Earlier this year, President Donald Trump announced that John Deere will open two new U.S. facilities—a distribution center near Hebron, Indiana, and a manufacturing site in Kernersville, North Carolina.

According to a press release from Indiana Governor Mike Braun, the company plans to invest US$125 million to construct and equip a 1.2 million-square-foot warehouse and distribution center on 234 acres near Hebron. In North Carolina, Deere is putting US$70 million toward expanding its Kernersville plant, which will take over excavator production previously based in Japan.

John Deere estimates that each site will generate about 150 jobs, underscoring the company’s intent to continue driving U.S. innovation and jobs, says John May, Chairman and CEO of John Deere.

Deere has also pledged to invest US$20 billion in U.S. manufacturing and is reinstating some previously laid-off employees including 146 employees in Waterloo, 24 in Dubuque, and 75 in Davenport.

But the new facilities and limited callbacks make only a modest dent in the significant losses across Deere’s U.S. operations in recent years. John Deere, an American company with deep midwestern roots, began making substantial lay-offs in October 2023, when the company fired 225 production employees from a plant in East Moline, Illinois.

In 2024, Deere cut 2,167 jobs across key facilities, including nearly 1,000 in Waterloo and hundreds more in Davenport, Dubuque, Ankeny, Ottumwa, Moline, and East Moline. Layoffs continued into 2025, with over 500 workers let go in Iowa alone.

Deere says that about 80 percent of the equipment it sells in the U.S. is manufactured domestically. Nevertheless, its international operations remain integral to its business model and supply chain.

International markets are a major driver of Deere’s revenue, providing nearly half of its consolidated net sales and revenues. The company employs 75,000 people worldwide, but more than half are abroad: only 30,000 employees are located in the U.S.

The company manufactures equipment and components throughout a global network, producing backhoes and planting equipment in Brazil, tractor engines and combines in Argentina, crushers and sprayers in Germany, feederhouses in France, cotton harvesters in China, and tractor screens in India.

And Deere continues to expand internationally, prompting scrutiny over how the company balances U.S. manufacturing with global production. The company recently announced that they’re moving their skid steer and track loader manufacturing from Dubuque, Iowa, to a new facility in Ramos, Mexico, and confirmed plans to build a US$55 million plant in Nuevo León to manufacture mini track loaders and mini wheel loaders.

Trump has said Deere’s new facilities as a win for U.S. manufacturing, announcing the projects at a January rally and on social media. The White House also highlighted Deere’s U.S. projects as part of a list of new investments during Trump’s second term as evidence of the President’s “unwavering commitment to revitalizing American industry.”

However, the groundwork for both projects had been laid in 2024 under the Biden-Harris administration. Deere’s planned expansion in Kernersville was first announced in 2024, according to Reuters.

Plans for the Indiana site trace back to a land acquisition that same year, which details the purchase of a 234-acre undeveloped parcel in northwest Indiana that “will be the future site of a 1.2-million-square-foot John Deere warehouse/distribution.” When asked about the timing, the company noted that some of these plans had been disclosed earlier.

Deere has indicated that its long-term strategy will continue “regardless” of political developments in the U.S.. But policy changes under the Trump-Vance administration are proving expensive. According to The Wall Street Journal, Deere incurred roughly US$600 million in tariff-related costs in its 2025 fiscal year and expects that figure to climb to about US$1.2 billion this year.

The broader equipment manufacturing sector is also facing headwinds: output and employment have declined from 2022 levels, according to the Association of Equipment Manufacturers, prompting concerns about the long-term trajectory of U.S. production. “The path that we are on is leading us to less manufacturing in the United States,” says Kip Eideberg, the Association’s Senior Vice President of Government and Industry Relations.

The workers being called back represent a small but significant reprieve for communities hit hard by recent layoffs. “When those layoffs are announced, it doesn’t just throw the family—it throws an entire town into confusion and chaos and worry,” explains Charlie Wishman, President of the Iowa AFL-CIO.

But for many others, the damage remains: Deere’s sweeping changes to its U.S. workforce have sparked both uncertainty and outrage, leaving hundreds of families questioning how they will pay rent, put food on the table, and find new sources of income.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Chris Robert, Unsplash

The post Can New Deere Jobs and Facilities Offset Years of Layoffs? appeared first on Food Tank.

Food sovereignty is the right of peoples, communities, and countries to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through socially just, ecologically sound, and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own policies, strategies, and systems for food production, distribution, and consumption.

While food security names the destination, food sovereignty defines a democratic path to reach it. According to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), food security is a condition in which everyone has reliable access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food.

Food sovereignty accepts that objective but shifts the focus to power and governance, arguing that achieving lasting food security requires placing decision-making in the hands of the people who produce, distribute, and consume food, rather than markets or dominant governments.

Food sovereignty emerged in the 1980s and 1990s as a response and challenge to the social, economic, and environmental consequences of globalization and industrialized agriculture. 44 percent of the world’s population was living in extreme poverty in 1981, and the number of hungry people grew by 15 million between 1970 and 1980, even as surplus food flooded global markets.

Mechanization of agricultural tasks like sowing seeds, harvesting crops, milking cows greatly reduced and sometimes eliminated the need for human and animal labor, leaving many without jobs. The share of the U.S. workforce employed in agriculture fell from 41 percent in 1900 to 2 percent by 2000, and between 1950 and 1997 the average farm more than doubled in size while nearly half of farms disappeared.

The 1980s marked a sharp increase in global temperatures and, in 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen told Congress he was “99 percent sure” that global warming was upon us. Indigenous, rural, peasant, and small-scale farming communities were left facing overlapping crises of poverty, environmental degradation, and hunger.

Recognizing urgent necessity for an organized, collective, and internationalist response, La Via Campesina coined the term food sovereignty at the 1996 World Food Summit. A decade later, 700 delegates from five continents gathered at the 2007 International Forum for Food Sovereignty in Nyéléni, Mali to further deepen collective understanding on the topic, developing the six pillars of food sovereignty.

The framework centers food as a human need rather than a commodity, supports sustainable livelihoods for food providers, and localizes food systems and shortens the distance between producers and consumers. It places decision-making power in the hands of local communities, builds on traditional knowledge strengthened by research, and works with nature instead of industrial, energy-intensive models.

During Canada’s subsequent People’s Food Policy process, members of the Indigenous Circle added a seventh pillar, which states that “food is sacred,” asserting that food is a gift of life and must not be reduced to a commodity.

Nearly three decades after La Via Campesina introduced food sovereignty, the hunger, poverty, ecological degradation, and concentrated market power it sought to confront persist. Today’s industrial food system generates record levels of calories, yet nearly one-third of the global population remains food insecure. Food systems contribute up to one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions, and agriculture threatens more than 80 percent of species at risk of extinction.

Corporate consolidation has deepened across the food system, with four firms controlling nearly 70 percent of the global pesticide and seed market. And small-scale and family farmers comprise over 98 percent of farms, but control just 53 percent of agricultural land.

Beyond codifying the right to food and control over food systems, and recognizing the contribution of indigenous peoples, pastoralists, forest dwellers, workers and fishers to the food system, food sovereignty offers a framework to address the harms of industrial agriculture.

By localizing production and prioritizing agroecological methods, food sovereignty can shorten supply chains and reduce emissions while restoring soil health and biodiversity. Research also finds that food sovereignty–based approaches, such as strengthening school food systems, improving soil fertility, advancing gender equity, and confronting structural racism, can support long-term health equity.

Scaling food sovereignty requires structural reforms that confront concentrated power and expand equitable access to land. IPES emphasizes the need to democratize governance and counter corporate control of the food system through stronger conflict-of-interest safeguards, revitalized antitrust enforcement to reduce market concentration, and stricter transparency and lobbying rules.

Others like the National Young Farmers Coalition call for eliminating inequities in land ownership, protecting farmland, securing affordable land tenure, and supporting farm viability and transition.

“If people don’t control the food, they don’t control the power,” Morgan Ody, General Coordinator for La Via Campesina, tells Food Tank.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Evan Rally, Unsplash

The post Food Tank Explains: Food Sovereignty appeared first on Food Tank.

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are products constructed from industrially produced ingredients and substances that are typically not available for home cooking. UPFs are designed to be hyperpalatable, conveniently accessible, and highly profitable, and include a wide range of commonplace items from soft drinks, chips, and packaged bread to jarred sauces, cereals, and ice cream.

Over the past century, traditional dietary patterns centered on minimally processed foods have gradually given way to diets dominated by ultra-processed items. UPFs make up around 75 percent of the U.S. food supply and more than half of the calories consumed by adults in high-income countries. Among children, and households with lower income and education levels, the rates are higher.

The rise of UPFs is displacing unprocessed or minimally processing foods and long-established dietary patterns, driving the rise of multiple diet-related chronic diseases globally.

Food processing has existed throughout human history. Global communities froze foods to prolong storage times, fermented foods with salt to improve nutrition, and preserved foods in honey or sugar to create new tastes and textures. Unlike historically processed foods, ultra-processed products are not simply altered whole ingredients but are manufactured from refined components and additives.

NOVA, the most widely used food classification system, does not define UPFs as food, but as industrial formulations. UPFs are composed primarily of chemically modified and industrially produced ingredients generally unavailable in home kitchens, like protein isolates or concentrates, hydrogenated fat, and modified starches.

They typically contain additives to enhance taste, texture, appearance, and preservatives to extend shelf-lives and undergo processing techniques that leave the final products bearing little resemblance to the original ingredients.

The ingredients and processes used to manufacture ultra-processed foods make them highly convenient and appealing, but often low in nutritional quality and liable to be over-consumed. UPFs are typically high in added sugars, sodium, modified starches, and saturated fat, and low in fiber, micronutrients, and phytochemicals.

UPFs are designed to be exceptionally appealing to the human palate, and their composition can stimulate the brain’s reward system and overrides satiety signals, making it difficult to stop eating. A study published in Cell Metabolism compared the effects of consuming two nutritionally similar diets differing only in their degree of processing. Participants assigned to an ultra-processed diet ate about 500 more calories per day and gained about 2 pounds more than those on the unprocessed diet.

