There was just one problem: Lewis and Barker could not afford to buy the farm or the land on which it sits—that is, until they worked with an agricultural land trust.

What is a land trust?

Land trusts can be non-profit conservation organizations or, in some instances, government bodies that work to conserve agricultural land in perpetuity.

Without farmland to grow crops or ranchland for livestock, we don’t eat. Conserving farmland underpins a stable local food supply. Without agriculture, jobs are lost; 22.1 million full- and part-time jobs were related to the agricultural and food sectors in 2022, which equals 10.4 percent of the total US employment. Keeping farmland in farming is crucial for our food supply and food security, and it’s why the American Farmland Trust (AFT), a national conservation organization, advocates for keeping farmers and farmland together. 

The AFT predicts that more than 300 million acres of farmland and ranch land could change ownership within the next two decades, with some of it transitioning out of agriculture use permanently. As retiring farmers exit the field, they are looking to the equity they’ve built up in their land on which to retire. That can be a significant sum, something that young or new farmers may not be able to afford. (According to the USDA’s 2022 Census of Agriculture, farmers under the age of 35 account for only nine percent of all producers.) But real estate developers can afford it. 

“Between 2001 and 2021, the country lost 11 million acres of agricultural land,” says Jen Dempsey, director of the Farmland Information Center and senior advisor for the AFT. “Development,” she says, “remains the most significant and direct threat to farmland.” 

Ben Miles, is the Southeast Program manager for Land Trust Alliance (LTA), a member organization with 950 land trusts nationwide. “Most farmers and ranchers could find a buyer willing to purchase their property and develop it, whether into 10-acre ranchettes or 1/8-acre lots,” he says. 

A land trust is able to purchase land outright, remove the development potential and then lease or sell the land back to a farmer. It is also able to help a beginning farmer if the selling price being asked by an existing farmer is too high. 

Community land trusts retain ownership of the property while the farmer pays a tenancy back to the trust to farm the land. But this can be a mixed bag. The farmer owns the buildings and the equipment, but not the land. 

[RELATED: Q&A: How Community Land Trusts Help to Preserve Farmland]

“Farmers look at their property values going up to retire,” says Lewis. Without value in the land, it becomes difficult for the farmer to gain equity or retirement savings. 

How do land trusts work?

By far the most popular way a land trust works is through the purchase of a conservation easement: a legally binding agreement between a land trust and a property owner, designed to keep farms and ranches conserved for agricultural use in perpetuity. 

The land is first appraised without any conservation restrictions placed on it. This is generally the higher value of the land with zoning and development potential attached to it. It is then appraised with conservation restrictions placed on it. The difference between the two values represents the “easement” value of the property. In 2022, the AFT and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service sent out a survey to land trusts across the US. The majority of respondents to the survey, 88 percent, reported conserving 5.9 million acres of farmland and ranchland through conservation easements. 

In the case of Oyster Bay, the former owners sold the easement value of the property to Community Farmland Trust. They were then able to retire, having leveraged the equity in their property. Lewis and Barker were able to buy the more affordable property without the development rights attached. Since 2018, they have been producing and selling free-range chicken eggs and meat on the farm’s idyllic 40 acres.

“The fee interests—the dirt, the soil, the property—are in our names,” says Lewis, while the conservation easement is in the land trust’s name. The property owner, in this case Lewis and Barker, retains ownership and usage of the land—such as the right to continue farming or to raise livestock. The legal agreements governing an easement are extremely comprehensive including the buying and selling of the farm property. “Easements can be amended and altered slightly, but it can be a very challenging process,” says Lewis. As a general rule, once the land is conserved and the easement filed with the land records office, it is binding and travels with the property for all current and future owners. Even if Lewis and Barker sell the property, the conditions and restrictions on the easement remain in place forever. 

But nothing is perfect. “The easement in our situation reduced the overall cost of the initial purchase in 2018, but now, as property values overall have risen, the land is worth almost the same as before the purchase,” says Lewis.

This is a concern for Lewis and Barker, as they wonder what will happen when it’s their turn to retire and pay the land forward. Their daughter currently does not want to farm. So, will the property again become unaffordable?

Lewis also cautions that land trusts can be complicated legal quagmires and that those entering into a trust should have tempered expectations. Lease agreements, inheritance regulations and the shared responsibility of land stewardship between the trust that owns the land and the farmer can take time to work out. It took Lewis and Barker more than three years to finally have everything in place. All three parties involved (the sellers, the land trust and Lewis and Barker) needed to work out the details of the sale and conservation restrictions being placed on the land. The land trust had to do land surveys and environmental assessments to obtain a grant that let them purchase the easement. “It all takes time,” says Lewis.

How can farmers get started with land trusts?

For farmers looking to conserve their land in a trust and for young agrarians interested in acquiring farmland, the AFT’s Land Transfer Navigators program in partnership with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service is a good place to start.

“Some land trusts,” says Miles, “also have programs connecting new farmers with retiring farmers, through Farm Link programs, or run incubator or community farms, so they may be able to directly help new farmers get access to land and to get their business started.”

Land access and the ability of young farmers to be able to purchase land is a pressing problem that could be addressed in the upcoming Farm Bill. The Increasing Land Access, Security and Opportunities Act is one of several bipartisan bills addressing the issue. Led in the House of Representatives by Joe Courtney (D) from Connecticut, Zach Nunn (R) from Iowa and Nikki Budzinski (D) from Illinois, it hopes to prioritize projects that give direct financial assistance to farmers, involve collaborative partnerships and transition farmland from existing producers to the next generation.

“We are in a land access crisis,” says Lewis. “As farmers get older and look at how they can retire, we need all the options on the table.”

Correction: An earlier version of this story stated that land trusts are legal agreements administered by non-profit conservation organizations. The conservation easement is the legal agreement, while the land trust is the organization that holds or owns the easement. 

The post Holding onto Farmland, One Conservation Easement at a Time appeared first on Modern Farmer.

I raise and sell several hundred vegetable, flower and herb starts every spring, which meant that I was constantly purchasing plastic pots. In my experience, even high-quality plastic pots tended to fall apart after a few years, and I knew many people who simply threw them away after a single season of use. The idea of eliminating this form of waste was appealing to me, as was the additional promise of raising healthier plants in the process.

What is soil blocking?

Soil blocking is the practice of utilizing compacted blocks of soil to germinate and grow out seedlings before transplanting them into the garden. Soil blocks act as both the container and the growing medium, relying on a metal tool called a soil blocker to create the compressed cubes. 

Although the concept of soil blocking has been around for quite some time, its popularity has been steadily gaining traction, touted by many regenerative-minded farmers and adventurous home gardeners as a way to decrease plastic waste and the resulting impacts to the environment. “Soil blocks are the answer for a farm-produced seedling system that costs no more than the soil of which it is composed,” writes Eliot Coleman, a vanguard of the modern soil-blocking movement, in his seminal book, The New Organic Grower. “Blocks free the grower from the mountains of plastic [trash] that have become so ubiquitous of late in horticultural operations.” 

