What’s food got to do with loving the planet? Everything. The global food system — from production to consumption to waste — contributes to one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions. Agriculture is the single largest user of land, worldwide, and agricultural chemicals pollute lakes, streams, and rivers.

The good news is that we can grow food abundantly without hurting the environment. In fact, sustainable farming practices play a key role in remediating watersheds, protecting soils, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And, since we all eat, each of us has a role to play in choosing food that protects the planet. Here are eight ways to eat with the planet in mind.

1. Don’t panic, go organic. When you choose organic-certified products or sustainably grown food, you’re supporting production methods that are good for the planet. Sustainable farmers use ecological practices to manage pests or “weeds.” These farmers develop fertility on the farm, instead of relying on energy-intensive mined minerals and artificial fertilizers, which can runoff and create aquatic dead zones that leave oceans choked with algal growth.

2. Eat the rainbow! Nutritionists know that this is sound advice because diverse colors of fruits and vegetables are signs of varied nutrient content — just what our bodies need to thrive. This nutritional biodiversity is also key to ecological health.

3. Go local. Supporting local farmers means helping communities stay connected to where their food comes from and helping protect land. Going local also means you’re learning what’s in season where you live and getting the freshest foods. Check out your local farmers markets; there are now more than 7,000 around the country, double the number a decade ago.

4. Finish your peas. In the United States, 40 percent of food goes uneaten, says the Natural Resources Defense Council. That means almost half the energy, water, and land used in farming is wasted. What’s worse, the food that ends up in landfills — in some cities landfills are nearly half food waste — contributes to emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

5. Send packaging packing. Every year, as many as 40 billion plastic water bottles are tossed out across the country. The packaging of food — and the bottling of water — has a huge environmental impact. We can reduce our ecological foodprint by thinking twice when we reach for that plastic cup or bottled water. We can also do our part to get behind measures in our own communities to curb excess packaging and encourage reuse and recycling.

6. Reach for real food. Foods with double-digit ingredients’ lists or ingredients you can’t pronounce are also energy-intensive to produce. Go for real food and you’re helping the planet and your body. Eating more whole foods can help reduce the risks of obesity, diabetes, and hypertension.

7. DIY food. One of the great joys of real food is cooking and eating with friends and family. Thankfully, a movement is emerging across the country to inspire young people to get cooking again. Food Corps, for example, trains community leaders to work with young people to start school gardens and connect with where their food comes from.

8. Go meatless on Mondays … or Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays. Industrial meat and dairy operations are incredibly energy-intensive, from the production of feed to the operation of factories and slaughterhouses, to the processing and shipping. The Environmental Working Group estimates that if everyone in the United States cut out meat one day a week, the greenhouse gas emissions reductions would be like cutting out 91 billion miles of driving.

This Earth Day, remember: Helping protect the environment starts at breakfast, lunch, and dinner!

Seven years ago, when I was conducting research for my second book about food, farming, and healthy eating, I spent some time digging into the website for the American Dietetic Association (what’s now called the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics). What did the nation’s association of registered nutritionists tell us about healthy eating? Stuff like monosodium glutamate (or MSG) is a great flavorant for seniors whose taste buds might be fading, never mind that there have been health concerns raised about the additive. Scroll to the bottom of the MSG webpage, though, and you’d discover that the ADA nutrition fact sheet was sponsored by Ajinomoto, the world’s leading maker of — you guessed it — MSG. It didn’t take long to discover this conflict of interest was rampant across the nutrition information presented by the academy. Nutritionist friends would send me programs from the annual meeting with workshops about the benefits of dairy and beef consumption — sponsored by the dairy and meat industry.

In a powerful just-released report [PDF], public health attorney and author Michele Simon delves into just how deep the ties are between America’s food industry and those dieticians and nutritionists who are supposedly helping inform the public about what’s good to eat.

In her report, Simon documents how the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND), a 74,000-member trade group, has longstanding partnerships with dozens of food companies, including Coke, Hershey’s, and more. Since 2001, the academy has tripled the number of food-industry sponsors listed in its annual report. Perhaps most shocking to me was the engagement of food corporations to run continuing education units for academy members. All AND members are required to take educational courses every year, and many of the approved food-industry providers include companies like Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, Nestlé, and PepsiCo. It also turns out that many of the corporate-sponsored courses are offered for free.

Simon describes attending the academy’s annual meeting, with a convention hall floor that looked more like a junk food trade show than a symposium on healthy eating. At the 2012 annual meeting she attended, 18 organizations — less than 5 percent of all exhibitors — filled one-quarter of the exhibitor space, and only two of them represented whole, non-processed foods.

