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

The global food system is owned by an ever smaller number of companies

News Feed
Wednesday, July 17, 2024

This imbalanced situation can be explained in part by the effects of things like natural disasters, war, fragile supply chains and economic inequality. These are all significant factors which highlight the problems of a truly global food system, where shocks spread quickly from one place to another with sometimes devastating results. But they do not provide the full picture and cannot fully explain the rise of ultra-processed foods, the financial difficulties facing farmers, or why the world has failed to address the harmful environmental impacts of food production. To account for these trends, we need to look at market concentration, and how a small number of very big companies have come to dominate the production and supply of the food we all eat. For the global food system has become much more concentrated in recent years, partly through an increase in mergers and acquisitions, where large firms buy up rival companies until they completely dominate key areas. High levels of market concentration mean less transparency, weaker competition, and more power in the hands of fewer firms. And our research reveals that a rise in the number of mergers and acquisitions is taking place at all stages of the global food system – from seeds and fertilizers to machinery and manufacturing. This is all part of food being increasingly seen as a source not only of human sustenance, but as a profitable investment – or what is known as the "financialisation of food". And while people have been buying and selling food for a very long time, the global system has seen a major incursion of big finance in recent decades. Pension funds, private equity and asset management firms have invested heavily in the sector. The logic is simple. Everybody needs food, so the sector promises safe and potentially lucrative returns. But feeding the world while looking after the planet costs money, and unfortunately, big financial actors are all about the bottom line. They aim to maximize returns, provide value to shareholders, and meet the expectations of markets. This makes mergers and acquisitions an attractive business proposition. Why make risky, long-term investments in sustainable food solutions, when you can buy your competitor, increase your market share, and potentially make a lot of money in the process? By boosting share prices and removing competition, buy-outs have been used widely throughout the global food system as an easier way to achieve further growth.   Hunger games This has resulted in more concentration and fewer, more powerful firms. One report revealed that just four firms control 44% of the global farm machinery market, two companies control 40% of the global seed market, and four businesses control 62% of the global agrochemicals market. This trend is matched in food retail, with four firms – Tesco, Sainsbury's, Asda, and Morrisons – estimated to control over 64% of the UK grocery market. This level of concentration and power affects everyone. It means less bargaining power for farmers, who are forced to negotiate with powerful conglomerates. Workers across key stages of the global food sector face downward pressures on wages, rights, and conditions. Local communities lose autonomy over how their land is cultivated and how the rewards are distributed.   And the negative effects are not limited to those working in food. Fewer firms and less transparency can lead to higher prices. And research on Europe has shown that places with higher food market concentration, including the UK and Germany, sell more ultra-processed food. The global food system also plays a big part in climate change. Too much corporate power limits the opportunities for communities to tackle environmental issues, and move towards sustainable provision of healthy food for everyone by producing more food themselves. With so much at stake, improved regulation should surely be on the menu. Our research revealed the majority of food system mergers and acquisitions take place between firms of the same nationality. This could provide an opportunity for governments to prevent further market concentration within their borders – and even to seek to dilute what already exists. International arrangements are more complicated, and would require a coordinated, international approach. However, this may prove difficult given the first-ever UN "food systems summit" in 2021 remained "strategically silent" on the issue. We believe market concentration must become a defining feature of food system reform. To address climate change, provide a fair deal for workers, and eradicate hunger, we need power to be less corporate – for the benefit of the entire global community. Liam Keenan, Assistant Professor in Economic Geography, University of Nottingham; Dariusz Wojcik, Professor of Financial Geography, National University of Singapore, and Timothy Monteath, Assistant Professor, University of Warwick This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Here's why "it's damaging our health, our communities and the planet"

This imbalanced situation can be explained in part by the effects of things like natural disasters, war, fragile supply chains and economic inequality. These are all significant factors which highlight the problems of a truly global food system, where shocks spread quickly from one place to another with sometimes devastating results.

