Vlog: Soil, scale and other videos you should watch

Today, simply a list of videos you should watch, think about and show your friends. Enjoy!

Michael Pollan at 2014 New York Times Food for Tomorrow Conference

Informational video by L'institut de recherche pour le developpement (IRD)

2014 New York Times Food for Tomorrow Conference Panel discussion with Patrick Holden, Danielle Nierenberg, Ron Shaich, Jack Sinclair and Michael Pollan

Peter Lehner at TEDxManhattan

All the videos above raise so many interesting questions, I will get to them in the next few posts. Next up, soil!

Until next time,

Laura

Climate-Friendly Diet

Having pointed out the things wrong with today's food production, I thought it would be a nice closing remark to suggest a plan for a climate-friendly diet. After reading and writing about the topic for the past three months, I want to leave you with an useful post that can help you change your eating habits for the better (and fulfill the purpose of my blog!).

People tend to acknowledge the role of packaging of food products has to play in the climate change discussion but many of us do not realise the harm meat consumption does to our planet. Even though cutting down meat is not necessarily difficult and can save you money, people seem to be reluctant to do it (Mäkiniemi and Vainio, 2013). It also depends on whether people perceive climate change as a moral issue. Although diets can be controlled at an individual level, changes in our society are also needed. We are in a need of clear labeling and availability of climate-friendly products alongside with public knowledge about environmentally harmful food products (Mäkiniemi and Vainio, 2013). So what basic steps could we take to make our everyday diets more sustainable? After going through the posts on my blog you should already have a good idea of the action we should all take, but this post should act as a helpful guide to anyone interested in making their eating habits more environmentally sustainable.

(Source: http://sustainablediets.com)

Baroni et al (2006) have once again confirmed through empirical testing that diets based on high meat consumption and chemical conventional agriculture have the greatest environmental impact than any other diet out there. The objective of their study was to tease out the 'critical points' of environmental impacts, the smallest changes in our eating habits that will lead to largest environmental benefits (without any extreme changes). And cutting down on meat consumption is the main trigger. Even though people are often reluctant to change their consumption of meat, raising awareness of its climate change impacts may change public opinion about meat consumption. So rule number one for a climate friendly diet: trade your meat for vegetables.

Second guideline towards a sustainable diet: eat real food that is free from processing. Remembering my previous post on processed food we know that, each step of the way on the processing cycle heats our climate: processed foods require more energy than whole foods. From chemical fertilisers and synthetic additives to freezing and canning, these foods carry a higher energy need than whole foods. Look for foods that are as close to their natural state as possible to be sure they have not gone through energy-intensive processing. Here is a video that takes on a tour on a typical American supermarket with two food specialists (learn to look out for the processed food):

Third suggestion for a climate-friendly diet: eliminate food waste. While approximately one third of the global food is getting lost or wasted (FAO, 2011), our individual efforts to cut down on the food we bin every day can go a long way. Food waste brings horrific environmental impacts (remind yourself from my earlier post): emission release, toxin infiltration into soil and waterways and land loss to land-fills. With helpful tips by Love Food Hate Waste, cutting down food waste can be easy, cut down your spending in the supermarket and bring improved environmental health. And if despite all efforts to bring your food waste to zero, make sure you compost the food that you no longer want. Consumers with gardens are especially lucky, getting a viable source of fertiliser, but even urbanites without a green space can often dump their compost in local farmers markets. 

(Source: http://motherorganica.com)

Having addressed the issues of food trade and agro-chemicals in previous posts, the fourth guideline for sustainable eating is: look for local and organic produce. It is important to get to know the food miles and the way your food is grown. Although finding organic and local produce can turn out to be challenging due to limited availability and priciness, the 'locavore' movement is growing. In order to really push for the organic movement, appropriate labeling is needed for customers to identify desirable products and that is largely in the hands of the policy makers and producers. But as the demand for organic produce increases, so does the need for labeling. 

And a final suggestion for the fans of climate-friendly eating: grow and cook as much of your own food as possible. This is the purest form of local and organic eating and has been largely in the shadows during the course of this blog. Why not start your own sustainable farm? Everyone with a garden is lucky enough to benefit from available green space but even in urban areas, technological advances and new ideas are making way for agricultural solutions that can be practiced by urbanites like many of us. A good example of this is Incredible Edible (check previous post), bringing gardens to urban areas. I am currently experimenting with Click & Grow to see how my own little garden turns out in the heart of London. Growing your own food can be one of the best ways to cut down individual impact on the environment. (Plus it is fun!)