Soil blocking is also gaining in popularity because it promotes a healthier root system by utilizing a process known as “air pruning.” Due to the freestanding nature of each soil block, the plant roots are exposed to oxygen on all sides. The result is that, as the plant roots hit the outside edge of the soil block, they are effectively “burned” off via exposure to air, causing the plant to consistently produce new branching roots and thereby creating an overall healthy root system. 

When it comes time to move seedlings into the garden, soil blocking also allows for a gentler method of planting, thereby reducing transplant shock. Even plants that normally don’t like having their roots disturbed, such as cabbage, can be grown and transplanted successfully using soil blocks. 

Left: A young soil blocked collard seedling in the Blue Ridge Farm greenhouse. Right: Soil blocked plant at the farmers market. (Photos: Jillian Garrett)

Daniel Mays, founder of Frith Farm and another early adopter of the practice, believes that soil blocking also allows for the creation of a larger rhizosphere, (which is defined as the zone of soil where complex symbiotic interactions take place between the plant’s roots and beneficial microbes and fungi), because each block holds more soil than the tapered cells of plastic plug trays. “This means more roots, more soil contact and a more resilient plant.”

The opposite holds true for a plant raised in a traditional plastic pot: The plant’s roots become restricted and, having nowhere to go, head downward to the bottom of the pot, eventually resulting in what feels like an infinite swirl of frustration. When this happens, it is called becoming “rootbound” and this condition can not only stunt the plant but (in extreme cases) potentially even kill it. After being put in the ground, a rootbound plant can remain stunted, unable to overcome its constricted root system. It may take much longer to establish and, in the case of garden vegetables, produce a lower overall yield.

Now that we’ve covered many of the reasons in favor of soil blocking, what about the drawbacks? To be fair, soil blocking does involve a bit of an upfront commitment in the form of the costs associated to purchase the necessary tools, as well as a bit of extra labor involved to make the soil blocks themselves. I believe that these small obstacles are still vastly outweighed by the benefits that the overall system provides (not least of which, for my farm, included increased sales by offering a unique product).

How to soil block

 So, you’ve decided to try your hand at soil blocking—now what? The first thing you need to get started is one or more sizes of soil blockers, which are essentially an ejection-style press that compacts the soil into squares. You can choose from either smaller handheld versions (good for home gardeners and more economical in pricing) or larger (and more expensive) stand-up style ones. Most blockers come in several sizes, allowing you to keep sizing up your soil blocks as the seedlings grow and require more space.  

On my farm, I use three different sizes of handheld soil blockers. To germinate small seeds, I usually begin with a 20-square press (3/4-inch-diameter block size). When dealing with larger seeds such as okra, it’s best to skip this press size and germinate them directly into two-inch-diameter blocks. The one issue to keep in mind with the smaller block size is that the soil can dry out faster than with the larger blocks, so care and attention is needed so as not to accidentally lose fragile seedlings. 

At the onset of the seedlings’ first true leaves, I move them into two-inch-diameter blocks made using the four-square press. As the seedlings become more mature, I move them up to the final four-inch-diameter block size, using the one-square press, a couple of weeks prior to transplanting them into the garden. 

Part of what holds the soil block together is the established root system of the plant. It generally takes a couple of weeks for each seedling’s roots to fill out the soil block, so I highly recommend waiting for that amount of time before moving a seedling up in block size. I also recommend waiting until the seedlings have established roots in their soil blocks before attempting to transport them to market.

Soil blocked plant starts make a unique and popular display at the farmers market. (Photo: Jillian Garrett)

There are as many different formulas for ideal soil-blocking mixtures as there are farmers using the method. Each person has their own idea of what works, and everyone thinks that their recipe is the best. At the end of the day, the important part is that your soil mix is compactable but still possesses good drainage, which is why many folks recommend a blend that includes finely sifted compost (or potting soil) and coconut coir. I recommend experimenting to see what works for you and coming up with your own special blend. It can be something as simple as off-the-shelf seed starter soil or as bespoke as a mix of fine-grained homemade compost and sand with a small amendment of pulverized egg shells (such as that used by Siskiyou Farm). 

I also recommend using a deep rectangular tray (or even a wheelbarrow) in which to mix your soil medium. The secret to soil blocking is achieving the right consistency: If it’s too dry, it’s prone to crumble and fall apart; if it’s too wet, the blocks will slump over and deform. To make the mixture stick together and compact well in the blocker, you need to add a lot more water than you would think. According to Coleman, the ideal consistency is “much moister than most growers are used to. We are talking about something akin to chocolate fudge mix.” Essentially, it needs to be moist enough that, when you squeeze a handful of the soil mixture, a little water comes out.  

After you have filled all the squares in the blocker with soil mixture and smoothed off any excess, press firmly until you see water seeping out of the bottom. Then, release the handle and gently lift the blocker away (I recommend also using a slight rocking motion as you lift up), thereby freeing the soil block squares. Don’t feel bad if your first few attempts end in tragedy (mine certainly did!); perfecting this technique can take a little practice.

Beyond decreasing my reliance on plastic, soil blocking has had the added benefit of increasing my plant sales. By being one of the first farms to implement it on a commercial scale in my area, I can offer a unique product that really piques customers’ interest. Displaying shelf after shelf of soil-blocked plants in my farmers market booth is an excellent recipe for attracting curious passersby who want to know more about the pot-less plants. I have noticed a marked uptick in foot traffic and revenue at my booth by offering my plants in soil-blocked as opposed to potted form. 

While soil blocking does require a bit more labor and an upfront investment in tools, its benefits far outweigh these minor obstacles. Eliminating the need for plastic pots, creating healthier plants and root systems and—if you’re selling plant starts— increasing sales, are all reasons to give soil blocking a try. 

The post Soil Blocking Has Many Benefits. What is It and How Can You Get Started?  appeared first on Modern Farmer.

That’s how Bradley Aiken of Portland, OR began his response to our call for reader questions about where their food comes from. “My weekly visits to the local farmers’ markets still find an overabundance and reliance on plastic pint containers of berries, single-use plastic bags,and straws! I thought we were done with straws, really?”

Bradley’s lament probably feels familiar to most sustainability-minded consumers. Plastic is truly everywhere. Over just a few decades, it’s become an inescapable part of modern life, permeating nearly every aspect of our lives, from the food we eat (usually wrapped and bagged in plastic and often containing it) to the clothes we wear (60 percent of which are made from plastic) to the microplastics hiding just about everywhere, from clouds to human placentas to the Earth’s most remote corners.

“Plastic packaging is definitely a major source of plastic pollution, and it can seem totally overwhelming to folks when they go out to get food, especially since the great majority of our food is wrapped in plastic,” says Erica Cirino, communications manager for the advocacy group Plastic Pollution Coalition and author of Thicker Than Water: The Quest for Solutions to the Plastic Crisis. “It’s estimated that more than 40 percent of all plastic produced is single-use plastic packaging, which is an astounding amount.”

