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

How to clean before, during and after norovirus

The highly contagious stomach bug calls for “enhanced precautions” — the highest level of cleaning.

Norovirus, a gastrointestinal illness so severe it has earned the evocative sobriquets “winter vomiting disease” and “two-bucket disease,” inspired by the vomiting and diarrhea (often simultaneous!) associated with the bug, is on the rise. In addition to sheer grossness, norovirus is notable for its resistance to many cleaning agents, including alcohol-based hand sanitizers.Subscribe for unlimited access to The PostYou can cancel anytime.Subscribe“It belongs to a group of small, non-enveloped viruses that can be resistant to some cleaning products,” says Callum Couser, a research and development operations manager at Reckitt, the maker of Lysol.Norovirus calls for what are known as “enhanced precautions” when it comes to cleaning and disinfecting. “This is a germ that is highly contagious, difficult to kill, and can survive for weeks on surfaces. You need to clean and disinfect surfaces to prevent reinfection, and you should wear gloves while cleaning,” says Jessica Ek, the senior director of digital communications at the American Cleaning Institute (ACI). Here’s what you need to know to keep you and your family safe from norovirus.The first thing to clean: Your handsWashing your hands is one of the absolute best ways to protect yourself against illness, and this is especially true of norovirus. Here’s how to do it the right way:Wet your hands with clean, running water of any temperature; you do not need to use painfully hot water for hand washing to be effective.Apply soap and lather your hands, including the backs, the space between your fingers, and under your fingernails, for at least 20 seconds. Humming “Happy Birthday to You” twice serves as an easy way to time out the 20 seconds.Rinse the soap off using clean, running water. Dry your hands well, either with a clean towel or an air dryer.It is important to note that hand sanitizer cannot take the place of hand-washing when it comes to this virus. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, hand sanitizer “does not work well against norovirus.” If using hand sanitizer provides psychological comfort to you, you may use it in addition to hand washing, but the CDC says it is not a substitute.Cleaning and disinfecting are often conflated, but they are actually different things — and the distinction is particularly important when norovirus comes calling. Cleaning refers to the removal of unwanted contaminants like dirt or grease, whereas “disinfecting is irreversibly inactivating pathogens (microorganisms that may cause infections and disease) including bacteria, viruses and fungi,” Ek says. To put it another way, cleaning removes messes from surfaces, and disinfecting eliminates microorganisms, including viruses (like norovirus) and bacteria (like E. coli or salmonella), using products that are specifically labeled disinfectants.Not all disinfectants work on every type of microorganism, so it is crucial that you consult the manufacturer’s guidelines on the packaging to ensure a disinfectant is effective against norovirus. Additionally, the Environmental Protection Agency has an online tool, List G: EPA’s Registered Antimicrobial Products Effective Against Norovirus, that allows you to search for disinfecting products that the agency has vetted for use on norovirus; List G includes brand and product names, as well as the recommended contact time and the surface types on which the disinfectant can be used.As an alternative to commercial disinfectants, “steam cleaning can also help reduce the germs on soft surfaces,” Ek says. To disinfect mattresses, upholstered furniture, or carpet that have been exposed to norovirus, steam-clean them to 170 degrees Fahrenheit for five minutes or 212 degrees for one minute.Disinfect the right wayAfter identifying a disinfectant that is formulated for norovirus, it is also critical that you use the product correctly. The biggest mistake people make when it comes to disinfecting, Ek says, is not following directions on the products. “The label will have all the information you