I hope this gives you a guideline where to go from here as my blog slowly comes to a close. For me, reading and writing about the global industrial food production has definitely changed the way I think about food. Thanks for reading!

Till next time,
Laura

Cultured Meat

Happy New Year everyone! This time, I want to continue on the topic of cultured meat. Livestock is the biggest contributor to environmental damage in the agricultural sector. It takes up 30% of global ice-free land and produces 18% of global greenhouse gases (FAO, 2006). As the world's population is estimated to increase to 9 billion by 2050 and many nations are becoming wealthier, demand for meat is going to rise inevitably. Unless we manage to reduce meat consumption through individual diets, there is an immediate need to change how meat is produced. But even if diets change and the world becomes less meat hungry, total elimination of meat consumption is unrealistic and alternatives for conventional production should be considered. An interesting alternative, which is still in the research stage, is cultured meat. This is meat that has never been part of a living animal and is produced through tissue growth by adding protein to initial muscle cells. It is meat production without the animal, also referred to as vertical farming.

(Source: http://www.new-harvest.org)

Tuomisto and Mattos (2011) have compared the production process of in vitro meat to the conventional method and the results are impressive. Cultured meat emits significantly less greenhouse gases: the energy use in in vitro production can be up to 45% lower while greenhouse emissions are reduced by 78-96%. On top of that, due to the fact that meat will be produced in laboratories  cultured meat is less land intensive with 99% (!) lower land use than with conventional meat production. Tumisto and Mattos also point out that most of the emissions released during in vitro production are related to fuel and electricity, emissions could be further reduced if using renewable energy. In contrast to in vitro production, conventional meat industry has little chance of cutting its emissions because most emissions (57% if 100 years global warming potential is used) are due to methane release by cows (Tuomisto and Mattos, 2011). Below is a graph showing the comparison of primary energy input, greenhouse emissions, land use and water of in vitro meat with conventionally produced meat:

(Source: Tuomisto and Mattos (2011)

An additional benefit of cultured meat production can be cutting down in transport, as production sites can be located closer to demand. This will reduce the emission toll on meat production dramatically. Alongside reduced transportation, refrigeration needs can be reduced as in vitro meat is free from excess bones, fat and other parts that are discarded during meat production. Cultured meat would also eliminate unwanted waste occurring production, not to mention the fact that all the feed that is currently grown for feeding our livestock could be used for human consumption. In vitro meat production seems to address all the harmful environmental impacts that follow today's conventional meat industry. But in reality, cultured meat is still unrealistically expensive and public acceptance is a problem still to overcome. In order to commercialise lab-grown meat, a further estimated $ 160 million is needed to invest in research and further efforts are needed to tackle the public opinion about the so called 'zombified' food (Tuomisto and Mattos, 2011).

Beyond the environmental benefits that may yield with commercialising cultured meat, human health may also benefit. It is argued that cultured meat can prevent the spread of animal-borne diseases by reducing human-animal contact and since tissue engineering is able to control the quality and quantity of fat, nutrition-based diseases can be eliminated as well (Tuomisto and Roy, 2012). Lab-grown meat will be free from ethical issues relating to animal rights but may be tainted with other concerns about its 'unnatural' way of production. This comes down to a matter of value judgement but as any unconventional approach, in vitro meat remains highly controversial in public opinion. 

(Source: http://www.new-harvest.org)

In my opinion, cultured meat shows great potential and a possibility of replacing our conventional, energy intensive and emission rich way of meat production with a sustainable, clean, waste-free and animal friendly one. Cultured meat is becoming hugely popular in various fields of science and technology. The interest around it predicts its future to be promising and as research advances, I believe that sooner or later, cultured meat will find its way onto our plates. 