Ultra-processed foods are associated with worse diet quality and a long and growing list of adverse health outcomes. Multiple studies link greater exposure to ultra-processed food with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, obesity, type 2 diabetes, colorectal cancer, and anxiety and depression, demonstrating adverse outcomes across nearly all organ systems.

Food processing is not inherently dangerous, and certain processing methods offer clear benefits. Pasteurization improves food safety and processes like freezing and canning can reduce food waste. Fortified foods, like milk with added vitamin D to aid calcium absorption or cereal enriched with fiber, can improve nutrition and address deficiencies. And some processed foods like whole-grain brain, yogurt, and baked beans are associated with a reduced risk of chronic disease like diabetes and obesity.

Consumers should limit UPFs in their diets, but also understand that there is nuance, says Dr. David Seres, director of medical nutrition and professor of medicine in the Institute of Human Nutrition at Columbia University Medical Center.

Most global policies aimed at reversing the rise of UPFs worldwide have focused on reducing consumption of foods high in added fats, sugar, and sodium, many of which are UPFs. But public health experts have called for stronger and broader policies that provide clear dietary guidance and health objectives, warning labels, and consumer education.

And Marion Nestle, Professor Emerita at New York University, highlights the need for legal authority to regulate television and social media advertising, retail product placements, sales and service in schools, and other promotions directed toward children. UPF marketing, Nestle says, “must be stopped.”

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Nico Smit

The post Food Tank Explains: Ultra-Processed Foods appeared first on Food Tank.

1. All Consuming: Why We Eat The Way We Eat Now by Ruby Tandoh

All Consuming is a cultural history of food, from the first television cooking show to the first TikTok food critic. Ruby Tandoh, author of Cook As You Are, explores the sociopolitical factors, such as social media and Michelin stars, that have reshaped our society’s culinary literacy. All Consuming takes a critical and curious look at the tastemakers that influence our consumption patterns and our relationship to food.

2. Agroecology in Practice by Jeffrey W. Bentley and Paul van Mele

Agroecology in Practice is a field guide for farmers, agriculture professionals, policymakers, and environmentalists. Researchers and agricultural scientists Jeffrey W. Bentley and Paul van Mele share tips, tools, and innovative examples from across the globe for implementing agroecological practices and regenerating farmland.

3. Barn Gothic: Three Generations and the Death of the Family Dairy Farm by Ryan Dennis

In Barn Gothic, third generation dairy farmer Ryan Dennis shares about growing up milking calves and watching his father and grandfather struggle to keep their dairy farm alive in a changing world. As corporate corruption rendered 40,000 dairy farms obsolete between 2003 and 2020, Dennis draws on personal narrative and poignant business insights in this story about fighting to preserve agricultural life.

4. Care and Feeding: A Memoir by Laurie Woolever

Care and Feeding is a behind the scenes look at the male-dominated field of restaurant work and food publications, told by Laurie Woolever’s wry candor. Woolever recounts the adventures and misadventures of being a woman in the food industry and in the world at large, reckoning with her own purpose-givers of care and feeding.

5. Dirtbag Billionaire: How Yvon Chouinard Built Patagonia, Made a Fortune, and Gave it All Away by David Gelles 

New York Times reporter and bestselling author David Gelles tells the story of a “dirtbag” in the truest sense: a legendary rock climber who founded the global brand Patagonia, became a billionaire, and committed all profits back to environmental and climate resiliency efforts. Gelles recounts Patagonia Founder Yvon Chouinard’s story of building and managing the brand, diving into the contradictions of creating a mission-driven business in a capitalist society. 

6. Dirty Kitchen: A Memoir of Food and Family by Jill Damatac

Jill Damatac writes a love letter to food as the ultimate comfort in her memoir Dirty Kitchen, a story about her life as an undocumented Filipino immigrant in America for twenty-two years. Damatac recalls cooking her way through her native Philippines, her time studying in the U.K., and her return to the United States with a new perspective and sense of self. Dirty Kitchen shows how food can be the answer to questions of identity, tradition, and belonging in spite of colonial trauma.

7. Food Fight: From Plunder and Profit to People and Planet by Stuart Gillespie

 In Food Fight, Stuart Gillespie explains how the global food system has become the cause of severe public health and planetary crises. With careful analysis, Gillespie shows that colonialism and capitalism affect how and what we eat–and offers a hopeful look at the future of food justice and consumption.

8. Foreign Fruit: A Personal History of the Orange by Katie Goh

In Foreign Fruit, Katie Goh traces the history of the orange alongside her own heritage from east to west to east. In pursuit of investigating the orange, Goh describes growing up queer in a Chinese-Malaysian-Irish household and a homecoming to Malaysia, where she begins to unpeel the layers of her own identity and personhood as well.

9. Formulating Development: How Nestlé Shaped the Aid Industry by Lola Wilhelm

In Formulating Development, author Lola Wilhelm examines how large food corporations have shaped the global food aid industry. Drawing from Nestlé’s historical archives and the records of humanitarian aid agencies, Wilhelm considers the complicated relationships between the food industry’s biggest companies, human health, and agricultural advancement.

10. From Scratch: Adventures in Harvesting, Hunting, Fishing, and Foraging on a Fragile Planet by David Moscow and Jon Moscow

Creator and star of the show From Scratch, David Moscow, takes readers along for a culinary travelogue in his new book. Moscow explores the inside of food ecosystems in over 20 countries, as he talks to hunters, fishers, foragers and many more people along the food supply chain to investigate – sometimes literally – how the sausage is made. From Scratch will show just how interconnected the environment, culture, and community is through food.

11. Gathered: On Foraging, Feasting, and the Seasonal Life by Gabrielle Cerberville

In the upcoming illustrated field guide Gathered, Gabrielle Cerberville, known for her viral presence online as “The Chaotic Forager,” takes readers along on a foraging adventure that will teach them how to find, identify, harvest, and prepare wild food. Structured by seasonality, Gathered is a case for re-wilding our diets and learning to eat in accordance with the natural world.

12. Ginseng Roots: A Memoir by Craig Thompson

Craig Thompson follows up his 2003 autobiography Blankets with a new graphic memoir about growing up as a child laborer in the Wisconsin ginseng farming industry. In Ginseng Roots, Thompson chronicles the 300-year-old global ginseng trade and the individuals who make it up, from ancient Chinese ginseng hunters to migrant farmers in the American Midwest. Ginseng Roots is a reflection on a lost childhood, class divide, industrial agriculture, and finding a sense of home. 

13. Mushroom Day: A Story of 24 Hours and 24 Fungal Lives by Alison Pouliot

In Mushroom Day, ecologist Alison Pouliot brings readers along for an hour in the life of 24 different fungi species. At dusk, the bioluminescent ghost fungus whispers the secrets of the dark forest, while at dawn the porcino mushrooms prepare for the Italian foragers’ arrival. Pouliot takes readers underground into the unique fungal world and their fascinating relationship to plants, lands, and people through vivid prose and evocative illustrations from artist Stuart Patience.

14. My (Half) Latinx Kitchen: An Unforgettable Multicultural Culinary Journey, Spice up Your Cooking Game by Kiera Wright-Ruiz

Part cookbook, part journey of self-discovery, My (Half) Latinx Kitchen is Kiera Wright-Ruiz’s celebration of the flavors that make up her identity. From South America to Asia to the United States, the recipes and heartfelt essays in this book represent the integration of traditions from a first generation voice.

15. Reaping What She Sows: How Women are Rebuilding a Broken Food System by Nancy Matsumoto

In Reaping What She Sows, James Beard Award winner Nancy Matsumoto poses the ultimate question “how should we eat?” in a time when grocery prices are high and supermarkets are short on products. The answer: relying on our own communities. Matsumoto highlights the women trailblazers who are saving and rebuilding local and regional food systems, from a Black women-led rice cooperative to indigenous kelp hatchery owners.

16. Recipes from the American South by Michael Twitty

From critically acclaimed chef, author, and cultural historian Michael Twitty comes the new cookbook, Recipes from the American South. Recipes will take readers from Louisiana to the Chesapeake Bay, highlighting more than 260 of the region’s most iconic dishes. Twitty lends his well-researched and lyrical storytelling to complementary essays that explore the cultural influences that impact Southern cuisine.

17. Saturdays at Harlem Grown: How One Big Idea Transformed a Neighborhood by Tony Hillery, illustrated by Jessie Hartland

Tony Hillery, founder and director of the nonprofit Harlem Grown, adds a new book to his nonfiction picture book series about the real-life urban garden in Harlem teaching children how to grow their own food. Saturdays at Harlem Grown tells the story of a teacher, a student, and the community they grew from their garden seeds. 

18. Sea Change: Unlikely Allies and a Success Story of Oceanic Proportions by Amanda Leland and James Workman

Sea Change is a hopeful vote of confidence for revolutionizing the fishing industry. Amanda  Leland and James Workman share the stories of the individuals fighting against overfishing and the quick band-aid fixes to the boom and bust fishing economy. And throughout the pages, they demonstrate that leaning on unlikely partnerships can lead to surprising and sustainable solutions.

19. Strong Roots: A Memoir of Food, Family, and Ukraine by Olia Hercules

From chef and and co-founder of the #CookforUkraine movement Oli Hercules comes a sweeping memoir of life, family, and food in Ukraine from Soviet rule to Russian invasion. Making it her mission to preserve family recipes and stories that connect her family to the land, Hercules’ memoir is a documentation and declaration of Ukrainian identity and resilience.

20. The Accidental Seed Heroes: Growing a Delicious Food Future for All of Us by Adam Alexander

 The Accidental Seed Heroes celebrates the tiny seeds at the center of our worldwide food system, combining lessons on traditional seed varieties with new sustainable plant science. Building on his past book, The Seed Detective, Alexander argues that protecting traditional seeds goes hand in hand with creating innovative new produce that can feed humanity and protect the planet.

21. The Last Supper: How to Overcome the Coming Food Crisis by Sam Kass

Senior food policy advisor to the Obama administration Sam Kass shares what he has learned about investing in accessible and effective food policy in his new book The Last Supper. Kass breaks down how to maximize nutrition while minimizing environmental damage and protecting against climate change through updates in culture, legislation, business, and technology.

