as part of their effort to provide residents with general safety updates about potential exposures. In the heart of the burn zones, they detected lead concentrations in roadside dust that surpassed the EPA's regional screening thresholds for residential soils. But they found that playgrounds posed less of a concern, as lead levels in sandboxes remained low. John said that team has also identified high concentrations of lead and arsenic in stormwater, with the latter likely coming from wood rot treatment used in homes. After conducting super-high-resolution sampling throughout Altadena, the researchers obtained preliminary results that showed elevated lead levels adjacent to burn structures but no such issues "even a short distance outside of those areas,” according to John. In the coming months, the USC team intends to expand their measurements to include other heavy metals, while providing free lead samples to affected community members, he added. Another soil sampling effort is also being offered to residents of the Palisades and Eaton areas by researchers at Loyola Marymount University. Regarding lead contamination in particular, John explained that cleanup usually involves removing the top layer of soil, where most lead is localized, and replacing it with new material — pretty much in line with FEMA’s approach.  Nonetheless, John said he as a parent is "very aware that there's a huge amount of uncertainty and maybe even distrust of the process among people who live there." "Testing will make people feel much more comfortable with the situation," he continued. "But when it actually comes to the question of, 'Do we need testing in this situation from a scientific perspective?' I'd say maybe not." Julia Van Soelen Kim, a food systems advisor at the University of California Cooperative Extension, noted in an email "that urban soils have the potential for contamination even before a fire and urban fires also pose unique soil safety risks." With the disclaimer that she is a social scientist and not a soil scientist, Van Soelen Kim maintained that testing is considered "best practice before planting a food garden, regardless of whether a fire has taken place." "I absolutely do think there is good reason to test soil after an urban wildfire of this nature," she added. Backing up these assertions, John acknowledged the legitimacy in the perspectives of, "Why not just go ahead and test?" or, “Better safe than sorry.” "But testing also takes time," he said, noting the expensive nature of sampling for certain compounds. "There's some value in that information, and certainly value in having that information in terms of making people feel more comfortable," John added.

Food
Health
Nature

If You're Wondering How Microplastics Even Get In Your Food, Read This

Experts reveal what to look out for, from our water sources to the plastic that our food is wrapped in.