need to use the product effectively and safely,” she says. “When people skip reading the directions, they usually miss two key points.”The first, she says, is to clean the surface first: “Unless you are using a cleaning disinfectant, you need to clean and then disinfect so that the disinfectant can reach the germs in order to kill them.”The second is to allow enough contact or dwell time. “When disinfecting a surface, it needs to stay wet for the entire contact time noted on the label, which could be several minutes,” Ek says. If you wipe it off too early or don’t use enough product, you may think the surface is disinfected when it isn’t because the product didn’t have time to work.”Up your ‘level of laundry’If you or someone else in your household has been sick with norovirus, you will need to change the way you do laundry, incorporating “enhanced precautions” into your regular routine. These steps are outlined in the ACI’s guide to laundry levels. (Norovirus is considered the highest level; by comparison, the coronavirus is medium, calling for “extra steps” when doing laundry.)The additional precautions and steps to take when washing clothing, bedding, towels, etc. used by someone with norovirus include:Wear gloves when handling dirty laundry used by someone with norovirus and wash your hands thoroughly after removing and disposing of the gloves.Wash items as soon as possible; if you are unable to wash items immediately, bag them up in a plastic bag (rather than putting them in the hamper) until you are able to do laundry.Wash infected clothes, sheets, towels, etc. separately from other items.Avoid shaking laundry when handling it, which can spread germs.Use the hottest water and heat drying settings and cycle length that the items can tolerate. If your washer offers a sanitize setting, use it.Use a laundry sanitizer, like Lysol Laundry Sanitizer or Clorox Laundry Sanitizer, in addition to regular laundry detergent. Using a deep cleaning detergent, such as Tide Hygienic Clean, is also recommended for use against norovirus.Disinfect hampers that have had contact with a sick person’s laundry.How to clean up vomit and feces (we’re sorry)“When someone has been sick with vomiting or diarrhea, clean and disinfect the area as soon as possible,” Ek says. It is a disgusting job, but here’s how to do it the right way to keep yourself safe and to mitigate the ick factor.Don gloves. It is necessary to wear gloves while cleaning during and after a bout of norovirus, and to wash your hands after removing and disposing of the gloves. “Even if you are wearing gloves, wash your hands for a full 20 seconds with soap and water after cleaning,” Ek says.Pick up solids with paper towels, dispose of them immediately in a plastic trash bag.Cover the area with paper towels, press down to absorb as much liquid as possible, then dispose of them immediately.Once the surface has been cleaned, apply a disinfectant or use steam to kill norovirus on hard or soft non-washable surfaces; launderable items should go straight into the washer, and washed separately from non-contaminated items.Note: If the mess is semisolid, use something like a sturdy piece of cardboard or paper plate to scoop up and dispose of the matter, then use paper towels to absorb any remaining liquid mess.What to clean after norovirusOnce norovirus has passed, another round of cleaning and disinfecting is required to prevent reinfection.Clean and disinfect high-touch surfaces.Clean and disinfect the bathroom, particularly the toilet and sink.Clean and disinfect the kitchen; wash dishes and/or utensils using the sanitize setting of your dishwasher if it has one; throw out any food that may have norovirus.Wash launderable items and disinfect non-washable soft surfaces with a fabric-safe disinfectant or by steam-cleaning.Clean and disinfect children’s toys.Take out the trash.“High-touch surfaces” refers to things and places we touch frequently. They include:Doorknobs, railings and handles, including appliance handles.Light switches.Faucets and toilet flushers.Hand and dish towels.Handbags, backpacks and tote bags.Car door handles and steering wheels.Eyeglasses.Remote controls.Cellphones, telephone handsets, tablets and keyboards.