22. The Light Between Apple Trees: Rediscovering the Wild Through a Beloved American Fruit by Priyanka Kumar

The Light Between Apples gives a glimpse into the rich history of the 16,000 apple varieties that once existed in America – only one fifth of those now remain. Kumar traces the story of the apple from its roots in Kazakhstan to its home in Spanish orchards in the Southwest, and blends childhood memories with science to paint a vivid picture of how at its core, an apple can rewild our relationship with nature.

23. Turtle Island: Foods and Traditions of the Indigenous Peoples of North America by Sean Sherman (forthcoming November 2025)

Sean Sherman, also known as the Sioux-Chef, is a three-time James Beard Award winner and a leading figure in the Indigenous food movement. In his new book Turtle Island, Sherman curates more than 100 ancestral and modern recipes from Indigenous peoples across North America, as well as deep narrative histories of how Native food pathways can teach us to connect with our natural world.

24. What if Soil Microbes Mattered?: Our Health Depends on Them by Leo Horrigan

 On behalf of the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Leo Horrigan examines the potential for alternatives to conventional chemical farming. What if Soil Microbes Mattered? looks at how these organisms can restore the biodiversity of soil that has been damaged by chemical applications. Through this exploration, the book — available as a PDF — presents regenerative farming methods that pose the potential for rebuilding healthy soil to better nourish our land and ourselves.

25. What to Eat Now: The Indispensable Guide to Good Food, How to Find It, and Why It Matters by Marion Nestle (forthcoming November 2025)

Twenty years after her trailblazing What to Eat, Marion Nestle is asking the same question in a radically changed food environment in her new book. With over 30,000 products in a typical American supermarket and a rapidly changing news cycle, choosing what to eat can often be a daunting task. In What to Eat Now, Nestle cuts through the noise and establishes clear pathways for eating simply, sustainably, and ethically. 

26. Will Work for Food: Labor across the Food Chain by Laura-Anne Minkoff-Zern and Teresa M. Mares

Will Work For Food is an argument for centering fair labor practices in popular discourse about sustainable food and agriculture systems. Authors Laura-Anne Minkoff-Zern and Teresa M. Mares combine thorough labor justice research and anecdotes from laborers across the food chain to outline action steps that can help us build systems that are better for workers and eaters alike.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

The post Food Tank’s Fall Reads for Food, Farming, and Our Future appeared first on Food Tank.

MAHA Commission Strategy Report

The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission has released its Strategy Report, outlining the federal government’s approach to reducing childhood chronic disease. The 20-page document confirms earlier leaks that the administration will avoid imposing new restrictions on pesticides or ultra-processed foods—despite naming them as key contributors to poor health outcomes in the Commission’s initial report assessing the key contributors to rising rates of chronic disease among American children.

The strategy focuses on four pillars: advancing research, realigning incentives, fostering private sector collaboration, and increasing public awareness. While the report highlights nutrition-related goals—including reforms to dietary guidelines, food labeling, and federal meal programs—it stops short of regulatory mandates. Instead, it promises measures such as closing the “GRAS loophole” for food additives and allowing full-fat milk in schools.

Some agriculture groups welcomed the report. The American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall expressed gratitude for the report’s recognition of the vital role farmers play in the food supply chain and the Association of Equipment Manufacturers applauded the MAHA Commission. According to the International Fresh Produce Association, the strategy report “marks an important step in elevating nutrition as a national public health priority.”

Others, like the American Soybean Association (ASA), expressed more cautious optimism. Though grateful for the opportunity to provide input on the report, the ASA remains concerned about the Commission’s “misinformed rhetoric” regarding the safety of soybean oil, which the organizations says has been backed by decades of science. The Modern Ag Alliance praised the report for avoiding “damaging potential outcomes for American agriculture,” but urged the Commission to “support sound scientific standards that are based on real-world risk.”

Health advocates and environmental groups were more critical, lamenting the report’s tepid recommendations and criticizing the agricultural sector’s influence. Marion Nestle noted missed opportunities to curb ultra-processed food consumption and promote school gardens. Rebecca Wolf of Food & Water Watch called the report “a gift to big agriculture,” arguing it lacks meaningful action on toxic pesticides. Earthjustice said the plan dismantles protections and benefits corporations “while families, especially children, will pay the price.”

Zen Honeycutt, founder of the Moms Across America movement and a vocal MAHA supporter, says her group is “deeply disappointed that the committee allowed the chemical companies to influence the report.” George Kimbrell, legal director of the Center for Food Safety, called the report a betrayal of the MAHA grassroots movement.

Critics also point to contradictions between the report’s goals and recent policy actions, such as cuts to nutrition education and local food programs under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. As Kennedy declared the strategy “the most sweeping reform agenda in modern history,” skeptics like Jennifer Harris, senior research advisor with the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity at the University of Connecticut, questioned its capacity to deliver change without clearer enforcement or new regulatory mechanisms.

FAO Reveals “Pervasive” Gender Inequalities in sub-Saharan Africa’s Agri-Food Systems

A new report from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reveals persistent gender disparities in agrifood systems across sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), despite women comprising nearly half of the sector’s workforce.

About 76 percent of all working women in the region are employed in agrifood systems, with increasing participation in off-farm roles like processing and packaging, the report finds. Yet over 90 percent work in the informal sector, where jobs tend to be low-paid, precarious, and largely unrecognized.

Women dominate food processing and services—making up 73 percent of the workforce in those segments—but represent just 3 percent of workers in transport, reflecting a concentration in roles tied to domestic labor, FAO says. In 28 of 33 countries, men are more likely than women to own land or hold secure land rights and In 2023, 64 percent of men held a financial account, compared to 52 percent of women—a 12-point gender gap, up from 5 points in 2011. Nearly half the countries in the region have weak or no legal protections for women’s land access. And women face higher food insecurity: 11.2 million more women than men in the region are affected by hunger.

The report emphasizes that women are essential to food systems—as farmers, processors, traders, and caregivers—but their contributions are often invisible. “Their productive work is often informal, precarious, and poorly paid, while reproductive labour remains invisible,” says Dr. Fiorella Picchioni, a lead author of the report.

FAO’s Abebe Haile-Gabriel calls for “investments and enabling policies” to create formal jobs and expand social protections, arguing that supporting women will strengthen both food security and resilience.

Punjabi Farmers See Worst Floods in Three Decades

Heavy monsoon rains have caused severe flooding across the Punjab province of Pakistan and the Indian state of Punjab. Rivers across the region have breached their banks, submerging entire towns, decimating farms, and displacing millions.

Over 950 people have died in Pakistan in rain-related incidents since the monsoon season began in late June, according to the disaster management authority. Floods have submerged 4,000 villages, impacting 4 million people, including almost 2 million who have been evacuated.

In Punjab, the country’s breadbasket, hundreds of thousands of people and businesses rely on agriculture. The floods have destroyed hundreds of thousands of acres of crops, including rice paddies, cotton, and sugarcane, and grazing fields for livestock are now muddy pools.

Watching the floodwaters rise, Surinder Singh, a farmer from Sarala Kalan village in Patiala, said: “Floods and extreme weather events are becoming more frequent, and the future does not look any better. If the farmers of Punjab—the food bowl of India—cannot even feed themselves, how will they feed others?”

In the Indian state of Punjab, tens of thousands have been evacuated and over 60,000 square miles of farmland have been destroyed. Over 500 cows died in the floods, and around 18,000 chickens died in collapsed poultry sheds, according to India’s Animal Husbandry Minister.

While heavy rains are typical during the monsoon season, the United Nations says that the conditions have been exacerbated by the climate crisis.

Countries Take Action on Hazardous Pesticides

Recent developments in Mexico, France, and South Africa signal growing, though uneven, momentum for global pesticide reform.

Mexico has enacted a ban on the use, production, import, and commercialization of DDT and 34 other pesticides identified as high-risk by international agreements. The new regulation is part of a broader national strategy to transition to safer agricultural practices.

“The goal is to establish much stricter regulations because these are products that cannot be used as if they were aspirin,” says Julio Berdegué, Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. The decree commits to supporting small- and medium-sized producers in accessing safer, cost-effective alternatives. A second round of bans is planned for 2026, followed by a third in 2027.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) welcomed the move, stating: “It has been 34 years since Mexico adopted a measure of this scale. This is a key step toward sustainable and safe agriculture.” However, civil society groups expressed concern that the ban falls short. Pesticide Action Network and Alternatives in Mexico (RAPAM) notes that most of the banned chemicals are older substances, while over 200 pesticides restricted in other countries remain authorized. These include ethyl chlorpyrifos, fipronil, paraquat, and neonicotinoids.

In France, the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal ruled that the government must revise its pesticide authorization procedures. The court found that existing rules violated a 2009 EU regulation requiring that pesticides cause no harm to human health or the environment. The case was brought by five environmental groups, who argue that the state has failed to protect biodiversity through weak pesticide rules. The government has now been asked to review pesticide authorizations that have already been granted to make sure they meet the rules.

Pollinis, one of the advocacy organizations, celebrated the court’s decision, calling the ruling a “historic victory.” Other organizations voice concerns that, despite stricter domestic regulations, EU-based manufacturers—including in France—continue to create and export banned pesticides abroad, especially to countries in the Global South.

Meanwhile, South Africa recently banned the import of terbufos, a highly toxic pesticide linked to the deaths of six children. The South African Human Rights Commission called the ban a “historic milestone” for realizing basic rights such as health, food, and a safe environment.

Nearly US$50 Million for Farmers on Hold at USDA

Nearly US$50 million in congressionally mandated funding for farmers remains unspent at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and time is running out before the unspent money is automatically returned to the U.S. Treasury, Politico reports. The funds are intended to support the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program, which helps farmers test new methods, manage environmental challenges, and collaborate on research.

The SARE program, first authorized in the 1990 Farm Bill and reauthorized in subsequent legislation, typically distributes grants to more than 500 farmers and ranchers annually. Thousands more benefit from research funding administered through universities. Recipients use the grants for projects such as pest management, yield improvement, drought mitigation, and cover cropping.

If the USDA does not obligate the unspent US$48 million by September 30, the money may be returned to the U.S. Treasury through a process known as impoundment. Sources familiar with the situation say the reason for the delay is unclear. No public explanation has been provided by the USDA.