LauriPatterson via Getty ImagesMany of the animals we eat, like tuna, have microplastics in their flesh.Food contaminants are always a hot topic, as we consumers have a natural desire to know exactly what we’re putting in our bodies when we purchase, prepare and eat our groceries. Social media broadens the audience for these conversations and debates, and over the course of the past year, we saw one food safety subject rise to the top of the algorithm: microplastics.TikTok couldn’t stop talking about microplastics and why they should be avoided … but what, exactly, are microplastics? How do they get into our food, and what potential health consequences can arise as a result?We turned to a group of food scientists, physicians and food safety experts to get some answers, and they provided a full tutorial on these much-discussed particles.What are microplastics?“Microplastics are tiny plastic particles less than 5 millimeters in size, often invisible to the naked eye,” explained Dr. John La Puma, founder of ChefMD and Chef Clinic. To give some context for that size, Jessica Gavin, a certified food scientist located in Orange County, California, told us that microplastics are generally “about as small as a pencil eraser.”Gavin went on to say that microplastics are “solid particles made from synthetic polymers [that] do not dissolve or degrade naturally, persisting in the environment for a long time. They can either be manufactured to be small, such as the resin pellets found in various consumer products, or [can] result from the breakdown of larger plastic items.”An even smaller and sneakier version of these particles comes in the form of “nanoplastics, [which are] less than one micron wide, much thinner than human hair, and too tiny to be seen with the naked eye. These plastics vary in size, shape, and color and include different synthetic materials and chemical additives,” Gavin said.How do microplastics make their way into our food?So where do microplastics come from and how do they weasel their way into our food and water? La Puma said that microplastics “enter our food through various routes, including contamination of water sources, soil and air.”Gavin said that “microplastics primarily enter our food through environmental contamination, as plastics break down in places like landfills and leach into the soil and water where food is grown or caught. These particles can be found in various foods, including seafood, fish, crustaceans, salt, sugar, honey, bottled water and drinking water.”When environmental pollution gets into the food supply for animals, microplastics can be transferred to the humans who ultimately eat those animals. “Seafood can contain microplastics due to plastic that ends up in the ocean and gets ingested by sea life, often magnifying as larger sea animals consume smaller organisms. Some animals that humans consume, such as chickens and cows, may consume feed containing microplastics; other animals may ingest microplastics by ingesting smaller prey,” said Matt Allen, senior director of food advisory at the National Science Foundation.Allen also points out that plastic food packaging may contribute to microplastics entering the body. “Microplastics may also be present in ingredients used in food production and in food packaging, such as plastic wrappers or containers that can transfer microplastics into the food as they degrade or come into contact with food,” Allen said. However, according to Gavin, there’s a slight caveat to that concern: “Plastic is commonly used for packaging meat, fish, dairy and beverages, and there’s a potential for microplastics to be transferred to the food inside. However, the FDA states that there is insufficient evidence to confirm whether microplastics migrate from packaging into food and beverage.”Buena Vista Images via Getty Images"Beware of plastic-wrapped produce: plastic packaging often contains harmful chemicals,” said Dr. Amy Myers.What are the possible health consequences of consuming microplastics?When it comes to the question of whether microplastics can negatively affect our health after consumption, the simplest answer is that we just don’t know. “Consuming microplastics may cause health issues, although the full effects on humans are not completely understood. We still need more detailed studies and established safety guidelines to fully assess their impact,” Gavin told us. From La Puma’s perspective, the possible consequences involve the fact that microplastics are “active disruptors of our endocrine system, silent inflammation triggers, and potential long-term organ destroyers. They act as Trojan horses, carrying toxins and pathogens into our system.” The risks of microplastics may not be fully understood or documented, but Allen suspects that nanoplastics (the even smaller pieces of plastic) could be more harmful.Allen explained that even though your body can’t absorb the larger microplastic particles, they may carry chemicals that can be harmful to be exposed to. Worse yet, particles in the nano-size range can be absorbed by the body.“Current evidence suggests that these particles may be distributed throughout the body and have been found in the brain, placenta, veins and arteries and other organs,” Allen said. “The presence of these particles may cause inflammation and stress to the body leading to effects on the gut, immune system, nervous system, reproduction and cardiovascular system. Overall, the health effects associated with exposure to nano-sized plastic particles are not currently clear, but current evidence suggests significant concern.”How can we reduce the amount of microplastics that we ingest?While avoiding microplastics altogether may not be a realistic goal in this day and age, our experts insist that certain steps can be taken to limit the amount that you consume and to cut back on microplastics’ negative impact on the environment. “Embrace whole, unprocessed foods with a passion. Ultraprocessed, packaged items are not just nutritionally inferior; they’re potential microplastic delivery systems,” La Puma said.If you need to get fruits and vegetables at the grocery store and can’t swing by a CSA or farmers market, “beware of plastic-wrapped produce: plastic packaging often contains harmful chemicals. Bring cloth or mesh reusable produce bags to the store to avoid unnecessary plastic contamination,” recommended Dr. Amy Myers, a functional medicine physician, author and podcast host.Go Ad-Free — And Protect The Free PressThe next four years will change America forever. But HuffPost won't back down when it comes to providing free and impartial journalism.For the first time, we're offering an ad-free experience to qualifying contributors who support our fearless newsroom. We hope you'll join us.You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again. We won't back down from our mission of providing free, fair news during this critical moment. But we can't do it without you.For the first time, we're offering an ad-free experience. to qualifying contributors who support our fearless journalism. We hope you'll join us.You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again. We won't back down from our mission of providing free, fair news during this critical moment. But we can't do it without you.For the first time, we're offering an ad-free experience. to qualifying contributors who support our fearless journalism. We hope you'll join us.Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.Getting rid of plastic storage containers and kitchen tools can also help reduce the presence of microplastics in your body. “Switch to reusable bags, bottles, and containers instead of plastic ones. Use wood or silicone cutting boards to prevent microplastics from releasing while chopping. Store food in glass or steel containers to avoid chemical leaching from plastics, especially when dealing with hot foods. For drinking, choose glass or steel bottles over plastic,” Gavin said.Allen said that the growing awareness of microplastics could lead to legislation and regulations that make these tiny problematic specks less of a concern in the future: “In the coming years, new standards and government regulations related to microplastics will likely be developed and introduced that will force manufacturers, packagers and supply chains to consider the fate and risk of such contaminants from the factory to the dump.”In the meantime, follow Allen’s advice and “[abide] by the manufacturer’s directions when using plastic food equipment such as cutting boards, utensils and nonstick pans. Check the product label for specific end uses, temperature or food restrictions, and whether it has been reviewed and/or tested by an independent third party.” Allen advised not using items like takeout containers or plastic utensils with very hot foods or in a microwave or dishwasher since “the plastic may break down and migrate into food.”