But they do not provide the full picture and cannot fully explain the rise of ultra-processed foods, the financial difficulties facing farmers, or why the world has failed to address the harmful environmental impacts of food production.

To account for these trends, we need to look at market concentration, and how a small number of very big companies have come to dominate the production and supply of the food we all eat.

For the global food system has become much more concentrated in recent years, partly through an increase in mergers and acquisitions, where large firms buy up rival companies until they completely dominate key areas.

High levels of market concentration mean less transparency, weaker competition, and more power in the hands of fewer firms. And our research reveals that a rise in the number of mergers and acquisitions is taking place at all stages of the global food system – from seeds and fertilizers to machinery and manufacturing.

This is all part of food being increasingly seen as a source not only of human sustenance, but as a profitable investment – or what is known as the "financialisation of food".

And while people have been buying and selling food for a very long time, the global system has seen a major incursion of big finance in recent decades. Pension funds, private equity and asset management firms have invested heavily in the sector.

The logic is simple. Everybody needs food, so the sector promises safe and potentially lucrative returns.

But feeding the world while looking after the planet costs money, and unfortunately, big financial actors are all about the bottom line. They aim to maximize returns, provide value to shareholders, and meet the expectations of markets.

This makes mergers and acquisitions an attractive business proposition. Why make risky, long-term investments in sustainable food solutions, when you can buy your competitor, increase your market share, and potentially make a lot of money in the process? By boosting share prices and removing competition, buy-outs have been used widely throughout the global food system as an easier way to achieve further growth.

 

Hunger games

This has resulted in more concentration and fewer, more powerful firms. One report revealed that just four firms control 44% of the global farm machinery market, two companies control 40% of the global seed market, and four businesses control 62% of the global agrochemicals market. This trend is matched in food retail, with four firms – Tesco, Sainsbury's, Asda, and Morrisons – estimated to control over 64% of the UK grocery market.

This level of concentration and power affects everyone. It means less bargaining power for farmers, who are forced to negotiate with powerful conglomerates. Workers across key stages of the global food sector face downward pressures on wages, rights, and conditions. Local communities lose autonomy over how their land is cultivated and how the rewards are distributed.

 

And the negative effects are not limited to those working in food.

Fewer firms and less transparency can lead to higher prices. And research on Europe has shown that places with higher food market concentration, including the UK and Germany, sell more ultra-processed food.

The global food system also plays a big part in climate change. Too much corporate power limits the opportunities for communities to tackle environmental issues, and move towards sustainable provision of healthy food for everyone by producing more food themselves.

With so much at stake, improved regulation should surely be on the menu. Our research revealed the majority of food system mergers and acquisitions take place between firms of the same nationality. This could provide an opportunity for governments to prevent further market concentration within their borders – and even to seek to dilute what already exists.

International arrangements are more complicated, and would require a coordinated, international approach. However, this may prove difficult given the first-ever UN "food systems summit" in 2021 remained "strategically silent" on the issue.

We believe market concentration must become a defining feature of food system reform. To address climate change, provide a fair deal for workers, and eradicate hunger, we need power to be less corporate – for the benefit of the entire global community.

Liam Keenan, Assistant Professor in Economic Geography, University of Nottingham; Dariusz Wojcik, Professor of Financial Geography, National University of Singapore, and Timothy Monteath, Assistant Professor, University of Warwick

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

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

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

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

Food
Government
Technology

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

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

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

Food
Crisis
Business

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

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

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

Food
Health
Indigenous

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

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

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

Food
Government
Water

Ultraprocessed Foods High in Seed Oils Could Be Fueling Colon Cancer Risk

A new study suggests certain lipids, particularly omega-6 fatty acids, which are commonly found in seed oils used to make ultraprocessed junk food, may promote inflammation in colon cancer tumors