Food
Water

Food for public sector to be monitored to see how much is grown in UK

Environment secretary says Labour is aiming for half of food procured for the public sector to come from British farmsFood supplied to the public sector will be monitored for the first time to see how much was grown by British farmers, the environment secretary is to announce.Steve Reed will speak at the Oxford Farming Conference on Thursday in an attempt to reset his relationship with the farming sector after a tumultuous start in his role. Farmers have been angry about issues including changes to the inheritance tax regime, cuts to EU-derived subsidies and delays to flood payments for submerged farms. Continue reading...

Food supplied to the public sector will be monitored for the first time to see how much was grown by British farmers, the environment secretary is to announce.Steve Reed will speak at the Oxford Farming Conference on Thursday in an attempt to reset his relationship with the farming sector after a tumultuous start in his role. Farmers have been angry about issues including changes to the inheritance tax regime, cuts to EU-derived subsidies and delays to flood payments for submerged farms.The sector has been asking for meaningful reforms to the supply chain, as farmers are currently paid just a penny for every loaf of bread or block of cheese sold, as well as support for their businesses as climate breakdown causes problems such as drought and floods.Reed will announce that Labour is aiming for half of food procured for the public sector to be from British farms, which would be worth £2.5bn a year to farmers. He will also announce plans to make it easier for farmers to put solar panels on their rooftops and wind turbines at the bottom of fields, as well as to deregulate the planning system so farmers can more easily build barns and other infrastructure.Guy Singh-Watson, an organic farmer and founder of the vegetable box company Riverford, said these policies “benefit property developers more than farmers”.“I don’t think these policies benefit many farmers. I think the planning policies benefit property developers more than farmers, and planning is there for a reason, often to protect our countryside. I don’t think these policies solve the problem for most farmers.”He added that the main problem, a lack of profitability for farmers, has not been addressed: “The main issue farmers are facing is they don’t get paid properly for what they produce. These policies do not address that issue. Vegetable producers get no protection from predatory pricing.“I’m not saying it’s easy to regulate market forces – we are in a world where we are all used to the market being king, but the reality is the market power is very imbalanced and it does need regulating. Farmers have a lot of pretty amazing tax breaks, but despite this, they still cannot continue – they are earning less than 1% return and £30,000 a year if they are lucky.”skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionPrevious governments have said farming is key to nature recovery, with former Tory environment secretary Michael Gove having made radical changes to the EU-derived farming subsidy schemes so they paid farmers for “public goods” such as restoring nature instead of simply owning land and producing food.However, Reed will say the focus on food production has been lost. He will tell farmers: “The primary purpose of farming has – and always will be – to produce the food that feeds the nation. Too many policymakers in Whitehall lose sight of that fact. This government is putting food production firmly back on the agenda.”Martin Lines, the chief eecutive of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, said: “While the government’s emphasis on ensuring farms are viable and profitable is welcome, it is concerning that it appears to be primarily looking at this issue through a narrow lens focused on food production.“It will simply not be possible to continue producing food in the future without mitigating the impact of climate change and taking steps to address the loss of nature and biodiversity. If we don’t put the environment and nature at the heart of farming, food security will be in peril.“The government also needs to prevent the importing of substandard products made to lower environmental and public health standards than those produced by British farmers. If it truly wants to put British agriculture on the right footing for the future, government must use all the levers at its disposal.”Farmers have been undercut by supermarkets and others in the supply chain for decades now, often locked into contracts that mean farmers are paid below the cost of production.Farming groups have been calling on the government to make the supply chain fairer so growers are paid fairly. Reed will commit to “boosting profitability through fair competition across the supply chain” and point to new rules coming in for the pig sector aimed at ensuring that contracts clearly set out expectations and that changes can only be made if agreed to by all parties. Similar regulations for eggs and fresh produce will follow, Reed will say.

Food
Agriculture
Climate

How China’s appetite for salmon could reshape global seafood markets

"E-commerce has reshaped seafood retail in China, offering quick delivery and products that cater to [consumers]"