Food
Water
Chemicals

In Hawai‘i, Restoring Kava Helps Sustain Native Food Culture

Earthy, bitter, and tingly on the tongue, kava—‘awa in Hawaiian—calms the body without dulling the brain. “The only thing it numbs is your mouth,” said Taesali, a Samoan American whose first name, aptly, means kava in Samoan. Kava, also known as Piper methysticum, is a perennial shrub with large, heart-shaped leaves. Its fibrous root, when […] The post In Hawai‘i, Restoring Kava Helps Sustain Native Food Culture appeared first on Civil Eats.

Last fall, Ava Taesali opened Kava Queen, O‘ahu’s only brick-and-mortar kava bar, after three years of building a loyal following for this traditional beverage at farmers’ markets in Honolulu. Located in the repurposed Waialua Sugar Mill, former home of a sugar industry giant, the establishment is surrounded by a mix of local businesses that includes a yoga studio, a surf shop, and a sewing collective. The eclectic space reflects the North Shore’s laid-back, community vibe—a perfect backdrop for sipping the Polynesian brew. “Kava is meant to bring people together,” said Taesali. Earthy, bitter, and tingly on the tongue, kava—‘awa in Hawaiian—calms the body without dulling the brain. “The only thing it numbs is your mouth,” said Taesali, a Samoan American whose first name, aptly, means kava in Samoan. Kava, also known as Piper methysticum, is a perennial shrub with large, heart-shaped leaves. Its fibrous root, when crushed and steeped in water and massaged to release its essence, produces a cloudy, cool infusion traditionally served in an apu, or coconut-shell cup. Consumed in the South Pacific for at least 2,000 years for pleasure, relaxation, and in cultural and spiritual ceremonies, the drink holds deep significance in both Hawaiian mythology and Polynesian identity. “This designation helps sustain Native culture, reassure public health, and encourage state food sovereignty.” Beyond its traditional ceremonial and social importance, kava’s calming effects have sparked new research into kavalactones, the plant’s active compounds known to reduce stress, as an anti-anxiety remedy. Studies have also found that the elixir may have broader medicinal potential, from anti-cancer benefits to treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. Despite these findings, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has yet to embrace these benefits. A longstanding federal advisory memorandum labels kava as an “unsafe” ingredient and classifies it as “an unapproved food additive,” citing unresolved health concerns including potential liver damage and cancer. The FDA’s Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) designation deems substances safe to use in foods and beverages, covering everything from staples such as salt and vinegar to certain food dyes and other controversial additives. However, the FDA has withheld GRAS status from kava, classifying it instead as a dietary supplement alongside vitamins, herbs, and probiotics, subjecting it to stricter labeling requirements and health warnings—as well as lower consumer demand. Beyond limiting kava’s mainstream acceptance, the cautious stance has also cast a shadow over its reputation, overshadowing its deep-rooted significance in Polynesian culture. Last year, however, Hawai‘i took matters into its own hands by labeling the root as GRAS. While states can’t overturn federal standards, they can set their own restrictions—California, for example, bans potassium bromate, a baking additive—or, as is the case here, make exceptions for certain substances. Ava Taesali pours kava into an apu at Kava Queen in Waialua. (Photo credit: Naoki Nitta) By adopting the FDA term for safe-to-consume ingredients, the decision honors the plant’s cultural legacy. It also aligns with the international Codex Alimentarius, the food safety standard of the World Health Organization (WHO), which recognized the safety of traditional kava preparations in 2020, citing their cultural significance to Native Polynesians. “This designation helps sustain Native culture, reassure public health, and encourage state food sovereignty,” said Kristen Wong, an information specialist for the Hawai‘i Department of Health (DOH). The Stigma Surrounding Kava Advocates blame the kava controversy