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC), alongside 100 food, farm, conservation, and rural organizations, urges Congress to fully fund the SARE program, highlighting the need for and value of the initiative. According to NSAC, SARE helps farmers make meaningful changes, like adopting new practices or reducing inputs and is one of the most cost effective and administratively efficient competitive research programs within the USDA.

Others, including the National Organic Coalition, assert that SARE funds may not be impounded without congressional authority. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the “power of the purse,” meaning it has the sole authority to control government spending. Under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) of 1974, legislation passed to protect this power from presidential overreach, prohibits the President from impounding congressionally mandated funds without Congress’s approval.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Paul Sivot, Unsplash

The post Food Tank’s Weekly News Roundup: MAHA Strategy Report, USDA Delays, and Pesticide Progress appeared first on Food Tank.

I like to think about agrochemicals as medicine. They’re not something farmers should rely on every day or every season. But they can help treat problems—like degraded soils that won’t otherwise be productive, or overwhelming weeds when labor is short.

At the same time, I’ve seen how conservation agriculture practices—more diverse cropping systems, intercropping, no-till, and agroforestry—can reduce or even eliminate the need for those inputs. This can create a win-win-win scenario: farmers save money, natural resources are protected, and food and nutrition security improve.

“It’s not only an increase in yield, but diversity,” said Alemayehu Koysha, Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Manager at the Terepeza Development Association (TDA). “And diversity has meaning for income.”

His colleague, Tilahun Tadesse, a Senior Programs Manager at TDA, put it another way. “It’s not the size of the land, but the productivity that matters.”

For the past three years, the Scaling Conservation Agriculture-Based Sustainable Intensification (SCASI) initiative—a collaboration between the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) and regional partners like TDA—has worked with nearly 75,000 farmers in southern Ethiopia to promote context-specific practices. The approach is not prescriptive and gives farmers the opportunity to experiment in the field and learn from one another.

Switching away from conventional agriculture isn’t easy. Farmers everywhere are risk averse—if your livelihood depends on your harvest, it makes sense to stick with what you know. That’s why cluster farming and farmer-to-farmer mentoring are so important. In Ethiopia, I saw groups of three to five households working together, experimenting, and sharing knowledge. Farmers trust each other more than outside experts, and seeing success firsthand makes change more likely—and less risky—because they see their neighbors doing the same thing.

One way farmers are working together is by coordinating the use of herbicides like Roundup. Roundup is one of the most widely used herbicides in the world, produced by Bayer, with glyphosate as its active ingredient. It’s effective against broadleaf plants and grasses, and it can help regulate plant growth and ripening. But it’s also controversial.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A), while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says it is “not likely to be carcinogenic.” Beyond human health, glyphosate can leach into groundwater, affect soil microorganisms, and harm insects and plants it wasn’t meant to target.

Still, agronomists like Daniel Markos Bura at the Hawassa Agricultural Research Center and Birhan Abdulkadir, a Research Officer at CIMMYT, explained to me that on severely depleted soils, glyphosate can sometimes help farmers produce enough biomass to eventually move away from herbicides altogether. With mulching and other regenerative practices, reliance on chemicals can decline over time.

Government extension agents often recommend Roundup, even though it’s expensive. As Tadesse told me, it can be “tough to get extension agents to surrender” their attachment to herbicides. But when agents compare demonstration plots—conventional agriculture versus conservation agriculture—they begin to see how conservation agriculture can work without chemical inputs.

What struck me most in Ethiopia was the resilience and creativity of farmers. As Bura put it, “Farmers are trying everything.” They grow staples like maize and taro, but also coffee, turmeric, soy, yams, honey, and indigenous crops like enset (false banana).

“If not for enset, people would not survive,” he told me. It’s the crop that gets families through the hunger season, bridging the gap between harvests. It’s also a reminder that resilience comes from diversity—not dependence on a single crop or a single tool.

So, to Roundup or not to Roundup? The answer, as always in agriculture, is complex. Farmers need choices, flexibility, and the power to decide what works best in their fields. Agroecology and conservation agriculture both have a role to play, and what matters is ensuring that farmers have the support to experiment, adapt, and thrive, not just survive.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

The post On the Ground with Dani Nierenberg: To Roundup or Not to Roundup appeared first on Food Tank.

The New York Times first obtained the draft of the Strategy report, which has not been confirmed by the White House and will go through revisions before finalization. It was initially expected to be publicly released on August 12, 2025, the date of the deadline for submission to the President. But the White House delayed publication, citing the need to coordinate officials’ schedules.

The new Strategy from the Commission—chaired by U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—will build on the Commission’s first publication, an Assessment released in May. The Assessment identified four main drivers of childhood chronic disease: poor diet, chemical exposure, lack of physical activity and chronic stress, and overmedicalization.

On issues such as poor diets and pesticides, the draft expands on the original report, emphasizing additional research, improved public education, and voluntary industry action. But it offers few new recommended restrictions. “This report has one overriding implied message,” Marion Nestle says of the draft. “More research needed.”

To address poor diet, one of the Assessment’s four key drivers of childhood chronic disease, the draft emphasizes research and education. It calls for studies on sleep and nutrition, the impact of food and lifestyle interventions, and how additives affect individuals.

It recommends expanding access to nutrition information, launching campaigns tied to updated dietary guidelines, and encouraging community-level interventions, such as pediatric care teams working with parents and students on healthy eating.

Both the Assessment and draft Strategy identify processed foods as a major contributor to poor diet, but the draft mentions them only once, in reference to defining the term ultra-processed foods. The New York Times notes this omission raises questions about the administration’s willingness to regulate, a step the food industry strongly opposes.

The draft endorses the prioritization of whole, healthy foods in federal programs, proposing measures like promoting full-fat dairy in schools and distributing MAHA boxes of healthy food through SNAP. But many of these programs have faced recent funding cuts, and Nestle describes a similar food box initiative under the first Trump administration as a disaster for small farmers.

If left unchanged, the draft’s language on pesticides and chemical additives will mark a win for the agriculture industry and a setback for Kennedy, MAHA supporters, and the health of the American people, according to Kari Hamerschlag, the Deputy Director of the Food and Agriculture Program at Friends of the Earth.

The Commission’s first report identified common ingredients such as glyphosate as threats to children’s health, prompting 500 people to send a letter calling for a ban on the additive. But industrial farmers and agricultural groups pushed back. Hundreds of organizations urged the Commission to rely on sound science rather than outlier studies and warned that the Assessment report contained numerous errors that fueled unfounded fears about food safety.

Since then, industry groups have lobbied heavily to shape the draft Strategy, and the National Corn Growers Association said it has spent months raising alarms about the Commission’s focus on herbicides. EPA Deputy Administrator Nancy Beck said the agency will continue to deem glyphosate safe “until the weight of scientific evidence shifts.”

But the International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen,” and Friends of the Earth has reported thousands of lawsuits linking it to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

The draft, which does not specifically mention glyphosate, contains no recommendations to restructure federal oversight of pesticides. Instead, the document suggests publicizing existing EPA review processes, which the document calls “robust,” to ensure confidence.

To reduce pesticide usage, the draft suggests implementing programs to help growers adopt precision agricultural techniques and conducting research demonstrating how these technologies can help to decrease pesticide use. It also calls for new research to address cumulative exposure to chemicals, including pesticides.

The final draft of the MAHA Commission’s Strategy Report is forthcoming and, according to three people familiar with the matter, will be publicly launched by the end of August.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of The White House, Wikimedia

The post Draft MAHA Report Favors Research, Not Rules appeared first on Food Tank.

The report finds that fossil fuels are embedded in every stage of the industrialized food chain, from the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides on farms, to ultra-processed foods and plastic packaging. These dependencies are not only fueling climate impacts, ecological degradation, and public health consequences—they also expose food systems to economic shocks and supply disruptions, increasing food insecurity.

According to IPES-Food, food systems account for at least 15 percent of global fossil fuel use and consume 40 percent of all petrochemicals.  It takes about 10 calories of fossil fuel to produce every calorie of food we eat, a co-author of the report says.

Fossil fuels have reshaped agriculture over the past century, the report finds, powering everything from farm inputs to food processing and packaging formulation. Today, 99 percent of synthetic agrochemicals are fossil fuel derived. And one-third of all petrochemicals are used to produce synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, making them the single biggest fossil fuel consumer in agriculture.

Beyond the farm, the food system burns fossil fuels during energy-intensive manufacturing, processing, packaging, and distribution to retailers and end consumers, which together account for the largest share of fossil fuel usage in food systems, the report finds.

Ultra-processed foods—manufactured from commodity crops that are grown with fossil-based agrochemicals, harvested with fossil-fueled machinery, and packaged in plastic—are the ultimate expression of fossil-fueled food systems.

These practices are fueling climate impacts, public health risks, and food insecurity, according to IPES-Food. Agrochemical production releases significant greenhouse gases, while pesticides rank among the top global drivers of biodiversity loss and cause an estimated 385 million poisonings each year. Chronic exposure—disproportionately affecting rural and frontline communities—is linked to cancer, reproductive harm, and neurological disorders.

At the same time, fossil fuel dependence leaves food systems exposed to oil and gas price shocks, which can drive up the cost of production inputs and thereby food itself—putting millions at risk of hunger. As Raj Patel, a contributing IPES-Food expert to the report, notes, “[t]ethering food to fossil fuels means tying dinner plates to oil rigs and conflict zones.”

As energy and transport sectors begin to decarbonize, the report warns, oil and gas companies are turning to food systems as their next growth frontier. Fertilizers and plastic packaging now account for 74 percent of petrochemical production and are quickly becoming pillars of fossil fuel companies’ growth strategies.

Meanwhile, public and private financing for fossil fuels continues to rise. In 2024, global banks invested US$869 billion in the sector, while governments spent US$2 trillion on fossil fuel subsidies and another US$540 billion on chemical-intensive agriculture.

Even as the fossil fuel industry expands and food supply chains grow longer and more resource-intensive, food systems remain glaringly absent from climate negotiations. This blind spot, IPES-Food says, allows major corporations to push high-tech, costly fixes that fail to tackle the root causes of fossil fuel dependence—and, in some cases, risk entrenching the problem.