Here are some interesting (and crazy) news about in vitro meat:

Lab-grown meat could 'cut emissions and save energy'

Modern Meadow: Making Leather and Meat Better

Billionaire Peter Thiel's Latest Investment: 3D-Printed Meat

Meat the Future Cookbook
Inside the meat lab: the future of food

Till next time,

Laura

News on Nutella

Don't we all love Nutella? I am sure this speaks to all the Nutella lovers out there (starting with myself), but today I found an interesting piece that reveals all the countries that contribute to a single jar of Nutella. I have talked about food trade and how much energy is lost (and emissions released) with transporting our food all over the globe. But have a look at this: 

'Even though Ferrero International, which makes the stuff, is headquartered in Italy, it has factories in Europe, Russia, North America and South America. And while certain inputs are supplied locally—like, say, the plastic for the bottles or milk—many others are shipped from all over the world. The hazelnuts are from Turkey; the palm oil is from Malaysia; the cocoa is from Nigeria; the sugar is from either Brazil or Europe; and the vanilla flavoring is from France.'

(Source: http://www.howmanyarethere.net)

Seems like Nutella has the world covered and is a good example of popular foor products consumed today. Nutella has become a truly global product but let us look at the other side: can you imagine the emission toll behind one jar of Nutella? Not to mention 20% of it is palm oil from Malaysia. Ferrero International is now proudly part of the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and is committed to 100% sustainable palm oil. Ferrero is actually one of the few companies that Greenpeace sees as going beyond RSPO and achieving its goals. But as Greenpeace says, RSPO is falling short in protecting rain forests and promoting truly sustainable palm oil. In fact, RSPO specifically protects primary forests, which can have different definitions in different contexts (the age or thickness of the forest). Neither is RSPO successful in effectively preventing peat destruction and carbon release in the process of introducing new plantations. Greenpeace is encouraging companies to go beyond RSPO in order to ensure sustainable palm oil supply. 

Here is the Nutella map of the world:

(Source: http://qz.com)

Just something I thought was worth sharing here and show the background of one popular food products in the world. Hope you will think about it next time you pick up a Nutella jar or make your Sunday night Nutella sandwich! 

Till next time,

Laura

Further on Palm Oil

In my last post I introduced the discussion around palm oil production and its negative impacts to the environment. Today I want to continue on the topic of palm oil and look further into how it is impacting our planet. Palm oil production has emerged as a controversial topic and there is literature for both for and against palm oil production. But despite my best efforts, I am seeing the extensive negative impacts of palm oil plantations more clearly than the positive ones. If you are interested, here is an article showing palm oil from a positive light by Lam et al 2009 (arguing that  palm oil is indeed the most economical and sustainable source of food and biofuel in the world market).

Let us go back to how palm oil plantations introduce land clearance and deforestation. Last week I mentioned the impacts of deforestation but this time I will look at peatland destruction. Globally, peatlands take up about 3% of the planet's land area but store up to 528 000 megatons of carbon. This makes up one third of total global soil carbon and is equivalent of 70 times the annual carbon release from fossil fuel burning (Hooijer et al. 2006).  Peatlands act as important carbon sinks and maintain the health of the global carbon cycle. In the past, peatlands were seen as unattractive for agriculture but in recent years, when deeply drained, peatlands have become suitable for palm oil production. Hoojier et al show evidence that Southeast Asia, the area of most intensive palm oil production, makes up 6% of total peatlands in the world. In Indonesia, 25% of its palm oil plantations are on peatlands, which means enormous amounts of carbon dioxide release occurring when these areas are dried and organic material is decomposed with contact to air (Tan et al. 2007). Looking at the paper by Tan et al. it becomes evident that even though some negative impacts like land loss and deforestation are overemphasised (some land for plantations comes from land previously occupied by cocoa or sugar), palm oil production has vast environmental and climatic impacts.

Peat and oil palm

(Source: http://understory.ran.org)

So far this blog has largely focused on the climatic impacts of emissions released by the food sector. Here I feel like it is time for a slight diversion from the main topic. Namely palm oil production has had extreme impacts on biodiversity and I feel like this deserves a mention. Fitzherbert et al. (2008) argue that palm oil plantations support fewer species than the forests that have been taken down in result and habitat much fewer other tree crops essential for providing habitat for local biodiversity. The result is decreased species richness as oil palm consistently hold fewer than half as many vertebrate species as primary forests. Due to changes towards lower plant species diversity and reductions in habitat structural complexity, fewer animal species are living in plantations. This leads to destruction of local ecosystems and possible excitation of species. If you are interested in biodiversity loss and habitat fragmentation (not only caused by palm oil), here is a good blog post for you to look at: at-the-edge-of-extinction.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/habitat-fragmentation (I encourage you to look beyond than just this post to understand biodiversity loss further).