on widespread adulteration of the ingredient. In 2002, Germany banned the substance due to reports of liver toxicity, which were later traced to extracts mixed with kratom, a Southeast Asian herb linked to liver damage and addiction. Though the national ban was eventually lifted, the stigma lingers. “There are so many misconceptions about kava,” Taesali said, adding that official recognition is key to changing the narrative. Kava has endured a long history of adversity, said Lakea Trask, a Hawaiian farmer and local activist who cultivates kava and other Native crops for Kanaka Kava, his family’s farm-to-table restaurant in Kailua-Kona, on the Big Island. The plant has weathered centuries of hardship, he notes, from missionaries suppressing its use during colonization to the shift toward large-scale monocultures that crowded out Indigenous staples. The GRAS stamp is a long-overdue validation, he said, of kava’s importance to Hawaiian agriculture and identity. As recognition grows, so have opportunities for small-scale farming initiatives and environmental restoration. By reviving Hawaiian self-sufficiency and healing the scars left by plantations, Trask said, “‘awa [presents] an opportunity to restore our sovereignty and our ancestral connection to the land.” A History of Resilience Polynesian settlers brought kava to Hawai‘i roughly 1,600 years ago, selecting it as a canoe plant—essential crops carried across the Pacific by ancestral voyagers—alongside taro (kalo), breadfruit (‘ulu), and other staples that fed, healed, and built thriving communities across the archipelago. Along with its ceremonial and medicinal role, kava was also an important social drink. Yet by the 19th century, kava was headed toward obscurity. The rise of plantation agriculture uprooted Native communities, replacing local food systems with sprawling sugarcane and pineapple fields. “It’s the same story as all of our Indigenous crops,” said Noa Kekuewa Lincoln, a University of Hawai‘i (UH) associate professor at the College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources and head of the Indigenous Cropping Systems Laboratory. Despite these challenges, kava’s ability to thrive in sun, shade, and diverse soils enabled it to persist, mainly in the wild. Forty years ago, Edward Johnston, a leading kava expert and co-founder of the Association for Hawaiian ‘Awa (AHA), stumbled on a hidden patch of kava deep in the Big Island’s Waipi‘o Valley. Struck by its calming properties, he began collecting and propagating different varieties in his back yard, eventually offering them for sale at the newly established Hilo Farmers Market. Since kava reproduces only through cuttings, not seeds, Johnston’s work has been vital to preserving Hawai‘i’s 13 known cultivars. Known as noble varieties, all Hawaiian strains contain balanced levels of kavalactones, the compounds responsible for kava’s calming effects. Through AHA, a non-profit promoting the cultural, educational, and sustainable use of kava, Johnston has helped safeguard these native plants and elevated their cultural significance. Edward Johnston walks through a field of kava in 1999. (Photo credit: Edward Johnston) Johnston’s efforts helped spark a kava comeback, riding the wave of the Hawaiian Renaissance, a late-1960s cultural movement to reclaim Native traditions, language, and sovereignty. The resurgence gained further traction in the 1990s with support from the Department of Defense’s Rural Economic Transition Assistance-Hawai‘i grants, which helped farmers shift from sugarcane plantations to diversified agriculture. The late Senator Daniel Inouye (D-Hawai‘i) championed the program amid the decline of the sugarcane industry, spurring about 200 acres of kava cultivation by backyard growers and commercial farms, according to Johnston. Demand for kava soared during this time, especially in Germany, where Hawaiian strains fetched a premium. In a 1998 newsreel, AHA co-founder Jerry Konanui urged farmers to seize the moment, highlighting that the raw kava prices had doubled to $10 a pound, presenting a sustainable source of supplemental income. But when the liver toxicity reports surfaced in 2000, “everything went downhill,” Johnston said. Germany’s 2002 ban left a lasting impact: Despite inclusion