But the report makes clear that there is hope. “Fossil fuel-free food systems are not only possible, they already exist, as the world’s Indigenous people teach us,” says Georgina Catacora-Vargas, a contributing IPES-Food expert.

The report calls for a holistic transformation of food systems that cuts ties with oil, gas, and coal while embracing agroecology, Indigenous and regenerative farming, local supply chains, and democratic food governance.

To address climate change, food insecurity, and public health, the authors urge governments and policymakers to seize the opportunity at COP30 to phase out fossil fuel and agrochemical subsidies and invest in a just, fossil-free food future.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Valeriy Kryukov, Unsplash

The post IPES Report Exposes Food System Links to Fossil Fuels and Proposes Solutions appeared first on Food Tank.

Created in 2016 by a coalition of animal welfare groups, scientists, and industry stakeholders, the BCC sets specific requirements for stocking density, prohibiting broiler cages, as well as for conditions like light, enrichment, and clean litter. It calls for more humane slaughter practices and third-party audits to assess progress. Almost a decade later, more than 200 companies have signed on, including household names like Chipotle, Burger King, and Popeyes.

The BCC requires that committed companies use only chicken breeds from an approved list created by independent researchers. “Fast-growing broiler chickens are bred to gain weight rapidly, prioritizing meat production over health,” Julia Johnson, Head of Food Business in the United States at Compassion in World Farming—the nonprofit organizers of the BCC—tells Food Tank. “This genetic selection causes numerous welfare issues, including severe leg deformities and lameness due to their inability to support their own body weight.” Johnson also describes chronic pain, cardiovascular disease, lack of enrichment like sunlight and space, and inhumane slaughter practices among the issues the BCC aims to address.

Recent elevated concerns about avian influenza, or bird flu, highlight the continued importance of animal welfare for both animals and humans. According to research published in the journal Frontiers of Microbiology, poor environmental conditions can contribute to stress and a suppression of chickens’ immune systems. This can, in turn, increase the likelihood of disease transmission between chickens or from chickens to farmers.

According to Johnson, “there’s a misconception that the changes required under the BCC will hurt animals or farmers.” But, she says, this is “simply not what we have seen and not what the science shows.”

LaBelle Patrimoine, a poultry supplier based in Pennsylvania, sees the Commitment’s standards as essential to their business practices.

“We already had very similar values concerning growing practices and have always held ourselves to a high bar regarding animal welfare standards,” Nick Kienzle of LaBelle Patrimoine, tells Food Tank. “We are getting recognized for the efforts that we feel simply make sense of how to raise healthy, happy chickens sustainably.”

Kienzle also emphasizes the importance of high welfare standards to LaBelle Patrimoine’s relationship with farmers. The commitment “gives our farmers a level of confidence in knowing they are providing sustainable, healthy ways to raise chickens,” Kienzle explains. “And it helps offer our network of family farmers standards to rally around and commit to in a way that validates all of our beliefs in poultry husbandry practices.”

LaBelle Patrimoine is one of three poultry suppliers that have adopted the BCC, among Perdue and Mary’s Chicken. But according to Johnson, the voluntary adoption of BCC-compliant practices has proven more challenging for other businesses. Some are uncertain the supply chain will be able to produce enough while meeting the standards.

“Many of these companies have not made substantial progress toward making change for the millions of birds in their supply chains,” says Johnson. “Some have even removed their policies entirely, leaving billions of birds literally in the dark, unable to stand or even walk.”

Additionally, working at a global scale can present issues of misalignment when considering specific goals and timelines. There are multiple versions of the BCC, each with slightly different language, for producers in the United States, United Kingdom, European Union, Australia and New Zealand, and Brazil.

Johnson believes these difficulties are par for the course in the larger movement for higher standards in the poultry industry. “The long-term payoff is worth the challenge,” she says. “These large-scale partnerships allow us to create real, tangible improvements in animal welfare that would be difficult to achieve in smaller, fragmented systems.”

And Johnson believes that even small changes can make a huge difference for chickens and farmers: “If we could influence even a percentage of the marketplace, it would impact millions of lives.”

The post Over 200 Companies Are Part of the Push for Better Chicken Welfare Standards appeared first on Food Tank.

Brita Lundberg, a fourth-generation farmer and the Chief Storyteller for Lundberg Family Farms describes the Regenerative Organic Certification as “holistic,” telling Food Tank that “we’re really proud and thankful we were able to achieve it.”

The company was the first U.S. grown rice brand to launch Regenerative Organic Certified products. By 2027, they aim to transition all organic rice to regenerative organic. 

Lundberg explains that as part of their commitment to the environment, they avoid chemical herbicides and instead use a practice that she calls “reading the rice” to manage weed growth. This entails raising the water level just high enough to drown the grass weeds, but not so high that it harms the rice crops. 

“What you’ve got to do is put your hip waders on and wade into the water and pull up some plants and look at them really close, read them,” Lundberg says. Farmers have just 24 to 48 hours to effectively pull this off.

Lundberg Family Farms also utilizes cover crops including oats, vetch, and fava beans to restore nutrients in the soil, prevent soil erosion, sequester carbon, reduce weed pressure, and provide habitat. “My dad likes to call them a win-win-win-win-win, working in partnership with nature,” she tells Food Tank. 

For the company, protecting biodiversity and wildlife is an important benefit of their approach to farming. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California has lost more than 90 percent of its historic wetlands, which are critical habitats for migratory birds. 

Lundberg says that their rice fields are able to “replicate those natural wetlands, especially in the winter when the birds really depend on that habitat.” That’s why, following the rice harvest, they flood a portion of their fields that birds can flock to. 

In the spring, before they begin planting, they also partner with the California Waterfowl Association to comb the fields for nests that ducks have built. Any eggs they find are then transferred to a local hatchery before the fowl are released back into the wild.

Lundberg acknowledges that the transition to regenerative organic may present hurdles that can be intimidating for farmers. “There was a lot of fear internally about what that would look like if we fall short, how we would overcome those potential barriers to certification,” she says. 

But Lundberg encourages producers to “just start,” noting that their own journey began with a conversation with the team at the Regenerative Organic Alliance who developed the certification. 

“I always recommend that folks who are considering becoming regenerative organic certified just reach out and ask questions and find out what it would look like,” Lundberg says. “You can just start with a part of [the farm] and see how it goes and see if it works for you.”

Listen to the full conversation with Brita Lundberg to learn more about how Lundberg Family Farms is supporting salmon populations, the most effective ways to communicate the story of regenerative farming, and how she is thinking about carrying on her family’s legacy. 

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Lundberg Family Farms

The post Farming with Nature: How One Rice Company Is Using Regenerative Practices to Heal the Soil and Protect Biodiversity appeared first on Food Tank.

The report uses the planetary-boundaries framework, which was first introduced in 2009 by Earth systems scientists at the Stockholm Resilience Center. The concept recognizes that in addition to climate change, there are eight other Earth systems that, if destabilized beyond a certain threshold, could trigger irreversible environmental changes.

“We are operating our world economy beyond a safe operating space. There is not enough focus on climate change, and there is certainly not enough focus on the eight other planetary boundaries. The climate crisis is not a standalone crisis,” Duko Hopman, a partner at McKinsey and co-author of the report, tells Food Tank.

The report analyzes six planetary boundaries. McKinsey finds that human activity has already extended beyond the “safe operating space” for four of these boundaries: biodiversity loss, chemical and plastic pollution, nutrient pollution, and greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions. As a sector, agriculture has the single largest direct impact on planetary boundaries.

McKinsey researchers conclude that food systems actors have an enormous role to play in bringing civilization back within planetary bounds. Targeting the private sector, the 47 actions offer guidance to help corporations address specific planetary boundaries.

For agriculture companies, these include implementing “regenerative agriculture, precision agriculture, agroforestry, new delivery models, biological pest control, drip irrigation, biodegradable packaging, and reducing food waste,” the report says.

Almost half of the impact of these nature-positive actions provide a positive return-on-investment (ROI). And if corporations fully implement just twelve of these levers, the report estimates these actions can amount to “an annual benefit of US$700 billion.”

According to Hopman, agri-food companies are facing real threats to their profits because of factors like declining soil health and nutrient pollution. With soil depletion progressing at its current rate, “there are only a few dozen harvest cycles left, so agribusiness is taking those predictions very seriously,” Hopman reports to Food Tank.

Hopman tells Food Tank that “the emitters right now might not be feeling the effect of carbon emissions on their operations. However, compared to climate, other planetary boundaries are much more of a localized issue. So these companies are feeling these effects faster.”

“It is one thing to argue against cutting down a forest because of climate change, but it’s an additionally interesting point to argue how cutting down a forest would reduce precipitation in the same region which may reduce crop yields in the area,” Hopman continues. “The more you can make those dynamics between environmental destruction and revenue loss transparent, the more you can affect decision making.”

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

The post Report Finds That Agriculture Is Breaching Several Planetary Boundaries appeared first on Food Tank.

In “Breaking the Cycle of Unsustainable Food Systems, Hunger, and Debt,” IPES-Food reports that the COVID-19 pandemic and Russian invasion of Ukraine contributed to rising food prices in the last two years.

“Although there has been some easing of food prices in recent months, it is unpredictable what the fallout from the interplay with the debt crisis will be,” Jennifer Clapp, Canada Research Chair in Global Food Security and Sustainability at the University of Waterloo, Ontario and co-author of the report, tells Food Tank. “But we are seeing food price inflation remaining higher than overall inflation, and this is deeply troubling.”

And now authors state that low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are threatened by a worsening debt crisis. IPES-Food finds 60 percent of low-income countries and 30 percent of middle-income countries are at high risk of defaulting on their debt. According to the report, Zambia, Sri Lanka, and Suriname defaulted already. Meanwhile, countries including Ghana and Pakistan are at risk of doing so.

The report highlights four critical ways that unsustainable food systems deepen the debt crisis for dozens of LMICs. These nations face import dependencies for food and fertilizers, which forces them to rely on cash crops to repay debts and prevents them from diversifying crops. Additionally, decades of divestment from social services and domestic agricultural production have further exacerbated the challenges. As food prices spike and crash, farmers find themselves unable to compete with large corporations. And the worsening climate crisis is increasing uncertainty, destroying harvests and deepening farmer debt.