China's demand for farmed salmon is growing at an unprecedented pace. In 2023, its imports grew by 46% year on year – with imports of fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon up 63%. This remarkable growth is reshaping the global seafood trade. Exporters from Scotland, Norway, Chile, Australia, Faroe Islands, Canada and Iceland are racing to supply the needs of this vast and rapidly evolving market. At the same time, China's efforts to produce its own Atlantic salmon have faced significant challenges, highlighting the need for substitutes like rainbow trout to meet the country's growing appetite for seafood delicacies. An important shift occurred in 2018, when the Chinese government permitted rainbow trout to be labelled and sold as salmon. This decision blurred the distinction between imported Atlantic salmon and locally farmed rainbow trout, creating a more accessible option for cost-sensitive consumers. Trout is comparable to salmon in appearance and size, with firm and oily meat that has a similar orange-pink color. Nutritionally too, the species are alike, as are the ways in which they can be cooked and prepared. In our new research which included taste tests, we found that many Chinese consumers could not distinguish between domestic rainbow trout and imported Atlantic salmon in blind testing. But when informed about the origin, testers' preferences shifted strongly in favor of imported Atlantic salmon, highlighting the power of provenance in consumer tastes. Although people's willingness to pay did not vary initially in our blind tests, it became a decisive factor once the origin of the fish was revealed. But we found that origin alone was not enough. For our testers to be prepared to pay higher prices, they also had to like the look, smell and taste of the product more, or be persuaded by its ecolabel (indicating environmental standards). Environmental costs Transporting Atlantic salmon from Scottish lochs, Norwegian fjords or Chilean waters to Chinese markets involves complex logistics and significant environmental costs. The carbon footprint of this trade, combined with the resource-intensive nature of salmon aquaculture, raises critical concerns about sustainability. These challenges are particularly pronounced in China, where consumers have a strong preference for freshness. This drives demand for quick delivery of imported salmon despite its environmental impact, and consumers are increasingly turning to online platforms to buy their seafood. E-commerce has reshaped seafood retail in China, offering quick delivery and products that cater to consumer demand for quality and freshness. Salmon stands out in this market due to its perceived high value, premium quality and price point. Unlike other expensive seafood that often needs to be sold live to maintain its value, salmon retains its appeal when chilled or frozen. This makes salmon particularly suited to modern retail models, where sophisticated cold-chain logistics ensure its freshness without the complexities of live transport. However, these innovations come at a cost. The energy-intensive storage and rapid transportation required for imported salmon contribute significantly to environmental harm. As China's seafood market continues to grow, addressing the sustainability challenges associated with this trade will be critical to balancing consumer demand with environmental responsibility. Current international certification schemes aiming to improve the sector's sustainability have had limited impact in China so far. China has made significant efforts to establish a domestic Atlantic salmon industry, but these attempts have largely been unsuccessful due to technical challenges and environmental constraints. This has left a gap that domestically farmed rainbow trout is poised to fill. In 2022, China produced 37,000 tonnes of rainbow trout. This is a relatively small amount compared with international production levels, but still notable considering that rainbow trout is a new farmed species in China, unlike traditional species like carp. However, rainbow trout farming in China is geographically constrained, as the species thrives in cooler freshwater temperatures found in higher-lying lakes and reservoirs, as well as in "raceways" (channels supplied continuously with fresh water diverted from rivers). Advances in aquaculture systems offer a potential pathway to expand China's production. Trout farming is a more sustainable, locally sourced alternative to Atlantic salmon that reduces the carbon footprint associated with imports and ensures fresher options for Chinese consumers. Developing a robust domestic trout industry could enhance food security, reduce dependence on imports, and create economic opportunities in rural areas. China's evolving seafood market offers valuable lessons for the global industry. Emphasizing quality, freshness and sustainability will resonate with the increasingly sophisticated Chinese consumer. At the same time, investment in eco-friendly aquaculture practices, both domestically and internationally, will be essential to balance the growing demand for premium seafood with environmental responsibility. These could include reducing feed waste and recirculating aquaculture systems (which filter and reuse water) to minimize water use. Recycling waste nutrients by using them elsewhere in food production could also be key. As rainbow trout gains prominence in China's seafood landscape, the relationship between consumer preferences, environmental concerns and economic opportunities could in turn shape the future of the global salmon trade. If domestic fish captures a larger share of the Chinese market, salmon producers in Europe, Canada and other exporting regions may face significant challenges. This could ultimately force them to rethink their strategies in order to adapt to shifting market dynamics. Although the goal of creating a domestic Atlantic salmon industry has proved difficult for China, trout farming presents a practical and sustainable solution for its luxury seafood sector. Dave Little, Professor of Aquatic Resources Development, University of Stirling and Mausam Budhathoki, Postdoc Researcher, University of Copenhagen, University of Stirling This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Food
Energy
Nature

Health Advocates Are Unhappy with FDA Guidance on Lead Levels in Baby Food

By Denise Maher HealthDay ReporterTUESDAY, Jan. 7, 2025 (HealthDay News) -- The U.S. Food and Drug Association (FDA) released the first-ever...