Climbing rates of colon and rectal cancer among people under 50 years old is a striking recent trend that has alarmed and puzzled clinicians racing to figure out why. Now a new study published in Gut offers what might be a crucial insight: specific lipids, or fatty acids, that are abundantly found in ultra-processed foods may be promoting inflammation that causes cancerous colon cells to run amok.Colorectal cancer tumor samples from 81 people in the U.S. had excessive amounts of inflammation-boosting lipids, called omega-6 fatty acids—and lacked helpful lipids called omega-3 fatty acids, which help stop inflammation.Inflammation is a normal defensive response that the immune system switches on to heal wounds or fight off infection. But researchers in the 1800s found that colon tumors under a microscope looked like “poorly healed wounds,” says Timothy Yeatman, a co-author of the study and a professor of surgery at the University of South Florida. Rampant inflammation over long periods of time damages cells and hampers their ability to fight potentially cancerous cell growth. Omega-6 fatty acids often come from our diet, and Yeatman suspects ultraprocessed food is likely a major source of them.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.“We don't know the full effects of these ultraprocessed foods on our body, but we do know that that’s a major thing that’s changed from 1950 onward,” Yeatman says. “Young people today, particularly rural and impoverished people, are being exposed to more of these processed foods than anybody else because they’re cheap and they’re in all the fast-food restaurants.”Many ultraprocessed foods and fast foods are prepared with seed oil—a cheap, common type of vegetable-based cooking oil that is chemically processed from seeds such as canola (rapeseed), corn, grapeseed and sunflower. These oils contain high amounts of omega-6 fatty acids. The study was not able to definitively connect the lipids detected in the colon cancer tumors to any specific food or oil, however.“I think the study confirms that diet is important but probably one of many factors,” says Andrew Chan, a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, who was not involved in the new research. Chan and other researchers note that genetics, exercise, lifestyle and chemical or environmental exposures may influence colon cancer risk, too. Additionally, “there’s a lot of complexity to the food we eat, how it’s converted, how it’s metabolized and how it might eventually lead to tissue changes around things like lipids,” Chan says. “So there are still some pieces that need to be filled in before we can really tell a cohesive story about it.”Scientific American spoke further with Yeatman and Chan about the findings and the potential role of ultraprocessed foods in inflammation and colon cancer.[An edited transcript of the interviews follows.]What has past research shown us about the relationship between diet and colon cancer?CHAN: There has been research in the past looking at the association of colorectal cancer risk and specific dietary patterns that we know are associated with inflammation. Some of those dietary patterns are enriched with specific types of oils, such as those that include omega-6 fatty acids, that are known to be proinflammatory. In contrast, there have been data to show that dietary patterns that are enriched with healthier oils, for example, Mediterranean dietary patterns, or so-called prudent dietary patterns, seem to be linked with lower risk. And in addition, there have been some specificstudies that have looked at the effect of types of omega-3 fatty acids, such as fish oils, and their ability to potentially have a preventive effect on colorectal cancer risk. That’s been mostly shown in animal models, but there have been some clinical trials that suggest there’s potentially a benefit to supplementing one’s diet with fish oil, for example. Those sorts of studies are still inconsistent, so I think there needs to be more work done in this area.Our group and others have also been interested in the idea that some of these lipids that are responsible for inflammation that can lead to cancer could also be inhibited by drugs like aspirin. Aspirin is a drug that is an anti-inflammatory and also specifically has effects on lipids such as prostaglandins, which may promote cancer. These are helpful steps to developing novel cancer prevention strategies that are focused on altering the balance of these lipids and the balance of inflammatory mediators that could be related to some of these lipid pathways.How do the lipids affect inflammation?YEATMAN: When you get a wound on your hand or your skin, it swells and turns red initially because of inflammation, and then it gets better, and that’s because of the resolution inflammation. Resolving lipids, or proresolving lipids, were only recently discovered by Charles Serhan of Harvard University. And he described something called “lipid class switching,” which means that the body, when it undergoes normal healing, will switch from the inflammatory phase to the resolving