Skyrocketing import costs on energy and fertilizer are also straining producers. Nations that already depend on foreign aid will continue to feel the effects of inflation beyond just food products, according to IPES-Food.

The report’s authors lay out three recommendations for policy solutions to address the dual crises of debt and food insecurity. International institutions must meet the moment by scaling up both debt relief and development investments for struggling nations, they argue. They also believe these institutions must implement policies that address decades, if not centuries, of wealth divestment from Global South nations. Policy recommendations include taxing agribusiness for price hikes and debt reparations based on ecological destruction.

The report also suggests reimagining the structure of existing, and forming new, independent financial institutions. Bold reform could expand the autonomy of less developed nations in negotiating debt arrangements.

Another solution includes the introduction of safeguards such as critical reviews of lending practices between Global North and South nations within existing institutions like the International Monetary Fund or World Bank.

“Any new initiative for climate financing or debt restructuring must not repeat the mistakes of the past, damaging conditionalities and colonial power relations,” Lim Li-Ching, IPES-Food Co-chair and Senior Researcher at Third World Network, tells Food Tank.

“And rather than using public money to guarantee private investments, we should rather find ways of repairing historical injustices and return resources to the Global South, while deterring climate destruction in the first place.”

The report suggests democratizing decision-making in global food systems and financial institutions, including the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Diversifying who gets a seat at the table is an important factor in solving this complex problem, the report argues.

“In fulfilling their domestic mandates, big central banks are inadvertently triggering debt distress for countries across the world when they raise interest rates because their actions are raising the costs of servicing debt worldwide,” Clapp tells Food Tank.

IPES-Food argues that independent financial institutions can help moderate the stresses of international crises, rather than perpetuating these dependent relationships between richer and poor countries.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

The post The Relationship Between Debt and Global Hunger: A Special IPES-Food Report appeared first on Food Tank.

“This book really is the inside look at how billionaires and large global corporations have profited.” Sorvino, who leads coverage of food and agriculture for Forbes, tells Food Tank. Their gain comes at enormous social costs, she explains.

In her career at Forbes, Sorvino has found that the centralization of wealth and power underpins food and agriculture systems, and the meat industry is no exception. Raw Deal shows how consolidation and price-fixing make industry leaders rich, while manipulating consumer choice and harming the environment. Poor soil health, environmental injustice, the spread of antibiotic resistance, and public health issues in communities are among the concerns caused by this system.

According to a study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), only three firms control 63 percent of pig processing in the U.S. Just two control 46 percent of cow slaughter and 38 percent of chicken processing. This consolidation in the processing stage alone makes food systems more vulnerable to climate change disruptions and disease outbreaks.

In response, Sorvino shows that investors are capitalizing on climate change by promoting alternative proteins as a solution to the failing meat industry. But the alternative protein industry has its limitations. “In a lot of ways, these investors are still just looking to profit off the food system for climate change.” Sorvino tells Food Tank.

Raw Deal instead points to necessary, transformative changes in the meat industry to survive.

“There’s not enough time to start from scratch.” Sorvino tells Food Tank. “At the end of the day, grand reform really is needed, desperately, and we just don’t have time to put off big change any longer.”

Raw Deal argues that the U.S. meat industry’s future depends on changes at every stage of the supply chain. “Eaters need to be supporting the right types of systems that they purchase through. Retailers need to do a better job of addressing the power they have.” Sorvino says. She also hopes the book will deter further consolidation at slaughterhouses, especially concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

“On a more fundamental level, we really need to re-regionalize the food system,” Sorvino argues. She says that, despite trends of buying local within the last decade, local meat sales constitute less than one percent of the entire meat industry. “Local needs to be thought about differently.” Her book calls on consumers to rethink their purchasing choices by considering the business models behind the product. Sorvino hopes for “more distributed, regionalized systems” that can counter the consolidation of the meat industry.

“I do hope there will be many in the meat industry who will hear the message in this book and feel the level of urgency in the writing,” she tells Food Tank. “And hopefully they will be inspired to take up change for workers, for the environment, and for the public health of the community surrounding all of this production.”

Raw Deal insists that transforming the future of the meat industry relies on collective action. “Everyone has to be part of the solution. Everyone has a role to play.” Sorvino tells Food Tank.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Mary Winchester, Unsplash

The post ‘Raw Deal’ Tells All in U.S. Big Meat Exposé appeared first on Food Tank.

The latest episode explores the importance of supporting localized initiatives for agroecology over industrialized agribusiness models. African farmers are calling for more support to practice agroecology.

The episode also aims to debunk the idea that agroecology is backward or unfounded by research. “What we wanted to do was demonstrate that, actually, agroecology is itself a science.” Ashley Fent, AGRA Watch Research Consultant for CAGJ, tells Food Tank. “Agroecology is really about embracing the diversity and complexity of interactions and relationships in the natural world and then trying to build those into agriculture, and that’s fundamentally scientific.”

“Time and again, scientific studies demonstrate that agroecology increases yields and provides healthy and sustainable diets, while decreasing input costs and boosting farm profitability,” the episode highlights.

The episode shows that farmers in Benin experienced 50 to 60 percent higher yields after implementing sustainable land management practices. In Malawi, household food security increased 33 percent when farmers diversified crops and added organic materials to the soil. Dr. Mamadou Goïta, Executive Director of the Institute for Research and Promotion of Alternatives in Development (IRPAD), credits high levels of production for a growing population not to biotechnology, but to agroecology. “It’s because people have been resisting, and the resilience of relying on the agroecological system, that they have been feeding themselves,” he says.

Despite the science behind agroecology in Africa, Science argues that large philanthropic organizations tend to funnel money into industrialized methods of agriculture. These models harm smallholder farmers, environmental health, biodiversity, and traditional foodways. The episode draws particular attention to The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), which funded thousands of projects centered on technology and chemical inputs. Just one project supported by the Foundation is explicitly focused on agroecology.

The episode argues that the BMGF supports a narrow set of scientific approaches. These do not address systemic issues including the climate crisis or hunger, but they do provide room for agribusiness to grow. Elaborating on this point, Fent explains that this narrow understanding of science is part of a larger issue that often elevates technology-based science above all other scientific forms.

The episode Science builds upon the film’s previous installments to scientifically prove how exporting agribusiness models to Africa is a serious mistake. “Really what we wanted to do with the films was to raise critiques of the African Green Revolution and the role of the BMGF in advancing what we believe is a really destructive and counterproductive form of philanthropy, known as philanthro-capitalism.” Fent tells Food Tank. Philanthro-capitalism, she continues, is “undermining the science that people have been doing for a really long time.”

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Annie Spratt, Unsplash

The post Film Series Says Out with Industrial Agriculture, in with Agroecology in Africa appeared first on Food Tank.

The first EAT-Lancet Commission report was published in 2019. The EAT-Lancet 2.0 report will launch in 2024 and focus on diverse dietary guidelines, local diets, and food justice. In addition, the report will include 12-month long global consultations for the public and other interested global food systems stakeholders to share their thoughts on a transition to sustainable food systems, and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) modeling efforts to evaluate multiple pathways to sustainable food systems.

The second EAT-Lancet Commission brings together 25 scientists from 19 countries and five continents. The Commission includes EAT, a science-based nonprofit in collaboration with the Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC), the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Harvard University, and One Consultive Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).

The Commission’s research will “take into consideration the role sustainable, nourishing foods play in culture,” Shakuntala Thilsted, EAT-Lancet 2.0 Commission Co-Chair and 2021 World Food Prize Laureate, tells Food Tank. Thilsted adds that the Commission wants to “incorporate and integrate Indigenous and traditional knowledge with up-to-date scientific evidence.”

During the Commission’s press conference at Stockholm+50, Johan Rockström, EAT-Lancet 2.0 Commission Co-Chair and Director of PIK, said the EAT-Lancet 2.0 report will include guidance on investing in regenerative, carbon-sequestering farming systems. Walter Willet, Commission Co-Chair and Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, adds that capturing carbon will be a crucial part of the solution to staying “under 1.5 or two degrees centigrade by the end of the century.”

Policy suggestions within the 2019 report appear to be “a silver bullet,” Matthias Kaiser, Professor Emeritus at the Centre for the Study of Sciences and Humanities at the University of Bergen, Norway, tells Food Tank. He believes that the simplified recommendations laid out in the 2019 report are not globally utilizable. Kaiser also says that the 2019 report did not address global food chains’ uncertainties and complexities. He says the forthcoming report should consider “different food identities, food cultures, and traditions.”

Kaiser notes that reducing red meat consumption or production is possible, but the guidance should address specificity in “different regions and cultures.” In coastal cultures, for example, Kaiser says, a “large quantity of proteins” may come from seafood and less from red meat. Whereas areas that are lower income or that are located far from the sea, “don’t have the supply chains” to support a diet rich in seafood.

Stineke Oenema, Executive Secretary of UN Nutrition, tells Food Tank that “it’s important to look at the context” when making dietary recommendations. In lower-income countries, Oenema notes, it may be beneficial for eaters to consume more animal proteins.

During the EAT-Lancet 2.0 press conference, Willet said that the Commission will be taking a “fresh look” at red meat’s impact on healthy diets, among “many other diet and health relationships.”

The 2019 report also drew skepticism about private food industry involvement in the 2019 EAT-Lancet report. Scientist Nina Teicholz writes, “[EAT’s] massive level of corporate backing raises serious questions about the interests behind this report.” Specifically, EAT’s Food Reform for Sustainability and Health (FReSH) Initiative includes multi-billion-dollar food industry giants like Pepsico, Danone, Syngenta, and Unilever.

The EAT-Lancet 2.0 Commission tells Food Tank, “EAT works with food system actors from all sectors, including business, civil society, governments (local, national, and global). It believes that alignment across actors, reflecting a diversity of perspectives and plausible pathways is critical to support transformation, notably creating a space for dialogue and discussion between divergent voices.”

Kaiser tells Food Tank that power relationships within the food industry may implicitly influence the Commission’s recommendations. “If we see that roughly 70 percent of all the food consumed globally comes from small producers,” Kaiser says, “that is not necessarily [in] the interest of the big corporations that represent the realities in the food system we have.”