A specific example of biodiversity loss is the case of orangutans in East Asia. Sumatran orangutans and Borean orangutans are under threat, they depend on natural forests for habitat and food. Natural habitat is being degraded due to plantation expansion and orangutan death rate has skyrocketed while birth rates are shrinking (Tan et al. 2007). Even after the clearing of the forests and introduction of plantations, confused animals tend to wander in their former habitats and end up being killed to protect the crops or for meat.

Sumatran orangutan rescued as the palm oil plantations close in

(Source: http://www.orangutan.com)

Palm oil itself is not necessarily climate damaging but the way it is produced, as presented earlier, can have vast environmental impacts. In efforts to move towards more ecological palm oil production, the roundtable on sustainable palm oil (RSPO) was established in 2004. RSPO operates around eight principles that promote sustainable palm oil production: transparency of management, compliance to local and international laws and regulations, responsibility in conservation of natural resources and many others. Boycotting all palm oil products just seems unrealistic and unreasonable, we just need a environmentally sound production process involving all stakeholders.

So what do you think? Do you see a future in sustainable palm oil production with no biodiversity loss, peatland destruction and deforestation? Do you believe that RSPO can actually achieve sustainable palm oil production or is it all just greenwashing? I leave you with a Greenpeace advert from a few years back raising awareness about KitKat using ecologically unsound palm oil in their products. It is a fairly disturbing and controversial way to raise awareness but it seemed to work, this video went viral in a few days after being posted in 2010. If you haven't already seen it yet, I warn you, it is not very pleasant.

Till next time,
Laura

The Wasteful Epidemic

Think about the last time you went shopping for food. Did you end up consuming all of what you bought? If yes, then congratulations! Most of us however end up throwing away large amounts of what we buy. In fact, about one third of the food that is produced in the world for human consumption is wasted through various steps of the supply chain (Gustavsson et al, 2011). I have already argued in my previous posts that global food production is extensively fossil fuel intensive and a burden for the environment. If we take into account all the damage food production does to our planet, it is alarming to think that one third of that is for nothing! 

So where does all this waste go? One third of the world food production- that is about 1.3 billion tonnes! Every year, developed countries throw away almost as much food (222 million tonnes) that is equivalent to total food production in the whole of Sub-Saharan Africa (230 million tonnes) (UNEP, 2009). All this wasted food ends up most commonly in landfills, which are one of the largest sources of methane, a dangerous greenhouse gas. Combining the environmental damage occurred during the production of food waste with the emissions released during the disposal of it, we have ourselves a dangerous and destructive cycle of food waste.

(Source: http://www.consumercheckpoint.co.uk)

On a more scientific note, Grizetti et al (2013) just recently published a study that looks at how food waste contributes to nitrogen pollution. The authors took to account the nitrogen pollution that is released into air, water and soil and found out that 'food waste represents about 12% of the total nitrogen loss to the environment due to food production, with meat being responsible for about 50% of the emissions' (Grizetti et al, 2013). They also point out that 35% of the nitrogen emissions are pumped into the atmosphere and 65% into the planet's water systems. The threat to water systems due to nitrogen comes in the form of water eutrophication (caused mainly by nitrate)- the over-enrichment of water systems by nutrients. This can undermine water quality, reduce oxygen supply in the water system and cause biodiversity loss. In the EU, food and drink consumption is responsible for more than 50% of eutrophication. In fact red meat has the highest destructive eutrophication potential.

How water eutrophication looks like (water 'blooming') 

(Source: http://www.wri.org)

As the authors mainly focus on measuring the nitrogen pollution that results from food waste, they do offer a few suggestions for future action. It is suggested that in order to cut down on global food waste, better management within the food supply chain is essential. Steps of the supply chain like distribution, retailing and processing see large amounts of food being wasted before it even reaches the shelves of the supermarkets. This could be decreased by operating a short supply chain (locally produced) as transporting food adds on to the food waste figures. For example, a Dutch french fries producer admitted the need to throw away many of its potatoes even before production due to damages occurred during loading and transportation (Gustavsson et al, 2011). The other obvious way of reducing food waste is by changing people's habits. A recent attempt to change consumer behavior is the Love Food Hate Waste campaign that was launched in 2007, now operating all over the UK. It is a campaign to raise public awareness towards domestic food waste and to help people make most of their food. They give tips for appropriate storage, portion planning and recipes. Thanks to the campaign, food waste is now a topical issue in the media and considered as a real problem (Tesco's food waste in the news).