It’s encouraging to know that many members of AND are concerned about the impact of this corporate sponsorship on their profession. Simon writes, for instance, about the Hunger and Environmental Nutrition practice group that has been trying to work within the AND to raise concerns about these corporate ties. And over the years, I’ve met many members concerned about the academy’s alignment with corporate interests. Perhaps the most encouraging was an internal survey of AND members that found among a subset of members (370), the majority of respondents were willing to pay higher membership fees to offset the need for corporate sponsorship. In another survey of 3,000 members, researchers found 83 percent of respondents agreed “that members should have a say in deciding who the academy sponsors are.” As Simon says, that’s certainly not the case now.

Why does this matter so much? Because questions of diet and health are of utmost importance to all of us. Diet-related illnesses are afflicting millions of Americans, including many of the nation’s children. One in three children born today will get Type II diabetes. For African-American and Hispanic children, it’s one in two. And it’s not just diabetes. It’s heart disease, certain cancers, and asthma.

In an open letter to AND members in response to the report, President Ethan Bergman defends the academy against Simon. Of the 67 references Simon uses, he says, “at least 24 (more than one-third) consist of links to the academy and the foundation’s websites; the Commission on Dietetic Registration’s website; and research articles published by academy members.” So, wait, his complaint is that Simon used the academy’s own information in the report? Isn’t that all the more damning? She didn’t make this stuff up.

I’ve met many wonderful registered dieticians in the 12 years I’ve been promoting food access, healthy eating, and sustainable farming. Many are part of a group within AND which is highly critical of this kind of corporate partnership. As a membership organization, I would hope that every one of the 74,000 members read this report and decide if they’d like to stand with their fellow members against this pervasive corporate sponsorship.

Photo: USFRA

The USFRA describes the Food Dialogues, and its broader multimillion-dollar media campaign, as an effort to amplify the voice of farmers and ranchers and help consumers know more about “how their food is grown and raised.”

Sounds good, on first blush.

Most of us are in the dark when it comes to the story of our food. And, farmers and ranchers — the people working hard every day to bring us our food — are nearly invisible in mainstream media. But dig into the Alliance’s membership, and its impetus for forming, and you start to wonder whether it truly represents the voices of grassroots food producers or whether this well-funded media campaign is agribusinesses latest attempt to push back against well-documented and well-publicized concerns about the environmental and health consequences of industrial agriculture.

When I asked a rep from Ketchum — the public relations firm hired by the Alliance — what motivated these groups to come together, without skipping a beat, he answered: Food, Inc. and movies like it. “People see Food, Inc.,” he said, “And think everything in that movie is accurate.” But, he continued, the film only presents one side of the issue and USFRA members feel they didn’t “have a voice in it.” Now, as the Ketchum rep put it, USFRA wants to “clear the air” and “get a national dialogue, a conversation, going.”

There are two big holes in this argument: Robert Kenner, the director of Food, Inc. did try to get industry voices into the film. And, while USFRA members may not like it, Food, Inc. is an accurate, if unpleasant, account of our industrial, toxic food system.

When I mentioned that Kenner approached many food companies to get their perspective, and they refused to go on camera, the PR rep said: “I’ll be honest with you: this is a change with how they’ve done things in the past. They’re trying to open their doors up.”

While these industry players may be saying they want to “open their doors up,” it seems only on their terms. Certainly the Food Dialogues event gave a semblance of impartiality: Highly credentialed journalist Claire Shipman of Good Morning America moderated from a satellite location in D.C. and celebrity chef John Besh hosted the panel in New York City.

But the reality was an orchestrated framing of the message about “modern agricultural production” from the perspective of big business. In the staged kitchen set at the New York City, the questions from the “audience” included only one: a prearranged question from the head of the National Pork Board. In D.C., Jay Vroom, from the agrochemical trade association CropLife America, was handpicked to join in the “conversation” and lob a softball question to John Besh about chefs and portion control.

Earlier this year, a trade publication explained that this image campaign, and others like it, not only aims to counter Food, Inc.‘s “misconceptions” about food, but also to convert all those “Pollan-ated” minds. (Reading Michael Pollan is apparently unnerving to the food industry and it should be to the rest of the public, too.)

This media campaign, the industry publication continued, is also intended as a “preemptive strike” against “a long list of new regulations and restrictions coming out of the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Food & Drug Administration, ranging from tighter rules on pesticide applications to a potential ban of routine, preventative use of animal antibiotics.”