The 2019 report was written by experts “from the rich, industrialized countries of the Global North,” Kaiser mentions. Kaiser advocates that the forthcoming report incorporate a more bottom-up approach. This, he says, should include frameworks for “local, regional, and cultural food identities that would improve the sustainability of food consumption” instead of top-down guidelines from wealthy, industrialized nations.

Kaiser also recommends the Commission not solely focus on nutrition science, or areas of health science, but also include social sciences, “like anthropology, sociology, political sciences, that relate to power structures” within the food system. “What they need to do is to have an appeal, rather than a recipe,” Kaiser says, “an appeal to these diversities and suggestions, how a different path to sustainable food can be developed out of the existing traditions, out of the existing socio-economic relationships or power structures.”

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Alexander Schimmeck, Unsplash

The post EAT-Lancet 2.0 Commission Revises Guidance for Healthy, Diverse Diets, and Sustainable Food Systems appeared first on Food Tank.

A biodiversity hotspot that is home to 5 percent of the world’s animals and plants and 216 Indigenous territories, the Cerrado has already lost half its native vegetation to cattle ranches and mechanized soy and corn mega-farms. LDC is just one of many agribusinesses, including Cargill, Bunge, JBS, and Marfrig, whose beef and animal feed operations are threatening to drive this ecosystem towards total destruction by 2030. 

While IFC claims that its loan to LDC will “address higher demand and escalating food prices in an environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive way,” in reality, this investment will drive further environmental destruction and disenfranchisement of local and indigenous communities while enriching one of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful industrial agribusinesses. In 2020, LDC generated US$49 billion in revenue and has US$3.5 billion in public and private financing available. With limited public investment in sustainable agriculture, one must ask why taxpayer funds are being used to support this well-resourced mega-corporation that has contributed to Cerrado ecosystem destruction over the past decade.  

Since late May, Friends of the Earth, members of the Stop Financing Factory Farming (SFFF) Campaign and 230+ civil society organizations (CSOs) from around the world have fought to block the investment. In numerous letters to the IFC and its government shareholders, groups documented how this investment is at odds with the bank’s own environmental policies and its commitment to align lending with the Paris Agreement and United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Supporting industrial animal feed production does not advance the UN Sustainable Development Goals

The IFC justified its US$200 million loan by claiming that the funds would help to reduce deforestation through “support [for] a portfolio of eligible soy and corn farmers in Brazil that are committed to zero deforestation and conversion of native vegetation.” But these “eligible farmers” are multi-thousand-acre industrial operations located in the states of Goiás, Mato Grosso, and Minas Gerais, which are already largely deforested. Even if incentives set up under the loan could prevent future land conversions, deforestation is only one of the many environmental and social impacts that should be addressed by public financing for a company like LDC.

Completely ignored in IFC’s loan analysis are the additional negative impacts of industrial farms’ use of pesticides and fertilizers on climate and air, soil and water resources. Also ignored were harmful social impacts of these operations, including pesticide-related illness and death, including among children, as well as the potential for land-grabbing, local community conflicts and the displacement of smallholder farmers.

Failure to address these serious issues undermines the IFC’s stated commitment to help achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. A 2019 German government report documents how large-scale soy operations in the Cerrado and elsewhere “are associated with social injustice and…environmental degradation that hinders the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).” According to this report, agribusiness operations in the region threaten at least 8 of the 17 SDGs, including: 1: No Poverty, 2: Zero Hunger, 3: Good Health and Well-Being, 12: Responsible Consumption and Production and 13: Climate Action. 

A coherent strategy to make LDC’s soy and corn operations more “sustainable” would have required a shift in agricultural practices that reduce fossil fuel, pesticide and synthetic fertilizer use, as CSOs explained. A more “inclusive” and food security-centered strategy would ensure at least some support for smallholder, lower-carbon, regenerative crop systems and increased land access for traditional communities.  

Diverting resources to feed animals instead of humans also threatens to aggravate the current global hunger crisis. As the crisis intensifies, the world’s 800 million+ hungry people would be better served by public development banks using taxpayer funds to support the production of diversified, truly sustainable and nutritious food rather than feed for factory farms that churn out cheap meat and dairy products for consumption in higher-income countries. 

Paris Agreement misalignment: LDC is a major laggard on climate

The IFC’s support for a company that has failed to set sufficient GHG reduction targets is at odds with the bank’s commitment to aligning its investments with the Paris Agreement. 

Unlike some of its peers, LDC has yet to set Paris-aligned reduction targets for its GHG emissions. The company has committed to only meager 1 percent reductions in its Scope 1 and 2 emissions (those generated by the operations or activities the company controls). Even more important, LDC has yet to calculate its Scope 3 emissions (those generated by operations or activities a company does not control, including  soy production), which likely make up more than 90 percent of the company total. At a minimum, the IFC and other public development banks should require any company benefiting from its preferential financing to set Paris-aligned GHG reduction targets. 

Now that the LDC loan has been approved, IFC must be held accountable for its impacts

Together with global allies and partners on the ground in Brazil, the Stop Financing Factory Farming Campaign will continue to track LDC’s activities and demand accountability from the IFC for the harmful impacts of its lending. In a letter responding to the loan approval, more than 100 organizations have asked that the IFC disclose the names and locations of the industrial operations its funds will support so that groups on the ground can monitor the impacts of its investment. We have also asked that the IFC urge LDC to cut ties with suppliers known to be involved in illegal deforestation, land grabbing and/or other human rights violations. 

The campaign will also continue to urge the IFC and its government shareholders to shift lending away from industrial livestock and monoculture feed production and toward smallholder, lower-carbon regenerative mixed crop systems. Such a shift would square with the World Bank’s own guidance concerning development banks’ role in encouraging capital investments that “incentivize more sustainable practices—properly valuing ecosystem services and mobilizing resources, knowledge and technology for smallholders, indigenous peoples and other producers to support a more equitable way of producing and consuming food.”

About SFFF: The Stop Financing Factory Farming Campaign is a coalition of development, environmental and animal protection groups that works in partnership with locally affected communities and organizations to shift development finance away from industrial livestock production.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

The post International Finance Corporation Should Stop Bankrolling Destructive Agribusiness appeared first on Food Tank.

The UN Secretary-General warns that the climate crisis is a “code red” warning for humanity. Yet multinational development banks (MDBs) that have pledged to align their lending with the Paris Agreement continue to pump tons of public money into industrial animal agriculture—ignoring warnings from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification that we must dramatically transform and scale back greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from these high emitting operations in order to build resiliency and reach Paris climate goals.

The International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private sector arm of the World Bank, directly funds industrial pig and broiler chicken operations in Vietnam, Ecuador, and Uganda. Other financing is indirect, such as the IFC’s proposed loan of up to US$200 million to Louis Dreyfus Company (LDC) to support massive soy and corn monoculture, crops used as feed for industrial livestock. More than three-fourths (77 percent) of global soy production is used to feed farm animals, mainly in the pig and poultry sectors. More than 150 groups across the globe have sent a letter urging IFC’s executive directors to oppose the loan for Louis Dreyfus operations in Brazil’s Cerrado, a threatened biodiversity hot spot, home to 5 percent of the world’s biodiversity and 216 Indigenous territories.

Public banks should invest in food security for humans, not feed for industrial livestock

Public financing of livestock feed crops in mass monocultures is highly problematic, particularly in a global food crisis. It boosts demand for grain and soy which raises prices, making these foods unaffordable for people living in poverty. It also displaces local, diversified food production for people. Minimizing the use of feed for animals could help address the growing scarcity and soaring prices of wheat and corn, essential staple foods. If these cereals were instead used for human consumption, this would feed an extra 3.5 billion people each year, taking a big bite out of world hunger.

The use of human-edible crops as animal feed undermines U.N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 1 and 2, which aim for zero hunger and poverty. MDBs should not be funding activities that undermine local small-scale food production and risk increasing food poverty.

Investment in industrial pig and poultry sectors hinders Paris climate goals

Alarmingly, the MDBs’ draft Assessment Framework for Paris Alignment includes non-ruminant livestock among activities classified as universally Paris-aligned. Non-ruminant livestock are mainly pigs and poultry, most of which are raised industrially. The MDBs’ assessment that these livestock are “Paris-aligned” ignores the high direct and indirect GHG emissions stemming from these operations.

Industrial scale production will dramatically increase, not reduce, these emissions including methane. A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report documents high methane emissions from large-scale confined pig operations that liquify their manure—increasing by 44 percent between 1990 and 2010. Industrial pig and poultry operations and processing plants also consume considerable water and energy for heating, ventilation, lighting, and transport.

Well over half of all emissions from the pig and poultry sectors comes from feed production, including from pesticide and fertilizer manufacturing, fertilizer application, and land clearing to grow feed. Soy and corn monoculture expansion in the Brazilian Cerrado, the focus of the IFC proposed loan for Louis Dreyfus, has generated a massive release of carbon dioxide from the clearing of vegetation in this biodiversity hot spot. Moreover, monoculture production, which relies heavily on agro-chemicals, causes soil degradation and biodiversity loss and depletes and degrades water resources. A recent study in Nature identified monoculture production in the Cerrado region as a major threat to climate stability, including water scarcity and higher temperatures which can be “limiting factors for soybean development” and “could put at risk both food production and biome stability.”

Public Development Banks should better align their lending with Paris and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Along with the Paris Agreement, public development banks have pledged to align with the U.N. SDGs. But industrial livestock and feed production places several SDGs (3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 15) out of reach with its deleterious impacts on human health, the environment, and small-scale farmers in the Global South. The IFC’s Louis Dreyfus loan will support agribusiness purchases from “highly mechanized, industrial farms…as large as 6,000 ha (15,000 acres).” As documented in this recent report, land grabs and speculation in the Cerrado region are accelerating land concentration, undermining local food security, and forcing small farmers, Indigenous, and traditional communities to migrate to other areas to seek work.

As the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) points out “the expansion of large-scale industrial agriculture—comes with an unacceptably high environmental cost, threatening the food security of future generations…with studies showing adverse impacts on local incomes and inequality.”  The U.N. Agency highlights how small-scale farms, which are often more “productive” and “environmentally sustainable” are “especially critical for the food security and nutrition of vulnerable groups” because they serve “predominantly domestic and local markets.” Former Director-General of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), José Graziano da Silva has echoed these points, saying that small-scale livestock farmers must be given more resources, not “pushed aside by expanding large capital-intensive operations.”