Hey plastic, don’t touch my cheese

Before the advent of plastic packaging, food was packed in a variety of materials, from natural substances such as gourds and leaves to, most recently, glass bottles and jars, metal cans and tins and paper products. Today, plastic encases a large and growing percentage of our food: A recent survey of Canadian grocery stores found that 71 percent of all produce was packaged in plastic and that baby food had the highest share of plastic packaging, at 76 percent.

There are a few reasons why so much of our food is packaged in plastic. Perhaps most importantly, it’s cheaper to manufacture and transport than alternatives. And as the world grapples with an urgent energy transition, fossil fuel companies jittery about the prospect of decreasing demand for oil are looking to plastics as their next major profit driver—and are on track to triple global plastic production by 2060.

Plastic also gives the impression of cleanliness and sterility, and it has long been thought to extend the shelf life of food, a notion that industry groups tend to emphasize but that recent studies have called into question. “It’s a seemingly hygienic coating for foods to be mass produced, shipped around the world and then end up in the supermarket and eventually in your refrigerator,” says Cirino. “It’s just a very disconnected way of interacting with our foods.” 

Worse, she points out, are the health risks of widespread exposure to plastics. Made up of polymers and a dizzying array of chemical additives such as stabilizers, plasticizers, flame retardants and pigments, plastic’s impacts on the human body represent an active area of research. It’s known that many chemicals in plastics, including phthalates and bisphenols, can transfer and leach harmful chemicals that can cause an array of health issues, such as hormone disruption, cancer, diabetes and reproductive disorders. Less well understood are the effects of microplastics, which we can ingest through food and inhale at a rate of about 16 tiny pieces per hour, according to one study. 

“It’s a shame that we’re putting it around our food because we’re exposing ourselves, almost inadvertently, to these toxins,” says Cirino. “All these plastics have different chemical risks associated with them. None of them are good.”

Out of sight, out of mind 

How did we get here? Quite conveniently, as it turns out. Before the advent of plastics in the 20th century, people produced a fraction of the waste they do today; materials were usually repaired, reused or repurposed. It wasn’t until the post-World War II boom that a culture of disposability began to take hold, as new plastics technology allowed cheap packaging to enter the mainstream, finding a market of consumers increasingly motivated by convenience. 

It took some getting used to; historian Susan Strasser recalls how, at first, many consumers washed and saved the tins from disposable TV dinners because they were so unaccustomed to throwing things away after a single use. And it was a transition explicitly driven by the industry. “The future of plastics is in the trash can,” declared Lloyd Stouffer, editor of Modern Packaging Inc., in 1956. By 1963, Stouffer was congratulating plastics industry representatives on their progress. “You are filling the trash cans, the rubbish dumps and the incinerators with literally billions of plastics bottles, plastics jugs, plastics tubes, blisters and skin packs, plastics bags and films and sheet packages—and now, even plastics cans,” he said. “The happy day has arrived when nobody any longer considers the plastics package too good to throw away.” 

Photo: Shutterstock

From the outset, industry groups pushed back against regulation and worked to redirect responsibility onto consumers, coining the term “litterbugs” and promoting recycling as the antidote to the rising tide of plastic waste. As a result, global plastic pollution, estimated at around 400 million tonnes per year, became everybody’s problem but theirs. 

“The whole idea of disposability is based on this idea that you can make something and not have to clear up after yourself,” says Oliver Franklin-Wallis, an investigative journalist and author of Wasteland: The Secret World of Waste and the Urgent Search for a Cleaner Future. “You go back to the very earliest days of the plastics industry and they have always treated waste as an externality. And when I say that, it means it’s a cost borne by other people … If you are a plastics company, we as the taxpayer, we as society, clean up for you, which means that you get privatized profits and socialized consequences.”

The narrative that puts recycling forward as the solution is a comforting one for consumers. But the reality is much more complicated. For certain plastics, namely PET (as in beverage bottles) and HDPE (as in milk cartons), “we have relatively good end-of-life solutions,” says Franklin-Wallis—although “they’re not always done very effectively, particularly in the [United] States.” But the plastic picture is brimming with films and wraps and other forms that aren’t recyclable under current circumstances, and in general, much less plastic is recycled than any of us would like to believe. (In 2021, the US had a plastic recycling rate of less than six percent, according to one report.)

Logan Harvey, senior general manager of Recology Sonoma Marin, gestures toward bales of plastic at a new recycling facility in Santa Rosa, CA. (Photo: Rose Garrett/Modern Farmer)

One culprit is a confusing labeling system that makes consumers think that things are recyclable when they’re not, leading to optimistic but misguided “wishcycling.” “The plastics industry has known for decades that [the labeling system] doesn’t work. It doesn’t help consumers. What it does is make consumers feel less guilty about buying things,” says Franklin-Wallis. “There’s lots of evidence to show that if you tell people that something is recyclable, they’ll feel less guilty in buying it and therefore they’ll buy more of it.” (Here’s a handy guide to those labels; only numbers 1 and 2 are widely recyclable.)

Less is more

Recycling correctly is one action consumers can take, but while it may feel good, it won’t solve the essential problem of too much plastic material clogging waterways, accumulating in soil and threatening human health. “People are recycling, and they are attempting to do what they were told was the right thing,” says Cirino. But, she says, increasing awareness of the inadequacy of recycling has begun to change people’s attitudes, leading them to seek out solutions such as reuse and refill.

Reusable takeout container systems have proliferated in recent years. Some areas have refill stores, where customers can bring their own bottles to stock up on bulk supplies such as dish soap and browse low-waste products such as metal straws and stainless steel bento boxes. But while consumer changes are an important part of the picture, individuals didn’t start the problem, and they won’t be able to fix it on their own. Effective regulation is key to stopping, as Modern Farmer reader Bradley put it, “plastic armageddon.”

“When you talk to people in the plastics industry, they will act as if consumers want this stuff. But actually consumers are never really given a choice,” says Franklin-Wallis. “If you give consumers the choice to choose more sustainable options, they almost always do that. They want to be able to recycle, they want [to] reuse, they don’t want to do things that are damaging for the planet. So, the challenge is forcing industry to [give people the option].”

Examples of effective legislation include bottle return schemes in countries such as Norway and Germany, which have 95- to 99-percent recycling rates for plastic bottles, and “extended producer responsibility” (EPR) laws, which shift some of the burden onto manufacturers, incentivizing things such as reducing packaging or investing in plastic recovery projects. “The solutions are out there and they’re scaled right now,” says Franklin-Wallis. “Quite often, the issue is either apathy or corporate opposition, and we need to kind of bust through both of those things.”

Throwaway culture is cheap, easy and convenient. Changing our consumer habits and challenging the interests of a powerful global industry is difficult. “There are no easy solutions,” says Franklin-Wallis. “There are only choices.” One choice that’s worth making, however small the impact? Buy less stuff—a lot less, if you’re able—and make do with what you already have. 

Click here to read our guide on how you can help reduce plastic waste, from things to do at home to how to support community and policy-level solutions.

***

Thanks to Bradley Aiken for submitting his question for our “Digging In” series. Got a question about where your food comes from? Let us know what you’d like us to investigate next by filling out this form.