(Source: http://www.recycleforgreatermanchester.com)

In order to cut down on food waste, effort from consumers and suppliers is essential. Changing people's habits developed by consumerism can be a difficult task but as seen with Love Food Hate Waste, more attention is going towards the issue. But can you already see the links between other problems with the food sector: food waste, meat consumption and food trade? This is a topic that I will return to in future posts. For now, I leave you with a TED talk by Tristram Stuart who presents shocking data about the global food waste scandal and calls for a more responsible use of the planet's resources. Hope you enjoy it!

Till next time,

Laura

Food trade- Can't We Just Swap Recipes?

Next time you visit your local Sainsbury's or Tesco, have a look at where all your everyday food comes from. You're right, large proportion of what we eat travels a long way before landing on our plate. Humans have traded food for thousands of years but in the last century, food trade is growing faster than ever expected. And all this to let us enjoy a wider consumer choice? Buying Danish cookies from supermarkets of the United States and enjoying American cookies in Denmark while these two meet somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic during their travel to consumers. Can't we just save the planet these transportation costs and simply trade recipes?

Between 1968 and 1998, world food production increased by 84% while world food trade increased a staggering 184% (NRDC, 2007). Food moves all over the world, some of it with good reason due to unavailable crop land but most of it just to tickle the consumer taste buds. Moreover, most of us don't even taste the difference! In my first post I mentioned that in 2008 (USDA, 2008), the United States exported 1.9 billion pounds of meat and veal and imported 2.5 billion pounds of the same. What do you think, did anyone taste the difference? We could just cut back in global meat swap without us even noticing! Besides the obvious waste of fossil fuels and increased damaging greenhouse emissions, global meat trade has another dirty side: all of this meat needs refrigerating. Can you imagine the amount of energy wasted on refrigerating the Kobe meat from Japan while it travels to the London upscale restaurants? 

The term 'food miles', coined in the UK in 1990s, is based on a fairly simplistic notion: the further your food has travelled in order to get to your plate, the more harmful environmental impacts it must bring. But do consumers really care? An interesting study by Kemp et al (2010) reveals that only 3.6% supermarket customers in the UK make conscious choices considering the origin of the product. The authors explain that food products are generally very low involvement purchases and very little consideration besides price and taste goes into the decision-making process. While other consumer durables from complex categories require careful attention, supermarkets have made it really easy for us to shop 'quickly' without really thinking what we buy. Stepping into the supermarket, we take our first taste with our eyes and rarely check the label for the origin.

A good example to illustrate the ridiculous extents to which today's food trade is willing to go to: Fiji Water. Have you not heard about it? This is natural Artesian water that is bottled in the Island of Fiji and then shipped across the Pacific to the United States and Europe. It is often more expensive than gasoline and bears enormous fossil fuel costs through transportation. The people behind Fiji often try to greenwash the water production as beneficial for the local environment and as an alternative to cutting down rain forests. I will leave you with a video in the end which tries to do exactly that and you can decide for yourself.

Fiji water has been welcomed with open hands in the United States with political figures like Obama and McCain openly promoting this 'coolest' water in the world. The popularity of Fiji water tells a sad story about our society's weakness to marketing. The bottom line is, this bottled water brings huge transportation costs and increases in emissions warming our planet. But somehow people are still happily drinking it. I leave you with a little 'greenwashing' Fiji video by Climate One, are you convinced?

Here are some more news and articles on Fiji Water. Despite their efforts to stay keep a low profile, Fiji Water has been a very controversial topic. Here you can also read about the conflict of tax rises in Fiji and find out more details about Fiji Water:

Some answers about Fiji Water

Fiji Water: So cool, so fresh, so bad for the environment?

Fiji Water: Where bottled water, money and ethics conflict

Have a nice reading week!