The harmful animal welfare and public health impacts and related economic costs of the industrial animal agriculture model should also not be ignored. Cramming genetically similar animals in overcrowded, dirty, inhumane, and stressful conditions makes the animals prone to inhibited immune response—and is a dangerously perfect breeding ground for pathogen spread and the emergence of zoonotic diseases, like the Swine Flu (H1N1). Industrial production systems use 73 percent of global antibiotics in order to prevent diseases in these unsanitary conditions, thus spreading antibiotic resistance, another significant health threat that is responsible for 700,000 deaths a year worldwide.

Investing in industrial livestock systems undermines both the Paris Agreement and the U.N. SDGs. It is time for public development banks to redirect their dollars toward regional, lower-carbon, higher welfare, agroecological food systems. These locally adaptable, diversified systems can boost productivity and resilience, while protecting biodiversity, public health, farmer livelihoods, and food security, especially in the face of major supply chain disruptions that are increasingly part of our new normal.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

The post Public Development Banks Must Stop Financing Factory Farming appeared first on Food Tank.

The Organic Center’s two new resources aim to “meet students where they already are” because youth have always been the “main promoters of environmental justice,” Jayson Maurice Porter, PhD Candidate at Northwestern University and author of the report and lesson plan, tells Food Tank. Porter hopes the report and lesson plan will “introduce the history and ecology of things kids already experience to help them and help us tap into the ideas they already have.”

Through several historical case studies of agrochemicals, environmental racism, and environmental justice, the report examines the relationship between these topics on local and regional scales. Porter looks at Mexico, Canada, and the South and West Coasts of the United States to analyze the ways agrochemicals have caused detrimental environmental and health impacts. He goes on to show that these substances have predominantly affected low-income communities and communities of color.

“Urban planning and city policy considers certain people in certain communities more or less disposable and puts them in harm’s way, giving them an uneven burden of  experiencing and dealing with things like pollutants,” Porter tells Food Tank.

In California, where nearly one-third of the U.S. farmworkers live, several of the state’s regions with large low-income, Latinx populations are not subject to pesticide laws. This enables the agricultural industry to use chemicals including chlorpyrifos that were otherwise banned for commercial use. According to research in Health & Place asthma prevalence is high among the children of Mexican farmworkers living in the highly toxic, yet agriculturally wealthy environment of the San Joaquin Valley.

The report also reveals that in the U.S. South, pesticide use is higher in counties with larger BIPOC communities. It finds that governments spend approximately eight times more money on pesticides in rural counties where people of color comprise 40 percent of the population compared to counties where they comprise less than 6 percent.

Porter tells Food Tank it is “important to really see how the United States has imperial relationships with so many different places, both within the United States and outside the United States.” The report argues that agrochemicals helped expand U.S. power beyond national borders. “Environmental justice needs to move beyond U.S. exceptionalism,” Porter tells Food Tank.

Building off the report’s findings, the lesson plan aims to engage with students in discussions about the origin of pesticides and how they affect poor, Black, and Latinx communities. By encouraging students to use history and geography, the lesson plan facilitates discussions about the ways industrial agriculture and agrochemicals may impact their own communities and surrounding environments.

The lesson plan also invites students to consider whether environmental racism or environmental injustice has inspired any forms of grassroots environmental justice in their own cities or communities. Tracing the history of environmental justice movements, the report profiles key figures including Robert D. Bullard, often considered the father of environmental justice.

Through the report and lesson plan, Porter is careful to note that the onus of environmental justice should not burden “people whose resources are already slim.” Porter tells Food Tank that “it’s also complicated because we don’t know how much we can trust the state or large private institutions. History makes us skeptical of state intervention and top-down models.”

Porter hopes the report and lesson plan will “break down the barriers between scholarship and public facing work.” Young people are already attuned to issues of environmental justice and are engaged in understanding how industrial agriculture replicates patterns of harm across the U.S. food system. This is why Porter tells Food Tank he thinks it’s important “to make sure [academics] do the heavy lifting to try to make complicated stories as accessible as possible.”

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Tim Mossholder, Unsplash

The post Report Investigates the Past, Present, and Future of Agrochemicals and Environmental Justice appeared first on Food Tank.

This decision comes in response to a 2021 investigation from environmental advocacy group Mighty Earth and news organization Repórter Brasil. The report finds major Brazilian meat producers including JBS S.A., Marfrig, and Minerva indirectly source cattle from illegally deforested areas in the Amazon.

“This is a watershed moment for JBS and the entire cattle sector in Brazil,” Nico Muzi, former Europe Director of Mighty Earth and co-founder of a new venture to transform the food industry, tells Food Tank. “The very fact that European supermarkets across four countries have taken concrete commercial actions against Brazilian beef over deforestation is a turning point for the industry.”

Lidl Netherlands announced their decision to stop selling all beef from South American origin beginning in 2022. Aldi Germany has also announced they would stop selling Brazilian beef altogether as of this year. And Albert Heijn, the largest supermarket chain in the Netherlands, said it would stop sourcing beef from Brazil for all of its stores. Chains including Auchan France, Carrefour Belgium, Delhaize Belgium, Princes Group, and Sainsbury’s UK also pledged to remove specific products tied to JBS S.A., including corned beef and beef jerky.

A spokesperson at Lidl Netherlands tells Food Tank the supermarket chain will stop selling beef from Brazil “in order to protect biodiversity and prevent deforestation,” and that this commitment is “a central theme in [their] purchasing policy.”

The research from Mighty Earth and Repórter Brasil outlines multiple cases of alleged “cattle laundering.” According to these sources, Brazil’s major meat producers source cattle raised and fed on farms that are officially sanctioned or embargoed. These farms are linked to illegal deforestation, or tied to destruction in other critical biospheres like the Cerrado woody savannah and the Pantanal tropical wetlands.

The report describes how the cattle are transferred from recently deforested areas to properties with allegedly clean records for final fattening. Companies like JBS S.A. then purchase the cows and process them in slaughterhouses in low-deforestation areas. Although some of these transfers are legitimate, “others are mere bureaucratic illusions,” according to the report, and aim to obscure the origins of the cattle.

Data from Imazon, a Brazilian research institute tracking Amazon deforestation since 2008, shows that new deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon is at its highest annual level in a decade. The Guardian and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) recently released a series of investigations exposing the link between deforestation and the Brazilian beef trade.

“Deforestation driven by cattle expansion and landgrabs of Indigenous lands in the Amazon are two sides of the same coin. Less demand for Amazon-destroying beef in Europe means less pressure on Indigenous lands,” Muzi tells Food Tank.

A 2020 report from Amnesty International also reveals that Brazil’s JBS S.A. contributed to alleged human rights and environmental abuses in the Amazon region. The report argues that the company purchased cattle that illegally grazed on an Indigenous reserve, as well as two other protected rainforest areas.

In 2020, a coalition of Indigenous groups from the Colombian and Brazilian Amazon and several international non-governmental organizations sued Groupe Casino, the owner of Brazilian supermarket Pão de Açúcar. They accused Casino of systemic violations of human rights and environmental laws in Brazilian and Colombian supply chains.

According to evidence compiled and submitted for the lawsuit, Groupe Casino regularly bought beef from three JBS slaughterhouses. The slaughterhouses sourced cattle from 592 suppliers responsible for at least 50,000 hectares of deforestation between 2008 and 2020, an area two times the size of the French city of Marseille.

The Brazilian beef industry has faced criticism from environmental campaigns for its inability to regulate the supply chain from birth to slaughter with transparency. But JBS S.A. claims it is “committed to combating, discouraging and eliminating deforestation of its supply chain in the Amazon.”

In 2021, the company began operating the Transparent Livestock Farming Platform. The tool, which uses blockchain technology, aims to trace the beef cattle production chain in the Amazon and allow JBS suppliers to see whether their supply chain is socially and environmentally compliant. JBS claims all of its beef cattle suppliers will sign up to the program by the end of 2025.

“It’s unfortunate that the bad practices of the world’s biggest beef company, JBS, are tarnishing the reputation of the entire cattle sector in Brazil, closing doors in premium markets like the EU,” Muzi tells Food Tank. “Because of its size and influence, JBS has the power to transform the cattle industry in Brazil and end deforestation driven by cattle production.”

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Matt Palmer, Unsplash

The post European Supermarket Chains Boycott Brazilian Beef Linked to Amazon Deforestation appeared first on Food Tank.

Raphael Podselver, Head of UN Advocacy for ProVeg, tells Food Tank that there is an urgent need to “drastically” reduce consumption of animal protein to support human and planetary health. 

Industrial livestock production is tied to a number of issues, ranging from deforestation and pollution to antibiotic resistance. Podselver notes that reduction goals will vary by country and region but emphasizes that “it’s really important to acknowledge the emergency to end industrial farming in the coming years.”

Podselver says that it is inspiring to see younger generations recognize the climate implications of meat production. But he argues will be necessary for everyone take steps toward reducing their consumption of animal products. “We have to [get] everyone on board,” he says. 

Podselver believes that most consumers won’t base their purchasing decisions on the environmental impact of the production methods alone. He also acknowledges that it is challenging to shifts eaters’ dietary habits. “Availability and affordability play a big role, along with taste,” Podselver tells Food Tank.

This is why the emerging plant-based meat alternatives are an important part of what Podselver calls the “solution landscape.” These products provide consumers with options that they can conveniently incorporate into their meals, even when time is limited. 

ProVeg is also pushing governments to take action and consider food and agriculture systems in their greenhouse gas emissions targets. Podselver says that food systems did not have a great presence at the recent United Nations Environment Assembly, and he hopes this will change at upcoming global conferences, including this year’s U.N. Climate Change Conference (COP 27).

Listen to the full conversation with Raphael Podselver on “Food Talk with Dani Nierenberg” to hear more about how industrialized meat production is driving the climate crisis, ProVeg’s efforts to put food and agriculture systems on the agenda at COP 27, and Podselver’s call for “diet change, not climate change.”

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Etienne Girardet, Unsplash

The post Tackling the Climate Emergency through Diet Change appeared first on Food Tank.