in the Codex Alimentarius in 2020, kava is still illegal in Poland, the United Kingdom, and a host of other countries. And in the U.S., the FDA’s 2002 advisory, which labels kava as an unapproved food additive with potential health risks, still rules, lumping traditional preparations together with processed products. A Growing Market Amid Regulatory Ambiguity With federal oversight of kava in a gray zone that allows its use as a supplement, kava bars have popped up across the country over the last decade. Currently, about 180 establishments cater to a growing thirst for the drink as a social tonic and alcohol alternative. As kava’s allure grows, so, too, have local restrictions. In Florida, the so-called “U.S. Kava Capital” and home to 75 kava venues and a small crop of farms, one county recently imposed limits on kava bars near schools (there are no state age regulations around kava consumption). And in New York City, officials shut down a cafe serving kava and kratom, calling the combination “dangerous.” Sampling Kava SafelyThe Hawai‘i Department of Health recommends these guidelines when trying kava: Choose Noble Strains: Always look for kava harvested from noble cultivars—Hawaiian kava is inherently noble—as these are the only strains designated as GRAS. While state production still remains in the hundreds of acres, according to Edward Johnston, several producers sell kava online. Stick to Traditional Preparations: Traditional aqueous extraction methods—using water or coconut water to prepare the beverage—are considered safe and follow long-established cultural practices. Avoid Chemical Extracts: Stay away from adulterated and concentrated kava products, including those made with ethanol and other organic solvents, which can lead to elevated kavalactone levels and increase health risks. Michigan, however, greenlit kava in 2023, becoming the first state to grant it GRAS status. “Michigan relies on the FDA to provide new information on GRAS products,” said a spokesperson for the state’s Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD), which issued the designation. But in this case, “MDARD believed the WHO document provided sufficient evidence” to confirm the safety of traditionally prepared kava. Soon after, Hawai‘i followed suit, citing the FDA’s “erroneous” classification of kava. The state’s health department invoked a federal exception that grants GRAS status to substances with a proven history of safe use before 1958—a milestone in food safety marked by the Food Additives Amendment. The state ruling recognizes noble kava cultivars brewed with water or coconut water as safe, while warning against alcohol-based extracts and processed products. Although studies have linked kava to elevated liver enzyme levels, research shows that most cases of liver damage involve concentrated extracts or products made with non-root parts, like leaves or stems, rather than traditional brews. Genetics also play a role: While nearly all Pacific Islanders have an enzyme that metabolizes kava safely, upwards of a fifth of Caucasians lack it, increasing their risk of liver toxicity when consuming adulterated kava. In an email to Civil Eats, an FDA spokesperson clarified that, absent GRAS status, kava can’t be used in foods and drinks and must be sold as a dietary supplement. Even though “this determination does not apply to kava steeped in water and consumed as food,” the agency’s warning still stands; “the cultural use of kava does not influence its safety assessment,” added the spokesperson, citing “data gaps” in the WHO evaluation. Yet, as U.H.’s Lincoln notes, by the FDA’s own definition, kava—safely consumed for millennia—should qualify as GRAS. Not recognizing the historical safety of traditional preparations amounts to “[an] erasure of indigenous Hawaiian identity,” he adds, and an act of “ongoing colonial repression.” Ultimately, the regulatory ambiguity creates inconsistent approaches for other agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). While the DEA doesn’t classify kava as a controlled substance, it lists the root alongside LSD and fentanyl on its Drugs of Abuse list, further muddling its legal status. Adding to the uncertainty, California echoed the FDA’s position last May by issuing its own caution in a consumer