The post Digging In: Food’s Big, Plastic Problem appeared first on Modern Farmer.

Becoming certified organic, however, is not an overnight process for farmers. Adopting approved organic practices is only part of it. For a food to become certified organic, the farmland must be proven to have not received any pesticides or unapproved substances for at least three years. 

For farmers who use more conventional methods but are interested in transitioning to organic, the process can take years. The investment of time is not without risk. During this transition period, yields can drop and farmers can still be years away from a return. Despite these obstacles, there are several reasons that farmers still pursue organic certification, such as environmental and health benefits.

We talked with Lindsay Haines, National Pest Management and Organic Systems specialist for the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, about what this transition looks like and what kind of government-backed support aspiring organic farmers can lean on.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Modern Farmer: Can you tell me what the process of transitioning to organic farming looks like for producers in terms of requirements?

Lindsay Haines: The basic requirement is to not have any what they consider prohibited substances applied to your ground for at least three years. So, that could mean you transition ground that hasn’t had anything on it for other reasons—it was just not used or in a conservation program or something. There weren’t any inputs, it wasn’t producing anything, so it can transition right away. 

Or in the more common circumstances, if people are farming conventionally and using some of the prohibited substances, they have to then stop using those substances and start doing other things—whether they plant a conservation cover for three years or actually start producing crops without those prohibited substances, but you have to document that you have done that for at least three years. So, it could be right away if you didn’t have a history, and you can prove it, or more typically three years, because you need that period of time to remove those prohibited substances.

Much of our conventional agriculture uses synthetic inputs. And they can have some very short-term impacts and long-term impacts. [In organic farming], we want to switch from that chemically based system to a biologically based system. And so, it does take a little time for the system to reset, so to speak.

Certified organic farms can’t use pesticides or other prohibited substances. (Photo from Shutterstock)

MF: During this transition period, what are some of the obstacles or hardships that producers can come up against?

LH: A very common problem with organic folks is weed management. The chemical products that many farmers use are very effective in terms of terminating weeds or plants that they don’t want in their system. If you’re doing things organically, there’s no similar, easy way to do it. It’s usually a combination of practices farmers have to use. They have to use lots of cover crops, and they have to have a more intense crop rotation and they may use some tillage. 

There [are] some infrastructure issues. You need some infrastructure first, before folks can know, ‘if I grow this, where am I going to sell it?’ So, some of the other initiatives across USDA are dealing with that. Bottlenecks with [organic] meat processors is a huge issue. There’s not enough certified meat processors, and then a lot of granaries that don’t have these segregated facilities. But it is getting better. 

MF: Organic certified foods may fetch premium prices. But as producers transition to organic farming, can there be a loss in yield or a financial burden that comes along with making this transition?

LH: There definitely is. We actually are offering what we consider “foregone income” for certain crops and certain regions of the country [to] compensate farmers that will see that sort of dip in yields as they transition. But once they get through the transition, I often hear farmers say it actually takes more like five years [to] get back to the yields that they might have had before. But they definitely do get back. 

Even though they may be getting premium prices, they still have different costs. I hate it when people just focus on the premium prices, because there’s so much behind that in terms of investing in the production and the values and the environmental benefits. So, it’s a big picture. It’s not just about the premium prices.

MF: The USDA offers some support to farmers going through this transition, through programs such as the Organic Transition Initiative. How does the initiative aim to help address some of these obstacles?

LH: A few years ago, the secretary said he wanted all the departments to investigate ways to help people transition. And so, we got a bunch of folks together in NRCS and thought how can we help folks, and we wanted to pursue this foregone income piece. And so, we did the deep economic dive and came up with some ideas for that. 

But we also wanted to help folks overcome the learning curve. Anyone in any business that wants to change how they do things has to learn a new way of doing things. And so, we want to really invest in farmers who want to invest their time to [research and try] these new ways of doing things organically. The thought behind it is to invest in folks, spending more time learning about these new ways of managing, attending workshops, getting mentors, working with other crop advisors or organic experts to find how they need to make every management decision differently throughout their growing season.

Certified organic farms must prove that the land has not received prohibited substances for at least three years. (Photo by Shutterstock)

MF: Part of the initiative is to bolster organic markets. Is there anything that farmers or non-farmers can do to also help support the growth of the organic market?

LH: I think the more people can ask questions [and] be informed, because labeling is just incredibly confusing to people. While the organic standard is not perfect—there’s fraud everywhere, right?—it does set the standard. So, you can go to a place and look at what the standards are, you can talk to your farmers. I just think it’s a great opportunity for people to come together, both farmers and consumers, to learn about our food and our environment.

MF:  Is there anything else you would like farmers or non-farmers to know either about this transition in general or about the Organic Transition Initiative?

LH: I just encourage people, if you’re not familiar with NRCS, [to] come to your local field office, get to know the folks, have folks out to your farm, learn from each other. Get to know your farmers, get to know how your food is produced. Most farmers welcome those sorts of interactions. And I think we’re all better for it, when we learn more about how our food is produced, and our allies with the agriculture industry, wherever people are on the spectrum. It’s very important for our food and also our environment.

***

For farmers: You can learn more about the Organic Transition Initiative here and apply by March 1 through your local USDA Service Center to receive help making this transition. 

For interested readers: To get a deeper understanding of the organic label, read our coverage here.

The post What Does it Take to Become an Organic Farmer? appeared first on Modern Farmer.

It happens everywhere in our food system. Tomatoes that don’t meet product specifications get left on the vine at farms. Byproducts of processed foods get tossed out on the manufacturing line. Ugly lemons get picked over at the supermarket. At home, we throw out the wilting spinach in our refrigerator that we bought when we had grand plans to cook, then ended up ordering takeout instead.

All of these things add up; food waste cost the US $428 billion in 2022. In addition to the monetary costs, wasted food could be going to those who need it—12.8 percent of American households were food insecure in 2022. Environmentally that same year, the US expended 6.1 percent of its greenhouse gas emissions on food that never gets eaten, as well as an estimated 16 percent of US cropland and 22 percent of its freshwater use.

The thing is, reducing wasted food is completely possible. A close look at where it happens in the food system, and how, reveals how interventions can make a difference in achieving our food waste goals.

Big goals for 2030

In 2015, the United Nations created a Sustainable Development Goal, or SDG, to halve food waste at the consumer and retail levels by 2030. The US joined in pursuit of this goal, thereby taking on the biggest food waste challenge in the world.

Now, in 2024, we have passed the halfway point to that deadline, but food waste is still a monumental problem in the US.

However, there have been some interesting fluctuations in this trend. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdown exposed weaknesses in our food system, but it also dramatically changed people’s eating habits, as well as their waste habits. Research indicates that the onset of the pandemic resulted in reductions in household food waste in many countries at first … “and then kind of a return to normal levels of waste thereafter,” says Brian Roe, leader of the Ohio State Food Waste Collaborative.