Take a look at the policy priorities of USFRA members and you’ll see exactly that: Most of its affiliates are hard at work, lobbying on Capitol Hill to weaken the very regulations that the consumers the USFRA itself surveyed say they care most about: Pesticides and antibiotics, for instance, as well as artificial hormones in animal production, and air and water pollution.

One of four “Food Dialogues” broadcast live on the USFRA site last Thursday As one of its current policy priorities, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), a USFRA board member and the marketing organization and trade association for the beef industry, is fighting for the Defending America’s Affordable Energy and Jobs Act. If passed, the Act would limit the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Yet, as many in the environmental community have pointed out, the EPA’s regulation of carbon dioxide pollution is key to addressing global warming in the absence of strong climate policy. This USFRA member attack on climate legislation shouldn’t be surprising considering the Alliance is working with Frank Luntz, the political strategist who has helped foster climate change skepticism. In a strategy memo leaked to the media in the early 2000s, for instance, Luntz advised congressional Republicans that the best tactic to undermine public support for climate legislation is to cast doubt on the “scientific certainty” surrounding the issue.

To give you another sense of where USFRA membership stands, consider that the NCBA, along with other Alliance members, is actively fighting a policy that would reign in antibiotic abuse in livestock production. Called the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, and sponsored by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), the Act, according to the Cattlemen’s Association, is unnecessary: The industry already uses antibiotics “judiciously” to prevent disease.

Slaughter and other backers of this policy stress that research shows most antibiotics in livestock production are not given for disease prevention, but delivered at “sub-therapeutic levels” to speed growth — and therefore increase profit. And, as experts at the Government Accountability Office reported earlier this month, the inaction of the USDA and FDA to regulate antibiotic use, especially in animal production, is a serious threat to public health. It was chillingly ironic that the study came out on the heels of another major recall of Cargill gro
und turkey linked to antibiotic-resistant Salmonella.

Lest you think the Cattlemen’s Association is out on its own on this fight, other USFRA affiliates that are vocal opponents of regulating antibiotics in livestock production include the Dairy Farmers of America, National Pork Producers Council, American Egg Board, U.S. Poultry & Egg Association.

Another USFRA affiliate and board member, the National Corn Growers Association, is also battling policies that would help us protect public health. In a May 2011 statement delivered to the House Committee on Agriculture and on Natural Resources, Rod Snyder, the Corn Grower’s Policy Director and chair of the Pesticide Policy Coalition, dismissed the use of the Endangered Species Act’s to control toxic pesticides, describing the policy as “dysfunctional.”

He called for the administration to “immediately suspend implementation” and continue with business-as-usual, regulating pesticides under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). But stress the importance of using the Endangered Species Act, explaining that FIFRA is “notoriously weak” and “industry-friendly.” According to advocates, the pesticide lobby, including USFRA members like the Corn Growers, wants to keep regulation under FIFRA because they know how to “sidestep and subvert it.”

While I believe the majority of our nation’s ranchers and farmers are respectful stewards of the land with the public’s best interest at heart — they’re working hard to reduce their environmental impact and address pesticide, artificial hormone, and antibiotics overuse — the USFRA clearly is not representing them. Instead, a look at the Alliance affiliates reveals that it is made up of, and funded by, the biggest players in the food industry, including those who profit most from toxic agricultural chemicals, polluting farming and food processing practices, and concerning animal welfare policies. No wonder, then, that that limiting protections from toxic pesticides and pushing back against antibiotic regulation are just two of the current policy priorities of USFRA affiliates.

The USFRA is working hard to present itself as a voice of farmers and ranchers interested in a conversation with consumers. I’m all for open, honest conversation, but let’s not be duped by polished PR into thinking that’s what the Alliance and its inaugural Food Dialogues is intended to be.

This post originally ran on Civil Eats.

Photo: Rick

What does this really mean? Let’s imagine you’re dining out at Olive Garden one evening. You’ve got an appetite, so you order your favorite, the fried calamari appetizer. For an entrée, you go for the braised beef and tortelloni dinner and for dessert you treat yourself to the Zeppoli with chocolate sauce and a Caffé Mocha. Worried about your calorie count, you skip the beer and go for a Limonata, not realizing its calories match or surpass most of the beers on offer.

The grand total? 3,930 calories, nearly twice as many as you should be eating in an entire day. Fast forward five years and, if Darden sticks to its word — and, keep in mind, there is no guarantee the company will — that meal would set you back a mere 3,537 calories, or 177% of your daily caloric intake (and that’s not even counting the bread basket).

This seems a little underwhelming, to me; not exactly deserving of fancy press conferences and pats on the back, especially when it comes with the publicity glow of the First Lady.