fact sheet. Harvesting ‘awa requires leaving the corm and lateral roots intact. (Photo credit: Kanaka Kava) The ambiguity is causing significant challenges for Rami Kayali, who owns two kava bars in California with plans to open a third—‘Awa Hou—in Honolulu this month. After six years of insuring his two mainland establishments, Kayali’s provider abruptly canceled coverage, citing the DEA scrutiny. Kayali has had to scramble, turning to pricey cannabis-industry insurance at nearly triple the cost. “It’s been a nightmare,” he said. Amid these challenges, Hawai‘i’s formal stance provides vital legal footing for the industry, said Trask of Kanaka Kava, at least in the islands. “To have some of those protections put on paper is important.” Yet those protections are weakly enforced. “We conduct investigations when notified,” a DOH spokesperson said, conceding that while state statutes require labeling and compliance, enforcement is largely reactive. “Blasphemous” kava extracts and adulterations are widely available, both on-island and online, said Trask, perpetuating misconceptions about “‘awa done traditionally,” prepared with just water or coconut water. Supporting Local and Sustainable Kava Production Nevertheless, the GRAS designation is opening new doors for kava entrepreneurs and farmers alike. A recent $70,000 state grant aims to boost sustainable kava production and reduce Hawai‘i’s reliance on food imports, which currently hovers at around 85 percent of the state’s total food supply. And the economic potential is clear: In Vanuatu, kava makes up 75 percent of exports, generating nearly $50 million a year for the remote South Pacific island nation. Hawai‘i’s noble kava varieties fetch premium prices—fresh “wet” kava can retail for $64 a pound—though local production remains “microscopic,” said Taesali of Kava Queen in O‘ahu. Her bar, like many in the U.S., serves mainly Fijian and Vanuatuan kava. Scaling up won’t be easy, as kava plants take a few years to establish, and the slow returns can deter farmers. Growers like Trask of the farm-to-table Kanaka Kava, however, are tackling these hurdles by creating regional hubs and kava farm networks. “We’re building a place-based community model of production,” Trask said, helping farmers grow cultivars suited to local microclimates, offering harvest support, and buying back crops in three to five years. For Trask, kava is also central to healing Hawai‘i’s post-plantation scars. Fertile rainforests were razed for sugarcane fields, then abandoned after the industry’s collapse in the 1990s. Now overrun with “acres and acres of pasture and eucalyptus,” the land faces threats from pests and wildfires. By integrating native trees such as breadfruit and morinda (noni) with kava, taro, and other canoe plants, “we’re rebuilding our agroforestry system,” he said. Doing so “restores pono,” he adds, using a Hawaiian expression for the reestablishment of balance in the soil, in biodiversity, and in cultural practices. Still, U.H,’s Lincoln is wary of kava becoming another commodity crop, where profits flow up, not down. “Hawai‘i is a state of small farms,” he said, with more than 90 percent measuring less than 50 acres. Aggregators and marketers tend to dominate supply chains, however, siphoning revenue and squeezing out small-scale growers. Kona coffee beans are a prime example: While beans retail upwards of $80 a pound, farmers, on average, earn just $2.25 per pound of cherries. Lincoln sees co-ops as a promising model. His wife, Dana Shapiro, heads the Hawaiʻi ʻUlu Cooperative, which has helped revitalize breadfruit as an island staple. Co-ops allow farmers to “increase their equity and power,” he said, through collective control over aggregation, processing, and marketing. That results in fairer prices, higher profits, and greater “‘āina”—land stewardship practices like agroforestry and crop rotation that nurture both the land and local food system. Trask echoes the sentiment. As demand for kava grows, restoring pono means honoring kava from soil to cup. “It’s about cultivating more farmers—and more [informed] consumers,” he said, to ensure that this ancient crop once again thrives. The post In Hawai‘i, Restoring Kava Helps Sustain Native Food Culture appeared first on Civil Eats.