Till next time,

Laura

Flexitarianism

Having talked about the environmental dangers of meat consumption in my last post, I want to share with you some ideas that I support proposed by Raphaely and Marinova (2013) on meat consumption as a decarbonising strategy. Flexitarianism can be defined as reducing meat consumption from current averages to the recommended healthy levels (without having to give it up completely!). This approach offers an opportunity to effectively reduce environmental impacts as estimates show that a 25% decrease in meat consumption would lead to a 12.5% cut in greenhouse emissions. Not to mention the health benefits that would follow! Everyone knows the most popular decarbonising strategies out there today- renewable energy and sustainable transport, but how much does the public really know about the harm done by meat consumption?

Meat America by Dominic Episcopo

(Source: http://www.thecoolist.com)

In 2007, 275 million tonnes of meat came out of global meat production, a fourfold increase with only 50 years. Although meat consumption is a wasteful conversion of protein and therefore also a wasteful use of agricultural land, it has become an inherent part of the 'wealthy' diet and old habits are hard break. Raphaely and Marinova believe that promoting reducing meat consuption deserves the same public engagement and investment as renewable energy receives at the moment, if not larger. They propose that meat consumption should no longer be a free choice due to its environmental and social dangers. Other 'similar' products like alcohol, petrol and cigarettes already incorporate higher taxes in order to offset their negative externalities, why should we treat meat any different?

It also makes financial sense! Estimates show that in order to fight climate change by stabilising atmospheric gases will cost the global community about 40$ trillion by 2050. But if we could promote flexitarianism and get the public to shift their diets partly away from meat consumption by 2030, we could cut the cost down to 8$ trillion (Raphaely and Marinova, 2013). I agree with the suggestion on meat taxes and I do not see how it should be any different from other unhealthy (for both the environment and people). An interesting thought on a highly controversial topic.

Till next time,

Laura

Message from Argentina

While writing and reading for my last post about agricultural chemicals, I stumbled upon a beautiful but alarming photo blog by three picture editors of The Boston Globe. They put together a collection of photos representing the dramatic impacts of agrochemical spraying in Argentina and the human reactions to it. Here I quote the authors:

'Agrochemical spraying in Argentina has increased ninefold, from 9 million gallons in 1990 to 84 million gallons today. Yet the South American nation has a hodgepodge of widely ignored regulations that leave people dangerously exposed, and chemicals contaminate homes, classrooms, and drinking water. Doctors and scientists are warning that uncontrolled spraying could be causing health problems across the nation.'

Soybeans ready for harvest in Buenos Aires. American biotechnology has turned Argentine into the world's third largest soybean producer, but the chemicals powering the boom aren't confined to soy, cotton and corn fields. They routinely contamine homes and classrooms and drinking water.

Aixa Cano, 5, who has hairy moles all over her body that doctors can't explain, sits on a stoop outside her home in Avia Terai, in Chaco province, Argentina on April 1. Although it's nearly impossible to prove, doctors say Aixa's birth defect may be linked to agrochemicals. In Chaco, children are four times more likely to be born with devastating birth defects since biotechnology dramatically expanded farming in Argentina.

Felix San Roman walks on his property in Rawson, in Buenos Aires province, Argentina on April 16. San Roman says that when he complained about clouds of chemicals drifting into his yard, the sprayers beat him up, fracturing his spine and knocking out his teeth. "This is a small town where nobody confronts anyone, and the authorities look the other way," San Roman said. "All I want is for them to follow the existing law, which says you can't do this within 1,500 meters. Nobody follows this. How can you control it?"

Empty agrochemical containers including Monsanto's Round Up products lay discarded at a recycling center in Quimili, Santiago del Estero province, Argentina on May 2. Instead of a lighter chemical burden in Argentina, agrochemical spraying has increased ninefold, from 9 million gallons in 1990 to 84 million gallons today. Glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto's Round Up products, is used roughly eight to ten times more per acre than in the United States. Yet Argentina doesn't apply national standards for farm chemicals, leaving rule-making to the provinces and enforcement to the municipalities.

A protest sign directed to Argentine President Cristina Fernandez and Cordoba Province governor Jose Manuel de la Sota that reads in Spanish; "Stop looting and contaminating! Monsanto out of Cordoba and Argentina," is posted on a fence where Monsanto is building its largest seed production plant in Latin America in the town of Malvinas Argentinas, in Cordoba province, Argentina on Sept. 25.