We don’t have definitive data as to why, but Roe offers a guess: In general, people were home more, going to the grocery store less frequently and not eating out at restaurants as much. As things began to re-open, food waste levels went back to “normal.”

Another interesting part of the food waste discussion at the national level is that municipal composting programs are becoming more common. However, compost doesn’t count toward the SDG food waste reduction goals. These measures will have to be achieved through upstream interventions. So, where in the food system can this happen?

On the farm: 16.8 percent of surplus food 

When it comes to fruits and vegetables, Dana Gunders, executive director of ReFED, says occasional overproduction can be attributed to fluctuating markets. Because of that, growers are always playing a guessing game about how much they will be able to sell and the price they will fetch versus the basic cost of harvest.

There’s also the question of aesthetics. “You also have products that are systematically left in the field because of their specs. They’re not meeting specs, for one reason or another. It could be size, shape, color, sweetness, but it also could be that they have two weeks of shelf life left instead of three.”

Labor or budget shortages can also result in food left on the vine—perhaps farms only find it possible to pay workers to go out in the field twice instead of three times and food gets left behind. Gleaning programs can address this.

But produce isn’t the only food that can be wasted on farms. Gunders says produce gets a lot of the focus, but that there are also wasted eggs, meat, dairy and commodity grains.

Tomatoes left on the plant. (Photo courtesy of Shutterstock)

In processing: 14.7 percent of surplus food

Manufacturing is decently efficient, says Gunders. But the byproducts of certain items can be a source of wasted food in the system. For example, if you’re making french fries, you may be tossing your potato peels, even though they are edible. 

The upcycled food movement has stepped in to try to figure out how to address some of these issues.

At grocery stores and restaurants: 20.2 percent of surplus food

A typical grocery store sells tens of thousands of different items, a fair few of which are not shelf-stable. Grocery stores must estimate how much of something they think they will sell, and they won’t always get it right. US grocery stores produce five million tons of food waste annually.

Seventy percent of the food wasted at restaurants happens in the front of the house, not in the kitchen. Often, this happens through big portions. Patrons can’t finish the food and it gets left on the plate.

A handful of states have passed legislation addressing surplus food at this level, either through organic waste bans, providing tax incentives to donate surplus food or liability protections for donated food, such as that which has passed its “best by” date. You can find more about what each state is up to using ReFED’s Policy Finder.

Uneaten food in a garbage receptacle. (Photo courtesy of Shutterstock)

At home: 48.2 percent of surplus food

The biggest share of food waste occurs at home. This makes the environmental impact even stronger—not only is the food wasted, but so much energy was used to get it from the farm, through the food system and into your kitchen. 

“It really boils down to the fact that we’re not very good at managing our food,” says Gunders. 

Fortunately, steps for reducing your home footprint are pretty accessible. A recent pilot study out of the University of Guelph found that at-home educational interventions can help reduce food waste. You can access the manual it used at home here. And for actionable tips for what you can do at home, read our how-to here.  

“I’m a big believer that we need to chip away at the consumer level because it is the source of the most. And by the time it gets to the consumer, it has embedded increasing amounts of energy and other resources. You’ve transported it a few more times, you’ve refrigerated it for longer, you burned more energy [and] created more emissions to get it to the consumer level,” says Roe.

Prevention vs. reaction

When it comes to food waste solutions, many fall on one end of the spectrum or the other: preventing food from being wasted in the first place versus getting use out of it once it has been wasted. Both sides are valuable.

Preventive strategies help cut down on the amount of money and energy used to create food that doesn’t get eaten. 

But disposing of wasted food the right way is also important. Landfills are the third greatest producers of human-driven methane in the US. An EPA study from 2023 found that an estimated 58 percent of the methane produced by landfills was due to food waste. Food, when tossed in the landfill, generates this greenhouse gas. The way to cut down on this is by redirecting food waste away from landfills. Compost, if managed properly through the integration of oxygen, will not create such high levels of methane. Check out our tips on compost best practices here.

“Getting a system in place throughout the country to really systematically get that food out of landfills, is now taking, I would say, more prominence as a good climate strategy,” says Gunders.

Learn more. Most of the data used in this article was sourced from ReFED, a leader in understanding food waste through data. Check out its homepage, Insights Engine and Policy Finder for more information.

The post The Staggering Scale of Food Waste, Explained appeared first on Modern Farmer.

COPs are historically where key climate decisions are made, such as the Kyoto Protocol, in which signing parties agreed to decrease greenhouse gas emissions, and the Paris Agreement, which committed parties to the goal of keeping warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

However, current world government actions are not enough to meet the climate goals set by the Paris Agreement, and even promises made at this year’s conference (and in years past) may not be enough to move the world closer to those goals. The climate conferences are not without their share of criticism. This year, the president of COP28, Sultan Al Jaber, has come under fire after claiming there wasn’t sufficient scientific evidence that a phase-out of fossil fuels could help lower global temperatures. Food production accounts for 26 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and past COP conferences have been accused of greenwashing, in part by offering meat on the menu while talking about reducing global meat consumption. Critics have long accused COP conferences of being all about the talk, with little action. It remains to be seen what, if anything, will actually happen as a result of this year’s discussions. 

This year, at COP28 in Dubai, global food systems and agriculture were discussed more than ever before. Here are the key food and agriculture takeaways from this year’s conference, which wrapped up today.

Takeaway 1: Leaders linked climate and food systems with declaration

More than 130 countries signed the Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems and Climate Action, also known as the Emirates Declaration. That’s a mouthful, but the declaration appears to have weight behind it. More than $2.5 billion has been put aside for this declaration, including a $200-million fund from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation looking specifically at agricultural research. 

This declaration, first and foremost, emphasizes the importance of including agriculture and food systems solutions to meet climate goals. “We stress that any path to fully achieving the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement must include agriculture and food systems,” says the declaration.

Signees commit to taking action by 2025 to scale up and strengthen mechanisms for resilient food systems, with the goal of reducing environmental impacts and increasing security for those who work in the food system. Signees will review their progress next year, at COP29. Read the full text.

Takeaway 2: The FAO released a roadmap for sustainably feeding the growing population

During COP28, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Commission released a list of recommendations for what needs to change in the global food system to meet climate goals. The goal of this roadmap is to successfully feed the growing world population while staying aligned with emissions targets.

One of the recommendations in this roadmap was that meat consumption should shift to favor lower-impact animals that still meet nutritional needs. This is in reference to the emissions produced by animal agriculture, which are the food items that have the greatest environmental impact.

Meanwhile, companies and groups such as Tyson Foods, JBS and the North American Meat Institute attended COP28 to make the case that they have a place in the future of food.

Other recommendations include increased adoption of precision agriculture technologies and addressing obstacles to land tenure, with a special focus on women and Indigenous peoples. Read the full roadmap here, or click through this visualization here.

Takeaway 3: Countries made plans to tackle food waste, starting with the US

Announced first at COP28, the USDA has released a draft of the new National Strategy to Reduce US Food Loss and Waste. With an initial investment of $30 million, the strategy sets out four goals for the federal government. 