When we turn to sodium content, which the company said it would also reduce by 10 percent, and the story is similar: The meal you’re having delivers 5,405 mg of sodium. That’s three-and-a-half times what the majority of us—especially the elderly and people with high blood pressure—should consume according to the federal government. So, in five years, that meal of yours would still clock in at just over three times your total daily recommended sodium.

This is not just a trifling detail. Sodium overconsumption is clearly linked to a staggering increase in heart disease and stroke across the country. So worrisome is sodium intake, in fact, that last year the  Institute of Medicine recommended mandatory limits on salt in packaged and restaurant foods. Michael Jacobson, the Executive Director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said that acting on these recommendations could “save hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars in health-care expenses.”

Yet despite the fact that Darden’s commitments are far from earth-shattering — the cynical among us might even suggest this fanfare distracts from the many more serious changes that would actually improve public health — their promises got big coverage. Within a day, 583 related news articles, in sources as notable as the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times, reported on it. In the biz, this is called “earned media.” All those eyeballs reading about Darden? That’s free publicity. Reading about Darden alongside flattering pictures of the First Lady and happy-looking customers? That’s priceless free publicity. 

Don’t get me wrong: I’m happy the First Lady has focused on improving public health and addressing the epidemic of childhood obesity. But — precisely because the stakes are so high — we need to be clear about the difference between progress and PR. Wimpy, voluntary change is exactly the kind of change for which industry wants to get press. 

Darden’s announcement is just the latest in a long line of similar proclamations. Remember, Walmart’s “big” news back in January that it was making moves to reduce sugar and sodium in “thousands” of packaged products by 2015? And, as public health advocate Michele Simon reported at the time, we should pause to remember the history of broken promises, too: McDonald’s committed to cut trans fats, but didn’t. Ruby Tuesday’s promised to list nutrition facts on its menus, but back-tracked. Soda companies promised to change the beverages they sold in schools, but they haven’t.

Maybe the Darden Group will reduce calories and sodium content by 10 percent in five years. Or maybe not. Even if it does, the move only scratches the surface <!– –> <!– /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:”ＭＳ 明朝”; mso-font-charset:78; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536870145 1791491579 18 0 131231 0;} @font-face {font-family:”ＭＳ 明朝”; mso-font-charset:78; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536870145 1791491579 18 0 131231 0;} @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Cambria; mso-fareast-font-family:”ＭＳ 明朝”; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} p.MsoCommentText, li.MsoCommentText, div.MsoCommentText {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-link:”Comment Text Char”; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Cambria; mso-fareast-font-family:”ＭＳ 明朝”; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} span.MsoCommentReference {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-ansi-font-size:8.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;} span.CommentTextChar {mso-style-name:”Comment Text Char”; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-locked:yes; mso-style-link:”Comment Text”;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-size:10.0pt; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-fareast-font-family:”ＭＳ 明朝”; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;} @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} –> of the c
hanges that would need to sweep their menus to make it easier to make healthy choices at their restaurants. In the meantime: split the appetizer, take half the entrée home, drink water… and do you really need that Zeppoli? That’ll take it down to 1,120 calories, around one third fewer than your original meal.

Hey, maybe you should have a press conference about it?

With all due respect, Nina Federoff’s New York Times op-ed reads like it was written two decades ago, when the jury was still out about the potential of the biotech industry to reduce hunger, increase nutritional quality in foods, and decrease agriculture’s reliance on toxic chemicals and other expensive inputs that most of the world’s farmers can’t afford.

With more than 15 years of commercialized GMOs behind us, we know not to believe these promises any longer.

Around the world, from the Government Office for Science in the U.K. to the National Research Council in the United States to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N., there is consensus: In order to address the roots of hunger today and build a food system that will feed humanity into the future, we must invest in “sustainable intensification”—not expensive GMO technology that threatens biodiversity, has never proven its superiority, even in yields, and locks us into dependence on fossil fuels, fossil water, and agrochemicals.

By definition, sustainable intensification means producing abundant food while reducing agriculture’s negative impacts on the environment. Water pollution from pesticide run-off and soil degradation from synthetic fertilizer use are just two examples of the costs of industrial agriculture. And, mind you, nearly all of the GMO crops planted today rely on synthetic fertilizer and pesticides.

Sustainable farming has many other co-benefits as well, including improving the natural environment by increasing soil carbon content, protecting watersheds and biodiversity, and decreasing the human health risks from exposures to toxic chemicals. In its policymaker’s guide to sustainable intensification, the FAO states clearly that the “present paradigm” in agriculture—of which Federoff’s beloved GMOs play a starring role—“cannot meet the challenges of the new millennium.”