Activist Oscar Alfredo Di Vincensi talks on a cell phone inside his tent during his one-man hunger strike demanding that agrochemical spraying not be allowed within 1,000 meters of homes, in the main square of Alberti, in Buenos Aires province, Argentina on April 16. Earlier this year, Di Vincensi stood in a field waving a court order barring spraying within 1,000 meters of homes in his town of Alberti; a tractor driver doused him in pesticide.

Former farmworker Fabian Tomasi, 47, shows the condition of his emaciated body as he stands inside his home in Basavilbaso, in Entre Rios province, Argentina on March 29. Tomasi's job was to keep the crop dusters flying by quickly filling their tanks but he says he was never trained to handle pesticides. Now he is near death from polyneuropathy. "I prepared millions of liters of poison without any kind of protection, no gloves, masks or special clothing. I didn't know anything. I only learned later what it did to me, after contacting scientists," he said.

The author of these photos is Natacha Pisarenko. This post does not do these photos justice so I encourage you to go have a look at the rest of the pictures on the actual blog: http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2013/10/agrochemical_spraying_in_argen.html

Warning: Agricultural Chemicals!

In order to grow our food faster, cheaper and bigger, modern agriculture has opted to a wide variety of chemical pesticides and inorganic fertilisers. Fertilisers in the form of manure and compost have been used for centuries but the use of chemical fertilisers only relates to the industrial Green Revolution in the 20th century. Fertilisers, especially nitrogen based, have seen a dramatic tenfold increase since 1950s (Robertson and Vitousek, 2009). But due to the fact that we are unable to keep nitrogen from leaving cropped ecosystems though various pathways (mainly waterways and atmosphere), fertiliser use brings well-documented and significant environmental impacts. Nitrogen is a central element in living systems but overuse and mismanagement have severe consequences (Robertson and Vitousek, 2009).

One of the first synthetic pesticides, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), was widely used during World War II to kill malaria-bearing mosquitos and typhus-carrying lice. After the war, it became a popular pesticide to kill off unwanted pests on farms. In 1972, DDT was banned in the United States as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) noticed an adverse affect on wildlife as well as humans. Today, due to its persistence in the environment, DDT is considered as a human carcinogen and is still in use in some parts of the world. This proves how little we know about the effects of chemical fertilisers on humans but also the environment.

Modern agricultural industry takes advantage of many synthetic fertilisers pushing up yields and helping to feed the planet's growing population. But at what price? The use of synthetic fertilisers causes a systematic change in the way we think about soil and organic matter. Before chemical fertilisers, healthy soil was packed with microorganisms, retaining nutrients and moisture to grow plants. In addition, topsoil organic matter sucked up atmospheric nitrogen, converting it to ammonia and nitrates that was consumed by the plants. This biological cycle breaks down as soon as soil is treated with synthetic fertilisers, leading to topsoil loss and the release of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas causing global climate change.

Nitrogen is used in nearly all synthetic fertilisers as it acts as an important nutrient for plants. When nitrogen fertilisers are used on soils, the chemical processes following cause the fertiliser to break down and the releasing of nitrous oxide. In fact, synthetic fertilisers are to blame for more than 75% of all agricultural nitrous oxide emissions (EPA, 2012). But what is so special about nitrous oxide?

Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Gas

Source: IPCC, 2007

To answer that, we need to look more specifically how effective nitrous oxide is in trapping heat. If we compare carbon dioxide to nitrous oxide, the latter is 296 times more powerful in trapping heat, leaving us more than worried. While carbon dioxide takes the biggest piece of the pie for greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC, 2007), it may not be the most dangerous one in terms of climate change potential.

But what about the production of fertilisers? It turns out, the modern agriculture industry has transformed soil fertility into a fossil fuel intensive 'business'. Consider this: in order to produce a ton of fertiliser, more than 930 litres of natural gas. Furthermore, raw materials for the fertilisers often have to be mined or manufactured away from production sites, adding the transportation cost in terms of emissions. Not to mention how half of the nitrogen fertiliser applied on crops in the United States is leaching through to the soil and the waterways. This makes fertiliser use wasteful, harmful for the environment and dangerous for humans.