The goals include  the prevention of the loss of food where possible and preventing the waste of food. The other goals are to increase recycling rates for organic waste and, finally, to support policies that echo these aims. With roughly one third of available food going uneaten globally, a strategy centering food loss and solutions such as composting could make a big difference in the US.

“Food loss and waste poses a real challenge to agriculture, food and the climate. In order to tackle this problem, and in turn build a resilient food system and mitigate climate impacts, we must explore and implement innovative solutions,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in a release.

The policy is a joint effort between the USDA, FDA and EPA, and a 30-day public comment period is now open. You can add your comments on the policy here. 

Takeaway 4: Negotiators had trouble nailing down specifics

Sunday was Food, Agriculture and Water Day at COP28, and negotiators released a draft document, intended to help countries move towards sustainable agriculture and track progress. However, as reported by Indian media outlets, while the document references sustainable agriculture, it doesn’t pin down specific targets for goals related to food, water, health and agriculture. The document also points out that the funding required to adapt these systems “remains insufficient,” but it does not specify how much is actually needed. Other climate agreements have seen a softening in language as well, moving from a “phase out” of fossil fuels, to a “reduction.” 

Speaking at COP over the weekend, Vilsack even said that the final statement from the convention may not mention food or agriculture, as “there wasn’t enough time to negotiate a text.” Vilsack referenced disagreements between nations on how to measure progress of climate goals. 

Vilsack did highlight the US’s contributions to COP’s overall goals, including the investment of close to $20 billion to help agricultural producers reduce emissions and enhance carbon sequestration in their soil. 

Takeaway 5: New partnerships and coalitions emerged

This year’s COP has resulted in the emergence of several new initiatives that will be worth keeping an eye on. One was the International Soil Carbon Industry Alliance, formed among 28 organizations, which will focus on developing our understanding of soil carbon sequestration, a topic that has had an amorphous definition in the carbon credit market. 

Soil naturally stores carbon, making it a valuable resource for fighting climate change. However, the carbon credit market, which allows companies to offset their carbon footprint by purchasing carbon credits that, in theory, protect carbon sinks from being disturbed, lacks consistency and is therefore vulnerable to greenwashing. A better understanding of soil carbon sequestration can lead to best practices for land management and carbon storage. Read our breakdown of some of the obstacles the carbon credit market faces here.

The post Food Was a Focus at COP28. Here’s What You Need to Know appeared first on Modern Farmer.

Fertilizer basics

The concept of soil fertilization likely extends back 8,000 years, when early farmers added manure and bones to their crops. Chemical versions weren’t invented until the 19th century, and their widespread use didn’t come about until the second half of the 20th century. Nowadays, fertilizers are an essential part of farming, and there are plenty of options: synthetic or organic (think: manure or seaweed), liquid or dry options, and a wide variety of formulations. 

All plants need fertilization. After sitting in the same soil week after week, they eventually eat up all of the nutrients, which then need to be replenished. Which fertilizer they need, however, requires some sleuthing. 

Most fertilizers are composed of three major nutrients: nitrogen, which stimulates the growth of healthy leaves; phosphorus, which encourages root and flower production; and potassium, which supports general health and disease resistance. (You’ll see these noted on bags of fertilizer as an NPK ratio.) Some fertilizers will also include micronutrients such as iron, copper, zinc, and magnesium. The best way to determine which nutrients your soil is lacking is via a soil test.

For home gardeners: Fertilizers can also be formulated for specific types of plants. There are versions for annuals, vegetables, turf grass, tropical houseplants, etc. Choose—or blend—the one(s) that best fit your greenery.

Fertilizers in agriculture

Of course, fertilizers are especially important when it comes to agriculture, and are responsible for boosting crop yields. Fertilizer application is believed to have been responsible for at least 50 percent increase in crop yield in the 20th century, according to an article published in Agriculture in 2022. Higher crop yields mean that less land is required for agriculture, which can benefit wildlife habitats and forests.

But fertilizer is a delicate addition to farming practices. Use too little and the crops lack critical nutrients. Apply too much, and you can offset the pH of the soil, thwart plant growth, increase pest attacks and cause topsoil erosion, among other issues. 

The use of chemical or synthetic fertilizers can also have serious environmental consequences. Their high concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus can leach into and contaminate groundwater, cause algae blooms that harm aquatic ecosystems and remove healthy bacteria from the soil. One major example: the Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone, where overwhelming amounts of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus have killed off marine life.   

Animals that eat fertilizer-treated plants can get sick, and some research shows that synthetic fertilizers are causing decreased fetal weight, neurological damage, diabetes, and cancer in humans. 

Globally, only about 35 percent of the nitrogen applied to plants is actually absorbed by them, leaving the rest to run off into the environment. Precision farming can help growers use fertilizers more efficiently so they get more of the benefits and less negative side effects.

It pays to be stringent about fertilizer use, not just for the health of the planet, but for the health of your wallet. Drastic jumps in fertilizer costs are hurting farmers’ bottom lines. The USDA forecasted that input costs for the 2024 growing season are expected to hit the third-highest level in history. Though fertilizer costs are expected to drop from their all-time high, the category remains a significant expense; for example, fertilizer accounts the largest single operating cost when growing corn. In short: Being smart about where fertilizer is applied, and how much, can have a major impact on budgets. 

Using fertilizer 

Adding fertilizer when a plant is in its dormant cycle can mess up its natural cycles. You’ll get the most out of fertilization at the start of spring when plants are generally in their active growth period. Depending on the plant, additional applications (every couple of weeks or so) may follow until fall; some indoor greenery also benefits from sporadic applications throughout the winter. 

As we’ve mentioned, just be cautious about how much you use—too much can have a contradictory effect, damaging the plants and the environment. 

Thankfully, there are safer alternatives available. 

Organic fertilizers are considered healthier for the environment and for us because they are made from living organisms (like fish emulsion). Two challenges that come with these options: They can be pricier, and they’re slow-release, meaning it’ll take days or weeks for the effects to become evident. 

Outside of the home, additional organic materials—like grass clippings, cover crops, or compost—can also help support soil health, suppress weed growth, and reduce soil erosion.

What do you want to know about fertilizer? Ask a question in the comments section below.

The post The Dirt on Fertilizer appeared first on Modern Farmer.

Almost 9 in 10 Americans eat turkey during this festive meal, whether it’s roasted, deep-fried, grilled or cooked in any other way for the occasion.

You might believe it’s because of what the Pilgrims, a year after they landed in what’s now the state of Massachusetts, and their Indigenous Wampanoag guests ate during their first thanksgiving feast in 1621. Or that it’s because turkey is originally from the Americas.

But it has more to do with how Americans observed the holiday in the late 1800s than which poultry the Pilgrims ate while celebrating their bounty in 1621.

Did they or didn’t they eat it?

The only firsthand record of what the Pilgrims ate at the first thanksgiving feast comes from Edward Winslow. He noted that the Wampanoag leader, Massasoit, arrived with 90 men, and the two communities feasted together for three days.