By Denise Maher HealthDay ReporterTUESDAY, Jan. 7, 2025 (HealthDay News) -- The U.S. Food and Drug Association (FDA) released the first-ever guidelines for levels of lead in processed baby foods this week. However, many health and safety advocates say they are not satisfied with the guidance.Under the FDA's new guidelines, baby food manufacturers should have no more than 10 parts per billion of lead in baby yogurts, custards, puddings, single-ingredient meats, processed fruits and vegetables, and mixtures of fruits, vegetables, grains and meat.Yet the new guidance does not cover many other products, such as infant formula, beverages, or snack foods like puffs and teething biscuits.“Nearly all baby foods on the market already comply with these limits," Jane Houlihan, research director of Healthy Babies Bright Futures (HBBF), told CNN. HBBF is a coalition of advocates committed to reducing babies’ exposures to neurotoxic chemicals.Houlihan said the newly released FDA guidelines were ineffective -- not to mention unenforceable.  In 2019, HBBF released a report that found toxic metals in 95% of baby foods randomly pulled off supermarket shelves. It lead to a congressional investigation that discovered some baby food ingredients contain hundreds of parts per billion of dangerous metals, according to internal documents provided by major baby food manufacturers.“As it stands, the new lead limits for commercial baby foods would reduce children’s total dietary lead exposure by less than 4% -- a negligible improvement.” Houlihan told CNN in an email.“Lead in infant formula, homemade baby food ingredients and foods bought outside the baby food aisle account for about three-fourths of children’s food exposures to lead,” she added, stressing the need for context.In fact, there is no level of lead that’s safe for humans of any age, per the Environmental Protection Agency. Lead accumulates in the body over time and is a “toxic metal” that can be harmful even at low exposure levels.“The FDA is not living up to its responsibility to protect children’s health,” Houlihan said. “As a result, infants and young children will continue to bear the burden of the FDA’s lack of resolve, consuming harmful lead with every meal.”Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization, addressed the release of the guidance and struck a similar note. "The FDA owes parents answers and must enforce these limits immediately to finally protect our most vulnerable population,” he said.“For years, the FDA’s own data has shown dangerous levels of lead in baby food, yet the agency has dragged its feet while children’s developing brains were exposed to this neurotoxin,” Faber said in an email to CNN.“The harm is permanent, and the delay has put countless kids at unnecessary risk,” he concluded. Where Does Lead Come From, and What Makes It Dangerous?Lead and other heavy metals occur naturally in Earth’s crust, as part of the volcanic process that created much of the continents. However, manufacturing plants, mining facilities and smelting processes also add heavy metals to the environment as frequent by-products.While the the root products are no longer legal, lead-based paint and automobile exhaust fumes from leaded gasoline, have polluted soil and water in the US, according to the EPA.Children are especially vulnerable because of their small size and developing brains. A dose of lead that would have little effect on an adult can have a significant effect on a child. In children, low levels of exposure have been linked to damage to the central and peripheral nervous system, learning disabilities, shorter stature, impaired hearing, and impaired formation and function of blood cells, according to information on the EPA's website.Lead poisoning often has no obvious symptoms in children; that is part of the reason CDC recommends blood screening in very young people.Still, the toxic effects of lead on a child are not reversible.“Exposure to very high levels of lead can severely damage the brain and central nervous system, causing coma, convulsions and even death. Children who survive severe lead poisoning may be left with permanent intellectual disability and behavioral disorders,” the WHO said on its website.According to the FDA, parents should not throw away existing baby foods they have purchased, but they should feed young children a variety of foods.“Eating a variety of healthy foods can make it less likely for an individual to be exposed to the same contaminant from the same food many times and helps to provide the range of nutrients needed for health and, for children, healthy development,” the agency said in a statement.To get adequate food variety, the FDA recommends that parents and caregivers "feed their children many different foods from the five food groups -- vegetables, fruits, grains, dairy, and protein foods -- and alternate how often they provide the same food,”  according to the agency's release.SOURCE: U.S. Food & Drug Administration guidance document and press release, January 2025; CDC; WHO; CNN.Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Food
Health
Government

