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.

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

News Feed
Monday, March 3, 2025

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.

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 know

The 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.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Trump Administration Plans Ban on More Synthetic Food Dyes

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterTUESDAY, April 22, 2025 (HealthDay News) — The Trump administration is expected to take new steps to remove...

TUESDAY, April 22, 2025 (HealthDay News) — The Trump administration is expected to take new steps to remove artificial food dyes from the U.S. food supply, officials say.This follows a major move by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in January, under former President Joe Biden, to ban red dye No. 3 in food, drinks and some drugs. That action came more than 30 years after research linked the dye to cancer in animals.Now, federal officials appear ready to go even farther. Kennedy has been an outspoken critic of petroleum-based synthetic dyes, which are used to make foods and drinks look more appealing to consumers.In March, Kennedy supported a new West Virginia law banning some of these dyes. It made West Virginia the first state to take such broad action. Studies have linked some food dyes to behavior and learning issues in children, CNN reported.More than half of U.S. states, including both Republican- and Democrat-led ones, are pushing to restrict these ingredients, according to the Environmental Working Group (EWG).In a March email to CNN, the National Confectioners Association said while states have a role to play in the nation's food system, "the FDA is the rightful national regulatory decision maker and leader in food safety." Some of the association's members sell products that contain artificial dyes.John Hewitt of the Consumer Brands Association also urged the FDA to take the lead, saying the agency should “aggressively acknowledge its responsibility as the nation’s food safety regulator.”Artificial dyes such as red No. 3, red No. 40, green No. 3 and blue No. 2 have been linked to cancer or tumors in animals. Others, like yellow No. 5 and yellow No. 6, may contain cancer-causing chemicals. Even tiny amounts of yellow No. 5 can cause restlessness or sleep problems in sensitive children, CNN reported.Marion Nestle, a well-known food policy expert, welcomed the plan.“Non-petroleum substitute dyes are available and used widely in other countries by the same companies that sell products here," she said. "Companies have been promising to get rid of the petroleum dyes for years. The time has come.”In public health terms, “this is low-hanging fruit," Nestle added. "I want to see RFK Jr. take on ultra-processed foods, a much tougher problem and a far more important one.”Most of these dyes are used in low-nutrition foods like candy and soda, but they may also appear in less colorful products, the Center for Science in the Public Interest says.People who want to avoid these dyes can check ingredient labels on food and drink packaging, CNN said.SOURCE: CNN, April 22, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Mission to boldly grow food in space labs blasts off

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

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

Microplastics Make It into Your Food through Plant Leaves

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

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

Get Ready for Expensive Tomatoes and Lots of Food Contamination

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

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

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

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

CONTACT US

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

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