So while we hear from GMO proponents about the wonders of these crops, the proof is in the fields. According to the FAO, sustainable practices have helped to “reduce crops’ water needs by 30 percent and the energy costs of production by up to 60 percent.” In one of the largest studies [PDF] of ecological farming, in 57 countries, researchers found an average yield increase of 80 percent. In East African countries, yields shot up 128 percent.

What about the specific claims that GMOs confer much-desired benefits: nutritional improvements, drought resilience, or fewer pesticides?

A much-touted effort in Kenya to develop a genetically engineered virus-resistant sweet potato failed after 10 years, millions of dollars, and countless hours of effort. Not only did it fail, but researchers in Uganda [PDF] have developed varieties of sweet potatoes resistant to the same virus and with greater levels of beta carotene (aitamin A)—not with genetic engineering, but with conventional breeding.

Federoff boasts that GMOs reduce pesticide usage, but an analysis of 13 years of commercialized GMOs in the United States actually found a dramatic increase in the volume of herbicides used on these crops that swamped the relatively small reduction in insecticide use attributable to GMO corn and cotton during that same period. On the other hand, an FAO ecological farming program in six countries in West Africa helped farmers reduce chemical pesticide use as much as 92 percent while increasing their net value of production by as much as 61 percent.

Perhaps most gravely, Federoff’s message that GMOs are the key to addressing our planet’s food needs ignores the political and economic context of agricultural interventions.

What’s unique to sustainable interventions is that they build farmer and community capacity and strengthen social networks. “Social capital”—as development wonks would say—is created. In a study of sustainable farming projects involving 10 million farmers across the African continent, researchers found that adopting sustainable intensification techniques not only upped production significantly, but, more importantly, increased the overall wealth of farming communities, encouraged women’s participation and education, and built strong social bonds that have helped these communities strengthen their economies and continue to learn, develop, and adapt their farming practices.

In a world rocked with volatile markets, a volatile climate, and diminishing natural resources, we need to turn our attention to investing in the proven sustainable intensification techniques that create resilient communities, not to the still-hollow promises of GMO promoters.

Cross-posted from Civil Eats.

The Restaurant Opportunities Center of New York emerged out of organizing by the surviving workers of Windows on the World, the restaurant on top of the World Trade Center North Tower.

First came Colors, a cooperatively owned restaurant in Lower Manhattan. Restaurant Opportunities Center of NY was formed soon after as a way to expand their mission: to protect restaurant workers’ rights and protections. Along with its advocacy — fighting for paid sick days for restaurant workers in New York City — ROC-NY also honors “high road” restaurateurs who create respectful and just workplaces.

Tirelessly, every day, the staff at ROC-NY are working to ensure that anytime one of us goes out to eat in New York, we don’t have to worry about the working conditions of the people who serve us our food or wash our dishes. Find out if your community has a ROC by visiting ROC United.

Mary Cleaver and the entire team at Cleaver Co. bring to life some of the most delicious and sustainable meals I’ve had in the city. They’re also dedicated to supporting many of the food justice organizations in the city, including being generous supporters to our Small Planet Fund event every year.

Eagle Street Rooftop Farm, with views of the United Nations and the East River, is a spectacular farm that combines growing great food and building community with fabulous weekly programs. Learn more at rooftopfarms.org. (“Annie” is Annie Novak, co-founder of Eagle Street and a New Agtivist.)

For the series “Grist dared me to make a change,” we challenged author and activist Anna Lappé to write love poems to her favorite green groups in NYC. Read her first and second here. And support her dare with a gift to Grist!

The Lower East Side Girls Club was founded in 1996 to address the historic lack of services available to girls and young women on the Lower East Side. Their Farm Girls CSA offers affordable, healthy, and locally sourced farm foods to participating members. They have three Entrepreneurial Training & Social Venture Programs: Sweet Things Bake Shop, La Tiendita, and Celebrate Café, where girls make crafts, bake sweets, and learn job skills.

Looking forward to 2012, I am eagerly anticipating the opening of their new 30,000-square-foot Girls Club. Thanks for making New York a better place for us all!

Thanks to Just Food, a New York City nonprofit started in 1995:

• More than 100 Community-Supported Agriculture programs now bring fresh vegetables to roughly 30,000 people living in all five boroughs.
• Hundreds of people throughout New York learn about all aspects of urban agriculture through a newly launched innovative two-year cer­tificate program, Farm School NYC.
• Dozens of community gardens have been supported to start chicken coops.
• We can keep bees in the city. (Just Food helped pass the city policy making it legal to keep these sweet and endangered buzzing farmer’s friends.)

And more!