ingredients

How to reduce pollution from food production

January 17, 2024 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

Present in animal manure and synthetic fertilizers, nitrogen is an essential nutrient for plant growth and is a critical input to enhance agricultural productivity on farms around the world. But excessive and inefficient use of this nutrient is widespread. In fact, up to 80% of it leaks into the environment, mostly in various polluting forms of nitrogen: ammonia and nitrogen oxides (which are harmful air pollutants), nitrous oxide (a potent greenhouse gas), and nitrate (which affects water quality).

A new report prepared for the United Nations has put forth some solutions to greatly reduce nitrogen pollution from agriculture in Europe. A group of researchers coordinated by the U.K. Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, the European Commission, the Copenhagen Business School, and the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment of The Netherlands produced the report.

In it, the research team puts forth its recipe to reduce nitrogen pollution in Europe. The report’s ingredients include:

Reducing by 50% the average European meat and dairy consumption
More efficient fertilizer application and manure storage
Reducing food production demand by reducing food waste by retailers and consumers
Better wastewater treatment to capture nitrogen from sewage
Adopting policies addressing food production and consumption to transition them towards more sustainable systems

Taking action to reduce nitrogen pollution will require a holistic approach involving farmers, policymakers, retailers, water companies, and individuals.

Do Europeans have an appetite for change?

**********

Web Links

Scientists provide recipe to halve pollution from food production

Photo, posted March 10, 2022, courtesy of USDA NRCS Montana via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio

Monitoring Wildlife For Warning Signs of the Next Pandemic | Earth Wise

July 29, 2020 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

According to the World Health Organization, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 likely originated in wild bats near Wuhan, China, and may have been passed to a second animal species before infecting people. Since then, according to data from Johns Hopkins University, more than 13 million people around the world have been infected by COVID-19 and about 600,000 have died.

But despite the ever-present threat of a new virus sparking the next pandemic, there is currently no global system to screen for viruses in wild animals that could eventually spill over to humans.

In an article recently published in the journal Science, a group of scientists is calling for the creation of a decentralized global system of wildlife surveillance. The establishment of this global system could help identify viruses in wild animals that have the potential to infect and sicken people before another global disease outbreak begins.

According to the scientists, coronaviruses alone have caused outbreaks in humans three times in the last 20 years: SARS (or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome), MERS (or Middle East Respiratory Syndrome), and COVID-19.

While it’s impossible to know today how often viruses jump from animals to humans, human activity is making such spillover events more and more likely. For instance, many continue to develop wild animal habitat to build new homes or businesses. Some catch wild animals and re-sell them either for consumption or as exotic pets. Parts from these wild animals are often shipped around the world as trinkets or as ingredients for traditional medicines.

A global system that could identify potentially harmful viruses before they jump to humans is technologically feasible, affordable, and clearly necessary.

**********

Web Links

COVID-19 Dashboard by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU)

Global wildlife surveillance could provide early warning for next pandemic

Photo, posted January 15, 2008, courtesy of Doug Beckers via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Safer Ways To Be Blue | Earth Wise

May 5, 2020 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

Creating blue fabric has always been desirable for people. It has never been easy, but the original way to do it – by using indigo from plants – has been around for 6,000 years. Natural indigo is a rare commodity, often referred to as blue gold. In the 19th century, synthetic indigo was developed and ultimately replaced the natural substance.

Synthetic indigo dye is not an environmentally friendly substance. In order to get it to adhere to fabrics, substances called mordants are required. These are commonly made from metals like chromium and aluminum, are generally toxic, and kill off plants exposed to factory wastewater, destroy ecosystems, and poison drinking water. The dye itself is slow to decompose and is bad for the environment.

Recently, an organic chemist in Brazil named Erick Bastos has figured out a new way to produce blue dye using, of all things, a pigment from beets. By extracting the pigment and tweaking its molecular pattern, he has managed to transform the red color of the pigment to a brilliant blue.

Beet roots contain pigments called betalains and just a tiny amount of beetroot juice can render a lot of dye. By mixing these pigments with a couple of ingredients, a chemical reaction occurred, and the color transformed from red, to yellow, then green, and finally blue.

Testing so far on human liver cells, retinal cells, and developing zebrafish has revealed no toxicity. The results suggest that the new dye – dubbed BeetBlue – is safe. Further testing is needed to know if it is truly safe and whether it will last in the wash. Meanwhile, Professor Bastos is not patenting the dye and hopes it will provide a better way to be blue.