phase. He basically found that there are a number of these lipids—primarily omega-3 derivative lipids—that lead to resolution of inflammation. But inflammation, unchecked, can lead to cancer.How does this inflammation influence cancer development? CHAN: Inflammation leads to alterations in the tissue, which may lead to the development of cancer. The tissue may be more likely to grow in an uncontrolled way where it’s difficult to have cells turn over normally, and so that abnormal cell turnover and that overexuberant dividing of cells can ultimately lead to the formation of tumors. We know inflammation also can create an environment that makes tissue more prone to develop changes in the DNA, such as mutations that could lead to cancer. There also may be some effects of inflammation that impair the way the body’s able to naturally fight off the development of cancers.I think that these different lipids and oils may have specific effects and pathways related to inflammation and the ability of tissues to repair in a normal way. That may lend itself to an environment in which some of these tissues may develop into cancers because of uncontrolled cell growth.Why might this imbalance in proinflammatory and proresolving lipids happen? YEATMAN: The source of these lipids is ultimately dietary. So proinflammatory lipid excesses in the tumor microenvironment is the smoking gun that this potentially relates to lipids we’re consuming. The levels of omega-6 lipid, which is the inflammatory side, in human body fat has increased dramatically from the 1950s to today. And probably that’s because of the Western diet changes. And you go back to what those changes are, well, they’re ultraprocessed foods. Now, ultraprocessing involves more than just lipids, but lipids are in many seed oils, such as soybean oil, canola oil, cotton seed oil, sunflower oil, safflower oil, that have been processed and are used in foods. Seed oils are inexpensive, but the consequence of that is: they’re in almost everything we eat that comes packaged. For example, if you go to the store and get bread off the shelf that hasn't been baked by a local bakery, you’ll find there’s a whole list of ingredients in that bread that are hard to even recognize..., and one of them is generally soybean oil. It’s in everything: bread, chips, hummus, salad dressing, cookies, cakes, pies.It’s not just seed oil. If you have corn-fed beef, the omega-6-to-omega-3 ratio [can be much higher than that of grass-fed beef]..., so that simple change from corn-fed to grass-fed makes a huge difference in the ratio. But it can be very hard to find grass-fed beef at the grocery story. And the reason is that it costs money; I think it takes three years to bring a steer to market that’s grass-fed and maybe one year for corn-fed. So it’s a lot less time for the cheaper approach.Are omega-6 fatty lipids bad for health?YEATMAN: Omega-6 is an essential fatty acid. You’ve got to have it—but you don’t need it at [a ratio of] 30 times to 1, [compared with omega-3]. So it’s like everything else: it should be in moderation. But the problem is we’ve massively overdone the amount of seed oil in foods. And I don’t think seed oils are necessarily good for you because we get omega-6s from all sorts of other sources.Not everybody with seed oil exposure will probably suffer a problem from it. But I think there’s some link there. These links are hard to prove because we’d have to have a dietary history on people for years. More investigations are needed, and someone needs to prove that seed oils, taken in the excess amounts they’re given to us, are truly safe. And that hasn’t been proven yet to me, so I think the default should be reduce them until you know.

Food
Animals
Health

Suggested Viewing

From Tide to Table: Two Docks Shellfish

Clams have been called the perfect protein - let's find out why. From harvest through the processing facility, to the delivery to a restaurant, we find out what it takes to get clams on your plate.

Food
Documentary

Sockeye Salmon. Red Fish

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

Animals
Food
Extinction

Kumu Niu

The island of O'ahu is covered with coconut palms, but for fear of liability the vast majority of these sacred trees have been stripped of coconuts. The grassroots movement "Niu Now" is on a mission to restore the "niu," or coconut, as a fundamental food crop in Hawai'i and spread the Indigenous wisdom of "aloha 'āina:" loving land and serving people.

Land Use
Indigenous
Food

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

Beyond the Soil

Beyond the Soil is a short, poetic documentary which explores the emotional impact of climate change on farmers and ranchers who are on the frontlines of the megadrought in the Rocky Mountain West, and their innovation and resilience in the face of ecological crisis.

Climate
Food

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

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

CONTACT US

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

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