Winslow wrote little about the menu, aside from mentioning five deer that the Wampanoag brought and that the meal included “fowle,” which could have been any number of wild birds found in the area, including ducks, geese and turkeys.

Historians do know that important ingredients of today’s traditional dishes were not available during that first Thanksgiving.

That includes potatoes and green beans. The likely absence of wheat flour and the scarcity of sugar in New England at the time ruled out pumpkin pie and cranberry sauce. Some sort of squash, a staple of Native American diets, was almost certainly served, along with corn and shellfish.

A resurrected tradition

Historians like me who have studied the history of food have found that most modern Thanksgiving traditions began in the mid-19th century, more than two centuries after the Pilgrims’ first harvest celebration.

The reinvention of the Pilgrims’ celebration as a national holiday was largely the work of Sarah Hale. Born in New Hampshire in 1784, as a young widow she published poetry to earn a living. Most notably, she wrote the nursery rhyme “Mary Had a Little Lamb.”

In 1837, Hale became the editor of the popular magazine Godey’s Lady’s Book. Fiercely religious and family-focused, it crusaded for the creation of an annual national holiday of “Thanksgiving and Praise” commemorating the Pilgrims’ thanksgiving feast.

Hale and her colleagues leaned on 1621 lore for historical justification. Like many of her contemporaries, she assumed the Pilgrims ate turkey at their first feast because of the abundance of edible wild turkeys in New England.

This campaign took decades, partly due to a lack of enthusiasm among white Southerners. Many of them considered an earlier celebration among Virginia colonists in honor of supply ships that arrived at Jamestown in 1610 to be the more important precedent.

The absence of Southerners serving in Congress during the Civil War enabled President Abraham Lincoln to declare Thanksgiving a national holiday in 1863.

Turkey marketing campaign

Godey’s, along with other media, embraced the holiday, packing their pages with recipes from New England and menus that prominently featured turkey.

“We dare say most of the Thanksgiving will take the form of gastronomic pleasure,” Georgia’s Augusta Chronicle predicted in 1882. “Every person who can afford turkey or procure it will sacrifice the noble American fowl to-day.”

A second one is that turkey is also practical for serving to a large crowd. Turkeys are bigger than other birds raised or hunted for their meat, and it’s cheaper to produce a turkey than a cow or pig.

The bird’s attributes led Europeans to incorporate turkeys into their diets following their colonization of the Americas. In England, King Henry VIII regularly enjoyed turkey on Christmas day a century before the Pilgrims’ feast.

Christmas connection

The bird cemented its position as the favored Christmas dish in England in the mid-19th century.

One reason for this was that Ebenezer Scrooge in Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol” sought redemption by replacing the impoverished Cratchit family’s meager goose with an enormous turkey.

Published in 1843, Dickens’ instantly best-selling depiction of the prayerful family meal would soon inspire Hale’s idealized Thanksgiving.

Although the historical record is hazy, I do think it’s possible that the Pilgrims ate turkey in 1621. It certainly was served at celebrations in New England throughout the colonial period.

Troy Bickham is a Professor of History at Texas A&M University.

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

The post Why is Turkey the Main Dish on Thanksgiving? appeared first on Modern Farmer.

Some of the terms used on food labels are official certifications, enforced by the USDA or a nonprofit entity, and the presence of the certification means that the farming operation has been verified in some way for compliance. Other common terms or phrases refer to qualities that are not regulated at all. This means that companies can use these phrases on their packaging whether they conform to a consumer’s understanding of what that label means or not. To make things even more complicated, many certifications require a lot of labor, effort and expense on the producer’s behalf, meaning that small farms can be at a disadvantage when it comes to garnering these certifications, even if they meet the requirements. 

As a consumer, it can help to understand what you are looking at and what it means. Below is a list of definitions for common phrases on food labels. But there are many more beyond the ones we have listed. 

To help you evaluate their meaning, ask yourself these questions: If it’s a certification, who is the governing body and how do they verify compliance? If it’s not a certification, does the company clarify what it means by the term? Can I find additional information about the product separate from the words used on the label?

Certified and/or regulated

USDA Organic: You can find this certification on meats, dairy products and produce. This certification prohibits the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are also not considered organic. For meats with this label, synthetic growth hormones are not permitted, and the animals must have been fed a diet that is 100 percent organically grown. This certification requires inspection to verify that standards are being met. After certification has been granted, the operation must be inspected annually to maintain compliance.

Cage Free: This term refers to poultry that live indoors without cages and have access to food and water. The USDA does not define how big this indoor space must be. Verification of these parameters varies widely, according to the USDA. The Quality Assessment Division of the USDA will verify a cage-free operation during paid grade and certification services.

Common text to see on an egg carton label. (Photography by Lena Beck)

Free Range: This means that the animal spends part of its time outside, uncaged. However, there is no regulation of the amount of time that the animal may actually spend outside, nor how big the outdoor space is. The outdoor space can be fenced or netted in. Farms must provide proof to the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service of free-range conditions.

Naturally Grown: This certification is an alternative to the “USDA Organic” label. The process to be certified “USDA Organic” can be cumbersome for farmers, so the “Certified Naturally Grown” label uses the same requirements but is verified by a team of CNG farmers, not the USDA. Be aware—this is different than when the word “natural” or “all-natural” appears alone on a label. See the list of items not backed by certification or regulation for more information. 

Fair Trade: The Fair Trade USA certification was developed to help ensure fair working conditions for farmers and growers on some commonly imported products such as chocolate, tea, coffee, honey, bananas and more. Fair Trade USA checks for things such as fair wages, safe working conditions, lack of child labor and ability to unionize. However, there have been multiple documented instances of companies achieving this certification without meeting labor standards.

An example of a fair exchange label. (Photography by Lena Beck)

Animal Welfare Approved: This certification is not administered by a governmental body but by the nonprofit A Greener World. Farms that receive this certification raise their animals in pasture or on range and allow the animals to behave and move in a way that supports their well-being.

Certified Regenerative: A Greener World also provides a certification regarding regenerative practices—farming intended to be better for the environment. But it is also worth noting that this is not the only certification program evaluating regenerative standards, and there is some debate in the industry about what exactly being certified “regenerative” should mean. 

American Humane Certified: This certification is granted by American Humane to practitioners of animal agriculture. It claims to use a scientifically informed set of criteria to evaluate whether animals are being raised in suitable and healthy living conditions—everything from enough space to access to shade. However, animal welfare advocates have called the certification an example of humane washing because it still allows for practices such as caged confinement. 

This Certified Humane label is granted by Humane Farm Animal Care, and is given to products that meet specific animal welfare standards. (Photography by Lena Beck)

Grassfed: For grazing animals such as cows, the USDA defines “grassfed” as animals that have access to grass or other pasture forage during the growing season and derive the majority of their nutrients from this source. It does not set parameters for pesticides, growth hormones or antibiotics.

Non-GMO Project Certified: This certification is run by nonprofit organization the Non-GMO Project. It is granted to products that do not use genetic engineering.