Busting common myths about organic food

"These stringent rules make organic one of the most trustworthy labels on the market today"

If you spend any time on the internet in spaces where people talk about food, nutrition and the environment, you’ve probably seen some hot takes about organic food — that it’s not worth the price tag, that it’s all a scam or that it’s somehow worse than nonorganic. Regardless of who’s presenting them, the same few arguments tend to pop up. We take a look at those here. Some of these claims start with a grain of truth, but often distort that to make organic look like a racket, an excuse for charging higher prices while being no better than conventional agriculture. In the broader context of organic’s philosophy, however, most of these facts don’t end up undermining the program’s standards or its integrity. It’s also worth remembering that many of the people who start arguments on the internet are making money by doing so, whether they’re getting engagement-based money from platforms or being paid by organizations who stand to profit from eroding public trust in organic. Myth 1: Organic uses just as many pesticides as conventional agriculture. FACT: ORGANIC DOES ALLOW NATURAL PESTICIDES (AND A FEW SYNTHETICS) — BUT THEIR USE IS VERY LIMITED AND NOWHERE NEAR THAT OF CONVENTIONAL AGRICULTURE. It’s a common claim among people trying to discredit organic, and it certainly does fly in the face of the first thing most people think about the label: no chemicals. So is it true? Under the USDA’s organic rules, synthetic substances are banned, while natural products are allowed, with a few specific exemptions in both directions. That’s simple in theory, but cleanly delineating what’s synthetic and what’s natural isn’t so easy. Intuitively, synthetic would refer to anything man-made, and that scoops up most fertilizers and pesticides that are produced in a lab from chemical ingredients. But some chemicals used in agriculture are originally extracted from natural materials. If, after extraction, they’re altered in a way that changes their chemical composition, they’re considered synthetic; if they’re left unchanged, they can still be considered natural. For example, calcium compounds are often used to make soil less acidic, and those can be natural or synthetic. If that calcium comes straight from crushed limestone, it’s considered natural, but if it’s isolated from crushed stone and then treated with heat to become more concentrated quicklime, it qualifies as synthetic. Of course, natural doesn’t necessarily equate to safe: Natural products can be dangerous, and many of these (like arsenic and certain mineral salts) are banned in organic. There are some situations where natural products don’t cut it, and that’s why there’s also a short list of synthetic substances that are allowed under the organic rules. But a quick perusal shows that most of these are simple, familiar chemicals that are allowed for very specific reasons, like hydrogen peroxide and rubbing alcohol as disinfectants for equipment. Some chemical compounds, like copper sulfate, are allowed to help control plant diseases, but need to be used in a way that minimizes their accumulation on soil and avoids leaving residues on crops. Synthetic materials that are essential for animal health — such as vaccines, simple pain medication and topical ointments — are allowed, although using medications that leave residues in milk or meat, like hormones or antibiotics, can disqualify an animal or its products from being sold as organic. There are also some natural substances that are used as pesticides in organic agriculture, often isolated hormones or chemicals from plant tissues that are used as insecticides. These naturally occurring biopesticides are often the launching point for scientists who develop synthetic derivatives, but organic growers can use the naturally occurring chemicals (again provided they aren’t modified once they’re extracted). These biopesticides may be chemically similar to their synthetic descendents, but they’re generally weaker, target fewer species and don’t linger in the environment. That makes their use much more limited in scope than the pesticides that conventional growers spray on entire fields. This difference in how the chemicals are used is, in fact, more important than where the chemicals come from. Biopesticides and other natural products are often less effective than synthetics, so it’s hard to use them the same way. But in the organic growing philosophy, that’s not necessarily a problem: Crop and livestock health should be rooted in an on-farm ecosystem that suppresses weeds, pests and disease without resorting to chemical quick fixes in the first place. Conventional agriculture, meanwhile, is wholly dependent on preemptive pesticide