Promotion of fertilisers in 1942 by the Tennessee Valley Authority- right-hand side field was treated with phosphate and lime, the left-hand side was not treated.

It is important to realise another dramatic consequence of excessive nitrogen release into the environment: hypoxia. This phenomenon occurs when nitrogen gets released into waterways and 'high nutrient levels stimulate algal growth, and when algae sink into deeper water and die, their sub- sequent decomposition by bacteria consumes dissolved oxygen deep in the water column faster than it can be replenished from the sur- face, leading to the development of hypoxia and the reduction or elimination of deeper-water organisms that require oxygen' Robertson and Vitousek, 2009:103). This process dramatically disturbes the natural habitat of biodiversity and leads to the unbalancing of natural nitrogen cycles. 

 

Looking through the evidence that I have gathered here, it is clear that both humans and the environment have taken a hit due to the introduction of the synthetic fertilisers and chemical pesticides. In order to reduce the human health hazards, reduce the impacts on climate change and to make way for more sustainable farming, the focus should lie on organic fertilisers, which preserve the soil's organic matter. With modern technology advancements and our knowledge of past mistakes, there is hope that such fertilisers will come to dominate the future food production.



Till next time,
Laura

The Dirty Food Sector- A Brief Overview

This time I want to take a look at how our food industry has made its way into the workings of the economy and how its hidden costs are are fueling climate change. Looking at the breakdown of emissions by sector, it seems like the agricultural sector takes up a relatively modest 13.5% of global carbon dioxide emissions, while energy supply contributes with 25.9% and industry with 19.4% (IPCC, 2007).

Carbon dioxide emissions by sector

Source: IPCC 2007, 'Synthesis Report'

But do these figures really show us the truth about agriculture? It is easy to assume, looking at the data, that food production is one of the least problematic sectors causing carbon dioxide emissions (the most important anthropogenic green house gas). However, it is important to realise that modern food production is fueling climate change from virtually every sector of the world's economy. It is estimated that in reality, food related emissions make up about one third of total greenhouse gases heating our planet (Vermeulen et al, 2012). Food is everywhere!

To illustrate how our food system is accountable for all these emissions, let's look at food trade.  The global food trade has increased more than tenfold in the past 60 years (Schmitz et al, 2012). Using fossil fuel based transport solutions, food trade is a major polluter hiding behind the transport sector. With the excuse of increasing consumer choice, food is being transported from one corner of the world to another, every day. As a disturbing example, in 2008, the US exported 1.9 billion pounds and imported 2.5 billion pounds of beef and veal. Can we really taste the difference? Looking at these figures, one can only imagine how much energy and refrigerating these carcases require to get around the world. I will dedicate a separate post to talk about global food trade later in the course of the blog.

In addition to trade, production of chemical pesticides and fertilisers are energy-intensive and rich in terms of emissions that they emit. Moreover, production and usage of these chemicals releases other anthropogenic gases more dangerous than carbon dioxide. All of these issues will be discussed in greater detail in following posts. New technological and chemical discoveries are to thank for the birth of industrialised food. Modern food industry exploits fossil fuels in order to produce cheaper, faster and in bigger quantities, to ship food all over the planet and to process it for a greater profit. Never has food production been in the hands of so few producers. But at what price?

Garnett (2011) points out that our whole food chain emits greenhouse gases- starting from the farm and finishing on our plates, but the largest polluter is the agricultural stage. The graph below shows 40% of greenhouse emissions relating to the food sector come from the agriculture stage, making it the most promising opportunity to reduce food chain emissions. Although food chain greenhouse emissions are a major environmental issue, we have to remember that our food industry also puts a threat on biodiversity, water use, animal welfare and human nutrition. In the course of the next few months, I want to touch upon all of these but the main focus will be on greenhouse emissions.

Food chain greenhouse emissions by sector.

Source: Garnett (2011)

I hope this post gives a brief overview of what we are dealing with when talking about modern food industry. Problems like food trade, pesticides, fertilisers and processing will be featured in future posts. Until then, here is another short and light TED talk (apologies for my obsession with TED talks) by an 11-year-old Birke Baehr who explains what is wrong with our food system. He emphasises on the aspect of human health and the role of genetically modified food. This is the story seen through a kid's eyes. Enjoy!

Till next time,
Laura