Food
Activism
Business

Labour hopes to heal rift with farmers with public sector food targets

Hospitals, schools and prisons to be set target of sourcing half of all food from farms with high welfare standards, which should benefit British growersHospitals, schools and prisons are to be urged to buy more British food, as part of a government push to heal a rift with farmers over changes to inheritance tax, the Guardian understands.The environment secretary, Steve Reed, will tell the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) annual conference on Tuesday that the public sector is to be set a target of sourcing at least half of all food from farms with the highest welfare standards, which should benefit British growers and food producers. Continue reading...

Hospitals, schools and prisons are to be urged to buy more British food, as part of a government push to heal a rift with farmers over changes to inheritance tax, the Guardian understands.The environment secretary, Steve Reed, will tell the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) annual conference on Tuesday that the public sector is to be set a target of sourcing at least half of all food from farms with the highest welfare standards, which should benefit British growers and food producers.Reed has previously said that £5bn is spent each year on public sector catering contracts, and an overhaul of public procurement rules would mean that domestic produce would be prioritised over cheaper imports from abroad.The reforms also fulfil Labour’s manifesto commitment of ensuring that half of food purchased across the public sector should be “locally produced or certified to higher environmental standards”.Reed’s announcement comes amid the party’s efforts to reset relations with food producers and growers after the announcement that agricultural properties would be liable for inheritance tax, set out in October’s budget, sparking large-scale protests by farmers.An NFU spokesperson said: “Labour’s manifesto commitment to sourcing 50% of food in the public sector from the UK was welcome and NFU members at our conference next week will be pleased to hear how ministers intend to deliver on it. Given the numerous pressures being loaded on to UK farming this will be a welcome positive.”Reed will hope to receive a warmer reception at Tuesday’s NFU conference than in January, when his speech to delegates at the Oxford Farming Conference was punctuated by the blasts of tractor horns parked outside the venue by protestors.At the time, Reed said the government would start to monitor the origin of food bought by the public sector as part of efforts to help farmers get a “fairer share” of catering contracts.However, relations between the government and the farming community have soured further in recent days, after the NFU and other agricultural organisations reacted with “fury” when the Treasury dismissed their proposals aimed at softening the impact of the inheritance tax changes on farmers.Farming groups had suggested to ministers the use of a “clawback” mechanism, which would mean that those inheriting a farming business would only be eligible for paying inheritance tax if they decided to sell the business within a specific timeframe. They argued this would still raise revenue for the government, but would protect family farms from paying the tax.

Food
Government

Suggested Viewing

Swallowtail - An Apprenticeship Story

Swallowtail: An Apprenticeship Story follows six young aspiring farmers as they navigate the rollercoaster season of 2019-2020 in North Central Florida. The film centers on the thoughts and experiences of these apprentices who leave home to live at Swallowtail Farm and how the COVID-19 pandemic turned an already challenging learning experience into an unprecedented one. Throughout their journey, they reflect on issues of food security, sustainability practices, and community.

Agriculture
Food
Youth

El País de la Eterna Primavera (Land of the Eternal Spring)

San Francisco-based photojournalist Jason Henry (New York Times, Vice, Wall Street Journal) treks to Guatemala’s most infamous landfill, Teculután. Against the backdrop of the Sierra de las Minas mountains, Henry tries to maintain his composure as he shoots children digging through the garbage in search of shreds of sustenance in a monstrous heap of human and animal waste and burning ash. Surrounded by swarming flies and accompanied by writer Erik Maza (Baltimore Sun, Town & Country), Henry observes, “This is their playground.”

Waste
Food
Documentary

America Recycled

Two brothers ride recycled bicycles through the American South over two years, seeking radical locality amid rampant globalization. As they learn to survive on the road, several modern homesteading communities take them in, guiding them toward the west coast and turning their idea of the American Dream on its head.

Resources
Food
Documentary

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

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

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.