use, dousing entire fields of crops in herbicides like glyphosate and accelerating the evolution of superweeds in the process. Suggesting that organic’s limited use of chemicals is equivalent to that of conventional growers — who apply 280 million pounds of glyphosate alone on nearly 300 million acres of U.S. cropland annually — is a deliberate distortion of the facts. Myth 2: Organic is actually worse for the environment. FACT: ORGANIC AGRICULTURE HAS A LARGER LAND FOOTPRINT THAN CONVENTIONAL, BUT IT IS MUCH BETTER ON ALMOST EVERY OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL METRIC. Agriculture’s environmental footprint can be hard to evaluate in simple terms like better or worse because there are so many factors involved: soil health, land and water use, emissions and more. Farming involves a lot of tradeoffs, and a few of these are often leveraged to make organic look worse. Conventional agriculture uses large quantities of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides to grow a lot of food on a relatively small area of land. Without those chemicals, it’s true that organic farming often gets smaller yields, and therefore has to use more land to grow the same amount of food. That larger land footprint is usually the basis for the claim that organic is worse for the environment: If all food on earth were organic, we’d need a lot more farmland than we have today, accelerating deforestation and other problems. There are a few issues with this analysis. Conventional agriculture may be more space-efficient when it comes to farmland, but its efficiency is contingent on importing nutrients the land doesn’t have in the first place, and that it can’t hold onto for very long either. What’s more, those synthetic fertilizers take a lot of fossil fuels to manufacture, and the leftovers run off into waterways, ultimately causing problems like algal blooms that deplete and kill aquatic life far afield. Factoring in the harm pesticides cause to non-target species, especially pollinators, it becomes apparent that conventional ag’s footprint stretches well beyond the land it technically occupies. Organic farmers can import nutrients in the form of compost and manure, but these have to come from living things and usually aren’t applied at the same rates as synthetic fertilizers. This doesn’t mean that organic farms are exempt from environmental problems. Having to avoid pesticides and herbicides often makes organic farms more reliant on tilling soil to keep crops weed-free, for example, so many must be more proactive about soil health. But eschewing chemical fertilizers and pesticides as the default means that organic farms don’t have as deep a footprint as their conventional counterparts, even when they take up more space. Myth 3: There are no health advantages to choosing organic. FACT: PERSONAL HEALTH ASIDE, CHOOSING ORGANIC PROTECTS THE HEALTH OF FARMWORKERS AND MITIGATES SOME SERIOUS PUBLIC HEALTH RISKS. Much of the marketing around organic products seems to play up their wholesome nature. As you’d expect, organic food does have far fewer pesticide residues than conventional food. But it’s also true that, for most people, pesticide residues from grain and produce have not conclusively been determined to be a major health risk. While experts might disagree on how tolerances for some substances are established, most limits for pesticide residues are set in a way that’s designed to protect people who might be most vulnerable to consuming them, like infants. Ultimately, scientific studies have shown that organic food is mostly free from pesticide residues (with the little that does show up coming primarily from shared processing equipment). There’s also evidence that some organic produce has higher levels of certain vitamins and beneficial antioxidants than its conventional counterparts. What hasn’t been proven is whether eating mostly organic foods actually makes people any healthier. It’s hard to perform this kind of research in the first place, and what evidence we do have doesn’t show that choosing organic leads to consistently better health outcomes for eaters. But this perspective only looks at the personal health angle to the food system, and that’s where it falls short. The impact of our food choices goes well beyond our own bodies, and organic does offer tangible benefits to public health. The biggest exposure risk for pesticides isn’t in consuming residues, it’s in applying pesticides and working in pesticide-treated fields. While there are some safety standards designed to protect workers, they’re not always followed, and farmworkers suffer from both acute poisonings and pesticide-linked chronic health problems. They’re also less likely to get adequate medical care, especially when they are undocumented immigrants. It isn’t