The USDA Organic label and the Non-GMO Project label. (Photography by Lena Beck)

Pasture-raised: This does not require third-party verification, so it’s hard to know what it means to the producer. It is best if you can find additional information to verify that the animal does indeed spend a significant amount of time in the pasture. If you’re looking at meat from a ruminant animal, “certified grassfed” will mean more than “pasture-raised.”

Raised Without Hormones: This term is mostly for cattle, which are sometimes supplemented with growth hormones such as rBGH to make them grow bigger and faster. Operations must submit documentation to the USDA to show that they do not use hormones. The USDA does not allow hormones to be used for poultry or pork, so don’t associate this with a mark of quality on these items. 

Raised Without Antibiotics/No Antibiotics: This term is used in animal agriculture to denote that the animal has not been raised with antibiotics, something that can help animals to grow bigger and faster. However, earlier in 2023, the USDA announced that it will begin an evaluation process to determine if more intensive verification is necessary.

Not backed by certification and/or regulation

All-natural: The term “natural” on egg, poultry and meat products means that they are “minimally processed and contain no artificial ingredients,” per the USDA. However, many other items carry this term that do not fall under the USDA category of meat, poultry or eggs. There is no standard definition of “all-natural.” Look for further explanation on the rest of the label or company website to find out what this means to the company. Seeing this phrase on a food label does not inherently convey meaning or guarantee anything. 

Eco-friendly/Climate Positive: Many labels claim that their product is environmentally friendly, but these are not quantifiable terms. Look for additional information about how the product benefits the environment or sustainability in general.

Local: The USDA defines local as within the state of provenance or within 400 miles of its production point. But this is a widely interpreted term and different producers/companies may have varying definitions of what this means.

This story is part of ‘Phonies, Fakes and Food Fraud’, a special Modern Farmer series. See the full series here.

The post What’s in a Name? Food Labels, Explained appeared first on Modern Farmer.

* = accepted legal substitution/imitation

Cheese

There are two main types of cheese fraud—cheese degraded with other ingredients not listed on the label and labeling cheese by the wrong name. Like other specialty products such as champagne, some cheeses such as Parmigiano Reggiano and Emmental are given a protected designation of origin (PDO). A PDO means that a product is only legitimate if it comes from a certain region. Some cheesemakers are trying to fight regional misrepresentation through innovative methods, such as digital tracking.

Cheese can also be adulterated with other ingredients. In 2016, the president of Castle Cheese was found guilty of selling parmesan cheese containing non-cheese elements. Bloomberg conducted an investigation into shredded parmesan sold in stores and found evidence of cellulose in several different brands. Cellulose is plant fiber, meaning it can be derived from many different sources. It won’t really harm you, but it’s not cheese. 

Fish

Fraud is rampant in the seafood industry because of the often global nature of the market and the ease with which one species can be passed off as something else. This also makes it difficult to know where along the supply chain the mislabeling is taking place. An undergraduate class at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill collected samples of fish sold as red snapper from grocery stores and restaurants in the counties surrounding the university and found that 90 percent were actually not red snapper at all but often vermilion snapper or tilapia. These fish sell for a lower price point. Other examples of fish commonly mislabeled are tuna, halibut and sea bass.

Honey

Honey is one of the most commonly adulterated foods in the world, and can be diluted with sucrose syrup of some kind (such as corn syrup or sugar beet). In 2022, the FDA conducted a test and found that 10 percent of imported honey samples were adulterated in some way. An EU investigation the same year found that 46 percent of the imported honey samples tested were suspicious and warranted further testing.

Imitation crab*

As its name suggests, imitation crab does not pretend to be authentic crab. Imitation crab is made from surimi. Surimi is a paste made of fish (often pollock) and sometimes other additives such as flavorings, egg whites and sugar. In the US, it’s commonly found in the California roll, although, in Japan, it’s used for a number of dishes. There’s no reason to avoid eating surimi, unless you have an allergy to one of its ingredients. On packaging and at restaurants, it should be clear that imitation crab is not, in fact, crab.

Juice

Popular fruit juices such as apple juice and pomegranate juice can be adulterated or diluted to cut costs. This can be done using other sweeteners, water or cheaper juices. Juice-to-juice adulteration is difficult to detect. According to research published in the US National Library of Medicine, grape juice is a common adulterant because it is low in cost. A noteworthy instance of juice adulteration was in 1989, when top officials of Bodine’s Inc., in Chicago, were charged with diluting their 100-percent pure orange juice concentrate with many other substances, including beet sugar and corn sugar.

Maple syrup

Maple syrup—produced by boiling maple tree sap—is a frequent target of adulteration, meaning it has been diluted or mixed with another sweetener. Sugar or corn syrups such as Log Cabin or Mrs. Butterworth’s are common on the market as cheaper alternatives, and they are completely legal. But there have been instances of sugar syrups passed off as authentic maple syrup, driving up the price of the product. In response to this, researchers at the University of Guelph have been working on “fluorescent fingerprinting,” which means using ultraviolet light to determine the chemical composition of syrup and detect the presence of adulterants. 

Olive oil

Olive oil is vulnerable to both outright fraud as well as impurities. There have been multiple cases of olive oil being diluted with less expensive oils in order to cut costs. Additionally, a 2010 UC Davis study found that many grocery store olive oil brands sold in the US did not meet the sensory standards to be considered “extra virgin,” even though they were labeled as such.

Spices

Expensive spices are sometimes cut with additives or enhanced with dyes. Examples include the use of potato starch to bulk up spices such as turmeric, ginger or paprika. Saffron, one of the most expensive spices, can be adulterated with any number of other fibers and filaments. In one notable example, 11 individuals were arrested in Spain in 2022 for engaging in saffron fraud valued at three million euros after they were caught passing off pulverized gardenia as saffron. 

Sushi wasabi*

True wasabi is made from grating the stem of the Wasabia Japonica plant. This fresh-grated wasabi is often different from the green paste you may find in many sushi restaurants, however. Nearly all of the wasabi found in stores and restaurants in the US is fake, made from horseradish and other additives, and made green with food coloring.

Vanilla*

When it comes to baking and sweets, vanilla is a common flavor profile. But less than one percent of the vanilla flavoring on the market actually comes from the true vanilla orchid. Instead, it is made using synthetic vanillin, often made from petrochemicals. Taste-wise, many find vanillin suitable for baking purposes, and it is a more economical option than the expensive true vanilla. However, if you prefer authentic vanilla, you can always purchase the pods yourself and make vanilla extract at home.

Milk

Typically, milk fraud occurs when milk is diluted with water for economic gain. In one incident in 2021, an Italian tanker truck transporting buffalo milk was found to have an additional compartment for water, for the purposes of diluting the product. Adulterants and additives in milk and milk products can also have a harmful effect on human health. In 2008 in China, six babies died after consuming infant formula containing melamine—a compound used in the production of fertilizer, and 300,000 babies were sickened.

This story is part of ‘Phonies, Fakes and Food Fraud’, a special Modern Farmer series. See the full series here.

The post In the Shopping Cart appeared first on Modern Farmer.