**********

Web Links

How Do You Make a Less Toxic Blue Dye? Start With Red Beets

Photo, posted November 7, 2005, courtesy of Lain Buchanan via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Meal Kits And The Environment

June 11, 2019 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

Meal kit services have become extremely popular in recent years. These are companies that deliver a box of pre-portioned ingredients and a chef-created recipe to your door to make home-cooked meals easy and practical for busy people. Leading companies like Blue Apron, HelloFresh, and Plated have been joined by dozens of others competing in the meal kit market. As of last year, annual sales for these things were over $3 billion and growing at more than a 20% annual rate.

A major rap against meal kits has been their environmental impact, mostly centered around the amount of packaging waste they generate. While there is most certainly lots of packaging waste associated with meal kits, it turns out that their overall carbon footprint is actually rather good compared with conventional ways to make homecooked meals.

A study from the University of Michigan looked at the cradle-to-grave impact of meal kits, taking into account every major step in the lifetime of the food ingredients and the packaging – agricultural production, packaging production, distribution, supply chain losses, consumption, and waste generation.

Surprisingly, meal kits have a much lower overall carbon footprint than the same meals made from ingredients purchased at the grocery store – even including their packaging. The main reason is that pre-portioned ingredients and a streamlined supply chain lower overall food losses and waste for meal kits compared to store-bought meals. Pre-portioning simply results in fewer ingredients that end up being wasted. Meal kits also have radically different supply chain structures than foods sold in supermarkets.

Whether the economics and culinary aspects of meals kits are advantageous for many people is an open question, but apparently from an environmental perspective, they are just fine.

**********

Web Links

Climate change has worsened global economic inequality

Photo, posted June 11, 2018, courtesy of Marco Verch via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

New Nutrition Labels

February 26, 2019 By EarthWise 1 Comment

Food and beverage packaging in this country has included a Nutrition Facts panel for nearly 25 years. Over 700,000 products have the labels which provide consumers with information like serving sizes, calories per serving, ingredients, and nutritional content.

Surveys indicate that 77 percent of all U.S. adults claim to use the labels at least some of the time. Whether the labels are actually useful is somewhat debatable. A couple of years ago, the FDA released a proposal to update the labels to make them more useful and to reflect more recent nutritional research. The new labels are finally going to be implemented and food manufacturers with annual sales exceeding $10 million have until January of 2020 to update their packaging with the new labels.

One of the biggest changes is that the “serving size” section of the label will be changed to more accurately reflect the actual portions consumed by the typical American. For example, a 20-ounce soft drink will now be labeled as a single serving because most people will drink the whole bottle in one sitting.

The new labels will no long list the amounts of Vitamin A and C, because recent research shows most Americans are not deficient in these nutrients. Instead, the amount of Vitamin D and potassium will be listed, two nutrients lacking in many diets. New labels will also show amounts of “added sugars”, defined as caloric sweeteners with no nutritional value. The new labels will also display the calories per serving in much large type making that piece of information far more noticeable.

There is surely more to be done to make food labeling more transparent and useful for consumers, but the new changes at least seem to be in the right direction.

**********

Web Links

Nutrition Labels Get a Makeover: Will It Make a Difference?

Photo, posted September 9, 2014, courtesy of Mike Mozart via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

The Labeling Of GMO Foods

February 12, 2019 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

American consumers will soon be able to discern whether or not foods contain genetically-modified ingredients. The USDA’s so-called ‘National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard’ will be required for foods that have been altered in a way that doesn’t occur naturally. The mandatory compliance date is January 1st, 2022.

While this does sound like great news, there are some major drawbacks. The new guidelines use the uncommon term “bioengineered” instead of “genetically-modified” or “GMO.” The guidelines also allow the disclosure of bioengineered (or B.E.) ingredients in several formats: as text, a symbol, a phone number (that consumers can call for more info), or a digital link printed on the packaging. Companies are allowed to use a QR code that asks consumers to “scan here for more food information.” Scanning the QR code will bring consumers to a website where the GMO disclosure can be found.

Advocates of the various labeling options say it’ll make it easier and faster for companies to comply with the new guidelines. But critics worry consumers will find it confusing and restrict access for those without smartphones. They say that companies who elect to use a QR code or phone number should be required to include the word “bioengineered” on their packaging.

Another drawback is that products won’t have to be labeled as ‘bioengineered’ if they’ve been processed to the point where their bioengineered DNA can’t be detected. Examples include refined beet sugar, soybean oil, and high fructose corn syrup.

The fight over the labeling of GMO foods has raged for many years. But this labeling mandate falls short of consumer expectations by hiding the information about GMOs instead of disclosing it. We should expect better.

**********