just workers, either: Some pesticides are dangerous enough to threaten whole agricultural communities. Children who live and go to school near farm fields where pesticides like chlorpyrifos are used show blood levels well above normal, and have higher rates of neurological problems as a result. Beyond pesticides, organic agriculture addresses another public health concern: While antibiotics are allowed for treating sick animals on organic farms, they’re used at far lower rates than on conventional farms, where they’re used to prevent diseases that proliferate easily in the crowded and unsanitary conditions. This overuse of antibiotics — including many that are used in human medicine, too — speeds the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Antibiotic-resistant infections already kill more than 35,000 people in the U.S. annually, and factory farms are some of the most fruitful breeding grounds for new ones. This translates directly to the consumer as well: One study found that organically produced meat was 56 percent less likely to contain bacteria strains that were resistant to antibiotics. Myth 4: Organic is just an excuse to charge more. FACT: UNLIKE MANY MARKETING CLAIMS MADE ABOUT FOOD, USDA ORGANIC HAS SPECIFIC RULES AND A STRINGENT VERIFICATION PROCESS. It’s easy to understand where skepticism about food labels comes from. With so many claims being made about everything we buy, it’s hard to keep track of what they’re even supposed to mean, let alone whether they’re accurate. This is where organic has a unique advantage. While the USDA does have to approve most food labels, it doesn’t actually set its own requirements for what those claims mean, nor does it enforce them, leaving room for companies to set their own definitions for “sustainably grown,” and other terms. But organic is different: The U.S. National Organic Program was established as part of the 1990 Farm Bill, and has set the standards for food labeled as organic since then. Organic farms have to follow stringent rules about chemical use and livestock health, implement soil and water protection measures, and avoid genetically modified crops and livestock. These claims must be verified by an accredited, independent auditor in order for a farm or food company to use the organic label. The official “USDA Organic” seal means that the product meets all of the organic production standards, which includes higher benchmarks for sustainability and health from the farm all the way to the grocery store. USDA organic labeling can be applied to foods in a variety of ways depending on which criteria the product meets. USDA Organic: Made with at least 95% organic products; the rest must come from an allowed list of common ingredients. USDA 100% Organic: Made exclusively with organic ingredients. Made with organic ingredients: Must contain at least 70% organic ingredients by weight. Cannot use the official USDA seal. Anything that carries the “USDA Organic” seal must be made with at least 95 percent organic products, with the remaining 5 percent coming only from an allowed list of common ingredients, such as baking soda, that can’t be produced organically. Products carrying the “100% Organic” label must be made exclusively with organic ingredients. Finally, foods that carry a label stating “Made with Organic Ingredients” must contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients by weight — but they cannot use the official seal. These stringent rules make organic one of the most trustworthy labels on the market today, especially for domestically produced foods. There have been some concerns about organic fraud, especially in grain, where there have been instances of traders reselling conventionally raised grain as organic and taking a high profit. There have also been a few notable instances of organic fraud in imported foods: Foreign farms can also be USDA organic certified, but the USDA’s reliance on third party auditors has led to a few fraud and corruption cases. In recent years, the agency has introduced new, even more stringent verification rules to help organic maintain its status as a reliable standard for products made in the U.S. and abroad.

Food
Agriculture
Chemicals

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

Modern Nature

By 2050, 10 billion people may inhabit Earth. Do we need GMOs to Feed the World? Is organic production the answer? Modern Nature takes the viewer on a worldwide odyssey to find answers. Includes perspectives from philosopher Noam Chomsky, physicist Vandana Shiva and street farmer Ron Finley.

Food
Agriculture
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

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

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

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.